- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 25, 2010 at 6:14 pm #596783
KenParticipantFrom the 34th district Democrats page:
http://www.34dems.org/endorsements.htm
Federal
• United States Senator Patty Murray
• U.S. Representative, District 7 Jim McDermott
• U.S. Representative, District 9 Adam Smith
King County and Seattle Ballot Measures
• King County Prop. 1 – sales tax for public safety: YES!
• Seattle School District Levy: YES!
Statewide Ballot Measures
• I-1098 – State Income Tax: Vote Yes
• I-1082 – Privatize Workers’ Comp Insurance – Vote NO
• R-52 – Retrofit School Buildings – Vote YES
• I-1053 – Tim Eyman hamstrings govt: Vote NO
• I-1100 – Privatize liquor stores: Vote NO
• I-1105 – Privatize liquor stores #2: Vote NO
• I-1107 – Repeal tax on candy, soda: Vote NO
Judicial
• Justice Washington State Supreme Court: Charlie Wiggins
• Judge, State Court/Appeals: Michael Spearman
• King County District Court: Susan Mahoney
• Seattle Muni Court Pos. 1: Edsonya Charles and Ed McKenna (dual)
• Judge Seattle Municipal Court Pos. 3: Steve Rosen
• Judge Seattle Municipal Court Pos. 5: Willie Gregory
• Seattle Muni Court Pos. 6: Michael Hurtado and Karen Donohue (dual)
October 25, 2010 at 6:30 pm #706383
KenParticipantMissing from the endorsements page:
(note my comments are marked with a > )
Amendment to the State Constitution
Senate Joint Resolution No. 8225
> state treasurer sez yes, republicans say no.
Amendment to the State Constitution
Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution No. 4220
> should have denied bail to cop killer act, I say yes
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Judge_Bail_Authority_Amendment_%282010%29
Charter Amendment No. 1
Amendments to the Preamble
Charter Amendment No. 2
Amendment of Section 690 – Campaign Finance
Charter Amendment No. 3
Amendment of Section 890 and New Section 897 – Collective Bargaining
Summary of each amendment.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/King_County_Charter_Amendments,_3_%28November_2010%29
>Seems to be no real opposition but most will not take the time to read the details. Pass em all I say
October 25, 2010 at 6:34 pm #706384
KenParticipantFloor is open for discussion, electioneering and attacks on my personal habits and sanity.
Let ‘er rip.
October 25, 2010 at 6:59 pm #706385
sarellyMemberThe “no bail” thing seems unnecessary – it says judges already have the option, so why make it mandatory?
October 25, 2010 at 7:02 pm #706386
KenParticipantThe Stranger Election Control Board always has an opinion: Details on Proposals and initiatives are pretty good reading. As always somewhat obscene as well so follow the link. You have been warned.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-stranger-election-control-board/Content?oid=5142885
They have the skinny on the McKenna – Charles judicial race right too.
October 25, 2010 at 7:17 pm #706387
KenParticipantRe the no bail thing.
> The key word is “dangerousness” (sp?) as opposed to “flight risk”
From The Stranger endorsements:
Engrossed Substitute House Joint Resolution 4220
Vote to Approve
This constitutional amendment is a direct response to the murder of four Lakewood police officers last winter by Maurice Clemmons, who’d been released on bail just before the murders, despite a record that should have kept him locked up until trial on other violent-offense charges he was facing. Voting to approve allows judges to hold people who are charged with crimes potentially punishable by life in prison (and who are truly dangerous) without bail until trial. If this had been the case in 2009, those four police officers would probably be alive today. Vote to approve.
October 25, 2010 at 7:23 pm #706388
JustSarahParticipantWorth noting that “The Stranger” recommends a YES vote on I-1100 (no on 1105, of course); many people value the opinion of “The Stranger” election board, rightfully so.
October 25, 2010 at 7:30 pm #706389
KenParticipantI am voting no in 1100. I am pretty sure it will pass since it is state wide, but quite a few of my friends are still alive in rural WA because they could not go to the 7-11 when they finished that bottle of vodka.
the state revenue thing is also a consideration.
I would like to see the legislature handle the transition with some restrictions and some tax transfers.
October 25, 2010 at 7:36 pm #706390
KenParticipantAlso note: Hertado, flawed as he is, should be returned to the bench. Pissing off DUI lawyers and defendants should be part of the Judges prerogative.
October 25, 2010 at 7:37 pm #706391
JustSarahParticipantI am definitely not trying to minimize your opinion on I-1100, Ken, but here are some excerpts from The Stranger refuting the common arguments against I-1100:
“Argument 1: This will cost the state money because we forgo the markup on liquor. That’s true, but the cost to the state budget is only about $15–$17 million a year (a token sum compared to the billion-dollar deficits we’re facing). And two years after we pass this, the legislature can reinstate some of that markup in the form of a tax increase—meaning the state can get that money back and more—so the revenue loss is minimal and temporary.
“Argument 2: Minors will be able to buy hard liquor. There may be more noncompliance at the convenience stores, true. But let’s compare Washington to another state that has privatized liquor. California has an underage-drinking rate of 26.3 percent of teenagers, far below Washington’s 31.3 percent rate, according to the federal government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. California’s binge-drinking rates are also much lower. And with our state out of the liquor-selling business, the liquor control board can focus on what it’s good at: enforcement.”
Also:
“Anyone who tells you that the legislature will pass a better law on its own or that a party who doesn’t have a financial stake in privatizing liquor will run a better initiative next year is lying to you. The legislature will never act, and someone’s bound to turn a profit when the state gets out of a business it sucks at running and never should have been in to begin with.”
October 25, 2010 at 7:54 pm #706392
JoBParticipantSarahScoot…
One research paper after another tells the tale of increased access to alcohol..
increased violence and alcohol related social costs..
that aside… i just got back from visiting Arizona where you can buy hard alcohol in the local grocery.. and trust me.. picking up a 5th with the wheaties is a common occurrence. So is going back for the second. So are some pretty horrendous alcohol related accidents.
as for that imaginary security that is supposed to keep kids from stealing a 5th instead of a 6 pack… not so much.
I watched a kid nearly get away with it in the grocery when i was buying steaks to grill in Pine Top, AZ. The clerk didn’t catch him.. i did. when i shook my finger at him and pointed to the clerk whose back was turned.. he put it back. But i am guessing he tried again after i left.
Something about putting hard alcohol sales in the hands of grocery stores that are already trying to replace employees with self scan doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
not a great idea over all…
Common sense is all it takes to tell you that if hard alcohol is more available…
consumption will go up.
the retailers backing these bills count on it
and they are the ones who will make out like bandits……
while citizens pick up the bill.
that’s a high price to pay for convenience.
October 25, 2010 at 8:20 pm #706393
CarsonParticipantUnless the Sheriffs are willing to fall in with the what most of the other unions have done, no way I vote to pay more taxes.
Yes, with emphasis on 1100, I am hoping it passes by a 100-1 margin
October 25, 2010 at 8:25 pm #706394
maplesyrupParticipantI’m only 100% decided on a few things so far:
for Murray
against 1053
against 1107
for 1100
Still wavering and/or need more research about the rest.
October 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm #706395
KBearParticipantJoB, Arizona has a lower incidence of underage drinking and a lower incidence of alcohol-related traffic deaths than Washington, yet liquor is much more widely available. Clearly privatization is not the cause of these problems.
October 25, 2010 at 8:27 pm #706396
waterworldParticipantKen: I disagree on Judge Hurtado. He has been disciplined not only for being rude and disrespectful to attorneys, but also because he met with a lawyer outside the courtroom and took action in that case without hearing from the other side. That’s a very serious violation of the rules and shows how little respect he has for due process and the rule of law. In his most recent ratings, lawyers of all kinds said his legal decision making is between “poor” and “acceptable.” Hurtado doesn’t belong on the bench anymore; his behavior undermines public confidence in the impartiality of the bench.
October 25, 2010 at 8:42 pm #706397
sarellyMemberKen:
Don’t recall seeing any text with regard to a definition of “dangerous” – who decides?
On the booze thing – I say no, because I don’t want drunks wandering around my neighborhood. And the liquor store is far from my house.
:)
Schools: Yes, and also yes.
Public safety: Yes.
Rich people pay income tax: Yes.
Taxes on soda and candy: Yes.
Insurance companies: No.
Murray: Yes. (The way the attack ads go, you’d think she was single-handedly responsible for tripling the national debt.)
McDermott: Yes
October 25, 2010 at 8:48 pm #706398
JustSarahParticipantsarelly, you said “taxes on soda and candy: yes,” so if you are in support of extending these taxes, I hope you voted NO on I-1107. You probably did, but I think it’s important to point out that a “no” vote on 1107 is FOR the taxes. I can see this one getting many votes from people who don’t quite understand what a “yes” vote on this one means (not unlike the suspected contingency of people that voted for prop. 8 in California, thinking that was a vote *for* gay rights/marriage…).
October 25, 2010 at 8:55 pm #706399
KenParticipantWaterworld: Even the 34th district split on this race. That’s why the dual endorsement.
I have seen to many people slide on DUI’s based on the cost of their lawyer in some courts. I think Hurtado is still needed to annoy the DUI lawyers. Like many opinions, mine is not necessarily justifiable with strict logic…
If you think different then that’s why we have elections. :)
Go with your gut and I’ll go with mine :)
October 25, 2010 at 9:01 pm #706400
KenParticipantRE 4220 “Dangerousness”
Article I, section 20. All persons charged with crime shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident, or the presumption great. Bail may be denied for offenses punishable by the possibility of life in prison upon a showing by clear and convincing evidence of a propensity for violence that creates a substantial likelihood of danger to the community or any persons, subject to such limitations as shall be determined by the legislature.
Thus the state could enter evidence at the bail hearing to show why alleged perp should not be allowed bail. Previous law could only address flight risk. That’s my reading of it anyway
Text of bill in pdf format.
October 25, 2010 at 9:13 pm #706401
KenParticipantre 1107:
I drink a lot of Diet coke. This tax affects me.
However, when the giant beverage companies supply 100% of the financing to create, gather signatures and run hundreds of misleading ads to get rid of it, I smell a rat. I gotta vote NO.
English majors. Did I use “affects” right in the above sentence? I am always unsure…
October 25, 2010 at 9:19 pm #706402
JustSarahParticipantYes, Ken, you used “affects” correctly. “Affect” is generally (but not always!) a verb, and “effect” is generally (but not always!) a noun.
As an aside, I am not an English major, but social sciences (psychology, women’s studies, and political science).
Tangent: in my experience, those who majored in the social sciences are more precise and picky about proper grammar and spelling than our English major counterparts. My theory is that most English majors focus on literature, not the mechanics of the language, while most social sciences majors will take some communication and/or linguistic anthropology courses that heavily focus on the technical aspects of language.
October 25, 2010 at 9:53 pm #706403
sarellyMemberKen: What concerns me is what is meant, exactly, by “clear and convincing evidence of a propensity for violence.” My knee-jerk liberalism and paranoia about civil liberties make me wonder how this law might be abused. If someone is randomly deemed “violent” because the judge doesn’t like their politics, for example. They should give very concrete, specific criteria for “clear and convincing evidence.”
And yes, you used “affect” correctly. An “effect” is a result, and an “affect” is a facial expression or what something does to something else. Now, if we could just get people to stop saying “squash” when they mean “quash”….
October 25, 2010 at 9:54 pm #706404
DPMember“Official” Gadfly Voters Guide:
Ahem!
If you’re voting the way someone else is telling you to, then Democracy is wasted on you.
Ergo, don’t vote based on how some political party tells you to.
Ditto for preachers, newspaper editors, and assorted other self-appointed political commentators.
Don’t even vote based on what your Uncle Harry says. (He’s running for office again this year, but just because he’s family doesn’t mean he’ll make the best dogcatcher.)
Remember: You may be penalized for all wrong answers, so if you don’t know enough about a race or issue to make up your mind, then just leave that question blank and go on to the next one.
You have exactly eight days to finish the test.
Ready?
Begin . . .
October 25, 2010 at 10:03 pm #706405
maplesyrupParticipantYeah DP I almost wrote something similar.
Endorsements don’t mean a whole lot to me because most of the time there’s an agenda behind them.
Vote your own agenda.
October 25, 2010 at 10:14 pm #706406
DPMemberJoB: You are correct! (There. I said it.)
You are correct that buying liquor at stores is a convenience. And you are correct that it will cost lives.
But then, the same thing can be said of driving on the highway.
Consider this analogy:
If we lower the speed limit to 45 mph, more people will live. Conversely, if we raise it to 75 mph, more people will die.
So the speed limit is also an example of trading the lives of a few for the convenience of the many.
Now consider how the speed limit analogy differs from selling liquor in private stores.
If we raise the speed limit to 75 mph, the lives lost will be determined primarily by chance. Similarly, if we sell whiskey at 7-11s, more people will also die, but most of those people will be alcoholics and/or lawbreakers. In other words, they will not be determined by chance.*
I know this sounds harsh, but when people weigh their convenience against the lives of those who have an addiction, or those who choose to break the law, convenience usually wins.
It’s more of an emotional thing, really. Not a rational one.
Sorry.
*Obviously, I’m excluding innocent DUI victims from this equation. I think they will not constitute the majority of victims, though.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.