I'm so tired of it all.
I'm tired of people on the Right feeling like they're the only ones that care about morals. The Left has morals just as much as the Right does. Our value systems and beliefs may be different, but both sides believe and rely just as heavily on their morals.
I'm tired of people on the Left saying that it all falls down to <x> whether that be racism, sexism, stupidity, backwardness, or whatever. I'm tired of hearing that the reason that people didn't come out to vote for Clinton was because of sexism, or that both sides are the same... something that has been said in past elections by many many people without there being a woman on the ballot. I'm tired of feeling like those who I should be allies with consider me to be part of the problem because I try to understand the other side rather than just assuming what we've come up with is the answer to why they voted the way they did, or the reason they didn't come out to vote.
I'm REALLY tired of hearing that the only reason to dislike Hilary is sexism and that the honest-to-God reasons that I dislike her (I voted for her but she was the lesser of two evils) are invalid and cannot possibly be real, never mind the reasons that the Right might have voted against her given their positions on things such as: taxes, being pro-choice, wars, trade, and while not a position, her being the face of the Big Bad Establishment.
I'm tired of feeling on the wrong side of everything. Regardless of what side I'm talking to it seems, I'm on the wrong side of it.
I'm tired of realizing that so many people in this country are so angry and are, I hope, blinded by that anger and blinded by some of the rhetoric, that they vote, in my opinion, against they're better interests and against the interests of those they love.
I'm tired of it all.
I'm so tired that I want to just give up. I can't do it anymore. I'm not going to post anymore about anything political on Facebook. I'm not going to comments on others' posts. Given that a lot of the people I'm dealing with on Facebook are OPENAIR Circus folk and I can't handle how they must think of me based on what they've said and what I've said, I'm going to disengage from that community....
I can't leave the OPENAIR Circus though... o.k., so I'll teach and organize but I won't engage with people on a personal level. I can do that. I can teach and organize the other teachers without really talking to any of the adults ... or the other teachers beyond discussing the program and their classes. I can generate the schedule, update the website, generate the registration forms, organize the performances, hold stilting workshops, I can do all of it and retreat from the friendships I've formed over the years....
All those friendships... the ones I've valued so much and have helped keep me going throughout it all... I can dismiss them... right? I can turn away from those I like, those I love, those I respect... I can do that....
O.k., maybe not...
Dark Wind Rising
Saturday, November 12, 2016
Sunday, November 6, 2016
2016 MA Ballot Questions, for those who haven't voted yet
I know I'm cutting it close, but here's my recommendations for how to vote on the ballot questions for Massachusetts and the extra one for Somerville. My recommendations are Q1-No, Q2-No, Q3-Yes, Q4-Yes, Q5(Somerville specific)-Yes
Let's go in order, shall we?
Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store. But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor. Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society. The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity. There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply. When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea. To me, this one's easy: No
Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it. Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far. This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools. "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option." O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.
Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do. Yes, it'll cost more. Yes, this will have an impact on many families. The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it. It is a legitimate concern. But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created. We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor. We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.
Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position. We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol). I get all that. The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other. There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol. There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas. A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments. A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market. I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana. No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol. We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems. This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.
Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one. First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me. Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city. That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise. The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new. The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new. Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative. Somerville: vote yes on 5.
Let's go in order, shall we?
Q1 - Additional slot license - This question would authorize the formation of a second slot parlor where we currently limit gambling establishments to 3 casinos, 1 slot parlor, and pretty much every convenience store and grocery store. But seriously, this is a highly specific request for a specific location to be allowed to form a slot parlor. Let's put aside whether gambling is a positive/negative element for society. The lone slot parlor that we already have is not running at capacity. There's simply not sufficient demand for the current supply. When that's the case, economics states that increasing supply is not a good idea. To me, this one's easy: No
Q2 - Increase the cap on charter schools - So, this one's a bit more tricky ... until you look at it. Even proponents of charter schools are saying this is a step too far. This question opens up the floodgates on charter schools. "But Peter, if you had kids in a failing district, you would demand a better option." O.k., let's get a few things straightened up right now.
- First, I would not want my children to get a better education at the cost of my neighbors' kids. I know, my first duty is to my own, but I am my brother's keeper, and therefore what impacts my neighbor very much impacts me. And the method by which we pay for charter schools in Massachusetts has a negative impact on district budgets. Yes, the state fully reimburses the district for the first year of a student who transfers, but the second year is only reimbursed for 5% and nothing thereafter, so if a student spends more than one year at a charter school, it very much impacts the district's funding. Furthermore, the funding that the district provides is per student but the costs for a district are not per student. Buildings still need to be maintained. Teachers and administration staff cover many many students and their salaries do not decrease proportionally as students leave the district. There's a reason that the charter school initiative is considered considered an unfunded mandate.
- Second, again, what effects my neighbor very much impacts me. There are lots of studies that show that when you remove students who are highly motivated from the district's society, the remaining students lower their efforts because they don't have the highly motivated students there to impact the culture. By removing the best students, you don't just decrease scores because the average shifts by moving the better scores out, but the remaining scores falter because of the culture shift.
- Third, worse yet, while charter schools aren't supposed to cherry pick their students, they most certainly are succeeding at doing so. They'll tell you that it's because the students that aren't cherry picked are leaving of their own volition because they just don't fit in, but it's obvious and it's intentional. Charter schools are supposed to take any students interested, but they have major drop off rates, which are expected and embraced by those running the schools. It's one of the ways in which they get higher testing scores.
- http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CPS-report-online-draft-6-10-13_reduced_2.pdf
- http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/10/are-charter-schools-cherry-picking-students/charters-can-do-whats-best-for-students-who-care
- Fourth, while charter schools appear to reduce the achievement gap while the students attend them, they don't necessarily reduce the achievement gaps thereafter.
- http://kevanharris.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/texas_charters.pdf
Q3 - Banning sales from farms that use animal cruelty - Simply put, we should treat animals with more respect than we do. Yes, it'll cost more. Yes, this will have an impact on many families. The "yes on 3" campaign has been down-playing this but it's important to me that we acknowledge it. It is a legitimate concern. But I still endorse yes on Q3 on the basis that we should care for the methods by which the things we purchase are created. We try to tell companies not to make clothes using sweat labor. We should clearly tell farms to use humane means to raise their animals.
Q4 - Legalize recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old - O.k., so, I understand the no-on-4 position. We don't have enough research on marijuana; we already have the allowance for use for medical purposes; we don't have the equivalent of a breathalyzer; Colorado has seen a rise in car accidents (though we can't prove that this is related to marijuana use because we don't have a way of detecting it like we do with alcohol). I get all that. The problem is, we're treating multiple drugs differently from each other. There's no evidence that marijuana is any worse for adults than alcohol. There's some evidence that it can have lasting effects on kids under 16 (frontal lobe issues), but the question at hand is for individuals 21 or older and only in private areas. A yes vote creates regulatory bodies at state and local levels with the authorization to restrict, or even ban, marijuana-selling establishments. A yes vote also creates revenue by bringing the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes into the light of day rather than being restricted to the black market. I understand and respect the "no on Q4" perspective, I just don't agree that their arguments mean that we should continue our prohibition on alcohol... I mean... on marijuana. No, seriously, if you feel that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because of the accidents, I understand that, but then we should never have legalized alcohol. We gain similar benefits to the legalization of marijuana that we did to the legalization of alcohol: ability to regulate the product, tax the sale, and for there to be a stigma associated but not legal concerns when people seek assistance with their problems. This was a hard one for me to decide on, but my suggestion remains: vote yes.
Q5 - Somerville only - Deviation from laws dealing debt and taxes to build high school - O.k., this one's another easy one. First, let me point out that I am a home owner, so the increase in taxation directly impacts me. Second, let me point out that I do not intend to have children of my own and my nieces will probably be out of high school, or close to it, before the new high school is ready, so the benefits don't impact me as closely as it would others in the city. That said, we have to do something because the high school will be discredited otherwise. The options are to rebuild-in-place or to build-new. The option to rebuild-in-place would likely cost the same, if not more, than building-new. Thus, the answer is simple: build-new will allow a better building in a more efficient manner (from a organizational view point) for the same cost or cheaper than the alternative. Somerville: vote yes on 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)