One problem with being eight hours ahead of the US West Coast is that it will be tomorrow before I know what’s happened with the election. Though the parties would do well to read Smithsonian magazine’s timely article on the 1946 midterm election. A historic upset that year resulted in no real change, because the winning party totally misinterpreted the reasons they won, and so lost the next election (that was the one that ended up with the mistaken “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline). In other words, if the Democrats win or come close enough to winning to make moderate Republicans realize people are unhappy with the current adminstration, then we could actually see real change – but it’s only a chance, because there’s plenty of opportunity for them all to blow it after the election.
(Note: Smithsonian was also cooperative and efficient in changing our address to a European one, which is more than can be said of a lot of institutions we deal with.)
There are some interesting propositions on the Arizona ballot. For instance, there are two propositions for a statewide smoking ban, 201 and 206. Personally, I could do without either one, because I’m happy with the way towns can make their own rules. However, I expect one or both with pass. The main difference between them appears on the surface to be whether smoking is permitted in bars (it isn’t in 201, is in 206). Now, 206 was sponsored by the tobacco industry was I was a bit suspiscious of it. On the other hand I don’t much care who sponsors a ballot initiative, if I like what it says. As it turns out, there is one more sneaky difference between the two bills. Prop 201 specifically says that it does not contravene any more restrictive policies that cities and towns may choose to enact – but Prop 206 does. So it would make the smoke-free bars in places like Tempe and Scottsdale open to smoking again. It does still give individual bar owners the right to make their own bars non-smoking,and prohibit minors from entering smoking parts of bars, though the penalties for the latter are extremely light. It will be very interesting to see what happens in both bills pass, since some provisions within them are mutually exclusive.
My pick for muddy thinking is the opposition to Prop 204, which prohibits confining a pig during pregnancy or a calf raised for veal on a farm for all or the majority of a
day in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down and fully extending its limbs or turning around freely. (I have no idea why it’s limited only to pigs and calves.) There are some common-sense exceptions, such as travel, rodeos, and the few days before a pig gives birth. As far as I can tell, the opposition boils down to two points: 1. The sponsors of the proposition are organizations from out of state, and 2. Arizona farmers care for their animals decently and don’t need this kind of law.
I’ve already discussed the first point: who cares who sponsors it, if it’s the right thing to do? Of course there’s the basic human response, “Don’t tell me how to do my job!” I deal with it every day, in my own job. That’s why this is up for a vote, instead of just being imposed from above. As for the second, I believe it’s entirely true. I’m sure that most Arizona farmers respect their animals and treat them humanely, that the exceptions are more likely to be factory farms than family farms, and that in many cases farmers are in the business specifically because they like being able to work with animals. I just don’t see whay that’s a reason not to pass the bill, to weed out the few cruel exceptions.
And then there’s the one to pass an anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment. (Arizona already has a law prohibiting same-sex marriage. This one also prohibits things like domestic-partner benefits. Anyone who’s read much here knows my position on that one (anyone who hasn’t, I don’t think the government has any business legislating who can love whom); what’s interesting to see is the opposition to it – a lot of it is not so much about civil rights, but about money, saying that state, county, and city entities need the freedom to give domestic partner benefits in order to remain competitive and attract the best people. Fascinating.
I will be waiting with bated breath to see the results of this one. I just wish I didn’t have to wait quite so long. I’ll be the slightly blue-ish one, watching election results from over here. (On the other hand, I haven’t seen a campaign ad since leavng the U.S., which has been an incredible luxury.)