The Freedom Minute

PROP 5 – Vote YES

This Proposal:

This measure, the NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION INITIATIVE STATUTE would divert certain persons convicted of nonviolent drug offenses into treatment programs rather than incarceration.

Specifically, the proposition would:
• Allocate $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses.
• Limit court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.
• Substantially shorten parole for certain drug offenses but would increase parole for serious and violent felonies.
• Create a 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.

The fiscal impact of passing this proposal would be to save taxpayers billions of dollars. Savings in excess of $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs would be offset by an increase in state costs over time possibly in excess of $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. There would be an additional savings in excess of $2.5 billion due to decreased costs for prison facilities.

Background:

The state operates 33 state prisons and other facilities that had a combined adult inmate population of about 171,000 as of May 2008. The costs to operate the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2008–09 are estimated to be approximately $10 billion. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is estimated to be about $46,000. The state prison system is currently experiencing overcrowding because there are not enough permanent beds available for all inmates. As a result, gymnasiums and other rooms have been converted to house some inmates. Addiction and substance abuse are major driving forces for the current overcrowding crisis. Over the past two decades, the number of incarcerated nonviolent offenders has more than tripled—from 20,000 in 1986 to over 70,000 in 2006. About 20% of prisoners in California are incarcerated for a drug offense.

Proposition 36, a ballot measure approved by the voters in November 2000, established a drug treatment diversion program for offenders who are convicted of specific crimes designated as nonviolent drug possession offenses. Under Proposition 36, an offender can be sentenced to probation and treatment, instead of prison or jail. Some parole violators are also eligible for Proposition 36 diversion. Proposition 36 limits when and how sanctions, such as jail or prison time, are imposed on offenders who violate the conditions of their drug treatment programs or commit new drug possession crimes. That program has graduated more than 84,000 people and saved California taxpayers over $1.5 billion since 2001. Proposition 5 would expand that program.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote YES. Drug addiction should be treated for what it is, a health issue rather than a law enforcement issue. This proposal would save billions of taxpayer dollars and free up much needed prison space for real criminals. Although opponents claim that Prop 5 would allow drug dealers and felons to avoid jail, this is a distortion of the truth. Offenders convicted of a serious or violent felony are not eligible for diversion. Prop 5 only impacts nonviolent drug offenders and does not prohibit judges from using their discretion. Under Prop 5, a nonviolent offender with a drug problem may be diverted to treatment, if the judge finds that drugs motivated the nonviolent crime and that drug treatment would be in the best interests of public safety. The offender does not make that call—the judge does.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 5

October 27th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Civil Rights, Election, State Government | no comments

A Shameful Waste of $25Million

What would you do with $25Million? How many people could you feed, house, clothe? How many underprivileged children could you give a chance at a better life? How much good could $25Million do in the world?

Well apparently, there’s a group of people in our society who can think of nothing better to do with $25Million than to squander it in an attempt to institutionalize discrimination against another group of citizens. I’m of course talking about Proposition 8, put forward to circumvent a recent California State Supreme Court ruling recognizing that homosexual couples have the same right to marriage equality as everyone else. As recently reported by the LA Times, the backers of Prop 8 have raised over $25Million in their quest to pass this initiative which would amend the State Constitution to eliminate that right.

Now I’m a firm believer that people should be free to spend their money as they see fit, but I also believe I have the right to publicly criticize them for their choices. Especially when that choice amounts to an attack on one of the most fundamental rights we have in this country, the right to be treated equally under the law. For, whatever you might personally believe about homosexuality, or whatever arguments you might have in favor of or against Prop 8, this proposed constitutional amendment is about one thing and one thing only: requiring the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. As a society, we’re supposed to have grown beyond that type of narrow-mindedness. We’re supposed to have left the days of racism, gender bias, and religious intolerance behind us.

And yet there are still those who would use the power of government to restrict other people’s rights rather than to protect their rights. To these people I say this – your actions are shameful and the antithesis of every principle this country was founded on. In the same way that it is wrong to discriminate against people of color, of different religions, of different genders, it’s wrong to treat same sex couples differently under the law than you treat heterosexual couples. These are human beings with the same right as you to fall in love, marry, and live out their lives in peace and freedom. Regardless of whether or not you like how this group has chosen to live their lives or whether their choices make you uncomfortable or don’t fit in with your sense of morality, your right to disapprove does not trump their fundamental right to be treated the same as everyone else.

And spending $25Million, money that otherwise could be used towards the betterment of society, in order to ensure that others are treated differently, is simply wrong. Shame on you.

October 21st, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Civil Rights, Election, State Government | one comment

PROP 4 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY INITIATIVE amends the State Constitution to require, with certain exceptions, a physician to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. This measure does not require a physician or a minor to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian, only to notify them. The requirement for notification would be waived in cases of medical emergencies or if the pregnant minor successfully petitions a court to approve a waiver. In addition, if the minor states in writing that she fears physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse from a parent who would otherwise be notified, and her fear is based on a pattern of such abuse of her by a parent, the physician could notify an adult family member instead of notifying the minor’s parent. Any person who performs an abortion on a minor and who fails to comply with the provisions of the measure would be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the minor, her legal representative, or by a parent or guardian wrongfully denied notification.

Background:

In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. In 1987, the Legislature passed a law to require minors to obtain the consent of either a parent or a court before obtaining an abortion. Legal challenges were brought, and the law was never implemented. In 1997, the California Supreme Court ultimately found the law unconstitutional. Proponents of this initiative are now attempting (as they have numerous times in the past) to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling by changing the State Constitution.

Arguments:

Proponents claim that this constitutional change would protect pregnant minor females by allowing a family member to know of their medical situation and be informed about risks to their health and safety. Furthermore, they argue, California law requires a parent to provide written consent in person before a minor can use a tanning salon but a minor can get an abortion without a family member being notified.

Opponents claim that in the real world, not all teens live in homes where communication is possible, and even in the best homes, many teens aren’t able to talk about something as sensitive as pregnancy and believe they can’t go to their parents for help. These girls can feel scared, trapped, and desperate. Instead of seeking the counseling and safe medical care they need, they may choose an unsafe, back alley, illegal abortion, go across the border, or even contemplate suicide. Furthermore, opponents of this measure charge that those backing this proposal are exploiting fears to advance their own political agenda and that their real goal is to eventually outlaw abortion.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. If passed, Prop 4 could do more harm than good. The motives of the proponents of this proposition are suspect and it appears designed to deter pregnant teens from seeking an abortion under the threat that their parents would be notified. It is also likely that many pregnant teenagers from abusive homes would be unable to satisfy the requirements for waiving the notification. Teens could be put in a seriously dangerous predicament – pregnant with nowhere to turn. This would likely cause some teens to attempt to circumvent the law and turn to risky alternatives such as crossing the border into Mexico or adjoining states, obtaining an abortion from unqualified individuals, or attempting to self induce an abortion. Furthermore, there is no indication that this proposal is necessary to address any problems that actually exist. I further find the “tanning salon” argument to be specious. Just because a law exists that requires parental notification for minors’ use of tanning salons, it does not mean that such a law is either necessary or effective and we shouldn’t use it as the precedent for the enactment of other laws. In addition, Prop 4 would potentially cost the public several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration. In light of the potential to cause additional hardship on pregnant teenagers and no evidence of any substantial benefit from its enactment, this proposition should be rejected.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 4

October 17th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

Is John McCain Your Friend?

Ok, I admit ahead of time that this post is a bit snarky, but I think I’m entitled to publicly express a completely personal reaction to one of the candidates. And considering the outright distortions and fear mongering coming from the McCain camp, this post will probably seem mild by comparison.

I’m completely turned off by John McCain’s overuse of the phrase “my friends”, as in: “My friends, what we have to do with Medicare is…” During the last presidential debate, he said “my friends” a total of 22 times out of about the 24 times he had the floor. In fact, he uses the phrase so much that internet posters, even those that support his bid for the White House, often refer to him as John “my friends” McCain.

I know why this bothers me. It reminds me of how slick used car salesmen will call you “my friend” even though they don’t even know you. When someone does that, their insincerity shines through and I’m constantly wondering what they’re hiding and how they’re about to cheat me. My gut instinct is that McCain’s use of “my friends” betrays that this is his true nature as well.

Unfortunately, this is how I now feel about John McCain, a man I once respected because I thought he was guided by principle. But McCain’s willingness to do or say anything to win the race for president has shown me otherwise. Sure, to some extent, all politicians engage in this type of conduct. But the level of mud-slinging and dishonesty practiced mostly by Republican candidates (and, to be fair, some Democrats) during the last few election cycles has brought these tactics to a new height, or should I say, a new low. I wouldn’t buy from anyone who I feel is just another snake oil salesman and I won’t vote for one either.

But perhaps if McCain does become president, there will be a silver lining for young people. I envision a variation on the “Hi Bob” drinking game played while watching reruns of the “Bob Newhart Show”. In this new version, every time President McCain makes a speech on TV and says “my friends” you have to take a shot of Jack Daniels. Hey, for all I know, students on college campuses all around the country are already playing.

Well that’s my opinion, my friends, and I’m sticking to it.

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 3 comments

Should Obama’s associations with William Ayers and Tony Rezko worry you?

Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin has been on the attack again, this time regarding Barack Obama’s supposed associations with “shady characters” in his past. Specifically, the Democratic presidential candidate has been criticized by Palin, as well as conservative talk show hosts and bloggers, for his ties to William Ayers, a former 60’s radical and Tony Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer recently convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery (unrelated to Barack Obama). Are these attacks fair, or are they simply a desperate attempt by McCain’s campaign to prevent Obama’s lead from increasing to the point where it becomes insurmountable? Let’s take a look at the facts and compare Barack Obama’s ethical behavior to John McCain’s ethics as it relates to his involvement with Charles Keating (the Keating Five Scandal) in the late 1980’s. Continue reading “Should Obama’s associations with William Ayers and Tony Rezko worry you?”

October 9th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election | 2 comments

Do the Facts Matter?

Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press is also making the erroneous claim that Palin and Biden “Both said they supported partnership rights for gays and lesbians”. This is an especially egregious error since AP articles are quoted in many other news stories. In fact, earlier in the exchange on that subject, Palin said she didn’t even support the same kind of rights afforded to gay couples by her home state of Alaska. Palin: “not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that’s sometimes where those steps lead”. That’s significantly different than Joe Biden’s answer to the question. Biden: “Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.” and “We…support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do”. Again, that response is a far cry from Palin’s (non) answer.

Fouhy’s AP article also gets it wrong in stating, “Biden reaffirmed his position that it was “patriotic” for people who earn more than $250,000 to pay additional taxes”. What Biden actually said in the debate was that he felt it was unpatriotic for “people to take their post office box off-shore (to) avoid taxes”. It may be too subtle a difference for a reporter of a major news organization to get, but it is an important distinction and not the same as saying it is patriotic for people to pay more taxes.

If our professional journalists can’t get it right, how can we expect the general public to decipher fact from fiction? I guess what I’m asking is, who fact checks the fact checkers?

October 3rd, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election, Federal Government | one comment

Low Expectations

The fact that Sarah Palin didn’t crash and burn during the Vice Presidential debate is being hailed as a great victory by some in her party who were seriously worried that she might embarrass the Republican ticket to such an extent that Barack Obama and Joe Biden would easily sail to victory next month. In fact, shortly after the debate, arch conservative Pat Buchanan reported that Palin’s performance brought great joy to the conservatives he had just spoken to.

It’s a sad commentary on our political process when the standard for a potential Vice President’s performance in a national debate is so low that her surrogates can claim a huge victory because she didn’t end up looking like a total idiot. This is someone who aspires to be the Vice President of the United States, a heartbeat away from the presidency. Shouldn’t we set the bar a little higher than “not looking like a complete buffoon”? After seven years of mistakes and poor judgment from George W. Bush and his advisors, I would think the American people would want the next administration to consist of the most intelligent leaders we can find. Aren’t we tired of having our nation run by a bunch of buffoons?

Think about it. Here’s a Vice Presidential candidate who spent the entire debate avoiding the questions put to her, not because she was being bold or clever, but because she clearly didn’t know how to answer them. In some cases, such as when she was asked about when it might be appropriate for the US to use nuclear weapons, it was clear that she didn’t even understand the question. She devolved into a rambling statement that went nowhere until she was able to get herself back around to one of the only things she knows how to say on the subject “must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons”. Unfortunately, that statement was a non sequitur having nothing to do with anything else she was talking about at the time, and wasn’t even tied to an explanation of who wouldn’t be allowed to get nuclear weapons. Presumably, Palin had been prepared with that phrase for when she was asked about Iran or North Korea and just pulled it out of her hat while she was rambling on about First Use. This was probably the most glaring example of the strategy she employed throughout the night. It quickly became evident that Palin had memorized rote answers on subjects she was likely to be quizzed on and just kept using those lines over and over, regardless of what question she was asked. In this way she was able to avoid the “deer in the headlights” look that characterized her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric. Almost anyone with any public speaking experience could have done at least as good a job. Especially since the structure of the debate left little room for follow up questions or pinning a candidate down on the specifics of the subject at hand. Let’s also not forget that for a time, Palin was a sports reporter on Anchorage’s local NBC TV station. Apparently she picked up the ability to look into the camera and connect with her audience because that’s about the only thing she did well last night. That and not completely embarrassing herself. I guess she is qualified to be Vice President after all.

On a side note, special criticism goes to the moderator of the debate, Gwen Ifill, for failing to require that Palin speak to the questions that were put to her or answer even one question with specificity. In addition, Ifill committed a huge disservice to the American public during a question about the candidates’ positions on the rights of gay couples. After Biden clearly indicated that neither he nor Obama supported gay marriage, Biden went on at some length to explain that they did support gay partners having the exact same rights as married heterosexuals, they just wouldn’t call it marriage. When Palin was specifically asked if she supported gay couples having those same rights, she obviously didn’t want to answer directly (once again), so she skirted the question by providing a terse response that she also didn’t support gay marriage. Ifill immediately jumped in and declared that both candidates were in agreement and that she was moving on to another question. Clearly Palin does not support the same rights for gay couples as her democratic opponents, and Ifill’s declaration of agreement certainly left the viewers with the wrong impression of Palin’s position on an important issue of personal rights. And while there are numerous other examples of her poor performance I could detail here, I’ll simply say that overall, Ifill was one of the worst moderators I have seen in a national debate. While I’d give Palin a “C-” for her performance, Ifill gets a straight “F”.

October 3rd, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Election, Federal Government | 3 comments