Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Well, the question wasn't what they are doing, but what they should be doing

What's the concept behind it? What powers are they suppose to have, what oversight does the community have over it, etc.

The closest I have to an understanding of it is that the board is basically there to represent the community's interests in regard to the local education systems, hence it's an elected position (and least where I'm at... I think, anyway). But I don't know how it does that, what sort of oversight it has, what codes of conduct it must adhere to, etc., so forth, so on. I don't even know if my basic understanding is accurate; they could be there to liaison between the community and the schools (both ways, instead of community -> school), they could be there simple to disseminate and make understandable what's occurring in the schools (school -> community).

That sort of information isn't terribly complicated, I don't think. Not looking for minutia, just a plain english terms of service, yanno'? What's the pamphlet version of what these folks (not just school boards, but general local-level elected and appointed positions) are supposed to be doing and how I get to interact with them?

[Montague]

I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking other people if you don't try to oppress them over it. For example, I think that people who are into dubstep are a bunch of wankers, but that doesn't mean I'd ban dubstep music even if I could. Tolerance doesn't mean liking everything, it just means acknowledging it's right to exist.

This is the line of thinking I like to point out to people. It's a person's right to dislike somebody or some group of people. Just leave them the hell alone. So to people that dislike homosexuals, I'd say they need to find an argument for why they should'nt get married, not just remind everyone that they think it's icky or isn't compatible with their 'family values' or religion or whatever else. The argument should'nt be about the morality of homosexual, because it's irrelevant, it should be a discussion on the purpose or justification of marriage in the first place and why it should be extended to homosexuals, or more accurately- same-sex couples.

When Clinton was President, the right-wing fringe was in full froth mode. From this impotent rage sprung the paranoid fantasies of the New World Order and black helicopters and UN-backed armies of inner-city gang members forcing Christians into FEMA re-education camps (yes, that was a conspiracy theory I remember from that time period). There arose an entire cottage industry of people feeding into that frenzy and enriching themselves greatly as a result.

I thought the whole "New World Order" was a Bush I thing... hell, there's even a song using the sound clip from one of his speeches.

I believe it's a Reagan thing and he said it in a speech. He meant it as the end of the cold war paradigm with Glasnost and all, but I guess it sounded sinister to some people who turned it into something with a life of it's own. People thought Reagan was a nutjob when he was president, conspircy theorists already thought he was going to try and 'win' a nuclear war with the communists and reclaim the world in the name of Jesus and Capitalism. (The plotline of Fallout was based on these conspricy theorys)

[SalmonGod]

I admit I know very little about how local government works.  Nothing the slightest bit relevant to it ever came up in all my schooling.  My government class in high school was during the final stretch of the Bush vs Gore election, so that might have had something to do with it.  We learned about the constitution and the presidential election process, and that's it.

And I really don't have time to figure it out now.  I honestly don't even know where to start.  It's hard enough keeping informed on global issues alongside all of life's demands, and to develop well-informed opinions that cut through the bullshit orbiting major political issues and characters.  To be meaningfully involved in a well-informed fashion... I just can't imagine how to accomplish that without some combination of abandoning any sort of social or recreational life, neglecting my family, abandoning my future ambitions, and finding a different job, since I imagine most every local government function open to public interaction is scheduled during hours that I'm working.  I admit I could do a little bit more than I do now, but it's hard for me to believe that I could participate in any meaningful capacity.

And I don't see how I can trust anyone else to act on my behalf in this regard.  Anyone willing to get involved either has their own agenda independent of my influence, or they're getting paid by someone with an agenda for a sum that 1000 of me couldn't compete with.

[Montague]

I admit I know very little about how local government works.  Nothing the slightest bit relevant to it ever came up in all my schooling.  My government class in high school was during the final stretch of the Bush vs Gore election, so that might have had something to do with it.  We learned about the constitution and the presidential election process, and that's it.

And I really don't have time to figure it out now.  I honestly don't even know where to start.  It's hard enough keeping informed on global issues alongside all of life's demands, and to develop well-informed opinions that cut through the bullshit orbiting major political issues and characters.  To be meaningfully involved in a well-informed fashion... I just can't imagine how to accomplish that without some combination of abandoning any sort of social or recreational life, neglecting my family, abandoning my future ambitions, and finding a different job, since I imagine most every local government function open to public interaction is scheduled during hours that I'm working.  I admit I could do a little bit more than I do now, but it's hard for me to believe that I could participate in any meaningful capacity.

And I don't see how I can trust anyone else to act on my behalf in this regard.  Anyone willing to get involved either has their own agenda independent of my influence, or they're getting paid by someone with an agenda for a sum that 1000 of me couldn't compete with.

You summed up why most people actively involved in politics are retirees or wealthy enough that they don't need to work. Although, it's probably not as complicated as you think to understand who you are electing. Politicians and most everyone else tend to follow something like a coherant philiosophical line of thought. Politics are just an extention of philisophy. If you understand the philosophical/ ideological rationale and perspective an elected official is be applying to whatever issue there is, then you can predict how he or she will about everything else. Most are predictible, though the more moderate they are, the more they probably apply pragmatism then ideology in guiding their decisions.

As for how the government works, you'd probably need to just do some basic research to understand the basic important stuff. To understand how it all works completely you'd probably end up with a degree from a university for political science. You don't need that level of understanding of the system just to vote for the mayor, but it'd probably be helpful to understand what a mayor's job actually is.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking other people if you don't try to oppress them over it. For example, I think that people who are into dubstep are a bunch of wankers, but that doesn't mean I'd ban dubstep music even if I could. Tolerance doesn't mean liking everything, it just means acknowledging it's right to exist.

This is the line of thinking I like to point out to people. It's a person's right to dislike somebody or some group of people. Just leave them the hell alone.

No. They have a right to be intolerant, but I have just as much of a right to criticize them about it.

[Criptfeind]

Perhaps, but not to harass non?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Viewpoints exist to be challenged. If they cannot hold up under scrutiny, they should be discarded.

[Montague]

I don't think there's anything wrong with disliking other people if you don't try to oppress them over it. For example, I think that people who are into dubstep are a bunch of wankers, but that doesn't mean I'd ban dubstep music even if I could. Tolerance doesn't mean liking everything, it just means acknowledging it's right to exist.

This is the line of thinking I like to point out to people. It's a person's right to dislike somebody or some group of people. Just leave them the hell alone.

No. They have a right to be intolerant, but I have just as much of a right to criticize them about it.

I mean 'leave them the hell alone' as in not going out and lynching or expelling them from the country. Just having the tolerance to live in the same city or country as some unliked group without persecuting or advocating violence against them, is basically all anybody is required to do.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Wait, when did anyone advocate lynching/exiling homophobes?

[SalmonGod]

Although, it's probably not as complicated as you think to understand who you are electing.

I'm jaded by what politics I do pay attention to, where I fully expect people to spin and lie about everything, and the only way to truly know what to expect is to study their past actions and affiliations.  If I vote on a candidate for which I haven't done this, I'll feel like I might as well be rolling dice, regardless of their public platform.

As for how the government works, you'd probably need to just do some basic research to understand the basic important stuff. To understand how it all works completely you'd probably end up with a degree from a university for political science. You don't need that level of understanding of the system just to vote for the mayor, but it'd probably be helpful to understand what a mayor's job actually is.

And I was mostly responding to Truean's statement, which I completely agree with, that your vote doesn't count if that's the only way you bother to participate.  I don't consider a moderately informed vote for mayor to be meaningful participation, though it would be an improvement in my case.

[Montague]

I'm jaded by what politics I do pay attention to, where I fully expect people to spin and lie about everything, and the only way to truly know what to expect is to study their past actions and affiliations.  If I vote on a candidate for which I haven't done this, I'll feel like I might as well be rolling dice, regardless of their public platform..

Yeah, you got a point there, you can't really know if the offical you vote for is corrupt or inept or not. Local officials are especially prone to corruption be cause there is actually less informed scrutiny and transparency and the people running for office often come from the local good-ol-boy-network.

And I was mostly responding to Truean's statement, which I completely agree with, that your vote doesn't count if that's the only way you bother to participate.  I don't consider a moderately informed vote for mayor to be meaningful participation, though it would be an improvement in my case.

Along the same topic, one good point I've heard brought up as a general rule for local elections, is always vote for a lawyer that runs for sheriff. Cops hate lawyers and vise-versa and they will keep each other in check and honest. Never let a cop become sheriff, because their loyalities will always side with the police before anybody else. Also, personally, would'nt want local businessmen in charge of tax policy or democrats in charge of appropriations. I want a nice boring accountant or doctor or bureaucrat of some sort that would'nt have any sort of conflict of interest or be easily persuaded by bribery or anything like that. I'd probably vote for a cop for mayor or city council for the same reason.

It's sort of counterintuitive like this because you'd suppose an expert in the field would be the best candidate for the job, but politics, especially local politics are different.

[Bauglir]

Viewpoints exist to be challenged. If they cannot hold up under scrutiny, they should be discarded.

In principle, I sorely disagree. If your beliefs aren't being acted upon, there's no need to challenge them. They hurt nobody, and to challenge them is to hurt you, no matter how much I might think I'm bettering you in the process. That said, nobody doesn't act on their beliefs. Given the propensity for unnoticed biases in situations where a balance of power exists (so that even honest attempts to keep impulses out of it aren't always effective), it is important to challenge beliefs. But that's a purely practical consideration, as far as I'm concerned.

[Criptfeind]

You sound like a pushy door to door preacher to me MSH.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As I do not go to people's doors, that is somewhat unlikely. Indeed, the most common place where I engage in the ever-changing field of debate is right here on the internet, in open forums such as this one.

[SalmonGod]

I'm in-between.  Any belief that is acted on definitely deserves to be challenged.  If it can't stand up to challenge, then the action should not be taken.  Anybody with the self-awareness and wisdom to realize that their beliefs are not well-formed enough to be (consciously) acted on deserves to be left alone about them.