Choice

No, this post i not about abortion although I think some of the arguments might be similar. 

Recently the state of California legalized physician assisted suicide.  Obviously the issue raises difficult moral and ethical questions.  I won't address them here except to say that difficult moral and ethical questions first and foremost need to be addressed by the person immediately facing them.  Of course there are social and community concerns that cannot be ignored but the struggle belongs to the individual facing the situation.

I have struggled with this question and my basic orientation always leans towards life.  My gut says that even in the most painful and difficult of times, there is something wondrous and wonderful about life and that should never be discounted.  At the same time I saw images on 9/11 that made me think differently.

We also saw peole jump from the towers to their deaths, knowing that they were committing suicide.  At the same time, death was imminent as the flames came towards them.  The choice was clearly between dying a painful death of burning or a quick one from the impact of a fall from the towers.  I don't know what I would have done if faced with that choice but I do know how I feel about burning and it is not a way that I would choose to die.  So, I asked myself, was the decision to jump an immoral one?  Did I have the right to condemn those who would choose one way to die over another, knowing that death was clearly coming? 

And so, I come to physician assisted suicide with a new perspective.  For those for whom death is clearly coming - a death that may be slow and painful and erase all that they are  - who am I to say that a choice of a quick and painless suicide might not be a reasonable decision for them to make? 

Apples & Fall

We have amazing produce in our area of California.  A few weeks ago, some friends were visiting and we stopped at a local farmer's market.  One of the friends remarked, "This is overwhelming."  She was correct.  There is just such a variety of incredible produce that it can be overwhelming.  Cheryl and I rarely shop at the farmer's markets because the decisions are so difficult to make.  When 10 different booths are all selling amazing strawberries at the same price, how do you pick?  There are often vegetables that I don't recognize.  Flowers, organic meats, fresh fish, nuts, honey, and amazing fruit...

Stayman Winesap apple

Apples are another thing altogether.  There are a few orchards that grow good apples but most of the apples here are too sweet for my taste and don't have the snap I look for in a good fresh apple.  The season also seems to be compressed for the apples I prefer.  Cider, often made from apples that have fallen to the ground, is illegal to make in Santa Barbara county.   So, the things I yearn for in the fall are difficult to find.

Today, I heard an interview on NPR about apples.  I think I heard the interviewee say that there are some 15000 varieties of apples!  However many there are, Cheryl and I have found an orchard that we like to visit -  Gopher Glen Orchards.  They grow some 50 different varieties of apples including some we know and love from the northeast like Stayman Winesaps.  And, because they are in a different county, they're allowed to make and sell real cider. It is about a 60 mile drive from our house and travel costs make the apples and cider ridiculously expensive... but they are APPLES and it is REAL CIDER and that means fall.

So we bought some cider and some Spitzenberg apples, reportedly Thomas Jefferson's favorite variety... and they are good!

Californiazation of politics

There are lots of things to love about life in California... the weather is great, the scenery is breath-taking, the fresh produce and wonderful wine is amazing. Politics on the other hand just, for want of a better word, suck. Polarization is a characteristic of California and nowhere is it more evident than in politics. Because politicians are always running for office, they are always courting votes for primaries. Primaries always attract the "true believers," i.e. the least centrist of a party (myself included) so the politicians tend to move towards the extremes. This trend is much stronger among conservatives where there is a stronger consensus on the hot button issues than among progressives, but it is present in both camps. Add the disintegration of civil discourse and suddenly the political process grinds to a halt. Legislators are afraid to compromise for fear of alienating the fringe that votes in the primaries and there are no long term relationships or proclivities to civil discourse to push them to work together.

Of course, there are other issues in California - the initiative process is a huge one - that contribute to the dysfunction, but this is a central one that we are seeing effect our national politics as well. Yesterday I learned that Evan Bayh had announced that he is retiring from congress saying that our system is "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and marked by permanent campaigning. He went on to recommend that we throw out all of the current legislators and get new ones who are willing to work together to actually govern.

While I appreciate his thoughts ad certainly understand his frustration at the current situation, I don't think his solution would work. Indeed, it is the newer legislators who are most likely to act in a completely partisan way and are least able to talk across the aisle. Also, I do not think it is unfair to call the Republican party out on this one. That party has become a party that only seeks to impede governing. When Sarah Palin asked how that "hopey changey stuff is going," she forgot to mention that a significant reason that nothing was changing is because the Republican party has refused to allow anything to come to a vote, essentially requiring any legislation to pass by a super majority rather than the majority required by the constitution. Look at this chart from wikipedia...



Clearly, they are using this legislative tool in a way it has never been used before and it has paralyzed our government. Is it any wonder that the electorate is frustrated? Imagine if the Democrats were able to muster the same kind of unanimity. No bill would ever pass again. No judge would ever be appointed. Nothing would happen except posturing and spending of obscene amounts of money.

Throw them out? Perhaps, but not indiscriminately. If we're going to send a message, let's send one telling our elected officials to govern rather than just obstruct. To those who are only obstructing, on either side of the aisle, get rid of them. To all of those left, tell them to work together for the good of the people rather than working to appease fringe constituencies or corporate masters.

Californication

no, not the CD by Red Hot Chili Peppers nor the show on Showtime...

I'm just really frustrated by this state... again...

Our state budget is in the toilet and essential services are being impacted in a serious way. Cuts to education are particularly troubling to me. And there is no need for it. California is a rich state. If it was a country, its economy would be something like the 9th largest in the world. We have everything from agriculture all over the state that feeds the world to Silicon Valley that shapes the way the world shares information. There is no reason our tax base should be unable to provide the basic services we need and pay for the government...

Well, no good reason. There is a reason. Propositions. I've written about this dysfunctional way of doing government before but it has hit the fan now. If you can get a relatively small number of people to sign a petition, you can get a proposition on the ballot. If you have enough money to do some serious advertising, you can get it passed. Once it is passed, the only way it can be changed is by another proposition. The legislature cannot touch any laws enacted by proposition. You've noticed that there are no requirements that the proposition be well written, aware of collateral consequences, or even helpful. You only have to sell it and then it is law.

So, what typically happens is that some special interest passes a law requiring funding for their cause. It may e a good cause. It may even be a great cause... but rarely does the proposition include provisions for a funding stream (that would look too much like a tax). It passes and codifies a program which takes away money from the general budget. Then another proposition is introduced to cut or cap taxes (prop 13 is the grand daddy of all of these). So the income shrinks but the outflow cannot. It is codified. And the legislature cannot address the issue without a proposition. As Bill Maher said in New Rules last week, you end up with a fantasy land where people vote for wonderful programs while also voting to get them essentially for free. And you can see the problem.

FWIW, Paul Krugman had a great column on the issue this week.

Prop 8 showed the other problem with propositions. After the court ruled that the prop 8 stands, there were lots of folk in the media commenting that the people had spoken and the role of government was to honor the wishes of the majority. Frankly, I'm glad that hasn't been the policy in the past. Segregation would not have ended in the south as the majority would clearly have voted to keep the races separate. The list of examples is long. Part of the role of government is to stand against the tyranny of the majority and to ensure the rights of those outside of the mainstream. Regardless of how one feels about this issue, this was not the way to address it.

I don't see any way to get rid of the proposition process... but I sure would like to see it happen.