“No” Man
Posted on | October 25, 2008 at 11:12 am | 8 Comments
I was surprised a few weeks ago to find a mail-in ballot in my mailbox. I remembered that the last election was mail-in only, but that this one wasn’t. I don’t remember requesting permanent mail-in status, but I guess I must’ve checked that box when I sent in that ballot last time. So, I’ve filled out my ballot. At this point I haven’t turned it in, but will bring it to city hall on Monday or Tueday. I don’t think I’m going to mail it, as people are reporting postage problems. Besides, the city hall is kind of on my way to work.
I think everyone who reads me regularly can figure out how I voted on the major candidates. No reason to go into that here. That just leaves the other ballot issues. Colorado doesn’t have a lot of high profile ballot measures this time. There’s nothing like California’s Proposition 8, although Amendment 48 is in the same category of wrong-headedness. Here’s my thoughts on some of the more divisive amendments:
Amendment 46: Anti-affirmative action. It purports to be an anti-discrimination measure, but it’s actually aimed at reducing race and gender diversity. I’m against it.
Amendment 47: The “right to work”. This would essentially let workers opt out of joining a union and paying union fees. While I’m all for individual choice, there’s too much that’s suspicious about this (follow the money). And I’ve seen reports that say that other Right to Work states are poorer and have the lowest wages and worst workplace health/safety issues. So I’m voting No on this one.
Amendment 48: “Personhood”. This defines life as starting at conception. It basically gives all the rights to a fertilized human egg that a human being enjoys, including legal protections. There is just so much wrong with this one, I don’t even know where to start. The legal ramifications alone are mind-boggling (see some of them here). I think regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, this is just not the kind of thing that belongs in the constitution. It’s just silly. No, no, no.
Amendment 58: Hiking the state severance taxes that the oil and gas industry has to pay. This essentially gets rid of a tax credit that oil and gas companies have enjoyed in Colorado that they don’t get in any other state. I can actually see both sides of the argument on this one, but ultimately I decided to stick it to the oil and gas companies just because I don’t like them. If that causes problems for the state and the consumers, oh well.
So, that’s that. Can’t wait to see how it all plays out on Election Day. Which can’t come soon enough. I’m so sick of all the TV and mail ads.
Latre.
Comments
8 Responses to ““No” Man”
October 25th, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Good thing you didn’t mail in that ballot: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23638322/block_the_vote .
On that “personhood” thing: if it passes I’m waiting for the attorney of a pregnant woman sentenced to prison to argue that, hey, the state can’t imprison the innocent fetus too, since it’s committed no crime…
October 25th, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Which America is Colorado in, I forget?
October 26th, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Wow, so you voted for Nader, too? Yuk yuk.
One thing that sucks about “Right-to-Work” states is that it also means it’s a right to be fired without any justification and with no recourse state.
October 26th, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
One thing that sucks about “Right-to-Work” states is that it also means it’s a right to be fired without any justification and with no recourse state.
So-called (and mis-named) “right to work” laws are about unions, and have nothing to do with being fired without justification or recourse, so far as I know.
But if you dislike the notion that someone can be fired without justification, do you also dislike the notion that someone can quit without justification?
October 27th, 2008 @ 1:17 am
Not entirely true, and no.
October 27th, 2008 @ 5:06 am
The only interesting ballot item we have is whether or not to allow slot machines at all our interstate rest stops.
October 27th, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Not entirely true,
In what way?
and no.
Why not? If one can quit without notice and without justification, isn’t it only fair that one can be fired the same way?
Not sure what that means in this context.
October 27th, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
On that “personhood” thing: if it passes I’m waiting for the attorney of a pregnant woman sentenced to prison to argue that, hey, the state can’t imprison the innocent fetus too, since it’s committed no crime…
I believe that’s a moot point, since it’s pretty much identical to the situation where women in prison give birth and are, presently, allowed to keep the child with them in prison.
A more interesting point would be father’s rights. Presently, in some states, fathers have essentially zero rights regarding a fetus, but at birth have the same rights as the mother (or nearly so). A father could presumably petition a court for custody of a fetus under this notion of “personhood” starting at conception. In some states, custody is granted almost exclusively based on the interests of the child, with little or no regard to the interests of the parents. One could probably argue it’s in the best interests of the child (fetus) to live with the father rather than live in prison. If the state is compelled to give custody to the father, would they have to release the mother from prison until birth? Or would the court instead have to decide between the child living in the womb in prison vs outside the womb with the father (a no-brainer to go with prison)?