California's Modified Open Primary

In California, voters who are affiliated with a political party MUST vote the ballot for that party.

That means the state can predict elections as a function of the voter turnout.

Also, Democratic and Republican parties get an unfair advantage, because non-partisan voters are only allowed to vote for non-partisan candidates OR a Democratic Party candidate OR a Republican Party candidate... but NOT for an American Independent Party, Green Party, Peace & Freedom Party, or Libertarian Party candidate.

And since non-partisan candidates aren't allowed to run for Governor in California, that means non-partisan voters can only vote for Democrat or Republican governor candidates.

Open primaries in general are a waste of taxpayer money. If a party needs to decide who among them will run for office, they need to handle that themselves. The state shouldn't be paying for their decision-making.

Specifically, non-partisan voters should not foot any part of the bill for all the parties to be conducting their internal elections.

Don't Ask Don't Tell

I've been getting emails from the Courage Campaign about repealing the Don't Ask Don't Tell law.

Here's what I think:

DADT is already full equality - EVERYONE can serve, NOBODY can ask, and NOBODY can tell.

There are a few devils in the details, like when a man bring his boyfriend to family day, it's pretty obvious that he's gay. He doesn't have to say anything. Can he get kicked out for that? I don't know.

Is the repeal going to include extra money for the housing and bath facilities that will be needed and psychological preparation for the entire force? An army must train for tough physical and mental stresses and we need to ensure that sexual openness is part of the plan and not a handicap in the force.

DADT allowed the military to ignore the dilemma. But when it's repealed, will the military abolish separate quarters and baths and allow both genders and all sexual orientations to sleep and bath together? Or will it justify the expense of having all individual sleep and bath accommodations? There is no fair and equitable middle ground. 

In my opinion, to repeal DADT without a complete solution is to create a problem bigger than the one being fought now.

In a way, repealing DADT now is premature:  even California, one of the more socially liberal states in the Union, is struggling with equal rights for homosexuals.  So forcing the military institution to deal with it when the country at large hasn't even figured this out isn't fair at all. 

I'm a supporter of other courage campaign efforts so I just want to say: please repeal responsibly.