R 71: Gays crash planes and computers

[tvashtarkatena]

This is the kind of stuff we have to deal with:

 

 

 

"Stephen Pidgeon, the attorney who presented the case against Referendum 71 to the the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce's Public Affairs Council a few weeks ago (a "yes" vote on R-71 upholds state domestic partnerships legislation), reportedly had a rather unique take on why gay folks shouldn't be given the same rights as straight folks.

 

According to sources who were at the endorsement meeting, Pidgeon blamed domestic partnerships for recent high-profile technical problems with Boeing's 787 and Microsoft's latest software upgrade.

 

Both companies, Pidgeon reportedly noted, passed domestic-partner policies shortly before running into technical glitches. The new policy, he argued, had "undermined [employees'] ability to make good decisions," one source at the presentation says.

 

The Chamber voted to endorse R-71."

[tvashtarkatena]

BTW, be sure to vote YES on 71 if you're for equal domestic partnership rights for all. Confusing, I know, but there you have it.

[pink]

if somebody violated my asshole with their cock i do believe fro,m that point on i may not be able make another good decision in my life

[tvashtarkatena]

What's the wife's opinion on that?

[pink]

one way street dude... asses aren't for fucking. they are for pooping and it's a pretty decent design..

[tvashtarkatena]

OK, OK, don't be so sensitive...or coy, as the case may be.

[Fairweather]

While I generally support R71, I'm outraged that certain gay-rights groups are trying to gain access to the names and addresses of citizens who signed the petition to repeal--it would seem for the sole purpose of harassing them in their homes. They won't help their cause if they travel down this road.

[JosephH]

Are you also outraged by anti-abortion groups as well? They don't seem to agree with your assessment of the effectiveness of the tactic relative to their cause. At least gays won't be assasinating anyone through their kitchen windows.

[Fairweather]

Are you also outraged by anti-abortion groups as well?

 

Off topic. But yes, of course. Like your posts, your sentence is redundant.

[Fairweather]

BTW: Thanks for demonstrating that you don't know anything about R-71, yet feel compelled to spew your bile--facts notwithstanding. Support for R-71 = support for WA's domestic partnership law. Comprende?

[JosephH]

Funny, I don't think I commented on any asspect of R-71, only your outrage (pretty much all a bankrupt right has left to peddle these days - indignation and outrage - no doubt as effective as ever with their discerning base).

[Fairweather]

Funny, I don't think I commented on any asspect of R-71, only your outrage (pretty much all a bankrupt right has left to peddle these days - indignation and outrage - no doubt as effective as ever with their discerning base).

 

I give up. Read the Referendum. I support it. You're a moron.

 

a-s-p-e-c-t

[JosephH]

Again, I didn't comment on R-71 or your position on it - I only commented on your outrage - which part of that are you missing?

[tvashtarkatena]

There are two issues under court review regarding the petition. One is the public disclosure of names on the petition. The other is public disclosure of the sources of funding for the petition.

 

The ACLU's national policy is that disclosure of funding for public advocacy constitutes a violation of free speech. Our national privacy policies would indicate that the organization, at least on a national level, has tended to favor non-disclosure of petition signers' names.

 

This is a WA state issue, however. Both issues are under review by the WA state chapter's legal committee.

 

So far, the courts have recommended that, as long as the state has access to the names for the purposes of verification (and yes, there have been some shinanigans in that department in that case...like unregistered signatures), then the names should not be disclosed.

 

On one hand, signature disclosure could chill participation in petitioning due to fear of retribution; from employers, crazies (death threats or death wishes are not uncommon in this business), family or peer groups. On the other hand disclosure improves s transparency in what is essentially a public process: the crafting of legislation. One could argue that there is no expectation of privacy for signing a referendum petition; it is done in public, after all, and it should (so the argument goes) be a public document in the interests of open government. On might also argue that the interests of having an honest and open referendum petitioning process, which has been subject to a fair bit of corruption of late, outweighs the individual signatory's right to privacy.

 

If, however, signatures must be publicly disclosed, what other parts of the legislative process must be? Certainly, all formal testimony, debates, and hearings already are. Confirmation of voting by individual certainly is (but not how the vote was cast, of course). What of more informal interactions, such as lobbyist/legislator discussions? From a practical standpoint, this probably isn't much of a issue; many of these discussions happen in passing and are not recorded or documented.

 

Personally, I'm in favor of name disclosure, with misgivings, but I'm unsure about disclosing funding. I do need to learn more about the possible ramifications of both.

Edited September 23, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[Fairweather]

Again, I didn't comment on R-71 or your position on it - I only commented on your outrage - which part of that are you missing?

 

So the next time you sign an initiative petition I guess it's safe to say you're OK with, say, the NRA or some anti-tax group calling you at home or paying you a personal visit? Glad you're not outraged about this.

[Off_White]

We have secret ballots, and signing a petition for referendum is a lower level of voting, people should be able to vote their conscience without repercussions.

 

Funding information should be public though,following the money is an essential part of honest government.

[Fairweather]

Here's something to consider: Is the initiative process even constitutional? Article 4, section 4, clause 1: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". The authors were clearly terrified of direct democracy, and Washington's initiative process does subvert representative government to a degree. What do you think?

[i_like_sun]

if somebody violated my asshole with their cock i do believe fro,m that point on i may not be able make another good decision in my life

 

 

So that is what's wrong with you?

[tvashtarkatena]

...the right to petition for redress of grievances...

[Sherri]

It's true. My computer crashes on a regular basis.

[archenemy]

Here's something to consider: Is the initiative process even constitutional? Article 4, section 4, clause 1: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". The authors were clearly terrified of direct democracy, and Washington's initiative process does subvert representative government to a degree. What do you think?

It is clear that they were afraid of a PURE democracy, and that makes sense. But we do use all the tools of direct democracy: referendum, initiative, blah blah blah. But the clause does not mention the republican nature of the gov't. So what was the question again?

[tvashtarkatena]

It's true. My computer crashes on a regular basis.

 

my advice for your next vacation is to drive

Edited September 23, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

Here's something to consider: Is the initiative process even constitutional? Article 4, section 4, clause 1: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". The authors were clearly terrified of direct democracy, and Washington's initiative process does subvert representative government to a degree. What do you think?

 

Every democratic philosopher since the beginning has stressed the overwhelming need for an educated populace to make the system work. We're not fitting the bill. California's fucked for the simple reason that the population wants services, has voted for them through initiatives but doesn't want to pay taxes and has voted them down through the same process.

[Sherri]

It's true. My computer crashes on a regular basis.

 

my advice for your next vacation is to drive

 

Note taken.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Here's something to consider: Is the initiative process even constitutional? Article 4, section 4, clause 1: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". The authors were clearly terrified of direct democracy, and Washington's initiative process does subvert representative government to a degree. What do you think?

 

Every democratic philosopher since the beginning has stressed the overwhelming need for an educated populace to make the system work. We're not fitting the bill. California's fucked for the simple reason that the population wants services, has voted for them through initiatives but doesn't want to pay taxes and has voted them down through the same process.

 

It's a good thing we have such a high-quality public education system that is more expensive per capita than most industrialized nations.