California is at it again. On November 8 the citizens of California will once again have an opportunity to apply their “good citizenship” and vote in a special election. They will cast their ballot for or against the solutions the Governator, who was elected to replace the recalled Gray Dravis, and his staff have devised to solve the State’s fiscal crises. These are solutions that the governator’s “brain chain” believes will help solve some of the ongoing issues that confront the citizens of this good State. To hear the opponents of these issues lament against the injustice of these proposals one would believe that the Governator would take food from a baby’s mouth, turn our children into the illiterate masses and reduce the public servants who are union members into homeless artifacts from the dark ages.
California has long been “soft” on its public servants who feed at the public trough. Years ago when I was young – sounds like a song from long ago – I was told that the pay scale for public service was considerably below that of private business but that the retirement, health and other fringe benefits were intended to make up for that lack of real compensation. As the years have rolled by, unions have been formed and higher pay benefits have been negotiated until now it is more lucrative to work in the public sector than it is to own ones own business never mind, work in the private sector. Indeed, free enterprise as we once knew it is in jeopardy in my opinion and, increasingly, the public sector seems to be the "opportunity of first resort".
Suddenly, we are beginning to fiscally recognize that the taxpayers can no longer bear the burden of out of control spending and we must now come to grips with it. We cannot continue to meet the ever increasing demands of our public sector employees. The Governator has come up with a plan to solve some of these issues. As I read the propositions, I find myself wondering how any citizen could vote against these proposals and yet, because of the heavy spending by the public sector employee unions and organizations directly affected by these reasonable and much needed proposals, these propositions appear to be in trouble.
These Initiative Constitutional Amendments and Statues are as follows:
Proposition 73 amends California Constitution defining and prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parents/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Mandates reporting requirements. Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
This proposition will not affect California’s solvency one way or another but it is, in my opinion, a good proposal. As a “seasoned” parent who can only think logically on this subject I will vote for this amendment. I do not believe that any parent can leave such a decision to a minor child or to an otherwise impartial and emotionally detached third party. There are several reasons for my support of this proposition and none of them are related to any religious or political beliefs. One, abortions, like any medical procedure, can and do go wrong and may result in severe complications or death, though admittedly death is rare. Would any parent in their right mind want to delegate responsibility for such a decision to their child or any impartial third party? Imagine as a parent, the burden of learning too late that your child had undergone an abortion and in the process, lost or endangered their life. Two, I believe that the decision to have an abortion involves significant risk to the mental psyche and should be entered into only after careful counseling and precautions as to the possible long term ramifications of the decision; Three, Abortion is not a decision that should be made by one person. It is a decision that should be made within the family circles of both responsible parties and the long term responsibilities fully reviewed. Four, any delegation of the parental responsibility seems to me to be an encouragement for people to avoid yet another of their responsibilities. Parental responsibilities are not easy issues. They are real and cannot and should not be delegated. We do no one a favor when we allow a minor, who is not old enough to otherwise make other life threatening independent decisions, to decide whether the pregnancy that has befallen them is one that they will accept as a burden or as a blessing. Forty eight hours is a small price to pay for “thought”.
Proposition 74 - Public School Teachers - Waiting Period for permanent status. Dismissal. Initiative Status. Increases probationary period for public school teachers from two to five years. Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.
At a time when we are trying to increase the caliber of our teaching staff, when we need to improve our educational system, when we have an ever increasing financial burden upon the system, this seems to me to be a step forward in trying to get a handle on California’s failing educational system. For too long, the public sector work force has been content to accept mediocre performance in the name of public trust. Enough is enough and the merits of this initiative speaks to an attempt to get our costs under control at the same time it demands greater oversight and more credible performance before tenure. This proposition would, in my opinion, elevate a teaching career to a higher status and promote respect and admiration for those who justly earn tenure.
Proposition 75 Public Employees Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute.
Why is there such a willingness by labor unions and organizations in the public sector to embrace campaign financing laws and oversight in political “lobbying” from the private sector and yet they fight this legislation with such vindictive determination? I personally embrace any attempt to reduce the “appearance” of a “quid pro quo” in anything political and union ads seeking to foster their own ideas and positions meets that criteria. The Unions are actively seeking to influence another person's vote and perhaps, that is okay if all of the members have agreed to that action. However, no union funds should be used for any thing not specifically authorized by its rank and file members. The use of money entrusted to the Union by its membership without the prior consent of its members is, in my opinion, obscene. I do not understand how any self respecting union member, public servant or thinking individual would oppose this simple proposal. I am very disappointed with the strong opposition to this proposal. As a former union member I valued my independence of political thought and guarded the sanctity of my vote. I feel that should be available to everyone, union member or not.
Proposition 76 - Provides for State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. This proposition limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth. Changes minimum school funding requirements. (Proposition 98). Permits Governor, under specified circumstances to reduce budget appropriations of Governor’s choosing.
As I understand it, this measure would subject school and community college spending to annual budget decisions and be less affected by a constitutional funding guarantee. The Governor would be granted new authority to unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations. I am in favor of this Proposition. It is time California begin to live within its means and this Proposition puts in place a vehicle whereby spending cuts can be mandated by the Governor. This kind of oversight is long over due. It is time that California adopted some “fiscal restraint”.
I will review Propositions 77 - 80 in a subsequent diatribe. In the meantime, I heartily recommend a yes vote on the aforementioned propositions. I believe strongly that if these propositions are not passed, the good citizens of California can be assured that California’s out of control spending will continue and I do not see how any medium income family will be able to afford to live here. I personally believe defeat of these propositions will be one more step toward a Class society in our State. If these propositions are rejected, the solutions that will be required will be a rude awakening for a lot of “heads in the sand”. We will indeed approach a society of "haves or have nots", in my opinion. There will be no room for anything in between.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
HARRIET MIERS - TO BE OR NOT TO BE
I have just completed reading several reports regarding the criticism surrounding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. I personally am outraged at the tenor and tone of the furor from those conservatives with whom I agree more frequently than not. This time,I think they sound like “wounded bats” in an asylum belfry. A Washington Post report stated “White House adviser Ed Gillespie suggested that some of the unease about Miers "has a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism”", a comment that according to the Post drew complaints from participants at a briefing Gillespie conducted. I tend to think that Gillespie may have it right. Let’s face it – Washington DC – conservative or liberal -- reflects a political elitism that is barely a notch above an "old boys club" from the 50's. Those of us who support one or the other are just pawns in their game. Perhaps they truly believe they are all knowing, omnipotent in purity of thought and most able to determine what is best for the rest of us.
I read columnist George Wills’ comments in which he, according to the Post, "decried the choice as a diversity pick without any evidence that Miers has the expertise and intellectual firepower necessary for the high court". Ann Coulter laments that Miers is incompetent and her education at Southern Methodist University “too lacking” to sit among the “high and mighty” elitist graduates of the great Universities. I am disappointed at both of these “conservative mouth pieces”.
Apparently the conservative block is particularly upset because Bush did not consult with them and engage in an all out battle with the Democrats to put someone whose views they wish to see on the Court and that the Democrats vowed to fight. The last I heard, every person has one vote and each vote counts equally. The President did not consult me and I don’t think anyone would find that particularly surprising. However, I represent one vote just as those who now cry foul that they were not consulted. Since I do not control a large “cache” of votes, I am not a big contributor to the party -- I think I gave less than $25.00 to the Bush campaign in 2004 – neither Bush nor his party owes me anything. It is people like me who Mr. Bush must represent. He is responsible for representing all of us and not a single group of people. That, I believe, is what he has tried to do.
The last time I studied the process, It looked to me as if the political activists among us support those who represent their goals. That is certainly why I voted for George Bush. I certainly could not imagine voting for John Kerry. That said, I await the hearing process to determine whether Harriet Miers can stand up to the questions from the Committee. They are now charged with the responsibility for examining her qualities, evaluating her competence and measuring her ability to fairly, honestly and diligently apply the law and uphold the Constitution. Why should that be so difficult or require an elitist degree from Harvard or Yale? I believe the conservative right are wrong to draw conclusions before they have heard Ms. Mier's testimony and had an opportunity to observe for themselves her competence or incompetence, as the case may be. It is not enough to call someone dumb, incompetent or unqualified based on surmised facts. That seems to me unamerican. Harriet Miers deserves a hearing and I, for one, think she is a gutsy lady to take the heat and accept the challenge. The conservatives who are “ranting” about this nomination are no better than the “liberals” who voted against John Roberts. They are all cross eyed.
I read columnist George Wills’ comments in which he, according to the Post, "decried the choice as a diversity pick without any evidence that Miers has the expertise and intellectual firepower necessary for the high court". Ann Coulter laments that Miers is incompetent and her education at Southern Methodist University “too lacking” to sit among the “high and mighty” elitist graduates of the great Universities. I am disappointed at both of these “conservative mouth pieces”.
Apparently the conservative block is particularly upset because Bush did not consult with them and engage in an all out battle with the Democrats to put someone whose views they wish to see on the Court and that the Democrats vowed to fight. The last I heard, every person has one vote and each vote counts equally. The President did not consult me and I don’t think anyone would find that particularly surprising. However, I represent one vote just as those who now cry foul that they were not consulted. Since I do not control a large “cache” of votes, I am not a big contributor to the party -- I think I gave less than $25.00 to the Bush campaign in 2004 – neither Bush nor his party owes me anything. It is people like me who Mr. Bush must represent. He is responsible for representing all of us and not a single group of people. That, I believe, is what he has tried to do.
The last time I studied the process, It looked to me as if the political activists among us support those who represent their goals. That is certainly why I voted for George Bush. I certainly could not imagine voting for John Kerry. That said, I await the hearing process to determine whether Harriet Miers can stand up to the questions from the Committee. They are now charged with the responsibility for examining her qualities, evaluating her competence and measuring her ability to fairly, honestly and diligently apply the law and uphold the Constitution. Why should that be so difficult or require an elitist degree from Harvard or Yale? I believe the conservative right are wrong to draw conclusions before they have heard Ms. Mier's testimony and had an opportunity to observe for themselves her competence or incompetence, as the case may be. It is not enough to call someone dumb, incompetent or unqualified based on surmised facts. That seems to me unamerican. Harriet Miers deserves a hearing and I, for one, think she is a gutsy lady to take the heat and accept the challenge. The conservatives who are “ranting” about this nomination are no better than the “liberals” who voted against John Roberts. They are all cross eyed.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
E MAIL TO A FRIEND
An acquaintance from across the pond recently forwarded to me a power point document in which the creator of the presentation attempts to impart the view that the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks were acts committed by our own government. I am appalled that any such accusations would be made but then I have a tendency to want to look at the World through square glasses of rosy color. I thought this would be a good place to share my response amended to correct some grammatical and spelling errors. (Not all mind you).
“Subject: 9/11 PRESENTATION
This is the first time I have seen that presentation but I have heard discussions related to the claims contained therein numerous times. To finally hear and see the presentation of course raised my blood pressure another notch. I have little patience with lunacy (other than my own). When I rant and rave my husband worries. He says it isn't what you say that bothers me -- I am afraid you mean it. People of the right or the left do not respect how strongly each feels about their own position. It is what wars are made of except today the bullets are the harsh language of disrespect and the “put down” of the bully pulpit. For the unstable among us, there is terrorism.
From what I am able to discern from the "established" news media (even our left wing), it is discounted as containing "false presumptions, innuendo and hear say" as truth and meant to discount the involvement of the lunatics in the Muslim cult as the terrorists they are. Many good Muslim believers hold it up as evidence that "We are not terrorists -- it is all a lie of the real perpetrators, the Bush Administration". If not terrorists, who then? Of course. It must be the American government, who else?
While it is often brought up by the "fringe" political "loonies" and those who would disavow responsibility of the terrorist fanatics, the suggestion that 9/11 was anything but a terrorist act seems pure lunancy. Those who designed the World Trade Center thought it was indestructible. It wasn't. But there are those who want desperately to validate its indestructibility. After all what happened to the WTC challenged the established intelligence, consensus and practiced judgments of architects, designers and engineers. So challenged, those people do not go quietly into the good night. Their reputation depends on it.
There are threads of truth within the presentation which thus causes enough doubt to lend credibility to the presentation itself. In fact, this is true of all lunatic diversions. People who don't know or don't bother to get all of the relevant facts tend to believe that one sentence justifies all that follow. Believe me -- there was no political benefit to anyone in this country for the World Towers disaster just as there was none for the prior attacks against us (Pan Am 103, 1993 WTC bombing, Embassy bombing 1998, USS COLE -- to name a few as well as Bali, London, Madrid etc). Bill Clinton closed his eyes. George Bush did not. Yes there are those of us who want the 9/11 commission reconvened. There is some evidence that suggests that the terrorists were identified on Bill Clinton's watch and nothing was done. There are no Saints in this world today. (Even Pope John has yet to be so proclaimed)
Let's face it, there are those among us who simply do not want to accept the fact that there are others who want to destroy the world as it now is and return it to the dark ages and they are called TERRORISTS. I also believe that there is a lunatic fringe that is not Muslims who will "buy into" half baked ideas that support their own political motives or concepts for a better world. These people are not bad people they just grasp anything that will sustain their goals -- some of which I believe are partisan politics, religious, socialistic, communistic and however many other "hopes for a greater Utopia" there may be.
Everyone prefers to blame someone else for the inadequacies of the world. Heaven forbid that we should recognize that there are good and bad people in the world -- right and wrong - black and white. George Bush has done that and in so doing he has tried to get us on the right track. He has chosen not to close his eyes to the threat. I think your Toney Blair believes similarly. They are on the "hot seat" because they dare call "evil" evil. That creates a burden to those who don't want to be bothered or who would rather not "deal with it". Truth be known -- we all feel that way but there are a few of us who worry about the mess we would be in if the terrorist win -- and I believe they will if we don't do something about it now. Believe me -- I cannot subscribe to a Muslim or Islamic world.
Aren't you sorry that you asked my comments? My daughter came in and wanted to know to whom I was writing. I told her that you had asked for my comments and that I was answering. She said, "try to be calm". Ha.
Hope you have a great week. Bottom line of all that I have said is -- yes the item is professionally prepared and I believe that is an indication of how much money and commitment the bad guys of this world have against the US. Unfortunately, George Bush is the scare crow at the top. The fact that the presentation refers to the millions that were spent on prosecuting Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury and engaging in illegal acts while fulfilling the trust of the American people leads me to conclude that distribution of this lunacy is aided by those who would attack and destroy George Bush and reflects a political bias. Now you know why I say one thread of truth does not make a paragraph or even a good sentence of truth. In case you didn't realize it, I felt as strongly against what Bill Clinton did while President as the left feels against George Bush today. Somewhere in the middle are the "moderates" who will save the world. At least we would like to hope there is.
Enough of my chatter. I know you didn't want a newspaper. Always good to hear from you and if you need further "misdirection" just ask -- as you can see I am not short on "opinion". Ha. And, in my opinion, the world in general is in a mess -- but that has been the claim of man down through time.
“Subject: 9/11 PRESENTATION
This is the first time I have seen that presentation but I have heard discussions related to the claims contained therein numerous times. To finally hear and see the presentation of course raised my blood pressure another notch. I have little patience with lunacy (other than my own). When I rant and rave my husband worries. He says it isn't what you say that bothers me -- I am afraid you mean it. People of the right or the left do not respect how strongly each feels about their own position. It is what wars are made of except today the bullets are the harsh language of disrespect and the “put down” of the bully pulpit. For the unstable among us, there is terrorism.
From what I am able to discern from the "established" news media (even our left wing), it is discounted as containing "false presumptions, innuendo and hear say" as truth and meant to discount the involvement of the lunatics in the Muslim cult as the terrorists they are. Many good Muslim believers hold it up as evidence that "We are not terrorists -- it is all a lie of the real perpetrators, the Bush Administration". If not terrorists, who then? Of course. It must be the American government, who else?
While it is often brought up by the "fringe" political "loonies" and those who would disavow responsibility of the terrorist fanatics, the suggestion that 9/11 was anything but a terrorist act seems pure lunancy. Those who designed the World Trade Center thought it was indestructible. It wasn't. But there are those who want desperately to validate its indestructibility. After all what happened to the WTC challenged the established intelligence, consensus and practiced judgments of architects, designers and engineers. So challenged, those people do not go quietly into the good night. Their reputation depends on it.
There are threads of truth within the presentation which thus causes enough doubt to lend credibility to the presentation itself. In fact, this is true of all lunatic diversions. People who don't know or don't bother to get all of the relevant facts tend to believe that one sentence justifies all that follow. Believe me -- there was no political benefit to anyone in this country for the World Towers disaster just as there was none for the prior attacks against us (Pan Am 103, 1993 WTC bombing, Embassy bombing 1998, USS COLE -- to name a few as well as Bali, London, Madrid etc). Bill Clinton closed his eyes. George Bush did not. Yes there are those of us who want the 9/11 commission reconvened. There is some evidence that suggests that the terrorists were identified on Bill Clinton's watch and nothing was done. There are no Saints in this world today. (Even Pope John has yet to be so proclaimed)
Let's face it, there are those among us who simply do not want to accept the fact that there are others who want to destroy the world as it now is and return it to the dark ages and they are called TERRORISTS. I also believe that there is a lunatic fringe that is not Muslims who will "buy into" half baked ideas that support their own political motives or concepts for a better world. These people are not bad people they just grasp anything that will sustain their goals -- some of which I believe are partisan politics, religious, socialistic, communistic and however many other "hopes for a greater Utopia" there may be.
Everyone prefers to blame someone else for the inadequacies of the world. Heaven forbid that we should recognize that there are good and bad people in the world -- right and wrong - black and white. George Bush has done that and in so doing he has tried to get us on the right track. He has chosen not to close his eyes to the threat. I think your Toney Blair believes similarly. They are on the "hot seat" because they dare call "evil" evil. That creates a burden to those who don't want to be bothered or who would rather not "deal with it". Truth be known -- we all feel that way but there are a few of us who worry about the mess we would be in if the terrorist win -- and I believe they will if we don't do something about it now. Believe me -- I cannot subscribe to a Muslim or Islamic world.
Aren't you sorry that you asked my comments? My daughter came in and wanted to know to whom I was writing. I told her that you had asked for my comments and that I was answering. She said, "try to be calm". Ha.
Hope you have a great week. Bottom line of all that I have said is -- yes the item is professionally prepared and I believe that is an indication of how much money and commitment the bad guys of this world have against the US. Unfortunately, George Bush is the scare crow at the top. The fact that the presentation refers to the millions that were spent on prosecuting Bill Clinton for lying to a grand jury and engaging in illegal acts while fulfilling the trust of the American people leads me to conclude that distribution of this lunacy is aided by those who would attack and destroy George Bush and reflects a political bias. Now you know why I say one thread of truth does not make a paragraph or even a good sentence of truth. In case you didn't realize it, I felt as strongly against what Bill Clinton did while President as the left feels against George Bush today. Somewhere in the middle are the "moderates" who will save the world. At least we would like to hope there is.
Enough of my chatter. I know you didn't want a newspaper. Always good to hear from you and if you need further "misdirection" just ask -- as you can see I am not short on "opinion". Ha. And, in my opinion, the world in general is in a mess -- but that has been the claim of man down through time.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)