So I'm reading this article and I have some thoughts, so I'll write them out here so that I won't bore Lydia and Spencer with them.
Australia has a very accelerated election cycle -- parliamentary elections are held every 3 years. The US election cycle is faster, with the House being up every 2 years, but the President is the main focus of the government and has 4 years between elections. Also, separation of the legislative and executive means the President can't get dumped by the legislative caucus and is also somewhat isolated from the political jockeying in the legislature.
In Australia, the power plays and the business of governing are thrown together and linked with a need to maintain political popularity in the short term, which seems to have lead to instability in leadership in the last 8 years. Three prime ministers have been overthrown by their party in the middle of their terms, and it looks like it might happen again despite the fact that an election was held just last month. What's up with that?
Here's the background: Australia has a weird mix of a strong two-party system in the lower house and a multi-party system in the Senate. The House chooses the Prime Minister but the Senate still needs to pass any legislation (like in the US but unlike the UK or Canada). The House is elected via ranked-choice voting in single member districts (hence the two-party dominance), while the Senate elects 6 members from each state by ranking either party lists or individual candidates and then distributing the votes. This makes for a roughly proportional seat assignment but the way minor parties can accumulate votes for the last few seats make the end process a little wacky. More on that later.
The main party on the center-left is the Labor Party (spelled the American way because apparently at some point Australia had a fad for 'modernizing' spelling). They're pretty much what you'd expect, with strong ties to labor unions and strength in the inner cities. As far as I can tell, Labor seems to have held up better with what in the US we'd call the 'white working class' vote than equivalent parties in Europe or the US. I'm not sure why, though it may just be that immigration and racial dynamics are different in Australia, or that the outlets for anti-partyism are different. Maybe compulsory voting also plays a role -- since everyone legally has to vote, people who might feel left behind and stay home instead still vote Labor or at least pick them as their second choice.
For the main center-right party it gets a little more complicated. It turns out there are two main center right parties, the Liberals and the Nationals, but they're in a permanent coalition called, appropriately the Coalition. There's some history there where the Liberals were big in the suburbs and the Nationals formed in rural areas because they felt neglected. The Liberals are mostly in charge and provide the PM but the Nationals control some rural seats and ministries have their own priorities. And they can run in the same seats without splitting the vote thanks to ranked-choice!
There's a fourth important party, the Greens, that have a consistent presence in Parliament. They only have one seat in the House, but get ~8% of the primary vote, most of which gets transferred to Labor. They also control the third largest block in the Senate. They're pretty much what you'd expect, to the left of Labor notably on refugee issues. The rest of the House is a couple of independents.
Then there's the mess of 'minor parties' in the Senate. Unlike other countries with multi-party systems, the extra minor parties are not so much ideological as personality-based. Basically in any country there are going to be people who vote for major, organized parties and then people who vote for anti-establishment candidates. In Australia that vote gets concentrated in Senate elections. Since votes get transferred, all the tiny vote percentages that in other countries would get wasted due to PR thresholds gets accumulated. This means wacky candidates with low ties to any real 'party' organization get elected to senate seats, while they get blocked from House seats, which makes for a strange dynamic. Since neither main party has a majority in the Senate, usually, they have to make deals with the assorted essentially independent Senators to pass legislation.
Anyway, back to cutthroatedness. Here are the main players: for the Labor Party, Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard; for the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull. These four politicans have been the last four Prime Ministers and yet all four have been deposed by revolts within their party.
It started in 2007, when Rudd let Labor to victory over John Howard's 11-year Coalition government. In 2008, Turnbull was chosen as the leader of the opposition. However, Turnbull soon got into trouble. The problem was that Turnbull came from a business background and was a moderate. His big sin was supporting the Labor government's cap-and-trade proposal. So the climate change denier faction of the party revolted and installed Abbott, a conservative, instead.
Then in 2010, three years into the Labor government and as an election was coming due, Labor MPs had their own turn to be restive. Some faction of the Labor party (which is very factional -- there's some stuff with left and right factions of the party in the various states conspiring against each other) decided they didn't like Rudd's leadership style and thought his polling numbers were too low, so they held a leadership election and replaced him with his deputy, Gillard. She then had to call an election and managed to use the fact that Abbott was very very conservative to squeak into a victory.
This worked ok for the next few years but the Labor government's popularity kept sliding (I think sexism didn't help Gillard, she had some of the public opinion problems Hillary has), and by 2013 even Abbott wasn't scary enough to keep Labor in government for the looming election. Therefore the Labor MPs decided Gillard was no good and held a coup to put Rudd back in power in hopes to bounce up the poll numbers (they always are watching the poll numbers). By then all this drama was a bit much for voters and when Rudd held an election, Abbott won in a landslide.
Of course now that the Coalition was in power they were ready for their own backstabbing! Abbott, being very weird as well as very conservative, had a very short honeymoon and saw his popularity slide. A year into his term, the Liberals were losing state elections they had won in landslides three years earlier, presaging a defeat after just one term, a rare occurrence. Abbott survived for two years, but by 2015 rumors of a coup by his caucus abounded. Finally, in September, his deputy Julie Bishop turned on him and Abbott was replaced by Turnbull. The hope was that his non-partisan moderate image would fix things, and he did get a massive poll bounce for the Coalition. However, by the time he had to call an election in 2016 his popularity slid, and in July he won a bare majority in the House, a big loss from the 2013 landslide.
And now we get to the article. Turnbull's underperformance in the election means that the conservative wing of his party are using the occasion to get restive again. He's having a hard time balancing his ideological moderateness and desire to implement popular policies (e.g. gay marriage) with his need for support from conservative party members. The article suggests that Abbott may attempt to lead a comeback. This is hilarious because in 2013 the Liberals ran against Labor dysfunction and coups, and now are embroiled in their own identical disputes.
As for Labor, they dumped both Gillard and Rudd after 2013 and Bill Shorten has been leader since then. He's relatively successful, especially with his overperformance in the 2016 election. However, right after the election, there were already articles about how the guy he beat, Anthony Albanese, was considering a challenge! In then end he didn't go for it, but we'll see what the future holds ... Though they did add a membership vote component to the leader selection, so it'll be harder to change leaders than the purely caucus-based old method.
Its hard to tell if fatigue with the major parties is causing constant leadership turnover, or if the coups are themselves causing voter fatigue. Anyway it sounds like this period of drama and caucus rebellions is far from over in Australia. As an observer from afar its pretty fun to watch, though maybe not so much for Australians themselves.
For the article, this was the paragraph I found most descriptive: "Ideally, a leader enjoys the support of caucus colleagues and the
voters. Some, like Julia Gillard, get by with just the former. Others,
like Kevin Rudd, seize office relying on the latter. Turnbull is losing
in both groups, and without the support of the electorate or his party
room, he can’t survive."
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
Wednesday, August 10, 2016
So I'm going to try to do some regular writing here in order to practice thinking and in order to avoid having thoughts about the world tumbling all around my head. I'll probably just do short posts about what I'm reading/learning and current events and the such.
This week I'm listening to the Revolutions podcast series on the English Civil War. It's a pretty popular series by this guy named Mike Duncan who started out doing a podcast on the history of Rome and now has moved on to one about revolutions. I think he does his research on the topic before putting together the podcast but has no particular training in these areas of history. It's a pretty decent way to keep myself entertained while aligning optics in the lab. The podcasting style is pretty engaging. Duncan makes sure to introduce all the characters when they first appear and does a good job of keeping the different concurrent plot threads straight. I think there's a little bit of presentism -- a few parts where the podcaster talks about modern political structures as if they're a self-evident progression rather than getting into the reasons expansion of republican and democratic structures was marginalized at the time -- but overall the tone is good. Though I feel like the podcast is more sympathetic to leaders like Cromwell and even Charles I than to the Parliament, due to some biases against squabbling politics and for strong action in government. I'll need to look things up when I'm done listening because I think Cromwell is not as principled as presented. Though I guess it follows up the Wolf Hall Cromwell-ancestor revisionism!
The English Civil war is interesting because we didn't cover it extensively in history class and its pretty complicated (lots of factions that switch sides) and so hard to just skim Wikipedia to learn about. And I feel like in US history we spend so much time talking about the Puritans who were oppressed and had to make their own colony to escape persecution while ignoring that only a few decades later the Puritans themselves took over the whole country for almost 20 years. There must have been some interactions there -- but we never covered them because US and European history were in different classes.
As I listen, I'm mostly noting parallels between the English Civil War and the French Revolution. The overall structure is surprisingly similar! There's a monarch forced to summon a legislature due to budget problems, conflict between the monarch and the legislature escalating, the monarch rapidly losing influence, purges and defections in the legislature leading to radicalization until the king is executed. And then after that there's rotation between various newfangled forms of government and finally takeover by a military leader who built his reputation on military victories abroad (Cromwell in Ireland). Of course the causes and political forces are different, but the ways the revolutions played out are similar, in a way that feels tied to the modern rather than medieval age. In both, the main conflict is between the king and an assembly of commoners, rather than between the king and his nobles or vassals. The commoners then had the opportunity to rethink the structure of government and formulate new forms of governmental legitimacy without a king. Again, of course the French Revolution was much more radical and inclusive in its conception of national politics, but it did come a century later.
Actually, speaking of the intervening century, I'm not sure if it the bias of the podcast or just the fact that the English Civil War was mostly centered on religious questions, but its interesting that there's very little influence of political theory on the way the politics developed. The people who launched the French and American revolutions were well versed in all the political philosophers of the Enlightenment and were ready to apply their favorite theories to their new government. That impulse seems less present in this telling of the English Civil War. I can think of a few explanations. First of all, the events take place in the 1640s-1650s, so a lot of the political theory hasn't been written yet. Second, the Parliamentarians were mostly interested in religion and so were intellectually motivated by religious doctrine instead. Third, some of the intellectual history may be cut out of the podcast -- he does mention separation of powers, but it turns out Montesquieu hadn't been born at the time so I don't know if this was intellectually rigorous.
Maybe my comparisons to the French Revolution are too far-reaching, and I should keep the English Civil War in the context of the wars between Protestants and Catholics ravaging all of Europe at the time. In all of those, the religious questions were paramount, and political questions were limited to balances of power between central and regional rulers as well as state religions. However, the English Civil War did set the course to Parliamentary supremacy in England -- and they did chop off the king's head! -- so I do feel like it has to be seen as a precursor to the 18th century revolutions.
Those revolutions are the topics of the next two part of the podcast, but I probably won't listen to them since I know a bunch about them already (and I have the Chernow Hamilton biography to read for the American revolution!). But then he has a series on the Haitian Revolution and a current one on South America so I might check those out because those are some cool topics.
This week I'm listening to the Revolutions podcast series on the English Civil War. It's a pretty popular series by this guy named Mike Duncan who started out doing a podcast on the history of Rome and now has moved on to one about revolutions. I think he does his research on the topic before putting together the podcast but has no particular training in these areas of history. It's a pretty decent way to keep myself entertained while aligning optics in the lab. The podcasting style is pretty engaging. Duncan makes sure to introduce all the characters when they first appear and does a good job of keeping the different concurrent plot threads straight. I think there's a little bit of presentism -- a few parts where the podcaster talks about modern political structures as if they're a self-evident progression rather than getting into the reasons expansion of republican and democratic structures was marginalized at the time -- but overall the tone is good. Though I feel like the podcast is more sympathetic to leaders like Cromwell and even Charles I than to the Parliament, due to some biases against squabbling politics and for strong action in government. I'll need to look things up when I'm done listening because I think Cromwell is not as principled as presented. Though I guess it follows up the Wolf Hall Cromwell-ancestor revisionism!
The English Civil war is interesting because we didn't cover it extensively in history class and its pretty complicated (lots of factions that switch sides) and so hard to just skim Wikipedia to learn about. And I feel like in US history we spend so much time talking about the Puritans who were oppressed and had to make their own colony to escape persecution while ignoring that only a few decades later the Puritans themselves took over the whole country for almost 20 years. There must have been some interactions there -- but we never covered them because US and European history were in different classes.
As I listen, I'm mostly noting parallels between the English Civil War and the French Revolution. The overall structure is surprisingly similar! There's a monarch forced to summon a legislature due to budget problems, conflict between the monarch and the legislature escalating, the monarch rapidly losing influence, purges and defections in the legislature leading to radicalization until the king is executed. And then after that there's rotation between various newfangled forms of government and finally takeover by a military leader who built his reputation on military victories abroad (Cromwell in Ireland). Of course the causes and political forces are different, but the ways the revolutions played out are similar, in a way that feels tied to the modern rather than medieval age. In both, the main conflict is between the king and an assembly of commoners, rather than between the king and his nobles or vassals. The commoners then had the opportunity to rethink the structure of government and formulate new forms of governmental legitimacy without a king. Again, of course the French Revolution was much more radical and inclusive in its conception of national politics, but it did come a century later.
Actually, speaking of the intervening century, I'm not sure if it the bias of the podcast or just the fact that the English Civil War was mostly centered on religious questions, but its interesting that there's very little influence of political theory on the way the politics developed. The people who launched the French and American revolutions were well versed in all the political philosophers of the Enlightenment and were ready to apply their favorite theories to their new government. That impulse seems less present in this telling of the English Civil War. I can think of a few explanations. First of all, the events take place in the 1640s-1650s, so a lot of the political theory hasn't been written yet. Second, the Parliamentarians were mostly interested in religion and so were intellectually motivated by religious doctrine instead. Third, some of the intellectual history may be cut out of the podcast -- he does mention separation of powers, but it turns out Montesquieu hadn't been born at the time so I don't know if this was intellectually rigorous.
Maybe my comparisons to the French Revolution are too far-reaching, and I should keep the English Civil War in the context of the wars between Protestants and Catholics ravaging all of Europe at the time. In all of those, the religious questions were paramount, and political questions were limited to balances of power between central and regional rulers as well as state religions. However, the English Civil War did set the course to Parliamentary supremacy in England -- and they did chop off the king's head! -- so I do feel like it has to be seen as a precursor to the 18th century revolutions.
Those revolutions are the topics of the next two part of the podcast, but I probably won't listen to them since I know a bunch about them already (and I have the Chernow Hamilton biography to read for the American revolution!). But then he has a series on the Haitian Revolution and a current one on South America so I might check those out because those are some cool topics.
June 2016 Election Guide
Election guide California June Primary 2016
US senate
Summary: This race is to replace Barbara Boxer (D), who has been one of the two US Senators from California since 1992 and is retiring this year. The person elected will serve a 6 year term. California has a top-2 system, so the two candidates who get the most votes on June 7th will move on to the general election in November, regardless of party affiliation. Kamala Harris is seen as the frontrunner, largely leading the other candidates in the polls, so this contest is seen as a race for who can get second place to compete with her in the runoff. The other major Democratic candidate is Loretta Sanchez. The republicans didn’t run any top-tier candidates, though Duf Sundheim, Tom Del Beccaro, and Ron Unz have the institutional support and poll numbers to make it to the debates. You can watch one debate here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K8rm88sFDQ) if you’re interested, though it’s long and not particularly informative.
Major Candidates:
Loretta Sanchez – Democratic – Loretta Sanchez is currently US representative for Santa Ana/Anaheim in Orange County. She has a typical California democrat platform, with a focus on her experience in national security and veterans’ issues from her 20 years serving on those house committees. She supports immigration reform, increasing Pell Grants, and helping women in the military. Sanchez is supported by most of the California congresspeople as well as other elected officials from Southern California and some labor unions. I think many of her supporters think it’s important to have someone from socal representing the state – almost all of the other statewide officials are from northern California.
Duf Sundheim – Republican – Sundheim was chair of the CA republican party 2003-2007, during the period of mild success where Schwarzenegger was elected governor twice, but has not held elected office. He is running the in the ‘moderate republican’ slot, supporting immigration reform and ‘pro-business’ policies. He wants to reform teacher hiring laws and supports more water storage and desalination plants. He also has a ‘Kamala Facts’ page featuring bad things Kamala Harris did, possibly to show he’s ready to compete with her in the general election? He’s been endorsed by most of the state’s republicans, including Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin, as well as Charles Schwab,the Chairman of Cisco, and Charles Munger, who’s this rich guy who essentially keeps the CA republican party afloat.
Kamala Harris – Democratic – Kamala Harris is currently Attorney General of California (elected in 2010 and 2014) and previously was DA for SF County. Like Sanchez, she is running on a typical California democrat platform, though is seen as being somewhat more liberal than Sanchez. Given her background, her website focuses more on legal aspects: criminal justice reform (she has a ‘smart on crime’ platform), LGBT rights, her crackdown on for-profit colleges as AG, etc. She is supported by high-profile national democrats (Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren), statewide dems (LG and somewhat-rival Gavin Newsom), and most of the big labor unions and the California Democratic Party.
Tom Del Beccaro – Republican – Del Beccaro was chair of the CA Republican party 2011-2013 during which the party has major money problems. He is running in the more ‘tea party’ slot of the main republican candidates. He supports a flat tax, more water storage, a more aggressive foreign policy especially against Iran and ISIS, and stronger immigration controls in the interest of national security. He’s been endorsed by the conservative side of the California republican party including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, as well as national flat tax people like Forbes and Laffer (of the Laffer curve).
Ron Unz – Republican – Unz is a curious candidate. His political experience consists of losing a republican primary for governor in 1994 and sponsoring a successful initiative in 1998 banning bilingual education in CA public schools. He decided to run this year because the legislature put a measure repealing that ban on the November ballot. His platform is a highly unusal mix of policies: he supports raising the minimum wage to $12 (which according to him would reduce the incentive for illegal immigration), reducing legal immigration limits by 50%, ending foreign wars and denouncing the Iraq war, implementing a financial transaction tax (he cites Bernie Sanders here), cutting college costs, and ending Affirmative Action. He’s been endorsed by Ron Paul.
Less-well-known candidates:
Pamela Elizondo – Green Party – This candidate provides only a facebook page which doesn’t work. I found a questionnaire she filled out for the green party (http://www.cagreens.org/elections/2016/statewide-candidate-questionnaire-pamela-elizondo-us-senate), which isn’t quite coherent. From what I can tell she wants to heal the earth, make things easier for independent candidates for political office, and grow more marijuana everywhere.
Akinyemi Agbede – Democratic – This candidate is another perennial candidate running on a kooky platform. His website (http://www.americamustregainitsgreatness2016.com) assures me that he is a “super genius man” who will make America “regain its greatness again” and prevent it from becoming a “glorified third world nation.” How this will happen is not clear because his writing is barely comprehensible.
Jerry Laws – Republican – Count of making America great again is now at 2. This candidate is an old veteran guy who is all about the Constitution – at least as it exists within the world of right-wing radio talk shows. His platform is inspired by those radio hosts and Ron Paul: no foreign wars, more guns, selling off all federal land (think of the Bundys), and especially ‘sound money’ aka the gold standard.
Ling Ling Shi – Independent – This candidate’s website is partially in English, but as far as I can tell, she runs an evangelical church and wants to ‘run for God’s heart.’ Her platform mixes a strong Christianist aspect (‘Christianity is our nation’s DNA and divine
identity and real strong strength’) along with very large expansion of the state – she supports a national bank, free college, free healthcare, the works.
identity and real strong strength’) along with very large expansion of the state – she supports a national bank, free college, free healthcare, the works.
Paul Merritt – Independent – His website looks like eat pray love and promises ‘cool stuff ‘n things’ but there isn’t much there. He thinks the main parties are bad, supports environmentalist, small government, and ‘Senator Feinstein’s boarder security fence.’ Now if only we had a fence that would keep the boarders safe.
Massie Munroe – Democratic – Now this one’s a doozy. She doesn’t have a website but her ballot description … If we elect her (and Bernie Sanders!) we’ll be on the right step to end ‘mind control slavery’ that is apparently happening via satellites and social engineering programs??? Also the global bankers are involved. But if we do that we can have a clean energy future!
Tim Gildersleeve – Independent – Judging from some undeleted phrases on this candidate’s website, he’s recycled it from a run for San Jose city council. For a fringe candidate his coherently presented? He calls himself a ‘Christocrat’ and is very worried about the moral decline of society. But on the other hand he thinks inequality is bad and wants a strong social safety net and union movement. He has a bunch of photos of him around San Jose looking awkward and I feel kind of sad for him though he literally thinks the US is losing the battle against Satan.
President Cristina Grappo – Democratic – This person has no website and has chosen to have her first name listed as ‘president.’ I don’t even know what to say, except ‘I am mainstream Facebook in social media.’
Don Grundmann – Independent – I went to this guy’s website and he had a picture of black people being lynched with something about how white people are coming back and I left immediately.
Herbert Peters – Democratic – This candidate claims to be an Andrew Jackson Democrat and so he’s very worried about deficits and the national debt (Jackson was the last president to eliminate the national debt!) He has all kinds of policies that he wants to borrow from 19th century democrats: vetoes of the National bank, welfare and farm aid. But then the filthy republicans led by Grant and Teddy Roosevelt implemented fiat money and progressivism. Also the media and government are covering up 9/11 and the JFK assassination.
Tom Palzer – Republican – This candidate is a veteran running as a conservative republican. He seems to have been involved in party politics at the local level, which means he’s pretty organized for someone who is going to get 1% of the vote. His website is garish, though.
Greg Conlon – Republican – This guy was the Republican nominee for state Treasurer 2 years ago. Of course that was because no other republicans ran, but he uses as a point of pride: he ‘knows how to run a successful general election’ even though he lost by 18 points. Again a pretty typical conservative republican platform: he wants to balance the budget, enforce the border, and cut the corporate tax rate. Though apparently the big immigrant problem is foreign students overstaying their visas and taking high skill jobs?
Karen Roseberry – Republican – This candidate is running a S.A.V.E. campaign, which stands for Security, Accountable, Values, and Education. Her description of this platform is very competently written compared to other candidates except for the fact that it’s incredibly vague! She’s very good at looking like she’s saying a lot while not saying anything? I can tell that she is very into personal responsibility and against entitlements (free college would destroy the work ethic of young people!). Oh and she explains at length about how a ‘double-layered razor wire fence’ guarded by citizen militas would be better than a border wall.
Von Hougo – Republican – A classic type of gimmick candidate: he’s going to use an app in order to have every Californian vote on every bill in congress and then he’ll vote according to the results. Because representative democracy is overrated. Also both parties are bad and he’s not collecting any donations because money is bad and you should definitely post about him on social media.
Jason Hanania – Independent – This candidates ballot message is ‘01100101’ so maybe he’ll be a digital candidate? It turns out he is! The number represents ‘e’ for ‘evoting’ and it’s a protest against the fact that the state charges more for longer ballot statements. Anyway this guy also has an app so that his every vote can be controlled by people at home (someone has to tell these people that being a senator involved more than voting for bills – who decides what’s in the bills?). You can get his ebook where he explains that online communication is part of the right to bear arms.
Mike Beitikis – Independent – This guy is pretty funny/great. He says that all the issues don’t matter because we’re all going to die due to global warming and so we should be doing everything to stop that. He has a pretty nice website with a lot of humor (iwillnotdonothing.org). He also made an ad where he trains to fistfight the Koch brothers. A+ fringe candidate.
Jason Kraus – Independent – And we’re back to the candidates with terrible websites featuring eagles and flags. He wrote a novel about Falcon Sane, a young man who “travels through youth into adulthood crossing the paths of love, corruption, and power, in search of the American dream—freedom” and runs for president. The rest of his website features other attempts at poetic phrasing and his centerpiece proposal the “us personal responsibility act,” which would replace the income tax with a sales tax, repeal federal housing programs, and tighten up immigration controls.
Don Krampe – Republican – This is at least the third old veteran dude candidate so far. He wants America to have a ‘positive mental attitude’ and use the power of imagination. Policy-wise, he thinks we should fund upgrades to the port of Long Beach (his #1 priority!) and move away from entanglements in foreign wars.
Now moving on to candidates who didn’t file a ballot statement (big mistake!).
Eleanor Garcia – Independent – This candidate is representing the Socialist Worker’s Party, which according to its very detailed Wikipedia page, is supportive of Cuban-style communism. She is an aerospace worker involved in union organizing. According to the SWP publication, they think that workers and farmers should join together to overthrow capitalism. They also have a presidential ticket!
Clive Grey – Independent – Like many other candidates, this one is a regular person who will ‘bring common sense to government.’ He’s a woodworker who made a woodworking show for PBS! His policies are pretty grab bag, and illustrated with some nice stock photos: he is for clean energy, more jobs, a path to citizenship, campaign finance reform, no more lobbyists, animal rights, market healthcare reforms, and a flat tax.
John Parker – Peace and Freedom – This candidate belongs to the worker’s world party and supports socialism and anti-imperialism. He wants to remove abusive police departments in ‘black & brown communities … to enable community-organized self-policing,’ as well as defund the military to end ‘imperialist and proxy wars.’ Also wants food and housing for and and full employment.
Emory Rodgers – Democratic – This candidate is a civil rights and environmental activist ‘inspired by Bernie Sanders’ message for social equality.’ He wants to end corporatism and overturn Citizens United, as well as support justice for LGBT people and people of color. He also is an energy activist who went on a ‘79 day hunger strike to bring awareness to biomass fuels.’
George Yang – Republican – This candidate only has a facebook page which makes it difficult to figure out what his candidacy is about, though he does post regular video updates. He seems to have a basic conservative platform of lower taxes and smaller government, explained via infographics. He does want to have a reality tv show competition for best desalination plant design to solve the drought problem though!
Gail Lightfoot – Libertarian – This candidate is a mainstay of the CA libertarian party, I think she runs for something every major cycle. In fact her website is still that of her 2012 senate run. She has the libertarian view that the purpose of the US government should be limited to the courts, diplomacy, and the military, and all else should be done away with. She thinks we should end wars, remove limits on immigration, privatize all social programs, and inform juries about jury nullification.
Scott Vineberg – Independent – I couldn’t find any information on this candidate.
Steve Stokes – Democratic – This candidate also is inspired by Bernie Sanders and wants to end the ‘Corrupt Corporate State.’ He supports stopping the TPP, ending #CISA (surveillance) and #CitizensUnited (he really likes #hashtags). He previously ran for congress as an independent and lost. Judging from the number of comments on his website, he does seem to have somewhat of a following among some of the Bernie crowd that is mad at the Democratic party.
Phil Wyman – Republican Party – This candidate was a state legislator from Bakersfield in the 80s and again in 2000 but now seems to be a perennial losing candidate running every year without much support. He supports lowering taxes and tough-on-crime policies; he authored bills establishing 3 strikes, and promoting the death penalty. He also supports limiting access to abortion.
Jarrell Williamson – Republican – This candidate is a health care lawyer in the central valley who enjoys reading about morality and philosophy. He has a bunch of pictures of him with his guns and also his copy of the constitution! His issues page is a list of the parts of the constitution he thinks are most important, and he puts the 2nd amendment before the 1st, thus satisfying liberal stereotypes.
Mark Herd – Libertarian – The libertarian party has two candidates, which is pretty impressive. This candidate is on the Westwood neighborhood council and has previously run for LA city council and congress. He supports the free market, civil liberties, personal freedom, and non-interventionism. He’s worried about censorship and thinks that we should be tough on crime. His federal reserve policy is a Ron Paul video so I’ll assume he thinks it’s Bad.
Gar Myers – Independent – This candidate goes by GAR and is worried about that the ‘MASSIVE RIP CURRENT is dragging us out and away from our near shore waves of happiness.’ GAR loves the surfing metaphors. GAR has a lot of pictures of GAR in various poses accompanying very long text on his policies, which are a mishmash of conservative and liberal ideas, but which bury the lede which is that GAR is worried about chemtrails!! GAR is not very detailed but says that there is too much secrecy about aluminum particles in chem-trails and the public deserves to know! GAR we need to know more about this tell us about how the chem-trails are poisoning us.
US Representative, 18th District
Summary: The incumbent, Anna Eshoo, has been in office as US Representative since 1993. She’s not going to lose this time. This district includes Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Saratoga, Los Gatos, and Campbell.
Richard Fox – Republican – This candidate also ran for this office in 2014 and lost to Eshoo 68-32. He calls himself a ‘libertarian republican’ and thinks that the US is in danger of becoming like Greece or Venezuela due to big-government socialism. He wants to repeal Obamacare (which is a disaster that millions of people are abandoning) and replace it by tax-free ‘government-funded health savings accounts.’ He also thinks that the economy is way worse than the numbers say it is and that we need to cut taxes and spending in order to improve the economy and reduce the national debt. On social issues, he is a moderate and thinks that the country should be inclusive of all people, and as such rejects Donald Trump.
Bob Harlow – Democrat – This guy is a Stanford physics co-term who works on my floor. He seemed actually serious about running for congress though his choice of race was questionable (you have to start somewhere?). When he was collecting signatures to get on the ballot I asked him why he was running and he said that he thought Anna Eshoo hadn’t done enough in terms of universal health care. According to his website, his key policies are: adding a public option to the ACA, free tuition at public universities, and a high-speed rail to allow commuters to the Bay Area to live in the Central Valley.
Anna Eshoo – Democrat – As her achievements, Eshoo touts requiring coverage of those with pre-existing conditions in the ACA and success in maintaining a Net Neutrality policy. She wants to improve disclosure of political funding and supports overturning Citizens United.
State Senate, 13th District
Summary: The state senate is half of the California legislature and has 40 members. Senators serve 4 year terms and half are elected every two years. Incumbent Jerry Hill (D) was first elected in 2012 and is eligible for one more term. This is a very democratic district and its unlikely Hill loses. This district includes most of the peninsula from South San Francisco to Sunnyvale.
Jerry Hill – Democrat – Before being a state senator, Hill was a state assemblyman, San Mateo County supervisor, and San Mateo city councilmember. He supports funding environmental protection and education, and limits on antibiotics to reduce the impact of antibiotic resistance. He also touts his efforts to limit the powers of the CA Public Utilities Commission, which he sees as not doing its job to protect the public, and his attacks on PG&E after the gas pipe explosion in San Bruno a few years back. He’s passed a bunch of bills (like most CA legislators) and I’m sure some are bad and some are good but it depends on what you’re interested in.
Rick Ciardella – Republican – This candidate owns a landscaping firm and has been endorsed by the Santa Clara County republican party.
John Webster – Libertarian – This candidate thinks that democracy is doomed because we have given up all our freedoms, due to the majority voting to have the government take money from the rich to give to the poor. He wants California to secede from the US to be free of the evil empire. He also thinks we already live in a politically correct police state.
State Assembly, 24th District:
Summary: The State Assembly is the other half of the California legislature, with 80 members elected every 2 years. The incumbent is Rich Gordon (D) who is term-limited after 6 years in the Assembly. Due to changes in term-limits laws, the next assemblymember will be elegible to serve for 12 years. This district includes Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Half Moon Bay. You can read profiles of all the candidates here (part 1) and here (part 2), and a comparison of their specific positions here.
Vicky Veenker – Democrat – Veenker is a patent attorney based in Palo Alto. She wants to focus on improving funding for education, especially for poorer school districts, and a focus on STEM education, especially for girls. She thinks her strong links to the technology community will help her be an effective legislator, as well as her perspective from outside politics. She has been endorsed by the California Teachers Association, Sierra Club, Nurses Association, Palo Alto Weekly as well as groups who want more women in the state government.
Mike Kasperzak – Democrat – Kasperzak is currently a Mountain View city council member and has been for 14 years, and claims his experience makes him the most qualified candidate. He also says that he is more independent from interest groups than the other candidates. He wants to focus on funding affordable housing, water infrastructure, and regional transportation. He is the only strongly pro-high speed rail candidate. He has been endorsed mostly by local elected officials but also some mayors from other parts of California.
Marc Berman – Democrat – Berman has been a Palo Alto city council member since 2012 and has had experience working on political campaigns. He says he is mostly passionate about education, infrastructure, and environmental protection. He wants to fund universal pre-K, affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, and environmental protections. He’s been endorsed by a lot of Democratic officials, including Gavin Newsom and Rich Gordon, as well as by the Mercury News.
Jay Cabrera – Independent – Cabrera is a ‘social innovation entrepreneur’ who identifies himself as ‘Bernie Candidate.’ He thinks that the current system is broken and we need to replace it by local participatory democracy, and that Bernie’s campaign provides a groundswell of energy to do that. He wants to increase the minimum wage, make it easier for regular people to get involved in politics, and get money out of politics. He also wants to preserve the environment and make sure state projects do not do any damage. He is a part of and supported by Bernie Movement Mid-Peninsula, and has run for various offices in the area in previous years.
Barry Chang – Democratic – Chang has been a Cupertino city councilmember for 7 years and is currently Mayor. He calls himself a ‘fiscally conservative Democrat,’ and is interested in education issues, suggesting a tax increase on the wealthy to fund schools. He is specifically running against the Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant, which he says is a major polluter that has dodged EPA regulations. He doesn’t feature any endorsements; I think his problem is that only a small part of Cupertino is in this district, so Chang doesn’t have much of a base. Chang previously ran for the 28th district, which contains most of Cupertino, in 2014, and lost.
Peter Ohtaki – Republican – Ohtaki has been a Menlo Park city councilmember for 6 years and is the only Republican in this race. He thinks his experience in finance will help him work on transportation and affordable housing issues (he wants more housing near workplaces) while keeping California’s budget balanced. Ohtaki is also worried about state pension liabilities and wants to reform pensions, as part of his belief in fiscal conservatism and limited government. He says he is interested in bipartisan solutions and has worked well with current assemblymember Rich Gordon, such as on a bill to allow cities to be more flexible in mixed-use zoning. He has been endorsed by Almanac News and the Daily Post.
Sea Reddy – Democratic – Reddy is a retired engineer who ran for Palo Alto city council in 2014 and placed 11th, and, from what I can tell, is a routine presence at city council meetings possibly harassing the city council. He says that the area is a great place to live currently and supports slow-growth approaches. Reddy wants to be an independent candidate opposed to ‘shady deals’ in the political sphere. He also is concerned about excessive airplane noise in the area.
John Inks – Libertarian – Inks has been a Mountain View city councilmember for 7 years and before that was a retired engineer. He is the most critical of current assemblymember Rich Gordon, saying he prefers a free-market libertarian approach to government. Inks wants to keep the state budget balanced and renegotiate pension benefits, and opposes surveillance and any attempt to give the government backdoors into people’s phones. He opposed any change to Prop 13 and is endorsed by the Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association.
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, District 5
Summary: The BoS is the government of Santa Clara county. It has 5 members elected for 4 year staggered terms. The fifth district contains most of the cities north of San Jose. The incumbent is Joe Simitian, who was previously State Senator and Palo Alto city council member. He is eligible for one more term and is unlikely to lose.
Joe Simitian – Simitian touts his record of good financial management, efficient rollout of the ACA, and good constituent services.
John Mumy – Could not find information about this guy outside of the voter guide. He says he is an outsider and a regular citizen. He will support policies to protect the environment, reduce pollution, and find transport alternatives to reduce traffic.
Proposition 50
What it does/Background: Currently, the California constitution allows the legislature to expulse members with a 2/3 majority vote. In 2014, three democratic members of the state senate were accused of felonies. The state senate decided to suspend these three members with a simple majority vote. This means that the senators could no longer vote on bills but were still members of the legislature and still received pay and benefits.
In response to this incident, the legislature decided to put on the ballot a constitutional amendment that would codify the rules for suspension of members. This measure would increase the threshold required for suspension to a 2/3 vote and would take away the suspended legislator’s benefits and pay during the suspension. The measure was put on the ballot via a bipartisan 31-3 vote in the state senate and 73-2 vote in the state assembly, with all the no votes being republicans
Campaign for: The YES campaign is led by California Forward, a group that pushes for government reform and accountability and has previously supported ballot measures for the redistricting commission, top-two primary, and the rainy day fund. They say that suspension is a necessary tool to discipline legislators who are under investigation but have not yet been convicted. Suspension is an intermediate measure that can be reversed if the legislator is cleared, unlike expulsion, which would require replacement via special election. In addition, increasing the fraction of the chamber needed to suspend a member to 2/3rds would limit the potential for abuse of this power. Prop 50 is endorsed by the League of Women Voters, California Common Cause, and the Sacramento Bee.
Campaign against: The NO campaign is led by the legislators who voted against putting this measure on the ballot. They say that Prop 50 is a bad solution to the problem and instead the legislature should expel legislators accused of crimes. Suspension deprives constituents of their representation since their legislator can’t vote but also isn’t replaced. Also they worry that suspension could be used to sideline members of the legislature for political reasons. The LA Times also supports NO, noting that the measure has no guidelines for what is an appropriate cause for suspension, meaning the power could be abused.
Measure AA
Background/Summary: The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a regional agency created by the state legislature in 2008 with the power to levy a tax over the 9-county Bay
Area in order to fund bay restoration programs. Its board is made up of elected officials from the region and it has an advisory committee made up of various experts, activists, and park and city officials. The authority has studied the problem and decided to put a $12 parcel tax (e.g. $12 per piece of taxable property) on the June ballot. This tax will be voted on in all 9 counties and needs a 2/3 vote to pass. It will last 20 years.
The programs funded by this tax will be administered by the Authority and will be regionally distributed around the bay. The programs will include pollution prevention and cleanup, shoreline and wetland habitat protection, and flood control.
Campaign For: This measure is supported by the Bay Restoration Authority and everyone involved; the Authority board put the measure on the ballot with a unanimous vote. It is also supported by most local elected officials, environmental and business groups, and the Mercury News/East Bay Times. They say that the parcel tax is necessary to fund environmental programs, and that the bay is a key part of our local environment and should be preserved. In addition, with global warming, the bay is even more at risk and these programs will become more important. More cynically, without this measure the Authority has no funding and so can’t really do anything.
Campaign Against: This measure is opposed by the Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Association and the Santa Clara Libertarian Party. They say that taxes are bad and the money will be wasted on benefits to local politicians, instead of being used for the Bay.
Measure A
Summary/Background: This is a Santa Clara County measure (unlike the above measure which is for the 9 county bay area, hence the different numbering) placed on the ballot by the County Board of Supervisors. Currently, the county charter sets aside 1.425 cents of the tax collected by the county per $100 of assessed property value in the county for the Park Charter Fund, existent since 1972, and sets how that money is spent in terms of park acquisition, development, and operation. These requirements expire in 2021. The measure would renew the requirements until 2032, increase the amount set aside to 1.5 cents, and shift the spending balance to spend more on park development and less on park acquisition. This is not a tax increase, but a rebalancing of the mandates for spending in the money the county collects, and therefore requires a simple majority vote to pass. It needs to be put to voters because it is a modification of the county charter.
Campaign For: This measure is supported by the County and the parks system, and also by business groups, environmental groups, and the Mercury News. They say that the parks program has been highly successful and that we should continue funding the parks as they have been funded for 40+ years.
Campaign Against: There isn’t really a campaign against this. Some brave soul did write up an argument against in the voter guide where he says that laws mandating minimum government spending are bad and lead to deficits, and also that government projects are inefficient.
Members of the Democratic County Central Committee, 24th Assembly District
What is this: I have this election on my ballot because I am a registered Democrat in the 24th assembly district. You’ll have different people if you’re registered for a different party or live in a different district. If you’re registered as an independent, then this race doesn’t appear because you’re not a member of any party.
The County Central Committee is the official organization of the Democratic (or other) party in the county (here Santa Clara County). The county party organizes party activities in the county, including campaigns and endorsements, and forms the first level of the party organization, building to the state and national party. The current members from the 24th district are: Alyson Abramowitz, Bill James, Diane Rolfe, James Thurber, Marcene Van Dierendonck, and Gilbert Wong.
There are 6 members of the committee and 7 people are running for the election, so all but one will be elected. James. Abramowitz, Rolfe, and Wong are running for re-election. The other candidates are Otto Lee, Emily Thurber, and Peter Chiu. Lee was previously a city council member in Sunnyvale and also ran for congress in the Central Valley in 2012 (???). Wong is currently a Cupertino city council member. Abramowitz has a facebook page where she says she is supported by local elected officials and posts about activities of the democratic party. I could not find information about the other candidates.
August 2015 / Thousand Names Review
I’ve been wanting to get back into writing a bit so I thought I’d write some book reviews.
I’ve recently read The Thousand Names and The Shadow Throne, the first two books in the Shadow Campaigns series by Django Wexler. This series is set in a fantasy world. However, unlike most fantasy novels, the technology is that of the late 18th-early 19th century, with armies carrying muskets and bayonets. In that sense it is similar to Naomi Novick’s Temeraire series, which recounts the Napoleonic wars except with dragons. For the Shadow Campaigns, the world is constructed, which lets Wexler have more control over history and society than Novick does in her books. Wexler is very inspired by our own earth history, and uses his own world to reflect on history through his own controlled context.
Wexler has planned a series of five books, and there is a definite story arc, but the first two books in his series have very different plots. The first book seems more like a prologue, with the actual plot in the series being kickstarted by book 2. The main characters come from the country of Vordan, but The Thousand Names takes place in Khandar, which is across the sea from Vordan. The real world parallels kick in right from the beginning. Khandar is located on a fertile strip of land between the sea and the desert, and is essentially a protectorate of Vordan, with its prince being backed by the Vordanai throne. This very closely resembles the protectorates European countries established in places like Morocco and Egypt. As the novel starts, the Khandarai have revolted against the prince and established their own government, under the auspices of a religious revival known as the Redemption. The main characters are part of the Vordanai army regiment charged with conquering back the capital city and putting the prince back on his throne. Leading them is Count Janus, who is a brilliant strategist but also seems to be looking for something in Khandar apart from just victory …
The two main characters are Captain Marcus d’Ivoire, who serves as Janus’ second in command, and Sergeant Winter Ihernglass, who quickly rises through the ranks of the army through her competence. Marcus is a pretty typical army-dude character, loyal and fair even when surrounded by people who are neither, but he’s a fun guy. Winter is much more interesting. She’s a woman who disguised herself as a man in order to escape the hellish orphanage she was trapped in and join the army. She’s also lesbian and is haunted by the memories of her former lover, who she was not able to save from being married off to some brutish farmer dude. So yeah, definitely a refreshing character type in the pretty homogeneous fantasy genre. The narrative makes her disguise sound pretty easy (at least compared to Tamora Pierce in the Alanna series) but Winter is pretty paranoid about not being discovered to the extent that she’s developed a reputation for being super shy and snotty. Of course though, at the beginning of the book she’s promoted to Sergeant and leads a squad of soldiers and is super competent and they survive battles together and bond and the such. This book doesn’t shy away from the wish fulfillment aspect.
The plot of the book is pretty basic. Janus arrives to lead the army, which starts out as a mix of the experienced-but-not-very-competent Colonial troops and a bunch of inexperienced-but-excited new recruits from Vordan. Janus is an eccentric man who doesn’t reveal much of his plans to anyone, much to Marcus’ frustration, since he has to convince his friends and colleagues among the officers that Janus knows what he’s doing. The Colonials win all their battles against incredible odds, and conquer back the capital city of Ashe-Katarion. On the way there Winter recruits Feor, a Khandarai priestess who was being held prisoner by the priests of the Redemption. She also finds out that Bobby, one of her corporals, is also a woman disguised as a man and actually came from the same horrible orphanage as her. Turns out Winter is famous back at home! All these friends make Winter feel a lot more welcome in the army.
Once they win the war, Janus reveals why he decided to come to Khandar: he’s looking for an artifact called the Thousand Names, which contains secrets of magic that were brought across the sea a long long time ago. The locals realize this and take them out into the desert. The army chases them out, wins some more battles, and Marcue and Winter defeat a mutiny among the troops. Once they find the tablets and defeat the Khandarai guarding them, this one other character Jen, who was Marcus’ sex buddy, reveals that she too was looking for the tablets! She was a spy for this one dude back in Vordan who comes up more in book 2. But also she’s also an agent for the foreign Sworn Church and has magical demon powers used to fight demons. She starts shooting magic power beams everywhere and tries to kill everyone, but Feor helps Winter use the tablets to get her own magic demon, which she uses to defeat Jen.
So we get our nice magic attack stuff at the end of the book. Otherwise the book is pretty magic-light. The main focus is on the military fantasy action, which follows a lot of classic tropes. I didn’t think the plotting in this story was very original. The main characters don’t face any big setbacks — the army wins every battle, and the mutiny by the soldiers is pretty easily defeated. On the one hand, this makes it all seem pretty easy. On the other hand, it makes for a comfortable read. I never was stressed out about what would happen to the characters. The plot also relies heavily on Janus knowing everything that’s going on and knowing that Marcus and Winter will make things work out. This problem continues to a greater extent in book 2. But again, its a good summer read, everything ends up how you want it to.
As mentioned above, the book does pretty well in terms of “feminism factor.” The author clearly is interested in presenting a balanced gender perspective. Though the societies the characters live in are mildly sexist, the characters themselves are interested in defying sexism. Winter gathers to herself an entourage of women with Bobby and Feor. This also continues in book 2, where Winter manages to find all the interesting female characters and become friends with them. In terms of anti-colonialism, the book falls a bit short. Though the book treats the Vordanai and Khandarai cultures vaguely equally (Khandarai religion/magic is presented as having some truth to it), the book doesn’t really question the idea of Vordan controlling affairs in Khandar. The prince of Khandar that is supported by Vordan is clearly presented as an unfit ruler, and Marcus wonders if this is a guy he should be helping out, but once the Colonials start winning battles they have no more doubts about the justice of their conquest. Apart from Feor, the Khandarai characters are all leaders of various factions in the rebellion, and they’re all morally mixed but mostly unsavory, shown to be willing to sacrifice the lives of lots of their people in order to stay in power. Ultimately the characters leave Khandar with the prince in power, status quo. It is kind of disappointing that the author chose to set a story in a setting clearly evoking European colonialism without presenting any alternate perspective.
Clearly, Wexler was more interesting in the Vordan plot. Khandar was only needed to introduce magic back into the world and create a bonding experience for the main characters. This set up pays off very well in book 2, where Marcus’ and Winter’s experiences in Khandar shape their reaction to political troubles at home.
I’ve recently read The Thousand Names and The Shadow Throne, the first two books in the Shadow Campaigns series by Django Wexler. This series is set in a fantasy world. However, unlike most fantasy novels, the technology is that of the late 18th-early 19th century, with armies carrying muskets and bayonets. In that sense it is similar to Naomi Novick’s Temeraire series, which recounts the Napoleonic wars except with dragons. For the Shadow Campaigns, the world is constructed, which lets Wexler have more control over history and society than Novick does in her books. Wexler is very inspired by our own earth history, and uses his own world to reflect on history through his own controlled context.
Wexler has planned a series of five books, and there is a definite story arc, but the first two books in his series have very different plots. The first book seems more like a prologue, with the actual plot in the series being kickstarted by book 2. The main characters come from the country of Vordan, but The Thousand Names takes place in Khandar, which is across the sea from Vordan. The real world parallels kick in right from the beginning. Khandar is located on a fertile strip of land between the sea and the desert, and is essentially a protectorate of Vordan, with its prince being backed by the Vordanai throne. This very closely resembles the protectorates European countries established in places like Morocco and Egypt. As the novel starts, the Khandarai have revolted against the prince and established their own government, under the auspices of a religious revival known as the Redemption. The main characters are part of the Vordanai army regiment charged with conquering back the capital city and putting the prince back on his throne. Leading them is Count Janus, who is a brilliant strategist but also seems to be looking for something in Khandar apart from just victory …
The two main characters are Captain Marcus d’Ivoire, who serves as Janus’ second in command, and Sergeant Winter Ihernglass, who quickly rises through the ranks of the army through her competence. Marcus is a pretty typical army-dude character, loyal and fair even when surrounded by people who are neither, but he’s a fun guy. Winter is much more interesting. She’s a woman who disguised herself as a man in order to escape the hellish orphanage she was trapped in and join the army. She’s also lesbian and is haunted by the memories of her former lover, who she was not able to save from being married off to some brutish farmer dude. So yeah, definitely a refreshing character type in the pretty homogeneous fantasy genre. The narrative makes her disguise sound pretty easy (at least compared to Tamora Pierce in the Alanna series) but Winter is pretty paranoid about not being discovered to the extent that she’s developed a reputation for being super shy and snotty. Of course though, at the beginning of the book she’s promoted to Sergeant and leads a squad of soldiers and is super competent and they survive battles together and bond and the such. This book doesn’t shy away from the wish fulfillment aspect.
The plot of the book is pretty basic. Janus arrives to lead the army, which starts out as a mix of the experienced-but-not-very-competent Colonial troops and a bunch of inexperienced-but-excited new recruits from Vordan. Janus is an eccentric man who doesn’t reveal much of his plans to anyone, much to Marcus’ frustration, since he has to convince his friends and colleagues among the officers that Janus knows what he’s doing. The Colonials win all their battles against incredible odds, and conquer back the capital city of Ashe-Katarion. On the way there Winter recruits Feor, a Khandarai priestess who was being held prisoner by the priests of the Redemption. She also finds out that Bobby, one of her corporals, is also a woman disguised as a man and actually came from the same horrible orphanage as her. Turns out Winter is famous back at home! All these friends make Winter feel a lot more welcome in the army.
Once they win the war, Janus reveals why he decided to come to Khandar: he’s looking for an artifact called the Thousand Names, which contains secrets of magic that were brought across the sea a long long time ago. The locals realize this and take them out into the desert. The army chases them out, wins some more battles, and Marcue and Winter defeat a mutiny among the troops. Once they find the tablets and defeat the Khandarai guarding them, this one other character Jen, who was Marcus’ sex buddy, reveals that she too was looking for the tablets! She was a spy for this one dude back in Vordan who comes up more in book 2. But also she’s also an agent for the foreign Sworn Church and has magical demon powers used to fight demons. She starts shooting magic power beams everywhere and tries to kill everyone, but Feor helps Winter use the tablets to get her own magic demon, which she uses to defeat Jen.
So we get our nice magic attack stuff at the end of the book. Otherwise the book is pretty magic-light. The main focus is on the military fantasy action, which follows a lot of classic tropes. I didn’t think the plotting in this story was very original. The main characters don’t face any big setbacks — the army wins every battle, and the mutiny by the soldiers is pretty easily defeated. On the one hand, this makes it all seem pretty easy. On the other hand, it makes for a comfortable read. I never was stressed out about what would happen to the characters. The plot also relies heavily on Janus knowing everything that’s going on and knowing that Marcus and Winter will make things work out. This problem continues to a greater extent in book 2. But again, its a good summer read, everything ends up how you want it to.
As mentioned above, the book does pretty well in terms of “feminism factor.” The author clearly is interested in presenting a balanced gender perspective. Though the societies the characters live in are mildly sexist, the characters themselves are interested in defying sexism. Winter gathers to herself an entourage of women with Bobby and Feor. This also continues in book 2, where Winter manages to find all the interesting female characters and become friends with them. In terms of anti-colonialism, the book falls a bit short. Though the book treats the Vordanai and Khandarai cultures vaguely equally (Khandarai religion/magic is presented as having some truth to it), the book doesn’t really question the idea of Vordan controlling affairs in Khandar. The prince of Khandar that is supported by Vordan is clearly presented as an unfit ruler, and Marcus wonders if this is a guy he should be helping out, but once the Colonials start winning battles they have no more doubts about the justice of their conquest. Apart from Feor, the Khandarai characters are all leaders of various factions in the rebellion, and they’re all morally mixed but mostly unsavory, shown to be willing to sacrifice the lives of lots of their people in order to stay in power. Ultimately the characters leave Khandar with the prince in power, status quo. It is kind of disappointing that the author chose to set a story in a setting clearly evoking European colonialism without presenting any alternate perspective.
Clearly, Wexler was more interesting in the Vordan plot. Khandar was only needed to introduce magic back into the world and create a bonding experience for the main characters. This set up pays off very well in book 2, where Marcus’ and Winter’s experiences in Khandar shape their reaction to political troubles at home.
November 2014 Voter Guide
Resources: These are websites I used for help in compiling this guide.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/ The official voter guide. Contains the description of the ballot measures and basic pro and con arguments from the official sponsors and opposition.
http://ballotpedia.org/California_2014_ballot_measures Ballotpedia compiles information about all the ballot measures and, most usefully, information about how much is spent in the campaigns.
Proposition 1: Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects.
Note: This proposition is not in the main voter guide because the state legislature changed it at the last moment. The description is in the supplemental voter guide here: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/en/pdf/complete-vig-suppl-v2.pdf
What it does: This is a $7.5 billion bond measure to fund water system infrastructure. It was placed on the ballot by the state legislature for voter approval after long negotiations between different interest groups. The purpose is to maintain and expand California’s water systems and manage their environmental impact. You can read the distribution of the money for yourself, but essentially part of it goes to water storage (including dams), part to watershed and water habitat protection, and part to groundwater quality measures. The money will fund these projects in partnership with local governments, which will also have to provide part of the funding.
Since this is a bond, the money is being borrowed by the state. A small of the $7.5 billion is leftover bond money from previous measures. The rest will add $360 million in interest to the yearly budget, which is 0.3% of the state’s general budget.
Who supports it: As mentioned above, Prop 1 was placed on the ballot by the legislature, which voted 37-0 in the state senate and 77-2 in the state assembly to approve it. This means that it is a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, as well as between agricultural representatives, which generally want more water storage, and environmental groups, which want more restoration money and fewer dams. So that means that the ballot measure is supported by both parties and the interest groups that were happy with the compromise.
The website for the YES campaign is combined with that for prop 2, since both are being backed by Jerry Brown and are the focus of his campaigning this fall: http://www.yesonprops1and2.com/. The main argument is that California’s water infrastructure needs to be updated and that this funding will achieve that. They point to the drought as reason to invest in California’s future with these projects.
Prop 1 is supported by both the chamber of commerce and labor groups; both the Farm Bureau and the Nature Conservancy; by both US Senators from California; and by all the state’s major newspapers.
Who is against it: The offical NO campaign is at http://www.noonprop1.org/ and looks to be mostly environmental groups and mostly people from the North Coast. It is supported by one of the two CA Assemblymembers who voted against the bond, Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata), who represents the California coast areas north of Santa Rosa. This region isn’t getting a lot of money from the water bond, probably because they have water and not a lot of people live there. The environmental groups think too much money is going towards building dams and are worried about damaging the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystems. Also they’re mad that Socal is stealing Norcal’s water.
The other No vote on the water bond was Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks), failed gubernatorial candidate. From what I can tell he thinks the state shouldn’t be borrowing this much money and also there’s too much money going to environmental purposes. There was an article about it but it was on breitbart so I didn’t really want to go look.
Why is this a ballot measure/bond? The state constitutionally needs voter approval to borrow money for spending purposes, so the legislature has to approve the bond with a 2/3rds majority and then send it to voters. The reason this money is spent as a bond is the same reason people buy houses with a mortgage: we want to fund a bunch of big projects and don’t have all the money on hand right now. This bond is supposed to be an investment for california that the state repays over time.
Commentary: The fact that so many groups have aligned to support this measure means it’s probably worth supporting. If you really hate dams or really disdain environmental spending, I guess I could understand voting no, but really that’s the nature of compromise. Compared to congress that can’t pass anything, getting only two no votes here in CA is pretty impressive.
Proposition 2: State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
aka. the Rainy Day Fund aka part 2 of Jerry Brown’s Fall 2014 agenda.
What it does: Since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, California’s revenue has become highly dependent on capital gains taxes. This means that the states income fluctuates based on the state of the stock market. This causes problems: in 2008 state money tanked right as the economy went down, causing a budget crisis. Right now, however, revenue is exceeding projections since all those tech companies are having IPOs and people are getting their money. Proposition 2 is essentially Jerry Brown’s proposal for dealing with these fluctuations by creating a state rainy day fund. Funnily enough California already has a rainy day fund that Schwarzenegger proposed and voters approved. However, the law lets the governor decide not to fund it, so it hasn’t been funded because neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown wanted to put money in it, saying the state was in crisis and needed the money.
The voter information pamphlet has a really good explanation of all these issues by the way.
Proposition 2 will change the rainy day fund laws to make saving mandatory and to regulate how the money can be spent. In addition the law will mandate paying down state debts to local governments as well as pension funds. The amount of money required to be spent into the rainy day fund and on debts will increase when capital gains are high, varying from $800 million to $2 billion spent. The state will only be able to withhold money from the rainy day fund if the Governor and the Legislature agree the state is in a “budget emergency,” meaning either a natural disaster or a drop in income below the highest level in the last three years. Money could only be spent out of the fund in a budget emergency, and only the money needed unless the budget emergency continues for multiple years.
Proposition 2 will also change school funding processes. It will create a reserve fund for schools that will be spent into when capital gains are strong and then can be used to meet spending requirements for education during bad economic periods. Also, an accompanying state law will set a maximum limit to how much individual school districts can save in local reserves. School districts in california already have a minimum limit to how much money they need to save. According to the legislative analyst, the conditions on funding the school reserve fund mean that money won’t go in there for the next few years as the economy is still recovering.
The purpose of this law is therefore threefold. First, existing debts to local government and to pensions will be paid off faster, which will limit the budget now but reduce the interest in the future, as well as helping pensioners and local governments who want that money. Second, a rainy day fund that is more enforced should help smooth out the impact of economic swings on the state budget. Finally, the school money reserve is intended to help out education funding but also force school districts to spend their reserve money, since many districts currently have more than the maximum amount saved up (see opposition section).
Who is for it: Like proposition 1, the campaign supporting Proposition 2 is led by governor Jerry Brown. Website is again http://www.yesonprops1and2.com/. Like proposition 1, prop 2 was put on the ballot by the state legislature, which passed it 36-0 in the senate and 78-0 in the assembly. Like proposition 1, prop 2 is supported by groups on all sides of the political spectrum: the Democratic and Republican parties, the Chamber of Commerce, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, all the labor-oriented democrats in the legislature, the League of Women Voters, and the state’s major newspapers.
Who is against it: The campaign against Prop 2 is led by the group Educate Our State and is available at 2badforkids.com. Educate Our State is a group that claims to represent parents of public school children. This organizations looks like it campaigns for increasing school spending by the state across the board. The main part of Prop 2 they oppose is, not surprisingly, the part affecting school funding. They really want us to think of the children and how they will be hurt by this measure. Ok but really they don’t like that the state can put money into a school reserve fund to reduce the amount spent on schools in that year. In addition, the districts will then have to limit the money they have saved.
From what I can tell, the limit to the amount districts can save was pushed for by teacher’s groups who think that districts are reserving too much money and should be spending it on giving teachers raises. At least that’s what the opponents say. However this part of the law was passed as a law by the legislature that will take effect if prop 2 passes, so its easy to change if its a bad idea.
Why is this a ballot measure: Since the rainy day fund requires a state constitutional amendment, it must appear on the ballot. The legislature had to pass it with a 2/3rds majority first, which was achieved with no “no” votes.
Commentary: Like proposition 1, the forces aligned for prop 2 make it very hard to vote against. The NO campaign seems to think its all about them, since they don’t even bother to argue acknowledge the main part of the proposition dealing with the state budget. Any controversy about local district savings can be dealt with in the legislature because it’s not part of the constitutional amendment part of the law.
Proposition 45: Health Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.
What it does: This proposition would give the California Insurance Commissioner the power to review health insurance rates (premiums) and approve or reject them. The position of Insurance Commissioner was created in 1988 by Proposition 103 to regulate car and home insurance. Prop 45 would add some varieties of health insurance to the types of insurance the Insurance Commissioner can regulate. This process would involve health insurance companies submitting their proposed plans to the Department of Insurance, which then would go over the plans and approve them based on how reasonable the premium rates are. This would only apply to individual plans and small group plans (fewer than 50 ppl companies), not large group plans offered by large companies. Currently the government agencies can review the health plan rates but not reject them. Prop 45 would give the rejection power to the elected Insurance Officer.
Who is for it:
Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.
What it does: This proposition will reclassify certain nonviolent crimes as misdemeanors rather than felonies. The crimes affected fall into two categories: drug possession and theft of $950 or less.
For illegal drug possession, the classification of the crime depends on the type of drug and the amount possessed. The initiative will change this so that all drug possession crimes are classified as misdemeanors. This measure will affect possession of drugs such as cocaine and heroin, but not marijuana since marijuana possession is already at most a misdemeanor.
For theft, currently the law makes theft of less than $950 of property a misdemeanor, but apparently there are ways to make it a felony if the defendant has a history of theft or stole specific types of property (cars and guns, apparently). In those cases the courts have the discretion to charge the crime as a misdemeanor or a felony. Prop 48 would tighten the rules so that these crimes are charged as misdemeanors. This will apply to theft, shoplifting, and check forgery.
If the defendant was previously found guilty of violent crimes such as rape or murder than the thefts can still be charged as felonies.
Prisoners who are serving felony sentences under current law will be eligible for a resentencing to lighten their sentence.
The main effect of the change in the law will be to reduce the time criminals serve in jail and in probation. In addition, the sentences will generally be served in county jails rather than in state jails.
Finally, the money saved by the state from having fewer prisoners is sent to a new state fund. This money is to be used for school truancy, victim service, and mostly mental health and drug abuse treatment programs to keep people out of jail.
How did it get to the ballot: This was a state voter initiative, meaning that sponsors had to collect at least 500,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. The sponsors were George Gascón, DA for the City and County of San Francisco, and William Lansdowne, former police chief for the cities of San Diego, San Jose, and Richmond.
Why is this a proposition: According to the Mercury News, even though this ballot measure is supported by the California Democratic Party, which controls the legislature, this kind of proposal can’t make it through the legislature because “weak on crime” is still a strongly effective campaign tactic and so legislators are scared of reducing criminal penalties.
Who is for it and why: The website for the YES campaign is VoteYes47.com. Their slogan is “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools.” The argument from the YES campaign is that this initiative will end wasting prison space and state money on “low-level nonviolent crimes,” and instead dedicate that money to prevention programs. California prisons are overcrowded and underfunded. In addition, since a felony conviction limits access to employment and housing, this initiative will help nonviolent criminals reintegrate into public life.
The list of endorsements is here: http://www.safetyandschools.com/who-supports-reform/.
This list includes various district attorneys, police chiefs, judges, elected officials, and bunch of bishops and reverends. Organizations endorsing include the California Democratic party, some victim support groups, many social justice organizations, and the teachers’ and service workers’ unions. Newspaper endorsements include the SF Chronicle and SJ Mercury News.
Other interesting individuals who endorsed YES include Jay-Z and the CEO of Netflix, Reed Hasting.
Who is against it and why: The website of the NO campaign is votenoprop47.org. The main arguments is that Prop 47 will make it easier for felons who should be in jail to get released early and that criminals convicted of felonies will be released from jail. In addition, they claim that Prop 47 will increase crime and sexual assault by making such crimes as gun theft and possession of date rape drugs misdemeanors rather than felonies. The reasoning is that the current laws are in place for a reason, and that courts should be able to make these crimes felonies/keep prisoners who committed the crimes in jail in order to preserve public safety. They also have stories about two inmates who are in jail due under Three Strikes and would be eligible for early release under Prop 47 to scare you into voting NO.
The list of endorsements is here: http://www.votenoprop47.org/No_On_Prop_47__Opponents_List.html
The big organizations against are the CA Police Chiefs Association, CA District Attorneys Association, and some big crime victims groups. The list of individuals against are all county sherrifs and DAs.
Not on this list but also endorsing NO are the California Republican Party, the Sacramento Bee, and the San Diego Union-Tribune.
Where’s the money: So far, somewhat surprisingly, the YES campaign has heavily outraised the NO campaign. In fact the NO campaign has been a flop, raising only $43,500 by the end of September compared to $3.4 million for the YES campaign.
YES big contributors: Open Society Policy Center, a liberal donor group chaired by George Soros ; Wayne Hughes, Jr., a libertarian rich guy who also gives to the Koch Brothers; the Atlantic Advocacy Fund, another liberal donor group; and Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix.
NO big contributors: the California Police Chiefs Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California.
Commentary: Urg. Reading the arguments on this proposition reminded me of how these campaigns always go for the small details they think will get at the audience. Both sides go on about how voting yes/no will protect the public from rapists even though that’s really not what the measure is about. The people who wrote the measure clearly tailored it to be appealing to the public rather than to what makes sense as state law. Hence the requirement that the money saved go to a special fund reserved for specific programs. This kind of clause gets put into every proposition that raises revenue in order to stave off criticism in the vein of “you want to give money to the legislature to waste” when really it just ends up putting inflexible restrictions on spending in the state preventing evaluation of if those restrictions are actually effective ways of partitioning money once they’re in effect.
While we’re on the topic of my frustration with initiative campaigns, the NO campaign uses every boring page out of the “hard on crime” playbook. We’re going to release violent criminals! Unless every violent crime carries with it a life sentence, at some point violent criminals will be released anyway. We can have a serious discussion about whether this initiative gives the possibility of early release to the right people without panicking at the fact that at some point criminals leave jail.
The strongest support behind Prop 47 appears to be from people concerned with injustices in the criminal justice and prison systems. The list of supporters includes many religious leaders, such as the archbishops of LA and SF, and social justice groups focused on humans rights and racial equality. California’s state prisons are severely overcrowded, to the extent that the US Supreme Court ruled the overcrowding as being unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Various state programs are already working for early release of nonviolent offenders, including 2012’s Prop 36, which modified the state’s Three Strikes law to only count if the third strike is a serious or violent offense. This initiative aims to continue the efforts of reducing the prison population by reducing sentences for lesser crimes. In addition, note that people convicted of felonies are stripped of voting rights in California until they complete their parole.
I tried looking for a good argument against Prop 47 that didn’t devolve to fear mongering about a violent criminal appearing on your street because he was released from jail early. This was more difficult than you would think; I think the NO campaign isn’t attracting a lot of supporters. The Sacramento Bee editorial (http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/28/6736828/endorsement-proposition-47-goes.html) makes the best case I’ve found so far. They say that we’ve been making progress on reducing prison population and so Prop 47 is not needed. Essentially the point of the editorial is to say that using a ballot measure to make these changes is too blunt. Some of the sentences should be reduced, but this should be done selectively by a sentencing commission rather than broadly by a ballot measure.
The other argument I found says that its good that currently courts have latitude to judge from the facts of the case and the defendant’s background whether to make it a misdemeanor or felony charge. This means that the court can judge if the defendant has the potential to commit more dangerous crimes and so bump the charge up to a felony. Prop 47 would mandate misdemeanor charges and so remove the court’s latitude to sentence people perceived to be more dangerous to society more harshly. I also found this fact sheet produced by the NO campaign that seems useful: http://porac.org/wp-content/uploads/Prop-47-FACT-SHEET.pdf?054b1e.
Conclusion: I’m going to vote YES because I think that there are real problems within the criminal justice and prison systems that need to be relieved by reducing the number of people we send to jail. Prop 47 seems like a good step in that direction, even though I have reservations about the restrictions on the money saved from implementing the new laws. For me, this is the proposition for which it was easiest to make a decision. I hope that despite that I was able to convey both sides relatively clearly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)