November Coming Fire

It’s voting season again! Time to inflict some pain on the poor bastards with the minority viewpoint. Since all of the hard initial analysis has been done, monday morning pundits like myself can now look over the carnage and provide our own hyper-summarized advice. Here then, with nods to the LPSF, I present to you my recommendations on the upcoming San Francisco ballot measures.

Not all bondage is fun.
The first thing I do every year is scan the measures for the word “bond”. When I find that word, I write “NO” next to that proposition and move on. It doesn’t matter how noble they go on to make the expenditure sound. Credit card financing is bad enough on a personal level, but when the bill is inflicted on coming generations of the entire populace, it’s downright evil. We all have to live within our means. Without further ado, I urge you to reject measures A and B.

C is for Cookie. We hide where you can’t see
Measure C is an ironic attempt to give the city’s Ethics Commission control over it’s own budget. Tell them NO, they will continue to undergo the same scrutiny as everyone else.

Easy like Sunday morning
Measure E is a no-brainer. Vote YES and save the city a few dollars by doing all of the elections in November.

F is for Fat
Measure F seeks to ensure wasted resources at the Fire Department. Strike it down like the cancer it is. Next year, let’s hope we see a measure that forbids sending 4 fire engines, 6 police cars, and 2 ambulances every time a cat gets stuck in a tree.

Who do you trust to defend you?
Measure H: If you don’t know about this one, you’re probably not even online to read this. It’s the measure that spits on the Bill of Rights, shuts down on our gun shops, takes handguns away from peaceful citizens, and puts all the power with the police and corporations. With posthumous endorsements from notables such as Mao, Stalin, and Hitler, you may thank Chris Daly for trying to bring you this phase of our very own police state. Real “progressives” would do well to heed the words of Dr. Mary Ruwart.

Kicking the Fed out of bed
The last one, “I”, would kick the recruiters off of our high school campuses. In return, SF schools would be denied federal money. I don’t have strong feelings about this one, but I’ll most likely vote against it. We need a military, and some young adults need help getting started.

In Summary:
Measure A: NO
Measure B: NO
Measure C: NO
Measure D: ?
Measure E: YES
Measure F: NO
Measure G: ?
Measure H: NO
Measure I: ?

As always, these words are my own. Other Metblogs authors, libertarians, bikers, steak lovers, and tall people may hold differing opinions.

4 Comments so far

  1. greg Dewar (unregistered) on October 12th, 2005 @ 2:29 pm

    Given all the hassles of federal money, maybe letting it all go in exchange for local control of schools by locally elected leaders, who probably know more about what local kids need, might not be a bad idea.

    Besides, as we all know, federal threats are empty. Only due to the fact that Governors and Mayors and others concede the issue before the fact, do we have a situation where federal money can be used to nationalize local decisionmaking.

  2. morey (unregistered) on October 12th, 2005 @ 2:45 pm

    Excellent points on Measure “I”, Greg. If we were taking a stand against centralized redistribution and control, I would wholly support it. Instead, this smells more like capitalizing on current anti-war sentiment to give the whole concept of a standing army a negative connotation.

    It’s a mixed bag. I may yet change my position on this one.

  3. cd (unregistered) on October 13th, 2005 @ 12:52 am

    Local control is a double-edged sword. Yes, those in the neighborhood know what the kids need. Then again, as we’ve seen in Penn, that might mean including “intelligent design” in a SCIENCE CLASS. Don’t underestimate the organization of those seeking to establish a national religtion in this country. Most of them are calmly running for school board while we run around yapping about the Supreme Court and other fairly obvious power plays.

    Substantively – I find it hard to see that the military will ever change if people who advocate different views abandon it. Ignoring the problem or trying to fence it out seldom really solves the problem.

    Plus, denying federal money is no small thing. There’s federal money in almost everything – and it can be intricately tied to state funding sources as well.

    What a stupid thing to do to San Francisco’s school kids.

  4. cd (unregistered) on October 13th, 2005 @ 12:54 am

    I also would suggest – if possible – tossing up the links to the text of the proposals . . .

    But I do appreciate the libertarian flavor! A pretty foreign concept in this city, I’m guessing.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.