Election Hope in Ohio

I live in Pickerington, Ohio. Most people outside of the Columbus area have zero idea where that is, so let me give those people a heads up.

Pickerington is located in Fairfield county, just on the other side of the Franklin country border. It is a nice community, for the most part: it's quiet, the people are friendly, good school districts, 25 minute drive to downtown Columbus. If you drive in one direction, you're five minutes from a large retail area filled with restaurants, shopping, and a large movie theatre. If you drive in the other direction, you're in the middle of farm country with corn stretching to the horizon.
It's a great place to raise a family. I commute to the Columbus metro area to work, but when I go home on Friday afternoon, I can spend the entire weekend in the Pickerington area and have just about everything myself and my family need.

Franklin county, where Columbus is located, is a blue county. It's a very liberal area for the Midwest. I'll borrow a phrase from Jon Stewart when he was here in town and said: "So you guys were like the little blue tick on the big red dog." But Fairfield county.... is red. Typically a dark shade of red.

It's middle america. Small towns dot the county. There's a church just around every corn field. And I'm not talking small, cozy churches. I'm talking about the kind that span football fields and could house the population of small countries. It's stereotypical GOP-land.

Here's why I have hope, though.

My wife and I took our two year old son out to a huge apple orchard to pick.... well, apples. We had to drive through the cornfields and small towns. I joked to my wife, who is apolitical, that I hoped I didn't get pulled over for having my Ted Strickland and Sherrod Brown bumper stickers on our car. She didn't get the joke.

As our drive took us through the country on a beautiful fall day, I noticed something quite unexpected. Ted Strickland signs. Sherrod Brown signs. Other local democrats' signs. Not just a few, but a lot. And only the occaisional Blackwell sign. Our drive took us up into Licking county, where the orchard is, and I saw even more of the same. I was quite surprised.

We arrived at the apple farm, and pulled our big off-roading Honda Accord into the orchard and parked next to a long line of cars. Most didn't have stickers on them, but of those that did, the Strickland stickers outnumbered the Blackwell stickers by a 3:1 margin.

I even had a brief conversation with the guy next to me who had a "Republicans for Strickland" sticker on his car (yes, they do sell them at Strickland stuff). He apparently had been a lifelong Republican; in his words, "a true traditional conservative." He said he's so fed up with the hijacking of his party by corporations and religous "nutjobs," that he's voting straight D this November because he wants "to send a message to those morons."

On our way home after picking 30 lbs. of apples (our son really liked picking them), I counted the Strickland and Blackwell signs in peoples yards. Strickland 27, Blackwell 11.

Middle America seems to be waking up to finally hear what most of us have been screaming about the past few years. They're fed up with their votes being used by the GOP to get in power, only to be ignored until the next election cycle. They want change, and they're willing to vote outside of their traditional party to achieve change.

That trip with my family out into the cornfields and apple orchards of Ohio gave me hope... and way too many apples.

Why do Republicans Intentionally Terrorize Voters?

terrorism

ter-ror-ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] : noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

There you go: a dictionary definition of terrorism. It's a key issue in today's politics; something that is harped on ad naseum by Republicans as they attempt to portray a strength and resolve apparently only unique to their party. It seems every political advertisement at least touches on the nebulous security issue, and some use it as the central theme. Republican ads target Democratic opponents as 'weak on terror' as images from 9/11 or other attacks are shown in the background.

Yet these advertisements themselves leverage the very concept Republicans are trying to denounce and are using it to scare people into voting for continued Republican leadership: terror.

These advertisements attempt to paint a picture of a dark future if Democrats gain power. If Republican advertisements are to be believed, Democrats would welcome Islamic jihadists with open arms, give them directions to the local mall, and see if they needed any help with the detonators. While apparently, if Republicans keep control, America will never be attacked by terrorists because Republicans are great at national security.

You may ask: Wait, wasn't 9/11 on the GOP's watch? And according the National Security Advisor at the time just before the attack, why weren't terrorist attacks on the United States not on the top of the priority list? Republicans want to blame 9/11/2001 on the previous President, Bill Clinton. Even though there were more than seven months between Clinton leaving office and Bush taking it, perhaps that wasn't enough time for transition of all the important issues. You know, like planes possibly being flown into buildings.

The GOP has turned national security and fighting terrorism into an issue they desire to appear strong on. Continually harping 9/11 and the emotions surrounding it, Republicans have attempted to scare the American public into voting for them, erstwhile another attack may happen. In a recent advertisement by the RNC, the first definition of terrorism is illustrated: "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

From factcheck.org:

With no soundtrack but the tick-tick-tick of a timer, the ad shows quotes from bin Laden deputy Ayman Al-Zawahiri saying "we purchased some suitcase bombs" and that the 9/11 attacks were "nothing compared to what you will see next." That's followed by a graphic image of a rapidly expanding orange-yellow globe that looks like a nuclear fireball.

The ad accurately quotes accounts of what bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri have said. The images of al Qaeda fighters are taken from al-Jazeera broadcasts and are apparently genuine. However, by using powerful visual images, the ad invites a conclusion for which the RNC offers no proof: Voting for Democrats risks nuclear incineration. That's an appeal to fear more than reason.

That's right. If you don't vote Republican, you'll melt in a nuclear blast.

No one can deny that the largest terrorist attack in the history of the United States occurred while George W. Bush was in office. What is also fact is the man responsible for organizing the attacks on New York and Washington is still at large. It has been over five years and Osama Bin Laden has not been captured. Yet within those five years, the United States has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, hopelessly locking up our military forces until... well, who knows, really?

One has to wonder, why aren't people, specifically Democratic leadership, asking tough questions? In the five years since 9/11 and the terrorism issue was thrust upon the American psyche, are we any more secure? Incoming cargo is being inspected at the same abysmal rate as five years ago: only 5-6%. Border security is being enforced much the same way it was five years ago, allowing a huge influx of people of undetermined origin and intent.

Not standing up and asking questions points to the second definition of terrorism: "the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization." Democrats are afraid to question the Bush administration on the issues of security and terrorism less they be accused of being weak or submissive. Republicans have successfully terrorized the American people into a fearful state while framing themselves as great, protective saviors.

All this begs the question, why do Republicans intentionally terrorize voters?

And why are we letting it happen?

What will kill you: A bathtub, dog, or terrorist?

"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."

It is a common phrase used by supporters of the War in Iraq to justify what is occuring in the Middle East. The theory goes, that if we (the United States) spend billions of dollar, sacrifice thousands of U.S. soldiers lives, and countless Iraqi lives that the citizens of this country will be safer from terrorists.

So, what are the odds that you, Joe Average Citizen, will die in a terrorist attack in your lifetime? And what are you willing to spend to increase those odds?

Michael Kinsely, of Time Magazine, writes the following:

The actual risk of being a terror victim is not merely small--it is unknown and unknowable. Economists make a distinction between "risk" and "uncertainty." Risk refers to hard mathematical odds. Uncertainty refers to situations in which the odds are anybody's guess.

Fair enough. Predicting something that is inherently unpredictable is obviously not an exact science. If the odds of being the victim of a terrorist attack are so astronomical that they can be classified as 'unknown and unknowabale,' one has to wonder what measuable benefit is obtained by invading and occupying Iraq is we are truly there to fight terrorism.

If it is impossible to derive odds of being a terrorist attack victim in any part of the United States at any given moment, perhaps if we begin to put parameters around it, we can begin to calculate possible odds.

Michale L. Rothschild, professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin's business school:

"There are more than 40,000 malls in this country, and each is open about 75 hours per week. If a person shopped for two hours each week and terrorists were able to destroy one mall per week, the odds of being at the wrong place at the wrong time would be approximately 1.5 million to 1."

That sounds scary. Imagine if a mall every week was blown up. Your odds of dying (assuming everyone in the mall perishes) would be 1 in 1,500,000. Of course, you would have to go to the mall every week for those odds. And we would have to assume that terrorists would be successful in blowing up a mall every week like clockwork without getting caught. Oh, and we would assume that people would keep going to malls after there is a consistent pattern of malls blowing up.

Well, maybe terrorists would need more time for planning in order to evade capture. Maybe they would only try to blow up one mall per month:

"If terrorists destroyed one mall each month, the odds would climb to one in 6 million. This assumes the total destruction of the entire mall; if that unlikely event didn't occur, the odds would become even more favorable."

Still sounds scary: 1 in 6,000,000. Sure seems like invading a country halfway across the world, spending $338.9 billion dollars, sacrificing 2816 dead and 21,077 wounded American soldiers as well as between 45,000 to 50,000 reported Iraqi casulties is worth trying to make it a little safer for you to go to the mall.

Until you consider the odds of other ways you could perish:

Struck by lightning: 1 in 576,000

Drowning in a bathtub: 1 in 685,000

Being killed by a dog: 1 in 700,000

Freezing to death: 1 in 3 million

Perhaps once the Bush administration is done with ridding the world of the "unknown and unknowable" risk of terrorist attacks, they can turn their attention to some of the other more common risks the average citizen must deal with. Maybe all bathtubs, dogs, and big freezers should be collected and destroyed. They pose a larger risk to your livlihood than a terrorist does. How much are you willing to spend in dollars and lives to eliminate those threats?

Of course, there is at least one thing that poses even less of a threat than being a terrorist attack victim:

Meteor striking your house: 1 in 182,138,880,000,000

Wonder what Bush would be willing to sacrifice to increase those odds...

Smoking In Ohio: Issues 4 vs. 5

In Ohio, outside of the important gubernatorial and congressional races going on, there are two issues on the ballot that I believe require some attention and clarification. I'll also point out some of the hypocrisy surrounding the type of support one of the issues is receiving.

Issue 4 and Issue 5 both deal with the issue of smoking, but have very different goals. And in what may be an unprecedented situation, if one of the issues passes, it immediately cancels the other out.

The full text of Issue 4:

This proposed amendment would allow smoking in the following enclosed public areas: separate smoking areas in restaurants, most bars, bingo or bowling facilities, separated areas of hotels and nursing homes, race tracks, tobacco stores, private residences and nonpublic facilities. It would prohibit smoking in all other enclosed public areas. The amendment would also override home rule, invalidating and prohibiting local bans on smoking. A majority yes vote is necessary for passage. Note: There are two smoking-related ballot issues. This proposal is to approve a constitutional amendment.

If any local townships or city ordinances have a smoking ban, the passage of Issue 4 trumps it. A state CONSTITUTIONAL amendment is added and would override all laws state wide regarding smoking. All current 22 laws throughout the state of Ohio preventing smoking in various public places would instantly become unenforcable. Last election, a city wide smoking ban in all public buildings was passed in Columbus. The citizens of the city are able to go out and have dinner without having to worry about second hand smoke. With the passage of Issue 4, smoking sections would return full force.

Issue 5 on the other hand, would enact a law similar to the one in Columbus state wide:

To enact Chapter 3794. of the Ohio Revised Code to restrict smoking in places of employment and most places open to the public. The proposed law would:

Prohibit smoking in public places and places of employment;

Exempt from the smoking restrictions certain locations, including private residences (except during the hours that the residence operates as a place of business involving non-residents of the private residence), designated smoking rooms in hotels, motels, and other lodging facilities; designated smoking areas for nursing home residents; retail tobacco stores, outdoor patios, private clubs, and family-owned and operated places of business;

Authorize a uniform statewide minimum standard to protect workers and the public from secondhand tobacco smoke;

Allow for the declaration of an establishment, facility, or outdoor area as nonsmoking;

Require the posting of "No Smoking" signs, and the removal of all ashtrays and similar receptacles from any area where smoking is prohibited;

Specify the duties of the department of health to enforce the smoking restrictions

Create in the state treasury the "smoke free indoor air fund;"

Provide for the enforcement of the smoking restrictions and for the imposition of civil fines upon anyone who violates the smoking restrictions.

Confusing advertisements surrounding Issue 4 put forth by the misleadingly named group "Smoke Less Ohio" have led the public to currently support the passage of both issues. Although, if both pass, because Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment, it would instantly trump the law put in place by the passage of Issue 5. Not surprisingly, much of the funding for Issue 4 comes from tobacco companies.

While listening to the local conservative talk radio personality, which I occaisionally do for a good laugh, the subject of these two issues came up. The Republican callers insisted that this wasn't a public health issue, but a business owner's property rights issue. They concluded that Issue 5 was too restrictive on business owners' rights as a property owner by not deciding what could be done within their building. The fact that Issue 5 would protect innocent people from the dangers of second hand smoke was not sufficient for them to support it.

After hearing four straight calls lambasting big government for infringing upon our rights too much, I called in. I asked the host if he supported Bush's 'terrorist survelience program.' He said absoutely. I asked why he supported it. He said because it was protecting innocent people from terrorists attacks.

I then asked him to explain why he was supporting the revocation of our some of our privacy rights under the auspice of protecting innocent people from terrorist attacks yet against the revocation of a business owner's property rights to protect innocent people from second hand smoke.

I never did get a good answer from him.

According to the American Lung Association:

Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year

I will be voting No on Issue 4 in Ohio, and Yes on Issue 5

I'm not going to ask fellow Ohioans to vote the way I do, but please think of the above fact when you enter the voting booth.

A Letter to American Citizens, from The Country

Dear Citizens of Me,

I've had it. I'm outta here. Not really sure where a country the size of me can move, but I'm going to try.

When I was created over 230 years ago, I was quite proud of what I stood for: freedom of ideas, religion, speech, etc. As I grew up, some egregious wrongs were absolutely righted but mostly what I represented was a bright light in a dark world. But lately, I've had just about enough of some of you using my name to achieve selfish, personal goals as you tear me down.

I have been called the "Land of Opportunity." But recently, my citizens have seen opportunity squashed. The rich among you continue to increase their wealth while the rest of you are asked to patiently wait your turn that will never come.

I have been called the "Home of the free, home of the brave." Yet in past months, certain previously unalienable rights have been revoked by current leaders. Right to a fair trial? Gone. Right to face your accuser? Gone. Right to view evidence against you? Gone. What is so brave about stripping people these basic rights? Why are you afraid to give them a fair trial?

One of the better stewards of me once said that my citizens have "nothing to fear but fear itself." Today, on a daily basis, you are told to be afraid of terrorist attacks around every corner. The current 'leaders', and I use that word loosely, of me seem more set on scaring you than really protecting you. They ratchet up fear to keep power, and then continually stoke the fear to advance their agenda.

One of the great things about me was the fact that religion and government were distinct entities without connection or allegiance to each other. You know, the familiar: "Separation of church and state." Now, the two are more entwined than in the history of me. My money is being spent supporting religious efforts of primarily a single religion. Can you believe that? I was purposely built by a collection of learned and intelligent men to be agnostic about religion. But now, your leaders harp upon how pious they are and how devilish their opponents are to get elected to a public office.

I've been called the "Great Melting Pot," welcoming people from around the world into my borders and interweaving them into my society. But lately, a great push has been made to make some people feel extremely unwelcome. As a nation built upon laws, I fully support enforcing all laws regarding who is allowed to legally reside here. Yet by increasing the rhetoric surrounding the issue, perfectly legal citizens have been lumped in together with the law breakers merely due to their ethnicity.

The primary value and ideal that I was built upon, Freedom, has been conveniently revised and edited to suit the purposes of the people currently in power. The idea that Freedom and Democracy was going to be spread throughout the world sounded like a great idea. But it's difficult to spread freedom and democracy using the business end of an automatic weapon. You current leaders tried to show the citizens of another sovereign nation that they had the freedom to choose the direction they wanted for their country by choosing the direction for them. "Hey, you're free! But now you have to do what we say." Ridiculous.

I'll leave you with some quotes of people who "get it." They understood what I used to be all about.

"I like to see a man proud of the place in which he lives. I like to see a man live so that his place will be proud of him." ~Abraham Lincoln

"Patriotism... is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." ~Adlai Stevenson

"This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave." ~Elmer Davis

"This country will not be a good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a good place for all of us to live in." ~Theodore Roosevelt

"Our country, right or wrong. When right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." ~Carl Schurz

Sincerely,
The United States of America

PS - I'll consider coming back if you shape up. Until then, I revoke your privilege to use my name for any political or personal gain.