On May 19, Californians tried to tell the governor that they were tired of the mess he’s made of the California budget.

Voters tried to tell him that they approved of the budget the Assembly had passed earlier, the one that he vetoed.

Voters sent a clear message that they wanted a balanced budget solution that includes revenue increases.

In fact, according to an April 30 Field Poll (www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2306.pdf):

• 74 percent of California voters support increasing tobacco taxes;

• 73 percent of California voters support an oil extraction tax;

• 63 percent of California support raising the state income tax for top earners.

Every other oil-producing state in the union taxes the extraction of oil from its lands – including Texas and Wyoming. Even Sarah Palin raised the oil severance tax in Alaska to 25 percent in 2007.

The California Budget Project estimated a 9.9 percent oil severance tax would bring it at least $1 billion to state coffers. If oil prices rose again above $100 a barrel, then we could see $2 billion in revenue per year. Given the high likelihood of such increases, an oil severance tax would be a significant long-term boon to the state's coffers, since oil companies can't exactly shift production out of state, since oil is only going to become more valuable over time.

And that money could help prevent the most egregious human services cuts that were agreed to in the budget deal – the cuts to Healthy Families that will cost 500,000 children their health care coverage, the cuts to In-Home Supportive Services that people need to survive.

Voters don’t want drastic cuts to the programs Californians depend on. Voters don’t want to close schools and parks. And voters don’t want $2.5 billion a year in more corporate tax breaks for a handful of the world's largest corporations. Or to lose billions in federal funds because of stupid cuts.

Californians expect choices to be made that keep teachers in the classroom, keep public safety personnel on duty, keep infrastructure projects moving, keep our hospitals operating and our cities and county governments open to serve us.

Californians expect revenue increases to come from the corporate chief executive officers who receive astronomical profits from doing business in California.

Oh, and that whole “the rich are leaving California” mythology was debunked two weeks ago by a Public Policy Institute of California analysis of the census (www.kcra.com/money/20017385/detail.html). In fact, the study concludes that the poor are leaving California, not the rich. Which is just what the Republican Yacht Party wants.

Years of shortsighted political pandering to oil companies and big corporations have left the state with truly staggering budget problems.

Tough choices have to be made, but Californians demand and deserve better.

A budget that preserves services all Californians need and positions our economy for recovery is the only solution.

This new budget preserves billions of dollars in tax cuts for oil companies and the state’s biggest businesses.

It will have drastic impacts on California’s economy.

It will:

• Drain $24 billion from California's economy, stunting the state's recovery efforts;

• Drive up the unemployment rate by more than two percent, plunging California further into recession;

• Deny 300,000 students a college education and increase class sizes in our public schools, making California less competitive;

• Decimate public safety and the public services that maintain our quality of life and attract businesses;

• Result in a loss of billions in federal funds.

It does not matter to Californians what the Republican Yacht Party and the governor promised Grover Norquist.

The last time I checked, he neither lives nor votes in California.

I do.

Rebecca Curry lives in Kelseyville.

California has always been a beacon of freedom. This is the land of the Barbary Coast, the music and culture of the sixties, the birthplace of the semiconductor and the biotech revolution. Freedom exists in our rural areas as well, where many folks choose to eschew the city and live on and from the land. Here you can still hunt and fish, here you’re free to enjoy some of the greatest protected land and ocean areas in the world.

Water has led the way for the growth of California. Just add water, and you get a state with half its 38 million person population in its seven southernmost counties – the most arid part of our 100 million acres. Just add water, and you get an agricultural landscape that produces more than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables. This freedom to expand, to convert desert to both suburb and breadbasket, has been a hallmark of California’s growth and success. But freedom today doesn’t necessarily translate into freedom tomorrow – there’s no free lunch.

When I travel the Second Senate District, people constantly talk about water. They note that water is intertwined with our valuable vineyards, and is the lifeline for the people. They stress that water is key to our declining fisheries, and that the rains and water table feed our superlative forests. And they express their real fears that Southern California is still on the prowl for our rivers and valleys to quench the thirst of growing cities and established agriculture.

This need for water creates an everlasting drought in California. While we speak in terms of “average” rainfall, we hide the fact that two out of three years are “below average.” When we speak of “water needs” for agriculture and cities, we suggest that California can’t be as productive without endless diversion of water from the northern and Sierra rivers to the deserts of the state.

We must get beyond the concept that there is only so much water, and that the cities, farms and fish must fight it out. Rather than continue with this struggle, we must tap the well of ideas to find the abundance that we Californians are so lucky to have.

Cities and farms must support water conservation in their zoning, choice of plants, application methods and water sources. In agriculture, this may mean selecting plant varieties and rootstocks that are less thirsty, and monitoring the soil to restrict over-watering. In cities, this may mean giving up traditional lawn mixes for less water intensive grasses, and developing gardens that reflect the native ecosystem. Rain barrels, cisterns and thrifty appliances all help as well – provided that cities and counties allow them.

I have been concerned about water and growth for a long time. As an Assemblywoman, I introduced AB 2924 in 2002. That measure would have required local government approval before water could be shipped out of the Russian, Eel or other watersheds to the north. While that bill failed to become law, I subsequently introduced a new and improved bill, AB 858, requiring study of any proposed diversion of greater than 500 acre-feet per year, which was signed by then-Gov. Gray Davis.

The state still struggles to develop groundwater laws, following the lead of forward-thinking counties like Napa. While the state still is hesitant to suggest curbs to water use, the State Water Resources Control Board has placed a significant conservation goal in this drought year for the Sonoma County Water Agency. The state is still unsure about “fixing” the Delta with a peripheral canal, and rumors still persist that the Eel and other North Coast rivers are at the heart of plans to move yet more water south.

Why let our permanent drought achieve crisis status, when we know it will persist in California for the foreseeable future? Why do we cling to a landscape of lawns in the desert? Why can’t the use of water be rationally shared, rather than continued as a competition between old users, new users, groundwater users, and the state and federal governments fulfilling contracts written in a fog of abundance?

Where the state fails (generally due to veto), the counties need to act. Groundwater, water conservation and land use all may come under the purview of counties and local, special districts. Agricultural practices can be made more thrifty with help from University Extension and the farm advisor. Gardens can be more efficient with permission from cities and support from the community and master gardener network. And stream flows and the wildlife dependent on them can be protected by land trusts, parks, water districts and effective zoning.

Freedom is why people come to and stay in California. But we are not free to waste water, to take others’ resources or devastate the environment for personal or corporate convenience. And when others do that, it limits our own freedom. Fortunately, we still have the freedom to innovate – and that will be our solution.

Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) represents California’s 2nd Senate District, made up of portions or all of six counties: Humboldt, Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma. She chairs the legislature’s Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Mr. Hopkins,

This is in response to your "Open Letter" regarding the prosecution of Bismark Dinius, posted and available to the public on the Lake County website as of Friday, July 17 (www.co.lake.ca.us/Assets/DistrictAttorney/Press+Releases/January+2008/July+17$!2c+2009+-+Dinius+Sailboat+Case+Open+Letter.pdf ). In that letter you claim to take your "responsibilities as District Attorney seriously." You claim to believe "in a system of justice that does not presume people to be guilty." You claim to "work tirelessly to find the truth." Let’s examine those claims.

The very first sentence of your letter asks "Why do so many people support drunken sailors on the lake at night with their running lights off?" Near the end of your letter you assert that Chief Deputy Perdock collided "with a sailboat operated by drunken sailors at night without their running lights." So much for the presumption of innocence.

A widespread perception of injustice has resulted in considerable public scrutiny of, and investigation into, the facts surrounding this case. Most of the information that has been turned up by the press and others directly contradicts the official version of the "facts" produced by Lake County law enforcement. You did not seek out, let alone turn up this information yourself. Indeed, for many months your office failed to turn over to Mr. Dinius’s lawyer exculpatory evidence that you did have. Now, rather than integrate all of the exculpatory evidence into an honest appraisal of the case, you simply dismiss that evidence as "wrong, false and misleading," or as "rumors and misinformation." You pick the bits of evidence you like and you belittle the rest. So much for your search for the truth.

That is one of the reasons that intelligent people around the world, recoil in astonishment and horror at what you are doing. In a country which holds itself out as having the finest and fairest justice system in history you, as representative of the legal and moral authority of the state, have never made an honest evaluation of the most fundamental legal and moral question at issue here. That question is, did Mr. Dinius cause Lynn Thorton’s death?

Your case, as you yourself describe it, boils down to this – that a drunk Mr. Dinius caused Ms. Thorton’s death because he put her in harm’s way. He put her in harm’s way, you contend, by (1)　failing to turn on his sailboat’s running lights, and (2) not maneuvering the sailboat out of the way of Chief Deputy Sheriff Perdock’s speedboat, both of which he would have done had he been sober. The intellectual dishonesty in your arguments is breathtaking.

As to the running lights, the eye-witness testimony is inconclusive, and you know it. What is significant, however, is testimony by some of the witnesses that law enforcement officers refused to take their statements that they saw the lights on. Those are the witnesses who became known as a result of public outcry and scrutiny. For the better part of three years you prosecuted this case on the false premise that with only favorable witnesses you could prove the running lights were off. And, of course, you ignore the evidence from the forensic investigator who examined the lights and concluded they were on when the collision occurred.

Even more significantly, you dismiss the undisputed testimony that the sailboat’s cabin lights were on. That, you argue,"does not satisfy the legal requirement for running lights." Of course, you have to make this technical argument because your case depends upon a drunk Mr. Dinius having failed to take some legally required action. But cabin lights, as you know full well, are far brighter and far more visible than running lights. Even assuming the sailboat's running lights were not on, and even assuming Mr. Dinius had a legal duty to turn them on but drunkenly failed to do so, how could running lights possibly have avoided a collision that the far more visible cabin lights did not prevent?

As to maneuvering out of the way, why do you contend it the responsibility of the sailboat driver to avoid the speedboat? You claim to have been "reading the law and the rules regarding water vessels." Surely you came across the very basic rule that a power boat (being more maneuverable) is obligated to stay clear of a sailboat. Is the rule different on Clear Lake? On Clear Lake does might make right of way?

Moreover, on what basis do you claim it was even possible for the sailboat to evade the speedboat? You assert that "everyone on the sailboat says it was under sail and moving." How fast was it moving? You yourself insist it is impossible to prove how fast Chief Deputy Perdock was going, and you say that despite Chief Deputy Perdock’s own admission that he was going 30 mph and his own admission that the speedometer needle was straight up (which would put his speed at 50 mph). Despite those admissions you maintain that as to Chief Deputy Perdock’s speed, "[a]ll we have are estimates, guesses and speculation." Yet, there is even less evidence as to how fast the sailboat was moving. How can you contend that the sailboat was moving fast enough to have been maneuvered out of the way of the racing speedboat, even by a stone-cold sober driver?

This brings me to another reason why intelligent observers around the world are aghast at your prosecution of Mr. Dinius. Assuming, as you insist, that Mr. Dinius did something to put Lynn Thorton in harm’s way, what about Chief Deputy Perdock? If, as you argue, it was reasonably foreseeable to the driver of a sailboat that speedboats would be racing about Clear Lake in the dark at grossly reckless speeds, was it not equally foreseeable to a speedboat operator (a high ranking law enforcement official, no less) that sailboats, even poorly lit or unlit sailboats, would be present on the lake? If illegal operation of powerboats is foreseeable to sailors, why is illegal operation of sailboats not equally foreseeable to powerboaters?

In short, your evidence and reasoning that Mr. Dinius caused Ms. Thorton’s death because he was drunk is flimsy at best. But if, flimsy as it is, it is sufficient to support your prosecution of Mr. Dinius, what credible explanation do you have for charging Mr. Dinius but not charging Chief Deputy Perdock? The excuse you have repeatedly given, that you can’t prove how fast Chief Deputy Perdock was going, just doesn’t pass the smell test. Whatever his exact speed, it was obviously and indisputably way too fast. It was recklessly fast. It was fatally fast. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

In your letter you state, "We have a serious problem in Lake County with boaters of all types operating while under the influence." Maybe so, but the evidence in this case is that the problems you have are motorboaters going too fast, and differening standards of justice for those who are in power and those are not. You express your hope that "this tragedy will cause boaters to think of the consequences and dangers of boating under the influence." What about the consequences and dangers of unsafe speed?

It is a fundamental precept of American justice that when the state brings its authority and resources to bear against an individual it must do so fairly and evenhandedly. It is fundamental that the integrity of our system requires avoidance of actual injustice. It is fundamental that continued respect for, and therefore the very survival of, our system compels the avoidance of even the appearance of injustice.

By any objective measure, the evidence supports the conclusion that Chief Deputy Perdock is at least as potentially culpable as Mr. Dinius, if not more. Yet, you chose to ignore Chief Deputy Perdock and to prosecute only Mr. Dinius. In the absence of equally serious charges against Chief Deputy Perdock, your prosecution of Mr. Dinius for the death of Ms. Thorton not only appears unjust, it is unjust.

You would have us believe that your search for truth led you to seek dismissal of the manslaughter charge against Mr. Dinius. Yet, you persist with a different charge that requires proof of essentially, if not exactly, all the same elements. Your continuation of this case on a lesser charge is nothing but a vindictive attempt to salvage whatever you can from three years of fundamentally dishonest prosecution.

Your handling of this case brings the Lake County judicial system, and by association the entire California judicial system, into worldwide disrepute.

Ryan Werner lives in San Francisco. He's a member of the California State Bar.

There's a rumor out there on the tubes of the Internet that The Onion, which has given us so many moments of hilarity with its fake news stories, is for sale. It's at the Gawker blog, http://gawker.com/5314739/the-onion-said-to-be-negotiating-sale .

Good luck with that. Bankruptcy looks like the only growth industry among the few remaining media chains which own most of our news sources and are scrambling to see who can get rid of the most actual notebook-carrying reporters.

But the real problem for The Onion sale is that the actual news, as compared with the fake news, seems far less probable these days, and far more worthy of hysterical laughter.

A governor resigns, incoherently, 18 months before her term is up and her political party anoints her as a good candidate for president.

A city council announces it has no interest in televising its proceedings and the citizens don't start a recall, or at least loudly squeak in indignation.

Another governor admits, with gag-inducing greeting card sentimentality, to lying about an extramarital affair without offering to resign. His constituents don't question that.

A group of privileged white men question the integrity of a Latina judge candidate who acknowledges that life experiences have a role in shaping everyone.

A public employee uses on-duty time and public money for his commercial pilot flying lessons and no one in his department notices until he nearly crashes the helicopter.

Another governor, elected on campaign promises to straighten out the state's fiscal mess, apparently forgets that for six years until the middle of budget talks, when he demands top-to-bottom reforms before the budget can be settled.

How can satire compete with any of that?

Sophie Annan Jensen is a retired journalist. She lives in Lucerne.

With the passing of the 48th annual "Middletown Days" festivities, the time for preparation for the 50th anniversary of the event needs to be considered.

More often than not, both the state and federal government are slow to respond to specific needs of communities. Why? Because they are constantly being pulled in so many different directions at the same time.

The Middletown Central Park Association needs to request a proclamation from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger honoring its 50th anniversary NOW. A proclamation from a state governor is something that is possible every five years, beginning with the 10th year a nonprofit organization celebrates an anniversary. But, to my knowledge, such a distinction has never been bestowed on any local nonprofit organization here in Lake County.

Last year was the 25th anniversary of the Middletown Area Business Association. Unfortunately, the Middletown Merchants never bothered to update their Articles of Incorporation and has been suspended. (See http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1229250 .)  Perhaps that is why the request for a proclamation was never seriously considered? Hence, the opportunity for the Middletown Area Business Association to be included in the state archives for that anniversary was forfeited.

During that same time period, a special business relationship was cultivated with Marty Keller, Small Business Advocate for the State of California.

Keller was asked to come attend the Hardester's Shopping Center's Spring Fling on May 16 on behalf of Gov. Schwarzenegger.

Keller was unable to attend, but must have been impressed with the the Squidoo lens created to help promote the festival. Why? Two reasons. First, because he actually signed the Squidoo lens. See the second page of guest book comments at http://budurl.com/familyfun .

Second, he obviously shared the site's information with Gov. Schwarzenegger, who in turn wrote a letter to the Hidden Valley Lake Community. This letter is posted online. You can download your very own copy of this special document at http://budurl.com/GovLtr . (A limited supply of suitable-for-framing copies of that letter on photo paper are also available at Ting's Thai Kitchen in the Hardester's Shopping Center in Hidden Valley Lake.)  

Less than a month later, the marketing arm for Lake County revealed it had forged a business relationship with Doug McConnell of "Bay Area Backroads" fame regarding his new venture, "OpenRoad with Doug McConnell," a TV series broadcast by affiliates of  the Public Broadcasting System. Lake County is now among the advertisers for McConnell's show.

Despite a challenging economic climate, Lake County is now making a serious attempt to attract more tourist dollars. What is interesting about Doug McConnell and Lake County having a business relationship is that two years earlier 110 Middletown school children participated in a letter-writing campaign to high-profile folks residing in California. The idea was to convince those high-profile individuals to come for "Middletown Days 2007."

Among the folks written were Steve Jobs, George Lucas, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ... and Doug McConnell. You can still read some of those amazing letters online at www.squidoo.com/MDF . A year earlier, just 30 Middletown High School students were successful in getting the Fox News Channel – in the person of news correspondent Adam Housley – to come for Middletown Days 2006.

In November of this year, Gov. Schwarzenegger plans to have the second annual Conference on Small Business & Entrepreneurship somewhere in San Francisco. Now is a good time for Middletown folks to reach out to both Doug McConnell and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Doug McConnell asked for pictures of "Middletown Days" two years ago to be showcased on his OpenRoad.tv site. The Middletown Central Park Association never took action in that regard. Please encourage them to do it now.

But, let's do more than just send pictures to a Web site. Let's collectively invite OpenRoad.tv to come and help host Middletown Day's 50th Anniversary. Let's ask Gov. Schwarzenegger to come, be in our parade, address the crowd and issue a proclamation – a copy of which will remain in the California archives.

For more on how to orchestrate this amazing opportunity that is before us, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .

History matters. Let's help make Middletown Day's 50th Anniversary a real and positive "memory-maker."

Lamar Morgan lives in Middletown.