Got up bright and early this morning for my flight to Chicago- but, instead of having a nice and direct flight to Chicago, I have to go to LAX first, then onto Chicago. 3 fun events with children occurred on a 50 minute flight from SFO to LAX.
1) Row behind me, son threw up on himself, and mother had to get new pants. This was the same kid that the minute we took off, he said he had to go to the bathroom. I guess something was gonna come out one way or another.
2) Two rows in front of me, daughter threw up on herself and needed a new shirt. After we landed, she yelled back towards her mother and brother and said "I throwed up on myself!" She was very proud of it.
3) As we were beginning on descent into LAX, we had just passed over the L.A. Coliseum, a boy a few rows back (could have been #2's brother) started yelling "I can't hear!!!" He seemed very upset about it.
Predictably, my connection from LAX to Chicago is delayed due to weather, both here in L.A. (although it's currently only overcast) and in Chicago. Basically, the plane we are supposed to be on isn't here yet because of delays somewhere else. Even better, my flight is delayed 2 hours, but other flights to Chicago are only delayed 35 minutes; in fact, my flight will leave 1 hour after a flight that was originally scheduled for an hour after mine. Wrap that around your head for a second.
But, I'm not here to complain about the airlines.....children throwing up is much more interesting.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Merry Christmas
I know, it's a few days early, but I'm leaving for Chicago tomorrow morning, provided the weather doesn't wreak havoc with those plans. Just wanted to tell everyone that I hope they have a very Merry Christmas.
I'll leave it to Linus to explain.....
I'll leave it to Linus to explain.....
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Peterson out
Finally. Carl Peterson is finally out as General Manager of the Kansas City Chiefs. I think that Peterson earned the 20 years as GM of the Chiefs, but these past 3-4 years have not been good- almost to the point that it appeared that the game had moved past him. While there were no Super Bowl appearances in that time, what Peterson (and owner Lamar Hunt) did during these 20 years of re-building the franchise was a task to which he should be satisfied and quite proud of.
For my wife's sake, I can only hope that Jerry Angelo is next- I mean, he took a lucky 13-3 season from Dick Jauron and turned it into a contract that he didn't deserve. Then fired Jauron the next season, brought in Lovie Smith, and still hasn't drafted a quality quarterback, a position that everyone in Chicago knows they need. Instead, he insisted that QB's like Jonathan Quinn, Cade McNown and Rex Grossman were sufficient. A trip to the Super Bowl, on the back of the defense, seemed to only blind him further. Finally, the best of what the Bears have, Kyle Orton, was allowed to start. And I haven't even gotten into the failures of their wide receivers. So, the Bears have a middling quarterback and no wide receivers.
Yet, the Bears are 8-6 and the Chiefs are 2-12. I should note that it is entirely plausible that the Chiefs could be 5-9, and be 5-1 in its division. Since Divison records don't count, except for tie-breaking purposes, how amazing would that have been to have a team only lose one division game, but not win any of their other games.
For my wife's sake, I can only hope that Jerry Angelo is next- I mean, he took a lucky 13-3 season from Dick Jauron and turned it into a contract that he didn't deserve. Then fired Jauron the next season, brought in Lovie Smith, and still hasn't drafted a quality quarterback, a position that everyone in Chicago knows they need. Instead, he insisted that QB's like Jonathan Quinn, Cade McNown and Rex Grossman were sufficient. A trip to the Super Bowl, on the back of the defense, seemed to only blind him further. Finally, the best of what the Bears have, Kyle Orton, was allowed to start. And I haven't even gotten into the failures of their wide receivers. So, the Bears have a middling quarterback and no wide receivers.
Yet, the Bears are 8-6 and the Chiefs are 2-12. I should note that it is entirely plausible that the Chiefs could be 5-9, and be 5-1 in its division. Since Divison records don't count, except for tie-breaking purposes, how amazing would that have been to have a team only lose one division game, but not win any of their other games.
Laughing all the way
From gas2.org:
Meanwhile, Michael Barone has an excellent article about how the U.S auto industry and unions have a failing relationship based on an out-dated labor relationship.
Meanwhile, Michael Barone has an excellent article about how the U.S auto industry and unions have a failing relationship based on an out-dated labor relationship.
"Look at General Motors," Mickey Kaus writes, "and tell me that strong unions are good for the economy." But the Democratic Party is determined to shell out money to maintain Wagnerism in the U.S. auto companies and is committed to promoting Wagnerism by passing the card check bill, which will abolish secret-ballot unionization elections. They want to impose adversarial labor-management relations in large swathes of the private-sector economy that are, currently, in healthier condition than the Detroit Three. Does that sound like a good idea?
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Look what I missed
A flamethrower in my neighborhood:
Wish I could have seen that. . .
And speaking of you have to wonder what some people are thinking, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested today for, amongst other things, trying to sell the Senate seat that belonged to Barack Obama and trying to get various members of the Chicago Tribune editorial board fired in exchange for access to state money in the sale of Wrigley Field (the Tribune Co. owns the Cubs and Wrigley Field). One can only hope that Charlie Rangel is next.
And finally, apparently three minors that were convicted of a home invasion and beating an elderly woman will be attending Obama's inaguration. So, three minors found guilty of beating an old lady and entering her home and were sent to a youth rehabilitation camp are now being fitted for tuxedo's and will be flown to D.C. to attend the inaguration. That's a great use of tax payer funds, not to mention an excellent opportunity to showcase that California does not really care about punishing criminals, instead, they send them off to D.C. to party. That'll learn 'em!
Man wielding homemade flamethrower arrested
By Will Reisman
Examiner Staff Writer 12/9/08
SAN FRANCISCO – An amateur pyrotechnician was arrested by police last weekend after staging an impromptu fire show in the Sunset District during the early morning hours.
At 3 a.m. on Saturday at the 800 block of Judah Street, police found a 31-year-old man standing on the top of a pickup truck while wielding a homemade flamethrower that was shooting balls of fire four feet into the air, according to Capt. Paul Chignell of the Taraval Police Station.
The man had obtained a couple of cylindrical tanks, possibly containing propane, and connected them with hoses to a metal outlet that directed the flames, Chignell said. Each time the man pulled the device’s trigger, a spout of fire would erupt.
“This guy had a yellow fireman’s jacket on and was just randomly shooting flames into the air,” Chignell said.
Neighbors frightened by the display called the police, who arrested the man on counts of wielding an explosive device on a public street and possessing a flammable device with intent to maliciously use it, Chignell said.
The man offered up no explanation for what he was doing, said Chignell. No one was injured in the incident, but Chignell said the suspect’s bizarre behavior put a lot of nearby residents at risk.
“Obviously, the potential for damage is pretty incredible with a rigging like this,” said Chignell. “Sometimes you just have to wonder what some people are thinking.”
Wish I could have seen that. . .
And speaking of you have to wonder what some people are thinking, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was arrested today for, amongst other things, trying to sell the Senate seat that belonged to Barack Obama and trying to get various members of the Chicago Tribune editorial board fired in exchange for access to state money in the sale of Wrigley Field (the Tribune Co. owns the Cubs and Wrigley Field). One can only hope that Charlie Rangel is next.
And finally, apparently three minors that were convicted of a home invasion and beating an elderly woman will be attending Obama's inaguration. So, three minors found guilty of beating an old lady and entering her home and were sent to a youth rehabilitation camp are now being fitted for tuxedo's and will be flown to D.C. to attend the inaguration. That's a great use of tax payer funds, not to mention an excellent opportunity to showcase that California does not really care about punishing criminals, instead, they send them off to D.C. to party. That'll learn 'em!
Monday, December 8, 2008
Philly
Had an overall enjoyable time in Philly. And was greeted with snow on Saturday. One day on the East Coast, one day with snow, which was nice.
The old gang, plus spouses (except for me, mine stayed back home since she's about the embark on a month-long tour of duty in Illinois- the plus for her is that she gets to stay with her family the entire time) got together for dinner at Marrakesh, in an alley just off of South Street. The food was really good. . .It's a 7 course meal and you use your hands to eat. We were running a bit late, so we started getting two courses at a time, which was a treat for me- lamb and cumin-spiced chicken? Yes please!
After dinner, we then headed for the Trocadero to see Dean and Britta and Mercury Rev. We got there just as Dean and Britta were setting up and had our pick of the floor, since the place was pretty empty. They played 7 songs, including Galaxie 500's "Snowstorm" and a cover of New Order's "Ceremony." Alas, it was only 7 songs. I've listened to their cd's, and they sound very little like Luna, but live, it sounded alot like Luna. They got really going after a song or two. I asked Dean afterwards when they would be coming back to San Francisco, and he said sometime in February. We missed them when they came through earlier this year, and I don't intend to miss them this next time for a full set.
Mercury Rev came on next. I've seen them twice before, but I don't recall the shows being so loud. And I mean loud. My left ear is still suffering the effects of it. Jonathan, the lead singer, came out with a dazed look on his face, from which I can only assume is the product of some under-the-counter medication, as we called it in high school. What struck me was that the live version of the songs really were nothing like the cd version, for at least the new stuff. The new cd's are very trancy and electronic, but live they were all loud and bombastic. The songs off of Deserters' Songs, however, retained the original feel- less bombast, more drone and very pretty. Unfortunately, they did not play anything off the first album; I was secretly hoping for "Car Wash Hair" with Dean playing guitar (Dean's credited with guitar on the album liner).
I won't say it was a bad show. . .it just wasn't what I had been expecting. And if I had seen that show 6 years ago, I would have loved it. To me, however, it seemed like Mercury Rev realized that they somehow missed the Flaming Lips/Radiohead love fest. They are that band in between the two- building noise soundscapes, but just missing something that would have put them alongside the other two. I love Deserter's Songs, and think it can sit comfortably next to "The Soft Bulletin," yet somehow, The Soft Bulletin got everyone's attention. Deserter's Songs ranked 76 in Pitchfork's Top 100 albums of the 1990s, where OK Computer was 1, The Soft Bulletin was 3, and Spiritualized's "Ladies and Gentleman We Are Floating in Space" was 55.
Anyway. . .the next day went to cheesesteak central, and decided to go with Geno's. It was good. . .got it "wit Whiz", which means with onions and cheese whiz. Yeah, cheese whiz. That's definitely the way to go. My wife will no doubtedly note that avoided the whiz option a number of occasions, but once I went whiz, I couldn't go back. Geno's is across the street from Pat's, and they have a friendly rivalry. Geno's is also famous for having signs asking people to order in english. And their don't see french fries, they still came them Freedom Fries. Anyway, the steak was delicious- the whiz gives it just enough salty goodness to match the onions and fattiness from the steak. As I told my friend, "This is a perfect hang-over meal."
We next headed to the Reading Terminal Market which is an indoor farmer's market/public market that's been around since 1892. Being a Sunday, not every counter and stall was open (I particularly missed not being able to check out the Pennsylvania Dutch section), but we got a good enough sampling of the products to know that if I lived in Philly, I would be there alot. There are several cheese counters, meat counters, fish counters, a beer garden, cook book stalls and dessert counters. After that, my friend dropped me off at the airport, and I waited for my flight back home.
All in all, even though we only got 40 minutes of Dean and Britta, it was definitely worth the effort to fly out and see old friends. Moving to San Francisco now requires an effort for us to see old friends who are still back on the East Coast, and know that we have real friends when that effort is reciprocated. Maybe I was a bit too nostaligic with my earlier post, but it really did have that feel, coupled with an acceptance that we have all moved on with our lives. It wasn't sad by any means, just a knowing that we all have a bond, and even though we are progressing with our lives, we still have the bond and those memories.
I started and finished Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" on the flight, and I plan to have a posting about it soon.
The old gang, plus spouses (except for me, mine stayed back home since she's about the embark on a month-long tour of duty in Illinois- the plus for her is that she gets to stay with her family the entire time) got together for dinner at Marrakesh, in an alley just off of South Street. The food was really good. . .It's a 7 course meal and you use your hands to eat. We were running a bit late, so we started getting two courses at a time, which was a treat for me- lamb and cumin-spiced chicken? Yes please!
After dinner, we then headed for the Trocadero to see Dean and Britta and Mercury Rev. We got there just as Dean and Britta were setting up and had our pick of the floor, since the place was pretty empty. They played 7 songs, including Galaxie 500's "Snowstorm" and a cover of New Order's "Ceremony." Alas, it was only 7 songs. I've listened to their cd's, and they sound very little like Luna, but live, it sounded alot like Luna. They got really going after a song or two. I asked Dean afterwards when they would be coming back to San Francisco, and he said sometime in February. We missed them when they came through earlier this year, and I don't intend to miss them this next time for a full set.
Mercury Rev came on next. I've seen them twice before, but I don't recall the shows being so loud. And I mean loud. My left ear is still suffering the effects of it. Jonathan, the lead singer, came out with a dazed look on his face, from which I can only assume is the product of some under-the-counter medication, as we called it in high school. What struck me was that the live version of the songs really were nothing like the cd version, for at least the new stuff. The new cd's are very trancy and electronic, but live they were all loud and bombastic. The songs off of Deserters' Songs, however, retained the original feel- less bombast, more drone and very pretty. Unfortunately, they did not play anything off the first album; I was secretly hoping for "Car Wash Hair" with Dean playing guitar (Dean's credited with guitar on the album liner).
I won't say it was a bad show. . .it just wasn't what I had been expecting. And if I had seen that show 6 years ago, I would have loved it. To me, however, it seemed like Mercury Rev realized that they somehow missed the Flaming Lips/Radiohead love fest. They are that band in between the two- building noise soundscapes, but just missing something that would have put them alongside the other two. I love Deserter's Songs, and think it can sit comfortably next to "The Soft Bulletin," yet somehow, The Soft Bulletin got everyone's attention. Deserter's Songs ranked 76 in Pitchfork's Top 100 albums of the 1990s, where OK Computer was 1, The Soft Bulletin was 3, and Spiritualized's "Ladies and Gentleman We Are Floating in Space" was 55.
Anyway. . .the next day went to cheesesteak central, and decided to go with Geno's. It was good. . .got it "wit Whiz", which means with onions and cheese whiz. Yeah, cheese whiz. That's definitely the way to go. My wife will no doubtedly note that avoided the whiz option a number of occasions, but once I went whiz, I couldn't go back. Geno's is across the street from Pat's, and they have a friendly rivalry. Geno's is also famous for having signs asking people to order in english. And their don't see french fries, they still came them Freedom Fries. Anyway, the steak was delicious- the whiz gives it just enough salty goodness to match the onions and fattiness from the steak. As I told my friend, "This is a perfect hang-over meal."
We next headed to the Reading Terminal Market which is an indoor farmer's market/public market that's been around since 1892. Being a Sunday, not every counter and stall was open (I particularly missed not being able to check out the Pennsylvania Dutch section), but we got a good enough sampling of the products to know that if I lived in Philly, I would be there alot. There are several cheese counters, meat counters, fish counters, a beer garden, cook book stalls and dessert counters. After that, my friend dropped me off at the airport, and I waited for my flight back home.
All in all, even though we only got 40 minutes of Dean and Britta, it was definitely worth the effort to fly out and see old friends. Moving to San Francisco now requires an effort for us to see old friends who are still back on the East Coast, and know that we have real friends when that effort is reciprocated. Maybe I was a bit too nostaligic with my earlier post, but it really did have that feel, coupled with an acceptance that we have all moved on with our lives. It wasn't sad by any means, just a knowing that we all have a bond, and even though we are progressing with our lives, we still have the bond and those memories.
I started and finished Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" on the flight, and I plan to have a posting about it soon.
Backlash
No Mob Veto
This is an interfaith organization put together by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that "defend[s] the right of religious people and organizations to speak out on the issue—whatever their viewpoint—without fear of intimidation or violent retribution."
This is an interfaith organization put together by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty that "defend[s] the right of religious people and organizations to speak out on the issue—whatever their viewpoint—without fear of intimidation or violent retribution."
Friday, December 5, 2008
The First
I'm in Philadelphia this weekend, hanging out with some old D.C. friends going to see what's left of a band we used to see at least 3 times a year back then: Dean and Britta. Dean and Britta were the guitarist and bassist for the band Luna- well, Britta was the second bassist. The first bassist, Justin, left after Pup Tent came out because he wanted to move back to his native New Zealand. Anyway, Luna broke up several years ago, but Dean and Britta, now married, have continued on as duo. They are opening up for Mercury Rev here on the East Coast. So, a group of us are meeting this weekend in Philly to go to the show. I would have been alright but for on the flight from Dallas to Philly, we flew right over D.C. There in the night, I could see D.C. all lit up- I could trace the outline of Haines Point, follow the Potomac up and see where the Anacostia splits, and I could make out the Mall. At that point, something stirred in me- something I was hoping to keep down: nostalgia.
Nostalgia is a cruel feeling. It's a feeling of knowing how something used to be, and, no matter how good things are going now, feeling that if you hadn't made a certain choice, it would be better. In my case, my wife and I left D.C. for San Francisco. We left our friends, our jobs, and our old lives. I lived in D.C. for 8 1/2 years, from 22 through 30- and I had a great time. But, I'm always the first to leave. In college, I was the first of my friends to finally leave Waco, and everyone knew it was going to be me. The first year in D.C., I knew, really, really knew, that I should have stayed in Waco. There was no real reason why I felt like that, it's just something that I did. That's nostalgia. The sepia toned memories of days gone past- sitting on the front porch with friends drinking; going to concerts every night, and knowing one of the bartenders who gives you free drinks; just living the day. It's always easier to live in the past; the present is full of so many things- money, jobs, real relationships. Nostalgia just glosses over those things, and focuses on the good times.
I got in my friends' car at the airport, and one of the first things I said was "Are we in the city yet"? It's a meaningless statement, but there's an association to it. Was in Philly many years ago, with most of the same people this weekend, and one of the running jokes was this line- Are we in the city yet. It was funny the first time it was said, but we just kept saying it. Now, I just say it both to annoy and to be funny. It's just what we say. But none of us are where we used to be. We are all older, married, and either pregnant or soon to be pregnant. We can't go back. Instead, we try to relive the good times- driving to Philly for a Luna show (or Flaming Lips or Guided by Voices), say the same funny lines, and do the same stupid stuff. We are supposed to be wiser, yet, we do our best to recreate those times.
Living in California these past almost 3 years, and coming back to the east coast in December, we had to pull out the pea coat, and dig around for the hat and gloves. Landed and it was 30 degrees- a far cry from the 62 in San Francisco. I miss the cold. I always liked the cold, and winter cold is different than San Francisco cold. Winter cold is dry and hits you deep- you take a breath, and you can feel it in your lungs, and it shivers you from within. San Francisco cold is a humid, wet and windy cold- like walking into a 60 degree sauna, then someone turning on the fan. The moisture on your skin is cold, then it hits you with a wind that moves through you and seeps through your clothes. When I lived in D.C., I would live for the cold mornings, walking from my apartment to the Metro station. Pea coat, gloves, hat and scarf; I walk outside, take a deep breath and slowly exhale. I always knew that I was never meant to stay in D.C., I always knew that I should enjoy and live each moment in D.C. I'd walk to Union Station and run my fingers along the walls, hoping that I would be able to remember the rough texture of the walls and columns. I would walk and always try to see the Capitol, even though we had a view of the Capitol from our apartment. Heck, sometimes in our apartment, I'd just stare out the window, amazed that I had a view of the Capitol, amazed that I could just look out the window and see it; see something that millions of people everyday visit, there it was, right out my window.
I live with nostalgia. Every so often, I ride the 21 bus from the Richmond to work, and it goes right past Alamo Square. It's a tremendous view of the city. When I ride the 5, there's an ever so quick glimpse of the city with Marin in the background. Sometimes, and I can do this because I have a monthly Muni pass, I just ride the cable cars because I can; I listen to the ringing of the bell, the shuddering up or down a hill, the creaking of the wood, and the views of the city.
We all associate things, people, places and events with our past. Once it's gone, we try to relive it. I know that I live with this, and I plan for nostalgia before it even happens. When I left Waco for D.C., I had been planning what song to play as I drove out of town (REM- Nightswimming). I was already nostalgic for leaving a place I hadn't left yet. I did that with college and I did that with D.C. And I'm doing that with San Francisco, even though I grew up in the Bay Area.
So, this weekend will be full of nostalgia. Seeing concert going friends, going to a concert for a members of band we would travel far and wide to go see (and we did), and moving on. Nostalgia is a funny thing. It tricks you, but you don't want to leave it. It brings on memories of supreme contentment and joy. Maybe I've been lucky, maybe it's just me.
Maybe I need to watch Noah Baumbach's Kicking and Screaming again. Max, played by Christopher Eigeman has a line- "I'm nostalgic for conversations I had yesterday. I've begun reminiscing events before they even occur." I think my college friends always associated me with another character in that movie, but for some reason, I've always associated myself with Max. Maybe I'm just nostalgic about watching that movie, and how it just fit perfectly with my friends and our "what do we do when we graduate" feelings. Whatever it was, it's still with me. It's the same way how certain songs we associate with certain people, events or times in our lives. I'm comfortable with my nostalgia. . .I want to remember events and places, but I do not let it define me.
Nostalgia. . .here I come. I must keep my nostalgia before it turns into a simple remembrance.
Nostalgia is a cruel feeling. It's a feeling of knowing how something used to be, and, no matter how good things are going now, feeling that if you hadn't made a certain choice, it would be better. In my case, my wife and I left D.C. for San Francisco. We left our friends, our jobs, and our old lives. I lived in D.C. for 8 1/2 years, from 22 through 30- and I had a great time. But, I'm always the first to leave. In college, I was the first of my friends to finally leave Waco, and everyone knew it was going to be me. The first year in D.C., I knew, really, really knew, that I should have stayed in Waco. There was no real reason why I felt like that, it's just something that I did. That's nostalgia. The sepia toned memories of days gone past- sitting on the front porch with friends drinking; going to concerts every night, and knowing one of the bartenders who gives you free drinks; just living the day. It's always easier to live in the past; the present is full of so many things- money, jobs, real relationships. Nostalgia just glosses over those things, and focuses on the good times.
I got in my friends' car at the airport, and one of the first things I said was "Are we in the city yet"? It's a meaningless statement, but there's an association to it. Was in Philly many years ago, with most of the same people this weekend, and one of the running jokes was this line- Are we in the city yet. It was funny the first time it was said, but we just kept saying it. Now, I just say it both to annoy and to be funny. It's just what we say. But none of us are where we used to be. We are all older, married, and either pregnant or soon to be pregnant. We can't go back. Instead, we try to relive the good times- driving to Philly for a Luna show (or Flaming Lips or Guided by Voices), say the same funny lines, and do the same stupid stuff. We are supposed to be wiser, yet, we do our best to recreate those times.
Living in California these past almost 3 years, and coming back to the east coast in December, we had to pull out the pea coat, and dig around for the hat and gloves. Landed and it was 30 degrees- a far cry from the 62 in San Francisco. I miss the cold. I always liked the cold, and winter cold is different than San Francisco cold. Winter cold is dry and hits you deep- you take a breath, and you can feel it in your lungs, and it shivers you from within. San Francisco cold is a humid, wet and windy cold- like walking into a 60 degree sauna, then someone turning on the fan. The moisture on your skin is cold, then it hits you with a wind that moves through you and seeps through your clothes. When I lived in D.C., I would live for the cold mornings, walking from my apartment to the Metro station. Pea coat, gloves, hat and scarf; I walk outside, take a deep breath and slowly exhale. I always knew that I was never meant to stay in D.C., I always knew that I should enjoy and live each moment in D.C. I'd walk to Union Station and run my fingers along the walls, hoping that I would be able to remember the rough texture of the walls and columns. I would walk and always try to see the Capitol, even though we had a view of the Capitol from our apartment. Heck, sometimes in our apartment, I'd just stare out the window, amazed that I had a view of the Capitol, amazed that I could just look out the window and see it; see something that millions of people everyday visit, there it was, right out my window.
I live with nostalgia. Every so often, I ride the 21 bus from the Richmond to work, and it goes right past Alamo Square. It's a tremendous view of the city. When I ride the 5, there's an ever so quick glimpse of the city with Marin in the background. Sometimes, and I can do this because I have a monthly Muni pass, I just ride the cable cars because I can; I listen to the ringing of the bell, the shuddering up or down a hill, the creaking of the wood, and the views of the city.
We all associate things, people, places and events with our past. Once it's gone, we try to relive it. I know that I live with this, and I plan for nostalgia before it even happens. When I left Waco for D.C., I had been planning what song to play as I drove out of town (REM- Nightswimming). I was already nostalgic for leaving a place I hadn't left yet. I did that with college and I did that with D.C. And I'm doing that with San Francisco, even though I grew up in the Bay Area.
So, this weekend will be full of nostalgia. Seeing concert going friends, going to a concert for a members of band we would travel far and wide to go see (and we did), and moving on. Nostalgia is a funny thing. It tricks you, but you don't want to leave it. It brings on memories of supreme contentment and joy. Maybe I've been lucky, maybe it's just me.
Maybe I need to watch Noah Baumbach's Kicking and Screaming again. Max, played by Christopher Eigeman has a line- "I'm nostalgic for conversations I had yesterday. I've begun reminiscing events before they even occur." I think my college friends always associated me with another character in that movie, but for some reason, I've always associated myself with Max. Maybe I'm just nostalgic about watching that movie, and how it just fit perfectly with my friends and our "what do we do when we graduate" feelings. Whatever it was, it's still with me. It's the same way how certain songs we associate with certain people, events or times in our lives. I'm comfortable with my nostalgia. . .I want to remember events and places, but I do not let it define me.
Nostalgia. . .here I come. I must keep my nostalgia before it turns into a simple remembrance.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Random sighting from Black Friday
My mom, sister and niece were in town for Thanksgiving, but my sister and niece were with my dad in San Jose from Thursday night through Saturday morning, leaving me, wife and my mom to go out shopping on Black Friday. I won't regale you with what we bought, but just wanted to share one random and thoroughly inexplicable price we saw.
We stopped at Babies R Us on Friday to show my mom what we had registered for our baby. As we were walking around, we came across the high chairs. There was one high chair with a red clearance sign on the price. The clearance price was $299.98; the regular price was $299.99. The clearance price was only 1 cent less than the regular price. I don't think that price is what many people would consider a clearance price.
Otherwise, shopping on Friday was fine. The only problem was with Best Buy who re-arranged their store in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to navigate around. Came out of the day with a few purchases that basically served as our Christmas presents. As the Target lady would say: SUCCESS!
We stopped at Babies R Us on Friday to show my mom what we had registered for our baby. As we were walking around, we came across the high chairs. There was one high chair with a red clearance sign on the price. The clearance price was $299.98; the regular price was $299.99. The clearance price was only 1 cent less than the regular price. I don't think that price is what many people would consider a clearance price.
Otherwise, shopping on Friday was fine. The only problem was with Best Buy who re-arranged their store in such a way as to make it nearly impossible to navigate around. Came out of the day with a few purchases that basically served as our Christmas presents. As the Target lady would say: SUCCESS!
Milk
In one of my previous postings, I went on and on about government stepping in and doing things about food and schools. Last Sunday, the Chicago Tribune had an article about what schools are doing in regards to milk. Yeah, milk. Basically, various schools throughout the Chicagoland area are doing different things to milk- some are adding flavors that contain nutrients, others are banning those same enhancers. The concern surrounding these two views boil down to obesity. Adding flavor enhancers, such as chocolate, vanilla and strawberry, come with a certain amount of increased fat and sugar, compared with non-flavored low-fat or skim milk otherwise being offered. So, the question becomes- to what extent do we want children to drink milk?
"We would prefer children drink unflavored milk, but it's better for them to drink flavored milk than no milk at all," said spokeswoman Jean Daniel of the federal Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services agency."
The second part of the article is also interesting, but for different reasons. I just finished reading Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food" and in it he makes two points about milk:
1) To make low fat dairy products, producers remove the fat, but then add powdered milk to bring back the texture of milk. However, powdered milk contains oxidized cholesterol, possibly worse than regular cholesterol.
2) "Removing the fat in milk makes it that much harder for your body to absorb the fat-soluble vitamins that are one of the reasons to drink milk in the first place."
The Chicago Tribune article notes that schools are moving towards only selling skim milk, again, the idea being the fat in whole milk may lead to increased obesity rates, just like having chocolate milk or other flavored milks. It notes that the Chicago Public Schools "stopped offering whole milk out of concern for the added calories and fat." The other reasoning behind moving to skim, according to the article, is that skim costs less than whole. So, even though skim milk has less fat content than whole milk, thereby "fighting obesity," children lose valuable other naturally-occurring vitamins and nutrients that instead must be added in at a later point, at a potential higher-risk then if you had just left the milk alone in the first place. This does not really seem to me to be a positive step forward in improving school nutrition.
The fat argument, which Pollan devotes some significant attention to, is very interesting, and shows just how far the belief that fat is a negative for the body, despite recent evidence to the contrary. Pollan quotes from a 2001 Harvard School of Public Health study that concludes:
"It is now increasingly recognized that the low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences."
Strong stuff, no? But I bet most people have never heard of these findings. Pollan goes on to point out that due to the limitations in scientific research, we are unable to pin-point the exact chemical processes that our body does when digesting food. Science wants to know the effect of one nutrient at the time and is unable to take the whole into account, so, we end up with low-fat statements that aren't based on any scientific reasoning, not to mention that our body does need fat. Do we need an 18 oz porterhouse steak worth of it, maybe not, although it does taste good.
Anyway, I have an idea for schools to combat obesity. . .recess. Let children run around and play, fall down, scratch their knees, play games, have winners and losers; in other words, let them be children. In the Fifth Grade, my elementary school prohibited running during recess for fear that one child would knock down another one. If you were seen running, you were marked down and would not be allowed the one extra recess period a month; instead, you had to stay in class and be quiet. That doesn't seem very wise, especially for that age group.
I have no doubt that I will be an annoyance at PTA meetings and parent/teacher conferences. I'll be the parent that sends my child to school with cupcakes and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and a box of whole milk to wash it all down with.
"We would prefer children drink unflavored milk, but it's better for them to drink flavored milk than no milk at all," said spokeswoman Jean Daniel of the federal Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services agency."
The second part of the article is also interesting, but for different reasons. I just finished reading Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food" and in it he makes two points about milk:
1) To make low fat dairy products, producers remove the fat, but then add powdered milk to bring back the texture of milk. However, powdered milk contains oxidized cholesterol, possibly worse than regular cholesterol.
2) "Removing the fat in milk makes it that much harder for your body to absorb the fat-soluble vitamins that are one of the reasons to drink milk in the first place."
The Chicago Tribune article notes that schools are moving towards only selling skim milk, again, the idea being the fat in whole milk may lead to increased obesity rates, just like having chocolate milk or other flavored milks. It notes that the Chicago Public Schools "stopped offering whole milk out of concern for the added calories and fat." The other reasoning behind moving to skim, according to the article, is that skim costs less than whole. So, even though skim milk has less fat content than whole milk, thereby "fighting obesity," children lose valuable other naturally-occurring vitamins and nutrients that instead must be added in at a later point, at a potential higher-risk then if you had just left the milk alone in the first place. This does not really seem to me to be a positive step forward in improving school nutrition.
The fat argument, which Pollan devotes some significant attention to, is very interesting, and shows just how far the belief that fat is a negative for the body, despite recent evidence to the contrary. Pollan quotes from a 2001 Harvard School of Public Health study that concludes:
"It is now increasingly recognized that the low-fat campaign has been based on little scientific evidence and may have caused unintended health consequences."
Strong stuff, no? But I bet most people have never heard of these findings. Pollan goes on to point out that due to the limitations in scientific research, we are unable to pin-point the exact chemical processes that our body does when digesting food. Science wants to know the effect of one nutrient at the time and is unable to take the whole into account, so, we end up with low-fat statements that aren't based on any scientific reasoning, not to mention that our body does need fat. Do we need an 18 oz porterhouse steak worth of it, maybe not, although it does taste good.
Anyway, I have an idea for schools to combat obesity. . .recess. Let children run around and play, fall down, scratch their knees, play games, have winners and losers; in other words, let them be children. In the Fifth Grade, my elementary school prohibited running during recess for fear that one child would knock down another one. If you were seen running, you were marked down and would not be allowed the one extra recess period a month; instead, you had to stay in class and be quiet. That doesn't seem very wise, especially for that age group.
I have no doubt that I will be an annoyance at PTA meetings and parent/teacher conferences. I'll be the parent that sends my child to school with cupcakes and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, and a box of whole milk to wash it all down with.
South Park
I've been thinking a lot about South Park recently, specifically, their most recent election episode. In it, the people of South Park have split between Obama supporters and McCain supporters, and when Obama wins, the Obama supporters go wild, turning over police cars, drinking heavily in the streets, and simply riot throughout the town. The McCain supporters, on the other hand, stay in their houses and bring out their guns to defend themselves. As the episode progresses, McCain supporters flee for their "Arc"
which is cave in the mountain where they can wait out the night. One of the Obama supporters is Stan's dad, Randy. Overcome with joy about Obama winning, he goes on a bender yelling "woooo, change!" He gets so drunk, he confronts his boss, also an Obama supporter, and yells profanities at him and other abusive comments, all the while interspersing, "wooo, change!"
The next morning, the McCain supporters come out of their hiding place and find the world is still there, and nothing much has changed. They then wonder, hmmm, the world is still here, maybe it won't be so bad after all. Randy wakes up the next morning with no pants. His wife hands him the phone and tells him his boss is on the line- his boss fires him. Randy doesn't understand because Obama was supposed to bring change. So he goes crazy because he got fired (wooo, change!!!) and can't find his pants. He then says "I should have voted for McCain."
I bring this up because the residents' reaction is almost exactly what's happened since November 4. Republicans have found that Obama's selections are exceedingly reasonable. In her Chronicle column today, Debra Saunders compares Obama's picks to the difference between Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, with Obama being Capt. Picard. On the war issue, Saunders notes that "Obama understands that if Iraq collapses after U.S. troops are withdrawn, then it won't matter who started the war. America loses, and he loses." The one nominee that is bugging the right is Eric Holder, primarily because of his role in the Marc Rich pardon.
Even moreso is today's Michael Gerson column in the Washington Post. While Gerson does play down these appointments: "It is tempting for conservatives to crow -- or liberals to lament -- that Barack Obama's victory has somehow produced John McCain's administration. But this partisan reaction trivializes some developments that, while early and tentative, are significant." As well as the threat of Congress flexing its muscles and trying to pull Obama to the far left. But what I want to point out about the Gerson column is the following:
So, while those in the middle and to the right get to breathe a sigh of relief, so far, with Obama's cabinet picks, although I'm not a Tom Daschle fan, the left gets its apologists. Gerson points out that Obama cannot simply wave a wand and undo what Clinton and Bush have done with foreign policy, taxes and trade. In order to lead like he claims he wants to, from the middle, Obama had to find those people, and they are old Clinton hands. He had to realize that he simply couldn't put progressives into high ranking places, or else risk having a Republican revolt in Congress, especially now that Democrats can't reach 60 in the Senate to cut off a filibuster. So, we get Obama the moderate, and progressives must put their faith in Congress leaders like Harry Reid, who is thankful for the new Capitol Visitors Center so that he will no longer have to smell them coming his way.
In a column yesterday, David Sirota wrote to calm down progressives who don't see much if any progressives in Obama's picks. Sirota notes that
He then concludes with "Sure, we should be thankful when Dear Leader's whims serve the people — but also unsurprised when they don't."
That is all to say, "Hey, our man is in the White House, and of course you shouldn't expect change from day one." Or, as Glenn Greenwald put it- "So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn't Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered."
I have been very relieved by who Obama has put around his, especially on spending, trade and taxes (although, this report about Rep. Xavier Becerra being offered the job of U.S. Trade Representative does offer some initial concerns). Obama increasingly appears to understand that increasing taxes during difficult economic times is a bad idea. For example, today comes word that his transition web page no longer calls for a windfall tax on oil profits, despite his pledge during the campaign to institute one; my how things change so quickly. So, he's already sliding back on removing troops from Iraq, he's removed the mandatory volunteer program, he's keeping both Petraeus and Gates, and now he's removed instituting a windfall taxon oil profits. As my co-worker noted: And people thought they were voting against a third Bush term.
which is cave in the mountain where they can wait out the night. One of the Obama supporters is Stan's dad, Randy. Overcome with joy about Obama winning, he goes on a bender yelling "woooo, change!" He gets so drunk, he confronts his boss, also an Obama supporter, and yells profanities at him and other abusive comments, all the while interspersing, "wooo, change!"
The next morning, the McCain supporters come out of their hiding place and find the world is still there, and nothing much has changed. They then wonder, hmmm, the world is still here, maybe it won't be so bad after all. Randy wakes up the next morning with no pants. His wife hands him the phone and tells him his boss is on the line- his boss fires him. Randy doesn't understand because Obama was supposed to bring change. So he goes crazy because he got fired (wooo, change!!!) and can't find his pants. He then says "I should have voted for McCain."
I bring this up because the residents' reaction is almost exactly what's happened since November 4. Republicans have found that Obama's selections are exceedingly reasonable. In her Chronicle column today, Debra Saunders compares Obama's picks to the difference between Star Trek and Star Trek: The Next Generation, with Obama being Capt. Picard. On the war issue, Saunders notes that "Obama understands that if Iraq collapses after U.S. troops are withdrawn, then it won't matter who started the war. America loses, and he loses." The one nominee that is bugging the right is Eric Holder, primarily because of his role in the Marc Rich pardon.
Even moreso is today's Michael Gerson column in the Washington Post. While Gerson does play down these appointments: "It is tempting for conservatives to crow -- or liberals to lament -- that Barack Obama's victory has somehow produced John McCain's administration. But this partisan reaction trivializes some developments that, while early and tentative, are significant." As well as the threat of Congress flexing its muscles and trying to pull Obama to the far left. But what I want to point out about the Gerson column is the following:
Obama's appointments reveal something important about current Bush policies. Though Obama's campaign savaged the administration as incompetent and radical, Obama's personnel decisions have effectively ratified Bush's defense and economic approaches during the past few years. At the Pentagon, Obama rehired the architects of President Bush's current military strategy -- Gates, Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Raymond Odierno. At the Treasury Department, Obama has hired one of the main architects of Bush's current economic approach.
This continuity does not make Obama an ideological traitor. It indicates that Bush has been pursuing centrist, bipartisan policies -- without getting much bipartisan support. The transition between Bush and Obama is smoother than some expected, not merely because Obama has moderate instincts but because Bush does as well. Particularly on the economy, Bush has never been a libertarian; he has always matched a commitment to free markets with a willingness to intervene when markets stumble.
The candidate of "change" is discovering what many presidents before him have found: On numerous issues, the range of responsible policy options is narrow. And the closer you come to the Oval Office, the wiser your predecessors appear.
Third, Obama is finding the limits of leading a "movement" that never had much ideological content.
His transition has seen the return of a pack of Clintonistas -- Lawrence Summers, Eric Holder, Rahm Emanuel -- prompting talk of Bill Clinton's third term. Some of this is unavoidable. Governing experience generally gathers in the stagnant pools of past administrations.
But the resurrection of Clintonism is more pronounced because Obamaism is so wispy and indistinct. Obama brings no cadre of passionate reformers with him to Washington -- no ideological vision cultivated in think tanks for decades. Instead, he has turned to experience and competence in his appointments -- which often means returning to the Clinton era. Experience is vital, especially in avoiding rookie mistakes.
So, while those in the middle and to the right get to breathe a sigh of relief, so far, with Obama's cabinet picks, although I'm not a Tom Daschle fan, the left gets its apologists. Gerson points out that Obama cannot simply wave a wand and undo what Clinton and Bush have done with foreign policy, taxes and trade. In order to lead like he claims he wants to, from the middle, Obama had to find those people, and they are old Clinton hands. He had to realize that he simply couldn't put progressives into high ranking places, or else risk having a Republican revolt in Congress, especially now that Democrats can't reach 60 in the Senate to cut off a filibuster. So, we get Obama the moderate, and progressives must put their faith in Congress leaders like Harry Reid, who is thankful for the new Capitol Visitors Center so that he will no longer have to smell them coming his way.
In a column yesterday, David Sirota wrote to calm down progressives who don't see much if any progressives in Obama's picks. Sirota notes that
"[Obama] figured out that because many "progressive" institutions are merely Democratic Party appendages and not ideological movement forces, he could build his own movement. He succeeded in that endeavor thanks to the nation's Bush-inspired desire for change, his own skills and a celebrity-obsessed culture.
Though many Obama supporters feel strongly about particular issues, and though polling shows the country moving left, the Obama movement undeniably revolves around the president-elect's individual stardom — and specifically, the faith that he will make good decisions, whatever those decisions are."
He then concludes with "Sure, we should be thankful when Dear Leader's whims serve the people — but also unsurprised when they don't."
That is all to say, "Hey, our man is in the White House, and of course you shouldn't expect change from day one." Or, as Glenn Greenwald put it- "So many progressives were misled about what Obama is and what he believes. But it wasn't Obama who misled them. It was their own desires, their eagerness to see what they wanted to see rather than what reality offered."
I have been very relieved by who Obama has put around his, especially on spending, trade and taxes (although, this report about Rep. Xavier Becerra being offered the job of U.S. Trade Representative does offer some initial concerns). Obama increasingly appears to understand that increasing taxes during difficult economic times is a bad idea. For example, today comes word that his transition web page no longer calls for a windfall tax on oil profits, despite his pledge during the campaign to institute one; my how things change so quickly. So, he's already sliding back on removing troops from Iraq, he's removed the mandatory volunteer program, he's keeping both Petraeus and Gates, and now he's removed instituting a windfall taxon oil profits. As my co-worker noted: And people thought they were voting against a third Bush term.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Food police
My one long-time reader will no doubt note my opposition to government interference in just about all things. . .in light of that, I'd direct ones attention to this article from Wednesday's New York Times. The article tackles the question of food nutrition guidelines issued by states, such as California, and the various results resulting from these bans.
My larger problem with these guidelines is that they often address the wrong aspect of eating- it's not the nutrient, it's the portion. What that means is that, instead of having a bake sale, where teams can sell cupcakes, cookies and other tasty items, all made at home, kids are left with "healthy" alternatives, such as Snackwells and other sweets that satisfy these ridiculous rules, but don't address the underlying problem. If you eat a ton of Snackwells, you're still gonna get fat.
I understand the desire of policy makers to want to have "healthy" alternatives to sugary foods, the problem is that either the alternatives are actually worse for you, or they simply do away with it altogether. That is comprised in this wacky statement- “I don’t think all celebrations need to be around food,” said Ann Cooper, the director of nutrition services for the Berkeley school district. “We need to get past the mentality of food used for punishment or praise.”
Without getting all anthropological here, food is often a large part of celebrations- we are about the celebrate one of the biggest food-based celebrations of the year with Thanksgiving. The second point also needs to be addressed. For years now, parents, teachers and administrators have been operating in a state of fear- that is, they are afraid to show failure. That's why you have sporting events where scores aren't kept, there are no losers and everyone gets a prize. That's also why you have rules that say teachers can't use red ink to correct student papers because of the stigma supposedly attached to red ink in schools. This is all ridiculous.
Furthermore, for anyone who has read Rousseau's "Emile," food is the center of one of Rousseau's classic examples of motivating a student- in order to get his student to exercise, Rousseau instead makes the whole event about the food instead of the exercise. Emile has to run to get the cake- to Emile, it's all about the cake, to Rousseau, it's about the exercise.
In any event, this study comes to a conclusion that bans on sugary drinks shows little effect on consumption. The study followed students in high schools in Maine. The conclusion reached by the study is "Researchers found that over one school year, students in both groups of schools cut down on their average daily intake of sugary drinks -- but there was no evidence that the school soda bans led to greater reductions." In other words, over the 9 month school year, students across the board reduced their consumption of sugary drinks, regardless of whether those drinks were available in their school. The study does posit one possible reason as to why the study came to its result: "According to Blum, keeping such drinks out of teenagers' reach during school hours may not be enough. School appears to be just one source of sugar-sweetened beverages for youth," she said, "and it may be that an educational component...is needed to have an effect on consumption from sources other than school."
It is obvious that the researcher is referring to the home. And that is a dangerous step. This study draws a line between tv advertising and childhood obesity. It advocates for a ban on food-related commercials- nevermind a blatant constitutional free speech problem. How a commercial causes a child to get obese is beyond me- the child is not responsible for feeding themselves, rather, it's parents that take the child there. In other words, both studies rightly implicate the role of parents in providing for their children, yet both stop short of the logical conclusion from both of their studies- that only through government involvement can children be rightly protected from the supposed failings of their parents to feed them "correctly."
The problem with that is, of course, that the government knows what it's doing, which is questionable. Consumers are inundated with information, per government direction, about food quality and what nutrients are best, and the government simply muddles all of that through a variety of ways, including through farm subsidies (wanna know why corn syrup is in everything we eat, thank corn subsidies, a long-running program that debuted during the New Deal). We have lost our connection to our food, and well-meaning programs, like bans based on nutrients, only pushes us further away from that connection. Instead of using some common-sense approach to food, such as realizing the benefits of home-made food, using food as a celebration or even encouraging moderation, we are instead propagating beliefs that nutrients matter, and not the food itself. That as long as something has been genetically engineered to be fat-free, sugar-free, trans-fat free, low-fat, low-carb or whatever, we are to be secure in the knowledge that it's "healthy," at least as defined by the government.
This is a 1998 article from Newsweek that is about Olestra, a fat-free alternative that is used in the production of potato chips. It was declared safe by the FDA, yet the article notes:
So, olestra was approved a safe, and is being used as a fat-free way to produce potato chips, yet it extracts various vitamins from the body (but the product has been engineered to replace those lost vitamins), but the maker says that will only happen if they eat it with fruit and vegetables. Incredible! Oh, and another side effect is that some people can't digest olestra properly causing diarrhea (that would be me- the same thing happens if I have too much soy, depending on how it's refined). But, it's fat free, and that's all that really matters.
The Newsweek article continues with this illuminating paragraph:
Finally, the article concludes with a startlingly prescient statement- "Products like olestra chips feed a different hunger than the one for food. Will they do any harm if you eat just a handful now and then? Nope. And neither will regular chips."
There it is, advice from 1998 that seemingly is still falling on deaf ears, even though Michael Pollan, for one, is doing a lot to change that- it's not about the nutrients, it's about the portion. I will say that while I do believe that banning artificial trans-fat is a worthwhile cause, both because of the dangers inherent in artificial trans-fat and because who really wants to eat something that was created in a lab and can engineer in and out whatever you like (this is why I don't use margarine), the larger issue isn't the trans-fat themselves, but how much one eats. If combating obesity truly is the goal of all these programs, then encouraging the government to go nutrient-by-nutrient, what Pollan calls nutritionism, is the wrong way. We should be educating children about whole foods, about our role in the food chain, a better respect for our food, and making our food. Banning certain nutrients because some government pol says it's bad is short-sighted, and, as the NY Times article explains, takes us away from our role in making food. Banning cupcakes from schools for childrens' birthdays is a useless exercise that does nothing but unnecessarily punish the child for being a child- let them have their home-made cupcake. Let there be food-based fund-raisers. Let there be multi-cultural food fairs to raise money. Quite simply- let there be food.
The old-fashioned school bake sale, once as American as apple pie, is fast becoming obsolete in California, a result of strict new state nutrition standards for public schools that regulate the types of food that can be sold to students. The guidelines were passed by lawmakers in 2005 and took effect in July 2007. They require that snacks sold during the school day contain no more than 35 percent sugar by weight and derive no more than 35 percent of their calories from fat and no more than 10 percent of their calories from saturated fat.
My larger problem with these guidelines is that they often address the wrong aspect of eating- it's not the nutrient, it's the portion. What that means is that, instead of having a bake sale, where teams can sell cupcakes, cookies and other tasty items, all made at home, kids are left with "healthy" alternatives, such as Snackwells and other sweets that satisfy these ridiculous rules, but don't address the underlying problem. If you eat a ton of Snackwells, you're still gonna get fat.
I understand the desire of policy makers to want to have "healthy" alternatives to sugary foods, the problem is that either the alternatives are actually worse for you, or they simply do away with it altogether. That is comprised in this wacky statement- “I don’t think all celebrations need to be around food,” said Ann Cooper, the director of nutrition services for the Berkeley school district. “We need to get past the mentality of food used for punishment or praise.”
Without getting all anthropological here, food is often a large part of celebrations- we are about the celebrate one of the biggest food-based celebrations of the year with Thanksgiving. The second point also needs to be addressed. For years now, parents, teachers and administrators have been operating in a state of fear- that is, they are afraid to show failure. That's why you have sporting events where scores aren't kept, there are no losers and everyone gets a prize. That's also why you have rules that say teachers can't use red ink to correct student papers because of the stigma supposedly attached to red ink in schools. This is all ridiculous.
Furthermore, for anyone who has read Rousseau's "Emile," food is the center of one of Rousseau's classic examples of motivating a student- in order to get his student to exercise, Rousseau instead makes the whole event about the food instead of the exercise. Emile has to run to get the cake- to Emile, it's all about the cake, to Rousseau, it's about the exercise.
In any event, this study comes to a conclusion that bans on sugary drinks shows little effect on consumption. The study followed students in high schools in Maine. The conclusion reached by the study is "Researchers found that over one school year, students in both groups of schools cut down on their average daily intake of sugary drinks -- but there was no evidence that the school soda bans led to greater reductions." In other words, over the 9 month school year, students across the board reduced their consumption of sugary drinks, regardless of whether those drinks were available in their school. The study does posit one possible reason as to why the study came to its result: "According to Blum, keeping such drinks out of teenagers' reach during school hours may not be enough. School appears to be just one source of sugar-sweetened beverages for youth," she said, "and it may be that an educational component...is needed to have an effect on consumption from sources other than school."
It is obvious that the researcher is referring to the home. And that is a dangerous step. This study draws a line between tv advertising and childhood obesity. It advocates for a ban on food-related commercials- nevermind a blatant constitutional free speech problem. How a commercial causes a child to get obese is beyond me- the child is not responsible for feeding themselves, rather, it's parents that take the child there. In other words, both studies rightly implicate the role of parents in providing for their children, yet both stop short of the logical conclusion from both of their studies- that only through government involvement can children be rightly protected from the supposed failings of their parents to feed them "correctly."
The problem with that is, of course, that the government knows what it's doing, which is questionable. Consumers are inundated with information, per government direction, about food quality and what nutrients are best, and the government simply muddles all of that through a variety of ways, including through farm subsidies (wanna know why corn syrup is in everything we eat, thank corn subsidies, a long-running program that debuted during the New Deal). We have lost our connection to our food, and well-meaning programs, like bans based on nutrients, only pushes us further away from that connection. Instead of using some common-sense approach to food, such as realizing the benefits of home-made food, using food as a celebration or even encouraging moderation, we are instead propagating beliefs that nutrients matter, and not the food itself. That as long as something has been genetically engineered to be fat-free, sugar-free, trans-fat free, low-fat, low-carb or whatever, we are to be secure in the knowledge that it's "healthy," at least as defined by the government.
This is a 1998 article from Newsweek that is about Olestra, a fat-free alternative that is used in the production of potato chips. It was declared safe by the FDA, yet the article notes:
As it moves through the gut, it attracts fat-soluble nutrients and carries them out of the body. Those nutrients include vitamins A, D, E and K and some carotenoids, which are substances found in fruits and vegetables that help protect against heart disease and many cancers. Olestra chips are fortified with the four vitamins to make up for the depletion--but the lost carotenoids are not replaced. ....
Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health estimates that if consumption of olestra snacks becomes widespread, Americans may experience up to 50,000 more cases of cancer and heart disease every year. P&G calls the estimates ""ridiculous'' and says that olestra affects carotenoids only when olestra is eaten with fruits and vegetables.
So, olestra was approved a safe, and is being used as a fat-free way to produce potato chips, yet it extracts various vitamins from the body (but the product has been engineered to replace those lost vitamins), but the maker says that will only happen if they eat it with fruit and vegetables. Incredible! Oh, and another side effect is that some people can't digest olestra properly causing diarrhea (that would be me- the same thing happens if I have too much soy, depending on how it's refined). But, it's fat free, and that's all that really matters.
The Newsweek article continues with this illuminating paragraph:
Despite its drawbacks, olestra will surely appeal to the millions of Americans who are dieting, or wish they were. But nothing in the history of American eating habits backs up the assumption that reduced-calorie foods guarantee weight loss. Artificial sweeteners have long been a household staple, while consumption of sugar soars. Similarly, we're eating more reduced-fat foods than ever these days, yet our total consumption of fat has barely changed since 1991. Meanwhile, more than half of all American adults are overweight or obese. Many factors contribute to the national girth, including an all-food-all-the-time lifestyle and an aversion to exercise, but what's indisputable is that SnackWells are not making us skinny.
Finally, the article concludes with a startlingly prescient statement- "Products like olestra chips feed a different hunger than the one for food. Will they do any harm if you eat just a handful now and then? Nope. And neither will regular chips."
There it is, advice from 1998 that seemingly is still falling on deaf ears, even though Michael Pollan, for one, is doing a lot to change that- it's not about the nutrients, it's about the portion. I will say that while I do believe that banning artificial trans-fat is a worthwhile cause, both because of the dangers inherent in artificial trans-fat and because who really wants to eat something that was created in a lab and can engineer in and out whatever you like (this is why I don't use margarine), the larger issue isn't the trans-fat themselves, but how much one eats. If combating obesity truly is the goal of all these programs, then encouraging the government to go nutrient-by-nutrient, what Pollan calls nutritionism, is the wrong way. We should be educating children about whole foods, about our role in the food chain, a better respect for our food, and making our food. Banning certain nutrients because some government pol says it's bad is short-sighted, and, as the NY Times article explains, takes us away from our role in making food. Banning cupcakes from schools for childrens' birthdays is a useless exercise that does nothing but unnecessarily punish the child for being a child- let them have their home-made cupcake. Let there be food-based fund-raisers. Let there be multi-cultural food fairs to raise money. Quite simply- let there be food.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
A Response
In the comments to my last post, my friend at Pave The Whales took me to task for insinuating that Democrats are mindless idiots. My post was simply to point out that despite all the rhetoric that Dear Leader read from on high during the campaign was just that- rhetoric. Yet, the public ate it up like manna from heaven, believing in Obama, to the point of this woman claiming that Obama will pay her rent and put gas in her car.
My criticism of Obama's rhetoric is that either he's simply feeding lines to the public to get them to vote for him and has no intention of following through on it; or he does mean what he says, and how could the public knowingly vote for someone who is positioned to repeat the same failed policies from the 30s. Instead, it appears that all the american public digested was hope and change, hope and change, hope and change. I argued that hope is not a strategy and his change is something we cannot afford. Based on these initial picks, plus the belief that Secretary of Defense Gates is likely to stay through this first several months, the only change that's apparent is that Obama is looking to rewind the clocks to 1992. I will retain the hope that Obama does not attempt to recreate a New New Deal and the disaster that accompanied those policies (As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said- "A good catchword can obscure analysis for fifty years."); instead, he will realize that increasing taxes in a panic or recession is bad policy.
Do I think the public made the wrong choice- that's pretty apparent by my defense of John McCain. I also do think that the public fell in love with a voice and an image- I mean, this country gave Paris Hilton 3 years of The Simple Life, plus another show where she is looking for a new best friend. We have short attention spans and are wowed by shiny objects. So, my posts aren't necessarily directed at Democrats, per se; there are plenty of policy arguments where both sides have reasonable positions. My posts, rather, are directed at the folly of Obama supporters who believed in his rhetoric; Obama is nothing more than a politician, an extremely calculating politician who knew what to say to get elected, and appears to realize that he can't govern from his prior positions. Further, my posts should be a relief to Obama supporters. While I may characterize the supporters one way, I am beginning to come around to the belief, shared by both Instapundit and Knowledge Problem, that is best summed up by The Who line- Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Instead, my biggest concern continues to lay with Congressional Democrats, and I will make my concerns and opposition known.
Anyway, I will make no apologies for the tenor of my posts- the right has every bit the ability and right to take on the left and make pointed remarks. This ability is not the sole domain of Huffington Post or DailyKos or TPM.
My criticism of Obama's rhetoric is that either he's simply feeding lines to the public to get them to vote for him and has no intention of following through on it; or he does mean what he says, and how could the public knowingly vote for someone who is positioned to repeat the same failed policies from the 30s. Instead, it appears that all the american public digested was hope and change, hope and change, hope and change. I argued that hope is not a strategy and his change is something we cannot afford. Based on these initial picks, plus the belief that Secretary of Defense Gates is likely to stay through this first several months, the only change that's apparent is that Obama is looking to rewind the clocks to 1992. I will retain the hope that Obama does not attempt to recreate a New New Deal and the disaster that accompanied those policies (As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said- "A good catchword can obscure analysis for fifty years."); instead, he will realize that increasing taxes in a panic or recession is bad policy.
Do I think the public made the wrong choice- that's pretty apparent by my defense of John McCain. I also do think that the public fell in love with a voice and an image- I mean, this country gave Paris Hilton 3 years of The Simple Life, plus another show where she is looking for a new best friend. We have short attention spans and are wowed by shiny objects. So, my posts aren't necessarily directed at Democrats, per se; there are plenty of policy arguments where both sides have reasonable positions. My posts, rather, are directed at the folly of Obama supporters who believed in his rhetoric; Obama is nothing more than a politician, an extremely calculating politician who knew what to say to get elected, and appears to realize that he can't govern from his prior positions. Further, my posts should be a relief to Obama supporters. While I may characterize the supporters one way, I am beginning to come around to the belief, shared by both Instapundit and Knowledge Problem, that is best summed up by The Who line- Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Instead, my biggest concern continues to lay with Congressional Democrats, and I will make my concerns and opposition known.
Anyway, I will make no apologies for the tenor of my posts- the right has every bit the ability and right to take on the left and make pointed remarks. This ability is not the sole domain of Huffington Post or DailyKos or TPM.
I can't help it.
From today's L.A. Times comes this quote:
"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."
And what is this person so concerned about?
You mean, gasp, Obama might not actually pull troops out of Iraq at the rate he promised during the campaign? You mean that Obama might not have actually meant what he said during the campaign? Noooo.......You mean, that. . .Obama might just be . . . a politician? NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
In other news comes word that, "President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts." I do find it amusing that Eric Holder (U.S. Attorney for D.C. under President Clinton), Rahm Emanuel (Senior Advisor to President Clinton), and Hillary Clinton are three early names to come out in an Obama Cabinet. It's like the missing third Clinton term Democrats have been waiting for. I will say that if we do get a third Clinton term, I hope its the foreign policy/economic version (the era of big government is over and all that) and not the social policy side- although, I guess the pick of Tom Daschle as HHS tempers my hope about that. According to the above article, Daschle's criticism of Clinton's attempt at health care reform in his first term is that it went into too much detail. Yes, that's exactly what we don't need- details.
Change you can believe in.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the elevation of Rep. Henry Waxman to the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, dethroning John Dingell, who had been the top Democrat on that Committee for 28 years. Basically, this is all about energy and the environment and how Congressional Democrats have thrown themselves down in front of the altar of Environment. With Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey in positions of leadership on climate change, and Sen. Boxer chairing the Senate Environment Committee, the next two years will be sure to feature prostrate Democrats chanting the mantra "Green, Green, Green" at the expense of the american public. Obama has already promised the raised electricity bills, by shutting down coal plants and requiring increases in expensive renewable projects- all at government say-so, without looking into whether or not it makes economic sense to do so. A co-worker of mine has a rote statement- Why quibble with -insert issue- when you can save the planet. For example, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. issued a report that noted “We are concerned that, when viewed from a continent-wide perspective, current climate initiatives do not adequately address key reliability objectives, particularly the need for a strong and robust transmission system.” In other words, since renewable energy, like wind and solar, are intermittent, they cannot be relied upon to provide a reliable energy service; and if the U.S. starts requiring a certain percentage of power to come from these unreliable sources, we're likely to see failures across the energy grid. Basically, we are exchanging cheap, reliable, baseload power for expensive, unreliable, intermittent power. . .what a victory for American ratepayers.
I can only imagine the mischief that is to result over the next 2 years with energy and environmental issues being handled by High Priests of Environment.
"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."
And what is this person so concerned about?
Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.
The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.
You mean, gasp, Obama might not actually pull troops out of Iraq at the rate he promised during the campaign? You mean that Obama might not have actually meant what he said during the campaign? Noooo.......You mean, that. . .Obama might just be . . . a politician? NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
In other news comes word that, "President-elect Barack Obama promised the voters change but has started his Cabinet selection process by naming several Washington insiders to top posts." I do find it amusing that Eric Holder (U.S. Attorney for D.C. under President Clinton), Rahm Emanuel (Senior Advisor to President Clinton), and Hillary Clinton are three early names to come out in an Obama Cabinet. It's like the missing third Clinton term Democrats have been waiting for. I will say that if we do get a third Clinton term, I hope its the foreign policy/economic version (the era of big government is over and all that) and not the social policy side- although, I guess the pick of Tom Daschle as HHS tempers my hope about that. According to the above article, Daschle's criticism of Clinton's attempt at health care reform in his first term is that it went into too much detail. Yes, that's exactly what we don't need- details.
Change you can believe in.
Also, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the elevation of Rep. Henry Waxman to the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, dethroning John Dingell, who had been the top Democrat on that Committee for 28 years. Basically, this is all about energy and the environment and how Congressional Democrats have thrown themselves down in front of the altar of Environment. With Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey in positions of leadership on climate change, and Sen. Boxer chairing the Senate Environment Committee, the next two years will be sure to feature prostrate Democrats chanting the mantra "Green, Green, Green" at the expense of the american public. Obama has already promised the raised electricity bills, by shutting down coal plants and requiring increases in expensive renewable projects- all at government say-so, without looking into whether or not it makes economic sense to do so. A co-worker of mine has a rote statement- Why quibble with -insert issue- when you can save the planet. For example, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. issued a report that noted “We are concerned that, when viewed from a continent-wide perspective, current climate initiatives do not adequately address key reliability objectives, particularly the need for a strong and robust transmission system.” In other words, since renewable energy, like wind and solar, are intermittent, they cannot be relied upon to provide a reliable energy service; and if the U.S. starts requiring a certain percentage of power to come from these unreliable sources, we're likely to see failures across the energy grid. Basically, we are exchanging cheap, reliable, baseload power for expensive, unreliable, intermittent power. . .what a victory for American ratepayers.
I can only imagine the mischief that is to result over the next 2 years with energy and environmental issues being handled by High Priests of Environment.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Bush's last stand
Obama met with President Bush a few days ago to talk about bailing out the auto industry. According to the article,
I hope that Bush gets away with this. . .If there really is one group that should not receive government assistance, other than the airlines, it's the auto industry. As much as the Democrats think they can call Bush's bluff and that he won't let GM fail, how much are the Democrats willing to let GM fail instead of passing the Colombia, Panama and South Korea free trade agreements. Democrats are simply serving the desire of two of their largest constituents: labor and environmentalists. Instead of serving the, you know, American public, they are already letting special interests dictate policy.
It would be far better for the American auto industry to cut jobs, cut production and stand up to the unions and negotiate wage cuts. Instead, they're plowing through cash, keeping their middle management, not working with the unions, not cutting production, but they are asking for more money to keep operating. And that includes increasing spending on the Volt, despite its own precarious economic position.
Let GM fail. Detroit has been unable or unwilling to move ahead in designing the cars or building more fuel efficient cars, in the face of increased demand for fuel efficient cars. GM is asking for $50 billion in federal aid.
How much longer will the American people be forced to bail out another industry, another company, that failed to do their job. Haven't we all learned enough? First, we had the housing industry, propped up on mortgages that shouldn't have been issued to people that had no business owning a home; then we moved on to the banks that bought up these mortgages, on promises of continued and future increases in property values; then we have AIG, I can't even explain what caused us to bail out AIG, which has now increased from an initial $85 billion to $150 billion. Lehman was allowed to fail, and the government facilitated a number of other takeovers. Now the automakers want a piece of the bank bailout pie. Let them fail.
President Bush should hold out. He should not cave into the demands of Congressional Democrats, union leaders or the auto industry. The auto industry fought long and hard against various fuel efficiency measures, had a protector in Rep. John Dingell, not to mention the various Democrats who are beholden to unions, which also opposed the fuel efficiency measures, and are now left holding the bag because they built cars that the american public doesn't want, and can't buy. I don't begrudge them for trying to fight the fuel efficiency measures, I begrudge them because they failed to heed the market demand for such cars. They wanted to play by their rules, and when their rules turned on them, they come begging for a handout so they can do what they should have done 3 years ago. At some point, the government is going to have to say no more- we will not be saving businesses that failed to change with the market; you made your decisions, and we will not help you.
As Thomas Friedman noted today, not all auto companies are having a hard time- Honda recently opened a new production facility in Canada. Yet, it's the American auto industry that's having a hard time. The auto industry wants money to keep it afloat, it wants money to help it move to more fuel efficient cars, it wants money to help pay its terrible union contracts, and it wants money to keep paying the salaries of all its middle management.
Congressional Democrats and Pres-elect Obama are simply shilling for the unions, under the guise of unemployment and "too big to fail" arguments. President Bush should hold out. The auto industry, and GM in particular, should be subject to the laws of supply and demand and the cruel hand of the market, just like everyone else.
Bush has drawn his line at the automakers' doors, having already been forced to shelve the free-market principles of his Republican Party to bail out the financial industry over the past two months. But Republicans say he would acquiesce in aid to automakers in return for Congress's ratification of the Colombia pact and pending trade agreements with Panama and South Korea.
I hope that Bush gets away with this. . .If there really is one group that should not receive government assistance, other than the airlines, it's the auto industry. As much as the Democrats think they can call Bush's bluff and that he won't let GM fail, how much are the Democrats willing to let GM fail instead of passing the Colombia, Panama and South Korea free trade agreements. Democrats are simply serving the desire of two of their largest constituents: labor and environmentalists. Instead of serving the, you know, American public, they are already letting special interests dictate policy.
It would be far better for the American auto industry to cut jobs, cut production and stand up to the unions and negotiate wage cuts. Instead, they're plowing through cash, keeping their middle management, not working with the unions, not cutting production, but they are asking for more money to keep operating. And that includes increasing spending on the Volt, despite its own precarious economic position.
Let GM fail. Detroit has been unable or unwilling to move ahead in designing the cars or building more fuel efficient cars, in the face of increased demand for fuel efficient cars. GM is asking for $50 billion in federal aid.
How much longer will the American people be forced to bail out another industry, another company, that failed to do their job. Haven't we all learned enough? First, we had the housing industry, propped up on mortgages that shouldn't have been issued to people that had no business owning a home; then we moved on to the banks that bought up these mortgages, on promises of continued and future increases in property values; then we have AIG, I can't even explain what caused us to bail out AIG, which has now increased from an initial $85 billion to $150 billion. Lehman was allowed to fail, and the government facilitated a number of other takeovers. Now the automakers want a piece of the bank bailout pie. Let them fail.
President Bush should hold out. He should not cave into the demands of Congressional Democrats, union leaders or the auto industry. The auto industry fought long and hard against various fuel efficiency measures, had a protector in Rep. John Dingell, not to mention the various Democrats who are beholden to unions, which also opposed the fuel efficiency measures, and are now left holding the bag because they built cars that the american public doesn't want, and can't buy. I don't begrudge them for trying to fight the fuel efficiency measures, I begrudge them because they failed to heed the market demand for such cars. They wanted to play by their rules, and when their rules turned on them, they come begging for a handout so they can do what they should have done 3 years ago. At some point, the government is going to have to say no more- we will not be saving businesses that failed to change with the market; you made your decisions, and we will not help you.
As Thomas Friedman noted today, not all auto companies are having a hard time- Honda recently opened a new production facility in Canada. Yet, it's the American auto industry that's having a hard time. The auto industry wants money to keep it afloat, it wants money to help it move to more fuel efficient cars, it wants money to help pay its terrible union contracts, and it wants money to keep paying the salaries of all its middle management.
Congressional Democrats and Pres-elect Obama are simply shilling for the unions, under the guise of unemployment and "too big to fail" arguments. President Bush should hold out. The auto industry, and GM in particular, should be subject to the laws of supply and demand and the cruel hand of the market, just like everyone else.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
To the No on 8 crowd
I have some advice for you- stop running to the courts.
Now, I don't say that to mean give up and stop trying; far from it. Rather, I would advise y'all to get out and educate and put up a positive ballot measure that would grant marriages. On election night, I was watching the local news and they interviewed one of the Yes on 8 campaign directors and he noted that not once have pro-gay marriage supporters gone out and sought approval from voters for that position. Instead, they've reacted to anti-gay marriage propositions and hauled them to court, and allowed the court to decide when the legislature and the people should decide. The legislature already set-up domestic partnership laws, laws that the people of this state appeared to support. Prop 8 passed by 400,000 votes- I can imagine that a substantial part of that margin was made up of people who don't care one way or another, but simply were upset that the court forced this upon the public. The citizens of this state have now voted twice against gay marriage. . .Get before the public a pro-gay marriage amendment, and stop relying on the courts to force this down peoples' throats. The court was wrong on this decision- the court cannot usurp the vote of the people (or the legislature) and make new exceptions where none are evident. Only the people can and should make these decisions- and the pro-gay marriage advocates need to get them, and stop relying on the courts.
On the other hand...I am not at all surprised by these findings- "While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8, exit polls showed."
This same situation played itself out in Florida: "Barack Obama's candidacy likely played a role in the gay-marriage ban passing in Florida. Black voters turned out in droves and, according to exit polls, supported the amendment by the greatest margin -- 71 percent to 29 percent -- when compared to whites and Hispanics."
None of this should be at all surprising to Democrats and gay marriage advocates and foes. How so? In 2004, the voters of Ohio passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that marriage shall be only between a man and woman. The vote total was 62% in favor and 38% opposed; yet, Bush won Ohio by 2%, or 120,000 votes. It should also be noted that Bush got a higher percentage of the black vote in Ohio, 16%, up from 9% in 2000, than he got nationwide, 10%. So, not only did Bush get a sizable percentage of the black vote in Ohio, enough to possibly have pushed him over the top, the black vote also accounted for the large support in Ohio for declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. In other words, even though only winning the state by 2%, a proposition denying same-sex marriages passed by 24%. It seems obvious that that discrepancy was made up by black voters.
As I began this posting above- those in favor of same-sex marriages need to come out and make a positive ballot proposition, and stop running to the courts to stop "the people." Give the people something positive to respond to on this matter, and they will come around. The courts should not be used to effect social change; that responsibility is up to the people. I know that some people look back longingly to the excesses of the Warren Court, but those days are long gone. Move on.
Now, I don't say that to mean give up and stop trying; far from it. Rather, I would advise y'all to get out and educate and put up a positive ballot measure that would grant marriages. On election night, I was watching the local news and they interviewed one of the Yes on 8 campaign directors and he noted that not once have pro-gay marriage supporters gone out and sought approval from voters for that position. Instead, they've reacted to anti-gay marriage propositions and hauled them to court, and allowed the court to decide when the legislature and the people should decide. The legislature already set-up domestic partnership laws, laws that the people of this state appeared to support. Prop 8 passed by 400,000 votes- I can imagine that a substantial part of that margin was made up of people who don't care one way or another, but simply were upset that the court forced this upon the public. The citizens of this state have now voted twice against gay marriage. . .Get before the public a pro-gay marriage amendment, and stop relying on the courts to force this down peoples' throats. The court was wrong on this decision- the court cannot usurp the vote of the people (or the legislature) and make new exceptions where none are evident. Only the people can and should make these decisions- and the pro-gay marriage advocates need to get them, and stop relying on the courts.
On the other hand...I am not at all surprised by these findings- "While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8, exit polls showed."
This same situation played itself out in Florida: "Barack Obama's candidacy likely played a role in the gay-marriage ban passing in Florida. Black voters turned out in droves and, according to exit polls, supported the amendment by the greatest margin -- 71 percent to 29 percent -- when compared to whites and Hispanics."
None of this should be at all surprising to Democrats and gay marriage advocates and foes. How so? In 2004, the voters of Ohio passed an amendment to the state constitution declaring that marriage shall be only between a man and woman. The vote total was 62% in favor and 38% opposed; yet, Bush won Ohio by 2%, or 120,000 votes. It should also be noted that Bush got a higher percentage of the black vote in Ohio, 16%, up from 9% in 2000, than he got nationwide, 10%. So, not only did Bush get a sizable percentage of the black vote in Ohio, enough to possibly have pushed him over the top, the black vote also accounted for the large support in Ohio for declaring marriage to be between a man and a woman. In other words, even though only winning the state by 2%, a proposition denying same-sex marriages passed by 24%. It seems obvious that that discrepancy was made up by black voters.
As I began this posting above- those in favor of same-sex marriages need to come out and make a positive ballot proposition, and stop running to the courts to stop "the people." Give the people something positive to respond to on this matter, and they will come around. The courts should not be used to effect social change; that responsibility is up to the people. I know that some people look back longingly to the excesses of the Warren Court, but those days are long gone. Move on.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Who didn't see this coming?
Stocks have worst day after election day ever, surpassing the dreadful day after FDR's first win.
As this place has noted previously, FDR's economic policies made the country worse, and any attempts by Obama and the Congress do emulate those same policies must be opposed, especially any growth in aggressive unionization (card check). If Wall Street supposedly had already internalized an Obama victory, this shows a rather shocking doubt about the state of the economy and Obama's plan- another stimulus package with government mucking around in the economy is the last thing we need.
As if a 5+% loss in one day wasn't expected, Iraq says they are confident Obama won't pull out troops too quickly, with a current strategy shooting for 2011. I can only help but wonder if this is one of the many, many things Obama must have been referring to in his election night speech about how some things may take some time, and may not be done by the end of his first term. Of course, this had made some news before the election in an article in the NY Post, of course, Obama supporters attacked the author. Not surprisingly, the media continued to peddle the Obama narrative on Iraq, and not one day later, Iraq comes out and says 2011. Obviously, I can only wonder what else has the press covered up until the election.
Finally, various Asian countries voice their concerns over Obama's potential trade policies, especially towards the East. "He appears to be a protectionist," said Chea Mony, president of the Free Trade Union of Workers in Cambodia, which has an export-driven textile industry." Further, "[i]n an Oct. 24 letter to the U.S. National Council of Textile Organizations, Obama pledged "strong enforcement" of trade remedy laws, which can include added tariffs on imports that are deemed to hurt American businesses. Obama said he would include labor and environmental standards in free trade agreements — a measure that many in Asia view as a possible pretext to shield U.S. companies from foreign competition."
Obama has a huge task ahead of him. . .based on his history, I have great concerns about where he will govern, coupled with little belief that he'll be able to stand up to Congress.
Anyway. . .I may write something more about California and the City proposition; but, two quick things. 1) I opposed the passage of Prop 2, but it passed with flying colors- I simply have no explanation for it, especially in light of the failure of Prop 8. Apparently people hold a higher opinion of chickens, pigs and baby cows than of their fellow citizens- I'd be willing to entertain any other opinions. 2) Mayor Newsom and the San Francisco Chronicle have nearly zero effect on voting in this city, at least when it comes to Board candidates- any board for that matter, be Board of Supervisors, Board of Education or City College Board. I suppose it's amusing to think that in San Francisco, Newsom is considered an unacceptable moderate in some circles, yet once you leave the Bay Area, he's a raging bleeding heart. I'm not looking forward to the next Mayoral campaign.
Finally, today starts the battle for 2010. I'm quickly going to note that the three-way race for the Democratic nominee for Governor- S.F. Mayor Newsom, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Attorney General Jerry Brown could be in for some company in the form of Senator Dianne Feinstein. With Arnold's term expiring in 2010, there continues to be rumors of what he will do next- I posit that if Feinstein decides to run for Governor, Sen. Boxer, who's term expires at the end of 2010 will decide to not run, and let the Mayors battle it out for the nomination, and Arnold will run for her seat on the Republican side. I will say that I'm very enthusiastic about the potential nominees for the Republican nominee for governor- currently, former Rep. Tom Campbell (who was my Rep. growing up in San Jose and almost went to work for in D.C.) has announced, and I expect Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Ebay executive Meg Whitman to all run. We shall see.
The stock market posted its biggest plunge following a presidential election as reports on jobs and service industries stoked concern the economy will worsen even as President-elect Barack Obama tries to stimulate growth.
As this place has noted previously, FDR's economic policies made the country worse, and any attempts by Obama and the Congress do emulate those same policies must be opposed, especially any growth in aggressive unionization (card check). If Wall Street supposedly had already internalized an Obama victory, this shows a rather shocking doubt about the state of the economy and Obama's plan- another stimulus package with government mucking around in the economy is the last thing we need.
As if a 5+% loss in one day wasn't expected, Iraq says they are confident Obama won't pull out troops too quickly, with a current strategy shooting for 2011. I can only help but wonder if this is one of the many, many things Obama must have been referring to in his election night speech about how some things may take some time, and may not be done by the end of his first term. Of course, this had made some news before the election in an article in the NY Post, of course, Obama supporters attacked the author. Not surprisingly, the media continued to peddle the Obama narrative on Iraq, and not one day later, Iraq comes out and says 2011. Obviously, I can only wonder what else has the press covered up until the election.
Finally, various Asian countries voice their concerns over Obama's potential trade policies, especially towards the East. "He appears to be a protectionist," said Chea Mony, president of the Free Trade Union of Workers in Cambodia, which has an export-driven textile industry." Further, "[i]n an Oct. 24 letter to the U.S. National Council of Textile Organizations, Obama pledged "strong enforcement" of trade remedy laws, which can include added tariffs on imports that are deemed to hurt American businesses. Obama said he would include labor and environmental standards in free trade agreements — a measure that many in Asia view as a possible pretext to shield U.S. companies from foreign competition."
Obama has a huge task ahead of him. . .based on his history, I have great concerns about where he will govern, coupled with little belief that he'll be able to stand up to Congress.
Anyway. . .I may write something more about California and the City proposition; but, two quick things. 1) I opposed the passage of Prop 2, but it passed with flying colors- I simply have no explanation for it, especially in light of the failure of Prop 8. Apparently people hold a higher opinion of chickens, pigs and baby cows than of their fellow citizens- I'd be willing to entertain any other opinions. 2) Mayor Newsom and the San Francisco Chronicle have nearly zero effect on voting in this city, at least when it comes to Board candidates- any board for that matter, be Board of Supervisors, Board of Education or City College Board. I suppose it's amusing to think that in San Francisco, Newsom is considered an unacceptable moderate in some circles, yet once you leave the Bay Area, he's a raging bleeding heart. I'm not looking forward to the next Mayoral campaign.
Finally, today starts the battle for 2010. I'm quickly going to note that the three-way race for the Democratic nominee for Governor- S.F. Mayor Newsom, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and California Attorney General Jerry Brown could be in for some company in the form of Senator Dianne Feinstein. With Arnold's term expiring in 2010, there continues to be rumors of what he will do next- I posit that if Feinstein decides to run for Governor, Sen. Boxer, who's term expires at the end of 2010 will decide to not run, and let the Mayors battle it out for the nomination, and Arnold will run for her seat on the Republican side. I will say that I'm very enthusiastic about the potential nominees for the Republican nominee for governor- currently, former Rep. Tom Campbell (who was my Rep. growing up in San Jose and almost went to work for in D.C.) has announced, and I expect Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former Ebay executive Meg Whitman to all run. We shall see.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Congratulations
The sheeple have spoken and they have chosen wrongly. The piper will come for his payment, and it will not be good for the this country. Universal health care=bad idea; tax increases=bad idea; protectionist policies=bad idea; union card check=bad idea; fairness doctrine=bad idea. Once again, I am simply dumbfounded how anyone in their right mind on these issues could possibly vote for Obama and his empty rhetoric. Empty campaign promises, poorly explained policies and a simple ignorance of practical economics is not a view of America that I want to see; the people of this country have made a terrible choice, a choice that they will regret come this next year after Pelosi and Harry Reid, two of the worst Congressional leaders in some time, push extremely liberal positions upon the people of this country. Barack Obama will be a weak and ineffective leader and will be unable to stop Congress; he is Jimmy Carter re-incarnated.
Yes I'm bitter; I'm bitter that people of this country are willing to elect a person of such inexperience and someone who is extremely unqualified to lead us. I'm bitter that this country has such a short memory that 20+ years of unqualified success in free trade and free markets will let that be shot by a charlatan.
So, congratulations USA. . .you have made a decision to go backwards.
Yes I'm bitter; I'm bitter that people of this country are willing to elect a person of such inexperience and someone who is extremely unqualified to lead us. I'm bitter that this country has such a short memory that 20+ years of unqualified success in free trade and free markets will let that be shot by a charlatan.
So, congratulations USA. . .you have made a decision to go backwards.
Tuesday Morn
Last night, wife and I went over the ballot and made our cheat sheet. Yes, I know, I've failed again as I failed to fully complete my voter guide. . .sorry, but when there's 30+ propositions to go over and summarize, it's a little difficult.
Anyway, so, this morning we head down to our local polling place which is in a Starbucks. There's a line that stretches about halfway down the street- I attribute this to a combination of increased voter turnout and the aforementioned 30+ ballot propositions we have to go through, which takes time. As we approach, it becomes clear to me that that is no pretense of a secret ballot. The polling officials only set up 8 "private" booths, but there are far too many people for those 8 booths, so people just set up shop at the various tables scattered throughout the Starbucks, two people to a table, whether or not they know the person. Wife and I end up doing our ballot on a ledge in front of the holiday ground coffee bags for sale, and she asks me questions about the ballot because she couldn't remember what we agreed on. I motor through the ballot- all 30+ propositions, 4 school board positions, 4 city college positions, president, U.S. Rep, State Assembly, Board of Supervisors, City Judge and BART. As I put my ballot through the scanner, the woman says, "Don't forget, free coffee today at Starbucks!" Great, I hate coffee. As we walk out, there are a few people doing their ballots on tables outside, in front of everyone waiting in line. And no one apparently minds.
About the free coffee. Apparently, giving free stuff to people who voted isn't necessarily legal. Businesses from Starbucks, to Ben and Jerrys, Krispy Kreme and even possibly Chick fil A all were planning on giving free stuff to people who voted. . .unfortunately, giving a reward to only people who voted is illegal. So, instead, anyone who asks for a free cup of coffee, or scoop of ice cream or a doughnut will get it; no need to prove you actually did anything. I find this final line from the WAPO ad amusingly prescient as we presumably move into an Obama administration: "So today's lesson is: Vote or don't vote -- either way you get free food." Wow, an excellent summary of exactly what Obama is promising.
Anyway, so, this morning we head down to our local polling place which is in a Starbucks. There's a line that stretches about halfway down the street- I attribute this to a combination of increased voter turnout and the aforementioned 30+ ballot propositions we have to go through, which takes time. As we approach, it becomes clear to me that that is no pretense of a secret ballot. The polling officials only set up 8 "private" booths, but there are far too many people for those 8 booths, so people just set up shop at the various tables scattered throughout the Starbucks, two people to a table, whether or not they know the person. Wife and I end up doing our ballot on a ledge in front of the holiday ground coffee bags for sale, and she asks me questions about the ballot because she couldn't remember what we agreed on. I motor through the ballot- all 30+ propositions, 4 school board positions, 4 city college positions, president, U.S. Rep, State Assembly, Board of Supervisors, City Judge and BART. As I put my ballot through the scanner, the woman says, "Don't forget, free coffee today at Starbucks!" Great, I hate coffee. As we walk out, there are a few people doing their ballots on tables outside, in front of everyone waiting in line. And no one apparently minds.
About the free coffee. Apparently, giving free stuff to people who voted isn't necessarily legal. Businesses from Starbucks, to Ben and Jerrys, Krispy Kreme and even possibly Chick fil A all were planning on giving free stuff to people who voted. . .unfortunately, giving a reward to only people who voted is illegal. So, instead, anyone who asks for a free cup of coffee, or scoop of ice cream or a doughnut will get it; no need to prove you actually did anything. I find this final line from the WAPO ad amusingly prescient as we presumably move into an Obama administration: "So today's lesson is: Vote or don't vote -- either way you get free food." Wow, an excellent summary of exactly what Obama is promising.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Local races
Putting these up the day before the election probably won't mean very much, but at least I put them up- maybe someone out there will find them beneficial.
First up, S.F. School Board.
The school board has been very contentious over these past few years, mainly because it has been led by the progressives who show that they are anything but. And I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm basically doing a one-issue slate this time. The issues? JROTC. Those opposed to JROTC, which has been led by the progressive majority, have been extremely vocal both in their opposition to it (for very non-JROTC reasons) and have been very vocal in trying to stifle debate on this issue. I'll get more into JROTC when I get around to Proposition V. Let it be said, though, the list below are people who support JROTC in high schools; who support free and open debate; and show they are willing to listen to other people. So, please vote for:
Rachel Norton
Emily Murase
Marigrace Cohen
Jill Wynns
I have not included Norman Yee, because he supported the petition to removed JROTC from the PE requirement. Despite his general position supporting JROTC, I feel that he has not shown leadership on this issue, instead, just following the tide, whichever way it may be. So, if you think my one-issue list is wrong, feel free to read the Chronicle's endorsements, where we disagree on Norman Yee and Marigrace Cohen.
Next up is the Community College Board. I'll admit to having little understanding of what this board does, or even having a real opinion on who should make up the board. However, I do know who I do not support, even though almost all of those up for election are Democrats that I would ordinarily not support, so it was a struggle to find four. So, after a period of whittling down names, here are the four I would suggest:
Steve Ngo
Mary Hernandez
For the final two, I can find no reason to not vote for current board members Natalie Berg and Milton Marks.
For District 5 Board of Supervisors, I'm left with the great distinction of choosing between three candidates, none of whom are likely to give a whit about the Inner Sunset portion of their district. First up, I do not support current Supe Ross Mirkarimi. He does not represent what I believe in, and he supports Proposition H, which deals with a potential city takeover of PG&E. I promise to get a Prop. H post up sometime soon. He is aligned with the Progressives in this city, although he is registered as a Green. And I have no faith in him holding the interests of the Inner Sunset in his mind. The second candidate is Owen O'Donnell, who is a Democrat. I do not agree with him either, most notably on the various social enginnering programs he supports all gussied up under the environment banner. Finally, there's Rob Anderson. On his website, he notes that he's trying to get at the left by moving further to the left of San Francisco progressives. What I find most alarming, at least to me, is how much I agree with him on a number of issues, homelessness and the various bicycle gangs, such as Critical Mass (who is a big supporter of Mirkarimi), that try to run this city. As he notes,
Nevertheless, it appears quite clear that the Inner Sunset is an area in District 5 that continues to get the short end of the stick. Inner Sunset is far less "progressive" than nearly all of the rest of District 5, which includes the Haight and the Western Addition. Which leaves me with a decision as to which candidate for District 5 would result in the least amount of problems for the Inner Sunset. I'm also comfortable in the knowledge that what I say probably won't change the fact that Mirkarimi will likely win re-election. So, I'm gonna vote for Rob Anderson, if for no other reason than it will make Board of Supervisors meetings far more interesting for
Melissa.
For the supervisor districts that border the Inner Sunset, re-elect both Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.
Quick fire-
BART Director: I see no reason to not re-elect Tom Radulovich.
District 12 State Assembly: What to do with Fiona Ma. She single-handedly thwarted a very good bill in the legislature on an issue of great importance to me because of her relationship with a certain lobbyist. And she co-authored an editorial supporting Proposition H. So, you would think that that would lead me to cast my lot with the Republican running against her. Again, my vote isn't going to really matter in this district. Nevertheless, while I have substantial concerns about Fiona's stances on energy, she is in the Assembly leadership, and she does appear to be doing a decent job on behalf of those of us living in the her district. She has tackled recycling scavengers, who are stealing money from the garbage companies, and has sought to make Highway 1 much safer. While I disagree with her on energy policy, I see no reason to not re-elect her.
District 12 U.S. Representative: Unlike for the State Assembly, I as of yet do not have a solid opinion on Rep. Jackie Speier. I will preface this by saying the Rep. Speier is a newcomer still getting used to how Washington works, and I am greatly enthused that she is working with Rep. Jeff Flake on how to combat earmarks. Yet, at the same, she introduced a bill to re-establish a federal speed limit. Her opponent, Greg Conlon, has been around a long time, and, like most Bay Area Republicans, appear to be simply taking one for the team. I have no doubt that either one of them would be an adequate representative for this district. And, like in the State Assembly, it doesn't really matter who I recommend, because Jackie Speier will likely be re-elected. I suppose it does concern me that Jackie has been in office since April, but only has 2 pieces of legislation to show for herself, one being the Federal speed limit, the other being a post office naming for her old boss Leo Ryan, who was gunned down at Jonestown (and where a much younger Jackie Speier lay bleeding on the tarmac for several hours until help finally arrived). I will be interested to see how she performs with a full 2 year term.
San Francisco Superior Court: This one is easy. As I wrote earlier this year, current Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval has no business being elected to the S.F. Superior Court. Simply put, the position of judge is not to further certain social policies, create new law, or to use it as simply another city job; rather, the role of a judge is to interpret and enforce the law. I have zero faith that Gerardo Sandoval will be able to adequately or faithfully execute the law as written. Incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon may not be the nicest person on the planet, but he knows what it means to be a judge. Keep Judge Mellon.
First up, S.F. School Board.
The school board has been very contentious over these past few years, mainly because it has been led by the progressives who show that they are anything but. And I'm not ashamed to admit it, but I'm basically doing a one-issue slate this time. The issues? JROTC. Those opposed to JROTC, which has been led by the progressive majority, have been extremely vocal both in their opposition to it (for very non-JROTC reasons) and have been very vocal in trying to stifle debate on this issue. I'll get more into JROTC when I get around to Proposition V. Let it be said, though, the list below are people who support JROTC in high schools; who support free and open debate; and show they are willing to listen to other people. So, please vote for:
Rachel Norton
Emily Murase
Marigrace Cohen
Jill Wynns
I have not included Norman Yee, because he supported the petition to removed JROTC from the PE requirement. Despite his general position supporting JROTC, I feel that he has not shown leadership on this issue, instead, just following the tide, whichever way it may be. So, if you think my one-issue list is wrong, feel free to read the Chronicle's endorsements, where we disagree on Norman Yee and Marigrace Cohen.
Next up is the Community College Board. I'll admit to having little understanding of what this board does, or even having a real opinion on who should make up the board. However, I do know who I do not support, even though almost all of those up for election are Democrats that I would ordinarily not support, so it was a struggle to find four. So, after a period of whittling down names, here are the four I would suggest:
Steve Ngo
Mary Hernandez
For the final two, I can find no reason to not vote for current board members Natalie Berg and Milton Marks.
For District 5 Board of Supervisors, I'm left with the great distinction of choosing between three candidates, none of whom are likely to give a whit about the Inner Sunset portion of their district. First up, I do not support current Supe Ross Mirkarimi. He does not represent what I believe in, and he supports Proposition H, which deals with a potential city takeover of PG&E. I promise to get a Prop. H post up sometime soon. He is aligned with the Progressives in this city, although he is registered as a Green. And I have no faith in him holding the interests of the Inner Sunset in his mind. The second candidate is Owen O'Donnell, who is a Democrat. I do not agree with him either, most notably on the various social enginnering programs he supports all gussied up under the environment banner. Finally, there's Rob Anderson. On his website, he notes that he's trying to get at the left by moving further to the left of San Francisco progressives. What I find most alarming, at least to me, is how much I agree with him on a number of issues, homelessness and the various bicycle gangs, such as Critical Mass (who is a big supporter of Mirkarimi), that try to run this city. As he notes,
City progressives---that rather elastic term includes Greens and the left wing of the Democratic Party---live inside an ideological box that prevents their seeing homelessness and other issues clearly. Instead of seeing it as an ongoing emergency---with 100-200 homeless people a year dying on our streets---progressives acted as if the homeless were another oppressed minority, like blacks and gays, whose rights and lifestyle had to be defended. As a result, progressives ended up in effect defending a tragic status quo instead of launching serious political initiatives to address homelessness.
Nevertheless, it appears quite clear that the Inner Sunset is an area in District 5 that continues to get the short end of the stick. Inner Sunset is far less "progressive" than nearly all of the rest of District 5, which includes the Haight and the Western Addition. Which leaves me with a decision as to which candidate for District 5 would result in the least amount of problems for the Inner Sunset. I'm also comfortable in the knowledge that what I say probably won't change the fact that Mirkarimi will likely win re-election. So, I'm gonna vote for Rob Anderson, if for no other reason than it will make Board of Supervisors meetings far more interesting for
Melissa.
For the supervisor districts that border the Inner Sunset, re-elect both Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu.
Quick fire-
BART Director: I see no reason to not re-elect Tom Radulovich.
District 12 State Assembly: What to do with Fiona Ma. She single-handedly thwarted a very good bill in the legislature on an issue of great importance to me because of her relationship with a certain lobbyist. And she co-authored an editorial supporting Proposition H. So, you would think that that would lead me to cast my lot with the Republican running against her. Again, my vote isn't going to really matter in this district. Nevertheless, while I have substantial concerns about Fiona's stances on energy, she is in the Assembly leadership, and she does appear to be doing a decent job on behalf of those of us living in the her district. She has tackled recycling scavengers, who are stealing money from the garbage companies, and has sought to make Highway 1 much safer. While I disagree with her on energy policy, I see no reason to not re-elect her.
District 12 U.S. Representative: Unlike for the State Assembly, I as of yet do not have a solid opinion on Rep. Jackie Speier. I will preface this by saying the Rep. Speier is a newcomer still getting used to how Washington works, and I am greatly enthused that she is working with Rep. Jeff Flake on how to combat earmarks. Yet, at the same, she introduced a bill to re-establish a federal speed limit. Her opponent, Greg Conlon, has been around a long time, and, like most Bay Area Republicans, appear to be simply taking one for the team. I have no doubt that either one of them would be an adequate representative for this district. And, like in the State Assembly, it doesn't really matter who I recommend, because Jackie Speier will likely be re-elected. I suppose it does concern me that Jackie has been in office since April, but only has 2 pieces of legislation to show for herself, one being the Federal speed limit, the other being a post office naming for her old boss Leo Ryan, who was gunned down at Jonestown (and where a much younger Jackie Speier lay bleeding on the tarmac for several hours until help finally arrived). I will be interested to see how she performs with a full 2 year term.
San Francisco Superior Court: This one is easy. As I wrote earlier this year, current Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval has no business being elected to the S.F. Superior Court. Simply put, the position of judge is not to further certain social policies, create new law, or to use it as simply another city job; rather, the role of a judge is to interpret and enforce the law. I have zero faith that Gerardo Sandoval will be able to adequately or faithfully execute the law as written. Incumbent Judge Thomas Mellon may not be the nicest person on the planet, but he knows what it means to be a judge. Keep Judge Mellon.
More econ.
From the WSJ, letters to the editor:
As I raised in my Vote for John McCain posting, over 20 years of economic growth, study, and experience is on the verge of being wiped-out with an Obama election. Reinstituting FDR's policies of massive government spending, raising taxes and raising trade barriers has been shown to be colossal failures, yet Obama has campaigned on a message of recreating the worst aspects of the New Deal. Taxing the rich, raising trade barriers and increasing government hand-outs does nothing to drive people to create, to produce or to flourish; rather, it encourages people to cut-back, relax and open their government check every week.
As for Obama's promise to "spread the wealth" via government handouts and social programs, it is useful to look back at one president who understood the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution: President Grover Cleveland. In 1887, President Cleveland wrote the following in a statement vetoing $100,000 that would purchase seed for farmers in Texas suffering through a drought-
Once upon a time, receiving a government hand-out was something one did not admit for it showed a failure upon the individual; now, though, receiving a government hand-out is no longer frowned upon, rather, it's expected. This year simply magnifies that fact. Free markets are characterized by ups and downs, the one means by which the Federal government can and should regulate those ups and downs is through monetary policy, i.e., interest rates and injecting capital. However, when government intervenes outside of monetary policy, havoc can be created; of which the source of our most recent economic troubles is but one example. Other examples are such things as increasing taxes and implementing protectionist foreign trade policies, especially in times of economic difficulties, which are two things being proposed by Obama.
I plan only one more post about the current presidential election, which I do hope to get out sometime today, unless something very noteworthy pops across my screen.
I think the answer to Alan Reynolds's excellent question and article ("How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?," op-ed, Oct. 24) is that Barack Obama is not going to raise $4.3 trillion, and he is not going to perform on his rhetoric. He excels as a rhetorician -- common to both the great and the least of past presidents -- but performance cannot run on that fuel. Inevitably, I think his luster will fade even with his most ardent supporters as that reality sets in. We also have seen luster fade time after time with Republican presidents. The rhetoric of a smaller and less invasive government always leads to king-size performance disappointments. This weakness is as central to the reality of our political economy as are its strengths. With all its foibles, its strengths become transparent when you compare it, not with our various idealizations, but with the litter of human experiments in political economy that have delivered far more suffering and murder than human betterment to the citizens of those economies.
Of course it is entirely likely that Mr. Obama will succeed in going for higher business, capital gains and income taxes, but it is an economic illusion to think for a minute that this will benefit the poor. All our wars on poverty have been lost by failing to help the poor help themselves. Higher business taxes, which ultimately can only be paid by individuals anyway, will simply export more economic activity to the world economy. Higher capital gains and income taxes will primarily reduce savings and investment at the expense of greater future productivity, which is at the heart of cross-generational reductions in poverty. A dozen countries, including the third largest economy, already have zero taxes on capital gains, and eight of them score high on the Economic Freedom Index and high in gross domestic product per capita.
As I raised in my Vote for John McCain posting, over 20 years of economic growth, study, and experience is on the verge of being wiped-out with an Obama election. Reinstituting FDR's policies of massive government spending, raising taxes and raising trade barriers has been shown to be colossal failures, yet Obama has campaigned on a message of recreating the worst aspects of the New Deal. Taxing the rich, raising trade barriers and increasing government hand-outs does nothing to drive people to create, to produce or to flourish; rather, it encourages people to cut-back, relax and open their government check every week.
As for Obama's promise to "spread the wealth" via government handouts and social programs, it is useful to look back at one president who understood the limits imposed upon the Federal government by the Constitution: President Grover Cleveland. In 1887, President Cleveland wrote the following in a statement vetoing $100,000 that would purchase seed for farmers in Texas suffering through a drought-
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.
The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.
Once upon a time, receiving a government hand-out was something one did not admit for it showed a failure upon the individual; now, though, receiving a government hand-out is no longer frowned upon, rather, it's expected. This year simply magnifies that fact. Free markets are characterized by ups and downs, the one means by which the Federal government can and should regulate those ups and downs is through monetary policy, i.e., interest rates and injecting capital. However, when government intervenes outside of monetary policy, havoc can be created; of which the source of our most recent economic troubles is but one example. Other examples are such things as increasing taxes and implementing protectionist foreign trade policies, especially in times of economic difficulties, which are two things being proposed by Obama.
I plan only one more post about the current presidential election, which I do hope to get out sometime today, unless something very noteworthy pops across my screen.
Friday, October 31, 2008
San Francisco propositions
To give you an idea of the ridiculousness of the initiative process in this city, the voters guide is 272 pages for 22 propositions, of which the legal text takes up 40 of those pages; the Controllers Statement, pros and cons and Digest take up 160 or so pages.
Proposition A
Proposition A would issue $887.4 million in bonds that will be used to rebuild or retrofit San Francisco General Hospital in order to improve the hospital's earthquake safety. Construction is set to begin in 2010 and be completed by 2015. State law requires hospitals to be able to withstand large earthquakes through retrofitting or rebuilding by 2013, or risk being shut-down. This proposition would also allow landlords to pass 50% of the resulting property tax increase to tenants. In this instance, the City is deciding to rebuild the General- treatment would continue through the construction.
Again, I have various concerns about increasing government debt, and will oppose such imprudent government spending. However, rebuilding a hospital to meet state law to meet earthquake safety standards in a completely different thing. I am in no position to doubt the veracity or completeness of whatever the design study for the new hospital. This bond measure certainly appears to be worthwhile.
Vote yes on Proposition A.
Proposition B
Proposition B will amend the city charter requiring a new specific funding set aside for a new affordable housing fund. This set aside would guarantee a revenue stream from the city's general fund, so new revenue sources would have to be found to replace the lost funding. The Affordable Housing Fund would be used to purchase, build, rehabilitate or maintain housing for households that earn not more than 80% of the median income of Ess Eff; support programs to help first-time buyers; provide rent subsidies and other services to tenants; and help with urgent repairs of public housing properties owned by the Ess Eff Housing Authority. Money can also be used for housing with dependents, seniors, people with disabilities, people who are HIV positive, and people who were recently homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. There are other specific requirements for spending funds from this fund. This fund is set to expire in 2024. In the first year, the program will take away $36 million out of the 2008-2009 budget, afterwards, it will cost $88 million a year, for a total of nearly $3 billion over the length of the program.
This proposition is simply put a 15 year earmark that takes money out of the city's general fund without replacing the lost funds. This is an attempt by Chris Daly to hijack the city's spending priorities and funnel money to groups aligned with him. Despite claims to the alternative, this fund will not help middle class families stay in San Francisco. Not to mention that losing this money will take away money that would be better used at, say, fixing roads, maintaining police and fire departments, helping out MUNI, maintaining parks or helping out schools. While the city infrastructure begins to fall apart, the city repeatedly is forced to make funding judgments on social policies. This measure will not help the people who live in this city.
Vote No on Prop. B.
Proposition C
This is a proposition that will prohibit city employees from serving on most City Charter created boards and commissions. Some commissions require the city employees are part of the commission, and some commissions require city officials as part of the board. This proposition would not apply citizen advisory committees, the Law Library Board of Trustees, the Arts Commission, the Asian Art Commission, the Fine Arts Museums Board of Trustees, the governing board of the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, the Retirement Board and the Health Service Board.
I honestly do not know what the purpose of this proposition is supposed to accomplish. The argument in favor say that this proposition will reduce conflicts and undue influence by city employees. This proposition seems needlessly excessive and unnecessary. The threat imagined by the Board of Supervisors that put this on the ballot seems to be really off the mark. My general feeling when dealing with city propositions is that if I have any doubts, vote no. I don't know what the real purpose or design is for this proposition and it seems really unnecessary. So, vote No on Prop. C.
Proposition D
This proposition will provide funds to develop Pier 70 based on new city hotel and payroll expense tax revenues from the development of Pier 70, provided that the Board of Supervisors approves a financial and land use plan for Pier 70. In other words, this would allow the Port of San Francisco and/or the city's General Fund to expend funds to pay for the development of new buildings and commercial buildings, and would allow the Port and/or the city to recover those expenditures through an increase in hotel and payroll expense taxes on property built and businesses operating in the Pier 70 waterfront development. This will allow for redevelopment of a historical area badly in need of redevelopment and repair, at little to no cost to citizens. This proposition is supported by the entire Board of Supervisors, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce and both the S.F. Republican Party and the S.F. Democratic Party.
This is a good deal for the residents of this city. Vote Yes on Prop. D.
Proposition E
This proposition will change the number of signatures required for petitions to recall city officials to match state law for a recall of an official. Currently, the number of signatures required for a petition to recall city officials is 10% of the registered voters in the supervisor's district. This proposition would change that to 20% of the supervisor's district. What is telling about the purpose of this proposition is the rebuttal by supporters of this proposition, there the supporters come out and say they want this to stop recall attempts "based on one or two policy disagreements." They claim this 10% level is "ripe for abuse"; in other words, they don't want to make it easy for residents to recall them. Over the past 2 years, 2 separate recall attempts have been tried against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and Board President Aaron Peskin, conveniently, both of them are termed out this year. Both attempts failed. There is nothing wrong with the current 10% requirement, and has not be abused. This is simply to make it harder for residents to move to recall their supervisor.
Vote No on E.
Proposition F
This proposition would declare that all city elections, except special elections, be held only in even-numbered years beginning after the 2011 elections. Currently, elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney and Treasurer in odd-numbered years for 4 year terms. If approved, those positions elected in either 2009, when City Attorney and Treasurer are up, or 2011, when Mayor, Sheriff and District Attorney are up, would serve 5 year terms; thereafter, terms would return to 4 years. Supporters argue that turn-out tends to be higher in even numbered years, especially in Presidential election years, additionally, holding elections every year increases voter fatigue. Opponents argue that by aligning local races with federal races will decrease attention paid to local races.
I will simply note that this is the largest voter guide since I've lived in San Francisco; I'm sure it's no coincidence that the size of this voter guide coincides with a Presidential election. As a voter do I want 20+ city wide ballot propositions every 2 years, or have them spread out over 2 or more elections. I say the latter. Also, it's important to note that the language still allows the city to call a special election whenever it wants. So, even though it attempts to say elections will only be held every 2 years, it's still possible, and likely, that we'll have elections at least every year or something.
Vote No on Proposition F.
Proposition G
This proposition would allow city employees who took unpaid parental leave before July 1, 2003 to purchase retirement system credit for those lost days. In 2003, city voters approved paid parental leave for city employees, up to 16 weeks paid leave. Employees would be eligible to buy back this lost credit if they returned to work with the City and stayed for at least 6 months. Employees would be able to buy back this credit in 2 month blocks, up to 4 months, for each period of unpaid leave. Employees must purchase this credit before they retire. All costs to purchase this credit will be borne by the employee and not the City.
This seems an entirely reasonable solution to working mothers and fathers who were city employees before 2003 and took unpaid parental leave. If the city employees subject to this proposition want to be able to buy back their service credit for those unpaid periods, they should be able to. This is a fair result to what turned out to be an inequitable situation.
Vote Yes of G.
I'm going to skip Prop. H, and save that for another post.
Proposition I
This proposition will create an Office of the Independent Ratepayer Advocate. Basically, this will be an independent office that will provide advice on behalf of ratepayers before the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The SF PUC sets rates to be paid by citizen residents on water and sewer services, as well as operating the Hetch Hetchy Dam, Hetchy Hetchy water canal, and any power created from Hetch Hetchy Dam. The SF PUC is essentially a municipal utility that is responsible for water and sewer service to San Francisco residents. The ratepayer advocate would provide advice, comments and make recommendations on PUC rates from the ratepayer perspective; review PUC revenues; hold public meetings on PUC rates; accept inquiries from PUC customers; provide explanations of PUC rates; and conduct customer outreach activities. The ratepayer advocate would be paid for by ratepayers, as such, the PUC would be allowed to raise rates to recover the costs of funding the Office of Ratepayer Advocate. The City Administrator would appoint or remove the Advocate. Currently, the PUC contracts for an independent analysis of the fairness of their rates and the soundness of their business plan and revenues.
I know this sounds like a good idea, having someone specifically designated to review PUC rates and revenues, but, really, isn't that the job of the Board of Supervisors? The PUC is a municipal agency, as such, it's rates are designed to cover its operating costs. Now, might the PUC decide to go off on some random policy road that ultimately end up costing ratepayers more; sure. But again, that's the job of the Board of Supervisors to deal with. If this city wants to make the PUC more accountable to the people, they would put the PUC board up for a vote. As it is, the PUC board is now subject to Board of Supervisor scrutiny. If the Board of Supervisors don't like what the PUC is doing, they can haul the PUC board into a meeting. At this point, pending revelations of wild PUC spending or unwise policy pronouncements (ok, changing water rate structures may not have been ideal, but they are trying to force conservation, a measure I doubt the Office of Ratepayer Advocate would oppose), I see no reason to support this increase in annual PUC expenditures. It will cost an estimated $125K a year to staff this office. Plus, it seems to me that the Board of Supervisors don't want to do their job of oversight of the PUC; hence, they delegate their responsibility to an unelected official, that serves that the pleasure of the City Administrator, which is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
So, I do not see this office as needed, nor do I see a need to increase PUC spending (and S.F. ratepayers rates). Therefore, vote No on I.
Proposition J
This proposition will create a Historic Preservation Commission that will consist of 7 members. The Historic Preservation Commission will replace the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. The differences between the two agencies are: 1) the Landmarks Board only provides recommendations to the Planning Commission and Planning Department, which can accept or reject the Landmarks Board's recommendation and 2) the Historic Preservation Commission would become a separate City agency, taking over the duties of the Landmarks Board, as well as certain duties from the Planning Commission and Planning Department. The Historic Planning Commission will have authority to make recommendations directly to the Board of Supervisors on designation of landmarks, historic buildings, historic districts and conservation districts; approve permits or certificates for demolition of or alteration to designated landmarks and historic buildings; and make recommendations about proposed ordinances and resolutions concerning historic preservation. Decisions from the Commission can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Despite all that, the Historic Planning Commission will not have its own staff, but will rely on budgets and staff from the Planning Department.
Ok, so what does all this mean? It means that this new commission is replacing an old commission and giving the new commission some additional authority over historical building issues. Generally, I don't mind historical preservation commissions or boards; I think they do a decent job at trying to keep the historical nature of a building or neighborhood intact. Coupled with the fact that there was already a board required to deal with this issue, I don't really see a major problem with approving this proposition. However, in San Francisco, these things are never so easy. With this new authority, the Commission could go out of its way to deny much needed new construction in areas that are deemed historical. Of course, the way this city works, any number of boards or commissions, or the Board of Supervisors themselves, can kill a worthwhile project- historical or not. Not that I want to be seen as advocating for more regulation, I do admit the need to have some oversight over historical buildings and structures. I recommend this proposition in the hopes that there is some common sense, and buildings aren't declared historical just because.
I recommend Yes on Prop. J.
Proposition K
This proposition would stop enforcing laws against prostitution and direct the City to stop funding anti-prostitution programs. It would keep laws relating to coercion, extortion, battery, rape, sexual assault and other violent crimes on the books and allow police to enforce those laws whether or not the victim is a "sex worker."
Without getting into the hysterics that supporters and opponents whip themselves into on this measure, I will admit there is at least some reasoning behind decriminalizing prostitution. That being said, a modicum of regulation normally steps in to ensure the safety of those workers so that the prostitutes themselves aren't here illegally or against their will, and that they are not engaging in other criminal activity. This proposition provides none of the safeguards that one would expect upon decriminalizing certain behavior. It is an open question as to whether or not human trafficking would be subject to the decriminalizing aspect of this proposition. This proposition is simply poorly constructed, poorly conceived, and poorly thought-out. It is possible to have a reasoned discussion on decriminalizing prostitution, but this measure it not the way to begin this debate.
Vote No on Proposition K.
Ok, that's all I have the patience to deal with for now. I'll get cracking on the remaining 10 propositions later on. I hope this makes sense; my head hurts. If I have any egregious errors, someone let me know.
Proposition A
Proposition A would issue $887.4 million in bonds that will be used to rebuild or retrofit San Francisco General Hospital in order to improve the hospital's earthquake safety. Construction is set to begin in 2010 and be completed by 2015. State law requires hospitals to be able to withstand large earthquakes through retrofitting or rebuilding by 2013, or risk being shut-down. This proposition would also allow landlords to pass 50% of the resulting property tax increase to tenants. In this instance, the City is deciding to rebuild the General- treatment would continue through the construction.
Again, I have various concerns about increasing government debt, and will oppose such imprudent government spending. However, rebuilding a hospital to meet state law to meet earthquake safety standards in a completely different thing. I am in no position to doubt the veracity or completeness of whatever the design study for the new hospital. This bond measure certainly appears to be worthwhile.
Vote yes on Proposition A.
Proposition B
Proposition B will amend the city charter requiring a new specific funding set aside for a new affordable housing fund. This set aside would guarantee a revenue stream from the city's general fund, so new revenue sources would have to be found to replace the lost funding. The Affordable Housing Fund would be used to purchase, build, rehabilitate or maintain housing for households that earn not more than 80% of the median income of Ess Eff; support programs to help first-time buyers; provide rent subsidies and other services to tenants; and help with urgent repairs of public housing properties owned by the Ess Eff Housing Authority. Money can also be used for housing with dependents, seniors, people with disabilities, people who are HIV positive, and people who were recently homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. There are other specific requirements for spending funds from this fund. This fund is set to expire in 2024. In the first year, the program will take away $36 million out of the 2008-2009 budget, afterwards, it will cost $88 million a year, for a total of nearly $3 billion over the length of the program.
This proposition is simply put a 15 year earmark that takes money out of the city's general fund without replacing the lost funds. This is an attempt by Chris Daly to hijack the city's spending priorities and funnel money to groups aligned with him. Despite claims to the alternative, this fund will not help middle class families stay in San Francisco. Not to mention that losing this money will take away money that would be better used at, say, fixing roads, maintaining police and fire departments, helping out MUNI, maintaining parks or helping out schools. While the city infrastructure begins to fall apart, the city repeatedly is forced to make funding judgments on social policies. This measure will not help the people who live in this city.
Vote No on Prop. B.
Proposition C
This is a proposition that will prohibit city employees from serving on most City Charter created boards and commissions. Some commissions require the city employees are part of the commission, and some commissions require city officials as part of the board. This proposition would not apply citizen advisory committees, the Law Library Board of Trustees, the Arts Commission, the Asian Art Commission, the Fine Arts Museums Board of Trustees, the governing board of the War Memorial and Performing Arts Center, the Retirement Board and the Health Service Board.
I honestly do not know what the purpose of this proposition is supposed to accomplish. The argument in favor say that this proposition will reduce conflicts and undue influence by city employees. This proposition seems needlessly excessive and unnecessary. The threat imagined by the Board of Supervisors that put this on the ballot seems to be really off the mark. My general feeling when dealing with city propositions is that if I have any doubts, vote no. I don't know what the real purpose or design is for this proposition and it seems really unnecessary. So, vote No on Prop. C.
Proposition D
This proposition will provide funds to develop Pier 70 based on new city hotel and payroll expense tax revenues from the development of Pier 70, provided that the Board of Supervisors approves a financial and land use plan for Pier 70. In other words, this would allow the Port of San Francisco and/or the city's General Fund to expend funds to pay for the development of new buildings and commercial buildings, and would allow the Port and/or the city to recover those expenditures through an increase in hotel and payroll expense taxes on property built and businesses operating in the Pier 70 waterfront development. This will allow for redevelopment of a historical area badly in need of redevelopment and repair, at little to no cost to citizens. This proposition is supported by the entire Board of Supervisors, the S.F. Chamber of Commerce and both the S.F. Republican Party and the S.F. Democratic Party.
This is a good deal for the residents of this city. Vote Yes on Prop. D.
Proposition E
This proposition will change the number of signatures required for petitions to recall city officials to match state law for a recall of an official. Currently, the number of signatures required for a petition to recall city officials is 10% of the registered voters in the supervisor's district. This proposition would change that to 20% of the supervisor's district. What is telling about the purpose of this proposition is the rebuttal by supporters of this proposition, there the supporters come out and say they want this to stop recall attempts "based on one or two policy disagreements." They claim this 10% level is "ripe for abuse"; in other words, they don't want to make it easy for residents to recall them. Over the past 2 years, 2 separate recall attempts have been tried against Supervisor Jake McGoldrick and Board President Aaron Peskin, conveniently, both of them are termed out this year. Both attempts failed. There is nothing wrong with the current 10% requirement, and has not be abused. This is simply to make it harder for residents to move to recall their supervisor.
Vote No on E.
Proposition F
This proposition would declare that all city elections, except special elections, be held only in even-numbered years beginning after the 2011 elections. Currently, elections for Mayor, Sheriff, District Attorney, City Attorney and Treasurer in odd-numbered years for 4 year terms. If approved, those positions elected in either 2009, when City Attorney and Treasurer are up, or 2011, when Mayor, Sheriff and District Attorney are up, would serve 5 year terms; thereafter, terms would return to 4 years. Supporters argue that turn-out tends to be higher in even numbered years, especially in Presidential election years, additionally, holding elections every year increases voter fatigue. Opponents argue that by aligning local races with federal races will decrease attention paid to local races.
I will simply note that this is the largest voter guide since I've lived in San Francisco; I'm sure it's no coincidence that the size of this voter guide coincides with a Presidential election. As a voter do I want 20+ city wide ballot propositions every 2 years, or have them spread out over 2 or more elections. I say the latter. Also, it's important to note that the language still allows the city to call a special election whenever it wants. So, even though it attempts to say elections will only be held every 2 years, it's still possible, and likely, that we'll have elections at least every year or something.
Vote No on Proposition F.
Proposition G
This proposition would allow city employees who took unpaid parental leave before July 1, 2003 to purchase retirement system credit for those lost days. In 2003, city voters approved paid parental leave for city employees, up to 16 weeks paid leave. Employees would be eligible to buy back this lost credit if they returned to work with the City and stayed for at least 6 months. Employees would be able to buy back this credit in 2 month blocks, up to 4 months, for each period of unpaid leave. Employees must purchase this credit before they retire. All costs to purchase this credit will be borne by the employee and not the City.
This seems an entirely reasonable solution to working mothers and fathers who were city employees before 2003 and took unpaid parental leave. If the city employees subject to this proposition want to be able to buy back their service credit for those unpaid periods, they should be able to. This is a fair result to what turned out to be an inequitable situation.
Vote Yes of G.
I'm going to skip Prop. H, and save that for another post.
Proposition I
This proposition will create an Office of the Independent Ratepayer Advocate. Basically, this will be an independent office that will provide advice on behalf of ratepayers before the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The SF PUC sets rates to be paid by citizen residents on water and sewer services, as well as operating the Hetch Hetchy Dam, Hetchy Hetchy water canal, and any power created from Hetch Hetchy Dam. The SF PUC is essentially a municipal utility that is responsible for water and sewer service to San Francisco residents. The ratepayer advocate would provide advice, comments and make recommendations on PUC rates from the ratepayer perspective; review PUC revenues; hold public meetings on PUC rates; accept inquiries from PUC customers; provide explanations of PUC rates; and conduct customer outreach activities. The ratepayer advocate would be paid for by ratepayers, as such, the PUC would be allowed to raise rates to recover the costs of funding the Office of Ratepayer Advocate. The City Administrator would appoint or remove the Advocate. Currently, the PUC contracts for an independent analysis of the fairness of their rates and the soundness of their business plan and revenues.
I know this sounds like a good idea, having someone specifically designated to review PUC rates and revenues, but, really, isn't that the job of the Board of Supervisors? The PUC is a municipal agency, as such, it's rates are designed to cover its operating costs. Now, might the PUC decide to go off on some random policy road that ultimately end up costing ratepayers more; sure. But again, that's the job of the Board of Supervisors to deal with. If this city wants to make the PUC more accountable to the people, they would put the PUC board up for a vote. As it is, the PUC board is now subject to Board of Supervisor scrutiny. If the Board of Supervisors don't like what the PUC is doing, they can haul the PUC board into a meeting. At this point, pending revelations of wild PUC spending or unwise policy pronouncements (ok, changing water rate structures may not have been ideal, but they are trying to force conservation, a measure I doubt the Office of Ratepayer Advocate would oppose), I see no reason to support this increase in annual PUC expenditures. It will cost an estimated $125K a year to staff this office. Plus, it seems to me that the Board of Supervisors don't want to do their job of oversight of the PUC; hence, they delegate their responsibility to an unelected official, that serves that the pleasure of the City Administrator, which is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
So, I do not see this office as needed, nor do I see a need to increase PUC spending (and S.F. ratepayers rates). Therefore, vote No on I.
Proposition J
This proposition will create a Historic Preservation Commission that will consist of 7 members. The Historic Preservation Commission will replace the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. The differences between the two agencies are: 1) the Landmarks Board only provides recommendations to the Planning Commission and Planning Department, which can accept or reject the Landmarks Board's recommendation and 2) the Historic Preservation Commission would become a separate City agency, taking over the duties of the Landmarks Board, as well as certain duties from the Planning Commission and Planning Department. The Historic Planning Commission will have authority to make recommendations directly to the Board of Supervisors on designation of landmarks, historic buildings, historic districts and conservation districts; approve permits or certificates for demolition of or alteration to designated landmarks and historic buildings; and make recommendations about proposed ordinances and resolutions concerning historic preservation. Decisions from the Commission can be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Despite all that, the Historic Planning Commission will not have its own staff, but will rely on budgets and staff from the Planning Department.
Ok, so what does all this mean? It means that this new commission is replacing an old commission and giving the new commission some additional authority over historical building issues. Generally, I don't mind historical preservation commissions or boards; I think they do a decent job at trying to keep the historical nature of a building or neighborhood intact. Coupled with the fact that there was already a board required to deal with this issue, I don't really see a major problem with approving this proposition. However, in San Francisco, these things are never so easy. With this new authority, the Commission could go out of its way to deny much needed new construction in areas that are deemed historical. Of course, the way this city works, any number of boards or commissions, or the Board of Supervisors themselves, can kill a worthwhile project- historical or not. Not that I want to be seen as advocating for more regulation, I do admit the need to have some oversight over historical buildings and structures. I recommend this proposition in the hopes that there is some common sense, and buildings aren't declared historical just because.
I recommend Yes on Prop. J.
Proposition K
This proposition would stop enforcing laws against prostitution and direct the City to stop funding anti-prostitution programs. It would keep laws relating to coercion, extortion, battery, rape, sexual assault and other violent crimes on the books and allow police to enforce those laws whether or not the victim is a "sex worker."
Without getting into the hysterics that supporters and opponents whip themselves into on this measure, I will admit there is at least some reasoning behind decriminalizing prostitution. That being said, a modicum of regulation normally steps in to ensure the safety of those workers so that the prostitutes themselves aren't here illegally or against their will, and that they are not engaging in other criminal activity. This proposition provides none of the safeguards that one would expect upon decriminalizing certain behavior. It is an open question as to whether or not human trafficking would be subject to the decriminalizing aspect of this proposition. This proposition is simply poorly constructed, poorly conceived, and poorly thought-out. It is possible to have a reasoned discussion on decriminalizing prostitution, but this measure it not the way to begin this debate.
Vote No on Proposition K.
Ok, that's all I have the patience to deal with for now. I'll get cracking on the remaining 10 propositions later on. I hope this makes sense; my head hurts. If I have any egregious errors, someone let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)