Re: "Perception is reality"

[BLHamrick@aol.com]

In a message dated 09/19/2002 8:13:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu writes:




> >Only if you don't actually live in California.  We, in the land of fruits and nuts, will be paying dearly for this legislative folly if it comes to pass the Governor's office. 
>
>  
>
> From what you hear, what is the likelihood of this? What is the timeline for the bill reaching Davis' desk? I know that his popularity ratings took a hit from some recent events. What are Simon's nuclear views?




I can't really speak to the likelihood of his signing or not, because the information I've received has been through my employment with the Department of Health Services, and I'm not authorized to share that.


From a very personal perspective, without regard to what the "official grapevine" says, my money is on his allowing the legislation to become law without his signature.  He has three options, veto, sign, and pass without endorsement.  My perception of Governor Davis is that he will avoid difficult decisions for as long as politically possible.  He does not appear to resort to such things as logic, or expert opinion.  And, so I surmise he will avoid this hot potato as he has many others by deciding not to decide.


Personally, I'm writing in Richard Riordan on my ballot this November.  He's not the ideal candidate by any means, but a) he won't win, and b) he actually has a chance of reaching a statistically significant percentage of votes as a write-in, so that at least it will be mentioned on the news, and thus send a political message.  My other option is to write-in myself, which I consider now and again, just for the arrogant fun of it.


The bill, SB 1970 is currently before Governor Davis.  He has through September 30 to sign or veto.  If he declines to do either, it will become law by default on January 1, 2003.


The anti-nuclear contingency got some press last week on this issue.  They claimed that the power companies were opposing this, and made a big deal of that.  Of course, it is true that Southern California Edison, and (I think) Pacific Gas and Electric oppose the bill, but it is also opposed by 20 some odd other organizations, including the California Healthcare Association, San Diego BioCom, and other biomedical and pro-business organizations, but, of course, not a one of those was mentioned in the new articles.


In fact, if you call the bill author's office, they will give you only a list of two to four groups that oppose the legislation, and a list of twenty or more that support it, despite the fact that numerous other organizations have publicly opposed the legislation, and stated that they have communicated their opposition to the author's office.


The whole process is a cesspool.  Make no mistake.  There is no one I have found in the California legislature that is interested in the truth of the matter, and I have searched far and wide and diligently.


As another poster pointed out, I expect Bill Simon's views are pro-nuclear, in line with the Republican agenda.  I dislike Bill Simon for a myriad of other reasons, and cannot vote for him.  Thus, it's either me or Richard Riordan as a write-in.  It is my dearest hope that other Californians are as disgusted as I am by our choices and all write-in based on their conscience rather than be forced into casting a vote for the devil or the deep blue sea.


Barbara