When I was a senior in high school, I was fortunate enough to attend a leadership camp that taught me that we all have prejudices, but those prejudices don’t make us racists. There’s a huge gap between those two things that I fear gets terribly lost when discussions of race come up.

The Tech Is Too White Debate

This is all on my mind because of a debate that hit my Twitter stream today. Jamelle Bouie wrote a piece talking about how tech writers seem to be mostly male and white and reasons why that might be. Tech entrepreneur Jason Calacanis is making waves from a series of tweets that suggest anyone can break in with hard work. These are recapped at The Atlantic and Current Editorials, and Jason did a further post here.

I’m going to stay (mostly) out of the argument over why the tech press is apparently so male and white, and what can be done to fix that. I would agree that it does seem to be that way. Then again, I see TechCrunch co-edited by Alexis Tsotsis; I see AllThingsD co-edited by Kara Swisher. Those are at least encouraging on the “it’s all male” front.

What I want to instead focus on is the idea that’s voiced in several comments that I’ve seen, the idea that white people can’t understand racism. They probably can. It’s just that I’d say in the America (and Britain) that I’ve lived in, they don’t encounter it much.

Much more important, there’s a huge, huge difference between racism, prejudice and discrimination.

How I Learned We’re All Prejudiced

Now I’m going to tell my story of that leadership camp to explain some of this more personally, then I’ll get back into the more generic discussion.

The camp was sponsored by what was then called the National Conference of Christians & Jews. Today, it’s the National Conference for Community and Justice — keeping the same acronym, NCCJ.

I was one of the few campers from Orange County, California. I grew up in the city of Westminster, where my school population was mostly white, with a big proportion of asians and latinos. Blacks were a tiny percentage.

(By the way, I’m going to use lower case for all races, ethnicities and religions as I write this. All those caps for White and Black leap out at me, and if I lower-case those races but not Asians and Latinos (as I learned all those years ago as part of AP style), that also seems strange.)

The camp was pretty evenly divided: 1/4 white, black, asian and latino, with maybe 200 campers in all. Those were the major groups we found ourselves constantly divided into. Within the white group were also jews, many of whom didn’t consider themselves to be white — but those who were not white did consider them to be so. That was just one of the many lessons the camp taught us all.

It’s Prejudice Day

After some lead-up, we had what I came to remember as prejudice day, where we had to explore different prejudices that we all held about each other.

I, being a fairly liberal-thinking teenager, didn’t believe I had prejudices. I didn’t see race, as far as I felt. The whole prejudice day wasn’t going to have much to teach me!

A key part of the day was when one of the races was asked to leave a big room we were in, while those left behind wrote all the prejudices they had or thought about the other races. For example, all the asians would leave, and the other races would write what they thought about that race.

That was the first instructive thing for me, the first revelation — that white people weren’t the only ones with prejudices.

Understand that I grew up in the post-Civil Rights era. Roots was the big TV show when I was in elementary school, and the whole country — to me — was abuzz with the idea of racial equality, of rectifying a situation where a white majority, however it happened, seemed to hold back other races. I had good teachers who taught the salad bowl rather than the melting pot, too.

I’d really been brought up thinking white people were to blame, that white people had so much prejudice to overcome. So the idea that other races had prejudices about each other? That was eye-opening.

White People Have Herpes?

The next revelation was coming back into the room with my white group, to see what prejudices had been written about us. I didn’t think there would be many. I guess as a white person, I never spent much time trying to overcome those types of prejudices, living in a mainly white world with mostly white friends (thought I had a large number of asian friends, which I’ll return to in a bit).

Oh, there was a list. One of the items I’ll never forget was that white people have herpes. Really, this was apparently a fear other races had of whites. Wow.

Prejudices Don’t Equal Racism

Everyone learned from this exercise that we had prejudices of each other — and importantly, that it was almost natural for us to have these prejudices. We picked them up in various ways. They didn’t make us bad, not the having them. It was the not recognizing them or worse, believing them and acting on them in the form of discrimination or racism.

I’ll get back to that, but next, the story gets even more personal. At the end of the day, we had to go around the room and talk about a particular prejudice we might have had in relation to a particular camper. You couldn’t dodge with a safe answer — all the other campers could tell if you were being real or not.

I dreaded when my turn came around. As I said, we were a mixed race group at the camp, and that went down the cabin level. In my cabin were several black boys, one who was very large and to me, threatening. My prejudice. I didn’t know him. I just knew he was a large black guy, and my experience around large black guys was pretty much nil. In elementary school, we literally had one black kid — who, by the way, I was friends with. But after about a year, he left, and I was back in my mostly white world.

Not having known many blacks — and having been raised by a father out of the South who had not just prejudices but also racist attitudes about them — I just wasn’t comfortable. I was afraid. And that’s what I said, that I was afraid of this other camper in my cabin, because of those prejudices. OMG.

The camper stood up and asked if I was afraid of him now. I said I wasn’t. Why? Because I knew him. He wasn’t an unknown quantity to me, where my prejudices could build in my mind. He was just another camper.

That’s prejudice. That’s when you literally are doing what the word comes from, making a prejudgement. That’s not racism. That’s not discrimination. And despite me having that prejudice, it would never be my belief that he was somehow inferior to me (which is racism) or that I wouldn’t want to hire him for something (which is discrimination).

What Racism Is

Racism is a terrible thing, and I hate to see that word used without precision. I’ve seen it today, in arguments about whether we’re living in a “post-racist” world or whether someone has racist views.

In my book, someone only has racist views if they believe other races are not equal to their own. On an industry basis, I don’t know that a tech industry (or any industry) that doesn’t seem diverse is “racist,” especially given that the industry itself might not be actively trying to somehow keep out a particular race, based on some idea of superiority.

That’s where some of the disconnect in these types of arguments come up, I feel. Jason might not feel there’s any racism in the tech space because he’s not overtly thinking it, or seeing it and also, because there probably isn’t much of it. I find it hard to believe that any major tech site is overtly excluding people because of their race.

What Discrimination Is

There certainly seems to be discrimination however, as opposed to racism. That leads into two types that I’d characterize: overt and, for lack of a better word, institutional.

I don’t think there’s a lot of overt discrimination going on. As with racism, I find it hard to believe that tech news sites are overtly trying to hire people of one race but not others. But institutionally, that seems to be what’s happening.

Why? That’s part of the discussion that’s going on now. I suspect a big part of it is like-hires-like. If you’re white, there’s an excellent chance you know other white people, and you likely seek them out for hiring, if you’re not doing a big search.

It can work other ways, too. Last week, I did a lunchtime talk at the LA office of the Huffington Post. Of the 20 people who came, 19 were women. It was amazing, encouraging, that there were so many women editors there. But was it some overt effort to hire only women? I doubt it. It might be that the operation, begun as I understand it by two women, continued on with like-hiring-like.

I think diversity is important. I think whatever can be done to improve it is good. But I have to say, we’ve got three full-time jobs open right now with Marketing Land and Search Engine Land, and ensuring that we have a diverse workforce isn’t top of my mind. Our editors are all pretty white, though largely split male-female. That’s going to look bad to anyone wondering why we don’t have a latino, or asian or black editor employed.

But while I’m sure the entire staff would agree we’d like to be more diverse, the bigger priority right now is just finding good people. We need an editor who understands marketing and working with columnists. We need a writer who understands paid search and social. We need a general assignment reporter who understands internet marketing.

Finding those qualifications is tough enough, but while doing it, we also still have to keep working extremely hard on the day-to-day activity of being still a relatively small start-up, with no outside-funding making it on our own. Oh, and can those people be in one of the 11 states we’re already registered to do business with? Because the regulations of starting up in a new state are pretty killer.

There are obviously some type of barriers that have prevented the tech press from being more reflective of the diversity out there, ranging from like-hiring-like to not making the time to look further afield. I’d also agree that for the white people who have been successful, they might not understand or even be aware of all the challenges, because they just don’t encounter them. That’s not to take away from the fact people of all races can and do make it, of course.

How Prejudice Can Sneak Up On You

A little side-note now on how subtle prejudice can be.

Until I went to my camp, I had no idea about the stereotype that jews are supposedly cheap. That was introduced to me there. Not that I believe it, but I sure would have been happy to never hear it.

As an adult, I watch how jokes about racial stereotypes come up in television shows that my kids see. I find myself pausing the TV when these happen, to make sure they understand that different types of jokes or references are merely that, jokes. But part of me wishes the jokes weren’t made at all, because it’s almost by making them, the stereotypes are reinforced.

In another example, I purposely avoid referring to someone by their race, if I’m talking with my kids (or really, most anyone). If there were a group of people, I wouldn’t say, “Go ask that black guy.” I’m making a conscious decision not to do that, not to characterize someone by their race. And it’s hard. If you want to understand how hard, try it. Try to reference someone of a different race in a group. It’s really easy to reach for the race description, and perhaps that subtly reinforces some of the divisions between us.

You can see this in books all the time, by the way. Go read a book, even by a super-liberal fiction writer. Chances are, they’ll not refer to the white people as white. It’ll be assumed you know this. But black people are often described as black, and it happens with other races, as well. Of course, most of my fiction tends to be written by white guys (I guess they’re big in sci-fi), so maybe it’s different when reading authors of other races. But really, every person’s race should be described — or no one should. Damn racist authors!

As for not understanding racism as a white person, in college, I was once denied entrance as a reporter to a meeting at the Cross Cultural Center because I was white. It was the only reason I wasn’t allowed in. If I hadn’t been white, I’d have been admitted. That wasn’t racism. It was discrimination, and I sure didn’t like it. But it’s about the only time in my life I’ve knowingly been discriminated like that. It gives me no great insight into what it must be like for someone who encounters discrimination, prejudice or even racism on a regular basis.

When Races Turn Into People

A few other things. I think when you do grow up around other races, the differences are amazing. I know people who fear asians. I find that odd. I grew up with them, had many asian friends. I don’t tend to look at asians as “asians” perhaps because they were so ubiquitous in my life.

One of my best friends (OK, Greg, you’re my best friend) is latino. But with us both having grown-up in a similar area of middle-class Orange County, there’s not much difference between us. He’s less latino, and I’m less white, and we’re both much more North Orange County boys.

He’s also gay — which leads to an entire other areas of discrimination and prejudice, one that to me grows largely out of people who simply don’t know gays. I could never imagine not wanting gays to have equal rights because I have so many gay friends. As I wrote before:

These are all good friends. They are all good people. It has pained me to see them have to keep some part of them back, to not be complete out of fear or concern of not being accepted. I have no problem with homosexuality. Clearly, many people still do. I hope those that do can be more open, to understand the pain fellow human beings feel when they have to remain closeted. At the very least, understand that they are not gay people — they are real people with feelings who happen to be gay. They are godparents to my children; good friends I’ve known for years and people I hate to see feeling excluded in so many ways such as with marriage laws.

I don’t know that we’ll ever be in a post-prejudiced world, but a big step is acknowledging that we have prejudices, understanding that’s not the same as being racist and most of all, that we begin to really know other people as other people, not as other races. That doesn’t mean not seeing race, not understanding the complex challenges of race in the world, but more that we have friends and coworkers of all races.

Related Articles

It drives me crazy to see news outlets with US maps showing the states estimated to be either going for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election based on the geographic size of those states, rather than the number of Electoral College votes they carry. There are better maps they could and should use. Below, a guide to some you should check out.

I’m not a fan of the Electoral College system, where a US presidential candidate can potentially win (and some have) even though a majority of people vote for the loser. That just seems wrong. I also dislike that despite living in a populous state, because California’s typically seen as safe for Democrats, we’re largely written off — as are most other states deemed in one camp or the other. Only the few “swing” states get attention.

Still, that’s the current system. If we have to have that system, let’s at least have our TV news channels and publications show maps that represent correctly. A map of votes based on geography sure isn’t doing the job.

Consider this map at CNN, which is similar to what you’ll see aired on CNN and other news channels:

That makes it seem as if support of Romney is sweeping across the nation. Look at all that red! Victory is assured. The problem is that many of those red states are geographically large but small in the number of electoral college votes they carry. Meanwhile, some small states such as those in New England carry more more votes than their geographic size suggests.

Now consider this, from the New York Times:

That’s a map of the US that more accurately reflects what’s happening in the election, because rather than being drawn to geographic size, it’s showing voting size. States are illustrated in proportion to each other based on the number of Electoral College votes they have. Done this way, the election is more accurately seen as very close.

Maps that aren’t based on geography are called “cartograms” and can be done in various ways. Here’s another example from the Huffington Post, which I especially like:

Time has a hybrid of the above model, if when using its map, you’re select the “Electoral vote” option:

Still want a better sense of the traditional US shape? Princeton offers once based on combined polling data plotted into a weighted map:

If you like that, then definitely check out the 2012 Electoral College Calculator blog which takes estimates from various sources done on traditional maps and applies them to ones reflecting votes:

That blog is run by Jeffrey Albertson, who wrote a great post on various ways to better map electoral votes for Daily Kos earlier this year, including some of the examples I’ve listed above.

Also see this article that talks about ways to produce these types of cartograms with yet another variation:

That’s the 2008 presidential vote. Personally, I don’t like this particular style, because I feel it’s too close to a geographic map. Rather than break me out of a geographic mindset, I keep looking at it feeling it’s wrong because it’s so close to being “right.”

Here’s hoping that CNN might decide there’s a place for cartograms among its holograms and other whiz-bang tech that it’s currently using for the US presidential elections. The same is true for any news outlet. Give us a map that’s a true guide to votes, not to geography. After all, that’s what you’re trying to map out.

I’m concerned that I’ll be heading straight to jail soon, given that I’ve purposely destroyed an “Official Republican Party Document.” More seriously, I’m concerned that a major political party is sending out such misleading junk mail.

For all I know, the Democratic National Committee does the same thing. I generally vote Democrat, but I’m not trying to make this into a political issue. I just don’t think anyone should send out this type of misleading crap.

Take a look:

This “survey” was purposely designed to fit into an envelope where only the top part was showing, the part that has “2012 Presidential Platform Survey” message appearing, along with that scary sounding “This document is registered” line.

Opening it, you get that big ”Official Republican Party Document – Do Not Destroy” message, which is also scary. I mean, I didn’t ask for this to be sent to me. No one did. There are no consequences to anyone destroying this just as we might destroy all types of junk mail. So what’s up with trying to make that threat?

I’m used to getting crappy junk mail from companies that try to pretend they’re “official” in some nature. I’m not expecting that from a major political party. As jaded as I am about politics, I’m expecting a little more honesty than that. A lot more honesty.

This type of mailing seems especially designed to hit people who might be easily confused, people who might assume they should voluntarily give up demographic information about themselves. Of course, that section is marked “optional.” The rest of the survey demands that we carefully review and respond within the next seven days.

Americans have enough crap mail in our lives. We don’t need this from our political parties. There’s a pledge I’d like to see them both live up to.

All I wanted to do was share a funny “Downton Abbey Meets Spike TV” skit that was on Saturday Night Live this week. Unfortunately, there’s no authorized version of the sketch online from NBCUniversal. That made me hesitate, but apparently it wasn’t a problem for iVillage, an NBCUniversal-owned site. Nor was it an issue for Time, owned by internet piracy hating Time Warner. Come along. This is a sad tour of failure all around.

NBC: No Skit For You

You’d think the sketch would be available on the SNL site itself. You’d be wrong. Here’s what I see at the moment on the video page:

The skit’s not listed.

Hulu: No Sketch For You

Well, how about Hulu, which has the awesome ability to let you share particular segments out of a full-length episode. Here’s the “full-length” episode of SNL from this weekend at Hulu, with this message at the bottom:

The message reads:

Full episodes of SNL consist of material that is cleared for online streaming. Some sketches and musical performances may be omitted due to various restrictions.

As it turns out, the Downton Abbey skit appears to be one of those omitted sketches. I went through the episode that Hulu provides and couldn’t find it.

Is It Available Anywhere?

Oh dear. I’m unable to share that sketch legally, it appears. Or at least share it in a way that wouldn’t get challenged by NBCUniversal as not being fair use. You know, like this example that was put on YouTube:

That, of course, hasn’t stopped others from doing so. Here are plenty of places the video is available, as found through Google Video:

Time (Of Time Warner): We’ll Give It To You

Look at the second listing. See the URL, newsfeed.time.com. Yes, as in Time.com. As in Time, the magazine and online web site owned by Time Warner — which backed the SOPA anti-piracy bill. What do we find there? This:

There’s the skit! It’s not hosted by Time (of Time Warner) itself. Rather, it’s hosted on Google’s YouTube. Time is simply embedding the clip, on a page with Google ads at the bottom (those are the “Sponsored Links” that are showing).

So Time is helping support the same type of unauthorized posting of content that its parent Time Warner is concerned about — and happy to blame Google for — and doing all this while earning some money from Google.

More Media Outlets Will Give It To You

Hmm. If Time Warner-owned Time did this, could any other media outlets have done so? Yes. Here’s a short list:

• The Huffington Post
• Perez Hilton
• MSNBC
• The Los Angeles Times
• The Philadelphia Inquirer
• Radio Times
• TV.com (owned by CBS)
• iVillage (owned by NBCUniversal)

iVillage (of NBCUniversal) Will Give It To You

Wait. iVillage is owned by NBCUniversal? You mean that NBCUniversal might be argued to have helped pirate itself?

You betcha. Here’s the page:

There’s the unauthorized video, embedded at the bottom of a story on an NBCUniversal web site.

But Back At NBC: No Skit For You

Hey, how about watching the skit as part of the full-length episode that NBC provides on its own site? It doesn’t appear you can do that, either. I’ve gone through it (and sat through the same “Star Wars: The Old Republic” ad about 10 times in doing so). That sketch doesn’t appear to be there. Why not? Apparently, it didn’t air on the West Coast — that might be part of all this.

The Fail Recap

Have you kept up with all the fail going on here? Let me recap:

• No one can watch the sketch as part of the episode NBC/Universal provided for free on broadcast TV, because it’s been cut
• No one can share an authorized version of the sketch, because NBC/Universal hasn’t yet provided one
• Those paying for Hulu Plus can’t even view the clip through one of NBC/Universal’s authorized channels
• Media outlets wanting to write about it, not having an authorized version, effectively said screw it, we’ll link to an unauthorized one
• One of those media outlets was owned by Time Warner, a major opponent of online piracy
• Another of those media outlets was owned by NBC/Universal, so effectively helped promote piracy of NBC/Universal’s own content.

Now Enjoy Until It Gets Pulled

Now go watch the sketch while you can, which was damn funny. Three daughters. One hot. One way hot. And the other one:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Postscript: See Why You Can’t See SNL’s Great “Game of Thrones” Sketch On NBC.com on AllThingsD for what likely happened to the SNL Downton Abbey skit — probably pulled over some rights issue. I did try for an answer from NBC, but they never answered.

It’s time for my annual “How To Watch The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade From Abroad” post. If you’re outside the US, trying to watch this traditional way to start Thanksgiving, here are my tips.

Perhaps someday, Macy’s and/or NBC will realize there are millions of Americans outside the US who would love to view the show live. Sadly, 2010 is another year of being forgotten. There’s a webcam option, however.

NBC & Macy’s – No Support

NBC is broadcasting the parade and has an information page up here. As usual, there’s nothing about how to watch it live through the internet. Perhaps they’ll show a live stream tomorrow from the NBC home page, but that’s typically not the case. Chances are, they’d also likely block any streaming to those outside the US.

NBC has affiliate stations that carry the parade. Some of them might live stream the parade, but I doubt it. Here’s a list, in case you want to check on the day.

Macy’s has its own page about the parade – and as with NBC, there’s nothing about how to view from outside the US.

EarthCam To The Rescue!

It looks like EarthCam is once again going to be your best bet. EarthCam runs live webcams from various locations along the parade route. You won’t get any of the commentary, and the music can be hard to hear. But you’ll see the parade, and without commercials.

You’ll find the parade streamed on EarthCam here. For a sense of what it’s like, see my Watching The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade From Abroad post from 2006.

You might also try CNN’s live feed. In 2007, they broadcast the parade. Maybe that’ll happen again.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Dear non-Californians upset that California re-elected a Democratic senator, elected a Democratic governor and is otherwise doing things you might not like. Tough shit. OK, that’s my initial reaction to some things I’ve read recently. My more thoughtful reaction is scapegoating one state isn’t the answer to America’s issues.

Last week, the LA Times featured letters from non-Californians upset with the way we do things in my native state. Today, someone named Allysia Finley (no real idea who she is or her background, sorry — googling her isn’t much help) chimes in with a Wall Street Journal opinion piece with a nice linkbaiting headline calling California the “Lindsay Lohan” of states.

Everyone’s tried to help poor Lindsay California, Finley writes — but she won’t listen. And eventually, when Lindsay California crashes and burns, don’t expect “us” to help you out.

How about a little perspective. It’s easy to write the state off as nuts, if you assume that it is the lone nut among the other 48 states, which is what Finley does in her opening (New York gets excluded):

The other 48 states—your cousin New York excluded—are sick of your bratty arrogance. You’re the Lindsay Lohan of states: a prima donna who once showed some talent but is now too wasted to do anything with it.

Flip it around from a population perspective. California, with 37 million people, represents 12% of the entire country. Now it’s no longer that the state is some type of odd outlier going against the other 48. It’s a double-digit percentage. Add in New York, and you’re getting up to 18% of the population.

But hey, that’s still not the majority — plus, not everyone in California voted the same way. Sure — and not everyone in all the other states votes the way Finley probably assumes they should, either.

But you know what? A state like Wyoming, with less than 1% of my state’s population, still gets 2 US Senate seats, just like California. Senate seats which can help contribute to blocking federal legislation that Calfornians might like, might believe in and — who knows — might even be correct on. Blocks that people in California might think are equally nutty.

Note to those from Wyoming — I’m not saying that your senators have done this. I haven’t even looked, and I mean no offense. You’re just the smallest population, so I’m pulling you as an example.

Personally, I wonder if California might be in a better place now, along with the entire United States, if way back in 2000, the strange election system in one state — Florida — hadn’t caused George W. Bush to gain office and oversee the launching of two different wars. Aside from the tragic loss of life, there’s the huge amount of wealth that has flowed out of the country as part of this.

Perhaps some of that wealth might have been used to help the country recover from the financial meltdown that happened under the watch of that same president? Or perhaps someone else might have helped prevent that before it started?

Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. What I do know is that the US is founded on states having certain degrees of representation within the federal government and certain degrees of independence within their own borders. It’s a system built on compromise. It’s a system built on all states contributing to a greater whole.

I have no idea if California, over its time as a state in the union, has contributed more or less to the United States as a whole. At some times, it has almost certainly contributed more (consider, if only, the huge amount of legal immigration from other states California has received, people leaving those other states looking for jobs and new opportunities). Maybe at times, it will have contributed less. The same, almost certainly, can be said for any other state in the union.

What the US doesn’t need, right now, is a campaign to somehow scapegoat one particular state as a supposed barrier to progress. It certainly doesn’t need someone suggesting that a state can’t elect its own internal and federal leaders in the way it wants. What it needs is more cooperation. Scapegoating and fearmongering is easy. Compromise and admitting that one view doesn’t fit all is much harder.

As for the crash-and-burn assumption that Finley makes — and her prediction that the state will need a federal bailout — I can’t evaluate that. Her piece tosses a lot of allegations without any real analysis behind it. I’m sure others on both “sides” of the political spectrum will argue both ways. Time will tell.

There’s no doubt California has problems, just as Lindsay Lohan does. But people overcome their problems and go on to success — hence my proposition that California may be more like Robert Downey Jr — heading into recovery and regaining its former success.

Postscript: I’ve now found some figures that are interesting reading:

State budget issues, 2009-2010: From the Sunshine Review, an easy way to see estimated budget shortfalls for each state. California has by far the biggest shortfall for the two fiscal years listed ($20 to $40 billion). But as a percentage of the general fund budget (19%) , it is not out of line with other places like South Carolina (18%) and below places like Alaska (21%) or Arizona (24%). That page also lists stimulus money received by each state on a per capita basis. California is down around 26th with $31 per person. States like Alaska ($379 per person) or Washington ($339 per person) or Idaho ($314 per person) were well above in this type of “bailout” fund.

Federal Taxes Paid vs. Spending Received by State from the Tax Foundation shows federal taxes paid by each state versus amount received from 1981 through 2005. The last time California received more from the federal government than it gave was 1985 ($1.03 for every $1.00 spent, and it was never higher than $1.08). For the last year on the chart, it was $0.78 received for every $1 spent. In contrast, a state like Tennessee received $1.27 for the last year and was always above for every year on the chart. Utah was always up. West Virginia, in the last year, was getting $1.76 back for each $1 spent. This chart has full rankings for 2005 — top was New Mexico ($2.03 per each dollar spent) versus California, which at $0.78 was 43 on the list.

Via the Don’t Mess With Taxes blog, I came across the US Census publication, Fiscal Aid To States for Fiscal Year 2009 (PDF) that was published this past August. Here’s a picture of who gets the most federal money — the darker the color, the more they get. I guess you could call those the Lindsay Lohan states:

As you can see, California is at the low end of money received on a per capita basis.

Here’s another chart rank ordering the states that get the most, plus showing what they get money for:

That’s over $5,000 per person for those in Alaska. Over $4,000 per person for those in Wyoming. California gets about $1,500 per person, well under the US average.

The Christian Science Monitor has its own top ten list of which states get the most money per person from earlier this year. States like Vermont (lots of Medicaid spending) and Alaska (lots of transportation spending) led the list. New York and Massachusetts came next, again with Medicaid or programs to help the poor causing the spending. Louisiana was 6th, with money spent to help the state recover from Katrina (anyone want to complain about the rest of the US paying for that that “bailout?” Because I sure don’t). Tennessee came 7th with high Medicaid spending, followed by Maine, New Mexico and Mississippi.

The Daily Beast did a “hypocritical states” view of the data, looking at where Tea Party support is strong (and often against government spending) with which states get the most spending. California was 33rd on the list of those getting the most federal funds per person.

Even if it’s in somewhat mock seriousness, The Daily Show’s Rally To Restore Sanity has me fired up! But tapping into the official news about the event through social media, well, that’s been a bit disappointing.

The Rally & Twitter

When I hit the rally’s web site the day after it was announced, it pointed me to its Twitter account:

Problem was, it wasn’t the rally’s Twitter account listed. It was one for the Daily Show. How about an account just for the rally?

That came yesterday, @Rally4Sanity. Good! Bad — it’s still not listed on the main rally site. (POSTSCRIPT: This was fixed a day or two after this post went up).

The Rally & Hashtags

Meanwhile, as I tweet about the rally, what hashtag should I use? The rally site hasn’t put an official one out there, so you see people using things like:

#r2r
#rtrs
#rally4sanity
#rallyforsanity

I’ve seen tweets suggesting that the first two are official. They’re not. I can’t track anything down about this. I like either of them, because they’re short. But c’mon Rally To Restore Sanity, pick something and get it out there.

The Rally: Invisible On Facebook

Meanwhile, there’s Facebook. Here, the mess is more down to Facebook than the rally. Looking for official rally information on Facebook? Here’s what you get:

None of those are the official rally page. Drill in, and it gets worse:

There currently about 25 matching pages so far, and none of them are official ones.

What’s wrong? For one, the rally doesn’t have an official Facebook page. But it DOES have an official event page on Facebook, here:

That page might as well be invisible on Facebook. This is despite being far more popular than any of the Facebook pages listed (over 65,000 people currently say they’ll attend, 100,000 people overall if you count those saying they might attend). Still, Facebook still only shows Facebook pages by default.

You have to think “Hmm, did the Rally do an event page?” and then deliberately hunt for it, if you want to find it on Facebook.

Of course, the Facebook event page is linked to from the Rally’s web site — but if you’re on Facebook and looking there, that doesn’t help.

Ideally, I’d like to see the Rally To Restore Sanity create a Facebook page in addition to its event page. Then it would be more visible.

I’d also like the Rally To Restore Sanity to have an event in Southern California, too. I’ve got a Facebook page of my own about that

I don’t know if Sarah Palin rolled her eyes at the teacher in the video below or not. The pregnant pause was sure weird, though. But more important, her boots! When I watched this yesterday, I saw her wellies at the end and thought woah, those are pretty cool.

OK, I don’t wear wellies (short for Wellington Boots) that often since I moved back from Britain to California. But years and years ago, you just got green. I still have a pair in my garage. Then galoshes started coming out in different colors and patterns.

Palin’s boots, featuring a skull, a heart with “Rock” and “Roll” and birds take things up a notch. And don’t those birds remind you of Twitter?

Andrew Sullivan somehow figured out from the video what the boots were and posted a larger image. But he didn’t say their name, or where to get them. And were they hugely expensive? I did a little searching, and here you go.

The boots are made by Chooka and are called “Tattoo City: Turquoise.” Chooka’s got a pretty awesome collection of other rain boots, too.

Want a pair? They go for $30 to $60 on Amazon — here’s a link to the product page (and yeah, I earn a little if you buy them that way).

As for the eye rolling. Palin confronted a woman who was protesting her visit with a banner that said “Worst Governor Ever” when she was in Homer, Alaska. When Palin asked the woman what she did, she responded that she was a teacher. Whether she rolls or eyes at this or not is under debate. The weird two second pause and head turning is sure strange.

Here’s the New York Times article about it, and here’s the video itself:

Palin writes it all off at her Facebook page on the LSM, which I’ve learned is the Lame Stream Media, but she also links over to the video.

Shannyn Moore has a great written account about the visit and the banner’s ultimate demise. It was torn down by someone in the Palin camp, apparently.

Any American living abroad has their own horror story about trying to open a US bank account without having a US address. Banks often incorrectly use the Patriot Act or other excuses to refuse providing service. Now two members of Congress are urging for hearings on the matter. There’s a petition drive to make this happen.

American Citizens Abroad has been working with the Americans Abroad Caucus in Congress (see here and here). I didn’t even know there was one! The caucus (created in 2007) is cochaired by Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Joe Wilson (R-SC). In April, they sent a letter (PDF) formally requesting that the House Committee on Financial Services hold hearings on banking issues impacting Americans abroad.

Apparently, the letter wasn’t enough. So ACA is asking people to petition the committee by filling out a simple online form here at the committee’s web site. They have this suggested message:

Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Baccus,

As an American living overseas and a supporter of American Citizens Abroad, I urge you to take note of the letter sent to you on April 21,2010 by Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Joe Wilson, the co-chairs of the Americans Abroad Caucus.I join in requesting prompt hearings on the difficulties encountered by overseas Americans in opening and maintaining bank accounts in the United States and abroad. We are counting on the Committee on Financial Services to investigate these issues and ensure that overseas Americans have access to necessary financial services under reasonable conditions.

Regards,
[Your name and location; for example, Thomas Smith, Brussels, Belgium]

Hey, it’s just a recommendation. You can submit whatever you want, as long as you make it clear that you’re pushing for a hearing on banking issues.

The form, naturally enough, assumes that you live in the US. Americans living abroad apparently never need the help of the committee, so there’s no provision for your non-US address. ACA recommends using the city and state where you’re registered to vote or the city and country (for state) where you live.

If you fill out the form, I’d also suggest asking for a review of the 90-22.1 filing requirement. After all, the deadline for that yearly nightmare is coming up at the end of this month for Americans with overseas bank accounts. It needs major reform. For more, see my past post, It’s Form 90-22.1 Time Again For American Expats, The Annual Waste Of Time Exercise.

Maybe the committee might be able to help with the US Census not counting Americans abroad (see Collectively, Americans Abroad Are 21st Most Populated “State”). There’s a full ten years to fix that problem.

Headed cross-country and worried about a new law that might get you stopped by the police in Arizona because you look like an illegal immigrant? Not to fear! Google has now added an “Avoid Arizona” option for those generating directions.

Google’s other options have been super helpful. You can get directions suited for taking public transit, walking, bicycling or by car. Now the Avoid Arizona option gives you directions that route you around that state:

Yeah, the option’s a joke I made up, if that’s not obvious. The law, unfortunately, is real.