#sierra is so singular dude it's just hard

[mermaidsirennikita]

I have absolutely ripped through basically every Sierra Simone book at this point. And, of course, there’s now a bit of a void until the next Lyonnesse book. Any recs for books in a similar style to Sierra? She’s kind of one of a kind in my opinion, but I need some recs to tide me over!

Sierra is really unique. She's just a really good writer, tbh; like, I think a lot of people think everyone is into her books because of the sex, and while the sex is amazing, it's also like... she can write anything. She writes some seriously fucked up shit, she writes cute romcoms. Her style is very versatile and she always knows, imo, that the romance is at the heart of the story.

But if you're looking for something to scratch the itch, I'd try:

Tiffany Reisz's Original Sinners series. This is ongoing, and I'm going to make you a really bold recommendation: stop at book 8. It was originally an eight-book series, I think it functions very well in that way (you could honestly stop at 4 but it feels more complete at 8 for me) and she revived the series after it ended for a ninth book, but... she hasn't followed up on that and it's been a while, and I frankly think that book is uh, bad!

However, until then... Tiffany inspired Sierra, and you can tell. There's a lot of hardcore sex, a lot of Catholicism, a lot of really intense, dark shit. TWs everywhere--but basically, this is a poly erotica/erotic romance series in which the MOST central relationship is between the heroine and her on again/off again, who is a sexually sadistic Catholic priest, who did in fact meet her when she was a teenager and he was... not. They... technically.... waited.... ish.... until she was 20 to get sexually involved. But. It's dark. It's intense. Nobody behaves correctly. Some parts of the series (especially re: how Tiffany Reisz people of color) have not aged well. I love it, but I'm trying to throw up all the warnings here. However, when you read this shit, you will say "oh my God, this is inspired Sierra Simone". It is EXTREMELY clear. I see Soren all over her fascination with priest characters, and I frankly see a LOT of him in both Ash Colchester and Mark Trevena.

Possession by A. Anders. I haven't read her other Kink Camp book yet, but I think not only the quality of the erotic scenes but the refreshingly upfront approach to kink in this book will appeal. It's definitely less high stakes than some of Sierra's works (really, what's at stake here is a marriage) but the emotionality REALLY hits.

Kresley Cole could be one who works for you? I think Kresley is another one who really puts a lot of thought into her sex scenes and sex as character, and to me "sex as character" is one reason why you read Sierra Simone. Immortals After Dark is my go-to for Kresley, but if you want to try her mafia series, I'd also go there. The Master and The Player, especially.

This might seem like a stretch! But I'm thinking of the role fantasy plays in some of Sierra's work, and I'm gonna suggest Kerri Maniscalco's Kingdom of the Wicked/Princes of Sin series. They take a while longer to work up in the heat (and by a while I mean one book lol) but the way she describes things and the intensity of the characters and their bonds and the like, preoccupation with hell and stuff feels reminiscent to me. If you're open to fantasy.

King's Captive by Amber Bardan is a SUPER hot dark romance that kinda gave me Sierra vibes, especially in terms of the Lyonesse books--it's very "there's more to this than you think" mindfuck shit.

[losangelesleftygayvoters]

Ballot Measures

General Election November 6, 2018

State Measure 1: YES

The most California Measure ever. Essentially, YES on Prop. 1 means affordable housing for veterans, working families, seniors, people with disabilities, and Californians experiencing homelessness from California’s severe housing crisis. And interestingly, Prop. 1 doesn’t raise taxes, it authorizes the state to borrow $4 billion by selling bonds for housing programs. The argument is that the housing shortage stemming from the influx of millions to California requires bigger solutions. Sure. But again, veterans, Habitat for Humanity, Congress of CA Seniors, Coalition to End Domestic Violence, and BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES agree. In fact, the only person (singular) publicly opposed to this measure is a dude named Gary B. Wesley who vowed forty years ago that he’d oppose every measure brought to the people forever no matter what. Good for you, Gary, you’re a man of your word.

State Measure 2: YES

A “yes” on 2 authorizes money from the Mental Health Services Act to be spent on housing for homeless people with mental health issues. The main arguments against the measure are that money spent on housing, even if for homeless people suffering from mental illness, is spent on housing and NOT on mental health; and that the measure would, by necessity, soak up funds from organizations and actions intended to deal with mental health directly. But, by percentage, the population in California suffering most rampantly from mental health issues is the homeless, and studies, experts, and common sense all support the idea that to treat mental illness effectively, you need to be able to find the patients. So money spent on housing the mentally ill is essentially the most basic element of their treatment. The secondary argument is that housing will suck up funds for other mental illness programs, which is correct. The LA Times says the percentage of money the housing measure would actually suck up is small, but they don’t provide a hard figure. Vote your conscience here (as everywhere), but our conscience is saying the argument for outweighs this argument against. And again, endorsements out the wazoo, including from experts and organizations for the treatment of mental illness.

State Measure 3: YES

We’re gonna build some dams and water infrastructure. Great! We’re for that. We hope there will be water to store and move around, so we like the idea of making it easier and better to do so. And also, this bill is a little weird. It’s endorsed by Feinstein and a gang of environmental groups, but it’s opposed by the Sierra Club and a few others. Endorsed by the Fresno and Bakersfield papers, rebuked by LA Times (and nearly every other paper) for not spending the money where it should be spent, it’s one of those bills that doesn’t totally fix the problem of water (but it’s California, it’s been this way since Mulholland…). The rhetoric is so bonkers and thick and hard to process. Ultimately, for us it came down to the fact that it’s one of only two propositions to be endorsed by both parties.

State Measure 4: YES

This measure authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children’s hospitals. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $80 million annually over the next thirty-five years. This designates 72 percent of funds to qualifying private nonprofit hospitals providing comprehensive services to high volumes of children eligible for governmental programs and children with special health needs eligible for the California Children’s Services program, 18 percent of funds to University of California general acute care children’s hospitals, and 10 percent of funds to public and private nonprofit hospitals providing services to children eligible for the California Children’s Services program. Build children’s hospitals, team.

State Measure 5: NO

This is an impossibly confusing measure. It allows individuals over fifty-five to move from their current house to a new location, transferring their tax subsidies. This means that individuals that have lived in a house for thirty years, or a house in an area that has greatly increased in value, can sell their current home and move to another location under most likely a smaller tax. This sounds, yes, like a great thing! But, it turns out it disproportionately affects the poor and benefits individuals in a strong financial place, especially current homeowners. This does not fair well for those trying to enter the market. Currently, eligible homebuyers can transfer a tax assessment if their new home is of equal or lesser value. Also, individuals can do this only once in their lifetime. If the measure passes, it allows the wealthy to get out of paying taxes on moving in a way that is currently only allowed for certain individuals who need it. Nice try, 5, we’re wise to your shenanigans.

State Measure 6: NO

State Measure 6 is a bill that’s been pushed hard by Republican lawmakers and has the strong support of Paul Ryan, Devin Nunes, and that cadre of derpy dudes who want you to build your own roads because taxes are somewhat . . . who knows, immoral, we guess? Here’s how this came to be: in 2017, Jerry Brown and the state legislature passed gas taxes that are scheduled to generate $52.4 billion over the next ten years. And then a few months ago, we all voted on and passed Proposition 69, which dedicated all of that gas tax money to transportation infrastructure: roads and bridges and stuff. Measure 6 wants to basically undo all that AND require any new gas tax to have voter approval. Look, gas taxes aren’t percentage based on income, so they do disproportionately affect lower-income families. That legitimately does suck. And so, yes, Measure 6 does try to alleviate some of the cost of living to a lot of California’s working class by repealing taxes. Arguably, we agree with that. However, passing Measure 6 would cancel up to $5 billion in existing projects where we fix roads and bridges, and those infrastructure projects have yet to be funded at the federal level. There are an estimated 680,000 construction jobs that would be wiped out with the passage of Measure 6. And, we’ve voted on this before. A couple of times. This is an effort to undo what the majority has already agreed to in the past. Nope.

State Measure 7: YES

First and foremost, this isn’t a measure that will change Daylight Savings Time right now. It’s a measure that lets California lawmakers actually decide if they want to take that up IN THE FUTURE. They are currently unable to ever really discuss Daylight Savings Time because of the way the original vote went in 1949. Voting yes here means that the state is allowed to discuss it and possibly repeal it in the future. The idea of tweaking or abolishing Daylight Savings Time (or in some cases making it the only option) is up for discussion in a lot of places, and if changes elsewhere start happening, California would currently be unable to change with them. But, actually, it’s probably something we do want to consider. Yes, every time this comes up, critics say “but kids shouldn’t go to school when it’s dark out!” Fine, sure, but… get this. The time change is really bad for all of us! Rep. Kansen Chu (D-25), Rep. Lorena Gonzalez (D-80), and Sion Roy, a cardiologist, wrote this in the state voter information guide: “University medical studies in 2012 found that the risk of heart attacks increases by 10% in the two days following a time change. In 2016, further research revealed that stroke risks increase 8% when we change our clocks. For cancer patients the stroke risk increases 25% and for people over age 65 stroke risk goes up 20%. All because we disrupt sleep patterns.” So basically, a “yes” vote here will let us actually discuss a future in which we save time, hassle, daylight, and lives.

State Measure 8: NO

This is just about punishing non-union dialysis clinics. It would have a serious impact on patients and make it much more difficult for dialysis patients to receive care. There’s a lot of problems with it. We looked into it, and it just screws patients who want their kidneys to work better. Medical groups are ROUNDLY like, “please, no.” We’re with them.

State Measure 10: YES

This is a bill that hands the issue of rent control back to a more local level, rather than having a single mandated state policy. In 1995, California passed the Costa-Hawkins Act, which basically said that the state of California sets the limits on rent increases for homes occupied after 1995. There’s been some economic changes at very different rates in different parts of California since then. So Measure 10 repeals Costa-Hawkins and lets local governments decide for themselves how to regulate rent control. Measure 10 does not actually create new policy, it just says that new policy can be created at a local level, rather than a state level, which turns out to counterintuitively benefit a lot of marginalized groups. The measure has language that entitles landlords to fair-market-value rent—they just can’t jack up the price so high that it completely screws the tenants. You can imagine how peeps in the “survival of the fittest” crowd (and banks who’ve learned how to profit from foreclosure in the current system) feel about that. It’s a weird bill because it doesn’t actually give too much guidance to how to go forward, and even the Democratic gubernatorial candidate (Newsom) is against the measure, because while he does think there should be more affordable housing in California, completely repealing Costa-Hawkins feels a little fast and loose. That said, nursing organizations, teachers unions, and labor and Democratic organizations throughout the state are trying very hard to keep people in affordable housing. And this measure does provide a sense of relief to that. So, we say yes!

State Measure 11: YES

We spent a long time trying to figure this out. And basically the status quo is that when EMTs are on break, they are uninterrupted (though, like not always, sometimes they’re called to do things when not working). So, voting no preserves that. A yes vote means that going forward, EMTs will have to remain “on call” when they’re on break, but they will be paid for any of the time they end up working. They sort of already are, but it’s meant to streamline some labor laws. We sort of wanted to say you can vote for either thing, but a yes vote on Measure 11 also adds funding for additional training and mental health services for EMTs. After looking at a number of the different arguments in favor and opposed, we say vote for yourselves or ask your EMT friends (ours seemed ambivalent). But we think mental health services for ANY profession is good, so we vote yes.

State Measure 12: YES

Requires cage-free quarters for egg-laying chickens and other animals being raised for food. I mean, we’re all for not being assholes to chickens, so this seems to make sense. Yes, this is super problematic on a lot of levels and cage-free is WAY less cage-free than like “chicken in the wild”—and PETA is against this because they want us to stop eating animals altogether, but for now, getting chickens SOME kind of autonomy and making it slightly less cruel feels like a step toward getting us where we go.

City Amendment B: YES

Much like the Daylight Savings bill, this is another of those “let us at least let the people look into this” bills. It’s hard to know what would happen if it passes, but essentially the city would like to talk about what it would mean to establish a public bank. These exist in other countries like Brazil and Germany and here in the States in North Dakota (which was the only one seemingly untouched by the 2008 crisis). And the theory is that since the city spent $170 million last year in banking fees and $1.1 billion in interest, an LA-owned bank could possibly mitigate those costs. It’s a bold, progressive move and could have implications for the whole country. In the interest of allowing our elected officials to do their job, we say: “Sure! Talk about it!”

City—Municipal Charter Amendment E: YES

You already voted on this in a previous election, but then the state changed primaries from June to March, so they have to ask us to vote again. So we’re voting about voting—twice! This thing essentially aligns city election dates with state election dates. We know barely anyone gets out to vote as it is, so alignment is obviously a good idea, although it means less “I Voted” sticker posts on Instagram. :( This time the city included language that makes it unnecessary to put this back on the ballot if election dates change again. So here we go again, vote yes.

LAUSD Charter Amendment EE: YES

Right now the school district primary elections are on a different day than the rest of the state primary elections. Voting yes would amend the city charter to align Los Angeles Unified School District primary elections with the state primary elections in March of even-numbered years. So, yes.

County Measure W: YES

A “yes” on this measure will create a parcel tax* to pay for cleaning up the toxic runoff that accumulates as rainwater flows over city streets and other paved surfaces and ultimately ends up in the ocean. As it turns out, LA is pretty filthy—so filthy that we get fined for how dirty our storm water runoff is. So, the county would like to spend more money to build infrastructure to capture and clean up the toxins in storm water, plus ensure that water gets absorbed into the ground (rather than wastefully running off into the ocean or elsewhere). So the choice is to either to establish this tax to invest in projects for cleaner, more reliable water, or to spend billions in fines that drain police, fire, and other important budgets.

*From the LA Times: “The measure imposes a tax on property owners of 2½ cents per square foot of impermeable surface—meaning ground that is paved over or otherwise doesn’t let water pass through. That comes to about $83 a year for the average single-family homeowner.”