Rotating Header Image




I initially thought that headline was misleading — a citizen can show up at a Governor’s rally and who can say what cameras will find them while they’re there — but after looking things over (Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared yesterday in San Diego, from whence these photos were taken and about which the article is written, to promote the upcoming California Special Election), after looking things over, reading the article, and reading several emailed pieces from various Democrats (I am not one) (addressed to, “Brothers and Sisters” from union insistors, asking me to assist in “crushing the opposition,” and, from elected officials promoting community enterprises that are taxpayer funded and yet not voted-to-fund by the taxpayers, interesting use of the public office and the public dollars), and considering the fact that Warren Beatty is no mere citizen given his media presence and legacy and plans. All these things considered, no, the headline isn’t misleading.

Beatty’s no more a mere citizen showing up to protest possible, pending voter opinion, he is the DNC in California showing up to disrupt the possibility of changes in the state: either maintain Democratic Party legislation-by-Party-down use of the governmental process here, or, allow changes to begin wherein voters get to decide on issues affecting our lives. And yet, Warren Beatty SAYS he was…just a citizen, showing up with an opinion about the issues…smiling face, pats on the backs, just a guy taking a walk, or so he says to anyone who will listen.

I realize that the RNC is not excluded from a certain party-knows-more-than-you-do-so-vote-for-us mentality, but the very issues involved in the California Special Election (I already cast my ballot but for everyone else registered to vote in the state, there’s the ballot box on Tuesday, November 8, 2005) are methods to try to bring authority to the voters and take a bit of it away from the political party ruling the legislature (Democrats at this time as has been for quite a while now in this state) and those who fund them whether they want to or not (taxpayers in the state because the DNC has assured itself that they’ll get funding whether taxpayers protest or not and a lot of that process is by way of the issues that the voters are being asked to consider in this Special Election).

At issue in the Calfornia Special Election:

BD21400_.gif Proposition 74 that asks that teachers in California’s public schools be awarded with tenure after five years of employment, compared to the present award that they receive after only two years (lifetime employment, benefits and membership in the Calfornia Teachers Union for a lifetime after only two years employed in a public school). As it is today, no parent can make any changes to any objectionable employee of the public school system in the state, once that employee secures tenure.

BD21400_.gif Proposition 75 that seeks to change this “automatic contribution” policy by unions on behalf of their members and allow individual membership to make their own decisions as to where their money is spent, and how and for whom. As it is now, and if this Proposition 75 fails to pass, members of all unions will continue to have no choice as to their individual socio-poliitcal preferences, and unions can continue to use their membership dollars without considering individual differences among membership.

BD21400_.gif Proposition 73 that seeks to include parents in notifications if/when their minor children seek to abort a human fetus. This notification would not be required if/when any physician involved suspected parental sexual child abuse, including incest; however, naysayers about this Proposition 73 seek to remove all possibility of parental involvement in the lives of their minor children if/when this quite serious issue appears. I can think of no negative here in allowing parents or a custodial parent to be notified as to any minor child when/if these circumstances are present, but i can think of many ulterior motives by some people where the behaviors of minors are concerned. We have a standard of guardianship for minors in our society for good reasons and that a minor could be involved in an abortion or abortions without so much as a parent being notified is suspect because other adults would be involved in that process, or those processes of abortion, just not parents of the minors themselves, if this Proposition fails.


BD21400_.gif Proposition 77

BD21400_.gif Proposition 78

BD21400_.gif Proposition 79

BD21400_.gif Proposition 80

All of these Propositions will not see the light of the ballot if there was no Special Election scheduled and pending. These measures have previously been decided by the state legislature and the voters have been excluded from being considered in these decisions — as with many other conditions in the state of California, most voters here are well familiar with even casting voter opinion in the majority and seeing the state legislature refusing to abide by the voter opinion and/or passing state legislator’s decisions to defy voter decisions. It’s a preposterous, dictatorial process that has come to be nurturing for Democrats who can (and do) control the state legislature and yet confounding to often a majority of voters who don’t agree with the nurtured Democrats in the state and yet see their voter opinion discarded afterward by that very self-proliferating, self-protective, predominantly Democratic controlled state legislature.

And, worse, what I read elsewhere, even on supposedly conservative websites is that the Special Election is expensive (it is) and thus, as some opine, Governor Schwarzenegger should not be supported in the process because he’s “spending a lot” (and, therefore, they advise that people not participate in the Special Election — preposterous lack of reasoning but skilled political work on behalf of those who want to see these Special Election Propositions defeated, hardly conservatives to be clear here, and yet presenting themselves as such).

While I am no party hack, these issues that the Special Election contain are significant when considering how the state of California can time and time again overrule what voters decide and instead pursue what party hacks for the DNC want and need. Sometimes, you have to take a stand.

BD21400_.gif I regret not receiving support information about the Propositions and Measures involved until after I’d already voted (mailed in my ballot prior to voting day, all the literature arrived afterward so I was on my own as to decisions involved). However, I am no fan of Warren Beatty’s politics and the Democratic Party in the state of CA (one and the same, in m view), in that they have created a top-heavy, “specially” regulated environment that chokes change, ensuring socio-marxist dictatorial nurturing of a political party in the state (and therefore, nationwide) under the guise of just showing up on a breezy day without any other motives…Smiling Faces Sometimes…

BD21400_.gif Beware, beware of the handshake that hides the snake
I’m telling you beware, beware of the pat on the back
It just might hold you back
Jealousy (jealousy), Misery (misery), Envy.

I tell you you can’t see behind smiling faces
Smiling faces, smiling faces sometimes they don’t tell the truth, uh
Smiling faces, smiling faces tell lies and I got proof.

9 C O M M E N T S

  1. epador says:

    Though it may be metaphorically impossible, moving Beatty just a little more to the left in your tryptic would anatomically leave him more appropriately spaced from the horse’s head…

  2. -S- says:

    Yes, agreed, but I was going for consideration for the horse, not Beatty.


  3. justaguy says:

    On a totally different note….the trailer to Spielberg’s new film has been released…

    Looks interesting.

    I just hope the ending isn’t as horrible as Minority Report and WOTW…and a couple other of his films.

  4. -S- says:

    Perhaps not so unrelated afterall, justaguy…on a number of levels here (not what I’m going to discuss, these comments, however).

    Superb filmmaking, that trailer. The story had to be told by Spielberg to be even tolerated by some, and, thus, excellent material as to choice by the director. I am very unhappy with his decision to not use Eric Roth‘s screenplay, however, and to go with one by HeWhoShallRemainNameless by me, here, who I quite loath, to be blunt, who I regard as utterly profane, as source, as author. Roth almost certainly had substantial material worth to contribute and I still wonder just what HeWhoShallRemainNameless could possibly have contribed that was “more human” as per what I read the motivation by Spielberg was to go with the latter and not remain on course with the script provided by Roth at the outset. I question, because of that, just what the standard of evaluation was there, as to Roth’s script needing to be more “humanized” when the work went to HeWhoShallRemainNameless qualified, rather. I’m just saying, I sense something false there — false, as in overdressed, overdone, overtly rendered…falsely attested. Because that’s what I found in HeWho’s earlier and profane statements. Some people prefer profane, I realize.

    But back to the filmmaking involved…excellent, no doubt about that from the trailer (thanks for the link). I find the acting talent (trailer, MUNICH) stellar –(Ciaran Hinds [I had to go look him up], the guy who is portraying Ceasar in HBO’s ROME, I note, is the evil guy in MUNICH, and should be an intriguing performance).

    I’m hoping that John Williams doesn’t do huge crescendos and big musical moments in MUNICH. I am very fond of Williams’ work but the film could be easily turned into mockery, melodramitic bare believability if the score overrules the story or carries moments rather than the frames themselves. But who am I to advise what Williams should do.

  5. -S- says:

    I sorta’ think that MINORITY REPORT is close to Speilberg filmmaking excellence (while what I think will be his finest legacy in years to come is A-I) but the ending, yes, was a big letdown. I did like Tom Cruise’s voice-over at that concluding segment, however.

  6. justaguy says:

    Well, there was a different ending to Minority Report…that Spielberg cut out before it was screened…it was so much better.

  7. -S- says:

    I didn’t know that…can you describe the replaced ending, sequentially? I am also going to copy and paste (&, thus, move) these comments about filmmaking to a new thread…a moment…)

  8. -S- says:

    Converstion moved to new thread: “MUNICH AND RELATED…”

  9. BIRD says:


    The conversation in an earlier thread (“VOTERS GOVERN OR GOVERNMENT GOVERNS”) took a tangential path into filmmaking — about MUNICH, upcoming from Steven Spielberg, among other titles — after mentioning Warren Beatty, the California Democratic Party …