Swimming in the Pensieve

2005.11.07 - 10:28
The phone has been ringing almost non-stop all day, with the majority of callers urging me to go vote tomorrow. The Press Telegram, LA Times, and other newspapers are publishing their voting recommendations and (pseudo)reasoning to support each. What the heck, I’ll tell you exactly how I’m going to vote in the morning:

• Proposition 73: YES. Good parents have the right to be advised of any medical procedure performed on their children–including an abortion. Abusive parents can be safeguarded against by obtaining a judicial waiver of parental notification–if it can be shown to be legally justified. As long as I am required, by law, to be financially responsible for my child’s actions; I will be permitted the full-range of information and freedom to mete-out lucidly-corrective action required to fulfill my moral obligation of being a responsible parent.
• Proposition 74: NO. I’m in favor of adding a single year to the waiting period for a public school teacher’s permanent status. Five years is over-kill and subject to the political excesses of local school district boards and administrators. Tenure isn’t a bullet-proof shield either. If a site administrator cannot document and rid themselves of a poorly-performing or incompetent teacher; the site administrator is too lazy to do his or her job and needs immediate firing.
• Proposition 75: NO. Government has long desired to be rid of union-represented employees, because it makes abusing employees all the easier. Unions and union-represented employees have been nothing but a thorn in their side. This proposition places an unwieldly burden upon the unions as well as the employees themselves. I could support it if it required employee approval on a one-time or every five year basis, but annual written approval on the part of the employee is nearly punitive. Many people will let the form sit–unsigned–because that’s just human nature. Sacramento is counting on that as a long-term payoff if this one is passed.
• Proposition 76: NO. Too much power for one person–particularly an egomaniac like Ah-Nold. I have never trusted any politician enough to circumvent the usual system of checks and balances that has served this country so well.
• Proposition 77: NO. This is a step from the frying pan, into the fire. A panel of retired judges is less accountable to the public than politicians are; and the current system has resulted in some pretty twisted district boundaries. This is another circumvention of the system of checks and balances that takes us a step closer to a socialistic or fascist government. I’ll keep my freedoms–such as they are–along with a side of fries, please.
• Proposition 78: NO. The pharmaceutical industry is backing this one. After seeing the corruption in the industry over the past 40-odd years, I’m certainly not going to help them fix prices higher.
• Proposition 79: YES. Short and sweet: This one is good for the consumer, and the pharmaceutical industry is against it.
• Proposition 80: NO. It’s impossible to predict the impact of this legislation, but we are going to narrow our options for making adjustments to changing utility procurement market conditions down to nothing but wishful thinking? I think not. Just the idea that a customer may be hoodwinked into time-differentiated billing is enough to make you shudder. This will come to no good end, if passed.

…and that’s my take on the ballot tomorrow. Now, stop calling me, and go vote.