What You Should Know

Please read this article and watch the video links to learn more about Common Core.

The Tale of Our Quest

Aftermath: Link up

Alaska Pride is on top of things, here is a post election article.

Last Post for 2012 Election: Tips

Ran into a person who knows about this blog who asked about voting on Judges.  The tip I gave is I generally answer no to retaining judges due to the fact that a lot of legislation from the bench has been happening with them for quite some time.  It takes a lot of diligent research to see if they are legislating from the bench or not so it’s easier to just say NO.

Hints and tips re-post:

Ultimately the bond litmus test question is:
Do I have a right to force a mortgage on my neighbor?

• If you’re really not sure on an issue, try applying the Golden Rule or ask yourself if you willing to accept the costs associated with passage of the issue. Ask yourself if you have a right to compel your neighbor to accept those costs.
• It’s okay to leave a blank circle if you feel neither answer/candidate fits your view. Just fill in the circle where you have conviction that your choice is a good one.
• Look at who is sponsoring the candidates. Generally they will be in the same political classification.
• Unions tend to support bigger government legislation. Also, Unions lean toward the social freedom and economic control ideals.
• Centrist/moderates appear to be trying to get as many votes as they can, thus identify themselves as centrist/moderate to hit what they feel the majority of the population leans to. This is not necessarily desirable if you have strong ideals where you feel your representative should be unwavering.

Ultimately, no matter what a candidate classifies themselves as, it could change in actual policies they end up supporting. This can be due to a desire to compromise with the perceived “other side” or it could have been the plan to begin with. We all know some candidates will do or say whatever they feel will get them the winning vote. This is why we need to look at records, keep up on issues, and call them out if they seem to change from their running platform once they are voted in.

What do you classify yourself as and what do the candidates classify themselves as?

Basic Definitions
Classical Liberal: Juris naturalist. One who believes that the country should have a small, weak government, and free markets, and that the individual is endowed by his Creator with inalienable rights to his life, liberty, and property. Also, one who believes in Natural Law and common law, or Higher Law.

Centrist: Moderate.

Conservative: A person on the right side of the left-right political spectrum. Conservatives believe in economic freedom and social control.

Democrat: A person on the left side of the political spectrum.

Juris Naturalist: syn. Classical liberal. Believes in Higher Law or Natural Law, that right and wrong are not matters of opinion. Believes political power corrupts both morals and judgment. Wants a government that is small and growing smaller.

Liberal: A person on the left side of the left-right political spectrum. Liberals believe in social freedom and economic control.

Moderate: One who is in the middle of the left-right political spectrum. Moderates advocate both economic encroachment and social encroachment, but perhaps not to the extremes that left and right do.

Progressive: One who is on the left side of the political spectrum.

Republican: Conservative.

See my Terms Defined page for more info.

 

Alaska Pride and The Mudflats linkups

Seeing as how I don't have much time to write this year I am at least linking up to fellow Alaskans who have had time to write concerning Election 2012.  So without further adieu here they are:

Alaska Pride (the more conservative source)
Articles on Alaska Senate District J, Alaska Public Safety Coalition Endorsements, Ballot Measure 1, Bonding Proposition A...

The Mudflats (the more liberal source - includes more national info)
Articles Alaska Senate District N, Election Roundup, Alaskan First Ladies, Alaska GOP...

An Example of How to Analyze a Proposition

The following link-up is from a California voter.  Seeing as how California is often portrayed as the “political leader” for federal government legislation and recognizing that this is a great example of how to analyze a proposition I believe this to be relevant to everyone.  The full article is here.

Some excerpts:

"Now to my real concerns. While our voter guide says that "enforcement" of the law will be performed by the government {presumably the DPH}, the law specifically says that enforcement is primarily via lawsuit:

111910. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 111900 or any other provision of law, any person may bring an action in superior court pursuant to this section and the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for cause shown, to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision of Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 110808), or Article 7 (commencing with Section 110810) of Chapter 5.

[snip]

(b) In addition to the injunctive relief provided in subdivision (a), the court may award to that person, organization, or entity reasonable attorney's fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action as determined by the court.

In my mind, this is code for license to sue. To sue wildly, as there are no real limits.

Really? Can we not just lodge a complaint somewhere? Does this really have to go through the already-overloaded courts?

Does "any person" mean even people from outside of California? Even if they never shop in California?

Because of the way the law is written, it looks to me like people {or organizations, or "entities"} can sue farmers and grocers, whomever they wish. And why? Well, because they want to:"

 

and

 

"What is the Intent of the Law?

I don't want to be cynical, but here's the deal. If the intent of the law is to properly label food, that we might know if our food has been tampered with at the genetic level, I agree with the intent.

But the enforcement side of the law makes me think that the point of this is to open a lot more people and businesses up to lawsuits. It is to make people vulnerable. The cynic in me says that the enforcement side reveals the real intent of the law, which is for lawyers and their clients to make a lot of money off of our of our culture's affection for unadulterated foods."

 

and

 

"I refuse to vote for injustice, even if the effect of the law--the proper labeling--suits me just fine."