Kowabunga! Penn Radio discussed the AZ Voter Reward Act on their July 17th, 2006 episode. Subscribe to their podcast and listen to their commentary on the initiative.

Yesterday I drove out to Goodyear and saw a very simple sign "Proposition 204 is hogwash!" and "prop204.com" on it - nothing else. Apparently someone got an initiative on the upcoming ballot (full list of 2006 initiatives in Arizona) that will make one more law and give government busybodies one more justification to beat up the meat producers in Arizona. I say if the supporters can't name names and businesses and can't accomplish their goals by non-violent means such as picketing and boycotting then they shouldn't try to use government laws to accomplish their ends. The ends do not justify the means.

Lastly, I may disagree with their reasoning and conclusions but I certainly give props to blogforarizona.com for taking the time to review the propositions.

PROP 200: AZ VOTER REWARD ACT and its admirers. An inclusive review by Blog for Arizona of Arizona 2006 propositions comments on Proposition 200. It makes me feel 1% better because if the people that endorse it are clueless enough to revel in the "psychological judo" of wasting MY TAX MONEY on inducing ignoramuses to vote then perhaps there is hope of it going down in flames. Some busybodies think that people are just rats in a cage to be toyed with "carrots and sticks" until people behave the way thay think is beneficial.

[From the movie Serenity] Young River: People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.

When an article on TheOnion.com comes close to matching actual ballot propositions and (PDF version) then it is time to beat down (figuratively) on the fools that propose ideas like that. People shouldn't be paid (via a lottery incentive) to vote. The US has been going downhill since the poll tax was eliminated. There are other blog posts on this initiative. The Arizona legislature even has their analysis on all the 2006 initiatives.

A committment to truth and justice are two concepts that The Charlotte Observer fails to achive in their article about a cell phone employee that was shot and killed by a government police officer. The Observer feels that the goal should be to "assure public confidence" when the higher goal should be to search out and present the truth not to mention minimizing the number of innocent people who are gunned down by police. It is abominable that police murders are completely shielded from responsibility for their actions by the concept that "He was just following policy". (Which sounds pretty close to I was just following orders). Even if he had followed policy, that is poor recompence for the worker and his family. If this police officer was following policy, it is time to get a better policy.

If I am to believe their web site Arizona's Senator Jon Kyl is undeclared on "network neutrality" (aka more government regulation). I am going to hope the Mr. Kyl will oppose more government although hoping that a US Senator will work for less government is like hoping that a wolf is going to turn down sheep for dinner.

The JPFO has a great book on the topic of gun control (disarmament). Dial 911 and die.

Preventing unneeded stabbings not recommended by government police. This is just one example of why people need to be reminded that government is not your friend. They note "he could have been hurt", which is (sarcasm coming) just horrible considering how many more employees could have been stabbed and died because one person with a gun took the initiative to face down a fanatic with a knife. That preventing harm to the innocent is not recommended is one in a torrent of examples of why the world needs less police, not more, more self-defence, not more defencelessness.