Super Tuesday

Obviously I'm voting for Ron Paul. I really thought that the Republican race would still be clouded. Oh well, I was wrong. It does mean I will get to vote against McCain twice this year! More on that in another blog... Let's talk about the more interesting stuff on the ballot in California tomorrow: The Propositions!

Prop 91 -- Places restrictions on tax money earmarked for transportation infrastructure. Definitely a yes.

Prop 92 -- The key here is that this freezes community college fees. Wait, so I "own" (pay taxes) a business (state government) that produces a product (community college education) and I want to fix what my business charges for that product, even if I have to pay more (pay professors more, etc.) for it? That is stupid. It will only cause community college education to suffer just like all other forms of public education... No.

Prop 93 -- Reduce term limits from 14 to 12 years ... I am against term limits. Let people vote for who they want to, so No.

Props 94-97 -- Ah, the new Indian gaming "compacts". First off, Indian casinos are state backed monopolies. They get special privileges from the state, and in turn pay the state a percentage of profits. Personally I have nothing against Indian tribes having casinos, I just have something against laws that prevent non-Indian tribes from having casinos. So I have to vote against these measures. No.

Spanking

Each weeknight, I drive home from work and usually talk on my cell phone with Crystal (on my Bluetooth headset.) Earlier this week Crystal asked me if I had heard about a proposed law to ban spanking children under the age of three. I had not heard of it at the time, but I've heard a lot about it since.

This has to be one of the most outrageous laws I've ever heard of. What right does the government have to tell you how to discipline your child? How can we expect parents to be responsible for their children when the government dictates how they raise their children? As horrible as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia were in terms of oppressive government, did either of them even stoop this low?

Personally, Crystal and I do not spank Michael, Jr. (who turns three in March) or Raymond (age 1.) But that is our decision. If we decide that we need to spank them, then again that is our decision. We have to be responsible for providing care for our children and for teaching and raising them. That is our responsibility.

Now obviously spanking can go too far. Children can be injured by parents who use excessive force to spank them. So maybe we need law to prevent that? Oh wait, we already have one. It's called assault and battery. If I spank my child and hurt him, I have broken a law. Just like if I go out and hit somebody on the street and injure them.

Obviously it's more difficult for a child to report me to the police than it is for a stranger on the street. But if I hurt my child enough that I have to take him to the hospital, doctors and nurses are already instructed to report me to the police.

There's a lot of safeguards already in place. Is it perfect? Of course not. A lot of children still get abused. But even if this ban on spanking was put in place, it's not like that would stop me from beating my children in the privacy of my own home, and obviously that's where most parental discipline occurs. It's a worthless law in terms of being enforceable, but it would catastrophic consequences for all of society. It would tell good parents, you know the ones that don't abuse their children, that they are no longer in charge of their kids. The State of California is instead. They are just there to do what The State tells them to do.

If the state passed this law, and it somehow was upheld by the courts, I would have to leave California. Maybe I would take a job with Microsoft or Amazon and move to Seattle, or maybe somewhere back east. I don't know. But there's no way I could live under a totalitarian regime that will mandate how I raise my children.

Election 2006 -- Propositions

I didn't get to post this before I voted this morning. So here's how I voted on the many state propositions.

1A -- Yes. It's amazing this is even needed.
1B -- Yes. More roads are badly needed.
1C -- No. I don't need the state to support urban development.
1D -- Yes. This was a hard one for me. Public education is a disaster, thus it is easy for me to say no on this. However, a vote either way on this will not make it more/less likely for education to be privatized. So the positives outweigh the negatives.
1E -- Yes.
83 -- No. It doesn't make sense to me that the GPS monitoring of citizens can be constitutional. Right now it might just be "sex offenders" (which can include an 18 yr old boy who has consensual sex with a 17 yr old girl,) but maybe tomorrow it's speeders or whatever.
84 -- Yes.
85 -- Yes. As a parent, I would expect my consent to be needed for my child to have any kind of operation. Parents need to be responsible for their children.
86 -- No. A classic case of trying to use a tax to impose one group's opinion ("smoking is bad") on another.
87 -- No. I could actually stomach a big tax that made gasoline cost more. However, I can't stomach the money going to some new state bureaucracy.
88 -- No. Property tax is already ridiculous, especially given the housing market in California. Maybe my no vote here cancels my yes vote on 1D.
89 -- No. Tax payers should not pay for political campaigns, and citizens should not be prevented from making their opinion ("I want to vote for Mr. Smith") heard.
90 -- Yes. The anti-Kelo measure. Eminent domain has always been abused, but maybe this can decrease the number of instances of its abuse.

Election 2006 -- California State Races

Next up on my look at who/what I will be voting for on Tuesday are the state elections. Might as well start off with the big one.

Governor
Back in May I voted for Steve Westly over Phil Angelides in the Democratic Primary. I probably would have voted for Westly over Schwarzenegger, but there is no way I would for Angelides over Arnold. Honetly it would have been a tough call between Arnold and Westly, and I may have voted for Arnold anyways. I've agreed with most everything he's done the past couple of years. As for the Libertarian candidate, Art Oliver ... His stance on immigration is too extreme. Plus he likes to quote "think tanks" such as Cato and Reason way too much. Think for yourself, or at least pretend to. He strikes me as somebody who embraces the Libertarian philosophy simply as a means to an end. That's the exact kind of Libertarian I dislike, and the kind that is willing to support the massacre in Iraq all in the name of lower taxes.

Lt. Governor
Does this position matter? Anyways... First the usual Dem. v. Rep. ... In this case it's John Garamendi vs. Tom McClintock. I really don't like McClintock from the recall of Gray Davis. I agree with him on a few things, but there are too many things that I completely disagree with him on. Garamendi isn't that great either, but he'll probably get my vote. What about third party candidates? Well, the Libertarian candidate, Lynette Shaw, is interesting to say the least. Her major issues are medical marijuana and amnesty for illegal immigrants. I actually agree with both of these stances. However, she seems very ... out there. Her website rambles quite a bit, and it's just hard to take her serious. American Independent candidate Jim King wants to do away with the state income tax. That sounds good. However, he's also all about the family-unit. That smells like bigotry. All in all, no good choices. So I'll probably vote against McClintock, thus vote for Garamendi.

Secretary of State
This is an interesting race just because its a position that emphasizes the regulation of elections. In general I favor electronic voting. I don't have the paranoia about this that most Democrats do. Embrace technology. We should know who wins an election within minutes of the polls closing. I don't favor requiring photo ID to vote. I think that would just lower the number of voters in some demographics, and I don't see how that can be viewed as a good thing. Finally, I don't favor public financing of elections. If I want to run for office, I should be able to spend as much money as I want to get the word out. Similarly, if my friend is running, I should be able to spend as much as I want to get the word out. That's freedom of speech. So the candidate closest to my positions is probably the incumbent, Bruce McPherson. I guess my stance is actually pretty close to "status quo."

Attorney General
One last interesting position. There are a lot of candidates with interesting stances. Green Party candidate Michael Wyman and Peace and Freedom candidate Jack Harrison both oppose the death penalty, as do I. However, they both want to "prosecute corporate thieves" and I hate that kind of demagoguery. Ken Weissman has a degree in math and is a Libertarian. He's against victimless crimes like prostitution and drugs. However, he's pro-death penalty, and it's hard for me to accept a Libertarian who is pro-death penalty. Next up are the "major" candidates. First there's Jerry Brown, Democrat. He puts "controlling greenhouse emissions" and "protecting a women's right to choose" as high on his list of priorities. Should those be priorities for Attorney General? Just seems like party line BS. Finally there's Republican Chuck Poochigian. His priorities include sex offenders, gangs, and the three strikes law. There's no way I'd vote for this guy. I'm especially opposed to the three strikes law. So, I think I'll vote for Weissman.