Everyone is rightfully expecting a massive turnout at the polls for the mid-term elections. Appeals to vote are everywhere, but I want to emphasize that people need to study up a little before going to the polls.
Embedded above is an excerpt from an informative flyer distributed to voters in Wisconsin with content from the League of Women Voters. The flyer was circulated by Wisconsin Conservation Voters (note "conservation" = environment, not "conservative") in order to call attention not to the candidates but to three proposed state constitutional amendments. One of these amendments is entitled "Freedom to Gather During an Emergency," which sounds like a variation on the basic "freedoms" so treasured by Americans, but it is actually a proposal that would limit or prevent the state from locking down during an lethal virus emergency.
I'll not discuss the flyer any further here, because it's a Wisconsin matter, but I would encourage everyone to check various online sources regarding non-candidate proposals on upcoming ballots in your state.
(If readers want to alert others re deceptive proposals on other state ballots, feel free to do so in the Comments).
The only reasonable justification for lockdowns was to slow infection to buy time for medical infrastructure to prepare for what was inevitable. Open-ended lockdowns were ineffective and more disruptive to the population than the disease itself.
ReplyDeleteAustralia deaths per capita: 963
DeleteUSA death per capita: ~3100
Australia is a more urbanised country than the US, about 40% of our entire population live in two cities, Sydney and Melbourne. We locked down thoroughly, and early, and it saved countless lives. The families of the more than a million of your deceased fellow Americans who died deserve better than your wilful truth-dodging odiousness.
Thank you, Jim.
DeleteFact matter.
I think that's deaths per million not per capita, because....
DeleteAlso China, which has a HARD lockdown, had a fraction of even Australia's deaths per million people. But you'll still get some bewildered portion of the population insisting that things would have been better if there had been no lockdown, that the vaccine planted RFID chips in people and that Covid wasn't even dangerous, no worse than a bad cold. Spoiled brats with no community spirit, the lot of them.
I'm not sure why deaths should be considered "inevitable" when there's ample evidence that both lockdowns and vaccines saved lives.
DeleteYes sorry, that’s deaths per million, my bad. Either way, it’s a telling statistic.
DeleteMy town is voting whether to make town elections non-partisan. We have 12 candidates for 7 town council seats.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, electable officials in small communities shouldn't be required to affiliate with a national political party. I think that distracts from the candidate's qualifications on a local level.
Delete"Shouldn't be required" = correct. Independent folks should be able to run.
Delete"Removing party affiliation" = bad because it can confuse people.
Regarding "Freedom to Gather During an Emergency" This only applies to religious gatherings in places of worship.
ReplyDeleteThe actual ballot question regards the following change to the state Constitution:
Section 18. Freedom of Worship; Liberty of Conscience; State Religion; Public Funds
The right of every person to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any person be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, without consent; nor shall any control of, or interference with, the rights of conscience be permitted, or any preference be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship; nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries; [nor shall the state or a political subdivision of the state order the closure of or forbid gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency at the national, state, or local level, including an emergency related to public health]. (The phrase in brackets is the proposed addition to Section 18 of Article I of the Wisconsin Constitution)
From Ballotpedia
A "yes" vote supports this amendment to prohibit the state or any political subdivision from ordering the closure of or forbidding gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including public health emergencies.
A "no" vote opposes this amendment to prohibit the state or any political subdivision from ordering the closure of or forbidding gatherings in places of worship in response to a state of emergency, including public health emergencies.
https://ballotpedia.org/Wisconsin_Question_2,_Prohibit_Government_Closure_of_Places_of_Worship_During_Emergencies_Amendment_(2026)
Colorado is full of amendments with misleading titles this year. I'm just voting NO down the line.
ReplyDeleteWithout understanding what you're voting on? Maybe just don't vote, then.
DeleteIf I know the title doesn't match the contents, I must understand it. Why would you even say that?
DeleteFloridian here, just filled out my mail-in ballot, and we had some equally deceptive issues that I had to parse through to figure out what they really meant.
ReplyDelete