So...

[altivo]

Today was local election day in Illinois. I went to the polling place, which is down the road about two miles from our house, and thought "Oh, no" when I saw all the cars parked there. However, they must have all belonged to the poll workers and judges because I was the only voter there when I went in. Like in November, they had a touch screen voting machine on display, but it wasn't live. I dunno why they keep doing that. I prefer the way we normally vote, which is by marking a paper ballot that is optically scanned while you watch. The paper ballots are easily countable by human eyes if necessary, and are saved in case that should be necessary.

Anyway, the reason I'm writing about this: local spring elections are when they put weird propositions on the ballot here, and when you vote for school board members and that sort of thing. I'm not sure what the theory is, unless it's just to keep it away from all the hue and cry of national elections and their polarizing influence. Many of the offices voted in the spring are non-partisan, at least in so far as there are no party names on the ballot or after the candidate's name.

The sad thing about it was that I was supposed to vote for three different school boards, a fire and rescue commissioner, the public library board, and the community college board. I've never heard of any of the candidates, even though I tried to get information about them in advance. Worse yet, usually it would be "vote for no more than three" and there would be three names. Or maybe four. Sometimes just two. The library board was "vote for three" and had only one name.

On general principle, I don't vote in those situations. If I don't know anything about the candidates, I could be supporting Attila the Hun and Bozo the Clown, and I won't do it. This time, though, I was so irritated at the absence of candidates for the library board that I wrote myself in. Then I went to work and e-mailed everyone I knew who lived in my library district and urged them to do the same. It won't count, because I think you have to declare yourself in advance even as a write-in candidate, but it's a protest of sorts. This afternoon I heard from the director of the local library (not the one I work for, but the one that serves my home school district) and she invited me to propose myself formally for the position. Apparently the vacant seats will be filled by appointment. The existing board members will choose the replacements for the two who are leaving. So now I have to decide whether I really want to do this...

Other issues on the ballot: a bond issue to allow the county conservation district to purchase more open space to keep it from being developed. I cringe when I think of yet more taxes to support this, but I am horrified at how fast the sprawl of subdivisions is encroaching on the remaining woods and farmland here, so I voted yes.

And a very contentious proposal (actually two): one to allow the organization of a water authority board covering three counties, and a second one to fund that board to about a half million dollars the first year. Again, more taxes, though a half million spread over that large an area amounts to about a nickel per acre of land and $20 a year on the average home value here. Not a big bite. I had to vote yes on these too because I'm really worried about water, even within my own lifetime here. We are outside the Lake Michigan basin, so water for this area cannot legally be obtained from there. Most wells in the area draw either shallow surface water or "medium depth" (200-300 ft. or so) aquifers, which are gravel deposited by glaciers ten millennia ago. Our well here is 200 feet deep. Shallow wells were going dry summer before last when we had a long drought. Medium deep and deep wells continued to supply water, but that is not an inexhaustible resource either. Increasing population and development here is going to strain the water supply to its limits, especially as they continue to build suburban type subdivisions and fill them up with people who think it is their god-given right and responsibility to grow lawns and water them every day all summer so they can cut the grass twice a week and throw it away. What a total waste of a precious resource. The water authority would have control over high volume wells and any kind of water reservoirs, and could refuse to authorize them.

This has the developer fat cats running scared, so they spent more than a million dollars on slick campaign materials full of lies about how the water authority would put meters on people's wells and charge them for the water (not true, and not authorized by state law) or would be able to take people's land from them if they didn't obey arbitrary rules (not true either.) Between that and the older folks who are opposed to absolutely anything that costs money, it has been a fast and heated battle. I really have no idea whether this will pass. I have a suspicion it may succeed in one or two counties but not all three, or that the organization may be approved but the separate vote on funding the authority will fail. It's a mess either way.

And no, I'm not going to say a whole lot about the Virginia Tech incident other than that I refuse to believe that having more guns on hand would have made it any better. You had an unpredictable lunatic on the loose. It doesn't prove much either way, pro-guns or anti-guns, except that our culture and society pushes some people into insanity. Yes, it's a tragedy, and I feel bad for those who died and those who lost relatives or friends, but it can NOT be blamed on either the gun control faction or the trigger happy NRA types.

Comments

[quickcasey.livejournal.com]

Stop the developers. Where do all these people come from? Is it politicaly incorrect to talk of the population explosion anymore? Was a hot topic in the '60s, I recall.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

It's politically incorrect in circles where they make big money off the masses. In other words, don't try to criticize overpopulation to Walmart or to the real estate development lobby. It's their bread and butter (and jingle in their pockets.)

There are also the religious nut cases to consider. They're still stuck on that "be fruitful and multiply" stuff, or worse yet, they believe we have to overrun the earth and destroy it so that the rest of the stuff in Revelations can happen, the sooner the better.

It looks like the water authority proposal is failing by about five to one. No surprise, since the big money interests spent a fortune to defeat it. Oh, and I got five or six votes.

[linnaeus.livejournal.com]

I'm not hugely surprised it's failing. Anything that can be portrayed as "big government" getting into peoples' business is going to easy to get people to vote against if you can frame the debate that way. Of course, a limited shared resource like water in your area is just the kind of thing that really needs to be managed publicly, but most people aren't going to see it that way.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

It failed by a 3 to 2 margin. Oddly enough, another proposition on the ballot, which will cause a much bigger jump in taxes and can have a much more direct impact on some existing land owners was passed. That's a bond issue to allow the county conservation district to raise up to 75 million dollars to buy more land, keeping it out of the hands of developers (and sometimes out of reach of hunters, snowmobilers, and other recreational users.) Overall, the conservation district has been a good thing for the county, I believe, but they can be heavy-handed at times and they certainly cost more than the water authority ever would have.

[lobowolf.livejournal.com]

Yeah...I agree..why is it again that breeding until you overpopulate and destroy the earth is a good thing again? Did I miss something? Why do you get tax breaks for having 5 kids (which will ultimately put an exponential strain on our limited resources)..when if you have no kids, you're penalized? Oh, and besides watering the lawn, don't forget the weekly car washings and backyard pools.

I'm sad about the Virginia Tech incident, but I really resent how the media is making a huge circus out of it and blatantly doing all it can to manipulate people's feelings. The shooter was mentally unbalanced, and if it hadn't been guns, he would have set his building on fire, or slammed his SUV into a crowd at 90 MPH. I think the media circus gives people like this exactly what they want..attention and immortality. The incident was sad, the media response to it is pathetic.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The media circus is just part of the constant polarization that has been going on in the US. Dividing us all into two factions that hate each other seems to be a deliberate conspiracy at this point.

Neither gun control nor selling guns from vending machines would prevent this sort of thing from happening. It's a symptom of a deeper cultural disease, one that is difficult to treat.

[linnaeus.livejournal.com]

I guess it depends on which news outlets one's been seeing. The only media coverage I've really been exposed to since the event has been NPR, the web, and conservative talk radio. NPR and the news websites I've read about it on pretty much stuck to reporting what happened, whereas Rush and Hannity spent all the time I listened railing against how liberals were probably going to take shameful advantage of the tragic situation to push their nefarious anti-gun agenda. Granted this isn't a representative sample, just what I've seen/heard.

I don't think that changes in any laws necessarily would have helped in this situation, but I think it's natural after someone goes and kills 33 people, whether it was with a gun, flamethrower or trebuchet, that there's going to be some sort of debate centered around the question "Hey, I wonder if maybe there's something we could do to make it harder for people to do that."

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I don't think that changes in any laws necessarily would have helped

That, of course, is the heart of the matter. Laws will do little to alter the culture of violence that the US has become. Cultural change is necessary, and it can happen sometimes. A good example is the decline in tobacco use, to the point where laws eliminating smoking in restaurants and even bars can actually pass and be enforced. But the change was not achieved by passing the laws first. The laws follow only when a very substantial majority of the population already favors them. The same has to be true of gun controls. Countries like Japan and the UK can give a superficial impression that gun control laws somehow work there. But the truth is, guns are culturally ostracized in those nations to the point where the typical criminal or crazy person doesn't think along the lines of "get a gun, blow people away." They still commit acts of violence, but they use other means.

Another good example is gay rights issues. Early attempts to legislate equal treatment of sexual minorities were pretty ineffective. It's only when the minority becomes visible and achieves a reasonable degree of general acceptance that such laws can become effective, because violators are punished by their peers, not by the law in most cases.

[lobowolf.livejournal.com]

Well, I should have prefaced that by saying that NPR is probably the ONLY sane news source, and I have no issues with their coverage. My issues were mainly with how the TV stations covered it and why they spent hours and hours interviewing everyone on campus until they cried, and interviewing the postman..."He was a quiet kid and I didn't really know him," etc. Plus I really feel a very heavy hand of emotional manipulation. It's not just enough that this tragic event happened, but going in and interviewing victims of the shooting over and over and over again to get everyone all upset is just sickening to me.

And, I agree with Altivo. I don't think a law is going to help, nor would restricting guns..I think the problem is very, very deep. It's a cultural one which seems to begin with an alienated and troubled kid, and there appears to be no outlet or anywhere the kid can turn, until finally, after festering for years and years, the kid just explodes. There's got to be an underlying cause that's deeply rooted in how kids grow up and handle (or don't handle frustration or emotions of alienation and violence).

It's like somebody who is a terrorist and is hellbent on causing destruction. In an open society, if somebody really wants to kill a bunch of people and they're willing to sacrifice their own life, there's absolutely no way you can prevent them from doing something like that. When you get that dangerous combination of somebody who doesn't mind initiating violence, is apparently desensitized to the pain and destruction he's going to cause, and is willing to sacrifice his own life, there's no bargaining chip, no "hook," no one thing that the person has to live for. As a society, I think we have to try to analyze this and figure out what's going on so we can stop this kind of thing early before it gets to this stage (if that can even be done).

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Exactly. We have a culture that makes unreasonable demands for conformity and is very intolerant of exceptions. Anyone who violates that standard of conformity is subject to pressure. Gays and lesbians are one example of a group that suffers heavily from this, and they have a documented high rate of suicide in their teens and twenties. That is the other direction that this sort of thing can go. The victim can implode or explode, so to speak. In either case, a lot of innocent bystanders probably get hurt somehow.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

We in Australia understand about water being a precious resourse....unfortunately it seems we only realised it now when we're running out of it.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

The human race is definitely short on the foresight we might expect from any animal so intelligent.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

You know what I always say Horsey :)

Intelligence has far less practical application than you'd think ;)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'd have to disagree with that. Intelligence is almost always applicable. The trouble is, most people don't apply it, even when they do have some available.

[deffox]

So now I have to decide whether I really want to do this...

So did you win the election? ;-)

And I've seen wellhead protection areas go right out the window when convenient.

In my hometown there was an area that was declared a protected area for the water supply. It was forested with streams. Then somebody must have got a payoff, because all of the sudden the signs came down and a subdivision went up. A fancier neighborhood with prices 50-100k higher than the surrounding area. Yet that area has groundwater at the surface, so all these new fancy homes don't even have basements.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

We'll probably never know if I "won". The unofficial totals show that 63 write-in votes were cast. I very much doubt that all those were for me. I would have done well to get ten on such short notice.

You're right about the way in which protection laws are sometimes tossed out the window for someone's short term greed. The current Washington administration's war on all things that hae to do with conservation is a fine example. Water authorities in Illinois have a pretty good track record, in part because of the way their powers are defined. Unfortunately, the process of getting one going properly is not so easy, and fraught with risk of subversion for the first year or two. This one was stillborn. The moneyed interests who sought to stop it because it would slow their development vampirism won by a 3 to 2 margin.

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

What I don't see is why anyone would think that various theories on ways to prevent a single rare incident should dictate policy for a phenomenon that has far wider ranging implications. Sure, everyone would like to "prevent this from happening again" but there are other things with a far higher impact that need to be taken care of as well. You need to look at the sum total impact of guns and gun control on society when you decide policy. A single incident really does not provide a perspective on the whole issue.

But I simply don't see why the NRA thinks that the average person is qualified to judge and dispense capital punishment within the time it takes to draw. What - is everyone supposed to draw their guns and shoot at anyone else who is shooting at anyone else? Chain reaction slaughter?

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, and that whole Switzerland argument.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm
In fact, Switzerland has the second highest household handgun ownership rate in the world, second only to the US.
So, it should really not surprise anybody that Switzerland has the second highest per capita handgun murder rate in the world, second only to the US.

Preaching to the choir, I know. :-)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

That's interesting. Yet the pro-firearm faction keeps pointing to Switzerland as the perfect example of how having lots of guns prevents handgun violence. Yet another example of how you can twist a statistic to mean anything you want, I guess.

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Statistics can be twisted to suit anything ;)

I feel better talking with people who share my view on this but I do think it's good to debate the whole thing helps me learn :)

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm of the opinion that handguns in particular are incredibly stupid things and that there is something mentally defective about people who crave them. But I also think that they have to be eliminated by a change in social attitudes rather than by passing laws that will only fail and help to exacerbate the situation.

The US has a terrible problem in this regard, and I have no idea how to begin to deal with it. The worship of violence in all forms, but especially gunfire, is so pervasive and entrenched that it is almost impossible to do anything about it.

[daikitsune.livejournal.com]

Come on, handguns are the power of GOD. You point at someone and they die, just like that, or at least that's the "ideal" of a handgun.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Sorry. Just as I find the common notion of god quite incomprehensible, I find the attraction of handguns utterly implausible. But then, I don't care for chocolate either...

[daikitsune.livejournal.com]

Despite the fact that you find it incomprehensible, you at least recognize that the majority of humans on the planet don't find the concept of god to be such, and many seek the power over life and death out of fear, jealousy, anger, or simply a lust for control...Yes? Handguns give them at least the illusion of that control.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Quite seriously, I sometimes feel like an alien from outer space when it comes to these things. I can't dispute the rationality of your statement, but do I understand it? No. I cannot conceive or understand anyone having a desire to wield the power of life and death over anyone else. It makes no sense, does not compute, won't compile, however you want to put it.

In fact, the desire for power, taken for its own sake, is utterly alien to me. I just don't get it, never have.

[daikitsune.livejournal.com]

Nature is not a pleasant place all of the time. There are often threats to a person's safety and/or life or to those a person cares about...Many of these threats require a certain amount of power to overcome. If I was walking down the street with a friend, and someone pulled a handgun on us, would I simply leave it up to chance whether that person would kill us or not, regardless of whether we did as he asked? I have gained the power through training to halt such an attack, incapacitate the attacker (perhaps for good), and leave with both me and my friend uninjured. With similar training, a handgun can do the same thing.

To take it out of the realm of humanity, let us say I am hiking through the forest and I am attacked by a mountain lion. If I am weak and unable to defend myself, I will be killed and eaten. I cannot put trust in nature to somehow go easy on me. The fact that those who seek and obtain power are more likely to survive and pass on their genes leads to a built-in desire to gain power.

Of course, environmental factors and the variations that occur naturally in the gene pool can alter this desire, but in the vast majority of humans, gaining control over their environment and those around them is something that is instinctive, and it's not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to the ability to survive and thrive in the real world.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Again I concede the rationality of your argument, but no, I don't feel it on a personal level. My response to threat is to take evasive rather than aggressive action. I value freedom, but not power. (Typical herbivore, eh?)

As for the question of passing on my genes, just no. I don't have any interest, which in fact seems to be a trait that runs in some of my ancestral lines. Those abound in bachelors and small, almost accidental families with one or two offspring rather than the typical large numbers of children found in pre-20th century family groups. I know it seems a contradiction that an inherited lack of interest in reproduction could survive, but my family tree shows clear evidence that it does. There must be some side benefits that cause others who do not manifest the full phenotype to continue to pass it on to their descendants. ;p

[daikitsune.livejournal.com]

And I'd say that's one of the incredibly beautiful parts of nature. I can't fathom a system that would create and support such a diversity of life better than what we have...

As for reproduction...I'll probably never reproduce, though not for lack of interest. I just haven't quite found a female that was both non-insane and single. And I just get along with guys better. That's how it goes, I guess! *shrug*

[cabcat.livejournal.com]

Secoh commented on my Journal about this, it really comes down to that 2nd Ammendment right, and the situation in the US when the Bill of rights was formed.

Because of that "right" there is that culture that everyone should be allowed weapons. Here it's considered a privilage as we have no such "right" in our constitution. Secoh said it better than I ever could have though.

And as I say, the development of the gun is really only for one particular purpose and it's other uses branch off from that.

As in the comedy "The thin blue line"
I love the line.
"The first question that should be asked of any prospective gun liscencee is, 'Do they wish to own a gun'. If that person says 'yes' then they are obviously not suitable to have one"

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Actually, that's a good rule to apply to a lot of things. I've always thought it should be the first question asked of any candidate for political office. "Do you want to be a senator?" If they say "Yes," then they should be immediately disqualified. :)

[dakhun.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, in Switzerland, citizens that are part of the militia are issued fully automatic assault rifles. The rifles are not used in crimes very much at all. But you can't conceal those and use them in crimes as easily as handguns.

The pro-gun NRA types aren't twisting a statistic per se. They are simply not revealing one - that instead of using the assault rifles for crimes, the Swiss use the fairly abundant supply of handguns that exists in Switzerland.

Another ersatz argument is used, with Canada, but by the pro-gun-control types. It is often said that Canada has the same level of gun ownership as the US, yet the murder rate is much lower because of gun control or because Canada is more laid back or something. In reality that's the right conclusion but the wrong facts and the wrong argument. The rate of overall gun ownership in Canada is slightly less than the states, and the rate of handgun ownership in Canada is FAR less than in the US because of gun control. Since it is the handguns that are typically used in crime, the firearm murder rate is a lot lower in Canada. And of the crimes that are committed with handguns in Canada, fully half of those handguns are actually brought in illegally from the states. We can't fully solve what problem we do have with handguns until it is solved on the other side of the border too.

It really all boils down to handguns, not rifles or guns in general. Militarily, handguns were designed for close-in fighting. Non-militarily... well, they really only have the same application there too, and it is one that should not be encouraged.

Library board

[(Anonymous)]

"So now I have to decide whether I really want to do this..." What?? Are you nuts?!? No. The answer is "no." Really. :-) Unless you could get them to be a new member of the new online group.

Re: Library board

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Anonymous by choice or by accident here?

Actually, I'm seriously considering it and no, I don't think I'm nuts. Library boards almost always can benefit by having a member who actually understands the functioning of a library rather than just the finances or the public image.

As it happens, this district library is a reasonable candidate to become a participating member of the "rebel alliance" but could just as easily have joined the mainstream "big messed up consortium." They did neither, and I suspect that was based strictly on financial spreadsheet considerations rather than utility or politics. Geographically, they are adjacent to three members of the "rebel alliance" but historically they have chosen to spend their money on staffing, acquisitions, and public programming. I can't criticize that. Their compromise gives district residents (and of course I am one) better access to library services for less tax money than anyone in the surrounding areas seems to get. On the other hand, I'm well prepared to explain and evaluate some of the issues in such decisions, and present new viewpoints that they may not have heard before.

It could be interesting. And if it turned into something obnoxious, I could always resign.

Re: Library board

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, this is Cat--I should just create a LJ account so I'm not having to remember to sign my name...apologies. :-)

Re: Library board

[altivo.livejournal.com]

LJ also has a feature called "OpenID" that let's you use your identity from some other system that knows you, though I admit I have had no need for it and therefore can't tell you much more than that. Creating an LJ account is a simple solution though. It's free, and would also mean that my journal wouldn't screen your comments until I respond. You can choose to stay logged into LJ all the time (they do it with cookies, I think) so you don't have to sign in every time you want to post a comment.

[songcoyote.livejournal.com]

Join the board - suborn the conglomerates - make them cower before your hoof-y librarian might!!

Or just, you know, make sure things get done that need to get done :)

Light and laughter,
SongCoyote

[altivo.livejournal.com]

See my remarks to daikitsune above. Power doesn't impress or interest me. But getting things done right has a certain appeal to it. In many respects, I think my district library board has a good track record, so I might stand to learn more from them than they would from me.

[daikitsune.livejournal.com]

Regardless of the way you feel about power, you are seeking greater control over your environment, and a greater say in the operation of the library than you previously had. Even though you mean to use that power constructively, you are still seeking to gain more power and control.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

Actually, I wouldn't describe it in those terms. I see a hole in the dike and I stick my finger in it.

I have no desire to control the Marengo Public Library District. I have resources of experience and knowledge, though, that might be of value to them and I'm willing to offer those. (And I'm curious about what goes on in that board room...) I should make it clear again that the library in which I work is not in that district and is completely independent of it. I live in the Marengo district, but I work for the Harvard city library, which is a completely separate entity. I could not serve on the governing board of the same institution that employs me. That obviously makes no sense and would probably be illegal.

[songcoyote.livejournal.com]

Well, power or not, it would at least be an interesting networking opportunity and an opportunity (as you said) to learn. The real question becomes whether you want to devote some of your precious time to such a project. One question to ask is how your mate might feel about that :)

Having served on a nonprofit board, let me tell you that it's not fun per se, though it certainly has its interesting moments. I'm in no hurry to sit there again, though ;)

Light and laughter,
SongCoyote

[altivo.livejournal.com]

My mate is supportive of the idea. I don't think it would consume that much of my time, though I could be wrong about that. I'm pretty sure board members receive little or no compensation, which in turn means that their ability to demand huge chunks of someone's time is limited. Our own boards here in Harvard consist largely of people who come to a board meeting once a month, discuss issues, and vote. The implementation of decisions is handled by paid library staff, and the background research is likewise handed to the board by those same staff members. Board members devote more time when something major is in the works, like putting up a building or putting a funding proposal to a public vote, but such occasions are rare.

The structure is similar to that of a corporation, actually. There are executive employees who spend all their working time on the matters at hand. The board of trustees meets only occasionally, to take up major decisions that must be referred to them by law or custom.

[songcoyote.livejournal.com]

That's cool then. Sounds like a good opportunity to stick your hoof in where its presence could well be both vaulable and valued :)

Enjoy it and don't let all that power go to your head!

Light and laughter,
SongCoyote

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'm sitting here with the letter and resume on my desk having second thoughts about sending them. It's a six year term, and though I could undoubtedly resign sooner I'd feel obligated to stick it out if at all possible. Still, I supposed I should send it. They apparently would have to interview me, and I'd still have a chance to say no if I didn't like what I learned.

[songcoyote.livejournal.com]

That's a relatively long term. Full disclosure is your friend :) Ask lots of questions, and if you don't like 'em or their answers leave 'em behind, even if you're tempted otherwise.

Not that I like giving advice, or anything :P Sometimes I can't help it ;)

It's worth the price, though!

Light and laughter,
SongCoyote

[octatonic.livejournal.com]

Developers are usually vampires on the populace.

I REALLY REALLY like how you vote. A paper ballot
thats optically scanned in front of you is
the absolute best of all technologies. Its not
complex, anyone can do it, but the results are
instantly tabulated as you watch.

That needs to be the national standard.

It won't happen though, it'd make too much sense.

[altivo.livejournal.com]

I'm sure it's just another proprietary black box with secret insides and potential for tampering. But at least if there's any question, the paper ballots are all saved and can be counted by hand.

Unfortunately they seem bound and determined to replace these with those crappy touch screens. I'm convinced it's a conspiracy to disenfranchise everyone and let the parties manipulate all the results all the time.

[octatonic.livejournal.com]

We had this long discussion over
this back in the early 90s over a rpg
table top game. Beer, Pizza, Gurps
and; "We could hack the results! From
an offshore account with a notebook
computer!"

@.@