thank you for smoking

Normally, my dad and I can chew the fat on politics and agree on pretty much everything. Except about smoking.

To generally confuse the heck out of people, there are TWO Propositions on the ballot regarding smoking. One will outright ban smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants (201) and the other will ban smoking in restaurants but not bars (206).

Needless to say Phillip Morris is throwing lots of money into 206. If both pass with a majority, the proposition with the highest number of votes will win in the end.

Unclear which will win out in the end. I put my vote for 201 and not 206 (which is what most media outlets are suggesting anyway). I heard my dad mutter under his breath that 201 was going too far and he wasn't going to vote for it.

If it's true that smokers are in the minority, then why do they have the right to pollute my lungs? The fact that smoking is allowed in bars is the reason why I don't go. So perhaps business would actually go up if nonsmokers felt more comfortable in their establishments.

And here's something to add fuel to my argument. An article was published that studied air filtration systems that are designed to get rid of cigarette smoke. They specifically profiled a restaurant in Mesa that was in compliance with their local ordinanace.

Big shock. These systems either didn't reduce smoke particulates, or made them even worse.

How many decades has it been common knowledge that smoking is bad for you, and the people around you? It's time to start accepting that others don't have to be around smoke from a minority of the population.

BTW: You will still be allowed to smoke in casinos since the tribal lands are soverign.

107 - a joke

Is it Tuesday yet?

My folks turned on the local news, so naturally we get the local politics commericals.

Supporters of Proposition 107 almost made me hurl. If 107 passes, benefits for partners will go away by putting in stone that it's "one man, one woman". Currently, the Universities offer benefits to "domestic partners" wether they're a same sex couple, or a man and woman that are not married. They allowed this because they have to compete for good faculty within the Pacific 10 schools.

Supporters of 107 basically said these states are now saying it's okay for gay marriage (they cited New Jersey, but they didn't say gay marriage is okay). Arizona needs to protect marriage by saying "one man, one woman". "It's how we raise our children," (yes, they actually said that).

And half of married one man, one woman relationships end in divorce. I'm fortunate that my folks are still married, and I grew up with both happy and healthy.

Even if I wasn't with my boyfriend, I think that what goes on behind closed doors is not my business. If two men or two women make each other happy, then good for them. They don't try and make me start loving women that way, and they should have the same rights as "domestic partners" of unmarried couples.

Basically, if we don't pass 107, then things will stay the same. The state supporting gay marriage isn't going to happen for a long while, but domestic partners can have the benefits offered to their "life mate". If 107 passes, those benefits will go away, only acknowledging only licensed marriages between one man and one woman.

The supporters of 107 are basically forcing their "one man, one woman" belief on me. Why is it right? Because that's how most of us were raised? Because it says so in the bible?

If you believe that it's because of the bible, then I'll try not to vent too much. But if you believe so much in that book, then can you acknowledge that it's a book that has changed over the centuries, and it was a council of MEN that decided what the bible should include and what should be thrown out?

voter crap

I've been looking for my paperwork on insurance and retirement account for a week now.

All I've gotten is stuff about various propositions. There are 19 on our ballot - a record tying number I overheard on the radio last night. I wish I could tell these idiots that I already voted, so it's a waste of volunteer time and money.

When I got up to Fountain Hills, the phone rang. My dad was the closest to the phone so I looked to him. He looked at the caller ID and said under his breath "probably another voter something call". No message left, so we resumed the business of unloading and trying to coax the fluffball from under the seat.

The next call was my mom.

The next call was from San Diego, so I let it go to the machine. This was a political "vote for X to be state treasurer".

"Why is someone from San Diego calling about Arizona politics?" was the only thought I could conjure.

This is why I only have a cell phone.

not quite

I never thought my democratic measure in me would say this.

I'm not sure if Obama is the best offering for President in 2008. Unlike Kerry, I have heard of this guy before running for President.

But I'm not sure if Obama has the best offerings for President. I can see the Republican right already calling him a flip flopper.

Voter confusion

Friday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out Proposition 200.

The voter approved measure required proof of citizenship to register to vote. And proof of identification on election day before getting a ballot.

The fine print was such that the identification had to match the register book (which mine didn't). You could provide bills and such with the registeration address. But I harrassed the poor lady, and got a real ballot in the primary. I did also have the voter information card and resgisteration card with the matching address.

With the general election less than a month away, the 9th ruling creates chaos for the poor people that will be at polling places. The state's attorney general filed paperwork with the Supreme Court to reinstate Proposition 200. The uncertain nature that could last until right before the election is sure to create differening experiences on election day.

I'm so glad that I am doing absentee ballot.