Is Big Brother Coming to a Neighborhood Near You?

So, everyone's in a state over Big Brother planning our futures, telling us where and how much to develop.  While this could be an alarming scenario and put the brakes on local control, the hyperbole with which both sides have reacted is the most alarming aspect.

Let's acknowledge there are a few crazies on both sides looking to manipulate and exploit the process for their own gain and sucking up the press coverage.  Tea-Partiers and race baiters have no place in this dialogue. Also, let's see how fear is used to keep intelligent civilized dialogue from happening.

Do we need affordable housing in Marin County and other Bay Area locations? Yes, we do, but what that looks like, who controls it and where it is located are the issues.

Some see the phrase "local control" as buzzwords for NIMBYism. Some go so far as to call others racists, climate change deniers and spend an inordinate amount of time demonizing their neighbors.

Yeah, this is a great way to open a dialogue, boys.

And some on the other side see conspiracies and U.N. backed plans to impose a one world government, something I thought went out with the Eisenhower Administration.

Sadly, tin hats are worn by people on both sides to this equation.

Our 40 plus year old environmental laws are in danger of being gutted so new housing and jobs can be created with little review. Who benefits?

Democrat Darryl Steinberg, the President Pro Tem of the Senate offers what he sees as a compromise bill, to "streamline" CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) for projects in PDAs (Planned Development Areas.)   While not so Draconian as some of the bills the Republicans are offering, this bill would remove consideration of aesthetic qualities (among others) from the discussion. No one is happy about this bill, but the hope is, it fends off some more drastic Republican proposals.

But you might ask why? Why should poor people be made to live in warehouse style boxes? Aren't the aesthetics and the quality of life important to them, as well as those who don't want to look at big box housing any more than big box retail.

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) driving these new development numbers through its Plan Bay Area is using the rationale that we are under a mandate from the legislature to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that the best way to do that is infill housing.

All well and good so far as it goes. But what is infill? Near transit, near downtown?  All good too.  But who is asking some basic questions, like why do we think just because we build near transit, people will give up their cars? I suggest they won't do any such thing.  More people, more cars, more congestion on the already crowded freeways.

And where are the supposed jobs going to materialize from that these new residents will be working in near their homes? Are we looking at more Superstores? Walmarts? Fast food places? 

Why not bring up the standard of living for all, with true living wages, with stronger unions, and yes, stronger environmental regulations, that keep so-called infill housing out of flood plains and away from Bayland areas, when we all know the sea levels are rising?

Why not allow and encourage co-housing projects, for seniors as well as families; housing and land trusts to take the profit out of the housing market. Yes, a radical notion: Housing for people, not for profit.

While speculators and foreign investors are gobbling up land, foreclosed upon homes and apartment buildings, rent rises at an alarming rate.  What ever happened to rent control? And how about reclaiming some of those McMansions before the Chinese grab them all or Corporate America buys them for their CEOs, and repurpose them for housing people already here and in need?

Mixed use development in already developed areas like shopping centers and downtowns do not have to be developer-driven boxes for warehousing people, and maximizing profits.  Cities, Counties and maybe event the State has to be involved.  Non-profits, shared ownership, and stabilized rents can go far to easing the housing crunch.

And do you really have to worry about your property values sinking because poor people move in nearby? Or is that a groundless fear?  Fear has been used to fuel the gun debate, and now the housing debate. Fear of gangs, of lowered property values and always, always of the "other."  Let's out the fear mongers; let's stop calling our neighbors names.  Let's look at what's best for our communities, our residents, our environment.  

For a more measured approach to sustainable planning in Marin, see Community Marin, a years' long project to protecting Marin's environment and community character while providing for needed affordable housing.

Ruminations on the Boston Massacre - What's in YOUR pressure cooker?

Back from Cal. State Democratic Convention.  Yes, there were good speeches from women and men, Nancy Pelsosi, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom.  Good resolutions passed, anti-drones, anti-fracking, protect our environmental laws.  We continue to make Progress. John Burton is his feisty irreverent right-on self. He said, "Hell no, don't mess with Social Security."

Our own Betty Yee is bucking the machine and running for State Controller. All this is inside baseball, when explosions rock the marathon in my adopted home town. Terrorists, lone nuts, disgruntled ex-runners or amputee vets.

Yes, they suffer from some "mental illness" - all of them, every one. Don't hide it. Any one who kills has madness at the core. I don't believe in evil.

There are degrees of madness, from charmingly eccentric to off the charts violent.  Mostly they are scared, our society makes them so.  Paranoia is everywhere, black helicopters? Conspiracies? Rag headed terrorists? Shoe Bombers.  Every time, who suffers? The law abiding, whose anger is in check. For the moment.

We mourn our losses.  We move forward. We do not give up our civil liberties.   We just don't.  A revolt of the masses in airplane lines is brewing. Leave on your shoes. Bring bottles of more than 5 ounces. Small knives, toe nail clippers, hedge clippers.  Keep your belts buckled. Refuse to accept radiation.  If you must, ask for the grope option.

Be not afraid. They will get you in the end, we just don't know when the end will come or who "they" will be. Women, stand up and be counted. Like the future of the planet depends on you. It does!

In the meantime, what's in YOUR pressure cooker?

Media not good for Women Candidates - We Need to Change This!

Not so shocking, but disturbing news that the media, all media, is bad for women candidates, even so called "good press."  You've heard the expression "there's no such thing as bad press."

Not so for the woman candidate, according to this account from Think Progress, via Down Ticket Dems. Read on and comment:

Media Coverage Of A Female Candidate’s Appearance by Annie-Rose Strasser

Posted: 14 Apr 2013 02:38 PM PDT

As Media Coverage Of A Female Candidate’s Appearance Go Up, Her Chances Of Winning Go Down 

When President Obama elicited outrage for saying that Attorney General Kamala Harris was “by far the best-looking attorney general in the country,” his defenders jumped to say that people offended by the comment should “lighten up,” or focus on more serious threats to women’s rights.

But just days after that comment, a brand new study shows there’s definitive evidence to back up what the detractors were saying all along: It might seem small, but pointing out the physical attributes of a woman in the political arena can have a big effect.

The study, released Monday by the Name It, Change Itproject, reveals that mentions of a woman’s appearance when she is running for political office — whether those mentions are flattering, unflattering, or neutral — has a negative impact on her electability. That includes “the horserace, her favorability, her likelihood to be seen as possessing positive traits, and how likely voters are to vote for her.”

The survey was conducted by asking 1,500 likely voters to read about two candidates, one male (Dan Jones) and one female (Jane Smith). Some groups received descriptions of the candidates that did not mention physical attributes. Others received one of three types of descriptions for the woman:

Neutral description: Smith dressed in a brown blouse, black skirt, and modest pumps with a short heel…

Positive description: In person, Smith is fit and atractive and looks even younger than her age. At the press conference, smartly turned out in a ruffled jacket, pencil skirt, and fashionable high heels….

Negative description: Smith unfortunately sported a heavy layer of foundation and powder that had settled into her forehead lines, creating an unflattering look for an otherwise pretty woman, along with her famous fake, tacky nails.

When respondents hear the negative description of the female candidate’s appearance, she gets only 42 percent of the voters. When they hear the “flattering” description, she gets 43 percent (and there are fewer undecided votes overall, so her opponent gets an even bigger lead). With no physical description, Jane Smith gets 50 percent of the votes.

The same is true for all of her personal attributes; no matter the description, it affects her negatively:

But the real point of the survey — and the most salient fact that came from it — is that pushing back on the comodification of a female candidate’s beauty can be just as impactful as the criticism itself. Some respondents heard a defense from Jane Smith, saying, “My appearance is not news and does not deserve to be covered. Rarely do they cover men in this fashion and by doing so they depict women as less serious and having less to offer voters.” Others heard a similar defense from Name It, Change It. In both cases, when they heard that, their votes flipped back. Indeed, Jane Smith gained her first lead of the entire campaign.

It might seem lighthearted, or fair game, to comment on Hillary Clinton’s headbands, or Sheila Jackson Lee’s colorful suits. But those comments are not without repercussion. Overt, unequal, and pointed criticisms of women’s appearances are hurting them politically. And it might help explain that horrible ambition gap that’s keeping our elected government so heavily male.

Originally posted at ThinkProgress

Annie-Rose Strasser is Deputy Managing Editor for ThinkProgress. Before joining American Progress, she worked for the community organizing non-profit Center for Community Change as a new media specialist. Previously, Annie-Rose served as a press assistant for Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Annie-Rose holds a B.A. in English and Creative Writing from the George Washington University.

Think Progress is a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The Center for American Progress Action Fund is a nonpartisan organization.  

Friday night

Here we are at the Convention on the first night. Lise, me, Clay, Richard and Brodie.  Chair's Reception on the Terrace. Then on to the Take Back Red California Dinner. Now, leaving Lise to grab a brandy in the bar.

Off to the Democratic State Converntion.

Will blog as I go. Leaving as soon as Lise gets here.  2 PM. Impatient to be off.

Same Sex Marriage equals Same Indusry Marriage - for Coporations

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stunning endorsement of same sex marriage in all fifty states. "Yes, this is a matter of equal protection under the law," A beaming Justice Scalia stated at a packed press conference.  In light of previous case rulings and public sentiment, we realize that it is only fair to allow all people the same right to marry, even people of their same sex."

"And" he continued, his smile growing larger, "since our own precedent is to treat corporations as people under the 14th Amendment, this means that corporations and are now also free to marry, merge to you lay people, with others of their same kind, without being troubled by an alphabet soup of Government agencies, like the SEC, the FCC, and so on."

A surprised hush fell over the crowd. Justice Thomas in an uncharacteristic moment of speech, said in a loud voice, "No more anti-trust laws, boys. That's what the man said."

Scalia explained, "So if ATT wants to marry another telecommunications company, like Verizon, the boys on the Hill don't need to worry their pretty little heads about it.  If Bank of America wants to marry Wells Fargo, they can with no interference from the government.  Live and let live. Corporations are people too my friend"

The four "liberal" members of the Court sat back glumly, while Justice Anthony Kennedy was seen off the tide, scratching head and scrolling through Craigslist on his ipad.

Sue Bank of America - Pay big Bucks

 Corporate "Personhood" Run Amok

 In a twisted saga of how the crazy concept of corporate personhood has been perverted beyond even this jaded commentator's imagination, today's San Francisco Chronicle has the story of a women attorney who was grossly mistreated by the Bank of America, arrested and held chained to a jailhouse wall, without her diabetes medicine, sued the Bank and the Police (our own San Francisco's finest) and ended up not only having her case thrown out of Federal court, but ordered to pay the Bank $50,000 in bloated attorney's fees for stifling the Banks' right to free speech, under California's anti-SLAPP statute (which protects the free speech right of people from a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, a type of lawsuit usually brought by a corporation or business for the purpose of chilling free speech in the public arena) according to the Federal judge who first heard the case and 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, in its unpublished ruling.)

Sharon Henry went to deposit her partner's check in the Bank; the Bank, suspicious of the amount of $27,000, looked up the name of the partner, which coincidentally there were two of, and found out she did not have sufficient funds to cover the check.  Never mind that the Bank's own policy is to call the number on the check for verification. They snatched Henry, a San Mateo deputy District Attorney no less, and had her arrested. San Francisco police then chained her to a wall for two hours, without her medication and refused to let her call her partner.

Two hours later, the Bank realized its "mistake" and she was let go.  She sued the Bank for negligence and the police for negligence and false arrest and accused them of arresting her because she was African American. 

Equal Justice Under the Law?

So a gay African American civil servant is mistreated by all parties who fail to follow proper procedure, both in verifying the account and in holding her in medieval conditions (who gets chained to walls these days? Or do they, remind me not to get arrested in San Francisco) and she has to pay the Bank because of a perverted use of the anti-SLAPP statute, extending protection to banks from liability for any statements its employees make while investigating the crime. Her lawsuit was called "frivolous" by the Court.

While I do not have all the facts (why was she in Federal court, for one thing? A civil rights allegation?), it seems to me these are actions not statements that she suffered. And why do Banks have free speech rights in the first place? 

And unstated in the story is whether some of this "mistaken" activity occurred because Henry is gay, as well as African American.

In America? 2013? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Sadly, not.

Back to the Future with Debra Saunders

Debra Saunders would probably be happy living in the deep south.  Pre-Civil War.  She may picture herself as a Southern Belle in wide hoop skirts sipping mint juleps on the verandah while darkies peel her grapes.  At least that’s the impression this reader got after reading her Chronicle column this morning.  No, she is not spouting right wing rhetoric, nor pining for the good old days. She’s simply saying she wants the voters in each state to decide what marriage laws will apply. If State A says ok for same sex couples to marry, she’s all for it, but if State B says no way, she’s for that too. 

She prefaces this whole “let the voters decide” spiel with her avowed support for gay marriage.  She has lots of gay friends, she hastens to assure us and she would never be happy if California passed a law allowing them to marry. (So long as those who object don’t have to perform the ceremonies.)

That kind of reasoning would have kept slavery in half our country. It would have denied black people and women the right to vote.  It would have prevented interracial couples from marrying. And it would have allowed states to deny basic reproductive freedom to women.  Oh, yeah, she uses Roe v. Wade as an example, pointing out that the Supreme Court could go back on precedent in the choice cases and re-interpret the Constitution to take away a women’s right.

But so could the states’ voters make similar changes if it was left up to them. With voter suppression statutes being proposed in many states, and not just the Southern ones, it is only the courts that keep the legislatures and the voters in check. If a measure that is enacted through popular vote is unconstitutional, it cannot stand.

If we believe in basic equality, then all people should be free to marry whom they choose and where they choose, not be forced to move if their state denies a right that another state allows. This is a fundamental freedom. In this she parts company from even her conservative gay friends, who have filed a “Friend of the Court “ brief supporting gay marriage in the Proposition 8 case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Instead, she echoes another conservative, Bush Assistant US Attorney General known for his authorship of the “torture memo”, now a law professor, who states: “It would be a mistake for the Supreme Court to use this case to basically cut off the political process and impose its own view on a moral and political question that is very divisive.”

Wrong. It would be a mistake to leave such an issue, one of basic human rights, up to the whim of voters. That’s why we have a Constitution and a Supreme Court.  Do they always get it right? No, especially with the Bush era court we are now stuck with. But they will, eventually.  Just as the Court did away with the policy of separate but equal in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education; and a year later reversed its 1905 Decision in Lochner v. New York decision that allowed gouging of employees under a convoluted interpretation of contract law, stating in Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma “The day is gone when this Court uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down state laws, regulatory of business and industrial conditions, because they may be unwise, improvident, or out of harmony with a particular school of thought."

Put away the picture hat, Debra, and join us in the 21^st century, crossing our fingers that this Court does the right thing!