|Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Hey, Ruben! Plastic bag initiatives!
|Quoting Ruben Safir (mrbrklyn-at-panix.com):
> OK _ I read them and your voting wrong on almost all the referendums.
> Regulation of grocery stores is wrong and immoral.
There go the FDA, OSHA, and building inspectors. I'll give them the bad
news for you.
> Juvenal offenders...
Offenders who spend time reading the satires of Juvenal? People whose
reading of Juvenal offends someone?
> ...are more violent and dangerous than adults, regardless of the crime
> they were actually prosecuted for and need to be jailed more than even
> the adults.
So, California should ignore the Federal court orders resulting from
Brown v. Plata? Ignore the US Supreme Court when it ordered the state
to reduce its prison population to no more than 137.5% of the
facilities' design capacity? That could get extremely expensive for
both the state as a whole and state officials. The latter would
probably start facing contempt of court citations pretty soon, prison
time, and fines.
I'll pass along to our officials your suggestion that they do hard
prison time. Maybe Nevada can house them (so that, y'know, putting our
state officials in prison won't worsen the existing problem).
I'm _sure_ you didn't blow right past the fact that Gov. Brown is trying
to find the cheapest and least harmful way to comply with court orders
-- because of course you're incredibly careful not to just mouth off in
What I cannot understand, however, is your failing to pay attention to
Prop. 57 arranging early release only for certain _non-violent_
offenders (both adult and juvenile). At first glance, your comment
would appear totally non-sequitur to the issue being voted, as if you
merely saw the words 'juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will
be prosecuted as adult' and decided that's the only thing this
proposition is about. Care to explan that?
> Executions, that is good.
You'll notice my page aims to be _equally_ useful to people who think
executions are good, those who think executions are bad, those who
think some are good and some are bad, and those who don't have an
opinion. (FWIW, I'm in the third category.)
I'd regard it as extremely depressing if you thought the page was merely
some sort of advocacy beat-readers-over-the-head rag like a garden
variety Ruben Safir mailing list posting.
> Your understanding of drug pricing is laughable.
Maybe yes, maybe no -- but I didn't express any view on drug pricing.
> They will never be able to purchase anything but a small subset of
> drugs at anywhere close what the VA purchases them for in any event
> and the VA suffers from extortion just like anyone else.
It's an open question what effects Prop. 61 would have, as noted by
outside experts quoted in the linked newspaper stories. I'm undecided
on my personal vote (which is why the note about 'with reservations' is
there). If the state does pass it and adverse results occur,
fortunately the Legislature can annul or modify it with a simple
statute. (I.e., it's not a constitutional amendment, just an initiative
> Your analysis on debt is one area where you are spot on.
It's almost like I passed the CPA exam in the 1980s. (Oh, wait....)
> Debt not only drives down financial stability, but also funds
> ambitious liberal programs that should never be allowed in the first
Unless my finance professors mislead me shamefully, general-obligation
bonds proceed fund _all_ General Fund programs.
> The Marijuana referendum should be a no until great regulation is
Er, the regulation would be that of commerce, as it would be merely a
lawful commodity in trade -- plus usual regulations applicable to lawful
drugs. You know, mixed-market capitalism.
> The comment about non-corporate drugs is misplaced and borders on
Oh, you mean my passing jibe about the 'War Against Drugs Lacking Major
Corporate Sponsorship'? Sometime I use the phrase 'War on Some Drugs',
which is just a bit more sly. Would you prefer that?
I mean, there's not a war on drugs, just a war on _some_ of them -- and
miraculously the ones with major corporate sponsorship aren't in it.
Coincidence, I'm sure, but enough to justify the handy name.
> Redirecting bad sales to a state fund is a no on general principle.
I'm tired of 'general principle', in that it has a depressing tendency
to fuel grandiose ideological bloviations that waste everyone's time. I
vote on the specific merits of things in their specific contexts.
> The state and everyone should attack corperate funding of political
As I hope you know, no state can overturn Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission. Only the USSC or Congress can do so directly.
States can of course propose amendments to the US Constitution to be
initiated into the ratification process via either Congress or via
constitutional conventions. (The latter method has never been used
since before ratification of the base Constitution.)
Prop. 59 would advise the Legislature that an advisory vote of the state
electorate wishes to have the state's officers use 'their constitutional
authority' to try to get Citizens United overturned. It doesn't dictate
how, and has no other effect.
> This should not be done by referendum. Seriously, how is that
> supposed to work? Your gonna drag the entire California political
> system into court, one by one?
You really aren't even spending more than a few seconds _pretending_ to
read these things.
Which means you're wasting everyone's time and just mouthing off.
hangout mailing list