We realize many of you have gone absentee or voted at the polls already but in the interest of providing to our consumers and continuing our “Life of Service”, BwD proudly rolls out its 2008 general election guide. We will start with the state-wide propositions and considering the state of the economy, the state’s budget deficit and the looming federal debt crisis, many of these propositions didn’t require much deliberation as we are operating under the mantra of “no more new debt”. Onward:
Prop. 1 High Speed Rail Bonds
You in a big hurry to get to Fresno?
Lot’s of big numbers being thrown around with respect to the ultimate burden on the taxpayers: $20 billion, $40 billion…
We have a one word response to this state-run railroad request: AMTRAK
Well, one more: No.
All aboard! Next Stop…. Prop 2.
Prop. 2 Standards for Confining Farm Animals (aka The free-range chicken statute)
Promising stress-free Denver omelettes. We had no idea this was an issue. We figure no one knows more than chicken farmers how to best raise their chickens and thus increase the yield of eggs. And since we also figure that a stressed chicken is not going to lay many eggs, the farmers may have this one figured-out already.
No on Prop. 2
Prop. 3 The Children’s Hospital Bond Act
The most dreaded phrase in ballot initiatives/propositions: “Its for the children”… at a cost of over $2 billion over 30 years. Sorry, kids.
No on Prop. 3
Man, this is easy.
Prop. 4 Parental notification prior to aborting a minor’s pregnancy. (aka Sarah’s Law)
An initiative that appears to be so rational and reasonable would explain why it has failed in its 2 previous ballot efforts here in California.
Yes on Prop. 4
Prop. 5 Non-violent drug offenses rehabilitation.
$1 billion/year. Sorry, no more new debt.
No on Prop. 5
Prop. 6 Police and Law Enforcement funding
Nearly $1 bil/year increasing each year to adjust for inflation.
No on Prop. 6
Prop. 7 Renewable Energy Generation
Mandates of utilities the amount of renewable energy required to generate power (40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025). If you’ve hung out here for any amount of time, you know we don’t do mandates. Once renewable energy technologies start paying for themselves, the utilities driven by economic self-interest (or "greed", whichever you prefer) will be busting down the door to implement them. Penalties for non-compliance will, of course, be passed along to the consumer.
Besides, they robo-called us while we were putting this together. Grounds for dismissal.
No on 7
Prop. 8 Traditional marriage constitutional amendment
Man, all those big numbers had our head spinning. OK, you know where we stand on this one so we won’t waste a lot of time. Two take-aways from the whole Prop. 8 campaign: For a state that will print official paperwork in every language under the sun but deny breeders use of the old marriage license certificate strikes us as ironic as this was supposed to be about non-discrimination and tolerance. Also, the California Teachers Association has poured well over $1 million into efforts to defeat this measure. Gee, we didn’t realize that the teachers had a horse in this race.
Yes on 8
Prop. 9 Criminal Justice System. Victim’s Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment Statute
Right out of the blocks the voter information guide explains that back in 1982, California voters approved Prop. 8, known as, “Victim’s Bill of Rights”. OK, then. Reading more, it appears to be mostly administrative tweaking with respect to notifications, restitution and parole hearings. And in the “Argument in Favor of Proposition 9”, a lot of ALL CAPS were used. We hate that. Its like we’re being yelled at. Bottom line: They did not make a very compelling case.
No on 9
Prop. 10 Alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy
$10 billion more in long-term debt to subsidize the purchase of high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles including natural gas vehicles. Alternative energy solutions are not yet ready to be economically competitive across the board so we see no reason to increase the state’s debt to pursue them, especially when it also means lining the pockets of natural gas magnate, T. Boone Pickens who backed the funding to get this onto the ballot.
No on 10
Prop. 11 Redistricting
When a similar measure was on the ballot a couple of years ago, there was an ad running in opposition to it that claimed the committee that would re-draw the districts would be made up of (cue scary voice) “retired liberal judges”. The ad was so over-the-top ridiculous, we figured it had to be funded by a liberal group that was pretty pleased with the way the state assembly and senate districts are drawn-up, currently.
Look, it doesn’t matter who’s on this committee. It could be this guyfor all we care – it couldn’t get any more gooned-up than having it left in the hands of the very people whose political livelihood is tied to how the districts are drawn up as is the case currently in Sacramento.
Yes on 11
Prop. 12 Veteran’s Bond Act
We struggled with this bond that would provide home and farm loan assistance to California veterans to the tune of $ 900 million but we opted for consistency. When this state gets its economic house in order, put this one at the top of the wish-list and we will gladly reconsider. Until that time, everyone is in the same boat.
No on 12
There you have it. We may try to get to the San Diego City propositions later but no promises.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
2008 General Election Guide Pt.I
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Prop. 2 Standards for Confining Farm Animals
Stop it, my chickens taste better stressed and .99c lb
California has a prop for chickens? Really? Amazing! Glad we have the whole budget thing worked out.
I know, I know, still amazing regarding priorities.
Wow. Now that's scary. I read the propostions (yes the actual proposed laws) myself last weekend and came to exactly the same 12 choices.
You realize that with my track record of voting on the losing side you're doomed, right?
Now to Anonymous... I actually have no issue with same-sex marriage. I have an issue with a small group of judges, resposible to no one, creating rights out of whole cloth, as they did when they tossed out Prop 22 in the recent decision.
I have no illusions. Even if 8 passes, the judges will throw it out. I know this. My vote is a protest against judicial social engineering, and the hubris that allows these judges to tell the majority 'you are wrong, join me in the more enlightened state'.
Also, as I've made clear in detail elsewhere, I believe the ultimate government social contract with the people (the US Consitution) makes it clear (in the Preamble) that actions which promote "our Posterity" are allowed. No not allowed, required. Heterosexual marriage does this, homosexual marriage does not. I have yet to hear any cogent argument that explains why this is incorrect.
'Dawg, my yes on 8 has zero to do with homosexuality, per se. My yes vote is a simple affirmation of a belief that "marriage" is that between a man and woman.
I will cop, however, to a slight amount of judicial activism backlash as O@H described as well as some reaction to the assurances that there is no "agenda" behind the "No on 8" efforts which has been exposed as a lie in these very pages.
Thank you for publishing your voting guide. I find that I agree with most of your positions (and all of your votes). Where do I sign up to receive copies of your newsletters and attend your rallies?
:-)
Well, BwD, getting 5 out of 12 right would get you into the Hall of Fame were we playing baseball.
So, some of where you were wrong...
Prop. 2: Would you care for the veal? God grants us dominion over the animals, but they are his creatures. Wouldn't He be pissed to know how badly we treat these guys before they provide us our nurishment? Plus, it's just not nice.
Prop 8: I went round and round on this before voting no. Completely different reason than most people voting no, I suspect. I see it as a "preview of coming attractions" if the religious right gets its way and tries to infiltrate into government.
The common wedding phrase "And now by the power vested in me by the state..." kept going through my mind. When did that happen? Marriage is supposed to be a religious concept. I suppose it was some scheme cooked up by the individual states to get an extra 50 bucks in the form of wedding tax out of people and into the public coffers. But it also gave us a sneak preview of how religion sneaking its way into government starts a dangerous chain reaction of "What religious beliefs are we going to follow?" and, by extension, "Whose rights and beliefs do we disallow?" Since I'm not big on one set of people patently having more rights than another, I put the kabosh on it.
The end game of religion in government??: People going at it in the streets over whether the Presbyterians, Methodists, Adventists, Southern Baptists, etc, are doing God's Will over any number of arcane principals: From working on a Sunday to whether they can eat those little free-range chickens on certain days. And, ultimately, Taliban, Iraninan or Saudi-style "reglious police" making sure we don't stray from the "Word" -- by the aid of a very long and hard stick.
Oh, and I like choo-choos so I voted yes on the train prop. If, indeed, it's going through Fresno, that means I don't have to drive to Yosemite.
- Shank Piston Palin Looking To Watching Returns Tomorrow as Much as Watching Rivalry Weekend
Anonymous,
Let's see...
First, when I got married the officiant said, "..by the power vested in me, I now pronounce you, husband and wife". No indication if the power was vested by the State, God, by those congregated before him, or perhaps something else. (And of course the State got into marriage for the money, so what, that's an irrelevant point.)
Second, you worry about the State getting into religious things (and we all should - also about religion getting into the State - I'm with you on that), but then you said, QUOTE Marriage is supposed to be a religious concept. ENDQUOTE Couldn't agree more. So why is the State forcing a secular interpretation on a religious thing? Shouldn't the State stay away and leave it to the religions as to who they marry? Oh yeah, I remember why that's not the case. It's because the State determined that the religions did not have complete jurisdictions over this (see polygamy, see NAMBLA). But that means we are on the slippery slope already, so don't pretend that there is some black and white separation. Never has been, never will be. So, does the State have the right to tell religions that they must sanction marriages between partners that the religion feels is improper? You say yes. I say no. That's what's known as irreconcilable differences. I believe the government should stay out unless there is a compelling interest to interfere. Not the case here.
Third, I hear no arguement to my claim re: the State has a right, and responsibility, to fulfill its end of the social contract to "our Posterity". Still waiting.
Fourth, you have the usual knee jerk reaction to "mistreating" animals. Well, Duh! No one is for "mistreating" animals. That's not the real argument here, and you know it. There are plenty of laws on the books today to keep people from mistreating animals. If it is so bad, then the legislature needs to get off their collective backsides and strengthen the laws. Keep this out of the State Constitution.
Fifth, you like choo-choos. So do I. But this will cost a fortune. Probably will never get the cost sharing they have imagined, thereby costing additional fortunes. It will never come close to breaking even, so there's a permanent annual cost to boot. The finances of California are not good enough to buy into this boondoggle.
Sixth, you said 5 out of 12 right? Let's see, if I recall my calculus, that means you disagree on 12-5=7 of them. You only mentioned 3. Math problem, or just didn't feel like mentioning the others? Seriously, you have every right to keep your opinions to yourself. And I do enjoy these little discussions.
One more thing, enjoy your right to a secret ballot while you can. If you don't think that is at risk you are not paying attention (here). Oh, and that's the party that cares so much about "voter rights" doing that.
O@H, Because some people refuse to use their nom de Google, there may have been some confusion as to which Anon did not respond to your challenge.
And thanks for the heads-up that our concurrence on the Propositions means certain failure for the same.
KT, I'll leave the mass mailers and stadium-sized rallies for certain presidential candidates but I appreciate your confidence. ;)
Mongo, I keep waiting for the dark night of the religious right to descend on this country. And since I'm mindful of all the bellwether "preview of coming attractions", I've been waiting for quite a while now.
It's liberal "ghost story" hour - like they truly want to believe it but know that it's pure fantasy. This country is simply not comprised of religious fanatics of the quantity or degree for your "nightmare" scenario to ever come to pass.
Starting tomorrow, I'd say we're far more likely to witness the results of "para-religious fanaticism" than anything else.
Ohioan,
In the spirit of basics, lets start with the math thing you were worried about. 12-7, does indeed equal five. That's beyond what I expect of you, and it's good that you exceed expectations. But, we need to work on another basic: Reading Comprehension. You'll notice I used this term alluding to where I part ways with BwD on the CA ballot props:
"So, some of where you were wrong..."
That would be an indication I didn't really plan on going through all 12 propositions.
Thanks for playing.
Now, continuing in the spirit of reading comprehension... We here at the Palin residence argue for the fact that government SHOULD be out of the marriage business. And religion should be out of the government business. It's called "separation of church and state", and it's one of those little American underpinnings that the far right evangelicals, e.g., love to ignore and wish would just go away so they can worm their way to the controls of government.
I agree. Let religions choose who should be married. So if the Unitarian Universal Church of West Hollywood wants to wed Adam and Steve in Holy Matrimony, the government won't have a problem, and you shouldn't have a problem because it's a church. Right?
Was I required to comment upon social contract posterity or something? Geez, it's hard to keep up. But, OK. Where was the social contract for the poor kid they stuck on the fence on a desolate Wyoming road and beat to death because he was gay? Can you speak to his parents about the social contract and posterity -- because posterity is about the only thing they've got going when it comes to their kid.
Thing 2: I just had a really good Thai Chicken frozen entre dinner. Damn, it was good. I'd feel even better knowing it led a good wholesome life scratching the dirt on a nice hillside dotted with trees and puffy clouds floating across a blue sky. If prop 2 ammends the state constitution, who cares? It's the state constitution! It's not the U.S. Constitution, which is built for high principals. A state constitution is written for mundane minutae like this.
Train Spotting: American infrastructure is falling way behind the curve -- and, in a lot of cases, falling apart (think Minnesota bridges and San Diego water pipes). I think it was 18 years ago that I rode the TGV in France. We still don't have anything like that here. It's high time to reinvest. Truth be told, it's quarter past time to reinvest. It'll give construction companies something to do besides throw up housing developments that aren't needed.
- Shank Piston Palin Needing a Potty Break After This Book
Anonymous,
Yes, yes, of course I knew you didn't comment on the other ones on purpose. I thought the sarcasm was obvious (next time I'll include a smiley). But I meant it when I said I enjoy the discussions. Sometimes I change my mind. That's the purpose of discussion. Sharpen your points and see what the other side has. Sometimes I bow to superior content. So I appreciate your responses and your point of view. (No smiley faces here - I'm serious.)
Your comment on my not minding if some religion chose to marry Steve and Adam missed my point. I don't think that either religion or the State should be able to unilaterally redefine marriage. That was point about polygamy. There are religons that like that. Some don't. The State has decreed one spouse only. Likewise both groups find NAMBLA-like interactions unacceptable. I personally don't care what Adam and Steve do among themselves. If the State wants to sanction such a marriage fine. My issues are: 1) Judicial Fiat for Social Engineering, 2) Judicial Fiat throwing out a proposition (22) and creating rights out of whole cloth.
You mention the despicable act in Wyoming. Now you know, and I know, that everyone has the right to be who they are, and not be abused or degraded (and damn sure to not be physically attacked / killed). But this argument is nothing but a distraction. Redefining marriage is a slippery slope. Do we stop with this, or do we allow polygamy? NAMBLA? Marriage with other species? No where? There are always lines. Choose one. My issues, again, aren't with the line, it's with the method of drawing. You should be as afraid of Judicial Fiat as I am. Once its allowed, there is no boundary or control on what they might decide next.
We apparently disagree, in a fundamental way, about how significant the State Constitution is. I think it's pretty significant. Basic law should be in in basic law, not the Constitution. If there was no animal cruelty laws, I'd be in favor of this proposition. Since there are plenty, leave it in the law.
As to infrastructure. I agree, the US (and California) has allowed our infrastructure to fade far too far. Trains are good infrastructure (like I said, I like choo-choos). I don't even have an issue with the idea of a high speed train. My problem is with this proposition. The financing is clearly an illusion. The proposition is NOT the only cost. I don't buy things based on a cost model where the final cost is known to be far in excess of what of the "price tag" says, but with no real number available.
What's going on here? I write these weighty manifestos and scathing polemics and I never get an implacable pair of trolls duking it out in my comments!
:-)
Well, OK, Ohio. Let's take a quick peek...
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html
Now, you can argue that, for example, XXIX(A) and XXIX(B) on car revenue funds is extremely important -- and I would agree with you. But I certainly don't think it rises to the level of anything you'll find in the federal version of the document. It's mundane nuts and bolts. Necessary nuts and bolts, mind you for running a state. But mundane nuts and bolts nonetheless.
- Shank Piston Palin Liking The Thought of Firing Through The Central Valley At The Fastest Speed Possible
Post a Comment