And to all a good night! My best to you and yours in this holiday season and for 2009!
(I am in Indiana freezing my butt off and definitely longing for a return to Oakland! Just a note to let y'all know I'll be around in a bit, but for now posting will be basically nonexistent. Hopefully material is forthcoming early next week!)
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Monday, December 15, 2008
Kindness is contagious (just please don't spell 'contagious' with a k).
There are a few blogs dedicated to public transit in this area. Many of them are rather replete with condemnation and exasperation at the behavior of others, the operation of the systems, and so on. This is not one of those posts.
No, instead, I think it's just worth pointing out a reminder that kindness is contagious, sometimes in spades. BART was pretty crowded today, basically at crush load for that system. One lady got up out of her seat and offered it to an elderly man, which surprised but pleased me. Then it happened again with someone else. Then again! Three times I saw strangers just being considerate of those around them. And it all happened because one person did a nice thing on a crowded train, and scored 200% ROI. That's not too bad. We should all remember to give it a try sometime!
No, instead, I think it's just worth pointing out a reminder that kindness is contagious, sometimes in spades. BART was pretty crowded today, basically at crush load for that system. One lady got up out of her seat and offered it to an elderly man, which surprised but pleased me. Then it happened again with someone else. Then again! Three times I saw strangers just being considerate of those around them. And it all happened because one person did a nice thing on a crowded train, and scored 200% ROI. That's not too bad. We should all remember to give it a try sometime!
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Nightlife in the DTO
There is frequently talk of -- and rightfully so -- ways to make transit in the East Bay more effective, or lamenting how the East Bay gets screwed. I don't wish to contribute to the 'effective' discussion right now :) Instead, how about a pipe dream: What about transit as a vehicle to make the city itself more attractive as a destination for dining and nightlife? What about transit that makes people want to go out and about, stroll the streets and enjoy the city's amenities, which in turn helps to foster a collective sense of security and community.
The Tribune carried a nice piece about how, actually, there is some pretty cool, pretty classy (OK, well, classy on a level of your choosing, lookin' at you, Ruby Room and I adore you when you're sedate, Radio) nightlife to be had in Oakland, particularly in some up areas that are legitimately in a position to start kicking some ass, like Downtown, Old Oakland, Uptown and Jack London Square. Yes, there's Rockridge, and yes, it's my hood, and yes, I like living here. But Rockridge is basically a bedroom community that happens to have an atrociously slow two-lane funnel into hardcore college town. That's why I feel at home here. It's about 30 blocks down Broadway that I think there is some magic to be made.
There are several great areas with fun night spots that I'm familiar with in that area. However, they're also connected by areas you just might not want to walk through at night, y'know what I mean? It seems like having a bus loop from Broadway and Grand down to Embarcadero, over to Oak and up Lakeshore / Harrison to grand would be an amazingly cool shuttle route. It has a lot of advantages, including the senic Lakeshore drive. From there, it's up to Grand where there are some fun restaurants and such. The quick spin over to Broadway & 19th includes easy access to BART, The Uptown, Luka's / Franklin Square Wine Bar / Fox Theater. Then it's down Broadway past 12th St. BART / AC Transit hub to Old Town Oakland which has its share of classy and fun dinner and bar places that people don't go to because who knows why. Swing down to Embarcadero and through the nightlife in Jack London Square, including the movie theater down there, Yoshi's, and other things I'm sure I'm missing. By returning to Lake Merritt on Oak, there is yet another convenient connection to BART.
It seems like this would create a local shuttle that would be incredibly easy to use, transport people between areas of downtown when they might not want to walk in between, and create a network of interfaces with the BART system as well as existing AC transit options, to boot.
With this size route, I believe only one or two buses would be needed to provide frequent-enough service, and would provide tremendous marketing appeal. Yes, there are AC Transit buses that already cover that route, but none which are easily branded as the Oakland Nightlife Express or whatever. The focus group could surely come up with a better title than that. But you see where I'm going: This sort of thing could really plant the seed in people's minds that there are things to do in Oakland and the nightlife scene is actually pretty cool. No, it's not San Francisco, but (and you'll pardon me if this sounds glib) who cares? Building up the offerings around the lower part of Broadway can only improve the image of downtown Oakland, and I think this kind of concept just might be the ticket.
The Tribune carried a nice piece about how, actually, there is some pretty cool, pretty classy (OK, well, classy on a level of your choosing, lookin' at you, Ruby Room and I adore you when you're sedate, Radio) nightlife to be had in Oakland, particularly in some up areas that are legitimately in a position to start kicking some ass, like Downtown, Old Oakland, Uptown and Jack London Square. Yes, there's Rockridge, and yes, it's my hood, and yes, I like living here. But Rockridge is basically a bedroom community that happens to have an atrociously slow two-lane funnel into hardcore college town. That's why I feel at home here. It's about 30 blocks down Broadway that I think there is some magic to be made.
There are several great areas with fun night spots that I'm familiar with in that area. However, they're also connected by areas you just might not want to walk through at night, y'know what I mean? It seems like having a bus loop from Broadway and Grand down to Embarcadero, over to Oak and up Lakeshore / Harrison to grand would be an amazingly cool shuttle route. It has a lot of advantages, including the senic Lakeshore drive. From there, it's up to Grand where there are some fun restaurants and such. The quick spin over to Broadway & 19th includes easy access to BART, The Uptown, Luka's / Franklin Square Wine Bar / Fox Theater. Then it's down Broadway past 12th St. BART / AC Transit hub to Old Town Oakland which has its share of classy and fun dinner and bar places that people don't go to because who knows why. Swing down to Embarcadero and through the nightlife in Jack London Square, including the movie theater down there, Yoshi's, and other things I'm sure I'm missing. By returning to Lake Merritt on Oak, there is yet another convenient connection to BART.
It seems like this would create a local shuttle that would be incredibly easy to use, transport people between areas of downtown when they might not want to walk in between, and create a network of interfaces with the BART system as well as existing AC transit options, to boot.
With this size route, I believe only one or two buses would be needed to provide frequent-enough service, and would provide tremendous marketing appeal. Yes, there are AC Transit buses that already cover that route, but none which are easily branded as the Oakland Nightlife Express or whatever. The focus group could surely come up with a better title than that. But you see where I'm going: This sort of thing could really plant the seed in people's minds that there are things to do in Oakland and the nightlife scene is actually pretty cool. No, it's not San Francisco, but (and you'll pardon me if this sounds glib) who cares? Building up the offerings around the lower part of Broadway can only improve the image of downtown Oakland, and I think this kind of concept just might be the ticket.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Coleman's Teeth Remain In Narrow Lead
According to a recent CNN report, Al Franken still trails Norm Coleman's teeth in the Minnesota Senate election recount. Coleman's teeth's host body, the most recent holder of the contested seat, was a Republican and staunch supporter of President George W. Bush. Coleman's teeth (pictured, left, delivering a recent statement to the media), on the other hand, having gained sentience and a sense of social justice all their own, promised to strike a more conciliatory, bipartisan tone than did the organism as a whole, in an attempt to ride the coattails of change promised by President-Elect Obama in the campaign for the White House.
More details as they become available.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Just as a reminder
You're going to be hearing this kind of talk a lot as the Court deliberates on the constitutionality of how Prop 8 was enacted. It is completely disingenuous and without merit when dumbasses like this guy start saying things like:
All we can do is remind people that if the Court finds Prop 8 was not properly slated on the ballot because it is a revision and not an amendment, then the court would be disobeying the constitution if and only if it does not void Prop 8. As much as these punch-drinkers want you to believe it, the Court is not hearing suits seeking to overturn the will of the voters; the Court is hearing cases about how the initiative was improperly slated on the ballot in the first place. Please, do not let people get away with saying the Court is undoing the will of the people or disobeying the constitution or acting outside the law or being 'activist'. This is a question of the legitimacy of the item being put on the ballot, not of the revision being made to the constitution.
"'If the court disobeys the constitution by voiding Prop. 8, it will ignite a voter revolt,' Thomasson said in statement released after the court agreed Wednesday to hear arguments over the validity of the constitutional amendment."
All we can do is remind people that if the Court finds Prop 8 was not properly slated on the ballot because it is a revision and not an amendment, then the court would be disobeying the constitution if and only if it does not void Prop 8. As much as these punch-drinkers want you to believe it, the Court is not hearing suits seeking to overturn the will of the voters; the Court is hearing cases about how the initiative was improperly slated on the ballot in the first place. Please, do not let people get away with saying the Court is undoing the will of the people or disobeying the constitution or acting outside the law or being 'activist'. This is a question of the legitimacy of the item being put on the ballot, not of the revision being made to the constitution.
Friday, November 21, 2008
More on Prop 8
So in doing my research on Prop 8 and the ensuing legal challenges, here's what I've come up with.
1. The court is not going to rule to overturn the will of the people. The court can't do that. California amended its constitution with Prop 8 and it is that constitution the Supreme Court is charged with upholding.
2. The court may rule that Prop 8 was not properly added to the ballot and in so finding, invalidate the amendment. But why would the courts do this?
2a. The California Constitution establishes two 'levels' of change a ballot initiative can enact. The first, an amendment, is a relatively minor change to the constitution and can be put on the ballot by petition. The second, a revision, is a major change which alters not the text but the fundamentals of the constitution.
2b. Discrimination against 'suspect classes' (that is to say, a classification of people where using that classification as the sole judgment is suspect) is forbidden by the California Constitution.
2f. In the past, when the California Constitution has been amended to remove rights, those rights have been removed from all people. For example, when the courts had held that Calfornian's freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment' and that execution was cruel or unusual, the Constitution was amended to remove that protection from all Californians.
2c. Gay people constitute a suspect class.
2d. Prior to the enacting of Prop 8, gay people had the right to marry.
2e. Following the passage of Prop 8, a suspect class is explicitly forbidden a right it once had, while the remainder of the population retains that right.
2g. Amending the constitution to remove rights of a protected class is thus unprecedented and represents a material change to the fundamentals of the California Constitution.
2h. As a result, what was placed on the ballot as an amendment is actually a revision and is not eligible for entry on a ballot by petition; it must be placed on ballot by a 2/3 supermajority of both houses of the California Assembly.
3. I like this argumentation very much. The Mormons will bitch and moan about how the courts are undoing the will of the people. But if the court rules in favor of what I outlined in 2, then the people en masse don't have a say in this until the Assembly acts on it. And we've just spent millions and millions of dollars on something that never should've been on the ballot in the first place.
4. Yes, this is very similar to a challenge against Prop 8 before the election, which was declined by the Court. However, in the interest of acting conservatively, the Court chose not to hear the case; if Prop 8 failed, they could get away without having to make a decision and it would have the same policy effect as if they'd heard the case and turned Prop 8 down from the ballot. Now, they evidently believe they do need to make a decision on the case, because whether they do or do not find the placement of Prop 8 on the ballot was appropriate has a net effect regardless of what they decide.
5. It looks like the petition drive to get a repeal measure for Prop 8 is in the works, and even if the Court finds against the folks filing this suit, we'll revisit this battle in two years' time.
1. The court is not going to rule to overturn the will of the people. The court can't do that. California amended its constitution with Prop 8 and it is that constitution the Supreme Court is charged with upholding.
2. The court may rule that Prop 8 was not properly added to the ballot and in so finding, invalidate the amendment. But why would the courts do this?
2a. The California Constitution establishes two 'levels' of change a ballot initiative can enact. The first, an amendment, is a relatively minor change to the constitution and can be put on the ballot by petition. The second, a revision, is a major change which alters not the text but the fundamentals of the constitution.
2b. Discrimination against 'suspect classes' (that is to say, a classification of people where using that classification as the sole judgment is suspect) is forbidden by the California Constitution.
2f. In the past, when the California Constitution has been amended to remove rights, those rights have been removed from all people. For example, when the courts had held that Calfornian's freedom from 'cruel or unusual punishment' and that execution was cruel or unusual, the Constitution was amended to remove that protection from all Californians.
2c. Gay people constitute a suspect class.
2d. Prior to the enacting of Prop 8, gay people had the right to marry.
2e. Following the passage of Prop 8, a suspect class is explicitly forbidden a right it once had, while the remainder of the population retains that right.
2g. Amending the constitution to remove rights of a protected class is thus unprecedented and represents a material change to the fundamentals of the California Constitution.
2h. As a result, what was placed on the ballot as an amendment is actually a revision and is not eligible for entry on a ballot by petition; it must be placed on ballot by a 2/3 supermajority of both houses of the California Assembly.
3. I like this argumentation very much. The Mormons will bitch and moan about how the courts are undoing the will of the people. But if the court rules in favor of what I outlined in 2, then the people en masse don't have a say in this until the Assembly acts on it. And we've just spent millions and millions of dollars on something that never should've been on the ballot in the first place.
4. Yes, this is very similar to a challenge against Prop 8 before the election, which was declined by the Court. However, in the interest of acting conservatively, the Court chose not to hear the case; if Prop 8 failed, they could get away without having to make a decision and it would have the same policy effect as if they'd heard the case and turned Prop 8 down from the ballot. Now, they evidently believe they do need to make a decision on the case, because whether they do or do not find the placement of Prop 8 on the ballot was appropriate has a net effect regardless of what they decide.
5. It looks like the petition drive to get a repeal measure for Prop 8 is in the works, and even if the Court finds against the folks filing this suit, we'll revisit this battle in two years' time.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
When will my tax dollars start buying *me* wine?
CNN Political Ticker reports on the swill the G20 leaders are quaffing while trying to solve the current financial crisis:
Now, I'm a liberal elitist, so 'herbs' like 'thyme' don't scare me. And I live in the Bay Area, so the idea of a fruitwood smoker (I mean, you have to admit, that's basically the gayest-sounding thing ever) doesn't scare me. The concept of fondue I find a bit passé, but neither George nor Laura Bush seem to -- how do I say it -- have their finger on the pulse of contemporary trends.
I am a bit of a wine geek, so I relish the importance of the right wine with the right food, and though I have never had a $500 bottle of wine, I am pretty gosh-darn sure there's no reason they should go dropping a McKinley per bottle to go with this meal.
To put us all at ease that our taxpayer dollars aren't being frivolously spent to pour extremely elegant rotten grape juice down the gullets of the world's dignitaries, the White House assures us thusly:
A group of 20 of your not-closest friends is an excuse to raid the Shafer?! Seriously? Let's take the wholesale-price argument at face value: The White House (that is to say, you and I) buys this at the 6-bottle wholesale price, meaning they pay the price of 6 bottles to buy a case of 12. According to Shafer's website, the 6 bottle price on a case of the current vintage Hillside Select Cabernet would be $1,290, or $107.50 / bottle.
So it's still a freaking Benji a bottle. Thank Jesus the conservatives are in power.
But the *really* offensive part of this is that they have no freaking business pouring relatively young Cabernet Sauvignon to pair with... quail?! Are you trying to drown the damn birds after you've already killed and cooked them? I'm sure they're delicious, but after masking all of its flavor with the tannins in even a 'delicate' Stag's Leap Cabernet Sauvignon (and if you think they're all 'delicate', go roast your palate at Chimney Rock and get back to me), it'll totally overpower the dish you're serving it with! They could've managed a reasonably good Pinot Noir for half the price, or maybe done something ballsy like a moderately oaked + malolactic fermented white variety or blend and gone with that. I think Caymus Conundrum would've been great with the quail and that stuff retails around $25. This offensive mispairing and overspending must come to a stop. President-Elect Obama (is that ever going to get old??), it's time for a change!
"According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as 'Fruitwood-smoked Quail,' 'Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb,' and 'Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus.'
To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com."
Now, I'm a liberal elitist, so 'herbs' like 'thyme' don't scare me. And I live in the Bay Area, so the idea of a fruitwood smoker (I mean, you have to admit, that's basically the gayest-sounding thing ever) doesn't scare me. The concept of fondue I find a bit passé, but neither George nor Laura Bush seem to -- how do I say it -- have their finger on the pulse of contemporary trends.
I am a bit of a wine geek, so I relish the importance of the right wine with the right food, and though I have never had a $500 bottle of wine, I am pretty gosh-darn sure there's no reason they should go dropping a McKinley per bottle to go with this meal.
To put us all at ease that our taxpayer dollars aren't being frivolously spent to pour extremely elegant rotten grape juice down the gullets of the world's dignitaries, the White House assures us thusly:
"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."
A group of 20 of your not-closest friends is an excuse to raid the Shafer?! Seriously? Let's take the wholesale-price argument at face value: The White House (that is to say, you and I) buys this at the 6-bottle wholesale price, meaning they pay the price of 6 bottles to buy a case of 12. According to Shafer's website, the 6 bottle price on a case of the current vintage Hillside Select Cabernet would be $1,290, or $107.50 / bottle.
So it's still a freaking Benji a bottle. Thank Jesus the conservatives are in power.
But the *really* offensive part of this is that they have no freaking business pouring relatively young Cabernet Sauvignon to pair with... quail?! Are you trying to drown the damn birds after you've already killed and cooked them? I'm sure they're delicious, but after masking all of its flavor with the tannins in even a 'delicate' Stag's Leap Cabernet Sauvignon (and if you think they're all 'delicate', go roast your palate at Chimney Rock and get back to me), it'll totally overpower the dish you're serving it with! They could've managed a reasonably good Pinot Noir for half the price, or maybe done something ballsy like a moderately oaked + malolactic fermented white variety or blend and gone with that. I think Caymus Conundrum would've been great with the quail and that stuff retails around $25. This offensive mispairing and overspending must come to a stop. President-Elect Obama (is that ever going to get old??), it's time for a change!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
