Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Los Angeles Politics Hotsheet for Tuesday

Moved to Tuesday.  Sometime this morning we'll know who Mayor Villaraigosa has chosen as the Chief of the LAPD.  The Christian Science Monitor has a good read on the challenges facing the next man to helm LA's finest.

If you live in CD5, 11 or 12 and wonder why your Clowncilman isn't spending time on the pressing problem of your community, here is one reason. Members Paul Koretz (we don't have a nickname for him yet), Bill Rosen-DUH and Sleeping Greig Smith are working feverishly to outlaw declawing cats in Los Angeles.  This is despite the fact that veternarians say the law is unnecessary and unworkable and that an overworked Department of Animal Services is begging to not be given one more unfunded mandate they don't have the police powers to enforce anyway.  Your Council at work.

The 818Blog takes the news that CD2 candidate Paul Krekorian has been endorsed by former rivals Tamar Galatzan and Mary Benson as a sign that the Valley Assemblyman is "picking up steam" in the race.  On the other hand, the blog notes, Chris Essel has the endorsement of most of the City Council and the LA Times.

Remember Laura Chick? She's been working as California's Inspector General with a mandate from Arnold to root out fraud, waste and abuse just like she did here in LA.  Tuesday Inspector Chick will hold a press conference to drop the dime on shady non-profit about to receive some Obama stimulus dollars.  According to Chick's office a report prepared by a department of the State of California has found the agency to be "problematic and high risk." Hmmm...does that organization's name start with an A (and no, not the Auto Club)?

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:


You're missing the BIG part of the anti-declawing argument. Ed Boks is back and endorsing declawing. Whatever you think of the proposal, "Car Crash" Boks will be a lightning rod when the subject is discussed.

You heard it HERE first.

November 03, 2009 6:55 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The fact that most of City Council, 6 of them: Hahn, Wesson, Perry, Smith, Rosendahl, LaBonge endorse Essel is precisely why we don't want Essel. It will be more of the same, business as usual. We'd be trading one of the Mayor's puppets (Wendy Greuel) for another. No thanks!

November 03, 2009 7:47 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Solomon is correct.

My point in pointing to Ed Boks is that whatever position Ed Boks takes, an intelligent person would ALWAYS VOTE THE OPPOSITE WAY.

Please support a ban on this cruel act. A cat's claws are its only way to defend itself against a dog, and when cats kill rodents in your home or yard, they need their nails.

Declawing is painful, cruel and unnecessary. West Hollywood banned it several years ago. It's time LA does the same. The fact that Ed Boks is in favor of declawing is a sign that we should ban it.

November 03, 2009 8:21 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Anyone see Paul Krekorian's TV commercial being aired on the Armenian cable channel. It's not in English, but in Armenian. It's all about finding your ballot and filling it out and sending it in. The white Anglos of the districts who speak English should be as organized.

November 03, 2009 8:22 AM  

Blogger Phil Jennerjahn said:

Declawing cats?

Are you serious??

These damned Socialists never stop meddling in the lives of others!

HOW is this a legitimate function of government?

Answer...IT ISN'T!!

November 03, 2009 10:56 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Anonymous said: "My point in pointing to Ed Boks is that whatever position Ed Boks takes, an intelligent person would ALWAYS VOTE THE OPPOSITE WAY."

Please don't tell me you consider yourself intelligent after just posting that sentence. Oh. My. God.

Personally, I go by whatever the (former) General Manager of Street Services or Environmental Affairs. If either of them say, NO on A,B,C, etc. I vote YES. Regardless of anything else they say...

And I do that because I'm intelligent.

November 03, 2009 11:16 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Anonymous 8:22 -

I call that a well organized, get out the vote campaign. Besides absentee ballots, wouldn't it be strategically good to find every imaginable group that will vote for you, key in on the with a flyer, do the same for the next key group, etc. Push out their ballots by mail, get the absentee votes done early and bingo - you've got yourself a winning candidate.

I wonder why some people think that having the endorsements of all of the City Councilmembers, who you all sit here and rant about daily, and the Times is a good thing. If everyone in the district hated their council person so much, the one who didn't get the endorsement should be a shoo-in.

Unfortunately, half of the residents of any given council district have a clue as to who their council person is. It's just those particular groups I'm speaking about above (Armenians, Catholics, Jews, Chambers, developers, environmentalists, community activists) who vote.

November 03, 2009 11:36 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Notice how short the council meeting was today? They all hurried to get their own ugly mugs in the photo ops with today's big announcement, they'll all try to get into every event. Even the ones who lobbied against Beck like Zine and Alarcon. Parks is claiming to have given him a first shot way back when, trying to get on a good footing with the new chief this time.

November 03, 2009 3:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Like it or not you Antonio-haters, it's the mayor's perogative to choose someone he can work with and who's not insubordinate to him, out to make him look bad and undermine him and is totally incompetent and a novice from nowhere in way over his head to boot. He's already got THAT in the bully buffoon city attorney.

Not that anyone who's in the current LAPD more than 5 minutes could sink that low, so there was NO bad choice here. Just shut up about your BOO HOO's and save them for where it matters. If you show up at community events BOOing you'll look like the morons. Wait, that's a great idea, do it.

November 03, 2009 3:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Phil, I really don't want to be among those that batter you, but on the declawing assessment, you miss much of the problem while you constantly search for some political symbolism to criticze.

The de-clawing, besides the physical aspects that are most often raised, also leaves the cat without it's main ability to defend itself from attacks by other cats when it gets out of the house.

The cat will never be the same and you have a severely damaged cat that you purportedly "loved" but not enough to otherwise deal with whatever caused you to maim the cat.

Rather than mutilate and intentionally create a damaged cat, do yourself and the cat a huge favor and just don't get cat.

If the Council spends time on this, it would be better than most thing's it chooses to handle in council meetings. It's something that will save pain and maintain some degree of humanitarianism with respect to our pets. If this passes, WHO loses money, and how much? (A [small] number of vets?) If this proposed ban will push others outside the city to be cruel anyway, that's clearly each person's decision but enough to prevent establishing a policy of L.A.'s hoped-for humane animal treatment.

in cd-14

November 03, 2009 4:43 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home