Michigan Ballot Proposals and how I intend to vote...

So, I finally did some digging and asked opinions on each of the six ballot proposals being placed on Michigan's ballot next Tuesday.  There are so many ads on these proposals, my head was ready to spin, but I think I'm ready to declare where I stand:

Proposal 1:  this proposal would allow the current financial manager law to continue.  This means that communities in the state that have financial difficulties balancing their budgets would have an emergency financial manager come in, with complete control, and take over the city, attempting to get its fiscal house back in order.  It also gives that person complete control over all things related to the city, including the ability to dissolve the city, or the government officials within.  It could annul any contracts entered into by the city.  I never liked the law as passed in 2010, and do not support it now.  I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 1 - it's bad for the state of Michigan, and it's bad for democracy.

Proposal 2:  this proposal would write into the constitution, the RIGHT to collective bargain of public employees.  Currently federal law does allow them to do so, however, under the Emergency Financial Manager law, if it is passed, the EFM could come in and take away the contracts entered into.  This ensures that employees have rights under the constitution of Michigan.  Though there is much hoopla about writing such measures into our constitution, I do believe that this measure in fact is worthy of being written into it.  Public teachers, firefighters, and police officers should have a right to bargain for their wages, their benefits, and the resources they get to use while on the job.  Their pay should stay up with the pay of the private sector, and if we take away their right to bargain for it, we are silencing the very people who keep us safe, and who educate our children.  I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 2 - it's good for the state of Michigan, and for democracy.

Proposal 3:  this proposal would require that 25% of Michigan's energy come from renewable sources by 2025.  According to a friend who works for DTE, they are on track to be at 15% by 2015.  This is a very good track, but I also feel that if we don't make it a priority, then if the winds of change come roaring, it could be something put on the back-burner.  Green energy is what will keep us moving tomorrow, and will eventually save us money, save the environment, and is a good investment in national security too.  My thought process is, if not now, when?  Oil and natural gas will not last forever, and if we have a chance to be one of the first in the nation to set such a high standard, let's do it.  This bill will create incentives to employee Michigan workers and equipment, limits the energy increases by 1% per year, and will reduce our state's dependence on foreign oil.  So with that said, I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 3 - I feel this will be a good step in the right direction for the state of Michigan.  Not to mention that the majority of those opposing this bill are the ones in the energy sector (DTE Energy, Sheldon Addleson (bankroller of Mitt Romney), Michigan Oil and Gas, and the American Petroleum Institute), because they probably have something to lose on it.

Proposal 4:  this proposal would allow for a more cost-effective system for seniors to find care, as opposed to expensive nursing homes.  It's opposed by many large corporations, and supported by many who favor worker's rights, like the UAW, and the Michigan Education Association.  I AM VOTING YES ON PROPOSAL 4.

Proposal 5:  this proposal would make it a requirement for a 2/3 majority vote in the Michigan legislature for any tax rate increases, or would require it to go to a statewide election in November for tax rate increases.  Look, if we think stale-mates are bad now, just wait until we require 2/3 vote on stuff.  That's a super majority - and it's hard enough to get stuff done with a simple majority.  So because of that I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 5.

Proposal 6:  this proposal would require there to be a statewide vote on any further transportation projects such as bridges and tunnels.  Look, Mr. Maroon, the man who owns the Ambassador Bridge is simply sour - he doesn't want a second bridge in Detroit because he profits majorly from the bridge he owns.  He's been trying to shut down this projects for years.  This bridge would bring jobs to metro Detroit, bring major commerce to metro Detroit, and is fully funded by the Windsor and Canadian government.  I AM VOTING NO ON PROPOSAL 6 because it's time to build this bridge for Michigan.

Okay, that's where I stand.  Thanks to everybody who helped me formulate my opinions on the matter.  I did some research.  The League of Woman Voters helped a bit, along with this website:  http://www.leagueofresponsiblevoters.org/

Anyway, happy election time!  It's almost here!

Acceptance Should Be Inevitable

Published in the Eastern Echo, Thursday, October 18, 2012.

Acceptance Should be Inevitable

by Casey Wooley

Staff Columnist

So here we sit, a few weeks before the election that has bewildered us for the last two years. A few weeks before the choice before us becomes real. And what do we know?

We know that Mitt Romney is a Big-Bird hating, Olympic-horse owning, 47%-contempt driven fundraiser, who lives high on the hog.. And we know that President Obama is secretly not an American, practices in the Muslim faith, wants to turn America into a socialist nation, and is pushing to take away people's gun rights.

I'm glad we have that out of the way. Now, let's shift back to reality.

Whatever your political persuasion, the reality of life is that in just a few weeks, one of these two men is going to be elected President. And whoever this person is will have to somehow figure out a way to govern us in a very politically-charged, partisan government. So sticking to one's ideologies once this election is over will prove to be detrimental to American interests.

Now look, I am a full-on Barack Obama supporter. But, it's also no secret to those who know me that I am the last person to condemn any person in my life for being a Romney supporter. My secret to why is simple. In the long run, either man is capable of running this country. Yes, I said it.

Moreover, for either man to succeed in running this country, they will have to cast away their partisan interests and work to govern from the middle for us to rebound in the way we all want. And for the country to succeed, whatever party is in Congress is going to have give up their personal agendas in order for this to work.

Neither side can be radicalized if we are to move forward. Personally, I'd love to see President Obama win a second term and raise taxes to put more government programs to work for us. Just as many of my Mitt Romney supporting friends would love to see him outlaw Roe vs. Wade and form a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as one man and one woman. But none of those policies are what this country as a whole needs right now.

So when the dust settles on November 7, and we have a clear winner, he must be willing to engage the other side and work together. It's how we have gotten through many historical gridlocks in the past.

Just look to the framing of our constitution for the very first example. The Senate and House of Representatives were two of this country's greatest compromises. Smaller states wanted equal representation with larger states. And larger states wanted representation based upon population. And so the two chambers of Congress were formed.

There's also precedent in modern history too. Bill Clinton, after a tumultuous two years attempting to push too many left-wing ideas, lost control of the Congress. And had he not shifted gears moving into the 1996 election to become more moderate, he would have lost. But, after his reelection, he stayed moderate, working with the republican Congress, and it was the first time in modern American history that we not only balanced the budget, but kept a surplus.

We as citizens all have a responsibility to accept that our politicians need to compromise in order to get work done. And moving into 2013, if we don't live to that responsibility, America will head down a dangerous road it hasn't traveled before – where political ideologies keep Washington in total gridlock, and the American people left thinking “what went wrong?”

Another Suicide in Gay Community

This article was published in the Eastern Echo on October 11, 2012.  It hasn't made it to the online edition as of the publishing of this blog, however it was in the print edition on Eastern Michigan University's campus, along with various outlets in Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor.

Another Suicide in Gay Community

by Casey Wooley

Guest Writer

As I woke up October 4^th to start my daily adventures, I turned on my iPhone and scanned through my news-feed on Facebook. The usual posts were there - “Romney this,” and “Obama that,” and of course the subtle flow of continuous Internet memes filled my mind with delight.

But unfortunately, my daily ritual was quickly cut short, as an eerie number of posts centered on the same horrible theme – suicide. As it turns out, the gay community lost another teenager to suicide the night before, and many of the friends on my feed were expressing sadness, guilt, regret, and every other conventional feeling one can think of in moments such as these.

I personally didn't know this individual. And as it turned out, many expressing such feelings through Facebook didn't necessarily know him either. But, as ripples travel through water, so did news of this horrible tragedy spread through the gay community at such rapid speed, that by the end of the day, many had heard and expressed their condolences to his family and friends.

Hearing such sad news brings back memories of Rutger's University freshman Tyler Clementi. A few years ago he was videotaped by his roommate having his first intimate relationship with another man. That video tape found itself online, and unfortunately he felt it was just too much to bear and he killed himself because of the shame he experienced.. His suicide was the start of the very popular “it gets better” campaign. And while the suicide a few days ago did not have anything to do with bullying, it certainly sparked those conversations once more.

Ironically, the Twitter-verse also lit up on October 2^nd with a completely different scenario, but also centered around the same concept of bullying somebody because of their differences. As it turns out, WKBT-TV reporter Jennifer Livingston out of La Crosse, Wisconsin had received some very hateful emails about her weight. In those emails, the writer indicated that he is surprised that her “physical condition hasn't improved for many years,” and that she is not a “suitable example for this community's young people.”

But Ms. Livingston did something that many are afraid to do. She stood up for herself. She stood up to the bully attempting to make her differences more important than they really are.

And she did it in a very public way – as an editorial at her local station where she reports. She called out the writer of the email and called him for what he was – a bully. And she demanded that he stop his hateful rhetoric.

In the wake of this horrible tragedy of a young person taking his own life, it's important for all of us in the community of human beings to recognize that bullying has to stop. While this most recent suicide may not have been the result of bullying directly, bullying in the gay community is a huge issue. It represents a larger problem across many divides – that those who do not understand the differences we all have, seek to use those differences as hateful, stereotypical attacks.

This is unacceptable. And we all collectively have a responsibility to recognize when such prejudicial attacks exist and to stop them immediately. Stand up for somebody when somebody else seeks to tear them down. Make your voice heard that such language and actions are unacceptable. And affirm to those who are being bullied that they are loved and respected because they too are human beings, just like everybody else.

Romney alienates voters with radicalized stances

The following article was published in the Eastern Echo - an independent newspaper of Eastern Michigan University on October 4, 2012..  The link to the publication is below, followed by the original text of the submitted article:

http://www.easternecho.com/article/2012/10/radical-social-stances-hinder-romney-campaign

Romney Alienates Voters with Radicalized Stances

by Casey Wooley

Guest Writer

Though much of the chatter around political circles is centered on the economy and President Obama's performance with it, the Romney campaign has struggled to stay on message to hammer home the President's performance in his first term. Many political pundits agree, that one of the main reasons that Governor Romney has not been able to keep the economy message going, is because of his far-right conservative stances on social issues that are affecting many voters.

Governor Romney has dramatically harmed his campaign with the general electorate by his continued radicalized stance on three high-priority social issues of our time: woman's rights, marriage equality, and immigration.

Because Romney has been running for office for six years, he has had the unfortunate predicament of having to run two primary campaigns against challengers who are more to the right than he is. And because he's had to fend off these challengers and win the votes of the Tea Party to secure the nomination, he now finds himself in a more radicalized conservative spot than he probably would prefer.

A quick glimpse at his website shouts “smaller, smarter, simpler government,” with regards to government regulation. What it doesn't cover is his stance on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. Indeed, Romney supports a federal constitutional amendment that would define person-hood as starting at conception, according to an interview he gave with Evangelist Mike Huckabee of Fox News.

The constitutional amendment, coincidentally, would also ban the most popular form of birth-control (hormonal birth control, or “the pill”) – one that many Eastern Michigan University women may use.

Moreover, despite his response on 60 Minutes last month when he indicated that he was in favor of abortion exceptions being made in cases of protecting the mother's health, his staff issued a revised statement to NPR, that in fact Mitt Romney does not support this exception. And Paul Ryan, his running mate, makes no room in his stance on abortion, for any exception of rape, incest, or the health of the mother. Simply put, the Romney-Ryan ticket supports no instances when abortion should be legal.

Romney is just as radical on issues of marriage equality. He supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between one man and one woman, and believes that the current Defense of Marriage Act should be enforced. While this particular stance may not make him radical, he also stated this year that “I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name,” according to a May 9 article by Luke Johnson of The Huffington Post. Governor Romney does not believe that LGBT Americans are entitled to equal rights under the law as all other Americans.

Lastly, Romney's stance on immigration reform is almost laughable. Mr. Romney in fact supports a concept called “self-deportation.” This is a premise that undocumented immigrants who are here illegally should choose to go back to their home countries if we make it harder for them to find work in America. Self-deportation actually has its roots from two Mexican-American satirists who coined the phrase in 1994 attacking a then-Californian ballot initiative to prohibit illegal immigrants from using state-run hospitals. Despite the phrase being used for comedy-purposes, Romney actually offers it as a real immigration idea.

While the economy may be an important issue, these social issues have helped to shape the state of the current race and will continue to have an effect on voters' choices as early voting begins and we move into the last leg of the campaign season.

Apologizing for America should not be seen as a weakness

The following article was published in the Eastern Echo - an independent newspaper of Eastern Michigan University of which I am currently a guest writer.  The link to the actual publication is below, followed by the initial article I wrote.

http://www.easternecho.com/article/2012/09/is-it-really-all-that-wrong-for-the-usa-to-apologize

Apologizing for America should not be seen as a weakness

by Casey Wooley

Guest Writer

It seems that Mitt Romney cannot get his act together. Prior to Romney's latest blunder, where he cried out that he isn't going to focus on the 47% of Americans who will probably not choose to vote for him, he levied a decent charge at the President during the crisis happening in Libya and in Egypt last week.

He continued the line of attack, coming from conservatives, that President Obama should not apologize for “American values.” Beyond the fact that this accusation happened as the crisis was ongoing, and typical opposition etiquette during such a situation is to be solemn and place politics aside, Governor Romney's line of attack was simply incorrect.

Indeed, Karl Rove's original 2009 accusation was that the President had been going on a “worldwide apology tour.” He cited four instances where the President had somehow weakened our stance in the world by apologizing for the values we live. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post did an amazing job in February of 2011, fact-checking each of these instances and he concluded that “in none of these cases does Obama use a word at all similar to 'apologize.'”

One would think that after the fact-checkers had verified that Mr. Obama had never apologized, this case would be closed. But in a country where many on the far right are still challenging the legitimacy of the President's birthplace, nothing in politics ever goes away.

Mr. Romney used the opportunity of an American Ambassador's death to politically bomb the President for something that was not said. The “apology” that Governor Romney speaks of never came from Obama. In fact, it was a press release issued by the embassy as the attacks were occurring, which expressed disdain for the anti-Muslim video that originally sparked the riots in Libya and Egypt to begin with. This is no apology.

But what if it was? Why is there a negative stigma attached to apologizing for something that we, as a country, do wrong? Why does the right think that saying “I'm sorry” when America makes a mistake, see this as a weakness?

We teach our children to apologize to others if they make a mistake. When celebrities say something offensive, we demand an apology. Even when politicians, including the President, politically push too far, or get caught in a lie, apologies are asked for. And when other countries do something to offend the United States, we expect an apology.

There is precedent for American Presidents apologizing to the world when a mistake has been made as well. Indeed, during the 1950's after an African diplomat had been refused service because of the color of his skin at a restaurant in Delaware, then President Eisenhower apologized for his treatment. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush issued several apologies during their terms in office. And even President Ronald Reagan, the great conservative who can do no wrong on the right, apologized in 1988 for the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

I assert that whomever is in the Oval Office, should view apologizing for an American mistake as not showing weakness, but showing tact. I assert that apologizing for a misstep shows leadership, and respect for those we have offended. And I assert that offering a good ole fashion “mea culpa” when we just plain screw up, helps to improve our standing in the international community, not diminish it.