A school board position comes with great power; it must also come with great responsibility

SSF City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta (left) swears me in for my first full term as a Trustee for the South San Francisco Unified School District Board on Dec. 13, 2018.

On Nov. 6, voters re-elected me to a new term on the South San Francisco Unified School District's Board of Trustees after I had spent the previous 2.5 years filling out the term of the late Rick Ochsenhirt. I had been elected to a two-year term in 2016 after being appointed earlier that year, and this election netted me a full four-year term -- as well as the most votes among eight candidates (thanks everyone!).

Last month, former Trustee (and current South San Francisco City Clerk) Rosa Govea Acosta ceremoniously swore me in (above) and I got down to work with my new colleagues. They honored me with their votes and elected me to the presidency of the Board for 2019.

Being president gives one a soapbox, and in my Dec. 13 inaugural address, after a page of thanking voters, my colleagues, and my family, I drew upon the inspiration of the recently-departed Stan Lee, and reminded my colleagues on the Board that while student learning is our primary responsibility, we can’t other ignore situations in which we can help, because the costs down the line of not doing so will be great:

I enter this new role, and I’m sure trustees Flores and Richardson enter their new positions with similar feelings, mindful of the words of a great author who recently left us: “With great power, there must also come great responsibility.”

When Stan Lee wrote those words in 1962, he may not have had school boards on his mind, but the lessons apply to them just as well – there is possibly no greater power in our society than that of those who shape the minds of our next generation, and certainly there is no greater responsibility than that next generation’s care and safety.

Think of what happened in that famous issue of Amazing Fantasy where the phrase was first used and think how it applies to our role: Peter Parker, high on his own hubris after gaining great power and focusing on his own wants, refuses to help a security guard stop a robber despite being in a prime position to do so. That decision later results in tragedy for Peter’s family, as that robber later killed Peter’s uncle Ben.

So it is with the school board. We must not revel in our roles and become insensible to the needs of others. Our authority is narrow, but influential. We need to be aware of what our staff, our families, and, above all, our students, require, and we need to work together as a team to get it to them.

We all enter this position with our own expertise, passions, and ideas for the future. But ultimately, we as a Board must work as a unit, with our guiding principles directed by our LCAP, which was put together in consultation with our community, and is continues to be updated in consultation with all our stakeholders.

As a District and Board, we have made great strides over the years, but there remain challenges. For example, we have a teacher shortage. We have an achievement gap. We have seen complaints in the community about test scores at certain schools. But what do those test scores really measure? They don’t necessarily measure a teacher’s ability to teach or a student’s ability to learn. But test scores are  good measures of poverty and socio-economics -- especially in a District such as ours that is de facto segregated by income.

If you measure our students to like students in similar districts, however, the South San Francisco Unified School District acquits itself very well. As Dr. Moore wrote in the San Mateo Daily Journal yesterday, we are committed to offer the support students need to achieve equal outcomes, and that’s why our Board’s key focus has been – and must continue to be – equity, not necessarily equality. We need to get the most help to those students who most need it, and, as this District transitions to a neighborhood-based election system, we need to ensure equity remains a concrete part of our District’s culture going forward.

Our challenges are exacerbated by the high costs of housing in our region, which affects everything in our District: teachers and classified staff, who find it difficult to stay in our District or sometimes even in education as a profession altogether with what we can pay; Our students, who sometime have parents who can’t help with homework because they work multiple jobs and are either out working or too fatigues, and; families worried about housing security, resulting in instability that affects their students’ performance.

Our job is to educate those kids, but I think it is also our imperative as a District and a Board to advocate for our families. And by that, I mean both the families of our students and the families of our teachers and staff – two groups, by the way, that are often one and the same.

Unlike Peter Parker, who refused to stop the robber because it was “not his job,” we can’t ignore situations in which we can help, because the costs down the line of not doing so will be great. So, I challenge our cabinet and my fellow Board members: remember that while student learning is our priority, we must be able to help our families if we have the means to do so.

Some examples of what we can do:

•        We can discover what additional financial resources we can offer to help those we employ, funded by school finance reform measures such as efforts to close commercial loopholes in Prop. 13.
•        We can advocate for our school families before local planning officials to convince them to allow sufficient affordable units in northern San Mateo County in order to blunt rent prices.
•        We can continue and expand parent education programs, such as English classes for parents at Los Cerritos
•        We can expand after-school care options at our high-demand campuses

Finally, whatever one's opinion is on the development in our community, everyone agrees that the schools need to be ready for a changing, growing population. This means we need to ensure we have the capacity, both in terms of staff and structures to accommodate those new students.

If we can implement strategies such as those I just mentioned, more parents can help with homework, fewer students will feel insecure, and more teachers will stay with our district and become even more effective in the profession. Those positives will result in better outcomes for our students.

Because when you come down to it, this job comes down to doing what is right for Ian, Charlotte, and the more than 8,000 other students in our District.

We have the great power, now let’s show that great responsibility.

For video of the meeting, click here.

The costs of running for office (or, What I learned in the SSFUSD race)

(Note: I ran for the South San Francisco Unified School District's Board of Trustees in the November 2014 election. I know it may not seem so, because I didn't mention it on this blog, but I did. I had a website and everything! I didn't win, BTW. This time.)

Top vote-getter Rick Ochsenhirt (center) is formally sworn in by former Assemblyman Gene Mullin at the SSFUSD Board meeting on Dec. 17, 2014. Photo by John Baker.

Early on Wednesday, I filed papers with the Secretary of State to officially close my campaign committee (closing it by the end of the year allowed me to avoid a $50 fee).

It’s a bit of closure on what was an illuminating, unusual experience that was both disappointing and rewarding. More thoughts on that below. But first, let’s look at the math…

In the latest (and likely final) tally from the San Mateo County Elections Office, I got 2,801 votes (thanks to all!). For those votes, my campaign spent a grand total of $2,228.10. For those counting, it means I spent roughly 79.5 cents per vote. (For reference, my last three campaign finance reports are available here. Final filing starts on page 27 of the pdf document.)

To put that number in perspective, in the 2012 US Presidential election, Barack Obama’s campaign spent $10.37 per vote (or $16.73 when independent, outside money is included) and Mitt Romney’s campaign spent $7.11/$20.09).  In other words, I ran a campaign about 13 times more efficient than the president’s!

I have no idea (officially) how well how the other candidates did, as no other candidate has posted their campaign finance data online (despite at least one promise to do so), and I’ve no inclination to take a bus or car down to the elections office on remote Tower Road in unincorporated San Mateo to pull campaign finance papers and find out. But I’d guess that I’d be slightly below the median in terms of cost per vote.

Anecdotally and observationally, I’d guess candidates Sue Olinger (who seem to have spent next to nothing), Monica Peregrina-Boyd (who dropped out of the race after filing) and possibly Phil Weise may have been marginally more efficient. I’d guess each of the other four candidates were less efficient.

My three biggest expenditures were signage ($600.84), filing fees with both the County and State ($529.36), and my share of the printing costs for the countywide Democratic Party mailer ($450).

My three biggest donors were myself ($788.10), my father-in-law ($300), and fellow candidate Patrick Lucy ($200 – donated after the election {Thanks Patrick!}). About 20 other donors, with contributions ranging from $25 to $150, made up the difference.

From a candidate’s prespective, and as someone who’s covered local elections in San Mateo County since 1998, I really don’t think the lessons learned this election are really that surprising. Some old observations again proved true. For example:

• Some voters rely more on candidate name recognition and occupational titles rather than looking at a candidate’s education and experience;
• Who supports a candidate is sometimes more important than what the candidate supports;
• And, above all, money makes the difference in a low-information campaign. I may throw almost all my campaign mail in the recycling, but many other voters learn nothing about an election other than what they see on slick, glossy mailers. (That said, my 100 or so personal letters to voters, many with Batman stamps, got a very good response rate according to my informal exit polling). 

Policy-wise, I don’t think I’d change much about my election platform if I could go back. I probably would’ve hit the walking and writing trail earlier in an effort to sway early voters. But in terms of time, as a full-time employee with two young kids, it would’ve been hard to offer more. Still, lessons learned.

(Left: Former Trustee Phil Weise, who had just ended a 17-year-run on the Board, addresses the audience at the Dec. 17, 2014, SSFUSD meeting.)

While getting elected was the immediate goal, it wasn’t the ultimate one. The ultimate goal is to improve our kids’ education in the South San Francisco Unified School District. I think the spirited, active campaign with policy at the forefront that we just saw was a good step in that direction.

The winners in this election are all dedicated, caring people with experience in reaching out to the population. Maybe they're all a little more toward the social side of the scale and I'm more to the “policy-wonk” side than they are, but I still have faith in them.

And I will still be watching. I’ve redirected my campaign Facebook and Twitter accounts into watchdog status. I will still observe what I see in the District with a critical eye and put my analysis online.

And who knows? My campaign signage and business cards didn’t have an election year on them and I have plenty left of both, ready to be used again. You may see me again in two-to-four years if the current SSFUSD Board doesn’t do sterling work.

Time to ditch ballot box for online and mail-in voting

Turnout was light in San Mateo County for Tuesday's election.

I worked as a poll worker in Tuesday’s election here in South San Francisco and, as seen in the photo above, most of my time was free — we had only 29 people vote at Precinct 1801, my table. The two other precincts also stashed in the Sunshine Gardens Elementary cafeteria had similar numbers.

The folks I worked with — a retired Pan-Am flight attendant, a South San Francisco High senior getting bonus points (and a day off) for his government class, and our smart-alec inspector — helped pass the time. As did Steve Jobs’ biography.

Part of the reason for our low turnout was no doubt the lackluster ballot (right). While folks in nearby San Francisco had an exciting mayor’s race, we only had a community college bond, a board election and a city council race with two incumbents running. While the lone city council challenger had a nickname of “Midnight,” as usual, incumbency prevailed.

More than one person told us “thanks for volunteering” as they left the polls. It was all I could do to point out that I was hardly volunteering — I was in it for the cash.

So let’s see what the County of San Mateo bought at my precinct for its cash: three general poll workers at $125 each plus an inspector at $150, so $525 for 29 votes. Or, $18.10 per vote — not counting the salaries of the county technicians that occasionally checked in on us, or the labor/gas needed to transport our four voting machines, ballots, supplies, etc. from the San Mateo area to South San Francisco. Times that by the 440 precincts in San Mateo County and there’s a lot of money.

If not for people saving 44 cents by dropping off their mail-in ballots for free, it would have been a very quiet day at my polls. At least there was some cute kids' art (left) to look at.

One reason for the poor showing was that about half of the registered voters in our precinct of 600-odd people are registered to vote by mail. And with our lackluster ballot, this would have been an ideal election to have an ALL-mail election. It’s been done before. By eliminating the poll workers alone, hundreds of thousands of dollars could be saved, even if vote by mail ballots are sent out with postage paid — which they somehow inexplicably aren’t.

San Mateo County had just 22.3 percent turnout for this election, including mail-in ballots. In fact, there were 54,262 votes cast by mail, compared to just 19,604 people voting at the polls. So an all-mail election makes sense to me.

Or, how about online voting? Surely if there’s enough security in place to file my tax returns online, there’s enough for me to vote online. (Note, this would be alongside an option for mail-ins — we don’t want to keep people without computers from voting.)

“But,” some might say, “if we let people vote at home, we don’t know who’s REALLY voting.” But isn’t that the case now? As mentioned, half the people in the precinct I worked are registered to vote by mail anyway. And heck, election workers aren’t allowed to ask for ID in California, so who’s to tell if there’s fraud going on now?

In this age where technology is improving at the same time that governments are having to find ways to save money, doesn’t doing away with polling places altogether make sense?

As the chart I made below shows, there was a rush of voters trying to vote at my precinct just after working hours, suggesting people are having trouble finding time to vote. Give them the option to go online with a pin/password, and I’d bet you’d get much HIGHER turnout if polling places were eliminated.

Votes by hour in Precinct 1801.

SF Mayor finances: Lee, Chiu and Yee

The San Francisco Mayoral election is coming up Tuesday and the outcome is fuzzy amid swirling rumors of ethics violations and questions of just who can win in the City’s first major test of ranked-choice voting. One thing is clear, however: it’s an expensive race.

An analysis of several major mayoral candidates’ finances this weekend shows that millions of dollars have been both collected and spent by candidates for a position that pays $252,000 per year.

Using campaign finance links from the California Secretary of State’s office and the San Francisco Ethics Commission, I examined the complicated process of filing finance reports for several mayoral campaigns.

In the interests of time, I selected the three candidates (out of the 16 declared) who seem to get the most attention in the press or on social media: the incumbent, Ed Lee, and challengers David Chiu and Leland Yee. If someone chooses to go to the relevant part of the California Secretary of State’s website and analyze the other candidates, I’d be happy to provide a link to that analysis.

I realize this list is neither fair nor exhaustive, and the selection process was rather arbitrary. I also spent a great deal more time analyzing Lee’s finances, both because he is the incumbent and seemed to have more donors than the other candidates. But there is no ulterior motive behind which three candidates were selected, other than I thought they’d be the most interesting. I do not have a favored candidate in the race — in fact, I do not live in San Francisco.

The following was largely based on each candidate’s “Form 460” (a document filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission listing contributions and expenses) for the period covering Sept. 25 to Oct. 22, 2011, the most-recent filing period.

______

Ed Lee, the incumbent.

First, Edwin Lee, the current mayor. According to documents filed with the San Francisco Ethics Commission, Lee (as of Oct. 31, 2011) has taken in $1,334,576.67 in contributions, loans and public funds and spent $1,722,713.93. Lee still had $136,472.48 in his campaign war chest.

Unlike Chiu and Yee, whose Form 460s for the time period ran 96 and 97 pages, respectively, Lee’s Form 460 was a staggering 455 pages long. Some of Lee’s notable donors include: John Fair, manager of Lefty O’Doul’s ($500 on Sept. 30); the Rev. A. Cecil Williams of Glide Memorial Church ($250 on Sept. 29); and Matthew Janopaul, former COO of Fender Musical Instruments (of Fender Guitar fame) and current co-owner of Pasta Pomodoro restaurants ($500).

Lee gets some cross-Bay love, collecting donations from Joseph Yew, Oakland’s Finance Director ($250 on Oct. 17), and embattled Oakland Mayor Jean Quan ($500 on Oct. 20).

Interestingly, Lee collected numerous donations from several individuals who directly owe their jobs to San Francisco’s “interim” mayor. These include: Lisa Ang, Lee’s deputy communications director ($340 on Sept. 25); Lily Madjus, another deputy communications director ($150 a few days later); Craig Dziedzic, acting general manager of the SF Department of Emergency Management ($500 on Oct. 6); and Jacalyn Fong, acting director of contract administration ($100 on Oct. 18).

One of the more controversial donations Lee accepted might be from Mohammed Nuru, San Francisco’s director of public works, who gave $500 on Sept. 29. Nuru was appointed to his current post by Lee when Ed Reiskin was appointed SF's new Director of Transportation, despite allegations against Nuru of sexism and racism.

Lee is a golf fan, and continues to benefit from the largess of the Professional Golfers Association. Remember his 2009 gift from the PGA of two tickets for the President’s Cup at Harding Park? Well, Tom Clark, the PGA Tour's executive director of the Presidents Cup, gave Lee $500 on Oct. 4, and Brian Goin, a director of the PGA tour, also gave $500.

The business community likes Lee. October gifts of $500 to Lee’s campaign came from Carl Guardino, President of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group; former state Assemblyman and current transportation consultant Richard Katz; Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman (seeking good reviews, Ed?); and Zynga founder Mark Pincus. Twitter chief financial officer Ali Rowghani gave Lee a $500 contribution on Oct. 10 — six months after Lee pushed to give the social media firm payroll tax breaks to keep Twitter’s HQ in San Francisco.

So what’s the money been used for? For one thing, those yard and window signs you see all over the city aren’t cheap. Lee’s campaign paid the Wilmes Company, Inc., $27,887.21 for signage. Lee’s campaign also reimbursed staffer Thomas Li $2 for a Muni ride — what, he doesn’t have a Clipper Card?

But much of the campaign work is contracted out. “Ed Lee for Mayor, 2011” paid Phil Giarrizzo Campaigns multiple payments totalling more than $125,000 in the four-week period, and listed that it still owes the consulting firm $50,000.

The campaign also paid more than $110,000 to Sadler Strategic Media, Inc. for “professional services.” Sadler, in turn, paid SCN Strategies, a political firm known for dirt digging, almost $23,000 during the period.

Sadler also bought more than $50,000 worth of TV air time from stations KTVU, KRON, KPIX and KTSF, as well as $19,528.75 worth of local cable ads from National Cable Communications.

______

David Chiu.

The documents of Board of Supervisors President David Chiu were fairly simple, compared to Lee’s. According to documents filed with the San Francisco Ethics Commission, Chiu (as of Oct. 22, 2011) has taken in $623,138 in contributions, loans and public funds and spent $839,442.21. Chiu still had a healthy $321,511.99 in his campaign war chest.

Chiu’s most-recent four-week donor/expenses tally shows he took in $72,607.51 between Sept. 25 and Oct. 22 from individual contributors and businesses. There were fewer marquee donors on Chiu’s list, the most-notable being donations of $500 each from concert promoter Gregg Perloff, founder of Another Planet Entertainment, and his wife. Chiu collected $500 from a number of contributors, including Jessica Garcia-Kohl, director of development of the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County and Brown and Toland CEO Richard Fish. Fish, whose doctor's group operates at several Bay Area hospitals, seems to be hedging his bets, because he also gave $500 to Ed Lee the same date.

Expenditures for Chiu’s campaign seem heavily media-oriented. Chiu paid about $88,000 to JPM&M political consultants to handle most buys. Chiu, whose supervisorial district includes Chinatown, has invested heavily in Chinese over-the-air media, including $17,995 to Chinese TV station KTSF and $7,875 to Sing-Tao Chinese radio. In English, Chiu has been putting a lot of money into print ads — including $24,352.06 to the San Francisco Chronicle, which endorsed him. Payback, or simply advertising to the readers of a newspaper known to be friendly to you?

Chiu also took out ads in the San Francisco Bay Guardian ($5,174) and its competitor, San Francisco Weekly ($3,000), as well as a $7,000 buy in the San Francisco Examiner.

Being in a mayoral campaign involves a lot of traveling, and the carless Chiu (who usually bikes or takes Muni) owes Hertz $578.36, according to its unpaid debt sheet.

______

Leland Yee.

State Senator Leland Yee’s documents also were simpler than those from Lee. According to documents filed with the San Francisco Ethics Commission, Yee (as of Nov. 3, 2011) has taken in $1,311,759 in contributions, loans and public funds and spent $1,313,301.37. Yee still had $56,310.60 in his campaign war chest.

Yee’s most-recent four-week donor/expenses tally shows he took in $70,969 between Sept. 25 and Oct. 22 from individual contributors and businesses, including $100 from Fattoush, a Middle Eastern restaurant at 1361 Church Street, and a $500 contribution to himself. But Yee also returned several donations, including $500 on Oct. 14 to hedge fund manager David Corriea, president of Parnas Holdings.

Yee is popular with fellow politicians, collecting $100 from Redwood City Planning Commissioner Jeff Gee and $500 from the re-election campaign fund of Los Angeles-area State Senator Alex Padilla.

Yee’s campaign made 16 separate payments between Sept. 25 and Oct. 22 to Stearns Consulting, a campaign management firm which also claims Chiu as a client (although I could not find any payments from Chiu to Stearns). The payments totaled $128,758.20, with the largest single payment for $50,000. According to Yee’s records, most of these payments were passed on to various television stations for commercial airtime. The documents also show that Yee still owed Stearns about $22,000 as of late October.

San Francisco mayoral candidates and the gifts they receive

San Francisco City Hall.

People generally like to eat, listen to music and watch football, and when it comes to politicians, they really like receiving opportunities to do those things as gifts.

A review of public forms designed to reveal potential conflicts of interest showed that San Francisco Mayoral candidates have a propensity for accepting everything from toy trucks to 49ers tickets to — above all else — meals.

Every person elected or appointed to an official political position in California is required to annually file “Form 700” with the Fair Political Practices Commission. (I had to fill out a Form 700 for my service on the South San Francisco Housing Authority, for example.) These state-mandated forms include information about the sources of an official's income, investments, business positions, real property holdings and gifts from the previous year (i.e., the form for 2010 would be filed in 2011).

Forms for those who hold local government office are available at City Hall. But as a service, the FPPC has put online Form 700s filed by state legislators, elected city council members and county boards of supervisors. This week, I’ve been reviewing the online forms of the top candidates for San Francisco Mayor.

(Public Defender Jeff Adachi, City Attorney Dennis Herrera and Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting theoretically have their forms available for perusal at San Francisco City Hall. Candidate Tony Hall has been out of his former supervisorship for several years and Joanna Rees has never before held political office, therefore they apparently do not have recent Form 700s for perusal.)

Several other candidates did have their Form 700s available online, however. Alphabetically:

Michela Alioto-Pier didn’t file a Form 700 for 2010, probably because she left her office as Supervisor this past January, before it was due. Alioto-Pier’s 2009 form only reported one gift: a $100 flower arrangement from the Drew School, a small private prep school on California Avenue in San Francisco. (She did have to list her more than $100,000 stock holdings in Exxon-Mobil and two real estate holdings worth more than $1 million each: a home in Santa Helena and a condo on Vallejo Street in San Francisco.)

Ed Lee, the incumbent.

John Avalos, curiously, seems to be the only member of the Board of Supervisors running for mayor to not receive a gift, own any property or stock. His Form 700 was limited to a single page declaring he had no reportable assets.

Current Mayor Ed Lee does, however. In his form covering 2009, while he was city administrator, Lee writes he received a total of $290 in gifts — symphony tickets in July from the City Arts Commission worth $140, and two tickets from the PGA in October for the President’s Cup at Harding Park worth $150.

Lee did not seem to have a 2010 form available online, despite being City Administrator the whole calendar year.

David Chiu.

The bicycle industry-sponsored Bikes Belong Foundation gave supervisor David Chiu his largest gift: a $3,400 trip in August 2010 to the Netherlands to observe “urban transportation and biking practices … with other Bay Area officials.” Does this gift — the largest revealed by any candidate in their filings — make Chiu a puppet of corporate interests? Chiu’s acceptance of the gift from the Bike Belongs Foundation is interesting, because he doesn’t even seem to be the favored candidate of San Francisco bicyclists. That would be Avalos, who was endorsed by the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition (the SFBC ranked the carless Chiu second). Chiu was endorsed by the Chronicle, which may be some consolation.

Chiu's form shows he also got more than $700 from Harvard University for speaking engagements, tickets (worth $258) from the San Francisco Symphony in September 2010 and two tickets (worth $228) from the San Francisco 49ers the next month.

(It should be noted that the largest gift that public officials can generally accept tops out at $420. Chiu's trips seem to fall under an exemption for travel outside of California provided by non-profit entities.)

Bevan Dufty, who like Alioto-Pier left his SF Supervisor’s office in early 2011, also doesn’t have a Form 700 online for 2010. However, his 2009 filing indicates that he likes a show. He received theater tickets worth $250 in February 2009 from the Shorenstein Theater for the opening night of “Wicked.” He also got tickets worth $250 from the San Francisco 49ers for a game on Nov. 29, 2009 (a game the Niners won, 20-3 over the Jacksonville Jaguars). Dufty also was well-fed in 2009, getting $1,220 worth of meals from eight different contributors (some multiple times).

Leland Yee.

Leland Yee lists gifts from 21 different donors, the most among candidates who filed a Form 700. Among them was San Francisco’s Green Toys, which make its items out of plastic recycled from milk jugs. On Jan. 20, 2010, the toy store gifted Yee with a toy truck worth $25.

In April 2010, Yee accepted a gift of $2 (yes, two dollars) in “peanuts” from the California Beer & Beverage Distributors. Everyone knows suds go down better with nuts.

Perhaps the most interesting gift Yee received was a “food” gift on April 5, 2010, from the California State University at Stanislaus Foundation — just days after Yee had criticized the Foundation for paying Sarah Palin for a speaking engagement. A “mend fences” lunch perhaps? Or a case of “let’s criticize them and eat their food, too?”

Yee’s single largest gift was airfare to Washington, lodging and attendance at an awards ceremony from the National Education Association — the nation’s largest labor union — between July 2 and July 4, 2010, worth exactly $1,115.80.

We don't yet know who will be elected San Francisco's mayor on Nov. 8, but you can bet they'll be well-fed.

I can't wait until it's Nov. 5

Perhaps the worst part of election season is seeing people who normally promote themselves as forward-thinking individuals admit to actually hating people who run on a platform of beliefs different from theirs. Maybe I'm a bit idealistic, but short of advocating genocide, I really can't see a belief that your possessing would make me hate you. I might think you're an idiot or naive, but that's an entirely different thing.

Am I voting for these guys? Maybe.
We've seen it from both sides in this election. In fact, for the extremes, this election is not about the candidates. The far right, not happy with the Republican candidate, are putting together a nasty assault against the Democratic candidate instead of promoting John McCain (I had originally written "nastier than usual" there, but it's almost always this nasty). The far left, looking past any merits Barack Obama might have, are operating a smug-sounding campaign against a decent candidate simply because he's from the same party as the failed incumbent.

Are these folks worthy of my vote? Possibly.

It's been so bad that I refuse to be associated with either side. The college student who rents our spare room put an "Obama" sticker up in her (street-facing) window last month. As someone who tries to keep a neutral front (thanks to my days as a print journalist), I was actually a bit offended, because I didn't want the neighbors making presumptions about us. I even bought a McCain sticker to put up as a counter, but it's still in its envelope because I don't want anyone in the household to make assumptions about me. (I would have gotten some third-party stickers as well, but Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader all charge more for their stickers than I'm willing to pay to make such a small point.)

I like Obama, his enthusiasm for social issues and his ability to encourage participation. I like McCain, his independent streak and his history of service. I hate Biden's dullness (and eyebrows) and loathe Palin's disavowal of natural selection. I will be neither unhappy nor perfectly satisfied if either side wins.

What's worse is that the electoral college system is so dated. There's almost no point in voting for a McCain/Palin ticket if you live in California or the Obama/Biden ticket if you live in Texas. It's ridiculous. Sorry Kansas and Wyoming, I know the electoral college is there so someone actually pays attention to your small-state issues, but it's not good democracy. With modern mass media (including the Internet), anyone can make their cause known no matter how Podunk their home town is. This de facto lack of choice is why I voted for a third-party candidate in each of the last two elections.

With all those issues, I really can't wait until it's Nov. 5 and the election is over and done with.

Actually, since I'll be in Australia -- over the International Date Line -- come election day (I'll send in my absentee ballot before I leave), I guess I actually can't wait until Nov. 6 ...

How I would solve society's ills

After the previous political post (and in preparation for one ready to drop in a couple days), I just thought I might clarify my own positions on some of society's issues. Basically, I'm a hard-edger. Neither fully liberal or conservative, but taking positions from the edges of both sides.

For the record, I am not a member of any political party. In California, however, that goes on the voter rolls as "decline to state," instead of "none" or "non-partisian," which I think is disingenuous as it makes it sound like I have a party leaning but am afraid to let people know. Not the case.

I lean a bit to the left, which in the Bay Area makes me a "cold-hearted conservative" and everywhere else a "flaming liberal."

My positions on selected political issues:

Social Issues

• Abortion, euthanasia/assisted suicide of the seriously ill, and the death penalty should all be legal. Or all should be illegal (I lean toward legal). I think it's a bit hypocritical to be for or against one and not the others. Frankly, there are not enough executions to make it a worthwhile deterrent and too many "unwanted" children barely cared for by people unfit to be parents;
• Anyone -- male, female, whatever -- should be able to marry anyone else they want: male, female, whatever, as long as all parties are of legal age, fully sentient and marrying of their own free will. Adam and Steve's relationship down the street has absolutely no effect on my marriage, nor does it make mine any less special. For those who are going to ask what's next: Polygamy? (Sure, as long as it follows the rules above -- although I'd limit the tax benefits.) Child marriage? (No, check the legal age requirement.) Bestiality? (Only if the animal is fully sentient, e.g., a gorilla with a transplanted human brain or a really smart dolphin.);
• Teach abstinence in schools. It is the most effective way of preventing the spread of disease and pregnancy, and frankly might slow the rush of some kids who are just not ready for the responsibility. But be realistic -- kids are going to have sex, lots of it if they can. Teach the facts of life and hand out free condoms in a welcome pack at the beginning of every semester;
• Guns. To me, the text of the Second Amendment is clear: "A well-regulated militia ... " You want a Glock? Fine. Join the National Guard. Anyone not serving in a militia should hand in their firearm, save for the occasional licensed hunting rifle. I'm fine if the angry red states want to form "citizen volunteer militias," or something like that, so long as it's government-monitored and has frequent lessons about gun safety and ethics. (Really, does anyone in the gun lobby think that their guns are going to save them from a truly oppressive government? Ask David Koresh.)

National Security

• The United States should leave Iraq and send every last one of those troops to stabilize Afghanistan;
• If you're a terrorist and you want to attack civilians, you're fair game for the American military, whether you're in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or Canada (or any other country, ally or otherwise);
• If you're an alleged terrorist and we catch you, you get every single right that we give imprisoned Americans, including legal representation, an appeals process and open hearings.

Legal issues

• Legalize medical marijuana and treat it as a controlled substance, like Vicodin. Get a real doctor's prescription and tax the hell out of it;
• Continue tough persecution (yes, I do mean persecution, not just prosecution) of criminal street gangs, with limited suspension of the Fourth Amendment's search clause of convicted gang members and those who associate with them. Yes, I know you cannot force someone to give up their constitutional rights -- this suspension could be included in plea bargains and volunteered to by those convicted;
• There should be a federal shield law for reporters. The press is probably the only defense against government malfeasance that is still effective.

Civic duties/voting

• In order to vote, you must be at least 16 (not 18) years of age, a citizen and possess a high school diploma or higher degree (with classes in government and economics a necessary part of the curriculum). I'm am aware that this proposal will bring up comparisons to the "literacy tests" that were used to deny the vote to blacks in the old South, but that's a false comparison. Those laws were based in racism -- my proposal is based on the ability to think critically. Critical thinking is a necessary part of voting and if you don't understand the process, you should not participate in it. I will grandfather in those already voting without a diploma or degree;
• If one is convicted of a felony, they must serve the term of their prison sentence, complete any probation or parole and then wait one year before they are again allowed to vote. Any conviction regarding bribery of a public official, malfeasance while a public official, assault on a public official or voter fraud will impose a lifetime voting ban;
• Everyone (male or female) must serve at least one year of national service before the age of 25 years old. This requirement can be satisfied by service in the armed forces, Ameri-Corps, the Peace Corps, teaching in a public school or certain other government employment. Those who have not satisfied the requirement by their 25th birthday get drafted into the armed forces.
• Everyone who has at least a high school diploma, citizen or non-citizen, should serve at least one week of jury duty each year. Their employers must continue to pay regular wages during the service and the courts shall provide at least minimum wage, a lunch stipend and mileage in addition to whatever the juror's regular employer pays.

Energy policy

• No new oil drilling. The problem isn't really foreign oil, it's just plain oil. I once heard my father exclaim -- while in a heated conversation -- that "The Liberals want to take away our cars!" No, I want your car to run more efficiently, produce fewer (or no) greenhouse gases and eventually use an alternative fuel. Save the oil to make plastics, which are the true bulwarks of the American economy; to make things go, use ...
• Nuclear power. Despite the protests of many I respect, the evidence suggests to me that nuclear power is safe, efficient and more productive than wind, solar etc. Nuclear power is like air travel -- it's statistically very safe, but on the very few times there is an accident, it's a friggin' doozy!;*
• Solar power. Nuclear love aside, let's see massive tax credits for anyone who wants to put solar panels on their roofs. Let's take every building we can off the grid during daytime hours.

Evolution vs. Creationism

• Feel free to teach creationism. In church. To people who think that the world is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth and a great flood killed all the unicorns. In schools, stick with natural selection. It's observable around us every flu season, when a drug-resistant strain becomes prevalent. Some try to dismiss evolution as "just a theory." Those people weren't paying attention in science class, else they would have heard how much observation and experimentation and evidence is needed to turn a hypothesis into a theory. By way of comparison, gravity is a theory. So is a2+b2=c2. Pythagoras hasn't been proven wrong yet.

Immigration

• "Illegal" immigration is wrong, but so is scapegoating or forcing the migration of undocumented immigrants. While I think we should keep regulating our borders, I'm not prepared to triple the price I pay for produce, clothing, lodging, janitorial services or many of the other occupations traditionally manned by undocumented immigrants. Let as many guest workers in as industry needs, make them pay taxes, give them some services and then send them home after a few years to allow new guest workers to rotate in. No "amnesty" for non-documented immigrants currently here, but give them first dibs in the guest worker program. I really don't see why immigration is the issue that it is for some -- I've never met a single person who's lost a job to an "illegal immigrant" and don't expect to, despite living in a very Latinized area.
• Reform legal immigration. Go to a point system, like Canada, Australia, etc. Give people points for education, business acumen, prior service, etc. Immigration lotteries are just dumb, where people get something for nothing.

Education

• School years should be longer, there should be a mandatory grade 13 and two years of optional, free community college should be given to every recent graduate. Most of the extra time in education should be used to teach foreign languages and science, technology, engineering, and math. This country isn't educated nearly enough as it is and more education will be needed to keep the American workforce the best in the world. No, I have no realistic idea how to pay for such an extension of school, but in the meantime, though, let's work in more of those STEM classes.

Nationalism

• In the early days of my college education, I wrote a short opinion piece in the college newspaper about how not saying the Pledge of Allegiance was my own protest against the forces of rampant nationalism. We paid our taxes, and that was allegiance enough to warrant protection and services from the government, I argued. My opinions have changed. While I still think nationalism for nationalism’s sake is wrong and the wording of the Pledge is not necessarily how I would I put things, I say the Pledge now. If anything has dawned on me in the past 16 years, it’s that the United States is one of a rare breed among nations – one can express any opinion they want in this country, including how displeased they are with the government or the country’s overall direction. It is this freedom of expression that certainly warrants my allegiance. So I now say the Pledge, not because I would do anything the country asks without question ... but because I actually don’t have to.

That's my two cents.

* Note: This post was written before Fukushima. Obviously.