green LA girl

29-Day Giving Challenge: Day 9 — $25 to Clinton’s campaign

Posted by Siel in feminist/politics, challenges (April 23, 2008 at 8:46 pm)

[Part of my challenge to give something away every day for 29 days]

Got a lil behind this week due to Earth Day festivities. Meaning that today’s actually day 10 — and the freebie already went up — but I didn’t quite get a post up for yesterday.

Well, I’m still a Clinton fan, and I’m so psyched about her big Earth Day win in Pennsylvania that I’ve donated $25 more to her campaign.

Here are my reasons for supporting Hillary, and here’s where you can contribute too. You can donate as little as $5!


View my page on 29-Day Giving Challenge

0 Comments | Email this post


Vote 2008! President of the U.S.

Posted by Siel in feminist/politics (February 4, 2008 at 7:47 am)

How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008

My vote for President: Hillary Clinton

Let me preface this by saying I have nothing against Obama, and will not be upset if he wins.

But I think Hillary’s the better candidate.

Hillary’s experience — and relatedly, her long-time dedication to the issues I care about — is the deciding factor for me. Obama often gives me the impression that he’s making decisions on the fly, learning as he goes. Learning quickly’s great, but I’d rather vote for someone who’s already done more of this learning before entering the White house. Obama often seems to quickly take a stand — then qualify it later. On “clean coal,” for example, he first simply came out in support of it — then qualified it later to match Hillary’s stance.

At the CNN debate last week, Obama actually tried to make Hillary look like the flip-flopper, pointing out that she’s changed her stance on whether to give undocumented immigrants drivers’ licenses. Hillary then pointed out that he too had changed his stance on the issue — to which he could only nod in sheepish agreement. Why he even brought up the issue when he must’ve known he’d done the same position-changing, I don’t know. But his misguided tactic, to me, seemed like an example of his inexperience.

When it comes to health care, Obama’s platform seems extremely contradictory to me. Calling a voluntary program “universal health care” aside, Obama levels critiques against Hillary’s health care proposal that seem to even better fit his own proposal. For example, at the CNN debate, Obama said everyone who wants health insurance will be able to buy it because subsidies will be available for the poor. However, when referring to Hillary’s plan which also includes subsidies for the poor, Obama said “there’s still going to be people who can’t afford it.” Which is it?

Furthermore, he attacks Hillary’s plan, saying that mandating that people buy health care will require disciplinary measure for those who don’t comply. “Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” he asks, arguing that the poor who can’t afford to buy health care will be unduly punished. But then when asked what he’ll do when people who haven’t bought into his voluntary health care plan show up asking for care, Obama says we can address that “By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.” If that’s the case, Obama’s questions to Hillary about fining and garnishing wages of the poor who couldn’t afford to buy health insurance seems to apply to his program too.

In the end, I agree with Hillary’s assessment: “Now, in Barack’s plan, he very clearly says he will mandate that parents get health insurance for their children. So it’s not that he is against mandatory provisions, it’s that he doesn’t think it would be politically acceptable to require that for everyone.” I also think that Hillary has learned from her previous efforts to get a health care package passed, and has a better understanding of the negotiations necessary to get a package through this time around.

Of course, Hillary’s long-time experience means that she’s also made more visible mistakes — like voting to give Bush more authority to take military action in Iraq, which Hillary says was a decision made on the limited info available at that time. Since, Hillary’s actively and visibly critiqued the Bush administration’s involvement in Iraq on numerous occasions. Obama wasn’t in the senate at this time, so it’s difficult to see what he would’ve done in the situation. At this point, both Obama and Hillary say they’re getting us out of Iraq; I think Hillary is our best bet for getting us out safely, as quickly as possible.

On enviro issues, Obama and Hillary’s platforms are very similar — though I like Hillary’s more qualified stance on nuclear power. More importantly, Hillary showed up for Grist’s presidential forum on global warming and energy and displayed her knowledge of the science and policy issues around global climate change (see top video). David Roberts of Grist says that his impression at this debate was that “Clinton had the best grasp of the political and policy details.” Obama was MIA.

I really do like Obama, but most of what I like about him is what he symbolizes, not what he’s done or what he has been able to — or will be able to — achieve. With Hillary, we’ve seen what she’s done — both her failures and successes. The low points of course leave her more vulnerable to critique, but I believe she’s the more capable and promising candidate for successfully bringing about the many progressive changes we need in our government.

Tags: ,

14 Comments | Email this post


Vote 2008! Measure R: Funding public schools

Posted by Siel in losangeles, feminist/politics ( at 6:13 am)

How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008

My vote on Measure R: Yes

Well, the main pro-Measure R group, Campaign to Protect Quality Public Schools, gets the award for most mailers from one organization.

This measure is an annual parcel tax (a tax on property owners) that would supplement the operating budget of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. However, Measure R is not a new tax; it instead would replace two previous parcel taxes that are set to expire in the next few years.

Right now, Measure S charges property owners a flat $225 per parcel, and Measure Y charges roughly $121 per parcel with an annual Consumer Price Index increase. Combined, Measures S and Y brought in $10.4 million for the 2007-08 school year, according to the Santa Monica Daily Press.

Measure R would replace Measures S and Y. If passed, Measure R would charge up to $346 per parcel, and could be adjusted yearly for inflation, bringing in an estimated $10 million annually. And unlike Measures S and Y, Measure R doesn’t have an expiration date.

No one denies the school needs funding. Then who are against it? While there’s some quibbling over the fact that Measure R has no expiration date, the main issue appears to be that some people in Malibu who feel that their schools are not getting a fair share are calling for a no vote to “teach Santa Monica a lesson.” These opponents claim that they’re not getting a fair portion of the money from Measure BB passed in 2006. So, their idea’s to kill Measure R — then put a similar one on the ballot before Measure S expires in 2009.

Basically, even the opponents are for having a parcel tax to fund our schools; they just want to stick it to Santa Monica once before getting one passed. This seems to me a ridiculous reason to vote against a measure that everyone agrees is necessary. The Santa Monica City Council endorsed Measure R, as has Malibu’s Mayor (the Malibu City Council’s split on the issue). The Santa Monica-Malibu Council of PTAs also supports Measure R. I’m voting for.

Tags: , , , ,

3 Comments | Email this post


Vote 2008! Prop 94 - 97: Amending the Indian Gaming Compact

Posted by Siel in feminist/politics (February 3, 2008 at 8:23 pm)

How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008

My vote on Props 94 - 97: Leaning towards No

If it came down to a battle of mailers, Props 94 - 97 would get an enthusiastic yes. I got 9 pieces of mail telling me to vote yes, none telling me to vote against. Oddly, this just makes me more skeptical about a yes vote. Who are these moneyed people behind it, bombarding me with mailers?

Props 94 - 97 are pretty much identical, except each refers to one of four different Indian tribes. Each of these tribes wants to add slot machines to its casinos. Benefit for the state: about $9 billion for the state, derived from a payout of 15 - 25% of the net winnings of the added slot machines.

The debate for and against basically centers on whether this $9 billion is a fair share for the state. The L.A. Times says it’s a fair deal — and thinks the state will likely get even more than that. The SF Chronicle says the $9 billion isn’t a sudden windfall: “It would come between now and 2030 and the additional state revenue from the new slots would amount to, at best, perhaps one-tenth of 1 percent of the state’s budget.”

Honestly, I’m not sure what a fair share is. I also don’t particularly have anything against gambling (yes, it’s a problem for some, but everything’s a problem for some). There are some questions about oversight, workers’ rights and environmental impact issues, but just as it’s difficult to tell wether $9 billion is fair, it’s difficult to tell whether the provisions made to address these issues are adequate. Yes, there are clauses about environmental impact studies and independent audits, but the devil’s in the details, which aren’t in my voter’s guide. One side says the provisions are adequate, the other disagrees.

Labor’s against it, and apparently some environmental groups are against it — but the California League of Conservation Voters hasn’t come out on either side of the issue, and the enviro groups listed on the anti-94-to-97 group No Unfair Deals‘ website are not ones I recognize. When in doubt, I tend to vote no on propositions. That, combined with the fact that the independent audits of casino operations will not be made available to the public, has me thinking this’ll be a no vote from me.

Photo by Gambling

Tags: , , , , , ,

9 Comments | Email this post


Vote 2008! Prop 93: Changing term limits for the legislature

Posted by Siel in feminist/politics ( at 7:17 pm)

How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008

My vote on Prop 93: Yes

This measure changes the length of time a person can serve in the state legislature (made up of the assembly and the senate). Right now, a person can serve in the assembly for 6 years max, and in the senate for 8 years max — for a combined 14 years. If Prop 93 passes, the total time a person could serve in the legislature would decrease, from 14 years to 12 years. However, the measure also would also allow a person to spend all of those 12 years in either the assembly or the senate.

The benefit’s that by allowing legislators to serve longer in a single position would give them experience and expertise while encouraging long-term thinking.

So why the opposition? The fight’s not over the term limits themselves, but over the transitional clause that lets some current legislators serve out 12 years in their current positions — even if that’d mean they exceed 14 years total in the legislature. This is a big sore point for people who really don’t like some of the legislators currently in office. The SF Chronicle’s no position on the measure, for example, sounds more like a diatribe against Núñez and Perata than a sound evaluation of the proposition going beyond this transitional period.

If these legislators are doing such a terrible job, I say work to vote them out before they serve out their full terms. Don’t reject a proposition just because it’ll benefit a couple people you don’t like. The California League of Conservation Voters are for Prop 93, as are the CA Dems. So am I.

Photo by Andreas Pagel

Tags: , ,

2 Comments | Email this post


Vote 2008! Prop 92: More autonomy for community colleges?

Posted by Siel in losangeles, feminist/politics ( at 6:50 pm)

How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008

My vote on Prop 92: No

I’m all for community colleges, but this measure seems more like a power play than an effort to improve community colleges.

Right now, the state has to allocate a minimum of about 40% of its budget to K-14 (K-12 plus community college) education. Prop 92 would separate out the funding for community colleges from that for K-12 schools, creating minimum funding requirements for both. Community colleges would also get a bigger state governing board and more administrative authority.

The downside to splitting up the funding: Less flexibility as to how educational funds get spent, at a time when our demographics are shifting. Add to the the fact that the funding community colleges receive wouldn’t be tied to actual student enrollment, and this inflexibility starts sounding really bad. If Prop 92 passes, funding allocated for community colleges couldn’t be used for K-12 education even if enrollment at the former decreased and the latter increased.

The measure would also lower the community college education fees from $20 per unit to $15 per unit — and make it really difficult for the state to raise these fees again. While that sounds like it’ll make education more affordable for the less wealthy, people with financial need are already able to get fee waivers. In fact, about quarter of community college students already don’t pay any educational fees, according to the legislative analyst report in the voter’s guide. The LA Times notes that “In one recent year, 52% of community college students got fee waivers.” I’m voting no.

Tags: , ,

3 Comments | Email this post


Vote 2008! Prop 91: An already-dead measure

Posted by Siel in feminist/politics, de-car-ing ( at 6:19 pm)

How I’m voting for the environment on Feb. 5, 2008

My vote on Prop 91: No

The no vote on this should be a no brainer, since the people who put the measure on the ballot in the first place are now urging you to vote no.

Why? Prop 1A, which passed in 2006, basically takes care of the issues that this measure tries to achieve — which is to prevent the state from siphoning off transportation money for the state’s general fund. (Incidentally, I voted against Prop 1A because the measure didn’t seem to promise much for public transit. It passed overwhelmingly without me.).

The measure, by and large, appears dead — except for at MetroRiderLA, where calwatch and others are pushing for a yes vote, arguing that Prop 91 will close even more loopholes than Prop 1A. However, what I gather from the analysis is that Prop 91 would close one loophole but open another huge loophole with negative consequences for public transit. I go into more detail on this in my comment on MetroRiderLA. Unless I hear back from the supporters at MetroRiderLA to convince me my current understanding is incorrect, I’m voting no.

Photo by andropolis

Tags: , ,

6 Comments | Email this post


Vote! Feb. 5, 2008

Posted by Siel in losangeles, feminist/politics ( at 6:10 pm)

Here’s how I’m voting on Feb. 5, and why. I really should’ve started my voter research earlier, but luckily, I don’t have to vote on as many people and measures as I have in previous election days. Each will be updated with my vote as I get the posts up –

President of the U.S.: Hillary Clinton

State Propositions

Prop 91: No

Prop 92: No

Prop 93: Yes

Prop 94 - 97: A tentative No

Local Measure for Santa Monica-Malibu Unif. School District

Measure R: Yes

Tags: ,

1 Comments | Email this post


Enviro events before the CNN Democratic Debate at Kodak Theatre today

Posted by Siel in environment, losangeles, feminist/politics, events (January 31, 2008 at 8:11 am)

Due to overbooking, I won’t be able to make the hoopla happening in front of the Kodak Theatre in conjunction with the CNN Democratic Debate today. I won’t even be able to make the Westside Extension meeting about the Subway to the Sea (though I plan to go to a later one).

But in case your sched’s free and clear today, here’s a couple events you’ll be interested in:

Put the heat on the media to ask presidential candidates about global warming. The California League of Conservation Voters says the “most-watched reporters” are not asking presidential candidates about global warming issues: “Since January 2007, they have asked presidential candidates a total of 2,938 questions. Just 6 of those questions mentioned global warming.” Thus, they’re rallying about it in front of the Kodak Theater, starting at 2:30 pm.

Get presidential candidates to make parks a campaign issue by supporting Teddy Mather — a.k.a. a costumed bear — for the presidency. The National Parks Conservation Association will be demonstrating in front of the Kodak Theatre today starting at 4 pm. You can greet the bear and sign NPCA’s petition.

2 Comments | Email this post


Blog for Choice: A roundup, cuz it’s late

Posted by Siel in feminist/politics (January 22, 2008 at 10:02 pm)

All that plastic bag stuff threw me for a loop — and now I’m blogging late night for choice — because today’s Blog for Choice Day. The upside: All sortsa interesting stuff’s already been written, and I can just link to some of the stuff I like:

>> In Slate, William Saletan calls for a more frank discussion of sex and abortion. I disagree with NARAL president Nancy Keenan’s quote that “In a perfect world, no teenager would be having sex,” but I’m all for more frank discussions.

>> In Salon, Catherine Price dissects the men’s post-abortion syndrome (PAS) movement and asks what would have happened if the man had had the right to force the woman not to have had the abortion.

>> Susan Wicklund, a dedicated doc traveling all over to provide women with abortion services, wrote a book about her work: “This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor.” Read a Q&A with Susan. “The majority of physicians who are providing abortions now are my age and older, in our 50s and 60s. Many of them are motivated to do this because they saw women dying from illegal abortions when they were in their residency programs…. The problem now is to try to find young physicians who understand that abortion care should be part of their entire practice.”

>> Leading feminists talk about Roe v. Wade. Says Frances Kissling: “More than anything I am worried about how much it costs and how little we are doing about that. I want to see those of us who are pro-choice match the personal commitment anti-choice people make to help women continue their pregnancies with equal help for women who can’t afford abortion.”

Tags: , ,

0 Comments | Email this post


Next Page »


idealbite eco tips

Advertise with
green blogs!


Advertise with
Blogs of LA