California Proposition Guide

15 Comments »

1. Jack Kaplan:
   October 10th, 2005 @ 4:12 pm

   With reference to Proposition 73, for which we all need to vote NO, my understanding is that this one came to the ballot in a “stealth” kind of way. I heard that it never hit the streets for signatures, but that the initiative went through a number of extremist fundamental right wing churches and groups. What this means is that those folks will be a highly motivated core group of voters coming out to support their Proposition, and along with that, might be supportive of other Arnold-originated initiatives, and other right wing candidates around their communities.

   This fact alone, if understood and recognized, should be sufficiently alarming to get Progressives, greens, Democrats, and moderate Republicans out to the polls. Another group of Republican Arnold supporters to watch out for, are those who still have the misguided belief that Arnold is a “reformer,” even in the face of all his contradictory actions. None of his “solutions” solve anything. He has done no more than hijack a reformist sentiment, which we all share anyway as populists. But Arnold’s hijacking ways are only intended to swing state money and influence to a few crony corporations and big money donors, at the expense of our state treasury and to the detriment of our real needs. Really beneficial reform will come in the hands of the Progressive movement with people who know the role of effective and accountable government, and are capable of making good on this promise for our future.

2. Jack Kaplan:
   October 11th, 2005 @ 7:14 pm

   Arnold’s Hoax! Can One Word say it all?

   Arnold brought in John McCain to waive the hypnotic banner of “Reform!” A blinding one word message, with no discussion. The problem is that many voters think its about “reform” and don’t go beyond the one word soundbite.

   Democrats and progressives need to compete. So while reform can be a good thing, if its not really reform, its a HOAX! There’s a one word message for our side! The Democrats call it a “Power Grab!”

   Arnold’s Hoax or Power Grab, we are all paying for this fiasco, that accomplishes neither reform, nor spreads citizen participation. Consider the Propositions one line summaries below. Anyone with a one or two word soundbite should suggest it for us to use in the campaign.

   Proposition 73 another law that would increase the health risk of teenagers

   Proposition 74 does NOTHING to help improve public education.

   Proposition 75 would silence the voice of working men and women. Prop. 75 would let Big Business spend freely,

   Proposition 76 is an Arnold Schwarzenegger power grab and does not protect education funding

   Proposition 77 is a flawed redistricting initiative that requires no public input, has no accountability provision,

   Proposition 78 is sponsored by all the major pharmaceutical companies…need we say more?

3. Jack Kaplan:
   October 11th, 2005 @ 9:38 pm

   BuyBlue has a good analysis of the corporate money corrupting this election and vote on Arnold’s Hoax:

   “The definition of corruption involves a quid pro quo of money for political favors.”
   …

   “Some of the companies that are spending big on this campaign are Albertson’s, Blue Cross of California, Cingular Wireless, Citigroup, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Enterprise rent-A-Car, Long’s Drug Stores, Outback Steakhouse, Safeway, Sears, Sun, Toyota, Verizon, Walgreens, and Williams Sonoma Corporation. And then there are the pharmaceutical companies that have collectively raised $79 million on this election; Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, for example, each wrote an $8.5 million check to fund Prop 78 and fight Prop 79.

   Links to the propositions, the groups supporting and opposing them, the money being spent by both sides, and the BuyBlue analysis here below:” See BuyBlue

   http://www.buyblue.org/node/3037

4. Jack Kaplan:
   October 11th, 2005 @ 9:39 pm

   BuyBlue has a good analysis of the corporate money corrupting this election and vote on the propositions:

   “The definition of corruption involves a quid pro quo of money for political favors.”
   …

   “Some of the companies that are spending big on this campaign are Albertson’s, Blue Cross of California, Cingular Wireless, Citigroup, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Enterprise rent-A-Car, Long’s Drug Stores, Outback Steakhouse, Safeway, Sears, Sun, Toyota, Verizon, Walgreens, and Williams Sonoma Corporation. And then there are the pharmaceutical companies that have collectively raised $79 million on this election; Merck, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline, for example, each wrote an $8.5 million check to fund Prop 78 and fight Prop 79.

   Links to the propositions, the groups supporting and opposing them, the money being spent by both sides, and the BuyBlue analysis here below:” See BuyBlue

   http://www.buyblue.org/node/3037

5. Bill Sims:
   October 12th, 2005 @ 10:03 am

   Agreed Jack, but Prop 73 is going to be tough to beat without exposing the sordid details.

   For parents of teenaged or younger children the issue won’t be about abortion - it’ll be about a parent’s right to know what medical procedures a thirteen year old daughter is seeking to have performed on her body. Some parents of teenagers would vote for this if the notification was triggered by tattoos or piercings, or even haircuts, and most parents will be sympathetic to the notion that they should have some notification of a serious medical procedure that could cause physical or psychological problems to their child. I bet that even many pro-choice soccer moms out there would like to be notified if their daughters are about to have an abortion.

   Parents are likely to ignore charges that this is a plot by the anti-abortion folks to edge us closer to making all abortions illegal. Parents will also not be persuaded by the argument that some parents are abusive and controlling and would try prevent an abortion that is in the child’s best interest - everybody knows THEY aren’t this kind of parent. Besides the proposal allows for a judge to by-pass notification procedures where it is determined the minor is sufficiently mature to make the decision or where notification would not be in the minor’s best interest.

   Many of these stealth proposals to limit abortion don’t contain an exception where necessary to protect the health of the pregnant woman - this is because the anti-abortion folks see these exceptions as “loopholes”. But this proposal does contain an exception for medical emergencies - this can’t be used to defeat the proposal.

   No, this one is going to be hard to beat. I’ll probably vote against it because I don’t believe you can mandate good family communications, and I suspect that some teenagers may be driven to obtaining back alley abortions rather than let their parents know. But I predict this one is going to pass, and I hope the Democrats don’t make the mistake of a knee jerk reaction which alienates the soccer and other moms.

6. Jack Kaplan:
   October 12th, 2005 @ 10:56 am

   Bill:

   Your point is well made. So help me out here. You are familiar with Lakoff’s new framing of the issue for women. He has written a couple of articles, one commenting on a Kathy Pollitt piece in the The Nation, and another prior piece setting up the new reconceptualized frame that speaks from a mothers priorities. Its not about “consumer choice” but about “life affirming values”. So how would you set up the Progressive argument of care and nurturance, that contexts the reality on the ground. The reality includes the practical difficult of a teen working through the legal system, and the fact that the parents may be the perpetrators, or that the child is abused and cannot communicate with the parents, or prove her abuse, and is too traumatized to speak up. I guess that’s what is meant by “poor family communications.”

   So have you seen something from Lakoff or others that expresses the conceptualization (frame, or worldview) accurately?

   And while your at it, as an aside, you might have an opinion about the SF Chronicle’s editorial opinion supporting Proposition 77’s redistricting scheme. They make it sound reasonable, but practically I think it puts too much power into the hands of Republicans and Arnold.

7. Bill Sims:
   November 3rd, 2005 @ 10:59 am

   The latest polls undermine my prediction that 73 might pass, so I’ll optimistically withdraw it.

   The redistricting prop. is, in my opinion, the most dangerous proposition on the ballot. This is designed to allow Republicans to do what they did in Texas despite the fact that they are outnumbered 2 to 1 in the state legislature.

   What they did in Texas was called “pack and stack” - rearrange the districts so that democrats are concentrated in less districts, while Republican majorities in other districts are thinner but safe. In one fell swoop, less than 2 years after a federal court ordered redistricting plan was put into effect, Republican redistricting resulted in a change of a 16 to 16 split in legislative representation to 21 to 11 in favor of the Republicans.

   Under Prop 77, the Republicans have a 50-50 chance (based on the flip of a coin) to have a 2-1 majority on the panel of the most partisan retired judges that the party leadership can find that will accomplish the redistricting.

   The provision for a citizen vote on the redistricting is a sham. Even if the citizens are well- informed enough to understand the mechanics of the redistricting and vote it down, the redistricting is effective during the next election, after which they simply do it again.

   At best, this proposal will result in a continual partisan battle for power, where depending on a coin flip, advantage swings back and forth between the parties. At worst, it will result in much greater representation for the Republicans than their votes entitle them to.

8. Bob Meyer:
   November 4th, 2005 @ 6:50 am

   Jack, Bill, others:

   Should we try to get Lakoff back to speak to the Ruth Group about his latest work? I had originally thought that twice was enough — but maybe not. Whatchoo think?

   He could also address the debate that has arisen around his work. I’ve compiled the sources around the reframing controversy, which I was going to do as a Weekly Argument, but somehow got carried away with other things. Now I think that when I have a chance, it would be good to do that.

9. Bob Meyer:
   November 4th, 2005 @ 7:04 am

   For Lakoff’s response to Katha Pollitt, which is quite interesting because it addresses some critiques of his work, go to http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/valuesideas
   Then take a look at the Rockridge site, where you can find all his stuff: http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/
   Thanks Jack. I’ll include the latest stuff when I do the Weekly Argument.

10. Bill Sims:
    November 4th, 2005 @ 10:56 am

    Bob,

    I think both having him back and having a weekly argument on his work would be great ideas.

    As you know, I’m a big Lakoff fan and think that most of the criticisms of his work that I have read don’t really understand what he is saying. I’d love to discuss/debate it further.

11. Jack Kaplan:
    November 4th, 2005 @ 5:04 pm

    Bob:

    I’m responding to several of the above:

    1.) Correct me if I’m wrong but I believe Prop. 73 has a stealth provision that defines the fetus as a “person” and gives it rights superior to the mother’s.

    2.) Bill’s point about the danger of Prop. 77 (redistricting) is valid, and a fair warning to those progressives in Marin who entertain the idea that this could be a “reform”. It is “hijacking reform” for narrow partisan interests, ala the Texas model. I am dismayed at comments by some political candidates who think it could be a “good thing.”

    3.) I’m a strong Lakoff fan as well, and have looked at a lot of his work, been to a number of his talks, bought his books and videos, and recorded some of his talks in different venues. I agree with Bill. Critics don’t understand what he is fundamentally talking about, although criticism in the form of good inquiry and attempts at honest application are worthy and instructive for us all.

    Amazingly, after all of my study of Lakoff, I find it extremely difficult to find the words which which express my progressive world view on a given issue. But Lakoff may be slightly to blame, for this reason. Only a few months ago, during a Lakoff talk with Sam Keen, did it dawn on me the “framing” is NOT the act of DESCRIBING our world views, but of DISCOVERING our world views, and then finding language to express that discovered view.

    So yes, I would like Lakoff back, but I would like him back with people like me, Bill, Sim VanDerRyn (”fractiles”), Gina Farr (themessagingproject.com), and some Buddhists (”emptiness”),Marty Krasney, and spiritual progressives like Michael Lerner, and Jim Burklo, Jack Kornfield, and Georgia Kelley (PeacePraxis) who can directly discuss the process of discovering our worldview, and then giving it expression. Of course there are others who have skill and wisdom in this area.

    Rather than extemporize at length here, a conversation might be better use of our time. But to illustrate, one can imagine that if a person’s worldview is based on the Buddhist experience of “emptiness”, and derivative values were compassion, that would be an important conversation in the context of “framing.”

    If we want captitalism to be in the service of democracy, rather than the other way around, we would want people who could talk about the useful tools of capitalism, and what needs to be done to put them in the service of “compassion.”

    If we believe that “variety” is a necessity of life, and that mutations are totally random, while “selection” my be very focused and survival oriented, we should have people who understand this in the context of “framing,” when we are talking about a right wing “dangerous world”, or a progressive beautiful world. Perhaps the mutation of “cooperation” is the best tool for survival, while the “self-seeking”, everyone-for-themself” right wing view, only puts survival more at risk. We need people who can discuss and communicate in these terms for the masses of people longing for insight and compassionate leadership.

    Sim Van Der Ryn, in his latest book, and Tom Hayden, both understand social movements and the relationship of the interface of ideology, technology/culture, and nature. They ought to weigh in on this conversation. I personally think we need to move toward re-localization, even in the midst of our global context.

    Perhaps we’re due for a large venue for this conversation, that puts together the people, promotes discovery of our world view, and that gives expression to it in all of these areas. If this is being done in a major way by others already, so as to go beyond the restrictive and non-viable 2-party system, and oligopolic governmental structures, which have democracy as the servant of feudal corporatism, then I think we need to go forward in this new direction, in collaboration with people already doing this good work. We need to start seeing who all of these folks are out there, and strengthen their influence just by the simple act of acknowledgement and mutual recognition.

    And at the heart of the matter, we all need to experience directly, not only the answers to the question of how do we survive, but also the question of “survival for what?” For all of our living and dying is grounded in some kind of faith and belief, out of which all of our values spring forth.

    Jack Kaplan

12. Bill Sims:
    November 4th, 2005 @ 9:16 pm

    Some good points, Jack.

    In order: (1) To a large extent, ALL California propositions are stealth ones. When we first moved to Cal., it was a real shock to see such deceptive stuff on the ballot and to have to listen to such lying, distorted BS on TV - many times from both sides.

    Some of the ads and automated phone calls I’ve seen FOR 73 are as bad as it gets, and all sorts of claims are being made. The CON ads are fairly honest though.
    Personally, I think the proposition itself is fairly straightforward - a pure notification provision - although there is no doubt that the fundamentalists and evangelicals behind it hope it will lead to further restrictions on abortion. In other words, they are stealthy, although I don’t think the proposition is.

    (2) That’s my biggest frustration with 77 - the Chronicle, IJ, and many liberals have treated it as a “reform”. What crap! This one is truly stealthy - it is dressed up with a bunch of meaningless details in the selection of the 3 decision makers and the public vote that make it look nonpartisan and fair, but these details are all just a charade - they won’t accomplish a thing to make the process fair and it will certainly be highly partisan.

    Here’s another thing peole don’t realize - pack and stack (realigning districts based on party affiliation) is legal in Texas and so far seems to be holding up under federal law also. Baker v. Carr and the other federal voting rights cases seem to address only situations where one district is much larger than another or possibly where gerrymandering is done for racial or ethnic reasons.

    In California, though, the state constitution prevents using party data or voting data to draw district lines. If the redistricting occurs in the legislature, and party affiliation were used to pack and stack, it would be fairly obvious (hard to keep a secret with so many) and lawsuits would result.

    Prop 77 takes this out of the hands of the legislature and gives the job to 3 people designated by the leaders of their political parties. It will be easy to smuggle computer voting analysis info in secret to the 2 person majority, and even if you are somehow found out, lawsuits won’t be available to redress the situation because of the provision that the redistricting is effective during the next election. Neat, huh?

    (3) Good points about Lakoff. Many people that criticize him seem to think reframing is just wordsmithing - finding better words to make your argument with. Not so. Reframing is taking an entirely different view of the problem/issue from the perspective of your world view and value system.

    It shouldn’t be as hard as it is - progressives know what our values and world view are and they are good ones - so why can’t we just express them? The biggest problem is that we are blinded or boxed in by the Republican frames (don’t think of an elephant) and spend our time futilely reinforcing those frames by attacking them, instead of discovering our own frames and expressing them. But it can be done, and I’d like to hear Lakoff’s latest thoughts.

13. Jim Geraghty:
    November 5th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm

    Recommendation from Local Power and Marin CAN! (Clean Alternative energy NOW!) a project of Sustainable Fairfax-please circulate widely.

    No On Prop 80: Stop Monopolies and Save California Renewables!

    Prop 80 is not about protecting average consumers, it only regulates electricity suppliers for the largest commercial customers in the state, who don’t want or need “protection”. Unfortunately, Prop 80 also puts the future of California’s clean energy is at risk.

    « Proposition 80 is part of a continuing effort to make sure that no customer will ever again leave the big electric utilities. PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE were paid $28 billion (by ratepayers, of course) to permanently forfeit their monopolies as part of the “deregulation” deal. Prop 80 simply ignores history, pretends the utilities were innocent in the state’s energy crisis, and lets them “keep the change.” Prop 80 is Voter Fraud.

    « The Public Utilities Commission called Prop 80 a threat to Community Choice, because it may drive alternative energy suppliers out of the state. Community Choice is currently developing the most advanced plans for clean energy in the world, with targets of 50% renewables by 2017 for San Francisco and many other California cities.

    « Proposition 80 is opposed by the California Solar and Geothermal Industry (look in your voters’ pamphlet). This is partly because it locks in a 20% renewable standard when all the regulators and the governor want to go to 33% by 2020.

    « Proposition 80 leaves untouched bad public policies, such as utility control over energy efficiency funds, secret electricity deals, and lack of coordination between regulators.

    « Proposition 80 forces a loophole in the state’s Renewable Standard, by making compliance contingent on availability of subsidies (called Supplemental Energy Payments) that are already outdated. Most new renewables do not need the payments, especially as natural gas prices go up and clean energy costs drop.

    « The Energy Commission calls the type of closed market structure encouraged by Prop 80 a barrier for the state’s clean energy supply, especially cogeneration and a variety of customer-owned renewables. With only the big utilities to sell to, they can just close up shop.

    « Proposition 80 was ruled unconstitutional in a California court because it attempts to alter the powers of a state agency, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). This needs to be done through a constitutional amendment, not a simple initiative.

    « Proposition 80 tries to fix a problem that has not existed for 4 years, the poorly structured electricity market in 2000 to 2001. This market was closed in 2001 for a minimum of 15 years. Any new market structure would have to be approved by the legislature, the governor, the regulators, and the utilities. Not an easy task to say the least.

    « Contrary to claims of supporters, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) thinks that Prop 80 will do little to solve California’s long-term energy needs. The PUC says that Prop 80 will tie their hands and make policy decisions more difficult for them.

    « Proposition 80 locks in its own problems by requiring a 2/3rds vote of the state legislature and governor’s signature to change any of its parts.

    Don’t Believe the Hype. Vote No on Prop 80.

14. Jack Kaplan:
    November 5th, 2005 @ 7:23 pm

    Thanks Jim:

    I was about to post that today. Just received it from Ed Mainland of Sustainable Novato and Sustainable Marin. Its odd that the attorneys at T.U.R.N. didn’t get together with people from Local Power to get a really good piece of legislation. However, BuyBlue has another opinion in support of 80, and at this point its hard for me to assess. By absentee ballot, I voted for 80, and my son voted against it.

    http://www.buyblue.org/node/3991

    “BuyBlue Analysis
    Should the state require that a minimum 20% of its energy come from renewable energy, and expand its regulation of the electric industry?

    Most of the electricity used in California comes from large, investor-owned utilities like PG&E. These outfits are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. Smaller amounts of electricity use come from largely unregulated publicly owned utilities and electric service providers. Customers of electric service providers get their electricity via the local utility’s distribution system in “direct access” accounts. Customers are mostly large businesses looking for cheaper electricity, and individuals looking for “green” electricity from alternative energy sources. New “direct access” accounts for individuals were temporarily suspended as a result of the 2000-01 statewide energy crisis.

    In 1992 and again in 1998 California’s energy supply was deregulated. The result was the Enron – created electricity crisis in 2000-2001, wherein Enron and crony energy traders manipulated the electricity market, drove up wholesale prices 1000%, created rolling blackouts, shut down plants for no reason, and cost the state of California billions of dollars.

    You might remember the tapes released by the U.S. Justice Department wherein Enron energy traders were heard boasting of creating power shortages. One trader laughed about “all the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers in California,” while another ordered a power plant worker to “just go ahead and shut her down.”

    So much for deregulation. President George Bush, by the way, excoriated Californians for not deregulating enough. Subsequently he gave the Judas kiss to his great pal Ken Lay, Enron CEO.

    This past year Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation that required the state to have sufficient supplies of electricity in reserve to avoid blackouts. Prop 80 is designed to require energy regulation and a base goal of 20% of energy coming from renewables. Opponents argue that the initiative would make it harder for the Legislature to pass a stronger renewable plan in the future This is a bogus argument. The Governor vetoed the bill on which Proposition 80 is based. The obstacle is the Governor, not Prop 80.

    Opponents are for the most part engaged in selling alternative energy sources, such as solar panels, wind, geothermal, bioenergy, etc. They fear that their business will be diminished by this Proposition. That would be a poor outcome also. It is likely that the passage of Prop 80 will lead to increased business for renewable energy providers.”

15. Pati Stoliar:
    October 15th, 2006 @ 2:45 pm

    I’m also a big Lakoff fan and thoroughly appreciate his time spent at the Ruth Group. Bring back Lakoff –not possible to get too much of him.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment Guidlines: This space is for commenting on the post above, the ideas, the context,the author. Your ideas, strong but civil, are appreciated. Long cuts and pastes from elsewhere are not. This is NOT the place to create your own private BLOG. Links to other articles are fine, if appropriate. Line and paragraph breaks are automatic; e-mail address are never displayed. HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>