Saturday, February 25, 2006

Illegal initiative argument refuted

While perusing the liberal blogs the other day for amusement, I came across several disturbing posts. Not that their content was of any great controversy or that the ideas were x-rated, but because I have become more and more amazed at the lack of rational thought displayed in most liberal commentary.

Just this week, the
Evergreen Freedom Foundation held a press conference on the job performance of Secretary of State Sam Reed, election reform and the prospect of a new initiative to be run by EFF’s c(4) spin-off, Grassroots Washington.

It is true; Grassroots Washington will likely run an initiative this year that would demand a clean voter roll. While the language of the initiative is still being worked out, the initiative would require all voters to update their registrations in order to vote a regular ballot in the next general election. Anyone who does not update their registration will still be able to cast a provisional ballot that will not be counted until the individual’s voter registration is updated.

The statewide voter database introduced by Reed last month can only maintain a clean voter roll, it cannot create one. With all of the erroneous registrations in the current database, there is little hope that it will single-handedly restore voter trust.

Thus, the best way to have a clean voter roll is to suspend all active registrations and allow legal, valid voters to update their registration to prevent further disenfranchisement by Reed, the Democrats and those who cast illegal ballots.

One blog in particular (
found here) has made an especially crude argument. This blogger insists that the initiative to be filed by EFF/GW is illegal…and they know it. Gasp! The conspiracy! The deception! The mayhem! Please.

The blogger founds this argument based on the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993. This act essentially states that no voter may be purged from the system once he or she is in it. The exceptions would be in the case of death or by the registrant himself.

Therefore, this blogger concludes, EFF/GW is knowingly drafting an illegal initiative.

This argument is mortally flawed. If the EFF/GW initiative would actually say that all voters will be removed and anyone who wishes to vote is forced to reregister then yes, it would be illegal. But the blogger is negligent in his argument. He did not bother to closely examine what EFF/GW is proposing.

They do not say that all voters will be purged from the voter database. Current registrations will only be suspended and they can still vote. So no law will be violated and no statute will be changed.

This initiative will be an important one to pass in November. It is obvious that our elected leaders will not pursue meaningful election reform. This initiative will restore trust in Washington’s electoral system because it will prevent double voters, duplicate registrations, deceased voters and non citizen voters.

This will be the first of many steps to real election reform.

One last thing, the blogger states:
“I could spend pages refuting the EFF’s arguments, but to do so in the context of an initiative that clearly violates federal law is not only a waste of time, it’s exactly what the EFF wants. The entire purpose of this initiative is to rile up the paranoid Republican base enough to turn them out on election day, and I for one, am not interested in giving the EFF the bogus debate they want.”

This is laughable. Not only is it sophomoric to claim you have so many arguments against something but you won’t waste the time listing them, it is weak. If you are not going to actually articulate your argument, then don’t make the claim. It’s generic, cliché and nobody buys it. The rest of us learned that in grade school.

Secondly, this blogger suggest that EFF needs this initiative to pass so that the Republicans can win. Ha! So is he admitting that the Democrats need illegal votes to keep winning in Washington? Looks like it.

Friday, February 24, 2006

Censorship anyone?

Just when you think House Democrats could not be more ludicrous in their majority rule, they have taken their arrogance of power to a new level.

Now House Republicans are banned from using certain phrases when talking about the Democrat supplemental budget, including “tax and spend” and “shell game.”

Heaven forbid anyone oppose them openly.

This reminds me of, say….totalitarianism. I seem to remember Stalin and Saddam doing the same thing. That's curious.

It's also good to note here that both the Chief Clerk, Rich Nafziger, and House Counsel, Tim Sekarek, are "non-partisan" staff. Humph, right.

My favorite quote in the article? Nafziger says, “You can’t use taxpayers’ dollars to sling mud.”

So, what is the essence politics again? I have forgotten.

Move over, George Carlin.

House Republicans say there are “seven dirty words” you can never say when talking about the Democrats’ budget this year in Olympia.

Among the forbidden phrases: “Shell game.” “Lack of honesty with taxpayers.” “Tax-and-spend liberal.” “It’s not truthful to say this money is being put into reserve.”

Carlin wasn’t joking about the words not allowed on TV. And it appears the GOP isn’t joking, either.

Republican news releases using the forbidden phrases were removed from Web sites and edited this week by order of the House Chief Clerk’s Office and its legal counsel.

The reason: The words impugned the motives of the other party’s members at taxpayer expense, House Chief Clerk Rich Nafziger said Thursday. “You can’t use taxpayers’ dollars to sling mud.”

read the full article

Thursday, February 23, 2006

How NOT to decline a job offer -- a true email

This is awesomely bad. The whole thing speaks for itself, so my own commentary is unnecessary.

Smart, Sassy and Unemployed

Chalk it up to "being quite full of oneself," but a would-be lawyerette lets fly and the poo-poo hits the Boston legal community fan.

Angry would-be employer sends young lawyer's email far and wide:

Two weeks ago, newly minted young Boston attorney Dianna Abdala e-mailed a prospective employer, William Korman. "The pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living," she wrote, turning down his job offer.

Korman was not happy. . . .

An ordinary office spat? Nope. Korman forwarded the exchange to a friend … and it spread throughout the Boston legal community -- and then to the Boston Globe, to the International Herald Tribune, to ABC News' "Nightline."

It was the "bla bla bla" heard round the world -- making Abdala the most famous, perhaps notorious, 24-year-old lawyer in America.

And here's the email exhange:

-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:23 PM
To: William A. Korman
Subject: Thank you

Dear Attorney Korman,

At this time, I am writing to inform you that I will not be accepting your offer. After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the pay you are offering would neither fulfill me nor support the lifestyle I am living in light of the work I would be doing for you. I have decided instead to work for myself, and reap 100% of the benefits that I sow.

Thank you for the interviews.

Dianna L. Abdala, Esq.

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Korman
To: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 12:15 PM
Subject: RE: Thank you

Dianna --
Given that you had two interviews, were offered and accepted the job (indeed, you had a definite start date), I am surprised that you chose an e-mail and a 9:30 PM voicemail message to convey this information to me. It smacks of immaturity and is quite unprofessional. Indeed, I did rely upon your acceptance by ordering stationary and business cards with your name, reformatting a computer and setting up both internal and external e-mails for you here at the office. While I do not quarrel with your reasoning, I am extremely disappointed in the way this played out.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors.

Will Korman

-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:01 PM
To: William A. Korman
Subject: Re: Thank you

A real lawyer would have put the contract into writing and not exercised any such reliance until he did so.

Again, thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Korman
To: Dianna Abdala
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:18 PM
Subject: RE: Thank you

Thank you for the refresher course on contracts. This is not a bar exam question. You need to realize that this is a very small legal community, especially the criminal defense bar. Do you really want to start pissing off more experienced lawyers at this early stage of your career?

-----Original Message-----
From: Dianna Abdala
To: William A. Korman
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you

bla bla bla