his coming Tuesday's election could/should have been held next June; that would have been responsible and cost saving. The word is that on November 8th a few of us will vote and the cost of it all is in excess of $100 million dollars. I find the figure, if accurate, reprehensible, inexplicable and, frankly, stupid. Arnold the terminator might discover that the outcome will include the death knell to his ambitions for a second term as our Governor. He is far more beholden to political special interests than his predecessor, Governor Gray Davis, ever was. This was a man who went on the Leno show to announce his candidacy and proclaim for us all to hear, that he was rich enough; had enough money that no one would be able to buy him - no special interests. There are so many examples surfacing of that being precisely what has happened. The man adores fund-raising and doing the bidding of those who have been supportive.
Governor, you may well have entered the field of politics for the most altruistic and honorable of reasons, but you've not sounded or acted any different than many other politicians. Thank you for trying. I just hope that now you return to the life you've been accustomed to and have earned: back to the world of filmmaking.

PROPOSITION 80
My vote is "NO" on this one.This is about energy policy and I sure don't feel sufficiently equipped, nor are most people, to use the ballot box to make such policy. Supporters claim that this would put to an end the failed experiment we have had with electricity deregulation in California.
The measure would virtually terminate any competition among electricity suppliers and bar local power companies' from signing up any more customers. (These are also known as electricity service providers).
The well-intended authors of the measure are the San Francisco based consumer group called "The Utility Reform Network." Their claim is that the state's experiment with deregulation has been disastrous. Sacramento's muddled energy policy has made it extremely difficult for utilities or their competitors to build new power stations to meet the growing demand for electricity.
None of us will likely forget the energy crisis of 2000-2001 - Lawmakers, utilities commissioners and the California Energy Commission are the ones who should clean up the mess caused by deregulation. They're the ones who should be developing a new strategy.
Many of the measure's provisions would write into law steps that the Public Utilities Commission has already taken. In doing so, it would bar any changes unless the state Assembly and Senate both agree by a two-thirds vote. I can't think of a reason for wanting to make energy policy that hard to change. The P.U.C has taken a few important steps. Perhaps the major one was requiring utilities and energy service providers to show in advance that they can meet the anticipated demand for power while still retaining some in reserve.
Having the public use the initiative process to write energy policy is risky business.
'NO' on 80.