Two interesting articles in the Union-Tribune recently: the County Board of Supervisors wants to raise taxes to pay for increased fire protection and the City of San Diego is investigating whether it overspent on clean-up after the 2007 wildfires.

On a related issue, the state still hasn't passed a balanced budget for the current fiscal year and Governor Schwarzenegger is reportedly considering a one cent sales tax increase (temporary, yeah right) to cover the projected shortfall.

Especially in this economy, why should any voter give these leaders more money to spend? Why should the voters increase their own taxes and create a new agency of bureaucrats when the existing institutions are still trying to explain how they spent the resources at their disposal during the last crisis?

Our leaders need to prioritize their projects and do their best within their existing resources, just like every other family and business trying to make do in this economy. Admitting failure and asking for more money from the voters is not the answer.

At several recent town hall meetings, as well as the Urban League's Annual Conferences, both presidential nominees addressed relieving taxpayers' financial woes, taking time to highlight their solutions to the high cost of energy and gasoline. Just in time, coincidentally, those same high gas prices have started nudging downward in San Diego as they have been doing incrementally for several weeks. 

So, as battered consumer wallets across the country finally receive respite at the pump (San Diego's highest local average was, according to the Union-Tribune, an unholy $4.63/gallon), which of the two presidential nominees' energy plans are voters more likely to follow -- a candidate whose message embraces funding alternative fuel sources, and expanding nuclear energy and offshore oil drilling to wean the country's dependence on foreign oil, like Senator McCain's plan? Or, will voters respond to a candidate espousing tapping the nation's strategic oil reserves, offshore drilling, wiser consumer use, and imposing "windfall profits taxes" on the big oil producers, as does Senator Obama?

Serving as a backdrop to the ongoing conversation, companies like Exxon Mobile and Shell, last week posted historic, all-time high profit margins. Even for oil companies, this news sent ambivalent waves of pleasure and discord across financial circles, both because of the incongruity of the news in an otherwise weak economy, and because consumer confidence flagged, despite the huge profit margin.

Photo by Chris McConnell

Judge Larry Burns of the United States District Court of Southern California has rescued the Mt. Soledad cross (for the time being) from the clutches of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. This represents the most substantial courtroom defeat in twenty years for those seeking to have the cross removed. Most residents of San Diego want the cross to remain -- though I suspect even more are simply exhausted by the "long and torturous legal history" leading up to this latest decision. On the other hand, the Mt. Soledad controversy has served as a fascinating backyard lesson in civics and Constitutional law.

I've got two dogs in this fight. I've never known Mt. Soledad without the cross, it pleases the eye and the heart says it belongs. But I also happen to think the First Amendment and the Establishment Clause are the primary reasons the United States is the Land of the Free -- a 43-foot cross on public land troubles the conscience and the mind. And so if ever a judge could muster up the wisdom of Solomon, one would hope it would be Judge Burns. The entire ruling is a fairly entertaining read -- but here are a few choice extracts from Judge Burns' opinion.

"What we see depends on what we look for."

I can't help but think that Republicans would like to have "do overs." This is the sorriest presidential campaign that I have ever witnessed. John McCain has managed to parlay his war hero status into a political career for the last 20 years, but this time the stakes are too high. Can we really afford to have such an angry, rancorous man the White House?

His repeated assertions that Obama "would rather lose a war than lose an election," make McCain look like some sort of Archie Bunker throwback, only we knew that Archie was a sitcom character, not a candidate for president of the United States. Can you imagine if he were to carry this bilious behavior to the international arena, leading by testy insinuation. Pretty scary stuff considering the memory lapses, coupled with his computer illiteracy, in the age of global media. Does John McCain even grasp the significance of his deficiency in 21st century skills? I think not or he would never have copped to it.

By the way Senator McCain, what would  "winning" in Iraq look like? If the country is "stabilized" and they want us out, what can be gained by continuing the nightmare. Recently you have stated, " I know how to win wars."  Which war was that, sir? My own father, who served four tours in Vietnam, wore a T-shirt, at home, that read "Southeast Asian War Games Participant -- 2nd Place". So surely you don't mean Vietnam. 

How do you turn a dream job opportunity into a shame-fest of lawless impropriety and highly publicized congressional hearings?  For a clue on living that nightmare, just ask Monica Goodling, the disgraced aide to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' whose political cronyism may lead to having her law license pulled.

Way to go, Monica.  Now your namesake is twice associated with presidential disrepute.

To get a glimpse on this particular road to ruin, first, graduate from a lower-tiered law school known predominantly for its religious affiliations to the televangelist Pat Robertson and its emphasis on educating law students to "change the world for Christ." Next, get hired after only six months of prosecutorial experience to oversee the ongoing hiring of career prosecutors in the Department of Justice.  And finally, do a bang-up job of highlighting political affiliation over experience during interviews that would include legally relevant questions like "Have you ever cheated on your wife?"

Amidst televised Congressional hearings into the questionable ouster of nine U.S. Attorneys, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales omitted why he promoted someone to the position of White House liaison, while testifying he had limited knowledge of the practices taking place under his watch.  Goodling resigned last year before testifying under immunity.

At Comic-Con this weekend the husband and I sported pins supporting Lucy and Charlie Brown for President. Harvey Dent's campaign for district attorney was well-represented based on the pins and T-shirts on display.

Given my disdain for the two-party system, one T-shirt suggesting a vote for Cthulhu (why settle for the lesser evil?) was particularly thought-provoking.

But Comic-Con is all fun and games (and big tourism revenue), right? 

Welcome to the new America, which is the same as the old America.

That was my thought this morning after watching a week of the right trying very hard, in my opinion, to keep women 'barefoot and pregnant'. You may disagree with me right now, but let's take a closer look at why I say this.

First off, we have the Bush administration trying to label birth control as 'abortion'. Now, this is rather shocking, and I'm surprised that more news outlets aren't covering this possible change.

What about a woman's right to choose when or if she gets pregnant? What about safe sex to help curtail the spread of sexually transmitted diseases? Or was the current administration hoping that with the American public concerned about Iraq, rising gas costs, and the coming election, they could sneak in this change of law to force the women of this country to their ways of thinking?

Photo: Richard Bolt

The Governator, The Gunfighter and The Brother In-Law

A Dramatic Work In Progress

The Players

Arnold - The Governor

Maria - His Wife

Their Children

Clint Eastwood - Former California State Parks Board member - terminated by Schwarzenegger, former Mayor of Carmel, The Gunfighter

Bobby Shriver - Maria's brother, Santa Monica Councilman, and former California State Parks Board member - also terminated

 The Scene:

The Governor's breakfast table. Arnold and Maria look great, even this early. Super fit and lovely Schwarzenegger children bound to and fro the table. Arnold lays his paper down, suddenly serious.

As I sit here staring at the computer screen through the perceptual filter of various and overlapping cold medications, the issue of health care reform is about the only thing I can focus on.

McCain has a plan. Obama has a plan. Nader has a plan. Barr has, if not a plan, at least some thoughts on the issue.

While I'd like to think my vote can be completely altruistic, I'll admit my wallet can influence my thinking. I have a good healthcare plan. I have a good healthcare plan because I pay for a good healthcare plan, and chose to pay for it while I was relatively young and healthy.

Preparing for an appearance on KPBS' "These Days" with Chris McConnell and Chuck Hartley, the topic selection for the program narrowed down to discussing the La Raza conference in San Diego, the gas crisis, and Proposition 2.  Among the producers, the radio program's excellent host Tom Fudge, and the three bloggers, we decided to discuss the Latino vote in general and Proposition 2. 

Although discussing animal cruelty can involve contentious debate, (just check out Chuck's blog and subsequent comments) I started to worry about how the conversation surrounding La Raza would take shape. Would I be asked to defend the organization, which gets a bum rap as being fundamentally divisive? How about my personal reasons for not attending? Would Tom Fudge ask me how a Mexican-American could not attend the conference in good conscience?