New shoes and voting advice

This morning I went to Kohl's (15% off for seniors) to buy a replacement for my Nikes. This would be my third pair in 2009--having discovered that the way to combat hip pain in the middle of the night is to make sure I'm wearing sturdy shoes when exercising or walking during the day. So I did find an exact match for what I bought in the summer, Nike Steady VI, "Nike Steady VI Leather Women's Training Shoe, with textile upper and satin webbing detail." What attracted me to this shoe is its simplicity. It doesn't blink or bling, is plain white and relatively trim. Why women wear ugly fat purple and black shoes, I have no idea. If I do run an errand after exercise class I'm not embarrassed to walk into the grocery store. In fact, until I saw the photo, I didn't even realize the Nike logo was in grey--I guess I can't see it when I'm wearning them.

When I got to the check-out, the beautiful, young cashier noticed my "I voted today," sticker and asked me about the issues, because she was going to vote later--her first election. I told her there were 3 constitutional changes on the ballot, all unneccesary, and I specifically told her about Issue 2, because that's the one that has everyone confused by the conflicting ads. Is it pro-agribusiness or pro-animal rights? Or neither. I advised her (since that's what librarian types do) to vote no on all 3 because regardless of their merits or faults, it wasn't necessary to change the constitution to do what laws or regulations could do. The people in line behind me chimed in and agreed. They were in Columbus from a confluence of two other states that do have casinos (issue 3) and were vigorous in their condemnation of what happens, regardless of what money it brought to the state. Gambling always gets a foot in the door by pleading a good cause--like the lottery was going to solve all our education funding problems--but it's like opening the door to let out a fly, and bats, bees, and burglars come in.

I took a different route home because of the road construction in front of our house and you don't want to have to turn left going or coming. I passed a shopping center I used to frequent in my working days and was amazed by the changes, including a restaurant that is now under another name where my colleagues and I went many times.

Vote NO on Issue 2 Ohio

What is Issue 2?

Issue 2 is a ballot issue that Ohio voters will decide tomorrow, in the November 3, 2009 general election. The issue proposes an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that addresses the care of livestock in Ohio.

The ads are even more confusing than issue 3, sometimes making the same argument for and against. But having worked in the agriculture library for three and a half years and the veterinary medicine library for fourteen (yes, I know that's strange for a Russian major, Spanish/History minor), I'm very, very familiar with the animal rights organizations and agribusiness. Either way, I smell a rat. There is absolutely no need for this. All areas of agriculture and animal health are extremely regulated both for safety and health of humans and animals. No one needs to amend the Constitution for this any more than they need to amend the Constitution to fix sidewalks, repair sewers, or build wind mills.

It's important to remember--there is no definition for "family farm." Not in the dictionary, not in the state constitution. It's just a useful tool for advertising and can mean anything you want it to mean.

The Ohio Department of Agriculture already has the authority to do all the things this newly created board is supposed to do.

Ohio is well covered by animal cruelty laws.

No other state in the nation has anything like this, not even wacko California.

See "Legal Questions and Answers about Issue 2,
The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board Ballot Issue"