If you’re not interested in watching, using dolls this Chinese language ad claims that if Prop 8 doesn’t pass soon mothers will be able to marry their sons, polygamy will be legalized, and minors will be able to marry adults. I’m guessing they couldn’t find any toy sheep, as no mention is made of bestiality.
And a personal plug: if you haven’t read them already, my Top 8 Reasons to Vote Yea on Prop 8.
Government transparency is a wonderful thing, especially when all you need is an internet connection.
Through the California Secretary of State’s website anyone can easily find out how much politicians throughout the Golden State have raised for their campaigns, from whom they received it, and how they’ve spent their contribitions. Searches can also be made for info on groups supporting or opposing individual ballot measures and propositions, or even by lobbyist.
“Behests” can also be browsed through the Fair Political Practives Commission – these are the payments politicians don’t ask for themselves, but for pet projects or favors for others – payments are “made at the ‘behest’ of elected officials to be used for legislative, governmental or charitable purposes.”
Using this info, you can found out a particular individuals donor history, find out how many employees from a single company contributed to a campaign, or see how much an opposition group has raised and who’s behind it. And with bills on November’s ballot to ban gay marriage, among other controversial intiatives, it could prove interesting to see who’s putting out cash for each angle.
I also recently wrote about the City of Los Angeles’ campaign finance database on LA Metblogs.
Posted in california law, california politics
17 year old Bristol Palin pregnant. She’s still in high school. She’s unwed.
Her mother, VP candidate Sarah Palin, is a pro-life Republican who believes that abstinence only education works.
Governor Palin told an Alaskan pro-family group, “explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”
…Her administration may be about to lay fresh tracks; the public-health division in Alaska has decided to submit its application for the federally funded State Abstinence Education Grant Program, which will promote abstinence from sexual activity to “groups which are most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock” until the end of 2013.
Which groups? Because teaching your kids about abstinence, instead of giving them a condom, is clearly the most effective path.
The arrogance is astounding, and that conservatives are still rallying around Palin as being an effective leader proves only desperation. (and, before the lame argument comes up, I’m not questioning Palin’s merits as a mother – merely her clearly botched policy on sex education).
But this is a blog about California, so a quick review of sex education laws here is in order:
Posted in 2008 Presidential Race, california law, US News
Tagged abstinence only, Sarah Palin, sex education
Years ago, when such jobs actually sounded like fun, I nearly applied to work at a newly opened Blockbuster video store in Mar Vista. What kept me from filling out the paperwork was the manager’s notification that in addition to the resume, I’d have to give them some of my hair for a drug test. I declined on the spot.
Mind you, I’ve never tried an illegal drug, have maybe been drunk once, and have smoked exactly one cigarette. In short, I’m a square.
Still, the idea of needing to submit to any sort of DNA or genetic testing to work at Blockbuster disturbed the crap out of me, and still does. Why should a video store be concerned with what their employees do at home?
Which brings me to the recently passed Assembly Bill 2279, “that would protect hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients in California from employment discrimination.”
The bill may not forbid drug testing, nor apply to those using marijuana without a doctor’s permission, but it does set a path.
Still, I’m sure some “legal” marijuana users will balk: the Bill explicitly denies use of the herb while at work:
The bill, which passed the state Senate by a 21-15 vote, leaves intact state laws that prohibit medical marijuana consumption at the workplace or during working hours, and protects employers from liability by making an exception for safety-sensitive positions.
Which is really what it comes down: if you can’t do your job, regardless of reason, you should be reassigned, or fired.
BTW, the bill still needs to be signed by Governor Arnold “Marijuana is not a drug” Schwarzenegger.
[via NBC 11]
Learn how to make your city work for you at the Government 101 workshop being held tomorrow by LA City Council President Eric Garcetti.
Los Angeles City Council President Eric Garcetti will join Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in hosting Government 101, a workshop that trains local residents to access city resources and become effective advocates for their communities. The morning training will include a tutorial on the City of Los Angeles’s legislative process and information on how residents can influence the process.
Ironically, the Mayor’s involvement in this citizen-empowerment workshop comes one day after CityWatch posted an editorial claiming Villaraigosa had declared himself “the decider:”
The desire to promote grass-roots democracy, and to respect the experience and creativity of those in the neighborhood council system, has taken a back seat to the mayor’s political needs.
Posted in california law, LA News, los angeles politics, Roll Call
Tagged Antonio Villaraigosa, eric garcetti
Hey, kids. I managed to sneak out of Los Angeles literally one hour before the earthquake hit. This week I’m lounging up at the north end of Lake Tahoe in the town of Truckee, CA, probably best known as being where the Donner party gave fresh meaning to the term, “having your family or dinner.”
Of course, politics as usual applies up in these resort towns as well. Here’s what’s going on:
Wisconsin law criminalizes gay marriage, but is okay with marrying your first cousin.
“America’s Dairyland” (aka Wisconsin) is so opposed to gay marriage that in 2006 they changed their constitution to specify marriage could only be between a man and a woman. Combine this with a decades old law making it a criminal offense to get married across state lines if the marriage would be considered illegal at home, and you could have a lot of outlaw gay farmers on your hands.
While the law was passed decades ago to prevent underage couples from crossing state lines to marry it could be used against same-sex couples the Madison Capital Times reported Wednesday.
The penalty is a fine of up to $10,000, nine months in prison, or both. [from 365Gay.com]
Oh, Wisconsin. Not a big fan of the gays, but their marriage laws provide some hope for those who want to keep it in the family. From the Milwaukee County Clerk’s Marriage License Brochure:
No marriage shall be contracted between persons who are nearer of kin than second cousins, except that marriage may be contracted between first cousins where the female has attained the age of 55 years or either party has documented proof of sterilization.
The Cat Fanciers Association is arguing that a “revised” California assembly bill could result in unwanted sterilization of pets who have accidentally slipped outside of homes, or escaped during earthquakes, fires, or other disasters.
They write that AB 1634 mandates…
…sterilization of dogs and cats as punishment for multiple impounds. The bill also imposes additional fees and mandated sterilization based upon oral or written complaints. We are concerned about the lack of due process and the extreme negative consequences of such a law for pet owners and their animals.
The bill increases the fine of impounding a cat by $15 to $50, and if an unsterile cat is impounded a second time, it would be automatically spayed or neutered and the associated costs charged back to the owner before release. Cat Fanciers is concerned that cats intended for breeding could be sterilized after accidentally slipping outside twice, in spite of the best intentions of the owner, perhaps even due to complaints by a disgruntled neighbor.
I could offer commentary questioning the merits of their argument, but honestly, I just wanted to post about this as an excuse to use pics of LOLCats. Another relevent pic after the jump. Continue reading
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh makes the case that a proposed tax on porn will be struck down as flat out unconstitutional.
Content-based taxes on the sale of First-Amendment-protected materials (and recall that the law targets not just unprotected and illegal obscenity, but also constitutionally protected pornography) are generally forbidden.
John McCain, who says individual states, not the Federal government, should decide whats best for themselves regarding gay marriage, has expressed support for a California constitutional ban on same sex unions. Maybe now that he’s catching up on unpaid taxes for his California property he feels he can try and influence state policy.
On Sunday, Governor Schwarzenegger was grilled on Meet the Press by new host Tom Brokaw. (Part 1 here)
Schwarzenegger also held back on issuing a statewide ban on fireworks, but urged especially incendiary counties to issue their own bans.
Posted in california law, california politics, Roll Call
Tagged Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Tom Brokaw
California is currently being rattled by no less than three different issues surrounding text messaging – at the city, state, and Federal levels.
1. Sacramento residents will vote in November on whether a utility tax on telecommunications should apply to text messages.
2. While California’s ban on talking on handheld cellphone while driving, beginning July 1st, doesn’t apply to text messaging, Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto has introduced legislation to add text messaging to the phone ban.
3. The case of an Ontario, CA police officer complaining that his superiors snooped on his personal text messages has resulted in a 9th Circuit ruling that “employers can’t read employees’ text messages if they’re sent through an outside service. They can’t even read email unless it’s stored on the employers’ servers.”
The only commentary I have on any of these regards banning text messaging while driving. Bottom line: it should have been included in the original law, as should have been a flat out ban on use of cell phones while driving. Its not the lack of one hand that makes people drive less safe – its the mental distraction of talking to someone in a different space that causes drivers to drive without their full attention.
BTW, I wrote this while thing from my Blackberry while sitting in traffic.
California Faultline 