Prop. 59: I'm not sure this even addresses the core issue. If the courts interpret the laws, how can a law tell the courts what shadings to apply in interpretation -- "broadly" or "narrowly" (the wording used in the actual measure)? Separation of powers, baby; I see no way of enforcing this at all. If a judge doesn't like your tie, he can and will decide the court against you -- and you can appeal, but the point is in the end there is no way I know of for the legislature to dictate to a judge how things will be decided. Judicial precedent, or political considerations in the appointment of judges, is probably much more important. I don't really care how this one turns out; if we want greater transparency through the rule of law, we need some very specifically worded laws which say what information the people can and can't request and why, and leave very little to the discretion of the judiciary.
Prop. 63: I agree that mental health services probably need a serious overhaul (just read some of seattlesque's posts, if they're still up there -- they're scary stuff). However, I worry that this may be another measure where we just throw money at the problem when what we really need is (1) more accountability about how the money is spent (just like with health care!) and (2) serious reforms within the system concerning how mental patients are treated. I'm tempted to vote "no" for these reasons.
Props. 68 & 70: You've summarized my positions exactly. I read the arguments for and I read the arguments against, and then I thought of how the Indians might see it: It's poetic justice, after those hundreds of years of oppression, that they should be running casinos and letting the white man's vices ruin him.
Prop. 71: I also agree that stem cell research should go forward, but see above re: accountability. Ultimately it's using public funds to finance research done, probably in large part, by private companies, and there is specific mention that the state will get a percentage of profits from "patents, royalties, and licenses resulting from the research activities funded under the measure." It's good in that it funds itself, but it's bad to the extent that profit and not scientific interest becomes the driving motive for the research. There is no mention in the quick summary of medical ethics; in the text it appears that there will be an ethics "working group" which can make recommendations but which will ultimately have no decision-making authority. That's gonna bother a lot of moderate-conservative voters who may not be comfortable with stem-cell research. There are provisions for having all announcements of grants, etc. decided in "open meetings" (remember that other measure?) but it still isn't clear (from the cursory examination I've given it) how that increases the accountability of the institute to the public.
While I see a lot of potential for great stuff coming out of stem-cell research, I worry that our society may not be ready for it yet. Of course, it may be that we can't really do much better and that we're on our way towards it whether we like it or not -- in which case it may be best that it be done in an atmosphere which has some measure of transparency, if not actual accountability, instead of by totally private entities.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
a few other issues
Date: 23 October 2004 01:36 (UTC)Prop. 63: I agree that mental health services probably need a serious overhaul (just read some of
Props. 68 & 70: You've summarized my positions exactly. I read the arguments for and I read the arguments against, and then I thought of how the Indians might see it: It's poetic justice, after those hundreds of years of oppression, that they should be running casinos and letting the white man's vices ruin him.
Prop. 71: I also agree that stem cell research should go forward, but see above re: accountability. Ultimately it's using public funds to finance research done, probably in large part, by private companies, and there is specific mention that the state will get a percentage of profits from "patents, royalties, and licenses resulting from the research activities funded under the measure." It's good in that it funds itself, but it's bad to the extent that profit and not scientific interest becomes the driving motive for the research. There is no mention in the quick summary of medical ethics; in the text it appears that there will be an ethics "working group" which can make recommendations but which will ultimately have no decision-making authority. That's gonna bother a lot of moderate-conservative voters who may not be comfortable with stem-cell research. There are provisions for having all announcements of grants, etc. decided in "open meetings" (remember that other measure?) but it still isn't clear (from the cursory examination I've given it) how that increases the accountability of the institute to the public.
While I see a lot of potential for great stuff coming out of stem-cell research, I worry that our society may not be ready for it yet. Of course, it may be that we can't really do much better and that we're on our way towards it whether we like it or not -- in which case it may be best that it be done in an atmosphere which has some measure of transparency, if not actual accountability, instead of by totally private entities.