This is being moderated. It defies logic.

Would Mr. DiLorenzo's potential challenge to features of Measure 47 be made either more sound or less sound were he to disclaim a claim to a statutory right to attorneys fees for vindicating a public interest by successfully overturning a law (a law that by the way others hold equally to be in the public interest)? This would highlight the notion that public funding of matters of public interest (related to initiatives) takes many forms. (Let him use clean money, whatever that means; but government inherently is not entitled to demand a free speech right for itself, as it is illogical to the notion of freedom to speak against government. "Hal, help me out here.")

Kari,

See http://voterspeech.us/

Would Mr. DiLorenzo be voter owned . . . if he gets attorney fees for winning? I would have to say yes.

It must be something I said? It beats me what precisely it might be. Maybe I should go by PDXAgitator rather than PDXNag (I'm moving on up, I suppose.) See random thoughts at TheAgitator.com for fun.

UPDATE: It could be that I dared to point out the psychological projection of violence by someone, which is typical of folks that have lost the capacity to reason their way out of a box.

It was, however, a calculated decision that was made with the knowledge of the likely consequence. But the violence stuff had to end, so that reason might take root. So, this round, the heckler got his veto. (A little like BlueOregon or VoterOwnedElections or like the SoS keeping Nader off of my Presidential ballot.)

I see a market opportunity.

====

The good versus evil dichotomy has already gotten out of hand nationally, and displaced Good Humor as a means of spirited debate. It is impossible to rebut "I am good" for it implies that it must mean that I think the speaker is therefore evil. I have been trying to figure out a way to present the notion that it is quite alright to enter the public arena for one's own self interest, and that to accommodate everyones equal rights to express their self-interest lies the principal behind the greater notion of limited government power over individuals. At least it does not dwell on impossible-to-resolve morality battles such as that on full display about marriage. Call out straight marriage, at least the delivery of public dollars component rather than a private mutual pledge of support between people, as a special privilege that has no place in the statutes other than to give notice of the private merging of financial resources for commercial transactions. This would be the only path on that issue that does not claim goodness of that proclaims evilness to another.

Clean money? Dirty Money? It is just another Good versus Evil thing, like asking a King "Are you Benevolent or Evil?" It is the wrong question to ask. Alignment with a God hardly solves the problem either, for then talk turns invariably to the risk of going to Hell (which does not exist, except for political drama).

UPDATE: 5:30 PM

I thought for sure I had burnt a bridge beyond repair. I do come up with some whoppers. Some years back I thought that 9 out of 10 of my thoughts ought to be dropped. My odds are at least a little better today. And I can claim originality. Like my Dad expressed as death was certain and near -- he regretted not being able to continue to witness all the routine debates. It is just fun to argue. Is was sad to see him refuse to engage, as he was too tired, and prefer to observe passively between games and weather.