Writing Shotgun

MAD PROPS! THE OFFICIAL DISTRICT WEEKLY STATE PROPOSITION VOTER GUIDE

The District WeeklyFri. October 17
 

PROP. 1A: YES
HIGH-SPEED RAIL BOND High-speed train from Los Angeles to San Francisco. With interest, principal and annual maintenance will cost about $1.67 billion per year; if that seems expensive, consider that it’s one-tenth the cost of a month in Iraq. We would have said let the free market handle this, but the free market no longer exists. All aboard!

PROP. 2: YES
STANDARDS FOR CONFINING ANIMALS Doesn’t go far enough, but, well, yes. Calves raised for veal, pregnant pigs and egg-laying hens can be “confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely,” but it does not mandate that you make more room in the fridge for that HoneyBaked Ham. Seriously: They can turn around? That’s it? Why? So they can see Javier Bardem coming at them with an air gun? By the way, have you seen the faux-meat strips at Trader Joe’s? Edamame!


PROP. 3: YES, BUT, LIKE WOW
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND ACT This is what pain looks like: Because the American health care system is among the worst of any wealthy industrialized country, we have to step up as a state and do what neither private insurers nor hospital companies will—pay for the deathly ill and seriously fucked-up by putting a kid’s face on it. Eighty percent of the billion-dollar bond will go to hospitals to care for terminally ill kids; the other 20 percent will go for emergency rooms run by the University of California. We’ve got to keep these little taxpayers alive, see: We’ll be dead when the bill comes for the Iraq War and the Wall Street and Detroit bailouts.

PROP. 4: HELL, NO
WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY Ah, fuck this.

PROP. 5: NO
NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES We’re kind of nuts like this, but if you commit a crime, we don’t really care whether you were walking your dog or freebasing your cat. Prop. 5 strips judges of the authority to do what their title demands they do from 9 to 5: make judgments.

PROP. 6: NO
POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING Prop. 6 would create new crimes—like there aren’t enough—and so produce thousands of new criminals, at a tremendous cost to the state (about a billion dollars in the first few years, but is likely to rise thereafter—“tens of millions of dollars annually). On the other hand: America can’t make cars anymore, but Prop. 5 proves we can still make criminals. John McCain’s line—“my fellow prisoners”—will become the invariable opening of every State of the Union address.

PROP. 7: NO
RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION This sounds like something we should like—we ride fucking bikes in traffic so you can breathe easier (you’re welcome)—but in fact California’s major alternative energy and environmental groups don’t like Prop. 7.  Buried in the law are two deal killers: (a) Prop. 7 would slash penalties by 80 percent for utilities that fail to meet the state’s renewable energy targets; (b) Prop. 7 also limits environmental review of energy projects. Drill this.

PROP. 8: HELL, NO
ELIMINATES GAY MARRIAGE Pass this and the terrorists win—and we won’t see Angelina in a wedding dress any time soon.

PROP. 9: NO
VICTIMS’ RIGHTS The last people in the world who should be allowed to participate in sentencing their perps are the victims. Seriously: Someone kills my girlfriend, and I’m medieval—would it the please the court to allow me to like beat the defendant your honor and then kill his whole family? You want to know where Prop. 9 already exists? Villages in Africa and India. And wherever Prop. 8 already exists.

PROP. 10: NO
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLES This’ll cost you—$335 million per year for 30 years. We already supported mass transit (see Prop. 1 above and our own predilection for biking). This is socialism for the auto industry at taxpayer expense. Ride a bike. Carpool, already.

PROP. 11: YES
REDISTRICTING Or maybe, no: See, we thought this was a state requirement to read The District Weekly twice. In reality, yes: this is a complicated but necessary fix for the problem of unchallengable incumbency. Evidence? Dana Rohrabacher’s been in office for 20 years.

PROP. 12 NO
VETERANS’ BOND ACT Hey: We’ve got an idea: How about the federal government that sends soldiers to war actually takes care of the veterans it produces?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • Eric
    Hey guys, I agree with this....but what about Measure I? www.rebuildlb.com. I am for this ....
  • Will: Actually I meant precisely what I said and with good reason. Here’s how it went:

    ~~~
    wswaim: “I'd argue that, contrary to Prop. 6, we should reduce dramatically the number of crimes that require a prison sentence (or even jail)…”

    John B.: “wswaim: Just for the sake of clarification, which specific crimes would you advocate that we remove from those that require a prison or jail sentence?

    wswaim: “I'd immediately rescind the Three Strikes law--it's a financial disaster for the state--legalize many drugs, regulate others and wipe out drug offenses.”
    ~~~

    I asked you about *specific* crimes because, unlike desiring to rescind a sentencing guideline that impacts repeat offenses; rescinding actual offenses requires a tad more commitment to one's cause. For example: I get that you don’t like that a 2-time armed robbery convict can go to prison for life for committing *any* 3rd felony, but it’s quite another matter to advocate for doing away with the crime of armed robbery altogether. Do you see the distinction?

    So, again, besides the drug laws you would rescind, what crimes, specifically, would you advocate that we remove from those that require “a prison sentence (or even jail)"?

    I didn’t credit 3-Strikes for the falling crime rate in the late 90’s, I simply said one might make that argument. And the downward trend in the late 90’s actually coincided with the economic boom credited to the Republican-controlled Congress that managed to constrain Clinton’s tax and spend philosophies : ) But crime, does indeed tend to increase during tough economic times. There were no doubt many factors that influenced that downward trending crime rate; hence my statement “…can be, *at least in part*, attributed to 3-strikes”.

    We do, indeed “punish people for the crimes they commit”, Will, that’s why a person who kills someone while under the influence of narcotics get's booked for murder or manslaughter *AND* for being under the influence. But the entire reason for the current under-the-influence laws is because people who are under-the-influence are more likely to commit other crimes and kill and injure people while doing so. Their artificially diminished inhibitions tend to cause them choose to victimize someone when they might not have when sober or their impairment tends to cause them to be more slow to react while driving and take out some innocent family where they might have been less likely to otherwise.

    Get the difference?

    Dave Wielenga: Howdy! So if I understand you; you would erase the distinction between "any person who actively participates in any criminal street gang with knowledge that its members engage in or have engaged in a pattern of criminal gang activity, and who willfully promotes, furthers, or assists in any felonious criminal conduct by members of that gang" (CPC 186.22) and any person who sits on the Board of a Corporation, a University Alumni Association or the Rotary Club?

    I suppose that’s one approach, but are we to now penalize people for NOT committing crimes?

    Is your intent to minimize a person's affiliation with a criminal street gang since, gee, people join other organizations all the time, why pick on the poor gang members?
  • Andrew Williams
    "...if you commit a crime, we don’t really care whether you were walking your dog or freebasing your cat." What if I'm smoking marijuana for medical purposes, which is legal under state law but illegal under Federal law? Should I go to jail?
    "Prop. 5 strips judges of the authority to do what their title demands they do from 9 to 5: make judgments." The Fed did that over 20 years ago by creating that loveliness known as "mandatory minimum sentencing." Talk about judges being stripped of authority. Passing Prop 5 just means that judges won't have to send drug users to jail. Aside from David Crosby, I don't know of a single drug ab/user who benefitted from time in the slammer.
  • Dave Wielenga
    Hey John B....I might be in favor of the mandatory sentencing for those crimes by "gang-members" if we could expand the definition of "gang members" to include such "gangs" as the executive management structure at major corportations, university alumni associations, rotary clubs, etc.
  • wswaim
    JohnB: Thanks for understanding that, of course, I went to the heart of your question which was really (I figured) about how to reduce the prison/jail populations. Hence Three Strikes--which you credit with the falling crime rate in mid to late 90s; I notice that that trend coincides with (hey, hey) the Clinton economic boom. Could be, right? Could be that crime rises in tough times?

    I can't assure you that drug users won't commit crimes, John B. But how about we agree that punishing drug users because they might commit another crime is kind of Philip D. Dick nightmarish. How about we just punish people for the crimes they commit, rather than criminalize behaviors we think MIGHT lead to crime? That jurisprudential philosophy (along with restoring the independence of judges, rather than tying their hands with sentencing requirements) could cut corrections spending dramatically. Now.
  • Judy C.
    YES! ON PROP 2 --Food prices will not increase if Prop 2 passes. An analysis by a California based poultry economist show that it costs less than one additonal penny per egg NOT to confine egg laying hens in battery cages. It may increase consumer prices a few pennies per dozen. It is worth a few cents more to decrease animal cruelty! Prop 2 will not take effect until 2015, giving farmers plenty of time to make the transition.
  • Brown Dude
    You guys are clowns for not supporting prop. 12.

    I got an Idea. How about a publication that supports the institution (military) that actually VOLUNTEERS, SWEARS, TRAINS and FIGHTS to defend the Constitution, including the amendment that keeps your bills and paychecks paid. Did you stop to consider the National Guard of this state? Better hope that shit never hits the fan in the LB.
  • Dwight K Snider
    Ok, it’s time to cut the crap! We have a very important election before us. How about a simple yes or no-list from the District Weekly of all the candidates and propositions on the November 4th ballot telling us, the people, how you want us to vote. I don’t want to have to think this stuff through. Just tell me how to vote. It’s your job to inform the public -- just do it! Make it easy! Give us, the people, something we can copy, print and take to the polls on Election Day. All I really want to do is vote, get my “I Voted” sticker then go to the bars and get my free drinks. Why does the District Weekly have to make everything so complicated
  • Judy C.
    PROP 2 --REGARDING FOOD PRICE INCREASE: An analysis by a California- based poultry economist show that it costs less than one addional penny per egg NOT to confine laying hens in battery cages. It MAY increase consumer prices a few pennies per dozen. Isn't it worth a few
    cents more to decrease horrific animal cruelty?
    PROP 2 will not take effect until 2015, which gives California producers plenty of time to transition to humane end environmentally friendly production systems. More humane treatment of farm animals improves food quality and safety.
    PROP 2 is better for the animals, people and the environment!
  • wswaim
    Some really great points raised here. We were considering what a number of you (LB City Girl, John B, DWR) said about bond debt, and you're right. So in the print edition we're changing our recommendation on Prop 1A. We love the trains, but this ain't the year to add more debt. Like LBCG, we absolutely despise the spend-and-debt mentality that drives so much of California's politics.

    John B: You pick the easiest crime statute to trace when you choose murder--which was illegal in California before the establishment of state statutes, before California was a republic, under the Spanish and (I'm now guessing) probably frowned upon in aboriginal cultures. Prop 6 isn't asking Californians about anything so obvious as murder. Or slavery. Or wife-rapists. I think we can agree that those are pretty much universally reviled, and that we're not talking about those. What is it in Prop 6 that you'd regard as, like, lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape? I'm not seeing it.

    Greggory: Please, god, really, the communication on drug-treatment is already so complicated that we don't want to start hauling cardinal-colored, really malodorous fish across the issue. Prop 5 assumes the law is just. Naturally, if a law ain't just, Prop 5 won't do anything to fix that.

    Favorite line thus far: Animal Lover's question.
  • Andy
    WHOA, WHOA, WHOA, there...hold the presses if you're going to flip on the issues that easily.

    Now I totally understand the fiscal crisis argument AND the very valid philosophy behind not borrowing your children's money, but Prop 1A is an infrastructure bond that has tangible economic benefits to the state immediately...i.e., jobs, which are going to be harder and harder to find. Plus, there is a potential revenue stream or tangible asset to sell once completed.

    While bonds for education and puppies are no less important, in times like these jobs and consumer spending will pull us out of this mess.

    Please don't flip so easily on this issue by lumping all bond measures in one big sack.
  • wswaim
    Andy: There was nothing easy about this change. Griley kicked me in the testicles while Dave Wielenga and Theo Douglas worked my kidneys. Food critic Miles Clements cooked the testicles and one kidney (diced) in a lovely red-wine and shallot reduction, strained it . . . . is this going anywhere?

    But seriously: You sound good shouting "hold the presses."

    And seriously seriously: the problem with measures--including this year's--is that voters are working in zero-gravity, without context. For instance, I'd argue that, contrary to Prop. 6, we should reduce dramatically the number of crimes that require a prison sentence (or even jail) and use the savings (in new prison construction and corrections budget) to build something really useful like a railroad (of course, we could go back to the 19th century and use prison labor to build railroads). But only legislators could work that sort of budgetary and political magic; we use the referendum system to treat discrete symptoms with, like, no attention to how this stuff is interconnected.

    And I understand that--um, what did you call it?--flipping on an issue is un-American (along with changing one's mind when presented with new information, striving for a superior education, language skills). And I know you're not saying this, Andy. But too many papers, pundits and politicians (pardon the alliteration) chain themselves to positions and declare themselves unmovable. Open-mindedness, pragmatism used to be the hallmarks of what passed for American philosophy; now our philosophical code is stubbornness dressed up as moral rigor.

    And let me just add one last thing, Andrew: I really admire your comments. Thanks for them.
  • I think changing one's stance is more admirable than saving face and clinging to a previous poorly made decision. Well done, Will.
  • Will: Just for the sake of clarification, which specific crimes would you advocate that we remove from those that require a prison or jail sentence?
  • While “3-strikes” isn't exactly a crime but, rather, a criminal sentencing guideline, I think I understand your meaning. In disliking it you agree with a growing trend in the State of voters who are reconsidering this law (in 2004, Prop 66 {that would have made significant changes to 3-strikes}, very nearly passed with 47% voter support. One might argue that the sharply declining State crime rate (a whopping 43% decline between '94 and '99) can be, at least in part, attributed to 3-strikes. Yet that very decline is also being seen as evidence that 3-strikes has served its purpose and is no longer necessary. But “financial disaster”, Will? Not hardly. Original cost projections for 3-strikes proved greatly over-estimated. The independent Legislative Analysts Office estimated cost increases attributable specifically 3-strikes at about $1.5 billion...far less than the $3 to $6 billion originally predicted. $1.5 billion is still a lot, but can we accurately estimate the various costs of the thousands of crimes 3-strikes likely helped to prevent? Nope. All we know for certain is that crime went down significantly after 3-strikes was enacted and this, after all, was its intended purpose. So is it a failure? I don't think so. Is it still necessary, perhaps not.

    I'm with you on *federal* drug laws. The Fed has no business being involved in a "War on Drugs" unless it's restricted to federal lands (where it has sole jurisdiction). Across the board decriminalization at the State level, however, is quite another matter. I don't know about you but I happen to like living in a State where it's illegal to sell drugs to kids; or to manufacture drugs in a neighborhood when a simple slip can result in a crater the size of half a city block, or to leave dirty needles strewn about for kids to inadvertently infect themselves with. Should people be free to put whatever they want into their own bodies? Absolutely. The problem is most folks who ingest psychoactive substances stronger than caffeine and nicotine often aren’t content to stay in their rooms and count all the pretty purple elephants. They tend to stagger or drive about and kill and injure people or do so to themselves, causing all sorts of havoc and mayhem in public places.

    The moment you can assure me that the only person who gets killed or hurt by a person abusing drugs is the person abusing drugs, you'll have my vote on across the board decriminalization of all "personal usage" drug laws.
  • Will Swaim
    I'd immediately rescind the Three Strikes law--it's a financial disaster for the state--legalize many drugs, regulate others and wipe out drug offenses.

    It's been fun being all three branches of government for the last 60 seconds! Peace out.
  • Andy
    Wow. I had no idea editorial decisions were so, um, physical in nature. Never saw that on Lou Grant.

    And there is nothing unAmerican regarding changing your mind based on new information. For instance, I now think Johnny Depp is a fine actor and that Brussles sprouts are delicious.
  • Andy
    Oh, and I've always wanted say "Hold The Presses!"
  • Greggory
    Will, didn't I just say vote YES on 5?! Now you're supposed to change The District's position, and that's that! Okay, seriously, while Prop. 5 obviously isn't a true fix, by lessening even a few of the penalties imposed under a bad set of laws, it lessens the injustice done by those laws. Even if Prop. 5 does NOTHING else, it seems to me that alone makes it worth voting for. And while it might not make any difference to most of us, it certainly might make a big difference to an unfortunate few. After all, as Thomas Merton says... (Inside joke. Apologies to anyone else who read this.)
  • wswaim: Certainly we can regress in time all the way back to the Codex Hammurabi or the Decalogue if you like.

    I was simply trying to keep the discussion in the context of current California law, which, of course, is what these Propositions would be affecting.

    Jeepers, Will, “lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape?” Really? So laws concerning lesser crimes are, what, unnecessary? Frivolous? Solely intending to “create criminals”? By that standard should we then erase theft or battery or burglary as legitimate crimes since they don’t represent “lawmaking on a level with murder/slavery/rape?” I will concede your point…none of the crimes in Prop 6 sink to the level of “murder/slavery/rape” but, in my humble opinion they will nonetheless prove beneficial to many law abiding persons, yourself included.

    Here’s a few I particularly like:

    1. Gang members convicted of home robbery, carjacking, extortion, or threats to witnesses would be subject to life terms in prison (Currently they are not. I like this revision because gang members as described in PC 186.22 are “knowing and active participants” not merely hangers-on or wanna-be’s, thus they earn no mercy from me for committing the listed crimes as gang members).

    2. Doubles penalties for inmates who commit a felony as part of a gang (They get convicted and then commit additional crimes in jail or prison in furtherance of their thug-dom? They’re done).

    3. Generally prohibits probation for a conviction of car theft if the offender has multiple prior convictions for car theft. (Probation after multiple convictions? I don’t think so).

    4. Ten additional years in prison for possession of a concealed weapon by certain convicted felons. (The sole purpose that a convicted felon has for carrying a gun is to harm other victims…in my opinion this enhancement isn’t nearly harsh enough) and one last one;

    5: Up to four-year prison term for intimidating a witness, judge, or other person for participating in a court proceeding. (Attempts at undermining the criminal justice system in this manner must be dealt with harshly and rapidly.)

    How’s that, Will?

    There are many additional potential benefits to this Proposition having to do with increased funding and support for all levels of law enforcement, but that’ll do for now I think.
  • Judy C.
    Hi Animal Lover: Prop 2 applies to calves raised for veal, breeding pigs and egg-laying hens. These animals are kept in dirty, cramped cages, gestation crates and battery cages their entire lives! They are virtually immobilized and prevented from their natural behavior. All animals deserve humane treatment! Animals raised for food account for 98% of all animal abuse!
    PLEASE EVERYONE, VOTE YES ON PROP2!
  • For Animal Lover: Hi, Animal Lover, and thanks. Yes, it applies to domestic animals raised as food providers, specifically laying hens, pigs and veal calves. The guys raised a good point in their intro when they wondered if this would only give the hens room to turn around, but there's bound to be more to it than this, particularly since the laying cages are one atop the other and not only are the poor hens confined like the woman at the end of Todd Browning's "Freaks" but also the ones on the bottom are covered in chicken#@&%. Just like humans, in real life. But as everyone can figure, even if you're not going to buy the yummy vegan stuff (and much of it is) that substitutes for chicken and other meats, why add horrible conditions like these to their death? To paraphrase what one of the Humane Society members--I think it was WAyne Pacelle--said, they're making the ultimate sacrifice by dying in order to feed us.
    Thanks for being an animal lover, Animal Lover. For info on this proposition, visit www.yesonprop2.com.
  • Judy C.
    Thanks for voting "YES" on Prop 2!!!
  • Judy C.
    Thanks for voting "YES on Prop 2!!
  • Animal Lover
    I'm confused about Prop 2. Does it apply only to animals raised for food, or does also apply to animals that live as 'domestic partners'?
blog comments powered by Disqus
 

© 2007-2008 Seven Days Publishing LLC.