Tag: california

Thoughts About A Court Decision

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Everyone today is likely to be upset with the California Supreme Court. Folks will be saying they are ashamed to be Californians. I’m not, and let me explain why… but first I would like to point out that I believe the state should not be in the marriage business, but there should be a secular recognized family partnership equivalent, open to any form of couples, and perhaps even larger partnerships. Let the religious institutions deal with marriage.

Reading the LA Times history on what happened is telling:

  • 2004: Mayor Gavin Newsom in San Francisco spurns state law, and the city began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.
  • Those gay couples who wed in San Francisco have their marriages later rescinded by the California Supreme Court, which ruled that a city could not single-handedly flout state law. But the court said supporters of marriage rights could challenge the ban in the lower courts.
  • In the San Francisco Superior Court, a judge struck down the marriage ban as unconstitutional.
  • A Court of Appeal in San Francisco later overturned that decision on a 2-1 vote.
  • The state high court eventually took up the case, which culminated in a May 15 ruling last year declaring gays could marry each other.
  • California voters, by vote, change the constitution to prohibit gay marriage.
  • Today, the State Supreme Court ruled that the process followed in the vote was a legal constitutional change. They didn’t rule on gay marriage itself, only on the voting process used.

So, what really happened here. The State Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to permit gay marriage. Sufficient voters in the state changed the constitution to prevent it, and the supreme court ruled the process valid per the law. That means in order to achieve equal marriage rights, either the state constitution needs to be changed again, or the Federal courts need to get involved, bringing in Federal law to trump state law. I’m sure there will be an initiative effort, and I hope it succeeds. The LA Times provides some interesting detail on what today’s ruling actually said.

So, am I ashamed to be a Californian? No. We have followed the legal process and given the sides consideration. We voted, and equal marriage lost. That happens in a democracy. Remember the words to “We Shall Overcome”: it may take time, but we will eventually succeed.

In fact, far from being ashamed, I’m proud to be a Californian. The LA Times article notes:

“Even with the court upholding Proposition 8, a key portion of the court’s May 15, 2008, decision remains intact. Sexual orientation will continue to receive the strongest constitutional protection possible when California courts consider cases of alleged discrimination. The California Supreme Court is the only state high court in the nation to have elevated sexual orientation to the status of race and gender in weighing discrimination claims.”

This is very significant. We’re the only state to consider sexual orientation in this way, and as we eliminate discrimination and bring equality about in other areas, marriage will follow. Just give it time, and keep fighting.

Share

How To Balance California’s Budget

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Riding the van home, an idea came to me. Consider:

  • California is having major budget trouble, and needs to raise cash.
  • Lots of people are upset about wrap-around advertising on buildings, which are (a) gigantic, and (b) block the light for those inside.
  • Freeways are state-owned properties, not subject to city regulations.
  • Freeways have miles and miles of empty sound walls, often covered with ugly tagging.
  • Taggers seem to not hit billboards as much.
  • Advertising brings in lots of money for those that put up the advertising.

Did that CFL just go on above your head? Did you just figure out how Caltrans could begin funding highway projects?

What’s next? Well, schools have all this wall space and are underfunded. Our universities? Loads of tall buildings, and a captive student population.

Of course, I wouldn’t want this happen (well, I might be able to live with it on soundwalls, as it does seem an effective use of the space and would only be present in urban areas). However, I could see the state turning to this if things get bad.

Share

Living under a Protective Wing

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

The Ventura County Star has an interesting report today about an unusual traffic stop made by the CHP. Specifically, the CHP stopped a truck on the Conejo Grade carrying the 80-foot-long right wing of a Boeing 747 jet. The wing weighs about 25,000 pounds and can hold 200,000 pounds of fuel. It was bound for the Camarillo Airport, where it will be stored until the owner moves it to her property in the hills northwest of Malibu by helicopter. There, it will become the roof of a house that will incorporate almost all of the parts of a decommissioned Boeing 747.

The 747 (specifically, a decommissioned Boeing 747-200 that still carries the faded logo of defunct Tower Air) is owned by Francie Rehwald, whose family founded one of the first Mercedes-Benz dealerships in Southern California. She’s using it to build a home on her 55-acre property on the Ventura County end of the Santa Monica Mountains. The wings, at 2,500 square feet each, will act as the home’s roof. Other parts of the jet will be used for the house and a few outlying buildings on the property, including a meditation temple made from the nose of the 747.

There’s an article on the architect (David Hertz of Santa Monica), including some conceptual pictures, here. Mr. Hertz intends to assemble a compound of buildings connected by narrow dirt paths. The jet’s wings will rest on thick concrete walls, forming the roof of a multilevel main house. The nose will point to the sky, becoming a meditation chamber, with the cockpit window a skylight. The first-class cabin will be an art studio. The signature bulge on the top of the 747 will become a loft. A barn will house rare domestic animals such as the poitou donkey. A yoga studio, guest house and caretaker’s cottage will round out the compound. The ailerons will be used to control the awning on the patio by the swimming pool. The eight buildings will be scattered across the terraced hillside as if it were a “crash site.” As it happens, the site lies under a jet flight path into Los Angeles International Airport. That concerns the Federal Aviation Administration, which has asked the architect to paint special numbers on the wing pieces to alert pilots that Ms. Rehwald’s retreat is not a crashed jumbo jet.

My favorite quote on this effort: Noting that they had to meet with county engineering officials to persuade them that the jet parts could withstand the strong winds that sometimes buffet Ms. Rehwald’s property, the team noted, “It’s difficult to get a city engineer who is used to working with 2-by-4s and plaster to realize that an airplane that flies 500 miles per hour can stand up to 40-mph winds.”

I think this is really cool. Wouldn’t it be great to have the cash to be able to do this?

Share

He was born in the summer of his 27th year / Comin’ home to a place he’d never been before

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

And the Colorado rocky mountain high
I’ve seen it rainin’ fire in the sky
I know he’d be a poorer man if he never saw an eagle fly
Rocky mountain high

It’s Colorado rocky mountain high
I’ve seen it rainin’ fire in the sky
Friends around the campfire and everybody’s high
Rocky mountain high

                 Almost heaven, West Virginia
Blue Ridge mountains,
Shenandoah river.
Life is old there,
Older than the trees.
Younger than the mountains,
Growin like a breeze

Country roads, take me home
To the place I belong
West Virginia, mountain momma
Take me home, country roads.

What do these songs have in common, other than being by Henry John Deutschendorf Jr. If you’ve been following the news, you know both are official alternative songs for Colorado and West Virginia, the former having just approved the song. Rocky Mountain High now joins “Where the Columbines Grow,” adopted in 1915.

This is a wonderful segue into a discussion about state songs. Most state songs are pretty obscure. Have you ever sung “I Love You California” or “Hail Massachusetts”. Some are better, such as “Carry Me Back To Old Virginia”, “Oklahoma” or “My Old Kentucky Home”. But they are not always what we expect.

And don’t even go near city songs. Los Angeles? No, not “I Love LA”. The county has Seventy-Six Cities” (although the words are pretty cool), but the city doesn’t have one. San Francisco, though, does, and it is what you expect. Santa Monica doesn’t have one, although I believe it’s song should be either “I Left My Harmonica in Santa Monica” or “Hanukah in Santa Monica”.

One can get really creative at this. For example, let’s make the state song of Texas “Another Stupid Texas Song” (I was going to suggest “I’m Leaving Texas”, but I couldn’t find the lyrics). Arkansas could be “Arkansas” by Roger Miller. So what song do you think should be your state song? Your city song? Some other city’s song? Be sure to link to the lyrics!

Share

The California Hatfield and McCoys

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

Today’s LA Times brings the news of the death of Joseph Gallo. Who, you say? Gallo. He made wine, didn’t he. No, actually he didn’t.

A little history here. Many, many years ago, there was an Italian immigrant, Joseph Gallo, who married Susie Bianco. They had three boys: Ernest, Julio, and the youngest, Joseph. Joseph, the youngest by 10 years, was born Sept. 11, 1919, in Antioch CA, and was his father’s favorite. Just like another sibling rivalry (Esau and Jacob), being a father’s favorite wasn’t a good thing. As the favorite, Joseph escaped the physical farm work that Ernest and Julio were forced to do as boys. Complicating everything was a stormy relationship between the parents that ended in 1933, when the senior Joseph killed his wife and then turned the revolver on himself.

Six weeks after their parents died, Ernest and Julio invested $5,700 to form the E. & J. Gallo Winery. Joseph worked with his brothers to establish the winery. He entered the Army Air Forces during World War II, first serving as a gunnery instructor and then in the Philippines and Korea. Upon returning in 1946, he became ranch manager for his brothers and had three children with his first wife. Parallel to this, in 1940, Joseph began acquiring raw land and developing its grape-growing potential. He later expanded to growing other crops and raising cattle. The 4,000 acres of vineyards he amassed made him one of California’s largest wine-grape growers. In 1995, Successful Farming magazine recognized Joseph Gallo Farms in Atwater, just east of Livingston, as the nation’s largest farm, with more than 37,000 dairy animals and an operation that milked more than 17,000 cows.

Where did this milk go? Cheese. Which, unfortunately, Joseph wanted to market under his name, “Joseph Gallo Cheese”. He started doing this in 1982… and thereupon is older brothers sued him — claiming trademark infringement — and denounced the cheese as an inferior product that could damage the winery’s reputation. The lawsuit also referred to him as an unknown cheese maker. Joseph’s reaction was that “I have only got one name. I don’t know how I’m supposed to look for another one.” However, the federal judge ruled that using the Gallo name confused consumers, leading them to think that the cheese was connected to the winery. He ordered the name changed on the package. Joseph countersued, arguing that his brothers had used their parents’ estate to launch their E. & J. Gallo Winery in Modesto. He claimed that they owed him a third of the business. Dismissing the suit, the hearing judge lamented that the best witness — Joseph Gallo Sr. — “was out of the reach of the court’s process.” The legal battle drove a permanent wedge between Joseph and his brothers.

The cheese is now sold under the Joseph Farms label, and is the largest-selling retail-brand cheese produced in California.

As I said, a nasty feud, which folks in California will remember well. In related news (or perhaps it is the fates laughing), bottleneckblog is reporting that this morning a truck overturned on I-405 near Jeffrey in Irvine. The contents? Pink Gallo wine. Specifically, a big-rig hauling a cargo of wine bottles overturned, blocking three lanes of traffic while crews scrambled to clean up the broken bottles and sop up the mess, which snarled traffic all the way back to the Costa Mesa (Route 55) Freeway. Luckily, the rig’s driver managed to avoid hitting any other cars on the road as his rig sprawled across the three right lanes of the freeway.

Share

I’m Just A Bill … Sitting on a Sacramento Hill: Prepaying UC Tuition & Florescent Lightbulbs

Posted onAuthorcahwyguy

[And now, some lunchtime observations…]

The San Jose Mercury News has two articles of interest today regarding proposed bills from state Assemblycritters. Note that you can get the bill numbers from this official list of bills submitted.

  • The first, to be proposed by Assemblyman Jim Beall, relates to university tuition. Specifically, it will create a state-run savings program that would allow parents to pre-pay their children’s tuition, locking in rates no matter the dips in the investment market or spikes in tuition. This bill, AB 152, also known as the California Prepaid Tuition Program, would allow parents, grandparents or others to purchase financial units over time based on the then-current tuition cost at the University of California, plus some administrative costs. Each year’s tuition would cost 100 financial units. If students attend a school that charges less than a UC campus, such as the California State University system, a community college or career and technical education school, and the amount of prepaid tuition exceeds the amount of tuition charged at that school, the student will be allowed to use the leftover money for college-related expenses, such as books. If students attend a school that charges more than a UC campus, such as a private institution, the student can transfer the prepaid tuition to the more expensive school, and pay for the difference out of pocket. If a student doesn’t attend college, the prepaid tuition can be transferred to a sibling. The financial units cannot be “bought, sold, bartered, or otherwise exchanged for goods and services by either the beneficiary or the purchaser,” according to the measure.

    This differs from the existing Scholarshare program is that it is more than a savings plan: it is guaranteed tuition. In other words, under Scholarshare, one invests funds in an account specifically designated for college use. The hope is that by the time your child reaches college age, the funds have grown to cover tuition. Of course, if you make bad investment choices, you lose. Under AB 152, you are not investing–you are purchasing the tuition and the state is making the investment choices and taking the risk. I think it is a great idea. I’ll note that a total of 18 states operate plans similar to that proposed in AB 152, and none has run into serious financial problems.

    I encourage support of this proposal.

  • The second, proposed by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, would make California the first state to ban sales of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. In their place, Californians would have to purchase more energy-efficient compact fluorescent lamps. This one doesn’t appear to have been introduced yet, although there are rumors it is called the “How Many Legislators Does It Take To Change A Light Bulb Act.”

    Personally, I think this is a bad idea. Much as I believe in the use of florescent light bulbs where possible, there are some significant problems. They can’t be used in all applications, for they still can’t be made small enough to be effective as small flame shaped bulbs, or where clear bulbs are required. They cannot be used in dimmer switch applications. They have disposal problems with respect to mercury and other chemicals. Until these are addressed, I think it is wrong to mandate their use. If this bill was to encourage their use through tax credits or rebates on purchases, it would be much, much better.

Share