California For Sale

The fact that California is in bad shape financially does not make it unique. What makes it unique is Governor Schwarzenegger's suggestion to help get California back on its sandaled feet. He recently proposed that the state sell off some of its most famous properties: San Quentin Prison, the Los Angeles Coliseum, the Cow Palace, Del Mar Race Track, and various state buildings. He explained that it's just like some people in the current recession having to sell their homes or luxury items like boats, second cars, and motorcycles. He wants to have a big garage sale, and even sell the state's garages.

I'm not an economist. I have trouble balancing my checkbook. (You remember checkbooks. Those are things that everybody used to carry with them when people kept track of how much they were spending). However, even a layman like me can see a big problem with the Governor's proposed sale. The first thing they'd have to do is find folks to buy these properties. If the people down your block are putting off painting their fence because of the recession, I don't think they're going to plunk down $400 million for the Coliseum.

The state just had a "special election." California has a "special election" slightly more often than it has sunshine. The citizens of California vote on just about everything, while the legislators... actually, I have no idea what the legislators do. Anyway, -- surprise, surprise – - Californians didn't vote to raise their taxes or pay the state's bills in some other way. So that's one of the reasons why Schwarzenegger suggested selling off some of the state's most valuable real estate. California's in big trouble. Much more money is going out than coming in. And the state doesn't even have a charge account at The Gap.

The property that is most intriguing to me is San Quentin. It is located in Marin County on scenic waterfront property north of San Francisco. That's right. For years, prisoners at the Q have probably had a better view than you. So I guess the idea is that if someone bought the property and developed it, they could build some luxury housing that would be quite desirable. Who wouldn't want to live in a place called something like, "Death Row Duplexes?"

Or maybe some super rich person would buy San Quentin and keep it as is. They could use it as a place of business. I'll bet employees would be kept in line with such incentives as, "If you make your quota this month, you'll get an actual seat for your toilet."

Most people think the Governor's big sale won't really happen. He and the legislature will probably figure out a more reasonable way to get the state solvent again. Maybe they'll hold a giant car wash.

But even if the Cal-Sale doesn't happen, it's a provocative idea, and California's certainly not the only place with famous landmarks. So maybe other areas will entertain the "everything's for sale" idea. And it could work. You see, there's one factor that you might not have thought of. You can't overestimate the number of individuals who like to brag about their stuff. If that couple you know is hard to take now, talking about their new plasma TV or their front-loading washing machine, can you imagine what they'd be like if they owned the Statue of Liberty or Carlsbad Caverns?

The states or the federal government could set up rules so that, let's say, people couldn't buy the Golden Gate Bridge and turn it into a roller coaster. The government could set it up so that whoever buys the properties would have to lease them back to the government immediately. That way, the public would still get to use them as always, but Mr. or Mrs. Big Shot could still brag at parties. I can almost hear one of them saying, "Yes, we were going to buy a summer home, but instead we bought the Grand Canyon. It's so much easier to maintain. We don't have to dust."

Too Much Information

The good news about living in the Information Age is that just about everybody can express what is on his or her mind. In other eras, only writers wrote. Not today. Anybody can self-publish a book, send an email to someone thousands of miles away, or write a blog about whatever she or he wants. It's a wonderful thing that so many people can tell others anything they want about themselves. But why do they feel they have to tell everything about themselves?

When people first started buying cell phones, they did so primarily because they found these devices could be helpful in an emergency. Then they discovered that cell phones could help them keep in touch with work or home. So far, not so bad. But next, people became so addicted to talking and texting on cell phones that now many people feel they have to use them every few seconds. I was in a theater a few days ago, watching a children's dance recital when the guy behind me refused to stop texting and checking for messages once the show began. An usher soon told him that using a cell phone during the performance was not allowed. So, did the guy stop using it and watch the show? Nope. He left the auditorium so he could continue to use his cell phone rather than watch his kid dance.

Like the cell phone, the Internet seemed harmless enough when we first started using it. We could look up interesting facts, and we could tell our family and friends important things any time of the day. But then things started to get out of hand. My theory is that this deterioration began when people discovered that they could use e-mail to instantly send unfunny jokes to as many people as they desired.

Next came the personal blog, yet another mixed blessing. Good writers could tell about their daily lives in fascinating and creative ways. Of course, not so good writers could tell about their daily lives in totally boring ways.

Social networking sites followed. These are things like Facebook, MySpace, and whatever new one has become popular since I started typing this. The interesting thing about these sites is that you no longer are restricted to e-mailing your friends about your life. Now you can write to complete strangers and tell them whatever you want. And what are these strangers called on these sites? "Friends."

Twitter has fine-tuned the phenomenon of e-mailing people about one's own life. On Twitter, your "tweets" are limited to 140 typed characters. But don't worry. You can send as many of these short messages as you want.

We've all heard stories about lurid photographs and messages on these sites, but is most of the communication sexy or outrageous? No, it's dull, duller than you can imagine if you haven't been on the receiving end of this stuff.

Here is a sampling of the kind of things that those on Facebook and Twitter send out to other people:

"I'm getting thirsty."

"I'm thinking of trying a new toothpaste."

"I don't want to catch a cold."

"I just finished packing for tomorrow's trip."

"I really like the color blue."

I'm not kidding. These are the kind of messages that people spend hours and hours sending and receiving. (Well, I did change the color to "blue" to protect the identity of the sender).

Are people supposed to respond? If someone sends a message that says, "I'm really tired," does he expect people to write back advising whether he should go to sleep or not? Some people send running updates of their day: "On my way to work now" is followed by "Almost at work now" and "At work now." Am I supposed to respond, "Congratulations!"?

I don't think so. I have the feeling that people who send up-to-the-minute updates of their daily life don't care if we respond or not. My hunch is that the pleasure they derive is just from writing about changing their fish's water or finding a paper clip in the street.

That would make them just interested in pure self-expression, not the reaction of others. On the other hand, maybe they are interested in others' reactions, and those of us who haven't responded are letting them down. I'm sure I could devote much more time to thinking about this. But not now. I'm going to take a shower.