• Sen. Obama isn’t spending a ton of money on billboards across California, but he is spending money on billboards in Burnout Paradise, a racing game produced by California gaming firm ElectronicArts. The comments on the link are interesting, with several self-described Republicans lauding the Obama campaign.

• You can follow along with every independent expenditure filing, on a daily basis, at the California Fair Political Practices Commission site.  It’s good to check this and see who’s dumping money where.

• The Guardian (UK) has actually been doing excellent work on the economic crisis in Southern California.  Earlier this year they uncovered the “Bushville” tent cities popping up in the region in the wake of the foreclosure mess.  Now they travel to Riverside to see how the credit crunch is impacting the people there.

For years, Bob taught adult education. Last spring, because of state budget cuts, his hours were reduced: over the summer, he got only two weeks pay, and in September he got no paycheck at all. He’s now back at work, but is apprehensive about more budget cuts. Short-term credit has dried up in California, and the state is asking for emergency federal loans. Any way you look at it, reasons Bob, programmes like his are going to get cut.

Read the whole thing, it’s harrowing.

• The Yes on Prop 2 Campaign released some nasty video of cruelty to chickens. We’ll have a discussion of Prop 2 with the Campaign Manager on our revived podcast on Friday at 1 pm.

• Same-sex weddings are spiking with just a few weeks remaining before the election.  Hopefully that isn’t necessary, but this just re-emphasizes how important it is to defeat Prop 8.

• An interesting story in the Chronicle about an Oakland City Council race: Rebecca Kaplan vs. Kerry Hamill. Kaplan is the progressive in the race, and as out lesbian, is endorsed by Victory Fund. She’s also got the endorsements of the SF Bay Guardian, the Alameda County Democratic Party, SEIU locals (UHW and 1021), East Bay Young Dems, Van Jones, Asm. Sandre Swanson, and well, Brian Leubitz (if that means anything).

• In SF, District 3 Board of Supervisors candidate David Chiu is going to file a ethics commission complaint against the San Francisco Association of Realtors for ads claiming that he supported Prop K, a measure to decriminalize prostitution.  The position doesn’t really bother me, it’s more the pure sloppiness of it. While I have heard Chiu was a little slow to oppose K, a simple fact check of the No on K website would disabuse them of the notion that he supports K.  By the by, Brian Leubitz supports another candidate in the race, Denise McCarthy.

A friend just passed along the latest email blast from the Yes on 8 team, wherein the Yes on 8 people are claiming that one of their parade of horribles have come true at last:  Homosexual Marriage Is Being Taught In Schools To Children!  Against The Wishes Of Their Parents!  The Horror!  The quote in full from the email blast:

In the same week that the No on 8 campaign launched an ad that labeled as “lies” claims that same-sex marriage would be taught in schools to young children, a first grade class took a school-sponsored trip to a gay wedding. Eighteen first graders traveled to San Francisco City Hall Friday for the wedding of their teacher and her lesbian partner, The San Francisco Chronicle reported. The school sponsored the trip for the students, ages 5 and 6, taking them away from their studies for the same-sex wedding.

Except you know, not really.  This is a lie by omission.  Over the fold, a set of actual quotations from the San Francisco Chronicle article describing the event in question.

A group of San Francisco first-graders took an unusual field trip to City Hall on Friday to toss rose petals on their just-married lesbian teacher – putting the public school children at the center of a fierce election battle over the fate of same-sex marriage.

The 18 Creative Arts Charter School students took a Muni bus and walked a block at noon to toss rose petals and blow bubbles on their just-married teacher Erin Carder and her wife Kerri McCoy, giggling and squealing as they mobbed their teacher with hugs.

Wow, that’s horrible!  First graders!  Who love their teacher!  And want her to be happy!  An indictment of the public schools to be sure.  But this must be something the school forced on the parents, because we all know the evils of the public school system, and no parents could ever agree to allow their children to see such a thing.

A parent came up with the idea for the field trip – a surprise for the teacher on her wedding day

But I bet one radical parent forced the field trip on all of the other children, and their parents never even had a chance to object.

As is the case with all field trips, parents had to give their permission and could choose to opt out of the trip. Two families did. Those children spent the duration of the 90-minute field trip back at school with another first-grade class, the interim director said.

Apparently not.

So, let’s see.  A parent suggests a field trip to see the wedding of a beloved teacher, the school agrees, every parent of every child in the class has an opportunity to object, and yet, the Yes on 8 people have this to say:

“It’s just utterly unreasonable that a public school field trip would be to a same-sex wedding,” said Chip White, press secretary for the Yes on 8 campaign. “This is overt indoctrination of children who are too young to have an understanding of its purpose.”

Yep, That darn public school taught children the exact lesson that their parents wanted them taught, and which all of the parents involved expressly agreed they should be taught.  The horror, the horror of a school that is responsive to the wishes of the parents.

See, what the Yes on 8 people object to is anyone being taught that this teacher’s love and her rights are the same as everyone else’s.   The Yes on 8 people believe that this teacher should be treated different from everyone else because she happens to want to marry someone of the same sex.  And the Yes on 8 campaign is prepared to lie (in this case by omission of the actual facts) in order to imply that the school did something that the parents didn’t want, in order to force the government to treat this teacher differently from everyone else.   Lies and fear, that’s pretty much what the people running the Yes on 8 campaign have got to offer.  And no good idea needs to be sold with lies and fear.

If you’re as tired of the lies as I am, give the No on 8 Campaign some help.

A significant and hopefully well-timed ruling given the fight against Prop 8:

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

“To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others,” Palmer wrote. (NY Times 10/10/08)

That’s what the fight against Prop 8 is all about – the Mormon Church and Yes on 8 campaign want to treat same-sex couples as different and lesser people, with inferior and incomplete rights. The concepts of equal protection and equal rights make it clear that we must recognize their right to marry.

How will Connecticut react?

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said in a statement. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success.”

California politicians were saying the same thing back in May, you’ll recall, but here we are on the verge of Prop 8 passing. If you haven’t donated to the No on 8 campaign what are you waiting for?!

Right now the Yes on 8 Campaign is telling so many lies in the service of eliminating rights for gay people that it’s hard to keep track of all of them.  But I want to focus on just one lie for the moment, one from the first Yes on 8 TV Ad:

Churches could lose their tax exemptions

This is a lie.  Want to know how I know it’s a lie?  Here’s what the California Constitution currently says, right now, in Article I:

SEC. 4.  Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.  This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.  The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

SEC. 8.  A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin.

SEC. 31.  (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

The last time I checked, Catholic priests can refuse to marry a couple if they’re not both Catholic (and I assume if they haven’t completed the various sacraments and classes required). Only Mormons in good standing can even attend a Mormon wedding inside a temple, and Mormon bishops can refuse to marry non-Mormons.

So why haven’t the Catholic Church and the Church of Latter Day Saints lost their tax-exempt status in California, like Law Professor Peter Peterson says they might if gay people are allowed to marry and those churches refuse to marry them?  

Because churches are private actors, guaranteed freedom of religion in the California Constitution.  The elected Justices of the California Supreme Court made that very clear when they ruled, citing Article 1, Section 4 of the California Constitution, in a decision written by Republican Ronald George, that the State could no longer discriminate against gay people who wished to marry:

Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to  change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no  religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his  or her religious beliefs.   (Cal. Const., art. I, § 4.)

So the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, and Peter Peterson acting as their spokesman, are lying.  Under the California Constitution, in the very Supreme Court decision that they Yes on 8 campaign is so up in arms about, no church could lose its tax-exempt status for refusing to marry a gay couple or preaching that gay marriage is wrong.

Nothing that’s a good idea needs to be sold with a lie.  Vote No on Proposition 8.  Don’t corrupt our state’s Constitution by taking rights away from people for the first time in our history.

I’m contributing to the No on 8 Campaign again, because I’m sick of the lies.  So should you: No on 8.    

Here we go again, another round of endorsements.  The bulk of these will be fairly uncontroversial here.  On Prop 7, Brian Leubitz did not vote due to the fact that he works for the campaign. See the flip for more information on our positions.

See the flip for more information on the props…

Prop 1A: High Speed Rail: YES!

Prop 1A, recently revised on the ballot by legislative action, will allow the state to purchase $10 Billion in Bonds for the purpose of creating a high speed rail system.  The money will also be leveraged to get federal dollars as well as attract private investments.  This is a no brainer, but if you need more information, check out Robert’s HSR Blog.

Prop 2: Farm Animal Conditions: Yes

This is a simple law that requires farm animals to be able to stand up and turn around in their cages. While there are lots of protests from factory farming interests, this measure could level the playing field for small farmers.  Polls show this one strongly leading. The campaign has also produced a cute video with a singing pig.

Prop 3: Children’s Hospital Bonds: Yes

While some of us are conflicted about the purchase of more bonds for another narrowly defined interest, this seems to be a net plus.  Simply put, this would allow the state to sell bonds to provide additional funds for our children’s hospitals, hopefully for capital improvements.  Our hospitals in general need a lot of work, but it would be even better if this money would go instead to ensure all county and other public hospitals remain viable. Not sure about that cheesy commercial though.

Prop 4: Parental Notification: No, NO, and NO AGAIN!

We’ve done this twice before, in the special election of 2005 and again in the general of 2006.  Enough already. We’ve said that we want to make sure that our teenage girls are safe, not use them as political pawns.  Prop 4 requires parental notification, which is fine if the teen has a functional family, but can be dangerous in an abusive home.  The proposition allows for a judicial bypass, but how many scared, pregnant teens have the wherewithal to go through that? This one is running close, so get the word out! As a sidenote, this is a good case for initiative reform to include a limit on how many times you can bring something to the ballot.

Prop 5: Drug Rehab: Yes

A sound policy reform to decrease the number of nonviolent offenders in our jails by placing them in rehabilitation facilities instead.  Prop 5 also reduces sentences for these nonviolent offenders based upon their successful completion of the rehab program. While not “ToughOnCrime”, it is SmartOnCrime.  This is a follow-up to the wildly successful Prop 36 of a few years back. Prop 36 saved us millions of dollars, this likely will as well. Unfortunately, today Senator Feinstein has come out against Prop 5 in a wildly speculative press release that merely rehashes the No on 5 campaign talking points. Let’s be smart, not pseudo-tough. Yes on 5.

Prop 6: Runner Gang Measure: NO

Another wasteful ToughOnCrime measure from the legislators Runner.  This is just plain bad policy that won’t actually reduce gang violence.  The measure increases prison sentences for young gang offenders (really, now?) and would likely cost about a billon dollars per year.  The Mercury News breaks it down:

It would require spending $965 million next year – and more every year

thereafter – on law enforcement, probation and police programs, with a

focus on gangs. That’s $365 million – 50 percent more – than last year.

And the amount will grow, because the initiative guarantees annual

increases for inflation, and higher prison expenses as a result of the

new or longer sentences it would impose for 30-plus crimes. Add in $500

million for jails that the initiative requires for more prisoners, and

it’s a daunting number, at a time that the overall crime rate has been

dropping.

Far too expensive for far too few results.

Prop 7: Renewable Power Standard: No

There already is a renewable power standard in California as part of recent anti-global warming legislation.  This bill would expand those requirements from 20% to 50% by by 2025 – but several small wind and solar power companies are opposed because the measure would essentially toss them out of the market by excluding plants smaller than 30 megawatts from even counting toward the standard.  That appears to cripple innovation and tilt the playing field away from sound renewable power development.  This is a noble goal which is poorly written to create winners and losers.  It’s a close call, but we’re voting no.

Prop 8: Anti-Marriage Amendment: NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!

Not much to explain here. Prop 8 would eliminate marriage rights for same gender couples. It is time for Californians to stand up for equality. No on 8.

Prop 9: Runner Victim’s Rights: No

Another “ToughOnCrime” measure by the legislators Runner, this time funded by Henry T. Nicholas III, co-founder and former CEO of Broadcom. Why is that relevant? Well, Mr. Nicholas has himself been indicted for white collar fraud as well as drug charges including accusing “Nicholas of using ecstasy to spike the

drinks of industry executives and employees of Broadcom customers.” Classy.

The measure itself reduces frequency of parole hearings and allows victims and their survivors to be present. I’ll let the OC Register, which suggested a No vote, explain the prop:

Prop. 9 would place those rights into the state constitution rather

than into statutory law, the distinction being that the constitution is

much more difficult to change if problems develop. It would also give

crime victims and their families the constitutional right to prevent

the release of certain documents to criminal defendants or their

attorneys, and the right to refuse to be interviewed or provide

pretrial testimony or other evidence to a defendant. The constitution

would be changed to require judges to take the safety of victims into

consideration when granting bail. It would make restitution the first

priority when spending any money collected from defendants in the form

of fines. It would also extend the time between parole hearings from

the current one to five years to three to 15 years.

I’m fine with victim’s rights, but that shouldn’t extend to creating bad policy and increasing our already ridiculously high prison population. We already have a crisis, we don’t need to exacerbate it. Vote No on “Marsy’s Law.”

Prop 10: Natural Gas Giveaway: No

Prop 10 would sell $5 billion worth of bonds to help Californians buy cleaner cars.  The problem of course is that clean is defined as to mean natural gas, and not hybrids. Huh? Furthermore, it wouldn’t require that the commercial trucks purchased with the overwhelming majority of these funds stay in the state.  This is simply a boondoggle for Swift Boat Veterans Funder T. Boone Pickens to get his natural gas company a ton of new purchasers and to get the state to build his natural gas highway. Natural gas is slightly cleaner than gasoline, but it’s still a technology of yesteryear.  We need real renewable energy, not more fossil fuels. Prop 10 is a waste of money at a time when we can’t afford to fully fund our educational system. No on 10!

Prop 11: Redistricting: NO!

Another waste of time redistricting measure that accomplishes little other than guaranteeing Republicans additional power over the redistricting process.  Prop 11 would give equal power to Democrats and Republicans to draw the maps, and would exclude from the commission anybody who has had any experience relevant to the process.  It’s a flawed process that gives Republicans too much.  It’s opposed by leading minority organizations and the Democratic Party. 

For more information, see this diary here at Calitics. Our diary is actually recommend over the “official” No site, which is so hideous as to be nearly useless.  Anyway, Vote No on Republican Voters First!

Prop 12: Veterans Bond: Yes

These things always pass, and are always pretty small. This bond funds a program to help veterans purchase farms and homes.  It’s a decent program, and the bond has passed something like 20 times over the last 100 years.  It likely will again. Despite our concerns over ballot box budgeting, helping out our veterans is a worthwhile cause.