Here’s a fast roundup on my take on the current crop of California propositions…1A – bonds for high-speed rail. NO. I like intercity rail, but not enough to take on this financial burden at this time. Smart people also suggest that it’s unlikely to be workable – see this series at the Antiplanner.

Far from being a success, Japanese bullet trains put the previously profitable, state-owned Japanese National Railways into virtual bankruptcy. This forced the government to privatize the railroad and absorb $200 billion in high-speed debt.

Nor did the bullet trains slow Japan’s adoption of automobiles. Instead, the growth of auto driving accelerated when the bullet trains were introduced, partly because the Japanese National Railways responded to their monetary losses by raising fares. Since the bullet trains were introduced, rails lost more than half their market share of travel to the automobile.

Europe’s high-speed rail story is no better. Since introducing high-speed rail, rail has slowly but steadily lost market share to autos and airlines. Despite spending tens of billions of dollars per year subsidizing rail, the only European countries where rail has more than a 9 percent share of passenger travel – including Hungary and Switzerland – don’t have high-speed rail.

2 – bans factory farming. NO. Emotionally, I support this. We buy cage-free chicken and eggs. But we pay more for it, and I’m not sure that everyone in California can or should. So based on that, I’m inclined to vote no and let the market push for better treatment of farm animals.

3 – children’s hospital bond act. NO. We need more and better hospitals. But we don’t need bond acts with this language in them:

Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.

Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals.

I’m not saying that the UC lobbyists decided they needed $196 million in funding and decided to bury it in a larger proposal – no one would be that sleazy. But that’s the effect. And we’re in a financial crisis, so I’d be inclined against even a well-crafted bill. NO.

4 – parental notification. NO. This was probably the hardest decision for me to make this cycle. Intuitively, as a parent, I’m very unhappy with the notion that my minor child could get healthcare without my consent. At the same time, I understand why issues around sexuality might be more difficult. And I’m in the ‘unhappily ambivalent’ category on abortion in general. This is one where TG swung my vote with her strong opposition; explaining that it was a vote for backalley abortions. So I’m holding my nose and voting NO.

5 – decriminalizes various drug possession charges and moves them to a treatment track. I support drug legalization; I think it would have a worldwide positive impact if we took the lawlessness, crazy profit, and institutional damage that it does to law enforcement, etc. But this proposal strips the judicial system of too much power in dealing with drug offenders, and doesn’t place the kind of regulatory regime in place that would support legalization. So a big NO on this one.

6 – sets aside almost a billion a year for law enforcement and prosecution. NO. I hate – that’s haich-aye-why-tee-eee – budgeting by initiative.

7 – mandate an unrealistic level of renewable energy. NO. Renewable good – Mandates that more energy than can be generated from renewables soon be purchased, guaranteeing billions in green utility boondoggles and high utility rates with not much to show for it.

8 – bans gay marriage. NO. Go read this and understand why.

What it is that matters in a marriage? Commitment. Duration. Primacy. It is a commitment – which means that in the face of conflicting desires, you have to anyway. It has duration – meaning it gains in value over time. An old good relationship is better than a new one. My dream is to grow old with TG, and to have the span of our history together as a part of what we share. It means that I will take care of her, and be taken care of by her in turn, and that in the time where long shadows come over our lives, we won’t be alone in facing them. And it has primacy over your other relationships. The act of saying to this person “You are the most important person in my life. Not my children, not my boss, not my pastor or anyone else matters more to me than you do,” fundamentally changes both one’s life and one’s relationships to others.

These are good things. They are not only good for people, they are good for society. They bind people to each other, and bind them to a future. They create the kind of ‘units’ of people that can successfully build societies and raise children.

The kind of sexual equipment that the people involved have, and what they do with that sexual equipment, has nothing to do with these core values. You’d hope that they were sexually compatible and satisfied, since seeking out other sexual outlets tends to conflict with the core values. But for crying out loud, what difference does their sexual behavior make to what really matters?

9 – criminal justice reforms. NO. Look, even prosecutor Patterico isn’t even supporting this. I’ve got problems with the language, and – again – think that we’re better off letting our legislators, you know, legislate.

10 – give T Boone Pickens all the spare cash in your checking account. NO.

11 – take redistricting out of the control of those redistricted. YES YES YES.

12 – CalVet bonds. YES. Safe, well-run program that helps California veterans buy homes.

I’l be voting at 7am tomorrow…

There’s a lot of heated words on Memeorandum on Obama’s taped conversation with the SF Chronicle about coal, and I think they are unfair.

Here are some headlines:

Hidden Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO– Obama Promises San Francisco Audience He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry!!

OBAMA BRAGS ABOUT BANKRUPTING COAL POWER PLANT COMPANIES

…and so on.

They’re kind of full of it.

First of all, he’s talking about making it difficult to build new coal plants. not shutting down existing ones. No one gets “bankrupted” in that scenario.

I’m not sure that’s a wise approach, given new clean-coal technologies, and I don’t see how it fits into a broader energy policy that revolves around replacing oil imports, but I absolutely don’t think it merits the level of hysteria and hyperbole that’s presented.

Here’s what Obama’s latest policy paper on energy (pdf) has to say about coal:

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology. Carbon capture and storage technologies hold enormous potential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as we power our economy with
domestically produced and secure energy. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has worked tirelessly to ensure that clean coal technology becomes commercialized. An Obama administration will
provide incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero-carbon coal facilities. In order to maximize the speed with which we advance this critical technology, Barack
Obama and Joe Biden will instruct DOE to enter into public private partnerships to develop 5 “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration.

So under cap-and-trade, you can build a “clean coal” plant – one with extremely low carbon outputs – but if you build a “dirty-coal” plant, the cost of the carbon output will be uneconomical.

I really don’t see this as exceptional; in the mid-term, natural gas, nuclear, and renewables are far more important.

having said that, I think his policy on nukes is hypocritical.

I think this takes the cake – God, I certainly hope it does.

I sat down this evening to hand out candy and do a quick post on journalism – in the light of the Nir Rosen Rolling Stone piece – bringing up my usual “journalist vs. citizen” point, and ragging, in a pipe-smoking philosophical way, on Rosen’s detachment and belief that he’s somehow “more” than a citizen – he’s a journalist.

Then I sat down to reread Bing West’s attack on Rosen and the comment thread under it, and went ballistic.

Because Rosen didn’t just embed with the Taliban on an operation – he used his journalistic credentials to help them get past an Afghan army guard.

i did not say i deceived the afghan soldier. on the contrary, both i and the taliban commanders i was with told the afghan soldiers that i was a journalist and in fact i showed him my passport. of course there is nothing wrong with deceiving anybody if its going to protect you, but it wasnt necessary in this case, and i did not claim to deceive them. i in fact had to persuade them that i was a journalist and not a suicide bomber, which is what they suspected at first.

I’d like to be speechless; instead what comes to mind is a string of invective that will get the blog blocked in corporate firewalls for quite some time.

If I, or the parent of another American soldier, ever meet Mr. Rosen, he’ll be lucky to only get the contents of my drink in his face.

Mr. Rosen enjoys the protections of a US passport; he was born in New York City.

I’ll let a better man than I have the final word.In the colloquium on journalistic ethics that I frequently cite, after the two leading journalists explained that they would stand by and roll tape as an American force was ambushed, an American soldier stood up. Col. George M. Connell said:

“I feel utter . . . contempt. ” Two days after this hypothetical episode, Connell Jennings or Wallace might be back with the American forces–and could be wounded by stray fire, as combat journalists often had been before. The instant that happened he said, they wouldn’t be “just journalists” any more. Then they would drag them back, rather than leaving them to bleed to death on the battlefield. “We’ll do it!” Connell said. “And that is what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get … a couple of journalists.” The last few words dripped with disgust.

As you doubtless know, the LA Times is sitting on a video of Obama at a Palestinian event honoring Rashid Khalidi, who I now believe has Edward Said’s chair at Columbia. Their journalistic integrity precludes them from releasing the video. Yes, I’m being ironic, and yes, I will do something on journalism in light of this and the Nir Rosen story.

But for now, I did a tiny bit of digging around, and found a Eric Martin post at American Footprints which included a Juan Cole post which – shockingly! – calls ‘racism’ in the attacks on Khalidi, and extols this article in the Nation as an example of the kind of good influence he could be on the Middle East.

So let’s go look at it.

It is considered by some to be a slur on Israel and Zionism, and indeed even tantamount to anti-Semitism, to suggest that these events sixty years ago should be the subject of anything but unmitigated joy. Commemoration, or even analysis, of what Palestinians call their national catastrophe, al-Nakba–the expulsion, flight and loss of their homes by a majority of their people sixty years ago–is thus considered not in terms of this seminal event’s meaning to at least 8 million Palestinians today (some estimates are over 10 million) but only because it is directly related to the founding of Israel. Palestinians presumably do not have the right to recall, much less mourn, their national disaster if this would rain on the parade of celebrating Zionists everywhere.

and

A few things seem clear sixty years after 1948. One is that if the Jewish question has lost its saliency, perhaps more as a consequence of the enormity of the atrocities of the Nazis than for any other reason, the creation of Israel has raised different questions and problems for its supporters and others. To the extent that Zionism has succeeded in winning acceptance of its assertion that all Jews are part of a national body whose nation-state is Israel, it has linked the status and circumstances of Jews everywhere not only to the fate of that state but to every facet of that state’s policies and actions. Insofar as some of those policies and actions may be unacceptable, their very existence must be denied or elided, and reality bent to suit the tender sensibilities of supporters of Israel: for example, the rank discrimination against the 1.4 million Arab citizens of Israel who are not part of the Jewish ethnicity in whose name and for whose interests the state was created and exists; or the collective punishment inflicted on the 1.5 million people of the Gaza Strip imprisoned for months on end; or the systematic torture and humiliation inflicted on the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have passed through the Israeli prison system. We see the results of this bending of reality in the travesty that passes for news coverage of Israel and Palestine in the American media.

And then there’s this gem:

In particular, Palestinians lacked clarity about the moral, legal and political disadvantages in the use of violence against an Israeli polity able to mobilize in defense of its actions, however unspeakable, the most powerful tropes of victimhood in modern Western culture.

Notice that the moral issues involved in using violence inherently aren’t at issue. It’s the tactical disadvantages inherent in the use of violence against Jews who can, “mobilize in defense of its actions, however unspeakable, the most powerful tropes of victimhood in modern Western culture.”

Now, when a Palestinian leader or thinker shows up who says, “You know – this whole killing Jews thing hasn’t worked so well for us so far. What would it take for us to stop trying to kill them, stop talking about killing them, stop raising our children in the deep belief that killing them is the most noble thing that can be done?” I’ll gte all excited about supporting them, and I’ll be willing to engage strenuously with them in an effort to start a discussion on the question that Israel needs to seriously think about what kind of state it wants to be.

But this kind of apologist, racebaiting crap needs to be called out for exactly what it is – crap.

And if I’m wobbly on Obama, it’s for two reasons – because I’m unconvinced that he believes in free speech, and because I worry that he’ll inadvertently push Israel to the decision that thye’d rather deal with a pissed-off UN and a lot of dead Arabs than a morally dead UN and a lot of pissed-off Arabs, let be unlike comfortable Western academics who think that genocide is cool.

There’s a lot of chatter about Iranian EMP again (it seems to come back periodically). here’s Walid Phares over at the Counterterrorism Blog:

Over the past seven months I have been interacting with US Homeland Security and European defense officials and experts on a the potential next threat to the West, more particularly against mainland America. The signature of that strategic menace is EMP: Electro Magnetic Pulse; a weapon of the future, already available in design, construction and possible deployment. As eyes are focused on the Iranian nuclear threat, and as we began recently to understand that the missile advances are as important then the fissile material development, attention is now being drawn by private sector projects and some in the defense world to what can cause a wider circle of damages and thus more deterrence against US national security.

In short, and I borrow from the Project “Shield America.org,” an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack could be triggered by a nuclear warhead detonated at high altitude over America. The resulting blast would create an EMP, a shockwave that could “cripple military and civilian communications, power, transportation, water, food, and other infrastructure.” Even if a high-altitude EMP kills nobody at first, it would paralyze a large section of the United States. The lingering practical and economic effects would take anywhere from hours to years to resolve: when secondary effects are considered, an EMP could be even deadlier than a direct nuclear strike against the mainland. Indeed, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett has written: “Where the terrorist airliner attacks of 9/11 killed thousands, a terrorist EMP attack could indirectly kill millions and conceivably cause the permanent collapse of our entire society.”

I’ve written about that before, and done a little bit of math on it. I’m certainly no arms control wonk, but what I came away with was the belief that it would take a 1 MT weapon detonated about 19 – 20 miles up to have a meaningful impact as opposed to a relatively local impact.

I’ve gotta believe that no new nuclear power is likely to come out of the box with a 1 MT weapon, and that the technology to get it 20 miles above New Jersey isn’t something that Iran will be able to do soon enough – reliably enough (remember, no do-overs on something like this) to risk their national survival on a prototype.

First of all, the race is still wide open.If I was a more passionate Obama supporter, or if I wasn’t putting my tiny bit of energy into a) passing Prop 11, b) defeating Prop 8, and c) passing local Props X and Y here in Torrance – badly-needed school bonds for our local schools which have all passed the date at which they should have been rebuilt – I’d be worried and trying to figure out what I can do.

I still believe both that he will and that he should win; but I hear the people who are deeply convinced that he’s really Emma Goldman in drag and dark makeup.
First, I don’t think he is. I think that he’s a deeply careerist politician who was brought up by people on the left and used them like Kleenex to advance his career. He’s never in his career done anything outlandish, brave, or deeply controversial, and I just don’t see it that anyone is that good a deep-cover agent as to be able to cover it up.

Next, I believe deeply in the homeostasis of the American system. As reassurance, let me offer this AP article:

Conservative Democrats who’ve been a thorn in the side of liberal party leaders could grow into a major obstacle to Barack Obama’s agenda if he is elected president.

Majority Democrats are positioned for big gains in next week’s congressional election. But many of the new faces would join a growing chorus of “Blue Dogs” who often part from the party base on big issues like taxes and increasing federal spending.

That could set up a roadblock for Obama, who has promised to broaden health insurance coverage, start a new round of public works projects and improve early childhood education, among other things — all initiatives that would require substantial government spending at a time of soaring deficits.

The 49 House Blue Dogs – about one in every four House Democrats – could grow by as many as 10 in Tuesday’s election with wins in mainly Southern, conservative-leaning districts. Overall, Democrats are expected to pick up 20 or more House seats.

Look, it’s simple to me. Even given a filibuster-proof Democratic majority, the Democrats Congressmen who will be up in 2010 know that if they step too far to the left, they will be ex-Democratic Congressmen, and if there’s anything a Congressman hates, it’s having to pick up his own lunch tab. And I believe Obama would like to be a two-term President. And he knows what will happen if he goes all Dennis Kuchinich on us.

So everybody take a deep breath here. Go get out the Republican (or Democratic vote rather than hanging out here and bickering. Jan 20 will be here soon enough, andI’m deeply confident that no matter what color the hand that’s raised in oath will be, in the long run the Republic will do just fine.

In the NY Daily News, former Senator and all-around Good Guy Bob Kerry explains exactly what the model is for an Obama presidency that would make me very happy and comfortable.

By my lights, the primary threat to the success of a President Obama will come from some Democrats who, emboldened by the size of their congressional majority, may try to kill trade agreements, raise taxes in ways that will destroy jobs, repeal the Patriot Act and spend and regulate to high heaven.

This is where Obama’s persona is invaluable. He can withstand the arguments and pressure of the liberal wing in the Democratic caucus if, once elected, he is guided by the best instincts he has displayed on the campaign trail.

I believe this is likely because Obama will surround himself with professionals, not ideologues or acolytes. An unprecedented number of patriotic, politically savvy and centrist men and women have been part of his campaign team – and are therefore likely to make up President Obama’s governing team.

I believe this is likely because of who Obama is. Republicans have tried desperately to paint the man as a secret radical. But the imagery just doesn’t connect; Americans see a man who is calm, respectful, considerate and careful. That is just what the doctor ordered for our politics.

Last, I believe this is likely because Obama understands that to succeed, he must make peace with John McCain just as he has done with Hillary Clinton. When this historic election concludes, I expect the two to sit down, without precondition, and negotiate an agenda of reform.

But that will only be the beginning. To build up the political capital for the kinds of changes needed in these difficult times, Obama will need to communicate the following to Congress, in no uncertain terms: The Democrats have not won a mandate for all their policies. Rather, the American people have resoundingly registered their frustration with a failed status quo, and the next President must chart a new, less partisan course.

That’s what I’ve been talking about. If Obama can do this – can govern as someone whose values come from the left side of the Democratic party, but whose governing style comes from the kind of inclusive, conciliatory positions he took early in his campaign – then I’ll have made a good bet in supporting him.

Because that’s what I’m betting on, in the face of a mixed bag of evidence.

So here’s something that caught my eye.

Dan Cooper makes beautiful hunting rifles in Montana. Like most gun people, he’s been a Republican most of his life, but in 2004 he became enamored with Barack Obama, after his Democratic Convention speech, and donated to his Senatorial campaign. He maxed out donating to Obama’s presidential campaign.

When a story about this appeared in USA Today, the gun folks were – unhappy.

In response, he appears to have been fired from his own company.

When I heard about it, I shared this thought with some shooting friends:

I’m gonna stick my unarmored rear out on this a bit and say that the reaction I’m seeing here kinda creeps me out. Agree or disagree with the man’s politics, choose to buy his goods or not – but there’s something about the idea of someone being fired for taking a political stand that doesn’t involve liquidating kulaks or Jews which doesn’t fit with my notion of American freedom.

Maybe I’m sensitive to it, given the fact that as liberal as I am, I’m massively conservative by the standards of many of the people I do business with. I’ve actually lost business because of my blog and politics – which is “good riddance” to me. But the idea that my boss or my Board might get to vet my political views isn’t something that I’ll cheer, and I hope that on a moment’s more thoughtful reflection many of you will reconsider.

Their reaction has been pretty stiff – they (not unreasonably) think that Obama will be horrible on gun policy. from my point of view, it will be an interesting – and probably first – test of how Obama will govern domestically. Will he push for aggressive gun restriction, or accept that the recent court decisions and the run of American politics are such that the issue isn’t a winning one?

From my point of view, I’ll be becoming a Life Member (or EPL Life Member – $25 at a time) of the NRA this month.

But it still creeps me out that – no matter how strong the reaction – someone would lose their job for their political beliefs. It’s the kind of think I bust Hollywood and the media for, and it seems like a basic American value that we all ought to be able to agree on.

Here’s the Murtha ad, and a widget to help you find and sign the petition demanding that he apologize to the Haditha Marines…

Vets For Freedom has been running ads hammering John Murtha for his ongoing willingness to believe – and speak – the worst of our troops.

Murtha’s commentaries about Haditha alone were despicable – simply because they rushed to judgment and showed that with very little information, he accepted the worst possible narrative about the tragedy.

Murtha is also a pork baron, and a classic example of the sense of entitlement that’s destroying our Congress.

That’s why I was happy to donate to his opponent, and to sign the Vets For Freedom petition – and ask you to click over and sign as well – asking that he apologize for his flatly false claims about the solders who – like him – stood in harm’s way, and then – unlike him – came home to find themselves unjustly charged as criminals. They need to get their reputations back, and Murtha’s colleagues needs to learn that there are limits to what outrages they can commit on-mike.

When VFF contacted me, I realized that I needed to go over and donate to Bill Russell – Murtha’s opponent – and did. You should too – because integrity matters more than party.