Archive for February, 2007

Jimmy: [Scrolling through Wa. Sec. of State Initiative website]  Hmmmm… yet another Tim Eyman (and the Fag’n brother’s) tax initiative… funny, this one want’s us to have a two thirds legislative vote to raise taxes… what a wart.  Oh good… another one that amounts to about the same thing.  Man this guy really doesn’t like taxes!  Oh well, he’s a wart.  Oh yes next… citizen counselors… why how pissed they would get when they don’t get their way?  Oh well, they are not in fact, legislators (those elected official types and I guess just picking up the phone or writing a letter to contact your legislator just isn’t enough).  Heck, things could be worse but… wait… oh my look at that.  We gonna have babies !

This measure would restrict marriage to a male and a female who are capable of having children together. Couples would be required to declare their ability to procreate children together in order to obtain marriage licenses. If a couple failed to procreate children within three years of marriage, their marriage would be subject to annulment. All other marriages would be defined as “unrecognized.” Persons in unrecognized marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

Oh Oh, a friend of mine who’s Dad died a bit back Mum, is getting married again… she’s 70 or so I think.  Wonder how they’s gonna pull that off?  Whattabout my daughter.  Heck, I never liked that jerk anyway.  Maybe she’s got an out now?  Awe heck I’m signing that one!

…

Are you cracking up yet?  Holy freaking cow!  Not only is this the most ridiculous (and completely unconstitutional) initiative filing ever. (I think Goldy’s iniative to declare Tim Eyman a Horses Ass had more merit), But it is also one I want to encourage everyone to sign.  In fact, I encourage all of you to volunteer and stand out in the pouring rain and gather signatures.  Wha wha wha why you say?  Because and only because it is so outlandishly ridiculous!  And the underbelly of the religious nut jobs can only be fully expose if this sucker makes it to the ballot.  And also because the absurdity of this initiative is just the point. (Note the irony that I almost took this initiative literally when I first heard about it, kinda scary when that happens…)

And absurdity is just the thing to crack the initiative process egg that so feeds folks like Tim Eyman.  In fact, I am sorely disappointed Tim didn’t come up with this one himself.  But I guess he just wants to make sure his rich daddy folk don’t get taxed at their death or have to provide taxes for things like… roads… bridges… yeah, all under the guise of defending folks like you and me.

There is only one initiative I have seen in this list so far that makes sense. It is a poorly promoted (and written) initiative… about initiatives (written by a Kennewick resident no less).

Prohibition against dangerous initiatives & referenda is essential in every aspect & this initiative will do just that.

I think a strongly written initiative like this could have some momentum.

Update: This comes from Sagebrusher (another Eastern Wa. local on the right):

Name one mainstream conservative that says marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation.  The point this person is trying to spin is the obvious fact that most marriages result in children, which is absolutely true.  Same sex couples are not being “barred from marriage because they can not have children together”, in fact they are not barred from marriage at all.  They just have to play by the same rules the rest of us do.

Uh huh… well, in fact they are barred from legal marriage… And are also not allowed, in more instances than not, to play by the same rules as the rest of us.  Please Hindu, tell me why republicans care if gay folk have the same rights as married folk. 

Nowhere in this article is Doc Hastings mentioned…

Uh… congrats on the pot bust… Hey, what is that on his face?  Is it time for a myspace page?  Is that Doc?!!

Remember that Spokane Tribal compact I was ticked about?  Uh, it was complicated.  Goldy tells us all more than we wanted to know.  Frankly, I wasn’t clear on all the details.  And I still don’t think I am.  Uhhg.  But either way, thanks to HA for giving us something to chew on.

And while I’m linking to Goldy, I’ll link to the Tri-City Herald’s Chris Mullick who I picked up on the audio clip of Pam Roach.  But before you go scrolling to 1hr 40 min into the audio clip, just go catch Goldy’s link.  The race between Pam Roach (R-Crazyville) and Yvonne Ward got my attention not only because I think Pam Roach is crazy, but Yvonne Ward rode a motorcycle.  At the risk of being totally sexist, I like that!  So instead of putting up a picture of Pam on Pam (really funny when you think about it), I’ll just post a pic that I can relate to…

Girls in leather, mountains, motorcycles…  ahhhhh…

Man, sometimes the good folks at the Tri-City Herald step in it.  And they did it again today when they questioned the need to print voting ballots in any other language…

It seems almost ludicrous that ballots in the United States would be printed in any language other than English. Let alone that federal law would require it for certain counties.

Well, just looking at the gist of their argument:

Four Washington counties fit the profile, and several more are likely to be added after the next census.

Right now, King County must provide ballots and voters guides in Chinese, while Franklin, Yakima and Adams counties must offer ballots and voters guides in Spanish.

But we really have to ask, how does one get to be a “voting-age citizen” without speaking English? One of the requirements for becoming a naturalized citizen is the ability to speak English — with a few exceptions.

And most Americans by birthright tend to speak the language very well, regardless of what is spoken in the home — with a few exceptions. 

 

First lets take a look at those requirements…

The ability to read, write and speak ordinary English unless they are physically unable to do so due to a disability such as being blind or deaf, or suffer from a developmental disability or mental impairment. Those over 50 years old on the date of filing who have lived here for a total of at least 20 years after admission as a permanent resident and those who are over 55 and have been legal permanent residents for at least 15 years are also exempt from this requirement.

Now I have to say, would the Herald Editorial Board have quoted this, it would bring up a couple of serious questions.  First, how many actual voters who use alternative language ballots fall into that latter category?  Second, how many under that criteria and age actually vote?  Around here I would think that the criteria prescribed is as fair as it can get.  Just consider yourself over 50 learning a new language.  Consider the children or grandchildren that vote and don’t need an alternative language ballot to vote because… you know, they have learned English! Consider as well that this legislation that protects this group has been in place since 1977.  So does that age group generally stay level over time?  A good question the Herald doesn’t take the time to ask.

I looked around but couldn’t find any statistics for percentage of age for non-English speaking voters and frankly, from what I read it appears there is a lack of data out there.  Which makes the Herald’s argument equally disturbing.  After all, what are they basing this opinion on?  Pure speculation?  And how much of an impact does it really have.  Without really knowing, throwing out opinions like that looks a bit… racist.

Well, I will base my speculation on what I know.  In my district, Hispanic voters are the majority of non-English speaking voters.  And the young folks I encounter… you know, the ones under 50… most all speak English.  Some of their parents, including the Hispanic family I lived with when I was a teenager, spoke fairly good English but read very little (but breakfast was always great!).  Yet they were naturalized citizens and were enamoured with our democratic process.

The apologist part of the editorial does offer the Herald some cover.

The premise that past generations of immigrants learned English at a superior pace is a myth. History tells us otherwise.

There’s nothing new about businesses and agencies using the language spoken by customers and constituencies. In the mid-1800s, for example, more than 800 U.S. newspapers were published in German. At one point, the nation’s top German-language daily sold more copies than the New York Times.

Ok, nice history lesson… but… 

But voting is different. It’s the near-sacred act the unifies all of us as citizens of this great democracy.

And by definition — an American citizen possesses English skills.

It is ridiculous to say voting is different when you don’t know who the alternative language ballots are serving.

What this really boils down to is the Herald is misinformed on this issue. As is probably most everyone else. And without a good analysis and some fact and data we probably will never know what the number of non-English speaking voters are. But what we should never do is marginalize registered voters, who are in fact American Citizens - or potentially disenfranchise them - on baseless arguments. Good folks like the ones that helped me become who I am today could be left out of our democratic process that they cherished.