Politicians are famous for many standpoints (and shifting thereof), but one position most politicians know they have to take is a tough view on crime. No matter whether the actual levels of crime are high or low, no politician can afford to be seen as “weak” on crime. Unfortunately, too many pols stake out such an aggressive attitude that their posturing leads them to enact stiff minimum sentencing guidelines and laws, increased mandatory sentencing bills, and other acts that too often rob the judiciary of the independence it used to have.

Here in California, a while back the “tough on crime” politicians decided it’d be a great idea to enact a “three strikes” bill; these habitual offender laws punish serious felonies by repeat criminals by requiring them to serve a minimum of 25 years and up to life in prison. One of the original catalysts for the legislation was the heinous kidnapping, molestation, and murder of Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis. Such a notorious case made it easy for the bill to be passed as Proposition 184 in 1994.

Unfortunately, the law was poorly written and allowed no leeway for consideration by judges to examine the circumstances of the case, and an awful lot of small-time losers got caught up. Leandro Andrade, for example, received a minimum of 50 years in prison for the theft of nine videotapes from K-Mart. Another loser, Jerry DeWayne Williams, stole slices of pizza from a group of kids not too far from here, and ended up being sentenced to prison for 25 years [it later got reduced to six years, when some of his priors were thrown out in an attempt to make the sentence more proportional to the crime].

Some people don’t have any problem with the law, and argue that the revolving door means minor criminals like Andrade and Williams are merely serving all their time at once, rather than going in and out of the system. But two problems here: one is, as I mentioned, the proportionality of the crime– should someone who is sentenced to prison for rape or murder serve less time than some selfish, sorry-ass excuse for a human being who steals a slice of pizza? Both should be punished, both should serve time, but the sentence should be proportionate to the crime.

The second problem is that there’s no carrot provided here- just a stick. Plea bargaining isn’t as great a tactic as it used to be, because prosecutors are now forced to take minor cases such as these to trial, which depletes and weakens the already limited resources of the judicial system. Additionally, a more serious consequence is that these “small fry” take up space that could be used to house a more violent or dangerous criminal.

There have been attempts to soften or reverse California’s Three Strikes law– but the Supreme Court in 2003 ruled that the law didn’t violate the Eighth Amendment (”Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”). However, the voters here in California voted on Propositon 36 in 2000, which changed the terms for those convicted of drug possession– these people would be directed to drug treatment, rather than prison. But a subsequent proposition in 2004, Prop 66, failed. What 66 would have done was require that the “third strike” be “violent” or “serious” in order to merit the minimum 25 years behind bars.

Here we are today, in 2007. California has 171,000 prisoners in prisons that were only meant to hold 100,000, and our governor has decided that the best way to resolve the problem of overcrowding is to farm out prisoners to other states. Yep, that’s right– California’s problem is now your problem. Never mind the fact that other states are struggling with their own difficulties with prison overcrowding. Tiny little Maine, for example, with the nation’s lowest incarceration rate, has a prison that was built to hold 522 souls, but currently houses 689. Guess Maine will just have to take its share of our prisoners. Maybe they can go back to the 1950s and study how frat guys managed to stuff themselves in phone booths and cars, because if all the states continue at the rate they’re going with their prisons, then that’s where we’re headed.

Fortunately for Maine, Tennesee, Arizona, and a host of other states, a Superior Court judge ruled against Schwarzenegger’s shipping our cons out to you. In the wake of that ruling, Der Gropenfuhrer has decided that perhaps early release isn’t such a bad idea after all.

While I think early release is one potential option, and is infinitely better than throwing more cash at prison guards and their unions, construction firms and other groups that benefit from the building of even more prisons (yep, let’s build prisons! Not homes, apartments, schools, or other buildings that will serve society– nope, dammit, prisons are our growth industry!), I think there’s an even better solution, and one that will free up the system from top to bottom.

Decriminalize drugs. All of them.

Yep, you heard me (and maybe secretly, Rush Limbaugh is in favor too– who knows?). Get rid of all laws that ban drugs. Make every pharmaceutical legal.

Here’s why: for one thing, criminalization often doesn’t work. Look at Prohibition, for example. Banning booze may have been manna from heaven for the teetotalers and a total victory for the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (You go, Carrie Nation!), but it was disastrous in many ways. It was disastrous enough that the nation got wise and repealed Prohibition just over a decade later. This, coincidentally (or perhaps not…) was about the time that authorities started taking a serious look at drugs, and banning them. Formerly legal drugs such as cocaine and marijuana became restricted and eventually outright illegal. While there were most certainly drug addicts prior to criminalization, I’d be willing to bet that the number of addicts has soared since, hand-in-hand with a proportionate rise in organized drug dealing and associated criminal behavior.

By decriminalizing drugs, we can then regulate their use, just as we now regulate alcohol and tobacco. We can insist that the drugs be sold only at pharmacies and other restricted locations. We can tax these drugs and their manufacturers, and use the excess cash for drug treatment and education programs, and any additional cash beyond that can go to other purposes.

“But drugs won’t bring in that much money,” you say. Oh? You really think so? Just last year in Washington State, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that weed passed cherries to become the state’s eighth-ranked agricultural commodity. Imagine what kind of taxes you could raise on $270 million worth of pot?

Another reason to decriminalize pot (and other drugs) is to force the regulation of drug fields. Right now, dope is banned, so growers take extreme measures as to where they grow the plants. Right now, there’s a serious problem here in California with big drug dealers growing their plants in state and national parks. This article in the San Francisco Chronicle from last year discusses a huge pot farm in and around Point Reyes. I’ve also read about farms being spotted in Sequoia National Park. Unfortunately, our parks systems, both state and national, have gotten the shaft where funding is concerned, so they have a difficult enough time as it is manning museums and information booths, much less controlling what happens in these parks and in the backcountry.

If drugs were decriminalized, these fields could then be planted in the open, on lands that are meant to be tilled, rather than in our parks and wildernesses. Of course, once they’re out in the open, they can then be regulated and taxed just like any other commodity. I’d rather have a bunch of dope fields in the Central Valley next to the fruit orchards than have a bunch of jumpy, hostile, gun-toting drug dealers camping out guarding illicit drug patches in national forests that are meant to be for everyone, not just for drug dealers.

Lest you think I’m just some idealistic leftie with his head in the clouds, there are others who are urging decriminalization/legalization. There was an excellent Op-Ed piece in the Seattle Times a while back, written by a former cop, who also feels it’s time to legalize drugs. He made many of the same points (and more) that I’ve made here. It’s worth a read.

At the very least, I’d like to see less handwringing about prison overcrowding and the seeming failure on the so-called “War on Drugs,” and a little more common sense and a willingness to think outside the box and look at untried alternatives. If something isn’t working, why keep doing the same thing over and over? Why not try something new? If that doesn’t work, you can at least say that you’ve tried it, and can then move on to another possible solution.

February has quite a few holidays for everyone– there’s Valentine’s Day, which was last week, and Mardi Gras, which was earlier this week, and now we’re in the midst of the celebrations ushering in the Year of the Pig, thanks to the Lunar New Year. While we’ve never really adequately celebrated Mardi Gras the way it should be, and we’ll probably have a nice Chinese meal to celebrate pigging out, we always do Valentine’s Day (and yes, for the record, it was largely a holiday I’ve had mixed feelings about. Someone needs to invent Lonelyheart’s Day, quick).

But this year, we decided to do something different. We both had to work, since it was a Wednesday, and on top of that, we received an offer we couldn’t refuse. So we did our dinner and mushy evening on the weekend, when we could properly enjoy the moment, and instead on February 14, we went to an evening of burlesque and Mexican wrestling.

A good friend of ours raved about the evening, and painted such a vivid picture that we plunked down some serious money for ringside tickets, but boy, we weren’t disappointed. The show, Lucha VaVoom, played at the old Mayan Theatre in downtown L.A. The Mayan was once one of the many spectacular movie houses in downtown Los Angeles (most of which were on Broadway, a couple of blocks over). It was built in 1927, and has survived to the present day. Like many theaters, the Mayan went through several incarnations, including a period where it was an adult film joint. Today, it’s a club, and has been restored to a large extent. It’s the kind of place that I wish was still showing movies. Instead, we get to watch motion pictures not in grand and glorious venues, but in dinky storage warehouse-sized halls with no unique or identifying features. If Hollywood really wanted to boost its profits, it should encourage the revival of single-screen palaces.

But I digress… I rushed downtown from work to meet my eternal date and our friends, and stood in line waiting to get inside. I wasn’t able to get a good shot (it was night, for one thing!) of the exterior, but here’s what the Mayan looks like from outside. Inside was an absolute treasure. If you go to the link by clicking on “Mayan Theatre” above, you’ll see some great pictures of the interior. I took a few, but they don’t really do justice to the old theatre. Still, I’ll put up a couple anyway, so you can sort of get an idea.

That’s a picture of the ceiling– if I go back again, I’ll try to remember to bring the camera with me and take a picture during the intermission, or at a time when more of the lights are on. It was kinda dark and the floor lights were on, so taking a picture of the walls or ceiling was a bit of a challenge. Here’s a picture of one of the wall decorations in one of the hallways (which accounts for the better quality of the photo!) — it was all in a general Aztec/Mayan theme.

It’s almost like a movie set, which is why I love the old movie houses of yore. It’s definitely a cool place to hang out!

During the pre-show, two large screens on either side of the stage showed old-style Mexican wrestling movies, which I suspect were actual films that were edited to include some of the wrestlers we’d be seeing. Then again, I could be wrong– it could be that they were actual movies. We were on the floor, in folding chairs, in the “ringside” section, while a large number of people were behind us, standing by the bar, and quite a few paid a lesser price to sit in the balcony section, and cheer on the action from the loge.

Soon the lights dimmed, and the evening started. We were treated first to what I called the “Tiger Girls”– it’s possible these were the “Glamazons” mentioned on the Lucha VaVoom homepage. But in any event, they were curvy, real women– not the stick figures you see in movies and magazines, and they were running wild! We were treated to a mild strip show (no full nudity at any point in the evening– these ladies and gents were performing in the true spirit of burlesque), and then it was on to the main event. Here’s a pic of these luscious ladies, who did a great job of getting us all in the mood of the evening!

For the rest of the evening, we saw wrestling matches between beefy Mexican wrestlers in loud, colorful costumes– the wrestling style was similar to WWF wrestling, only this was far more entertaining, and quite a few of the wrestlers put on mini-shows of their own either before, after, or even sometimes during their time in the ring. Strutting, prancing, shouting, gesturing– the wrestlers were a veritable show in themselves.

These guys on the left are Los Gallineros, and they definitely added a degree of spice and weirdness to the evening, as they gobbled (or *tried* to gobble) up their competition in the ring. The fella in the white outfit entering the ring was both hilarious and disgusting, for he brought more than his share of scatological humor into his performance.

Later in the evening, after the intermission, we saw the wrestlers close up. From time to time, a wrestler would be thrown out of the ring, or tumble outside the ropes, to be quickly followed by his opponent, who would then bang him up in a close-up for the benefit of the ringside audience. We weren’t spared the scuffling, for two wrestlers knocked down our chairs and “wrestled” right in front of us.

The guy on the floor seems to be Blue Demon Jr. I’m not sure what they call his attacker– I kept thinking of Dino from the old “Flintstones” show, but suffice it to say, his costume was one of the more interesting (and somewhat garish!) outfits of the evening. [Since I wrote this entry, I’ve discovered our purple friend is none other than El Chupacabra]

After each round, we were treated to dancing, acrobatics, and partial stripshows, all in the tradition of old-time burlesque. Here’s an example of a gorgeous dancer. There was nothing airbrushed or fake about these women. A few of them clearly had cellulite, and they had curves in all the right places, but they were sexy as hell, let me tell you!

While the show was definitely not for minors (and minors weren’t allowed in, anyway), there was nothing gauche about it– just a bit of raunch, a lot of garishness, a bit of cheese here and there, and overall, just a very entertaining evening.

We’ll no doubt have our evenings of moonlight and roses on the Valentine’s Days to come, but this was definitely a February 14 we’ll always remember. Besides, as I told my walking partner, “Every day is Valentine’s Day with you.”

It’s been pretty busy here lately– hope you haven’t missed me too much! I’ll be back with more food for thought, as well as some of what I’ve been up to of late. But for the moment, I’d like to quickly congratulate the new CEO of DCARA, the social services agency in the San Francisco Bay Area. Handwaves and a hearty congrats to Diana Herron!

Herron has long been involved in the Bay Area community, including a previous stint on the Board of Directors– she has a wide background, ranging from corporate experience to education, so she will be bringing a wealth of knowledge with her. Good luck as you take the reins!

On January 2, 1960, John F. Kennedy declared his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States– a mere ten months before the election itself. Less than fifty years later, we have a baker’s dozen already declaring their runs or showing more interest than the average person should at this point in the political cycle. It’s been the era of the perpetual campaign for some time now, but it’s starting to get to the point where, even for a political junkie like me, it’s *way* too early. Already, John Kerry’s dropped out (guess he finally got the message that he blew it BAD in 2004– an election he really should have won, if he’d done a half-way decent job of it), and Barack Obama’s decided that 21 months out is never too early to stand up and throw one’s hat into the ring. Hillary Clinton of course is in the race as well, which leads to a number of interesting possibilities. I know I previously said at one point that I thought a woman president would be more likely to happen before we’d see a black president. I could very well be proven wrong.

I have no idea who I’m supporting at this point– a couple of my favorite possibilities have already disengaged themselves from 2008, and I’m a bit cautious about the rest. One factor will be different this time around though: while in the past I’ve never been a one-issue voter (unlike a lot of single-minded people out there), this election I will be making my choices partially based on one element: if a candidate does not have a reasonable, plausible plan for dealing with the environment and global warming, then they will not even be under consideration, much less standing a chance of earning my vote.

It’s not just the announcements-on-speed that worries me though, it’s also the ramped-up process of the primaries. There weren’t primaries until the Progressive Era; during that time, the initiative, women’s suffrage, direct election of U.S. Senators, primaries, and a host of other political reforms were initiated. The first primaries took place in 1912 (although the honor for the first primary itself goes to Oregon), but as late as 1968, less than twenty states held primary elections.

It was the chaotic and divisive 1968 election that prompted the adoption of primaries by both parties, as a way to avoid the conflicts between what the party desired and what the “popular” vote indicated. The new nationalized primary system, first implemented in 1972, hasn’t been the panacea that the political system desired and needed. Instead, what’s happened since then is that various states have raced to assert influence upon the process, with the result being that New Hampshire and Iowa, largely rural states with small populations of largely white (95% and up) folks determine the starting lineup for a nation that’s increasingly multicultural and urban. What’s even worse at this point is that other states that hold primaries at much more reasonable times closer to the actual election, such as California (which traditionally has its primary in June of the election year) get shafted in the process. Here in California, we joke about the state being treated as an ATM, but it’s a joke laced with heavy truths.

California politicians know it too, and they’ve tried to change things. In 1996, the state moved its presidential primary to March, while keeping the statewide primary in June. It was a bad move, splitting the primary in two, and led to voter fatigue at having to continually return to the polls (it doesn’t help that we get propositions rammed down our throats at every election as well!). The primary was moved back to June, but now it may change yet again. California isn’t the only state to react to the staggered schedule that favors “traditional” (if you can call primaries that started no earlier than 1912 “traditions”) early states such as Iowa; in 1988, a number of Southern states agreed to hold their primaries at the same time; thus “Super Tuesday.”

Now, a number of states, including California, are racing to place their primaries earlier and earlier as possible on the calendar. Already, four states will hold primaries in January 2008 (so far!): Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It’s conceivable that by March, the nominations will be locked up, and we’ll have an extraordinarily long lull until the conventions, and then another, much shorter lull until Labor Day, when again, by “tradition,” the race begins in earnest.

While I don’t advocate a return to the fractious process that marked 1968 (although I think this election may very well echo 1968– the debacle in Iraq threatens to fracture the parties in a similar fashion as Vietnam did in 1968, although I highly doubt we’ll have the mess that was the Chicago convention again– for one thing, protesters are herded into “free-speech” or “protest” zones these days (something I find extremely offensive and anti-American); notable examples of the curbing of free speech during the last election happened at both conventions– neither the Democrats nor the Republicans get a free pass from me), I also don’t think the current process works either. There are a number of proposed solutions, from having a “Western States primary,” to regional primaries.

Personally, I’m not sure how the concept of regional primaries would work in practice, but in theory, I think it’s an idea worth considering. My idea has always been that there should be four (at least) blocs of states: North, West, South, and East. In one election year, the Eastern states could hold their primaries on one date in, say, January. The South could then follow in March, with the West voting in May, and the North in July. The conventions could then be held in August, and the calendar could go from there. The following presidential election year, the states would rotate order: North, East, South, West. This cycle would continue until 16 years afterwards, we’d be back to East, South, West, North. This would ensure equal consideration of large and small states, rural and urban populations, and would reduce the need for candidates to spend tons of money and time flying cross-country; instead, they could use a train or bus or whatever and stay within the same region and cover more ground and meet more people.

Two similar ideas are in circulation: a regional plan promoted by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), and a “American Plan” advocated by the Presidential Elections Reform Program (PERP– I guess this group loves to do the  walk– ok, ok, bad pun…).  While I don’t care for NASS’  stance that Iowa and New Hampshire can continue to hog the spotlight (PERP would also allow New Hampshire to remain first as well),  I do think both plans have quite a bit of merit to them. I’m leaning towards the proposal by NASS, although I think PERP’s idea could work and would probably be far more equitable.

In any case, I’m not holding my breath. The system so far is favorable to far too many, and I think it’s going to require another element of presidential elections to change before we can tinker with the primaries: campaign finance. But how likely is campaign finance reform? That’s a topic for another time…