California Voter Guide Redux-- Expanded

Eight days ago we ran a California voter guide to help progressives with the propositions. Allow me to repeat it-- with a few additions. As I mentioned then, you can't figure much out from the misleading onslaught of TV ads, which barely give you a clue what any of these propositions are about. There are 9 statewide propositions this year, 4 good ones, 4 bad ones and one head-scratcher.



Let's start with Prop 19, which would legalize and tax marijuana, which I'll count as a good one. Politicians are afraid of it and they're virtually all opposing it. It was stupid-- and racist-- to criminalize marijuana in the first place. It's just idiotic and socially debilitating to keep it illegal. I haven't smoked a joint since 1969 but I'm voting YES.

Prop 20 was written by a right wing activist specifically to decrease the number of congressional seats the Democrats hold in Congress. Gerrymandering has been epic in California-- almost as bad-- but not quite-- as in Florida or Texas-- and when Florida and Texas end gerrymandering, California should as well. Until then, this bill is just one-sided Democratic unilateral disarmament. I'm voting NO.

Prop 21 will save the state parks, which will be shut down if the measure fails. The wealthy never want to pay for the commons-- like state parks-- but this attempt doesn't even tax them. It spreads it out among all vehicle owners at $18 per year. It's worth it. I'm voting YES.

Prop 22 is the most difficult of this year's crop of props to understand. It seems to help with funding for local governments-- cities and counties-- but at the expense of public education and other vital public services. I'm voting NO.

Prop 23 is the big one and the ad above captures the spirit of the debate. Wealthy Texas oil firms, Valero and Tesoro have put this on the ballot and are paying the run millions of dollars in deceptive advertising. It would repeal California's global warming legislation and wreck the state's burgeoning clean energy economy. The bill is a job killer for the sake of a few wealthy, avaricious oil tycoons with a malevolent agenda. I'm noting NO-- big time!

Prop 24 will close tax loopholes for corporations that are costing the state $2 billion annually by allowing corporate tax evaders to shift the burden onto ordinary working families. The Republicans want to keep the loopholes in place for their corporate donors. I'm voting YES.

Prop 25 is the long past-due majority-rule amendment for the state budget. This one would eliminate the 2/3 requirement in the state legislature to pass the annual budget, freeing the majority from the tyranny of a small minority of crazed ideologues and puppets of the super-wealthy with their own selfish agendas. I cannot wait to vote YES on this one.

Prop 26 is another right-wing special interest amendment, this time to protect polluters from legal remedies. It goes back to the old argument of who pays for clean-up when corporations pollute the air and water, the taxpayers or the polluters. The corporate polluters are spending big to make sure it's the taxpayers who pay, not the polluters who profit from the pollution. I'm voting NO! NO! A thousand times NO.

Prop 27 is the one I referred to as a head-scratcher. It seeks to eliminate the commission to redraw state legislative district boundaries and it's been endorsed by the California Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation, the teachers union, the state's biggest conservation group and other trustworthy organizations. But it's confusing, especially with Prop 20 on the ballot. My understanding is that if both Prop 20 and Prop 27 win, the one that passes with the highest majority will go into effect. My gut tells me to vote YES on this as a way of helping defeat the really odious Prop 20.

As for candidates... it's a lot simpler than it used to be. There are good Democrats and there are bad Democrats. But there are no good Republicans... not one... anywhere. Like she said in her "I'm not a witch" ad, they are all Christine O'Donnell-- stupid, self-serving, bigoted and incompetent. Unless you're just discovering DWT this morning, you already know we are adamantly opposed to both Fiorina and NutMeg. A couple words that explain why either would make a horrendous elected official, even if either really was as successful in business as they claim. Fiorina, as most people now understand, was a catastrophe for the workers and shareholders of HP and was fired for being the undisputed worst CEO in the history of the company. If you want to know how awful Whitman was, don't look at what she looted from the company, just speak with most long-time eBay users. I've conducted charitable auctions on the site for many years and brought in several million dollars. I stopped doing it because Whitman turned eBay into a nightmarish, fascist organization that makes users jump through hoops because of an intrinsically narrow, authoritarian mindset. Hoops on fire.

Before I started DWT I worked as the president of Reprise Records, a division of TimeWarner. I didn't fit into the corporate world at all but the company was extremely successful-- certainly not because of me but by their rules it looked like that-- so they tolerated me. I learned early on that many of the most apparently successful business people in the corporate world are very authoritarian and don't understand how to deal with people outside of their closed culture of sycophants whose bonuses are dependent on them. California voters have shrewdly gotten the distinct feeling that neither Whitman nor Fiorina is someone with the slightest bit of empathy for human beings.

Vote for the Democrat in every race and if you don't remember why, this will help you. Two nonpartisan recommendations: Tom Torlakson for Superintendent of Public Instruction and on retaining Supreme Court judges, YES on Carlos Moreno and NO on Ming Chin.

Now... check and make sure where you're supposed to vote today here. And if you have any problems at the polls... here's a Voter Protection website where you can get help. Their number is 1-866-OUR-VOTE. And there's last minute phone banking you can still do here. And there's always prayer.

Down With Tyranny's 2010 California Down-Ballot Voter Guide

Daisy and Harry want to vote early and they keep asking me to help with the complicated propositions. One thing for sure... you can't figure much out from the misleading onslaught of TV ads, which don't even give you a clue what any of these propositions are about. There are 9 statewide propositions this year, 4 good ones, 4 bad ones and one head-scratcher.

Let's start with Prop 19, which would legalize and tax marijuana, which I'll count as a good one. Politicians are afraid of it and they're all opposing it. It was stupid-- and racist-- to criminalize marijuana in the first place. It's just idiotic and socially debilitating to keep it illegal. I haven't smoked a joint since 1969 but I'm voting YES.

Prop 20 was written by a right wing activist specifically to decrease the number of congressional seats the Democrats hold in Congress. Gerrymandering has been epic in California-- almost as bad-- but not quite-- as in Florida or Texas-- and when Florida and Texas end gerrymandering, California should as well. Until then, this bill is just one-sided Democratic disarmament. I'm voting NO.

Prop 21 will save the state parks, which will be shut down if the measure fails. The wealthy never want to pay for the commons-- like state parks-- but this attempt doesn't even tax them. It spreads it out among all vehicle owners at $18 per year. It's worth it. I'm voting YES.

Prop 22 is the most difficult of this year's crop of props to understand. It seems to help with funding for local governments-- cities and counties-- but at the expense of public education and other vital public services. I'm voting NO.

Prop 23 is the big one and the ad above captures the spirit of the debate. Wealthy Texas oil firms, Valero and Tesoro have put this on the ballot and are paying the run millions of dollars in deceptive advertising. It would repeal California's global warming legislation and wreck the state's burgeoning clean energy economy. The bill is a job killer for the sake of a few wealthy, avaricious oil tycoons with a malevolent agenda. I'm noting NO-- big time!

Prop 24 will close tax loopholes for corporations that are costing the state $2 billion annually by allowing corporate tax evaders to shift the burden onto ordinary working families. The Republicans want to keep the loopholes in place for their corporate donors. I'm voting YES.

Prop 25 is the long past-due majority-rule amendment for the state budget. This one would eliminate the 2/3 requirement in the state legislature to pass the annual budget, freeing the majority from the tyranny of a small minority of crazed ideologues and puppets of the super-wealthy with their own selfish agendas. I cannot wait to vote YES on this one.

Prop 26 is another right-wing special interest amendment, this time to protect polluters from legal remedies. It goes back to the old argument of who pays for clean-up when corporations pollute the air and water, the taxpayers or the polluters. The corporate polluters are spending big to make sure it's the taxpayers who pay, not the polluters who profit from the pollution. I'm voting NO! NO! A thousand times NO.

Prop 27 is the one I referred to as a head-scratcher. It seeks to eliminate the commission to redraw state legislative district boundaries and it's been endorsed by the California Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation, the teachers union, the state's biggest conservation group and other trustworthy organizations. But it's confusing, especially with Prop 20 on the ballot. My understanding is that if both Prop 20 and Prop 27 win, the one that passes with the highest majority will go into effect. My gut tells me to vote YES on this as a way of helping defeat the really odious Prop 20.

As for candidates... it's a lot simpler than it used to be. There are good Democrats and there are bad Democrats. But there are no good Republicans... not one... anywhere. Like she said in her "I'm not a witch" ad, they are all Christine O'Donnell-- stupid, self-serving, bigoted and incompetent.

Class War, California's Prop 23 And The Education Of Arnold Schwarzenegger

A few weeks ago we took a look at the preview of Inside Job, the riveting new film by Charles Ferguson which opens Friday in NYC and in L.A. the following week. It concentrates on the financial meltdown-- and makes the case very convincingly, that it was an inside job-- here in the U.S. But the film starts in pristine, scenic Iceland and may startle some viewers by drawing the straight line between greed-driven sociopaths in the financial sector destroying the environment for the sake of fatter bonus packages. One person who wouldn't be startled by that, at least not now, a few days short of his 7th anniversary of being elected governor of California, is Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. A few days ago Schwarzenegger gave what was probably the most cogent and profound speech of his political career. In the video below Keith Olbermann put it into context. Believe me, it's worth listening to:



As Olbermann explains, "the Citizens United ruling, unleashing private groups to pour millions of dollars into political campaigns has benefited Republicans by a ratio of six to one. The outpouring of money leading to last night's extraordinary outpouring from the Republican governor of California, talking about a political campaign now underway there to, in essence, take over the state with cash in order to undo the legislation he signed 4 years ago to reduce carbon emissions there by 30% by the year 2020..." Arnold:

Does anyone really believe that these companies, out of the goodness of their black, oil hearts and spending millions and millions of dollars to protect jobs? This is like Eva Braun writing a kosher cookbook... I want to talk about the corruption of the democratic process and about forces willing to sabotage the country's economic future for private gain. I want to talk about the Texas oil interests that have descended upon California to overturn a California environmental law, and then, as soon as they've done their dirty work thanks to millions of dollars of scare-tactic advertising, they intend, in the words of their own spokesperson, to fold up their tents and go home... Oil companies like Valero and Tesero and Frontier and Koch Industries are blatantly trying to manipulate the will of the people and the public good... The motivate is... self-serving greed.

Well, right now, polls show self-serving greed-- well financed self-serving greed-- is all tied up with the public interest. Are the public morons? Judge for yourself.

California voters believe global warming is a significant issue and are inclined to trust scientific views on the subject, but they remain closely divided on a November ballot measure that would suspend the state's global warming statute, according to a new Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California poll.

California’s global warming law, passed in 2006, is aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions by power plants, factories and vehicles.

The ballot initiative, Proposition 23, would delay implementation of the law until California unemployment drops to 5.5% and stays at that level for a year. Unemployment is now over 12%, and a sustained level at or below 5.5% has rarely been achieved, so environmental advocates argue that the initiative would in effect put the law on indefinite hold.

More than two-thirds of likely voters in the survey said that global warming is a “very important” or “somewhat important” issue to them. And more than four in 10  likely voters said they have “complete” or “a lot” of trust in what scientists say on the subject, with more than two in 10 saying they have a “moderate” amount of trust.

On the ballot measure itself, the survey showed that about one-fifth of likely voters had not yet taken a position. Forty percent favor the initiative and 38% oppose it, essentially a dead heat.

And Big Business, protected by an out-of-whack reactionary Supreme Court, specifically designed to represent corporate interests, has all the money they need to persuade voters-- otherwise occupied with their own difficult struggles-- that whatever serves their bottom lines in truth, even when it is clearly anti-truth.

Framing Prop 23 as the "California Jobs Initiative" is a clever bait-and-switch by out of state oil tycoons like David Koch to halt any and all efforts at the state level to address the climate crisis and save California's already slumping economy.

Voters in California-- and every other state-- need to realize that failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions risks destroying millions of jobs and grinding California's economy to a halt. The effects of climate change need to be thought of as a "negative stimulus" to the economy, leading to reduced profitability, decreased investment, job loss, and falling wages... [T]here are no jobs on a dead planet.