There has been a lot of hype around this year’s Heisman. Many predict a very close race with Baylor’s RGIII or Robert Griffin III appearing to have the most late momentum of any of the candidates. Who is most deserving of the award? Many debate whether the Heisman should go to the “best” or “most valuable” player in college football. Still others suggest it should go to the most well rounded.
To resolve this debate, at least in my own mind, I went to the Heisman website. Here is what it sets forth as the criteria for the Heisman trophy:
The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work. The Trust, furthermore, has a charitable mission to support amateur athletics and to provide greater opportunities to the youth of our country. Our goal through these charitable endeavors is for the Heisman Trophy to symbolize the fostering of a sense of community responsibility and service to our youth, especially those disadvantaged or afflicted.
Under this definition, it became clear to me that the award should go to the player with the best demonstrated ability who, through hard work, and with integrity, made the most outstanding contributions to college football in 2011. In other words, this definition goes beyond stats and to the player that produces superior stats while acting with integrity and is a role model to the youth of our country.
There are 870 media votes, broken into six geographic voting regions and 55 former Heisman winners that make up the voting for the award. When the results are announced on Saturday night, I believe the winner will be RGIII and here is why.
RGIII
• Eye popping stats. 3,998 passing yards, 36 TDs at a 72% completion rate, and 644 rushing yards for 9 more TDs. I believe he will carry the Southwest, Mid Atlantic and Northeast regions. He graduated in three years and was a member of the honor roll. Demonstrated service in the community. Also a track All American that worked his way back from a knee injury.
Andrew Luck
• Apologies Cardinal Fan. Stanford’s 3rd runner up finish in last three years. Luck, likely the #1 overall pick in next year’s NFL draft has the stats: 3,170 passing yards, 35 TDS at a 70% completion rate, but did not do enough in the big games or down the stretch. Mainly, a poor performance on national TV vs. Oregon will cost him the award. Luck, also an honor roll student, good teammate and well regarded member of the community will carry voting in the West region, but will still settle for second.
Trent Richardson and Tyrann Mathieu
• Will cancel each other out splitting the Southeast region voting.
• Both great stats; IMHO Mathieu is best player in college football.
• Mathieu loses points for drug related suspension. Does not comport with integrity requirement or set good example for our youth. That said, the “Honey Badger”, if he can stay focused is the odds on favorite to win the award in 2012
Montee Ball
• If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound? Montee likely to carry the Midwest region, and had startlingly good stats: 1,759 rushing yards and 38 TDS, but was the second best player on his own team, had no signature games and played in the Big 10. In other words, outside of the Midwest, and no offense to Montee, but no one watched or cared who has a vote. Good season though.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
When Civil Disobedience Becomes Anarchy; : Occupy Oakland’s Misplaced Agenda
Overview
I have been watching what is going on with the Occupy Oakland (“OO”) movement for a few weeks. I have witnessed the Occupy (National) movement grow worldwide, as well as root itself in local communities all across our country. Oakland has become one of those local communities, and in many ways, the poster child for this movement. Ostensibly, the movement started with good intentions: (1) to curb, or at least better regulate, perceived corporate greed on Wall Street; (2) to revise the tax laws such that those richest Americans (the “1%’ers”) would share the fair taxation burden with the rest of the country (the” 99%’ers”); and (3) to stimulate the economy and provide job growth. Oakland, with its high unemployment rate, violent crime problems, health care disparities and foreclosure scandals, would seem then, a convenient and appropriate symbol for what is happening elsewhere in the country, and the world. I get it. People are hurt and angry. They are afraid.
I too live in Oakland. I have lived in this community for more than 15 years. As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, with its free speech history, and the son of a mother who participated in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, I certainly respect free speech, advocacy for change, and even the right to protest. When, however, I see the pursuit of these aims start to tear down my community I become concerned. I am concerned that these protests have become misplaced, and if not done in a more constructive manner going forward, threaten both the safety of our city and the goals OO claims to be pursuing.
Everyone is Upset
A week ago, in an attempt to bring order to an unruly crowd the Mayor’s office ordered the police to remove the protestors from City Hall. One protestor, a war veteran (Scott Olsen), was badly injured. My prayers remain with Scott and his family. The Mayor then announced that the protestors could only protest at City Hall between the hours of 10 and 6. This position was later reversed, again allowing the protestors to establish an encampment at City Hall 24 x7. Now the protestors are angry with the Mayor and police. The Mayor seems to be off sides with her interim police chief. The police are angry with the Mayor (see the open letter from the Oakland police union to the Mayor in the November 1, 2011, Chronicle). Oakland citizens are angry with the Mayor, protestors, and some, the police. There has even been a movement started to recall Mayor Quan. Whew. That is a lot of anger.
I read that OO is calling for a day of protest, on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 when they will “stop commerce”. They are calling for the closure of every bank, corporation and school. I am not sure how closing down business, in a city badly hurting for both new businesses and jobs advances the aims of OO. I for one am against such a closure. As a member of the city’s Workforce Investment Board, I know as much as many, that our city is on the edge of solvency, and as such, the last thing we need to do is stop commerce. To the contrary, we need to show business that Oakland is a place to locate due to our proximity to colleges such as Berkeley, transportation, the Bay and a skilled workforce. Attracting business will stimulate the economy and provide badly needed jobs. What kind of message do we send to our children, by giving them a day off, to protest a city that is broke when they need to be in class, learning and securing a better future?
I think that we need to take a collective step back. The right question at this time is not whether we should recall Mayor Quan, but rather how we as a collective: City Hall, the police, other leaders like Assemblyman Swanson and Congresswoman Lee, OO, business, labor and the residents of Oakland work together to peacefully achieve the goals outlined above.
Civil Disobedience
There are many views on this topic and its use to drive change. Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK are three leaders on the subject of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau's 1848 essay Civil Disobedience, has had a wide influence on many practitioners of civil disobedience. The driving idea behind the essay is that citizens are morally responsible for their support of aggressors, even when such support is required by law. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War. He writes, "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too”.
Gandhi similarly asserted “the fact is that all non-cooperation is not violent and non-violent non-cooperation can never be an act of violence”. MLK also urged a non-violent approach: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is force to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
It would seem that OO has part of this right. OO, and the others in the Occupy movement more generally, have put a spotlight on the issues raised above. People are listening. The Economist in its latest issue “Rage Against the Machine” states the Occupy movement has re-focused the debate. The world is paying attention. How then do we achieve: (1) better regulation of Wall Street; (2) more fair taxation and (3) secure new jobs? Well if OO is an example I guess it is throwing items at the police (including feces), refusing to engage in meaningful, productive dialogue and, now, planning to “shut down commerce”. These tactics feel a lot more like anarchy to me given that they are characterized by lawlessness, violence and political disorder. MLK further stated that “the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” It appears, to me, that OO has taken the concepts of Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK and bastardized them. Protest is one thing, actions when they detract from an orderly society, is another.
Free Speech and its Limitations
OO may counter the arguments above by asserting that their actions are covered by “Free Speech”. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are, however, exceptions to this protection based upon: obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words (among other limitations). Government may further limit speech with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
Time, place, or manner restrictions must:
1. Be content neutral
2. Be narrowly tailored
3. Serve a significant governmental interest
4. Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
In my opinion limiting the hours that OO may occupy city hall is reasonable. Concerns about riots, public health and sanitation and safety to Oakland residents and its police force are all reasonable justifications. The city has spent well over a $1M on police activities surrounding this protest. These funds are being spent is at the same time when are City is fighting for its financial life and residents are facing yet another parcel tax. I for one, do not want to pay for this kind of activity. I would rather my tax dollars go to fund more police, better schools, public health initiatives and programs that get our residents back to work.
Solutions—How do we Move Forward
I do not claim to have all of the answers, however, below represent a few potential answers:
1. An open forum where the Mayor, City Council, Police Chief, DA, representatives from OO, the business and labor communities and residents of Oakland can engage in a meaningful dialogue around how best to achieve the stated goals.
2. An economic council, made up of business leaders, to help advise the Mayor on creating more jobs in Oakland.
3. A plan to secure additional police officers, as well as support for a strong, autonomous Policy Chief who can drive policy decisions and further develop a plan for a safer Oakland.
4. Reasonable restrictions around time, place and manner of the OO protests.
5. Protection for the businesses of Oakland should this day of protest materialize.
6. Reporting by City Hall, against specific metrics, to show that our City is making the right progress.
7. Voting. Hold our elected officials responsible for reforming the tax laws so that the 1%’ers are paying their fair share and that there exists the proper level of regulation for Wall Street. Put pressure on all members of Congress to achieve these goals and let them know that they are accountable to us.
Thank you for reading. I do not expect full agreement with my views. I welcome meaningful, productive debate. I am deeply committed to this community and its well being, and as such, am happy to be a part of any solution. My hope is that we can filter out the “noise” (recall efforts etc) and put our efforts into those things that can produce tangible results related to those goals set forth above
I have been watching what is going on with the Occupy Oakland (“OO”) movement for a few weeks. I have witnessed the Occupy (National) movement grow worldwide, as well as root itself in local communities all across our country. Oakland has become one of those local communities, and in many ways, the poster child for this movement. Ostensibly, the movement started with good intentions: (1) to curb, or at least better regulate, perceived corporate greed on Wall Street; (2) to revise the tax laws such that those richest Americans (the “1%’ers”) would share the fair taxation burden with the rest of the country (the” 99%’ers”); and (3) to stimulate the economy and provide job growth. Oakland, with its high unemployment rate, violent crime problems, health care disparities and foreclosure scandals, would seem then, a convenient and appropriate symbol for what is happening elsewhere in the country, and the world. I get it. People are hurt and angry. They are afraid.
I too live in Oakland. I have lived in this community for more than 15 years. As a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley, with its free speech history, and the son of a mother who participated in the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, I certainly respect free speech, advocacy for change, and even the right to protest. When, however, I see the pursuit of these aims start to tear down my community I become concerned. I am concerned that these protests have become misplaced, and if not done in a more constructive manner going forward, threaten both the safety of our city and the goals OO claims to be pursuing.
Everyone is Upset
A week ago, in an attempt to bring order to an unruly crowd the Mayor’s office ordered the police to remove the protestors from City Hall. One protestor, a war veteran (Scott Olsen), was badly injured. My prayers remain with Scott and his family. The Mayor then announced that the protestors could only protest at City Hall between the hours of 10 and 6. This position was later reversed, again allowing the protestors to establish an encampment at City Hall 24 x7. Now the protestors are angry with the Mayor and police. The Mayor seems to be off sides with her interim police chief. The police are angry with the Mayor (see the open letter from the Oakland police union to the Mayor in the November 1, 2011, Chronicle). Oakland citizens are angry with the Mayor, protestors, and some, the police. There has even been a movement started to recall Mayor Quan. Whew. That is a lot of anger.
I read that OO is calling for a day of protest, on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 when they will “stop commerce”. They are calling for the closure of every bank, corporation and school. I am not sure how closing down business, in a city badly hurting for both new businesses and jobs advances the aims of OO. I for one am against such a closure. As a member of the city’s Workforce Investment Board, I know as much as many, that our city is on the edge of solvency, and as such, the last thing we need to do is stop commerce. To the contrary, we need to show business that Oakland is a place to locate due to our proximity to colleges such as Berkeley, transportation, the Bay and a skilled workforce. Attracting business will stimulate the economy and provide badly needed jobs. What kind of message do we send to our children, by giving them a day off, to protest a city that is broke when they need to be in class, learning and securing a better future?
I think that we need to take a collective step back. The right question at this time is not whether we should recall Mayor Quan, but rather how we as a collective: City Hall, the police, other leaders like Assemblyman Swanson and Congresswoman Lee, OO, business, labor and the residents of Oakland work together to peacefully achieve the goals outlined above.
Civil Disobedience
There are many views on this topic and its use to drive change. Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK are three leaders on the subject of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau's 1848 essay Civil Disobedience, has had a wide influence on many practitioners of civil disobedience. The driving idea behind the essay is that citizens are morally responsible for their support of aggressors, even when such support is required by law. In the essay, Thoreau explained his reasons for having refused to pay taxes as an act of protest against slavery and against the Mexican-American War. He writes, "If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too”.
Gandhi similarly asserted “the fact is that all non-cooperation is not violent and non-violent non-cooperation can never be an act of violence”. MLK also urged a non-violent approach: “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is force to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
It would seem that OO has part of this right. OO, and the others in the Occupy movement more generally, have put a spotlight on the issues raised above. People are listening. The Economist in its latest issue “Rage Against the Machine” states the Occupy movement has re-focused the debate. The world is paying attention. How then do we achieve: (1) better regulation of Wall Street; (2) more fair taxation and (3) secure new jobs? Well if OO is an example I guess it is throwing items at the police (including feces), refusing to engage in meaningful, productive dialogue and, now, planning to “shut down commerce”. These tactics feel a lot more like anarchy to me given that they are characterized by lawlessness, violence and political disorder. MLK further stated that “the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” It appears, to me, that OO has taken the concepts of Thoreau, Gandhi and MLK and bastardized them. Protest is one thing, actions when they detract from an orderly society, is another.
Free Speech and its Limitations
OO may counter the arguments above by asserting that their actions are covered by “Free Speech”. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. There are, however, exceptions to this protection based upon: obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words (among other limitations). Government may further limit speech with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
Time, place, or manner restrictions must:
1. Be content neutral
2. Be narrowly tailored
3. Serve a significant governmental interest
4. Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
In my opinion limiting the hours that OO may occupy city hall is reasonable. Concerns about riots, public health and sanitation and safety to Oakland residents and its police force are all reasonable justifications. The city has spent well over a $1M on police activities surrounding this protest. These funds are being spent is at the same time when are City is fighting for its financial life and residents are facing yet another parcel tax. I for one, do not want to pay for this kind of activity. I would rather my tax dollars go to fund more police, better schools, public health initiatives and programs that get our residents back to work.
Solutions—How do we Move Forward
I do not claim to have all of the answers, however, below represent a few potential answers:
1. An open forum where the Mayor, City Council, Police Chief, DA, representatives from OO, the business and labor communities and residents of Oakland can engage in a meaningful dialogue around how best to achieve the stated goals.
2. An economic council, made up of business leaders, to help advise the Mayor on creating more jobs in Oakland.
3. A plan to secure additional police officers, as well as support for a strong, autonomous Policy Chief who can drive policy decisions and further develop a plan for a safer Oakland.
4. Reasonable restrictions around time, place and manner of the OO protests.
5. Protection for the businesses of Oakland should this day of protest materialize.
6. Reporting by City Hall, against specific metrics, to show that our City is making the right progress.
7. Voting. Hold our elected officials responsible for reforming the tax laws so that the 1%’ers are paying their fair share and that there exists the proper level of regulation for Wall Street. Put pressure on all members of Congress to achieve these goals and let them know that they are accountable to us.
Thank you for reading. I do not expect full agreement with my views. I welcome meaningful, productive debate. I am deeply committed to this community and its well being, and as such, am happy to be a part of any solution. My hope is that we can filter out the “noise” (recall efforts etc) and put our efforts into those things that can produce tangible results related to those goals set forth above
Monday, March 21, 2011
A Well Reasoned "Blast Back" to the Fab 5
In the midst of all the fun I was having watching March Madness a more serious issue, on the topic, arose. First, the Fab 5 documentary on ESPN and then Grant Hill's response.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/grant-hills-response-to-jalen-rose/
I wanted to take a brief pause to comment, and to commend Mr. Hill for his response.
I think that is it is unfortunate that Jalen and some of the other members of the Fab 5, brought the attacks on Mr. Hill and other AAs who play at Duke, in that manner that they did in the documentary. I love that the Fab Five, as Grant suggests, represented a new movement, a new attitude in America. A brashness that five talented freshman could compete, and almost win, on the NCAAs biggest stage. That said, some of the comments raised by Jalen and the other Fab 5’ers are even worse that the “crabs in the barrel” mentality that often plagues our community. Even more than being jealous of another’s success, or opportunity, I think the remarks by some of the Fab Five are tantamount to encouraging our youth toward the glory elements of the “hip hop” movement, or path to the fastest buck, at the expense of a good quality education, which is in most cases actually required to achieve such aspirations. I would be ok with the Fab 5 saying “we are tougher than they are”, “play a different brand of ball, etc”, but to put down an AA, or anyone, for that matter for taking advantage of one of the finest educational experiences our county has to offer is just wrong. We as AA leaders, should be bringing glory to such opportunities, and highlighting the fact that only the smallest percentage of us will ever make it to major D1 sports, let along professional sports, and that without a quality education to fall back on we are doomed to a very second class set of opportunities as we pursue our life’s work outside of sports. We need to look no further than certain of the members of the Fab 5, who did not get an education, and their attendant struggles, to see the importance of this point.
As a person of color who attended (and is very proud and blessed to have had the opportunity) a predominately “white” HS, college and grad school, I reject that distinction between “down” or “real” blacks and “fake” or “uncle tom” blacks as false. We are all black. The distinctions, and ensuing judgments, between people generally, or even within a race should spring from actions, not one's stations in life or where they were fortunate or unfortunate, as they case may be, to go to school.
I applaud Grant for responding in the manner in which he did. His response was one of high minded reason, rather than name calling or trash talk. His response was thoughtful, well laid out and unemotional. In this situation it clearly would have been easy to give way to emotion. I hope by “being the change” he hopes to see in the world, Grant will serve as an example to Mr. Rose (who, as a TV analyst, is in position to influence many of our youth), the rest of the Fab 5 and kids more generally. I think he showed real courage in living up to the challenge set forth by Dubois in trying to lead, realizing the implications of the Fab 5 documentary go beyond any mere war of words between Duke and the members of the Fab 5. Clearly, unlike Mr. Rose, Mr. Hill is mindful, that many are watching and taking notes.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/grant-hills-response-to-jalen-rose/
I wanted to take a brief pause to comment, and to commend Mr. Hill for his response.
I think that is it is unfortunate that Jalen and some of the other members of the Fab 5, brought the attacks on Mr. Hill and other AAs who play at Duke, in that manner that they did in the documentary. I love that the Fab Five, as Grant suggests, represented a new movement, a new attitude in America. A brashness that five talented freshman could compete, and almost win, on the NCAAs biggest stage. That said, some of the comments raised by Jalen and the other Fab 5’ers are even worse that the “crabs in the barrel” mentality that often plagues our community. Even more than being jealous of another’s success, or opportunity, I think the remarks by some of the Fab Five are tantamount to encouraging our youth toward the glory elements of the “hip hop” movement, or path to the fastest buck, at the expense of a good quality education, which is in most cases actually required to achieve such aspirations. I would be ok with the Fab 5 saying “we are tougher than they are”, “play a different brand of ball, etc”, but to put down an AA, or anyone, for that matter for taking advantage of one of the finest educational experiences our county has to offer is just wrong. We as AA leaders, should be bringing glory to such opportunities, and highlighting the fact that only the smallest percentage of us will ever make it to major D1 sports, let along professional sports, and that without a quality education to fall back on we are doomed to a very second class set of opportunities as we pursue our life’s work outside of sports. We need to look no further than certain of the members of the Fab 5, who did not get an education, and their attendant struggles, to see the importance of this point.
As a person of color who attended (and is very proud and blessed to have had the opportunity) a predominately “white” HS, college and grad school, I reject that distinction between “down” or “real” blacks and “fake” or “uncle tom” blacks as false. We are all black. The distinctions, and ensuing judgments, between people generally, or even within a race should spring from actions, not one's stations in life or where they were fortunate or unfortunate, as they case may be, to go to school.
I applaud Grant for responding in the manner in which he did. His response was one of high minded reason, rather than name calling or trash talk. His response was thoughtful, well laid out and unemotional. In this situation it clearly would have been easy to give way to emotion. I hope by “being the change” he hopes to see in the world, Grant will serve as an example to Mr. Rose (who, as a TV analyst, is in position to influence many of our youth), the rest of the Fab 5 and kids more generally. I think he showed real courage in living up to the challenge set forth by Dubois in trying to lead, realizing the implications of the Fab 5 documentary go beyond any mere war of words between Duke and the members of the Fab 5. Clearly, unlike Mr. Rose, Mr. Hill is mindful, that many are watching and taking notes.
Monday, January 3, 2011
New CA AG Harris Makes History
AG Harris Makes History
January 3, 2011. Today Kamala Harris was sworn in as California’s Attorney General. Being a woman, African American and Indian—a ll firsts! It was an honor to be among the many enthusiastic supporters, many of us whom had played a part (no matter how small) in her historic feat, to see her sworn in. When she pledged to “defend the Constitution of the United States and CA against enemies both foreign and domestic” , a collective chill came over the crowd. Kamala “gets it”. That is the law is for all people.
A few highlights:
· She pledged to be tough on crime. Those who commit heinous acts will be removed from society—murders, sex traffickers and pedophiles to name a few.
· She also pledged to be smart on crime. With a 70% recidivism rate and spending at a 2x rate to higher education in our state, the current system is not working. Kamala pledged to promote programs that get people properly prepared to re-enter society—education, job training, etc. Additionally, as she has done in SF, she pledged to continue holding parents accountable for their children attending class. Finally, she promised that her office will use a data driven approach and best of breed practices from around the country to improve CA.
· Mortgage fraud, drugs and gang violence were also among her targets of first order.
· AG Harris also promised a better use of existing laws to combat cyber crime. Cyber criminals will face the same punishment as do those who commit physical crimes.
· In an acknowledgement that the Prop 8 debate will be re-opened, the new AG stated that people “should be free to marry whoever they love”.
With a transition team that features two former US Secretaries of State, it is clear that Kamala Harris is a different kind of AG. Of course, the proof will be in the results, however, if today’s speech is any indication of the possible, I think California may be pleasantly surprised by what this 20 year prosecutor accomplishes. Also unspoken was the future of the death penalty.
It is very clear that our new AG has a bright future. I had previously thought maybe Governor, Senator or even President could be on the horizon for her at some point. However, if one listened closely to her glowing admiration for another former Alameda County DA, Earl Warren, and comprehends the ambitions of her reform plan she starts to more resemble Thurgood Marshall (in the way he reshaped education through the Brown vs Board of Education case). Supreme Court Justice Harris… Another of the many options that are now possible for this amazing woman.
January 3, 2011. Today Kamala Harris was sworn in as California’s Attorney General. Being a woman, African American and Indian—a ll firsts! It was an honor to be among the many enthusiastic supporters, many of us whom had played a part (no matter how small) in her historic feat, to see her sworn in. When she pledged to “defend the Constitution of the United States and CA against enemies both foreign and domestic” , a collective chill came over the crowd. Kamala “gets it”. That is the law is for all people.
A few highlights:
· She pledged to be tough on crime. Those who commit heinous acts will be removed from society—murders, sex traffickers and pedophiles to name a few.
· She also pledged to be smart on crime. With a 70% recidivism rate and spending at a 2x rate to higher education in our state, the current system is not working. Kamala pledged to promote programs that get people properly prepared to re-enter society—education, job training, etc. Additionally, as she has done in SF, she pledged to continue holding parents accountable for their children attending class. Finally, she promised that her office will use a data driven approach and best of breed practices from around the country to improve CA.
· Mortgage fraud, drugs and gang violence were also among her targets of first order.
· AG Harris also promised a better use of existing laws to combat cyber crime. Cyber criminals will face the same punishment as do those who commit physical crimes.
· In an acknowledgement that the Prop 8 debate will be re-opened, the new AG stated that people “should be free to marry whoever they love”.
With a transition team that features two former US Secretaries of State, it is clear that Kamala Harris is a different kind of AG. Of course, the proof will be in the results, however, if today’s speech is any indication of the possible, I think California may be pleasantly surprised by what this 20 year prosecutor accomplishes. Also unspoken was the future of the death penalty.
It is very clear that our new AG has a bright future. I had previously thought maybe Governor, Senator or even President could be on the horizon for her at some point. However, if one listened closely to her glowing admiration for another former Alameda County DA, Earl Warren, and comprehends the ambitions of her reform plan she starts to more resemble Thurgood Marshall (in the way he reshaped education through the Brown vs Board of Education case). Supreme Court Justice Harris… Another of the many options that are now possible for this amazing woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
