It’s here, it’s here, it’s here, it’s here, it’s here! I love elections. I love the election time of year and what elections represent and getting to know candidates and exercising freedom and the right to vote and basically everything else about it.
Elections! Yeah!
I love it all, except one thing: Elections tend to somehow put a spotlight on people who don’t like elections. These are the sort of folks who look at 6,000 words of interviews with local candidates and say, “That’s too much to read.”
Well, Mr. and Mrs. I-Don’t-Care-About-Being-An-Informed-Citizen, allow me to help. If the only thing stopping you from casting a ballot is your lack of political awareness, get ready to head to the polls. The Canary is here to fill you in on what you need to know, nullifying ignorance as an excuse.
Let’s start with the 33rd Assembly District race. There are four Republican candidates and one Democratic candidate. I think there’s a Libertarian candidate, too, but one of our news writers had a heckuva time trying to track him or her down. Local Libertarian Party officials weren’t able to offer much help, either. In fact, they didn’t get back to him at all. No phone number, no e-mail, no website. Maybe there’s a reason they’re a third party.
Staffer Jeremy Thomas posed a series of e-mailed questions to the candidates he could contact, which generated the aforementioned 6,000 words.
But again, I’m here to break that down and fill you in. So allow me to present my analysis on some quotes and translate some choice comments from the candidates:
All of them put some sort of stamp on the ailing economy as the biggest challenge facing us constituents these days, so I’ll move on from there. In the spirit of spreading around my avian wisdom, I decided to pull one quote from each candidate for further exploration.
Katcho Achadjian, when asked about curbing wasteful spending by state legislators, said, “I believe the most important reform we can enact in Sacramento to truly end runaway spending is to pass a strict spending limit and build a strong rainy day fund reserve.” I don’t know exactly how such a reserve would specifically work, but I get the feeling that we’ve been suffering through the financial equivalent of a rainy day for some time now. With funding being slashed and programs being cut right and left these days, a reserve doesn’t seem like the most workable option right now. Of course, I’m sure many people are happy to see certain social services dwindle in favor of more money for, uh, other stuff?
Matt Kokkonen brought competition into the California public schools mix. He said, “More than $8,000 per student is spent and more than 40 percent of the state budget, yet we have high school students graduating who can’t even read their diplomas.” Ouch. He floated the idea of giving parents that $8,000 each to put toward the school of their choice—public, parochial, or private—which sounds nutty enough to work. I’m a firm believer, however, in parents taking an active role in their children’s education. Moms, dads, and guardians bear blame, too, if their sons and daughters can’t read at age 18. Home life isn’t an education vacuum, after all. And I don’t know if I’d want to put $8,000 in the hands of people who contributed to their kids’ ignorance. Or did Matt mean graduates couldn’t read that thick calligraphy on the diploma? If that’s the case, I’m on the students’ side. Elaborate cursive might as well be Sanskrit.
I may be going out on a limb for this one, but stick with me: Fred Strong basically said oil drilling prevents child abuse. His quote on offshore drilling included the statement, “Young people don’t remember what it was like to have tar beaches here before offshore drilling relieved the seepage that killed wildlife on a daily basis. Children got whipped for tracking tar into the house on their bare feet from going to the beach.” So spare the rod, parents, and thank your local oil company.
Jeremy brought up the state’s projected $19 billion deficit for 2010, and asked the candidates about theoretical cuts to the budget. Etta Waterfield said, “We need to take a hard look at everything. Where there is waste and fraud, we need to cut that spending. Where there is unnecessary pork, we need to cut that.” I agree, but I don’t know anyone who wouldn’t. Nobody wants to fund waste, fraud, or unnecessary pork. Getting the people behind such items to admit they’re waste, fraud, or unnecessary pork is another story. I mean, pretty much every politician would say his or her personal pork is necessary, right?
Finally, Hilda Zacarias—running unopposed in her own party—asked a couple of questions in response to Jeremy’s question about the candidates’ stance on the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act and medicinal marijuana in the district. Among her questions: “Proponents of the measure want to compare it to using tobacco. We’ve fought for years to reduce tobacco consumption, especially among our youth. How far will this set that effort back?” Though she mentioned she supports “current law on medical marijuana,” I couldn’t tell where her tobacco point was going, beyond answering a question with a question. Will allowing marijuana smoking harm anti-tobacco smoking efforts? Well, maybe. I dunno. You can’t give a nod to one sort of smoking and frown at another. I don’t see anyone these days saying cigarettes have healing properties, though, so there’s something.
It looks like I’m out of room to discuss any other issues, candidates, or races, but that shouldn’t stop the most politically apathetic among you from getting in on this election while you can. It’s not too late. And if you need my help translating, feel free to shoot me an e-mail.
I may not respond, though. I’m still educating myself, too. m
The Canary loves democracy. Contact her at canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Jun 3-10, 2010.