Prop 8 Decision Day Rally in Downtown LA

Interview With Dave Fleischer: Prop 8 Report Author

Dave Fleischer is the author of the 509-page Prop 8 Report which was released publicly on Tuesday. I have known Dave for years and he agreed to this on the record interview with MadProfessah.com.

MadProfessah: What are the main results or ideas you want people to gain from this report?

Dave Fleischer:
* The No on 8 campaign made a smart decision to invest in research. As a result, for the first time ever, in any campaign, the LGBT community has daily tracking polling that measures increases and decreases in our support as voters were being exposed to the anti-gay opposition campaign. This is far superior to episodic polls taken when voters are considering the question out of context and have not recently been exposed to the vile but effective opposition campaign. The No on 8 tracking polling by Lake allows us to correlate voter movement to significant changes in the political environment including but not limited to strategic decisions made by the competing campaigns. That's why this report is the first report ever to seriously evaluate why we struggle to compete in these campaigns. It provides evidence that allows us to consider and evaluate the wide range of competing hypotheses offered by a wide variety of observers. Up until now, we just had the hypotheses, not the data. Now, we have significant data. With the data, we are able to reject some hypotheses, confirm others, and notice areas where we need more information. We are on our way to learning more about the electoral reality in which we are operating.

* Based on the data, we know why we lost. We lost because in the final six weeks, when TV ads from both campaigns saturated the airwaves, almost 700,000 votes switched sides and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. It seems fair to me to conclude that Yes on 8 outcampaigned us in the final six weeks. We went from even to losing in the final six weeks. And it's fair to give Yes on 8 credit for what they accomplished, because we lost the most ground by far among the exact group of voters they targeted: parents.

* No on 8 regained some of the ground we lost, but only when we directly rebutted the opposition fear-mongering. "O'Connell" was No on 8's belated rebuttal of the pernicious Yes on 8 ads that exploited and stimulated anti-gay prejudice by making people fear that kids were in danger. The effectiveness of the "O'Connell" ad, while limited, suggests that we can successfully rebut the longstanding lies, at least among some voters. And the fact that it improved the situation compared to how we were doing when we were avoiding the issue makes it clear that avoidance serves us poorly. When the opposition attacks the character of LGBT people, we have to rebut immediately, directly, and clearly.

* As we prepare to go back to the ballot, we have to commit ourselves to gaining insight into how to rebut those attacks effectively. We still have so much to learn; after all, does "O'Connell" represent the best we can do? We simply don't yet know. We need to try out, in real world circumstances that simulate the campaign, what rebuttals help us most with most of the voters who are susceptible to the opposition fear-mongering. Luckily, we have a great immediate opportunity to enlarge our learning, when we canvass. From my point of view, when we are canvassing, this leads to a practical imperative: we should talk about kids to as many voters as we can; test different messages to see what works; and consider the canvass an investment in qualitative research, the largest, longest focus group in social science history. My concern is that if we don't do this -- if we don't talk about kids now, when the stakes are low -- we will be tempted once again to avoid the issue in an campaign, when the stakes are so high. Then history will repeat itself, to our detriment.

MP: How long did the report take to research and write and who paid for it?

DF: 18 months. Paid for by the LGBT Mentoring Project. No money solicited from nor did any come from CA individuals or organizations or the No on 8 campaign on anyone evaluated in the report.

MP: When do you think we should return to the ballot to overturn Proposition 8?

DF: We should return to the ballot when we have a decent chance to win. So we have homework to do. Should only choose the year when we have finished the homework. That could be 2012, or a different year. To me, what's relevant is: have we done our homework?

MP: One of the key findings is in wrong-way voting. Apparently there were 6% of voters who voted No who opposed marriage equality as opposed to 4% of Yes voters who supported marriage equality. Thus there's a net gain of 2 percentage points for the No side. Can you explain how confident you are of this result?

DF: Very confident. The Lake polling data and our methodology to interpret it are all laid in out detail in the report in a special appendix. [Appendix K]

We acknowledge all of the limitations of the data. But here's what we calculate:

* approx 1.525 million people were wrong-way voters

* of those, 875,000 voted No and opposed same-sex marriage

* and 650,000 voted Yes though they favored same-sex marriage

* the difference, 225,000 voters, made the margin closer by approx. 450,000 votes

FYI, David Binder's polling during the No on 8 campaign, commissioned by the No on 8 campaign, corroborated Lake. In the one poll where he asked questions you could use to gauge wrong-way voting, conducted Sept. 2-4, he found that

* 13% of the voters who found same-sex marriage acceptable said they'd vote Yes, and

* 19% of the voters who found same-sex marriage unacceptable said they'd vote No.

This is a less reliable measure of wrong-way voting than because a) it was further in advance of election day, and some voters self-correct; and b) Binder's question gave three options to respondents, so the middle group is sizeable and there's no way to tell if any of them were likely to wrong-way vote. But Binder's finding here is consistent with the idea that our side was the likely net beneficiary of wrong-way voting.

And of course Binder's May 2009 attempt to gauge wrong-way voting is very unlikely to be of any value. Polls are best at detecting wrong-way voting as or before people vote, not afterwards, especially not six months afterwards, when accurate recollection of their confusion is unlikely.

You will also enjoy looking at Lewis & Gossett, cited in the Prop 8 Report. Their excellent paper analyzing the Field and PPIC data uses regression analysis to compare the plausibility of four competing hypotheses to explain the failure of the two polls to gauge what was happening. They make a compelling case for wrong-way voting as the most probable explanation.

MP: What do you say to people that your source of daily tracking poll data by Celinda Lake ends 5 days before the election and the election could have been decided in that time frame?

DF: The Lake data is the best data we have on Prop 8, and the best data set our community has ever had on any of these ballot measures. That said, it is imperfect in a variety of ways, including the one you mention. There could have been significant changes in voter opinion in those final days. The Lake data would of necessity not reveal that. However, to the extent that the Binder tracking polling data in the final days tell us anything, they do not suggest massive voter movement or anything other than trivial voter movement. See the charts in the report with Binder data and Lake data side by side and you'll see what I mean. Binder tracked until election day (but he didn't start until much much later than Lake, when most of the big movement had long occurred).

Thanks, Dave!

Federal Prop 8 Decision TOMORROW!

The American Foundation for Equal Rights has announced that the decision in the federal challenge to California's Proposition 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger will be released tomorrow, Wednesday August 4th (Barack Obama's 49th birthday!)

Federal district court judge Vaughn Walker is widely expected to strike down Proposition 8, but his reasoning and the extent of his ruling should be very interesting. Ted Olson and David Boies were the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

UPDATE TUESDAY 08/03/2010 6:41PM

The decision will be released electronically on the federal court's website between 1pm and 3pm on Wednesday August 4th.

LAT Op-ed Summarizes Prop 8 Report Results

Dave Fleischer, the author of the newly released Prop 8 Report has an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times called "Behind the numbers of Prop 8" where he summarizes the main results of his voluminous, 500-plus-page document:

After the election, a misleading finding from exit polls led many to blame African Americans for the loss. But in our new analysis, it appears that African Americans' views were relatively stable. True, a majority of African Americans opposed same-sex marriage, but that was true at the beginning and at the end of the campaign; few changed their minds in the closing weeks.

The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home — many of them white Democrats.

The numbers are staggering. In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home. Because the proposition passed by 600,000 votes, this shift alone more than handed victory to proponents.

[...]

Another misconception was that those who voted for Proposition 8 were motivated by hate. This does not describe most of the 687,000 who changed their minds in the closing weeks. After all, they supported same-sex marriage before the opposition peeled them away. Yes, they turned out to be susceptible to an appeal based on anti-gay prejudice. But they were frightened by misinformation. No on 8's one TV ad that directly responded to the fear-mongering helped assuage some of the fear, but it was too little, too late.

One final false assumption by same-sex marriage supporters was that the election was so close that it will be easy to pass same-sex marriage the next time out.

It's true that the official election results — 52% to 48% — appeared quite close. But the truth is more complicated. The data we analyzed show that the No on 8 campaign benefitted from voter confusion.

Polling suggests that half a million people who opposed same-sex marriage mistakenly voted against the proposition. They were confused by the idea that a "no" vote was actually a vote for gay marriage. This "wrong-way voting" affected both sides, but overwhelmingly it helped the "no" side. Our analysis suggests that the division among California voters on same-sex marriage at the time of Proposition 8 was actually 54% to 46% — not so close. We are actually 1 million votes away from being able to reverse Proposition 8.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a public forum with Dave Fleischer at the LA Gay and Lesbian Center's Village at Ed Gould Plaza next Tuesday August 10 7-9pm.

VitaminWater Is Declared A Scam!

OMG! Vitaminwater has been ruled to be a marketing scam by a federal court. This is very sad to me because I love drinking Vitaminwater! I like the "dwnld" and "XXX" flavors. I never believed the "health claims" but I figured that it was better than drinking juice or Gatorade.

However, the Center for Science in the Public Interest points out that each 20 ounce bottle ofVitaminwater has 32.5 g of sugars. There is no Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of sugars, but official guidelines indicate that a good goal is at most 40g of sugars for someone who has 2000 calories per day.

The CSPI sued Coca-Cola over the claims the company makes for Vitaminwater and a federal judge refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

By including the suggestion that the product will “keep you healthy” or “help bring about a healthy state of physical and mental being” alongside such statements, the quoted language implies that the nutrient content of vitaminwater may help consumers maintain healthy dietary practices. I conclude, therefore, in light of the language and context in which they are used, that the statements on the “defense” and “B- Relaxed” labels constitute implied nutrient content claims which use the word “healthy.” Such claims are in violation of violation of FDA regulations because . . . vitaminwater achieves its nutritional content solely through fortification that violates FDA policy.

Now that I am more aware of how sugary Vitaminwater is, I will limit my consumption accordingly!

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God

Everything You Know About Prop 8 Is Wrong

Finally, the definitive report on what happened during the 2008 proposition 8 ballot measure fight is being told by Dave Fleischer of the LGBT Mentoring Project (former of the National Gay and Lesbian task Force) in a report to be released on Monday August 2nd.

UPDATED MON 08/02/2010 09:37AM

Apparently the Fleischer briefing tonight is a private invitation-only event. There will be a public briefing next week. MadProfessah will attend and see what tidbits I can share with y'all.

The public briefing is Tuesday August 10 at 7pm at the Village at Ed Gould Plaza (1625 N. McCadden Ave, Los Angeles, CA)

Sam Querrey Repeats As Champion in LA

ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images

American Sam Querrey became the first person since Andre Agassi in 2001 to defend his title in Los Angeles by defeating the top seed, World #4 Andy Murray 5-7 7-6(2) 6-3 on Sunday.

MadProfessah had been invited to visit the tournament earlier in the week for a USTA Diversity event and saw Querey and James Blake lose a desultory doubles match to the excessively handsome (and eventual semifinalist) Feliciano Lopez and Jarko Tipsarevic.

Eye Candy: Rafael Leonidas

Rafael Leonidas is a smoking hot 25-year-old fitness model of Dominican descent who lives in Miami and New York City. He is today's Eye Candy. Guapo, no?

UK PM Cameron Salutes LGBT Inclusion

In today's Independent new British Prime Minister David Cameron has published an op-ed which celebrates the inclusion of the LGBT community in contemporary British society.

But as well as being a celebration, the Pink List is a reminder that we must go further. Yes, the UK is a world leader for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality, but we cannot be complacent. As long as there are people out there feeling marginalised or threatened, we must continue to tackle prejudice.

Of course, politicians have a big part to play in that. When I first stood on the steps of Downing Street as Prime Minister I paid tribute to what the last government did to make our country a more open and tolerant place – and we're continuing that work. In June, the coalition government set out an ambitious programme which includes tackling bullying in schools, changing the law on historical convictions for gay sex that is now legal and commencing the Equality Act. It's also important that we maintain the drive on tackling hate crime in our communities and promoting better recording of homophobic attacks. Violent crimes like those committed on Ian Baynham and James Parks – which happen simply on account of someone's sexuality – are disgusting and we must do everything possible to stop them happening.

[...]

But making this country a more equal, open place isn't just a job for government alone. The truth is we will never really tackle homophobia in schools, the workplace or in sport just by passing laws. We need a culture change as well.

There's no single lever we can pull or even collection of measures that we can take to make that happen. The wall of prejudice is also chipped away by high-profile role models, by public celebrations, by a positive approach to diversity. That's why I am proud that there are now more openly gay MPs in the Conservative Party than any other party. It's why I wish the upcoming Pride events – today in Leeds, all week in Brighton and on Saturday in Liverpool – every success. And it's why I congratulate everyone on this list for doing their bit to inspire and change attitudes. This is a country where people can be proud of who they are – and quite right too.

BOOK REVIEW: Aravind Adiga's THE WHITE TIGER

Aravind Adiga's The White Tiger won the 2008 Man Booker Prize, the most prestigious individual book prize in English (only writers from Commonwealth countries are eligible).

I got the book for Christmas in 2008 and finally read it over my summer vacation in August 2009.

The White Tiger is a book about contemporary Indian life, told in a very readable, darkly comic style by a prose magician.

It is one of the few Booker prizewinners that can easily be read in an afternoon. (Or even read at all. I still have a copy of Salman Rushdie's Midnight Children, barely begun, no my bookshelf.) Having been to India myself in the last 5 years I am always curious to see depictions of the country in film and novels. This was one of (not the most important) things which made Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire (read my review here) so enjoyable to me. I'm not saying if it wasn't set in India the movie would not have been interesting to me; I'm saying that the added India element enriches the work in my eyes, thanks to my interest in the subject.

Anyway, Aviga's work is written in the form of a series of letters to the Premier of China (The White Tiger of the book's title) and follows the adventures of Balram Halwai, a perfectly ordinary Indian man from a typical Indian village who happens to be the narrator of the book--and a murderer.

Adiga has harsh social commentary on almost every aspect of Indian society, from elections to malls to religion (so many gods, so little time!) which has made the book somewhat controversial in some circles, presumably even more so now that it has been awarded the Booker.

In the end, though, there's something not quite satisfying about The White Tiger. After you finish it, you feel like you are ready to read another book, about half an hour later.

Title: The White Tiger

Author: Aravind Aviga
Publisher: Free Press
Date: October 14, 2008.
Length: 352 pages.

PLOT: B.
IMAGERY: B+.
IMPACT: B-.
WRITING: A-.

OVERALL GRADE: B/B+.

Congress Passes Act Reducing Cocaine Disparity

Finally! The disparity between criminal sentences for possession of two different forms of the same illegal substance has long been a bitter pill for progressives like myself to swallow. Happily, this week, Congress passed legislation t reduce the disparity in sentences for powder versus crack cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1. As I put it before, they made the war on drugs 82% less racist.

From The New York Times:

Under the current law, adopted in 1986 after a surge in crack cocaine smoking and drug-related killings, someone convicted in federal court of possession of five grams of crack must be sentenced to at least five years in prison, and possession of 10 grams requires a 10-year minimum sentence. With powder cocaine, the threshold amounts for those mandatory sentences are 100 times as high.

In the bill passed Wednesday, the amount of crack that would invoke a five-year minimum sentence is raised to 28 grams, said to be roughly the amount a dealer might carry, and for a 10-year sentence, 280 grams.

While crack use has declined since the 1980s, arrests remain common, and some 80 percent of those convicted on crack charges in recent years have been black. A growing number of criminologists have concluded that the sentencing disparity is unjustified and has subjected tens of thousands of blacks to lengthy prison terms while offering more lenient punishment to users and sellers of powder cocaine, who are more often white.

Of course, many people are unhappy with the compromise legislation that has passed, since the new law is still racially discriminatory, as James Rucker of the online activist group Color of Change argues in The Root:

The Senate's compromise is still racially discriminatory and morally wrong, and we have yet to hear anyone explain why a disparity is necessary. It's time for those of us who care about this issue to force Sen. Sessions and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.,--the architects of the compromise--to offer an explanation that actually holds water. If Jeff Sessions really wants to argue that 18:1 is better for our country, we should create a media stir that requires him to defend that position in public. And if the explanation doesn't pass muster, if it doesn't appear to be in line with our communities' interests, we have to say so.

We understand that compromise is sometimes necessary, and we agree with our allies that some level of sentencing relief is better than none. But we can't afford to fold before the final hand has been played, and we shouldn't be negotiating from a position of weakness. That's how we ended up with an 18:1 compromise in the first place versus 10:1 or a 5:1. Real change--on ending this sentencing disparity and on other policy issues important to our communities--depends on our willingness to shine a light on backroom deals and apply grassroots energy to hold our elected officials accountable. That's the way democracy is supposed to work, and our responsibility to raise our voices in protest is not something we should ever compromise.

My position is that one can both argue for a 1:1 bill and still celebrate the progress inherent in the reduction of the previous draconian sentencing disparity. Compromise does not have to be a dirty word, as long as everyone involved realizes this is just one stage, not the end, of a long struggle for change.

WATCH: Fighter Jet Crash Caught On Tape

Federer Hires Sampras' Last Coach Paul Annacone

Roger Federer, current World #3 (now 110 points behind World #2 Novak Djokovic), has hired Paul Annacone to be his new coach, indicating that he is interested in maximizing his effectiveness in the twilight of his record-breaking career. The 15-time major champion has lost in the quarterfinals of the last two Grand Slam tournaments, and those were the two Grand Slams that he won last year. Instead, his arch-nemesis Rafael Nadal, now World #1, won them instead.

Greg Couch at Tennis Fanhouse commented on the move, saying:

Federer is about to turn 29, and while I think his game and his style are starting to look obsolete, I don't agree with some critics who think he has lost something because of his age. A little passion, a little edge, a little speed.

No. He still has everything he had before. But the game is changing, players are trying to figure out how to catch him, and he's just standing there, not fighting back. He has thought his elegant and perfect strokes will still be good enough, no matter that the era is changing around him.

But now, maybe this is Federer's way of saying that he's not ready to fade away.

[...]

Annacone is a good choice. Sampras used to rave about how well he scouted opponents, figured out what was necessary. That means gameplans, not excuses. Federer seemed to think that all that's necessary is for him to just be him.

[...]

Federer is going to have to attack back. And I think he's going to have to commit to the new technology, probably even change his outdated racket. He's using almost exactly the same one Sampras used a couple eras ago.

Federer won't allow Annacone, who's 47, to re-tool entirely. We'll see how far they go. But just agreeing to listen to Annacone, even if just for a test period, is a real start.

It's pretty exciting really: Mr. Perfect wants to get better.

I agree that for Federer fas for myself this is a good sign that the GOAT recognizes that he needs to make a change, especially if he wants to extend his major singles titles lead, or catch the all-time weeks at #1 lead, where he is exactly one week behind Pete Sampras.

Celebrity Friday: David Blackwell (1919-2010)

David Blackwell, the most prominent Black mathematician of his generation, has died at the age of 91. MadProfessah blogged about Blackwell last year on the occasion of his 90th birthday.

From his The New York Times obituary:

David Harold Blackwell was born on April 24, 1919, in Centralia, Ill. Early on, he showed a talent for mathematics, but he entered the University of Illinois with the modest ambition of becoming an elementary school teacher. He earned a bachelor’s degree in mathematics in 1938 and, adjusting his sights, went on to earn a master’s degree in 1939 and a doctorate in 1941, when he was only 22.

After being awarded a Rosenwald Fellowship, established by the clothing magnate Julius Rosenwald to aid black scholars, he attended the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton but left after a year when, because of his race, he was not issued the customary invitation to become an honorary faculty member. At Berkeley, where the statisticianJerzy Neyman wanted to hire him in the mathematics department, racial objections also blocked his appointment.

[...]

His “Basic Statistics” (1969) was one of the first textbooks on Bayesian statistics, which assess the uncertainty of future outcomes by incorporating new evidence as it arises, rather than relying on historical data. He also wrote numerous papers on multistage decision-making.

“He had this great talent for making things appear simple,” Peter Bickel, a statistics professor at Berkeley, told the university’s Web site. “He liked elegance and simplicity. That is the ultimate best thing in mathematics, if you have an insight that something seemingly complicated is really simple, but simple after the fact.”

Mr. Blackwell was hired by Berkeley in 1954 and became a full professor in the statistics department when it split off from the mathematics department in 1955. He was chairman of the department from 1957 to 1961 and assistant dean of the College of Letters and Science from 1964 to 1968. He retired in 1988.

As I noted before, Blackwell was the first Black person elected to the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, which happened way back in 1965. I have attended the biennial Blackwell-Tapia conference in the past (2006 and 2008), which highlights the contributions of Black and Latino research mathematicians.

CA-GOV: Race Gets Hotter

The race to be elected the next Governor of California gets hotter and hotter. Jerry Brown leads Meg Whitman, barely, in most recent polls.

VIDEO REVIEW: Laputa (City in the Sky)

Finally saw Hayao Miyazaki's classic film Laputa, which is generally called Castle in the Sky in this country, on DVD (Thank you, Netflix!) recently.

This is an absolutely lovely film that if you ever have an opportunity to see on the big screen you should run (do not walk!) to the movie theater to do so.

Miyazaki is the director of Princess Mononoke and the Oscar-winning Spirited Away as well as 2009's Ponyo (see MadProfessah's review).

Castle in the Sky is a delightful film, much more readily accessible to a broad audience than the trippy Princess Mononoke and the lyrical (but decidedly strange) Spirited Away.

As usual, the protagonists are children, this time two orphans, one of whom literally falls from the sky (and survives due to a magical pendant) named Sheeta and the other, Pazu, who has a curious obsession with trying to find the mythical floating city of Laputa, the Castle in the Sky.

The cast also includes another one of Miyazaki's famous archetypes: the old crone or witch, This time her name is Dola, and she leads a band of pirates. It was Dola who chased Sheeta out of an airship, causing her to jump into midair in the beginning of the film--she covets Sheeta's magical pendant.

Eventually, after many more adventures, Pazu and Sheeta do find Laputa, and the fabled Castle in the Sky has some secrets in store which are resolved in an uplifting fashion which is a fitting end to this entertaining movie.

Running Time: 2 hours, 5 minutes.
MPAA Rating: Rated G.


OVERALL GRADE: A.

ACTING: A-.
IMAGERY: A+.
PLOT: A.
IMPACT: A.

FOOD REVIEW: Juicy's Restaurant (Los Angeles, CA)

Juicy's brown stew chicken and beef short ribs.

Readers of this blog will be aware of my longtime quest for the best Caribbean food in Los Angeles (for background, see here and here). During my quest a friend of mine took me to Juicy's Natural Restaurant near Washington and Arlington just North of the 10 freeway. I hadn't even heard of the place, so I was happy to try it out. Next door they have a West Indian grocery store for products that you may be missing from the islands.

Unfortunately, I was not very impressed with the food at Juicy's. One of my favorite aspects of West Indian food is the peas and rice, and Juicy's was simply overcooked to the point of being bland. The brown stew chicken should be intriguingly spicy (piquant, not picante) but theirs was not really distinctive in any way. See my review of Joan & Sisters for some good brown-stew chicken and rice and peas. Although that place does not qualify as a West Indian restaurant; they are a Belizean restaurant and an excellent one at that.

I'm actually not sure if Juicy's roti or not (one criteria for my quest for an excellent Caribbean/West Indian restaurant is that it should sell roti; another criteria would be having the drink sorrel on the menu).

If you are really craving some good Caribbean food I would recommend heading out to Leimert Park to check out Ackee Bamboo or stopping by the Beverly Center and experiencing Kassava.

Name: Juicy's Restaurant
Location: 3426 W Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90018.
Contact: (none).

AMBIANCE: B.
SERVICE: B+.
VALUE: A-.
FOOD: B-.

OVERALL: B.

Federal Judge Stops Bad Parts of AZ Immigration Law

Good news from Arizona for once! The federal judge who was was considering seven lawsuits filed against Arizona's controversial, draconian immigration law has enjoined several key provisions from going into effect tomorrow.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places. In addition, the judge blocked officers from making warrantless arrests of suspected illegal immigrants.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled.

There are still many provisions of SB 1070 that will go into effect that will make life harder for immigrants in that state, however, so protests against the law will continue.
MadProfessah will continue his boycott of the state until the legal status of the law is resolved.

Iranian Gay Immigration Activist Risks Deportation And Execution

Meet Mohammed Abdollahi, a 24-year-old gay man of Iranian descent who is also an undocumented immigrant who has been advocating for quick passage of the DREAM act (which would legalize the status of undocumented young people who either enlist in the military or attend college), and now faces deportation to Iran, where openly gay men are often executed.

Now, that is what I call putting your life on the line for a cause.

POLL: 29% to 22% Think Prop 8 Was Bad For State

There's a new poll out from the Public Religion Research Institute that confirms that a majority of Californians support marriage equality right now. Additionally, the poll of 3,351 adults (including 350 African Americans and 200 Latino Protestants) asked about the 2008 ballot initiative Proposition 8. A stunning 45% of respondents said that it had no impact on the sate, while 29% said the measure's passage was bad for the state while 22% said it was good for the state.

Some other key findings of the report:

• One-in-four Californians report that their views on rights for gay and lesbian people has become more supportive over the last five years, compared to only 8% who say they have become more opposed. Among religious groups, ethnic minority groups showed slightly more overall movement than white religious groups. Among black Protestants, twice as many report becoming more supportive as report becoming more opposed (27% vs. 13%); among Latino Catholics, that ratio is 3-to-1 (31% more supportive vs. 9% more opposed) over this period.

• If another vote similar to Proposition 8 were held tomorrow, a majority (51%) say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, compared to 45% who say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

• There are major religious groups on both sides of the debate over same-sex marriage in California. Solid majorities of Latino Catholics and white mainline Protestants say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, while solid majorities of white evangelical Protestants, Latino Protestants, and African American Protestants say they would vote to keep same-sex marriage illegal.

The PPRI poll joins other major polls which also show majority support for marriage equality in the state of California.