Let's play another thrilling round of Shorter Kevin Drum:

I don't favor parental notification (85) and I think sex offenders are already treated plenty harshly (83).

Shorter Kevin Drum: Parents might convince their daughter not to kill her baby. Can't have that. And, really, what's so wrong with sex offenders? Clearly, Kevin doesn't have kids.

We already have way too many constitutionally mandated boutique taxes targeted at funding someone's favorite hobby horse, and I don't favor adding any more that are beyond the reach of the legislature to control (86, 87). I'm slightly more sympathetic to the education parcel tax (88), which is a fairly standard tax for a fairly standard purpose, and I wouldn't blame anyone for supporting it (though I probably won't)

Shorter Kevin Drum: More money to corrupt teacher's unions, but nothing else.

And while it's possible I could be talked into a straight anti-Kelo initiative, I won't be voting for the fraudulent version on this year's ballot (90).

Shorter Kevin Drum: Proles don't deserve property rights.

As for bond measures, forget it. Long ago, bond measures became nothing more than vehicles for budget flim-flammery, and this year is no different. Arnold wants to solidify his progressive cred by spending a bunch of money on worthy projects, but he also wants to pretend that he has a solid gold record of never raising taxes, and that what this year's infrastructure initiatives are all about (1A-1E).

Shorter Kevin Drum: Unlike every other entity in the history of the universe, California shouldn't take advantage of low interest rates and borrow now.

So that leaves only the Clean Money Initiative (89), which I've written about here and here. It's hardly a panacea, but for all the talk of how gerrymandering has made incumbents nearly invulnerable these days, the fact is that money imbalances have a lot more to do with it than redistricting does.

I can't support an anti-baby killing measure, but I have it in me to suppress the ability of citizens to support their candidate of choice.

Good work Kevin. And you're a *moderate* liberal?

Arnie has always been the typical "Borrow (other people's money)-and-Spend Republican."

First thing he did when he got into office is cancel the lawsuit against Enron, and put the bill on California's credit-card. He can put on a progressive-ACT all he wants. But he's still a Crony Capitalist.

A few miles down the 5, Busby has some hard hitting ads against the current Congressman Bilbray, the Duke replacement, who is under grand jury investigation. Even then it will be a huge upset if Busby wins.

I voted yes (twice) on raising the minimum wage in oregon, and funny thing, the entire state did not collapse and retreat into barbarism as the knuckle-draggers predicted.

Sorry to disappoint you, Hawksie, but a recent study showed that rather than parental notice/consent laws resulting in girls being forced to carry to term, in fact parents more often convince the girl to have an abortion she (at least initially) didn't want. I could find the link, but i can't be bothered, since you sound like an ass.

GOP Uber Alles!

Supersaurus: No, but the coercive power of the state was used to transfer wealth from the most productive to the least productive.

Good work.

Curious to know why you're voting no on 87, which I'm excited about. (It's my hobby horse!)

Based on the ads, the selling point on 1A-1E are that they mean spending but "no new taxes." Notwithstanding their merits, the presentation of them is fraudulent.

Note that you have a consistent approach to both spending and punishing initiatives. If you can be convinced that a certain class of criminal should be more punished than now, you'll go for it - if you can be convinced that a certain type of spending should be done you'll go for it; otherwise these are decisions that are made by representatives. (That's my take.)

Good on ye, Kevin. I'm pretty much in the same boat here.

ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK (this is what Kevin is against re: Prop 83):

1) Increases penalties for violent and habitual sex offenders and child molesters.

2) Prohibits registered sex offenders from residing within 2,000 feet of any school or park.

3) Requires lifetime Global Positioning System monitoring of felony registered sex offenders.

4) Expands definition of a sexually violent predator.

5) Changes current two-year involuntary civil commitment for a sexually violent predator to an indeterminate commitment, subject to annual review by the Director of Mental Health and subsequent ability of sexually violent predator to petition court for sexually violent predator’s conditional release or unconditional discharge.

As Chuck points out, how can anyone but NAMBLA be against Prop. 83?!

Here at SRGSR headquarters, we've come out with a new slogan for our plan for the November 2006 mid-term elections. With all the gay-sex scandals, designed to get people pissed off, and get them to the polls this Tuesday, we're calling it "Cock the Vote!"

American Hawk, Fuck off!

Somebody had to say it.

BTW Mr. Drum, are we saving our pick for governor? Please do tell. I'm voting for Arnold, who unlike most GOPers, showed he can change gears (for better or worse).

As Chuck points out, how can anyone but NAMBLA be against Prop. 83?!
Posted by: Al on November 6, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree vehemently with prop 83.

If a sex offender is still a threat, then the fucker ought to stay in prison. Prison isn't about punishment. It's about protecting people from criminals.

Anyone who's trying to make the NAMBLA argument about prop 83 is floating a strawman. (who knew Al was into that pagan-ritual sacrifice thing?)

How can anyone be against Prop 83? Because it makes things worse. Iowa has a similar law on the books and the consequence has been that the state has ended up subsidizing housing for sex offenders or losing track of them altogether. Prop 83 is all about talking tough, but driving people underground. Not to mention that the definition of sex offender is so broad that we're restricting people who are no threat. After all, a 19 year-old who has sex with his 17-year old girl friend is lumped into the same category as a serial pedophile. But guess which one will, when he finds out that he can't easily find housing that satisfies the law, will choose to just abscond from supervision instead?

I understand not wanting to vote for the bond issues, but please, folks in CA, please please please consider voting yes on the part of the bond issue package which deals with levee repair and flood control.

Please, you have to consider this bill. The levee system on the Sacramento river is an absolute disaster. It is built with earthen levees that are falling apart, and they are in no condition to withstand the type of storm that we know the Pacific can produce.

Sacramento is sitting around waiting to become another New Orleans. It shouldn't matter how we pay for this, whether Arnold is wasting time or should use the general fund or whatever. What matters is that those levees need to be fixed immediately, before a lot of people die. If we fail to pass that initiative, it will be at the least months, and maybe years, before the legislature does anything, and that could well be too late.

Supersaurus: No, but the coercive power of the state was used to transfer wealth from the most productive to the least productive.
Posted by: American Hawk on November 6, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

By what measure do you rank Paris Hilton as "more productive" than even a mediocre schoolteacher, or auto mechanic?

I'll tell ya what - Paris Hilton can stop paying taxes. Completely. And she can be completely banned from driving on any public road, or broadcasting her tripe on publicly-regulated airwaves, or employing anybody who was educated by public funds, and best of all - she can completely stop being protected from swarthy ay-rab terrorists by the US Army.

Fair trade?
Same offer for any other wanna-be oligarch.

Voting to have the State supercede parental rights and allowing sex offenders a freer rein in moving next to places kids frequent. So this is being "progressive"? Now I remember why I don't vote for for Leftists.

...After all, a 19 year-old who has sex with his 17-year old girl friend is lumped into the same category as a serial pedophile. ....
Posted by: don Hosek on November 6, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Yet, a 53 year old congressman who heads the Committee for Missing and Exploited Children, who uses his position of power and authority to get into the pants of 16-year old pageboys in violation of laws HE AUTHORED, is "not technically illegal" and therefore, AOK in the eyes of Republicans; not even deserving of an indictment.

What about prop 84, Kevin?

American Hawk: have you read the California ballot initiatives? Proposition 90 isn't just about "property rights"; it would set up a situation where just about any government action could be interpreted as "damaging property" and would result in, essentially, either the paralysis of government OR a massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to property owners. Neither is a good outcome. Meanwhile, Proposition 83 means that sex offenders basically couldn't live in urban areas at all -- which would result in the cities dumping their problems on small towns -- while forcing them to wear GPS devices; it's the most illiberal ballot measure I can remember ever being on the California ballot.

Let's vote for the candidates who accept the responsibility of performing their job as expected.

All these state constitutional amendment votes simply allow our representatives to avoid responsibility for making the decisions they were elected to make.

Show some guts, and leave our Constitutions alone.

Well, our stance on Prop 83 is that we're FOR it.

Guys who are dumb enough to get CAUGHT doing nasty things to little children, are not in our SRGSR, they don't pay our dues, or participate in our Hazing Rituals, so they don't deserve our protection (like Foley did - until he refused to cough up more money) - such animals deserve whatever's coming to them. (actually, we should BRAND them with a big "NAMBLA" mark on their forehead). They'll be so unemployable that our buddies in the fruit-picking industry will only have to pay them like a buck a week to work 15-hour days. If that's not worth a juicy campaign contribution, what is?

Bottom line: join our SRGSR, play nice with us, and do whatever you want - we'll protect you. But you step out of line, and well, we'll just let nature take it's course. Guys who get dragged behind pickup trucks for being gay just didn't pay us enough.

Thomas1, Al and American Hawk were all out here a couple weeks ago saying how since the age of consent is 16, what he did wasn't technically illegal.

But most importantly; Hastert knew damn well what Foley was up to, even got him to pay hush money in the form of hundreds of thousands of dollars transferred from his campaign war chest. There's ample evidence, there's sworn statements. Hastert protected Foley. Republican Culture of Corruption.

It is a reality of modern politics that politicians spend quite a bit of time campaigning for their own re-election, time that could be spent actually doing the job we pay them to do.

As tempting as it may be to be an "amateur legislator" once every couple of years, I'm against the whole thing on simple grounds of cheapness. If any of these propositions are so important that they need to be made into law, it appears to me that we have a paid, professional group of politicians up there in Sacramento which should get on the job.

Especially when it comes to taxing, borrowing, and spending, I'll be damned if I'll to the job these elected, paid folks are supposed to do.

Occassionally, very, very occassionally, an initiative might arise which is so contra to the status quo that politicians of both parties do not propose it because of some bizaarre reason, but that would be about it.

On a specific front, oh the irony if parental notification laws resulted in more abortions. Man, the political about-face which would occur would be a thing to behold.

Kaleefawrnya! I should be governor of dis place!

http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/3524/arnoldcl2.jpg

Al: I'm against Proposition 83. I've explained my reasons here. The shorter version: it's a poorly drafted highly illiberal law which contains provisions that violate the fundamental precepts of liberal democracy. Sex offenders are bad people; this law is worse.

NAMBLA is this some secret republican group that Mark Foley heads up,Or Am Hawk,he seems like the kind of guy that would do the nasty with kids.

Kevin,

On the parcel tax, I voted for it only because I think it may be a first step toward statewide education funding.

I'm out of town tommorrow so I voted early. My local registrar was pushing permanent absentee and the electronic voting option. Our voting machines have a paper tape printout that you can review and accept. I don't know if it produces a printout for every vote, though.

Chuck: luckily, laws which single people out like that are frowned upon by the courts. You'd have to find some category of crime I'd committed, first, and then attach the GPS devices to everyone who falls into that category.

Still, that's one of my big concerns: first sex offenders, then who? How long until this becomes a normal way to deal with all crimes, and how will society change as a result?

Curious to know why you're voting no on 87, which I'm excited about.

Because he wants California to get reamed by oil companies without the solace of some compensation, which even Texas and Alaska demand.

UM yes there is plenty of evidence that Denny Knew what was going on.Just open your eyes just a little and let the light in. OK.Or I'll take it your ok with perverts that play with kids.

There's no evidence that Hastert knew Foley was doing anything illegal either. But, I take it you are AGAINST lowering the age of consent around the country then?
Posted by: Chuck on November 6, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Reynolds testified that he told Hastert 6 months ago. A lot was said behind closed doors of the Ethics Committee that has not yet been made public.

All these state constitutional amendment votes simply allow our representatives to avoid responsibility for making the decisions they were elected to make.

Actually, most of them are because the things they propose can't be done through regular law no matter how willing politicians are to take responsibility, because California's extremely enormous State Constitution already says something on the matter.

Especially when it comes to taxing, borrowing, and spending, I'll be damned if I'll to the job these elected, paid folks are supposed to do.

Under California's Constitution, lots of taxing, even more borrowing, and certain spending decisions aren't elected politicians' jobs, they are reserved for the people.

Now, that might be a bad assignment of responsibility, but it would take a Constitutional Amendment (voted on by the people) to change it.

So it is safe to say AL and AM Hawk are Mark Foley Reblicans,Or there Ann Coulter Republicans.

Tentakles: under state law, all electronic voting machines must have a verifiable paper trail. Every vote must be recorded on paper, and if there is a recount, the paper votes must be used instead of the electronically stored ones.

Chuck: sadly, I watch virtually no television and have heard of neither the show in question nor the host. Which means that, whatever your comment is intended to mean, I don't get it. :)

Chuck: I would support life imprisonment for convicted child molestors.

Ahhh, so you're asserting that my opposition to a bad law means I must be a child molestor?

McCarthyism is alive and well, I see.

Didn't stop the info trail when Clinton was your target now did it.Some people seem guilty.People Like Hasert just plain are guilty no matter how you want to dance with the strawman.

*..California's extremely enormous State Constitution already says something on the matter.*

Dicey, isn't that because of a boatload of previous Constitutional amendments?

American Conservative article repudiating the Republican Party is apparently overwhelmed, but here is a lengthy excerpt,

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Conservative_magazine_pillories_Bush_1105.html

Dicey, isn't that because of a boatload of previous Constitutional amendments?

In some cases, though IIRC the present Constitution was fairly bloated when initially adopted (unlike the US Constitution, it is usually amended directly in the text, so a casual examination of the current text doesn't show the accretion.)

But it doesn't really matter, you can't solve the problem by just categorically rejecting Constitutional Amendments and expecting current politicians to take responsibility for things, where the people, through the Constitution, have expressly taken the responsibility away from politicians.

Re Prop 83:

(1) If you live out in the sticks, look for many offenders to move out there.

(2) Or to disappear off the Registry completely

Thanks. Dude for your take on this. Mucho helpful. Print it Baby. just print it and bring it along to the booth.

Not that I want to add to cmd's workload, but if he knows off the top of his head the categories of lawmaking which are now, constitutionally, specifically mandated to be the responsiblity of the general public I, and I'm sure many others, would like to hear what those categories are.

*...you can't solve the problem by just categorically rejecting Constitutional Amendments and expecting current politicians to take responsibility for things, where the people, through the Constitution, have expressly taken the responsibility away...*

Sounds like unique issues with the CA Consititution. Maybe drawn a little too tightly(?).

A MN ballot item to add a constitutional amendment appropriating explicit percentages of the vehicle sales tax to various projects is an example of MN congresspeople trying to avoid making tough budget decisions (and the stigma that might follow them in the next campaign).

Wow, lots of trolls. Kevin, I'm right with you (not with the Straw Men, aka al, aka shorter kevin drum aka chuck aka the rest of the trolls).

Not that I want to add to cmd's workload, but if he knows off the top of his head the categories of lawmaking which are now, constitutionally, specifically mandated to be the responsiblity of the general public I, and I'm sure many others, would like to hear what those categories are.

Sorry, I really don't have them memorized. I guess you could read through the State Constitution; whatever either requires a public vote explicitly, or is specified in the Constitution so that any policy change requires an amendment, qualifies.

The stuff about the bond measures is really good advice. I wish I hadn't already submitted my absentee ballot -- pretty sure I offhandedly voted for some of them.

I thought Al and AM Hawk were Haggard Republicans.

Since none of us are privy to closed-door testimony, my statement stands....
Posted by: Chuck on November 6, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

How convenient.

We're also not privy to the minutes from Cheney's secret energy meeting.

Nor are we privy to the real facts in the Plame Outing case.

Nor are we privy to the actual evidence in Iran-Contra.

All we have to go on are speculation, and lies by the people accused. And the same criminals go unpunished, and get recycled back through Republican Administration after Republican Administration.

And willfully gullible twits like you keep taking it up the ass. Sounds like you're a perfect candidate for the Secret Republican Gay Sex Ring club.

I was going to vote my usual Straight No ticket but maybe I'll take a real look at Prop 89. Speaking for budget flim flams, I'm voting for Phil over ARNOLD even if our current governor flim flam looks like a shoe-in.

HOW THEY STOLE THE MID-TERM ELECTION
by Greg Palast
for The Guardian (UK), Comment
Monday November 6, 2006

Here's how the 2006 mid-term election was stolen.

Note the past tense. And I'm not kidding.

And shoot me for saying this, but it won't be stolen by jerking with the touch-screen machines (though they'll do their nasty part). While progressives panic over the viral spread of suspect computer black boxes, the Karl Rove-bots have been tunneling into the vote vaults through entirely different means.

For six years now, our investigations team, at first on assignment for BBC TV and the Guardian, has been digging into the nitty-gritty of the gaming of US elections. We've found that November 7, 2006 is a day that will live in infamy. Four and a half million votes have been shoplifted. Here's how they'll do it, in three easy steps:

Theft #1: Registrations gone with the wind.

On January 1, 2006, while America slept off New Year's Eve hangovers, a new federal law crept out of the swamps that has devoured 1.9 million votes, overwhelmingly those of African-Americans and Hispanics. The vote-snatching statute is a cankerous codicil slipped into the 2002 Help America Vote Act -- strategically timed to go into effect in this mid-term year. It requires every state to reject new would-be voters whose identity can't be verified against a state verification database.

Sounds arcane and not too threatening. But look at the numbers and you won't feel so fine. About 24.3 million Americans attempt to register or re-register each year. The New York University Law School's Brennan Center told me that, under the new law, Republican Secretaries of State began the year by blocking about one in three new voters.

How? To begin with, Mr. Bush's Social Security Administration has failed to verify 47% of registrants. After appeals and new attempts to register, US Elections Assistance Agency statistics indicate 1.9 million would-be voters will still find themselves barred from the ballot on Tuesday.

But don't worry: those holding passports from their ski vacations to Switzerland are doing just fine. And that's the point. It's not the number of voters rejected, it’s their color. For example, California's Republican Secretary of State Bruce McPherson figured out how to block 40% of registrants, mostly Hispanics. In a rare counter-move, Los Angeles, with a Hispanic mayor, contacted these citizens, "verified" them and got almost every single one back on the rolls. But throughout the rest of the West, new Hispanics remain victims of the "José Crow" treatment.

In hotly contested Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell, Secretary of State and the Republican's candidate for Governor, remains voter-rejection champ -- partly by keeping the rejection criteria a complete secret.

Theft #2: Turned Away - the ID game

A legion of pimple-faced Republicans with Blackberries loaded with lists of new voters is assigned to challenge citizens in heavily Black and Hispanic(i.e. Democratic) precincts to demand photo ID that perfectly matches registration data.

Sounds benign, but it's not. The federal HAVA law and complex new ID requirements in states like New Mexico will easily allow the GOP squads to triple the number of voters turned away. Rather than deny using these voter suppression tactics, Republican spokesmen are claiming they are "protecting the integrity of the vote."

I've heard that before. In 2004, we got our hands on fifty confidential internal memos from the files of the Republican National Committee. Attached to these were some pretty strange spreadsheets. They called them "caging lists" -- and it wasn't about zoo feeding times. They were lists (70,000 for Florida alone) of new Black and Jewish voters -- a very Democratic demographic -- to challenge on Election Day. The GOP did so with a vengeance: In 2004, for the first time in half a century, more than 3.5 million voters were challenged on Election Day. Worse, nearly half lost their vote: 300,000 were turned away for wrong ID; 1.1 million were allowed a "provisional" ballot -- which was then simply tossed out.

Tomorrow, new federal ID requirements and a dozen new state show-me-your-ID laws will permit the GOP challenge campaign to triple their 300,000 record to nearly one million voters blocked.

Theft #3: Votes Spoiled Rotten

The nasty little secret of US elections is that three million ballots are cast in national elections but not counted -- 3,600,380 not counted in 2004 according to US Election Commission stats. These are votes lost because a punch card didn't punch (its chad got "hung"), a stray mark voided a paper ballot and other machinery glitches.

Officials call it "spoilage." I call it, "inaugurating Republicans." Why? According to statisticians working with the US Civil Rights Commission, the chance your vote will "spoil" this way is 900% higher for Black folk and 500% higher for Hispanics than for white voters. When we do the arithmetic, we find that well over half of all votes spoiled or "blank" are cast by voters of color. On balance, this spoilage game produces a million-vote edge for the GOP.

That's where the Black Boxes come into play. Forget about Karl Rove messing with the software to change your vote. Rather, the big losses occur when computers crash, fail to start or simply don't respond to your touch. They are the new spoilage machines of choice with, statistically, the same racial bias as the old vote-snatching lever machines. (Funny, but paper ballots with in-precinct scanners don't go rotten on Black voters. Maybe that's why Republican Secretaries of State have installed so few of them.)

So Let's Add it Up

Two million legitimate voters will be turned away because of wrongly rejected or purged registrations.

Add another one million voters challenged and turned away for "improper ID."

Then add yet another million for Democratic votes "spoiled" by busted black boxes and by bad ballots.

And let's not forget to include the one million "provisional" ballots which will never get counted. Based on the experience of 2004, we know that, overwhelmingly, minority voters are the ones shunted to these baloney ballots.

And there's one more group of votes that won't be counted: absentee ballots challenged and discarded. Elections Assistance Agency data tell us a half million of these absentee votes will go down the drain.

Driving this massive suppression of the vote are sophisticated challenge operations. And here I must note that the Democrats have no national challenge campaign. That's morally laudable; electorally suicidal.

Add it all up -- all those Democratic-leaning votes rejected, barred and spoiled -- and the Republican Party begins Election Day with a 4.5 million-vote thumb on the vote-tally scale.

So, what are you going to do about it? May I suggest you … steal back your vote.

It's true you can't win with 51% of the vote anymore. So just get over it. The regime's sneak attack via vote suppression will only net them 4.5 million votes, about 5% of the total. You should be able to beat that blindfolded. If you can't get 55%, then you're just a bunch of crybaby pussycats who don't deserve to win back America.

********
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE."

For specific advice on How to Steal Back Your Vote, go to http://www.gregpalast.com/steal-back-your-vote

Catch Greg Palast on Election Night on the new Mike Malloy Show on many Air America affili

Arizona has a similar proposition to Prop 90 on its ballot. I will vote against it.

I think the Kelo decision was a bad one. I don't think that private property should be condemned so that someone else can then privately develop it, even though I can understand wanting to have private properties generate more tax revenue. But that sort of taking violates my sense of fairness, and I'm surprised that the SCOTUS found it constitutional.

But the Arizona proposition actually would force the government, when exercising eminent domain, to compensate private property owners for all sort of future putative damages. In other words, an owner could claim that he is entitled to compensation greatly in excess of the property's current evaluation, because he believes that property will be worth x more down the road. His belief is nothing more than speculation, and I can't see how anyone is entitled to compensation based on spec.

The mere fact that you own a piece of property doesn't guarantee you any sort of return on it. Nor does it guarantee that you can do any damn thing you want on it, if what you want to do causes significant harm to surrounding property owners, and to public property. An example is building one house per quarter acre in an area zoned for maximum density of one house per acre. Or building apartment complexes or malls, which vastly increase not only local traffic but traffic in the larger area. Tucson is paying a huge price in increased traffic density city-wide because our neighbor just north and west of us, Mirana, never saw a development proposal it didn't like.

In the future, though, if a proposition is more narrowly written to make the laws regarding eminent domain more detailed, so that they make governmental agencies really have to show good cause, I'd be for that.

And let's not forget to include the one million "provisional" ballots which will never get counted. Based on the experience of 2004, we know that, overwhelmingly, minority voters are the ones shunted to these baloney ballots.

This is, in my experience as a poll worker for fourteen years, nonsense.

1. Anyone receiving a provisional ballot can call the local county to ask if it has been counted and why (if not), and can seek a court order ordering the county to count it.

2. These are the reasons I have had people vote 'provisionally' over the last fourteen years:

* they claim to have moved and not re-registered. I can't verify that they haven't voted at the place where they are on the roster, so I have them vote provisionally, so that if they have already voted their new vote isn't counted; if they haven't already voted, their new vote is counted.

* they are listed as having requested an absentee and can't surrender it. i have to have them vote provisionally or they might have voted twice.

* they show up at three minutes before the polls close and don't have time to get to their polling place; if i let them vote provisionally, their vote will be counted.

* they aren't registered and insist on voting.

----------------------

Provisional ballots are a good thing. In each of these cases, absent provisional ballots, I'd be required to turn the voter away, lest they vote illegally; in this case, I can let them vote, and someone with access to the information needed to determine if their vote is legal can make that determination and then decide whether or not to count the vote.

Kevin,

Since coming to California more than 20 years ago, I've had a set of presumptions regarding voting in initiatives. Your presumptions needs more rigor because it appears to come down to nothing more than "I'll vote against initiatives unless I really like them." A better view is that the initiative process is flawed, and that one should vote against all initiatives unless they fall into one of a few descreet categories:
1. Initiatives reforming the democratic political system (on the ground that incumbent legislators are unlikely to do this themselves). The clean money initiative would fit in this category.
2. Initiatives that set forth fundamental principles of constitutional law, rights, etc (on the ground that, unlike detailed policy proposals, these are appropriate matters for direct submission to the voters). This category would include the initiative that added the right to privacy to the California Constitution, Proposition 209, and an initiative allowing (or banning) same-sex marriage.
3. Bond measures (on the ground that an initiative is the only way to approve one).
4. Initiatives that repeal previously-enacted initiatives (again, the only way to do it).
If and only if an initiative falls within one of these categories should it be evaluated on its merits.

what do you think of Nevada's Question 7, the marijuana regulation amendment?

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org

Against 87??? Why should the multi-billion dollar oil industry continue to get federal subsidies but not clean alternative energies that will, as a bonus, make us less dependant on foreign oil???

NAMBLA would be proud. Chuck at 1:37 PM

What's this, the Republican gubernatorial candidate defies Rove and Bush?
PENSACOLA, Fla., Nov 6 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush stumped for the Republican candidate for Florida governor on Monday but the candidate himself didn't show, irritating the White House.
Charlie Crist said on Sunday he would not attend the rally in the party stronghold of northwest Florida after the White House had already announced Crist would be introducing the president.
The no-show a day before Tuesday's election raised the question of whether Crist was trying to avoid being seen with Bush, whose popularity is below 40 percent as Republicans struggle to retain control of the U.S. Congress amid American unease about the Iraq war.
While Bush didn't refer to the absence at the rally, White House political adviser Karl Rove was clearly irritated....
How gay is that?

the most productive to the least productive. American Hawk at 1:48 PM
From the best connected to the most deserving.

...which deals with levee repair and flood control.... Balta at 2:06 PM |

...ONE Republican who said Foley acts were AOK....Chuck at 2:15 PM

Perhaps we need to put a GPS device on you as well? Chuck at 2:16 PM

88 is regressive and a lousy way to fund public education (and California already has state-funded education; it's a mess). Nor is it the creature of the teachers' unions: CFT opposes it (along with the state PTA and school board ass'n), and CTA is neutral.

More here: http://pragmatos.net/?p=143

The levee bond strikes me as a boondoggle; the best course for most of the delta 'islands' would be controlled flooding.

Jonathon: unfortunately the wrong set of levee breaches (due to an earthquake) could, in late summer, result in San Pablo Bay backfilling into the state aqueduct project.

That would be a serious economic disaster.

aphrael, that's why we should initiate controlled flooding (that is, slow enough to prevent saltwater inflow, and best done during the rainy season) where it's practical. And we should prevent additional development that depends on the levees for flood control.

I don't doubt that there are some levees that ought to be fixed and maintained. But I don't buy that as a general solution.

But because he wants to keep his reputation as a tax fighter, Arnold is proposing a huge tranche of bonds that will require someone else to raise taxes sometime in the future when he's out of office.

Perhaps it will require a future someone to cut other spending.

As to Prop 89, money funnelled through the government isn't "clean", it's just dirty in a different way. fortunately, Prop 89 won't raise nearly enough money to have much effect.

The decision to fund capital projects through bonds or other borrowing mechanisms typically has nothing to do with "no new taxes." Capital projects are funded this way in part to distribute the cost of a project across its useful life, thereby increasing intergenerational equity -- if a project is going to benefit citizens for the next thirty years then all of the citizens over the next thirty years play some role in paying for it. Reflexively voting no on bond issues disrupts a healthy general budget/capital budget relationship.

减速机 机票 飞机票 打折机票 国际机票 北京租房 北京租房 免费成人电影 PP点点通 免费激情电影 成人贴图 免费黄色电影 成人论坛 免费性交电影 激情小电影 免费三级片 激情文学 黄色贴图 成人小电影 激情电影 成人网站 两性文学 免费a片 激情图片 黄色论坛 成人电影 激情视频 黄色网站 激情小说 黄色电影 性爱小电影 黄色小说 成人图片 黄色录象 成人小说 性爱电影 黄色图片 免费成人电影 PP点点通 免费激情电影 成人贴图 免费黄色电影 成人论坛 免费性交电影 激情小电影 免费三级片 激情文学 黄色贴图 成人小电影 激情电影 成人网站 两性文学 免费a片 激情图片 黄色论坛 成人电影 激情视频 黄色网站 激情小说 黄色电影 性爱小电影 黄色小说 成人图片 黄色录象 成人小说 性爱电影 黄色图片