If Connecticut's earmarks could speak, what would they tell us as voters? The Connecticut legislature speaks when they propose bond money awards to towns for various undertakings that include such recent actions as:
1. New tennis courts in Seymour and Middlebury
2. Walkway along a stream in Watertown
The governor chairs the bond commission and therefore controls the agenda with the monies and items to be considered. Garnering the governor's favor is necessary, but there may be other hurdles if we could only understand the language used by the legislative speak, "earmarkise"? From the awards presented above you might ask:
1. How much did my town get in the last 10 years?
2. Compared to all towns, how did the formulation work: equitable per population by town, equitable by net worth, income tax,local property tax weighting, or what??Is there even any index?
3. What is the target per town over 10 years, assuming equitability?
Another series of questions may help justify why the state should pay for some items of dubious value, or, more importantly,those likely to be used only by a favored group. Does everyone play tennis?
Elected legislators use this bonding largess to impress the local electorate of how much care and what they have accomplished on their behalf as measured in dollars.This compassion may also come from the party leadership of the legislature for a job well done in keeping silent as the leadership exercises its agenda without the need for individual legislator contribution: keeping silent has a cost. Comparisons by towns may show an equitable distribution or not, but that is not the point. Each town can see what they get and be thankful to their elected benefactor. We may even put up a sign to memorialize their action.
If earmarks spoke more loudly we may be able to see of the monies awarded to towns:
1. Was any particular bill passed through the purchase of legislative votes by bonded projects?
2. What special interest group benefitted?
3. Can we trace awarded monies to any campaign financing mischief?
4. Are there any contractors favored locally or statewide?
5. What are the long term costs for maintenance, usage, staffing, insurance,..etc for these projects initially funded by the state?
6. How does this project's priority merit funding when the town has other priorities?
7. Has the legislator synched his sponsored project to those of the locally elected official who is closer to the town's real interests?
This potential corruption is silent because nobody really pays, the State does this for free. But, if the earmark had a louder, understandable voice we may find some surprises.The sunshine laws (freedom of information) offer a realistic approach.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Appeals and Petitions
In the November 2008 Connecticut election the voters authorized a Constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature to allow 17 year olds to vote in State primaries if they turn 18 by the next election, November 2, 2010. This means that all 17 year olds should register NOW to vote.This will enable you to vote in (one or more depending upon party rules} primaries to be held in 2010. You can then also vote in the general election.
In the mean time, to exercise your new found freedom to vote why not become politically active by starting a petition to change the State's Constitution? My one day school wide (400 kids) civil sit down boycott of the high school cafeteria eliminated the daily repetitional use of raisins and peanut butter from the federal foods program. We did not have choice of menu as is the case today and a daily dose over an extended period of culinary creations for the same price was just too much to bear. Who would have known you could make so many things from these two ingrediants? One day and one detention later the menu was fixed.To this day I often wonder if I suffered long term effects and whatever happened to all those raisins and peanut butter? My mother would say the hungry children in China got the surplus.
In this petition you can cite the need for laws that you think are worthy with such examples as:
1. Choice of online education option for courses you need or would like to take and get credit in your local district.
2. The ability to play a sport or join an after school group in another district because your school does not have such a program.
3. The ability to take a course elsewhere for credit assuming transportation is available and scheduling permits.
4. More vacation. shorter days, no homework,... NO NO NO!!!!!!!!
Your petition would cite the need for a voter initiative in Connecticut for citizens to have direct democracy. Proposing legislation for consideration under guidelines to insure its legality and its up or down vote in a statewide referendum allows all voters to participate in government.The roots of our country started in Connecticut with the first Constitution (read the history) and this voter referendum puts the power in the hands of the people, directly.
Grab your history teacher, student activists, school newspaper and others to get this going. The petition needs authenticated signatures which can be accomplished with the local town registrar of voters. The target date is Ground Hog Day. Will he see the shining city of light on the hill as so described by Ronald Regan where the rest of the world looks to our beacon of hope for definition of freedom or will he see the darkness and shadow of the Berlin Wall that kept freedom out and the people in to be ruled under tyrants?
In the mean time, to exercise your new found freedom to vote why not become politically active by starting a petition to change the State's Constitution? My one day school wide (400 kids) civil sit down boycott of the high school cafeteria eliminated the daily repetitional use of raisins and peanut butter from the federal foods program. We did not have choice of menu as is the case today and a daily dose over an extended period of culinary creations for the same price was just too much to bear. Who would have known you could make so many things from these two ingrediants? One day and one detention later the menu was fixed.To this day I often wonder if I suffered long term effects and whatever happened to all those raisins and peanut butter? My mother would say the hungry children in China got the surplus.
In this petition you can cite the need for laws that you think are worthy with such examples as:
1. Choice of online education option for courses you need or would like to take and get credit in your local district.
2. The ability to play a sport or join an after school group in another district because your school does not have such a program.
3. The ability to take a course elsewhere for credit assuming transportation is available and scheduling permits.
4. More vacation. shorter days, no homework,... NO NO NO!!!!!!!!
Your petition would cite the need for a voter initiative in Connecticut for citizens to have direct democracy. Proposing legislation for consideration under guidelines to insure its legality and its up or down vote in a statewide referendum allows all voters to participate in government.The roots of our country started in Connecticut with the first Constitution (read the history) and this voter referendum puts the power in the hands of the people, directly.
Grab your history teacher, student activists, school newspaper and others to get this going. The petition needs authenticated signatures which can be accomplished with the local town registrar of voters. The target date is Ground Hog Day. Will he see the shining city of light on the hill as so described by Ronald Regan where the rest of the world looks to our beacon of hope for definition of freedom or will he see the darkness and shadow of the Berlin Wall that kept freedom out and the people in to be ruled under tyrants?
The Common Good, Justice, and Reason
You have come to this blog site because you are interested in Connecticut politics. Lots of possible discussions on topics that are worthy of attention.You may agree or disagree but at least you are researching and thinking to become more informed as a voter and responsible citizen.
A website has emerged in September 2009 that reminds us of our American heritage and justification for our country's values as so eloquently described in the Declaration of Independance.The website content is not lengthy, but provides a discussion of natural philosophy and the relevance to contemporary political activity and theory of government in recent times as practiced in the United States. Martin Luther King's civil disobediance is also recognized as an underlying change agent that has been applied to achieve social justice and the will of the people.
The Manhattan Declaration document is likely to become a rallying point in the near future and next election. Visit www.manhattandeclaration.org
A website has emerged in September 2009 that reminds us of our American heritage and justification for our country's values as so eloquently described in the Declaration of Independance.The website content is not lengthy, but provides a discussion of natural philosophy and the relevance to contemporary political activity and theory of government in recent times as practiced in the United States. Martin Luther King's civil disobediance is also recognized as an underlying change agent that has been applied to achieve social justice and the will of the people.
The Manhattan Declaration document is likely to become a rallying point in the near future and next election. Visit www.manhattandeclaration.org
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Time to Petition the Connecticut Legislature
In the Connecticut 2009 session of the Legislature there were numerous attempts by the towns and cities (local government) to seek property tax relief and moratoriums on mandates to balance their budgets.With little debate and less fanfare local government officials were dismissed, sometimes with little sympathy. The delay of the budget ultimately cost towns additional fees for borrowing while the budget was in impasse.
All of this rancor and lack of collaboration to give the voters at least a voice at the table in the form of those closest to them, local government. Still no action but rather a shift in reminding everyone of who is really in charge, the legislature, as if there were any doubt.The timing of the tea parties and the town hall meetings around the country also serve as an indicator of what is going on in case you forgot.They know best. They have the elitist knowledge to do the right thing. They prevail. You are not heard.
Towns are small. They are represented by the Legislature but town boundaries per house district and overlaps with other towns often conflict and contradict the local wishes of each town and its unique identity. Out of touch with towns, legislators render them useless in actually influencing state priorities. Increased burdens with few options allowed by legislators make the towns as an overall force for change irrelevant.
After many years of probate court mischief the powers in Hartford finally took action to solve the local court system problems.The budget problems nudged the State to take action.Some time later the towns ultimately created a consensus among themselves and agreed upon a formula without a mandate.Proof of town to town cooperation, perhaps under threat of mandate to come from Hartford, but an agreement none the less. Most importasntly, an example of towns cooperation with each other to fix the system, maintain service levels, and provide a cost effective solution for each town.
Based upon this success it would seem that the power of legislation initiated by towns as a statewide referendum could address a variety of issues including:
1. Establishing common interest infrastructural changes to represent fair and equitable educational disbursements
2. Addressing mandates that are not necessary for all towns of all sizes
3. Provisioning towns with shared or individualized resources to address selected mandates
4. Providing statewide bonding access by towns to the state's borrowing authority
In short, allowing towns to use legislation to address common local needs without the interferences of a statewide agenda exercised and imprinted by the legislature could be a useful tool. Especially in those cases when appeals to the legislature go unheeded and their ears go deaf.
The local town political party committes (Independants are welcome also) could start a petition drive to gather signatures soliciting voter interest in seeking a constitutional change to allow "voter initiative" and statewide referendums. Where local officials often use this technique,budget approvals for example, it is a rare occurance on a statewide basis.
With local political parties involvement such a campaign could then aggregate the local signed petitions certified by the local voter registrar for presentation to the legislature.It is not a given that the statewide political leadership would endorse such a project due to the threat to its power, but that is the whole point.
Nobody is listening to the local voters. The petition only proposes to the legislature that such a constitutional change is needed. With the outcry of the people appealing for grass roots democracy how could the legislature not listen? The revolution has just begun!
All of this rancor and lack of collaboration to give the voters at least a voice at the table in the form of those closest to them, local government. Still no action but rather a shift in reminding everyone of who is really in charge, the legislature, as if there were any doubt.The timing of the tea parties and the town hall meetings around the country also serve as an indicator of what is going on in case you forgot.They know best. They have the elitist knowledge to do the right thing. They prevail. You are not heard.
Towns are small. They are represented by the Legislature but town boundaries per house district and overlaps with other towns often conflict and contradict the local wishes of each town and its unique identity. Out of touch with towns, legislators render them useless in actually influencing state priorities. Increased burdens with few options allowed by legislators make the towns as an overall force for change irrelevant.
After many years of probate court mischief the powers in Hartford finally took action to solve the local court system problems.The budget problems nudged the State to take action.Some time later the towns ultimately created a consensus among themselves and agreed upon a formula without a mandate.Proof of town to town cooperation, perhaps under threat of mandate to come from Hartford, but an agreement none the less. Most importasntly, an example of towns cooperation with each other to fix the system, maintain service levels, and provide a cost effective solution for each town.
Based upon this success it would seem that the power of legislation initiated by towns as a statewide referendum could address a variety of issues including:
1. Establishing common interest infrastructural changes to represent fair and equitable educational disbursements
2. Addressing mandates that are not necessary for all towns of all sizes
3. Provisioning towns with shared or individualized resources to address selected mandates
4. Providing statewide bonding access by towns to the state's borrowing authority
In short, allowing towns to use legislation to address common local needs without the interferences of a statewide agenda exercised and imprinted by the legislature could be a useful tool. Especially in those cases when appeals to the legislature go unheeded and their ears go deaf.
The local town political party committes (Independants are welcome also) could start a petition drive to gather signatures soliciting voter interest in seeking a constitutional change to allow "voter initiative" and statewide referendums. Where local officials often use this technique,budget approvals for example, it is a rare occurance on a statewide basis.
With local political parties involvement such a campaign could then aggregate the local signed petitions certified by the local voter registrar for presentation to the legislature.It is not a given that the statewide political leadership would endorse such a project due to the threat to its power, but that is the whole point.
Nobody is listening to the local voters. The petition only proposes to the legislature that such a constitutional change is needed. With the outcry of the people appealing for grass roots democracy how could the legislature not listen? The revolution has just begun!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Referendum for Referendums
In Connecticut the legislature has the power to to initiate an amendment to the Constitution without consulting the public but requiring public ratification.It was done in November 1992 to define a budgetary spending cap methodology to limit legislative spending. This has not proven to be adequate to constrain or limit spending and seems to have lost its purpose considering Connecticut's current 2009 budgetary dilemma. The amendment as stands, lacks clarity,definitions, realistic procedures, and allows manipulation to the point of rendering the amendment useless and ineffective.
The fraud continues as in November 2009 the citizens are facing a saga of budgetary crisis when the legislature did not make the hard decisions and rolled them to a future day during the 2009 session and passed a budget with gimmicks and borrowing. Nobody could agree on the "Revenue Forecast" was often cited as an excuse and required by the spending cap constitutional amendment. Knowing full well that this was not a "balanced budget" means the legislature is guilty of intentionally violating the spending cap so ill-defined by them in the constitution. They are immune from prosecution, but will face voter wrath in November 2010.
If they cannot or will not do what is necessary it is essential for the people to speak, take control, and do the right thing. With legislative authority and a favorable popular vote in November 2010 the constitution can be re-amended to provide a much needed set of parameters, definitions, priorities and boundaries to finally cap the budget and insure a more meaningful spending limit. When such a referendum is placed before the voters in 2010 everyone has a chance to fill the definition void and make concrete decisions about what is best for Connecticut.Consider this an "appeal referendum" now for the legislature to allow a voter referendum so the citizens can clean up this mess and move the state towards fiscal responsibility.This action should be a test for candidates seeking office who should not get a vote if they do not support voter referendums.
Under the current constitution adopted in 1965 and amended 30 times since, it is a 2 step process to make amendments:
1. Both houses of the legislature must first pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment by a 3/4 majority in each chamber
2.The resolution is submitted to the popular vote for ratification in the next election
This "appeal referendum" is a request by the voters to have the legislature do the right thing and fix their definitions and processes to avoid these budget impasses in the future.
A more bold approach would have the legislature hear the voice of the people and propose an additional amendment. A voter referendum or "voter initiative" as an additional capacity to voters when a similar crisis occurs would provide the direct voter involvment often used in other states to resolve the impass on what the public really wants. Where a spending cap definition is the target today, future crisis could also involve direct voter reconciliation on issues not so complex or when a contentious indecision occurs.One party majority power is not the right answer all the time. This gives the voter power to resolve conflicts and have a true democratic voice and reflection of all values not bounded by parties or brokering.
The legislature should act NOW to propose this amendment so we may vote on it in November 2010. If they don't, they do not deserve our support with a revolution to follow..
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
When Do We Get Democacy in Connecticut?
The November 3, 2009 election results in Maine showed 53% of the voters elected to reverse a law passed by the Maine Legislature. While 47% voted to keep same sex marriage, the majority voted it down.
Controversial issues deserve the public debate, visibility, and option for direct voter involvement. You don't need elected representatives to be the voice of the people when such divisive topics cannot easily be solved. You only get the hearts, minds, and common sense of a few when everyone should have a chance to vote their wishes.
In CT we don't have such a voter referendum option. The Legislature has spoken and does not think we need it. Oh the arrogance, the elitism, the special interest groups that keep us from our freedom.
The incumbents have spoken!
Controversial issues deserve the public debate, visibility, and option for direct voter involvement. You don't need elected representatives to be the voice of the people when such divisive topics cannot easily be solved. You only get the hearts, minds, and common sense of a few when everyone should have a chance to vote their wishes.
In CT we don't have such a voter referendum option. The Legislature has spoken and does not think we need it. Oh the arrogance, the elitism, the special interest groups that keep us from our freedom.
The incumbents have spoken!
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Death to the Death Penalty and Life to Killers
There is a move in the 2009 Connecticut State Legislative session to abolish the death penalty with a weaker, softer version that imposes life without parole. Our culture has taken another shift that could become seismic and could influence other similarly charged debate later as we witness the “slippery slope” phenomena unfold as a consequence.
The first modification that comes to mind could happen in the near future when “life without parole” is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment or too onerous for some dying, repentant, reformed, cured of mental defects killer that motivates the first exception. We need to be compassionate, will be the argument, and allow some individual to be released to live out their days among the society that historically would have put them to death. A law is then passed that waters down the life without parole to address the exceptions and rewards the “lifer” with release into society. Appeals of other killers (as the new victims) then have new fodder to debate and cultivate to a new level of cultural norm and process.
Or, better yet, with this passage and anticipating no future adjustments, we will certainly see more appeals and costly procedures to redress the outcomes of justice, much like we see today because of the appeal process weaknesses that allow this to occur now. After all, isn’t that one of the reasons we see this shift and we see now how the legislature offers a so called solution. It is within the power of the legislators to fix the existing appeal process with a time limit and put these guilty persons to death as was the original sentence and intent. Why not fix this in lieu of a quantum leap to life without parole?
This example of slippery slope shows that you only need common sense to understand how we seem to consistently forgo a thoughtful process when considering ramifications of our public acts as we substitute new morality and new values as a foundation. Has anything really changed about murderers to justify this insensitive (to victims) shift in our values? Our country has a history of using the death penalty sentence for those events that are considered most despicable and heinous to our society. Do we now tolerate such behavior?
When legislators vote with their hearts in place of society’s moral values and reason reflected in our sense of justice this is the outcome you get. As representatives, they are obliged to reflect the fundamental sensitivities of our society at large and hold their personal passions in check. If they cannot do so they should not be reelected. Moral code is the basis of our justice accompanied by reason and your feelings have nothing to do with it.
Connecticut citizens need a tool (a voter referendum or voter initiative) to thwart these elitist (they know best) invasions and denigrations to our moral compass, democratic sense of fairness, respect for the blindness of the scales of justice, and proven reason to justify sustaining the death penalty. Their deafness to our wishes is becoming louder.
The moral outrage of allowing these proven killers to live when we do NOT penalize the killers of those most vulnerable in our society and innocent by the grace of God in the womb or at partial birth is a black mark on our society at large. Perhaps that is the greatest inconsistency in human logic and reason we will ever witness. Connecting these issues also evidences the hypocrisy under which we do not recognize the differences and sustain a culture of death while allowing life to those judged most undeserving. And the passage of this amendment makes it so.
There is a move in the 2009 Connecticut State Legislative session to abolish the death penalty with a weaker, softer version that imposes life without parole. Our culture has taken another shift that could become seismic and could influence other similarly charged debate later as we witness the “slippery slope” phenomena unfold as a consequence.
The first modification that comes to mind could happen in the near future when “life without parole” is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment or too onerous for some dying, repentant, reformed, cured of mental defects killer that motivates the first exception. We need to be compassionate, will be the argument, and allow some individual to be released to live out their days among the society that historically would have put them to death. A law is then passed that waters down the life without parole to address the exceptions and rewards the “lifer” with release into society. Appeals of other killers (as the new victims) then have new fodder to debate and cultivate to a new level of cultural norm and process.
Or, better yet, with this passage and anticipating no future adjustments, we will certainly see more appeals and costly procedures to redress the outcomes of justice, much like we see today because of the appeal process weaknesses that allow this to occur now. After all, isn’t that one of the reasons we see this shift and we see now how the legislature offers a so called solution. It is within the power of the legislators to fix the existing appeal process with a time limit and put these guilty persons to death as was the original sentence and intent. Why not fix this in lieu of a quantum leap to life without parole?
This example of slippery slope shows that you only need common sense to understand how we seem to consistently forgo a thoughtful process when considering ramifications of our public acts as we substitute new morality and new values as a foundation. Has anything really changed about murderers to justify this insensitive (to victims) shift in our values? Our country has a history of using the death penalty sentence for those events that are considered most despicable and heinous to our society. Do we now tolerate such behavior?
When legislators vote with their hearts in place of society’s moral values and reason reflected in our sense of justice this is the outcome you get. As representatives, they are obliged to reflect the fundamental sensitivities of our society at large and hold their personal passions in check. If they cannot do so they should not be reelected. Moral code is the basis of our justice accompanied by reason and your feelings have nothing to do with it.
Connecticut citizens need a tool (a voter referendum or voter initiative) to thwart these elitist (they know best) invasions and denigrations to our moral compass, democratic sense of fairness, respect for the blindness of the scales of justice, and proven reason to justify sustaining the death penalty. Their deafness to our wishes is becoming louder.
The moral outrage of allowing these proven killers to live when we do NOT penalize the killers of those most vulnerable in our society and innocent by the grace of God in the womb or at partial birth is a black mark on our society at large. Perhaps that is the greatest inconsistency in human logic and reason we will ever witness. Connecting these issues also evidences the hypocrisy under which we do not recognize the differences and sustain a culture of death while allowing life to those judged most undeserving. And the passage of this amendment makes it so.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Who Speaks for the Earth?
What or where is the formal body politic where the representation of mankind would be considered to represent the silent, but conspicuous presence of the earth? If the rights of the earth are debated, isn't it right to have a forum where some representation of "nature" or the earth's proxy can be present?
Considering the "rights of the planet" it's fair for the accused (nature) to be represented before its adversary (society). Nature has no voice so objections or concessions are not possible. Its natural responses are inadequate because they would happen anyway. Floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, and other phenomena are the transgressors, perpetrators, or adversaries. The planet can defend itself from other planets or the natural events it inflicts upon itself.
We cannot try or condemn the planet for doing what we expect it to do and must adopt a peaceful coexistence. The only situation of complexity then is defending the planet from those forces or transgressions perpetrated by men who violate the laws of men.
Men don't violate the laws of nature; we live with them and acknowledge their role. The laws of physics and chemistry... just are and don't care about man and, moreover, can't be re-written without proof. Scientific study exposes the laws of nature and there are no bounds or limits to the knowledge we may examine, define, and consider to be the words of nature. The language of the universe is mathematics and we must use it when speaking about or debating nature.
Men may violate laws or regulations set forth by men to protect or exploit the planet. These laws then are merely debates among men with outcomes that benefit or penalize men. Mankind then is a steward of the planet that exists to benefit all. Moral codes and moral laws of men are rooted in the religions that emerge to establish a basic formalization that allows men to live with and respect each other.
They may be considered laws of nature among men. It takes a complex justification to establish the relationship of men to the planet, but there is need to understand that relationship in its most primitive form if we are to consider transgressions by men on our planet that may destroy one or both parties. We do know that the planet was here first, but then again the question of "Where did we come from?" becomes a serious matter.
If we are to consider a proxy for earth, then it is feasible to examine our earliest possible representations. The "earth mother" notion from history was a predecessor of the Judeo-Christian faith and other modern thinkings that portray a host and benefactor found in early tribal societies. In our modern age the "Green Movement" acolytes citing their junk science references may also be a more contemporary view. The "greens" are not considered an entity to worship yet. But there is considerable evidence that demonstrates their origins from the devolution of organized religions.
When it becomes a moral issue to eat fish, use a charcoal grill, allocate carbon footprints to individuals or enterprises, it becomes clear that the new "green" moral code places a high value on protecting the earth and its natural gifts from the interferences of men and all that they may do to harm (?) this 4 billion year old sacred object. The new commandments and biblical-like standards for men are intended to save the planet, save the polar bear, go vegan, ... and the like.
However, it may be that the natural events unleashed by nature, and often considered disasters, at least to man, may pale any imbalances introduced by man-made or man-triggered phenomena. Volcanoes are notorious for producing noxious outcomes, but we have no means to stop them or make them right to our human standards.
The fact that man has exploited and made use of natural gifts to enrich the lives of the people individually and humanity in general should hold sway. The quality of life in all societies on this planet is dependent on the natural gifts we have available to use. Most improvements in the lives of people may be attributed to exercising the free will of men (yet another natural gift) to make decisions about their survival and perpetuation.
Killing animals is necessary and essential to survival. Growing sustainable crops or picking wild plants serves the needs also. It is the natural moral code that allows man the right to do so and dominate the environment. Man can use these natural resources to live and better our lives.
Without true stewardship motivated by self interest, the natural gifts may wither, disappear, or become polluted to the detriment of future generations.
Clearly, judicious management of upstream/downstream common law and regulations are necessary and essential. It's the responsibility of moral society to adopt and enact those civilized instruments grounded by a moral code of its members who respect the need for laws of a moral society whose members share common moral values.
The foundation of our capitalistic Western Civilization depends on enlightened men to protect themselves and their resources to thereby sustain themselves, the species, and the resources for further use. The planet Earth, however, does not share a common ground among its human species and thereby cannot develop a common moral thread or theme that is transparent and universal among all members. The civil society we have does not subscribe to the same values across the planet and includes tyrants who only serve a self interest.
In recent times we have seen a greater emphasis on protecting and preserving our planet which is often at odds with the practical realities for man's existence. Men eat fish and may over fish if left unchecked. But banning fishing outright is not always the only answer. People need to eat and have a livelihood that produces capital to fulfill family needs.
When there are no other alternatives to fish it may become a survival issue. To enforce a moral code that protects fish may conflict with the moral code that human life is dear and sacred. As important as survival of the planet may be, the salvation and sustainability of mankind is more important.
A peaceful coexistence must be sought. We do not know how to live without the contributions of mother earth yet. It is tyrannical to make choices favored by a few over the needs of many. The planet offers solutions with abundance in some resources while there is scarcity in others. This is nature at work and we need to adopt natural solutions to natural problems. The free will of men can logically seek or develop such alternatives and may have to if life as we know it is to continue.
Considering the "rights of the planet" it's fair for the accused (nature) to be represented before its adversary (society). Nature has no voice so objections or concessions are not possible. Its natural responses are inadequate because they would happen anyway. Floods, tornadoes, volcanoes, and other phenomena are the transgressors, perpetrators, or adversaries. The planet can defend itself from other planets or the natural events it inflicts upon itself.
We cannot try or condemn the planet for doing what we expect it to do and must adopt a peaceful coexistence. The only situation of complexity then is defending the planet from those forces or transgressions perpetrated by men who violate the laws of men.
Men don't violate the laws of nature; we live with them and acknowledge their role. The laws of physics and chemistry... just are and don't care about man and, moreover, can't be re-written without proof. Scientific study exposes the laws of nature and there are no bounds or limits to the knowledge we may examine, define, and consider to be the words of nature. The language of the universe is mathematics and we must use it when speaking about or debating nature.
Men may violate laws or regulations set forth by men to protect or exploit the planet. These laws then are merely debates among men with outcomes that benefit or penalize men. Mankind then is a steward of the planet that exists to benefit all. Moral codes and moral laws of men are rooted in the religions that emerge to establish a basic formalization that allows men to live with and respect each other.
They may be considered laws of nature among men. It takes a complex justification to establish the relationship of men to the planet, but there is need to understand that relationship in its most primitive form if we are to consider transgressions by men on our planet that may destroy one or both parties. We do know that the planet was here first, but then again the question of "Where did we come from?" becomes a serious matter.
If we are to consider a proxy for earth, then it is feasible to examine our earliest possible representations. The "earth mother" notion from history was a predecessor of the Judeo-Christian faith and other modern thinkings that portray a host and benefactor found in early tribal societies. In our modern age the "Green Movement" acolytes citing their junk science references may also be a more contemporary view. The "greens" are not considered an entity to worship yet. But there is considerable evidence that demonstrates their origins from the devolution of organized religions.
When it becomes a moral issue to eat fish, use a charcoal grill, allocate carbon footprints to individuals or enterprises, it becomes clear that the new "green" moral code places a high value on protecting the earth and its natural gifts from the interferences of men and all that they may do to harm (?) this 4 billion year old sacred object. The new commandments and biblical-like standards for men are intended to save the planet, save the polar bear, go vegan, ... and the like.
However, it may be that the natural events unleashed by nature, and often considered disasters, at least to man, may pale any imbalances introduced by man-made or man-triggered phenomena. Volcanoes are notorious for producing noxious outcomes, but we have no means to stop them or make them right to our human standards.
The fact that man has exploited and made use of natural gifts to enrich the lives of the people individually and humanity in general should hold sway. The quality of life in all societies on this planet is dependent on the natural gifts we have available to use. Most improvements in the lives of people may be attributed to exercising the free will of men (yet another natural gift) to make decisions about their survival and perpetuation.
Killing animals is necessary and essential to survival. Growing sustainable crops or picking wild plants serves the needs also. It is the natural moral code that allows man the right to do so and dominate the environment. Man can use these natural resources to live and better our lives.
Without true stewardship motivated by self interest, the natural gifts may wither, disappear, or become polluted to the detriment of future generations.
Clearly, judicious management of upstream/downstream common law and regulations are necessary and essential. It's the responsibility of moral society to adopt and enact those civilized instruments grounded by a moral code of its members who respect the need for laws of a moral society whose members share common moral values.
The foundation of our capitalistic Western Civilization depends on enlightened men to protect themselves and their resources to thereby sustain themselves, the species, and the resources for further use. The planet Earth, however, does not share a common ground among its human species and thereby cannot develop a common moral thread or theme that is transparent and universal among all members. The civil society we have does not subscribe to the same values across the planet and includes tyrants who only serve a self interest.
In recent times we have seen a greater emphasis on protecting and preserving our planet which is often at odds with the practical realities for man's existence. Men eat fish and may over fish if left unchecked. But banning fishing outright is not always the only answer. People need to eat and have a livelihood that produces capital to fulfill family needs.
When there are no other alternatives to fish it may become a survival issue. To enforce a moral code that protects fish may conflict with the moral code that human life is dear and sacred. As important as survival of the planet may be, the salvation and sustainability of mankind is more important.
A peaceful coexistence must be sought. We do not know how to live without the contributions of mother earth yet. It is tyrannical to make choices favored by a few over the needs of many. The planet offers solutions with abundance in some resources while there is scarcity in others. This is nature at work and we need to adopt natural solutions to natural problems. The free will of men can logically seek or develop such alternatives and may have to if life as we know it is to continue.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Clothes Lines Be Hanged
Connecticut Bill 7259, submitted in the 2009 legislative session, titled Right to Dry, offers us an opportunity to dry our laundry outside in the same sunshine and air of open government. There are rational reasons to dry your wash on a drying rack, line, or tree (?). The bill makes no mention of washed or unwashed, but then it would not be laundry needing a right to dry. You only need a right to dry if you are wet, I guess. The rights then accrue to the laundry. You, of course, can hang from a tree to dry if you are wet I guess without this law.
While seemingly benign, the bill is an overt attempt to circumvent the Constitution's explicit prohibition against any ex post facto law as well as its protection of contracts. When you live in some closed communities, like a condo association or coop, you purchased your property and have a deed, a contract, a mortgage, a legal entitlement that makes reference to published rules to which property owners must abide.
Your contract for a loan, your property's assessment, and the market value, your taxes, your property rights all make reference and consideration for such locally administered practices usually conducted by an elected committee. Presumably you read these before signing anything and understand the connection of these rules to your property and to your own lifestyle preferences.
These rules are guidelines and can usually be changed as the affected community can vote amendments under the administrative conditions set forth. It is fair to think of this as taxation with representation. Don't buy this property or live there unless you can live with the rule requirements.
The US Constitution does not allow a preemption of law unilaterally and protects the sanctity of the contracted conditions and property rights in your association, the value of your investment and the "rule of law" to support the contract. Passing a new "right to dry" law should grandfather existing condominium contracts or, perhaps, mandate a going forward proposition to impose the desired mandate on new associations to accommodate the Constitution.
Pushing a green "clothesline agenda" on unwitting and perhaps unwilling groups who cannot protect themselves from government intervention of dubious value, if not outright invasion of personal freedom and privacy, to say nothing of the impact on property values, is not good democracy.
Eminent domain comes to mind as an extreme interpretation of this murky bill.
To protest this usurpation of our Constitutional rights, we propose that you:
1. Air your dirty laundry.
2. Fly clean white sheets with "No Surrender" written on them.
3. Clean this protest with your participation.
While the green advocates insist on a "right to dry", you could easily hose down your protest banner on a daily basis to maintain a posture/position statement with your laundry as a voice (free speech) proxy. Cluttering the landscape with a sea of laundry is after all the outcome from passage of the bill.
This action will make your neighbors aware of this attempt by government to take over your chosen private way of life and to continue to express your desires with Free Bleach (ooops, Speech)!!!
While seemingly benign, the bill is an overt attempt to circumvent the Constitution's explicit prohibition against any ex post facto law as well as its protection of contracts. When you live in some closed communities, like a condo association or coop, you purchased your property and have a deed, a contract, a mortgage, a legal entitlement that makes reference to published rules to which property owners must abide.
Your contract for a loan, your property's assessment, and the market value, your taxes, your property rights all make reference and consideration for such locally administered practices usually conducted by an elected committee. Presumably you read these before signing anything and understand the connection of these rules to your property and to your own lifestyle preferences.
These rules are guidelines and can usually be changed as the affected community can vote amendments under the administrative conditions set forth. It is fair to think of this as taxation with representation. Don't buy this property or live there unless you can live with the rule requirements.
The US Constitution does not allow a preemption of law unilaterally and protects the sanctity of the contracted conditions and property rights in your association, the value of your investment and the "rule of law" to support the contract. Passing a new "right to dry" law should grandfather existing condominium contracts or, perhaps, mandate a going forward proposition to impose the desired mandate on new associations to accommodate the Constitution.
Pushing a green "clothesline agenda" on unwitting and perhaps unwilling groups who cannot protect themselves from government intervention of dubious value, if not outright invasion of personal freedom and privacy, to say nothing of the impact on property values, is not good democracy.
Eminent domain comes to mind as an extreme interpretation of this murky bill.
To protest this usurpation of our Constitutional rights, we propose that you:
1. Air your dirty laundry.
2. Fly clean white sheets with "No Surrender" written on them.
3. Clean this protest with your participation.
While the green advocates insist on a "right to dry", you could easily hose down your protest banner on a daily basis to maintain a posture/position statement with your laundry as a voice (free speech) proxy. Cluttering the landscape with a sea of laundry is after all the outcome from passage of the bill.
This action will make your neighbors aware of this attempt by government to take over your chosen private way of life and to continue to express your desires with Free Bleach (ooops, Speech)!!!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Who speaks for the people of Connecticut?
In the 2009 January session of the Connecticut Legislature, 3 bills (SB071, SJ017, and SJ018) were introduced to allow the voters of Connecticut the ability to propose initiatives and referendums directly to the people. This granted authority by the legislature requires a constitutional amendment by way of the legislature.
In simple terms, Connecticut citizens would have the right to propose laws through direct initiative and the power to approve or reject a statute through a referendum to the people subject popular vote. Additionally:
1) A 5% threshold of those registered to vote in the preceding gubernatorial election must sign the petition. Other formulas may be considered.
2) The proposition must pass legal tests set forth. Individual rights or those of minority groups, for example, as codified in the Bill of Rights, must be protected.
3) This allows the public to directly vote on bills already passed or allowed by activist judiciary if enough people feel so inclined or outraged.
There is a volume of literature on this topic and other States, like Massachusetts and California , have used this technique to cap taxes, for example.
It is conspicuous in Connecticut that such a notion does not resonate with voters. The arrogance of our legislature does not seem to be enough to trigger enough activism on this issue to spur an outcry for justice.
The Constitutional Convention was embarrassingly defeated in the November 2008 election. Controversial laws have been passed despite attempts by legislators who encouraged direct voter involvement with a referendum; gay/same sex marriage for example was never really voted upon, the courts made us do it and we passively went along. Public opinion is not really sought and special interests groups support most legislation as directly benefitting their cause with testimony.
Without such a tool available to the voters at large we can only remain hostage to those in power who neither listen nor respect direct democracy where the voices and will of the people should be heard. We should be allowed a voice when controversy creates divides among the people that violate our fundamental moral codes and force/push us in the direction of selecting winners and losers with a moral compass that knows not which direction is true.
This is not multi-partisan reconciliation and as a result the divisiveness (attributed to diversity?) continues to grow as more causes provoke or promote their need for more recognition contrary to that of the majority. If we are to have more government involvement in social engineering, then the real elites are the elected government leaders making arbitrary choices based upon on their preferences, choices, and views on how the world should look, think or act.
Yes, tyrants can exist in a democracy, but only until the people realize a governmental crisis and that revolutionary tactics are necessary. Direct democracy is the best law abiding, civilized, peaceful, and respectful tool we have to work within the bounds of our society including its values.
In simple terms, Connecticut citizens would have the right to propose laws through direct initiative and the power to approve or reject a statute through a referendum to the people subject popular vote. Additionally:
1) A 5% threshold of those registered to vote in the preceding gubernatorial election must sign the petition. Other formulas may be considered.
2) The proposition must pass legal tests set forth. Individual rights or those of minority groups, for example, as codified in the Bill of Rights, must be protected.
3) This allows the public to directly vote on bills already passed or allowed by activist judiciary if enough people feel so inclined or outraged.
There is a volume of literature on this topic and other States, like Massachusetts and California , have used this technique to cap taxes, for example.
It is conspicuous in Connecticut that such a notion does not resonate with voters. The arrogance of our legislature does not seem to be enough to trigger enough activism on this issue to spur an outcry for justice.
The Constitutional Convention was embarrassingly defeated in the November 2008 election. Controversial laws have been passed despite attempts by legislators who encouraged direct voter involvement with a referendum; gay/same sex marriage for example was never really voted upon, the courts made us do it and we passively went along. Public opinion is not really sought and special interests groups support most legislation as directly benefitting their cause with testimony.
Without such a tool available to the voters at large we can only remain hostage to those in power who neither listen nor respect direct democracy where the voices and will of the people should be heard. We should be allowed a voice when controversy creates divides among the people that violate our fundamental moral codes and force/push us in the direction of selecting winners and losers with a moral compass that knows not which direction is true.
This is not multi-partisan reconciliation and as a result the divisiveness (attributed to diversity?) continues to grow as more causes provoke or promote their need for more recognition contrary to that of the majority. If we are to have more government involvement in social engineering, then the real elites are the elected government leaders making arbitrary choices based upon on their preferences, choices, and views on how the world should look, think or act.
Yes, tyrants can exist in a democracy, but only until the people realize a governmental crisis and that revolutionary tactics are necessary. Direct democracy is the best law abiding, civilized, peaceful, and respectful tool we have to work within the bounds of our society including its values.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Circus Tears!
The famous clown Emmett Kelly of Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey altered his makeup after July 6, 1944 with the addition of a painted tear beneath his eye and the rest shall we say is history. It was forever known as “The day the clowns cried”.
His permanent tear and perpetual silence commemorated the great circus fire in Hartford, Connecticut when the main tent burst into flames and over 160 lives, many of them children, were lost in a short period of time. The unidentified body of Little Miss was never claimed and remained a mystery until recent times. The sadness of that day was recorded in this new clown face for the whole world to see and triggered changes in laws that prohibited the circus from coming to Connecticut for some time.
We are now confronted with a new assault on the circus with Connecticut Bill 6555 in the 2009 session, An Act Concerning the Humane Treatment of Elephants. In this bill the mere possession of the tool commonly used in the customary manner to control these wild animals would become a misdemeanor. In all likelihood this act essentially bans “the circus” from “coming to town”.
After all, the animals are trained and controlled by such practices around the world and are not about to be retrained just to come to Connecticut . Uncontrolled elephants would certainly present additional problems that this law does not address. Zoos seem to be exempt, but you wonder how the keepers control these beasts.
This law, then, only has the undesirable effect of banning circuses in Connecticut and the moments of magical imagination that only a live circus can provide to old and young alike.
But Dad (or Mom or Partner), all the other kids in other states get to go, PLEASE!!!
What special interest group could be so mean?
His permanent tear and perpetual silence commemorated the great circus fire in Hartford, Connecticut when the main tent burst into flames and over 160 lives, many of them children, were lost in a short period of time. The unidentified body of Little Miss was never claimed and remained a mystery until recent times. The sadness of that day was recorded in this new clown face for the whole world to see and triggered changes in laws that prohibited the circus from coming to Connecticut for some time.
We are now confronted with a new assault on the circus with Connecticut Bill 6555 in the 2009 session, An Act Concerning the Humane Treatment of Elephants. In this bill the mere possession of the tool commonly used in the customary manner to control these wild animals would become a misdemeanor. In all likelihood this act essentially bans “the circus” from “coming to town”.
After all, the animals are trained and controlled by such practices around the world and are not about to be retrained just to come to Connecticut . Uncontrolled elephants would certainly present additional problems that this law does not address. Zoos seem to be exempt, but you wonder how the keepers control these beasts.
This law, then, only has the undesirable effect of banning circuses in Connecticut and the moments of magical imagination that only a live circus can provide to old and young alike.
But Dad (or Mom or Partner), all the other kids in other states get to go, PLEASE!!!
What special interest group could be so mean?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Classroom YouTube Entertainment
Picture a classroom in CT where the nerd math teacher is trying to explain a complex law of physics using his body language and props to demonstrate cause/effect. Charades, the game, can also depict this image in case you never pay attention in math or physics.
Without consent, some character pulls out a cell phone to record with some primitive description to mock the ungainly (but sincere) attempt to teach something useful.
If we follow form in CT, each school board will discuss, debate, and relive their youth in a repetitive fashion to invent a unique policy to ban, condemn, or outlaw this practice once it is recognized as unacceptable behavior. You don't make fun of people, we are taught, right?
Why can't we just get some law(s) passed to nip this now, rather than wait for some episode where someone might get hurt? That is what Plato's Philosopher King would do (Plato).
Without consent, some character pulls out a cell phone to record with some primitive description to mock the ungainly (but sincere) attempt to teach something useful.
If we follow form in CT, each school board will discuss, debate, and relive their youth in a repetitive fashion to invent a unique policy to ban, condemn, or outlaw this practice once it is recognized as unacceptable behavior. You don't make fun of people, we are taught, right?
Why can't we just get some law(s) passed to nip this now, rather than wait for some episode where someone might get hurt? That is what Plato's Philosopher King would do (Plato).
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Term is Up!
Term limits for elected officials are a death knell for their way of life. They can no longer be re-elected as "career diplomats", party with rich, powerful, and special interest groups, direct funding to their special causes to avoid the radar screen filter for election contribution limits or ever hold sway over those who they think they govern. (Remember their job is to serve not govern -- big difference!)
No -- the power, the money, and the adulated position they hold would be gone and they'd be "just plain folks" like the rest of us.
On a more positive note, however, the rest of us benefit from term limits. New ideas from fresh faced views, a truely competitive elective process, dilution of special interest powers, more citizen engagement in a healthy democracy, and an end to the deals that can only last to the duration of their term.
Some might say that the loss of knowledge would be damaging. A distraction, maybe, but no loss. You only need common sense and a grounded moral background -- and an appreciation of individual freedom -- to be a Connecticut legislator. We have plenty of able willing citizens who commonly volunteer to provide facts, information, and interpretation if asked. We have seen a number of such efforts in recent times.
It is also fair to cite the state agencies' professional staff as a wealth of knowledge with practical familiarity with executing and operationalizing legislation.
This nirvana, however, can never happen. There will never be a chance to ever introduce this notion to this legislative body so resistant to such proven measures adopted elsewhere through referenda.
You need to have a voter-initiated referendum to put this idea to the electorate directly in order to achieve an up or down vote without legislative involvement. Otherwise their mischief continues.
No -- the power, the money, and the adulated position they hold would be gone and they'd be "just plain folks" like the rest of us.
On a more positive note, however, the rest of us benefit from term limits. New ideas from fresh faced views, a truely competitive elective process, dilution of special interest powers, more citizen engagement in a healthy democracy, and an end to the deals that can only last to the duration of their term.
Some might say that the loss of knowledge would be damaging. A distraction, maybe, but no loss. You only need common sense and a grounded moral background -- and an appreciation of individual freedom -- to be a Connecticut legislator. We have plenty of able willing citizens who commonly volunteer to provide facts, information, and interpretation if asked. We have seen a number of such efforts in recent times.
It is also fair to cite the state agencies' professional staff as a wealth of knowledge with practical familiarity with executing and operationalizing legislation.
This nirvana, however, can never happen. There will never be a chance to ever introduce this notion to this legislative body so resistant to such proven measures adopted elsewhere through referenda.
You need to have a voter-initiated referendum to put this idea to the electorate directly in order to achieve an up or down vote without legislative involvement. Otherwise their mischief continues.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Voice of Anonymity.....?
We should all know that in CT most legislation proposed is done through the work of special interest groups who approach individual legislators or committees. The process is well known, documented, and controlled (somewhat), but is widely recognized for its values (to some):
1) You only need to have a small advocacy group, lobbyist, or professional association to wield great influence.
2) This process educates legislators on complex topics when their own knowledge base is limited or is focused on their passion/ideology to help someone.
3) It allows full time paid lobbyists to orchestrate the agenda and propose the legislation.
The shortcomings of this environment also are well known:
1) The public hearing testimony is dominated by state agencies and advocacy groups whose job it is to track these bills and comment as necessary.
2) The public must sit and wait until called. This time can be prolonged and requires the public to basically take time off from work. Evening hours are rare.
3) Appealing via a letter or phone call to your locally elected representative may not be effective if they are not a member of the committee seeking public testimony.
The consequences to all of this may be succinct but includes:
1) Public voice and input are not really visible or viable.
2) Legislators vote on the basis of knowledge they hear from those "expert" special interests.
3) Legislators are loyal to their party and not necessarily to local interests other than on a token basis.
4) The public voice is missing or lost and is never really considered.
Connecticut has a closed system of government and rarely seeks the direct opinion of the population via a referendum. The silent majority is silenced by this lack of sensitivity and is deprived of voter initiative and activism tools to be heard and to make changes that reflect CT society at large. With the demise of newspapers, there is no forum for diversity, debate, or consideration of alternate views, to say nothing of investigative reporting to uncover mischief. (Of course the obvious exception is responsible blogs such as this one.)
Without the option to propose by means of a defined and regulated voter initiative process (as is done in most states) the CT public will NEVER truely have a voice and will remain disenfranchised from direct participation.
I propose that a statewide district represented by all voters is as worthy as districts represented by locally elected individuals. Direct democracy is practiced in many towns through annual and other scheduled meetings when necessary giving CT voters locally practical familiarity with this process.
How/why can't this be made possible to CT citizens and thereby engage them in more fruitful discussion with all opinions and knowledge considered for worthy ideas? Incumbents and special interests would have to cope with a statewide approach and its costly, time-consuming educational implications.
Only then special interests would have to make their case to the statewide audience instead of their own business as usual with campaign donations and other goodies to the legislators they need to do their work.
This status quo also is convenient to the elected representatives who can financially benefit at election time. It is far more cost effective for a special interest group to invest in the legislative "membership" than to take their case/initiative to the population at large. With 36 Senate members and 151 House members, it does not cost a lot to make donations to campaigns or favorite charities to get influence.
With 113 Democrats and only 36 Republicans (and 2 vacancies), you can save even more by donations to the dominant party only!
A statewide education/advertising campaign is far more costly and unpredictable.
1) You only need to have a small advocacy group, lobbyist, or professional association to wield great influence.
2) This process educates legislators on complex topics when their own knowledge base is limited or is focused on their passion/ideology to help someone.
3) It allows full time paid lobbyists to orchestrate the agenda and propose the legislation.
The shortcomings of this environment also are well known:
1) The public hearing testimony is dominated by state agencies and advocacy groups whose job it is to track these bills and comment as necessary.
2) The public must sit and wait until called. This time can be prolonged and requires the public to basically take time off from work. Evening hours are rare.
3) Appealing via a letter or phone call to your locally elected representative may not be effective if they are not a member of the committee seeking public testimony.
The consequences to all of this may be succinct but includes:
1) Public voice and input are not really visible or viable.
2) Legislators vote on the basis of knowledge they hear from those "expert" special interests.
3) Legislators are loyal to their party and not necessarily to local interests other than on a token basis.
4) The public voice is missing or lost and is never really considered.
Connecticut has a closed system of government and rarely seeks the direct opinion of the population via a referendum. The silent majority is silenced by this lack of sensitivity and is deprived of voter initiative and activism tools to be heard and to make changes that reflect CT society at large. With the demise of newspapers, there is no forum for diversity, debate, or consideration of alternate views, to say nothing of investigative reporting to uncover mischief. (Of course the obvious exception is responsible blogs such as this one.)
Without the option to propose by means of a defined and regulated voter initiative process (as is done in most states) the CT public will NEVER truely have a voice and will remain disenfranchised from direct participation.
I propose that a statewide district represented by all voters is as worthy as districts represented by locally elected individuals. Direct democracy is practiced in many towns through annual and other scheduled meetings when necessary giving CT voters locally practical familiarity with this process.
How/why can't this be made possible to CT citizens and thereby engage them in more fruitful discussion with all opinions and knowledge considered for worthy ideas? Incumbents and special interests would have to cope with a statewide approach and its costly, time-consuming educational implications.
Only then special interests would have to make their case to the statewide audience instead of their own business as usual with campaign donations and other goodies to the legislators they need to do their work.
This status quo also is convenient to the elected representatives who can financially benefit at election time. It is far more cost effective for a special interest group to invest in the legislative "membership" than to take their case/initiative to the population at large. With 36 Senate members and 151 House members, it does not cost a lot to make donations to campaigns or favorite charities to get influence.
With 113 Democrats and only 36 Republicans (and 2 vacancies), you can save even more by donations to the dominant party only!
A statewide education/advertising campaign is far more costly and unpredictable.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Who do you want to marry today?
If you married your wife, that would be your wife.
If you married your guy, that would be your guy wife.
If you married your first cousin who had a sex change, it could (if the Hartford legislature passes the bill) quality as a gender wife.
What gender or wife is that?
When does this stop?
How far do we go?
Why don't we all marry each other and call it a day? -- a love fest or "love in" will end all wars.
The CT General Assembly is about to perpetrate another attack on the sanctity of marriage to say nothing of love as defined by the common moral authority of common law and society.
The least we could do is put this to a referendum vote to verify majority consent.
But wait we didn't authorize (November 2008) the Constitutional Convention when would have made the voter referendum possible. What are we do do?
If you married your guy, that would be your guy wife.
If you married your first cousin who had a sex change, it could (if the Hartford legislature passes the bill) quality as a gender wife.
What gender or wife is that?
When does this stop?
How far do we go?
Why don't we all marry each other and call it a day? -- a love fest or "love in" will end all wars.
The CT General Assembly is about to perpetrate another attack on the sanctity of marriage to say nothing of love as defined by the common moral authority of common law and society.
The least we could do is put this to a referendum vote to verify majority consent.
But wait we didn't authorize (November 2008) the Constitutional Convention when would have made the voter referendum possible. What are we do do?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
CT Constitution and Budget Cap
If you wonder why CT has such a hard time doing its budget, you can understand the overall issue by reading the CT Constitutional Amendment available below:
www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?A=3188&Question_ID=392288
On careful reading you may have to read it again, and again, ........ The definitions that are needed are not given so you can interpret them in any number of convenient/inconvenient ways depending on your preferences.
Unlike states that put budget caps in place through a voter initiative or referendum, CT continues to rely on the "mash-up" which is "in effect" ineffective despite the will of the people when this was passed with much congratulations amongst the legislators for a job well done.
Come to think of it, that same tone was evident at the end of the 2008 election when campaign finance reform efforts were appplauded as a success even though the incumbents were re-elected and new members were absent.
Funding elections only re-elects the incumbents, as we can now demonstrate, and does not attract new blood as intended.
www.sots.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?A=3188&Question_ID=392288
On careful reading you may have to read it again, and again, ........ The definitions that are needed are not given so you can interpret them in any number of convenient/inconvenient ways depending on your preferences.
Unlike states that put budget caps in place through a voter initiative or referendum, CT continues to rely on the "mash-up" which is "in effect" ineffective despite the will of the people when this was passed with much congratulations amongst the legislators for a job well done.
Come to think of it, that same tone was evident at the end of the 2008 election when campaign finance reform efforts were appplauded as a success even though the incumbents were re-elected and new members were absent.
Funding elections only re-elects the incumbents, as we can now demonstrate, and does not attract new blood as intended.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
CT Constitutional Convention Needed Now!
In fall 2008 CT voters did not elect to have a state constitutional convention as they could have. Few politicians ever acknowledged the opportunity and to a large extent did not endorse the concept when they even spoke of it.
No surprise. The media did not fulfill its "journalistic reason to exist" by explaining it or even providing any input to the few discussions. The print media seem to become less relevant at a greater pace as their public service role declines. Nobody even practices investigative reporting anymore.
The goal of having the Constitutional Convention was to resolve any consitutional issues (that we all know) including the vagueness of the spending cap with astute definitions. Add impeachment guidelines for public officials (including governors) and you have some real progress.
The real value of the Constitutional Convention, however, comes with a voter initiative option in the Constitution. Voters could, under guidelines established in law, initiate actions that would be put forth to all voters in a referendum for the public at large to vote on.
If such recourse were available, some debates underway now in this 2009 session would not even occur so that attention to the budget detail could occupy the primary interest. Debates over expanding marriage options and their controversies could avoid the proxy vote of legislators and allow the "silent majority" to be heard in a true democratic vote.
Polls indicate a large public majority favor the death penalty while legislators continue their personal quest (and own agenda) to outlaw this popular penalty.
No surprise. The media did not fulfill its "journalistic reason to exist" by explaining it or even providing any input to the few discussions. The print media seem to become less relevant at a greater pace as their public service role declines. Nobody even practices investigative reporting anymore.
The goal of having the Constitutional Convention was to resolve any consitutional issues (that we all know) including the vagueness of the spending cap with astute definitions. Add impeachment guidelines for public officials (including governors) and you have some real progress.
The real value of the Constitutional Convention, however, comes with a voter initiative option in the Constitution. Voters could, under guidelines established in law, initiate actions that would be put forth to all voters in a referendum for the public at large to vote on.
If such recourse were available, some debates underway now in this 2009 session would not even occur so that attention to the budget detail could occupy the primary interest. Debates over expanding marriage options and their controversies could avoid the proxy vote of legislators and allow the "silent majority" to be heard in a true democratic vote.
Polls indicate a large public majority favor the death penalty while legislators continue their personal quest (and own agenda) to outlaw this popular penalty.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
UConn Health Center -- never enough money
As UConn Health Center continues its annual plea for monies, I reflect on its construction history. As the costs inflated over its period of construction, the most inspiring audit revealed the large number of wheelbarrows that went missing from the construction center (truth).
It is now clear that the wheelbarrows were shipped to UConn Storrs for future use in carrying back annual appropriations from the state legislature as more money was needed (joke).
With UConn's inflated salaries, benefits, and egos we must ponder what contribution is really made with the taxpayers investment in contrast to alternatives, competing, and special interests.
It is now clear that the wheelbarrows were shipped to UConn Storrs for future use in carrying back annual appropriations from the state legislature as more money was needed (joke).
With UConn's inflated salaries, benefits, and egos we must ponder what contribution is really made with the taxpayers investment in contrast to alternatives, competing, and special interests.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
CT 2009 budget
You have a squeeky clean governor, Jodi Rell, trying her best to create a responsible budget and adhere to the shortfall forecasts. Still, nothing happens.It makes you wonder, if she is the "good", where must the evil lie? The answer? The Legislature, with inert Republicans!
How to extract a budget from them as gradiodse as it is likely to be, (see Obamamania) , also is troublesome. Maybe the voters with a voter referendum could establish an adult version and pass it. How hard could that be if we practice "core" values?
How to extract a budget from them as gradiodse as it is likely to be, (see Obamamania) , also is troublesome. Maybe the voters with a voter referendum could establish an adult version and pass it. How hard could that be if we practice "core" values?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Common Ground on the 2009 CT Budget Figure
Where is the person who can define the constitutionally mandated cap on CT legislative spending? Since nobody knows what it is, then a definition does not exist.
We don't even know what a balanced budget is suppose to look like -- nor when it will be formulated. I guess passing the cap a few years ago also created a memory lapse to match the budget number lapse.
Burning former Governor Lowell Weiker in effigy didn't work. So what are we to do next?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)