Elliot’s Voting Guide
President and Vice President
Was considering Ralph Nader / Matt Gonzales, but now I’m decided:
- Chuck Baldwin / Darrell Castles
Why not Obama or McCain?
They both supported the bailout. Here’s why I oppose it: video on RawStory.com. They both support the Iraq War. I oppose it because (1) it’s an undeclared war, (2) it has nothing to do with 9/11/2001, (3) there were no weapons of mass destruction, and (4) we can’t afford it. Neither of them ever talk about abolishing the Federal Reserve. Neither of them can state any specifics about government programs that they would stop, nor any specifics on how they would reduce government spending. They never talk about abolishing the federal income tax.
United States Representative
Diane E. Watson voted against the bailout the first time, and then changed her vote, and supported the larger bailout — the one that unfortunately passed. Her reasoning is disgusting (here’s her statement). Whatever you do, don’t vote for Watson.
Her opponent is David C. Crowley, II. His website is old school. That’s unique in this day and age. Please vote for him if you’re in the 33rd District, like I am.
If you aren’t, find out if your representative voted for the bailout (California). This is the defining issue of this election, and we should definitely kick out those who voted for the bailout.
Member of the State Assembly
I’m in the 47th District. I don’t know anything about Mike Davis, but his opponent Lucilla M. Esguerra is a 19-year-old socialist. For that reason, I’ll vote for Mike Davis.
Judicial
Office No. 72 – Steven A. Simons (definite)
Office No. 82 – Cynthia Loo or maybe Thomas Rubinson?
Office No. 84 – Lori-Ann C. Jones or maybe Pat Connolly?
Office No. 94 – Michael J. O’Gara
Office No. 154 – Michael V. Jesic
County
Supervisor 2nd District: Mark Ridley-Thomas
(Thanks to Alan’s comment below for this suggestion.)
State Measures
1A – Maybe YES, maybe NO?
2 – Definite NO
These animals are food, not friends.
3 – Definite NO
They don’t need it and we can’t afford it.
4 – Definite YES
Parents should be aware of their children’s health, especially surgical procedures– and most definitely abortion.
5 – Definite NO
6 – Maybe YES, maybe NO? Leaning NO
7 – Definite NO
8 – Definite YES
Watch this YouTube video.
9 – Maybe YES, or maybe NO? Leaning NO
10 – Maybe YES, or maybe NO? Leaning NO
Can’t afford it.
11 – Maybe NO, or maybe YES? Leaning YES
12 – Definite YES
I’m open to your thoughts on any of the above. Anything you suggest about the “Maybe” ones may change my vote :)
County Measures
R – YES
Improves public transit and reduces traffic. Thanks Steve Marks.
School
J – ?
Q – ?
City
A – ?
B – ?
Glad to hear someone else isn’t voting Obama. I’m leaning either Barr or Baldwin myself…McCain and Obama are too much the same but Obama is bad bad news.
It seems quite remarkable that someone considering voting for Ralph Nader / Matt Gonzales for Prez/VP would then support Bernard Parks for Supervisor. Nader and Gonzales have spent their entire careers fighting for regular Americans as has Ridley-Thomas. Meanwhile, Bernard Parks was thrown out as chief of the LAPD because of corruption and scandal and now represents big business interests.
Finally, your reasoning is flawed since Ridley-Thomas received his Ph.D. in Social Ethics and Policy Analysis from USC which would appear to trump Parks’ education.
This is such an important race for L.A. that I hope you will conduct more research and change your mind. And let your readers know as well.
I recommend checking out their respective websites for starters which are like night and day.
I don’t like Ralph Nader, too much of an activist for me. Some thinks that’s a good thing, I suppose.
http://www.noonprop8.com/about/fact-vs-fiction
I’m really surprised to hear you intend to vote yes on 8. I would really like to discuss this with you, and I hope you won’t see this comment as an attack, but rather as part of a potential debate.
* If you’re going to make arguments based on events that have occurred in Mass. then I want to see a claim that California has the same or similar applicable laws, or that California courts have ruled in a similar way. To be honest, I don’t know very much about the details of Parker v. Hurley or the details of CA’s laws regarding education. But my understanding is that any classroom activity relating to sex or family life or anything like that is required to have an “opt out” option if parents don’t want their children to participate.
* The Supreme Court decision specifically says that churches are NOT required to recognize any particular kind of marriage and would not lose their tax exempt status. The video implies this (among other things) is a big question mark. WILL they lose their tax-exempt status??? IS IT POSSIBLE??? No. They have not, and they will not.
* I honestly don’t understand how you can listen to arguments about how domestic partnerships have all the same rights as marriages, and not think “separate but equal”
* My biggest problem with the video you posted is the way it implies that newly legalized same sex marriage somehow eliminates the right of “traditional” marriage. It shows the traditional, happy, straight couple, then TAKES AWAY the woman from the marriage and REPLACES her with a man. As though the court somehow somehow took away marriage from straight couples. In fact, it even says, “A yes vote will… restore traditional marriage to California.” Where by “traditional” we presumably mean “heterosexual.” Marriage for opposite-sex couples has never been taken away, so it can’t be “restored”
The bottom line is this: The SC decision was about adding new rights, prop 8 is about taking them away.
Unfortunately, the “opt out” choice won’t really work because parents won’t know when the subject is being taught. There is notification for reproductive health, but marriage isn’t part of that.
I agree that churches will probably not lose tax-exempt status.
There are no legal differences between marriage and domestic partnerships, so they are not “separate” as was the case with having two separate facilities (e.g. schools) for whites and blacks.
I think what they may want to imply is that voters approved Proposition 22, which changed the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California as being between a man and a woman. This was then taken away by the SC.
I’m going to let the point about schools go for now. I would have to read up on that, and if I have time, I will.
Two different kids need to go to school and learn things. One goes to school A and the other to school B. But don’t worry, they’re exactly the same. Both schools have great teachers and textbooks and lots of other kids for you to play with. In fact, there’s no legal difference between them. I guess I’m missing your point.
As for prop 22, that was where the people of California stood in 2000. A lot has changed since then, particularly the fact that thousands of same-sex couples ARE married in California, and that has NOT caused the downfall of society, as far as I can tell. So I’m hoping that we’ve come a long way since then.
I also think that the general population should not have the power to amend the constitution just by a simple majority, but that’s a totally different fight.
My point is that this is not a case of “separate but equal” because it is not an argument about different facilities (as is the case between 2 different schools). Unless perhaps you were trying to say that churches must be forced to perform same-sex marriages, in which case we’d have to disagree.
Prop 8 sets the definition of marriage, while maintaining the same rights for same-sex unions.
This (amusing) video also explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIw7uCHU4c
By a similar token, no rights are actually taken away by Prop 8, unless you consider the name of marriage to be a right. But I don’t see that as a right at all, especially since nobody has the right to marry whomever they want. I can’t marry family members. I can’t marry someone under 18. And so on.
I don’t see what you’re saying at all. You get marriage, I get a domestic partnership. They provide the same benefits (or at least, they’re supposed to) but if I wanted to get married, I couldn’t, because my relationship is not a “traditional” one.
Analogous case: my kids go to one school and yours go to another. Both schools buy the same books, get equally good teachers, etc. but if I wanted my kids to go to the school on YOUR side of town, I couldn’t because they’re not the right KIND of kids.
Obviously marriage and DPs aren’t in different physical locations. But for thousands of relationships, only one institution is available.
Parts of that video are okay, although a lot of it is just dumb. I’m excited to see how prop 8 being defeated would infringe on my free speech, but I’ll watch that later…
But yes, the name IS important. It’s like, sure, you can act like you’re married, and we’ll even give you some rights AS IF you were married. But you’re not ACTUALLY married. I’m not sure how to describe how important this is to me. Imagine if we both took the same classes, paid the same tuition, got the same grades, then I got a “degree” while you got a “certificate of completion”. You would tell people how you graduated from USC and they’d say “Oh, what degree did you get there?” Wouldn’t you rather say “A B.A. in Computer Science” than “Well, I didn’t technically get a degree. But I have all the same experiences and skills from anyone who does have a degree…”
You wouldn’t argue that you and I should be given the same name. You’re still Elliot, I’m still TJ. But you would argue that the official recognition of the hard work we both did should have the same name.
I hope I’m being clear. Thanks for your willingness to discuss this.
Yes, I see what you mean.
Except for this part:
“But for thousands of relationships, only one institution is available.”
– I’m not sure what you mean there.
But the question, then, is whether there is actually any difference between a traditional “marriage” and a same-sex “marriage” (I put both in quotes since we disagree on the definition of marriage). I would say that they’re different. Marriage has historically and religiously always been between people of opposite sex, even in cultures where homosexuality was fully accepted– and for good reason, because the heterosexual union is the foundation of the family. Thus, I believe we should keep the traditional definition of marriage.
BTW, the Computer Science degree (at least at USC) is actually a B.S. :-)
So I actually was just checking out protectmarriage.com to see if there was any interesting new stuff there, and there’s a new commercial about marriage taught in schools. The commercial provides a handy link to an official FAQ about sexual health education in California: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/se/faq.asp
I was going to post all the relevant passages but it will take up too much space. So check out questions 4 and 15 in particular. In 4 it says that students are encouraged to discuss things with their parents, and in 15 it specifically says that parents will be given the option to remove their kids from this type of thing at the very beginning of the year.
My biggest problem is still with this “taken away” language though. The SC decision *provided* marriage rights to couples who previously didn’t have them. Prop 8 threatens to *take them away*. It seems to me that if you don’t like things being taken away, you would vote NO. See what I mean?
Wow, someone willing to change their view in the year 2008! You are a good man Elliott.
[…] Here’s my updated voting guide. […]