Dear Barack,

I am a staunch supporter of yours in Chico California. I have written to you before.

On the CBS Evening News on Saturday, it was mentioned that John McCain is going to play much dirtier from here on out until the election, including the debate on Tuesday. As I know that you also heard, in the debate and in his speeches McCain is going to mention Ayres who was once involved in the Weathermen and also the Pastor. I know that you will keep your cool. What I am suggesting is that throughout the debate and throughout the remainder of your campaign, but especially in the debates, that you pound on McCain, Bush, and the Republicans about the terrible shape of the economy and the high unemployment. You tell the American people that IF THEY THINK THAT THE DIRT THAT McCAIN IS TALKING ABOUT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TERRIBLE ECONOMY AND THE HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT, AND IF THE PEOPLE ARE SATISFIED WITH THINGS AS THEY HAVE BEEN UNDER BUSH, THAT THEY SHOULD GO RIGHT AHEAD AND VOTE FOR McCAIN! THAT'S WHAT YOU CONTINUOUSLY SAY THROUGHOUT THE DEBATE. You can also say that McCain lacks the character to hold the high office of President of the United States by resorting to dirty tactics.

I hope that you see my message before the debate, and I will greatly appreciate a response from you that addresses the advice I gave to you. I believe that you and the Democrats are headed for a great victory on November 4th.

Although I have been active in volunteer liberal Democratic politics for over 40 years, for a time between 1997 and 2004, I was registered in the Green Party. In 2001, I moved from San Francisco, where I lived all of my life, to Chico California. I served on the Butte County Green Party's County Council from 2001-2004. The reason that I left the Democrats during that period, was because I was very disappointed at President Bill Clinton for his failure to deliver universal health care, his signing of the awful Welfare Reform legislation of 1996, NAFTA, his failure to stem corporate mergers resulting in worker layoffs, and other issues. Our Democratic Governor at the time, Gray Davis, was also a disappointment and incompetent, which is why we had the re-call in 2003 and ended up with Schwarzenegger. During the past few years that I lived in San Francisco, Mayor Willie Brown who was supposed to be a liberal Democrat, sold out to the landlords, developers, real estate interests, and other corporate interests. So, I became a Green. I voted for Ralph Nader for President in 1996 and 2000.

Now, had I known that 'Dubya' Bush was going to be as bad a President as he is, and in fact much worse than his father, and had I resided in a state in 2000 where the election was close, I would have voted for Gore.

Early in 2004, I expressed my view to the Butte County Green Party's County Council that the Green Party must not support Ralph Nader for President in that year, nor should the party run a Presidential candidate. The party leadership here disagreed with me and stated it's intention to actively campaign for Nader again. This was despite the fact that the national Green Party nominated an unknown candidate, David Cobb, who ran a "safe states" campaign. So, I left the Green Party and became a Democrat again and I supported the Kerry-Edwards ticket. However, I will say that my departure from the local Green Party was amicable.

Before I left the Green Party, I made a couple of suggestions as to what the party could do to make themselves a more viable political party. I suggested that the Green Party should stop running candidates for President, U.S. Senator, and other statewide offices, but target U.S. House of Representative and state legislative districts where they would have a chance of electing someone, and running candidates in those districts. The Green Party has done a terrific job of electing local non-partisan officials, but has elected very few if any candidates to partisan offices. So, the Green Party has officials who hold local offices who have a base and could get elected to partisan offices like the Legislature. Santa Monica California is an example where Greens serve on the City Council. I also stated that running candidates for the higher offices that I mentioned, would be a distraction from the effort to elect more candidates to the lower partisan positions, and also would be divisive if the Greens adopted my idea. Unfortunately, the local leadership didn't see all of this the way I saw it.

Another point that I want to bring up is that there are some people who join the Green and I suppose other third parties, who have racist, sexist, and homophobic and judgmental views, and of course I'm not saying everyone. There is one man in particular who expresses some of these views to me. This man happens to strongly admire Ralph Nader. He supports Single Payer health care, opposes the Iraq War, war spending, bad trade deals like NAFTA, the power of the corporations, and wants big money taken out of politics. This gentleman often criticizes the Democrats for not being good enough on some of these issues and most recently criticized Barack Obama. However, he has also expressed homophobic views. He refers to women who out of necessity have abortions as "baby killers." He even opposes the government educating people about birth control and supports teaching "abstinence only" in our schools. The man I'm talking about actually became a Decline to State a couple of years ago, but today he told me that he gave money to the American Independent Party, which is the party that the late Alabama Governor George Wallace ran for President on in 1968. Wallace was known for standing in the door of the University of Alabama in 1963 in a futile attempt to block the admittance of Black people who wanted to study there. This fellow once belonged to that party. When I pointed out to him that the AIP opposes programs that he supports like Single Payer health care, and Social Security and Medicare which he benefits from, he got very angry. He said that he doesn't really support the the positions of the AIP but that he likes to contribute to 3rd parties, just for the sake of 3rd parties.

Some time ago, I was also told by a reliable source that there were a couple of other Greens who were holier than thou in speaking out against the Greens supporting any liberal Democrats even for local offices, but who made racist remarks against Blacks and Latinos. Now, those particular Greens stated in 2004 that any Green who would not support Nader for President, should get out of the party.

In stating this, as far as the Green Party is concerned, I know that the views of all of those particular individuals run contrary to the positions of the Green Party. My point is that when the Green Party fails to take the necessary steps that I suggested above to make themselves a more viable political party, while it attracts some very intelligent and well meaning people who seek to make this a better country and who want a better world, it also attracts people who simply want to be non-conformists or what I might call "Minor Political Party Shoppers." Another point that I want to mention is that the Greens and many of the people on what I'll call the left fringe(I'm not knocking the left, as I'm on the left myself) can't even agree among themselves. On this year's ballot the left fringe has 2 candidates, Ralph Nader and former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. So in view of what I said in this blog, before I sign any petition to admit the minor parties to the debates, I say let them get their act together and build from the ground up.

We are not so sure about Sarah Palin

The selection of a virtually unknown governor as the Republican VP choice generated a lot of news, and a lot of loshon hara, of the sort we have been fighting against when used against Senator Obama. However, there are enough facts on the ground that respected media and trusted columnists are verifying:

McCain only met Gov. Palin once prior to the selection. This is more a reflection on McCain's decision making ability then on her qualifications for the job.

Palin's conservative social views are totally out-of-step with those of most American Jews. She opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. She has stated that mankind does not play any role in climate change. She wants schools to teach creationism, undermining the separation between church and state. Even as we can cheer a female candidate, we can dread what she represents as a symbol to Republicans.

Palin has no track record on Israel. The sum total of Palin's record on Israel is that she signed a boilerplate Alaska-Israel friendship resolution passed by the Alaska state legislature. To our knowledge, she had never made a public statement about Israel as of the date she was nominated.

Palin remains an enthusiastic member of a church supporting anti-Jewish views. Just two weeks before she was nominated, Palin was at Wasilla Bible Church when her pastor glowingly introduced David Brickman, the head of Jews for Jesus; Brickman proceeded to explain that Israelis curse Jesus whenever they say his name and that terrorist attacks against Israelis are the result of God's judgment against unbelievers. Palin did not (and to our knowledge has not) repudiated these teachings.

On the central economic questions governing the future of our nation, including the mortgage crisis, Palin's experience — as mayor of a town which sought federal funding to build a sports center, and as a governor with a $5B surplus from oil and gas revenues — does not predict she can make up for the economic smarts John McCain has admitted lacking.

The McCain campaign dropped various clues that they might choose Joe Lieberman or Eric Cantor as the running mate. Then, McCain chose Palin. According to Fred Zeidman, co-chair of Jewish outreach for the McCain campaign, Sen. John McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate engendered "a lot of consternation" among Jewish delegates to the Republican National Convention.

We think the process and the outcome both merit consternation".

While I am not qualified to say what the exact cause of this terrible security breach was, I do strongly believe that the way that the city and county of San Francisco has been hiring many of its employees over the past 25 years or so could be a major factor. There is a practice where San Francisco hires workers as "provisional." Supposedly they're hired to work for something like up to 6 months and then perhaps take a civil service test. Often these tests aren't given and the workers become permanent. Many of the people who are hired for these "provisional" positions with the city are Filipino, but I want it to be understood that I'm not saying that anybody who is Filipino can get a job with the city of San Francisco this way and they don't, but it does help to be part of a network. I am also not opposed to Affirmative Action, although I would like to see Affirmative Action be something that is more class based. I also must state that there are many excellent and dedicated people who work for the city and county of San Francisco, and I know many of them. I also will say that San Francisco's policy of hiring people "provisionally" instead of giving more job related civil service tests is very bad. It shows in the quality of the work that gets done. When I lived in San Francisco, I had a couple of situations where I had to call a city office. Even though I called the office during the times that employees should have been answering the telephones, I would get a voice mail that I should call within the certain specified hours. During the 7 years that I lived in Chico, whenever I needed to call a Chico or Butte County office I have always found that someone answered the telephone. I find that the Chico and Butte County personnel are very helpful and professional.

Eleven years ago, I had an experience of my own when I applied for one of the San Francisco city government's "provisional" positions. The position that was available was for a Supply Room clerk. The position required being able to take inventory. A major part of my duties in my position as a custodian and utility person in the private sector up to that time, involved taking inventory and ordering supplies for office buildings. When I applied for this "provisional" position with the city I was turned down. I was told that I didn't have any previous experience working in a supply room. In the downtown San Francisco high-rise office buildings where I worked, there were many firms that had supply rooms. Unlike how it is in the government, firms in the private sector don't have someone holding a position strictly being in charge of a supply room, so what I was told by the city department didn't make any sense. I have to add that I asked then State Senator John Burton for his assistance so that I could obtain that Supply Room clerk position, but he didn't want to get involved. A good friend of mine who unfortunately passed away a couple of years ago, told me that if John Burton's brother, Congressman Phil Burton were alive at that time, that I would have obtained the job. I didn't get that position because I simply wasn't a part of the network.

I say that with Barack Obama hopefully being elected in November, that in order for the Republicans to be a viable political party anymore that they will have to resurrect from the dead such moderate-liberal Republicans as Dwight Eisenhower, Jacob Javits, George Romney(father of Mitt who was much better than his son) and some others. Although I have always been a Democrat except for a brief stint in the Green Party, I recall that as a child in the 1950's when we had a Republican President Eisenhower, a Republican Governor in California Goodwyn Knight, a Republican Mayor in San Francisco George Christopher along with quite a few Republicans on the SF Board of Supervisors, that we funded our schools, parks, county hospitals, transportation systems etc. We didn't have homeless and mentally ill people on the streets. The wealthy paid their share of local, state, and federal taxes. I'm not saying that Ike was a great President, but by his policies he was more of a Democrat than our last Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Note: In my first blog on the exact same subject, I incorrectly listed former Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield as one of those whom the Republicans will need to resurrect from the dead to revive their party. I did a check, and found that Hatfield is still alive.

I say that with Barack Obama hopefully being elected in November, that in order for the Republicans to be a viable political party anymore that they will have to resurrect from the dead such moderate-liberal Republicans as Dwight Eisenhower, Jacob Javits, Mark Hatfield, George Romney(father of Mitt who was much better than his son) and some others. Although I have always been a Democrat except for a brief stint in the Green Party, I recall that as a child in the 1950's when we had a Republican President Eisenhower, a Republican Governor in California Goodwyn Knight, a Republican Mayor in San Francisco George Christopher along with quite a few Republicans on the SF Board of Supervisors, that we funded our schools, parks, county hospitals, transportation systems etc. We didn't have homeless and mentally ill people on the streets. The wealthy paid their share of local, state, and federal taxes. I'm not saying that Ike was a great President, but by his policies he was more of a Democrat than our last Democratic President Bill Clinton.

I was a building maintenance person in San Francisco for 18 years and I was a member of SEIU Local 87, the high-rise office building janitors union. For 2 and a half years from 1995 until late 1997 I had a good daytime position at one of Blue Shield's buildings. Officially I worked for a janitorial contractor, but being that I worked during the day I was accountable to the people at Blue Shield. I must say that they were super nice to work for and the Facilities Manager whom I worked for, was one of those super nice people. Unfortunately, late in 1997 the Blue Shield CEO's closed the 2 buildings including the one that I worked in and moved all of their SF offices into the Bechtel building. Due to a lot of corruption between the union that I belonged to and the contractors, I lost all of my seniority and had to go to the union's hiring hall at 3 in the afternoon for night jobs that didn't begin until 5:00 or 6:00. On several occasions, I made requests to the local to properly represent me, by arranging with the contractor to place
me into a permanent position and restore my seniority and pay. I was
repeatedly rebuffed in my attempts. I also wrote the SEIU International President Andrew Stern, who replied to me and with a one sentence letter stating "Dear Brother Walter, I am investigating your problem with Local 87 and I will get back to you as soon as possible." I am being facetious in saying that it is 10 years later and I am still checking my mailbox for Stern's further response. During this time, I heard of many instances from reliable sources that there were new janitors obtaining jobs in buildings without ever having to follow the union's rules, by going to
the hiring hall to obtain a dispatch. On one occasion, while working in a
building where I had to obtain a dispatch, I found out that a 16-year-old
fellow was working there without a dispatch. It was for one night. He
happened to be the son of another janitor, whom the contractor allowed to
come in and work. This was just one of many cases, where the Local 87
officials simply turned their heads. There was also a situation where a
contractor, fired a foreman for sexual harassment. The local arranged for
him to be hired on as a foreman for another contractor with full seniority.
I heard that he even received $1.00 per hour more with the new contractor.
There were many cases where janitors faced disciplinary action, including
loss of income, for not being able to handle the heavy workloads. They did
not receive proper representation from the local. In fact, one business
agent actually told members that the problem was their fault in the presence of the employers. During this
period, several Local 87 members of various ethnicities concurred with me
about the wrongdoing on the part of the local's leadership. Many office
buildings were going non-union. While a good part of that was because of
greed on the part of building owners, part of that was because of the
mismanagement of the local.

Between the stress from this and the very heavy workloads, I hurt my back and got a hernia and went out on workers compensation and left the union. This was in 1999. After being treated, my workers comp attorney referred me to a vocational counselor and I attended a 5 month program at a school and learned office skills. I moved to Chico. Not being able to find a job as many employers don't want to hire a middle aged or older person who lacks experience in a new field, I retired. However, I remain active in community affairs.

Regarding the Janitors Union Local 87, I heard that SEIU International President Stern did place the local under trusteeship in 2002 and merged it with a statewide local 1877. However, I heard that things still did not improve. I heard that a janitor in the TransAmerica pyramid building actually collapsed and died on the job due to her terribly heavy workload and harassment that she received from her supervisors. It is my understanding that the union officials response to workers complaints about the horrendous workload, was that they should look for another job if they were not happy. Because members of Local 87 planned to decertify from SEIU, later Stern allowed for them to have their own local again. Recently, I heard again that conditions still have not improved because so many members of Local 87 are not American citizens, don't speak English, and there simply are not enough members who have knowledge about how to operate a labor union. There is a lot of fighting going on at the local, and I heard that the San Francisco police had to come to a recent union meeting. I believe that the union's contract with the building owners and managers comes up this year. Who knows what will happen? All I can say is that I am glad that I am not there anymore.

If there ever was a good case for Stern to place a local under trusteeship, this would have been it provided that he would have done things the right way, which he did not.

Click on the links to the articles that I pasted at the beginning of this blog. I hope that the UHW led by their President Sal Roselli will be able to change the leadership of SEIU and bring about reform, so that we can really build a stronger labor movement.

However, I am opposed to giving welfare to people who choose to keep having one child after the other when they don't have the means to support them. Recently, I went to the Dept. of Human Services with a friend of mine who is BTW single with no children. She was applying for CMSP which is like Medi-Cal, because of a particular ailment that she needs treated. It's very difficult for childless single people who are poor but not considered poor enough by the system to get these benefits. Of course, what we really need is a Single Payer health care system. Anyway when I was there, I noticed a woman who was pregnant in the waiting room. There was a man with her, and every other word that came out of that man's mouth was a swear word. It is a total waste of money to be giving these people welfare. I'm sure that is one of the reasons why we have gangs and that there's so much juvenile delinquency. By doing this at the same time that we make it difficult for poor single people without children who need certain benefits, we're actually encouraging people to have more children. Our government needs to do a much better job of educating people about both birth control and abstinence. Our youngsters must be taught this in the schools, and these courses must be mandatory. No notes from the parents excusing the students from these courses! Also, there ought to be birth control pills for men to take. What to do with the children who are now being raised by incompetent parents? See my blog, "Making Decent Homes For Our Youth," posted on February 22nd.

Having said this, while I certainly don't dispute the right of anyone to run for office I don't agree with Ralph Nader's decision to run this time, nor do I think he should have run in 2004. Nader says that there is virtually no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans or between the likely Democratic nominee Barack Obama and the likely Republican nominee John McCain on the issues. I don't know what planet Nader and his running mate former San Francisco Supervisor Matt Gonzalez are on, but certainly Obama's views on the issues are much closer to Nader and Gonzalez's expressed views than McCain's. Nader says that he's running because too many people are dissatisfied with the major party candidates. However, I notice that there are numerous people who are excited and getting involved in Barack Obama's campaign. Many are people who have never been involved in a political campaign before. They're certainly not flocking to Nader and Gonzalez. I heard Nader say that he's running to "raise the issues" that the other candidates are not raising. Again, Obama's views while not exactly the same as Nader's, are still closer to his views. In our communities and on the Internet, one can find all to numerous organizations that are fighting for liberal causes that many of us believe in where issues are raised. I'm not going to name every one, but in Butte County we have the Butte County Health Care Coalition that's working for Single Payer. While Barack Obama's plan is not Single Payer, you can be sure that if he's elected health care advocates like us will be pushing him to propose Single Payer or to at least work with Congress to pass a legislation that will benefit everybody. Certainly no decent health care legislation will be enacted if we get John McCain. We have the Peace & Justice Center. If one is interested in Fair Trade, the Peace & Justice Center is the place to go. Then there are the labor and environmental movements, and many other organizations that work on issues that transcend Ralph Nader. Nader said that nothing gets done in this country without movements, but what movement has he started that has flourished during the past 8 years? And for one to start a movement, one needs allies and certainly does not need to make more enemies.

Ralph Nader, rightfully or wrongfully is blamed for Bush's selection(notice I used the word "selection") in 2000. Yes, I also blame Al Gore's lackluster campaign and the faults of the Clinton-Gore administration mentioned above. I doubt very much that this time around that anyone who chooses to vote for Nader would vote for a Democrat anyway, if Nader would not be on the ballot. I also doubt that Nader's votes will make a difference this time as they did in 2000. But suppose my guess is wrong? Suppose Obama would lose a couple of states to John McCain by very small margins, with Nader's votes making the difference? With the appointments of more Roberts, Alitos, Scalias, and Thomases to the Supreme Court, the gutting of labor and environmental protections, more cuts to health education and welfare programs, more outsourcing of our jobs, more tax breaks for the super-rich, more war in Iraq and perhaps Iran, Ralph Nader would receive much of the blame. Very few people will remember him for the good that he did many years ago, such as the construction of safer cars, the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency etc.

I don't doubt what Ralph Nader says he believes in, but his ego is much stronger than his beliefs.

I was raised at a home called Homewood Terrace in San Francisco from 1952 when I was 6-years old until 1965. This was a home for youngsters whose parents had some problems resulting in their not being able to raise their kids. There were some youngsgsters who were orphans and there also were some who were emotionally disturbed. During the 1950's, there were some youngsters who were transported out of Europe to escape the holocaust. We all attended the public schools, although during the 1960's, there were youngsters who had special problems and were taught at a school on the grounds. There were cottages on the grounds with house parents in each cottage. During the summers, we were taken on picnics at the homes of wealthy people who served on Homewood Terrace's Board of Directors and the Women's Auxiliary in Atherton and Hillsboro, just south of San Francisco. We also went swimming at some other public parks in the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of the board and auxiliary members would donate symphony and opera tickets to the home for youngsters like myself, who had an appreciation for this kind of music. As a teenager, I recall going to the Opera House to see Yehudi Menuhin.

Until 1958, Homewood Terrace was well administered. Unfortunately in 1958, the Board of Directors replaced the director with a new director who ran the home pretty much like a reform school. He instituted a policy where parents in order to be able to have visits with their children on the weekends had to call the Homewood Terrace administration by the preceding Wednesday. This policy was very arbitrary. Some of the parents had issues of forgetfulness and would forget to make that call. Even though they really wanted to see their children on the weekends, they were denied such visits. On some occasions, my father would forget to make that call by that Wednesday. My parents were divorced, and my mother never forgot to make that call for her weekends with us. Under this particular director, if a youngster of high school age wanted to visit with friends whom they met at school, they also had to let the administration know days in advance. As a parent who later raised a child, I can say that a youngster doesn't know what they're about to do the next day let alone 3-5 days later. As a result of this director's policies, there were a lot of runaways. I recall alarms being installed on the windows of the cottages, at that time. Fortunately, he left Homewood in 1961 or '62. His successor reversed the worst of his predecessors policies.

When I reached the 12th grade in the Fall of 1963, I was placed in one of the first group homes. At that time, Homewood Terrace started to phase out the home and moved kids into homes in the neighborhoods. The home that I was placed in was for young people who were in their last year of high school or attending City College, now SF Community College. During the Spring of 1965, my brother and I left the home to move in with our father. In view of what I said, I have mixed feelings about my upbringing at Homewood Terrace. There are the issues that I mentioned above, and I feel that I wasn't given enough encouragement to achieve certain things, which was also the case with other youngsters. Still, I made a life for myself and I'm glad that there was a place where I could be raised, and it is more than one can say about how many children today are not being raised decently.

I say that there is a very strong need today for homes of the kind mentioned above. In re-instituting these homes, we can keep what was good, and improve on whatever was not done right in the past. We have parents today, who should have no right to raise children. Often, they don't even know where their youngsters are. About 3 years ago, I recall reading about an incident near my home where a man was mugged and robbed in the evening while on his way home from one of our supermarkets here in Chico. The perpetrators were teenagers around the age of 15-years old, and came from Sacramento. We constantly hear on the news about drive-by shootings, people being mugged by teenagers, vandalism being committed late at night, etc., all by kids whose parents don't know or don't even care about their whereabouts or what they are up to, and I'm not only talking about children from financially poor families. In our area around Chico and Paradise, we have had schools, bus shelters, and even cemeteries vandalized. These crimes often occur late at night.

I support all efforts to help parents do a better job of raising their children, but if nothing else works those particular parents must forfeit the right to have children. In re-instituting these homes, some children could be placed in group homes in the neighborhoods. Children with more severe problems would need to be placed in more institutionalized settings. For placing children into these new homes that would be created, I say the younger the better. With much less money being spent for war and on prisons, and with the super wealthy being required to pay their fair share of taxes, I hope that a future Democratic administration will institute policies to help our young people to be able to make decent lives for themselves, and also help their parents when possible.