Month: November 2016

When developing software, a Product Manager (that’s the job that I do) has to choose between whether to do the Cadillac version of a product (or feature) or the Accord version. Picking between one or the other is called making a tradeoff. Do you tradeoff completeness (which takes more time) or polish (which allows you to more quickly validate that the product has value to customers)?

When a feature that you’ve built doesn’t work the way you expect it to work, that’s called a bug. You’ve designed something a certain way to accomplish a specific task, but – in certain conditions – it can’t complete that task.

I’ve always thought racial profiling was a bug in the American justice system. I now realize that it’s actually a trade-off.

Let me tell you why:

In designing our justice system, we’ve decided that instead of having the hard conversations that we need to have as a society (building the Cadillac version of our justice system) around:

1. The War on Drugs and its disproportionate effect on inner city, black and Hispanic men
2. Our foreign policy as it relates to apartheid in Israel and the impact of that on Islamist aggression
3. Our immigration policy and how it relates to an open border and the ideologies that come with that

that we would rather racially profile (the Accord version of our justice system), and then ask for forgiveness when it turns out we’ve reached too far.

If this were a bug, then we’d just say stop doing that police/TSA/FBI/ICE/etc. That isn’t nice. But the thing is – we can’t. Because if we stop doing it, then the wheels fall off our ability to avoid those conversations.

As a result, we’ve chosen racial profiling over humaneness. It helps us feel safer. It gives us an enemy against which to build our police state. And it blinds us to the human right abuses running rampant in some of our closest allies. We have too many hard conversations, and so this is one we’re happy to push into the future.

When you see that Arabs voted for Trump – it is because Hilary Clinton would have continued a blindly pro-Israel foreign policy that would leave Syrian and Palestinian children constantly looking over their shoulders for the next attack on their lives.

We see the growth of the Black Lives Matter movement, and yet have seen no real movement to end the War on Drugs in 8 years of an Obama presidency (and we’ve just started to see a movement against the for-profit prison system that profits off of this policy).

And the inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform because both sides are afraid of losing future votes to the other is leaving the lives of millions in limbo, stalling our economic growth, and continuing to fan the xenophobic flames of nativism.

If we’re serious about this country being a melting pot, and if we’re serious about this country being a place of opportunity, then we need to have these hard conversations instead of settling for the trade-off.

Because the worst decision you can make when developing a product is the decision to do nothing at all.

One of the favorite refrains of the Tea Party element of the Right is that the only way presented with the facts that I could ever hold liberal positions is to be brainwashed by the mainstream media (MSM is how it’s abbreviated – I guess for more efficient Twitter character counts).

To this, I just need to say a few things:

(1) I know how to read. And because I believe in being an educated voter, I often read (or watch) the transcripts (or speeches) that the candidates make. I’m not watching any media’s version of the speech. I’m actually reading or watching what the candidate is saying themselves.

(2) I know how to research. I can follow the trail of who writes a bill. I can follow the trail of what an organization with a friendly name may or may not stand for. And so just because it comes from a group with a nice name like the American Family Organization, I know that it’s not a group that would accept me because I’m not Christian.

(3) I can find opposing views. And I actively look out for them. I really enjoy reading the TAC blog – not because I always agree with Rod Dreher, but because it helps me understand the first principles from which he builds his arguments.

Here’s another point to be very wary of. You’re getting your information from the mainstream media as well. The Mainstream Media includes – but is not limited to – the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Huffington Post, Fox News, the New York Daily, Rush Limbaugh.

These are all for-profit organizations whose goal is to make people look at advertisements, listen to advertisements, and click on advertisements. Their goal is not to educate. If anything, it is to entertain. Sometimes entertaining requires informing, but informing is different than educating.

Please don’t take as gospel what you read in your mainstream media any more than I do in mine. Educate yourself. It’s the only way we’re going to be able to have the conversations we need to have to put this country back together again.

Dear Ms. Mary,

I want to reintroduce myself. My name is Melih Onvural, and we met almost 25 years ago in a small town called Cary, NC. I even remember how you introduced yourself – “My name is Mary. My husband’s name is Terry. And we live in Cary”. I was 9. And I don’t think you hated me then. Why do you hate me now?

If you remember, we were neighbors for 10 years. I grew up playing Monopoly and doing math homework at your kitchen table. The one time I remember my parents taking some time off for themselves, I stayed at your house. You might remember my parents. Muslim immigrants from Turkey who came to America and built their own American Dream.

You see, I feel the need to re-introduce myself because over the last year or so, you’ve filled my Facebook feed with alt-right political rhetoric as if you’ve never known an immigrant; or a Muslim; or someone who scraped, crawled, and fought their way from the bottom to the top of the hill known as America.

But you have – me.

And – very consistently – over the last year you’ve posted your political rhetoric, and I’ve stayed silent. I figured that your candidate couldn’t win, and that I shouldn’t soil our relationship with political bickering. I was wrong about the former. And you didn’t give me the courtesy of the latter, and so I have to remind you of a few things tonight.

(1) Your candidate said that he wants me and my parents to not be a part of the American fabric. Either he actually means it, which makes him and you bigots, or he said it only to rally up the crowd which makes him a liar.

If it’s the former, then your years of speaking down at me for not being Christian are a farce. Christ isn’t a bigot. And as a follower of Christ you must love all of His children, and leave judgement to our Creator on the Day of Judgement. These are the words He spoke in the Sermon on the Mount. These are things you taught me. In your kitchen. In the life we shared together. As neighbors.

If it’s the latter, then you’ve been conned. And you’ve allowed a con man to become your false prophet – once again betraying the very values you claim to live by.

(2) Your candidate has encouraged white supremacists to come out of the shadows in which they were hiding, and refused to repudiate them.

By supporting this man, you’ve made the world less safe for my children. Here’s a picture of my mixed-race children. They’re 5, 4, and 1.5 years old. They have a British mom, and a Turkish dad. Their last name is one that no one can pronounce. Instead of looking into my feed, and wondering about the world looks like for these kids when hate is allowed out of the shadows, you openly invited hate, and pushed us into the shadows.

How can I possibly bring them to North Carolina now knowing that the KKK has been empowered to stand back up? How can I send them to their grandmother’s house for the summer not knowing if they’ll be safe or not? You have grandchildren. Why would you create a world that is less safe for them than the one in which your own children grew up?

(3) Your candidate has firmly laid down a layer of concrete over the glass ceiling of equal opportunity that every woman in my family has fought for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why should these women have opportunities closed to them? Why as a grandmother and a mother of an incredible young girl should they think that her opportunities will be less than those of the boys in their lives? Your candidate – and the masses who voted him in – make them believe that. Should your granddaughter have fewer opportunities just because she doesn’t have a penis?

I think somewhere along the line you forgot that the names and labels that you were raging against were people. People with lives, destinies, hopes, and dreams. My family. Your neighbors.

Your vote – and the votes of millions of other Americans – told these people – my people – that we don’t matter.

As much as I thought the best solution was to turn you off, I’ve realized that that’s wrong. I’m not going to unfriend you. I’m going to fill your news feed with the pictures, stories, accomplishments, and journeys of these people.

Because we’re not a faceless mass. We’re not Skittles in a fucking bowl. We are America – the best parts of it. And we want you to be part of our story too.

Things I’ve learned this year:

(1) Direct democracy is an AWFUL idea. If you don’t have 2 hours, and access to the right resources, then you have no idea what you’re voting for. It’s just awful.

(2) Our current two party system is broken, and there’s really no solution in sight

(3) California is obsessed with implementing liberal policies with conservative tax plans. It just can’t be sustainable, and is really worrisome.

And with all of that… my votes for the 2016 election up and down the ballot:

President & Vice President – Hilary Clinton & Tim Kaine

I really don’t like Hilary Clinton. Her foreign policy is too hawkish. She’s too old school for me on economics and taxation. But I don’t actually care. This is actually a protest vote against Donald Trump, and a world who would have him elected President. And so I’ve switched from leaving this blank, to voting for Hilary as a way to say that I can’t imagine a worse future for my children than one after 4 years of Donald Trump.

Senate -  Kamala D. Harris

I think both women are strong candidates here. I think that Kamala Harris has put together a better vision of how she would fix the economy, and deal with immigration. Loretta Sanchez’s campaign seems to mainly be about her history and her experience, and less so about what she wants to do.

House of Representatives - None

Preston Picus isn’t a real alternative. He seems to just be an angry citizen who got enough votes to get on the ballot. And I don’t think that Nancy Pelosi should go back. I just see her as part of a past generation who keeps trying to fix this country in the image of their parents and grandparents (same with Hilary I guess). I wish we could provide a real challenger here, but alas no luck.

State Senator – Jane Kim

If I were going to go by the inverse of the number of flyers I received this would easily go to Jane Kim. All Scott Weiner did it seems during this campaign is trash her. And he kept trashing her for policies she stood up for that when I read into them I also supported. So he in fact did most of my research for me here. What really tipped me in her direction though was as I was reading through her policies she spoke about how she wanted to fund her progressive programs. This is a theme I constantly see missing for Democrats. Sure they want to be progressive, but who’s paying for these progressive policies. Jane Kim seems to have that plan in place

State Assembly – None

The current Assembly Member – Phil Ting – doesn’t seem to have any ideas of his own. The challenger – Carlos “Chuck” Taylor – is too Tea Party for my liking.

School Board – Mark Sanchez, Rachel Norton, Stevon Cook, Phil Kim

The folks I knocked off of the list were either there too long (I think SFUSD is broken – so bragging about 24 years on the Board was a major turnoff), didn’t have plans for how to fund their ideas, or had never before been involved in creating an education program.

These four seem to be focused on technology (including working in non-profits who have had to fund their ideas), teacher retention (with ideas about how to fix it), and curriculum (with clear ideas of where to focus).

Prop 51 – No

In reading the text, this is yet another excuse by California legislators to not take a hard look at Prop 13, and find a sustainable way to fund schools. We’re effectively saying that because we don’t have the political will to challenge Prop 13 we have to keep borrowing against the future to fund schools.

Prop 52 - Yes

This seems to be a program that’s working, and one that we should continue to let work. I think the lack of regular check-in by making the date indefinite is a bit sketch, but not so much as to vote No.

Prop 53 – No

The last thing California needs is more direct democracy. Definitely voting No here.

Prop 54 – No

This one looked great to me at first. But the more I read, the more I didn’t like it. So I asked the one person I know who has worked in the State Legislature, and he said vote No. Sometimes you just need to know who to trust 🙂

@monvural No on 54. Slowing down the Legislature is mostly bad for liberal causes. More about power than good government.

— Brock Winstead (@brockwinstead) November 8, 2016

Prop 55 – Yes

This is an extension to an income tax that will help fund schools. Unlike the construction proposition which I think will mainly help construction companies, this one puts the money into the education fund, distributes it locally, and then it gets spent locally. So on this one I’m voting yes.

Prop 56 – Yes

I’m anti-all things smoking.

Prop 57 – Yes

For this one, I think dismantling the Prison Industrial Complex is important. I also think that we need to take away from prosecutors the need to appear tough which incentivizes them to push for juveniles to be tried as adults. However, the case of Brock Turner demonstrates that giving this power to judges won’t necessarily turn out the way we expect it to. At the least, judges aren’t incentivized (I hope) the same way.

Prop 58 – No

I’m not sure what the long term outcome of this is, and the bi-lingual programs I know of in SFUSD are working for the folks who are in them. Just not convinced why we need this change.

Prop 59 – Yes

This is what my rant was all about, and so I definitely have to vote Yes here. Yes, I do want my state government which has the 8th largest economy in the world to use as much influence as it can to impact the federal government.

Prop 60 – No

This is regulation because someone wants to regulate. If you want to fix pornography, the issue isn’t condoms.

Prop 61 – Yes

I’m voting Yes here because I think the pharmaceutical industry has demonstrated in a few extreme cases (Martin Shekel and Epi-pen) that the system protects it enough without needing unfair pricing power. So if we can create a directive to drive costs down for pharmaceuticals, then let’s do it.

Prop 62 – Yes

Fabienne Gerard (my high school advisor) took me to an anti-death penalty panel when we were in high school. I’ve been anti-death penalty ever since. Yes, we should repeal the death penalty.

Prop 63 - Yes

I actually have no idea how this kind of move impacts the gun lobby across the nation, but at least in this corner of the country we can push back and create some sense of responsibility with gun ownership. Prop 63 is a definite yes for me.

Prop 64 – Yes

I think Prop 64 is another example of using the might of California to push change at the federal level. With most of the Western US legalizing the drug, we can create some momentum at the federal level to have a real conversation about the War on Drugs (also known as the War on Black America), and whether it’s time to end it.

Prop 65 – No

This is big industry protecting itself with a well worded proposition. No to more products made by oil.

Prop 66 – No

We don’t need to reduce the cost of the death penalty. We need to end the death penalty. No on 66.

Prop 67 – Yes

One of the simplest worded propositions I’ve seen in my time in California. We need to get rid of plastic bags. The less of our lives that is made by oil, the easier it will be to unentangle from the global obligations that come with an oil driven economy.

SF A – No
SF B – Yes
SF C – Yes
SF D – No
SF E – Yes
SF F – No - 16 year old shouldn’t vote. Come on.
SF G – Yes
SF H – Yes
SF I – No
SF J – No
SF K – No – Instead can we ask the technology industry to pay its fair share of taxes instead of giving Twitter a massive tax free zone?
SF L – No
SF M – Yes
SF N – No
SF O – No
SF P – No
SF Q – No
SF R – No
SF S – No
SF T – Yes
SF U – No
SF V- Yes – Take that soda companies :-p
SF W – Yes
SF X – No

BART RR – No – I just don’t trust the folks who run BART after the way the BART strike situation was handled.