Continuing with the Scattershot endorsements....
Proposition 5 -- Yes. The "Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Program." This measure would "reduce the consequences" of non-violent drug offenses by mandating "probation with treatment." In a nut, Prop 5 would keep minor drug offenders out of jail, where it's general accepted that the only thing anyone learns is how to be a better criminal. Learn more about Prop 5 here, here and here.
Prop. 6 -- No. The "Safe Neighborhoods Act." Whatever else all is in this far-reaching -- some would say over-reaching -- measure, (including drug-testing for all recipients of public housing assistance) is this little poison pill: "...declare any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a gang-related felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court and prosecuting these youths as adults." Kids are kids. Kids do stupid things. I've never thought otherwise. For more about Proposition 6, see here, here and here.
Prop. 7 -- No. On it's face, this measure sounds like a great idea. It would require California public utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. When you check under the hood, however, it becomes clear that Prop 7 could have a whole host of intended and unintended consequences, including provisions that will force solar and wind power entrepreneurs out of the market and a "virtual guarantee" that California consumers will pay a 10% premium for alternative power in perpetuity.
Remember the boondoggle we found ourselves in the last time we let the power companies write our state's energy policy!?!
Vote No on 7. And learn more here , here and here.
UPDATE: It appears Prop. 7, whether it passes or not, may become Exhibit A when discussing California's flawed ballot initiative system. This measure is so complex that we, as voters, in reality, should not even be in the position of trying to unravel the complexity of the issue. But we are.
I received an email from tellinit.livejournal.com in which a strong argument was made that the No on 7 contingent is a trojan horse collection of energy industry insiders posing as (or infiltrating/influencing) some big-name environmental groups in the interest of stopping this measure. I suppose all I can do at this point is link you up here and here and let you try to decipher things for yourself.
Prop Hate -- No. Be kind to humans. Need I say more?
Proposition 5 -- Yes. The "Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Program." This measure would "reduce the consequences" of non-violent drug offenses by mandating "probation with treatment." In a nut, Prop 5 would keep minor drug offenders out of jail, where it's general accepted that the only thing anyone learns is how to be a better criminal. Learn more about Prop 5 here, here and here.
Prop. 6 -- No. The "Safe Neighborhoods Act." Whatever else all is in this far-reaching -- some would say over-reaching -- measure, (including drug-testing for all recipients of public housing assistance) is this little poison pill: "...declare any youth 14 years or older who is convicted of a gang-related felony as unfit for trial in a juvenile court and prosecuting these youths as adults." Kids are kids. Kids do stupid things. I've never thought otherwise. For more about Proposition 6, see here, here and here.
Prop. 7 -- No. On it's face, this measure sounds like a great idea. It would require California public utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. When you check under the hood, however, it becomes clear that Prop 7 could have a whole host of intended and unintended consequences, including provisions that will force solar and wind power entrepreneurs out of the market and a "virtual guarantee" that California consumers will pay a 10% premium for alternative power in perpetuity.
Remember the boondoggle we found ourselves in the last time we let the power companies write our state's energy policy!?!
Vote No on 7. And learn more here , here and here.
UPDATE: It appears Prop. 7, whether it passes or not, may become Exhibit A when discussing California's flawed ballot initiative system. This measure is so complex that we, as voters, in reality, should not even be in the position of trying to unravel the complexity of the issue. But we are.
I received an email from tellinit.livejournal.com in which a strong argument was made that the No on 7 contingent is a trojan horse collection of energy industry insiders posing as (or infiltrating/influencing) some big-name environmental groups in the interest of stopping this measure. I suppose all I can do at this point is link you up here and here and let you try to decipher things for yourself.
Prop Hate -- No. Be kind to humans. Need I say more?
No comments:
Post a Comment