July 3, 2012
A San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judge just issued a ruling against the City of SLO stating that the enforcement of regulations prohibiting people from sleeping in their vehicles is unconstitutional. The suit was filed earlier this year by the SLO Homeless Alliance - a group of homeless who have been sleeping in their vehicles and are being represented by Stew Jenkins and Saro Rizzo. The suit followed a concerted effort by the police department to enforce the regulation and discussions by the City Council on changes that are in the works regarding those regulations. The ruling means a preliminary injunction will now keep the City from being able to enforce their recreational vehicle as dwelling unit regulation – which states that no recreational vehicle, camper shell, or similar device shall be used for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park or campground. Businesses near the main enforcement area-Prado Road- have reported reduced amounts of health and safety violations since enforcement began. City staff will recommend that the City appeal the decision. City Council will decide the next step in closed session. The City Council is scheduled to evaluate the City's parking regulations later this year. The ruling may prompt moving up that action.
This report was brought to you first by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Monday, July 2, 2012
STATE: California's Bullet Train to Nowhere
Governor Jerry Brown's foolish/ambitious plans to build the nation's first dedicated high-speed rail line is set for a vote by the Legislature this week to authorize $2.7 billion in voter-approved bonds for construction of the first 130 mile stretch, to be built in the middle of the California desert.
BACKGROUND 1: In 2008, California voters approved $9,000,000,000 in bonds for the first round of financing for the LA to San Francisco Bullet train. The bullet train is estimated to end up costing a total of $68,000,000,000 to construct [although I recently read that the estimate had ballooned to $177,000,000,000, but for political purposes, it was whittled back down to the $68,000,000,000 instead], but if you believe that number will not grow before it is finished, you haven't been paying attention. The first phase of the train is planned to travel from Madera to Bakersfield. In other words, the easy part will get built first. If this section is all that ever ends up getting built, we're looking at our bridge to nowhere. If you've been to Madera and Bakersfield, and seen all that lies in between, you don't need to ponder whether that is true or not.
LET'S KEEP THIS SIMPLE: If it ever does get started and completed, it'll end up costing way more than $68,000,000,000. Then, it'll run at a massive deficit each year, thus burdening the taxpayers even further. Amtrack runs at a deficit every year, and it runs on rails that have already been built. Checkout Five More Reasons Not to Build California's Bullet Train to Nowhere.
SO WHY IS CALIFORNIA PURSUING THIS? Good question. First, we're going to get a ton of federal dollars to build it, and that will push up hiring and jobs, though at a very steep price per job. First, Japan built their high speed rails, followed decades later by China. So if they can do it, why can't we? Answer: In California, we drive cars or fly - we don't take trains, even if they are fast. I don't see that changing.
ALTERNATIVES: Some California democrats have suggested the money go towards improving existsing rail infrastructure, and I could certainly get on board with that long before I would approve of this Bullet Rail project. How about putting the money towards closing the annual state deficit instead, by just not spending taxpayer dollars on this loser?
BACKGROUND 1: In 2008, California voters approved $9,000,000,000 in bonds for the first round of financing for the LA to San Francisco Bullet train. The bullet train is estimated to end up costing a total of $68,000,000,000 to construct [although I recently read that the estimate had ballooned to $177,000,000,000, but for political purposes, it was whittled back down to the $68,000,000,000 instead], but if you believe that number will not grow before it is finished, you haven't been paying attention. The first phase of the train is planned to travel from Madera to Bakersfield. In other words, the easy part will get built first. If this section is all that ever ends up getting built, we're looking at our bridge to nowhere. If you've been to Madera and Bakersfield, and seen all that lies in between, you don't need to ponder whether that is true or not.
LET'S KEEP THIS SIMPLE: If it ever does get started and completed, it'll end up costing way more than $68,000,000,000. Then, it'll run at a massive deficit each year, thus burdening the taxpayers even further. Amtrack runs at a deficit every year, and it runs on rails that have already been built. Checkout Five More Reasons Not to Build California's Bullet Train to Nowhere.
SO WHY IS CALIFORNIA PURSUING THIS? Good question. First, we're going to get a ton of federal dollars to build it, and that will push up hiring and jobs, though at a very steep price per job. First, Japan built their high speed rails, followed decades later by China. So if they can do it, why can't we? Answer: In California, we drive cars or fly - we don't take trains, even if they are fast. I don't see that changing.
ALTERNATIVES: Some California democrats have suggested the money go towards improving existsing rail infrastructure, and I could certainly get on board with that long before I would approve of this Bullet Rail project. How about putting the money towards closing the annual state deficit instead, by just not spending taxpayer dollars on this loser?
Saturday, June 30, 2012
NATIONAL: Let's talk Electric Car Economics & the Environment
PLEADING WITH JOURNALISTS: Please use MARGINAL electricity rates when telling us how cheap it is to drive an All Electric Vehicle. It is DISHONEST to quote the cheapest possible rate for electricity, when they know that it is the MARGINAL rate that we pay when we add an Electric Car to the household electricity budget.
I was just reading an article today in the SLO Tribune about the new Electric Honda Fit. I am a huge Honda fan (1974 Civic, 1983 Accord, 1994 Accord), or at least I was until we recently replaced the '94 Accord (manual trani) with a 2010 Hyundai Elantra Touring (automatic - bought in November 2009). The article in the Tribune points out how the average buyer can save $1,000 to drive 12,000 miles per year in the All Electric Honda Fit compared to the All Gas Honda Civic. All good and well? Save $1,000, assumedly by charging batteries instead of buying gas.
Then the article goes on to quote an electricity rate of 12 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh). Pulling out my monthly electrical bill from PG&E, I find that I pay an AVERAGE of 19 cents per kwh. However, the marginal rate for the next kwh of electricity that I would pay, were I to own the All Electric Fit, would be 31 cents per kwh, or 260% higher than the rate quoted in the article. I'm sure that punitive marginal rate from PG&E would move the needle on the savings calculation from the article.
LITHIUM-ION BATTERY SUSTAINABILITY: Electric Honda Fit and Nissan Leaf Lithium-Ion type batteries are made from some pretty nasty materials that have to be mined out of the ground. I'll track down some scientific articles on this subject, but here's one I found in just a few minutes: Lithium Battery Sustainability Analysis. This article notes that the Lithium-Manganese battery used in the Nissan Leaf is composed of a number of chemical compounds and aluminum and polyethylene foils, copper foil, graphite, and lithium based salt brines. Last time I checked, mines used a lot of dynamite and diesel and electricity to come up with their desired end product (see the popular reality TV show Gold Rush, to see how much material and energy is expended to get an ounce of gold).
BACKGROUND: My family (2 parents, kids) are careful users of electricity, especially considering that my wife and I spend all day behind a computer for our work. We routinely spend less than our neighbors on electricity, despite the fact that we both work all day at home. In fact, that's the reason we temporarily decommisioned our All Electric Hot Tub until we could plumb a Natural Gas Heater up to it instead. Because of the punitive marginal PG&E rates, our Hot Tub (back when we used it), added AT LEAST $100 per month to our electrical bill. Had we been charged the same rate per kwh for the FIRST kwh as for the LAST, our hot tub would only be costing us $30 / month in electricity, and we would probably still be using it.
NOTE: I am not pro or con All Electric Vehicles. However, I am in favor of factual reporting about the economics and environmental impacts of competing technologies, such as gas vs. electric vehicles.
I was just reading an article today in the SLO Tribune about the new Electric Honda Fit. I am a huge Honda fan (1974 Civic, 1983 Accord, 1994 Accord), or at least I was until we recently replaced the '94 Accord (manual trani) with a 2010 Hyundai Elantra Touring (automatic - bought in November 2009). The article in the Tribune points out how the average buyer can save $1,000 to drive 12,000 miles per year in the All Electric Honda Fit compared to the All Gas Honda Civic. All good and well? Save $1,000, assumedly by charging batteries instead of buying gas.
Then the article goes on to quote an electricity rate of 12 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh). Pulling out my monthly electrical bill from PG&E, I find that I pay an AVERAGE of 19 cents per kwh. However, the marginal rate for the next kwh of electricity that I would pay, were I to own the All Electric Fit, would be 31 cents per kwh, or 260% higher than the rate quoted in the article. I'm sure that punitive marginal rate from PG&E would move the needle on the savings calculation from the article.
LITHIUM-ION BATTERY SUSTAINABILITY: Electric Honda Fit and Nissan Leaf Lithium-Ion type batteries are made from some pretty nasty materials that have to be mined out of the ground. I'll track down some scientific articles on this subject, but here's one I found in just a few minutes: Lithium Battery Sustainability Analysis. This article notes that the Lithium-Manganese battery used in the Nissan Leaf is composed of a number of chemical compounds and aluminum and polyethylene foils, copper foil, graphite, and lithium based salt brines. Last time I checked, mines used a lot of dynamite and diesel and electricity to come up with their desired end product (see the popular reality TV show Gold Rush, to see how much material and energy is expended to get an ounce of gold).
BACKGROUND: My family (2 parents, kids) are careful users of electricity, especially considering that my wife and I spend all day behind a computer for our work. We routinely spend less than our neighbors on electricity, despite the fact that we both work all day at home. In fact, that's the reason we temporarily decommisioned our All Electric Hot Tub until we could plumb a Natural Gas Heater up to it instead. Because of the punitive marginal PG&E rates, our Hot Tub (back when we used it), added AT LEAST $100 per month to our electrical bill. Had we been charged the same rate per kwh for the FIRST kwh as for the LAST, our hot tub would only be costing us $30 / month in electricity, and we would probably still be using it.
NOTE: I am not pro or con All Electric Vehicles. However, I am in favor of factual reporting about the economics and environmental impacts of competing technologies, such as gas vs. electric vehicles.
NATIONAL: ObamaCare Prevails with the Supremes
UPDATE July 3, 2012: Romney and Obama refuse to call the mandate a Tax, and BOTH presidential candidates insist that it is a penalty, thus illustrating how desperately Justice Roberts needed to preserve the Commerce Clause of the Constitution AND uphold ObamaCare. For me, the Supremes are the law of the land, and if the Court rules it a tax, then the powers-that-be have spoken, and it should be called a tax (even though it isn't!).
There are plenty of articles out there explaining the recent victory on Thursday 6/20/2012 of ObamaCare at the Supreme Court. The massive 2,500+ page legislation is way too complicated for ANYBODY, not to mention me and my puny brain, to comprehend. This link to an article is as good as anything at explaining the result of the Supremes decision: Supreme Court Upholds Obama's Health Care Law.
Rather than try to tackle the complexity, I'll just make a few key points that are seldom made re: ObamaCare.
1) I always wondered, if fixing the health system in this country was so urgent, why did we have to wait 4 years for it to kick in? After the Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor, if we took 4 years to build up our military (a vastly larger job), we'd all be speaking Japanese now and bowing instead of waving. There's a reason that our smart President decided ObamaCare should kick in AFTER his second inauguration - I'll leave you to guess what that might be? (Hint: ObamaCare goes into effect AFTER a certain President has been re-elected).
2) The Supremes essentially told us that the government cannot compel us to do anything it wishes, but it can tax us incessantly until we have no rational alternative but to acquiesce to their demands. To wit: the government cannot make us eat broccoli (which, BTW, I love and eat all the time), but it may levy a no-broccoli-eating tax on me until we do.
3) Clearly, ObamaCare is a tax program that throws more dollars at healthcare while fixing few of the underlying problems. The last thing a country staggering under a massive soon-to-be $17,000,000,000,000 debt and a sluggish economy (and that's generous) is a new Rube Goldberg-styled health care entitlement.
4) Chief Justice Roberts was apparently desperate to uphold ObamaCare and found a most convoluted way to do so. Though rejecting that it met the requirements of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, it passed the test by being seen as both being a Tax and Not-a-Tax (aka Penalty) concurrently! Amazing sleight-of-hand for Justice Roberts- Bravo. As a Tax, the Mandate is clearly constitutional. As a Not-a-Tax Mandate, the Court did NOT have to wait until the tax was levied (i.e., not until 2014) to make a ruling on it (try googling "Anti-Injunction Act"). Roberts treated the mandate as a tax when a tax was favored constitutionality, and as a penalty when a penalty was similarly favored. Wow - didn't know you could do that. Roberts created a Tax/Penalty hybrid that's never been seen before - does that mean we'll be seeing such a creation again?
5) I'm actually somewhat relieved that ObamaCare passed Supreme Court jurisprudence largely unscathed: I just couldn't stand the idea of dealing with the near-term chaos that would ensue, had it been struck down in its entirety. Now, as our leader Pelosi pointed out so clearly to us: "we're gonna get to find out what's in the new Health Care Law". I know, she didn't say that. What she said was basically that Congress would have to pass ObamaCare before anyone could find out what was actually in it (it makes me ill every time I hear her utter her famous remarks).
6) So far, the things that personally benefit me about Obamacare: My kids can stay on my insurance until they are 26 years old (allowing them to take jobs that do NOT offer healthcare for a few extra years); preventative health care is provided through insurance companies at little or not cost to me (but don't think you do not pay: whatever is saved through bypassing the deductible is passed on as part of the rising medical expenses). These things could have been passed by themselves WITHOUT the massive ObamaCare package.
There are plenty of articles out there explaining the recent victory on Thursday 6/20/2012 of ObamaCare at the Supreme Court. The massive 2,500+ page legislation is way too complicated for ANYBODY, not to mention me and my puny brain, to comprehend. This link to an article is as good as anything at explaining the result of the Supremes decision: Supreme Court Upholds Obama's Health Care Law.
Rather than try to tackle the complexity, I'll just make a few key points that are seldom made re: ObamaCare.
1) I always wondered, if fixing the health system in this country was so urgent, why did we have to wait 4 years for it to kick in? After the Japanese bombed us at Pearl Harbor, if we took 4 years to build up our military (a vastly larger job), we'd all be speaking Japanese now and bowing instead of waving. There's a reason that our smart President decided ObamaCare should kick in AFTER his second inauguration - I'll leave you to guess what that might be? (Hint: ObamaCare goes into effect AFTER a certain President has been re-elected).
2) The Supremes essentially told us that the government cannot compel us to do anything it wishes, but it can tax us incessantly until we have no rational alternative but to acquiesce to their demands. To wit: the government cannot make us eat broccoli (which, BTW, I love and eat all the time), but it may levy a no-broccoli-eating tax on me until we do.
3) Clearly, ObamaCare is a tax program that throws more dollars at healthcare while fixing few of the underlying problems. The last thing a country staggering under a massive soon-to-be $17,000,000,000,000 debt and a sluggish economy (and that's generous) is a new Rube Goldberg-styled health care entitlement.
4) Chief Justice Roberts was apparently desperate to uphold ObamaCare and found a most convoluted way to do so. Though rejecting that it met the requirements of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, it passed the test by being seen as both being a Tax and Not-a-Tax (aka Penalty) concurrently! Amazing sleight-of-hand for Justice Roberts- Bravo. As a Tax, the Mandate is clearly constitutional. As a Not-a-Tax Mandate, the Court did NOT have to wait until the tax was levied (i.e., not until 2014) to make a ruling on it (try googling "Anti-Injunction Act"). Roberts treated the mandate as a tax when a tax was favored constitutionality, and as a penalty when a penalty was similarly favored. Wow - didn't know you could do that. Roberts created a Tax/Penalty hybrid that's never been seen before - does that mean we'll be seeing such a creation again?
5) I'm actually somewhat relieved that ObamaCare passed Supreme Court jurisprudence largely unscathed: I just couldn't stand the idea of dealing with the near-term chaos that would ensue, had it been struck down in its entirety. Now, as our leader Pelosi pointed out so clearly to us: "we're gonna get to find out what's in the new Health Care Law". I know, she didn't say that. What she said was basically that Congress would have to pass ObamaCare before anyone could find out what was actually in it (it makes me ill every time I hear her utter her famous remarks).
6) So far, the things that personally benefit me about Obamacare: My kids can stay on my insurance until they are 26 years old (allowing them to take jobs that do NOT offer healthcare for a few extra years); preventative health care is provided through insurance companies at little or not cost to me (but don't think you do not pay: whatever is saved through bypassing the deductible is passed on as part of the rising medical expenses). These things could have been passed by themselves WITHOUT the massive ObamaCare package.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
LOCAL: Cuesta JC Waste of Money Predicted
As soon as I saw the article in San Luis Obispo's local paper, front page on June 28, 2012, entitled "Cuesta Removes Underperforming Official", I knew that we'd be paying full salary and benefits for a long time to a person who simply could not do their job. Turns out that my entirely too predictable conclusion was true. Let's look at a few of the details, shall we? [Read the article for the full story, if you can stomach it].
The employee in question has the initials of CG. Well, CG was relieved of her duties 4 months ago, with FULL PAY and FULL BENEFITS. Seems she is on PAID administrative leave for another 3 months, until September 2012 - 7 months of full pay and benefits, without one minute of work towards the good of Cuesta Junior College in SLO and the good taxpayers that support this pay and benefits giveaway. Just for the record, according to the Trib article, CG makes a grand $156,921 per year, plus full bennies. Another person, DW, was appointed to take CG's duties starting July 1, 2012.
DRAFTING EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 101: Looking at CG's employment situation a little closer, we find that she is 1 year into a 3 year contract. That contract specifies that she be given 90 days notice (that's 3 months to the math-impaired) if she is to be terminated, and after that 3 months, she gets a guaranteed 18 months of full pay and benefits, for a total of 21 months of pay AFTER she has been fired! Who drafted and approved this woeful contract? It basically guarantees 3 years of pay and benefits, regardless of performance. Nobody with a HINT of competence gets fired upon the start-up of their new job, as it usually takes about a year to determine if a person really can do their job. By then, the employee gets fired, but would receive 21 months pay of the 24 months left on the contract - brilliant! Or maybe that was just the intention of the contract in the first place - to reward one of your own with a big, juicy, don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract?
Predictably, CG needs to be replaced, and pronto, as she has been working on re-accrediation for Cuesta College - a high priority task, one would assume. In walks Cuesta Dean DW, with another immodest salary of $111,516, to take over the VP role from which CG was fired. Do we see if DW can do the job first before pumping up the already generous salary of hers? Nope (as far as we can tell from the article). Her new VP salary will be in the range of $129k to $157k (rounded numbers). Hmmmmm, wonder if DW will get the same don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract as CG? Well, the article doesn't indicate one way or the other, but gee, let me predict again: that's sure what I would be asking for if I was in DW's place (hey, the last guy got the don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract - how about me too! I might actually be able to do the job, so maybe I should get EVEN MORE than CG?).
BORING STUFF, I KNOW - MAY EVEN SOUND BITTER?: I believe that its the taxpayer's money, and it should be carefully spent. In this situation, what we now have for the next 21 months is that we will be paying approximately $300k to pay 1 administrator NOT to work (CG) while we wonder if the new administrator (DW) can do the job and keep the College from losing accreditation? To some of us, $300k is a lot of money. I looked up the MEDIAN household income in SLO (that's the total income of EVERYONE who lives in a single family unit - not just one person), and it is $42,526. So let's see: CG is basically getting 3 years of pay at $157k per year (total $471k), which is approx. equal to 11 years of the average families income in the city of SLO. For that, CG worked for 1 year and failed at the job, then gets almost 2 years without working. The taxpayer deserves more than this for our money.
Yeah, I know: CG could get re-assigned at Cuesta and have to work for the contracted rate. We in the private sector know how well that works: once demoted, the demoted employee feels negatively emotional about the new position, and most often performs negatively in the new (lesser) position. Wonder how many open full-time positions that Cuesta has for someone as highly paid at $157k as CG? I hope that there aren't any, which means she'll be getting paid a princely sum to do a commoner's work? Who knows - that public sure doesn't. Even if CG does take another job, she's on unpaid leave until September, 2012.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE between this situation and say, the Fat Cat Wall Street Banker in a similar scenario? Well, for the Banker, its just not my money. Its a loss to the stockholders, but not directly to me. If I own stock in the bank, well then, the bank is less profitable and the stock price goes down and I lose out. I don't have to buy the stock, or if I already hold it, I am free to sell it and buy a different banking stock that has more rational pay policies. However, I don't have the choice to not pay taxes into a system that just throws the money away, as they have a knack for doing at Cuesta College.
This ended up being much longer than expected - sorry. Thanks to the Tribune for printing this poor use of taxpayer dollars on the front page of the newpaper. Wonder if anybody else will make the observations that I did in this article?
The employee in question has the initials of CG. Well, CG was relieved of her duties 4 months ago, with FULL PAY and FULL BENEFITS. Seems she is on PAID administrative leave for another 3 months, until September 2012 - 7 months of full pay and benefits, without one minute of work towards the good of Cuesta Junior College in SLO and the good taxpayers that support this pay and benefits giveaway. Just for the record, according to the Trib article, CG makes a grand $156,921 per year, plus full bennies. Another person, DW, was appointed to take CG's duties starting July 1, 2012.
DRAFTING EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT 101: Looking at CG's employment situation a little closer, we find that she is 1 year into a 3 year contract. That contract specifies that she be given 90 days notice (that's 3 months to the math-impaired) if she is to be terminated, and after that 3 months, she gets a guaranteed 18 months of full pay and benefits, for a total of 21 months of pay AFTER she has been fired! Who drafted and approved this woeful contract? It basically guarantees 3 years of pay and benefits, regardless of performance. Nobody with a HINT of competence gets fired upon the start-up of their new job, as it usually takes about a year to determine if a person really can do their job. By then, the employee gets fired, but would receive 21 months pay of the 24 months left on the contract - brilliant! Or maybe that was just the intention of the contract in the first place - to reward one of your own with a big, juicy, don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract?
Predictably, CG needs to be replaced, and pronto, as she has been working on re-accrediation for Cuesta College - a high priority task, one would assume. In walks Cuesta Dean DW, with another immodest salary of $111,516, to take over the VP role from which CG was fired. Do we see if DW can do the job first before pumping up the already generous salary of hers? Nope (as far as we can tell from the article). Her new VP salary will be in the range of $129k to $157k (rounded numbers). Hmmmmm, wonder if DW will get the same don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract as CG? Well, the article doesn't indicate one way or the other, but gee, let me predict again: that's sure what I would be asking for if I was in DW's place (hey, the last guy got the don't-do-your-job-and-you'll-get-paid-anyways contract - how about me too! I might actually be able to do the job, so maybe I should get EVEN MORE than CG?).
BORING STUFF, I KNOW - MAY EVEN SOUND BITTER?: I believe that its the taxpayer's money, and it should be carefully spent. In this situation, what we now have for the next 21 months is that we will be paying approximately $300k to pay 1 administrator NOT to work (CG) while we wonder if the new administrator (DW) can do the job and keep the College from losing accreditation? To some of us, $300k is a lot of money. I looked up the MEDIAN household income in SLO (that's the total income of EVERYONE who lives in a single family unit - not just one person), and it is $42,526. So let's see: CG is basically getting 3 years of pay at $157k per year (total $471k), which is approx. equal to 11 years of the average families income in the city of SLO. For that, CG worked for 1 year and failed at the job, then gets almost 2 years without working. The taxpayer deserves more than this for our money.
Yeah, I know: CG could get re-assigned at Cuesta and have to work for the contracted rate. We in the private sector know how well that works: once demoted, the demoted employee feels negatively emotional about the new position, and most often performs negatively in the new (lesser) position. Wonder how many open full-time positions that Cuesta has for someone as highly paid at $157k as CG? I hope that there aren't any, which means she'll be getting paid a princely sum to do a commoner's work? Who knows - that public sure doesn't. Even if CG does take another job, she's on unpaid leave until September, 2012.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE between this situation and say, the Fat Cat Wall Street Banker in a similar scenario? Well, for the Banker, its just not my money. Its a loss to the stockholders, but not directly to me. If I own stock in the bank, well then, the bank is less profitable and the stock price goes down and I lose out. I don't have to buy the stock, or if I already hold it, I am free to sell it and buy a different banking stock that has more rational pay policies. However, I don't have the choice to not pay taxes into a system that just throws the money away, as they have a knack for doing at Cuesta College.
This ended up being much longer than expected - sorry. Thanks to the Tribune for printing this poor use of taxpayer dollars on the front page of the newpaper. Wonder if anybody else will make the observations that I did in this article?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
NATIONAL: Science Fiction Great Ray Bradury Dies June 5, 2012
Prolific Sci-Fi writer Ray Bradbury died recently at the age of 91. Author of many science fiction classics, the recent article in The Tribune newspaper provided some inspiration for me as a potential writer, so I'll start with that angle. A sign next to his typewriter says "Don't Think". He said "We are ideas bursting to be born". He advocated writing fast and furiously; second-guessing or editing was NOT part of the his creative process; the important thing is to explode; thinking is a way or preventing disasters but not preparing for the future. As an aspiring writer, I find myself thinking WAY too much, and not EXPLODING enough! In fact, this article yesterday in the Tribune on Bradbury inspired me to get back to writing, including this blog entry!
Bradbury goes on in the Tribune article to describe his early days of writing, which I will summarize here. He never made it to college, but spent 3 days a week in the downtown Los Angeles library reading everything he could get his hands on. It was in those days that he decided he wanted to fill a shelf with books written by him, after he decided that he had graduated from the library at the age of 27. Later, when he wrote one of his best known and read books - Fahrenheit 451 - he was married with 2 toddlers of his own. Looking for a place to write, he discovered the basement of the Library at UCLA, which had a herd of typewriters waiting to be rented at a mere 10 cents an hour. With only $9.80 worth of dimes, he went on to write Fahrenheit 451 in that UCLA basement in an astounding 9 day explosion!
BRADBURY'S FAVORITE BOOK: The Complete Prefaces of George Bernard Shaw. I've never heard of this book, but I'm gonna go out and get it and read it, for sure. How about you? [NOTE: google is not helping me out here, but apparently Bradbury's reference to Shaw's Prefaces needs an explanation. Shaw wrote a preface to each of his many plays. These prefaces provided background viewpoints on the subject matter of the play, often revealing personal biographical details about himself, and often did NOT reference the plays directly. Apparently, these prefaces, often longer than the play themselves, were of such literary quality that Bradbury found their appeal persuading. These prefaces have been pulled together into several different volumes, the most readily available being the one containing prefaces Volume III from 1930 - 1950]. Bradbury's reference to "The Complete Prefaces..." was referring to multiple volumes of prefaces to Shaw's many plays. So I don't have one book to read, but many! Cool.
LESSON TO YOUTH: Don't be discouraged by lack of direction; famous author Bradbury was jobless and poor at age 27 and hanging out in the library! Bet that didn't exactly get the girl! Look where he ended up at 91. Pursue your dreams, and don't be discouraged. Though you don't have forever, you do have a lifetime to explode, as Bradbury's life (and many others) demonstrated.
Bradbury goes on in the Tribune article to describe his early days of writing, which I will summarize here. He never made it to college, but spent 3 days a week in the downtown Los Angeles library reading everything he could get his hands on. It was in those days that he decided he wanted to fill a shelf with books written by him, after he decided that he had graduated from the library at the age of 27. Later, when he wrote one of his best known and read books - Fahrenheit 451 - he was married with 2 toddlers of his own. Looking for a place to write, he discovered the basement of the Library at UCLA, which had a herd of typewriters waiting to be rented at a mere 10 cents an hour. With only $9.80 worth of dimes, he went on to write Fahrenheit 451 in that UCLA basement in an astounding 9 day explosion!
BRADBURY'S FAVORITE BOOK: The Complete Prefaces of George Bernard Shaw. I've never heard of this book, but I'm gonna go out and get it and read it, for sure. How about you? [NOTE: google is not helping me out here, but apparently Bradbury's reference to Shaw's Prefaces needs an explanation. Shaw wrote a preface to each of his many plays. These prefaces provided background viewpoints on the subject matter of the play, often revealing personal biographical details about himself, and often did NOT reference the plays directly. Apparently, these prefaces, often longer than the play themselves, were of such literary quality that Bradbury found their appeal persuading. These prefaces have been pulled together into several different volumes, the most readily available being the one containing prefaces Volume III from 1930 - 1950]. Bradbury's reference to "The Complete Prefaces..." was referring to multiple volumes of prefaces to Shaw's many plays. So I don't have one book to read, but many! Cool.
LESSON TO YOUTH: Don't be discouraged by lack of direction; famous author Bradbury was jobless and poor at age 27 and hanging out in the library! Bet that didn't exactly get the girl! Look where he ended up at 91. Pursue your dreams, and don't be discouraged. Though you don't have forever, you do have a lifetime to explode, as Bradbury's life (and many others) demonstrated.
STATE: Current California Budget Deficit at $15.7 Billion
My liberal buddies may get the impression that I'm a hard core conservative Republican, but that's not accurate: like many folks, I consider myself a problem solver. I look at each issue and try to figure out what would best solve the problem to the benefit of everyone, not just (or even) me.
The bottom line is that our California state government is in the hole every year in recent memory, and our leaders have more or less "kick the can down the road" each year. Budget problems are not solved, but the deck is merely re-shuffled. The losers are those truly in need. Those that don't have a union or a lobbyist to protect them get the shaft. I'm talking about the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, the mentally ill. They lose every time.
You would think that our soft-hearted left-leaning leaders would be the champions of the downtrodden, but ... not really. Read this in our local paper from June 8, 2012: Democrats and Governor Brown Discuss $2 Billion Budget Cuts.
In the article above, Democrats are in disagreement with Gov. Brown over a proposed $2 Billion cut by Brown, hurting "the most unfortunate" amongst us. Though the dems would rather not make those cuts because they hurt the most vulnerable, they have not said where the cuts should be made.
WE CAN START CUTTING HERE: I can provide a place for them to begin. Start with continuing to tax the California rich at one of the highest state income and capital gains taxes in the country - just don't increase those taxes or they'll just leave the state. Next, cut back on pay and perks to the statewide unions - particularly the powerful prison unions - then reduce the number of folks in prison for victimless crimes, abolish the Death Penalty (too expensive and nobody gets executed), cut out the boondoggles and senseless projects (start with the $100 Billion bullet train to nowhere), and then see where those cuts take us.
The bottom line is that our California state government is in the hole every year in recent memory, and our leaders have more or less "kick the can down the road" each year. Budget problems are not solved, but the deck is merely re-shuffled. The losers are those truly in need. Those that don't have a union or a lobbyist to protect them get the shaft. I'm talking about the disabled, the elderly, the homeless, the mentally ill. They lose every time.
You would think that our soft-hearted left-leaning leaders would be the champions of the downtrodden, but ... not really. Read this in our local paper from June 8, 2012: Democrats and Governor Brown Discuss $2 Billion Budget Cuts.
In the article above, Democrats are in disagreement with Gov. Brown over a proposed $2 Billion cut by Brown, hurting "the most unfortunate" amongst us. Though the dems would rather not make those cuts because they hurt the most vulnerable, they have not said where the cuts should be made.
WE CAN START CUTTING HERE: I can provide a place for them to begin. Start with continuing to tax the California rich at one of the highest state income and capital gains taxes in the country - just don't increase those taxes or they'll just leave the state. Next, cut back on pay and perks to the statewide unions - particularly the powerful prison unions - then reduce the number of folks in prison for victimless crimes, abolish the Death Penalty (too expensive and nobody gets executed), cut out the boondoggles and senseless projects (start with the $100 Billion bullet train to nowhere), and then see where those cuts take us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)