Portland: Eastside vs Westside

A series of recent conversations about where Portland, Oregon’s city commissioners live, and the democratic implications of having a majority of folks from the Westside govern the majority of the folks who live on the eastside (a claim that was met with incredulity), prompted me to dive a bit deeper into:

Portland — Eastside vs Westside, by the numbers

Currently, Portland has five City Commissioners. Let’s see how they break down:

Mayor Wheeler (SW Hills) - WESTSIDE
Commissioner Fish (Goose Hollow) - WESTSIDE
Commissioner Fritz (West Portland Park) - WESTSIDE
Commissioner Eudaly (Woodlawn) - EASTSIDE
Commissioner Hardesty (East Portland)  - EASTSIDE

Looks like WESTSIDE, 60%, EASTSIDE, 40%

However, Portland’s population as a whole is 79% Eastside, 21% Westside, as measured by population. So, even with two out of five commissioners from the eastside, the westside is still over-represented. Indeed, it would be more equitable if four commissioners were from the eastside, and only one from the westside, by sheer population.

The average households size on the eastside is 2.53; on the westside, it’s 2.0. (The citywide average is 2.4 people per household.) Due to this difference household sizes, 75% of all households are on the eastside, and 25% on the westside.

For whatever reason, though citywide 94% of homes are occupied (that is, there are 0.94 households for every dwelling unit), the occupancy rate of eastside houses is 95%, vs. 92% on the westside. As a result, 74% of all homes are on the eastside, and 26% on the westside.

Given that less than 80% of homes and households are on the eastside, it could be argued that, every once in a while, proportional representation would mean there should be a second Commissioner from the westside…

A Deeper Dive into Eastside vs Westside

The source for all of this data is the UrbanFootprint (UF) base canvas. I was the project manager for the initial development of UrbanFootprint at Calthorpe Associates, and now that I’m with Cascadia Partners, I use the tool on a regular basis. It’s rich with data, and its interface makes certain types of complex geographical analysis very simple to perform quickly. 

This allows me to quickly discover that the Eastside is home to 72% of single family homes on large lots, but 92% of all single family homes on small lots; 56% of all townhomes, but 61% of all apartments. Of those, it’s home to 82% of all Missing Middle apartments in buildings with 2 to 4 units, but only 60% of all apartments in buildings with 5 or more units.

When it comes to employment, the picture looks much like that for larger apartment buildings: 60% of all jobs are on the eastside, including 66% of all retail jobs, 52% of all office jobs, 77% of all industrial jobs, 74% of all retail service jobs, and 63% of all retail jobs. 

However, the westside is home to 58% of all public sector jobs, and 69% of all agricultural-sector jobs within city limits.

The bottom line is that the eastside contains 69% of the land area of the City of Portland. It’s larger; it should have more of the things. It also has a higher average population density, at 9.94 people per acre vs. 5.94 on the westside.

Perhaps surprisingly, however, the westside has a higher employment density, at 7.94 jobs per acre on average, vs. 5.22 jobs per acre on the eastside. This is driven by an average retail density of 1.61 retail jobs per acre on the westside, vs 1.39 on the eastside; 3.92 average office jobs per acre, vs. 1.93 on the eastside; and 1.47 public sector jobs per acre, vs. 0.48 on the eastside.

With most of the public sector jobs on the westside, but most of the population and total jobs on the eastside, the case could be made to de-centralize Portland’s public-sector jobs by placing more of them on the east side of the Willamette. I don’t know exactly what this might look like, but it’s certainly worth keeping in mind!

cheers,

~Garlynn

Ballot Thoughts, November 8, 2016

Hi folks,

Apologies for the late date of this one; I understand most of you have probably voted by now in Oregon, unless you like to hand-deliver your ballot to the County the week of the election, like I do.

Regardless, these are my thoughts on the Multnomah County Election, Oregon, November 8 2016:

---

Federal Offices:
President
Hillary Clinton & Tim Kaine

US Senator
Eric Navickas (Pacific Green Party)
Why:
I don't really have anything against Ron Wyden in particular, it's just that I think I like this guy Navickas more, and isn't that what we're supposed to be doing in a democracy, choosing our favorite? No, it's more complicated than that? Well, Wyden is going to win this, so it's just a token vote anyways. A token of my appreciated to Eric Navickas, for doing the right thing and running for a lesser office than President. I truly would like to see a third major party arise, and I would like it to be ideologically similar to the Democrats, but willing to push in different directions on different issues. Push hard for a revenue-positive carbon tax, with the proceeds dedicated to fund GHG-reduction projects in a schedule of different disciplines (Transportation, Land Use, Energy Production, Transportation Modes, Batteries/Power Storage, etc.). I feel like the Greens would more unabashedly pursue these goals, which needs to happen.  So, you will see me leaning towards that party throughout this ballot, despite knowing full well that the polls say none of these candidates will win. This year. But maybe they'll try again next time, and try harder.

US Representative, District 3
Earl Blumenauer

---

State Offices

Oregon Governor
Kate Brown

Secretary of State
Brad Avakian (Democrat)
Why:
I feel like the main argument against Brad is that he seems to lack experience at the job of Secretary of State, and he has some really progressive ideas about how that office might be able to push harder to help create a better world for our children. OK, I think I'm cool with that, actually.

State Treasurer
Chris Henry (Progressive/Pacific Green)
Why:
I looked at what Chris would like to do, and I think it's right on. Try to re-direct the massive firehose of money that is the Treasury of the State of Oregon, and use it to help fund projects to help reduce GHG emissions and try to make a better world for our children, all the while continuing to earn a fair rate of return to help pay public retiree pensions and other state obligations? Count me in, I love that vision. How can we help make it happen?

Attorney General
Ellen Rosenbaum (Democrat)
Why:
So, she's married to a guy who helps put out the influential Willamette Week newspaper, and somehow that was wrapped up with the resignation of the previous governor. That's kind of creepy, actually, but I really don't like the politics of the two guys running against her, so I guess she can stay.

Local Offices

Judge of the Court of Appeals, Position 8
Spencer Q. Parsons (Write-in)
Why:
I'm so sick of all of these positions on the ballot where only one person is running.

Really?

Couldn't find ANYBODY else willing to run for that seat? Why do I have to waste ink filling in the damn circle, then? I'd rather cast a protest vote.

City of Portland Commissioner, Position 4
Steve Novick
Why:
If Chloe Eudaly were to come out in support of:

• the Residential Infill Project in a way that would allow more lower-cost units to be built
• better bicycle infrastructure so it's safer to not have to pay for the expense of a car to get around the city

...then she probably would have my vote, as we both went to the same high school (Metropolitan Learning Center), we're both from the east side of Portland, and I like her grassroots support.

However, I have not seen her take anything close to those strong positions on those two very important issues.

I know where Steve Novick stands on both of those issues:

• He co-sponsored the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan in favor of more Missing Middle housing types
• And he worked hard to pass a new city gas tax in order to help fund basic transportation infrastructure, including some better bicycle infrastructure. It's not enough money to fix that incomplete-bicycle-network problem, but it will get a few more projects built right away, and it doesn't preclude doing more to help finish the network later.

That's all it is for me.

Oregon & Local Ballot Measures

Measure 94
Constitutional Amendment: Eliminates mandatory retirement age of 75 for state judges
No.
Why:
I think that, after the age of 75, you've put in your time. I don't want the state to chain these old folks to the gavel just because not attention has been paid to succession planning. Let's train and cultivate the judges of the next generation, so we have good options when our elders get elderly. Then, let's let folks retire at 75 from public service, so they can have their own time to go hiking, ride mountain bikes, go into private practice, run for another office, or just enjoy life while they still can.

Measure 95
Constitutional Amendment: Allows investment in equities by public universities
Yes.

Measure 96
Constitutional Amendment: Dedicates 1.5 of state lottery net proceeds to funding support services for Oregon veterans.
No.
Why:
The Portland City Club says:

"Using the lottery to fund veterans' services means fewer resources could go to other projects already receiving unrestricted lottery funds, such as education."

Measure 97
Increases corporate minimum tax when sales exceed $25 million
Yes.

Measure 98
Requires state funding for career and college readiness, dropout-prevention programs in Oregon high schools
Yes.
Why:
This stuff is important, and this is a well-written measure that is not triggered until sufficient economic growth has occurred.

Measure 99
Outdoor School for All
Yes.

Measure 100
Prohibits purchase or sale of parts or products from endangered animals
Yes

Measure 26-181
Amends charter, extends term limits to three consecutive terms
No.
Why?
What's the problem this measure seeks to solve, exactly? I like seeing churn in this post. If somebody is good, like Earl Blumenauer or Ted Wheeler, we may need their services elsewhere after two terms. Otherwise, let's encourage some churn in the seats.

Measure 26-182
Amends charter, allows commissioners to run for Chair midterm without resigning.
Yes.
Why?
If somebody is good, and wants to be the Chair, we don't want them to have to leave the Commission early to run for that position. We want their expertise constantly employed on the issues before the Commission.

Measure 26-183
Amends Charter, changes elected sheriff position to appointed department head.
Yes.
Why?
This is how we do it in the City of Portland: the Chief of Police reports directly to the Mayor, and if he screws up, his ass is on the line and he will lose his job if the Mayor thinks that is best -- right now. Given the number of times that this has happened, and given that guys (heck, even the gals) in law enforcement aren't exactly known for being the perfect combination of:

• intelligent, 
• well-spoken, 
• experts in various multidisciplinary policy areas, 
• good at enforcing laws without intentionally or unintentionally engaging in: 
• racial profiling, 
• excessive force, 
• or any number of other potential ways to get in hot water with the public

...I think it's best if the chief law enforcement officer in turn reports to a civilian who has the authority and the duty to fire him or her right now when necessary.

26-184
Limits contributions, expenditures, requires disclosure in Multnomah County candidate elections
Yes
Why:
There was only one argument in opposition filed in the Voter's Guide. Its title was:

Oregon Elections Are Rigged By Big Money
Let's Keep It That Way

...and it was submitted by the Committee of the Best People with the Best Words.

Say no more...

26-179
Bonds to fund affordable housing.
No.
Why??
This is something that desperately needs to happen. Our city is short by at least 26,000 Affordable Housing Units. This measure would construct about 1300of them, at a cost of $75 a year to the average Portland household.

That means that, if this is the way we're going to solve the problem, it's going to cost the average Portland household roughly $1,500 a year to provide all the necessary units.

For the average Portland household, I think that number would be a big problem.

Further, there are better ways to fund this problem, they're just not comfortable to the decision-makers who put this on the ballot. We should instead be finding seed money from a less-constrained fund source, and using it to start a truly entrepreneurial Community Land Trust, modeled after the land trust in Burlington, Vermont that Bernie Sanders sent seed money to while he was the Mayor. Following that model, the Community Land Trust could provide for-sale and rental Affordable Housing, as well as even homeless shelters.

But that's not what is on the ballot, and if we encourage our leaders to go down the path widened by Measure 26-179, they won't get sent back to the drawing board to find the sort of innovative solutions that they need to be looking harder for -- like the Community Land Trust.

Measure 26-180
Establish tax on recreational marijuana sales; dedicate purposes for funds
Yes.
Why:
This is what marijuana legalization is all about.

Legalize marijuana.

Tax it heavily.

Use the proceeds to fund important programs that need to happen and aren't otherwise sufficiently funded.

That was the promise, and that is what this measure is supposed to deliver. Let's keep the bargain.

Measure 26-178
Renews local option levy; protects natural areas, water quality, fish.
Yes.

---

That's it. I made it easy for you, at least if you live near my district! Now, you can vote without having to do quite so much research yourself (though, I encourage you to do your civic duty and perform the research yourself if you have the time, but I also understand about the time thing -- why do you think I didn't post this like a month ago???) and go drop your ballot off at the library or some other ballot drop site, and feel good about Democracy.

Then, relax and wait for the results to roll in.

cheers,
~Garlynn

Fluoridation of water in Portland, OR? Really?

Portland, Oregon will soon vote to fluoridate its water. This in a city that prides itself on having the cleanest, best-tasting water of any major city in the United States; a city where the cleanliness and purity of the water has led directly to a boom in silicon chip manufacturing, beer brewing and drinking fountain usage. For some reason, a large and powerful political coalition has latched onto this issue and is pushing it forward, despite the controversy this is creating in our community.

Quite some time ago, I blogged about the dangers of fluoride in toothpaste; I'll leave the technical arguments for that post for the most part, though I will add one new point of information that has come to light since then: fluoridated municipal water supplies cause fluoridated wastewater to be released into rivers and other waterways, which can impact the health of fish and other aquatic species.

Basically, I feel like this is sort of a Bush vs. Gore moment for Portland, in many ways. Portland is the largest remaining U.S. city to not fluoridate its water; for many of us, this is a sort of pride. If you want fluoride, go buy just about any brand of toothpaste and brush your teeth. Even if you can't afford dental insurance, this will provide your teeth with all the fluoride they "need" to stay healthy (though, please see the previous post for questions about to what degree this need even exists). If you don't think this is the case, then also go ahead and purchase some fluoridated mouthwash; this will provide more than enough fluoridation to protect your dental well-being.

But please, don't force the rest of us to have fluoridated beer, fluoridated lemonade, fluoridated kombucha -- and fluoridated local fish!

Thanks.

MTC/ABAG's Draft SCS is Fatally Flawed

Recently in the San Francisco Bay Area, according to the provisions of California's Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the regional agencies released a draft version of their plan for land use and transportation patterns through the year 2040. The Bay Area's Greenbelt Alliance called regional government agencies MTC and ABAG's draft Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) a "...page turner of a land use scenario." 

I agree that it is a comprehensive discussion of the issues faced by planners in the Bay Area. In fact, I would almost call it whiny. Read this paragraph and see if you agree:

The affordable housing production challenge is particularly critical relative to infill development where established

neighborhoods are revitalized with new development in the midst of existing communities, land values are high and planning and entitlement processes are often complex and costly. In addition, construction costs of multi-unit structures continue to escalate, particularly due to the cost of steel and other materials. Financing for infill development remains difficult and the “cost of money” remains relatively high due to the perceived riskiness of multi-family construction and the need for large chunks of capital up front. Urban infill development is also challenging due to the need to assemble sites and the extra costs for site preparation, as well as the extra regulatory hurdles in core areas, such as extensive design reviews. And most recently, there is a new threat of lack of institutional capacity to process housing applications, due to the dissolution of redevelopment agencies and the ongoing fiscal stress in local governments. (page 8)

If it sounds like this may be a prelude to a plan that does not propose solutions to these problems... it is.

For instance, it seems to take a passive, backseat role with regards to planning for the future urban form of employment parks:

Multiple activities and transit at office parks

Office parks have and are expected to continue to accommodate a growing number of employees. However, given the limited land available for new office parks, existing vacant office space, and the preference for walkable, transit-served neighborhoods by a growing number of employers, office parks are expected to grow at a slower pace than in recent decades. Existing office parks are also using less space per worker, providing transit access, and in a few cases adding housing, services and amenities. The emerging private shuttle services run by businesses, particularly in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, are expected to grow and improve transit access while lessening, but not fully mitigating increased freeway traffic congestion related to employment growth. (page 15)

Remember -- this is a plan that is legally mandated to attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, specifically from transportation. And yet it takes a laissez-faire approach to one of the most major issues in regional planning in the Bay Area -- the continued growth of auto-dependent low-density employment parks far from transit -- which is known to lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions.

The major issues with the plan also include the low amounts of housing units planned for construction in comparison to population and employment growth over the next three decades. For instance, rather than confront that fact that this region has consistently under-produced housing over the past few decades (as evidenced by high housing prices and high amounts of in-commuting), the plan seeks to reduce the target for new housing production by using gimmicks:

“…the plan takes into account current housing vacancy rates (approximately 6.4%) and fills vacancies first before planning any new construction.”

First issue: The Bay Area likely has among the lowest vacancy rates of the largest regions in the state, and yet, even though it is the last of the major MPOs in California to produce its SCS, it is the first MPO to suggest that filling vacancies can be a reason to reduce the housing target by a six-figure amount.*

Second issue: Even if this were a valid strategy on its face, it misses two important factors:

1) Location: Many of the vacant units are located in undesirable areas, far from transit and job centers. Vacancy rates in walkable neighborhoods near transit with low crime are at normal, even low levels.

2) Demand by unit type: Much of the vacancies are for single family homes, especially those in poor locations. Much of the demand is for townhomes and multifamily units near transit. Just because there is a surplus of the former doesn’t mean that there is no need to construct the latter.

In reading the draft SCS, I see no mention of demand for units by unit type, especially not in the nuanced manner that has become normative in post-SB375 planning in California: Single Family Large Lot, Single Family Small Lot, Townhome and Multifamily. While Dr. A.C. Nelson’s report “The New California Dream” is referenced, his specific demand projections by unit type and by location are ignored. In case readers don't wish to dig too deeply to find them, here they are for the Bay Area (from page 44 of Dr. Nelson's housing unit demand forecast):

New unit Demand 2010–2035

Multifamily: 668,000 (45.10%)

Townhome: 519,000 (35.04%)

Single Family Small Lot: 294,000 (19.85%)

Single Family Large Lot: −526,000 

Total: 956,000

The draft Bay Area SCS (what they call the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, or Plan Bay Area, as a part of some nebulous umbrella effort known as OneBayArea) doesn't specifically include targets for housing unit production by unit type. However, Dr. Nelson's estimate of 956,000 new housing units is likely closer to the overall total amount than the 660,000 used in the current draft of the Bay Area's plan. This shortfall will likely be made up by continued exurban sprawl in California's San Joaquin Valley, as well as to much lesser degrees the northern Salinas Valley, the Santa Cruz/Monterey Bay area and Mendocino and Lake counties.

For these reasons alone, this is a fatally flawed plan; but also add to this list the fact that it does not specify where non-TOD growth will occur (beyond while travel analysis zone it will fall in); and that it admits that it fails to provide enough housing to meet potential demand -- to such a degree that job growth will be lowered by ~110k future potential employees as a consequence, as admitted on page 8:

According to Steve Levy, from the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, the region could capture another 110,000 jobs of the total national growth. However, the total job growth is constrained by our ability to produce housing, which is ambitiously estimated at 660,000 new units by 2040.

On page 9, the plan admits that it will not seek to current the current imbalance between jobs in the Bay Area and housing outside of the region (mainly in the San Joaquin Valley):

This also assumes that the rate of net in- commuting will remain at 2010 levels, and absorption of about 40,000 existing vacant units. (continued in footnote): The Jobs-Housing Connection Scenario includes an adjustment of 0.7 percent higher employed residents than the numbers forecast by Levy. This adjustment is the result of retaining the 2010 in-commute ratio out to 2040.

Not just retain the current total amount of people commuting into the Bay Area, but actually allow it to increase by retaining the current rate. This will result in an absolute increase in in-commuters, which is not good news to anybody who currently drives in through the Altamont Pass during their morning commute; it will also result in more sprawl in the immediately adjacent San Joaquin Valley, which will not be good news to folks who would prefer to see the agricultural character of that place preserved.

It also flies against what many, including the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) consider to be the primary goals of SB 375 -- to provide housing for all of the potential future residents of a region:

Identify areas sufficient to house all the population of the region, including all economic segments, over the course of the planning period of the regional transportation plan, taking into account net migration into the region, population growth, household formation, and employment growth. This provision is not atypical for growth projections, but SB 375 makes two significant changes. First, the SCS must accommodate all the population growth of the region within the region. Shipping residential growth to adjacent regions is no longer allowed. Second, the population growth projections must include the increased housing demand caused by employment growth. These provisions recognize the crucial linkage between a regional-scale jobs-housing balance and reduced VMT. The housing projects in the first horizon year of the plan (presumably eight years out) must be consistent with the regional housing need identified in the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) program. This provision is part of the effort to align these programs.

The hope for this plan lies in the basic framework of concentrating growth around transit, and the programs that are being proposed to help make this happen. Let’s hope that future iterations of the plan will build upon this, but address the issues mentioned above…

 ------
* SCAG's SCS mentions that the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) allowed them to reduce their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the upcoming 8-year cycle by a slight amount to reflect the current elevated vacancy rate, but they don't mention using this vacancy rate to reduce their overall growth control totals to 2035, nor do they use it as an excuse to continue to encourage the growth of current unhealthy in-commuting patterns. SANDAG's SCS does not mention reducing their housing growth targets due to the vacancy rate specifically, though their vacancy rate was only 5.8% in 2010 according to that document. SACOG's SCS mentions accounting for vacancy -- by using a 5% "vacancy factor", which they account for by planning to overbuild housing to account for a future 5% vacancy rate in 2035 and still be able to accommodate all new households. SACOG's approach is the right way to look at the nuances related to vacancy, which is to take responsibility for the fact that there always will be vacant housing units, and to plan to overbuild slightly in order to account for this.

My maps are now helping to define GIS

At least, the California Map Society is using two images of my maps to help them define the term GIS (URL: http://californiamapsociety.org/mapping/gis.php). I created these maps back when I worked for MTC, and submitted them to ESRI for use in their Map Gallery. Somebody found them at the California Map Society page, and emailed me with a question about how I made them... which is a refreshing reminder that cartography does matter, and once upon a time, I did a lot of it.

An interesting side note is that these maps represented for me the first result of my dabblings in "psychaedelic geography", or the use of non-traditional colors and methods to depict GIS data on maps. The purpose of psychaedelic geography was foremost to make maps that looked more interesting and less boring, which was intended to have consequential side effects of getting people to pay more attention to the data represented on the map. Looks like it worked!

In the three years since I came over to Calthorpe Associates, I have been doing a lot more work behind the scenes, that is, work involving databases, project coordination, public relations, client relations, spreadsheets... in short, everything but cartography. Maybe, thanks to this reminder and the changing demands of the project, I will start to do more cartography soon...

Obama's speech tonight hit it out of the park.

He did an excellent job articulating his messages, he showed emotion, and he did effective combat against a lot of the anti-intellectual ideas that the opposition has been throwing up recently.

I predict that his new for-the-people offense will prove successful in passing the jobs for america act. The question is, did he write enough oomph into it to provide an effective-enough boost to the economy to ensure his re-election? I'm curious to hear Paul Krugman's analysis of what the macroeconomic effect of this bill is likely to be...

Still, I suppose that the bottom line with regard to Obama's reelection will involve many more variables than just the degree of success of this bill.

For instance, the surface transportation reauthorization bill will be another upcoming opportunity to inject massive amounts of funding into capital infrastructure improvements, which have large job-creating capabilities... This will be thus another good opportunity for Obama to exert leadership and use the bully pulpit to fight for large expenditures on transit and bike/ped, which are proven to generate large numbers of relative jobs per dollar spent.

So, here's to hoping that Obama's new fighting spirit will hold, prove effective and be put to good use!

YouChooseBayArea website launched

One of the projects that I've been working on over the past year, Envision Bay Area, has now produced a product, the YouChooseBayArea website, which allows users to play with different policy choices to produce a future scenario for growth in the region, and then see the results of these choices. It's all done up in an easy-to-use manner, with well-written text describing the implications of the choices and the collateral benefits (or damage) resulting. Metrics measured include fiscal impact, public health, GHG emissions, travel behavior, building energy and water consumption, and others.

The scenarios were run through the Rapid Fire model that I was instrumental in the process of building here at Calthorpe Associates. This model produced all of the quantitative results that you see on the website. This is the model that has also been used to produce the initial Results Report for the Vision California project.

Go check out the website. Let me know what you think!

California Ballot Endorsements November 2010

State of California
November Election, 2010
*********************


Governor: Jerry Brown Discussion: The state is a mess; it needs Jerry Brown to come fix it. Meg Whitman's a rich idiot, and the other alternatives are jokes.
Lt. Governor: James "Jimi" Castillo Discussion: This is pretty much a joke job with a good salary anyways. Let's just be honest about that fact, and use this opportunity to elect a Green Party member to statewide office. The other candidates are former politicians just looking for a good way to continue collecting a salary for doing nothing. Let's elect somebody who might actually shake things up a little.
U.S. Senator: Barbara Boxer: This is not the time to replace Boxer. She's not perfect, but she'll do for now.
Attorney General: Kamala Harris Discussion: Yeah, as AG of SF she's been a little soft on crime, and the streets of SF are still the streets of SF. For this statewide office, she seems like a thinking, open-minded human being who may at least give some serious thought to the important policy issues of the day. You can't say the same for the other candidates.
Treasurer: Bill Lockyer


Statewide Measures:
Measure 19: Legalizes Marijuana. Discussion: I probably don't need to say much, but I will. This needs to be done for two very good reasons: One, it will undercut the funding for foreign mafias that currently profit by trafficking marijuana into our country, and thus have definite foreign policy benefits; and Two, it will undercut the funding for domestic drug gangs that currently profit by trafficking marijuana within our cities and within the country, and thus have definite domestic policy benefits. Estimated Financial Impact: The state's going to bring in a ton of cash from this. Recommended Vote: Yes


Measure 20: Redistricting. Discussion: Takes the carving of the pork out of the wolf's hands. Recommended Vote: Yes


Measure 21: VLF for State Parks. Discussion: Seems like a rather poor use of funds collected from vehicle license fees, and if the state parks were to all "close" tomorrow, as long as they didn't begin actually clear-cutting them, at least they would be preserved for future generations. Recommended Vote: No


Measure 22: Prevents State from Stealing Money from Other Jurisdictions. Discussion: I was horrified when I heard that the State of California could do this to begin with. F*ing fix it already. Recommended Vote: Yes


Measure 23: Suspend AB 32 until hell freezes over. Discussion: Funded by oil companies to protect profits and advance the Conservative cause. Go tell them where to stick it. Recommended Vote: No


Measure 24: Remove some business tax exemptions. Discussion: There's probably a good reason for some of these exemptions, if you ask the right lobbyist. But, the state is really, really, really broke. It needs cash, and it shouldn't have to steal it to get it. This is a logical way to raise revenue without raising taxes. Recommended Vote: Yes


Measure 25: Allows the Legislature to pass a budget with a simple majority vote (currently, 2/3 is needed). Discussion: This is a democracy, which is majority rule, not minority rule. Requiring a super-majority vote on an issue is effectively creating minority rule. That strikes me as wrong. This measure will go a long way to fixing politics in this broken state. Recommended Vote: Yes

Measure 26: Requires 2/3 vote to enact or raise fees. Discussion: See above, about minority rule = bad. Recommended Vote: No

Measure 27: Opposite of Measure 20, Redistricting. Unlock the coop, leave a trail of blood to the forest, and put up a god-damn neon sign saying "The chickens are sleeping, come and eat them Mr. Fox". Recommended Vote: No

Alameda County

Measure F: Vehicle License Fee for Bicycles, Transit & Urban Greening. F*ing yeah! Right on. This is a great use of VLF moneys. Appropriate use of funds, given the revenue source. Recommended Vote: Yes

BART Director, District 4: Robert Raburn

Mayor, Oakland:

1) Rebecca Kaplan

2) Joe Tuman

Discussion: Rebecca gets it, and would hopefully be a good mayor. Joe at least supports the Oakland Streetcar proposal, which is better than nothing. Stop voting after two, your first two votes will still be counted under the ranked-choice system (You may rank UP TO three choices).

Oregon Ballot Endorsements 2010

State of Oregon

*************

United States Senator: Ron Wyden

Representatives in Congress:

1st District: David Wu

2nd District: Joyce Segers

3rd District: Earl Blumenauer

4th District: Peter DeFazio

5th District: 

Kurt Schrader

6th District: Just kidding, Oregon only has 5 districts.

Governor: John Kitzhaber

Treasurer: Ted Wheeler

Oregon Metro Council President: Bob Stacey Discussion: Bob will show decisive leadership on important policy issues, and that's still what metro (and Oregon) need.

Measure 70 through 72 were referred to the people by the Legislature, and thus already represent the result of a well-reasoned consensus that has been reached by our elected body of citizen representatives in Oregon.

Measure 70: Amends Constitution: Expands availability of home ownership loans for Oregon veterans through Oregon War Veterans' Fund. Estimated Financial Impact: None. Discussion: This seems to be mostly a clean-up bill to rationalize what seems to be a slightly irrational set of rules governing this program. Recommended Vote: Yes.

Measure 71: Amends Constitution: Requires legislature to meet annually; limits length of legislative sessions; provides exceptions. Estimated Financial Impact: Not estimated to exceed $100,000. Discussion: You know, this sounds like an interesting experiment, and I'm all for interesting experiments taking place in Oregon, if there's not pre-known to be a predictable adverse impact. Know what I'm sayin'? Recommended Vote: Yes.

Measure 72: Amends Constitution: Authorizes exception to $50,000 state borrowing limit for state's real and personal property projects. Estimated Financial Impact: This should provide for lower financing costs to the state to acquire debt. Discussion: The state says it needs more tools in its financial toolchest. It's going through hard times. This seems like a really good idea. Recommended Vote: Yes.

---

Measures 73 through 76 were referred to the ballot through citizen initiative petition.

Measure 73: Requires increased minimum sentences for certain repeated sex crimes, incarceration for repeated driving under influence. Estimated Financial Impact: $18.1 million to $29.1 million per year after it fully takes effect after its fourth year of impact, lesser until then. Discussion: While this seems like a good law-and-order measure, in these hard financial times, I'd like to see it come with some financing attached to help pay for itself. I don't see that. Without more evidence that this is the best solution available for the problem at hand, I don't see the compelling cost-benefit analysis that says this is the best use of the state's limited funding. Recommended Vote: No.

Measure 74: Establishes medical marijuana supply system and assistance and research programs; allows limited selling of marijuana. Estimated Financial Impact: Up to $20 million in revenue to the state in the first year alone. Discussion: Some time has passed since Oregon legalized medical marijuana, and in that time, experience has shown that additional regulation could improve the situation. This measure is therefore an evolutionary step forward from the present situation in Oregon. Recommended Vote: Yes.

Measure 75: Authorizes Multnomah County casino; casino to contribute monthly revenue percentage to state for specified purposes. Estimated Financial Impact: Yeah, allows for opening a casino. I think it might bring in some cash. Maybe a few dozen million per year or so in taxes, something along those lines, once a casino begins operations... Discussion: I think there are much better-thought-out options to raise cash for the state, including some of the other measures on this ballot. We don't need to stoop this low yet. Recommended Vote: No.

Measure 76: Amends Constitution: continues lottery funding for parks, beaches, wildlife habitat, watershed protection beyond 2014; modifies funding process. Estimated Financial Impact: None,  unless you happen to be another state program competing annual for lottery funding since this is a renewal measure, these funds are already currently obligated to this purposes. Discussion: This is micro-managing the Legislature. As good-intentioned as this sounds, I believe the Legislature actually might already have a process to work this out, which is what we did elect them to do. Since this is a renewal measure, this is just a matter of reinforcing our already-good judgement to use some lottery funds to help support the parks. Recommended Vote: Yes.

People's Republic of Multnomah County:

Measures 26-109, 26-110, 26-111, 26-112, 26-113, 26-114, 26-118: Yes

City of Portland:

Measure 26-108: Yes

Measure 26-117: No

Tri-Met:

Measure 26-119: Yes Discussion: begrudgingly, since this is effectively the renewal of the bond funding that was used to construct Westside Light Rail, and I don't see this current expenditure as rising to that level of vision-achievement.

I was on the radio this morning for Vision California

The link to the radio program is here:

http://www.capradio.org/programs/programdetail.aspx?showid=8045

I think my section starts at about 16:40.... Dan Leavitt (Deputy Director of the California High Speed Rail Authority) and I were interviewed by host Jeffrey Callison about the recent Vision California data release, which has generated some press coverage already. We discuss some fun facts from the data release, as well as why the project is happening, why High Speed Rail is funding it and how confident we are in the results.

Rebuilding the Streets of North Oakland

So, I was invited to write an op-ed piece for the Oakland North blog, discussing pedestrian and bicycle safety in North Oakland following the wave of incidents in recent weeks.

This is my submission:

http://oaklandnorth.net/2010/06/16/you-tell-us-rebuild-oaklands-streets-to-make-them-safer/

Please share it widely among folks who might be interested; feel free to forward it to lists and groupservs that might hit folks who live in North Oakland (or elsewhere) and care about this issues. I would like to continue to use the Oakland North site as a forum to begin a community dialogue about these issues, and see what might be made to happen as a result.

If you don't live in north Oakland and are reading this post, please tell me what you think right here on Underground Science!

thanks,

~Garlynn

My Ideal Cell Phone: Specs

OK, so a number of years back (in 2006), I put out specs for my ideal automobile, updated the post later in the year with a progress report... then gave up on the idea of anything happening soon, and settled for buying a 20-year-old diesel Mercedes wagon to run on biodiesel. Since then, Mercedes has announced plans for a new diesel-electric hybrid car at some point in the future, as has Volvo and others... and I followed up with specifications for the ideal plug-in biodiesel hybrid wagon... but I since announced that there are lots of poor options when it comes to new cars, and lots of great options when it comes to new bicycles...including the bakfiets, the station wagon of bicycles. You pretty much have to go to Europe to get a decent car right now with good gas mileage that is biodiesel-capable.


So, enough about transportation. I've tried to make a difference, and maybe I have, but these things take time.


Right now, I'd like to turn my attention to the cell phone. There have been a lot of advances in cell phone technology recently, and indeed, there seem to be a lot of decent phones on the market right now.


But.... BUT... my personal cell phone is now at least five years old. Verizon has been offering to give me a free new phone of my choice for at least the past three years, and I keep turning them down.


Why?


It's not that all new phones stink... it's just that none of them actually meet all of my specifications, and I keep hoping that the right phone will be released in the next two years, so I might as well wait for it. Besides, my current phone (an old Audiovox) works just fine, with decent battery life, good call quality and reception, and the ability to take photos and video, send and receive text, picture and video messages, and even do some rudimentary web surfing and gaming (i.e., tetris and chess).


So, without further ado... what would it take to get me to upgrade? Here's the list:

• It needs to work on the Verizon network, native, with full support. I hate AT&T, having done business with them a number of times in the past and had to endure their monopolistic thinking and shoddy customer service. I won't do it again. I've been with Verizon since they used to be called AirTouch, and aside from their politics, I see no reason to leave (though, Working Assets/Credo Mobile might start looking more attractive if Verizon keeps supporting the Blue Dog Democrats)...
• It needs to offer at least 120 gigabytes of on-board storage capacity, and preferably closer to 200 gigs -- or more. I'd like to just take all of my music and a lot of my movies, plus some of my photos, with me when I'm mobile. Why should I have to limit myself to a certain sub-set of my collection? The technology now exists and is quite cheap to just give it all to me when I'm on the go.
• It should have a 4+ megapixel digital camera built it, with an actual physical zoom lens (3x minimum), a decent flash, and decent night-time photography capabilities (this is apparently mainly a software thing now). I'd love to have a physical viewfinder, but... I could live without it if one feature had to get cut. It should, in short, be a good digital camera... not the best, but it should certainly be competitive with the best compact digital cameras circa, say, 2004 or 2005...
• It needs to plug in to a standard USB port for synching, but it should act as a standard external drive when plugged in, with no funny business with regards to copy protection, digital rights management, or any of that bullshit. Let me use it how I want to use it, that's why I'm paying money for it -- keep your corporate paws out of my private business.
• It should be an excellent music player, with the ability to support noise-cancelling headphones, either corded or via bluetooth, and excellent sound reproduction, including transfer of frequencies from 10hz to 200khz, that is, just outside both edges of human hearing -- just in case I decide to plug it into something other than headphones that may have the ability to actually reproduce those frequencies.
• It should be an excellent cell phone, with perfect call quality when service is good, the ability to operate either in digital or analog mode, the ability to switch modes on the fly without dropping a call in order to achieve top call quality, and the ability to operate on any network in the world that uses any technology currently in use by cell phones.
• It should have decent battery life, that is, the ability to talk for a few hours, or listen to music for a few hours, and then be in standby for a few days, on a single charge. I don't have unrealistic expectations for this, and I'm certainly fine if I need to plug it in when I go to sleep every second, third or fourth night depending on how much I use it -- but at least out of the box, I shouldn't have to plug it in every night, and I certainly shouldn't need to plug it in more than once a day (unless I'm using it for like eight hours straight for battery-intensive operations).
• It should be good at surfing the web, at least as good as the iPhone is currently, and be able to view some version of all standard web pages, not just the "mobile version."
• I think it probably should also support Flash. It should be MY decision, not the decision of Steve Jobs, if I want to take the risk of running Flash. Maybe I should have to sign a disclaimer saying that I know I'm an idiot if I want to do this, but then, I should still be able to do it. Please, just let me be my own idiot when it comes to installing and running programs on my device that, technically, should be able to run on that device just fine.
• It should be able to run a variety of other applications, within reason (i.e. I don't expect to be able to run a full-fledge GIS on it, but a slim version of Google Earth might be nice).
• It should have the standard accelerometer, gyroscope, compass, GPS, and other functions that any modern iPhone or competitor now has, and the ability to use them.
• It should be tough. Like Dvorak has suggested, "make the thing out of tungsten. Drop it, and it would break the floor. Tungsten has a great finish. People will ask, "wow, it's actually made from tungsten?"" Or, you know, find some other way to make it really tough, and hard to break... I don't care if it's tungsten, titanium, aluminum, or just stainless steel. I've dropped my current phone dozens of times, on a variety of surfaces. It's a flip-phone... that's one of the reasons I like the flip-phone design. The thing just takes it and keeps working, and it's made out of plastic. Give me a reason to pay $50 more for something that will last a long time (like a MacBook Pro laptop or a Mercedes), and I will.
• Maybe it should have night-vision camera capabilities. That would be cool... or even just the ability to hold it up and see the night-vision view on the screen. OK, that's maybe just a cool idea for an app, I don't quite understand all the technology involved. That's not a requirement.
• It should definitely have the ability to run a powerpoint show (via some dongle that, say, plugs into its USB or monitor out port and into a standard VGA cable) or even show movies via a projector or TV. After all, it will be able to hold dozens of movies on its massive HD, why not allow you to watch them on a full-size screen?
• It should have an average-size screen. The screen on the iPhone is fine. In fact, the dimensions of the iPhone are about perfect. It could even be a little bit thicker, to accommodate more battery and more storage device (hard drive, flash drive, whatever works best). Not TOO much thicker, but a few more millimeters wouldn't be a deal-killer.
• It should be tough. Did I say that already? If it gets dropped, I don't want anything breaking, including the screen. MAKE IT TOUGH. I'll pay extra. I need to make that clear. Also, just build it to last -- don't skimp on the components, go for the high-quality stuff. But, within reason. I'd pay $400 for such a device, maybe even $500 with a good warranty... but not much more... so, be really smart about the design and manufacturing...

OK, that's a pretty long list, so I'll quit while I'm ahead. I think you get the picture. Comments are open and welcome.

cheers,

~Garlynn

An Update from the Front Lines in the War on the Car

While you might think that it would be yours truly giving you an update in the War on the Car, I'm merely using this post to pass on a link to what could be seen as a rather humorous piece postulating an actual war between cars and people... except that it's not really imaginary, it's reality, and what the piece describes, is truth:

The war on The Car: An update

Still, a good read, and interesting to think of the currently-underway paradigm shift in terms of a military campaign...

Senator Jim Bunning: American Hero

I'd like to take this time to commend Senator Jim Bunning, an American Hero.

In this time of partisan strife, he has set fake morality arguments, theocracy, and corruption aside. His filibuster of a bill that would, among other things, extend unemployment benefits by adding to the federal deficit, is a pure example of the opposition party using the filibuster for its intended party: As a last-ditch means to prevent the majority party from doing something which may be of questionable reasoning, and force negotiations to come up with a more sensible solution.

Jim Bunning may be facing a tough re-election challenge, but that doesn't stop him from taking a potentially unpopular position with members of his own party (at least those in party leadership -- I wouldn't be surprised if the more fiscally-conservative members of his base weren't actually totally behind him, especially those who have jobs or are retired...).

If more members of his party would use their opposition status to lob correctly-reasoned attacks on efforts to violate the pay-go ethic that should rule during times of large budgetary deficits, and spend less of their time and effort making nonsensical arguments that only prove the depth of their corruption and beholdenness to moneyed interests (health insurance companies, the AMA, the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, etc.), this country would be in a LOT better place right now.

I again commend Senator Bunning for his patriotism and correct use of the filibuster as a parliamentary procedure. We should all tip our hats to his brave act of budgetary-hawk courage exhibitionism.

cheers,
~Garlynn

Portland Mayor: Bicycling -- that's how we roll.

I just came across this heartwarming article in which Mayor Adams makes a strong commitment to building out the citywide bicycle network in Portland, OR, at a cost of over $600 million.

“There’s been some chatter out there about cost, and that’s fine,” Adams said. “We’re Portland and we lead the nation in bicycling, because that’s how we roll.”

What a great quote, and what a great stand to take. If only we had more leadership willing to take a strong stance like this for bicycles, we could really make some progress on many, many issues -- climate change, obesity and traffic injuries, just to name a few...

The Filibuster: An Open Letter to Vice President Joe Biden

Dear Vice President Biden,

I'm writing to you because the time for the mis-use of the filibuster tool in the United States Senates has to come to an end. This un-constitutional blockage is now turning into a defining element of policy-making in our nation -- and it can be stopped by you.

Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution expressly says that the vice president as the presiding officer of the Senate should cast the deciding vote when senators are “equally divided.” The procedural filibuster currently in use in the U.S. Senate does an end run around this constitutional requirement, which presumed that on the truly contested bills there would be ties.

With supermajority voting, the Senate is never “equally divided” on the big, contested issues of our day, so that it is a rogue senator, and not the vice president, who casts the deciding vote. The procedural filibuster effectively disenfranchises the vice president, eliminating as it does one of the office’s only two constitutional functions. Yet the founders very consciously intended for the vice president, as part of the checks and balances system, to play this tie-breaking role — that is why Federalist No. 68 so specifically argued against a sitting member of the Senate being the presiding officer in place of the vice president. But the bigger reason for the rule was to keep a minority from walking out and thereby blocking a majority vote.

In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton dismissed a supermajority rule for a quorum thus: “All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority.” It would be illogical for the Constitution to preclude a supermajority rule with respect to a quorum while allowing it on an ad hoc and more convenient basis any time a minority wanted to block a vote. Yet that is essentially what Senate Rule 22 achieves on any bill that used to require a majority vote.

To stop the current unconstitutional abuse of the filibuster tool, the best currently-available option would be for the president of the Senate, the vice president himself -- that's you, buddy -- to issue an opinion from the chair that the filibuster is unconstitutional. Our first vice presidents, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, felt a serious obligation to resolve the ties and tangles of an evenly divided Senate, and they would not have shrunk from such a challenge.

The founding fathers of our nation would have expected us to do something about this unconstitutional filibuster. In Federalist No. 75, Hamilton denounced the use of supermajority rule in these prophetic words: “The history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed is a history of impotence, perplexity and disorder.” That is a suitable epitaph for what has happened to the Senate.

Joe Biden, your moment has come. Do not shrink from your mission. It is up to you to stop the unconstitutional abuse of the filibuster tool and to fix the republic. This will be a bold step; do not be afraid to take it.

If your administration wants any hope of accomplishing the rest of its bold agenda, this is the first bold move that will be required, and we, the people, demand that you take it.

Sincerely yours,

Garlynn G. Woodsong

(With thanks to this op-ed piece in the Ny Times.)

Go see Capitalism: A Love Story

Hi everybody,

It's me, Garlynn.

I'm just writing with a movie recommendation that I think you should all see.

And I'm a bit conflicted about this, because, well, this movie, called "Capitalism: A Love Story", by Michael Moore, is a pro-American screed against the capitalist system that is holding us all down. So, it doesn't make much sense to go out and line some corporate pocket in order to see it. If you can figure out a way to sneak into the theater for free, well, I highly encourage it. Otherwise, well, do what you have to do.

Personally, out of all the people whose pockets I could potentially line, however, Michael Moore ranks pretty low among those who it would piss me off to do so. This is, apparently, his best movie yet, which sets a pretty high bar -- and if lining his pocket now rather than later is the real choice, I'd rather do that now if that's what it takes to send a proper f*ck-you to Wall Street. (It's just the corporate middle-men who run AMC and United and the other corporate soul-sucking theatre chains that I'm less happy about, but then again, well, at least they've agreed to show his movie.)

Here's what the San Francisco Chronicle has to say about the movie. And below that, is what Michael Moore wrote that convinced me to go see it tonight -- I just got back from the theater, and let me tell you, it's worth it. It's a rousing movie, and I hope it inspires us all.

cheers,
~Garlynn



***

San Francisco Chronicle:

"Documentary, 127 minutes, Rated R


Love him or hate him, Michael Moore's latest, most impassioned diatribe has a flat-out polemic wizardry that'll frizz your hair and break your heart: promoting a radical democratization of economy, he touches on everything from the low pay of airline pilots to the 2008 financial meltdown. Simplistic, smart-alecky, primo Moore. -- A. Biancolli, SF Chronicle"

Michael Moore:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Moore
Date: Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Subject: A Great Opening Night -- Do Not Put Off Seeing "Capitalism: A Love Story" -- GO TONIGHT! All of Wall Street is Watching!
To: garlynn

A Great Opening Night -- Do Not Put Off Seeing "Capitalism: A Love Story" -- GO TONIGHT! All of Wall Street is Watching!
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009

Friends,

Thank you, all of you, who packed the theaters across North America last night to see my new film. The movie houses were rockin'! The national movie exit poll company announced this morning that the audiences in America gave "Capitalism: A Love Story" a rare "A" rating! Wow, thank you! In most multiplexes where "Capitalism" played, it was the #1 or #2 top-grossing movie there for the evening. That is nothing short of amazing.

For those of you waiting till next week to see it, I can't say this strongly enough: Do not put off going to see "Capitalism: A Love Story." It is not just a movie. It is a referendum that is being closely watched by the CEOs of America. Let me tell you bluntly, the suits on Wall Street are closely watching to see how this movie does this weekend. So, too, are the members of Congress. If "Capitalism" has a huge opening, it will send shivers down their corporate spines, telling them loud and clear that the American people are mad as hell and are not into taking it any more. It will put all the bosses on notice that the vast Obama-voting majority has awoken from its silence and are out in full force.

But if the attendance is just "ok" or "so-so," then they will be relieved knowing that there is not a popular groundswell of opposition out there -- and then they can go about their business as usual. I'd like to send them a different message.

Treat tonight and tomorrow as if it were election day. Blow their minds on Monday morning when they show up at their executive suites, switch on CNBC or Fox Business News, and learn that America turned out in droves to participate in a raucous denunciation of Wall Street and everything it stands for. I often hear people ask, "What can I do to make my voice heard?" Your answer is at the nearest theater showing this movie. Trust me, packing these movie houses tonight and tomorrow will eff them up in an overwhelming and profound way.

Last night, there were many reports of spontaneous cheering throughout the film in nearly all the theaters. Theater managers reported difficulties in getting people to clear the theater lobby afterwards because groups of total strangers assembled to passionately discuss what they just saw. One manager wrote to me and said, "It's a good thing we carry Gummy Bears and Junior Mints at the concessions stand instead of pitchforks and torches! These crowds were ready to march over to the local Citibank and do something!" Another manager said a crowd in the lobby formed around the little Chase ATM machine next to his popcorn stand and started to "yell at it." Jeez! (Click here to see some of the cell phone photos fans have sent from various theaters around the country last night.)

Here's what I've heard the most about last night: Audiences were stunned and shocked by many of the things I reveal in the movie -- stuff that the networks have refused to show them -- even though they have the footage! They purposely withhold this news from you, the public. And because I dare to show it, some networks now refuse to license any of their footage to me. So I get my hands on it and put it in the movie anyway. I truly don't care. I'm sick and tired of the truth not being told to the American people -- and I am willing to suffer whatever the consequences come my way because I showed it to you. Fortunately we have "fair use" laws in this country that have kept my hide out of court so far. There is something so patently wrong with not being told what Wall Street and Corporate America are up to. If you go see "Capitalism" tonight, you'll see what I mean. You will alternately have your head spinning and then find yourself laughing your ass off!

Much more is riding on the success of this movie than the amount of popcorn that is sold. If we do well this weekend, the studio will expand the film to smaller towns next week. Don't put off seeing it! Click here to find out where it's playing and order your tickets now. Call some friends and make a night of it. My crew and I have put nearly two years of our lives into this and I am honored that it has been so well received. Join in on the fun of giving AIG, GM, Bank of America and all the other thieves the shellacking they deserve. And send me a photo of you and the crowd there tonight! I'll post it and personally send it to the heads of all the financial institutions and the members of Congress. They need to get a clue -- right now -- and I'd like you to help me send them that clue!

Thanks again, and I'll see you tonight at the movies!

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. No, I'm not receiving any money from anybody to write this post.
P.P.S. I plead the fifth as to whether or not I paid any money to get into the movie theater tonight.