Often as capricious as it is coveted, the Oscar remains the most prized statue of Hollywood’s seemingly endless awards’ season. And while pitting one film or performance against another is like comparing Milk Duds to mushrooms, that hasn’t stopped cinematic pundits from making our annual best guesses on who will score Oscar gold, and who will go home empty handed.

I’m usually better at this prediction game than I’d like. A few wrong calls would portend a more exciting evening. And I fear the 83rd Academy Awards show Sunday will need all the help it can get in that department. The biggest mystery may surround the show’s inexplicable hosts James Franco and Anne Hathaway and whether they will bomb with as much finesse as David Letterman’s now infamous “Uma-Oprah” Oscar hosting stint. A real upset would be the pair scoring a Billy Crystal caliber performance. But, hey, with expectations so low, they may well surprise. I’m also predicting at least one wardrobe malfunction, a dubious collection of colorful fashion disasters, three helter-skelter acceptance speeches, a surprise presenter or two, and Joan Rivers finally melting into the Red Carpet.

Check out my predictions for the top categories. Feel free to play along at home; come back Monday and compare scores.

Best Picture

Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King’s Speech
127 Hours
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter’s Bone

I know I was one of the cinematic lemmings blithely riding the early “The Social Network” Awards train. And the film about the founding of the uber popular social networking site and it’s not so people friendly founder, may still pull out a Best Picture win. But the odds have swung in favor of “The King’s Speech.” After collecting top honors at the Critics Choice, Golden Globes, SAGs, Producers and Directors Guilds, the British historical drama about King George VI and his relationship with his therapist as he conquers a daunting speech impediment has both the Awards momentum and Harvey Weinstein’s ( who co-produces and distributes stateside) marketing mojo going into Sunday’s Oscar ceremony.

Both solid films, neither “The Kings Speech” nor “The Social Network” is particularly daring. Both employ pretty traditional techniques. So it’s amusing to see a plethora of “Network” fans making their case in the blogosphere by comparing this year’s race to the 1977 Oscars which featured a showdown between the ground-breakers “Star Wars” and “Annie Hall,” with Woody Allen’s neo-romantic comedy taking home top prize. One blogger suggested “The Social Network” is comparable to both films.

Sorry, I just don’t see it. If you’re voting for inventiveness “Inception” would easily win. Christopher Nolan’s film about manipulating reality and infiltrating dreams is a bold, ambitious film in such need of serious editing, it cost Nolan a Best Director nod. and will, surely, cost his film the top prize.

What “Social Network” is is a timely movie, cursed, ironically, by its own bad timing. I really thought it would triumph over its early fall release, but alas, I suspect it will not. The film may also suffer from a lagging feel good factor. The truth is, King George VI and his therapist Lionel Logue are far more sympathetic than Mark Zuckerberg. Audiences –and Academy voters–may simply be rooting for the historical Royal more than the contemporary composite of an arrogant young billionaire.

Yet the Academy sometimes goes against the tide. So this is one is still a toss up, with the royal edge remaining with The King.

Will win: “The King’s Speech.”

Best Director

“Black Swan” Darren Aronofsky
“The Fighter” David O. Russell
“The King’s Speech” Tom Hooper
“The Social Network” David Fincher
“True Grit” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

While the Best Director is usually given in tandem with the Best Picture, it’s not always the case. The Academy has been known to spread around its gold. And if “The King’s Speech” wins, it may award the Best Director statue to “The Social Network‘s” David Fincher. He won the Golden Globe, but “King’s Speech” director Tom Hooper fetched the DGA which is usually a predictor for the Oscar. Quite frankly, Fincher’s fleet direction, which kept “The Social Network” moving at an almost thriller pace ( no small feat considering he timed the movie perfectly around Aaron Sorkin’s brilliant, verbose script; and a lot of the action takes place in a deposition room) should best Hooper’s more deliberate, traditional film making.

Will Win: David Fincher

Best Actor

Javier Bardem in “Biutiful”
Jeff Bridges in “True Grit”
Jesse Eisenberg in “The Social Network”
Colin Firth in “The King’s Speech”
James Franco in “127 Hours”

What I thought might have been the toughest category to predict, looks to now be a breezy victory for Colin Firth. Jesse Eisenberg–who fetched early prizes from the National Board of Review and the L.A. and NY critics– seems to be suffering from “The Social Network’s” fade. And that’s a shame as the young actor, who infuses his less than likable character with pathos and a simmering vulnerability, has truly elevated himself into the adult leading man realm. Jeff Bridges, too, may fall prey to imperfect timing. While his big, boozy turn in “True Grit” may even surpass his “Crazy Heart” performance, that one earned him the Oscar last year, and while not unheard of ( Tom Hanks pulled it off with “Philadelphia” and “Forest Gump“), back-to-back wins are rare.

And just as it was clearly Bridges’ turn last year, so too, it seems to be Firth’s moment to score Oscar gold. The British actor– who has steadily built his nearly 30 year career with over 50 films–arguably deserved the top prize last year for for subtle and nuanced work in “A Single Man.” This year, he takes on King George VI with a blend of bravado and vulnerability that is sure to warm Academy voters’ hearts, Plus this time, everyone is likely to have seen “The King’s Speech.”

Who will win: Colin Firth

Best Actress

Annette Bening in “The Kids Are All Right”
Nicole Kidman in “Rabbit Hole”
Jennifer Lawrence in “Winter’s Bone”
Natalie Portman in “Black Swan”
Michelle Williams in “Blue Valentine”

I’m not exactly going out on a limb when I remain steadfast in predicting Natalie Portman will dance off with the Best Actress Oscar for “Black Swan.” Yes, Darren Aronofsky’s psycho-sexual thriller is a flawed film, but the star’s performance is bravura. And that little promotional fact that is bandied about with all the frequency of overpriced popcorn dust that Portman spent an arduous year training for the part of a ballet dancer has surely scored points among voting actors. Fewer folks saw Michelle Williams’ captivating, edgy performance in “Blue Valentine“, even fewer probably saw Nicole Kidman’s “Rabbit Hole” turn, fewer still Jennifer Lawrence’s achingly beautiful performance in the haunting “Winter’s Bone.”

There is the growing Annette Bening upset buzz. Yeah, she’s a a three-time past nominee with nary an Oscar to call her own and the Academy has been known to bestow unofficial “career wins.” But Bening isn’t as old as Paul Newman was when he finally won for “The Color of Money.” And she is a member of the Academy’s Board of Governors ( whatever that does for her). She is also a heterosexual star who plays gay, which earned Oscar gold for Sean Penn (“Milk”) and Tom Hanks (“Philadelphia”).

But while her performance in “The Kids Are All Right, ” is admirable, it can’t trump Portman’s undeniable tour de force. And quite frankly, I found Julianne Moore-who got the big awards’ season snub- more interesting as Bening’s quirkier partner.

Will Win: Natalie Portman

Best Supporting Actor:

Christian Bale in “The Fighter”
John Hawkes in “Winter’s Bone”
Jeremy Renner in “The Town”
Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right”
Geoffrey Rush in “The King’s Speech”

When upsets occur, it’s often in the supporting categories. So while everyone has Christian Bale–who’s picked up most of the pre-Oscar Awards, as the winner for his volatile performance in “The Fighter,” there is room for Geoffrey Rush–who grabbed the British Academy Award for his delightful turn as the off-beat therapist in “King’s Speech“– or Mark Ruffalo–who offers one of his strongest performances as sperm donor turned late- in- the- game dad in “The Kids Are Alright” –to walk off with unexpected Oscar gold. Rush already has a Best Actor Oscar for his remarkable “Shine” performance. So I’m cheering for Ruffalo, who deserves recognition, as does “Kids.” Of course, Mark Wahlberg was snubbed in the Best Actor category, so it’s up to the Academy to honor David O. Russell’s hardscrabble film with supporting awards. And, as Bale said during his SAG acceptance speech, “This was a loud role and I fucking loved it!” Loud often prevails.

Will Win: Christian Bale

Best Supporting Actress

Amy Adams in “The Fighter”
Helena Bonham Carter in “The King’s Speech”
Melissa Leo in “The Fighter”
Hailee Steinfeld in “True Grit”
Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom”

Speaking of loud, Melissa Leo’s over-the-top tour de force train wreck practically screams, “Yo, chowdaheads, where’s my Oscah?” And until she paid for her own industry “For Your consideration:” glam shot ads, she was a shoo-in. Frankly, whatever so-called backlash that unconventional move may have stirred seems manufactured, another attempt to create controversy and interest in a predictable year.

But Hailee Steinfeld’s break-out role in “True Grit” may now be in play. Still, I wouldn’t bet a year’s supply of Junior Mints against Leo’s abrasive mama. Steinfeld is a young upstart in the wrong category. Hers is really a leading role, and while that maneuver worked to nab an Oscar for Timothy Hutton back in 1981 for “Ordinary People,” I’m guessing it won’t fly here. A formidable actor, respected by the Academy, the fifty something Leo –who was nominated in the Best Actress category two years ago for her quietly powerful role in “Frozen River“– has earned the accolade for both her “Fighter” flamboyance and an impressive career. Let’s just say: this chick’s got range.

Will win: Melissa Leo

Best Original Screenplay

Another Year” Written by Mike Leigh
“The Fighter” Screenplay by Scott Silver and Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson;
Story by Keith Dorrington & Paul Tamasy & Eric Johnson
“Inception” Written by Christopher Nolan
“The Kids Are All Right” Written by Lisa Cholodenko & Stuart Blumberg
“The King’s Speech” Screenplay by David Seidler

If ” King’s Speech” runs the table, Daid Seidler’s screenplay is an easy winner. If Oscar is in a sharing mood, Nolan may score for his inventive “Inception” script, which will also be a consolation prize for the Director shut-out. He did win the award from the Writer’s Guild, but Seidler picked up prizes from the Critic’s Choice and British Academy Awards, among others. It’s a fine, straightforward script with an inspiring back story. Academy voters–particularly writers–will be impressed with Seidler’s patience. Wanting to tell this story for over twenty-five years, by request from the late Queen Mum, the dutiful British subject, waited until her passing to pursue the project.

Will win: David Seidler, “The King’s Speech”

Best Adapted Screenplay

“127 Hours” Screenplay by Danny Boyle & Simon Beaufoy
“The Social Network” Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
“Toy Story 3″ Screenplay by Michael Arndt; Story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich
“True Grit” Written for the screen by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
“Winter’s Bone” Adapted for the screen by Debra Granik & Anne Rosellini

Easier to predict than Portman’s victory: the Oscar goes to Aaron Sorkin’s taut, smart, literate script. He’s already won a bushel of accolades and deserves every one. “The Social Network” script is one of the best in years, and is an integral part of the film’s cultural resonance and what may be its lasting impact.

Will win: Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network.”

For a complete list of categories and nominees, check out the official Oscar website.

The 83rd Academy Awards will be televised live on ABC Sunday at 8 pm, et, 5 pm pt.

Please follow Amy Beth Arkawy on Twitter.

The United States national debt has passed $14 trillion. For each dollar spend by the federal government 40 cents is borrowed. So technically, the US is already bankrupt because it has a debt that is almost four times the size of its economy. Lawmakers in Congress are saying that their major priority is to tackle and find ways to reduce the national debt, yet they are unwilling to see that the only way to avoid fiscal insolvency is to have a dual approach: Cut spending on one hand, and increase taxation on the other. Short of this, the United States will never get out of this giant hole that it has dug for itself. During his state of the union speech, President Obama said that we need a new “sputnik moment”. America’s sputnik moment should be to make drastic cuts in its military spending by getting the US military out, sooner than later, of Afghanistan, Iraq, Germany, Japan and South Korea.

Cut Spending AND Increase Taxes Or Face Dire Consequences

Not only the US is in deep financial troubles federally, it is also in dire shape at state and local levels. 44 states are currently facing big budget gaps, and some are even considering bankruptcy as a way out. America’s policymakers are facing the daunting task to tackle a dreadful fiscal challenge. The 2008 recession has caused the sharpest decline in state tax revenue on record with state tax collections at 12 percent below pre-recession level. Meanwhile, the need for state funded services has increased. Even after making deep budget cuts, especially in social services, over the last three years, states are now facing what seems to be insurmountable budget gaps.

Fiscal 2012 is projected to be the most difficult year on record  with 44 states and the District Of Columbia projecting a budget gap totaling $125 billion. States options for addressing those budget gaps are dwindling fast. By the end of fiscal year 2011, federal assistance for states will be largely gone. State governors are now faced with a grim reality to prevent their fiscal house to become completely underwater.

On Tuesday, New-York state Governor Cuomo declared the state “functionally bankrupt”. Cuomo is proposing a $132.9 billion budget that would make drastic cuts on education and health care. Despite the cuts, the projected budget shortfall for the state of New-York for fiscal 2012 stands at $9 billion. In Governor Cuomo budget proposal, Medicaid programs and school would each be cut by $2.85 billion. If Cuomo is heading towards cuts on social services for the people who need it the most, in California, Governor Brown has a different approach. Brown is running out of ways to make budget cuts which were already made by his predecessor, and he wants to extend tax increases to balance California’s budget. Governor Brown has the intention to take the issue directly with California voters. Brown said it is a tough budget, but that people have the right to vote on his budget package.

“When democratic ideals and calls for the right to vote are stirring the imagination of young people in Egypt and Tunisia and other part of the world, we in California can’t say now is time to block a vote of the people. If you are a Democrat who doesn’t want to make budget reductions in programs you fought and deeply believe in, I understand that. If you are a Republican who has taken a stand against taxes, I understand where you are coming from. But this time things are different. In fact, the people are telling us- in their own ways- they sense something is profoundly wrong,” said Brown.

Despite this dreadful reality, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) is trying to diffuse the situation by calling the depiction regarding catastrophic states debt “alarmist”. The CBPP says that recent articles regarding the fiscal situation of states and localities have lumped together the current fiscal problems, due to the recession, with long terms structural problems such as debt in relation to pension and retirement obligations. But will states have to declare bankruptcy? Some policymakers are suggesting that federal laws should be enacted to allow states to declare bankruptcy. By doing so, it would give them the possibility to default on their bonds, pay vendors less than they are owed, and modify or even cancel union contracts.

Historically, we have to go back to the civil war when several states defaulted on their debt obligations. During the Great Recession, only Arkansas defaulted on its debt. The CBPP argues that such bankruptcy move would be “unwise”, and adding that “States have adequate tools and means to meet their obligations”. The CBPP also points out that “it could push up the cost of borrowing for all states, undermining efforts to invest in infrastructure.”

We all saw the headlines after a 7.0 magnitude earthquake hit Haiti in January 2010: the deaths, the destruction…then the looting. Images from CNN and other news networks trickled in to show desperate Haitians looking for food, water, and other things in the rubble. Then, mobs began to break into buildings which provoked US Forces to protect private property like banks and other establishments. So, how bad is looting? Is it ever “OK” to loot?

During the 1992 Los Angeles riots in South Central looting occurred on a mass scale. Dozens of stores were broken into and people carried away TVs, stereos, and anything worth taking. The chaos created by angry protests and the fires gave an opportunity to people to take advantage of the situation and engage in looting. No earthquake had taken place or any other natural disaster — it was all civil unrest that had gotten out of hand.

When I was in New Orleans, just four days after Hurricane Katrina had swept the region, I drove near by Canal Street just outside of the French Quarter. Store after store had been broken into by looters: Tiffany’s and other expensive stores had their windows broken and everything inside the store stolen. There was office furniture all over the streets and sidewalks from ransacked buildings and shops. A few brand-new Corvettes were abandoned in lanes and alleys, apparently the cars had run out of gasoline; they had been taken from a dealership after the storm.

Immediately after Katrina hit, the police was overwhelmed by the chaos created by the flooding, the evacuation procedures, etc. At night New Orleans became a war zone where fire was exchanged between mobs and a weakened police force. The National Guard had to be brought in to help police and try to establish order. A curfew was put in place to keep the streets clear; any unauthorized person wondering around past curfew was immediately arrested.

New-Orleans Post Katrina/ Photograph by Gilbert Mercier

Looting In History

Looting has been part of history for centuries, perhaps since the beginning of time. Vandals looted Rome in 455; crusaders looted Constantinople in 1204, and the list goes on. Shortly after the US intervened in Iraq, looters there stole ancient sculptures and art from the museums. It was chaos on the streets while US Forces were busy taking down Saddam Hussein’s government. Still today, almost 6 years later, many of those precious pieces of art have not been recovered and perhaps never will be.

The opportunity to take goods during times of chaos and unrest is one many people can’t resist — some do it for survival when the search is for food and water, but others do it for their own gain. Perhaps we should look at looting from a cultural standpoint. Take for example the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, where there were no reports of looting. Mind you, the Kobe earthquake or the “Great Hanshin” earthquake, as it is also known, was a destructive 6.8 magnitude quake that brought the Japanese economy to a halt. The destruction was severe and over 6,400 people lost their lives. Firefighters and police were overwhelmed by the number of fires that erupted and by rescue efforts. The Japanese military arrived 3 days later to assist first responders, but looting didn’t occur.

So why didn’t the survivors of the Kobe earthquake not indulge in the act of looting when there was ample opportunity for it? Maybe because taking things that are not yours isn’t really part of the Japanese culture, period. Japan is perhaps the only country in the world today where if you lose a wallet full of money on the train, it will be returned to you with exactly every penny you had in it before you lost it. Since I’ve been living in Tokyo, I keep hearing story after story of people who lose expensive cell phones, wallets, etc., and get those objects back within days. Such honesty is really unheard of in the US.

Trusting The Government

About 300,000 Japanese were homeless following the Kobe quake and they waited patiently in lines for food and water distributions. Also, convenience stores opened on the same day the quake hit, so people were not completely cut off from supplies. The government response to the Kobe quake was very slow and there was lots of criticism from the international community and from the Japanese people about it, but things would have been much worse if survivors had engaged in theft and further destruction of property.

The faith that the Japanese people placed in their government to help them after the quake is also what may have kept them from looting. Critics have often complained of how protective the Japanese government can be of its people — often accusing it of being “controlling.” But this “protective” projection of the government paid off after the Kobe earthquake; the Japanese didn’t at all doubt that help would eventually come, and it did.

This assurance that the government will guarantee that you will have what you need after a major natural disaster doesn’t exists in many countries. Looting will most likely occur in places where the people are at odds with their government or where the government is corrupted. During the event of a natural disaster or civil unrest, the act of looting closely resembles an act of rebellion from the people against the powers or system in place — a power which has suddenly succumbed to Mother Nature or has been overwhelmed by other forces. I’m not a sociologist, but this is my own journalistic theory.

New-Orleans Post Katrina/ Photograph by Gilbert Mercier

Thus, during the Los Angeles Riots in 1992, the mostly African American population showed their anger at the verdict of the Rodney King case and rebelled against what they perceived as an oppressive and unjust system by engaging in destruction of private property and looting. In Haiti, we all know about the government corruption that has plagued that country for decades, so the desperation for survival after a major quake forced people to fend for themselves by looting for anything that they could consume, use, trade, or sell.

The looting during Hurricane Katrina is a combination of what happened in the LA Riots and what we saw later in Haiti. Take poor people who have suffered racism and discrimination for decades, plus a government they don’t fully believe in and add a major hurricane, what do you get?

Many parts of the world will continue to be affected by natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and civil unrest. So, the questions raised in this article are: how can well-intentioned governments help assure communities that they will respond quickly and efficiently to disasters in order to avoid looting? What work needs to be done first to gain the confidence and trust of these communities?

Unfortunately, in the past decade with Hurricane Katrina in the US and the quake in Haiti, government agencies have failed to project an image of efficiency when responding to major disasters. Communities are still not really sure if their emergency agencies will come through for them after the slow response and lack of advance planning and preparation that these agencies showed in New Orleans and Haiti. Our survival instincts in emergencies can be overpowering and worse if we feel like no one is there to help us. There is much work to be done to convince people that they can trust in their government during chaotic times, not only would this work help to facilitate saving lives, but also in minimizing property losses.

Dolores M. Bernal is Co-Founder of the News Junkie Post. She also maintains the Los Angeles Earthquake Blog where she writes about emergency management.

Follow Dolores M. Bernal on Twitter
Follow the News Junkie Post on Twitter

Since the 1980s the problem of homelessness in most American cities has been chronic. After 30 years of Reaganomics, countless cuts in: mental health care, drug rehabilitation programs, assistance for former convicts and a lack of funding for decent public education in inner-cities, the homelessness problem has exploded to become a true epidemic. It is nationwide, and doesn’t only affect the part of the country worst hit by the recession.

In rich cities, such as Los Angeles, one can take a 45 minutes trip from the nightmarish living conditions of homeless in the Downtown LA skid row area to the luxury of Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. Anyone experiencing this quick journey between the waste land of the have-nothing on skid row and the extravagant life style of the have-too-much in Beverly Hills will have a culture shock, and an acute sense of the social injustice denying the lost souls of skid row basic human dignity. All the photographs below were taken in late November and early December 2010. The faces of the men and women in these photographs speak louder than words. They express the misery, the despair, the helplessness of  broken human beings daily struggle in the urban jungle, created by the social Darwinism of shock capitalism.

Editor’s Note: All photographs by Gilbert Mercier

A superior court judge issued a ruling Friday stopping Los Angeles from enforcing a moratorium on new medical marijuana dispensaries.

The city council approved the moratorium six months ago. But the ordinance said dispensaries must have registered before November 13, 2007 — before the original moratorium was put in place — to operate legally.

Superior Court Judge Anthony Mohr ruled that the city’s deadline was “arbitrary and capricious” because the registration requirement expired in 2007, reports John Hoeffel of The Los Angeles Times.

The decision leaves the city with limited power to control dispensaries, which opened by the hundreds after city officials failed to enforce the 2007 moratorium due to a boilerplate “hardship” loophole.

Near the end of his 40-page ruling, Judge Mohr acknowledged “there is a good chance that a large number of collectives could open once this injunction takes effect,” but said his order is warranted because the dispensaries which have sued the city were highly likely to win in a trial.

Five and a half years ago, when the Los Angeles City Council first talked about regulating medical marijuana dispensaries, they could only locate four of them in the city. It took five years before the city’s ordinance, one of the most complicated in the state, took effect.

More than 100 dispensaries have filed at least 42 lawsuits challenging the ordinance and its accompanying moratorium.

“We’re singing ‘Happy Days Are Here Again,’ said Stewart Richlin, an attorney representing nine dispensaries. Meanwhile, David Welch, who represents more than 60 of the pot shops, said his clients were “ecstatic.”

“It means they can’t use strong-arm tactics, such as arresting my clients,” Welch said of Judge Mohr’s decision.

“I suspect that their exuberance will be short lived,” groused special assistant City Attorney Jane Usher, noting that Mohr, in ruling against some provisions of the ordinance, also suggested ways to fix it.

“He left 90 percent of it intact and gave us methods for quickly correcting the remaining provisions,” Usher said. “I think we’ll be gracious and accept.”

Councilman Ed Reyes, who led the drive on the City Council to draft the ordinance, said he hoped to have a proposal to address the judge’s ruling by Monday.

“My sense of urgency is that great,” Reyes said. “I’ve already learned from the past that, if you open up the window just a little, people just crash through. We have to close that window as quick as possible.”

Judge Mohr ruled that the provision outlawing dispensaries that registered after the 2007 moratorium is unconstitutional because the ban was not properly extended and expired almost two months before the November 13, 2007 deadline for dispensaries.

“The justification for using that date as a bright line was compromised, if not confounded, by the fact that it was unnecessary to register,” he wrote.

The decision throws into confusion the city’s ongoing decisions about which dispensaries are allowed to stay open. The council already delayed by six months enforcement of the ordinance’s restrictions, such as the requirement that pot shops be at least 1,000 feet away from schools.

The judge, however, said the council could fix the ordinance by simply allowing all dispensaries that existed before a certain date and banning the others. He noted that documents dispensaries filed with the city in 2007 when they registered could be used as proof they were operating at the time.

Usher said the city attorney’s office would probably recommend the council do that.

The judge also ruled the ordinance violated the due-process rights of the dispensaries because it shut them down without a hearing, and the privacy rights of patients because it required dispensaries to make member records available to the police.

Defending the deeply flawed ordinance has already cost the city hundreds or  thousands of hours of legal time. At some hearings, half a dozen city lawyers showed up.

Steve Elliott, a working journalist since 1982, is editor of Toke of the Town, Village Voice Media’s site covering cannabis news, views, rumor and humor. He started writing when that rock and roll drummer thing didn’t work out, but chicks still dig him.

Mike Burrows came to America when he was two years old, and has lived here for 50 years. Due to a technicality in harsh anti-immigration laws, he will likely be deported to his birthplace of Canada within weeks, a country that he has no current connection to and no memory of.

I was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. My dad worked for a division of Capitol Records. He received a transfer to Los Angeles, got permanent resident visas for the whole family and when I was two years eleven months old, we moved to the States. I grew up in Glendale, California, where I said the pledge of allegiance, played baseball, and lived like any American. Except for a first grade teacher who told me I could never be President, I thought I was just like everybody else. In high school, I played guitar in a band, played first base for the jv then varsity baseball team. All in all, I was living an American life.
-Mike Burrows

Mike Burrows is the poster child demonstrating the hysteria surrounding the immigration debate in the United States. He has built his life in America, he has children, parents, girlfriend, and all of his friends here. Mike has worked and paid taxes for most of his adult life. He worked his way up in the car business from sales to General Manager, has been a professional musician (guitar and lead singer), and has sold advertising for a range of publications. He has also worked as a certified mechanic and he ran an auto body repair shop. He is American as apple pie.

The Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) was passed in 1996, stating that those in the country without proper documentation would be deported for a period of time (3 years, 10 years, or permanently). The same law stripped judges of discretion and made it legal to severely limit due process for immigrants. Previously, immediate deportation was triggered by criminal offenses that potentially would have meant 5+ years in jail, after IIRIRA, minor infractions such as shoplifting could trigger this.

Mike was convicted of receipt of a stolen 8-track tape deck worth $50, a misdemeanor in 1978, when he was 18 years old. This conviction was expunged from his record in 1983. Although Mike is officially considered a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), the 1996 law was applied retroactively, and in 2001 Mike was found “removable.”

For the past 9 years, Mike Burrows has been fighting a legal battle against an intractable bureaucracy, that includes the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 310 attorneys and 100 support staff of the Office of Immigration Litigation (OIL), and various local agencies and courts. He spent a month in the Lancaster Country, California federal immigration detention center before having his $10,000 bail processed, money that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would soon strong-arm the bonding company out of.

In the past nine years I’ve written thousands of pages of motions and petitions; I’ve held off 4 Attorneys General and countless government lawyers. It’s not life or death to them as it is to me.
-Mike Burrows

The DOJ’s immigration tribunal allows a panel of one to decide administrative immigration appeals with little or no review, so having exhausted all legal channels to appeal his decision, Mike now waits at his home for ICE agents to break into his house for a second time and send him to a land he has never known.

Once deported, Mike would likely never be able to see his parents again as they are too elderly and too infirm to travel, especially his mother who has Alzheimer’s, or his daughter again until she is eighteen. There is a lifetime ban on re-entry for “criminal” aliens, with a penalty of up to twenty years in Federal prison should he cross over the border after removal, even though his grandfather was a South Dakota state senator who owned a cattle ranch.

Mike continues to blog about his ordeal. A governor’s pardon is likely the only hope of relief from removal in this case. Mike Burrows, father, taxpayer, and lover of America for 50 years, a victim of an overzealous immigration policy and ruthless bureaucracy.

This is how I live my every day, wondering when ICE is going to kick the door in and drop me off at the nearest detention center.
-Mike Burrows

Editor’s note – you can help Mike in his fight against the insane deportation by signing the petition at change.org.

Election Day brought some disappointment to progressives across the US. A Republican take-over of the US House of Representatives and of many state governorships, including in New Mexico and Florida, isn’t easy to swallow.

But there are a few pieces of good news out there, including the victory of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer in California against the Republicans, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina. This was California’s most expensive race for governor in history; Whitman spent $100 million of her own money, but the two Republican women, former CEOs of  major companies, did not get the peoples’ confidence to fix the state’s budgetary problems.

The Republicans may have taken-over the House, but the US Senate is still safe in the hands of Democrats. Nevada’s Harry Reid has an edge won over Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle. And in Maryland, Connecticut, West Virginia and Delaware, Democrats also beat their conservative opponents. It takes 51 seats to control the senate and the Democrats pulled it off beautifully.

In Kentucky, a Tea Party favorite won a US Senate seat — Rand Paul, but the red state also elected the first openly gay mayor in the City of Lexington, businessman Jim Gray.

“This is a tremendous victory for Lexington, for Kentucky’s LGBT community and for fairness.  We are proud of Jim Gray and his fantastic campaign staff who fought hard for this win,” said Chuck Wolfe, Victory Fund’s president and CEO. On the same note, Massachusetts’ Barney Frank retained his House seat. For a list of Victory Fund endorsed candidates, click here.

Governorships in many states were also up for grabs. Republicans took over in New Mexico with the first right-wing Latina and Tea Party favorite elected governor, Susana Martinez. The state had enjoyed the leadership of another Mexican-American, Bill Richardson for eight years, but due to term limits he couldn’t continue at the post. But in Maryland, Martin O’Malley scored for the Democrats and prevailed as the state’s governor. New York also elected a Democratic governor, Andrew Cuomo.

An Independent became governor in Rhode Island, Lincoln Chafee. A former Republican, Chafee left the party in 2007 and chose to side with Democrats since. But in neighboring Connecticut, a real Republican, Tom Foley was poised to win his bid for governor there.

Follow the News Junkie Post on Twitter.

The Courage Campaign, a progressive organization in California has released a “Last Minute” voters’ guide for Californians. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom sent an email to organization members this morning with suggestions on what to vote for and against in the state.

California’s future may be decided on Tuesday as voters are pinned to elect a new governor, plus decide the future of a key U.S. Senate seat. There are also a few controversial ballot measures, including Proposition 19, which would legalize cannabis and tax it.

Here is a quick summary from the Courage Campaign on how to vote on those California ballots:

YES on Proposition 19
NO on Proposition 20
YES on Proposition 21
NO on Proposition 22
HELL NO! on Proposition 23
YES on Proposition 24
YES on Proposition 25
NO on Proposition 26
No recommendation on Proposition 27

For the complete voter’s guide (PDF) click here.

Voters will also have to pick between the Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman for the governorship, plus decide if US Senator Barbara Boxer will continue to hold her post. The Republicans are cheering for Whitman and Carly Fiorina to win the governorship and senate seat respectably, but Democrats are hopeful that Brown and Boxer will prevail in one of the most heated races in California history.

Follow the News Junkie Post on Twitter

Almost everyone watching the epochal Proposition 19 battle in California — the voter initiative that would legalize and regulate cannabis for adults, and allow its taxation by local governments — realizes that the implications and symbolic significance of the vote goes far beyond the baby steps included in the language of the measure.

What’s at stake? The people of the Golden State have a chance to stand up to the tired old orthodoxy of “Just Say No” and replace it with the “Just Say Now” of the marijuana movement.

At long last, voters have a chance to take a first step out of the cultural trance enforced upon the entire nation since cannabis prohibition began in 1937 — a chance to find a better way to deal with the marijuana question.

Predictably, the anti-pot forces have brought everything they have — mostly hyperbole, in other words — to the battle. To hear them tell it, California’s very future is at stake, and not only that but perhaps the fate of civilization as well. It’d be a lot easier to smile about it if these folks weren’t completely serious — as serious as they were a couple years ago in their successful campaign to make Prop 8 the law of the land in California, banning gay marriages.

And yes, one of the biggest anti-Prop 19 groups has pretty much the same people as ran one of the pro-Prop 8 groups that stunk up the election last time with their innuendoes, anti-gay bias and snidely ignorant talking points. This time pot’s the demon, instead of gay couples.

The news hasn’t all been encouraging this week for pot proponents, as at least two major polls show the anti-marijuana vote surging in the last days before the election.

But as pointed out by Yes On 19, the anti-marijuana stigma could be significantly throwing off live polling. After all, a lot of people are still uncomfortable telling strangers they are in favor of marijuana legalization.

Backing up this hypothesis is the huge divide between the level of support expressed for Prop 19 with two different methodologies — live interviews versus automated phone polling. Yes On 19 found that if an individual is responding only to a computer program, they are much more likely to express support for the initiative.

While recent live interviews showed 41 percent Yes and 46 percent No responses, automated interviews told a different story: 56 percent of respondents chose Yes with only 41 percent No.

“There is still a stigma in many communities attached to marijuana use which could make some voters embarrassed to tell a stranger over the phone they plan to vote for legalization,” said Jon Walker of Firedoglake.

Automatic interviews have consistently shown greater support for the initiative. SurveyUSA, using mostly automated interviews, recently found Prop 19 winning 48-44, while PPIC, using live interviews, had it losing 44-49.

This effect seems to be even more pronounced among certain groups, particularly young voters. In live interviews, voters under 30 support Prop 19 only 49-37. But in the automatic interviews, young voters support the measure by an overwhelming 73-22 margin.

“The ability to do a straight-up comparison of the results of automated versus live interview polling helps explain some of the wild discrepancies we’ve been seeing in Prop 19 polling of late,” Walker said. “The results provide very positive news for supporters of the measure, and if they are correct, Prop 19 will likely become law.”

“We’re confident that when Californians find themselves in the privacy of voting booths on November 2, they will vote to end decades of failed and harmful marijuana policies,” said Dan Newman, a political strategist working with the Yes On 19 campaign. “Very few people think the current policy is working.”

About the author: Steve Elliott, a working journalist since 1982, is editor of Toke of the Town, Village Voice Media’s site of cannabis news, views, rumor and humor.

Sheriff Lee Baca: "Prop 19 has no effect on what we're going to do"

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca said on Friday that the voters don’t matter. His deputies’ enforcement of marijuana laws would not change even if voters approved Proposition 19, which would legalize cannabis in California, on November 2, according to the Sheriff.

“Proposition 19 is not going to pass, even if it passes,” Baca said in a news conference Friday at sheriff’s headquarters in Monterey Park, reports Robert Faturechi in The Los Angeles Times.

The department run by Sheriff Baca polices 75 percent of Los Angeles County. His staunch opposition to marijuana — even if it is legalized — was echoed Friday by an announcement from Attorney General Eric Holder that federal officials would continue to “vigorously enforce” cannabis laws in California, even if state voters pass the measure.

Baca, who is sworn to uphold California state law, claimed Prop 19 was superseded by federal law and if passed, would be found unconstitutional.

Standing onstage with other prominent opponents of marijuana legalization, including Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley, Sheriff Baca colorfully assailed marijuana use, users and sales.

Asked if he had ever experimented with pot, Baca left no room for doubt. “Hell, no,” he said.

Baca claimed legalizing cannabis would have far-reaching effects, including increasing the costs of drug rehabilitation (although most people in rehab for marijuana have been forced there by court order), causing traffic accidents (although marijuana is not a significant factor in auto wrecks), prompting labor disputes with employees getting high on the job (although Prop 19 gives employers the right “to address consumption that actually impairs job performance“), and providing a safe cover for drug cartels selling hard drugs.

California’s laws for pot smokers are already lenient enough, Baca claimed.

“If you a need for an ounce or less… then use your marijuana, but use it privately,” Baca said. “If you want to do a joint in your house, do it. Leave the rest of us alone.”

Baca claimed personal users smoking at home were already a non-priority for police agencies, including the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. His department does target pot dealers, he said.

The sheriff came out against Prop 19 early on, joining with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to try to prevent its passage.

Polls have shown California voters are almost evenly split on legalization.

Incredibly, Baca claimed on Friday that local law enforcement agencies — which, again, are sworn to uphold state laws — should abide by federal drug laws prohibiting marijuana, even if Prop 19 passes.

“[Prop] 19 has no effect on what we’re going to do,” Baca said.

Steve Elliott, a working journalist since 1982, is editor of Toke of the Town, Village Voice Media’s site of cannabis news, views, rumor and humor.