California 2010 Propositions: How I'm Voting

I've read the propositions and formed my opinions. I know why people don't read them: they are boring, confusingly worded, and unimaginative. Still, I have my opinions on them. Here they are:

Prop 19 - The Legalization of Marijuana

NO

I've really tried to be open minded on this, but I think the passage of this measure will have lots of unintended consequences. Shouldn't the anti-smoking coalitions be concerned about second hand smoke, or is that just the demon of ordinary tobacco?

Prop 20 - Citizens' Redistricting Committee

YES

A Citizens' Redistricting Committee already exists. This law just makes the parameters for redistricting more specific and requires that the committee take into account the geographic area, social interests, economic interests, transportation facilities usage, and other factors (including geographic contiguity) when drawing district boundaries. I'm not a big fan of having the constitution of this state amended, but I'll take it in this case.

Prop 21 - Vehicle License Fee for State Parks

NO

I like state parks; I really do. What I don't like is the legislature's attempt to raise my taxes because it can't use money efficiently. It's not a tax, it's a fee? You can call it what you want, but every time government grabs money from me when I don't want it taken, it's a tax. Besides, there's not guarantee that the "fee" will remain at $18.00 (the initial amount). When do fees go down?

Although the proposition states that the money can only be used for the state parks, experience has shown me that this tax money can be moved around easily to unrelated projects while still having a nominal relation to the parks.

Prop 22 - Prevent the State from Taking Dedicated Local Funds

NO

At first glance, this seems like a good idea. But this is a long proposition to read, and that's never good. I was uncertain until I came to the part where the state can give land to the Department of Fish and Game. Fish and Game, really?

My opinion is that this proposition is not just about keeping the state's hands off local revenues, and it attempts to address too many issues. I'm still scratching my head about Fish and Game. So until a clearer bill comes about, I'm against this one.

Prop 23 - Suspend Environmental Law AB32...

YES

...until unemployment reaches 5.5%. AB32 is essentially a statewide cap and trade law to combat the growing danger of global warming. Do I believe in the man made global warming hysteria? Is my question an answer in itself?

AB32, like almost all California regulatory law, raises the cost of doing business here, which is not good for the states economy. Really, I'd like to have AB32 repealed, but I'll settle for this for the time being.

Prop 24 - End Corporate Tax Loopholes

NO

Big Corporations (capitalized because there is an actual evil entity called Big Corporation that seeks to make slaves of us all) make more money than I'll ever see. They also create more jobs than I'll ever create. This state doesn't need an additional tax law to add to the usurious cobweb of current tax law. It needs a simple, coherent tax law that applies fairly to everyone.

I'm not going to fall into the trap of thinking that:

1. Corporations are good, but persecuted for their goodness and money
2. Corporations are bad, greedy, and have their boots on the heads of the common worker (that's the Obama administration)

Coherent tax policy is what I'm after.

Prop 25 - On Time Budget

NO

There is a group called "No on 25, Yes on 26" that believes that proposition 25 will eliminate the homeowner benefit of proposition 13 and will make it easier to raise taxes, while proposition 26 will prevent just that. I don't believe this is the case. While proposition 25 does not explicitly say, in the text of the proposed law, that proposition 13 is unaffected, the introductory text does say that 25 will not change proposition 13. This proposition allow legislators to pass a budget with a simple majority vote instead of a two-thirds vote. This voting change does not apply to taxes.

What I like about this proposition is that legislators get their pay docked for every day a budget is not passed on the required date, and that they do not get that money back retroactively even when the budget gets passed. Will this make for hastily constructed budgets? Hey, this is California, when has a budget passed by these goons been good for the state?

Update
I had to reverse my previous yes vote when I saw that many of the thug unions were behind this legislation. Sorry, but I can't vote with them.

Prop 26 - Fees are Taxes Too

YES

This proposition address government administrative "fees" for what they are. Taxes. Legislators will be required to go through the 2/3 voting requirement to raise administrative fees just like they do with raising taxes. The fee hikes are not left up to unelected administrative personnel. This proposition will not apply to fees for an actual government service or permit that one actually requests from the government as an individual.

This may reduce the flow of much needed revenue going to the state and local governments when they need it. Anybody sad?

Prop 27 - Redistricting by Congress

NO

This proposition is nearly the same as proposition 20 (The Citizens' Redistricting Committee). Nearly. In fact, I should confess, I was a little confused in reading it. In this proposition, Congress seems to maintain some of it's influence in the process.

But then I got to the part where the California Supreme Court is able to "fashion remedies" in any redistricting dispute if necessary. Because their previous "fashioned remedies" have been so good in the past. This is the only reason I'm voting no.

So there you have it. These are my positions, simply stated. If they help you, that's great. I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm a fairly thoughtful voter and I've seen how California's courts and legislatures have operated in the past.

Oh, and I support Carly Fiorina for senator, and Meg Whitman for Governor. Here are just a couple of reasons why:



and...



How stupid do they think we are?

Really, Didn't They Know?

The City of Los Angeles is going to rethink its policy of letting "rave" type events happen in the Coliseum. They currently have a moratorium on them. This decision comes on the heels of the event on June 30, at which more than 100 people were injured, several people were arrested, and one 15 year old girl died.

Who's brainchild was this anyway? Did anyone think to ask the cops what happens at raves: young people exposed to dangerous behavior, the almost trademark abuse of the drug "Ecstasy"? Was the money that good that this event just needed to happen? With immigration protests and Laker championship games, aren't there enough dangerous events?

These LA City Council People - and the responsible bureaucrats - should have used some common sense. This waste of resources was surely not an event that needed to happen. Although, thinking about the type of event and the class of attendee, the Coliseum was probably the right place...now if they just had lions.

Blasting Off to Islam

As has been under-reported, NASA has a new mission: manned missions to Jupiter, Saturn? Well, not exactly. According to NASA Director, Charles Bolden, in a July 5, 2010 interview, the new directives are these:

1. Re-inspire children in math and the sciences.
2. Expand international relationships, in particular reach out to the Muslim world.

I'm looking for where exactly the "S" in NASA fits in there...

Anyone else? No?

So the Space administration is no longer going to be primarily interested in "space"...save for the space required to accommodate some sort of special Muslim area, sort of like what's being planned in New York at Ground Zero.

The re-inspiration of children presumably will take place until at such time it interferes with directive number 2 above. If these are the new directives, how will NASA inspire children to break boundaries, surpass what's been done, or have a vision for the future when the space agency itself will apparently be static and resting upon its accomplishments of long ago?

Obama's directive is to reach out to the Muslim world - a specific religion - not the Arab world. So is he conferring his presidential favor upon one religion in favor of others? How does that sit Constitutionally? And why devote an entire governmental agency to Muslim outreach, doesn't Obama think that his public bowing, scraping, and pandering to his jihadi friends has been enough?

I'm growing more and more disgusted with this silly and dangerous president who weakens the United States.

Let's Rethink this "Great Orator" Thing

Just to get it out of the way: I don't like Obama's policies, the way he treats friends and enemies, the way he just takes large chunks of money from Americans and dumps it where he wants to, the way he weakens us...

That's done. So now I have to ask, "Does anyone really think he's that great of a speaker?" Really? I've heard him speak, and yeah, he can string words together easily, but what does he really say? All he has done is disparage prosperous businesses and "greedy" corporations, repeat the mantra that no one can get health care without the government's help, and lies (yes, LIES) to the American people.

Of course, the news media, particularly the television news, accepts what Obama says without critical scrutiny - at least until very recently. Not long after the passage of the "Stimulus" package, Obama triumphantly claimed that the economy had "turned a corner" and averted a crisis. He offered no proof. Really, what proof could he have had so soon after the bill's passage? No one in the media critiqued the statement; it was just presented as truth - and unfortunately people generally don't think beyond what the TV news presents them. Of course, health care is old news. Poor, poor Americans are dying by the hundreds because of a lack of affordable health care. Again, this naked statement, devoid of specific facts to justify it, not answering the question that begs to be asked is accepted by the media. How does he come by this statistic? If all Americans are given free health care, would they stop dying?

I can't listen to him any more, it was always very hard to do, but now it's just unbearable. The recent flop of a speech about the gulf oil spill is a prime example. He lied (yes LIED - the good conservative talk show hosts hesitate to use the word "lied" because they are at the core very civil people) about having no place to drill for oil. He lied about his administration's involvement to help the coast. All he did in this speech was to repeat: it's BP's fault, it's Bush's fault, BP will pay.

The general public thinks he's so good because they've been told he's so good...he's been told he's so good. But he's not. Those who don't like his policies or his bloodsucking our freedom are not allowed to criticize him because he's black (our second black president) and to criticize him would be racist. So just because he's black and he doesn't scream "whasssup" during his speeches or wear his presidential golf cap canted sideways he gets a pass? I don't think so.

He's not that good.

A Lesson in Civics

Remember Civics? The most boring class where you learned about bicameral legislature, how a bill becomes law (before that cartoon came around and explained it), the ele...ctoral...coll...how many justices does it take to screw in a light bulb, or something like that...

Yeah, that Civics.

Well, some more fun facts for you. These are very important to your understanding of government:

1. Barak Obama is the second black president of the United States, Bill Clinton being the first, of course.
2. The President of the United States has a hidden cache of money that he can use to give to lazy people or people who can't speak or write properly. It's official name is: "He Stash."
3. A government bill is too complex to be understood by people, and legislators. It should be written by trusted personages of great wisdom (we'll call them lobbyists to use a familiar term) who will then tell the people - and legislators - whether the bill will be a good law or a bad law, and in a special ceremony will hold the text of the bill to the forehead of the legislator so that the wisdom of these trusted personages will pass to the understanding of the legislator so honored.
4. Actually passing the bill into law is like bashing open a pinata. You're not allowed to see what's inside until the thing's rent asunder and the goodies are on the ground. It has to be good, though, right?

Right?

Obama Picks and Chooses His Ideas of "Fairness"

President Obama doesn't like Arizona's new law addressing illegal immigration.

The president said it was the state that was "misguided" and that the Arizona measure would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." (Obama quoted in Fox News)

Obama said he instructed the Justice Department to "examine the civil rights and other implications" of the new law. Justice officials said they were considering their options, and it wasn't clear Friday what they might do. Regardless, the law seemed certain to be challenged in court by opponents.

I don't understand his "fairness." Fairness to whom? Invoking fairness implies that there is a set of rules involved, either written or customary - like laws or manners, for instance. Who gets the unfair treatment, the property owners and residents near the border whose property rights (and most recently, lives) are put in jeopardy, or the illegal immigrant who acts as if he is "safe" once he crosses the border.

Does fairness mean our laws don't matter because a bunch of loudmouth protesters march in the streets to proclaim the "rights" of those illegal immigrants? These protesters are not concerned with real fairness; they just want something free and easily. But I'm straying from my point.

Since the president is so concerned with fairness maybe he can tell us how it's "fair" for the government to tell me to buy a government-approved product just because I exist. Of course, I'm speaking of health insurance. What if I don't want to buy it...oh, that's right, I'll have to pay a fine, perhaps even go to jail! Just because I wake up in the morning I have to have this government product. By what rules is the government playing to call this fairness? That's right, the health care bill; you know, that same bill that allows (or will allow) a government agency to inspect your light fixtures when you sell your home.

And to make sure you comply with all this fairness, Obama has hired 17,000 IRS agents.

Now that the Health Care Bill is Passed We can Finally See It

That Nancy Pelosi, she's a sharp one, and she got what she wanted. All Congress needed to do was to pass the health care bill, then the American people would be able to see what is in it without all the inconvenience of...well, scrutiny, analysis, critique. And now it's done. So what did we get, and what was the reason to pass the bill? Let's see what some of the senators had to say:



Well, old, drunk Senator Max Baucus has admitted that the health care bill is a redistribution scheme. Of course, the bill is necessary because of the "maldistribution" of income. "The wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy..." I say, thank goodness we have Max Baucus to tell us that those who work hard for their wealth don't get to keep it.

And Congressman John Dingell, what did he have to say?



Control the people is what he said. Control? Excuse me? What gives this old man the right to think that the government is supposed to control it's people? I thought our government stood for freedom. Does he think that the American people are just going to sit around and accept it?

So it's redistribution and control, eh? I am almost sure that health care is listed in that bill somewhere.

Somewhere.



How can she say this with a straight face? This imperious little woman has to be voted out of office.

Well, before the vote, I called senators and congressmen, I emailed them too, and I even sent in a little money to opposition, and still congress voted for the bill. Oh well, more work is yet to come.

The Challenges he Makes

Today in Iowa, President Obama gave a post-health-care-signing speech. In his speech, he actually issued a challenge to Republicans. Here is an excerpt (I'd include the video, but I can't stand to hear him speak):

"...go for it." "If they want to have that fight, they can have it," he said. "I don't believe the American people are going to put the insurance industry back in the driver's seat. We've already been there, we're not going back."

"Go for it"? What, is he Dirty Harry? This is the man who will unite the country? As much disdain as I have for politicians in general, his republican senators are Americans who deserve to be heard, not just dismissed. The president is a typical bully: he issues mean challenges to people who won't hit back. Not just the republicans but Israel as well. In the meanwhile, he'll kiss the ass of Iran. Bullies only pick on people they perceive as weak.

Also today, Osama bin Laden put out another recording saying he'll execute any American captured by Al Qaeda. How will Obama meet this threat?

"Go for it"?

Maybe he'll use some of that Obama verbal judo to make bin Laden see the light. More likely he'll do nothing, say nothing, and consider nothing, thus further maintaining his reputation for fecklessness.