[GPSCC-chat] Fw: Re: propositions - & wiki.cagreens.org

Tue Nov 6 13:58:13 PST 2012

I voted yes on 30 and no on 35.  However, I have serious reservations about 30.  Although the check sum that you can do comparing the legislative analyst's statement about how much money ($6 billion) will go to schools vs the total amount raised by prop 30 (also $6 billion) would lead me to cast a Yes vote, if you examine the torturous legal language of the actual law that is being voted on it unclearly states that 1/4 of some portion of the money will go to schools and furthermore that if the portion that is supposed to go to schools is somehow calculated to be negative that the ballance owed will be taken from the portion allocated to schools in future quarters. I sure hope we don't wake up some time after prop 30 passes to find that what we really passed was a prop 98 type guarantee of funding for "local law enforcement", with 75% of the money going to the cops and prison gaurds.  Of course I also voted yes on 37 (after reading and understanding
 the entire law) and will likely be standing with my room mate next to a vegan restaurant with some Yes on 37 signs at about 4pm-5pm this afternoon.  That is all for now.  Thanks.

Sincerely,

John Thielking 

--- On Tue, 11/6/12, Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com> wrote:

From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] Fw: Re: propositions - & wiki.cagreens.org
To: "Drew" <rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com>, "Mike Feinstein" <mfeinstein at feinstein.org>
Cc: "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2012, 1:34 PM

PROPOSITION 35 

      Regarding Prop 35, human trafficking, I personally agree with Drew:  My wife and I both voted "No".  

      However, the California and Santa Clara Green organizations both took "no position".  The state organization had an extended discussion on that issue that, I believe, continued far too long.  I could have misinterpreted the discussion, but it seemed like at least one individual passionate supported it while another opposed with equal passion -- and neither seemed to carefully consider the arguments put forward by the other.  

            * Supporters of Prop 35 say that human trafficking is evil and current laws are not adequate.  

            * Opponents agree that human trafficking is evil.  However, they assert that Prop 35 essentially tries to address the problem by increasing the penalties in ways that could be miscarried to punish excessively people not involved in human trafficking.  It also fails to cite relevant research into the reasons the problem persists in spite of current laws.  In the latter category, Prop 35 fails to make adequate provisions for training a variety of people in different professions who could do things to improve reporting and prosecutions under current law.  

      A summary of this discussion is available at "www.cagreens.org/elections/propositions/35".  

OPENING WIKI.CAGREENS.ORG TO MORE PARTICIPANTS?  

      I believe the statewide Green discussion on Prop 35 (and virtually any other issue of interest) could have been better managed by opening "wiki.cagreens.org" to many more participants.  Doing so, I believe, would likely have produced better summaries of the arguments on all sides of the issues involved, with fewer problems with people repeating their arguments seemingly without seriously trying to understand other positions.  

      A more open Wiki could also help attract more people to the Green party, just as Wikipedia's success is built on its willingness to permit anyone to edit almost anything.  

      Moreover, material organized on "wiki.cagreens.org" could in many cases be ported easily to Wikipedia;  if Green concerns were more appropriately reflected there, I think we could have a bigger impact on the body politic.  For example, the Wikipedia article on SOPA (the Stop On-line Piracy Act) got a million views between Thanksgiving and Christmas last year.  

      When I first raised this question a couple of years ago, I was told that having it open made it too subject to vandalism and posting of material contrary to Green values -- and the California Greens did not have enough administrators.  I think we could control that by requiring everyone to create an account before they can edit anything -- apart from the Talk pages associated with existing articles.  If needed, we could require everyone to get someone already in the system to vouch for each new person before they are allowed to edit anything other than a Talk page.  This should be enough, because the sources of any vandalism and anti-Green messaging could be easily identified, and appropriate action could be taken with the perpetrators.  

      I'd be happy to volunteer to organize periodic (monthly?) Webinars / videoconferences on what we might want to do in this vein and how to do such.  I'm a Wikipedian with well over 500 edits, in addition to being an engineer and a statistician who has used computers not quite daily for almost 40 years.  I'm not a professional software developer, web designer, nor sys admin, though I've done a little of all three.  

      Comments? 
      Best Wishes, 
      Spencer 

On 11/6/2012 10:06 AM, Drew wrote:

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

From: Drew <rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com>; 
To: edenw at gal3.com <edenw at gal3.com>; sosfbay-discuss at cagreens org <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>; 
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] propositions 
Sent: Tue, Nov 6, 2012 6:05:56 PM 

I strongly agree with Eden and urge a no vote on 35.
Green is GO!
Drew
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss

-- 
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph:  408-655-4567
web:  www.structuremonitoring.com

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20121106/400dbe4d/attachment.html>