A Proposition for you


By Carol Fondiller

Here follow my picks and analysis of the propositions, not in order of importance.


I’ve come to the conclusion that we have two sides to ourselves—that theory has been around for eons, but it finally hit me when I was barraged with thirty-second sound bites of political ads and adverts for the Propositions that have rained down on commercial media like pigeon droppings.

The creators of these ads are consultants-for-hire Hessians for whomever will pay them to plumb our deepest desires—exploit our deepest fears. The Proposition commercials are packed with subliminal harpoons to get us in our deepest beliefs our atavistic selves,
whoareyougetoutofmycavemoremorenotyoursdon’ttakemine. Many of these initiatives are titled to make us assume that we are voting for something decent and worthwhile; e.g., Bush’s “Healthy Forest Act,” “Death Tax,” Tort Reform,“ Defense of Marriage Act.”

Here’s California’s version of doublespeak—talk about playing on your fears!

Vote No on Proposition 64 “Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? This is the prop that shows TV viewers as distressed “average looking,” i.e., could use a little lipo, couple telling the viewer that some shyster wrote them a letter threatening to sue if they didn’t send the lawyer some money. Naturally, rather than go through the expense of a lawsuit, they paid.

NO! NO! NO! This is a complete LIE! What Prop 64 does is prevent lawsuits by individuals or classes of people suing corporations, stores, etc., from stating untruths or making questionable statements, i.e., an HMO presently cannot state or imply that doctors have the final decision as to health care if accountants are the ones who have the final say as to whether a procedure should be used. Prop 64 would take away that protection.

It restricts people from bringing a lawsuit for unfair competition unless the person has suffered injury and lost money or property.

In other words, a business who wanted to set up a dump site in the area couldn’t be sued for dangerous emissions until it was built, and several people had contracted diseases from the dump.
It would also prevent lawsuits such as the Playa Vista lawsuit.

The “small businesses” that this prop presumes to protect are Blue Cross of California, they donated a quarter of a million to the Yes on 64 campaign, Kaiser Foundation, $100,000—Bank of America $100,000.
The Attorney General of California says… ”The current law has been used successfully to protect the public from polluters, unscrupulous financing schemes, and religious discrimination.”

Proposition 64 would stop environmental progress.

Vote No on Proposition 65 “Local Government Funds, Revenues, State Mandates, Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” Proposition 1A, “Protection of Local Government Revenues” is a better prop and it keeps the state from “raiding” funds from local government.

Vote Yes on Proposition 66 “Limitations on “Three Strikes” Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.”
I voted for the original three strikes you’re in (jail) thinking that only violent felons would be subjected to stiff jail terms.

Little did I know. Not that career pick pockets and burglars shouldn’t be dealt with, but not sent to jail for 25 years!

Prop 66 deals with trying to take out that section of the law that would impose disproportionately harsh laws on nonviolent offenders. The days of Jean Valjean should be over.

Vote Yes on Proposition 67 “Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”

This prop provides funding for 911 emergency response. It will not gouge seniors or cell phone users, anymore than the phone companies do now.

Vote No on Proposition 68 “Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”

This allows non-Indian gambling card parlours to expand their operations—as to the added benefits of $1 billion, what happened to the beautiful schools in the inner cities that the lottery was supposed to bring into being?

The gaming interests are behind this.

Vote No on Proposition 69 “DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute.”

Your DNA will be taken if your are arrested for a crime even if you are released and your DNA with all of its secrets regarding tendency towards disease, ancestry, etc., would be among convicted offenders—too 1984 for me.

I have the feeling DNA is not the end-all and be-all of crime detection.

Vote No on Proposition 70 “Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”

I can see it now, the Gabrialeno-Tongva Indians build a sacred Casino on their Playa Vista burial grounds. Roll dem sacred bones! No kidding, this prop is dangerous because it can override environmental concerns.
Many gaming lobbying groups are behind this, because it could be an opening for non-native American gamblers to move in.

Vote Yes on Proposition 71 “Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.”

Yes, if only because this prop drives the anti-privacy fundamentalists CRAZY!

Vote Yes on Proposition 72, “Health Care Coverage Requirements. Referendum.”

Not perfect, but a step in the right direction to insure health care for all workers and their families. Business loses more money on illness, than paying out, or the state partial coverage of health care supplemented by workers. As Ford knew, a healthy workforce is a productive workforce.

Vote Yes on Proposition 63 “Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statute.”

Take a look out the window, look in the mirror, jog along the street. What’s not to like about expanded mental health care—unless you’re paranoid.

Vote Yes on Proposition 60 “Election Rights of Political Parties. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.”
Well…yeah, Prop 60 guarantees that all political parties have the right to get their nominees on the ballot.
Alternative parties such as the Greens, Reform, and Peace and Freedom who struggle through enormous odds to get their candidates on the ballot have the right to keep their candidates on the ballot.

And now, the “Best” for last:

NO NO NO NO on Proposition 62 “Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.” NO NO NO

This allows the Jacksonian “to the victor belong all the spoils—”

This means even if the top two vote getters are from the same party in the primary, they are the only ones on the general election ballot. Forget Peace and Freedom, Greens, Libertarians, Reform, etc. This could cut out alternative parties all together from appearing in General Elections. Even the Demopubs and Republicats don’t like this one.

Note: These recommendations are the sole opinion of the author. The Beachhead does not necessarily agree with the author.

Posted: Fri - October 1, 2004 at 03:13 PM          

©