Thursday, October 23, 2008
Giant Spider
This is not the spider that I have recently tweeted about, but Genevieve is sending me links like this one so I thought I'd post some old pictures from when I visited Papua New Guinea. It's hard to tell, but this guy's (or girl's) body is like 2 inches long. I didn't actually want to stick my thumb close enough to get a really good reference shot.
 |
| From Giant Spider |
 |
| From Giant Spider |
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Bo Burnham
I'm surprised I haven't done a post about this guy before back when I first saw him on the Internets. He's an up and coming young comedian (i.e. he's all of barely 18) that I just saw last night with Genevieve, Quinton, and some other friend of Quinton's that I don't know.
Here's his early signature song, with horrible horrible sound
And then here is a much more recent video with much better non-blown out sound.
And then for the record, his real actual website http://www.boburnham.com/
Here's his early signature song, with horrible horrible sound
And then here is a much more recent video with much better non-blown out sound.
And then for the record, his real actual website http://www.boburnham.com/
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Brains! Must eat brains!
This photo really doesn't need a caption. For the record, it is right after the last 2008 presidential debate when McCain was trying to walk around the desk to shake hands with the moderator. Note to self, keep tongue in month at all times when on a presidential debate stage.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Voter Guide the Second Coming: City Stuff
Finally got my official City and County of San Francisco voter "pamphlet". Why I get a "guide" from the state that is like 30 pages long and a "pamphlet" from the city that is 200 pages long is a little bit of a mystery, but whatever. The biggest difference is that the city pamphlet also includes "paid arguments" that are not in the state guide.
But enough about that, on to the picks:
President & Vice President: Barack Obama & Joe Biden - not a surprise considering I've actually given these guys money and even went door to door for them.
U.S. Representative (District 8): Nancy Pelosi - I'm not super happy with her but I know nothing about the other people. I guess this is how incumbents keep their offices.
State Senator (District 3): Mark Leno - Again the incumbent. Really the challengers have a burden of proof to make themselves known to me that these people have not met.
State Assembly (District 13): Tom Ammiano - As a current city supervisor my impression is that he is generally respected, so sure, let's have him move up. He's also the Democrat for what that's worth.
Judge (Seat #12): Gerardo Sandoval - Here's an example of a challenger getting an ad in front of me, criticizing the incumbent, and then the incumbents statement being basically "just keep me". Nope, you gotta answer better than that. You're outtie buddy!
School Board: OMG, this is a bunch of people that I have almost no info about so I've done my best to pick people based on instinct after reading their statements. These are my picks, but I do not have strong defensible reasons. Marigrace Cohen, Emily Murase, Alexander Lee, Barbara Lopez
Community College Board: Same deal as School Board, these are gut picks. Milton Marks, Mary Hernandez, Steve Ngo, Natalie Berg
Bart Director (District 7): Lynette Sweet - Another incumbent without a challenger that has done anything to get in front of me. I hate this, but it's a reality. She gets to stay.
Now for the local propositions. These are pretty fascinating because the Mayor can put anything he wants out as a proposition just because he feels like it. He clearly uses this power to fuck with the Board of Supervisors. This is a dynamic of city politics I wasn't aware of before, and which honestly seems to result in pettiness. Now, on to it...
A - Yes - Bonds for earthquake retro-fit stuff at General Hospital. No one opposes, not a bad idea.
B - No - A set aside of property taxes for affordable housing that doesn't appear to be needed. Seems like the same results can come from other places with the set aside. Set asides are bad bad bad.
C - Yes - No opposition. Prohibiting city employees from sitting on most boards. Not a bad idea.
D - Yes - Develop Pier 70 by my house and make sure some of the historical buildings are preserved. This will help my property values :) Oh, and there is no opposition.
E - No - There is no need to change the rules for recall petitions from just 10% of voters in a district to a higher 15% or 20%. Let's keep the officials a little more afeared of recall. Apparently it doesn't happen anyway so there's no need to change this stuff.
F - No - This would shift mayorial elections to coincide with presidential ones. I don't think we need that. I understand the argument to save money and that not so many people turn out, but I am more worried that the presidential politics will overshadow the local politics.
G - Yes - Let's allow city employees to purchase their way into a new retirement benefit that was added a few years ago. The best argument against it is that it is a dangerous precedent, which I think is valid but weak.
H - Yes - This is probably the biggest issue on the ballot, or at least the one with the biggest ad campaign. After reading the actual text, I find the arguments against it to be fear-mongering. The arguments claim that this will somehow cost taxpayers, but the bonds that it authorizes the board to issue without further votes would be revenue bonds, not general obligation ones. Revenue bonds pay for themselves. This could lead to San Francisco having a publicly owned electrical supply that is hugely based on clean energy. I think this is good plan. I will not be surprised if this fails though because the opposition campaign is so large. Doesn't mean I'll give in easily though.
I - Yes - This is actually included in H as well, but it is un-opposed separately. Creates an independent ratepayer advocate office for utility rates.
J - Yes - Let's bring on a historic preservation committee with professional members to figure out what to be doing in this area.
K - Yes - Not enforcing laws against prostitution sounds good, and overall probably is, but this is a shaky yes for me. I'd prefer there be some regulation and testing required, but I marginally agree with the notion that brothel style laws don't fit our current situation very well. Definitely a very shaky yes.
L - Yes - This is mayor versus board politics, but I think that they shouldn't let this program be a pawn. These community justice center things are way way good and get a bunch of stupid stuff out of courts.
M - No - A shaky no to not add additional renter protections. They seem unnecessary to me and I'm more in favor of not making laws unless we really need them.
N - Yes - Increasing taxes on larger (i.e. commercial) real estate transactions seems like it will provide a new good revenue stream. Need some of these in order to balance the budget I would say.
O - Yes - Replacing the 911 "fees" with actual "taxes" preserves 911 funding. I see no reason to cut that. I'm not entirely happy with the way this proposition explicitly adds VoIP service as taxable, but I figure it's probably a little irrational to think that VoIP really is any different, and thus it should probably have the same taxes on it.
P - No - Changing the way the Transportation Authority Board works is just stupid mayor versus board power play crap. Stop this!
Q - Yes - The payroll tax might as well cover lawyers, doctors, and other professionals the same as other small businesses.
R - Yes - Sure, why not, let's rename the sewage plant after Bush. It's harmless and fun.
S - Yes - I really want to vote No because this stupidly worded and forces the city policy to be one of influencing voters in a particular direction, however, I feel the direction is correct and think it might help decrease voters adding more of these stupid budget set-asides. Set asides are bad bad bad.
T - Yes - Providing more substance abuse services saves money in the long term in health care and other service costs.
U - Yes - Again a "city policy shall be ..." thing that I dislike, but it does send a message to our federal representatives that they should not continue to fund Iraq without it being for withdrawal. This is probably a shaky yes because I don't like the policy shall be stuff, but I probably agree with the policy.
V - Yes - Shall we tell the school board to bring back JROTC - hells yeah! Military recruiting is not bad, and JROTC is way more than that. Stop demonizing the military.
Whew! This has literally taken me hours to come up with these opinions. For everyone reading I hope this helps you some, but please post comments to let me know how I'm wrong.
But enough about that, on to the picks:
President & Vice President: Barack Obama & Joe Biden - not a surprise considering I've actually given these guys money and even went door to door for them.
U.S. Representative (District 8): Nancy Pelosi - I'm not super happy with her but I know nothing about the other people. I guess this is how incumbents keep their offices.
State Senator (District 3): Mark Leno - Again the incumbent. Really the challengers have a burden of proof to make themselves known to me that these people have not met.
State Assembly (District 13): Tom Ammiano - As a current city supervisor my impression is that he is generally respected, so sure, let's have him move up. He's also the Democrat for what that's worth.
Judge (Seat #12): Gerardo Sandoval - Here's an example of a challenger getting an ad in front of me, criticizing the incumbent, and then the incumbents statement being basically "just keep me". Nope, you gotta answer better than that. You're outtie buddy!
School Board: OMG, this is a bunch of people that I have almost no info about so I've done my best to pick people based on instinct after reading their statements. These are my picks, but I do not have strong defensible reasons. Marigrace Cohen, Emily Murase, Alexander Lee, Barbara Lopez
Community College Board: Same deal as School Board, these are gut picks. Milton Marks, Mary Hernandez, Steve Ngo, Natalie Berg
Bart Director (District 7): Lynette Sweet - Another incumbent without a challenger that has done anything to get in front of me. I hate this, but it's a reality. She gets to stay.
Now for the local propositions. These are pretty fascinating because the Mayor can put anything he wants out as a proposition just because he feels like it. He clearly uses this power to fuck with the Board of Supervisors. This is a dynamic of city politics I wasn't aware of before, and which honestly seems to result in pettiness. Now, on to it...
A - Yes - Bonds for earthquake retro-fit stuff at General Hospital. No one opposes, not a bad idea.
B - No - A set aside of property taxes for affordable housing that doesn't appear to be needed. Seems like the same results can come from other places with the set aside. Set asides are bad bad bad.
C - Yes - No opposition. Prohibiting city employees from sitting on most boards. Not a bad idea.
D - Yes - Develop Pier 70 by my house and make sure some of the historical buildings are preserved. This will help my property values :) Oh, and there is no opposition.
E - No - There is no need to change the rules for recall petitions from just 10% of voters in a district to a higher 15% or 20%. Let's keep the officials a little more afeared of recall. Apparently it doesn't happen anyway so there's no need to change this stuff.
F - No - This would shift mayorial elections to coincide with presidential ones. I don't think we need that. I understand the argument to save money and that not so many people turn out, but I am more worried that the presidential politics will overshadow the local politics.
G - Yes - Let's allow city employees to purchase their way into a new retirement benefit that was added a few years ago. The best argument against it is that it is a dangerous precedent, which I think is valid but weak.
H - Yes - This is probably the biggest issue on the ballot, or at least the one with the biggest ad campaign. After reading the actual text, I find the arguments against it to be fear-mongering. The arguments claim that this will somehow cost taxpayers, but the bonds that it authorizes the board to issue without further votes would be revenue bonds, not general obligation ones. Revenue bonds pay for themselves. This could lead to San Francisco having a publicly owned electrical supply that is hugely based on clean energy. I think this is good plan. I will not be surprised if this fails though because the opposition campaign is so large. Doesn't mean I'll give in easily though.
I - Yes - This is actually included in H as well, but it is un-opposed separately. Creates an independent ratepayer advocate office for utility rates.
J - Yes - Let's bring on a historic preservation committee with professional members to figure out what to be doing in this area.
K - Yes - Not enforcing laws against prostitution sounds good, and overall probably is, but this is a shaky yes for me. I'd prefer there be some regulation and testing required, but I marginally agree with the notion that brothel style laws don't fit our current situation very well. Definitely a very shaky yes.
L - Yes - This is mayor versus board politics, but I think that they shouldn't let this program be a pawn. These community justice center things are way way good and get a bunch of stupid stuff out of courts.
M - No - A shaky no to not add additional renter protections. They seem unnecessary to me and I'm more in favor of not making laws unless we really need them.
N - Yes - Increasing taxes on larger (i.e. commercial) real estate transactions seems like it will provide a new good revenue stream. Need some of these in order to balance the budget I would say.
O - Yes - Replacing the 911 "fees" with actual "taxes" preserves 911 funding. I see no reason to cut that. I'm not entirely happy with the way this proposition explicitly adds VoIP service as taxable, but I figure it's probably a little irrational to think that VoIP really is any different, and thus it should probably have the same taxes on it.
P - No - Changing the way the Transportation Authority Board works is just stupid mayor versus board power play crap. Stop this!
Q - Yes - The payroll tax might as well cover lawyers, doctors, and other professionals the same as other small businesses.
R - Yes - Sure, why not, let's rename the sewage plant after Bush. It's harmless and fun.
S - Yes - I really want to vote No because this stupidly worded and forces the city policy to be one of influencing voters in a particular direction, however, I feel the direction is correct and think it might help decrease voters adding more of these stupid budget set-asides. Set asides are bad bad bad.
T - Yes - Providing more substance abuse services saves money in the long term in health care and other service costs.
U - Yes - Again a "city policy shall be ..." thing that I dislike, but it does send a message to our federal representatives that they should not continue to fund Iraq without it being for withdrawal. This is probably a shaky yes because I don't like the policy shall be stuff, but I probably agree with the policy.
V - Yes - Shall we tell the school board to bring back JROTC - hells yeah! Military recruiting is not bad, and JROTC is way more than that. Stop demonizing the military.
Whew! This has literally taken me hours to come up with these opinions. For everyone reading I hope this helps you some, but please post comments to let me know how I'm wrong.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
California Voter Guide - Part the First, State Propositions
I always like to actually read our propositions here in California and make up my own opinions about them as much as possible. Often I don't seem to have the time, but this year with all the focus on the politics of the presidential election it has made me actually remember to do this. Thus, here are my picks for the statewide propositions. There are a bunch of San Francisco propositions that I have not yet received the voter guide for, so those will have to come in a later post.
Prop 1A - Yes - High speed rail is a good thing. I would love to be able to actually take the train to LA
Prop 2 - No - I realize that being nice to farm animals seems like a humanitarian thing to do, but I agree that this is ill-conceived and would most likely cause more harm than good in the way of increased samonella and other issues since it would probably stop all in-state egg production.
Prop 3 - No - In general I'm opposed to additional bonds without really good reasons. This appears to be mostly a "it's for the children" plea for money that I doubt really has a good ROI.
Prop 4 - No - Oh hell no to any sort of "girls have to tell their parents before getting an abortion" type bill. This is government trying to enforce morality in a really stupid and dangerous way.
Prop 5 - Yes - I'm not happy about the cost and allocation of money here, but the concept of replacing incarceration with rehab for drug offenders would have a hugely positive effect on prison overcrowding and overall on the budget issues. Plus, the war on drugs is stupid.
Prop 6 - No - The cops want guaranteed funding. I philosophically oppose mandated funding levels. I'd prefer the government have the freedom to vary budget according to demand.
Prop 7 - No - This is a reasonably complication proposition that uses words that sound good, but in reality appears to be a way for the non-public utilities to squeeze out the public utilities and to setup a situation where they would have no incentive to actually implement renewable energy properly. This stinks of corporations trying to influence public policy to increase their profit margins.
Prop 8 - No - VERY IMPORTANT : This is the stupid gay marriage ban. Retarded. Enough said.
Prop 9 - No - So called "victim's rights" actually means more expense and complication to operating our prisons while being a poorly written proposition to begin with. This is silly.
Prop 10 - No - Screw T. Boone Pickens and his convoluted attempts to turn energy policy into his own natural gas windfall. Plus, $5 billion in bonds - are you fucking kidding me? Notice how I've already voted against less than a billion for so called children's hospitals? (Although I did agree to $10 billion for trains. Trains are cool, kids suck I guess is what I'm saying :) )
Prop 11 - Yes - Another complicated proposition where I feel at least one side is misrepresenting who they are and what their motives are. If you read the actual proposition I think this is a reasonable law for taking the redistricting out of the hands of the officials who have an interest in screwing it up and putting it in an otherwise non-interested parties hands. I think it is actually a big strength that not only are the redistricting commissioners not elected (they are chosen by random draw from all qualified applicants) - but they also can't BE elected for the length of time that the district maps they drew are in effect. That's only going to attract pretty non-partisan people I would say. Yes, there is room for abuse, but I feel it's less room than the current system.
Prop 12 - Yes - Another $1 billion for a program that helps veterans, no one opposes, and that is setup to pay back the money. This is really just the state co-signing veterans loans. It would be silly to oppose this.
Prop 1A - Yes - High speed rail is a good thing. I would love to be able to actually take the train to LA
Prop 2 - No - I realize that being nice to farm animals seems like a humanitarian thing to do, but I agree that this is ill-conceived and would most likely cause more harm than good in the way of increased samonella and other issues since it would probably stop all in-state egg production.
Prop 3 - No - In general I'm opposed to additional bonds without really good reasons. This appears to be mostly a "it's for the children" plea for money that I doubt really has a good ROI.
Prop 4 - No - Oh hell no to any sort of "girls have to tell their parents before getting an abortion" type bill. This is government trying to enforce morality in a really stupid and dangerous way.
Prop 5 - Yes - I'm not happy about the cost and allocation of money here, but the concept of replacing incarceration with rehab for drug offenders would have a hugely positive effect on prison overcrowding and overall on the budget issues. Plus, the war on drugs is stupid.
Prop 6 - No - The cops want guaranteed funding. I philosophically oppose mandated funding levels. I'd prefer the government have the freedom to vary budget according to demand.
Prop 7 - No - This is a reasonably complication proposition that uses words that sound good, but in reality appears to be a way for the non-public utilities to squeeze out the public utilities and to setup a situation where they would have no incentive to actually implement renewable energy properly. This stinks of corporations trying to influence public policy to increase their profit margins.
Prop 8 - No - VERY IMPORTANT : This is the stupid gay marriage ban. Retarded. Enough said.
Prop 9 - No - So called "victim's rights" actually means more expense and complication to operating our prisons while being a poorly written proposition to begin with. This is silly.
Prop 10 - No - Screw T. Boone Pickens and his convoluted attempts to turn energy policy into his own natural gas windfall. Plus, $5 billion in bonds - are you fucking kidding me? Notice how I've already voted against less than a billion for so called children's hospitals? (Although I did agree to $10 billion for trains. Trains are cool, kids suck I guess is what I'm saying :) )
Prop 11 - Yes - Another complicated proposition where I feel at least one side is misrepresenting who they are and what their motives are. If you read the actual proposition I think this is a reasonable law for taking the redistricting out of the hands of the officials who have an interest in screwing it up and putting it in an otherwise non-interested parties hands. I think it is actually a big strength that not only are the redistricting commissioners not elected (they are chosen by random draw from all qualified applicants) - but they also can't BE elected for the length of time that the district maps they drew are in effect. That's only going to attract pretty non-partisan people I would say. Yes, there is room for abuse, but I feel it's less room than the current system.
Prop 12 - Yes - Another $1 billion for a program that helps veterans, no one opposes, and that is setup to pay back the money. This is really just the state co-signing veterans loans. It would be silly to oppose this.
