#74: Although this won’t solve all problems with poor teachers, it removes a roadblock that is sometimes there. A question to those in favor of the two-year tenure: why? What is the advantage to virtually guaranteeing someone a job after two years?
-
Union members already have a way to opt-out of political spending.
-
Corporations that I invest in, or work for, or who’s products I buy, can spend money to support causes I oppose. How is this different?
What is the default mode: Opt in or opt out? If it’s opt in, I say let’s vote to change it to “opt opt”.
Don’t invest in those corporations, then. Joining a union is quite a bit different from investing in a corporation.
Oops. That last “opt” should be “out”. 
Why retired Judges? Why not acting Judges? Why not people with an IQ of over 130? Why not anyone who is elected to the position?
My understanding is that once a year union members must choose this - I don’t know what the default is. The change in this proposition is making them opt in for every issue, which is absurd.
As for abortion - I understand that most of us approach this issue from the viewpoint of a healthy family. But what of the kids who get pregnant by a stepfather, or by a mother’s boyfriend? Do you really think it is a good idea to require notification in these cases. Yes, you can appeal to the court, but do you think that is realistic?
I have two girls who have just been through this age (no issue for us, happily) and I’m deadset against 73.
Sure, those could work. The point is to take redistricting away from people being directly elected by those same districts. Prop 77 is not the perfect solution, but it is better than the legislature choosing its own districts.
I asked “Can you be specific why you think it’s worse?”–can you compare the current system to Prop 77 (which is the proposed alternative) and explain how the current system is better?
I may not live in California, but I strongly disagree with that one. I do disagree with abortion, but I think this one is a terrible idea for other reasons. Specifically, a minor is a minor. By definition, society accepts that they may not be ready to take care of themselves and make decisions independantly.
I fully comprehend that these kids may want to keep it secret, but for that reason alone they ought not to be making the decision alone.
I’ll have to look at this more closely.
It’s a tough issue, but I think that if a girl is impregnated by her step-father, it’s better to get that out on the table. Then the guy can be arrested and charged with statutory rape (or just plain ol’ rape), as he should be. Shiedling a child molestor from the law is a bad, bad idea.
How is this rule going to help accomplish this? I certainly agree with you about it. If the offending parent goes with the child to the clinic, it is easy for him to force her to lie about the father. Or, to avoid exposure, he can prevent her going at all, which would be easier since she would know she would not get listened to without a parent. (Going alone might allow her to tell the clinic workers what really happened.)
It doesn’t change her ability to call the police. if it is not happening now it is not going to happen if 73 passes.
Last night I passed a pro-73 billboard on 101, showing a skanky man dragging a girl to an abortionist. That seems to be the pro-73 argument. I rather think more molestors will get away with it if this passes. And there will be more attempts at self-induced abortions as this way of dealing with the problem is closed.
my initial thougt was like many others here, I hate the Ballot Initiative process, nothing good can come out of it. However I did waver somewhat on prop 77. Overall I think removing it from the legislators is a good thing, however the legislation ir murky on who’s selecting the judges. This is written under the assumption that jurist can’t be partisan, I’d hold out Roy Moore or the 2000 Supremes decision as indicators otherwise.
As usual, I don’t pay much attention to events on either coast (GO WHITE SOX), but isn’t there a move for a recall of Arnold? How’s that going and does it have much if any chance? Sounds like most people out there aren’t too happy with him.
Murky? It’s spelled out in detail in the voter’s guide.[
[quote=Analyis by the Legislative Analyst, Prop 77]
[ol]
[li]Judicial Council (an administrative body of the court system) collects list of retired judges willing to serve on a panel. The judges must not have: [ul][/li][li]Held partisan political office. []Changed their party affiliation since their judicial appointment. []Received income over the past year from specified political sources.[/ul] []Judicial Council randomly selects a pool of 24 judges from the list of volunteers. The two largest political parties must have equal representation. []The four legislative leaders (two each from the majority and minority parties) nominate a total of 12 judges from the pool. The leaders each nominate three judges with party affiliations different than their own. Each leader is then able to eliminate one of the nominated judges. []From the nominated judges remaining on the list, three judges are selected at random to serve as the panel. Each of the two largest political parties must have at least one representative. []The selected judges pledge, in writing, to not run for offices affected by the districts they draw or accept public jobs (other than judicial or teaching) for the next five years.[/ol][/li][/quote]
](http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop77/analysis.shtml)Looks fair and non-partisan to me. Party leaders must pick judges not from their party. Two levels of random draws to discourage packing. This process encourages centrists, not extremists.
No matter what you think of Arnold or Republicans, read through the Prop 77 details. Sometimes even schmucks come up with a good idea.
There is no serious effort to recall Schwarzenegger in California. He will likely get ther Republican nomination in 2006 in order to run for a full term against a Democratic party that seems to have no frontrunner at this time.
Yeah, I know, hence the qualifier in my earlier post; I need to get some time this weekend and curl up with the voters’ guide in detail. I’m just suspicious of anything requiring a “special” election on general principles.
You know I didn’t notice the link for for the analysis, thanks for the info. I may in fact vote yes for this. As I said I thoght it was a good idea, just hadn’t seen the selection process data until now.
Because they want to keep it secret is EXACTLY the reason they shouldn’t be allowed to make the decision? Control freak much? Forced to bear a child you don’t want at 16 because your parents are of the opinion that “you made your bed, you lie in it.” Sure. That’s the kind of loving atmosphere you should bring a child into.
No across the board. Whoever said that these initiatives are Arnie’s pet projects against unions and teachers who have spoken out against him are quite correct.
Maybe I misunderstood your earlier post. I guess I just don’t buy the scare stories about stepfathers raping stepchildren and preventing them from getting aboritions. There are quite a few states that have parental notification laws (not to be confused with parental consent laws). Got any data that those laws have caused problems? If not, I think we should defer to the needs of the vast majority of cases where the parents should know what’s going on.
Don’t read the actual propositions much? This is about parental notification, not parental consent. I bet you oppose notification, too, but your argument is concerning consent.
John Mace, I think this goes back to the whole “age of consent” discussion. In the other states which allow abortion but require parental approval, what is the age of consent? 16? 18? I think a 16 year old is capable of making a decision regarding their reproduction. Much better than, say, a 14 year old. I would agree that at that age, a parent should be involved.