CVIndependent

Fri08232019

Last updateTue, 18 Sep 2018 1pm

We’re supposed to have multiple points of view, or parties, on the ballot—and then the candidate who gets the most votes wins. That’s what we call democracy.

But what if only those candidates who represent the majority of registered voters in a district were allowed on the ballot? Anyone representing a minority point of view would have no reason to even run. That’s not what we would call democracy. But that’s what we have now, since California instituted a new primary system. In essence, it means that if you’re not a member of the majority party in a district, your point of view regarding important issues may never even be up for discussion.

No room for Green candidates. No Peace and Freedom party. In some cases, no Democrats or Republicans.

That’s what has happened in the race for the 28th District California Senate seat. Based on the law passed by California voters in 2010, the top two vote-getters in a primary, regardless of party, are the only candidates placed on the ballot in the general election. Thus, in a heavily Republican district, like the 28th, Democrats, independents and third-party voters have no way of expressing their feelings through their votes on the issues or policies they feel are important. And what is worse: Those elected have no incentive whatsoever to represent those voters’ concerns.

In the 28th Senate race, our ballot will now feature a “choice” between either former Assemblymember Bonnie Garcia or Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, both Republicans. Registration in the district favors Republicans over Democrats by about 10 points, yet more than 19 percent indicate no party preference. The three top vote-getters in the primary were all Republicans, although the two Democratic candidates garnered more than 33 percent of the votes. The result is that the election in November will now be about how one Republican can beat another Republican, while more than 50 percent of the voters—Democrats and “other”—have no real choice at all. Instead of an election about key issues of concern to our area, and policy approaches to address those issues, we may have the spectacle of a personality conflict even worse than the primary, which was pretty ugly.

Luckily, in another local race, voters in the 42nd Assembly District will have a real choice. The lone Democrat in the primary, Karalee Hargrove, a member of the Morongo School Board, prevailed as the top vote-getter in the primary election in a district that is even more heavily skewed Republican than the 28th Senate district.

I had the privilege of interviewing Hargrove. A native Californian born in Lakewood, Hargrove was a high school dropout who married at 18. Divorced at 24, “I found myself the single mother of three sons living outside the Air Force Base in Fayetteville, N.C., and without a high school diploma. Bleak as it might appear to many, I came up with a plan. Within a few months, I had my diploma and was campaigning for a seat on Fayetteville’s City Council.”

Hargrove returned to California in 2007 to care for her grandmother; got reacquainted with and eventually married her “best friend”; ran for the Morongo School Board in 2010 and lost; then ran again and won in 2012.

“I registered to vote the day I turned 18,” she says. “While in Fayetteville, I helped to pass a law regarding police confidentiality, (and) I realized you can be just one person, but you can get things done.”

As a Democrat in a largely Republican district, Hargrove has built her reputation on trying to reach out to constituents of all political philosophies. “I don’t change my message for any individual group,” says Hargrove. “When you involve all the stakeholders, it’s always a better result. I always remember I’m not there just to tell them want they want to hear. Keeping it real—that’s what people are ready for!”

While it is daunting to campaign for the 42nd Assembly seat (the area covers a large part of the Coachella Valley from La Quinta through Banning and Beaumont, as well as Hemet, Morongo Valley, Yucca Valley, Joshua Tree and Twentynine Palms), at least the voters of that district have the chance to make an informed choice about who should represent them.

Is it better to have someone of the majority party representing you, so your issues are more likely to be heard? Or is it better to have someone of the minority party willing to stand up for what you think is right but wield no real influence? Isn’t it much better to at least have a choice?

The best thing to me would be to have a completely open primary ballot, so that everybody gets the chance to vote for everybody. However, the top vote-getter in each party would appear on the final election ballot. Voters would have the broadest possible choices, and candidates would have to appeal to voters beyond just their own party.

While we’re at it, we should demand that those elected serve the entire electorate, not just those who voted for them, no matter how big the margin. If we don’t start holding our elected officials to that standard, shame on us.

Elections should be about choosing among candidates based on each’s ability to best represent all the constituencies in a district, not just the majority. At least in the 42nd State Assembly District race, the voters have a choice.

Published in Know Your Neighbors

I’m having a problem with some of our neighbors. Unfortunately, it’s just that—my problem.

Social Rule System Theory, a field of sociological study, analyzes how human social activity is organized and regulated. These often informal rules include language, customs and codes of conduct. The theory holds that the “making, interpretation and implementation of social rules are universal in human society.” It’s how we learn to live with other people.

Many social rules are culturally influenced. This helps explain why people from densely populated areas, like Southeast Asia or New York, tend to push to the front of any line rather than neatly lining up to wait their turn. Where they come from, if you wait, your turn will never come.

A New Yorker friend, Peter, recalled his experience in London, where people were confusedly dithering about while lining up to get on a bus. He purposefully strode to the front of the throng, got on the bus and, when he heard grumbling behind him, turned around and proclaimed, “I’m an American.” Somehow, that seemed to settle the matter—the “ugly American” concept of “loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless, ignorant, and ethnocentric behavior” is, unfortunately, well-known and accepted throughout Europe.

One of my pet peeves is people who talk in movies. There are unwritten rules about how to shush someone. It starts with the quick turn-around to locate who is talking, which should alert them we overheard them. Next is the longer turn-around, with a glare and a quick but audible “Shh!” When that doesn’t work, some turn and hiss, “Be quiet!” Others just give up and suffer through to the end.

The worst incident I’ve ever experienced came in a Palm Desert theater, when I shushed a woman sitting two seats over, who was talking in a normal tone after the movie had already begun. I followed the “rules” about shushing, including finally hissing, “Please stop talking.” I couldn’t believe it when her husband, sitting beyond her in the row, leaned across her, got into my face with a coiled fist, and said through bared teeth, “If you shush my wife again, I’m going to put my fist down your throat!”

“Well,” I loudly whispered back, with uncharacteristic nerve, “tell her to be quiet!” Needless to say, when the movie was over, I stayed in my seat for quite a while to make sure they were well gone before I left.

Why do people feel the need to share out loud every detail of what they’re watching? It’s particularly galling when, for example, at a vocal performance, people talk while the singer is singing, rather than waiting to comment during the applause that would cover their comments.

I’ve noticed that many of our neighbors don’t seem to realize that movie theaters are not their living rooms. People don’t seem to understand that the director of the movie fashioned the opening to set the mood for what will follow.

I’m really not interested that you know which prior movie that actor was in, or how much older that actress looks. As for comments like, “Why did he do that?”—we’re all there to discover that together, so please just wait and see along with the rest of us. Didn’t your mother teach you any manners?

Here’s my short list of other social rules:

  • At public performances, don’t talk while the performer is performing.
  • Hold the door for someone coming in right behind you.
  • Teach your children the difference between “inside voice” and “outside voice,” and that it’s not OK to disturb other diners in a restaurant.
  • Don’t take cuts in line.
  • Say, “Excuse me,” when you pass in front of someone or step on their toes.
  • Move your shopping cart to the side so others can get past you while you try to find something on the shelves.
  • Let someone with only one item go ahead of you when you have a cartful.
  • Return incorrect change.
  • Let at least one vehicle into the lane ahead of you when the driver is obviously waiting for a break in traffic.
  • Don’t leave clothes on the dressing room floor—rehang them.

Many years ago, I took “est” training. One of the mantras we learned was, “What you resist persists.” In other words, we get repeated chances to learn to incorporate into our reality things which we cannot control or change. I presume that’s why the talkers always sit near me. As long as it’s an “issue” for me, I get to keep having opportunities to learn to handle it!

My most instructive incident happened when I went to a summertime movie in Palm Springs. I was sitting with my friend at the left side of a row in a nearly empty theater. At the right end of the row behind us was an older woman with her husband. Shortly after the movie began, she started telling him everything that was happening on the screen. I tried the look, the simple “Shhh,” and then a much louder “Shhhhh!”—all to no avail. She continued her running narrative of the film through the entire performance.

When the film finally ended, I raced to the end of the row so I could confront the woman. “Ma’am, why don’t you wait for the movie to come out on tape so you can see it at home without bothering others, since your husband is obviously hard of hearing?” I said.

She smiled sweetly—and patiently—at me, and said, “Honey, my husband isn’t hard of hearing. He doesn’t see well.”

What you resist persists.

Published in Know Your Neighbors

A 55-year-old Michigan man recently shot through a locked screen door at a 19-year-old woman, who was pounding on his door in the middle of the night, apparently drunk. He was found guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter, because his life was in no way being imminently threatened, and he had ample time to call 911. 

In Long Beach, an 80-year-old man recently surprised two burglars inside his home. They beat him up, and when he was able to get to another room and get his gun, he shot at them, chasing them from his home out to the alley, where he shot the young woman as she was running away. He said afterward, “The lady didn’t run as fast as the man, so I shot her in the back twice.” The burglars were unarmed. No decision has been made about whether the homeowner will face any charges. 

Can it ever be justified to shoot someone when they’re running away? 

After pondering these recent cases, I happened to come across a Life Magazine from 1992, with the cover story: “If Women Ran America…” The story noted that at that time, there were only two women in the U.S. Senate, and that there had been only one female Supreme Court Justice in history, but what caught my attention was a story about efforts to market firearms accessories directly to women—something then considered groundbreaking.

I got to thinking about whether women might have reacted differently in the two aforementioned shooting events, and whether the direct marketing of firearms to women has made a significant difference. Although female gun ownership remained steady during the two decades leading up to 2010, it has since been surging. Women now constitute about 25 percent of gun owners, according to some sources.

Bruce Jernigan runs Yellow Mart in Indio, a store that carries, among other things, pink camouflage caps meant for women who want to look good while shooting. Accessories meant specifically for female gun enthusiasts run the gamut from pink pistol grips to bra holsters

Jernigan, who has been involved in the gun industry since the late 1960s, remembers when marketing specifically to women began. He attributes increased gun ownership by women to two major factors: aggressive marketing by gun manufacturers, and more women living alone and feeling empowered to protect themselves.

“Guns are marketed specifically to women as an untapped customer base, and there are definitely a lot more women as customers now than in the past,” he says. “Society has changed, and women are more independent and more comfortable buying guns than they used to be.”

According to The Blaze website, “Gun manufacturers are trying to find the angle in their product line that will turn a predominately male-focused industry toward females” by using smaller sizes, color options, and elements that reduce user fatigue.  

Here in the Coachella Valley, there have been special training sessions to make women more familiar with guns, and more comfortable when guns are in their homes. One local group, Women of Higher Caliber (is that a great name, or what?), calls itself a “social club comprised of women who enjoy shooting.” Its founders want women to learn about guns and practice in an environment “organized by and designed especially for women, and grounded in women’s attitudes about individual protection and peace of mind.”

However, there’s another side to the story of women and guns. According to Demand Action to End Gun Violence, “ women in the U.S. are 11 times more likely to be murdered with guns than women in other high-income countries” and “the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent.” 

According to the Center for American Progress, “a staggering portion of violence against women is fatal, and a key driver of these homicides is access to guns. From 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun—more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”   

The Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights which has an introductory clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Why was it written so differently from all the others? 

In 2008, the Supreme Court, for the first time in our history, held that the Second Amendment includes a constitutional right for individuals to keep a handgun in the home. The court made it clear, however, that reasonable restrictions could still apply.

I asked Bruce Jernigan what restrictions he thought made sense. He agrees with age restrictions already in place (18 for a long gun, 21 for a concealable handgun), and with denying purchase of a gun to a person with a felony criminal history or open warrants. As for mental-health restrictions, if we can find a way, then Jernigan is all for them.

“California is always on the cutting edge of new laws regarding firearms,” says Jernigan, “and restrictions based on mental health should be a priority.”

Training is encouraged, although not required, and testing is not necessary to purchase a gun—but is required, for example, to get a hunting license. 

It’s almost impossible to have a reasoned discussion about guns in the United States.  It’s hard to argue with pro-gun advocates who say, "If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and spoons make people fat?” This is an example of “false equivalency,” a logical fallacy used as a debate tactic. 

People with pencils can write, and make mistakes, because the primary purpose of pencils is to write; people with cars can move from one place to another, even drunk, because that is the primary purpose of cars; and people with spoons can eat too much, because the primary purpose of spoons is eating. People with guns can kill because the primary purpose of guns is to kill.

Considering that two-thirds of the world’s people live in nations that are less homicidal than the United States, and women are more pro-gun control than men, it’s worth wondering: What would happen with guns if women ran America?

Published in Know Your Neighbors

Being in love is a state of temporary insanity during which everything you find cute will eventually turn into the things that drive you crazy.

I should know: I’ve been married four times. My first three marriages don’t add up collectively to five years (a fact I’m not particularly proud of—but I am from California). I left each one knowing that I had to learn from the experience to avoid making the same mistakes again.

My fourth lasted more than 25 years, so obviously, I finally got it right.

Young people go into love with stars in their eyes. Mature people bring a more cynical eye to it all, along with lots of baggage—broken hearts, families, long-established habits, etc. I have friends who won’t live together because they don’t want to ruin anything. But compromises and adjustments are always necessary, particularly in mature relationships. Here are some things I’ve learned.

There are some things you’ll never agree about. We all grow up learning about relationships from the people we’ve watched in relationships, usually our parents. My mom and dad fought constantly, about almost everything. His need for control met head-on with her need to maintain her individuality. I grew up thinking you couldn’t really be in love unless you fought.

My third husband believed that somebody had to be the captain of the ship, and he would argue late into the night trying to change my mind about whatever issue was on the table. I finally told him, “It’s not that I’m not willing to spend the rest of our lives fighting about that, but it’s exhausting. We’re never going to agree, and I don’t think that means you’re supposed to decide for both of us.”

Not everything has to be resolved, and it’s OK to agree to disagree.

Your partner’s behavior is not your problem. People married to drinkers or other dysfunctional types are often guilty of ego involvement—believing someone else’s behavior is a reflection of them. Parents fall into this trap with their children’s successes and failures. However, behaviors belong to the person exhibiting them, and those behaviors don’t imply anything about you. You usually didn’t cause them, and you can’t fix them.

My first husband was an alcoholic who spent almost every evening drinking and getting increasingly agitated. A therapist at the time kept saying to me, “It’s not your problem.”

I didn’t get it. “What do you mean? Of course it’s my problem. I have to engage with him, or things will just get worse.”

One night, I found myself sitting on the stairs, watching my husband stalk around the living room. For some reason, it finally clicked: This is HIS problem, not mine, and for the first time, I refused to play. Amazingly, he left that night. We divorced shortly thereafter.

Not everything is about you.

When someone sees something that needs to be done, that someone gets to do it. Everyone enters a relationship with a mental picture of how it’s supposed to work, including role definition—who’s supposed to do what.

My fourth husband hated dishes in the sink; I don’t mind as long as they’re rinsed. I hate unmade beds; they didn’t bother him at all. So he did the dishes, and I made the bed. Sometimes, I took out the trash; sometimes, he did. There were no prescribed “roles”—we both did whatever needed doing.

“Husband” and “wife” (or whatever each person in a relationship calls himself or herself) aren’t job descriptions. You’re in the relationship together, and whatever it takes to make it work is the job of both of you.

You’re not applying for a job. My third husband was upset one day with both his female assistant and female accountant, and it spilled over onto me as we were having a drink before dinner. His grousing about his bad day came down to, “I should just fire all of you!”

“Excuse me,” I said, “I didn’t apply for a job. I’m your wife!”

Every mature relationship is between you—a whole person—and the whole person on the other side of the equation. You come with baggage and expectations, but measuring reality against what’s in your head means you’ll never be satisfied; your partner will never fully measure up; and you’ll miss the reality you can create together, moment by moment.

Expectations kill relationships.

Nobody can read your mind. My last husband was in show business, and whenever I went with him to an industry event, I always felt like an appendage. Nobody would talk to me; few even looked at me when they realized I couldn’t affect their careers. I was involved in politics, and my husband hated those gatherings at which I had to work the room, and he had to make small talk with people he didn’t know.

We set a ground rule: If either of us needed the other to attend an event, we went properly dressed and suitably social. If an event was one at which we would like the other to come, but it wasn’t necessary, then it was truly optional with no penalty.

One of the keys to a good relationship is not penalizing the other when they don’t act the way we expect them to, rather than telling them honestly exactly what we want and need. Nobody can read your mind.

Gift-giving is not about sandbagging your partner. Some people are really good at figuring out what a partner would like or need as a gift. Some people haven’t a clue. I broke off a relationship once because our first Christmas he gave me a Lazy Susan.

Here’s what works: All year long, whenever you see an ad in print, or a catalog comes, tear out pictures of things you really like, in varying price ranges. Indicate colors/sizes, and leave them around where your partner can’t help but see them. (Pasting to the bathroom mirror works well.) Warn partners well in advance of gift occasions: “My birthday is next Tuesday, and you know that’s important to me.”

When the occasion comes around, you’re assured you’ll get something you want, and you’ll be surprised, because you won’t know which thing you’re getting. Make it easy for your partner to make you happy.

Relationships aren’t easy. When you’re emotionally invested and make yourself vulnerable, you can get hurt. It helps to set some ground rules—and then experience the unfolding reality together.

Published in Know Your Neighbors

We’ve seen lots of reminders of 1964 this year—partly because it was 50 years ago, a nice milestone, and partly because we are facing issues today that eerily echo the issues of that year.

Maybe history does always repeat itself. Maybe we just keep making the same mistakes.

I recently watched a documentary about 1964’s Freedom Summer project, when college students volunteered to register black voters in Mississippi, an effort that got three young volunteers—James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner—killed. That summer’s activity broke the back of Jim Crow laws in the South, but only after 35 shooting incidents, six activists murdered, 80 beatings, and 65 houses and churches burned.

It was also the year Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, originally proposed by President Kennedy and signed by President Johnson. It abolished racial segregation in education, workplaces and public accommodations, and outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The following year, Johnson signed the companion Voting Rights Act, sections of which were last year judged as unconstitutional by a conservative majority on our current Supreme Court. Hey, 50 years later, with a black president, voting issues based on discrimination no longer need oversight from the federal government. Hadn’t you heard that we’re now “post-racial”?

That momentous year, 1964, was the year Nelson Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment in South Africa for “sabotage and subversion.” He was not released until 1990, and then went on to become head of his country and a renowned world leader—amazingly calling for reconciliation despite all that had happened during Apartheid. Even now, we see countries where there is no orderly turnover of power and where those who disagree are said to be inciting violence and silenced, jailed or worse. Will a new movement toward peace and reconciliation in the Middle East or Africa, led by someone we cannot now recognize, result? One can at least hope.

The Tonkin Gulf Resolution was passed by Congress in 1964. It gave President Johnson the power to take “take whatever actions he deems necessary” to defend Southeast Asia, on the premise that a “domino theory” meant if Vietnam fell to Communism. then all of Southeast Asia would fall as well. Similar authority was granted to President George W. Bush regarding Iraq, based on the threat of “weapons of mass destruction” and the instability that could be caused among other nations in the Middle East. That resulted in the second-longest war in our history. The only longer war was in Bush’s post-Sept. 11 response in Afghanistan, from which we are still extracting ourselves.

The War on Poverty was declared in 1964, in the words of President Johnson, “because it is right, because it is wise, and because for the first time in our history, it is possible to conquer poverty.” That war has now surpassed all wars we have waged and is still not “won.”

That pivotal year also saw the beginning of the Student Free Speech Movement at the University of California at Berkeley, which led to the May 2nd Movement, when more than 1,000 student demonstrators gathered in New York, along with others in San Francisco, Boston, Seattle and other cities, to protest the Vietnam War, ultimately contributing to the end of Johnson’s presidency. Fifty years later, the role of students was instrumental in the election and re-election of President Obama, and, not unlike with the protesters of the 1960s, questions persist as to whether young people will stay involved when they face the reality of the difficulty involved in changing national policy.

In September 1964, the Warren Commission released its report indicating the belief that President Kennedy was killed by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, a judgment that many still don’t find credible. Compare that with our current investigations into the killing of four Americans in Benghazi, where even with military testimony that no “stand down” order was ever given, the issue is being used as a political football.

It was in 1964 when the Palestine Liberation Organization was formed, declaring Israel an illegal state, the ramifications of which are being acted out to this day.

There were other events to remember about 1964 as well. The Mustang was introduced by Ford. The first Pink Panther cartoon short debuted, winning that year’s Academy Award for Short Film. Kitty Genovese, 28, was stabbed to death on the streets of New York without any of the 38 people who heard her screams even calling the police. 

At the 1964 Republican convention, moderate Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was booed when he denounced “extremism,” and Sen. Barry Goldwater won his party’s nomination for president on the first ballot in what was called a “revolution from the right.” Wasn’t that just last week?

In 1964, the Vatican condemned the use of the contraceptive pill for females.

As for me, 1964 was the year I got divorced and needed to support 2-year old twins on my own, although I yearned to get on one of those buses to Mississippi. I wanted to participate in the attempt to erase the vestiges of racism, and influence American society to fulfill its promise for everyone.

Fast-forward 50 years, and I’m still motivated by that same yearning—and unfortunately, we’re still fighting some of the same battles.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Published in Know Your Neighbors

Alejandra Franco is a remarkable young woman.

She’s heading into her senior year at Desert Mirage High School, but first, she is excited about her trip this summer to study at Yale University in their Global Scholars Program for high school students. 

“I kept getting emails from Yale and other colleges trying to recruit me,” she says, “but I want to study at Yale, so this was a wonderful opportunity. I didn’t expect to get picked when I applied, because there are so many other talented students out there. Then they offered me a full scholarship. I just had to find a way to pay for the plane ticket, and got help from the local migrant program. I’ll be studying politics, law and economics.”

How does a young woman living in Thermal, in a school district often portrayed as underprivileged and underperforming, find the way toward becoming the first in her family to attend college?

Again, Alejandra Franco is remarkable—smart and dedicated—and she is indicative of upcoming second-generation Hispanic Americans eager to embrace the American dream and determined to excel

“My dad doesn’t put any limits on me. He and my mom are always there for me,” she says.

In addition to her studies, Alejandra is also active in the community. She volunteered with the congressional campaign of Rep. Raul Ruiz, who also left the Coachella Valley to pursue higher education and then kept his promise to return here to practice medicine and give back to the community.

“I want to become an immigration lawyer,” she says, “so that I can help people here who need that kind of help but can’t afford it. I see the issues in the Coachella Valley. There aren’t enough lawyers to help the people here who need help. I definitely plan to return here. This is where I come from.”

Despite stereotyping as being separate from the majority population and unwilling to learn English and assimilate, second-generation Hispanic Americans—the children of first-generation immigrants—usually do quickly assimilate. Research shows that Hispanic immigrants learn English as fast as those from other countries, and in a generation or two, their mother language is nothing but a faint memory.

“What we see is the classic American story, where the second generation is doing better, in fact significantly better, than the first,” said Paul Taylor, a senior fellow at the Pew Research Center, to NBC Latino. Some 61 percent consider themselves just “typical Americans.”

In 2012, Hispanics had become the largest minority group on college campuses, making up a record 16.5 percent of all college enrollments—and that number is growing at a rapid rate each year. “Most have parents who came here without a formal education, so the jump in college completion among the second generation is significant,” Taylor also told NBC Latino.

With high school graduation among Hispanics around 80 percent, and their pursuit of college education soaring, what is making the difference? Is it a better education system? More dedicated teachers? Improved counseling? Parent involvement?

In the case of Alejandra Franco, it is all of the above.

“I’m friends with some of my teachers,” she says, “and they’ve really helped me a lot. My graduating class is very competitive, with lots of Advanced Placement students. Sometimes, people can say hurtful things. I remember one of my teachers said, ‘Just remember, (those hurtful things said) won’t matter in 10 years. What will matter is who you are as a person and what you have accomplished.’”

Alejandra hears that message at home as well. “My parents are not putting any limits on me, and I can talk to them about anything,” she says.

She sees herself as the role model for her three younger brothers and is determined to set a good example. “I tell them they have to work hard, because without an education, they won’t be able to have a stable future.”

Alejandro Franco, Alejandra’s father, is completely supportive of his daughter’s educational pursuits. “He meets with my teachers and asks what he can do to help with my studies,” she says. “And my mother, Ana, is studying English, got her GED and is planning to take college classes. My father says he knows we (his children) can have a better life, that this country is full of opportunity, and it’s up to us to take advantage of that. He regrets not having been able to do that himself. ”

While Alejandra Franco is indeed remarkable, there are many, many other second-generation American achievers coming up into what will soon be a “majority minority” country. We’re privileged to have them as our neighbors.

Alejandra’s bottom line? “I want to share my accomplishments with my community, because they helped shape me.”

Published in Know Your Neighbors

My dad couldn’t wait to retire.

He started working at 14 and had done whatever he could, without an education, to support his family. I remember when he worked three jobs a week: running a catering truck, collecting coins from vending machines, and working in a gas station on weekends.

He budgeted and saved to make sure he and my mother could have a comfortable lifestyle once he stopped working. He was proud to be able to retire—to do, in his view, “nothing.”

I can’t help but compare my dad’s notion of retirement with what I see playing out every day here in the Coachella Valley—particularly the women in second and third careers who make a difference for their neighbors.

The Democratic Women of the Desert recently presented their 2014 Women Honoring Women Awards. I was one of the recipients, given the Voice of Women’s Rights Award, partly for my Lovable Liberal radio persona, and for my many years of vocal advocacy on behalf of women’s equality. However, when I realized the accomplishments of the other women being honored, I became convinced a mistake had been made: I didn’t feel competent to be in their company.

Megan Beaman received the Civil Rights Award. An attorney advocating on behalf of those in our own East Valley who are least represented in the legal system, Beaman practiced law for years at a nonprofit legal-assistance corporation that served rural Californians, particularly farmworkers. She also challenged administrative, state and federal policies on behalf of her diverse clients.

Coming from a rural working-class family, Beaman recognized early the challenges facing workers, families and communities that are regularly excluded from the legal system. In her family, she was taught not only to recognize unfairness, but was instilled with the drive to act to rectify it.

Beaman founded Beaman Law in 2012 to expand her ability to service more clients. She also has a long history of volunteerism, working in partnership with nonprofit organizations and community leaders.

 “It is not lost on me that I am receiving this award in response to the violation of the rights of others,” she says. “Civil rights stand for the basic principle that, regardless of our differences, all of us have the same inherent rights as human beings, and all of us are responsible to ensure that nobody tries to impinge on those rights.”

Sister Carol Nolan, named Volunteer of the Year, is a member of the Sisters of Providence. She is dedicated to helping students and adults in the East Valley learn English. With a master’s degree in music, Nolan taught music and English, and spent a sabbatical year studying Spanish in Mexico. She has been director of Providence in the Desert since 2002, and was responsible for bringing “Nuns on the Bus” to the Coachella facility in 2013.

Nolan is part of Guerin Outreach Ministries as “a reflection of the interest and zeal of the Sisters of Providence in manifesting God’s loving presence in the lives of the struggles of the poor.” Her favorite quote: “Love the children first, and then teach them.”

“English is a very difficult language to learn, especially for adults whose brains are already wired for another language,” says Nolan, “but I believe love and education can change the world. Only love has the power to transform.”

Honored with the Democratic Ideals Award, Sonja Martin is a life-long educator whose “retirement” is anything but. She was a classroom teacher, principal, district administrator and superintendent of schools, and worked as a consultant with the Los Angeles County Office of Education.

Martin has authored books for parents and teachers, and worked with teachers around the world to improve student achievement. She has represented our area on the Riverside County Commission for Women, advocating for inclusion of women and women’s issues at all levels of policymaking; and the Riverside County Office on Aging, emphasizing programs like Grandparents Raising Grandchildren and spreading the word about free support services available through the county. She has been active in other community-service organizations, including California’s Senior Legislature.

“After I retired from my education career,” says Martin, “I had to ask myself: ‘What do I do now?’ People need someone to be out there for them. There’s work to be done.”

Philanthropist Eileen Stern came from a working-class family, was raised in public housing, attended public schools and went to a state university. She received the Humanitarian Award from DWD.

The first woman to hold a national marketing manager position with Sears, Stern moved on to entrepreneurial marketing and public relations work. She was motivated to get involved in the fight against breast cancer after the untimely death of her mother. “I felt compelled to try to do something to help find a cure.”

Stern’s efforts resulted in the HIKE4HOPE event that has raised more than $4 million to support cancer research at City of Hope. She also helped launch the first fundraiser for the FIND Food Bank, served as president of the Desert Women’s Council, worked with the Children’s Discovery Museum, and chaired the first fundraiser for the Boys and Girls Club of Cathedral City.

“I learned to pay it forward,” said Stern upon receiving her award. “I share this award with all of you who work to make other’s lives better.”

The final DWD award was for Lifetime Achievement, presented to Rancho Mirage resident, Elle “Elle K” Kurpiewski. A flight attendant, Elle K came from an Air Force family that focused on patriotism and service. She has spent her life “walking the talk,” including union organizing and advocating for flight attendants; running as the Democratic candidate in the local 2002 congressional race; and serving as a delegate to the 2004 Democratic convention, president of Democrats of the Desert, and executive director of the Democratic Foundation of the Desert. She was largely responsible for establishing a local Democratic Party headquarters office in Cathedral City.

“I believe in the Democratic ideals of liberty and equality for all,” said Elle K upon receiving her award. “I’m consistently reminded that one person can make a difference. I share this with all of you. … Now let’s get back to work!”

What are you doing to work on behalf of your community?

Published in Know Your Neighbors

Unless you’re one of those people targeted to receive vitriolic mailers from candidates blasting other candidates, you may not even know there’s a primary election taking place in California on Tuesday, June 3.

Even if you do know about the election: Are you one of those who doesn’t think it really matters—and might blow off voting?

Midterm elections are notorious for low turnouts, largely because the hype isn’t as great. They’re the elections in which nasty low blows and last-minute revelations dominate, yet they are often the elections which affect us most: city council members, judges, county supervisors, sheriffs and school board members are chosen. These are the offices closest to our everyday lives, and yet only the most ardent citizens follow these elections.

In the Coachella Valley, we have a couple of really interesting races, especially in light of the new open primary that means all candidates are in the same race, and the top two finishers, regardless of party affiliation, go into a final runoff election in November. California voters approved this by ballot initiative in 2010, another midterm lower-turnout election, apparently hoping it would end political gridlock. So much for that notion. If you don’t like this system, you should have voted against it.

As I recall, Republicans pushed for this open primary, because they felt they were getting completely shut out of California politics in this largely Democratic state. Its supporters claimed to want all parties to have an equal chance. That’s why you’ll see Democrats, Republicans, Peace and Freedom, and Green party candidates all running on this ballot, as well as some candidates who don’t identify with any party.

One of the offices up this election is Riverside County supervisor. We have the chance to fill this one seat with what would be the only non-Republican on that panel—and the first Hispanic, V. Manuel Perez. He was recently appointed as majority floor leader of the California Assembly, but he is termed out and cannot run again for that seat. Perez is running against present County Supervisor John Benoit. These are the people who decide how county funds are spent, and oversee programs that cater to populations and nonprofit efforts at the local level. How often have you heard complaints that the supervisors don’t take enough interest in our end of the county? This is a chance to impact who sits in that seat.

In the newly designated State Senate District 28—formed through redistricting and covering the desert communities, southwest Riverside County and Corona—the open primary is taking center stage. Drawn to be a Republican district (fair or not, that’s the way these things get done), the 28th has an active campaign that’s not always pleasant to watch, especially because it’s an “open” seat, meaning there is no incumbent with a presumed advantage up for re-election.

Four Republicans are running alongside two Democrats. Philip Drucker, a local attorney and educator, is a first-time candidate; he’s a lifelong Democrat, though he’s not well-known in local Democratic politics. The other is Anna Nevenic, who has run for various offices in the past, and is considered by local Democrats as something of a political gadfly.

On the Republican side, four candidates are vying for votes. Bill Carns is a business owner who is seen as having little chance to pull many votes. The other three Republican candidates are all political veterans who are running very hard campaigns.

Bonnie Garcia previously served in Sacramento, and was known for a while as the woman who wouldn’t “kick (Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger) out of my bed”; she has responded strongly to attacks on her integrity and family issues by her opponents.

Jeff Stone is a county supervisor who touts that he knows firsthand as a medical professional (owner of a compounding pharmacy) that Obamacare is a disaster. Of course, the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is already law, is not on the ballot, and is not administered by county supervisors.

The Riverside County Young Republicans and Coachella Valley Young Republicans endorsed Garcia. The Southwest Young Republicans of Riverside County are going with Stone.

Also on the ballot for this Senate seat is Republican Glenn Miller, City Councilmember and former mayor of Indio. Miller describes himself as a fiscal conservative with progressive views on “social issues,” saying he supports abortion rights and gay marriage. He has recently been endorsed by no less than Equality California, a gay-marriage activist organization, and by some local Democrats (although these endorsements do not yet appear on his website).

These endorsements have caused no end of dissent among local Democrats, who ask: Why endorse a primary vote for a Republican, when there is a credible Democrat on the ballot? Wouldn’t that mean there is less likelihood that the Democrat might be one of the top two vote-getters? Or are they willing to bet on a friendly Republican, assuming any Democratic candidate will lose in the final election, anyway?

Some Republicans ask whether they can support a candidate who has gotten support from Democrats, especially pro-gay-marriage activists. Doesn’t that mean he’s a RINO—a Republican in Name Only? Are they saying not to vote for Miller because he might actually get elected? Is ideology more important than winning?

Since the district is presumed to be majority Republican, and since it’s not a bad bet that the primary will result in two Republicans being the highest vote-getters, why shouldn’t the Democrats hedge their bets and support the moderate Republican who could be a friendly ear in the State Senate? Remember the Rush Limbaugh “Vote for Hillary” campaign to hurt the Obama campaign, assuming Hillary could be beaten by John McCain?

I thought this kind of crap was what the open primary system was supposed to eliminate. What happened to caring about why they’re running, and how they plan to address issues and policies that matter to us?

Are you willing to let these decisions be made by political hacks playing games, or will you fulfill your responsibility as an American citizen, do some homework (the links are all here) and show up to vote for the best candidate?

The primary election is Tuesday, June 3. You don’t have to vote for everything on the ballot for your vote to count. But if you don’t vote, you don’t get to complain about the results.

Full disclosure: I have interviewed Philip Drucker and Glenn Miller on my radio show. I have not publicly endorsed anyone. Podcasts are available at www.KNewsRadio.com.

Published in Know Your Neighbors

Just before my brother’s wedding in the early 1980s, I got a death threat from my father. He said if I showed up at the wedding with my live-in significant other—in front of my grandparents—he would kill me. He may have thought he meant it.

Did I mention my guy was black?

My brother called and pleaded with me to come without Milt, to keep peace in the family—in spite of the fact that he and Milt were quite friendly, and we had often socialized as couples. “After all,” he said, “this is the only time I’m going to get married.”

I finally agreed, with Milt’s support, to attend the ceremony, but to make a statement by skipping the reception. My brother is now very happily married to his fourth wife, and I have forever been ashamed that I caved.

Another wedding just took place. My oldest granddaughter married a lovely man who is crazy in love with her. With due deference to my late mother’s admonition that “family is about happy times, not funerals,” we all flew into Portland, Ore., from around the world to gather and celebrate.

I normally cry profusely at such events, but my tears this time were reserved for that moment when I saw my son walk his daughter down the aisle: I realized he was literally handing off his first-born child. It’s a life-changing event, and I could feel both his pride and his ambivalence.

Then the preacher asked, “Who gives this woman to be married?” My son dutifully said, “Her mother and I do,” although his wife had not accompanied them down the aisle.

The fact that we are still acting as if a father “owns” his daughter and passes that “ownership” along to another man, only abandoned in public policy in recent history (for example, women can now have credit and make medical decisions on their own), made me catch my breath. This is 2014. Why aren’t both sets of parents asked to deliver their children to each other? 

Also on my mind: The highly publicized rantings of Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers. We’re all aware of the sensationalized, “You can do anything but … don’t bring him to my games,” statements regarding her public appearance with Magic Johnson, among others.

Sterling was apparently upset that his girlfriend/mistress/assistant (take your pick), who describes herself as Mexican and black (“You're supposed to be a delicate White or a delicate Latina girl," he told her), was somehow disrespecting him by appearing publicly with a black man. His racism and ignorance were appropriately publicly censured. But what hasn’t really been discussed is that he apparently holds the belief that his image is based on her behavior, like an employer who tells you how to act with customers, because you are representing him or her and are expected to do nothing that would put that employer in a bad light.

Sterling’s racism is proven by his concern about appearances, just as my father was. (To be charitable, perhaps it was only my father’s perception about the racism of his parents.)

Then there’s the appropriate outrage, finally, about the girls abducted in Nigeria by some fringe group of idiots who believe that publicly educating females means the end of their world, a notion only abolished from our own public policy in the 20th century. Girls need to be married off, not educated, say the extremists in Nigeria, and somehow, they make the illogical leap that they should therefore fund their activities by selling the girls to men who will own them. Even in America, some can’t abide the notion of true gender equality.

So within the space of one week, I experienced my reaction to two weddings and racism, with the ownership of women as the unifying theme among seemingly disparate events. I suppose I could be accused of letting my feminist politics overwhelm and define things that are merely social conventions, or public displays of ignorance, or ego-involvement events, or self-defined religious extremists going against their own religious teachings.

But I’m trying to figure out how to make sense of and promote understanding of the pernicious effect of seeing others of our own species as inferior. This instinct is in all of us, perhaps inherited from a tribal “us vs. them” mentality, but leading inevitably to borders between lands, to slavery, to “the final solution,” to women as property. It pervades everything. It is held on a level often so unconscious that we can’t believe it is motivating us in any way. It permeates our religious teachings and our cultural norms.

Unless and until we can “own” this part of our nature, and do whatever is necessary to obliterate it, ownership of women—and others—will continue to be part of the reality of being human.

We could start with absolute public censure of people like Donald Sterling, regardless of position or fortune, and making it impossible for anyone with those views to do business or participate in our institutions.

We could make it the social norm that brides walk down the aisle on their own, proudly going toward their own future without anyone passing them on.

We could adjudicate that people cannot be defined or punished based on whom they love or with whom they associate.

We could recognize that each of us carries this addiction to superiority around inside of us, and the manifestations, while appearing very different, all spring from the same source.

The first step toward sobriety is acknowledging there is a problem.

Published in Know Your Neighbors

At this time of year—when Passover, Easter and Earth Day are upon us—we tend toward reflection on rebirth, resurrection, the passion for freedom, and the hope for preservation and continuity of our species. Some do this reflection through religion; some do so through nature; others do so through an honest belief in the triumph of reason and the power of knowledge.

William Edelen is one of the latter.

Born in West Texas, Edelen was originally ordained as a Presbyterian minister after studies at the University of Chicago, but he migrated to the Congregational church more than 30 years ago. Why the shift? 

“The Presbyterians were always looking over my shoulder, listening to what I was preaching to make sure I was doing the dogma,” he says. 

He has ultimately come to see himself as a humanist. How did that come about? “Just through thinking.”

Edelen taught comparative religion at the University of Puget Sound in Tacoma, Wash., and has published several books.

I first met “Bill” Edelen here in the desert about 20 years ago, when our paths crossed during public events. I was impressed by him, especially since I had read his syndicated newspaper columns and found his views candid and refreshing. He eschewed traditional dogma and always seemed to be attempting to find the core connections that could transcend differences and bind us together as human beings. He preaches the beauty of uncertainty.

“I was made a brother by the Lakota Sioux,” he explains, “and they say, ‘You must embrace the mystery.’ Everything is relative to the mind that entertains it.”

Edelen describes his approach to philosophical and faith questions as anthropological in nature, asking: “Is it constructive or destructive to human evolution? Things are always changing; there are no absolutes.” He embraces the Unitarian credo: “To question is the answer.”

“The letters to the editor about my columns have been hilarious,” says Edelen. “I especially remember the guy who said, ‘You’re destroying Christianity. I hope you’ll burn in hell forever.’ And he signed it, ‘In the love of Christ.’

“And then there was my very favorite: ‘We consider you a termite in the woodwork of civilization.’ Isn’t that great? People say, ‘I don’t want to learn something that goes against my faith.’ I say there is nothing more interesting than learning, questioning, thinking.”

An early influence on Edelen was Frank Cross, one of the interpreters of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

“He stood in front of a class I attended,” says Edelen, “and he said, ‘This is the Bible. We’re stuck with it. Please let’s make the best of it.’ And I knew then that this was someone I wanted to hear.”

In the words of Buckminster Fuller: "William Edelen is an original thinker in the oldest of thinking worlds, that is, thinking about God. He's in love with the truth. Edelen dares to do his own thinking. He has wide experience to enrich that thinking."

Edelen settled in the desert at the behest of Rancho Mirage-based publishing magnate and philanthropist Walter Annenberg, who had read Edelen’s newspaper columns and sponsored him to start a symposium in the desert. 

“He sent me a letter,” says Edelen, “and said, ‘I’ve been reading your columns. I consider them monumental in raising the levels of religious literacy.’”

Edelen’s weekly symposium began more than 25 years ago and is still held on alternate Sundays at the old Tennis Club in Palm Springs. 

At 92 years old, and despite physical challenges within the past several years, Edelen is still going strong. His symposiums are a wonderful place to meet interesting people here in the desert. I have often attended, and had the privilege of interviewing Edelen on my radio show. You can get on his weekly e-blast list and find out when the next gathering will be held by sending a request to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

I’ve been very lucky in my life. I’ve had the experience of meeting two living beings with visible auras—and I don’t even believe in that stuff. The first was Cesar Chavez, with whom I was privileged to share a stage in Coachella many years ago. I couldn’t believe it at first when I saw his aura. I thought it must surely be a trick of the sun. I looked away, and then looked at him again, and there it was: a visible halo of light around this ordinary man. Well, maybe not so ordinary after all.

There is another man whose aura I have seen. His name is William Edelen, and he is a preacher—a man of great wisdom, humor, depth and intelligence. I am privileged to be counted among his friends.

Published in Know Your Neighbors