Monday, September 01, 2003

It may have worked... but maybe not So I think I may have come up with a plot.  Let me rephrase that: I may have plotted out the action for my "long fiction" (verbing it, remember?).  The trouble is, it's back to sounding more like a movie script than like novel material.  I guess it's mostly the ordering of the scenes.  As a novel, I think the scenes would kind of flow better in a boring, traditional chronological order.  But, I think the story sounds better in my head as more of a jump-around kind of thing.  I can actually SEE it playing on the big screen that way.  Might have to rethink that "I'll write the novel and let someone else do the adaptation" idea, and let someone else write the novel from my screenplay.  Or, am I just waffling?  I don't know.  I think I'll think about the ordering a little more, do some more imagining of how it could be written in the "fun" order in a novel, and not confuse the reader. And by the way, taking notes while trying to walk in a straight line after walking for an hour when your hands are starting to swell up, is really difficult.  Note to self.  :-) 7:59:05 PM    Here's what I have to say about THAT! []

California's Proposition 13, or ?Que es mas fair? One of the bones of contention between Schwarzenegger and his new "staff" for his gubernatorial race is Proposition 13.  See, Arnold is for keeping it, and his new chief financial advisor, Warren Buffet is against it.  And it's making for some interesting reading. Proposition 13 put a cap on the amount of property tax increases.  It's been around for a while - since 1978, I think.  Warren (I figure since I plan on calling Arnold "Arnold" I should call Warren "Warren", too) thinks that it should be repealed.  He gives the example of two houses that he owns, one in another state.  And while that house in the other state is less than half the value of his house in California, the most recent increase in property taxes on the out-of-state house is much, much greater than the California house.  That doesn't seem fair, does it?  And if California didn't have that cap, we could probably get out of this budget crisis in a snap. So, why was Prop 13 passed in the first place?  Greedy liberals wanting something for nothing?  No.  It was actually put into place to help seniors and other long-time homeowners from getting forced out of their homes.  These people scrimped and saved to buy houses out here, to settle and raise families.  And then when property taxes started spiralling up, as more and more people moved into the state for the lovely weather, free college education, sex, drugs, movies, rock-n-roll, whatever, they found they could no longer afford to live in the house that they own. So there's no easy answers, here.  On the one hand, the whole thing means their property value has gone up astronomically, as well.  So it's not like they're destitute or anything.  On the other hand, they've settled here, made this their home, raised their families, and then they were supposed to move away because they can't afford to live here anymore?  Because as a Californian, I can tell you that there ain't very many affordable houses around here.  The only choice these people would have had to stay in their areas would be to (a) move into a much smaller house than they were used to, or (b) move into a much worse neighborhood than they use to be in.  But Prop 13 saved some of these people's homes. Maybe instead of abolishing Prop 13, the cap could be raised a bit.  How much would it need to be raised in order to make a dent in the budget deficit?  I don't know.  Or maybe the cap should be on a sliding scale - x% for houses valued under $500k, x+y% for houses between $500k and $1million, etc.  Is this fair?  I think so.  Nothing is permanent, and what was good at the time may not be sufficient now.  Everyone has to shoulder some of the burden.  And everyone should be willing to do something, or maybe they should get the h*ll out. Just kidding.  You know I love you... 10:08:14 AM    Here's what I have to say about THAT! []