Read Before You Vote........

[Cal Smith]

Next week many states have major propositions that are going to be up for voting which have the chance to play a major role in our lives. Make sure before you vote you know what you're voting for. I recommend not listening to any advertisments unless you know the group that's running the ad.

For example on Facebook there is an ad stating:

"Say No to the KKK vote NO on Proposition 2 in Texas"

Of course most don't support the KKK so the safe assumption by only reading this ad is to vote no on Proposition 2. On the other hand, if you look at Proposition 2 it is a marriage amendment put forward in the state of Texas to define marriage between a man and a woman. Proposition 2 has nothing at all to do with the KKK, and is a cheap underhanded trick to decieve voters.

Moral of the story........which ever way you vote make sure you know what you're voting for.

[Jason Tate]

Next week many states have major propositions that are going to be up for voting which have the chance to play a major role in our lives. Make sure before you vote you know what you're voting for. I recommend not listening to any advertisments unless you know the group that's running the ad.

For example on Facebook there is an ad stating:

"Say No to the KKK vote NO on Proposition 2 in Texas"

Of course most don't support the KKK so the safe assumption by only reading this ad is to vote no on Proposition 2. On the other hand, if you look at Proposition 2 it is a marriage amendment put forward in the state of Texas to define marriage between a man and a woman. Proposition 2 has nothing at all to do with the KKK, and is a cheap underhanded trick to decieve voters.

Moral of the story........which ever way you vote make sure you know what you're voting for.
Do you know who proposed Prop 2 in Texas?

[whitetiehanging]

hmmmm....personally if i was a KKK member i might be offended by that ad. but that is a dirty way to get votes.

and also to try and answer your question: Is it the Gay's? j/k

[Cal Smith]

Do you know who proposed Prop 2 in Texas?

Rep. Warren Chisum

[youcomebeforeyo]

If the KKK are championing this proposition and out there vocally supporting it and making it known the add has justification though it should still state on what the proposition itself is.

[I am all talk]

Too bad I couldn't have just voted no to California's special election in the first place.

[Dan Hollister]

Heh. Everyone better vote Yes on all but 73. I'm seriously going to lose all faith in California voters if they don't at least vote Yes on 74 and 77. Those are crucial. 74 especially. I'm going to be so mad if it doesn't pass.

[I am all talk]

I don't see any benefit to 77. 73 I am still somewhat unsure of. Why would 75 or 76 be good? Those are both horrible ideas.

[Paul Tao]

I just did an interview with some news thing for Prop 77. I say no. Good in theory but bad in practice.

[splitsecond]

Propositions are honestly more trouble than they are worth for the most part. California is in the financial straights that it is in almost solely due to propositions.

[Dan Hollister]

I disagree. There are so many things wrong with California right now, that's pretty undeniable. Arnold is seriously out there doing what he can, but hasn't had the power to change anything. I feel this election is necessary, assuming people do the right thing and vote Yes on some of these initiatives.

Prop 75 being a terrible idea? So unions should be allowed to spend money on ads that aren't supported by the majority of the members?

Here's an example. Do you remember that commercial with the angry firefighter arguing about Arnold trying to take away his death benefits? And how he was blaming it all on the firefighters? 3 things are true about that commercial.

1) It was completely full of shit. Everything he said was not true, and that was pointed out several times by the media.

2) It cost A LOT of money to air that ad. It was very widely distributed.

3) The majority of the people that ad represented did not approve of it.

Just last week, there was - guess what - an ad produced by them against prop 75. In this ad, nurses, teachers, and cops are featured as saying they're against it. Oh, the irony - perhaps there's that one nurse, cop, and teacher that are against it, but that's not everyone. The majority may not support it, yet the ad misconstrews information to the public as saying they approve of it.

And political contributions? Hello? Contributions are a huge problem with politicians ranging from mayor to the president. When someone accepts a political contribution, they usually are tempted to "pay it back" while they're in office. This is always bad. If you get rid of the contribution, you get rid of this urge.

Prop 77 makes sense. You even admit it's good in theory, but you think it's worse in practice than doing nothing at all? It's an improvement, and it barely costs anything - so why not? We need accurate representation in this state.

Prop 73 is a moral debate that I don't think anyone needs to get into. I personally am against it, but if you're for it, more power to you.

Prop 74 is the one I'm really angry about. I hope to god that one passes. I'd like the rest (minus 73) to pass, but 74 is really the kicker. For me, at least. I will have lost hope for the people of California if all of these fail.

[Paul Tao]

Prop 77 makes sense. You even admit it's good in theory, but you think it's worse in practice than doing nothing at all? It's an improvement, and it barely costs anything - so why not? We need accurate representation in this state.

I think something should be done but not something like this which changes California's constitution. The ability to carve districts in the hands of 3 retired judges? The discarding of the "communities of interest" clause (big thing in my book, one of the major reasons I'm against it)? And also, when the districts go up for a vote in the general election, even if the voters vote against the districts, the candidates running the pre-determined districts are already elected. The plans go into effect with no approval from the voters; if the voters reject the plan, the damage has already been done. Shouldn't voters approve plans before they take effect, not afterwards?

An editorial I enjoyed about it:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/editorials/story/13717977p-14560458c.html

Change needs to happen, yes, but we shouldn't jump the gun and automatically approve of Prop 77.

Oh and that link doesn't work, you have to register, I guess. Try this one: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051021/news_lz1e21no77.html

[I am all talk]

I disagree. There are so many things wrong with California right now, that's pretty undeniable. Arnold is seriously out there doing what he can, but hasn't had the power to change anything. I feel this election is necessary, assuming people do the right thing and vote Yes on some of these initiatives.

Prop 75 being a terrible idea? So unions should be allowed to spend money on ads that aren't supported by the majority of the members?

Here's an example. Do you remember that commercial with the angry firefighter arguing about Arnold trying to take away his death benefits? And how he was blaming it all on the firefighters? 3 things are true about that commercial.

1) It was completely full of shit. Everything he said was not true, and that was pointed out several times by the media.

2) It cost A LOT of money to air that ad. It was very widely distributed.

3) The majority of the people that ad represented did not approve of it.

Just last week, there was - guess what - an ad produced by them against prop 75. In this ad, nurses, teachers, and cops are featured as saying they're against it. Oh, the irony - perhaps there's that one nurse, cop, and teacher that are against it, but that's not everyone. The majority may not support it, yet the ad misconstrews information to the public as saying they approve of it.

And political contributions? Hello? Contributions are a huge problem with politicians ranging from mayor to the president. When someone accepts a political contribution, they usually are tempted to "pay it back" while they're in office. This is always bad. If you get rid of the contribution, you get rid of this urge.
I claim to be a democrat. Does that mean I agree with everything the democratic party stands for. Ofcourse not. This prop. only limits public unions. Private special interest groups don't feel anything from this. And any member of a public union has the right to say that they do not want their money to go to political needs. Obviously, not all firefighters disagree with Arnold, but to take away their voice would be a horrible mistake.



Prop 73 is a moral debate that I don't think anyone needs to get into. I personally am against it, but if you're for it, more power to you.
agreed. I'm still somewhat undecided but I'm not about to ignite a huge debate.

Prop 74 is the one I'm really angry about. I hope to god that one passes. I'd like the rest (minus 73) to pass, but 74 is really the kicker. For me, at least. I will have lost hope for the people of California if all of these fail.
I think 5 years is much too drastic a jump from 2. Part of me agrees that teachers need to have more time before they are tenured but I've been in classes with new teachers and I didn't learn a thing. They spent too much time lecturing straight from the book and worrying about the critics over their shoulders to start making the information valuable.

[Dan Hollister]

You think 5 years is too much? There is no reason tenure should exist at all!

Being a teacher is the only job in the entire country besides supreme court justice where you have a job for life. Only teachers. Everyone else can be fired in a single week, day, or hour. Teachers have years to plan for if they get fired. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fire a tenured teacher, even if it's freaking obvious that they did something wrong? Over 50% of tenured teachers that are fired press charges, and the average cost to the school in legal fees for this is $150,000 and the average time it takes to actually get the teacher fired is 2 more years. All that bullshit because a teacher has tenure, even if they did something idiotic like got drunk on campus, you still have to go through the legal song and dance because of tenure.

Here's a nice fact for you. The city of Los Angeles - i.e. one of the worst districts in the country - hasn't fired a single tenured teacher since 1999. Because they can't afford it! The teachers there suck, it's obvious, look how bad the kids are doing. But because of the fees, and the time, they can't fire a teacher who is bad.

Now, here's another thing. If our schools were doing amazingly well, and it was all thanks to our wonderful teachers, then perhaps things would be different. We should be fighting for the rights of our marvelous teachers. But the fact is, our teachers suck, we're the 3rd worst state in the country in education, and if that doesn't clean up fast, our entire country is going to be at a disadvantage compared to the nations like China, India, and Japan, that are kicking ass in education.

Teacher's shouldn't have tenure at all. The only reason it exists to begin with is because when college professors first appeared, they did research. Research, to this day, is still the primary job of a college professor, not teaching. But back in the early 1900's when professors started appearing and doing research, they did research on very controversial topics for the time. They needed tenure to avoid being fired for controversial research.

High school teachers do not have this problem. Tenure only allows them to fuck up without consequence. And if you don't believe me, open your eyes! Our state sucks ass in education! Until it doesn't suck, the teachers should not be begging for us to make their lives easier.

Wake the fuck up, teachers. You have a job, like every other American. Except unlike every other American, even if this proposition passes, after 5 years you can do whatever the hell you want. Nobody else has that luxury. Not the guy working at McDonalds, and not even the CEO of a multibillion dollar company. No matter who you are in this country, in the workforce, you pay for your mistakes. Teachers should be no different.

In fact, when it comes to teachers, we should be able to be even more strict. They didn't just screw up some fries, or a business deal. We should be able to say, "You just spent a year not teaching kids what they need to know to succeed. Pack your shit and leave." We shouldn't be forced to keep bad teachers.

[Paul Tao]

You think 5 years is too much? There is no reason tenure should exist at all!

Being a teacher is the only job in the entire country besides supreme court justice where you have a job for life. Only teachers. Everyone else can be fired in a single week, day, or hour. Teachers have years to plan for if they get fired. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fire a tenured teacher, even if it's freaking obvious that they did something wrong? Over 50% of tenured teachers that are fired press charges, and the average cost to the school in legal fees for this is $150,000 and the average time it takes to actually get the teacher fired is 2 more years. All that bullshit because a teacher has tenure, even if they did something idiotic like got drunk on campus, you still have to go through the legal song and dance because of tenure.

Here's a nice fact for you. The city of Los Angeles - i.e. one of the worst districts in the country - hasn't fired a single tenured teacher since 1999. Because they can't afford it! The teachers there suck, it's obvious, look how bad the kids are doing. But because of the fees, and the time, they can't fire a teacher who is bad.

Now, here's another thing. If our schools were doing amazingly well, and it was all thanks to our wonderful teachers, then perhaps things would be different. We should be fighting for the rights of our marvelous teachers. But the fact is, our teachers suck, we're the 3rd worst state in the country in education, and if that doesn't clean up fast, our entire country is going to be at a disadvantage compared to the nations like China, India, and Japan, that are kicking ass in education.

Teacher's shouldn't have tenure at all. The only reason it exists to begin with is because when college professors first appeared, they did research. Research, to this day, is still the primary job of a college professor, not teaching. But back in the early 1900's when professors started appearing and doing research, they did research on very controversial topics for the time. They needed tenure to avoid being fired for controversial research.

High school teachers do not have this problem. Tenure only allows them to fuck up without consequence. And if you don't believe me, open your eyes! Our state sucks ass in education! Until it doesn't suck, the teachers should not be begging for us to make their lives easier.

Wake the fuck up, teachers. You have a job, like every other American. Except unlike every other American, even if this proposition passes, after 5 years you can do whatever the hell you want. Nobody else has that luxury. Not the guy working at McDonalds, and not even the CEO of a multibillion dollar company. No matter who you are in this country, in the workforce, you pay for your mistakes. Teachers should be no different.

In fact, when it comes to teachers, we should be able to be even more strict. They didn't just screw up some fries, or a business deal. We should be able to say, "You just spent a year not teaching kids what they need to know to succeed. Pack your shit and leave." We shouldn't be forced to keep bad teachers.
So... prop 77?

[I am all talk]

You think 5 years is too much? There is no reason tenure should exist at all!

Being a teacher is the only job in the entire country besides supreme court justice where you have a job for life. Only teachers. Everyone else can be fired in a single week, day, or hour. Teachers have years to plan for if they get fired. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fire a tenured teacher, even if it's freaking obvious that they did something wrong? Over 50% of tenured teachers that are fired press charges, and the average cost to the school in legal fees for this is $150,000 and the average time it takes to actually get the teacher fired is 2 more years. All that bullshit because a teacher has tenure, even if they did something idiotic like got drunk on campus, you still have to go through the legal song and dance because of tenure.

Here's a nice fact for you. The city of Los Angeles - i.e. one of the worst districts in the country - hasn't fired a single tenured teacher since 1999. Because they can't afford it! The teachers there suck, it's obvious, look how bad the kids are doing. But because of the fees, and the time, they can't fire a teacher who is bad.

Now, here's another thing. If our schools were doing amazingly well, and it was all thanks to our wonderful teachers, then perhaps things would be different. We should be fighting for the rights of our marvelous teachers. But the fact is, our teachers suck, we're the 3rd worst state in the country in education, and if that doesn't clean up fast, our entire country is going to be at a disadvantage compared to the nations like China, India, and Japan, that are kicking ass in education.

Teacher's shouldn't have tenure at all. The only reason it exists to begin with is because when college professors first appeared, they did research. Research, to this day, is still the primary job of a college professor, not teaching. But back in the early 1900's when professors started appearing and doing research, they did research on very controversial topics for the time. They needed tenure to avoid being fired for controversial research.

High school teachers do not have this problem. Tenure only allows them to fuck up without consequence. And if you don't believe me, open your eyes! Our state sucks ass in education! Until it doesn't suck, the teachers should not be begging for us to make their lives easier.

Wake the fuck up, teachers. You have a job, like every other American. Except unlike every other American, even if this proposition passes, after 5 years you can do whatever the hell you want. Nobody else has that luxury. Not the guy working at McDonalds, and not even the CEO of a multibillion dollar company. No matter who you are in this country, in the workforce, you pay for your mistakes. Teachers should be no different.

In fact, when it comes to teachers, we should be able to be even more strict. They didn't just screw up some fries, or a business deal. We should be able to say, "You just spent a year not teaching kids what they need to know to succeed. Pack your shit and leave." We shouldn't be forced to keep bad teachers.
and classrooms are packed with students creating an atmosphere that no one can learn in. The teaching system is far from perfect but this will reduce the amount of people becoming teachers when we need to increase it. Many become teachers because they have job where being laid off is difficult. It is a sense of security.

The California education system is flawed. There is no doubt about that, but the way to improve it is not to make it unappealing to be a teacher. We neeed more teachers. We don't need to scare teachers off. I understand we have some lousy ones now, but why not tinker with the tenure system to give the administrators and districts a little bit more power instead of taking away one of the benefits that attracts people in the first place.

Like I've said before, two years is too short in many cases and isn't always enough time to fully evaluate a teacher but there are many other ways around this besides moving the tenure to half a decade.

[Cal Smith]

If the KKK are championing this proposition and out there vocally supporting it and making it known the add has justification though it should still state on what the proposition itself is.

When things are misleading though there is usually some truth behind them. I know for a fact the KKK does support the marriage amendment in TX. Fact is though you can take almost any debatable issue and find and extremist group from the other side that supports it.

It's almost like Bush saying, "Bin Laden doesnt support the war in Iraq, so you should". The misleading point would be if you don't support the war you support Bin Laden or their cause. The truth behind it is.......yes, bin laden doesn't support the war. Either way it's a total mischaracterization and very underhanded.

[I am all talk]

When things are misleading though there is usually some truth behind them. I know for a fact the KKK does support the marriage amendment in TX. Fact is though you can take almost any debatable issue and find and extremist group from the other side that supports it.

It's almost like Bush saying, "Bin Laden doesnt support the war in Iraq, so you should". The misleading point would be if you don't support the war you support Bin Laden or their cause. The truth behind it is.......yes, bin laden doesn't support the war. Either way it's a total mischaracterization and very underhanded.
I had a friend tell me that if he could vote he would vote for bush solely because the terrorists would want Kerry to win.

[Dan Hollister]

and classrooms are packed with students creating an atmosphere that no one can learn in. The teaching system is far from perfect but this will reduce the amount of people becoming teachers when we need to increase it. Many become teachers because they have job where being laid off is difficult. It is a sense of security.

The California education system is flawed. There is no doubt about that, but the way to improve it is not to make it unappealing to be a teacher. We neeed more teachers. We don't need to scare teachers off. I understand we have some lousy ones now, but why not tinker with the tenure system to give the administrators and districts a little bit more power instead of taking away one of the benefits that attracts people in the first place.

Like I've said before, two years is too short in many cases and isn't always enough time to fully evaluate a teacher but there are many other ways around this besides moving the tenure to half a decade.

You think there's a lack of people who want to teach? Bullshit! The reason good teachers are hard to find is because the requirements of being a teacher are ridiculous.

Take my own father, for instance. He has 2 Masters degrees in physics and engineering. He had a career in the business for over 30 years. He has since been done with that, and thought about going back and teaching math or science to kids. (He's obviously more than qualified to do so.)

Just one problem: My dad will never qualify to teach in a public high school because he doesn't have a degree in education!

He's not the only one. Among seasoned or retiring professionals, over half consider teaching. The reason so few do is because they can't simply go get a job in teaching. For the public school system, 16 years of college and 35 years of real experience apparently does not beat 2 years worth of education training. So knowledgable professionals are forced to go back to school to get that degree.. They'd have to fork over $60,000 and a few more years of their lives again in order to qualify to teach. Most decent professionals are unwilling to do this, and thus they don't teach. If public high schools did what colleges do, and let people teach who know they're stuff rather than those who have an education degree (even if they know nothing about the subject they're teaching) we not only would have no shortage of teachers, but we also would have no shortage of great teachers who were passionate about what they teach, and know it like the back of their hand.

IBM understands this. IBM is actually going to financially help out employees who quit working for them to become teachers.

Oh, and an entirely different argument: The fact schools are doing so poorly is to do with the money or the politics... it is much, much, much more determined by the teachers.

Go take a look at some of the California schools that are succeeding. Believe it or not, we're 3rd last in the nation, but we do have a few public schools that are world-reknowned. Long Beach Poly, for example, is a public high school, but it's the top scoring school in the whole Western US. They don't have any more money than any other school. They don't have any more teachers than any other school. They're in LA, in an area not so priveliged, and they have tons of minorities, special ed kids, and other issues that often hinder teaching.

What's different? Why are they better? Shouldn't they suck, too? They hired the right people to begin with. Yes, we need more teachers. But the teachers who are good, can generally handle themselves. The kind of crap good teachers put up with will make your head spin, but they can do it, and they do it well. Same thing in New York and everywhere else, there's always a few teachers there who manage to turn everything around for the underpriveliged kids in those schools.

Tenure is not an incentive. It's like a spoiled child who gets a lollipop every day and says "gimme gimme gimme" when his parents don't give it to him... And even though the lollipop is bad for him - and even though none of the other kids get one - he still demands it, and his parents are too sympathetic to stop giving it to him. Tenure is something that we simply forgot to take away, and can't because of the political backlash. It is in no way helpful to the education of California students, and only hinders it, by allowing teachers the freedom to slack after 2 years.

You think 5 years is too long? Get a real job, where you can't slack after 2 years, after 5 years, or afer 50 years. When you start slacking, pack your shit and leave!

If our teachers are so wonderful that they deserve tenure, they wouldn't need tenure to begin with. Because if they're so great, they wouldn't get fired! But there are plenty of absolutely horrible teachers out there that will get away with bloody murder and not get fired. Thanks to tenure.

[zach]

I had a friend tell me that if he could vote he would vote for bush solely because the terrorists would want Kerry to win.
That's odd, all the evidence suggests otherwise. Terrorist cells were encouraging their members to vote for Bush!

[pinkerton]

i can't vote for a while...so i haven't memorized the numbers of the propositions so help me out here...

come on, parental consent for abortion?

fuck, 90 percent of girls would rather die than tell their mom their pregnant who are between the age of 14-17. if they had to do that to get a doctor's abortion, they'd go get one in an alley.

and do you know how dangerous those are?

sure, i'm all for parents being really involved in kids lives. kids need direction, and their parents care about them. but its either, have an alley abortion, or have a professional one. so many girls would be fucked for life if that proposition passes.

[Dan Hollister]

Yeah, 73 is pathetic. But that's the only one. The others should pass.

Those who were arguing with me about 75, why?

Here's the fact people keep telling me: "Prop 75 is unnecessary because they already have the option to opt out." Do your homework! Yes, you can opt out, but it's not like signing something and you're done. You have to call them, they argue with you and try to get you to not opt out, they mail you paperwork... it's not easy.

Oh, and here's the kicker. There's a penalty for opting out: they take away your liability insurance!

So come on, what's wrong with 75? Unions should be able to use the middle class's money for whatever the hell they want? Bullshit.

[lightcollapse]

all i know is, if i could vote, i'd vote yes on everything (minus 73) just because i see atleast 8 attack ads every hour.

[Dan Hollister]

all i know is, if i could vote, i'd vote yes on everything (minus 73) just because i see atleast 8 attack ads every hour.

Ditto. The unions are complaning about Arnold and corporations and shit. And in reality, the unions spent $150 million dollars on this election - 3 times as much as Arnold - and that money is all coming from people who generally make under 50k a year. Pathetic.

I am voting yes on all but 73.