Slashdot Mirror

So, here in AL we have to, yet again, try to repeal some lingering Jim Crow content from our ridiculously long constitution. A similar measure failed in 2004, since people here seem to feel that guaranteeing children an education is significantly worse than making sure they are segregated by race.

Went and registered and voted in about 20 minutes. New to the area so had to bring a utility bill. Actually wasn't really concerned about the presidential elections as voting against a stupid amendment that was on the ballot. Minnesota is most likely going Obama but the votes on that amendment are too close to ignore. I have friends and family that are homosexual and I damn sure am not gonna sit on the couch while people try to take their rights away. Granted the stupid law already does that (and I voted against those jerks too) but I do not want it made that much more difficult to get it repealed by making it an amendment.

I can say 100% would still vote as myself and the person I told both voted :} (See other reply to same post)

There's more than just the president to vote for. This year we (Washington State) vote for
legalization of marijuana, It has a very good chance of passing.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Marijuana_Legalization_and_Regulation,_Initiative_502_(2012)

I haven't read the full initiative, but told it's written to take on Federal regulations. Gonna fight
the cocaine snorting*, marijuana smoking* Obama on this one.

* according to the tabloids

I was living in Alaska when marijuana was legalized there, always hoped my generation
would keep at it as we had promised.

Well, cigarettes and tobacco ARE taxed. In California the rate is 87cents per pack of cigarettes and 31.73% on other tobacco products (pouches of tobacco, snuff, cigars, etc.). Earlier this year a proposition got shot down that would have added an extra dollar to that 87cents.

Since they are already taxed at the counter your example sounds more like a "Getting Caught" tax (I know that sounds dickish over the internet, but I'm not trying to be).

Here is the summary:

"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages."

Odd that it's not in the linked article. It seems strange to me that someone would write a piece about the ballot measure without actually summarizing what it says, or even *linking* to a summary.

A discussion of prop 37 can be found on ballotpedia and on the CA Secretary of State's voter information website. What should be clear is that much of what we're talking about here (e.g. labeling of accidentally contaminated crops, mandatory testing for genetic alterations) has no bearing on the actual proposal.

The Democrat running against Lamar Smith is Candace Duval- http://www.candaceduval.com/ while John Henry-Liberty is running as a libertarian- http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/John-Henry_Liberty. I don't unfortunately see any website that Henry-Liberty has set up, but the Duval has a donation button on her website. So the best thing to do to make clear one isn't happy with Lamar Smith is to donate to Duval's campaign. I'm donating right now. Fuck Lamar Smith.

But the problem in California, is that we require a super-majority just to pass a budget, even if that budget is restrained and balanced.

What year is it there? Here in the year 2012, we remember Prop 25 passed in Nov 2010 and there's no longer a super-majority requirement to pass a budget.

You must be a republican, because you're attacking democrats with some weird out-of-left-field comparison to Stalin, claiming that the left-leaning among us want to silence expression, when it's the republicans who:

* want to suppress political expression in the form of one bogus voter ID law after another, running on a fraudulent specter of non-existent voter fraud (one source of many), or because "kids vote liberal" (source)
* want to suppress emotional expression by way of banning gay marriage for no discernable reason other than "gays make us uncomfortable" (and remember, these are the same guys who also don't like interracial marriage!) (source)
* want to suppress academic and scientific speech using bogus lawsuits AT THE GOVERNMENT LEVEL (source) just because they don't like the facts the science reveals
* fight repeatedly to curtail regulations on what chemicals big industries pump into the ground (source) or what they put in our food (three republicans eating pink slime to stick it to obama)


Oh, wait, it's because someone made a joke about punching an anti-science, anti-vaxxer in the face, that dems are teh eeevil! That same anti-science, anti-vaccine nonsense, by the way, which has led to many deaths.

Republicans...what will they think of next? Nothing! That's the joke..they don't really think.

Wouldn't you like a place where you and a few like-minded amateur lawmakers could get together and do it right?

We already tried that. The result was Congress.

Yes, our federal Congress. But there are other legislative bodies that have taken the career income incentive out of the equation, such as New Hampshire. Their state senators make $100/yr (not a typo -- one hundred dollars per year) and it has been that way for nearly a century. Compare to California where the average salary was over $113k (as of 2007).

If we take the pay incentive away from career politicians you're left with those who actually care about their constituency -- otherwise they have no other reason to be there.

Sources:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/New_Hampshire_State_Senate#Salaries
http://www.empirecenter.org/html/legislative_salaries.cfm
http://freestateproject.org/

Deceive, decoy, deny -- you win elections first, and then worry about the fallout from your tactics after the election, when you are in a better position to deal with it. Can't say I'm surprised that our northern neighbors engage in the same kind of election hijinks that have plagued our plebiscites. When we get reports of dead voters casting ballots in their elections, this might become interesting.

Can anyone find out if he received any recent campaign contributions and from whom? All I could find was for 2008.

Tolls aren't taxes because they're "imposed for a specific benefit...to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the State of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege to the payor." (source)

Every dollar collected in tolls is a dollar that doesn't need to be taxed. So if you oppose taxes, you must be in favor of tolls.

snowgirl, I truly respect any other rider. I'm only offering advice because, thru the fog of the Internet, you seem to be a newish rider who is just reciting some recently taught doctrine.

My sincere apologies if I've misinterpreted our relative levels of experience.

You have underestimated my experience.

That is the exactly the problem with this mindset. The way you should react to a driver who does not see you (common) is very different from the way you should react to an aggressive/malicious driver who doesn't like you (rare). If you assume the rare case, you may be setting yourself up for an accident in what is actually the common case.

I'm entirely confused here. Assuming that a driver doesn't see me, vs that driver will attempt to hurt me, is a difference only in INTENT not in deed or action. If a car pulls out in front of me, then it doesn't matter if they didn't see me, or they were trying to intentionally harm me, because I'm still dead. So, let me ask you, why shouldn't I assume that just because a driver sees me, that they won't pull out in front of me? I've heard tons of stories of "the person was looking RIGHT AT ME when they pulled out in front of me!"

And at that point all of the intent of the driver in the world is meaningless. Perhaps they didn't register what was going on, perhaps they thought they could make it, perhaps they REALLY DID want to kill you. But none of that matters, because you're the one paying the price.

That means that if someone is standing at a light to make a left-hand turn, or approaching a light to make a left-hand turn, or even waiting on a light for a left-hand turn, then as I'm approaching to go straight through that same intersection, I ensure that I am traveling at a speed such that if that person chooses to make that turn for any reason or intent possible that I will be able to stop in time. Even if that means that I'm creeping up to that intersection.

According to Wikipedia, the only state that really seems to allow lane-splitting (and indeed, is the universal example of a state that allows lane-splitting in the USA) is California. In general, lane-splitting in the US is illegal, while it seems that it is generally widely legal in Europe.

Actually, that wiki article states that lane splitting is illegal in "many states", but it gives no reference, and the only states they specifically mention are Colorado and Nebraska.

If you'll read my quote again, "the only state that really seems to allow..." (emphasis added for the reading impaired) What does this mean? It means that no shit, I saw the Colorado and Nebraska text. Yet they were equivocal about if those states actually allow lane-splitting or not. Why treat them like you can't lane-split? Because the text also explicitly states that New Mexico has no laws against lane-splitting either, but it does have plenty of laws that mean that lane-splitting would not be legal, and legal precedent is that lane-splitting is a violation of other laws.

Searching for "colorado lane-splitting", I found a forum where people say it's illegal. And a lawyer's webpage stating that lane-splitting is only legal in California. In fact, I found that apparently there was supposed to be an initiative in 2008 to make lane-splitting legal, Ballotpedia says that no such initiative exists. And the Wikipedia article also gave a reference quite conveniently to Nebraska law stating:

The bond measure was never for $98 billion. It was for about $10 billion out of allegedly $40 billion. I do not know where you got your facts. Source: http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Act_(2008)

Are you sure about that? I think he's eligible for one more term after this.

Mayhaps you are right that I was confused, thought it definitely wasn't about the public defendant statute. When I wrote my previous post, I was actually remembering this ballot measure from 2010, but as it turns out, it's for civil and not criminal trials.

Don't believe everything Herbert tells you.

The Utah House needs 50 votes to override Herbert's veto: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Utah_House_of_Representatives 42 people voted for the bill: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0477.003h.txt

42 is less than 50. How does that give them veto override ability?

He gave an interview the day after and said basically that even had he vetoed it it would have passed.

Wait, that doesn't make sense.

The House needs 50 votes to override Herbert's veto: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Utah_House_of_Representatives
42 people voted for the bill: http://le.utah.gov/~2011/status/hbillsta/hb0477.003h.txt

42 < 50 How does that give them veto override ability? Were 8 people going to vote yes if he vetoed but no if he sent it through?

In theory, the citizens of Utah could repeal this bad law via ballot initiative. Here is a good summary of the current law concerning Utah Ballot initiatives: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Laws_governing_the_initiative_process_in_Utah

In practice, we haven't seen a ballot initiative in years. In the last decade, we have seen a constant stream of state legislation tightening the restrictions on ballot initiatives.

I believe that the Utah legislature is attempting to avoid a repeat of the 2000 Civil Forfeiture Initiative. In 2000, Utah voters voted overwhelmingly for a initiative that placed common-sense limits on Civil Forfeiture. The most important reform required that income from seized assets be delivered to the School funds. It took the Legislature 4 years to repeal it and return Utah to the business of Policing for Profit: http://www.instituteforjustice.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3289&Itemid=165

In recent years, attempts to achieve ethics reform by Utah ballot initiative have been blocked by the many hurtles imposed by current law. They include:
1) You have to get more signatures than 10% of the vote cast for Governor IN 26 of the 29 counties. Miss that total in one county, and you are blocked.
2) You have 1 year to collect signatures. If your 10% in 26 counties is not certified by the end of the year, you have to start over.
3) You are blocked if the Lieutenant Governor thinks your initiative is patently unconstitutional; nonsensical; or if he determines that the Initiative contains more than one subject.

So, years since we have seen a ballot initiative. Don't expect to see another one in my lifetime.

Miles

If you follow the link to Doe v. Reed you will see the US Supreme Court has already decided in June 2010 and in a 8-1 ruling held that the law was not unconstitutional then send it back down to a lower court. In any case anonymous speech is mostly protected under the first amendment, not the fourth amendment.

So, information in a third parties hands is fair game? Like signatures signatures on initiative and referendum petitions? It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on this. Particularly how it will influence campaign funding, lobbying and other political influence buying operations.

• pass a law prohibiting "flavor text" from being used to deceive voters (see: Like this
• pass a law prohibiting "riders"
• make the repeal process easier
• prohibit resolutions that waste time and money by "congratulating" sports teams
• prohibit the use of a "party" system
• remove the electoral college system

It wasn't just Steve Ballmer or Microsoft fighting I-1098 ... this measure was very unpopular all across Washington State and failed at the polls by a 65% - 35% margin. Washington State is one of the few states in the US without a personal income tax (the sales taxes here are very high to make up for the revenue deficiency). I-1098 would have introduced a personal income tax on the "richest" residents (those making over $200K individually or $400K as a family), but the reason it failed by such a wide margin is that most Washington residents (including me) believed that once they introduced a personal state income tax here, the politicians would plead "necessity" and keep lowering the threshhold over time to the point where most residents would be paying it, and without any decrease of the sales tax to compensate. The majority of the population here is all in favor of education and healthcare, we just don't believe that a state income tax is the way to fund them.

FWIW, Microsoft and other large businesses in Seattle do have a legitimate interest in avoiding a personal state income tax, as for recruiting and keeping high-priced talent there is an advantage for them to come to Redmond and live in a state with no income tax vs. going to some other company - say, in California - and paying the tax rates there. An equivalent pay job offer in the Seattle area vs. many other states actually means more take-home pay here.

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.

Full text here: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Text_of_Proposition_19,_the_%22Regulate,_Control_and_Tax_Cannabis_Act_of_2010%22_(California)/

Seems to me that what the Proposition is saying is that an employer can't fire you solely on the basis of your usage of cannabis, but there's nothing there that says you can't be fired for cause; i.e. being late, not fulfilling your job duties. Doesn't strike me as any different than the status quo -- employers have plenty of reasons to unload a problem worker without discriminating.

The California legislature has estimated that taxing the previously untaxed domestically grown $14 billion marijuana market would produce $1.4 billion a year,[4] Taxing marijuana, supporters say, could be a smart way to help alleviate pressure on the state budget.[5]

Current events. Keep up with them much? Around 70% of Californians (a super majority, or the overwhelming majority) voted on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Going to have to call you out on this. The number is 52.3% voting for, which is just over half, not a the overwhelming majority. It can also be said that at least a few of those who voted for it were actually confused, and thought they were voting to affirm gay marriages. Get your shit straight.

It doesn't have a proposition number yet, but some of the more pertinent information can be found at http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Marijuana_Legalization_Initiative_(2010).

With any luck and enough votes, a short time after November 2, 2010, smoke 'em if you got 'em!

Dead people are easier to govern, though there is a loss of productivity.

They're also worth a lot of votes!

"The train grossed $49,351,664 in ticket revenue in Fiscal Year 2006, making it Amtrak's highest grossing single train. With total expenses of $62.1 million, it is Amtrak's best-paying long distance train in terms of income in comparison with operating expenses."

We already have a working, proven solution in the United States to make this happen. All we need to do now is expand it.

Seems that a service which, in the best case, loses 26 cents for every dollar of revenue is hardly a "working, proven solution" that will necessarily scale.

Perhaps there are alternate similar solutions that could work, but I think in its current incarnation it is a proven failure. Just in this "best case" scenario, ticket prices need to be increased 26%, expenses reduced by 21% or some combination thereof to make it successful. If increases in ticket prices drive many consumers away, that likely won't work well. If decreases in expenses causes a reduction in service (less scheduled trains, more crowded trains, less maintenance etc.) and therefore drive many consumers away, that likely won't work well either. Perhaps expenses could be reduced without noticeably impacting service (such as more efficient scheduling or replacing workers w/inflated wages with workers willing to work for market rate) but one has to wonder why this hasn't been done already given the desperate fiscal performance of Amtrak for many years.

I'm not too sure what to make of these figures which indicate that Amtrak enjoys the highest "revenue per passenger mile" in 2001 (the last year data for all categories is shown) among several forms of transport.

• Air carrier, domestic, scheduled service: 13.2 cents
• Class I bus, intercity: 12.9 cents
• Commuter rail: 15.1 cents
• Intercity/Amtrak: 24.9 cents

Perhaps this is because of unique factors such as people stuck on trains for a long time buy food on the train (resulting in revenue that is counted in the passenger mile) while those traveling by plane buy food in the airport or off site because their travel is shorter? Perhaps this is because of the differences in routes served. Perhaps...

I like the concept of rail and use it where practical. However, I'm doubtful that it's a very attractive economic solution for extensive expansion in the United States.

On a related note, California recently passed "Prop 1A to authorize issuing about $10B in bonds towards funding a $40B high speed rail system. Of course, a couple months after it passed, the rich folks (most of whom, by the way, voted for [PDF] it) in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton were shocked, I say shocked, that it might actually run through their towns above grade and not be silently tunneled underground where they could ignore it.

In case you missed it, the voters in the "more than broke" CA approved Proposition 1A, which will "partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train"[2] between SF and LA.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1A_(2008)

Yes and no. Black voters were only somewhat more likely than average to vote for Proposition 8 (58% vs 52% according to your article), but they were substantially more likely to vote for it than was the average Obama voter. Still, probably not enough to swing the results.

I didn't vote yes on 8, but I know a lot of people who did, and their decision had little to do with any lack of sensitivity or exposure to diversity.

It probably had more to do with their lack of education, conservative leaning, or religions affiliation:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Demographics

Did you miss how we just passed Prop 1a to establish a high-speed train system running across the state? For a HUNDRED billion dollars?

How about the BART extension to San Jose?

Yeah, SF isn't Tokyo, or even Boston, and it probably won't be in the near future. But I don't think you can accuse Californians of ignoring mass transit.

This measure is is up for vote on the 2008 California ballot.