Monday, November 29, 2004

Click Down & Dirty Mp3's...

415 Mp3's
(0) comments

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

cheap trick

Calvin gets a phone call from his brother Kevin, saying that him and his kids will be over soon. When Calvin tells Karen that their brother is on his way with his kids, Karen says, "Not those bad ass kids!!" I thought to myself that those kids couldn't be that bad, boy was I wrong. As soon as those crumb-snatching bastards walked in they hit the house like a adolescent tornado, taking out everything in sight. I sat there and politely smiled, waiting for their parents to control them. I mean, these kids were yelling, screaming, throwing things, jumping on me, doing cartwheels. I kept waiting for someone to say something, but nothing happened.

peep humanity critic's reasons for considering a vesectomy...

solid analysis

some old whorida's mpegs...

(0) comments

Monday, November 22, 2004

You didn't believe me...

The Anderson family, fresh from Texas, figured they would rent a place in Orinda for six months and then buy a home.

Nearly six years later, they're in their fourth rental and have experienced everything from ancient kitchens to raw sewage in their showers in a house they dubbed "Andersonville Horror." full article

(0) comments

Friday, November 19, 2004

Electronic voting machines in Florida may have awarded George W. Bush up to 260,000 more votes than he should have received, according to statistical analysis conducted by University of California, Berkeley graduate students and a professor, who released a study on Thursday. view article

Young Buck Throws His Hands Up

What Kilmer's success tells me is that the bright lights of the liberal commentariat are going at the problem wrong. They are setting up false dichotomies: left vs. center, issues vs. values, substance vs. vision, realism vs. idealism. In the you-can't-run-and-hide world of retail politics in non-urban America – in Derek Kilmer's world – these distinctions don't apply. It is not that they can be integrated into a compelling, distinctly progressive, message. It is that they have to be.em> read this article
(0) comments

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Our Copy Tech Is A Dick

Some service people are kind, courteous, and upbeat. They come to your office and engage in polite conversation, relate with you about the struggles of a 9-to-5, (and fuck it) they might even give you the wink-and-gun before servicing whatever it is they're here for. In this instance it is our copy machine, aka Piece-Of-Worthless-Fucking-Shit. And then you have the space invading (2600), condescending, and overtly asshole Copy Tech's who manage to not fix anything. Actually I'm generalizing, I've only met one such bastard, coincidentally he's the focus of this expose.

Now the funny thing is we know what's wrong with the copier...the paper jams. In fact we can provide temporary fixes to it. We only call the Copy Tech so he can prevent the paper jams using his “expertise” to really fix our copier. I mean that's his job right? He's not a cop that falsely arrests someone after the crime, he's the condom, he's supposed to prevent this from happening. However, much like a greasy and unshaved Tow Trucker who gets work in the desert by putting nails in the road, the Copy Tech seems to have the foresight to retain employment by continually fucking things up. He makes himself useful by being useless. And we still call his punk ass back, jam-after-jam-after-Roger can you please fix this-jam? But is that really what's bothering me?

Do I really care if my employer burns money on this chump? I mean without our financial contributions he wouldn't be able to maintain that corny-ass-beard he has hugging his pseudo distinguished face. I stand corrected, he just walked by and it's now a goatee. Very stylish.

Without our donations this poor man would be relationship starved. He wouldn't be able to maintain his friendship with whomever talks him through each repair session via his Nextel. Beep. And that would be sad. Beep. If one of us is enslaved by stupidity none of us are smart. Believe that shit. Over.

I have a cousin who can't wait to get out of Junior College and go to a "real" college. He claims that JC is just like High School. Until this moment I contended with him that a four year University and even his jobs post-college degree will be like High School as well. He brushes me off and probably thinks I'm full of shit and antisocial. Today I realize my idea of life being High School in perpetual motion is incorrect, because the truth is you never get out of Elementary School.

It all starts in elementary school. Some people say hi to everyone but you. Some kids hog up the desk during crafts and leave you no space. Some kids would even take shit out of your cubby. Then there’s the old let’s-get-in-the-door-and-close-it-before-so-and-so-can-get-in trick. Remember that? I don't whatsoever! Because that shit never happened to me, but I always felt sorry for the kids that it did happen to. Funny how the tables have turned because this Copy Tech is using advanced playground tactics to fuck with me only it’s within an office environment. He smiles and says hello to everyone, then comes in my area (where the copier is) and doesn’t say a word. Suspect? He clutters my area and takes up way to much space. Hmmm? He was walking into the office 10 steps ahead of me and just shut the door. You’re fucking kidding me right?

I try retaliating by stepping all over his Copy Tech tools (which are really just fancy screwdrivers) and I keep going in-and-out of my area in a fluster. I even select all Rap mp3's and play my music louder than normal while giving him those “you haven’t fixed it yet” and “back again huh” looks. Now this behavior was cool when I was 11 and my brother was 7 and we’d just argue like kids do. But I’m a grown-ass-man, and this Copy Tech, he’s way older than me.

Today he beat me to the office and I found papers which were jammed in the copier, an extension chord, and a thick pile of Japanese documents on my desk. Then I saw the shark walk by my area and I knew the class asshole had struck again. What a fucking clown! The Japanese documents were an especially nice touch since no one here speaks nor reads it.

See if life were really always in High School mode (as I previously speculated) I’d be able to justify this wanksters’ behavior as racist. That argument got me all through High School even when I was wrong. But alas in Elementary we had less of a concept of racism and would just chalk up such behavior as very asshole-ish. In Highschool I would’ve probably punched this dude in P.E., but in Elementary there was a better chance of intervention by the higher-ups. Case in point, I went to a co-employee’s office after seeing my desk this morning, shut the door, and screamed the “Copy Guy is a Dick.” I think I even jumped up-and-down while repeating it. My co-employee asked if she should get another Copy Tech since this one isn’t playing nice. Well she didn't say the "play nice" bit but if this is not an Elementary School type fiasco I don’t know what is?

Life goes on. I'll deal with. The best cure they say is to share your problem.

So while sitting on a bench at recess, eating cookies with tea, I leaned over cupping my hand and began whispering this story to you, but it’s a secret ok, don’t tell anyone...but the Copy Guy Is A Dick!

(0) comments

Tuesday, November 16, 2004

The European Experiment by Vaclav Havel (via prometheus)

More ODB songs via Grand Good

All hell breaks loose at the Vibe Awards and Dre gets sucker punched, but G-unit get's bullet proofed in the phone booth before coming to the rescue...

Most Gangster SPAM Circulator so far...Platinum Romance...I have a theory that SPAM is a on-the-under organization full of the same persistent dudes who get turned down by girls they've asked to dance with at the club, only to ask again when the next song comes on...wince and repeat...

(0) comments

Monday, November 15, 2004

Bored Stiff dloads over at Many Shrimp

White Stripes interview (via kingblind)

Quest Love on the what/if the Roots went indie?

Colin Powell resigns...coincidentally this reminded me of Mr. Powell...

(0) comments

Friday, November 12, 2004

Kerry won Ohio, just count the ballots at the back of the bus...(how come no one is blogging this?)

Your Republican Survival Kit (via the always-on-point Promethus6)

Brother Question/Quest LoveInterview Re: Jay-Z performances/rehearsals, etc...

SF G's get Vizquel

And finally tofuhut discusses the ODB...

(0) comments

Confirming the family’s worst fears, Randy Johnson, Fire Investigator with the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District told India Post, the fire was intentionally set. Johnson however did not comment on whether the investigations would label the act as a hate crime or the details of how the fire was started in the first place.

Concord Sikh Family Victims of Arson:

Wednesday, November 17
7:30 - 8:30 p.m.


1356 Babel Lane, Concord, California
(At the burned out shell of Anand family home)

Edwin Prather of Rogers Joseph O’Donnell & Phillips (pro-bono counsel to family) and The Justice for the Anand Family Coalition

A candlelight vigil to support the family and to show solidarity against crimes targeting minorities. Presentation on the status of the case. Public demand of family and community that the Contra Costa District Attorney prosecute this case to the fullest extent of the law.

(0) comments

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Waxploitation set to release CD to fight Genocide in Sudan; Waxploitation ...releasing a charity CD in an attempt to assist in the fight against the Genocide taking place right now in Sudan...slated for a November 23rd release and includes Jurassic 5, Danger Mouse/Murs, Jill Scott, Mark Farina, Thievery Corporation, Kinky, X-ecutioners, DJ Spooky, Tweaker, Antibalas Afrobeat Orchestra and Teargas & Plateglass amongst others. More than half the album includes exclusive songs and rarities. more info.

Take a personality test (via the mirror of eye)

Johan Santana takes the Cy Young unanimously...

Flat Out Fucking
(via catchdubs)

"I've been doing a little bit too much music, just needed the rest," Artest said. "I've still got my album coming out Nov. 23. After the album comes out I'm going to make sure all of my time is focused on winning a championship." ...ahh right

(0) comments

Wednesday, November 10, 2004

Mtv article on the Bay's hyphy-ness.

a macro view of the election and potential vote fraud...or not.

global warming getting dumb...

(0) comments

Monday, November 08, 2004

more fun at the av lab...

non-profits running like a biz

stop it like it's loss

fast company forum re: the akademiks add on ny subways (photo previous post)...

house dems seek election inquiry (great fucking timing guys)

(0) comments
visual audio...

two really dope Brotha Lynch Hung songs at many shrimp

(0) comments

Friday, November 05, 2004

So now that rigor mortis has set in, there's evidence of another theft, and we're wondering where to direct our energy now, we can always count on the internet to draw our attention elsewhere.

On that note:

My problem with music journalists summed up here

Then Gun-Yoga chimes with some stream-of-conscious infa-red

And then this okayplayer post (via cocaineblunts) put syrup on it all.

20 reasons why you shouldn't post your picture on the internet. (via kingblind)

The humanity critic reasons on why the permanent move elsewhere should be postponed.

And ObL breaks it down right quick
(0) comments

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Did Kerry actually win?

Was it stolen again?

All Hail The Theif.

(0) comments

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Couldn't sleep much last night. I got out of bed at 5am with a tightness in my chest. A deep sorrow and pain has overcome me today and it's not because Kerry lost but because "we" did. Americans of every ilk are in for more pain, death, and drama.

I don't feel Bush is the cause of all our problems or that Kerry was going to solve them, but I hoped that Kerry would be more responsive to regular folks like myself. What we should all realize (if it isn't painfully clear yet) is that our system of government is deeply flawed and spiraling out of control. It has been for some time and the last two elections are just symptoms of greater issues. The system was intended to be a representative government, but it never specified which representatives. The system and it's participants can see Enron as they see Us, or they can see one greater than the other. The people, while showing promising signs of mobilization, have yet to confront power and invoke change. There are so many obstacles yet I've always had faith in America (although it never shows), however this morning my faith wavered.

My belief that America would slowly reach it's potential withered when I think of more innocent Iraqi's and brave US troops having their death certificate signed. The fucked up thing is Kerry never indicated it would be otherwise with him. We've also just confirmed to the rest of the world (terrorists included) that 53 million people actually support policy that perpetuates tyranny. We collectively have approved more tax-cuts for people who don't need them, that infringements on our liberties (Patriot Act) are necessary, and that not everyone's vote counts. My hope that people would see past Swift Boats, scare tactics, and codes for religious/culture wars, and instead focus on bad policy, lies, and direct relationships with corrupt entities fizzled with the election results.

Last night we all observed how divided this country is. While us Blue States were wondering what the fuck the Red States were thinking, I bet they were doing the same. Trivializing beliefs, whether they're based on policy or otherwise, is never going to shrink this very real gap in America. Especially when we here in Blue Country have the same interests as the people in Red. I think the dividing tactics used by Rove and Co. should be admired, studied, and feared. They have worked to perfection. I think everyone needs to understand and confront these differences instead of saying "I'm never going through the Midwest" or "Those Californian's support Gay Marriage by supporting Kerry, how could they?"

And really never mind the Red States because here in "Liberal" California we just shot down reform for the 3 Strikes Law, the ability to sue big business if they falsely advertise and pollute, and healthcare for employee's of mid-large business's that are not covered by med insurance. So if "real" change can't be established here, what hope is there in places where "Red" prevailed with little opposition?

(2) comments

Monday, November 01, 2004

As a follow up to the previous post on California measures, here's what MoveOn. org recommends:

YES on Prop. 72: Keep Workplace Health Insurance
Proposition 72 simply re-affirms California's law requiring large and medium-sized businesses with 50 or more employees to pay for health insurance for working people. It does not affect "mom and pop" shops, neighborhood restaurants, or other such small businesses -- despite the scare tactics being used by big businesses who are trying to defeat it. With more and more Californians losing their insurance, Prop. 72 makes sure working families can see their own doctor, instead of having to depend on public services for health care.

Prop. 72 is supported by doctors and nurses associations including the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, American Cancer Society, and American Lung Association, and by small businesses and community, labor, church, consumer and seniors groups. Groups endorsing Prop. 72 include: Consumer's Union, ACLU of Southern California, League of Women Voters of California, AARP, California ACORN, Rock the Vote, and many more. It's opposed by big businesses like Wal-Mart and McDonalds who want taxpayers to pay for their workers' health care. We urge you to vote "YES" on Prop. 72.

For more information on Proposition 72, see: http://www.YesOnProp72.com/

YES on Prop. 59: Sunshine, Not Secrecy, in Government
Known as the California Sunshine Amendment, Proposition 59 would re-affirm California's strong new law requiring full public disclosure of the workings of our government. Over the years, California's sunshine laws have been eroded by special interests and secretive judges and government officials. Prop. 59 would create a new civil right in California: a constitutional right to see what our government is doing. It would expand the disclosures required of all public agencies, officials, and courts, and narrow their ability to keep secrets from us, the public. It would require the government to prove a legitimate need for secrecy before it denies us any public information, and at the same time, it would protect our constitutional right to privacy for private information.

Prop. 59 passed unanimously in the Legislature. It's endorsed by the League of Women Voters, labor unions including AFSCME and the California Labor Federation, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, League of California Cities, AARP, Sierra Club, Progressive Jewish Alliance, and many other organizations. We urge you to vote "YES" on Prop. 59.

For more information on Proposition 59, see: http://www.prop59.org/

YES on Prop. 66: Fix California's Three Strikes Law
Voters in 1994 didn't envision 25-years-to-life prison sentences for stealing a videotape or a loaf of bread, but that's what happens too often under California's "Three Strikes And You're Out" law. Locking up non-violent offenders for life has led to gross injustices, and it's costing California taxpayers millions. Proposition 66 would restore the "Three Strikes" law's original intent -- dangerous felons would automatically get 25-to-life in prison for a violent third strike, while non-violent criminals would get normal sentences. It also toughens penalties for child abusers. Prop. 66 has its flaws -- arson or burglary when no one's home wouldn't count as a violent "third strike" -- but these are outweighed by the necessity of restoring justice to California's criminal sentencing system.

Prop. 66 is opposed by prosecutors, but it's supported by the Democratic and Green parties, by civil liberties, human rights, labor, church, and community groups, and by the editorial boards of California's four biggest newspapers. Groups supporting Prop. 66 include ACLU of Southern California, Democratic Women's Forum, Instituto Laboral de la Raza, Progressive Democratic Club, Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, and the National Black Police Association. We encourage you to vote "YES" vote on Prop. 66.

For more information on Proposition 66, see: http://www.yes66.org/

YES on Prop. 71: Stem Cell Research in California
Proposition 71 would establish a legal right to conduct stem cell research in California, authorize $6 billion of state funding, and establish an institute to provide grants and loans to researchers. Scientists agree that stem cells hold the potential to cure agonizing diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and common killers like diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Prop. 71 is a bold effort to make California a world leader in the field, and to fight back against President Bush and his friends in Washington who have tried to cut off federal funding for this important research. Although Prop. 71 directs a lot of public money toward private research firms, it could lead to tremendous health and economic benefits for all Californians, and ultimately the world.

Prop. 71 is endorsed by 28 Nobel Prize winners, and by California NOW (National Organization for Women), Labor Council for Latin American Advancement, California NAACP, California Medical Association, AIDS Research Alliance, Rock the Vote, and many more organizations. Brad Pitt and Governor Schwarzenegger support it too. We recommend a "YES" vote on Prop. 71.

For more information on Proposition 71, see: http://www.yeson71.com/

Finally, here are two bad measures that need your "NO" vote to stop them:

NO on Prop. 64: Keep Your Right to Sue Polluters and Crooked Companies
Big businesses are trying to gut California's Unfair Business Competition Law, the best corporate enforcement law in the nation. The law allows citizens to sue polluters and crooked companies that scam consumers; it's been used to bust companies that contaminated drinking water with chemicals, put up tobacco billboards near schools, and ripped off minorities with higher auto loan rates. Prop. 64 would take that right to sue away from citizens -- and that's why big business is bankrolling it. While it's true that a few greedy lawyers have abused the law by threatening unwarranted lawsuits, that's a small problem that's being wildly inflated in scare ads paid for by those big businesses.

Prop 64 is backed by $13 million from the likes of Phillip Morris, Exxon, and General Motors. It's opposed by environmental, labor, consumer, civil rights, and seniors groups, including the American Lung Association, Sierra Club, Consumers Union, AARP, and California Nurses Association, and by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. We urge you to vote "NO" on Prop. 64.

For more information on Proposition 64, see: http://www.noonprop64.org/

NO on Prop. 69: Don't Put Innocent People into a DNA Database
Prop. 69 wrongly equates arrest with guilt.

California law already requires a DNA database for convicted felons. But Proposition 69 would go overboard, by having the state collect DNA from anyone *arrested* for a felony -- not convicted, not proven guilty, just accused and arrested. Thousands of people mistakenly accused -- possibly including any of us -- would be tracked for life in a massive state criminal database, even if no crime was committed. DNA reveals intimate details about a person and his or her family -- including one's ethnic background, and any predisposition for diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, and cancer. Innocent people don't belong in such an invasive government database.

Prop. 69 is opposed by California's Democratic, Green, and Libertarian parties, by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, League of Women Voters, Children's Defense Fund, Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Black Police Association, and more than 30 newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, San Jose Mercury News, San Diego Union Tribune and Orange County Register. We urge you to vote "NO" on Prop. 69.

For more information on Proposition 69, see: http://www.protectmydna.com/

We've attached links to editorials supporting these positions below.

Thanks for your commitment to ensuring a bright future for California and America.

- Carrie, Joan, Lee, Marika, Noah, Peter, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
October 28th, 2004

P.S.: Here are a few key editorials supporting these positions:

Yes on Prop. 72: Save Affordable Health Insurance San Francisco Bay Guardian, October 13, 2004

Super-Sized Deception From Fast-Food Giants Los Angeles Times, October 24, 2004 COMMENTARY By Eric Schlosser, author of "Fast Food Nation"

Yes on Prop. 59: A More Open Government Serves the State Sacramento Bee, September 16, 2004

Yes on Prop 66: Vote for Three Strikes Reform Los Angeles Times, October 5, 2004

Yes on Prop. 71: Yes to Stem-Cell Research Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2004

No on Proposition 64: It's a Shakedown of Public Protections Sacramento Bee, September 17, 2004

No on 69: A Risk-Filled Use of DNA Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2004

(0) comments
California Voting Initiatives

I'm just giving you the gist, the source links give the pro/con + analysis

Proposition 59 Breakdown:


The State Constitution generally does not address the public's access to government information. California, however, has a number of state statutes that provide for the public's access to government information, including documents and meetings.

Access to Government Documents. There are two basic laws that provide for the public's access to government documents:

- The California Public Records Act...
- The Legislative Open Records Act...

Access to Government Meetings. There are several laws that provide for the public's access to government meetings:
- The Ralph M. Brown Act...
- The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act ...
- The Grunsky-Burton Open Meeting Act ...

Some Information Exempt From Disclosure. While these laws provide for public access to a significant amount of information, they also allow some information to be kept private. Many of the exclusions are provided in the interest of protecting the privacy of members of the public. For instance, medical testing records are exempt from disclosure. Other exemptions are provided for legal and confidential matters. For instance, governments are allowed to hold closed meetings when considering personnel matters or conferring with legal counsel.


This measure adds to the State Constitution the requirement that meetings of public bodies and writings of public officials and agencies be open to public scrutiny. The measure also requires that statutes or other types of governmental decisions, including those already in effect, be broadly interpreted to further the people's right to access government information. The measure, however, still exempts some information from disclosure, such as law enforcement records. Under the measure, future governmental actions that limit the right of access would have to demonstrate the need for that restriction.

The measure does not directly require any specific information to be made available to the public. It does, however, create a constitutional right for the public to access government information. As a result, a government entity would have to demonstrate to a somewhat greater extent than under current law why information requested by the public should be kept private. Over time, this change could result in additional government documents being available to the public.

By potentially increasing the amount of government information required to be made public, the measure could result in some minor annual costs to state and local governments.

read the full prop

Proposition 60

This proposition centers around State Primaries...here's an excerpt:

This measure would state that a political party that participated in a primary election for a partisan office has the right to participate in the general election for that office and shall not be denied the ability to place on the general election ballot the candidate who received, at the primary election, the highest vote among that party's candidates. (2) The Economic Recovery Bond Act authorizes the issuance of bonds to finance the accumulated state budget deficit, as defined.

From what I could gather, the PRO argument is that this prop contributes to open debate via primaries, protects voter choice, and is in direct opposition to PROP 62. Prop 60 is supported by:

Institute for the Study of Politics & Media
California State University, Sacramento

GEORGE N. ZENOVICH, Associate Justice, Retired
5th District Court of Appeal

While the CON says the prop doesn't go far enought to ensure these measures and still leaves loop-holes for special interests to take advantage of.

full PROP text

PROP 63...

Provides funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors. Requires state to develop mental health service programs including prevention, early intervention, education and training programs. Creates new commission to approve certain county programs and expenditures. Imposes additional 1% tax on taxable income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs.

Provides funds to counties to expand services and develop innovative programs and integrated service plans for mentally ill children, adults and seniors. Requires state to develop mental health service programs including prevention, early intervention, education and training programs. Creates new commission to approve certain county programs and expenditures. Imposes additional 1% tax on taxable income over $1 million to provide dedicated funding for expansion of mental health services and programs. Current funding for mental health programs may not be reduced because of funding from new tax. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Additional revenues of approximately $250 million in 2004-05, $680 million in 2005-06, $700 million in 2006-07, and increasing amounts annually thereafter, with comparable increases in expenditures by the state and counties for the expansion of mental health programs. Unknown savings to the state and local agencies potentially amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually on a statewide basis from reduced costs for state prison and county jail operations, medical care, homeless shelters, and social services programs that would partly offset the additional cost of this measure.

full article

Proposition 64

Limitations on Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute.

PRO argues that this will prevent small businesses from getting dragged into frivolous lawsuits.

CON argues that this would limit the rights of Californian's to enforce environmental, public health, privacy, and consumer protection laws. Seems to be drafted by big business. These groups are against it: AARP

California Nurses Association
California League of Conservation Voters
Consumers Union
Sierra Club California
Congress of California Seniors
Center for Environmental Health
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

California's unfair competition law prohibits any person from engaging in any unlawful or fraudulent business act. Examples of this type of lawsuit include cases involving deceptive or misleading advertising or violations of state law intended to protect the public well-being, such as health and safety requirements.

Currently, a person initiating a lawsuit under the unfair competition law is not required to show that he/she suffered injury or lost money or property...

Currently, persons initiating unfair competition lawsuits do not have to meet the requirements for class action lawsuits. Requirements for a class action lawsuit include (1) certification by the court of a group of individuals as a class of persons with a common interest, (2) demonstration that there is a benefit to the parties of the lawsuit and the court from having a single case, and (3) notification of all potential members of the class.

In cases brought by the Attorney General or local public prosecutors, violators of the unfair competition law may be required to pay civil penalties up to $2,500 per violation. Currently, state and local governments may use the revenue from such civil penalties for general purposes.

This measure makes the following changes to the current unfair competition law:

Restricts Who Can Bring Unfair Competition Lawsuits...

Requires Lawsuits Brought on Behalf of Others to Be Class Actions...

Restricts the Use of Civil Penalty Revenues...

This measure would have an unknown fiscal impact on state support for local trial courts.

full article

Proposition 72

Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendments to Health Care Coverage Requirements.

..this petition will prevent implementation of Chapter 673, Statutes of 2003, previously approved by the Legislature and Governor, unless and until it is approved by a majority of voters. Measure creates mandatory employee health care benefits program for employers with 20 or more employees. Employees working 100 hours per month are covered. Fee for coverage paid at least 80% by employer and up to 20% by employee contribution. Exempts employers for providing alternative coverage.


...skyrocketing cost.. [Californians].. pay for health care.

Many companies are forcing employees to pay more for health care through higher premiums or cuts in coverage... Many employees are going without the medical care and prescription drugs their families need, creating a health care crisis in California.

72 makes sure that private health insurance remains within reach.

72 WILL LIMIT WHAT EMPLOYEES PAY FOR HEALTH CARE...ENSURES COVERAGE YOU NEEd...PROTECTS TAXPAYERS...less $$ to emergency room visits because more people would be covered...72 protects responsible companies from unfair competition by requiring all large and mid-sized companies to pay for health care for employees.
Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, says, "After studying Proposition 72, we conclude it is a necessary step forward that protects health coverage for working Californians."
supported by:

RICHARD HOLOBER, Executive Director
Consumer Federation of California

California Nurses Association

RICHARD F. CORLIN, M.D., Past President
California Medical Association & American Medical Association

CON Argument:

Real health care reform should control costs and cover more people, but Proposition 72 fails that test...creates a huge government-run health care system funded by an estimated $7 billion in new taxes by 2007 on employers and workers... may hurt people who already have health coverage through their employer...BUREAUCRATS GIVEN TOO MUCH POWER... The Orange County Register called it health care with, "the bedside manner of the DMV."...PAY WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT...


Proposition 72 will damage California's economy and mean MORE PEOPLE WITHOUT INSURANCE because thousands will lose their jobs as companies close or move out of state. California businesses already struggling with high workers' comp and energy costs just can't afford billions in new health care costs...Nonprofit organizations like Easter Seals and the Goodwill of Long Beach and South Bay oppose Prop. 72 because it makes it harder to provide services to people in need.


California Chamber of Commerce

Association of California School Administrators

JAMES G. KNIGHT, M.D., 2003 President
San Diego Medical Society


...based upon a 2001 survey, an estimated 6.3 million nonelderly Californians lacked health coverage at some point during the year. These individuals are likely to receive medical assistance from county indigent health care programs or through the charitable activities of health care providers or pay for it themselves. Surveys indicate that of the nonelderly uninsured individuals, more than four out of five are either employed or are family members of someone who is working.

Some of the medical costs incurred by uninsured persons are indirectly shifted by health care providers to others who have health coverage, in effect adding to the cost of their health insurance. There are also indications that the number of employees who are uninsured may be adding to the costs of workers' compensation insurance, which includes medical coverage for on-the-job injuries.

In 2003, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed Senate Bill 2 (Chapter 673) to expand health insurance coverage beginning in 2006 for employees of certain employers and, in some cases, their dependents. The law also established a program to assist lower-income employees with paying their share of health care premiums.

The new law would have gone into effect January 1, 2004. However, Proposition 72, a referendum on this new law, subsequently qualified for the statewide ballot. As a result, SB 2 was put "on hold" and will take effect only if Proposition 72 is approved by the voters at the November 2004 election.


If approved, this proposition would allow the provisions of SB 2 to go into effect. Health care researchers have estimated that the provisions of SB 2 could eventually result in more than 1 million uninsured employees and dependents receiving health coverage. The major provisions of SB 2 are described below.

"Pay or Play" Requirement for Employers

Senate Bill 2 enacts a "pay or play" system of health coverage for certain employers. Under the system, specified California employers would be required to pay a fee to the state to provide health insurance (in other words, "pay") for their employees and in some cases, for their dependents. Alternatively, the employer could choose to arrange directly with health insurance providers for coverage (in other words, "play") for these individuals.

Both "pay" and "play" employers are required to pay a fee to the state to support a state health insurance purchasing program. Employers choosing to arrange their own health coverage (in some cases by continuing or modifying the coverage now provided to their employees) would receive a credit that would fully offset their fee. In order for an employer to qualify for a fee offset, the employer would have to provide specified types of coverage. Employers would be responsible for at least 80 percent of the cost of the fee, with the balance borne by their employees. The fee would be collected from emp

Full article

Proposition 61

Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute

Authorizes $750,000,000 in general obligation bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund grants to eligible children's hospitals for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals. Twenty percent of bonds shall be available for grants to certain University of California general acute care hospitals, and eighty percent of the bonds shall be available for grants to other general acute care hospitals whose missions focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, heart defects, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, and which meet other stated requirements. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Assuming 30-year bonds at an interest rate of 5.5 percent, the state cost would be about $1.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($750 million) and interest ($800 million) on the bonds. Payments of about $50 million per year. This measure would also result in minor administrative costs to the California Health Facilities Financing Authority.

full article

Proposition 62

Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Proposition 62

Elections. Primaries.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.


California generally holds two statewide elections to elect a candidate to public office-a primary election (in March) and a general election (in November). Some public offices (such as the Governor and members of the Legislature) are partisan, which means that a candidate represents a political party in an election. For partisan offices, the primary election determines each political party's nominee for the office. The candidate receiving the most votes among a party's candidates is that party's nominee for the general election. In the general election, voters then choose among all of the parties' nominees, as well as any independent candidates, to elect a candidate to office. Other offices (such as the Superintendent of Public Instruction and local officials) are nonpartisan, which means that a candidate does not represent a political party. For these nonpartisan offices, the primary election generally reduces the field of candidates by advancing the top two vote-getters to the general election.

For every primary election, each county prepares a ballot and related materials for each political party. Those voters affiliated with political parties receive their party's ballot. Voters with no party affiliation generally receive ballots related only to nonpartisan offices and propositions. This system is known as a "closed" primary since voters of one party cannot vote for candidates of any other party. (In California, parties may allow voters with no party affiliation to receive their party's ballot. Three parties chose to allow this for the March 2004 election.) Figure 1 compares this type of primary system with several other systems, including the one proposed by this measure.

In March 1996, California voters approved Proposition 198, which created a "blanket" primary system. Proposition 198 allowed all voters, regardless of party affiliation, to vote for any candidate in a primary election. As with the existing system, the candidate from each party receiving the most votes in the primary appeared on the general election ballot. This system was used for primaries in 1998 and 2000. The United States Supreme Court, however, ruled in June 2000 that this system was unconstitutional and could no longer be used. As a result, the state returned to using party-specific ballots for primaries in 2002.


Changes to Primary System. This measure amends both the State Constitution and state statutes to make changes to primary elections. For most state and federal elected offices, this measure allows voters-including those not affiliated with a political party-to vote for any candidate regardless of the candidate's political party. The measure applies to the election of state constitutional officers, members of the Legislature, and members of Congress. The measure, however, does not apply to the election of the U.S. President or political party committees. If approved, the new system would be used beginning with the March 2006 primary.

Under the measure, each county would prepare for use by all voters a single, primary ballot covering most offices. (There would, however, be a separate party-specific ballot for U.S. President and political party committees.) Candidates affiliated with parties and independent candidates would appear on the primary ballot. In each primary, only the top two vote-receiving candidates-regardless of party identification-would be placed on the general election ballot. These two candidates would be the candidates on the general election ballot. (A write-in candidate could increase the number of general election candidates.)

Comparison to Proposition 198. As under Proposition 198, the measure would not require a voter to select candidates from the same party for all office.

full article

Proposition 65

Local Government Funds and Revenues. State Mandates. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Proposition 65

Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.


Local Government Funding

California has over 5,000 local governments-cities, counties, special districts, and redevelopment agencies-that provide services such as fire and police protection, water, libraries, and parks and recreation programs. Local governments pay for these programs and services with money from local taxes, fees, and user charges; state and federal aid; and other sources. Three taxes play a major role in local finance because they raise significant sums of general-purpose revenues that local governments may use to pay for a variety of programs and services. These three taxes-the property tax, the local sales tax, and the vehicle license fee (VLF)-are described in Figure 1.

State Authority Over Local Finance

The State Constitution and existing statutes give the Legislature authority over the three major taxes described in Figure 1. For example, the Legislature has some authority to change tax rates; items subject to taxation; and the distribution of tax revenues among local governments, schools, and community college districts. The state has used this authority for many purposes, including increasing funding for local services, reducing state costs, reducing taxation, and addressing concerns regarding funding for particular local governments. Figure 2 describes some past actions the Legislature has taken, as well as actions that the state was considering during the summer of 2004 (at the time this analysis was prepared).

Requirement to Reimburse for State Mandates

The State Constitution generally requires the state to reimburse local governments, schools, and community college districts when the state "mandates" a new local program or higher level of service. For example, the state requires local agencies to post agendas for their hearings. As a mandate, the state must pay local governments, schools, and community college districts for their costs to post these agendas. Because of the state's budget difficulties, the state has not provided mandate reimbursements in recent years. Currently, the state owes these local agencies about $2 billion for prior-years' costs of state-mandated programs.

full article

Proposition 66

Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.

Proposition 66

Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment.
Initiative Statute.


There are three kinds of crimes: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. A felony is the most serious type of crime. About 18 percent of persons convicted of a felony are sent to state prison. The rest are supervised on probation in the community, sentenced to county jail, or both.

Existing law classifies some felonies as "violent" or "serious," or both. Of the inmates sentenced to prison in 2003, approximately 30 percent were convicted for crimes defined as serious or violent. Examples of felonies currently defined as violent include murder, robbery, and rape and other sex offenses. Felonies defined as serious include the same offenses defined as violent felonies, but also include other offenses such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit robbery. There are other felonies that are not classified as violent or serious, such as grand theft and possession of a controlled substance.

As of April 2004, there were about 163,000 inmates in California prisons, as well as some state-contracted facilities. The costs to operate the state prison system in 2004-05 are estimated to be approximately $5.7 billion.

Three Strikes. Proposition 184 (commonly referred to as the "Three Strikes and You're Out" law) was adopted by the voters in 1994. It imposed longer prison sentences for certain repeat offenders. Specifically, it requires that a person who is convicted of a felony and who has been previously convicted of one or more violent or serious felonies, be sentenced to state prison as follows:

Second Strike Offense. If the person has one previous serious or violent felony conviction, the sentence for any new felony conviction (not just a serious or violent felony) is twice the term otherwise required under law for the new conviction. Offenders sentenced by the courts under this provision are often referred to as "second strikers." As of March 2004, about 35,000 inmates were second strikers.

Third Strike Offense. If the person has two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for any new felony conviction (not just a serious or violent felony) is life imprisonment with the minimum term being 25 years. Offenders convicted under this provision are frequently referred to as "third strikers." As of March 2004, about 7,000 inmates were third strikers.

Sex Offenses. California law sets penalties for a variety of sex offenses, including sex offenses committed against children. Current law requires a prison sentence of 3, 6, or 8 years (depending on the circumstances of the crime) for anyone convicted of sexual penetration or oral copulation with a minor who is under the age of 14 and more than 10 years younger than the offender.


This measure amends the Three Strikes law and also amends the law relating to sex crimes against children. These changes are described below.

Three Strikes Law

New Crime Must Be Violent or Serious. This measure requires that an offender would be subject to a longer sentence under the Three Strikes law only if the conviction for the new crime is for a violent or serious felony, instead of any felony as provided under current law.

Narrows Felonies Considered Violent or Serious. This measure reduces the number of felony offenses considered serious or violent. Figure 1 lists for illustration purposes selected felonies that would no longer be considered serious or violent. These changes are not limited to convictions under the Three Strikes law and, therefore, would also affect some other aspects of sentencing, such as the amount of credits inmates can earn towards a reduced sentence.

full article

Proposition 67

Emergency and Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Proposition 67

Emergency Medical Services.
Funding. Telephone Surcharge.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.


Emergency Telephone Number Surcharge

Currently, telephone service customers in California pay a monthly surcharge that supports the state's 911 emergency telephone number system. Under current law, the surcharge rate can be set up to 0.75 percent of a customer's monthly bill for telephone services for calls made within the state. The surcharge applies to each separate telephone bill a customer may receive. The state has currently set the surcharge rate at 0.72 percent.

Revenues from the surcharge are deposited into the State Emergency Telephone Number Account (911 Account), which is available for expenditure upon appropriation by the Legislature. The revenues are used to reimburse government agencies and telephone companies for equipment and related costs associated with California's 911 emergency telephone number system. Due to an increase in the number of cellular phone accounts, the 911 Account has maintained a reserve that has ranged from $15 million to $80 million in recent years. The revenue received from the surcharge in 2002-03 was $139 million. The Department of General Services and the Board of Equalization are responsible for administering the 911 Account.

Proposition 99

The Tobacco Tax and Health Protection Act (Proposition 99, enacted by the voters in 1988) assessed a $0.25 per pack tax on cigarette products that is allocated for specified purposes. In 2004-05, the state is projected to receive approximately $334 million in Proposition 99 revenues. Because the number of tobacco users is declining, this funding source has and will likely continue to decrease. Currently, the state utilizes Proposition 99 funding for a number of health-related purposes, including tobacco education and prevention efforts, tobacco-related disease research, environmental protection and recreational resource programs, and health care services for low-income uninsured persons.

Uncompensated Emergency Medical Care

Under state and federal law, any person seeking emergency medical care must be provided that care regardless of his or her ability to pay. As a result, hospitals and physicians who provide emergency and trauma care are often not fully compensated for the care they provide. The amount spent today by physicians and hospitals on uncompensated emergency medical care is not known. Physicians and hospitals reported that, in 2000-01, their cost for this care was approximately $540 million. However, this estimate may be low because physicians and hospitals may have underreported the cost of the care that they provided.

Some of the cost of this uncompensated care is partly paid from various state and county government sources. For example, the state currently budgets about $32 million in Proposition 99 funds to help pay for uncompensated medical care provided by physicians and community clinics.

Also, under existing law, each county is allowed to establish a Maddy Emergency Medical Services Fund (Maddy Fund) made up of specified revenues from criminal fines and penalties. Counties may use up to 10 percent of these revenues for the cost of administering the fund. After these costs have been deducted, 58 percent of the remaining funds are to be used to reimburse physicians for uncompensated emergency and trauma care, 25 percent to reimburse hospitals for such care, and 17 percent for other emergency medical services such as regional poison control centers.

Even with these funds, hospitals and physicians generally are not compensated for all of the emergency and trauma care that they provide.

Provides funding for emergency personnel training and equipment, reimbursement for uncompensated emergency physician care, uncompensated community clinic care, emergency telephone system improvements, and to hospitals for emergency services. Commission to administer physician funding. Funded by: Addition of 3% to surcharge rate on telephone use within California; portions of tobacco taxes; criminal and traffic penalties. Monthly cap of 50 cents on surcharge collected by residential service providers, but not cell phone or business lines. Excludes funding from government appropriations limitations, and telephone surcharge from Proposition 98's school spending requirements. Summary of estimate of Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Increased revenues of about $550 million annually from increased charges on telephone usage for emergency care services and other specified purposes. These revenues would probably grow in future years.

full article

Proposition 68

Tribal Gaming Compact Renegotiation. Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Authorizes Governor to renegotiate tribal-state compacts to require that tribes: Pay 25% of slot machine/gaming device revenues to government fund; comply with multiple state laws; accept state court jurisdiction. Unless all compacted tribes accept terms within 90 days, or if terms determined unlawful, authorizes 16 specified non-tribal racetracks and gambling establishments to operate 30,000 slot machines/gaming devices, paying 33% of revenues to fund public safety, regulatory, social programs. Provides exemption from future state/local tax increases. Limits new tribal gaming. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal effect: Increased local government revenues of likely over $1 billion annually from new gambling revenues. The revenues would be used primarily for additional firefighting, police, and child protective services.

Proposition 69

DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute.

Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from adults and juveniles arrested for or charged with specific crimes, and submission to state DNA database; and, in five years, from adults arrested for or charged with any felony. Authorizes local law enforcement laboratories to perform analyses for state database and maintain local database. Specifies procedures for confidentiality and removing samples from databases. Imposes additional monetary penalty upon certain fines/forfeitures to fund program. Designates California Department of Justice to implement program, subject to available moneys: Authorizes $7,000,000 loan from Legislature for implementation. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would result in the following direct fiscal effects: Unknown annual state costs potentially over $10 million initially, increasing to a couple tens of millions of dollars when fully implemented to collect, analyze, and store increased DNA samples. These costs would be partially offset by increased criminal penalty revenues. Unknown annual local costs potentially several million dollars initially, increasing to over $10 million when fully implemented to collect DNA samples. These costs could be offset by increased criminal penalty revenues.

full article

Proposition 70

Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Requires Governor to offer renewable 99-year gaming compacts to federally recognized Indian tribes providing: exclusive gaming rights on Indian land; no limits on number of machines, facilities, types of games; contribution to state fund of portion of net tribal gaming income, based on prevailing state corporate tax rate; off-reservation environmental impact reports, public notice/comment opportunities before significant expansion or construction of gaming facilities. Contributions are in lieu of any other fees, taxes or levies. Contributions terminate if state permits non-tribal casino-type gaming. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal effect: Increased state gaming revenues - potentially several hundreds of millions of dollars annually. These revenues could increase significantly over time.

full article

Proposition 71

Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Establishes "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" to regulate stem cell research and provide funding, through grants and loans, for such research and research facilities. Establishes constitutional right to conduct stem cell research; prohibits Institute's funding of human reproductive cloning research. Establishes oversight committee to govern Institute. Provides General Fund loan up to $3 million for Institute's initial administration/implementation costs. Authorizes issuance of general obligation bonds to finance Institute activities up to $3 billion subject to annual limit of $350 million. Appropriates monies from General Fund to pay for bonds. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State cost of about $6 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($3 billion) and interest ($3 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $200 million per year.

full article

Proposition 1A

Torlakson. Protection of Local Government Revenues.

the entire analysis is here

Proposition 60A

Surplus Property. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

This amendment proposed by Senate Constitutional Amendment 18 of the 2003?2004 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 103, Statutes of 2004) expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

That Section 9 is added to Article III thereof, to read: SEC. 9. The proceeds from the sale of surplus state property occurring on or after the effective date of this section, and any proceeds from the previous sale of surplus state property that have not been expended or encumbered as of that date, shall be used to pay the principal and interest on bonds issued pursuant to the Economic Recovery Bond Act authorized at the March 2, 2004, statewide primary election. Once the principal and interest on those bonds are fully paid, the proceeds from the sale of surplus state property shall be deposited into the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, or any successor fund. For purposes of this section, surplus state property does not include property purchased with revenues described in Article XIX or any other special fund moneys.

full article

List and Background Info on all CA Initiatives

Link to find out who's funding who?

(0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?