… as the bear shuffled around the car looking for a way out, he bumped into the gear shift and put the automatic transmission into neutral, sending the car rolling 125 feet back down a hill …

• Proposition 13: Changes Budget Process. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: YES
  Why: This one’s pretty easy. Under current law, owners of unreinforced masonry buildings can see their property taxes rise if they undertake seismic improvements. 2010’s Prop 13 removes that disincentive. The California Nurses Association is against this (though they don’t say why); everyone else in the state seems to be for it. Seems sensible: We know that when the ground starts shaking, brick buildings kill. Let’s make it easier for owners to make those buildings safe. Vote YES on Prop 13.
  
  
• Proposition 14: Top Two Primaries Act. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: Here’s a popular idea that a lot of editorial boards are in favor of: Make our state primaries partisan-free, with the top two vote-getters moving on to the general election. The idea is that this will force candidates to appeal to voters across the board by moving to the political center; the hope is that this will yield more moderate public officials who might be able to cooperate and get something done in Sacramento.
  
  The Chron thinks this is a good idea, and says so under a headline that reads “Create real competition.” Utterly ridiculous, as competition is exactly what this scheme destroys. You can basically forget about third parties participating in the general election at all if Proposition 14 passes: You will end up with a Democrat and a Republican as the top two candidates in most cases, and those will be your only choices in the general election, with no allowance for write-in candidates.
  
  The Orange County Register, a paper as generally conservative and wrong-headed as the community it serves, actually has a very good piece against Prop 14. Your lefty Napa Valley Register agrees, and reminds us that due to 2008’s Prop 11, California’s district lines are in the process of changing; in other words, We the People have already enacted some rather serious election reform in this state. Maybe we should give it a chance to have some effect before we try something else? If I haven’t convinced you, please give Stop Top Two a chance to set you straight. Vote NO on Prop 14.
  
  
• Proposition 15: Public Funding of Some Elections. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: YES
  Why: Prop 15 is a time-limited experiment in public campaign financing. It would only apply to candidates for California Secretary of State for the 2014 and 2018 election cycles, and is paid for by a surcharge on Sacramento lobbyists. The measure also makes one far-reaching change to state law, repealing the 1988 voter-approved ban on public campaign financing in California. This would make it possible for localities to implement public financing schemes if they so desire. I support pretty much any attempt to get Big Money out of political campaigns, and I think that publicly-financed campaigns are a good idea in general. It’s hard to see how Prop 15 could cause us any harm, and the experiment it puts in place might show us a suitable way forward. Give Sacramento a chance to shrug off the lobbyist monkeys on its back, and vote YES on Prop 15.
  
  
• Proposition 16: PG&E’s Scam. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: You’ve probably seen plenty of ads for this one already. They’re paid for by PG&E (the underwriter of this entire measure) and they try to get you worked up about the fact that those no-good idiotic meddling government bums are going to take millions of your taxpayer dollars and go into the energy business, and they’re going to do it without even letting you vote on it! OH THE HUMANITY!
  
  Have you really bought this crap? Then calm down and take a deep breath. Recall first that your elected officials spend millions of dollars of public money all the time, and you don’t get to vote on any of it. That’s their job. That’s what you elect them to do. The way you have input on the matter is by voting for folks you think will spend public money wisely.
  
  Any of you have friends in Alameda? The inhabitants and businesses of that lovely isle buy their electricity from … the City of Alameda. Back during the energy crisis, when our PG&E bills went sky high, rates in Alameda remained level. I don’t visit Alameda as often as I’d like, but when I do get over there, I don’t notice a problem with the lights staying on. Seems the City of Alameda is providing a Public Good to its citizens, and the only problem with the setup is that PG&E isn’t making millions off it. You can see, then, why the energy giant crafted Prop 16: It doesn’t want any more Alamedas. Well, if your city wants to go the public energy route someday, it should be able to explore and implement such a plan, and it shouldn’t have to get 66 percent of its citizens to sign off — that’s just ridiculous. PG&E doesn’t need a shield written in to state law. Vote NO on Prop 16.
  
  
• Proposition 17: Mercury Insurance’s Scam. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: Here’s another one that may sound good initially, but scratch the surface and you discover another big company (in this case, an insurance company) putting a measure on the ballot so that it can more efficiently fleece people.
  
  Mercury Insurance would have you believe that the emphasis here is on protecting discounts for good drivers if they switch carriers. But that’s not the end of it. As the Los Angeles Times explains quite well, Prop 17 represents a substantial revision to 1988’s Prop 103, which went a long way toward making auto insurance rates in California a lot more fair. Prop 17 would make it possible for Mercury to hike up the rates of new customers, or folks who have had lapses in coverage. People in these categories are more likely to have difficulty paying auto insurance premiums in the first place — raise the rates even more, and you’ll have more uninsured drivers on the road, which ends up costing us all. California’s auto insurance status quo is certainly no promised land, but this little bit of “reform” is really just a sneaky means of starting to undo reform the industry has chafed against for many years. Don’t let them get away with it. Vote NO on Prop 17.
  
  

• Proposition 1A: Changes Budget Process. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: This is a really difficult call. I want to support 1A. I am very nearly swayed by the argument that if we do not pass 1A, things are going to get unimaginably worse. But I cannot shake the feeling that both the Gov and the Lege — who as public servants took on the responsibility of making tough decisions (and are paid fairly and squarely for their time and energy) — are just passing those tough decisions on to the voters, who actually have full-time lives of their own and cannot be expected to understand an extraordinarily complex proposition like 1A. I also cannot help but note that 1A and its attendant propositions have the unmistakable smell of a rush job.
  
  The only thing that anybody knows for certain is that Proposition 1A is an ungainly hydra whose various heads will almost certainly come together to act in unpredictable ways. But don’t take my word for it; here’s the state’s impartial legislative analyst, writing in your Voter Information Guide:

  The fiscal effects of Proposition 1A are particularly difficult to assess. This is because the measure’s effects would depend on a variety of factors that will change over time and cannot be accurately predicted. Consequently, the measure’s effects may be very different from one year to the next.

  This is the legislative analyst’s equivalent of “Here Be Dragons.” And guess what? He even goes on to name the dragons:

  The key factors determining the impact of Proposition 1A in any given year are: Future Budget Decisions by the Legislature and Governor … [and] Revenue Trends and Volatility. [emphasis his]

  That sounds a lot like the status quo, doesn’t it? This is no surprise, because Proposition 1A isn’t really comprehensive budget reform. Comprehensive budget reform would begin by removing the two-thirds vote required to get a budget passed in Sacramento. That requirement, enacted by voters as part of 1978’s Proposition 13, is the single biggest problem relating to this whole budget mess. It makes the entire Legislature beholden to Grover Norquist-type reactionaries who want taxes to creep ever closer to zero, who don’t believe in a government that provides actual services to its citizens, who think that every rugged individual should toil endlessly to build their own small fortune (should they not be lucky enough to inherit one) and provide their own health care, child care, elder care, streets (what, you have no private half-mile-long driveway to your hillside estate?), parks (what? no half-acre out your back door?), police (no private security in your gated community? you lazeabout!) and so on.
  
  Now then. The San Jose Mercury News addresses my complaint:

  Proposition 1A should be seen as a down payment on comprehensive reform. That has to include lowering the requirement for two-thirds of the Legislature to approve a state budget and new taxes, but voters won’t agree to that change without spending controls.

  Right, but then why not offer spending controls when you put a threshold change on the ballot? We don’t have to accept 1A’s particular oddball set of spending controls — forged during an abnormal time when nobody can really see straight regarding the economy or where it’s headed — in order to ensure real reform later. If you follow the Merc’s advice, you might very well be making a down payment on a pricey item that will never be delivered.
  
  Not convinced? Okay, set aside the ridiculous “they’re taxing us too much!” arguments against 1A that run rampant on the Web and read what Phil Angelides, the League of Women Voters (PDF), and Calitics have to say. I admit to being especially influenced by the argument at Calitics that voters should be wary of doom-and-gloom predictions should 1A not pass: “We remind voters the words of Bill Clinton: ‘If one candidate’s trying to scare you, and the other one’s trying to get you to think … if one candidate’s appealing to your fears, and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you’d better vote for the one who wants you to think and hope.’” I’ve thought about this, and I hope that California can find a better solution. Vote NO on 1A.
  
  
• Proposition 1B: Education Funding. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: YES
  Why: Yes, I am aware that 1B only takes effect if 1A passes. And I am aware I just urged a NO on 1A. The reason I’ll be voting YES on 1B is simple: should 1A pass, the schools will potentially be even more screwed than they already are, and 1B will help unscrew them — mostly by repaying the money Arnold has stolen from them over the past few years. Fair enough. Anything that potentially helps halt the decline of California’s schools — once the best in the nation — has my vote. Vote YES on 1B, just in case 1A passes.
  
  
• Proposition 1C: Messin’ With the Lottery. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: The biggest change in this proposed “modernization” of the California Lottery: the state would be able to borrow against $5 billion in future lottery profits. That’s right, we’re talking about bringing this year’s budget into balance by gambling on gambling. I don’t often agree with SF Mayor and Gov-hopeful Gavin Newsom, but he sums this one up nicely: “It seems like we lost our way a little bit. Play the lottery. Lose a little more … so we can get a little more, so we can pay a little more interest on the previous debt of previous years. That is hardly an economic development strategy for our state’s future.” Preach it, Gav. Vote NO on 1C.
  
  
• Proposition 1D: Balance the Budget On the Backs of Children. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: That this prop is titled, in part, “Protects Children’s Services Funding” has almost got to be someone’s idea of a bad joke. Sure, it protects funds for kids over HERE, but it raids set-aside money for kids’ programs over THERE. Don’t be a part of this. Also, see my comments below on 1E, as they apply here, too. Vote NO on 1D.
  
  
• Proposition 1E: Balance the Budget On the Backs of the Mentally Ill. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: Kids and the mentally ill are nearly always among the first groups to take funding hits when money starts vanishing. Such decisions speak volumes about our priorities as a society; they highlight a sorry lack of compassion at the societal level. California is better than this. We can do better than solving our fiscal crisis by preying on the state’s most vulnerable citizens. All it will take is real leadership in Sacramento. Your tool for putting real leadership in Sacramento is the ballot box. Happily that same tool lets you say NO to rotten ideas like this one. Vote NO on 1E.
  
  
• Proposition 1F: Raises for State Officials. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: This proposition has undeniable appeal: if our leaders can’t get the job done, why should they get raises? But even a moment’s scrutiny reveals the sheer silliness of this measure. Do you think reactionaries in the Lege will come to their senses and support the increased taxes we need in this state just because they can’t have a raise if we don’t get the budget balanced? Hell no. This prop doesn’t say they won’t be paid (which could in fact affect legislative behavior) if they screw up; it just says they can’t have a raise. That’s not going to change even a tiny bitlet of public policy. If you vote YES on 1F, you’re voting purely out of spite. That’s no reason to enact a law. The “argument against” in the Voter Information Guide, submitted by another politics geek who found an easy (and free!) way to hype his online musings to every voter in the state, is pretty much right on the money. The “argument for” and the “rebuttal to argument against,” on the other hand, are CHOCK-FULL OF CAPS IN THAT WAY THAT ALWAYS MAKES ME SUSPICIOUS AS TO A PROP’S TRUE MOTIVES. Screw this bullshit. This proposition won’t fix anything, and any warm feeling you get from voting for it will be forgotten by June. Vote NO on 1F.

Here is a simple fix for the spindly, messed-up fonts you see in Firefox 3.1 if you install it under Ubuntu Intrepid (8.10). In a Terminal window, issue these commands:

sudo mkdir /etc/fonts/conf.disabled
sudo mv /etc/fonts/conf.d/10-* /etc/fonts/conf.disabled
sudo mv /etc/fonts/conf.d/53-* /etc/fonts/conf.disabled

sudo mv /etc/fonts/conf.disabled/* /etc/fonts/conf.d

A typed note that Wallace left in his papers laid out the novel’s idea: “Bliss — a-second-by-second joy and gratitude at the gift of being alive, conscious — lies on the other side of crushing, crushing boredom. Pay close attention to the most tedious thing you can find (Tax Returns, Televised Golf) and, in waves, a boredom like you’ve never known will wash over you and just about kill you. Ride these out, and it’s like stepping from black and white into color. Like water after days in the desert. Instant bliss in every atom.”

• Proposition 1A: High-Speed Rail. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: YES
  Why: Make no mistake, this proposition represents California’s last chance at building a high-speed rail link between the Bay Area and Southern California. If 1A fails, transit backers say they won’t be able to try again for a decade or so, and by then, the opportunity is likely to have been lost forever. So, if you, like me, are a Bay Arean sick of either hopping on a plane or spending an entire day driving just to visit friends or family down south, this is your one and only chance at establishing sleek Euro/Asian-style bullet trains as an alternative.
  
  In your voter information guide, you’ll see that the arguments against this proposition basically amount to “we can’t afford this.” This is the only coherent argument there’s ever been against this project. Note that I said “coherent” — not “strong.” As the LA Times notes:

  The measure isn’t as big a risk as it would be if the state were footing the entire bill. The “backbone” segment from Los Angeles to San Francisco is projected to cost $33 billion, with about 75% from federal and private sources. Until those funds are secured, the state won’t issue most of its bonds. If the line never gets built, the state’s losses will be well under $2 billion. That’s not too much to wager on a visionary leap that would cement California’s place as the nation’s most forward-thinking state.

  Still not convinced? Then hear this: the cost of not building high-speed rail is not zero. This is a project California truly needs. It is worth a visionary level of investment, even during these tough economic times. Vote YES on 1A.


• Proposition 2: Farm Animal Confinement. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: YES
  Why: As many folks have become aware, the factory farming practices of the 21st century are largely abhorrent. This measure is one small step toward ending unimaginable miseries in the lives of millions of farm animals. The calf and pig cages outlawed by Prop 2 have already been outlawed by the voters in other states; the chicken cages Prop 2 eliminates by 2015 are already set to be phased out in Europe by 2012. Opponents to Prop 2 say California’s egg industry may move away and our eggs will end up costing more. I’m skeptical of the argument, but even if that comes to pass, I’m fine with more expensive eggs if it means we’ve got fewer stinking warehouses of animals in unthinkable conditions. A YES vote here is a vote of compassion.


• Proposition 3: Bonds for Children’s Hospitals. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: Look, only psychopaths hate children. No one wants to hurt the kids. But this is a big fat wad of spending at a time when such spending has a much higher bar to pass than usual. No hospitals are going to close if this measure fails; they will find the money they absolutely need where they’ve always found it. The hospitals are using this initiative as a back way into the corral where they can feed at the public trough, and we can’t let them play the game that way. Hey, you wanna help make certain that every child in California gets the health care they need? Then vote NO on Prop 3 and help elect Barack Obama president.


• Proposition 4: Abortion — Parental Notification. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: Since this is an abortion issue, you, like me, probably come to the table predisposed to vote a certain way. The arguments for and against this proposition are the same as they always are when parental notification comes up — and this is the third time that conservatives have put it on the ballot since 2005. One side points out that some young women really do put themselves in danger when they involve their family in this decision. The other side pretends to address that issue with approaches like the one provided for in Prop 4 — the frightened, emotionally distraught, oh-my-god-there’s-a-baby-in-me teen can go to court and get a judge to agree with her that her parents will stay out of the picture. Give me a fucking break. Supporters also try to make this an issue about sexual predators, or even women’s health. It’s neither. It’s part of a long-term strategy to whittle away at abortion rights in this country. Don’t buy into the fearmongering. Vote NO.


• Proposition 5: Sentence Reform for Nonviolent Drug Offenses. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: YES
  Why: This is another compassion vote, pure and simple. Nonviolent drug offenders deserve treatment; they don’t deserve to be held in cages. They, like any of us, deserve a chance at a fresh start, not a punitive sentence that will ultimately hurt their efforts to stay clean. Vote YES.


• Proposition 6: Funding the Jail-Industrial Complex. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: This is probably the second-worst measure on the ballot. First, it’s evil because it saddles the legislature with mandatory spending levels — always a bad idea. But it’s even more evil because it’s about cops and prison guards ensuring that they will have more reasons to lock people up and more places to lock them up in. This measure means less money for schools and hospitals, and more for jails. It actually prevents counties from spending certain funds on anti-drug and mental health programs. Yuck. Read the LA Times’s take, and vote NO.


• Proposition 7: Renewable Energy. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: I am leery of voting against a supposedly green proposal when Big Energy is paying for the commercials telling me to vote NO. But when it comes to environmental props, I always look to the Sierra Club to see where they stand. I trust those folks. Well, guess what? They’re against Prop 7. Read what they have to say. Californians are ahead of the national curve on green issues, and we will come up with comprehensive energy reform, perhaps within the larger context of an Obama energy policy. But Prop 7 is the wrong law at the wrong time. Vote NO.


• Proposition 8: Enshrining Bigotry in the State Constitution. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
  Why: I happen to know two people in same-sex marriages. Two people who are blessed to be in loving, committed relationships that threaten nobody. It is unconscionable that the people of California have the chance to amend the state constitution to discriminate against such relationships — to discriminate against our own fellow Californians, our own brothers and sisters.
  
  The backers of Proposition 8 are bigots, just like Orson Scott Card, the well-known science fiction author whose execrable writings against gay marriage (here’s one particularly tortured screed) always exhibit the deep fear and ignorance that his arguments are rooted in. It was only forty-one years ago that the Supreme Court gave us Loving v. Virginia, the decision that allowed a white man to marry a black woman. Now we look back in awe that it has not always been so. So shall it be with gay marriage before too long. Vote NO on 8.
  
  (Special note: This Eagle Scout notices with dismay that one of the signatories for the “Rebuttal To Argument Against Proposition 8” in the voter guide is the Council Commissioner for the Boy Scouts in San Diego. Sigh.)


• Proposition 9: Criminal Justice “Reform” — Victims’ Rights. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: If this initiative were really about victims’ rights, you’d think the ACLU would be behind it. But they advise a NO vote. This measure, paired with Prop 6, is really about strengthening the position of cops and prison guards in our state. It ends certain rehabilitation programs for prisoners. It emphasizes the punitive. Its most important components are already enshrined in law, due to 1982’s Prop 8. Vote NO.


• Proposition 10: Alternative Fuels & a Windfall For a Jerk. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: NO
  Why: Have you seen those commercials on TV lately with an old coot named T. Boone Pickens telling you about his energy plan for America? I wasn’t familiar with this guy, so I read up on him. He’s a rich old Texas oilman, and he’s an asshole. In 2004, he gave $3 million to the Swift Boat Veterans campaign that derailed John Kerry’s virtuous run for the presidency. In 2007, he offered a million dollars to any individual who could disprove the Swift Boat claims. He has since twice refused to stick to his word and pay up. (See the Wikipedia for more.) It is Pickens’s company that has funded Proposition 10, and it is his company that stands to gain from Prop 10’s affinity for natural gas. This is exactly the sort of legislation-by-the-rich-and-powerful that our broken initiative process encourages; it’s exactly the sort of proposition we must defeat by voting NO.


• Proposition 11: Redistricting. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: YES
  Why: This is by no means a perfect redistricting plan, but it would represent an enormous improvement over the current situation. Redistricting is a pretty complex issue that makes most voters’ eyes glaze over, so I won’t bore you. I will just point you to a good editorial at the SF Chronicle, and suggest that you vote YES.


• Proposition 12: Homes For Vets. (info @ Ballotpedia)
  You Should Vote: YES
  Why: We owe our veterans an enormous debt, and as a country, we usually shortchange them terribly. Since 1922, the Cal-Vet program has been a happy exception, providing low-interest home and farm loans to veterans. Veterans tend to be upstanding types who pay back their loans, so the state does not lose out here. This proposition provides bonds to keep the program afloat. It’s no skin off your nose, so be kindhearted towards the fine men and women who’ve been to hell and back several times apiece over the last seven years, and vote YES.