Oh, bother.
Yeah, it has a serious problem in this regard. Heck, I never even saw a single black person in my neighborhood or school back when I was growing up.
Disgusted, but not surprised
The They who said it
Yeah, a number of people who write in to the opinion section of the local paper are all too fond of denouncing any project that might cause them to see someone who doesn't have the approximate complexion of sour cream. It doesn't help that our redlining policy was one of the worst in the country.
Of course, they couch it in terms of "Concern" about "Crime Rates" to conceal the racism. It's all the NIMBYistic, "I'm not Racist, I'm just Concerned About" type racism, which has been a hallmark of California for decades. Unless you go into Northern California. That's where the actual Nazis live, and they're much louder about what they want.
Edited by Florien on Jun 28th 2021 at 2:40:02 AM
Me, I find the ridiculous hyperbole being used in zoning debates
to be an issue. Moderately relaxing the stringency of regulations is described as “Sovietization”, anyone?
Also, I didn't realize that the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant produced more electrical power than all wind farms in California. I've seen some nameplate power tables and it seems the math checks out.
The Unknown
The generator is apparently on a fault line, so probably a good idea to shut that shit down.
In semi-related news, I would appreciate if gas prices would go back down. We have to pay nearly $5 a gallon right now.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
The They who said it
Considering how surprisingly safe modern Nuclear is, and how much power is produced there, and that it follows the zoning regulations on proximity to fault-lines and earthquake zoning as far as I'm aware, it's probably fine that Diabolo Canyon is there.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yeah, people have been complaining about SB9 for a while now in the opinion sections of the newspapers I read. As usual, it's people complaining that they want more suburbs when suburbs are actually pretty awful for all intents and purposes.
Like reflections in the glass!
So I had heard about a recall election attempt spearheaded by Republicans in a bid to unseat Governor Gavin Newsom. I want to ask about the details on that.
We actually recently received the voter handbooks and information for that. I thought at first, maybe it has some merit, because Newsom has made some questionable decisions as governor, but as soon as I read the official reason statement for the recall, that idea went out the window. The stated reason was full of racist dogwhistles about how Newsom supports illegal immigrants and California's status as a sanctuary state and other Republican nonsense.
I honestly think they're relying on people's discontent over the drought situation and COVID-19 measures to try to get them to vote for recall, and hoping they don't actually read all the voter information (which, let's be honest, most people don't).
If I remember correctly, the only reason the recall happening at all is because the deadline was extended by a judge due to the pandemic which, combined with the discontent over the lockdowns, allowed it to cross the threshold to trigger the election.
It wasn’t just discontent over the existence of lockdowns, the governor very publicly broke lockdown rules himself while enforcing them on others.
Alright, so grabbed my voter information guide just to make sure everything is accurate.
Here's the statement of reasons, with my own riffing and commentary in notes:
And just to show how partisan this recall is, of the 46 candidates to replace Newsom, a whopping 24 of them are Republican while only 9 are Democrat.
Industrious Incisors
Doesn't the recall allow you to say "I don't want him gone, but if he does go, I want this person to replace him?" If so, and if, as most US elections are, it's single vote first-past-the-post, Republicans seem to have opened themselves to the vote splitting that I thought they were supposed to be counting on as the only path they could possibly take to victory. But then, Stupid Evil has always been their specialty.
That's Dr. Title, thank you!
On the one hand, Newsom is more likely to win the recall than Gray Davis was back in the day.
On the other hand, if Newsom loses his replacement is going to be significantly worse than Arnold Schwarzenegger (no major Democrats are running in the election for the replacement if Newsom is recalled, and the Republican candidates are much worse than the Governator; Kevin Faulconer is probably the least bad option among the Republican candidates).
That said, there seems to be a relative lack of joke candidates like Gary Coleman or Gallagher this time around.
Indeed, whether Newsom should be recalled and who should replace him are separate items on the ballot. So you could still say "No, don't recall", and vote for who you'd prefer to replace him if he is.
Oh, look, Caitlyn Jenner is one of the candidates. Still trying to muck about in politics, I see. But yeah, of the Republican candidates, there's some farmers, law enforcement, businessmen/entrepeneurs (I really don't think we want more "businessmen" in politics), and generally I think only one or two actually have any sort of relevant experience in law/government.
Correct. But I think I remember reading that California Democratic Party has been keen on not encouraging a Democratic alternative in order to consolidate voters behind Newsom.
On the flipside, the California Republican Party has refused to officially endorse a singular candidate for their voters to rally behind. They don't give a shit about governance anyways, so why would they care who it is as long as Newsom's gone.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if many Republicans would rather keep Newsom than embrace Caitlyn Jenner.
Edited by Eschaton on Aug 15th 2021 at 2:04:37 AM
Oh, bother.
Gonna try to mail my ballot for this election today. Voted No on the recall of course.
Not a huge fan of Newsom, but this recall election is bullshit.
Disgusted, but not surprised
The Unknown
Newsom is kind of an idiot but he's better than a Republican. So I'm going to vote no when I get the chance.
I wonder where my ballet is.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody remembers it, who else will you have ice cream with?
The They who said it
Got my Ballot, voted no on the recall, of course. Waste of time to unseat a perfectly functional governor who happens to be a hypocrite sometimes while otherwise handling pretty much everything else adequately, if not great. The CAGOP can wait a year to throw John Cox at people again.
As for the back option of who to replace him with if he is recalled, I went for Brandon Ross. He seems fine. Not actively awful, like the other candidates, at least. He claims to be a "moderate democrat", and from his stated positions looks like an inoffensive enough pick.
Hello, I'm sorry to just barge in, as I just found about this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/20/uber-lyft-prop-22-unconstitutional/
In a ruling issued Friday, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch declared that Proposition 22 is "unenforceable," arguing several sections of the measure are unconstitutional under California state law. They included a section that required a seven-eighths legislative supermajority to amend the measure, which defied the legislature's amendment power under the state constitution, according to the judge.
Roesch said that avenue for amendments ran counter to the state constitution, instituting a threshold that was "difficult to the point of near impossibility."
In California, ballot measures are required to be limited to a single subject, and the provisions in the measures must be related. The judge found that the measure pitched to Californians in November overstepped that requirement by limiting the legislature's ability to allow workers' to collectively bargain. Proposition 22 passed by a 59-to-41 percent vote in November.
Gig workers and unions sue in California Supreme Court to have Prop 22 overturned
"A prohibition on legislation authorizing collective bargaining by app-based drivers does not promote the right to work as an independent contractor, nor does it protect work flexibility, nor does it provide minimum workplace safety and pay standards for those workers," Roesch wrote. "It appears only to protect the economic interest of the network companies in having a divided, ununionized workforce, which is not a stated goal of the legislation."
Uber criticized the ruling Friday and said it intended to appeal.
"This ruling ignores the will of the overwhelming majority of California voters and defies both logic and the law," Uber spokesman Noah Edwardsen said. "Meanwhile, Prop 22 remains in effect, including all of the protections and benefits it provides independent workers across the state."
The hotly contested measure, driven by a $200 million campaign mounted by companies such as Uber, Lyft and DoorDash, followed a 2019 state law that defined Uber and Lyft drivers as employees. The companies and fellow apps mounted a vigorous defense, arguing the requirements of employment would impede the flexibility they offer drivers — and that the majority of drivers did not want to be employees.
California voters sided with Uber, denying drivers benefits by classifying them as contractors
Advocates for employment argued drivers should be entitled to a minimum wage and benefits such as health insurance, sick leave and job protections.
California's Prop 22 looms over the gig economy and its workers For now, Chase Copridge lives in a van and is one of many full time gig workers opposed to Prop 22, a ballot poised to transform California's gig economy. (Jonathan Baran/The Washington Post) Prop 22 created a limited set of benefits such as an earnings guarantee and a health care stipend, but not the typical protections of employment under state law.
Geoff Vetter, a spokesman for the Protect App-Based Drivers & Services Coalition, said his pro-Prop 22 group would file an immediate appeal.
"This outrageous decision is an affront to the overwhelming majority of California voters who passed Prop 22," he said in a statement. "We will file an immediate appeal and are confident the Appellate Court will uphold Prop 22."
Vetter noted the court ruling is not binding and said he expected it to be stayed as the group appeals.
Lyft did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Veena Dubal, a professor of law at the University of California Hastings who co-wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioners, said the companies erred in "trying to completely take away the right of legislatures and municipalities to do anything on behalf of workers, as well as trying to take the workers out from the state's workers' compensation scheme."
"They were trying to do too much in one proposition," she said.
Stanford University law professor emeritus William Gould, who also co-wrote on behalf of the petitioners, said the judge's methodical arguments would be hard to defend against. The gig companies faced a steep road ahead, he said, potentially stretching beyond the Court of Appeal.
"I think this is quite obviously important and precedential, and the final word is going to be with the Supreme Court of California," he said.
That's good news.
Indeed. It's poetic that, in their greed to try to shut down any future attempts at legislating rights for gig workers, they invalidated their own prop. Now we just gotta hope that the decision holds up in appeals.
And yet I still see so many people who are blinded to the wider implications of all this and go "but I want my cheap rides, and all the drivers I talk to say they don't want to be employees".
This, on the other hand is just scary. I am not sure who is dafter here - the state Democratic party for trying to discourage Democrats to the point that the "who do you want as a Governor instead" has this crank at the top, or the state constitution for setting up this contraption.
Industrious Incisors
Paywalled. I saw "long-time conservative talk radio host Larry Elder" before the pop-up.
I've read that there have been legal challenges saying that the recall election method in California could be considered unconstitutional. This is because it's entirely possible that Newsom could lose the recall vote, but whichever candidate ends up replacing him could get fewer votes than those who voted not to recall, which has been argued to be reducing voting power.
California still highly segregated by race despite growing diversity, research shows
. And by "highly" they mean that it's among the worst in the entire US and it's actually gotten worse over the past three decades.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman