Literary rantings on the next page.
So I decided to be a little more active in my community. An election for one chair on the Board of Aldermen and one chair on the School Board is Friday, and tonight was a live Q&A session with the candidates—sans one, who was off on a mission trip. Unfortunate for him, because I really like the panel presentation format. Gives me a good opportunity to mind-dive. =3
Anyway. For the five that were there, I got good enough vibes from all but one, a woman named Lawson (surnames yay) running for School Board. Apparently she ran for Alderman last year and got shot down, and I'm not surprised why. She was pretty vacuous; I got the impression that she was seeking a position in the city government because she wanted the position instead of wanted to do the job. She was very stiff in her opening remarks, reading from a prepared notepaper in simple sentences designed to inform but apparently not to sound like a human being, and most of her answers involved dancing noncommitally around the question's subject without actually answering it. She also built her responses off of the candidates who answered before here, which made it hard for her when she led off the round of responses. I felt each time she went first that she didn't quite know what to do, and she didn't seem like she actually knew much about what the position entailed.
That bothers me a bit. I feel that if you're going to run for a local civil servant position, you should at least know something about what you're doing. The meetings of the School and the Aldermen boards are open to the public, so there's ample opportunity to spend time familiarising yourself with what goes on in the position you're seeking.
For the other two running for School, one is a relatively fresh face in town, and the other has over twenty (non-consecutive) years experience in the position. I felt good about both of them, but I'll probably end up voting for the incumbent; I got the impression that he knew more about what he was doing and what confines he had to work with than did the other guy, who although was much more informed and on top of his game than the woman, seemed to me like he had a single-minded agenda for his position.
Plus he made a bit of an ass of himself at a recent Band Booster meeting, I have been told. So that's a shame. However, if he runs again against someone I feel needs to be relieved of office, I might vote for him. I think he could do good things on the board, but I don't think this incumbent is the one that needs replacing.
For the alderman, I am in favor of the other guy, this time. Again I thought both candidates were competent and well-equipped for the evening, but I felt the incumbent a bit too political in her answers. She never actually gave a negative answer, and the one or two times a touchy subject came up she went with the obvious draw.
Instant issue would be one that came up about banning concealed-carry firearms in parks and bars. She was in favor of it because banning them would help protect the public and the police from an irate person who happened to be packing and decided to draw. Well-intentioned, and not a place I completely disagree, but then her opponent mentioned an aspect I don't typically see people make.
The people who go through the effort of getting a concealed-carry permit, he said, are some of our town's most responsible citizens. They're also required by law to have training on their firearm roughly equivalent to that of a security guard. People who expend such an effort (and cash) with their weapon, he said, are not likely to brandish it in a fit of irrational anger. He also said that criminals aren't likely to care whether they're breaking concealed-carry laws or not, and if they want to use a gun they're probably going to use one. It would make him feel better, he said, if some of the good-guy citizens were also carrying in the unlikely event that such a situation arose.
He made a similar hesitant remark on another topic that came up (an extension of our city's green walkway; I and the incumbent reacted by going "that's a great idea" and he said "hold on a minute, how is this going to be accessible, how is it going to work, we need to long-term plan it if we want it to go through"), and I got the impression from him that he was able to look at all sides of an issue quickly and not just make a snap judgment.
---------
Speaking of politics, and long post is long, on the way to the meeting my mother tuned the radio to a talk station that plays some Right-wing stuff, and I listened to Phil Valentine (who is a staunch conservative) call peers of his morons for continuing to focus on the topic of President Obama's birth certificate.
Basically he trounced on some other conservatives who are still gung-ho over the subject despite there not being any new news about it. Additionally, the hospital in Hawaii where he was allegedly born (at which point Valentine made an argument that rather supported Obama being born in Hawaii, with which I agree) is not releasing the birth certificate to the public because they wouldn't release yours either if I went and asked for it.
Also the sheer expense of sending a copy of it to every moron in the Southeast would be tremendous.
Now, if it turns out that he was not born in the States (which seems unlikely at this point) then yes we can impeach him. Which will be ugly. And not something to which I look forward. But in the meantime (and most likely until the end of his term{s}) we should be focused more on supporting him in his efforts until such time as he shows us he is doing a crap job.
Which Bush Jr. also did. =P
Also government-controlled medicare, while well-intentioned and honorable, is a bad idea. LET'S START A FLAMEWAR YEAH
