I have 26 different items on my ballot. The obvious ones are easy, others are tough and I'm not so sure on. Here's how I'm voting. Any comments? President - Obama US Representative - Present State Senator - Smitian State Assembly - Jim Beall Judicial - Liroff? School - Rummelhoff? Prop 1A - Yes - I Like Trains Prop 2 - No - But we eat them? Prop 3 - Yes - It's for the children! Prop 4 - No - Say No to coathangers Prop 5 - Yes - Druggies aren't violent and should be treated differently Prop 6 - No - Money grab by the cops Prop 7 - No - This seems broken Prop 8 - No - Separate but Equal isn't. Prop 9 - No - Not Necessary Prop 10 - No - No more rebates to Prius owners. Prop 11 - No - Not another redistricting amendment! Voted no 5 times since '82. Prop 12 - Yes - 100% approval in legislature - why do we even have to vote on this? SC County A - Yes - Just in case I need it someday SC County B - No - I don't need a fast train to Fremont. SC County C - Huh? SC County D - Huh? SJ City J - Yes - Helps with structural deficit says Chucky. SJ City K - Yes - Helps with structural deficit says Chucky. SJ City L - No - No money for infill firestations SJ City M - Yes - Make parks more interesting
Hey FUAEG, my ballot looks way different from yours! Oh yeah, I live in another state. Glad to see you're voting no on 8. I mean, I don't see that it's any of my business who my neighbor marries. Know what I'm saying? I'm happily married, and I think everyone else should be too. Marriage is good. Let's let more people do it. I get to vote for Death With Dignity up here too. There are times when you should be able to check out early. I don't see the value in making someone live out their last months in pain if they don't want to. I am concerned though that our governor's race is out of control. The challenger lies in all of his ads and on most of his posters. He claims that the current governor ran up a deficit, when in fact we have a modest surplus. (Washington State as a "rainy day" fund, so it's OK for us to be a little bit over.) So what help would it be to decide after the election that this bastard has been cheating?! (He has taken lots of illegal money too.) So I worry that this lying fascist might actually win. We get to vote early too! I just put my wife and my ballots in the ballot box this morning!! GO DEMOCRACY!!!! GO QUAKES!! - Mark
I can see both sides of 8. I think what has to happen is for government to drop the term marriage from their licensing. Everything's a civil union. if a religious organizations wants to define marriage a certain way that's fine with me, but the government can't. Separate but equal isn't. I get that but I may have an unusual opinion. I'd vote no. If Death With Dignity becomes common pressure will be brought on the sick elderly to end their lives early for financial reasons. " You know Mrs Johnson down the street died with dignity when she learned she had cancer. She save her family 2 years of pain and burdens and tens of thousands of dollars. So what are you going to do?" When you're old and sick, it's to everybodies financial benefit if you just die. We may be faced with living a last crappy year with cancer or funding a year of college for our grandkids. You know what the insurance companies would want you to do. I think it should be illegal to kill yourself, and if your caught you should be punished.
So any opinions / advice on: Judicial - Liroff? School - Rummelhoff? Prop 6 - No - Money grab by the cops Prop 9 - No - Not Necessary
Any comments on Prop 7? Is it really broken? I'm all for California leading the world in alternative energy, but I don't think Prop 7 is the way to do it? Am I wrong? Anybody? Buhler?
FUAEG, as a Quakes fan you should support Measure B so that eventually fans can take BART to the new soccer stadium by the airport. It's not just good policy, it's good for the club!
Quakes fans in San Jose should also support Measure M, which amends the city charter to allow for long term leases of parkland exceeding a certain acreage. The upshot is that this would allow private entities to operate sports fields more efficiently and economically. I predict we will have more and better recreational soccer fields as a result. http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_10681272
The biggest issue I saw with this is sumed up in this paragraph from an editorial. The supporters say that's not the case, but the language in the law specifically defines a energy generator as being greater than 30 mw. And I think anything smaller is excluded from counting towards the reduction goals.
No on just about everything, especially 1, 4, and 8. High Speed Rail is a massive wealth transfer disguised as a solution to most of our transit woes. Like so many propositions, there is the germ of a good idea in there, but the nuts and bolts are woefully lacking. Not to mention that our state really can't afford to take on another $10 billion in debt at the moment.
I'm a big fan of 1A. The government spends gobs of money on roads and airports, but for some reason trains are supposed to pay for themselves. Why not build some infrastructure that could fundamentally change the way we travel between northern and southern California? Yes, it's expensive, but all good projects are. I'm also voting for proposition 2 - the singing pig made me do it: [youtube]oqPJsfjjyZU[/youtube] God, I love living in California where we get to vote on stuff like this. No on props 4 and 8. I haven't studied up on the rest -- 3 and, um, 12 are the bond measures so it is hard to vote against those without seeming like you hate children and/or veterans; 7 and 10 are the energy ones, I'm leaning no on both; 6 and 9 are the crime ones, I'm leaning no on both, especially "Marcie's Law" -- the radio ads make me angry because they start with the assumption of guilt on the part of the accused. I haven't studied up on 5 or 11 yet.
I don't suppose I am going to change anyone's mind on Prop 1A. I love trains, have taken Amtrak to LA and traveled via high speed rail in Europe, and would love to be able to get to Disneyland in 2 hours for $50. Aint going to happen. I have done a lot of research on this proposition -- nice idea, but it's a fantasy, with a "give us the money and then we'll figure out what we're doing" business plan. The numbers they provide are unsubstantiated and don't correlate with any real world experiences. I went to a presentation by Rod Diridon, one of the biggest beneficiaries of this pork fest, and he could not answer most of the questions posed to him by the audience. His stock response was that we needed to trust them. I understand it's different for those of you living in the south bay, but the mid-peninsula will be ripped down the middle by high speed rail, one of the reasons that my city is one of two that has joined the anti-HSR lawsuit.
Man, what a huge can of worms. I promised I wouldn't post anything political in our soccer threads and I won't. Suffice it to say my ballot looks a LOT different than yours does.
So I refereed two games today (BU12) and the coach for the second one was trying to warm up the boys, but all they wanted to do was debate Prop 8. Pretty funny to hear these young kids speaking so passionately about civil liberties vs promoting gay marriage.
Beerking is completely correct, of course, and I should have mentioned this before I started spouting off about the propositions -- fortunately the discussion has not been heated, but if it gets that way, we'll send this thread to the Politics forum... so everyone be nice!
I firmly believe that people should be allowed to marry chickens as long as they don't keep them locked up in trains.
I agree wholeheartedly with TyffaneeSue, except that I think it could happen with a different, more specific business plan. They need a bill for exploration that doesn't cost nearly as much, and THEN they need a super-expensive bill to build the thing. We cannot be careless with state money in our extreme need right now. Prop1A would basically just lose a lot of money for us. It has no specific business plan and a lot of the people that were in favor of high-speed rail in California (like me!) are not in favor of this measure. Let's just not get into Prop 8 in this thread. Bad idea. Also, the two energy bills are not suggested by any notable environmental groups. They are a joke. Good call on that bill. As an SF resident, I'm definitely voting YES on renaming the waste treatment plant after George W. Bush!
Thanks Don. I will support Measure M. I was a bit on the fence, having a friend arguing against it, but this editorial does a great job of laying out it's merits. A bit more convincing than a dancing pig. I appreciate your efforts in pushing for Measure M. It was nice seeing your work called out in the editorial.
The only props I feel strongly about are 2 (yes), 4 (no) and 8 (no). I'd like HSR and BART, but I can see arguments against both.