Faith, Politics, and the 2010 Election (NPR)

NPR did a story today on the Brookings Institutes study on religion and its effect on the 2010 elections.

Do you think that Obama's religious views are similar to yours? Here's what the study said:

The survey found that 51 percent of Americans saw the president’s religious views as different from their own, including 16 percent who saw them as “somewhat” different and 35 percent who saw them as “very different.” Only 40 percent see the president’s religious beliefs as similar to their own, including only 12 percent who saw them as “very” similar.  This question sharply divides Americans along racial lines: 74 percent of African-Americans see the president’s religious views as similar to their own, compared with just 35 percent of white Americans.

We do not want to exaggerate the importance of these new religious divisions. Views on the nature of President Obama’s religious faith parallel political attitudes toward the president.  Voters who are hostile to him on political grounds are likely to distance themselves from his views on other matters, including religion.  In the PRRI survey, 94 percent of those who said Obama’s religious views were “very similar” to their own had a favorable view of the president.  Among respondents who said his religious views were “very different” from their own, 78 percent had an unfavorable view of him.

What does this even mean? I guess since Obama states that he is a Christian and believes in God, I would have to say that his views are "very different" from my own. But I have a generally favorable view of him. I just don't get it. If you're a theist, and you claim to be a Christian, I guess your views are pretty similar to people who make similar claims. I just don't get it all of this fuss over IMAGINARY CHARACTERS!!!!

Coincidentally, American Exceptionalism was also mentioned in the report. A shocking 6 in 10 people believe America is a chosen nation, singled-out by God for a special mission in the world. Wow. That's kind of scary. I mean... that's clearly embedded in our national psyche and that freaks me out. What is our mission? What is it that we are supposed to do out there? And are our current engagements even copacetic with that idea? Is a war in Afghanistan and Iraq conducive to a special mission in the world? If this is what a majority of Americans believe, how come we aren't doing more to make the world a better place???

What scares me is that a large part of these surveyed people might actually believe in Armageddon. Is that what our mission is really all about? Spooky.

Back to Normal, Post Election

Election Day has come and gone and I was super psyched to walk down the street to our polling place, all prepared with my sample ballot filled out and at the ready for reference. Jerry Brown became our governor (again) and Barbara Boxer pulled through. Prop 19 died, surely to rise again. California now requires only a simple majority to pass the budget, but now a 2/3 vote is required for all fees and fines. But air pollution restrictions and standards remain progressive. Some of the saddest news for me was not that Republicans took control of the House (at least the Dems still have the Senate), but that Iowa citizens booted out 3 Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. What. A. Blow. Guess that proves that Iowa isn't quite as progressive as I'd like to think. *sigh*

The real sign that we're back to pre-election norms? This blog. We still have only two followers and our page views have returned to the normal 3 or 4 a day. Thank goodness. I don't know that I'm ready yet to have 300 to 500 views a day. But what that does demonstrate to me is that people are starved for information when it comes to certain issues. Like voting "yes" or "no" on judges! There was nothing else out there. What really surprised me was when another Blogger linked to OURS! This guy pretty much was doing what we were, posting the way that he and his girlfriend were going vote... but he referred to this site as a part of the "punditocracy." Not at all in a complimentary way, but me? A Pundit? A 24 year old, usually poor, white female living in an over-crowded and run-down apartment in Hollywood? Awesome. As a friend said, make me a sign and put it on my desk! Anyway, when I tackle issues like that in the future, I'm going to be even more thoroughly researched.

Now, however, I am happy to return to our usual atheist blog, protesting against infringements upon secularism, with a political slant. I don't think I'm ready for so much attention.

Last Chance before you vote!

Alright, get it all out now! I've been reading some of the comments from the judges post and while some are from conservatives thanking me for showing them how to vote opposite from me (which is fine, although there are way more conservative websites out there telling you how to vote), some are from people with very good points.

That's why I view this website as a forum, it's really tough to dig into every corner of every person on the ballot, and I value what others have to say.

One Anonymous commentator mentioned two judges that I gave a "NO" vote to that do have liberal endorsements. Mainly, Randy Hammock and Alan Schneider. After looking around, I can see that this reader probably subscribes to the L.A. Times. Both were endorsed by the paper.

After reading a little more, it looks like Schneider is significantly more qualified than Tom Griego.  He's endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans and will likely be a good judge.

The Times states that both Randy Hammock and Mark Ameli are highly qualified, which they both seem to be. Hammock is endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats, while Mark Ameli is only endorsed by Democrats. But as the Times said, "In Office No. 28, voters are in luck because they have two good choices. Randy Hammock is a seemingly tireless lawyer who left his practice to serve the Los Angeles Juvenile Dependency Court as a referee. Mark K. Ameli is an experienced and accomplished civil litigator." If both are qualified, I'll stick with my original pick. But it's good to know that either one would do a good job if elected.

The other issue brought up is about John Noguez for County Assessor.  Anonymous stated that he is corrupt and has ties to the Bell city officials who awarded themselves giant salaries and were generally shady politicians. I found an article about it here. And even the Washington Times reported on it just a few days ago. Even though John Noguez has more endorsements, the L.A. Times has backed John Y. Wong... which is pretty much the only endorsement he has. I previously had a NO vote for Mr. Wong, but if the LA Times thinks he's qualified and the accusations against John Noguez are at all true, perhaps the Times is right that we need someone less political in the office of Assessor. This shouldn't even be an elected position!


So, to re-cap:
SCHNEIDER: Yes
GRIEGO: No

HAMMOCK: No
AMELI: YES

NOGUEZ: No
WONG: Yes

Again, I really appreciate the input from people, even if they choose to be anonymous or some choose to be rude or obnoxious. I just think it's important that people try to EDUCATE themselves and actually get out there and VOTE! It's hard to wade through the sea of misinformation and lack of information, so we all need to help each other.

PROP 24

This is what I wrote yesterday regarding Prop 24.

PROP 24: Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability initiative statute. 
During budget negotiations this past year, California created new tax laws that would allow businesses to save money. The debate is over whether this benefits small business or fat cat corporations. Does this save the state budget or drive business/jobs away from California? Eliminating those tax breaks would bring in $1.3 billion to the state which would most likely, in turn, go to our schools. That's a good thing. I'd also like to point out that MAJOR funding for the "No on 24" campaign has come from Viacom, Time Warner, and other big corporations. Obviously, they stand to benefit. However, almost all newspaper editorials have come out against Prop 24, as have a lot of genuine small business owners. This has already been in effect for two years, I guess a few more years can't hurt. NO on 24.

However, I'm still in debate over this Prop. A lot of very liberal organizations whom I normally agree with have come out in support of Prop 24. We're talking the ACLU, American Federation of Teachers, League of Women Voters, plus about a million Democratic and LGBT organizations. 

So what to do? I think I may just encourage this household to cancel each others' votes out on this one.

Electing Judges

This is one of the most time consuming tasks and confusing tasks for me as a voter. How do I figure out whether to vote "Yes" or "No" for all of these judges? To be honest, this year, I'm voting straight Democrat for all of the elected officials. I'm sure there are some independent candidates who are worthwhile, and I'm sure not ALL Republicans are complete social conservatives. If we weren't living in a political era of staunch partisanship,  I would at least consider other candidates. But right now, I'm voting Democrat 100%.

But judges don't have a political affiliation. So where do you start?  I begin with the American Bar Association. They are an independent association of lawyers and law students that provide accreditation to law schools and seek to help their profession and increase diversity and reduce bias in the courts. They tend to lean to the liberal side and back Roe v. Wade 100%. This year they also put out an official statement urging every state in the union to permit same-sex unions. Go ABA! The ABA also rates judges on levels of qualification.

I also refer to the League of Women Voters, which is basically non-partisan, but it gives a lot of good information on all of the judges on the ballot, including endorsements, which I find rather telling.

Finally, I use a crazy conservative site, Judge Voter Guide to let me know who to vote against. They are soooooo conservative that they disapprove of even the most moderate Republican judges. Basically, they hate all judges, but really do their research (however misguided it may be)!

Supreme Court Justice
Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. Although she is a Republican, nominated by Gov. Schwarzenagger, and is religious, she has been rated as "exceptionally well qualified." The perception is that she's fairly moderate, and socially liberal. She comes from an immigrant family and grew up extremely poor. I'm a sucker for American Dream stories. I tend to find these types to be empathetic individuals. I think she'll be fine.

Ming W. Chin: Yes. This is a tough one because he was a part of the minority decision to vote against Same-Sex marriage, but he has also voted against parental consent for abortions. Again, voted "well qualified."

Carlos R. Moreno: YES! This is an easy one. Voted for Same-Sex Marriage, against parental consent... very liberal.

Court of Appeal 
Robert M. Mallano: YES
Victoria G. Chaney:  NO
Jeffrey W. Johnson:YES
Judith M. Ashmann: YES
Walter Croskey: YES
Steven Suzukawa: NO
Orville "Jack" Armstrong: NO

Paul H. Coffee: NO
Steven Z. Perren: YES
Laurie D. Zelon: YES

Frank Y. Jackson: NO
Tricia A Bigelow: NO
Elizabeth Annette Grimes: NO


Office No. 28
Mark K. Ameli: YES
Randy Hammock: NO


Office No. 117
Tom Griego: YES A user comment made me look more closely at this race, and it appears that
Alan Schneider: NO  Schneider is actually more qualified and is endorsed by both sides. See recent  post for more info!

Office No. 136
Amy D. Hogue: YES

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Larry Aceves: YES (Both seem to be decent choices, but I like Aceves emphasis on peer training for teachers and his endorsement from the LA TIMES)
Tom Torlakson: NO

County Assessor
John Y. Wong: NO Actually, after a comment from a reader, I looked into this race more closely.
John R. Noguez: YES (endorsed by Democrats)   Please see my more recent post for more info!

Whew. This was really difficult and time consuming. With most of the judges, I simply decided to vote against those who were endorsed by right wing conservatives. Personally, I don't think the electorate has any business voting for judges. I think they should be appointed and reviewed. They shouldn't have to think about getting re-elected, only about making sound and fair decisions. Leave politics to politicians.

P.S. The spacing throughout this post is kind of wonky... sorry about that. Blogger is funny sometimes. 

California Propositions 2010

This November 2nd, California will confuse and befuddle its electorate by putting before them the task of voting on numerous Propositions. While some people adore propositions because they believe in direct democracy, I abhor them because they bring us nightmares like Prop 8, ruin the state budget, and contradict existing laws. Anyone can get a Prop on the ballot if they have enough money to get enough signatures from harried customers outside of Trader Joe's.

So, in short, I don't like Propositions. It's also nearly impossible to tell sometimes if they're even good or bad. Sometimes they have good ideas, but bad execution, or have no allocated funds, and put California even further into debt. California politicians hide behind these Props, hoping that some rich citizens will put up the cash to get medical marijuana legalized or some other such legislation. Of course, dirty Republicans do the same... hoping that some rich citizens will put up the cash to ban same sex marriage. Propositions are generally bad news, but they're still up for a vote and intelligent votes matter, so here's my take on them.

Prop 19: Legalizes Marijuana in California
Awesome. Let's figure out the details later. Neither of us smoke, but we don't want our friends who do partake to be arrested for it. Let's tax the hell out of it, decriminalize it, regulate it, and keep folks out of jail. Done. Yes on 19.

Prop 20/27: Redistricting of Congressional Districts
Prop 20 essentially upholds Prop 11 from this summer's primaries that establishes a 14 person committee to redraw California districts. Consists of Democrats, Republicans, and individuals who aren't registered with either party. But I guess Prop 20 futzes around with what was already established in Prop 11. It's funded by a billionaire, Charles Munger, Jr., the son of a Wall Street tycoon.

The idea behind fussing with redistricting is that it would make districts more fair and less tailored to individual party preferences and would make each district more homogeneous. The idea is to reduce the gerrymandering of districts. It's very anti-incumbent. But my real question is how this 14 person committee is going to be held accountable. How do we know that it will be fair? Opponents to Prop 20 state that it contains Jim Crow type laws because it "mandates that all districts (including Assembly, Senate, and Congress) must be segregated by income level and mandates that all districts be segregated according to 'similar living standards' and that districts include only people 'with similar work opportunities." (that's straight from the rebuttal to the arguments for the prop, so it's hard to know if that's true?) The Sacramento Bee is the only newspaper to editorialize against the bill, and the League of Women Voters has also come out against it.

PROP 27 basically negates Prop 11 from the primaries and keeps redistricting in the hands of the Legislature.

I'm going go with the Sacramento Bee on this one and vote NO on 20 and 27 to let Prop 11 do its job. Let's see if this committee can do a better and more fair job of drawing up districts. We'll see how that goes and then change it if necessary.

PROP 21: Establishes $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to help fund state parks and wildlife programs and grants surcharge vehicles free admission to all state parks.
Awesome. I'm willing to pay this because I'm a big animal/nature loving hippie and I always forget to purchase a parking pass ahead of time when I go to state parks. So, yeah. I'm willing to do that. Sorry if you aren't. YES on 21

PROP 22: Prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.
Um.... Boy, this sounds nice. It's mostly funded by the League of California Cities, but as the Sacramento Bee points out, in a year where city managers have awarded themselves with gigantic salaries and perpetrated massive fraud (as in Bell, CA), this doesn't sit very well with a lot of people. Transportation workers and libraries support Prop 22, while health and education workers worry that this will limit their own funds. I say that while the state is in financial crisis, let's not limit our ability to make ends meet. NO on 22

PROP 23: Suspends implementation of air pollution control law requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year. 
Um. FUCK NO. NO ON 23. Yeah, so let's just go back to polluting. I doubt that this will create more jobs and those jobs will simply be lost once this is repealed and these laws are enforced. Let's move forward and create jobs surrounding green and renewable energy and businesses. What a joke. NO NO NO NO NO on 23

PROP 24: Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability initiative statute. 
During budget negotiations this past year, California created new tax laws that would allow businesses to save money. The debate is over whether this benefits small business or fat cat corporations. Does this save the state budget or drive business/jobs away from California? Eliminating those tax breaks would bring in $1.3 billion to the state which would most likely, in turn, go to our schools. That's a good thing. I'd also like to point out that MAJOR funding for the "No on 24" campaign has come from Viacom, Time Warner, and other big corporations. Obviously, they stand to benefit. However, almost all newspaper editorials have come out against Prop 24, as have a lot of genuine small business owners. This has already been in effect for two years, I guess a few more years can't hurt. NO on 24.

PROP 25: Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related legislation from two-thirds to a simple majority. Retains 2/3 vote requirement for taxes.
Thank goodness. I've been hoping to see this on the ballot for awhile. Part of the reason that California can't get a budget passed on time is because the minority of Republicans in this state hold the budget hostage. It's infuriating. Just look at the supporters (Federation of Teachers, Professional Engineers, Nurses Association) versus the opponents (Chevron, Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, Shell Oil). It's kind of obvious who stands to benefit from giving Republicans more control than they've earned in this state. YES ON 25. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!


PROP 26: Requires that certain state and local fees be approved by two-thirds vote. Fees include those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment caused by the fee-payer's business.
No. I think I made my opinion clear on 25. This kind of shit ruins our state every year. This would mean that before the State Legislature decides to levy fines on polluters, they need Republican approval. Republicans who are funded by companies like those who oppose Prop 25. Number one supporter of Prop 26? You guessed it, CHEVRON. I'm sure they'd love to stop paying fees for ruining the environment. NO ON 26!!!!!!!!!!!

PROP 27: see above PROP 20
NO. 

Many thanks to Ballotpedia for being a valuable resource for info on the Propositions. Grab your "Official Sample Ballot" and fill in your choices ahead of time to avoid panic in the voting booth! Tomorrow, I will try to tackle the judges for our district! Yipes!  
 

Computer Crap Out

Thank you, Mac Store of Pasadena for fixing my computer for free! Apparently, my video card has a history of being fickle, and they replaced it for free. Thank goodness, because that was a serious moment of panic.

Otherwise, I'm working on pouring through all of the Nov. 2 election material so that I can get some really good stuff on here. Stay tuned! Those judicial elections are so tricky!

REGISTER TO VOTE!

Today, Monday, October 18th is the LAST DAY to register to vote in California for the November 2nd primary.

If you are not registered to vote already, please do so! Go to your local library or post office and pick up the form. It simply has to be postmarked by today! If you want to vote by mail, you must apply by the 26th!

This is an atheist blog, but it's also a political one. Religion shouldn't interfere with our political system, but since it's such an influential factor for so many politicians (and so openly so), the two sadly seem to go hand in hand. 

I've been house/dog sitting lately, which has made it more difficult to post, so this is just a quick reminder. Californians have A LOT to vote on because of our crazy propositions, so I'll be going through the voter information guide over the coming days. That's just as much for me as it is for anyone else who cares to know my opinion and listen to my research!

GET POLITICAL! DON'T LET THE CRAZIES RULE THE VOTE!