California Propositions?

[bobabode]

Locals Only, Dudes & Dudettes!

Just kidding, feel free to bash California politics all you want.

I don't know how the rest of you do it but we like to amend our constitution every couple of years. Pester enough people outside of grocery stores, post offices and the like and then we all get to vote stuff that keeps our state supreme court in business, occasionally striking down some massively ill conceived crap.(Prop.8 was one such, IIRC) Some call it government by the people and some think it's the tyranny of the masses (and everything in between.) We have to be the promised land for barristers, attorneys, lawyers and others of their ilk. No offense intended. Welllll - maybe just a little.
So off to the races...We have Props 30-40 to vote on this season in addition to the regular choices of the lesser of two evils.
So what do you say senors, senoras and senoritas or if you prefer campesinos & campesinas?


Prop.30 is a temporary tax bump for education - yea
" 31 is a restructuring of gov.(almost always a bad idea) - nay
" 32 is a prohibition on unions donating to political campaigns - nay
" 33 is an auto insurance reform (funded by Mercury Ins. owner) - nay
" 34 is a repeal of the death penalty - yea
" 35 is a law that classifies human trafficking as a sex crime - ?!? - nay?
" 36 is a revision of the three strikes law - yea
" 37 is a requirement for labeling GMOs - yea (genetically modified food)
" 38 is a an income tax increase for 12 yrs. for education pre K-12 - yea
" 39 is a multi=state business tax remedy/clean energy whatchamacallit - yea
" 40 is a redistricting plan for state senators - yea

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Prop.30 is a temporary tax bump for education - yea
" 31 is a restructuring of gov.(almost always a bad idea) - nay
" 32 is a prohibition on unions donating to political campaigns - nay
" 33 is an auto insurance reform (funded by Mercury Ins. owner) - nay
" 34 is a repeal of the death penalty - yea
" 35 is a law that classifies human trafficking as a sex crime - ?!? - nay?
" 36 is a revision of the three strikes law - yea
" 37 is a requirement for labeling GMOs - yea (genetically modified food)
" 38 is a an income tax increase for 12 yrs. for education pre K-12 - yea
" 39 is a multi=state business tax remedy/clean energy whatchamacallit - yea
" 40 is a redistricting plan for state senators - yea

I'm against 30, 37, 38, 39. See, I knew we had some common ground.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I'm against 30, 37, 38, 39. See, I knew we had some common ground.

So, we agree on 34,36 & 40? Eh-it's a start.

Have you read 32 and who gets exemptions from it? Is your last name Koch?

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by bobabode

So, we agree on 34,36 & 40? Eh-it's a start.

Have you read 32 and who gets exemptions from it? Is your last name Koch?

Ah, I wasn't clear. The only ones where I differ from you are the ones I mentioned. Thus, we only disagree on 4. I'm not opposed to any person or any group contributing money to politicians including unions and corporations.

[JJIII]

I would be for 32, 34, and 37. I don't have a dog in the hunt for any of them since i live in Tennessee but those three I agree with.

[Bigerik]

Why would a person be against knowing what is in the food they buy?

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Why would a person be against knowing what is in the food they buy?

The complete answer for this could be a whole thread on it's own. But basically the chemical companies have modified the seeds planted to be resistant to Herbicides. Causing an ever more increase in use of fertilizers and herbicides. That will only get into the environment and cause unintended consequences for years to come.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-...b_2038449.html


I agree with you on all of your choices on the referendums except for #35. Doing some research on that one right now.



Barney

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Why would a person be against knowing what is in the food they buy?

We already have calorie labels I do not want to be bombarded with a bunch of crap about what has been genetically modified.....I think this is a bad thing.
I agree with Bob mostly on everything else.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Bigerik

Why would a person be against knowing what is in the food they buy?

I'm not against the labeling of ingredients per se, but I'm against labeling whether ot not an ingredient is of GMO origin. Of course, there are arguments on both sides; however, overall GMOs have greater potential to help starving people than harm them. The environmentalists ought think of the starving and inadequately nourished people in Sub-Saharan Africa before condemning the products of science.

Here's a NY Times article against GMOs:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...te-on-g-m-o-s/

I vehemently disagree with the author. The proposition will likely pass because it relies on unsubstantiated fear and fails to recognize the potential good from GMOs while characterizing GMO biotechs as evil. I'm stilll upset over the DDT ban.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I'm not against the labeling of ingredients per se, but I'm against labeling whether ot not an ingredient is of GMO origin. Of course, there are arguments on both sides; however, overall GMOs have greater potential to help starving people than harm them. The environmentalists ought think of the starving and inadequately nourished people in Sub-Saharan Africa before condemning the products of science.

Here's a NY Times article against GMOs:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...te-on-g-m-o-s/

I vehemently disagree with the author. The proposition will likely pass because it relies on unsubstantiated fear and fails to recognize the potential good from GMOs while characterizing GMO biotechs as evil. I'm stilll upset over the DDT ban.

Food for thought, pun very much intended.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rita...b_1571158.html

John