Policies

Last week in class my professor made a remark about how cynical I was towards to planning profession, and towards the public democratic process as well. It is hard not to be cynical after working the in the public sector. I have never been one for idealism. At least, not in terms of policies and planning. I don't even think I was idealistic coming into the profession that I may or may not end up in.

I lost faith in our government years ago. As much as I am happy to see Obama in office, I always have to check myself that not all the policies, regulations, and recommendations come from one singular person in office. The staff that surround said politician do a lot of the research work.

But part of the blame also falls on our shoulders. People shouldn't complain if they didn't vote. People shouldn't complain if taxes are increased and they voted yes to many of the propositions that are backed by future tax-payer money. Sometimes we don't hold ourselves accountable for these projects.

There was this NPR article on homelessness in downtown Los Angeles, dubbed Skid Row. Good or bad, I don't think the answer is to arrest and fine a homeless person because, well, how are they supposed to pay the fine when they are homeless? I don't have a solution to the answer, because frankly, I don't really see one. I do think it is a drain on the system for arresting a homeless person, fining them, and throwing them in jail because it seems to turn into a repetitive cycle. Either way, I'm just apathetic towards everything these days.

I view politicians as though they are actors, because, really, what else are they? We know that deals are negotiated every day "for the public's best interest." Once you are exposured to the bureacratic process, you become numb to the idea of efficiency, and to the idea of serving the people. Or maybe it is just me. But the truth is, action is a deal made by the process of give and take. No one is every really happy. We just settle for results that aren't truly understood.

Mid-West

"But as a gay man, I can’t marry in “liberal” New York, where I’m a resident, or in “liberal” California, where I was born, and very soon I will have that right in “conservative” Iowa."

When I was younger, I would always confuse the states of Iowa and Ohio for some reason. I never could remember where each one was located, and I typically got them confused on the US map. Anyway, over the years I learned about Ohio's importance in my history classes, while poor Iowa was cast aside as a state filled with farmers and cornfields. Des Moines is its capital, and Iowa is probably one of the largest suppliers to ethanol companies. I remember in seventh grade that this one girl, Ann, who was Vietnamese, lived in Iowa, and loved that state. I don't know if she was actually born there, but was fond of it.

The eight grade honors American History teacher would make fun of Iowa and its cornfields. Of course, Ann was upset, and talked back to him.

Last week, the state of Iowa settled in court, with a unanimous decision, that gay marriages would be legal. And I thought to myself, the state of Iowa, really? In the midwest? Heart of conservatism? Of course, that is the perception that many of us have of Iowa, that it's a state filled with agriculture, and religious white folk who are conservative.

Most of us don't even know what states constitute the mid-west region in America.

Of course, Patrick wasn't surprised that Iowa's courts decided that gay marriages were to be legal. According to him, "Iowa and Minnesota are two of the most progressive states in the mid-west." Really? Really?! My coworker still believes that, even though Iowa may go Democrat, it doesn't mean they're necessarily liberal. If not liberal, then at least the state of Iowa recognizes that marriage should be afforded to any couple that truly loves one another, regardless of race or creed.

And what saddens me the most, is that, no matter how much we claim we are liberal, or progressive in New York and California, Iowa's courts decided it was a constitutional right for gays, lesbians, transgenders and bisexuals to marry.

This article in the New York Times describes how Iowa allowed for biracial marriages before the United States Supreme Court decided it was a civil right's violation to not allow people from different racial backgrounds to marry, and how Iowa is the fourth state to recognize gay marriage. After all, who would of thought that America's heartland would be that progressive?

Renewable

After working in the environmental protection sector, I have become a little more cautious in regard to renewable energy. It isn't that I'm against it, but rather I think of the sort of mentality we all have as Americans, especially Californians, when it comes to locating things like mass production of solar panels and wind turbines for renewable energy. I think my thoughts and sentiments were captured perfectly with a conversation I had with a class mate up here. It went along the lines of me saying that I love hiking, and that I miss hiking in Los Angeles. Said classmate looked surprised at me, and was like, but the hiking is much greater because of all the pretty waterfalls and greenery. Don't even get me started, because clearly you Bay Area folks know nothing about Angeles National Forest, and nor can you even begin to appreciate a true desert mediterranean climate. Anyway, I digress.

The point is that I have come to appreciate the desert landscape more than most people ever would, and probably ever will. Our society dictates that we need renewable, clean and green energy, and where do we focus our efforts? Away from development and cities, mostly because the proposed projects are so enormous in size. Instead, we opt to relocate these green projects into the high desert. This article in the Los Angeles Times summarizes the issue that is at hand here. We sacrifice prestine land for the sake of renewable energy. We pretend to be green, like in San Francisco or Santa Monica, but the facilities we clamour for destroy a very sensitive, and beautiful environment.

Yes, there are contradictions in being green and sustainable. And no, I am not a NIMBY activist. The desert is home to wildlife, and to a rural lifestyle that is already being disrupted tremendously. In California, and like in many major environmental movements, we choose to protect places that hold some sort of panaromic scenic significant, something that is tangible and worth preserving for future generations. It has to evoke some sort of emotional state out of us, usually leaving an impression of some sort.

Of course, we could never consider constructing wind turbine engines out in the ocean, because, God forbid, it would ruin our coastal viewshed. Instead, let us dump these machines (because really, what else are they?) in the backyard of the Mojave desert. Let's forget, that our State's flower, the California Poppy, blooms wildly in the desert, in some of the most untouched, undeveloped, and breath takingly beautiful land, should be sacrificed for the use of metropolitan areas.

Have we learned nothing about Los Angeles and its water source, or the destruction of Hetch-Hetchy valley for San Franciscans? Or the Colorado River, that does not even drain to the ocean anymore?

And let build swarths of solar panels, in addition to the ones already constructed, again in the Mojave.

I'm tired of people not realizing their impacts on a regional basis. Get out of your bubble, and for once in your life, truly analyze the footprint you have created. The goods and services we all want will have a negative impact on our environment. Instead of doing more "infill" we opt to continue to destroy land, that may seem worthless to many of you, for the sake of our own greedy goals.

Just because it is the desert, doesn't mean it's wasteland.

Blogging

To the few readers left out there, I am alive. I rarely write about my life these days, mostly due to my own laziness. Sometimes I wonder if the blog trend is dead, or if I have simply outgrown the use of blogging. It isn't as carthartic as it used to be, and with my life in a fairly happy state (being separated from Patrick cannot be categorized as "happy") I do not have a lot to write about.

My first semester at San Jose State is coming to an end. I have about five weeks left. I suppose I could have written about how I dislike the majority of my courses, but I feel like there is no real point to complain and vent. Instead I have been focusing on issues around the nation, and especially with local politics. Recently, the United States elected its first African American President ever, who is young and charming with great orating skills.

Then the state of California voted to ban Gay marriage, which I am saddened by. While I hope that one day all people, regardless of sex, race, or creed, can marry freely, I disagree with the almost mob-style approach of protesting. I hope that Proposition 8 is repealed. Usually, I try to keep out of politics on Facebook, but for once in my life I cared about an issue enough to join the group. However, like I said, I do not think violence is the answer yet at the same time I am happy to see that people are finally mobilizing against something that takes a right away. I guess I would like to see it done in a more constructive way, but hopefully it all plays out in the right direction. And I hope that those marriages in Connecticut continue, and if a Proposition is put on that state ballot to ban gay marriage, I hope it fails.

If the California Supreme Court never over-turned banning inter-racial marriage, I would never be allowed to potentially marry Patrick.

That's what I've been thinking in a nut shell.

Personal Choices and Observations

I admit, I did not watch a single bit of the Democratic National Convention, however, I did watch a part of the Republican National Convention. Usually I tend to avoid politics, or assert my opinion online. Most of the discussions I do have are usually with friends, but mostly with Patrick. When Senator John McCain announced Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, my immediate thought and reaction was that he chose Ms. Palin because she was female. If you think about the strategy McCain initiated, such as waiting for Obama to announce his running mate, Senator Joe Bide, then yes, McCain laid it out very well. He chose a female Vice Presidential candidate to attempt to sway the blue collar middle class Americans and Hilary Clinton supporters who are both still undecided.

After Sarah Palin finished her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, I sat and thought about the presentation and execution of the speech. Personally, I think she is a fantastic orator, and that she comes across with non-complicated phrases, appealing to the majority of America. Her speech was clean, simple, and straight to the point. I enjoyed listening to her speak, but that does not mean I support her, nor does it mean that I agree with her simply because she is a woman and I am as well.

What is disturbing is watching the local media and national media report on women simply flocking to McCain, who may have been Hilary supporters, claiming they are now willing to vote for McCain-Palin. There is form, and then there is context. If you are a feminist of any sort, then congratulate Sarah Palin for "running" a household and holding a job down at the same time. Her social conservative values is perhaps the biggest point of turning me off to even think of voting for McCain and Palin. Palin is against having the option or choice in deciding whether a woman would consider an abortion or not. She wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade, which I hold very dear to my heart. Personally, I probably would not choose to have an abortion, but it is not to know that the government is not interfering in my personal choice. As a feminist, how can you possibly consider voting for these candidates? Second, she was chosen by Senator McCain to be his V.P. She is still subordinate to him. McCain isn't intimadated by Ms. Palin as she clearly demonstrates her submission to McCain. Maybe that's why Hilary was not considered to be V.P. because she simply did not see herself being ranked second any longer. (Clearly she has established herself away from Bill after the scandal, but perhaps not in the best of ways). Sarah Palin briefly acknowledged Geraldine Ferraro and Hilary Clinton as setting the way for women in politics. While I do not view Hilary as the most prominent female figure (since she stuck by her husband's side after his infidelity), I must say that she represents "feminism" (I will use this term loosely), more so than Palin.

Though I hold no personal grievance towards women who, in their own means are successful, choose to stay home and raise their children, I have to wonder, with Palin's social conservative views, how she can maintain the image of being a mother and Vice Presidential candidate. It isn't as though Palin only has to take care a single child, there are three children that need the proper attention, and one with down syndrome (which requires even more attention then usual). And if Palin is presented as being the answer to conservative women who are progressive in their rights, how is it possible to support a woman who is forcing someone to marry her teenage daughter? I am not saying that what the teenage boy did was right, but forcing two people into a marriage, when they are clearly not even ready to have a child into marriage? Single mothers dot the country, and there are many women who were able to just fine with the support of their loved ones. And what about forcing her pregnant daughter into the spotlight constantly? Just let the child be. We don't need another Jamie Lynne Spears fiasco. This also shows that the abstinence only sex education clearly did not work for Ms. Palin's daughter.

In general, I thought the speakers on Wednesday night were so-so. Huckabee was perhaps the best orator of the guest speakers. A theme I noticed at the Republican National Convention was experience. There is no doubt in my mind that John McCain has the political experience with foreign policy knowledge. And there is also no doubt in my mind that Governor Sarah Palin severely lacks experience on several levels. What just bothered me was how they kept touting how much experience McCain has over Obama, and that you want experience to guide you in a time of crisis. This is why McCain should be the next president, because he has the experience.

I'm sorry, but last I checked in 2000, the Republicans nominated a Governor from Texas who had no foreign policy experience, and who also, gave complete biasness to programs that were faith based. And his education program of "No Child Left Behind" should not be brought up to those who teach. So as the RNC erupted with chants of "zero" I found it highly amusing that these same exact people elected George W. Bush into office, electing him to be the presidential nominee in 2000, which John McCain also ran for. And in a time of crisis, it was Bush who led the country after 9/11, who, did the Republicans forget, did not ever serve in the armed forces. His record conveniently lost, or disappeared thanks to his good friend Alberto Gonzalez. So why not McCain? He had the experience? What happened there? Oh yes, it was because he was moderate, and that of course trumped every accomplishment he had ever done up until that point.

But perhaps, what bothered me most was the energy crisis and the search for black gold (a.k.a. oil). As I scoured facts, blogs, and information regarding offshore drilling, drilling in the Artic Wildlife National Refuge and harvesting oil shales, I kept shaking my head with this people who believe ignorantly that there would be some relief provided. As it stands from the Department of Energy, Americans consume roughly to 18 million gallons of oil per day, contradicting the CIA world fact book of 20 million gallons consumed. Conservative pundits believe that drilling for oil would alleviate gas prices at the pump, in a short amount of time. And they also tend to gravitate towards the higher number, instead of using the median. What people do not realize is that, even with oil apparent in certain areas, there is time consumed in constructing the facilities and hiring the proper people. There is a difference between was is estimated to be available versus how much oil is left over after going through the processing phase. And people also tend to forget how much energy is expended in order to process petroleum. Conservative pundits like to believe that, if we drill, explore shale, or construct off shore platforms that we will have oil readily available for the short term, and they also like to believe that our consumption habits will remain steady, which is does not. The United States consumes more oil per capita than most nations in the world, and we still have relatively lower prices per gallon, like Canada who happens to be one of the U.S. suppliers. Obviously, countries like Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. have cheaper prices because of the vast amount of oil supplies in their region. We have to think, even with these resources, say 15 billion, what will the actual economic reserve be after the production process? And we must calculate the consumption level, and consider if OPEC would try to some how neutralize the prices of oil if the U.S. began production again.

Anyway, I'm done talking. This is way too much politics for me to handle. But one last thing, do I believe that sexism still exists? Yes. And do I think that it's sexist to be critical of Sarah Palin's balancing of parenthood and politics? No. Joseph Biden was a single parent after his wife's death that injured his sons and he considered stepping down but was convinced otherwise. I have no problem or qualm with Sarah Palin being in office with five children, I just think it goes against many social conservative beliefs. But again, this is all just my opinion.

Civic Duty

Yesterday, June 3, 2008 was the California State Primary. Of course, being the good citizen I am I went in to vote. Unfortunately I stayed until 8:30 p.m. at work on Monday night, so I was too tired to get up and vote at my actual polling station by the Co-Op at UCLA. When I got back to my apartment in Westwood I decided to go to CVS for toothpaste and floss. Low-and-behold, as I was walking, I saw a polling station. By state law, if you are a registered voter in California you are allowed to participate in the state-wide elections, and if you are in the same county, the county measures. So, I went in to tell them I wanted to vote.

I was told that it is highly discouraged to vote out of your precinct. Basically, the person at the polling station didn't want to fill out the paperwork and gave me this look of disbelief that I had the audacity to waltz into that precinct and request that I vote.

Never have I been so offended. But I got to vote.

Still.

It is disconcerting to hear the pollsters talk about their political affiliation and what how they voted on each ballot issue. I am utterly disgusted.