« Sex, yes, and no. | Main | When the comments are better than the original post... »

October 04, 2004



yes on 72! WHY?



Do you even have to ask, Joe?

Look, I want socialized medicine as much as the next lefty. This is just a start.


Sorry, so are all these "Propositions" binding? The Left puts up something saying "We want social services" and people say "Yes", because they like a free lunch. The Right puts up "Low Taxes" and the same people say "Yes" because they don't want to pay for it. And then the Legislature has to jump between Scylla and Charbdris? Is that how it works?

By the way, your linked propositions get three "No" votes from me, at first glance, if I assume the "amendment" to the 3 strikes law is to soften it. I am very sympathetic to the plight of mental health patients, but I'd tell the Legislature what the electorate told our Parliament not long ago: "Balance the books properly!". That is, no new taxes, do better with what you've got. Cut out the homophobia workshops and the winter fact-finding trips to Jamacia, and get on with what you're paid for. But then, I'm a cold-hearted Tory. We do that.


Oh, and wanting limitations on gambling isn't a left-wing cause per se. It's the regulation of a public vice.


Hugo, I'm with you on Props 59, 60, 60A, 62, 70 and 71, although I suspect our reasons for opposing the last two are unrelaated. I have no problem with legalized gambling, I do have a problem with forcing the governor's hand to negotiate specific treaties or protecting Indian tribe monopolies. If it's going to be legal, it should be legal for everybody, or at least according to some neutral criterion (e.g., every podunk desert area at least X miles from the nearest major city, whatever).

On the business side, I can think of few dumber things voters can do than to oppose Prop 64 or pass Prop 72.

Your stance on Prop 66 is acceptable, if you think our society is suffering from a "crime deficit" relative to 1994. Do you have any idea what kinds of people will be released if that thing passes?!


Oh yeah, it's especially nifty when support for Prop 66 is combined with a vote for Jack Scott, one of the most rabidly anti-gun-owner legislators in the state. Put the two together, and the message is clear: we won't protect you from violent predators, and you can't protect you, either.


I celebrate our points of congruence, oh vowel-less one. I note that I have a special loyalty to Jack Scott -- a fellow historian, he was president of PCC when I was hired. My first semester here, his son Adam was killed in an accidental gun discharge. Jack comes by his anti-gun position naturally, one might say!

He was the first politician to whom I wrote a check.

Orange Hans

The pink is nice, but it clashes with the green banner at the top.


wow, new look!

Make your pink a little more pink and your green a little more green and you're Sweet Briar College. :)



Love the powder pink, as does my wife.

Due to your locale in CA you could probably vote with your heart for President, too. Does this truly mean that you'd choose Kerry above the rest? (No value judgement, just curious.)


I know. That makes his stance semi-understandable, but it doesn't make it right. Anyone that close to the issue is likely to have feelings too strong to be able to think objectively at all; in that case, the best course of action is not to vote on that issue.

I'm still at a loss as to how you could support Prop 66, which will put up to 26,000 violent felons back on the street almost instantly. What's the point of that?


Oh, and is there any way you could make the text in your header a matching powder pink...or perhaps something other than white...just a thought.


I will answer that question, XRLQ. Just need some time to formulate a thoughtful response!


why don't you post on the three linked propositions?


I will, Joe, SLOWLY.


I hope those thousands of felons who are released if Prop 66 gets passed move into your neighborhood. You'll deserve every last one of them for voting for that pro-crime bill.


Actually, Geah, living here in crime-ridden Northwest Pasadena, I know quite a few ex-felons. I see gang grafitti on our trash bins. I hear gunshots sometimes, and police helicopters almost every night.

But as a childless man, a liberal, and a Christian, I feel at peace and safe here. Send them here.

The Angry Clam

Ask, and ye shall receive...

Let me get my sample ballot out to check:

We share the positions on 1A, 59, 60, 62, 70, and 71. That's not bad (although, these are mostly the non-controversial ones).


By my count, Clam, that's 6 out of 15 propositions -- 40% agreement!


I can think of few dumber things voters can do than to oppose Prop 64 or pass Prop 72

Supporting Prop 64 is truly dumb...unless you are a large-business owner of the sort that would prefer to shunt lawsuits through the Attorney General's office, where you needn't worry about them for years.

The law around which Prop. 64 centers needs reform. Wiser, non-extreme types have proposed many of them in the past, but they didn't happen; I'm hoping the near-miss of 64 will get some consumers' attorneys on the clue boat.

The opposition to 64 seems to be "Business GOOD. Lawyer BAD. Me vote 64." (Since no conservatives nor Republicans ever need lawyers or are lawyers, mind.)

The Angry Clam

Care to explain that, mythago?

Keep in mind that section 17200 allows for attorneys like Bill Lerach (who actually is a 10b-5 lawyer, but similar idea), who once boasted that "[He] ha[s] the best practice in the world- no clients!"

I don't see what's so bad about requiring actual harm to file a lawsuit, as the case with every other tort out there.


Bill Lerach is a reason section 17200 needs reform. Ditto the Trevor Group. Again, 64 is a Trojan horse, not reform.

The "actual harm" means that all violations of consumer and environmental laws must be addressed by the AG's office. If you walk into Safeway and find out that their milk is six weeks old and the ketchup bottles are moldy, you can't do a thing (under Prop. 64) other than complain to the AG. Which is laying off 100 attorneys, and which opposes Prop. 64 because they frankly cannot handle the workload. State consumer and environmental protection laws would become an utter joke.

Moderates have proposed reforms, such as requiring attorneys to register all such suits (thereby making it rather public who is suing whom and for what), barring ALL suits against a particular defendant once a particular problem has been dealt with, and stringent sanctions for attorneys who play shakedown.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004