Thursday, October 30, 2008

San Francisco Votes: Proposition H

0 comments
San Francisco - Proposition H is complicated. Its headline in the voter guide demonstrates the complexity: "Setting Clean Energy Deadlines; Studying Options for Providing Energy; Changing Revenue Bond Authority to Pay for Public Utility Facilities."

Three actions hinge on this proposition, but the first two appear unnecessary. Don't we already have a law (or laws) that set clean energy deadlines? And isn't "Studying Options for Providing Energy," inherent to the role of the Public Utilities Commission?

Well Yes on H would "require the PUC to evaluate making the City the primary provider of electric power in San Francisco." Requiring an evaluation means wasting a lot of time and money into a review process that has no significant outcome. Clearly the City makes more money selling the excess power from its Hetch Hetchy facilities in Tuolumne County to customers other than residents of San Francisco. Were not the costs and benefits of making the City the primary provider of electricity weighed when the initial decision to sell the power else where was made? If not, how, and why, would citizens of San Francisco vote more authority to such an inept and self-serving body?

The primary catch to Proposition H is the power it allocates to the Board of Supervisors. A yes vote on H allows the Board to approve the issuance of revenue bonds to pay for any public utility facilities without voter approval. The rhetoric of a green future may feel enticing. It may be less enticing, however, if that promise of green energy requires voters sign a blank check to the Board of Supervisors. This will be the case if voters pass Prop. H.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Fear-Mongering on the Campaign Trail

0 comments
While Barack Obama's text message campaign is both excessive (daily texts to promote voter action) and annoying (unsolicited, self-promoting texts) they aren't frightening. Plus there's little chance a text message will confront an unintended target. Not so with McCain's robo-calls. And that's intentional.

John McCain knows first hand that scare tactics work. Robo calls dealt a fatal blow when McCain challenged George W. Bush in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries. When faced with robo calls during his 2000 presidential bid McCain said: "I promise you I have never and will never have anything to do with that kind of political tactic."

Yet, when asked about his previous comments in recent interviews on FOX, CNN and MSNBC McCain supported his campaign's use of robo calls. He continues to vehemently defend the content of the calls, which indicts Democratic rival Barack Obama for his relationship with 60s radical Bill Eyers, as "absolutely true."

McCain points out that Obama and Eyers served together on the board of the Woods Foundation of Chicago. They did. But McCain's indictment implies that the Woods Foundation is a sinister, anti-American institution and fails to mention the Woods Foundation is a philanthropic organization devoted to poverty relief and the promotion of social mobility. Don't we want poverty relief and social mobility, Mr. McCain?

While Barack Obama and William Eyers served on the Woods Foundation board together, Obama also denounced Eyers's involvement with the Weathermen and the group's violent -- and deadly -- anti-war activity during the Vietnam War. Yet McCain's robo calls imply that the relationship between Obama and Eyers was social (i.e. Obama 'pals around with terrorists') rather than professional. The calls also imply that Obama was a party to the terrorist agenda because Obama "worked closely" with Eyers. A man, the calls say, "whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and a judge's office and killed Americans." The calls draw a direct link between Barack Obama and terrorism, failing to clarify that Obama was only eight-years-old when these acts of domestic terrorism occurred.

Robo calls prey on the most vulnerable members of the electorate: the under-educated and ill informed. It's unconscionable that John McCain has resorted to the tactics he denounced during his Maverick days. Even more so, McCain hired the man who engineered the fear-mongering robo call attacks against him in the 2000 primaries to do so.

The John McCain of 2000 understood that those who vote out of fear, or inspire others to do so, do a disservice to themselves and the ideal of democracy. In February of 2000 McCain said: "If all you run are negative attack ads you don't have much of a vision for the future or you're not ready to articulate it. Apparently the John McCain of 2008 has forgotten this.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Brush Revolution

0 comments
Those eyes, so vibrant and alluring. They draw you in and that flash of lash whispers about a secret. Her secret. Perhaps she'll share it. Can you get close enough to slip beneath the covered lashes? To slip into her world? Maybe she's born with it. Maybe it's Mabelline.

This sort of gimmicky advertising is why I have a love-hate relationship with mascara.

It's not that I love to hate it, but I love it and I hate it. Who am I kidding right? We do look better with mascara. So in my constant pursuit to cast myself as an object worthy of appreciation, I'm constantly buying new mascara. My relentless desire to attain "the look" of the moment keeps me from throwing out the old ones. I have maybe eight tubes of mascara at all times that I'm willing to use. I'll toss the really old ones when they start to smell like tire rubber; there's no way I'm swiping that brush anywhere near my eyes.

Maybe it's because the less expensive brands do all the marketing that I'm not much for designer mascara. I've yet to see one with an ultra high price tag work much better than cheaper versions. Go to Sephora and try it for yourself if you don't believe me.

If you're a label reader you'll know that there isn't much difference between the content of the designer mascaras and the drugstore brands. Either way you can choose among colors or select waterproof instead of washable. But when selecting between the high end to the discounted you're better off buying the drugstore mascara in mass. Newness, as it turns out, is what keeps your mascara fresh and your brush clump free, thus having more unopened tubes proves far more effective than spending all that cash on luxury priced mascaras because the quality disparity of the actual mascara (its popularity, btw, evolved in the early 20th century when women began tinting Vaseline with coal dust and using it to coat their lashes) isn't really distinguishable.

As a point of fact I haven't seen too many ads expressing new formulas for mascara, rather their revolution is in brush types. What's amusing about this is how vendors describe brushes in order to encourage us to select the "colossal brush" with "9x the volume in one coat," that promises "no clumps." Where's the data on this? Prove to me that one coat of "the COLOSSAL" provides 9x more "volume" than another mascara.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Shoplifting Moms Use Kids in Burglary Attempt

0 comments
Talk about despicable. Two women were arrested Monday night for, allegedly, using their children to steal merchandise from the local Wal-Mart.

According to a San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department official, the women, Anguiano-Degonza, 26, and Juana Marin, 22, changed barcodes of several items as they attempted to steal more than a dozen others.

Store employees noticed the woman acting suspiciously as one of the women dressed her toddler in an un-purchased jacket and attempted to leave the store. According a spokesperson for the Victorville Sheriff's Department, Karen Hunt, the other woman was seen sticking a sweater into her child's car seat, beneath the baby.

Previously the women were seen attempting to check out of the same Victorville Wall-Mart with items tagged with the incorrect barcodes. At that time store loss-prevention officers had no proof that the women had actually switched the barcodes.

Along with their arrest for commercial burglary, the women were also charged with child endangerment. Both women were booked into Victor Valley Jail, while their children were released into the custody of their fathers.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Sarah Palin: A Woman of Her Kind

0 comments

On Dating Stephen Elliot by Katie Crouch

0 comments

Monday, October 20, 2008

Georgia: the Protectionist State

0 comments
Sexual assault in Georgia isn't quite what it is in the rest of the country.

The definition of sexual assault varies by state and most prohibit subjecting another to unwanted or offensive sexual touching. In Georgia, however, the definition of sexual assault is less specific.

Georgia does not specify whether the touching must be unwanted in order to be criminal; that is, it need not be if the person committing the sexual assault: "has supervisory or disciplinary authority over another person."

Ostensibly this makes some sense: the law protects subordinates from sexual assault by supervisors. But, it also diminishes the ideal of consenting adults. To say because a person " supervisory or disciplinary power over another," that any sexual contact between them is criminal seems to violate the notion of privacy promised by the Constitution.

We have laws on the books that protect children from adults and laws that protect adults from one another. However, it isn't the role of the government to selectively protect people from participating in legal activities with whomever. Should such activities become unwanted or offensive, then perhaps there should be grounds for charges of illegality.

Until then, not so much.

Ethics live in the details

0 comments
Weighty words and hollow verbiage too often bear the title of a Code of Ethics and such codes remain under the radar at many organizations. Ethics codes speak of principle not practice. Only companies that make ethics a priority at all levels of the organization, especially at the executive level can reasonably claim allegiance to a Code of Ethics.

As a writer of online training courses in ethics and compliance I’ve seen the differences. Many companies train employees as a preemptive legal strategy: employees spend 60 minutes clicking answers and reading text about the organization’s policies and expectations. Doing this makes wrong doing or "ethics violations" the responsibility of the individual actor not, the company argues, the organization at large. Yet, once finished, most employees return to their tasks and tuck what information they retained somewhere out of consciousness, continuing on as if the training hardly happened.

Not much changes after the training. When an ethical violation arises — a coworker asks you to clock out for her so she can stop by the store before she picks up her kid from daycare — few employees have courage enough to draw attention to the situation. While some may refuse her request, saying: “I’m not comfortable with that” or something of the like, few consider such an incidental request an ethical violation. Would you?

Ethics live in the small things, in the details. Yet it is precisely here where the graying of ethics begins. Individuals must not only hold themselves accountable, but we must each remain accountable to our fellow colleagues, clients, consumers and citizens. Denying accountability in the simple, small matters frays the ethical fabric of upon which we base a code of ethics and hastens the unraveling and our collective ability to deny our own responsibility.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Football Profits: Ill Gotten Gain

0 comments
Wow! Talk about a blatant, ill-conceived abuse of his position. John Widowfield, then an Ohio State Representative, used campaign funds to buy Ohio State football tickets and then re-sold the tickets for profit. While buying OSU football tickets with campaign funds is apparently common and legal, Widowfield violated state ethics laws and misused his position as a lawmaker when he resold the tickets at a profit.

His shady dealings netted him $13,676 — an amount that Widowfield claims he repaid his campaign — and a misdemeanor charge for filing a false financial disclosure statement.

Shortly after an investigation by the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee, Widowfield resigned his seat in the Ohio House of Representatives. But it wasn’t until four months later that the Republican from Cuyahoga Falls admitted wrongdoing. Faced with a misdemeanor ethics violation, a charge allows for jail time, Widowfield will likely only pay a fine.

In his Elections Commission filing Widowfield wrote: "My misconduct has, quite properly, resulted in my resignation from the General Assembly. I have written a personal check to my campaign committee in the amount of the proceeds at issue but that does not excuse or change the fact that I violated" state law. Widowfield’s public apology continued, by saying, "I do not wish to excuse my conduct, but atone for it."

Widowfield’s actions not only demonstrate his severe lack of judgment and disregard for the regulations of good governance, they also mock the very people who contributed to his campaign.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Felony claim leads to defamation lawsuit

0 comments
When former Nevada State Sen. Sandra Tiffany found herself on the losing end of an election she decided to sue. And rightly so, she experienced libel that exposed her to ridicule and contempt, not to mention a resounding defeat, ending her career as a state lawmaker.

Tiffany claimed defaming mailers, sent by the Nevada State Education Association, contributed, unfairly, to her failed reelection bid in 2006. The claimed defamation touted in the mailers: Henderson could go to prison for unlawfully using her elected position for personal gain.

It’s true that before the election Tiffany was under investigation by the state Ethics Commission. Investigators found evidence that Tiffany used her position to obtain information about other states’ online government auctions. Information she later admitted to using in order to increase the prosperity of her private business. So the charge that Tiffany unlawfully used her position and violated the states ethics laws is accurate. But were such violations felony offenses as the mailer charged? No.

Tiffany admitted to two willful ethics violations before the election and subsequently paid her $10,000 fine, she was not cited with and criminal violation. Thus, the charge of Tiffany’s impending imprisonment in the Education Association’s mailer may be libelous, since the mailer wasn’t spot on. As a point of fact, that the teacher’s union should have reasonably known, the ethics violations charged to Tiffany were far from felonies: ethics violations in Nevada result only in fines.

Of her desire for $10,000 compensation Tiffany said: "This is defamation. We're not kidding around here. Yes we want compensation and we want the teachers union to know they can't do that to people. They can't go that far over the line."

While the teacher’s union has yet to comment on the lawsuit it should be prepared for a Tiffany to put forth a serious case for defamation of character. Such a case requires Tiffany to show a) a false statement of fact was made: that she could be jailed for her ethics violations; and, b) this statement was conveyed to a third party and intends to harm Tiffany’s reputation: the teachers union printed the claim on mailers and dispensed them throughout Nevada’s 5th District.

In the case of a public figure, such as a senator running for reelection, the plaintiff must prove malice spurred the defaming statement. In the political arena, as in the private sector, malice isn’t easily proved. The teacher’s union may be able to fight Tiffany’s claim, but it should also remember that ethical due diligence (i.e. fact checking) keeps lawsuits like these from ever arising.

Tell my dad on you, Devil!

0 comments

Friday, October 10, 2008

Dow Jones & the Birds of War

0 comments

The Birds of War are buzzing my house again today. Blue and yellow their steel wings glisten and glint the bay waters below. Smoke lingers in their wake, marking a trail of their rise and fall and plateau. Then up again they'll rise, seemingly from nowhere, from some unseeable moment on the horizon.
Perhaps these Birds of War prophecy our country's economic future, and at some distant moment, unseeable to the naked eye, the Dow Jones will rise up from what seems like nowhere. For now, it's all a matter of keeping an eye on their trails of smoke and our lungs full with air to be expelled at the last possible moment. Relief, it's all okay. The election is over and cycle begins again as the left moves closer to the right as children wail and old people die in the streets.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Blue Angles and more

0 comments
The Blue Angles swooping by disturb my writing and I am upset. Yet when I think a second more I realize my life, even jobless, is easy. My city isn't plagued by violence, at least not of the sort with IEDs or shoulder fired missiles.

Leaving the Mission last night after the Progressive Reading Series I walked to 24th and Valencia. I'll admit I was uncomfortable, not scared but awkward and displaced. I felt like I'd invaded a neighborhood without winning hearts and minds. If only it were so small an invasion. I found my way out without trouble. In fact, several folks were quite helpful. People, as individuals, are much more amiable then generalized mobs. Just look at the debate Tuesday. The mud-slinging and direct, malicious and misleading attacks were toned down to temperate, lukewarm tolerance.

I'll avoid a diatribe on tolerance, for now.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

John S Micain & the Debate

0 comments
Only now do I realize why Sarah Palin noted John McCain's middle initial 'S', for Sidney, when she accepted his invitation to the Republican ticket. This act of performative speech gave her and McCain the leeway to use Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein, when referring to the Democratic nominee for president. And we thought she had no foresight.

Debate Tonight

0 comments
Big Ben announces today that the sky is actually falling.

All those big names (i.e. Bush II, McCain) who thought the rest of us were being Chicken Littles in terms of the economy, were actually wrong. Some of the MSNBC commentators equate this financial disaster as an atomic bomb on the economic front.

Perhaps soon they'll start equating the current financial situation to the Holocaust and those who deny its severity the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.


***************************

Monday, October 6, 2008

Sarah's World: Blood Stain

0 comments

Friday, October 3, 2008

Sarah's World: Who got your back?

0 comments

Sarah's World: Veep Debate

0 comments

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Sarah's World

1 comments