Official snarko! Local Endorsements
posted by snarko on Thursday, May 11 2006
Early Voting Has Ended - Vote Saturday May 13
CITY COUNCIL
MAYOR: DO I HAVE TO PICK?! Dear goddess save me; Leslie Cochran isn't running (my usual "fuck you" vote), so I guess it's JENNIFER GALE. Thank you, Jennifer, for smacking down that stupid resolution at county convention with, "Is this McCarthyism?!" cuz I was thinking the same damn thing and just wanted to get my NO! vote over with.
If I side with you that's she's crazy (and I won't side with you she's not a she), I still trust her more than the others to at least not be a sellout.
This will be my only "throw away" keep reading...
PLACE 2: MIKE MARTINEZ. This is a good man. I've had beer with him. He's genuine, related experienced, motivated, and will do a good job. His experience as a firefighter also gives him a better background dealing with a lot of city groups than any other candidate. If diversity matters to you, he's the best on ballot.
He's not out to serve the West Side only.
PLACE 5: ABB (ANYONE BUT BREWSTER)/COLIN KALMBACHER. And a serious "what's wrong with you?!" to the Chronicle on this one: Is not city council usually the FIRST office anyone holds? So why the hell would anyone have "political experience" except the incumbent? And why do you praise only those that seem like they might turn into politicians we hate, rather than the "dreamers" you so dissed?
Is that not what's WRONG with politics right now? We're supposed to elect peers that live like us and represent us, not elitists. I refuse to shoot a strong heart in the foot. I vote Kalmbacher.
PLACE 6: AGREE WITH CHRONICLE; CAN'T LOSE, NO OPINION. Venom even put aside for Cole, even if she's Republican and Christian; she's not a weirdo. I've met some nice (recovering) Republicans this year. If Cole wins, she'll be the FIRST black woman to hold this seat.
That's sick. First? In 2006?
And this seat IS sick. The token non-white place on ballot, when the city is about to become over 50% "minority". Awaksi Evans (publisher of NOKOA) purposely tried to run for one of the others to break this, to no avail.
Next time let's get hispanics and blacks on ALL those slots, okay?! East Side could use the love, not the railroad.
[Damn, that's a good joke wasted on non-Austinites (railroad both metaphor and literal).]
PROPOSITIONS
1 (Open Government): YES YES YES!!! Are you kidding? The opponents claim it'll "cost too much, do too little." When have we heard that before? Light rail, anyone? Same opponents.
First off, those sky-high prices at $36M+ for the program don't come from any official investigation; they were practically made up, and heavily repeated, by those that gain from the backroom deals this proposition aims to close. It's more big-real-estate-against-the-people bulldozing.
The Texas Toll Party (not a Texan? Think "tea party" but toll roads--they're anti not for it) put it best [paraphrase], "You wanna pay $3M in taxes for this program, or $750M in tax hand-outs to the scum that'll make out without it?"
Don't believe the scare tactics. Vote yes.
PS: I didn't vote for a single "non-big developer" supporting the no vote. The ad states some of their only "good-guy" votes in office--the votes they're actually willing to tell South Austin about (you know how we are). It's a snow job. Sorry PDA, I firmly disagree, and will give up my membership if I have to.
2 (Save Our Springs): YES YES YES!!! The major opponent complaint here? Court costs. Because they know it's going to court. Developers and polluters are gonna fight it hard.
Too bad. Let them.
Basically they're saying they don't want this law, because the language is strong enough to keep AMD off the watershed, and the law will be USED. Why put weak laws no one's gonna use up for vote in the first place? Why vote no on a strong one just cuz some developer's gonna take it to court?
Vote yes and maybe they'll stay in court and off the East Side.
3 (Change start date of terms): YES. No-brainer. Overdue. They're just bickering over whether someone in transition gets a longer/shorter term out of it. Unavoidable and shouldn't change your vote.
4 (Change length of terms): SOFT NO. I could be convinced otherwise, but I disagree that anyone should stay in office longer than four years here. While it's true the first two are proabably "getting your feet wet" (city council is gonna be your FIRST race, most likely; you won't have been in the political process), I've seen enough damage in four by the ones the Chronicle calls "experienced" to not let them have four more.
5 (Campaign finance reform): SOFT YES. If it included PAC language, it'd be a hard yes.
6: YES YES YES!!! (City Employee Healthcare): First of all, it doesn't cost YOU anything; it simply allows them to purchase healthcare for other household members.
Get off your gay-bashing high-horse. I know from personal experience it isn't about gays. I shouldn't have had to marry Joe just to get these "priveledges", when the Declaration of Independence calls it an inalienable right.
And for you homophobes that won't listen to reason: you want "AIDS-infested gays" riding the bus along side you with, or without, appropriate healthcare?!
7 (Judge terms length): YES. While I firmly believe in short terms and government turnover (keeps it a tad more honest), two years is ridiculous. Four is far saner. I'd scoff at eight, which they're later proposing.
ACC BOARD
PLACE 7: Unopposed. No comment.
PLACE 8: James McGuffee. The Chronicle claims Ahart better for "diversity", but who put a campus within bus/walking distance of the black and hispanic communities? Why do I trust Ahart's business ties?
PLACE 9: Allen Kaplan. Simply no reason to throw him out. Doing a fine job.