How I'm Voting This Year:
Time once again for my ballot, and my own thoughts on how I got to the results I did. This will probably only be of interest to those local to me, with some issues being only for those who live in my immediate neighborhood, but I'm listing it off anyway:
State Measures:
Initative 517: Oh, look, another Tim Eyman initiative. This one would make it easier for paid signature gatherers to harass people in public places; grocery stores couldn't kick them out, and if you tried to stop one from bugging you, YOU could be held criminally liable. This is, like most all of Eyeman's initiatives, badly written and just there to earn him money. Thus, like all other Eyman initiatives: NO.
Initiative 522: Okay, this one's a toughie. I've been studying this for the last couple months. Full disclosure: When I started studying this, I assumed that I'd be voting yes. There appear to be a number of compelling arguments in favor, after all. But as I studied it closer, I just found the arguments fell apart. I got into some very compelling debates with friends and family, and investigated the shared links with an open mind, and even found some great arguments as a result. The arguments in favor of this initiative seem to be:
"GMOs could turn out to be very bad!" This argument simply is not a compelling argument. GMOs are a technique, nothing more. Yes, this technique can be used to potentially cause problems, but problems can also be caused by other techniques, too. We have been modifying crop genetics for millennia, and while this is definitely a new method for doing so, all the research (and there's been some good peer-reviewed studies, too) points to the fact that this technique is no more dangerous than any other method. The most compelling scientific commentary against GMO I have found (provided by one of my friends in favor of this initiative) said, "In short, there is a lot we don't know about the risks of GE-which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution." This is true, but the other scientific studies have said basically that caution is important for pretty much any alterations to foodstuffs. GMO is no different in this way. Do we need to keep watching GMOs? Sure. That's what science does: it watches pretty much everything. GMO is no different in this way, either.
"It's your right to know as a consumer!" Sure. But a label slapped on a box saying, "This contains GMO" is not really informative. There's a massive difference between rice that's been modified to have more vitamin A, and corn that contains its own pesticide. These are very different things. It's not like we have to label fertilizing techniques, too. It seems more a low-information, fear-based technique in this case, and I just can't get behind that. If you want to easily avoid GMOs, in Washington state, anything labeled organic also has to be GMO-free already. Just buy organic.
"Monsanto is totally evil, and they're against this initiative!" Okay, I'm totally on board with the fact that Monsanto is pretty much pure evil as a corporation, and yeah, they are engaging in some really dirty shenanigans in this campaign. That is absolutely correct. But guilt-by-association alone in this case is not enough to persuade me to vote in favor of this initiative. Monsanto and GMOs are not the same thing, any more than Comcast and the internet are the same thing. There's some amazing, wonderful, life-saving possibilities in GMO technology; it's already saving a lot of lives in other parts of the world. Yeah, Monsanto is using GMO technology as a weapon. We need to do something about Monsanto, though -- not with the technology they're using, simply because the technology has so much potential to do so much good in the world.
In the end, I could find no compelling reason to vote in favor of this initiative. As quoted in an NPR article regarding the issue: "But genetic engineering is different. It's not an ingredient - it's a technique. Genetic modifications can change plants and animals in any number of ways: Corn modified to resist a certain weed killer is not the same as rice that's been reprogrammed to contain more vitamin A. They're beneficial - or risky - in completely different ways. Mandatory labels might mislead consumers to lump all GMOs together." Yeah, there's some awful ways to use GMO technology. And some very promising and amazing, life-saving ways, too. Caution, I understand -- but in the end, I feel like the labeling is just too fear-based, and not actually about informing people.
After a lot of soul searching and deep research, I came to my final conclusion: No.
If anyone wishes to see my sources, I'm happy to share. That said, this issue is a very sticky one, and I can understand being torn on it. I certainly was.
Advisory Votes: The only reason for these votes is because of an Eyman initiative that passed. It takes any raising of various forms of taxes from the state Legislature, and puts them to a popularity vote with wording that says, "And it was done without a vote of the people, too!" They don't actually do anything than waste space on the ballot and use inflammation language (thanks to Eyman's work) to tell people how bad it was that these funds are being raised by the state, really. I vote to approve these on general principal. The legislature doesn't need to have a bunch of meaningless, "Mother-may-I" popularity contest votes just to do their job, thanks. Maintained.
Local Measures:
Central Kitsap School District No 401, Director District 1: Okay, I took a look at everything I could find on both candidates, and there wasn't a lot. Bruce Richards is the incumbent, and I know he was against charter schools (which is a plus-mark for me), but I've found very little other than the fact that there have been no major issues with him in his current position. Regina Hill is the challenger, and her blurb in the voter's handbook speaks heavily about assuring that money is used wisely in the district. When I looked into Mrs. Hill's website, there wasn't a lot of additional information, though she spoke a few times how important it is to assure that taxpayers are kept happy. While it's important to keep taxpayers happy, that has been used as code for putting something's popularity among the citizenry above educational needs. In the end, I believe that a quality public education needs to trump what the lowest-common-denominator of taxpayer thinks. I could find nothing compelling to persuade me to vote for Regina Hill, and nothing compelling to vote against Bruce Richards. Bruce Richards.
Central Kitsap School District No 401, Director District 4: Apparently, Jeanie Schulze has gone against the teachers' union. That right there is a pretty significant black mark. The other candidate doesn't say anything that specifically catches my eye on her website, though I do see she's done some work with autism, which means she's not going to forget about students who don't fit in the neat box that so many school board members want all students to fit into. Victoria T. Crescenzi.
Eric Greene is running unopposed for Director District 5 in the school district; C. Conrad Green and Darryl Milton are also running unopposed for the fire department commissioner positions. I could find nothing on them to encourage me to do a write-in instead of just voting for them.
And I'll always vote to continue a levy to support the fire department having a Medic One response. Always. So that's a yes.
That's how I voted. I'm happy to discuss it if anyone has any questions or thoughts.
State Measures:
Initative 517: Oh, look, another Tim Eyman initiative. This one would make it easier for paid signature gatherers to harass people in public places; grocery stores couldn't kick them out, and if you tried to stop one from bugging you, YOU could be held criminally liable. This is, like most all of Eyeman's initiatives, badly written and just there to earn him money. Thus, like all other Eyman initiatives: NO.
Initiative 522: Okay, this one's a toughie. I've been studying this for the last couple months. Full disclosure: When I started studying this, I assumed that I'd be voting yes. There appear to be a number of compelling arguments in favor, after all. But as I studied it closer, I just found the arguments fell apart. I got into some very compelling debates with friends and family, and investigated the shared links with an open mind, and even found some great arguments as a result. The arguments in favor of this initiative seem to be:
"GMOs could turn out to be very bad!" This argument simply is not a compelling argument. GMOs are a technique, nothing more. Yes, this technique can be used to potentially cause problems, but problems can also be caused by other techniques, too. We have been modifying crop genetics for millennia, and while this is definitely a new method for doing so, all the research (and there's been some good peer-reviewed studies, too) points to the fact that this technique is no more dangerous than any other method. The most compelling scientific commentary against GMO I have found (provided by one of my friends in favor of this initiative) said, "In short, there is a lot we don't know about the risks of GE-which is no reason for panic, but a good reason for caution." This is true, but the other scientific studies have said basically that caution is important for pretty much any alterations to foodstuffs. GMO is no different in this way. Do we need to keep watching GMOs? Sure. That's what science does: it watches pretty much everything. GMO is no different in this way, either.
"It's your right to know as a consumer!" Sure. But a label slapped on a box saying, "This contains GMO" is not really informative. There's a massive difference between rice that's been modified to have more vitamin A, and corn that contains its own pesticide. These are very different things. It's not like we have to label fertilizing techniques, too. It seems more a low-information, fear-based technique in this case, and I just can't get behind that. If you want to easily avoid GMOs, in Washington state, anything labeled organic also has to be GMO-free already. Just buy organic.
"Monsanto is totally evil, and they're against this initiative!" Okay, I'm totally on board with the fact that Monsanto is pretty much pure evil as a corporation, and yeah, they are engaging in some really dirty shenanigans in this campaign. That is absolutely correct. But guilt-by-association alone in this case is not enough to persuade me to vote in favor of this initiative. Monsanto and GMOs are not the same thing, any more than Comcast and the internet are the same thing. There's some amazing, wonderful, life-saving possibilities in GMO technology; it's already saving a lot of lives in other parts of the world. Yeah, Monsanto is using GMO technology as a weapon. We need to do something about Monsanto, though -- not with the technology they're using, simply because the technology has so much potential to do so much good in the world.
In the end, I could find no compelling reason to vote in favor of this initiative. As quoted in an NPR article regarding the issue: "But genetic engineering is different. It's not an ingredient - it's a technique. Genetic modifications can change plants and animals in any number of ways: Corn modified to resist a certain weed killer is not the same as rice that's been reprogrammed to contain more vitamin A. They're beneficial - or risky - in completely different ways. Mandatory labels might mislead consumers to lump all GMOs together." Yeah, there's some awful ways to use GMO technology. And some very promising and amazing, life-saving ways, too. Caution, I understand -- but in the end, I feel like the labeling is just too fear-based, and not actually about informing people.
After a lot of soul searching and deep research, I came to my final conclusion: No.
If anyone wishes to see my sources, I'm happy to share. That said, this issue is a very sticky one, and I can understand being torn on it. I certainly was.
Advisory Votes: The only reason for these votes is because of an Eyman initiative that passed. It takes any raising of various forms of taxes from the state Legislature, and puts them to a popularity vote with wording that says, "And it was done without a vote of the people, too!" They don't actually do anything than waste space on the ballot and use inflammation language (thanks to Eyman's work) to tell people how bad it was that these funds are being raised by the state, really. I vote to approve these on general principal. The legislature doesn't need to have a bunch of meaningless, "Mother-may-I" popularity contest votes just to do their job, thanks. Maintained.
Local Measures:
Central Kitsap School District No 401, Director District 1: Okay, I took a look at everything I could find on both candidates, and there wasn't a lot. Bruce Richards is the incumbent, and I know he was against charter schools (which is a plus-mark for me), but I've found very little other than the fact that there have been no major issues with him in his current position. Regina Hill is the challenger, and her blurb in the voter's handbook speaks heavily about assuring that money is used wisely in the district. When I looked into Mrs. Hill's website, there wasn't a lot of additional information, though she spoke a few times how important it is to assure that taxpayers are kept happy. While it's important to keep taxpayers happy, that has been used as code for putting something's popularity among the citizenry above educational needs. In the end, I believe that a quality public education needs to trump what the lowest-common-denominator of taxpayer thinks. I could find nothing compelling to persuade me to vote for Regina Hill, and nothing compelling to vote against Bruce Richards. Bruce Richards.
Central Kitsap School District No 401, Director District 4: Apparently, Jeanie Schulze has gone against the teachers' union. That right there is a pretty significant black mark. The other candidate doesn't say anything that specifically catches my eye on her website, though I do see she's done some work with autism, which means she's not going to forget about students who don't fit in the neat box that so many school board members want all students to fit into. Victoria T. Crescenzi.
Eric Greene is running unopposed for Director District 5 in the school district; C. Conrad Green and Darryl Milton are also running unopposed for the fire department commissioner positions. I could find nothing on them to encourage me to do a write-in instead of just voting for them.
And I'll always vote to continue a levy to support the fire department having a Medic One response. Always. So that's a yes.
That's how I voted. I'm happy to discuss it if anyone has any questions or thoughts.