Yeah, that kind of thing is why unionization needs to happen firm-wide and not just in part of it.

That's the thing — it costs the power company less to deploy them than to run their existing system. Even if they feel like charging you more, and have convinced regulators to let them do so.

The bulk of them do not, so no. You did see some of that in the last few years because the Democrats never had anything more than a very narrow majority in the Senate, so one or two being bought off could prevent a budget from passing.

"Two Santas" is a Republican strategy of cutting taxes when in power, and demanding service cuts when not in power due to the budget deficit caused by their tax cuts. It's not something the Democrats accede to.

It's more that you can't rely on a single press release or study to reach a definitive conclusion about complex systems. You can get a sense that there's risk of major problems, but do so without concluding that we're going to see Doomsday Next Tuesday with absolute certainty.

The new codes generally require:

• Roofing and siding to be made out of materials that can't burn
• Vents and holes to be covered with a mesh which keeps out sparks and embers
• Windows to be held in place with materials which don't fail in fires (if a window falls out, embers blow inside the house)
• Hardscaping for several feet from the house
• Removal of combustable materials such as plants and wooden fences which are too close to the house
• probably a bunch of other details I don't know about

They're reasonably effective at keeping houses which are downwind from the fire from igniting; the singleton houses which didn't burn were built to these kinds of standards.

Yeah, California already beefed up the building code significantly in 2008, and has another major set of improvements in the works. Problem is that that people (quite reasonably) expect a house to last a century or more, and most of the housing is older than that as a result.

If so, it doesn't show up in voting records or rhetoric.

Problem with that view is that minority of the Democrats were bought off, like about 4%. And they had a hard time winning reelection as a result

I generally avoid painting them all with a single brush like that.

Some absolutely are bought off like you describe. But an awful lot are not — the big problem we've had is that the contingent of the bought off Democrats plus the Republicans has been enough to block meaningful action, even when the Democrats have had a nominal majority.

It takes more than that — people just resort to conspiracy theories. What the mind-changing process actually looks like:

• distancing from ideological community
• desire to seek out new information
• and solidifying experiences of gradual or epiphanic realization

I see that there are some 76,000 other registered Democrats in the state besides you. Probably worth starting to get active with your local Democratic club or party, and starting the kind of outreach that can start to change things.