One way it’s tough to evaluate candidates for office as a voter is from looking at their personal religious beliefs.  Thanks to the First Amendment, we have a secular civil government.  That may be right or wrong, and I know some readers here would argue for wrong, but that's the way the Founding Fathers set up the system of checks and balances, and that's the way the system has worked most of the time during last two centuries. 

Personally, I don't think a person's religious beliefs are part of the equation unless they choose to make them so.  I prefer to look at their proposed policies, and the conclusions about politics and law they reach as a result of those beliefs.  A candidate's experience in implementing policies, and success in competently managing programs, are more important to me than his or her source of inner strength in reaching those accomplishments.

I don't think the topic is off limits though.  It can be very interesting, and telling, to see the labels a candidate can slap on himself in an effort to ingratiate to a specific voting block.  From my perspective, the contortionist act generally backfires.  The more a person's claimed devoutness becomes the central part of their proffered character, the tougher it becomes to see past personal deviations from that claimed faith, like infidelity, eating shrimp, and wearing white after Labor Day.

Two interesting articles in the Union-Tribune recently: the County Board of Supervisors wants to raise taxes to pay for increased fire protection and the City of San Diego is investigating whether it overspent on clean-up after the 2007 wildfires.

On a related issue, the state still hasn't passed a balanced budget for the current fiscal year and Governor Schwarzenegger is reportedly considering a one cent sales tax increase (temporary, yeah right) to cover the projected shortfall.

Especially in this economy, why should any voter give these leaders more money to spend? Why should the voters increase their own taxes and create a new agency of bureaucrats when the existing institutions are still trying to explain how they spent the resources at their disposal during the last crisis?

Our leaders need to prioritize their projects and do their best within their existing resources, just like every other family and business trying to make do in this economy. Admitting failure and asking for more money from the voters is not the answer.

At Comic-Con this weekend the husband and I sported pins supporting Lucy and Charlie Brown for President. Harvey Dent's campaign for district attorney was well-represented based on the pins and T-shirts on display.

Given my disdain for the two-party system, one T-shirt suggesting a vote for Cthulhu (why settle for the lesser evil?) was particularly thought-provoking.

But Comic-Con is all fun and games (and big tourism revenue), right? 

As I sit here staring at the computer screen through the perceptual filter of various and overlapping cold medications, the issue of health care reform is about the only thing I can focus on.

McCain has a plan. Obama has a plan. Nader has a plan. Barr has, if not a plan, at least some thoughts on the issue.

While I'd like to think my vote can be completely altruistic, I'll admit my wallet can influence my thinking. I have a good healthcare plan. I have a good healthcare plan because I pay for a good healthcare plan, and chose to pay for it while I was relatively young and healthy.

Senators McCain and Obama were both in town in recent days to discuss immigration and their visions of "comprehensive reform." Apparently they both think they can bend the next Congress to their wills and implement their proposals, whatever they are.

I doubt it.

I don't doubt their sincerity to address a tough issue, just the ability of either candidate to achieve a consensus as to what the problem is and how to address it.

While the local races for San Diego have been getting plenty of publicity and press, the race for Escondido's city council seats have been proceeding almost unnoticed.

Unlike San Diego with designated city council districts, Escondido elects four members at large (two every two years), and those four people together with the elected mayor comprise the five-member city council.

Two incumbents, Ed Gallo and Sam Abed are reportedly running to retain their seats. They were the top vote-getters and won their seats in November 2004 with 33 percent and 23 percent of the vote respectively. I was unable to locate a Web site for either incumbent. 

The only candidate I found campaigning to unseat them, Olga Diaz, founder of the popular Blue Mug Coffee & Tea does have a Web site though. Filing deadlines have not yet passed, and more candidates could certainly enter the race.

Photo: Charles Hartley

While checking out the cows and sheep and other farm animals at the San Diego County Fair on Tuesday, I got to thinking about a ballot initiative I'd seen. So when I got back to work I promptly looked it up: Proposition 2 on the November ballot, would prohibit "cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs" after January 1, 2015.

This doesn't directly apply to the fair, both because nothing like that seemed to be happening there, but also the initiative, Proposition 2, would exempt rodeos, state and county fairs, and 4-H programs from its provisions.

But in my mind, as with all the initiatives I'm asked to vote on, the question became 'why.'  Why is this necessary? Assuming the cause is just, how has the current law failed, and will this proposed change lead to a better something-or-other?

Imperial Beach recently changed their city code to almost close a loophole that allowed alcohol to be openly consumed at the end of the Imperial Beach pier.

The Union-Tribune's June 24 article on the change provides a good summary of the recent changes in local law to ban the consumption of alcohol on local beaches. The issue has been particularly contentious in Pacific Beach. Web sites for and against San Diego's ban on beach alcohol have hotly debated the issue.

Personally, I'm for personal responsibility. I don't like governments or anyone else telling me what to do when I'm not hurting anyone else. 

To answer Nicole's question, yes, I support marriage equality and the California Supreme Court's May 15 decision on the issue. Jumping to the chase, I'm very supportive because they directly led to my ability on June 18 to create a union recognized by the state of California with the man I want to spend the rest of my life with.

My opinion on the issue comes after many years of personal observation and reflection, and was not a direct or easy path. After too many years of dealing professionally with the failures of marriage, first in my security work for the State Department and later working on family law issues as an attorney, I honestly wondered why anyone would want to participate in the archaic institution. 

Starting in law school though, for the first time I thought about the philosophy and history of marriage. I would still question marriage in the Anglo tradition: the concepts of a wife giving a unilateral promise of obedience to her husband, and fathers giving their daughters away as though they were property is insulting and degrading. I did come to appreciate the history and philosophical approach behind community property though, an approach to marriage dating back to ancient Spanish law.

The philosophy is easily shown by looking at the 15th century marriage of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, a union the resulted in the unification of Spain as one county under their grandson: marriage is a union of two equals who have decided to share everything forever. In my mind this was the correct approach to marriage and how I wanted to spend my life - part of a union based on mutual respect and equal standing.

"Poll shows California voters want budget cuts somewhere, just not to things they like."  That headline from the June 10 Press-Enterprise seems to sum up the problems California is facing in balancing its budget.

There's been much finger pointing on this issue, mostly at the legislature. They have a difficult job, trying to close a gap of about $17 billion between planned expenses and scheduled revenue. The difference is significant: more than 10 percent of the governor's proposed $141 billion budget.