Political picks for tomorrow's elections

Okay, I'm still in the middle of reading the giant voter information book for California. But here are my preliminary decisions:

- Maybe on 1A (Transportation Funding)
- Maybe on 1B (More transportation)
I'm unsure, here. I'm okay with higher taxes. But actually I get a bit unnerved at locking it into a specific purpose. On the other hand it seems like a fine purpose. I have to read the fine print and full text of the arguments & laws to make up my mind on these.

- Yes on 1C (Housing and emergency shelter)
I was undecided but then figure that some asshole Republican from Irvine is against it, so I'm for it.

- Yes on 1D (Public education facilities)

Kneejerk voting for anything that seems not immediately evil and that promises to be spent on schools.

Though, why do I never see a measure to immediately give $20,000 raises to all the teachers in the state? I'd vote for that one...

- Yes on 1E (Flood prevention)

Yes - the state should fix the levees. DUH.

- No on 83 - Sex offender monitoring

NO - Let's please remember that sex offenders are vastly likely to re-offend, i.e. rape, members of their OWN HOUSEHOLD. Their own children or stepchildren or relatives. It is insanely stupid to make an expensive law to GPS monitor them and forbid them to live within 2000 feet of a park. It doesn't make any sense. It would be more sensible to completely outlaw men and children living together, ever. Anyway - where are they supposed to live, in a city environment with schools and parks everywhere? It doesn't make any sense.

- Yes on 84 - Water Quality
More flood control and stuff. Fine. Yes. This is the point of government... Plus, once again, note the opposition by the Republican fat cats who never want to spend any money on anything except war, scary police state apparatus, and their own salaries...

- No on 85!!! - attempt to deny abortions to teenagers

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. and NO. NO!!!

- Yes on 86 - Tax on Cigarettes

Like I give a fuck how much cigarettes cost? Tax away. I'm just super happy it's illegal to smoke in public buildings and restaurants. I don't care if people smoke but I don't want to have it in my face and I don't care if it's expensive.... in fact let's legalize and tax the shit out of damn near every drug.

- Yes on 87 - tax oil producers

Hell yeah. Tax those motherfuckers. Did you read that Chevron made like 4 Billion dollars in profit last QUARTER? Evil profiteering bastards, they should be shot. Or at least taxed all to hell. I know, taxing them in CA means they won't do business in CA. Fine, whatever. I know also, oil money sent me to college. I don't care. Raise taxes on oil companies, I'll vote for that in a heartbeat.

Yes on 88 - Education funding
Raises my property taxes. Fine. I'll pay it.
It bothers me that property taxes fund education, but maybe raising them across the board instead of in local pockets will help.

Yes on 89 - Public financing.
This is confusing. But I think Yes. Again, kneejerk reaction my part that says, "tax on banks and corporations? sure. they evade taxes and have huge tax breaks that should be completely illegal, already."

No on 90 - NO!!!! - "regulation of private property"

this is very odd and evil and wrong and horrid. It would create a mess that would pretty much bring down any structure you can imagine. I can't figure out how it got on the ballot. I just don't get it. The gist of it is that anyone (?) can claim that a zoning regulation harms them. Can't turn your house into a liquor store or a strip join because of local zoning laws? Well, vote yes on proposition 90 and you can sue your local government to pay you the losses because they won't let you develop your property. Of course that means it will be huge developers creating giant legal tangles.

This would destroy local government - maybe that's the point of putting it on the ballot. I hope no one with a brain gets fooled by this one, it's really important!

State assembly - vote for Ira Ruskin - local loyalty and he seems decent enough though I wouldn't call him wildly progressive or anything. However, he is far better than his opponent, Virginia Chang Kiraly, who has a lot of doublespeak that translates to "cut salaries and staff in public employees" which I think is damned evil. "our children deserve better! we must be fiscally responsible, by laying people off , i.e. "controlling public employee salaries". Hrrmph. LIke some teacher or firefighter who makes 50 K and has health insurance is the problem? How about some kind of sumptuary law to prevent people from being ULTRA OBSCENELY RICH... it's called taxes... and not letting them have multi-million dollar loopholes. RANT RANT RANT.

San Mateo board of education area 3 - vote for Rhonda Ceccato.
Who can tell anything based on the BS in their candidate statements? BUT. I have a strong reaction against Jeffrey Tong's position paper which is all about selfishness ofo the young, who lack vision and purpose and are into crime, drugs, alcohol, gambling, and drifting aimlessly through life. Way to blame the victim, asshole. I'm voting for Rhonda. She sounds boring and evasive, and yet at least she's not insane-o like Tong is.

Board of Education, area 4 - Rod Hsiao
This guy sounds extremely sensible in his position paper He says he would look at schools that are failing, try to identify why the kids aren't doing well, and then create programs for those kids, such as preschool for all, extra language instruction, providing more help for teachers, etc. Also, he sounds like a person who is actually involved in youth groups and stuff.

His opponent, Fel Amistad, merely says "Reduce recidivism in our detention and juvenile halls, Academic excellence". Oh, that sounds so intelligent... NOT. Reduce it how? Also, nice punctuation and capitalization... NOT.

Sequoia Healthcare District - Oblak, Horsley, and Faro

Here's the fun one. It is so easy to vote against Jack Hickey. In fact I totally love it when he endorses anything. Then I know right away to vote against it, because that guy is bugfuck crazy!

We can vote for 3 - so, just vote for all the ones who aren't Jack Hickey! So easy.

Measure A - Yes, with a sigh

A bit reluctantly - I would prefer more income taxes to a sales tax, which unfairly taxes the poor. On the other hand, better parks are good. And for an extra incentive to vote for it, the people endorsing it are more or less decent, (all the city mayors, and the league of women voters) and the people against it are the usual crew of retired computer professionals, ex-CFOs, "Taxpayers", Jack Hickey (see!? it really does work to consult the Hickey-o-meter), and Young Republicans - ie super rich cranky assholes, guaranteeing I'll vote for whatever they line up against. I'm trying to be super honest here.

Judicial:

****edit!!! I was dead wrong on Siggins - he is an asshole, please vote against him.

- Kennard - looks good. emphasizes not favoring rich over the poor. Good!
- Corrigan - okay
- Hmm, the rest of them all just kind of say "to be impartial and treat everyone equally". Yah, you're judges... Oh, actually, Marchiano, Richman, McGuiness, and Haerle don't say anything about fairness or impartiality. this could be significant.
Siggins- mentions fairness and consent of the people. Clearly a specially good one.
Sepulveda - equality yes
Ruvolo - yes, also specially mentioning ethics
Rivera - yes
Jones - yes, lots of equality-speak

So, reading their very bare-bones statements makes me think that maybe I should vote against the ones who don't even mention equality, impartiality, equal access to resources, or ethics. The ones who do, that seems likely to be code for "actually concerned about social justice".

Everything else -

Look, I'm not super happy about this, but I'm just going to vote Democrat on everything else. Unless someone chimes in really quick and lets me know a Green or superprogressive independent who has a chance in hell of winning.

Comments

[Jo]

I haven't researched at all yet, and since I'm so fucking lazy, I think I'll just vote exactly like you do. Thanks!

And I hope you feel better. Coffeeshop at noonish?

[minnie]

i was thinking of voting no on prop a.

[Debra Roby]

Well I voted a couple weeks ago, and voted rather differently than you. But then I'm a fiscal conservative even though I'm a social liberal.

Anyway, I'm wondering if the 90 is in part caused because Hercules is using eminent domain against WalMart. I wouldn't put it past WalMart to get this issue on a state ballot.

[badgerbag]

Oh look - I was so wrong. Siggins looks like a slimeball:
"* Peter Siggins was Arnold Scharzenegger’s lawyer. He worked before that as an assistant state attorney general. He was caught up in a small scandal of working on last year’s Proposition 77 redistricting measure while on public time, a similar thing to what Schwarzenegger had former Secretary of State Kevin Shelley fired for. In his essay “Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism”, Siggins argues in support of limited racial profiling as a tool in fighting terrorism and says that “all of us have to get used to new levels of government intrusion.”

Damn - so much for trying to judge them based on their code words. There's no way around it but to google all these judges by name.

[badgerbag]

I am also changing my mind on the bond issues, the more I read about them. I think I am falling into the trap of voting on the issue instead of looking at how the funding works. So it might be a good thing to fund in theory, but a really stupid way to fund it or to indicate priorities.

[Pretty Lady]

Yes, my dear, about the judges and 'ethics'--the simplest way to spot a dishonest person is when they make a point of telling you how 'honest' they are. It does not even occur to an honest person to mention it; someone who does, quite likely has something to hide.

And looking at financing methods is also key. Simply because something is a good idea does not mean that government will do it without inefficiency and corruption. Indeed.

[kevin]

1E is bad. It is being pushed by developers who want to build in land that is currently too unsafe to build in. Essentially they want the state to subsidize the cost of the houses they will then sell ;-).

[badgerbag]

Arrrgh. Well that sucks. I hate the idea of the bonds and debt. On the other hand... 3 choices. Raise taxes, go into debt, let society and its infrastructure crumble. I'd actually way prefer raising taxes.

[Lisa Hirsch]

I'm totally with you on taxes.

[zombiegrrrl]

Wow. I really do not miss all the California props that go on the ballot. That's just a HELL of a lot of homework to do. Chances are most people don't research all of it anyway and they just make pretty pictures with the bubble lines. :) jk.. mostly.

My district in Mass had only three "questions" plus one that was "nonbinding." It was that "nonbinding" one I was keen on. It asked if we should bring the troops home from Iraq. Overwhelmingly, Mass voted YES!