S1Genocide

Join Date 03/2006

Nevada Ballot Measures

How to vote and for what in Nevada.

External Link

Nevada Ballot Measures
2006

(Nov 7) Question 1 - Education First
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 1 - Education First

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment, if passed, would create five new sections to Section 6 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment would provide that during a regular session of the Legislature, before any appropriation is enacted to fund a portion of the state budget, the Legislature must appropriate sufficient funds for the operation of Nevada's public schools for kindergarten through grade 12 for the next biennium, and that any appropriation in violation of this requirement is void. The appropriation requirement also applies to certain special sessions of the Legislature.

FINANCIAL IMPACT - NO. Approval of the proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution would have no adverse fiscal impact.

(Nov 7) Question 2 - Nevada Property Owner’s Bill of Rights
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 2 - Nevada Property Owner’s Bill of Rights

SUMMARY

[The Nevada Supreme Court removed portions of this measure from the ballot. The sections that remain on the ballot deal with eminent domain. The sections removed from the ballot dealt with regulatory takings.]

[NOTE: Nevada law requires that a constitutional amendment be passed in two consecutive general elections before it becomes effective. Therefore, if this amendment passes in November 2006, it will appear on the ballot again for approval in November 2008 before it takes effect.]

The proposed amendment, if passed, would create a new section within Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment provides that the transfer of property taken in an eminent domain action from one private party to another private party would not be considered taken for a public use.

The State or its political subdivisions or agencies would not be allowed to occupy property taken in an eminent domain action until the government provides a property owner with all government property appraisals. The government would have the burden to prove that any property taken was taken for a public use.

If property is taken by the State or its political subdivisions or agencies for a public use, the property must be valued at its highest and best use. In an eminent domain action, just compensation would be considered a sum of money that puts a property owner in the same position as if the property had not been taken, and includes compounded interest and reasonable costs and expenses. Fair market value, for eminent domain purposes, would be defined as the "highest price the property would bring on the open market."

If property taken in an eminent domain proceeding is not used for the purpose the property was taken for within five years, the original property owner would be able to reclaim the property upon repayment of the original purchase price.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Question 2 proposes to amend Article 1 of Nevada's Constitution regarding the determination of public use of property, payment for private property taken under eminent domain actions, and the rights of property owners in eminent domain actions. The provisions of Question 2 cannot become effective until after the 2008 General Election.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF QUESTION 2
Question 2 declares that public use does not include transfers of property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party. Although the use of this type of transfer of private property for projects by government entities is eliminated, an estimate of the financial impact to state and local governments planning to use this type of transfer after the effective date of the Question 2 cannot be determined.

The provision requiring taken or damaged property to be valued at its highest and best use potentially increases the costs incurred by state or local government entities to provide the required payments to property owners under eminent domain proceedings. Given the difficulty projecting the level and scope of eminent domain proceedings state and local governments may undertake after the effective date of the Question 2, the potential financial impact on state or local governments cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. The potential increase in the costs may cause government entities to forego certain projects requiring the taking of private property under eminent domain actions.

The provisions of the Question 2 may potentially increase the number of cases involving eminent domain actions. The potential increase in expenses incurred by state and district courts from handing a larger number of cases involving eminent domain actions cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
The fiscal note was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to NRS 295.015

DESCRIPTION OF EFFECT
The following constitutional provisions shall supersede all conflicting Nevada law regarding eminent domain actions.
-- Transfer of land from one private party to another private party is not public use.
Before the government may occupy property, it must provide appraisals and prove the taking is for public use.
-- Property must be valued at the use which yields the highest value.
-- Just compensation is the sum of money including interest compounded annually necessary to put the owner in the same position without offsets as if the property was not taken.
-- Property taken but not used within five years for the purpose for which it was taken must be returned to the owner.
-- Fair market value is the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
-- Property owners shall not be liable for the government's attorney fees or costs.

(The following portions of the Description of Effect have been stricken to be consistent with the Nevada Supreme Court Order in Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights, Inc. et al v. Heller et al., 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Sept. 8, 2006)):
-- Property rights are fundamental constitutional rights.
-- Government actions causing economic loss to property require the payment of just compensation.
-- Only currently elected judges may issue eminent domain decisions, and such decisions must be published to be valid.
-- In each action, the property owner may disqualify one judge at each judicial level.

Question 3 was removed.

(Nov 7) Question 4 - Second-Hand Smoke
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 4 - Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Second-Hand Smoke Act

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment, if passed, would prohibit smoking tobacco at the following locations: certain indoor restaurants; certain child care facilities; elementary, secondary and high school property; hospitals and medical offices; theaters and concert halls; video arcades; government buildings; all areas within grocery stores, drug stores and convenience stores except the gaming areas; and museums, galleries, and other places of public display.

Smoking tobacco would continue to be allowed at the following locations: casinos or facilities with an unrestricted gaming license; bars, taverns, saloons; restaurants where persons under the age of 21 are not allowed; strip clubs and brothels; retail tobacco stores; private residences, including, hotel and motel rooms, and private residences that are used as office workplaces; and gaming areas within grocery stores, drug stores, convenience stores and any other businesses that hold a Nevada gaming license.

The proposed amendment would also provide that only the Nevada Legislature may regulate the smoking of tobacco.

The proposed amendment would also require "no smoking" signs to be conspicuously posted at locations where smoking tobacco is prohibited.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Question 4 proposes to amend Chapter 202 of Nevada Revised Statutes to prohibit smoking in government buildings, schools, child care facilities, hospitals and medical offices, video arcades, indoor portions of restaurants, movie theaters, grocery stores and bakeries, retail establishments, drug and convenience stores, and museums, libraries, galleries, or other places of public display or collection. The proposed prohibition on smoking would not apply to facilities with nonrestricted gaming licenses; bars, taverns, and saloons; retail tobacco stores; strip clubs and brothels; hotel and motel rooms; and private residences, unless that private residence houses a child care facility. The proposed prohibition would also not apply to areas of businesses, such as grocery stores, drug and convenience stores, and other retail establishments, that are leased to or operated by persons licensed to provide gaming.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE
Establishments where smoking is prohibited by Question 4 would be required to conspicuously post "No Smoking" signs at all entrances and throughout the establishment. State law currently prohibits smoking in public buildings, except in specific designated areas, and requires the posting of "No Smoking" signage in areas not designated as smoking areas. It is difficult to determine the amount of new or additional signage needed in state and local buildings, beyond those required by current statute, to comply with the provisions of Question 4. Thus, the specific financial impact to state and local governments, including school districts, with regard to the implementation of the provisions of Question 4 requiring "No Smoking" signage at all entrances and throughout public buildings cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

The provisions of Question 4 give exclusive power over all regulations regarding the smoking of tobacco to the Nevada Legislature. Under current law, local governments are permitted to create ordinances regarding the smoking of tobacco, and to collect fines for violations of these ordinances. This provision of Question 4 would eliminate the authority of local governments to create ordinances and collect fines related to smoking. Any fines collected for the violation of regulations established by the Nevada Legislature in accordance with the provisions of Question 4 would be deposited in the State Permanent School Fund, as required under Article 11, Section 3 of the Nevada Constitution. With regard to the change of regulatory power over smoking from local governments to the Nevada Legislature, Question 4 would have a negative financial impact upon local governments and a positive financial impact upon the State Permanent School Fund. However, as it is difficult to determine the number of offenses or amount of fines that will occur as a result of the provisions of Question 4, the specific financial impact to local governments or the State Permanent School Fund cannot be reliably estimated.

Current statute requires health authorities and law enforcement agencies to enforce smoking laws within the state, but it is difficult to identify any potential increase in duties or responsibilities requiring additional resources to enforce Question 4 compared to those required by current statute. Since the need or demand for additional resources cannot be easily predicted, a reasonable estimate of the financial impact upon state and local governments with regard to enforcement of Question 4 cannot be made.

The fiscal note was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to NRS 295.015.

(Nov 7) Question 5 - Clean Indoor Air Act
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 5 - Clean Indoor Air Act

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment, if passed, would prohibit smoking tobacco within indoor places of employment including the following locations: child care facilities; movie theaters; video arcades; government buildings; public places; malls; retail establishments; all parts of grocery stores; all bars with a food-handling license; and all indoor restaurants. Smoking tobacco would also be prohibited within school buildings and on school property.

Smoking tobacco would continue to be allowed at the following locations: areas within casinos where loitering by minors is prohibited; stand-alone bars, taverns and saloons; strip clubs or brothels; retail tobacco stores; and private residences, including a private residence that serves as an office workplace. A stand-alone bar, tavern or saloon means an establishment devoted primarily to the sale of alcohol, in which food service is limited to the sale of prepackaged food items that are exempt from Nevada food-handling license requirements.

The proposed amendment would also allow a county, city or town to adopt tobacco control measures stricter than those provided in the text of the Question itself.

The proposed amendment would also require "no smoking" signs to be conspicuously posted at locations where smoking tobacco is prohibited.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Question 5 proposes to amend Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes to prohibit smoking in government buildings, schools, and other indoor places of employment, including, but not limited to, child care facilities, video arcades, indoor portions of restaurants, movie theaters, grocery stores, malls, and other retail establishments. The proposed prohibition on smoking would not apply to areas of casinos where loitering by minors is prohibited; stand-alone bars, taverns, and saloons; retail tobacco stores; strip clubs and brothels; and private residences, unless that private residence houses a child care, adult day care, or health care facility.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE
Establishments where smoking is prohibited by Question 5 would be required to conspicuously post "No Smoking" signs at all entrances and throughout the establishment. State law currently prohibits smoking in public buildings, except in specific designated areas, and requires the posting of "No Smoking" signage in areas not designated as smoking areas. It is difficult to determine the amount of new or additional signage needed in state and local buildings, beyond those required by current statute, to comply with the provisions of Question 5. Thus, the specific financial impact to state and local governments, including school districts, with regard to the implementation of the provisions of Question 5 requiring "No Smoking" signage at all entrances and throughout public buildings cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

State and local governments would also be required to remove all ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia from public buildings where smoking is prohibited. State law currently prohibits smoking in public buildings, except in specific designated areas. It is difficult to determine the amount of ashtrays or other smoking paraphernalia that may need to be removed from these designated areas in order to comply with the provisions of Question 5. Therefore, the specific financial impact to state and local governments, including school districts, with regard to the implementation of the provisions of Question 5 requiring the removal of ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia from public buildings cannot be reliably estimated.

Current statute requires health authorities and law enforcement agencies to enforce smoking laws within the state, but it is difficult to identify any potential increase in duties or responsibilities requiring additional resources to enforce Question 5 compared to those required by current statute. Since the need or demand for additional resources cannot be easily predicted, a reasonable estimate of the financial impact upon state and local governments with regard to enforcement of Question 5 cannot be made.

The fiscal note was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to NRS 295.01.

(Nov 7) Question 6 - Minimum Wage
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 6 - Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Nevadans Act

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment, if passed, would create a new section to Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment would require employers to pay Nevada employees $5.15 per hour worked if the employer provides health benefits, or $6.15 per hour worked if the employer does not provide health benefits. The rates shall be adjusted by the amount of increases in the federal minimum wage over $5.15 per hour, or, if greater, by the cumulative increase in the cost of living measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with no CPI adjustment for any one-year period greater than 3%.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Although the proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution to increase the minimum wage in Nevada could result in additional costs to Nevada's businesses, the impact on a particular business would depend on the number of employees working at a wage below the new requirement, the amount by which the wages would need to be increased and any actions taken by the business to offset any increased costs associated with the increased wage requirement.

The proposal would, however, result in beneficial financial impacts for employees who receive a wage increase as a result of the proposal and who are not impacted adversely by any actions taken by the business to offset the increased costs associated with the increased wage requirement.

In addition, if the proposal results in an increase in annual wages paid by Nevada's employers, revenues received by the State from the imposition of the Modified Business Tax would also increase.

(Nov 7) Question 7 - Regulation of Marijuana
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 7 - Regulation of Marijuana

SUMMARY

The proposed amendments, if passed, would make various changes to Nevada law with respect to the possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana. The amendments would allow persons at least 21 years of age to purchase, possess, use and transport up to one ounce of marijuana.

The amendments would also require that marijuana retailers and wholesalers be licensed by the Nevada Department of Taxation. The amendments would subject the wholesale sale of marijuana to an excise tax, and would subject the retail sale of marijuana to the existing sales tax. The financial impact of license fees and excise taxes is further described in the Fiscal Note. After a deduction to defray the cost of tax collection, fifty percent of the tax revenue from the sale of marijuana would be used to fund voluntary programs for the prevention and treatment of the abuse of alcohol, tobacco, or controlled substances, and the other fifty percent would go to the state general fund.

Under the amendments, the following activities would continue to be unlawful: operation of vehicles and vessels under the influence of marijuana; possession a firearm while under the influence of marijuana; possession of marijuana by a prisoner; and possession of marijuana in a public place, correctional facility, or school.

The proposed amendments would increase the maximum prison terms and fines for violations of NRS 484.3795 (death or substantial bodily harm from driving under the influence) from 20 to 40 years imprisonment and from $5,000 to $10,000 in fines. The proposed amendments would also make it a class B felony for a person over 21 to sell or give marijuana to a minor.

The proposed amendments would have no affect on federal laws that prohibit the sale, possession, use and transport of marijuana.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Question 7 proposes to amend the Nevada Revised Statutes to legalize and regulate the sale, possession, and use of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia within the state of Nevada, by persons at least 21 years of age, under certain circumstances. Question 7 increases the criminal penalties for causing death or substantial bodily harm while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Question 7 also provides for licensure of wholesalers and retailers of marijuana, requires the collection of state and local sales taxes on marijuana sold by retailers, and requires the Nevada Department of Taxation to collect an excise tax on marijuana sold by wholesalers.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF QUESTION 7
State and local courts and law enforcement agencies may need additional resources or the reallocation of current resources to administer and enforce the provisions of Question 7. It is not possible to estimate the resources that may be required by state and local governments due to the legalization of marijuana under Question 7. The specific financial impact on the state or any of the various local government entities from changes in law enforcement activities and court proceedings cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

Question 7 increases the maximum penalty for causing death or substantial bodily harm while driving under the influence from 20 years in state prison and a $5,000 fine to 40 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Increasing the maximum sentence that can be imposed may increase the cumulative costs associated with incarceration in state correctional facilities. Since it is difficult to predict the number of cases requiring the imposition of a sentence and the length of sentence set by judges, a specific financial impact on the state budget cannot be established.

Question 7 requires the Department of Taxation to develop and implement regulations regarding the licensing of wholesalers and retailers, and collect an annual $1,000 license fee from these entities. The Department would also be required to collect an excise tax of $45 on each ounce of marijuana sold by wholesalers licensed under Question 7. The Department would incur costs related to the development and administration of regulations regarding licensing and collection of the excise tax and license fees. This should not have a financial impact upon the state budget, as the provisions of Question 7 allow the Department to retain a portion of the proceeds sufficient to cover the administrative costs incurred by the Department as a result of these requirements.

Revenues generated from the excise tax and license fees, less the administrative costs retained by the Department of Taxation, must be deposited in the State General Fund. Question 7 requires that 50 percent of these funds be distributed to the Health Division of the Department of Human Resources for voluntary drug, alcohol, and tobacco treatment and prevention programs. Additionally, retailers would be required to collect state and local sales taxes on any marijuana sold, resulting in additional sales tax revenue for the State General Fund, local governments and school districts. The level of production and consumption of marijuana that would occur cannot be easily established. Although the taxes collected from the wholesale and retail sales of marijuana could generate additional revenue for state and local governments, including school districts, a specific dollar amount cannot be reasonably estimated.

The fiscal note was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to NRS 295.015.

democrat

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

White House Drug Czar John Walters visited Las Vegas yesterday to hand out taxpayer dollars to local Nevada organizations that are willing to oppose the Marijuana Policy Project’s ballot initiative to end marijuana prohibition in the state. MPP's initiative will be on the November 7 ballot.

If passed by Nevada voters on November 7, MPP’s initiative would regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol.

Our campaign staffers confronted the drug czar everywhere he went yesterday. At 6:40 a.m., Walters appeared on a local NBC TV station ... and our campaign manager, Neal Levine, refuted him on the same station a few minutes later. Walters — who had refused to participate in a debate-style format — ducked out the back of the station to avoid meeting Neal. But Walters couldn’t hide, because when he appeared on the talk radio show "State of Nevada" a short while later, one of the three opposing phone calls he received was from Neal.

Walters couldn’t escape MPP all day long. When he arrived to speak at the Police Supervisors and Managers Association at 10:00 a.m., 25 of our protesters were there to greet him. And the protesters swelled to 50 when he arrived at the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce at noon. His motorcade was forced to pass between two crowds of our supporters holding signs and chanting, "Czar, go home! Leave Nevada alone!"

The confrontations were covered by major TV networks in the state yesterday, as well as in the Las Vegas Review-Journal — and the story even went national, with coverage in the Washington Times and elsewhere.

With congressional auditors calling for the drug czar’s budget to be slashed, and members of Congress demanding that he be fired for mismanaging his office, surely Walters has better things to do with his time than to spend taxpayer money interfering in Nevada’s election.

Nevada has even asked him to stay away before, but he just won’t stop interfering. In 2003, then-Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval (R) criticized Walters’ interference with a 2002 marijuana initiative in the state. "It is unfortunate that a representative of the federal government substantially intervened in a matter that was clearly a State of Nevada issue,” Sandoval wrote in an opinion. “The excessive federal intervention that was exhibited in this instance is particularly disturbing because it sought to influence the outcome of a Nevada election."

But Walters has a long history of interfering with MPP’s ballot initiatives in the weeks before elections. And now he’s handing out your tax money to groups that will help him.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It won't matter anyway. The Supreme Court has already adjudicated on this very issue in the fact that, the "federal" law superseeds the state one. If your caught growing it even for personal consumption you "will be" prosecuted by a federal court.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I just wish that we could just vote on a ballet forbidding any more ballets legalizing marijuana. I am just sick and tired of hearing about this every two years. Get over it!!!! When are you and your out of State interest groups going to learn that the majority of eligible voting Nevadans don't want it legalized?

Successfully updated karma reason!

What are you talking about 89,000 Signatures aren't nevadans? Get your head out of your ass. I work for MPP & Normal and guess what I LIVE IN NEVADA! (for 12 years!)

AND Nevada is not A RED STATE It was at best Purple in 2004 Every previous year it was a blue state.

You don't like Marijuana decrminilised MOVE!

Successfully updated karma reason!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada <-proof Nevada was a BLue State every previous year but 2004.

Pick a state without a leaf and move.

Successfully updated karma reason!

There should be a state for everyone!

You want to be gay? move to Mass. or Maryland.

You want to smoke pot? move to Alaska or Nevada.

You want to be a Nazi? move to Texas or Virgina.

No one should be exiled from this country! NO ONE.

Divide, divide, divide! thats all you Republicans do. take away freedoms, take away freedoms, take away freedoms! When you start giving some freedoms I will vote Republican. Until then, Nazi, rascist, and predejuice bastards is all you are.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Until then, Nazi, rascist, and predejuice bastards is all you are.

Do "not" let me see this kind of talk again! I can promise you that you will not like the outcome.

You want to be a Nazi? move to Texas or Virgina.

No one should be exiled from this country! NO ONE.

Divide, divide, divide! thats all you Republicans do. take away freedoms, take away freedoms, take away freedoms! When you start giving some freedoms I will vote Republican. Until then, Nazi, rascist, and predejuice bastards is all you are.

And as for this misstatement....you "do" realize it wasn't the republicans that criminalized it in the first place right?

THE ANSLINGER-MELLON CONNECTION

One man who first spread myths about marijuana is Harry J. Anslinger, who was appointed director of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (predecessor of the Drug Enforcement Agency -DEA- of today). He was a man who hated jazz music and tried to get jazz musicians herded
up into prison for smoking the sacred herb. The time dilation effect of THC probably helped introduce extra beats into jazz music. But Anslinger didn't like jazz and he hated marijuana even more. At first, Anslinger declared marijuana caused users to go crazy and commit violent acts. As a result of his testimony, persons who used pot could use the insanity defense to get a less charge to murder. Later on, after doctors testified at a second hearing regarding marijuana, Anslinger recanted his earlier testimony, conceding the sacred herb probably didn't cause insanity or violent behavior, but added that it could lead to opium use. This is how the gateway myth originated.

In 1931, Anslinger got his job at the Bureau of Narcotics at the recommendation of a man named Mellon, who happened to be his wife's uncle. Mellon, also director of the Mellon Bank, was U.S. Secretary of the Treasury. He associated with other wealthy men such as William R. Hearst, Sr. and the DuPont brothers. Hearst owned a chain of newspapers across the U.S. as well as a large lumber company. The DuPont family had just patented a paper making process using wood pulp some years earlier. As well, they had a new invention, a kind of synthetic cotton called nylon.

Liberals and democrats every one of them. And you "still" haven't addressed this:

So it "ain't" just republicans shooting it down. It's democraps too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What are you talking about 89,000 Signatures aren't nevadans?

But 89,000 are not the majority of eligible voting Nevadans, is it? That is was a ballet is for. I could easily find 89,000 signatures to pass a ballet to ban more legalization ballets.

guess what I LIVE IN NEVADA! (for 12 years!)

So what. I've been a Nevadan citizen for 36 years. My guess is that you are a Californian refugee or, by the way you talk, a Californian infiltrator. I am sure your SSN does not start with 530 either. So you may want to tone down that “You don’t know what you are talking about because you are not a Nevadan” thing.

If you don't like Nevada becoming a red state move yourself. I don't care. If the ballet passes, to bad for me. It does seem that you are getting over excited about being able to kill some more brain cells and possibility killing one of my family members when you are driving during a smoke filled stupors. If you don't like my dissenting options either black list me or block responses to your posting.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Island Dog

Join Date 06/2003

+1048

Divide, divide, divide! thats all you Republicans do. take away freedoms, take away freedoms, take away freedoms! When you start giving some freedoms I will vote Republican. Until then, Nazi, rascist, and predejuice bastards is all you ar

Not one of your "freedoms" has been taken away. Why do you guys always have to be so dramatic?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not one of your "freedoms" has been taken away. Why do you guys always have to be so dramatic?

I can only say that he has lost one freedom. The freedom to, by phone, talk with terrorist outside of the country without having their plots listened to.

But that should not matter to much, because his own party voted for that act too.

Successfully updated karma reason!

They hate my freedom. These two nitwits and their infantile friends are practicing freedom haters. They are nationalistic fundamentalists who take Bush as their ultimate source of authority. But in a working democracy, authority resides with its citizens. Obviously all polls indicate Bush's days of power are finally waning.

On the same token there are Islamic fundamentalists and abundant numbers of Evangelical Christian fundamentalists who are working to remake all nations into rigid theocracies. They each have their ideas of what freedom should mean. No matter what culture they come from, fundamentalists are part of the group known as "conservatives."

Anyone who's fundamental views have led them to express hatred of opposing views are in fact haters of freedom! In other words, if you hate liberal thinkers because you call yourself a conservative, you hate freedom. Knowing how the GOP hates liberal thought, a conflict may occur to one knowing that "freedom" is a liberal concept. Even the word has French origins. Isn't that funny?

Thus "freedom" is a relative term with a meaning that varies depending upon who utters the word. However fundamentalists of any ilk hate freedom of thought. And so Bush's pertinacious idea of freedom and that of many Americans are very different.

Bush's uses the word "freedom" to leverage public opinion. It is a marketing buzz word used with the assumption that many American's react from emotions rather respond out of reason. Indeed, many Americans can not differentiate between reason, emotion, and what has been programmed into them by political forces. But for those of you who have an attention span, for those of you who can critically and FREELY think for yourselves, I have found an excellent response to Bush's rhetoric on "freedom." Please enjoy this response from a person who obviously is informed, and and uses their mind for something other than hate.
-tf
-----------------------------------------------------
An open letter to George W Bush: 'they hate us and they hate freedom and they hate people who embrace freedom.' President George W Bush interviewed on Al Arabiya television, 6 May 2004
New Internationalist, March, 2005 by Theodore Roszak

Mr President,

We have heard you offer such justifications for the war in Iraq many times since 11 September 2001. In words that carry all the moral weight of an action-movie script, you would have the American public believe that the main reason we have presided over the deaths of thousands and spent hundreds of billions of dollars is to seed the Middle East with democratic values. You have even invoked a religious sanction for these policies, by insisting democracy is a divine gift to humankind. Observers report that you approach this task with a providential fervour. Democracy--like it or not--is the Christian God's gift to the dysfunctional Muslim nations of the world. Indeed, terrorist hatred of freedom is what you believe the war to be about. You see the Islamic world as infested with bad guys who want to kill free people--a rationale that elicited a witty rebuttal from the terrorist-in-chief. I hesitate to say a good word for a man as bloody-minded as Osama bin Laden, but he did score a telling point in his 30 October 2004 pre-election address to the American people. 'Contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom, let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden.'

Before we go any farther, let me acknowledge that I too would like to see democracy flourish in the world. Though I appreciate the historical contributions of Islam, I am no admirer of its social system. By my admittedly ethnocentric standards, Muslim society represents too much that the Western Enlightenment cast aside three centuries ago--autocracy, theocracy and patriarchy. Its penchant for cruel and unusual punishment, its misogynistic puritanism, its use of vengeful self-immolation, make my blood run cold. Every chapter of the Qur'an begins by naming Allah as 'all-merciful', but I have seen little of that mercy on the part of his followers.

Yet for all that, I cannot agree that the United States--much less the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party--has the right to propel Islam along the road to democracy, even if I believed that was sincerely your intention. And I don't. Behind the messianic rhetoric, I see a cross-section of antidemocratic forces that have made your party the most monolithic in American history. Under your Presidency, the US has been delivered into the hands of a ruthlessly triumphalist regime that not only does not understand democracy, but does not like it, and actually wants less and less of it in the world.

Let me offer a brief survey.

To begin with, we have America's new, all-volunteer military, your administration's sacred cow, repeatedly used to quell all criticism of the war. 'Support our troops' is the teary-eyed mantra that resonates from the West Wing through every lunch counter, bowling alley, saloon and church in middle America. Lost in the ceaseless flag-waving and patriotic schwarmerei is the fact that America is becoming the most militarized nation on Earth. What supposedly freedom-loving conservatives so eagerly adulate are young, often poorly educated men and women who have opted to live a barracks life, to march in step, snap to attention, salute and shout 'Hu-ah!' to every order they are given. They may be volunteers, but what have they volunteered for? To lead the most regimented life available in the US. This is a far cry from the ornery, unruly homo democritus that has been the American ideal from frontier days down to the citizen soldiers of past wars. Yet images of a samurai military--special forces, top guns, elite units and contract security forces (for which read 'hired guns')--fill our popular culture, including the video games so popular with adolescent males. (Among the most popular of these: 'Mercenaries: The Playground of Destruction.') With each passing year, as your administration diminishes funding for education, working poor and middle-class youth must turn to military service in order to attend colleges they cannot otherwise afford. They learn to take orders before they learn to think for themselves. Shall we assume that boot camp is the conservative ideal for whipping our youth into shape?

Then we have the corporate mandarins who are treating Iraq like a conquered province to be plundered by way of no-bid contracts, insider franchises and low-profile deals. Like the military, the corporados whose interests you serve are a self-selected elite that operates within top-down, hierarchical structures of dominance and submission. More so than the 'economic royalists' of Franklin Roosevelt's day, the CEOs of today are the Marie Antoinettes of modern America. Still, your administration takes pride in imitating their managerial style. You and Dick Cheney have given us a White House that specializes in policies that are made in private, rarely explained, never debated with the liberal press, formulated with a keen eye to focus-group public relations and repeated verbatim by every official yes-man. This is called 'staying on message'.

I'm sure you've heard corporate leaders praise the market as the most democratic of all institutions. Who needs elections when we have the law of supply and demand? May I offer you a brief history lesson? In principle, the 'free' market works by natural laws as inexorable as the law of gravity. But those laws can only function properly, so the classical economists argue, if the lower orders do not get out of hand and seek to defend their interests by collective action. Inspired by Friedrich Hayek and the Chicago School of Economics, there are still libertarian conservatives who believe that legislating a minimum wage or decent working conditions is not only folly but sacrilege. Today, as the global economy congeals, the corporados, having fled their industrial homelands, are once again championing the iron laws of the marketplace, this time in Third World economies, where they seek to outlaw unions, exploit the cheap labour of children and convicts, and elude all environmental restrictions.

Then we have the most distinctive element in your political base: the evangelical churches, a key to electoral success in the US. Evangelicals see themselves pitted against Islamic infidels in a holy war, but in fact their programme is no less patriarchal and theocratic than the Taliban's. They would base our laws on the Bible; they would have the US declared a Christian nation; they would have the schools teach the literal truth of scripture and the unique validity of the Christian revelation; they would have families founded on paternal supremacy; they would legislate normal sexual behaviour; they would outlaw abortion, pre- and extramarital sex, all forms of sexual deviancy, profanity and pornography both hard and soft-core. If religious fundamentalists won the culture war they insist on waging, we would be living in the society Margaret Atwood depicts in her prescient novel The Handmaid's Tale: a God-fearing dystopia run by fire-and-brimstone preachers and male-chauvinist husbands. As exaggerated as this prospect may once have seemed, it has become the social ideal of America's people of the Book and no member of your administration would dare to question it, at least in public, for fear of offending evangelical voters.

Finally, there is the neoconservative intelligentsia who provide the ideological rationale for your triumphalist policies. The new conservative brains trust has some troubling characteristics. For one thing, conservative intellectuals pride themselves on defending 'absolute' values, as opposed to the wishy-washy, nihilistic 'relativism' supposedly preferred by liberals. 'Relativism,' according to Allan Bloom, 'has extinguished the real motive of education, the search for the good life'. In practice, the conservative hostility to cultural relativism means resisting any educational initiative that challenges the moral authority of the Great Books--all written by white, European males. Include Sylvia Plath or James Baldwin in the curriculum and you insult Aristotle and Cicero.

More worrisome still, the neoconservatives who surround you, especially the disciples of Leo Strauss, have developed a fascination with secrecy. Strauss, in some of his convoluted explorations of Plato, Xenophon and Nietzsche, toyed with dangerously elitist ideas, suggesting that philosophers are permitted to mask their true motivations behind 'noble lies'. Most of the cult-like adulation of Strauss is nonsense, but for the sort of small minds that choose to play Party politics and operate in the corridors of power, an infatuation with absolutes and with esotericism easily becomes a licence to undermine democratic values.

What we have in your administration, then, is a perfect storm of authoritarian social forces--forces that bring together money, brains and voting numbers--at just the moment when the US military is capable of throwing its weight around in the world like no ruling power since the days of ancient Rome. Clearly, a lot of Americans are looking for a very macho Big Daddy to teach them right from wrong. The result is a political culture based at every level on dominance-and-submission relationships. Good soldiers obey their commander-in-chief. Good employees obey their boss. Good Christians obey scripture. Good wives obey their husbands. Good children obey their parents. Good neo-conservative thinkers defer to whatever their mentors have taught them are absolute values. How can any political regime so deeply imbued with authoritarian sensibilities teach the world anything about democracy?

Following World War Two, a group of Frankfurt social psychologists led by Theodore Adorno created a character type called the 'authoritarian personality' which they hoped would explain the appeal of totalitarian movements like Nazism. In later years their work was seen as too polemically Marxist to qualify as objective psychology. Conservatives especially bridled at being assigned a high 'fascist receptivity' quotient. Perhaps there is no way to analyze the psychology of self-enslavement scientifically, but the impassioned celebration of the cross and the flag that you are so willing to endorse has a troublingly pathological quality. And that may be the real victory of the jihadists. You are allowing them to feed an underlying appetite for the sort of domineering structure and fanatical rectitude on which every form of totalitarianism is based.

Theodore Roszak is the author of many books, both non-fiction and novels. His most recent book World, Beware!: American Triumphalism in an Age of Terror has been published in several foreign editions, and will (at last) be published in English this year by Between the Lines in Canada.

COPYRIGHT 2005 New Internationalist Magazine
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group

Bibliography:

Theodore Roszak "An open letter to George W Bush: 'they hate us and they hate freedom and they hate people who embrace freedom.'

President George W Bush interviewed on Al Arabiya television, 6 May 2004".

New Internationalist. March 2005. FindArticles.com. 25 Oct. 2006.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_376/ai_n13503327

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQP/is_376/ai_n13503327

Successfully updated karma reason!

Obviously all polls indicate Bush's days of power are finally waning.

Not all polls. Seems liuke he's been "gaining" points. As if you'd care!

To begin with, we have America's new, all-volunteer military, your administration's sacred cow, repeatedly used to quell all criticism of the war. 'Support our troops' is the teary-eyed mantra that resonates from the West Wing through every lunch counter, bowling alley, saloon and church in middle America. Lost in the ceaseless flag-waving and patriotic schwarmerei is the fact that America is becoming the most militarized nation on Earth. What supposedly freedom-loving conservatives so eagerly adulate are young, often poorly educated men and women who have opted to live a barracks life, to march in step, snap to attention, salute and shout 'Hu-ah!' to every order they are given. They may be volunteers, but what have they volunteered for? To lead the most regimented life available in the US. This is a far cry from the ornery, unruly homo democritus that has been the American ideal from frontier days down to the citizen soldiers of past wars. Yet images of a samurai military--special forces, top guns, elite units and contract security forces (for which read 'hired guns')--fill our popular culture, including the video games so popular with adolescent males. (Among the most popular of these: 'Mercenaries: The Playground of Destruction.') With each passing year, as your administration diminishes funding for education, working poor and middle-class youth must turn to military service in order to attend colleges they cannot otherwise afford. They learn to take orders before they learn to think for themselves. Shall we assume that boot camp is the conservative ideal for whipping our youth into shape?

Nobody has said that "you" must join. But do NOT make light of those who do!

What supposedly freedom-loving conservatives so eagerly adulate are young, often poorly educated men and women who have opted to live a barracks life, to march in step, snap to attention, salute and shout 'Hu-ah!' to every order they are given.

WRONG on both counts! I'm waiting for you to tell me how "you" could train a monkey to operate one of the newer missle launchers. I've said this before...."If" you're not sure of what your talking about, go do some research first or don't talk about it!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Genocides Nevada Voter Guide 2006 plus repost of:

Am I a communist?

It has long been said that the Democratic party is a centrist version of communism and the Republican party is a centrist version of fascism. But how far left toward communism do extreme Democrats lean and how far right do extreme Republicans lean toward fascism?

During the Bush v Kerry campaign in 2004 there was a poll on the Sean Hannity forums that asked who they would rather have as president, John Kerry or Adolph Hitler. The forum voted overwhelmingly for Hitler (the ultimate fascist). They would rather have a totalitarian ruler that murdered 6 million Jews as their leader versus a man who helped locate P.O.W.'s in Vietnam (among the many other good things Kerry has done).

Now, obviously not all Republicans are like this. Most Republicans truly are good Americans just trying to do what is right, just like all of us. This thread is meant only to address the extreme of each party.

Also, while the Republican party is certainly not a party of racists, the racists certainly consider the Republican party their party. Which brings them that precarious step closer to the fascist mind set, as hate in any form is the secret sauce of fascism.

So in what ways are the extreme Democrats extremist? What are the things we believe in that bring us precariously close to being communist? I don't think there are any liberals that would rather see Stalin (the ultimate communist) as their president over Bush.

So lets take a look at what we believe. We want to reduce the amount of pollution we put on our earth at the expense of the taxpayers and the corporations who produce these wastes so that we can all breathe fresh air and be able to bathe ourselves in clean water. We believe in giving Americans the right to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, so those who are wracked with pain can ease their suffering.

Now here's the tricky one. We believe that a woman should be able to choose whether to have an abortion or not. We do not like abortion and we do not condone it but we do not like the alternatives either.

When abortion was banned in the 1970's there were stories of fetuses ending up in garbage cans and many women were putting themselves in unclean and dangerous situations to have their abortion. The ban on abortion did not reduce the abortion rate one bit. In fact the abortion rate increased during this time period as stated by the Center for Disease Control.

Historical CDC data from 1970 to 1995:
Numbers of abortions: This is the total number of legal abortions reported in the U.S.:
1970 to 1980: The number of abortions increased every year.
1981 to 1982: The number stabilized, increasing by only about 0.2% a year.
1983 to 1990: Significant growth resumed, with increases of up to 5% per year
1990 to 1995: The number decreased every year.

Abortion ratio: This is the number of legal abortions per 1,000 live births. 1970 to 1984: The ratio increased, reaching a peak of 364 in 1984
1985 to 1995: The ratio decreased steadily to 311 in 1995

Abortion rate: This is the number of legal abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44 years: 1970 to 1980: The rate increased from 5 to 25.
1981 to 1992: The rate remained stable at 23 to 24.
1993 to 1995: The rate steadily declined to 20.

So according to history, banning abortion does not make it go away, in fact it may make it worse. But being legal, it does reduce the chances of you going out to your trash can one morning and finding a dead fetus in it. Democrats see abortion as a necessary evil. We believe it prevents an even greater evil.

So am I a communist because I want the corporations to clean up after themselves? Am I a communist because I want to help ease the pain of a TB patient with the use of medical marijuana? Am I a communist because I don't want to find a dead fetus in my trash can one day?

The truth is, the Republican party is trying to legislate their religious beliefs and their corporate greed rather than take a good hard look at the facts and deciding what is best for the country as a whole.

They will tell you that this battle between Democrat and Republican is a battle between good versus evil. Their God versus our God. But in reality this is a battle that has been fought since the dawn of civilization. The faces have changed and so have the names but the fight is still the same. This is a battle between religion and freedom.

Successfully updated karma reason!

During the Bush v Kerry campaign in 2004 there was a poll on the Sean Hannity forums that asked who they would rather have as president, John Kerry or Adolph Hitler. The forum voted overwhelmingly for Hitler (the ultimate fascist). They would rather have a totalitarian ruler that murdered 6 million Jews as their leader versus a man who helped locate P.O.W.'s in Vietnam (among the many other good things Kerry has done).

The reason they voted for Hitler was because kerry did NONE of what you claim he did! That is, unless you have proof of it?

Anything you put up for kerry, I'd be willing to bet I could tear it down and show "verifiable" proof to back me up.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hide your stash man...

Marijuana remains illeagal in Nevada. Try again in two years. But don't exspect any better results. Maybe the tenth time will do the trick.

Successfully updated karma reason!