I have seen the future

Friends, I have seen the future, and it's canned.

As if a canned cheeseburger isn't enough, the article also notes:

"In keeping with supplying the essentials in their lightest form, there’s even a red wine that comes in powdered form supplied in single serve pouches for celebrating special moments. When reconstituted, the wine has an alcoholic content of 9.27%, which is lighter than normal bottled wine. A matching mulled wine has also been developed for expeditions in snow and the cold."

How thoughtful.

Maybe it's time

There's an article on time.com about whether Romney's conservative strategy is actually working.

"Second, Romney will spend much of the next week trying to drum up old conservative distrust of McCain, who leaves Florida with considerable momentum and already-high poll numbers in many of the states that vote on February 5. Though McCain has been hammered by some conservative voices, such as the radio host Rush Limbaugh, he has so far escaped the full ideological revolt that greeted him in 2000, when he lost the nomination to George W. Bush.

This final Romney gambit is likely to determine more than just the fate of one, well-heeled candidate. It could set the course for the Republican Party. In the old days, those who supported tax cuts for the wealthy worked closely with those who wanted to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. Those who wanted to grow the size of the military made common cause with those who saw global warming as an environmentalist scare-tactic meant to interfere with free markets. Those who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade also wanted to overturn campaign finance reform.

McCain, Huckabee and a nation of disconcerted Republican voters now threaten to reformulate that coalition. Romney is certainly not a lifelong member of the old conservative movement. But as it stands, he may be the only thing left to hold it together."

The quoted section above lays out the the differences that had been readily apparent in the Republican party- a moderate to libertarian business side and the southern strategy of using religion and morality; an uneasy grouping that has worked for the better part of 30+ years. What has changed to allow this fracture to be on the verge of splitting? I would like to say the last 8 years of Republican leadership and spending, spending, spending. . .but that would be too easy. While that does play a part in this rift, for me, it's the takeover of issues by the religious conservatives at the expense of the small government, lower taxes, stay-out-of-my-business side of the party, coupled with a culture that, like it or not, does not necessarily want a preacher as president (course, they don't want a lecturer either). At some point, small government/libertarian/free trade Republican voters have to get fed up with the current structure of the Republican party- I know I am.

I do not know if I want this grand alliance to continue- I think it's doing more harm than good. Why should environmental policies be dominated by the left, why can't Republicans make a business case for recycling or doing other cost-saving measures that also fulfill people's desire to reduce greenhouse gases- if it saves people money and provides some benefit to the Earth or at least people's consciences, then why not? There has to be an acceptance by Republicans, especially those in D.C., that there is a way to make headway on this topic, not only that money can be made, but that there can be and is a market for new products in this area.

McCain and Huckabee represent the two sides of this fracture- Huckabee, touting a religious populist message coupled with increasing government on what's good for you and McCain a deficit hawk first, but who doesn't hold "conservative" views on issues like immigration and campaign finance reform. Romney is attempting to portray Huckabee as someone who can't win, and aligns himself with the religiosity of Huckabee, but then tries to assuage the business Republicans by pointing out he's a businessman, he'll keep taxes low, all the while touting his get tough on illegal immigrants for the order-first Republicans. Can you be all things to all people? That certainly is Romney's task before him and we'll see if he can convince them.

In the meanwhile, in this space, I had been planning on saying that I was going to vote for Giuliani on Feb. 5, but that will obviously change. I might as well now say that I'm planning on voting for John McCain. As for why not Romney, well, I don't believe him. He's certainly eloquent, has charm, and talks a good game, but I simply don't believe him. To me, it all seems like a ruse to get a vote.

I am voting for John McCain for a few simple reasons- I think cutting government spending and curtailing the use of Congressional earmarks is very important (I'm only too sad that President Bush isn't following through on ordering federal agencies to ignore the most recent earmarks, not to mention the previous 7 years worth of earmarks), I too prefer cutting deficits first then taxes (as long as spending cuts go along, can't have one without the other), and I still support the war in Iraq (whether we should have gone there in the first place is a separate question, but we're there and it would be far worse if we left too early).

I certainly hope that if McCain gets the nomination, conservatives don't sit this one out- For all the faults they may see in McCain, letting Republicans "earn a lesson" is probably not the best strategy for the future, unless being marginalized is the goal.

Propositions 94-97

Well, I've put this off for as long as I could. It wouldn't be a voter guide without discussing these propositions.

Props. 94-97 are compacts with 4 Indian tribes, all located in southern California. Without getting too much into the funny business that accompany these compacts (how do you exactly lose compacts?), the fundamental question regarding these propositions is simple- do you like gambling? The SacBee's Daniel Weintraub laid this out in his editorial from today. Personally, I don't mind gambling- I have a good time playing blackjack and Texas Hold-Em, but I don't really bother with slot machines. There are some other issues relating to these compacts, primarily- do you like unions and do you like the environment, but we'll get to those later.

So, what does each Proposition do?

Prop. 94 is a compact with the Pechanga tribe which is in Riverside County. Currently, the Pechanga tribe has 2,000 slot machines, and make annual payments to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund ($3,000), which shares casino revenue with the other recognized tribes in California. It also makes payments to the Special Distribution Fund ($28.3 million), which covers any shortfall in the Revenue Sharing fund, pays for gambling addiction programs, helps pay for the agency that regulates casinos and makes grants to local governments. It also allows for the tribe to build and maintain two casino's on their property.

The compact would allow the Pechanga tribe to increase the number of slots to 7,500, increase its annual payments to the Revenue Sharing fund to $2 million a year, end payments into the Special Distribution Fund, instead, it would pay at least $42.5 million a year into the state's General Fund. Additionally, the tribe would pay an annual amount equal to 15% of the net revenues of the next 3,000 slots, and an additional 25% of net revenues if the tribe installs 5,000 slots. Net revenue is the amount of money that gamblers put in the slot minus the money paid out as prizes from the machine. The state would then use the payments into the General Fund to cover any shortfall in the Revenue Sharing fund. It does not increase the number of casino's the tribe can build and operate. Additionally, the compact requires tribes to have an independent audit of the casino's operations annually, and make that audit available to the state regulators. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the tribe could end up paying over $100 million annually by 2030.

As for the environment- the previous compact said that the tribe must make a good faith effort to reduce or avoid significant negative environmental impacts on its lands. This new compact says the tribe will prepare a draft environmental report, put it up for public comment, and reach agreements with Riverside County and any city that lays adjacent to the proposed casino, with the option for arbitration to settle any disagreements.

For the union, the proposed compact does not change the terms of the previous compact, which allows unions access to employees and any union formation is subject to a secret ballot vote by the employees.

Prop. 95 is a compact with the Morongo Band of Mission Indians in Riverside County. The Morongo currently pays $20,000 to the Revenue Sharing fund and $29 million to the Special Distribution Fund. The Morongo is authorized to operate 2 casinos with a total of 2,000 slot machines. The new compact will allow the Morongo to operate an additional auxiliary facility, with no more than 25 slot machines, increase the number of slot machines to 7,500, increase the Morongo's payments to the Revenue Sharing fund to $2 million, and pay a minimum $36.7 million to the General Fund. The same terms apply as above if the tribe increases the number of slots to 3,000 or 5,000. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the tribe could end up paying over $100 million to the state by 2030. The same terms apply as above to environmental and union issues.

Prop. 96 is a compact with the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation in San Diego County. The Sycuan currently pays $2.3 million to the Revenue Sharing fund and $2.6 million to the Special Distribution Fund. The Sycuan is authorized to operate 2 casinos and 2,000 slot machines. The new compact keeps the number of casinos at 2 (but adds 1,600 acres that may be added to the boundary of the reservation in the future- which, according to the San Diego Union Tribune is the result of the government losing the compacts, and is the basis for their No on 96, but Yes on 94, 95 and 97. I don't profess to understand these distinctions), but increase the number of slot machines to 5,000, increase payments to the Revenue Sharing fund to $3 million, and pay a minimum $20 million to the General Fund. The tribe would pay an amount equal to 15% of net revenues of new slot machines it adds after the compact takes effect. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the tribe could end up paying over $50 million to the state by 2030. The same terms apply as above to environmental and union issues.

Prop. 97 is a compact with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Riverside County. The Agua Caliente currently pays over $500,000 to the Revenue Sharing fund and $12 million to the Special Distribution Fund. The Agua Caliente is authorized to operate 2 casinos and 2,000 slot machines. The new compact allows the tribe to operate 3 casinos (with local support), increases the number of slot machines to 5,000, increases payments to the Revenue Sharing fund to $2 million, and pay a minimum of $23.4 million to the General Fund. The tribe would pay an amount equal to 15% of net revenues of new slot machines it adds after the compact takes effect. The Legislative Analyst estimates that the tribe could end up paying over $50 million to the state by 2030. The same terms apply as above to environmental and union issues.

Two additional points- 1) the Legislative Analyst's estimates are based on the tribes operating at their max ability and 2) the new compacts all expire on December 30, 2030.

Basic info on the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund- the fund distributes $1.1 million per year to each of the 71 recognized Indian tribes with no casino or have a small casino (defined as having less than 350 slot machines). There are 61 tribes that may pay into the fund (of which 26 actually paid into the fund during the 2007 fiscal year according to this report from the California Gambling Control Commission's Tribal information page).

If approved, these compacts will provide an extra $5.9 million per year to the Revenue Sharing fund, in addition to at least $129.6 million per year to the General Fund (at least $2.9 billion through 2030). Personally, I am a bit wary of estimates of $9 billion in new funding without more concrete numbers, as well as assumptions about where the money may go (especially since my impression is that these funds are all purpose funds, and can be used for whatever the legislature wants) and any budgetary games that are played with these funds. That being said, at least $130 million a year is still $130 million and every little bit counts, right?

Digression- So far, I have received two mailers regarding Ess Eff's Prop. A and one mailer from the California Republican party, and it was on these Propositions letting me know that the California Republican party says to vote yes on Props. 94-97; no mailers from a candidate or any phone calls, which I can really only assume that that will change over the next week.

Ok, so where does all of this leave us? Frankly, I'm still not sure. I'm not opposed to gambling; the tribes, state and feds all worked on these new compacts (yes, I know how well that's worked before); the unions don't like it; and it's extra money- all of those things lead me to support these propositions. But I'm not really enthusiastic about it.

The ads opposing the compacts aren't all that persuasive to me, mainly because I don't understand the giving too much power to a handful of tribes argument. So, I went and looked at the supporters on both sides- the Yes group has 34 representatives/Indian groups/tribes on board, including tribes that do not have casinos (and receive Revenue Sharing fund money). The No group has 16 representatives/Indian groups/tribes (also opposing are my state senator, Leland Yee PhD, my state assemblywoman Fiona Ma, as well as Ess Eff Assessor Phil Ting and two members of the Board of Supervisors- Tom Ammiano and Chris Daly, ummmmmm. . .ok), including two tribes that currently pay $2 million each into the Revenue Sharing fund, and had their own amended compacts in 2004. What is that I smell? Ahhh, fear of competition.

One tribe that is a major donor to the No effort, the Pala, has a resort and spa that is billed on their website as "Southern California's Most Spectacular Playground™." The other, the United Auburn, operates a large Indian casino and resort near Sacramento. Both are the recipients of changes to their compacts in 2004 that, in the words of the Legislative Analyst Office, allows them "to operate an unlimited number of Class III slot machines in exchange for payments to the state General Fund for machines added after ratification of the compacts." According to the Pala amendment, they will pay an annual fee ranging from $12,000 per "gaming device" for 2,000 to 2,500 slot machines to $25,000 per gaming device for 4,500 or more slot machines. All of these funds go to the General Fund. The same language applies to United Auburn. Of course, the compacts that are being voted on in this election do not contain the same "unlimited" language. I'm not smart enough to run the numbers on which will pay the state more- percentage of revenue or fixed per machine rate? In any event, why am I not that surprised that the opposition hasn't brought up their desire to not have competition, instead they are using a blunt object over "fairnes," which is really only about which method of paying the state is better- percentage of net revenue or per machine charge. And I haven't even addressed the role of the race tracks. But, I don't think I need to.

Now, I'm more than willing to listen to reasons to oppose these compacts beyond no gambling ever and the misleading attacks from these competitors, but right now, I'm inclined to recommend a Yes on Props. 94, 95, 96 and 97.

VH-1 Classic 120 Minutes

So, I've been meaning to do this at some point, and figured, why not tonight (that, and I didn't really feel like talking about the State of Union or my long-awaited analysis of Props. 94-97).

Growing up in the early 90s, one of the shows I always taped was 120 Minutes with Dave Kendall. It was broadcast on MTV at midnight Monday morning (or something like that), and I would tape and watch it the next day. This lasted through college, and the days of Lewis Largent (who was terrible) and onto Matt Pinfield, as well as various "special hosts," who were just other musicians. I still have many of these episodes from the early and mid 90s on VHS tape. It was very exciting time for me, musically- I found a lot of new music from the show. Then it went off the air. One day a few years ago, I stumbled across VH-1 Classic and discovered they had a show called The Alternative, which played music videos of the bands I loved growing up from the 80s and 90s. The Alternative eventually was renamed to 120 Minutes. This is my blogging an episode of VH-1 Classic "120 Minutes" from Monday, January 28, 2008 broadcast at 1:00 AM Pacific.

I will skip the commercials, unless the ShamWow comes on- that thing looks awesome.

1) Concrete Blonde- Joey. I can't believe that I once liked this band. It must have been Johnette Napolitano's exquisite use of the crimping iron.

2) Boomtown Rats- I Don't Like Mondays. I suppose I should mention that this show repeats a lot of videos. . .I think this is the 15th time I've seen this video this year. Oh how I would love to go back and tell Bob Geldof to stop after "The Wall." Although he is wearing a sweet bolo tie and checkered sports coat in this video.

Fast Forward

3) REM- Orange Crush. One of my favorite REM songs, with a tasteful video by Matt Mahurin (who also did Metallica's "Unforgiven," and got himself in trouble with a photo he did for Time magazine that, shall we say, enhanced O.J. Simpson's skin color, but I digress). The vocals in this song are quite difficult in Rock Band, mainly because there's a whole batch of lyrics I didn't know were there after the "hut 2, 3, " that Stipe sings through a megaphone. One of my favorite REM bass lines.

4) Paul Westerberg- World Class Fad. Ok, I was never a Replacements fan- I know, being the indie fan I am, how can I say that? I don't know. . .Paul Westerberg's solo songs certainly don't help me with my opinion (although, the video for "Dyslexic Heart" does have an early Jeremy Piven, already being typecast as the asshole). So, video has Paul in a hotel room with a silver smoking jacket and pajama bottoms, then, with a pajama top and regular pants, then to full pajamas. Give it up Paul- I get it, you're lazy, errr, a slacker.

5) The Smiths- Panic. First off, I can't believe Panic! At the Disco dropped the exclamation point! Oh my God! Anyway, just a video of The Smiths live filmed over various scenes of some English city (I'm gonna go with Manchester, for obvious reasons). Hang the DJ, hang the DJ, hang the DJ, Hang the DJ................

6) Talking Heads- Wild Wild Life. I always enjoyed this video, and it took me forever to realize that most of the singers in the video are various members of the Talking Heads in different costumes. Oh, and it has a thin John Goodman, who was in the movie "True Stories," which I was only able to get through once, despite also having the late Spaulding Gray. But really, John Goodman was thin, at least thinner. And it has the Mexican singer who's in all the Robert Rodriguez movies. That's an unbeatable video combination.

7) Green Day- Longview. Yawn. Nevermind that I had a poster of the full album cover which this song is on, appropriately it was on the door to the bathroom. Watching this video in college, a guy who lived across the hall from me would watch the video and this first time he heard the line "when masturbation's lost its fun..." he'd say, that's never happened to me. He was from Arkansas, had a girlfriend in Arkansas, but would sleep with a different girl every weekend- but it was ok because he remembered all their names. Anyway. . .

8) Morrissey- There Is A Light That Never Goes Out. An older Moz live, what a showman. Oh how I thought I connected with this song in high school and college. Now, I still like singing the song- it's fun because you can sing about getting hit by a double decker bus and a 10 ton truck- that's right, not just a regular bus, but a double decker bus.

9) Pearl Jam- Evenflow. How could you not like Pearl Jam in 1992- they were so earnest. Anyway, video is a live performance, Eddie Vedder showing off his head banging, the drummer showing off how hard he drums by flailing his hair all around, various stage divers. It was a much simpler time. I don't think there are any girls in this video- unless you count Stone Gossard. Hmmmm.

10) The English Beat- Best Friend. Pseudo ska courtesy of Dave Wakeling, one of the whitest men ever, and Ranking Roger, who I'm still not sure what he does (in this video he's bouncing around and waving a tambourine in the air). Dave is playing his Stratocaster backwards and upside down- it's a right handed guitar and he's left handed. . .how Jimi of him. Wakeling and Roger later form General Public and play the same songs. Yeah, I know, not very interesting.

11) Jane's Addiction- Jane Says. This video is from the reunion show with Flea on bass. I don't know, I think this is a reunion that I could have done without- did we really need to ruin our memories of the punk Dave Navarro with what he became? They had their place, which is where I'll always remember them. I still like this song though.

12) Bjork- Big Time Sensuality. Bjork. A flat bed truck. New York City. Really, I don't think anything more needs to be said.

One hour mark.

13) Depeche Mode- Strangelove. The obligatory Depeche Mode video. An artsy black and white video, following a moody Dave Gahan and a woman, who's is in various modes of undress, around Paris. Andy Fletcher and Alan Wilder reprising their filler roles- really, how underappreciated were they in these Depeche Mode/Anton Corbijn videos. Course, what was Andy Fletcher doing in Depeche Mode to begin with; if Adam Clayton is the luckiest man alive, then Andy Fletcher is certainly up there.

14) The Pixies- Here Comes Your Man. I read somewhere that they were really high when filming this video. It makes sense, although I don't know why Dave Lovering looks so serious- maybe he's the paranoid type. My favorite parts of this video are all the faces Joey Santiago makes, and Black Francis' big head and blinking eyes on the final pan of the band.

15) Bad Religion- American Jesus (Version 2). I don't know what Version 2 means, because this looks a lot like the version I remember. Anyway, Greg Graffin walking around with goggles on his head- must have borrowed them from the lab where he was working on his doctorate in zoology. Lots of crosses. I think this song means something.

16) INXS- Original Sin. Michael Hutchence on a motorcycle. Just seems appropriate, no? And it has the goofy guy with big glasses who plays the guitar, then out of nowhere, is playing the sax (which reminds me, at some point I will have to rue about the lack of saxophones in today's music- whatever happened to all the cool bands having a sax player. . .I haven't figured out who to blame yet).

17) The Replacements- The Ledge. CURSES! Never tempt the 120 Minutes gods. Video has the 'Mats sitting around, doing nothing. I suppose I could go on about how the video represents the ennui of modern youth and the protagonist of the song, but, really, I bet they had like $20, and they spent $18 of it on hair products and Ripple.

18) U2- Mysterious Ways. The obligatory U2 song, normally it's within the first 3 songs. Anyway, I really don't have anything to say about this video- Bono doing his thing, the rest of band interspersed throughout. Interesting, another Stephane Sednaoui video, who also did Bjork's "Big Time Sensuality."

19) Throwing Muses- Juno. Live footage of the Muses (featuring Tanya Donnelly) with scenes of a housewife wringing her hands, making eggs, kneading dough, wringing out a cloth, and someone on a beach. . .I don't get it. At least the song is short.

20) XTC- Dear God. There's always an XTC video, and most of the time it's this one. I always watch an XTC video, even this one. People in a tree and Andy Partridge sings a child's letter to God, then beats the hell of the tree with a hammer- a ball peen and a claw hammer, ooooh. The violin/fiddle players in the tree always annoy me since they aren't even trying to play.

21) Sinead O'Connor- The Emperor's New Clothes. Sinead prancing around a stage, under 1 light bulb. It's a one person play with lights, leaves falling around her, then feathers, and people in the audience really getting into it- don't know why. Oh, disco balls are out. Fast forward.

22) Wire- Ahead. At least it's not "Eardrum Buzz." I actually like this song, course, I'm partial to the post-punk stuff. I don't really have anything to say about the video. Sorry.

23) The Cure- Friday I'm In Love. The band dresses up in different costumes as the backdrop changes often. Robert Smith stays in his untied hightop gym shoes. I don't understand why there are Laurel and Hardy impersonators though. I still like this album. The song? It's almost like the Shiny Happy People of that album, just not that annoying.

24) Dramarama- Haven't Got a Clue. I think they are supposed to be playing a house party. A fake hand in the fridge; a chimpanzee; Santa Claus; people watching slides on the refrigerator door (and enjoying them!). Yeah, I haven't got a clue about this video.

25) Doctor and the Medics- Spirit in the Sky. Ok. . .a guy that is made up with white face, big curly-q eyebrows and really big hair (frankly, he looks like a reject from Cats) singing Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky." This isn't right.

That is the final song of the night- quite a disappointment overall. Although, my DVR runs over into regular VH-1 Classic programming, and what a classic I'm treated to- George Harrison's "Got My Mind Set On You." I've always wanted to know who he smiles/smirks at in the video that's off the set, not to mention who did he think he was fooling by using the body double to do that little dance.

Good

California State Senate Committee on Health rejects Governor Schwarzenegger's health care plan.

Sic em Bears!

Baylor 116 - Texas A&M 110 in 5 overtimes. Andy Katz has a nice article about the game and how it wasn't broadcast (two big 12 teams both in the top 25 not broadcast. . what was the Big 12 and ESPN thinking, showing Mizzou/Texas Tech instead). I couldn't even get a radio broadcast of the game, so I spent the majority of the game waiting for Yahoo and CSTV to update its play by play. This all follows another article on espn.com by writer Dana O'Neil about the resurgence of the Baylor men's basketball team since the events of 2003.

Baylor is now 16-2 and 4-0 in the Big 12- needless to say, I'm extremely happy for my alma mater. Baylor men are ranked 25 in the AP, Baylor women's basketball is ranked 6th, Baylor softball is ranked 8 and Baylor baseball is 15th. It certainly helps take the sting out of the football season, and I'm going to enjoy this while it lasts.

Baylor's next game is this Saturday at home against Oklahoma at 3:00 PM Central- it will be broadcast on ESPN Plus.

Health Care Update

UPDATE-

State Senator Sheila Kuehl, chairwoman of the State Senate Health Committee announced that any vote by the committee on the Health Care bill will not happen until Monday. State Senate pro Tem Don Perata has said that he would not load the Committee with yes votes, so, unless that's a lie, he can 1) pressure a Republican to vote for it or 2) ask State Sen. Kuehl (who also opposes the bill) to let the bill go to the Senate floor without a vote.

With a budget deficit of $14.5 billion, and a budget package that calls for a 10% cut in spending, how adding $14 billion in new spending works, doesn't really make much sense to me. But then, I'm not an elected official.

I suppose Whole Foods counts

Whole Foods has announced that they will eliminate plastic bags from all their stores by Earth Day this year. For those of you who expect me to rail against Whole Foods for getting rid of plastic bags, guess what, I'm not going to do that. Why? Frankly, I don't care if a business wants to do something like that on its own. It's when governments (primarily city, such as my own Ess Eff and others like Oakland and Seattle) start mandating changes like this (much like my opposition to smoke-free legislation- if a business chooses on its own to not allow smoking, fine with me, I get to come home not smelling like smoke). If offering plastic bags was bad for business, they wouldn't offer them. But, with a general emphasis on "protecting the earth," companies can now sell themselves on their greenness.

Personally, I like plastic bags because it makes it easier to clean cat litter boxes- but, if I can't get plastic bags, I suppose I'll just use the paper bags I'm now getting, or, I'll go shopping outside of Ess Eff where I still can get plastic bags.

For those of you eagerly awaiting an analysis on Props. 94-97, I had planned on putting it up last Monday, but one of the cats decided that a cold, rainy San Francisco day was the perfect day to sneak out of the house and go on an adventure. He was found several hours later, a little wet and dirty, but in one piece. So, that analysis will have to wait.

In the meantime, allow me to say Good for You! to California State Senator Leland Yee, Ph.D (who represents the district I live in, and includes the Ph.D as part of his name, apparently) for just saying no to the behemoth that is the proposed California universal health bill. Yee's opposition now leaves the bill one vote short of passing the committee, even though I have no doubts that the Democrats in the State Senate will find some way around this minor barrier. In his press release announcing his opposition to the health care bill, Sen. Yee notes: "This bill is like telling someone who is in need of help, 'I'm going to give you food, but I'm going to take away your clothes.' At the end of the day, the person is still poor." I find this statement fairly amusing because I'm reminded of an anecdote about the difference between Republicans and Democrats:

A car with a flat tire is on the side of the road.

A Republican drives along, sees a car with a flat tire on the side of the road, and figures, who needs help fixing a flat tire and keeps on going.

A Democrat sees the car and stops to help. The Democrat fixes the flat tire but in the process accidentally sets the car on fire.

Prop 93 Update

Earlier, I posted my recommendation on Prop. 93 as a No. After reviewing the language, and two articles on it, it appears that part of my analysis for opposing Prop. 93 is wrong. I note that it would re-start the clock on legislators, not resulting in any meaningful change for 12 years. It appears that my reading of the legislative analysts report was wrong, and after looking back over the text of the proposition, I can say that I mis-understood the "re-setting of the clock."

Also, I have reviewed two additional pieces on this proposition, both from Republicans on why Prop. 93 should pass. The first is an op-ed written by Gov. Schwarzenegger that appeared in the L.A. Times on January 15, of which there have been numerous articles about. The second is an article written by State Senator Jim Battin that appeared in today's Flash Report.

Let me first address my own review of Prop. 93. The first two points about Prop. 93 remain- I have no problems with reducing the years one can serve from 14 to 12 and allowing those years to be spent in whatever form that person chooses (although, logically, it means 2 terms in the assembly and 2 terms in the senate). My issue remains with the language that, in essence, exempts current legislators that would otherwise be termed out and allows them to remain in office up to 12 years. How my analysis changes is that I originally read that as to mean that legislators re-started at zero, and could then stay for 12 additional years. After further review, my original analysis was wrong, and the text means that in addition to however many years that individual has already served in their current house, they can serve additional terms adding up to 12 years. For example, under the current term limits law, a person in the assembly is limited to 6 years in office (3 terms). If Prop. 93 passes, those legislators would now be allowed to run for 3 more terms (6 years) in the assembly before hitting their 12 years. A term-limited person serving in the senate would be allowed one more term, since their terms last 4 years. All told, a legislator who is termed-out for this cycle could spend a total of 18 years in the legislature, instead of 16 as originally passed by the voters.

Even with that new analysis, I still do not believe that changing the rules and allowing current members who are term limited out to benefit from the rule change is correct.

I will note that I completely agree with the Governor's analysis of the problem with term limits- it's creating less thoughtful legislation, legislators are not allowed to build experience with a topic (much less the legislative process), and, as a result, are often being overwhelmed with lobbyists. This is indeed a problem with term limits, and one that needs to be addressed (I really do not have an opinion on term limits; I understand the need for some turnover, but at the expense of institutional knowledge is a choice that I haven't made yet). I don't really care that the Governor backed away from his pledge to not support term limit reform without redistricting reform; if this term-limit proposal was more fair, I don't think most conservative bloggers/columnists would care either. But the exemption language remains the sticking point. Then to read Sen. Battin's plea to pass Prop. 93 so that term-limited Republican legislators can run again and keep the seat just reinforces my concerns with allowing current term-limited legislators a break.

So, I still say No on 93.

A two-fer. . S.F. Props. B and C

Today, we look at San Francisco Propositions B and C.

Proposition B would create a new deferred retirement option for the city's police officers. Specifically, if a police officer hits their retirement period, he or she can choose to enlist in a new program that would defer retirement for three years, allowing the officer to continue earning their salary, but deferring retirements benefits for those three years. The proposal will then be re-evaluated after three years.

I do not see how this is anything but good for the city. It allows time for the city to recruit and train new police officers, yet keep a steady level of active duty police officers, which are definitely needed, as well as keeping some well-needed experience available to new recruits.

This proposition is fairly straight-forward, and a good idea.

Therefore, I recommend a Yes on Prop. B

Next we are faced with Proposition C.

What a waste of time and effort. It asks if it should be city policy that Ess Eff try to obtain Alcatraz Island from the federal government and turn it into a "Global Peace Center." Really? Even though it is nothing more than a statement of policy, the audacity of people to get this on the ballot is astounding, not to mention that they found enough people to sign this (and apparently verified by the city). But, in an effort to do a sound analysis of this, I will say. . .with the City facing deficits, the cost of acquiring Alcatraz would be crippling, then the cost to the city to pay for the destruction of the prison, the required clean up of the prison (and who knows what fun stuff is on the island), the construction of this new center, the expected upgrades in transportation to and from the island, and the costs of running and maintaining said center, the costs to do all of this would be very expensive (which the ballot supporters project to be $1 Billion (with a B)), money which the City does not have.

Therefore, I recommend a No of Prop. C.

Uncomfortable

So, here's a situation that really can only happen to a guy.

Was in the men's restroom here at work, and was at the urinal. There are two of them, with a little divider between the two. Right to the left and perpendicular to the urinals, is a bank of 5 stalls, the furthest one being the handicapped stall. So, I'm at the urinal, and the stall next to the handicapped one is occupied. A guy walks in and promptly walks right behind me into the first and closest stall to the urinal and where I'm standing. Really? You had to choose that exact stall, you couldn't have chosen the second stall, which would have allowed 1 stall between you and the 4th stall and 1 stall between me and you? You had to choose the one right next to me? Not cool at all.

Ok, with that rant done, let's move on to the City of Berkeley.

Now, I have my problems with the City of Berkeley, but they've surprisingly done some decent things like criminalizing sleeping on the streets and so forth, but today, they've undone all that. Today, the Chronicle reports that Berkeley has too many memorial benches. According to the article, these benches, that people pay to be installed in 2 parks in Berkeley as a way to memorialize and remember family members, are "destroying the "visual character" of the city's "parkland and urban forest."" Deputy City Manager Lisa Caronna further notes that

"Do we want plaques and memorials strewn over our public parks?" she added. "A lot of people are offended by it - they feel that the reminders of other people's family and friends diminishes the feeling of freedom and peace you're supposed to have in a public park."

Really? A bench is offending people and diminishes a feeling of freedom and peace. . .in a park?

They are considering limiting the ability of people to pay the City to install a bench unless that person had "a transcendent relationship between the park and the individual." Now, one definition of transcendent is "Being above and independent of the material universe." So, how would the city define "transcendent"? For example, couldn't the spirit (or even a memory) of a dead person be transcendent? And couldn't that spirit then be linked to that park, say. . by a bench that allows a family member to sit and remember that individual, perhaps bringing an internal peace to that family member? What a terrible thing that would be.

Good news and bad news

Bad news first, 9th Circuit granted Ess Eff's request for a stay of a lower court's order that would have gutted Ess Eff's universal health care coverage.

Good news, the state appeals court let stand a lower state court ruling that overturned a proposition passed by the City outlawing the legal possession of a handgun by city residents.

Guess which story got a bigger headline on sfgate.com?

Time for a break

Just to show that it's not all fun and games here, today I'm going to talk about the Baseball Hall of Fame announcement. In case you missed it, Goose Gossage was the only player to receive enough votes to be enshrined in Cooperstown this summer. To that I say Congratulations Goose, it has been a long time coming, and, like Rob Neyer, I don't really expect another reliever to get in until Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera become eligible (sorry Lee Smith, John Franco and everyone else).

But, let's look at the next 5 highest ranking nominees (to be inducted, player needs to receive 75% of the vote or higher, or 408 votes this year).

Jim Rice got 392 votes (72%)
Andre Dawson got 358 votes (66%)
Bert Blyleven got 336 votes (62%)
Lee Smith got 235 votes (43%)
Jack Morris got 233 votes (43%)

After that, the only new player that received more than 5% of the vote was Tim Raines, who got 132 votes (24%).

Here is a comparison between this year's results and last year's results for Goose and the next 5 highest:

Goose increased his vote total from 388 (71%) to 466 (86%), an increase of +78

Jim Rice increased his vote total from 346 (63.5%) to 392 (72%), an increase of +46

Andre Dawson increased his vote total from 309 (57%) to 358 (66%), and increase of +49

Bert Blyleven increased his vote total from 260 (48%) to 336 (62%), an increase of +76

Lee Smith increased his vote total from 217 (40%) to 235 (43%), an increase of +18

Jack Morris increased his vote total from 202 (37%) to 233 (43%), an increase of +31

As the change in votes notes, Goose and Bert Blyleven received the biggest jumps in support from last year. Coupled with a weak first time list of nominees (only Tim Raines survived the 5% cut) and the Cal Ripken/Tony Gwynn monster from 2007, it should not be surprising to find new support for some long-time nominees. There are some interesting voting patterns over the past 3 years regarding these nominees- between 2006 and 2007, only Goose and Rice increased their vote totals. Goose went from 336 in 2006 to 388 in 2007, and Rice went from 337 in 2006 to 346 in 2007. So, the addition of Ripken and Gwynn obviously played a role in the voters' minds. Which on the one hand is understandable, but on the other, is not. In a year with weak candidates (2006 only Bruce Sutter was inducted-questionably- and 2008 only has Tim Raines as a viable candidate), the voters appear inclined to vote for those they may not ordinarily vote for, and become more stingy with their votes when big names are on the ballot. Why? I have no idea, other than when compared to big names (like Ripken and Gwynn), those players don't "feel" or "look" like hall of famers, I suppose.

Let's look at Bert Blyleven: 2006 vote he got 277 (53.3%), 2007 vote he got 260 (48%), and 2008 he got 336 (62%). While his career numbers have obviously not changed, his vote totals have slowly been rising since his first year of eligibility in 1998, which is when his career numbers probably looked the best (for example, when he retired, he was 3rd in career strikeouts, now he is 5th). In essence, he is a poor man's Don Sutton (and it took Sutton 5 times to make it). Sutton finished with 324 wins over 23 seasons (774 games, 756 games started, 178 complete games and 58 shutouts), Blyleven finished with 287 wins over 22 seasons (692 games, 685 games started, 242 complete games and 60 shutouts). Basically, Sutton started 71 extra games and won 37 more games, but Blyleven had 65 more complete games, 2 more shutouts and 127 more strikeouts in fewer starts.

If we look ahead to 2009, only two names appear to be able to surpass 5%: Rickey Henderson and Mark Grace. Rickey should be first ballot, but is he a big enough name to suppress Rice, Dawson and Blyleven's vote totals? It would certainly appear that Rice, Dawson and Blyleven are on their way to future induction, however, Rice only has one year left of eligibility, Blyleven has four and Dawson has 8 years left. I also expect Tim Raines' vote totals to increase over the next few years.

As for Mark Grace, I simply throw out this fun stat- Mark Grace had the most hits of any player in the 1990s, and every other decade's hits leader is in the Hall.

Along with Rice, Tommy John is also in his final year of eligibility before the baseball writers; if they do not reach 75% in next year's election, their fate moves on the Veteran's Committee, which is a whole other ballgame. I suspect the same fate awaits Lee Smith and Jack Morris, along with Dale Murphy, Dave Parker, Alan Trammell and Don Mattingly.

At some point I suppose I should put up my obligatory list of Hall of Famers that should not be in the Hall of Fame, and my list of players that should be in the Hall of Fame. But I'll save that for another day.

Prop. 93

Or, How I Am Trying to Pull A Fast One on the Voters and Extend My Time in Office Another 12 Years, by Fabian Nunez.

There are three simple things this proposition does, two of them good, one of them not. First, it reduces the total amount of years a person may serve from 14 years to 12 years. Secondly, it allows a person to serve those 12 years in any combination of state senate and assembly. Thirdly, it restarts the clock for everyone currently serving in the Legislature. So, let's do this quickly.

1) Sure, reducing the years on can serve from 14 to 12, why not. It would make it easier to mix and match the ability to serve in the state senate and assembly.

2) Again, sure, if someone wants to spend all his time in the assembly or the senate, why not.

3) Ahhh, here's your trouble. The true intention of this proposition makes itself clear- this is nothing more than an attempt by certain members of the legislature Fabian Nunez to stay where they are and re-set the original term limit proposition. Does there need to be changes to the term limit rules? Sure, see items 1 and 2, but that change surely can be affected sooner than 12 years from now, because that's effectively when the changes will fully take effect. The term limit law is clear- 3 2-year terms in the assembly and 2 4-year terms in the state senate. This proposition re-sets the clock and allows all current members of the legislature a clean slate to stay in office for another 12 years, for a possible total of 26 years. I certainly do not think that when the voters passed the original term limit measure they expected this.

Therefore, I recommend a No on 93.

Prop. 92

Before I tackle Prop. 92, a few words-

1) After writing my review of Prop. 91, I figured I should go back and compare it against Prop. 1-A to make sure that Prop. 91 is irrelevant. After reviewing and comparing them, I am satisfied that Prop. 91 is irrelevant, and, for that matter, Prop. 1-A looks to be the better of the two. So, No it is.

2) Congrats to Obama for taking the Iowa Democrat caucus and Huckabee for taking the Republican caucus. I won't harbor a guess as to who will eventually win the Democratic nomination (let's say I'm voting present), but as for Huckabee- I'm not a fan, add the fact that some 60% of Iowa voters that identified themselves as evangelicals voted for him, leaves me extremely uneasy; course, Pat Robertson came in second in the Iowa caucus in 1988, it's not that surprising). I'll be looking for New Hampshire to bring about some more encouraging voting patterns.

3) My friend Vansmack and I have been putting together a voting guide the past few elections, so you can find any rebuttal or comments over there. He's also keeping a board showing our recommendations.

On to the business at hand, and Prop. 92.

First off, it took me 6 tries to finally get through the analysis and come to any conclusion on it. So, here's what I know about Prop. 92-

1) It changes to formula for appropriating education funds to the community college system;

2) Lowers fees to $15 per unit and limits the ability of the legislature to increase those fees; and,

3) Formally recognizes the community college system in the state constitution and increases the Board of Governors from 17 seats to 19 seats.

Change to Formula-

Currently, funding for K-12 and community colleges is set by Prop. 98, approved in 1988. What Prop. 92 proposes to do is revise the formula for community college funding to population based (K-12 funding is currently set through attendance percentages). So, the state has a certain amount of money from the General Fund that it uses for education expenses (around 40% or so). That pool of money is the divided up between K-12 and community colleges. According to the voter guide, community colleges get about 10% of that pool. The proposition proposes to change the growth factor for community college budgets to be population based, specifically, the population of 17-21 years old or 22-25 year old, whichever is higher, with a bonus for years when unemployment exceeds 5%. It is important to note that while it ties the growth rate to population, it makes no accounting for enrollment. So, regardless of how many people actually enroll and attend community colleges would not be taken into account, only population (even if that increase does not match enrollment increases). In short, this proposition seeks to increase funding for community colleges at the expense of K-12 education, especially in years where the young adult population grows at a higher rate than K-12 attendance rates, or increase overall funding on K-14 education (at the expense of other budgetary priorities).

Fees-

The proposition also sets per unit fees at $15 and limits the ability of the Legislature to raise those fees. Specifically, fees can be raised by the percentage change in per capita personal income or by 10% (whichever is lower), however, the per capita change is then rounded down to the nearest dollar. What that means is if per capita personal income does not rise by 6.7% a year, the fees stay at $15. So, if fees ostensibly are there to help fund education, and funding levels are expected to increase under this proposition, but the fee portion of this is likely to stay at $15, how will the state make up the difference? As noted above, the formula change is likely to increase the percentage amount of education funding taken out of the general fund to make up the difference for K-12 funding, couple that with less money coming from fees, that can only mean less money going to other projects, OR an increase in taxes to pay for the lost money.

Community college recognition and Board of Governors-

There really is no problem with this section. It adds recognition of the community college system to the state constitution, which is no big deal. Secondly, it increases the number of seats on the Board of Governors from 17 to 19, and gives the Board more control over their budget. I'll skip over the part that wonders who will make sure the Board spends the money wisely, because the Board should be in a better position to know where money needs to be spent than the legislature or Governor.

So, what does this all add up to? First, some recent news to add perspective. As recently reported by the Mercury News, Gov. Schwarzenegger looks to spend $6-7 billion on education reforms. I won't get into the details of it, but suffice it say, the majority of it appears to be for K-12 education. With a Governor that a) plans to increase K-12 funding, b) a state that is actually $14 billion in the red and c) looking at 10% across the board funding cuts, how does Prop. 92 plan to keep community colleges afloat? Even without these other circumstances, Prop. 92 doesn't appear to be able to accomplish all it promises without putting other priorities at risk.

Therefore, I recommend a No on 92.

Umbrage and Prop. A

It's as if the Examiner is daring me to take it on. So, here I am, one insignificant individual and I will dare take on San Francisco's Proposition A, full legal text is available here.

Prop. A asks for approval to issue $185 million in bonds to cover the costs of construction, reconstruction or improvement of 12 of the playgrounds located throughout the city, as well as 9 waterfront parks, and other upkeep. Additionally, it allows landlords to pass through 50% of whatever tax increase the city determines is necessary to meet its payment obligations to pay off the bonds onto its tenants (at least those residential tenants under Chapter 37, whatever that means). I should note that in the voter guide, the city controller could not outline what or how much that tax may be, noting that "the actual tax rate and the years in which such rates are applicable may vary." Heck, it doesn't even propose a schedule to pay off the bonds. In other words, who knows how much it will all cost in the long run.

Also, it will fund an oversight committee to oversee the expenditures and progress.

So, you may ask, what's the big deal? Think of the children and the quality of life that parks bring to neighborhoods.

Yes, indeed, all of that is good. What I am opposed to is that this whole bond mess is even necessary. As noted in the Examiner article, the previous playground upkeep bond that passed in 2000 was a mess and did not accomplish its goals. Even with the institution of this oversight committee, what is there to ensure that the committee abides by the rules of the bond, that this isn't another well intentioned bond proposal that goes awry by special interests?

Further, the text notes that in a 2007 Capital Plan adopted by the city, it outlined several areas that needed to be addressed by the city to upgrade facilities throughout the city. So, instead of weeding through the budget to find programs that can be cut, to make park clean up fit within a budget process, the city instead opts for a bond measure. If the city really wanted to upgrade the parks, it could find a better way through the budget, than through a bond measure.

I don't want crumbling and unsafe playgrounds, I don't want unkept walkways along the waterfront; I want everything the bond proposes to accomplish. But I want government accountability too. I want to make sure that the city isn't wasting current tax funds on wasteful projects, when that money could already be used towards upgrading our playgrounds and parks. Admittedly, I probably could have chosen a better bond measure to take this public stand (although I did vote no in the last election on the library bonds proposition for accountability reasons), because who will deny money to fix playgrounds. I certainly do not want to, but when the city (continually) decides that it will be easier to simply float some bonds, raise property taxes to presumably pay off those bonds sometime in the future, and not through their budget process, then I have to say something.

Therefore, I recommend a No on Prop. A.

What makes this even more interesting is a recent article in the Chronicle that notes that Ess Eff may not even have very many children living here anyway and even less in the future. According to the article, some see Ess Eff attracting young and single management-level workers, going out to clubs and fine dining, then getting married and finding housing too expensive and moving to the suburbs when they can raise children. Then, when children are off in college, moving back into the city. What type of populace this "new urbanism" results in is open to debate. You can begin to see it areas like Haight, where homeowners, looking to protect their investment and live in a safe environment, are beginning to respond to vagrants and homelessness. If this new urbanism does develop, where will these playgrounds fit in? If there are no children, who will use these playgrounds?

Finally, I would like to say Happy Trails to Rep. Tom Lantos, who announced he will retire from Congress at the end of the year due to health reasons. Best of luck to him and hope that he is able to enjoy many more healthy years.

Prop. 91

With the start of the election year beginning tomorrow, and with the California Presidential primary and election a month away, I suppose it's time to start reviewing the propositions on the ballot this February.

First up for today is an easy one- Prop. 91.

Basically, this proposition limits the ability of funds raised through gas taxes that are designated specifically for transportation and transportation-related projects. Historically, in tight times, the State has "borrowed" money from this fund to be used for General Fund shortfalls. Unfortunately, the money is normally not paid back into the transportation fund, limiting funding for needed transportation upgrades, such as seismic upgrades, highway repaving and so forth. So, Prop. 91 is a way to tell the state to stop raiding the transportation fund to pay for excess spending on pet projects.

Now, what makes this so easy is that it doesn't really matter what happens with this because Prop. 1-A was passed last November, which accomplishes the same goal. In fact, the sponsors of Prop. 91 are advocating voting no. As stated in the Voter Guide under "Arguments in Favor of Prop. 91": "VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91. IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED. As the official proponents of this measure, we are encouraging you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91."

In any other circumstances, this would be a Yes. In order to meet the transportation needs of the state, funds from gas taxes need to be allocated for the reasons they are being raised- transportation. However, with the passage of Prop. 1-A last November, and at the urging of the supporters, I recommend a No on 91.

Coming up- I suppose I should talk about Iowa, but I don't really expect anything to be settled. But we'll see what happens or if there are any surprises.