I’ve been seeing a lot of ads for Prop. 16 lately and it reminds me just how screwed up California can be.

I used to be a big fan of California’s propositions.  I thought that it was a way to get the people more directly involved in government and elections.

I was young and innocent.

Image via Wikipedia

The propositions have long been a way for interest groups to circumvent the legislature and use the uneducated masses to vote on items that they don’t understand.  And they’re just getting worse.

I’m not trying to be harsh on the masses.  When I say uneducated, I’m referring to their awareness of the propositions and their content.  Most people just don’t spend any time to understand what it is they’re voting for (or against).

Prop 16 is a great example of this.  The “Taxpayers’ Right To Vote” proposition.  Who doesn’t like the right to vote?  Why, on the face of it, of course taxpayers should have the right to vote.  But that of course is the problem.  Most people won’t look past the simple description of the ballot measure.

What this proposition is really about is whether California governments should get into ‘public power.’ (I don’t want to trouble with debating the merits or detriments of public power – that’s a separate topic.)  Because what this proposition says, if it passes, is that, should the government be truly interested in getting into public power, they’ll first need a 2/3 majority vote by the public to approve such a move.  And think about that – 2/3 majority is just about impossible.  Just ask someone trying to pass national healthcare or a California budget.  And these were passed by legislatives.  It’s hard to imagine the general public voting 2/3 for anything.

So basically, all one needs to do to change the law is to get a proposition passed (with a simple majority, by the way) that calls for future votes to require a 2/3 majority vote.  In doing so, you lock in your own view and make it near impossible for any future changes.  And how does one do that?  Just throw a bunch of money behind it.  PG&E has already supported this measure with over $30 million (while opponents have raised about $50,000).

More and more I’ve become a fan of a constitutional congress for the state.  Of course that process has the potential to be filled with missteps and problems but we’re getting to the point where almost anything would be better than what we have today.

This year is looking like an expensive one for my photo habit.

Just this morning I downloaded the newest version of Adobe’s Photoshop CS5. I skipped the last version and have been happily running CS3 since 2007 but between no support for the later camera raw updates and a few compelling features (like their revised HDR engine) and I decided it was time to update.

And yesterday I finally bit the bullet and ordered a 50mm f/1.4 lens.  I’ve been wanting this lens for quite a while now but have had other financial obligations that kept me from putting down the money.  On my D300 this will give me a really nice short telephoto angle of view which should make for a good portrait/street lens.  In fact, with my 20mm, 50mm and 105 mm lenses I might abandon zooms for a while.

Next up will be Adobe’s update to their Lightroom product.  I’ve been a big fan ever since it was announced and I plan on keeping up with the latest versions since, unlike the 20 year old Photoshop, this young product offers pretty significant changes in every release.

But My real expected expense this year will be in the form of a new camera.  The rumors are swirling about a new offering from Nikon and I hope that what they announce will match what I’m targeting.  I’m really interested in a D700 + video.  To me the D300/D700 offer the perfect product falling between the more consumer-oriented cameras and the big professional tanks.  The newer Nikon D300s (the replacement to my D300) is a great camera but the D700 provides the full frame sensor and better low-light performance from the larger pro cameras.  I’m hoping that the new release will provide some updates to the image sensor for even better low-light performance and nice HD video.  I suspect they might restrict the video to 720 (rather than 1080) but I’m fine with that (heck, my tv at home is only 720 and it looks pretty darn good).

I’ve had a few other minor purchases, which I’ll write about some day, including some neutral density filters that I’ve only had a little opportunity to play around with but these costs are pretty minor compared to those already listed on the page.

And then there’s the 4/3 camera platform .. if the right one were to be released this year… hmm..

Now this is cool: The population of the united states, if it had the same population density of Brooklyn, New York, would need only the landmass of New Hampshire.

Thanks StangeMaps

Something occurred to me today in that odd way that ideas just all of a sudden appear in one’s brain.  It’s one of those weird thoughts that often times I just dismiss, ignore, or sometimes play out, only to realize later that it’s just a bunch of crap.

There’s all this reporting lately of the demise of big media – that the internet is killing establishments like The New York Times or NBC.  More specifically, that giving away their content for free on the internet was a bad business move and is destroyed their underlying business.

I’m not a fan of that perspective – I feel like a lot of content has already been ‘free’ – over-the-air TV and Radio, and even the nominal fee for a daily newspaper hardly covers the production costs.  They’ve been supported by advertising and my feeling is that they’ve got to figure out a way to make advertising work online.

So the idea today starts with this: It’s the low-cost barrier that the internet has enabled that is destroying old media – YouTube vs. NBC; blogs vs. New York Times.  This idea isn’t new and I believe it’s accurate.  People are more interested in the varying content online, and specifically they’re able to match content to their particular world-view better than they could with any of the large nation-wide media companies.

But here’s what hit me today: Advertisers are in the same boat as the old media companies.  Coca-cola is trying to reach a national audience (world-wide audience actually) and it’s going to get tougher and tougher to cater their message to the more and more niche markets represented by online media.  This represents an opportunity for local products to compete with their national/global competitors in the same way that local media now has the opportunity to compete with their national competitors.

Could we see the return of regional products like soda and beer? Restaurants & clothiers?  That prospect interests me – as one who likes to travel one of the aspects I enjoy is how different the world can be the further one gets from home – could it be that traveling to the next state over could be as it once was?  Will we see the products and services breaking into smaller regional offerings?

I stumbled upon this image today during my morning browsing and I couldn’t help but to laugh.

At first it was the idea that the 90s was the decade of the mobile internet.  Um… really?  I can pretty much remember browsing the internet on my first Sony/Sprint phone.  After about 10 minutes (and who knows how many dollars) I think I had rendered some bad mobile site’s input field to search for movie times or something.  The search results would have taken another half hour I’m sure.

My first reaction was that they had leapfrogged a decade – one could argue that the 00s was the decade of the mobile internet (but I would really push that to the 10s).

But then I saw the 80s.

Really?  Internet computing in the 80s?  I barely had my Compuserve account in the 80s (like, ’89) let alone — a Google screen shot?!  I’m not sure I’d associate a company founded in 1998 with the decade of Pac Man and the Apple II.

Makes one question Morgan Stanley’s credibility.  Though I guess you don’t need this image to tell you that banks don’t always get it right.

I have long admired Apple‘s ability to produce high-quality products, from their early Apple II ad Mac products through the iPod and iMacs of today.  But I have often held off purchasing Apple’s products because of their maniacal control that they place over their systems.  I was disappointed (but not surprised) that yesterday’s iPad announcement continues their insistence that the iPad will continue to be a closed ecosystem allowing only approved App store applications.

The iPhone is a wonderful device but really I should be able to install software of my choosing, just like on a computer.  I have the same gripe with the AppleTV.  I absolutely loved Boxee on the Apple TV, as I’ve written about in the past but I eventually had to give up on it because of the constant upgrade wars with Apple.  Now, if I want to watch the State of the Union address (or many other shows), I have to watch on the computer and not the TV because Apple has said so.

Were I to do it over again today, I’d buy a Mac mini and attach that to the TV, instead of an Apple TV.  That way I’d have the ability to install and run whatever application I want – Boxee, a web browser, etc.,

And were I to do it over again today, I’d buy a Google phone.  I’m aware of the shortcomings of the current Google application offering but that will only improve as more people adopt that device (or, more accurately, device platform).

And so, what will I do today?  Will I buy an iPad?  (Beside the fact that I’m not really in the market and won’t be buying one in the near future..)  Certainly the device is compelling.  I really think Apple has hit the nail on the head.  It really is a great device for most casual computer users.  Cruise the web, watch a video, look at some photos, check the weather, etc.,  It really is made for the couch (or the train/airplane).  But I won’t be able to install Boxee.  I won’t be able to run flash.  I won’t be able to install Firefox.  I won’t be able to decide whether the power-burden of background apps is acceptable or not.  These might not be deal-breakers for the iPad device – but if this signals the future of computing platforms – closed ecosystems where you have to fully buy in to one company’s environment – one where you have little control over how it works – I’m concerned.