Oregon has been experimenting with voting by mail. While there may be downsides to accompany the positives (see, e.g. http://archive.fairvote.org/turnout/mail.htm) The Carter-Baker Report suggests that Vote by Mail (VBM) may increase turnout by 10% in low profile election and does not bring new voters to the process,  but it does appear to have an impact on ballot integrity . Washington also does vote by mail.  Oregon is now moving to include e-mail voting  and even offer the ability to vote by ipad.  The Oregon voting site is at http://oregonvotes.org/

While the efforts in the Pacific North West may improve the voting experience by increasing the period during which one may vote and providing alternatives to to using suspect voting machines, most jurisdictions in the US still use one of the least “fair” voting systems available,  and most Americans haven’t a clue about the relative benefits of PR, or Proportional Representation, as opposed to the “single-member district plurality system” in use in most jurisdictions in the US today.

Douglas J Amy at Mt Holyoke College has put together an online library on the subject. Amy is also the author of a number of books on the subject, one of which is available online in pdf format and another which is a comprehensive extension of the materials published on the Mt. Holyoke web site.   He not only explains the difference between the typical US system and PR,  he also provides an accessible explanation of different types of voting systems.

Some other resources on voting systems?

• Of course there is a wikipedia page,  which affords a decent introduction to the subject as well as some excellent links and references for further study.
• My friend David Lippman has a published a wonderful online book, Math in Society, which addresses voting issues in various systems and would be a welcome addition to any high school math teacher’s arsenal of resources. It can be downloaded from David’s site as well a accessed online via scribd
• Another excellent resource on voting systems, this one with a European twist, is provided by the Electoral Reform Society

The title of the note? “Gila” is the English transliteration of a Hebrew word for joy, and “na” is us. Together with “hava” (be) they are used in the Hebrew song “hava na gila”, or let us be joyful.  Of course, HAVA in this case is the Help America Vote Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.R.3295:  For a list of resources on the Act, see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act

You will find my entry in a Times essay competition below, and the finalists here. You be the judge 😉

***************

From the sophistry of The Restaurant at the End of the Universe with its cajoling moveable feast to the authoritarianism of The Bible with all its “do”s and “don’t”s, it must be clear (even to those who are blind as bats) that there is something fishy here. While we appear sheepish on the question of gobbling our own, we remain bullish on slaughtering whatever is at hand when it suits us, and we feel it’s as appropriate to kill for food as for sport or when our “interests” are threatened. Though we may scatter a few red red herrings to confuse our critics, any claims that it is ethical to eat meat (forget about the manner in which said meat is obtained) duck the same question, “Says who?”

“Because these have been given to me”, argue some religious types, advocating a shallow dominionism. It is as easy to invent a deity who whispers the following day’s ingredients in your ear as to pull a rabbit from a hat. “Chicken and egg”, argue those suggesting that magical realism is perhaps more prevalent in the politics of North America than in the literature of its neighbors, opining that they have beef with self-serving myth. And far away there are those, just as religious, who would instruct these Westerners all about sacred cows. Looking for proof in the Kate and Sydney pudding has produced little more on the topic than magazine contests.

But to tilt the frame of reference by a dimension, consider the contact between our species and another. Any alien confronting us would as likely stamp us out as a nasty, brutish infection or pop us into their gaping maws. While horror flicks may explore the possibility that another species might find us unpalatable (or, more intriguingly, yummy), the sensitive might cry out, “How could a sentient creature consume another sentient creature?” Indeed. And the brutal answer that comes echoing back through the cosmos is the same as that we see when we look into the still quiet water. Because we can. Those who live by the menu may well end up on the menu.

Taboos are just monkeys on our back, and we will eat our own, should it come to that. No, the one and only ethical basis for eating meat is the brutal calculus inherent in old Mother Nature. It is the ancient imperative, and though it could be forsaken by some, it is still worshiped as we worship fire, water, earth and wind. Eating anything at hand is our nature, and it would be unethical to be untrue to our nature. We are but pigs at Darwin’s trough, and to our own nature must we be true. Ecce Homo.

Nor will we find much in the way of alternative. It would be exceedingly difficult at present to avoid eating all life, for if we are to excuse ourselves from eating some life, then we must find some line between life and unlife, and such a voyage will prove no lark. Already there are those who argue that plants enjoy pleasant conversation. The same arguments that might preclude us from eating Cousin George might apply with respect to genetically modified corn as you never know what some geneticist may have slipped into that genome (George’s or the corn’s.)

No, Popeye had it right when he said, “I am what I am”, and we are what we are. Hamburger, anyone, or spinach?

#Anchorage #Parks and Rec Chief John Rodda recently appeared before the Northeast Community Council to respond to claims that P&R were again trying to disembowel Russian Jack Springs Park.  While Rodda was serving in Eagle River the last time P&R tried to clear cut RJSP, he took “full responsibility” for “thinning out” the woods along major trails in the Park as he was only “responding to public safety concerns.” See, http://parks.alaskapolicy.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12.

If Rodda received any calls (and that is dubious and may be a smokescreen – see below) such complaints make vivid one element of Anchorage’s polarization;  emigration is arguably turning our community into a village of Outside Wusses. I use the term wusses because it has been in the press of late, but I am not talking about code for too little testosterone.  I am talking about people who move to the “Last Frontier” and then want to turn it into downtown LA. People who want to kill all the geese, moose, and other wildlife because they have unreasoned fear of the unknown.  And these same folk are afraid of the dark, are afraid of the woods (“dark and deep”.)  Deliver us from fearful folk trying to save the world from their own shadows!

Parks and Rec simply does not “get it”. They apparently will happily cut down as much growth as possible to satisfy a hand few of whiners while ignoring hundreds of thousands of others. Why? The only way this makes sense is if that was their intent in the first place (remember the P&R proposal to clear cut a major chunk of RJSP??)  I think this betokens an attitude that parks are only grassy places, and trees should only be an occasional ornament. I mean, now that we have an urban forester I at least thought he might have something to say about letting a bunch of criminals wantonly hack down our park forest.  I apparently don’t have a clue as to what a forester does in Anchorage,  because he apparently doesn’t having anything to say about whacking down our urban forest!

In any event, back on the East side of Wussville, the NECC was having none of it. Pelted with questions Rodda admitted that he had no record of the calls he had received complaining about the trails, was not present and did not supervise the cutting so had no personal knowledge of what was actually done, knew that the inmates who were employed were not supervised by P&R staff, knew that at least in one case work done in the Park went amiss because of lack of supervision.

In fact, P&R had sought grant funds indicating they intended to thin out the forest in RJSP and did not share those ambitions with the public (perhaps because, as we saw last year, the public is not agreeable to efforts by P&R to cut down trees in the MOA, especially in a Park designated as a preservation zone!) What becomes clear is that a) P&R is not credible, b) P&R has an agenda that is not public, c) that private agenda includes disemboweling RJSP.

Rodda also indicated at the NECC meeting that at a “briefing” held at the Mayor’s conference room to discuss private attempts to create a destination park in the north side of the Park (which is near several existing playgrounds) he heard nary a negative word.  But the meeting was only informational  (i.e. it was a dog and pony show for the private agency to parade about their intentions) and the President of the NECC was there and did express the NECC’s opposition.  Moreover, Rodda admitted that he has received and reviewed ALL the resolutions from the NECC (some half a dozen over the period of the last year) castigating the attempt to allow private agencies to dictate park development.

RJSP has a Master Plan and the Plan sets out some important points, including but not limited to establishing a preservation zone. Rodda intentionally acted to violate the Master Plan in that respect, has indicated he has no compunction with violating other aspects of the Master Plan AND is alleged to have said that he would rather see the $750,000 (less money wasted to date) held by the Anchorage Park Foundation sent back to the legislature then spend a penny of it on updating the Park Master Plan. He has indicated that in his mind the nameless few stating support of matters important to him are far more critical than the thousands represented by the NECC or testifying against clearing forest in the Park.

Thanksgiving, in the proper noun sense familiar to all in the U.S.,  is offensive to so many on so many levels its hard to know where to start.  Perhaps that is one reason (or many) that the culture warriors of the religious right take it up as a cause celebre (see for example Kate Zernike’s piece ) much as they bemoan the attack on Christmas, or the war on Christians in general.  And despite the learned efforts of Richard T Hughes and others, it would appear that the ignorance of the mass of Americans is a tide that will not be turned.

But setting aside the mythology associated with the day, the fact that it commemorates to many ethnic cleansing on a continental scale, the institutionalization by President Lincoln at what was arguably the temporal acme of the Christian fundamentalism rampant in the early 19th Century, the current economic function as the eve of “Black Friday”, not to mention the gorging, the turkey pardoning and the celebration of one of the most brutal “games” known to humankind; is there something to be salvaged from all this?

I have to argue that the fundamentalist take on Thanksgiving, i.e. giving actual thanks to a living deity actually involved in the day to day affairs of humanity, was as preposterous to our Deist forefathers as it is to most of us today.  Deists, and by extension many of us, give thanks to “Providence” not on the basis of any intercession, but as a way of expressing our recognition of that which we have and our acknowledgment that  things could always be worse (much worse.)

But in comparison to the rabbinic view of a holiday such as Yom Kippur,  I have to say that the Deist approach falls short, in that while Jews are expected to not only atone to God but to each other, acknowledging Providence is a far cry from engaging in any interpersonal expression of appreciation.

As I type this I am all too aware that my wife is, as she is every year, embarked on an herculean task familiar to many households in the U.S.; creating and setting a holiday meal, presided over by a huge not quite rampant turkey of impeccable pedigree.  She (my wife, not the turkey, which is a tom this year after all) is an easy target for my thanks, but not so the many others who may have contributed to our well being (especially those who did not so intend.) And while it is one thing to have appreciation in our heart, it is quite another to acknowledge, personally, all those who should be thanked.

How easy it is to forget the hundreds who in one way or another cared for my recently injured son,  the girl friends, boy friends dogs, rabbits, cats and others who care for or being cared for by our family have enriched our year. Those who have asked for help have given me something to do, and I am as thankful for that as for the ineptitude of those who seek to diminish my community, my state and my country; thank you – each and every one.  Thank you.

And as I watch my home gently blanketed with fresh snow (acknowledging that the roads may be soon safe again) I have a feeling that despite the horrible baggage Thanksgiving may entail, and the famine, homelessness, violence and abuse endemic to our species,  I will nevertheless savor the a few moments this evening with family, friends and a deceased tom.

I wish one and all a day to give thanks for.

8th Grader Victoria Granado wrote in to the Anchorage Daily News with her policy advice about addressing sexual assault and asking for “support” (see,  http://bit.ly/azWGuK)  I offer the comment below.  I would have expected that Mrs. Otte already explored most of what I am about to say to you, Victoria,  (that would be her obligation) so if you have already addressed the points below, my apologies for covering the same ground again.

First off, it is very difficult to get any sense of what you are actually proposing.  As 8th Graders I am sure your class had something more to vote on then the simplistic argument that we will defeat sexual assault via sting operations.  In as much as your teacher is aware that she could have used ASD’s Google Apps  Domain to facilitate your creation of a variety of web pages on this issue to which you could refer the public it is most unfortunate that you did not take the opportunity to actually present some sense of your policy deliberations as well as the width and breadth of the debate that led to your resolution.

Had you published a bit about your efforts, I am sure I would have noted your acknowledgment of the relative frequency of sexual assault within the family or among close friends and would have addressed how you would interpose a sting into such circumstances.  Likewise, I am sure we would have been able to view how you addressed the impact of non-physical aggression,  which is the overwhelming domain of women in our society according to most recent research, and the possible trigger such assaultive behavior  may become.

In light of our local political scene, I am sure you must also have explored the economic issues presented by your proposed policy.  Who will pay for your program? How much will it cost? Will your parents vote to lift the tax cap to fund more municipal services? Will your class be opposing local candidates claiming they support property tax relief and more services since your class would clearly understand that such a stance is utter nonsense?

And while it’s not PC to ask, you undoubtedly also explored the whole concept now promoted by teabaggers that one must be responsible for oneself and that typically people get what they “deserve” at the hands of a personal and interceding God. Are you suggesting that persons the victim of sexual assault didn’t deserve to be assaulted? Does alcohol and drug abuse contribute to an environment which might condone such behavior? And what about the current practice of spitting on Congressmen and throwing bricks through windows? In a society where a major political party is slow to condemn such violence, wouldn’t one be led to believe that violence IS an appropriate form of “speech”?

I could go on, Victoria, but I hope I have made my point that your presentation in the newspaper was shallow and that was unfortunate in that I am sure your efforts in school were not. This reflects on Mrs. Otte, however, not on you, as she is the person who was responsible for your project, and I am sure, for promoting your letter to the editor.  Wanting to be the best citizen you can be is a wonderful aspiration, but as we have seen over the past months with respect to the health care reform debate, being a good citizen involves more than sounding off; it involves rational and critical thought, civil discourse and respect for one’s peers. Best of luck next year in high school.