mahna mahblog

Mad Props: 2010 General Election Edition

Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:51:00 -0700

Cheat Sheet

19 - YES
20 - YES
21 - NO
22 - NO
23 - NO
24 - YES
25 - YES
26 - NO
27 - NO

Howdy, voters! It’s election time! Time to get informed! Time to offset the votes of the ignorant, the greedy, and the mean — hopefully coming up with a few votes extra on this side so that We the People collectively pass up the opportunity to inflict grievous harm upon our beloved state.

Mad Props is your 100% independent guide to California’s ballot propositions. Here are our suggestions for how you should vote, and why. (And remember, by “suggestions” I mean “vote this way, or you’re part of the problem!”)

Proposition 19: The Peter Tosh Memorial Initiative (Legalizes Marijuana Under California Law). (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: YES
Why: It’s difficult to believe this day has arrived this soon, but here we are: With a vote, Californians may finally follow Mr. Tosh’s advice and just “legalize it” already.

The arguments against legalization are hyperbolic and full of scare tactics. This is no surprise at all, as what SF Chronicle columnist Jon Carroll calls the “War on Some Drugs” has always been based on fear and even outright lies. Let’s take on a couple of those lies that are right there in your voter information guide (pages 16-17).

First off, we have Mothers Against Drunk Driving trying to scare you into believing that Prop 19 will put legions of dangerous, stoned drivers on the road. Now, MADD is a group with a myopic, fingers-in-its-ears approach to crafting public policy that has done more to increase dangerous/deadly binge drinking on college campuses than any other factor. (Even an aged, blinded-by-cataracts, mainstream journalistic entity like CBS’s 60 Minutes faced this fact in 2009.) There is no reason at all to accept this group’s pronouncements at face value. But still, let’s take a look.

“Proposition 19 gives drivers the ‘right’ to use marijuana right up to the point when they climb behind the wheel,” they tell us. This is a deliberate twisting/misreading of the text of the measure. See page 93 in your ballot pamphlet, section 11300(c)(3):
“‘Personal consumption’ shall not include, and nothing in this act shall permit, cannabis … consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat, or aircraft … that impairs the operator.”
Furthermore, MADD is mad because Prop 19 “fails to provide the Highway Patrol with any tests or objective standards for determining what constitutes ‘driving under the influence.’” This is absolutely true, but such standards are not the point of this statute, and in fact the statute’s text reads:
“This act shall not be construed to affect, limit, or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving” (11304(a), page 94 in your voter information guide)
So there’s an easy fix provided for in the measure. The state lege can jump in and cook up some righteous penalties for anyone who hops behind the wheel to go get their Cheetos fix without first waiting for the munchies to subside. The claim about Prop 19 giving folks the “right” to consume drugs in the workplace is a similar, desperate stretch.

Let’s be upfront: There is no doubt that if Prop 19 passes, a whole bunch of new laws — at both state and municipal levels — will be necessary. We’ll need laws about stoned driving. Cities and counties will have to decide if they want Amsterdam-style smoking cafés. Arguing that Prop 19 is a mistake because it doesn’t hash (ahem) this all out ahead of time is silly. Prop 19 is the tip of an iceberg: It is the first step in undoing decades of needless prohibition that has torn families apart and ruined lives by criminalizing addiction, all while misspending untold gazillions of taxpayer dollars. It’s the first move in a chess game that will, slowly but surely, end the War On Some Drugs. This is undoubtedly a good thing. And I haven’t even mentioned all the positive effects that are all but certain to follow: increased revenue at state and local levels, fewer overcrowded jails, police focusing on real crimes (you know, the kind with victims), and the end of the Big Lie that the demon weed is somehow more dangerous than the liquor in your cabinet. All of this is worth voting for. Vote YES on Prop 19.
Proposition 20: Redistricting: the “Good” Version. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: YES
Why: In 2008, at Governor Schwarzenegger’s (and Mad Props’s) urging, Californians passed Prop 11, which took the power to draw state districts out of the hands of the elected officials in those districts, giving it to a more-or-less neutral citizens commission. This was a fantastic idea, as for far too long, district lines had been drawn specifically to protect incumbents, leading to increased polarization in Sacramento. (There are umpteen reasons why Sacramento is a mess, but the old method of redistricting is a major factor.)

Prop 20 would extend Prop 11 to also apply to federal congressional districts. That is, if Prop 20 passes, the same citizens commission that draws state districts will also draw the districts for the folks we send to the U.S. House of Representatives. If Prop 20 does not pass, then this job will fall to the governor and the state lege, and the whole process will be politicized and corrupted as it has been for so many decades.

The “Jim Crow” argument against Prop 20 (page 23, voter information guide) is as appalling as it is ludicrous. If you think there might be some truth to the argument because the president of the California Black Chamber of Commerce signed his name under it, note further down the page that the NAACP is in favor of the measure. What does this demonstrate? That you can trust the Black Chamber of Commerce as much as you can trust any Chamber of Commerce, which is to say, “not at all”: They’ll favor what is best for business over what is best for the people every single time. That’s what they’re for. That’s why they’re called the Chamber of Commerce, not the Chamber of Rights/Dignity/Fairness/Freedom/Whatever.

Also note that the opponents of Prop 20 generally come from the ranks of supporters of Prop 27, about which, more presently.

As of this writing, the only major newspaper in California to come out against Prop 20 is … wait for it … the Sacramento Bee, a rag always happy to endorse the status quo. Every other editorial board in the state is for it. This is because Prop 20 is actually a fine idea that won’t cost us any additional money. Vote YES for strengthening our democracy; vote YES on Prop 20.
Proposition 21: $18 Vehicle License Surcharge for Parks. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: The signatures under the “Argument In Favor of Proposition 21” tell the story. We’ve got someone from the National Wildlife Federation, someone from the Nature Conservancy, and the president of the Park Rangers Association. This is a measure, like so many, placed on the ballot by a narrow special interest — in this case, the folks who love and work in our state parks.

Now, only cretins and scoundrels hate state parks. None but them can be pleased by the cuts made to our park budgets during California’s financial struggles. But mandating an $18 surcharge to our vehicle fees and then setting that money aside for the parks alone is just another example of “ballot-box budgeting” — the trend for voters to mandate that a certain set of funds (or a percentage of the state budget) be used in a certain way. Mad Props has ranted previously about how this hamstrings the folks in Sacramento who are tasked each year with spending the state’s money wisely. Believe me, the voters are no better at this than the folks in the capitol; in fact, they’re a whole lot worse, and the sort of mandate that Prop 21 creates makes for one helluva mess when the state’s finances go south, as they have during what we all seem to be calling “these economic times.”

Also, take note of what this proposition actually does: It adds $18 dollars to our annual vehicle licensing fee — what Arnold Schwarzenegger called the “car tax” when he was running for governor. He promised to gut the car tax, and he followed through on that promise — helping to lead the state into the fiscal mess it’s in right now.

What really needs to happen is, the car tax (and other taxes) need to move back up. Not drastically, but up. And, again, no offense to parks, but when we find new ways to put money back in the state’s coffers, I’d much rather that the money go to the schools and to the communities whose accounts have been “raided” by the state over the past several years.

California’s fiscal house needs to be put in order, but mandating that a new “fee” go directly to the parks is no way to do it. Vote NO on Prop 21.
Proposition 22: Tying the Hands of Government Once More. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: Just above, I mentioned how the state’s been “raiding” local communities to keep the budget balanced. That’s an oversimplification, but a fair treatment of the problem that Prop 22 tries to address. This initiative would simply bar the state from refusing to release various funds to localities in times of crisis. It would prohibit the sort of budget monkeying that’s gotten us through the last several years.

Read that again: It would prohibit the sort of budget monkeying that’s gotten us through the last several years. Without this kind of flexibility, we would have had even more drastic cuts at the state level. Maybe that sounds okay to you. It won’t sound okay the next time you have to go to the DMV, and the wait is seven hours long because the office is furloughed ten days each month.

The “raiding” of local funds that is at issue here is allowed by Prop 1A, passed by the voters in 2004. 1A requires that “raided” funds be fully repaid within three years. That is happening. Perhaps we should stop using the word “raiding” and start using the word “borrowing.” Since, you know, that’s what it is.

There’s another problem with Prop 22: It protects local monies put into redevelopment agencies and districts. These are set-aside areas where developers get to come in and use taxpayer money to build whatever the heck they want, often against the wishes or the interests of the community around the district, and walk away with huge profits. Prop 22 codifies this pattern of “welfare for the rich.” (For more on this, see “Unintended consequences of Proposition 22” in the SF Chronicle.)

Look, there’s no doubt that from the standpoint of localities, the status quo sucks. But “these economic times” will not last forever. Don’t be fooled into thinking this is simply a measure to protect your hometown. It’s not. Vote NO on Prop 22.
Proposition 23: Allow Big Business to Continue Destroying the Planet. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: I’m amazed how much negative publicity this measure’s gotten, though it definitely deserves it. Everything you’ve heard is true: Texas oil companies want to roll back our state’s not-yet-implemented restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. Californians do a pretty good job of not messin’ with Texas. Why can’t Texas return the courtesy?

[Aside: If you take a look at your voter information guide (page 44), you’ll notice the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is in favor of Prop 23. This is because the restrictions we’re talking about are enforced via taxes on polluters. The Jarvis folks oppose taxes in any form, period, end of story. They’re the morons who brought us 1978’s Proposition 13, which is directly responsible for the fact that your local schools probably suck, your local roads probably suck, and so forth. Any time you see the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association endorse or oppose a measure, pass up the chance to be craven and greedy and vote the other way.]

Unless you are one of those ignorant fools who hate science and feel that cold, hard facts have no place in policymaking, this one’s a slam dunk. It’s especially a slam dunk if you have children and want them and their children to inherit a livable planet. Global warming is a fact. It is happening. The federal government hasn’t been able to do anything to address this fact as yet; California found a way to get started. Don’t let rich Texans nip this effort in the bud. Vote NO on Prop 23.
Proposition 24: Repeal of Corporate Tax Breaks. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: YES
Why: Prop 24 would undo roughly $1.3 billion (with a ‘B’) in tax breaks to corporations. These tax breaks were approved in 2008 as part of the yearly budget fight. In order to get some pro-business, anti-society Republicans on board, these tax breaks were added to the mix. Now we get to undo them. It’s as simple as that. (The tax breaks in question do not apply to small businesses. You won’t hurt small businesses a bit by voting YES here.)

The state is broke; corporations are flush with cash and not even hiring folks during “these economic times.” Stick it to ’em, and help California climb out of its financial hole. Vote YES on Prop 24.
Proposition 25: Actually Make It Possible For the State to Pass a Budget. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: YES
Why: We would never have had the 2008 tax breaks for huge corporations (see above) if it didn’t take two-thirds of the lege to pass a budget. In 47 other states, simple majorities are all it takes to get a budget passed. In those states, budgets don’t pass half a year late, as happened in California this year. (In fact, the lege has passed a budget on-time only five times since 1980.) Prop 25 would make California the 48th state requiring only a simple majority to pass a budget.

If you’re a Howard Jarvis-type wackjob, try to chill: Prop 25 does not change the two-thirds vote required to raise taxes at the state level (another Prop 13 legacy).

Every single year, the state budget is held hostage by anti-government, right-wing extremists who cannot imagine a single dollar of the state’s money being well-spent. They ignore the real hardships caused by budget impasses, and they hold out for favors benefitting their corporate sponsors (see Prop 24, above). End the annual madness, and vote YES on Prop 25.
Proposition 26: Supermajority Vote to Pass New Taxes. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: Prop 26 may be the most deceptive measure on the ballot this time around. It’s sounds like a sort of Prop 13 for localities, mandating two-thirds yea votes before certain fees could be collected. We’re a tax-hatin’ state, so this sounds like good news.

The problem is, the fees in question are those charged to corporations who destroy the environment. If the factory down the road befouls the creek that runs past your abode, right now your town council can levy a fee against said factory, forcing it to pay for cleaning up the mess.

Prop 26 undoes this, requiring a supermajority to get the fee passed. Supermajorities, as Californians have seen over and over, have a real hard time passing anything other than resolutions honoring war heroes and such. Supermajorities also lead, inevitably, to a “tyranny of the minority” — in this case, a minority that thinks the job of government is to clean up after industry. This is a gross rethinking of the role of government in California. Don’t buy it. Big business tried this before, in 2000 with Prop 37. The voters wisely said NO. It’s time to do so again. Vote NO on Prop 26.
Proposition 27: Redistricting: the “Evil” Version. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: Proposition 27 would repeal 2008’s Prop 11, which put redistricting duties in the hands of an independent citizens commission (see Prop 20, above). It would also nullify this year’s Prop 20 if it receives more votes than that other measure. It would put the job of drawing district lines back in the hands of politicians.

You can tell from reading Mad Props that I’m left-leaning (though I much prefer the term “progressive”). Since Prop 27 is backed by Democrats, and would clearly help their party much more than the other side, you might think I’d support this measure. But I can’t. Redistricting has long been a dirty, corrupt business in America — we invented the gerrymander — and 2008’s Prop 11, while not perfect, was the all-time best effort at addressing the problem here in California. Prop 11’s passage was a victory for democracy. We have not even allowed that initiative to take full effect yet: Our first redistricting under Prop 11 will happen in the wake of the 2010 census.

Don’t let Democrats scuttle this bold and high-minded experiment before it even gets underway. Schwarzenegger was right to bring us Prop 11, and we were right to approve it. Undoing it is no way forward, not even for progressives who might very well benefit. Vote NO on Prop 27.

If you’ve found this edition of Mad Props useful, please post a link to it on your Facebook, or Tweet the URL to your friends (you Twit), or whatever social networking thing it is you do when you see something online and want to share it with others. I’d also love to hear about it in the comments if I’ve said anything particularly enlightening (or particularly stupid). Happy voting!

“Our Hearts Pump Dust…

Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:51:00 -0700

…and our hair’s all grey.” Now on display in the museyroom: almost 200 snapshots from my seventh consecutive visit to Black Rock City, Nevada — otherwise known as Burning Man. Visit the index or begin with the first “slide”.

Bears In the News

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 13:29:00 -0700

I haven’t taken note of a bear-related news story in a coupla years. The Denver Post has a great one with a don’t-miss photo of the bear during the actual caper.

… as the bear shuffled around the car looking for a way out, he bumped into the gear shift and put the automatic transmission into neutral, sending the car rolling 125 feet back down a hill …

Interesting: On Bay Area Newspaper Group sites, this story has been retitled as “Bear gets into car for peanut butter and jelly sandwich, honks horn, goes on short joyride.” After a headline like that, what’s the fun of reading the story?

[previously on Bears In the News]

I Went to India!

Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:11:00 -0700

It takes a long time to cull through hundreds of pictures, sort ’em, caption ’em, and upload them over a shitty DSL connection, but it’s finally all done, and I now present (over in the museyroom) photographic proof that I finally made my way to and across the Indian subcontinent! Visit the index or begin with the first shot.

Mad Props: 2010 Primary Election Edition

Fri, 21 May 2010 16:24:00 -0700

Cheat Sheet

13 - YES
14 - NO
15 - YES
16 - NO
17 - NO

It’s election time! Once again, the people of California have an opportunity to inflict grievous harm upon their beloved state through the initiative process, and once again, Mad Props is here to stand in the way. Confused by the ballot propositions? I’ll cut through the bullshit and tell you which box you should check — and why. [previous editions of Mad Props: Feb �08 · Oct �08 · May �09]

Here are the Mad Props recommendations for our upcoming Primary Election — and remember, by “recommendations,” I mean, “vote this way or you’re part of the problem”:

Proposition 13: Changes Budget Process. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: YES
Why: This one’s pretty easy. Under current law, owners of unreinforced masonry buildings can see their property taxes rise if they undertake seismic improvements. 2010’s Prop 13 removes that disincentive. The California Nurses Association is against this (though they don’t say why); everyone else in the state seems to be for it. Seems sensible: We know that when the ground starts shaking, brick buildings kill. Let’s make it easier for owners to make those buildings safe. Vote YES on Prop 13.
Proposition 14: Top Two Primaries Act. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: Here’s a popular idea that a lot of editorial boards are in favor of: Make our state primaries partisan-free, with the top two vote-getters moving on to the general election. The idea is that this will force candidates to appeal to voters across the board by moving to the political center; the hope is that this will yield more moderate public officials who might be able to cooperate and get something done in Sacramento.

The Chron thinks this is a good idea, and says so under a headline that reads “Create real competition.” Utterly ridiculous, as competition is exactly what this scheme destroys. You can basically forget about third parties participating in the general election at all if Proposition 14 passes: You will end up with a Democrat and a Republican as the top two candidates in most cases, and those will be your only choices in the general election, with no allowance for write-in candidates.

The Orange County Register, a paper as generally conservative and wrong-headed as the community it serves, actually has a very good piece against Prop 14. Your lefty Napa Valley Register agrees, and reminds us that due to 2008’s Prop 11, California’s district lines are in the process of changing; in other words, We the People have already enacted some rather serious election reform in this state. Maybe we should give it a chance to have some effect before we try something else? If I haven’t convinced you, please give Stop Top Two a chance to set you straight. Vote NO on Prop 14.
Proposition 15: Public Funding of Some Elections. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: YES
Why: Prop 15 is a time-limited experiment in public campaign financing. It would only apply to candidates for California Secretary of State for the 2014 and 2018 election cycles, and is paid for by a surcharge on Sacramento lobbyists. The measure also makes one far-reaching change to state law, repealing the 1988 voter-approved ban on public campaign financing in California. This would make it possible for localities to implement public financing schemes if they so desire. I support pretty much any attempt to get Big Money out of political campaigns, and I think that publicly-financed campaigns are a good idea in general. It’s hard to see how Prop 15 could cause us any harm, and the experiment it puts in place might show us a suitable way forward. Give Sacramento a chance to shrug off the lobbyist monkeys on its back, and vote YES on Prop 15.
Proposition 16: PG&E’s Scam. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: You’ve probably seen plenty of ads for this one already. They’re paid for by PG&E (the underwriter of this entire measure) and they try to get you worked up about the fact that those no-good idiotic meddling government bums are going to take millions of your taxpayer dollars and go into the energy business, and they’re going to do it without even letting you vote on it! OH THE HUMANITY!

Have you really bought this crap? Then calm down and take a deep breath. Recall first that your elected officials spend millions of dollars of public money all the time, and you don’t get to vote on any of it. That’s their job. That’s what you elect them to do. The way you have input on the matter is by voting for folks you think will spend public money wisely.

Any of you have friends in Alameda? The inhabitants and businesses of that lovely isle buy their electricity from … the City of Alameda. Back during the energy crisis, when our PG&E bills went sky high, rates in Alameda remained level. I don’t visit Alameda as often as I’d like, but when I do get over there, I don’t notice a problem with the lights staying on. Seems the City of Alameda is providing a Public Good to its citizens, and the only problem with the setup is that PG&E isn’t making millions off it. You can see, then, why the energy giant crafted Prop 16: It doesn’t want any more Alamedas. Well, if your city wants to go the public energy route someday, it should be able to explore and implement such a plan, and it shouldn’t have to get 66 percent of its citizens to sign off — that’s just ridiculous. PG&E doesn’t need a shield written in to state law. Vote NO on Prop 16.
Proposition 17: Mercury Insurance’s Scam. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: Here’s another one that may sound good initially, but scratch the surface and you discover another big company (in this case, an insurance company) putting a measure on the ballot so that it can more efficiently fleece people.

Mercury Insurance would have you believe that the emphasis here is on protecting discounts for good drivers if they switch carriers. But that’s not the end of it. As the Los Angeles Times explains quite well, Prop 17 represents a substantial revision to 1988’s Prop 103, which went a long way toward making auto insurance rates in California a lot more fair. Prop 17 would make it possible for Mercury to hike up the rates of new customers, or folks who have had lapses in coverage. People in these categories are more likely to have difficulty paying auto insurance premiums in the first place — raise the rates even more, and you’ll have more uninsured drivers on the road, which ends up costing us all. California’s auto insurance status quo is certainly no promised land, but this little bit of “reform” is really just a sneaky means of starting to undo reform the industry has chafed against for many years. Don’t let them get away with it. Vote NO on Prop 17.

If you’ve found this edition of Mad Props useful, please post a link to it on your Facebook, or Twit the URL to your friends, or whatever social networking thing it is you do when you see something online and want to share it with others. I’d also love to hear about it in the comments if I’ve said anything particularly enlightening (or particularly stupid). Happy voting!

Space

Mon, 19 Apr 2010 19:40:00 -0700

“Give yourself the space to be who you are. Give others the space to be what they are. And if others do not give you the space to be who you are … give them the space to not give you the space to be who you are, and give yourself the space to be who you are.”
— Tenshin Reb Anderson

[thanks to Adam-roshi for posting this on his Facebook a few weeks back (while we were both in India!)]

Facebook Without Facebook

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:57:00 -0800

JWZ’s Christmas present to the whole interwebs is a post detailing how to get all your Facebook updates without logging in to Facebook. Yep, all those notes, links, and status updates can flow into your feed reader of choice, where you can read up without the lunacy of The Facebook Experience. Perfect.

[What’s that, you say? You like logging in to Facebook, spending time there? I see. You and I are not wired up similarly. You also like going to the mall this time of year, yes?]

Great News: Pretty Much Everything’s Cool

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:18:00 -0800

It’s odd to think back on the time — not so long ago — when there were distinct stylistic trends, such as “this season’s colour” or “abstract expressionism” or “psychedelic music.” It seems we don’t think like that any more. There are just too many styles around, and they keep mutating too fast to assume that kind of dominance… . We’re living in a stylistic tropics. There’s a whole generation of people able to access almost anything from almost anywhere, and they don’t have the same localised stylistic sense that my generation grew up with. It’s all alive, all “now,” in an ever-expanding present, be it Hildegard of Bingen or a Bollywood soundtrack. The idea that something is uncool because it’s old or foreign has left the collective consciousness.

— Brian Eno on The Death of Uncool. I love this idea; I hope he’s right.

[spotted at The Morning News; emphasis mine]

Justice (or something like it)

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:25:00 -0700

I will never forget the date that my longtime colleague Rex Farrance was murdered: It happened on my birthday in 2007. The better part of a year passed before we had suspects in custody. Of the three, one turned state’s evidence, and the other two, including the alleged shooter, stood trial earlier this year. I attended a portion of that trial, which ended in conviction for the shooter and a hung jury for the accomplice. Said accomplice was retried and convicted earlier this month. Today came sentencing. Both men will spend the rest of their lives behind bars. No possibility for parole. The accomplice who testified against his cohorts will also spend a decade or two in a cage. A fourth accomplice was never identified or apprehended. Rex is still dead. Families are forever scarred. Nobody wins. Nobody wins.

[Thank you, Contra Costa Deputy District Attorney Harold Jewitt, for your work on behalf of the People.]

My Sixth Time Home

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:55:00 -0700

The 2009 edition of my annual Burning Man slideshow, complete with the requisite annotations, is now open in the museyroom: Visit the index or begin with the first shot.

Dear Literature Geeks

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 12:14:00 -0700

Are there any of you out there? Folks who crave a challenging, somewhat traumatic, and ultimately immeasurably-rewarding reading experience? Let me recommend something on the highest possible terms: Infinite Summer is your chance to spend the summer reading David Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest with online guidance and support sponsored by The Morning News and An Event Apart.

After Wallace’s death last fall, I pulled my copy of the Jest off the shelf. Its bookmarks (yes, plural; you need two to read this book) were still right where I’d left them; I’d quit a few years back, less than a fifth of the way through. But the tail-end of 2008 turned out to be the right time for me to tackle the thing again, and when I finished it early this year, all I really knew was that I’d never had a literary experience so meaningful. (This from someone who’s been reading-studying-enjoying Finnegans Wake for the last twelve years — and will at very long last finish the book in the next twelve months or so.)

Slate.com has podcasted an hourlong book club discussion of Infinite Jest, during which one of the critics mentions that the experience of reading and finishing the book feels like “getting hit by a bus.” This is only barely an exaggeration. I’ve been a literature fiend since about age fifteen, and I’ve never read anything that affected my emotions or my thinking-about-the-world even half as much as the Jest. It’s the sort of book that sometimes makes you just stop, looking up, looking around, looking out on every seemingly-familiar thing in your own personal universe, realizing that you’re not going to see things the same way anymore. And as you realize this, you feel awed, you feel grateful, and if you’re me, you feel this unceasing, terrible sadness that Wallace’s final decision went the way that it did.

At any rate, fellow lit-geeks, you should read Infinite Jest, and you should do it this summer, starting Sunday. 75 pages a week, plus endnotes. By September’s end, you’ll have a different head. And you’ll thank me.

Mad Props: Special Election Edition

Fri, 01 May 2009 16:38:00 -0700

Cheat Sheet

1A - NO
1B - YES
1C - NO
1D - NO
1E - NO
1F - NO

Oohwee! Look, folks! It’s a Special Election! Meaning, in this case, the people of California have a special, bonus chance to inflict grievous harm upon their beloved state via the initiative process. Is this your first time with Mad Props? Then just know that as a native Californian and lifelong student of politics, I’ve come to view statewide ballot measures as something of a menace. In several elections, I’ve voted NO on every single proposition; any given measure has a very steep uphill climb to convince me it’s worth a YES. [previous editions of Mad Props: Feb ‘08 · Oct ‘08]

This time around, we’ve got six propositions presented to us by the Democrats in the state legislature, six Republicans called the Sacramento Six, and good old Guvnuh Ahnold. When those folks came together earlier this year to pass the 2009-2010 budget (more than 100 days late), these props were part of the package. Don’t listen to anyone who likens this set of initiatives to the ones Arnold put on the ballot back in 2005 (which voters roundly rejected): in that case, the Gov was trying to do an end-around past the Lege. Now, he’s working with Sacramento Dems and the only six Republican legislators willing to raise taxes to help the state out of this terrible, terrible mess. There is no easy way out. The six propositions on this ballot represent one possible path — one I suggest you reject. In short, this package represents yet another Sacramento “fix” that purports to make big changes but in many ways will just reinforce the current dysfunctional situation.

Proposition 1A: Changes Budget Process. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: This is a really difficult call. I want to support 1A. I am very nearly swayed by the argument that if we do not pass 1A, things are going to get unimaginably worse. But I cannot shake the feeling that both the Gov and the Lege — who as public servants took on the responsibility of making tough decisions (and are paid fairly and squarely for their time and energy) — are just passing those tough decisions on to the voters, who actually have full-time lives of their own and cannot be expected to understand an extraordinarily complex proposition like 1A. I also cannot help but note that 1A and its attendant propositions have the unmistakable smell of a rush job.

The only thing that anybody knows for certain is that Proposition 1A is an ungainly hydra whose various heads will almost certainly come together to act in unpredictable ways. But don’t take my word for it; here’s the state’s impartial legislative analyst, writing in your Voter Information Guide:
The fiscal effects of Proposition 1A are particularly difficult to assess. This is because the measure’s effects would depend on a variety of factors that will change over time and cannot be accurately predicted. Consequently, the measure’s effects may be very different from one year to the next.
This is the legislative analyst’s equivalent of “Here Be Dragons.” And guess what? He even goes on to name the dragons:
The key factors determining the impact of Proposition 1A in any given year are: Future Budget Decisions by the Legislature and Governor … [and] Revenue Trends and Volatility. [emphasis his]
That sounds a lot like the status quo, doesn’t it? This is no surprise, because Proposition 1A isn’t really comprehensive budget reform. Comprehensive budget reform would begin by removing the two-thirds vote required to get a budget passed in Sacramento. That requirement, enacted by voters as part of 1978’s Proposition 13, is the single biggest problem relating to this whole budget mess. It makes the entire Legislature beholden to Grover Norquist-type reactionaries who want taxes to creep ever closer to zero, who don’t believe in a government that provides actual services to its citizens, who think that every rugged individual should toil endlessly to build their own small fortune (should they not be lucky enough to inherit one) and provide their own health care, child care, elder care, streets (what, you have no private half-mile-long driveway to your hillside estate?), parks (what? no half-acre out your back door?), police (no private security in your gated community? you lazeabout!) and so on.

Now then. The San Jose Mercury News addresses my complaint:
Proposition 1A should be seen as a down payment on comprehensive reform. That has to include lowering the requirement for two-thirds of the Legislature to approve a state budget and new taxes, but voters won’t agree to that change without spending controls.
Right, but then why not offer spending controls when you put a threshold change on the ballot? We don’t have to accept 1A’s particular oddball set of spending controls — forged during an abnormal time when nobody can really see straight regarding the economy or where it’s headed — in order to ensure real reform later. If you follow the Merc’s advice, you might very well be making a down payment on a pricey item that will never be delivered.

Not convinced? Okay, set aside the ridiculous “they’re taxing us too much!” arguments against 1A that run rampant on the Web and read what Phil Angelides, the League of Women Voters (PDF), and Calitics have to say. I admit to being especially influenced by the argument at Calitics that voters should be wary of doom-and-gloom predictions should 1A not pass: “We remind voters the words of Bill Clinton: ‘If one candidate’s trying to scare you, and the other one’s trying to get you to think … if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you’d better vote for the one who wants you to think and hope.’” I’ve thought about this, and I hope that California can find a better solution. Vote NO on 1A.
Proposition 1B: Education Funding. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: YES
Why: Yes, I am aware that 1B only takes effect if 1A passes. And I am aware I just urged a NO on 1A. The reason I’ll be voting YES on 1B is simple: should 1A pass, the schools will potentially be even more screwed than they already are, and 1B will help unscrew them — mostly by repaying the money Arnold has stolen from them over the past few years. Fair enough. Anything that potentially helps halt the decline of California’s schools — once the best in the nation — has my vote. Vote YES on 1B, just in case 1A passes.
Proposition 1C: Messin’ With the Lottery. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: The biggest change in this proposed “modernization” of the California Lottery: the state would be able to borrow against $5 billion in future lottery profits. That’s right, we’re talking about bringing this year’s budget into balance by gambling on gambling. I don’t often agree with SF Mayor and Gov-hopeful Gavin Newsom, but he sums this one up nicely: “It seems like we lost our way a little bit. Play the lottery. Lose a little more … so we can get a little more, so we can pay a little more interest on the previous debt of previous years. That is hardly an economic development strategy for our state’s future.” Preach it, Gav. Vote NO on 1C.
Proposition 1D: Balance the Budget On the Backs of Children. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: That this prop is titled, in part, “Protects Children’s Services Funding” has almost got to be someone’s idea of a bad joke. Sure, it protects funds for kids over HERE, but it raids set-aside money for kids’ programs over THERE. Don’t be a part of this. Also, see my comments below on 1E, as they apply here, too. Vote NO on 1D.
Proposition 1E: Balance the Budget On the Backs of the Mentally Ill. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: Kids and the mentally ill are nearly always among the first groups to take funding hits when money starts vanishing. Such decisions speak volumes about our priorities as a society; they highlight a sorry lack of compassion at the societal level. California is better than this. We can do better than solving our fiscal crisis by preying on the state’s most vulnerable citizens. All it will take is real leadership in Sacramento. Your tool for putting real leadership in Sacramento is the ballot box. Happily that same tool lets you say NO to rotten ideas like this one. Vote NO on 1E.
Proposition 1F: Raises for State Officials. (info @ Ballotpedia)
You Should Vote: NO
Why: This proposition has undeniable appeal: if our leaders can’t get the job done, why should they get raises? But even a moment’s scrutiny reveals the sheer silliness of this measure. Do you think reactionaries in the Lege will come to their senses and support the increased taxes we need in this state just because they can’t have a raise if we don’t get the budget balanced? Hell no. This prop doesn’t say they won’t be paid (which could in fact affect legislative behavior) if they screw up; it just says they can’t have a raise. That’s not going to change even a tiny bitlet of public policy. If you vote YES on 1F, you’re voting purely out of spite. That’s no reason to enact a law. The “argument against” in the Voter Information Guide, submitted by another politics geek who found an easy (and free!) way to hype his online musings to every voter in the state, is pretty much right on the money. The “argument for” and the “rebuttal to argument against,” on the other hand, are CHOCK-FULL OF CAPS IN THAT WAY THAT ALWAYS MAKES ME SUSPICIOUS AS TO A PROP’S TRUE MOTIVES. Screw this bullshit. This proposition won’t fix anything, and any warm feeling you get from voting for it will be forgotten by June. Vote NO on 1F.

A Note On Presidential Pets

Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:17:00 -0700

We all remember George W.’s dog, Barney, and most of us remember the senior Bushes’ scribal pooch, Millie. The Clintons of course had Chelsea’s cat, Socks, and Buddy, the chocolate Lab that Bill got himself after everything went all wrong and he needed a friend. But can you name any of Reagan’s six dogs? (Only a Republican could name a Golden Retriever “Victory.” That poor, poor creature.) Jimmy Carter’s daughter Amy had a cat called Misty Malarky Ying Yang, which is a bit of a hoot, but as always, deeper history is far more entertaining. So:

Herbert Hoover had a Setter he called Eaglehurst Gillette. Calvin Coolidge had two raccoons, Rebecca and Horace, and two lion cubs, Tax Reduction and Budget Bureau. (Coolidge’s menagerie also included a wallaby, a bear, and a pygmy hippo.) Teddy Roosevelt, who apparently liked full names for his critters, had a garter snake named Emily Spinach, a cat named Tom Quartz, a macaw named Eli Yale, a hen named Baron Spreckle (some gender confusion, there), and guinea pigs named Dr. Johnson, Bishop Doane, Fighting Bob Evans, and Father O’Grady. William McKinley’s yellow-headed Mexican parrot responded (or perhaps not) to Washington Post, ha ha. John Adams, our second president, kept a dog named Satan, and his predecessor, old George Washington himself, had three staghounds — Sweet Lips, Scentwell, and Vulcan — and four coonhounds: Drunkard, Taster, Tipler, and Tipsy. It all makes “Bo” sound kinda boring, really.

Things I Have Read Recently That You Should Read Too

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:19:00 -0700

ITEM: What does one trillion dollars look like?
ITEM: I cannot visit New York right now, but reading a first-hand account of a subway adventure helps dull that pain. (Once again, yay for blogs.)
ITEM: Obama’s gift to Prime Minister Brown ruined by DVD region encoding.
ITEM: “Brain decline” begins at age 27, sez a University of Virginia study.
ITEM: Ray Ratto reminds us the present owner of the Oakland Athletics is a scoundrel.
ITEM: If you are a “content person” or a “Web 2.0 person” you have already read it; now everybody who loves newspapers needs to read it, too: Clay Shirky’s “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable”
ITEM: The wise man was wise indeed: Frankincense relieves anxiety and depression.
ITEM: Children with older fathers have lower IQs (and some health risks too). (And then again, IQ tests are shite.)

Fix Screwy Fonts in Firefox 3.1 on Ubuntu

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:09:00 -0700

Firefox 3.1 beta 3 is expected to arrive this week. If you’re running the current version of Ubuntu Linux, this new Firefox edition (codenamed ‘Shiretoko’) is already easily installable via an unofficial package repository.

However, due to an oddity in Ubuntu’s default font settings, the fonts in Firefox 3.1 look spindly and kinda bizarre (though in no way unreadable) on Ubuntu Intrepid (8.10) machines. (The same apparently happens in the nascent Jaunty (9.04) version of Ubuntu; it’s being treated as a bug.) This issue has been noticed over at Ubuntu Forums but no simple solution was forthcoming. Until now.

Here is a simple fix for the spindly, messed-up fonts you see in Firefox 3.1 if you install it under Ubuntu Intrepid (8.10). In a Terminal window, issue these commands:

sudo mkdir /etc/fonts/conf.disabled
sudo mv /etc/fonts/conf.d/10-* /etc/fonts/conf.disabled
sudo mv /etc/fonts/conf.d/53-* /etc/fonts/conf.disabled

You’ll need to restart X (press Control-Alt-Backspace after saving any unfinished work) for this to take effect. I’ve done this on both desktop and laptop machines. It’s fixed the Firefox 3.1 display issues, and I’ve noticed no side effects. If you experience side effects or wish to undo this change for some other reason:

sudo mv /etc/fonts/conf.disabled/* /etc/fonts/conf.d

As for Firefox 3.1 itself: Firefox 3.0 is great, but has always felt sluggish on my Linux boxes any time I’ve had more than two or three tabs open. (Yes, I have tried the various about:config voodoos you can find via Google; they have not helped.) With Firefox 3.1, I am experiencing dreamlike performance gains. The browser responds adroitly even with a couple dozen tabs open. The functional improvements in 3.1 strike me as minimal so far. What I’m noticing is the speed.