Thursday, October 30, 2003
I've concluded that this is a hoax, or, well, a satire:
Creation Science Fair
But the truth is I can't be certain.
This is fucking perfect:
Despair, Inc. 2004 Catalog
I've got to hang this over my sink:
SACRIFICE
Creation Science Fair
But the truth is I can't be certain.
This is fucking perfect:
Despair, Inc. 2004 Catalog
I've got to hang this over my sink:
SACRIFICE
Heard an interview with the mastermind behind Polyphonic Spree the other day. It's all fun and games until someone spikes the lemonade and thirteen year-olds start getting pregnant. I'd do more to combat this menace if I didn't like the music so much.
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
I biked over to campus this afternoon. I've never seen it so desolate. Library and food court closed. Solitary figures walking here and there. Fine ash gathering in corners and along the edge of flowerbeds. A real post-apocalyptic feel to it, especially with the orangish overcast sky and the sun glowering in the sky like a red moon.
The marine layer moved in around the middle of the day today, mingled with all the smoke from the fires, and it was twilight by 2:30pm. Every day brings a new permutation on the surreal. Today, a kind of Twilight Zone-in-Jakarta atmosphere prevailing.
School cancelled at UCSD for third straight day tomorrow.
The marine layer moved in around the middle of the day today, mingled with all the smoke from the fires, and it was twilight by 2:30pm. Every day brings a new permutation on the surreal. Today, a kind of Twilight Zone-in-Jakarta atmosphere prevailing.
School cancelled at UCSD for third straight day tomorrow.
Monday, October 27, 2003
Forgot to shut a window in my apartment last night. Smells like someone had a bonfire in my living room.
This is what happens when we try to coexist with nature. If only we had listened to the developers.
This is what happens when we try to coexist with nature. If only we had listened to the developers.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Yeah, fuck you, rhinovirus. I came down with a cold Friday night. (I'm still tracking down the vector, but, suspiciously, a student I had met with during office hours Friday showed up to class Monday sniffling and coughing, too.) It's now Wednesday and I'm over it. Done. A little residual hacking, but not even a sniffle. The secret? 35,000% of my daily recommended allowance of Vitamin-C four days running. Yeah, smell like a life-sized Flinstone vitamin and I'm sweating Tang, but I'm invincible. INVINCIBLE!
Sunday, October 19, 2003
I saw it! Finally, I saw it! The bioluminescence of the red tide at night. I realize now that I had actually seen it a couple times recently when I had checked out the ocean at night. I just hadn't recognized it. But tonight it was a little stronger. As the waves broke, the white water would glow a lurid pale green for a moment, then quickly fade to dingy white. It looked as if someone had flashed headlights on the whitewash for a moment, and I guess that's how I had been interpreting it -- as if the waves were catching the moonlight just as they crested and broke. In fact, that was an illusion, and it was the red tide, sparking under the agitation, which turned the whitewater a subtle, ghostly green.
Tuesday, October 14, 2003
A couple days ago I forwarded the Tom Friedman column below to some friends. Inspired by one friend's response to the first message (someone who had voted for Bush -- or at least seriously considered it), I've decided that I am going to put my money where my mouth is and start charging myself a $1 tax on each gallon of gas I purchase. It starts effective Sep 1 this year and will continue through Aug 31 of next year. At that time, I will make a donation in the total amount of my patriot tax to whomever the Democratic candidate for president is (unless perhaps it is Joseph Lieberman.)
Taxes assessed thus far: $37.74
Ask not what what your country can do for you, etc.
Taxes assessed thus far: $37.74
Ask not what what your country can do for you, etc.
The Real Patriot Act
October 5, 2003
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
This is a column about the war of ideas - but first a word
about gasoline prices and Hummers.
In case you missed it, OPEC just decided to slash its oil
production to keep gasoline prices high. I guess it would
be foolhardy to expect that maybe Saudi Arabia or Kuwait
would use its influence in OPEC to hold down prices at a
time when Western economies are struggling to climb out of
recession. Everybody's just looking out for themselves. So
why don't we?
There's all sorts of talk now about how to finance the $87
billion price tag for the reconstruction of Iraq. I say,
let's make OPEC pay - indirectly. Let's have a $1 a gallon
gasoline tax and call it the "Patriot Tax." We could use
the revenue it would raise - about $110 billion a year - to
finance the entire reconstruction of Iraq, with plenty left
for other good works.
Here's the logic: The two things OPEC hates most are
falling oil prices and gasoline taxes - and the Patriot Tax
would promote both. The reason that OPEC hates gasoline
taxes is that if anyone is going to benefit from higher
prices at the pump, OPEC wants it to be OPEC, not the
consuming countries. It drives OPEC crazy that the
Europeans pay roughly twice as much per gallon as Americans
do, because their governments slap on so many taxes.
A $1 a gallon gasoline tax, phased in, would not only be a
huge revenue generator (even with tax rebates to ease the
burden on low-income people, farmers and truckers) but also
a huge driver of conservation and reduced oil imports. Not
only would it mean less money for Saudi Arabia to transfer
to Wahhabi clerics to spread their intolerant brand of
Islam around the world, but it would radically improve
America's standing in Europe, where we are resented for
being the world's energy hog.
President Bush could even say that this tax is his
long-promised alternative to Kyoto, because the amount of
energy conservation it would produce would result in a much
greater reduction in U.S. energy consumption, and
greenhouse gas emissions, than anything Kyoto would have
mandated.
In short, a tax that finances the democratization of Iraq,
takes money away from those who would use it to spread
ideas harmful to us, weakens OPEC, makes us more energy
independent, reduces the deficit and overnight improves the
world's view of us - from selfish, Hummer-driving louts to
good global citizens - would be the real patriot act. (It
would also encourage Iraq not to become another
oil-dependent state, but to build a middle class by
learning to tap its people's entrepreneurship and
creativity, not just its oil wells.)
"Until we raise energy prices we really aren't fighting the
war on terrorism, because we're doing nothing to deny the
countries who fund terrorists the cash they need to destroy
us," says Philip K. Verleger Jr., the energy expert. "We
could use the excess revenues to fund a true Manhattan
Project to cut U.S. oil consumption in half by 2007,
thereby permanently making OPEC irrelevant. That would be a
truly patriotic move."
Yes, yes - I know, the Bush team would never even consider
such a tax. But that's my point. When you have an
administration that will not even consider undertaking the
most obviously right course - a gasoline tax - that would
produce so many strategic, economic and political benefits
for America, then how do we win this war in the long run?
Because this war on terrorism is not simply a military
fight. That's the easy part. More important, it is a war of
ideas. And to win a war of ideas we need to do two things:
First, we need to successfully partner with Iraqis to
create a free, open and progressive model in the heart of
the Arab-Muslim world to promote the ideas of tolerance,
pluralism and democratization. But second, and just as
important, we need to set an example ourselves, in order to
get others - both potential allies and longtime adversaries
- to buy into our war, to believe that we are not just out
to benefit ourselves or protect ourselves, but that we
really are out to repair the world.
Unfortunately, this president - for ideological reasons,
because of whom he is beholden to economically, and because
he knows that the American people never demanded this war,
so he cannot demand much from them - will not summon
Americans to set that example. He will not summon us to be
the best global citizens we can be. The Bush war cry is:
"Do as we say, not as we do. Good ideas for Iraqis,
gluttony for Americans."
That is so wrong. We may not get a better Iraq out of this
war, but let's at least make sure we get a better America.
Article Link
---------------------------------
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
October 5, 2003
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
This is a column about the war of ideas - but first a word
about gasoline prices and Hummers.
In case you missed it, OPEC just decided to slash its oil
production to keep gasoline prices high. I guess it would
be foolhardy to expect that maybe Saudi Arabia or Kuwait
would use its influence in OPEC to hold down prices at a
time when Western economies are struggling to climb out of
recession. Everybody's just looking out for themselves. So
why don't we?
There's all sorts of talk now about how to finance the $87
billion price tag for the reconstruction of Iraq. I say,
let's make OPEC pay - indirectly. Let's have a $1 a gallon
gasoline tax and call it the "Patriot Tax." We could use
the revenue it would raise - about $110 billion a year - to
finance the entire reconstruction of Iraq, with plenty left
for other good works.
Here's the logic: The two things OPEC hates most are
falling oil prices and gasoline taxes - and the Patriot Tax
would promote both. The reason that OPEC hates gasoline
taxes is that if anyone is going to benefit from higher
prices at the pump, OPEC wants it to be OPEC, not the
consuming countries. It drives OPEC crazy that the
Europeans pay roughly twice as much per gallon as Americans
do, because their governments slap on so many taxes.
A $1 a gallon gasoline tax, phased in, would not only be a
huge revenue generator (even with tax rebates to ease the
burden on low-income people, farmers and truckers) but also
a huge driver of conservation and reduced oil imports. Not
only would it mean less money for Saudi Arabia to transfer
to Wahhabi clerics to spread their intolerant brand of
Islam around the world, but it would radically improve
America's standing in Europe, where we are resented for
being the world's energy hog.
President Bush could even say that this tax is his
long-promised alternative to Kyoto, because the amount of
energy conservation it would produce would result in a much
greater reduction in U.S. energy consumption, and
greenhouse gas emissions, than anything Kyoto would have
mandated.
In short, a tax that finances the democratization of Iraq,
takes money away from those who would use it to spread
ideas harmful to us, weakens OPEC, makes us more energy
independent, reduces the deficit and overnight improves the
world's view of us - from selfish, Hummer-driving louts to
good global citizens - would be the real patriot act. (It
would also encourage Iraq not to become another
oil-dependent state, but to build a middle class by
learning to tap its people's entrepreneurship and
creativity, not just its oil wells.)
"Until we raise energy prices we really aren't fighting the
war on terrorism, because we're doing nothing to deny the
countries who fund terrorists the cash they need to destroy
us," says Philip K. Verleger Jr., the energy expert. "We
could use the excess revenues to fund a true Manhattan
Project to cut U.S. oil consumption in half by 2007,
thereby permanently making OPEC irrelevant. That would be a
truly patriotic move."
Yes, yes - I know, the Bush team would never even consider
such a tax. But that's my point. When you have an
administration that will not even consider undertaking the
most obviously right course - a gasoline tax - that would
produce so many strategic, economic and political benefits
for America, then how do we win this war in the long run?
Because this war on terrorism is not simply a military
fight. That's the easy part. More important, it is a war of
ideas. And to win a war of ideas we need to do two things:
First, we need to successfully partner with Iraqis to
create a free, open and progressive model in the heart of
the Arab-Muslim world to promote the ideas of tolerance,
pluralism and democratization. But second, and just as
important, we need to set an example ourselves, in order to
get others - both potential allies and longtime adversaries
- to buy into our war, to believe that we are not just out
to benefit ourselves or protect ourselves, but that we
really are out to repair the world.
Unfortunately, this president - for ideological reasons,
because of whom he is beholden to economically, and because
he knows that the American people never demanded this war,
so he cannot demand much from them - will not summon
Americans to set that example. He will not summon us to be
the best global citizens we can be. The Bush war cry is:
"Do as we say, not as we do. Good ideas for Iraqis,
gluttony for Americans."
That is so wrong. We may not get a better Iraq out of this
war, but let's at least make sure we get a better America.
Article Link
---------------------------------
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Monday, October 13, 2003
Ok, I've got to blow off some steam. Back when I transferred my investment account from Quick & Reilly (the raison d'etre for this blog -- those Beantown bastards) to Ameritrade, I opened up a NetBank checking account. I liked the idea of online banking -- being able to control all of my finances from my computer like some kind of Wall Street Captain Kirk -- and with an Ameritrade promotion, I got $40 for opening an account.
Well, NetBank seems determined to take its $40 back. A couple months ago, it started charging me "inactivity" fees. I don't have all that much money in the account -- I set up the account just to test the online banking waters and it's not my primary checking account (that's with Washington Mutual -- with whom, shockingly, I have no gripes -- except, well, a homeless man once attacked me in one of their branches.) In signing up, I looked very carefully for any rat-fuck fees like this and didn't notice any. They had already erroneously applied and then reversed unexplained service fees -- twice. By the time I noticed the inactivity fees, I had already received two (yes, I was that inactive.) I thought that this was total bullshit -- they could have at least sent me a warning email. So I contacted their service line ready to close the account. But I have to admit that their customer service has always been pretty crack, and the guy I spoke with explained in just the right tone -- not too patronizing, not too "hey, tell it to my supervisor" -- that he would reverse the charges ("as a courtesy") and that if I just had any type of activity with the three-month period at all, I could avoid the fee. I had been thinking about setting up online payment for my phone bill, so I decided, "Well, shit, let's give it a go." I didn't close the account, but rather went online and set up the online bill payment for my phone bill.
A couple weeks later I got my first e-bill from SBC. I viewed it online -- everything looked in order. And then, at the beginning of the month, I checked my account again and it showed that it had been paid. Problem solved? Well, now I get my second e-bill from SBC and it's twice what it normally is. What the hell is going on? I don't remember making any more long distance calls last month. In fact, I think I made a few less. So I log in to my NetBank account to check out the bill and notice that it lists last month's bill as unpaid and past due (even though it was deducted from my NetBank account).
Now this could be a fuck-up on SBC's part, but with all the shit NetBank has been putting me through, I figure I'll start with them. So I start to write them an email and look at my account activity to double-check all the info and I notice a $5 service charge on 10/8. No fucking explanation. No fucking notice. Motherfuckers. I get better goddamned service from the dirty scumbag eucalyptus trees out front. So this is the email (actually form-mail) I send them:
Now I know some of you out there are saying, "Shit, you think that's bad, try banking in Nigeria," or "What the hell are you whining about, I could eat for a week on $5." Well, fuck you. That's no excuse. And NetBank is about a heartbeat away from getting a Pedro Martinez fastball to the head and going on the shit-list.
Well, NetBank seems determined to take its $40 back. A couple months ago, it started charging me "inactivity" fees. I don't have all that much money in the account -- I set up the account just to test the online banking waters and it's not my primary checking account (that's with Washington Mutual -- with whom, shockingly, I have no gripes -- except, well, a homeless man once attacked me in one of their branches.) In signing up, I looked very carefully for any rat-fuck fees like this and didn't notice any. They had already erroneously applied and then reversed unexplained service fees -- twice. By the time I noticed the inactivity fees, I had already received two (yes, I was that inactive.) I thought that this was total bullshit -- they could have at least sent me a warning email. So I contacted their service line ready to close the account. But I have to admit that their customer service has always been pretty crack, and the guy I spoke with explained in just the right tone -- not too patronizing, not too "hey, tell it to my supervisor" -- that he would reverse the charges ("as a courtesy") and that if I just had any type of activity with the three-month period at all, I could avoid the fee. I had been thinking about setting up online payment for my phone bill, so I decided, "Well, shit, let's give it a go." I didn't close the account, but rather went online and set up the online bill payment for my phone bill.
A couple weeks later I got my first e-bill from SBC. I viewed it online -- everything looked in order. And then, at the beginning of the month, I checked my account again and it showed that it had been paid. Problem solved? Well, now I get my second e-bill from SBC and it's twice what it normally is. What the hell is going on? I don't remember making any more long distance calls last month. In fact, I think I made a few less. So I log in to my NetBank account to check out the bill and notice that it lists last month's bill as unpaid and past due (even though it was deducted from my NetBank account).
Now this could be a fuck-up on SBC's part, but with all the shit NetBank has been putting me through, I figure I'll start with them. So I start to write them an email and look at my account activity to double-check all the info and I notice a $5 service charge on 10/8. No fucking explanation. No fucking notice. Motherfuckers. I get better goddamned service from the dirty scumbag eucalyptus trees out front. So this is the email (actually form-mail) I send them:
I set up e-bill payment last month with SBC for my phone bill. I got an email indicating my bill had been delivered and when I checked it last month around the due date, it stated:
"Payment Status: Check # XXXX7990 from our account was mailed to SBC Phone Bill - CA on 10/2/2003. Funds were withdrawn from your account NetValue Checking - XXXXXXX651 on 10/1/2003. Contact your financial institution if you have a question about when your funds were withdrawn."
But, I just received another e-bill from SBC for this month and it indicates that last month's bill was not paid and is past due. What happened? Can you straighten this out for me?
Also, I just checked my statement and I notice I have a $5 service charge debt. Now what? What is going on? I signed up with this online bill payment to avoid "inactivity" service charges and have already had 4 service charges reversed. I opened an account with NetBank thinking that online banking would be more convenient, but this is really getting to be a headache.
Thank you,
Tomohiro Idokoro
"Payment Status: Check # XXXX7990 from our account was mailed to SBC Phone Bill - CA on 10/2/2003. Funds were withdrawn from your account NetValue Checking - XXXXXXX651 on 10/1/2003. Contact your financial institution if you have a question about when your funds were withdrawn."
But, I just received another e-bill from SBC for this month and it indicates that last month's bill was not paid and is past due. What happened? Can you straighten this out for me?
Also, I just checked my statement and I notice I have a $5 service charge debt. Now what? What is going on? I signed up with this online bill payment to avoid "inactivity" service charges and have already had 4 service charges reversed. I opened an account with NetBank thinking that online banking would be more convenient, but this is really getting to be a headache.
Thank you,
Tomohiro Idokoro
Now I know some of you out there are saying, "Shit, you think that's bad, try banking in Nigeria," or "What the hell are you whining about, I could eat for a week on $5." Well, fuck you. That's no excuse. And NetBank is about a heartbeat away from getting a Pedro Martinez fastball to the head and going on the shit-list.
Sunday, October 12, 2003
Eucalyptus trees, I've realized since moving into my new place, are the scum-ass gutter pigeons of the vegetable world. These things are dirtier than Ron Jeremy on a Cheetohs bender. Anyone who has lived under one knows what I'm talking about.
Saturday, October 11, 2003
Can Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's environmental impulses coexist?
That's the question asked in an editorial in today's New York Times. The editorial goes on to note:
The prospects are better than one may have thought. Much will depend on the people he chooses for key posts, not least the chairmanship of the powerful California Air Resources Board, whose mandates over the years have driven Detroit to make cleaner cars and the refiners to make cleaner fuels. As with all politicians, much will also depend on whether he means what he says and acts on it. Still, his comments and campaign literature not only hearten conservationists but put him sharply at odds with the Bush administration.
For the rest of the article:
"Conan the Green"
Also worth a look, Krugman's column:
"Lessons in Civility"
That's the question asked in an editorial in today's New York Times. The editorial goes on to note:
The prospects are better than one may have thought. Much will depend on the people he chooses for key posts, not least the chairmanship of the powerful California Air Resources Board, whose mandates over the years have driven Detroit to make cleaner cars and the refiners to make cleaner fuels. As with all politicians, much will also depend on whether he means what he says and acts on it. Still, his comments and campaign literature not only hearten conservationists but put him sharply at odds with the Bush administration.
For the rest of the article:
"Conan the Green"
Also worth a look, Krugman's column:
"Lessons in Civility"
Wednesday, October 08, 2003
ARNOLD WINS!
A new blockbuster in demagoguery. What can I say? He may no longer be the box-office draw, but he's a ballot-box draw. I made at least three predictions prior to yesterday's election:
1. The election would be closer than the polls predicted
WRONG. Well, no, actually I was partially right here. Remember, back on 29 Sep, CNN issued poll results showing support for the recall at 63%. At last check on CNN, with 97% of precincts reporting, the Recall was ahead 53-47%. On the replacement end, however, their poll showed Schwarzenegger ahead 40-25%, which I thought was equally ridiculous. In fact, right now, Schwarzenegger holds a 48-32% lead over Bustamante. I expected that gap to narrow.
2. Voting would be a fiasco with much confusion and frustration over the punch card ballots.
WRONG. No media reports about this, anyway. In fact, just the contrary. Most the news story emphasized the orderliness and ease with which voters were voting. In any event, the election is not tight enough to make this a factor.
3. It could take weeks or months to ascertain a clear winner and certify the results.
WRONG. I was expecting (hoping) for a dead-heat on the recall measure. The New York Times offers a nice interactive presentation of the results. Another red/blue map -- though, with this one, there are actually some blue areas where a civilized person might actually want to live.
Of course, during the campaign, Schwarzenegger offered no answer to the question of how he would resolve the budget crisis. He hinted that he might go after Indian gaming -- but can he tax reservation casinos? He also promised to repeal the car tax, but as the Arnold-friendly San Diego Union-Tribune pointed out, that would double the projected deficit for next year. Some issues I'll be watching:
1. Budget Deficit
The New York Times had an article this morning about the poisonous partisan atmosphere in the state capitol. S has painted himself into something of a corner by promising not to raise taxes and to roll back the vehicle tax. An economic recovery would help, but even that won't bail him out completely. Meaning, he's going to have to make some tough cuts. He may be lucky in that he has a Democrat-controlled legislature to blame when his budget doesn't balance. Look for detioration in infrastructure spending, educational spending (though much of this, I guess, is mandated), and for all those middle-class voters in Orange and San Diego County who voted for Arnold: more fee increases at the state universities their kids are attending! Which brings us to #2....
2. Taxes
Nowadays we call them user fees or special assessments, but usually that's just a euphemism for a regressive tax. As Joe Klein wrote of Clinton at the end of his presidency, Clinton didn't take from the rich and give to the poor. He took from the rich and gave to the middle class. Since the end of Clinton's administration, Republicans have been giving back to the rich (while trying to avoid taking anything away from the middle class.) But at the state level, where deficit spending is not an option, the conflicts between middle-class entitlement and upper class avarice will surface much sooner. UC fees are one of the more conspicuous bellwethers. Also look for increased parking meter fees and higher parking ticket penalties as the financial burden continues to get shifted on to municipalities. In San Diego, we like to raise the hotel room tax.
3. Coastal Protection
S received a lot of donations from developers who would like to see the California Coastal Commission dismantled. Bad news for environmental protection. How much of the budget whole can developer fees fill in? Not much. And it's only a short-term solution, with hidden, long-term costs.
4. Indian Gaming
What were all those Arnold ads attacking Native American tribes about anyway? As an attack on Bustamante, they seemed a little too subtle, or indirect, for the average voter. Can California tax Indian gaming revenues? I imagine it's a huge federal case if it tries. I remember tribes had to get an initiative passed to allow gaming in-state. Perhaps S can only threaten to campaign to revoke the privilege, in which case they may call his bluff -- or just promise to throw some campaign donations his way. I'll have to look this up -- or, well, I won't. If it becomes an issue, I trust I'll read about it in one of the Times.
5. Return of the Energy Crisis
If this happens, it should be interesting.
Perhaps the cruelest thing a cynical observer of this election could have wished for is for things to have turned out in exactly the way they have.
A new blockbuster in demagoguery. What can I say? He may no longer be the box-office draw, but he's a ballot-box draw. I made at least three predictions prior to yesterday's election:
1. The election would be closer than the polls predicted
WRONG. Well, no, actually I was partially right here. Remember, back on 29 Sep, CNN issued poll results showing support for the recall at 63%. At last check on CNN, with 97% of precincts reporting, the Recall was ahead 53-47%. On the replacement end, however, their poll showed Schwarzenegger ahead 40-25%, which I thought was equally ridiculous. In fact, right now, Schwarzenegger holds a 48-32% lead over Bustamante. I expected that gap to narrow.
2. Voting would be a fiasco with much confusion and frustration over the punch card ballots.
WRONG. No media reports about this, anyway. In fact, just the contrary. Most the news story emphasized the orderliness and ease with which voters were voting. In any event, the election is not tight enough to make this a factor.
3. It could take weeks or months to ascertain a clear winner and certify the results.
WRONG. I was expecting (hoping) for a dead-heat on the recall measure. The New York Times offers a nice interactive presentation of the results. Another red/blue map -- though, with this one, there are actually some blue areas where a civilized person might actually want to live.
Of course, during the campaign, Schwarzenegger offered no answer to the question of how he would resolve the budget crisis. He hinted that he might go after Indian gaming -- but can he tax reservation casinos? He also promised to repeal the car tax, but as the Arnold-friendly San Diego Union-Tribune pointed out, that would double the projected deficit for next year. Some issues I'll be watching:
1. Budget Deficit
The New York Times had an article this morning about the poisonous partisan atmosphere in the state capitol. S has painted himself into something of a corner by promising not to raise taxes and to roll back the vehicle tax. An economic recovery would help, but even that won't bail him out completely. Meaning, he's going to have to make some tough cuts. He may be lucky in that he has a Democrat-controlled legislature to blame when his budget doesn't balance. Look for detioration in infrastructure spending, educational spending (though much of this, I guess, is mandated), and for all those middle-class voters in Orange and San Diego County who voted for Arnold: more fee increases at the state universities their kids are attending! Which brings us to #2....
2. Taxes
Nowadays we call them user fees or special assessments, but usually that's just a euphemism for a regressive tax. As Joe Klein wrote of Clinton at the end of his presidency, Clinton didn't take from the rich and give to the poor. He took from the rich and gave to the middle class. Since the end of Clinton's administration, Republicans have been giving back to the rich (while trying to avoid taking anything away from the middle class.) But at the state level, where deficit spending is not an option, the conflicts between middle-class entitlement and upper class avarice will surface much sooner. UC fees are one of the more conspicuous bellwethers. Also look for increased parking meter fees and higher parking ticket penalties as the financial burden continues to get shifted on to municipalities. In San Diego, we like to raise the hotel room tax.
3. Coastal Protection
S received a lot of donations from developers who would like to see the California Coastal Commission dismantled. Bad news for environmental protection. How much of the budget whole can developer fees fill in? Not much. And it's only a short-term solution, with hidden, long-term costs.
4. Indian Gaming
What were all those Arnold ads attacking Native American tribes about anyway? As an attack on Bustamante, they seemed a little too subtle, or indirect, for the average voter. Can California tax Indian gaming revenues? I imagine it's a huge federal case if it tries. I remember tribes had to get an initiative passed to allow gaming in-state. Perhaps S can only threaten to campaign to revoke the privilege, in which case they may call his bluff -- or just promise to throw some campaign donations his way. I'll have to look this up -- or, well, I won't. If it becomes an issue, I trust I'll read about it in one of the Times.
5. Return of the Energy Crisis
If this happens, it should be interesting.
Perhaps the cruelest thing a cynical observer of this election could have wished for is for things to have turned out in exactly the way they have.
Monday, October 06, 2003
Sunday, October 05, 2003
A not quite couple-weeks-old Salon article on the stupid, alarming flaws in electronic voting software:
Salon.com Technology | An open invitation to election fraud
An archive of the paper by JHU and Rice computer scientists that outlines the flaws, and of the main e-voting company Diebold's flimsy rebuttal:
Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
Salon.com Technology | An open invitation to election fraud
An archive of the paper by JHU and Rice computer scientists that outlines the flaws, and of the main e-voting company Diebold's flimsy rebuttal:
Analysis of an Electronic Voting System
Friday, October 03, 2003
The LA Times served up a twitchy piece of three-eyed fish to Arnold on Thursday. While he's doing his best to swallow it, Darrell Issa immediately spit it out, saying that the idea that Arnold would force himself upon women is absurd because women throw themselves at men in positions of power.
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Well, my vote was wasted. True, Huffington wasn't going to win anyway, and I suppose there is something deliciously appropriate in the fact that, out of 135 candidates, I would, with the most conscientious intentions, vote for the one who would turn out not to be a candidate after all. Hopefully, my vote on the recall measure itself will matter.
A more plausible poll from the Los Angeles Times:
The Los Angeles Times poll showed the recall succeeding by a 56 percent to 42 percent margin. That was a shift from a Sept. 12 Times poll that showed support for the recall stalling, with 50 percent of voters supporting it and 47 percent in opposition.
Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger had support from 40 percent of likely voters in Tuesday's poll, Lt. Gov. Bustamante had 32 percent and Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock had 15 percent. Source: Yahoo! AP
I read Hendrick Hertzberg's article on Arnold in the New Yorker yesterday -- a rather sympathetic protrayal. Hertzberg observes something that most people don't notice -- Arnold has red hair:
He looked like a vanilla sundae topped with raspberry sauce. His hair was a rich shade of red that is seldom encountered in nature, and never atop the head of a fifty-six-year-old man.
That his hair color hasn't become the central issue of this campaign only underlines the fundamental triviality of California voters.
I suspect the gap will be much narrower come election day as these media polls seem to invariably underrepresent low-income Democratic voters and, as with Gore-Bush, thoughtful, undecided voters who come to their senses at the moment of truth in the polling booth.
Meanwhile, watching Arnold campaign, I'm reminded of that early Simpsons episode where Burns runs for governor. (Any Simpsons fan who votes for Arnold -- and I'm sure there will be a number of them -- just doesn't get it.) We'll see if Arnold has to swallow any three-eyed fish in the final days of the campaign.
A more plausible poll from the Los Angeles Times:
The Los Angeles Times poll showed the recall succeeding by a 56 percent to 42 percent margin. That was a shift from a Sept. 12 Times poll that showed support for the recall stalling, with 50 percent of voters supporting it and 47 percent in opposition.
Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger had support from 40 percent of likely voters in Tuesday's poll, Lt. Gov. Bustamante had 32 percent and Republican state Sen. Tom McClintock had 15 percent. Source: Yahoo! AP
I read Hendrick Hertzberg's article on Arnold in the New Yorker yesterday -- a rather sympathetic protrayal. Hertzberg observes something that most people don't notice -- Arnold has red hair:
He looked like a vanilla sundae topped with raspberry sauce. His hair was a rich shade of red that is seldom encountered in nature, and never atop the head of a fifty-six-year-old man.
That his hair color hasn't become the central issue of this campaign only underlines the fundamental triviality of California voters.
I suspect the gap will be much narrower come election day as these media polls seem to invariably underrepresent low-income Democratic voters and, as with Gore-Bush, thoughtful, undecided voters who come to their senses at the moment of truth in the polling booth.
Meanwhile, watching Arnold campaign, I'm reminded of that early Simpsons episode where Burns runs for governor. (Any Simpsons fan who votes for Arnold -- and I'm sure there will be a number of them -- just doesn't get it.) We'll see if Arnold has to swallow any three-eyed fish in the final days of the campaign.
