Caitlin Carroll - Columbia, S.C.

The Issue: The California Teachers Association, the California Labor Union the advocates for the K-12 teachers in the state has released their positions on the California Propositions on the November ballot.  While they did not take a position on all of the propositions, they took positions on a few that seem unrelated to the California Education System.

The California Teachers Association (or the CTA) held the meeting of their State Council this weekend (October 3-5, 2008).  The State Council is the policy-making body of the organization.  At their meeting they took positions on several of the propositions on the November Election ballot including the following:

• Proposition 3:  Children's Hospital Bond Act- Support
• Proposition 4:  Parental Notification for Abortions- Oppose
• Proposition 6:  Public Safety Funding- Oppose
• Proposition 8:  Define Marriage as between Men and Women- Oppose
• Proposition 9:  Criminal Justice System.  Victim's Rights- Oppose

Observations:

The first thing you might notice is that not a single one of these propositions has anything to do with education.  One might make a good argument that some of these measures will mandate spending that effectively takes away available money that could be used for education.  Such is the case with their opposition to proposition 6.

Propositions 8 and 9 however, are budget neutral, meaning that they have no fiscal impact on the state or local municipalitites (according the the Legislative Analyst's Office).  This means that the CTA encourages group think on behalf of the K-12 teachers regarding the so-called "moral issues".  Gay Marriage and Victim's Rights have no impact whatsoever on education.

The real surprise is that the Union took no position on California's Proposition 11 regarding Redistricting.  The CTA had opposed the last redistricting propostion proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger back in 2005.  It is surprising that the CTA would ever oppose redistricting because having more competitive elections would require more reliance on Special Interest money and gove the Union more influence.  Perhaps with the silence of the CTA proposition has a chance of passing.  Let's hope.

Information on candidates, issues, and ballot measures after the jump!

A great place to start boning up on the local races is by taking a look at the ballots.  Here they are:

• Borough Ballot (PDF) (Residents inside the city limits get to vote on BOTH Borough and city races, residents outside the city limits vote for Borough races only)
• News-Miner article on Borough Propositions A & B.  Both of the propositions deal with the borough tax cap.

As far as getting information about the candidates, the best resource is the News-Miner's articles and questionnaires.  Here are a few.

• News-Miner overview of Borough Assembly races
• News-Miner overview of City Council races
• Local candidates on Fairbanks economic issues
• Local candidates on downtown revitalization
• Voter forum recap with local candidates
• Local candidates on violence in schools
• Borough Assembly candidates on education spending
• Borough Assembly candidates on public transportation

Sorry for the link dump, but I wanted things together in one place.  Many thanks to the News-Miner for providing coverage of the local races.

Below are the 12 propositions on the California ballot this November.  Each proposition has a description (taken from the Legislative Analyst's Office) and the position of the Republican and Democratic Parties on the propositon (taken from The California Republican Party Website and The California Democratic Party Website).

1. Both Parties chose not to support either of the two renewable energy propositions (Prop 7 and Prop 10).  
2. Neither party supports the redistricting proposition (Prop 11). 
3. Both Parties took a support stance for the Veteran's Bond Act (Prop 12).

• Democrats - Support
• Republicans - Oppose

Prop 2- Treatment of Farm Animals.

• Democrats - Support
• Republicans - Oppose

Prop 3- Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program.

• Democrats - Support
• Republicans - Oppose

Prop 4- Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.

• Democrats - Oppose
• Republicans - Support

Prop 5- Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation.

• Democrats - Support
• Republicans - Oppose

Prop 6- Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding.

• Democrats - Oppose
• Republicans - Support

Prop 7- Renewable Energy.

• Democrats - Oppose
• Republicans - Oppose

Prop 8- Limit on Marriage.

• Democrats - Oppose
• Republicans - Support

Prop 9- Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole.

• Democrats - Oppose
• Republicans - Support

Prop 10- Bonds.  Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy.

• Democrats - No Position
• Republicans - Oppose

Prop 11- Redistricting.

• Democrats - Oppose
• Republicans - No Position

Prop 12- Veterans' Bond Act of 2008.

• Democrats - Support
• Republicans - Support

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1613664&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

Students from California are getting involved to further a cause that will impact their home state by officially defining marriage in their state constitution as "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California," according to www.protectmarriage.com.

The International Voice for Youth club sponsored an assembly Thursday night to educate students about the possible effects of not passing Proposition 8 in November. After a speech by Lynn Wardle, a BYU law professor, the students got on their cell phones and started calling fellow students from California.

For some, this meeting was just one more way for them to get involved and answer the call of a prophet.

"This is such a worthy cause to be a part of," said Elizabeth Clayton, president of the BYU chapter of International Voice for Youth. "It's such a remarkable thing to know that the prophet asked us to stand up for what we believe and has encouraged us so desperately to get involved."

Michael Bayles, 22, from Los Angeles majoring in economics, said he made phone calls and canvassed neighborhoods before coming to school this fall. Even now his dad, a bishop, is helping organize grassroots efforts in California.

"I do believe in this proposition," Bayles said. "It's not just about marriage. This is just one step leading to other debates and problems."

The International Voice for Youth asked Wardle to speak because of his expertise on the issue at hand. He has testified before numerous state legislatures and the U.S. Congress and debated the issue at over 20 law schools.

"I've been asked to address a very serious subject, and you've been asked to undertake a very serious matter," Wardle said. " ... Californians find themselves on the front lines of a very important public policy battle that will have enormous impact and great implications for the rest of the nation and the rest of the world."

Students not from California also attended the forum. Nephi Hardman, from Utah, a law student and research assistant for Wardle, attended with his wife, Melinda. Even though they attended because they wanted to hear Wardle speak, they said the issue still affects them as future parents.

"I want to know that I have a say," Melinda Hardman said, referring to how schooling may change with legalization of same-sex marriage.

Students were invited to make phone calls to other BYU students from California with publicly listed information. Their purpose was to encourage more students to register to vote and register for an absentee ballot.

Students involved say one student may not be able to do a lot, but everyone can do their part.

"Even if we can't make a huge difference, each of us can do our part and make a difference," said Alex Smith from Clovis, Calif., a communications disorder major.

The International Voice for Youth will host phone banks each week leading up to the election on Nov. 4. They will also be giving out information on voter registration, absentee voting and Proposition 8 at a booth in the Wilkinson Student Center each Monday and Thursday just outside the BYU Bookstore.

This weekend, the newlywed couple Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi hosted a gala event for the "Yes on Prop 2" campaign to help raise support and money. California Proposition 2 will be on the November ballot and, if enough voters vote "yes," will require bigger cages for farm animals and will help stop farm animal abuse. (An animation on the Prop is above.) When I saw this on the news I thought to myself "Shouldn't they be putting the 'No on Prop 8' campaign at the top of their priority list? I mean, they are a newlywed same-sex couple, who can lose their right to be married if Prop 8 passes." Their event raised about $1 million dollars this weekend, and certainly put this prop in the spotlight all over the media.

How come Ellen and Portia haven't put in a lot of time to raise awareness about how discriminating Prop 8 really is. Don't they want to stay married, and not be a "civil union?" Even Brad Pitt and Steven Spielberg have donated time and money to the "No on Prop 8" campaign! I'm hoping that Ellen and Portia will soon plan an event to raise money for the "No on Prop 8" campaign.

In California, there is a proposition, Proposition 8, on the November ballot that, if enough people vote 'Yes,' will ban same-sex marriage in California and will only recognize marriage between a man and woman. I personally believe that marriage is for any couple, gay or straight, that is in love. And now search engine giant Google has, for the first time, PUBLICLY stated that is opposed to Prop 8 on their official blog. They believe that

We should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

Way to go, Google! :D

Our current direction led me to make this decision. This was our most active post but it took the focus away from what we had intended. Thus, it was in the best interested of our readers, subscribers, and our vision to remove this post indefinately.

-Mr. Josh

The Issue: California Voters will consider Proposition 11- The Redistricting Constitutional Amendment and Statute on the November ballot. This measure would establish a committee of 14 citizen volunteers to change the Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization Districts every 10 years. Is the Redistricting Constitutional Amendment and Statute the correct choice for California voters?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (or LAO), the department of the California Government that produces impartial analysis of legislation in California has produced it’s report on Prop 11.

Read the LAO’s report here.

Redistricting is important to break the partisanship in California's government. Because California's districts are decided by the California Legislature, the districts have been drawn into amoeba-looking shapes specifically to group areas with high numbers of registered Democrats together. The same is so with Republican areas. This means that in the general election, the districts are already leaning toward a specific political party and individual districts don't change hands very often.

By choosing a system where citizen volunteers choose the district lines, not the people trying to get elected to those districts, you can expect to have districts split down county and city lines rather than seeing those cities and counties carved in half to put like parties together. This is a very simple separation of power.

This proposal also has its problems. Opponents argue that this process is too complicated. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office:

The measure establishes a process to select the 14 members to serve on the commission. A registered voter in the state could apply to be a commissioner. The State Auditor, however, would remove applicants from the pool based on various conflicts of interest. For instance, applicants—or an immediate relative—in the past ten years could not have:

• Been a political candidate for state or federal office.
• Been a lobbyist.
• Contributed $2,000 or more in any year to a political candidate.

In addition, applicants could not have changed their political party affiliation in the past five years. Applicants also must have voted in at least two of the last three general elections.

An Applicant Review Panel, comprised of three auditors employed by the state, would narrow the applicants down to 60. The panel would pick the most qualified applicants based on analytic skill, impartiality, and appreciation of California’s diversity. The leaders of the Legislature could strike up to 24 of these names. From the remaining names, the State Auditor would then randomly draw the first eight commissioners. These eight commissioners would select the final six commissioners. The commission would have five members registered with each of the state’s two largest political parties (Democrat and Republican) and four members registered with other parties or as independent voters.

There is another major argument against this proposal, any registered voter who qualifies can be a commissioner. That means that random voters, not experts on redistricting or geography or any other topic that might be deemed important will be deciding how to shape the future of California elections.

Position: Vote Yes on Proposition 11- The Redistricting Constitutional Amendment and Statute

At this point in California's history it is important to have progress. Any change that moves control of the redistricting process from the Legislature to another body will be progress for California and help avoid the extreme partisanship we have become accustomed to in our elected officials.

Past Orthodoxies. In my system of 'sins' to do this is a grave error indeed.  With this, you allow history to repeat itself.  You allow that which did not work and was abolished for good reason to seep back into our lives.  Now, with this in mind, I bring to light my second topic.

Hypocrisy. On the ballot for Arizona is a proposition, once again (those bastards), that is attempting to define marriage as only existing between a man and a woman.  This is ridiculous. The Religious Wrong should not have the option to force their puritanical views on anyone.  Love is love, unadulterated and, when given between two consenting adults, a beautiful thing.  It should not be outlawed.  I have a friend who is near and dear to my heart that believes the same as I do.  However, he refuses to vote against the proposition.  He has no intention of voting at all.

To me, having a strong opinion of about anything and then refusing to act upon that is as grave as not having a flippant opinion not based on anything but fallacy and fancy.  To me, it is a denial of self, a betrayal of all the things that one holds dear.  I can not understand why he would commit such moral suicide.  It is not my place to force him to the polls... but I simply cannot understand his choice.

I'm a protester, an activist, someone who researches things and then spreads what she finds to be true.  I cannot imagine such indifference in my own life, and it is difficult for me to accept in someone so close to me.

But sometimes, you want to do something with your friends, but you don't know precisely where and when. For that purpose there is a type of activity called a proposition. The syntax to create a proposition is the same as the one to create a plan with one exception. You need to add a question mark at the end of your post to create a proposition. The proposition allows you to specify multiple choices.

For example, you want to lunch with friends but don't know when and where, just enter the choices separated by semicolon.

Example

Once a proposition is created you can decide if you want to leave the different choices (what, where of when) open or not. Just click on the links next to the choices to open or close them. By default the choices are open.

If you want to invite people to discuss this proposition, click the "invite people to this event" button. You can either select particular friends on the service or invite new friends by entering their email addresses separated by commas.

When your friends receive an email there is link to the detail page. On this page, your friends can  vote or make suggestions if you left the choices opened. And each time something is happening on this proposition (vote, suggestion) or posted to the proposition (comment, media) the users invited to the proposition are notified via their preferred communication channel.

And once the votes are over, the person who created it can transform the proposition into a plan. The administrator of the activity needs to make some of the choices final.

And make it final

However, not everyone can run into a great partner. More often than not, the partner you want to have is someone who can do what you cannot alone carry out in order to realize a mutual goal. This is often not an inexpensive proposition and the partnership does not often last a lifetime.

Lifelong offshoring is an alternative. Lifetime wealth is possible for everyone when lifelong offshoring is affordable to anyone. This calls for ownacoder.com.

The website, ownacoder.com, lets you own a coder for life. Coder is a misleading word. In truth, this person could be someone who knows how to work with Flash or Photoshop, or someone who knows about business more than you do. It could be just about any type of people, so long as it is your type. For your protection ownacoder.com will supply you with an appropriate substitute in case your offshore subordinate decided to quit.

At ownacoder.com an offshore subordinate is called a velgie. Originally, velgie means a Vietnamese entry-level gift professional. Over time, the original meaning fades away and the term velgie as a shorthand simly means an offshore subordinate. An ideal lifelong offshoring situation is a relationship that is forged between an American freshman college student and a Vietnamese freshman college student. In such a relationship, the two would develop their careers in such a way that they would advance together or in parallel. The advantage for the velgie is job security whereas the advantage for the velgie holder is creative freedom. A programmer can create nicer software when his work is backed by a velgie who knows how to do Photoshop. A web designer can create greater website when his work is backed by a velgie who knows how to do Flash and ActionScript.

The set of principles necessary to make lifelong offshoring affordable and lifetime wealth possible are called Minh Duy Avenue.

To be sure, Minh Duy Avenue is just a way of life and it is not a religion. You must not give up your basic beliefs in order to share the same path with others whose views are different than yours.

Minh Duy Avenue is a road to lifelong offshoring and lifetime wealth.

To learn more about Minh Duy Avenue, ask for Tony Minh Duy

The Issue: Proposition 10, The Bonds, Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Statute provides for many subsidies for consumers and business to use natural gas vehicles. Is Proposition 10 the proper direction for California's Energy Policy?

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), the department of the California government that provides impartial analysis of legislation has produced their report of Proposition 10.

Read the LAO Report Here.

I think that those with any working knowledge of the development of propositions in California are already aware of the major shortcomings in Prop 10. Proposition 10 was written by T. Boone Pickens, owner of Clean Energy Inc, a major distributor of Natural Gas. Many of the opponents of Prop 10 argue that it was written with the intent to increase the market share of Natural Gas, a change that Pickens stands to gain from financially.

According to Judy Dugan's Post on The California Progress Report:

"The long-term beneficiaries, aside from Pickens, would be the major oil companies...They're called "oil and gas" companies for a reason. They'll love the prospect of more expensive natural gas--and more imports of their foreign-produced natural gas. "

Now I believe that there are limitations to the ability for California, and the the world for that matter, to operate as a true free market. Sometimes it isn't feasible to have a significant competition due to the logistics of an industry. For example, If the transportation industry were developed as a free market we would have gas stations, natural gas stations, ethanol stations, electrical stations, etc. If every type of alternative automobile had a fully developed industry, the convenience that we currently have supporting a gasoline dominated car market would diminish. We would have 20 different markets each one 20th the size of the current gasoline market. This means that somewhere down the road one type of alternative vehicle development will take a majority share of the market and others will eventually fall off of the map.

That being said, I don't believe that Natural Gas is the industry that should be the alternative to oil. In simple terms it is a temporary fix. Natural Gas is not renewable, it is a fossil fuel. It will eventually run out and the United States will be forced to find the next energy source. Rather that being dependent on the oil producing countries worldwide, we will be dependent on the Natural Gas producing countries worldwide.

If Proposition 10 passes, we will be starting the process of making Natural Gas the next phase on the oil dependency era.

Position: Vote No of Proposition 10 - The Bonds, Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Statute

The United States, and California especially needs to begin developing renewable energy.

This measure would authorize the state to sell $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to build a high speed rail system linking Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley and the San Francisco Bay Area.

The measure also says money raised from the bonds can only pay for one-half of the cost of the system; the rest must be paid for by other public or private funds.

California’s independent Legislative Analyst predicts the state will have to pay about $647 million per year in principal and interest over the 30-year life of the bonds, for a projected total cost of $19.4 billion.  Additional costs are estimated in excess of $1 billion per year to operate and maintain the system, which would be partially or fully offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.

Supporters of Proposition 1A say it creates an alternative to soaring gas prices and freeway congestion, while reducing dependence on foreign oil and reducing greenhouse gases, all without raising taxes because users will pay for the system.  Supporters also say the measure will create 160,000 construction-related jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs.

Supporters of Proposition 1A include the California Alliance for Jobs, the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California and the California High Speed Rail Authority.

Opponents of Proposition 1A point out that estimated costs for the system are closer to $40 billion, meaning the Prop 1A bonds are just a “partial payment” paid for by taxpayers with no accountability or guarantees the rail system will ever get built.  Opponents also question how California can afford to pay $647 million a year before there are any users, and suggest only new taxes or cuts to critical programs would result.

Opponents of Proposition 1A include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Marin Citizens for Effective Transportation and the California Rail Foundation.

More info:

Yes on Proposition 1A: www.californiahighspeedtrains.com
No on Proposition 1A: www.derailhsr.com

This is Citizen Voice's easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

A while ago I posted about the phrase "separation of the Church and state" basically reminding folks that specific phrase is not in the constitution itself, it's in a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The U.S. constitution specifically reads Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Most of the community who support proposition 8 do so because of religious beliefs. If proposition 8 was written to respect an establishment of religion, doesn't that make it unconstitutional? Remember "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." In other words, doesn't Amendment I of the United States Constitution indicate that Proposition 8 cannot be passed?

If I was running for office, this would be my position:

The government's role in all legal unions between two people should be a consistent process regardless. The process, documents, and rights obtained should be identical. There should no longer be civil unions and marriages -both should share the same name, processes, and rights (on legal documents). As we learned in the Civil Rights movement, there is no such thing as separate but equal.

As far as the religious ceremony, that decision is up to the religious organization per the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Therefore the government should not protect "marriage" as it is religiously defined and is not obligated (nor does it have the power to) preserve it's sanctity. It should be up to the religious organization if they perform whatever ceremonies they desire - the government should not interfere with religion. Some religious organizations will decide to perform same sex marriages and that is up to them. Others will decide not to perform same sex marriages - that is also up to them. While religious organizations are not forbidden from providing same sex marriages, they should not be required to perform same sex marriages as that is a violation of their first amendment rights.

With this approach, atheists do not have to be "married" either. Legal unions become a two part process. The government protects the equal rights of it's citizens. Not separate but equal - everything exactly the same. THEN the type of ceremony the couple wishes to have is up to them. Perhaps atheists will just want to have a party. Perhaps they will want a ceremony that is just like a traditional marriage but without a Pastor/Minister up front. This ceremony (which by the way would be optional) can be called absolutely anything (marriage, joining, grabblesnarfinny, etc).

...and this is my thinking:

I believe that the reason "gay marriage" is such a hot button issue is because the word "marriage" is so religiously charged. Typically, marriages are religious ceremonies typically performed by a spiritual authority. However, the benefits that a marriage enjoy are not religious at all - they are tied to the government. From a political prospective, there should be nothing religious about "marriage" at all. To an extent that is true today - people from all religions (as well as atheists) are welcome to engage in "marriage."

"Marriage" is in quotes because it can mean different things to different religions/people groups. In that case, the word is too small to encompass the variety of things that marriage means. The government's shouldn't use religious words to define civic/legal situations - it confuses the citizens.

The opposition to gay marriage say there is a need to preserve the sanctity of marriage. From a strictly political prospective (not a religious prospective) this claim does not seem relevant. I live near Los Angeles where you can rent wedding rings and have a van drive to your house for a quick and easy divorce. From this prospective, I struggle to believe that same sex arrangements pose more of a threat than opposite sex arrangements to marriage in America today. More and more studies show that children are most successful in homes where there are two parents - many of these studies also indicate that it does not matter if it is a man and a woman, two men, or two women. (for an example, click here). The republic is not going to collapse if same sex marriages are allowed - I have yet to see anyone take that position. Again, opposition to same sex arrangements is not political - it's religious/personal. Making decisions from those standpoints violates the freedoms that our constitution is supposed to be protecting.

I'm interested in comments on this post - please let me know what you think.

What say you?

related links:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF

Proposition 3 would authorize the state to sell $980 million in general obligation bonds for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of eligible children’s hospitals.

Specifically, the bond act requires that 80 percent of the money goes to hospitals which focus on children (a high volume of which must be eligible for government programs) with illnesses like leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.  The remaining 20 percent of the money would go to University of California general acute care hospitals.

California’s independent Legislative Analyst estimates the total cost of paying off the bonds over the 30-year life span would be $2 billion, with payments of about $64 million per year in principal and interest.

Proposition 3 is similar to a 2004 bond measure approved by voters which allowed the state to sell $750 million in bonds for children’s hospitals.  About $400 million of those bonds have been sold to date.

Supporters of Proposition 3 say it will help hospitals purchase up-to-date technologies for premature babies and babies born with defective organs.  Supporters also say children’s hospitals don’t have the space to handle the growing number of seriously ill children and Proposition 3 would help these hospitals build more bed capacity and help more children.

Supporters of Proposition 3 include the American Academy of Pediatrics – California, the California Medical Association, Children Now, the California Parent Teachers Association and parents of seriously ill children.

Opponents of Proposition 3 point out that hundreds of millions of dollars for children’s hospitals are still left from bonds passed in 2004 and that Proposition 3 does not guarantee any money will be spent on actual services for seriously ill children.  Opponents also raise the question of whether Proposition 3 represents a “backdoor way” of compensating hospitals for treating indigents and illegal aliens.

Proposition 3 is opposed by the National Tax Limitation Committee, the American Conservative Union, People’s Advocate, State Assemblyman Ted Gaines and Jon Fleischman, publisher of flashreport.org.

More info:

Yes on Proposition 3:  www.imaginewithus.org
No on Proposition 3:  www.limittaxes.org

This is Citizen Voice's easy-to-use summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.

The Issue: California Voters will consider Proposition 5: The Non-Violent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA) on the November Ballot. Is this proposition the appropriate direction for California's Drug Treatment Policy?

The Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), the department in the State of California that develops impartial analysis of proposed legislation in California has developed an extensive assessment of the various changes proposed by Prop 5. See it here.

In a nutshell, Prop 5 is an expansion of Proposition 36 approved in 2000 which says that drug offenders should get treatment instead of jail.

This premise is good for many reasons.

1. California jails are overcrowded with people that are not a threat to the safety of others in their community.
2. Drug Offenders who do not receive treatment and don't take it upon themselves to seek treatment will continue to use drugs after being released from jail.
3. It is better for the California economy to have citizens, despite their personal vices, out in the community being productive rather than in a cell costing the taxpayers money.

From a policy perspective, Prop 5 looks great. It basically overhauls the three different drug offender laws/practices in the State of California, streamlines them and expands them. However, Proposition 5 has a huge problem: The Cost.

According to the LAO the cost to implement the program will eventually even itself out. Because the program will mean less people in jail, there will be a declining demand to build more jails. The projected decrease in cost in construction of new correctional facilities wipes out the additional cost for the implementation of the statutes in Prop 5. The major problem is that it mandates additional annual spending. Specifically it increases the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund (SATTF) from its 2007-2008 allocation of $100 Million to $460 Million in 2009-2010. The State of California is currently sitting on a $15.2 Billion budget deficit for 2008-2009. Asking the taxpayers to mandate an additional $360 Million next year is unrealistic. It will force the legislature to swap drug treatment for something else, probably transportation infrastructure. It also mandates increases based on inflation and population.

Position: Vote No on Prop 5 in November

The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act is a great step forward to help our communities provide the services that drug offenders need, but the voters must be reasonable. We need to get our budget balanced before we can expect to expand programs.

Solution: The Legislature should pass a bill similar to NORA but without the mandated additional spending. This way the legislature can determine what level of funding for the Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund is appropriate on a budget-by-budget basis, rather than being forced to allocate a certain amount.

The do’s and don’ts on marriage for gay and lesbian couples

When Americans vote on Nov 4, 2008, Californians will also be asked if they agree to Proposition 8 or not. Also known as the Protect Marriage Act, Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in May 2008 that authorized the granting of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. To vote YES to Proposition 8 is to ban same sex marriage and maintain the Family Code that explicitly defines the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in the State of California. To vote NO is to uphold the controversial Supreme Court decision and agree to legalize same-sex marriage.

Over the coming weeks leading to the election, we can expect Californians to encounter a lot of propaganda by gay rights organizations as well as by proponents of Proposition 8 to try to sway their votes. What are both sides saying?

I Do support marriage of same-sex couples

Recently, a television commercial and a series of print ads were launched to open hearts and minds about the issues involved when same-sex couples marry. Called Let California Ring, the public education campaign addresses the public’s concerns and conflicts about marriage and same-sex couples. It builds a better understanding of the everyday challenges lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Californians face, and encourages dialogue through individual and public conversations about ways to end exclusion.

Over 50 diverse organizations have come together in the Let California Ring Campaign. They hope that the campaign will be able to engage people to talk about the freedom to marry and to build public support for gay marriage.

"I dreamed of seeing my son get married," said Sylvia Castro-Adams. "Now that California law finally allows them to marry, Paul and Max seized the opportunity. I’m so happy they’re married; it gives me great comfort to know my son will be taken care of by someone who loves him, no matter what. I want to honor and celebrate Max and Paul’s love and commitment just as we do for all the loving couples in our family. So, we’re planning a big reception, with all the family together."

In a recent collective editorial brainstorming session in LA organized by New American Media (NAM), a PR practitioner from San Francisco named Robert spoke of other stories of love and commitment. "The first couple who married in June 16, Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, has been together for 55 years. Del died Aug 27. Her last great act was finally marrying the person she has loved for over 50 years. This is why people care so passionately about this issue. How would you feel if you can’t marry the person you love? How would you feel if the government told you, you can’t marry the person you love," Robert said.

Sandy Close, NAM executive director, said that the gay community wants society to talk about their plight, and to understand and support them. The main message of Let California Ring is that "as California’s gay and lesbian couples marry, their families grow stronger. And what’s good for families is good for our communities. Strong commitments make for strong families and strong communities."

I Don’t support marriage of same-sex couples

Those who are opposed to gay and lesbian marriages believe that the union of a man and woman in marriage is the most enduring and important human institution, and legalizing gay marriages could undermine the family.

Bishop Oscar Solis of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles stands by what Pope Benedict has stated—that the Roman Catholic Church denounces homosexual behavior but calls for empathy and compassion for gays and lesbians. The Church teaches that the inclination toward homosexuality is not necessarily a sin; it can be considered a tendency toward an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. However, as Pope Benedict said, "a person engaging in homosexual behavior acts immorally," because he feels that sex is only good if framed in the stance of being for procreation between a married man and woman. Currently, the Roman Catholic Church has strict limitations on allowing homosexuals to become members of the clergy, and it also continues to fight the legal recognition of homosexual couples

Many other Christian denominations reject same-sex marriage because several verses in the Bible denounce it, like in Romans 1:26-27: That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."

Asked to comment on the question of many gays about "how would you feel if the government tells you that you can’t marry the person you love?," Pastor Mark Briones of Word International Ministries- Los Angeles stated that, "It’s not a question of what people wish or desire. It’s an issue of what God says is right or wrong. Since I believe the Bible is God’s Word and it says homosexual relationships are wrong, then I cannot support gay marriage."   (www.asianjournal.com)

I wouldn't be alive to feel anything !

"How would you like to be clubbed ?"

Well, seals are rendered unconscious when clubbed according to the EFSA so I'd again feel nothing.

"How would you feel if a loved one was killed in front of you ?"

Harp seal pups are not killed in front of their fathers or mothers during the commercial hunt !

Harp seal males don't hang around their offspring because they're too busy mating and harp seal females abruptly leave their seal pups at two weeks because they haven't eaten in two weeks. These females never return. Marine biologists will confirm this information.

Seals under two weeks of age are also not legally hunted in Canada and according to the EFSA report, 95% of these seals are 1 to 3.5 months of age. They learn to swim and hunt at 4 weeks.

"Don't you want to protect threatened species ?"

Definitely but the harp seal isn't threatened according to the IUCN, the body that determines the conservation status of any species - The current conservation status of the harp seal is LC ("least concern"), this being the lowest level.

"Deep." "Depth." These are words I have used a lot —A LOT—to describe ideas at varying levels over the course of my life. They are terms that, for the most part, require no additional explanation ... right? We all know what we're talking about and we agreed about what we mean when we use words like "deep" a long time ago.

But I wonder.

I wonder if what people really mean by "depth" is information; facts. Maybe even words on a page or even the size of the words. Maybe we refer to knowledge that can be wielded like a sharp instrument in times of need. I wonder if knowledge—even good knowledge—is not so much about growth as it is about one's default--my defaults, your defaults. That is, to prove I am a person of substance, of some relevance to the world around me, I have been conditioned to believe that I need to be armed with certain facts and special knowledge. I find comfort in fact; find comfort in things that are absolute and can be quantified with certainty. With facts I am not open to examination and, a nice by-product, I can keep people at a safe distance. Fact is commensurate with formula.

But what is knowledge without the intrinsic mediation of the heart?

I almost always try to talk movies during a haircut. Call it my "safe place." I can't explain it, but something about the scissors whirring around my ears drives me to a place of would-be and hopeful safety. (Or maybe I want to avoid a meaningful conversation while captive in the stylist's chair.) Magnolia. No. There Will Be Blood. No. Hotel Rwanda. No. The stylist and I recently found common ground in that we had both seen The Dark Knight. Upon mention of the recent Batman movie, she issued a cease-cutting order that went out to her extremities. Pausing momentarily, she looked at me now instead of my reflection in order to capture the gravity of the moment, and said in a way any Southerner would recognize, "Now that'll make you think."

During group time we need more "That'll make you think" moments and less "Wow I didn't know that" moments. Facts are comfortable and safe. They are predictable. Not wrong or unimportant, mind you, but not the pinnacle of group time either. Proposition is neither transformational nor redemptive. Allowing group time to become a dazzling array of facts robs us of story, heart, and meaning. As group leaders and small-group pastors, encourage members to go beyond rote and pat answers and look for the story behind the text. Challenge them to know their own stories and the ways God wants to redeem them. We need to look deep inside who we are and who we are becoming. To find true redemptive community a group should relegate facts and special knowledge to a percentage—a small percentage—of the group experience.

The Issue: Proposition 1A, the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act will be before the California voters in the November election. The Proposition requests the purchase of a bond to construct a train that will run from San Francisco to San Diego through Fresno, Los Angeles and Aneheim. Is the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act the correct choice for the California voters?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), the department of the California government that provides impartial analysis of legislation has produced their report of Proposition 1A.

Read the LAO Report Here.

It seems that the elephant in the room regarding Prop 1A is going to be the Chatsworth Metrolink crash. The Metrolink, a train that only traveled at speeds of no more than 90 mph was the site of the greatest California train wreck in modern times. The proposed train will travel from San Francisco to San Diego at speeds of up to 200 mph. The truth is that California's infrastructure needs a train like this one. There is no major line that runs direct from Northern to Southern California as this one will do, but citizens' concern over safety might be problematic.

According to the Legislative Analyst's Office:

"The remaining $950 million in bond funds would be available to fund capital projects that improve other passenger rail systems in order to enhance these systems’ capacity, or safety, or allow riders to connect to the high-speed train system. Of the $950 million, $190 million is designated to improve the state’s intercity rail services. The remaining $760 million would be used for other passenger rail services including urban and commuter rail."

Since a portion of the money bonded will be used to enhance the safety of existing trains, this proposition might get a boost, but I expect the current concern over train travel in California will probably trump all other reason.

The other major issue is the cost. This proposition costs money. Specifically, Prop 1A is the borrowing of $9.95 Billion. In order to pay back the loan with interest, it will cost California $19.4 Billion, or $647 Million a year for the next 30 years! California currently has a $15 Billion budget deficit. We should be looking for ways to cut spending, not to spend more. While it's true that California needs more infrastructure developments, Proposition 1A is putting major projects on the State's credit card, not waiting until we have received the money in the bank.

Position: Vote No on Proposition 1A, the Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.

LOTS of people don't know that California's Proposition 8 proponents are rather likely to win - and take away the newly awarded rights & responsibilities of legal marriage from gay people.

You can also donate.
[gallery]

Proposition 10 would allow the state to sell $5 billion in bonds, of which $3.425 billion would be used to help consumers and others purchase high fuel economy or fuel efficient vehicles and $1.25 billion would be used for research and development of renewable energy technology (primarily solar).

The remainder of the funds (about $550 million) would be used to provide grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficient technologies.

California’s independent Legislative Analyst says the 30-year bonds would cost the state $10 billion in principal and interest, with payments of about $335 million per year.  Proposition 10 is also expected to generate additional state costs of $10 million annually for administration.  Additional revenues are also expected as a result, however, with increased state and local sales tax revenues and vehicle license fee revenues potentially amounting to tens of millions of dollars each.

Supporters of Proposition 10 say it will help reduce California’s dependence on foreign oil, give consumers more alternatives to high-priced gasoline, and help more Californians afford cars and trucks that are better for the environment and cost less to operate – all without raising taxes, fees or utility rates.  Supporters also say Proposition 10 will help develop new clean energy industries in California and create thousands of good-paying jobs.

Proposition 10 is supported by the Clean and Renewable Energy Association, Consumers First, Dr. Alan Henderson, past president of the American Cancer Society – California Division; and John Dunlap III, former chairman of the California Air Resources Board.

Opponents of Proposition 10 say taking $10 billion out of the state's general fund over a 30 year period to underwrite the cost for individuals and businesses to purchase low-emission vehicles "is not a smart use of money" considering the state is "already sagging with debt." Opponents also criticize the measure as “a laundry list of cash grabs” initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources.

Opponents of Proposition 10 include the Consumer Federation of California, Consumer Watchdog, the Utilities Reform Network, the Utility Consumers Action Network and the California Labor Federation.

More info:

Yes on Proposition 10:  www.prop10yes.com
No on proposition 10: www.noonproposition10.org

This is Citizen Voice's "easy-to-use" summary of the proposition.  For the ballot pamphlet version go to www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov.