And then it occurred to me that I know basically nothing about the candidates. I'll look them up after I post this, and they'll all say they're in favor of ducklings and against tsunamis, and I'll vote for whichever identical-platitude-spouting candidate is a member of the political party with which I identify.
(Unless! Keep this in mind, future political candidates, because I know that my vote is very important to you. I will NOT vote for you if you do not have a website. If you've made no effort whatsoever in this arena, I assume that you'll make no effort whatsoever to govern effectively. We are living in the future, people; being able to buy a domain name and have it rerouted to your Wordpress blog ought to be an entry-level requirement for civic authority of any kind.)
Also, I will vote for the one candidate I've met socially. (I make important decisions this way. America!) And I will not be voting for the candidate who high-sticked C. Trent Rosencrans in between the legs during a broomball game.
So without further ado, I present: The Kelly to the Max! Issue-Only Endorsement List!
Ohio Issue 1: Yes.
"It's time for someone to have the courage to stand up and say: 'I'm against those things that everybody hates!' " One of those things is not taking care of veterans when they come home from fighting.
Ohio Issue 2: No.
This is a weird amendment - the Ohio Farm Association is for it, but the adorable dairy down the road is against it? (You can pick up their milk at Whole Foods, by the way.) The governor is for it, but the Humane Society is against it? So I was leaning toward no anyway (I like the governor all right, but I also like the Humane Society), but what convinced me is actually someone on Twitter asking, "Why exactly do we need a constitutional amendment for this thing?" Good point. I'm suspicious of any state constitutional amendment that feels like something that could be hammered out in the Legislature. (Unless it gives money to veterans, apparently.)
Ohio Issue 3: No.
Ugh, this puts me in such odd company - it seems like the most vocal opponents of Issue 3 are the sort of fun-hating weirdos that banned dancing in Footloose. (I saw a "No on 3" commercial last night; it looked like a Jack Chick tract.)
I don't think that casinos will increase the baseline level of sin in the state or whatever, but I do think that casinos are overestimated as an economic magic bullet, that the jobs created by new casinos are mainly low-wage and low-prospect, and that casinos tend to drain more money out of the local economy than they pump into it.
I also think about my grandpa, a regular visitor to the Grand Victoria casino in Rising Sun, Indiana, and I wonder ... would this downtown casino have free parking? Because my grandpa sure isn't going to drive downtown and wander around looking for a parking space when the Grand Victoria has a huge parking lot and a shuttle that'll take him right to the door.
Issues 4-7: Yes.
Yes to MR/DD services. Yes to one of the top museums in the country. Yes to the public library!
Issue 8: No.
Issue 8 should be renamed "Issue 9, but with water."
Issue 9: No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
And I'm gonna quote this one at great length, because it sums up my thoughts nicely:
Amen to that! I know I hate elections! Wait, why am I even writing this?Whatever you think of a streetcar system in Cincinnati, Issue #9 is a mind-boggingly bad piece of public policy. The small, craft brewers we all want to start brewing here (not to mention the ones we already have) need a strong social and economic base from which to draw customers. What major corporation really wants to be in a city that has to throw it out for a vote if the local zoo wants to extend its train to the new parking lot? Heck, what small business wants to put up with that?
Remember the phrase “That’s no way to run a railroad?” Issue #9 is definitely no way to run anything. Ballot measures are an awful way to make long-term public policy, unless you happen to think California (land of the 10,000 ballot initiatives) is a place you want to emulate. Elections are expensive. They take a long time to organize. Once underway, facts have little to do with the outcome.
And that's all she wrote, folks! When you go to the polls tomorrow, vote the same way I do on everything, or else we won't be friends anymore!
4 comments:
Thanks for this Kelly. I have about 5 dozen flyers sitting on the table so I can pick (Reading) council candidates. Things are so low-tech and small town here. The one guy came to the door and I asked how to find out about candidates if they had web sites or anything. And he handed me a flyer and said "I have a facebook page, but it's not on here." Thanks. So I know I won't vote for the guy who is stalking his wife, but geez, the others all sound the same :) On Cincinnati.Com the one guy who is a democrat, I can't figure out how he was endorsed... And most of them didn't even fill out about themselves. Sigh. Guess I need to pick soon!
I never understand that. How do candidates expect to get their message out in a community of any size (Reading is small, but it's not small enough that the candidate can knock on each individual door) without using the FREE resources of the Internet? It just makes me think they don't care if I, the voter, know anything about them.
So yeah, the stalker guy won. I hope he is innocent when he goes to trial, which I think is next week. Sigh.
I think they just think everyone knows them. They all are from Reading and list their GRADE SCHOOL on their flyer, which they all went to Our Lady of the Sacred Heart or St. Peter and Paul. And like I tweeted, at least four live on my street and one on the next street over. It's weird.
How strange - and how stereotypically West Side!
Post a Comment