Recent Comments
Re: “Supervisors did us wrong”
This certainly appears to be a blatant attempt at a power grab. It remains to be seen if voters will allow them to get away with it.
Re: “Redistricting politics: SLO County supervisors consider new districts that could reshape local politics for the next decade”
I hope that whatever is done will be done thoughtfully and fairly, although I confess that I have little faith that this will be the case. I can see the logic of "communities of interest". Why should people from SLO or south county be making rules that apply to the north county and vice versa? On the other hand, there are city governments and districts that deal with truly local issues, so another question might ask why we need districts at all. Why not just have county wide elections on a rotating basis, as is done in the city of SLO, which does not break itself into districts to elect council members? Other cities in the county probably operate in the same way. Another approach might be a split system in which (for example) 2 seats are elected county wide every two years, and the other seats are split along community of interest lines. I am not really sure what the latter might be however. From the perspective of a novice it seems like SLO does represent such a community. The inland north county also seems like a well defined community. Cambria, Cayucos and Morro Bay could be another. South County seems more complicated with both beach communities and agricultural interests. Another issue is reconciling population differences. This is always a sticky wicket since rural areas tend to have less population density. Nationally we deal with this by having an one executive elected by vote (although not the popular vote) and a House made up of small districts (which are notoriously gerrymandered) and a Senate with 2 from each state. There is probably no such thing as a perfect system, but my bias would be to go slowly and really try to get it right rather than rushing into doing something that could have long lasting detrimental effects (although I am afraid that is exactly what we are about to do). This kind of thing is one of the big reasons that many people in the country are mistrustful of those who we choose (sort of) to run it. Self interest seems to win out much too often over the common good if the latter is even considered at all.
Re: “Get in on redistricting”
While I don't know much about the details of redistricting, I am very skeptical of the process. I am sure many others share my skepticism. I think redistricting is viewed cynically by many, and with good reason. It is seen as being used for political purposes by those who happen to be in power at the time it takes place. Unfortunately, this view is too often accurate. I hope this board will exercise their authority judiciously with the goal of providing reasonable representation to all voters rather than trying to use it to influence future elections. I know that may be too much to ask, but I am asking anyway.
Re: “Mental health and the law”
This article points to the obvious problem of figuring out what to do about people who don't behave "normally". While the problem is obvious, the solution, if there is one, is bound to be complicated, nuanced and unsatisfactory. We will never stop all violent crime. If we move back toward restraining or locking up people who behave "abnormally", there will undoubtedly be abuses and disagreements about what was done. It does seem like we need to try, but it is likely to be a thankless task.
Re: “Economic Darwinism”
In my opinion, the prey include anyone who invests directly in stocks. One exception might be people who take a buy and hold position long term on a company that they believe in, but in reality most people are not equipped to invest intelligently in stocks (or bonds). This is especially true of those who think they can "beat" the market. For most of us the best we can do is a mutual fund, generally a broad spectrum index fund. Even trying to use asset allocation can be risky for novices. I am bemused by those who offer investment advice over the internet, and I wonder about their motives. If they really know so much, why don't they just follow their own advice and beat the rest of us to the punch? Could it be that they have already invested in the stocks they recommend and are hoping to create a surge in the price so they can dump their shares before the stock reverts to something like what it is really worth? Maybe I am just too cynical.
Re: “Bad choices”
You can argue with almost any of the points he makes, but the basic argument is correct, and it goes both ways. It seems to me that both parties have gone off the rails, that many who vote consistently for one party or the other are aware of it, that a great many voters long for something resembling a “middle of the road” option (although many would disagree on what that might be) and that many would like to see more willingness to compromise and more effort to address problems rather than vilifying the opposition. Maybe the “smoke filled rooms” of past generations of dealmakers were not so bad after all.