Editorials - editorials's Blog

Editorials - editorials's Blog - Bakersfield.com http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials en-us Were women consulted in birth control draft? http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/32145 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/32145 PUBLISHED 8/19/08 ----- In the world imagined by people at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 12 million American women give themselves daily abortions by performing the most mundane of acts: They take a birth control pill. The federal agency, which determines national health policy and controls billions in funding, has produced a draft proposal that clearly targets women’s access to one of the most basic of family-planning options. The leaked proposal, later downplayed as incomplete and premature by agency secretary Mike Leavitt, is ostensibly intended to protect medical professionals from discrimination if, in an act of conscience, they refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills, decline to offer a rape victim the so-called morning-after pill, or refuse to honor prescription-drug insurance benefits. Under the draft proposal, a worker could refuse to provide such treatment if it may interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg.  Not abortion — which, like contraception, is legal — but methods that prevent fertilization in the first place, such as the IUD or the pill. What’s going on here? Is the government trying to limit couples’ family-planning choices to surgical sterilization, abstinence or multiple-deck bunk beds? The idea of moving birth control into a gray area of accessibility has other consequences. Under the HHS draft proposal, physicians could refuse to provide or discuss contraception options. Medical professionals would not be required to disclose to the patient that only a partial array of care options was being offered. And health insurers would be under no obligation to cover contraception equitably. The draft regulation would deny federal funding to any entity, be it hospital, clinic or health plan, that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in family-planning care. Low-income women would undoubtedly bear the brunt of any withheld funding. Denying or making birth control more difficult or expensive for women to acquire could have other ramifications not associated with family planning. Women who suffer from excessive bleeding or pain due to conditions such as uterine fibroids or endometriosis can benefit greatly from hormone therapy — birth control pills. Which makes one wonder: Were any women involved in developing this draft? If not, who was? Religious conservatives, apparently — presumably male. If the draft regulations were to prompt some insurance companies to drop coverage for prescription birth control, “that would be fantastic,” Tom McClusky, a strategist with the conservative Family Research Council, told the Wall Street Journal. The White House is clearly on board. The Bush administration said it has an obligation to enforce the “right of conscientious objection” and is “exploring a number of options” to do so. Here’s the funny thing: No one has cited a single case of a physician, an insurance company employee, a pharmacist, anyone, who has ever been ostracized for balking at fulfilling a patient’s covered medical needs as they relate to ordinary birth control. Perhaps those are just inconvenient details. No City Council challenges a bad sign http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/32091 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/32091 PUBLISHED 8/17/08 ----- Critics of the so-called Abernathy machine are having great fun with Beau Woodward’s disqualification from the Bakersfield City Council race. The first-time campaigner needed a mere 20 valid signatures on his petition to run for office and he could only come up with 19. If he hadn’t waited until 10 minutes before the filing deadline to submit his paperwork, he surely could’ve found one more willing, qualified voter on short notice. Woodward’s failure to clear such a low bar doesn’t speak well for his attention to detail, but then he was apparently relying on the guidance of seasoned political consultant Mark Abernathy, who has helped direct many successful campaigns, from the city council to Congress to the gubernatorial recall. Woodward’s non-start (barring a legal challenge or write-in campaign) leaves all three of the incumbents on the November city-council ballot with an unopposed path to reelection. Ward 2’s Sue Benham, Ward 6’s Jacquie Sullivan and Ward 5’s Harold Hanson (who benefits directly from Woodward’s signature shortfall) will be returned to office without the election-year scrutiny that ballot challenges routinely encourage. And that is the real misfortune in Woodward’s missed-it-by-that-much candidacy. At a time when Bakersfield has undergone historic growth and continues to confront difficult challenges and potentially profound changes, city council positions — all public offices, really — need the best possible stewards. This is not a commentary on the performance of Benham, Sullivan or Hanson, who seem to have given their conscientious best, even if they have occasionally generated controversy. Benham, who has been diligent and independent, has had to deal with the concerns of the Westpark neighborhood she serves over proposed freeway routes. Sullivan’s mission to see “In God We Trust” displayed in every U.S. city council chamber has garnered much support, along with some criticism over its perceived Judeo-Christian exclusivity. And Hanson has been portrayed of late as an occasional swing vote, rather than the sure thing some might have assumed he’d be. That’s probably the reason for his apparent falling out with Abernathy and at least one council colleague. The lack of opposition for any of those three seats could simply be a statement about the public’s general satisfaction with the status quo. But we doubt it. More likely, the lack of interest is a statement about the perceived risks vs. rewards of public office. Serving on the city council in a city the size of Bakersfield is a full-time job that, if done right, demands continuous study on a multitude of issues — planning, growth, resources, aesthetics, finance, personnel and more. The best elected officials incorporate broad, long-term vision into the package as well. City council service can certainly feed one’s ambition. But for those who do not aspire to higher office, the reward is the satisfaction one gets from contributing. It’s hardly the money. A 2005 Massachusetts study ranked Bakersfield’s cost-adjusted council salaries second-lowest among the 47 U.S. cities it compared. And with 1.75 candidates per seat, Bakersfield was ranked second-worst in the study’s list of least competitive city elections. By comparison, the city of Hayward had the 10th-highest council salaries among the cities studied and the eighth-most competitive elections with 3.25 candidates per seat. Salary can’t be the only factor — and, in fact, the Massachusetts study concluded that it isn’t. Local circumstances loom even larger. In Bakersfield, perhaps it’s the general tenor of local politics or the sense that one needs a big name, a vault full of money or a powerful sponsor to have a chance. Whatever the reasons, unchallenged incumbents, no matter how deserving of reelection, are an indication that Bakersfield’s political landscape — and citizens’ confidence in the democratic process — is not as healthy as it ought to be. Budget deal may be the best we’ll get http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31944 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31944 PUBLISHED 8/15/08 ---- California’s budget impasse may very well come down to a question of whether state Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, can live with the terms of an Arnold Schwarzenegger-brokered deal. Schwarzenegger needs at least two Senate Republicans to break ranks with GOP colleagues, and Ashburn sounds like he’s prepared to be one of them. But he’s made it clear that the deal must be right. And it must. The governor’s proposed 1-cent sales tax increase must be truly temporary, as promised. Taxes have a tendency to stick around long after the need they’re ostensibly intended to meet has faded away, and California’s sales tax is already one of the highest in the nation. The expiration date on this new tax must be ironclad, and the revenues it produces managed responsibly so there are no extensions. The spending cap Republicans have demanded must be part of the deal — and in a hopeful sign, the state Senate’s Democratic leadership has hinted it may yet agree to that provision, though the players have yet to see the specific language of that and other stipulations. All parties must agree to the creation of the same sort of “rainy day” fund that many states already have in place. If California had created such a fund in healthier times, when state leaders had the chance, the present shortfall might have been averted or minimized. No one will be doing handstands over the budget compromise, whatever it turns out to be. But, as we’ve said here all along, the state Legislature must boost revenues and cut spending in some combination, painful though it may be, until it can close the $15.2 billion shortfall. The governor has made some tough choices (amid occasionally silly grandstanding) and the Democrats have inched toward his position. Now the members of the governor’s own party must budge, starting with approval of the sales tax hike, which will produce about $6 billion annually for three years — and then revert somewhere below the current level. “The way you’ve described ... your sales tax proposal,” Ashburn told Schwarzenegger during the governor’s chummy, 20-minute chat on Ashburn’s KERN radio program last Saturday, “it actually sounds like a tax cut.” A tax cut with strings attached — billions of dollars’ worth. As distasteful as that might be, it is probably the best deal we’ll get. Let’s get it done.   Sacramento’s royal lawmakers http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31886 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31886 PUBLISHED 8/14/08 ---- Bummer. Saturday service at Bakersfield’s Department of Motor Vehicle offices ended this month as a result of the state budget stalemate. Democrats and Republicans continue to bicker over a new state spending plan and closing a more than $15 billion budget hole. Approval of a 2008-09 budget is nearly two months overdue. To apply heat to lawmakers’ feet and ensure the state will have enough money to pay its bills through September, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger laid off part-timers and cut state workers’ pay to minimum wage. The Saturday DMV closure was a casualty. But The Sacramento Bee reports there is one exception — the unmarked DMV office, room 121, buried in a dark corner of the Legislative Office Building across the street from the Capitol. The office serves the Legislature and its staff. But don’t make plans for any trips to Sacramento to use this office. The Bee reports it is in a section of the building that is not open to the public, and security refuses to give directions. It’s good to be king and queen. Should police go hands-free? http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31824 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31824 PUBLISHED 8/13/08 ----- Sometimes cops need to break the law. If the situation calls for them to exceed the posted speed limit, for example, and they can do so safely, few would question their right to drive faster than the rest of us. California’s new hands-free law falls into the same category. Since July 1, California drivers have been banned from using their phones in the traditional manner when they’re behind the wheel of a vehicle. But law enforcement agencies are exempt from the new law. Does that seem fair? Perhaps not. However, equitable or not, it’s often necessary. Still, many agencies care about public image, and some have started asking their officers to minimize the use of cell phones. The Kern County Sheriff’s Department generally prohibits employees and volunteers from driving a county vehicles while using a wireless phone unless it’s  hands-free. But there’s an exception for emergency services personnel who are calling in connection to an emergency. Example: A deputy responding to a robbery in progress who uses the phone to speak with the store clerk. Bakersfield Police have similar guidelines. The California Highway Patrol also bans cell phone use except in pressing circumstances, and even then CHP officials prefer that troopers take the hands-free route.  Phones free up radio airtime while officers make calls related to an incident, and sometimes officers need confidential information that they don’t want to share with people listening to police scanners. Police may also be returning calls to people who have called police, or contacting other agencies they can’t reach on the same channel. Many officers already wear earpieces for portable radios in one ear — and noise from nearby scanners, radios and sirens can make it tough to hear with a hands-free device. But police shouldn’t just enforce the law. They should, whenever possible, model desirable behavior. If that means pulling over to make cell calls, they should try to do so. The fewer double standards we see with law enforcement — even when it’s justified — the better. Make the taggers clean up the mess http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31778 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31778 PUBLISHED 8/12/08 ----- It’s about time! Graffiti vandals now will have to clean up their own messes under a pair of laws signed  by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week. Assemblywoman Fiona Ma’s AB 1767, a three-year pilot program for San Francisco, mandates 24 hours of community service in graffiti cases, in addition to any civil arrangements with the affected property owner. And AB 2609, from Los Angeles Assemblyman Mike Davis, requires taggers to clean up the property they deface and, if practical, maintain it for a year. Practicality is a key provision. Judges, who previously had more discretion in sentencing graffiti cases, need not assign convicted vandals to clean up their work if it involves hanging dangerously over a freeway overpass, for example. The bigger safety threat may be in painting over the graffiti of another vandal. Davis’ bill allows judges to assign the convicted vandal another property in the community to keep clean if circumstances — including the danger of being assaulted — makes it unwise to clean up the wall where the original tagging took place. Taggers have taken over too many cities, in part because sentences have been too lenient and not necessarily linked to the crime. The punishment should fit the crime, and these laws are a step forward.   How about harnessing political hot air? http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31712 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31712 PUBLISHED 8/10/08 ---- A funny thing happened as Americans trudged to and beyond $4-a-gallon gasoline. They became interested in this nation’s energy policy — or lack of one. They started warming to the idea of developing domestic energy supplies, including exploring for oil. And so a funny thing has happened to the campaign for U.S. president. The candidates have started making “energy development” a top priority. It used to be the Iraq war. Then it was the “economy.” But now the focus has shifted to “energy” — with the skyrocketing cost of oil  recognized as a threat to the U.S. economy and national security. Last week, as the House of Representatives adjourned for an August vacation, Republicans held a sit-in — railing against the Democrats, particularly Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for refusing to allow a vote on lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. The sit-in was more political theater than policy making, with Republicans hoping to whip the issue to such a frenzy that their party will be saved from a likely whuppin’ in the November election. Earlier this summer, President Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling and challenged Congress to do likewise. The ban has been in effect since the president’s father signed it when he was president. Critics contend lifting the ban will not bring down oil prices because it will take a decade to see domestic production increase. They say the move is intended more to deflect blame for the energy crisis from the Bush administration, dumping it into the lap of the Democratic-controlled Congress. Long an opponent of offshore drilling, Pelosi is blocking a House vote, knowing that consumer pressure to lower gasoline prices just might be the push needed to get both Democrats and Republicans to lift the ban. Following all this political intrigue? That’s part of the problem. The hot air coming from Republicans and Democrats in Congress and on the campaign trail won’t fix the nation’s energy crisis. Unless, of course, we can harness this gas as an alternative energy source. There is plenty of blame to go around for the pickle we now find ourselves in — increasingly relying on foreign and often hostile countries for our oil supplies; competing with other energy-thirsty nations for the oil. Administration after administration of Democratic and Republican presidents has failed to implement a balanced plan for providing the energy we need to grow and support our economy. And for a guy who once made his living in the oil patch, this president has been a similar dud. On his watch we have seen gasoline pump prices flirt with $5 a gallon. It will fall to the next president to come up with a real plan that increases the domestic oil production and develops alternative energy sources, including nuclear energy. It must be a plan that places equal emphasis on conservation, including improved vehicle efficiency. It must be a plan that produces more than just hot air from politicians and windfall profits for special interests. Olympic Games used to showcase the old, new China http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31608 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31608 PUBLISHED 8/08/08 ----- When the 2008 Summer Olympic Games open tonight, the world’s eyes will be focused on China as much as on the performances of athletes competing for gold, silver and bronze. The attention China has called to itself would have been unimaginable just a few decades ago, when the nation was isolated behind a “bamboo curtain” — a suspicious, brutal communist regime keeping  outsiders out and its people locked in. But in recent years, the “curtain” has lifted. China has invited tourism and trade to flourish. Its  economy has grown so rapidly that it is on the verge of being the world’s largest. But the selection of China in 2001 by the International Olympic Committee to host the 2008 Summer Games was a controversial one. And it continues to be so. Despite protests, Olympic officials reasoned that the games and China’s desire to showcase its progress could bring even more change to the still repressive communist country. They pointed to the advances made in South Korea after the Olympic Games were held in that country in 1988. Many doubt the games so far have brought about much, if any, change in China. The opening of China to the world already had started before the selection. Capitalism was already well on its way to bringing more prosperity to the nation and its people. In preparation for the games, China has invested more than $40 billion in refurbishing Beijing, building stadiums for the competitions and erecting towering commercial complexes to present to the world the new China — an emerging economic giant. Characteristic of its brutal history, however, China bulldozed the homes of many families living in the path of Olympic “progress.” And try as it has to hide its years-long disregard for the environment, China has not been able to order away its polluted Beijing air for the games. Its domestic and foreign policies still demonstrate a lack of respect for human rights and freedoms. While China is credited with helping contain North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, its insatiable hunger for energy to fuel its economy is at the root of its abysmal record of embracing rogue regimes and turning a blind eye to genocide in such areas as the Sudan. China’s contention that its brutal crackdown on dissenters in Tibet this year is a “domestic matter” and of no concern to those outside China has spurred protests that threaten security at the games. This is despite China’s heavy-handed treatment of any dissent within its borders. And while Olympic organizers promised that journalists covering the games would be free of censorship, journalists have found “offending” Internet sites off limits and censored. China is not unique in wanting to use the Olympic Games to showcase a “coming of age” or supremacy. Historically, strong regimes have used the games to strengthen nationalism, the most famous example being the 1936 Summer Games in Berlin. Only time will tell how lasting and how sincere China’s “party face” will be; how much permanent change, openness and progress for its people will result. The fact that China has invested so much in presenting a good image to the world means that it now cares what other nations think. And that is a plus. Nations that care will temper their behavior to preserve or foster an image. Isolated nations are much more dangerous. China has come a long way. The world must hope it keeps moving in the right direction. Baseball fans had their chance http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31607 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31607 PUBLISHED 8/7/08 ---- Over the years, Bakersfield’s assorted minor-league professional baseball teams have tried to get this city to build a new, publicly-owned stadium to replace backward-facing, ’40’s-vintage Sam Lynn Ball Park. On more than one occasion, the team has threatened to pull up stakes and move if something isn’t done. A couple of times it followed through — remember the Bakersfield Dodgers? — only to be replaced by another team. And still, no new stadium. The latest threat to California League baseball in Bakersfield has an even more ominous sound than past love-me-or-watch-me-leave ultimatums. The Carolina League, which plays Class A-caliber, major-league affiliated baseball, same as the California League, is said to be in the market for two new teams — teams it would acquire from the Cal League. The Bakersfield Blaze, plagued by chronically poor attendance, would probably be one of them. We can’t blame the major-league Texas Rangers, which stocks the Bakersfield roster with young, professional players, for wanting to leave — even if it’s to Fayetteville, N.C., a city about two-thirds the size of Bakersfield and with a stadium only marginally superior to Sam Lynn. With the wheels for the transfer of leagues apparently already in motion and no plan for a new stadium on any drawing boards, the odds of keeping the Blaze aren’t good. City or county officials would have to make a renewed pitch for a publicly financed stadium, and these aren’t the best economic times in which to be floating such ideas. The possibility of sharing a proposed stadium with Cal State Bakersfield’s soon-arriving Division I baseball program does not appear to be a realistic option. To stand a chance, the Blaze would have to see a renaissance in terms of attendance — the team averages a reported 1,021 fans per game, ranking ninth in the 10-team league — but even that might not be enough. The few  who call themselves Blaze fans might have to hope that things may one day play themselves out like they did in Fresno. When that city lost its Cal League affiliate to San Jose a few years ago, the city built a new stadium and became a Triple-A affiliate for the San Francisco Giants — a plum handed them when the Phoenix Giants had to vacate to make way for the major league Arizona Diamondbacks. Fat chance of a similar scenario coming along. If the Blaze leaves in 2009, Bakersfield sports fans will need to content themselves with minor-league professional hockey and, among other non-pro options, Division I college baseball. We had our chance. Several of them, actually. Stop calling us at home http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31459 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/editorials/31459 PUBLISHED 8/6/08 ----- Figure this one out. You’re trying to convince voters to come around to your way of thinking, so you call them at home with a recorded message. They might be in the mood to listen, but they might also be engrossed in a television program. Or eating dinner. Or sound asleep. Have you helped your cause? Or hurt it? Despite the dubious chances of catching receptive voters at home, politicians continue to take their chances. Most recently, retired Congressman Bill Thomas and his successor, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, blanketed hundreds of Kern County homes with so-called “robocalls” to plug the ultimately failed candidacy of Matt Brady, who ran for a vacant judgeship, With the general election coming up, expect to hear pre-recorded sales pitches from John McCain, Barack Obama and other candidates and celebrities. Thing is, automated phone messages — even political calls, which are exempted from National Do Not Call Registry guidelines — are restricted in California, a fact the state Public Utilities Commission made clear after a recent review of the utilities code. But restricting a practice and enforcing that ban are two different things. California’s rules against robocalls are not widely known or understood, and they are frequently ignored. Robocalls are legal only when a real person first comes on the line and asks for the listener’s consent to hear a recorded message. Ever have that happen? But robocallers get away with the intrusion because, according to regulations, consumers must first complain to their phone company, and if nothing is done, file a complaint with the PUC. That has happened exactly twice over the past two years. But now, an advocacy group called the National Political Do Not Contact Registry is trying to round up complaints from California voters. The plan is to present those complaints to phone companies and the state PUC. Meanwhile, Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San Jose are trying to restrict political robocalls on a national scale. Their bills would outlaw calls from 9 p.m. to 8 a.m., limit calls to two a day to the same number and require the responsible campaigns to fully disclosure their identity. Federal law already prohibits telemarketing calls to those who sign up for the National Do Not Call Registry. It’s time for the law to be expanded to political calls. Campaigns would be wise to listen to the complaints — after all, a backlash could have negative consequences at the polls.