I have greeted the results of every election since at least the 2000 Presidential elections with a mixture of horror and contempt, so it was a refreshing feeling today to listen to the news and hear results I actually wanted to hear.
The good news? In California, all 8 of the abominable initiatives in our special election got defeated, many of them by some pretty impressive margins. (For an interesting look at the results, click on the "map" link after each of those propositions to see how each county voted. It's really interesting when you get down to Prop's 78, 79 & 80.) The Governor's plans got repudiated and his popularity is at an all time low. (Yes, I most definitely consider that good news.) Outside of California, 2 states elected Democratic Governors, Maine rejected a bid to reverse their gay rights legislation, and all eight members of the Pennsylvania School Board that introduced the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were thrown out of office. Along with Schwarzenegger, President Bush's and Congress' popularity are at an all time low. It may be too early to celebrate the reawakening of the American people, but at least I'm not dreading election results today.
On the down side, Schwarzenegger wasted $50 million of the State's money to hold this damn election and, while I'm glad both prescription drug initiatives got defeated, we have to be aware that this was ultimately a win for the drug companies that campaigned so hard (and so annoyingly) to defeat 79. They'd have settled for a win with 78, but lets face it, they've gotta be much happier with maintaining the status quo.
The good news? In California, all 8 of the abominable initiatives in our special election got defeated, many of them by some pretty impressive margins. (For an interesting look at the results, click on the "map" link after each of those propositions to see how each county voted. It's really interesting when you get down to Prop's 78, 79 & 80.) The Governor's plans got repudiated and his popularity is at an all time low. (Yes, I most definitely consider that good news.) Outside of California, 2 states elected Democratic Governors, Maine rejected a bid to reverse their gay rights legislation, and all eight members of the Pennsylvania School Board that introduced the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in biology class were thrown out of office. Along with Schwarzenegger, President Bush's and Congress' popularity are at an all time low. It may be too early to celebrate the reawakening of the American people, but at least I'm not dreading election results today.
On the down side, Schwarzenegger wasted $50 million of the State's money to hold this damn election and, while I'm glad both prescription drug initiatives got defeated, we have to be aware that this was ultimately a win for the drug companies that campaigned so hard (and so annoyingly) to defeat 79. They'd have settled for a win with 78, but lets face it, they've gotta be much happier with maintaining the status quo.
Comments
I'm also curious as to why you would mention the wasted $50 million by Arnold (and, I agree, it was wasted), but not mention the $150 million spent by the unions - even going so far as to mortgage the teachers union HQ to raise funds. How will they pay for this? With dues from union employees. Even the ones who supported the propositions and did not want their dues spent in this way. How do the unions get away with that? Oh yeah, they only require a written authorization when you join the union, and you are never given a chance to change your opinion over how your dues are spent. What would have changed this to giving authorization once per year? Oh yeah, prop 75.
Q
Imagine, for a moment, a 15-year old girl who finds herself pregnant and dumped because the boy she turned to for love ran screaming the moment he found out he'd knocked her up. Imagine, further, that she's poor, has an abusive relationship with her family and has no one to turn to for counseling or help in dealing with this.
Prop 73 says her parents have to be notified, but she knows they'll beat her, or worse, for getting pregnant in the first place and for even considering an abortion. But hey, she can go to court and get the courts to help her! Not that she knows how to even start that process, but then, maybe she shouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first place.
So she gets to choose to drop out of school, have the baby and become yet another Welfare mom, or risk her life with an abortion from someone unethical enough to ignore the new law.
Call me a bleeding heart liberal if you feel like it, but that's the real world, not the idealized one Prop 73 tries to live in. Communication with your children starts at home, you can't legislate it. And Prop 73 was nothing more than an attack on abortion rights, masquerading as "protecting the children" or protecting parents rights.
Again, this is a proposition that said it was doing one thing (which it might accomplish) but with the intention of doing something entirely different. It may have protected your rights as a union member from having your dues spent supporting campaigns you don't support. (My understanding of this process is that you have the right to notify the union in writing that you don't want your dues spent in this way at any time. There's no mention, in any of the reading I did, that you only get to do this when you join the union and are locked into this choice from that point on. Maybe I missed that.)
But, as has been pointed out countless times by that "damn liberal media," the intent behind this proposition was to weaken the political clout of the unions (a problem that Sacramento, and our dear Governor, have been struggling with) without doing anything about the power exerted by the corporations and other entities (including our government) on the other end of these arguments. And frankly, I wasn't comfortable with that.
(I might point out here that this is one of the Propositions the LA Times came out in support of, and I broke with that "liberal bastion" on this one.)
You may say 'communication starts at home'. But, the fact is, that holds true for your 'real world' scenario too. She has no one to turn to? Hey, communication starts at home!
My reply is simple - Yes, communication starts at home. But, kids are KIDS. They are young. They need protection and help. Sometimes, even if they are perfectly parented, they don't KNOW how to communicate something like this because they aren't MATURE enough. The government does legislate measures to PROTECT children. They can't drive, drink, smoke, or vote until they are old enough. In fact, they cannot go to the fucking hospital to get a broken bone set without the doctor HAVING to tell the parents (by law). But, apparently, you think it is ok to have a major, invasive, and life-altering operation without protection in the form of parental notification?
You may or may not be a bleeding-heart liberal - I'm not concerned about that. I'm more shocked to hear that point of view from a parent.
For the record, if your imaginary 'real world' girl went to the doctor for an abortion under Prop 73 (if it had passed), her parents would have been notified AND all she has to do to 'start the process' is tell the doctor she is scared of the repercussions. The law had legislation to begin the process right then and there. In such a case, the authorities would step in and protect her (again...PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN), and she would also get her abortion.
Without Prop 73, she now goes in to get her abortion and that is IT. Over. Done. No one knows that she lives in a potentially dangerous situation. No one knows the problems she is having. And, NOTHING EVER CHANGES. Except, now she has had to go through the process of abortion alone.
For someone so opposed to 'back-alley abortions' because you remember how bad it was, I'm surprised you have no protective instincts for kids suffering abortion without help or protection. And, don't tell me she can seek out counseling. For starters, she probably doesn't know how to start THAT process. And, nothing compares to your own parents (if they are good parents).
In the REAL WORLD kids are young, immature, and NEED PROTECTION. But, I guess the liberal agenda of protecting precious abortion rights comes first. Good job.
And so, of course, I am demonized for believing in abortion rights.
Chalk it up to my inherent distrust of the initiative process in general and this special election in particular. I saw nothing in this proposition to make me feel comfortable voting for it. On the other hand, I saw plenty of reason to distrust both the proposition and those who authored and backed it.
Is parental notification for abortions a good or necessary thing? Perhaps. Was this the way to do it? Perhaps not. I didn't feel it was and I stand by that. Derision and sarcasm don't change that nor alter my opinion on the topic.
I do not believe in abortion. You know that about me. How could I, considering my history with fertility? However, I do believe in abortion rights. Just not unlimited abortion rights. I honestly don't think most liberals do either. Does anyone really like the idea of a 12 year old getting an abortion without anyone else knowing? Does anyone really support partial-birth abortion when they hear it described? I doubt it. But, I think liberals cling to abortion rights like a lifeboat - if they give up any ground on the issue (even common sense ground) they may lose the whole thing to the radical Christian wackos. Gun rights tend to be the same for the right. Do the majority of gun rights conservatives believe people should be walking around with Uzi's? No. But, they cling to the 2nd amendment like a lifeboat, afraid that any restrictions will lead to the eventual stripping of all guns by the wacko lefties (in the case of San Francisco, it seems they are right ;->).
We do share something in common in this mess - an inherent distrust in the initiative process and government in general.
I feel somewhat vindicated by your "perhaps". At the very least, that clarifies that you didn't find the ideas behind 73 'abominable'. That was always my initial problem with your post. You tend to speak with hyperbole and I'm always there to pull you back from the brink!
You sound much closer to how I felt about 77 (and why I voted against it). Is the districting process in this state screwed up? You betcha. Was 77 the answer? Not so much.
And, sadly, I think there's a lot of truth to what you say about "clinging" to that lifeboat. I do, inherently, mistrust any abortion regulation, thanks to the climate of attack on abortion rights. If I didn't believe that there was a concerted movement to reverse Roe v. Wade and criminalize abortion again, I'd probably be more open to discussion on the topic. That's a hard thing to accept, but it's a reality. I consider myself fairly reasonable (despite my rants) and if I find myself prone to this reaction, I can hardly imagine what the fervently unreasonable feel. (Is it even possible, right now, to be reasonable on this topic? I wonder.)
As for initiatives, I cynically adopted a "just say no" attitude toward them years ago and haven't found any reason not to use that as my starting point in looking at the list of propositions each election. (Well, at least when saying "no" means you don't want what the initiative is trying to do.) The initiative process may have seemed like a good idea a hundred years ago, but it's been so co-opted by special interest groups that I simply can't trust them now.
When I was reading up on the propositions, I checked out the LA Times recommendations. They recommended a yes on 77, with the "it's better than nothing" attitude. That just wasn't good enough for me. Redistricting IS f'd up, but this one was just nuts. (Hey, we unequivocally agreed on this one!)