Election Time Again?

Wednesday night was gaming night. I went to Subrata's for the first time in quite a few weeks for gaming. I've felt for a while like I've done enough gaming in the past year and a half and I'm focusing on other things (reading, television, quality time with the kitties).

Thursday was TV night, and tonight I spent at Borrone reading.

Speaking of TV, I read that Deadline has already been cancelled, and that FreakyLinks might soon be.

Work has been a little livelier, as I've been writing frameworks to read an XML structure our system uses, and doing so in two different languages (Java and Objective-C). It turns out that Tom needs both of them for the project he's working on, so he snarfed up the Java one today (I finished it yesterday) and is already waiting for the Obj-C one, which I only started writing this afternoon. It's nice to be wanted.

Speaking of which, I got some kind words from my boss this afternoon about my performance so far (it seems like longer, but I only moved onto the development team in August). It's nice to be appreciated, too.

I did do just a little more digging into looking for a house or condo. Unsurprisingly, it looks like I might not be able to get as big a mortgage as I'd estimated, and that houses are a little more expensive than I'd expected. On the other hand, there's still wiggle room in both categories (both for good and for ill), so it could still work out. Until I'm confronted with actual mortgage terms and actual places I could buy, I'll try not to despair.

Finally, some fitness news:

First, I weathered Hallowe'en about as well as one could hope, as I did not put on any weight despite consuming obscene quantities of candy, and I continued going to the gym three days a week, a routine which has been working out really well for me. I've even been getting out of the house slightly earlier on workout days, meaning I can go through my routine at a more leisurely pace and put in another 5 or 10 minutes on the cardio machine.

Second, the South Bay Ultimate League starts next week, and Subrata and I are playing again. I'm looking forward to it, as long as I don't pull a quadricep again. I would like to hunt around for slightly larger cleats, since the ones I have feel a little too narrow, but at the least I should go find some "mole skin" (which Jenn recommended last year) to protect the spots on my feet prone to blisters in these cleats.

I keep thinking of writing a little screed about the election, which is Tuesday (for those of my readers who aren't US residents or otherwise don't follow such things). But I'm not really enthusiastic about anything in this election. Nonetheless, let's see what I can do.

President of the United States: It should surprise few of you that I'm voting for Gore. Nader is probably a closer fit for my views, though this quiz (which I referred to in my Weblog for August 20) says the difference is not great: I have an 83% match with Socialist candidate David McReynolds, 80% with Nader, and 75% with Gore. I also hold out hope that Gore will be a better President than he is a candidate.

The closeness of the election - according to the polls - is depressing. It's unbelievable to me to think that so many people will vote for George Dubya Bush, who seems so clearly to me to be a snake-oil salesman who wants to hoodwink the nation into putting an arch-conservative into office (again) to continue dismantling our civil liberties and wrecking our educational system. (Education, of course, tends to lead to a more liberal political outlook by the general populace, which is why the Republicans are so strongly against public education and want instead to put it into the hands of religion.) Bush is so clearly a tool of the right-wing, and is so clearly something of a buffoon to boot. Who would vote for a guy like this?

The compelling reason to vote for Gore, of course, is the Supreme Court. Justices John Paul Stevens (age 78) and William Rehnquist (74) may well retire in the next 4 years, as might Sandra Day O'Connor (68). Their replacements may well sit on the bench through the year 2020 (the average Supreme Court justice sits for 18 years, i.e. there's about one nominee every 2 years; if you've wondered why the Court is so right-wing, it's because President Carter nominated zero justices in four years, and Clinton has nominated two in eight years). Bush will likely nominate judges like ultra-conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Bush will be more moderate, and might prove to even nominate genuinely liberal judges. Nader, of course, will not win the election and won't nominate anyone to the Supreme Court.

This election might well determine whether abortion will remain legal in the US, whether search-and-seizure laws become more akin to those of a police state, and whether we'll ever have any campaign finance reform.

Finally, it's often been said that "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush", which Naderites vehemently deny. But the fact is, if a Nader supporter would have voted for Gore if Nader weren't running, then the statement is absolutely correct. Nader isn't going to win. If Gore loses to Bush, the Democrats aren't going to say, "Oh, maybe we should be more liberal to gain back that 5% of the electorate", they're going to say, "Maybe we should be more conservative to gain some of the 50% of the electorate that Bush won." Voting for Nader might seem like a morally correct thing to do for some people, but in terms of practical results, it does anything but advance the cause of liberalism.

Anyway.

California Congressional Seats: I find all of these races to be entirely tiresome. None of the people running for US Senate or Congress in my district interest me in the least. I think the reason for this is because of the degree to which these races are being run on television by throwing lots of money at the race. Quite a difference from Wisconsin, where US Senator Russ Feingold wrote letters regularly to the editor of the Wisconsin State Journal. I'll likely vote party-Democratic in the hopes that the Democrats will regain the House and/or Senate.

State and Local Elections: None of the state or local elections have registered on me. The state government in Sacramento seems awfully remote from me. What do they do? What do the parties in California stand for? Beats me. I don't genuinely have much idea what the issues are in my local government, because I don't really spend much time in the city in which I actually live. I don't really know how I'll vote in these elections.

California State and other Propositions: This is the really interesting part. California makes it really easy to put state referenda on the ballot, so there are always several of them. Eight, this time, plus some regional and local propositions. Here's a brief rundown on what I think:

1. State Proposition 32: Veterans' Bond Act: Farm and home aid for California veterans. Just sort of on the notion that we ought to be supporting our veterans, I'll probably vote for this, but I don't feel strongly about it either way.

2. State Proposition 33: Legislative Participation in Public Employees' Retirement System: Allow legislatures to take advantage of the retirement system available to state employees. I genuinely don't care. I'll probably vote for it.

3. State Proposition 34: Campaign Contribution and Spending Limits: I'll probably vote for it, although I don't think any campaign finance reform will really work as long as money is classified as a form of speech by the Supreme Court.

4. State Proposition 35: Use of Private Contractors for Public Works Projects: This sounds like another conservative "let's privatize everything" proposition, and I'd rather see us fix the system we have anyway. I'll probably vote against it.

5. State Proposition 36: Drug Treatment instead of Incarceration: The drug war has been a big fiasco from the very beginning. Anything that makes even token efforts to ending or reducing it is a good thing. I'll vote for this.

6. State Proposition 37: Vote Requirements for and Reclassification of Certain Fees: Reclassifies many fees as taxes, requires a two-thirds vote of the state legislature plus a popular referendum to pass such fees. I'm not sure what to make of this one; I generally feel that reclassifying fees as taxes are sheer obfuscation, and that restricting government's ability to legislate such things is a conservative ploy. (If we don't like the fees government inflicts on us, we should vote the bums out of office!) Two "voters guides" I've received in the mail - both of which recommend voting for Democrats - make opposite recommendations here, the argument for being "stop hidden taxes on utilities, gas, food, etc., and make politicians accountable", while the argument against is "stop the polluter protection act; don't let big oil, tobacco and alcohol stick you with the bill for the hazards they cause". Both seem like rather spurious arguments. I'll probably vote against it.

7. State Proposition 38: School Vouchers: A measure which gives money to private schools (who can then raise their prices) while taking money away from public schools. This measure helps no one except the private schools, and is just pure evil. I'll vote against it.

8. State Proposition 39: Reduce the percentage by which School-related Referenda must pass to 55%: I'll vote for this. I'm generally in favor of doing things which help public schools. I think the first thing we should do to improve our schools is to triple teacher salaries. Then go from there.

9. District Transportation Measure: Connect BART to San Jose, Provide for other Rail Service: The Bay Area is far too dependent on cars and freeways. Critics seem to basically feel that this measure is too little too late, but I like to think of it as a good start. Good rail transit (and BART is quite good) is worth a lot. I'll vote for this.

10. City Ordinance: Term Limits: You know, I flip-flop on term limits every so often. I mostly don't trust the people who push them, but I also think that limiting all public officials at all levels to a single term might not be such a bad thing. I'll probably vote against this measure.

Forum: What are your thoughts about the election?

Late-breaking news: Lucy writes of my entry about Gideon's Crossing: "Regarding latest entry, Hamish Linklater is Scottish, which is practically the definition of White, Anglo Saxon, and Protestant." (Quoted with her permission.) I'd written that Linklater's name sounds "less-than-WASPish". ABC has cast biographies for the show on their Web site, though it's vague about Linklater's ethnic background (which isn't all that surprising, I guess!). At any rate, I can take Lucy's word for this one!