Do you happen to have a write up of the presentation? I'd love to see what was said (we wanted to attend, but leaving sandusky became a pain in the ass).

(Reply) (Thread)

You know, I had an audio recorder in my pocket. . . but did I remember to turn it on?

Of course not.

I have my notes, though, that I can share. They're on my thumb drive, so remind me again about it and I'll pull them up for you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'll make a good effort to bring it up thurday

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I really wanted to come, but we ended up driving back east that day.

Of course they want Druids! Next year, we can show up in full regalia and show them how serious we are about this. They can consider this year a warning. :)

(Reply) (Thread)

No worries :) We always miss you when you're not there, but we do get it :)

I hope next year it won't fall so close to laundry day for me. Then I can perhaps dress a little nicer :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

dude, i think thats awesome! the irish nowadays anyways are notoriously conservative! but you may get your ritual. one small step for man......

(Reply) (Thread)

We were very fortunate: the organizers were extremely open and interested, and because we didn't approach them (someone else approached them on our behalf), I think that they were far more willing to listen to us. We also had several local Pagan groups come out to support us, which was very, very nice of them.

I hope to see us do more and more of this as the years go by.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

That's amazing! I'm sure you did an awesome job. Over 100 people is an amazing turnout and I hope that one day our PG can make similar claims. We have presented for our local Religious studies club before but I think we had no more than 50 in attendance.

(Reply) (Thread)

We lucked out getting this gig. I hope next year to see what happens if we get a ritual space!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sorry I wasn't able to make it to the presentation; I'm glad it went well.

In regards to the election: on 820AM this morning, a caller delivered one of the most mind-numblingly stupid arguments I've ever heard on public radio, and that's saying a lot. He claimed that the tax increase vote was "taxation without representation", because such a small number of people voted and disproportionately affected the entire community. I wanted to shout through the radio, "No, you moron, citizens have the right to representation, but exercising it is up to you!" What a maroon.

(Reply) (Thread)

Was he referring to the fact that the tax is on income earned in the city, rather than on residents within the city? Because if so, he may (sort of) have a point: basically, by living outside the city, he has no representation that advocates for him on issues (he cannot vote on city council members, for instance, or the mayor), and he can't even directly vote on the issue (it wasn't on the ballot except in Columbus precincts). I suppose that one could say that he has the right to work elsewhere, but that's sort of like saying that all those laid-off autoworkers are just lazy because they don't have a new job; or you could argue that he could move back into the city in order to have representation, but that's like telling poor minorities to move into the suburbs to get better schools.

If, however, he's arguing that a vote he participated in didn't go his way, then he's got no leg to stand on, at all.

Besides, Columbus pretty much lied and cheated its way to a victory on that particular issue, indicating that they'd have to cut police (despite stimulus money they received to retain those police) and doing their best to misdirect the fact that it doesn't just tax people who live outside the city and work within it. They also entirely failed to advertise the lack of a sunset clause in the tax increase, which means that the notion that this is "just a short-term fix to get us over the hump" is mostly a bald-faced lie. Not that I blame them, but man, the presentation was pretty dirty.

Still, it seems like much-needed money. I suspect, though, that the guy was just a bit more miffed at the fact that the Government now got to have a say in how .5% more of his income was spent instead of him. It's socialism, I tell ya. Or something.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Was he referring to the fact that the tax is on income earned in the city, rather than on residents within the city?

I'm not sure; if so, he did not state it very clearly. For the most part, it just sounded like angry rambling (like so much of call-in radio).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, I like my radio strictly no-call-in, too. :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

the police they were going to cut were not the ones already hired before the money went out, that were bailed out with the stimulus money.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)