Look at it this way: The Bill of Rights is basically a very old document.  Let’s say President Bush, in his infinite wisdom (?), decides the wording needs to be updated and "brought into the twenty-first century."  He appoints ten people, most of them male attorneys, to a committee to handle this.

 

     While the Bill of Rights Committee is updating, they look at the amendments  themselves and decide which ones to keep.  Out of the original ten, do we want everybody to have the right to own a gun? And of the amendments added later — do women really need the right to vote?  They should be voting the way their husbands or fathers tell them. If they don’t, the votes cancel each other out.  So do we really need that one?

 

     The men convince the token women on the committee that it isn’t really important if they change those two amendments. The  – rest of them are okay. If most parts of the Bill of Rights works, well, ninety-eight percent isn’t bad.  Go ahead and vote yes.  Yeah, right! 

 

     Okay, the above scenario doesn’t make much sense. But neither does voting on the City Charter Amendment as a package.  I’ll be voting no on Measure V. I hope you’ll think long and hard about each of the major changes before you vote yes on the package.