Common ground with Pat Robertson?

I disagree with Pat Robertson more often than any other person on the national stage in the past thirty years. Here's a guy who wanted to nuke the State Department under the Bush 43 administration. He can get up a hatred for Hindus and Presbyterians that most right-wing whack jobs reserve for the Muslims and nobody else. He has said the Antichrist is probably alive today and is a Jew living in Israel. He was pro-apartheid and he is still pro-assassination.

Think of a crazy person on the national stage and Pat probably has that guy (or gal) beat in spades and trump.

So it definitely counts as news that Pat Robertson has come out in favor of marijuana de-criminalization. I don't know what has changed his mind or made him choose now to make his feelings known, but after countless decades of the war on drugs, Pat has come to the remarkably sane conclusion that it's not working very well. He thinks putting young people through the criminal justice system for a small amount of weed is ruining their lives for no good reason. My best guess is that some of his parishioners or relatives have kids put through the hell of a criminal record following them around, making it harder to get jobs or attend school, and because he thinks of the kids he knows as good people, maybe he realizes they are just representatives of the thousands of people in the same situation.

Agreeing with Pat Robertson feels funny, and not funny in a good way. I almost wonder if I'm missing part of the equation, but no. I've got it right and he's got it right. We just need some politicians to realize it's up to them to stop doing something that isn't working and to try something new.

I guess we should give the baby Jesus some credit for finally knocking some sense into the good Reverend's noggin, because somebody who Robertson thinks is the baby Jesus has been knocking the crazy into his head since the Truman administration, if not earlier.

Endorsements on the local and state ballots

There are many races in the mid-term elections about which I have strong negative feelings. I really don't want to see Meg Whitman become governor, which means I kinda do want to see Jerry Brown win. I don't want Carly Fiorina, a dreadful class warrior and American job killer, elected to the senate. This means I back Barbara Boxer. For me, it's a little easier backing Boxer than Brown, but in both these cases, it's more about the unacceptable alternative.

Yesterday, I sent money to four campaigns because I feel positively about them. These are the candidates and propositions I wholeheartedly endorse on the ballot.

Jerry Ellis Powell is running for the at large seat on the AC Transit Board of Directors. He is a former student of mine and new to politics. He is running as an outsider who wants to look out for the interests of the people who use the bus service. I can think of no better motive to run for office and he has my full support.

Michael Nava is running for superior court judge in San Francisco. He was one of the top two vote getters in June and is in a run-off election against an appointed incumbent. My blog buddy SFMike (Michael Strickland, not Michael Nava) has written extensively on Nava's campaign. I support Nava's efforts, though his name will not be on the ballot I cast, since I live in the East Bay and his race is a San Francisco city issue.


There are several ballot initiatives I support, but none is more important to me personally than Yes on 25. Currently, it takes a two-thirds majority to pass a budget in California. Yes on 25 will make it possible to pass a budget with a simple majority, though it will still take a two-thirds majority to raise taxes. Personally, I would like to see a smaller super-majority for tax increases, but politics is the art of the possible, and the change to majority rule on a budget vote is possible. Because many of my checks are signed by the state, this issue is very near and dear to my heart.


Because it is so hard to get tax increases, we need a new revenue stream that can't be dammed by the obstructionist Republican Party. Proposition 19 would decriminalize marijuana cultivation and tax the newly legal proceeds. It's hard to say how much money this generate, but even conservative guesses say it could be substantial.

Politicians will not end the war on drugs. The people need to get out in front if anything is going to happen. I am not a big marijuana enthusiast. I've smoked, I've inhaled, but I'm not very good at smoking in general and the pleasant effects of marijuana fight against a nasty feeling in my throat. I've tried pot brownies twice, once thirty years ago and again recently, and only a small amount can put me on my ass, and not in a nice way.

I don't want to see Prop. 19 passed to make it easier for me to buy drugs. Beer and wine are my drugs of choice and it's already legal for me to get them. I don't pretend it will have no negative effects on society. I want to see us try something different with regards to marijuana because I believe what we do now doesn't work even a little bit. We jail people for no good cause. The most logical use for ample illegal income sources is the widespread corruption of the police. With the extra revenue legal pot could bring in, state workers like me might have a little more job security. That is the main selfish reason I support Yes on 19.

If you can vote in favor of any of these candidates or propositions on your ballot this year, please do so. As I said before, these have my wholehearted support.