paradox - I know you don't get the opportunity to write as much as you would like, but bless you for these letters.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 6, 2005 07:26 AMI hope you will vote Yes on 79, which is the non-Arnold prescription drug proposition. See Bay Guardian endorsements for more on this.
Posted by Spearhead at November 6, 2005 08:03 AMProposition 73. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated, pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on the minor?
Anyone that votes against this is obviously not a parent. Anyone that votes no to this would not mind if a 12 yr old girl gets an abortion with out the parents knowing. This is my first example of why liberals are idiots.
Proposition 74. Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should the probationary period for public school teachers be increased from two to five years, and should the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent certificated employee be modified?
Example 2 of why liberals are idiots. Only a liberal would support a teacher that is totally incapable of fulfilling there duties as a teacher.
Proposition 75. Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should public employee unions be required to obtain annual written consent from each member in order to use a portion of that member's dues for political activity?
Example 3 of why liberals are idiots. This is a common sense vote yes. Do you want your dues going to a Republican/Democrat if you did not want them to? Liberals are voting no to this because a larger percentage of unions vote for democrats already and don't they want to take a chance of the money not going to them.
Proposition 76. State Spending and School Funding Limits -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
Should Californians make major Constitutional changes to create an additional state spending limit, grant the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending, and revise key provisions relating to Proposition 98, school and community college funding, and transportation funding authorized by Proposition 42?
This one steps over the line. I totally agree with voting no on this. No one should have unilateral power to do anything in Government.
Proposition 77. Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
Should the California Constitution be amended to change the process of redistricting California's State Senate, State Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts, transferring the implementation of redistricting from the Legislature to a panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders?
Example 4 of why liberals are idiots. They have this State redistricted to benefit only Democrats, to change it would hurt them. They care nothing about what the people want and only about there agenda. If keeping the districts the way they are helps there cause, then so be it and who cares if it's fair.
Proposition 78. Discounts on Prescription Drugs -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should the state adopt a new state drug discount program to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for Californians at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level?
Example 5 of why liberals are idiots. Only liberals would vote no to this because a Republican proposed it, but would vote yes to a Federal Health Care system. Amazing!
Proposition 79. Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should the state of California create a new prescription drug discount program for residents at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and change state law to make it illegal to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs?
ditto above
Proposition 80. Electric Service Providers. Regulation -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
Should the state expand its regulation of the electric industry?
This one needs more work before a yes vote is cast. But it's a move in the right direction.
Summary of all props; Liberal will vote no just say we don't like Arnold. They won't vote yes because it could mean he gets reelected. Liberals will vote based on the politics of an issue and not if it benefits Americans as a whole. ie. Did a Dem or Rep come up with this idea? If a Dem did then of course I'll vote for it. That's why liberal will always be idiots and a blight on our way of life.
I couldn't face going to my polling place so I vote absentee. No all the way down the line, except for 79 and I proudly posted so on my blog.
Common Sense, you have very little. If parents did their job in the first place and had children that were properly informed about sex and the consequences, we wouldn't have to worry about abortion. But you are asking girls who don't get along with their parents for whatever reason to rely on someone they don't trust and are terrified of confronting. They aren't going to talk to them, just more babies born in toilets and thrown in dumpsters. Nice.
My father taught me never to argue with idiots so our conversation is finished.
Great post paradox.
Posted by Debra at November 6, 2005 08:38 AMIgnoring my predecessor's inane and partisan rant, Californians ARE overdue for a reality check. there will come a time - sonner if Arnold gets his propositions passed - that will force Californians to look at everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - that the state budget pays for. Everyone will have to suffer some kind of a loss if this state is to get back on the path to the future that paradox illustrates.
This grouping is going to have to include the corporate interests who put Arnold into power in the first place (remember Arnold attending Cheney's energy 'conferences'?). Their gravy train will be just as sidetracked as everyone else's wish list. Uncle Taxpayer is tapped out due to the higher medical and energy costs, lower wages, and a plundered retirement.
Posted by pessimist at November 6, 2005 08:41 AMProp 77 is endorsed by the liberal media in CA. I'm surprised you're against it. Heck Rep. John Doolittle, (R-Rocklin) is against it. You're on his side? Maybe there's hope for you, yet.
San Francisco Chronicle: Vote Yes on 77.
California politicians used data from the 2000 census to protect their respective flanks in impressive fashion. In November 2004, 153 legislative and congressional seats were on the ballot. Not a single one changed party hands.
The system is a godsend for the legislators in power. It is not so helpful for candidates who want to break into the club, or voters who want to have a real choice in an election.
Sacramento Bee: Vote Yes on 77.
All by itself, this measure would not bring in a fresh set of politicians, but it could lead to more contested seats and more responsive incumbents. It's small step forward, but one that lawmakers will never do themselves. Voters should approve it on Nov. 8.
Los Angeles Times: Vote Yes on 77.
The current map results from a cynical deal that shows how badly the system is broken. The national GOP was worried that it would lose control of the U.S. House if California Democrats created more Democratic congressional districts after the 2000 census. So, in exchange for a guarantee that it could keep its current seats, the GOP agreed to a plan that assured Democrats a majority in the Legislature and the 53-member U.S. House delegation for a decade.
(In otherwords, if you vote NO, the GOP and Doolittle will be very happy...)
Critics say that retired judges aren't free of bias. But the redistricting plans of the 1970s and 1990s were drafted under court supervision. Both were good plans — in fact, among the best ever. Besides, we already know that politicians cannot be trusted to draw fair districts. Proposition 77 will restore some reason and moderation to the political process.
San Diego Union Tribune: Vote Yes on 77.
It would end California's appalling practice of letting lawmakers pick their constituents – the opposite of what one would expect in a healthy democracy.
Many of the initiatives on the Nov. 8 ballot deal with crucial, weighty issues. But none would go further than Proposition 77 to reduce the dysfunction in Sacramento. Vote yes on 77 – and implore everyone you see over the next 16 days to do the same.
So are you on the side of Rich Republican John Doolittle, the fatcat from Rocklin, or on the side of the San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, San Diego Union Tribune and Los Angeles Times?
Posted by muckdog at November 6, 2005 08:52 AMOnly a liberal would support a teacher that is totally incapable of fulfilling there duties as a teacher.
Sic.
Apparently someone did in your case.
Posted by Repack Rider at November 6, 2005 09:15 AMThere is always a larger game being played; these issues are distractions.
The goal is to starve the revenue stream of the State of California. The goal is to put the state in such a position of poverty and debt that the only way out will be to allow drilling for oil off the central coast.
There is nothing else in California that the ruling class wants that it doesn't already own.
Posted by James E. Powell at November 6, 2005 09:17 AMIt's no consolation that the lost opportunities you describe for California are really the same in "blue" states accross the country. Even here in Wisconsin, where we have a Democratic governor who knows the difference between creating opportunity and trying to take advantage of them on behalf of the State's citizens, the Republican-corporate disintegrators continue to slash, burn, and corrode what remains of the public interest.
Vote no on everything, oppose every new project, fight every right=wing inspired strategem from now until, please god, voters come to their senses in 2006 and 2008 and remove the fucking corporate-controlled Republicans (in both parties) from office.
Posted by NealB at November 6, 2005 10:09 AMGreat post, paradox. As for prop 77, it will simply create a whole new class of high-priced, bought-and-paid-for political redistricting consultants. Just what we need.
Just vote No!
Posted by Jeff F at November 6, 2005 10:10 AMAnyone that votes against this is obviously not a parent. Anyone that votes no to this would not mind if a 12 yr old girl gets an abortion with out the parents knowing. This is my first example of why liberals are idiots.
One need not be liberal nor an idiot to vote against this. What you apparently strikes you "common sense" is merely a black'n'white, non-nuanced, knee-jerk reaction to an issue that deserves more thought. Not every parent offers tender loving care. Many are raging alcoholics who would beat or kill their daughters for getting pregnant. Others are raging sober people who'd do the same. Others are they kind of religious fundamentalists who would send their daughter to a cult-like prison for re-education. And others, quite frankly, are less mature and less intelligent and less able to make that decision than their minor children. I could go on.
Example 4 of why liberals are idiots. They have this State redistricted to benefit only Democrats, to change it would hurt them. They care nothing about what the people want and only about there agenda. If keeping the districts the way they are helps there cause, then so be it and who cares if it's fair.
Gerrymandering is a grand pet peeve of mine, and I'm an extremely knowledgeable electoral reform activist. I'm voting NO on this for the details of its solution, not because I think gerrymandering ought to be left to stand. Merely placing redistricting in the hands of 3 retired judges, likely to be elderly and without a comprehensive knowledge of the state they are to divy up is hardly helpful. You really wanna get rid of gerrymandering? Reform the electoral system, and make gerrymandering impossible or irrelevant. Don't appoint a small panel to do the redistricting themselves. Again, though, Common Sense, this requires nuanced thought, not knee-jerk reactions as though you've been asked to add two plus two.
Liberal will vote no just say we don't like Arnold.
Arnold purportedly "took these directly to the people" because of the wasteful spending and otherwise poor job done by the people's duly elected representatives in Sacramento. Of course, he could have done the same thing without wastefully spending extra millions himself on a special election. He could have waited for May 2006, when there will be an election anyway. He's doing this as a referendum on his popularity, to determine whether he should run again, and his presidential chances should the Constitution be amended. Given that, it is a principled stance to vote NO on the entire slate even if one might vote for them otherwise. Again, though, this requires nuanced thought, not your brand of knee-jerk "common sense."
All that being said, I am in favor of Prop 79, and will be voting for it, and there are one or two others I'm still considering. Or do you not believe that someone on my side of the political spectrum - ridiculous and perverted as the current political paradigm is - would do such a thing? Again, nuanced thought, not black'n'white, us vs. others "common sense."
Thomas Paine is rolling over in his grave.
Posted by Liveliest Crib at November 6, 2005 10:35 AMJames, the revenue stream in CA is jeopardized because the rich pay most of the taxes. So when the inevitable economic downturn comes, the state is starved of cash. Like what happened from the 2000-2002 bear market. It will get worse if that happens again, or if real estate prices fall.
Raising taxes on the rich won't help, because the tax revenue from them declines dramatically when the stock market or real estate crashes.
Of course, the rich don't have to worry about taxes going up as long as Prop 77 fails on tuesday. This will ensure the Republicans keep enough seats in the Legislature to block all tax hikes.
Posted by muckdog at November 6, 2005 11:00 AMAnyone that votes against this is obviously not a parent.
I am a parent of a girl and the only reason I'm not voting against it is that I'm not a citizen. My wife already voted against it. So there.
And I agree about voting against all propositions by default. The system while well meaning is totally abused nowadays.
The minimal fixes from the top of my head: 1. no special elections - if you can't wait the max 2 years between elections, too bad. 2. propositions have to be confirmed by the legislature after 3 and 5 (or 7) years. 3. pay-as-you-go.
Posted by Alopex Lagopus at November 6, 2005 11:13 AMCommon Sense brings to mind John Stuart Mills' famous observation regarding conservatives:
"Not all conservatives are stupid people but most stupid people are conservative"
Posted by Vinnie at November 6, 2005 11:17 AMTwo points:
Diebold machines have been rejected in California because they are unreliable. Second, the system of voter initiatives and recall were perfectly valid except that the big money special interests have corrupted the intent of their formation. They were designed to protect against anti-democratic government like the current one and to allow citizens a direct say. Under Republicans, both have been ruined by allowing special interests to control the process and advertising. It is now up to the citizenry to take back our government.
the revenue stream in CA is jeopardized because the rich pay most of the taxes. So when the inevitable economic downturn comes, the state is starved of cash. Like what happened from the 2000-2002 bear market. It will get worse if that happens again, or if real estate prices fall.
Raising taxes on the rich won't help, because the tax revenue from them declines dramatically when the stock market or real estate crashes. Posted by muckdog at November 6, 2005 11:00 AM
As for the rest of your nonsense, guilt by association is a silly logical fallacy. For example, your continued support for the ethically corrupt Bush Administration and your continued intellectual dishonest shows that you, too, are guilty of moral turpitude. Therefore any initiative you support is equally immoral
It is the job of the legislature, not some group of retired judges who, most assuredly, will be selected for their political agenda, to design districting. If and only when, the legislature cannot agree, such lawmaking goes to arbitration. This is and should be done after every census. There is no reason, except to corrupt the system in the manner of your hero, Tom DeLay, to re-do them. Unlike you, we think for ourselves. Newspaper endorsements by their editorial boards who represent their corporate owners are as meaningless as your nutty right-wing ideology.
Their earnings are less affected than the poor because they are richer and don't live paycheck to paycheck
Nope. We're talking tax revenues, and during recessions, tax revenue in CA falls because the rich lose money.
If 77 fails, then we might as well start calling the CA legislature "the Politburo."
Posted by muckdog at November 6, 2005 11:48 AMMrs. Calvin pointed out the obvious many years ago. No, not the obvious one about Mr. Calvin, but rather that advertising agencies take the worst qualities of a product and advertise them as virtues. You remember, "Tastes Great, Less Filling." We've all tasted better dishwater.
Now they do that with politicians. And, in the instant case, it seems to have rubbed off on persons offering comments. Imagine, someone calling themselves, "Common Sense."
Posted by calvinthecat at November 6, 2005 12:07 PMPlease vote yes on 79 & 80. These were nor sponsored by the Governator.
79 allow state medicaid, unions and other groups to negotion group rates with pharmaceuticals (78 is backed by the drug industry).
80 repeals the energy dergulation laws that got us in our titanic budget woes in the first place. Remember ENRON?
Yes on 79
Yes on 80
No No No on the rest
!Kev
Posted by K-DOG at November 6, 2005 12:42 PMk-dog, if we reregulate energy, how do you propose we deal with energy shortgages and skyrocketing costs?
Posted by muckdog at November 6, 2005 03:35 PMWe don't seem to be doing too well with the current system, muck. I for one am willing to try something else.
Posted by pessimist at November 6, 2005 05:27 PMExcept when it comes to trying democratic elections, eh Pessimist?
Posted by muckdog at November 6, 2005 08:10 PMThe liberal moonbats at Angry Bear say Yes on 77.
Posted by muckdog at November 6, 2005 08:52 PMProposition 74.
Example 2 of why liberals are idiots. Only a liberal would support a teacher that is totally incapable of fulfilling there duties as a teacher.
Unless your current law says "totally incapable" teachers must be supported, this statement has no relevance to the Proposition.
Unless a principal is "totally incapable", under most circumstances, he/she will be able to gauge a teacher's potential after two years of observation.
Proposition 74
Imagine a school district as a mini replica of the federal government. Imagine that it is the largest employer in the town/community. The custodian position may even be highly regarded and passed down from generation to generation within a family. Nepotism and cronyism are pervasive in this district. Some bd. members are entrenched in their positions, and politically and economically powerful in the community.
Now imagine that a young teacher is hired. He/she is highly skilled. Perhaps, by their third year of teaching they have enough experience to recognize funding inequities for student programs or populations, or a need for some obvious change. Maybe they advocate for more technology, protest harassment of targeted students, inform parents of their rights, demand the provisions of TitleIX be upheld, insist that a student with a disability receives needed services, or any number of other righteous acts. In many places, unless tenured, this teacher, can not do or say anything that will bring them into conflict with those in power without risk of termination.
Opposition to tenure is a political tactic to protect and ensure the administrative dominion. Statements like, "Only a liberal would support a teacher that is totally incapable of fulfilling there duties as a teacher," is old-school propaganda. Its purpose is to incite fear in parents and voters.
I agree. I'm voting NO on all of the propositions. This whole election is a waste of time and money. I would like a chance to mark that somewhere on my ballot. I would just stay home if only I could make the government
Posted by Cali4nian at November 7, 2005 12:50 PMYou guys are all freaks. Random elitists that think anyone gives a hoot about your inane chatter and opinions.
Posted by Another Random Internet Moron at November 8, 2005 04:14 PM