?

Log in

No account? Create an account

all the cool kids are doing it. // politics - Lograh — LiveJournal

Tuesday, 07.Nov.2006

15:14 - all the cool kids are doing it. // politics

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

Here, for the first time (and probably the last), I'm going to say how I'm voting. 'cause I'm in that kind of a mood.

fuck that.

lemme just say, I disagree with you. yes, *you*. I have read the various people posting how they are voting, or what they are supporting. I don't think there's a single person on my Flist here (or even among people I know that don't have LJ accounts) that I agree with on every option. This post got *WAY* too long and ranty on the various choices where I disagree with people (read: practically all of them), trying to explain my position, so I gave up.

Here's the short version:

I'm heading out to go vote in about 2 hours. I will vote in ways you will not like (also some ways you will, it's a little of both). I recommend you get out and vote also to cancel out my crazy ideas. If you haven't voted yet, the polls are open till 8pm tonight -- if you have, congratulations!

There is one thing I'm strongly enough opinionated on that I would like to keep here:
Passing a law to say where a group of people can or cannot live is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
Requiring police monitoring through GPS anklets of citizens (previous convictions do not revoke a person's citizenship status) is, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
The term "sex offender" is legally applied to more than guys who rape kindergarteners. It also applies to a young lady who gave a private strip-tease for her boyfriend at a hotel room years ago (as well as a number of other "victimless" crimes).

I think you all can guess how I'm voting on at least one of the propositions.

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:23:49 07.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
lemme just say, I disagree with you. yes, *you*

I already know that.

There is one thing I'm strongly enough opinionated on that I would like to keep here:

Aside from one word, we agree 100% here. Where you say "unconstitutional," I say "inhumane."

I recommend you get out and vote also to cancel out my crazy ideas.

So, you cancel out my crazy ideas, and I'll do the same for yours. That's the magic of progress!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:0:18 08.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
given the religious bias involved in the term "inhumane", I'd like to keep it out of political discussions and not use it as a basis for approving or rejecting potential laws.

"the magic of progress" -- I'll drink to that! :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:0:21 08.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
That's kinda how I feel about "unconstitutional" -- I prefer to leave it to those things that are actually against what's outlined in our national or state constitutions. Granted, what you said could be unconstitutional, but I am honestly not informed enough to tell either way.

Yes, there needs to be drinking. I'm going out tonight with a friend -- I shall raise one for us. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mamarhi
Date:23:50 07.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
I'm with you on that one. I'm totally against that sort of freedom stripping. The language was also far too wishy washy as to who exactly was going to fall under that law. I know that many of my friends may disagree with me, but that's what freedom is all about. I get to believe differently than you.

I voted.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:0:13 08.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
glad you voted.

It scares me, though, that you seem to have thought the language of who the law applies to matters. Would it be acceptable, in your opinion, if the law was better worded about whom it applied to and how ("only individuals who actually raped someone younger than 10 years of age shall be forbidden to live near a preschool")?

It was enough for me that it forbid a specific group of people from living somewhere. I'm fine with someone who was previously convicted for a crime being allowed to live anywhere that person chooses. Even if it was a hate crime against white males and s/he wants to move in next door. If that person has served his/her time, and been released back into society, then that person is perfectly welcome to come live in the apartment right next door to me. People can change, and we need to stop thinking in the "once a criminal always a criminal" mode.

I tossed the reminder about the definition of "sex offenders" in there for people who hadn't yet voted and were on the fence. Some people I know were considering voting yes on this (and probably did).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:0:17 08.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
Personally, there's something frightening about the fact that we can plug in our addresses and find "sex offenders," and find out things they did. It's doubly-so, that we have a double standard against them compared to other criminals, including murderers and the like -- in both a social and legal sense.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:0:20 08.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, me as well. I don't approve of that program in the slightest.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mamarhi
Date:0:26 08.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not sure that clearly defined language would have changed my opinion, but one thing I noticed with many of the arguements for it was that, like the debate over "partial birth abortion", those debating really had no clear knowledge of what it meant, who it would affect, etc. I tried reading up on it and found no clearer language to help me decide what it was all about in the first place. So that's where I decided that I couldn't support it. Had it been more clear, as in "someone who has raped numerous 5 year olds and still happens to be out in public", well... I'd think about that a bit more but I'd also think it to be a bit pointless since it would clearly point to a flaw in the criminal justice system (so rendering this a shot in the wrong direction anyways). However, knowing that most "sex offenders" don't fall under that category, I felt safe in my thoughts that this was getting a bit extreme. You can already look online and find the whereabouts of all registered sex offendors along with the nature of their crime.

So, no, I guess the language being clearer would not have changed my opinion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From:dotarvi
Date:2:14 08.Nov.2006 (UTC)
(Link)
I'm not in Cali, so I didn't get to vote on the fun stuff (I'm not even in the city of Seattle so I didn't even get to vote on the new stripper law), but I heard about this one and it gave me pause.

I was sexually abused as a kid. The guy was caught, he went to jail. Should he now not be able to live where he wants or have to wear an ankle bracelet, etc.? No. (Sorry about the double negative.) If we, as a society, feel that once a sex offender, always a sex offender, then we need to change our sentencing laws. Period.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:gregory_geiger
Date:4:42 08.Nov.2006 (UTC)

not all that surprised

(Link)
...that we voted the same on that one.
(Reply) (Thread)