During college a friend told me I should keep up with news and current events so that my thoughts and what I said would be socially relevant. I didn't much like the idea, but I have to admit it makes sense. (The reason I didn't much like it was that what I thought was relevant was that society was crap.)
In honor of his advice which does make sense after all, this month I decided to be socially relevant at least once. Or twice, but that's another story.
The "once" this month is that I voted and can share my thoughts about how I voted. I mean what could be more socially relevant than that, on an elemental, obvious level? (One could argue that voting is not relevant, but I'm being simple here; don't spoil it.) It even feels important in some kind of "Political" way, whatever that means. So here goes:
Step 1: When the sample-ballot-and-voter-information-pamphlet comes, save it well enough that I can find it when voting day comes.
Step 2: One should actually study it early, although I didn't.
Step 3: Sometime (for me, it was an hour or two before voting -- not recommended timing, but better than nothing), find that ballot-pamphlet and study it. Most of it didn't interest me. I decided I really ought to vote for the biggest race: the one for governor. I read the statements about the candidates -- not in the pamphlet -- it doesn't have that useful thing -- but online, preempting my daughter on the computer because I have this outstandingly good excuse to use the computer; it's for my civic duty.
Jerry Brown "reduced the `tax burden'". So what. It's not more or less tax that matters, it's what kind of taxation system that matters. And hardly anyone ever gets that deep in the discussion.
Chelene Nightingale "demanded secure borders & no amnesty" and has spoken at Tea Party events. I don't see anything good there. If they want security they should stop bombing the wrong countries by carelessness -- which makes lots of extra enemies and alienates friends -- a sure way to make your borders and everything else less secure. I don't know much about the Tea party, and don't want to, but I think they're supposed to be modeled after the Boston Tea Party in history which was about rebelling against an unjust taxation. That's okay but I think the modern so-called Tea Party just rebels against any taxation, without bothering to make distinctions, and I think that's just dumb.
Carlos Alvarez "led a protest to demand an end to Israel's massacre of Palestinians in Gaza. Organized a march of 4,000 people against the Iraq war." I can identify with both of those things.
Laura Wells "proposes a state bank for California" and "proposes an oil severance tax". I'm sure the oil severance tax is a good idea (it's a tax on taking or depleting a natural resource). The state bank for California is probably a good idea too: it might be a way to stabilize a banking system. Government does have some legitimate purposes, and regulating currency (closely related to banking) is probably one of them.
Meg Whitman -- I couldn't find a clear obvious statement about what she stands for. I had to scan her web page for a while. On education, it says she would put more control in the hands of local educators and parents ... and she would remove the state cap on the number of charter schools. But to my mind there's nothing obviously good about those things. Is she abandoning public education? Are charter schools better for society than are public schools? I myself would prefer to see more support for a good public education system.
Dale Ogden wants to "absolutely limit future spending increases". He just about lost me at that word "absolutely". I can't remember any occasion where the word "absolutely" was justified in any socially relevant discourse. Moving along, I see he's against increases in spending. But what kind of spending? All spending? From this short obvious bit that I read about him, he sounds like an airhead. Of course there should be some spending, and occasional increases or decreases in various kinds of spending.
That was the whole list of candidates for governor.
I had thought I might vote for Jerry Brown, though I couldn't say exactly why. Now, thanks to rational study, I can give my reason for my vote: I didn't vote for Jerry Brown because there was nothing obviously good about him. I voted for Carlos Alvarez because he did two good socially relevant things that hardly any candidates do.
Carlos Alvarez is against "the Iraq war". Starting the war in Iraq is the most obvious wrong that the United States has done in recent history.
Massacre'ing Palestinians in Gaza is a highly socially relevant issue and should be strongly opposed. (It's particularly socially relevant here in the U.S. because a portion of our taxes supports the Israeli brutality and virtually none of it benefits the Palestinians in any way -- yet there are more Palestinians than there are Israelis, and the Israelis don't need our money nearly so much as the Palestinians need us to stop giving it to the Israelis.)
I could have voted for Laura Wells. Why did I choose Carlos Alvarez over Laura Wells?
Laura Wells's proposals (state bank and oil severance tax) are sensible and down-to-earth. Such a candidate would even have a ghost of a chance of winning, as compared with Carlos Alvarez who had only half a ghost of a chance of winning.
The reason I favored Carlos Alvarez over Laura Wells is that war and massacres are a lot more important than are banks and taxes and even oil, and even pollution, and even (in my opinion) global pollution. War and massacres are more important than all these; because the Iraq war and the Israeli occupation of Palestine are so unjust, and our failure to oppose them is so bad, that all the world is worth a lot less because of it.
I'd rather vote for Carlos Alvarez, guessing that he'll probably lose, than vote for any of the other candidates, guessing that he or she would win. Without ranked choice voting, most of our votes don't really count meaningfully, but if I couldn't vote for a demand to end Israel's massacre'ing of Palestinians in Gaza, and if I couldn't vote against what this country did to Iraq, then my vote doesn't count for much anyway. I have no regrets at voting for Carlos Alvarez, win or lose. If our country goes down the tubes it won't be because of my vote for him. It'll be because of wrongful bombing by the U.S., of other parts of the world, actions which have to eventually come back and haunt or damage or destroy us.
The governor of California does not deploy bombs, but at least one governor of California went on to become President of the United States, an office which does have the power to deploy bombs.
Carlos Alvarez, even if he were eventually given that kind of power, is the candidate least likely to wrongfully bomb places in the world. But even without direct access to that kind of power, it is important to oppose big wrongs, and that opposition needs to occur anywhere in society, at the grassroots level and at leadership levels.
Not bombing wrongfully, not supporting wrongful bombing, and opposing wrongful bombing, all comprise the one most important issue, at virtually all levels of society today in the United States. Wrongful bombing is the one most important issue of our time, and that wrongful, unjust, cruel act will continue to be repeated until enough of us actively oppose it.
Step 4: Look at the rest of the ballot. I thought I might vote for lots of Democrats (as I have a very low opinion of what the Republican officials have been doing and saying this past decade), but then I remembered having written to one or more congresspeople and senators, saying to them: I won't vote for anyone who I think might support Israel's illegal settlements in Occupied Palestine. So, I left virtually all the candidate races blank, but I did vote for Carlos Alvarez. I strongly doubt that he would support Israel's illegal settlements in Occupied Palestine.
Issues (or "Measures"):
a parcel tax to support education: yes. It's a tax on land, which is a natural resource which no individual creates. It's the right thing to tax. And it's good to spend tax dollars on public education.
a "marijuana business tax" -- hmm. Why would a business tax, on any business, be a good idea, unless that business were depleting or taking natural resources away from the general public? I'd be inclined to vote no, but I don't understand the issue enough, so I leave it blank.
legalize marijuana -- yes. I am so sick of living in a society that subsidizes tobacco and imprisons marijuana smokers. It's been obvious for a very long time that tobacco (or nicotine in tobacco) is very addictive, and also I feel sure enough that it is harmful. One thing I've noticed about marijuana is that what's commonly said against it doesn't make much sense (particularly in light of the same people not saying as much against tobacco or alcohol).
suspend implementation of air pollution control law requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year:
That one is so long, I gave it its own paragraph just to state the question. When I read "suspend implementation of air pollution control", I was already inclined against it. But I couldn't be sure, at that point, because given what laws are, there might be some good reason for suspending the "implementation" of one. But when I read "until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent", it was all over. It is the wrong way to mix issues. It isn't right to allow unchecked pollution just so people can have "jobs". Instead, people should think outside that box, and think: healthier people could have better jobs, more jobs, and more meaningful jobs, in industries that don't pollute much at all. And they could breathe cleaner air, at home, at work, and while travelling.
Whoever thought "jobs" could only be gotten by polluting had a bad idea to begin with. Maybe we'd be better off if there were a lot fewer of _those_ kinds of jobs; because what good is a job, if the one thing that we know about it is that it is directly correlated with more pollution? That direct correlation is what's implied in the statement of the Measure. I voted against that Measure.
a parcel tax to pay for medical checkups, immunizations, and "early detection" (of illnesses, presumably), etc. Yes. A parcel tax is the right kind of taxation system, and public health is a correct pursuit of society and its government. I leave aside the question of whether immunizations as they exist today may sometimes be hazardous. Overall the whole goal, even just the immunization part of it, is good and right.
increase motor vehicle registration fee by $10, and spend the money on maintenance of roads and pollution mitigation projects etc. Yes. "Vehicles" as they exist today are a slow poison to everyone who lives near them. Because they pollute everyone's air (a natural resource that is inherited by all), of course they should be taxed and the proceeds should go to benefit the population at large.
Step 5: Leave blank all those issues and races for which I don't have a clear reason or at least a strong opinion. One of the best things about my ballots, virtually every time I vote, is that I leave most of my ignorance off the ballot, thereby increasing the effects of the votes of people who know more about those issues or those candidates than I do. It's my civic duty NOT to vote about things I cannot hope to make a wise decision about.
Step 6: Find the right polling place. The voter pamphlet tells the address. Upon going there, I find it's in a rather obscure corner and hard to find. So when you vote, allow some extra time to find the polling place, in case your polling place is not easy to find. On the other hand, if you are one of those people who vote about lots of things you don't understand, then take your time, and leave for the polls at the last minute possible. Everyone who thinks seriously about the issues will thank you for your overall carelessness, but only if you happen to arrive at the polls just after they close.
