It is official: Most Californians are completely insane and/or mentally retarded

[torpid]

Beethoven-

I am ashamed to be a Californian

I am also ashamed that you are a Californian.



(I keed, I keed...)

.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

It is official; California just declared to the world, loud and clear, that most of California's residents are either completely insane, mentally retarded, or both.

Let's start with Prop. 73, which would have required parental consent/notification before a minor could have an abortion.

How anyone can possibly argue against that is beyond me. There IS no valid argument against this.

I am speechless that anyone could think it is a good thing for a MINOR (as in people under 18 years of age) to be able to get an ABORTION at will without their parents knowing.

Valid argument time: First off, you might be the wonder parent and think your kids would come to you so you can give them help, but honestly, parenting is dead in the US. Do you really think the stress of getting an abortion would be any easier with your parents throwing a crapfest at finding out that you were pregnant in the first place? How many kids do you think would either leave the state for the procedure or seek dangerous and illegal means if they had to have their parental units notified? You are old enough for sex, then you are old enough for dealing with the consequences, and I would rather have them dealt with here, than in Mexico.

Also, just because they are minors does not mean they have no privacy.

Not to mention that if you read the measure, it replaced fetus with unborn child. In legalese, that is a big step forward for more restrictions on abortion rights.

Next, Prop. 74 which would have made it easier to fire tenured teachers and made it more difficult for teachers to get tenure.

Again, I fail to see how anyone could argue against this.

First, I do not see the purpose of "tenure." It should not exist. If someone could explain the reason for its existance to me, I'd appreciate it, though I doubt any valid reason exists.

Gee, let's NOT make it easier to fire bad teachers, and let's keep it simple for teachers to become tenured so that we cannot fire them if we so choose.

Great idea!

First off, tenure was put into place to stop new teachers from being fired and replaced when they were up for a raise regardless of their performance. Is it still necessary, I don’t know.

Bad teachers are a minimal issue when it comes to the failure of the CA educational system. Also, do you really think that it is easy to get tenure? Do you think that two years worth of performance review is not enough? Chances are, IMO, if you are going to fail, you are going to fail within the first year.

Next we have Prop. 75 which would have required labor unions to get express written consent from their members before using their money for political purposes.

Most teachers, unfortunately, are leftists, and the California Teachers Association alone spent around $60 MILLION dollars on this election. All said and done, teachers unions dropped about $100 MILLION dollars on this election.

That's a tenth of a billion dollars.

That's a lot of freakin' money.

The option to opt out was already there by law. Why create a bureaucracy for something that already exists. Not to mention that it only focused on public servant unions and not all unions, did nothing to limit corps form donating, and honestly, if unions donated to republicans, I don’t think there would have been an issue.

Prop 76 would have placed a cap on state spending.

This is the one that really blows my mind. Gov. Davis was recalled in large part because of his tripling of the car tax.

We put Arnold into office in order to change things, and he started by repealing the car tax.

Now we have voters saying that they do NOT oppose more spending by the government.

CA voters are more fickle than a 16 year old on prom night, and that's being polite.

They simply cannot be pleased. Spend more, spend less. Tax more, tax less. Control spending, spend like a drunken idiot.

Again, my assertion that CA voters are mentally deficient is supported by the results of this election; they are so inconsistent, and their flagrant inconsistency is indicative of a dysfunctional mind.

This was not about budget control, it was about giving editing power of the budget directly to the governor basically when ever he saw fit. I don’t want anyone having that much power.

Next we have prop. 77 which would have taken power AWAY from our communist legislature and instead let a panel of three retired judges draw district lines, and if I heard correctly, new district maps would have to be approved by the voters of CA.

I was not too sure either way on this one, but I did vote for it.

With how CA voted in this election, I'm glad it failed. I wouldn't trust the average CA voter to find her way out of a paper bag, let alone approve legislative district maps.

I voted for this too, but I have heard of some studies that stated chances would be good that we would even have more Democrats in office after it was done. Still worth the chance I think.

Finally, we have prop. H in San Francsico, that paradise for perverts.

What is it with the derogatory comments towards gays and SF people in general? The high road remember?

As for the prop I agree with you, but I doubt there would be much difference if it was held in other cities in the country. We have DC and Chicago as examples, not to mention places like NYC that are almost as bad. Get used to it, people in general think guns cause crimes. Though there has been some turn around in the media lately about their image of guns are bad.

 

[liberty911]

My rant:
Let's start with Prop. 73, which would have required parental consent/notification before a minor could have an abortion.

How anyone can possibly argue against that is beyond me. There IS no valid argument against this.

I am speechless that anyone could think it is a good thing for a MINOR (as in people under 18 years of age) to be able to get an ABORTION at will without their parents knowing.

I agree with everything, except the above. Prop 73, just like Prop H, addressed Constitutional Rights afforded the people. How the informed consent could be suggested is no less an enfringement of the Constitutional right to Liberty than is the argument the 2nd Amendment does not confer the right to own a firearm.

I currently live in So Cal. but am on my way out to Florida. Ca has been ruined, there is no doubt. the constraints on individual Constitutiuonal Rights of Life, Liberty and Freedom have tightened. However, arguments based upon moral or religious beliefs, emotions, or what's "right or wrong", play no part in the analysis of Constitutional Rights afforded to the people. Stating no valid argument against the road block to a woman's right to assert her Constitutional Right to Liberty is no different that the anti-gunnies stating there is no individual construction right to bear arms.

 

[ArmedBear]

Californian retardation is linked to geography.

See this map for Prop 75, for example:

Los Angeles County and the Bay Area vote one way, most of the rest of the state votes the other. The few outlying counties that voted with them are very sparsely populated.

It pisses off half of California as much as anyone.

 

[Henry Bowman]

How the informed consent could be suggested is no less an enfringement of the Constitutional right to Liberty than is the argument the 2nd Amendment does not confer the right to own a firearm.

First, the Proposition was not to require parental consent, only notification. Second, minors do not have all the rights of adults in many, many areas. The parents have certain rights that can be exercised or enforced on behalf of their children. As much as I abhor chronological age discrimination, there are valid limits on the rights of minors who have not otherwise been emancipated by order of a court, after due process.

Your argument and analogy fails.

 

[ArmedBear]

First, the Proposition was not to require parental consent, only notification. Second, minors do not have all the rights of adults in many, many areas. The parents have certain rights that can be exercised or enforced on behalf of their children. As much as I abhor chronological age discrimination, there are valid limits on the rights of minors who have not otherwise been emancipated by order of a court, after due process.

Your argument and analogy fails.

Quite true, and I voted No. I don't see it as a real rights violation, but I don't think it is important, either.

I can't see adding a State Constitutional Amendment for some minute point of law like this, especially in a document that doesn't even guarantee the right to bear arms.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...what the commie idiots do not understand is that the damage will be done to the middle class, rather than their favorite class-struggle targets. Well, maybe the few smart ones among the commies want exactly that - destroy the middle class to proletariatize the populace against the class enemy.

Hating the middle class is an old, old tradition among leftist extremists, most of whom, ironically, are children of the middle class.

They're having tantrums in a very public way—still.

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Beethoven - A few things you asked to be explained, are defended below.

the so-called "parental notificaion act".

1. It added language to the Constitution defining a fetus as an "unborn child". If one agreed with parental notification, but disagreed with that sentence, one could vote no.
2. A minor who had an abortion would have their records sent to Child Protective Services.
3. It could be bad to notify parents in cases of abusive families. In order to get around it the child would have to contact a judge, who would likely have to remove the child from the family all together. You may not understand it, but many abused kids would risk their life by trying to take an alternative solution, than to send their parents to prison.
4. It is an additional law. In general unless there is a tremendous need for a new law, I am against them.
5. I HATE LIARS!!! The argument for voting yes stated that this law would deter pedophiliacs and incestuos predators. This is a big steaming pile of something really nasty. Lead is the only thing that deters those evil monsters. It reminds me of "Vote Yes for the children, you dont want to see them raped... DO YOU?"

Tenure:
Tenure is good because it protects a teacher in many cases:
1. Teacher accidentally says "Under God", during the pledge.
2. Teacher says "some people think life started as slime, others think it was made by God."
3. Trying a new approach to phonix

You may think those statements are reasonable, but a well organized determined opposition may try to get you canned for it. As a result, the teachers are protected by having a lengthy hearing designed to ensure that they are protected from the tempest of the day.

Understanding your opponent's view is critical in order to evectively argue a position.

 

[liberty911]

First, the Proposition was not to require parental consent, only notification. Second, minors do not have all the rights of adults in many, many areas. The parents have certain rights that can be exercised or enforced on behalf of their children. As much as I abhor chronological age discrimination, there are valid limits on the rights of minors who have not otherwise been emancipated by order of a court, after due process.

Your argument and analogy fails.

My mistake. I meant parental notification. But I did not set forth an argument, only a statement of fact. it is true that minors "privileges" can be abridged to some extent, but this is a constitutional right, not hte privilege of driving a car or drinking. This has already been established on a Constitutional basis.

I don't see it as a real rights violation, but I don't think it is important, either.

Ther is no lesser rights violation. An individualsrights are either violated or they are not. Many anit-gunnies believe gun control is not important either and any laws infringing the possesion or use isn't a "real rights violation." I guess it's all a mater of opinion. Remember, you opinion is no more correct than anyone elses.

That's it. I'll just go back lurking.

 

[Kruzr]

I truly hope that the San Andreas Fault blows up and rips the diseased left coast from my state.

And I truly hope you get your wish and it "blows up and rips" you and your loved ones from the realm of the living if that's what you want so badly.

I'd just as soon let my family live since it's only politics. Do unto others...............

 

[Brandon]

My understanding is that the tenure system exists at a universtiy level to allow professors to engage in a free interchange of ideas without have to be afaid that they would be subject to sanction from the administration for discussing unpopular ideas. The tenure process usually requires that the work of the aforemention professor was know to the department and that they had a track record of some academic acheivement and tenure served as a reward to original thinkers to encourage them to to continue to think originally or as a reward for previous original thought. Even in a tenure system, you can still remove a professor, the bar is just higher. There really is no need for a tenure system in grade school as the idea is to teach children the fundamentals that will be built upon later. In fact, too much exposure to contreversial thought might be counterproductive as the children might not be mature enough yet to place things in the proper context.

(at least that's my understanding)
Kj

Tenure is the only thing that is saving the a?? of many of us who are desperately trying to do things right for the reasons mentioned above. I teach 9-12 science and metals, we do research all the time, some of it has been submitted for publication.

When you try new ideas you hang your butt out. Extremists hardly make it in education even what we would consider minor is considered extreme. Without tenure, we would not have a chance.

Many new teachers toe the party line in order to get tenure before ever doing ANYTHING different.

 

[Beethoven]

Would you, with a degree, go into a job that you know is temporary for the first 5 years knowing that you could be fired at any time??? Also, more bureaucracy for red tape, evaluations and all the other crap extended out for another 3 years beyond what it is now.

Every single job I've ever had was "at will," meaning I could be fired at any time, for any reason.

I'll bet you a whole lot of money that if you look closely at your employee handbook/rules/whatever that the exact same statement applies to your job.

Why should state workers' jobs be protected?

Let's get the government to stifle political enemies and tell them how to spend their money. Great idea, Stalin would love it. Plus, more bureaucracy to monitor this crap.

The people have spoken. Suck it up and get over it already.

Except that this would not in any way "stifle political enemies and tell them how to spend their money."

All it would do is require unions to get the express consent of their employees before using their dues for political purposes.

Explain to me how that is "stifling enemies and telling them how to spend their money."

Please, I'd love to hear it!

 

[Beethoven]

Not to mention that if you read the measure, it replaced fetus with unborn child. In legalese, that is a big step forward for more restrictions on abortion rights.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

First off, tenure was put into place to stop new teachers from being fired and replaced when they were up for a raise regardless of their performance. Is it still necessary, I don’t know.

I find that hard to believe. With the way the state actively looks for opportunities to waste money, I cannot buy the argument that they would fire a teacher who makes $10K/year more than another one.

This was not about budget control, it was about giving editing power of the budget directly to the governor basically when ever he saw fit. I don’t want anyone having that much power.

Good point. Think about if the next time we have a democratic governor!

What is it with the derogatory comments towards gays and SF people in general? The high road remember?

I said nothing of gays. There are plenty of freaks and perverts in SF that are not gay.

 

[Beethoven]

Well, I voted against all of 'em, so bite me, Beethoven Your spin is full of half truths, innuendos and erroneous conclusions.

Please do point them out rather than insult me.

 

[Beethoven]

Yep, that's what happened. They might have been opposed to one of them, but decided not to give Arnold a victory on any of them - block voting.

And that is all that the left is good for; blocking those who are trying to effect true, positive change.

That and a whole lot of whining.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Please do point them out rather than insult me

I explained it to you back in post #24. And how is the title of your thread not insulting?

Bottom line is, you want to expand the powers of government here in California. I don't.

 

[ndh87]

hopefully california breaks off and falls into the ocean before their anti gun attitude can infect any more states

 

[R.H. Lee]

 

[mcg-doc]

Boycott California!

If you disagree with California politics, do what I do! I don’t go there; don’t spend my money on anything made there if I have a choice. I don’t drink their wine and don’t eat their raisins. I wish more conservative companies move their production out of that state. Come to Georgia. Ya'll are welcome here!

 

[DigitalWarrior]

Originally Posted by MrTuffPaws
Not to mention that if you read the measure, it replaced fetus with unborn child. In legalese, that is a big step forward for more restrictions on abortion rights.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

You actually said you couldn't imagine how anyone could arue against it. In fact you said there is no valid argument against it. That is how someone can argue against it. Regardless of our own opinion, surely you realize that there are those who disagree.

And for the record, While I understand the purpose of tenure, I think tenure is on the balance bad.

-DW

 

[yy]

Beethoven:

don't let the results bother you. I too found my voice to be the minority in CA. But raising your blood pressure doesn't hurt the opposition. Outlive them.


The real reasons these measures passed is that democracy is inherently split-personality prone. some people are grandstanding with their vote. Others sold their votes. Still others vote No to reject changes. Most others didn't bother.


I voted pretty much the same way you did. But...
I voted No on 73

because: (please consider my angles)
1. it's a consitutional amendment. No thanks. Stop messing around with the constitution on minor differences.

2. Too many liars support 73. "Protect you daughter" I read on the street side. Pure BS. I'd protect my daughter by showing her all the pain and sorrow in divorce courts and in low-wage jobs for high school drop outs. I'll also train her to take precautions. These include CQB and midwifery. I'll have her choose celibacy to gain higher income and education and then nag her at 40 that she's unhappy with her career because of her hormones (empty-womb symdrome). I know, I know, that's not good either. So I have a split personality. That's the theme here.

3. Ill logic support 73. Supposedly some (I don't believe it's majority) 17-year-olds are preggers by sexual abuse at home. So the advertised argument is to flip off _all_ parents. I'm offended. They just broad-brushed me as a incestuous pedophile that would prey on my own daughter. So they would dare take me out of the loop. Now no doubt child services will have a manual entry that advises my hollywood-programmed rebellious teenager to tell me to butt out.

4. Bad wording. What's a notification? What will it do? My daughter is pregnant with my future grandkid!!!!! If she can't tell me, she has much bigger problems in her life.

Notification is not strong for me to vote for it if I want involvement in my daughter's life. I hope my daughter isn't so dumb as to imagine that I cannot tell she's had a medical procedure. ( to the doubters, my credential is that I have x-ray vision when it comes to unhealthy signs. Call it chi or whatever, it's a born talent that i did not earn)

Notification is too strong for me to vote for it if I want to preserve my daughter's privacy.. (split again).. I hope my daughter becomes financially independent by 15. (I can get her great tutors in financial investments.) By corollary I hope she has chosen a worthy suiter by 16. I also hope to marry her off early to avoid fighting biology. Women are made to bear children on or before turning 18. Maybe 16 nowadays. So get financially independent, have kids, and go after a career after the grandkids reach 15. She'll be in her thirties. Plenty of time to pursue a JD, MD, PhD, and whatever D's.

I also hope my daughter will be smarter than abortion. without me coaching her. For example, I knew all about the pregnancy cycle by age 9 through biology texts. And I sure as heck knew about RU486 or day-after pill by age 13. Put in perspective, I only started to notice girls at age 15. first girlfriend (and date) at age 17. I'll also have her know that period-regulating medicine is also birth-control pill.

I'll sue the butcher that messed up my daughter's body. Why do I want a constitutional amendment that provides for financial damages?


there, that's my rant. thanks for listening.

 

[yy]

tenure is like unions

<opinion>
tenure is great in a big company/university. The protected person gets to slack off after years of superhuman efforts. The employer receives extra hard work during a person's prime years and now may enjoy a more innovative productivity as a bonus.

Just like Unions are great. They protect members from predatory companies and deter competition.

But wait. We've got offshoring now.


Now a company will get willing workers of all levels (from grade school to financial gurus to PhDs and scientists) just by setting up a new branch in India and China.

Now tenure is a liability because of the slacking off. Unions are a liability because their target companies are free to leave.






having said that, I'd like to try for tenure. Yeah, sure, it's great. I hear tenure's protections are going out the window though. The PC movement was the first to crack tenure protection. Used to require some very evil deeds to fire a tenured professor. Now it's one kid's word against the prof.

All tenure-track professors get tenure reviews. Some at 3 year intervals. Most at 6 year. Schools have an incentive to hire fresh professors due to lower pay, youth, and up to date education. Tenure was the carrot to get these young ones to work their butts off.

So I see nothing wrong wiht a 5-year review for teachers. Too bad there wasn't a measure abolishing tenure or a measure funding more hires.

Besides, like others have noted, the school system's problem isn't the tenure-review process. It's the curriculum, the lack of actual teaching, the lack of student learning, and the bureaucracy that contribute to the problems.

A lot of parents can do better too. There's only so much "twinkle little star" I can stand. I want my kind to learn about interest rates, return on principal, amortization, contracts, and liabilities IN THE KINDERGARDEN. Where's the researchers in education that's designing courses for this syllabus?

okay, my opinion piece is drifting...

 

[Spiggy]

well, in the nicest words I can say about that election:

MY VOTE WAS WORTH <ZILCH> VS ALL THE <IDIOTS> EATING CA ALIVE

 

[Marshall]

All I can say Beethoven is that I agree with everything in your post. In addition to Prop H, they need to vote yes on Prep H because they're all roids. Except the good guys like you.

 

[JohnKSa]

Would you, with a degree, go into a job that you know is temporary for the first 5 years knowing that you could be fired at any time???

15 years ago I went into a job with THREE degrees and I can STILL be fired at any time. So can nearly anyone in TX.

It's like this--the money belongs to my employer until he gives it to me. When he no longer wishes me to have it he is allowed to stop giving it to me--and that's exactly how it should be.

You know, it's not so amazing that things are mixed up in CA, what's amazing is that so many people think that's how things are SUPPOSED to be.