Grant's Blog

The 2010 primaries are coming up shortly so I thought I’d put together a short voting guide as I’ve done for past elections. In the past when I’ve written up my voter guide, I’ve included a recommendation for offices and initiatives. This year however, I see few choices in most races so I will wait to make a recommendation on candidates until the general election, with a couple exceptions.

One exception I’m going to make is for the job of Public Administrator for Orange County. Normally, I say why I support a candidate; I try to make my recommendations affirmative, instead of voting against a candidate. However, in the case of Steve Rocco, I can’t emphasize enough the need to vote for anybody else. Mr. Rocco is a perennial candidate, having run for Mayor of Santa Ana in 2000 and Santa Ana City Council in 2008. In 2004, he was elected to the Orange Unified School Board. He was a terrible board member. There was even a recall petition that circulated to try to have him removed from the board. This was mostly because he was more interested in railing against the black vans out to get him (no joke, he’s actually that crazy) and talking about his mother’s health problems than in improving the quality of education in OUSD. It’s also good to note that he was convicted of theft for stealing a half-full bottle of ketchup from a Chapman University cafeteria. Do not vote for this man, he is not Andy Kaufman.

Also in Orange County, there is a fairly contentious race for Sheriff. There are three candidates on the ballot, the incumbent sheriff Sandra Hutchens, Anaheim Deputy Police Chief Craig Hunter, and former OC Sheriffs Deputy Bill Hunt. Orange County’s Sheriffs department has had a rocky few years. The previous Sheriff, Mike Carona, was indicted for corruption and convicted for witness tampering. After his resignation, Sheriff Hutchens was appointed to the job with the mandate to clean up the department. She brought a very different style and mentality to the department which has rubbed many people the wrong way. The biggest political issue that she has run into is in changing Carona’s policy on concealed weapons permits, refusing to issue most permits in an effort to reduce the number of guns on the street. Both Hunt and Hunter have latched on to this issue, promising to issue permits to anybody who qualifies and asks for one. While I agree with Hunt and Hunter on this issue and believe that a shall-issue policy is the correct one, I also believe that they are using this issue for political reasons without honest convictions to back it up. Sheriff Hutchens is the only candidate out of the three that doesn’t seem to be playing political games and is more interested in serving the residents of Orange County than being a politician.

Now, on to the state-wide issues.

Proposition 13 – Limits on Property Tax Assessment. Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
YES. This measure will make it so building owners will not be faced with having their property re-assessed for tax purposes if they make seismic upgrades to their properties. On the one hand, property taxes are too low and it’s bankrupting the state. Anybody that’s worried about the revaluation of their property probably isn’t paying their fair share of taxes so they SHOULD have it re-valuated. On the other hand, that creates a disincentive for property owners to make structural upgrades that would make their buildings safe, which is a bad thing. At the end of the day, it’s probably better for the state and local governments to give up a small bit of property tax revenue in order to improve the seismic stability of California’s older buildings. The cost to cities for first responders if one of these buildings were to collapse in a large earthquake would far outweigh the additional tax revenue the city would receive from re-assessing the buildings.

Proposition 14 – Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections.
YES. This measure creates a version of an open primary for state offices. California once had a version of an open primary referred to as a blanket primary, but the courts struck that system down because it violated the people’s freedom of association protected under the First Amendment. Proposition 14 will create a different type of open primary, commonly referred to as a Jungle Primary. This system too has been challenged in court, but in 2008 the US Supreme Court ruled that jungle primaries are constitutional. A jungle primary is different than a blanket primary in one important way: it creates what’s tantamount to a runoff election between the two highest vote getters from the primary during the general election, regardless of party. In the old system, anybody could vote for any candidate on the ballot during the primary election, and the highest vote getter from each party would move on to the general election. In a jungle primary, voters are still able to vote for any candidate on the ballot during the primary, but only the two highest vote getters will be on the ballot in the general election. This makes it so it will be possible, even likely, that we’ll see two Republicans facing off during the general election in conservative areas and two Democrats in liberal areas. This will enable voters in the general election to pick the more moderate candidate and should lead to less extremism in the state house from both parties.

Proposition 15 – California Fair Elections Act.
YES. This measure paves the way for public funding of elections in California. Whether you support this proposition or not all comes down to your views on public financing of elections, and I believe that we should do everything we can to get money out of politics. The current national debate over finance reform is a perfect example of the corrupting influence money has on politics. Senators from both parties are voting against the wishes and best interests of their constituents because they are afraid of Wall Street’s campaign finance spigot being turned off. Publicly funded elections will help ensure our elected representatives are actually representing the voters’ interests and not their donors. Proposition 15 is one small step in that direction.

Proposition 16 – Imposes New Two-Thirds Voter Approval Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
NO. This measure is designed to limit cities ability to create municipal electric utilities. There are two great things that Anaheim has: Disneyland and the Anaheim Public Utilities. Disneyland brings tourists, which in turn bring money and tax revenue to the city. The Anaheim Public Utilities has enabled the city to provide electricity for about a third less than the rates charged by Southern California Edison for Anaheim’s neighboring cities. In addition, Anaheim Public Utilities has been able to build up the city’s supply of electricity that’s generated locally, helping to ensure the power stays on in the event of rolling blackouts that California has experienced in the past. The money Anaheim has spent on its public utilities has been a great investment for the city over the long run. This proposition will make it much harder for other cities to make similar investments in their communities. The campaign for this proposition is funded in large part by California’s major utility companies, which are trying to limit the amount of competition they face throughout the state. More competition is generally good for consumers, this proposition is being marketed as a way to protect residents when in fact it’s simply trying to protect corporate interests.

Proposition 17 – Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.
NO. This measure would enable auto insurance companies to raise or lower your premium based on your history of past auto insurance coverage. This means that drivers will be penalized if they drop their insurance coverage for a period of more than 90 days for any reason. For many people, there are good and legitimate reasons why they don’t need car insurance for extended periods of time that has nothing to do with their quality as a driver or risk posed to the insurance company. This change will lead to people keeping their insurance even if they don’t need it simply to avoid the increase in premium later on. Quite simply, a history of insurance coverage is not a valid indicator of driver risk. This is a proposition funded by an insurance company that would increase their profits, not help California drivers.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, I’m going to try to rebuild all my old archives. This will be fun, right?

Today, the wife and I started planning our Victory Garden. Between buying everything we needed, preparing the soil, repairing the pipe I broke, and planting our plants, it took about eight hours.  We decided to do this for a couple reasons: we needed to do something with our backyard, since it’s been just sitting there for the past year or so; we thought it would be nice to grow some of our own food so we could eat more healthy and save some money.  And I have one other motivation that I don’t think Wifey shares, and it goes to reason I’m calling it a Victory Garden, growing our own food increases our household’s resiliency.

Why am I calling it a Victory Garden?

First, a brief history lesson.  During both World Wars, the government encouraged people to grow their own food in an effort to reduce the demand on the food supply.  These gardens were called Victory Gardens.  During the wars, many things that we take for granted were being rationed, including food.  By supplementing their rations, people were able to have more to eat and eat healthier.  Additionally, these gardens were thought of as a moral booster, as people felt like they were contributing directly to the war effort.

In the 1970s, Victory Gardens once again became popular, even spawning a PBS show The Victory Garden, due to the Arab Oil Embargo.  Once again, people were able to supplement their food supply with home-grown produce since there was a shortage of many different goods, not just oil.  This is more more closely related to my motivation for building a Victory Garden.

In today’s world, our lives run on a just-in-time delivery system that is incredibly efficient. Nearly everything we buy, whether it’s through the internet or in a store, gets to the store just before we go to buy it. There simply isn’t much reserve of any given item. Either something is being produced, being transported, or being sold and used. Nowhere in there are goods sitting in a warehouse waiting to be demanded.

When this system is working, it works wonderfully. Everybody gets what they need, and the producers, distributors and sellers make more money than they would otherwise. However, this system is very fragile, and if it stops working for any length of time, people stop getting what they need. We have replaced resiliency with efficiency. Not necessarily a bad thing, but if that system ever stops working, we’re all going to be in a world of hurt.

By growing our own food, we’ll always have something to eat if for some reason, there are food shortages and we can’t get what we need at the grocery store.

Planting our new Victory Garden

We have a 30 foot long retaining wall running along one side of our yard, with a small, 15 inch wide planter in front of it. We decided to use this area for the first phase of our Victory Garden. Our plan was to till the soil, add in a bit more, higher quality dirt, and then plant a handful of different crops down its length.

Thankfully, I was allowed to buy a Pulaski.  Normally, Pulaskis are thought of as fire fighting tools.  They are very efficient when it comes to clearing brush and building a firebreak.  For the same reason, they are useful for clearing plants and roots in a garden, which was exactly the job I needed to do.  So now I have a new garden tool that can double as a survival tool if the need ever arises.

One downside to using the Pulaski is that I broke an irrigation line. I thought I was digging out a root, but I quickly found out that a section of my sprinkler system wasn’t buried as deeply as most of it was. The Pulaski is very good at digging and cutting, and quickly went right through the pipe.

Thankfully, Home Depot is right around the corner. I went down, picked up a pipe cutter, a length of pipe, some connectors and some PVC cement. With some quick measuring and a couple swift cuts, I had that broken pipe repaired in no time. I even got to add another new tool to my toolbox, so I’ll be able to mend any other pipes I might break in the future.

The Final Victory Garden

Once we repaired the broken irrigation line, we filled in the planter with some new soil, smoothed everything out, and started planting. We bought three each of tomato, cucumber and bell peppers, along with various herbs and garlic. I also planted some corn from seeds. We were mainly going for tall or climbing plants to grow along that back wall. Phase 2 of the Victory Garden will involve constructing a raised planter bed so we can grow more low-lying plants. We’re thinking some berries, squash, zucchini, and carrots. Whatever we think we’ll actually eat.

The finished product of our Victory Garden: Phase 1

Today Space Shuttle Endeavor unexpectedly landed at Edwards Air Force Base. Luckily, we had enough warning to get up to Edwards for the landing. Here are a few of the photographs I took as the shuttle came in overhead and circled around where we were standing on its approach to the runway.

Following the celebrations of last night, it is time to take stock of what has been accomplished, and what has yet to be done.  It is clear that Barack Obama had a stellar night.  He has won more electoral votes than George W. Bush did in either of his elections, although less than Bill Clinton did in his.

Initially, it didn’t appear that the Democratic Party had as good a night as Barack Obama. They were unable to achieve a 60-seat majority in the Senate, and they only picked up 20 seats in the House of Representatives. More importantly, however, the conservative movement ran the table on the social issues placed before voters as initiatives. The most talked about issue being gay marriage. But that’s the crux of why it only appears that the Democratic Party’s night wasn’t as good as President-elect Obama’s, our point of reference as moved, it has progressed.

Abortion is no longer the issue that divides this country. Abortion is no longer the lynch pin of the conservative movement. Abortion is no longer a winnable issue for the right. They have given up on abortion, they may still think that abortion is wrong, but it’s not where they are spending their time or money. Instead, they are spending their time and their money on gay marriage. They have conceded that abortion is here in this country to stay, and have redirected their energies elsewhere. And that, is progress.

November 4th, 2008 was a very good day for the Democratic Party, the United States of America, and the world. Americans will again believe that we, as individuals, can have a positive impact on the world. No longer will the American people be ruled by fear, instead we are filled with hope. No longer will we be withdrawn from the world, instead we are now empowered to engage with our communities, our fellow citizens and all our fellow travelers on this shinning blue ball we call home.

A friend of mine sent me an article from today’s Wall Street Journal asking “Will Obama Gut Defense?” This article had many flaws, it is telling that military spending is equated with having a better military, without thought to what that money is being spent on.

What Sen. Obama has said is that we need to invest in our service members. That we need to do more to protect them while they are in the field and ensure they get the care, both physical and mental, that they need when they return. This will ensure that more Solders, Sailors, Marines and Airmen can return to duty and be redeployed. It will also ensure that more Americans will be willing to join our armed forces.

Sen. Obama has not commented on the F-22, F-35, Future Combat Systems or National Missile Defense specifically, he has indeed been light on specifics which leaves open the opportunity to make the assumptions that the author does in this article. Even so, lets assume that the author is correct, and that these programs would be cut under an Obama administration.

First, lets focus on the Air Force. Nobody is denying the age of the Air Force’s current fleet of aircraft. The Air Force desperately needs to replace many of its air frames of all types. The question isn’t whether or not to replace these aircraft with fifth generation or nothing at all. The question needs to be: do we replace a handful of aircraft with fifth generation fighters or do we replace a majority of our aircraft with a new production line of our existing fourth generation fighters.

Looking at the F/A-18 E/F, the Marine Corps has the right idea. Upgrade our existing air frame designs with new avionics so we have a fleet of generation 4.5 aircraft. This could easily be done if the Air Force bought a new block of F-15s and F-16 at a substantially reduced cost from buying F-22s and F-35s.

This same logic holds true for all of the Air Force’s planes. There isn’t a huge need that isn’t being fulfilled by current tankers. The Air Force should buy new air frames of the current models, instead of developing something new.

Moving on to the Army, FCS does not fill any need that the Army currently has. In fact, it will likely do more harm than good, keeping the Army in a Second Generation model instead of moving towards the Third Generation of warfare. This is because the generals and commanders will be able to have more real-time information and be able to give orders while troops are engaged in battle. What the Army needs to do is rely upon the collective knowledge and insight of the troops who are doing the fighting to ensure the best decisions are made while in combat. Quite simply, instead of pushing the decision making to the lowest grunt in the field, that decision making will be concentrated at the top. This leads to slower decision making and an inability to adapt to new information quickly.

There are many other problems with FCS as well. The biggest other problem is the weight of the system. By adding all of this computer equipment, and the batteries to run it, we are weighing our Solders down with over a hundred pounds of gear. This limits their mobility and ensures they can’t be agile when responding to threats.

The Future Combat Systems also helps ensure that our Solders are more cut off and removed from the populations they have to interact with. In the types of engagements we find ourselves today, and that we will likely find ourselves in the future, this is a huge issue. Our troops need to be free to interact and build relationships with the populations they work in. It is the only way to win hearts and minds and to build legitimacy. Without doing that, we don’t have a viable exit strategy.

What all of this says, is that more spending does not directly equate to a better military. Our military needs to do more than blow things up, it cannot just be a gun that we point at what we want destroyed. Our military needs to be more nuanced, it needs to to be able to build bridges within the countries we are engaged, both literally and figuratively. Our military needs more smart people who are dedicated to improving the world in which we live.