NO on Issue 2 -- Again...

Issue 2

Issue 2 is a run-around to take power out of the voter’s hands.

We don't need a constitutional amendment that takes power out of the voters and their elected representative's hands and puts it in the hands of an appointed board -- no matter who is doing the appointing.

Does anyone think that a board appointed by a governor advised by a farm bureau that is indebted to and in the pockets of Big-Ag is going to approve things like "truth in labeling” that help people know where their food comes from and how it is processed?

If you don't care to know where your food comes from, and you don't care what added ingredients are in it, or what processing standards are applied, then this amendment, and the resulting loss of personal control and responsibility is for you.

Big-Ag and the money (follow the money -- look at who's spending like the dickens on TV and Radio) are trying to make this a Liberal vs. Conservative thing. The PETA, Humane Society thing is a totally fake scare tactic being broadcast by the Farm Bureau, and paid for by Big-Ag.

Now here's the real scare: If you want several gigantic messes like The Croton Egg Farm polluting the air, water and soil, run-off from giant hog and chicken farms ruining water supplies and beautiful Ohio streams and creeks, and large, single crop farms damaging soil with nitrate accumulation and leaching it into your water supply and NOT be able to stop the damage because you foolishly gave away your right to vote on it, then this amendment is for you.

Here is a message from Snowville Creamery's Warren Taylor:

http://snowvillecreamery.wordpress.com/

Vote NO on Issue 3...

This is an amendment to the state Constitution. Once done, we can't change it.

If we don't get it right this time, we are screwed worse than we are now.

This is a BAD proposal. It also creates a monopoly that is anti-free trade/anti-Capitalism. It buys our future and doesn't pay us enough for the deal. We are screwing ourselves if this is approved.

One of the really bad things is that the police unions, groups supposedly interested in the welfare of Ohioans, are supporting their own little slice of the pie, while knowing that this is a bad deal.

From BallotPedia:

The Columbus Dispatch is opposed, saying, "The Ohio Constitution is no place for such detailed, self-interested amendments. If Ohioans wish to bring casino gambling to the state, the proper way would be to approve a succinct amendment granting the governor and General Assembly the authority to draft statutes, rules and regulations for such enterprises. In this way, the state would retain leverage to properly license, govern and tax casinos. As times and circumstances changed, the state would be able to respond. If State Issue 3 is approved by voters, the amendment would be unalterable by any action of this or future governors and legislatures. Only another statewide vote could change the amendment."[15]

The Toledo Blade is opposed, saying that a gambling casino monopoly should not be enshrined in Ohio's Constitution. "Voters should also remember that the reason it is difficult to amend the state constitution is to avoid having short-term concerns or passions result in wholesale changes that harm the state in the long run. What is given away in haste, such as control over gambling, may be regretted at leisure."[16]

The Youngstown Vindicator is opposed to Issue 3, saying, "We have said before when commenting on other casino gambling issues in Ohio: Gambling is the most successful scheme for the redistribution of wealth ever devised. It takes from the poor and gives to the rich. That’s because, as any gambler can tell you, the house never loses. Don’t be taken in by the promises of easy money being made by Issue 3 proponents. Vote no on Issue 3"[17]

The Akron Beacon Journal is opposed to Issue 3. In an editorial, the board said, "The state estimates the casinos would generate $643 million in annual tax revenue, slightly less than the $651 million claimed by Issue 3 proponents. But studies of gambling's economic impact on communities show that most of the money wagered comes from local residents who quit spending on nearby bars, restaurants and the like. Studies also show an overall negative impact, once the social costs of gambling are included, among them, increased crime, broken homes, bankruptcies and addiction treatment. In other words, casinos are not an engine of economic growth."[18]

In an opinion column published by the Toledo Free Press, Tim Higgins writes that his opposition to the measure is not related to immorality, amount of revenue brought in, or the jobs that may or may not be created for Ohioans. However, Higgins writes: “My objection to Issue 3 is much like it was to Issue 6 before it from the 2008 ballot. It is that both proposed Amendments limit gambling in Ohio by creating a casino monopoly, something that should never be considered in Constitutional politics. As we would never place such a monopoly in the hands of a utility company or a corporate media outlet, neither should we do so for a group operating casinos. Penn National may be a great corporation, but so was the group who failed to get Issue 6 last year; and it does not make them more deserving of such a monopoly.”[19]

Buckeyes vs. Purdue...

"Giving Tressel Pryor is like giving me a helicopter. I don't know what to do with it, and it's going to end in a fiery crash."

This is indefensible. Sick. Unpardonable.

Blow the whole thing up and start over.

Bad O-Line, bad QB and very, very bad coaching.

This makes USC's loss to WA look like a minor upset.

Tressel needs a new O-Line coach and an offensive coordinator NOW. Those should be the requirements to keep his job.

The 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner...

[Pause for Applause] “I am so humbled.” [Look lovingly at wife - DO NOT make Eye Contact with SecState Clinton]...

Vote NO on Issue 2, the Livestock Care Standards Board...

I am opposed to Issue 2.

First of all, it's a Constitutional Amendment to create a Board -- and no one seems to be sure what this Board's powers will be, or what limits will be set.

Secondly and more importantly to me, this Amendment is supported by the Farm Bureau -- which means that it is in the best interests of Agra-giants like ADM, Tyson, Cargill and other food manufacturers and buyers -- not necessarily the small, LOCO-producer/seller that I prefer to buy stuff I EAT from.

The Farm Bureau is heart-and-soul in the pocket of these big, corporate interests. Seems to me that they don't need help.

They are trying to cast it as an anti-"Peta"/Humane Society legislation, which their lobby hopes is supposed to strike a chord with conservatives, but from what I have heard, it's the big, corporate owned farms that already treat their product badly who are supporting it -- not the small, free-range, organic farmers.

Right now, I think that it is a vaguely worded attempt to put all farms under the same State bureaucratic control -- a bureaucracy that is already owned, lock/stock/barrel by somebody other than the voters/taxpayers.

Because it’s designed to favour large factory farms, not family farmers, Issue 2 is opposed by the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, and the Ohio Sierra Club. The editorial boards of Ohio’s major newspapers—including the Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal, and Dayton Daily News—all oppose this effort to enshrine the agribusiness lobby’s favoured oversight system in the state’s constitution.

Folks, Issue 2 are more important than people realize.

The proposed oversight board would strip the Ohio Legislature of its ability to act as the defacto oversight agency that represents the people of Ohio and gives that responsibility to a group of 13 individuals that have no accountability to the citizens of Ohio. Based on this observation, I have decided that I do not want another government agency in this state that cannot be held accountable to the wishes of its residents through their vote.

I will be voting NO on Issue 2. Not because I support the Human Society or Peta, as the Pro-2 Lobby would have you believe, BUT because the people behind the Pro-2 Lobby (The Ohio Farm Bureau and large farms backed by industry giants like Cargill, Tyson and ADM) are trying to modify the Constitution to suit their needs, not ours. If this passes expect all kinds of political pressure to stack this board by people who want to put independent co-ops and family farms out of business.

Please vote NO on Issue 2.

Health Care -- Selfishness Is Good...

The Bottom Line:

It would be wonderful if we had a Single-Payer Health Care System that worked for everyone, with no waiting, no rationing and no decisions made that are not in the best interest of THE PATIENT.

But the reality is that we all see "Health Care" through our particular lens.

Our opinions and preferences are grown from our reactions to our experiences, driving the resulting decisions affecting both our lives and the lives of others. In the end we all want what is best for our loved ones and ourselves and everyone else is secondary. This is why "Capitalism" is true and at least partially works, and why the tyranny of the few manifested in any form of "Collectivism" is false and never works well enough to sustain for any appreciable time.

In relation to all of the so-called "facts" flowing from those supporting a single National Health Care System: I think the statistics are skewed. The EU/UK/UN way of keeping stats doesn't match up with the way health stats are kept in the US (see the easy example in natal care), so the comparisons are difficult.

I don't want my loved one to wait 2-3-4 months for a test my Doctor says my loved one needs to have. And I don't want my loved one to wait for a test because my loved one is not in the particular cohort segment deemed eligible for that test.

Heck, I want to be able to go to the doctor I choose -- If the one in my locale or town is not up to my standards, I want to have the choice to go elsewhere -- and, I want to do so immediately, without waiting for some government entity to give me clearance.

Driving this reasoning is that I believe hospitals in the US are better at emergency, high-risk, and extreme trauma care than anywhere else in the world. And that belief causes me to doubt the stories I hear, especially those put forth by supporters of "National Health Care" that tell me how much better other health care systems are, especially when their claims don't in the least jive with my personal experience.

If a health care system is not at its best when I need it most, then everything else, including cost, is secondary and possibly irrelevant.