tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19686321.post5952344405419787401..comments2008-09-18T12:10:12.153-07:00Steve Zemkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07601513227032274985noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19686321.post-61170810645183038182008-09-18T12:10:00.000-07:002008-09-18T12:10:00.000-07:00I&#39;ve been remiss not to post my own opinions on these initiatives &amp; hope to remedy that soon.<BR/><BR/>My default position is to vote No unless there is an extraordinarily compelling reason to support one.<BR/><BR/>I-1000 is the extraordinary exception. Even our Dem Governor is too timid to support it, yet common sense demands that this be passed over the will of legislators who shy away from such topics.<BR/><BR/>My rule of thumb goes like this:<BR/><BR/>If an initiative involves spending or restricting spending, it has to be EXTRA EXTRA Extraordinarily compelling to get me to support it. The public at large just can&#39;t comprehend percentages, and how spending or spending restrictions affect budgets, and don&#39;t have access to the tools to make such decisions.<BR/><BR/>If it restricts the rights of some particular group then the same extraordinary caution applies. <BR/><BR/>If it EXPANDS rights WITHOUT cost, then the bar is much lower, so I-1000 is an absolute no-brainer for me, because both of those are true, PLUS it is extremely compelling when one looks at the success of the Oregon law, and the piece of mind that the possibility of a graceful exit gives those whether they end up using it or not.<BR/><BR/>I-985 hardly needs discussion. It legislates details, (terrible, environmentally destructive, limiting, and expensive details at that) and should be the poster child for what should not be an initiative.<BR/><BR/>Now I admit that I&#39;ve not studied I-1029 in detail, but it doesn&#39;t meet the low bar, and I&#39;m just not compelled. Someone is going to need to take me aside and do some PASSIONATE convincing to get me to sign on to legislation whose total ramifications I have a hard time imagining. I&#39;m sure the thing is well-intended, and I&#39;m favorably disposed to the SEIU, but what of the concerns of family members who will be forced into required training when they may be facing all kinds of other hardships at the same time. And you certainly can&#39;t say the costs will necessarily be trivial. I signed the petition and voted for that animal trap prohibition, and I&#39;m already regretting it. Who knew that it would force people to use poison instead of traps to deal with vermin issues ahead of time? Not me.<BR/><BR/>I-1000 is the shining and obvious exception. Otherwise it&#39;s No from me.Walkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07043584417557166784noreply@blogger.com