First Draft - neontommy.com

www.ifitwasmyhome.com allows you to visualize the spill over your home town.
(Beowulfe.com)

Try finding a news site that doesn't have the letters "BP" somewhere in its top stories--it's pretty hard to do.

Every major news site has had wall-to-wall coverage of the spill since it began 62 days ago.

Smaller sites across the country have started to localize the coverage as well, looking at what the oil spill could mean for their region and providing some interesting takes on BP, the government and the future.

Here's a guide to some of the best coverage (both serious and humorous) on the Web:

Public Opinion: According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, 64 percent of Americans believe the oil spill will continue for "at least several more months." Even though President Obama said last week that he expects BP to be containing "up to 90 percent" of the oil "in the coming weeks and days," 16 percent of those surveyed said they expect the leak to continue for a year or longer.

Quotable: Mother Jones has a fantastic rundown of the "Top 10 Ridiculous Oil-Spill Quotes From Congress." One highlight from the list: "This is a kneejerk reaction by the administration to address a problem that doesn't exist" -- Pete Olson (R-Texas) on moratorium.

Laughable: Thanks to the improv, sketch and stand-up comedians over at UCB Comedy (Upright Citizens Brigade) for this hilarious look at how BP execs cope with a coffee spill in the office.

Behind The Scenes: New York Times reporters asked for--and answered--readers' questions on their investigation into how the oil rig's last line of defense failed.

By The Numbers: BP says it has spent $2 billion on recovery efforts and victim compensation in the past two months.

Smack Talk: Beltway Confidential looks at what's being said about Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) since his infamous apology...err...apologies?

Wait, What? BP CEO Tony Hayward (nicknamed Tony Baloney), who's been known to stick his foot in his mouth, was spotted at a "glitzy" yacht race off the coast of England on Saturday.

Looking Deeper: Some of the most shocking media coverage of the spill has been the photographs and video of oil-covered birds and animals. Yahoo compiles more than 480 photos in a Gulf Coast slideshow.

by Callie Schweitzer on June 20, 2010 10:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

CSU Votes To Increase Fees

Fees at California State University are going up - again.

The board voted 10 to 2 on Friday to raise fees by 5 percent, adding $204 to the bill for full-time undergraduates.

The dollar amount might not seem like much, but the numbers are staggering if you look even just a few years back. Fees at CSU have increased by 39 percent in barely more than a year, 53 percent in the past three years, and almost 200 percent in the past eight years.

Students are paying more for less, too. In addition to raising fees, CSU has also had to cut classes and services and implement furloughs to keep its budget under control.

The board acknowledges that raising fees is not ideal, but says there is nothing else it can do.

The university actually needs to raise fees by 10 percent to make ends meet - even with the governor proposing a restoration of $305 million to CSU and an additional $60.6 million for enrollment expansion.

But the board is hoping a plan being discussed by Assembly Democrats will come to fruition, even though a number of state officials have noted that the plan, which involves borrowing bonds to cover costs, is likely illegal. Officials have acknowledged that the university might have to raise fees again in November.

In the end, the question remains: How long can CSU continue to rely on fee increases to close the budget gap?

Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, one of the dissenting voters, asked whether fee increases are the only option or the easiest option - unless the state can dig up hundreds of millions of dollars more, this might be a question the board will have to seriously consider very soon.

by Alexandra Tilsley on June 20, 2010 5:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The People V. Mehserle

WARNING: Video is graphic.

On Jan. 1, 2009, Oscar Grant was killed. Grant, who was 22 at the time, was shot in the back at the Fruitvale Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station in the wee hours of the morning. He was shot by former BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle.

That morning BART police officers responded to a call about a fight on one of the trains. Grant and two others were taken aside at the transit station in connection with the fight. But Grant reportedly resisted being handcuffed and was taken to the ground. While lying face down on the station platform, Mehserle, who is white, fired a single shot at Grant, who was black and unarmed.

The killing, caught on camera by multiple people, sent the Bay Area into a frenzy, triggering riots and heightening racial tension.

More than a year later, the Bay Area has not forgotten what happened to Grant and Mehserle's trial for Grant's murder was moved to Los Angeles.

The trial, which began on June 10, 2010, has gotten a lot of media attention in the Bay Area, but as Celeste Fremon and a friend of hers points out has been conspicuously absent in the L.A.-area press.

Why?

Is it because the trial is dull and the subject matter doesn't relate to Angelenos? I doubt that.

The incident has already been compared to the Rodney King beating, trial and riots, and issues of race and police brutality frequently come into question in the Southland. Just last month police force against a bicyclist in Hollywood was caught on camera. The bicyclist has already announced he will press charges.

If the parallels aren't interesting enough, the legal back and forth before the trial began between the lawyers is fascinating. It's amazing how manipulative a lawyer can be of the press without saying a word to them.

The testimony and claims in the trial so far are also intriguing. Alameda County Deputy Dist. Atty. David Stein told jurors at the start of the trial that Grant's death "was the result of emotion taking over discipline."

On the other hand, Mesehrle's attorney Michael Rains claims Grant's death was a tragic accident that happened when Mesehrle mistook his hand gun for his Taser.

Who's right? The all-white jury will have to decide the answer to that question.

Even the jury doesn't seem all that interested though. Two jurors have already been dismissed, one before opening statements and the other for falling asleep in the courtroom. (If I can stay awake during a very technical civil suit about storm drains, why can't a juror stay awake during testimony for a much more interesting criminal trial?)

Is our attention span that short? Probably.

At this rate the trial will end before interest in it even begins.

by Jessika Walsten on June 19, 2010 9:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The End Of The Best Friend--For Better Or For Worse?

Does the best friend bond come at the expense of others? (Creative Commons)

An article in the New York Times on Thursday looked at the pros and cons of doing away with the "classic best-friend bond" in a child's life in place of a close group of friends.

"In a survey of nearly 3,000 Americans ages 8 to 24 conducted last year by Harris Interactive, 94 percent said they had at least one close friend. But the classic best-friend bond...signals potential trouble for school officials intent on discouraging anything that hints of exclusivity, in part because of concerns about cliques and bullying."

The benefits of a more inclusive mentality include more group play dates, less exclusivity among kids and fewer hurt feelings. But psychologists say discouraging kids from having that one best friend may hurt them in the long run--taking away the "strong emotional support and security that comes with intimate friendships."

Everyone remembers what it's like to be picked last for the kickball team, it's not fun. There's something undeniably comforting about knowing your best friend "has your back" and will pick you first for the team even if you're the worst kickball player of all time. Put simply: we all want to be accepted and having a best friend or being "best friend status" with someone is a definite symbol of acceptance.

The article notes the recent adult mindset that has pushed parents and other adults to "become ever more involved in children's social lives." Helicopter parenting, anyone?

According to the Times, sleep-away camps now employ "friendship coaches" and strategically separate campers in activities, on sports teams and in the dining hall if they seem to be "too focused on each other."

OK, in theory. But really? Wouldn't this just encourage the best friends to find more exclusive ways to hang out? There's something oddly unnatural about this premeditated separation. It seems so Romeo and Juliet. And yet, there's at least some merit to the claim that two best friends can be detrimental to a group dynamic.

So encourage kids to become friends with everyone but in the process diminish their ability to establish intimate relationships and find that one person who will be there through thick and thin (hopefully), or encourage kids to find that one friend and build that connection even if it comes at the expense of another's feelings. Which do we side with?

Well, neither. Because in the end, it's not even that simple. Can adults really control whether kids form best friends bonds? Probably not. Encouraging kids to become friends with everyone may actually expand their horizons and increase their ability to establish intimate relationships by exposing them to more people with whom they could get along.

But if there is one thing to take away from this article, it's that the message of inclusiveness is an important one. Most kids would benefit if three weren't considered a crowd.

by Callie Schweitzer on June 18, 2010 6:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

New York Times To Readers: It Would Be Better If You Were Never Born

Existential philosophers are incredibly obnoxious.

When some people get really upset about the problems our society faces, they get involved with politics, activism, law enforcement, volunteering, or anything really that they hope would bring a positive change. But when existential philosophers hear about problems, they're like, "Life is meaningless. You all suck. God doesn't exist. I'm so edgy for saying that." Well, it was great talking to you too, buddy.

I'm bringing this up now because the New York Times published the most depressing opinion column online I've ever read earlier this month, basically arguing that we'd all be better off if we were never born.

The article, written by Peter Singer, starts out innocently enough; "How good does life have to be, to make it reasonable to bring a child into the world?"

That seems like a tough but fair question, especially with the overpopulation crisis our world is facing.

But things start getting ugly when he paraphrases from a book called "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence," and the words of a philosopher who said that human life only brings "fleeting satisfaction."

Then, things start to get wrist-slitingly terrible.

"Most thoughtful people are extremely concerned about climate change...But the people who will be most severely harmed by climate change have not yet been conceived. If there were to be no future generations, there would be much less for us to feel to guilty about. So why don't we make ourselves the last generation on earth?"

I'm no scientist, but one thing I learned from my global warming class in college was that global warming is not considered bad because it's going to kill the planet. Global warming is bad because it changes the climate in a way that human life has not adapted to yet. In other words, global warming is bad because it hurts humans, not because it hurts the globe.

Yes, it's better to have less people alive that are happy than more people alive who are miserable, which is why overpopulation is also a huge, horrible problem. But, again, overpopulation is bad because it reduces quality of life for other humans. It's not bad for planet earth. So making ourselves the last generation on earth would defeat the purpose of why overpopulation and global warming are considered problems in the first place. In that case, mass sterilization should give us more to feel guilty about, not less.

"If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required -- we could party our way into extinction!...it makes us better off -- for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations -- and it doesn't make anyone worse off, because there won't be anyone else to be worse off."

In that case, how about shutting down operations at the New York Times? No point in putting out responsible journalism meant to help people who are better off dead anyway. Why even put the effort into writing a well-written but horribly depressing opinion column?

Why write or create art at all, if you know the only people to appreciate it will be the current generation?

Oh, but Peter Singer doesn't actually have these opinions he is espousing, he explains in a back-peddling final paragraph.

"I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe. In my judgment, for most people, life is worth living. Even if that is not yet the case, I am enough of an optimist to believe that, should humans survive for another century or two, we will learn from our past mistakes and bring about a world in which there is far less suffering than there is now. But justifying that choice forces us to reconsider the deep issues with which I began. Is life worth living?"

Peter Singer, you just delegitimized your controversial opinion by saying life is worth living. But then, you back peddle yet again by asking us if life is worth living. My head hurts!

And then, after figuratively punching us in the gut with a metal glove 45 times and literally making us cry, the column ends on a surprisingly cheesy note;

"What do you think?"

Why, thank you for writing that, New York Times! Now that you have formally invited me to think, I will begin to form an opinion about this article. Oh, and I can see other readers' super upbeat opinions, too;

"Perhaps it's my depression talking, but I have long maintained that I was done a disservice by being created in the first place. I would not inflict that pain on anyone else."

Yes, life is hard, but people, come on! You have A WHOLE ETERNITY to be dead! You can't tough out a mere 80 years of suffering? That's ridiculous! Also, remind me not to invite that commenter to my next birthday party.

by Amy Silverstein on June 17, 2010 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What Comes Next For Neighborhood Councils?

Neighborhood council members showed their support for the system's funding
program at City Council meetings in February. (Callie Schweitzer)

The Los Angeles City Council voted 12-0 against the consolidation of the governing structure of the neighborhood council system on Wednesday, leaving the future of the grassroots government up in the air.

The Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, the city agency that oversees the 90-council system, has a history of prickly relations with the councils.

In February, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa recommended folding the agency into the Community Development Department, eliminating 27 of the Department's 42 positions and saving around $2 million annually, a press release said.

The Department has been on shaky ground since the January release of City Controller Wendy Greuel's neighborhood council audit, which exposed major flaws in the system, along with instances of embezzlement and improper use of neighborhood council funds.

Councilman Paul Krekorian, chair of the Education and Neighborhoods Committee, led the effort to keep the Department in tact until a new proposal is reached.

The City Council's vote means a new plan for managing the Department must be reached within two weeks or before July 1.

According to a new amendment Krekorian introduced:

To ensure continued support for the Neighborhood Councils, I move to instruct the CAO to report back in 15 days to the Education and Neighborhoods Committee and the Budget and Finance Committee with a proposal to continue operating DONE as a standalone Department for up to six months while the Council and Mayor develop a new organization structure for DONE. It should be the goal of this proposal to ensure cost neutrality, but the CAO should report, in any event, on any budgetary impacts.

Neighborhood council members have long been vocal about their desire to separate the council system from DONE.

"Frankly, a lot of councils were getting pretty much nothing from the Department," Doug Epperhart of the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council told Neon Tommy in February.

Neighborhood councils scored a big victory in February when the City Council approved a recommendation not to slash the councils' budgets in half.

The 90-council system was established in 1999 following voter approval of City Charter Section 900. The amendment created a neighborhood council system that includes the citywide Department of Neighborhood Empowerment, which oversees the system.

For the last 10 years neighborhood councils across L.A. have financed community improvements and projects that often make up for a lack of city funding. Councils have installed surveillance cameras in high crime areas, beautified parks and neighborhood landmarks, funded youth programs, and updated technology for police and fire departments.

by Callie Schweitzer on June 15, 2010 11:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

LA Times to College Students: Dude, You're Totally Screwed

Your parents can pour all the money they want into your education, but, at the end of the day, you're still going to be stuck serving obese baby boomers $14 slices of chicken, then standing there awkwardly when they ask you why the chicken tastes like rubber, a question you could not possibly have the answer to, because IT'S NOT THE GODDAMN WAITER'S FAULT THAT THE CHEF SUCKS, the LA Times reports.

Or, to be more clear, The Times reported Saturday that a college degree in no way guarantees you a prestigious job. In fact, the LA Times says "that the vast majority of job gains this year have gone to workers with only a high school education or less, casting some doubt on one of the nation's most deeply held convictions: that a college education is the ticket to the American Dream."

The terrifying article degree begins with the headline, "Is a college degree still worth it?"

No.

"After spending tens of thousands of dollars on higher education, often taking on huge debts along the way, many face a job market that doesn't seem to need them."

Sure, they may not need us, but maybe we can at least make the job market want us. And then they'll hire us despite the fact that they already have enough employees.

No, that won't work either, The LA Times explains.

"People with bachelor's degrees will increasingly get not very highly satisfactory jobs,' said W. Norton Grubb, a professor at UC Berkeley's School of Education."

(Aside: Isn't "increasingly get not very highly satisfactory" SUCH a professor-y thing to say?!)

"'In that sense, people are getting more schooling than jobs are available.' He noted that in 1970, 77% of workers with a bachelor's degree were employed in professional and managerial occupations. By 2000, that had fallen to 60%."

Money good. Learning doesn't give more money. Therefore, learning bad.

Hey, but what if you like learning, just for the joy of it?

Then here's an idea; why don't you pick a major you actually like, stand there awkwardly (again) when people are like, "BUT LITERATURE ISN'T MONEY," subsequently switch to a business major, complain about it all the time, then still end up with a job serving people who take a sick pleasure in degrading you, like fancy restaurant waitressing or prostitution?

Adulthood sounds awesome.

by Amy Silverstein on June 13, 2010 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Questions For Jerry Brown

Below are the questions Neon Tommy has for Jerry Brown:

1) On March 4, many Californians came out to protest cuts in the education system and many were upset that they are paying more fees for fewer classes. What is your stance on the rallies that took place across the state--and the country?

2) In California there have been more than $17 billion in cuts to education in the past two years. And the UC and Cal State systems are trying to close budget gaps by passing more costs to students and laying off staff. How would you protect and improve the public education system, keep public universities affordable and address the problem of California being 47th in the nation on per-pupil spending without raising taxes?

3) You say that you would raise taxes, if the people wanted it. If raising taxes were deemed a necessity, would you take the initiative to help convince the people of the need?

We would also appreciate getting to sit down with you to further discuss this issue and other issues critical to Californians. Let us know how we can help facilitate this.

by Callie Schweitzer on June 10, 2010 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If Issues Were A Bear, Jerry Brown Would Wrestle Them

Jerry Brown at today's press conference in Downtown Los Angeles
(Amy Silverstein)

If the problems of what services to cut in California were a bear, Jerry Brown would wrestle that bear to the ground, he said in a press conference in Downtown Los Angeles today.

"At the end of the day, you've got two candidates. You got a huge problem that nobody has been able to really grapple with successfully," Brown said.

"When one person says, 'Look, I'll give you 40,000 jobs, I'll give a bunch of tax breaks...all the revenue will come in, and everything will be fine, I'm not saying that," he said.

"This is a bear. I'm ready to wrestle it to the ground, not behind closed doors, but starting the week after the election...because how much schooling we have, how much university, how much prison, how much health care we can afford, these are tough choices."

When asked about public education, Brown responded that cuts will have to be made if people don't want their taxes raised.

"I said no taxes unless the people vote for them. This is a democracy, this is not a private corporation board room," Brown said.

"The people might also wish to say, 'Wait a minute, I want to provide some revenue,'" he said.

"But if the people didn't want the taxes raised, then how would you fix the public education system?" NT asked.

"We would cut," Brown responded. "We need here some reality. If we have $85, we can't spend 100. It's just that simple."

However, when another reporter asked Brown to be more specific about what he would cut, he mentioned the prison system.

"[When] the government was proposing $8 billion to build 10,000 hospital beds [in the prisons], I personally flew down and asked them not to do that," Brown said.

He voiced some support for education later when another reporter asked him about his plan to create jobs.

"Number one, I think we've got to make sure our schools are ensuring that each child has the basic skills to take a job. Half the kids in the inner city schools don't even graduate. And we have to return to vocational education, which is called career education...I think the schools are a real part of this, and also the university, and the community colleges."

He began the meeting by challenging Meg Whitman to 10 town hall debates in front of the press.

"I'm making a genuine offer," he said.

by Amy Silverstein on June 9, 2010 1:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tuesday's Election Results: The Winners, The Losers And Everything Else

(Creative Commons)

June 9, 10:00 a.m. With 100% of CA precincts reporting, the unofficial results stand as follows:

Governor - Jerry Brown gets the Democratic nod with 84.1% and Meg Whitman gets the Republican nod with 64.2%;

Lieutenant governor - Gavin Newsom leads the Democratic nomination with 54.7%, beating Janice Hahn's 34.2%, and Abel Maldonado leads the Republican nomination with 43.2%;

Secretary of State - Debra Bowen (Dem.) and Damon Dunn (Rep.) will battle it out in November;

Controller - John Chiang ran unopposed, securing the Democratic nod while Tony Strickland leads the Republican race with 59.8%;

Treasurer - Bill Lockyer (Dem.) and Mimi Walters (Rep.) both ran unopposed in their respective races and took 100% each;

Attorney General - Kamala Harris comes out on top for the Democrats with 33.1% and Steve Cooley gets 47.3% of the Republican vote;

Insurance Commissioner - Dave Jones leads the Democrats with 61.2%, but the Republican voted still is too close to call split 50.4% to 49.6% in favor of Brian Fitzgerald;

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Larry Aceves (18.8%), Tom Torlakson (18%) and Gloria Romero (17.2%) are all still pretty close.

U.S. Senate - Barbara Boxer unsruprisingly gets the majority of votes for the Democratic party with 80.5% and Carly Fiorina gets 56.5% of the Republican vote;

Props 13 and 14 currently stand as passing while Props 15, 16 and 17 are losing (16 and 17 are still pretty close.)

For the most up to date information and the results from the races for the Board of Equalization visit: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/

1:10 a.m. Signing off for the night/morning. Will update any major changes tomorrow. There hasn't been anything too surprising so far. Let's just hope Props 16 and 17 continue on their losing trend. In the meantime, you can check out the latest results on http://vote.sos.ca.gov/

12:45 a.m. @CASOSVote posts county-by-county maps of ballot measure votes: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/allprops.htm

12:29 a.m. Props 16 (electricity) and 17 (car insurance) now have more no votes with 54% of precincts at least partially in, according to vote.sos.ca.gov.

June 9, 12:18 a.m. We've reached the halfway mark! vote.sos.ca.gov is reporting 50.4% of precincts at least partially reporting.

11:45 p.m. @KQED_CapNotes says state Sen. Mimi Walters is top vote getter statewide for CA GOP in the race for treasurer. (She was running unopposed.)

11:39 p.m. @CASOSVote - "Latest vote reports on the 5 state ballot measures show more "No" votes for Prop 15 & Prop 16"

11:38 p.m. vote.sos.ca.gov shows Kamala Harris still leading Democratic race for attorney general.

11:33 p.m. @KPCC - "Parcel tax for schools: LAUSD measure E, 53% yes; Lynwood measure AA 50%, neither appears to bet getting necessary 2/3 needed."

11:32 p.m. vote.sos.ca.gov now shows 38.7% of precincts reporting statewide.

11:23 p.m. @KPCC says just more than one-third of California counted so far.

11:12 p.m. vote.sos.ca.gov shows Prop 16 (electricity) now narrowly losing.

11:00 p.m. @CASOSVote says Trinity County, Plumas County and Colusa County are all done with election night duties.

10:54 p.m. @KQED_CapNotes reports that Santa Barbara and SF counties still showing 0% of votes reported. (Let's hope they pick up the pace.)

10:48 p.m. @KQED_CapNotes - "Janice Hahn sends out email 2 supporters conceding LiteGuv race to SF Mayor Gavin Newsom."

10:47 p.m. vote.sos.ca.gov still shows Newsom beating Hahn in Democratic primary for lieutenant governor with 23.9% of precincts reporting. Maldonado leads Republican race for lieutenant governor.

10:41 p.m. @CASOSVote says Los Angeles, Orange, SanDiego, Riverside and San Bernardino are the CA counties with the most registered voters.

10:38 p.m. @KQED_CapNotes says PG&E paid $49 for every yes vote on Prop 16 and Mercury Insurance spending $16.45 per yes vote on Prop 17.

10:34 p.m. @LATimes says Steve Cooley won the GOP attorney general's race.

9:59 p.m. @KQED_CapNotes - "The statewide maps on SecState's site are always fun. As #cagov one shows, Poizner has won no county so far. http://ow.ly/1W0at"

9:51 p.m. @KPCC "Newsom leads Hahn 53 to 34 % in the Lt. Gov. Dem nomination race, Abel Maldonado dominates in the Rep. Lt. Gov. race."

9:50 p.m. LA Times posts rundown of results so far: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-primary-election-results,0,206276.htmlstory

9:43 p.m. @KQED_CapNotes - Whitman greets the crowd...http://tweetphoto.com/26311004 (Kind of blurry, but you can tell it's her.)

9:34 p.m. @KQED_CapNotes says this is the night the CA GOP chose its most diverse ticket ever: 3 women, 1 Latino male, 1 African American male

9:31 p.m. @LATimes reports that Prop 14 passes, bringing open primaries to CA

9:26 p.m. @KPCC reports that "w/ 12% counted, Kamala Harris (D) and Steve Cooley (R) leading their respective races for the Atty Gen. nomination."

9:25 p.m. According to vote.sos.ca.gov, Newsom beating Hahn 53% to 34.1% so far in Democratic race for Lieutenant Governor.

9:19 p.m. @CASOSVote says Villines is ahead of Fitzgerald in Republican Insurance Commissioner primary.

9:16 p.m. @KPCC says Jerry Brown invokes Laker win in his speech tonight. Really?

9:13 p.m. @KPCC Whitman expected to speak live soon. Listen to 89.3 to hear what she has to say.

9:09 p.m. @KPCC reports prop 16 (power) is slightly leading and props "13, 14, 16 and 17 all appear to be passing, 15's public funded campaigns failing."

9:08 p.m. @NYTimes calls the Republican Senate race for Fiorina

9:07 p.m. @CASOSVote says Poizner already giving his concession speech

9:01 p.m. @kpcc reports prop 17 (backed by Mercury insurance) narrowly winning at the moment

8:54 p.m. @CASOSVote reports "tightest current margin of the 5 state ballot measures = Prop 16 (local electricity): yes 51.8%, no 48.2%"

8:53 p.m. vote.sos.ca.gov reports Fiorina ahead in Republican Senate race with 58.7% of votes so far.

8:41 p.m. @ABC72010 reports Whitman wins republican nomination for governor. (Guess all that money paid off.)

8:21 p.m. @ABC72010 reports Jerry Brown wins democratic nomination. (surprise!)

8:19 p.m. AP reports that Boxer has won.

8:13 p.m. @CASOSVote tweets that 22,894 precincts and nearly 100,000 poll workers across California's 58 counties today.

June 8, 8:00 p.m. The polls are now officially closed. Now it's a waiting game to see who comes out on top. Did all the money Whitman spend pay off? The California Secretary of State tweeted that California's precincts have up to two hours to submit their first election results.

by Jessika Walsten on June 8, 2010 5:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hundreds Of L.A. Marijuana Dispensaries To Close Monday

The scheduled closing of hundreds of marijuana dispensaries could make it
more difficult for medical marijuana users. (©Emilie Mutert)

In some cities, it seems like there is a Starbucks on every corner. But in areas of Los Angeles green leaves replace many of the green Starbucks signs.

No matter where I drive in Los Angeles I will come across one of the hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries that have recently sprung up like weeds. But as of Monday that landscape will change.

After more than four and a half years of debate, the City of Los Angeles voted in January to restrict medical marijuana dispensaries. The restrictions of Los Angeles Ordinance No. 181069 go into effect Monday, closing more than 400 dispensaries and forcing many others to relocate.

The dispensaries allowed to stay open - those that registered with the city in 2007 - will have six months from Monday, June 7 to comply with the ordinance's restrictions.

According to the ordinance, dispensaries cannot be within 1,000 feet of each other or "sensitive use" areas such as schools, churches, public parks and libraries.

However, many of the dispensaries slated for closure may not shut their doors just yet. More than 60 have filed court orders to stop the crackdown and in the meantime intend to stay open.

by Jessika Walsten on June 7, 2010 3:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Boyle Heights Man Who Caught Police Force On Film Filing Claims Against The City

Manuel Gallegos' iPhone is ruined, with large cracks covering the glass screen.

He assumes the cracks came from LAPD officers stepping on it the night of May 28.

But despite the damage done, he was still able to upload a video from it to YouTube afterward.

The video he filmed, which has over 100,000 hits, shows an LAPD officer sticking his leg out as a bicyclist rides by, trying to either kick or trip the rider.

"What the fuck was that for?" Gallegos can be heard yelling.

Then, Gallegos appears to fall to the ground.

"I was chased down by LAPD officers, who tackled me, dragged me off my bicycle, and proceeded to beat me and kick me," he said in a press conference in Downtown Los Angeles today.

Gallegos, a 32-year-old Boyle Heights resident, is now filing claims of assault, battery, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the city of Los Angeles, his lawyer Hermez Moreno said today.

Manny Gallegos
(Amy Silverstein)

He is also claiming that his first, fourth, and 14th amendment rights were violated.

Gallegos was riding down Hollywood Blvd. May 28 as part of Los Angeles Critical Mass, a group bike ride that can attract hundreds to thousands of riders. He said he saw police officers sticking batons in the spokes of passing cyclists and even pull a boy off his bicycle.

So Gallegos began recording their conduct with his iPhone.

"He and he alone risked life and limb to expose a misconduct, by videotaping it," Moreno said. "Because he deigned to do so, he was attacked and beaten and treated like a common criminal."

In the video, after the phone is on the ground, officers overhead tell Gallegos to both "get up" and "get down."

Gallegos shows reporters the iPhone he recorded a viral video on last week
(Amy Silverstein)

Gallegos, confused by the conflicting orders, decided to just "let them do whatever it is that they wanted to do to me," he said.

"Since then, I've had numbness in my left hand."

At the press conference, Gallegos was dressed in a suit that he says covers bruises on his arms and back.

This was not the only case of excessive force in Hollywood that night, LACM participants allege.

Ryan Gabrinetti, a 15-year-old, was also detained by the police during the bike ride. In a letter he wrote, which was read aloud by a friend in a Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting Tuesday, Gabrinetti said the police shook him by the handle bars, left him handcuffed for 40 minutes, made fun of him for his long hair, and took away his bicycle.

"I remember looking up and seeing three big police officers attacking a man in the middle of the street," Gabrinetti wrote. He believed the man being attacked to be Gallegos.

Moreno said the police also made fun of Gallegos for his race. Gallegos works as an electrical engineer, and continues to do so following the alleged attack, but when he told police his occupation, Moreno said they doubted a hispanic could be capable of such a complex job.

As a result of the video, four officers have been taken off the field for investigation, police said at the Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting Tuesday.

"We can assure, that if Mr. Gallegos had not taken it upon himself, among all the other officers that were present, to videotape this misconduct," Moreno said, "no disciplinary action would ever have been taken."

by Amy Silverstein on June 4, 2010 4:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bill Could Transform Transfer Process

California is on the verge of passing a bill that would streamline the process of transferring from a California community college to a California State University campus.

The bill, which passed the State Senate on Tuesday, would revamp the requirements for an associate degree, and any student earning an associate degree would be guaranteed entrance into one of the CSU campuses.

Currently, transfer requirements vary across campuses, and officials say they can be hard for students to understand.

Simply by cutting down on the number of students who take more courses than they actually need to before transferring, the new degree program would allow community colleges to accommodate 44,000 more students, according to Jack Scott, chancellor of the community college system.

The bill is a step in the right direction - the more efficiently community colleges can bring students through the system, the better. But a few key problems still remain.

Many community colleges are already over-enrolled - the schools themselves don't cap enrollment, but classes have limits and often students miss are shut out from classes they need to transfer. The new requirements could help change this since administrators will know which classes are likely to be in high demand, but if students aren't able to get the courses they need they're still going to end up moving through the system more slowly than they should.

There's also the question of whether or not the CSU system can handle the influx. Officials have yet to estimate how many more transfer students the bill will produce, but if the increase is significant, it could pose problems from the CSU campuses, which are struggling with budget cutbacks and fee increases.

The University of California is also notably absent from the bill. Officials say it would be nearly impossible to guarantee admission to a UC school, given the selectivity of many of the campuses. But what's to stop them from making sure requirements overlap?

by Alexandra Tilsley on June 3, 2010 8:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Passion May Have Been Faked in Televised Al and Tipper Make Out Session

Al and Tipper Gore, that couple that appeared to still be attracted to each other, despite the fact that they are old, have split after 40 years of marriage.

Al and Tipper Gore became famous for their love when they made out on television that one time. The kiss was unusually passionate, giving viewers the impression that Al and Tipper Gore would not only have sex later, but that they would actually enjoy it.

Unlike most people who kiss on television, Al and Tipper appeared to undergo a version of the normal aging process, with no painfully, horrendously obvious plastic surgery procedures on their faces. Their bodies weren't in that great of shape, either.

It was almost as if a life of wrinkles, thinning hair, front butts and beer guts was still worth living, after all.

Al Gore was vice president once, too. Bill Clinton was the actual president.

During his presidency, Bill Clinton got head from Monica Lewinsky. Al Gore didn't. Bill Clinton is still married to his wife. Al Gore isn't.

Bill Clinton=major pimp status.

Al Gore=loser.

This kiss is at 2:58.

by Amy Silverstein on June 1, 2010 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

BP's Newest Attempt To Stop Oil Flow Could Worsen It, Officials Say

Protesters unhappy with BP and their handling of the oil leak demonstrate in
New Orleans, Louisiana. (Creative Commons)

As if the environmental catastrophe was not bad enough, BP's latest bright idea could increase the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico by as much as 20 percent, said the Obama administration and company officials Sunday.

BP plans to cap the well and divert the leaking oil into a pipe that would transport the oil to the surface. The plan, which could begin as early as Monday or Tuesday, is reminiscent of the oil company's first attempt to contain the well.

In early May, BP lowered a containment dome over the well and tried to similarly shuttle oil to the surface. But the dome became clogged, making it buoyant.

This time BP officials say they will try to make the seal around the well "tighter" to ensure it doesn't clog.

"If it's a snug fit, then there could be very, very little oil," said White House energy advisor Carol Browner. "If they're not able to get as snug a fit, then there could be more. We're going to hope for the best and prepare for the worst."

That's reassuring.

Last week the company's attempt to "top kill" the leaking well by injecting heavy drilling mud into it failed.

While BP acknowledges that closing the well is the ultimate goal, the company will not be able to even attempt to close it until August when a relief well reaches leak to plug it.

But I think the solution proposed by oil leak experts at a conference in Washington last week is the best option.

"We've tried containment domes, rubber tires, and even golf balls," said William Cathermeyer of the National Oil Leakage Institute, a leading consultancy in the field of oil leaks. "Now it's time to shove some BP executives down there and hope for the best."

by Jessika Walsten on May 31, 2010 3:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Experience Could Hurt In Upcoming Senate Elections

Barbara Boxer
(Creative Commons)

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is in for the campaign season of her lifetime.

Boxer, who has been serving in the Senate since 1993, has never faced particularly tough competition. But this year promises to be different.

A new USA Today/Gallup Poll shows that, overwhelming, voters are sick of the status quo.

Of those surveyed, 60 percent said they would rather vote for a candidate who had never been in Congress than for a candidate who had been in Congress. Two-thirds also said they are angry with the state of affairs in the country.

Additionally - and this is perhaps the statistic the Boxer campaign should be the most worried about - 50 percent of Republicans said they are "extremely motivated" to vote this year, while only 30 percent of Democrats feel the same.

The Boxer campaign will face two challenges: getting voters on Boxer's side and then getting those voters to the polls.

President Barack Obama has made several trips to California to fundraise and garner support for Boxer, but in light of the current trends in voter attitude, it's hard to say if those visits will do much to pull undecided voters to the Democratic side.

Boxer will face the winner of the June 8th primary, which features former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, former Representative Tom Campbell and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.

Recent polls show Fiorina and Campbell in a virtual dead heat, though if voters really are looking for someone with absolutely no Congressional experience, Fiorina might have the edge - Campbell served five a total of five terms in the House.

by Alexandra Tilsley on May 28, 2010 3:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Phoenix Mayor Wants To Sit Down With Villaraigosa

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. (John Guenther)

When the Lakers-Suns series began, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa offered a wager to Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon:

"Should the Suns prevail, we will humbly accept ownership of "American's Toughest Sheriff," Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County. Perhaps a stint in Los Angeles would teach him that you cannot deduce immigration status simply by looking at a person.

"Should the Lakers be victorious, we will deliver to you both Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, Republican candidates for Governor of California, currently battling for supremacy on the issue of illegal immigration. Perhaps some time in Arizona would show them both that being governor isn't always all it's cracked up to be."

Now, Gordon has counter-offered with a deal both sides might find a little sweeter: if the Suns win, Gordon wants to visit Los Angeles himself and to talk with Villaraigosa about how to push for federal immigration reform.

The wagers, of course, stem from Arizona's new immigration law and Los Angeles's subsequent boycott.

The new law, SB 1070, requires law enforcement officers to determine a person's immigration status if they suspect the person is in the country illegally. Critics have said the law will lead to racial profiling, while supporters argue that the law is not very different from federal law or from California's own law.

The Los Angeles City Council voted 13-1 on May 12 to boycott Arizona, a move that will have about an $8 million impact. Gordon said he wants a chance to address the City Council to encourage the city to rescind the boycott.

Villaraigosa has said he thinks a meeting with Gordon is a good idea so the two mayors can put pressure on the federal government to find a solution. He also noted that Gordon's proposition indicates that the boycott is, in fact, having an effect.

Los Angeles County is currently considering a boycott of Arizona, but opinion among county supervisors is split.

by Alexandra Tilsley on May 28, 2010 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

University Of California Seeking Donations From Deadheads

Have your name in the new student center! Help fund a student's scholarship! Even the smallest contribution makes a difference!

Colleges and universities are notorious for bombarding graduates with fundraising requests from the moment they receive their diplomas. Especially now, as schools try to climb their way out of financial holes created by the recession, many are relying on alumni contributions to help them return to financial stability.

Which is why it seems particularly strange that the University of California is asking for donations to help maintain its Grateful Dead archive.

The school hosted a fundraiser for the archive Wednesday, charging attendees $250 each. It's also auctioning off Grateful Dead memorabilia as it tries to raise the $2 million needed to keep the archive.

UC officials say the archive has cultural significance and can actually help attract donations to the university as a whole. But doesn't it seem like the University of California has better ways to spend $2 million?

The UC system is already struggling just to maintain the level of services students are used to - and won't students care more about the size of their classes or the quality of their education than an archive for a band most of them are too young to know much about?

by Alexandra Tilsley on May 28, 2010 1:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Oil Spill Ruled An 'Environmental Catastrophe'

A map that visualizes the effects of the oil spill over Los Angeles (Beowulfe.com)

In a change of tone, BP's chief executive officer said Friday that the oil spill off the Gulf of Mexico was an "environmental catastrophe."

In previous statements, CEO Tony Hayward had downplayed the size of the spill, telling the Guardian it was relatively "tiny" compared to the "very big ocean."

A closer look at Los Angeles under the spill is particularly eye-opening.

A Neon Tommy piece from earlier this week lays out evidence that we may still be feeling the effects of the spill 20 years from now.

A progress report on the area affected by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill revealed that the region has yet to recover from the spill, which happened 21 years ago.

It would be interesting to see a state-by-state breakdown of how the Gulf of Mexico spill will affect each part of the country. There's no doubt we'll all be paying the price (both literally and figuratively) in some way, shape or form.

by Callie Schweitzer on May 28, 2010 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

'Degree In Three'? The Jury Is Out

UCLA is a part of the University of California system, which may institute
a three-year degree program. (Creative Commons)

A New York Times op-ed this week proposed an overhaul in higher education that would require a change of the American mindset--ridding ourselves of the notion that college degrees need to be obtained in four years.

The authors, both from the education world (one the president emeritus of George Washington University and the other a research professor there), argue, "The college experience may be idyllic, but it's also wasteful and expensive, both for students and institutions."

The solution, they propose, rests in rejiggering the yearly calendar and adding "a few more" faculty members and staff.

These three-year curriculums "might involve two full summers of study with short breaks between terms."

But at a time when universities are low on money and laying off faculty members by the day, do they really have the resources to add more people to the university payroll?

On the other hand, there are plenty of obvious benefits to completing a degree in three years--namely saving money and entering the workforce early and gaining a competitive advantage.

Recent numbers from the U.S. Department of Education showed that less than 5 percent of undergraduates complete their degree in three years, and the majority of students at a public university complete their degrees in six years.

Several smaller schools across the country like Seattle University and Bates College are instating three-year programs, but now larger schools are getting on board, too.

The University of California system's Commission on the Future is reportedly weighing the pros and cons of these "fast-track degrees."

If a degree can be finished in three years and a student is willing, the choice may be clear for a family. But as it stands, some students find it difficult to finish their course curriculum in four years, making three nearly impossible. As long as it remains a student and his family's choice--and not the university's--it may be worth a try.

by Callie Schweitzer on May 27, 2010 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)