OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Author Archive

Next Entries »

The Lincoln Club celebrates 50 years

Posted by Brenda Higgins on April 15, 2012

The Lincoln Club Gala, celebrating it’s 50th birthday was held Saturday night, April 14, 2012 at the Balboa Bay Club. There were nearly 500 in attendance, including a variety of elected officials and candidates. In attendance were, Villa Park Councilwoman, Debra Pauly, Candidate for the Third Supervisorial District Todd Spitzer, U.S. Representative Ed Royce, State Senator Bob Huff, Vice Chair of the Board of Education Michelle Steel, State Senator Mimi Walters, Placentia Mayor Jeremy Yamaguchi, Mayor of Orange Carolyn Caveche, Mayor Pro-Tem Dennis Bilodeau, Central Committee Chair Scott Baugh, Honorable Judge David Belz, this list is by no means exhaustive. Karl Rove was the keynote speaker of the evening.

There was a series of video interviews with elected officials. Which included, a rendition of the history of the Lincoln Club from it’s inception in 1962 with the defeat of Richard Nixon by Pat Brown for the Governor of California, as well as some historic photos and audio interviews. Buck Johns had some remarks and was as entertaining as always. Doy Henley was recognized for his achievement and contribution.

Karl Rove was engaging and personable. He approached our table, shook hands and introduced himself, which I thought was kind and impressive. Connecting with people may be more of a gift than a learned skill, whichever it is Mr. Rove has it.  He is natural and articulate, did not miss a beat when there was a commotion at one corner of the room, spoke without notes or teleprompter. The talk was immensely fact intensive on the costs of PPACA, the net effect of the Buffet tax on revenue, Social Security and Medicare shortfalls, and the inconsistency of the Obama administration in sticking to campaign promises. He concluded with a remark that the policies of the current administration, if allowed to play out for another four years, are likely to fundamentally change our country in a very harmful way. He also encouraged a focus on the history of the Lincoln Club to bolster faith in our collective power to have an effect upon the upcoming elections, and not to give too much credit to the media reports and statistics that show the president performing favorably.

A worthy celebration of the esteemed Lincoln Club. Happy Birthday.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Plaintive wail of Civility

Posted by Brenda Higgins on April 11, 2012

Disclaimer: I was a candidate for Yorba Linda City Council in 2010. THIS is an opinion piece, intended for entertainment and reality checks. I am an equal opportunity offender, read at your own risk.

I have a great deal of respect for only one of the members of the current city council in Yorba Linda and that is Jim Winder. He has served, and resided in this city for decades. His service has come to us at great personal cost to him. He has been disrespected, unfairly accused and periodically ridiculed without cause. Yet he shows up consistently, is polite, prepared and concerned for the well being of our city. These things can not be said about any of the other council members.

John Anderson’s mean spirit and agenda of personal vendettas has never been well hidden. Nancy Rikel and Mark Schwing answer to and for him. Their public discussions consistently appear unnatural or rehearsed. The clear impression is that they are Anderson’s mouth pieces. They all portray themselves as “fiscal conservatives”, they have given that term a foul sound and connotation. If fiscal conservative means that they only agree to spend money on their pet projects or the pet projects of their friends and supporters, then okay, they are fiscal conservatives. However their pattern of spending would embarrass many a democrat. They vote together, they were elected together, they have each others back in a twisted and dysfunctional way.

The mayor in Yorba Linda is voted in on a traditional rotating basis by the council, generally in order of when they were elected. Not so since Anderson has controlled the council. On each occasion that it would have been the turn of a Council member who was “not-one-of-us”, that council member was stepped over in favor of “one-of-us”. In 2008 that was Jan Horton. As the councilmember next in line, she was passed over in favor of John Anderson. By 2008 Jan had already become the “not-one-of-us” and was on the hit list. She was deprived of the opportunity to be mayor and that also enabled Mr. Anderson to be able to run against her for re-election as Mayor Anderson. In 2012, it was Jim Winder, whose turn it was to be mayor, but Anderson’s majority passed him over in favor of Schwing. Mark Schwing will now be running for re-election as Mayor Schwing. In his last year, after many decades of service to this community, the Anderson lackeys could serve up one final dose of indignity to Jim Winder and deprive him of his last tenure as Mayor. Winder is termed out, and will not run again. All it really accomplished was to confirm that they are pandering jerks.

Tom Lindsey portrays himself as the “true” conservative. That would be highly relevant if any issues of social import or civil rights issue come before the council, but that’s not likely. The majority of Andersons’ council has abandoned Lindsey and he is left to align with the lame duck portion of the council alongside Jim Winder. Lindsey’s view on fiscal or any issue is rendered largely irrelevant,. A difficult lesson to learn for Lindsey, as he aligned with Anderson in the eleventh hour before the 2010 campaign began. They ran as a “slate”. During the 2010 campaign, when questioned about the ugly hit pieces and robo-calls directed towards Jan Horton, both Lindsey and Anderson diverted their eyes from the crowd when they answered. Mr. Anderson’s “I did not write that piece”, may essentially, technically, be true, but it clearly made him uncomfortable to say those carefully chosen words. Lindsey, for whom the 2010 campaign was his second try for a council seat, was intent on being elected. I have not asked him how he’s feeling now in 2012, with 20/20 hindsight, about his 2010 choice to align with Anderson. I have observed him to suffer the same punishment that Jan Horton and then Hank Weeda did. If you run with “them” and then acquire any different view or opinion, you are ostracized. So much for the fantasy that once we’re elected we can have collegial respect for differing view points.

Jan Horton is not a member of the council at this time, but her effect is no less pertinent than those seated. She is a regular attender, proclaiming accountability, tranparency and spewing her point of view of the incompetence and lack of ethics of the current council. The existing situation, with the Anderson wing, disrespectful of Winder, and indignant for Lindsey and his turn coat antics, is smoldering fire anyway. Then Jan shows up and brings the gasoline in the form of her vitriole, her repetitive and shrill allegations, her husband with a camera, and her allies. She shows little in the way of tact and self control and she manages to stoke the flames of contention, discord and animosity on every issue, and at each council appearance or online discussion.

The counterpart to Jan is Ed Rakochy. Unelected, regular attender, but “One-of-us” along with the regular appearance of other YLRRR (Yorba Linda Residents for Responsible Representation) members. The vigilante group that originally got Jan Horton and John Anderson elected, (yes as with any true rivalry, they began and friends and cohorts), has its regular and scripted attenders, commenting favorably on the moves of the Anderson majority, standing on their soap boxes and waving their flags, pretending this is even handed democracy, and proclaiming how ‘fiscally conservative’ the current majority council are.

I have rarely been able to stomach a whole meeting of this circus atmosphere, it’s a charade and not open democratic discourse. The pontification goes on for hours.

I am acquainted in some fashion with each of these individuals who are driving the toxicity in our city government, and this I know. Each and every one of them believes firmly that he/she is doing the “right thing” for the city. My opinion and observation is that they are each blinded by their own adrenaline rush from this ongoing combat. The salient point that they keep missing, is that the majority of the residents of the city are not “one-of-us”, and are also not the constantly contentious “one-of-them”. I don’t see any of these regular players stepping away from their entrenched positions long enough to have a healthy discussion on points upon which they might actually agree.

This is not good for anyone. This is not good for our city. I can only hope that voters refuse to get caught up in the rhetoric, that good and independent, unaligned candidates step forward in the next election. Politics is like square dancing, if you get too attached to your partner or your moves, you’ll eventually step on your own toes and get kicked out of the dance. We can only hope.

　

　

　

　

Posted in Yorba Linda | Tagged: , , , , | 8 Comments »

The dumbest dialogue on Obamacare yet

Posted by Brenda Higgins on April 3, 2012

In the wake of the recent oral arguments to the Supreme Court, politicians with stakes on both sides of the issue have exercised their liberty to open their mouths about it. With matters that are complex enough to necessitate Supreme Court intervention, politicians would have been well served to exercise restraint. As the saying goes, better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

POTUS seemed to lob the first grenade in this nonsensical war of words with the following disposition of his genius.
“I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress” Gee, I don’t know Barry, but maybe a clue exists in the cases of Marbury v. Madison, McCullough v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden. In all of these cases the high court determined that Congressional or State Legislature actions were either appropriate or inappropriate under the powers granted to them by the Constitution. Judicial review? Ever heard of it? Just because the majority of a democratically elected Congress voted that we should all covert to Buddahism, does not mean that the court is going to allow such a law to stand.

I believe that Barry attended and graduated from Harvard Law School, even though I have not seen any official transcripts, BUT, my question would be whether or not he passed Constitutional Law after a comment like that. The popularity of the law, or the strength of the majority on the vote have no bearing on the grant, or lack thereof, of power to Congress, in the Constitution. I get that he is confused when he is losing on an issue, and is not very good on his feet, but these recent comments sound much like, “Oh yeah, I know I am but what are you?!” Genius. Articulate. Our POTUS.

Then, we have Mitt Romney being questioned about the comments of the President and we get this gem.

“So judicial activism is not following the Constitution. Judicial activism is departing from the Constitution”

Giving Mitt one tiny break, you can not impart a meaningful explanation of the concept of “judicial activism” in a one liner. When we have Obama jumping up and down crying “judicial activism” you can’t merely say, “judicial activism is not following the Constitution”. He could have said, the court will do what it has always done, and strike down laws that are not constitutional. That is their job, it is what we want them to do. He seems stunned by the question and ill prepared to address it. His retort sounds as childish as the comments from Barry and is tantamount to “Yeah, well come over here and say that!”.

Mitt, I understand, also received a Juris Doctor from Harvard, and I’m pretty sure it’s not one of those online law schools.

Judicial activism, is not like super-twins-powers-activate!, that you get all power and unsuspected, otherwise humanly impossible victory for your team whenever it is invoked or granted to your side. It is a criticism of the judiciary that they are allegedly utilizing and relying upon their own personal biases and politics when they are interpreting an issue of First Impression, which is that it has never been addressed before. Judicial activism then, is the battle cry of the whiners on losing side. Not unlike complaining about how blind the Umpire was at your kids Little League game.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, somebody is always unhappy, somebody leaves the building a loser, and somebody cries “injustice”, and yes, someone raves”judicial activism”. It just ain’t fair. It is the way the system works, and works pretty effectively. This utter lack of reverence and political demonizing of this branch is something that should be offensive to us all.

I have seen several comments questioning that if the court can be “activist” on Roe v. Wade, then why not be “activist” on overturning the PPACA (Aka Obamacare). THIS is the most illiterate and incomprehensible of all the dumb comments so far.

Roe, whether you like it or not, is a case protecting fundamental rights of individuals, primarily under the 14th Amendment. The focus is the individual and the protection afforded to all of us within the 14th Amendment. The PPACA case involves the POWER of Congress to do what it has done. This legislation is so breathtakingly broad, it is difficult to even start to describe the plethora of overstepping the powers of Congress that has gone on here. Just on its face, it compels businesses to provide health insurance coverage for employees, compels individuals to purchase health care coverage, and compels the same insurance companies to provide insurance to those whom they might otherwise not wish to have as clients. I don’t care at all about how “human” Obama wants to characterize this, Congress can not go around dictating who will do business and contract with whom, and dictating what we will purchase. While we get mired in whether Congress had the POWER to do ANY of this, we don’t even get to the question of the First Amendment Rights to Association that my be impacted by the various “mandates”. Breathtakingly broad. There is no other way to describe this abomination. In both cases, the court is the last vestige of defense and the one thing that protects the individual by curtailing the government.

Congress has overstepped and abused its powers. It is really that simple, and that complicated. It likely goes down, but Barry is obviously nervous, and he is the consummate campaigner. Sorry, the Supremes don’t work that way and their lifetime tenure make them generally immune (hopefully) from such public relations games by the Great Campaigner. As officers of the court, as elected officials, do these politicians not have the job to instill CONFIDENCE in the court? Please, all of you verbose campaigners, stop scapegoating the most distinguished branch or our government with your sore loser rhetoric. An ounce of respect and dignity for the branch that is literally our last defense against this kind of government infringement, socialism and tyranny, and all sorts of invasions of our rights and privacies.

Obamacare will likely be overturned because it is bad law, and it is the JOB of the Supreme Court, to overturn bad laws that violate the constitution.

Mitt, you can use that next time someone asks you.

 

Posted in National, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 14 Comments »

In Defense of the Unlovely or Selective Prosecution

Posted by Brenda Higgins on April 1, 2012

On Thursday evening March 22, the Orange County Jewish American Bar Association hosted a discussion of the case of the Irvine 11. The discussion involved District Attorney Tony Rackaukas and Defense counsel Jacqueline Goodman. The discussion was moderated by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

In 2010, Isreali Ambassador Micheal Oren came to Orange County to speak at UCI. In the course of the Ambassadors speech, 11 Muslim students, in an orchestrated fashion, stood up at intervals throughout Mr. Oren’s speech. The students were ultimately prosecuted for the conspiracy to disrupt the speech. Ten defendants were convicted, one defendant was dismissed prior to trial. They have been widely referred to as the “Irvine 11” in media accounts of the incident.

The discussion at the OCJBA was for the most part, civil and polite. Ms. Goodman drew an audible response of displeasure from the predominantly Jewish audience when she referred to the students as something tantamount to heroes. Mr. Rackaukas would have been far more effective and persuasive had he not sidestepped some of the pertinent facts of the investigation and by omitting his periodic eye rolling during Ms. Goodman’s comments. Of course, this attorney in the audience would have preferred much more input and not just moderating from the distinguished Dean. Dean Chemerinsky did remind the audience that the students and the club that they belonged to were disciplined by UCI administration but that the terms of such were confidential and could not be disclosed.

Notable commentary from the District Attorney included emphasis on the importance of drawing a “line in the sand” and sending a clear message that this behavior will not be tolerated in the OC. He stated more than once that we had to “start somewhere” as he defended questions of selective prosecution of this misdemeanor matter. When questioned about the dismissal of One student, while the remaining Ten defendants went to trial, the DA vigorously asserted that ALL defendants were offered the “same deal”. It was quite surprising that the DA failed to mention the additional costly litigation occasioned by the inappropriate conduct of his staff, which ultimately lead to the one defendant being dismissed. Ms. Goodman quickly reminded him of the attorney-client privileged emails that were obtained by the DA’s office which lead to three Deputy prosecutors and one investigator being removed from the case. Only after the court ruling that these high ranking deputy prosecutors and an investigator must be removed and screened from the trial prosecution team, was the deal reached to dismiss the one defendant.

A pretty significant legal event, and dramatic move by the trial judge, yet not even mentioned by the District Attorney.

Both attorneys spoke wistfully about how they each were the champion of free speech on their side of the case. Ms. Goodman, in spite of the tangible hostility in the room, gently pointed out the difficulties of trying a case with Muslim defendants, on trial within weeks of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, and argued that it was the defendants whose free speech was violated. She confirmed that they were organized, argued that they did not in anyway terminate the speech of Michael Oren, that they harmed no one and were for the entirety of the demonstration, peaceful and non-violent. Mr Rackaukus argued that the students intended to and did in fact “shut-down” the speaker and deprived the other students in the room, the right to hear all of what the Isreali Ambassador had to say, and deprived the Ambassador of saying what he came to say.

Neither attorney mentioned the fact that Micheal Oren did in fact end his speech early. There is no indication whether it was due to the disruption of the Muslim students, or the fact that he had Lakers tickets and went directly from UCI to the game.

There was also no discussion of state action. In order for there to be a violation of anyone’s right to Free Speech, the government must have taken some action to interfere with or violate someone’s Free Speech. In this situation, the only “state-action” is the action of the DA in prosecuting the 11(actually 10) students. The students are not government officials. While their behavior was not necessarily “approved” of by UCI (a state school), i.e. they had given proper prior notice to the administration of their demonstration, and their behavior made them ultimately subject to discipline. Was that “state-action” for the University administration to take action against the students who were speaking out, expressing their views? There was no state action on behalf of the students, their conduct not sanctioned or directed by UCI, and there was no effort by UCI to terminate Oren’s speech at the behest of these students.

Interestingly, there were about 100 professors from UCI, including Dean Chemerinsky as well as several Pulitzer and Nobel prize wining professors, who petitioned the DA to NOT proceed with the prosecution of the students. Their argument being that the action of the DA in the prosecution of such activities that occurred on campus would have a chilling effect on other students exercising their right to protest in the future. The staff in that letter emphasized the open forum and environment encouraging expression on college campuses. No one at the OCJBA discussion mentioned that the staff at UCI opposed en masse the prosecution of these students.

There was also an organization called Jewish Voice for Peace that implored the DA not to prosecute these students and opposed pushing this matter to trial. No one at the OCJBA discussion mentioned that either.

Mr. Rackauckus was adamant in his “start somewhere” comments that a message must be sent that this behavior is not appropriate in this county. He did not mention any prosecution of any other defendants under this theory of a misdemeanor conspiracy to deprive someone of their free speech rights. A diligent search for a similar case, prior to, or since this prosecution has yielded no results of any other such prosecution. This was the lone case.

I was disappointed at the lack of information that the District Attorney imparted. This was certainly a “home-field” advantage for him. An audience of lawyers, intellectual and presumably sophisticated legal minds, deserved a more fact intensive and analytical presentation from the lead prosecutor. Ms. Goodman mostly held her own. She overlooked the obvious bias against her association with the Muslim students and politely corrected the District Attorney when facts were omitted.

I have a visceral opposition to the anti-Israel views of these students, but I wonder what purpose is served by prosecuting them. I have learned as a trial lawyer, that trial rarely fixes anything, and generally drives warring sides further apart. The most sensible thing I heard that evening came from the closing remarks made by the OCJBA president, Jordan Steinberg related to the importance of dialogue. He pointed out that there is a facebook page entitled Isreal <3 Iran, with the profile photo of an Isreali father holding his daughter, the message being, “we don’t want to bomb you”. A simplistic approach to a complicated problem? Perhaps, but one that takes into account humanity. Apparent in the situation of the Irvine 11, it is always easier to villify anyone when they are nothing but an impersonal label.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What’s the one thing……

Posted by Brenda Higgins on March 2, 2012

Campaign season is in full swing and as I read through the local, state and federal news, try to see how each candidate is faring, try to understand the budding controversies, and grapple with the issues, I find myself frustrated that it has become so complicated. As a candidate in 2010, I encountered, repeatedly, people who were interested in the process, who cared, but didn’t understand the complexity of the issues. .

In the kaleidoscope of coverage and available information, a voter can read critiques of candidates hair and apparel, their wife’s hair and apparel, where they ate for lunch and who they ate it with. We have been obsessed and side tracked with Tax Returns and Birth Certificates, with newsletters and associations, with relatives of the candidate, whether there are gay or alcoholic relatives, and how many times they’ve been married. We occasionally get some good coverage and interest in the voting record of incumbents, but even that substantive information, I keep wondering if the average voter gets it.

As we sort through and nit pick our favorite issues, the unfortunate result is that we on the right continue to appear to ourselves and others as divided and not cohesive or unified. I would love to see a candidate, any candidate, for any office, deal with the issues by sticking to a basic tenet of conservative politics, rather than taking a position on every popular public issue, even ones that may never come before them. Because, let’s face it, you don’t have to spend much time in Sacramento to realize why they call it the sausage factory. Even in the Local elections, I hear the same lament from electeds, it is just not as easy as it looks. Idealism dies an abrupt death right after the swearing in ceremony. Compromises will be made. Campaign promises will be broken. Many things, especially at the local level, are not feasible or legal even if they were the cornerstone promises and guarantees during the campaign. The hurdles are significant, and often unanticipated by the most well meaning candidates. Then of course, we skewer them in their race for reelections for not sticking to the overly specific promises they made during the campaign.

So, what if. What if, we as a party looked at our candidates, rather than a host of litmus tests on how they will vote on this or that….what if, we ask them…..WILL YOU GROW GOVERNMENT? Will you fight with everything in your being to curtail the runaway growth of government? …..OR will you allow government to grow in the limited exceptions, when it comes to your favorite issues or pet projects?

This should be our “one thing”, limiting, and/or reducing the size of government, at every level. That should be the battle cry of the right, of the Republican party. We are the only ones who will do it. If we get mired in debates over social issues, and continue beating up candidates on the hypothetical questions related to scenarios that may never happen, we lose a lot of steam in the lack of focus and simplicity. Gosh, it starts to sound like ….”tolerance”, ouch.

If we don’t establish a clearer and more devoted commitment to this principle, our government at all levels will continue to grow at unprecedented and unsustainable rates. Limiting the size of government, decreasing the size of government, curtailing the growth of government. Call it what you will, but this one principle applies to every issue. I will be voting for those candidates whose agenda is to stick with this one simple and vital principle.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Mother’s View of Obamacare

Posted by Brenda Higgins on February 21, 2012

In the past two years, I have had a great deal of personal experience with the wonders of medical science. These experiences reinforced my belief that the incentive and competition that drive the free market are to the benefit of all of us and have resulted in an outstanding level of medical care available in this country that we should be working hard to preserve and not dismantle.

On April 9, 2010, my son was injured riding a Quad in the desert. He was airlifted to Loma Linda Medical Center.

I drove from Orange County to Loma Linda in San Bernardino to meet him at the hospital. As I drove down Waterman Ave., I saw the helicopter just taking off from the roof. I parked my car and sprinted to the Emergency Room entrance. By the time I cleared security and made it to my son’s bedside, he had already been assessed by every relevant professional on the trauma team.

I was greeted by a literal parade of doctors. I can only describe it as seeming like synchronized swimmers. Each professional had an intern, so they appeared in pairs. First the trauma team, they were the lead treating physicians. Then the bone doctors, neurologists, and internists appeared in turn. They each briefed me, explained the tests they had already conducted, answered my questions, allayed my fears and concerns, assured me they were doing all they could, explained the medications and treatments that were already in place and completed as well as the prognosis and forward considerations. As each one completed their discussion with me, the next team appeared on cue. All of this occurring within 30 – 45 minutes of my son arriving at the hospital by helicopter.

After a few days in the hospital with him, I was awakened one night after midnight by hospital staff who advised me that my son’s most recent brain scan showed a blood clot in his jugular vein. An immediate additional scan was going to be performed to determine the scope and severity of it.

The amazing pictures that resulted from this midnight scan showed literally all the arteries and veins in his head and neck and the blood flowing through them. The blood clot was clearly seen as well as the severely restricted flow around it. It was determined that treatment of the blockage could begin.

He stayed in the hospital for three more days and we were then sent home after instruction on how to inject the blood thinning medication at home for the next thirty days. Ultimately, the blood clot dissipated. The broken bones, concussion and bruises healed. He returned to school and the life of a normal teenage boy.

Thirteen months and ten days later, he was in a trauma center again with a different, unrelated injury.

On May 19, 2011, he was playing Little League baseball, and took a high fast ball to his left temple while at bat. It knocked the helmet off his head and knocked him to the ground. He sustained a skull fracture and his brain was bleeding. After assessment at the local ER, they placed him in an ambulance and transferred him to the UCI trauma center. About 16 hours after the injury, he was in surgery to alleviate the brain bleed and repair the fracture. The fracture was repaired with titanium plates which were secured with nylon screws. After 3 days in the ICU, he returned home with 34 stitches and a freshly shaved head. Eight months later he is again playing baseball, and riding motorcycles.

Spending so much time in hospitals with a seriously injured child gave me a new and tremendous gratitude for the outstanding medical treatment, highly trained professionals, procedures and amazing products we have available to us. I confirmed my strong belief that, among the many freedoms and privileges we possess as Americans, one of the greatest is the opportunity to be treated in the most well maintained, and readily available medical facilities in the world, equipped with the most advanced technology and the most competent specialists and professionals.

As much as I would rather have not had those dark moments in my life, I would not have wanted to be anywhere else. The precision and compassion of all of the professionals I encountered at each of these facilities were nothing short of awe inspiring. Each day I am thankful for his remarkable recovery, the professionals who treated him, as well as those who created the medications and devices that helped them put him back together.

The medical system in the United States may not perfect, but it is not by any means in need of government intervention or repair. As Reagan said, the most frightening words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.

Aside from the devastation that Obamacare will certainly wreak on our already fragile economy, it will choke the creativity and life out of the entire medical system. Obamacare targets the drug companies, healthcare insurers and manufacturers, disincentivizes pre-planning by patients, and increases taxes on income and capital gains. We need this kind of change like New Orleans needed the levies to break after hurricane Katrina rolled through. 

It might not have been broken, but once they are done fixing it, it surely will be.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Foul Play is not suspected

Posted by Brenda Higgins on February 20, 2012

I kept hearing this as a quote from police on the days immediately following Whitney Houston’s death. I kept thinking, “That depends on how you define foul play”. Outside of the literal law enforcement view of “foul play”, on a more philosophical level, I felt there was a great deal of foul play at work in these circumstances.

In 2008, more than 12 million Americans were abusing their prescription pain meds. 1 In 2010, 2 million Americans reported using prescription pain medications nonmedically for the first time. About one-half of prescription painkiller deaths involve at least one other drug, including benzodiazepines, and alcohol. Benzodiazepine related deaths from 2004 to 2008 rose 24%. Benzodiazepines include but are not limited to Xanax, Valium, Lunesta.2 Not included in either of these classes (Pain killers or benzodiazepines) but also showing increasing levels of abuse, Soma, ( a muscle relaxer), and Ambien (short term sleeping aid). Of course, when any of these are combined with alcohol, the possibility of personal injury or death is high.

Someone prescribed for Whitney Houston the plethora of drugs (benzodiazepines) that were found in her room. Someone left her alone and allowed her to get into the bath. No one stood up to her and told her that was a bad idea. The public gawked at the wreckage of her life and laughed out loud or Googled “crack is whack”. Isn’t any of this “foul play”? Where if anywhere does responsibility lie?

In the recent barrage of brief interviews, “tragic”, “a tragic LOSS” is repeated over and over. I keep wondering which loss they mean. The immediate and recent loss of Whitney Houston’s physical life on this earth? The loss of her magnificent voice? The loss of her dignity? Her recent death is not in any way as tragic as her existence in her last years. Tormented by her substance abuse and addiction, ridiculed by a once adoring public, and without the padding of the cash cow that was her career was in the 80’s and 90’s, we watched her unravel and go up in flames.

There have been reports that the day prior to her death, Whitney Houston was doing handstands in the lobby of the Beverly Hilton, that she was drinking heavily and acting strange the night before and was exhibiting similar bizarre behavior around the pool that day. She was escorted out of the pool area by her 18 year old daughter. When mom is a drunk who acts like a child, the child becomes the parent. The cycle of abuse and enabling automatically trains up a new generation.

An estimated 15 million Americans are alcohol or drug dependent. For every person abusing alcohol or drugs, there are at least four others, Spouses, children and coworkers who are severely impacted. About 28 million Americans are the adult children of alcoholics still suffering from events of their childhoods. 3

In the situation where the addict is wealthy or famous, the enablers are not just the family and friends, but the paid staff. These paid handlers are easily replaced if they thwart the addict. The absolute bottom that could lead to an end of the denial and a turn around is harder to reach with a limitless supply of enablers. It is difficult but not impossible. Robert Downey, Jr. now claims 7 years of sobriety and the difference in his life is clear and unmistakable. It can be done. Whitney just didn’t do it.

In 2010, enough prescription pain medications were prescribed to medicate every American adult around the clock for one month. 1 We have to address our collective denial and see the epidemic. This is not a problem of wealthy or famous people. It is more visible, and more dysfunctional with the glare of the spotlight, but not in any way unique to them.

The fallout of prescription drug abuse is often, and easily hidden or overlooked. Missed days and low performance at work, one car accidents, falling asleep (at a red light or waiting for children to come out of school), arrests from domestic violence, petty theft, breaking and entering, are all issues that arise for prescription drug abuser, but these do not necessarily trigger a mandated drug screen or appropriate intervention. Marriages disintegrate while the sober parent fights to keep children in a safe environment, the drug abuser proclaims that they do not have a problem as they are taking what was prescribed and only drinking occasionally. The costs and consequences are breathtakingly broad.

Instinctively, we recall all the lovely things from a person’s life when they die. That, like other forms of self medication, alleviates the pain temporarily. The real cure for addiction is to amputate denial. Whitney Houston’s death was an ugly event. It was the natural and predictable culmination of years of her demise through addiction. To call it anything else is to perpetuate the denial that enabled an addict to take her life down this fateful path. The most telling quote of all, during her now infamous 2002 interview with Diane Sawyer, “The biggest devil is me. I’m either my best friend or my worst enemy.”. In the face of this expanding epidemic, we are faced with the choice of perpetuating the denial, or facing the inconvenient truth. Step one is admitting there is a problem.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Proposition 8: Tyranny of the Majority or Preservation of Marriage

Posted by Brenda Higgins on February 13, 2012

 

I am a family law attorney and occasional polititican. Which means that I have been Certified by the California State Bar as a Specialist in Family Law and for the majority of my mornings in the past 16 years I have been in a court house in Orange County or one of the surrounding counties, with people who are facing the difficulties of dividing their time with their children, facing an often uncertain financial future, and allocating income in such a way that children are financially provided for. I have been a lifelong Republican, raised in the Southern Baptist Church. I was a young republican attending Baptist college when I went to my first rally in which the movie Silent Scream was shown and Randall Terry was the speaker. I ran for local office in 2010. My unique juxtaposition as conservative, and a lawyer involved directly with family and relational issues, has lead me to be increasingly concerned with where the Republican party is, and is going. It seems that the loudest voices of the party think that the party was built upon bigotry and exclusivity. It was always my belief that the party of Lincoln and Reagan was the champion and not the enemy of civil rights

I have been asked frequently about my views of Proposition 8, the California ban on same sex marriage. It is the single most futile effort employed by conservatives that we have seen in recent years. As the 2008 election dragged on, and I saw people who normally do not get involved in political campaigns, get increasingly involved in the Prop 8 battle, I continued to encourage people to throw their new found political stamina into the presidential and local congressional races, to no avail. As we all know, the proposition passed, and as I predicted, it has been in litigation since. As I also predicted, the Ninth Circuit has now declared the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional on the obvious basis that the statutory framework in California violates equal protection.

The fundamental rights that emanate from the U.S. Constitution can not be infringed upon by the government, OR by the majority of the people. The most prevalent argument I hear regarding the recent ruling are that about state’s rights, the 10th Amendment, and the vote/voice of the people and that this ruling was activism by of this judges.

It has historically been the third branch, the judiciary, that acts to curtail infringements upon fundamental constitutional rights, precisely because, such a situation arises from the tyranny of the over-zealous majority. There were certainly a majority of people who believed that slavery and segregation were okay in those times. We progress by policing our own ideals. Imposing a legislative morality that is dictated by one point of view or one religion, endangers the freedom of us all. We are free by virtue of the fact that we all, not just some of us, or the most popular of us, or the most activist of us, are free. We all must be free or none of us are free.

It is well established that there should be no limitation on who is permitted to avail themselves of elective medical interventions to bear children. There is no debate that we protect, recognize and allow individuals to exercise their right to procreate in whatever way is medically available to them. In opposite sex relationships where issues of infertility would otherwise render a couple childless, we proclaim the providence of God and miracles of medical science when they find a way to overcome infertility. We do not attempt to limit the classes of people who undertake these procedures. We can not. If the technology is available to one class of people, it must be available to all, married, unmarried, heterosexual, homosexual, and differently abled in any capacity.

In a more practical view of the application of Proposition 8, I have had the actual displeasure of encountering and considering the difficulties of families in which the parents are the same sex.

Two women undertook to have a long term committed relationship. During their relationship, each of them decided to exercise their right to procreative freedom, and bore a child. The children were raised as siblings, in the same household, with the same set or same sex parents. Much like 75% of heterosexual marriages, the relationship between these two women ended. Also, like a large percentage of the heterosexual marriages that end, it ended explosively, with each party claiming that they had been a victim of violence at the hand of the other, litigation and almost no out of court resolutions.

A Domestic Violence case was filed and restraining orders were granted to each of them.

In the course of their relationship that had obtained a California Registered Domestic Partnership, so another legal procedure to dissolve the partnership, similar to a divorce, had to be filed. That dissolution of Domestic Partnership had no ability to address the needs of their children. This couple had not taken the additional and necessary legal step for same sex couples, to initiate cross adoptions. In that way, the legal rights of the children and their non-biological parent would be clear. These adoptions are much like a pre-nup, not a conversation people in love want to have, the possible end and decline of their relationship. Also, Like most couples who don’t get a pre-nup, they never believed or anticipated their relationship would fall into the statistics of failure.

Without the legal adoptions in place, the only ability these parents had to facilitate continuing contact with their (non-biological) child, and the children to continue having contact with each other, was to file cross guardianships in the Probate court. Unfortunately, the guardianship process that arises under the Probate and not the Family Code, and has a different standard of proof and remedies than a Family Court child custody case. In order to preserve the relationship with the non-biological child, each mother would have to prove in the Probate court that the biological mother’s care of the child was “detrimental” to the child and that the non-biological parent should have effective sole custody of the non-biological child. There is no provision in the guardianship statutes for “visistation” or shared custody.

They both lost their bids for guardianship of the other’s child. They each failed to show “detriment” to the child, essentially the court found that each child would be safe in the care of the biological parent. There was no determination or consideration of the “best interests” of these children. No determination of their interests in maintaining a relationship with both of the parents they have come to know. No determination of their respective rights to maintain a relationship with the only sibling they had ever known. Each of these children’s relationship with the parent that they had known, and the sibling they had known was effectively terminated.

In a perfect world, the parents would have seen the error of their ways, put their differences aside and figured out a way to share their children, to devise a plan that preserved the relationships the children had come to know and rely upon. Much like most of the heterosexual parents I have represented, they did not take the high road, they dug into their positions and differences and exercised their right to have a person in a black robe define their situation. They weren’t oppositional because they are gay, they were oppositional because they are human. The process and “best interests” standard in the Family Code is designed to protect the interests of children when their grief and anger stricken parents can not or will not do so. The Family Code did nothing to protect these children. It did not apply to them because their parents relationship fell under the “separate” statutory framework. Clearly these children were not provided with an “equal” access to justice, and were denied a judicial determination and the protection that children of opposite sex parents would have had.

Children of parents who are the same sex have clearly not been treated the same as children os opposite sex parents. They are not guaranteed a best interests determination, they are not afforded a hearing on the continuity and stability in their life, they are not granted a consideration of the presumption that separating siblings is not in their best interests. This is inherently unfair and just plain wrong. There have been successful efforts recently to amend the presumed parent statute to apply to parents of any sex, but the recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit cuts to the real core.

Separate is not equal.

　

Footnote: I have a published article on the legal impediments, and detriment to children of “Separating Siblings”, 2008 in the Orange County Lawyer, it appears on my website, http://www.bmccunefamilylaw.com

Posted in California | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

Next Entries »