It would be more useful, I think, if Dave had chosen particular provisions and stated why he (or expert N) think(s) that provision is problematic. For example, I think the ACLU's argument against the disclosure provision is interesting [⛧]. Despite my general support for the ACLU, this seems a bit disingenuous. If you give $10k to some org, you should probable be authentic enough for your donation to be disclosed. Of course any such regulation can be abused, especially by those in power. But, by and large, if you have $10k to toss into the street, then you're the one in power.
The state's rights arguments sound fallacious to me [⛤], especially coming from the mouths of those who falsely accused various states of election irregularities. Either those states need Daddy to come in and help them or they don't. Convenient flip-flopping doesn't help their case. But, to eat my own dog food, I do think this sort of legislation risks the same flaw I pointed out to Jon re: a unified voting app. As screwed up and inefficient as our current system is, its heterogeneity limits the scope of any one hack [🕱]. But for the conversation to be at all useful, it helps to launch into it with what you *agree* about, *then* launch into particular criticism. Instead, what we get is hyperbolic unparseable rants about it being illegal, unconstitutional, etc. And even if some parts *are* ultimately unconstitutional, there's a reason we give lifetime appointments to super smart people to help us figure that out, regardless of how you feel about their political leanings. It just ain't so simple. It's hilarious when your everyday moron like Sheriff Joe claims to know Constitutional Law better than everyone else. I wouldn't trust the 3%ers, Oath Keepers, Amun Bundy, et al to make me a coffee, much less interpret the constitution. And, even further, maybe the constitution *needs* to be changed! The project I mentioned awhile back pulled together 3 groups of people who actually know something about it to propose changes in light of what they see are its failings: https://constitutioncenter.org/debate/special-projects/constitution-drafting-project [⛧] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-house-rules-committee-hr-1 [⛤] https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/the-facts-about-hr-1-the-the-people-act-2019 [🕱] As I play the game of the WA bureaucracy, I lucked out that our recent unemployment system hack could not propagate to the other systems because WA's bureaucracy is not centralized, not efficient. The ESD was using seriously old software. Contrasted with the SolarWinds hack, this was child's play: https://sao.wa.gov/breach2021/ On 3/7/21 3:08 PM, Prof David West wrote: > This year, I am printing and filing HR 1 to my folder of "remarkable" > proposed legislation; for what I perceive to be equally absurd and > illegal/unconstitutional provisions — all for an "emergency" that has no > basis in reality (again in my opinion). -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
