Once again, a conservative rant is spreading throughout the liberal blogosphere and I’m more interested in word choice. In this case, it’s Bill O’Reilly’s McCarthyite rant against his enemies and his use of the word “guttersnipes”.

What is a guttersnipe?? I just assumed it was one of those made-up conservative insults like “assclown” or “crapweasel”, but it actually appears in the dictionary :

gut·ter·snipe n. : a child who spends most of his time in the streets especially in slum areas (Synonym: street urchin)

So when Bill O’Reilly is trying to find term to smear his enemies, this is what he compares them to :

I know conservatives don’t care about the poor, but when did poverty become an insult to these people?

My friend Josh noticed an interesting contradiction on CNN’s homepage last week and was savvy enough to save this screenshot :

Out of curiosity, how do you shoot down a helicopter with a roadside bomb?

How much do I love Arrested Development? So much that this absurd bit of hyperbole doesn’t seem like that big a stretch :

For believing that the earth orbited the sun, Galileo died under house arrest.

For laying the groundwork for ethics and philosophy, Socrates was sentenced to death by poisoning.

And for creating the most intricately woven, wickedly smart series ever to make it to television, Mitchell Hurwitz has to watch his “Arrested Development” get slapped around in the ratings by the likes of “Yes, Dear,” “Still Standing” and any number of schlumpy-guy-with-a-hot-wife sitcoms.

Humanity has a long history of punishing visionaries, but this is ridiculous.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, the punishment is getting worse :

The Bluth clan of Fox’s “Arrested Development” is also headed for the exit after Fox has cut back the third-season order on the Emmy-winning comedy to 13 episodes.

The fact that the ratings for Arrested Development are crap is hardly a secret. Creator Mitchell Hurwitz even acknowledged it as he accepted his second consecutive Emmy a few weeks ago :

We’d be remiss if we didn’t point out the fact that the academy has twice rewarded us for something that you people won’t watch. Tomorrow you have a chance – tomorrow at 8 o’clock – you know we’d appreciate it. You’ll get back to CBS in time for `Two and a Half Men.

It seems to me that there are two big obstacles standing between AD and the enormous popularity that it deserves :

Arrested Development is on the worst network at the worst time with the worst shows. This may have helped the most critically acclaimed comedy on TV attract the five or six people who are fans of Prison Break and Kitchen Confidential, but for the rest of us, Monday nights on Fox is hardly the ideal venue for your best show. Especially when the already shitty schedule is interrupted for a month by baseball and is about to be interrupted again to make room for a double-helping of Prison Break during sweeps.

The show rewards repeated viewings. Granted, it’s not harder to get into than a show like Lost or Desperate Housewives, people aren’t accustomed to anything other than the easiest of laughs from a 30 minute sitcom. True, there’s a lot of silliness on the show, but all of the friends I’ve tried to attract to the show didn’t become big fans until they watched 3 or 4 episodes. This is especially difficult when you consider that the show probably lost a lot of viewers who watched a single episode to give the show a chance and walked away thinking it was all hype.

That said, these are hardly insurmountable problems. I’m entering fantasyland at this point, but here’s what I’d do if I had the power to save the show :

Before the ink is dry on the cancellation notice from FOX, the show should be picked up by NBC to add to their Tuesday night sitcom lineup alongside “The Office” and “My Name Is Earl”. If ever there was a perfect audience for a neglected show, this is it.

They should give away a DVD with five episodes from the first season. This might sound weird, but it worked (for me, at least) with “Everybody Hates Chris”. I like Chris Rock and I was curious about his show after all the hype I’d heard, but I don’t think I would have ever watched an episode if UPN hadn’t stuck a DVD of the pilot into a copy of Entertainment Weekly. I don’t watch UPN and I’m really weary of new sitcoms, but this promo let me see the show on my own time and sat on my coffee table as a reminder of the show until I set TIVO to record it. A similar promotion with enough episodes from the first season for people to really get a taste for why AD is so great would be a perfect way to re-introduce people to the show as well as build up sales of the DVD box sets.

So please Mr. TV-Man, save the funniest show on television. The Bluth family is too young to die.

UPDATE : A fellow fan over at The Huffington Post vents :

I’m one of Arrested’s biggest fans and yet during its first two seasons I’d say I only saw a third of the episodes because of confusion over it’s air time. Week after week I’d tune in to find it was continually pre-empted and rescheduled because of Sunday Night Football and Malcom in the Middle re-runs (the most frustrating part of this was when I finally would catch an episode it would typically be a re-run of one of the few I’d actually seen before!) THEN, when they finally put it on Mondays and I think I’ve got a handle on the show’s schedule they preempt the damn thing again for FIVE WEEKS because of baseball! Their website stated at the start of the hiatus that the show would be back Oct 31st, but then when I checked that night, it was two straight hours of that assinine Prison Break show (a guy goes to prison to break his brother out? does that make logical sense to anyone?!). If I hadn’t stayed in the room during the commericla break of the first episode last Monday I wouldn’t have known there was another on at 8:30.

Seriously, how do the brainiacs at Fox not realize that their inability to capitalize on the show’s incredible buzz is based solely on their inconsistant programming schedule?! I mean, it would seem to me that should be one of the must fundamental principles to growing a show’s fan base. Same time, same night, week after week. Don’t preempt, don’t postpone. DUH!

As David Cross ranted at the end of the blooper reel on the season two DVD, the programmers at FOX aren’t the only ones who deserve some scorn :

“I’ve got an idea for what you can do, why don’t you fucking fire your complete marketing team and get a new one there that knows how to market a show that won five motherfucking emmys, golden globes, SAG awards, WGA awards, DVA awards, Producers Guild Awards, critic’s top 10 list; you know if you can’t fucking market that kind of show and get better ratings then maybe the problem doesn’t lie here maybe it lies with marketing.”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a movie star. Dude, we get it. Please shut up.

“If I would do another ‘Terminator’ movie I would have Terminator travel back in time and tell Arnold not to have a special election,” the former action film star joked. “I should have also listened to my wife who said don’t do it.”

If he made another Batman movie, he’d have Mr. Freeze tell Arnold to “chill out” with the special election thing. If he made another “True Lies”, he’d tell everyone the truth about his blatant attempt to cripple the Democratic party. If he made another “Pumping Iron” film, he’d tell Arnold to do the heavy lifting himself and not rely on the people of California to make the hard decisions for him. If he made another “Total Recall”, he’d think twice about replacing and then doing a worse job than Gray Davis. If he made another “Predator”, he’d think twice about molesting those women. If he made another “Raw Deal”, he’d apologize to his constituents and actually govern like the moderate he pretended to be two years ago. If he made another “Collateral Damage” he’d think twice about short-changing the children of California by cutting school funding and screwing teachers. If there was a sequel to “The Running Man”….

Y’know what’s weird? The first thing that caught my eye when reading this much-maligned post at Instapundit was his word choice :

The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way — and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it’s deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.

And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they’re acting unpatriotically.
. . .
Patriotic people could — and did — oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels.

Oh Glenn, you’re sooo old school. Who knew instant punditry provided enough time to consult the thesaurus? Since I find the rest of the post particularly grating, let me just say that this bit in particular proves that Glenn Reynolds is a churlish rogue :

Reader Kathleen Boerger emails: “Could you do me a favor and define ‘patriotism’ please?”

I think it starts with not uttering falsehoods that damage the country in time of war, simply because your donor base wants to hear them.

Patriotic people could — and did — oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels. And some who supported the war were not patriotic, if they did it out of opportunism or political calculation rather than honest belief. Those who are now trying to recast their prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history are not patriotic now, nor were they when they supported the war, if they did so then out of opportunism –which today’s revisionist history suggests.

Notice what Reynolds does here. He doesn’t name any names, he just writes a description of opposition to the war just vague enough to wiggle out of if he’s in a bind. No, he’s not talking about any specific people or mentioning any political party by name, because that might jeopardize his undeserved reputation for being independent and give his opponents the details necessary to call him on his bullshit.

Since Glenn actively opposed the election of John Kerry, I’m going to assume that Kerry was who he was thinking of when constructing his little strawman. After all, John Kerry is a flip-flopper. So, is Sen. Kerry one of those who seeks to “recast [his] prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history”? Well, here’s what he had to say on the Senate floor in the fall of 2002 during the debate over whether to authorize the President to use force to disarm Iraq :

“As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days–to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent–and I emphasize “imminent”–threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.”

The way the President and his defenders would have you believe it, everyone was on the same page in regards to invading Iraq. Just as the Administration disregarded the caveats in their intelligence briefings, scoundrels like Glenn Reynolds overlook the fact that the support of many for this war was conditional on objectives the President failed to meet. I opposed the war and I’m not saying this to justify what I believe was a shameful vote by Senator Kerry and others, but I think hacks like Instapundit need to do their homework before decrying “historical revisionists”.

With today being Veteran’s Day, we should take a look back at the past year to see whose commitment to veterans goes beyond the annual ceremony at the tomb of the unknown soldier. For example, let’s take a look at this request the Veterans of Foreign Wars made back in March :

The commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. called on Congress today to fix the veterans’ health care shortfalls in the president’s fiscal year 2006 budget.

“The administration’s budget is troubling in many ways because it’s an obvious attempt to balance part of the nation’s deficit on the backs of a disabled and aging military veteran population,” testified John Furgess, before a joint meeting of the House and Senate Committees on Veterans Affairs.
. . .
Furgess asked the senators and representatives to help make the budget fit the need and not make the need fit the budget by eliminating or reducing services while increasing costs. He also urged them to make military veterans the number one priority of the nation.

A week later, Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii proposed an amendment to the 2006 budget to increase spending on veterans medical care by $2.8 billion. Despite the fact that we’re in the middle of a war, the resolution failed with a 53-47 vote, with every Democrat voting “Yea” and all but two Republicans voting “Nay”. A month later, Senator Patty Murray offered a similar amendment to the Tsunami, Defense, and War on Terror appropriations bill that would provide an additional $1,975,183,000 for veterans medical care. This one also failed, largely along party lines, with only one Republican Senator voting to support veterans.

“Three billion dollars is a lot of money,” you might say, but before you chalk up GOP callousness to budgetary hawkishness, let me point you to this reliable indicator of fiscal responsibility :

The federal government’s expanding waistline (a record $427 billion deficit) has resulted from too many members of Congress believing that the United States Treasury is their own personal ATM. Our elected officials have let themselves go whole hog while letting down every hard-working American taxpayer.
. . .
For fiscal 2005, appropriators stuffed 13,997 projects into the 13 appropriations bills, an increase of 31 percent over last year’s total of 10,656. In the last two years, the total number of projects has increased by 49.5 percent. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2005 was $27.3 billion, or 19 percent more than last year’s total of $22.9 billion.

In other words, the Senate could have more than made up for the $2-3 billion shortfall for veteran care if they had simply remained as reckless as they were in 2004, rather than throw away an additional $4.4 billion. But that would require putting veterans ahead of pork-barrel programs, which seems too much to ask of the GOP controlled House and Senate or the still veto-less President of the United States.

For the “maverick” senator from Arizona, the best way to solve a problem is to make it worse :

In a speech on Thursday that highlighted the growing unease of some Republicans with lack of the progress at defeating the insurgency, Senator John McCain of Arizona said, “There is an undeniable sense that things are slipping in Iraq.”

But Mr. McCain warned that proposals for withdrawing forces next year “are exactly wrong” and called for the American military presence to grow by 10,000, to 165,000.

“Instead of drawing down, we should be ramping up, with more civil-military soldiers, translators and counterinsurgency operations teams,” he told a packed audience at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research institute.

We’re digging ourselves into a hole in Iraq, but his only solution is to get a bigger shovel. How would increasing the military presence in Iraq ease tensions or prepare the Iraqi people to take control? I can’t believe people take this guy seriously.

In case you were wondering, Part Robertson is still an asshole :

On today’s 700 Club, Rev. Pat Robertson took the opportunity to strongly rebuke voters in Dover, PA who removed from office school board members who supported teaching faith-based “intelligent design” and instead elected Democrats who opposed bringing up the possibility of a Creator in the school system’s science curriculum.

Rev. Robertson warned the people of Dover that God might forsake the town because of the vote.

Pat Robertson“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover. If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

I’m sure god will be way too busy helping Pat perfect his recipe for “Age-Defying Protein Pancakes” to worry about responding to a disaster in Dover, Pennsylvania (or was that the reason god refused to help out the people of New Orleans, stop the towers from collapsing on 9/11, or prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents in Iraq?). Apparently, the god that Pat Robertson believes in is a vindictive dick who’d punish people for their votes in school board elections. Of course, there’s always the possibility that Robertson is a fraud who’d rather sell fake cures for cancer than pay attention to the teachings of Jesus. There’s a lot more money to be made in using the Bible as a branding tool instead of a religious text.

Since Republicans are so fond of running personality-driven campaigns, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that the reason Arnold Schwarzenegger pissed away $60 million dollars in pursuit of his “reform agenda” is because he’s a stubborn jerk who doesn’t work well with others. His spectacular failures last night weren’t the result of ideological differences, but personality flaws.

A real leader would have worked with the Democratic legislature, not attack them as “girly men”. A real leader would have made compromises and reached across the ideological divide to find common ground. A real leader would have done the heavy lifting himself, not put the burden of making the hard decisions back on the people of California. But Arnold isn’t a real leader, he’s just a bad actor.

If you’ve ever wanted to know why liberals like me occasionally seem anti-American, it’s because of stories like the one below which are so fucking heartbreaking, the only sane responses are to either explode with rage or cry your eyes out (via TMW) :

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
. . .
But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.

In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: “I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it’s known as Willy Pete.

“Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone … I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for.”

Photographs on the website of RaiTG24, the broadcaster’s 24-hours news channel, www.rainews24.it, show exactly what the former soldier means. Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

Hunter at DailyKos cuts through the bullshit swirling around these revelations with this post :

There’s been a lot of confusion over what is or isn’t a “chemical weapon” vs. an “incendiary”; what aspects of the Geneva conventions the United States is or is not signatory to; and whether or not the United States is still bound by rules of warfare that they are not direct signatories to.

Allow me to try to clear things up, if I can.

First, I think it should be a stated goal of United States policy to not melt the skin off of children.

A congressional inquiry would be nice, but I’d trust the devil before I’d leaders of this country (assuming you could tell the difference). I’ve resigned myself to the fact that we’re stuck with these assholes for the time being, but the Commander in Chief should be hounded about this until he gives the American public answers. Canned responses about the horrors of war are woefully inadequate. If a criminal was hiding in an elementary school, you wouldn’t set the building on fire, so why the fuck are we dropping incendiary bombs on children??

Call your congressman, local media, and your friends and family to spread the word about these crimes against humanity and demand that the President put a stop to this once and for all.

This is a really weird election night. I’ve got this strange feeling that I can’t put my finger on. It’s not like envy, or even hungry. It sort of like funny, that’s not it because I never feel that way on election nights. For lack of a better term, let’s call it “happiness”.

So what’s got me celebrating? Well, Democratic candidate John Corzine won a nasty campaign for governor of New Jersey, Democrat Tim Kaine won the governorship of the ultra-red state of Virgina, every member of the creationist-packed school board of Dover, PA was swept out of office, a blantantly homophobic ballot initiative in Maine was defeated, and the current trends are pointing towards a resounding “NO” on every ballot proposition in California (73 & 75 will be squeakers, but I’d be shocked if the unreported ballot in Los Angeles county have any good news for the GOP).

Is this what it feels like when the good guys win?

It looks like Republican leaders in the House and Senate are ready to investigate reports last week that the CIA was operating secret prisons in eastern Europe. Apparently the foremost question in their minds isn’t why the hell we’re operating secret prisons, but who squealed to the press :

A newspaper report that the Central Intelligence Agency had set up secret American prisons in Europe for the interrogation of terrorism suspects drew calls today for investigations into who leaked that information.

The C.I.A. itself asked the Justice Department to look into the matter, according to government officials familiar with the unfolding episode. And on Capitol Hill, Republican Congressional leaders called for lawmakers to investigate the affair.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate majority leader, and Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois wrote in a letter to intelligence committee chairmen that leaking such information “could have long-term and far-reaching damaging and dangerous consequences” for the security of the United States.

Since Frist and Hastert want to go after those treasonous bastards who leaked classified information, maybe they should start asking questions around the water cooler (via tgnyc) :

ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: We actually have some new information, which is questions now being raised about whether a Republican senator, a Republican, not a Democrat, but a Republican, leaked this classified information. As you know, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist earlier today announcing they are launching a joint committee investigation between both chambers to get to the bottom of who leaked this classified information last week to “The Washington Post,” a story about these so-called secret prisons that are holding terror suspects.

As we reported earlier today, a senior Republican had told CNN that the belief here on the Hill was that perhaps current and former CIA officials had leaked it. But, just a few moments ago, Republican Senator Trent Lott told reporters he believes it was a Republican senator who leaked this information. Lott says the detail of these secret prisons were discussed at last Tuesday’s Republican-senators- only luncheon. That is a luncheon that happens every Tuesday behind closed doors here on the Hill.

And Vice President Cheney normally attends and was there last Tuesday. According to Lott, there was a lot of discussion about this amendment by Senator John McCain to tighten up anti-torture standards, to make sure the government is not torturing terror suspects. Trent Lott basically says that, after that meeting, where this was discussed — quote — “a lot of it” — in that “Washington Post” story — a lot of it came out of that room last Tuesday, pointing to the room in the Capitol where Republican senators met.

Then, Lott added — quote — “We can’t keep our mouths shut. We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us” — Lott saying that believes, as this investigation moves forward, it will wind up being an ethics investigation of a Republican senator or maybe a Republican staffer as well.

Anyone who wants to draw a parallel between this case and Plamegate needs to be reminded that there’s a big difference between a whistleblowing and a slander. Forget Judy Miller, even if it does end up protecting a GOP hack, it’s situations like this that show why we need a reporter shield law.

Hmmm….I wonder why the White House would need “refresher courses”?

White House staff members began attending mandatory briefings Tuesday about ethical conduct and the handling of classified information in the wake of the CIA leak investigation and the indictment and resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff.

In the coming weeks, some 3,000 employees in agencies under the Executive Office of the President will attend the hour-long sessions conducted by the White House counsel’s office. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the classes were refresher courses and that the first attendees were staffers with security clearances.

I wonder which definition of “mandatory” the White House is employing here? Is it in the “The President directed the White House to cooperate fully” form of the word, or the “synonymous with ‘obligatory’ and ‘required’” form that the rest of us use?

And speaking of ethics, you’ll never guess who’s coming into town just in time to learn about the ins and outs of leaking classified information…

Ahmed Chalabi comes in from the cold today, arriving in Washington to meet senior Bush administration officials for the first time in two years – despite lingering allegations that the Iraqi politician provided bogus pre-war intelligence, and a continuing investigation into whether he passed US secrets to Iran.

The investigation began 17 months ago, after US intelligence officials alleged that he or his aides had informed Tehran that Washington had broken Iran’s spy codes. Iraqi forces, backed by US troops, raided Mr Chalabi’s offices in May last year, and the Baghdad authorities issued an arrest warrant for his security chief, Araz Habib, accusing him of being an Iranian agent.

Mr Chalabi and his organisation, the Iraqi National Congress, denied all the charges and claimed that the CIA was out to smear him. At the time Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, promised a criminal investigation into the charges, but it appears to have made little progress. Mr Chalabi, now Iraq’s deputy prime minister, has offered to give evidence, but, his lawyer has said, the FBI failed to respond; nor have his closest supporters in the Pentagon been questioned. After a few months as a fugitive, Mr Habib is reported to have returned to Baghdad.

For those of you who find this news troubling, don’t worry. The White House is already putting together plans for their staff to attend meetings about why it’s wrong to mislead the nation into a bloody quagmire and spread state secrets to theocratic strongmen while we’re at war. And this meeting is mandatory, unless you’ve already made lunch plans that you just can’t reschedule.

My wife and I are both packrats, so from time to time we have to dig through our piles of random crap and throw a few things into “donate”, “ebay”, and “trash” piles. Among the items salvaged was this t-shirt I got from a thrift store back when you could still find cool stuff at thrift stores. As a little background, the Jenks in question is Jenks, Oklahoma, a tiny suburb of Tulsa which is, apparently, full of aryans.

Another interesting find was these two political flyers which will one day help form the basis of my grand unifying theory of political activism. My hypothesis is that regardless of your ideology, involvement in an activist movement exponentially increases your reliance upon trite flyers and slightly-clever political theater. Exhibit A :



On the back of the Clinton buck is a picture of the White House lawn with signs that say “The Suck Stops Here”, “Knee Pad Recycling Center”, and…



Remember when people cared about that?

Since Plame-mania threw me off my plans to write a post about each of the upcoming California ballot initiatives, lemme quickly go through the rest of the items in the “reform agenda” and tell you why I’m – SPOILER ALERT – voting against them. I’ve already written about Propositions 73, 78, & 79, so this post is devoted to Propositions 74-77.

First up is Proposition 74, which its authors call “Put the Kids First Act” presumably because that name makes it easier to sell than the “Fuck Teachers Act”. The proposal is designed to do two things : (1) change the teacher tenure period from two years to five years and (2) make it easier to fire underperforming teachers. Not I’m not entirely unsympathetic to people with genuine concerns about how teachers unions make it difficult to fire bad teachers, but the proponents of this proposition are so dishonest about what it will accomplish (swearing that this will “reward good teachers”) that I’m voting against this on without hesitation. There are a ton of problems with public schools (large class sizes, lack of money, disparities between “rich” and “poor” schools, etc.) but Prop. 74 does nothing to even address these problems.

Proposition 75 is the “screw the Democratic party by crippling union participation in the political process” bill. And guess who’s paying for it?

Once again, the centrist in me isn’t opposed to the idea of getting special interest money out of politics, but it’s funny how the targets of campaigns like this are always the organizations that benefit Democrats. I’m sure it’s all just a coincidence.

While it may not be as popular as the “Puppies are Cute Bill”, Proposition 76 is the kind of feel good crap that looks good on paper, but is ultimately a horrible idea. After all, who doesn’t like the idea of controlling state spending? Wouldn’t it make sense, then, to codify this through and amendment to the state constitution? Absolutely not.

This may sound weird, but over the last 25 years, Republicans have really given excessive spending a bad name. As the President was fond of joking after 9/11, there are times when deficit spending is a good idea. By tying the hands of the legislature, you just ensure that the next recession, terrorist attack, or other national emergency is followed by a steep cut in government programs. I hate fiscal irresponsibility as much as the next guy (probably more than the next guy since I voted against these assholes, but y’know what I mean), but the solution isn’t to micromanage the people who we’ve elected to make these decisions for us. It’s to punish negligent politicians at the polls.

If you’re still considering voting in favor of Proposition 76, here’s a bit from the legislative analysis that should send a chill down your spine :

The measure grants the Governor new powers to (1) declare a fiscal emergency based on his or her administration’s fiscal estimates, and (2) unilaterally reduce spending when an agreement cannot be reached on how to address the emergency.

Specifically, the measure permits the Governor to issue a proclamation of a fiscal emergency when his or her administration finds either of the following two conditions:

General Fund revenues have fallen by at least 1.5 percent below the administration’s estimates.

The balance of the state’s reserve fund will decline by more than one-half between the beginning and the end of the fiscal year.

Once the emergency is declared by the Governor, the Legislature would be called into special session and then have 45 days (30 days in the case of a late budget) to enact legislation which addresses the shortfall. If such legislation is not enacted, the measure grants the Governor new powers to reduce state spending (with the exception of the items discussed below)—at his or her discretion—to eliminate the shortfall. The Legislature could not override these reductions

Why bother with all those checks and balances when it’s so much easier to just declare a “fiscal emergency”?

Finally, the one I’m most conflicted about, Proposition 77. I was on the fence about this redistricting bill until I saw this commercial :

For those who don’t recognize him without the black robe, that’s Judge Wapner from “The People’s Court”. If you vote for Prop. 77, Rusty the bailiff is going to beat your ass with a baseball bat and Doug Llewellyn will interview you in the hallway afterwards about how it felt to get a whoopin’.

Seriously though, gerrymandering is evil. The way congressional districts are drawn to favor incumbents is shamefully anti-democratic. Regardless of who it came from and which party would benefit, in theory this is a Proposition that I’d strongly support. In fact, I’ve read a lot of articles about this one and I’m still a little unclear about the wonkish arguments that insist that Prop. 77 would allow Republicans undue influence on the three-judge redistricting panel. Putting aside the real-world results of redistricting in California, I haven’t seen much to convince me that the system set up by this proposition is unfair.

But I’m still voting against it for two reasons :

Screw all the talk of setting a good example, I don’t see why Californians should unilaterally reform in the face of egregious gerrymandering schemes in Republican-dominated states. If this bill is such a great idea, then it should be pursued at the federal level. Of course, that would require the GOP leaders in the House, Senate, and White House to share the California Republican Party’s dedication to “fairness” and “voter empowerment”.

I don’t trust Arnold Schwarzenegger. At times like these, when I’m still trying to wrap my head around the text of the proposals and their possible effects, the benefit of the doubt goes a long way. And when it comes down to it, if I’m straddling the fence between “yea” or “nay”, I can’t ignore the fact that this seemingly good idea is part of a “reform agenda” which includes screwing unions, cutting funding to public schools, chipping away the abortion rights, and consolidating power in the governor’s mansion.

From listening to the radio today, it seems that the position gaining the most steam among Californians going into tomorrow’s election is “screw it, vote ‘no’ on everything”. In a state as schizophrenic as California, that’s probably a good rule of thumb.