The Bay Area Junk Mail Reduction Campaign’s solution to the huge amount of paper that’s wasted on junk mail:

Everyone should write letters to every company that sends you junk mail saying “I care about the environment; please take me off your list.”

This is a very stupid proposal. 

First, without the force of law requiring them to do so (which we don’t have now), companies are not going to take you off their list.  At best, your letter will be ignored.  At worst, you will be confirming your name and address for the solicitor’s database (kinda like replying to spam).

Second, is the best solution to junk mail really to DOUBLE the amount of wasted paper?  Being pen pals with solicitors doesn’t seem to be a good idea. 

And don’t forget – it costs 39 cents a pop to mail these “friendly requests” to the solicitors.  If the Bay Area Mail Reduction Campaign can really convince people to part with this kind of money, shouldn’t they raise money and start pushing for some legislation that creates a “do no junk mail” list that requires solicitors to remove the names and address of people who register to be on the list?

On September 7, I wrote to Governator Schwarzenegger pleading him not to veto the Gender Neutral Marriage Bill.  Of course, in the end, he did veto the bill.  Today, more than two months later, Schwarzenegger finally wrote back (presumably from his Blackberry while in China.  He said::

Thank you for emailing to express your position regarding Assembly Bill 849 (Leno).  I understand the importance of this piece of legislation and the outcome it would have on our State and nation as a whole.  After extensive consideration and thorough deliberation from proponents and opponents of this issue, I have decided to veto this bill.

I am proud California is a leader in recognizing and respecting domestic partnerships and the equal rights of domestic partners.  I believe that lesbian and gay couples are entitled to full protection under the law and should not be discriminated against based upon their relationships.  I support current domestic partnership rights and will continue to
vigorously defend and enforce these rights and as such will not support a rollback of these rights.  

California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000.  Article II, section
10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people.  This bill
does not provide for such a vote and I do not believe the Legislature can reverse an initiative approved by the people of California.

The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition of same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of
Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.  If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not
necessary.  If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.

While I was not able to sign this bill in particular, I did sign legislation to extend the rights of domestic partners.  Last legislative
session I signed SB 1234 (Kuehl), the most comprehensive extension of
domestic partner rights.  This sessions I signed AB 1400 (Laird), which clarifies that marital status and sexual orientation are among the
characteristics that are protected against discrimination by business establishments under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.  I also signed AB 1586 (Koretz) which adds additional language to already existing anti-discrimination provision to clarify that State law prohibits insurance companies and
health care service plans from discriminating on the basis of gender in the creation or maintenance of service contracts or the provision of benefits or coverage.  

Thank you again for taking the time to voice your opinion.  Taking the time to communicate your opinions and concern shows that California’s
people are engaged in issues that affect the well being and future of our State.  

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Why did it take the Governator two months to respond?

Is it just me, or does this letter scream “separate but equal is good enough for me”?  

(Edited to add blockquote. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Kudos to U.S. District Court Judge Karlton, who today decided that the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance is not constitutional.  While his decision immediately affects only three school districts in Sacramento County, it means that the 9th Circuit, and likely the U.S. Supreme Court, will address the issue again soon.  Unfortunatley, without O’Connor, God may prevail at the Supreme Court.  But at least this time the Sups can’t punt – all three plaintiffs in this case unquestionably have standing.

From SFGate:

In deciding the current case, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento said he was bound by the Court of Appeals’ previous decision.

Karlton said he would sign a restraining order prohibiting the recitation of the pledge at Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts, where the children of Newdow and his fellow plaintiffs are enrolled.

The order would not apply to other California districts unless it was affirmed by a higher court.

Referring to the previous decision in the court of appeals, Karlton wrote, “I conclude that binding precedent requires a narrow resolution of the motions, one which will satisfy no one involved in the debate, but which accords with my duty as a judge of a subordinate court.”