The Sensible Geek

Dear Representatives Dunshee and Hope, and Senator Hobbs,
I write to you today to express my disapproval of HB 2837 and SB 6452 in their current forms.

Specifically, I object to 2 things.

1) Limited service pregnancy centers are unjustly singled out.  Comprehensive centers should be held to the same standard of medical information and service disclosure as limited centers.  If centers that do not offer abortions or abortion referrals will be required to disclose that upon the first contact with a person seeking services, then centers that do not offer adoption assistance or referrals should be required to disclose that information immediately as well.

2) Section 2 constitutes an incredible cost burden to agencies that are for the most part non-profit, and are supported solely by charitable donations.  Requiring a 30 point font on an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, on the door of the office, inside the office, on the agency’s website, and in any promotional materials represents a significant cost for organizations that often times already hang by a thread.

A more balanced law would prohibit the dissemination of false or misleading information, rather than requiring obtrusive disclosure of information that is in all likelihood obvious to women seeking services.  Let’s face reality, when a woman goes to a crisis pregnancy center, she is almost certainly aware that they do not provide abortions.  Furthermore, if the woman seeks an abortion, it’s a simple question that such an agency would answer “no” to.  This law would place an additional, unnecessary and unjust burden on those agencies (which again, are largely non-profit, charitable organizations) providing limited services.  The bottom line is that this law is less about protecting women and more about directing women toward clinics that offer abortion, at the expense of clinics that do not, when both have an entirely valid place in our communities.

If HB 2837 or SB 6452 reach the floor of your respective chambers, I urge you to move to amend it such that it will not single out limited service facilities, by including all clinics that are not primary care facilities, such as hospitals and doctors’ offices (shouldn’t comprehensive facilities be held to the same standard of medical accuracy and information privacy?), and to be prohibitive of false or misleading information as opposed to actively requiring disclosure in an obtrusive way.  If such amendments are not made, I urge you to vote “no” on the bill should it reach the floor.

Thank you for your time, and your representation.

TheSensibleGeek Politics crisis pregnancy, Hans Dunshee, HB 2837, Mike Hope, SB 6452, Steve Hobbs

It’s been a nice break these last couple months, but I’m back in the saddle, and ready to rumble.  I’m not sure if I could have been more corny in the previous sentence, but you can bet I’ll sure try.

There has been a lot of talk over the last couple months, but not a whole lot of action, hence my silence.  There’s been a lot of talk about health care reform, but no cohesive legislation for one to comment on (and I’d like to point out, no proposed legislation from the White House – just empty rhetoric).  There have more recently been developments around missile defense.  And of course, there’s always chatter about the economy.  As was coined during the Clinton administration, “it’s the economy, stupid”, but that’s a big enough subject, I’ll leave it for another day (plus, my position is pretty clear, I would think, given my past articles).

What I want to touch on today, however is the National Endowment for the Arts.  The NEA is a federally funded agency “dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.” [link]

According to CNSNews, some Republicans in the House have raised an eyebrow to the content of a conference call the White House, NEA and Corporation for National and Community Service held last month.  Apparently, during the call, Yosi Sergant, Director of Communications at the NEA said some thing which could be construed as coercive.  According to federal law, it is illegal for federal funds to be spent encouraging people to support or oppose political agenda items, so the raised eyebrow may not be unwarranted.

Here are some quotes:

…help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and the environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.

I would encourage you to pick something, whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know, there’s four key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service.

Take photos. Take videos. Post it on your blogs. Get the word out. Like I said, this is a community that knows how to make a stink.

Now, I may be reading too much into this, and I’m probably allowing my personal bias through, but I wonder how enthusiastically the NEA would support an artist who wanted a grant to make something that protested health care reform.  Sergant never explicitly encouraged artists to make things that support the White House’s agenda, but it’s not much of a stretch to pick out a bit of a subtext.

Based on the 3rd quote, it seems pretty clear that Sergant wants artists to “make a stink.”  The question comes down to whether or not he wants artists that do not support the White House’s agenda to make as much of a stink as those who do.

Given the demographics of those in the “art community”, it may be a reasonably fair comparison to compare Sergant’s statements to someone encouraging KKK members to “make a stink” about race relations.  You may not explicitly encourage them to go lynch people, but the reality is that plausible deniability only goes so far.

The Communications Director of a federally funded agency that gives monetary grants to artists encourages artists (who I would contend have a predilection toward more liberal viewpoints) to “get the word out” about one of the “key areas that the corporation has identified as the areas of service.”  It doesn’t take a paranoid mind to see through the veil.  If I were an artist, I could very reasonably think that if I create something that goes “get the word out,” that perhaps my chances of receiving a grant would increase.

Again, none of this was explicitly said in the conference call, but few things in politics are.  It’s all about being able to discern the subtext.  To read between the lines.  I’d love to know why Sergant has been removed from the position of Communications Director since then.  Perhaps to give the administration deniability?  No, politicians would never do that…would they?

I may be biased, but it sure looks to me like the NEA was trying to get people to make art about policy issues, knowing the demographically, most of them would create art that supports the White House’s agenda.  If that’s the case, it may well be illegal.

Of course, if I want to be fair, Occam’s Razor could apply.  It could be that Sergant has a personal bias, that he allowed to shine through during that conference call, and it could be that he was removed from his position for it, or for some completely unrelated reason. Both the White House and the NEA said that Sergant had acted improperly, after all.  However, I have to wonder if it’s case where they’re sorry it happened, or whether they’re just sorry he got caught.  There does come a point, when there are enough isolated incidents, enough circumstantial evidence, that discussing the tree is pointless in light of the forest before you.

TheSensibleGeek Politics NEA

First off, let me apologize for the incredible lack of new articles recently.  Real life has been catching up with me recently, and I just haven’t had much brain power left at the end of the day to write anything coherent.  Having said that, I want to make sure I’ve done my due diligence, rather than ignore Sarah Palin’s resignation from the Alaskan gubernatorial seat.  Here’s the thing, I want to support Sarah Palin.  I like how “real” she seems to be — not over-polished.  But the cold hard fact is, her political career is over.

Read more…

TheSensibleGeek Politics sarah palin

CNSNews.com reported today that Representatives Michael Castle (R-Del.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) announced the introduction of a bill that would require a criminal background check in every weapons purchase.  Currently, when a gun is sold privately from one individual to another, such as at a gun show, no background check is required by law.  Other lawmakers, like Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), believe further regulation would be invasive and ineffective.

I agree with Rep. Tiahrt.  When guns are more difficult to legally acquire, law abiding citizens are more deterred from purchasing a gun than criminals.

Read more…

TheSensibleGeek Economics, Politics gun control

I’d like to delve into the proposed Washington State budget, Chris Gregoire’s version of which can be found here.

According to a press release from the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), projected state revenue for the 2007-09 biennium is $27.89 billion.  The current revenue projection for the 2009-11 biennium is $27.95 billion.  The state forecasts increased revenue for the state in the upcoming budget period, over the current period, and yet, all we’ve been hearing is talk about deficits and shortfalls and the decreasing distance between the earth and the sky.

I have one question: If you make the same income this year as you did last, then how is it possible for you to have a budget shortfall?

Answer: When you want to spend more money than you receive.

Read more…

TheSensibleGeek Politics auditor, budget, deficit, gregoire, shortfall, sonntag, washington

On March 25th, Glenn Beck did a segment where he described why he thinks American’s are frustrated with government.  I found his comments to be quite illuminating.  Scroll to about 2:06 remaining in the clip:

Read more…

TheSensibleGeek Politics anarchy, conservative, constitution, founders, left, liberal, no government, right, statism, total government

As I’m sure anyone is aware, President Obama signed an executive order today that rescinds former President George W. Bush’s executive order banning the usage of federal funds on embryonic stem cell research on embryo lines created after August 9th, 2001.

Not surprisingly the Vatican and the National Right to Life Committe have condemned the order [link] as a violation of sanctity of life.  And naturally many people with ailments that embryonic stem cell research could help treat are ecstatic.

President Obama said the following:

At this moment the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and it should not be overstated, but scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.

Translation:

We shouldn’t overstate how cool this stuff is, but come on, guys, it’s the GREATEST STUFF EVER!!

The Associated Press is also reporting that President Obama said that the nation owes a debt of gratitude to people like Christopher Reeve, who with his wife, Dana, created a foundation dedicated to finding a cure for spinal cord injuries. [link]

Spare me the hero worship.

I don’t mean to urinate on the memory of the late Superman, but caring about Stem Cell Research only after you become afflicted with something that it could possibly cure doesn’t exactly qualify a person for “debt of gratitude” status.  It’s pure, unenlightened, self-interest — not all that impressive.  And frankly, the only reason he got as much attention as he did, was the irony of Superman being paralyzed.

Seriously, that would be like me only caring about testicular cancer if I have it.  Or welfare recipients lobbying for increased welfare benefits.  Don’t get in front of cameras and say “Hey, guess what?  I’m in favor of something that would directly benefit me!” because a) it’s not surprising, and b) you’re not some wonderful philanthropist for it.

If you want to be impressive, support a cause because it’s the right thing to do.

Finally, President Obama vowed that only research meeting strict ethical guidelines would be allowed.  I suppose that depends on your definition of “ethical,” doesn’t it?  I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, the last thing this country needs is our politicians telling us what is and is not ethical.

Author Justin Webb said “The repudiation is of a policy but also of a way of life, that puts faith above science.”  [link] That’s right, we’ve decided that science is ultimate pursuit, over all else.  We’ve now put the overwhelming desire to fiddle around with the building blocks of human life ahead of our conscience.

Not exactly what I call “progress.”

^Z

TheSensibleGeek Politics stem cell

I’ll make this one quick.

I want to point out why there are so many earmarks in these spending packages the legislature is passing. Democrats are going to pass the spending packages, because they’re all competing for the honor to tow the party line, and support Obama’s agenda.

So the legislation is going to pass, pretty much no matter what.

So if you’re a congressman, and your distinguished colleague from the state of whatever adds earmarks to the bill, which is going to pass either way, are you about to stand by while every constituency EXCEPT yours gets something specific out of the bill?

Of course not.

If I were in congress, I’d add my earmark, so that my constituents are covered when the bill passes, but then I’d vote against the package. Why? Because I think the bill sucks, but if it’s going to pass anyway, and everyone else is getting money for their districts, I’m not going to get left out.

It’s really not any more complicated than “well if you’re gonna go have ice cream, then I want some too!”

^Z

TheSensibleGeek Politics congress, earmark, spending

I’m going to ask one simple question — what incentive do the Detroit Three have to become more efficient, if we show them that we’ll pay for their losses? 

The Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, if it hadn’t been shot down by the Senate, would have put in place a presidential designee, who would have the power to tell the car companies they must produce “a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the United States market”.  The remove the doublespeak, there would be a government entity that could tell the car companies what cars to make, and how much they can be sold for.  We’ve socialized banks, and now the government wants to socialize the bloated auto industry.  Fantastic.

Read more…

TheSensibleGeek Economics, Politics auto, bailout, labor, UAW, union

Tomorrow, voters in my home state of Washington will decide whether to enact Initiative 985 into law.  From the Washington Secretary of State’s office, “This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.”[wei.secstate.wa.gov]

The full text of the initiative can be found in PDF format here.

To put it bluntly, the initiative is a bad idea.  More after the jump.

Read more…

TheSensibleGeek Politics 985, carpool, congestion, hov, I-985, I985, Initiative 985, red light camera