Talk about Effective

Now THIS is a good campaign ad:

2010 Endorsements

I understand that the Vote By Mail folks already have their ballots, so I thought I would do an endorsement post, or at least round up the best of what I understand people like me should want to vote for. I'll get some obvious and easy ones out of the way:

Gov: Jerry Brown

Senate: Barbara Boxer

Secy of State: Debra Bowen*

*favorite politician in Cali

I'll stop here to mention a couple of logistical things. If you'd like to Vote By Mail, it's not too late to sign up. In Alameda County, you can register to Vote By Mail up until October 26, but that seems like it's cutting it kind of close (since it's next Monday). If you vote by mail, don't forget to add extra postage; this year's ballot will cost 78 cents to mail. Back to work:

Lt. Gov: Gavin Newsom

Controller: John Chiang

Treasurer: Bill Lockyer

Attorney General: Kamala Harris

Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones

Board of Equalization: Betty Yee

9th Congressional Dist: Barbara Lee (although it would be nice to have a choice in this spot one day)

14th Assembly Dist: Nancy Skinner

If you live in a different assembly district, let me know, and I might have some idea how you should vote. For example, I like Sandre Swanson.

For judicial retention, the only judge I know on the list is Martin J. Jenkins and I can definitely recommend him. He used to be a federal judge, and he's very smart. I think he left the federal bench for financial reasons. How frakkin' sad is that? Federal district court judges make $169,300 a year - just slightly higher than a first-year associate at a major firm.

Speaking of judges, I think I am going to support Victoria Kolakowski for Superior Court Judge Office #9. She's in a run-off with John Creighton, who is in the District Attorney's office. Too many judges have law enforcement/prosecutor backgrounds, and Kolakowski's experience will provide more diversity of legal experience (among other things) to the bench.

State Superintendent: Tom Torlakson

AC Transit Director, at large: Joel Young (based solely on the recommendation of a co-worker)

Now, the Propositions are dicey. My first impulse is always to vote NO on all of them in protest of the whole govern-by-proposition process. But then I get in the weeds and find that occasionally a proposition does something that I want to happen, and it can't or won't happen legislatively. For example, Prop 25 lowers the legislative vote requirement to pass a budget from two-thirds majority to a simple majority (except for taxes). I think that's a good idea. California is completely paralyzed by its budget process. So Vote YES on Prop 25.

Prop 19 is a lot tougher. This legalizes marijuana for non-medical purposes. In general, I support legalization with a hold-my-nose proviso. Literally. I completely hate the smell of pot. Some amount of fear-mongering works on me in this area. On balance, I think that this is a good idea, and we might not have a better proposition or piece of legislation any time soon. YES on Prop 19.

Much easier: Prop 23. Vote NO. California's groundbreaking pollution control laws should be left in effect.

Sorry that I am skipping around here. I will summarize in order, plus add a few that I am too lazy to summarize for you.

Prop 19: YES

Prop 20: See below

Prop 21: YES (State Parks Trust Fund)

Prop 22: NO (would tie the state's budget hands even tighter)

Prop 23: NO

Prop 24: YES

Prop 25: YES

Prop 26: NO

Prop 27: See below

Prop 20 and 27 are the really tough ones. The voter guide I got is not helpful either. Props 20 and 27 are two sides to the same coin. Prop 27 eliminates the redistricting commission created 2 years ago that took post-census redistricting away from the legislature. Prop 20 would continue the redistricting commission. The Democratic Party opposes Prop 20 and supports Prop 27. If both pass, whichever initiative gets more votes will be the law. To understand why this issue is so difficult, read this blog post. It helps explain why the Democrats oppose Prop 20 but why maybe you should support it. I haven't decided on this one myself. I'm inclined towards supporting Prop 20, actually, but don't feel like I have all the arguments sorted out, partly because the Secretary of State voter guide has totally insane arguments about the topic. I'd be interested in what others think, if you've made it this far....

You are going to think this is wierd

The other day, I saw this really beautiful bird in a parking lot near my office. It was eating some loquats that had fallen from a nearby tree, and had beautiful red-orange feathers in its tail and at its neck. I tried to take some pictures but the bird waddled away before the iphone could snap. Anyway, I was super-excited to identify it today as a Northern Flicker. The one I saw was a male, I think, because it had a red mustache. Possibly the only beautiful red mustache in the world?

Don't worry that I am going to turn this into a birding blog or something. As you can see from my Twitter feed to the right, I actually commanded the people of Los Angeles to kill their roosters this morning after two woke me up with their infernal cawcawCAW before the sun came up. Stupid roosters of Los Angeles don't even know what time they are supposed to crow.

Musings

A lot of people think that the internet is speeding up information - that by having the internet available we can get information overload. I'm starting to find it has the opposite use. I'm not unique to notice this. Many critics argue that, on the internet, you never get exposed to alternative perspectives, or get news that's outside your interest, because you stay exclusively on sites that share your world view. I'm noticing a different kind of filter. Rather than only visiting sites that have content that I already care about, I am using the internet to block real time information that I might find upsetting. Like I can't watch this miner rescue on CNN, even though the TV is about 30 inches away from me. I'd rather have it filtered and screened by the internet, just in case something terrible happens.

And speaking of terrible things happening, did you know that squirrels can get depressed?!?!? Thanks to my mother-in-law who vigilantly reads the Bay Area news so I don't have to, I can now worry about renegade animal shelters. And what is the word where you believe certain species have a greater entitlement to rescue then others? Species-ist? That's me. DON'T RESCUE SQUIRRELS AND RACCOONS. It's called natural selection, bee-otches. Get used to it.

And speaking of Bay Area news, I strongly encourage you to read the Bay Citizen. They have some sort of strategic synergy etc etc with the NY Times, which has greatly enhanced the NYT's California coverage, and they are miles better than the SF Chronicle and the Oakland Tribune, truly two of the most craptastic papers in any major metropolis. If in fact that's what this is.

Other things you should read:

Sassydotnet: River Heights - My friend Beth is reading all the Nancy Drew books sequentially.

Irons in the Ring of Fire - My friend Edie is in Bali

Skin and Scares - My friend Jason covered True Blood all season for Slate and I didn't pay any attention but if you're the kind of person who is going through withdrawal for that show, then have at it.

One of these days, I will do an endorsement post, Oaklanders, I promise.