Dangerous Ideas

I’m glad to hear that Hillary Clinton and John McCain won in Hew Hampshire. I hope the rest of the early primary states continue a trend of mixed results so that those of us voting later feel like we’re actually participating in the election (of course, states voting after Super Duper Tuesday might not be so lucky).

Absentee ballots are going out this week in California. Given that more than 40 percent of the voters for the last California election voted by mail, it’s possible that a huge number of Californians will vote before the results of the other early primaries are known. Which means that some voters in California might actually vote without using earlier primary results as a criteria.

For a while, it looked like once again a small number of voters would have a hugely disproportionate effect on the presidential race. Headlines kept reading like Clinton was almost out of the running and that Barack Obama was the new front-runner. I find this so disturbing. As John Edwards said today after his 3rd place finish, even after NH has voted, less than one half of one percent of the country’s voters have had a shot at this. Why should so few people determine who’s the front-runner and who isn’t? And they really can because in addition to the media, polls showed a marked difference before and after the Iowa caucuses. Fortunately, the polls did not accurately predict the actual votes.

I completely understand that the idea with staggered votes is to give smaller states a chance to have presidential candidates visit them, but is what we have now really better than a national primary? It’s always the same two states that vote first. And Iowa and New Hampshire are not exactly representative of the rest of the country (for one thing, both states have relatively few people of color voting).

Do John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden prefer white voters? Maybe that’s an unfair question, but it’s the first thing I thought of when I read that John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden pulled out of the Michigan primary because Michigan dared to move their primary into January. The Democratic Party has followed this up by deciding that Michigan voters shouldn’t matter:

Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.

In spite of the vote, some party leaders and officials said they believed the delegates would eventually be seated at the convention.

Michigan, with 156 delegates, has scheduled a Jan. 15 primary. Democratic Party rules prohibit states other than Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina from holding nominating contests before Feb. 5. Florida was hit with a similar penalty in August for scheduling a Jan. 29 primary.

The bit about Michigan maybe getting their votes back later sounds good except that Edwards, Obama, Richardson, and Biden aren’t even on the ballot, so Michigan voters will have fewer checkboxes than voters in most other states. Something similar has happened to Florida for pushing up their primary, too.

Why is it so important to preserve the historical role of Iowa and New Hampshire as the first in the nation caucus and primary respectively? According to Wikipedia, Iowa only about 4 percent of the population includes people of color, and New Hampshire is even more unbalanced at only about 3 percent people of color. This compares with Michigan where about 17 percent of the population are people of color and Florida at about 19 percent. True, the Democrats have allowed Nevada (same neighborhood of POC as MI and FL) and South Carolina (which has even more POC at about 31 percent) to move their primaries forward. But, of course, following IA and NH.

I can understand the Dems wanting to try to keep states in line, but is disenfranchising voters really the right way to do it? Especially since both MI and FL have much more diverse populations than the favored states of NH and IA?

I’m mad not just because the candidates have pulled out, but because they aren’t fighting for the voting rights of Michiganders and Floridians and pointing out the obvious racism inherent in the system. And people wonder why people are drawn to 3rd parties. Argh!

Maybe a national primary would introduce issues of its own, but the current system just sucks. If we had to have some smaller states go first to give them more attention, why shouldn’t we put states like South Carolina, New Mexico, and Hawaii first in line? Hawaii’s population is about 59 percent POC and, heck, it was a sovereign nation not that long ago!

This Saturday, a group of APIs will be getting together to show support for Aimee Allison, who’s running for Oakland’s District 2 City Council seat. This seat is particularly critical to Oakland politics for years to come – the other district council members are often split voting for or against progressive legislation. Allison, a solid progressive (much more so than her opponent in this runoff election, incumbent Pat Kernighan), would tip votes in favor of progressive issues. With progressive mayor-elect Ron Dellums coming into office (many of Dellums’ campaigners are on Allison’s campaign now), this would make for a solid team for the future. Allison has a good chance to win this election – she and Pat Kernighan ran pretty close to each other in the election.

The API community has a good chance of tipping the election in favor of one candidate or the other, since many APIs (particularly Chinese Americans) voted for Chinese American Candidate Shirley Gee, who came in third in the general election and didn’t make the runoff.

Update: The announcement for APIs for Aimee Allison is now available.

Looks like Ron Dellums won the election for Oakland mayor outright. I guess this means that progressives will be able to focus on electing Aimee Allison to Oakland City Council (District 2) in the November election.

I’ve worked on campaigns in San Francisco and Oakland, and I have to say that Oakland has a much more personal feel. When I volunteered on Matt Gonzalez’s campaign in S.F., he seemed a bit removed from us. Last year, though, I, along with several others from CJWP, helped organize one of several candidates forums for the District 2 Oakland City Council election. The candidates were approachable, and I got to talk to Aimee Allison a bit and helped with her campaign during the final days (I didn’t want to commit to a candidate before our forum took place). She came in fourth last spring, but this year she’s in the runoff for the D2 seat. One of my fellow organizers of the D2 forum was Andre Spearman; this year he’s the mayor elect’s campaign manager.

Oakland’s slightly larger than half the size of San Francisco, but so far it feels like it’s easier to talk to civic leaders. This gives me a lot of hope that we’ll have positive meetings with leaders when we try talking to them about low-income housing in Oakland, with particular regard to the PacRen evictions in Chinatown.

When I went to the immigrants right march, I marched with the Asian contingent. We had a fair-sized group, but it came far short of representing the proportion of Asians who are affected by the current immigration debate.

There’s a pretty good article on the SF Gate about Asian undocumented immigrants, who are the second largest group of undocumented immigrants. According to the article, there are as many as 180,000 Asian undocumented immigrants in the Bay Area.

The article mentions a some reasons why Asians haven’t taken as visible a role in the debate. One of the reasons is there isn’t the same kind of support from media outlets:

Also important is that, unlike Spanish-language radio stations, the Bay Area’s Asian media – which include a multitude of newspapers, radio stations, magazines and television shows – has not tried to mobilize its diverse readership and viewership, which does not share even a common language.

It would be great if the media could take a role in getting the word out on marches. They wouldn’t even need to be advocates; if they just provided more coverage, more Asians would be aware of what’s at stake. Right now, there’s a perception it’s someone else’s issue:

But Asians’ interest in the issue is driven in part by how the debate has been framed, said Luna Yasui, policy director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, a civil rights group.

“People have deemed it a Latino issue. That has created a misperception among Asian Pacific communities that somehow nothing is at stake,” she said.

Of course, those of us who don’t have major media outlets can help, too, by spreading the word to people we meet. And who visit our blogs. ;-)

Judge Robert B. Freedman finalized his preliminary decision on Friday to block the use of the exit exam for the class of 2006 (although the fate of seniors is still not entirely clear). From the SJ Mercury:

A California judge suspended the state’s high school exit exam as a graduation requirement Friday, saying California public schools don’t fairly prepare all students – a decision that calls into question whether the state can enforce a test of basic math and English competency for a diploma.

The ruling could allow thousands of seniors who haven’t passed the controversial exam to receive diplomas in the coming weeks. But they can’t be sure: State Superintendent Jack O’Connell said he will appeal quickly and seek a court order to keep the exam requirement in force until the legal battle is resolved. And for educators, students and parents, the decision deepens uncertainty about the exam’s future.

Freedman’s Friday ruling only affected the class of 2006; another challenge from Californians for Justice would have delayed the exam from being implemented for future classes as well. Unfortunately, Freedman rejected this second suit against the California Exit Exam. From the LA Times:

An Alameda County Superior Court judge Tuesday dealt a defeat to activists hoping to further weaken the embattled state high school exit exam.

Judge Robert B. Freedman, who last week handed a major victory to opponents of the exam by clearing the way for thousands of seniors who failed the test to graduate, rejected another lawsuit with similar aims.

The basis of the two suits differed, however. Unlike the plaintiffs involved in last week’s decision, who had argued their case on the basis of the state Constitution, Californians for Justice Education Fund, a grass-roots advocacy group, argued its case on the basis of state laws.

As if it wasn’t bad enough that same-sex marriage still isn’t legal in the U.S., a Missouri town wants to evict unmarried straight couples w/ kids.

BLACK JACK, Mo. - The city council has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together, and the mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction.

Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.

AYPAL and Youth Together present “Dr. Randy Ward Step Up To The Plate So We Can Graduate Accountability Session”. This will be a discussion about the California High School Exit Exam addressed to State Administrator Randy Ward.

For those who don’t know, Oakland’s school system was taken over by the state of California, and Ward was appointed by the state to take charge. His official bio at OUSD doesn’t tell the whole story – check out Stop Randy Ward for more information (it’s a Web site that was built in protest of his policies).

Here’s more about the event and artwork for a flyer. If you want, click on the image to get a bigger version of the flyer.

You are cordially invited to AYPAL (Asian/Pacific Islander Youth Promoting Advocacy and Leadership) and Youth Together’s next big event of the year! This accountability session is a community-wide event that will make sure that Williams settlement money does go to our schools.

STEP UP TO THE PLATE SO WE CAN GRADUATE!
AN ACCOUNTABILITY SESSION WITH DR. RANDY WARD OF OUSD
Next WEDNESDAY, May 17th
4:15-5:30 pm

At Lincoln Recreation Center at 10th and Jackson Streets in Oakland’s Chinatown (near Lake Merritt BART center)

Frustrated Oakland students, community members, concerned parents, teachers and the public demand equal resources for the Oakland Public Schools. Hundreds of Complaint forms have been collected and will be submitted to the School District to demand concrete changes in the Public Schools in Oakland.

Our Schools are in a State of Emergency with inadequate resources, apidated facilities, unqualified teachers that are the root causes of many issues in Oakland.

The Williams Settlement provides up to $1 billion for the lowest-performing schools base on Academic Performance Index (API) deciles 1-3, in which 62 Oakland public Schools are eligible to get these funds.

(Click on image for larger size.)

I know very little about Chevy’s, except up until recently, I had a vague dislike of them. I think it’s because a few years back they ran a radio commercial making fun of vegans (a man takes his girlfriend to Chevy’s, says they have all sorts of things, and names them; when she says she’s vegan, he tells her to order the “air burrito). It wasn’t particularly bad, just a small turn off. I mean, it’s not as annoying as “the other white meat” and definitely far less evil than the milk industry telling women to drink more milk to avoid osteoporosis when the people who drink cow’s milk get their bones broken more than people who don’t.

But now Chevy’s has given a much stronger reason not to patronize them. Chevy’s decided to fire workers who participated in the May Day march for immigrant rights and immigration reform. So, I guess I won’t be having any “air burritos” any time soon. Granted, this is an individual franchise in Tracy, so maybe this is a bit much to judge the entire chain by, but it certainly isn’t helping them out any.

Judge Robert Freedman just issued a tentative ruling today blocking California’s school exit exam. This exam has been controversial since it was first introduced since the ones least likely to pass it are poor minorities. It’s also questionable wehther the exam is a better test of someone’s knowledge than the other criteria for graduation. This is the first year that passing the test is a requirement for getting a diploma. From the article in the Mercury:

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Robert B. Freedman said he found merit in the plaintiff’s argument that the exam is unfair because not all California public school students have access to the same quality of education. He is expected to issue a final ruling after a hearing today.

“What all this is about is equal education,” said Arturo Gonzalez, lead lawyer for a group of struggling students who sued the state claiming the exam is unfair to those still trying to master English and low-income students attending underfunded schools. “Until you have that, you can’t deprive students like these of the prize of education, the diploma.”

At first glance, the idea of a diploma representing proof of a sound education sounds great. But if the students who are failing the test come from the same schools, generally poorer, and generally are learning English … is it fair to hold back their degrees if they pass based on other criteria? Immigrants will continue to learn English in their new country. Why put an arbitrary deadline on that?

Also, if schools are graduating students that can’t pass the test, is that a fault of the students or the schools? Not everyone is a great independent learner (heck, otherwise why have schools?). If students from a school aren’t doing well, then shouldn’t you try to fix the school rather than penalize the students?

Another question is – if California were to deprive students of their diplomas, how many of them are going to keep going to school until they pass? I don’t think it’s going to be huge incentive for them to go to summer school or repeat the 12th grade. Kids who don’t get a diploma might just end up dropping out. How does that help anyone?

Judge Freedman said he plans to finalize the ruling tomorrow (Thursday, May 9).

I’ve run across several mentions of Stephen Colbert’s appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner, so I finally looked at the transcript and at video of the event. Wow! That must have been the most difficult performance ever in the history of the event. I’ve done some performance, and it’s hard enough getting in front of any old audience. But Colbert took things to a whole new level: he verbally skewered the administration sitting just a few feet from the president.

I just checked YouTube, and, apparently, the video has been removed now due to copyright infringement. From C-Span? I didn’t think a non-profit would care so much, and would even enjoy the extra publicity. According to Mark Morford on his blog, video is still available at a few sites.

I read the news online almost every day, and I didn’t see mention of this event for a couple days, at least. I would have at least expected to see this on the front page of the SF Gate (Morford’s blog is hosted there; I just didn’t see anything in the main section). Some people have wondered if there was a media blackout.

I wonder who made the decision to have him be the guest? And whether this person was being subversive or just not doing their homework? And whether this person has a job any more? ;-) Of course, there is the cynical view that the appearance helped Bush.

I was at yesterday’s May Day march in San Francisco. Quite a turnout! And a very different demographic than the ones against the Iraq war (although, of course, there’s noticeable overlap). I marched with a group of Chinese immigrants and children of Chinese immigrants, including some friends from CJWP. I also met my friend Thu at Civic Center – that was an interesting challenge!

Here’s a photo of marchers (from my cell phone camera):

!Photo of march for immigrant rights.

I read a few news articles after the march. It sounds like several businesses were affected, including a few that had to close down operations. Hopefully, this will ultimately result in positive change, such as HR 4437 being replaced with something saner (e.g., something that’s not as crazy as deporting 11 million people or charging teachers as criminals because their students might be undocumented immigrants). Of course, there’s always danger of backlash. And, in an election year, some politicians may be using some pretty weird logic in coming up with their positions.

I like to think our neighbors up north are a lot more sensible than we are. So it’s sad to hear that a conservative government might take power in Canada after Monday’s election:

But polls showed he remains seven to 12 percentage points behind Harper despite charges that his party was full of social conservatives who would curb abortion and end gay marriage, and that foreign policy would be made in the Bush White House.