[Alex]

I'd posted this on Facebook a while back.

The only one that really makes me stand out from my cohort is being in the No on 37 camp, not because I'm in favor of GMO foods but because I am opposed to the anti-GMO activists. I see a better common solution: reform of genetic patents dramatically reducing their value. Then nobody will make them and, if in fact they were vital to keeping the food supply growing with global population, we can watch poor people in other countries starve.

President
Alex says to vote for Barack Obama. Now, I do not feel that Obama has been a great president. Also, I am reasonably confident that if left to himself, Romney probably wouldn't be a horrible president, naturally drifting into moderate territory on most issues. That said, he wouldn't be left to himself and would have to approve and reject whatever Congress sends him. A congress that, if Romney is president, has a fair chance of being completely in Republican control. And that is a thought I find scary as I'm pretty sure they'll be just as bad as it feels like they would be. Lots of talk about jobs, economy, and shooting all the scary Mulsimists but then, just as happened at the state level, once they've got the control it will primarily be about guns, abortions, and shooting all the people one can possibly fear might be Muslimists.

Vice President
Cindy Sheehan of the Peace and Freedom party. My Tea Party friends have shown me the way on doing one's to reject those amendments to the Constution that one least likes. As such I have chosen to ignore the 12th Amendment. I feel no real support for Ms. Sheehan but feel it'll make my protest against that benighted amendment best known. Once 12 has fallen then we'll finally be able to move on to, in order, the 17th, 23rd, the 18th and 21st simultaneously, the 19th, and inserting the word "Christian" as the 10th word of the 1st.

U.S. Senator
Honestly, who gives a ****. I live in California. Reading my sample ballot was the first time I ever heard of the Republican running.

U.S. House of Representative
I'd say "honestly, who gives a ****" on this one too. Except the incumbent goes by the name Pete Stark but my sample ballot tells me his real first name if Fortney. That's awfully close to "fortnight" which recalls Lincoln's greatest speech (which also includes an archaic way of conveying time) and so I think it is our duty to vote for Mr. Fortney Peter Stark so that we can continue having our slaves be free and referred to as "Denny's Waitresses."

Proposition 30
Alex says to vote NO. Let's stop putting funding requirements in the frakking state constitution. It feels good, like a kitten purring on your tummy but is part fo the stupidity that got us into this stupidity in the first place.

Proposition 31
Alex says to vote NO. A) Let's stop putting funding requirements in teh frakking state constitution. It feels good, like a kitten purring on your tummy but is part of the stupidity that got us into this stupidity in the first place. B) It creates a perverse incentive for the party that controls the governorship to play chicken with the budget since if they crash and burn the governor gains the ability to do whatever he wants, so long as it is to slash spending. Why in the world would Republican negotiate on a budget in good faith? C) There are probably some good ideas but a state proposition is not the place for a mishmash of an omnibus bill; keep it focused and tight if you want a chance at my support.

Proposition 32
Alex says to vote NO. A) This is the third time in 15 years the people of California have been asked to vote on this issue. Repeatedly asking the same questions since you only need to win once is a big source of the problems I have with the proposition/referendum process. B) Coming at a time when recent US Supreme Court decisions have opened up new avenues for the money being banned here it seems to me that this would just move those donations out of the light and into the darkness.

Proposition 33
Alex says to vote NO. A) This is second time in two years the people of California have been asked to vote on this issue. Repeatedly asking the same questions since you only need to win once is a big source of the problems I have with this proposition/referendum process. B) There's a lot of picayune understanding of insurance regulation that is necessary to understand the real impacts of this proposition and I don't have that knowledge. So I go to secondary sources and they seem generally think it isn't a good idea. All that said, this proposition highlights another flaw in the California proposition/referendum process: namely that if a law is passed by proposition it can only be changed by proposition. This is an issue that should be settled by the legislature, not a general population ballot.

Proposition 34
Alex says to vote YES. This initiative would repeal the death penalty in California. While I, in theory have no problem with the idea that some crimes are so heinous that they justify ending the perpetrators life, in practical application the rightness of some executions do not outweigh the errors. Plus, for all intents and purposes we have already repealed the death penalty in California anyway and we might as well stop pretending.

Proposition 35
Alex says to vote NO. A) I don't, in general, approve of sex offender registries; B) I don't approve of the portion of this proposition that would require those on sex offender registries to share with the government their online account credentials; C) this is something that should be handled legislatively.

Proposition 36
Alex says to vote YES. Just based on topic I'd encourage a NO vote simply because this is something that should be handled legislatively. That said, because the 3 Strikes law in California was passed by proposition it has to be changed by proposition. And California's Three Strikes law is pretty stupid so I'm in favor of relaxing it and don't think this measure goes far enough but it's a start.

Proposition 37
Alex says to vote NO. This is the one for labeling genetically modified foods. I don't care if people don't want to eat them. I have huge policy issues with agribusiness, many related to genetic control of crops and seedstock. That said, there really isn't much science supporting that the food product itself poses any harm or risk and the goal of labeling is not really to make people aware so that they can make choices but to scare people into making the choice you want them to make. If the anti-GMO lobby had proven itself at least more honest than the mega-agri companies I might take a different stance but for now it seems to me there is a perfectly fine solution that doesn't require a government bureaucracy to create: Every food product on the market is free to label their foods as NOT containing any GMOs. I'll support a law, if one is necessary, making it illegal to use such a label falsely. Voila, all GMO foods (or food manufactured by someone who doesn't care) are labeled.

Proposition 38
Alex says to vote YES. This is a new tax and I was too bored to read the details. Since I voted against one above I'll vote for this one.

Proposition 39
Alex says to vote NO. This one almost got my vote. But once again creates a mandate on how money will be spent on specific programs. Further evidence that everybody loves an earmark when it is their earmark.

Proposition 40
Alex says to vote YES. A yes vote approves the new congressional district map in California. For the first time drawn up by an "independent" commission instead of by the state legislature itself. I supported that change so I support the result. It isn't an ideal map but it is better than we'd have seen from the legislators more focused on making incumbents safe than on consolidating party power for decades into the future like they should be (or simply drawing reasonable districts like we all wish they would).

BONUS BALLOT PICK:
Dublin City Council - Alex says to vote for Anita Carr because her name sounds like something a whiny teenager would say.