Here’s the first episode of the podcast, #Matters!
The majority of you who have come to see this update are my friends and family at this point, so I thought it appropriate to help you see just how many of you have been instrumental in the making of “Home Street.” Please keep in mind that context is key, and a lot of the references you’ll find here will make more sense once you’ve read the novel.
If you would like to preorder “Home Street,” simply go here and do so.
Without further ado, I present…
Legend has it I’ve been working on this book since I was seven years old. The thing about beginning anything at such a tender age is I’m not entirely certain it’s true. I know I began not long after we moved to Florida. Seems about right, but just like Paul, my timeline can be confusing.
There’s a lot I can say that about: “Just like Paul.” I could go into detail, writing dissertations on what’s a memory and what’s pure imagination, but that’s not the point. The goal here is to thank those who’ve inspired, motivated, and aided in the creation of this book. Still, the legend is important.
Truth is I have so many people to acknowledge in this affair it’s practically criminal. One of the reasons I’ve embedded so many names in the narrative is to purposefully pay homage to those folks. If you’ve known me at any point in my life leading up to the publication of this work and there’s a character with a name similar or identical to your own, it’s a pretty good bet I’m full of thanksgiving our paths have crossed.
The legal department would prefer I add a disclaimer.
This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.
That is an important statement. Not just because it will keep me out of court, but also – while I’ve been inspired by real individuals, these characters are pure fiction. The characters on these pages are here to serve the story and not to be mirror images of complicated flesh and blood individuals.
The original stories – which were the spiritual precursors of this tome – were mainly screenplays, and my full intention was to film them. I learned the format from reading old Three Stooges scripts. Instead of hiring actors, I would cast my friends and family. By doing so, the roles I created were greatly influenced by their personalities.
The very first story was called F.B.K.I.S. (or Federal Bureau of Kids Investigations and Stuff). That cast included an assortment of elementary and middle school acquaintances.
I say acquaintances, because I didn’t have many friends in those days. Certainly, there were some who were more. There was Kyle, whose last name has been lost to history. He was my first and only friend from the time I moved to Florida until the time he moved away.
When Damon Matrocos came to town, I saw a new opportunity. Despite the fact no one else in school wanted to play with me – that I was the punchline to so many jokes, I would earn this new kid’s friendship. This was after my fervent prayer in the tub but before I discovered “Weird Al.” I was still learning to craft my charm into a tool. I’m happy to say Damon became my friend and was a part of that original cast, as were Michael and Benjamin and my best friend throughout my life, my brother Andrew.
We would go on neighborhood adventures, sometimes searching for Old Mr. Green in the woods. On one occasion, we investigated a real-life predator in the neighborhood. That was the day Damon suggested we start a club. That was the day that inspired me to start writing.
After my parents divorced and we moved to Ohio, I became further influenced by the people I met while briefly going to the private school where my mother taught. Christian Hodges, Michael Smail, and Jacob Lees would sit with me at lunch, listening patiently as I told them about the script I was writing for us all.
I moved into a trailer park and started going to school at Big Walnut. That was the first major shift in the overall story. It became a study of the kids in my neighborhood. They were trying so hard to grow up while I was desperately clinging to childhood. Some of them were turning to drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, petty crime, and sex. I was witness to arson, incest, and brutal violence while living there, and two of my friends from school were prototypical Dylan Kliebold/Eric Harris types, building pipe bombs and threatening to one day come to school with guns. Not to be contained in a single volume, I typed out a film trilogy under the banner Debt 2 Society on our first family computer.
By this point in my life, I was the class clown and on the opposite end of the popularity totem pole. I’d already laid down the groundwork with classroom antics during eighth grade, but what really put me over the top were two events. First, I accidentally pushed Joel Reynolds through the fire extinguisher glass on the first day of our freshman year. The second thing happened the very same day. We were in the orientation assembly when the vice principal opened the floor for questions. I raised my hand and asked if a public display of affection could be counted if it was just one person. When asked to clarify, I specified that I figured this guy was probably alone in a bathroom stall and could unwittingly create a slipping hazard.
That set it off. I became a legend. At least in my own mind.
My cast had swollen, including people who succeeded in making their impressions felt and a handful of legitimate lifelong friends. There was my high school community (Jeff Murdock, Ann Gentile, Jes Antolik, Shawn Page, Dan Strohl, Jamie Cox, Erin Sayers, Elizabeth Grooms, Nicole Butz, Mandy Detty, Erica Roche, Naomi Kresgi, Janet Dougherty, Barnabas Boehler, John Copley, John Stankowiz, Seth Rogers, Adam Govoni, Danielle Conklin, Anya Velasquez, Bethany Whittington, Tiffany Evans, Jamie Sumner, Stephanie Heckler, Julie Thompson, Jennifer Schirtzinger, Maria Lynch, Steve Tack, Steve and Julie Murdock, David Gentile, Eric Antolik, Trent and “Bubby” Carter, Valerie Popovich, Beth Trusler, Emily and Alex Beard, Ethan Whitney, Leela Bean, Melissa Kopp, Jayson Hummel, Geoffrey Miller, Mindy and Jason McComas, Stacey Mullins, Travis Garrabrant, Shaun Decker, Brad and Kelly Wolfe, Jesse Haines, Mitch Fry, Ben Edwards, Damon Frentsos, Heath Stickney, Andy Kerr, Steve McDonough, Chris Smith, Roy and Robert Merchant, Andrew Hartley, and Jill Ceneskie), my Camp Lazarus family (Kent “Dingo” Keister, Chip Burke, Dave Hudler, David Brant, Josh Steele, Barbara Lovell, Caty Peters, Kyle Allen, the English twins, The Leonards, Eddie Wilson, Daniel Anschutz, Jason “Cookie” Cook, Ian and Nathan Cheeseman, Tony Marrazzi, Brian Roy, Anna Haas, Charlie Adams, Matt Long, Chris and Bridget Link, Jennifer Councilman, Martha Channell, Laura Henry, Maggie and Tim Smith, Clark Schwenke, Jeff Westlake, Eric Fox, and Brian Canini), and my Camp Blue Ridge kids (Drew Lerman, Larry Zinn, Ian Kay, and Josh Blum).
Suddenly, tragedy struck. My classmate, fellow camp counselor, and dear, dear friend Bill Tack took his life. Writing silly, disconnected stories focusing heavily on action and cartoony violence wasn’t what I want anymore. I felt compelled to write more personally.
In college, my focus shifted to describing what it’s like to take tentative steps away from childhood. The original Home Street featured two protagonists: Paul (who represented my my more introverted aspects) and Bill (who exhibited my extroverted tendencies). Paul was stuck in the past. Bill was stuck in the future. They were both returning to their hometown for the wedding of Tom and Jen.
Bill aspired to shake off the dust of that crummy little town and make his mark on Hollywood, but first he would have to confront the shadows of his father’s physical abuse.
Paul hadn’t spoken to anyone in the four d since they graduated from high school. He was there to see everyone one last time before he disappeared for good. The complication, of course, was his high school sweetheart, Gayle, who despite having moved on with her life, was obviously still in love with him. The major dramatic question: Can love save a life?
This was easily the longest series of revisions in my history of long running revisions, having lived in my memory, in dog-eared copies handed off to friends, and table readings for two full decades.
So many people from my college years at Kent State became prototypes. Amanda D’Angelo, Ian Crossland, Leslie Diamond, and Eric Van Baars. Even more people from this period have influenced this novel. Nate Hodges, Mike Maletic, Kariem Marbury, Leigh Ann Miller, Carl Gannon, Jes Kreusler, Ryan Davis, Brian Massolini, Cat Kenny, Peggy Elliott, Jef Snopel, Kat Savering, Melissa Wintringham, Kenny Bentley, Tarah Hamilton, Kate Sopko, Marya Bednerick, Sukriye Yuksel, and Holly Magnani.
As I’ve aged, Paul has aged, and even while I’ve focused on other things, Paul’s story has been alive, festering in my mind as I’ve experienced more and more of the world. This novel has taken several years to write, mostly because like Paul, I’ve had obstacles which have held me back from fully pursuing my dreams. While working retail (and never, ever stealing from the till), I’ve made movies, recorded albums, and wrote plays and comic books. I’ve done music videos, sketches, web shows, and talked to a few of my heroes about storytelling.
I never stopped believing.
People like Richard Baker, Jason Nestler, Jaz Williams, Godson Chamberlain, Kurt Braun, Elizabeth Jackson, Debra Plante, Mark McKinney, Peter John Ross, Yochanan Sebastian Winston PhD, Kathy Robbins, Cristina Leduc, Elaina Pajimula, Angela Lynn Cousins, Carl Gannon, Jesse Dillon Sorrels, Holly Elswick, Tawny Whaley, David Shoemaker, Charles Castro, Dominique Gilbert, JeanCarlo Mendez, Chase Pado, Paula Stead, Jason Mank, Ryan Spratt, Jim Larkin, Michael Magnuson, Jessica Nigri, and Andrew Nielsen have fleshed out the characters herein. A school teacher who shopped at my store invited me to speak to his class and emboldened me to claim myself a writer. Thank you for that Anthony Poggiali.
While this story’s about Paul’s family and includes entirely fictionalized events, the spirit of my own family is ever present. I must thank Nana and Pop (Walter and Louise Grant), Grandpa and Grandma Ball (Orville and Maxine), Great-Grandma Lemley (Ilabell) and her lover Baxter, my mother (Deborah Ball), my father and step-mother (Greg and Jackie Grant), my sister and nephew (Elizabeth and Gabriel), my brother (Andrew, again), my uncles and aunts (Dad’s side: Steve and Pat, Tim and Pegi, Marilou and Earl; Mom’s side: Dan, Mark and Chris, Pam and Ron, Mike and Brenda), cousins (Dad’s side: Stephanie, Matthew, Jennifer, Shaun, Nicole, Rachel and Rebecca, and Nathan; Mom’s side: Ashley, Josh, Jessup, Shelby, Justus, Nathan, Alicia, Anita, Annalee, and Sean), my beloved baby sweets (Stella Ingram), and her parents (Dennis and Estrella).
Of course, there are parts of Paul’s life I never lived. These are experiences essential to the story I wanted to tell. I’m sure it comes as no surprise to read these were the most difficult parts for me. Writing about a war you did not fight is not an easy thing to do. You go to the history books, to names and dates. It’s dry, confusing, and distant. There are some excellent frontline accounts on record. I particularly liked On Call in Hell: A Doctor’s Iraq War Story by Cdr. Richard Jadick and Thomas Hayden, Combat Corpsman by Jonathan P. Brazee, House to House: A Soldier’s Memoir by David Bellavia and John R. Bruning, We Were One: Shoulder to Shoulder with the Marines Who Took Fallujah by Patrick K. O’Donnell, No True Glory: A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah by Bing West, and Surviving Twilight: A Soldier’s Chronicle of Daily Life in Iraq by Shane A. Bernskoetter.
The more I learned about the war, the men and women who fought it, and the sacrifices made, the deeper I felt my responsibility to tell this story with dignity, truth, and accuracy. I had to get this right for it to be meaningful. It had to hurt.
If I got any part of the experience right, it was due to the brave men and women who told me their personal stories and answered my absurd, obsessive questions. A heartfelt thank you goes out to Sgt. Trent Fellur (3664th Maintenance Company, Army), Sgt. Kristopher Chan (166th SOC, Army), Muhamad Dea’a Jassem (an Iraqi citizen who worked as a procurement officer for the U.S. military), and MCPO Frederick Berry, who suggested Paul should be a corpsman. Fred also went above and beyond the call of duty, agreeing to read through this novel and correct as many of my military facts as possible. Talk about honor, courage, and commitment!
I also owe a great deal of gratitude to Fred for reassuring my fears. “Don’t worry about making it political,” he said. “You can’t write it without it being political.”
One of the common challenges I’ve heard about those who serve is when they get to the V.A. for help with their PTSD, and the psychologist is someone with no combat experience. It’s not comfortable for them to share their feelings – to expose themselves and their frayed thoughts – to someone who doesn’t understand what they’ve been through. I’m fully aware in the context of trying to cull information, I was playing the role of neophyte. It’s the major reason I owe so much to those who chose to speak with me.
I sincerely hope I’ve contributed something meaningful to the conversation. To those who fought, I hope this book brings some clarity, compassion, maybe even closure. To those who still fight the demons of war, I hope this book inspires you to ask for help. And to those civilians like myself who stoked the home fires, I hope this book helps to make the cost of freedom something a little more personal.
To me ‘Home Street’ isn’t a war story. It’s not even a Christmas story. It’s a ghost story – a fictionalized memoir thirty years in the making. It’s a deeply personal story and something I’ve been compelled to work on for almost as long as I can remember.
This leaves me with one last acknowledgment.
Thank you for picking up this book and allowing me to tell my story. Thank you for taking the time to read it. Thank you for reviewing it online, spreading the word, and recommending it to the special people in your life. In that way, you’ve shared a piece of your life with me too, and I’m eternally grateful for that.
Full disclosure: I personally know Brian Canini and am in fact in one of the daily strips, complete with Brian’s observation that I am balding. I have even done some work with Drunken Cat Comics. I wrote a one-shot, did a short-lived webseries, and did extensive production for a yet-to-be-released graphic novel. However, this comic covers the year after he and I moved into separate apartments and directions in life. This book represents a time when we were in somewhat close proximity but were drifting apart, and it represents aspects of Brian that I was not fully aware of until reading the book. Besides that, dude is a bit of an introvert, and even if I had shared a bigger portion of his life during this time, I would likely have been surprised by many of his daily observations.
Alright? Is that enough disclosure for you savages? Can we get on with our review or whatever you want to call this?
Brian Canini is driven by sheer force of will and single-minded devotion to his beloved storytelling in comic book form. Because of this, he has contributed a stack of work that any indie artist of the sequential art ilk should be proud of. Recently, he put together a kickstarter campaign, which acted as a way to preorder his newest work, ‘The Big Year.’ It’s a journal comic that covers the three major life events that define adulthood for many: getting married, buying a home, having a child. I used this opportunity to acquire everything in the Drunken Cat bibliography, and I just started going through the library last night.
Yep, you heard me right. I started going through the library last night, and already this morning I had finished the 332 page ‘Fear of Flying.’ The truth is that as I lay my head down on my pillow (my balding head… thanks, Brian!), I decided to sit up a little and read a few pages of the book. The thing kept me up until 3 am, at which time I was inspired to write a new, reflective, and sad portion of my own upcoming novel, ‘Home Street.’ And then this morning, I was compelled to polish Brian’s masterpiece off.
Here’s the first thing you should know about ‘Fear of Flying’: It’s honest. It’s messy. It’s not meant to be perfect. It includes spelling and grammatical errors and crossed off words, and you have to be okay with that, because, despite his perfectionism, Brian had to be okay with it too. It’s relentless. It’s all-encompassing. It strips away pretense and lays its subject bare.
The thing about a lot of journal comics is that it is naturally self-deprecating and yet in keeping the writer or writer/artist as the protagonist, it can often fall victim to the rationalization of self-centered thinking. Certainly, Brian’s work is no different from – say, Harvey Pekar in that regard. However, while Pekar assumes that the world would cough up money for the honor of reading his stories, Brian is putting himself through the torture of doing a page a day that chronicles his dreams of working in the industry full-time while working on his many other books, working his demanding nine-to-five, dreaming of another life that seems just within reach, struggling with self-doubt and rage and mortality and inspiration and roadblocks and television addiction and a quest for peace, and exploring what seems like true love. He does it because he was inspired to do so. He does it without knowing if anyone will ever read it, because even though when he feels like he’s screaming into the void at times, ultimately the art is all that matters.
I started writing this because I simply wanted to tell my friend how much I enjoyed his book. How much it haunted me. How much it inspired me. And how much I am looking forward to reading everything else. But in the end, I decided that I should publish this here on my blog, so that ‘Fear of Flying’ might find some others to haunt and inspire.
But as Levar Burton used to say on ‘Reading Rainbow,’ you don’t have to take my word for it. I encourage all of you to head over to DrunkenCatComics.com and check it out for yourself.
Like The Artist before it, LA LA Land is a film that dares to think backward while telling a story that tells a story for a forward thinking audience. It is a film that feels timeless, an instant classic. Movie-goers feel like they are watching something akin to Singing in the Rain, Rebel without a Cause, and especially Casablanca.
“I SHOULD PROBABLY TELL YOU SOMETHING NOW – I HATE JAZZ.”
Just as last year’s Whiplash had jazz purists saying, “That’s not how you become a great jazz musician,” LA LA Land has gotten some criticism for oversimplifying the genre into a “hackneyed cliché.” While these would be fair criticisms of films that boast of being a thorough and definitive exploration of the genre, neither of these movies are actually about jazz.
LA LA Land’s got rhythm pumping through its veins from beginning to end, but the conversations in the film about the music style are used to clarify the metaphor. Both metaphors, actually.
In one figurative sense, a jazz song is like a love story. It is alive, improvisational, happens in the moment, and happens once. You have to be there for it, paying attention and feeling it, or you’ll miss it. This is a jazz song about two young hopefuls with stars in their eyes. They find each other in a town that’s become stale, each filled with ambition to change their little piece of the world.
The second thing that jazz represents in LA LA Land film is the town in which the story takes place. Hollywood – specifically the culture of film – is changing. The classic cinema that this film lifts up is “dying on the vine.” When Mia, a talented and yet frustrated actress, tells Sebastian, an equally frustrated jazz-obsessed musician, that she doesn’t like jazz, she might as well be saying, “I don’t like black and white movies.”
A writer tries to chat up Mia at a Hollywood party by telling her his specialty is “world building.” He tells her he’s working on a “reimagining” of Goldilocks and The Three Bears, and the way he describes it makes it sound ridiculous and familiar. As he explains that he sees it as “a franchise,” it sounds like the kind of project that could be in development right now. This trend is comparable to the “smooth jazz” station that you put on at parties and talk over. It doesn’t challenge or move you, because it’s elevator music. The only debate left when talking about the popcorn fair that breaks the box office these days (Batman v. Superman, Transformers, X-Men, TMNT, etc.) is whether or not it’s actually any good.
Make no mistake, however, when it comes to that second analogy, LA LA Land isn’t a stickler for stringent traditionalism. You can’t grow your audience if you only play for an aging audience. You have to appeal to young people without losing the guiding principles of compelling storytelling. Films, like great jazz, must continue to be revolutionary.
“WHY DO YOU SAY ROMANTIC LIKE IT’S A DIRTY WORD?”
Romance stories are difficult to make compelling to a modern audience, and because of that, the genre often becomes stale and predictable. Like the blockbusters that have come to dominate the large and small screen, modern romance stories tend to involve gimmicks and props (i.e. vampire/werewolf/human love triangles, zombie/human partnerships, or the trust-fall exercise that is a sadomasochistic relationship). Still, instead of having mass appeal, as it once did, the romance genre has become a niche market that is often enjoyed as a guilty pleasure, usually in a bubble bath with a glass of white wine.
This is not the moment for romance stories. In decades past, romantic-comedies were an enormous part of the industry. I’ve heard commentary from producers that made their entire careers off that business that has bemoaned the loss. They often speak of the quality of the films that have replaced them, insisting that the loss of rom-coms signifies a decline for Hollywood. They refer to old stereotypes (“She’d see his comic book movie, and he’d go see her romance”), but that misses the point.
That being said, the musical is all but dead on the big screen. The modern musical – if such a thing exists in film – exists in the form of a musician biopic (Ray, Walk the Line). It can only be fiction if it’s purely on the soundtrack (The Great Gatsby) or if it’s centered around a music venue (Rock of Ages) or a rock star (School of Rock). Aside from rare exceptions (Les Miserables), movie characters have only been allowed to sing where they would in the real world, such as on a stage (Ricki and The Flash).
A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH MYSELF
Are you saying that theaters full of mindless drivel that tell sloppy, incoherent stories?
More so than before?
Depends on when you mean.
I mean – movies like The Lone Ranger?
Oh, or The Tickler!
The Tickler didn’t have the inflated budget of The Lone Ranger!
No, but let me tell you a story about Elizabeth Taylor and Cleopatra.
Come on! That was a classic!
No. It’s just old. Just like The Lone Ranger, it was a flop when it came out, and it included similar cultural appropriation.
But some of these big blockbusters are actually pretty good.
I don’t care if your movie is Captain Philips or Captain America, if you’ve got a good script, some nuanced performances, and a competent director, I will support it. I’m just sick of the cookie cutter stories.
And you think that the issue is more prevalent with big blockbusters?
Oh, no. Remember when we were talking about rom-com producers talking about the decline of the genre and saying it’s a symptom of declining quality in Hollywood?
Well, for every As Good As It Gets or Silver Linings Playbook there was a Serendipity or a Failure to Launch.
So what separates a bad romance story from a good one?
WHAT MAKES A GREAT ROMANTIC STORY?
The prevailing consensus for romance movies seems to have been to write the main characters straight, and then write fun, interesting friends for them to get advice from. It’s not something that doesn’t work. After all, it comes from Shakespeare’s playbook. If Much Ado about Nothing is the prototypical rom-com, then why wouldn’t you do that? Write an ingénue character for the women to sympathize with. Write a romantic man for the men to sympathize with, and if you think it will make things more palatable for the guys, simply give the male lead a gender-specific pastime, like sports.
The memorable parts of Much Ado about Nothing, however, don’t involve the young lovers. It’s all about Benedict and Beatrice and their bickering, prickly, reluctant love story, which is why I couldn’t implore more for you to craft characters that are specific and flawed.
Let’s take a look back at a film that is reasonably considered the greatest romance ever put on celluloid, Casablanca. Rick is a man with some principle, but he isn’t a hero. He’s a broken man, haunted by a broken heart. He has disappeared into a crowd of low-life criminals that prey on the innocent, and he doesn’t stick his neck out for anyone. In walks Elsa, a complicated woman that Rick both loves and hates. She carries a secret that is the only thing that can heal Rick, but it will only work if they are both willing to make sacrifices. The “friend” characters are colorful because every character is colorful in this film. Everyone is allowed to shine, and it makes for a story that is anything but dull.
Now, let’s take a closer look at what is possibly the best romantic movie in modern times to discuss the second main point. The Notebook, also starring Ryan Gosling, takes a step back from the main ingredients of romantic storytelling and frames them in a context that gives everything greater weight and power. The deeper subject, that of the power and longevity of love even in the face of debilitating illness has often fallen into clichés of its own. Boy meets girl; girl gets cancer. It’s the pitch that’s launched a thousand Lifetime Originals.
What makes both The Notebook and LA LA Land so remarkable is that they each craft the story in a way that it allows for each season of the romance to bloom to its fullest. Make no mistake, they both come with a gut punch, but it isn’t played to manipulate the audience. It is the poetic crux of the story. The same can be said for Casablanca. There is poetry in pain. There is love in sacrifice. There is redemption in compassion.
It’s obvious to anyone that has studied Plato’s Poetics, but the elements of a remarkable romance are the same as those for any great story:
Take care of each of those things, do it in that order of importance, and you’ll have something. If you can incorporate Joseph Campbell’s Hero’s Journey, then you might end up with a cinematic treasure.
Needless to say, LA LA Land does all of this.
NOTE: The views and opinions expressed in this are purely my own. I simply want to expound upon my political thoughts regarding this year’s election, and I hope that there’s someone out there that finds this of interest.
If you’d like to read about the third party candidates, go here. If you’d like to hear my thoughts on the Republican candidate, go here. If you’re interested in knowing more about my thoughts on the Democratic nominee, go here.
But for now, let’s take a closer look at Claifornia’s propositions and measures, shall we? Since I am from San Diego, my ballot may be a little different than yours.
Measure A: The SANDAG Tax
It sucks when you already voted to pay for something and then the project goes over budget, but that’s what happened here. It’s a half a cent tax increase that will fund the Purple Line Trolley and a coaster to Del Mar.
MY VERDICT: I say we do it. SANDAG is already committed to finishing the projects but do not know how they can fund it otherwise. Let’s save them the embarrassment of hosting a bake sale.
Measure B: The Lilac Hills Ranch Development
We have a housing crisis in San Diego, and this measure promises to help fix it.
MY VERDICT: Hell no! The only reason this is on the ballot is because the people behind the measure weren’t able to put it through the traditional way due to the fact that they would directly benefit from the real estate venture. AND they cut all of the regulatory provisions before they put it on the ballot. AND it’s on environmentally protected land. AND the majority of the space will be used for retail. Hell to the no.
Measure C: The Chargers’ Stadium Plan
MY VERDICT: As Tony Hawk said, “There’s no such thing as a convadium.” This is corporate welfare that would in no way benefit the tax payers.
Measure D: The Citizens’ Plan
This would raise the city’s hotel tax rate in an effort to pay for (part of) Measure C. Chargers fans love the idea of charging (pun) fans of rival teams. Mwahahaha! I can hear them twisting their mustaches now!
MY VERDICT: @#$% you.
Measure E: Removing City Officials
This measure would make it easier to remove and replace elected city officials who’ve committed crimes or other wrongdoing.
MY VERDICT: Well, we’ve had a pretty long string of bad mayors in San Diego. The current status quo requires death, resignation, loss of voter eligibility or a recall. This would allow for a special removal election. Seems like a good thing in our corrupt city.
Measure F: Job Security for Deputy City Attorneys
Basically city attorneys can be fired for no reason within the first two years of getting hired. This is much different than any other civil position, and this would require “good cause” for terminations.
MY VERDICT: No one is against this one. It seems like a no-brainer.
Measure G: Changes to the Citizens’ Review Board
There is already a board that review cops, but this changes their name and gives them the authority to review police involved shootings.
MY VERDICT: El Cajon was going to put this into place BEFORE the shooting last month, but they decided to put it on the ballot. This is a good way to give the community a voice and to keep things calm when there is actually no wrong-doing by the police.
Measure H: Changes to the City’s Purchasing and Contracting Process
Right now if there is a project that will require private contractors, the governing body has to publish an ad in the paper 10 days before filtering bids. This would put an end to the ad in the paper and would simplify things back to standard disclosure.
MY VERDICT: No one is opposing this, and newspapers? Seriously?
Measure I: San Diego High’s Balboa Park Location
There’s a charter school in Balboa Park. No, really, there is. They had a 50 year lease, and it’s up. This is to renew that contract.
MY VERDICT: You can’t build a new school by next year, can you?
Measure J: Money for Mission Bay and Other Parks
Right now Mission Bay Parks make a lot of money and other municipal parks don’t. This would allow the city to spread the money around and make repairs where needed in a more timely manner.
MY VERDICT: I LOVE Balboa Park and would like to see more money going there. I mean, they didn’t even have the resources for their centennial last year. Come on!
Measure K: Forcing a November Runoff
Right now if a candidate wins by a margin of more than 50% in the June primaries for city council, they win. This would put the two top competitors on the November ballot instead.
MY VERDICT: This one is split straight down party lines. The Republicans, who tend to win in June, say no. The Democrats, who tend to lose in June, say yes. It seems pretty silly to me, but whatever. Vote yes? Why not give the people more of a voice?
Measure L: Voting on Initiatives and Referendums in November
More people vote in November than in June. If something is going on the ballot, this would put it on the November ballot automatically.
MY VERDICT: This comes from the same place as K. I have to ask, what’s the point of having a June ballot if nothing is on it but primaries that don’t even matter until November? You know what? I change my verdict on K. Just do away with June as a month!
Measure M: Raising the Cap on Affordable Housing Units
Right now if you want to expand low income housing, you have to put it before the voters. This would just allow city planners to make that decision without the need for a vote.
MY VERDICT: Again, we are in a housing crisis. Yes please.
Measure N: Taxing Marijuana Businesses
If (likely when) Prop 64 passes, this would allow the crop to be taxed.
MY VERDICT: Every pothead I know says, “Legalize it. Just think of how much the government would get in taxes!” Don’t make every pothead I know into a liar. Vote yes.
51 – $9,000,000,000 for schools. That’s a billion with a b. It adds $500M of debt every year to the budget, it seems to bank roll construction companies, and it won’t go to the neediest school districts.
52 – Stipulates that legislators cannot divert funds away from Medi-Cal, thus ensuring that Medi-Cal and hospitals get the money. No one is opposed to this. Vote yes.
53 – Requires state projects over $2B to be approved by voters. This one is complicated as well. Basically a public works project (a bridge or a hospital) is paid for by the government and then paid back by the user (toll or patient). The high speed rail (which may be the target this bill is intended to take down), for example, costs a lot of money and should be paid for by ticket sales, but if it fails, eventually the tax payer is on the hook. So this would be a community accountability provision to theoretically stop government officials from “signing blank checks.” However, there are a couple of problems. 1) Local projects would be on the state’s ballot (ie San Francisco projects voted on by all of California). 2) There are no provisions for emergency spending, so they would also have to go on a ballot before the project could be started.
54 – Requires that bills are posted for three days on the internet before voting. Oh, and print. Yes, and print. Again, newspapers?
55 – There was a provision put in place for “rainy days” that was always meant to be temporary (7 years). It taxes higher income people (over $263K a year) at a marginally higher rate. Opponents of this measure argue that we shouldn’t be using income tax to fix our schools (which apparently need $9 BILLION dollars). As some papers have argued, this tax sucks, but not having the resources we need sucks worse (paraphrased).
56 – Packs of cigarettes will cost $2 more a pack, and e-cigs will have the tax too. The money will go to Medical. Looping in vapes makes sense, but this is a tax on the poor in my mind. Making a pack of cigarettes cost over ten bucks doesn’t stop addicts from reaching out for their addiction. It simply hurts their family’s budget more.
57 – Makes it easier for nonviolent offenders to get parole. But this one is more complicated than that too. 1) Nonviolent criminals can earn credits to shorten their sentence through good behavior and receive incentives such as education. 2) Juveniles won’t be able to be tried as an adult without a judge’s order. Obviously, the second is noble, but here’s the thing about the first. Rape of an unconscious person, taking hostages, and setting off a bomb with intent to injure are not considered violent crimes, according to the Penal Code.
58 – 1 in 5 students in California are not fluent in English. Right now there is a government mandate that dictates that those students are only taught in English-immersion classes so that they don’t languish in bilingual classrooms. This would allow for a variety of teaching methods rather than just one. Studies have shown that language immersion doesn’t work for every student, so this seems like a way to undo a government overreach.
59 – Pass or fail, this does nothing except express your opinion. If you hate the US Supreme Court’s verdict regarding Citizens United, vote yes. If you think political spending is free speech, vote no.
60 – THE MOST IMPORTANT vote in the country. In California, we are being asked to make a decision that will have a HUGE INFLUENCE on the entire world’s culture. I’m not talking about Prop 64, which would decriminalize recreational marijuana. That would only change California’s culture, and it’s already been done in other states anyway. Of course I am speaking of Prop 60, which would require all pornographic actors to wear condoms. The man behind this proposal is a gay rights activist with a myopic viewpoint that condoms are the method everyone should use. His reasoning for this new standard is that he doesn’t want young people to think “the only hot sex is without a condom.” He’s drawn criticism not only from the adult film actors but from other gay rights activists for his condoms only stance. In my mind, this is a definite overreach. How would you enforce this legislation? I mean, if two cops bust in on a porno shoot and announce who they are, the viewers would simply fill their palm with more lubricant and expect that things are going to go in a new, exciting, possibly kinky direction. Besides, there are other ways to fight off AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, mainly a once-a-day pill that is the primary tool for adult actors right now that our advocate thinks is a cop out. The fact that the pornographic industry is as widespread (pun) as it is and there hasn’t been an AIDS epidemic should be illustrative enough to give the industry some trust that they are self-regulating already. Lastly, and possibly most importantly, if young people are watching porn and thinking it’s “the only hot sex,” they’re going to be sorely disappointed by reality.
61 – This prop has the most campaign spending in California history, so yeah!! It’s important to note that the majority of that spending is by the pharmaceutical companies to try to get you to vote no. The intent is for this bill to save Californians money when they buy their medicine, but it’s not exactly clear how it will work. It’s actually a landmark vote, and people like Bernie Sanders are campaigning hard for it to pass. But if it will actually work is up in the air, since a lot of that hinges on how those pharmaceutical companies respond to the state’s “negotiations” for drug prices after it passes.
62 & 66 – 62 repeals the death penalty. 66 speeds it up. The one with the most votes wins. This is a heavy issue. Vote your conscience and godspeed.
63 – Requires a background check to buy ammunition. I think this came from a Chris Rock routine, didn’t it? Obviously, if you’re a 2nd Amendment person, you’ll vote no. If you’re a stereotypical Californian, you’ll vote yes and hope there’s a provision to require a background check for gluten as well. I won’t say much on this, but if you’re a Boy Scout camp and have a rifle range, I hope your kids are trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent enough to pass.
64 – Legalize it. Cypress Hill will advertise it.
65 & 67 – Okay. This one is complicated. 67 is a referendum. You see, 67 bans plastic bags, and California already voted to ban them. So 67 is a revote on the issue. However, 67 would take the 10 cent tax from the bag fee and gives it to environmental funds, which currently goes to the grocery store. Here’s what you need to know. Both of these measures are on the docket, because the plastic bag companies put them there. They want you to vote No on 67 and Yes on 65. Here’s where it gets tricky. If 65 passes, it eliminates 67. In other words, if you don’t want plastic bags, you have to vote yes on 67 (to ban plastic bags) and no on 65 (to give the tax to the environment). If you want to keep plastic bags and want the money to go to the environment, vote no on 67 and yes on 65. If both pass, only 65 passes. Does that make sense?
NOTE: The views and opinions expressed in this are purely my own. I simply want to expound upon my political thoughts regarding this year’s election, and I hope that there’s someone out there that finds this of interest.
If you’d like to read about the third party candidates, go here. If you’d like to hear my thoughts on the Republican candidate, go here. If you’re interested in knowing more about California’s propositions and measures, go here.
But for now, let’s take a closer look at the Democratic candidate, shall we?
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Has there been a more controversial candidate in my lifetime? And why is she so much of a lightning rod? Certainly, there is SOME validity when her supporters say that her critics are acting out of a misogynistic worldview. When her opponent, for example, says she “doesn’t look presidential” or when inarticulate Trump supporters say “there’s just something about her,” they are likely referring to the fact that she’s not like our previous presidents. You know, she’s not a dude. It’s kind of like the lizard brain comments that members of white America have made about our current president. “He’s obviously not American.” Eek!
But there’s got to be more to it than hatred because she’s a female Ghostbuster, right? I mean, look at all of the scandals that she and her husband have been accused of! And that’s kind of the key for me. “She and her husband.” People that say that every witch hunt Hillary has endured is because she’s a woman miss the point. It’s because the Clintons – both Bill and Hill – are deemed untrustworthy by at least a portion of the population.
But here’s the thing, a part of me wants to forget about Bill and rage against the patriarchy, because it DOES exist. And it has been unfair to not only Mrs. Clinton but to a lot of women. I remember when she was first lady and people were complaining that she was too uppity and should know her place, sit down, shut up, and worry about things like the color of the curtains in the first bedroom and flowers on the side of the interstate like our previous first ladies. I remember being young and dumb in the 1990s and making jokes about her appearance and teasing my conservative buddies, suggesting they should ask Chelsea Clinton to the prom. I hear how people talk about Hillary to this day and note that it’s not the same way they talk about men in the same position. Regardless of how much they hate a man’s politics, they don’t say he’s catty or shrill or on his period. Talk about a vote to blow up the system!! Can I vote for an overweight, handicapped, non-English speaking, vegetarian Native American lesbian already?!
If you’ve been paying attention, Hillary is a two-faced career politician that will resort to underhanded tactics to get where she wants. This is true of all two-faced career politicians that will resort to underhanded tactics to get where they want. This leaves us with two questions:
1) Do you want a two-faced career politician that will resort to underhanded tactics to get where they want?
2) Are the rules different for Hillary?
And my answer?
1) As a centrist, I can answer that question for a lot of you. I’ve been paying attention and puking in my mouth every time you say it. Yes, you do. As long as they are on your side of the aisle, and before you get mad at me and say that isn’t true, ask yourself one little question. Have you ever justified the actions of your candidate by shrugging and saying this? “Well, they all lie. That’s why he HAS TO lie.” If you’re a Democrat or a Republican, of course you have. I don’t even know you, and I’ve heard you say it. Stop being disingenuous.
2) Just look at the undercover videos. Despite the fact that Hillary’s “political maneuverings” are essentially the plot line of every election movie in history, she has undergone severe scrutiny that is unprecedented.
Now, I just want to take a moment to clarify my position on this. I think these tactics are absolutely disgusting. They are the bane of our political process, and when you combine it with the entertainment journalism of the mainstream media and our animal instincts to be attracted to violence, you end up with stupid choices based on emotional responses to guys dressed up in Donald Duck costumes and street fights in front of political rallies. If you’re reading my opinions, you’ll probably see that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. There is no one that I can feel good voting for; partially because I want something that can’t exist in our money-fueled political system. I puke when you shrug off your candidate’s lies, because I am waiting for the candidate with enough integrity, determination, and grit to tell the truth and stand up for their convictions. And that person’s “truth” sure as hell had better not just be that “Rosie O’Donnell is disgusting.”
Alright, back to Hillary.
Let’s set aside the controversy for a moment and focus on her policies. I know that might be hard for some of you, but I don’t want to talk about Benghazi or e-mails or Chinese businessmen in the Lincoln bedroom. I really don’t want to talk about real estate deals from before I was in middle school. I just included them here for the purposes of search engines, and I’m done now. 🙂
Hillary is a hawk when it will get her your vote. She’ll talk about raising the minimum wage if she thinks it will cure your Bern with an “I’m with her” yard sign. She will remind you over and over again that she was part of the team that took down bin Laden, because you probably voted for Bush hoping that he would, and she’s hoping you will remember that when you’re in the polling station. Of course there are certain issues that she will never bend on, and some of those are serious issues that I know a lot of us disagree with her on. But overall, because she’s a two-faced career politician that will do anything to get what she wants, she actually cares about what the voters want, and as much as I hate to admit it, one of the things I value in a leader is that they listen to what their followers want and/or need.
Hm. Did I just endorse Hillary Clinton for president? I think I might have. At least one of her two-faces.
I have started another blog. This will be my third. So I thought it might be useful to let you all know about the other two.
Wolf In Wool Tales
On this blog, I post the things that I write (novels, short stories, screenplays, etc.). I’m currently working on a comic adventure called Sick Day.
You can check it out here.
This is a blog that I add to when I have something to express regarding my philosophies on managing people and a business.
You can check it out here.