Re Daniel's link, holy fuck.

I should probably head out to vote in a minute... finally (more or less) worked out how I'll vote, I think, unless I get waffly on some of the eleventy jillion initiatives on the CA ballot once I get to the polling place. I slogged through the enormous voter info book yesterday and came out mostly with a blinding hatred of the initiative process with a side of white-hot loathing for the Taxpayers Protection Society or whoever they are who are also loathed by Sean. I read all the initiatives and want to vote no on everything just to spite everyone, then I read the Taxpayers Whosits' arguments against the initiatives and I want to vote yes on everything just as a fuck you to them.

I'm definitely, absolutely voting no on the sex offenders initiative -- like Sean, I find it comforting to at least pretend that that's not the way we do things in this country. Also, as two different local papers pointed out, the provision that no registered sex offender may live within 2,000 feet of any school or park is severely WTF -- it makes practically every major urban center in the state (you know, all the places with large, solid law enforcement, counseling, rehab, job and housing assistance infrastructures) off-limits to any registered offender and makes them all, without exception, the problem of either rural areas, which will be much more ill equipped to deal with them, or other states.

Fucking whackadoo initiatives and tax asshattery have ruined this state. t /still bitter about having attended public school in post-Prop 13 California

As appalling as the sex-offender initiative is (and the abortion one, etc) this year's really appalling initiative on the CA ballot is 90. A friend of mine calls it "our generation's Prop 13."

this year's really appalling initiative on the CA ballot is 90.

Voted no!

What would 90 do?

ETA: (Imma smack the person who says one more thing than 89.)

Voted no!

Excellent.

What would 90 do?

From here.

Proposition 90 would amend the California Constitution by requiring the government to pay property owners for economic losses when new laws and rules are enacted that cause a decrease in property value. It would also limit the government's power to take ownership of private property. The measure's requirements would apply to all forms of California government, including city and county governments. Many backers of the proposition oppose the government taking away citizens property without recompense and believe the Prop. 90 will provide regulations to protect property owners. Opposition forces believe Proposition 90 is poorly written and will cost Californians millions when corporate landowners are reimbursed under the measure.

Skipping ahead, I was assuming the watch-and-post election returns would be in Natter, but apparently they're here?

We're currently bemoaning that NBC and such don't change until 10pm to election coverage, so we're choosing between CNN and Fox News (like that's much of a choice)...

Ooh! New word! "Dynamitard: A dynamiter." I love it. t starts list of people who may now be known as the Dynamitard

What would 90 do?

Sparky's link is good. It's basically a bunch of developers making it harder for any part of the state to declare eminent domain on their property (while not really protecting homeowners from the same), and giving said corps and developers a crapload of money when their property is taken away or devalued, again without necessarily doing the same for homeowners.

Election talk seems to be happening everywhere, meara.

It looks like they've called the OH governor's race for Strickland. wheeeeeeee

Sparky's link is good.

But Sean's summary gets to the heart of things. It's bad. Very, very bad.