Finally, Question 2 on Mass. Ballot 2018

Are corporations people? That seems to be the question behind the thoughts on Question 2. As you probably have learned by now, I have a distaste for the current political process. I always discuss about how our politicians lack any concern for the every day person but rather sell themselves off to the highest bidder. The highest bidder is generally corporations that know that the best way to get ahead in the world is by fixing the game to your advantage. That’s how it’s been done for a long time. Maybe I’m a skeptic or maybe I’m just a conspiracy theorist that thinks this way. I’ll leave that opinion to you.

What is Question 2? Per usual, I have this up here for you to see for yourself. I will summarize, of course, but using my understanding of the law. The point of this question is to create a commission about voting in the Commonwealth and whether contributions can impact the political process. A report would be made, using people from various demographics, which would be presented to the political powers of Massachusetts so that they can determine their next move. One of these remedies would be to limit how much a corporation can spend in elections.

What this ultimately means is whether or not you agree that corporations should have more of a say on laws and regulations than you do. If you think that corporations should be able to pour millions into political campaigns and the government, than you will likely want to vote “No” on this. If you don’t, than you will likely want to vote “Yes” on question 2.

My thoughts? Much like Question 1, I’m a bit torn on this. (Though I did decide to vote “Yes” on Question 1 after getting the opinion of people who I trust and are more knowledgeable on this topic than I am.) On one hand, I agree that by allowing corporations to dump so much money into the elections that they are really just buying advantages for their business not trying to help us lowly peasants. I feel as though allowing this to happen does give unequal representation and that their should be limits imposed on spending. On the other hand, this is all about Citizens United which is a federal matter not a state one. Even if you vote “Yes”, it may not even matter because the federal government needs to change the law. It’s really just a symbolic vote of what you believe rather than one that will actually have a meaningful impact on the grand scheme of things. This is another call that I will probably make last minute, but I should decide soon because I am participating in early voting. (By the time this posts, I may even have already voted.)

Advertisements

Pondering Question #1

In my last election day post, I passionately discussed Question 3 and what it meant. It was easy to write about that one. I’m very passionate about a person’s basic human right to dignity. I’m very passionate about supporting the rights of the LGBT community. I could write 1000 posts on why transgender discrimination is something that is a big problem. I’m also against fearmongering. So, I was eager to explain what the yes or no vote meant on Question 3. Here is the post, in case you were interested. I also promised that I would address the other questions on the ballot. There are only 3 this year, so it isn’t too bad.

Well… except that I’m still not 100% clear on what I’m going to do about Question 1. What this law aims to do is to limit the amount of patients that are assigned to registered nurses. There are a lot of complexities to this law, as seen here. By voting “Yes” on Question 1, you are voting for officials to regulate how many patients a nurse is responsible for while a “No” vote changes nothing. It seems pretty straight forward.

The problem for me is that I see both sides of it. More personalized care is better for the patient. This could help prevent mistakes. This helps nurses better do their jobs, which is not just about being a medical professional but a caring and empathetic professional that can take care of their patients on a deeper level than a doctor often will. My best friends are in the medical field: one is a nurse and one will be (but may as well be one already). I know no matter what, they will help me through anything. And I know that this is something that they share with every one of their patients. Nurses are more than the glorified secretaries and assistants to doctors like you see on television. They are on the front lines every day, making every patient feel as comfortable as they possibly can be. They certainly deserve a lot more credit than they seem to get. I feel like this will also help to ensure that patients get the attention that they need, which can only help to save lives.

I also see the downsides. I don’t like forcing a lot of regulations, though I’m not so against them that I don’t see the need for them in a lot of cases. A nurse should know their own personal limits. Everyone has their own limits. Some are capable of taking on more patients while still offering stellar care while others may not be able to. It doesn’t mean that one nurse is better than the other. I can only handle so many article assignments every day, but that doesn’t mean that I’m a terrible writer (Maybe a bad example). I just know the limit before my work becomes a hot mess. Letting nurses make this decision for themselves on a case by case basis could be a much better approach. There is also the fact that this could easily cause wait times to increase and for costs to rise. Maybe if the millionaires running the hospital took a cut, they could afford the nurses without making patients pay more. However, they are greedy and like being multi-millionaires who run a business. Because to them, a hospital is a business.

Since I can completely get both sides of the argument, I’m completely lost. I’m a logical person, but I feel like the flaw here is that the logical choice is going to get ruined by people. Because people ruin everything. I’ll gladly listen to arguments on both sides to help me come to a decision, but it may be a gut instinct vote as I get into the election booth.

Just a Girl’s Opinion on Question 3

I don’t like to get too political here. Why? Because I have enough stress in my life, I don’t need randos on the internet telling me what I think and why I’m wrong in an aggressive manner. If people were more polite, engaging in thought-provoking discourse rather than slinging whatever awful words first pour from their mouths, I’d consider it. Sure, I broadly discuss things without the intention of convincing people to think like me. I don’t voter-information-2018want people to think like me. I want people think. For themselves. Without caring about what other people think.

Today may be the day that I change that. Yesterday, we received our election year booklet of information: the Massachusetts Information for Voters booklet. The one that discusses what’s going to be on the ballot and the for and against arguments for each question. While I keep debating whether or not I’m going to do a series on these with my opinions (OPINIONS, not facts. These are 2 very different concepts.), I had to say something about Question 3:   A subject that I feel very passionately about and will stand up for every single time.

To brief people who may not be aware of it, Question 3 addresses Transgender Discrimination (rather, Anti-Discrimination). Unlike most questions, something that I think was made to confuse voters purposefully to deceive them, a “Yes” vote actually leaves the current law alone. The “No” vote undoes a very important piece of this law: prohibiting discrimination against Transgender individuals. In short: If you feel as though people should use the bathroom for the gender they identify as, then you want to vote “Yes”. If not, you want to vote “No”.

I know how I very clearly stand on this topic, so I could have utterly convinced someone who doesn’t agree with me to vote a certain way through misleading text. Instead, I clearly expressed that “Yes” keeps the bill as is, while “No” repeals this anti-discrimination section. See? I did it again.

If you have followed my blog, you know how I stand on the issue. (See: It’s All About the Bathrooms) I’m very much pro-itsnoneofmydamnbusiness. If no one is getting hurt and it doesn’t have any effect on me, I really don’t even think about it. Am I pro-life? Absolutely. Would I get an abortion? Not a chance because it’s not something that I could do unless there was some very extreme circumstance. Will I judge someone who does? Absolutely not. It’s not my business. I support the right to choose because I thought that being American, you had freedoms or something.

mvimg_20181002_075413I bring this up because I did the responsible thing. I read the booklet. I read the laws in great detail. I closely read the for and against arguments to help. I have never, ever had the reaction that I did when I read the “Against” argument for Question 3. Yes, I have included it here. I was incredulous. Stunned. Normally the arguments are articulate, straightforward about facts. This was hate and fear mongering. The “In Favor” argument was dripping in sarcasm, saying phrases that I would have used like “Sexual assault is already illegal”, “lets transgender people use the bathroom, which we all need to use”. I’m in complete awe over this “Against”. Complete. What does waxing have to do with using a bathroom? If a person doesn’t feel comfortable waxing a body part on another person, that’s their choice. See, freedoms. I don’t understand what that has to do with a trans woman sitting in a stall, doing their business while minding their own business.

First of all, I’m pretty sure a sex offender doesn’t care about things like “laws”. Otherwise, they probably wouldn’t be on a sex offender list. Unless they weren’t caught. Unfortunately, there are no “sex offender” only bathrooms. They do know that men/women can sexually assault people of the same gender, right? So this law wouldn’t affect that. In fact, had an incident happened where a trans woman assaulted another woman in the bathroom, I’m sure it would have gone national as a way to show just how dangerous transgender people who need to pee really are.

I have made this argument before. Should there be “LGBT” bathrooms, ones that are separate but equal? That is something that has worked very well in the past and I’m sure we should seriously consider this. (Total sarcasm, in case you didn’t get that.) Obviously all transgender women are into women since men can only be into women, so this is a very serious issue. Since that’s the case, maybe lesbian women shouldn’t be in the bathrooms with straight women either because who knows what’s going to happen. They may share… lipstick. The horror! Can you catch trans like you can catch gay, through touch or a fabulous shade of red lipstick?

I will fight for people to live their lives in a peaceful manner every time. I fully support the LGBT community. I fully support my friends and family within it. I’m voting “Yes” on Question 3. I don’t care how you vote; I just want you to be aware of facts not someone telling you scary (and ridiculous) stories for the intention of deceiving you based on their own personal bias.