HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » U.S. » California (Group) » Help!
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 06:49 PM

Help!

I am relatively new to California and the overload of propositions to vote for is overwhelming me. I do know that I'm voting yes on 30 and no on 38. I also know that I am voting to get rid of the death penalty. After that, however, I'm lost. For example, I see that many on here support 37 and I can see how we would want our food labelled, but the commercials say that this will hurt farmers. Does anybody know more about these props than I do? Or a good site to get REAL information about them?
Thanks in advance.

29 replies, 2434 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Help! (Original post)
2labslib Nov 2012 OP
2labslib Nov 2012 #1
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #2
LoisB Nov 2012 #9
pinboy3niner Nov 2012 #14
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #15
LoisB Nov 2012 #19
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #20
Control-Z Nov 2012 #3
2labslib Nov 2012 #24
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #4
polly7 Nov 2012 #5
LoisB Nov 2012 #6
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #8
2labslib Nov 2012 #25
DollarBillHines Nov 2012 #7
Cleita Nov 2012 #10
Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #11
Betsy Ross Nov 2012 #12
Tumbulu Nov 2012 #13
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #17
Tumbulu Nov 2012 #18
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #21
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #16
2labslib Nov 2012 #23
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #26
pinto Nov 2012 #22
roody Nov 2012 #27
mitchtv Nov 2012 #28
Retrograde Nov 2012 #29

Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 06:55 PM

1. Actually

I just found this from before: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10401899

But if anyone has other info, I would be happy to look at it. Thanks again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 06:58 PM

2. The farmers out here (for the most part) are a whiny right wing bunch.

Currently they are whining about having to actually pay more for their water though they pay far less than anyone else.

Here are my recommendations on the props:

Proposition 30 Jerry Brown's Tax Increase Yes
Proposition 31 Two-Year Budget Cycle No
Proposition 32 Ban on corporate and union contributions to state and local candidates No
Proposition 33 Insurance Car insurance rates can be based on a person's
history of insurance coverage No
Proposition 34 "End the Death Penalty" Yes
Proposition 35 Prohibition on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery No
Proposition 36 Repeal of the "Three Strikes" Law Yes
Proposition 37 Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Food Yes
Proposition 38 Molly Munger's State Income Tax Increase No
Proposition 39 Income Tax Increase for Multistate Businesses Yes
Proposition 40 Referendum on the State Senate Redistricting Plan Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:18 PM

9. Live and Learn

Why No on 35 - Human Trafficking? This increases prison sentences and fines for human traffickers, requires them to register as sex offenders, requires sex offenders to disclose internet accounts...

The only people/organizations I can find against it are the President and CFO of Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education, and Research Project.

Other than that one, I agree with all your other recommendations on the propositions. Is there something in 35 that I'm not seeing? Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoisB (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:01 PM

14. The Courage Campaign notes constitutional concerns with Prop 35

PROP 35: Increased Penalties for Human Trafficking

Increases penalties for human trafficking, sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. Some allies believe it is unconstitutional and have concerns about increasing penalties within the troubled criminal justice system, which incarcerates people of color and the poor at a disproportionately high rate.

More info: http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/content/Prop35/



The ACLU of Southern California opposes Prop 35 and recommends a NO vote:
http://www.aclu-sc.org/community/let-me-vote/

The Courage Campaign provides a pdf chart showing ballot proposition recs of the party and 13 labor and progressive organizations here:
http://courage.3cdn.net/dc70549415e8bf39a2_6cm6bhvzs.pdf

If you're in LA. County...

L.A. County Democratic Party endorsements for candidates, state propositions & local ballot measures
http://www.lacdp.org/endorsements/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoisB (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:01 PM

15. Because it is a poorly written law.

Human trafficking is illegal and usually a federal crime. This law makes mandatory sentences and ties judge and legislature hands. It also isn't cost efficient.

Nearly every thoughtful political proposition guide recommends a no on prop 35. Here is the Los Angeles Times endorsement of no on 35. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-end-prop35-20121010,0,1226807.story

Personally I am against more laws unless they are absolutely needed. I think we should get rid of 2 laws for every new one we make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:19 PM

19. Thank you. I will do a rethink on this one. I think you're right and I was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoisB (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 09:01 PM

20. You are very welcome. These propositions can be tricky

and really require research. Sadly many aren't willing to give them much thought which makes our proposition system quite dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 06:59 PM

3. I hope you get some good responses

here. I'm not new to Cali but I'm not sure about some of these props myself. I agree on 30 vs 38, btw.

And welcome to California!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Control-Z (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 11:51 PM

24. Thanks for the welcome! N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:00 PM

4. The Women's League of Voters site is a good source too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:02 PM

5. Hi ...

Not sure how much of what you're looking for specifically is here, but I'd read this a while ago while hunting down some info on GMOs.

http://www.care2.com/causes/this-man-is-lying-about-your-food.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:08 PM

6. Here are a couple:

Courage Campaign Issues Committee (www.couragecampaign.org)
Democratic Action Center (email is democraticactioncenter@gmail.com)

A good "rule" as to whether yes or no is to see who is supporting it. For instance NO on 37 is being funded by Monsanto and (I believe) Dow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoisB (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:11 PM

8. That is the first thing I check too. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LoisB (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 11:53 PM

25. Thanks for the tip! N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:09 PM

7. The pushback on 37 is bullshit.

The idiotic Stanford "study" was crap sponsored by the usual suspects and timed to harm 37.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:19 PM

10. PBS has a website that shows the biggest donors both pro and con on the propositions.

If the unions and progressive PACS are for it, vote yes. If they are against it vote no. Also, Monsanto is the major donor behind prop 37. They are the farmer that will be hurt by not being able to poison us with their food. Vote yes on it. All it is, is about labeling. No one is saying they can't keep doing what they are doing. They pulled the same nonsense about farmers being hurt when we asked to have our food labels show the nutrition values on our processed food. No one was hurt by it, not even the processors like they claimed.

http://www.kqed.org/news/politics/election2012/statepropositions-guide.jsp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:28 PM

11. My union has good info-

For a voter guide tailored to your area, go here: http://www.cft.yourvoterguide.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:30 PM

12. My take on 37.

The cost to farmers is BS. It only requires a change in labeling. The real cost is when people won't buy their products.
Non-GMO goods will increase in cost but fly off the shelves none-the-less. Passing Prop 37 means that we will seriously need to take a look at how we grow food.

No on 32 because it singles out unions for political donations restrictions while leaving corporations free to spend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:57 PM

13. I am a farmer and a plant breeder

And I say yes on 37 !!!!!!! Here is why- it is a long read but I wrote it for friends who are parents at my daughter's school who know people who work in the industry.

Dear Prop 37 undecided voters,

As an older mom, and as a scientist, plant breeder and organic farmer, I would like to share my perspective on Proposition 37 with you.

The fight that I see going on regarding the labeling of GMOs reminds me quite a bit of a fight on the playground: anger created by bullying, resulting in name calling and no end of drama and hysterics. Just the sort of thing we as the grown ups are continually called upon to stop. How do we create a basis for healing and moving on and growing and learning from this discord?

When the first scientists figured out how to harness the capacity of particular bacteria and viruses to cut genetic material from one species and then insert it into another, many wild hopes were raised within the scientific community. I recall hearing how all the streetlights would be replaced by trees whose leaves would have the bioluminescence of fireflies spliced into them- imagine all the electricity to be saved! There were so many exciting possibilities. And there still are. Many a new start up was created which sought venture capital funding, some in the area of pharmaceuticals and others in agriculture. At this very beginning stage of the biotechnology industry a terrific rift was formed between those that saw the enormous power of this new technology as something to be very careful with indeed, and those that needed to get products to market as quickly as possible to fund their start-up business ventures.

The biggest surprise players in this initial schism were the business people in the largest ag chemical companies. They appeared to use their influence within the government to circumvent the regulatory agencies (the EPA and FDA) by making the wild claim that this technology was no different from classical plant breeding and thus required no safety testing whatsoever (other than any they chose to do within their own corporations and which were not scrutinized in a public forum). Many of the scientists within this new industry were horrified by this position, but were told that the products had to get to market to fund future research. This decision to resist any and all regulatory testing allowed a number of GMO crop plants to enter the marketplace very quickly. It allowed a great amount of funding to flow to scientists who were thrilled to be doing such advanced work. But this blatant disregard for testing--all the while claiming the GMO plants were safe--backfired, and outside the U.S. the doors were quickly shut to these new varieties of crops created by genetic engineers. I asked an executive at one of these firms, who was a scientist how they would justify the damage to the reputation of all scientists when the general public found out how they had been lied to. The answer was this: "If we do not lie we will not get funding. Without funding we will not be able to do our work. Our work is the most important way to save the world."

The rift formed by business decisions made in the 1980's has developed into the brawl that we witness today. Both sides have become inflamed and each side has valid points. One of the greatest difficulties for me is that I know a number of great scientists who work in this industry who have not only agile minds, but the best of intentions. Some are parents of my daughter's friends at school. The scientists doing this work all believe that their products are safe- they had been told by their professors that all the safety testing was already done back in the 80's. These scientists claim that all these hysterical calls for labeling are from the same kind of people who don't believe in science or global warming. They feel maligned and frightened that their industry that they believe holds so much potential for scientific promise will be thwarted by activist fools.

The people calling for labeling are a much larger group. Before the over 40 million dollars worth of ads against it, some 70% of people polled were in favor of Proposition 37. Within this group are people who suffer from allergies (or whose children suffer from them), who simply want all the information possible on labels. There are people who for religious reasons object to the mixing of kingdoms (animal genes mixed in with plants, etc.), which is an issue for a variety of faiths. There are the people who distrust the technology of genetic manipulation in general. There are the people who only distrust the products of this technology that have not undergone public transparent testing. There are people who worry about the environmental impacts that they feel are not being addressed by the industry. They all want to just be able to decide if they want to buy these products or not.

The fear of the people employed in the genetic engineering of food crops is that labeling will effectively shut down their industry, because, when polled, more than half of people claim they do not want to eat food that is the result of genetic manipulation. They view labeling as branding the word "Frankenfood" over the products of their labors and their devotion to working for a better future.

And so how do we as voters begin to solve this problem created by business decisions made over 25 years ago?

The place I suggest we turn to is The Union of Concerned Scientists. They have been grappling with this schism within the scientific community since the early 1990's. They recommend that a thorough and transparent system of testing be started immediately so that all the allegations of safety or the lack thereof can be settled. Openly and thoroughly. They support labeling of all GMO products.

I think that labeling is the way to achieve a peace. Those that value a bargain and who trust the industry will be fine with purchasing these products. Those that want to know will be able to do so. It is simple and it does not destroy any farmer or this new industry that is still just forming. It will encourage those businesses who rushed products to market prematurely to sit down with the scientists who called for safety testing and come up with a plan to test the products.

Thank you for considering this issue with such care,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:07 PM

17. +1 A very thoughtful and informative post. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:11 PM

18. thank you, I worked a long time on it

as I do know good people working in the industry who do not know the history. I have been advocating testing and labeling since the 80's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tumbulu (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 09:03 PM

21. Wow. Thank you for your hard work. It is much needed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:06 PM

16. Here is a new thread started on prop 37

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Live and Learn (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 11:50 PM

23. Thanks, Live and Learn, for all the info!

I've been looking over all of your links, and they are very helpful.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:04 AM

26. You are more than welcome. Welcome to both DU and California! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:25 PM

22. I'll echo suggestion to check the voter guide from the Sec of State. Check out pro/con statements

and official supporters of both pro and con statements. Some Propositions can be daunting since they're often presented deceptively in media campaigns. One way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:14 AM

27. Check the Dem. Party's recommendations.

The ones I remember are Yes on 30, No on 32, and YES on 37. 37 is near and dear to me. Monsanto's lies have filled the airwaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 11:27 PM

28. no on 32

it seeks to cripple unions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2labslib (Original post)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 01:50 AM

29. You could read the 100+ page voters' guide the state sends out....

I confess I skim it - Mr. Retro actually reads the full text of some of the proositions.

My rules of thumb: read the state analyst's assessment of the propositions - it's supposed to be impartial and usually is. Then look at who's for and against a proposition - if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is against it, it's probably a good idea and vice versa. The League of Women Voters and the Democratic Party publish their recommendations at their web sites. Lastly, when in doubt I just say no.

My own recommendations: Yes on 40, the 3-Strikes reform (corrects a bad previous proposition), abolishing the death penalty, and Prop. 30. And look on the bright side - it's only 11 statewide props this time - there have been longer ballots!

I ignore the commercials, especially if they have piano music in the background (it's my own personal prejuidice). I don't think 37 will hurt farmers, but I voted against it because of Prop. 65, passed many years ago, which was drafted by the same people and has had little positive effect while being a large nuisance for small businesses. I also voted against 35 because we already have laws against human trafficking that can be better enforced. Like a lot of propositions, it was pushed by someone who had a personal agenda, namely making a name for himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread