dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1311
share rss forum feed


Waldothe3rd
Premium
join:2009-02-16
Sun N Sand

I voted!

Not much on the ballot, and the local morgue has more life in it than my polling place did.

Where's " Steve See Profile's California Ballot Analysis" when you need it?
That was missed!


bobrk
You kids get offa my lawn
Premium
join:2000-02-02
San Jose, CA
I was amused by the several hundred people running for US Senator.


No_Strings
Premium,MVM,Ex-Mod 2008-13
join:2001-11-22
The OC
kudos:6
reply to Waldothe3rd
I once again exercised my right to thumb my nose at the process. An unbroken streak since 1974,


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5

1 recommendation

reply to Waldothe3rd
said by Waldothe3rd:

Where's Steve See Profile's California Ballot Analysis when you need it?

Right here but posted very late last night so I gave up on spreading the word. Sorry :-(


shortckt
Watchen Das Blinken Lights
Premium
join:2000-12-05
Tenant Hell
reply to Waldothe3rd
I went to my voting place in the late afternoon, and there were only three voters there, including me, but I was only turning in my mail ballot. Between the warm dry winds blowing the signs and leaves across the parking lot and the lack of traffic on the streets it was reminiscent of a ghost town scene from some B western movie. I also drove by another polling place on the way back and it looked deserted.

Approx. 24% turnout statewide, with my county (L.A.) and Fresno showing a measly 17% at the bottom of the list. But maybe that's a good thing, less sheeple voting.

I also noticed that without exception, in both US Congressional and state legislative contests in all districts, where there was an incumbent on the ballot (D or R) they received the majority vote by a comfortable margin. It seems Californians are content with the broken and disfunctional state of affairs after all, and are willing to hire the same representatives for another round to keep things the way they are.

I suppose one bright spot is L.A. D.A. Trutanich lost to Lacey. Lacey was not my choice, but as the saying goes, anyone but him.


shortckt
Watchen Das Blinken Lights
Premium
join:2000-12-05
Tenant Hell
reply to Steve
I voted NO on 29. Although most of the proposed law practically set in stone for 15 years, the part creating the oversight committee is subject to abuse in a couple of ways. One is that some members of the committee can designate an employee to attend meetings. The restriction "employment provides background and experience in..." is quite open, and I can see a lab assistant, or better yet someone owed political favors, attending the committee meetings. Another problem is that this committee can become a way for the governor to pay back political favors by placing retiring or termed-out politicians or other well connected people on the committee. In the real world the governor will get to choose not just the first four appointees as described in 30130.54(a)(1) but also, through political pressure if nothing else, the two appointments made by the State Public Health Officer. Let's see if any termed-out politicians are suddenly appointed to administrative spots with the Red Cross, Lung Cancer Society, etc.

There will be alot of money to play around with and as always that will attract scum. One other possibility on my mind is that since the money can be granted or loaned to a wide ranging description of organizations connected with research, prevention, detection, etc. that we may see obscure new organizations created to make requests for anything vaguely connected to cancer research, only to find out later that they accepted a six-figure sum to study the mating habits of an insect. Or maybe I'm just overly cynical.

That Big Tobacco is all over this didn't sway me, after all they are The vested interest in this game. Nobody in my family smokes, and an immediate family member is a cancer survivor so I'm hoping for the best outcome with this new tax, but not holding my breath. Time will tell.


yj4x4
Still in love with Obama?
Premium
join:2002-09-18
Whittier, CA
reply to Waldothe3rd
Imagine the uproar if they tried to add a tax of $1.00 per bottle/can of beer to pay for "alcoholism research"


Steve
I know your IP address
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Foothill Ranch, CA
kudos:5
As a wine drinker, I'd be ok with that