Golden Dollar update

First, there have been a few more cases of people accepting the golden dollar from me without hesitation. The homeless guy outside of a wedding, the waitress at the Tartan (a really cool place in Redlands that's all dark inside with red leather seats etc. - very loungy and they have great burgers), and the school cafeteria. However, one thing that I have discovered is that I really don't use dollars that much as it is. My supply of 40 or so golden dollars is just now dwindling and that includes Amanda's use of them for parking. I use two coins for a coffee from Starbucks maybe twice a week, but outside of that I use my check card when grocery shopping or dining out and for most other purchases. Still, I try to keep five of them in my pocket at all times and its not nearly as annoying as people argue.

Second, there is another group that is clearly in favor of my mission: the blind. You see, blind people can't tell the difference between the different bills. One solution is creating bills of different size. However, I think that using dollar coins will limit their stress. I'm just looking out for the blind.

Finally, although I have only been on this quest for a short time, it seems that I have already achieved great success. Starting in 2007, the U.S. government will begin releasing new dollar coins. In the same spirit as the new quarters, they will release 4 each year - with the faces of each of our presidents. I hope that this will make the dollar coins more prevalent in circulation. Now, I'm not going to take too much credit for this, but it doesn't really seem like a coincidence.

Meerkats

This past Friday I took a visit to the Fellow Earthlings Wildlife Center in Morongo Valley, CA. There are only 9 animals that currently call the center home: one small very tame rooster, one giant dog, and seven incredibly cute meerkats. Here are some pictures from our trip.


This is a meerkat. Again, cute. Their habit of standing allows them to have a better view of possible predators, especially over the tall grasses of the Kalahari.

Up-close view of a meerkat's face. Still pretty cute. The dark color around their eyes allows them to stare right into the sun to see predators. They can also send extra blood to their ears, causing their ears to swell and keep dirt out when they dig, which they do pretty much all of the time.

This is my hand with a little mealworm in it. That's what they eat for the most part. However, it turns out that zoos feed them something called Nebraska Meat mix (or something like that) which is ground up meat from various animals. Meerkats in most zoos live 5-6 years. Meerkats at the center live over 12 years. Its pretty sad.

Pete and Lauri feeding meerkats. They look really friendly, but this pair went inside of a box and stayed there once we ran out of worms for them. This was in the first enclosure. One of the first that they built. The box that they went into is heated to help them during cold nights, but also serves as a refuge from weather and predators as well as a quick way to evacuate them in a fire or flood - the center has had a good deal of the former.

I'm not sure what to say about this picture except that its funny. Meerkats love the sun and spend a lot of time warming themselves in the sun. They have dark skin under their fur which allows them to absorb more heat and keep warm during cold desert nights.

Another good picture of a meerkat sunning. I was really worried that these meerkats would not do the standing since they are in captivity and really have no need to fear predators. However, Pam, who runs the center, does a really good job keeping them in as natural of an environment as possible.

Here's me with a meerkat. They actually don't like to be petted too much, but they'll let you pick them up if you've got a gloveful of worms. Over my right shoulder is the world's largest dog. I thought that he ("Jake") was a lab, but he's not. Unfortunately, I forgot what he really is. What he is thought, is a great dog.

Here's my lovely wife with a meerkat. Despite what Pete told her, they did not go crazy and jump on her face and scratch her. They could easily scratch the hell out of you because they have really long nails for digging and they are pretty strong for their size.

This is Cogburn. He looks small like a chicken, but he's a rooster. You can kind of see his gigantic claws just below my left wrist. You wouldn't know it by his peaceful nature, but Cogburn was raised for cockfighting. Pam bought him for $2 from a sketchy character and ended his fighting career.

My favorite picture from the weekend. This was a really great experience and a wonderful gift from a pretty good wife. Although they are very cute, these animals are not good pets as they like to dig and are very territorial. You need to have a license to keep them, and that license is very very very difficult to get. I recommend this experience to anyone. I will be going back again sometime in the next year. For more info, visit the center's website that I linked to at the top of the page. Or you could just type in meerkats.com

Being nice

Did you know that there was a giant hurricane that totally destroyed a good part of southern Louisiana and other parts of the Gulf Coast? Well, the President apparently didn't know either, so don't feel bad.

Although tragic events like Hurricane Katrina make a huge impression on all of us for the time shortly after they happen, we are quick to forget that they have long-lasting impact on those directly effected by the event. In this case there are still people struggling to survive in that part of the country. We also often forget that many of the victims are children.

That lady in the picture is my Aunt Megan. You may know her from some 1-800-DENTIST commercials back in the early 90s (I think). Well, besides planning big events for big companies and hooking me up with free tickets to Beck, she also has been working with/for a group that does art therapy for kids effected by Hurricane Katrina. This is the website. Go check it out. There are pictures done by the kids that they are working with which are totally heartbreaking. While you're there, drop them a donation. Its a good cause. Plus, if you give $100 or more you can say that you did more than the government.

Things to be happy about today

1. The Democrats took the House
2. The Democrats probably got the Senate
3. Donald Rumsfeld resigned
4. Beer is widely available at local convenience and grocery stores
5. Friday is a holiday
6. Thanksgiving is coming soon
7. Liverpool v. Arsenal Sunday = breakfast at Lucky's (and a 3-1 victory for the Reds)
8. although it was hotter than shit today, winter weather is coming
9. only 1 more wedding to go
10. November 25th visit to the meerkats

Places that accepted my Sacagawea dollar: Starbucks, soda machine at school

Evil Twin of William Jennings Bryan California Voters Guide Part 2

Prop 87: The oil tax
So we've probably seen the most publicity for this proposition including former president Clinton supporting it. Essentially, this would place and additional tax on oil "produced" in California. The tax could be as little as 1.5% and as much as 6%, depending on the cost of a barrel of oil. This would go towards programs encouraging the use of alternative energy sources. The tax would be in place until they got $4 billion for these programs. Under the law, producers would not be allowed to pass the cost of this tax onto consumers
My Vote: NO. Although I like where this law is going, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. First, how do you keep producers from passing the cost on to the consumers (that's us)? Well, in section 42004(c) says that "the board shall investigate whether a producer, first purchaser, or subsequent purchaser has attempted to gouge consumers by using the assessment as a pretext to materially raise the price of oil, gasoline or diesel fuel." That's it: investigate. No "if oil companies are gouging consumers their testicles will be summarily chopped off and deep fried in a vat of old peanut oil and served to ferrel cats". And that's my real problem. Unless there is some real threat, these costs will be passed on to the buyer. I know this because oil companies are blaming the cost of oil for high prices while they're raking in record profits every quarter. Second, the ads are absolutely true: there is no required results. They have to issue reports and hold public meetings, but really nothing else. Finally, if you read the state legislative analysts report, it shows that the oil companies will actually gain some tax exemptions from Prop 87. All in all, this adds up to a no vote for me.

Prop 88: Property tax for education funding.
This would add a $50 per parcel property tax to give more money to schools for specific programs.
My Vote: Leaning towards no. I think that the small amount of $50 wouldn't kill anyone. However, there is no guarantee that the funds taken will stay local. Also, it looks like there is a special grant for schools that are already successful. Finally, there are so many rules that it seems like a good chunk of the money won't actually get spent in the classroom. I think if you really want your $50 to make a difference donate it to one of your kids' teachers.

Prop 89: Public Campaign Financing
This proposition does 2 things: (1)it creates a new system of public financing that would give a candidate for a public office in California a reasonable amount of money to run a campaign. They would not be allowed to accept private donations except for "seed money" which could only be used up to 90 days before and is very limited depending on the office they are running for. (2) there would be new limits on how much money a person could accept from private donors including individuals, committees (like PACs I suppose) and political parties.
My Vote: YES. I think it takes too much money for a person to win political office in California and too many people are making our legislature the first step to higher office instead of focusing on their job. Plus, California faces many challenges, especially in the budget. A state politicians decision could be compromised by the interest groups that donate to his/her campaign. This bill would allow our local candidates to remain somewhat sovereign in their decision-making. Finally, those opposed to this bill argue that the only thing this bill would do is create public funding of negative ads. I say "so what". How they choose to advertise is up to the candidate in my view. If they choose to go negative, that's their decision and we the voters can hold them accountable at the ballot box.

Prop 90: Eminent Domain
Under a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, governments can take control of private property under eminent domain rules and give that land to other private interests, such as businesses. This proposition would create a law that prevents private property from being taken for other private use. It also defines "just compensation," which is the re-payment that someone gets when their property is taken.
My Vote: NO. I like the idea of protecting private property being taken and given away/sold to other private interests. Indeed, the cases described in the argument for Prop 90 tell about a guy who was forced to give up his family restaurant so a Mercedes dealer could build a new parking lot, another guy whose luggage store was in the family for almost 60 years was torn down for a hotel, and a priest who almost lost his church to condos. These stories pissed me off as did the Supreme Court decision. However, if blocking these types of transactions is the purpose of the law, why include the part about compensating businesses for losses based on potential profits, which is what Prop 90 looks to do. The example given in the anti-Prop 90 argument is a developer that wants to build 2000 homes is limited by the city to 500, thus he sues for compensation for the other 1500 houses. This is pretty much what this law would do since it defines just compensation as including "economic loss" and setting the value at its "highest and best use".

Finally, my predictions for the election:
1. The Democrats will win the House and Senate.
2. Arnold will be governor still (not exactly a tough pick at this point)
3. Props 1B, 1C, 1E, 85, 87, and 89 will fail.
4. 1A, 1D, 83, 84, 86, 88 and 90 will pass
5. I'll be pleased nationally and upset locally.
6. Lauri and Amanda will tire of Pete and I talking politics for so long.
7. I'll have a few beers.

The Power of One...Part 2

It turns out that my greatest challenge in bringing back the golden dollar is getting my hands on golden dollars. Yesterday I went to the bank to get my first big supply. I asked a guy at a desk if they had golden dollars. He said that they should and asked if it was for a gift. I told him yes. I then presented the teller with a withdrawal slip for $90 and told him that I needed $40 in quarters (laundry money) and $50 in golden dollars. He said he wasn't sure if he had that many and also asked why. This time I said that it was for my wife, who likes to use them for parking at Cal State L.A. (which is true by the way). I guess he also attends CSULA and is getting a teaching credential. I told him that the parking pass machine takes golden dollars and that this worked better than bills because the machines rejected nearly all of the bills. I think at this point I had won him over to the cause. I had previously won my wife over to the cause because of the convenience of using the dollar coin to get her parking pass. I got my quarters, a $25 roll of dollar coins (which actually ended up having 11 Susan B. Anthony dollars in it), and 19 loose golden dollars.

Here's the tally after three days: 35 golden dollars ready to circulate, two converts to the cause.

The Evil Twin of William Jennings Bryan 2006 California Voters Guide

Last year I gave much more individual attention to the ballot propositions. This year, my frustration with California's choices had led me to some very simple conclusions. So, to start, I will give a quick rundown of each ballot proposition and then I'll discuss my decision.

The first set, 1A-1E were created by the state legislature. The second set, 83-90, was created through the initiative process (voter petition).

Prop 1A: Transportation funding restrictions.
Right now, the taxes that we all pay when buying gas (about 24 cents/gallon) is supposed to go to building and maintaining roads and public transportation. However, the government can "suspend" this requirement in times of financial crisis. The proposition would tighten the rules on these suspensions to the point that you could, at most, use them twice in any 10-year period. Basically, it makes it harder for lawmakers to take that money out of the transportation fund.
My vote: NO. I don't like the idea of making transportation this huge of a priority in our budget. Maybe if this prop set restrictions that allowed them to transfer money to the education budget I'd be OK, but otherwise I'm not buying it.

Prop 1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond
This prop would allow the state to sell $19.9 billion in bonds to be used on the things listed in the title. Most of the money would go to public transportation with only $1.5 going to security
My vote: NO. Let me make my point about bonds here. They are stupid. California currently has a debt of $45 billion. That's roughly equivalent to 1/3 of our total state budget. There are still $30 billion in unsold bonds for projects not yet started. If all of the bonds on this ballot passed we would increase that debt by $42 billion. We would eventually be spending almost 10% of our yearly budget just servicing that debt. Bonds are a way for legislators to create new programs and spend more money without directly raising taxes. We have to pay these things back!! They are a fucking loan! Imagine if a person making $50,000/year borrowed $20,000 every year from the bank. Not smart. Bonds are a cop-out. Legislators need to make priorities and spend wisely like everyone else.

Prop 1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund.
This would create a $2.85 billion bond. The money would be used to create re-development programs in lower-income areas. They could build parks transportation, sewage, etc. There would also be a home buying assistance program and other homeowner programs.
My vote: NO Again, bonds are stupid. These programs would be awesome. So let's fund them through the general fund.

Prop 1D: Public Education Facilities Bond
This $10.4 billion bond would give money to re-build public schools and universities.
My vote: NO Another great need, but another bond.

Prop 1E: Disaster Preparedness Bond
This $4.1 billion bond would go towards protecting us from the flooding like they had in Katrina by building/renovating levees and other flood control systems.
My vote: NO Do you see a pattern?

Prop 83: Increased Punishment for sex offenders
This law would do several things including: require a lifetime use of a GPS tracking device by all convicted sex offenders, prohibit them from living within 2000 feet of a school or park, increase the penalties for sex offenders, and broaden the official description of "sex offender".
My vote: ???? I really won't know this one until I get to the ballot-box. I'm all for all of the things that this statute proposes to do except the broadening of the definition. There are sex offenses like a 50 year-old man molesting a 10 year-old, then there are sex offenses like a 19 year-old having sex with his 17 year-old girlfriend. The first guy needs his balls chopped off. The second just needs to find someone his own age or wait another year. This law seems to put both of these guys in the "balls chopped off" category, which I don't like. Plus, other states that have gone this direction said that it doesn't really work since the law focuses on people that are not likely to be a danger. They also said that this took officers from other needed areas. However, I really like the GPS thing, and this law makes the offender pay for it. Again, I'm pretty stuck here, but I'm leaning towards yes just because I don't care much for sex offenders.

Prop 84: Water Quality, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection, etc. Bond
This prop would create an $11 billion bond that would go towards a lot of conservation projects including the ones listed in the title. Most of them involve water.
My vote: NO. Great programs, let's pay for them out of our general fund.

Prop 85: Parental Notification for abortion
This would require doctors to wait 48 hours after notifying the parents before performing an abortion on a minor. The waiting period can be waived by the parents or a court.
My vote: NO. I really like the premise behind this law, but I don't see how it would actually work. I like the opening statement of the rebuttal to the argument in favor: "No law can force families to communicate." I think that parents do have a right to know what is going on with their children, but at the same time I think there are parents that shouldn't even have children. Those are the parents that I worry about in this law. In the end, I don't want to see a girl not get help because she is afraid of her parents. Also, I feel like this is a sneaky way to start moving towards overturning abortion laws in general.

Prop 86: Cigarette tax
This prop would create a 13-cent tax on every cigarette sold ($2.60/pack). The money would go towards several programs dealing with health issues, not all directly tobacco-related: nursing education programs, loan re-payment for doctors working in low-income areas, disease prevention, etc.
My vote: NO. Smoking is gross. I don't think anyone should smoke (except for cigars on occasion). Its addictive, causes cancer, makes your mouth taste like an ass, reduces your ability to taste food, turns your teeth yellow, etc. However, I like to drink alcohol and eat greasy food, both of which are also bad for your health. I don't think there should be extra taxes on that. If a person wants to kill themselves by smoking, that's their deal. However, I also want to say that if you decide to smoke, then you should be exempt from free cancer care. People need to be accountable for their decisions. This law, however, picks on smokers who are simply exercising their right to do what they want. I feel that I have the right to judge them for that decision, but I don't think the law does. On the other hand, I will always support limits on where people can smoke because its gross and I don't want to smell it when I'm eating.

At this point I'm tired of writing. I'll hit up 87-90 later.