I had an interesting conversation with a friend during my 4 hour Hooterville productivity sit today. He said that he will vote yes for anything in order to foster debate. He wasn't talking about contracts.. but rather anything that stirs controversy. For example: Would you consider allowing a nuclear power plant to be built in your back yard? His answer: Yes... So it gets put on the ballot and see what the general populace really wants... Now the tree huggers will fight against the right wing club-all-the-baby-seals and don't-tell-me-I-can't-drive-an-SUV crowd... it would certainly be entertaining if nothing else.

So it really gave me a different perspective regarding the subject of this thread. So let's suppose we put it on the ballot... let ALPA come defend itself and explain to us why we simply cannot live or function without them anymore. The association has been on cruise control for a long time. PCL apparently thinks that Seth Rosen is the greatest attorney since Perry Mason or Clarence Darrow. Pro/con papers or better yet.. live debate would have to be generated (something that was quashed years ago by the party in power).

Why is this such a bad idea? And please spare us the usual scare tactic of how it is a bad idea to change horses just prior to section 6... By that logic, it will ALWAYS be a bad time to change horses. That argument is hollow.