Posts
For a variety of reasons, I supported GPal as a vendor, and trusted them to collect campaign donations.
I became curious at the complete dearth of donations or donation notices from that organization.
When someone I trusted mentioned he'd donated twice and I observed I'd seen money nor notice neither time, my trust was substantially eroded.
Rightly or wrongly, I can no longer sustain faith in this organization, much as I might like to. As a direct result of this loss of my trust, I must recommend that any and all persons who have contributed using the donation page (now disabled) contact GPAL, their bank, and if you believe it appropriate, Washington State Attorney General Robert McKenna.
Rob McKenna
Washington State Attorney General
P.O. Box 40100
Olympia, WA 98504-0100
(360) 753-6200
I don't have answers to my questions, let alone yours. I am, to put it mildly, saddened by this turn of affairs.
If you wish to contribute at this late date to the campaign, please mail your contribution (under $500, any sums bringing the total contribution to in excess of $5,000 to be returned to the donor), including the state mandated name/address/phone number/employer/occupation the old-fashioned way to:
Reluctantly Republican
5946 38th Ave SW
Seattle WA 98126
I will, on the other hand, wholly understand if you wish to take a pass at this point.
Best of Wishes,
Ray Carter
Seattle, WA
Monday, October 4, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
Mayor McGinn & Closing times...
Mayor Mike McGinn of Seattle at least kick-started the discussion of a sensible liquor policy in Washington - suggesting *Seattle* go to staggered closing times rather than proposing Seattle continue with "let's concentrate all our drunks and rowdies as much as we can in a 90 minute time span so we can overwhelm police and emergency services" as policy.
A better choice, of course, would be to abolish a mandatory closing time state-wide.
Some bars will run 24/7 - with their patrons trickling out in dribs and drabs throughout the day and night.
Other bars will only open from 5pm until 1am (harvesting the "sweet spot" of profitability, and writing off other hours as unprofitable or of unacceptable risk).
In all likelihood there will be room not only for both, but for numerous variants.
Most of the time and in most circumstances, one or two folks that are intoxicated are limited by issues of scale in causing major trouble without some kind of mechanical assistance (say, for instance, getting behind the wheel of a car while in such a condition). They can still do damage, but it's at a retail level rather than wholesale.
Get a whole group of them together, and the chances for the sort of stupid to erupt that sends folks to morgues and hospitals...gets a whole lot better - but not a whit more necessary or less tragic.
Making it a matter of public policy, as we have in Washington since Prohibition was finally repealed, to create such groups by mandating but a single closing time for liquor establishments could be reasonably considered less than completely wise, and more than a bit heartless towards the inevitable victims of such a policy.
Noise and over-service are separate issues, not surprisingly. And even less surprisingly, they require separate and closely tailored solutions.
Anyone who's been in a bar can tell you of the "Great Closing Time Liquor Gulp", also known respectively as "Last Call" and "Drink'm Up, boys and girls, it's time to close". Folks buy 2-3 drinks (and, before even starting to propose to limit how many drinks folks can buy at a time, factor in "buying an extra for friends...and the potential for bar fights caused by such a restriction) and in a short space, when they already have drinks in hand, slam them down...with the alcohol not hitting them nor having obvious affect for some variable time thereafter.
To the extent that abolishing a mandatory closing time reduces that self-imposed or addiction-imposed pressure, we are all that one whit safer. But any improvements gained thereby are purely icing, not cake. The real benefits on this front, it seems to me, are to be found in seeking ways to expand treatment opportunities for alcoholics and facilitating bars that have stronger social and entertainment elements in comparison to the heavy drinkers dive.
Closing time isn't a real driver behind night-time noise levels - architecture, development, and bar theme has a lot more to do with noise than an arbitrary closing time ever will.
An extreme example of noise-creating architecture/design would be a outdoor beer garden holding 24/7 amplified heavy metal concerts - loud, under such circumstances, isn't an accident. But lesser examples abound - opening a bright shiny new live music bar, for instance, in the middle of a residential neighborhood in an old drug store with uninsulated wood frame walls...has it's own little challenges in containing noise. Some times the fix is as simple as some sound insulation and a more complex entry - usually it's not.
Similarly, if a developer picks up some entertainment district property surrounded by a lively music scene and lots of nightlife - neither developer nor anyone that buys lovely new condo's from said developer should be surprised that things stay open loud and late in such an environment. And they have no reasonable right to complain about noise they knowingly moved in next to an night life establishment(and if they didn't know...their issue is with their real estate agent for not fully informing them, not with the entertainment establishments...).
Some entertainment venues are louder than others by their very nature. A private club for elderly folks will *usually* be a bit quieter than a live music bar with twenty-somethings as a primary focus. The first will tend to fit fairly seamlessly in the quietest of neighborhoods - the second, not so much. One size, in this as in many things, does not fit all - nor does one rule. And mandatory closing times won't and don't change this.
A better choice, of course, would be to abolish a mandatory closing time state-wide.
Some bars will run 24/7 - with their patrons trickling out in dribs and drabs throughout the day and night.
Other bars will only open from 5pm until 1am (harvesting the "sweet spot" of profitability, and writing off other hours as unprofitable or of unacceptable risk).
In all likelihood there will be room not only for both, but for numerous variants.
Most of the time and in most circumstances, one or two folks that are intoxicated are limited by issues of scale in causing major trouble without some kind of mechanical assistance (say, for instance, getting behind the wheel of a car while in such a condition). They can still do damage, but it's at a retail level rather than wholesale.
Get a whole group of them together, and the chances for the sort of stupid to erupt that sends folks to morgues and hospitals...gets a whole lot better - but not a whit more necessary or less tragic.
Making it a matter of public policy, as we have in Washington since Prohibition was finally repealed, to create such groups by mandating but a single closing time for liquor establishments could be reasonably considered less than completely wise, and more than a bit heartless towards the inevitable victims of such a policy.
Noise and over-service are separate issues, not surprisingly. And even less surprisingly, they require separate and closely tailored solutions.
Anyone who's been in a bar can tell you of the "Great Closing Time Liquor Gulp", also known respectively as "Last Call" and "Drink'm Up, boys and girls, it's time to close". Folks buy 2-3 drinks (and, before even starting to propose to limit how many drinks folks can buy at a time, factor in "buying an extra for friends...and the potential for bar fights caused by such a restriction) and in a short space, when they already have drinks in hand, slam them down...with the alcohol not hitting them nor having obvious affect for some variable time thereafter.
To the extent that abolishing a mandatory closing time reduces that self-imposed or addiction-imposed pressure, we are all that one whit safer. But any improvements gained thereby are purely icing, not cake. The real benefits on this front, it seems to me, are to be found in seeking ways to expand treatment opportunities for alcoholics and facilitating bars that have stronger social and entertainment elements in comparison to the heavy drinkers dive.
Closing time isn't a real driver behind night-time noise levels - architecture, development, and bar theme has a lot more to do with noise than an arbitrary closing time ever will.
An extreme example of noise-creating architecture/design would be a outdoor beer garden holding 24/7 amplified heavy metal concerts - loud, under such circumstances, isn't an accident. But lesser examples abound - opening a bright shiny new live music bar, for instance, in the middle of a residential neighborhood in an old drug store with uninsulated wood frame walls...has it's own little challenges in containing noise. Some times the fix is as simple as some sound insulation and a more complex entry - usually it's not.
Similarly, if a developer picks up some entertainment district property surrounded by a lively music scene and lots of nightlife - neither developer nor anyone that buys lovely new condo's from said developer should be surprised that things stay open loud and late in such an environment. And they have no reasonable right to complain about noise they knowingly moved in next to an night life establishment(and if they didn't know...their issue is with their real estate agent for not fully informing them, not with the entertainment establishments...).
Some entertainment venues are louder than others by their very nature. A private club for elderly folks will *usually* be a bit quieter than a live music bar with twenty-somethings as a primary focus. The first will tend to fit fairly seamlessly in the quietest of neighborhoods - the second, not so much. One size, in this as in many things, does not fit all - nor does one rule. And mandatory closing times won't and don't change this.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
A pleasant parade
I want to open by thanking the folks at Liberty Bell Printing in West Seattle - having rushed in at the VERY last minute, and already largely given up on getting business cards to print out for the West Seattle American Legion Parade the next day, the folks there surprised me something fierce and told me to wait a few and they'd knock it out right away.
About half an hour after closing and a few (very reasonable) dollars later I left to head to the Luna Cafe, cards in hand, and nothing short of delighted with the product quality and the customer service. I'd recommend them to most anyone (yes, you too, Eileen - they really are that good and deserve *all* of our patronage!) .
Morning of the parade went reasonably well, right up till it got interesting.
Was taking Mom to her place on the route over by ShooFly Pie when she found an obscured 4" bump in the side walk and took a tumble, munched her glasses, and gashed her face where her eyeglasses dug in. At 82, tumbles aren't a casual event, so bundled her back into the car and headed for Swedish by way of younger brothers house where folks decided that Mom was ok to rest there with my neice...and I was more or less ordered back to the route to distribute campaign business cards and say hi to folks.
Lesson? Given the apparent lack of priority given sidewalk maintenance* in Seattle, I'd suggest we all be a little more watchful where we're walking - ESPECIALLY if we have depth perception issues.
Following familial directions and fretting a wee bit about Mom, meandered back to the Parade route and strolled north along California, chatting and handing out business cards - a good time, and surprising how many folks dislike the Liquor Board (and how passionately) and how many folks share my concerns about fiscal responsibility in Olympia.
Saw Eldest Niece in a band on the route, spoke with a lot of folks (and only ran into one or two truly rude sorts), and stayed positive. Actually ran into several moderate and conservative Republicans, and some folks that were amazingly grateful that there *was* anyone, even reluctantly, running as a Republican in W. Seattle.
Must remember to pick up a hat and some sunscreen before doing this again, though!!
And yes, Mom is, if at all possible, seeing the optometrist on Monday.
*a friend had a similar experience with his Mom and wasn't precisely greeted with enthused support and assurances of swift repair by the folks he contacted at the city, and I've heard similar tales elsewhere. I'd be delighted to hear this is untrue, but am not terribly optimistic.
About half an hour after closing and a few (very reasonable) dollars later I left to head to the Luna Cafe, cards in hand, and nothing short of delighted with the product quality and the customer service. I'd recommend them to most anyone (yes, you too, Eileen - they really are that good and deserve *all* of our patronage!) .
Morning of the parade went reasonably well, right up till it got interesting.
Was taking Mom to her place on the route over by ShooFly Pie when she found an obscured 4" bump in the side walk and took a tumble, munched her glasses, and gashed her face where her eyeglasses dug in. At 82, tumbles aren't a casual event, so bundled her back into the car and headed for Swedish by way of younger brothers house where folks decided that Mom was ok to rest there with my neice...and I was more or less ordered back to the route to distribute campaign business cards and say hi to folks.
Lesson? Given the apparent lack of priority given sidewalk maintenance* in Seattle, I'd suggest we all be a little more watchful where we're walking - ESPECIALLY if we have depth perception issues.
Following familial directions and fretting a wee bit about Mom, meandered back to the Parade route and strolled north along California, chatting and handing out business cards - a good time, and surprising how many folks dislike the Liquor Board (and how passionately) and how many folks share my concerns about fiscal responsibility in Olympia.
Saw Eldest Niece in a band on the route, spoke with a lot of folks (and only ran into one or two truly rude sorts), and stayed positive. Actually ran into several moderate and conservative Republicans, and some folks that were amazingly grateful that there *was* anyone, even reluctantly, running as a Republican in W. Seattle.
Must remember to pick up a hat and some sunscreen before doing this again, though!!
And yes, Mom is, if at all possible, seeing the optometrist on Monday.
*a friend had a similar experience with his Mom and wasn't precisely greeted with enthused support and assurances of swift repair by the folks he contacted at the city, and I've heard similar tales elsewhere. I'd be delighted to hear this is untrue, but am not terribly optimistic.
Meeting and greeting
I had the good fortune to visit the 34th District Republicans at their monthly meeting this last week, and the group proved largely made up of gracious and friendly hosts of active intellect.
I spoke, but I got to hear two other candidates speak - both of whom impressed me favorably.
Diane Toledo, running for Dow Constantine's old 8th District seat (Jan Drago is stepping down, having served as an interim Council Member). Toledo wowed us all as a non-partisan candidate and survivor of the bureaucratic wars of King County Government. Her experience inside the system and passion for fiscal responsibility combine with a well-honed sense that the Council and the County Government work for the citizenry to make for a strong presentation.
Her priorities are pretty obvious - in addition to the above, she advocates taking firm steps to remedy cronyism in County Government (in favor of competence, efficiency, and serving the citizenry) and ending an endless series of reaction-driven audits of symptoms - preferring to resolve root causes.
Mack McElroy, the second candidate speaking, is running for 34th District, House of Representatives #2, and makes a strong argument why he should be elected. From what I've seen of the man, I agree he'd make a strong and principled leader in Olympia - a legislator ruled more by facts and logic than whimsy and fanaticism.
McElroy comes across as blunt, straightforward, down to earth, and above all - sensible. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal - a good fit for West Seattle. Running as an independent, he will help change the conversation in Olympia if elected.
My own speech, less practiced than those of candidates with months already on the campaign trail, seemed well received and I enjoyed answering the groups questions.
Also speaking, a representative of the Rossi Campaign shared his enthusiasm with the group quite articulately. I don't know that Rossi is the ultimate best Senatorial Candidate out there - but he seems the best bet to unseat Sen. Murray and perhaps create a bit of balance in the Senate.
If you don't make it out to these events, you might consider it - it's a great way to meet the candidates face to face, meet others who either might be like-minded or spur you to re-evaluate your assumptions (or you might do the same for them), and at the end of the day - meet some worthwhile folks of whatever political persuasion that care passionately about their community.
I spoke, but I got to hear two other candidates speak - both of whom impressed me favorably.
Diane Toledo, running for Dow Constantine's old 8th District seat (Jan Drago is stepping down, having served as an interim Council Member). Toledo wowed us all as a non-partisan candidate and survivor of the bureaucratic wars of King County Government. Her experience inside the system and passion for fiscal responsibility combine with a well-honed sense that the Council and the County Government work for the citizenry to make for a strong presentation.
Her priorities are pretty obvious - in addition to the above, she advocates taking firm steps to remedy cronyism in County Government (in favor of competence, efficiency, and serving the citizenry) and ending an endless series of reaction-driven audits of symptoms - preferring to resolve root causes.
Mack McElroy, the second candidate speaking, is running for 34th District, House of Representatives #2, and makes a strong argument why he should be elected. From what I've seen of the man, I agree he'd make a strong and principled leader in Olympia - a legislator ruled more by facts and logic than whimsy and fanaticism.
McElroy comes across as blunt, straightforward, down to earth, and above all - sensible. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal - a good fit for West Seattle. Running as an independent, he will help change the conversation in Olympia if elected.
My own speech, less practiced than those of candidates with months already on the campaign trail, seemed well received and I enjoyed answering the groups questions.
Also speaking, a representative of the Rossi Campaign shared his enthusiasm with the group quite articulately. I don't know that Rossi is the ultimate best Senatorial Candidate out there - but he seems the best bet to unseat Sen. Murray and perhaps create a bit of balance in the Senate.
If you don't make it out to these events, you might consider it - it's a great way to meet the candidates face to face, meet others who either might be like-minded or spur you to re-evaluate your assumptions (or you might do the same for them), and at the end of the day - meet some worthwhile folks of whatever political persuasion that care passionately about their community.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Port of Seattle
I spoke the other day with a respected local business leader, and he was advocating for closing the Port of Seattle's marine side down as polluting and duplicative of the Port of Tacoma - that Seattle would end up with better and safer roads, less pollution, and because of reduced diesel emissions from both ships and trucks...a healthier population. This, all at the same time that the Port marine properties (Harbor Island, waterfront properties, etc) could be sold off and re-developed as view condo's (not unlike, he shared, the experience of San Francisco in largely closing its' port in favor of Oakland) and other uses.
I hesitated to chime in with eager agreement, because in my experience things are never that simple. If elected, I think the notion bears examination - but I'm concerned about secondary and tertiary effects.
Where do all the truckers working the port today go for jobs? How will a port closure affect businesses in Seattle? If there is a significant displacement of workers (and the folks supporting those workers), just how strong an economic and human impact will that have on a recession impacted Seattle?
I'm open to reason on this one, but I'm fairly sure if we're going to talk about this and contemplate some kind of action - that it's too complex for a simple "yep, let's do it". I think our citizens are owed our time and effort to learn what doing it right looks like in this case, and only then moving forward.
We don't have the margin for repetitive "oops! Let's try again" as an approach, just now.
I hesitated to chime in with eager agreement, because in my experience things are never that simple. If elected, I think the notion bears examination - but I'm concerned about secondary and tertiary effects.
Where do all the truckers working the port today go for jobs? How will a port closure affect businesses in Seattle? If there is a significant displacement of workers (and the folks supporting those workers), just how strong an economic and human impact will that have on a recession impacted Seattle?
I'm open to reason on this one, but I'm fairly sure if we're going to talk about this and contemplate some kind of action - that it's too complex for a simple "yep, let's do it". I think our citizens are owed our time and effort to learn what doing it right looks like in this case, and only then moving forward.
We don't have the margin for repetitive "oops! Let's try again" as an approach, just now.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Why Immigration isn't simple...
The fine folks at the CATO Institute have forwarded a report of a couple of *legal* immigrants who because their still-profitable restaurant isn't making enough profit...are being hurled from the country, likely killing off their business and leading to their employees joining the ranks of the jobless.
As a national issue, we need to secure our borders - but we also need to take a long hard look at reforming our immigration code to include wacky things like logic, compassion, and comprehensibility. Common sense may be a bit much to ask for at this late date.
As a national issue, we need to secure our borders - but we also need to take a long hard look at reforming our immigration code to include wacky things like logic, compassion, and comprehensibility. Common sense may be a bit much to ask for at this late date.
Monday, July 5, 2010
A few comments on McDonald vs. Chicago
If you've not read of it, McDonald v. Chicago is a landmark case recently handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that not only does the Second Amendment of the United States enshrine an individual right, but that the rights protected by the Second apply to the States and their subordinate bodies (Counties, Cities, etc) as well as federal organizations/agencies.
And it looks like the Court will be using either intermediate ("must show rational reason why a given law would not only be intended to accomplish a necessary state purpose, but a reasonable expectation that it will do so) or strict (must not only show the requirements for intermediate, but ALSO show that the law is the least restrictive approach available to accomplish the goal du jour) scrutiny. High hurdles indeed.
Whether you think that's a great or terrible idea, it opens MANY cans of worms. Expensive ones, filled with litigation and other high-priced badness.
We cannot afford the price to play, whether we are talking about as a State...or one of our cities, counties, and other subordinate bodies. We're in deep financial trouble at most every level, and jumping up and down shouting "Sue me! Sue me!" would seem a bad notion in all but a tiny number of instances (say, for instance...when either fundamental individual rights are being violated, constitutional provisions are at issue, or it would cost more NOT to litigate).
And if we can't afford it, we don't NEED to debate any further. Would you rather fund a lawsuit defending a constitutionally questionable law or regulation - or would you rather fund a school?
Fortunately, Washington (due to a prescient state pre-emption law that reserves the entire field of gun regulation and legislation to the Washington State Legislature) is far less vulnerable to civil rights lawsuits springing out of McDonald than many other (and less fortunate) jurisdictions.
We don't need much change here in order to make darned sure our state and its' cities and counties don't get sucked into an expensive judicial whirlwind. We can let someone else be the test case, and let them do it on their dime.
City and County legislative bodies can quickly scan their various legal codes to ensure that they fall within the scope of State law. At which point, they are pretty much home free - allowing them to go spend time and energy on other issues and less money on litigation.
At the state level, we have only a very few areas of potential vulnerability if my understanding is correct. We maintain a state pistol registry, largely unused, that duplicates the federal pistol registry - a redundancy that costs money, that we don't particularly need, and leaves us just as vulnerable as if we were to require journalists to have licenses. After folks stopped pointing and laughing at us, the lawyers representing the local media would obliterate any defense of such a law...and with the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms now held a fundamental individual right - it's reasonable to expect the pistol registry to be treated with about as much gentility.
It's a liability that we're well rid of, and one that we save money on by getting rid of without even being sued. We get no benefit from keeping it (anything it does, the Federal registry does better), it costs us money to keep it, and it puts the State at risk of litigation to keep it.
Our second area of vulnerability is the requirement of a concealed pistol license (as opposed to creating a list of those barred from concealed carry). Frankly, I consider this something of a long shot...but with a bunch of established case law now up for grabs, I'd support our state carefully stepping OUT of the minefield - at least until the dust settles. Lift or suspend the requirement, and let another state fight the battle...we can always revisit the subject later.
Our third area of vulnerability is fairly counter-intuitive. It doesn't make sense. Yet, under strict scrutiny at least, it could get us into all kinds of costly headaches. I speak of the bar ban. At first glance, it makes all kinds of sense to bar guns from bars - even folks in the gun community will agree that booze and guns are a poor mix.
Yet our neighbor to the South, Oregon, is ok with folks with guns in their bars...and it doesn't seem to lead to chaos and mayhem - which kind of undermines our position under a strict scrutiny analysis. And the same is true of several other states.
I'd really have a hard time arguing that we here in Washington are uniquely stupid, evil, or dysfunctional such that our citizens cannot be entrusted to behave as well or better(on a per capita basis) than citizens of the other states of the union that do allow "bar carry". This one doesn't really excite me, but when we're talking about "no, thank you, I'd rather the state not get sued" as a motivator, it may be worth considering.
We really can't AFFORD to be a test case right now...and our best bet is to ensure we're not targeted as such.
I'm not aware of any other potential pitfalls - but I'm not willing to bet there aren't any, either. But waiting around to have our vulnerabilities pointed out at great cost to the State by various and sundry plaintiffs...seems like a bad, and irresponsible, plan. We can do better.
And it looks like the Court will be using either intermediate ("must show rational reason why a given law would not only be intended to accomplish a necessary state purpose, but a reasonable expectation that it will do so) or strict (must not only show the requirements for intermediate, but ALSO show that the law is the least restrictive approach available to accomplish the goal du jour) scrutiny. High hurdles indeed.
Whether you think that's a great or terrible idea, it opens MANY cans of worms. Expensive ones, filled with litigation and other high-priced badness.
We cannot afford the price to play, whether we are talking about as a State...or one of our cities, counties, and other subordinate bodies. We're in deep financial trouble at most every level, and jumping up and down shouting "Sue me! Sue me!" would seem a bad notion in all but a tiny number of instances (say, for instance...when either fundamental individual rights are being violated, constitutional provisions are at issue, or it would cost more NOT to litigate).
And if we can't afford it, we don't NEED to debate any further. Would you rather fund a lawsuit defending a constitutionally questionable law or regulation - or would you rather fund a school?
Fortunately, Washington (due to a prescient state pre-emption law that reserves the entire field of gun regulation and legislation to the Washington State Legislature) is far less vulnerable to civil rights lawsuits springing out of McDonald than many other (and less fortunate) jurisdictions.
We don't need much change here in order to make darned sure our state and its' cities and counties don't get sucked into an expensive judicial whirlwind. We can let someone else be the test case, and let them do it on their dime.
City and County legislative bodies can quickly scan their various legal codes to ensure that they fall within the scope of State law. At which point, they are pretty much home free - allowing them to go spend time and energy on other issues and less money on litigation.
At the state level, we have only a very few areas of potential vulnerability if my understanding is correct. We maintain a state pistol registry, largely unused, that duplicates the federal pistol registry - a redundancy that costs money, that we don't particularly need, and leaves us just as vulnerable as if we were to require journalists to have licenses. After folks stopped pointing and laughing at us, the lawyers representing the local media would obliterate any defense of such a law...and with the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms now held a fundamental individual right - it's reasonable to expect the pistol registry to be treated with about as much gentility.
It's a liability that we're well rid of, and one that we save money on by getting rid of without even being sued. We get no benefit from keeping it (anything it does, the Federal registry does better), it costs us money to keep it, and it puts the State at risk of litigation to keep it.
Our second area of vulnerability is the requirement of a concealed pistol license (as opposed to creating a list of those barred from concealed carry). Frankly, I consider this something of a long shot...but with a bunch of established case law now up for grabs, I'd support our state carefully stepping OUT of the minefield - at least until the dust settles. Lift or suspend the requirement, and let another state fight the battle...we can always revisit the subject later.
Our third area of vulnerability is fairly counter-intuitive. It doesn't make sense. Yet, under strict scrutiny at least, it could get us into all kinds of costly headaches. I speak of the bar ban. At first glance, it makes all kinds of sense to bar guns from bars - even folks in the gun community will agree that booze and guns are a poor mix.
Yet our neighbor to the South, Oregon, is ok with folks with guns in their bars...and it doesn't seem to lead to chaos and mayhem - which kind of undermines our position under a strict scrutiny analysis. And the same is true of several other states.
I'd really have a hard time arguing that we here in Washington are uniquely stupid, evil, or dysfunctional such that our citizens cannot be entrusted to behave as well or better(on a per capita basis) than citizens of the other states of the union that do allow "bar carry". This one doesn't really excite me, but when we're talking about "no, thank you, I'd rather the state not get sued" as a motivator, it may be worth considering.
We really can't AFFORD to be a test case right now...and our best bet is to ensure we're not targeted as such.
I'm not aware of any other potential pitfalls - but I'm not willing to bet there aren't any, either. But waiting around to have our vulnerabilities pointed out at great cost to the State by various and sundry plaintiffs...seems like a bad, and irresponsible, plan. We can do better.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
As we celebrate our independence
Today is a good day to sit down, just for a few moments (and given the hour, perhaps tomorrow sometime) to read and recall the founding documents of our nation and the times and persons that brought them forth.
The Declaration of Independence tells a tale of a nation in bondage, restates the fundamental right of all persons "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It then offers a checklist of offenses that our founders considered worthy of such a dangerous course of action - a checklist that would qualify as a "good start". We would do well to review that list every year and compare it against our current state of government.
Even today, the document is a fiery declaration of fundamental rights and worthy of review...and my fondest hope is that our nation never again faces such desperate times.
Our Constitutions, that of the United States and of the State of Washington, also are worthy of at least that annual review. Are our leaders playing by the rules? Are the rules still good ones? And if the answer to either is "no", then what is to be done?
Read the Constitutions. Then the Bill of Rights, and then the remaining 17 Amendments passed (and sometimes repealed) over 234 years that have changed the Constitution of the United States (the WA Constitution online is updated annually), and finally the Amendments that remain unratified to see the changes that were proposed yet did not fly... and in the case of the older ones...contained no "expiration date" so could be ratified over 200 years after their original passage through Congress - not unlike the 27th, passed in 1789 and ratified in 2002.
Once a patriotic holiday, today Independence Day has been largely supplanted by "4th of July" celebrations - with frequently meaningless fireworks displays (though I do not begrudge them), little emphasis on history, and rather more on beer and barbecue.
Take a few moments, read, and go forward. Seems unlikely to do any harm, and a fair bet to do some good. Certainly not much effort to honor those who bet their lives on a fragile proto-nation when they signed the Declaration all those years ago.
The Declaration of Independence tells a tale of a nation in bondage, restates the fundamental right of all persons "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
It then offers a checklist of offenses that our founders considered worthy of such a dangerous course of action - a checklist that would qualify as a "good start". We would do well to review that list every year and compare it against our current state of government.
Even today, the document is a fiery declaration of fundamental rights and worthy of review...and my fondest hope is that our nation never again faces such desperate times.
Our Constitutions, that of the United States and of the State of Washington, also are worthy of at least that annual review. Are our leaders playing by the rules? Are the rules still good ones? And if the answer to either is "no", then what is to be done?
Read the Constitutions. Then the Bill of Rights, and then the remaining 17 Amendments passed (and sometimes repealed) over 234 years that have changed the Constitution of the United States (the WA Constitution online is updated annually), and finally the Amendments that remain unratified to see the changes that were proposed yet did not fly... and in the case of the older ones...contained no "expiration date" so could be ratified over 200 years after their original passage through Congress - not unlike the 27th, passed in 1789 and ratified in 2002.
Once a patriotic holiday, today Independence Day has been largely supplanted by "4th of July" celebrations - with frequently meaningless fireworks displays (though I do not begrudge them), little emphasis on history, and rather more on beer and barbecue.
Take a few moments, read, and go forward. Seems unlikely to do any harm, and a fair bet to do some good. Certainly not much effort to honor those who bet their lives on a fragile proto-nation when they signed the Declaration all those years ago.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
A night in the life of a candidate
Tonight was certainly busy, and definitely a bit odd. After appearing at a City of Seattle mixer in my other persona of dedicated worker bee, it was off to a Municipal League candidate interview - a distinctly odd experience given my time on the other end of the stick back in my SEAMEC days.
I hadn't thought I was nervous - but it turns out I was, at least initially. Hopefully, I didn't bobble too badly, but it brought me a new appreciation of what those candidates of yore went through.
Just home, sending a few e-mails and doing some work and campaign stuff, then off to bed.
I hadn't thought I was nervous - but it turns out I was, at least initially. Hopefully, I didn't bobble too badly, but it brought me a new appreciation of what those candidates of yore went through.
Just home, sending a few e-mails and doing some work and campaign stuff, then off to bed.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
The GOP Platform
In case I've been insufficiently clear under "Why Reluctant"...
To dissect appropriately...
The family unit is a cornerstone of a free society - but it is not the only one, but one of several upon which a culture is built. Further, morality - while having many common features across many religious and ethical structures - is a good long way from universal...so what say we stick to *free* and leave morals and ethics for sorting out by either individuals and their churches, or individuals and their chosen ethical structure.
It is the responsibility of parents, and those parents by wisely choosing elected officials, to educate children in the meaning of being a good citizen and to inculcate a proper degree of skepticism about what "everyone knows" and towards authority figures in general.
Governments responsibility in such matters, where any such responsibility exists, is to prevent or abort abusive situations and to enforce and interpret (when necessary) contracts between consenting and competent adults regarding co-habitation, child-raising, and resource sharing - ameliorating the worst abuses when found. It is emphatically not to preserve tradition (which may be right, wrong, or some state between).
Protecting the elderly and children from the worst elements of society is, indeed, a worthy goal. But, one must ask, who is "worst" this week, and what do you mean by protection?
Are we talking about LGBT folk shouldn't be allowed in the teaching or medical professions? Or are we talking about "axe murders probably shouldn't be caregivers? A certain precision in language would be appreciated here, given the sad history of such things. The second I can get behind...the first, not so much.
It's things like this (and oh, so very many others) that leave me lukewarm about the GOP as it sits today. I have far more hope for its improvement, however, than I do for the Democrats...and that saddens me.
Washington GOP 2010 Platform:
To dissect appropriately...
The family unit is a cornerstone of a free society - but it is not the only one, but one of several upon which a culture is built. Further, morality - while having many common features across many religious and ethical structures - is a good long way from universal...so what say we stick to *free* and leave morals and ethics for sorting out by either individuals and their churches, or individuals and their chosen ethical structure.
It is the responsibility of parents, and those parents by wisely choosing elected officials, to educate children in the meaning of being a good citizen and to inculcate a proper degree of skepticism about what "everyone knows" and towards authority figures in general.
Governments responsibility in such matters, where any such responsibility exists, is to prevent or abort abusive situations and to enforce and interpret (when necessary) contracts between consenting and competent adults regarding co-habitation, child-raising, and resource sharing - ameliorating the worst abuses when found. It is emphatically not to preserve tradition (which may be right, wrong, or some state between).
Protecting the elderly and children from the worst elements of society is, indeed, a worthy goal. But, one must ask, who is "worst" this week, and what do you mean by protection?
Are we talking about LGBT folk shouldn't be allowed in the teaching or medical professions? Or are we talking about "axe murders probably shouldn't be caregivers? A certain precision in language would be appreciated here, given the sad history of such things. The second I can get behind...the first, not so much.
It's things like this (and oh, so very many others) that leave me lukewarm about the GOP as it sits today. I have far more hope for its improvement, however, than I do for the Democrats...and that saddens me.
Belltown Violence
The recent events in Belltown, one of Seattle's more notable entertainment and condo districts, cry out for a response. Muggings, stabbings, car prowls, and criminal shootings are all part of the same package of "things none of us like happening in our neighborhoods or anywhere near us".
At the same time, the *obvious* solutions have either been tried or are temporary sops that while they may provide some temporary relief (assigning 20-30 more uniformed Seattle Police officers to the area on the graveyard shift may *move* the problem - but eventually those officers will need to be re-assigned and the trouble returns), fail to address the underlying problem.
A failure to recognize a glaring demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
After Prohibition ended, for some reason some particularly clever soul came to the conclusion that bar owners couldn't be trusted to decide their own operating hours and mandated closure of every single bar in the state at the same time, 2 a.m. ...
Now, whatever benefits might be seen from this, a demonstrable result is that between 1:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. we consistently see an increase in criminal activity as folks depart (or are ejected from) en mass from various bars and venues with hormones and alcohol intertwined in a toxic mix of varying intensity leading to diminished judgment skills and combined with lessened inhibitions.
More bluntly, by tossing all those varyingly inebriated folks out onto the streets in response to a mandated closing hour in one great push we not only create an opportunity for the ejected to be stupid (occasionally criminally) amongst themselves - but we serve up those very people on a silver platter to every predator in the region at a prearranged time and place.
When we have a whole bunch of bars and entertainment venues in a relatively compact area (BellTown) it only enhances the effect.
This mix doesn't precisely improve local living conditions for residents of BellTown. It's not good for bars or entertainment venues either, in that if it's scary to visit an area, the number of paying customers diminishes as a new less-scary hot-spot pops up. And finally, it's not precisely a help in marketing the safety and urbanity of a City.
Just perhaps, as part of the solution, we can *consider* at the level of the State Legislature whether the mandatory 2 a.m. closing time really provides the citizens of Washington with benefits sufficient to outweigh its' costs in blood and tears.
At the same time, the *obvious* solutions have either been tried or are temporary sops that while they may provide some temporary relief (assigning 20-30 more uniformed Seattle Police officers to the area on the graveyard shift may *move* the problem - but eventually those officers will need to be re-assigned and the trouble returns), fail to address the underlying problem.
A failure to recognize a glaring demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
After Prohibition ended, for some reason some particularly clever soul came to the conclusion that bar owners couldn't be trusted to decide their own operating hours and mandated closure of every single bar in the state at the same time, 2 a.m. ...
Now, whatever benefits might be seen from this, a demonstrable result is that between 1:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. we consistently see an increase in criminal activity as folks depart (or are ejected from) en mass from various bars and venues with hormones and alcohol intertwined in a toxic mix of varying intensity leading to diminished judgment skills and combined with lessened inhibitions.
More bluntly, by tossing all those varyingly inebriated folks out onto the streets in response to a mandated closing hour in one great push we not only create an opportunity for the ejected to be stupid (occasionally criminally) amongst themselves - but we serve up those very people on a silver platter to every predator in the region at a prearranged time and place.
When we have a whole bunch of bars and entertainment venues in a relatively compact area (BellTown) it only enhances the effect.
This mix doesn't precisely improve local living conditions for residents of BellTown. It's not good for bars or entertainment venues either, in that if it's scary to visit an area, the number of paying customers diminishes as a new less-scary hot-spot pops up. And finally, it's not precisely a help in marketing the safety and urbanity of a City.
Just perhaps, as part of the solution, we can *consider* at the level of the State Legislature whether the mandatory 2 a.m. closing time really provides the citizens of Washington with benefits sufficient to outweigh its' costs in blood and tears.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
The 2011 Budget Crisis
Thursday, the Governors office reported (via the Seattle Times) that the Legislature will face a $3 billion gap when they start writing the new 2011-2013 biennium budget this coming January.
The easy fixes are gone, the painless cuts long since past, and the tax payers growing cranky. The taxes passed in the last legislative session look to be up for repeal, and a reprise of Initiative 960 seems likely to appear if not this fall, certainly the next.
That will only leave legislators in 2011 with a choice of which oxen are to be gored - which programs will be cut or eliminated, and who will be the target of unwelcome new taxes. And if the Governors revenue projections have any merit as a barometer, neither cities or counties will be in any position to pick up the slack.
Not surprisingly, I'm not much of a fan of new taxes as a way to fix the situation - the secondary effects on employers, workers, and folks trying to survive on limited incomes are likely to be devastating to say the least.
Faced with the current range of choices (each and every single one of them bad, to a greater or lesser degree)...are the folks that got us here really the ones you want to trust come January?
The easy fixes are gone, the painless cuts long since past, and the tax payers growing cranky. The taxes passed in the last legislative session look to be up for repeal, and a reprise of Initiative 960 seems likely to appear if not this fall, certainly the next.
That will only leave legislators in 2011 with a choice of which oxen are to be gored - which programs will be cut or eliminated, and who will be the target of unwelcome new taxes. And if the Governors revenue projections have any merit as a barometer, neither cities or counties will be in any position to pick up the slack.
Not surprisingly, I'm not much of a fan of new taxes as a way to fix the situation - the secondary effects on employers, workers, and folks trying to survive on limited incomes are likely to be devastating to say the least.
Faced with the current range of choices (each and every single one of them bad, to a greater or lesser degree)...are the folks that got us here really the ones you want to trust come January?
Friday, June 18, 2010
$7 a gallon gas
Reported at the New York Post, the current administrations proposal to respond to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico would drive gas and diesel prices at the pump to $7/gallon and beyond according to Harvard economists.
What does that mean?
Well, aside from pain for all at the pump, such events would have a number of serious and less obvious implications - and as a state legislative candidate, I tend to look at how it would affect the state budget and Washington citizens.
I'm not a formally educated economist, but some things seem kind of obvious. From a purely environmental and national security point of view ($7/ga means folks will drive a LOT less - fewer pollutants, and reduced dependence on foreign oil) it's a DANDY idea. When you start to factor in economic effects, not nearly so much.
Fuel costs (very obviously) are going to go right through the budget-busting roof for every single state agency - meaning money budgeted for services will suddenly either be getting transferred to motor vehicle operations...or simply sitting unspent, as the service provider cannot get to the
target audience on foot and with fuel prices at that level, it isn't a good bet they'll be willing to run their own gas-burner down the road. This will be no less true for cities and counties.
Now, as a result of higher fuel costs, individuals and businesses will be buying less (as they will be spending a larger portion of their funds on fuel) and most will be seeking to make up their losses by economizing across the board. Discretionary spending will, for many, simply vanish as an option.
Watch sales tax revenue drop.
Next, the cost of goods will also rise dramatically, followed shortly by consumer prices. Cost of goods includes materials production (often requiring energy, often oil), materials transport, assembly, transport from either manufacturer to consumer or to wholesaler (and thence transport to retailer), and then the cost of end-business (the folks who sell the goody du jour to the end user) operations (rent, salary, utilities, taxes, etc). Count the number of times a product is transported. $7.00/gallon will dramatically increase the cost of each transport or production step along the way - and those costs are, in turn, passed forward. Watch prices scream through the ceiling. Yet another price driver that will reduce sales, and thus sales tax revenue - not only do consumers suddenly have less money available, but everything the eye beholds suddenly costs more. Another sales tax revenue killer.
Now, the above isn't precisely *good* for most businesses. When customers don't buy or can't buy, businesses tend to reduce hours and employees - and often just plain close the doors and the owners attempt to go find something more productive to do than throwing cash down a rat hole. Again, whenever a business closes, the B&O tax revenues take a hit. And folks go on unemployment, generating an expense that places an additional pressure on a budget already under siege from diminishing revenues.
While all this may be one heck of a cool thing for folks in the Electric Vehicle business...there's a tiny little hitch. No matter what we want, we are not going to see a 100% or even 10% conversion to electric vehicles in the near term - because the manufacturing plants simply aren't there to support the volume necessary, and it takes TIME to build them.
This is just a preliminary contemplation...but, I suggest, one we should consider in planning our states future. Far too often we've been caught flat-footed and driven into ill-considered reactive "must do something" mode...only to pay again later to fix the panicked "solution" thrown into place mid-crisis. Generally, planning ahead hurts less.
What does that mean?
Well, aside from pain for all at the pump, such events would have a number of serious and less obvious implications - and as a state legislative candidate, I tend to look at how it would affect the state budget and Washington citizens.
I'm not a formally educated economist, but some things seem kind of obvious. From a purely environmental and national security point of view ($7/ga means folks will drive a LOT less - fewer pollutants, and reduced dependence on foreign oil) it's a DANDY idea. When you start to factor in economic effects, not nearly so much.
Fuel costs (very obviously) are going to go right through the budget-busting roof for every single state agency - meaning money budgeted for services will suddenly either be getting transferred to motor vehicle operations...or simply sitting unspent, as the service provider cannot get to the
target audience on foot and with fuel prices at that level, it isn't a good bet they'll be willing to run their own gas-burner down the road. This will be no less true for cities and counties.
Now, as a result of higher fuel costs, individuals and businesses will be buying less (as they will be spending a larger portion of their funds on fuel) and most will be seeking to make up their losses by economizing across the board. Discretionary spending will, for many, simply vanish as an option.
Watch sales tax revenue drop.
Next, the cost of goods will also rise dramatically, followed shortly by consumer prices. Cost of goods includes materials production (often requiring energy, often oil), materials transport, assembly, transport from either manufacturer to consumer or to wholesaler (and thence transport to retailer), and then the cost of end-business (the folks who sell the goody du jour to the end user) operations (rent, salary, utilities, taxes, etc). Count the number of times a product is transported. $7.00/gallon will dramatically increase the cost of each transport or production step along the way - and those costs are, in turn, passed forward. Watch prices scream through the ceiling. Yet another price driver that will reduce sales, and thus sales tax revenue - not only do consumers suddenly have less money available, but everything the eye beholds suddenly costs more. Another sales tax revenue killer.
Now, the above isn't precisely *good* for most businesses. When customers don't buy or can't buy, businesses tend to reduce hours and employees - and often just plain close the doors and the owners attempt to go find something more productive to do than throwing cash down a rat hole. Again, whenever a business closes, the B&O tax revenues take a hit. And folks go on unemployment, generating an expense that places an additional pressure on a budget already under siege from diminishing revenues.
While all this may be one heck of a cool thing for folks in the Electric Vehicle business...there's a tiny little hitch. No matter what we want, we are not going to see a 100% or even 10% conversion to electric vehicles in the near term - because the manufacturing plants simply aren't there to support the volume necessary, and it takes TIME to build them.
This is just a preliminary contemplation...but, I suggest, one we should consider in planning our states future. Far too often we've been caught flat-footed and driven into ill-considered reactive "must do something" mode...only to pay again later to fix the panicked "solution" thrown into place mid-crisis. Generally, planning ahead hurts less.
A political neophyte jumps in...
I've done the community activist schtick, encouraged others to run for public office, and in one instance helped a friend get started on a run for office. But that's different from doing it yourself while holding down a job and running a one-man campaign. Even a campaign where you figure if you get enough donations to pay (or even help pay) the bills, it's a win.
Over the last few days I've rushed about, given a news interview, filled out (and continue to fill out) forms, found a possible online donation processor (Clickandpledge), and talked to the local GOP folks. To keep from being bored, I've knocked together a website, set up e-mail, and built this blog - and shortly will be firing up Facebook and Twitter campaign accounts.
And this while pulling down a full work week, updating the company website, and doing a bit of marketing here and there. And there's still plenty to do both at work and regarding the campaign.
If you're going to do this yourself, start at the top of the post, and read through. Before you jump in, go ahead and get together folks that won't just cough up cash - but will jump in and help out. I suspect I'm going to need to overcome my fundamental reticence about such matters and actually ask for that odd thing, help.
I don't regret it a bit, and look forward to the Primary and General elections. But I hadn't expected quite this level of rushing about! I suspect most first-time candidates, if you corner them someplace private, might share similar sentiments...
Best of Wishes,
Ray
Over the last few days I've rushed about, given a news interview, filled out (and continue to fill out) forms, found a possible online donation processor (Clickandpledge), and talked to the local GOP folks. To keep from being bored, I've knocked together a website, set up e-mail, and built this blog - and shortly will be firing up Facebook and Twitter campaign accounts.
And this while pulling down a full work week, updating the company website, and doing a bit of marketing here and there. And there's still plenty to do both at work and regarding the campaign.
If you're going to do this yourself, start at the top of the post, and read through. Before you jump in, go ahead and get together folks that won't just cough up cash - but will jump in and help out. I suspect I'm going to need to overcome my fundamental reticence about such matters and actually ask for that odd thing, help.
I don't regret it a bit, and look forward to the Primary and General elections. But I hadn't expected quite this level of rushing about! I suspect most first-time candidates, if you corner them someplace private, might share similar sentiments...
Best of Wishes,
Ray
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Housekeeping
A few matters of blog tidiness. This creature, the blog, is going to evolve fairly constantly.
1) Links will pop up. They may not be to folks I agree with (or they might be), but they are folks that tend to make me think, and that I hope would do the same for others.
2) If it doesn't say "endorsement", it isn't an endorsement - either way. I don't endorse them, they don't endorse me. It is what it is.
3) Blog comments. Personal and ad hominem attacks will be mercilessly deleted. At the end of the day this is *my* blog (equivalent to my living room), and I get to decide when someone is engaged in simply unacceptable behavior in this, my blogspace. I don't like using moderation, but will do so if necessary.
Hopefully that covers it all. For now.
Ray
1) Links will pop up. They may not be to folks I agree with (or they might be), but they are folks that tend to make me think, and that I hope would do the same for others.
2) If it doesn't say "endorsement", it isn't an endorsement - either way. I don't endorse them, they don't endorse me. It is what it is.
3) Blog comments. Personal and ad hominem attacks will be mercilessly deleted. At the end of the day this is *my* blog (equivalent to my living room), and I get to decide when someone is engaged in simply unacceptable behavior in this, my blogspace. I don't like using moderation, but will do so if necessary.
Hopefully that covers it all. For now.
Ray
Welcome to The Blog
So, I'm reluctantly Republican, and spending a fair chunk of time explaining what that means, given that I'm running for State Representative, 34th District, Position 1. Most campaign blogs seem to simply be a quick recap of positions already stated on the website, but I'll re-state.
I support efforts to shift to a more sustainable interaction with our environment, particularly in urban areas - but I believe that is best achieved through voluntary participation, education, and leading by example rather than through coercion and fiscally punitive measures.
State fiscal issues are important - they vitally effect our ability to fund necessary programs (when property values are down, and everyone is too broke to buy anything...property and sales tax revenues tend to drop off something fierce, making it hard to PAY the folks working on the programs).
Where revenue falls short, we can either emulate California and play the free-spending drunken sailor as we stagger towards inevitable bankruptcy - or we can make the necessary painful cuts to ride out a recession.
The economy plays a role in almost every aspect of our lives - whether and where we work, what we can afford to eat, how much our wages are worth when we get them and far more. When the economy is in the doldrums and vast numbers of unemployed roam the land in search of unemployment...a certain number of those will, faced with starving under a bridge (or lesser inconveniences, folks thresholds of pain do differ from person to person after all) will develop an exciting new moral flexibility.
At that point, we see violent crime of all sorts pick up...from bank robberies to home invasions, from assault to murder, as fear and desperation drive folks to that exciting new moral flexibility.
As a bonus, progress (or even holding the status quo) in civil rights matters tends to be an artifact of "good times". It's going to take more work to maintain, let alone advance, civil rights than usual as individuals and elected leaders flail about looking for the magic "how do we make it all better" economic bullet.
Oil is not our friend now, and is likely to be even less so in the future. With escalating tensions in the Middle East, impending legislation likely to halt or severely limit domestic production, and the further joys of "Cap and Trade" legislation slowly coming to fruition...we may not be able to precisely predict the price of oil at a given moment - but a steady upward spiral seems a pretty good bet.
Given that today we need oil for such a huge portion of our energy needs, primarily transport of goods and persons, getting off that particular bandwagon in a reasonably orderly fashion seems a prudent measure. I am not entirely objective. I sell electric cars for a living, and I believe the current generation coming out in highway speed are finally a good fit for business and private consumers - comfortable, decent ranges, and with battery issues beginning to be resolved reasonably.
All persons should be equal before the law, neither gaining favor nor suffering disfavor as a result of their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, or ethnicity. 'Nuff said? That is the goal, not carving out special provisions to compensate for past injuries - we can't fix the past, we can only moderate affect the present, and the future only holds a constantly changing mix of hope and concern. Let's play nicely amongst ourselves, eh?
Finally, Washington has some of the best gun laws in the nation. Such tweaks as I might favor are just that, tweaks. I don't believe the people of Washington are uniquely evil or stupid (and if I'm wrong, we have much more important problems to pay attention to) , so where an approach to this issue has actually worked (as opposed to being legislative chest-beating), I'm probably pretty willing to at least consider it - particularly if it leads to less hassle and fewer pitfalls for the average citizen.
Enough for now...semi-mandatory re-cap complete.
- Ray
I support efforts to shift to a more sustainable interaction with our environment, particularly in urban areas - but I believe that is best achieved through voluntary participation, education, and leading by example rather than through coercion and fiscally punitive measures.
State fiscal issues are important - they vitally effect our ability to fund necessary programs (when property values are down, and everyone is too broke to buy anything...property and sales tax revenues tend to drop off something fierce, making it hard to PAY the folks working on the programs).
Where revenue falls short, we can either emulate California and play the free-spending drunken sailor as we stagger towards inevitable bankruptcy - or we can make the necessary painful cuts to ride out a recession.
The economy plays a role in almost every aspect of our lives - whether and where we work, what we can afford to eat, how much our wages are worth when we get them and far more. When the economy is in the doldrums and vast numbers of unemployed roam the land in search of unemployment...a certain number of those will, faced with starving under a bridge (or lesser inconveniences, folks thresholds of pain do differ from person to person after all) will develop an exciting new moral flexibility.
At that point, we see violent crime of all sorts pick up...from bank robberies to home invasions, from assault to murder, as fear and desperation drive folks to that exciting new moral flexibility.
As a bonus, progress (or even holding the status quo) in civil rights matters tends to be an artifact of "good times". It's going to take more work to maintain, let alone advance, civil rights than usual as individuals and elected leaders flail about looking for the magic "how do we make it all better" economic bullet.
Oil is not our friend now, and is likely to be even less so in the future. With escalating tensions in the Middle East, impending legislation likely to halt or severely limit domestic production, and the further joys of "Cap and Trade" legislation slowly coming to fruition...we may not be able to precisely predict the price of oil at a given moment - but a steady upward spiral seems a pretty good bet.
Given that today we need oil for such a huge portion of our energy needs, primarily transport of goods and persons, getting off that particular bandwagon in a reasonably orderly fashion seems a prudent measure. I am not entirely objective. I sell electric cars for a living, and I believe the current generation coming out in highway speed are finally a good fit for business and private consumers - comfortable, decent ranges, and with battery issues beginning to be resolved reasonably.
All persons should be equal before the law, neither gaining favor nor suffering disfavor as a result of their race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, creed, or ethnicity. 'Nuff said? That is the goal, not carving out special provisions to compensate for past injuries - we can't fix the past, we can only moderate affect the present, and the future only holds a constantly changing mix of hope and concern. Let's play nicely amongst ourselves, eh?
Finally, Washington has some of the best gun laws in the nation. Such tweaks as I might favor are just that, tweaks. I don't believe the people of Washington are uniquely evil or stupid (and if I'm wrong, we have much more important problems to pay attention to) , so where an approach to this issue has actually worked (as opposed to being legislative chest-beating), I'm probably pretty willing to at least consider it - particularly if it leads to less hassle and fewer pitfalls for the average citizen.
Enough for now...semi-mandatory re-cap complete.
- Ray
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
