Fucking Hormones

[danaeris]

I'm due for my depo provera shot in the next week, and I'm SO depressed. I'm just sitting here crying for no good reason.

Fucking apple people spelt my name with an m for my .Mac account. I hope I can get that changed. They'd damn well better be able to change it.

I'd like to write about a million other things but I think they'd just make me cry more, so I'll disappear now.

Um. Anyone have any advice on the election tomorrow? My brain is totally fried going through the new computer ordeal and I have no idea how I want to vote. Fucking depression.

Comments

[auros]

*hugs* I hope the hormonal crap clears up soon.

I plan to vote for Edwards in the primary, since he's the only remaining alternative to Kerry, and he's been doing very well among crossover Republicans (he trounced Kerry in that category in all but one of the primaries where they were counted -- I think it's 8 out of 9, or thereabouts), and even-to-slightly-ahead in independants. If you skim over the last 10 entries or so in my journal, there are some links to figures.

Yes on 55 and 56, no on 57 and 58, yes on 2. I can expand on all of those if you want to call me tomorrow; I'll be up at 7am.

[cyan-blue.livejournal.com]

Please do expand; I couldn't make up my mind on some of them. I am leaning tentatively yes on 55, no on 56, and confused about 57/58. Yes on 2, though with some hesitation there as well.

Do you know anything about CSA # 1, and what region that applies to? How much exactly would the new fire/police tax be?

[auros]

I have been persuaded (by teachers and university employees, I'll admit) that 55 really is critical for education funding. And although CA's bond rating sucks currently, the bonds for 55 could be paid off early if we can later issue replacement bonds at a better rate.

56 makes it easier to get a budget through. Currently, the small minority of hardline Rs in the legislature have been blocking any effort to do anything sane about the budget. Rolling back cuts to high-bracket income taxes, property tax reform, etc.

57 and 58 are Arnie's attempt to preclude discussion of those same issues, by railroading the voters into passing his version of a "solution" with "the sky will fall if you don't!" scare tactics.

2 does fund a few somewhat silly, pork-ish things, but almost all of it goes into good pubtrans stuff, and a bunch of work that doesn't increase the overall capacity of highways, but does relieve choke-points where there are lots of traffic jams and accidents. (There are arugments that improving the capacity of the highways will just invite more suburban sprawl, but so far as I can tell, 2 isn't aimed at doing that.)

I don't know about CSA1, as I'm not in the region affected. I'd wager, however, that the League of Women Voters, CalVoter, or SmartVoter would have details.

[emmett-the-sane.livejournal.com]

2 does fund a few somewhat silly, pork-ish things, but almost all of it goes into good pubtrans stuff, and a bunch of work that doesn't increase the overall capacity of highways, but does relieve choke-points where there are lots of traffic jams and accidents. (There are arugments that improving the capacity of the highways will just invite more suburban sprawl, but so far as I can tell, 2 isn't aimed at doing that.)

My main problem with it is that it once again expands BART without any promises of full 24 hour service to the expanded or existing areas. It'd help if they kept it going even just on weekends, when it could help keep thousands of drunk drivers off the roads as they leave clubs.

More to the point: public transit viewed solely as a "commuter service" is not PUBLIC transit at all: it's commuter transit that the general public MIGHT be able to use if it coincides with their needs somehow.

NYC has real public transit. The subways are designed to go to and from neighborhoods of many kinds and sizes, and most run 24 hours (cyan_blue says she thinks they all do).

I'm still waffling... a part of me wants to say: sure, let's build the extensions to BART and then later we can turn it into a full public transit service. Certainly if 2 gets struck down, it won't be clear that the reason has anything to do with BARTs inability to serve. Instead, it'll be hailed as a strikedown of another tax. :/

[auros]

I dunno, I've been able to use BART + MUNI to get around SF pretty effectively, and the CalTrain link has improved a lot since they introduced the minibullet express, which has like six stops from SJ to SF (including one in my neighborhood). Sure, I'd like it to run later, but that's a completely separate issue from infrastructure building. I don't think the schedules are even subject to direct review, they're controlled by the commissioners. You can lobby the commissioners, and vote for public officials who can put pressure on them. But improving the general pubtrans infrastructure seems like a good thing regardless of the schedule issue.

[emmett-the-sane.livejournal.com]

Caltrain barely even counts as a service at all while they're closed on weekends. Talk about making it clearly a commuter-only service!

My point is that it's questionable whether we should invest in more infrastructure while they're not even providing a full public transit service. Not necessarily OUT of the question, merely questionable.

Generally, if I'm doing anything other than daytime runs, I have to keep a quick eye on the schedules if I don't want to be stranded. Most of the time, I'd far prefer to use a car than public transit for that very reason. It shouldn't be that way.

Further, running trains 24 hrs, while it may actually bring in more funds by increased ridership (at all times, because people are more comfortable taking it), the general feeling at first is that it'd cost a lot to do it. So we'd need another tax to pay for it. I want to raise taxes as infrequently as possible, so therefore I would really prefer this $1 hike go to expanding BART into a full public transit service.

[auros]

Improving MUNI night owl service, extending BART another hour or two, and adding CalTrain weekend service, are all potentially money-making ideas. Running rush-hour frequency service 24 hours, or any service at all between 2am and 5am, are almost certainly not. Even if they did add half-hourly service from midnight to 2am, they'd need to suspend it sometimes so they could do maintainance in the midnight to 5am window.

Anyways. I'm with you all the way on the desire for more late-night and weekend service, but I strongly doubt the economics are as clearcut as you seem to think. (You might try talking to my friend Charles some time -- he's an expert on this stuff.)

[emmett-the-sane.livejournal.com]

Running rush-hour frequency service 24 hours, or any service at all between 2am and 5am, are almost certainly not. Even if they did add half-hourly service from midnight to 2am, they'd need to suspend it sometimes so they could do maintainance in the midnight to 5am window.

Somehow NY manages maintenance with 24hr trains.

Anyways, you state that in absolute terms as if you could know. You cannot; nor can I, for that matter. It is entirely possible that the increased comfort of knowing one won't end up stranded could increase confidence and ridership overall.

[auros]

I stated nothing in absolute terms -- I used words like "doubt", "potentially", etc.

And NYC has a very different culture from SF, esp the SF suburbs served by BART. BART is far more like the DC Metro -- or, for that matter, the NY Metro North -- than like the NY subway. The NY subway has stops packed much more closely together, in an area where population is similarly packed more tightly.

Again, I think you're oversimplifying the economics.

[cr0wgrrl.livejournal.com]

Consider Kucinich. This is the primary, not the if-you-mess-this-up-it's-Bush-for-four-more-years part of the election, he's actually come out in favor of gay marriage, decriminalization of marijuana and a host of other issues that resonate very strongly with San Francisco.

[auros]

If you mess up the primary by selecting a losing candidate, Bush wins. And note the non-linear nature of the delegate blocks. IIRC, if two candidates get 10% each, the sum of their delegate blocks is smaller than what one candidate would get with 20%.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

Dean's still on the ballot. I'm voting for Dean.

[cyan-blue.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, here in San Mateo County, Dean is listed as Withdrawn in the online voter guides. Though of course one could write his name in...

I read all the candidates' websites last night, and I'm gonna vote for Kucinich; his policies on many things are very cool. Dean would have been the one before, but if he isn't listed on the ballot, and if people are confused as to whether or not he's still in the race, then he is even less likely than Kucinich to have a prayer of carrying California.

[plymouth.livejournal.com]

ya know, I went and changed my mind and voted for Kucinich at the last minute. I had been planning to vote for Dean when he was a serious contender and then when he withdrew I said "well, hell, I'll vote for him anyway, I like him" but I hadn't ever really considered Kucinich because he was so far behind. Then I realized that if I vote for Dean was just going to be a protest vote then a vote for Kucinich would probably be a better protest vote.

Incidentally, in CT where I voted all the major candidates were still on the ballot, including Dean, Clark and Lieberman.

[auros]

In terms of delegates awarded, 20% is worth more than twice 10%, so if you think Kerry isn't likely to beat Bush (which I do), then Edwards is the only logical choice, even if you like somebody else better.

This is why we need Approval Voting.

primaries

[admiralthrawn.livejournal.com]

I'd avoid Edwards; his economic policy platform is a nightmare. Perhaps that is just me being overly paranoid about my pet issue, but really, now is not a time to elect someone who promises to screw up the economy even more. Dean is still on the ballot, even if he isn't campaigning, and makes a good protest vote (and might even walk off with a good pile of delegates if he hits 15% in california and ny today). If what another poster said about Kucinich actually openly supporting gay marriage is true, that is a pretty big point in his favor; I don't know what else he favors, though. Avoid sharpton like the plague; he's a nut running because he likes seeing his name in print. I have no clue why the party allows him to keep doing it, but I'd take the democrats a lot more seriously if someone would tell him to shut up. Kerry actually isn't all that bad, though I dislike the fact that a lot of people consider him to have already won. It cheapens the remaining primaries, and kills the debate within the democratic party about what should really be a part of the winner's platform. But honestly, he does have a pretty good centrist platform; he's not so wacky-liberal as to scare off independents, and he's not so conservative as to completely be bush lite. And hey, he's been bribed by different industries than the republicans, so you get to watch the patronage rats scurry into new positions if he wins :)

The really cynical part of me says to oppose the bond measure, because if california defaults on its debts, that might scare some sense into the other states and convince them that unlimited borrowing is bad. The less cynical part of me says I wouldn't want to be in the state after a default, though.

I seem to recall that there are other measures on the ballot too, but I have no clue what they'd be. Hopefully some of the other people posting here will know more...

Re: primaries

[cyan-blue.livejournal.com]

Yes, Kucinich is more LGBT-friendly than Edwards or Kerry. To find out what Kucinich favors, go here, and click on all the different issue links on the right-hand side list:

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/

Re: primaries

[auros]

I agree with you on Edwards' declared economic position, but his rhetoric is a lot more red-meat than his actual votes. And in any case, Congress wouldn't let him go radically protectionist.

Regardless, he'd be a better president than Bush (who used free trade rhetoric, but messed around with tariffs on steel, wine, and a variety of other things until the Europeans threatened to put tariffs on products from swing states, e.g. Florida oranges and bananas).

Edwards has consistently thumped Kerry in winning crossover-Republican votes in the states where data on crossovers is available.

[unseelie23.livejournal.com]

A bond is nothing more than a future tax... by principle, I vote against bond issues. I'd rather see them tax now than tax later, as it ends up costing the tax payers more in the long run.

Dean has my primary vote. We'll see how it goes.

[auros]

I agree with your assessment of the nature of bonds, but there are certain things for which bonds are appropriate. Just as you might take out a mortgage to buy a house, a bond is a good way to finance a big construction project.

And I voted yes on 55 because the general budget is simply not going to have the money necessary for the next couple of years. Deficit spending -- esp on a worthy cause like improving school facilities, training and hiring teachers, and subsidizing higher ed -- is the standard Keynsian response to a recession. And deficit spending means either depleting reserves if you've got 'em, or issuing bonds.