General election 2016 coverage for the deaf

October 22, 2016

I’m writing this in Beverly Hills, across the street from the Troubadour, where Letters to Cleo will be playing a show later tonight. The first time around we had a Clinton as president, but I couldn’t afford to see them live. I’m rectifying that.

Speaking of Beverly Hills I walked by a sweets shop blaring Weezer, but they were playing “Say It Ain’t So.” Kind of a missed opportunity, I guess.

Anyway, for a lot of people this is probably the most important election in their minds. For me it’s kind of boring. At this point the presidential election appears that it will be the largest blowout since 1984, and despite attempts by the media to make it a real horse race, potentially damaging our ability to interact with other people in the process, it was never close. Even when the national polls were tightening, the electoral college was never in doubt. In 2012 there was a day or two when Romney had 270 if you included certain pollsters. Not the case this year.

Having said all that, it’s my duty to remind you that voting for president is the least important thing you do when it comes to voting, because you’re competing with so many other voters. Your effect on the outcome is 100 times stronger when you’re 1 of a million people voting, vs. 1 of a 100 million.

Also, I encourage you to vote by mail or take advantage or early voting if you can. One of the biggest strategies around Election Day has a huge dependency on it being earlier in the month. When you go vote on the 2nd or 3rd of November, there’s a good chance your precinct will have a bowl of leftover Halloween candy.

This year, Election Day is the 8th. Now, I’m not saying there will be no candy, but all that’s going to be left are SweeTarts and that generic taffy that comes in the orange and black wrappers. What you can count on is that it will be in a dish only meant for candy, and it will cost $90.

Anyway, here we go. Just look for the stuff in bold if you want to know how I’m voting. Nobody’s constipated enough to go through this entire thing at once, and even if you are, nobody wants to hear about it.

President and Vice President of the United States: Gloria la Riva and Dennis Banks

In 2012 it was my first time to be eligible to become president. I figured every 4 years I would write myself in and select a pop culture-dependent running mate (Lance Armstrong in 2012). At a minimum it would provide nostalgia regarding who was popular at the time. And in 2012 it was an easy decision because Peace and Freedom had nominated Ralph Nader, and I was so over it. In addition, Armstrong was big in the news at the time.

This cycle, no one is really standing out the way Armstrong was. Plus, Peace and Freedom has a real candidate. Finally, I don’t really want to be president anymore, and I can’t take the risk of this piece going viral and getting me elected.

I’ve mentioned this before, but political parties need to get a certain number of votes for their party to appear on voter registration forms. Peace and Freedom is always at risk of not making it, and every election concerns me that this is their last chance, kind of like those Adam & Eve mail order catalogs that always say you’re going to stop receiving them in the mail if you don’t buy anything.

Anyway, I voted for la Riva in the primary, and I’m going to vote for her now. And when she ends up with 12,712 votes, I’ll know I was part of it.

Everyone else has already said everything there is to say about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. We also have Gary Johnson and Jill Stein on our ballot. I don’t have a lot to say about the candidates themselves, and I’ve said enough about the parties already. The American Independent party also seem to have nominated Trump, because my ballot says “Republican, American Independent.” I’ve never seen that before. What a great way to recruit new members to your confusingly named party.

United States Senator: Kamala Harris

Speaking of things I’ve said enough about, I fucking hate jungle primaries. But that’s what we approved as voters, so that’s what we have. Brexit-style, many people will look at their ballot, see 2 Democratic candidates for Senate with no option to write someone in, and be annoyed. Well, you shouldn’t have voted yes on Prop 14.

Anyway, Loretta Sanchez recognized her best opportunity to win was to go after disenfranchised Republican voters. The biggest problem with this approach is her last name is Sanchez. The second biggest problem is that her first name is a woman’s name.

The LA ABC affiliate sponsored a debate between the candidates, and I watched it on C-SPAN. You thought Clinton looked more presidential than Trump, you should have seen which of these candidates looked more senatorial. Kamala Harris is a class act, and if anything I think she’s too good for the Senate. I’m curious what her aspirations are, but she has a long track record of success.

As an aside, can we please stop calling Harris black? She’s half Indian, half Jamaican, which is amazing and ought not be overlooked. It makes as much sense as calling Sanchez black because her first name is the same as Cleveland Brown’s first wife on Family Guy. Poor Loretta Swit will never occupy the same space in mind because of Seth MacFarlane. How can he live with himself?

United States Representative, District 19: Zoe Lofgren

It’s a safe blue district, Charlie Brown. G. Burt Lancaster is Zoe Lofgren’s opponent, and he didn’t even submit a written statement. I’ve used up all my “Zoe” jokes because she has to run for reelection for 2 years.

If this article were being rerun on ESPN Classic, this is the section that would be deleted and replaced with the voiceover that tells you we’re moving on to later in the broadcast.

State Senator, District 15: Jim Beall

Nora Campos is fine. She was termed out (again, don’t get me started) of the Assembly so now she’s running for the State Senate. She really should wait for Jim Beall to be termed out. It truly would be the Beall end all at that point. (Some jokes I recycle.)

I will vote for Nora Campos next time. There will be a next time. Beall is 64, so this might be it for him anyway. I can’t believe Chuck Page didn’t come in second in the primary, but no matter.

Member of the State Assembly, District 28: Evan Low

They fixed the typo in the voter guide! Nicholas Sclavos is a family business manager once again. He still didn’t provide a written statement, though.

San Jose Unified School District Governing Board Member Trustee Area 3: Olivia Navarro

There was no primary for this election. I’m sure it’s a very basic civics reason why, but I don’t know what it is. Maybe if I had had a more memorable government class in high school I wouldn’t be in this mess. Oh, if only there were someone running for school board who could help with that!

I think it could be Olivia Navarro. She has an uphill battle facing an incumbent, and she refers to “kindergarten” as “kinder,” something everyone under 40 is doing, and it drives me nuts. This is a rare opportunity for you to use a German word—correctly! And you’re going to talk about chocolate eggs that have small chokable toys inside instead? It’s your loss.

However, she’s actually attended our local public schools and uses one of my favorite dog-whistle expressions: Education is only successful when everyone participates.

She does capitalize a lot of words for no reason, and she uses a lot of spaces after periods, but so does her opponent, Pam Foley, so that’s a wash.

So what don’t I like about Foley? Well, it’s not that she’s bad, but she spends most of her prepared statement talking about what the board has down, rather than what she wants to do. She also talks about teacher evaluations. I don’t oppose them, but when you mention them to people, you’re silently endorsing merit pay, speaking of dog whistles.

Finally, Foley mentions Willow Glen five times in her statement. I know where I live. But is our trustee area really just in Willow Glen? It’s hard to say because the Internet sucks out loud at finding out, assuming the info is out there in the first place.

Anyway, I’m sure Foley will be reelected because of the power of incumbency, but I will say Navarro had a much better statement.

City of San Jose, Member, City Council, District 6: Helen Chapman

This has been quite the race, and I think for everyone the choice is clear, based on endorsements. One exception is my personal primary favorite, Chris Roth, is endorsing Devora Davis, but I think that has more to do with his ability to transcend identity politics. I still think he’s got a big future no matter what he decides to do.

When I think of what I want from a city council candidate, I want someone who will represent its constituents and set personal preferences aside. Kirsten Gillibrand, the New York Senator, is amazing at this. When she was in the House of Representatives, she was much more conservative. Now that she represents the entire state of New York, she has voted more liberally, because her constituents are more liberal. That’s true representation, folks.

Anyway, when I pull the level for Helen Chapman it’s because she represents what I think my neighborhood is. She also looks to lead from the bottom up.

Davis is what many would consider the establishment favorite. The past 2 mayors have endorsed her. The Chamber of Commerce endorses her. San Jose has a history of socially liberal, fiscally conservative politics. If that’s your bag, baby, by all means: It’s Davis time.

In other news, a political action committee sent out a mailer on her behalf trashing Chapman for her role as a volunteer, because the city mismanaged funds for a program she volunteered for. How is that her fault? Now, if the AFL-CIO sends out a hit piece on Davis, I’ll be equally upset about that.

That’s right: The unions support Chapman. So from an identity perspective it all falls into place: If you’re into the Chamber and fiscal conservatism and our mayor, it’s Davis. If you voted for Dave Cortese for mayor and are a union supporter, it’s Chapman.

One last thing, I’ll never understand why statements are written in the third person. It makes you so much more human when you use “I” statements. You can guess, based on my endorsement, which candidate followed this advice.

Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Director, District 4: Dorsey Moore

Speaking of the city council, our termed out representative (Pierluigi Oliverio) is running for this office now. His written statement talks about himself but doesn’t focus on the open space authority beyond a high-level reference. It feels like this is just something else to do after running for mayor in 2014 didn’t work out for him.

Admittedly, I’m not a big fan of his establishment (read: fiscally conservative) politics, but he does wear it better than the bigger names in town. He always responded to my emails. He practices what he preaches. I won’t be upset if he wins. And he gives out his phone number in his statement, which is gutsy.

Dorsey Moore has a lot of keyword density in his statement, but it’s believable. And his educational background is a better fit for this office. He might be a little more boring than Oliverio, but Al Gore is boring as fuck, and I would have loved for him to have been president.

Proposition 51: Yes

It’s hard for me to vote no on school bonds. I almost did it this time. The governor is against this bond measure because more affluent districts will benefit. I think it’s a fair criticism. But I still think there are enough benefits to justify the cost, especially with interest rates so low.

If you always do or don’t vote on school stuff, you don’t need me to tell you what to do. For those of you who only sometimes vote yes, this is probably one you’ll want to vote no on, unless you take delight in having winners and losers when it comes to schools and funding.

Proposition 52: Yes

I rarely vote against unions, so this makes me feel a little better about myself when it comes to being objective.

We get federal matching funds for the $3 billion in Medicaid fees we collect from hospitals every year. The fee is set to expire, and 52 would make it permanent.

If 52 doesn’t pass, the state legislature could still decide to extend the fee, so you don’t have to vote for it strictly because you don’t want the fee to go away. So why is it on the ballot in the first place? It would make it harder for the legislature to change the fee in the future. The legislature wouldn’t agree to that.

The matching funds argument is enough for me, because I don’t want to have to trust the state legislature to extend the fee itself. And the no argument is kind of stupid, because it talks about how the money could be spent on anything. So what? That’s going to happen anyway.

Proposition 53: No

There’s no way this is going to fail, but I will try. I’m not a fan of legislating from the ballot box, because voters aren’t informed enough to make sensible decisions. That’s why we elect people to make these decisions for us. It’s not a perfect system because corruption, but I don’t have time to deal with this because I’m busy trying to contribute to society.

Anyway, this is what I’m talking about: 53 will require voter approval for any issuance of bonds exceeding $2 billion. We’re too stupid to know whether every bond issuance of this size is important, not to mention all the extra shit that will appear on the ballot because of it. Look at how long the ballot is for this election already!

What 53 is doing on the ballot is another attempt to reduce spending on public services that fiscal conservatives aren’t interested in. The obvious example is high speed rail. If 53 passes, large sales of bonds will be much harder to push through. If we ask voters to provide another $5 billion in bonds for high speed rail, they’re going to vote no. I can’t believe they voted yes the first time!

It also means you’re going to see what technologists call an “agile methodology,” specifically breaking down projects into smaller chunks, each with—surprise—$1.9 billion price tags. So in an effort to get the state to spend less money, we’re going to actually spend more, because of the bureaucracy that will have to be repeated every time we issue almost but not quite $2 billion in bonds.

Having said that, you would vote yes because you want more control over large price tag bond issues, and you probably have some libertarian leanings to accompany them. Or, you just like being able to make decisions. I think those 2 groups add up to about 55% of the electorate. I guess we’ll see.

Proposition 54: No

Like 53, this is another “sounds good” proposition that ignores why we have our government set up the way it is. If 54 passes, any new bill or change to a new bill would start a 72-hour window, during which there would be no vote on it. The idea, proponents say, is it gives people time to read the law before it gets voted on, thus giving you a chance to speak to your state senator or assemblyperson about it before it’s too late.

What I don’t like about this is what happens during an emergency, such as an earthquake, or when Northern California finally secedes and tries to become Jefferson. I’m not exactly a small-government activist, but all 54 does is create another hoop to jump through to get anything done.

If all you can think of is the great Nancy Pelosi Obamacare line, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it,” then this is an obvious yes vote for you.

Proposition 55: Yes

When Governor Brown took office, he did several things to fix the budget. One was Prop 30, which was a temporary tax on the rich to pay for education. Well, it’s been 4 years, and now it’s set to expire. If you want the tax to be made permanent, well, 55 can do that for you. The governor is neutral on 55, which to me means he wants to say he is for it but knows better.

The no side is led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, natch. “Temporary should mean temporary,” they say. Well, they use a lot of capital letters, but you get the idea. And they’re right that it’s important to have integrity, and it’s true that we all knew they would try to make this tax permanent once it was scheduled to expire. And here we are.

Here’s my response to that: Perhaps the tax should have been there all along. I’m more concerned with where we end up than how we get there. Making a temporary tax permanent doesn’t bother me.

If you’re going to get hung up on semantics, then 55 is a big no for you. For the rest of you, you’ll treat this like any other tax on the ballot.

Proposition 56: Yes

This one raises cigarettes by $2 per pack and also taxes other things, such as electronic cigarettes, for the first time. The money goes to different things, including health programs for poor people.

Sigh. We all know the tobacco companies will spend just enough money to make sure this fails with 51% of the vote, but let’s press on.

This is for people who actually think about cigarette taxes. (Most people will knee-jerk one way or the other.) This time around the money is being used on lots of different things, so if you want the tax to be earmarked for specific programs, it’s not for you.

My rebuttal is that cigarette taxes are designed to reduce smoking, not raise money. And of course if you don’t like fascism like I do, then it’s another reason to vote no. But numerous studies show the amount of healthcare costs in a pack of cigarettes far outweigh the taxes paid by the smoker. If you think auto insurance should be charged by the mile, it would make sense to vote yes.

It’s just not a good use of money to use all cigarette taxes on smoking related programs. You want to talk about pork? That is how it would work.

Finally, our 87-cent-per-pack tax is the lowest in the country. Yep, the one thing that’s cheaper in California than anywhere else is cigarettes.

Proposition 57: Yes

More identity politics here. If you remember Prop 47 in 2014, it freed a lot of people to reduce jail overcrowding. There’s mixed data whether it’s been successful, but it’s probably too early to tell for sure. But of course, any outlier is what we’re going to notice, so someone who gets released early because of Prop 47 and commits a crime is going to become a poster child about why we can’t release criminals early.

There are reasons that transcend the law about why these things happen. A recent Pet Shop Boys video of all things tells the story well. But I digress.

Another way to further reduce prison overcrowding comes in the form of 57. You could say it’s one of many … varieties? In any case it’s only for nonviolent felons, meaning drug-related and grand theft mostly. It makes it easier for them to get parole.

If you voted yes on 47 and don’t have buyer’s remorse, then you’ll vote yes here. And if you voted no on 47 and feel the same way today, you’ll vote no. I’ll remind libertarian types out there that this does save the government money by shrinking the prison population.

Proposition 58: Yes

This will probably pass because of how it’s worded, and that’s OK. The title says “English proficiency. Multilingual education.” I think a lot of conservatives will like the first two words and stop there. That’s fine.

What 58 actually does is make it easier for schools to set up dual immersion programs, which are amazing. They essentially let any kid learn in 2 languages, which when started in kindergarten (see, don’t you feel smarter reading German?) is showing improved critical thinking skills, and it makes sense because your brain is learning multiple ways to communicate the same thing.

I guess the no argument is “everything’s fine,” which is the standard no argument for anything. Ron Unz is behind the no side, and the governor is behind the yes side, if that helps.

Proposition 59: Yes

You don’t normally see advisory measures on the state ballot, but Citizens United got enough people upset to set down their Whole Foods Market cloth bag and sign a petition that will result in absolutely nothing.

Yes, 59 is to formally ask the state to approve a US Constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United. I have a feeling in the quest for 38 states to say yes that California was already going to be one of them.

But if 59 gets at least one person to vote on everything because of this one issue, I guess it’s worth it.

The no side says it’s a waste of money. Sure, but voting no doesn’t keep us from wasting the money. It’s already happened. And I would say voting yes doesn’t exactly encourage people to pull this shit again. When you want to put something on the ballot it comes from within. You don’t need to feel encouraged.

Proposition 60: No

Every family has its crazy. And when you see a family in public, such as in a restaurant or at the mall, they’re often too into themselves to notice what they’re arguing about. That’s passion right there.

Anyway, the state legislature couldn’t get the votes to require the use of condoms in porn filmed in California so they decided to put it on the ballot instead. When I wrote earlier about not letting voters decide everything, this is exactly what I was talking about. How the hell would we know?

I would say these regulations would make sense as part of the decriminalization of prostitution, but that’s not what this is. Here are a couple reasons to vote no.

What is porn? When consenting couples film themselves doing it, and then as an act of revenge one of the people puts it online, is that porn? Can someone be sued if there is no condom? Who knows?

Do we want to make the industry less safe? LA already has this requirement, and it has sent the porn industry underground. This isn’t about you and whether you support pornography. It’s about keeping people safe when they make life choices. You can’t tell me that porn actors will be safer if they have to go underground to work because of the requirement of condom use. It’s a supply-side solution.

Many, specifically social conservatives, will vote no because they will see the word “condoms.” It doesn’t matter what else is said. So that leaves the big government supporters and well meaning but mis-intentioned citizenry to get to 50%. I don’t think they’ll even make it to 30.

Proposition 61: Yes

This one has the most ads on TV up and down the state. You may have heard about the EpiPen and how the price got jacked up because it can be. (There’s your free market in action.) If 61 passes, it will require state agencies to pay the same rate the US Department of Veterans Affairs pays for drugs.

That’s not the same thing as requiring drug manufacturers to match the prices they charge the US Department of Veterans Affairs. But the general understanding is that that will happen. How do we know that? Well, Merck and other pharmaceutical companies are funding the no side, because if they charge less for drugs, they make less money. If they were going to just ignore the law, they wouldn’t care.

In Northern California, Bernie’s logo is on billboards supporting 61, whereas the no side is trotting out a bunch of veterans saying it will cause their medication to cost more.

If pharmaceutical companies could charge veterans more for medication, they would already be doing it. It wouldn’t take 61 passing for that to occur. It makes sense to me that the main reason veterans would get cheaper drugs is because of the economy-of-scale benefits the US Department of Veterans Affairs enjoys because of the number of patients it has.

As an aside, the 60 and 61 yes sides both supply additional information from the same mailing address, so it feels weird to me that I am only voting yes on one of them.

Proposition 62: Yes

This repeals the death penalty. It is also a prime example of idealism vs. pragmatism.

All I’m saying is it costs more to kill people than keep them in prison for life. We know the death penalty doesn’t reduce crime. You’re afraid to die. Criminals are not afraid to die.

Finally, we hardly kill anyone anymore anyway. It’s too fucking hard. And apparently it will save $150 million per year, because of how expensive execution is, etc.

Proposition 63: Yes

Here’s another idealism vs. pragmatism argument: gun control. I really have nothing new to add to this.

This doesn’t authorize Barack Obama (who will be looking for something to do) to come and get your guns, finally. Seriously, he has done such a shitty job of taking people’s guns away. In fact, gun manufacturing is at an all time high. What a terrible president.

Anyway, 63 focuses on stuff like prohibiting large-capacity ammunition magazines, which you definitely don’t read for the articles. And for the other kind of ammunition? It will require background checks and a Department of Justice authorization. It will be done through a new court process.

You already know whether you’re voting for this.

Proposition 64: Yes

Remember in 2000 and 2004 when states would put same-sex marriage stuff on the ballot to increase Republican voter turnout? These days, marijuana legalization initiatives are done to get Democrats out. Never mind that it’s still illegal federally.

Yes, 64 makes marijuana legal at the state level, similar to what’s happened in Washington and Colorado. This is probably another one where you already know how you’re voting.

I think 64 passing is key to nationwide decriminalization, so if that’s your goal, your mission is clear. I also think it will be one of the last executive orders Obama makes before he leaves office. It’s the cherry on top. You read it here first. (But you’ll probably forget that you did—ha!)

What surprises me is how little resistance there is to 64. All the money is on the yes side.

Proposition 65: Yes

This one is confusing. I still don’t know how I’m going to vote for it, and I’m writing about it right now! So much for inverted pyramid.

When plastic bags were banned locally, stores were allowed to use paper bags but only if they charged for them. To get them on board, the state let the store keep the money. Seemed kind of weird, but whatever.

What 65 actually does is say that the revenue would specifically be taken from the stores and used for specific environmental programs. That’s probably fine for most people. I guess it’s fine for me. But it doesn’t ban them from places that aren’t banned yet. That might be important to you.

What tipped me over was the no argument. When you do like Homer Simpson and play the out of state card, it tells me you’re all out of ideas.

Proposition 66: No

Sometimes the ballot has competing initiatives, and they confuse the fuck out of people. This time it’s happening with 64 and 66. If both pass, the one with more votes takes effect.

The short version is people saw that 64 was going to get rid of the death penalty, and they figured a watered down version might do better while preserving the option of the death penalty.

It’s a pretty good argument most of the time to say stuff like 66 is a nice compromise, and we can always abolish the death penalty later. Honestly, 66 would do nothing because it’s too hard to kill people now. It would never really get put to the test, meanwhile inspiring hope that someone on death row really would get executed someday.

No one gets executed anymore because lethal injection is how we do it, and we can’t find the right combination of drugs to make sure it’s done right. So executions are in a sort of purgatory right now, and while we’re sending all kinds of tech jobs to Austin, we can’t seem to outsource our executions there.

Proposition 67: Yes

Surprise! Another competing initiative. This time we have 65 and 67 facing off. This time 67 is the more extreme measure. It bans plastic bags in the entire state, rather than leaving it to local governments to decide.

The argument is that 150 cities have already banned plastic bags, and it’s working great. Sure, when you have my grandpa like I do, I can just visit him and get all the plastic bags I want.

Here’s the thing: There’s a giant island in the Pacific Ocean comprising plastic bags that have swept out to sea. Yes, I use all the plastic bags I acquire, but not everyone does. And if I had to give up talking on my phone while driving because other people couldn’t handle the same, I will have to give up plastic bags, too.

The no argument (the real one not the bullshit one in the voter guide—the no side isn’t even trying, honestly) is that you’re forcing people to buy plastic bags when they need them for garbage or dog poop or asphyxiation. Maybe, but at least we won’t have any wasted ones. Remember this island. It’s not just a Le Tigre major label album.

Measure A: Yes

The timing couldn’t be better for A advocates. After kicking everyone out of the Jungle, the homeless are more visible than they’ve ever been. What better time for a ballot measure to authorize bonds to give them a place to live, along with others who need less expensive housing.

The housing argument has been an interesting one. People complain when you build more places to live (“oh, the traffic!”). They complain that there’s nowhere to live (“oh, the expense!”). If you press people hard enough on this apparent hypocrisy, the common answer tends to be that we need to send these high paying jobs out of the region so no one can afford to pay these high rents. Thanks, Nextdoor.

The no argument focuses on the cost of interest, a common tactic. They even take it a step further, saying it could be as high as 12%. There’s just no way interest rates can get that high. We talked about this 4,000 words ago.

This requires a two-thirds majority thanks to Prop 13, so it really needs every vote it can get. I’m not holding my breath.

Measure B: Yes

This is the most important thing on the ballot as far as I’m concerned. It’s a half-cent sales tax for transportation. It’s one of the few regressive taxes that makes sense because it benefits people who lose a larger chunk of their income to taxes more than it does others.

This is a general transportation one, so it includes the usual suspects, such as connecting BART to Caltrain in the South Bay, freeway improvements, including 101/87 (be still my heart), and more bike and pedestrian trails. It even works on all the expressways, which will make Faco happy.

The no argument shows an appalling lack of critical thinking. It says that, despite the tax increase from Measure A in 2000, traffic is worse now. Well, no shit, Sherlock. There are more people working and living here than in 2000.

(The root cause of this traffic is twofold, by the way. First, we don’t use school buses for most children anymore, creating a lot of unnecessary car trips. Second, people change jobs so often that it is much harder to own a house and live near where you work. That’s how you solve traffic problems. But that type of cultural change isn’t going to happen. So at least we have Measure B.)

Measure E: Yes

I think this one just might make it. This would make San Jose the first city in the country to require employers to offer additional hours to existing employees before hiring new ones. Employers with fewer than 35 employees are exempt.

There are a shit ton of people working multiple part time jobs because they can’t get enough hours at one place. There is an interesting anti-Obamacare argument about why people aren’t getting enough hours at one job in the first place, and this is where the no voters will be coming from.

I can tell you as a former retail manager why I wouldn’t want E to pass. The more employers I have, the more options I have when someone is sick. Also, the more likely it is that my workers will want more hours because I’ve cut too many slices in the pie. Well, that’s great when you’re in charge. It sucks if you’re the worker, hoping for any extra hours.

E will reduce this type of exploitation. I’ve been on both sides of this.

The mayor is against it because it’s “too risky.” Yeah, he’s afraid of a lot. But this is going to make a lot of retail workers feel safer, and if they don’t need that extra part time job because of the extra hours they pick up, it’s one less commute, which helps make Measure B that much more effective.

Measure F: Yes

This will probably pass, and I guess that’s OK. A few years ago we passed pension reform overwhelmingly, above my objections for what it’s worth. Since then our best cops have left, and we’ve turned into a feeder system, the same way that new dealers start at break-in casinos before moving on to greener pastures.

We were supposed to be the new gold standard for pension reform, and other cities’ governments responded by saying, “Thanks for all your best workers, San Jose! We’ll leave our pensions alone so they’ll come work for us!” And it totally worked.

Believe me when I say I didn’t want to be right. Anyway, F rolls back some of Measure B, to the chagrin of taxpayers associations, who finally got something they wanted. But the gorilla in the room is that we have fewer than 1,000 cops. And with the Jungle getting blown up, it has created a perception that crime has increased, which can only help get F passed. Sometimes things work out in the end.

What’s done is done, but F can help us make San Jose a more attractive place for public workers such as police and fire.

Measure G: Yes

This raises the business tax in San Jose from $150 to $195. It hasn’t been increased in 30 years. I have to pay this sometimes because I sell things on eBay. But I’ll still vote for it.

There’s no no argument submitted, so there’s not much to say.

Measure X: Yes

This is a bond measure for junior colleges. Like most education initiatives you already know whether you’re interested. This requires a 55% majority to pass.

An interesting wrinkle here provides an awesome opportunity for me to digress. I’m at 6,000 words right now so allow me to indulge myself.

Every proposition and measure provides an opportunity to make an argument for and against, plus a rebuttal to the two arguments. The way it is supposed to work is that you read the argument from the other side and use it to write your rebuttal.

Well, similar to the RNC declaring Trump the winner before one of the debates, the no people used a nearly identical rebuttal to the argument in favor of X as they did in their argument against it.

In fact there are only 2 differences between them.

In the first one there is a typo: “The answer is clearly m NO!”

In the second version they added a paragraph, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” That, my friends, is the definition of irony. I wish that this wasn’t so far down the ballot because I want everyone to read this.

Measure Y: Yes

OK, so the community colleges are covered. So what about K-12? Well, Y is an 8-year $72 parcel tax for San Jose Unified School District.

My local schools are finally all 6 or 7 out of 10. One of them was a 3 when I moved here in 2007. Hopefully we can keep going in the same direction. Personally I love parcel taxes because homeowners are much more likely to be able to afford something than renters. We can be soaked. It’s OK.

Primary election 2016 coverage for the deaf

May 30, 2016

Well, I got my boleta oficial in the mail. Let’s see what’s on tap for June 7—or June 6 if you’re Arnold Schwarzenegger.

President of the United States: Gloria la Riva

Have I mentioned I’m registered Peace and Freedom? I’m registered Peace and Freedom. I take great joy in knowing my vote counts for 1/100,000th of the outcome instead of 1/9,000,000th of it.

Anyway, I voted for La Riva when she ran for governor in 1994 and 1998 (but not for president in 2008, because she wasn’t on the ballot in California). Happy that Gray Davis won, but that’s not why you vote anyway. That’s what sports are for.

Lynn Kahn is also running. She was the first candidate to file, as it turns out. I don’t know much about her.

Finally Monica Moorehead is running. All the jokes have been made, and with a Clinton running it’s easy to make those jokes again. Go ahead. In any case, Moorehead had always run for president with La Riva as her running mate, but this year it appears that it would be Lamont Lilly.

As far as the races in the other parties go, I’ll just say that Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton was much closer at this point of the race eight years ago than Clinton/Bernie Sanders is now. It’s not going to matter. Clinton will win it all.

Sanders supporters ought to vote anyway because the more delegates he has, the more influence he can have on the platform, and that’s really what you want out of a candidate such as himself.

United States Senator: John Thompson Parker

So this one is funny because California has a dumbass jungle primary, so the two candidates in November will probably be Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez. That’s something to be proud of anyway.

Something like 34 people are running for this seat, and many bought the right to have a statement in the voter guide. Some of these candidates, who again paid real money to provide a statement, provided blank statements. Some just gave a URL. This is your one chance to make an impression on people who have no idea who you are, and this is what you do? Whatever. Here are some highlights.

Ling Ling Shi didn’t submit a photo and is probably using a Senate run to drive traffic to her designed-in-1997 website. She indicates no party preference and is from one of my favorite cities, Rancho Cucamonga.

Massie Munroe is a Democrat and wants you to join her in the fight against “‘mind control slavery’ by satellite energy technology weapons and social engineering programs that have been in continual development for the past 50 years.” She has 664 likes on Facebook, so if you’ll like her, I’ll like her, too.

President Cristina Grappo is also a Democrat and clearly running for the wrong office. In her own words, “I am mainstream Facebook in social media! My core values drive America!” Well, if that’s the case, then she doesn’t need my help. Moving on.

Don Grundmann simply shares that he has the much coveted domain. But if you go there (some things I just can’t link to) you can see he’s probably going to support Donald Trump in the general election unless the Constitution Party tells him to do otherwise. My favorite piece of his is the one in which he calls black people “chumps.” San Leandro has the weirdest white people I know.

Herbert Peters is a Democrat but refers to himself as an “Andrew Jackson Democrat.” Some easy jokes there if you want to do the legwork. I can tell he is old because he uses lowercase L’s instead of ones in his numerals (example: ll8 instead of 118). Unfortunately for him, the voter information guide uses a sans serif font.

Karen Roseberry is a Republican. Her website uses the WordPress Twenty Ten theme, which makes me think she ran for the Senate six years ago and is recycling the website.

Jason Hanania, in his statement, simply puts the binary number for 101: 01100101. It’s also another way to write the letter E, but I can’t explain why.

I saved the best for last.

Mike Beitiks really deserves your vote. His website has a cute domain, and he refers to his platform as “narrow. It’s more of a single board, really.” Beitiks is your climate change candidate. That’s all he cares about because, if we don’t solve that, nothing else matters. Pretty legit. He should run for governor in 2018 where he can actually make a difference.

That’s enough. Let’s move on.

United States Representative, District 19: Zoe Lofgren

I’ve said this before, but I hate jungle primaries with only two candidates, because it literally doesn’t matter who you vote for. You have to make the same decision again in November with the same candidates. It’s as meaningless as a preseason NFL game, only your head hurts without getting a concussion. I guess that’s more efficient?

State Senator, District 15: Jim Beall

There are four candidates, two each from the two major parties. As an aside, it’s really hard to spell out the numbers because at work we always use numerals, but I think it calls too much attention to the numbers in this context.

Beall is the incumbent. In his statement, he talks about things he had done before he became a state senator. Who, exactly, are you going to convert with such a declaration? Do you really think you came up with highways 85 and 87 all by yourself, all during your last term?

Having said that, he does support universal preschool pre-K. (What was wrong with “preschool”?) He also supports raising the minimum wage, although now that it’s indexed to inflation in San Jose I don’t care so much anymore. (But I should. Rent increases higher than inflation does.)

Nora Campos was termed out of the Assembly so now she is trying to primary Beall. (I’m not going to get into why term limits suck again. The Internet is doing a fine job managing that without me.) I get it. She needs something to do. But maybe wait until Beall’s done with his current term?

It’s just not appropriate to play the victim card (“special interests … will be opposing me”) when you’re the one coming in from the outside. Wait your turn.

Chuck Page is from Saratoga. He’s not going to represent my interests. Will he represent yours? He has standard fiscal conservative viewpoints, so he’s got a shot if that’s what you’re into. When he talks about the environment he means the job environment.

Anthony Macias didn’t submit a statement.

In what is essentially a three-way race, Page should be putting money into Campos’s campaign to guarantee himself a second place finish. Then anything can happen.

Member of the State Assembly, District 28: Evan Low

Another race with just two candidates. The voter information pamphlet (not to be confused with the aforementioned voter information guide) has a typo, calling Nicholas Sclavos a family “buisness” manager. As my manager says, typos bite.

City of San Jose, Member, City Council, District 6: Chris Roth

This is a somewhat wide open race, and I’ve gotten a ton of mailers. There are at least 2 PACs sending me negative stuff, too. Anyway, it’s probably the most important thing on the ballot because the electorate is smaller, and it’s essentially guaranteeing someone a job for 8 years, after which BART will finally be here, and the A’s still won’t.

Myron Von Raesfeld has the most interestingly designed yard signs, but I see so few of them. It uses a very wide font, and the letters all run together. I don’t know that this is such a good design decision, but it’s clearly memorable.

Anyway, Von Raesfeld moved here in the ’90s and is playing the “we used to be the safest big city in America” card. It’s a little tired, but I wish him well. He is also a former firefighter but doesn’t appear to have an endorsement from them, which is odd. Realtors like him.

In what will be a recurring theme, he’s a good candidate, but he isn’t the best one for me. Recommended if you like outsiders with good intentions.

Erik Fong has been sending me a lot of stuff in the mail, but in a crowded field, it’s just not working on me. I can’t quite put my finger on it. His yard signs have his name in giant letters, which you can do when your name is short.

Fong is the Kartma guy. Kartma is amazing. I maintain Kartma is so good that it is why the neighboring Peet’s closed. I am also a conspiracist.

Recommended if you like pragmatic philanthropists who care about the community.

Ruben Navarro I think has an outside chance of making it to the runoff. He’s the only candidate against the Lincoln Avenue Road Diet, a touchy issue for many people. I think he’s subtly going after the conservatives, because his signs are very red, white, and blue, and they use a ’90s Helvetica-inspired font. He’s also active on Nextdoor, which I think most of the other candidates could do a better job with.

His parents are both union, so he’s a uniquely San Jose candidate to me. I fear he doesn’t have the flexibility to empathize with people who disagree with him, but he’s a great candidate for a large swath of District 6. If he doesn’t advance to the general, it’s only because his campaign has been too grassroots.

Recommended if you don’t like the Lincoln Avenue Road Diet and big money candidates.

Dev Davis is the early favorite among the candidates. She has the Chamber of Commerce endorsement as well as a great name. (“Dev” is short for “Devora,” a great name in its own right.) I think she peels off a few votes from developers, both web and land, who giggle because they self-identify as devs.

Davis discloses her age (38) and refers to herself as a fiscal conservative, a popular phrase to get votes in San Jose. She is also Chuck Reed’s preferred candidate. She’s about to earn her dual master’s degree and has two adopted children. Her signs are kind of bland.

I’m sure she’s a lovely person. Not having been a fan of the past two mayors, I’m not inclined to support her.

Recommended if you’re a long-time San Josean.

Helen Chapman has run a great campaign and I think could be the third choice when all is said and done, and that’s a shame. Her statement is a little too filled with rhetoric, but she has signs everywhere. I’d like to see her continue to pursue public service because she clearly cares.

Recommended if you like “high energy” candidates.

Norm Kline is probably the other candidate that makes the general. I liked his mailer with the picture of him from when he was in high school. He’s the same age as my own father (58), so the resemblance is striking.

The former Apple product manager is a hustler in the best sense of the word, having worked many jobs to get to where he is today. He fits the mold of someone who made it and now wants to give back. I will probably have to vote for him in November. His lawn signs must be boring, because I cannot remember what they look like. I know I haven’t seen too many of them.

The Mercury News endorses him, as does the current major, Sam Liccardo. He’s also a former mayor of Saratoga.

Recommended if you like self-made people with a great work ethic.

Peter Allen is also 38, and he was the last candidate I had heard of among them. He’s a third-generation San Josean, which is increasingly difficult to find these days.

I’ve seen a fair amount of lawn signs from this guy as well. They remind me of Davis’s, but I’m not implying one stole the idea from the other. There are only so many colors and typefaces out there, and there are eight candidates. I do like the vertical rule in his. It shows a steadiness one would expect from a leader.

I see this run as a stepping stone to running again or for some other public service soon. He’s got time. He’s also chair of the San Jose Arts Commission.

Recommended if you like city culture.

Roth drew the short straw in terms of being listed at the end of the ballot. Having said that, if you’re in a long list, you want to be first or last in order to stand out.

Speaking of standing out, Roth lists his occupation on the ballot as “father,” but in Spanish it says “padre de familia.” For those who watch TV with SAP turned on, you know that that is also what the show “Family Guy” is called. Does this make Roth the voice of Latino millennials? Doubtful, but it could be enough to grab a few extra votes.

Anyway, I like Roth because I like libraries. That was what initially attracted me to his candidacy, and my neighbors have all seen my yard sign of his. (It’s a yard sign, incidentally, with the best design and use of color.)

Roth is the chair of the San Jose Library and Early Education Commission. He’s also only 35, which means a deep run in this race sets him up for additional public service, and I want someone such as this guy representing me wherever possible. He also has endorsements from Gavin Newsom and Madison Nguyen.

Recommended if you like libraries.

Proposition 50: Yes

We don’t always get to vote on the sexiest things. Here we get to decide how suspending legislators works. It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, we could change how those rules work.

Today it just takes a majority vote to suspend a lawmaker, and when you consider the partisan atmosphere we have, it isn’t hard to railroad a lawmaker when it’s not necessarily appropriate.

Proposition 50 will require a two-thirds majority to suspend someone. In addition, the legislator would no longer receive salary or benefits while suspended.

What did it for me was seeing who was for and against it. The president of the League of Women Voters helped author the argument in favor, while term limit supporters provided the rebuttal. In addition, the argument against uses conservative outlet Breitbart as a source. That’s a dog whistle if I’ve ever seen one.

So generically if you’re conservative or support term limits you want to vote No on 50. More objectively, if you think trying to get to a two-thirds majority is asking too much then that’s another reason to vote No. It’s much ado about nothing because legislators hardly ever get suspended anyway.

Measure AA: Yes

This is a fun one. Measures tend to be county by county, but this is one for the entire nine-county Bay Area. It’s a 20-year, $12 parcel tax to clean up the bay. If you pay property taxes twice a year, you will pay $6 more for the next 24 times you pay it.

Because of Proposition 13, this requires a two-third majority, and it will probably be close because those assholes in Contra Costa County are not likely to accept such things. We need to get as many votes from San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties as possible.

The libertarians and taxpayer societies are against it, while the League of Conservation Voters is for it. That sounds about right.

The reason you vote No is because you believe the argument about how if it doesn’t pass we will just get the money some other way. I would believe that more if Jerry Brown weren’t leaving in 2 years.

Another reason to vote No is because you don’t want the government to be in charge of cleanup and would rather leave it to free enterprise.

Measure A: Yes

This is the park measure that tends to show up on the ballot every now and then. Right now a certain amount of the taxes property owners pay goes to parks, and the current setup expires in 2021. Measure A will extend this requirement 11 years to 2032. It’s kind of how Proposition 98 requires a certain percentage of taxes to go to education.

This is not a tax but rather a requirement of how taxes get divvied up. Voters may get confused and not vote yes for both AA and A, but we’ll see.

The only argument against A was provided by a resident of Milpitas, who gives a boilerplate fiscal conservative response about the national debt, inflated bureaucracy, etc. Sometimes an argument can hurt your cause.

The real reason to vote No would be because you don’t like limiting control over how funds get spent. If you think our parks are fine and don’t need so much money spent on them, then it wouldn’t make sense to allocate a minimum amount of money toward them.

Measure B: Yes

I’m confused why this is on the ballot now instead of in November, but whatever. Measure B increases the sales tax rate in San Jose from 8.75% to 9%. The quarter point increase is supposed to help restore police services, although it’s going to depend on a committee to achieve such a thing. The tax increase is what’s referred to as a “general” tax.

Sales taxes are regressive. But police is important. This is a common yet tricky dilemma.

I can’t be convinced that we’ll find some other way (parcel tax is my preference) to increase funding for police. The No argument states that the city will prioritize police funding if it has to, and that it doesn’t need more money for it to find a way. I disagree.

This is a 15-year increase, although it could always be repealed by ballot measure later. I’m just not going to let this go and then wait for another opportunity to find funding for police.

Measure C: Yes

This measure has generated a lot of controversy on social media. It’s enough to make you not vote. But you should, if nothing else because it allows you to be self-righteous later. It’s important to have opportunities to be self-righteous!

Anyway, today most of the marijuana dispensaries (collectives, if you will) are located in one area. Besides the potential to increase crime, it also is a logistical nightmare to get people from all over to head to one neighborhood to get their weed. Measure C would relax (ha) the zoning requirements, which would allow dispensaries to be in more parts of the city, making it easier for people to get to them, especially if they don’t drive.

The Yes side is funny because the author of the measure has publicly come out and said to vote No, that he’s achieved what he needed by getting it on the ballot so never mind. Pretty discouraging.

But then my mailbox is flooded with ridiculous No flyers, all using fear to try to get me to vote No. Apparently there will be dispensaries on every corner if Measure C passes! The children! Won’t someone please think of the children?

It will probably work. But it won’t work on me. The reason you vote No is because you think things are fine the way they are. I’m more concerned with less traffic (and the worst kind—I don’t want people driving when they shouldn’t, just to get their prescription).

General election 2014 coverage for the deaf

October 12, 2014

I shot a lot of my wad on the primary column last spring, so there’s not much left in the tank this time. But most importantly the social media preview for this piece will include the verb “shot” and the noun “wad,” so page views should be through the roof. Too bad turnout will be at a record low for a midterm election.

I wish you could make people care. You can’t, really. I mean it doesn’t mean you don’t try. But you can’t take it personally when people click Like or tap Favorite and then move on. Sometimes that’s the only currency you can get when it comes to receiving payment. So be it. Like I’m not writing any of this for someone else. I’m obviously doing it for me.

Before getting into Willow Glen’s ballot, I want to talk about the key issue on the minds of those who are actually paying attention to this election: control of the Senate. It just doesn’t matter.

On first blush, the reason seems obvious. Majority! Majority means majority! Well, you need 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate so who cares whether it’s 50 or 49 or 51? In addition, the House isn’t interested in passing anything the president will sign. For better or for worse, the president will still be issuing executive orders when shit needs to get done. And for the record, Obama is still at 183. His predecessor, George W. Bush, had 291. (Bill Clinton had 364. In roughly the first half of the 20th century, every president from Teddy Roosevelt to Dwight Eisenhower had at least 480. It really doesn’t matter how many executive orders presidents give. But it seems to be a big deal these days, so there you go.)

Another argument is that the ruling party gets to hand out committee assignments or some such. If the Senate as a whole isn’t going to pass anything for another 2 years, then who gives a shit? Just focus on your candidates if you have a race to vote on, and don’t nationalize a statewide election.

So what do I think will happen? I don’t know. And anyone who thinks they know is full of shit. There are too many polls within the margin of error, and we don’t know how accurate polling will be with this election because response rates are lower than ever, and one-third of households don’t own a landline. The polling industry hasn’t had this type of disruption to it ever. Will they normalize the data well? We’ll find out. I’ll give the Republican Party credit: They were ahead of the curve, in their attempts to “unskew” the polls in October 2012. It was a snow job to inspire false hope, but they were on to something, accidental or not.

The other issue is Louisiana and Georgia. No one is polling at 50%, and a majority vote is required in those two Senate races. That means runoffs. Louisiana’s is later in the year. Georgia’s isn’t until January 6, 2015. Throw in two races (South Dakota and Kansas) in which the indepedent is competitive, and there’s no way we’ll know anything for a long time. But again, the thing we will know will still be worthless. Enjoy the political theatre provided, but don’t see more to it than there actually is.

One more thing: I’ve never seen the administration get so little credit for the recent goings-on. Unemployment is under 6%, something Mitt Romney swore only he could do. Gas prices continue to drop. The deficit is under $500 billion, down 70% from 2009’s record $1.4 trillion. Second quarter GDP growth was 4.6% (although a lot has to do with it shrinking 2.1% in the first quarter, which mostly had to do with the weather). And somehow this is the worst president we’ve had? I know what will make it better: flipping the Senate and continuing not to pass any legislation! Got it.

Anyway. What do I get to connect the little arrows, using blue or black ink, for this time around? Stay tuned.

Governor: Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown

I already complained about the jungle primary. I’m not going to do it again. Like all the statewide offices, I get 2 choices. Thanks, Obama.

I actually streamed the debate while walking to pinball league. I like listening to old people talk, and I’m not going to pick up the phone just to talk to my grandparents. I don’t have a landline, and using my iPhone as a telephone? Can’t hear a damn thing.

Anyway, Brown was a lot funnier in the 2010 debate vs. Meg Whitman. And Neel Kashkari is a better opponent than, say, Bill Simon. But I have to ask myself: Who will do a better job governing the state for the next 4 years? For me, it’s an easy decision.

Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom

I want someone who isn’t going to wait for the governor to leave the state before enacting a bunch of legislation. Having a lieutenant governor of the same party as the governor seems to help keep that from happening. Neither candidate submitted statements, and I haven’t gotten any crap in the mail, so this is all I have to go on. Did you know Newsom is aixelsyd? He is!

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla

I voted for him in the primary. You’re welcome, Alex. I know four Alexes already. I really don’t need another one in my life, Pete Peterson is running as an outsider, but how slick is that name? Come on. Also, he uses inflammatory words like “outrageous” when talking about taxes. If I need you to tell me how to feel about taxes, I have bigger issues than remembering to vote. He also complains about state politics being a “merry go round.” Well, that’s what you get for having term limits.

Controller: Betty T. Yee

We’re guaranteed a female controller. I voted for Yee in the primary for Archie-related reasons. Ashley Swearengin didn’t provide a statement. What am I supposed to do? (Also, Kashkari endorsed Swearengin during the debate, so I guess there is also that.)

Treasurer: John Chiang

I voted for him in the primary, too. His opponent, Greg Conlon, has a huge typo in his statement, saying “GDB,” instead of “GDP.” Yeah, I want someone that sloppy in charge of my money. It’s bad enough my complex’s HOA has someone that unqualified in the same role. (Hint: It’s me.)

Attorney General: Kamala D. Harris

It’s true: I have a rule about taking the candidate with a prepared statement, which Ron Gold has. But I also have a rule about sticking with the candidate I selected during the primary, barring egregious acts. Well, there is one thing. There are rumors that Harris could replace Eric Holder. And she says she doesn’t want the job which is the obvious response if she really does. But I believe her. And I can’t have Newsom up there without Harris balancing him out. (They both have San Francisco roots.)

Finally, Gold’s statement talks about price fixing and high gas prices. I guess it’s bad timing that prices have dropped so much the past 3 months. Well, he tried.

Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones

The power of incumbency. In Jones’s prepared statement, he lists all of his accomplishments. They’re pretty impressive. It also reduces Ted Gaines to talk about concepts. “Not creating jobs” and “I can do better” don’t work when the state is already creating jobs and doing better. There’s nothing tailored about this statement. He can use it again if he runs in 4 years. I bet I could find another candidate who wrote the same thing. You get the idea.

Member, State Board of Equalization, District 2: Fiona Ma

It’s kind of funny because there are at least 1,000 people in California who, on seeing that James E. Theis drives a pickup truck to work every day, will automatically vote for Ma for that reason alone. Hey, other people can make voting fun, too. It’s not just me. Like Jones, Ma has done a tone of stuff, so I don’t have a reason not to vote for her.

United States Representative, District 19: Zoe Lofgren

I voted for Lofgren in the primary. Robert Murray didn’t provide a statement. No wad left to shoot.

California Assembly, District 28: Evan Low

Well, I guess I will be able to vote for Low after all. I went with someone else in the primary but expressed regret in doing so. Redemption, sanctuary—call it what you want. I get my man. Chuck Page got the endorsement of my least favorite Chuck: Chuck Reed. Also, his prepared statement has a TinyURL for his Facebook page. Such terrible usability! Just put the Facebook URL in your statement or say “find me on Facebook.” Of course, having your Facebook page URL end in “cpageAD28” is too clever anyway. It makes the TinyURL seem less bad. Next time, use “chuckforassembly.” Anyway, I can’t have someone assemble on my behalf with that kind of social media strategy.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court: Yes to all

Let’s do them all at once. Goodwin Liu was appointed by Governor Brown in 2011. He went to Stanford. Mariano-Florentino Cuellar was just appointed by Brown in July. He also attended Stanford and is a law professor there today. Kathryn Mickle Werdegar was admitted to the California Bar 50 years ago. Fifty! She went to Cal and has been on the court for 20 years.

Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District: Yes to all

You don’t get any information about these guys. Here are the names for keyword density reasons: Eugene Milton Premo, Adrienne M. Grover, Patricia Bammatre-Manoukian, Miguel Marquez, and Franklin D. Elia. I would say Grover is my favorite because that’s a Sesame Street character.

You know what it is? Voting is fun. You get to make those little arrows on the ballot. But there just aren’t enough arrows to fill! Well, now you can fill a whole bunch more with these Appellate District candidates! How fun!

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 24: Diane Ritchie

Another one in which I picked a winner in the primary. I guess it’s not that hard to do because there are two winners, by that definition. Anyway, both candidates make a good, um, case, but I don’t have a reason not to vote for the incumbent.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson

Same story. Already picked him once. I don’t like that Marshall Tuck uses charter school success as a reason for voting for him. I appreciate the benefits of charter schools, but you don’t know which ones are working out until the students become part of society. Tell me something more tangible next time.

Mayor, City of San Jose: Dave Cortese

Well, my guy made it to the general election, and he’s facing off against Sam Liccardo. There are really only two differences between these candidates: age and their views on pension reform. I’ve already gotten into my issue with pension reform. In short, if it were that big of a deal, then why use so much fear about the unknown when stating a case for it? “Unfunded liabilities” is a dog-whistle phrase for me. It sets off my bullshit detector.

I am a little nervous. I see a lot of Liccardo signs in my neighborhood, although that does provide some affirmation, because Willow Glen has a ton of money. I really doubt the people with the most money have the best interest of the city as a whole. I also haven’t gotten any mail from Cortese. Hopefully he’s spending time on the East Side, where his name may play better because it sounds more locally ethnic than “Liccardo.” (Both men are actually Italian. They have a ton of things in common, actually.)

In their debate, Liccardo and Cortese disagree on what it meant that 300 cops resigned. Cortese says it is because of pension reform, but Liccardo points out that they left before pension reform passed. That’s true. It’s also true that pension reform felt inevitable at the time, and if you’re looking to move, you want to get out while the getting is good. The specter of pension reform alone is enough to scare cops and make recruiting more challenging as well.

We’ll see what happens. I haven’t found any polls on the race, so it’s really going to be a surprise once they start counting the votes. All I will add is that the murder rate has doubled during Reed’s time in office, and Reed endorses Liccardo. That is enough right there for me.

Proposition 1: Yes

Ahh, the propositions. The real opportunity for creative writing. Proposition 1 authorizes $7.5 billion in bonds for various water infrastructure projects. The timing is politically intelligent because of the drought. I don’t see how this fails. The reason you vote no is because you think we’re already doing enough to manage the state’s water supply.

Proposition 2: Yes

I don’t see how this one fails, either. It uses language like “rainy day fund” and “vote yes,” which can really sway voters.

Proposition 2 takes 1.5% of the general fund and sets it aside, as well as some revenue from capital gains taxes. It sits there until the budget runs a deficit, after which the funds can be unlocked to help balance the budget. This is important because of Proposition 13, which reduced the percentage of tax revenue that comes from stable sources, such as property taxes. Capital gains taxes and sales taxes show much more variance. That’s why we had some big budget deficits during Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration. So if we can’t repeal Proposition 13, this is another way to address the issues that it cases.

Now, because this is being done at the state level, it becomes less important for local school districts to have a rainy day fund of their own. And like it or not, local government needs to be able to trust the state. Sometimes it doesn’t work out, but it’s very expensive and inefficient for governments that don’t trust each other to get things done. In the context of Proposition 2, it means that the maximum size of local rainy day funds will be reduced. And that’s where the “No on 2” crowd comes in.

A group called “Educate Our State” has written the argument and rebuttal. Such a clever name. Perhaps a little too clever? I think Educate Our State is worried about something that’s not an issue. Yes, if we had a $26 billion deficit again then local districts would be helpless in reducing cutbacks because of a lack of a useful rainy day fund. But that’s not going to happen. We have a $10 billion surplus this year, and we can use upcoming surpluses to prepare for the future. The state is not setting up local schools so they can be hung out to dry. It’s not 2009 anymore. There’s nothing to be afraid of. I can’t support a side that uses fear to prove a point.

Proposition 45: Yes

I knew this one and Proposition 46 were going to be annoying because the TV ads started in the summer. Let’s take a look.

Auto insurance, health insurance. What do they have in common? They historically go up, and they’re run by insurance companies. Well, in California, that’s only half true. Auto insurance rates have dropped during the past 20 years. No other state can make that claim. Know why? A key reason could be Proposition 103. The same insurance protections that Proposition 45 will provide? Those are the ones that affected the auto and home insurance industries in 1988. It has saved Californians $102 billion.

Will the same concept work for health insurance? Why not? Maybe not the best argument, but it’s better than the fear, uncertainty, and doubt you get from the No on 45 TV ads. And having the president of the California Chamber of Commerce write the argument against Proposition 45 doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Since when has that organization cared about the general public? They were probably against Proposition 103 as well.

Proposition 46: Yes

To me, this one is even easier to understand than Proposition 45. First of all, the maximum damages for pain and suffering that someone can receive in California is $250,000. It hasn’t changed since 1975 and therefore isn’t indexed to inflation. Proposition 46 increases this to $1 million and also puts a cap on attorney fees.

Second of all, Proposition 46 will reduce the number of people who die because of prescriptions that don’t work with each other. Some drugs just shouldn’t be taken with others. But if you don’t get all your prescriptions from the same pharmacy or doctor, you may accidentally take two different medications that, when taken together, can provide an undesired effect. It happens a lot, up to 440,000 people every year. Imagine if there were a database that would alert doctors and pharmacies that a potentially dangerous medication was about to be administered to a patient. That’s what you get with 46.

Honestly, that’s enough for me. But the deceptive ads talking about hackable databases and trial lawyers takes the cake. Throw in the “No on 46” sign next to the Liccardo sign I saw in my neighborhood, and I know I am on the right side of this one.

Proposition 47: Yes

This one is a little closer and has a lot to do with how you feel about crime. Dealing with it is expensive, and there are arguments that say we overpunish some offenses and underpunish others.

Proposition 47 makes an effort to do this, reclassifying some misdemeanors and felonies for the purpose of saving money. The saved money would go toward mental health programs and other similar stuff like schools and crime victims.

I’m fine with this but am still thinking about it. I don’t think voters should be making these types of decisions because we don’t understand how the prison industry works. But are we better off with this proposition than without it? Yeah, probably.

Proposition 48: No

This one is the hardest one for me. On one hand, I give Native Americans whatever the fuck they want. I even let them call themselves Indians. I mean, I just don’t care.

On the other hand, new casinos aren’t expanding the pie anymore. This industry is now pretty self-sustaining and doesn’t necessarily need this type of expansion. Now, we can’t let the free market decide because the system isn’t set up that way. Voters always have to approve these things. We may have finally reached the point where we don’t need to keep adding more.

It’s hard, because Governor Brown supports Proposition 48, and many other Indian casinos in California are against it. Of course: They don’t want the competition. But the impartial analysis even says that most of the increased economic activity will be offset by decreases elsewhere. Such mental masturbation can be fun, but this isn’t the right setting for it. And it is kind of nice to know I don’t automatically agree with the governor on everything.

Measure G: Yes

Boring. Measure G has to do with retirement boards. Nothing is secretive today, nor would it be tomorrow. Measure G just lets San Jose’s governance be modified. The No side didn’t submit an argument or a rebuttal to the Yes side’s argument, so phooey on them.

Measure Q: Yes

Measure Q is a $24 15-year parcel tax for the Santa Clara County Open Space Authority. It requires a two-thirds majority. Property owners have the means to pay for preservation like none other. I’m happy to pay an extra $2 every month to help out.

The No argument is quite predictable. It’s written by taxpayer organizations, who never seem to want to spend money on anything. They also use hyphenated phrases such as “bureaucratic-elite.” Makes it hard for me to take them seriously.

Target already has 11 locations in San Jose, so perhaps this can keep us from having more of those as well. I can’t afford to buy any more baseball cards.

Primary election 2014 coverage for the deaf

May 25, 2014

It’s been a busy time in my life, and I really thought these election columns, which now date back 18 years to when I wrote about Prop. 209, among others, would fall by the wayside. But then I realized I was going to do the same amount of research in any case, because I still have to vote. So I’ll find a way to make it work.

Speaking of which, we’ve got kids graduating high school now who will be off to college in the fall. The first group of kids to have never been alive in an age of affirmative action. I’m not sure what exactly Prop. 209 was going to solve, but it seems safe to say that its passage failed to do anything.

California has a jungle primary now, thanks to stupid California voters. The good thing, I guess, is I will finally vote for candidates who win with some regularity. But my Peace and Freedom-loving ass will no longer be getting any love in the fall.

WordPress sure looks different these days. I hope this publishes in the right place. It teaches me that we need to pay more attention to lapsed users at my day job. But enough of this opening monologue, which is just a sign that I need to do more, other, writing.

Governor: Edmund G. “Jerry” Brown

I haven’t received anything in the mail—nor have I seen any ads on TV for this race. But who can blame them? Brown has overcome a lot, such as being named “Edmund,” in his life and is ready for a fourth term as governor. I will take this as more proof that term limits are stupid. (I covered this four years ago, but the reason term limits don’t apply in this case is because the counter reset everyone to zero when voters passed term limits in 1990. Anyway, we have about 4 years to abolish Prop. 140, or California will regress once again.)

My candidate appears to be Cindy Sheehan, and I’m not interested. I get that times are tough for third parties, but such gimmickry can do more harm than good. How many people will really say, “Oh, Cindy Sheehan. I remember her! Yes, that is who I want as governor!”? Well, I hope it works out for them.

The play here may be to pick the second-best candidate, in case something happens to Brown. Otherwise you’re going to be stuck voting for only one candidate in the fall. (Again, jungle primaries are stupid.) I enjoy the cleverly named Rakesh Kumar Christian. He’ll get 1,000 votes from the last name alone. Akinyemi Agbede is probably doing this for a doctoral thesis, considering the ballot states the candidate is a doctoral student. There are 11 other candidates, and I’m not going to do bits on all of them. As bad as these were, imagine how much worse the others would be.

Lieutenant Governor: Amos Johnson

My party has nominated a security guard to be lieutenant governor. That’s perfect. I am happy to play along. In other news, there’s an Americans Elect candidate: Alan Reynolds. Good for them. It’s nice to see democracy at work, even if it amounts for nothing, because, that’s right, jungle primaries are stupid. I remember when I heard about instant runoff voting for the first time. I thought to myself, “Wow. That’s clever. What would be the opposite of that?” Well, we have an answer.

Anyway, Gavin Newsom is the incumbent. If you want to secure a Democrat in this role, I guess go for Eric Korevaar. I’ll be pleased with the rent-a-cop and hope you will be too.

Secretary of State: Alex Padilla

Eight candidates. All dudes. The only name I recognize is Leland Yee, but I didn’t like him when he was a San Francisco Supervisor. I didn’t like him when he threw a fit about the Hot Coffee mod in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. And, I don’t like him now. Of course now no one likes him, but I don’t care about that.

I usually don’t have to guess so much for such an important role, but I do here. My party has no one nominated. There are no women nominated. So all I can do is pick the most ethnically sounding name I can and hope it works out. Ladies and gentlemen, Alex Padilla! When he becomes president in 2032, I’ll pretend I was being prescient. A shout out to Green Party candidate David Curtis, who under profession, put “Dad.”

Controller: Betty Yee

Six candidates, four women. There is probably a joke there. I’m just happy I can vote for a Yee, although I was going to have this whole thing about voting for the right one, and Leland done fucked it all up.

So John Perez is probably going to win. He is the Assembly Speaker, and people care a lot about that sort of stuff. Ashley Swearengin has an awesome name, but I’m not sure why “Mayor, City of Fresno” is something to be proud of.

That takes us to Betty Yee. She is on the Board of Equalization, so this is a logical next step for her. I have always loved the name “Betty,” and perhaps a victory here will help Archies around the world see the light. This is where you should be glad I only have one vote.

Treasurer: John Chiang

Chiang was the Controller for two terms and is now trying something new. It’s the term limits carousel. Everybody get on board.

I will always like Chiang because he stood up to Arnold Schwarzenegger when the governor wanted to pay state employees minimum wage while the budget wasn’t done. I don’t know anything about the other candidates, and I’m ready to just move on.

Attorney General: Kamala Harris

I’ll accept Orly Taitz because the campaign ads will be ridiculous. But with a jungle primary, which, yes, is stupid, you can’t risk a cupcake opponent in case the other candidate dies or wins the lottery. So maybe not. The Libertarians finally get on the board here, with Jonathan Jaech, so if you want an AG who says he doesn’t want to prosecute because government should not get involved, there’s your guy.

Ronald Gold is a prosecutor and stands out in a field of attorneys. Phil Wyman is not only an attorney but a rancher, so there is that. I will stick with Special K.

Insurance Commissioner: Nathalie Hrizi

Can you believe it? A Peace and Freedom candidate will finish third! That’s because there are only three candidates. Dave Jones is the incumbent. Ted Gaines is also getting involved. They should turn these lesser races into reality shows. We would get to know the candidates on a level not seen without the assistance of SuperPACs. Everybody wins.

Member, State Board of Equalization, District 2: Fiona Ma

This is the most pointless item on the ballot. There are only two candidates. But it’s a jungle primary! And in this case, it’s not the jungle primary that’s stupid. It’s that we’ll have to vote twice on the same race, once now, and once in the fall. It’s about as useful as a preseason NFL game.

For those of you out there who refuse to vote a straight Democratic ticket because then you can say you’re “objective,” here is your out. The Republican candidate, James Theis, is an organic foods manager. Keep an eye on this guy. I bet you he is going to lead the backlash against the anti-GMO crowd because he can act as a subject matter expert. And I might support him. But not here.

United States Representative, District 19: Zoe Lofgren

There are only two candidates here as well, and both are Democrats. It makes sense, considering where I live. Lofgren, who should do a photo with Alonzo Mourning, submitted a statement! It’s boilerplate, but she does mention bringing BART to San Jose.

As a Representative, it generally doesn’t matter who we have, because they will vote the same way on everything. However, Lofgren has seniority, which is a big deal in those circles. (Again, term limits are stupid but luckily only at the state level.) Robert Murray will have stories to tell at cocktail parties. I know if I ever met him I would want to know what it was like to run against Lofgren.

California Assembly, District 28: Barry Chang

I really struggled with this one. I’ve read a ton of press on Evan Low. I’m a fan! Which in modern Facebook lexicon means I like him. (Hey, when you only write a column every two years, some of the jokes will be stale. Deal with it.) There’s only one issue with Low. He’s not Barry Chang.

Chang sends me stuff in the mail. He takes risks, like putting his smiling family next to a high-speed rail train. I don’t mean he put his family near a moving one. But just that he would associate himself with high-speed rail! I am convinced I’m the only person left who supports this project, and that all these polls showing 40% support or whatever it is are all doctored.

Now, granted, he doesn’t approve of the Central Valley route, and he uses some polarizing language in his mailers, criticizing the love of my life, Jerry Brown. Like I said, he takes risks. Well, I respect that. And I don’t necessarily want all decision makers to agree on everything before they even debate a topic. This is my point: I trust Brown and Chang to work together to figure things out. I’m not going to let what goes on in other elected chambers sully my understanding of public service.

Chang also has a picture of his dog with his family on one of the mailers he sent, which I don’t appreciate it, but I’ll let it slide. If it turns out Low has 2 cats or something, I’ll reassess.

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 4: Stuart Scott

I already got the SportsCenter jokes out of my system. Scott is running unopposed. I ain’t sayin’ nothin’, but that ain’t right.

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 21: Julianne Sylva

I’ll give D. A. Lempert credit: He (the “D” stands for “Dennis”) writes a candidate statement with integrity. The issue is outgoing judge Kevin McKenney endorses Sylva. That’s got to mean something. She’s also bilingual, and her name starts with “J”! Something for everyone.

Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 24: Diane Ritchie

Did you know a lot of people glaze over the length of these pieces but read the shorter ones because they’re shorter? It’s really a shame because I’m just not that funny in these shorter vignettes. Anyway, Ritchie is the incumbent, and when I look at the other two candidates, I wonder why they don’t run for Office No. 4 and give Scott a run for his money. He needs someone to whom he can bust out the whoopin’ stick.

Matthew Harris has a lot of good endorsements, so it wouldn’t be the end of the world if he won. Annrae Angel is also a fine candidate. The problem with voting for judge is, by the time you know whether the judge is any good, it’s too late to do anything about it.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson

I really need something, anything, on these candidates. Voting for the incumbent because he is the incumbent is stupid. But I know nothing of Marshall Tuck and Lydia Gutierrez.

So here is something to think about. In terms of funding, the schools aren’t dealing with the crises they’d been dealing with for, what, the past 10 years? It takes a different mindset to be in charge when you’re prioritizing resources when you have enough of them. Having to cut back isn’t necessarily more difficult, but the conversations are different.

What does it all mean? There is definitely a better qualified candidate because of current budget situation, but I have no way of knowing who it is. And Super Nintendo of Public Instruction is a key office in these times. Do we really want people to vote on these things? Why not ask me to make a souffle while you’re at it?

Member, Board of Supervisors, District 4: Ken Yeager

He’s running unopposed, thus shelving the day-after headline of “Yeager bombs.” Did you know kids aren’t drinking Jägermeister anymore? It’s going to be the new rye. Anyway, I like the guy. His statement talks about his endorsement of the work on the 280/880/17 interchange. Sounds good to me.

Assessor: Larry Stone

Dude is 73 now. And we all know who he is because when that annual assessment of your property’s worth comes in the mail, it’s signed “Larry Stone.” What with the recent real estate history in the area, he was ripe for the picking, yet no one unseated him. This time around, he’s running unopposed. He should include a sticker with his annual love letter, but whatever. It does save taxpayer money not to.

District Attorney: Jeff Rosen

He is another incumbent running unopposed. Similar to judges, by the time you find out how good he is, it’s probably too late for it to matter.

Sheriff: Laurie Smith

Kevin Jensen retired and doesn’t like what he sees, so he’s running against incumbent Smith. I remember her name, so I must have had a strong opinion last time around. But checking my notes is cheating, especially considering the rationalization I use when selecting candidates in the first place.

Both candidates have good statements, although Jensen alleges favoritism without giving examples, which is worthless. Smith, as an incumbent, has a laundry list of endorsements and everyone’s favorite keyword, “bipartisan.”

Mayor, City of San Jose: Dave Cortese

The undercard is so boring this election, but we finally get to what is essentially the main event, even if there are still propositions and a ballot measure remaining. Rather than start off by going through the candidates one by one, I’ll first talk about the issues that are important to me. That way, it will explain why I react the way I do and give you the proper context. Like I usually say, it’s about informing you, not to get you to vote like me, although I do bold my picks for the lazy, and I do appreciate those votes.

So there are a few ways to parse these candidates. Of the eight, five submitted statements. These are the same five that appeared at a debate earlier this spring, which of course I only heard about on the news after it happened. Another way to separate these candidates is whether they publicize their stance on pension reform.

Now, I will go down that rabbit hole, just for a second. Previous readers will recall my disgust with Measure B. I said if it passed it would make recruiting police and fire more difficult. It would make our best leave for greener pastures. And it would make crime go up. That’s exactly what happened. But like Prop. 13, if you poll voters to see whether they would do it all over again, they would line up and vehemently say “yes.” It just feels so good.

At this point, what’s done is done. Now granted, only the specter of Measure B has had an effect. But it’s hard to see the momentum reversing course. Regardless, it doesn’t matter because we still get to pick a mayor, and this topic isn’t one with unanimous support yet. So in that light, let’s move on.

Everywhere I go, I see Madison Nguyen signs. She has a lot of money behind her. She is the current Vice Mayor. And she has other characteristics of my last favored candidate (Cindy Chavez) as well: a) minority, b) woman. But, unfortunately, I’ve lived here for most of my life. So I also know about Ly Tong’s 28-day hunger strike when a neighborhood was to be rechristened “Saigon Business District” instead of “Little Saigon.” I know she was almost recalled. So no thanks.

The guy I am probably supposed to vote for is Pierluigi Oliverio. He is my city councilman. Yet I see so many signs in my neighborhood for other candidates, and I often see Oliverio’s name attached to public events as a form of free advertising. (Or maybe he is sponsoring them, like his Shakespeare in the Park endeavor.) It’s not just semantics. Having it brought by Pierluigi Oliverio for Mayor is a paperwork issue, but that doesn’t make it look any less like cheesy advertising. I will vote for him if the runoff is between him and Nguyen. And then I will move to Colma.

Sam Liccardo went to private school (Bellarmine) and supports pension reform. He talks about spending “smarter” instead of spending “more.” I know what that means, and I don’t want a mayor that preys on telling people things that sound indisputable. Rose Herrera does a lot of things well, but she also supports pension reform. She did go to Overfelt, so I do give her some credit. If she became mayor I wouldn’t leave town.

Who does that leave? Dave Cortese. I keep calling him “Dan Cortese,” which at least now might get me some extra clicks because of search engine optimization. I generally don’t pick the candidate that singles out crime as a top priority, because it’s too easy to do that, and who doesn’t want to stop crime? However, with the recent spike in the murder rate, it does make sense, this time. And he’s an environment and public transit guy. Cortese has a shot, because he has name recognition and has a lot of unique positions. For example, several candidates will split the female vote, the pension reform vote, etc. Yeah, I guess he is splitting the hispanohablante vote with Herrera, but they are so different as candidates that it may not matter.

The other candidates are worth a mention. Bill Chew. Timothy Harrison. Mike Alvarado. There. I mentioned them.

This race will require reassessing after the primary. It’s really going to depend on who faces off for the most part. I think it’s going to be Cortese/Nguyen, but we’ll see. No matter what, the new mayor will be better than Chuck Reed.

Proposition 41: Yes

The VA Hospital scandal could not have happened at a better time for this one, even if it doesn’t directly help the situation. This is a $600 million bond measure for helping prevent veterans from becoming homeless when they get back.

The people against it are the typical “OMG bond measures mean more taxes later!!!1” If the return on investment is higher than the interest rate paid on the bonds, it’s worth it. But why have that argument again?

Even conservative groups favor this one (#supportourtroops), so I am sure this will pass handily.

Proposition 42: Yes

Forty-two is such a great number. It’s really a shame this go-round that it’s being wasted on such an inconsequential proposition.

Right now, public record totally exists, even if your name isn’t Keanu. But that shit costs money. So who should pay for it? Well, if it is a local meeting, then it is locally paid for, except for when it isn’t. Prop. 42 will shift this burden to the state level, which will ensure the records will stay public, accessible, and publicly accessible.

So that’s it. The reason you don’t like this is because you want people to pay for their own stuff instead of making a larger body of government take care of it. If that’s how you feel, you should definitely be voting “no.”

Measure B: Yes

“You’ve reached the end of your journey. Survival is everything.”

I’m getting too old for these columns. That’s probably why I’m using a 20+-year-old pinball reference to express this feeling.

Measure B renews an existing parcel tax on Santa Clara County libraries. So the pro side is using the age-old “your taxes won’t go up!” argument to support their cause. Whatever it takes, I guess. “That’s how we’ve always done it” is a terrible reason for anything, even if it’s the right thing to do.

Look, we know that parcel taxes for libraries raise property values enough such that the parcel owner gets a return on investment, if you will. There is nothing unique about the situation that can lead us to believe that it will be any different this time around. But if you want your libraries to be more self-sufficient or you just don’t think the libraries need whatever newfangled whatnot it is they have now, then you would have to vote no. As for me, I want fewer stupid citizens. If only our libraries were already so good that we didn’t need to have a parcel tax at all.

Perhaps we wouldn’t be voting in a jungle primary on June 3.

General election 2012 coverage for the deaf

October 19, 2012

I got all my work done, and rather than get caught up on, I decided it was time to tell people how this general election is going to go down. Probably, it will be via the elevator. Anyway, I don’t need to force wisecracks because they happen anyway, especially if a candidate has a phallic-sounding name.

President and Vice President: Joel Edelman and Lance Armstrong

It’s time for the least important thing on the ballot. Think about it: When 10 people vote on something, each of those votes is 10% of the electorate. With more than 200 million US citizens able to vote for this contest, well, you know where I’m going. So have some fucking fun with it.

Guess what? My entire life I had been looking forward to the 2012 general election. Do you know why? Because it’s the first one in which I would be at least 35 years old. That’s right. I can be the president. And that’s what I’m going to do. I am writing myself in as president.

But I need a vice president as well. Well, I might as well use the same strategy that I used for the primary. What better way to meet someone I have always wanted to meet than to have them be running mate? Pure genius, it is. But at the same time, it needs to be someone that nobody would want as president. That way, no one will ever assassinate me. See? I’m thinkin’.

And that’s why I will be writing Lance Armstrong in as my vice president. He has everything: Name recognition, access to money, and the contempt of our society. How perfect is that? So it’s an Edelman/Armstrong ticket in 2012.

United States Senator: Dianne Feinstein

Similar to my annual Oscars sheet, I usually get one candidacy right. This time it’s going to be Senator. Elizabeth Emken is everything I don’t want in a candidate. She lives in Danville. She doesn’t understand how the world works. And she has a chip on her shoulder because her son is autistic.

Just in general, don’t get me started on autism. What constitutes the condition has been widened over the years so more people can “have” it, and it’s become the Dallas Cowboys of conditions. “Don’t talk shit about the Dallas Cowboys,” people always say. Well I do. And Emken is Tony Romo and Leon Lett, rolled into one.

I got to vote for Feinstein in my first ever election, 18 years ago. She’s the Glass Joe of ballots. You’re always going to get that one right. This could be my last chance to practice my star punches, but I will still enjoy six more years of her success.

United States Representative, CA-19: Zoe Lofgren

The voter information pamphlet screwed up Robert Murray’s candidate statement by not putting the bullets in front of the bulleted statements, and it all goes downhill from there. His occupation is “businessman/lawyer/entrepreneur.” Sounds kind of redundant, or perhaps it was a tie between “businessman” and “lawyer,” so he decided to add “entrepreneur” as a tiebreaker. His statement is also very presumptuous. For example, I didn’t know I already knew what it took to raise a family and run a business.

Anyway, his whole tack is that he doesn’t like the national debt. Well, who owns the bonds that cover the national debt? Mostly, it’s Americans. And with interest rates so low, it’s clear there is a lot of demand for buying our debt. His statement is all talking points and platitudes (ugh, now I can’t use either of those phrases again).

Lofgren speaks in hyperbole as well, but more importantly her votes have reflected my values often enough that I will continue to vote for her. And it’s nice that I will at least get another one right on this ballot, because she’s got no chance to lose.

California State Senator, District 15: Jim Beall

California has a jungle primary now, because you’re all assholes and voted to have one. Like jungle volleyball, it sucks. Well, the top two vote-getters in the district during the primary were Joe Coto and Jim Beall. These were the two candidates that I had the hardest time choosing between in the first place. I went for Beall last time and have no reason to think otherwise this time. I don’t appreciate all the negative mailers that Beall has sent out to smear Coto, but whatever. That’s tiebreaker shit, and I already made a decision in June. See why jungle primaries are retarded?

California State Assembly, District 28: Paul Fong

Stupid WordPress. I accidentally activated a keyword shortcut, and then when I hit Undo, it deleted the entire paragraph on this race. I hate typing things twice. I hate typing things twice. Anyway, in June there were two candidates on the ballot: Paul Fong and Chad Walsh. Well, what a shock. Those two were the top finishers in the primary. And now I get to vote for the same person twice. I don’t like any kind of repetition. So anyway, I will continue to vote for Paul Fong. Lame-ass jungle primaries.

Santa Clara Valley Water District, District 2: David Ginsborg

The candidate I wanted to vote for didn’t submit a statement. His name is Drew Spitzer. Spitzer! For the water district! That’s perfect. Oh well. Maybe next time he will submit a statement. Barbara Keegan is well qualified, but she made a mistake: One of her flunkies came by with a card listing her endorsements (including Charlotte Powers, who I helped win a city council seat in 1992), and per usual, I ignored the knock on the door. However, what handwritten note was written on the card? “Sorry to miss you.” Miss me? You weren’t even here! None of that malarkey, Joe Biden or otherwise. That leaves David Ginsborg. An endorsement from Rod Diridon Jr. goes a long way with me. Also, under occupation he includes “father.” Fuck yeah.

Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, District 4: Garnetta Annable

Benjamin Cogan is an automotive technician. I wish he had put the rag down for a minute so he could have typed up a candidate statement. I would have liked to have seen what he would bring to the table. Dorsey Moore talks about solar, which is a big keyword for me, but he is also heavy into the jargon, using the phrase “user experience.” I am a user experience professional, as it were, and I’m sure that he and I have nothing in common in our careers. Nobody, not even me, should be using the word “experience” as a noun unless you’re talking about Dr. Frank. The incumbent is Garnetta Annable. I don’t recognize voting for this before, so maybe it’s some new thing that resulted from a measure passing. That’s probably it. But there is an incumbent already. So I really don’t know. My job is to connect the broken arrow next to my candidate with a pen. Garnetta is 66, so she will make sure old people will be able to use everything, so that’s great.

Proposition 30: Yes

I don’t hide the fact that I am a big fan of Governor Jerry Brown. And you have to admit: There have been a lot fewer controversies than during Arnold Schwarzenegger’s time in office. One of the things Brown said was “no new taxes, without voter approval.” Well, guess what 30 is? Yep.

The budget was on time as well. Requiring a 55% majority instead of 2/3 helped with that, of course, but one of the other tricks was to put a state-size version of the “fiscal cliff” you might have heard about with the federal government. In short, if 30 fails, there will be another $6 billion in public service cuts for the current budget year. The current, 2012-2013 budget year. Remember that for when we get to 38. Ninety percent of that is what’s referred to as K-14 schools, essentially everything except four-year colleges. The money comes from incomes higher than $250,000. Specifically, it changes the state income tax rate from 9.3% to as high as 12.3% for those making over $500,000 per year. Today, anyone making $48,029 per year or $40 million per year pays the same state income tax rate.

If you want to vote no it is because you vote no on everything. The standard no argument is being made by the standard no arguers: taxpayers associations and small business associations. They hate everything. They don’t understand the reason their business is still small is because they don’t know how to run a business. Instead they point fingers at regulations and other liberal bastions of hell. If only we had a supply-side economy.

Proposition 31: No

Some states have a two-year budget cycle instead of a one-year budget cycle. The idea is that this will somehow limit spending. However, it hasn’t. The “off-year” budgets tend to mimic the annual budget that it was designed to replace. The reason for this is, just because the state goes to a biennial budget, it doesn’t mean most businesses and public works departments don’t still work on an annual basis. Two years is too long to do the same thing, no matter what it is.

This would have been easier to sell when we had overdue budgets and $20 billion budget deficits. However, we’ve gotten the budget under control, relatively speaking. The economy is improving. Thankfully we didn’t have the opportunity to fall for this when it could have seemed like a sensible decision.

There are other individual aspects of 31 that are interesting, such as allowing governors to reduce spending as needed, but the bad outweighs the good. If you like to do the same thing for twice as long as we have been doing them, then you would like 31.

Proposition 32: No

Half of a solution, 32 prevents unions from using payroll deductions for political stuff. But that’s how they get their money. Still, getting money out of politics is fine.

But wait. What about everything else? Oh, maybe someday that will be addressed. But for now, 32 only deals with the union side of the money problem in politics.

Usually the ads that yell the most are the wrongest. And the ads are pretty lame. They spin this in an inaccurate fashion. And many of them use a made-up word: exempted. Perhaps you mean “excepted” or “exempt.” That’s normally grounds for dismissal, but I have to overlook this. Even if you assume there will be similar measures taken with other forms of campaign contributions, they haven’t happened yet, and until they do, there is an imbalance that will cause low-information voters to do more stupid shit.

The reason you vote yes on 32 is because you don’t like unions and would like to shut them up for good

Proposition 33: No

I remember this one. It was Proposition 17. Ah, I miss the shit show. Basically, people with gaps in their insurance coverage would then have to pay more for insurance, because those who don’t would get to pay less. That would make it more likely people wouldn’t get insurance at all because it would cost too much. So like a lot of things, it sounds like a good idea until you think about what will actually happen.

The reason you vote yes is because you’re having trouble budgeting your existing insurance coverage and could benefit from the discount. And in fact two years ago, I voted yes. The economy sucked. These short-term measures seemed important to maintain a quality of life that was more endangered than it is today. But now with the economy finally getting a little better, it’s easier to look at the big picture. Having uninsured motorists costs all of us more in the long run. I’ve changed my mind.

Proposition 34: Yes

There’s not much to say. You’re either for the death penalty or you aren’t, unless you’re John Kerry. Then you’re for it until you’re against it.

The main arguments for repealing the death penalty involve innocent people convicted and sentenced to death. Big deal. They still have to sit in jail for life. How is that better? No, the reason I am against the death penalty is because red tape makes it cost more than keeping them alive. Also, it does not deter crime. The only thing it does is provide closure for some victims’ families. I say “some” because they don’t all feel this way. And besides it doesn’t matter to me what they think anyway, because their bias is no better or worse than anyone else’s. I’m not going to grant them any extra affordance. If gang violence is such a problem in our society, then why do we allow this mentality among, say, the likes of Marc Klaas. Let’s devote resources to when the kids could still be alive. Amber Alerts are awesome. The death penalty is not.

Proposition 35: Yes

I like to be the one who zigs where people zag. But sometimes I can’t do it. Proposition 35 essentially makes it so human traffickers would now have to register as sex offenders. This is not going to be a deterrent. People traffic humans because it’s lucrative. Does anyone commit crime because they think they can get away with it? Not really. It’s because it’s an easy way to bring some scratch. In addition, this goes after the symptom and not the root cause, which I hate: It doesn’t reduce demand for sex workers. This is no different than the war on drugs. Demand-side economy, people. Affect demand, affect the supply, not the other way around.

The reason you vote no is because you like small government. All this does is create more rules and more bureaucracy. But of course social conservatives like government spending when it controls people’s private lives. So really only libertarians will be voting no. These types of props annoy me.

Proposition 36: Yes

It would be weird for people to vote one way on 34 but another way on 36, but it will happen. The death penalty is a very clear concept and something most people don’t need to spend a lot of time thinking about. Three Strikes maybe isn’t so cut and dried.

We’ve all heard the stories about a criminal’s third strike being relatively less egregious than the first two. Well, 36 is addressing that. Only “serious” or “violent” felonies will count. Otherwise, I guess it’s just a foul ball. There are exceptions, but that’s the general idea.

On paper it still seems like a bad idea, but let’s take our heads out of the sand for a moment. We’ve built hella jails since Three Strikes passed in the ’90s. Crime hasn’t gone down as a result of Three Strikes. People commit crimes because they have to or because they’re bored. Life in prison? At least then you wouldn’t have to cook. And that’s just the half of it. Think of all the people that get let out of jail early so the Three Strikes people can stay in.

If you vote no, you better be ready to vote for some more prisons so we have somewhere to put them. That kind of sounds like government spending, though, doesn’t it?

Proposition 37: No

This one makes me have to take a shower every time I think about it. Let me explain it as clearly as I can. The point of 37 is to identify certain foods as having genetically modified ingredients. It also restricts the use of “natural,” which is a nice-to-have. This one is like 32 for me. It’s putting certain foods at a disadvantage for no reason. It’s part of a larger solution that hasn’t been laid out yet. There’s no reason it couldn’t have been laid out here, but it wasn’t.

Look, we’ve had genetically modified food for years. Think about how big a cauliflower was when you were a kid. Now think about how big they are now. Cauliflower has been the size of my head my entire life! How do you think it got that way?

Essentially, if 37 were enforced properly, just about every piece of produce, including organic produce, would have a GMO sticker on it. All this is going to do is scare consumers. We already have a societal problem when it comes to getting people to eat their fruits and vegetables. How does this help that? The few items that wouldn’t have the sticker will cost more because more people will foolishly want them.

I’ll be transparent. I love genetically modified food. We’re going to solve world hunger with this shit. We’re already on the way there. We can’t discourage this kind of technology. I don’t give a fuck that Monsanto and DuPont are behind the no campaign. I understand why they are against it, and I know those two companies are bastards. But I’m not going to support 37 out of spite. Just because Monsanto poisoned an entire town with polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) production doesn’t mean everything they do is wrong. Actually, to stubbornly frown upon every action they make, regardless of potential result, is quite the conservative viewpoint.

But all of that aside, if you want to mark food as being modified, fine. But there should be no exemptions. It can go right there, next to that pareve and Circle K stuff. Just don’t give me that “you have a right to know” BS. I will tell you. Your food is already genetically modified. And the crops that weren’t? They crosspolinated with crops that were. Blame the bees. Don’t blame me.

Proposition 38: Yes

I hate Molly Munger. There aren’t non-misogynistic words out there that I can use to describe how I feel about her. She can’t understand normal thinking. There.

Whenever we have two competing education propositions, they both fail. People don’t understand that only one can become law, so they vote no on both. And it’s already so hard to get a single one of these to pass. Ugh. Anyway, more on 30 and 38.

The one with more votes, if both pass, is the one that becomes law. And 30 is way better than 38, because 38 wouldn’t take effect until 2013. That means the cuts in the budget I talked about if 30 didn’t pass would still happen. In addition, the tax increase is spread across all who make $7,316 or more. Granted, the increase is small, but poor people don’t save money. (That’s why they’re poor!) You’re taking purchasing power away from them, and that’s bad for the economy. The reason you take money from rich people is because they were saving it, and idle money doesn’t grow the economy.

So why not vote no? Because 38 is getting its ass handed to it in the polls. Of course, Munger’s brother, who is behind 32 incidentally, has decided to drag the state down with him, so he has spent $8 million on killing 30. Just because these propositions are about youth doesn’t mean you need to act like a goddamn child. So 30, which was leading in the polls, will probably fail as well. Thanks for nothing.

The one piece that is missing from this is why Ms. Munger is doing this. She is spending $30 million of her own money to support 38. Whatever gains she would get from 30’s failure can’t be worth that much. Is it really just vanity?

You have several reasons to vote no. Spite is a big one. Also because you want to help 30 pass if they both pass. However, it’s really unlikely that 38 will get more votes than 30. Might as well go for both and be glad it will be decided by more than one vote.

Proposition 39: Yes

Three years ago, we were having another wondrous budget cycle, in which a 2/3 majority in the State Senate and Assembly were required to pass a budget for the governor to sign, and it just wasn’t happening. Similar to Ben Nelson during the healthcare reform discussions, a few choice Republicans brought out the sausage-maker to get some favors made, in exchange for their budget-approving votes. One of those was to let businesses that had income in California count that income as being earned in other states, if those other states had a more favorable tax plan for them. So what a shock that corporate income tax fell as companies reported all their in-state income in a different state.

Think it isn’t that simple. Well, taxpayer groups lead those who oppose 39. That tells me all I need to know.

The reason you vote no on 39 is because you think that requiring these corporations to pay more in taxes will cause them to have fewer jobs. So basically all you Austrian economic types should be all over the no.

Proposition 40: Yes

Remember 11 and 20? These paved the way for the redistricting that occurred in 2010. Every 10 years, districts are redrawn because people are born, people die, and people move. Generally, Republican-led redistricting efforts result in more gerrymandering than Democratic-led and non-partisan-led efforts. So because Brown won the governorship in 2010 and had large Democratic majorities in the State Senate and Assembly, it should have resulted in more-fair districting. It also meant more Democratic seats because in 2000 the districts were not drawn as fairly, and many hugely Democratic districts were created to make it easier for Republicans to capture other districts.

If that’s not enough, the no campaign suspended its opposition, so why support a side that has already given up. It didn’t work on A Different World when Jesse Jackson tried to help Dwayne Wayne run for office, so it’s not going to work here.

Measure A: Yes

I’ll give the county credit. They know how to get their sales tax increases. They do their homework to figure out how much they can get away with, and they pick an election cycle in which they will get more of the votes they want.

This pragmatism comes into play because the county is only asking for an eighth of a cent sales tax increase. I mean, why fucking bother? It’s kind of a general fund catchall sales tax increase to cover recent cuts to public services to police, hospitals, homeless stuff, etc. They must have figured out a quarter cent wasn’t going to pass, especially considering the economy was worse when it was written. Now, maybe a 1/4-cent increase might have paid off, but we’ll take what we can get.

The same anti-tax people that hate everything the way Grouchy Smurf does are those who are behind the no campaign here. I’ve said enough about these Howard Jarvis cocksuckers already.

Measure B: Yes

B was in danger of not being on the ballot, I believe, because the sample ballot content was two words too long. Well, they must have figured it out because here it is. In short, it is a 15-year extension of a parcel tax set to expire next year. It’s to cover water stuff. There’s always water, education, and road stuff on every ballot. Here’s the water one.

Opponents of B quibble about where the money actually goes, but like a fart, as long as the money goes in the general direction of water works, I’m happy to let the county have a monopoly on my parcel tax money. People that drink bottled water are like people who send their kids to private school. You can if you want, but I’m still going to use the free alternative.

Measure D: Yes

No fucking chance. Minimum wages are usually raised through legislation or other non-direct-voting methods. (There’s a finer way to describe this, but my vocabulary is failing me.) San Jose State students came up with D to raise the minimum wage from $8 to $10. Hell yeah. I will always support a minimum wage increase, especially in a time with falling union enrollment. Business owners who cry about raising prices and firing workers don’t know how to run a fucking business.

Let’s say you have a business where you pay your workers minimum wage. Your labor costs are about 25%, for the sake of argument. (Most service jobs in, say, the fast food industry, tend to result in about a 20% labor cost.) That means your labor costs go up to 31.25%. If your business model depends on these 6.25 percentage points in order to be profitable, then you have a shitty business model. Just because you can legally hire people to do things doesn’t mean it’s good for society. We could do without McDonald’s in any case. Use some creativity and figure out what we need in this demand-driven economy. Fill a void. Don’t just do what other businesses are you doing. “Turnkey business” means “lazy and can’t think for yourself.” There’s a reason why 95% of businesses fail, and it’s staring at you in the mirror.

Measure E: Yes

It’s another cardroom gaming initiative. Right now M8trix and Bay 101 have 49 tables each. If E passes, they can combine to have 128 tables, effective 2013. Effective 2014, each cardroom can have up to 79 tables.

In addition, should slot machines ever become legal in California (not Native American ones), they would now be legal as well in these cardrooms. In addition, voter approval would no longer be required should other types of gambling be decriminalized in California. So if dice games such as craps were decriminalized, they would automatically be permitted in these two cardrooms and not be subject to a vote first.

Previous measures that increased the number of tables also increased the percentage cut that the city got. This one doesn’t do that, although revenue would increase because of the sheer increase of available tables. This would be why you would vote no, if you wanted the cut to go up.

Measure H: Yes

Besides parcel taxes, sometimes school districts float bond measures to get funds to take care of stuff. In this case, San Jose Unified wants $290 million to update classroom technology, increase energy efficiency, and perform basic repairs to existing buildings. It can’t be used for teacher/administrative salaries of any kind. It can be used for the construction salaries that would result from these various changes.

Interest rates are superlow right now. It’s not a bad time for bonds. And of course the improved schools pay dividends in reduced crime and increase property value. You’ve heard this song and dance before. It’s the same shit. And of course the same jackasses are against it. So the anti-tax and libertarian crowds should be voting no. Remember we wouldn’t need any of this if Proposition 13 were repealed. This is just how it works today.

Another hiatus

June 14, 2012

About a year ago in fact the Shit Show went on hiatus. And now the Hit Show is doing the same. You can always tell when something was taking too much time when, once you stop doing it, you can’t figure out how you fit it into your schedule. This happened with both.

The problems of course are:

  • No new content for the site because there’s nothing forcing me to write
  • There’s no volunteer work on my schedule for the first time in about 10 years
  • It’s too hard to find out about new music

If I do start writing again, it’s probably going to be industry stuff about content strategy/content design. And if I do that, I might as well get a new domain.

Friction Land “Friction Land”

June 3, 2012

I’m not so sure that San Jose has a particular sound, yet when I popped Friction Land in, it made perfect sense to discover they were from here. The leadoff track on their self-titled debut, “Just You & I” doesn’t have any local pop culture references that I can hear, but it still seems odd that I’m not at Nickel City while listening to them.
“Giving It All Away” tries very hard and reminds me of Alice in Chains. The backing wails during the chorus seem out of place (as if the wailer was looking for something to do), but otherwise this song does everything right.
The wailing is back in “Something Special,” but it makes more sense here. It’s got to be loud when done live, but people seem to like those things. I mean, Gaslight Anthem has made a living doing it.
Limp Bizkit fans would like “Follow Me,” which has nothing to do with Twitter. It seems that the lyrics are meant to be thoughtful, because they are mixed high and easier to understand than on the other tracks. Although they didn’t inspire me, perhaps you are more their speed. “Jesus, Buddha, Confucius/I want to know what the truth is.” Sure, why not. At least it’s a faster song.
The other track of note is “Faking Emotion.” It inexplicably has synths in it. This one is for prog fans.
Maybe our scene involves clear enunciation, no doubt an effect of San Jose Unified School District’s excellent test scores. I’m clearly really locked in to Friction Land even if I’m not inspired by it.

Evans the Death “Evans the Death”

June 3, 2012

This band’s name reminded me of someone I used to play an online RPG with like 15 years ago. So I found him on Facebook, and honestly, Facebook is so much faster and cheaper than going to therapy.
Evans the Death the band, on the other hand, is like a melodic version of Pillow Fights. They’re a driving rock ‘n’ roll band with a female lead singer and no pretense. There’s clearly a sense of humor, though, because the back of the CD has tracks 1 through 6, followed by six separate Track 7s. I actually didn’t care for any of the 7s, which just goes to show that when you buy SuperLotto tickets that you should get different numbers every time.
So anyway Slumberland Records always seems to get it right, and with the help of singer/keyboardist Katherine Whitaker, they do it again. That’s a label whose showcase I would attend.
The two tracks I like are “Sleeping Song/So Long” and “Morning Voice,” but they’re all pretty good. “Morning Voice” is more of a traditional song that alternates between noisy and quiet parts, like “Goldfinger” by Ash.

DEaf “Pocketknives & Friendship Bracelets”

June 3, 2012

I really want to like this record, but it’s just not very good. The songs are all short, like punk songs should be, but most of the tracks veer off into White Stripes territory, and that is the opposite of what I want.
An exception is “Hold My Hand,” because the backing vocals sound like Andrea Zollo (Pretty Girls Make Graves), but these are the slowest and most boring fast songs I’ve ever heard.
The sound attempts to be like Pre, Mika Miko, or even the Red Aunts, but instead it feels as if it’s on antidepressants instead. Useful punk is like when you have a good fart ready to go. Sometimes, you just have to let it rip.
“Make It” sounds like older Yeah Yeah Yeahs. If you want to hear the dude sing, “Find You” isn’t that bad, and it has some Devo-style sound to go with it.
If you don’t expect much, you won’t be disappointed.

Kissing Party “Wasters Wall”

June 3, 2012

Lots of suggestive titles and lyrics make for a good time on “Kissing Party.” All the tracks are good, but the best is “Empty Bed, but Bed.” The band borders on twee in all the right ways, and the male-female vocals work well with the fast pace set by the drummer.
The synths in “The Game” also stand out and make this a recommendable number. Most of the rest of the tracks are not radio-friendly, which is a shame. Sure, I can hate the game instead of the player, but when your sounds are all about players, it stings to not be able to spread the gospel.