Two+ Weeks Off

Our upcoming trip to New Zealand will be a first for me— in more ways than one. In addition to being my first time in New Zealand, it'll be my first time taking a two week vacation from work. In fact it's even more than two weeks: I'm taking off two weeks and a day. I've never used that much vacation time in a single go before.

This trip will also tie for my record of longest time away from home, at 16 days.

There's something uniquely American about these being my firsts after 20+ years of working. Unique, compared to my European colleagues, at least. Meager time-off allowances are a US thing. Whereas workers in many EU countries have 5 or 6 weeks of paid time off per year, in addition to national holidays, the norm here in the US is 2-3 weeks. And the minimum required by law is zero. That's a big part of why I've never spent 2 weeks of vacation all in a single shot— I've rarely had that much time accrued to spend! And even when I have had the vacation balance available, because long vacations are so not a thing in American working culture I've been reluctant to try planning one. Even with this trip I felt self-conscious telling my boss I wanted 2 weeks off for a big trip. Fortunately he agreed with no reservations or conditions, so away we go!

It's Primary Time (March 5, 2024)

Tomorrow, March 5, is the 2024 primary election in California. That means today I filled out my ballot and sealed it up to drop off at the ballot box tomorrow. Yes, California is one of those voting rights states where everyone can get a mail-in ballot, no questions asked. Mail-in ballots are much easier for people whose job and or family situations make it prohibitive to carve out time on election day to go to a polling station, wait in line, and fill out a ballot provided only then and there.

Here's a run down of the main things on the ballot this time.

President: I'll assume if you can read this and are eligible to vote in the US, you know what the choices are here.

US Senator: It's a race to replace Diane Feinstein, who died several months ago. Actually it's two races, making it more confusing. One race is to fill her seat for the remainder of her current term, which ends 3 January 2025. The other race is to be US Senator from California for a full, 6 year term.

Both of these senate races follow California's "top two" primary rule, which is also affectionately known as a "jungle primary". Numerous candidates run in the primary, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. This narrowing of the field is done without regard to political party, so it's possible the general election could feature two Democrats running against each other and no Republican.

There are three credible Democrats in this race. All three are sitting members of Congress: Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee, and Katie Porter. The leading Republican is past baseball star Steve Garvey. Schiff leads among all the candidates and has spent a lot of his considerable campaign money telling people Garvey is a conservative. Poll watchers agree this seems to be a play by Schiff to shape the results of the "top two" primary by boosting Garvey to be the #2 finisher. If that happens Schiff would presumably coast to a win in the general election, given the overwhelming registration advantage Democrats have in California, versus having to fight it out against a fellow Democrat.

US Congress: Again, a "top two" primary race, though with only a handful of candidates rather than the dozens in the senate race. Here our incumbent, Rep. Ro Khanna, has been doing a pretty good job, so I gave him my vote again.

State Assembly: My district's incumbent Assembly member, Evan Low, is termed out this year and is seeking higher office. He's running for US Congress (though not in my district). I usually don't pay much attention to State Assembly, but this year I went to a meet-and-greet with one of the candidates, Patrick Ahrens. I went into that backyard rally skeptical and left shaking his hand and telling him he'd earned my vote. This is a race where I politely disagree with my friend mithriltabby who posted his usual well-researched recommendations a few weeks ago. Edit: I don't think the opponent of Ahrens's he chose is poor but I do consider Ahrens a stronger candidate than he gave him credit for. I found Ahrens to be intelligent, thoughtful, and skilled at bringing together political leaders across different levels of government to solve challenging problems, like housing for the homeless, that are often dismissed with finger-pointing about who else needs to be involved. Ahrens has a record of not just identifying who else needs to participate in the solution but actually getting them to help.

Proposition 1: There's just one statewide proposition this election. That's a good thing, because such significant measures as statewide initiatives shouldn't be passed or rejected in elections with such low turnout as primaries. In fact, the state passed a law (via ballot proposition 😂) to force most props to the general election. Anyway, this prop is clumsily named "AUTHORIZES $6.38 BILLION IN BONDS TO BUILD MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE CHALLENGES; PROVIDES HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS." Per the information in the state voter guide it changes up how money under an existing law is allocated, shifting more of it to mental health care, housing, and drug addiction treatment. It also includes a new bond to help fund these. The measure isn't perfect, as my friend mithriltabby points out, but unlike him I support it anyway. I side with The League of Pissed Off Voters in San Francisco who also explain that Prop. 1 is imperfect but voting "Yes" is far better than voting "No" for anyone who cares about the dual crisis of drug addiction and homelessness. I drive past growing tent encampments 1/2 mile from my house several days a week. I'd very much like to see them gone— and not by police rousting the homeless and simply forcing them to move elsewhere, but by us providing a compassionate, superior alternative.

Measure C: This one's a local school district bond proposal. It authorizes up to $214 million in bonds to improve local schools, paid for by a surcharge on property taxes. That may sound like a lot of money, but it's only at most $15 per $100,000 of assessed property value. For roughly a hundred bucks a year I'll invest more in local schools. I don't use the schools myself, nor do I have any schoolkids, but if our schools go up even a point on statewide scores it'll add thousands to the value of my house. So even if I didn't think educating the next generation is the right thing to do (it is the right thing to do) there's still a selfish argument to be made for it.