California Numbered Proposition and Election Guide

Quick Summary of My Votes, and Primary Reasons

Props and Why:
1A) NO - Bonds
2) YES - Reasonable, no reason not to
3) NO - Bonds
4) YES - Mature Law, reasonable compromise
5) NO - Too Costly
6) NO - Too Costly, handout to Unions
7) NO - Easily Manipulated, Out of State Power Grab by Pickens
8) YES - More compromise needed in overall debate
9) NO - Redundant
10) NO - Bonds
11) YES - Dire need of electoral competition for legislature
12) NO - Bonds

President) McCain - National Security, Obama too extreme on social issues, Obama feels judges should rule by 'empathy'.

Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable, High Speed Passenger Train Bond Act
My Vote: NO
+ Fast Trains!
+ More Trains!
+ Less traffic!
*Fights global warming?
-Expensive
-Unrealistic (220MPH all the way is NOT realistic)
-Destroys CA's bond rating even more
-Vague expectations
-Poorly planned

Prop 1A is $9.95 Billion dollar bond that would go towards the construction of a high speed rail system in California, to be used over a 30 year period. Final cost is estimated to be nearly $20 billion, ignoring the potential for operating costs of roughly $1 billion per year of ridership is not high and cost increases owing to troubles with construction.

Trains are awesome, especially high speed trains, but this project threatens to become a budgetary disaster. It promises a lot, but the bill leaves much in the air - they make many assumptions, and are vague about the actual cost. At a time when our state budget is in danger, and we hover on the edge of bankruptcy, now is not the time to be shelling out billions of dollars. While I think that a high speed train would be great to have in the future, now is not the right time to spend this much money on it.

Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals
My Vote: YES
+ Humane treatment of livestock
+ REASONABLE humane treatment of animals
+ 6 Years to adjust
+ Not over zealous
+ Minimal fiscal impact
*Food more dangerous??

Prop 2 is a basic measure that would take effect in 2015, that would basically fine livestock producers for not allowing cattle, hens, and what not humane living conditions.

There is hardly anything wrong with this bill - it's moderate, and the arguments against are weak at best. It's the 21st century, it's time we start acting like it.

Proposition 3: Children's Hospital Bond Act
My Vote: NO
+ For the Children!
+ More hospitals!
*Fights global warming?
-Expensive
-MORE BOND DEBT

Prop 3 is a prop that would take out 2 billion in bond money to renovate childrens hospitals. While a good measure in spirit, it is not feasible at this time because of California's debt crisis. Don't forget that we almost went bankrupt this year. This can be done at a time when our state economy and budget is more stable.

Proposition 4: Waiting period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy
My Vote: YES
+ For the Children!
+ Promotes safe, responsible parenthood
+ Provides a safe alternative for teens
+ Takes decision out of teen's hands
+ Vastly improved over past similar bills
- Minor potential for parental abuse

Prop 4 is a measure that would require parents to be notified in the case that their daughter requests an abortion. However, it has sufficient protections in place that a daughter truely at risk from her parents could seek aid and shelter.

This measure makes sense, and has matured considerably over past elections. The opposition is being lazy and reaching in the dark, failing to produce convincing scenarios of abuse. A teenager SHOULD NOT have this critical decision in her hands because she is a minor, plain and simple.

c

Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding
My Vote: NO
+ Increase in crime prevention programs
+ More overall funding for cops
-Creates new bureaucratic agencies with little accountability
-Ignores budget crisis
-Does not pay for itself
-Massive new spending that threatens other areas of government

Prop 6 is a measure that would essentially give $1 billion a year to law enforcement. While good on the surface, it more or less constitutes a handout to police and prison guard unions, and encourages wasteful spending. It is also short sighted in that this money would be locked spending, and have to stay that way even in a time of severe economic crisis (like right now). Now is not the time.

Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation
My Vote: NO
+ Boost to energy sector
- Forces arbitrary standards on ALL energy companies
- Ignores budget crisis
- Easily manipulated
- Conflict of interest by sponsor

Prop 7 is a measure sponsored by Texas Oilman T-Boone Pickens that would encourage growth in the green sector and support government construction of windmills and solar panels. While a good idea on paper, unfortunately the bill is written in such a way that out of state companies, rather then in state small companies, stand to benefit the most. It also requires most energy companies, regardless of specialty, to produce arbitrarily defined amounts of reneweable energy in a short time. This measure is along the right vein, but needs refinement before it is pursued.

Proposition 8: Eliminates right of Same Sex Couples to Marry
My Vote: YES
Partisan Vote?: YES
+ Judge overturned previous proposition passed in 2000
* I personally feel traditional marriage and gay marriage should be defined seperately
- Passage would ignore and bypass the feelings and concerns of many californians
- Comprise must be achieved

Prop 8 is a measure that is worded nearly exactly the same as the bill passed in 2000, which was later over-turned by a judge. This is a highly partisan issue, but this is more then a simple yes no on gay marriage. As langauge stands, gay couples can marry with no difference from traditional marriages. Normally, I would not care that much what people do in their personal lives, but right now the opinions of millions of californians are being shoved aside. I feel that we need to come up with a definition of gay marriage that suits all parties, and reaches a reasonable compromise. Forcing it on people is only going to inflame passions on both sides and not be productive.

Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole.
My Vote: NO
+ Harsher parole sentences
+ Reinforces victims' rights
- Expensive
- Redundant
- Excessive changes constitution

Prop 9 is a measure that would make obtaining parole for violent crime victims much more challenging. However, it is a highly redundant law - protections are already in place and this bill would add a lot of complex language to the constitution. Now is not the time - california needs to save all the money it possibly can.

Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy
My Vote: NO
+ Rebates for 'green' cars
+ Money for green sector
-Disputed communtiy benefits
-BONDS
- Reckless spending
- Rebates provide a highly temporary benefit.
- Special interest payout

Prop 10 is a measure that would mainly serve to provide rebates for the purchase of 'green' vehicles. However - not only is it a bond measure, it would also provide a lot of benefits to select special interest groups - like Pickens. There is too much conflict of interest and money being thrown away to make this bill viable. Rebates only last for so long - and they tend not to spark long term trends.

Proposition 11: Redistricting Reform
My Vote: YES
+ Legislature more accountable to voters
+ Takes State Legislature district drawing out of state legislature's hands
+ Will force legislature to compromise and be less extreme
- Doesn't go far enough - state legislature will still draw congressional districts

Prop 11 is the most important measure on this ballot. Our state legislature has had an abysmal performance, especially with the most recent battle over the state budget. It took the legislature several months of intense bickering, while our state tumbled towards bankruptcy. Also, the way the districts are drawn now, hardly any incumbents were voted out of office in the last elections, leaving them almost entirely unaccountable for their irresponsible behavior. If you vote for one proposition - please vote for this one. We urgently need a change.

Proposition 12: Veterans' Bond Act of 2008
My Vote: NO
+ Veteran's benefits!
* Sells loans suspiciously similar to the loans that spurred the financial crisis
- Puts veterans at risk with dangerous loans
- BONDS
- Unfair in distribution of money

We all love our veterans. Who doesn't? They sacrifice much for their nation and are noble in their choice to serve. Unfortunately, this bill, while it would help vets - ultimately does more harm then good. The loans that vets would receive are not only unstable - but if the vet could not keep up in payments, it would be very damaging to their income and finances. We can do better then this - and also, in the light of our financial crisis - we must save as much as we can. Once the budget stabilizes, measures like this will have more strength behind them.

And now what you've all been waiting for...
THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE

I will make this short and to the point - most of you have made up your minds, but I will sum up the reasons why I am voting the way I am.
My Vote: McCain
Why?
+ Strong on National Defense
+ Former military
+ Passionate about protecting the country
+ Experienced - safe choice in a dangerous world
* Obama is simply too extreme on several issues
- Liberal - he is not a conservative
- Old
- May not push Republicans to reform the party
- I don't agree with his financial views

I am half-heartedly casting my vote for McCain. I am mad at the republican party, but unfortunately the democrats have forwarded a candidate who holds many extreme views. Right now, the world is an unstable place - the middle east is full of potential flare ups, Russia is eying it's neighbors, and China may cause trouble in Asia. National defense and foreign policy will always be my top issue - a lot of people have chosen to simply forget that the world still holds many threats for us. McCain is clearly passionate about defending his country, despite his other faults.

Obama also holds several views that has really pushed me to vote for the one most likely to beat him - his relations with radicals in the past don't matter that much to me. When he says federal judges should judge based on empathy -he is contradicting one of the major points of the constitution. Judges are supposed to judge based on what the law says, not on how they feel about those involved in the case! Also, he recently came out saying that we need a civil force just as powerful and well funded as the military. What?? I thought we had the national guard for such things! I don't know what he meant - and he hasn't clarified, but that worries me.

Congress is set to fall in democratic hands - and after 8 years of being out of power the democrats have a long list of changes they want to implement. The American people are voting for them not because they suddenly agree with their views, but because they are rejecting the corruption that has seized the Republican party. The democrats will overreach, thinking their victory is a mandate - and for the next two years, we need somebody in the executive willing to put a leash on congress. Obama has done nothing to show that he would encourage that restraint.

This is a bad election - we have a moderate liberal battling a hard liberal - most of the american people are not being represented in this election, except for a few unknown third party candidates. Despite how frustrated or angry you are - it is highly important you vote for somebody. We need to send a message that we are starting to pay attention, and that politicians need to clean up their act. High turn-out will be the start. If you can't bring yourself to vote for McCain, or Obama, I highly encourage you to vote for Bob Barr, the Constitutional Party candidate, Ralph Nader, or the Reform party candidate. Make your voice be heard - and hang in there. No matter who wins, the world is not gonna end.

Good luck, and have fun tomorrow!

-Doug

Fun With Digg - October Surprise : Bush Attacks Syria

"U.S. military helicopters attacked an area along Syria's border with Iraq Sunday, killing eight people, the Syrian government said."

http://digg.com/world_news/October_Surprise_Bush_Attacks_Syria

I usually don't do this, but this particular story more then anything else is highly important for people to notice. I did something with this story that was very exhausting - I broke down the scenario, analyzed it, and expressed my heartfelt opinions about it. I responded to almost everyone who responded to me. Why? Because this matters.

People need to remember that there are real reasons and motivations behind a military operation such as this one. Ignore the current political atmosphere - that could be a factor, but a very minor one, especially considering the circumstances. Some people insisted that this operation was done to get national security back on the agenda. That could be true - but if I was willing to accept that, I would have to assume that those pulling the puppet strings are exceptionally short sighted. If they wanted to win points on National Security, why on earth wouldn't they conduct an operation that captured an Al Qaeda commander? Blew up some bomb factories? Destroyed some training facilities? That would have far more PR benefit then a surgical strike producing classified gains and disputed reports of civilian casualties.

Now, lets take a moment to look at this situation with a strategic lens. A lot of folks assumed that we just want to kill civilians. Alright, lets say we do. Why, then, would we take the time and effort to risk a very valuable, hard to train commando team, and 4 helicopters, just to kill some civilians - and only 8 at that! Why not just lob a cruise missile, or better yet, a huge bomb? That would kill way more people, and show those hippies a thing or two!

No. There was a very deliberate reason the military is declining to state. Consider the circumstances - the Iraqi Syrian border has been a hot-bed of instability ever since the occupation, and maybe even longer. US forces posted there have always been undermanned, and only now has securing that border started to become a possibility, thanks to the greater man-power, flexibility, and stability granted by the surge. Since Syria has been very half hearted about clearing militants from their border, for a number of reasons, and they have ignored our requests, we decided to break the mold, and make a move to show Syria we mean business.We showed incredible restraint and caution with this raid. Rather then sending out a predator drone, or an artillery raid - we used the safest possible option - a commando raid. Commandos are highly trained, professional, and efficient.They have brains, and fight so that they complete the operation as soon as possible, with as little disruption as possible. They also gather intelligence - any time we risk human assets in a raid, we are almost always seeking intelligence.

It could've been a non lethal raid. But let me re-post my comment breaking down the two scenarios, a lethal raid vs a non lethal one:

---

In ideal situations, they totally are. But, look at it from a military perspective.

You need to take out a safe-house under construction in hostile territory (The Syrian border is full of insurgent safe havens, we know that for a fact). The target is a farm, with other farms nearby, and an unknown amount of insurgents or insurgent sympathizers. You have strong reason to believe all 8 targets are either involved with the insurgency or shelter them.

Your first priority is the safety of your men.

You have two options:

Take your approach. Tear gas the area, and the workers flee. No one gets killed - but wait. Your men move in to seal off the area and set up a perimeter. The fleeing workers raise the alarm, and hearing that a small, vulnerable task force is in the area, a strong insurgent force starts to rise up, and converge on your position. You have roughly 10 - 20 minutes before they arrive. Your helicopter is orbiting in the distance, and is now at major risk for stingers. You hurry and search the house, going door to door, clearing, looking for evidence. By the time your men call for an extraction, and have set the charges to blow, the small army has arrived and is seeking to capture as many of your men alive as possible. You are forced to call for reinforcements, a rapid response group moves out to safe your asses, since helicopter extraction would be impossible. The force has to move immediately, and there's no time to inform Syrian high command before they get in the area. Syrian border troops spot the massive surge of troops towards the farm-house, and assume it's an invasion, and open fire. Bingo - international incident.
Casualties: Massive

OR

You can insert your men with a very quiet helicopter, and move in to the farm. You wait to inform Syrian high command because there are suspicions that corrupt officials in their military will warn the insurgent elements ahead of time. Since the 8 targets are highly suspected to be the enemy, they are neutralized silently and the house is searched. Upon clearing the house, all discovered threats are neutralized. All your men are accounted for, you call for extraction, and your helicopter is able to pick you up because the alarm has not been raised. You leave the area, inform mission accomplished THEN inform Syria.
Casualties: 8 Suspected enemy KIA

I highly prefer scenario 2 over scenario 1. Taking the non lethal approach is ideal - we want to save as many lives as we can. The general bent of the US military is to minimize civilian impact, more so then most other countries. We use surgical strikes, highly precise weapons, and have highly strict rules of engagement. But sometimes, under certain conditions, you are forced to take the lethal route to minimize the impact of your actions. That's how war goes, I'm afraid.

---

Lastly, it is important to remember who we specifically attacked. We did not attack Syria the country, or Syria the people. Our military conducted a surgical raid against an insurgent safe-house under construction. This is our way of saying - Hey, Syria, pay attention. This is important to us. But, it also comes with a caveat - We have done this far, far too late. I also posted this comment, which sums things up nicely:

---

The situation along the Iraqi Syrian border has been an issue for nearly half a decade - this whole time we've been in Iraq we haven't taken it that seriously, even though the flow of armaments and enemy manpower comes from the Syrian (and iranian) borders.

This first started becoming an issue roughly 6 months to a year after invasion. The single, biggest reason, I am ticked off at Bush, is his lack of action. If he had directly talked to Iran, and Syria, right when the material began to flow - we would have had the direct moral standing and authority to say 'hey, watch your borders'. But no. Shape charges began to show up, powerful, sophisticated explosive devices that could not be assembled by make-shift bomb factories. They needed better facilities, that had been around longer, Hence, cells in Syria and Iran.

I am not saying the governments of Syria and Iran directly support Terrorism (Though Iran does have worrying ties.) Syria doesn't like the cells in their country, but haven't made any aggressive attempts to flush them out for fear of inflaming their populace. Syria's problem is that it's neglected the issue, and let them spread like a cancer. Moderates living along the border have been kicked out, replaced with insurgents, and their homes become safe houses. (From the BBC roughly a year ago)

Bush has waited nearly 4 years to act on this. My point is that the action is justified - but it has come FAR too late. It should've been an aggressive partnership to flush out the insurgents with Syria, and maybe Iran - but no. I feel that a severe amount of war profiteering has gone on in Iraq, and that bush is responsible for enabling it. So there you go.

---

That is where I stand. Please, comment - engage me in a little discussion. I am very well read on these matters and I welcome the chance to share opinions. SMART opinions. I am not going to censor people - but folks being hateful or stupid will not be tolerated.

read more | digg story

Outdated, see above posts.

Doug's Voter Guide for 2008 General Election

And now, it's time for me to get on to the issues. For now, this will be one loooong post, which may be split up if people request or I just feel like it. So deal. I'm going to be taking every California number proposition, and break it down as best I can, posting every proposition in order, one at a time, and ending with my vote on the presidential candidates. So, without further ado...

EDIT: Actually, I'll split this up post by post, and consolidate into a quick list at the end. Feel free to leave comments, I'd be happy to discuss this stuff. Also, you can get all the info you ever wanted and more on these props at this website:

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/

look up.

An Intro

Hey folks.

If you've happened to stumble upon this, welcome. This is a blog written by a Computer Engineering Student at UCSD with an intense interest in politics and the shenanigans that take place behind the scenes. This will simply be my place to express my views, listen to other people's opinions, and maybe debate a little.

I am a skeptic conservative - I am not a republican, or a democrat. I look upon both parties with frustration, since they both seem to disregard the opinions of the American people. I do have a conservative bias, but I am best defined as a strong fiscal conservative and a moderate social conservative.

My prime motivation behind this blog is to hold those in elected office accountable for their actions. While it's impossible to hold them all accountable, I can try - mainly with local politicians, and of course the presidential candidates. I will be submitting my own voter guides with my own suggestions and justifications for why I vote the way I do. I am not looking to convert people, mainly to inform, discuss, and debate. Another motivation is my desire to counter the blind acceptance some people have for Obama - he is a fine man, his potential presidency will not be the end of the world - but people need to be careful as to the degree they embrace him, and make sure they regard him with healthy skepticism. That is the greatest virtue of our democracy - the power to criticize and judge our leaders.

Thanks for reading, and while I do not expect a lot of traffic I appreciate your support

-Doug