In an attempted act of political finesse, president Obama declined to call the mass slaughter of Armenians, carried out by the Turks 100 years ago, a genocide.

“Armenian-American leaders have urged Mr. Obama each year to keep a pledge he made as a presidential candidate in 2008, when he said the United States government had a responsibility to recognize the attacks as genocide and vowed to do so if elected,” the New York Times reported. “Mr. Obama’s failure to fulfill that pledge in his final annual statement on the massacre infuriated advocates and lawmakers who accused the president of outsourcing America’s moral voice to Turkey, which staunchly opposes the genocide label.” As McClatchy observed, president Obama has dodged the term eight years in a row. 

Unusual criticism

In California, where Armenian-Americans have a substantial presence in metropolitan areas like Los Angeles, Obama’s unwillingness to follow through on the issue provoked unusually sharp criticism from within his own party. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank — Ranking Member on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence — said he was “gravely disappointed” in a statement directly admonishing president Obama. “For a president who knows the history so well, who spoke so passionately about the genocide as a senator and presidential candidate, and who has always championed human rights, the choice of silence and complicity is all the more painfully inexplicable,” he said, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

Officials worked to limit the damage. “The president has consistently stated his view of what occurred in 1915, and his views have not changed,” a senior administration official said, according to the Wall Street Journal. “The president and other senior administration officials have acknowledged as historical fact and mourned the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians who were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. They have stated that a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in our all interests, including Turkey’s, Armenia’s, and America’s.”

Mideast fault lines

Critics have portrayed the president’s choice as, at best, a misguided attempt at playing geopolitics in the fraught region encompassing Turkey and Armenia, which recently rekindled a longstanding military confrontation with neighboring Azerbaijan. (“Remaining silent in an effort to curry favor with Turkey is as morally indefensible as it will be ineffectual,” Schiff said.) But the Turks found fault even with Obama’s carefully couched remarks, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs calling them a “one-sided interpretation of history,” according to the Anadolou news agency. 

“Turkey has shown the will to build a joint future with peace based on the shared living experience for centuries between Turkish and Armenian nations,” the Ministry added, appealing to “a fair memory” in evaluating the historical record. “It is sad that friend and ally countries encourage the circle that [aim] to deepen the conflict instead of answering [Turkey’s] call. It is obvious that the efforts to politicize the pain suffered in history do not do any good to anyone so far.”

Some California Democrats, though disappointed with the president’s choice of words, seemed to concede the point that the stakes are too high — with Turkey a NATO ally increasingly trapped between greater authoritarianism and greater Islamism — to risk a breach over the matter. “This president, the last administration and the previous one before that have been concerned about our relations with Turkey, and they haven’t wanted to offend the Turkish government,” said Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno, McClatchy noted. “Costa is one of 66 members of the House of Representatives, including 23 from California, who are co-sponsoring a resolution that calls for ‘Turkey’s full acknowledgment of the facts and ongoing consequences of the Armenian Genocide.'”

California lawmakers have emerged as pivotal players in the state’s struggle over cyberlaw — and the country’s. In Sacramento and Washington, D.C., elected officials have placed themselves at the forefront of disputes over the intersection of technology and national security, potentially determining the course of America’s approach to civil liberties for decades to come.

Inside the Beltway, federal oversight of U.S. security agencies has been dominated by Californians. “The current chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is now investigating the alleged manipulation of war assessments by the U.S. Central Command,” as McClatchy recently noted. Faced with bombshell allegations from New York Times sources that military officials had spun intel to overstate U.S. progress against the Islamic State, Nunes told the news service that “a special multi-committee task force was needed to investigate the allegations because officials were ‘trying to hide’ from oversight through bureaucratic sleight-of-hand.”

As Nunes’ colleague to his left, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has rounded out the top two seats on the committee, observers have watched for signs that Schiff might opt to run to replace Sen. Dianne Feinstein in two years, having previously chosen not to jump into the race to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Backdoor access

It is Feinstein who has put the biggest California imprint on national security policy. After a bruising tiff with the CIA over its interrogation program, Feinstein made fresh headlines co-authoring a piece of legislation that would recast the relationship between surveillance and technology inside the U.S. A draft of a Senate bill being finalized by Feinstein and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “would effectively prohibit unbreakable encryption and require companies to help the government access data on a computer or mobile device with a warrant,” the New York Times reported.

The bill has instantly ratcheted up the stakes in the already heated controversy surrounding the ongoing efforts of federal officials to force Apple to provide the means to unlock its iPhones. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., told the Times that Feinstein and Burr’s bill would require all American companies marketing handheld devices “to build a backdoor” into them. “They would be required by federal law per this statute to decide how to weaken their products to make Americans less safe,” he told the paper, vowing to do “everything in my power” to block the effort.

A similarly sweeping bill has been crafted within California itself. Assemblyman Jim Cooper, D-Elk Grove, “introduced new state legislation that would require any new smartphone from 2017 onwards to be,” in the bill’s words, “capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider,” according to ZDNet. “That would impose a near-blanket ban on nearly all iPhones and many Android devices being sold across the state as they stand today, more often than not with unbreakable encryption that even the companies can’t unlock,” the site observed.

A widening threat

Although state and federal legislation has been prompted by terrorist threats and attacks, cybercrime has become sophisticated and prevalent enough to spur other concerns — especially in California, where recent strikes have raised fears that infrastructure and essential services could be crippled more out of greed than an appetite for destruction. So-called ransomware deployed by hackers paralyzed three Southern California hospitals several weeks ago.

“The security breaches — which temporarily disable digital networks but usually don’t steal the data — not only have endangered public safety, but revealed a worrying new weakness as public and private institutions struggle to adapt to the digital era,” as the Los Angeles Times noted. “Government officials are particularly concerned that hackers could lock up digital networks that run electrical grids, and oil and natural gas lines, according to Andy Ozment, assistant secretary of cybersecurity and communications at the Department of Homeland Security.”

Rail authority board chairman Dan Richard described the change in plans as being driven by practicality: Having the first segment go from Kern County to San Jose instead of Fresno to Burbank allows the authority more certainty in being able to complete an initial segment. The old plan was for a difficult, partly mountainous 300-mile route costing $31 billion. The new plan is for a flat 250-mile route costing about $20 billion.

This allows for “a transition from planning and initial construction to being able to stand up and say we have federal funding, bond money, cap-and-trade revenue, and that those funds are sufficient for us to build, open and operate the first real high-speed rail leg in California,” Richard said at the news conference announcing the changes.

L.A.-area route risked mass political defections

But there is also evidence that the rail authority feared that if it continued with the original plan, it would face a political Waterloo. The state project had already lost the crucial support of some Los Angeles-area politicians and risked losing far more — starting with state Senate President Kevin de Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.

In 2014 and 2015, throughout the San Fernando Valley, grass-roots opposition to the state’s planned route built steadily. Some Latino activists said the bullet train’s effects would be so harsh on working-class minority communities that it should be a civil rights issue because the train and its 20-foot-high sound wall would bisect the San Fernando Valley in a way that would disrupt traffic, business patterns, schools, transit and everyday life.

At a May 2015 town-hall meeting, rail authority officials heard impassioned pleas to take their project elsewhere.

“Our community’s history has been riddled with displacement. My family has all its roots here. I want my grandchildren to grow up here, understanding how great a place it is. We like where we live,” testified San Fernando resident Genaro Ayala, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

But at that meeting, Richard downplayed the impacts to the crowd. Lou Correa, a veteran Democratic politician from Orange County appointed to the rail authority board in March 2015, said he detected “NIMBYism” in the complaints. That sparked a furious response from local residents, who said that rich communities used similar tactics to block projects they didn’t like, and that it was outrageous for anyone to suggest opposition was reflexive instead of driven by concern about impacts on their neighborhoods.

This public anger has translated into political support. As CalWatchdog reported last year, many public officials have been sharply critical of much or all of the project. The most prominent initial opponents included Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, and Rep. Judy Chu, D-El Monte, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich, who represents much of the affected part of the county, and San Fernando Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Ballin and Councilman Jaime Soto. Now the list also includes elected leaders from Sylmar, Santa Clarita, Shadow Hills, Lakeview Terrace and other Valley communities. In December, Assemblywoman Patty Lopez, D-San Fernando, dropped her official support.

Did Rep. Schiff pressure Obama administration?

Schiff is the heavy hitter of the crowd because of his willingness to use his good relationship with the Obama administration to pressure the federal government, the state government’s de facto partner in the high-speed rail project because of $3 billion-plus provided in federal funds and because of the many federal regulatory approvals still needed.

A year ago, for example, he made headlines in the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys when he ripped the National Parks Service for delays in completing promised studies involving the Angeles National Forest. That led the Save Angeles Forest for Everyone group, known as SAFE, to urge Schiff to pressure federal officials to seek changes in the bullet-train route, starting with plans for a mountain tunnel.

It’s not known what, if anything, the veteran Democrat did. But the California High Speed Rail Blog, home to the project’s most ardent defenders, expressed deep concern in January 2015 that Schiff’s opposition to the state’s plans “is going to make it very difficult for such a tunnel to be built. Other Democrats in the state’s congressional delegation will likely defer to Schiff on this, leaving the CHSRA with even fewer allies for a tunnel in the unlikely event they chose that alternative.”

However it came to pass, Schiff got his way, and, for now, his district is safe from disruption.

Trying for a reboot

“In 2017 we will launch an all new orca experience” focused on the whales’ “natural environment,” SeaWorld CEO Joel Manby recently announced, according to the Guardian. “2016 will be the last year of our theatrical killer whale experience in San Diego.” But the traditional performances will continue at SeaWorld’s other locations in Texas and Florida.

“He said the decision to end the orca shows in California was in direct response to customers, who he said had made it clear that they want less of a theatrical experience and would rather see the whales in a more natural setting,” the Guardian added. “Attendance at the San Diego park is falling fast. Visitor numbers dropped 17 percent last year to 3.8 million, according to city authorities, and Manby warned investors last week that numbers are still falling and would contribute to a $10 million hit to SeaWorld’s profits this year.”

Activists and critics, to little surprise, welcomed the change but swiftly demanded more. “Animal rights activists applauded SeaWorld’s plans to end its orca shows at its San Diego park but said the company should phase out its captivity of killer whales altogether,” the Associated Press reported.

Growing opposition

The root of the crisis traced back to the debut two years ago of a harshly critical documentary film. “Attendance has plunged, and company shares have fallen in half, since the 2013 documentary ‘Blackfish’ made a compelling case that the confinement and exploitation of killer whales inflicted physical and psychological stress on creatures that thrive on socialization and vast expanses of the ocean,” as the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle noted. Tim Zimmerman, co-writer of the film, told CNN SeaWorld’s abandonment of the San Diego shows was a “first step.”

“That film, shown repeatedly on CNN, had a profound impact on how the theme park is percieved by the public. SeaWorld has spent millions of dollars on ads and social media to restore its reputation,” as NPR observed. ‘Blackfish’ took as its point of departure the 2010 death of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau, killed by one of the captive orcas at the company’s Florida location. SeaWorld withdrew its trainers from orca tanks after the incident, NPR added; but the damage to its reputation was done, as activists began to focus in on its treatment of whales and the psychology of the animals in captivity.

Legislators and regulators have also chipped away at the company’s fortunes. “SeaWorld suffered another blow last month when the California Coastal Commission approved a SeaWorld plan to expand its orca enclosures in San Diego but added the condition that the park must end its killer whale breeding program and halt the transfer of new whales to the park,” the Los Angeles Times recalled. “The conditions would eventually put an end to the park’s most popular attraction.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., has forged ahead with a plan to federally prohibit the captive breeding of orcas. “The fact still remains that as long as SeaWorld holds orcas in captivity, the physical and psychological problems associated with their captivity will persist,” he said, according to the AP.

Added troubles

In a grim irony, SeaWorld’s troubles have not been confined to their featured marine animals. “A Wilsonville man is suing SeaWorld in San Diego, California after a trained hawk attacked his service dog,” KATU reported. “His dog may have contracted an aggressive disease as a result. Robin Revel has mounting veterinarian bills for his service dog Yogi that he didn’t expect after the attack happened in February. That’s why his attorney e-filed the liability lawsuit in San Diego on Wednesday.”

These developments put project supporters on the spot in two different ways.

The Los Angeles hearing suggests attitudes about the bullet train in Los Angeles County are moving against the project. That’s what happened in Silicon Valley, where voters supported Proposition 1A in 2008 to provide $9.95 billion for a statewide bullet train system but shifted to intense opposition when the real-life effects of building a high-speed rail system through wealthy communities triggered a powerful, well-financed campaign to force the state to back off.

This and $30 billion in cost savings led Gov. Jerry Brown and the rail authority to adopt a “blended”plan in which high-speed rail would extend from Fresno to northern Los Angeles County, with slower rail on each end connecting riders to downtown San Francisco and downtown Los Angeles, respectively.

But after the rail authority decided last year to accelerate construction in Southern California, community opposition began to build. This has helped fray the loose coalition of the region’s politicians who have long supported the idea of a bullet-train system but are uncomfortable with the emerging specifics.

Is Antonovich’s proposal actually a ‘poison pill’?

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich — who once lobbied to make sure the bullet train’s route went through his district — now is the leading proponent of minimizing disruption to his district by tunneling through the San Gabriel Mountains for the train’s 15-mile Palmdale-to-Burbank link. Given that this would add billions of dollars in construction costs to a project that already can’t identify how it’s going to pay for its first $31 billion segment, that’s close to asking the rail authority to do the impossible. Such “poison pills” are one way for politicians to oppose a project in indirect fashion.

Antonovich’s 2014 proposal, in turn, led to concerns in January from two other elected Democrats who previously backed the bullet train project enthusiastically. This is from the Los Angeles Business Journal:

Rep. Adam Schiff came out in opposition on Thursday to a proposed alignment of the state’s high-speed rail project that would require a tunnel beneath the Angeles National Forest – damaging chances the plan will be carried out.

 

In a letter sent this month, Schiff, D-Burbank, and Rep. Judy Chu, D-El Monte, told California High Speed Rail Authority Dan Richard to scrap any consideration of a route under the San Gabriel Mountains between Palmdale and the San Fernando Valley because it would be harmful to the environment.

Wealthy environmentalists don’t like Antonovich’s plan. But some poor and middle-class homeowners of the San Fernando Valley don’t like the rail authority’s alternative, and they depict their fight as akin to David vs. Goliath. This is from Glendale resident Stephen Mills’ letter in Friday’s L.A. Times:

California High Speed Rail Authority board member Lou Correa said that he detected “a little bit of NIMBYism” regarding the reaction to bullet train plans. He should get used to it.

 

Affluent neighborhoods have successfully fought intrusive development that would have affected their quality of life, and now working-class neighborhoods are doing the same.

How much is CA project an Obama priority?

Meanwhile, in Washington, the House’s action to pull back federal funds from the state’s high-speed project may prove as consequential as the developments in Los Angeles County. The provision was included in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal 2016, a multibillion-dollar measure that includes many provisions the White House supports.

If the Senate approves this funding bill, would President Obama actually veto it in the name of preserving federal grants to an embattled, increasingly unpopular project that would help only one of the 50 states?

That’s not clear. Doing so would likely prompt a sharp reaction from the Washington Post’s editorial page. It has long been a harsh critic of California’s project.

A 2011 editorial, headlined “California’s high-speed rail system is going nowhere fast,” noted that the state “hasn’t credibly identified a source of funds for the system” and questioned Gov. Jerry Brown’s enthusiasm for the project.

Villaraigosa announced his decision Tuesday in a post on Facebook that foreshadowed a run for governor in 2018.

“I am humbled by the encouragement I’ve received from so many to serve in the United States Senate,” the former Democratic Speaker of the California Assembly wrote. “But as I think about how best to serve the people of this great state, I know that my heart and my family are here in California, not Washington, D.C.”

If Villaraigosa’s statement that his heart remains “here in California” wasn’t a clear enough indication of a future run for governor, he added he’ll continue his “efforts to make California a better place to live, work and raise a family.”

“We have come a long way, but our work is not done, and neither am I,” he concluded.

Kamala Harris

Villaraigosa’s decision to pass on an application for membership in “the world’s most exclusive club” follows similar announcements by Treasurer John Chiang, billionaire climate-change activist Tom Steyer and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

It didn’t take long for Harris, the only major announced Democratic candidate, to issue a statement praising the former Los Angeles mayor.

“The city of Los Angeles, and our state and nation, have benefitted [sic] greatly from his leadership,” Harris said in a prepared statement tweeted by her campaign. “I know he has much more to offer. I wish him and his family all the best.”

Although Harris welcomed Villaraigosa’s exit from the race, the biggest beneficiary could be Loretta Sanchez. A moderate Orange County Democrat, Sanchez would have appealed to similar voters — Latinos and Southern Californians — as Villaraigosa.

Sanchez may prove formidable challenger to Harris

She hasn’t received the same media hype as Villaraigosa, but in some respects Sanchez may prove to be a more formidable challenger to Harris. The 10-term Democrat has said she’ll make a decision later this year. Sanchez has a head start on fundraising with nearly $400,000 in federal cash on hand, according to the most recent campaign finance reports.

Her statewide name identification, albeit lower than Villaraigosa’s, comes without the personal baggage. Early in his tenure as mayor, Villaraigosa disclosed an affair with a Telemundo newswoman. That was followed by photos showing the mayor partying with Hollywood bad boy Charlie Sheen at a hotel opening in Mexico.

But as pointed out by CalWatchdog.com, the biggest weight on a Villaraigosa campaign could be his support for Esteban Nunez, the son of former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. Esteban pled guilty to manslaughter for the fatal stabbing of a 22-year-old college student. Villaraigosa, on official mayoral letterhead, wrote a letter of support for “a young man of good and upright character.”

The case was riddled with political favoritism, as detailed in a lengthy profile by the Los Angeles Times, and ended with Nunez friend Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s commutation of Esteban’s sentence.

Latino Caucus: Senate contest bigger than any one candidate

Villaraigosa’s decision to pass on the race also does nothing to cool the burning frustrations of Latino political leaders, who are being pressured by some Democratic leaders to clear the field for Harris.

Earlier this year, former Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown, who at one time dated Harris, said Villaraigosa should forgo a campaign out of respect for his friendship with the attorney general.

“His loyalty and his relationship with her should be so valuable, and he should, in my opinion, see it as an opportunity to demonstrate that,” Brown told the Sacramento Bee.

That comment inspired grumblings from members of the California Latino Caucus, who say the race is bigger than any one Latino candidate. Earlier this month, the group released a poll showing a Latino candidate could contend with Harris. The survey of 600 likely Latino voters, according to CalBuzz, showed Villaraigosa leading Harris, with Sanchez not far behind in third place.

“The U.S. Senate race has importance beyond the contestants themselves,” Assemblywoman Nora Campos, D-San Jose, said in a press release. “This is not about one candidate or another. An exciting race can generate enthusiasm among voters that have not been energized in years.”

Other Democratic candidates that are considering the race include Rep. Adam Schiff of Burbank, Rep. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles and former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera.

On the Republican side, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez of Carlsbad and former California Republican Party chairman Tom Del Beccaro are seriously exploring bids.

Rice is popular among Republicans, but so far has refused calls to run for senator, governor, even president.

The poll found 49 percent of Californians “inclining” to support her.

Under California’s Top Two system, Rice likely would face off against a Democrat in the November election, and would have to overcome the state’s strong Democratic identity. But her top showing indicates she might do better than Boxer’s 2010 opponent, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina, who got 42 percent.

Topping Democrats on the list was Attorney General Kamala Harris, with 46 percent “inclined” to support her. She announced her Senate bid last month.

In third place was Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez at 39 percent; then Democratic California Secretary of State Alex Padilla at 38 percent.

Oddly, former Rep. David Dreier, a Republican, did not make the list on the Field Poll. Yet he finished second, at 19 percent, to Harris’ 34 percent in a Public Policy Polling survey released last week. The poll asked about only five names, the others being former Democratic Mayor of Los Angeles Villaraigosa, 16 percent; former Republican Rep. Mary Bono, 14 percent; and Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, 4 percent.

And in a head-to-head question, Dreier was in striking distance of Harris, with 42 percent to her 47 percent.

Here’s the full list for the Field Poll: