Was It You?

Was that you this morning, with your wipers on super sonic speed and driving 45 MPH in the far left because it was raining? If so, there were about 20 of you. Okay, I get that you want to drive a little more safely when it's wet out. I respect that. But please, don't do it in the far left lane, you're just forcing the morons who don't want to slow down to weave in and out of the rest of us, which creates a much bigger safety concern than you just driving the speed limit.

So please, if you're going to drive slow, don't be a road boulder (a term coined by Mrs. Roadshow, wife to Mr. Roadshow at the San Jose Mercury News). Move over so the idiots can pass without killing the rest of us. Because if the idiot can't see the sense in slowing down, I'm pretty sure that driver is also not the person you want doing word problems when your life is on the line. Because your brain is basically doing word problems every time you get behind the wheel, you know.

Car X is driving 85 MPH in the rain with gusty winds. Car X is 200 yards away from and approaching Car Y, which is traveling at 45 MPH in the same direction. When is the last possible second Car X can swerve into the next lane of traffic without colliding with Car Y or Car Z, which is 100 yards away traveling at 65 MPH in the same direction in said next lane?

Okay, now add Cars A through W to the equation, because they're also on the highway traveling at varying speeds and distances, and don't forget to factor in the potholes and any ongoing CalTrans construction projects. Yeah, that's what I thought. So please, move over.

Was that you this morning driving in the rain with your lights off? If so, there were about 200 of you. "But I can see fine," you say. Well this isn't about you, it's about the rest of us who can't see you through the road spray without your lights on. You should be turning your lights on in any inclement weather. It's in the California Vehicle Code (Section 24400 (a)(2)), and just about every other state's vehicle code too, I'd wager. And folks, just so you know, the vehicle code is a set of laws.

Well, because we here in California apparently require a Nanny State to tell us to breathe, we needed the state legislature to define "inclement weather". As of 2007, Section 24400 (b)(2) goes on to define inclement weather as "A condition requiring the windshield wipers to be in continuous use due to rain, mist, snow, fog, or other precipitation or atmospheric moisture." It should be pretty clear now. You're off the hook if you're smearing bird poo around with your wipers, but if they're on for pretty much any other reason, your headlights need to be on too.

So, what's it going to take to get you to turn on your lights, people? Then again, if you still can't see the sense of turning on your lights, I'm not so sure I want you doing those word problems either. Please, if it's still raining on Monday, leave the car at home and just take BART. Please.

For those folks who do turn their lights on in the rain (it's completely unscientific, but I would estimate that was about 60% of us on 880 around 10:00AM this morning), thank you. There's one caveat, though. When the weather is bad, you turn on your lights. But when the weather gets worse, this does not mean you turn your lights on brighter. I can see how this logic might make sense and apparently there's some confusion. That blue light on your dash? That means you have your high beams on. The only time you should be using these is when there is no one, no one, else around. M'kay? Cool.

For my part, this year I resolve to be more aware of my driving habits. I resolve to move the the right when not actually passing (i.e., to not be a Road Boulder), and I further resolve to use my turn signals when moving over, even if there's no one around. I also resolve to turn on my head lights in the rain. (Actually I just leave them on all the time anyhow, so that I don't forget to turn them on.) Please, won't you join me.

When Is a Majority Not a Majority

Now that the elation of Election Day has faded, things are calming down and I've had a moment to take a closer look at what I'm feeling, and I have to say I am hopeful for the future of America.

I have no illusions that the next 4 years will be perfect or that our nation will be miraculously healed. But I do believe 44 will strive for balance. I'm concerned about the huge Dem wins in Congress and hopeful that 44 will be able to set the agenda for them, and that he will quash any legislation coming through that is way too far left. There must be balance, and if Congress can't find it I can almost guarantee the Dems will lose all the seats they've gained in the next election.

That said, I can't remember a time when I felt this energized about the possibilities. The 1994 Rep. "Contract with America" was a moment (when the Dem-controlled Congress couldn't find the middle), but it can't compare to how I feel now.

I feel like I've been in hunker down, assume the position, and wait it out mode since 2002. There's a glimmer that this long, barren winter of the Bush administration is coming to a close, and I'm optimistic for the blooms of spring. Crappe, I think I just waxed poetic or something.

Then there's the whole Proposition 8 debacle in California right now. Essentially an initiative was placed on the ballot calling for an amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. I have to say I really just don't care who decides to take up a domestic relationship with whom as long as they're both consenting adults. But we sure as heck shouldn't be messing with the constitution. Not for this.

The constitution is there to define the government's relationship to the people being governed. It is not intended to instruct the people on what is and isn't acceptable. And really, should a simple majority be all that's required to amend a document of this importance?

I also think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether; Marriage is not a secular event. The government should only be regulating Civil Unions for both hetero and homosexual couples. Leave the marriage issue up to each couple's individual faith. Many cultures and countries already do this. There's the official civil ceremony with all the paperwork, then there's the religious ceremony with umpteen friends and family to witness before god.

I am pleased that it appears Prop. 11 passed, which amends the state constitution to remove the responsibility for redistricting legislative districts from the seated legislature and give it to a new commission. Politicians should protect their positions by doing their jobs, not by gerrymandering. However, even though I fully support this initiative, I still do not think that the voters should be able to amend the state constitution with a simple majority.

WARNING: Math and Statistics Ahead

So Prop. 8 wins with 52.5% and Prop. 11 wins with 50.6% of the vote. A majority right? Wrong. It would be if every eligible voter cast a ballot, but they don't.

The stats aren't in yet for 2008, but in the 2004 presidential election, California had a turnout rate of 59.6% and assuming 2008 will be similar, that means that 52.5% and 50.6% of the 59.6% are deciding to amend the constitution for 100%.

In California that means that roughly 7,955,000 - 8,254,000, or approximately 30% of the population, are deciding to change the government's relationship to the 26,380,000 people it governs. And that, folks, is why I don't believe constitutional amendments should even be put to popular vote in the first place, and why I don't believe they should be passed by simple majority.

Before I get to the links, a word of warning. I've dug up a different html code for links and from here on out they should open in a new browser window. Unless I forget to use the new code or just get lazy. :)

So just a few links before I head to bed. This article by Chris Jones at Esquire sums up pretty well my conflicted feelings about John McCain the man, and John McCain the politician.

I couldn't read this bit of geek humor straight through without doubling up with laughter at least a couple times. If you've ever been a part of a tabletop RPG group, this is for you. If you haven't, but you've been in a relationship with someone who has, you'll probably still get it. If you don't fall into either of those groups, you probably have a life and have better things to do than read that link.

And lastly, completely unrelated to politics, if you've ever wondered how shopping carts, specifically the shopping cart you're using, got so messed up, watch this video. In honor of my cart while grocery shopping last night. The video also does double duty as an excellent instructional tool on inertia and Newton's First Law of Motion.