News & Views You Can Use
Oct 20, 2004
City Pages
Citizens Like It
ACC citizens seem to like the new option for early voting, in which they may go by the Board of Elections office and vote during the week preceding election day.
"We were very swamped" in previous elections, ACC Elections supervisor Gail Schrader told ACC Commissioners last week. The county is also getting a lot of absentee voters - who can either mail their ballots in or vote at the elections office at 155 E. Washington Street (no longer at the Courthouse). Absentee voters must give a reason for voting by absentee ballot.
Schrader said election workers "hear comments every day" - positive ones - from citizens, although they don't always like having to fill out a special form. That form may eventually be eliminated, if the Georgia Secretary of State's office changes the rules. She told the ACC Mayor and Commission that the numbers of people voting would justify opening a second location for early voting in the future, although staffing it "would cost some money."
Commissioners weren't uniformly impressed with the early voting option; Carl Jordan feared it might "subvert the process," and States McCarter feared early voters might not have enough information to make good decisions.
Early voting is now available in all Georgia counties, and in 30 states. Voting in European countries is generally more convenient than here, and the participation rate higher. Several countries in Europe are experimenting with voting by Internet; according to Newsweek, the U.S. studied making Internet voting available to soldiers, but found it "rife with vulnerabilities."
Athens-Clarke County voters can take advantage of early voting during the week before the Nov. 2 election: Monday, Oct. 25 through Friday, Oct. 29 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. No reason is needed other than convenience.
John Huie votes early and often.
How Wide Is Enough?
ACC Commissioners heard last week from the county committee charged with developing permanent rules to protect ACC's streams, and will probably decide on new rules next month. Four years ago, then-Mayor Doc Eldridge broke a tied commission vote to apply 75-foot buffer protection to some county streams (while others remained unprotected). Since then, the county has moved to protect all streams, but will probably require less than full 75-foot buffers along some streams - especially in areas that are already heavily developed.
Leaving forested buffers along streams protects water quality by naturally filtering rainwater that flows into the creek; when that same water is pumped out for drinking downstream, it will need less treatment. In heavily developed areas downtown, creeks are already piped, paved over and degraded, and it would be difficult to change that now. Creeks in these areas are likely to get only minimal 25-foot buffers, which should encourage infill development in intown areas, according to county engineer Jason Peek. In other areas, buffers will be wider; the committee proposes 50-foot to 75-foot buffers in partially developed "suburban" areas (depending on the area drained by a given creek) and 75-foot buffers in "rural" areas. Buffer widths are measured from creek banks.
In semi-weekly meetings over the past few months, members of the committee have tried to hash out a set of rules acceptable both to developers and environmentalists. The group includes business, industry, UGA and developer representatives, county staffers and members of the planning commission, Upper Oconee Watershed Network and the Federation of Neighborhoods. According to county staffers, any exemptions from buffer requirements must be decided by the county hearings board. Exemptions require proof of hardship and are "extremely difficult" to get.
Since buffer requirements inevitably mean that some property owners will have reduced use of their land, a good bit of discussion has centered around how much reduction is acceptable. Estimates are that some 6,000 parcels of land (out of 36,000 in the county) will be affected to some extent by the buffer rules; in 264 of those parcels, required buffers will take up half or more of the land's area. (These numbers include subdivision lots which have not yet had homes built on them; in those cases, owners will be allowed to build.)
In committee deliberations, leisure services administrator Mike Wharton argued that the rules should consider the wildlife habitat function of stream buffers, and not just their function in protecting drinking water. Seth Wenger of UGA's Institute of Ecology argued that "we can't ever regulate sufficient widths for wildlife" and the county should instead consider purchasing protective easements for wildlife. The county is "working on" that option, according to environmental coordinator Dick Field, who also noted that wetlands and the flood plains of rivers and larger creeks are already well-protected. But Wharton argued that even small streams "provide the base of the food chain" and deserve adequate protective buffers. Jon Williams of the Athens Area Homebuilders' Association didn't like that tack, and said the committee was "not considering the economic impact" of wider buffers on property owners, developers and homebuyers.
When some members pointed out that county projects don't always meet the same standards that are required of private developers, the committee decided the rules should require county projects to undergo the same "environmental areas review."
"It's going to be difficult," commented Public Works Director David Clark, who said it will "add costs" to county projects. The committee's recommendations now go to the mayor and commission, who will probably discuss them at the Thursday, Oct. 21 "agenda-setting" meeting (7 p.m.) and vote on them November 2.
John Huie lives in a wildlife habitat.
But Who Owns Max?
I recently received two phone calls regarding Congressman Max Burns, my representative to the U.S. House. Both were canned - prerecorded and computer generated - suggesting that my vote is important enough to ask for, but not important enough to be asked for by a real person.
The first was by an environmental group. It said that Burns votes against his constituents and sides with the polluters. At least, I'm pretty sure that was the bulk of the message. I hung up: I don't have time for most people, let alone their machines.
Oddly, though, 10 minutes later I got another phone call. This recording was from Burns' folks, and it began with something like, "Vote for Max Burns, conservative champion…"
I hung up, but I'd like to have heard the rest of the recording. I don't know what "conservative champion" means, and I'd like it explained. "Conservatives" own the House, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court.
If they need a "champion," exactly how inept must a governmental body be before it's called into account?
The two phone calls were saying the same thing, essentially, but they represented differing flight patterns toward the same black hole.
The first: Max Burns' environmental record is a joke. His record is bad enough for the League of Conservation Voters to describe it as showing "a blatant bias toward corporate polluters and special interests over Georgia families."
"Rep. Max Burns has repeatedly voted to let corporate polluters off the hook, earning an abysmal 10 percent LCV voting score and a place on our 'Dirty Dozen' list," according to LCV Senior Vice President for Political Affairs Mark Longabaugh. In a press release on the LCV's website, he adds that "Burns has sided with special interests over the health and safety of Georgia families by voting for deeply flawed energy legislation and against clean air standards."
The Sierra Club is equally damning of Burns' record, giving him a rating of zero on environmental issues. Similarly, the American Land Alliance has given Burns a zero rating.
In fairness to the Congressman, it should be noted that he has repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens through the 2004 National Political Awareness Test (NPAT). This test, a "key component of Project Vote Smart's Self-Defense system," asks candidates what issues they will support. It does not ask them which issues they oppose.
Certainly, there may be a dozen reasons why Congressman Burns has refused to provide this information to his constituents.
It seems, however, like a small thing to ask… like getting a real person, instead of a recording, to call me and ask for my vote.
So I'll turn to consider the other side of the argument - Burns as a "conservative champion."
I'll have to confess, from the outset, that I don't know what this means. The term "conservative" is certainly one of the more over used expressions in our political environment and certainly one of the more divisive. Increasingly, the term is assumed to cause a knee-jerk reaction, an automatic carte blanche approval: no discussion, no questions asked - the inversion of the other great Nerve Ending of American politics, "liberal."
"Champion" is equally problematic, because the only people I've heard referring to Burns as such are on his own campaign staff.
However, I've written previously of the Congressman's willingness to manipulate (or ineptitude in using) information to influence his constituents. I should not be surprised, I guess, that the Congressman continues to plant his rhetorical banner firmly in the epicenter of the Jackass Bogs.
So I'll turn to the evidence.
Again, the League of Conservation Voters has described Burns as, essentially, a corporate stooge, a congressman willing to "let corporate polluters off the hook."
"Georgians need to ask whose side is Rep. Burns really on. Clearly his record shows that he wants to reward his corporate contributors through policy paybacks and then stick his constituents with the bill, and threaten their health through support for environmentally-damaging legislation," says LCV's Longabaugh on the organization's webpage.
If this is true, then it might give some insight into what "conservative" means for Burns.
Burns has an impressive record of supporting business interests. He has received a Spirit of Enterprise award from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Similarly, the National Federation of Independent Business gave Burns a 100 percent rating for voting their way during 2003. The Business-Industry Political Action Committee gave Burns a 100 percent rating for voting their preferred positions, as did the National Retail Federation, and the Associated Builders and Contractors.
Okay, "conservative" means, according to Burns' voting record, voting in support of corporations, industries, builders, contractors and business owners. We can count on him to take the side of folks who are organized, have a lot of money and who have the political clout to ensure that votes break their way.
And this might seem to have little, ostensibly, to do with his stance on the environment. However, the environmental lobby, arguably, meets none of the above criteria.
So it's an unfair fight, really, pitting those of us who breathe against organizations that - as abstract, corporate entities - don't. If it were merely a betting matter, I'd know where to place my money: C'mon Southern Company… Daddy's little baby needs a new pair of lungs…
But if Burns is siding with corporate interests, it also means that he's contributing to the mess that they're making of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. And according to David Gardiner, an independent environmental consultant, that mess has the potential to get much worse - and with Max Burns' unflagging support.
According to Gardiner, five of the largest investor-owned carbon dioxide-emitting electric power companies in the United States are responsible for 25 percent of the "electric sector carbon dioxide emissions, and are significant contributors to acid rain, soot, smog, and toxic air pollution."
One of the five is Southern Company of Atlanta, Georgia.
Does "conservative champion" necessarily mean degrading the environment of the people who elected him? I didn't introduce the term, certainly, and I have no idea what the hell it means.
But I don't think it means what Burns thinks it does.
Samuel Prestridge is a writer living in Athens.
Cowboys and Tiggers
Cowboys and Tiggers have at least one thing in common: they're both individualists. One of the cable networks has western movies and old cowboy television shows airing every Saturday. It's a pleasure to watch the old shows many of us remember from childhood. But in each show the cowboy relishes being alone. The bunk house is simply a building where the individuals gather to be by themselves. The range is nothing more than a wide open space to wander in alone. Their values are typically self-serving and egotistical, even when rescuing a "damsel in distress."
Living and being in community is simply not a reality for the cowboy, nor an existential reality he seeks. The "I" or the "me" dominates, and the cowboy centers himself around the notion that "what's best for me is best for everybody."
A.A. Milne has a similar character in his Winnie-the-Pooh stories. The character, of course, is that funny but irritating Tigger. Tigger, while appearing to desire community with others, constantly says and does things that disrupt the very relationships he seeks and destroys the opportunities that could make for a better life. While Tigger coaxes our sympathy for him on the one hand, he frustrates us on the other.
Tigger seeks really what is best for himself. All other personalities and contributions of others are drawn into his attempts to always outdo and top anyone else. And, like the cowboy, Tigger seems to feel there are no limitations or boundaries he needs to honor. The world and everyone in it exists for his purposes.
Cowboys and Tiggers also assume there are no weaknesses or limitations with which they have to contend. Cowboys and Tiggers live in an illusion. They're playing out a myth that superhuman strength will always prevail.
I'm afraid you and I have bought into their illusion. We've been sold the idea that with hard work and determination there are no obstacles we have to consider in our pursuit of the American dream. Each of us has the capacity within to make great things happen, even to change the world. We simply have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and make it happen! We don't need others, for all things are possible. If we do need others, it is only to make our mark in the world.
The value of community is not cherished by cowboys and Tiggers. Others may have different ideas or a different agenda of how the planet can be sustained, war prevented, or the hopes and dreams of others realized.
Our current state of affairs is one example of the cowboy and Tigger mentality. These days feel very much like the Reagan days when strength was the number-one priority and a more than adequate nuclear arsenal was the way to display that strength. The community of nations was the stage where we would fly our military muscle for everyone to admire and fear. The community both at home and abroad was nothing more than a means to our end.
Homelessness and poverty increased during those years just as they are today. Individual rights were checked, for individuals were to exist only for the stated agenda, just as today. The world was held captive as the superpowers sought to outdo each other in an arms race, just as it is today.
We had a cowboy in office then, and we have a cowboy in office today, and Tigger is gleefully going about his destructive ways.
With all the talk about a nuclear buildup in countries that would seek our harm, why is it we want to go it alone? Why do we snub our noses at the community of nations, whether they be friend or foe? Why do we invest billions in weapons systems when homelessness and poverty are on the rise and our understanding of community is replaced once again by an out-of-control ego?
An unhealthy ego leads to blindness. Egotistical people have a blind spot that not only keeps from seeing themselves properly, but makes for a murky vision of the world. Limitations truly exist; weaknesses are really there: they just can't see them. Limitations and weaknesses are a part of life, and when respected really add strength and character. To pretend that either they aren't there or can be overcome only leads to suffering and destruction.
Americans have never prided themselves on being able to claim weakness and limitation. It perhaps goes back to our cowboy days and frontier spirit. But we don't score high marks in admitting we're really a mixed bag: we possess both strengths and weaknesses; we can expand boundaries, but are also limited. We find it difficult to be human.
Every religious tradition critiques an out-of-control ego and shows how honoring limitations and weaknesses are a path of holy living. They humbly proclaim in their unique way: to have life, one must lose it. To unseat the ego for a higher purpose than self is to become a vessel for goodness and harmony to flow into the world. To let go of self and the all prevailing "I" is to remove the blinders and see others as just as important as yourself. Hope then has an opportunity to ignite a flame that can be passed to others, and the world becomes enflamed in compassion instead of a nuclear cloud.
By learning to let go of selfish wants and desires, faith is deepened and love calls forth a fuller and richer life.
The very existence of nuclear weapons in our nation and across the globe only points out our moral and spiritual blindness. But when cowboys and Tiggers are playing around recklessly with our lives, what more can be expected?
Benjamin Hoff in The Tao of Pooh writes about an old Chinese saying: "One disease, long life; no disease, short life."
"In other words," he says, "those who know what's wrong with them and take care of themselves accordingly will tend to live a lot longer than those who consider themselves perfectly healthy and neglect their weaknesses." So, in that sense at least, a weakness of some sort can do you a big favor, if you acknowledge that it's there. The same goes for limitations, whether Tiggers know it or not - and Tiggers usually don't. That's the trouble with Tiggers, you know: they can do everything. Very unhealthy.
We have a cowboy who bunks at the White House and a Tigger is on the loose. Most of us watch television westerns from an adult perspective; some still play cowboy.
Mike Marsingill is pastor of Young Harris Memorial United Methodist Church here in Athens.
Last Week's Scorecard
Athens-Clarke County Animal Control responded to 105 calls.
8 complaints of animal cruelty
5 bite cases
14 complaints of barking dogs
10 citations for ordinance violations
35 animals impounded
30 dogs
2 cats
3 livestock or wildlife
27 dogs placed
7 adopted
18 reclaimed
2 turned over to other agencies
ACC Animal Control press release for the week of Oct. 7 to Oct. 13.
City Pages RSS Feed
Share This Page 
View the Paper in PDF
Past Issues
