As of the end of May, I moved out of San Francisco to the warm environs of the East Bay. What does that really mean? Well, at night I get to see a lot more stars, it's a lot warmer during the day, I have a pool, and I don't have to move my car twice a week to avoid parking tickets. Course, I'm driving everyday anyway to get to BART, go to the store or to take my daughter to get ice cream. All of this is to say that I know get to get involved in the issues of surburbia; yeah for you.
It also means that I no longer have a vested interest in the politics of San Francisco....course, I still work in San Francisco, and now BART into work everyday (or drive, depending on the situation- btw, time of use pricing for the Bay Bridge??? I'm all for it!) so I'm not completely immune to it.
So, what's the purpose of all of this? I could say 42, and many people would get it, but that's just a joke. I do hope to have time to delve into specific issues that I find interesting and important, and hope that I bring a unique point of view to it.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Poor Gavin, he feels so left out.
Maureen Dowd has an interview with Ess Eff Mayor Gavin Newsom in her article today. Here is where the wistfulness comes in:
Even Gavin Newsom was insulted at being upstaged by a measly state senator from Illinois.
Like many pioneers who go first — from the “Ellen” sitcom to the Hillary drama — the mayor who staked his career on giving equal rights to gays may have to settle for paving the way. The lawyers get praised, but he got pilloried?
“Grand understatement,” he said dryly, noting that he still remembers press coverage from before the 2004 same-sex marriage eruption about shooting stars of the Democratic Party.
“There were five of us,” he said, with a teasing nostalgia. “A guy named Obama. I’m like ‘Why is he in here? This is ridiculous. I mean, he’s a state senator. I’m kind of insulted.’ Life was really good, and then it came crashing down. ‘You’re not going to be speaking at the convention. We overbooked.’ And then it becomes the house of cards with the Democrats excusing themselves from visits to this city and being in the same room with me.
Even Gavin Newsom was insulted at being upstaged by a measly state senator from Illinois.
Oh, I'm getting sucked back in. . .
You know, it was kind of enjoyable pushing down the temptation to wield my keyboard and spout off online knowing that no one reads this and that I could basically get my point across using less verbiage on Facebook and . But with the Scott Brown victory last night and something I read in today's Chronicle (course, leave it to the Chronicle to do that), I will probably start writing again with a little more frequency. Plus, the primaries are 5 months away, and I most definitely will not be able to control myself.
So, what from today's Chronicle caught my eye? This article on a bill introduced by my State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. In the article, it talks about a bill to regulate tattoo and piercing parlors, which are not subject to state jurisdiction, rather, are left to local authorities. I don't disagree that some amount of jurisdiction needs to be had over these operations, as the article notes there are significant concerns regarding the safety and cleanliness of these operations. Tattoo needles do pose health concerns if not disposed of properly. Ok, that's all fine, be it the state or the cities, just pick one and be consistent.
No, what got me was this: "She also wants to ban the tattooing of anyone under age 18 - regardless of whether a parent consents." The article fails to dig into this any deeper, rather, focusing solely on the safety aspects of the bill. What is the rationale for this? The illogical and inconsistent treatment of those under the age of 18 in this state boggles my mind- if you're under 18, you must have a parent to get a piercing, to get a tattoo (for now), or to even go see a movie. No, the State of California has decided that all of those are decisions that must be made in consultation with a parent; yet, when asked to have an adult be notified about whether or not to have an abortion, well, of course you can't do that, think of the safety of the minor. If Fiona Ma wants to protect people under the age of 18 from getting Hep B by banning them from getting a tattoo, why can't the same logic be applied to underage abortions? I simply do not get it.
Now, while I voted for those propositions for adult notification, my analyses of those propositions were predicated on a sense of consistency; how can the state have laws requiring parental involvement for things like the above, but be insistent that having a similar law in place would be bad when deciding on whether or not to have an abortion? I'm asking for consistency and some logical reasoning. I, of course, realize that I'm talking about Democrats in the legislature, so consistency and logical reasoning are noticeably absent the vast majority of the time.
Nevertheless, I'd hope that saner heads prevail on the topic of banning people under the age of 18 from getting a tattoo. If, as Fiona Ma seems to argue, the point is to make these places safer, then make them safer, but there's no reason to simply ban a portion of the population from getting a tattoo if their parents are fine with it.
So, what from today's Chronicle caught my eye? This article on a bill introduced by my State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma. In the article, it talks about a bill to regulate tattoo and piercing parlors, which are not subject to state jurisdiction, rather, are left to local authorities. I don't disagree that some amount of jurisdiction needs to be had over these operations, as the article notes there are significant concerns regarding the safety and cleanliness of these operations. Tattoo needles do pose health concerns if not disposed of properly. Ok, that's all fine, be it the state or the cities, just pick one and be consistent.
No, what got me was this: "She also wants to ban the tattooing of anyone under age 18 - regardless of whether a parent consents." The article fails to dig into this any deeper, rather, focusing solely on the safety aspects of the bill. What is the rationale for this? The illogical and inconsistent treatment of those under the age of 18 in this state boggles my mind- if you're under 18, you must have a parent to get a piercing, to get a tattoo (for now), or to even go see a movie. No, the State of California has decided that all of those are decisions that must be made in consultation with a parent; yet, when asked to have an adult be notified about whether or not to have an abortion, well, of course you can't do that, think of the safety of the minor. If Fiona Ma wants to protect people under the age of 18 from getting Hep B by banning them from getting a tattoo, why can't the same logic be applied to underage abortions? I simply do not get it.
Now, while I voted for those propositions for adult notification, my analyses of those propositions were predicated on a sense of consistency; how can the state have laws requiring parental involvement for things like the above, but be insistent that having a similar law in place would be bad when deciding on whether or not to have an abortion? I'm asking for consistency and some logical reasoning. I, of course, realize that I'm talking about Democrats in the legislature, so consistency and logical reasoning are noticeably absent the vast majority of the time.
Nevertheless, I'd hope that saner heads prevail on the topic of banning people under the age of 18 from getting a tattoo. If, as Fiona Ma seems to argue, the point is to make these places safer, then make them safer, but there's no reason to simply ban a portion of the population from getting a tattoo if their parents are fine with it.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Where's your editor?
From the San Francisco Examiner Parenting blog:
The best baby grinder.
Now, I know San Francisco isn't kid friendly, but I had no idea. But really, it's a story about making your own baby food, but I guess the title was just too good to change.
The best baby grinder.
Now, I know San Francisco isn't kid friendly, but I had no idea. But really, it's a story about making your own baby food, but I guess the title was just too good to change.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Long time gone
Was out on paternity leave. . .but, wanted to pose this question:
Perhaps this is the reason why Senator Kent Conrad is holding up health care?
Conrad, hoping to get re-elected, is trying to make good with his constituents, who likely oppose government-run health care. If he can water it down enough to make them happy, perhaps they won't vote him out when he's up again. Sen. Dodd, on the other hand, has no idea what you are talking about ("Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.").
Perhaps this is the reason why Senator Kent Conrad is holding up health care?
Despite their denials, influential Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad and Chris Dodd were told from the start they were getting VIP mortgage discounts from one of the nation's largest lenders, the official who handled their loans has told Congress in secret testimony.
Conrad, hoping to get re-elected, is trying to make good with his constituents, who likely oppose government-run health care. If he can water it down enough to make them happy, perhaps they won't vote him out when he's up again. Sen. Dodd, on the other hand, has no idea what you are talking about ("Dodd still maintains he got no preferential treatment.").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)