Yeah, I remember reading a breakdown of how good Obama has been for the NRA, yet they still bedevil him. It's weird--basically more gun freedom, but I guess they're inherently Republican at the core? I don't know why they'd ignore the past 4 years--maybe he has something up his sleeve.

If you reduce platforms in terms of what needs to be protected--I do think it's ignoring history to decide a vote against Obama is a vote for guns, but if a vote for Republicans is a vote for guns, is a vote for Republicans a vote against wombs? And if so--is that a statement that guns are more important than wombs, or that the Republicans can not usefully be summarised in that way about women's reproductive choices?

It would be overly simplistic, but kind of interesting to list a bunch of hot button topics, ask people which party they thought would do better for the people on them, and then ask which topics they'd be willing to throw under the bus and which they'd prioritise.

As for the California ballots, there is no way I am going to be informed enough to vote on all of them, and even the ones I feel I've done a lot of research on, there's no way, as already said, I can have gotten my hands on all the info or have the education/experience to understand all the ramifications. So.....undecided it will be on those.

And, yeah, I do feel like someone else isn't doing their jobs, for this to come down to me. The biggest political argument I've had at home is about saying I am electing people to make decisions in my place--they will not always make the decisions I feel are right, but that's the weakness of any scalable political system. Or the strength. Maybe they are making that decision because they have access to facts I don't, or they're just brighter than I am. But I don't think I'm meant to suggest that.

I wish there was a propositions debate. Some of these are really confusing.

You know that's not how it works, right?

Yeah, ita !, I do know that is not how it works, but leave me with my delusions, mkay? No. Really. I was fortunate in that my paternal gene meant that everyone before me was grey well before their 30s. My great aunt Mary, in fact, had a shock of grey hair at NINE years old. It helped her to become an international cosmetics model...along with her unbelievably gorgeous skin and stock in Oil of Olay...by which she swore until her last days at 88 when the home health nurse said her cheeks were are smooth as a baby's butt.

I swear, sometimes I think we might really deserve the government we get.

I am now certain that this is true. But can't really endorse an alternative.

Even if someone handed me the presidency, I would not take that job, so I guess I can't complain anymore.

Nicotine addiction is very difficult to overcome, for both physiological and psychological reasons.

We know that there is a substantial genetic contribution to the physiological part, both to how good nicotine feels and how bad withdrawal from nicotine feels. The fact that genetic effects by definition run in families, sets up the paradox where the people who have the most experience with negative effects of smoking (e.g. disease and death in relatives)are frequently the people who have greatest difficulty in quiting, just like their relatives did. So from the outside, it seems that people with these profound experiences should be the first to quit, because from the outside we see only the experiences. That isn't the way that the underlying biology works, and the social interpretation increases the burden for affected individuals.

On the psychological side, the ubiquity of nicotine addiction complicates quiting. A recovering heroin addict can arrange his life so that the chance of encountering another obvious user is very small. Not so for the nicotine addict, who is going to encounter other users, actively partaking, every day.

The one promising thing is that the chances of success in quiting don't seem to diminish much after repeated failures to quit. The chance of a successful quit on one occasion is relatively low (~20%). But it's better to think of it as the chance of NOT quitting in the accumulating sum of all attempts, which starts at ~80% with the first attempt and declines with each repeated attempt. You never have more than a 20% chance on a given occasion, but over time the number of successes accumulates.

I found some of the CA ballot measures esoteric, but still made my way through them all. And some are absurdly easy to decide, like once you know Prop 33 was put on the ballot by Mercury Insurance specifically to reverse a regulatory measure enacted decades ago? That's a NO.

ita I think I read somewhere that more people are buying guns under the Obama administration because of the fear Obama is going to take away existing gun rights, make it harder to get a gun or even appeal the 2nd Amendment (I can't believe some people believe that would be possible but they do).

So the NRA and gun dealers benefit from pushing the rumors because it helps their business.

Thanks for the Science!, Rick. (You should hear the word "science" there as if done by Thomas Dolby).

It's good to know the physiology of addiction, and success rates and strategies for quitting.

The Mother Jones guides to the CA propositions looked helpful. In case someone wants some info.

The LA Times also has a guide (and probably the SF Chronicle too).

Even if someone handed me the presidency, I would not take that job, so I guess I can't complain anymore.

I would take the presidency if I could also authorize the Secret Service to beat up Senators and Congresscritters who were being buttheads. "Mr. Boehner? The Secret Service is here." "Oh, crap."

KPCC has a good voter guide on their website too.