Is it fair for a poor majority to tell a rich minority to hand over the money?

Considering that the wealth of the wealthy is only possible in the context of a society, a nation-state context of today, they must fund the government which gives their wealth meaning. The 'wealthy' really have pieces of paper which are nothing more than IOUs or statements, whether that is currency, stocks, treasuries, or bonds. These things are totally meaningless, as is the concept of ownership of things like machinery without a means of either enforcing ownership claims or acceptance of those pieces of paper as currency.
So they are not only morally obligated to fund the system/society to the level that enables it to function to the benefit of all, but they have a self interest in doing so, as it mean funding that which gives their wealth meaning and therefore power.
Fairness means nothing in this context, as their wealth is dependent on the acceptance of the public of it. Is it fair that the public accept that some few should be mega-rich when so many are suffering so badly and could have their lives improved significantly through marginal outlays of some of that 'wealth'?

In the context of what you seem to define 'fairness' as, it is that of the individual to have property rights above all else in a society and have an authority enforce meaning of their wealth and their rights to that property. Fairness though could be defined in any number of ways and is really therefore meaningless when discussing what if 'more fair'. What would make more sense is discussing what is moral in the context of a system that enables wealth as we understand it.

Washington Initiative 502 Results, Marijuana Legalization

I-502 - Washington’s New Marijuana Regulation Law 

Frequently Asked Questions   

The ACLU of Washington will be working to ensure that Washington’s new voter-approved
marijuana law is fully and fairly implemented, and offers this brief FAQ about implementation
of Initiative 502.  

• When can adults legally possess and use marijuana?      
• As of December 6, 2012, adults age 21 and over in Washington state can no longer be arrested under state law for possessing limited amounts of marijuana.  
• How much marijuana  can adults legally possess under I  legally possess under I-502?
• Under Washington law, adults can possess 1 oz. of useable marijuana, 16 oz. of marijuana infused product in solid form, and 72 oz. of marijuana-infused product in liquid form. 
• Can I grow marijuana at home?   
• No. Unless you are an authorized medical marijuana patient under Washington law, home growing is not allowed.  
• When can  can marijuana retail outlets sell marijuana?    
• The Washington State Liquor Control Board, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health will have until December 1, 2013 to complete rule making that will create a system to license and regulate the production, processing, and sale of marijuana.  Commercial businesses can be set up after rule making is complete and once a license is obtained. 
• Where will stores be located?
• Licenses will authorize stand-alone marijuana businesses, with similar restrictions to the old state liquor stores.  Marijuana stores must be located at least 1,000 feet away from schools and parks. the number of marijuana store licenses will also be determined in rule making. 
• Does I-502 change Washington’s medical marijuana law?
• No. Washington’s Medical Use of Cannabis Act remains unchanged.    
• Can marijuana be used in public?   
• It will remain unlawful under Washington law to use marijuana in public. Similar to a traffic offense, violations will result in a civil infraction bringing a fine but not arrest.  
• Can a prospective employee a prospective employee still be drug tested for marijuana when applying for a job?   
• I-502 does not change Washington state employment law, which allows for employment drug testing in some situations. 
• How do the DUI provisions work under I-502?
• I-502 creates a standard for marijuana impairment while driving, similar to the .08 cut-off for alcohol. The DUI provisions focus on active THC in one’s system that can impair a driver and not inactive marijuana metabolites that do not cause impairment.  As is currently the law, an officer will need to have probable cause for an arrest and reasonable grounds to believe a driver is impaired before requiring a breath or blood test. Nor does it change the fact that blood tests can only be administered by medical professionals.
• How will the federal government respond to I-502?
• Proponents of the new law look forward to working with federal officials in a spirit of collaboration and cooperation to ensure that it is fairly implemented. The law’s tightly regulated system will improve public safety and increase respect for law enforcement. We hope that federal officials will respect the will of our state’s voters and not enforce federal laws against Washington residents who are obeying state law. 
• When does I-502 take effect?
• Here is a summary of important dates for implementation of I-502: 
• December 6th 2012: Initiative 502 goes into effect.
• On this date it will be legal for adults 21 and over to possess limited amounts of marijuana under Washington law. I-502’s Driving Under the Influence provisions will also take effect.  
• December 1st 2013: Rule making Must Be Completed.
• The Washington State Liquor Control Board, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Health must conduct rulemaking as specified by I-502 to set up a system to license and regulate the production, processing, and sale of marijuana.  No commercial business can be set up until rulemaking is complete and licenses are obtained. 
• September 1st, 2015: Evaluation 
• The Washington State Institute for Public Policy must provide legislature with a preliminary evaluation and recommendations regarding the cost-benefit outcomes of I-502. Additional evaluations will be produced in 2017, 2022, and 2032. 

source

a good night for this country as a whole

Ohio really did go to President Obama last night. And he really did win. And he really was born in Hawaii. And he really is legitimately President of the United States. Again. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate last month. And the Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy. And the polls were not skewed to oversample Democrats. And Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel bad. Nate Silver was doing math. And climate change is real. And rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes. And evolution is a thing! And Benghazi was an attack ON us, it was not a scandal BY us. And nobody is taking away anyone's guns. And taxes have not gone up. And the deficit is dropping, actually. And Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. And the moon landing was real. And FEMA is not building concentration camps. And UN election observers are not taking over Texas. And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as Communism.

Listen. Last night was a good night for liberals and for Democrats for very obvious reasons. But it was also, possibly, a good night for this country as a whole. Because in this country we have a two party system, in government. And the idea is supposed to be that the two sides both come up with ways to confront and fix the real problems facing our country. They both propose possible solutions to our real problems. And we debate between those possible solutions. And by the process of debate, we pick the best idea. That competition between good ideas, from both sides, about real problems in the real country should result in our country having better choices, better options, than if only one side is really working on the hard stuff. And if the Republican party, and the conservative movement, and the conservative media is stuck in a vacuum sealed, door locked, spin cycle of telling each other what makes them feel good, and denying the factual, lived truth of the world, then we are all deprived, as a nation, of the constructive debate between competing, feasible ideas about real problems.

Last night the Republicans got shellacked. And they had no idea it was coming. And we saw them, in real time, in real humiliating time, not believe it even as it was happening to them. And unless they're going to secede, they're going to have to pop the factual bubble they have been so happy living inside, if they do not want to get shellacked again. And that will be a painful process for them, I'm sure, but it will be good for the whole country - left, right, and center. You guys, we're counting on you. Wake up.

There's real problems in the world. There are real knowable facts in the world. Let's accept those and talk about how we might approach our problems differently. Let's move on from there. If the Republican party, and the conservative movement, and conservative media are forced to do that by the humiliation they were dealt last night, we will all be better off as a nation. And in that spirit, congratulations everybody. Big night.

Meanwhile, here's some thoughtful words offered by Bill Keller in The New York Times

There are plenty of legitimate reasons voters should be disenchanted by the candidates and the campaign, but the idea that we'll be voting in the dark is not one of them.
Yes, the candidates have been reluctant to publish some unpleasant details of their policies.  Most presidential candidates in modern times don't, for the understandable reason that details can be cherry-picked for attack ads.
(But) we don't elect agendas, we don't elect platforms, we don't even elect parties to the presidency.  This is not a referendum or a ballot initiative.  We elect the human being we trust to have our best interests in mind.  We choose a direction, a disposition, a set of instincts and convictions and competencies.

Well, at least some of the media world put substance ahead of style!!!!  God Bless the American persona.
"The Enlightened Prisoner"

And, that's your morning take from "The Enlightened Prisoner"

I really can't abide the huge number of people and organizations that poison the air-waves trying to one-up everyone with their prognostications.

Survey results are always questionable because of the ways it's questions are framed and, the particular local where it's conducted. Mr. Silver's methods are more unique and, have a proven track record.

But still, I'd rather hear more of what's being said by the candidates and the person on the street than by boring commentators. 

I rather suspect they invent a lot more than they admit when it comes to reflecting the electorates opinions. 

But, the other half of that problem is the number of people out there who want to be told what they agree with and is nice to hear instead of what they need to hear.

And, that's your morning take from "The Enlightened Prisoner".

Google Knows What we search for, and how we'll vote

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/20/googles-crystal-ball/

Interesting to think about a tool in our existence that basically acts as a crystal ball.

I can't decide if this is a good or bad thing. If this is finally how we create a townhall. instead of actually discussing the topics, we use a privacy barrier(the internet) as a way to learn about topics and policies without subjecting themselves to local subjectivity.

/trying-to-sound-smart

Conversation about Agricultural Sustainability

I watched this movie about peak oil, and couldn't stop thinking about the sustainability of farmland in the North West. found this washington harvest calendar.

Washington i 502 - Legalize Decriminalize Hemp/Marijuana

This measure would license and regulate marijuana production, distribution, and possession for persons over twenty-one; remove state-law criminal and civil penalties for activities that it authorizes; tax marijuana sales; and earmark marijuana-related revenues.

Should this measure be enacted into law?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No

Argument For		Argument Against
Our current marijuana laws have failed. It’s time for a new approach. Initiative 502 frees law enforcement resources to focus on violent crime. Treating adult marijuana use as a crime costs Washington State millions in tax dollars and ties up police, courts, and jail space. We should focus our scarce public safety dollars on real public safety threats. Initiative 502 provides billions in new revenue for Washington State. Regulating and taxing marijuana will generate over a half-billion dollars annually in new revenue for state and local government. New funding will go to health care, research, and drug prevention. Initiative 502 takes away profits from organized crime. Marijuana prohibition has wasted billions of American taxpayers’ dollars and has made our communities less safe. Just as when we repealed alcohol Prohibition, we need to take the marijuana profits out of the hands of violent organized crime. Initiative 502 protects our youth. Decades of research show what works to prevent kids from abusing drugs. Based on this research, Initiative 502 restricts advertising and provides funding to proven prevention programs. It also provides funding to programs that help keep kids in school.		Two Different Perspectives Against Initiative 502: If You Support Legalization, Vote No On I-502I-502 would create laws that risk the incrimination of innocent people. The proposed per se DUI mandate will lead to guaranteed conviction rates of unimpaired drivers, due to an arbitrary, unscientific limit. A direct conflict with federal law will prevent any legal production, distribution, or retail of cannabis.With no home growing permitted, and no legal retail system, individuals will be forced to the same black market that promotes violence and crime in our communities. I-502 creates situations in which state employees and business applicants can be charged with manufacture or delivery of marijuana, money laundering, or conspiracy, due to self-incrimination. Sharing marijuana with another adult constitutes felony delivery. To learn more, or to support real reform, visit www.SensibleWashington.org.If You Support Safe & Healthy Communities, Vote No on I-502Legalizing marijuana will greatly increase its availability and lead to more use, abuse, and addiction among adults and youth. Most 12th graders currently report not using marijuana because it is illegal. Marijuana recently surpassed alcohol as the number one reason youth enter substance abuse treatment. I-502 provides no funding for additional treatment costs leaving that burden to taxpayers.I-502 creates new regulations without additional funds to enforce those regulations. Marijuana possession will still be illegal under federal law. This conflict leaves growers, users and employees who sell marijuana at risk for federal prosecution and taxes generated by I-502 subject to seizure by federal authorities.
Rebuttal of Argument Against		Rebuttal of Argument For
502 puts public safety and public health first. 502 keeps marijuana illegal for people under 21 and sets a marijuana DUI standard like we have for alcohol. 502 also provides hundreds of millions in new revenue for drug prevention programs that work. Finally, almost all marijuana law enforcement is handled by state and local police – it’s time for Washingtonians to decide Washington’s laws, not the federal government. Get the facts: www.NewApproachWA.org. Vote Yes on 502.		We agree that it's time for a new approach, but not the one offered in Initiative 502. It conflicts with federal law, voiding the possibility of any newly generated tax revenue. It decriminalizes marijuana possession, but not retail or home growing, forcing people to the dangerous black market. This decreases public health and safety and supports organized crime. Furthermore, our state simply can't afford the increased social costs associated with this initiative.
Argument Prepared By		Argument Prepared By
John McKay, U.S. Attorney, Western District of Washington, 2001-2007; Kim Marie Thorburn, M.D., former Spokane Regional Health District Director; Leslie David Braxton, Senior Pastor, New Beginnings Christian Fellowship; Charles Mandigo, former Seattle F.B.I. Special Agent in Charge; Roger Roffman, UW professor and marijuana dependence treatment professional; Jolene Unsoeld,U.S. Representative, 3rd Congressional District, 1989-1995		Anthony Martinelli, Sensible Washington Steering Committee member, Communications Co-Coordinator;Douglas Hiatt, Lawyer; Gilbert Mobley,MD, Diplomat, American Board of Emergency Medicine; Jim Cooper,Substance Abuse Prevention Professional, Community Organizer;Steven Freng, Psy.D., MSW, Chemical Dependency Prevention/ Treatment Professional; Ramona Leber, Former Mayor City of Longview, Public Safety Advocate

Washington Ref 74 - Gay Marriage

This bill would allow same-sex couples to marry, preserve domestic partnerships only for seniors, and preserve the right of clergy or religious organizations to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate any marriage ceremony.

Should this bill be:
[  ] Approved 
[  ] Rejected

Argument For		Argument Against
Only Marriage Provides the Security to Build A Life Together Imagine if you couldn’t marry the person you love? Parents dream of their children being happily married and settled into a lifetime, loving relationship. They don’t dream of walking their son or daughter down the aisle into a domestic partnership. Marriage matters. Vote Approve to Uphold the Freedom to Marry The law allows caring and committed same-sex couples to be legally married. Committed same-sex couples are our neighbors, our friends and family, our co-workers. They should have the freedom to marry and build their lives together, without government interference. It’s not for us to judge, or to deny them that opportunity. Treat Everyone as We Want to Be Treated Think of your own reasons for wanting to marry - you can imagine why same-sex couples dream of the happiness, security and responsibility of marriage. Same-sex couples may seem different, but when you talk with a committed same-sex couple, you realize they hope to marry for similar reasons as everyone else - to share and build a life together, to be there for each other, in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, and to make that special vow before family and friends to be together forever. Vote Approve to Protect Religious Freedom We are all God's children. This law guarantees religious freedom and won't change how each religion defines marriage. It protects the rights of clergy, churches, and religious organizations that don't perform or recognize same-sex marriages.		Marriage is more than a commitment between two loving people. It was created to benefit the next generation. Traditional marriage promotes child well-being because kids need both a mother and a father. Extensive social science shows that children do best when raised by their married parents. The new marriage law passed by legislators did not enact same-sex marriage – it redefined marriage for all, stripping it of its essential man/woman nature and tossing common-sense out the window. Women can now be “husbands” and men can be “wives.” Our “Everything But Marriage” Law Already Provides Gays Full Legal Equality Washington same-sex couples already enjoy full legal equality. The new marriage legislation did not provide any new substantive legal rights for gay couples. Redefining marriage has consequences. God’s creation of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is the foundation of society and has served us well for thousands of years. People who disagree with this new definition could find themselves facing sanctions, as has occurred elsewhere. Church groups have lost their tax exemptions. Small businesses were sued. Wedding professionals have been fined. Charities opposing gay marriage were forced to end services. Young children were taught about gay marriage in public school. Gays and lesbians are entitled to respect and to live as they choose, but they don’t have a right to redefine marriage. Being opposed to same-sex marriage doesn’t mean you dislike gays and lesbians. It means you support traditional marriage. Please reject R-74 to reject redefining marriage.
Rebuttal of Argument Against		Rebuttal of Argument For
Marriage is two people vowing their love and commitment together. Same-sex partners shouldn't be denied access to their loved one in emergencies because they aren't married. The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees legalizing same-sex marriage promotes healthy families and children. Washington State Psychological Association and Children's Alliance approve R-74. This law doesn't change existing anti-discrimination laws or schools. Lawsuits haven't increased in states with same-sex marriage. Liberty and pursuit of happiness are core American values.		Proponents of Referendum 74 focus on what same-sex couples want. But marriage isn’t only about adults’ desires; it’s about what children need. Marriage is society’s way of connecting fathers and mothers to their children. Voters gave gay couples full legal equality through the “everything but marriage law” just two years ago. Referendum 74 will provide no new legal benefits; it redefines marriage for everyone and has serious consequences for society. Please, reject Referendum 74.
Argument Prepared By		Argument Prepared By
Kim Abel, Co-President, League of Women Voters of Washington; Denise Klein, CEO, Senior Services; Chris Boerger, Bishop, Northwest Washington Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church; Ed Murray, State Senator, Born in Aberdeen; Jamie Pedersen, State Representative, Democrat, Born in Puyallup; Maureen Walsh, State Representative, Republican, Walla Walla, small business owner		Joseph Backholm, President Preserve Marriage Washington; Joe Fuiten, Senior Pastor Cedar Park Church; Matt Shea, State Representative, District 4

Washington i 1240 - Charter Schools

This measure would authorize up to forty publicly-funded charter schools open to all students, operated through approved, nonreligious, nonprofit organizations, with government oversight; and modify certain laws applicable to them as public schools.
Should this measure be enacted into law?
[  ]  Yes
[  ]  No

General Assumptions:

·         Estimates assume 40 charter schools will be authorized over five years. The proportion authorized by a local public school district (“school district”) or by the Washington Charter School Commission (“Commission”) is unknown.

·         Charter schools would be tuition-free public schools within the state system of common schools under the supervision of the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and State Board of Education (“Board”).

·         State funding for charter schools would be provided in the same manner as other public schools.

·         It is unknown where charter schools will be located, their size or the composition of their staff or students (“characteristics”).

·         Estimates assume charter schools could first be authorized for operation for the 2013–14 school year. 

·         The effective date of the initiative is Dec. 6, 2012.

·         Estimates are described using the state’s fiscal year (FY) of July 1 through June 30.

State and Local Government Cost Estimate – Assumptions

The state will incur known costs to implement the initiative estimated to total $3,090,700 over five fiscal years. See Table 2.1 for details on state estimated costs. Assumptions by agency are as follows:

·         The initiative establishes a nine-member Commission as an independent state agency. The Commission’s mission is to authorize charter schools. Estimates assume the need for operational and staff support to the Commission at the cost of $970,300 over five fiscal years.

·         The initiative requires the Board to develop an annual application, approval process and timelines for entities seeking approval to be charter school authorizers no later than 90 days after the effective date of the initiative. The Board is also responsible for oversight of the performance and effectiveness of authorizers it approves. Duties also include the setting of an authorizer oversight fee. The Board, in collaboration with the Commission, must issue an annual report on the state’s charter schools for the preceding year. In the fifth year following the operation of charter schools for a full school year, the annual report must contain a recommendation on whether the Legislature should authorize the establishment of additional charter schools. Estimates assume these new duties will require additional operational and staff support to the Board at the cost of $815,000 over five fiscal years.

·         Estimates assume the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction will require additional operational and staff support to allocate and reconcile funds paid to charter schools and to perform duties as the Board’s fiscal agent. These costs are estimated at $764,400 over five fiscal years.

·         Charter school employees’ certificated and classified staff may participate in public employee collective bargaining. Any bargaining unit or units established by the charter school must be separate from other bargaining units in the school districts, educational service districts or institutions of higher education. Each charter school is a separate employer from the school district. It is not known to what extent charter school employees will seek representation and collectively bargain. If all charter school employees were to seek representation and bargain, the maximum estimated cost to the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission is estimated at $461,000 over five fiscal years.

·         Charter school employees may also participate in the state’s health benefit programs through the Public Employees Benefits Board in the same manner as other public school employees. Charter school employees must become members of state retirement systems if their membership does not jeopardize the federal tax status of these retirement systems. The one-time cost of seeking a federal tax status determination is estimated at $80,000 in fiscal year 2013. No additional state costs are assumed for the provisions of retirement contributions and health care benefits as those are a component of the state’s basic education funding to school districts.