TFM VOTER GUIDE: CALIFORNIA (Santa Barbara)
President: John Kerry. See a few entries ago.
Senator: Barbara Boxer. Barbara, darling, I love you and all, but this is California, and you can afford to take a stand. You hedged on gay marriage when the issue took our state by storm this spring, and I find that annoying. But there's no way I'm voting for Three Strikes Jones. UPDATE: Rebecca's endorsement features a similar, if more concise sentiment: "She's a bit of a douche."
State Assembly #35: Pedro Nava. Arnold is really going to bat for his conservative opponent Bob Pohl (R-Oil). I've met Pedro, he's a charming and empathetic man who will do right by our district.
State Senate: Paul Graber. He doesn't have much of a chance. But the thought of McClintock getting the boot is a ticklish one indeed.
Superior Court Judge, Santa Barbara: Edward Bullard. Both he and his opponent, James Rigali, are Republicans. However, of the two, only Bullard is pro-choice. Yay litmus tests!
Goleta School Board: Susan Epstein. She's been on campus more times than I can count. She's a mother, an educator and an attorney, and will be a great addition to da' board.
Measure D, Isla Vista: YES!!! I'll be gone by the time it's done, but IV needs a kickass community center.
AND NOW, THE NEW, IMPROVED, CONNERLY-FREE BALLOT INITIATIVES!
But just the ones I care about enough... (for the full texts, click here)
1A: Iffy NO, if only because I'd prefer more budgetary flexibility given the current state of the state.
61: YES, I wont be voting against children's hospitals this year. That would be very Cheney-ish of me.
63: HELL YES, money from the top 1% for mental health. Business Republicans don't like it because it means one less yacht for them to buy, and Jesus Republicans don't like it because they'd rather classify mental problems as demonic posession. So I like it.
66: HELL YES, 3 Strikes must be fixed, too many non-violent criminals sitting in prison for life.
The Indian Casino ones: NO. I'm suspicious of these, given that the TV ads both in faovr and in opposition to them feature unassuming white guys with crew cuts. Something's up. They don't seem as clear-cut and useful as Prop 5, anyway.
69: HELL NO, see the rant at the end of this post.
71: YES, no better way for California to help Bush's ass out the door than approving a $3billion bond for stem cell research, which would turn California into the leading place for that field in the entire world. Yes, 3 billion is a lot of money. But as long as we can get Maria to withold sex until her husband raises taxes if there's another crunch, we should be fine! And remember, the long-term effects of stem cell reasearch will likely include health costs going down for individuals.
72: YES, it's about time we got a "fuck Wal*Mart" proposition on the ballot. I am a little bit concerned about the effect on small business when the initiative takes effect on business with 50-199 employees in 2007. However, this would be a good way to set the example that health care is a right and not a privledge. Profit models for employers, ideally, should only be considered after covering employees' health has been done.
In fact, both 71 and 72 are important for the post-Bush era in America. Passing those two would mean that Americans are taking a leadership stance on something other than perpetual war. To stand up for medical innovation and comprehensive health coverage would help America re-brand itself in the eyes of the world, and it's just like us out here in Cali to drag America (kicking and screaming?) towards that goal.
Okay, happy voting! And as Governor Schwarzenegger likes to say, "when a woman votes no, she really means yes".
[rant] Lastly, dear Daily Nexus editorial board: Why are you endorsing 69? What kind of GATTACA bullshit is this? You're asking us to support the idea that anyone who gets arrested for anything could be forced to provide a DNA sample, and that people who haven't committed crimes could be stuck in DNA databases next to violent felons? Excuse me while I install telescreens on Storke Tower. This is some sort of "we aspire to be an important newspaper, so we take a series of bogus, token conservative positions to provide some semblance of artificial 'balance' so conservatives don't call us out" thing, isn't it? May you all get jobs at the Washington Post editorial page and not question Iraq intelligence. Yeesh! [end rant]
[slight hypocracy with caveat] Then again, I agree with Bob Barr on this one. On the other hand, agreeing with a civil libertarian on a non-culture-war issue doesn't make me a hypocrite. So there! [end slight hypocracy with caveat]
President: John Kerry. See a few entries ago.
Senator: Barbara Boxer. Barbara, darling, I love you and all, but this is California, and you can afford to take a stand. You hedged on gay marriage when the issue took our state by storm this spring, and I find that annoying. But there's no way I'm voting for Three Strikes Jones. UPDATE: Rebecca's endorsement features a similar, if more concise sentiment: "She's a bit of a douche."
State Assembly #35: Pedro Nava. Arnold is really going to bat for his conservative opponent Bob Pohl (R-Oil). I've met Pedro, he's a charming and empathetic man who will do right by our district.
State Senate: Paul Graber. He doesn't have much of a chance. But the thought of McClintock getting the boot is a ticklish one indeed.
Superior Court Judge, Santa Barbara: Edward Bullard. Both he and his opponent, James Rigali, are Republicans. However, of the two, only Bullard is pro-choice. Yay litmus tests!
Goleta School Board: Susan Epstein. She's been on campus more times than I can count. She's a mother, an educator and an attorney, and will be a great addition to da' board.
Measure D, Isla Vista: YES!!! I'll be gone by the time it's done, but IV needs a kickass community center.
AND NOW, THE NEW, IMPROVED, CONNERLY-FREE BALLOT INITIATIVES!
But just the ones I care about enough... (for the full texts, click here)
1A: Iffy NO, if only because I'd prefer more budgetary flexibility given the current state of the state.
61: YES, I wont be voting against children's hospitals this year. That would be very Cheney-ish of me.
63: HELL YES, money from the top 1% for mental health. Business Republicans don't like it because it means one less yacht for them to buy, and Jesus Republicans don't like it because they'd rather classify mental problems as demonic posession. So I like it.
66: HELL YES, 3 Strikes must be fixed, too many non-violent criminals sitting in prison for life.
The Indian Casino ones: NO. I'm suspicious of these, given that the TV ads both in faovr and in opposition to them feature unassuming white guys with crew cuts. Something's up. They don't seem as clear-cut and useful as Prop 5, anyway.
69: HELL NO, see the rant at the end of this post.
71: YES, no better way for California to help Bush's ass out the door than approving a $3billion bond for stem cell research, which would turn California into the leading place for that field in the entire world. Yes, 3 billion is a lot of money. But as long as we can get Maria to withold sex until her husband raises taxes if there's another crunch, we should be fine! And remember, the long-term effects of stem cell reasearch will likely include health costs going down for individuals.
72: YES, it's about time we got a "fuck Wal*Mart" proposition on the ballot. I am a little bit concerned about the effect on small business when the initiative takes effect on business with 50-199 employees in 2007. However, this would be a good way to set the example that health care is a right and not a privledge. Profit models for employers, ideally, should only be considered after covering employees' health has been done.
In fact, both 71 and 72 are important for the post-Bush era in America. Passing those two would mean that Americans are taking a leadership stance on something other than perpetual war. To stand up for medical innovation and comprehensive health coverage would help America re-brand itself in the eyes of the world, and it's just like us out here in Cali to drag America (kicking and screaming?) towards that goal.
Okay, happy voting! And as Governor Schwarzenegger likes to say, "when a woman votes no, she really means yes".
[rant] Lastly, dear Daily Nexus editorial board: Why are you endorsing 69? What kind of GATTACA bullshit is this? You're asking us to support the idea that anyone who gets arrested for anything could be forced to provide a DNA sample, and that people who haven't committed crimes could be stuck in DNA databases next to violent felons? Excuse me while I install telescreens on Storke Tower. This is some sort of "we aspire to be an important newspaper, so we take a series of bogus, token conservative positions to provide some semblance of artificial 'balance' so conservatives don't call us out" thing, isn't it? May you all get jobs at the Washington Post editorial page and not question Iraq intelligence. Yeesh! [end rant]
[slight hypocracy with caveat] Then again, I agree with Bob Barr on this one. On the other hand, agreeing with a civil libertarian on a non-culture-war issue doesn't make me a hypocrite. So there! [end slight hypocracy with caveat]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home