As if this isn't the most Glenn Beck-ish, egotistical post ever - I won't lie to myself, it totally is. *Guffaw* I'm allowing myself to do this because corporations are allowed to spend unlimited funds telling you how to vote, I should be socially sanctioned to do the exact same thing on my fucking blog. And, I might add, I actually have humanity's interest at heart.

Yes, really, I know it's hard to believe, but I mean that. I'm not having children for the express purpose of being able to, someday, spend the same money I would spend raising a child to instead build a school (which would educate MANY children).

But I digress from illumating all the reasons why you should trust my judgements. 

If you are so kind as to continue to scroll down, and read, with your eyeballs, I'll attempt to drown your brain in my personal views on the propositions up for grabs on the 2010 California ballot.

From taint to ass...here we go.

-Proposition 13-

Summary:  Provides that construction to seismically retrofit buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value. Sets statewide standard for seismic retrofit improvements that qualify. Fiscal impact: Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the assessment of earthquake upgrades. 

No one is apparently against this. I guess the only reason is that a "no vote" results in the exact same fucking result but only...gasp...we'd have to wait fifteen years for it to take effect. Who cares? 

Basically, it's going to be a small increase in property taxes if you purchase an earthquake retrofitted home. And if that's what you're doing, you should be fucking happy to pay the premium for not dying. Congratulations.

My vote: YES

-Proposition 14-

Summary: Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate's or voter's political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal impact: no significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.

If Open primaries are the deal, then by all means, sign me the fuck up. I, as well as many others, are more likely to vote for a third party of an open primary is available. And dear god, do we ever need a third party.

 My vote: YES

- Proposition 15-

The summary is too damned long to post, so allow me to summarize the summary: This is about public funding for political campaigns, specifically in respect to running for the office of Secretary of State.

Look, really, we should go all UK style and only allow anyone running for any office to spend a limited amount of money on their campaign. Whether that money was public or private, I couldn't give one or two shits, definitely not more than two. But since we live in a country where private funding is fucking unlimited, I'm inclined to think that public funds shouldn't be spent on elections for individuals at all. Even if it was the underdog, it wouldn't be enough money for them to win. 

My vote: NO

-Proposition 16-

Summary: Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds. 

Getting voters to improve or expand anything is pretty much fucking impossible. Most rich people in California (and face it, that's a lot of them), don't want to spend any money on infrastructure. Let's leave this one to the local governments, not the voters. Having electricity is important these days...with the kids and their fancy innernets and such. 

My vote: NO

-Proposition 17-

Summary: Permits companies to reduce or increase the cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage.

 This "yes" campaign is 99% funded by Mercury General Corporation. While Mercury has some damn low insurance rates, this gives them the opportunity to increase them in cases in which the insured has been without insurance, regardless of the reason, for longer than 91 days. Fuck that. They could be on military leave, sick, whatever. No one should be punished for that. Yes, a decrease in rates for continuously having insurance is nice, but punishing people that have no need or ability to be insured is just wrong.

My vote: NO

Oh and for governor...

California uber alles...

Please vote for Jerry Brown. The polls show he's winning. maybe he'll impose the flat tax again and solve all our economic woes. Please, please, vote for Jerry Brown.

 Disclaimer: This is 100% based upon my knowledge from the Official Voter Information Guide. In no way have I researched these beyond the information available in this publicly provided pamphlet. This is good. This is good because these decisions should not be affected by media enticed into jerking off in one direction or the other.

Disclaimer to the above disclaimer: Except Prop. 17. I have first hand knowledge as to why this is fucked and why corporations should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns.