And now what?

I am writing this as much for some catharsis as for sharing some of my thoughts on the momentous election results of last night. I know there is a whole lot of anguished (& no doubt, congratulatory) text being generated, but I wanted to get my own down before reading other viewpoints.

It has become somewhat fashionable for folks to claim that, "I told you Trump could make it!" Or some variation thereof. I make no such claim. I was fully and completely surprised by the results. While there was always an undercurrent of unease, never in my conscious thinking did I believe that Trump being elected the President of the United States was a real possibility. I still can't believe it.  Having said that, I was aware of the source of that unease: it was a couple of things. First, the possibility that the "silent majority" that Trump claimed was indeed real and the second was the doubt that, coming immediately after the first non-white president, there would be enough men (& women) willing to vote in a woman as president.

The first reason can be understood as follows: While a lot of people (especially men) liked what Trump had to say, they were not comfortable saying so in public or to pollsters. It had become so reflexive to look down and heap derision upon anybody who expressed support for Trump that many of his supporters just went silent. It became impossible (at least to Hillary supporters) to separate the man from the message, but that's not how many of his supporters saw it. In the privacy of the voting booth, this silent majority was free to vote their true beliefs.
The second reason follows along similar lines. The white patriarch as the benevolent leader of the country is firmly established, despite all protestations (and actions) towards gender and racial equality. When they finally "let" (yes, this is how a lot of people view it) a black man become president, it was almost with a self-congratulatory tone - "See, how magnanimous we can be. And surely, this proves that we are not racist." The reaction to Hillary then, is not surprisingly, "And you want me to do what now?" The dragon of racism may have been dealt a body blow, but misogyny is alive and well.

Of course, I squelched down the unease these reasons may have caused and here I am, less than 24 hours later wondering what happened. There will be plenty of analysis by people who are far smarter and better informed, but at least for me, it is the sobering realization that those of us that believed in American exceptionalism were wrong. People here have the same fears and biases as people in any other country. The same fear of "outsiders," the same closing of ranks, the same mistrust of liberal values. Overreaction? Perhaps, but I think we should all be permitted that today.

How and maybe, why did this happen? Was Hillary really so flawed a candidate or did Trump have such a compelling message? I have always believed that it takes an exceptional, beyond reproach, person to shatter any barrier or stereotype. Whether it was Jesse Owens at the 1936 Olympics, or Jackie Robinson in Major League Baseball, or indeed, Barack Obama in 2008, the individual has to be so compelling that shattering the barrier becomes a given. Was Hillary such a candidate? Perhaps so, in her personal story.  But, a political leader is also a very public person, somebody that has to inspire and motivate not just through actions, but also through words and an open embrace of the people you seek to lead. And it is in those latter attributes that I found Hillary wanting.

Then there is the appeal of Trump - As I have written earlier, I believe he tapped into a well of resentment over political correctness stretched to the limit. The left is so afraid of causing offense to anybody that they end up sounding disingenuous. I believe the advances on various social issues that we have had are just that - advances.  However, there needed to be some acknowledgement that they are not easy choices for everybody. Not everyone can immediately appreciate the virtue of allowing people to choose a restroom based on their gender "identity." Similarly on terrorism. The educated, liberal elite demanded that we see terrorism as a very particular problem, something that should and could be tackled in a vacuum. Maybe that is the moral high ground, but that's not always obvious to the average joe, who just wants things to be the way they always were.
On the economy, Hillary faced a similar challenge - does she embrace Obama's policies and achievements or does she talk about how she is going to fix the problems that are clearly there, with the implicit criticism of Obama that that would mean? She decided to go with the former and I think that was a mistake. Accepting that all was not well and that there were indeed constituencies that were falling behind would have dulled at least a bit of Trump's message.
Lest I give the wrong impression, all the above notwithstanding, I still believe that Trump should not have been elected. He is unfit to lead anybody, let alone an entire nation. Hillary was so much the better choice, which is why watching her farewell speech this morning was so painful. Now all we can wonder is what might have been.

Where do we go from here? After the grief dulls and the quotidian business of life resumes, what will the long term implications be? The biggest fear I have is for the social fabric of this country.  Trump will make at least one Supreme Court appointment and more than likely a few more.  That will set the court on a conservative path for a generation or two. What might the damage be? No chance of overturning Citizens United, of course. No chance of any meaningful gun control measures either. Could Roe V Wade be challenged? It will certainly come up. Could marriage equality be challenged? It will also come up.

Then there are the environmental causes - Trump is going to repeal lots of regulations in that realm - just how many remains to be seen. But, the greater danger could be the sins of omission - ignoring climate change altogether.
Gender equality will take a backseat, equal pay will become a quaint concept. It will become ok to question the loyalty of anybody that is "not like us." The rich will get a tax cut and the economic divide will just get larger.

On that last point though, I wonder if Trump's inherent populism will give him some pause? After all he has been a Democrat for most of his life and as has been pointed out throughout this campaign, so many of his policies go against GOP orthodoxy.  So, maybe therein lies a safety valve of sorts - that an obdurate Republican congress will not let him have his way in all matters. And on the flip side, he won't be the pliable puppet that Bush 43 was.

Sometimes one has to vent - it doesn't solve anything, but it at least provides some temporary relief. Here is to hoping that I am wrong about most of what I have written above.

Push comes to shove

I have a new theory - Trump's flaws are so manifestly obvious that they become plausible to ignore.  It's not just that he gets a pass for his shortcomings, but that nobody even debates his faults.  They are so glaringly obvious that his supporters reflexively start every response with, "Yes, but..."

Did he tap into a latent sense of disillusionment? One of the better analysis of the Trump phenomenon (it was in the NYRB, several months ago) that I read suggested that it was, to put it simplistically, the reaction to too much PC behavior and high minded liberal preaching.  The airwaves are filled with reports of terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, but we are told that profiling Muslims is bad and more crucially, we are wrong to think that such profiling may be a good idea.  When CA's prop 8 was struck down, a huge cheer went around the nation, but does everybody have to feel good about it? The message was clear - if you didn't, then you were bigoted.  And on and on.  I am an Obama supporter and have great respect for him, but his scholarly and aloof nature no doubt ticked off more than a few.  A lot of it is clearly (to me) racially tinged, but that is mostly a secondary factor, not the primary one.

And as you are feeling beaten down, feeling unworthy for your thinking (that is mostly just the result of generations of accepted wisdom), along comes a con artist who speaks your thoughts aloud.  He says things that most people in public life wouldn't dare to say and people find it refreshing.  And in some ways, it is.  Every one of us has biases, but taking part in pubic discourse required that you fervently espouse every egalitarian position and suppress any expression of bias whatsoever.  Trump provided a release valve for the pressures that built up over this suppression.

Would this attraction have persisted had there been a candidate other than Hillary on the other side? I very much doubt it.  She (& Bill Clinton) have attracted such vicious hatred that one is almost tempted to excuse every one their transgressions (and they are many) just on the basis of fairness.  Why do so many people hate (yes, hate, not just dislike) Hillary? Lots of theories again, but ultimately, there may be no untangling where the bias ends and genuine character/policy concerns begin.

Enough with the analysis! What is also manifestly clear to me is that Hillary is such a superior option to Trump that there is no debate.  Anybody who needs convincing is somebody who stopped listening a long time ago.  With the statement from the FBI Director, a renewed vigor has gotten into Trump's campaign and the polls are getting uncomfortably tight (for a Hillary supporter.)  After dismissing it for years, months, and weeks, there is now a fairly decent chance for Trump to win the presidency. This is a frightening thought for me - how could a kind, generous, liberal minded nation ever elect this bigot? What part of the appeal (the earlier analysis, notwithstanding) am I not getting?

I always believed that when push came to shove, Americans would shy away from the orange headed egomaniac.  Are sufficient numbers of people actually going step into their voting booths and decide that Trump is the better choice? Months of having a comfortable lead in the polls had perhaps made Hillary and her supporters a bit too relaxed.  Complacency is no longer an option - it's time for all Hillary supporters to step up and make their numbers known. Push has come to shove. 

The 2016 Elections - A Vote Guide - Local San Diego Propositions

This is part 2 of my voter guide for the 2016 elections and focuses on the local San Diego props. As is typical, they go by letters (vs the numbers used at the state level.)

Prop A: Increase sales tax by 0.5% for the next 40 years to pay for transportation related expenses. The local ST at 8% is already high, raising it by another 1/2% under the noble goal of fixing our dilapidated infrastructure is just cynical. Vote NO.

Prop B: Permit the Lilac Hills development in North San Diego. It's kind of curious that one of the supporters is the mayor of Chula Vista! This prop is seeking voter approval to convert agricultural land into a mixed use residential and commercial development. Isn't there enough construction in San Diego already? Vote NO.

Prop C: Pay for a new Chargers stadium, mostly from increased tourist taxes.  This is a tough one for me. I like having an NFL team in town and really believe that pro sports franchises raise the profile of a city. But how much of this is thinking like the sports fan that I am? On the flip side, how much of my opposition comes from the general ineptitude of SD teams in general and the Chargers in particular?  The team is clever - they are throwing in a convention center expansion along with the new stadium.  That will clearly attract bigger and more conventions to the city. There was a lot of opposition to the new Padres stadium (Petco) too, but it is undeniable that East Village has been revitalized by the stadium. But, I really do dislike the Chargers' ownership and the NFL as an organization.  If they both want to keep the Chargers in SD (which I am all for), then let them pay for a new stadium. Vote NO.

Prop D: This is another variation on the theme of raising the TOT (Tourist Occupancy Tax) to pay for the expansion of the convention center, but oddly enough, not for a stadium.  There is a sweetener in the form of requiring the Mission Valley site of Qualcomm stadium (if vacated) to be sold to an educational institution or a park. I don't like it. Vote NO. 

Prop E: Add more detailed rules about the removal of elected officials. This one seems to be largely filling a void that exists in that, currently, an elected official can only be recalled by the public even if, say, they have been convicted of a felony. Seems a largely worthy measure. Vote YES.

Prop F: A deputy city attorney cannot be fired without good cause after serving for at least 1 year (is 2 years currently.) Vote YES.

Prop G: Community review board to review in-custody deaths and police shootings. Seems like a great idea in the current climate. Vote YES.

Prop H: Change city contracting procedures. Apparently the least controversial local ballot measure, according to that fine newspaper - the SD UT. Not interesting enough to parse too carefully and seems useful enough.  Vote YES.

Prop I: Allow the city to continue leasing land inside Balboa Park to the SD High School.  This is prompted by another arcane rule that somehow considers a public high school an improper use of public land. Vote YES.

Prop J: Increase the share to regional parks from the Mission Bay park revenues: This seems rather unfair - why should the Mission Bay park give up its revenues to pay for other parks? Vote NO.

Prop K: Always require Nov run-off election. When multiple candidates face off in an (ostensibly) non-partisan primary (typically in June), the top two vote getters face off in the general election in Nov, unless one of them gets over 50% of the vote in June. This measure would remove that provision and always require the top 2 to face off. I think this is a useful measure since most folks don't pay attention to the elections in June, especially in non-presidential election years. Vote YES.

Prop L: All ballot measures to go on the Nov ballot and not in the June primaries. Same analysis as above. Vote YES.

Prop M: Raise the limit on the number of affordable housing units that the city can develop.  Seems rather benign and perhaps equally ineffectual. But, worthy enough. Vote YES.

Prop N: This is great example of a "freeloader" measure.  This allows the city to levy a tax of 5 to 15% on any marijuana sales, should such sales become legal (via Prop 64.) But hey, if we are going to soak the tobacco users (Prop 56), then why not the pot smokers? Vote YES.

The 2016 Elections - A Voter Guide: The CA Propositions

The Cubs ended their wait for a World Series title, so there is still hope that the nightmare of the 2016 elections may yet come to an end. In the meantime, we still have to wade through a raft of propositions. There are so many that I am going to break my guide into two parts - this one is for the state-wide measures and the second one will be for the San Diego ones.  Here goes.

Prop 51: $9 Billion educational bond: A General Obligation (GO) bond to pay for schools and community colleges. A local bond would be preferable, but our schools need all the help they can get. Vote YES.

Prop 52: Changes to hospital fee program: Hospitals in CA currently pay a "fee" in order to trigger matching Federal funds for MediCal. However, our legislators have diverted a part of this money to the general fund. This ballot measure will put an end to that and also extend the fee program indefinitely.  There is some danger in specifying too precisely how each dollar must be used, but this "diversion" seems a bit more egregious than usual. Vote YES.

Prop 53: Voter approval for issuing revenue bonds greater than $2 Billion: Ca issues two kinds of bonds - General Obligation (GO) bonds and revenue bonds. GO bonds always require voter approval (see prop 51) and are repaid using the general fund, i.e., state taxes.  Revenue bonds are for funding a particular project and are typically repaid by some fee on the project itself (e.g., tolls from a road built using a revenue bond.) This prop was largely pushed and supported by one couple and seems like an unnecessary hassle. Vote NO.

Prop 54: Public display of legislative bills prior to vote: This measure would require that a bill cannot be voted on unless it has been presented to the public for at least 72 hours.  There are other aspects to this prop, but this is the main event. It seems like a good idea (after all, what is the rush to vote on a bill given how long it takes for it to get that far?), but it is curious that the entire funding comes from one source - a billionaire who clearly has some vested interest in getting this passed. The forced "waiting period" is also an opportunity for lobbyists to work on changing lawmakers' minds.  Even so, I think the greater transparency that this allows is sufficiently useful to tip the balance in its favor. Vote YES.

Prop 55: Extension of the Prop 30 income tax increase: Prop 30 had "temporarily" tacked on an extra 1% of income tax for incomes above a certain level (applicable to about 1.5% of Californians.) This prop now proposes to extend that "temporary" measure by 12 years.  While I would typically be all for soaking the wealthy in order to pay for education and healthcare (as this prop promises to do), this smells like a bait-n-switch: Get a tax increase passed on the promise of it being temporary and after people are inured to it, slowly make it permanent. Vote NO.

Prop 56: Raise state excise tax by $2 on a pack of cigarettes: The current tax is $0.87 per pack and this measure would raise that to $2.87, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products. Heavy opposition from cigarette makers. Vote YES.

Prop 57: Parole for non-violent criminals and juvenile: There are too many people in US prisons and the situation in CA is bad enough that in 2011 the Supreme Court ruled that they violated the eighth amendment (cruel and unusual punishment). The 3-strikes law and mandatory sentencing rules have led to way too many unnecessary imprisonments. Vote YES.

Prop 58: Allow non-English languages in schools: This essentially repeals prop 227 (from 1998) that required "English immersion" in schools. There is a certain appeal to "language as identity," but there is a larger measure of imperialism in enforcing English as the sole language. Vote YES.

Prop 59: Legislators must oppose Citizens United: Citizens United has (in)famously unleashed large amounts of money into the political process and I would readily support any effort to overturn it. This one though is destined to be largely symbolic in that there is very little the legislators of one state, however motivated, can do to get rid of it. But, we might as well send a message about what Californians think about this bone headed 5-4 Supreme Court decision.  Vote YES.

Prop 60: Require use of condoms in adult films: I can't quite figure out why this is the case, but there is a lot of opposition to this measure, including both the Democratic and Republican parties (the only measure with this distinction.) I am just going to go with the preponderance of opposition to this.  Vote NO.

Prop 61: Price controls on prescription drugs: The actual restrictions are a bit indirect - the requirement is that when the state pays for prescription drugs (via MediCal, etc) it shall pay no more than the price paid by the VA system (whose prices are negotiated by the federal government.) This ballot is creating some history of its own - it is on track to be the most expensive ballot measure ever - in all of the US, with nearly $110 million raised by opponents of the prop. Most of that, not surprisingly, is from various drug makers.  While I am reflexively inclined to support something that the drug companies hate so much, there are actually many subtleties to consider. It is not automatic that this measure will lead to cost savings and could potentially backfire on the VA system (but I doubt it.) However, that $110 M keeps looming large. Vote YES.

Prop 62 (Repeal the death penalty) and Prop 66 (Keep the death penalty): These are dueling, incompatible propositions. If both pass, then the one with the most 'yes' votes prevails. This is an easy one for me - I have long been opposed to capital punishment. I don't think it is effective and smacks too much of revenge, which no civilized society should permit. From a purely practical point of view, it is also terribly expensive to put somebody on death row in the US. Vote YES on 62 and NO on 66.

Prop 63: Prohibit some large capacity ammunition magazines and require background checks for certain firearm purchases: Another easy one for me. Vote YES.

Prop 64: Legalize recreational use of marijuana. This is clearly going to get a lot of attention on election day. I have generally been puzzled that alcohol is legal, but marijuana is not. Smoking and chewing tobacco continue to be legal. After all the "Just Say No" and "War on drugs" campaigns it seems counter-intuitive to contemplate legalizing some drugs. But that's mostly Pavlovian and the evidence (what there is of it) points the other way - whether it is Portugal or Colorado. Vote YES.

Prop 65: Allocation of funds from sale of reusable grocery bags. This is one half of another paired proposition (the other one being 67, in this case.) This one states that the proceeds from the sale of reusable grocery bags (made necessary by the ban on plastic bags) should be earmarked for specific environmental purposes. This is overreach - banning plastic bags is a fine idea, but why should the stores be prevented from keeping the proceeds from any bags they sell in their stead? Consumers are free to bring their own bags, anyway. Vote NO.

Prop 67: Ban single-use plastic bags: There is a bit more to this than just the ban on plastic grocery bags, but that's the essential part. No mystery to my position here. Vote YES.

Elections 2016 - A prediction

It seems like the 2016 US presidential election campaign has been going on forever. To say that it has been high drama and unprecedented is stating the obvious, but how do you not say it? The success of Donald Trump (at least so far) is clearly the one that defies all conventional logic, but that is not always a bad thing. However, when bucking the trend creates the prospect of having a demagogue occupy the White House for at least four years, it is a bad thing.

We are just under five weeks from the election and while Hillary Clinton has once again started to pull away after the first debate, there are likely more ups and downs in store for us before it is all done. Watching Trump in the first debate was like watching a caricature of him. He said things and acted in all the negative ways that his critics have accused him of doing. What I find amazing about his supporters are that most of them acknowledge that the reasons that he is falling behind are his bizarre and inconsistent statements, his pettiness, and not to mention, his general ignorance about most things that a president should be aware of. However, while conceding these points, they simultaneously bemoan the fact that he does not have the discipline to control these impulses.  All the while ignoring the fact that the reason for such terrible behavior is that, he is inconsistent, petty, and ignorant. These are manifestations of real character issues that make him completely unsuitable to lead the country.  The double standard is well at work - any missteps from Hillary (personal email server, really?) are proof positive of her unsuitability, but for Trump, he is either "telling it like it is" or that he is "not a career politician."
At this point in the campaign (& perhaps for some time now), it doesn't matter what either candidate does or says - their respective bases are dug-in and determined.  I don't believe there are any actual "undecided" voters out there - just folks who are so disdainful of both candidates that they cannot actually say who they are going to vote for. Setting aside Trump's hardcore supporters (and I do impute base motives to at least a fair number of them), I cannot believe that any sentient person would actually believe that Trump is qualified to be president. When push comes to shove (as it will when they are standing in the polling booth), they will not vote for Trump. It's not even going to be close - Hillary will win in a landslide. Wishful thinking on my part? Perhaps.  But, doesn't sanity have to prevail at some point? 

Coffee and Toast in a Fish Market

The outing was taking longer than expected. It was the penultimate day of our short trip to Japan and Prem, Malini, and I had left early for a quick visit to Tsukiji - one of Tokyo's most famous (& oldest) fish markets. We had left the boys sleeping in our rental apartment under the care of Vanitha who was next door. The fish auction in Tsukiji is rather well known, but that happens in the wee hours of the morning - around 1:30am.  We managed to get there around 6:45am with some rather vague goals of seeing them prep a large Tuna and just generally browse. Two hours, tops - that's what I told myself.

But now it was past 8:30am and we had not managed to see or do anything special. I was getting pretty hungry too - we had left without any breakfast or even coffee. As we rushed past some shops, headed to a knife store that Prem was seeking, I caught glimpse of a tiny shop where I noticed a few people sitting around a wooden counter drinking coffee. Something about the scene caused me to stop and turn back - not least of which was the prospect of getting some coffee. When we got back to the shop entrance, we saw that it was indeed a small coffee place with six customers (4 guys and 2 gals) sitting around the counter.  The person running the store appeared to be a rather elderly lady.

Hatsue Murata of Coffee Amkane

There were no more seats to be had.  I figured we could just drink coffee standing outside and signaled the lady for 2 cups of coffee. She gave me a smile, but made no move to actually give us the coffee. After a couple of iterations of this, I realized that we would just have to wait for a seat to open up. Prem was ok to wait for a bit, but Malini was not. Not only does she not drink coffee, she was anxious to get back to the boys as well. To add to that, at least one of the customers was puffing away - and Malini has zero tolerance for cigarette smoke. Since I also wanted to wait, Malini decided to go off and browse on her own.

It was getting on 10 minutes now and none of the customers were showing signs of leaving.  Indeed, they kept getting refills. As the minutes wore on, I was feeling guilty about delaying all of us. Just as I was ready to quit, Prem hands me a webpage to read on his phone. It is about the shop. Turns out, the coffee shop that I had stumbled upon was something of a legend in Tsukiji. The lady who was managing the store - single-handily grinding, brewing, serving, and cleaning - is a 90 year old grandmother, who has been running the store for over 60 years!  She only opens the store a couple of days a week - 7am to 10am on Tuesdays and Saturdays and we just happened to be there on a Saturday morning. Now there was no question about leaving - we had to sit down and drink some coffee.

By now a line had formed itself behind us - clearly lots of folks knew about her. Eventually the two gals left and Prem and I were able to sit down. Grandma was definitely old school. She ground her beans in an ancient grinder, then measured the grounds into a cloth filter that was sitting atop a ceramic jug. Water was boiled in another ceramic jug and then poured into the cloth filter (yes! Pour-over coffee!!).  The coffee cups were kept warm in a basin of hot water and you got condensed milk and sugar to add to the strong brew.
The only other thing she served were thick slices of toast, with a liberal dash of butter.

It was good, strong coffee and the toast was very welcome. Once we were seated we forgot all about the rather sizable crowd that had now gathered at the door.  We sat in the amiable warmth of grandma Murata's (that was her name) tiny coffee shop and sipped our coffee and munched on our toast. The four guys who had been there before us were all friends and at least one of them spoke decent English.  At one point, he whipped out a flag and requested a group photo with the coffee lady and his buddies. They were members of a local soccer club and that was their club flag. The fondness they had for grandma was patently obvious even though she clearly had no idea who they were. At one point, the English speaker went, "The best part is her smile - it is so sweet!" And indeed, he was right. Malini was not to be denied and requested and was granted a photo with her. I had a feeling that grandma Murata reminded her of her own grandmother who had remained spry and active till her last days.

Sign on the wall reads: "Please Speak Loudly"

It turned out that we were luckier than we realized. As we were preparing to take leave (rather reluctantly), the soccer player says, "You know, her store is going to shut down in October." Was she finally retiring, I queried? "No," he replied "The whole market is being torn down and relocated. And she doesn't want to move." After 80 years of operating in this location, the entire Tsukiji market was being relocated to another site in Nov 2016, partly in preparation for the 2020 Olympics, but largely because the aging infrastructure in the current market was sorely inadequate.

As we said our goodbyes and walked off to other parts of the market, I reflected that whatever else we did or got in the rest of the visit, the early morning trip to Tsukiji had already been worth it.