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.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)