Archive for October, 2006

Recently, I was reading about how New Jersey’s Supreme Court decided that it was cool for homosexuals to be accorded the same rights in some kind joining like marriage. Then, they passed it to the legislature to cook something up. Now, there are a lot of people praising this (still a minority though).

The thing I find interesting about the people singing the praises of homosexuals are not willing to extend that logic to polygamy, or bestiality for that matter. I mean, if you use the same reasoning that they use to support gay unions, it basically applies to everything.

Personally I don’t care about it, I am just sick to death of hearing about it. But, I despise hypocrisy, and will not hesitate to call it out.

So, if I hear one more person say, “homosexuality is aok, but polygamy is just wrong” well, I may just explode.

For your consideration, the following link takes you to the complete text of the ballot proposals (pdf).

Proposal 06-1 – YES

“…to amend the State Constitution to require that money held in conservation and recreation funds can only be used for their intended purposes.”

The fact that this even has to be a proposal shocks me. I  am a firm believer in that you should reap what you sow. So, it seems only obvious to me that monies collected by these organizations should be used by the organizations.

Basically, the ballot calls for a series of “legacy” funds to be created that collected monies derived from their specific areas are then used to support those areas. I know that sounds confusing, so let me give you the following example: with the forest recreation account, revenue comes from concession, leases, contracts, and fees from recreational activities on state forestlands. This money is then spent on things like the development, improvement, operation, promotion, and maintenance of forest recreation activities.

So, this proposal only seems logical to me. I mean seriously, why should money raised by these groups go to support drug addicts on welfare? Or, really for any other purpose?

Proposal 06-2 – YES

“…amend the State Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.”

This is one of the greatest ballot proposals that has come up since I have been able to vote. I would love to see the day when all government mandated preferential treatment programs are utterly abolished. Unfortunately, this proposal only applies to the public sector.

Affirmative action is at best a joke, and at worst insulting. Not only does it hold the potential to harm those in the majority, but also those in the minority by undermining their qualification. Really, I could go on and on against the evils of programs like affirmative action.

I do believe that in order for the government to function effectively, they need to be as unbiased as possible. So, preferential treatment-like programs just fly in the face of this notion. They are at least as bad as policies before affirmative action, if not worse because it codifies the discrimination.

However, in the private sector I think companies should be able to hire whomever they want, and fire whoever they want for whatever reason they feel like. So, if individual organizations instituted policies like affirmative action, or counter-affirmative action, or whatever I would still be ethically against it, but I would support their right to do so. However, for the government to do it, well that is just reprehensible.

Proposal 06-3 – YES

“…allow for the establishment of a hunting season for mourning doves.”

There is not really any reason not to vote yes for this law. It does not say that a mourning dove hunting season will be established, just that one could be. Generally speaking, hunting seasons are created as a means of population control for the species. Therefore, if these birds become problematic it would be important to be able to hunt them. And, if they are struggling, you would obviously not have a hunting season.

Proposal 06-4 – YES

“…amend the State Constitution to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes.”

I think that it is pretty obvious that not banning this in the federal constitution was probably an oversight by the founding fathers. Otherwise, we would have heard about this thing going on in the past.

Regardless, Michigan is doing the right thing by codifying an end to this reprehensible practice within our faltering state.

Proposal 06-5 – NO

“…establish mandatory school funding levels.”

This is a simple matter of something that is good in spirit, but bad in execution. Guaranteeing money without any kind of accountability is really problematic. I do agree that schools should be getting more money, but it needs to be done in a more constructive, responsible way. Because, throwing money at the problem is not going to fix our school system.