WORST. BACKDROP. EVER.

WARNING: This video is recent footage of an interview with Gov. Sarah Palin who seems oblivious to the fact that turkeys are being slaughtered directly behind her.

You will undoubtedly find this video hard and painful to watch.

You may also experience slight discomfort from seeing turkeys being slaughtered.

You Fiona Apple types may disagree, but I don't think those turkeys are being tortured as much as the sentences coming out of Governor Palin's mouth.

Credit: Gazuki

--Junichi

THE HEIGHT OF UNPOPULARITY

I vaguely remember a classmate from my childhood who often smelled like he defecated in his pants every morning.

As if that weren't reason enough for the rest of us to avoid him, he was once sent home from school for having lice in his hair ... for the third time in a month.

The guy in the video above reminds me of that kid, except that I don't feel sorry for him.

(With thanks to Adam Pheiffer)

--Junichi

THE FUNKY FRESH SENIOR CHOIR

There are at least three specific things from the above video that I can't get out of my head:

1. How the ladies especially enjoy singing the Pussycat Dolls' "Don't Cha"

2. How the choir director says, "Stop! Hammertime."

3. How Chamillionaire sounds no different from one elderly white man.

--Junichi

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

Best picture. Final answer.

Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle's surprising new film, is one of the best I've seen in a long time.

The movie focuses on an impoverished boy living in the slums of Mumbai who becomes a contestant on Who Wants to Be A Millionaire? and advances to the top-dollar question.

In short, it's the story of my life, except for the part about being an impoverished boy living in the slums of Mumbai and advancing to the top-dollar question.

While it's an unabashedly feel-good, romantic, Dickensian Hollywood fantasy, Slumdog beautifully and painfully captures the deep poverty of India in a way like no other.

The cinematography alone makes the film a must-see. Boyle collaborated with an Indian co-director, Loveleen Tandan, who, shamefully, doesn't get much billing. Tandan's knowledge of how to film India from an insider's perspective with Boyle's frenetic style make for a strong pairing. With M.I.A., bhangra beats, and a booming tabla lacing the soundtrack, the movie is an audio-visual feast.

Stay for the closing credits.

The trailer:

Thanks, Zahir, for the recommendation!

--Junichi

PROP 8 BACKLASH...BACKLASH

a smarter campaign
Updated 11/12 - See below.

Apart from Obama's win, the other election story that's been getting heavy play has been dissecting Prop 8, and in particular, the Black vote. Obviously, that was part of the convo with Poplicks' earlier post but there's some new information - and arguments - worth considering.

1) That 70% number being bandied around should have been taken with a greater grain of salt (not the least of all by me). That's what CNN reported but a local, Los Angeles exit poll suggests a far more balanced vote: "another poll by the Center for the Study of L.A. found in Los Angeles, just over half of blacks supported Prop 8." That would put the Black vote closer to the overall result (52/48). At the very least, it suggests that no single demographic was the tipping point.

2) Also, 538.com points out that even if CNN's polls contain some truth, they also show that among first-time voters, Prop 8 would have gone to defeat. This goes directly to the argument that "all those Obama voters got Prop 8 passed". That idea plays well as a media soundbite but it doesn't necessarily hold up to scrutiny.

3) Speaking of scrutiny, if you can get through the 10,000 words written here, there's an even more thorough numerical debunking on DailyKos. I'll just skip to the conclusion: "Proposition 8 would have still passed by 81,565 votes, if Black voters had done no more than reflect the rest of the state's will on the matter." I didn't realize this was actually in contention - the math isn't that complicated to figure out that Black votes - alone - could not have made the key difference in the election. Whites and Latinos had far more numerical clout.

4) What's interesting is how the perception around the electoral math - right or wrong - has taken a life of its own since those who presume it's true proceed with arguments that seek to explain that 70% figure. Case in point, Jasyme Cannick wrote an op-ed piece for the LA Times that explains why she thinks the proposition did poorly amongst African Americans:

"The white gay community never successfully communicated to blacks why it should matter to us above everything else -- not just to me as a lesbian but to blacks generally. The way I see it, the white gay community is banging its head against the glass ceiling of a room called equality, believing that a breakthrough on marriage will bestow on it parity with heterosexuals. But the right to marry does nothing to address the problems faced by both black gays and black straights. Does someone who is homeless or suffering from HIV but has no healthcare, or newly out of prison and unemployed, really benefit from the right to marry someone of the same sex?

Some people seem to think that homophobia trumps racism, and that winning the battle for gay marriage will symbolically bring about equality for everyone. That may seem true to white gays, but as a black lesbian, let me tell you: There are still too many inequalities that exist as it relates to my race for that to ever be the case. Ever heard of "driving while black"? Ever looked at the difference between the dropout rates for blacks and for whites? Or test scores? Or wages? Or rates of incarceration?

And in the end, black voters in California voted against gay marriage by more than 2 to 1."

I think Cannick makes some excellent points here, not the least of which was the weaknesses of the No on 8 campaign, especially around outreach. In an interview on NPR she did, she pointed out that when she was registering African Americans to vote in neighborhoods like Watts' Jordan Projects, it became apparent to her that the Yes on 8 campaign had found a way to get the word out there but not the No on 8 campaign.

If true, this raises at least two questions: did No on 8 not know how reach this community? Or maybe they just didn't think it would matter and so they didn't try.

This said, there was one thing nagging me in Cannick's argument: she makes a good case for why the campaign failed on outreach but that doesn't address why there'd be so much opposition to gay marriage within the Black community (again, assuming CNN's numbers were vaguely accurate, which they may not be).

What I'm saying is that there's a big difference between a proposition legalizing gay marriage vs. a proposition which rescinds legalization. Polls have consistently showed that while many people are not in favor of legalizing gay marriage an even larger number of people are against the idea of amending the constitution to enforce that. To put it another way, it's one thing to give a right; it's another thing to take it away and Prop 8 was asking people to remove a right.

Indifference alone wouldn't get the latter passed. If you don't care about gay marriage one way or another, why vote for rescinding it? In this case, a "yes" vote meant you were actively deciding, "I don't want gay people to have this right" and Cannick's argument, well-stated as it is elsewhere, doesn't really address this point. The only exception is when she writes:

"black civil rights movement was essentially born out of and driven by the black church; social justice and religion are inextricably intertwined in the black community. To many blacks, civil rights are grounded in Christianity -- not something separate and apart from religion but synonymous with it. To the extent that the issue of gay marriage seemed to be pitted against the church, it was going to be a losing battle in my community."

Somewhere, Ronnie is smiling, about to say, "see, told you!"

Cannick actually elaborates more on this point in that NPR interview, the gist of which is that gay marriage proponents really need to strategize a way to win over people that has to include the recognition of how the church plays a role in the Black community. As I suggested in my original post, the church network turned out to be tremendously effective for the Yes on 8 campaign and Cannick's advice here would align well with the idea that any future organizing will either have to persuade (or on the other hand, stymie) the degree that religious networks become involved.

5) Last thing, but check out this county breakdown comparing Prop 22 (2000) with Prop 8. It's basically a tale of two regions - CA coastal cities were the main swing force - the Bay Area went over more pro-gay marriage while Los Angeles went less anti-gay marriage. However, what was consistent was opposition to gay marriage everywhere else in the state. BUT, even then, support for gay marriage - at worst - was static but otherwise gained elsewhere. That, to me, is a positive sign for the future.

---

11/12 Update: Mark Anthony Neal addresses many of these same issues and, I think, nails some important ideas to move forward with:

"black views on same sex-marriage are more complicated; simply reading black voters as inherently homophobic misses the complexity of an issue that, in black communities, is often tied to the absence of black men as husbands and fathers. Understood in that context, same-sex marriage goes against the belief of many within black communities that black survival is hopelessly tied to traditional marriage patterns. That said, the Black Clergy needs to be accountable for hateful rhetoric directed towards gays, lesbians and transgendered citizens (including a good many in their congregations) and for willful fear-mongering."

"For black communities we need to get past our romantic ties to the traditional nuclear family and the thought that we can only raise productive children if both a man and women are present in a household... Obama himself is evidence of models that don’t privilege the presence of father-figure per se, but rather the presence of many adults engaged in the lives of our children. Quite frankly, black children raised in a gay or lesbian household with engaged adult figures are likely better off than those raised in single-parent households or in heterosexual households where neither parent is up to the challenge of parenting. The point here is that we need to be more sophisticated about how family structures function."

"White progressives who sought to defeat Proposition 8 would do well to be a little more self-critical of the privilege that undergirds some of their politics. Debates about same-sex marriage, however important they are, are debates that only a privileged few can really be engaged in. The struggle for them is to better align these debates with the material realities of the working poor and the working class, communities for which the time to protest anything is at a premium...It is incumbent upon white progressives to get better at finding common ground with black communities, beyond the dated liberal agenda that brought us together in the first place."

As always, Mark is the M.A.N.

--O.W.

WHAT HASN'T CHANGED IN AMERICA

a staircase built for one
Now that the glow of last week's election has ever-so faded, it's worth taking stock of exactly "what this all means." Let's first start by noting that, previous to the election, one major concern amongst progressives was that more liberal humanist types - to say nothing of the hyperbole-addicted punditry - would perhaps mistakenly construe Obama's then-possible election as a repudiation of America's shameful legacy of race.

As if on cue, the day after the election brought an avalanche of superlatives and overbaked rhetoric that made it sound as if, with a single election, America had managed to overcome the racial divisions of the last 400 years. I was especially aghast at the ways in which the election was portrayed as the validation of the Civil Rights Movement...as if the elevation of a single Black leader was what getting rid of Jim Crow was about.

I trust that at least some amongst you were skeptical of this logic from the start but it was surreal, laughable and tragic that the very next day, some genius at CNN (possibly the same one who thought holograms were a good idea) put up a viewer poll about, "Do we still need affirmative action?"

Wait...what?

Last I checked, affirmative action wasn't about trying to get a Black person elected President. It was meant to address centuries of systemic, institutionalized racial inequality. Obama's election is not proof that such institutionalized racism has been eliminated. One person rising above limitations doesn't suggest the absence of limitations. Only a complete fool would assume that Obama's victory represents something truly, paradigm-shifting about American racial inequality.

Consider two things:

1) Obama lost the white vote. Yeah - newsflash to everyone: Obama lost the white vote. Timothy Noah breaks down the numbers in today's Slate: White voters, nationally, went 43% for Obama compared to McCain's 55%. That's 50% higher than Obama's overall national lead over McCain.

Let's put it another way - if the election were in the hands of White America, McCain/Palin would planning their transition team right now, not Obama. Sober up on that for a moment, especially those liberal whites who've been patting themselves on the back.

It is true that Obama did do well amongst white voters compared to previous Democratic candidates; in the last 40 years, only Jimmy Carter did better but even he couldn't get over 50%. This raises Noah's other point: no white majority has voted for a Democratic president since Johnson in '64 (and his election was largely a product of JFK's assassination the year prior). Consistently and overwhelmingly, Democratic candidates cannot depend on majority white support and the conventional wisdom suggests this is at least due in part to the bitterness of Southern Dixiecrats forced by a Democratic administration (Johnson) to abandon Jim Crow. To put it another way, the dismantling of some forms of institutionalized racism (separate drinking fountains for example) has cost the Democratic party a majority of the national  White vote for the last 40+ years. Obama didn't change that. In fact, in the deep South, his margin of loss was as great as 6 to 1. 

I want to very carefully note that I'm not suggesting race is the only meaningful factor to weigh here. This is something else that's annoying in the current, "America isn't racist!" rhetoric - it actually assumes that race was the overwhelming issue in this election which is absurd. People vote for myriad reasons, race only being one possible factor. That's why it's naive to think that Obama's election represents some kind of mandate on social relations. After all, when whites went 60/40 for Bush Sr. over Dukakis in 1988, does that mean Whites were anti-Greek that year? Of course not.

Moreover, even if we were to accept that race played a major role in this election, the more accurate narrative to follow isn't about the redemption of White America over its racist past but rather, it's about the transformation of America, writ large. It's demographic change that mattered in 2008, not wholesale changes in attitudes. We are a far more diverse society than we have been in the past. Equally, if not important, is where those diverse voters ended up - states like Virginia and North Carolina especially have experienced significant demographic change over the last decade; their populations skew younger, more Latinos, better educated, etc. Those are also demographics that tend to lean Democratic.

Both nationally and in the "swing states," what we saw was the pooling of those different demographics into a voting bloc that was stronger than the white majority that went for McCain. Again: Whites didn't win it for Obama. They just weren't a big enough voting bloc to lose it for him. If Obama's victory says anything about America, it's not that we're "over" the colorline that has dominated our society. It's that our demographic changes managed to weaken the impact of that colorline last week. But as the warning goes: past results are no guarantee of future returns. One only has to compare the relative hopes of 1964 with what happened four years later.

As for my second point:

Obama's election was an incredible symbolic moment. I don't doubt this at all and I've been swept up in it too. Just the image of the Obamas as the new First Family is so incredibly profound, I still haven't taken it completely in yet.

However, Obama's victory doesn't remotely speak to the condition of poor, urban schools. It won't prevent Brown and Black bodies from disproportionately filling our prisons. It won't magically undo over half a century of preferential mortgage lending to White home buyers or empower families of color to begin building their own wealth. This is how racism is lived in America; it's not just about the dearth of non-white political leadership. It's about fundamentally different and unequal life chances based around race. I challenge anyone to demonstrate how Obama's election speaks directly to those material inequalities. Or why we'd think his Presidency would lead to improvements in those areas without specific policies designed to address them?

Obama's victory says nothing, does nothing about this fact of institutional racism in America. White privilege does not disappear simply because a Black man sits in the Oval Office. We are still the same stratified society we were last week. And last year. And last decade. And last...you get the picture.

If anything, the fear is that Obama's election actually sets the path to progress back since some liberal whites may feel it less urgent to pursue racial equality now that they can celebrate their "courage" for voting for a Black man. Only the next few years will tell what progress can be achieved. Unfortunately, iif we know anything about times of economic turmoil, it's the potential for racial scapegoats to come into play.

It wasn't easy to get Obama elected; his level of organization has been marveled over. But really, getting him elected was simple work compared to actually bringing about the social change many have portended his election represents. That hard work has always been there and will continue to be, regardless of the President's skin color.

--O.W.

THE O OFFICE

Thank you for being instrumental to my election, sir.

The current tenant occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, #43, is now giving the future tenant, #44, a tour of the government-subsidized housing project.

That welcome must be incredibly awkward in light of these mirror image approval ratings:

I can only process what this meeting will be like if I imagine Billy Bob Thorton giving a tour of Angelina Jolie's house to Brad Pitt while Thorton acts like his mentally challenged character in Sling Blade.

Apparently, the two are to meet alone. I can't imagine what they will discuss.

Obama will want to talk about whether US intelligence confirms that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev chose to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states in order to mask the incursions Prime Minister Vladimir Putin secretly has planned for Georgia.

Bush will want to show Obama which button on the remote control for the ceiling fan makes the paddles spin the other way.

*

Choice commentary from a TPM reader: "I can't believe Obama is already sitting down with an unpopular, aggressive world leader without preconditions."

--Junichi

IT TAKES A NATION OF 136.6 MILLION

Although ballots are still being counted, it appears that approximately 136.6 million people voted in yesterday's presidential election, marking one of the highest voter turnout rates in a century.

Why is it important to know this information?

Because it could mean an extra twenty-five G's in your pocket.

--Junichi

HAND-OFF FOR THE FUTURE

--O.W.

ON THE APPALLING PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 8

Separate and Unequal

Needless to say, I am ecstatic about the presidential election and will write later about what President Obama's election means to me.

But the passage of Proposition 8 -- along with other anti-gay initiatives in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida -- is seriously dampening my celebration.

A majority of Californian voters just granted new fundamental civil rights to egg-laying chickens while stripping fundamental civil rights away from loving gay and lesbian human beings.

November 4, 2008 -- rightly heralded as a national civil rights milestone -- also marked the first time that a state has stripped away a marriage-related civil right to a discriminated minority group after initially granting it.

As someone who has studied the judicial branch's handling of sexual orientation and the law, I can confidently predict that no state or federal court will get in the way of Proposition 8.

Which is to say, unless California voters pass a new initiative that reinstates gay marriage, gay and lesbian Californians will never again have the right to marry.

(There is a strong legal argument that the 18,000 gay marriages that took place over the last few months will remain valid, however, as the language of Prop. 8 does not include any intent to apply retroactively.)

I know that Gloria Allred is filing a lawsuit to stop Prop. 8, but her suit is unlikely to invalidate the initiative. Unlike Prop. 22 in 2000, Prop. 8 amends the state constitution; thus, there's essentially no argument that Prop. 8 violates state law.

Moreover, there is no viable legal argument that Prop. 8 conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or any federal law. Sadly, not one federal court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause to require marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Keep in mind that under federal law, there is no right to be protected, for example, against hiring discrimination by an anti-gay employer. It would require some seriously "activist" Supreme Court justices to read a right to gay marriage into the Constitution.

Theoretically, Congress could pass a law mandating marriage equality that is intended to preempt state law. But the chances of that happening are about the same as Sarah Palin's chances of dominating on Jeopardy.

Thus, for now, Proposition 8 represents a nail in the coffin for full gay and lesbian equality in California.

Although dispirited, I remain optimistic, however, that we will eventually see full equality again in California.

This will require a new smartly-worded initiative, a better-organized movement, more money, and only an incremental shift in public opinion. (It was close, after all.)

Since we've seen the successful scare tactics of the fundamentalists' Yes on 8 campaign, any new initiative should probably make clear that places of religious worship will not be required to offer gay weddings.

For those who are with me on this civil rights struggle, we have a lot of work to do.

---

(OW chimes in)

Junichi, thanks for that informative - though sobering - reality check. I do want to add something here...

I've noticed that some people seem to forget that Prop 22 passed just eight years ago and, to me, it says a lot that, collectively, Prop 22 actually has been forgotten. The idea of gay marriage is prevalent enough to - on the one hand, spark a reactionary backlash as we've seen - but it's also common enough that we take its possibility for granted.

The other thing worth noting is that Prop 22 passed by a massive margin: 20+ points whereas Prop 8 is going to get by on just 4 points. I don't think you can really quantify tolerance but a five fold decrease in opposition to gay marriage in just eight years seems something worth thinking about.

Back when Prop 22 passed, I said, despairingly, to a few friends that "gay marriage will never happen in our lifetime" and one of them chided me to pay attention to the long view and see just how far things had come, even despite that evening's results and I think it's worth thinking on this too in our moment of discouragement.

The beauty of the state initiative system which is also its curse is that, in any given year, who knows what will come to the fore? And there's nothing stopping a well-organized campaign from putting the acceptance of gay marriage on next year's ballot.

And the next year's ballot.

And the next year's ballot.

Until that 4 point spread is gone.

American social justice has never taken a path of linear progress. There are always set-backs and resurgent periods of reactionary behavior. But I think this issue is winnable - absolutely winnable - with better organizing and better education especially in communities of color. As some of the exit polling has shown, the single-most community that came out for Prop 8 were African Americans - at 70%! - and the Latino community was also largely in favor of it too (~55-57%). Strikingly as well: the counties that voted against it, overwhelmingly, were the best educated in the state. No county where less than 10% of the population had bachelor's degrees (~20) voted against it.

So there's work to be done but this is not an impossibility (least of all in a state as mercurial as California). I think there's every reason to think that within the next eight year cycle, we'll see gay marriage legalized in California.

Junichi, a question for you: you think there'd be a state movement to outlaw any form of civil union that essentially grants the same rights to non-hetero couples?

--Junichi

A VISION OF AMERICA

One thing that has struck me throughout this season, including at the RNC and DNC, and during the respective candidate speeches tonight is the remarkable contrast in the crowds that each drew. Obama's crowd in Grant Park looks like America, at least the America I see everyday. It's diverse. Compare that with the portrait of America gathered in Arizona. I think that says volumes about one factor that made this Obama victory possible.

"In the last two presidential elections, the American people divided down the middle, producing a both a geographical and a demographic divide that seemed increasingly set in stone. Blue Democratic America consisted of the west and the east coasts plus the upper Midwest. Red Republican America covered the swaths in between. Women, minorities, the poor and the highly educated voted Democratic. Men, white people, the rich and the religious delivered for the Republicans. In the mind of Mr Bush's strategist Karl Rove this division was the template of 21st century American politics, a base for a conservative counter-attack against 20th-century liberalism.

Rove's America was not just turned on its head yesterday. It was broken up and recast in a very different mould. One of Mr Obama's many achievements has been his refusal to accept the permanence of the blue-red divide. He has reached out across the divide to states and voters that the embattled Democratic party of the Reagan-Bush years had forgotten about, places like the South and the Rockies, voters like farmers and small business people."

--UK's The Guardian

--O.W.

11/4/2008

Hello to President-Elect Barack Obama.


So long to the nightmare of the last eight years. Hello to the next four (at least) of trying to clean it all up.

So long to PUMAs and their ridiculous split-ticket, gov't paralysis strategy. So long to their deluded visions of demographic grandeur; never has "statistically insignificant" been so apt. Hello to Palin/Clinton '12 predictions.

So long to paranoid lefties and hopeful righties who thought a hidden Bradley Effect was going to end this all. Hello to paranoid lefties whispering about assassination.

So long to 24 hour, cable news insanity, hologram punditry. Hello to TMZ and Perez Hilton coming back as our leading news sources.

So long to terrorist pals, atheists and Joe the Plumber. Hello to whatever new mud-slinging the next political cycle brings.

So long to the idea that a Black person can't be President in our lifetime. Hello to crazy talk that "racism is over in America."


Hello to the millions who waited in line to cast a ballot today.

Hello to those who waited their entire lives. And their parents' lives. And their parents' lives...to be able to cast a vote for someone besides a White man.

Hello to the humbling sense of hope and belief that so many Americans have taken to their heart the last few months, especially those for whom "hope" and "belief" have seemed like cruel jokes for so many years.

Hello America. Welcome the new dawn.

--O.W.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH CNN?

wolf blitzer goes undercover

I was vaguely tolerant of all their useless bells and whistles for most of the evening but when they hologrammed in Will.I.Am, I knew it was time to change the channel. Even the barking frat boys at MSNBC (poor Rachel "Sidelined" Maddows) seemed preferable.

--O.W.

THIS IS KIND OF AWESOME, HOWEVER POSSIBLY PREMATURE

"Bush Street in S.F. renamed"

--O.W.

CALIFORNIA PROPOSITIONS: VOTER GUIDE

After some research, I've decided on how I will be voting on the California propositions on Tuesday's state ballot. I encourage you to leave comments if you disagree, however, as I haven't actually voted yet.

For those who simply trust me and don't want to arrive at their own conclusions, here above and below is my (Junichi's) voter guide for Tuesday's state initiatives:


Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act - YES

Los Angeles was recently selected as the city with the worst public transportation system in the world. With a high speed rail that will get travelers from L.A. to S.F. in under 3 hours for under $60, L.A. can move up that list and surpass at least Phoenix, Houston, Baltimore, Baghdad, and Kabul. The only flawed aspect of the initiative is that it doesn't increase safety by banning train engineers from text messaging high school students.


Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals. - NO

I'm torn on this one.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not big on animal rights, especially when efforts to advance them are at the expense of human rights. But as a general principle, I support the notion that animals should be treated as humanely as possible. Moreover, I'm willing to pay a premium for organic eggs from free-range chickens and hope that other consumers will do the same.

But it's not hard to imagine how an initiative that increases production costs by 20 percent will put the entire chicken farming industry in California out of business. In the last few decades, I've already seen plenty of farms go out of business in and nearby my hometown of Hanford.

Moreover, if we're going to raise farmers' production costs by 20 percent, I'd rather it be because of more humane conditions for workers -- and not just the chickens.


Proposition 3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act. - NO

Why are we giving money to private hospitals that are flush with cash? Some of the beneficiary hospitals aren't even children's hospitals.


Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy - NO, PLEASE, NO

Because anything that increases the likelihood of self-induced abortions is a really, really bad idea.


Proposition 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole, and Rehabilitation. - YES

Why isn't this prop getting more props? Prop 5 is quite revolutionary in that it treats drug offenders as people with medical problems, as opposed to incarcerating them in the same cells as violent predators. Most notably, Prop 5 would reduce many marijuana misdemeanor crimes to the level of an infraction.

While some parts give me pause, I support any effort to expand drug treatment programs, save $2.5 billion in revenue, and reduce the number of nonviolent citizens behind bars.


Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. - NO

Another $1 billion for new prisons? No thanks.


Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation. - NO

Normally, when PG&E is spending millions against an initiative, I vote in favor of the initiative. But Prop 7's good intentions are outweighed by its poor drafting and its backers' failure to consult with other environmental groups like the NRDC and the Sierra Club, who both oppose 7.


Prop 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. - HELL TO THE NO

Because Jesus would not vote to legislate hate.

More here.


Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victims Rights. Parole. - NO

Most of the text of this initiative deals with victims' rights that are already in place. Thus, the real effect of this proposition is to stop the early release of inmates who would otherwise be granted parole, thereby increasing our already outrageously high prison population.


Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. - NO

Like Prop 7, Prop 10 is a green-sounding initiative with good intentions. But if it passes, the real winners are those companies that supply natural gas. And guess who backed this measure? T. Boone Pickens, the ubiquitous oilman, who also happens to supply natural gas.

I want a real green initiative. Not one that puts green in T. Boone Pickens' pocket.


Proposition 11: Redistricting. - NO

Have you seen the boundaries for California's districts? They look like a rabid insane abstract painter drew them while high on crystal meth.

But Prop 11 -- in its efforts to be non-partisan -- seems to give too much to the state GOP. Democrats account for 42% of the state's voters while Republicans only account for 34%. Yet, Prop 11 would match five Democratic commissioners with five Republican ones. Plus, if they can't agree, the State Supreme Court -- 6/7th of which was appointed by Republican governors -- would have final say.

This does not bode well for various communities of color whose voting power will likely be diluted with a Republican majority drawing the new districts. One can see why MALDEF, the NAACP, and many Asian American political groups are lining up against Prop. 11.


Proposition 12: Veterans Bond Act of 2008. - YES

Because our veterans deserve better.

--Junichi