|
||
|
Changed back my voter registration - I'm Green again! Much nicer, less oily...
With elimination of habeas corpus (a small legal principle that just went back to oh, the MAGNA CARTA!), repudiation of the Geneva Convention and replication of the Berlin Wall on the Mexico border, it's crystal clear that voting for any Republican, or for foldable Democrats, is absolutely no different than voting Nazi in 1939 Germany. Here, right now, in Washington, in Sacramento, in Siskiyou County, we see what Hanna Arendt named "the banality of evil". I could go on, but I don't want to be depressing.
Why vote? Why not?
Granted, voting machines are easily rigged. More likely in some places than others. Even if that wasn't the case, is the shrinking percentage of actual voters too greedy, brainwashed, intolerant or ignorant even to vote their own interests? Maybe, hard to argue against that.
Yet the keywords are "shrinking percentage of actual voters". However disgusting politics becomes, somehow I resist possibly becoming an accomplice in my own disempowerment. There's enough other forces working on that anyway. Republicans set up roadblocks to keep blacks from voting - not in 1956, but in 2004. So perhaps it's harder to rig a million ballots than a few hundred.
I'm not so deluded to think there's some assurance outcomes will magically improve, cause and effect style, if I vote. Yet it seems that might better the odds. So I do vote - it's not so hard. Absentee ballot, a half hour of your time, put it in the mailbox. Only ten or fifteen minutes if you just vote like I do.
The problems are huge, the effort (at least for white male folks like me) is small in comparison. No big deal, might as well do it. Couldn't hurt. Rah, rah, rah, y'all!
Taking it from the top:
Governor - Peter Camejo
Back in June (when I was a Democrat) I gave Phil Angelides my primary vote. After all I kinda knew him in graduate school, and back then he was a good guy to have a beer with at David's Brass Rail. Evidently things have changed. I certainly can't vote for him this time after he took the endorsement of the prison guards' union, topping the list for the most corrupt lobbying group in Sacramento, maybe in the known universe.
Ahnold, of course, is a ridiculous cartoon character. How delusional do you have to be to vote for this guy? He's a political vanity plate, for those who have difficulty distinguishing between film and reality. Meanwhile his Enron backers get out of repaying what they stole from us. Is celebrity a brain trance generator? Geez, already - people! Borrow a clue if you can't buy one!!!
Peter Camejo has a long history fighting for peace and justice. Clearly the best candidate, hands down.
Lieutenant Governor - Lynette Shaw
I'm not much of a pot smoker (hear that, Fatherland Security?)...it makes me too spacy, which could be a sign of aging. Nevertheless, tens of thousands of good, decent people, victims of the War on Some Drugs, are imprisoned in the gulags. They deserve freedom, and those millions paying the billions, the price tag for this insanity, also deserve freedom from wasted taxes.
Lynette is kind of a wacky person, I met her once or twice, I think. It was kind of hazy that night. A one-issue candidate, but hey, why not???
Secretary of State - Debra Bowen
I may be wrong on this one, but I'm staying with Debra Bowen, even after I said all those bad things about Democrats...she's been a leader fighting Diebold voting fraud, which counts for something. Hope I'm not wrong. Watch out how they count this race on election night!
Controller - Laura Wells
A clear Green choice. The competition is another Democrat who acts like a Republican, and a Republican who acts like a Nazi. Any questions?
Treasurer - Mehul M. Thakker
See above. Another easy choice.
Attorney General - Mike Wyman
See above. Another easy Green choice here, too. Too bad about Jerry Brown, he had promise once. Just so it's clear, though, Poochigian is a major Nazi.
Insurance Commissioner - Larry Cafiero
The Democrat and Republican in this race are choices between corruption, and corruption. Larry kind of looks like me, so I'm going with the honest Green face.
Board of Equalization District 2 - Richard Perry
What a goofball. But why not elect a gardener? Beats the competition. The Board has staff to help him with the math.
U.S. Senator - Todd Chretien
Any friend of Cindy Sheehan is a friend of mine. Diane Feinstein is so useless. Richard Mountjoy's a racist (can I call him a Nazi, too?). Geez! Does it get any clearer than this?
House of Representatives - no recommendation
Siskiyou County elections remind me of the Jay Leno quote: "If God had wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates".
To reiterate: Wally
Herger is among the worst nightmares in Congress, a complete idiot.
A bible-thumping mormon moron, it doesn't get much worse than
this guy. I could go on.
A. J. Sekhon has a web site now; unfortunately it's one of the strangest I've ever seen. Where did the Democrats find this guy, is the fix in here?
He's got a turban, a beard and a military uniform. Possibly he's a Sikh, but the web site says nothing about that. Anyway there's only about three voters in this district who even know what a Sikh is. He should be afraid voters might think he's ready for Halloween. So he's a physician, and a (hey, no terrorist guy, nosiree, wave that flag, yeah) Colonel in the Army Reserve. Perhaps he needs self-acceptance therapy, but probably not election to congress.
The Libertarian guy almost got my vote until I found the racist part of his web site. So Libertarians advocate immigrant GPS tracking now? Guess the terrorists really have won...
State Senate - Robert Vizzard
A Green candidate! Yeah! Another clear choice!
State Assembly - Phil Dynan
The Republican Doug LaMalfa is another complete idiot, worst of the worst. I'm voting for the Green jogging guy! Although the Democrat Mel Smith is a big supporter of biodiesel, so he might be be okay. But he doesn't even seem to have a web page...
State Supreme Court - Joyce Kennard and Carol Corrigan
Court of Appeals
- Cole Blease, Fred Morrison, Kathleen Butz, Tani Sakauye
There is something bizarre about voting for judges. Shouldn't that be nonpolitical?
I was in Sacramento when mobs with torches came after Jerry Brown's appointed justices for political reasons - they were some of the best judges the state has ever seen. Judges should be impartial, which gets harder as things slant towards fascism. Generally, Republicans have been hard at work appointing Mad Hatter hacks who stand on their heads and somehow okay using illegal evidence, like it's not obvious they're blatantly violating the Constitution. I'm not a nationalist, but that surely seems like treason to me.
Still, I'd like to make a fair and informed opinion. There are few facts I can find quickly (i.e. on the web) about the specific judges on the ballot; should we throw them out? On the other hand, all but one of these folks were nominated by evil Republicans/Gray Davis, which maybe indicates something. Does anyone have more information? Help me out here and I'll post the good links, might even make a retraction. Progressives need a court monitoring organization, too.
Cole Blease was appointed by Jerry Brown, is he related to this guy? Hope not. Fred Morrison was appointed by Pete Wilson, a fascist. Kathleen Butz was appointed by Gray Davis; Joyce Kennard and Tani Sakauye by Deukmejian, Carol Corrigan by Ahnold.
I could be wrong, but here's my call: Thumbs up on Blease, thumbs down on everyone else. There. I'm biased, too. Probably shouldn't be a judge.
County Supervisor - no recommendation
Two Republicans. Repugnant. (Update: Candidate indicted! At least they eat their young...). Greg Messer who lost in the primary just announced he's a write-in candidate. I've already mailed in my ballot, but you may wish to consider...
On to the propositions!
Proposition 1A - Transportation Funding Protection - No
I'm in favor of simple taxes everyone pays, one income tax, one wealth tax. Eliminate the nickel and dime fees, eliminate all the special funds, close most of the prisons, fire the drug cops, paper shufflers, accountants and clerks. Cut taxes by half, and there'll be even more funding available than before for useful programs! Next make the choices, prioritize the spending. Put it all in one big pot and divvy it up, I say. It's called budgeting. Do it this way, and we'll get more from government for less money, guaranteed. Such a simple solution. This proposition shellacs the pie slices. It's inedible. Vote no, okay, just vote no on this one.
Proposition 1B - Transportation Bond - No
Too many boondoggles in here. Not enough for bikes and transit, too much for roads. And there's stupid stuff in here, too. Container inspections for false "security" only raise consumer costs and delay international shipments. I'm all for some of this spending but can we pay out of current revenue, not send the bill to our grandchildren? Return to sender.
Proposition 1C - Housing Bond - Yes
I'm not happy about voting yes, though. There is clearly a critical need for housing assistance, but wouldn't it be better if we had a guaranteed income and let people figure out what to spend it on? Like our nickel and dime revenue system, this is part of a nickel and dime spending system. The only reason I'm voting yes is a reluctant nod to reality - in the city I trip over people sleeping on the sidewalk. Better to waste money on housing than war, I say.
Proposition 1D - School Facilities Bond - Yes
Not happy about this either, though. Does anyone have a handle on government facilities requirements in general? Seems like there's always a bond issue for building more stuff. I'm all for the kiddies, but could someone please figure his out and come up with a five year plan or something? Geez...
Proposition 1E - Disaster Preparedness - Yes
Not happy about this, either. Maybe it's not such a bright idea to build your house on a flood plain? But whatever, I'm opposed to people drowning.
Proposition 83 - Sex Offenders - NO, NO, NO!
Delusions persist that if we simply crank up the dial, up to eleven, one more than ten, if we get tough, tough, tough, then somehow crime disappears.
Nothing is more wrong.
Already the line separating sociopath and society is a blur. Criminals, courts and police play the same game, different teams. The Constitution, once an admirable basis of government, is no more. Police roadblocks in the street, no shampoo on airplanes, we're tough all right - but stupid. Thinking people are far more fearful of the "justice system" then they are of "criminals".
Here's the deal: prisons are bulging with people who don't belong there - drug war victims, the mentally ill, etc., etc. Let's call them Group 1. Open the cell, hand out some cash, a month's concierge and transition services and a link to Craigslist. Let these folks know it's time to go home, they'll be fine. Maybe there's a Group 1A - crazies who need treatment, addicts who need three meals a day and soft things to fall down on. So meet their needs, appropriately. Much cheaper than prison, for sure.
Group 2 is in fact difficult - they've done wrong, but not enough wrong they should rightfully be locked up forever. They are criminals. Are we talking sex, violence and theft offenses here? A body of knowledge exists, largely ignored, about what works and what doesn't with criminals - how to run prisons, parole, and stop recidivism. It's complex, and not linear. Experts exist who have clues about what to do with bad people. I'm not an expert, but I think we should take good advice. One thing for sure, the current meat-ax approach (lock 'em up, and lock 'em up more - straight out of the Milgram experiment) is a total failure. And I'm into excellence. These criminals are coming back someday, shouldn't we do what makes them less, rather than more likely to commit crime when that happens?
Group 3 - okay, they really are dangerous. Profoundly sociopathic people exist who should never roam the streets again - think Charlie Manson, Mark David Chapman, George Bush. I don't have a problem with life sentences in limited, safeguarded situations. No torture, they get to watch Oprah if they finish the license plate quota on time, yet no longer pass go and collect $200. Set up secure facilities to prevent axe murders, torture and invasions of Middle Eastern countries.
Appeals and reviews are part of all this, that's justice, no problem except somehow to take the judges away from politics. I'm confident an impartial international criminal court would justly keep George Bush locked away for good. Yeah, this can be a bit expensive. But less expensive than paying Halliburton for war profiteering. And since the death penalty actually increases violence in a society, that's a really dumb approach, even if you don't understand it's horrendously wrong.
Okay, back to this proposition: stupid, stupid, stupid. If sociopathic sex offenders (rapists, for example) are really loose (pretty dubious, that), then let's free a pot smoker and keep a perv locked up. Maybe forever. If we're talking garden variety wanker, though, I'm not scared enough to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on GPS tracking. I'm just not. See a wanker, ignore him, he'll likely go away. Maybe hand him a Kleenex. If he keeps up (no pun intended), okay, he's off to Group 2 camp for a while.
Assuming a justice system (I know, a giant leap) I wouldn't always be opposed to GPS technology tracking for parolees, convicted burglars, or energy price manipulators. Clearly Michael Milken should wear one. If this is good technology, look at it - decide where it's cost effective. Don't head out blind, full tilt boogie right with the mob and torches. And do a little budgeting - try spending money first on good schools, good social services, fighting ignorance and repression. Then maybe, just maybe this feral segment won't be after your TV set or your daughter, and there'll be no need for GPS bracelets.
One more thing: if the residence restrictions in this proposition pass, looks like all the sex offenders on parole in the Bay Area will have to move to Siskiyou County...how bright is that?
People! Use a little intelligence here, treat the mentally ill, create economic and social justice. Then presto - hardly any crime. Simple, eh?
Proposition 84 - Water Bonds - Yes
I like drinking water. Sure.
Proposition 85 - Parental Notification - NO, NO, NO
Could this be the most sexually twisted society on the planet? Here's how this proposition works. Father rapes daughter. Daughter needs father's permission or has to go to court before terminating the pregnancy. What exactly is there to decide in court? Rapists should have a say in this?
This proposition itself is a "sexual offense". If you ask me, the supposed "Christians" who keep coming back again and again with this are themselves predators, seeing women as property, something they must control. That's evil, and sick.
Here's my thought: children should be wanted, and actually cared for after they exist. What a concept...I'm pretty sure the real Jesus would agree...
Proposition 86 - Cigarette Tax - Yes
I don't smoke. So I'll never pay this tax. Cool!
Once that's out of my way - I'm actually on the fence with this one. It is a nickel and dime fee, which I don't like. As a means of taxation, it sucks, and on that basis I would ordinarily vote against it.
Yet, smoking sucks more. Bad, unhealthy, filthy habit, hugely harmful. So I'm voting yes based solely on social control benefits. Disagree with me freely, if you want.
Proposition 87 - Alternative Energy - Yes
Here's the deal: we're gonna run out of oil. Even though I don't like the complicated tax part of this, we need to fund solutions, and we need to start now. This one is really a no brainer. Unfortunately it doesn't go far enough. It's time there was a corporate death penalty. Out with the old, in with the new. But until then, this is a good as it gets.
Proposition 88 - Parcel Tax for Education - Yes
Again, another piecemeal funding source, but some things have to be done to counteract the Proposition 13 bomb lobbed at California education in 1978. I can afford $50. Whatever.
Proposition 89 - Public Campaign Funding - Yes
Wealthy people and corporations have far too much power under the corrupt current system. I'm not completely convinced this proposition will really change that, but it's worth a try.
Proposition 90 - Eminent Domain - NO, NO, NO
This is full of unintended (or rather intended and sneaky) consequences. Vote for this if you'd like to see your city broke and looking like crap. Like Houston, maybe.
Yes, there was a case where corrupt politicians used eminent domain to basically steal land for a private developer. And since the Republicans control the Supreme Court and encourage corruption, the court said that was okay. The fiendish plot here is this proposition "solves" that problem by destroying local government's ability to acquire any property needed for the community, even for good reasons. Not only that, but it goes way further - making cities liable if any decision costs anyone money! Another Prop. 13 type bomb throwing exercise. How'd you like a strip mine next to your house?
This is an intelligence test. Vote no, dammit.
Other people who sometimes agree with me:
More information resources:
Smart Voter - lots o'links
Project Vote Smart - even smarter?
Around the Capitol - lots o'information here
Fundrace - find out who your neighbors gave money to in 2004
Open Secrets - another place to follow the money, which is really the only way to understand politics in Amerika...