It's late Friday night and we're finally at GOTV. This is the day where everything we've been working towards will finally come into view. It's always exciting. But this time feels a little more so. It's so important that we win here in Maine.

The forces of hatred and bigotry will never rest. Neither can we. We must continue to work until we live in a just society where everyone enjoys equal protection under the law. I'm so proud of the work the Courage Campaign team is doing out here. We've been welcomed by the No on 1 staff and we are working side by side to protect Marriage Equality.

It's not too late to get involved: http://www.ProtectMaineEquality.org/CallForMaine   Read More »

Just arrived in Maine to work on the No on 1 campaign. The energy is amazing. Although Im exhausted from an insane flight, I am excited to be here on the battle ground for equality.   Read More »

11 of our amazing Deputy Field Organizers and Equality Team members have come out to Maine, as part of the Volunteer Vacation program to work insane campaign ours until the polls close. They arrived over the weekend and have been put to work for No on 1 all over the greater Portland area.

Mitchell is helping "cut turf" for all of the canvassing over the weekend. Jasmine has been out on the University of Southern Maine campus encouraging students to vote early and volunteer. Laura is fielding phone calls from Maine voters calling the office with questions. Derrick buried in spreadsheets, helping organize staging locations for election day.



The office here has been a buzz of activity, crammed with staff, volunteers and on occasion TV camera crews. The Rachel Maddow show was here yesterday interviewing Governor Baldacci, who previously opposed marriage equality and is now one of its biggest backers. NBC News was also here filming a spot for Sunday.

Yesterday some local TV stations came by to film shots of some No on 1 signs that appear to have been shot up by a paintball gun. The Yes on 1 campaign has been trying to make themselves a victim since some of their signs have been defaced and stolen. These types of shenanigans are typical during a heated election, and usually it's just a couple of numbskulls messing with signs instead of doing something productive like talking to voters.



Here is a few of our Courage Campaign DFOs, Equality Team members and staff holed up in a small windowless room making calls.



Much more to come over the next few days.

No matter where you are you can help bring home a victory to Maine. Sign up now to be a virtual phone banker and we will get you trained and on the phones.

We're delighted to share this message with you from Sheila Kuehl, elected in 1994 as the first openly gay or lesbian state legislator in California history, and the first woman to hold the position of Speaker pro Tempore.

Sen. Kuehl attended Camp Courage Fresno in March and would like to share her experience with the Courage Campaign community in anticipation of Camp Courage Sacramento.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign

Dear eden --

"We were all amazingly moved. We cried. We didn't want it to end. Maybe most unexpected of all, we were profoundly changed."

That is what I wrote in 2004 after flying to San Francisco to officiate at the weddings of eight of my closest friends, following Mayor Gavin Newsom's historic decision to -- at least temporarily -- legalize same-sex marriages.

I could just as enthusiastically have written those words about Camp Courage Fresno, the transformative training event for marriage equality activists that I attended in early March -- just over five years after the "Winter of Love" in San Francisco and a few months after the shocking passage of Proposition 8. I was there as a camper and loved every minute of it. We all -- experienced organizers, or not -- learned so much and came away very fired up.

We've come a long way. But we still have a long way to go, if we want to repeal Prop 8 and restore marriage equality to California.

That's why I want you to sign up for Camp Courage Sacramento on November 7-8. Spots are filling up fast and I don't want you to miss this wonderful opportunity:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CampSacramento

People ask me when I first became an activist, expecting me to say that I experienced some great tragedy because of my sexual orientation that lit a fire, ignited a bulb, or wound up the spring leading me to devote a good part of my life to the lesbian and gay movement.

Imagine their surprise when I say, "It was the week I spent as a camp counselor at UCLA's UniCamp for 'underprivileged' children." The pain expressed by these kids -- a feeling of being unworthy -- affected me deeply. I realized that I needed to start working to make things better in the world.

That was the root. The tree took a little longer to grow.

That is the beginning of my "Story of Self" -- the training model used by "Camp Obama," and adopted by Camp Courage, that transforms each participant's unique inspiration for supporting marriage equality into compelling and authentic narratives that can be used to persuade undecided voters.

To discover your own Story of Self and gain so many skills and committed new friends, please come to Camp Courage Sacramento on November 7-8. Space is limited for this special training in Sacramento, so please sign up ASAP:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/CampSacramento

For most of our lives, gays and lesbians have been part of a community that couldn't even dream of full equality. But that afternoon in 2004 on the steps of San Francisco City Hall -- and later, when the couples came home to balloons in their yards, flowers in their homes, celebrations at work, presents, notes, and endless congratulatory e-mails -- we saw how marriage allows society to recognize our equality.

For the couples, and for me, it was like a dam opened. That place where all of us had buried any hope of marriage -- where we had dutifully registered as domestic partners and convinced ourselves marriage wasn't worth having -- that place cracked open to the sun. It was a revelation.

No matter your level of experience or skill, Camp Courage can be a revelation for you as well -- gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual or transgender.

I hope you will be at Camp Courage on November 7-8.

Sheila Kuehl

NOTE: Please note that it is necessary for participants to bring their own lunch to Camp Courage on both Saturday and Sunday. As lunch time is limited and there will be no time to leave the Camp venue to purchase lunch, please make arrangements before you arrive at Camp to bring lunch with you. Thank you.

Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote a letter to California's Congressional leaders today about health care reform. Most of it is a long extended whine about the feds not offering enough money to states to provide for health care, since Arnold believes California should not be spending much money to help people get health care.

But there's also an interesting proposal from our governor about the public option. Basically, he wants to use the "opt-out" as an opportunity for California to design its own public option, one that would benefit fewer people than the federal option:

In terms of state coverage options, I support the inclusion of language that will provide states the option of developing state-based insurance options for people with incomes above 133 percent of the federal poverty level but below 200 percent. I believe this provision can be strengthened and made more effective by allowing states, especially those with higher costs of living, to serve populations up to 300 percent FPL, providing states access to at least 95 percent of the tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies available for eligible individuals in the state and ensuring sufficient state flexibility to enable continuity of care between Medicaid and the state-based option. Providing states with the flexibility to set eligibility to 300 percent of the federal poverty level recognizes different cost structures across states and is more consistent with existing income eligibility thresholds allowed under the federal children’s health insurance program, which will help support the policy goal of keeping families together for health insurance purposes.

Finally, creating transparent and user-friendly health insurance exchanges at the state level can help facilitate the enrollment process. At the same time, I believe these state-based exchanges must be more than simple clearinghouses of information, but instead allow states to certify plans and negotiate within broadly established federal parameters to help promote competition among health plans. I also continue to believe that states must remain the primary regulator of health insurance in order to maintain the strongest consumer protections possible.

What this means is that Arnold Schwarzenegger would have California exercise the opt-out in order to design a "public option" much more restrictive in who it is available to, provided in state-based exchanges instead of through a national system. Alongside protecting the customer base of his insurance industry allies, this would also enable California to force the people who would want a public option to jump through a number of hoops designed to discourage them from actually getting the benefit, as California now does with things like IHSS, food stamps, and such.

Some may argue that California would never go for this kind of "Arnold option," but let's consider some things here. First, the Senate language regarding the opt-out has yet to materialize. Arnold may well be mainstreaming right-wing and corporate talking points that could be used by conservadems in the Senate to shape the opt-out in a way that would have the program more closely resemble the Nixonian "block grants" that have given states too much power to restrict federally-mandated benefits. In short, Arnold might be saying "hey, here's how the opt-out should look!"

Arnold may also be setting up the language and framing that could be used by Republican gubernatorial candidates to deal with federal health care reform. In a state where the public option concept is popular, Arnold could be showing how the public option could be neutered in practice while preserved in name.

In a state that has gutted much of its public sector over the last two years, with bipartisan support the entire time, it's a strategy worth watching closely. Especially since the outcome of the federal health care reform project now appears to be a shifting of the battleground to the states.

UPDATE by Robert: John Myers reports via Twitter that "Guv's ofc says his health care letter should not be interpreted as support for opt-in/opt-out public option" and that, quoting a governor's office spokesperson, Arnold "is calling for state-based insurance options to offer coverage for lower income populations not eligible for Medicaid."

Courage should avoid getting involved in health care debate (advocating the public option). There are many impassioned views on the health care situation, and many who would advocate health care reform (me!) without advocating a public option. It is really disappointing that Courage feels the need to step inside a political debate and muddy up the purity of its stance on equality for gays through marriage.

LOS ANGELES-The right-wing lead Tea Party express pulled into Los Angeles today seeking to delegitimize President Obama and efforts to improve access and affordability to quality health care for nearly 50-million Americans, only to meet the opposition of over 60 local activist lead by the Courage Campaign.

Rev. Eric Lee, President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles, delivered moving remarks that underscored the moral imperative for meaningful health care reform while dozens of tea party protesters stood within ear shot of the counter protest bullhorn.

Armed with the courage to stand up, step out, and be heard activists from Organizing for America (formerly Obama for America), New Frontier Democratic Club, RENEWL, and Zombies for Progressive Reform joined our Courage Campaign members at Griffith Park to demand their right for health care.

Dozens of Los Angeles Police officers were on hand to prevent a lively protest and counter protest from becoming a heated provocation.

Lead by Rev. Eric Lee early in the afternoon, the counter protesters separated from tea party protesters by yellow caution tape and a 30-foot buffer zone designed by LAPD, shouted "Jesus believed in health care," "Yes we can," and "We want reform."

Courage Campaign Equality Team Leader Robert Olivarez shared a compelling personal story that underscored the need for affordable health care for all Americans regardless pre-exisiting conditions like the diabetes he suffers with.

With the support of Courage Campaign Equality Team Leader Derrick Mathis and Courage Campaign Deputy Field Organizers Brian Shurwood and Ruben Murillo, our tea party counter protest was organized in three days to demonstrate support for meaningful health care reform with a strong public option.

In addition, we wanted the tea party protesters to know that they do not represent the people of Los Angeles and the vision of a more progressive America we must continue to support.

The fight for meaningful health care reform continues tomorrow and the next day until it's law.

Visit www.couragecampaign.org to learn what you can do to fight for meaningful health care reform.

###

One of the most important transportation projects in California, aside from my beloved high speed rail project of course, is the Subway to the Sea. A long-planned effort to build passenger rail to Santa Monica via the Wilshire corridor, it has become a primary goal of LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Few areas in North America are as congested as LA's Westside, and a subway through this region would be a godsend, creating thousands of jobs and reducing dependence on oil while untangling the traffic mess.

But LA County also has several other passenger rail projects they're considering, and with the passage of Measure R (a *tax* approved by 2/3rds of voters in the state's most populous county last November) along with a transit-friendly White House, Metro can actually reasonably expect them to get built.

The question is what gets built and when - and with what federal funds. As with most other transportation projects around the country, Metro's projects will need federal "new starts" funding. Villaraigosa wants Metro's board to prioritize the Subway to the Sea and another related project, the "Downtown Connector" (finally linking the Blue and Gold lines, as originally intended).

Villaraigosa's plans are getting some pushback from local members of Congress. 14 members of Congress, including Adam Schiff, Jane Harman, David Dreier, and Maxine Waters, wrote a letter telling the Metro board that if they follow Villaraigosa's plan, they risk losing out on federal funding:

The 14 members of Congress who signed a letter released Tuesday said those two programs [Subway to the Sea and Downtown Connector] don't have a good shot at immediate federal funding.

Further, they said the county risks not getting much from the federal New Starts program for several years unless it adds other regional transit proposals to the application, including the Gold Line extension east from Pasadena, a rail line down Crenshaw Boulevard and the Gold Line Eastside extension Phase 2 from East L.A. to South El Monte or Whittier.

"We are very concerned that Los Angeles County is not positioning itself well to receive its fair share of New Starts funding in the near- and long-term," the delegation wrote.

The background is that there are three other projects that some Metro board members and legislators want funded: a light rail line down Crenshaw, connecting the Red and Purple lines to the Expo and Green lines; and two extensions of the Gold Line into the suburban San Gabriel Valley.

The battle reflects typical political debates in LA County, with the Subway to the Sea and the Downtown Connector seen as benefiting the wealthy Westside at the expense of the less prosperous and more diverse South LA and San Gabriel Valley communities. And as the legislators' letter makes clear, it's inconceivable that Metro could get new starts funding for all 5 projects.

Yonah Freemark, who runs The Transport Politic, one of the best transportation blogs out there, points out that the other 3 projects would serve far fewer riders than the Subway to the Sea and the Downtown Connector, and that from a transportation need perspective, those should be prioritized.

Of course, the US Congress isn't a place where such sensible considerations rule the day. David Dreier, whose district includes the I-210 corridor along which one of the Gold Line extensions would run, has been particularly adamant about ensuring that project gets support from the Metro board. And South LA representatives understandably want to ensure that their communities get served by transit - as residents there have the greatest dependence on transit, their case is strong.

If it were up to me, I'd back the Subway to the Sea, the Downtown Connector, and the Crenshaw line and tell Dreier to shove it. As the LA Subway Blog notes, the Subway to the Sea will have enormous regional benefits. Just because it is located on the Westside doesn't mean that's the only place it will assist - just as the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach doesn't just benefit people living in San Pedro and Wilmington.

But the real issue here isn't picking which of the 5 worthy projects gets supported and which doesn't. Metro would be in better shape if the state of California wasn't in the process of abandoning its support for mass transit. The state ought to be able to help fund construction of one or two of these projects, leaving the feds more able to support the other three. For example, the state should be able to help start the Crenshaw line and one of the Gold Line extensions, enabling the feds to fund the Subway to the Sea, the Downtown Connector, and the other Gold Line extension.

Southern California was the poster child for the 20th century sprawlconomy, and is now suffering greatly for having clung to that model for too long. Voters there now recognize it is time to change, and have put their money behind the kind of mass transit solutions the region desperately needs. It's up to the state and federal governments to deliver their share.

UPDATE by Robert: The Metro board voted today to recommend the Subway to the Sea and the Downtown Connector for federal new starts funding. The board also passed an amendment by Mark Ridley-Thomas directing Metro to seek all other possible funding (aside from new starts) to build the Crenshaw and Gold Line extension LRT projects.

Major policy changes often happen as a result of a sudden shift that is, in fact, not so sudden at all. Public attitudes and behavior steadily change over time, but a political system whose practitioners have made up their minds on a topic years ago, before that change became apparent, are typically unwilling to accept the new reality. Until something changes - a new generation of leaders takes power, a financial crisis causes people to become more open to new ideas. Or perhaps it's just as simple as an idea whose time has come, an idea whose wisdom can no longer be denied.

We're at such a turning point with marijuana. One of the state's main cash crops, the economic base of many small towns in the North Coast (and of a growing but hard to track number of metropolitan households), marijuana is already widely available in California, whether on the black market or at a quasi-legal dispensary. As more and more Californians are comfortable with the use of marijuana, even if they do not partake of it themselves, the decades-old drug war has become seen as more and more absurd when it comes to marijuana.

When an April Field Poll found 56% of Californians back marijuana legalization, it became only a matter of time before the topic became a fully mainstream subject, deemed appropriate for "serious" conversation at everything from public policy summits to the dinner table.

And so this week California is witnessing a fundamental shift in marijuana policy, where for perhaps the first time it really is a question of "when," and not "if," the sale and use of marijuana will become legal in California.

The biggest news comes from the federal government, where Attorney General Eric Holder has followed through on his early signals and announced the Justice Department will no longer prosecute people for using medical marijuana in accordance with their state's laws. Holder is not yet embracing full legalization, of course. But this is a significant shift that recognizes states do have a right to innovate when it comes to drug policy. Whether the Obama Administration intends it or not, the new policy will be further evidence that a strict federal "War on Drugs" is no longer desirable or viable.

Here in California, more fundamental changes are under way. As a judge rules LA DA Steve Cooley's attack on dispensaries to be invalid, the movement for full legalization is well under way. Tom Ammiano's bill to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana, AB 390, will get its first hearing in the Assembly next week.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaking at a bill signing ceremony in Merced yesterday, said he is "basically opposed" to legalization but believes it's time to have a debate about the issue. In Arnold-speak that says he doesn't see legalization as a political loser, even if he's not quite willing to go there himself. His comments show that legalization has gone from being a sensible idea on the fringes of our political discourse to something we can debate as easily and naturally as, say, water policy.

Meanwhile, armed with the Field Poll results - as well as the recent Gallup Poll which found support for legalization was highest in the Western US, with moderates and independents nationwide about split on the matter, California activists are not waiting around for the legislature or the governor to act.

Instead they're going directly to the ballot. TaxCannabis.org is the headquarters for the effort to put an initiative on the November 2010 ballot to treat marijuana much like alcohol. The initiative would legalize possession of up to one ounce for all adults over 21, and give local governments the ability to determine whether to more broadly legalize and tax marijuana themselves. It would essentially create a "local option" instead of a statewide free-for-all.

It's not yet clear if they have the money or the volunteers to put this on the ballot. And the fact that local governments would be the ones implementing the policy, instead of a single statewide standard, might limit the savings in prison spending and the overall tax revenues created. But it's a clear step forward for sensible drug policy, one whose time has clearly come.

We have to find and demand health care solutions for everyone, but especially for our children. No child in this country should ever go to bed hungry or die because their parents have no health insurance or money to pay doctor and hospital bills. With all the reports of children dying from the swine flu, I have to wonder if any of these tragedies were due to the parents hesitating to seek medical care simply because they could not afford the price of a doctor's visit or a prescription. A parent should never have to decide between a child's health or paying the rent or the utility bill. The hope of our own future lies in today's children and all the bright and wonderful ideas and gifts that they will bring to our planet. Every life that comes to our world deserves to be nourished and cared for 100% and our elected officials had better wake up and realize that. Otherwise our tomorrow looks pretty bleak.

Late last week we learned that California's unemployment rate dropped 0.1% in September, from 12.3% to 12.2%. That stat obscures far more than it reveals, including the fact that the 12.3% rate for August was an upward revision of the earlier reported number.

More significantly, the stat is not an accurate reflection of the job market in California. We actually lost 39,000 jobs in September. The only reason the rate appears to have dropped is that a significant number of the long-term unemployed have stopped looking for work and are no longer counted as "unemployed.

Nearly 1/3 of those lost jobs came from the public sector, as Steven Levy explained:

The state's job losses were especially pronounced in construction, which lost 14,100 jobs over the month, and government, which lost 12,700.

Cutbacks in government employment, which includes public schools, are partly to blame for the state's lackluster performance this month, said Stephen Levy of the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy.

"We are disproportionately hit in the government sector because our state and local governments are having worse budget shortfalls than in other states," he said. (LA Times, 10/17/09)

As Atrios said, that's not the way it's supposed to work. Government needs to be the employer of last resort, especially in a state that has the highest unemployment levels in 60 years. When 12,700 government employees lose their jobs, that translates into less consumer spending, which in turn means pressure to lay off more workers, all of which results in less tax revenue for the state, which merely exacerbates the vicious circle.

Yet Arnold Schwarzenegger simply doesn't care about the unemployment crisis. Instead of working to create private sector jobs through the preservation and expansion of public sector jobs, Arnold has engaged in a right-wing shock doctrine attack on the basic services of the state, an attack that was never going to succeed before the recession hit.

Once upon a time conservative Republicans claimed job creation was their #1 task, and that we had to give corporations whatever they wanted to create jobs - tax cuts, regulation cuts, etc. California did so - and as a result we have a far larger recession and unemployment numbers than we've ever had when Big Government supposedly ruled our political economy.

Today, you'll hear nary a peep out of the Republican Party about jobs. Sure, the Cal Chamber will publish its list of "job killer" bills, but that's only the public excuse to give Arnold the reason he needs to veto bills he'd have vetoed anyway. Instead you have a party that simply does not care about unemployment and the jobless. Instead, to hear Chuck DeVore tell it, the unemployed should just leave California.

California Republicans see unemployment as an unalloyed good, something to be embraced as a tool to destroy what remains of the New Deal and create a working class utterly dependent upon and unable to resist corporate power. California's economic policy has become nothing short of kleptocracy, justified by a constant media drumbeat demanding greater spending cuts, apparently for their own sake.

It is up to Democrats and progressives, then, to make the case to California that jobs matter, that jobs are what this state desperately needs, and that Republicans have not just given up on providing jobs, but are actively cheerleading unemployment and attacking the jobless.

Of course, we don't need jobs for their own sake. We need quality jobs, jobs that pay a living wage, jobs that are sustainable and not dependent on the latest asset bubble Ponzi scheme. And just as we learned in the 1930s, we need government to step in and provide them - instead of actively destroying them.

The "insurance" business model does not deliver health care well.

It delivers reimbursement well for anomaly events, like random house fires for a large pool of people who have statistically only a few claims amongst them over a long period of time. "Insurance" is the appropriate choice to spread risk of an unlikely loss, and prevent a potential bankruptcy.

However, delivering health care requires a business model that is publicly funded, flexible, provides consistent, paperless, and dependable customer health care services seamlessly, and effortlessly with health care facilities. Health care needs increase and decrease throughout a humans life, irrespective of their finances.

Health care provided well must be delivered with a business model that matches humans health care needs. There are many business models to study from all over the world that provide health care well.

First, the USA needs to figure out a new business model, one that matches the customer service it is trying to deliver, health care.

Second, within the new "Health Care" business model framework, decide what entities, be it public or private combinations, meet consumers health care needs best.

The "insurance" business model was not meant to deliver health care services well, and it hasn't!

It's time to move forward...toward "health care" and away from insurance!

A few weeks back the Guardian's Sunday paper, the Observer, published a long article titled Will California become America's first failed state? It was one of their most widely read and emailed articles that week, and generated a lot of responses. One of them was mine at Calitics.

The Guardian wanted a response to their article for their Comment is Free section of the website, and asked me to write it. The result is now available: From Golden State to failed state.

With a 700-word limit it was difficult to be more expansive than I could here at Calitics. But my article makes the basic points: the 20th century model of California, emphasizing sprawl and weighing government down with absurd, non-functional rules designed to protect that sprawl, have produced "a California that more closely resembles the world of Charles Dickens than that of the Beach Boys."

We need to craft a new vision of the California Dream for the 21st century. Go read the article to see what that would look like.

I'm at a beautiful retreat house on a hilltop in the mountains north of San Luis Obispo as thirty volunteers led by Courage's brilliant field team learn the skills to be community organizers. The spirit and energy in the room outshine the magnificent California countryside.   Read More »

On the heels of the national equality march and the momentous changes in our movement so evident from this weekend in Washington, DC, we want to share with you an update on our work around marriage equality in California.   Read More »

Six years ago this month, California voters threw out an unpopular governor amidst a recession and a severe budget crisis, replacing him with a Hollywood action star who promised to fundamentally change the way the state does business.

Instead the people of California got a governor who actually is as a bad as Gray Davis was incorrectly assumed to be. And finally, the public realizes just how bad he is. The latest Field Poll shows a state that is fed up with the failure currently occupying the governor's office. Only 27% approve of Arnold Schwarzenegger's job rating, and 65% disapprove.

The lowest approval rating Gray Davis ever sustained was 22% in August 2003, 2 months before he was recalled. And that remains the lowest approval any CA governor has sustained since at least 1958 (Field Poll doesn't offer stats before that year). Arnold Schwarzenegger is now in Davis territory.

This will likely spark more talk in the comments of a recall of Schwarzenegger. But in fact, such a recall is scheduled, just 385 days from now. The November 2010 election will be California's chance to decide whether they want to continue Arnold Schwarzenegger's policies in the form of either Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner or Tom Campbell.

It would be nice if the Democratic candidates offered a meaningful change away from Arnold's policies of "cut for cuts' sake, no matter the damage it does to our economy" and his overall right-wing approach to governance. Jerry Brown might have signed AB 98 but he has stated his preference to continue the totally failed Schwarzenegger "no new taxes" policy that is wrecking our state's finances and our economy. Gavin Newsom has made some interesting statements about the need for structural reform, but he has yet to offer a specific solution to the economic and financial crisis.

Which is unfortunate, because Californians clearly, desperately, want change. The candidate that offers a different and better path than the failed legacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger will be the one to sweep into the governor's office in January 2011 with a mandate for change.

We'll see if there is any such candidate willing to step up and play that role.

So today, October 12, 2009, I read that the Senate proposed "health care reform" that will cost you and me thousands of dollars a year more than it already does. And their proposal crosses party lines from Blue Dog Dummies, (sorry, I meant Demmies) to Red Bull Retards, (sorry I meant Repubs).

It's insulting enough our Legislators totally and shamelessly ignore us and do whatever they want but to try and sell us a hike in insurance premiums as "reform" is beyond shameful. It's Milton Friedman Shock Economics, madness. I know that's an oxymoron.

Cancel your health insurance NOW and apply for MediCal through your social services office. You pay a premium only if you're hospitalized. Let's stop being paralyzed by fear. They're counting on our fear to pass pro insurance company legislation. Haven't you had enough of this madness, yet? I have. They are unraveling and destroying Democracy before our eyes and our silence is giving them permission. Please, we have to wake up and stop this madness now!!!

I'm going to think of a call in sick day because we are all so sick and tired of being screwed by our elected officials and the insurance companies they represent, instead of the people they were elected to represent. Proposed call in sick day welcomed.

Yesterday was the deadline for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto or sign nearly 700 bills passed by the Legislature. It was a mixed bag, with some great news for the cause LGBT rights but some very bad news for health care reformers and women across the state.

Among the vetoed bill was AB 98, which would have mandated that all health insurance plans offer maternity coverage. The governor's veto message:

Maternity coverage is offered and available in today’s individual insurance market. Consumers can choose whether they want to purchase this type of coverage, and the pricing is reflective of that choice. While the perfect world would allow for all health conditions to be covered, including maternity, I cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

This is, as I noted back in March, is untrue:

When Wendy Root Askew of Monterey started looking for a doctor she hoped would be her gynecologist as well as deliver her future children, she was shocked to discover her health insurance policy didn't include a single OB/GYN in her county.

The 31-year-old considered changing health plans. But then she learned that while 85 percent of the plans available in Monterey County offered maternity coverage five years ago, just 15 percent offer it now.

She found only two individual policies that included maternity, but they were three to five times as much as the policy she already had and came with annual deductibles of up to $15,000.

Wendy is a very good friend of mine. And now she, like women across the state, have fallen victim to Arnold Schwarzenegger's greed.

Given his veto of AB 98 and a number of other similar bills designed to produce meaningful health care reform, it was somewhat surprising to learn early this morning that the governor signed two bills advancing the cause of LGBT rights, including a bill he previously vetoed. The governor finally signed the bill declaring May 22 as Harvey Milk Day. And even more importantly, he signed Sen. Mark Leno's SB 54 allowing California to recognize same-sex marriages performed outside the state. If a same-sex couple gets married in Massachusetts, under this law, that marriage will be recognized as valid in California. Equality California did some excellent work on both of these bills, and deserves credit for getting them signed.

We can expect right-wingers to challenge that law as well, as part of their campaign to take away rights from LGBT Americans.

Ultimately this very mixed record on bill signings shows us how much damage Arnold Schwarzenegger has done to California - and how much better a governor he could have been. As we begin to look toward the 2010 election, when we will pick Arnold's replacement, progressive Californians should seek candidates who will embrace LGBT rights and health care reform at the same time - for we need both at once if we are to have a progressive state that cares for and respects the rights of all its people.

Yes, I'm back. It has been a harrowing 2 years of serious health problems. Thankfully, my positive attitude and unwillingness to give up and in keeps going but for how long is the question?

First, let me thank those who sent tea bags to their representatives on December 1, 2007 with a "No Taxation Without Representation" log line. A lot of good it has done us but at least we tried. I have no doubt my idea was hijacked by the far right for their pitiful tea bag events supporting big business and Wall Street but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. However, it's not flattery I need or desire, it's change. Not the hyperbole kind of change to quell the masses (That would be us). No, I mean change that translates into positive legislation for the middle class, that is being killed off as I write, by our own legislators who refuse to do their job, represent the people they were elected to represent; not Wall Street; Not Insurance and Pharmaceutical Companies; Not corporate America, as we are all well aware of.

I have nothing against the wealthy and in fact I am writing a book (as well as a screenplay) that will hopefully catapult me into that category. It's the pervasive greed and disregard for what is fair and just, once a signature of our great country but now a mere memory of the past, that is an assault upon and to all of us. Another successful Shock and Awe, only this time, it's financial. If you haven't already read Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine, please, please read it!!!!

Now our elected officials have the audacity to tell us we don't have the right for every American to have health insurance, as every other industrialized nation does, except for the United States of America but yet we are forced to pay for the best health care available for our elected representatives. Ummm! See the pattern?

So let's see; they have taken our tax dollars and given them to the anti-American Wall Street CEO fat cats, with assistance from our elected legislators of course, (who gave us sophist explanations why they had no other choice,) the very people who perpetrated one of the biggest financial frauds this country has ever seen and put us into a depression. Let's not mince semantics, we're in a depression. Now they are telling us health care for everyone, a public option, is not viable because it will effectively ruin the competitive, insanely profitable insurance business. So what they are really telling us is that we don't matter, just insurance company profits do. The term "third world country" coming into mind yet? It should.

Blue Cross raised my premiums from $360.00 to a staggering, whopping $980.00. That's obscene. I politely told them they are committing "legalized" extortion" and "I'm done. No more. Cancel my policy." Interestingly enough, they suddenly told me they would renew the very same policy for only $680.00. When I asked why the sudden change of heart and why didn't they offer me the $ 680.00 instead of 980.00 in the first place? Silence, pauses then a lot of fast talk. I still canceled my policy. I know, that was a gutsy move on my part during these troubled times but that's the point. We're being squeezed from every aspect; from outsourcing our jobs, to usury by banks and credit card companies, with collusion from our elected officials, to "legally" extorted health insurance premiums, to the farce they call The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, (thanks AARP for selling us out) so that insurance and pharmaceutical companies can make even more obscenely record profits, while we're left to fend for ourselves. This is third world country stuff, folks! Seeing the pattern yet?

As before, I NEVER, ever, promote or advocate any form of violence. What I do propose is that everyone cancel their health insurance. I'm a RN so I know what I speak. If we all cancel our policies and just go to the ER, they have no choice but to treat you if you have a life-threatening condition. They cannot legally transfer you or not treat you. You tell them you will send them a payment each month to pay off the bill. Do the same for non-life threatening conditions as well. That payment can be a good faith payment of $ 5.00 to $100.00 a month, or whatever you can afford. We flood the hospital systems so they have no recourse but to demand legislation be passed for public health care insurance. It's all about money, folks. Health-care is big, really business.

If you can't make work the next day, you show them the paperwork that you were legitimately in the ER all night waiting to be seen by a physician and since you can no longer afford the outrageous health insurance premiums, you had no other choice. You can't be fired for being sick and trying to see a MD. whether in the ER or an office. That's lawsuit time. Big lawsuit that Congress is also trying to pass legislation to prevent you from suing! Unbelievable! And please, let's stop buying into the scare tactic of "socialized medicine." Come on. We've socialized Wall Street and no complaints from AIG, BOA, Chase, not to mention Paulson's Goldman Sach's CEO buddies who now control the countries banks, thanks to our tax contributions that went directly to and for corporate welfare. There's those semantics again.

You can also apply for Medicade. You pay a premium once a month, only if you are hospitalized, and they will pay the hospital bill or a good percentage of it. Again, you send what you can each month towards the bill. If you are not hospitalized, you keep the Medicade premium in your CREDIT UNION account, (not banks who are continuing to screw us with outrageous interest rates for our credit cards and low interest savings accounts) for when you do need it. Anyone can apply. You find out what your state calls it and apply through your social services office, as I have now done because, like millions of you out there, I too can no longer afford private health insurance.

Don't be afraid. That's what our insensitive, non-listening, pro corporations, do what they want, not what the people want, elected officials are and have been counting on; our FEAR that keeps us from taking action. Remember, WE have the real power, not corporations, who depend on us to BUY their products, whatever products, including health insurance, they are selling. Stop buying. Shut them down. We can do it.

They have sent millions of honest, decent, hard-working Americans literally out of their homes and into the streets, without batting an eye. Sent our jobs overseas because it means bigger profits for CEO's and their corporations. Stolen our hard earned tax dollars and gave them to the rich making them already richer than they already are. See the third world pattern, now? How much more are you willing to take?

If canceling your insurance is too scary for you then let's have a call in sick "I need public health-care NOW," day. Let's pick a day and all call in sick for one day. Go to your doc and tell him or her you're really stressed out to the max, can't sleep, eat, effectively do your job, etc., and are afraid you are going to have a heart attack and trust me, that's not a lie. Just look at the stats, folks, we're getting sicker and sicker while they're getting richer and richer.

Let me know what you think and we'll plan a sick day or a day where we all say Enough is Enough and cancel our health insurance policies together. BTW, have you noticed you are paying more for less coverage? Read you policies. Insurance companies have been continuously raising your premiums while systematically cutting services. See the pattern now?

United we stand. Divided we fall. We're free-falling folks! Enough is Enough.

And just in case some right wing extremist reads this and calls me un-American, for some weird reason, know that I love my country and want to save it from those who are trying to dismantle democracy and the American way of life.

It's nice to be back and writing again.