The Blarg

Prop 10 - ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

My Summary: From the LA Times: “Borrow $5 billion, most of it to be distributed as rebates to buyers of vehicles fueled by natural gas, hydrogen, electricity and other alternative fuels.”

My Opinion: This one is a no-brainer. Not only is it a lot of bonds, but they’re super stupid bonds too. This one is especially pointless now that gas is coming back down to Earth. I doubt people will be running out to buy any alternative fuel cars now.

The other main reason I’m against this, is that I think alternative fuels will only become a reality when economically feasible.  Just because some people desperately want alternative fuels doesn’t mean the government needs to drop $5 billion on it. If any of the car manufacturers think they can make a buck, they will.

Bottom Line: People that want alternative fuel cars can have them, but the government doesn’t need to pay for them.

I am voting NO on Prop 10.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 10.

Prop 9 - CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.

My Summary: Straight from the voter guide…

• Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
• Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole.
• Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings.
• Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled.
• Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights.
• Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.

My Opinion: I probably won’t spend a ton of time on any of the remaining props, but I like this one. The reduction in parole hearings sounds like it’s well overdue and could save money. I read this at ballotpedia:

Proposition 9 would save money because under the current system, taxpayers are spending money to fund hearings for criminals who have little chance of release. For example, supporters of Prop 9 argue, “‘Helter Skelter’ inmates Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten, followers of Charles Manson, convicted of multiple brutal murders, have had 38 parole hearings in 30 years. That’s 38 times the families involved have been forced to relive the painful crime and pay their own expenses to attend the hearing, plus 38 hearings that taxpayers have had to subsidize.”

I also like the idea of the victim’s families having increased rights during bail and parole hearings.

Bottom Line: Tom McClintock supports this one. Murderers shouldn’t be released on bail without letting the victims family know.

I am voting YES on Prop 9.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 9.

Prop 8 - ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY

My Summary: Straight from the voter guide…

• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

My Opinion: I think the most important thing to understand is what this fight for protecting marriage is really about. It’s not about rights, because domestic partnerships in California already give same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples (it can’t be the exact same because of some Federal laws), but for all intensive purposes it’s the same. They can make health care decisions, they can take the other person’s name, and all the “death” things like wills are included. Go read the list, and then tell me there is something really important that same-sex couples are being denied.

Instead, this is really a battle about the validity of same-sex marriage. Back in 2000 the people of California voted that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and a narrow decision by seven people overturned the will of an entire state.

Like I said before, this is not a battle for rights. Same-sex couples have all the rights they could need. This is a battle fought by proponents of gay marriage to normalize their behavior in the eyes of society. If the state permits same-sex marriage, then it’s just as valid/normal/beautiful as heterosexual marriage. If the law acknowledges it, then gay marriage is on an equal platform with traditional marriage. Nevermind the traditional roles of the family and the unique gifts that a man and a woman bring to the table. Nevermind an institution that has seen mankind through thousands of years of struggles. Now a gay marriage is just as good as a straight one.

I think that does two major things. The first is that it radically changes an institution that a huge majority of Americans believe in (and against their will when the courts get involved). The second is that by recognizing gay marriage and traditional marriage as equals according to the law, all hell can then break loose. For those of you that think there can be no repercussions, read the following taken from an awesome article by Frank Turek:

A federal court recently denied parents the right to know when homosexuality was being discussed in their Massachusetts schools because gay marriage is now legal there.  Also in Massachusetts, a Catholic adoption agency was forced to close its doors rather than provide children to homosexual couples as the state now demands.  In New Jersey, a Christian ministry was investigated for refusing to conduct a same-sex ceremony.  In California, a doctor was sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian.

There will be wide reaching implications if this proposition fails, and it will have nothing to do with rights. Gay marriage will be placed at the same level as traditional marriage, and anyone who objects won’t have a leg to stand on.

Bottom Line: This is not a ‘civil rights’ issue. Domestic partnerships allow gay couples to have 99% of the freedoms that straight couples have. Marriage does not need to be redefined. If it is, don’t be surprised when the values of the homosexual community are forced on your places of worship or the education of your children. Don’t say it won’t happen, because it already has.

I am voting YES on Prop 8.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 8.

Prop 7 - RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION

My Summary: From the LA TImes: “Require public and private utilities to obtain at least 20% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2010 and 50% by 2025.”

My Opinion: This is probably one of the most dangerous measures on the ballot, because the unforeseen economic impact could be HUGE.

First, renewable energy sounds nice, but it will only work when it’s economically viable. I’ve actually read about installing solar panels on your house. There’s a big upfront cost, but in the long run it can actually be a good economic decision, and there are people that do it. That’s how renewable energy should grow and succeed…through private means, not a stupid ballot measure that forces it upon energy companies when it’s not even a good economic decision.

I don’t enjoy spending $200 during the summer when we run the air conditioner, and I sure as heck wouldn’t enjoy paying more because the stupid energy is coming from a windmill farm that is causing prices to soar. They’ve got to be joking when they say 50% by 2025, because it sure is making me laugh!

A good solution is building nuclear power plants, but even the proponents of this bill are trying to paint nuclear power as wrong. In their for arguments: “We can do better than dirty coal, nuclear power, and offshore drilling.” No, we really can’t right now…because if we could, someone would be doing it.

Bottom Line: Renewable energy will become a greater part of our energy plan as it makes sense economically. Let the private sector figure this out, and stay the heck away government.

I am voting NO on Prop 7.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 7.

Prop 6- POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING

My Summary: It would increase state funding for police and other law enforcement entities by $365 million (to $965 million total). Increases penalties for some gang related issues.

My Opinion: Funding for law enforcement is one of those areas where I think the government should be spending a good portion of its resources. In comparison to some of the other ballot measures, this one is relatively cheap, but there are a couple things that bother me.

The first is state money being spent on the local level. I don’t like it when the federal government is doing things that should be done at the state level, and I don’t like it when the state is doing things that should be done on a local level. Granted some of the money would go to things like the Sheriffs or prisons which have more of a statewide role, but state money shouldn’t go to a local police entity unless it really needs to. I’m also not a huge fan of the guaranteed increase in money. I can imagine law enforcement deciding they need more money in another 5 years, and that the $965 million they would currently be receiving after this measure was no longer “enough.”

I’d like to come back to a recurring theme…why does this have to be done through a proposition? If law enforcement groups need more money, they should work with their local governments. If other specific statewide groups are underfunded, that shouldn’t be remedied with a proposition. I’m all for law enforcement funding…but not like this.

Bottom Line: This is the first time I’m going to disagree with Mr. McClintock. Even he says this is a mixed bag, and I don’t want to vote for it just to get a few good things. This however, is the first one where I could really vote either way, but I’m inclined to vote against it.

I am voting NO on Prop 6.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 6.

Prop 5- NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION

My Summary: This proposition would dedicate $460 million in annual state spending to “improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses,” with spending to increase with inflation.

My Opinion: Let’s see….George Soros supports this, and MADD is against this. I wonder who I will side with?

I don’t buy into the idea that there are a bunch of harmless drug addicts clogging our prisons. Steve Cooley, the LA County District Attorney even said “No first-time offender arrested in California solely for drug possession goes to prison—ever.” So what is this bill accomplishing?

From the voter’s guide arguments against: “Proposition 5 shortens parole for methamphetamine dealers and other drug felons from 3 years—to just 6 months.” That’s a big deal…and stupid. The proponents want you to think it’s about old guys smoking weed in their garage or something, but why does it let drug dealers off the hook so easy?

Bottom Line: I have no sympathy for the druggies.

I am voting NO on Prop 5.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 5.

Prop 4 - WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY

My Summary: From the LA Times summary: “Amend the state Constitution to bar abortions by unemancipated minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor’s parent or legal guardian. Permit notification to certain adult relatives if a doctor reports the parent to law enforcement or a child protective services agency.”

My Opinion: I think this is common sense. A complex and potentially harmful procedure shouldn’t be done on someone’s underage child without the parent even knowing about it. I could go on and on about how I don’t think abortions should be available to minors at all, but that’s not even up for debate. What is being voted on is whether or not parent’s have the right to know if doctor’s are performing operations on their young daughters.

Of course the argument against this is that young pregnant women will fear their parents finding out, and then they will get a coat hanger and shove it up their wee wee and accidentally kill themselves. Or if they’re slightly more intelligent, they’ll find a guy named Smooth in the back of a tattoo parlor who will do it for them. Honestly though, and this might sound harsh, but if someone is stupid enough to do that, in the not too distant future they’ll probably end up getting themselves killed anyways do to sheer stupidity. Let’s see if that ruffles any feathers. (I’m giving it all I got!)

Bottom Line: If I have a daughter some day, and in the unfortunate event she became pregnant and went to try and get an abortion, I at least deserve to know. The government doesn’t get to make decisions for our families.

I am voting YES on Prop 4.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 4.