Category: Legislation

Jefferson County Board Resolution June 25, 2012 Regarding (gay) Marriage

June 14th, 2012 · · Illinois, Legislation, Mount Vernon, Politics 2 comments - Tags: , , , , , ,

It has been brought to my attention that the Jefferson County (IL) Board will be voting at their regular meeting on June 25, 2012 regarding an item which is entitled “SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN (2012)”. This is proposed as a resolution that will have no bearing on anything. The Board has no power to recognize nor to define marriage, however they feel that it will benefit them politically with the churches (my opinion).

Here is the text of the proposed resolution:

WHEREAS American society historically has recognized the sanctity of marriage
between man and woman as central to the stability of our nation and its moral
posture; and

WHEREAS this rational moral view is now threatened by current trends that seek
to distort this view toward acceptance of unions that stand directly opposed to the
sanctity of marriage; and

WHEREAS many state and national leaders presently are seeking to reaffirm
through legislative decrees and public statements our historic stand on the sanctity
of marriage between man and woman; and

WHEREAS from the beginning it has been understood that the traditional model of
marriage is to be a sacred union between man and woman; and

WHEREAS the Jefferson County Board further affirms the sanctity of marriage
between man and woman through a practical commitment addressing family
responsibility by declaring, “Marriage is a spiritual union in which man and
woman are joined by God to live together as one”; and

WHEREAS it is imperative that the Jefferson County Board now enter the arena of
public debate concerning this ever-increasing threat to the sanctity of marriage
between man and woman;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that we, the Jefferson County Board, do
reaffirm our commitment to the families of Jefferson County and its ever-present
defense of marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that we encourage our fellow elected bodies to help
preserve marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman.

Wow. That’s a lot to read. There is a lot to pick apart here and think about. I question the morals of any country that engages in torture continually and helps the rich get richer – including with government funds (bailouts). Hey, the county brought up morality in the text above, not me.

The sanctity of marriage can be debated considering the exceptionally high divorce rates in society. If the Board wanted to help in that regard, perhaps they should pass a resolution against divorce. Since they saw fit to throw religious tones into this proclamation, it might be fair to bring up that divorce was only an exception in the bible in reference to a wife fornicating with another man. ‘Irreconcilable differences’ is pretty weak if you want to be biblical about things. I would wager that divorces have done more to foul up kids’ lives than two men or two women getting their rocks off together.

I am assuming that the overtly religious tones the Board asserts are culled from the bible. Specifically I’m guessing that they are pulling their stance from the oft-quoted passage in Leviticus here:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. ~ Leviticus 20:13

Now, I am definitely not attacking religion with this post, however I feel that I should point out a few other passages from Leviticus as well for comparison:

Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material. ~ Leviticus 19:19

But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales–whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water–you are to detest. ~ Leviticus 11:10

Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. ~ Leviticus 19:28

So now we cannot breed mules nor different cattle (depending on your translation). We cannot have fields used for multiple crops. We cannot wear blended clothing (say goodbye to Spandex). We cannot eat shrimp or any other aquatic creatures save for fish. Finally, we should not have tattoos.

Wow. That kind of puts a crimp in a lot of things taken for granted today. Semantics can be argued ad-nauseum, however if one scripture is good then they all are good. Assuming the passage is not specifically repealed somewhere else in your particular holy book. What I mean by this is that either the chosen holy book is enforced or not. Don’t be a hypocrite.

If you want to say tattoos are cool because the Old Law (old testament) does not apply because we are governed under the New Law (new testament) then that is good enough to eliminate the other passages as well. I’m fine with that. Keep wearing your cotton/poly blend shirts too. While you’re at it go ahead and have some shrimp and lobster for dinner.

Another facet of this argument is that these people are ‘living in sin’. Okay, if you want to pick and choose what to enforce then how about these choice bits:

But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. ~ Romans 5:8

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. ~ John 13:34-35

So then, we are to love everyone, no? Even if those people are in sin we are to love them yet avoid the sin they might engage in behind closed doors. I’m good with that. So quit writing meaningless proclamations and be loving toward everyone.

I’m tired of writing about this subject and trying to point out flaws in arguments because I know in the end that people will argue with me. People will defriend me on Facebook. Most of all I may have people who won’t speak to me because they refuse to think and are happy being ignorant. In their closed little minds I will be evil. If that is how you want to be, so be it. Individuals have to think for themselves and act how they believe. Who is the Jefferson County Board to attempt to decide that for them?

One final thought you should draw from very hard no matter your religion:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. ~ Matthew 7:1

Have a great day, and I hope to see you at the next Jefferson County Board meeting on June 25th!

Drug testing for welfare is not what you think

June 13th, 2012 · · Illinois, Legislation, Politics 3 comments - Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

So, I appreciate the drug test for welfare idea. Unfortunately people are neglecting the fact that these tests are not free. People must observe the testing, maintain a chain of custody, test and certify, return the results, and then deal with appeals of results.

Simple? No. The government is involved. It sounds great, but in reality you are only spending more money. The cheap test from Walgreens is ~$30. What do you think the expense of the rest of the process is to you the taxpayer? I’d venture a guess of $500 from administration to final result assuming no appeals. So, take the number of people on welfare multiplied by my completely made up cost of $500 and I think you’ll find this is not the dream solution that it sounds like on the surface.

Again, I like the idea of testing people getting free money for drugs and alcohol (why not? it’s a drug too). The sad truth is that we are only creating another black hole for politicians to shove money into for eternity. I say for eternity because no politician will ever say we need to stop testing these people for drugs. That would be political suicide because any opponent can twist that act into ‘My opponent supports allowing those on welfare to use drugs.’

Another factor that people should examine is that these people are the poorest of the poor. Qualifying for welfare is no easy task. Go look up the criteria some time. You basically have to be living on the street to get anything and then what you do get is a very small amount. Welfare is separate from food stamps/LINK/SNAP/whatever you want to call it.

I know we all get pissed off watching someone check out at Kroger with crab legs, steak, and lobster tails paying with their LINK/SNAP card, but drug testing for welfare is not doing anything about that problem. If you want to curb people blowing SNAP on high-end foods, then support changing what foods are qualified for that program. Hot or ready-to-eat foods are already excluded, so there can be other requirements I am sure.

Quit posting dumb shit to Facebook or sending chain emails about something you haven’t thought through and don’t understand. I swear if the politicians don’t tax us to death our undoing will be ignorance.

EDIT: Here is a link to some results from Florida showing about 2% positive results. Here is a link showing how Florida is losing money.

City Council Releases Seem More Abundant

April 24th, 2012 · · Illinois, Legislation, Mount Vernon, Politics No comments - Tags: , , ,

So, I’ve made a few posts about how disappointed I am that the Mount Vernon City Council sneakily (in my opinion) passed a new tax to the citizens and shoppers of this city. This was done at a meeting during the day which I believe many residents would have had a very hard time attending due to work commitments.

With that being said, I have seen quite a bit of detailed information in the local papers regarding City Council and even County Board actions and plans. I cannot determine whether this is due to better reporting by the newspapers or due to the Council/Board providing better information. Either way, this new found wealth of information is a great surprise to me given the recent lack of information provided to the public by accessible means.

So, to whomever is responsible – thank you!

Duh the Government Watches You

April 5th, 2012 · · Legislation, Technology No comments - Tags: , , , , ,

Earlier, I posted this link to an AP article that spells out how the ACLU is getting information about the government pulling your cellular phone data from carriers. My reaction was ‘Duh’.

You may not be aware of the fact that a company holding information about you has a much lower standard of privacy expectation than information you keep as a person. Companies have information on your location, purchases on credit/bank cards, your discount/reward card purchases (Kroger Plus, Lowes, Kmart, etc.), and even what you do on the Internet (Charter, AT&T, Facebook). These companies have varying policies regarding the data they keep and how long they keep it. For many of these records law enforcement or other companies and agencies only need to ask to see whatever they want.

Many companies already share information about you with each other. This works to the advantage of corporations who want to know everything about you so that they can sell you products more effectively. On the surface this is not a big deal. I don’t mind if Kroger wants to send me coupons for Meow Mix because they know I have a cat (two actually). This does become concerning when you think about the information warehouses that exist and all of the illegal computer break-ins that we read about in the news every day.

How many of these places have your name, address, phone number, date of birth, and other personal information? How easy would it be for the bad guys to steal your identity with that data?

For you paranoid folks out there, this also means that the government can watch everything you do, when you do it, how often you do it, and why. Again, this is not normally a big deal, but why do they need to know I bought cat food twice last month and that I searched for ‘cat tree’ on Google? They don’t. That is more my point here – that the government has no legitimate need to gather this information about most people, but they collect it anyway.

I’m still miffed about this new tax

April 3rd, 2012 · · Illinois, Legislation, Mount Vernon, Politics 3 comments - Tags: , , , , , , , ,

So, I previously ranted about the new tax on the citizens and shoppers of Mount Vernon. In it I made clear that the comparisons to other cities were worthless. Each of the cities mentioned has other influences which greatly affect their financial standing and tax base. This means we now have a higher tax rate than the only other comparable city in my opinion – Effingham. Also, this new tax will be used (I believe) to pay for our new community pool in addition to other QOL items. I oppose this model of the new pool, but that is not my gripe at this time.

I am quite perturbed that the city council would pass a tax increase at a special meeting rather than at a regular council meeting where the public expects such matters to be discussed. To be fair the meeting was supposedly announced and satisfied the Open Meetings Act requirements – I have not verified this and thus must say ‘supposedly’. What is unfair in my opinion is that a tax increase was passed at a special meeting held (as I understand it  clarified with the update below) during the day when most citizens are at work trying to support their families. According to an email reply from Councilman Wood:

First, there is nothing sneaky about this. The ordinance had to be in Springfield by about April 1.

Because of this, we started the discussion with extensive remarks at a workshop. We discussed the time schedule openly and completely. We could not do this at the first regular meeting for several reasons. We wanted the industrial and residential studies for our review before making a final decision on the tax. The City Manager was out of town and I was recovering from neck surgery on the previous Friday.”

So, there may have been legitimate reasons in their minds for conducting such an important discussion at a meeting that the public may have had difficulty attending – fine. If this tax was so important to get to Springfield by April 1 then why wasn’t discussion or first reading held until a few short weeks before that? In my opinion this was poorly planned, well planned, or perhaps just a series of unfortunate events leading to a rush that deprived the citizens of the ability to speak out against this new tax at a regular meeting.

Councilman Wood went on to state that I am poorly informed and I should attend the Council meetings and workshops. Attending daytime workshops and special meetings is well and grand when you make your own hours and/or are retired. Unfortunately most of the population is afforded neither of these luxuries. I believe a majority of the citizens depend upon our Council to inform us of important upcoming events or votes because we work so that we can make money to pay for new taxes.

No matter what, I feel slighted. The normal progression for acts as I have seen in the past is a first reading, second reading, and then voting. There are times that lesser matters have the rules waived and votes are taken after a first reading, but this is a new tax. This is not rezoning a property from B-1 to B-2. This tax will affect everyone in Mount Vernon and surrounding communities until the end of time as I don’t believe there was a sunset included.

Here is an excerpt from the minutes of the March 5, 2012 Council minutes (underlining by me for emphasis):

Stephen Casper stepped forward and stated that he feels the structure of the City Council meetings do not allow the audience to express their concerns adequately. He feels the audience should be given time at the beginning of the meeting to speak instead of at the end when Council has already voted on an issue. He asked that Council would consider having the audience heard prior to any votes. Mayor Chesley stated that on several occasions Council has workshops and invited people to come to express their concerns and they have. He stated that those who do not get the newspaper are unaware of the workshops. Mayor Chesley stated that there is a certain amount of responsibility as a citizen to be aware of what is going on within the community.“

I agree we have responsibility to be aware of what is going on in the community. Unfortunately we depend upon our civic leaders and elected officials to help us stay informed about what is going on in the community. People have families, jobs, social activities, and other matters to attend to in their daily lives. City Council members even miss meetings (as evidenced by Councilman Wood in his explanation above) from time to time and these are offices for which they were specifically elected.

Regarding the rumor that the city will be donating money or helping District 201 financially, Councilman Wood clarified that matter with this excerpt from his email to me:

As for the high school, please understand that we made a commitment very  early on to build the infrastructure to the school. We never made any decision to pay for any part of the school that exists on the school property. If such a decision were made it would be a public one that would be open to examination, comment, and criticism.”

So there you go. If the city decides to give any money to District 201 then it will be discussed at meetings which are subject to public input. Let’s just hope the discussion is at a regular meeting a majority of the public can attend. The infrastructure being built up to the school makes perfect sense as that is something that would be done for most any business in a similar manner.

About the pool – I did not attend those planning meetings nor did I comment on the now adopted plan. My bad. I still have the right to oppose it and bitch about it AND the tax that is going to fund it.

There you have it. My complaints, the reply/retort from Mr. Wood, and my opinions. This has been me complaining about our local government and some of their actions I don’t approve of lately. Maybe I’ll go to every meeting from now on and speak up during the public feedback portion. I’d hate to be accused of being ‘uninformed’ or of not taking ‘responsibility as a citizen to be aware of what is going on within the community.’

 

UPDATE:

Here is a link to the minutes of the Special Meeting (workshop) that was held during the day when most people are typically at work that you were supposed to attend. Perhaps I should say that I was expected to attend. I wonder if they’d let me Skype in from work.