I’d still like you to watch the individual episodes, but I realize I should make more of an effort to drive traffic to my site instead of just encoding a bunch of YouTube crap, as easy as that is. And now that the site is back up, this seems as good a time as any.

Yes, the site is back up. And I have made an .xml backup. This is important, because I will be moving my site to another provider soon, because 1and1.com suck. Really, they don’t. I mean, I am paying a ridiculously low rate to have this domain, so it is not as if I should expect top notch service. But this site was down for a week, and their tech support was ridiculously bad, albeit friendly. So I know they can hold my content hostage, so I will export everything so I still have it. Do I recommend 1and1.com to others? Not anymore. But let’s be realistic. No mainstream provider is going to do a good job with small fry such as myself.

This is going to be long, but I will put my choices in bold for two reasons. It makes it so you don’t have to read all of the drivel, and it will help for search engine optimization (SEO). What I should do is use headings. Maybe I will do that too.

President and Vice President

I guess I did.

Let’s see. First we have Bob Barr and Wayne Root. They are the Libertarians. I remember the name Wayne Root. He is a scamdicapper that eats a macrobiotic diet and works for Jim Feist. I’d vote for Dave Cokin because I am a sucker for a New England accent, but I’d never vote for this guy. And when I hear Bob Barr, I think of “Bob Dole” and the mocking mockery of the Simpsons when he and Bill Clinton were running in 1996. I don’t think of Roseanne at all. This saddens me.

John McCain and Saran Palin are the Republicans. I kind of feel sorry for them. It appears that McCain has tried to cash out his image, and it’s not working. Basically he has spent 70 years building an image, and now he is trying to cash it out to become president. The sad thing is that his image wasn’t worth that much to independents. The biggest secret in marketing is to focus on getting new customers, rather than keep the ones you had. Otherwise you end up with nothing. And that is what he has now. I am writing this during the final televised presidential debate, so if something happens at the end, well, there is my excuse for sounding like an idiot. At least it will be applicable for this. As far as Palin goes, I really feel sorry for her. It reminds me of my last job. I was brought in for reasons beyond me, and while I/we naively went around rallying the troops (voters), it didn’t really do anything to affect or chances of winning. The good news for Palin is that she can’t lose her job, because she doesn’t have it yet. I should have been so lucky. Yeah, I really shouldn’t talk about work, but if having a site with the word “shit” strewn about it doesn’t keep me from getting another job, then nothing will.

Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clemente are running on the Green ticket. Didn’t I vote for Ms. McKinney in the primary for the Peace and Freedom Party? I think Green and P&F are poly or have an open relationship or something. Considering how principled third parties are, there is no room for me to be this principled, so I won’t bother.

Alan Keyes and Wiley S. Drake, Sr. are the American Independent nominees. I’m not going to get into the pronunciation of “Wiley” again. You’ll have to watch my show for that. Instead I will say that he thinks he is better than Ulysses S Grant because his middle name isn’t “S.” Please note the period there is solely to end the sentence. This is why I am an editor. I generally don’t agree with the fundamentals of the American Independent party, and I don’t understand why they don’t merge with the Libertarian party. But I don’t understand a lot of things. Sorry, no examples right now.

Peace and Freedom, land of opportunity, or at least equality, has put forth Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez. I have voted Peace and Freedom in every presidential election since 1996 (although there was no candidate in 2000, so who knows what I did then). I remember casting my vote for Marsha Feinland and Kate McClatchy and then meeting McClatchy’s husband five years later at Dolores Park when I re-registered to vote because I had just moved. Or maybe the guy just said he was her husband. Who knows. But I can’t vote for them this time. Nader is too old. He is older than McCain. Did you know that? It’s true! I hope Matt Gonzalez gets some kind of benefit for being on this ticket, because he seems like a nice guy. Remember when he was neck and neck with Gavin Newsom for mayor of San Francisco? I always wondered what would have happened if he had won that election. I am trying to picture him being quoted in Yes on 8 commercials saying “whether you like it or not!” I bet he is more articulate than Newsom and would have said “regardless of whether you like it!” colloquialism be damned.

Last up are Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the Democratic candidates. You have to say a lot of things to get elected, which means you have to say a lot of things to get a lot of votes. Saying these things will cost you votes too, but the point is that if there is a net gain, then it’s worth it. A ton of people did not vote for George Bush because he said, “Read my Lips. No new taxes!” But even more did, so it was a good idea. But maybe that’s just the broccoli lover in me talking. At any rate, when Obama pushed his atheist upbringing away to embrace whatever church he belongs to, he lost me. Actually, I had not even heard of him yet, so he never had me, but that’s not the point. Do you think people would vote for him if they actually believed he was an atheist? Of course not. For all the bullshit I hear about Obama being a Muslim, I think it’s comical that the real way to slander him has been so close to that. If they had spent that energy on calling him an atheist, they might have been more successful. But it’s okay to mock someone for following Islam. People don’t get denigrated for being an atheist. They just aren’t taken seriously, thank God. So he gained millions of votes, Reverend Wright be damned, for joining that church. It’s okay that he lost mine.

Cynthia McKinney/Rosa Clemente for President/Vice President!

United States Representative (California District 16)

Don’t worry. They won’t all be that long.

Steven Wells, a technology writer, is the Libertarian candidate. He is not a technology writer. He is a tech writer. I am not sure whether the person making the ballot thought they were being a good editor by spelling out “tech” or Wells just thought it would be more impressive to do so. I would bet all my savings (think about it) that Wells has a beard. Double or nothing that he has an exit named after him on a Reno freeway.

Zoe Lofgren is the incumbent and the Democratic candidate. Just like Alonzo Mourning, she prefers to be called “Zo.” I have no idea whether she has game, though. I have no issues with Ms. Lofgren, although it would sure be nice to have her as a guest on my hit show. I’m just saying is all.

Charel Winston is a CEO and the Republican candidate. I don’t know how to pronounce Charel, and Winston is a brand of cigarette, so that’s two quick strikes. I’d rather just call the game on account of rain, though. Why bother striking this person out?

Zoe Lofgren for U.S. Representative CA-16!

California State Senator District 13

Three candidates here. John H. Webster is a software engineer and the Libertarian candidate. He did not submit a prepared statement. I guess anarchy precludes him from doing so.

Elaine Alquist is the Democratic candidate and the incumbent. She is 63 and likes authoring tough laws and providing leadership. It’s all in her prepared statement, which was written by a competent writer with a journalism background. I can tell. I haven’t heard anything bad about her. Maybe it’s because she has the same name as that gal on Seinfeld that sorta looks like Barack Obama’s mom. I said sorta.

Shane Patrick Connolly is a controller and the Republican candidate. It does not say what he controls. Maybe his children. What he doesn’t control is the state Senate. That’s Alquist’s gig, and he wants it. I don’t know a damn thing about this guy, but if he loses, I hope my cries of “come back, Shane” will cause him to try again.

Elaine Alquist for California State Senate District 13!

California Member of the State Assembly District 24

Only two candidates here. The challenger is Doug McNea or, as the ballot says, Doug Mc Nea. I once saw MC Nea at a club when I was in college. When he stacked his records, they kept leaning to the right for some reason. Hmm, well he is the Republican candidate here. It must have been an omen. McNea is 61 and a nuclear power consultant. So he is Homer Simpson in a way, only older. He’s lived here for 33 years and remembers when Pearl Avenue connected with Santa Teresa Boulevard. I moved to San Jose when I was 28 also, athough I had grown up here. But this isn’t about me. McNea is fiscally conservative in the sense that he believes in not passing debt on to the next generation. But for me, I can’t get passed his pro-nuclear stance.

Jim Beall Jr. is the incumbent and Democratic candidate. He has, I bet, a dad named James, Jimmy or Jim. He wants to be the be-all end-all candidate. He is 56 years old and should hire me as his editor, because he said “with in” in his statement instead of “within.” He is the chair of several things, which is a terrible thing for me to say in terms of keyword density, but if I could write that well for the Web, I would not be unemployed right now.

California State Assembly District 24: Jim Beall Jr.!

Santa Clara County Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 8

Two candidates here. Maybe this was a runoff from the June election, in which neither candidate received 50% of the vote. I don’t remember. But let’s not focus on that and expose my ignorance of the background of this race. Diane Ritchie, no relation to Steve Ritchie, did not disclose her age in her prepared statement. She is an attorney/mediator for the county. She provides a Web site, which is smart. Most of her statement is a list of endorsements, including a retired Superior Court judge. That’s pretty sharp.

Lane Liroff is a deputy district attorney. He is 58. He also has a Web site, but it is buried in the text of his statement. I’m not crazy with the writing in general of his statement, and perhaps he’d do well to hire me to do that for him too. I’ll tell ya. There is no better way to get a job than to trash someone’s talents. Yes, I am being sarcastic. No, it won’t make a difference to him. I must like being unemployed. But come on. For the sake of space, he started using fragments to fit in as many achievements as possible. Why not pick the best ones and turn them into bullets so they are easier to read? I don’t think writing is that hard, but apparently it is.

Diane Ritchie for Santa Clara County Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 8!

Santa Clara County Board of Education, Member, Trustee Area 4

Three candidates here. Gary Rummelhoff is the incumbent and 53 years old. He is also a nonprofit executive. One could say that Robert Willumstad was a nonprofit executive too, but that’s not what they mean. I haven’t seen a single damn sign for Rummelhoff in my neighborhood, but I have seen several for one of his opponents. Does it not matter? Is he going to win anyway?

Carol Myers is a retired secondary teacher and did not submit a statement. I like her rum, even if it does misuse apostrophes.

Joseph S. Di Salvo has more signs than a sign store, and they are everywhere. A huge windstorm would kill his chances, because he could be portrayed as a litterbug. But for now, this 57-year-old, an educator/adjunct professor, has taken the lead in the race for the most signs. But it’s votes that count. And so far, it’s 0-0. He wants to reduce the “drop out” rate, whatever that is. He supports technical education to improve the graduation rate, something I have issues with, although I am quick to admit that I am out of touch with what needs to be done to prepare today’s youth for the real world. I still think that with the right message and teaching, college can be good for everyone and that money spent to encourage technical education could be better used for other things, such as math, science, nutrition, saving money at the grocery store and voting, but that’s why I don’t run for political office. (Hmm, not a bad idea. Political officials get paid, and with the bribes, I could pay off this house!) Di Salvo has a lot going for him, but our beliefs do not match. I wouldn’t dissuade someone that agrees with his beliefs to vote for someone else.

Gary Rummelhoff for Santa Clara County Board of Education, Member, Trustee Area 4!

Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Member, District 2

Another one of those runoffs. I wish the last decision was, because I could have rhymed it with Rummelhoff. Hopefully voting for him will make him feel better. George M. Shirakawa is a governing board member for the East Side Union High School District and 46 years old. I think it’s pretty sneaky that he does not use “Jr.” after his name on the ballot or his prepared statement, perhaps in the hopes that seniors will vote for him thinking that his dad is the one running. But this is not as underhanded as other stuff going on in this campaign. All five county supervisors support this candidate, and with all the issues going on right now with the economy, it is not the right time to bring in somebody new to the scene. Sometimes the establishment is OK.

Richard Hobbs is sending me negative ads in the mail. He stopped by my front door and left a note because I was not home, which means a lot to me, as does his Web site. I wish I could have given him a handshake and asked him why he felt the need to run negative ads with a photoshopped image of Shirakawa (portly in his own right, sure, but not that bloated). I know negative ads work, but at the Board of Supervisors level? Really? I am having trouble getting past this. To keep the facts straight, this negative ad was sent during the primary race not this one, and I don’t have it anymore, and I can’t find it online. So if you need a different reason to skip over Hobbs, please note he has spent more than double the money Shirakawa has spent on this election.

George Shirakawa for Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, Member, District 2!

Proposition 1A

High-speed rail, the much maligned compromise between cars and airplanes, is on the ballot at the worst possible time. Who is going to support $10 billion in bonds in this economy? I can’t worry about that. I’m just sick of spending two hours in an airport for a 60-minute flight. I’d rather take a three-hour train ride. Supporters are quoting two hours. It won’t be that fast. But three hours is still not bad, and you might as well do something during that football game, because the local 11 suck, whether you’re into the San Francisco 49ers or Oakland Raiders. (See? I can do keyword density if I want to.)

The people against 1A are your garden variety anti-tax people. They hate spending of any kind. They hate bonds. They especially hate $10 billion in bonds. If you’re in their camp, then this should be no different to you. There’s really no point in trying to convince you otherwise. You’re either for bonds or you aren’t, and you’re not, Jason Arnott. Oh and here is a tip: If you want to recruit new (read: young) voters to follow your ideals, don’t use words such as “boondoggle” in your literature. It makes you sound like an old fuddy-duddy.

Vote Yes on 1A!

Proposition 2

This is the Mexican egg initiative. It changes (most would say raises) standards for farm animals, but of course, this is only in California. Supporters focus on animal rights and the humane treatment of meat, er I mean animals. Personally I think that nothing is as inhumane as hot dogs, but at least it keeps landfills from overflowing as much.

But there is a side that is not being focused on, the misleadingly named http://safecaliforniafood.org. California can still sell meat and eggs from other states and countries, and you know what that means. It takes a lot of huevos to eat Mexican eggs. The standards there are nothing like ours, even without Proposition 2. And of course these eggs will cost less, because transportation costs will be outweighed by the upgrading expenses associated with enforcing this new law. But you know what? Someone has to set the standard, and that’s what we do in California. We only have a pretend free market anyway, so rather than maintain the illusion, let’s continue with the hidden fascist agenda, and I’m completely serious.

Vote Yes on 2!

Proposition 3

It’s the Jamie Lee Curtis initiative. She did an ad in favor of it. It does it all, loosening heart strings and purse strings, or something like that. Less than $1 billion, less than 10% of Proposition 1A, in bonds would be needed for children’s hospitals. Calling it a boondoggle is not going to get people against this one.

But the No people know this. They make reference to Proposition 61, saying that there is money left over from it that can be used for these purposes. This is true, but it doesn’t make me want to vote no. But at least the truth is out there.

Vote Yes on 3!

Proposition 4

I don’t vote yes on everything. Now I can prove it. Proposition 4 is the third attempt to require parental notification before a minor has an abortion. Yes, there are a few exceptions, which were not included in previous versions of this initiative. But this does not address the issue that this is an unnecessary law. You’re talking about a law that only affects a few hundred teenage girls every year, and a lot of them are not in a situation where they can have a Family Ties-style chat to discuss the issues. I am not a fan of the term “back alley abortions” because, really, what other kind of alley is there? But regardless of this, if you think this law will prevent scared teens from having abortions, you’re wrong. Yes, sales of coat hangers at the dollar store will be up, which benefits the economy, but it’s for the wrong reasons.

I also am entertained by how this is called “Sarah’s Law” and not just because I dated one. (Her name was Sarah, but I did not knock her up and watch her die while she had a secret abortion.) “Sarah” has four names, but none of them are Sarah. Try Jammie Garcia Yanez-Villegas. You can’t even spell Sarah by making an anagram of those names. At any rate, Sarah had an abortion that killed her in 1994. That was a long time ago. They didn’t even have dollar stores back then to buy hangers at. She had to go to KMart. But regardless, this law would not have helped her. She was common-law married at the time. This law does not cover these situations. So the name being used for this isn’t even appropriate. Here’s more pro and con propaganda on this initiative. That’s enough poor taste out of me.

Vote No on 4!

Proposition 5

There are a ton of law-and-order initiatives on the ballot. It’s important to see how they are different, even if you end up voting yes on all of them. (How is that for foreshadowing?) Proponents say that this is an extension of Proposition 36, passed eight years ago. What is nice about this proposition is that it should help lower recidivism rates.

I can’t figure out why Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is against this initiative. I can’t help but think its allegiance was bought, although I have nothing to support this. The argument is that this initiative will increase crime. Compared with what? By “graduating” people from programs it lets them go free. So if they commit another crime, then that increases the rate. That’s what they say. It sounds like a scare tactic to me.

Vote Yes on 5!

Proposition 6

I’m not crazy about the angle being used on the yes side. Are they doing what it takes to pass this initiative? I guess. The point is that money in the general fund will be earmarked to be spent on law enforcement at the local level. The idea is that the money will be spent more intelligently this way. I can get behind that. I think it’s cheesy calling it a “safe neighborhoods act” though.

What really turned me on to this one is that the no argument was the standard “no accountability” and “anti-tax” crowd kvetching about the expense. You have to do better than that to convince me. By definition, when you earmark money so it goes to the local level, you don’t know what it will be spent on. It makes no sense to say you are against this concept unless you’re against localized decision making. And if you are, that’s fine. You should vote no.

Vote Yes on 6!

Proposition 7

PG&E and Edison have spent $23 million debunking this initiative as “deeply flawed.” Well, I have news for you. All laws are deeply flawed. They’re not written by writers. That’s why they end up in courts so judges can interpret their meaning. It’s nothing specific to this one. So why do these energy companies hate this prop?

Because it will cost them money. It requires 20% of energy to be renewable in just two years, a daunting task. This percentage rises to 40% in 2020 and 50% five years later. There will be penalties for noncompliance. Oh, it’s so hard! Who would want that? Me, that’s who. If you read this initiative, you’re going to want to vote for it, and the energy companies know it. So they’ve raised a shit ton of money to blanket the airwaves with annoying ads. Don’t be fooled. If this fails, when are we going to get serious about renewable energy? Later. As the Family Circus book was titled, “When’s Later, Daddy?”

Vote Yes on 7!

Proposition 8

I’m sick of this one, too. No matter what happens, the decision will be appealed in the courts. But don’t let that dissuade you. There are a lot of ways to look at this, but I think one way is best. Look at how things would be if it did or did not pass. There are certain rights that you only get if you’re married to someone. It has to do with wills, visitation rights and other such things that we don’t like thinking about. As long as these privileges are only extended to spouses, we need to consider gay marriage as necessary.

I am not in favor of gay marriage. I am not in favor of marriage at all, really. Why does the law need to force two people to stay together, especially when half of them end in divorce anyway? It makes no sense to me. What we really need is to remove all privileges from marriage, send it back to churches where it belongs and move on. But we don’t have this. And that’s why you need to vote no. Until we remove the association between these rights and marriage, we need to deal with letting anyone get married.

Vote No on 8!

Proposition 9

Yay. More crime stuff. Apparently victims of crimes don’t have enough rights. Despite being victimized by criminals, for some reason they don’t seem to have any rights. Maybe the criminals stole their rights while stealing their wallets! I guess. The people against Proposition 9 say that the three strikes law is sufficient and that we don’t need further regulation.

The people behind this initiative don’t want victims to be surprised by their perpetrators’ whereabouts. Imagine if you were at Whole Foods and you ran into some guy you didn’t want to see. Wouldn’t that be the most awkward three minutes of your life? (You know what I mean.) Another thing that 9 does is reduce the number of times an inmate can request parole. This should save some of the money that the rest of this initiative will cost taxpayers. I hope so. Because otherwise it’s just throwing money vaguely at a problem, and that’s never fun. Gotta go with the gut on this one.

Vote Yes on 9!

Proposition 10

More bonds to encourage alternative fuel vehicles and renewable energy. Proponents call this a major step toward energy independence. Okay, fine. I’m not crazy about tax incentives for more fuel efficient vehicles. We do not need to increase demand for high-mileage vehicles. There is already demand for these.

However, there is also money for developing more renewable energy, such as solar. There’s this thing called the sun. Perhaps you have heard of it. Spending money to encourage this sort of development is fine, and despite only 30% of the money from this bond initiative going toward this research, it’s a necessary tradeoff. The $3.425 billion for vehicles is the sweetener to get people to vote for this. Fine. I can compromise.

Vote Yes on 10

Proposition 11

Redistricting? Again? Ugh. The way the story goes is that, by fixing up the districts so they aren’t so gerrymandered, we will force our elected brethren to listen to their constituents. The last time I checked, we still elected these people. So what if Jerry McNerney has people in Livermore and Morgan Hill? The seat still flipped when Richard Pombo lost in 2006.

I can see the logic behind normally shaped districts so cities such as Modesto don’t have three different people representing it, depending on the neighborhood. And I am not crazy about having two committees in charge of redistricting, which we would have if this passes. But like I said for Proposition 8, you have to look at the before and after. Are we better off if this passes? I reluctantly say yes.

Vote Yes on 11!

Proposition 12

This is another small ($900 million) bond issue to help veterans buy farms (yes, farms) and houses. The people in favor of this bring up an interesting point. This money can help veterans soak up this excess housing inventory, as people like to say. If you need a reason to help veterans, then I guess this suffices.

Gary Wesley is the only one to speak out against 12, and I have to wonder what veterans did to him. Maybe when he was in basic training his commanding officer dunked his head in a latrine and flushed it. (Do latrines flush?) At any rate, it’s not convincing to me. As long as Cuckoo Bananas is in charge, we need to do all we can to keep people interested in becoming veterans, and of course to do that they must sign up for duty.

Vote Yes on 12!

Measure A

Valley Medical Center is in trouble, and she needs your help! Sound like a video game? It’s not, really. Not really. In short $840 million in bonds are needed to retrofit the building or else part of it will have to close, and many “vital” services such as the trauma center would have to close. I guess burn victims should be cut a break. I mean, they were on fire, after all.

Nobody dared submit an argument against Measure A, and can you blame them? Even the Libertarians must be on board with this one. This requires a 2/3 majority to pass, so here’s hoping we get there.

Vote Yes on A

Measure B

In 2000 we passed a 1/2% sales tax increase to pay for BART to come to Santa Clara. It passed, even though it needed a 2/3 majority. It was to raise a certain amount of money, and we were going to be home free in 2040, or whenever it is that BART will finally be here. Now they are asking for another 1/8% increase, but it will only take effect if certain conditions are met. This has infuriated the anti-tax set, because after all they said in 2000 that this would never happen.

However, the thinking goes awry here. They continue to say that the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) will keep asking for more money. They aren’t asking for more money. Not even now. They are asking for the same money they asked for before. This is what happens when you base your money-raising on sales taxes. We spent a lot of money in the late ’90s because of the economy, and based on that level of spending, a half percent was what was needed to raise enough money for BART. Well, people spent less, so the rate should have been a bit higher. Stop acting as if the money raised from 2000 was squandered somehow. I am sick of driving 40 minutes (90 in traffic) just to get to a BART station. Think!

Vote Yes on B!

Measure C

You should know straightaway that this is an advisory vote only. In other words, the VTA just wants to see what we think about this topic. The Valley Transportation Plan (VTP) 2035 shows us what we expect the transportation situation to be like in 27 years. The point of this vote is to see whether we want them to continue working on it.

This doesn’t raise taxes. Really, it doesn’t do anything; it’s an advisory vote. The No on C people must have scurvy with the way their arguments are constructed. They say, in so many words, that the VTA won’t tell us what programs are going to be favored or cut. How does voting no prevent this? This measure is much ado about nothing.

Vote Yes on C!

Measure D

What is the opposite of a sunshine ordinance? Well, the No on D people would cheerfully answer “Measure D!” I disagree, you see. Measure D will replace a non-binding vote with an advisory committee. Those against D say that such a committee already exists. Neither side does a good job of giving examples of how things will be better or suck if their side does or doesn’t win. This is how you convince voters to do what you want. I can’t do everything around here.

It appears that the argument for D says that this non-binding vote is a waste of money. The No people are all “No way, d00d. That’s the only voice we have.” Nobody understands what the VTA does. They end up looking on some loser’s Web site to decide how to vote on these issues because they don’t really care. Bully for me.

Vote Yes on D!

Measure J

I remember why I stopped writing these. It’s four hours of my life I won’t get back, and it’s hard enough for me to be funny and informative for four minutes. But J is my favorite letter of the alphabet, so I should show it some respect.

A 9-1-1 tax is set to expire. Proposition J is a new tax. It is 10% lower than the old one. If it does not pass, then it will be up to the city council to renew the old tax. Therefore, we are spending less on taxes by passing J, because renewing the old tax keeps things as they are. And if the city council doesn’t renew the tax? Then we have no money for 9-1-1, so who would we call to report drunk drivers on the freeway? I’d call my mom again. But let’s not let it come to that!

Vote Yes on J!

Measure K

This is the same as Measure J, except it is for a telecommunications tax. They even use the same Web site. It also lowers the amount collected 10% and for the same reason. I am sick of talking about it.

Did you notice that every initiative has two paragraphs? I am not going to break the pattern here.

Vote Yes on K!

Measure L

Time for a new fire station! A new one, supporting northern Cambrian and southern Willow Glen, would go up, and it would be No. 37! In a row! All is well, right?

No. It’s pure speculation, but opening 37 could close 6. And this fire station is very important to central Willow Glen. Why? Because it has a special truck that can go down super-narrow streets, and central Willow Glen is old as fuck. There are many super-narrow streets. In addition, do you really think that the new station, slated to be at 2175 Lincoln Avenue, is going to be able to get to these addresses in eight minutes, which is the goal of the fire department? I don’t think so. It, like my asshole, is just my opinion, but it is also why I urge you to vote no.

Vote No on L!

Measure M

Finally, the last one. I’d like to thank those of you insane enough to read all of this. I do it for you. Actually, I do it for me. Now I don’t have to read through the initiatives and races. I’ve already done it under the guise of helping you.

M has something to do with parks. Nobody submitted an argument against it, and I’m not going to either. I have to go to the bathroom, and Savannah won’t stop bugging me.

Vote Yes on M!

RECAP

Vote yes on everything except 4, 8 and L.

Posted by Joel Edelman on October 15, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Filed under Election 2008 (November)  |  Leave a comment  |  Trackback URI