davidology: (gay flag)
I really should start doing this sooner.

I've gone through my ballot and have chosen how I'm voting tomorrow (in the off chance someone might care). A prerequisite to how I vote is a candidate's position on LGBT equality. Any candidate who doesn't support basic, fundamental civil rights clearly is a complete and total moron as far as I'm concerned and unfit to govern (he/she might try running for office where such views are considered normal... say, in Iran).

Anywho here is how I'm voting tomorrow!

Governor - Jerry Brown. Whitman has stated point blank that she would use her position to defend Prop 8. If that isn't enough to dissuade you, she couldn't even be bothered to vote for over 20 years. Let her buy some other state.

Lt Governor - Gavin Newsom (guy is hot, and Lt Governor doesn't really do anything - might as well vote for the guy who isn't bad to look at... amirite??)

Sec of State - Debra Bowen. The Republican alternative has described himself as being "conservative on social issues." 'nuff said.

Controller - Democrat John Chiang. The Republican alternative has publicly stated his opposition to gay marriage.

Treasurer - Democrat Bill Lockyer. I've never had a reason to vote against him. The GOP candidate is known to be rather anti-hispanic.

Attorney General - A key election. Kamala Harris is the best choice here. Republican Cooley has criticized Schwarzenegger for not defending prop 8, and has pledged to defend prop 8 if he's elected.

Insurance Commissioner - Dave Jones

State Bd of Equalization, District 4 - Jerome Horton

US Senator - Barbara Boxer. No choice here. Fiorina is a proud anti-gay, prop 8-supporting bigot. The smug billionaire will set LGBT rights back 20 years if she's elected.

US Representative, 30th District - Henry Waxman. The GOP alternative Wilkerson is against gays in the military and is so radical he doesn't even support stem cell research.

State Assembly, 42nd District - Mike Feuer. I couldn't find much on this election, but anti-choice extremists HATE Feuer, so he must be good.

Supreme Court Justices:
Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye - YES (moderate Republican, has presided over gay marriages)
Ming Chin - NO (voted to ban gay marriage)
Carlos Moreno - YES (supporter of gay marriage)

Court of Appeals:
Robert Mallano - YES
Victoria G. Chaney - NO (couldn't find anything specific on her, but she's supported by bigoted organizations opposed to equality)
Jeffrey Johnson - YES (vehemently opposed by anti-gay groups)
Judith Ashmann - YES (opposed by anti-gay bigots)
Walter Croskey - YES (opposed by anti-gay groups)
Steven Suzukawa - NO (supported by anti-gay groups)
Orville "Jack" Armstrong - NO (supported by anti gay groups)
Paul H. Coffee - YES (couldn't find anything specific, but he is opposed by conservative groups, so I'm erring on the side of caution and supporting him)
Steven Perren - YES YES YES (strongly opposed by anti-gay bigots; he must be awesome)
Laurie Zelon - YES (opposed by anti-gay groups)
Frank Jackson - NO (supported by anti-gay groups)
Tricia Bigelow - NO (could go either way here, but was supported by anti-gay groups, so I'm voting no)
Elizabeth Annette Grimes - NO (supported by anti-gay groups)

Judge of Superior Court:
Office 28 - Randy Hammock - Republican supported by LGBT lawyers
Office 117 - Alan Schneider - supported by LA Times and various other groups I tend to trust
Office 136 - Amy Hogue

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Tom Torlakson (supports gay marriage)
County Assessor - John Noguez (gay candidate)

Prop 19 - YES
Prop 20 - NO
Prop 21 - NO
Prop 22 - NO
Prop 23 - NO (dangerous, disingenuous prop would set back our clean air legislation)
Prop 24 - NO
Prop 25 - YES
Prop 26 - NO
Prop 27 - YES

(using an old turnout.org userpic... seems appropriate, and falls on the right date again!)
davidology: (Default)
Well said.

San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders:

With me this afternoon is my wife, Rana.

I am here this afternoon to announce that I will sign the resolution that the City Council passed yesterday directing the City Attorney to file a brief in support of gay marriage.

My plan, as has been reported publicly, was to veto that resolution, so I feel like I owe all San Diegans an explanation for this change of heart.

During the campaign two years ago, I announced that I did not support gay marriage and instead supported civil unions and domestic partnerships.

I have personally wrestled with that position ever since. My opinion on this issue has evolved significantly—as I think have the opinions of millions of Americans from all walks of life.

In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election, I intended to veto the Council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.

The arrival of the resolution—to sign or veto— in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do.

I have decided to lead with my heart—to do what I think is right—and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.

For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community.

As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage—than anyone else—simply because of their sexual orientation.

A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years.

I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and certainly it is true in my case.

Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have since changed.

The concept of a "separate but equal" institution is not something that I can support.

I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or perhaps even understand my decision today.

All I can offer them is that I am trying to do what I believe is right.

I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community. These folks include my daughter Lisa and her partner, as well as members of my personal staff.

I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones—for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's wondrous adventures.

And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships—their very lives—were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana.

Thank you.

Too bad our governor doesn't have the same integrity and character. Who would've thunk the governator would turn out to be the GOP's little bitch?

davidology: (California)
I just got this email:
I'm sure that you might be wondering why you're receiving this unsolicited message. Well, when I did a search on California Secession on Live Journal yours was one of the names to come up and I thought that I should extend an invitation to you to attend the very first Statewide Secessionist Meetup, tentatively planned for the first weekend in August, to take place in Bakersfield, with the actual location to be determined later. If you're interested either I can keep you up to date via email, or you can keep track of any changes at the Google Group hosted by IndependentCalifornia.com....

Let's start something significant,

Okay, I do list "california secession" in my interests, but really, it was largely meant as an in your face message to the 59MM assclowns who are responsible for the state this country is in today.

I also believe I list "your mom" and "toiling under the ruthless domination of a master race of hacked TiVos," but I'd prefer neither to call on me plskthx!! :-P

Oh, I wonder what watch list I'm on now....

P.S. I reserve the right to revisit this if this country elects another coked up, drunken, megalomaniac with the IQ of a hamster to the White House again! I should save the link in case I need a bumper sticker for my car.

davidology: (California)

Okay, having already figured out the candidates, I've finally gone through all the propositions, and I think I've mostly decided. I still need to Google some of the judges to make sure none of them is batshit crazy (assuming I can find anything about them online).

Anywho, this isn't meant as recommendations—just the decisions I've come to and my reasoning behind it. If you disagree, you have until around 18:00 PST to change my mind.

1A Transportation Funding Protection YES I'm leaning YES on this one. Too often politicians get voters to approve money for fixing things we want fixed only to have that money diverted and then them hit us up for money again. Only concern: will this prevent using gas taxes for the exploration of alternative fuels?
1B Hwy Safety, Traffic, Air Quality YES Our freeways are in dire need up upgrades.
1C Housing / Emergency Shelter NO Torn on this one, but leaning towards NO, only because housing prices are out of control for everybody. I think there's a better solution. This feels like a stop gap for certain classes. I could change my mind by tomorrow, but probably not.
1D Public Education Facilities NO I'm only leaning towards NO because I feel as if we just approved money for the same exact thing.
1E Disaster Preparedness YES Paying for maintenance is cheaper than footing the bill after the fact (as we saw after what happened to New Orleans). We also know we can't rely on the federal government for shit.
83 Sex Offenders NO GPS for monitoring sex offenders? Problem here is the term sex offender is applied so haphazardly that I can't even consider this. You could probably be labeled a sex offender for getting caught skinny dipping.
84 Water Quality, Safety, Supply NO It sounds as if 1E covers a number of these, so I'm going NO.
85 Waiting period-abortions for minors NO Absofuckingly not. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. I'm so sick of the fundies trying to roll back Roe v. Wade and acting like a zygote is an effing human being. It's not. NO, NO, NO, NO. NO!
86 $2.60 per pack Cigarette tax YES 86 & 87 have some of the most disingenuous ads opposing them. They have done more to sway me in favor of these props than anything. Sorry, to my smoker friends, but I don't care if they use the funds to skin baby seals to make panties for Celine Dion with the money. If it means being downwind from cigarette smoke one less time, or one less cigarette butt ending up on the beach, or one less cigarette butt thrown out a car window causing a brush fire, then it was worth it. Besides, I don't like New York besting us for most expensive tobacco products. We need to reclaim our title! It's on!
87 Alternative Energy/Oil Drilling tax YES I've gone back and forth on this one. I was initially leaning towards NO, but then the No on 87 ads just got ridiculous. The one that says we should vote NO because Prop 87 "contains 12,000 legally binding words." ZOMG NOT WERDZ!!11!1 The ads are insulting to the voters' intelligence. For that reason alone, I'd vote YES. I do feel better about my vote after Clinton decided to support the bill.
88 Education Funding, Parcel tax NO Housing in this state is ridiculously out of control. I'm not adding to it.
89 Political campaigns, public funding NO Although I'm generally in favor of publicly funded elections, if done I think it should be mandatory and all 3rd party funds eliminated. I'm not sure this goes far enough. Also, not sure raising corporate taxes is a good idea considering how high they are now.
90 Govt Acquisition / Private Property NO If CalTrans needs to buy your property to expand the freeways, then let 'em do it. Needs of the many, yadda yadda yadda. Plus, I hate traffic.

Supreme Court Justices

I'm voting YES for both of the Supreme Court Justices based upon this neocon website. The bigots on that site clearly can't stand these two judges (just read the site; they're batshit crazy). So vote YES for both Supreme Court Justices! I'm glad they posted that. They made my decision so easy.

Important Links you might need/want

L.A. County Polling Locations

SmartVoter.org - Nonpartisan info put out by the League of Women Voters. Summarizes the propositions; gives links to candidates' sites, etc., etc.

davidology: (California)
Okay, I haven't made a politically-oriented post in a while (okay, well, this week). I have to say, I've been remarkably proud of my state as of late. Today, our governor signed one of the strongest pieces of legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the nation. It kind of makes you wish he'd take stands like this in nonelection years too.

About a week ago, our attorney general sued auto manufacturers for the environmental damage their vehicles have caused. Although I'm a little conflicted on that one, as, on its face, it just seems silly. There is a part of me, however, that can help grinning at the fact Lockyer had the kahunas to take on the auto industry. While I'm sure it's mostly an election–year stunt since he's running for State Treasurer, it's nice to see the U.S. auto industry being forced to go on the defensive for once.

California energy use v. U.S. averageAs I said, although, I'm a little conflicted. On principle, I'm kind of bothered by it. On the other hand, let's be honest: the auto industry fights dirty, and has for a long time. Recently, we enacted legislation mandating reduced emissions from vehicles. The auto industry of course is pulling out all the stops to stop it from being enacted—all because we have the audacity to say that WE don't want gross polluting vehicles in OUR state (how dare we?!). Turnabout is fair play, I guess, so Lockyer sued on our behalf. Stunt or not, I think he just secured my vote for State Treasurer.

For years, air quality in L.A. had been improving—dramatically. That trend has reversed in recent years, however, and our air quality is now getting worse. Even if you want to be stubborn and think greenhouse gas emissions have no impact on the environment (or believe we didn't land on the Moon for that matter), knock yourself out. You can't argue, however, with the fact that pollution is bad for our health—very bad, and it's not as if I can decide not to breathe "if I don't like it." The asthma rate here is through the roof, and I have to live with a brown sky many days of the year. Pollution is a problem here, and we have every right to regulate it and decide what we will allow on our roadways.

If car manufacturers had any sense of social responsibility, legislation wouldn't be required. However, when the federal government passed stricter CAFE standards to help reduce emissions, instead of complying with the spirit of the law, the auto industry's response was to find loopholes and build larger vehicles that are in a different classification not subject to the stricter standards. It's not surprising that an effort to fill those loopholes would be met with resistance. I kind of admire Lockyer's "in your face" approach: if you won't do it willingly, or listen to the will of the people of our state, then maybe a multi-million dollar lawsuit will change your mind. Honestly, what could be more American than that?

I know that conservative "news" sources have repeatedly made fun of the "left coast," and I'm sure Rush Limbaugh and his ilk have had a field day with our latest efforts to improve the quality of life here that flies smack in the face of the George W. Bush agenda of making his oil buddies richer. But you know what? I don't care. Our taking leadership, despite the overwhelming opposition from those red states to our right, has repeatedly benefited the entire country. "California emissions" are installed across several car models sold throughout the nation (it's often cheaper for manufacturers to include Cali emissions in all cars rather than make some for California residents and others that only meet federal standards). So once again, everyone across the nation may benefit from the state's granola–loving ways.

People likewise across the fruited plains thought it was nuts to ban smoking in restaurants and then bars. Now those pieces of legislation are models being followed by other cities and states. Was it crazy or ahead of the curve? So if being progressive is nuts, so be it. Last time I checked, people want to live here, and if my commute is any indication, they're still moving here in droves. So all the neocons can call California crazy, but they might want to ask themselves why so many people leave their states every year to come here.

Anyway, I guess I got my fill of news articles today that seemed filled with comments from neocons and people shit talking on my state because of the recent legislation. I may talk smack about her from time to time, but it's like someone talking about your mom or your sister. You can talk about her yourself, but if anyone else does it....

cut a bitch



davidology: (Default)

July 2013

78 910111213


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 05:03 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios