fearlessly proclaiming the truth & the other truth! voice of the teknoshamanic institute
The Kind Arnold Wants Us To Vote For
Published on November 5, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

hbo's series 'the wire' is one of the best--if not the best--thing ever made for tv.   on the surface, it's a story of cops trying to bring down a group of baltimore druglords; like all great dramas, its characters are driven, often by forces of which they themselves are unaware.  

the east side drugking is large, very pragmatic man known on the street as 'proposition joe'.

the governor of california is also a large, very pragmatic man who should be known as 'proposition arnold.'

pragmatic in both cases isn't so much a virtue, but a willingness to do whatever it takes to get what he wants.  what arnold wants now is for californians to pass four so-called voter initiatives (known as propositions here) in a special election he ordered last year after failing to convince state legislators to enact them into law

all four share a common theme: to enhance and increase the power of his office.  arnold, who assured us he wouldnt take money from special interests, has become his own special interest.   starting a week before he was inaugerated, he began hustling money from anyone and everyone and hasn't stopped since.  he even threw a hissy fit like a lil girly man when the president showed up recently to raise funds for the national party. arnie--who's raised a california record 80 million + since being in office--refused to meet with bush.  (i just realized i'd forgotten to find out who paid $100,000 to sit in arnie's vip booth at the rolling stones' tour opener, but i'm guessing it wasn't some poor boy who just wanted to play in a rock'n'roll band.)

thanks to schwartzenegger's reallife heroic cash collecting efforts, californians have to endure a tsunami of ads pleading, enticing and demanding we 'vote for props 74, 75, 76, 77'.   of the four, proposition 77 is the most egregious.  

so...what's the worst kind of activist judge?  

any one (and all) of  the three retired judges prop 77 would empower to redistrict the state.

there is definitely a problem with the districts as they current exist.  in 2001, legislators from both parties worked hand in hand to significantly lower the odds of being voted outta office.   schwartzenegger--taking a page outta the president's playbook--managed to figure out a way to make a bad thing even worse. 

 take the power to draw up districts from the legislature (as provided by our state constitution) and give it to three retired judges.  there's nothing to ensure all three don't come from the same part of the state...nor is there any guarantee these three judges wouldn't be members of the same faction of the same political party. 

in case you haven't realized it yet, these three appointed-not-elected retired judges don't have to answer to anyone they'd supposedly represent.   

it's such an abysmally dumb idea, ya gotta wonder if der governator is trying to prove brawn is brawn and brains is brains and neither the twain shall meet...in him anyway.   if you think i'm being unfair in saying that, please consider the following image. 

it's page one of proposition 77--exactly as it was submitted.   there are seven pages in total, all of which look like this if not worse.   for years my teachers swore they'd never seen anything like the stuff i'd turn in.  over time i became the benchmark by which other horrible submissions were ranked.   these guys have taken things to a low i couldnt even have imagined.   (if you wanna see the rest of this mess, go here Link )

i can't imagine anyone--whether to the left of scalia or the right of kucinich (or vice-versa) or any point in between--actually voting to pass this scam.   but then i didn't imagine i'd ever see ordinary people admitting (on camera mind you) to tv reporters...and thus millions of others, like the whole world...they voted for schwartzenegger.   i guess jerry springer and his ilk have rendered us shameless.

 


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Nov 05, 2005
Isn't this just one wave in a sin that takes shape on both sides, though? Aren't those in opposition the same who supported efforts to gerrymander minority pockets into cohesive units in the name of making them a single *cough* Democrat *cough* voice?

To me, it is a bit more confusing than you are making it out to be, because this is a response to a similar act perpetrated by the other side. Is gerrymandering a gerrymander worse than the original butchery? You have to laugh at the idea that this started in 2001, even; I'd bet these districts have been opportunistically tweaked since day one.

I'm a big fan of the square, myself. When you make things nice and neat like that, though, you end up splitting those poor, abused urban areas and "Disenfranchised, disenfranchised, disenfranchised ..." replaces "Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb..."

To me, and I'm a self-confessed sociopath when it comes to the supposedly "disenfranchised", it seems that the instigation of this kind of thing is the rigging of districts to make a smaller group bigger, FOR ANY REASON. Whether that is out of social idealism or a spirit akin to what you describe above, it is still making an area into something it isn't.

Isn't it?
on Nov 05, 2005
i didn't mean to give the impression california had never experienced gerrymandering prior to 2001. what made that year's plan so exceptionally unique isn't merely the very open and obvious collusion of both parties as much as complete and total shock upon discovering california's state legislators were indeed capable of collusion in any endeavor--even one to which they were the sole beneficiaries.

as it stands now, in the last election, there was one (possibly) district which couldn't be accurately predicted months before any votes were cast. clearly a change is needed, but not one sure to make things much worse.

even if there was a way to ensure a panel of three totally honest and wise 'special masters' could be found and appointed, prop 77 has a truly fatal flaw.

once the judges have been selected, agreed on new districts, submitted them to the legislature for comment, replied & finalized the whole thing...it goes into immediate effect. candidates in the next election are selected accordingly. in that next election, voters get their first opportunity to decide whether to approve the new districts.

so what happens if they vote it down AFTER electing legislators from the rejected districts? what happens to the winners?

this isn't even a question of selective disenfranchisement. it's total disenfranchement and nothing short of double-secret gerrymandering.
on Nov 05, 2005

I see your flaw. As a rule, I do not have a problem with voters actually deciding issues.  I think the California legislators have already shown they hold them in contempt except when it is election time.

So I really think, that while Arnie may be behind this, it is the legislators fault.  I know how the NEA (and CEA I would gather) have already distorted 75 beyond reasonable debate.  But I will give you the benefit of the doubt on 77 for 2 reasons.  One is I cant vote (and therefore will not endorse one side or the other - unlike Michael Schiavo), and two is I trust you to present at least a biased but accurate assessment of the situation (Bias cannot be helped in any telling).

Good luck on Tuesday.  If they pass, we will see how flawed it really is.  If not, then you can always use what the Democrats did to Richmond in the 90 redistricting as a guide for making a better prop.

on Nov 05, 2005
Glad you are showing your liberal bias here kingbee, since I actually live here in California and am up on what's going on behind the scenes in the state legislature {wife CEO small company and very politically informed because she has to be} The democratic liberal asses have been raping California for years now, the do it with the help of small minded individuals that run unions, BTW, and the democratic party which plays so dirty in this state, among the rightwing here they are known as the "MUDFLINGING" party of themselves.

Grey Davis a typical liberal pig thief over spent a huge Surplus and drove the state into a almost bankrupt state, Arnold has pulled the state back from the brink.

The democrats are the TAX AND SPEND PARTY they do not want to lose power in the state so they do what democrats do best LIE, CHEAT, STEAL, TWIST FACTS and are aided and abetted by the extreme liberal MSM here.

All Arnold wants to do is make teachers responsible for actually teaching GASP!!!!! He wants a non-partisan panel to redraw voting lines, GASP!!!!!! he wants unions to ask there membership where there dues money goes GASP!!!!!!
WHILE I know the idea of fairness is a total anathema to the left, but I sincerely hope the left gets there just rewards here in California for all the double dealing they have done.

While the unions here are also afraid of losing power and crying about shortfalls in money they have spent over 28 million dollars trying to defang the governor, also spending dues money they have no permission to spend BTW>.
on Nov 05, 2005
As a rule, I do not have a problem with voters actually deciding issues.


nor do i. i'm a bit less enthused about executive misusing the process with multiple end run proxy initiatives. if things have deteriorated to the point where that's the only thing which works, why have a governor or a legislature at all?

I think the California legislators have already shown they hold them in contempt except when it is election time.


i wouldn't grant them even that exception. it's funny in the weird sense of that term cuz sacramento isn't a den of corruption, at least by comparison to other state capitols.
in other words, we get incompetence you can't buy at any price.

trust you to present at least a biased but accurate assessment of the situation


appreciated

Good luck on Tuesday


if only luck was a factor. thanks again.
on Nov 05, 2005
He wants a non-partisan panel to redraw voting lines, GASP!!!!!!


rather than wildly ranting about a whole laundry list of other things, please explain to me what's gonna happen the first time voters do not approve manny, moe and jack's redistricting plan by voting it down in the same election in which candidates from the new districts are elected.

do we hold a new election using the old districts? do the winners serve until a new plan is submitted (which could be a couple months later) and then hold two special elections--one to approve the new districts followed by one to elect new reps and senators?

i'll admit to not being nearly as 'up' on what's going on behind or even in front of the scene in sacramento and defer to your wisdom.
on Nov 05, 2005
As a rule, I do not have a problem with voters actually deciding issues.


nor do i. i'm a bit less enthused about executive misusing the process with multiple end run proxy initiatives.


That is a contradiction. Please come up with a better arguement. That lacks in all departments. The Citizens should always have final say! Regardless of how they get it (and it should be simple, not an end run, but politicians make that impossible at times).
on Nov 05, 2005
#6 by kingbee
Saturday, November 05, 2005


rather than wildly ranting about a whole laundry list of other things, please explain to me what's gonna happen the first time voters do not approve manny, moe and jack's redistricting plan by voting it down in the same election in which candidates from the new districts are elected.


at least the people will have a small voice in things then vote it up or down just vote is my motto.

wlidly ranting? sheeesh kingbee., now yer went and hurt ol gentle MM's feelers. sniffles. heh
on Nov 05, 2005
I think the California legislators have already shown they hold them in contempt except when it is election time.


i wouldn't grant them even that exception. it's funny in the weird sense of that term cuz sacramento isn't a den of corruption, at least by comparison to other state capitols.
in other words, we get incompetence you can't buy at any price.


When the citizens vote, and the legislature tries to overturn that vote - after the fact - how do you justify that? That is not funny, wierd or strange. That is a bunch of tinpot dictators run amok. Period.

You dont like it? Move to China. They can help you there. Not here.

That is very lame. VERY lame.
on Nov 05, 2005
That is a contradiction


it may be...but it's also the reason for this special election. schwartzenegger was unable to sufficiently inspire, motivate, bully or cajole the legislature to do what these initiatives will accomplish. one of the threats was calling a special election if he wasn't given the 'tools' he claimed he needed. a couple months later, he announced he'd support these initiatives if they qualified in time for a special election. in june, he proclaimed this upcoming special election.

there have been 14 special elections in california...4 in the past 35 years. this will make 2 in 2 years. it may be premature to call it a trend, but if this is gonna be the new way to make laws in california who needs sacramento?

considering this is gonna cost a severely financially strapped state an estimate $44.6 to $80 million taxpayer dollars, why not just cut out the middlemen? all of them. including arnie.
on Nov 05, 2005
I think it is sad that we have to consider a referendum on a subject to be "special". I think more topics should be put directly to the people, and the only reason things like this are "special" is because the system would prefer us not to have much say in some cases. We are slowly moving out of the era where we need a "house of Lords", and the landed gentry in the US isn't really in much better moral position to make these decisions than the average person.

I'm not saying mob rules is the way to go yet, but I think we are slowly moving toward an era wherein pure democracy is more feasable, and when sending the local nobleman to represent us is less attractive.
on Nov 05, 2005
there have been 14 special elections in california...4 in the past 35 years. this will make 2 in 2 years. it may be premature to call it a trend, but if this is gonna be the new way to make laws in california who needs sacramento?


kingbee, when a person cannot get an unwilling democratic based legislature to listen to reason what is someone to do?

Arnold says < I vill take it to the pipples and let them decide, I think that's great.
on Nov 05, 2005
When the citizens vote, and the legislature tries to overturn that vote - after the fact - how do you justify that?


without a clue as to what you're alluding, i can't.

i was actually not only agreeing with your original statement but expanding upon it. our legislators don't seem to me any more palatable before elections than they are afterwards.

in any event, my subsequent observation about how our guys can do just as bad a job as if they were completely corrupt is hardly a compliment or indication of approval.

why you decided to involve china is beyond me. are homes in the old dominion plumbed with special piping enabling someone to surreptiously enhance your normal air supply with nitrous oxide?
on Nov 05, 2005
an unwilling democratic based legislature


in the case of prop 77, it wasn't solely democrats who created the problem. the 2001 brand of office insurance isn't possible without true bi-partisan wheelin & dealin.


the people will have a small voice in things then vote it up or down just vote is my motto.


they won't have any voice in any redistricting plan created by larry, moe & curly until AFTER it's already in effect. that's the problem. you will be voting for or against it at the same time you're voting for candidates from districts you have yet to approve.
on Nov 05, 2005
"without a clue as to what you're alluding, i can't. "


I think he means the congressional effort to legalize gay marraige after the public voted against it in referendum.
2 Pages1 2