Slashdot Mirror

Read here for details provided by the California coastal commission. You'll have to page down a bit.

Why oh why does Slashdot keep running this kind of drivel. If you have an employment dispute, or a possible employment dispute, CALL A %$^! LAWYER. Pick up the phone and call his or her secretary and make an appointment. Bring your time records and pay stubs, which you kept (you didn't leave them at work, right?) If you have some irrational fear of lawyers, you might possibly get halfway decent advice at your state's labor board such as the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement aka The State Labor Commissioner.

The argument was that a better reduction would be had for lower cost by pushing for hybrids. Reaction was swift with the eco-types crying foul even though the switch to hybrid will yield far better results (ie. we can do it on a far larger scale sooner and using our existing infrastructure and it will yield great results).

I have since refined my analysis; it appears quite practical to have a half-electric (not merely hybrid) vehicle which can run a substantial distance on batteries alone (perhaps 20 miles) and then start up a sustainer engine for the rest. This offers the prospect of cars which have the option of charging from the wall, but don't have to, and also have the option of burning fuel for short trips, but don't have to do that either; you could get around locally even with a total fuel cutoff (as long as there was electricity) and of course you could still get around in a blackout. The real irony is that CARB is still cluelessly glued to the absolutist position, and when they could not achieve it they had no fallback; because their Holy Grail was unattainable, they wound up attaining much less than they could easily have done. If they really want to promote greenhouse-gas reduction they should just tax gasoline up to $5/gallon and watch everyone start buying hybrids.

FCV uses 3-4 times the amount of energy per mile compared to an BEV.

Focus FCV:
Claimed range: 200Miles
Energy to fill up: 240KWH

Prius EV (Convertion of the Prius HEV)
Range: 160-200Miles *
Energy to fill up 40KWH

Source: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/2003rule/1202 wkshp/brooks.pdf

I don't personally understand it. Does anyone know why inductive charging shouldn't qualify for zero emmissions?

I don't personally understand it. Does anyone know why inductive charging shouldn't qualify for zero emmissions?

From what this says, it sounds like anyone who wants to "practice or offer to practice geology or geophysics for others", is required to register. In other words, you can practice geology, you just can't sell your services to the public without a license. Though the penalty seems relatively minor.

From what this says, it sounds like anyone who wants to "practice or offer to practice geology or geophysics for others", is required to register. In other words, you can practice geology, you just can't sell your services to the public without a license. Though the penalty seems relatively minor.

California Business & Professions Code Section 7841:

7841. An applicant for registration as a geologist shall have all
the following qualifications:
(a) Not have committed any acts or crimes constituting grounds for
denial of licensure under Section 480.
(b) Meet one of the following educational requirements fulfilled
at a school or university whose geological curricula meet criteria
established by rules of the board:
(1) Graduation with a major in geology.
(2) Completion of 30 semester units in geological science courses
leading to a major in geology, of which at least 24 units are in the
third or fourth year, or graduate courses.
(c) Have at least seven years of professional geological work
which shall include either a minimum of three years of professional
geological work under the supervision of a registered geologist or a
registered civil or petroleum engineer, except that prior to July 1,
1970, professional geological work shall qualify under this
subdivision if it is under the supervision of a qualified geologist
or a registered civil or petroleum engineer, or a minimum of five
years' experience in responsible charge of professional geological
work. Professional geological work does not include routine
sampling, laboratory work, or geological drafting.
Each year of undergraduate study in the geological sciences shall
count as one-half year of training up to a maximum of two years, and
each year of graduate study or research counts as a year of training.

Teaching in the geological sciences at college level shall be
credited year for year toward meeting the requirement in this
category, provided that the total teaching experience includes six
semester units per semester, or equivalent if on the quarter system,
of third or fourth year or graduate courses.
Credit for undergraduate study, graduate study, and teaching,
individually, or in any combination thereof, shall in no case exceed
a total of four years towards meeting the requirement for at least
seven years of professional geological work as set forth above.
The ability of the applicant shall have been demonstrated by the
applicant having performed the work in a responsible position, as the
term "responsible position" is defined in regulations adopted by the
board. The adequacy of the required supervision and experience shall
be determined by the board in accordance with standards set forth in
regulations adopted by it.
(d) Successfully pass a written examination that incorporates a
national examination for geologists created by a nationally
recognized entity approved by the board, and a supplemental
California specific examination. The California specific examination
shall test the applicant's knowledge of state laws, rules and
regulations, and of seismicity and geology unique to practice within
this state. The board shall use the national examination on or
before June 30, 2000.

There is actually no Constitutional right to privacy.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

::Colz Grigor

Please note I'm posting this anonymously as I don't want to be singled out from my old company. (Oh, and of course, IANAL.)

The old company that I worked for required us to work 80 hrs/wk, 7 days/wk for 6 month. I (and most of my co-workers) got pretty fed up with this, so we started looking into California State law.

The law that is being referred to does seem to indicate that MOST IT proffessionals should get paid overtime.

In English, the law says that if you are paid less than 41 dollars per hour, (that is, your weekly salary divided by 40 is less than 41 dollars), than you should be paid overtime (515). However, you are exempt as a computer programmer if you are a senior level engineer. (515.5)

As I and my coworkers were all qualified as junior -mid level programmers, we went and saw a labor attorney. He told us that we had a very strong case, and that we would almost certainly win a dispute against the company. He said that there has been very little case law testing this new statute, and we would be breaking new ground. We're still deciding whether to continue with the case or not. So far, I personally have been duped out of about 25K in overtime.

Hope this clears it up for people.

The part about computer professionals indicates the maximum wage for overtime has been raised to $43.58/hour (who came up with that number?). Here's the section about it:

(h) Except, as provided in subparagraph (i), an employee in the computer software field who is paid on an hourly basis shall be exempt, if all of the following apply:

(i) The employee is primarily engaged in work that is intellectual or creative and that requires the exercise of discretion and independent judgment.

(ii) The employee is primarily engaged in duties that consist of one or more of the following:

- The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications.
- The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications.
- The documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to the design of software or hardware for computer operating systems.

(iii) The employee is highly skilled and is proficient in the theoretical and practical application of highly specialized information to computer systems analysis, programming, and software engineering. A job title shall not be determinative of the applicability of this exemption.

(iv) The employee's hourly rate of pay is not less than forty-three dollars and fifty eight cents ($43.58). The Division of Labor Statistics and Research shall adjust this pay rate on October 1 of each year to be effective on January 1 of the following year by an amount equal to the percentage increase in the California Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

Q. What can I do if my employer doesn't pay me my overtime wages?

A. You can either file a wage claim eve with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the Labor Commissioner's Office), or you can file a lawsuit in court against your employer in to recover the lost wages.

Q. What can I do if my employer retaliates against me because I told him I was going to file a wage claim for unpaid overtime?

A. If your employer discriminates or retaliates against you in any manner whatsoever, for example, he discharges you because you file a wage claim or threaten to file a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner, you can file a discrimination/retaliation complaint with the Labor Commissioner's Office. In the alternative, you can file a lawsuit in court against your employer.

Yeah, the bay area has traffic sensors all over the place, and you can (sometimes) get the data at the Caltrans website. Frequently though, the web site is broken, and only a few of the speed sensors are returning any data.

What the hell is the point when the system is more broken than functioning?

Yes, Enron and the whole power debacle had its role, but only a minor one. The real root of the problem is quite simple. While the Internet bubble was pushing California state income tax revenue to unsustainable levels the state government grew to consume every penny of revenue that came in. Now that the bubble burst the state is starved for revenue. Last year Gov. Davis signed a $75B budget. This year the proposed budget is $62B including $4B increase in income taxes and other fees. Roughly a 22% year to year decrease in revenue, but back to roughly what the budget was in 1999.

Virtually every tax paying citizen and business in California is seeing their incomes and revenues reduced in a similar manner. In many cases the reduction is MUCH greater than just 22%, but we are all dealing within it our own manner. It's time that both the federal and state governments learn to have the same basic fiscal responsibility asked of citizens and business in boom and bust cycles.

During the boom there were proposals to actually give tax rebates back to the taxpayers because we were simply paying more than the state government needed to run operations. In retrospect, this would have been the wise thing to do because it would have put some brakes on the state government growing to an unsustainable level. Instead, we are now seeing the politicians scramble to protect their favorite pork projects while funding for basic services such as schools, public safety and other public infrastructure are reduced to level less than they would have been had the boom never happened.

Too often it seems people are quick to criticize those who want to see smaller government or at least put severe limits on its growth. Often there are good reasons for doing so other than the accusation such people are stingy, selfish or worse.

Any one actually interested in seeing the numbers may be interested in this link. Check out the Chart A, Historical Data, General Fund Balance document.

Yes, Enron and the whole power debacle had its role, but only a minor one. The real root of the problem is quite simple. While the Internet bubble was pushing California state income tax revenue to unsustainable levels the state government grew to consume every penny of revenue that came in. Now that the bubble burst the state is starved for revenue. Last year Gov. Davis signed a $75B budget. This year the proposed budget is $62B including $4B increase in income taxes and other fees. Roughly a 22% year to year decrease in revenue, but back to roughly what the budget was in 1999.

Virtually every tax paying citizen and business in California is seeing their incomes and revenues reduced in a similar manner. In many cases the reduction is MUCH greater than just 22%, but we are all dealing within it our own manner. It's time that both the federal and state governments learn to have the same basic fiscal responsibility asked of citizens and business in boom and bust cycles.

During the boom there were proposals to actually give tax rebates back to the taxpayers because we were simply paying more than the state government needed to run operations. In retrospect, this would have been the wise thing to do because it would have put some brakes on the state government growing to an unsustainable level. Instead, we are now seeing the politicians scramble to protect their favorite pork projects while funding for basic services such as schools, public safety and other public infrastructure are reduced to level less than they would have been had the boom never happened.

Too often it seems people are quick to criticize those who want to see smaller government or at least put severe limits on its growth. Often there are good reasons for doing so other than the accusation such people are stingy, selfish or worse.

Any one actually interested in seeing the numbers may be interested in this link. Check out the Chart A, Historical Data, General Fund Balance document.

Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for death or injury to person or property resulting from a negligent or wrongful act or omission in the operation of the motor vehicle, in the business of the owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of the owner.

Not necessarily. California has a page about in-state tourism. It doesn't necessarily point out places like (say) Disneyland, but it's there.

Ensuring that the 6.1 million pupils enrolled in California's public schools receive a high quality education and are provided the tools to meet California's world-class standards, education remains this Administration's highest priority. Despite the fiscal challenge facing California, the 2002-03 Budget fully funds statutory growth and cost-of-living adjustments for K-12 programs. As indicated in Figure K12-1, approximately $53.9 billion will be devoted to California's 988 school districts and 58 county offices of education, resulting in estimated total per-pupil expenditures from all sources of $9,145 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $9,236 in fiscal year 2002-03.

Hm. Well, all of your facts are wrong.

Well then take it up with the California Dept. of Finance since it's they numbers they're reporting.

As for the "Top Flight" that was a tad snarky, just as snarky as a matter of fact as your assertion that all but the top private schools are nothing but Christian madrases. You can get a damn good private education for half the price, and not just one where your kids' "faith won't be troubled by learning about biology or geology or physics."

Please check out Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures, Volume 1: Technical Report by H.H. Hurt et al. (available from Drive Aware). Note that this isn't a study by a motorcycle group-- it's a state of california study.

The relevant conclusion (among many) is that "In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents." It seems to me that the vast majority of car drivers are very much aware of the other cars and trucks on the road, and pay attention to them. They're not often paying attention to little buzzy things that haven't enough mass to seriously damage their car (unless the cyclist gets tossed through their windshield, which tends to get a bit messy.)

As far as people sharing lanes in rush hour traffic, that's legal in california. Here's the link to the CHP FAQ:

Q: Can motorcycle riders "split" lanes and ride between other vehicles?
A:Lane splitting by motorcycles is permissible but must be done in a safe and prudent manner.

Doing 80 on the freeway? Stupid in the same way that drivers in their Civics with 8 foot spoilers doing 90 are stupid. Often with the same result-- unfortunately it's usually an innocent person that gets killed in those wrecks. Check the Hurt study again-- 92% of motorcycle accidents involve riders that haven't been trained. The most important thing they teach you in rider courses is how to deal with the inattentive drivers around you. That's the single most important thing to learn to keep yourself from getting turned into a red smear.

Yeah, I typed nuclear power when I meant fusion -- but fusion is a form of nuclear power.

Why did "they" do it? To sell tickets! A movie without humans in it just wouldn't have been the same... :)

A setback thermostat is really very nice and will pay for itself because you'll never leave or go to bed forgetting to back off on the setting. Ours kicks in before we get up in the morning (it even learns how long it takes for the furnace or A/C to do its job), cuts back for the day, back up for the evening, off at night.

Cool (ha-ha), requires no thinking, and cheaper. Occam's Razor baby.

And you can even economize by one "l" in useful. :)

Dude, what the hell are you talking about? Prop 52 FAILED!!!! By a large margin, I might add.

I don't if the parent is a troll, a little slow, or some combination thereof, but how the hell did it get modded up to +5?

If you would look at the route map you would see that it covers pretty much all the major parts of the Bay Area. Once in the Bay Area you could use BART and/or Caltrains to get around.

For the Norcal to/from Socal commuters, the rail does go out of the way a little when it goes through the Central Valley, but this is probably a good idea so that it covers growing areas like Fresno and Bakersfield and can get to Merced more easily for when the UC goes in there. A line that branches off after the Grapevine and heads straight to Los Banos rather than through those other stops would speed things up some for those commuters, but I don't think the extra costs would be worth it.

Finally, the Northridge quake was in '94.

One look at the "Recommended Routes to be Studied in the Environmental Process" one will notice that they include the BAY AREA... Possible Route Map

I'm not sure if this new plan extends into Oregon,

Oregon isn't in the recommended routes yet.

But, if we get something going from LA -> Sacramento, I'm hoping that it will present enough of an incentive to go to the larger Oregonian cities on the way to Seattle.

The bill would
permit the notifications required by its provisions to be delayed if a law enforcement agency determines that it would impede a criminal
investigation.

The new California computer security/privacy law referred to in the Business Week article is available here: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/s b_1386_bill_20020926_chaptered.html

My vote belongs to whomever I choose to give it to. I do and have voted for Democrats, but I am not a registered Democrat because they do not always put forward the candidates and ideas that best represent me.

You're blaming Greens for a 1% loss in a state where registered Democrats have an almost 10% advantage over registered Republicans. That just doesn't add up --unless you're suggesting that the Greens should bear the responsibility of getting Democrats to the polls.

In fact, the percentage of registered Dems in your state has been declining for years. Info here, see esp. page 2. Republicans have also been in decline overall, although this year they have done better. The national trend for voter registration is away from the old parties towards third parties and independent status. If the Dems want to capture these voters, they need to quit their whining and put forward some truly compelling candidates.

is the servers hosting results sites. CA official site is just crawling right now. This is worse than /.

Check out the California Costal Commission, including their page on Legal and Legislative Information and the list of their permanent responsibilities

Check out the California Costal Commission, including their page on Legal and Legislative Information and the list of their permanent responsibilities

Check out the California Costal Commission, including their page on Legal and Legislative Information and the list of their permanent responsibilities

Every state in the U.S. does though.

I'm not sure there is any evidence available online.

Claiming another's work as your own is not copyright infringement.

Whether something infringes on a copyright is difficult to discern; thus, a great deal of case law has been generated on the subject. For example, in a written work, outright plagiarism--the exact copying of words--is copyright infringement, but the copyright does not prevent others from using the facts and ideas used in that work.

In any case, your quibble is irrelevant, because my statement of "wouldn't it be simpler if there were no copyright laws" does not preclude plagiarism laws.

Yes, that way when I write something or record something, I can forget about worrying if someone is going to copy it and claim it as their own.

Umm, no that's plagiarism, not copyright infringement.

Furthermore, "does not preclude plagiarism laws" implies that there are actual plagiarism laws, which there are not (e.g. the California Code [ca.gov] does not include the words "plagiarism" or "plagiarize"). Plagiarism, as we've established, is a common-law doctrine and is not codified.

so may be it will happen in your life time

Throwing about hyperbole does not help

Doing a quick calculation and using the sq mileage for San Diego County of 4281 sq miles and the nominal energy density of solar at that latitude of 3.1 KWh/m^s/day and a 1% conversion factor gives:

3.1 KWh/m^2/day * .01 = .031 KWh/m2/day

4281 Sq Miles * 2.58 x 10^6 Sq Meters/ Sq Miles = 11 x 10^9

11 x 10^9 x .031 = 343 x 10^6 Kwh/day

Or 343,000 Megawatts-Hours for a small California county.

Not that I am proposing to cover an entire county with PV panels but if you are going to "tell it like it is" then do.

BTW, can we bury the Nuclear afterproducts in your backyard?

Bill Simon is running for Governor of California and created this clever parody site about his opponent, incumbent Gray Davis. Ebay is not too pleased.

The terms Votester and Vote-ster have been in use for a few years now, and refer to online vote-selling and/or vote-trading services/technologies. There are none currently in existence. But the term was coined to highlight the possibilities and dangers of large-scale vote-selling, or large-scale vote-trading, if voting systems (for public elections) are attached to the Internet.

I first heard Dr. David Jefferson, Chair of the Technical Committee for the California Internet Voting Task Force, use this term back in 2000. Here are links to show the term's usage to date .. National Workshop on Internet Voting (11 Oct 2000), B.K. DeLong's BrainStream (25 Oct 2000), BBC News (28 Oct 2000), David Jefferson Presentation (27 Aug 2001).

Perhaps using some combination of "protest", "protester", and "Napster" would produce a name more closely reflecting the technology this write-up is describing.

The terms Votester and Vote-ster have been in use for a few years now, and refer to online vote-selling and/or vote-trading services/technologies. There are none currently in existence. But the term was coined to highlight the possibilities and dangers of large-scale vote-selling, or large-scale vote-trading, if voting systems (for public elections) are attached to the Internet.

I first heard Dr. David Jefferson, Chair of the Technical Committee for the California Internet Voting Task Force, use this term back in 2000. Here are links to show the term's usage to date .. National Workshop on Internet Voting (11 Oct 2000), B.K. DeLong's BrainStream (25 Oct 2000), BBC News (28 Oct 2000), David Jefferson Presentation (27 Aug 2001).

Perhaps using some combination of "protest", "protester", and "Napster" would produce a name more closely reflecting the technology this write-up is describing.

"The measure banning unsolicited text messages to cell phones and pagers emerged after Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, read about the case of Rodney Joffe, who had been interrupted during a performance of "Riverdance" by a text message advertising new mortgage rates."

SB 1560 - This bill creates a statewide "Do Not Call" list to be maintained by the attorney general.
AB 1769 - Here is the bill making it a crime to send unsolicited text messages to cell phones or pagers.
AB 2944 - Here is the bill closing a loophole in CA's junk fax law, and decreeing that all spam emails include "ADV:" at the beginning of the subject line or "ADV:ADLT" in the case of adult material.

"The measure banning unsolicited text messages to cell phones and pagers emerged after Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, read about the case of Rodney Joffe, who had been interrupted during a performance of "Riverdance" by a text message advertising new mortgage rates."

SB 1560 - This bill creates a statewide "Do Not Call" list to be maintained by the attorney general.
AB 1769 - Here is the bill making it a crime to send unsolicited text messages to cell phones or pagers.
AB 2944 - Here is the bill closing a loophole in CA's junk fax law, and decreeing that all spam emails include "ADV:" at the beginning of the subject line or "ADV:ADLT" in the case of adult material.

"The measure banning unsolicited text messages to cell phones and pagers emerged after Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, read about the case of Rodney Joffe, who had been interrupted during a performance of "Riverdance" by a text message advertising new mortgage rates."

SB 1560 - This bill creates a statewide "Do Not Call" list to be maintained by the attorney general.
AB 1769 - Here is the bill making it a crime to send unsolicited text messages to cell phones or pagers.
AB 2944 - Here is the bill closing a loophole in CA's junk fax law, and decreeing that all spam emails include "ADV:" at the beginning of the subject line or "ADV:ADLT" in the case of adult material.

New Jersey's gasoline tax is 14.5 cents/gallon. That's on the low side (and according to this makes it the fourth lowest in the nation.

Keep in mind however that a lot of New Jersey's roadways are financed through tolls--whereas most states finance highways through gasoline taxes.

Now let us take a look at this which is a summary of gasoline price per gallon in summer 01 and summer 02. The average price per gallon in New Jersey is quite a lot higher than most states (except those which are far from refineries, like your Wyoming and Alaska or require a different fuel mix, like California, which is also far from refineries.) Indeed, Connecticut asseses a tax which is some 20 cents higher than New Jersey's tax, but the cost in CT for a gallon of gas is about the same as it is in NJ. Delaware's tax is nearly ten cents higher than NJ's, but most of the time you'll get gas there for about ten cents cheaper. I use CT and DE as states to compare to because they are close by, often with similar population densities. NY would make a bad comparison because a lot of NY is not the NYC metro area, which I suspect has a bit of a inflation effect on gas prices for the tri-state area.)

My hypothesis is that since all stations in NJ have to pump gas for you, the price for that service is rolled into the cost of the gasoline, and the statistics do seem to indicate that gas in NJ, given it's pretty low sales tax, is more expensive than it is in other states.

Having said all that, I think I would be a little sad if NJ got rid of full service--it's one of those unique things that make NJ what it is. Like the Sopranos, non-photo driver licenses (which they are sadly getting rid of) and...umm...damn. I guess that's it.

If you're not in California, well, you can still write to your local politicians.

For your information, this is what we use:

Orange County Voting System

Does that look like it's going to leave a hanging chad. I hope not, because they don't exist in OC.

It's called Datavote and it's nothing like the Florida system. I believe you were referring to this one

Votomatic and Pollstar are used in completely different counties (if you don't think LA and OC are completely different, you've obviously never visited both of them).

For your information, this is what we use:

Orange County Voting System

Does that look like it's going to leave a hanging chad. I hope not, because they don't exist in OC.

It's called Datavote and it's nothing like the Florida system. I believe you were referring to this one

Votomatic and Pollstar are used in completely different counties (if you don't think LA and OC are completely different, you've obviously never visited both of them).

"I would scream it from the rooftops if I felt it would do any good: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! It may not solve every problem, but strong, enforced CFR would at least help."

The laws are a joke and I should know. All campaign finance reform laws have done is increased the amount of paperwork required to run for office. I have to file paperwork with the Louisiana Ethics Comission, the Clerk of the House the Federal Election Commissions, and I have to send a copy of FEC paperwork to the Louisiana Department of State. All that paperwork does is provide another bureaucratic layer for the candidates to hide behind. Does it increase public access to information on my funding? Not really. Most people don't even know of the existance of these organizations, let alone how to obtain copies of the papers I've filed. It sure as hell isn't as informative to the general public as this, but most politicians want you to know as little about them as possible. It seems that most major candidates spend more time running interference on each other than actually sharing information with the voting public.

"The rich and powerful are vastly overrepresented in the legislatures, some effort at restoring balance is incredibly important."

You're not going to get it with the current batch of party sheep. If anything, they know what they needed to get into office themselves and aren't about to give it up easily.

"I'm a Democrat, but if McCain had been on the ballot I would have voted for him in a heartbeat."

Maybe too many Americans are too busy toeing the party line to see that most of the problems lie in the current two-paty system in the US. Guess how all those legislators probably got all their money? It was likely all funnelled through the state and national Democratic and Republican committees. All that most of the required election paperwork seems to have accomplished is to make sure more money is funnelled ("laundered?") through the party rather than going to the politician directly.

"Now we have a President that has spent over half of his time in office either on vacation or fund raising, or a combination thereof."

Which is completely different from what Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Roosevelt, or McKinley have done in office? Should I go through the nineteenth century as well?

Most of the "this president is the most lazy/money-grubbing yet" stuff is just talk from the other party. If anything it's just more politicians running political interference. We have an executive that is very much alone and very easy for the press to focus on, and we have 535 legislators that can easily hide behind each other and can generally get away with more individually and as a group than the president. In my opinion, all this party nonsense about bad-mouthing the president's policies is little more than Congress keeping the attention shifted away from the real seat of corruption in government.

And the same goes for the states as well. Most governors would know better than to shoot themselves in the political foot by vetoing a bill with a title like that. But if it never gets to the governor's office to begin with, who's the wiser?

The only real solution to this problem is both very simple and the one nobody ever brings up:

1.) Go find the California Legislature on the internet

2.) Find the bill on-line

3.) See which state Senators voted against it (whoever is represented by Senator Haynes is in luck, otherwise...). The measure passed the State Assembly, but it might be worth seeing who voted against it there as well.

4.) Vote against them next election. In fact, tell them you're going to do so. Better yet, run against the bastard yourself. It's a cushy job and looks good on a resume at the very least.

It's that easy! And you're still not going to do it, are you? Most people don't even know their national legislators, let alone their legislators at the state level. Nobody even bothers to vote for anybody in the state governments, except maybe the governor. Maybe. This is probably little more than the state legislators showing the same contempt for the voters as the voters seem to have for the legislators. They listen to campaign contributors because they're usually the only people talking to them.

"I would scream it from the rooftops if I felt it would do any good: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! It may not solve every problem, but strong, enforced CFR would at least help."

The laws are a joke and I should know. All campaign finance reform laws have done is increased the amount of paperwork required to run for office. I have to file paperwork with the Louisiana Ethics Comission, the Clerk of the House the Federal Election Commissions, and I have to send a copy of FEC paperwork to the Louisiana Department of State. All that paperwork does is provide another bureaucratic layer for the candidates to hide behind. Does it increase public access to information on my funding? Not really. Most people don't even know of the existance of these organizations, let alone how to obtain copies of the papers I've filed. It sure as hell isn't as informative to the general public as this, but most politicians want you to know as little about them as possible. It seems that most major candidates spend more time running interference on each other than actually sharing information with the voting public.

"The rich and powerful are vastly overrepresented in the legislatures, some effort at restoring balance is incredibly important."

You're not going to get it with the current batch of party sheep. If anything, they know what they needed to get into office themselves and aren't about to give it up easily.

"I'm a Democrat, but if McCain had been on the ballot I would have voted for him in a heartbeat."

Maybe too many Americans are too busy toeing the party line to see that most of the problems lie in the current two-paty system in the US. Guess how all those legislators probably got all their money? It was likely all funnelled through the state and national Democratic and Republican committees. All that most of the required election paperwork seems to have accomplished is to make sure more money is funnelled ("laundered?") through the party rather than going to the politician directly.

"Now we have a President that has spent over half of his time in office either on vacation or fund raising, or a combination thereof."

Which is completely different from what Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Roosevelt, or McKinley have done in office? Should I go through the nineteenth century as well?

Most of the "this president is the most lazy/money-grubbing yet" stuff is just talk from the other party. If anything it's just more politicians running political interference. We have an executive that is very much alone and very easy for the press to focus on, and we have 535 legislators that can easily hide behind each other and can generally get away with more individually and as a group than the president. In my opinion, all this party nonsense about bad-mouthing the president's policies is little more than Congress keeping the attention shifted away from the real seat of corruption in government.

And the same goes for the states as well. Most governors would know better than to shoot themselves in the political foot by vetoing a bill with a title like that. But if it never gets to the governor's office to begin with, who's the wiser?

The only real solution to this problem is both very simple and the one nobody ever brings up:

1.) Go find the California Legislature on the internet

2.) Find the bill on-line

3.) See which state Senators voted against it (whoever is represented by Senator Haynes is in luck, otherwise...). The measure passed the State Assembly, but it might be worth seeing who voted against it there as well.

4.) Vote against them next election. In fact, tell them you're going to do so. Better yet, run against the bastard yourself. It's a cushy job and looks good on a resume at the very least.

It's that easy! And you're still not going to do it, are you? Most people don't even know their national legislators, let alone their legislators at the state level. Nobody even bothers to vote for anybody in the state governments, except maybe the governor. Maybe. This is probably little more than the state legislators showing the same contempt for the voters as the voters seem to have for the legislators. They listen to campaign contributors because they're usually the only people talking to them.