VOTE VOTE VOTE
i went and looked at a few of the "other blogs worth mention." goddamn, i have really nothing to say. i mean, the point of this WAS to be cocky and self centered and think, oOOOoOOOO i'm special, look at me. buuuuuut at the same time i feel like kind of an ass for being a waste of space.
"if jiminny cricket showed up, i'd squoosh him"
um, um, um! ok, this is important. IMPORTANT! ok. if you live in california, you should really vote no on all the propositions coming up on the 8th but the last two. i mean, first of all, you should vote, period.
but seriously, here's a rundown.
NO on 73 - ...so... you can get an abortion without parental notification if you're twelve. um, DUH, some people can get pregnant when they're twelve. but seriously, the reason we need to NOT have parental notification is for the really wack situations, like incest and child abuse and situations where the young woman is going to get disowned because some asshole (maybe her boyfriend?) raped her and she got pregnant, or hell, the condom broke and she got pregnant and her family just isn't going to get it. we need to NOT have parental notification so that young woman can have an abortion as soon as she finds out, not one of those icky third trimester ones no one likes.
i got a really annoying phone call from the pro-73 people on my goddamn personal cell today and they had this "horror story" pitch about this girl's boyfriend's mom "dragging" her to planned parenthood. and i just wanted to say to them, look, the horrible thing was that you couldn't trust your daughter to make her own decisions. i mean, i very much doubt that if she was having an abortion without telling you, that she was comfortable telling you that she was having sex, or asking you how to keep from getting pregnant in the first place, or maybe even that she had a boyfriend. she didn't feel comfortable coming to you. that's not something we can fix with a law. that's something you have to fix yourself. sorry.
also, the people at planned parenthood are pretty damn awesome, and i say this from first hand experience. i mean, first of all, 95% of the stuff they do is health care, and contraception, and counseling and stuff. and if someone does come in for an abortion, they talk to her about other options too. believe me, they would notice if your daughter's boyfriend's mother was trying to bully her into it. because they are trained at noticing stuff like that. and they would do something about it.
so, yeah, trust your daughters, keep young women safe, vote NO NO NO NO NO on 73.
NO on 74 - oh, i just love this one. it's like saying, hmm, how can we lower the quality of education in california? i know! by firing teachers more often!
dude, teachers have it hard enough as is. they make crappy money and they work their asses off. and they're teaching your kids, for god's sake! give them a little job security! do NOT change the "probationary period" from two years to five! vote NO on 74!!
NO on 75 - "public employee union dues." this thing is totally unneccessary. it asks for yearly permission to use union dues politically. um, that's what a union does. it lobbies for workers. unions got us the weekend, the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and various other things that keep workers from scary things like swimming in chemicals without health benefits. arnold has it in for these guys because they happen to back his opponents. which obviously proves that arnold wants you to be swimming in chemicals, with small children, without health care, for 70 or 80 hours a seven day week. ok, maybe he's not THAT bad (quite). but i like unions more. vote NO on 75.
NO on 76 - gives permission to arnold to cut school funding EVEN MORE. i heard the sec. of state speak last friday and he said that education was cali's number one priority. but this proposition proves that that is a dirty, dirty lie from the arnold administration. vote NO on more student fees, vote NO on more slashing of funds for grade schools, vote NO on 76.
NO on 77 - redistricting. now, we all know that gerrymandering is a problem. but installing three totally unaccountable judges who will eat up millions of dollars more of state funding to do the same crappy job or worse is NOT the answer. vote NO NO NO (once for each judge!) on 77.
NO on 78 - ok, this is a ploy by the drug industry to trick consumers into thinking they will actually get cheaper drugs. but they won't. the only person holding the drug companies accountable for these discounts are [drumroll] the drug companies. and we all know what "self regulation" means... absolutely bloody nothing. vote NO, you can't fool me! on 78.
YES on 79! - why? because if this puppy doesn't pass, 79 will. basically, the state regulates discounts in this one. which is better that no one regulating dicounts. which is what would be the effect of the other one. plus, this one "make[s] it illegal to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs" whereas the other one definitely does nothing of the sort. and in this case, if you don't ban it, they will do it. vote YES! on 79 and keep your grandma or your friend's grandma from paying big bucks to drug company profiteering.
YES on 80! - this is a no-brainer. expanded regulation of energy? hmm... let's think back... we de-regulated energy... then we had that pesky energy crisis... then there was that whole ENRON scandal thing... then we had that whole governor recall thing... yes, let's re-regulate. actually, it's not even "re-regulate," it's "expanded" regulation. for those of you opposed to total state control. prevent another energy crisis! vote YES on 80!
bah. i'm done being nice now. go look at smartvoter.org and don't expect one of these from me again for a while.