There is science, logic, reason; there is thought verified by experience. And then there is California. Edward Abbey felt this way decades ago about his adopted home in the West and the same holds true today. We are a state born of a gold rush, a panacea of quick riches that launched us onto the national stage. 150 years later the new gold rush of high-tech and the glamor of Hollywood keeps California a place where the eyes of dreamers turn the world over. We are also a state who's political system is seriously broken.

Like 24 other states, California has a system of initiative and referendum whereby citizens who gather sufficient signatures can petition voters directly to pass laws and even amend the constitution while completely bypassing the state legislature. This system is so popular in California that there have been no less than 79 statewide propositions since November 1998. There is good reason for the voters of this state to go directly to the citizenry to get things done: The California legislature in Sacramento is so beholden to their established interests that it is virtually impossible to enact any real change through them.

The pinnacle of special interest politics seemingly was reached during the 2002 California gubernatorial election when one of the most unpopular and ineffective governors the state had ever seen was elected to a second term. Gray Davis, the incumbent Democratic Governor actually spent more money in the Republican primary election to defeat former L.A. mayor Dick Riordan then he did on trying to get himself elected against a virtually politically unknown Bill Simon. Against this backdrop in 2003, Californians took the unusual step of recalling the ineffectual governor and replaced him with the Hollywood star and Sacramento outsider Arnold Schwarzenegger. "The Gubernator," as he became known during the campaign took office amid a mood of reform promising to "fundamentally change the way California does business."

Unable to reform the state's government with the legislature, Schwarzenegger decided to bypass them altogether and take his reforms directly to the people. The heart of these measures, a series of 4 key ballot propositions will go up for a vote on November 8, 2005. Prop. 74 raises the number of years required for a teacher in the public school system from 2 to 5. Prop. 75 changes the method by which Public Employee Unions collect dues from their members from an "opt out" system to an "opt in," whereby members must specifically give their unions permission to spend their dues on political causes. Prop. 76 slows the rate of growth of the state budget and limits the ability to borrow money. Prop. 77 shifts the power to "redistrict" (or Gerrymander) from the legislature to a panel of retired judges.

These ballot propositions launched a campaign battle more expensive than many national races. The San Francisco Chronicle estimates that mostly union sources have spent approximately $115 Million thus far to defeat these propositions, especially Prop. 75 which they believe can decimate their power in Sacramento. Pro-Schwarzenegger groups have spent about $45 Million to try to get their measures passed. So why is so much money being spent on a special election with not a single candidate running? Put simply, the reform initiatives can fundamentally transform government in California. This can accomplish much to make government work better for the people of the state while at the same time doing serious damage to special interests who have controlled state politics for so long. I strongly urge a "Yes" vote on 74, 75, 76, and 77 and here's why (in order of importance):

Prop. 77 - Despite the ability of citizens to get propositions on the ballot in California, the fundamental responsibility of legislating law in this state still lies with the legislature in Sacramento. According to Governor Schwarzenegger "153 of California's congressional and legislative seats were up in the last election, and not one, I repeat, not one, changed parties." Specifically, California's solidly Democratic legislature has been drawing up districts that are designed to pack their opposition into the smallest number of possible seats. What this proposition does is to remove the power to draw these districts from the politicians in Sacramento and give the power to a non-partisan panel of retired judges. This will not necessarily tilt the balance of power in California -- nor should it. It will however allow regions of the state to actually have their vote heard, rather than have any opposition sidelined into a permanent minority. Ideally, districts would not need to be redrawn for anything other than population increase. Make no mistake, this isn't an issue of Democrat vs. Republican, it's an issue of incumbents vs. everyone else. Today's legislature have drawn themselves "safe seats" that are unlikely to change any time soon. Proposition 77 will end this practice for good.

More on the California Propositions in Part 2.

This morning I was driving to work on the busy Los Angeles 405 Freeway. As usual, I was flipping through assorted radio stations playing the same game that I have worked out to a near science: Tune in to one morning talk show after another, just avoiding the agonizing commercial schedules that I know already by heart. During the 4 times an hour that it is impossible to avoid AM commercials (on almost any station), switch to the FM band and listen to National Public Radio. Just as this "radio driving dance" has become routine, so too has the content offered by so many of the shows that populate today's radio: Specifically, the polarization of the American population into two major camps.

Once your ear is tuned to listen for it, you almost cannot avoid this polarization: You're either Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, religious or secular, good or bad. Are we really that simple? Depending on which radio stations you listen to, the surprising answer is often "Yes, we are." This is true not because some talk show host or radio pundit has declared it so, rather because we are so often ready to classify ourselves in this way.

It is perfectly normal, even human nature to attempt to identify with a particular group or another. In this way we find safety, camaraderie, support, and even identity. It is precisely this natural trait that has led to our survival as a species. Prehistoric man would band together along familial groups with similar blood, background, and needs. In those times anyone not associated directly with your group was immediately suspect as they represented competition for potentially scarce resources: Food, water, mating rights. Worse they were often a threat, as survival was precarious and killing any potential rival was preferable to allowing danger close to your tribe. In many parts of the developing world, intra-societal classifications still illicit just such a response whether on tribal, religious, racial, or even political lines.

You may be asking, "but we live in the United States, what does prehistoric disposition, or even foreign tribal affiliation have to do with us?" Listen enough to talk radio today and you'll quickly find out that classifying you into "our side or their side" is big business. Big business for media companies, big business for political parties, and big business for special interest groups of all types. The more likely you are to identify with one side or the other the more likely you are to tune into that show, buy its advertisers' products, vote in the way that they wish, or support whatever cause they might be championing.

Furthermore, affiliating ourselves with a particular group is often good fun. I pursued my undergraduate studies at Cal Berkeley, so with a little bit of nostalgia I'll often side with the "Go Bears" crowd against those more inclined to wear red and watch football on farms. While affiliating with your favorite sports team is as venerable an institution as any, this need to side with one team often against another is often divisive in everyday life.

Do we really fit so neatly into these target groups as we think we do? In the last 4 presidential elections, I've voted for 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans. In state and local elections, my voting record would challenge any party strategist. Simply put, I prefer to vote for the most qualified candidate on issues most likely to affect my family positively and I don't usually care whether or not they belong to one party or another. Our political system is as such that we have the freedom to pick our man (or woman) and do our best to get them elected. That same freedom guarantees us the right to change our mind and boot this same person out of office if we believe that they have failed us.

So does inclusion in a particular group or party equate to positive moral character or enlightenment? Similarly does not belonging to said group or party equate to negative moral character or foolishness? Along with self-classifying ourselves into these groups we tend to be very quick to demonize those that oppose us. This is where the real danger in polarization lies. Where does one draw the line between respecting an opposing opinion and opposing a philosophical heretic? We even reserve the worst of our ire for those who once agreed with us and have changed their minds; no one likes an apostate.

Our groups give us each a sense of identity and belonging. It is important to embrace the positive influence that these can bring, while being aware that we do not own a monopoly on truth. Opposing views need not be treated as an enemy within; rather they are the very foundation of the freedoms we enjoy.

Ever since the day that the Internet made obsolete the Bulletin Board Services (BBS's) that preceded it, I have wanted to restore some semblance of interactive communication to the static web site. 

Those of you who knew me years ago might remember the old "Abyss BBS."  This page is an attempt to restart that dialog.

Of course, time is scarcer then it once was, however I will attempt to post here somewhat regularly, if nothing else then to stimulate discussion.  There are many topics I would love to discuss, but really I'd love to hear from you.  Please take a moment to click on "comments" below and say hello!

                                                                 -- Yaron