It's Only Abnormal to Some

Pride parade on 6/30/24 (Zimmrman/SFGate)

The SFGate reporter calls it a "very abnormal" development, but to this observer it's not surprising at all. [bold added]

Several longtime corporate sponsors of San Francisco’s Pride celebrations are pulling their funding for the festivities, leaving Pride organizers searching for another way to raise $300,000.

In the past four weeks, multiple companies told San Francisco Pride, the nonprofit behind San Francisco’s annual Pride Parade and Civic Center celebration, that they would not support the 2025 Pride celebrations. In an interview with SFGATE, San Francisco Pride’s executive director, Suzanne Ford, said she was “really disappointed” by the developments.

In their communications with San Francisco Pride, the sponsors all cited a lack of funds. None of them mentioned the political climate. But Ford noted that it was “very abnormal” for several multiyear sponsors to suddenly drop their support for the event...

Ford told KTVU-TV that those sponsors included Comcast; Anheuser-Busch, the company behind Budweiser and Beck’s beer; wine company La Crema; and Diageo, the beverage company that produces Guinness, Smirnoff and other alcoholic drink brands. Aside from Comcast, all of those companies specialize in alcoholic beverages, a market that has become more volatile as Americans’ drinking preferences shift...

San Francisco Pride has budgeted $3.2 million for its events on the weekend of June 28-29, Ford said, and of that sum, corporate sponsorships are meant to cover $2.3 million. The companies that withdrew represented a combined $300,000 in funding.

Earlier this month, Ford announced that San Francisco Pride was ending its relationship with Meta, the parent company of Facebook. The social media giant recently ended its major diversity, equity and inclusion programs and scaled back its content moderation policies. In an interview with KGO-TV, Ford noted that the nonprofit was pausing its relationships with sponsors that don’t align with San Francisco Pride’s values.

One interpretation is that the "political climate" risks harm to sponsors of LGBTQ programs. A different explanation is that businesses are finally free to say "no" to causes that they felt they had to support because of what could happen if they didn't (see Tesla cars and dealerships for examples). I don't wish ill upon Pride and for their sake hope that a trickle doesn''t become a waterfall.

The Lazy Explanation is Wrong

Same-sex couples are denied mortgages more frequently than different-sex couples, and, when they do get approved, are charged a higher rate. The lazy explanation is that discrimination must be the reason. This study looked deeper. [bold added]

We identify same-sex and different-sex couples according to the gender of the mortgage applicant and co-applicant. Then, controlling for a rich set of lender, borrower, and loan characteristics, some of which are important in mortgage decisions but were not available in previous research like credit scores, we find that same-sex couples are 8.8 percent more likely to be denied a home mortgage than similar opposite-sex couples and conditional on being approved, are quoted an interest rate that is 0.8 percent higher. We explore heterogeneity by regions, by acceptance of same-sex marriage, and pre- and post-COVID. Interestingly, we also find that same-sex couples default significantly more (53.9%) than similar different-sex couples, which suggests an unobserved characteristic that causes same-sex couples to default more, and could explain a part of observed disparities in mortgage approval, undermining results in previous research.

It's an undisputed principle of lending markets that higher-risk borrowers are charged higher rates and are turned down for loans more frequently. To this humble observer, the fact that same-sex couples are riskier is a more likely explanation for mortgage disparity than bias. (H/T Marginal Revolution)

Flag Day

Outside City Hall (2021 photo)

The egalitarianism of the age frowns upon hierarchies, but as Jordan Peterson points out, hierarchical structure is not only intrinsic to human society, it's embedded in animal DNA. It was part of life long before humans walked the earth.

On the flagpole the relationships are clear. At the top is the U.S. flag, and just below it, albeit tangled, is the flag of the State of California. On the next level down is the flag of Foster City and the Rainbow Flag in honor of Pride Month.

Flags are just pieces of colored cloth, yet men have fought and died for them. Whether one stands or kneels before flags can inspire or enrage multitudes, depending on the context.

On Flag Day in our town there were no crowds or marching bands; nevertheless, there were a few of us who stopped by the flags and paused for a moment of reflection before going about our business.

Putting the Boycott Out of its Misery

Prohibited states in red (local news matters)

We posted in February and October about how San Francisco's boycott of other States backfired in a tangle of red tape and higher costs. After seven years the Board of Supervisors repealed the law.

The boycott law was originally passed by supervisors in 2016 and first applied only to states that had restricted LGBTQ rights after the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country. Supervisors amended the law in subsequent years to apply also to states that placed new limits on abortion access and voting rights.

A central goal of the boycott was to put pressure on other states, but a recent report by City Administrator Carmen Chu’s office found that only one state had been removed from the list and none ever said they changed their laws because of San Francisco’s. Additionally, the report found that the law made city contracting a more cumbersome and expensivere process.

An earlier report from the board’s Budget and Legislative Analyst found that implementing the boycott had cost the city nearly $475,000 in staffing expenses. And the city was approving a large number of exemptions to the boycott anyway: Departments granted 538 waivers for contracts worth $791 million between mid-2021 and mid-2022, the report found.

If San Francisco had given any thought to how people change their thoughts and minds, San Francisco would have tried to engage in discussions and allay opponents' fears. Instead it resorted immediately to the bully-and-boycott approach. The latter failed, and I'm glad it did even though I agree with some of the principles that San Francisco espouses.

The Pity of The Preening

(Image from Brewminate)

Beginning in 2016 the City of San Francisco prohibited travel to and business with states that disagreed with progressive values. (The restrictions applied to the City and its employees.) The list of banned states that had different laws on LGBTQ, abortion, and/or voting rights has mushroomed to 30, and San Francisco has found itself greatly inconvenienced.

a new city report said the law has been ineffective and cumbersome....The report also found the law adds costs and complexity to city contracting...

“It’s an ineffective policy that complicates the business of San Francisco government and makes it very likely that we pay more than we should for goods and services,” [Supervisor Rafael] Mandelman said in an interview Monday...

Supervisors established the boycott in October 2016 when they approved a law that banned city-funded travel to states that had restricted LGBTQ rights in the wake of the 2015 Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The law also prevented the city from approving contracts with companies based in the banned states.

In subsequent years, supervisors expanded the boycott to include states that passed laws to limit abortion access and voting rights.

Your humble blogger believes that it is perfectly within the City's right to conduct its affairs according to its own moral code. But the City had another objective--to convert other jurisdictions to San Francisco values by withholding business. Accomplishment of the latter has been nil.

[City Administrator Carmet] Chu’s office said in its Friday report that it could not find any concrete evidence that the states targeted by the boycott had changed their laws because of San Francisco’s actions.

The law “has created additional administrative burden for City staff and vendors and unintended consequences for San Francisco citizens, such as limiting enrichment and developmental opportunities,” Chu’s report said. “Few, if any, other jurisdictions implement travel or contracting bans as expansive as the City’s.”

Lectures and threats rarely convert anyone to a cause, though San Francisco may have had a chance if it was excellent in its governance. However, its widely publicized failures in dealing with crime, homelessness, and drug use, plus the exodus of middle-class families and businesses, have put paid to that notion.

The pity of this preening is that it wasted money, squandered moral capital, and made fellow Americans less inclined to help San Francisco when it needs it, and that day will assuredly come.

The Education of San Francisco Leaders

Prohibited states in red (local news matters)

Beginning in 2016 the City of San Francisco refused to do business with--or allow its workers to travel to--states that don't comply with its views on LGBTQ, abortion, and voting rights.

The SF Board of Supervisors now realizes that governance through its idiosyncratic moral stances has only hurt itself. They asked the City Administrator to reconsider. [bold added]

“By prohibiting the City from doing business with half the nation, this policy has resulted in significant administrative costs and potentially far more significant contracting costs by limiting bidder competition,” the Tuesday letter said, adding that it is “also unclear if this policy has been effective in changing the policy-making choices of states subject to” the city’s ban.

Progressivism and wokeness will never be completely extinguished in San Francisco, but it's encouraging that San Francisco is willing to pull the plug on some policies that obviously aren't working.

Closer to the Funny Bone

(Deadline image)

Further proving the Streisand effect (when Barbra Streisand tried to suppress a photo of her Malibu mansion, her action just called more attention to it), the protests surrounding Dave Chappelle's comedy special on Netflix caused me to check it out.

Comedy is very subjective--what one person finds uproarious can elicit alarm, disdain, or indifference in another.

To your humble blogger standup comedy is about the only free-speech zone left in America; people are free to laugh at thoughts that could not be expressed anywhere else. And yes, I do find some humor offensive, especially when targeted at my race, faith, or sex (but not when it's clever, another subjective measure), but that's the price we pay so that we can listen to humor that offends others, a kind of mutually assured suspension of civility.

So I watched The Closer and found most of it humorous. Let me caution at the outset that many black comedians pepper their monologues with the "n" word, the "b" word, and sexual and scatological references that most people have automatically suppressed from their speech.

David Chappelle is no exception, and it took a minute or two for this listener to become desensitized. He was playing to a mainly black live audience, who didn't mind that a black speaker was using the "n" word. After a while I realized that he was calling every guy in his stories, regardless of race, a n*****, and every woman was a b****.

In the best comedic tradition he brought up patterns and contradictions in the way we think. Because liberal and progressive values are dominant, he had riches to choose from.

Just one example: people are angered, or at least bemused, by blackfaced whites pretending to be black, but why aren't people allowed to have a similar negative reaction to men pretending to be women? They aren't real women, a declaration received to much applause.

Of course, we know that one can have a serious discussion about the differences between the two situations, but comedy is built upon often-unfair juxtapositions. Once the thought is expressed, the laugh is generated, and it's off to the next quick take. Yes, it's unfair, just like linking anti-vaxxers with anti-abortionists (so now you want to control your own body?). Tough, conservatives have had to sit there and listen to these quick takes for 20 years on at least five nightly shows, and the oft-heard response is they shouldn't be offended because it's just comedy.

Comedians often close their act on a serious note. Dave Chappelle spoke of a transgender comedian whom he befriended. She rose to his defense when he provoked "T" activists, who turned on her. She committed suicide shortly thereafter, though Dave Chappelle was careful not to attribute the death to the braying Twitter mob.

My standup favorites are old-timers Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy, Seinfeld, and Dana Carvey. In terms of funniness I place David Chappelle below that group but above the majority of standup comedians currently on Netflix. But IMHO the Closer is worth watching also to see where the ever-moving lines of our culture are drawn today.

Flag Day + 1

Long may they wave

At City Hall the flagpole has gotten a bit crowded.

The Stars and Stripes, the Rainbow Flag (it's Pride Month), and the light blue Foster City flag all flapped proudly in the breeze.

The California flag was tangled in the crossbar, unable to handle the atmospheric winds that pull it in all directions.

Speaking of crosscurrents, today California is officially re-opening: [bold added]

On June 15, California will generally align with the CDC’s mask recommendations, which means that if you’re fully vaccinated you don’t have to wear a mask in almost all settings, including shopping, going to a bar, working out at the gym or attending church services.

There are a few exceptions, such as health care settings and public transportation, including airports and transit stations.

If you are unvaccinated or partially vaccinated, masks are still required indoors, and outdoors when 6 feet social distancing cannot be maintained. California will mostly rely on the honor system to enforce masking rules.

Comment 1: Honor system? I thought that went out of style half a century ago. Well, I'll put my skepticism aside and be open minded about whether that will work. Frankly, I think the danger will come from those who, lacking trust in others, will demand to see vaccination cards when they have no right to do so. I hope I'm wrong.

Comment 2: I'll still wear a mask pulled down over my chin. When I see a masked person approach, I'll pull it up out of courtesy. I often see masked parents out and about with their children, most of whom are not vaccinated. And I do believe that the risk is vanishingly small to children contracting COVID-19 when outdoors, and even if that does happen, the severity is much less. Nevertheless, parents' ability to assess risks is very poor when it comes to their children.

Be kind, even though you don't have to be--that's another meaning of the Flag.