With all the recent shootings in recent years/months/weeks/days, you would hope that people would be more mature about what they post on message boards. Apparently, not everyone has gotten the message, as 21-year-old LMU student Carlos Huerta was arrested for posting an anonymous message on a website threatening to shoot up the campus the next morning.
Huerta made the comment on the anonymous campus gossip site, juicygossip.com.
Police apparently thought the threat was legitimate enough to take action, and I certainly do not blame them. Though it still is too early to know if the post was in jest or not, it certainly was not funny if it was and things like that have to be taken seriously in today's world.
Anonymous gossip blogs seem to be springing up everywhere these days, and provide a scary outlet for people with vandettas or people who have no sense of humor to do things like Mr. Huerta did yesterday.
With the shootings in Omaha last week and the Virginia Tech massace last April, this is an extremely sensitive topic and not one that people are going to be quick to forgive. It will be interesting to see how LMU responds, especially since they are a private school and have the more freedom in terms of punishment whether it be suspension or expulsion.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Coliseum Commission - Incompetent
It's rivalry week here in Los Angeles. Earlier today, the USC Trojans battled the UCLA Bruins in the annual Battle for the Victory Bell, with USC coming out ahead for the eighth time in nine years. This week is special for Los Angeles and unique among all cities in the country. In a city without any professional football, all eyes are on the two teams. There are many other rivalries in the country which may get more hype, but NOWHERE else are the rivals located in the SAME CITY, with most rivalries existing in two entirely different states!
That being said, what should have been a week dedicated to the two teams turned ugly when USC announced they have begun negotiations with the Rose Bowl to play next season at the venue, leaving the L.A. Memorial Coliseum after 80+ years.
As I aluded to earlier here, the Coliseum is run by an incompetent group of members who are notoriously the most difficult group to deal with in politics. It is consisted of a nine person committee, with three members representing the city, three representing the county, and three representing the state. That, coupled along with the Coliseum's stature as a historical monument, make dealings with the venue extremely troublesome.
Fellow blogger Nate at The Stuge already wrote a great piece on this story, but I thought I had to express my thoughts as well. Seeing how frustrated I already was with the Commission with my earlier post, I was not surprised in the least when this news came out.
Fortunately, USC is combating the Coliseum extremely effectively. Once the story broke that they were negotiating with the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, USC sent out a huge press release to get the public on their side. They presented all the relevant information in simple and reasonable language (as can be seen here on their website). USC proposal included a $100 million pledge for rennovations with the terms being they be made the master tenant with control over any potential naming rights and power over individual events.
This, of course, would pretty much make the Commission irrelavent, which is something I am very much in favor of.
It also would shut the door on any plans for the NFL to play at the Coliseum, which I also am in favor of - and so is the NFL. The Commission is holding onto some ridiculous notion that the NFL may one day return there and would be willing to put in up to $800 million worth of renovations, which the NFL has flatly said will never happen anyway.
Thankfully, the Mayor (finally doing something I agree with) and the Governor have already pledged to do all they can to keep USC in the Coliseum and prevent them from fleeing to Pasadena. All parties involved say they want to continue the relationship, but are very far apart on the terms. USC plays an amazing home schedule next year, including visits from Ohio State and Notre Dame among others, and on a selfish note it would be a shame to not be able to see the games in LA where they belong. The Rose Bowl, while a beautiful venue and setting, is an absolute terror to go to. Parking is non-existant, traffic is beyond horrific, and sightlines in the stadium are abysmal. The Rose Bowl is perfect for hosting the ROSE BOWL GAME - but not the regular season.
That being said, what should have been a week dedicated to the two teams turned ugly when USC announced they have begun negotiations with the Rose Bowl to play next season at the venue, leaving the L.A. Memorial Coliseum after 80+ years.
As I aluded to earlier here, the Coliseum is run by an incompetent group of members who are notoriously the most difficult group to deal with in politics. It is consisted of a nine person committee, with three members representing the city, three representing the county, and three representing the state. That, coupled along with the Coliseum's stature as a historical monument, make dealings with the venue extremely troublesome.
Fellow blogger Nate at The Stuge already wrote a great piece on this story, but I thought I had to express my thoughts as well. Seeing how frustrated I already was with the Commission with my earlier post, I was not surprised in the least when this news came out.
Fortunately, USC is combating the Coliseum extremely effectively. Once the story broke that they were negotiating with the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, USC sent out a huge press release to get the public on their side. They presented all the relevant information in simple and reasonable language (as can be seen here on their website). USC proposal included a $100 million pledge for rennovations with the terms being they be made the master tenant with control over any potential naming rights and power over individual events.
This, of course, would pretty much make the Commission irrelavent, which is something I am very much in favor of.
It also would shut the door on any plans for the NFL to play at the Coliseum, which I also am in favor of - and so is the NFL. The Commission is holding onto some ridiculous notion that the NFL may one day return there and would be willing to put in up to $800 million worth of renovations, which the NFL has flatly said will never happen anyway.
Thankfully, the Mayor (finally doing something I agree with) and the Governor have already pledged to do all they can to keep USC in the Coliseum and prevent them from fleeing to Pasadena. All parties involved say they want to continue the relationship, but are very far apart on the terms. USC plays an amazing home schedule next year, including visits from Ohio State and Notre Dame among others, and on a selfish note it would be a shame to not be able to see the games in LA where they belong. The Rose Bowl, while a beautiful venue and setting, is an absolute terror to go to. Parking is non-existant, traffic is beyond horrific, and sightlines in the stadium are abysmal. The Rose Bowl is perfect for hosting the ROSE BOWL GAME - but not the regular season.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
More News on the Mayor...
According to sources, Mayor Villaragaiosa and former Telemundo anchor Mirthala Salinas have broken up This is apparently the end to the months long affair, which broke up the mayor's marriage and became national news when the story broke.
In an attempt to shore up the Mayor's public image, "sources" leaked this bit of news to the LA Times. As stated in the article, the mayor is now apparently focusing on his relationship with his kids and working hard to battle problems such as health care, education, and traffic which he had promised to work on during his campaign.
To me, this story means very little. He took a risk and left his wife for this woman, took a giant P.R. hit and now finds himself alone and vulnerable. Due to his constant adultery, the Mayor has pretty much lost his chance to run for governor and now has to actually work hard on the poltical end if he ever hopes to be considered for that office.
A funny aspect of this story is that Salinas is apparently out of a job. When news first broke that the Mayor was being divorced, it was Salinas herself who reported it on Telemundo, with her being the political anchor for the channel. This of course was highly comical as it turned out she was a prime reason for the divorce, and a gigantic conflict of interest. After the network found out, she was placed on a leave of absence. Recently, she was reassigned to a smaller station out in Riverside County, but apparently she felt it either beneath her or too embarrassed, and she refused to show up for work.
Hopefully, the Mayor is serious about his intent to focus on his family life and the city now. For his tenure so far, the Mayor has done very little in terms of his campaign promises and has embarrassed himself and this city with his very public extramarital affair. Perhaps this was the wakeup call he needed to get serious about politics and realize what a high-profile job he has and all the extra responsibilies that the job entails.
In an attempt to shore up the Mayor's public image, "sources" leaked this bit of news to the LA Times. As stated in the article, the mayor is now apparently focusing on his relationship with his kids and working hard to battle problems such as health care, education, and traffic which he had promised to work on during his campaign.
To me, this story means very little. He took a risk and left his wife for this woman, took a giant P.R. hit and now finds himself alone and vulnerable. Due to his constant adultery, the Mayor has pretty much lost his chance to run for governor and now has to actually work hard on the poltical end if he ever hopes to be considered for that office.
A funny aspect of this story is that Salinas is apparently out of a job. When news first broke that the Mayor was being divorced, it was Salinas herself who reported it on Telemundo, with her being the political anchor for the channel. This of course was highly comical as it turned out she was a prime reason for the divorce, and a gigantic conflict of interest. After the network found out, she was placed on a leave of absence. Recently, she was reassigned to a smaller station out in Riverside County, but apparently she felt it either beneath her or too embarrassed, and she refused to show up for work.
Hopefully, the Mayor is serious about his intent to focus on his family life and the city now. For his tenure so far, the Mayor has done very little in terms of his campaign promises and has embarrassed himself and this city with his very public extramarital affair. Perhaps this was the wakeup call he needed to get serious about politics and realize what a high-profile job he has and all the extra responsibilies that the job entails.
Friday, November 16, 2007
WGA Strike Part II
So another week has gone by and still the WGA is continuing with their strike. As thousands are being fired each day due to the strike, the writers continue to provide a valuable publicity opportunity for many celebrities and politicians.
Today, it's John Edwards turn.
Yes, that same annoying Presidential Candidate who made his millions contributing to the destuction of the health care system while ironically promoting health care as the backbone for his campaign.
Now, Edwards is desperate for attention with the primaries coming up in a few months. Trailing both Barak Obama and Clinton in the polls, Edwards knows that he has little time to gain support headed into the Iowa primary. Without a victory there or in the following primary, his candidacy may be over.
So what better way to get the support of the people than joining the picket line of a bunch of whiny Hollywood dissident writers who the majority of the population barely sympathizes with?
While i'm sure the polls will show most Americans may side with the writers, I would wager that most of America (and many Iowans) couldn't care less about the strike, at least until their favorite tv shows go off the air.
To me, this just further establises John Edwards as a kid trying to win a popularity contest. With his South Carolinian accent and fake smile, Edwards is already annoying enough as he is. I can't imagine how lame it will be to see pictures of him holding a sign and marcing around the picket line for an hour or two before he's off to stay at the Beverly Hills Hotel and get a relaxing spa treatment or something.
But hey, this is Hollywood. Even a day shopping at Whole Foods can be seen as a photo-op here.
To the WGA and the producers- please hurry up and get a deal done. I really don't want to see picketers for the next few months joined by the latest celebrity/politician in need of a quick publicity boost.
Today, it's John Edwards turn.
Yes, that same annoying Presidential Candidate who made his millions contributing to the destuction of the health care system while ironically promoting health care as the backbone for his campaign.
Now, Edwards is desperate for attention with the primaries coming up in a few months. Trailing both Barak Obama and Clinton in the polls, Edwards knows that he has little time to gain support headed into the Iowa primary. Without a victory there or in the following primary, his candidacy may be over.
So what better way to get the support of the people than joining the picket line of a bunch of whiny Hollywood dissident writers who the majority of the population barely sympathizes with?
While i'm sure the polls will show most Americans may side with the writers, I would wager that most of America (and many Iowans) couldn't care less about the strike, at least until their favorite tv shows go off the air.
To me, this just further establises John Edwards as a kid trying to win a popularity contest. With his South Carolinian accent and fake smile, Edwards is already annoying enough as he is. I can't imagine how lame it will be to see pictures of him holding a sign and marcing around the picket line for an hour or two before he's off to stay at the Beverly Hills Hotel and get a relaxing spa treatment or something.
But hey, this is Hollywood. Even a day shopping at Whole Foods can be seen as a photo-op here.
To the WGA and the producers- please hurry up and get a deal done. I really don't want to see picketers for the next few months joined by the latest celebrity/politician in need of a quick publicity boost.
Friday, November 9, 2007
WGA Strike
For anyone who has been paying even the smallest amount of attention to the news lately, the ongoing Writers Strike by the Writer's Guild of America has been a hot topic. For a whole week now, Hollywood has been virtually shutdown.
The writers probably have many valid points. Perhaps the DVD residuals they are currently recieving aren't completely fair. They also want higher residuals from internet sales of their work. However, I simply do not feel it is worth it to go on strike. What these writers are doing seems to me to be incredibly selfish. They themselves aren't going to lose a lot of money because they still get paid for reruns that are aired. Unfortunately for the vast majority of the blue-collar workers in Hollywood, this isn't the case.
I am talking about the crew members on all of these productions. They aren't a part of the strike, and because of it are finding themselves out of employment.
Unions were created to serve a good purpose. They were meant to give the workers some representation and rights. Through unions, better conditions and wages have sprung from nothing. However, in today's age they seem more aimed at exclusion. Workers are prevented from being hired if they aren't member of the 'union'.
The WGA has a right to strike, but they simply must be far more mindful of their actions. They have to realize that thousands and thousands of people who aren't members of their unions are affected by their actions. The strike to me seems rather selfish.
I wish that both sides would have been more willing to continue negotionating and reach some sort of temporary agreement so productions could continue during the process. Instead, thousands of workers are wondering if they are going to be able to afford their rent and car payments.
I also feel that this strike has only led to actors and actresses trying to gain publicity by "showing support" at the picket line by visiting the strikers for an hour or two. Coincidentally, this creates quite the photo-op.
In a city full of fake people and superficial problems, this strike just seems to be more of the same. It's hurting the people who have nothing to do with it. The result the writers are seeking simply does not justify the strike. They are off on a matter of percentage points for DVD and internet cuts. I think that the strike may just anger the studios who feel that they are being backed unfairly into a corner.
The writers probably have many valid points. Perhaps the DVD residuals they are currently recieving aren't completely fair. They also want higher residuals from internet sales of their work. However, I simply do not feel it is worth it to go on strike. What these writers are doing seems to me to be incredibly selfish. They themselves aren't going to lose a lot of money because they still get paid for reruns that are aired. Unfortunately for the vast majority of the blue-collar workers in Hollywood, this isn't the case.
I am talking about the crew members on all of these productions. They aren't a part of the strike, and because of it are finding themselves out of employment.
Unions were created to serve a good purpose. They were meant to give the workers some representation and rights. Through unions, better conditions and wages have sprung from nothing. However, in today's age they seem more aimed at exclusion. Workers are prevented from being hired if they aren't member of the 'union'.
The WGA has a right to strike, but they simply must be far more mindful of their actions. They have to realize that thousands and thousands of people who aren't members of their unions are affected by their actions. The strike to me seems rather selfish.
I wish that both sides would have been more willing to continue negotionating and reach some sort of temporary agreement so productions could continue during the process. Instead, thousands of workers are wondering if they are going to be able to afford their rent and car payments.
I also feel that this strike has only led to actors and actresses trying to gain publicity by "showing support" at the picket line by visiting the strikers for an hour or two. Coincidentally, this creates quite the photo-op.
In a city full of fake people and superficial problems, this strike just seems to be more of the same. It's hurting the people who have nothing to do with it. The result the writers are seeking simply does not justify the strike. They are off on a matter of percentage points for DVD and internet cuts. I think that the strike may just anger the studios who feel that they are being backed unfairly into a corner.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Something is Missing...
Los Angeles is the second largest city in the country and home to numerous sports franchises. The Dodgers, Angels (in name), Lakers, Clippers, Kings, Sparks, Galaxy, and Avengers all call Los Angeles home, as well as the Bruins of UCLA and the Trojans of USC. Looking at the list, you may notice something is missing.
An NFL franchise.
For the past 11 years, ever since the LA Raiders packed up their bags and moved themselves back to Oakland, the city and fans have been clamoring for a team to come to LA. The problem has been, and continues to be, where will they play? The only viable scenarios that have been presented involve the use of the LA Coliseum. However, with renovation costs now estimated at $1 billion, this is simply not realistic. If the city is serious about attracting a new team, a brand new stadium must be erected, and it must be somewhere in the vicinity of downtown. A new football stadium would only further the revitalization of Downtown and provided countless jobs and income to the city.
It is simply embarrassing that LA still does not harbor a true professional football franchise. With around 3.5 million inhabitants living in the city limits and up to 10 million more on the outskirts, the potential fanbase is already enormous. Los Angeles is the second largest media market in the nation, and yet the “National” Football League is not represented in LA. Baffling. On the other hand, booming metropolises like Green Bay, Wisconsin and Buffalo, New York have no problem housing teams.
What has stopped the NFL and LA from reuniting? Bureaucracy and politics. But that should not come as a surprise to anyone who is used to living in LA.
For the past several years, competing plans were being pushed to the NFL as potential sites for a team. Most prominent were the Los Angeles Coliseum, which was originally built for the 1932 Olympic Games and currently is home to the USC Trojans, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, and a potential site in Carson near the Home Depot Center. As the months and years went on, all three sites competed for attention and rotated as the supposed “front-runner” for the NFL’s services.
Eventually, the posturing became too much. Carson dropped out and decided it would be more lucrative to build a shopping mall instead. The Rose Bowl was never interested enough to begin with, and they too dropped out. All that was left was the Coliseum. However, the $1 Billion price tag to fix it up, the fact that USC (who has been wildly successful and drawn sellouts of 90,000+ for the past five years) would prefer to remain the sole tenant, and the site’s status as a Historical Landmark and its accompanying notoriously difficult to-deal-with Coliseum Commission has led the NFL to drop them from consideration.
So where does that leave Los Angeles now?
Right to where it should have started at the beginning – a new site built in the vicinity of downtown to correlate with the fantastic new programs being developed currently to revitalize the area. It began several years ago with the Staples Center, and is now continuing with L.A. Live well under construction (the Nokia Theater just opened) and the Grand Avenue project just breaking ground. Thousands are flocking back to the area, with up to 20,000 more residents expected to move by 2010. There is potential in the area for a stadium, anywhere from the old abandoned warehouses to the space by Dodger Stadium.
For this to be accomplished, public dollars have to be devoted. And this is where the biggest obstacle lies.
The NFL will gladly put in hundreds of millions of dollars to assist LA in building a stadium, as it has just as much interest in establishing a franchise here as the city does. However, the fact that LA refuses to give a penny to professional sports is scaring off the league. The NFL is doing very well and has far more power in the relationship, as they can easily afford to not have a team in place for the next decade.
If the citizens of the city really want a team, they are going to have to put forth and vote for measures allowing the use of small taxes to help fund the project. The potential job opportunities and revenue that can eventually flow in far outweigh the short-term expenditures needed at the beginning. With a franchise in the heart of LA, up to 65,000 fans would pour into the surrounding area for 9 weekends of the year in which they will happily be spending their money in an area in which they normally would not. Why force fans in the city to drive to San Diego to see professional football?
It is up to us to make a difference. For too long have the fans in the city complained while taking little action. Los Angeles has the potential to be the leading sports city in the world, and has all the pieces in place to do so. All that is needed is a little more leadership, and a lot more involvement by its citizens. We have brought major championships to the city in recent years through the Lakers and the Trojans among others, and now we are just waiting for that Super Bowl victory.
Let’s make it happen.
An NFL franchise.
For the past 11 years, ever since the LA Raiders packed up their bags and moved themselves back to Oakland, the city and fans have been clamoring for a team to come to LA. The problem has been, and continues to be, where will they play? The only viable scenarios that have been presented involve the use of the LA Coliseum. However, with renovation costs now estimated at $1 billion, this is simply not realistic. If the city is serious about attracting a new team, a brand new stadium must be erected, and it must be somewhere in the vicinity of downtown. A new football stadium would only further the revitalization of Downtown and provided countless jobs and income to the city.
It is simply embarrassing that LA still does not harbor a true professional football franchise. With around 3.5 million inhabitants living in the city limits and up to 10 million more on the outskirts, the potential fanbase is already enormous. Los Angeles is the second largest media market in the nation, and yet the “National” Football League is not represented in LA. Baffling. On the other hand, booming metropolises like Green Bay, Wisconsin and Buffalo, New York have no problem housing teams.
What has stopped the NFL and LA from reuniting? Bureaucracy and politics. But that should not come as a surprise to anyone who is used to living in LA.
For the past several years, competing plans were being pushed to the NFL as potential sites for a team. Most prominent were the Los Angeles Coliseum, which was originally built for the 1932 Olympic Games and currently is home to the USC Trojans, the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, and a potential site in Carson near the Home Depot Center. As the months and years went on, all three sites competed for attention and rotated as the supposed “front-runner” for the NFL’s services.
Eventually, the posturing became too much. Carson dropped out and decided it would be more lucrative to build a shopping mall instead. The Rose Bowl was never interested enough to begin with, and they too dropped out. All that was left was the Coliseum. However, the $1 Billion price tag to fix it up, the fact that USC (who has been wildly successful and drawn sellouts of 90,000+ for the past five years) would prefer to remain the sole tenant, and the site’s status as a Historical Landmark and its accompanying notoriously difficult to-deal-with Coliseum Commission has led the NFL to drop them from consideration.
So where does that leave Los Angeles now?
Right to where it should have started at the beginning – a new site built in the vicinity of downtown to correlate with the fantastic new programs being developed currently to revitalize the area. It began several years ago with the Staples Center, and is now continuing with L.A. Live well under construction (the Nokia Theater just opened) and the Grand Avenue project just breaking ground. Thousands are flocking back to the area, with up to 20,000 more residents expected to move by 2010. There is potential in the area for a stadium, anywhere from the old abandoned warehouses to the space by Dodger Stadium.
For this to be accomplished, public dollars have to be devoted. And this is where the biggest obstacle lies.
The NFL will gladly put in hundreds of millions of dollars to assist LA in building a stadium, as it has just as much interest in establishing a franchise here as the city does. However, the fact that LA refuses to give a penny to professional sports is scaring off the league. The NFL is doing very well and has far more power in the relationship, as they can easily afford to not have a team in place for the next decade.
If the citizens of the city really want a team, they are going to have to put forth and vote for measures allowing the use of small taxes to help fund the project. The potential job opportunities and revenue that can eventually flow in far outweigh the short-term expenditures needed at the beginning. With a franchise in the heart of LA, up to 65,000 fans would pour into the surrounding area for 9 weekends of the year in which they will happily be spending their money in an area in which they normally would not. Why force fans in the city to drive to San Diego to see professional football?
It is up to us to make a difference. For too long have the fans in the city complained while taking little action. Los Angeles has the potential to be the leading sports city in the world, and has all the pieces in place to do so. All that is needed is a little more leadership, and a lot more involvement by its citizens. We have brought major championships to the city in recent years through the Lakers and the Trojans among others, and now we are just waiting for that Super Bowl victory.
Let’s make it happen.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Say Adios to Villaraigosa?
People of Los Angeles, please raise your hand if you are even remotely impressed with the city’s management and public services. Anyone?
The public services provided by Los Angeles are severely lacking. Traffic is horrific with no end in sight. Hospitals are being closed down in areas where they are needed the most. The people of the city have little confidence in any of the city’s leadership or the city’s infrastructure. The mayor is mired in scandal, and has proven to be woefully inadequate. Los Angeles is in desperate need of new political blood and ideas, and it all starts at the top with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
The Mayor has had a very rough past few months. In early June, it was announced that Villaraigosa’s wife of 20 years was filing for divorce, due to the Mayor’s extramarital affair with local Telemundo TV anchor Mirthala Salinas.
Usually, I could care less about anyone’s personal life. Everyone makes mistakes in life. However, public officials (especially high ranking ones) are held to a different standard, whether it is fair or not. Many politicians have had failed marriages, and their political careers survived just fine. However, when these mistakes are repeated often they fail to be merely lapses of judgment and instead form a more truthful image of one’s character. And unfortunately for Villaraigosa, this is not the first time he has been cast in the spotlight due to his infidelity.
In 1994, Villaraigosa commited an even more shameful act of adultery. The day after he was elected to the state assembly, his wife Corina filed for divorce (they later reconciled). Corina had been battling thyroid cancer during the campaign, and Villaraigosa had built himself up as a “dedicated family man”. However, Corina learned that her supposedly dedicated family man of a husband had in fact snuck off for a few days with another woman. Not just any woman, but the wife of one of his closest friends, which led to his friend’s divorce. This act of betrayal should have revealed to voters the man’s true character. Many of Villaraigosa’s closest friends and political allies were outraged and distanced themselves both privately and publicly, especially since they had helped build his image in the campaign.
It seems the only thing that Villargoisa struggled more with than fidelty was passing the BAR exam, which he failed four times before giving up.
But this is America, and American’s have very short memories. Despite some setbacks, Villaraigosa prospered. Behind a new campaign in which he played up his Latino heritage, Villaraigosa won convincingly in the 2005 campaign for Mayor. Regarded as a hot new Democratic figure in the country, it has been assumed that the Mayor has had his eye on the Governor’s position in 2010. Villaraigosa had done what many other politicians had already done and battled through questions about his character and appeared set to ride his wave of popularity all the way to Sacramento.
Unfortunately for him, his true character revealed itself again with this latest act of infidelity that has led to his divorce.
Now comes the real issue: If the Mayor was actually accomplishing anything here in the city, it would be easier for voters to look past his shortcomings as a husband and father. However, this is not the case. In the past two years since he has taken over, very little has been done in the city that was a result of his actions.
Villaraigosa made numerous promises during his campaign. He promised to plant 1 million trees, build a subway that stretches to the ocean, and to fix the city’s disappointing public school system among other things. In his two years in office, little to any of these programs have been put in place.
Traffic is still horrible. The recently announced $150 million to synchronize the city’s traffic lights is a step in the right direction, but comes from the state and not by any creative measures taken by the Mayor or his staff. Thank Arnold and the California voters instead Los Angelinos. Despite the Mayor claiming “I want to say to the people of Los Angeles: Promises made, promises kept… When I campaigned for mayor, I said we would synchronize the traffic signals and it would be expensive”. However, this money came from Prop-1B, which paved the way for $40 billion to help fix the state’s infrastructure and traffic problems. How Villaraigosa is claiming any credit at all for it is vexing.
The city’s medical system is inept. The controversy surrounding King-Harbor that became national news when Edith Rodriguez was allowed to keel over and die in the waiting room while a janitor swept around her resulted in nothing other than the closing of the hospital in a poor community that desperately needed one. The Mayor had ample opportunity here to turn a tragedy into a positive, but instead of pushing for sweeping reform in the hospital’s infrastructure he did nothing but allow the county to shut it down as an easy and cheap solution.
To top it off, the school system is still highly bureaucratic and underperforming compared to other major cities in the nation.
With Villaraigosa firmly in power till 2009, there is little we can do short of a recall. Concerned citizens must voice their displeasure about the Mayor and his practices until real changes are made. If Villaraigosa has any hope of winning the gubernatorial elections in 2010, he has a lot of work to do. Start to fix Los Angeles, and all will likely be forgiven. Continue on the current course of little action-little results, and Villaraigosa will be just another spectator.
Oh, and I’ll be on the look-out for those million additional trees. I haven’t noticed anymore yet.
The public services provided by Los Angeles are severely lacking. Traffic is horrific with no end in sight. Hospitals are being closed down in areas where they are needed the most. The people of the city have little confidence in any of the city’s leadership or the city’s infrastructure. The mayor is mired in scandal, and has proven to be woefully inadequate. Los Angeles is in desperate need of new political blood and ideas, and it all starts at the top with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
The Mayor has had a very rough past few months. In early June, it was announced that Villaraigosa’s wife of 20 years was filing for divorce, due to the Mayor’s extramarital affair with local Telemundo TV anchor Mirthala Salinas.
Usually, I could care less about anyone’s personal life. Everyone makes mistakes in life. However, public officials (especially high ranking ones) are held to a different standard, whether it is fair or not. Many politicians have had failed marriages, and their political careers survived just fine. However, when these mistakes are repeated often they fail to be merely lapses of judgment and instead form a more truthful image of one’s character. And unfortunately for Villaraigosa, this is not the first time he has been cast in the spotlight due to his infidelity.
In 1994, Villaraigosa commited an even more shameful act of adultery. The day after he was elected to the state assembly, his wife Corina filed for divorce (they later reconciled). Corina had been battling thyroid cancer during the campaign, and Villaraigosa had built himself up as a “dedicated family man”. However, Corina learned that her supposedly dedicated family man of a husband had in fact snuck off for a few days with another woman. Not just any woman, but the wife of one of his closest friends, which led to his friend’s divorce. This act of betrayal should have revealed to voters the man’s true character. Many of Villaraigosa’s closest friends and political allies were outraged and distanced themselves both privately and publicly, especially since they had helped build his image in the campaign.
It seems the only thing that Villargoisa struggled more with than fidelty was passing the BAR exam, which he failed four times before giving up.
But this is America, and American’s have very short memories. Despite some setbacks, Villaraigosa prospered. Behind a new campaign in which he played up his Latino heritage, Villaraigosa won convincingly in the 2005 campaign for Mayor. Regarded as a hot new Democratic figure in the country, it has been assumed that the Mayor has had his eye on the Governor’s position in 2010. Villaraigosa had done what many other politicians had already done and battled through questions about his character and appeared set to ride his wave of popularity all the way to Sacramento.
Unfortunately for him, his true character revealed itself again with this latest act of infidelity that has led to his divorce.
Now comes the real issue: If the Mayor was actually accomplishing anything here in the city, it would be easier for voters to look past his shortcomings as a husband and father. However, this is not the case. In the past two years since he has taken over, very little has been done in the city that was a result of his actions.
Villaraigosa made numerous promises during his campaign. He promised to plant 1 million trees, build a subway that stretches to the ocean, and to fix the city’s disappointing public school system among other things. In his two years in office, little to any of these programs have been put in place.
Traffic is still horrible. The recently announced $150 million to synchronize the city’s traffic lights is a step in the right direction, but comes from the state and not by any creative measures taken by the Mayor or his staff. Thank Arnold and the California voters instead Los Angelinos. Despite the Mayor claiming “I want to say to the people of Los Angeles: Promises made, promises kept… When I campaigned for mayor, I said we would synchronize the traffic signals and it would be expensive”. However, this money came from Prop-1B, which paved the way for $40 billion to help fix the state’s infrastructure and traffic problems. How Villaraigosa is claiming any credit at all for it is vexing.
The city’s medical system is inept. The controversy surrounding King-Harbor that became national news when Edith Rodriguez was allowed to keel over and die in the waiting room while a janitor swept around her resulted in nothing other than the closing of the hospital in a poor community that desperately needed one. The Mayor had ample opportunity here to turn a tragedy into a positive, but instead of pushing for sweeping reform in the hospital’s infrastructure he did nothing but allow the county to shut it down as an easy and cheap solution.
To top it off, the school system is still highly bureaucratic and underperforming compared to other major cities in the nation.
With Villaraigosa firmly in power till 2009, there is little we can do short of a recall. Concerned citizens must voice their displeasure about the Mayor and his practices until real changes are made. If Villaraigosa has any hope of winning the gubernatorial elections in 2010, he has a lot of work to do. Start to fix Los Angeles, and all will likely be forgiven. Continue on the current course of little action-little results, and Villaraigosa will be just another spectator.
Oh, and I’ll be on the look-out for those million additional trees. I haven’t noticed anymore yet.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Who Couldn't Love the L.A. Times?
So I have felt that I perhaps have been neglecting this blog a bit in recent weeks and only talking about some off-topic subjects, so I want to shift the focus back onto LA a bit. I was reading the LA Times online today and randomly found perhaps the websites most interesting feature: its updated daily Homicide Map!
Not only does this "map" show where all 629 homicides in LA County occured over the past year, but many other details are provided. Pictures (if they could find them)are included, as well as details such as Age, Gender, Cause of Death, and my personal favorite, Race.
Apparently, Sunday is the day to most be on the lookout, as about twice as many deaths occured on Sunday compared to other days of the week, with Saturday coming in at a distant second. Thankfully there is a handy bar graph to visualize all of these facts.
It also looks like more homicides occur during the summer months. Anyone have any ideas why? The heat? Boredom?
I wonder how many of these homicide maps there are in other newspapers across the country.
I also wonder where LA ranks in term of most murderous cities in America. I'm sure the data is out there, does anyone know?
Not only does this "map" show where all 629 homicides in LA County occured over the past year, but many other details are provided. Pictures (if they could find them)are included, as well as details such as Age, Gender, Cause of Death, and my personal favorite, Race.
Apparently, Sunday is the day to most be on the lookout, as about twice as many deaths occured on Sunday compared to other days of the week, with Saturday coming in at a distant second. Thankfully there is a handy bar graph to visualize all of these facts.
It also looks like more homicides occur during the summer months. Anyone have any ideas why? The heat? Boredom?
I wonder how many of these homicide maps there are in other newspapers across the country.
I also wonder where LA ranks in term of most murderous cities in America. I'm sure the data is out there, does anyone know?
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Religion in Public Intellectualism
To add on to my previous post on Public Intellectualism, the role of the so-called cleric in the realm of intellectualism is one that is highly debated. Some hard-line secularists claim that the two realms of religion and intellectualism are mutually exclusive – one is based on belief and the other facts. Others claim that religion has a large role in the public intellectual realm. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. Once again, I will encourage you to head over to the increasingly cited Stephen Mack, who wrote a companion piece to his own Public Intellectual essay entitled Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual.
Mack makes a lot of convincing arguments in this piece. While I don’t usually agree with Mack on everything, I think he does a fair job of protecting the role that religion has played in shaping American politics against the angry secularists who denounce its legitimacy in their field. While I myself am not a very religious person at all, I still agree that religion played perhaps the central role in forming this nation, and the Constitution is based on many of the good things that religion is supposed to provide. Mack does a nice job of explaining this in the following passage:
This hostility towards any religion in the public intellectual field reminds me of point I made in my previous post about the pessimism towards the role of intellectualism as a whole in America. I find many of these public figures to be angry people who seem to feel they are above the rest of the country in their intelligence and importance. While I wholeheartedly agree with strict separation between church and state, I find it undemocratic to try and ban the discussion of religious values in formulating public policy. Many of the tenants of religion (specifically the Judeo-Christian values found in the majority of American figures, but found in the vast majority of all major religion) are aimed at promoting harmony and peace. There is nothing wrong with promoting just laws and policies aimed at these goals, and our country has been formed to try and guarantee at least “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as promised in the Declaration of Independence.
Now when it comes to education, I agree that religion should not be prevalent. When it comes to that realm of intellectualism (academia), the two seem to be incompatible. However, public intellectualism covers a lot more ground than just academia, and thus there is a room for religion in the realm. So I agree that evolution should be taught instead of creationism, and no public funds should go to promoting any religion in the classroom. Fortunately, these things are already protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Our government is designed to neither promote nor prohibit any particular religion, and so far I think it is doing a pretty decent job at it.
Recently, the role of religion in the public sphere has been magnified during the last seven years of the Bush Administration. The outspoken liberals on the left have been blaming plenty of things on the Bush Administration’s using religion as a crutch to round up support from the conservative religious population, and the conservatives claim that the liberals are attacking religion itself with their extreme secularism. There is no doubt that the Administration made a strategic decision to target the religious right in the small states and Middle America, with very successful results. However, how much has religion actually played on any important legislation? Abortion is still legal, and creationism is still not being taught in school. The only real issue with strong religious points of contention has been the debate over same-sex marriage. However, this has not been a conservative vs. liberal issue, as many democrats oppose legislation legalizing it as well. Why? Well, because virtually ALL political figures are religious themselves (and if they are not, they have to play like they are for the voters)! It is not the religious right vs. secularist left battle that it is often portrayed as. Once again, religion plays a large role in public intellectualism.
So where do we go from here? Over the course of our development as a country, we have been working to arrive to the point we are at today. There is a clear divide between religion and the state (and education), yet religion is still extremely prominent and represented by our elected officials. Public intellectuals will have to ease their anti-religion stance and recognize its importance in their field of expertise. It permeates all of society and is something that should not be feared or persecuted against.
Mack makes a lot of convincing arguments in this piece. While I don’t usually agree with Mack on everything, I think he does a fair job of protecting the role that religion has played in shaping American politics against the angry secularists who denounce its legitimacy in their field. While I myself am not a very religious person at all, I still agree that religion played perhaps the central role in forming this nation, and the Constitution is based on many of the good things that religion is supposed to provide. Mack does a nice job of explaining this in the following passage:
In many ways, American political history is the history of activist theologians from the right and the left. These men and women have been intellectuals of a special kind—people whose religious training and experience shaped their vision of a just society and required them to work for it. They have been key players in some of our most important reform movements, from abolitionism, the labor movement, and civil rights to the peace movements of various generations
This hostility towards any religion in the public intellectual field reminds me of point I made in my previous post about the pessimism towards the role of intellectualism as a whole in America. I find many of these public figures to be angry people who seem to feel they are above the rest of the country in their intelligence and importance. While I wholeheartedly agree with strict separation between church and state, I find it undemocratic to try and ban the discussion of religious values in formulating public policy. Many of the tenants of religion (specifically the Judeo-Christian values found in the majority of American figures, but found in the vast majority of all major religion) are aimed at promoting harmony and peace. There is nothing wrong with promoting just laws and policies aimed at these goals, and our country has been formed to try and guarantee at least “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as promised in the Declaration of Independence.
Now when it comes to education, I agree that religion should not be prevalent. When it comes to that realm of intellectualism (academia), the two seem to be incompatible. However, public intellectualism covers a lot more ground than just academia, and thus there is a room for religion in the realm. So I agree that evolution should be taught instead of creationism, and no public funds should go to promoting any religion in the classroom. Fortunately, these things are already protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Our government is designed to neither promote nor prohibit any particular religion, and so far I think it is doing a pretty decent job at it.
Recently, the role of religion in the public sphere has been magnified during the last seven years of the Bush Administration. The outspoken liberals on the left have been blaming plenty of things on the Bush Administration’s using religion as a crutch to round up support from the conservative religious population, and the conservatives claim that the liberals are attacking religion itself with their extreme secularism. There is no doubt that the Administration made a strategic decision to target the religious right in the small states and Middle America, with very successful results. However, how much has religion actually played on any important legislation? Abortion is still legal, and creationism is still not being taught in school. The only real issue with strong religious points of contention has been the debate over same-sex marriage. However, this has not been a conservative vs. liberal issue, as many democrats oppose legislation legalizing it as well. Why? Well, because virtually ALL political figures are religious themselves (and if they are not, they have to play like they are for the voters)! It is not the religious right vs. secularist left battle that it is often portrayed as. Once again, religion plays a large role in public intellectualism.
So where do we go from here? Over the course of our development as a country, we have been working to arrive to the point we are at today. There is a clear divide between religion and the state (and education), yet religion is still extremely prominent and represented by our elected officials. Public intellectuals will have to ease their anti-religion stance and recognize its importance in their field of expertise. It permeates all of society and is something that should not be feared or persecuted against.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Public Intellectualism
From the earliest philosophers to the latest columnists, many people throughout history have been labeled “Public Intellectuals”. These people have and continue to serve an important role in society, providing the public with figures to look to when evaluating issues that require informed opinions. Sometimes these individuals feel they know the solution to every problem, and others simply prefer to point out problems. Through Public Intellectuals, societies have literally sprung to life based on principles that had not been exhibited prior. Plato, perhaps the earliest known published Public Intellectual, outlined his vision for the perfect city in Republic (although how perfect that city would be is highly debatable). John Locke, JS Mill, and other liberal thinkers provided the inspiration for the U.S. Constitution.
Fellow blogger Stephen Mack raises up an interesting issue in his essay entitled The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals. In his post, Mack argues against the growing notion of America as being a place of “anti-intellectualism”. Instead of the country being anti-intellectual, perhaps the so-called Public Intellectuals are simply not used to receiving criticism, something that comes along with that title that many have bestowed upon themselves. Mack shoots down the ‘America as the deathbed of public intellectualism’ myth quite well in this passage:
Not only do we look to these professors and intellectuals for their input, we flock to these institutions to pursue, as Mack puts it, “The American Dream”. In today’s culture, one cannot hope to find a decent job or role in society without at least a bachelor’s degree from a major university. From the moment a child is born, most parents will do everything they can to ensure their children “goes to a decent college”, and this is reflected in their upbringing. If we as Americans displayed the type of hostility towards intellectualism as claimed here by some disgruntled writers and here by Richard Posner, this obsession with pursuing high levels of education would be frowned upon, not encouraged.
As Mack alludes to, perhaps what is perceived by these pessimists as anti-intellectualism is just an alternative way of living. I would go another step forward and suggest that it may just be criticism. It is very possible that those who fancy themselves to be Public Intellectuals believe so strongly that their words are infallible that, when exposed through public channels, they retreat into their cave of self-justification and label these legitimate criticisms as an attack on intellectualism itself. Instead of behaving like true intellectuals, these commentators shun things that they do not partake in themselves and label it as un-intellectual and therefore just another chink in America’s self-worth and the further decline of society towards the idiotic.
In fact, I would also suggest that this proclamation of America’s intellectual decline is rooted in the common myth of nostalgia. In society, a yearning for the “better days” of the past can be found in every generation. Many people clamor for the days of old when people were of “stronger moral fiber” and the such. The WWII generation was “the Greatest Generation” and each subsequent generation has failed to live up to their lofty status and hopes. This can be found in many aspects of society, as we are constantly reminded by our elders of the days when there was virtually no crime and horrible things that are commonplace supposedly were unheard of. The truth is there were just as many perverts and criminals in the past, but it was simply shielded from the public eye as well as the younger members of the population. Looking at this nostalgic characteristic of the public, we can see that perhaps these intellectuals saying the world is going to hell can be lumped in with this myth of the superiority of the past. In truth, people today are far more educated than they ever have been, and society as a whole is much more in tune with the way things work and trying to look at things from a more intellectual viewpoint.
The decline of public intellectualism is merely a myth that is being spread around by a group of pessimistic and angry individuals who feel they are not being taken seriously enough. Whether it is due to the alternate lifestyles of individuals as Mack points out, or whether they are simply growing bitter with the growing world and their lack of size in it, this angry posturing is getting old. Not everything is bad with today’s society, and there is a lot of intellectualism to be found around the globe.
Fellow blogger Stephen Mack raises up an interesting issue in his essay entitled The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals. In his post, Mack argues against the growing notion of America as being a place of “anti-intellectualism”. Instead of the country being anti-intellectual, perhaps the so-called Public Intellectuals are simply not used to receiving criticism, something that comes along with that title that many have bestowed upon themselves. Mack shoots down the ‘America as the deathbed of public intellectualism’ myth quite well in this passage:
Without replaying the whole debate, two points will suffice: One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum.To expand upon his first point, academic institutions indeed harbor a tremendous amount of influence on virtually everything in American society. All one has to do is to watch any television program dealing with any particular social or scientific problem or read any academic journal and you will find representatives from hundreds of universities who are more than willing to serve the role as ‘expert’ for the masses. These people themselves form the majority of the Public Intellectuals found in this country, vastly outnumbering the few who operate solo or through the press. Who else do we turn to when an issue or topic needs explaining or further exploration? These public intellectuals deal with issues ranging from political unrest in the Middle East, to global warming, to natural phenomena and disasters, all the way to trying to explain the legal process to the masses when our favorite celebrity is arrested for driving drunk for the fifth time while high on cocaine. We as Americans look to these figures to give forth their expert opinions and derive our own thoughts from their views.
Not only do we look to these professors and intellectuals for their input, we flock to these institutions to pursue, as Mack puts it, “The American Dream”. In today’s culture, one cannot hope to find a decent job or role in society without at least a bachelor’s degree from a major university. From the moment a child is born, most parents will do everything they can to ensure their children “goes to a decent college”, and this is reflected in their upbringing. If we as Americans displayed the type of hostility towards intellectualism as claimed here by some disgruntled writers and here by Richard Posner, this obsession with pursuing high levels of education would be frowned upon, not encouraged.
As Mack alludes to, perhaps what is perceived by these pessimists as anti-intellectualism is just an alternative way of living. I would go another step forward and suggest that it may just be criticism. It is very possible that those who fancy themselves to be Public Intellectuals believe so strongly that their words are infallible that, when exposed through public channels, they retreat into their cave of self-justification and label these legitimate criticisms as an attack on intellectualism itself. Instead of behaving like true intellectuals, these commentators shun things that they do not partake in themselves and label it as un-intellectual and therefore just another chink in America’s self-worth and the further decline of society towards the idiotic.
In fact, I would also suggest that this proclamation of America’s intellectual decline is rooted in the common myth of nostalgia. In society, a yearning for the “better days” of the past can be found in every generation. Many people clamor for the days of old when people were of “stronger moral fiber” and the such. The WWII generation was “the Greatest Generation” and each subsequent generation has failed to live up to their lofty status and hopes. This can be found in many aspects of society, as we are constantly reminded by our elders of the days when there was virtually no crime and horrible things that are commonplace supposedly were unheard of. The truth is there were just as many perverts and criminals in the past, but it was simply shielded from the public eye as well as the younger members of the population. Looking at this nostalgic characteristic of the public, we can see that perhaps these intellectuals saying the world is going to hell can be lumped in with this myth of the superiority of the past. In truth, people today are far more educated than they ever have been, and society as a whole is much more in tune with the way things work and trying to look at things from a more intellectual viewpoint.
The decline of public intellectualism is merely a myth that is being spread around by a group of pessimistic and angry individuals who feel they are not being taken seriously enough. Whether it is due to the alternate lifestyles of individuals as Mack points out, or whether they are simply growing bitter with the growing world and their lack of size in it, this angry posturing is getting old. Not everything is bad with today’s society, and there is a lot of intellectualism to be found around the globe.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Plea to the County: Do Not Close King-Harbor
As the second largest city in the country, Los Angeles is home to millions and millions of people of all races and creeds. Every citizen of the city should be entitled to similar access to public services, specifically medical facilities such as hospitals and emergency rooms. With the closure of King-Harbor, hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos in South Los Angeles are deprived of an absolute necessity. With no public hospital in the immediate area, thousands are potentially put at unnecessary risk and have little options at their disposal. While there are private medical institutions in the area, many of the residents of the area simply cannot afford to go there. The government’s offer to help subsidize the costs incurred to the private hospitals of the area is a nice gesture, but they still do not have the size or staff to be able to handle the influx of patients they are going to be receiving in the future, and the payoffs made to them won’t be enough to cover their costs. While it is true that continuing to run the King-Harbor hospital as it has been would be borderline criminal, the decision to shut it down is the absolute wrong one. Instead, the hospital should go through a complete transition and have its staff completely overhauled while continuing to offer much needed service to those in need.
The troubles with Martin Luther King-Harbor (formerly MLK-Bell Hospital) are nothing new. The hospital officially opened its doors in 1972, being born out of the chaos of the 1965 Watts Riots. Immediately after the riots, it became readily apparent that a hospital in the Watts area was sorely needed. The hospital itself was looked at as a victory for the African-American minority which made up the majority of the South Los Angeles area (Steinhauer). However, since its inception the hospital has been plagued by administrative and medical problems. More specifically, over the past four years the county has issued stern warnings to the hospital to fix their numerous problems. Some examples of negligence that was uncovered include employees who failed to wash their hands, equipment not being cleaned properly, and nurses who did not know how to administer basic tasks such as checking in on patients (King-Harbor). However, the final straw came in May 2007 when the details of the death of Edith Rodriguez in the hospital’s waiting room became public and the top headline for every news program.
Fatal Results from Incompetence
Edith Rodriguez was a 43-year-old mother of three who lived in the South Los Angeles area. She was living in poverty and had many health problems. Early in the morning on May 9th, Edith was rushed to the emergency room at King-Harbor complaining of severe pain in her stomach. She had already been to the same emergency room three times, and had received nothing but pain medication and a release. This time, the staff refused to see her, saying there was nothing more to be done and to go home. Rodriguez refused to leave, and eventually started vomiting blood in the waiting room while the hospital staff did absolutely nothing. In panic, her boyfriend called 911 from an outside pay phone and pleaded for help, but was told that since she was already at a hospital there was nothing they could do. As if that was not enough, another person who was also in the waiting room called 911 from her cell phone, pleading for the operator to send help. The operator responded rudely and informed her that this simply was not an emergency and to stay off the emergency line. Edith Rodriguez died early in the morning of a perforated bowel, which according to the coroner developed in the last 24 hours of her life (ABC News).
What makes this case even more shocking is the video and audio evidence explicitly demonstrating the incompetence of several individuals which directly led to Rodriguez’s death. Almost immediately, the 911 audiotapes of both the boyfriend and the concerned Samaritan were made public. The bureaucracy displayed in the refusal to send help was shocking. The first operator said that since Rodriguez was already in a hospital that he was not allowed to send for help. The second operator was just extremely rude and condescending and in no way was trying to help what was obviously a life-or-death situation. What is even more damning however is the existence of a videotape showing Rodriguez falling out of her wheelchair, collapsing on the floor in a pool of her own blood and vomit. No one did anything to help her. In fact, on the video, a janitor is shown mopping up around her as she laid there literally dying in front of the hospital staff (How a Hospital).
Though it was the death of Edith Rodriguez that proved to be the final nail in the coffin for the hospital in the public’s eye, there were many other instances of gross neglect leading to the death of those who should not have. As stated here in this story by the LA Times,
Why Should the Hospital Remain Open?
Los Angeles already has enough problems providing ample medical care to its citizens. Closing down one of its biggest hospitals obviously does nothing to alleviate this problem. Shutting down the hospital is akin to “cutting your nose off to spite your face”. Instead of looking for solutions, the powers that be are merely taking the easy way out. As the former administrator of the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs Thomas Scully points out in this Op-Ed urging for the hospital to remain open, “…neither pointing fingers nor closing it down will help. The problems at the hospital have festered for years and will require many more years — and cool heads — to fix”.
The closure of King-Harbor is just another hardship to a minority community (the residents of South Los Angeles) faced with too many. Already an area known for its widespread poverty and poor living conditions, taking away the main source of medical care is only significantly adding on to the problems that already plague the area. As Scully notes in his Op-Ed, “King-Harbor treated nearly 47,000 patients last year, and closing it would just force patients to go farther away to other facilities that could quickly find themselves overwhelmed”. With the plan right now for the hospital to be closed for 12-18 months (King-Harbor), that leaves about 70,000 potential patients who have to find other places to be treated. Many of the surrounding private facilities are already crowded, and this will only put a larger strain on these facilities. This will lead to longer hospital rides and potentially more unnecessary deaths.
Even though it is currently being suggested that the hospital be reopened as soon as possible, the actual act of closing it down in the first place is going to delay its eventual reintroduction, potentially by many years. Not only will there be an obligatory period of inactivity for 12-18 months, but the facility has to start completely over. The time it will take to regain all the proper permits and licenses is going to be significant. Instead of treating potentially tens of thousands of patients, they will be helping absolutely nobody. Currently, the plan is to reach out to the private sector and hope to find interest on that end. However, many in the field have already expressed significant doubt over the likelihood that any private entity will come within a mile of the much maligned hospital. If a private suitor cannot be persuaded to take over the operations, then many months and potentially years are added to the wait for the hospital and ER to be reopened through public means (King-Harbor).
Possible Solutions
Instead of shutting down the facility, surplus staff and volunteers from the surrounding area should be reassigned under the county’s supervision. Medical operatives who supervised the hospital in its last days should instead be moved there temporarily while an exhaustive review is conducted. Those who are found to be competent can stay on but under a probationary status, while new staff is hired at attractive rates to persuade more people to work there. What happened in the past “overhauls” of King-Harbor simply cannot happen again. The last time the staff was reviewed, the powers-that-be decided to retain 75% of them (Close King-Harbor). Obviously, this was far too many. From the top to the bottom, sweeping changes are an absolute necessity. Tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars have already been spent on failed consulting firms (Close King-Harbor), so that mistake needs not be repeated. Retain only those who have repeatedly showcased their competency and willingness to better the situation. Put county and state medical officials in charge of the operations and let them have free reign to put together a top-rate staff.
Once these drastic changes have begun, the next step in the process is to launch a massive public relations campaign. Let it be known to the people of Los Angeles (especially those in South L.A.) that their government is apologizing for the horrible state in which the hospital was run, and how such inadequacies will not be tolerated. Both local and national reporters should be invited to visit the hospital and see the many improvements for themselves. This will be the start of a good-will campaign to gain back the trust of those who have been burned in the past. It will also help repair relations between city and county officials with the minorities in the area who have been receiving unequal treatment due to the fear of political correctness. For many years, King-Harbor had numerous problems that went unfixed because people were scared to anger the community. The hospital had been seen as a place created for the African-American community and run mainly by African-Americans, so local officials were hesitant to intervene (Steinhauer). This is of course a ridiculous notion, as the hospital instead was neglected and the problems were compounded.
Do the Media and Elected Officials Care Enough?
Today, the American media is too focused on the war in Iraq and the failed policies of the President’s foreign policy to give the proper time to domestic issues such as insuring proper healthcare is made available to its citizens. With the upcoming Presidential elections in 2008, healthcare is an issue that is bound to come back into importance. However, just how important is it going to be made of by the media? So far, the only notable mention of healthcare recently has been Hillary Clinton’s proclamation for a much more socialized medical system. What should be more of an issue is the actual availability of proper medical facilities to ALL citizens regardless of status rather than who pays for it, which is something that candidates from both political parties should agree on. While the problems with King-Harbor would appear to be more of a local and state concern, that is not fully the case. The hospital had been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid, and will depend on such aid in the future if a private company does not come in and takeover responsibility. Will the topic of under funded public hospitals in major cities in areas of poverty take center stage in any round of the Presidential debates? Most likely not. It is up to the local press here in Los Angeles to make a point to bring the topic back into the nation’s attention. While the horrible story of Edith Rodriguez will not be forgotten, the closure of the actual hospital received far less press. What is not being reported is the potential of hundreds of thousands of lives being affected for the worse because there is not a proper hospital or emergency room made available to them.
Righting a Wrong
Out of the failure of the previous Hospital rises the potential for something great. With the need now greater than ever to provide competent health care to the local population, city and county officials can use this disaster as a great opportunity to mend fences and do something truly for the greater good of the city. The infrastructure is still in place at the hospital along with all the proper supplies and equipment to have a well run medical facility that would meet the needs of the citizens of this city. Those in power must not be tempted to take the easy way out and ignore the problem. It was easy to just shut the hospital down and say they will try and address it in a few years. It takes a lot more initiative and courage to stand up and demand justice for the local residents who are in desperate need of basic human services that should always be made available to them. Martin Luther King-Harbor Hospital should be reopened immediately with a new staff dedicated to making the system work and helping those who are in need.
Works Cited
"Close King-Harbor." Los Angeles Times 24 June 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-king-harbor24jun24,0,4095761.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials.
Ornstein, Charles. "How a Hospital Death Became a Cause Celebre." Los Angeles Times 15 June 200. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king15jun15,1,633441.story?coll=la-headlines-california.
Ornstein, Charles, Tracy Weber, and Jack Leonard. "King-Harbor Fails Final Check, Will Close Soon." Los Angeles Times 11 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king11aug11,0,3698687.story?page=1&coll=la-home-center.
Scully, Thomas. "Closing King-Harbor Isn't the Answer." Los Angeles Times 15 June 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scully15jun15,1,4363655.story.
Steinhauer, Jennifer. "A Hospital, Pulse of a Neighborhood, is Mourned." New York Times 21 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/us/21kingharbor.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190186817-1NxTe7BeKyVZYApXTKCsHA.
"Woman's Death in L.A. Hospital Remains a Mystery." ABC News. 14 June 2007. GMA. 11 Sept. 2007 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3273239&page=1.
The troubles with Martin Luther King-Harbor (formerly MLK-Bell Hospital) are nothing new. The hospital officially opened its doors in 1972, being born out of the chaos of the 1965 Watts Riots. Immediately after the riots, it became readily apparent that a hospital in the Watts area was sorely needed. The hospital itself was looked at as a victory for the African-American minority which made up the majority of the South Los Angeles area (Steinhauer). However, since its inception the hospital has been plagued by administrative and medical problems. More specifically, over the past four years the county has issued stern warnings to the hospital to fix their numerous problems. Some examples of negligence that was uncovered include employees who failed to wash their hands, equipment not being cleaned properly, and nurses who did not know how to administer basic tasks such as checking in on patients (King-Harbor). However, the final straw came in May 2007 when the details of the death of Edith Rodriguez in the hospital’s waiting room became public and the top headline for every news program.
Fatal Results from Incompetence
Edith Rodriguez was a 43-year-old mother of three who lived in the South Los Angeles area. She was living in poverty and had many health problems. Early in the morning on May 9th, Edith was rushed to the emergency room at King-Harbor complaining of severe pain in her stomach. She had already been to the same emergency room three times, and had received nothing but pain medication and a release. This time, the staff refused to see her, saying there was nothing more to be done and to go home. Rodriguez refused to leave, and eventually started vomiting blood in the waiting room while the hospital staff did absolutely nothing. In panic, her boyfriend called 911 from an outside pay phone and pleaded for help, but was told that since she was already at a hospital there was nothing they could do. As if that was not enough, another person who was also in the waiting room called 911 from her cell phone, pleading for the operator to send help. The operator responded rudely and informed her that this simply was not an emergency and to stay off the emergency line. Edith Rodriguez died early in the morning of a perforated bowel, which according to the coroner developed in the last 24 hours of her life (ABC News).
What makes this case even more shocking is the video and audio evidence explicitly demonstrating the incompetence of several individuals which directly led to Rodriguez’s death. Almost immediately, the 911 audiotapes of both the boyfriend and the concerned Samaritan were made public. The bureaucracy displayed in the refusal to send help was shocking. The first operator said that since Rodriguez was already in a hospital that he was not allowed to send for help. The second operator was just extremely rude and condescending and in no way was trying to help what was obviously a life-or-death situation. What is even more damning however is the existence of a videotape showing Rodriguez falling out of her wheelchair, collapsing on the floor in a pool of her own blood and vomit. No one did anything to help her. In fact, on the video, a janitor is shown mopping up around her as she laid there literally dying in front of the hospital staff (How a Hospital).
Though it was the death of Edith Rodriguez that proved to be the final nail in the coffin for the hospital in the public’s eye, there were many other instances of gross neglect leading to the death of those who should not have. As stated here in this story by the LA Times,
Hers was one in a series of cases allegedly mishandled by King-Harbor, formerly known as King/Drew. In 1994, a woman was infected with HIV after the hospital mistakenly gave her a transfusion with blood that had tested positive for the virus. Years later, a woman died after drinking a glass of tissue preservative left by her bedside. In 2000, a 9-year-old died from a cascade of errors stemming from treatment of two broken teeth.Clearly, something had to be done. The death of Edith Rodriguez served as the facilitator to getting the word out to the public that the King-Harbor medical facility was one of the worst in the nation. The federal government responded by withdrawing its $200 million grant after the hospital failed numerous tests (King-Harbor). Unfortunately, the decision was made to shut it down rather than try and turn it around one more time.
Why Should the Hospital Remain Open?
Los Angeles already has enough problems providing ample medical care to its citizens. Closing down one of its biggest hospitals obviously does nothing to alleviate this problem. Shutting down the hospital is akin to “cutting your nose off to spite your face”. Instead of looking for solutions, the powers that be are merely taking the easy way out. As the former administrator of the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs Thomas Scully points out in this Op-Ed urging for the hospital to remain open, “…neither pointing fingers nor closing it down will help. The problems at the hospital have festered for years and will require many more years — and cool heads — to fix”.
The closure of King-Harbor is just another hardship to a minority community (the residents of South Los Angeles) faced with too many. Already an area known for its widespread poverty and poor living conditions, taking away the main source of medical care is only significantly adding on to the problems that already plague the area. As Scully notes in his Op-Ed, “King-Harbor treated nearly 47,000 patients last year, and closing it would just force patients to go farther away to other facilities that could quickly find themselves overwhelmed”. With the plan right now for the hospital to be closed for 12-18 months (King-Harbor), that leaves about 70,000 potential patients who have to find other places to be treated. Many of the surrounding private facilities are already crowded, and this will only put a larger strain on these facilities. This will lead to longer hospital rides and potentially more unnecessary deaths.
Even though it is currently being suggested that the hospital be reopened as soon as possible, the actual act of closing it down in the first place is going to delay its eventual reintroduction, potentially by many years. Not only will there be an obligatory period of inactivity for 12-18 months, but the facility has to start completely over. The time it will take to regain all the proper permits and licenses is going to be significant. Instead of treating potentially tens of thousands of patients, they will be helping absolutely nobody. Currently, the plan is to reach out to the private sector and hope to find interest on that end. However, many in the field have already expressed significant doubt over the likelihood that any private entity will come within a mile of the much maligned hospital. If a private suitor cannot be persuaded to take over the operations, then many months and potentially years are added to the wait for the hospital and ER to be reopened through public means (King-Harbor).
Possible Solutions
Instead of shutting down the facility, surplus staff and volunteers from the surrounding area should be reassigned under the county’s supervision. Medical operatives who supervised the hospital in its last days should instead be moved there temporarily while an exhaustive review is conducted. Those who are found to be competent can stay on but under a probationary status, while new staff is hired at attractive rates to persuade more people to work there. What happened in the past “overhauls” of King-Harbor simply cannot happen again. The last time the staff was reviewed, the powers-that-be decided to retain 75% of them (Close King-Harbor). Obviously, this was far too many. From the top to the bottom, sweeping changes are an absolute necessity. Tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars have already been spent on failed consulting firms (Close King-Harbor), so that mistake needs not be repeated. Retain only those who have repeatedly showcased their competency and willingness to better the situation. Put county and state medical officials in charge of the operations and let them have free reign to put together a top-rate staff.
Once these drastic changes have begun, the next step in the process is to launch a massive public relations campaign. Let it be known to the people of Los Angeles (especially those in South L.A.) that their government is apologizing for the horrible state in which the hospital was run, and how such inadequacies will not be tolerated. Both local and national reporters should be invited to visit the hospital and see the many improvements for themselves. This will be the start of a good-will campaign to gain back the trust of those who have been burned in the past. It will also help repair relations between city and county officials with the minorities in the area who have been receiving unequal treatment due to the fear of political correctness. For many years, King-Harbor had numerous problems that went unfixed because people were scared to anger the community. The hospital had been seen as a place created for the African-American community and run mainly by African-Americans, so local officials were hesitant to intervene (Steinhauer). This is of course a ridiculous notion, as the hospital instead was neglected and the problems were compounded.
Do the Media and Elected Officials Care Enough?
Today, the American media is too focused on the war in Iraq and the failed policies of the President’s foreign policy to give the proper time to domestic issues such as insuring proper healthcare is made available to its citizens. With the upcoming Presidential elections in 2008, healthcare is an issue that is bound to come back into importance. However, just how important is it going to be made of by the media? So far, the only notable mention of healthcare recently has been Hillary Clinton’s proclamation for a much more socialized medical system. What should be more of an issue is the actual availability of proper medical facilities to ALL citizens regardless of status rather than who pays for it, which is something that candidates from both political parties should agree on. While the problems with King-Harbor would appear to be more of a local and state concern, that is not fully the case. The hospital had been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid, and will depend on such aid in the future if a private company does not come in and takeover responsibility. Will the topic of under funded public hospitals in major cities in areas of poverty take center stage in any round of the Presidential debates? Most likely not. It is up to the local press here in Los Angeles to make a point to bring the topic back into the nation’s attention. While the horrible story of Edith Rodriguez will not be forgotten, the closure of the actual hospital received far less press. What is not being reported is the potential of hundreds of thousands of lives being affected for the worse because there is not a proper hospital or emergency room made available to them.
Righting a Wrong
Out of the failure of the previous Hospital rises the potential for something great. With the need now greater than ever to provide competent health care to the local population, city and county officials can use this disaster as a great opportunity to mend fences and do something truly for the greater good of the city. The infrastructure is still in place at the hospital along with all the proper supplies and equipment to have a well run medical facility that would meet the needs of the citizens of this city. Those in power must not be tempted to take the easy way out and ignore the problem. It was easy to just shut the hospital down and say they will try and address it in a few years. It takes a lot more initiative and courage to stand up and demand justice for the local residents who are in desperate need of basic human services that should always be made available to them. Martin Luther King-Harbor Hospital should be reopened immediately with a new staff dedicated to making the system work and helping those who are in need.
Works Cited
"Close King-Harbor." Los Angeles Times 24 June 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-king-harbor24jun24,0,4095761.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials.
Ornstein, Charles. "How a Hospital Death Became a Cause Celebre." Los Angeles Times 15 June 200. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king15jun15,1,633441.story?coll=la-headlines-california.
Ornstein, Charles, Tracy Weber, and Jack Leonard. "King-Harbor Fails Final Check, Will Close Soon." Los Angeles Times 11 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king11aug11,0,3698687.story?page=1&coll=la-home-center.
Scully, Thomas. "Closing King-Harbor Isn't the Answer." Los Angeles Times 15 June 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scully15jun15,1,4363655.story.
Steinhauer, Jennifer. "A Hospital, Pulse of a Neighborhood, is Mourned." New York Times 21 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/us/21kingharbor.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190186817-1NxTe7BeKyVZYApXTKCsHA.
"Woman's Death in L.A. Hospital Remains a Mystery." ABC News. 14 June 2007. GMA. 11 Sept. 2007 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3273239&page=1.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Negotiating a Pullout
Despite President Bush's plan for a reduction of 21,500 troops in Iraq, Democrats in Congress are still unhappy with the warplan and are looking for a far more aggressive pullout. As discussed here on CNN.com, the Democrats in the Senate are trying to draft a plan that would gain the support of enough Republicans to bypass the President's plan.
The most interesting idea being tossed around is a plan being pushed by Senator Jim Webb of Viriginia that requires a certain amount of rest for the troops between deployments, effectively lowering troop numbers without explicitly doing so. This plan is supposedly the closest to being up for vote, and is intriguing to several Senators of both parties. No Republican Senators are comfortable with outright opposing the President right now, especially with the President's new attitude of being receptive to troop withdrawal.
Personally, I think a plan like this is the only way the Democrats are going to get any sort of reduction outside of the President's current plan. With the current gap between the two parties growing wider by the day, any plan that is going to be supported by both sides is going to have to be a compromise. With the American public growing more and more tired of the war by the second, this is as good of a time as any with the newfound Democratic strength in Congress to try and press for the beginning of a withdrawal of troops. The key is to avoid alienating any major group of either party. The ultra-liberals will not be happy with a plan that doesn't have a total withdrawal date, but they have to compromise and see this as a beginning instead of being stubborn and refusing to cooperate. Will they? We shall see, but I have a feeling they will. They have a responsibility to the voters to try and act in good faith, and here is a as good of an opportunity as they have had for years in reducing our presence in Iraq.
Another interesting story, this time from the LA Times, discusses the dissent between Bush and Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense. Gates is in favor of a much more dramatic pullout from Iraq, and hopes to lower troop numbers to 100,000 by next year. He makes an important statement in his views of a change of mission for future U.S. troops, with much more emphasis on counter-terrorism and letting the Iraqis govern themselves.
It is fascinating to see the split in opinion even in the President's own staff. I think this gives further strength to the Democrats in Congress to try and press for less troops. However, I agree with Gates in that setting a deadline for an allout pullout is unrealistic and would be exteremely damaging. It's been four years now and having 200,000 troops still in Iraq is simply moronic, but by setting some arbitrary date (especially any date within the next 18 months) and decreeing that we must "finish up" by then is not going to work.
The most interesting idea being tossed around is a plan being pushed by Senator Jim Webb of Viriginia that requires a certain amount of rest for the troops between deployments, effectively lowering troop numbers without explicitly doing so. This plan is supposedly the closest to being up for vote, and is intriguing to several Senators of both parties. No Republican Senators are comfortable with outright opposing the President right now, especially with the President's new attitude of being receptive to troop withdrawal.
Personally, I think a plan like this is the only way the Democrats are going to get any sort of reduction outside of the President's current plan. With the current gap between the two parties growing wider by the day, any plan that is going to be supported by both sides is going to have to be a compromise. With the American public growing more and more tired of the war by the second, this is as good of a time as any with the newfound Democratic strength in Congress to try and press for the beginning of a withdrawal of troops. The key is to avoid alienating any major group of either party. The ultra-liberals will not be happy with a plan that doesn't have a total withdrawal date, but they have to compromise and see this as a beginning instead of being stubborn and refusing to cooperate. Will they? We shall see, but I have a feeling they will. They have a responsibility to the voters to try and act in good faith, and here is a as good of an opportunity as they have had for years in reducing our presence in Iraq.
Another interesting story, this time from the LA Times, discusses the dissent between Bush and Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense. Gates is in favor of a much more dramatic pullout from Iraq, and hopes to lower troop numbers to 100,000 by next year. He makes an important statement in his views of a change of mission for future U.S. troops, with much more emphasis on counter-terrorism and letting the Iraqis govern themselves.
It is fascinating to see the split in opinion even in the President's own staff. I think this gives further strength to the Democrats in Congress to try and press for less troops. However, I agree with Gates in that setting a deadline for an allout pullout is unrealistic and would be exteremely damaging. It's been four years now and having 200,000 troops still in Iraq is simply moronic, but by setting some arbitrary date (especially any date within the next 18 months) and decreeing that we must "finish up" by then is not going to work.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Serious content to come
I am merely awaiting the numerous responses to the just released report from General Petraeus. Until then...
FOOTBALL SEASON HAS FINALLY ARRIVED!
And no, I'm not talking about the NFL. While yeah the NFL provides a small amount of entertainment, it pales in comparison the greatest game on this planet, our country's true national pastime, College Football.
It is easy to discern who is intelligent and who is not by the sports they watch. People who only watch the NBA, MLB, and the NFL are people who most likely did not recieve a decent education, and thus have no connection to collegiate sports. These people think that because professional players are paid, the game is somehow "better". However, the corporatization of these leagues has sapped most of the life from the games. How can any objective person compare the pageantry and atmosphere of a college football game to the boring, slow, commercial-filled game of the NFL, where every team runs the EXACT same offense and defense and RBs who barely average 4 yards per carry are sent to the Pro Browl?
Anyway, the NFL does serve a purpose (hell its ten times better than baseball, but that's a post for a different day) but it still pales in comparison to CFB.
And what happened this weekend?
The biggest game of course was LSU's complete and utter beatdown of the then ranked #9 Virginia Tech Hokies, much to the chagrin of every American. Count me down as one of the very misinformed who thought the game would be a close defensive battle. Instead VT showed that it indeed has been overranked most likely due to the tragic shootings from last April, and in reality they appear to be a very average team with a horrible offense.
Michigan of course lost again, this time to an Oregon team that looked like it finally found its balls after five years of running around as a eunuch. Perhaps losing OC Gary Crowton to LSU is addition through subtraction, as the new Duck offense showed signs of GASP creativity and progression rather than just trying to force a spread option attack without any ryhme or reason. Plays called in the first quarter led to plays in the second. A nice statue of liberty play that gained 15 yards was used as a trick for the awesome FAKE statue of liberty QB sprint which left Oregon QB all alone in the endzone with the Michigan players still trying to tackle poor Jonathon Stewart who didn't even have the ball. This game proved yet again that despite being the biggest stadium in the country, it is one of the least intimidating to play at if the opposing team scores first. You could hear a pin drop.
#1 USC got the week off to rest after it's exhibition against Idaho (what? That was a real game?). They face a top 15 ranked Nebraska now in Lincoln in what will be the premiere game next Saturday at 5pm PST. Opening line shows the Trojans are 10.5 point favorites... and they should easily cover. Bill Callahan is one of the biggest cowards you'll find coaching in CFB. Last year against USC he exhibited one of the worst gameplans ever, with his intent being to blatantly play NOT TO BE BLOWNOUT. No, not try to win. Just to try and keep the score reasonable, which I suppose he did (I think it was a 28-10 USC victory). He followed that up by playing FAR too conservatively in many other games, costing them their bowl game specifically. He has yet to shed his NFL conscious of playing close,boring football. Anyway, expect USC to come out roaring and win by 18 or so again easily, and quiet some of the talk that LSU is really the #1 team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
