Sarah Palin 2012 - How Did The Mayans Know?

I take today's post title from a sign reportedly seen at Jon Stewart's Restore Sanity rally.

Well, it's November 3 and as the dust from yesterday's elections settles it becomes apparent that the Republicans didn't enjoy the utter blowout one might gather they had from the more hysterical headlines but the Democrats were handed their asses in too many contests that should have been theirs.

But not in California, happily. We went Democratic in a big way; most of the returns I looked at were decided by margins of 10% or more. The propositions were more uneven - glimmers of electorate intelligence shone only to be extinguished on the next vote.

Governor - Jerry Brown - Could be worse; we could be saying "Gov. Whitman"
Lt. Governor - Gavin Newsom
Secretary of State - Debra Bowen
Controller - John Chiang
Treasurer - Bill Lockyer
Attorney General - Kamala Harris? - I checked on the state's website and this was the only race that was in any way close. Harris has approx. 46% to Cooley's 45%, with 96%+ of the counties in so it's conceivable that the percentages could flip.
Insurance Commissioner - Dave Jones
US Senator - Barbara Boxer
US Representative - Judy Chu
Superintendent of Public Instruction - Tom Torlakson

The Propositions:
19 - No: Well, maybe next time. It was close.
20 - Yes
21 - No
22- Yes
23 - No
24 - No
25 - Yes: I'm a bit surprised that this one was passed (it requires a simple majority to pass a budget) but happy it did. Of course, this glimmer of intelligence was quickly extinguished by the results of the next proposition, 26.
26 - No
27 - No

Nationwide, we appear to have avoided the worst of the Tea Parties' candidates - no O'Donnell, no Miller, no Paladino - but we have a House led by a man who promises to turn back the anemic healthcare and banking reforms that Obama and the Democrats managed to get through, and a leadership dedicated to "investigating" the administration's numerous "crimes and misdemeanors."

Its going to be a brutal two years.

Election 2010 Ballot Recommendations (Part 2)

I'm back from the bike ride: Beautiful late Fall So Calif weather - not too hot, not too cold, moderate cloud cover. Now for the propositions:

19 - Legalizes marijuana under CA law. - Yes
20 - Redistricting of Congressional districts. - Yes (probably)

This initiative had me sitting on the fence for a while. I voted NO on the measure a few election cycles ago that created the commission to redraw the state districts not because I'm enamored of the current, legislation-dominated system but because I don't trust Schwarzenegger (who sponsored it). This prop expands that commission's duties to include federal districts. In for a penny, in for a pound, however. I could be pleasantly surprised by the commission's results and we might as well try to make all our legislative districts, state and national, more balanced and competitive.

I'm troubled, however, by a concurrent proposition passed last cycle that mandates open primaries where the top two vote getters will be the only candidates on future ballots. This is the kind of measure that gives ammo to the modern-day Burke who sees only gloom and doom in the extension of the franchise to the hoi polloi. What's the point of competitive districts if the primary campaign sticks two Republicans (or two Democrats or, one could hope, two Greens) in the top slots?

One can hope that a disastrous election cycle will prompt an initiative repealing it.

21 - $18 surcharge on vehicle licensing to fund state parks/wildlife programs - Yes
22 - Prohibits state from borrowing or taxing funds used for transportation projects, etc. - No

Yet another bar to any hope (however faint) of rationally allocating state/local funds.

23 - Suspends implementation of air pollution control law - No

I'll repeat myself - NO. This is a God-awful, short-sighted, oil-industry-sponsored menace not just to the California economy but to the entire frakking world.

24 - Repeals legislation allowing businesses to lower tax liabilities - Yes

We're $50 billion in debt, it's not like we need an incentive to dig the hole any deeper.

25 - Changes voting requirement to pass budget to a simple majority - Yes
26 - Requires certain state/local fees be approved by 2/3rd majority vote - No
27 - Eliminates state commission on redistricting - No

Election 2010 Ballot Recommendations

This is, of course, exclusive to California, though if anyone outside of the Golden State is reading this, I'd say - in general - avoid the Tea Party candidate and anything supported by the Chamber of Commerce.

State Races:
Governor - Laura Wells (Green).

The mainstream options are between Meg Whitman (R), a millionaire whose prescription for California's woes is to turn it into a corporation-friendly, regulation-hostile free-for-all zone, and Jerry Brown (D), who was governor 30 years ago. Of the two, a second Brown administration would be better than a first Whitman but I think it's symptomatic of the state's sclerotic Democratic Party that the only viable candidate they can find is a pol from the '70s.

It's heartening that despite spending over $100 million (reportedly) of her own money on this campaign, Whitman still trails Brown, who's been outspent 86 to 1 (as of August, I doubt the ratio has changed all that much). There may be hope for the electorate after all.

Lieutenant Governor - Gavin Newsom (D).

I was sorely disappointed when Newsom withdrew from the gubernatorial race but the Lt. Gov is a fairly powerful position under CA's constitution so I'm happy there's a potential he can bring his populist, progressive agenda to a statewide venue.

Secretary of State - Debra Bowen (D).

I still think Bowen is doing a good job.

Controller - John Chiang (D).

The same goes for Chiang, if only because he's fighting Schwarzenegger and the Republicans at every turn.

Treasurer - Charles Crittenden (Green).

The odds of Mr. Crittenden becoming our Treasurer are...slim...to say the least but the Republican, Libertarian and American Independent candidates would be disasters and the Democratic nod, Bill Lockyer, is another long-time insider who is (in my mind) too tainted with corporate and development-industry ties.

Attorney General - Kamala Harris (D).

I've heard/read good things about Ms. Harris and if my vote can help keep Steve Cooley (R) out of the office, then she has it.

Insurance Commissioner - William Balderston (Green).

Not much to say about this position. I'm sure the Democratic candidate, Dave Jones, would do fine but I want to help keep a third-party option alive in the state so I'm going with the Green candidate. (Besides, he looks too much like the office manager of the company - which shall remain as nameless as Voldemort - that I work for.)

Senator (US) - Duane Roberts (Green).

Carly Fiorina (R) - the woman who ran HP into the ground and had to be bribed into leaving the company. Yes, this is just what California needs. Barbara Boxer (D) is a decent enough senator and I won't be disappointed if (when, finger's crossed) she wins but she's too tied up with corporate/business interests to be really effective at changing the way things are done. At most she's holding the line but won't fundamentally reorient the system.

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Tom Torlakson (nonpartisan).

I like the cut of his jib.

The other state offices are district specific and unless you live near me would be of even less interest. But here they are:

State Board of Equalization - Jerome Horton (D).
US Representative (32nd) - Judy Chu (D). (I'd go Green but they didn't put up a candidate.)
State Senator (24th) - Ed Hernandez (D). (I have no choice - unless I wanted to leave it blank - he's running unopposed.)
State Assembly (57th) - Roger Hernandez (D). (No relation to Ed, I think.) (Again, I'd go Green but his only opponent is a Republican.)
County Assessor (LA) - John Wong (nonpartisan). (His opponent still thinks 1978's Prop 13 was a good idea.)

Regarding the judicial elections (which are nonpartisan, yes-or-no votes for a name unfamiliar to anyone who hasn't been before their bench or are family members), I direct you to this website: Judge Voter Guide, which is put together by a conservative, Republican-leaning industrious blogger with a lot of time on his hands. NB - VOTE OPPOSITE TO WHAT HE RECOMMENDS. If he's against a judge, then I'm for them.

I'm going to save the ballot measures for a second post later today. Right now (Sunday, Oct 24, 10:32 am), I have to give my cat his thyroid medicine and get my daily bike ride in.

Mr. Monika's 2008 Voter Guide (w/ especial emphasis on California)

The week after next, the country goes to the polls once again. More than ever, we really might be determining the fate of the world for a generation to come

Considering our batting record the last four election cycles (2000, 2002, 2004, 2006), I recommend prayer...lots of it...to any benevolent deity you can think of. (Forgive me, I'm feeling particularly snarky at the moment. I'm actually quite optimistic about the long-term survival of the species, I just think the next few decades are going to be brutal. More brutal for us, anyway, it's always been brutal for far too many people in this world.)

But on to my recommendations for the interested. Except for the presidential vote, I'm afraid they're quite California-centric for the simple reason that I happen to live in the Golden State but as my "follower" is also a Californian, I don't feel too bad about that.

President/Vice President: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

• All right, if I thought there was any chance for their victory, I'd be voting Green, McKinney/Clemente, but there isn't, and we need to so overwhelm the Republicans with numbers that there's no way they can steal the election again in any state. California is fortunate to have a decent secretary of state in Debra Bowen, who's done what she can to make sure the voting machines are on the up and up.
• While I like Nader's positions on many of the issues, he would go down in history as one of our worst, least effective presidents solely based on his personality. The man is not a politician. And then there's the fact that he has even less chance of winning the White House than McKinney.
• So I'm "stuck" with Obama, who (I think) would much rather rule as a second Clinton than a second Roosevelt. He's about as much a socialist as he is an Arab or a Muslim - i.e., he isn't! He's a centrist Democrat. I'm worried about his votes on the telecom immunity and bailout bills, and his eagerness to escalate the occupation of Afghanistan. I'm worried that he's so much a product of the last 30 years of neoliberal economics in this country that he'll be unable to experiment like FDR. But he's our best hope, so he's got my vote.

United States Representative: Hilda Solis

• This district is so safe, the Republicans didn't even field a candidate. Solis is a mixed bag: Sometimes she votes with the angels; other times, with Satan. But the only way I can get somebody in the office with whom I'm in total agreement is to run myself, so I'll vote for her without serious problem.

Member of the State Assembly: Ed Hernandez

Judicial (for the Superior Courts):

• Steven A. Simons (72nd)
• Cynthia Loo (82nd)
• Lori-Ann Jones (84th)
• C. Edward Mack (94th)
• Rocky L. Crabb (154th)

It's difficult to get information on these offices, though the Internet has made it far easier, assuming they have a website. My guiding philosophy is to read their blurbs if available and vote for anyone who isn't a prosecutor. Thus, Simons is a consumer-rights attorney, Loo is a court referee, Mack is a trial attorney, etc.

State Measures (propositions) (In California, it's far too easy to get a proposition on the ballot and, thus, we tend to legislate through them, taking Sacramento off the hook. And it doesn't help that these propositions are written by special interests and often in nearly opaque legalese or so poorly that they'll be litigated to death in the courts and never even have a chance to prove worthy or unworthy.)

1A - NO: This is a $9.95 billion bond measure that will (supposedly) fund high-speed rail lines. Now, I find the idea of high-speed rail very attractive but my problem is with the method of financing. If we want something or feel it's necessary to continued well-being, then we should be willing to pay for it up front. Despite the lessons of the Asian meltdown in 1987, the Mexican meltdown in 1995 and our meltdown in 2008, we are still operating under the insane assumption that we can simply continue to borrow money and pass off the costs to our descendants, and that we don't have to raise taxes (and make them more progressive, to boot). California is already under such a debt burden that we're constantly threatened with a lowering of our bond status, and the interest payments are becoming oppressive.

If we want high-speed rail, let's raise a tax somehow. Perhaps via gas sales, perhaps a sales tax, perhaps we'll have more funds if we simply close loopholes and spread the burden more fairly. And it doesn't have to be permanent - we tax for 5 years, and all the proceeds go to the rail fund. If we need more money, the legislature can revisit the issue at the end of 5 years. It's why I'm voting "yes" for Measure R below because it's funded via a 30-year, 1/2-cent sales tax.

2 - YES: This measure requires the animal-husbandry industry to humanely treat their animals. No brainer.

3 - NO: Another worthy cause (renovating children's hospitals). Another bond measure, though (only $980 million).

4- NO: Waiting period and parental notification of teen-age abortions.

5 - YES: I'm a bleeding-heart liberal who thinks our penal system would benefit from a concentration on redemption rather than retribution. Most assuredly isolate violent offenders and even nonviolent ones may deserve some prison time but when we strip a felon of every chance to redeem himself, why are we surprised that things don't get better?

I was pretty definite about my "yes" vote for this one but when I saw the "No on 5" commercial where Diane Feinstein endorsed their position then I knew I would be voting well. Another one of my voting tenets is that anything Feinstein is for, I'm against, and vice versa.

6 - NO: A bond measure ($965 million) to pay for more police. If we need more police, then we need to pay for them up front (see above).

7 - NO: This measure is supposed to force government and private utilities to be 50% renewable energy by 2025. Good "ends" but the "means" are suspect. I've read both sides' arguments and still don't know if this measure would do any good, so I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the environmental groups, most of whom don't support the proposition.

8 - NO: This vile measure would strike down the recent CA Supreme Court ruling making same-sex marriage possible (and possibly invalidating the marriage of a friend of mine) and enshrine it in our state constitution. Like 2, it's a no brainer.

9 - NO: For all their bleating about "the rule of law," I sometimes wonder if Republicans and your rank-and-file conservatives know what it means. This gem would allow victims' input during the entire criminal justice process - from bail to parole. Part of the appeal of the rule of law is that it's an impartial system - at least as impartial as anything can be - and I cannot countenance allowing the least impartial element of a crime to have any say over how the system treats the suspect (and felon, if convicted).

10 - NO: This is T. Boone Pickens attempt to get the state to subsidize his move into renewable energy (to the tune of $5 billion in bonds).

11 - NO: Here's another good end arrived at via suspect means. We desperately need to reform the way districts are apportioned but I don't trust Schwarzenegger.

12 - NO: A $900 million bond to subsidize homes and farms for veterans. Why can't we subsidize the homes and farms of nonvets? Don't they work just as hard? Don't they deserve the chance to make a decent living and dwell in a decent home?

It's nice that there are people willing to defend me if America suffers an invasion and that there are people willing to assist the National Guard and the fire department in case natural disasters get seriously out of hand but America hasn't needed defending since at least 1941, and the subsequent career of our military has been an unending march of imperial domination since then. Why should my hard-earned cash and that of my descendants go to support the legions of Caesar?

And while we're on the subject, why aren't firefighters included here? Doctors? Teachers? The latter three groups do far more to make this country a decent place to live than the military.

County Measures

R - YES: As I mentioned in my diatribe under Measure 1A, this measure to reduce traffic congestion and fund rail extensions is going to be paid for by a 30-year, 1/2-cent sales tax, and will be subject to public review and audits.

Community College Measures

RR - NO: A $353 million bond measure.

Municipal Water District: Andrew M. McIntyre

Well, that's it. If you're a Republican, stay home Nov. 4, it'll be for the best.

"Celebrating" the Fourth of July

Last Thursday (July 10), I was listening to Randi Rhodes' show on my local radio station. The topic was the abominable FISA Amendment bill that our hopelessly spineless Congress passed the day before. In all seriousness, a caller asked, "Except that it's unconstitutional, what's the big deal about warrantless wiretapping?" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist.)

It's times like this that I want to get that lobotomy and just join brain-dead fools like this guy in their ignorant bliss.

That or move to Canada.

Honestly, there was nothing in the original FISA law as it stood before 2001 to stop Bush from wiretapping pretty much anyone he damn well pleased. Out of nearly 20,000 requested FISA warrants, literally a handful were refused -- five! Of course, to this administration even the possibility of someone checking its authority is anathema, and, hence, the need to eviscerate an already suspect law.

David Bromwich's post on HuffPo eloquently presents the case for why July 9's vote is a disaster for this country. Why should we trust any president to voluntarily relinquish any powers he's able to squeeze out of supine Congresses and Supreme Courts? Why should we depend upon Obama's promise to "fix" the legislation when he becomes president?

Joseph Galloway, of McClatchey, poses two pertinent questions in his excellent column here:

How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?

How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?

George Bush broke the supreme law of the land (and there's evidence he was doing it before 9/11, the ostensible reason for amending the law in the first place). That we haven't stripped him of his office, not to mention his freedom, shows just how far we've fallen from the ideals of the Founders.

[Addendum: I just came across this op-ed from Chris Hedges that ran in the LA Times on Friday. Just another reason to oppose everything this administration does.]

The Death of a Thousand Cuts

Apologists for the latest example of Congress' craven spinelessness say that the FISA "compromise" protects fundamental civil rights but it's like "the death of a thousand cuts": If someone suffers one papercut, no major harm done; but if they suffer a thousand, they bleed to death. Just so with the latest capitulation to the Bush Administration's terrorism.

They've launched assaults against the First Amendment, they've launched assaults against habeas corpus, and now it's the Fourth Amendment's turn.

I'm happy to say that my representative voted with the "angels," opposing the FISA bill, which (if the Senate passes it) will "legalize" warrantless wiretapping and immunize the telcoms that allowed the government to do it. Unfortunately, she was in the minority.

I took down my copy of the Constitution and reread the Fourth Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

By my reading, there's no ambiguity here, no provisional language for wars or "public emergency" -- the government cannot wiretap without a warrant. Everyone is secure. Everyone. Everywhere. Everytime. And under the current FISA law, the government has 72 hours to get a retroactive warrant, anyway!

Furthermore, there's no provision for immunity. The "just obeying orders" defense didn't work at Nuremberg and it shouldn't work here. The telcoms that allowed the administration to tap communications without warrants are guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal conspiracy and should be held responsible. (Not to mention the thugs in the administration.)

I've read that, in a rare display of spine, Senator Majority Leader Reid has vowed to fight the bill, and may actually split it in 2: one addressing the FISA warrants and the other addressing immunity. With luck, it could delay a final vote until after November. Also encouraging is Senator Feingold's and Dodd's intentions to filibuster this atrocious measure.

Less encouraging, is Obama's support of the "compromise," which casts doubt on his qualifications as a teacher of constitutional law (unless he were John Yoo's TA!). We need to put pressure on him to join Messers. Reid, Feingold and Dodd in opposing the law. Maybe we could say to him, "We're not going to contribute to your campaign for the next 2 weeks until you change your tune, Senator `Change.'"

Bittersweet Triumphs

Two victories in the last few days for civil rights:

1. The California Supreme Court has decided that gay couples are no different from hetero couples who want to get married. So, beginning at 5:01 pm PT on Monday, June 16, the state joins Massachusetts in recognizing a basic right.

2. The US Supreme Court decided that people held in Guantanamo do have the right of habeas corpus.

These victories for civil rights and basic common sense are "bittersweet," however, since why are we even adjudicating them?

In an ideal world it would be self-evident that two people who want to legitimate their association should be able to, regardless of their gender. There are noises about putting a constitutional amendment on California's November ballot to outlaw same-sex marriages, and there are enough cavemen and -women in the state so that it will probably make it. Fortunately, it will also lose but that it even gets to a ballot is distressing.

I hesitate to put my two cents in regarding homo- and heterosexuality but I'll do it anyway: In brief, I think it's a mistake to look at people as homosexual or heterosexual beings, we're sexual beings. For sound biological reasons, species tend to favor heterosexuality (after all, a primarily homosexual species wouldn't last more than a few generations) but absent the preferred choice, it's hard to deny one's sexual drives; consider sailors on long sea voyages, prisoners, the Theban Sacred Band, experiments with same-sex rat colonies, etc. I've also read that otherwise heterosexual males will engage in gay sex so long as they're the dominant partner -- i.e., the penetrator not the penetrated.

But all that's beside the point, since even if sexual orientation were entirely voluntary, no one but you and your partner have any business poking their noses into the affair.

As to our right to habeas corpus: Understand this concept - the government does not grant us rights, it recognizes them. Habeas corpus is a person's fundamental right not to be arbitrarily seized and confined without the opportunity to know why they've been seized and to have the chance to answer the evidence against them. It's not something only American citizens get, it's a right that every human being has. And it certainly trumps the specious "national security" argument. In fact, it can only be limited in the event of "Rebellion or Invasion"; neither condition pertaining the last time I checked Yahoo! News.

A more bittersweet part of the court's ruling is that it's possible some Republican hack in Congress will try to get a bill passed circumventing the ruling. Considering Pelosi's and Reid's lack of courage in the past, it's even possible they'd allow it to come to the floor for a vote.

The most bittersweet part of the court's ruling is that it came in a 5-4 decision: Reason #6204 to vote for Obama: The next president will have at least 2, maybe 3, opportunities to fill court vacancies. If you want to continue the slide into the corporatist security state, vote for McCain.

It's Over. Right? (Clinton vs. Obama)

Whew...

It's over. Finally. Right?

The rumor is that Clinton will finally concede that Obama has won this Saturday (the 7th). She's still going to technically keep the campaign active (she's just suspending it) because she needs to continue fundraising to help retire her debts.

Going forward the best thing that could come out of this mess is for Clinton to become Senate majority leader. She is not a vice president. I can't see her playing second fiddle to anyone, and I wouldn't want her to. Her strengths would be best used in the Senate, where she could twist arms, be in people's faces and play the bad cop to get the Dem agenda passed. (I think she has the potential to be as effective a majority leader as Lyndon Johnson. The worst decision LBJ ever made was shooting for the presidency: His particular brand of leadership [and Clinton's] was [is] better suited to the Senate.)

And just think of the juggernaut that could be created if the White House, the Senate and the House could all coordinate on trying to reverse the catastrophic course this country is on.

In the interests of "healing" the rift in the party, Obama's vice presidential choice probably should be a Clinton partisan, though I have no opinion on who that might be.