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.

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.

President
I’m voting for BARACK OBAMA. The reasons are many, you can read why I’m a Democrat generally, but here are a few reasons why I’m specifically voting for Obama:

1. Obama has provided a vision for what America can be, providing a long term goal for us to reach. I believe this is the most important role of the President.
2. Obama’s rhetorical skills are at a level where he can inspire people with his vision and make people believe and have hope in the future of our country.
3. Obama has shown a very metered response to the current problems facing our economy. He has worked to understand the issues and provide solutions that will work over the long term. McCain, on the other hand, has been completely reactionary, acting without a solid understanding of the impact of his actions.

United States Representative 42nd District
ED CHAU. Because he’s not Gary Miller.

Orange Unified School District,
Trustee Area 3
I’ve meet FLORICE HOFFMAN a few times, and she seems to be a reasonable and approachable person. I haven’t stayed informed on OUSD politics since graduating high school, so I don’t know what the issues of the day are for the district. On this one, I’m simply voting for the person I’ve meet.

City of Anaheim, Member, City Council
I’m voting for LORRI GALLOWAY and GAIL EASTMAN in this election. I truly support Lorri, I think she has the best interest of the City in mind when she makes decisions and she understands the implications of those decisions over the long term for the city. Gail, on the other hand, I’m voting for as the least bad of a bad set of candidates. She doesn’t have her own vision for the City, instead doing whatever Mayor Pringle wants. For the most part, I like the mayor, knowing him has served me well. His work has benefited the city greatly over the past six years, however, I worry about the long-term impact that work will have. In other words, I think many of his, and by extension Gail’s, priorities for the city are short sighted and will leave the city worse off in 50 years.

Prop 1A-Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act
I’m voting YES on Prop 1A. High-speed trains are the third most important item needed to indicate the future has arrived (after monorails and jetpacks, of course.) But more seriously, a high-speed rail that runs throughout California would be a boon to our economy, both in the short term and the long. Construction of the rail line would bring in billions of dollars of construction money into our economy over the next few years. Once the line is in place, it will enhance our economy by providing rapid transportation between the major cities in the state. It will be cheaper than flying and faster than driving.

I’m not a big supporter of bonds. However, Prop 1A is an investment in our infrastructure and it will pay for itself, ensuring we won’t have to raise taxes in the future to pay for this construction today.

Prop 2-Standards for Confining Farm Animals
After some hard thought on this proposition, I’ve decided to vote NO. This issue is too complex, and has too many far ranging impacts, for the voters to understand and make an informed decision. The voters have a poor track record on voting for complex issues. This is the main reason I don’t support California’s proposition system. I don’t have a good understanding of what this will do to California’s farming industry. More importantly, I don’t know what this will do to the world food market. There is a reason there are so many farms in California, it’s the best and cheapest place to produce food. If this proposition passes, it will likely make raising livestock more expensive within the state, which means that farmers will either leave, or things will just become more expensive. We’ve recently seen what happens, with corn based ethanol, when a law is passed that indirectly affects food prices, and how that effect ripples throughout the world. I’m not saying that will happen with Prop 2, I’m just saying I’m not well enough informed to know what the effects will be.

Prop 3-Children’s Hospital Bond Act
I’m voting NO on Prop 3 for a couple of reasons. First, much of this bond money will go into basic maintenance and upkeep of existing hospitals. This is something that needs to come out of on-going funds, not a one-time source. These types of activities simply aren’t an investment, and it’s not what we should spend bond money on. Secondly, California needs to invest in all of its hospitals, not just its children’s hospitals. I would be in favor of a bond measure that expanded California’s entire hospital system, but I’m not in favor of Prop 3.

Prop 4-Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy
Prop 4 is another attack on abortion rights, and I’m voting NO on it. This or similar measures have been on the ballot for years in California. The Pro-Life movement will continue put this legislation on the ballot until it passes and doesn’t get struck down as unconstitutional. This proposition needs to be defeated by a resounding margin so we aren’t faced with having to see this same issue on the ballot for the foreseeable future.

Prop 5-Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation
California does a poor job of deescalating criminal behavior. Prop 5 enables our justice system to treat non-violent drug offenders in a way that will help them get off drugs instead of falling deeper into crime, which is why I’m voting YES on Prop 5.

Prop 6-Police and Law Enforcement Funding
I’m voting NO on Prop 6. The voters of California have put many funding requirements on the state legislature, this is another one. These requirements, combined with the state’s inability to raise taxes, has made it increasingly harder to have a balanced budget or reasonable plan of spending for state services that don’t have voter mandated funding requirements.

Prop 7-Renewable Energy Generation
Prop 7 does two beneficial things: it evens the playing field between public and private utilities and it increases the amount of renewable energy that is generated within the state. That’s why I’ll be voting YES on Prop 7.

Prop 8-Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry
Marriage, from a legal point of view, is a contract between two people. As such, it needs to be open to everybody who wants to enter into that contract. That’s why I’m voting NO on Prop 8. Many people say that gay couples should be able to have “civil unions” that confer the same rights as marriage, but if they are the same in all but name there is no good reason to separate the two with a different name. As the Supreme Court said in Brown v Board of Education (1954), separate is inherently unequal.

Prop 9-Criminal Justice System. Victim’s Right. Parole.
Prop 9 makes many changes to the way inmates are handled during parole and after release from prison. The main factors that are leading me to vote NO on Prop 9 are: taking away parolees’ rights to legal council and restricting parole boards ability to release inmates early to relieve over-crowding.

Prop 10-Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy
Prop 10 is the exact wrong use of bond funds, which is why I’ll be voting NO. This proposition will allow the state to give rebates to Californians who buy alternative fuel vehicles. Hybrid and electric cars need to be able to compete in the market. Encumbering the state for 30 years to provide rebates for goods that will last ~5 years doesn’t sound like a good plan.

Prop 11-Redistricting
I support changing the way California draws its election districts every 10 years. However, I think this is the wrong change and so I’ll be voting NO on Prop 11. We need to have representatives we elect to draw the district map, we just need to give them some guidelines for what we expect to see from them and what they can and can’t do.

Prop 12-Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008
The Cal-Vet Home Loan Program does not cost tax-payers anything, which is why I’m voting YES on Prop 12. These bonds are used to provide inexpensive mortgages to veterans which they then pay back like a conventional mortgage. The benefit of doing this through a bond issuance is it enables the state to get a low interest rate that it can then pass on to the veteran home-buyers.

Measure J
This measure will increase the number of issues before voters, who I don’t believe make very good choices, so I’ll be voting NO on Measure J. We are a representative democracy, we should let our representatives vote on legislation instead of doing it directly.

Yes, yes, I know I haven’t posted a real entry in umpteen billion seconds. Or more precisely, just about 11,000,000 seconds (that’s orders of magnitude more precise, even though it’s still very round.) I haven’t been talking the time out of life to write, as was the intention of this site. It’s one goal of mine that I’m failing at, and I think I just found another that will suffer the same fate.

Not long ago, I made a list of life goals on my online notebook. One of those goals I’ve had for a long time now, it’s one of those goals that can only be accomplished in death. My goal is to only shave half the days of my life.

But now, Esquire makes a compelling argument for Shaving Every Day.

Of my life goals, this seemed to be the most achievable. It’s the only one I had a real plan for. I figure I have 15 years of built up time on the front end, and I’m not wasting shaving days on weekends. Then, once I’m rich and have a fancy car collection, I wanted to grow a beard like Billy Gibbons. That will hopefully build up another 15 or 20 years on the back end. But now I’m thinking of abandoning this goal because of Esquire.

Thankfully, I have a week and a half to think about this before I’m faced with making a decision. This weekend I’m headed out to Joshua Tree, where it is perfectly acceptable to go unshaven and “look tired and sloppy,” as Esquire describes it.

43%

…is the most under appreciated instrument ever. A while back I saw a retrospective of Leonard Cohen songs and one of them was a guy playing Leonard Cohen songs on a ukulele. It was awesome.

And here is some ukulele music for you to enjoy.

CNN Video : Search for Fosset

CAPBlog linked to this great segment about CAP’s efforts in the search for Steve Fosset.

I haven’t talked about CAP at all since relaunching this site, but it’s an organization I’m a part of and very proud of my service to it. I have friends that are out there helping with this search and I truly wish I could be out there with them. Unfortunately, I haven’t had the time to train up for Search and Rescue operations. Even though we likely won’t have another search of this magnitude for quite some time, it will probably prompt me to work towards getting qualified to help in the future.

At the new apartment Jill and I are having a little problem with our wireless network. I have an older D-Link DI-614+ that doesn’t have quite a strong enough signal to provide good networks speeds throughout the apartment. It has worked great for years, but it’s on one end of the apartment and we use our laptops largely on the other end in the living room. There are a number of walls between us and it, so it’s understandable that it’s having some difficulty getting to us.

Our first solution was to get a new G router that would hopefully provide faster speeds. First we tried the Linksys WRT54GS. Then we tried a Netgear WGT624. We went back to the Linksys WRT54GS but added a Linksys WRE54G. All of these have been returned and we are back to using the D-Link. We are now contemplating purchasing an Apple AirPort Extreme. If we still need a network extender we would be able to get an AirPort Express, although that’s an expensive solution.

Here are the shortcomings of each router we tried, and why I will likely never buy one of their products again, especially Linksys:

Linksys WRT54GS
My biggest problem with this router is that its configuration site doesn’t work in Firefox on a Mac. I’m not sure if it works in Firefox at all, but I wasn’t able to try it in Windows. It did work in Camino though, so once I figured that it it made things a bit easier.

However, the second time I tried to set it up (with a new actual router since the first one had already been returned) I wasn’t able to get it on the internet.

Linksys not only doesn’t give any instructions on how to set up its products with a Mac, its user guides crash Preview when they are opened. Luckily I had Acrobat, but most people using OS X don’t bother with Acrobat since they have Preview installed by default.

Netgear WGT624
This router wasn’t the easiest to setup. It mis-diagnosed the type of internet connection I had, it wanted me to manually set up my IP and other network settings. I was able to get it up and running on the internet through the advanced settings. However, once I got that part figured out I had no problems with it. However, it still wasn’t strong enough and didn’t improve the connection speed in the living room.

Linksys WRE54G
This is one of the worst products I’ve purchased in years. Do not buy this network extender. I found a site giving step by step instructions on how to set up a WRE54G. Even though I tried following these instructions I was never able to connect to the extender’s web interface. I even tried to set it up with all three routers at various stages. I was at least expecting it to work with the Linksys WRT54GS but I wasn’t even able to get that working. This was the most frustrating product of the three because it never got working at all.