Posted 12:04 PM by Floyd

So last night on my way home from work I stopped by a grocery store to get some sliced sourdough bread. Now this grocery store, Piazza's, is a very upscale establishment in the very wealthy town of Palo Alto. It has about fifty square feet of shelf space devoted to dozens of varieties of sliced bread. And sourdough bread is the official bread of San Francisco. So it should have been an easy matter for me to find my bread and go on my way, right?

No, it was not. For completely unfathomable reasons, bakers of sourdough bread slice and package their product in ways that are perhaps aesthetically pleasing, but impractical. I'm not going to put the bread on display on a crystal platter. I'm not going to have it bronzed. I'm not going to hurl it at an unsuspecting visitor when they arrive at the airport -- "Here, please take the stereotypical baked goods associated with our metropolitan area!" I'm going to eat it.

Which leads me to think, why aren't there religious dietary restrictions that would prohibit this nonsense? I'm afraid that dietary laws of the major religions are completely inapplicable to our modern lifestyle. For instance, the Old Testament forbids the consumption of shrimp. Have you seen a shrimp? It's clearly a little alien, and we must do whatever it takes to eliminate the extraterrestrial menace. Earthlings are just supposed to sit there and let them breed? I think not.

Or what about Catholic rules about the consumption of meat on Friday during Lent? I remember this from my childhood. No one was able to explain to me why I couldn't eat chicken, pork, or beef during Fridays for six weeks in February, March, and April. But I didn't care, because I was helping to commemorate the passion of Christ by visiting Arthur Treacher's and stuffing myself full of greasy fried fish and potatoes. It's a shame that I no longer have the inclination for such religious fervor.

Here's how religious food laws would work if I were in charge:

And the LORD said unto Moses, "I am the LORD your God, who brought thou out of Egypt. Thou shalt not baketh loaves of bread in shapes that are round or otherwise not oblong, LEST YE DIE. Nor shalt thou wrap thy loaves with so little plastic that when they are opened, my people find it hard to closeth them again.

"Nor shalt thou bake loaves that contain hard little oat grains, LEST YE DIE. I am the LORD your God, who brought thou out of Egypt, and I did not bringeth thou out of Egypt so that thou could marketeth horse food as fit for human consumption."

Posted 2:33 PM by Floyd

Amnesty International used to be an organization that spotlighted and protested violations of human rights. Now AI has chosen to piss away its accumulated goodwill and moral stature by pandering to its left-wing donor base.

This is the same process by which the accounting firm Arthur Anderson collapsed. But hey, it's fun and profitable while it lasts!

While driving to get coffee I heard about this story on the radio:

Washington-AP -- Amnesty International is calling on both the Pentagon and Congress to get serious about violence on women in the military -- whether it involves active duty personnel or dependents of servicemen.
A-I is joining the Miles Foundation, a non-profit group that provides services to victims of violence in the military, in putting pressure on the Department of Defense to stop ignoring what they call a huge problem.

The groups want military officers to establish a zero tolerance policy for abuse, and guarantee victims a safe environment in which to report attacks -- without fear of reprisal.

The Miles Foundation says in the deployment of troops since the Nine-Eleven attacks, violence against women in uniform and against dependents has doubled -- both at home and overseas.

So what has been done to women in the military? Well, there is "violence" twice (no details), "abuse," "attacks," and "violence" again -- still no details. Whatever happened to actual crimes, like rape and assault?

Anyone who was actually interested in human misery, rather than political posturing, could find probably find fifty or a hundred stories more serious than this. Hell, North Korea alone would probably furnish five or ten atrocities involving thousands of people. (Women are kept in concentration camps, and forced to have abortions when they get pregnant. Chemical weapons are tested on dissidents and their families. The Korean Communists are so evil, and so crazy, that they kidnap people at random from Japan.) The sad fact is that if a "human rights violation" doesn't make you sick to your stomach it's not one of the real problems in today's world.

Suppose it were important for Amnesty International to speak out about rapes conducted by one individual against another. (Not that they were particularly concerned about rapes conducted by Baathist Iraqis for purposes of torture, punishment, and intimidation). There are other nations that have higher rape rates than America, such as Australia and Canada.

But that would never do; Amnesty's membership isn't interested in hearing about problems in Australia or Canada. All they want to hear is criticism of America, especially America's military.

(Here is a post from last September in which I complained about Amnesty's lack of interest in human rights.)

Posted 9:10 PM by Floyd

The Mercury News declares itself the "Newspaper of Silicon Valley." Why is it then that the Merc knows so little about technology -- and worse, loudly trumpets its ignorance as something to be proud of? Yesterday's lead editorial was one of the dumbest things about the computer industry that I have read in recent years:

On the Internet, safety comes first

VOLUNTARY SECURITY MEASURES WON'T WORK

Mercury News Editorial

Here's a recap of last week's cybersecurity news.

In San Francisco, Bill Gates told a skeptical audience that Microsoft's software was getting more secure. In Washington, D.C., a dozen computer security companies formed a lobbying group to cooperate with the government on Internet security -- but to avert any regulation or mandates. And in cyberspace, variants of the Mydoom and Netsky viruses infected computers around the world.

And .. that's it? That's it! I have just quoted the full list of horrors. Bill Gates said something. A dozen computer companies did something. A bunch of jackasses who still haven't learned not to execute email attachments had their computers lock up for awhile until they could find an IT person or a friend or some other grownup to help them restore their machines to normal.

No one died. No one lost vast sums of money. Sure, some businesses lost some productivity, but businesses also get less productive when the NCAA basketball tournaments start. (Last October when the A's were about to lose their third consecutive game against the Red Sox, I spent the whole afternoon in the office clutching at my gut and moaning.)

Small wonder that, also last week, two senior senators were criticizing the government's voluntary, market-based approach to cybersecurity. ``The strategy is to leave most of this to the private sector,'' California Democrat Dianne Feinstein said. ``I'm not sure, long term, that this is going to work.'' Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., seemed equally troubled. We share their concerns.

In 1982 my family bought an Apple II computer for $1500. It had 48K of RAM, no permanent internal storage, and a hideous green-and-black monitor that displayed 24 lines of 40-character columns, all caps. Last April I bought a laptop that has 448 megs of RAM, a 37-gig hard drive, and a beautiful 15-inch full color display. For $1500, which is of course about half what the Apple II cost in constant dollars.

I'd like to hear Feinstein or Kyl explain to us what government program or service has done as much for its beneficiaries.

No one is suggesting that protecting the computer networks that have become a critical part of the modern infrastructure will be easy. But the leave-it-to-the-industry approach favored by both tech companies and the Bush administration has not produced many successes so far.

What "success" could there possibly be? Are computer companies supposed to parade down El Camino Real with teenage hackers' heads on pikes?

Of course you might feel that the fact that no one dies or suffers serious injury from computer security breaches is a "success." Unless you're a bunch of editorial writers who feel obligated to get your panties in a bunch when it's a slow news day.

Neither the private infrastructure, which makes up about 80 percent of the Internet, nor government networks appear to be more secure now than a year ago. Security breaches -- some responsible for billions in losses -- are routine, and experts say the risk of a truly devastating attack is high.

Billions of dollars? Which security breaches are those? If you make extraordinary claims, shouldn't you feel obligated to provide examples and evidence?

Cars didn't get safer because the government asked Detroit to please do a better job. They got safer because, after the free market failed to address the issue, the government mandated seat belts, air bags and other improvements.

Really? Then why, if car buyers are morons who don't care about their safety, do we see automakers such as Volvo make safety a key selling point in their marketing campaigns?

The tech industry insists that would be the wrong approach for cybersecurity. The technology is vastly more complex. Innovation is more rapid, and today's mandate could be tomorrow's obsolete technology.

All of that rings true. But that doesn't mean the government should not set high-level standards and let the market figure out how to meet them. Regulators could also consider mandating disclosures of cybersecurity efforts at public companies, demanding more cooperation and information sharing from industry and providing incentives for security investments.

Legislators are notorious for their low comprehension of computer issues. (Random example: In the early days of the Web, the Georgia legislature passed a law which made it illegal to "falsely identify" oneself on the net. The law was so poorly written that there were worries that Georgia had outlawed links to other pages.) The idea of computer security written by a bunch of computer-illiterate politicians gives even the Mercury News editorialists pause, so they try to pass the buck by saying that government should "set high-level standards." But it's not hard to imagine that indirect attempts to legislate could be disastrous.

What if the government sets standards that are unattainable? ("Be it hereby resolved, there shall be no computer viruses in the year 2006.") What if legislation forces technology companies to focus on trivial issues, to the detriment of real security? And what's up with that "mandating disclosures of cybersecurity efforts at public companies?" Is it really a good idea to force corporations to make public their proprietary data about how they hope to defeat hackers? (Free clue for the Merc: "Public company" does not mean "owned by every citizen." It means "owned by anyone who bought its stock." Go buy ten shares of Microsoft and make an ass of yourself at their shareholder meetings rather than in the pages of your newspaper.)

The Mercury News does not consider that the current state of affairs is rational and efficient. Most people can install a secure system, like Linux. Why don't they do so? Because they want to use a simple, visually appealing operating system that is the release platform of choice for most software titles. Furthermore every single computer user has the option of not being ass enough to click on email attachments. I suppose the threat of viruses does not outweigh the pleasures of running the dancing baby applications or whatever it is that their friends email them.

I also object to the very idea that the government should set "high level standards." Legislation should be specific, not vague. As P.J. O'Rourke said, "Being specific is the essence of lawmaking and the difference between having a Congress and having a Mom."

Cybersecurity is akin to public health: If one computer or network is not secure, it's not only a danger for that one computer or network but also for the entire networked community.

The government doesn't allow individuals to choose whether to get immunized against infectious diseases. It doesn't allow farmers to decide whether a chicken with avian flu should be killed. Why, then, is cybersecurity optional?

Because ... infectious diseases kill people? Whereas computer viruses are merely an annoyance -- like the Mercury News' editorials.

Posted 11:04 AM by Floyd

Mickey Kaus continues his lonely crusade against John Kerry:

Real Simple Politics: I don't understand why Democrats are optimistic about John Kerry's chances of defeating Bush. Bush is currently essentially tied with Kerry in most polls. The two big issues are the economy and Iraq. The economy is almost certainly going to get better and Iraq is reasonably likely to get better. That should, on balance, help Bush. So why does it look good for Kerry, again? [But Kerry was for Iraq--ed Right. I forgot! The primary's over.]

Not to mention that Kerry has been in the news for two months. He's spent tens of millions of dollars campaigning. For the last six weeks he has been the front-runner for the nomination, and his closest competitor refused to run a negative campaign. And the whole Democratic campaign as been about who could criticize George Bush most effectively. (How many times have you turned on the TV or the radio and heard Edwards or Kerry say "I can beat George Bush"? Fifty? A hundred?)

And after all this, Kerry is tied with Bush? What's going to happen when the Bush campaign starts spending the quarter of a billion dollars they've raised? What's going to happen when we start to hear about Kerry's flaws?

Posted 8:23 PM by Floyd

Have His Carcase

Great moments in forensic science, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- An infant believed to have died in a 1997 fire actually was kidnapped and raised by a woman who set the blaze to cover her path, authorities said. Now, the child's mother -- who recognized the girl at a party by a dimple -- is eagerly awaiting a reunion.

What a heartwarming story -- wait a minute, where the hell did the authorities think the body went to?

The biological mother, Luz Cuevas of Philadelphia, saw the girl at a birthday party in January and recognized her by a dimple on her face.

At the party, she told the girl she had gum in her hair and pulled out five strands for DNA testing, Cuevas told The Associated Press on Tuesday. She said she folded them in a napkin and placed them in a plastic bag, which she locked in a safe at home, and contacted authorities.

"Because of TV, I knew they needed hair for the DNA (tests)," Cuevas said.

Because of having a brain, I knew that when a person dies, a body is often found. Where is it?

Delimar was thought to have perished in the Dec. 15, 1997, blaze in her family's home. A body was never found; authorities believed the infant had been consumed by the fast-moving fire.

Uh huh.

Hey, the "white American white military" could have used this tactic when they kidnapped Jean-Bertrand Aristide. (Though I don't know what woman could be found to raise Aristide as her own son.)

Posted 10:09 PM by Floyd

Who is the most despicable member of the House of Representatives? Now that Cynthia McKinney writes gushing letters to Saudi princes as a private citizen, the field is wide open.

I shall exclude those whose policies I find offensive; that includes all congresspersons, with the possible exception of Ron Paul (R-Galt's Gulch). And there's no reason to single out those, such as Helen Chenoweth (R-Black Helicopters), who are merely batty. (And Ms. Chenoweth is no longer in the House anyway.)

What of Bill Janklow (R-Irregularly Shaped Tundra), who killed a motorcyclist while running a stop sign? It's true that he had a history of speeding, and tried to escape punishment with a silly defense (that his diabetes made him disoriented). But Janklow did express contrition, and even resigned his office when found guilty. Who are we to fault Mr. Janklow just because he did not have access to the greasers and fixers who kept Ted Kennedy out of jail?

Janklow ran over a resident of his district. Congressmen are more likely to disgust us when standing up for their constituents rather than by running them down. Consider Robert Wexler (D-The Annoying Old Guy In Front Of You Who Argues With The Cashier About Egg Prices For Twenty Minutes). When voters in his Florida district were unable to comprehend a simple ballot, and wound up voting for Pat Buchanon to win American Idol, it was probably not realistic to expect Wexler to apologize for their senility. But did he have to rant and rave about how the butterfly ballots were impossible for the elderly to manipulate? (Were the instructions written by Pauly Shore?)

Still, it's hard to imagine that Wexler could maintain popularity with the geriatric residents of Florida unless he were possessed of some charm. Unlike people of my generation, the elderly have manners and standards. Wexler and his ilk are merely obnoxious, but Maxine Waters (D-Crackheads) is truly vile. She pandered to the 1992 Los Angeles rioters, saying of looters:

"There were mothers who took this as an opportunity to take some milk, to take some bread, to take some shoes. Maybe they shouldn't have done it, but the atmosphere was such that they did it. They are not crooks."

... One lady said her children didn't have any shoes. She just saw those shoes there, a chance for all of her children to have new shoes. Goddamn it! It was such a tear-jerker. I might have gone in and taken them for her myself."

Now there are plenty of stupid, well-meaning people who made excuses for criminals who took advantage of an opportunity to obtain free cigarettes, liquor, and televisions. But Waters went much further than that: She visited the home of Damian Williams, who was captured on tape attacking a truck driver with a chunk of concrete. Let me know when a Republican visits the jail cell of recently caught Olympic/abortion clinic bomber suspect Eric Rudolph.

Waters was recently in the news when she claimed that recently ousted Haiti president-cum-dictator Jean-Bertrand Aristide had been "kidnapped" by American forces. The "kidnapping," as related by Waters and Aristide, consisted of allegedly forcing Aristide into a plane, conveying him to the Central African Republic, and letting him go.

I suppose if Robert Mugabe ever receives his comeuppance, Maxine Waters will tell us that he was abducted by aliens.

But is it really reasonable for me to get so worked up over Waters? Every party has its nuts, right? Isn't Waters just one congressperson out of 435?

Tell it to Holy Joe Lieberman. Joe's schtick was that he cared more about God and morality than about politics. He was an "independent" Democrat who opposed affirmative action and supported school vouchers.

That was until Maxine Waters got ahold of him after he had been named the Vice Presidential nominee in 2000. She whined that she had not been consulted about the nomination, and demanded that Lieberman "explain himself." And that is exactly what Lieberman did! Lieberman abased himself in front of Waters at a Black Caucus meeting, "explaining" his deviations from Democratic orthodoxy until there weren't really any deviations at all.

Come to think of it, I guess there are worse things than being a thug, namely caving into one. But an examination of the most despicable Senators will have to wait until another time.

Posted 11:02 PM by Floyd

A California Measure and Proposition Guide for Libertarians

or for anyone else who has the strange belief that his salary belongs to him and not the Franchise Tax Board

Short Version: See what the Mercury News recommends and do the opposite

Long Version: As above, with the following helpful commentary:

Vote yes on Prop. 55

Tough economic times means setting priorities, and spending wisely.

Fixing the deplorable condition of some of our public schools should be a top priority. California's kids deserve a clean and safe learning environment, free from unsafe wiring, leaky roofs and bathrooms that don't work. Proposition 55, a $12.3 billion school bond on the March 2 ballot, will help make that happen.

...

Prop. 55 is the second installment of a two-part $25.3 billion package for renovation and new construction that will bring campuses up to par. The first part, Prop. 47, was approved two years ago by voters as a promise to upgrade public schools that suffered from years of neglect and deferred maintenance. Now, it's time to seal that deal by passing Prop. 55.

Virtually all of Prop. 47's funds are already allocated -- and without Prop. 55 crucial repairs won't be made.

...

Skeptics should be assured by Prop. 55's built-in protections against misuse of funds, which includes an independent oversight committee and regular state and local audits.

This is the first recommendation on the Merc's editorial page. This article makes a good start for my post, because it is an encapsulation of the Mercury News' ossified liberalism; there is no school bond that the Merc cannot say yes to.

So two years ago Prop 47 raised $13 billion to renovate California schools. How many students are there in California? Five million? That's $2600 per student, which would be $5200 for the residence of Floyd and Sherry McWilliams if we were allowed to issue bonds to repair our residence. That should have been plenty, especially considering that school budgets already contain funds for routine repairs and maintenance.

I am one skeptic who is not "assured" by the "independent oversight committee" and audits. Will any of those performing "oversight" lose their jobs if Prop 55 money is wasted or spent frivolously? Will anyone suffer financially?

Vote yes on Measure 2

An extra dollar a day for bridge tolls should be easy for South Bay voters to approve: Most of them cross the Bay mainly for weekend getaways, not for daily commutes to Silicon Valley jobs.

Yet the extra toll -- bringing the total to $3 a day -- will mean an additional $125 million a year for road and transit projects around the Bay that will benefit everyone. Regional Measure 2 deserves strong support in Santa Clara, Alameda and San Mateo counties, as well as the four other Bay Area counties that will vote on it March 2.

...

Regional Measure 2 is not a tax, it's a user's fee. That means it needs a majority vote to pass, not two-thirds -- but the projects it funds must directly benefit bridge users. The list was compiled by a public advisory committee with broad representation from business, environmental and social equity interests. It appears to meet the legal test.

...

I don't like to see government power increased, and anyway the state is spending its money on much more frivolous activities. I would vote no, but I don't have a serious problem with bridge tolls because they are, as the Merc noted, user fees.

(By the way, I feel somewhat dishonest for hiding this closing paragraph:

State and federal spending cuts now endanger the transportation improvement plan agreed upon by Silicon Valley and the rest of the Bay Area. Regional Measure 2 is a way to take control locally and maintain progress through bad times. Vote yes.

but I have only the best intentions: If President Bush finds out that federal spending was cut, he's sure to restore the funding, and then ask Senator Kennedy how much more money should be spent. Shh! Nobody say anything!)

VOTE NO: IT RISKS CRONYISM AND POLITICAL PAYOFFS IN SAN JOSE BUILDING PROJECTS

sic: The headline does not tell you which measure is referred to - FM

Billed as a way to save money on construction projects, San Jose's Measure D slipped quietly onto the ballot -- with the help of a cadre of lobbyists for the building industry.

It's seductive. Who doesn't want to save money? But the measure to allow what's known as design-build contracting has a fatal flaw: It removes the requirement for competitive bids without substituting any alternative guarantee of public scrutiny over who gets taxpayers' money.

At stake just in the next few years are multimillion-dollar projects, like libraries and fire stations, and one nearly $2 billion project: the massive reconstruction of San Jose's airport.

If this measure passes, there will be nothing in the city charter to prevent contract awards based on cronyism or political payoffs. It's not worth the risk. Vote no.

The council voted to put Measure D on the ballot on Dec. 2 with no discussion. There's no opposing ballot argument because people who have concerns didn't find out about the measure until it was too late to file a statement.

The process smells as much as the charter change proposal.

...

Well. I dislike the Merc's opinions, and I dislike demonization of developers. But big-city politicians are always and invariably scum who try to enrich their pals at the public's expense -- and while insulting the public's intelligence to boot. Nice catch by the Mercury News.

JUDGES HAVE SHOWN THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE JOB; IT BELONGS WITH THE COUNTY

...

Measure A on the March 2 ballot would lead to positive changes for the kids in juvenile probation system. It also would lead to more public accountability and more professional management of the county probation department.

The measure amends the county charter so the probation chief reports to the county executive instead of the Superior Court. It creates an advisory board, including a cross-section of the community, to keep an eye on the workings of the juvenile hall.

The judges are opposed to Measure A. They want to retain control of the probation department, which runs juvenile hall and the youth ranches. The 800-person department also supervises about 12,000 adult and juvenile offenders in the community.

The judges say Measure A is a power grab by the county supervisors, an effort to save face after allegations of excessive force and other problems at juvenile hall. But the judges are the ones trying to save face.

Opponents of Measure A are right about one thing: It is, if not a power grab, certainly a power shift. But that would be a positive change, for the department and the community.

Judges aren't trained managers, yet under the current structure they are responsible for a large department with union contracts, buildings to maintain and a difficult mission. The presiding judge, who is ultimately responsible for probation, rotates every couple of years, so there is little continuity.

Judges wield absolute power over juveniles from the time they are arrested and taken to juvenile hall, through their sentencing, confinement and probation period. If there are problems with conditions at the hall, to whom can a youth complain? Even the Juvenile Justice Commission, which is charged with inspecting juvenile facilities, is appointed by the judges.

Measure A would put probation where it belongs: under the county executive, a professional manager who is accountable to publicly elected officials. Changing the culture at the hall would be easier with increased public scrutiny.

...

Asking a Libertarian to comment on Measure A is like asking a vegetarian to judge a barbeque contest. Okay, sure, the judges run the Juvenile Authority badly, so we'll give control to the county, who will also run it badly. (And the "advisory committee" makes its appearance again. Anything tastes better when you add a committee!)

Majority rule isn't a blank check; vote yes on Prop. 56

In 47 states, the Legislature can pass the budget with a majority vote. Not in California.

In 39 states, a majority of the Legislature can raise taxes. Not in California.

In California, one-third of the legislators can stop what two-thirds of the legislators think is a good budget or a good tax for California.

And stop it they do, as budget deadlocks drag on through the summer.

California voters should end this invitation to gridlock. They should pass Proposition 56 on March 2. Under Proposition 56, the budget, and taxes related to it, could be approved by 55 percent of the legislators.

Sponsors call Proposition 56 the Budget Accountability Act. Proposition 56 would dock the pay of legislators and the governor for every day the budget is late. It would put information about the budget in statewide ballot pamphlets, and post on the Internet the budget-related votes of legislators. It would mandate a better budget reserve.

While all that is accountability of a sort, it's not the most important sort.

In most years, one party in the Legislature has 55 percent of the members. The majority party would bear the responsibility for drafting and passing a budget. And it would be fully accountable for it when voters go to the polls.

If Proposition 56 were just about the percentage needed to pass a budget, it wouldn't be as hotly opposed as it is. What the opposition is really worried about, and what the proponents are playing down, is the lower majority for passing taxes.

Opponents are right that if Proposition 56 passes, it will be easier to raise the income tax, the sales tax and others -- but not property taxes. They call this a ``blank check.'' Since when is majority rule a blank check? If it is, why aren't all of those 39 majority-rule states ahead of California in taxes?

...

The comparison with other states is pointless. California already spends enormous amounts of money, and if the barrier to raising taxes is lowered, the state will spend even more. (Of course higher taxes are not guaranteed. But the outcome of Prop 56 cannot be to make the state spend less!)

And I'm not interested in watching the state spend itself to oblivion, and waiting a year or two or four for the Republicans to come pick up the pieces. Considering how woefully incompetent the Republicans have been at providing opposition, my wait may be eternal.

If Prop 56 is not a blank check, then why is the Mercury News agitating for it?

County libraries: Measure B is an easy yes

This recession seems so deep and so damaging that we tend to forget about the last one, in the early '90s. But for local libraries, 1994 was rock bottom.

The state had taken away 40 percent of the Santa Clara County library system's operating budget to balance its own books. Libraries were closing one or two days a week, eliminating story hours, cutting programs for seniors. It was grim. But county leaders mobilized, formed a joint powers authority and asked voters to pay a special tax to save their libraries -- and 71 percent said yes.

The result is the excellent library system that nine cities and the unincorporated areas of the county rely on today. But the special tax that provides 21 percent of the libraries' budget is about to expire -- so on March 2, voters in areas with county libraries will be asked to continue their support by voting for Measure B. It should be the easiest yes vote ever cast.

Libraries are fundamental to America's promise of equal opportunity and access to information. They're needed now more than ever: Use of the county system has grown by nearly 80 percent since 1994. The libraries have some 3.5 million visits a year.

The new parcel tax, kicking in when the old one ends in 2005, would be $42 a year for a single home or condo, less per apartment and more for a business. Let's see, $42 will buy -- what, one new hard cover, maybe two? Three or four paperbacks? Yet just $42 per home will maintain what's now rated the best library system of its size in the country.

...

If these libraries are so great, why is their funding in such danger? The reason is that whenever government's spending is cut, it responds by threatening the most useful and visible public services. The voters are continually blackmailed: "Raise your taxes or there will be no more libraries. Raise your taxes or there won't be firemen. Raise your taxes or we'll shut your local school."

No to blackmail; No on B.

Parcel taxes deserve a yes

Of course they deserve a yes! They're taxes! At least the Merc felt obliged to explain further:

A half-dozen area school boards have placed parcel taxes on the March 2 ballot. Each would enable a district to continue vital programs, or in the case of the Union School District, keep open schools threatened with closing.

...

See what I mean about blackmail?

Don't gamble; vote yes on Props. 57 and 58

The choice that voters face March 2 with Propositions 57 and 58 comes down to this: Pass the $15 billion bond and the spending limits, or gamble that the Legislature will suddenly find the courage to compromise.

Of those options, we recommend the propositions. Both must pass for either to take effect.

It would be nice to insist that the state pay its bills now. It would be nice to hold the line against using bonds for operating expenses, instead of for investments in highways, parks and schools.

But without any borrowing, the taxes and cuts required to close the budget gap would rip the safety net of public services and squeeze all taxpayers.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been the driving force behind the plan, and his description is generally accurate. Just like a household that has spent recklessly, the state is getting a loan to refinance various debts and pay them off over a decade (Proposition 57) and then is cutting up its credit cards (Proposition 58).

...

Why yes, I remember hearing that Schwarzenegger warned of "catastrophic cuts" if 57 and 58 did not pass.

Sign me up for some of that!