1) I promise to keep this brief. Please forgive me though, as I would be a pretty shitty Poli Sci major if I didn't at least try to get all my friends to make it to the polls.
2) I hope that no matter who or what you're voting for, you ALL VOTE.
3) Anyone who wants to watch the results come in tomorrow night, I will be here at Casa de Awesome planted squarely in front of the TV & computer with a drink in my hand & a whole lot of hope in my heart. Join me... for moral support, for the comical amusement, for the drinks... whatevs.
The following is how I will be voting, with a brief reason as to why. If anyone is up for a last-minute discussion, y'all know where to find me.
FEDERAL ELECTIONS:
President & Vice President:
Duh. Obama/Biden. If you have to ask why, I'm not sure you & I have actually met... I like women's rights, equal rights for my lovely non-heterosexual friends, fairness in taxes, equality of opportunity... and swag. I dig the swag.
Senator:
Dianne Feinstein. She's the incumbent, & has been fighting for all the things I hold dear for years. She's the progressive choice.
Representative (52nd District):
Scott Peters. Some issues with him not releasing taxes, which I don't like. However, very strong record of working across the aisle, not a hugely partisan democrat, and did not sign the Grover Norquist Pledge NEVER TO RAISE TAXES ON ANYONE EVER NO MATTER WHAT thing that all the Republicans have signed, making them essentially beholden to some dude rather than the constitution. Peters > Bilbray for sure.
STATE ELECTIONS:
State Senator (39th District):
Marty Block. Nothing really exciting here. Block has a good background in education, which we need backing for in the state legislature.
State Assembly (78th District):
Toni Atkins. Incumbent. Small chance the Dems will gain a majority in the state legislature, & since the Republicans have been so adamant about cutting services & education, I'm not inclined to vote any of them in this time around, so I'm sticking with Atkins.
COUNTY ELECTIONS:
Superior Court Judge (Office 25):
Anyone but Jim Miller. I'll vote for Amador. If you're not familiar with this race, I recommend either voting for Amador or not at all. Miller has a low ranking from the CA Barr Association & has ties to the "birther" movement. He's basically a nut.
School Stuff:
Not gonna lie, I don't know enough about this stuff to say too much. I do know that education is in need of some help here in CA, so I'm going with my party recommendations. This is one area though where I can't really give any other advice.
Board of Education (1st District): Gregg Robinson
Community College District Member (District B): Bernie Rhinerson
Unified School District Member (District A): John Lee Evans
Unified School District Member (District D): Richard Barrera
Unified School District Member (District E): Marne Foster
CITY ELECTIONS:
Mayor:
Bob Filner. The competition, Carl DeMayo is about as sleezy as they come. Doesn't stand up for gay rights, ties to the new owners of the UT & the North County Times Newspapers (more conservatives trying to buy public opinion through media), well-known for being a bully with the people he works alongside. Mayor Sanders (a Republican - see, I don't hate all republicans!) has done a heck of a job getting our city finances in order, & we don't need more slashing from DeMayo - we need sound investment in the future & attention to the environment along our harbor & education. Filner is our guy.
STATE PROPOSITIONS:
Prop 30 (temporary taxes to fund education):
YES. Raises taxes on everyone by a little through a small sales tax increase, & raises taxes on the very wealthy by a little. Helps prevent MORE MAJOR cuts to our education system. As a community college student, I've seen first hand how important funding our schools is. We can't keep cutting here.
Prop 31 (state budget, state & local government constitutional amendment):
NO. Fiscal responsibility is great & all, but this bill would allow important environmental regulations to be steamrolled. We as a state have made a huge effort to have strong environmental protections, & there's no reason for us to arbitrarily override them.
Prop 32 (political contributions by payroll deductions):
NO. I am all for campaign finance reform, but this bill zeroes in on one side (unions). It does nothing to stop PACs or Super PACs, and very little to affect corporations. It's unbalanced & would not actually fix the issue of having too much special interest money in politics. A BIG NO to this one.
Prop 33 (auto insurance prices/discounts):
NO. I was split on this one for a while, but the bottom line is that this prop will end up raising insurance rates for some while lowering them for others, but not for very good reasons. Consumer advocates say no on 33, so I'm rolling with them on this one.
Prop 34 (replaces death penalty with life without parole):
YES. A few reasons... a) I don't like the death penalty on ethical & moral grounds; b) there is a huge catch 22 in that it costs a LOT of money to go through the appeals process, but I really want to make sure we don't kill anyone who's innocent, so I want the appeals process; c) strictly economically speaking, this bill will save our state a ton of money (& still keeps bad guys off the streets, so wth).
Prop 35 (harsher penalties for human trafficking):
YES. Dude. Easy choice. Human trafficking = bad. Harsher penalties for human traffickers = good. Yes, for once we do have a choice that's really that simple.
Prop 36 (three strikes law penalties):
YES. Throwing someone in jail for life for a 3rd offense which happens to be dealing pot seems stupid to me. Quit that ish. Lower our prison population for non-violent people.
Prop 37 (labeling genetically engineered foods):
YES. This bill is actually very important - it's the first of its kind in this country & is probably the only way we're going to get something like this passed (seeing as how our politicians are all bought & paid for by Monsanto). Very simple - we have a right to know what's in our food. Yes, there are some flaws with the bill, but none big enough to warrant shooting this down. Don't let Monsanto win this one.
Prop 38 (tax for education):
YES. Another tax plan for education, but (!), if both 38 and 30 pass, only the one with the most votes will go through. One of them needs to make it through, because we can't afford more cuts to education... we really really can't. Vote yes on both, & we'll at least get something for education. (Note: I do prefer 30, if you insist on only voting for one).
Prop 39 (tax treatment for multistate businesses):
YES. Closes unfair tax loopholes for out of state corporations. Saves CA money, & we sure need money.
Prop 40 (redistricting):
YES. A few years back we voted to have districts drawn up by a NON-PARTISAN group - they did so, & yay for fair districts! This would mess with that, boo!
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CHECK THIS OUT
Thanks for reading. Thanks for voting.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
drug testing for welfare recipients
The topic of drug testing for welfare recipients recently came up in conversation among some of my friends. I can see how the idea might sound like a good one at first, but if you look a little harder it becomes clear (at least to me) that knocking people out of the program for failing a drug test is hardly the solution to anyone's problems - not the individual, and not the state.
***The following is my personal opinion on the matter. I am considering making this a topic of an actual research paper in the future, but for now I'm simply laying out what my feelings are on the topic. Some of this is based on actual facts I've come across as I've kept up with politics and social issues, and other parts are based solely on my own version of common sense. It's a starting point for research, not a final product, so please treat it as such.
Right to Privacy
First of all, we as American citizens (yes, even the poor ones) are granted a constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. This means that assuming we're not infringing on anyone else' rights, we have a certain amount of freedom to do what we choose with our lives. The right to privacy has been upheld in the courts to apply to a range of topics, most of which are matters of the pocketbook or the bedroom. We can spend our money how we choose, on whatever kinds of foods, products, hobbies, or services we choose. We have a right to use contraception or seek abortions if we so choose. We can practice whatever kinky sex we're inclined to, so long as our partner(s) is(are) of age and the act is consensual. And even though drugs are illegal in most states, the Fourth Amendment guards against undue search and seizure... meaning unless we've done something to cause someone else a problem, and unless a proper warrant is presented, what drugs a person chooses to use in their home is not an issue for the state to be concerned with. Law enforcement has every right to deal with drugs when they're being sold on the street, trafficked, or when someone is impaired in public. But to hell with the state being able to invade our right to privacy when we're on our own private property, causing no one else any harm.
If you want to start testing welfare recipients for drugs, what will come next? We should test all of our lawmakers, right? Hell, test everyone - cops, military, teachers, doctors, nurses, firefighters. Don't stop there though - senior citizens leech off the government, too - and Medicare patients. Disabled people. The unemployed. Businesses who benefit from government subsidies. Farmers. What about military spouses, children? Maybe everyone we pay anything to should be drug tested. We could keep going... why stop at drug testing? We should probably monitor people for other bad habits that may be illegal... gambling, anyone? There has to be more we could monitor for... there must be more savings to be had!
Why is it okay for us to invade the privacy of poor people? Why are they the only ones who should be subject to such scrutiny? Is it unheard of that our military families or seniors could be using illegal substances? No, but they have the respect of their communities and the political clout to ward off any such proposition. Poor people are an easy target. They have no spokesperson, no money, no power, and are paid no respect. Their human dignity is attacked all the time, but they have no defense. It's absurd.
A small note on the issue of Medical Marijuana
Don't even get me started on this one. Marijuana may be classified as a drug, but it has certain medicinal purposes that are undeniable, and should be researched and regulated as a medicine. Period. If there is an argument for any drug at all, it's medical marijuana. I don't care if it's illegal where you live. If you're in pain, if you're ill, and if it brings you relief, I think you should be able to use it as you see fit. I am opposed to any drug testing laws that could prevent sick people who find relief from this plant from access to that relief.
And finally... here comes the best argument I have... plain and simple ECONOMICS
Here's the thing... Florida passed a law that called for drug testing of welfare recipients (which was overturned by the courts, by the way). But while the law was in effect, only 2.5% of those tested failed. 2.5%. Meaning 97.5% of them passed with flying colors. I would bet that you'd be hard pressed to find any area of our society that does better than that. Business leaders, politicians, and wall street executives wouldn't pass at that rate. I wouldn't even expect teachers or military personnel to do that well. Seriously. So... if we're only talking about a very small percentage of the recipients, is this really necessary? Worthwhile from an economic standpoint? Are we even going to pay for the testing itself with that low of a percentage? I doubt it. So if we're going to end up spending more money than we save anyway (what with all the burearocracy that such a testing system is bound to create, the actual expense of the tests, and the efforts that will need to be made to make sure the tests are accurate, etc...), then this whole thing is just a big red herring to distract us from the real issues we have in this country. Quick! Everyone look at the poor people! Look how they waste your tax dollars! Blame them! Psh. Sorry, but the math just doesn't add up.
But wait... there's more! I'm not done with the economic argument yet.
Riddle me this:
If a welfare recipient has a drug problem, and we take away their welfare, what happens to that person? Do they stop doing drugs because they don't have any more money? No. They fall further into poverty, continue and probably fall deeper into their drug habit, probably become homeless... and then what?
Answer: They become even more of an expense for the state than they were when they were on welfare. They have no access to job placement, job training, or rehabilitation. They cost us more money in homeless shelters, at soup kitchens, and in multiple trips to emergency rooms than they ever would have on welfare. And they have little to no hope of getting out of their situation.
The point of welfare is to save people from the very depths of poverty, and to then lift them up to at least the lower or working class. These are not the people who are leeching off of our society. They are not the burden on our tax system that some make them out to be. They are people, like you and me, who have fallen on hard times, and need their communities and their country to give them a hand up - not a hand out, and not a shove to the bottom either.
We can talk about improving welfare programs. We can talk about work incentives, day care, access to family planning services (!!), or whatever other ideas we've got. But drug testing? Really? We can do better than that.
***The following is my personal opinion on the matter. I am considering making this a topic of an actual research paper in the future, but for now I'm simply laying out what my feelings are on the topic. Some of this is based on actual facts I've come across as I've kept up with politics and social issues, and other parts are based solely on my own version of common sense. It's a starting point for research, not a final product, so please treat it as such.
Right to Privacy
First of all, we as American citizens (yes, even the poor ones) are granted a constitutional right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment. This means that assuming we're not infringing on anyone else' rights, we have a certain amount of freedom to do what we choose with our lives. The right to privacy has been upheld in the courts to apply to a range of topics, most of which are matters of the pocketbook or the bedroom. We can spend our money how we choose, on whatever kinds of foods, products, hobbies, or services we choose. We have a right to use contraception or seek abortions if we so choose. We can practice whatever kinky sex we're inclined to, so long as our partner(s) is(are) of age and the act is consensual. And even though drugs are illegal in most states, the Fourth Amendment guards against undue search and seizure... meaning unless we've done something to cause someone else a problem, and unless a proper warrant is presented, what drugs a person chooses to use in their home is not an issue for the state to be concerned with. Law enforcement has every right to deal with drugs when they're being sold on the street, trafficked, or when someone is impaired in public. But to hell with the state being able to invade our right to privacy when we're on our own private property, causing no one else any harm.
If you want to start testing welfare recipients for drugs, what will come next? We should test all of our lawmakers, right? Hell, test everyone - cops, military, teachers, doctors, nurses, firefighters. Don't stop there though - senior citizens leech off the government, too - and Medicare patients. Disabled people. The unemployed. Businesses who benefit from government subsidies. Farmers. What about military spouses, children? Maybe everyone we pay anything to should be drug tested. We could keep going... why stop at drug testing? We should probably monitor people for other bad habits that may be illegal... gambling, anyone? There has to be more we could monitor for... there must be more savings to be had!
Why is it okay for us to invade the privacy of poor people? Why are they the only ones who should be subject to such scrutiny? Is it unheard of that our military families or seniors could be using illegal substances? No, but they have the respect of their communities and the political clout to ward off any such proposition. Poor people are an easy target. They have no spokesperson, no money, no power, and are paid no respect. Their human dignity is attacked all the time, but they have no defense. It's absurd.
A small note on the issue of Medical Marijuana
Don't even get me started on this one. Marijuana may be classified as a drug, but it has certain medicinal purposes that are undeniable, and should be researched and regulated as a medicine. Period. If there is an argument for any drug at all, it's medical marijuana. I don't care if it's illegal where you live. If you're in pain, if you're ill, and if it brings you relief, I think you should be able to use it as you see fit. I am opposed to any drug testing laws that could prevent sick people who find relief from this plant from access to that relief.
And finally... here comes the best argument I have... plain and simple ECONOMICS
Here's the thing... Florida passed a law that called for drug testing of welfare recipients (which was overturned by the courts, by the way). But while the law was in effect, only 2.5% of those tested failed. 2.5%. Meaning 97.5% of them passed with flying colors. I would bet that you'd be hard pressed to find any area of our society that does better than that. Business leaders, politicians, and wall street executives wouldn't pass at that rate. I wouldn't even expect teachers or military personnel to do that well. Seriously. So... if we're only talking about a very small percentage of the recipients, is this really necessary? Worthwhile from an economic standpoint? Are we even going to pay for the testing itself with that low of a percentage? I doubt it. So if we're going to end up spending more money than we save anyway (what with all the burearocracy that such a testing system is bound to create, the actual expense of the tests, and the efforts that will need to be made to make sure the tests are accurate, etc...), then this whole thing is just a big red herring to distract us from the real issues we have in this country. Quick! Everyone look at the poor people! Look how they waste your tax dollars! Blame them! Psh. Sorry, but the math just doesn't add up.
But wait... there's more! I'm not done with the economic argument yet.
Riddle me this:
If a welfare recipient has a drug problem, and we take away their welfare, what happens to that person? Do they stop doing drugs because they don't have any more money? No. They fall further into poverty, continue and probably fall deeper into their drug habit, probably become homeless... and then what?
Answer: They become even more of an expense for the state than they were when they were on welfare. They have no access to job placement, job training, or rehabilitation. They cost us more money in homeless shelters, at soup kitchens, and in multiple trips to emergency rooms than they ever would have on welfare. And they have little to no hope of getting out of their situation.
The point of welfare is to save people from the very depths of poverty, and to then lift them up to at least the lower or working class. These are not the people who are leeching off of our society. They are not the burden on our tax system that some make them out to be. They are people, like you and me, who have fallen on hard times, and need their communities and their country to give them a hand up - not a hand out, and not a shove to the bottom either.
We can talk about improving welfare programs. We can talk about work incentives, day care, access to family planning services (!!), or whatever other ideas we've got. But drug testing? Really? We can do better than that.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
this will be funnier to me than to the rest of you
My mom flew back to Tennessee today. She had been visiting So-Cal for almost a month. She stayed here with me (and my roommate, and our five animals) in my two-bedroom shoebox/duplex for the week of my finals, then went to Riverside to visit with my step-dad's mother for a week, and then came back here on Christmas Eve for my week off of work and school. It was wonderful. stressful. nice. to have her around, and it was long overdue (it's been at least four years since she came out here I think). But if you've met my mother, you know she couldn't have possibly departed without leaving just one more entertaining story behind.
8:21am - I drop Mom off at the airport. We say our awkward per usual goodbye, she scoops up her duffle bag, purse, canvas bag, and Charlie Brown Christmas Tree (which she'll later deliver to my brother as a Christmas gift), and is off... sorta... She nearly walks to the wrong airline company to drop off her baggage, but I point her back in the right direction, and then she's really off.
9:17am - I call her cell phone (the pay-as-you-go one I just got her on New Years Eve so she could talk to friends and relatives all night while my roommate and I went out with friends), and she doesn't answer. Surely she hasn't boarded yet, and her phone isn't off yet.
9:20am - She calls me back. Security shut down for some reason just as she was waiting in line, and they slightly delayed her getting through to her terminal. She's there now, and waiting to board. I tell her to call me on her layover, which I also sorta expect her to forget to do.
12:04pm - I get a message from my mom as I'm on the phone with work... she made it to Denver, is waiting to bard her next flight. By the time I call her back, the phone is off again. I'm a little proud of her for remembering how to turn the phone on and off in just the few days she's had it. Tech gear isn't exactly her thing. I leave a message asking for another call when she lands in TN.
4:15pm - The phone rings... she's made it... and can't find my step-dad, who was supposed to pick her up. She suggested to my brother that he be the one to go get her, but he had to work, so it was up to Stan. She suggested to Stan to just drive around at the pickup area and wait to see her walk out front, but he insisted that he park and meet her inside at baggage claim. She's been at the airport for almost an hour, and hasn't seen him at baggage claim or out front. We assume for the time being that he's gotten lost, and she resigns to waiting.
4:57pm - Mom again. Still no Stan. There's panic in her voice, she's tired, hungry, and worried. I'm in the car and can't help much from so far away, and ask her to hang tight until I get home, at which point I'll call her back and we'll figure out how to go about finding Stan. I hang up with her and call my brother (who's at the house in TN - Stan has no phone). We wonder about at what point we should start calling hospitals, police stations, or whoever else you call when your ride failed to show up at the airport. We agree that I'll get home in a half an hour and will start on those calls then, and he'll go borrow a neighbor's car to get Mom from the Nashville airport two hours away if need be.
5:21pm - Mom. She found him. He had gotten lost and confused driving around the airport, finally parked and made his way inside. Now they just have to find the car and get home. I call brother. Everyone's relieved.
6:49pm - Keith (brother). Calling to let me know they *just* found the car. Had to have airport security drive around and find it.
10:46pm - Mom (on her home number). Calling to say they just got home (it's 12:45am there). It took them almost two hours to find each other, and over two more hours to find their car. They had airport security helping to look for it, and eventually an airport shuttle driver had to take them out to long-term parking, which is where they finally found it.
You'd think at this point they would have just gone home... but no. When anyone in my family makes the trek to Nashville, it's a requirement that they stop at White Castle and get burgers for everyone. Mom was apparently worried they'd be closed, but luck was finally on their side. By the time they got to White Castle, they were so delirious from the ordeal that they were laughing and telling all the workers there about the adventure of the day. Okay, who am I kidding... they would have told everyone anyway, delirium or not.
The White Castle staff heated up a hot chicken dinner for my mom, who hadn't eaten all day, on the house. They were sent off with their burgers and made their way back to the middle of nowhere, save for a stop at the Cookeville Wal-Mart to get dog food.
That's my family. Not much else to say.
<3
8:21am - I drop Mom off at the airport. We say our awkward per usual goodbye, she scoops up her duffle bag, purse, canvas bag, and Charlie Brown Christmas Tree (which she'll later deliver to my brother as a Christmas gift), and is off... sorta... She nearly walks to the wrong airline company to drop off her baggage, but I point her back in the right direction, and then she's really off.
9:17am - I call her cell phone (the pay-as-you-go one I just got her on New Years Eve so she could talk to friends and relatives all night while my roommate and I went out with friends), and she doesn't answer. Surely she hasn't boarded yet, and her phone isn't off yet.
9:20am - She calls me back. Security shut down for some reason just as she was waiting in line, and they slightly delayed her getting through to her terminal. She's there now, and waiting to board. I tell her to call me on her layover, which I also sorta expect her to forget to do.
12:04pm - I get a message from my mom as I'm on the phone with work... she made it to Denver, is waiting to bard her next flight. By the time I call her back, the phone is off again. I'm a little proud of her for remembering how to turn the phone on and off in just the few days she's had it. Tech gear isn't exactly her thing. I leave a message asking for another call when she lands in TN.
4:15pm - The phone rings... she's made it... and can't find my step-dad, who was supposed to pick her up. She suggested to my brother that he be the one to go get her, but he had to work, so it was up to Stan. She suggested to Stan to just drive around at the pickup area and wait to see her walk out front, but he insisted that he park and meet her inside at baggage claim. She's been at the airport for almost an hour, and hasn't seen him at baggage claim or out front. We assume for the time being that he's gotten lost, and she resigns to waiting.
4:57pm - Mom again. Still no Stan. There's panic in her voice, she's tired, hungry, and worried. I'm in the car and can't help much from so far away, and ask her to hang tight until I get home, at which point I'll call her back and we'll figure out how to go about finding Stan. I hang up with her and call my brother (who's at the house in TN - Stan has no phone). We wonder about at what point we should start calling hospitals, police stations, or whoever else you call when your ride failed to show up at the airport. We agree that I'll get home in a half an hour and will start on those calls then, and he'll go borrow a neighbor's car to get Mom from the Nashville airport two hours away if need be.
5:21pm - Mom. She found him. He had gotten lost and confused driving around the airport, finally parked and made his way inside. Now they just have to find the car and get home. I call brother. Everyone's relieved.
6:49pm - Keith (brother). Calling to let me know they *just* found the car. Had to have airport security drive around and find it.
10:46pm - Mom (on her home number). Calling to say they just got home (it's 12:45am there). It took them almost two hours to find each other, and over two more hours to find their car. They had airport security helping to look for it, and eventually an airport shuttle driver had to take them out to long-term parking, which is where they finally found it.
You'd think at this point they would have just gone home... but no. When anyone in my family makes the trek to Nashville, it's a requirement that they stop at White Castle and get burgers for everyone. Mom was apparently worried they'd be closed, but luck was finally on their side. By the time they got to White Castle, they were so delirious from the ordeal that they were laughing and telling all the workers there about the adventure of the day. Okay, who am I kidding... they would have told everyone anyway, delirium or not.
The White Castle staff heated up a hot chicken dinner for my mom, who hadn't eaten all day, on the house. They were sent off with their burgers and made their way back to the middle of nowhere, save for a stop at the Cookeville Wal-Mart to get dog food.
That's my family. Not much else to say.
<3
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)