“Racially isolated whites in Arkansas or Alabama may have been more afraid of voting for Obama not because they are more racist than white voters in Minnesota or Montana, but because they perceive greater racial competition with nearby black populations.”

Seriously: WTF? This is like saying: “It is not that they are racist, it is just that they have a reason to be racist.”

“When Frank got into a car accident while under the influence of alcohol, it isn’t because he was a drunk driver, it is just that he has been going through a lot lately, and he enjoys drinking a lot of cheap beer.”

To be fair, Oliver is trying to say “competition with minority groups on the lower end of the economic scale will tend to make folks a bit bitter and even prejudiced against minority groups.” Fair enough, and worth knowing. But in the end, if you didn’t vote for Obama because you have an issue with black folks, you’re a racist. Plain and simple. This doesn’t make you an irredeemably bad person, but it does mean you have some room for improvement.

And yes, it is important to understand what drives racism, but it is also important that understanding doesn’t lead to being an apologist for racist behavior. Understanding should lead to fixing the issue, and part of that is to allow someone to admit that yeah maybe they are somewhat racist, and why that may be, and then, what they might do to improve their own self-understanding. That way in 2012 they may evaluate Obama not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.

Joy at electing a remarkable man to the White House. But a gut-punch to those of us who feel deeply about equal rights.

Just now I received a link to Keith Olbermann, and NBC commentator, who does an excellent job of expressing my dismay over Proposition 8:

The gist: marriage is about Love. At the time Barack Obama was born his parents’ marriage was illegal in 1/3 of the United States, and in the days of slavery, marriage between black people was illegal. There is no advantage to be had in opposing gay marriage, and in this culture where we feel uncomfortable about the impermanence of relationships, and the high rate of divorce, if two people can find love, we ought to allow them to enjoy it the same as anyone else.

While there are lawsuits out to restore same-sex marriage through the courts, my personal hope is that we can put it on the ballot again, and that next time it comes before the people of California, the people will have grown in their own hearts to accept that allowing lovers to marry is what we ought to do. We gained ten points since the last ballot proposition, and Prop 8 would likely have failed were it not for balls-out misinformation fear campaign by the Mormon Church and other cultural conservatives, who viewed popular support for same-sex marriage in California as the first step in a trend that would ultimately lead to acceptance of same-sex marriage throughout the United States.

We have work ahead to ensure the rights of a minority that has been tormented for too long.

But really, it saves energy! Look! Science!

Nope.

According to a new study of energy consumption in Indiana, Daylight Saving Time actually results in increased energy consumption, especially in the Fall. Remember when the Bush Administration extended Daylight Saving Time a few years back as a magical way to conserve energy without actually doing anything? (I remember, because I had to patch servers to keep their clocks consistent with Congressional legislation.) The study finds that DST increases energy consumption the most in the fall!

Estimates of the overall increase are approximately 1 percent, but we find that the effect is not constant throughout the D.S.T. period. D.S.T. causes the greatest increase in electricity consumption in the fall, when estimates range between 2 and 4 percent.

These findings are consistent with simulation results that point to a tradeoff between reducing demand for lighting and increasing demand for heating and cooling. We estimate a cost of increased electricity bills to Indiana households of $9 million per year. We also estimate social costs of increased pollution emissions that range from $1.7 to $5.5 million per year. Finally, we argue that the effect is likely to be even stronger in other regions of the United States.

Thank you, New York Times Freakonomics Blog!!

Basically, the gist of it is if people get home earlier in the afternoon, they save money on lighting, but they fire up the AC or the heat. Back in WWII when people had more incandescent lighting than climate control, DST may actually have saved a bit of energy.

My main objection is that monkeying with the clocks is a very messy way to implement a notion to “wake up earlier in the summer and enjoy the morning” but I’m a crank.

I voted! This is the first time I encountered a line at the polling place, which had twice as many booths as usual. I’d say turnout is high but there are also a fuckload of propositions on the San Francisco ballot, which was 4 over-sized cards, most of them double-sided.

I spoiled my first ballot, and had to ask for a fresh one.

Dear Daniel Howard

This is a modern facility that protects the ocean and the environment every day. And yes, we feel that this proposition would denigrate the fine work performed at our plant.

Please do not reply to this email.
If you have additional questions, please submit them through our Feedback area at:
http://sfwater.org/feedback.cfm

I encourage everyone to vote NO on R!

NO I agree that it is critical to rebuild San Francisco’s lone trauma center and I want to support Prop A. However, the opposition argument raises serious concerns, first and foremost that the new hospital building will be constructed between two brick structures not scheduled for retrofit before 2015, thus “a catastrophic earthquake could crush the new hospital.” The rebuttal does not address what strikes me as a very serious objection. I am further disturbed that the pages and pages of paid arguments in support are mostly underwritten by the same handful of unions over and over, as if the project is being railroaded through by determined interest groups. I believe that rebuilding General Hospital is a critical priority, and in the unlikely event that Prop A fails to pass this year, I hope a better proposal can be offered next year.

Prop B: Establishing Affordable Housing Fund

NO Affordable housing is a laudable objective. I do not see the need to write this priority in to the budget, rather than trusting the city with the flexibility to address budget priorities.

Prop C: Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Charter Boards and Commissions

NO Avoiding conflicts of interest is a best practice. I can also fathom that a city employee could conceivably act on a board, bringing valuable perspective while avoiding ethical conflicts. The opposition argument is well put: “this is a solution in search of a problem.”

Prop D: Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan upon Board of Supervisors’ Approval

— This sounds like a good idea but I have no feelings either way.

Prop E: Changing the Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials

YES Signature verification may not be strictly necessary but it strikes me as a best practice. Adoption ought to help head off potentially abusive recall petitions in the future.

Prop F: Holding All Scheduled City Elections Only in Even-Numbered Years

YES As a voter who bothers to read through the issues, every election takes some effort. I’m happy to do this every other year, saving me some homework and the city some expense.

Prop G: Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave

— Zzzzzzzz.

Prop H: Setting Clean Energy Deadlines; Studying Options for Providing Energy; Changing Revenue Bond Authority to Pay for Public Utility Facilities

YES While I am wary of the power this invests in the government and PUC to screw things up, I do feel that Global Warming is possibly the biggest threat we face as a species, and taking bold, risky action to set an example in this crisis is worthwhile. The unending barrage of lobbying against this proposition on the part of PG&E implies that municipal power may even be a wise investment, not only for the environment but for city government and utility consumers.

Prop I: Creating the Office of an Independent Rate Payer Advocate

YES This sounds like a sensible check on the powers of a public entity, and a potentially wise investment to have made if Prop H passes.

Prop J: Creating a Historic Preservation Commission

YES This sounds like a sensible proposal with near-universal support. Hopefully such a commission can preserve and improve historical preservation in an iconic, world-class city that receives substantial benefit from tourism.

Prop K: Changing the Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers

YES I am concerned that Proposition K eliminates the funding source for the First Offenders Prostitution Program, which funds diversion for sex workers to leave the trade. I am also concerned that K may allow pimping. I believe these concerns are overshadowed by the possibility that this will empower sex workers to report rape and other abusive situations to police, which I hope will open the system to more effectively target abusive pimps and Johns and ideally investigate and prosecute human traffickers. If Prop K passes I believe the city and private organizations must act to fill in the gap of the unfunded diversion program and work with sex workers to target abuse and trafficking. The comptroller estimates a savings of $1.6 to $3.2 million in annual enforcement costs, some of which could perhaps be redirected to cover the $250k presently available to diversion. The city also has a progressive, tolerant populace and numerous organizations that ought to do a fair job of supporting sex workers and helping them move on to better lives.

Prop L: Funding the Community Justice Center

NO The CJC sounds like a good institution, but this really is a Board of Supervisors issue to maintain funding that does not require voter intervention.

Prop M: Changing the Residential Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords

NO San Francisco is very strong on tenants’ rights. I don’t see any pressing need for this proposition.

Prop N: Changing Real Property Transfer Tax Rates

NO While I am sympathetic to solar energy I do not see the need to increase this tax. The solar energy provision sounds like a special-interest sweetener to pass an otherwise non-compelling revenue enhancement effort.

Prop O: Replacing the Emergency Response Fee with an Access Line Tax and Revising the Telephone Users Tax

YES This is a straightforward reform to 911 funding that replaces a “fee” with an equivalent “tax” to avoid a legal challenge, with updates to cover VoIP services and the like. Opposed mainly by Libertarians, so it must be sensible.

Prop P: Changing the Composition of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board

NO This sounds like a pissing match between the Mayor and Everyone Else.

Prop Q: Modifying the Payroll Expense Tax

YES A straightforward tax reform that closes a loophole, raises a tax ceiling for small businesses, increases city revenue, and upsets the Republican Party. Sweet!

Prop R: Renaming the Oceanside Water Treatment Plant

NO Fucking hilarious. But I’d sooner put Bush in the past than saddle critical public infrastructure with such infamy. This honor may be more appropriate to a superfund site or a toxic / radioactive waste storage facility. Nevertheless this cheeky proposition makes me glad to live in a city with a healthy sense of humor.

Prop S: Policy Regarding Budget Set-Asides and Identification of Replacement Funds

YES A sensible appeal by the mayor to have set-asides from propositions “clean up after themselves” after 10 years.

Prop T: Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs

NO Substance abuse treatment is a wise and righteous investment, but budget discretion is best left with the Board of Supervisors.

Prop U: Policy Against Funding the Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq

NO This is a federal issue and a matter of conscience on the part of our elected officials.

Prop V: Policy Against Terminating Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) Programs in Public High Schools

YES The military should reverse its self-destructive discrimination against gay service members. The city of San Francisco should reverse its self-indulgent hostility toward the patriotic duty of military service. Just as openly homosexual people should be allowed to serve in our national defense, so to should high school students interested in military service be afforded the opportunity to enroll in JROTC.

See Also: Vincent Lauria

San Francisco School Board

Marigrace Cohen has worked throughout SFUSD “in the trenches” for four decades. This should prove an invaluable perspective on how the district really works. Support for JROTC also stands out.

Omar Khalif is obviously a proud parent, whose focus is on the needs of students and parents striving to achieve within the public schools. His emphasis on school choice and freedom for students to access all available programs resonates with me.

Emily Murase brings diverse business and public policy experience to the table. A combination of being a public school parent and executive skills should serve the school board well.

Jill Wynns has served sixteen years. I am concerned that an “establishment” candidate may offer experience but may not facilitate needed changes. Her endorsement by my local supervisor, Carmen Chu, who should have a good perspective on the desires of local parents tips the scales for me to favor Jill Wynns.

San Francisco Community College Board

Dr Natalie Berg brings considerable experience, including three terms as board president and 30 years as a teacher.

Chris Jackson outlines a nice agenda that speaks to contemporary concerns. His experience working with various organizations and the state legislature hints at a flexible and energetic approach to getting things done.

Steve Ngo offers a moving personal narrative that underlines a bone-deep appreciation of vocational education. He comes across as a man with the drive, perspective and talent to tackle the job.

YES I love trains, and high speed rail between city centers is in every way superior to short airplane flights. Trains can be powered by renewable energy and California may serve as a role model for the rest of the nation in the post-petroleum age.

Prop 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals

YES We should treat animals humanely. If this means increased food costs that is just what we pay for the privilege of eating other animals. Opponents claim that production will move out of state. This may be true in the short term. In the long term, I believe that food with the “California” brand will be regarded as food of superior quality. Further, industrial scale farming has a serious negative impact on the environment. If proposition 2 makes family-scale farming more competitive, we are all done a favor.

Prop 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act

NO We have plenty of bond money already available for children’s hospitals. I see no need to solicit additional debt for the state government especially in a tight credit market.

Prop 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minors’ Pregnancy

NO Teen pregnancy and abortion troubles me. I believe that in most cases parents should be involved. Abortion providers ought to counsel that women make this important decision with the help of those who love them. I do not believe this is a place for the government to mandate personal behavior and choices.

Prop 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses Sentencing, Parole, and Rehabilitation

NO I favor rehabilitation as a means to reduce the excessive imprisonment of our people. I feel that sentencing authority should rest with judges, and I am uncomfortable that this proposition “limits accountability to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.”

Prop 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding

NO The state budget is in a big mess without me setting budget priorities: this is a decision that should be made by the legislature.

Prop 7: Renewable Energy Generation

NO I support renewable energy mandates but this proposition is confusing.

Prop 8: Eliminate Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry

HELL NO The state should not be in the business of eliminating rights.

Prop 9: Criminal Justice System Victims’ Right. Parole.

NO I do not see the need for this.

Prop 10: Alternative Fuels and Renewable Energy

NO I like alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy, but I do not favor putting the state further in hock to subsidize certain vehicles.

Prop 11: Redistricting

YES I am sick of gerrymandering.

Prop 12: Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008

YES This is a bond to expand a self-supporting benefit for veterans, placed on the ballot by a unanimous vote of the legislature.

See Also: Jason Lindquist, Vincent Lauria

Then I wondered that other people may have similar sentiments and similar inclinations to share their feelings with their management. I’m not holding my breath that my company will take a stand, but it doesn’t hurt to share the idea.

I consider it a hard-won blessing that I work in an industry where I can feel comfortable openly expressing my support for the rights of homosexual people.

UPDATE: Due to multiple requests, a “sample text” that folks should feel free to steal / adapt for their own purposes:

Boss,

I think it has been great that both Google and Apple Computer have both publicly stood in defense of the diversity of their employees and their community and made a public stand against Proposition 8.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html

http://www.apple.com/hotnews/

For what it is worth, I would be very proud if my organization were to also take a public stand on this issue.

Sincerely,
-daniel

Hokey but potentially effective. It could be more transparently patronizing, though.

Seriously though, deadline to register in your state could be October 4. This web site can get you registered right quick: http://www.declareyourself.com/ Try asking Google and then tell it which state.

Allegedly, anyway. Despite the S&M graphics, I am wary of any web site that asks you to disable your pop-up blocker. This web site looks comparably sketchy: http://www.rockthevote.org/

Seriously, can’t we register to vote without all this broken web 2.0 crud? Try asking Google and then tell it which state.

Thanks, Ed.

We do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues . . . however, while there are many objections to this proposition — further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text — it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

Sergey Brin,
Official Google Blog

Thanks!

But this latest story from the BBC, about something trifling, just makes me wanna smack somebody with a stick. It turns out the adorable little girl in the red dress they had sing at the Olympic opening ceremonies was lip-syncing for a girl who could sing better, but who wasn’t cute enough to be put on international TV.

That is just plain old wrong.

The Olympics is about recognizing the best in human achievement. Cute little girls have the advantage most days but there is a time and a place where, even if you aren’t so cute, we recognize you for being the best in your field.

The musical director, Chen Qigang, said “the girl appearing on the picture must be flawless in terms of her facial expression and the great feeling she can give to people.” Personally, I wish and hope the people of China the world can admire and be stirred by a girl with a beautiful voice, no matter what her face. Even so, you’d think that the Chinese nation had enough talent with beauty makeovers to make a little girl as fantastically cute as possible, or that they could honestly find one little girl within the planet’s largest nation who could both sing like an Angel and induce coos with her adorably rosy little cheeks.

Making the cute girl lip sync for her counterpart is the sort of obviously obtuse villainy that Disney movies are based on. Hiss!! Grr!! Both little girls deserve an apology.

“I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.”

Notice anything missing?

Some time in grammar school I figured there was something wrong with an Atheist pledging allegiance “under God” and after some time I came to pause when we would recite those two words. “one nation . . . indivisible.”

Paul Burd asks “do you remember the words to the Pledge of Allegiance?”

I am overly aware of the words. I responded:

I can recite the Pledge of Allegiance no problem. But as a devout Atheist and an honest patriot I skip the Joseph McCarthy “under God” feature because it is sacrilegious to make false professions, and dangerously reckless to claim holy sanction for the State.

So, here’s to Independence from Tyranny and state-sanctioned religion!!

Gay marriage and electric sports cars! What awesome new stuff will we embrace next?