October 22, 2008

Hey, California voters. Let's talk about how to vote on the 12 propositions you've got on the ballot.

No, I haven't personally studied this, but I trust my son Christopher, who lives in L.A. He emails:
California might not be a swing state, but there are some pretty significant measures on the ballot this year, and not just Prop 8. I just finished reading about the 12 propositions that will be on the ballot and deciding how I'll vote on all of them. Here's what I'm planning on doing, you can tell me if you think I'm wrong on any of these:

Prop 1A: Would build high speed rail systems across California. It would all be city-to-city trains and wouldn't improve public transportation within any given city. It sounds appealing but it's very expensive and misguided, since the dependence on cars is based on insufficient public transportation within certain cities, not so much city-to-city. I'm voting no.

Prop 2: Would require that "certain farm animals" (chickens) be given enough cage space so they can move their wings and turn around. I'm voting yes.

Prop 3: Would spend more money on children's hospitals. The argument against is that it spends money, the argument for is that it spends it on children's hospitals. I'm voting yes.

Prop 4: A constitutional amendment requiring that an underage girl can't get an abortion until 48 hours after her parents have been notified of her intent to get an abortion. There's an exception for "medical emergency" or "parental waiver" but not for child abuse or rape. I'm voting no.

Prop 5: Would expand spending on drug treatment programs and reduce punishment for those crimes deemed drug-related. Opponents say that a "loophole allows defendants accused of child abuse, domestic violence, vehicular manslaughter, and other crimes to effectively escape prosecution" by claiming that drugs caused them to commit these crimes. Whether that's true or not, its proponents' central argument is that the solution to prison overcrowding is to basically go soft on crime, release drug dealers early, and give more criminals the option of rehab instead of prison. I think the solution is to prison overcrowding is to build more prisons and deport all the illegal immigrants who are in those prisons. I'm voting no.

Prop 6: Would increase spending on law enforcement and prisons, and also significantly increase penalties for gang-related crimes. Opponents don't like that it, among other things, eliminates the option of bail for those who are arrested for gang violence and turn out to be illegal immigrants. I think we should be a lot harsher than just denying bail to those people, but maybe this is all you can get passed in California now. It's a complicated proposition with lots of components, most of which involve increased sentences for gang-related crimes. I'm voting yes.

Prop 7: Would try to shift us towards renewable energy by requiring that 20% of government-owned utilities are from renewable sources by 2010, 40% by 2020, and 50% by 2025. Seems very unrealistic to me. I'm voting no.

Prop 8: Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I'm voting hell no.

Prop 9: Constitutional amendment that is written as a victims rights act but is actually geared towards building more prisons. The victims rights measures are apparently duplicates of existing state law. I don't like that it seems to be presented in a dishonest way, but I support building more prisons. I'm voting yes.

Prop 10: Would try to improve energy efficiency largely by giving people financial incentives to buy hybrids. I think people already have enough incentive to buy hybrids. Some money would also go to university research on alternative energy. I'm voting no.

Prop 11: Constitutional amendment to create a commission that would include both parties and some independents to be in charge of drawing the voting district lines for State Senate rather than let them be drawn by Legislature. It's an effort to keep politicians from redrawing the map in a way that helps them. I'm voting yes.

Prop 12: Would send a lot of money to "provide farm and home aid for California veterans." You have to be wary of voting yes on most of these propositions, because we're in a financial crisis and nearly all of them involve spending a lot of money. If I'm only going to vote yes on the ones I consider the most important, then giving money to all the veterans, including those who are doing well, isn't at the top of the list for me. I'm voting no.
So, is he wrong about any of this?

ADDED: Armed Liberal says "no" on 10 and 7, "yes" on 11 and "no" on 8 -- agreeing with Chris -- and "yes" on 12 and "no" on 9 -- disagreeing with Chris. By the way, my view, expressed in the comments is:
I think the proposition approach to lawmaking is terrible, so if I were in California, I'd have a strong presumption of "no" for everything. Only when I felt very sure of the answer would I vote yes. I kind of like the "yes" on 11.
Has it really been shown that Prop 2 is the worth doing? You want to serve the chicken community... at whose expense?

136 comments:

rhhardin said...

John and Ken (KFI Los Angeles) say vote no all but two.

Joan said...

I think the solution to prison overcrowding is to build more prisons and deport all the illegal immigrants who are in those prisons. I'm voting no.

ITA. This entire discussion demonstrates a lot of clear-headed thinking.

But how does one vote "hell no"?

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

When someone votes 'hell no' on prop. 8, I would advise them not to press too hard on the 'hell' lever.

The anti-prop-8 "constitutionalists" have been blocking access to the Mormon temple in Oakland.

I guess their love of civil rights impels them to obstruct the Mormon’s civil right to use their religious facility.

It is also a clear violation of 18 U.S.C. 245, which makes it a federal crime to intimidate or interfere with any person, based on their religion, because of his or her activity as a participant in a benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by a state or local government, which using the road in front of the temple is.

Aluwid said...

"So, is he wrong about any of this?"

I don't know if that's the right question to ask. Most of his statements seem to be more personal opinion and personal weighing of the pros and cons as opposed to factual statements that could be verified or refuted.

Having said that, I really wish he (and everyone else) would vote in favor of Proposition 8 but given his response it doesn't seem he's likely to change his mind.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Prop 1: No. Who cares. We don't have the money anyway.

Prop 2: No. Because it will force business out of the State and the animals will be in small cages in Arizona instead. There are better ways than this proposition.

Prop 3: No. We don't have the money and there are already adequate childrens hospitals

Prop 4: Yes.

Prop 5: No.

Prop 6: No. They are wasting the money they have already appropriated.

Prop 7: HELL NO Global warming is a farce and it will only increase the cost of energy which we can't afford now anyway.

Prop 8: Yes. Because the people already voted yes on this.

Prop 9: No. Deceptive proposition

Prop 10: No. Same reason as the energy bill If people want to use hybrids have at it. We don't have the money to subsidize

Prop 11: Yes. Kick the bums out.

Prop 12: No. We don't have the money even though this is one I am waffling on and might vote yes.

Buford Gooch said...

The solution to Number Two is not to mandate conditions, but to refuse to buy if conditions don't suit you. Pay more for your meat when people advertise humane conditions. If enough people agree with you, the bad conditions disappear.

#3 "would spend more money". No.

#4 How does waiting a couple of days hurt? Thinking things over, when you have time, is a good thing. Yes.

#5 No brainer. Legalize dope. Prohibition is stupid.

#6 curbs crime. Yes

#7 More government in the market for no good financial reason. No

#8 No reason to pretend men are women and women are men. Legal contracts are good. Homosexual "marriage" is unnecessarily divisive. "Hell yes!"

#9 More prisons is a good idea. Yes.

#10 Take more of my money and give it to others. No

#11 Take power from politicians for re-election. Yes

#12 See #10

Donn said...

Yes on 4 and 8, and maybe on 11.

XWL said...

Hey, I just posted my own immodest voting guide a few hours ago, I'm no on everything (except Prop 11).

The bond issues are all crap, total utter crap (even when the money is supposed to go to good causes like sick children and vets). Bonds are a bad way to go right now, unless it's for real and direct infrastructure repair/improvement that has clear long term benefit, none of the current bond crop fit the bill. Find money in the budget by cutting the fat, not by expanding the budget through bonds. The legislature acts like bonds are free money, and now is not the time for 'free money'.

Prop 2 would destroy agrobusiness in this state, and that's still a major industry, the current rules are sufficient when followed, enforce the laws as they are, don't pass laws that will make it impossible to do business. I don't want all my chickens coming from Arkansas, screw Tyson.

Prop 9 is unneeded, and unwieldy, the court system does not need to be even more micro-managed by statute. Having victim input at every step of the criminal justice system seems like multiple headaches waiting to happen and won't make the system any better or the streets any safer. It's just more ineffective bureaucratic nonsense.

Prop 11 is the only yes vote that I'm casting, it's not perfect, and I am loathe to amend the State Constitution, but gerrymandering is out of control in this state, so this is a reasonable and needed step to fix that.

Also, the California Voter Foundations' site is much more comprehensive with more links than the official ballot site. Here's the Calvoter.org page for the propositions, I find illuminating the breakdown of who is spending what in support or opposition of each proposition, you can tell a lot about a bill by who is funding the for and against.

And as far as Prop 8, I'm against marriage as a state institution, period, gay, straight, I think it's all wrong. there should be civil contracts separate from marriage, then marriage can be a sacrament if your faith considers it one, rather than the strange quasi-state, quasi-religious institution it has become. So, if the prop had banned all marriage, I'd be for it, but most aren't on the 'end all state sanctioning of marriage, period' bandwagon just yet.

Chip Ahoy said...

Hey! This here comment box has changed and I do not react to changes very well.

* adapts to changed comment box *

There. That wasn't so bad.

This list of propositions and the votes for and against them confound my ability to categorize, and that's a good thing, because political categorization is bollox. It shows a degree of level headed thinking that is rarely seen among a largely partisan electorate. Here, have yourself a cheer.

* cheers *

Pal2Pal said...

I've already voted, I voted Yes on #4, #8, and #12. No on all the rest. The other 3 voters in my household voted the same.

madawaskan said...

So basically Jack has more sympathy for the chickens than he does the Vets.

Yes! to more spacious cages for chickens-whatever the cost! but on the Vet proposition he gets squirrelly.

Just joking sorta but I think Jack is a Republicanophobe.

He's to the right of me and my Irish Dem relatives who think I'm Attila the Hun.

This is par for the course with a lot of Democrats though-with local politics they are more conservative because hey! it might really effect them! personally on the federal level though they send Democrats to Washington to you know, spend the other people's money.

I know a Republican campaign worker in California he says most people don't realize that they are Republicans and what will suse them out at times is referendums that are not tied specifically to an individual politician that has been demonized as the nasty old republican.

Well he's retired now-he use to work for Governor Davis-your son aligns almost -right along with him-except for the chicken part-

Gasp!

m00se said...

Wow - like the new comments box!

Now - which Prop is it that lets me marry my couch?

Ann Althouse said...

Hey, new comment box ate my comment!

Ann Althouse said...

What I tried to say, other than that I like new comment box, is that it's not "Jack," it's Chris. And, anyway, it's Jac, not "Jack."

ricpic said...

Yes on #4, #6 and #8. No on all the rest.

SteveR said...

Did we get a new post a comment format?

holdfast said...

Seems like a moderate, Gen Y voter.

The chicken stuff is dumb - I would prefer humane treatment, but it will just be a job killer.

Donn said...

By the way, I recently read a front page article in the local paper stating the *for* Prop 8 side is outspending *against* Prop 8, but in the last few minutes I've seen three no on Prop 8 ads. Nobody, but nobody, outspends the CTA when it comes to politics.

integrity said...

Our budget is a disaster, so I voted no on everything. There are huge costs involved in most cases, and the cost estimates provided in the voter's guide are usually way too low.

Chip Ahoy said...

Chicken farmers will be forced to embiggen all the spaces for battery chickens so that they can turn around, flap a bit, and air out their wings. Then, they'll label their product free range because then the chickens will be able to get their beaks on an occasional bug that passes through. So it's win / win.

former law student said...

Prop 2. will raise the price of California produced eggs by 25%, thus will eliminate low cost California produced eggs in favor of "cruel" eggs from other states and Mexico. (Eggs are cheapest source of animal protein, and only animal protein source available with WIC coupons.) Will not affect veal, beef, or pork production as currently practiced in California. Vote no.

Prop 6: Robs Peter to pay Paul by earmarking funds for prisons in perpetuity. Legislature is already hamstrung by such earmarking. Let the legislature determine budget priorities year to year (even if they suck at it.) Vote no.

Prop 9: Prisons already suck up enough of California's budget. Vote no.
Prop 7: Ambiguously enough worded to penalize rooftop solar generators. Vote no.
Prop 11: Currently districts are drawn to maintain status quo. Keep two-party government in California. Vote no.
Prop 12: Similar bonds have been approved since 1922. Don't deny Iraqi vets the same benefits their predecessors enjoyed. These are loans, not giveaways. Vote yes.

Jana said...

Prop. 2 will drive business out of state. Bad move in a down economy.

AJ Lynch said...

Is it just chickens that are freed? Did RRHardin lobby for this proposition? What about the little veals?

madawaskan said...

I dunno but I think Jack could go choke the chicken and then hug a vet-that way he could feel better.

[sorry it's just too good to pass up...]

madawaskan said...

Wait it's Chris-damn I'm confused.

Well still I think Jack should answer for this damn it!

former law student said...

What about the little veals?

California's veal industry is negligible. Ann's Wisconsin was the historic home to veal cruelty.

AJ Lynch said...

Prop. 11 could eliminate gerrymandering which only serves to keep these incumbent scum suckers in office year after year after year. Vote yes. It is change we need in most states.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Christopher is absolutely right on every single proposition, although I am still deciding on Prop 11. It's nice to have a new resident to my state who brings such intelligence and all the right votes! Thank you.

For those of you who would vote "yes" on Prop 8 (thank god most of you don't live here), you are very wrong and very misguided, and I would like to say something brutally cruel about your judgment, but I will not. Have a nice day.

madawaskan said...

Man still I don't have it-it's Jac . I thought that was an acronym for his blog.

Still he's a Tori Amis fan and should be caged.

PJ said...

I'd agree with CAC on all but 2 and maybe 3. The chicken thing would probably do more harm to people than good for chickens; it can be justified (if at all) only on "not in my name" grounds. Sadly, I have become deeply suspicious of any spending proposal that refers to "children." I would bet that less than half the money will actually be spent on delivering services to children, and I would vote no unless I had some damn persuasive assurances on that point. Otherwise, if the thing passes, you'll likely be seeing "[Your town here] Children's Hospital -- for children of all ages!"

UWS guy said...

more prisons are not a good thing. Your son is all for the civil rights of rich white gay people to marry(as am I) but then he goes and "pulls an Obama" on poor and minorties by giving the state more money to strip them of theirs by locking them up for non violent drug crimes!

I'm dead serious. If gays are not willing to stand up for the civil rights of those jailed by prohibition, I may have to change my vote on prop. 8 from "no" to "yes".

*"pull an Obama" = throw someone under the bus

AJ Lynch said...

It is too bad that more states don't let their voters cast a vote on important propositions like these.

Michael McNeil said...

Prop 2: Oh, yeah, right. On the eve of a severe recession or even depression, mandate greatly increasing the expenses of farms and farmers, which will likely drive some out of business or force them to lay off workers. Great work.

Why are people so stupid?

Donn said...

ZPS:
For those of you who would vote "yes" on Prop 8 (thank god most of you don't live here), you are very wrong and very misguided, and I would like to say something brutally cruel about your judgment, but I will not.

As a 4th generation Californian, I will be happy to cast my vote for yes on 8. I couldn't care less what you think about that.

former law student said...

Prop. 11 could eliminate gerrymandering which only serves to keep these incumbent scum suckers in office year after year after year. Vote yes. It is change we need in most states.

In California, gerrymandering serves to keep Republican seats in the state legislature. Remember Cal is the bluest of blue states nowadays. Voting yes will insure >67% Democrats in the state House and Senate, followed by insanely unrealistic budgets year after year, as unionized teachers and firefighters get paid whatever they like. (Prison guards already get paid whatever they like.)

UWS guy said...

Hmm...bit strident on my part. I will be voting no on 8(so many pro 8 yard signs...the design of which is pure genius).

FLS: is right on every point and he could be my twin come nov. 4th

Donna B. said...

Yes to 11, no to the rest. #12 sounds like it extends new benefits to all vets, not just making the same available to the Iraq vets that former vets got.

I'm generally for loosening laws to ease prison crowding, but I don't like the idea of a "drugs made me do it" loophole either. Decriminalize drugs and a lot of the problems would go away.

It's a little strange that deportation of criminals is seen as a way of making prison space available. That's just about the same as hoping they'll show up in Arizona next time they cross the border. It's setting them free.

blake said...

So, does "Hell, no" count twice?

Quayle said...

For those of you who would vote "yes" on Prop 8 (thank god most of you don't live here), you are very wrong and very misguided, and I would like to say something brutally cruel about your judgment, but I will not. Have a nice day.

Discretion is the better part of valor. You are good to refrain.

I look forward to the day when people can take macro social/moral/political stands without unhesitatingly and reactively being labeled a hater.

I also look forward to the day that a person’s world view would be considered as context to their political/moral/social stands, in deciding what their motives are.

Two good people can have two very different methods of expressing that goodness, and it doesn’t necessarily follow that one has a bad heart or is acting in bad faith.

I would vote yes on 8. I think it is the better way long-term.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

madawaskan: First of all, her name is Tori Amos, not Tori Amis. Second of all, chickens get a taste of your meat, girl.

My name is Chris, not Jack. I don't even know anyone named Jack.

former law student said...

#12 sounds like it extends new benefits to all vets, not just making the same available to the Iraq vets that former vets got.

To be precise, #12 helps enable the extension of old benefits to all vets, which makes the same old benefits available to the Iraq vets that former vets got.

Funding for aid under the Veterans' Farm and Home Purchase Act of 1974, is apparently running low, thus a new bond proposition must be passed to continue funding. So previous generations of vets had the opportunity to purchase homes with low interest loans, but the current generation may not.

The state sells bonds, which enables low interest loans to vets, who pay the interest and principal, which pays off the bonds.

Methadras said...

Zachary Paul Sire said...

For those of you who would vote "yes" on Prop 8 (thank god most of you don't live here), you are very wrong and very misguided, and I would like to say something brutally cruel about your judgment, but I will not. Have a nice day.


Any initiative measure that sets you aflame in histrionic vituperations is a measure that has something going for it. Anything to see you act even more like the immature infant you are is a good initiative. Anything that strikes at the heart of your irrationality is a good initiative.

blake said...

Jeez, whycome all you moonbatty types sound so reasonable talking about California politics?

I have a general "no" policy on any bond. Spend some of that $113B on hospitals and veterans and prisons, if that's what you want to do with it. Don't borrow more.

I also have a general "no" policy, paradoxically perhaps, on any earmarking. It paralyzes the legislators, for better or worse.

I'm inclined to vote no on eight, but the "no" commercials are irritating the piss out of me. (Haven't seen a single "yes" commercial or sign.)

And I have a general policy against voting for any law I can't read and understand. If ignorance of the law is to not be an excuse, the law has to be comprehensible. (It also needs to be manageable: HA!)

lurker80 said...

"I think the solution is to prison overcrowding is to build more prisons and deport all the illegal immigrants who are in those prisons."

Your son is wonderful! Nice to hear a rational perspective after living among the hippies of San Francisco for a year.

Did you know that they're considering decriminalizing prostitution in San Francisco? So not only will residents have to deal with homeless people defecating on their sidewalks, they'll have to accept the increase in drug use and other crimes that are associated with prostitution. Way to go hippies!

I'm voting no on everything that costs more money. I can't believe that CA can take so much of my money and need a $7 billion loan from the government. Forget all your social programs, they don't help anyways.

As for prop. 2, I would be in favor of banning the selling of chicken eggs altogether since forcing chickens to lay eggs is cruel. But hey, this is a step in the right direction.

I too will vote "hell, no" on prop. 8. And "hell, no" on prop. 4.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

My special message to people against Prop 8.

Revenant said...

Prop 1A: Hell no.

Prop 2: DBQ is right; all this would do is chase business out of state. No.

Prop 3: No.

Prop 4: If it was a law I'd say yes. Since it is a constitutional amendment, I vote no.

Prop 5: I'd say yes if it didn't include more spending for treatment, but since it does I say no.

Prop 6: Yes, if only for the anti-illegals provisions.

Prop 7: No. The goals are impossible and trying to meet them will waste a lot of money.

Prop 8: Hell no.

Prop 9: No.

Prop 10: No.

Prop 11: Yes. Anything to make it harder to gerrymander.

Prop 12: No. This should be, and is, done at the federal level.

Revenant said...

Remember Cal is the bluest of blue states nowadays.

It is solidly blue, sure, but it isn't New York. Kerry won the state 55-45, for example, which means only 5% of voters would have needed to change their minds to switch the state.

John K. said...

Christopher is "hell no" on caging chickens and "hell yes" on caging people for non-violent offenses.

All these opportunities to vote on all these different issues and impose your will on all those fellow citizens. It's a statist's wet dream. What have you been feeding that kid?

On gay marriage, for a different perspective Christopher might want to check out the article "Gay Marriage Sucks," by the openly gay Justin Raimondo, at
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/gay_marriage_sucks/

Duscany said...

Why a "hell no" for Prop. 8? I'm saving all my hell no's for perderasts trying to lower the age of consent

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Upon further review, Prop 5 should be a YES, Chris. You might want to rethink that and talk to some people working in California's prison system, which is in complete and utter disarray, and not because of illegal immigrants.

OldGrouchy said...

Althouse asks: "Is he wrong about any of this?" Interesting question! The real question for us readers is whether we individually agree with him on each proposition.

Chris is right in that the views he's expressed are his. His views are of interest to some but not to me. And, since the actual proposition is not stated, we can only infer what it is from his comments, presuming that those are in fact his comments!

But, then since I've read the Prof's post, my view varies from Chris's in some regards but not necessarily in others.

Ps: I like the new format for posting comments on blogger! Neat, eh!

Joe said...

Is there a way the rest of the country can vote to tell California to go to hell when begging for money. Seriously. California does all sorts of crazy socialist bullshit and then whines when they don't have money to pay for it.

Ann Althouse said...

I think the proposition approach to lawmaking is terrible, so if I were in California, I'd have a strong presumption of "no" for everything. Only when I felt very sure of the answer would I vote yes. I kind of like the "yes" on 11.

I really think you should be very careful on the chicken thing. Chickens are very stupid, and there are a lot of jobs involved. And since the chicken business can go elsewhere... This isn't the right way to help the chicken community.

MadisonMan said...

What a ridiculous number of propositions to slog through while voting. (Why 1A and not 1?) No wonder the lines will be long on Election Day -- everyone is spending all that time reading in the booth! I personally would turn down any Prop. that requires spending money, due to the fiscal crisis looming over the state.

Re: Jack. Methinks you've been again confused with your brother jac. As a younger brother myself, I sympathize completely.

Methadras said...

Prop 1A: is a big fat no. Another boondoggle of an initiative that will have the same effect that the big red embarrassment we call the San Diego Trolley system, but cost scads more and it will not. We are a sprawling state and a high speed rail would need rights of way that aren't even defined and imminent domain issues that aren't even realized that would take years and years to even go through the courts.

Prop 2: As an animal lover I understand the emotional need to treat our food animals well. However, the imagery that is shown from PETA showing animals being abused is dreadful, but in my opinion isolated. For the most part this will in the long run increase food prices for everyone, but I am not unsympathetic, so I will most likely make my final decision in the voting booth. I just don't know yet.

Prop 3: Children's hospitals get a majority of their monies from private donations. It appears that those resources are running dry. I'm of two minds on this. This is another one I'm going to have to make a final decision on in the voting booth, but I suspect it will be no.

Prop 4: If a child can't take medication at school without parental permission or notification, then how is it possible that the medical procedure of killing an unborn human being shouldn't require parental notification? This is planned parenthoods feeble attempt at subversion of parental rights. I'm voting yes.

Prop 5: This is easy. I'm voting no.

Prop 6: There are already laws on the books that this initiative already addresses. Another prison guard leverage bill. No.

Prop 7: Are you kidding me? This is an envirokooks dream bill. No.

Prop 8: Yes. No explanation needed. This is also a big fuck you to the radical homosexual lobby and ZPS. I'll be thinking of you ZPS as I punch yes, you stupid slut.

Prop 9: Another way for the prison guard unions to gain leverage. Victims rights are a smoke screen. No.

Prop 10: In California they call this the 10 billion dollar bill. It's a dovetail with Prop 7 to subsidize multi-millionaire alternative energy producers who can't secure venture capital money from the private sector to run to government to ask the people to become their venture capitalists for them on technologies that are already outdated. It's a payoff. No.

Prop 11: Yes. Redistricting couldn't get any worse than it already is now. Let's give it a chance and see what shakes out. The cost is negligible.

Prop 12: I will ultimately vote no on this one. Not because I don't support vets, but because I don't support this vehicle that will squander almost all of money to help them. It will hurt both sides. Better to not have started a fire, then try to put one out. No.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. I'm also sticking it to ZPS. Thank you.

Sloanasaurus said...

I can't wait until California appeals to the Feds to bail them out. Maybe the Feds will suspend California's government for a while.

I bet Proposition 8 passes. There isn't enough incentives to get liberals to vote in California this election day. Obama already has California in the bag, and voting on gay marriage just isn't interesting unless your gay or opposed to it.

Ken Mitchell said...

As a California resident, I votED "No" on everything except 8 and 11. If the word "Bond" appeared in the text, I voted no. There are too many non-violent drug users in prison; I'd set them all free, and keep prison populations down by legalizing most drugs. (Drugged-up druggies don't commit that many crimes; it's needing to steal for their next "fix" that causes the problem, I think.)

What I really object to are three judges on the ballot, running unopposed. I voted against EVERY incumbent, and if there were a way to reject every current politician and start fresh with a new crop of crimina\\\\\politicians, I'd do it.

Bob said...

Vote no to everything except #8. Yes to that because its plain stupid to have to tell the political body a second time that we don't agree with your social reengineering.

Oh, and vote yes for #12 because I'm a vet so I want the special interest that actually put its ass on the line (so you all can vote) to actually get a tangible "Thank you!"

Ken Mitchell said...

Joe: Yes, you can tell California to go to hell, but what you REALLY want to do is to tell San Francisco and Los Angeles to go to hell. The rest of the state is as conservative as Kansas, and votes that way. Too bad the initiative to split California into two states didn't pass, about 15 years ago; Northern California has almost nothing in common with the south.

XWL said...

If Prop 8 passes, Obama will be to blame (partly). Black voters will turn out in unusually high numbers, and church going black folks aren't big fans of same sex marriage.

If Hillary had been on the ballot instead, the chances of defeating Prop 8 would have been better.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

This is also a big fuck you to the radical homosexual lobby and ZPS. I'll be thinking of you ZPS as I punch yes, you stupid slut.

I'm inclined to be flattered by your odd and completely unprovoked obsession with me, but I can't help but be a little creeped out. I'd love to give you the opportunity to speak this way to my face, seeing as we live so close to each other. Call me, I'm in the book.

Trumpit said...

If you vote against Prop. 2, you are a torturer, plain and simple. You disgust me as well.

UWS guy said...

did ZPS leave methandras at the alter in new Hampshire or something? Why so serious.

Revenant said...

I can't wait until California appeals to the Feds to bail them out. Maybe the Feds will suspend California's government for a while.

They'll be bailing us out with our own money; Californians pay tens of billions of dollars more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

Trumpit said...

Methadras,

Some people, like you, do deserve to be stoned to death to spare the civilized your wretchedness. Sorry, you vomitous lost cause, but your asshole bible got it ass-backwards. Oh, yeah, while I'm at it, you're a disgraceful asshole, too.

MadisonMan said...

BTW, if Utah money is causing the big Yes on 8 vote, why doesn't Hollywood just boycott Utah to retaliate? No more skiing. Isn't the Sundance Film Festival in Utah? Axe it. Robert Redford would understand.

I write this not knowing if all the money is coming from Utah or not.

madawaskan said...

Prop 12 is a loan assistance program and only vets that served during an active war are eligible-that's what I am being told by my Cali contacts.

So Chris-you could be misrepresenting the facts.

Jennifer said...

Prop 6 would make the state's budget problems much worse. Every year, Californians enact initiatives that further lock in state spending, leaving less discretionary revenue to support all the state programs that are not mandated by the constitution. This would not be a problem if people were willing to pay for these increased costs. But they aren't, they just want more services for the same (or less) revenues. The programs whose funds Prop 6 would etch in stone have never been proven effective, they are pork projects that were put in place when revenues were up. What's worse is that few states with determinate sentencing still also require parole. California is one of them, and this measure would make parole a requirement of serving a prison sentence, rather than an optional tool to monitor offender actions after release.

I have little faith that voters will be able to look beyond the "safe neighborhoods" title of the initiative and examine it critically, but hope that people in CA at this point are fed up enough with the plethora of stupid initiatives that make the ballot every 6 months to vote no.

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Quayle said...

California Mormon money is driving this probably more than Utah Mormon money. There are 700,000 Mormons in California out of 6 million in the US and Canada.

I would vote yes on Prop. 8 because every child has a right to be raised, nurtured, and influenced by all of the distinct natural attributes and characteristics of the female and the male of the species.

The left has told us over and over about the strength and value of diversity. Well, I argue that diversity of gender of parents should be preferred and upheld for the very reasons we’ve been told by the left should cause us to prefer and privilege diversity of society.

If diversity is good for the law students of University of Michigan, then it must be good for children growing up.

A vote of No on Prop. 8 shows that you don’t really believe in the value and strength of diversity.

Aluwid said...

MadisonMan,

When used in this manner "Utah" just means "Mormon".

But that's not accurate anyway. It's mainly California Mormons that are donating and volunteering, not Utah Mormons. The LDS Church isn't really pushing out-of-staters to help since that can be counter-productive to an internal state issue.

mcg said...

I'm voting "yes" on the proposition "Tori Amos is one freakin' weird chick."

mcg said...

I'm also voting "yes" on the proposition "Thank God I took my sorry ass and my assets out of that state."

Zachary Paul Sire said...

I write this not knowing if all the money is coming from Utah or not.

"Between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by the "Yes" campaign has come from the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supporters of the measure say. "Yes" campaigners say the Mormons are just one of many religious groups that support the ban."

That says "Utah-based" so I don't know if it technically means it's coming from Utah specifically.

I would vote yes on Prop. 8 because every child has a right to be raised, nurtured, and influenced by all of the distinct natural attributes and characteristics of the female and the male of the species.

How is two dudes getting married and going on with their lives in a committed relationship going to take away the "rights" of children being raised by a man and a woman? Completely mind boggling.

Jennifer said...

Also, there are a lot of Mormon chicken ranchers in California. Coincidence? I think not.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

You would think that society would want all families, no matter their configuration, to be led by two committed, monogamous people, regardless of their gender. Regardless if kids were involved or not. Stability is the key.

But no, let's keep them gays single and loose, promiscuous, out there doing who knows what with God knows who! This way, we can demonize them for being sinners and abnormal.

Then, when they try to settle down and be like us, we can still demonize them by calling them activists and accusing them of trying to turn kids gay by reading books about Kings and Kings in schools.

Rose said...

Prop 5 should be an absolute NO - we already have Drug Court - and, at least in our area, the DA is diverting real criminals into drug court just to get 'em out of his hair... 3 pounds of heroin? Pled down to possession... Burglary? drop those charges and get him on possession...

Then there's Prop 36 on top of Drug Court - both of which are a monumental waste of resources - Prop 36 was opposed by many people in the rehabilitation industry because it took out any teeth they had to be able to help people - in Our county they dismiss all the burglary and assault charges and leave the possession charges - then there's no way to incarcerate them - they go into treatment they DON'T want in order to stay out of jail... takes a couple of years of more offenses through their probation period and they finally end up back in...

The thing about treatment is that you have to want it - they don't want it - it isn't going to help them - hell, even if YOU WANT it, it's hard to rehabilitate yourself.... Imagine if you wanted to lose 30 pounds, but you just can't - now the state says you HAVE TO - can you do it?... Even if you WANT TO? Then look at all the people who DO want it, but can't get in because of limited resources, tied up by these two, it's a recipe for disaster... the good ones are on waiting lists...

Prop 5 adds another level of futility and it allows for early release - it is a way of the CA Prison system purging themselves of people who can't make it on the outside - these aren't people who are in there because they smoke dope on their couch....

It's also being pushed by George Soros who ought to get his meddling puddy paws out of politics. I wonder what nephew he may have in prison that he wants top get out?

Quayle said...

How is two dudes getting married and going on with their lives in a committed relationship going to take away the "rights" of children being raised by a man and a woman? Completely mind boggling.

Because when a "married" man and man adopt a child, (1) that child has no say in whether he or she wants to be adopted by a gay couple, and (2) that child has thereby lost their right to be raised and influenced by a female parent.

I kindly ask: how, honestly, does that boggle the mind?

Again, if diversity is important to the University of Michagan Law School, it must be important to a child growing up.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Because when a "married" man and man adopt a child, (1) that child has no say in whether he or she wants to be adopted by a gay couple, and (2) that child has thereby lost their right to be raised and influenced by a female parent.

1. Gay men can adopt children, whether they are married or not.

2. What about single heterosexual men or single heterosexual women, should they be banned from raising children as well?

3. Would it be preferable to have children remain orphans and moved around in foster homes, or raised in a stable two-parent household?

Quayle said...

ZPS, obviously we talking about what is optimal, and what, therefore, we should hold up as law.

Recognizing that the perfect can often be the enemy of the good, I'd certainly admit that some arrangements are better than others, in the group of possibilities you listed.

But should we totally ignore that there is an optimal arrangement? Should we deny what we instinctively know?

It is a tough question, and I know it is a hard line to say that one has fewer rights if one doesn't do something the optimal way.

But we do that all the time in law and constitution.

For example: a pro se criminal defense, if done poorly, doesn't give the defendent the right to a retrial with a lawyer.

People make decisions and lose rights all the time in our society. But we allow it for the common good of the whole.

That's the best I have on this.

Paul Zrimsek said...

You know, this conversation doesn't help my chickens.

Cedarford said...

Prop 2 - Yes on humanely raised livestock. One does not have to be a PETA supporter to wish for certain enhancements in raising animals capable of suffering and pain. Nor is it likely to be a competitive advantage if store owners agree to a standard of humanely raised (by minimal state standards) animal products.

Prop 3 - No. Children already get a disproportionate amount of medical R&D money, medical care facilities. If you want to fix something, pay a visit to long-term care facilities for incapacitated indigenents. They can be horrific.

Prop 4 - If you need parental consent for a Midol tablet, you should have it for consenting to a surgical procedure that carries a small risk of major complications, even death of the kid. I understand that the possibility of rape or child abuse is already covered in CA law and initiates an immediate intervention when allegations of such are made - and transfers "permission" authority to child protective services and courts. That is adequate. "Concerns" about the one in a thousand bad parent is just a red herring to deprive regular parents of guardianship in case of abortion to the state determining what to do.

Prop 8 - Yes. Voters already rejected gay marriage. The only reason it is a Prop, is Leftist Lawyers in Robes attempted to meddle - effectively saying - "You stupid voters have no right to interfere with the Gay Agenda..you can't be serious." Prop 8 is as much about turning back judicial overreach as it is about reaffirming voter choice.

Chris's other choices, and his reasoning, I find no argument with.

Zachary Paul Sire said...

If this were really about children, as Yes on 8 people are making it, then why aren't they targeting the more damaging effect on children: divorce? Let's make it unconstitutional to get divorced, for the sake of the kids.

The fact is, gay men and women will continue to have relationships and will continue to raise children whether or not Prop 8 passes. Prop 8 people are fighting a losing battle.

And by the way, I wasn't raised by gay parents but I ended up gay anyways, so...

Revenant said...

You would think that society would want all families, no matter their configuration, to be led by two committed, monogamous people, regardless of their gender.

I wouldn't think that. Why would society want families led by two people of the same gender? Why not, three or four, either of mixed genders or all the same gender?

Gay marriages ought to be recognized, but it does no good to snark about how people who oppose recognition are somehow anti-family.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

Ugh, now I don't like the Mormons anymore. They seemed so sweet and innocent. Should we boycott In-N-Out Burger?

Trumpit said...

Yes. Voters already rejected gay marriage. - Loserford

This proposition has to do with same sex marriage. And what the voters already may have rejected is not a rationale to accept or reject this bigoted, faux family values bullshit. You're a bigot cederford, so I hope Obama wins for so you have to live with a black president. Next we will elect a lesbian hispanic Jewish president. Just for you.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

'Because when a "married" man and man adopt a child, (1) that child has no say in whether he or she wants to be adopted by a gay couple, and (2) that child has thereby lost their right to be raised and influenced by a female parent.'


This is almost too obvious to even bother making, but hey a child has no say in whether or not he or she wants to be adopted by a straight couple, either.

Furthermore, since when are children supposed to be able to choose their parents or anything about their parents, in any context? The "right" to choose your parents? What a ridiculous argument with a completely made-up "right" that no one could possibly believe exists!

Also, stop telling me that I should vote against gay marriage because once in the past California voted against gay marriage. What kind of an argument is that? I am a voter in the present, I'm not committed to the beliefs that other voters expressed in the past, nor do I have any social obligation to reflect their views. Even if you yourself voted against gay marriage before, you have no obligation to stick to that. This again just seems like a made-up argument that could only sound like a relevant point to those who are already dead-set on that side to begin with. You need to stay away from the pattern of just immediately accepting any argument that is on the side you're already on.

And I like how you're all so concerned about the economy and make the point that you need to vote the fiscally conservative way and the way that is a good financial decision and put aside moral concerns (like not wanting animals to be tortured and wanting to help the sick) because the economy trumps those things, and then you vote in favor of Prop 8 when you know that gay marriage attracts much needed money to the state of California.

Trumpit said...

Saying Mormons did such and such, is risky. It's like saying Jews do A, B, & C. Cederford does that kind of garbage with great frequency. He is no one to emulate, needless to say.

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

"The left has told us over and over about the strength and value of diversity. Well, I argue that diversity of gender of parents should be preferred and upheld for the very reasons we’ve been told by the left should cause us to prefer and privilege diversity of society."

So I take it you think we need some more transgender parents, then. If "diversity of gender of parents" is what you're looking for I certainly don't think "one man and one woman" covers it. You've got a whole series of gender identities you've gotta throw into that family. You're gonna need some MTF, some FTM, some neuters, cross-dressers, sissy boys and bulldykes too. I guess it takes a village after all.

Trumpit said...

Gay couples will have children one way or another if they want them. No one can stop them legally or morally any more, unless the bigots get their way and pass more intrusive, hateful, family-destructive laws like this one.

Trumpit said...

Single people have kids, too, I think. That can happen by divorce or by the death of a spouse, as well.

Andrew said...

When in doubt, vote no. If the propositions were good to begin with, they would have passed in the legislature. If the courts struck laws down, it was likely for a good reason. Some propositions that are patently invalid under the federal constitution deserve better analysis:

Prop 6--Hell no. It centrailzes law enforcement activity at the state level. Administration of the programs would cost $1 billion in the first year alone. It creates a new hearsay exception, which would make admissible statements made by an unavailable witness if the defendant has "acquised" in intentional wrongdoing leading to the unavailability. Fourteen year old children will be tried as adults in "gang-related" crimes. Public housing residents will have to pass criminal-background checks. It makes trial of a 14-year old children more likely that 14-year-olds are tried as adults for gang-related convictions. Local district attorneys will receive greater authority to seek "gang injunctions," whose constitutionality is far from certain.

Prop 9--Hell no. It defines crime victims as any "person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act," as well as their family members and legal representatives. It gives crime victims the right "To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the defendant’s attorney." It would make all relevant evidence admissible at trial, and statutory exceptions to this broad grant of admissibility would require a 2/3 vote in the state legislature. Any and all prior felony convictions, juvenile and adult, shall be admissible for impeachment. It eliminates early release policies in overcrowded prisons. Prosecutors, parole officers, etc., must, at the request of "victims," consult with them at every stage of the litigation, and "victims" shall be allowed to speak at any proceeding. "Victims" must be notified of parole hearings and will be allowed to speak at them, on any subject they wish, and will not be subject to questioning. Students attending every level of schooling are declared to have an "inalienable right to attend campuses which are safe, secure and peaceful." It mandates that "Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss." And. . . prosecutors would have standing to invoke and enforce any of these rights, including the right to refuse to discovery requests.

chickenlittle said...

CAC wrote: Should we boycott In-N-Out Burger?

Your loss dude

chickenlittle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael McNeil said...

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff (1930), if it had (or could have) been set up as a voter proposition while being defended as “saving the children” and adult laborers in all countries that don't have oh-so good labor laws, would still have been idiotic to pass on the eve of the Great Depression — which it helped create — regardless of how much its advocates would scream that one is simply “pro-child labor” if one doesn't vote aye.

Thus, all the talk about how one is simply a “torturer” if you don't vote for prop. 2 at this particularly delicate moment in time is bullshit — idiotic bullshit.

I suggest waiting until times are good before attempting to kill off farms and farmers en masse in this state.

Andrew said...

For excellent coverage of the propositions, you should check out the McGeorge School of Law's California Initiative Reivew, http://www.mcgeorge.edu/x1350.xml. Students at McGeorge's Capital Center for Government Law & Policy summarize the propositions, and analyze the changes that they make to existing law, as well as legal issues presented by the propositions.

chickenlittle said...

Revenant wrote: Californians pay tens of billions of dollars more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

yeah-notice how they always fundraise here, but never bring the bacon back?

Alice AN said...

I just scrolled down to Prop 8. He says, "hell No", so his judgment is sound IMHO.

chickenlittle said...

I must say that if I were to vote yes on 8 it would be to stick it to Zach, and not to the actual gay/lesbians I know.

Oh, and to Gavin (any-two-some) Newsom.

Trumpit said...

michael mcneil,

You are a sadist. Someone should put you in a cage so small that you can't move, and see how you like it. You are dumber than a chicken, too. I hate having to insult you bastards, but what choice do I have. There was no reasoning with the Gestapo or the Nazis either. They had to be destroyed to save mankind.

Donn said...

Trumpit:
There was no reasoning with the **** or the *** either. They had to be destroyed to save mankind.

Spoken like a true Nazis.

Revenant said...

If the propositions were good to begin with, they would have passed in the legislature.

Not in THIS state. Our legislators have zero interest in passing good laws; their seats are much too secure for them to worry about that sort of thing.

Trumpit said...

Christians are worse than chickens, so they should be put in cages so small that they can't move. If would fit perfectly with their tiny little minds.

Donn said...

Christians are worse than chickens, so they should be put in cages so small that they can't move. If would fit perfectly with their tiny little minds.

ROTFLMAO....good one Trumpit!

Trumpit said...

You're welcome! :)

chickenlittle said...

ZPS wrote: Let's make it unconstitutional to get divorced, for the sake of the kids.

Please stop taking your childhood out on the rest of us.

Please.

Michael McNeil said...

“Trumpit” beclowns himself.

Alphonse said...

1A. He's right about it not addressing urban issues, but he's still wrong. If the trains substitute for flights and car trips, oil dependency and greenhouse emissions will be usefully addressed. If he's been to Europe, he can't have noticed their trains.

5 & 9. Jails are schools for crime. People come out badder than they went in. If drug use hurts no one directly, where's the need to keep us safe from users by locking them up? Only one thing deters crime significantly - the likelihood of getting caught. Spend the money on policing and community police support instead.

7. Only 'unrealistic' to the extent that your son and others are contributing to making it so. Displays a profound ignorance of the state of play with renewable energy and insufficient concern about greenhouse effects.

American Liberal Elite said...

"I think the proposition approach to lawmaking is terrible, so if I were in California, I'd have a strong presumption of "no" for everything."

Amen. Why even have a legislature if you are going to govern by referendum? I would support a ballot initiative ghat would amend the state constitution to make it much harder to place an initiative on the ballot.

MadisonMan said...

Also, stop telling me that I should vote against gay marriage because once in the past California voted against gay marriage. What kind of an argument is that? I am a voter in the present

Excellent point.

lurker80 said...

What's wrong with protecting chickens during economic crisis? People have been quoting that it's 25% more expensive to generate eggs this way. That's based on a LA Times article that states that FREE RANGE chickens cost 20% more to produce and 25% more to buy. But we're not talking about free range chickens. We're talking about giving chickens cages with enough room to stand up and turn around!

Plus, if the figures were comparable, then perhaps the extra 5% that producers charge that represents pure profit will help offset the cost of people seeking out-of-state chicken eggs.

I wish that the regulation applied to imported chicken eggs too, but this proposition is an excellent start.

mcg said...

Also, stop telling me that I should vote against gay marriage because once in the past California voted against gay marriage. What kind of an argument is that? I am a voter in the present

Depends why you're voting for or against it. I could potentially see someone who has no strong opinion about gay marriage switching his vote from "no" to "yes" over what was perceived as a thwarting of the democracy by Gavin Newsom and the California courts. But obviously that would have to be someone who doesn't feel particularly strongly about gay marriage either way.

mcg said...

If I were dick-tater I'd tighten up traditional marriage considerably. I'd eliminate no-fault divorce and prenuptual agreements for starters. I'd require adoption and foster care agencies to give documentable priority to married couples.

Then I'd create a civil union structure that was open to any couple, same-sex or opposite-sex, of consenting age. Community property would be optional (but specified at the commencement of the union), and "divorce" would be no-fault. In effect it would be a slightly looser structure than marriage but more widely available.

I would anticipate that most churches, certainly conservative ones, would support only this marriage model.

The one thing I'm a bit unsure about is what happens if a child is born within a civil union. My inclination is to upgrade that union to marriage automatically. But there are issues involved there and since I don't anticipate being dictator any time soon I'm choosing not to bother to work them out.

TosaGuy said...

Regarding Prop 12, I am a veteran and would also vote NO (provided it is the blanket proposal as described). We should definately help needy veterans but a blanket givaway just turns vets into another gov't gimme group in the eyes of many. Wisconsin does provide some very good veterans benefits at the state level, but the state is overly broad in how a veteran is defined. I know people who were in the army for 2 years in the late 1980s and never deployed who now go to college on the state's dime. The program in question was put in place for Iraq/Afghanistan vets, but the state's loose definition of who is a veteran expanded the program from that original intent and drastically raised the cost. This aspect could potentially limit funds from smaller programs that target the neediest veterans. These are the programs that would lose out when the political will to fund vet programs wanes in the future. Throwing money around to help everybody usually doesn't do much good to those who need it the most.

former law student said...

Once again, Prop 12 is not a giveaway. It's like an industrial revenue bond in that it lets veterans borrow money for homes at the low rate the state pays. The rate is low because the bond buyers don't have to pay federal income tax on the interest. Since 1922 the bonds have not cost the California taxpayer a red cent. Voting no helps no one; it only hurts the brave men and women currently serving in the Middle East.

Prop 2 - Yes on humanely raised livestock. One does not have to be a PETA supporter to wish for certain enhancements in raising animals capable of suffering and pain. Nor is it likely to be a competitive advantage if store owners agree to a standard of humanely raised (by minimal state standards) animal products.

The scary PETA commercial scenes of heifers being prodded by forklifts are already illegal. Passage of Prop 2. will not make California-produced eggs free range. The only change will be that cages that now hold six hens will in future only hold four. Once again, hens' feet will never touch a barnyard. The increased costs to house the same number of hens will cause the 25% increase in retail price.

Ann should discuss the Commerce Clause issues that will allow "cruel" eggs to enter the state even though such practices would be forbidden in California.

Right now, "Rocky" the pseudo-range chicken costs three times what a Foster Farms chicken does. I don't think either store owners or low income earners want to spend more for some nominal improvement in chicken contentment.

Trumpit said...

FLS,

You suck. You are justifying animal abuse, for greedy financial gain. You need to take a class in ethics and common human decency. You suck, like I said. Shame on you, too. You don't speak for poor people either, so shut up. You are a brutal person without humanity. You suck. Now, I will go feed the happy chickens that live in my backyard and produce eggs for me. The LEAST I can do if treat them right. Some water, some feed, a place to peck and scratch, a warm jacket for when it gets cold, a bird jacuzzi and sauna...flying lessons...

mcg said...

You are justifying animal abuse, for greedy financial gain.

Uh, no, he's saying that this law won't end the abuse, it will just send it to jurisdictions outside of California's control.

Trumpit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trumpit said...

mcg , you need to exit the state (of consciousness) immediately. you have nothing to say about everything. I'm annoyed with you. can you be put in a small cage and be left to die? Or be flung around by a wing, until you are broken in two?

Trumpit said...

Anyone who wants to see the horrible things that go on routinely in factory farms can go to youtube.com and search around. Your stomach will turn if you have an ounce of compassion in your body. Chickens have their becks brutally cut off so they can't peck, etc. This proposition on the California ballot is just the beginning. It is a no-brainer even for FLS who has a chicken brain.

Trumpit said...

I've heard this argument repeatedly to justify evil, that if you decide to do the right thing that it will just happen elsewhere. The economic argument is that business will be drived to a place with lax ethical standards and you will have accomplished nothing except to lose the local economic benefit. LOOK busters this is a BOGUS argument for continuing evil. The evil has to STOP. Are you suggesting that people who live in Arizona are willing to tolerate animal abuse and people in California don't? Then fix the sick minds of the Christian people who live in McCain-land and his 7 forgotten houses. STOP the bogus arguments around here. I'm sick and tired of faulty logic and stupidty.

Maxine Weiss said...

Very simple:

NO on everything !

But, why are people who've lived in CA less than 6 months allowed to vote on these things ?????

molly said...

Yikes. I hadn't thought of doing it, but after reading some of the comments on this post I had to give five bucks to No on 8. Maybe the real importance of the label of marriage is so people will be less inclined to trash gay people like this.

Trumpit said...

Anyway, Prop. 2 could have said that any poultry or eggs SOLD in California has to meet certain conditions of having been humanely raised. That would defeat the bogus argument of having the egg and poultry business being driven out-of-state.

mcg said...

Poor trumpit. I'm beginning to think some of his best buddies are trapped in those little cages.

mcg said...

Anyway, Prop. 2 could have said that any poultry or eggs SOLD in California has to meet certain conditions of having been humanely raised.

Yes, it could have. It doesn't. Why is that?

That would defeat the bogus argument of having the egg and poultry business being driven out-of-state.

No, but it might help to rectify the problems with the bill. Good intentions don't trump bad law, chicken-lover.

Hey Trumpit, why don't you go take your rage out on the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle. That group of right-wing fundamentalist Christian chicken-hating baby seal clubbers are on record recommending a NO on Prop 2.

Or if you're closer to LA than SF, head into the LA Times. They say the same thing. Damn nutjobs.

gregq said...

Prop 4: A constitutional amendment requiring that an underage girl can't get an abortion until 48 hours after her parents have been notified of her intent to get an abortion. There's an exception for "medical emergency" or "parental waiver" but not for child abuse or rape. I'm voting no.

If a child is raped or abused, the parents damn well better be informed. In which case you can get a "parental waiver", no?

He's wrong, and full of crap.

molly said...

What if a parent is the one doing the raping?

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

Greg/Molly: Yeah, the point was basically the question that always gets asked with this type of bill: if a teenage girl has been raped by her father, and is pregnant with her father's baby, should the government force that teenage girl to tell her father that she is planning to abort his baby?

mcg said...

I agree that should be the exception to the rule. But the remedy isn't to screw it up for everyone else.

If things were as they should be, this proposition would be to add a judicial bypass exception to the otherwise entirely non-controversial existing practice of parental consent. And it would pass overwhelmingly. In fact, it wouldn't even be a proposition because even the California legislature would have the balls to pass it themselves.

You have to get a parent's permission to get a friggin' tattoo in California, for goodness sakes. But all you need to undergo an even more invasive medical procedure is a sympathetic guidance counselor with a car.

Revenant said...

if a teenage girl has been raped by her father, and is pregnant with her father's baby, should the government force that teenage girl to tell her father that she is planning to abort his baby?

First of all, the proposition requires that the *physician* notify the parents.

Secondly, in the event of alleged parental rape the physician is to (a) report the rape to the authorities and (b) notify a *different* adult family member.

So the notion that girls made pregnant as a result of rape by their fathers will be obligated to tell their fathers about the pregnancy and abortion is complete nonsense. No such thing will be required by this proposition: the girl doesn't have to talk to anyone but her physician, and NOBODY needs to talk to the rapist.

It could be argued that the law forces the girl to choose between concealing the rape and having an abortion, certainly. But society has no interest in helping people, even victims, conceal incestuous rape.

chuck b. said...

Is it me, or is there a Children's Hospital bond on the ballot every fucking year?!

California tries to pay for everything with bonds. Using general revenues is out of the question.

Be grateful you don't vote in San Francisco. We have 22 local propositions this year, A-V. It's ridiculous.

(I mean, more ridiculous than usual.)

Christopher Althouse Cohen said...

Revenant: I didn't see that part of it before, and that makes a difference but I still think that in those extreme cases the girl should have a right to privacy. What if all the adults in the family would go straight to the parents? You can't just assume there's a really cool uncle in every child-abusing family.

luagha said...

As someone who used to travel regularly between the Bay Area and LA I have been following the high speed rail plans since 1995. Basically, if they'd actually have gotten off their butts and did the work they started to plan they would have been done in 2005.

Instead, they used the same dodge that was used in New Orleans when it came time to redo the levees - they 'hire consultants to do a feasibility study' and spend their money jawing and planning and nothing gets done and the planning budget in the first few years is wasted with nothing to show for it.

If there was some guarantee that this money would actually result in a high speed rail system I'd be all for it, but as it is there's no guarantee it just won't be squandered like the original money.