|
JesusSinfulHands posted:Welp, I guess I should get the rest of my extended family out to vote here in CA-17, although Honda doesn't seem like he's in big trouble to me. Khanna would have to get something like 95% of the non-Honda/Khanna vote in the primaries to win the general election, which seems a little high to me, even with incumbency effects and all. Need to find some political science research on the topic... On the other hand the non-Hobda/Khanna vote was exclusively for Republican candidates, of which there will be none in November. It's still hoping Republicans split 95/5 for Khanna, but it's not like Honda, as a progressive, has a leg up on this account.
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:The teacher unions have often been preaching more money and smaller class sizes, but in California that is ludicrous because depending on the year they are already either the highest-paid or the 2nd-highest paid teachers of all the states in the nation, so money isn't an issue. The teacher unions are right though. Even if Californian teachers are paid more than any other state, the Census Bureau found that Californian teachers receive only $5,515 per pupil in total pay (including benefits) in 2012, placing it 33rd in spending on instruction per pupil. In order to be paid so "highly" with per-pupil instructional spending below the national average of $6,430, Californian teachers must necessarily be instructing more students per class. Bringing California up to the average, then, requires increased spending or smaller class sizes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Tabbing through the ongoing vote tallies in the primary elections, I find it interesting that, except for the gubernatorial candidate Luis Rodriguez, every Green Party candidate got more votes than Jill Stein did in the state in 2012, with the Treasurer and Controller positions more than twice Stein's vote count, with more than 200k votes to Stein's 85k (and more than twice the registered party members, which tally only 100k in the state). Are Greens that eager to vote for Obama?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 06:14
|
|
|
In the latest salvo in the Bay Area housing crisis, Marin County has been pushing for an exemption to their current state requirement to build 30 residences per acre as an "urban" county to a lower 20 residences per acre as a "suburban" county. (And some Marin community groups think that's still too much)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Rah! posted:The pay-for-parking startup is extra stupid, because it will definitely lead to fights. A dude was even murdered for trying to save a parking spot several years ago. It's not like parking-rage murder is common, but still...why risk getting into arguments/fights/getting stabbed, just to make 5 bucks? I know I would be mad if I saw someone getting ready to leave a parking spot, and then they told me that they were saving it for someone else who was going to give them $5, or told me that they'd give it to me instead for $5. Thankfully I'm not the stabby type. Did the people who thought this dumb poo poo up really not take into account that this will piss a lot of people off, or do they just not care? Literal rent-seeking/classic parasitic rentier capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
withak posted:Upon further inspection, it appears that the city removed the feature that directs you to empty spots in a recent update. The aforementioned Forum episode actually mentioned the sensors in passing with a short comment to the effect of them being relatively useless in practice. Apparently, as soon as you got to the spot that it said was free, someone else had usually gotten there first (because it would only let you know a spot was free when it was actually free). Hence the CEO's smarmy claims of "being more useful to cut the amount of traffic looking for parking spaces" because his company lets people know BEFORE the spot is available (for a fee, of course).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2014 06:06
|
|
|
So the final canvas of the June primary is in, and Betty Yee, who was in third place for Controller for most of election night and seesawed between second and third place over much of the next week officially managed to navigate her way to second place by 481 votes. Assemblyman John Perez has yet to concede and has mulled asking for a recount.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:So the final canvas of the June primary is in, and Betty Yee, who was in third place for Controller for most of election night and seesawed between second and third place over much of the next week officially managed to navigate her way to second place by 481 votes. Assemblyman John Perez has yet to concede and has mulled asking for a recount. As a follow up to this, Peréz has announced that he is prepared to pay for a recount in 15 counties. He has requested the recount to begin in a specified order, favoring counties in which he was strong, so it is likely this recount will go on for a while (Peréz can dip into his election funds beyond those earmarked for Controller, so money likely won't be an issue.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Hog Obituary posted:Woooooo Tim Draper got enough signatures to get his 6-state plan on the ballot! Interesting because I thought the deadline for the Secretary of State to approve ballot measures was already past (per the California Report two weeks back or so. They even mentioned the measure as one of the high profile ones moving to 2016, along with marijuana legalization of course.) Ballotpedia still doesn't list it as approved for example. EDIT: I see, it IS for 2016. So that'll be sitting there for a while. Should make for a fun 2016 ballot though. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
VendoViper posted:Care to propose a reasonable title for someone who writes software for a living? Code jockey
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Yeah, it's pretty stupid. Speaking of this, any comments on the plan PG&E put out to merge the bottom two brackets into a 15¢ rate and cut the higher rates to make it "income neutral"?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
A final update on the controller race: John Peréz conceded to Betty Yee two days ago after very few votes trickled into his column. He did note that he thought he would have won had he not been cash constrained on which counties he could recount at the same time. Yee will face Fresno mayor Ashley Swearingen for the state controller in November.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Most the water people drink is "toilet to tap", but if we dirty the water by sticking it one of our polluted rivers it magically cleans in most people's minds. It's true for the 85% of the South Bay that's not right next to Hetch Hetchy pipeline. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
As long as we're talking about the homeless, according to this morning's California Report, Lancaster has found a solution to its homeless problem: just close its only public transit link to LA.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
For those of you who have been paying attention to the Honda/Khanna race, Ro Khanna is going to be on KQED's Forum tomorrow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Jesus, there are so many Khanna signs around. Yes. He's basically bought and paid for by Marissa Mayer, Marc Andreessen, Peter Theil and Sheryl Sandberg. The fact that he's openly denounced Honda for backing the House Progressive Caucus budget instead of taking a cut from Obama's playbook and "compromising" with Republicans (Khanna is an ex-Obama staffer) speaks volumes. That said, I saw tons of Khanna signs in June too and Honda still got over 48% of the vote, so Khanna has to actually get every Republican to pull the lever for him instead of abstaining to pull off an upset. It's entirely possible that that happens though (why do you think he has always played his "let's get Rs and Ds working together!" shtick) and he will very likely grab the Indian-American vote by default (the district is plurality, nearly majority, Asian; I don't have a percentage which is of South Asian descent though) and conservative mouthpieces are pulling for him (the Mercury-News has endorsed him) as is San Jose's mayor, so I wouldn't count Khanna out until the returns come in. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Sep 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I finally re-registered to vote and was pretty sure I selected no party affiliation, but when I got the card, it said republican. That literally doesn't matter anymore, right? California has open primaries? Depends if you care about voting for party apparatchiks and in the pretty much meaningless presidential primary. And I guess if you'd like to get mailers from Republican candidates in the mail.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Just had a chance to go through my voter information pamphlet, and the argument against measure Q (Santa Clara) is loving hilarious: Based on a sample size of 1 taken shortly after the Mid-Pen version of the same measure passed and extrapolating that to Santa Clara, the people who live up in the mountains really hate the "flatlanders" for voting for things which might even remotely suggest that there will be government purchase of land up there. Surprise surprise.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
redreader posted:They've even given him some space to write columns/articles, but all the comments on all the articles about him are stuff like "he's a loving dirty liar, the SJ mercury news is in the pockets of the rich and wealthy who support liccardo". The Mercury-News has done the same thing with Khanna (giving him space for columns and then endorsing him) so it is entirely possible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Just tuned in briefly to the Honda/Khanna debate and unsurprisingly heard Honda legitimately address a question on the minimum wage and expanding his answer to mention his support for Warren's plan to peg student loans to the Fed rate. Khanna's response? A pivot to his well-worn attack on Honda's attendance record. I guess he somehow thinks that that's more important than his stances on substantive issues. I really need to catch up on my listening to this and the Forum eps on the various races/propositions though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
The Whole Internet posted:The problem is not that people weren't having consensual sex or weren't sure if they were, it's that the law appears to classify all non-verbal consensual sex as rape. SB 967 posted:“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. I don't see the word "verbal" in there. Anyone who claims non-verbal consent cannot be affirmative is being disingenuous at best. This is about reticence to say no being taken as consent. If someone nods their head when someone gestures to the bedroom by jerking their head in its direction, it's still (presumably) affirmative consent. Verbal consent is just the easiest way to tell. And don't forget that assholes will can still wheedle out verbal consent that's not affirmative. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Working through my backlog of the Forum episodes on election issues I've found that the Republican Insurance Commissioner appears to have a plethora of good ideas, like "The free market always works" and "Look at what Uner has done to transform the taxi industry worldwide... But what caught Uber up? Regulations caught Uber up!" EDIT: And "Tell me where governments have saved money for anyone." ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Oct 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
Well Khanna's backers have nothing if not money. Besides the waste on signs (signs don't vote) today marks the third day in a row I've received a mailer from the SuperPAC backing him (I assume) Californians for Innovation. I especially like that the PAC has an address in LA, not the Bay Area.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
etalian posted:Wouldn't you want to combine the the innovation of Silicon Valley with government? Are you upset with the unresponsive was of government? We can change that. Representtv is a new disruptive force in government that seeks to get you the government services you need when you need them. No more waiting in line at the DMV! No more wining and dining your representative for favorable policy decisions! Through the magic of the sharing economy, all you need to do is place a request for a government service in the Representtv mobile app and one of Representtv's Attachés™ will attend you to fill in unnecessary government paperwork, stand in line for you to get your passport, or even take your money to funnel it into the reelection campaign of the candidate of your choice! By simply paying the weekly $19.95 subscription to Representtv, we will make sure you get your needs met! Vote smart. Vote Representtv.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 03:05
|
|
|
See my problem with that argument is that it echoes of accelerationism. Surely by adding a new requirement of mandatory drug testing we will manage to actually reduce the amount of mandatory drug testing! 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
Family Values posted:When did using irresponsibly become a leftist cause? Sorry Dr. Surgeon, you can't have a 4 martini lunch and then cut someone open an hour later. That's not left vs. right to me. The problem is that the choice isn't "random screening" or "just mandatory screening after harming someone", it's all or nothing. I don't trust random screening to be rolled back after it's in place, so I intend to vote against it because I oppose this specific issue being bundled with the other (good) regulations.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, and as long as the hospital and their peers think everyone followed the appropriate standard of care and that you weren't on drugs/booze, then you won't get tested. I just took a look at the proposed law myself and you are incorrect. In fact, the very section you quoted actually works against your claim (strictly speaking). The law as worded requires tests under three separate circumstances: 1. At random (no time constraint applies here so presumably the "on holiday" issue doesn't arise here. 2. Immediately (i.e. less than 12 hours after learning of, so someone in the Sierras without cell phone access to learn of the event would have a longer period of time than 12 hours in practice) after an adverse event that occurs while the doctor is treating a patient OR in a 24 hour period after treating or prescribing medication for a patient. 3. If a board so requests while acting on a referral under section 2350.20 The random testing provision is pretty straightforward so let's focus on the latter two provisions. Provision 2 explicitly depends on the occurrence of an "adverse event" as defined under section 1279.1 of the Health and Safety Code. For reference, that means a doctor is tested after "surgical events, including... surgery performed on the wrong patient... [and] death during or up to 24 hours after induction of anesthesia after surgery of a normal, healthy patient..., product or device events, including... patient death... associated with the use of a contaminated drug..., patient protection events, including... patient death... associated with patient disappearance for more than four hours..., care management events, including... a patient death... associated with a medication error..., environmental events..., criminal events..., [and] an adverse event or series of adverse events that the death... of a patient, personnel, or visitor." Under this definition, any old death would not qualify, but the problem is that that's up to a court to decide if it's adverse. There is no room for a "standard of care." Now granted it will likely be fairly restricted to real malpractice but it's still worth considering that "standard of care" has no role here. Provision 3 is where the "standard of care" comes in, as the board referral is made (as defined in the proposition) when a physician (who is bound to do so by law) reports that a fellow physician has been either abusing drugs on duty or failed to uphold the standard of care when an adverse event occurred. So it's not quite as bad as others claim (not just any death will qualify) but it's not purely a standard of care case either if a death can conceivably be argued in court to be an adverse event. EDIT: The fun thing is that a strict reading of provision 2 means that if you discharge a patient and then the patient is readmitted AND involved in an adverse effect during that readmission within 24 hours of that discharge, you have to be tested, even if the adverse effect happened solely due to the quality of care offered by the team which readmitted the patient. Oh, and presumably since the adverse effect (like patient disappearance) could be a result of the nursing staff and not you... Well I hope you have a good nursing staff if you want to go out for a drink with your wife after work. Now of course these are strict readings and do require a combination of events that are relatively unlikely to leave a tested physician not liable under malpractice provisions anyway (I mean it's entirely probable that there is some culpability on the part of the physician for not making sure nurses dispense the right drug to their patient) but it does raise some concerning flags that maybe (just maybe!) these drug testing provisions hadn't been thought through all the way before being shoehorned into the bill. ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Gonna vote the hell out of retaining Goodwin Liu tomorrow because meaningless judge retention elections are a thing in this state.  EDIT: Huh. I actually found a judge I won't vote for retaining (not like it matters) ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
redreader posted:One of the comments I read on the liccardo (sp) article said something like: Mercury went bankrupt and is now the mouthpiece of whoever bailed them out. I know this was a while back, but I just came across the Mercury-News's endorsements, which more or less tell the tale as to whether it's a rag/mouthpiece, including endorsements for Khanna, Peterson for Secretary of State (argument: Debra Brown did little as a Democrat, so we should give it to a Republican), Tuck for Superintendent (argument: can't let those teachers unions win!), Ashley Swearingen for Controller (argument: she's independent and would never have won the Republican primary because of it so she must be right for the job!) Granted, it's hardly R down the board, but it does seem like it prefers to take the easy D picks (Brown, Newsom, Harris), rather than the harder ones. EDIT: Laughing at the opponent to the incumbent member of the Santa Clara County Board of Education (occupation: parent). On votersedge.org, under endorsements, he proudly claims "Endorsements equal strings. I am not anyone's puppet." ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:Tuck isn't going to win is he? Tuck/Torlakson has been forecasted to be one of the nail-biter races. Field in September showed it close, but with many undecided and Tuck leading.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
coronaball posted:I found a pretty useful resource for choosing how to vote for appellate judges since I don't know poo poo about any of them. This guy is a conservative maniac who is deathly afraid of judicial activists. "Legislating from the bench, these judges destroy or weaken constitutional protection, votes by the people, family values, marriage, religious liberty and economic freedom." He's posted a recommendation for every judicial race in the state; simply vote the exact opposite of his recommendation. I've been a little more lenient in my planned votes if only because my default preference is to keep, barring obvious bias in rulings. EDIT: Also, his basis seems to mostly be "Did a Republican originally nominate the justice?" which is a debatable criterion to determine how awful a justice is. Of the candidates I can vote on, his YES votes are all Deukmejian and Wilson nominees. His NO votes are Brown nominees. It also would explain why he didn't take a stance on the only race I can vote on that has no governor nominees: Diane Ritchie vs. Matthew Harris (also because that race is a Superior Court where Constitutional law doesn't factor as strongly) ComradeCosmobot fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Nov 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Seriously though where have Torlakson's ads been? It was literally only yesterday afternoon and early this morning when I've heard ads from him against Tuck, whereas Tuck's been inundiating the airwaves for weeks by now. Teachers unions or charter school supporters. Who do you think has more money?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Also man are the ballots in my new district stupid. It has half completed arrows to each choice, and you have to draw a small, thin line to complete the arrow pointing to your choice. This couldn't be easily misinterpreted at all. Same here. Hope you didn't think to make the arrow the same thickness as the head! Sydin posted:Edit: Also I'm really worried now that Murray is going to win our house seat, because he's listed as a democrat and is first on the ballot before Zoe. Hopefully enough people actually read instead of blindly picking the first democrat they see. Honda also has this disadvantage (vs. Khanna). We'll see how it pans out.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Well poo poo, that's exactly what I did. Don't tell me that actually matters! It may! (I don't know how the machines that tabulate those sheets work to know for sure)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Papercut posted:So you're just making stuff up? The simplest implementation for these would be to just look for a certain amount of non-white space between the sides of the arrow, having too much black wouldn't do anything. If I recall correctly, the instructions explicitly identify a "thick line" as one of the wrong ways to cast your ballot, but the thick line used as an example is thicker than the thickness of the arrow. Hence my uncertainty.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
In good news, Goodwin Liu is sailing to retention as state supreme court justice, with 67% of voters approving his retention.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Only 6% counted, but Mike Honda has a 5 point lead over Ro Khanna in CA-17 Crossing my fingers here. It would be the highlight of the night, given how expectedly dismal everything else went.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Interesting, Secretary of State is suuuuuuuper close. 15% in, the Dem is trailing 49.7-50.3. I wonder why this race, of all the statewide races, is a squeaker. A lot of the newspapers have gone all in on Peterson because the current SoS has apparently not delivered (which means another Dem won't deliver either, apparently). According to the Mercury-News, Peterson will be a "breath of fresh air." So I guess people just feel bad that Democrats will win everything else or something.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
^^^ I am sure a Republican Senate caucus which blocked his appointment to the Ninth Circuit in fear of that very outcome will get right on that. Democrats may very well lose their supermajority in the assembly. Districts 16, 29, 36, and 65 are currently trending towards Republican takeovers, District 44 is trending towards a Democratic takeover. Districts 57 and 66 are virtual ties with Democratic incumbents.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 15:49 |
|
|
With 9 seats left to call (according to the LA Times) but 100% of precincts in, it is now highly likely that Republicans have blocked Democrats from holding a supermajority in the Assembly (Republican candidates are 1 seat from blocking the supermajority and are currently leading in the undecided Democratic-held districts 16 and 66)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2014 16:42
|
|