In the 2006 Parliamentary Debate World Championship finals, American debater David Denton snapped that the other side "has a heart, but they simply don't have a head." Fittingly enough, Denton was arguing the invalidity of animal cruelty laws at the time, and especially in the case of Proposition 2, his accusation rings ominously true.

Conventional political sentiment tells us that we are either for a particular proposition, or against it. We are told to support Proposition 8 if we believe in traditional marriage, or against if we believe in equality. What about those who believe that a government authority empowered by a simple majority, should not have the authority to tell dissenters that they have to share the majority’s proclaimed moral virtues?

For those of you who have been following the non-partisanprimary initiative submitted by Steve Peace on September 29^th,you may have heard that it was recently withdrawn from submission. However, we have received word today that the initiative is merely beingrevised, rather than revoked.

Let's propose a thought experiment. Suppose someone approaches you and offers you the following deal: "If you sign my petition, I will give you ten thousand dollars, your car will crash in five days, your children will start skipping school, your church will burn down and your wife/husband will leave you." Let's also assume that you know that the person offering you this deal is in a position to deliver all the promised consequences. Would you take the deal?

I suppose it is not a widely held view, but suddenly I feel better about the America my twenty-something children are inheriting. As a parent I never did get comfortable with the giant rushing snowball culture that has characterized turn-of-the century America. I could never shake the nagging feeling that the fierce momentum of the economy left them chasing a train they could never catch and worse, denied them the validation they deserved for simply being good, caring people.

As noted in this report, implementation of Proposition 5 will be carried out by a governmental framework and discretionary judicial system that is outside of the normal oversight and regulatory controls of the State of California such as the Administrative Procedures Act. Therefore, in addition to meeting unfunded mandates, the state and its municipalities may have difficulty controlling costs associated with Proposition 5 once it comes into effect.

Remember the old days when the only way to make a phone call in public was to cocoon yourself in a tiny glass case, shut the door, drop a few dimes and dial a number? What were those ancient relics of yesteryear called again? Ah, that's right, phone booths. Try to find one of those on a street corner today, and you'll probably be out of luck. It appears that the same fate might befall another similar space: The voting booth.

Researches at the San Francisco Chronicle reported that proponents of Prop 1A, the bill that would allow bonds to be sold to finance a multi-billion dollar high speed rail link, have raised about $2 million for their cause.

In the Disney Corporation produced film version of “Robin Hood”, the villainous Prince John instructs his sheriff to “double the taxes, triple the taxes” and “squeeze every last drop out of those insolent, musical peasants!” He may as well have been describing California's taxation policy, a policy made all the more unpleasant and suspect due to its byzantine, obfuscatory language and seemingly endless loopholes. The tax code is so non-transparent that it’s doubtful even the tax collectors understand it, and no one would blame them.

The following are non-partisan economic research and studies in PDF form that discuss the direct economic impact that Proposition 1A would have on various regions of California:

High Speed Train System: Inland Empire Impact

The Economic Impact of High Speed Trains for Orange County