Proposition 37 requires labeling foods you buy in the supermarket as GMO foods if they contain genetically modified ingredients. It also prevents labeling GMO foods as “natural.” Some foods can be exempted from the GMO label such as otherwise organic foods that have been unintentionally cross-pollinated from GMO crops. And Prop 37 does not require labeling at restaurants and in particular fast food restaurants – just the places that you can probably expect to be served GMO foods.
I read a little essay the other day about Black clergy telling their flock not to vote in this election because Obama backs same-sex marriage – as though as president of the Land of the Free he should not politically and morally stand up for people who simply seek equality.
The flock was also told, in an effort to keep them away from the polls, that Romney is a Mormon, a religion one of them referred to as a cult, that once banned men of African descent, not to mention women of any descent, from entering its ministry. I couldn’t help but wonder, even if a brother was allowed in the priesthood of the church, what he’d say to a congregation of Latter Day Saints beyond “Damn, I must be at the wrong address!”
Anyway, it was all nonsensical to me and I can only hope that the flock takes time to reflect and realize that the proverbial Adam and Steve is absolutely no threat to the sanctity of matrimony in a world that claims “The third time’s a charm.” And isn’t it a fact that one religion demonizing another is like the pot calling the kettle black? We don’t need that. [Read more…]
You won’t see any TV ads for or against Proposition 40 on this fall’s California Ballot. That’s because the people who put it on the ballot have given up.
Proposition 40, which will still appear on the ballot, asks voters to approve or reject the efforts of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, which drew up new voting districts following release of the data from the 2010 census. State Republicans were seeking the have the redistricting overturned, hoping that they’d pick up a few seats out of the deal.
Californians have voted three times in the past four years to have district maps drawn by an independent commission … [Read more…]
If you ever needed a case study in how one rich individual can buy a law that favors his auto insurance business while screwing consumers, Proposition 33 would fit the bill perfectly. It’s such a bad apple that other insurance companies, not exactly known for their pro-consumer attitudes when it comes to making money, won’t even support this law. Not that they wouldn’t benefit, but they’re embarrassed by its audacity.
It’s the week after Labor Day and the Carl DeMaio attack machine is in full force, with SuperPac-funded ads in the works designed to keep pounding away at Bob Filner while DeMaio furiously tries to repackage himself as someone palatable to moderate Democrats and Independents. This will involve things like lying to San Diegans about his environmental record, spending big money to woo Latino voters, and hoping that some local Democrats are terminally stupid enough to buy his “independent” populist reformer act. While I have written extensively about DeMaio’s right wing think tank pedigree, it never hurts to revive the historical record, particularly when we can count on the local news to fail on all counts in this regard.
I wrote a previous article in the San Diego Free Press about genetically modified (GMO) foods. One might ask, “What is the purpose of genetically modifying a food item.” Is it to enhance the flavor? Is it to make it more nutritious? Well, no, not really.
The sole purpose of modifying corn and soy products is to make them resistant to pesticides and herbicides. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy seeds grow into plants that will not be killed when Roundup is sprayed on the soy field which kills every other thing in the field EXCEPT the Roundup Ready soy plant.
By Kimberley Beatty / Special to San Diego Free Press
There is an openly secret war between Prop 38 and Prop 30 and it’s important to understand how this unnecessary conflict happened. Both propositions increase taxes and that’s where the problem begins. Any revenue increase requires a 2/3 vote of both the state senate and assembly. All but two Republican legislators have signed the Grover Norquist Anti-Tax Pledge, vowing to never, under any circumstances raise taxes or even allow the citizens to be able to vote on the issue.
The only possible exception would be a revenue neutral bill, where a tax increase here would be used for a tax cut there. With rare exception, all Republicans fall in line or suffer the retribution response of a vengeful party, including lost leadership positions on committees and recalls.
Given this undemocratic system, it was predictable that in the Spring of 2011 Governor Brown would fail to get enough votes in the state legislature to qualify an initiative to allow citizens to decide whether to extend his temporary taxes on vehicles, sales and income. [Read more…]
Proposition 39 would eliminate the ability of companies to choose between two methods to calculate their taxable income in California and require them to use sales only for the calculation. Estimated revenue, per the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, would be more than $1 billion annually with $500 – $550 million being earmarked for clean energy and energy efficiency projects for five years.
The proposition would also increase education funding in the state due to higher total tax revenues and the corresponding increase in the amount of education spending required by Proposition 98. The increase in school funding is estimated between $200 and $500 million for five years and from $500 million to over $1 billion from 2018-19 into the future.
The ad says, “For Carl DeMaio, independence is not a label, it’s his life story.”
Talk about your makeovers. Perhaps he’s taking a cue from the Romney campaign and trying to humanize his image. Maybe somebody in his operation has actually drilled down into the polling numbers and realized that whoever wins San Diego’s mayoral contest is going to have to reach beyond party lines. Or possibly his advisors think people were turned off by his negative advertising in the primary race. Whatever.
The first round of video from the DeMaio campaign emerged yesterday with a thirty second ad that seeks to remold “Fighting Carl” into “Mr. Rogers”, the iconic TV host who became known as a symbol of compassion and patience as he explained the world to children through the eyes of his neighborhood. It was jaw dropping.
Crusader Carl, the guy who we saw leading the angry masses against the forces of evil at City Hall, is now recast as a kinder, gentler Carl, who, with a song in his heart and a smile on his face, joyfully strolling with a wave of humanity towards a new day. And the irony here is that the ‘new, softer Carl’ ad is using some of the same footage as the ‘onward Christian soldiers’ commercials from the primary season.
By Carolyn Zellander
This November, Californians will their first opportunity in more than 30 years to abolish the death penalty. Last April, Proposition 34, also known as the Savings, Accountability, and Full Enforcement for California Act (SAFE California), qualified for the November Ballot. If approved by voters, the new law will convert sentences of death row inmates to life in prison without the possibility of parole. [Read more…]
Adjusting sentencing guidelines under three strikes will help alleviate prison overcrowding and help California’s budget.
In 1994, California voters approved a law that was rather revolutionary in its time……as Californians are wont to do. We’re trendsetters in that way. The purpose of the “three strikes” law was a noble one: Deter violent crime—particularly from repeat offenders—by making each subsequent conviction even more costly.
According to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, under the original 1994 law, a felon with two prior serious or violent convictions who is subsequently convicted of a third—his or her “third strike”—would be subject to a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment. Even a second strike conviction would carry a sentence that is double the term that would otherwise be required by law. [Read more…]
It’s Citizens United on Steroids, a Bill of Rights for Billionaires
Last week, I addressed how the Governor’s tax measure was needed to stop the cuts to education and vital public services. The passage of Proposition 30 would indeed help California begin to turn the corner and finally stop the hemorrhaging of our education system. But where the passage of Proposition 30 would bring hope, the passage of Proposition 32, on the other hand, would kill it.
Proposition 32, the Special Exemptions Act, is a corporate power grab that would totally eliminate unions’ ability to take part in politics while leaving the rich, corporate special interests, and Super PACs untouched. It is Citizens United on Steroids, a Bill of Rights for Billionaires that would permanently eliminate working peoples’ voices from California politics. At present, corporate interests already outspend unions by nearly 15-1. What Proposition 32 would do is transform the political contest in California, where the privileged are already playing with a stacked deck, into a hopelessly rigged game. [Read more…]