The most obvious sign they knew they would lose was filing for the stay to prevent gay marriages, pending appeal to a higher court, even before the judge handed down his decision.  Second, the proponents did not mount much of a case. In the decision, the Judge writes “The minimal evidentiary presentation made by proponents does not meet the heavy burden of production necessary to show that Proposition 8 is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.” (Page 117) Finally, and less obviously, according to a report on NPR today, the judge is openly gay, and yet those defending Proposition 8 did not oppose his hearing the case.  The NPR reporter went on to explain that the judge is known for his thoughtful opinions.

But his reputation doesn’t matter.  Prop 8 supporters have already trotted out that most tired of all chestnuts, the “Activist Court.”  Instead of trying to argue, from a legal perspective, why the judge was wrong and they were right, proponents of Prop. 8 have and will state that Judge Walker’s decision was the result of an “activist court,” overturning the will of the people.  Take, for example, Senator Orrin Hatch’s (R-Utah) statement:

“Today, one federal judge trumped seven million voters by making up a right that is not in the Constitution,” Hatch said. “This is what happens when judges make up the Constitution as they go along, when judges rather than the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.” (sacbee.com)

The fact that Judge Walker is openly gay is just going to add salt to the soup.

The anti-gay media juggernaut now springs to life and will work at a fever pitch, riling up its supporters and creating an atmosphere less about thoughtful deliberation and more about knee-jerk reaction (pretty much in line with all political speech these days). Of course, such public outcry ought not influence the Supreme Court, but it will leave politicians scrambling to find ways to protect themselves. Remember all the hemming and hawing that gave us “domestic partnerships” for same-sex couples and marriage for opposite-sex couples? (Which smacks of “separate but equal,” but I digress.)

As for overturning the will of the people, Judge Walker quotes another decision and concludes: “[M]oral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest,” has never been a rational basis for legislation. Lawrence, 539 US at 582 (O’Connor, J, concurring). (Page 133)

Goodbye to the accusation that if you disagree with what the president wants to do, you don’t “support the troops.”

Strangely, I’m a little sad to see this one go. The reason is simple: this attitude represents the high hypocrisy of a certain brand of flag-waving, anti-democratic ignorance–calling it “conservatism” is a gross insult to real conservatives.  The second Obama takes the oath of office in celebration of my 39th birthday, these roving bands of dittoheads will turn their thinking 180 degrees and oppose any decision by the President.  Bringing the troops home will suddenly become a surrender, an insult to those who have already died, as if throwing more bodies on top of the pile would somehow lead to redemption.

If this attitude didn’t go, Obama could bring a swift end to the Iraq morass, focus on real ways to address terrorism world-wide and potential terrorism at home, and do it all without the strident, hateful, voices of these anti-patriots ringing in his ears.

Instead, they will throw up roadblocks and complain that the President, the Commander-in-Chief, doesn’t support the troops. Here’s hoping the roadblocks get overrun by a heaping helping of Yes we can!

The fact that Obama took time out for Halloween showed a candidate feeling confident about his chances on Tuesday, with polls showing him leading Republican nominee John McCain.

Did the writer stop to consider that, while the candidate may have a reason to be confident, the candidate is also a father with a seven year old and a ten year old daughter?  And as any parent knows, there are only so many Halloweens before it loses its magic and becomes just another reason to dress like a “slutty nurse/librarian/construction worker/stripper/etc.” and binge drink.  And Obama’s ten-year-old only has two, three years on the outside, before she stops believing her parents are the coolest people on the planet.

The same thing happened recently when Obama took time out of his campaign to vist his ailing grandmother. There were rumblings of his “confidence” in this race.

I don’t see confidence, I see a man who puts his family above his career.  Obama is a political animal, cut from the mold of the Chicago Machine. Yet, unlike so many others, he appears to have at least one item higher on his priority list than his election.

Besides, if this is Obama angry:

“Come on guys, get back on the bus,” he pleaded [emphasis mine] with journalists, many of whom had accompanied him from the airport to Chicago’s Hyde Park neighborhood.

He’s in control of himself.

If I were in his shoes, I would be doing exactly the same thing.

According to the article, by the end of the century:

• There could be up to 100 days of 95 plus degree weather in Sacramento, if industrial and vehicle emissions continue unabated
• 90 percent of the Sierra snow pack could melt
• There could be six times as many heat related deaths in major urban centers
• Power demand could go up 20 percent, but hydo power sources would drop
• There would be significant impact for dairy production and wine production
• And much more

The figures were taken from a new report by the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Action Team. The study is chock full of facts and figures on the environment. It also has an extensive description of measures the state is currently taking, as well as measures the state can take, to reduce climate change emissions.

Global warming is here. The question is not whether but when, how, and how much. The CalEPA study even goes so far as to say, flat out:

It is now evident that even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes, and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 1.1 degree F (0.6 degree C) of additional warming. As a result, some impacts from climate change are now unavoidable.

It isn’t just our leaders who have to change, we do. We have to understand that this so-called “way of life” that lets us consume energy like it’s going out of style, drive Hummers (I’m looking at you, Governor), and enjoy a life filled with plastics, is probably coming to an end. We can either stick our collective heads in the sand (Mr. President), assume it’s someone else’s problem (Mr. Hummer driver), or take responsibility.

The California Policy Inbox aggregates research from several dozen academic, nonprofit, and governmental research institutions. If you’re a wonk, it should be up there on your frequently-read list next to Rough and Tumble or the Roundup.

My reason is pretty straight forward: these protests are not very effective. They make the protesters feel good. They do little to raise awareness. In fact, they may be counter-productive because there’s always a chance you’ll have some idiot waving a Soviet flag or doing something equally repugnant.

Every time the President rolls into town (any town), all of the various left-leaning groups mobilize their members to come out for a little protestin’. Furthermore, a lot of individuals, drawn up in the passion of the moment, will turn out for these mini-protests.

From the Bee:

Not everyone is so enthusiastic. The president is likely to be greeted by protesters near the entrance to the Fuel Cell Partnership building. Various groups were using the Internet to organize demonstrators. Liberal radio host Christine Craft said she was encouraging her listeners to turn out to make their views known on a variety of issues, from the Iraq war to the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina.

Does anyone else see the problem here? It’s all in these four little words: a variety of issues.

I have no problem with mass protests about immigration or about the Iraq war. I have lots of problems with protests about immigration AND the Iraq war. Turn out lots of people on one issue and you get volume. Turn out lots of people on lots of issues and you get noise.

And the media, liberal, conservative, or otherwise, will have no problem finding the most ineloquent, confused, person to speak. “Why are you protesting the president’s visit?” “Well, uh, I don’t think he’s doing a good job, uh, U.S. out of Iraq and my uterus and into New Orleans!”

You see the problem now, right? There’s no message there. Or rather, there are too many. Unless you manage a protest of monumental proportions, you’re not really even showing mass public dissatisfaction with our leaders. Presidents have had their visits protested since time immemorial.

At some point, I’d like to see all of the liberal groups get together and agree that they’ll organize a Presidential visit protest around a single issue. Hammer the media with the same message over and over. All day long. Do it for as many days ahead of time as possible and keep the momentum going after he leaves.

But it will never happen.

In today’s Bee, Dan Weintraub projectile vomits a line of thought that is so last decade:

The issue is a tricky one, for a number of reasons. First, scientists are not unanimous in their belief that humans are causing global warming. Second, even if humans are at fault, it’s not clear how much can be done to stop the trend without grinding economic growth to a halt. Some think that better technology, not limits on industry, will be the answer. Finally, even if the kind of measures widely advocated by environmentalists could have an effect, one state, even one as large as California, can’t do much by itself to change global climate patterns.

Let’s take this apart:

Scientists are not unanimous in their belief that humans are causing global warming. Since when is unanimity a criterion for belief? If that were the case, our political leaders should be urging us to “go slow” on adopting intelligent design or “set up an advisory committee” to discuss faith-based initiatives because scientists are not unanimous on the existence of God.

No, there are still a few scientists who relish their roles as contrarians and bask in the attention of a branch of conservatives who have their environmental heads in the sand. These scientists are the golden children of rags like the Wall Street Journal, who are growing increasingly desperate to find someone, anyone, to preserve the way of life of homo economicus.

It’s not clear how much can be done to stop the trend without grinding economic growth to a halt. And this is a good reason to do nothing? Once upon a time, we may have been able to say that global warming would affect our great, great grandchildren. This made the topic diffuse enough to dismiss because almost none of us (my own grandmother excepted) will meet our great, great grandchildren in this life.

But, as the rate of change increases, whether by human cause, nature, or most likely both, we have to do what we can to prepare for the consequences and mitigate the damage. It is not our great, great, grandchildren who will suffer, but our own children. Maybe “suffer” is too strong a word for children fortunate enough to have been born in the United States, but they will grow up in a world of increasing turbulence, uncertainty, and scarcity.

Some think that better technology, not limits on industry, will be the answer. There is no question that technology has thwarted the Malthusian Nightmare, temporarily. But we live in a world of limited resources, with limited space. We’re already talking about a “peak oil” crisis. No amount of technology will be able to replace the plentiful supply of cheap oil some Americans feel is their birthright. It will take a combination of better technology and human intervention if we are to have any chance of mitigating the effects of global climate change.

Weintraub is saying that since we’re already in this handbag to hell, we might as well enjoy the ride. I’d rather we get out of the handbag.

Even if the kind of measures widely advocated by environmentalists could have an effect, one state, even one as large as California, can’t do much by itself to change global climate patterns. So, what you’re saying is, because we can’t do much, we shouldn’t do anything. So, if I see Dan bleeding on the street, since I’m not a doctor and can’t do much, I’ll just let him be. After all, the only thing I can do is apply direct pressure and maybe call 911 if I happen to have my cell phone.

California is big enough to cause ripples both nationally and internationally. Cars are already manufactured to meet California’s emission standards. If we start to do something, especially with a well-known Republican governor riding point, other states will follow suit. The next president may feel compelled to act. And the international community, once they see that the US has taken its head out of the sand and actually started to act, may themselves find reason to change.

Despite the efforts in Europe and elsewhere to curb emissions, Schwarzenegger’s advisors may be right when they say, as Weintraub reports “…global warming policies will actually create the conditions for job growth by making the state a center of science and innovation in limiting the use of carbon-based energy.” California is a very large state with a tremendous research infrastructure that, given the right policy signals, could grow quickly into a serious environmental industry.

The issue of global warming is only tricky for those who are trying to avoid it.

In fact, my own take on illegal immigration and what we should do about it tends to follow the advice outlined in this excellent post by Michael Hiltzik:

It’s plain that a sensible immigration policy has four prongs: 1/ Set existing illegals on the path of legal residence and citizenship, at a price in cash or commitment to work; 2/Offer a similar deal to newcomers; 3/ Sanction employers who hire outside these two categories; and 4/ Secure the borders. All must be implemented simultaneously, or none will work. By the way, if 1-3 are implemented, here’s betting that 4 will become a lot easier, because there will be real incentives to enter and work legally.

But what I want to write about briefly is the use of the Mexican flag in all of the protests I’ve seen on the news. Conservatives have certainly noticed it. And, like them, it makes me uneasy, but for different reasons.

Waving the Mexican flag is a strong show of solidarity with those illegal immigrants from Mexico. Except they aren’t all from Mexico. Thousands are from many other places from El Salvador and Peru to Canada and Great Britain. I realize I’m splitting hairs here, because it is the concept of solidarity that is important. Yet, waving the Mexican flag plays into the popular shorthand of referring to all illegal immigrants as “Mexicans” (and its corollary, all Mexicans as “illegal immigrants”). If you haven’t heard the term “Mexican” used in this way, you’re living in a bubble.

Instead, these protesters should be waving the American flag. That’s right, the Stars and Stripes. The same flag that thousands of NASCAR spectators wave every Sunday. The same flag that flies over our governmental institutions. The same flag that conservative politicians wrap themselves in when they want to talk about something called the “American way of life.”

Because, as our own President, Governor Schwarzenegger, and countless others have stated, we are a nation of immigrants. I’m as white as they come and I can only trace my ancestors in the United States back four, maybe five generations, at most. And guess what? Some of them didn’t come here speaking English either.

I can understand why some on the left would shy away from using our own flag in their protests. It has become a symbol, for some, of unthinking patriotism. It is a standard under which our belligerent government marches and in the name of which it wages a perpetual war against an enemy without a country, without a flag, and without even a coherent ideology. (Iraq was a way to slap a “regular” war face onto the war on terrorism.)

But waving the Mexican flag sends the wrong message. This isn’t a festival celebrating Mexican culture. It’s a protest of American policies and the goal should be to show that there are thousands upon thousands of Americans who do not agree with draconian border policies and with policies that throw away the futures of entire families in the name of cheap labor. There are thousands of Americans who believe that those who are here should be treated humanely, should be treated as the humans they are.

Mr. and Ms. Average American see a sea of bodies waving dozens of Mexican flags and they think “them,” not “us,” not “we.”

So wave the Stars and Stripes. You’ll demonstrate American unity and you’ll still show solidarity with the immigrants. They will see the sea of red, white, and blue and will understand that we are not saying “we are one of you,” but instead “you are one of us.”

(For a previous post on flags and emblems, see here. Feather in your cap if you can tell me where my title comes from.)

Or did he?

Westly is “less informed, less knowledgeable” than Angelides and in this campaign, that’s a plus, Brown opined.

“There’s an air of mystery around Westly,” he said. “He’s managed to make people forget that he almost lost to Tom McClintock,” an avowedly conservative Republican, in the 2002 race for controller.

The best way for Westly to stay in front, Brown suggested, is to keep reality from impinging on the mystery by avoiding a mano-a-mano battle with Angelides on the issues in the governor’s campaign.

(from the SFGate Politics Blog)

Seriously, even if he wins in the primary, how is being “less informed, less knowledgeable” going to help him unseat an incumbent governor?

“Passing sweeping laws … to require voter-verified paper trails for touch-screen machines, though well-intentioned, could bankrupt cash-strapped counties and may erode the efficiency of electronic voting management,” they [researchers from the Pacific Research Institute] said in the paper.

Surely the Pacific Research Institute can come up with a better free-market solution than not requiring a paper trail?

Among election reformers, political watchdogs, and retiree complainers, one often hears the phrase “buying votes.” The problem is, you rarely hear the phrase “selling votes.” Does this mean that there is a great deal of demand, but little supply? Of course not. “Buying votes” is a metaphor for the ginormous sums of money spent by advocacy groups, political action committees, lobbyists, labor unions, corporations, and your best friend’s aunt’s cousin in Chicago to influence the course of policy in America. There isn’t really a market there, is there?

And in the current system, you can’t really “buy” a vote. Assume for a moment that someone offered to give me $100 to vote for a Republican. I would agree, shake his hand, solemnly swear, walk into my voting place, vote for the Democrat, walk back out, tell the person that it felt good to vote for a Republican, collect my $100, and be on my way.

Not a very efficient way to buy votes, is it?

A real free market solution would monetize elections in such a way that we could talk about buying and selling votes in a meaningful and non-metaphorical manner. It would bring the shadowy practice called “money in politics” out into the open. Instead of having to pretend that they are valuable participants in the political process, lobbyists could say “politics is money.” Since economics has become the key to all earthly decisions, this seems a most logical approach.

My proposal would create a true market for elections and, as a byproduct, would almost certainly result in near-100 percent turnout for every election.

A significant amount of time before an election, each registered voter is issued a unique number, a PIN, representing their vote. That number is officially their property. The voter will be allowed to keep, sell, or donate his or her vote in any manner.

Subsequent owners will be allowed to buy, sell, or donate votes in the same manner, right up until election day. Perhaps radio stations would buy votes and then give them away to the 13th caller. Perhaps a wealthy individual will buy votes early and then auction them off on eBay for more money closer to the election. Interest groups could appeal to their members to donate their votes to a good cause. Soft drinks could print voting PINs or codes for free songs from iTunes on selected bottle caps.

Those who do not vote now would very likely become willing participants in this new electoral system. Their vote would truly mean something. Maybe food on the table. Maybe a boat payment. Maybe a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

On election day, the market for votes would be considered officially closed, the electronic voting booths would open, and those who held a PIN or PINs would go about entering each one into the voting system and casting their vote(s) as they pleased. Temp agencies everywhere would clear their lists of available workers as the biggest vote-holders hired day help for data entry.

Candidates under this new system could rest easy in the knowledge that not divine right, not the will of the people, but the omniscient invisible hand of the Free Market had been responsible for their election.

*If you haven’t read the original “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift (done 18-Style), you simply must.