CALIFORNIA

FORUM

Sunday, June 12, 2011 | The Sacramento Bee |

Leaving the GOP

McCLATCHY BLOGS E2
LETTERS E3
VIEWPOINTS E5
EDITORIALS E6

Ken Barnes of Sacramento says racism

toward President Barack Obama has
driven him from the Republican Party.
Viewpoints, Page E5

E1
E1

sacbee.com/californiaforum

THE CONVERSATION

A JOURNEY
INTO DARKNESS
Brian Lungrens path
to Napa State Hospital
illustrates the story
of mental illness
in our time. For him
and many others, help
came only after they
harmed someone else
and that is the crime
of the mental health
care system.
Senior editor

DAN MORAIN

dmorain@sacbee.com

First in an occasional series

rian Lungren had been on a downward spiral since his mid-teens

using street drugs, hearing voices,
hallucinating and descending ever
deeper into mental illness.
Sometimes, he thought he was Mafia
don John Gotti or an undercover agent. Often, he was rapper Tupac Shakur, who was
gunned down in Las Vegas in 1996. He
once confided to his mother that Tupacs
ghost told him to commit suicide so he
could become God.
Now 27, he has been in and out of drug
and psychiatric treatment facilities and
jails more than 30 times, beginning in his
teenage years. One night when he was a
teenager and had become particularly belligerent, his mother bolted shut her bedroom door and slept with a hammer close
at hand.
In 2007, Brian stabbed another patient
at a drug treatment home in Auburn. A
Placer County judge concluded that he was
not guilty by reason of insanity and sent
him to Napa State Hospital in 2008.
His path to Napa State illustrates the
story of mental illness in our time. With
the help of 24-hour care and antipsychotic
medication, he has become more stable.
But he didnt receive prolonged and intensive care until he committed a crime.
Brians crime was comparatively minor.
He didnt kill six people and wound a congresswoman, or torch the Roseville Galleria, or drown a 3-year-old baby. But for Lungren and the others, help came only after
they harmed someone else and that is the
crime of the mental health care system.
Mental illness doesnt care about pedigree or partisan affiliation. But if any famMORAIN | Page E4

JOIN THE CONVERSATION

Should state law be changed to make it
easier to compel treatment for those who
are severely mentally ill?
Go to sacbee.com/conversation
Illustration by Jon Krause, NewsArt

The level of transparency the world has now wont support having two identities for a person.
MARK ZUCKERBURG, Facebook founder

Online media, traditional reporters are both digging

ow many times last week
From the Executive Editor
did you hear someone say,
JOYCE TERHAAR
What the heck was he
thinking? when the latest update
about New York Rep. Anthony
Weiner came out?
I dont want to know what, or if,
he was thinking. But as the news
became increasingly graphic this
week about the photographs he
jterhaar@sacbee.com
tweeted and shared, I started
thinking about the illusion of
privacy online and our community newspaper or the evening news,
but tweets and posts can be just as
search for truth.
Twitter and Facebook may look public. Thats intentional.
Facebook allows us one profile
far different from the morning

our personal and work relationships are all mashed up under the
heading of friends. Thats sometimes an uncomfortable place to
be for my generation; not so much
for my sons and their peers.
Their generation has been influenced by the privacy philosophy
of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebooks
founder. In the book The Facebook Effect, author David Kirkpatrick quotes a 2009 interview
with Zuckerberg that sounds
prescient given last weeks news.
The days of you having a different image for your work friends or

co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming
to an end pretty quickly, Zuckerberg said.
He told Kirkpatrick that having
two identities for yourself is an
example of a lack of integrity.
The level of transparency the
world has now wont support
having two identities for a person, he said.
At the rate politicians and others have been caught very publicly in a lie, Id say were already
well past a time in which any of us
can cultivate a public face differ-

ent from our private behavior.

Think about it. It took about
two years, during which the Washington Post and others aggressively covered the story, before
President Richard Nixon was
forced to resign for his role in
Watergate. Given todays Internet
onslaught of news, with everyday
citizens sometimes working as fast
as journalists to obtain information, how long would it take?
Not nearly that long.
Id worry about our collective,
insatiable appetite for the salaTERHAAR | Page E4

Sunday, June 12, 2011 | The Sacramento Bee E5

VIEWPOINTS

WRITING FOR THE BEE

The Bee is interested in local and state commentary. Because of the volume of submissions, you will not be
contacted unless the article is chosen for publication. To submit an article go to sacbee.com/sendoped.

KEN BARNES | Special to The Bee

COURTNEY A. POWERS
Special to The Bee

Racist cartoon of Obama

forces me to leave GOP

Judges should
not have to
open up their
private lives

was one of those rare species: a black

Republican, the guy willing to spit into
the wind of conventional thought, who
was often showcased on camera at party
events to prove inclusiveness.
But as a proud black man, I can no longer
be a member of the Republican Party.
Being a Republican has long been a part
of my personal and professional identities,
so leaving the party is a difficult and emotional decision.
In 1998, as a young man searching for
what I believed were shared values, I cut
ties with the Democratic Party and became
a Republican. Democrats, in my view, had
become unwelcoming to those holding
center-right views not in lockstep with the
party, and it was my belief that through
hard work, the Republican Party could be
utilized as a vehicle for improving our community.
For the next 13 years, I dedicated myself to growing the
conservative base of the Republican Party, and in the
process bound myself in
emotion and deed.
During that time, I
worked on behalf of RepubliKen Barnes
can candidates at all levels,
is a smallfrom presidential and guberbusiness
natorial campaigns, on
owner in
down to local elections.
Sacramento
I have had the pleasure of
and a
serving as president of the
member of
Sacramento Republican Asthe executive sembly, a term as a member
committee
of the California Republican
of the
Party executive committee,
California
and most recently as treaState
surer of the Sacramento
Conference of County Republican Party.
the NAACP.
Last year alone, I donated
more than 400 hours of my
time to the Republican Party and made financial contributions to a number of Republican candidates.
As of late, however, when I look at myself
in the mirror there is one question which
perplexes me: Can I, in good conscience, remain affiliated with an organization whose
message purveyors of racism and bigotry
find attractive?
Generally speaking, Republicans are decent people, and naturally, many of my closest friends vote Republican. As with any
large organization or group, there will always be people at the fringes who hold
views that are not representative of the
body.
An organization cannot control the behavior of each individual actor, but it can control its response to abhorrent conduct.
The latest incident in a string of tawdry,
race-based actions was the promotion of a
racist cartoon by elected Orange County Republican Party Central Committee member
Marilyn Davenport. The cartoon depicted
President Barack Obama and his parents as
chimpanzees, while simultaneously implying that the president is not a legitimate
American, but rather an African-born interloper.
While the Orange County GOP chairman
and a number of other committee members
were quick to condemn the image and Davenport, whats disturbing is the incredible
number of people who continue to defend

Hector Amezcua Bee file, 2010

A tea party supporter sits on the Capitol steps during a Sacramento rally last year, holding a sign
that compares President Obama to Cubas Fidel Castro.

Davenports actions as well as the cartoon

itself.
Had this been an isolated event, it could
be set aside as a mere aberration. However,
when placed in the context of similar offenses by the same self-identified tea partyconservative Republicans, there emerges a
disturbing pattern of extreme intolerance.
Over the past two years, we have seen Republicans use long-held racist imagery in
portrayals of Obama. The president has
been depicted as a communist witch doctor,
a man inclined to plant watermelons on the
White House lawn, and we watched in disbelief as his face was placed on an Obama
Buck Food Stamp along with stereotyped
pictures of fried chicken, barbecue ribs,
Kool-Aid and the obligatory watermelon.
What does any of this have to do with public policy or conservative values? Here is a
man who excelled academically at the finest
schools in the world, has a wonderful intact family, worked hard and rose to become president of the United States. Yet in
spite of his accomplishments, the president
is still labeled an illegitimate, socialist, African witch doctor and has his face superimposed on a chimpanzee.
If this can be done to a black man who is
the leader of the free world, how long will it
be before fellow Republicans insert my face
on a chimpanzee?
These behaviors also raise larger issues
for African Americans and other minority

groups within the GOP. How can I look my

parents in the eye and tell them Im a Republican in spite of these offenses? If he were
still living, could my Latino father-in-law be
proud that his daughter supports the GOP,
in spite of the constant anti-Latino rhetoric
that comes from the party? Can gay family
members reconcile my support of a party
that seeks to strip them of their basic human rights?
These are not issues which pit moderate
against conservative views, but rather consequential matters which transcend political
positioning and speak to universal human
values.
There are a number of Republicans (and
Democrats) who will view my switch to decline to state as a net gain for the Democratic Party. However, I reject the theory of
zero-sum politics which claim we live in a
binary world of Democrats and Republicans, where a lack of support for one side
works only to empower the other.
Having now been active in both major political parties, Ive discovered the common
prohibited activity is critical thinking.
President Ronald Reagan once famously
said, I did not leave the Democratic Party,
the Democratic Party left me, and I can
now say that I have been abandoned by
both Democrats and Republicans.
In order to stay true to myself, my family
and values, the only rational, responsible option is independence.

KATHLEEN PARKER

Political purity at odds with deep thought

ere we go all over again.

Read my lips and bring
em on. Its the economy,
stupid. Gotcha!
Which is to say, the stupid season is upon us. Same story, same
characters, same plot twists. And
yes, the same insanity. Plus a
change and all that.
To the familiar litany of clichs
above, one hastens to add, I was
for it before I was against it, the
sine qua non of that quintessential political bugaboo, flip-floppery.
A politician may be able to survive cavorting with prostitutes,
sexting with coeds and commingling with interns, but heaven forbid he should change his mind
the transgression that trumps all
compassion.
Or thinking.
After all, thinking can lead to
that most dangerous territory for
a politician doubt and, inevitably, the implication that dare not
be expressed: I could be wrong.
Those most averse to engaging
in the sort of thought that could
lead to self-doubt are, alas, those
who constitute the political party
base. These sometimes-wrongbut-never-in-doubt constituents
are relentless in demanding ideological purity from their candidates and routinely banish those
who dont measure up. Thinking
men and women need not apply.
These same folks also happen

Kathleen Parker
is distributed by
the Washington
Post Writers
Group.

to constitute a minority of Americans, yet they control the debate.

The rest of us are left to pick
among the ideologically approved scraps.
The flip-flop is nothing new, of
course. The archives of the New
York Times reveal an early first
political reference in 1890 when
John W. Goff, candidate for New
York district attorney, accused
his opponent of a great flip-flop.
The term seems to have increased in popularity with each
decade. Now, hardly anyone escapes the charge of flip-flopping,
which in todays man-up, grizzlymama freakosystem is tantamount to being weak and lacking
in conviction. Witness the unfortunate John Kerry, who in 2004
was mercilessly maligned as a
flip-flopper after he allegedly
shifted his support for Iraq war
funding. It was unhelpful that
Kerry himself said that he voted
for the funding before he voted
against it.
Subsequent explanations of
what he meant never gained traction because slogan beats reality
every time. And besides, those

ads showing Kerry flipping from

one side to another while windsurfing were too much fun.
This go-round, its Mitt Romney (once again) who has been tattooed with the flip-flop label. He
has indeed changed his mind on
abortion and gay marriage, both
of which he previously supported.
As governor of Massachusetts, he
orchestrated a near-universal
health care model that included
mandatory insurance, a position
he opposes as part of President
Barack Obamas federal plan.
Now hes in the hot seat on
global warming, a Washington
Post headline informs us. Romney has said that he believes global warming is real and that humans are contributing to it.
Whoa! Sorry, bub, but if youre a
Republican presidential contender, this is not an ideologically
approved position. None other
than Rush Limbaugh says Romney is history Bye-bye, nomination.
One can infer that Romney is
not Limbaughs candidate of
choice, but is it really so remarkable that Romney would accept
scientific evidence that the
Earths climate is changing and
that humans, because of their historically unprecedented carbon
emissions, might contribute to
that effect?
Never mind that Romney
couched his comments with

enough disclaimers to leave a T.

rex wiggle room, even saying that
he didnt know the degree of human contribution, the crux of the
debate. The mere mention of a human role (as opposed to presumably, a divine plan) was enough to
bestir the guardians of scientific
inquiry at Conservatives4Palin,
who averred that Romney is simpatico with Obama and that he
totally bought into the manmade global warming hoax.
Ah, yes, Romney the tree-hugging, flip-flopping Obamaphile.
Isnt he a Muslim, too?
On the issue of global warming, it is worth mentioning that
the conservatives anti-global
warming golden boy, Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish author, professor
and environmental writer, has
flip-flopped on the matter. Although he still maintains that economic considerations have to be
part of any calculus in combating
climate change, he also has said:
Global warming is real it is
man-made and it is an important
problem. But it is not the end of
the world.
Of course Lomborg enjoys the
luxury of needing no ones vote
and of being able to change his
mind without fear of being cast
into the outer darkness by talk radio hosts. In a saner world, we
would not distrust those who
change their mind but rather
those who never do.

roponents of Proposition 8 a voterapproved amendment to the California Constitution recognizing marriage as a union between a man and a
woman recently asked the U.S. District
Court to vacate Judge Vaughn Walkers decision last year finding Proposition 8 unconstitutional.
The alleged basis of this request is that
Walker failed to reveal publicly, at the outset
of the case, that he was in a 10-year relationship with a man and that he had no plans to
marry, if and when same-sex marriage became legal in California. As a result, Prop. 8
proponents allege Walker had a personal
stake in the case and that the laws of judicial
ethics required him to recuse himself. While
the proponents cloak their argument in the
rhetoric of ethical standards, the central
tenet of their position is anything but ethical.
The proponents motion
will be heard in the U.S. District Court on Monday. If
they are successful, judges
will be forced to navigate a
brave new world where they
swap personal privacy for a Courtney A.
gavel.
Powers, an
Female, childless judges attorney, is
ruling on legal protections director of
against pregnancy discrimi- advocacy
nation would be required to and
proclaim publicly whether government
they intend to one day be- affairs for
come pregnant. Female the
judges considering legal chal- Daughters of
lenges to laws restricting the Charity
right to abortion or contra- Health
ception would have to reveal System. She
whether they plan to have an lives in
abortion or use contracep- Pasadena.
tion. Married judges interpreting community property
laws would need to publicly
declare whether divorce is in
their future.
Requiring judges to reveal the details of
their private lives and opine about their
future would compromise their privacy,
autonomy, dignity and ability to control
their personal relationships with others all
values Americans expect from one another
and their government.
Even assuming that a statement by
Walker disavowing any intent to marry
would have placated Prop. 8 proponents,
the inherently speculative nature of this
kind of statement diminishes its relevance.
There are many factors that can influence
whether and/or when partners agree to
wed, and those factors can change over the
course of a trial. Personal health, illness or
death in the family, financial hardship,
career changes, infidelity and/or changes in
feelings by either partner are all factors that
can affect the future of a relationship at any
time, sometimes unbeknownst to the other
partner. Because Walkers intent to marry
could change at any time, it would be impossible to ascertain how the outcome of the
case might affect him personally.
More importantly, requiring Walker to
make a public statement about the future of
his relationship feels incredibly intrusive.
Maybe he and his partner were unsure of
the future of their relationship. Maybe they
didnt feel comfortable tackling the many
considerations that can factor into a decision to marry. Discussing marriage can
bring new pressure and stress to a relationship. Forcing Walker to have these conversations with his partner under an artificial
time frame, reach a conclusion without
knowing whether marriage would be a legal
option, share that conclusion with the rest
of the world and subject his relationship to
the wrath of public scrutiny is a hefty price
to pay for life tenure.
The fact that Walker was not openly gay
at the outset of the trial at least publicly
compounds the enormity of the burden advocated by proponents. The importance of
personal privacy takes on colossal significance when it comes to a persons decision
to reveal oneself to the world as a lesbian,
gay, bisexual or transgender person. It can
have enormous repercussions on a persons
relationship with their family and colleagues, the progress of their career or, as
the cast of Glee reminds us, their personal
safety.
In its 2008 opinion finding Californias
limitation on marriage to opposite sex couples unconstitutional, the California Supreme Court concluded that sexual orientation is a central and defining part of a persons identity. Whether, and by what process, a person chooses to reveal it is an incredibly personal decision.
Americans have come to expect that the
government will stay out of their most personal and private decisions. This is why our
laws allow families to determine the end of
life treatment for their loved ones and defer
to parents as to how they want to educate
their kids.
Judges should not be excepted from the
liberties they spend their careers protecting.
Requiring them to opine about the future of
their personal lives would render the price
of becoming a judge simply too much to pay.
There is nothing ethical and nothing American about inflicting this unjust requirement
on our keepers of justice.