Saturday, November 04, 2006

Moody Loner's Election Guide: November 2006, California

Yes, it's that time again. Sadly, due to moving I didn't get any election materials this time around so this election guide will cover the propositions and a few candidates, and no local issues. Everything else I'll have to decide in the voting booth, which usually means I'll be voting "no".

On the bright side, nobody paid me for any of these endorsements, either way.


That said, let's get into it. This will follow the usual format with the proposition number, my name for it, a quick answer, and a longer explanation. Afterwards, we'll cover a few candidates.

Propositions 1A-1E: Goddamn, Our State's Falling Apart

Quick answer: Reluctantly, oh so reluctantly, I vote yes.

Long answer: I don't want to vote for these bond measures. Never mind that this is Arnie's big push to regain legitimacy, I hate bond measures - passing off debt to the future - and these are some whopping big ones. And they'll be twice as big by the time we're through paying them off.

But you know, we need to do this. Our infrastructure is decaying, and it's only going to get worse. It's going to have to be done sometime, and the longer we put it off, the more expensive it will be.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but it needs to be done. Yes, even the housing and schools ones that are failing right now.

Prop 83: The Hell with our Civil Liberties, They're Child Molesters, Goddammit!

Quick answer: Oh, hell no.

Long answer: Why don't we just mandate that child molesters be imprisoned or institutionalized for life? There, problem solved. This proposition suggests that, due to the horrific nature of the crime committed, a criminal who has paid his debt to society has to, upon release, wear a GPS device that tracks his location for the rest of his or her life.

Apparently, I am the only person horrified by this. The proposition, incidentally, widens once again the definitions of child molestation and sexual offenses.

You're going to tell me how horrible it is that I would think of letting a child molester have one single, solitary civil right that he or she could possibly use to harm a child. Fine, don't come whining to me if your 19-year old son has to wear a GPS for the rest of his life because his 17-year-old girlfriend's parents caught them doing it. And the next time you're watching some teen coming-of-age movie (the genre being one of the many, many things I despise in this cherry-blossom world) understand that in the real world, they'd be fitting that understanding older woman with a tracking device like an animal.

So voting no on this.

Prop 84: Department of Redundancy Department Act.

Quick answer: I don't think so.

Long answer: I just swallowed $4 billion in bonds for disaster prevention and flood control, and now you want me to eat $5 billion more? Are you kidding me?

I know Katrina scared the crap out of you. It scared the crap out of me. California, however, isn't known for its hurricanes.

Look, if we really need this, if our flood control in this state is really that bad off, I'll eat my words, swallow my pride, and vote for it. Right now, though, I really don't think we need it.

Prop. 85: Deja Vu All Over Again Proposition.

Quick answer: What part of "Christ, no" do you theocrats not get?

Long answer: We just had this proposition last time. I swear to God, they just dusted it off and re-submitted it.

Look, some of you parents know how annoying a small child can be when they're testing their limits. You know how they ask for something they know you're not going to give them, over and over, barely pausing for breath between each whining demand?

I'd take six hours of that before another one of these God damned foot-in-the-door religious right nutjob propositions.

No. Goddammit, no. My daughter isn't growing up in a state where the government can tell her when she can or can't reproduce. Don't like it? Move to South Dakota.

Oh, you say you approve it because of your culture of life? Then get out there and oppose the war, and shut up and leave me alone.

Prop 86: Let's Beat More Money out of Smokers Act.

Quick answer: I don't know. Probably no.

Long answer: As it is, the state's getting more money from tobacco than the companies selling it. And we want to throw more on? Look, nobody likes smoking. Even my smoker friends hate smoking. But when is this jacking the price on the addicts because we can? We, as a state, are showing the same morality as the corner drug dealer.

On the other hand, if we're going to fund anything with a tax on tobacco, it should be programs to help people quit smoking. That way, the demand for the tax money decreases as the supply does.

Until the taxes get so high that people start buying illegal cigs 'cause they can't afford legal ones.

Looking at a no on this one.

Prop.87: Make Big Oil Pay Act.

Quick answer: Oh, I like this one. Time to pay for those record profits, Chevron.

Long answer: They pay more money to drill oil in Alaska than they do here. Hell, they pay more in Texas. Not particularly interested, since this last summer's record oil company profits, to hear about how they can't afford it. And I'm one that doesn't think that corporations pay their fair share anyway. They particularly don't like the part that makes it illegal to pass the costs on to us.

Yeah, anything that Chevron pays that much to advertise against must be a good idea.

Prop. 88: Weren't We Just Here? I Swear We Were Just Here.

Quick answer: Leaning yes.

Long answer: More money for education. At least they have the balls to raise taxes. It's not like I can't afford my rent going up fifty bucks a year, ad they actually address the people who can't. I like this a lot better structurally than I do another bond measure.

Prop. 89: Make Corporations Pay for Everyone's Political Campaign.

Quick answer: Oh, hell yes!

Long answer: While this doesn't nearly go far enough, I think that this is a good step towards a republic as our Founding Fathers envisioned - one where political offices were held by people who had jobs.

Sure, make the corps pay. It's not like they don't anyway, and this could wind up saving them money. Of course, they won't have a hold on specific candidates, but I'm sure their political donations are merely a way to express their interests, and not legalized bribery to control the political process in their favor.

Pardon me while I laugh bitterly.

Yeah, screw 'em. Besides, if this passes, there's better odds of a Moody Loner campaign. Not good odds, but better than they were. My enthusiastic endorsement - Yes on 89!

Prop. 90: Fuck the Environmentalists Act.

Quick answer: No, I don't think so.

Long answer: You know, once I knew a lovely hippie environmentalist girl, and I would not have minded fucking her
at all. But not like this.

This once again takes something we should all be concerned about - abuse of eminent domain by governments and developers - and uses it to let businesses and developers fuck us over. You'd think that some bigshot developer from New York would be behind this, and you'd be right. This is one of my biggest grapples with my libertarianism - much as I'd like to see a smaller, less invasive government, it assumes a benevolence and interest in the common good among corporations and the wealthy that I'm just not seeing.

And when the hell did issues like this become my decision, anyway? What the hell are we electing a state Legislature for?

Anyway, digressions aside, I'm sure there's a better answer to the eminent domain issue than this. Voting no.

Wow, that was all kinds of fun. Let's move on to my thoughts on some candidates. Anyone I don't mention, I don't have an opinion on.

Secretary of State: Debra Bowen. Do I have to tattoo it on your forehead? Because I will.
Governor: Reluctantly, Phil Angelides. More of a vote against Arnie.
Lt. Governor: John Garamendi.
Insurance Commissioner: Reluctantly, Cruz Bustamante. More of a vote against Steve "Mr. Negative" Poizner.
Attorney General: God, Jerry Brown got old and bald. What the hell happened?

Senate: Not Dick Mountjoy. Republicanism aside, think of the jokes. Not particularly happy with Feinstein, but she'll probably win without my vote anyway. Yes on 89.

Oh, if you're in CA-11, please vote for Jerry McNerney.

That's it for this one - I may add more local issues and candidates. And remember - paper ballots!


Anonymous said...

Your opinion about Ca. Prop. 90 is wrong!

Look, it bolls down to this - if you are for strengthening individual rights that will protect someone from having their property taken by the Gov. and handing it to another party for their private use then Vote Yes on Prop. 90. However, if your are for allowing Gov. to have free reign over its subjects requiring them to pursue very expensive litigation to seek a remedy for eminent domain abuse then vote no on prop. 90.

Moody Loner said...

I agree that the abuse of eminent domain needs to be addressed. I'm just not jumping at the first initiative that claims to be a cure, especially when the language of it leads me to believ that it will be just as bad as the problem it addresses.

This, by the way, is why I generally vote "no" on initiatives.