How the Rural Vote

 

When it comes to voting, and attitudes connected to voting, I can only speak for myself. I really don't know if others see these topics like I do or not. With that said I would like to share with you how voting happens where I live and vote (Clark County, Madison township (rural), Ohio). I suspect it could be quite different where you live. It would be fun to compare.

 

Location:

 



the first Presbyterian Church (behind a house used for church offices)

Our poling station is in The First Presbyterian Church on main street. Why a church? I really don't know. The "powers that be" have decided this in years past. It used to be at the elementary school library, then the Catholic meeting hall for years, now its at the First Presbyterian Church.

 

 

 

The door with no sill

 

Rumor has it that the church is used because it is one of the few buildings in town that is fully handicapped accessible. Meaning that our doorway doesn't have that little aluminum sill that so many doors have. Apparently, that sill restricted people's access to voting. Never mind that you can vote by mail from the comfort of your own home. But that is another topic.

 

 

 

 

The Funeral Home

It could be as simple as the Church parking lot is the largest paved and lighted lot in town. Or it could be the central location on Main Street between the funeral home and the AmVets hall, both of which "borrow" the lot for their big events. No one cares. Some church members are probably involved in any of those events anyway.

 

the Amvets hall

Location:

 

We vote down stairs in a basement classroom, this is new this year. We have always voted upstairs in a side section of  the church sanctuary. I like the basement better. Santuaries are not really made for the contentious issues of voting.

 

 

stairs/chair lift to voting

 

 

 

 

Madison Twp rural to the left

We  show our picture ID's, or a utility bill, etc. at our poling station. I don't know what happens this year since there has been such a commotion about this topic nationally. Doesn't mean much here. The election workers at the desk likely know who you are anyway. It might be a retired teacher you had in school, a coach, a local businessman, or whoever. The precinct is not so big. I voted at 9:30 A.M and was number 102. My daughter voted at noon and was number 207. Seems like turn out was very heavy. She had to wait in line for 15 minutes.

To get to the voting area you have to go past the "Election Day Salad Bar" that the church sponsors as a fundraiser for the "Womens Association". The Womens Association uses the funds for various projects around the church or community as seems reasonable to the ladies. The salad bar is one of the big reasons I don't see any reason to vote early. Why would I want to miss such a fine meal and social event? (A note to the novice: the food goes fast so get there before noon.)

 

 

 

 

 



big sign points to Salad bar little sign to polling station

 

 

 

 



not much store bought here

There was some excitement today, They ran out of pie! A first in the history of the salad bar. Some people shared, others went without since they had made two. One for the salad bar and one for the family. No one starved.

So that is how it is done where I live. There won't be any disturbances or heated discussions or polling place campaigning. That stuff would be rejected by everyone as pretty uncivil. You come. You vote. You eat with your neighbor. And you go home.

 



some get there first "I voted today" sticker

How is it done where you live? 

 

 

 

 



 

 

Trunk or Treat

 Trunk or Treat is one of the fun things we do in conjunction with our church each year. We take our farm's pig trailer, washed and sanitized, and decorate it for a Halloween themed fun house. This year's theme was Angry Birds.

 

some friends from Cedarville College helped out

 

there are typically several hundred trick or treaters that come to the event in two hours.

 

 

 

Republicans Democrats Pigs and People

You can learn a lot about life at the farm. In my world that means I can learn alot about life from pigs. I spend hours watching and caring for pigs. Which means I have hours to think about life and how it all fits together.

Pioneers and Settlers
can you spot the difference?

Pigs naturally cluster in groups when they are resting and calm. They seem to take turns moving about as individuals. It doesn't take the group long to learn from the discoveries of the individual. The individual sounds an alarm, finds feed and water, checks the fences, attacks the weak, and fights the intruder. This has led me to an observation about people.

One observation is that there are two basic kinds of social activities. There are pioneers and there are settlers.

 The pioneer is the individual that, to borrow a phrase from Star Trek, "Dares to go where no man has gone before". He is the curious one that is on the outer edge of the societal group. He is trying new things, getting into trouble, exploring, building, and in general is a restless soul that is internally motivated to seek out new things. Neil Armstrong with his "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement as he first stepped on the moon, exemplifies the pioneer spirit.

Neil Armstrong

Star Trek

Settlers are more numerous and follow behind the pioneers. Settlers move as groups. They organize groups into social structures that provide safety, focus, and purpose to the group. The Pilgrims seem to be a good example. They came to the Americas and set up a society that provided safety, focus, and purpose. They came as a group, lived and died as a group, and are forever known as a group ( The Pilgrims).

Mayflower Compact

A second observation is that both the pioneers and settlers have a very important role to play. Looking at pigs I learn that the lone pigs (the pioneers) will be the first to investigate and warn of danger. The pigs in groups (the settlers) are the safest and most comfortable.

 some naturally investigate and others group together

What does this have to do with Republicans and Democrats?

I see Republicans as viewing the world first and foremost as pioneers. They celebrate the individual. They exalt in the freedom to explore, to investigate, to do new things. And they tend to live and die by their success or failings as individuals.

I see Democrats as viewing the world first and foremost as settlers. They celebrate the group. They see the value and strength of a group. They know that a group that stays together, best protects the individuals in the group.

I see both as necessary and equal. Not as one is right and one is wrong. Without Columbus (the pioneer) the Pilgrims (the settlers) would never have sailed. Both are needed and essential to a strong society.

To me this has been the great success of the constitutional republic known as the United States of America. We have a society that has exalted the individual (pioneers) enough to encourage and free them to go and explore, investigate, and do new things while at the same time recognizing that these activities are part of a larger group (settlers). The pioneers are constantly stretching and pulling against the organizational rules of the settlers and the settlers are constantly trying to come along behind and organize the new discoveries of the pioneers into safe communities and structures.



The great political debate of our time is, "Where is the proper balance of these two forces?" I spoke of the strength and usefulness of balanced forces in my earlier blog about bridges.

I realise this whole discussion is based off stereotypes  and becomes very difficult immediately upon closer examination of individual people. The pioneers act like settlers and settlers act like pioneers. Republicans recognize the value of groups and Democrats the value of free exploration. For me at least, I am pulled internally first one direction then the other. I resort to the stereotypes to help view the issue from a general perspective.


When the president said, "If you have a business, you didn't build that, somebody else did..." or whatever the exact quote was. What happened? The pioneer in each of us jumped up and objected very stridently, pointing out that we had gone where no one else would go, had taken the risk, and overcome the troubles and challenges. The settler in each of us  jumped up and cheered that someone would stand and represent the group's contribution to that effort in creating a stable and safe society.

President Obama: You didn't build that somebody else did

Neil Armstrong went to the moon individually, but he stood on the shoulders of a society to get there.

Both views seem valid to me. There is an issue of balance that must be found. Pioneers have a responsibility to live within and support the society established by the settlers. The settlers have a responsibility to create a society where the pioneers are encouraged and rewarded and can flourish.

All of this brings me to the question I have wrestled with in my understanding of the Christian view of the Church, "Does God deal with man as individuals or as groups?" or "Is God primarily righteous and just or primarily loving and gracious?" These forces are pulling against each other also. But that will have to wait for another day.

Maybe I have been spending too much time with my pigs? What do you think?

 (picture from pinterest by Kicks and Giggles)

Who/what is a farmer?

It was a simple question, "Can you describe for me, not necessarily in formal definition terms, who this "farmer" is that each of you has refered to in your presentation?" The answer was very revealing.

A farmer and his wife?

I had just listened to a panel of three food consumers talk about food and their thoughts and feelings related to food for the better part of an hour.

 I had heard the nutritionist talk about her frustrations in not being able to get unbiased research since research is only funded by people that care about the result.

 I had listened to the food blogger talk about how she only trusted her peers and a farmer she knew, for information. Apparently, making no demands on them for academic or practical expertise.

 I had listened to the chef speak passionately about her love of all things food and how she trusted the food she could source herself even helping in the fields. That food that was touched, as it grew, was more comfortable to her.

And from each one I understood a similar sentiment expressed, there is healthy food and there is unhealthy food. Healthy food seemed to come from this "farmer" that they loved to relate to and therefore trust.

The panelist had looked to this "farmer" as an expert on human nutrition, food preservatives, GMOs, crop protection, land resource management, genetics, and on and on. To some degree, it seemed like any question related to food that caused the panel discomfort was refered back to the "farmer" for an expert solution. The farmer would be trusted as long as the panelist knew him personally.

It seemed like an awful lot of weight of responsibility to be placing on the shoulders of one person.
It only seemed natural to ask who this person was and what he looked like. What a wonderful fellow.

The answer was striking. A farmer was described by the panelist, as best I could understand,  as the person that put a seed into the ground and worked really really hard. And an added bonus was if the farmer had a "story" to tell.

These two actions made a person a farmer and therefore a trusted expert on all questions about food.
(no offense to the panelist, who spoke honestly and sincerely as far as I could tell)

I was uncertain that I would be seen as a "farmer" since I hire employees and machines to put seeds in the ground and have a degree in Ag Economics. Further, I employ an army of contract speciallist, that the consumer will never know personally, to answer the myriad of questions that need expert answers in growing a crop.

What are your thoughts? How much responsibility do you place on the "farmer"?

Changing times/Changing Definitions

Sometimes talking about how people think leaves me with a headache. Trying to make the connection between how we think and the actions those thoughts energize can seem rather pointless. It is how it is, so why think about how it is?

Here is an article that seems to cut through a lot of trees in an attempt to see the forrest.

The article addresses post modernist thought and its affect on "tolerance".

Not Your Mother's Kind of Tolerance

By Jonathan Parnell | Aug 02, 2012 05:33 pm

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=94431c7fc1ffa54485d1c84fe&id=3ae5e3a1c8&e=075150a91a

I am just starting to wonder, "If I don't like postmodernist thought, do I like modernist thought? What came before modernism?"

Oh, dear! Here comes my headache again.

Thanks for pondering these things with me.

Life, Liberty and Happiness

We hold these truths to be self evident.......that all men are endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property)......

Do you get nervous when the personal means to life (health care choices) gets taken over by the govenment? Do you feel uneasy with the lose of liberty you experience when you are forced to buy insurance that pays for things that you think are immoral. Does the President scare you when he brags about taking over the property of the auto industry and wanting to do the same with everything else?

Here are some thoughts from a book you might like to ponder.

Communal Instincts

 "The Western World puts a far greater emphasis on freedom than the Eastern World. Our Western concept of liberty has its roots in two master ideas: one, the fact that man has a soul; and the other, that man has the right to own private property. Both these ideas are related one to the other. Man is free on the inside because he can call his soul his own; he is free on the outside because he can call property his own. Property is the economic guarantee of human freedom as the soul is its spiritual guarantee of liberty."
+Fulton J. Sheen, +JMJ+ -Daily Sheen-


World view matters!

Just some more thoughts for you.

Thanks

· ·

The Bridge: thoughts on society's debates

Downtown Des Moines Iowa

The bridge was unique. The bridge was beautiful. Lots of bridges are. Engineers seem to have a silent competition for who can design the most unique and beautiful bridge. This one ranks quite high on my list.

 All bridges serve the same purpose. Bridges help you overcome an obstacle that is blocking your progress. Sometimes the obstacle is only slowing you down. Sometimes the obstacle has you completely stopped.

I am not an engineer. I have no training in the technical art of engineering a bridge. My observation is that bridges are always about balancing opposing forces. There is always an element of stress/pulling and an element of compaction/compression in a successful bridge. The beautiful bridges use a minimum of material in this balance.

This bridge has a deck that is pulling down on the steel cables. The cables are pulling down on the arch, compressing it. The arch is pressing down on the riverbanks with the full wieght of the bridge. In the mean time the bowed deck is trying to swing into a straight line under the arch but is stopped because the concrete deck cannot be compressed enough to make it fit. The whole thing becomes a beautiful bridge that has balanced opposing forces.

All of this seems to be a metaphor for our current society. There seem to be several opposing forces making themselves known. These forces are all asking, "How do we get over this obstacle that is before us?" Currently, the only available answer seems to be for one force to overcome the other. I wonder if we, as a society, might be better advised to see if we can find a way to use these opposing forces to build a bridge across our obstacle. A bridge that combines our abilities to pull with our abilities to resist, and in so doing make a way forward that has great strength and beauty. A bridge that can speed the passage of those who come to this obstacle in the future.

I don't have that design yet. Do you?