Proposition None

I was asked my positions on the California propositions. These are how I'll vote:

19 -- yes
20 -- won't vote
21 -- won't vote
22 -- won't vote
23 -- no
24 -- won't vote
25 -- won't vote
26 -- won't vote
27 -- won't vote

The way I see it as a bicycle commuter, stoned drivers are not going the be the ones mowing me down on Franklin Blvd. It's going to be a sober, irascible, bitter, overweight 48-year old pajama clad white woman in flip-flops driving a POS 1984 Buick Riveria returning from the Florin Rd. WalMart, fumbling about with her Chinese made "hands-free" device because the law told her she can't drive with a "visible" cellphone on her ear. Or perhaps it's going to be a yammering 33-year old Asian female in an imported Kia Sedona minivan, yammering in a language I don't understand although I will understand that she thinks I was the one at fault. Maybe it'll be a 26-year old Mexican immigrant, "documented," driving his white 2007 Ford F150 who just happened to have fifteen Tecates before returning home.

But it won't be the 51-year old social worker driving a Ford Mondeo who lights up a seeds-and-stems joint after work, navigating Tamoshanter Way at rush hour. It won't be the 39-year old pipe-fitter driving a Toyota Tacoma who just scored some frosty Purple Kush bud. Sorry, but these aren't the people who are gonna run me down. Yes on 19.


Prop 23 is a bad idea in my mind. Pinning environmental legislation to an arbitrarily and capriciously set unemployment target is woefully nearsighted, and I've already blogged extensively on the fact that while I don't give a fuck about climate change I do care about viable communities and good places to live, unlike the low-density automobile-dominated shithole my Elk Grove has become. I see climate legislation as a fantastic catalyst for implementing changes to the way we lay out our cities and our "neighborhoods," and being the pessimist I am I see unemployment lingering at high levels for a lot longer than any of you realize, meaning that prop 23 would suspend this legislation for a lot longer than you'd probably think. Perhaps that's what you want, but if so, why didn't you sign the proposition to eliminate AB32 in the first place? Why didn't you sign that petition outside your WINCO, huh?

You didn't because you didn't have that option. Your options for this year were spelled out for you based on your propensity to vote, your demographic, the election cycle (mid-term vs. presidential), and how much money the people who want this legislation are willing to spend. This is what we get for signing these petitions -- a whole lot of future litigation for every proposition and the potential for a single judge to throw out any given approved proposition. What you are doing by signing these things outside your consumption depots is guaranteeing a few hundred million dollars blown in litigation for every one that's passed. If you enjoy the continuation of our litigious culture, then please, sign on.

However, I simply forgo voting for these fucking things...mostly. You can be assured that the only one I will vote for, every time, is proposition none.