http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/nov22004/guide/meas/m36_fav.html
Simple question: did the state of Oregon actually send this to voters, or is this some sort of joke?
Apparently, when there are “questions” on the Oregon ballot (referenda, initiatives), concerned citizens or groups are given the opportunity to post their arguments for or against those questions in the voters guide. Note that there’s a link on the left to a page of the arguments against Measure 36.
The State of Oregon isn’t putting forward any of those arguments for or against the measure.
Yes, yes it is!!!
But in oh so an amusing way:
Wow, you’d think there would be some minimum grammar and sanity requirements to get your argument listed in that thing. FWIW, here are the Arguments in Opposition.
Yup. Although M. Dennis Moore’s arguements are in actuality lampooning the religious right, the other arguements in favor are, sadly, on the level.
Oregon is a beautiful place to live, but we do grow a lot of nuts here. :rolleyes:
[Obligatory Python Reference]
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, trampling on The Right.
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, he pens with all his might.
He’s faking a switch, to ridicule the boors,
Mr. Moore…, Mr. Moore…, Mr. Moore…
[/OPR]
I’m really, really thinking about making this my sig:
Ah, the esteemed Mr. Dennis Moore.
The dorms have been snickering over pg. 78 (which is where the best of the satire appears) since the pamphlet came out.
My favorite is the rant concerning social change: “Moses brought some new-fangled laws down from Mt. Sinai! Blacks refused to sit in the back of the bus!”
Heh… I just got that the other day, and got a big kick out of the AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL! argument.
Nope, can’t argue with THAT kinda logic.
So are there really no limits on what gets put in the booklet? You would think that if anyone could put a satirical entry on “pro” side of an initiative that they’re actually opposed to, it would happen a lot more often. Couldn’t opponents simply swamp the thing with thousands of phony articles?
Sure, and who decides what’s grammatically correct and sane? A bunch’a lawyers? Politicians? Doctors? College professors? Or another group of predominantly white, protestant, middle-to-upper-class people with their own axes to grind?
Do you really want to limit political expression based on educational levels and mental health status? What if you’ve been diagnosed with schizophrenia? How 'bout depression? (I suspect that those in the care of the state are already limited in this regard, although that’s pure speculation with no actual information on my part.)
Do you wanna restrict arguments that don’t observe a college-level degree of grammatical correctness? A high-school level? A professional level? Or do you think someone should be allowed to edit these arguments? Who? And how do you prevent them from altering the message?
(These are rhetorical questions, folks.)
I suppose we could just make a quick edit to the Constitution, while we’re editing stuff. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, you know, except crazy stuff, Congress can go ahead and abridge that, and of course anything poorly-written by English language standards, since the English language is, after all, kind of official, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I think it’s easier all around to let folk decide for themselves what’s crazy, politically, rather than try to make value judgements prior to allowing them to express themselves.
On the flip side, it sounds reasonable to require a petition with a specific number of signatures in support of an argument before including it in the guide, which would tend to filter out a good deal of noise. Looking through the guide linked by the OP, I see that this is, in fact, the case - you need 1000 signatures -or- five hundred bucks to get your argument included.