The painting was from looted from her uncle's estate looted by the Nazis during the annexation of Austria.

She fought for decades to get the paintings taken from her uncle's estate (she is one of three heirs) returned and was finally victorious in 2006 when an Austrian judge required the Austrian museum that possessed them had to return them to her.

Kevy: admittedly I did not watch the Superbowl long enough to see the other side's ad. But I don't consider myself swayed by the opposition's ads either. I just go based on knowing what "now" is, versus my suspicion of whatever changes someone is trying to make. Of course someone always stands to profit, no matter what happens, but it isn't profit that scares me, it's profit motive - in other words, if someone is trying to CHANGE something, and I don't know enough about it to know what kind of changes we're talking about.

In general I don't trust any ads regarding political initiatives because, much like campaigns for candidates, they make broad promises of what will happen without telling me the details of how it is supposed to be accomplished. So you really never know what you're voting on, even though you're given the impression of having a "say" in the system. And given that the likelihood of any voting majority in this country actually going to the trouble of looking for and interpreting the actual text of an initiative, I think that activists of any nature know they can promise that Initiative X will do Y, and people will vote based upon that statement, even if Initiative X basically declares that the state will now be run by the Intergalactic Federation with Senator Palpatine installed as Emperor-for-life, and claim Y says that we're voting to put more money into schools and save fuzzy bunnies from absolute annihilation by Vogon bulldozers.

Thank you for the clarification, Alex.

My question for IsM still stands. The painting legally belonged to her. Why was it dishonest for her to sell her own property?

I didn't mean to offer any invalidation of the question just to provide the fuller history in case it mattered to anybody.



Steve, beyond simply disagreeing with you, has anybody here accused or implied racism on your part that you feel the need to pre-emptively cloak yourself under it's mantle?

Following the title of the thread, does anyone have comment on Proposition 92: the "Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute."? (The link is to the CA Secretary of State web site on the issue.)

I haven't had a chance to research it properly and I was hoping someone had some insight (one way or the other).

JW: What's legal and what's right are too often not the same in my book.

Alex: It was just a pre-emptive (and board-historically humorously meant) remark that i thought prudent after my decision to use a (literally) colorful phrase in my passionate rhetoric about certain native americans.

Beyond my initial comments, not really. But the SF Chronicle No endorsement mirrors my general thinking and provides a bit more in the way of numerical support.

By the way, on the issue of Prop 91, I had missed this fact but even the original proposers of it have abandoned it per this bit at the SF Chronicle (it was superceded by Prop 1A last year and is on the ballot without any support because of a legal technicality.

Ok... Why is it not right for someone to sell their own property. I'm not asking to be an a$$hole. I just can't for the life of my understand your objection.

Perhaps it was me, but your post sounded condescending. Here's an analogous comment:

"See, JW, a Democratic nominee usually gets the support of the labor unions, and the Republican nominee usually gets the support of gun lobby."

To which the appropriate response is: "Um, duh, I'm not a complete moron."

I hate when people misquote Robin Hood. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich. The rich stole from the poor, aka, taxed them at an ungodly rate and used the profits to line their jackets while the poor starved. Robin Hood took the wealth back and gave it to its rightful owners. Robin Hood would not take something someone actually earned and give it to someone poor. Robin Hood might be construed to support tax breaks or tax refunds (depending on where your limit of "stealing" might be) but the basic Robin Hood concept does not apply to actual thievery.

I agree with JW on this and am interested in your response.

So, um, what happened?

Which initiatives passed and which were rejected by the good voters of California?



Um, I get most of my news from The LoT. What's happened? Where's the follow-up on this thread subject??