![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
altivoToday 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 01:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 02:20 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 04:31 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 04:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 06:00 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 06:49 am (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 07:46 am (UTC)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. :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 11:26 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 11:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 11:32 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 11:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 11:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 12:03 pm (UTC)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."
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 12:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 12:22 pm (UTC)Intelligence has far less practical application than you'd think ;)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 12:25 pm (UTC)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 :)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 01:31 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 01:33 pm (UTC)Library board
Date: 2007-04-18 01:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 01:43 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Library board
Date: 2007-04-18 01:52 pm (UTC)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
Date: 2007-04-18 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 06:00 pm (UTC)Re: Library board
Date: 2007-04-18 06:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 06:36 pm (UTC)Or just, you know, make sure things get done that need to get done :)
Light and laughter,
SongCoyote
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 07:00 pm (UTC)In fact, the desire for power, taken for its own sake, is utterly alien to me. I just don't get it, never have.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 08:00 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 08:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 08:12 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 08:17 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 08:29 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 08:39 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 08:45 pm (UTC)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*
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 09:11 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 10:24 pm (UTC)Enjoy it and don't let all that power go to your head!
Light and laughter,
SongCoyote
no subject
Date: 2007-04-18 11:56 pm (UTC)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).
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 12:51 am (UTC)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"
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 02:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 03:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 07:08 am (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 01:02 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-19 06:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-20 11:40 pm (UTC)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!"
@.@