Driving While Texting

Christmas time replete with "Jingle Bells" and the feeling of peace on earth good will toward men is quickly replaced with the race to New Year: a festive atmosphere of resolutions, fireworks and partying with Akon's "Smack That" in the background.

Thinking about this often intoxicating atmosphere made me question an electric freeway sign I saw driving to Sacramento from the Bay: "No Texting while driving on Jan 1". I thought to myself: the cops must be worried about people driving and suddenly overcome with the urge to text HIPPY NEW YARE! to their friends. Surely this phenomenon would be limited to these days of celebratory devotion where party-goers blur their good judgment and reality with a panoply of gleeful hedonisms.

Seriously: why the heck would any one text while they are driving unless they deft?

Apparantly many more than I would have thought.

The warning is not just FOR new year ringers, it is a new law coming into force on January 1st.

What struck me as the most bizzare: the penalty is $20 for a first offense, and $50 for a second. There may be additional raises, based on a point system. Here is the kicker: there is no record of the violation on an offendor's DMV record.

This made me wonder: if texting was such a problem, if it causes so many car accidents that it warrants a ban: why does the offense render such miniscule punitive measures? After all: getting caught drunk driving and you lose your license and go to jail. I am not arguing texting for 10 seconds and being a drunk-driver are equivalent, but rather, why would a law with such a puny punishment actually deter someone from committing the infraction?

It is true that the NTSB found a deadly L.A. train wreck caused by an engineer losing track while texting.

California is not alone in banning motorists from Driving While Texting (DWT). New York state has also passed legislation to stop DWTs after five high school students were killed while speeding and texting.

While I could not find statistics on DWT related accidents from the NTSB or the CA DMV, I am interested to find out what incentives motorists would see fit to keep them from texting while driving. If common sense is not enough: will losing a $20 bill actually do the trick?

No softballs for Kashkari, Merry Christmas for Auto-industry

I do not readily admit (and since my blog has a readership of 2, this doesn't count) to being an avid fan of C-SPAN. Generally taking a loathsome approach to 99% of T.V., CSPAN is one of those channels where I can simultaneously avoid commercials and dodge the media's analysis (forming my own) of the hot potato in the political world. CSPAN is the Sesame Street to MSNBC and Fox's telenovela styled drama.

Today's letter is: B. B is for Bailout.

1. TARP in the Financial Services Cmte.

The story in the U.S. Congress today was especially nail-biting, especially for a lame-duck session.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, among others, tore into Neel Kashkari - the Indian whizkid up at treasury managing TARP. Essentially lawmakers grilled him over why the Treasury has spent half of the $700 billion on what Robert Reich calls the worst kind of trickle down economics.

At one point I thought Representative Manzullo would jump out of his seat and give Kashkari one of those tough-guy chest pokes. Instead: he called for the Assistant Secretary's resigation. To quote the Honorable Manzullo (R-IL): "You sit here in charge of all this money, and you can't say if a $3 million bonus is excessive. If you cant take a position on a $3 million bonus in a failed company who is owned by the government ... on the basis of your answer I think you should step aside."

He charged that Kashkari (whose parents are from Kashmir) simply could not identify with his constituency (with a media income of 41K/annum and an unemployment rate of 11%). While this may have gone too far, you wouldn't have known it from Kashkari: he was the icon of Teflon Don. Perhaps he had to keep reminding himself where he was: the halls of a congress that passed a 400 page bailout bill complete with goodies and pickings and then expected proper oversight and 100% answers to what are undoubtedly complex. Perhaps Treasury should have appointed a comedian instead of a former NASA engineer.

Notwithstanding the house shows of frothing and anger: they got little from Kashkari who maintained that the bailout has made significant process despite having to make continuous changes based on "events on the ground." Another sign this TARP has been turned into a hot-air ballon and is now soaring above the rest of us who are mostly stuck with our bad assets and credit.

2. The Auto Industry may get their check with strings attached

After reading the full text (nearing 40 pages) of the bill, approved by some playing around with the House rules (of which I didn't fully understand), I felt not the least bit sorry for the thick strings and demands that lawmakers impose for the 14 billion "bridge loan" (to know where?) they are offering the auto manufacturers.

I do however feel that the bill fell short of what could have been specifics - especially with their wording on seeing progress toward "environmentally sustainability." Yesterday's testimony by Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook made it ever clear that if fuel economy targets and standards are not in the law, but are simply promises: they will not be adhered to. Unfortunately not one target was put in the bill. While this may not have been the venue for such an action, one thing is clear: congress had flights to catch back home. Rather than hash out the details for specific targets and incentives, they decided to defer this to a designated official by the President who will watch over the auto companies who receive loan monies.

While I am no expert, and therefore withhold comments on what I think of the to-be "President's designee" (Car Czar), if the bill passes the Senate, all I can hope for is someone who will not sit on their hands and let the auto companies take the money and drive off. While this seems unlikely to happen (as there are several stipulations in the bill to prevent this : I worry that we could soon be choking on the noxious combustion fumes of an auto industry that can't get its act together even with oversight. When this happens they'll be back (maybe in a new Escalade Hybrid) with, yet again, cap in hand.

I ponder who will be the next to line up as apparently the Christmas holiday has decided the needy are yesterday's zeitgeist and now 'tis the season to be charitable to failed big business. Congress may just give the big three a nice Christmas gift in their corporate stocking. They did it to save hundreds of thousands of jobs, so I hope it works. Lets hope the manufacturers don't return taxpayer money with coal.

Learning to Speak American (P1)

One of those melting pot sequences

Driving down Telegraph Avenue through Berkeley to Oakland and you might notice a slew of Ethiopian restaurants. If ones ventures toward the South Bay, opposite San Francisco, you'll hit the town of Fremont. With the sunroof down, you shouldn’t miss the rich smell of curry cooking if you go down a main drag. Keep driving south, taking a bit of a detour through Watsonville and Gilroy (home of the Garlic festival) and you'll pass strawberry and tomato fields filled with Latino-immigrant workers. A National Public Radio report today noted that Cupertino, a Silicon Valley city, just recently became majority Chinese. Veer off of the I-405 Santa Monica Freeway down Magnolia Street and you might find 80% of the signs are in Vietnamese. These immigrant enclaves in California, indeed America, are endless: anyone who has been to Queens , NYC can spot a Dominican, Russian, Colombian, Italian and Jamaican in one blink (though the may not know it).

There is no indicator better than immigration to refute any claim that America is something other than a bastion of hope, a beacon of possibilities. If such is the case, the 57.4% increase in immigration from 1990 to 2000 (some 11 million legal immigrants) is a telling sign In times of economic uncertainty, this has been cause for consternation - with anti-immigrant fervor always an incremental increase in the unemployment rate away.

Perhaps us Americans, fueled by our media, are prone to look at the huddled masses in the near-future, seeing a dismal increase in the unemployment rate, and bring up that tireless worry: will some foreigner get my job?

My job, as immigration paralegal for a prominent law firm, is directly related to this question. For some it is a question of a shot at the land of milk and honey; for those who see immigrant communities as a threat, or nuisance, they might wonder if our milk might sour and our honey disappear.

As a general blood-letting of the world economy ensues, the stock market indices continue to decline, firms suffer layoffs - of foreigners and otherwise - some wonder if, even done legally, its such a good time to allow porous borders.

In a three part series, I'll address what I have experienced as the concerns of both citizens and foreigners of immigration in a time of economic uncertainty. First: personal reflections on growing up with immigrants. Second: an in-depth view of those larger looming questions of immigration as "homeland security". Third: some hopes for our immigration system in this hybrid-mixed melting pot named after an Italian cartographer.

The White Guy

I grew up in a typical WASP household: Our church songs were morose and somber, “Get out ma’ grill” meant “Retrieve the grill, I’m gonna BBQ,” the word ‘gracias’ was made into a funny joke about hairy rear-ends, shoes stayed on in the house, we ate everything but 'finger foods' with silverware, hip-hop and rap were discouraged, and we buttered our rice.

Yet, unequivocally, most of my friends growing up and to this day have been from immigrant families/minorities. This circumstance has allowed me the pleasure of evaluating my norms along side others: church can have soul, you took your shoes off at the door, hip hop and rap are awesome, ‘get out my grill’ means ‘leave me alone’ I now speak very descent Spanish, know how to eat with the correct hand, and soy sauce, not butter, goes with rice.

At least since the beginning of Junior High, I have gravitated to people of other cultures. Perhaps it was my mother’s insistence that I learn some of my distant native peoples’ heritage, her own diverse group of friends, or maybe my Californian upbringing: for some reason I was usually the only white guy in the group. I quickly learned that this meant my friends of the same background could talk about me in their native tongue and refer to me as the whitty. Gorra, guero, gringo, nguoi tay, pute: they all refer to the peculiar state of being a fair-skinned person of a foreign connotation.

What’s in a name?

My culturally divergent counterparts seemed to gravitate to what I thought was typically American. Nowhere more than given names has this been driven into me. For instance: my friend Anoop of Indian decent (before I knew the difference in Indian) became ‘Snoop’ (after the Dogg himself), Sanjeet became Sonny, Asad is Sid, Huy became Danny, A-Qi morphed to Alphonse, Gustavo turned into Gus. As I noticed these distortions, I wondered what deeper sense propelled people to change their names. So, in my many years of being one of the few white guys in the group, it has never struck me as strange at all: everyone, it seemed, was in some way trying to integrate with what might be more largely perceived as the “dominant” ‘white’ culture. While this does not hold true for everyone, and certainly my buddies Jamal and DeShaun offer a different correlation (explored more by the Freakonomics guys), I gradually noticed that integrating in this Western Democracy meant practicing some creative license with ones name.

For more mainstream examples, I offer two up and coming public officials – Governor Piyush “Bobby” Jindal and Anh “Joseph” Cao. Both immigrated to Louisiana and, perhaps not so coincidentally, are Republicans. To top it off one need only consider President-elect Barack Obama, son of a Kenyan, used to go around calling himself Barry.

Code-crackers and Meat-packers

It is important to note that these prominent figures, as well as most of my friends’ families, have mostly immigrated to the United States legally. However, if the good graces of the United States had not allowed such legal immigration to take place, we would surely have a much less diverse populace representing Americans from jobs ranging from Secretary of State (Albright and Kissinger, both from immigrant families) to your typical software engineer from your computer conglomerate (of which I work with everyday).

Most assuredly, economics tells us, so long as they can get away with it and there remain profit incentives, there would still be a steady flow of people from other lands flooding ours - legally or not. Economic progress will always and forever be a driver for the movement of labor. Absent lawful ways of traversing national boundaries would mean a steadier stream of illegal aliens. These flows of ‘illegals’, however, would be relegated to the shadow economies of which millions do currently exist in – tidying up your gardens, slaughtering and shipping your meat, selling you ‘discounted’ perfume (and the best tacos), rearing our kids as nannies and building our bridges.

In order to explore some of the differences between legal and illegal immigration, prime examples of blunders for both, and where immigration fits under Homeland Security: you’ll have to wait until part 2.

Drug Policy under Obama?

I am currently studying drug policies and trade law in their correlation with harmful chemicals that affect rural population. As such, I decided to look to see what Drug Policy under an Obama administration might look like. The results of my brief search will likely disappoint progressive and conservatives alike.

"I've got two kids, so I don't want anyone pushing drugs on them. And we have to take that seriously as a crime... but we also have to recognize that if you have a non-violent drug offender... [especially a kid].. the worst thing you can do is lock them up for a long period of time, without education... without any skills or training where they can get a real profession," President-elect Obama began his answer to a question on 'drug policy' at a September election rally.

Obama candid in his response, clearly disdains drugs (though he admitted to enjoying them in his youth), but believes that the incarceration rates reflect discrimination saying that "If we are going to have drug laws, it shouldn't matter that you are dealing in public housing or in the suburb out of your moms back yard, that has to be a basic precept."


Shortly after his tenure to the senate began in 2004, Senator Obama made a statement (which the Washington Post re-published) in support of marijuana decriminalization, he also rebuked legalizing it; and switched positions 3 years later during a Democratic primary debate - joining the rest of his colleagues opposed to decriminalization. Elections are of course well known for their ability to inspire conformity, and while politically this was a smart move by the President-elect, it is also telling that perhaps he may not fully have an opinion on drug policies past his train of logic that: prison sentences mean you can't get a job, having no job means it is easier to turn to crime and that "at bottom or even the middle of the industry, drug dealing is a minimum wage affair," to cite from Obama's Audacity of Hope.

It is important to note that the President has considerable authority over federal drug enforcement: a 1983 Supreme Court ruling put federal drug funding discretion directly into the hands of the Executive. Therefore: while the Reagan, both Bush and the Clinton administrations appointed "drug warriors" who lead the Drug War to the "utter failure" as Obama once called, even if more sensible voices prevail, the enforcement authority ultimately lies with the White House.

So, if Obama is loth to disclose or has yet to form a solid opinion on where drug laws should go, perhaps taking a look at a few of the people likeley to be influencing his authority over the matter will give us a sniff of what a first-term administration may bring to the table.

First, VP-elect Biden was a gung-ho drug warrior in the 1980s. Among other tidbits he was a co-sponsor of the anti-drug abuse act of 1983 which lead to failed fumigation and interdiction policies as well as mandatory sentencing minimums, but was also landmark legislation to fight against money-laundering. In the 20 years since Biden championed drug policies, he has since reversed position on some of the minimum sentencing laws. Citing poor information, Biden called his 1986 legislation support a mistake, making comments that seem to be along the lines of his new boss: “The past 21 years has also revealed that the dramatically harsher crack penalties have disproportionately impacted the African American community: 82% of those convicted of crack offenses in 2006 were African American."

Second, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder has advocated for sentencing minimums for simple posession. Executive Director of NORML recently commented that [Holders]
"attraction to the myth of ‘fixing broken windows’ and using law enforcement to crack down on petty crimes will swell an already overburdened, bloated, expensive and failed government prohibition against otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to consume cannabis." To his credit, Holder represented the NFL during its dog-fighting investigation against former Atlanta Falcon Michael Vick.

Third, and least confirmed, is the rumored pick for Obama's "Drug Czar" (DC) spot - outgoing retiring Representative Jim Ramstad. The DC, who will run the office on national drug control policy, has those two R words which should get him in the door as a confirmation: Republican and Recovering. According to Politico.com, Ramstad is a recovering alcoholic - and a long time advocate of treatment for abuse. While this should point Ramstad in the right direction and give him the confirmation, according to the few articles I have read on the honorable representative, he has consistently supported federal raids on "medical marijuana clubs" and other places where the certain instances of marijuana selling is deemed legal (12 states in all). While this may change under an Obama administration that has flown towards the center, it would be nice to see Obama stick to one of his campaign promises to end such raids, saying that federal agents have better things to do like catching criminals and stopping terrorists.

The President-elect has tipped his hat at some of the policies he would prefer to see, citing the increased use of "drug courts" who assign treatment for substance abusers, signaling a relaxing minimum sentencing; and a criminal justice system that emphasizes training and literacy programs. The President-elect also discussed drug abuse as a public health problem, and would likeley support a resurgence of the 'harm reduction' debate especially concerning needle-exchange programs (which was killed by Clinton's drug Czar). Unfortunately, if the Ramstad rumors are correct, he may be trying to convince his boss otherwise.

In Summary:

The drug reform community is going to be frustrated with this first four years. A first term President with an economic crisis and two press-level wars will be tricky enough to handle. Decrminalizing marijuana, or really, veering much from the concocted but ultimately flawed narrative of a strong drug policy office as de-facto would put newly-elected Obama at risk. President Clinton's err of 'Dont ask, dont tell' out of the gates was a slaughter - providing enough red meat to check him in 1994. Even if the GAO gives current drug policies failure ratings, do not expect Obama to radically reform this part of his government first term.

Lets assume that Obama can keep some of these progressives happy, and does not alienate several of the blue dog Democrats and Bush-back-lash Republicans that voted for him and he is elected to a second term. Without fear of reprisal, Obama could cautiously and quietly decriminalize marijuana at the federal level - essentially telling his AG not to prosecute for non-dealing intent posession, at all - period. Moreover, President Obama could step up border-level interdiction but cut funding to DEA and DOD ineffective international drug erradication operations - a move if played right, could be shown as an anti-corruption move. These bold steps, combined with promoting research through NSF grants on addiction and drug research and a promotion of the top two or three state 'harm reduction' strategies and vet them for federal attention would be a huge step in the right direction.

Only time will tell whether Obama moves ahead with some slow and steady drug policy reformation, or we see his campaign overatures on the issues go up in smoke.

Why I would give a YES vote for S.F. Prop V

The proposition

Prop V caught my attention when I saw a story about it covered in the S.F. Chronicle.

Early this year, the San Francisco School Board decided that they knew what was best for the children of San Francisco and set in force a phasing out of JROTC in S.F. schools. They argued that the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program is a military recruitment tool not welcome in public education targeting youngsters. This would force the U.S. military sponsored program to ship out, pulling funding for the programs.

Proposition V, a citizens ballot initiative, would possibly curtail this decision by telling the board that the public supports JROTC in the city's public high schools if a majority of voters gave a YES vote.

Argument against

The League of Young Voters, whom I generally agree with, gave a NO endorsement. Here is why:

"This is a sensitive issue. We respect that there are some high school kids who feel very strongly about JROTC. They argue that San Francisco's JROTC is unique. It's gender balanced, unlike our current military with its institutional sexism and INSANELY UNACCEPTABLE sexual harassment and abuse of women. SF JROTC is 50% female, with women making up a majority of the leadership. There are also several out LGBT students. But ultimately, we just can't condone having a military recruitment program in our high schools targeting 14 year olds. The military pays half the cost of JROTC and hires the instructors. They're not doing that for altruistic reasons. They want more soldiers. Our members have a variety of perspectives about the military--from pragmatists to pacifists. But recruiting 14 year olds simply isn't cool."

More critical websites and positions posit that the JROTC system:

* promotes violence among teenagers and site incidences of gang related activity and mischief turned to mayhem by JROTC cadets

* Is a tool that targets most minorities to join the military

* Argue that there are better, more productive alternatives that high schools could utilize to create 'better citizens' (one of the mandates that JROTC operates under)

* Decry the U.S. military and anything associated with it as a tool to further U.S. imperialism abroad

Argument in Support

There are a number of reasons why I had to wrestle with this proposition in order to finally arrive at a supporting nod for it. Particularly, I graduated from Hiram Johnson High School in Sacramento, an inner-city high school where during my four years there we had four drive by shootings and almost daily gang-related fights. I served in my high school's highly decorated Air force JROTC programs in the state, if not the country. In fact, I graduated as a Cadet Lt. Colonel, and as our '99th support group commander' was fourth in command of the Wing. We had circa 400 cadets and three Aerospace Science Instructors (ASIs - the JROTC teachers). I applied to the Air Force academy but was rejected. I subsequently went on to accept an ROTC (college) scholarship though after a year of college, had completely changed my mind about going into the military.

By 2003, two years after high school, I was protesting the entrance of the United States into conflict with Iraq (and Afghanistan) and seriously had doubts about the nature of the United States as a force of good in the world, completely loathed the "kill people and break things" nature of the military and wondered if I had not been duped by some far-reaching conspiracy to turn kids into killers.

A few years later, after watching people with no experience with the military or JROTC/ROTC (college) level programs attempt to dictate a 'military recruiters off campus', I started to really think about what it was that I learned that made me edge away from the more... well.. outlandish and radical approach I felt I had been taking. So here are several counter-arguments that JROTC serves a bad example for our students.

1. Recruitment plays a very little part of the program. While it is true and undeniable that the JROTC offers high school students things like free rides on huey helicopters and AC-135 cargo planes, playing with cutting-edge flight simulators and the chance to look great in a uniform - the majority of things we learned as cadets were leadership skills and a chance to really explore the military and ask straight-forward questions to our instructors. From my experience, these instructors spend plenty of time with us and unlike recruiters, develop a rapport and a sense of trust with us . The instructors cared about their students, so they answered our questions honestly. If anything they try to caution the gung-ho people OUT of going into the military. We learned things like Time-Quality-Management, proper United States flag etiquette and how to properly dress and wear business attire. How many 14 year olds learn how to shine their shoes properly and keep a gig line?

2. The JROTC does not discriminate the way the military does. For instance: one of the Wing Commanders (the top cadet) my senior year was a 4.0 GPA student, co-commander of the heavy drill team who won several scholarships to college - not the military. She was openly lesbian. In fact, I recall several gay and lesbian friends in the unit, who joined precisely because of the tight-knit protective community that JROTC offered. It sure wasn't the 'fashionable' blues.

3. JROTC offered opportunities that other programs in my poor school didn't offer. We were the only students with our own lockers. We had free and open access to computers - and i personally had the privilege of setting up our program's computer network. We had a parent advisory board that my mom served on - every parent was invited to be active in the program, while the 'PTSA' was 'competitive.' Our program was the ONLY ONE on campus to mandate community service. We spent hours after school practicing or working on our local communities, volunteering.

4. My unit also offered our students a private gym and a place that was considered safe, devoid of the constant violence plaguing the school grounds. We were looked up to by teachers and administrators as people who they could often trust. While any number of students at any place sometimes take things to far - as is the case at some JROTC units with "gang" activity, my school served as a counter-weight: we looked out for each other and took people away from gang violence. Some of the students who started high school as wanna-be gangsters and joined JROTC either shaped-up or were shipped-out. Some saw the benefits and decided to stay.

Conclusion

Does the JROTC program partly have an aim to 'recruit soldiers'? Yes, undoubtedly so. My question must be: what is wrong with this? I would much rather have soldiers who have learned about the military (JROTC cadets receive a higher entering enlistment status or bonus pay in ROTC) rather than those who are just talked into it by on the street recruiters. Moreover, the skills learned are much more applicable than to just military situations. Are there some parts of the program I would de-emphasize? Yes, definitely so - including perhaps re-structuring cadet 'encampments' so that they do not place people into 'Stanford prison study like roles. Some critiques offer that there are other 'leadership driven community service organizations' can be replaced with JROTC that are not inherently tied to the military like. This may be true: but who will fund them? One of the best deals that JROTc has going for them is that it is funded by DoD - who also kick a percentage of their funding to the schools' general fund. I welcome all of the alternatives that include community service learning, leadership and teamwork building as can be funded and operated well. Unfortunately, our national priorities do not reflect this - and many local ones do not either. Instead of coming up with a viable alternative, and one of the main reasons why the San Francisco school board is faulty in its decisions, is that it would rather make a political statement than solve a problem.

JROTC is good for our communities. Do not let isolated incidences speak for the overall success of keeping students on track, volunteering and otherwise learning leadership and being included where they would probably not. Until we have something just as good that can reasonably replace it - we should keep it in our schools. Vote yes on Prop V.

Mike's voter guide

As a Contra Costa county/El Cerrito city resident, and a proud Californian, I'd like to offer my positions on the ballot initiatives and elected officials that I will be voting for this coming Tuesday.

President: BARACK OBAMA

Seeing as I just came back from working on the campaign in Lakewood, Colorado for two weeks for Barack, I don't see myself all of a sudden deciding that the Green party (which I'm a member of - though mostly vote Democrat) suddenly deserves my token vote. I dislike the two-party system. I dislike John McCain a lot more. Instead of me giving my reasons to vote for Barack, I'll direct any readers to The Economist's endorsement - which is far better than what I could do.

This is my first time voting for a Presidential candidate that has a chance of winning. Woohoo!

U.S. Representative (District 10): ELLEN TAUSCHER

I am new to this district, so I have not been following Member Tauscher for an extensive time period. When I lived in Berkeley I had a "Barbara Lee speaks for me" bumper sticker (until some idiot destroyed my car trying to steal it ), and absolutely loved Rep. Lee. The choice was easy.

Congresswoman Tauscher has missed few votes in her service to the house. She's the regional party whip and the chair of the New Democrats which makes me believe that the progressive caucus (which Representatives Lee and Kucinich, two of my favorite politicians are a part of) wasn't good enough for her.

This aside, I really could not find any particular voting record that struck me as a poor vote for her constituency. In fact, just the opposite, Member Tauscher:

- Voted no against renewing the harmful executive grab of our civil liberties enshrined in the Patriot Act

- Voted and has supported the Climate Stwardship Act

- Has pushed for the Equal Rights Amendment

- Supported the endangered species act

Not to mention, according to her Wikipedia biography (so unconfirmed), when she moved to California in the 1980s, she helped establish the first database for parents to identify and background check their child care professionals. While I am still found wanting of more information on Tauscher, it is clear that she has made sime very important and not easy to make votes for her district. Voting against the patriot act is tough business when she's got Travis Air force Base and a slim lead over Republicans in the area. Moreover, looking at her most serious opposition (Republican Nick Gerber), the choice becomes clearer. While I am not one to demand that being a house rep means you must have pages and pages of public service on your resume: Gerber has none. He looks like an extremeley smart entrepreneur: but he might want to start at a lower position on the totem poll before deciding that he runs for a house seat. At least Tauscher was an active campaigner for Democrats before she ran. Gerber does not seem to have any political track record whatsoever.

State Senator (region 7): Mark DeSaulnier

Voting by default as his opponent, Christian Amsberry, identifies how he plans to vote on the state propositions. We are at odds with a good number of them.

State Assembly (District 14): Nancy Skinner (by default)

COUNTY MEASURES

Measure D: West Contra Costa Unified School District "please save us from ourselves" parcel tax
Endorsement: Yes

Measure D would renew a 'standard exemptions' parcel tax for the West Contra Costa Unified School District.

The school district, which extends from El Cerrito to Hercules is in a bad shape. A year ago, the teachers unions helped defeat a raising of this same parcel tax due to disputes with the administration. This year, that same teachers union supports it: recognizing that things need to change before raising the burden on voters. However, the teacher's union makes a plea: that without this parcel tax, which does not increase its burden on voters, then the school district is in jeopardy of LOSING some of its more qualified teachers and services to students. Seeing as this teachers union went against its school board a year ago shows that it is not afraid to bare its fangs against bad policies. The parcel tax has strings attached: it is operational and not for administrative salaries. For theese reasons, it makes me much less skeptical of the parcel tax - and accept the plea from teachers that it is essential. I'll be voting YES.

Measure VV: Spike Lee says: you need money to GET ON THE BUS
Endorsement: Yes

This would double the current parcel tax being levied on propert owners and would go to the operational budget of AC Transit.

Let me start out by proposing a question. How do you save a man being hung in a tree from strangling to death?

Critics of measure VV (and there seem to be few) point out issues such as AC Transit's choice to purchase some new European rather than American buses; criticizes the focus on certain routs as well as fare structures, and contend that several of the AC transit buses are not as environmental as they should be. What the critics also completely disregard is an 18 million dollar cut from the state that will hit AC transit. This would not only make them less environmental and have to raise fares much higher, but it would threaten what is a very highly rated service. Coming from Sacramento where the public transit is ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC compared to Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit, while I can see several of the points critics of this measure bring up as being accurate: they belong directed at AC transit board meetings. Not at taking away a needed operating budget that gets some 200,000 people around the bay (including me) every day. The threat to AC transit is that they are being strangled. They need a platform to stand on to get the rope off their neck.

The opponents of Measure VV want to cut the rope of the strangled AC transit: letting the noose snap the neck and the fall break the legs in the process.

Vote yes on VV


Measure WW: Open spaces and more parks for East Bayers like me
Endorsement: Yes

This measure raises bonds for regional parks and open spaces. The opposition says this takes money away from 'local services' (law enforcement, fire, etc..) and that many of the regional parks managed by the East Bay are mismanaged, so 'why should we give them more money?' Good question. Perhaps part of the reason that parks are not as well kept as they should be is that they do not have enough money. The farm would also 'hurt ranchers' - which is political parlance for more ranchers wouldn't be able to expand their earth-maiming and water-draining industrial-livestock. We're not talking about small farmers here.

Basically I'm voting yes on it because the big ranchers and "anti-taxes for anything" crowd is voting no, and Barbara Lee and former Contra Costa Sheriff Richard Rainey are voting yes. This was good enough for me.

STATE PROPOSITIONS

I generally agree with "The League of Young Voters" (though not always, as I plan to elaborate in on my next post). Since I have no major qualm with any of their endorsements, I am copy and pasting their voter guide, which can also be found at the League's site.

Prop 1A: High-speed rail from SF to LA

Endorsed Vote: Yes

Imagine taking the train from San Francisco to L.A. in two hours and forty minutes. Imagine not having to deal with airport security for the trip. Imagine eliminating 12 billion tons of carbon a year from our air. All it's going to cost is this $10 billion bond to get things started. Ouch. We're not big fans of bonds, but massive public projects like this are what bonds should be used for. This train would transform California and help save the world.

Prop 2: Fair treatment of farm animals

Endorsed Vote: Yes

Should we allow farm animals to turn around, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs? Yes we should. If we have to pay a little more for our meat and poultry, so be it. The only opposition we heard from our members was that Prop 2 doesn't go far enough.

Prop 3: Fishy children's hospitals bond

Endorsed Vote: No

"How can you oppose children's hospitals," people keep asking us. Well, a bunch of hospitals paid to put Prop 3 on the ballot. The money would go to five University of California hospitals and eight private children's hospitals. We don't like that system of people paying to put a proposition on the ballot that benefits them. Why should they decide which hospitals get the money? We think the state legislature should decide that. The same people put Prop 61 on the ballot back in 2004, which is almost identical to Prop 3, and the hospitals have only spent about half of that money so far. Why do they need more already? Prop 3 is only money for construction, not for actual health care.

Also, we're suspicious of bonds. They're California’s credit cards. They seem like free money, but we have to pay interest on them. The interest comes straight out of California’s general fund. That means less money for everything else. Typically we end up paying as much in interest as we get from the bonds in the first place. So for us to like a bond, it better be a really cool bond like Prop 1A. Prop 3 doesn't make the cut.

Prop 4: Parental notification for abortion

Endorsed Vote: No

Haven't we decided this already??? Yes. Yes, we did. As Prop 73 in 2005 and Prop 85 in 2006. This thing is like Chucky: it keeps coming back. The same very wealthy Christian Fundamentalist men put it right back on the ballot again.

Forced parental notification for abortion = BAD. Prop 4 has dangerous long-term implications for all women’s right to choose. No law can force a family to communicate, and we believe that the government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing itself into sensitive family decisions. Youth and families need real solutions like honest sex ed, access to birth control, and, definitely, choice.

For the third time, HELL NO!

Prop 5: Rehab & treatment for nonviolent drug crimes

Endorsed Vote: Yes

Prop 5 reduces penalties for drug offenses and increases alternatives for drug treatment. If people go into drug treatment instead of prison, they're much less likely to become career criminals. That makes the world safer and means we don't have to build more prisons. Everybody wins. Martin Sheen says Prop 5 isn't tough enough on crime, but we think maybe he's got some Catholic guilt issues about reducing punishment. Our currently "tough on drugs" strategy is a miserable failure. California has a sky-high recidivism rate, and we're wasting billions on the prison industrial complex. It's time to try something different.

Prop 6: Fear-mongering $$$ grab for more prisons

Endorsed Vote: No

We've made voter guides for the last eight elections, and this is the first proposition where we felt "Hell No" wasn't strong enough. So we're saying a big "FUCK NO" to Proposition 6. This is a crass and vindictive attempt to demonize the poor, immigrants, and youth of color in order to pump more money into California's failed and bloated prison system. It would prosecute kids 14 and older convicted of 'gang-related' felonies as adults. It's well documented that when you put kids in adult prison you create more career re-offenders. Prop 6 would also deny "illegal" immigrants a right to bail, which means the state has to pay more to keep them locked up. If that's not enough, it would strip away housing assistance for entire families and households when someone doesn't pass a criminal background check. Guilt by association sucks*. Prop 6 does nothing to reduce crime, and it would cost hundreds of millions a year.

*According to our constitution, it should also be illegal.

Prop 7: Badly Written Clean Energy

Endorsed Vote: No

A melancholy "no" on this one. We love us some clean energy. But this prop is too poorly written for us to support.
The kickass good stuff:
It requires all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Imposes penalties for noncompliance. Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.

The [bad]stuff:
It allows too many loopholes for utilities to avoid meeting the renewable standards and paying penalties for noncompliance.
* It allows utilities to count signed contracts towards their renewable-energy goals, even before they bring the power online.
* It decreases environmental review of power plants.
* Opposed by a very wide coalition -- From Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, LCV, local Green parties, labor, to PG&E. While PG&E opposes this for all the wrong reasons, we shockingly find ourselves on the same side as them on this prop (but we still revile their opposition to SF clean energy Prop H). Prop 7 is basically funded by one rich guy.
* It is biased towards large-scale energy plants instead of distributed, rooftop solar The proponents of the initiative admit that they expect much of the new renewable generation will come from massive solar power plants in the desert. Gonzalez says concentrating solar power, also known as solar thermal, is the technology that’s simplest, most affordable and most ready to be deployed on a large scale.

Prop 8: Gay Marriage Ban

Endorsed Vote: No

The government should not be in the business of telling us who we can or can't marry. Period. Can we move on now, please?

Prop 9: More fear-mongering for more prisons

Endorsed Vote: No

This one leaves a bad taste in our mouth. It mandates strict limits on when convicts would be eligible for parole. The courts and parole boards already handle that job just fine. Prop 9 also allows unlimited numbers of victims, their families and their representatives to attend parole hearings. We have massive empathy for people hurt by a crime. But the justice system shouldn't be swayed by emotion. Prop 9 sounds too much like mob justice to us.

Prop 10: Silly rabbit, natural gas isn't a renewable fuel

Endorsed Vote: No

It is a bond measure to provide financial incentives for 'alternative vehicles', and 'alternative' energy including the questionable liquid natural gas and the clearly good renewable energy such as wind. It will cost the state $10 billion over 30 years. We like the part about investment in renewable energy, but we don't like the massive funding of natural gas cars and liquid natural gas terminals.
* Massively funding liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and natural gas cars is a bad idea since it diverts attention and resources from far more environmentally-friendly options. Electric cars and plug in electric cars -- unlike natural gas cars -- already have the refueling infrastructure in place (i.e. the socket in your garage); emit far less carbon even when using a dirty electricity grid, and can emit even less once we change our grid to run on solar and wind. All these amazing benefits to electric cars, yet they still are not being adopted by our government -- which is constantly threatened by the car and oil industry... we don't want another roadblock to the desperately needed transition to electric cars. Of course, most of us Pissed Off Voters don't even own cars, and prefer to bike, BART or Zip car -- but we know that for the rest of the world, they need electric cars.
* Even if we replaced 100% of all vehicles with natural gas around the country - the U.S. emissions would still increase! Because GHG from transportation is rising at 23%, and natural gas is only slightly less carbon-intensive than coal.
* Some environmentalists support this prop since it will help transition large trucks to cleaner vehicles (about 20% lower emissions than gasoline) -- since electric large electric trucks are not yet ready and we need to move immediately to reduce carbon. However, most environmental groups are opposing this measure since it creates a roadblock for transitioning all cars to the far better option of electric cars, and it diverts funds from the far better option of building railroads.
* This is oil tycoon T.Bone Pickens's self serving agenda. He owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the primary funder of Prop 10.

Prop 11: Problematic Redistricting Complexity

Endorsed Vote: No

We could get into a long discussion about whether we need to change how our legislative districts are drawn. We tend to say yes. But Prop 11 isn't the answer. For one, it discriminates against youth. To serve on the commission that draws the boundaries, you have to be registered to vote for 5 years with the same party designation. So if you're under 23, you're not welcome. Prop 11 would also over-represent Republicans on the commission. Finally, there's a lot of randomness in how the commission is selected. Government auditors select 60 applicants. Legislative leaders then can veto 24 of them. Then 8 of the applicants are RANDOMLY SELECTED. Then they pick the remaining 6 commissioners. That seems a little weird. No one has ever tried a system like this before. We're not convinced it's the right way to go.

Prop 12: Housing bond for Iraq & Afghanistan veterans

Endorsed Vote: Yes

$900 million from CA State General Fund for bonds that will help finance homes and land for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The veterans will help pay back bonds. But if they can't pay, it will come from state tax payer money. This extends a program that's already offered to veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc. We were a little divided on this one.

Reasons against: This could provides incentives for people to join the military. And is this the highest priority need for our veterans, considering how many are unemployed and/or suffering from serious mental and physical injuries? Would it be better to spend this money on health care or jobs or rental assistance for veterans?

But a majority of us support Prop 12 because we owe it to the veterans. Since 9/11, the tiny fraction of military families in America have borne a huge burden from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while most of us are unaffected. We'll always be pissed off at Dubya for getting us into those horrible wars, but we don't blame the soldiers for that.

Get back on the horse

Last week, I went to a rally with Vice President hopeful Senator Joe Biden in Colorado Spring, Colorado. He said something that seems obvious, has been said a million times - and yet perhaps for not other reason than he's a 'celebrity' his words have stayed with me for a week. My father used to say to me: when you fall off your horse, get back on!

In July, I started this blog with hopes of renewing the writing spirit within me. I failed. Another let down in what has been several let downs for me this past year. The real world was tough: I had not prepared myself adequately for many of the challenges facing a new college grad.

Instead of looking for a job six months before I graduated: I wanted to go back to Ecuador and work on the Shuar Health Project. I ended up finding a job after putting myself in much un-needed debt. I was let go after the holidays: I was a temp and the non-profit could not afford me full time.

I am now six months into working at a great immigration law firm in San Francisco. What makes it so great is not the work - which is challenging, if not exactly the kind of law I ultimately am headed towards - but the fact that a) I have the best boss I've ever had in 10 years of working, b) 3 of my friends from Cal work there.

So, instead of letting all of what has gone wrong get me down this past week - I am getting back on my horse. I will see if I can ride on toward my quest to hone and sharpen my writting skills.

The name of this blog: Macro and Micro is a reflection of how I often think. I have been accused of over-analyzing. Its true. I do my best to try to take into consideration the individual - or smaller (think cellular level) as much as I love analyzing trade and how this affects a society (think country aggregate level). We'll see how closely I stick to this, though I pretty much just wrote that "anything goes."

Ponying up.

-- MNM