On the subject of Mary-Sue

Spoiler warning, I suppose.

I'm slightly amused to see that the big controversy around the release of the new Star Wars: Force Awakens movie is that the central heroine turns out to be somewhat of a Mary-Sue.  Having now seen the movie, I have to admit there is a Mary-Sue problem with the script.  However, I think that this problem needs very careful contextualization.

Though I should have known, I was not aware that the term "Mary-Sue" seems to come with all sorts of gender related problems.  As might well be typical, the term is applied to female characters where the same behavior in male characters is overlooked.  It's very likely this is the case, and many people have pointed out that in all likeliness, Luke Skywalker and Anakin Skywalker are Marty-Stu's.

It's senseless to argue discuss Anakin Skywalker.  An awful and unlikable character from the start, talking about a particular character flaw would be like talking about engine design flaws on the Titanic.

Luke Skywalker is more interesting.  For virtually all intents and purposes, Luke Skywalker is indeed as much a Marty-Stu as Rey is a Mary-Sue, except in certain specific dimensions.  It is that specific dimension that bothers me about the Rey character, and in truth, all the other Mary-Sue like properties are not very significant and detract from a given Star Wars episode.  As the Luke comparisons point out, they are part and parcel of Star Wars nostalgia, which is more or less the central mechanism driving Force Awakens.

It's a bit far fetched that Rey is all the things she ends up being in the film, with only a few really standing out.  I can accept that she is a good pilot, as piloting, like driving in the modern day US, is an essential skill.  She's smart, tenacious and obviously has more than a touch of Force, so ok, she's a fabulous pilot, just like Luke the wamp-rat shooting hick was.  Less likely given that she had never left her planet, is that she could fix the same hyperdrive that flummoxed Han and Chewy in Empire Strikes Back.  In all these are minor plot devices, and I don't care about them very much.

The main problem with Rey's character in Force Awakens is that she did in fact demonstrate the tell-tale instant skill knowledge that Mary-Sue's are renowned for.  These bothered me I suppose the most:

• Jedi Mind Trick: How did she even know about the Jedi Mind Trick?  I think that's ok, the Jedi legend is established as well known, so she probably knows how it's supposed to work, just like we know from having watched older movies.  But presumably it's not something you get on the first try.
• Force pull: It's not so much of a problem that she knew how to do the force pull, because Luke pulled it off the first time out of nowhere when under stress by an impending Wampa attack.  However, Luke was not competing for that saber against the force pull of another well trained Jedi.
• Light saber fighting: This was the hardest to believe.  In fact, Rey's performance was not the only performance that was unbelievable.  Finn also fought against a real-live Jedi and lasted more than just a few seconds.  This in many ways is even less believable than Rey's fight, because Finn is an actual storm trooper!  The entire Star Wars franchise is predicated on Jedi's wending their way through throngs of storm troopers.  Under normal circumstances the Internet should be all abustle if a Jedi had even given a storm trooper their full undivided attention.

Jedi Mind Trick/Force Pull

One of the things I liked about the first Star Wars (episode 4) was that the force was not fully established, even in the minds of the viewers, as a real thing with crackling blue glows and talking ghosts.  This wasn't established until Empire Strikes Back.  Until then, all the interaction we see around the force really doesn't seem much more than magician tricks.  In other words they are all clearly meant to be real but still dismissible by skeptics.

I like the expression "incidental magic".  It comes from my D&D days, where some settings required magic to look like they were not supernatural.  These days the use of magic in fantasy settings usually involves a lot of pyrotechnica.  Fire shoots from finger tips, eyes glow and animated skeletons rise from graveyards.  In a world of incidental magic, you cause a black cat to walk out in front of somebody and then 20 minutes later a tree falls on them.  It looks like an unrelated coincidence which remains uncovered until you do a large scale statistical negatively correlating life expectancy with cat-path-crossing.

Obviously, Rey is some big Force Honcho.  Not a problem.  In fact, she's probably Luke Skywalker's daughter, or part of some other high-force relation that will be contrived and revealed to use later on.  Maybe she's as powerful as Luke Skywalker.  Maybe she's even more powerful!  Fine and good.  But she still has no training.  Yes, demonstrate more quick learning than Skywalker.  Maybe even do an isolated, unobserved force pull.  However, in every situation she deploys the force she does so at apparent full strength.

Believable is a Jedi master insinuating to someone that these specific droids, among all the shrillions of droids seen today, are not the droids you're looking for.  Less believable is a captive newbie convincing her gaoler to not only release her but relinquish his weapon to her.

The light saber fight

The plausibility of the light saber fight was meant to be given credibility by the fact that Han Solo Jr. was injured by a laser blast before the fight.  Far be it from me to know what kind of trauma comes from a laster blast, and I assure you, if I ever suffered one I would indeed be out of the action for the duration of the film.  But in movies, wounds are almost never enough to keep a big badass down.  People get shot all the time and all they do is grimace.  It happens in Return of the Jedi, when Leia is shot in the arm.  This doesn't prevent her from deftly quick drawing and gunning down trained military personnel.

Besides Han Solo Jr. is a trained dark Jedi.  If he feels like he can stand and fight, he feels confident enough that he can use the force to slice up his (nearly) entirely untrained opponents.  I know that if it were me against a wounded Green Beret I would not like those odds very much, no matter how much force juice I was born with.

But when it comes to Rey, not only does she have Han Solo Jr.'s full attention, not only does she stand against him for minutes (minutes!) she defeats him in single combat.

Having Rey stand up against Han Solo Jr. in a lightsaber fight is certainly not unbelievable unto itself.  We already know that Rey knows how to fight with a stick.  The fact of the saber fight is not problematic.  The fact that he defeats him, wounded or no it was bothers.  It bothers because it's not realistic (as much as one can make arguments toward realism in a movie about space magicians).  But more importantly it bothers on a narrative level.

The stand off between Kenobi and Vadar was narratively satisfying because it was student vs. the master, and the bad guy was denied resolution by Kenobi deliberately losing.

The stand off between Luke and Vadar was narratively satisfying because Luke was defeated.  It gave us something to look forward to in the next episode, mainly Luke making a come-back.

Here, in the first episode of the new series, the bad guy was defeated.  What do we have to look forward to?  A brooding Rey coming back and kicking his ass again if he doesn't stay down?  A much better narrative would have been if Rey had merely escaped from Han Solo Jr.  In this narrative, she demonstrates her forceness, which we accept as being even stronger than Skywalker, by even going toe-to-toe with an albeit wounded dark Jedi.  She is neither killed nor captured.  And saves poor old Finns butt.  Even though she is defeated by Han Solo Jr. she really wins by not being captured.  She loses the battle but wins the war.  Yay, much more satisfying.

The term Mary-Sue is not helpful

Even though Rey is a Mary-Sue, the term is really not helpful.  For one, it is, whether those who are using it want it to be or not, covered in all sorts of gender issues which in my view are valid ones.  The criticisms about Rey's characters are not about her sex.  It is about lame narrative in the Star Wars story telling universe.  So, don't make it about gender.  Avoid this term, whether you knew it's implications, or like me did not, so that it doesn't have to become about gender.  This is especially true because given previous Star Wars narratives that the collective we did like, we really want our hero(in)es to be a little bit M-S.  Let's try to keep that in mind.

In all honesty, Rey is a perfectly good character in light of the horrors visited upon us by the age of prequel madness.  She's tough and a little brooding and heroic.  Hopefully she will be less perfect in future episodes.  It also looks like they went out of their way to avoid the usual female character tropes.  I like the character of Rey as much as I can in this imperfect new generation of Star Wars movies.  Comparisons between Rey and midi-chlorians are a false.  Rey's character model has flaws.  Actions assigned to her sometimes violate good narrative and many of our expectations about the Star Wars universe.  But it does not introduce fundamental ideas in to canon that ruin ALL the narratives.

Move on to the next Star Wars

I recently saw an interview where George Lucas complained that the new Star Wars was too retro.  I know precisely what he means by that.  It should have been expected that a Disney movie would trade on too many of the old devices and sentiments of the original series.  His complaint was accompanied by a reminder that he is the father of the Star Wars universe.  Unfortunately, his complaint seems more like ones coming from an abusive parent aimed at their child's foster parents.  Better would have been good narrative coupled with originality that still meshed well with the original series.  However, we'll take this bland spiritual repetition that Disney is handing out over the what we had to endure during the prequels.

So, nice one Daisy, and we'll see you and Rey next episode.

Ropey

Ropes and wires and falling.

Yet when in the presence of Germans I have the overwhelming desire to be English. I've become irreconcilably invested by anglicisation. There is no hope for me or man kind.

I jumped but all I could think of was dear Ken. Why do I do this to myself?

LiveJournal nostalgia

Yesterday I checked up on my LiveJournal blog (no link please) and noticed that there was only one person left on my friend feed who had only one lonely post which was apparently just an annual life summary.  As for many folks back in the day (err... around 10 years ago or so), LiveJournal was the beginning of the whole social media mania.  It was a blog like this, except I kept mine quasi anonymous so I could say stupid things and have plausible non-association (which is not the same thing as deniability).  It was different in that at the time most of the people blogging didn't have all their friends following them, so the social part came from connecting to complete strangers, often from the friends lists of other complete strangers.

This community of on-line folks became an actual community, completely artificial and detached from any real-life association, but has to this day remained the most genuine community of people I have ever associated with on-line.  We ended up following each other through our mainly incredibly mundane lives, occasionally with members going and doing adventurous stuff.  For example, I went to Afghanistan, another person went to the UK for a year.  We would meet people in places and from social groups we would normally not have the opportunity to do, for example a caterer working in Iraq or a kind hearted soldier serving in aforementioned Afghanistan (which also gave me a connection to someone familiar with something from my own life that few around me has experience with).  I mostly ended up running with a loose group of people from the Chicago area.  But also some people from various parts of the country including DC, New York (of course) and Florida.

I don't know if those kinds of communities for on-line anymore, though I'm sure they do.  I am not involved in any such community anymore.  Eventually, new types of social media appeared, especially in the face of the crumbling LiveJournal application, which was of course acquired by an odd Russian company.  There was a time when those media types could integrate with live journal, so I was able to post twitter summaries every day and had a custom article posting mechanism via PubSubHubbub.  But I don't remember what happened to the twitter feed, which I had actually forgotten I even used!  I never use twitter now.  And the article publication was via Google Reader, which was cancelled (no comment).  So LiveJournal is dead for me.

I think there is only one pure LiveJournal friend that I have kept in touch with via other social media.  I can see what he's up to on Facebook.  The rest have vanished in to the unfathomable deeps.  I miss all of you!

What Obamas tax deal is

At first I was perturbed by Obamas little tax deal with Republicans where the so-called Bush tax cuts get extended for two years while unemployment benefits are extended for 13.  While I still believe that he could have been a little more assertive, putting it mildly, at the end of the day, those benefits are in my view quite a good thing, and more important right now than closing the budget deficit.

Rather than fighting about it, where everyone on the alleged US left gets upset because Obama sold out too much, and the White House once again insults it's active base, folks on both sides of... that side... should focus on the real narrative here.

Obama and the Democratic Senate needed to extend unemployment benefits in order to prevent additional erosion of the economy and unnecessary suffering by our more vulnerable country-folk.  They had to do this by paying off the Republican party whose ideology is structured to only help the most powerful of our country.  In other words, it is now normal that the Republican party expect metaphorical political tribute to the country's lords and masters in order that we may have any prosperity.

I wish Obama played his hand better than he has.  I believe he could have.  But he is also not my opponent, except for when he targets people for extra-judicial assassination and detention.  The underlying reason for the kind of irresponsible management of the nations finances are the opposition party, who in the short run will only get stronger.  They will not change and the only remedy seems to be their expulsion.  This can be achieved legally and peaceably.  Focus your agitation on this and let go for now these insidious compromises that shall be inflicted in the coming years.

And remember what happened here.  The Republican party extorted the vulnerable of our society so that the powerful might better prosper.

How little is too little?

A co-worker was reflecting on human nature with me yesterday.  We were discussing the use of correlation in trying to understand the world, and as could be expected of tired old me, the issue of correlation between social inequality and social problems came up.  Neither one of us made any claim about the causality of such a correlation, indeed we were both bewailing how difficult it is to prove.  In other words, neither one of us claimed that social problems such as high crime rates are caused by inequality.  Conversely we did not claim that high crime rates cause inequality.  We understood that even someone in the world did know the causality, we didn't know which it was.  We merely agreed that there is correlation.

When considering the possibility that inequality is a cause of increased social woe, my colleague expressed disappointment that people who are clearly much better off than they were 100 years ago cannot just be happy with what they have despite what other people have.

I'm certainly not trying to impune my colleague here, so far in conversation I've found him to be really a rather thoughtful fellow.  The idea that people should be satisfied with "a rising tide lifts all boats" is not a novel one.  Assuming that a rising tide does indeed lift all boats, but an uneven rising tide causes tsunamis (heh... as indeed a literal uneven rising tide would) I find myself disappointed in the other part of the human nature equation.

I'm disappointed that those at the top of the tide are not so willing to share their gains.

I feel a similar inversion come on when people respond to the idea of an income limits with things like "how much is too much?"  Almost never does one ask "how much is too little?"  Fortunately, there is such a thing as minimum wage, so technically that question does get answered.

A Declaration for Democrats

Ignore the news coverage like it's the plague, and it is the plague.  The national press seems to want to have some kind of fancy narrative of what this election means.  Mainly, they want it to be some kind of drama where a decisive battle for the national future has been fought and won by someone.  In truth, the world is much more mundane than that.

There were no surprises.

This is not a time for Democrats to despair as much as everyone would like.  The Republicans are going to try to convince their base that they are awesome and that now the whole country finally sees things their way.  In reality, I suspect election demographics are much more static than that.  Their drones will keep voting the same every year and lose their gat dang minds anytime things look like they're not sailing smoothly in to the 18th century.  So be it.

This election was inevitable.  The economy is bad, and the handful of people in the mythic center change their votes or more likely their voting behavior based on that, and that alone.  Mr. Obama is entirely right that the economy was the fault of his predecessors.  Mainly, his Republican predecessors, but there has been plenty of contributions from our party too.  However, even if Republican mal-governance didn't lead to the proximate cause of the current financial crisis, and it has, as producers of the ultimate underlying set of ideas, the Republicans own it.  Obama gets to pay for it.  So be it.

The difficulty we as a nation face is a strongly entrenched right wing that has a sufficiently packed court, the lions share of money to spend on increasingly unregulated electioneering and possibly an edge in the upcoming redistricting fiasco.  They are always formidable.  They are well organized, powerful and have been refining their ideas for decades.  So be it.

However, in the long run demographics are on our side.  The outrageous behavior exhibited by the right wing, the disgraceful bigotry and intolerance is probably more panic than the sudden groundswell of a newborn movement.  Their ideas are old ideas and I predict will begin to seem stale among the current constellation of generations.  Tea-baggers are an disproportionately older, on a smaller end of the population pyramid, and represent a series of disjoint social groups that probably don't realize they have less in common with each other than the people they think they hate.  It is so.

Importantly, the Democrats demonstrated to the Republicans that their dream of having a generation of unbroken reign over the government like the Liberals of old is not to be.  We have broken them, and it is known that despite the lack of discipline within the Democratic party, they we will fight them for every piece of our society that they try to dismantle or transform with their radical vision.  It is so.

The Dean organizational legacy is still intact.  The Democratic party is not as winded and disheveled as it was in 2000.  Obama is not Abraham Lincoln, nor is he Franklin Roosevelt, though he needed to be, and surely he has disappointed on all sides.  But he is strong.  Even if he could do better leading the party, he knows how to govern, and how to lead our country.  The Democratic party in comparison with the party of No remains the party of Sense.  It is so.

Reject the narrative!

• That the Democrats should shift to the center - the Democrats should project their vision at least as strongly as the Republicans project theirs and Americans will listen just as well.
• That Tea-Baggers have won the day - They have had a bare handful of successful candidacies.
• That there has been a political re-alignment - We still hold the Senate and the Executive.
• That the Democratic agenda has been rejected - Not at least by the half of the country that supported them.

There is no need for despair.  If your heart is heavy, rally to me.  If you think you cannot go on, rally to me.  If your vision is obscured by your fear, rally to me.

Rally to me!

2010 California State Ballot Initiative Voters Guide

This year is not a Presidential Election, so we in California only need to worry about 10 9 State ballot measures. This guide is to help the discerning Californian understand the salient aspects of each measure in order that they can make an informed decision on election day, or whenever they get their mail in ballot, because who wants to wait on line while dozens of people ahead of them read measures that they haven’t seen until they set foot in the voting booth.

Proposition 18

In a rare moment of lucidity the legislature did the voters job for them by removing this proposition from the ballot altogether. This is unusual because obviously the job of the legislature and governorship does not involve actually legislating and executing - that’s what ballot measures are for.

But don’t worry, proposition 18 will be coming back in 2012. It’s a water bond act, so try not to get thirsty until then.

Proposition 19 - Legalizes Marijuana Under California Law But Not Federal Law. Permits Local Governments To Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, And Sale Of Marijuana. Initiative Statute.

In 1996, voters in California voted in a law allowing the cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes. In 2005, despite having been packed by conservatives the US Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government has the authority to enforce it’s laws throughout the nation and would continue to prosecute people with Marijuana under its jurisdiction. In other words, California doesn’t get to make up laws that contradict Federal laws even in the narrow case of easing the excruciating suffering of cancer victims.

This new version of the law is Ok, however, because it’s being passed under California law but NOT Federal Law. The Feds are totally going totally cool about letting California just do its own thing. Ask anyone from the South.

Besides, Obama’s Justice Department said that they were not going to prosecute users and purveyors of medical marijuana. That means it’s ok to pass an expansion to the the U.S. Supreme Court already kicked in the pants, because once Obama makes a decision everyone in the country will respect it from that point on and into the indefinite future. There’s no chance at all that a Republican will ever get in to the White House again and contemplate the idea of arresting every single Californian.

Who knows, maybe it’s a good thing. If anyone wants to arrest a Californian for smoking pot, they’re going to have to send some Feds our way. It might be the only way California has of bringing in any significant federal money.

20 - Redistricting Of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Gerrymandering is as much an Ancient American Tradition as clam bakes, egg foo young and tax evasion. And like tax evasion, it’s not one of our better traditions. Everyone in the country thinks that Gerrymandering is unfair and should stop, except for the half that can’t win representative competitions.

This Amendment proposes that there be a panel of 14, 5 democrats, 5 republicans and 4 libertarians that always vote with republicans... oops, I meant 4 independents, who are responsible for deciding what the states districts are. Importantly, there are no requirements that any of the 9 people on the panel have any understanding of demographic statistical sampling, or anything that might make them scientifically partial, only that they vote regularly.

Gerrymandering is a national problem. In southern states, where Republicans are firmly in control, redistricting has caused massive losses for Democrats, and I particularly remember what happened in 2003 during the Texas processes. The only thing that remotely balances this out is how unfairly the boundaries are drawn in Blue States. This California amendment proposes solving the national issue by unilaterally fixing the Blue State Bazooka so that it is ultimately representative of it’s constituencies. Texas will probably respond in kind by redrawing districts right down the middle of actual Democrats.

But assuming you’re not a partisan flack, like I am, it must be pretty awesome to you that California just passed Proposition 11 in 2008. It must feel like an efficient use of your time to change the rules of redistricting again only two years later for a process that only happens once every 10.

Do you remember voting on 11? Do ya? I think someones betting you don’t.

The worst thing, however, is that this proposition is competing with Proposition 27, which of course proposes eliminating the reforms set up in 2008. This may mean that you don’t even have a choice between change and status-quo. Since the two propositions are opposites of one another, you would think that if they both passed they would just cancel each other out, like matter and anti-matter. No, in this case, the one with the most votes wins. So if you don’t like either one of them, you better make sure that the one you hate least is the one that gets the most votes.

But seriously, is anyone going to vote “yes” on 27?

21 - Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge To Help Fund State Parks And Widlife Programs. Grants Surcharged Vehicles Free Admission To All State Parks. Initiative Statute.

This is a rare proposition in that something is being proposed that the legislature can’t actually do on it’s own. In California, the legislature does not have the power to raise taxes. That’s why the responsibility to do so falls on you.

However, this tax raise is the return of the dreaded “Car Tax”. Like all courageous acts, it comes with risks. If this measure passes, it’s very likely that in less than a year California voters will be recalled and replaced by Austrians.

The word on the street here is “fungible”. It doesn’t matter where the money is going, they are just telling you it’s going to trees to make you feel nice. The State is going to pay for trees anyway... somehow. What matters is that this will raise money for the State. You might think this is good. You might think it’s bad. But given that 1978’s proposition 11 changed the constitution to read, and I quote “The legislature may not raise taxes unless the Republicans say so”, this may be the only way to bring in money.

Look, even the opponents of proposition 21 agree it would raise “...to the tune of $1 billion every two years.” Awesome! You know how much the state needs that money!?! It certainly needs those 18 bucks more than I do.

Fungible the Racoon says, “Remember, only YOU can raise your own taxes now. Are you happy?”

22 - Prohibits The State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used For Transportation, Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects And Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

This appears to be turf war between multiple opposing but deserving levels of government. The sad reality though is that even if one side wins, they still don’t win, because there is nothing left to win. It’s like the riot scene in Soylent Green.

I am not 100% certain because much like the heroes in the Marvell Universe, the origins of these propositions are murky and cloaked obscurity. From what I can tell, the two sides of this tragedy are the state government and local governments, aka cities. When the financial crisis hit, there were some local governments who thought they would be sitting pretty because they had been scrimping and saving since 1978 to build up a modest treasury nest egg. But it was not to be, because the state government was bankrupt and if something wasn’t done fast, it was going to fold. In order to prevent its immediate disintegration, Governor Schwarzenegger invoked a number of emergency fiscal measures which included raiding numerous local government largess's. Naturally, this made the local governments screaming mad, because what were they going to do? Raise property taxes?

Apparently, this constitutional amendment has set off the transportation and emergency services folks against the teachers, nurses and social services folks. Now it’s reminding me of being at a gladiatorial arena where slaves are forced to fight one another for a piece of dried potato skin. My money is on the nurse. Better access to piercing weapons.

The problem is that state finances are not healthy. Local governments can pretend that they are allowed to be a healthy heart in an otherwise unhealthy body but it doesn’t work like that. I feel like one can hardly blame localities for defending themselves, but just like in Soylent Green, when the oceans upon which all life on land depends on dies, the rest must naturally follow. This amendment will not put off the inevitable forever.

23 - Suspends Implementation Of Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32) Requiring Major Sources Of Emissions To Report And Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming, Until Unemployment Drops To 5.5 Percent Or Less For A Full Year. Initiative Statute.

I was recently talking to a European about environmental issues and I was amused by the way she discussed these issues with great earnestness and sincerity. I couldn’t quite place what was so odd about what she was saying until it dawned on me. She was talking about how society might attempt to deal with environmental problems rather than still trying to argue that there are any environmental problems at all. In the interest of fostering international cooperation and learning, I interrupted her to explain something she apparently knew nothing about.

The problem with the way she was thinking was this: She was looking at environmental issues from the point of view that the Earths resources are exhaustible. If she had considered the point of view that the Earths resources are actually inexhaustible, she might have realized that in that context the way she was talking actually made her sound ding-bat crazy.

And that must be the context within which this proposition must be understood. Allegedly slowing down the economy in order to seek out new ways of life that tries to make due with less is absolutely insane when all you need to do to make things better is get more resources and spur economic growth FOREVER! I understand that point of view. It makes total sense. Total sense in the alternate universe. I think it would be awesome if the Earths resources were inexhaustible. In fact, why the hell aren’t they?

I propose a ballot measure for 2012. I’ll call it “Require The Earths Resources Are Inexhaustible Under California But Not Federal Law. Initiative Statute.”

Until then, the environment is a fragile, complex and very delicately balanced system. Much like the state legislature. Except for the balanced part. We must tread carefully else we shall forever destroy this rare and most endangered species. I am of course talking about the Blue Bellied Assembly Bill. For the sake of the gods, the assembly passed something, and if we make any sudden moves we might scare it away.

Ultimately however, if you won’t listen to reason then at least reject this referendum because it is supported by The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which in the alternate universe is known as The Howard Jarvis Extremely Long-Term Thinking Association. While I’ll always treasure the damage they’ve done to the manageability of government finance I think we can get along without them on this one.

24 - Repeals Recent Legislation That Wold Allow Businesses To Lower Their Tax Liability. Initiative Statute.

In a state where everyone always says that the legislature never does anything, it sure doesn’t take much to put a new measure on the ballot to overturn anything they actually do. The justification for this insanity is that the legislature never does anything. Next time that thought enters the mind consider for a moment... why should they? If they do, somebody will come along with the 30 signatures or so that seem necessary to get these things up there and undo all their work.

Naturally I can’t help but have sympathy for this proposition. Yummy tasty state revenue. And all of it at the expense of someone else. Unfortunately, the reality of this proposition goes beyond the simplicity closing corporate loop holes.

There are legitimate aspects of the California Tax code that could be more sensible. For example, California is out of line with the rest of the country regarding carrying forward and backward tax losses for companies over multiple years. Without going in to details, some of these so-called “tax breaks” are actually quite reasonable and standard practice all over the country. Those parts of the bill may not be arriving at the best time, but there is policy here to be levied.

That’s not to say that I’m advocating for the bill and it’s awesome corporate fat cat give aways. I’m sure there’s a lot of soul crushing tax breaks for non-human human entites. It just that there are some justifiable compromises to be had here. You see? And therein lies the problem. Compromise. Like all propositions, this one is all or nothing. Big sweeping changes to the rules that are either accepted and rejected. Big sweeping changes that are discussed with the electorate in mind numbingly overly simplistic terms.

The reality is that a compromise to fix this law requires repetitious and boring back and forth between people who are dedicated to the task of arguing and finagling. The law is rife with technical details and numerous other financial angles that many people of the state, and I do not exclude myself, cannot always understand.

Compromise is not the intent of this proposition. You can tell by looking at Section 3.

Purpose and Intent

The people enact this measure to repeal three tax breaks that were granted to corporations in 2008 and 2009: the elective single sales factor provisions contained in ABx3 and SBx3 15 of 2009; (2) the net operating loss carryback provisions contained in AB 1452 of 2008; and (3) tax credit sharing provisions in AB 1452 of 2008.

See? This is not compromise. Am I right? I mean, SBx3 15 for crying out loud! The people who put this on the ballot knew what they were doing, but it’s intent is opaque guesswork. Is it really opaque? No, not if you’re a lawyer. And since this is California we’re talking about you probably are. Is the actual intent of the law clear from this section? It’s not unless you read ABx3, SBx3 and AB 1452. Let me know when you’re done, I’ll wait.

25 - Changes Legislative Vote Requirement To Pass Budget And Budget-Related Legislation From Two-Thirds To A Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement For Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Most of the time I try to avoid voting “yes” on any of these propositions, especially the ones that change the constitution. But this one is a good exception because the proposition is targeted at another proposition.

California as a general rule doesn’t pass their budget on time. There are a combination of factors that contribute to this problem, but one of them is that it seems like anything having to do with finances requires 2/3 of the legislature to pass on to the governor. Of course, it’s important that a democracy sometimes requires super-majorities in order to protect minorities from unfair treatment. For example, normally you might put a high barrier on making constitutional amendments. Not in California, of course, where the constitution changes every first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. Here, the government is restrained from passing basic administrative processes such as setting budgets over the objection of the political minority. Specifically, the constitution singles out the Republican minority for protection. Such a measure wouldn’t have an effect if Democrats were in the minority, because they're spineless anyway.

Nobody else in the country restrains their budget process like this, except for Arkansas and Rhode Island. Because budget processes are already too boring to draw them out any more.

26 - Requires That Certain State And Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds Vote. Fees Include Those That Address Adverse Impacts On Society Or The Environment Caused By The Fee-Payer’s Business. Initiative Constitutional Amendments.

I’m out. I don’t know how to make this one sound funny. Ok, I’m not all that certain I made any of these sounds particularly funny, but what’s up with this one? Either the Democrats managed to effect the wording of this proposition or the Republicans actually have Montgomery Burns in the back writing these things.

This ought to be popular after the whole country watched a 24/7 web cam showing oil bleeding in to the gulf of Mexico. Especially in a state full of environmentalists.

I can’t go on, it’s just so damned cheeky.

27 - Eliminates State Commission On Redistricting. Consolidates Authority For Redistricting With Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.

Holy cow! Constitutional amendment AND statute? They always save the best for last.

As I mentioned, as long as the Texans are making doilies in Austin it only seems fair that Democrats get to control who gets in to office in California. However, this proposition just seems somehow immoral. It feels like a proposition that more or less overtly defends gerrymandering. I mean, you don’t just come out and say it like that. Furthermore, it’s proponents are weirdly selling it as some kind of cost saving measure.

Ultimately, I feel like this proposition is part of a conflict between the Democratic party and Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s a fight to wrest or keep control based on the rules and not policy. Unfortunately for political hacks like myself, Schwarzenegger has the moral upper hand here. Why does that make me feel some sort of resentment? It’s because of the overwhelming sense that one doesn’t want to give in to the moral righteousness of the other side without them capitulating on their own grievous immoral infractions. Maybe the mistrust is enhanced by the fear that the other side doesn’t even see their own intransigence for what it is. And finally there is the dawning that it’s possible they are thinking the exact same thing.

It would be funny if it were not so sad.