Two days ago I voted (early) in the Dallas mayoral run-off election. I didn’t really know that much about either candidate. I had heard their positive ads about themselves, their negative ads about the other guy, and a bit of commentary about them both. I visited both of their websites to see what they had to say about themselves. Not being that much into politics, I didn’t see anything special to make me vote for either of them. I never did hear what party they belong to.
However, I ended up voting for the straight man, and conversely, against the gay man. Yes, (gasp!) I voted based on their sexual preference.
Why did I do that? I do not see myself as a card-carrying member of the right-wing moral majority who strives to “take our country back to a land of Christian values.” But, in reality, I do end up voting like them most of the time. My vote is not so much to legislate morality as it is to make a statement about what I wish the world were like.
For example: I wish there were no abortions. Therefore, I vote against anything that legalizes or encourages abortion and I vote for anything that speaks against or discourages abortion. Do I think that will end abortions? No, unfortunately. Do I think if abortions are illegal then we will have a Christian nation? No, not at all. Laws do not change what is in people’s hearts and often don’t even change how people act. Nevertheless, the principle still stands: I want to live in a world without abortions, so I vote that way.
I struggle with knowing what role to take in my country’s affairs. After thinking about it quite a bit, I’ve realized that the dissonance I experience is because the fact that I’m a Christian is much more important to me than the fact that I’m an American. Physically I am at home as an American citizen, but spiritually I am displaced as an alien—I don’t belong here, and the affairs of my (or any) human government are really only incidental to my life. My allegiance is to a higher potentate, and in many, many ways, it really doesn’t matter what laws are passed or who is elected. True, certain laws may make my life richer (or not) or happier (or not), but I view all of that as pretty much irrelevant, because I don’t really belong here.
Back to the Dallas mayoral election. When I apply my principles to the election, it comes out this way: I do not want to live in a world where homosexuality is considered normal and on the same par as heterosexuality, so I voted against the man who is endorsed by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. However, if this guy wins the election, Dallas will not be any less Christian than if he didn’t, I know that. But I will have voted in concert with my own political principle: I’d simply rather live in a place that did not affirm homosexuality as just another possible lifestyle.
The Dallas Mayoral election is non-partisan, none of the candidates are associated with a party and they don’t have party primaries. People who run for it tend to only have local governmental experience that is non-partisan (or just business experience). Which isn’t to say they don’t have partisan views, everyone knew that Ron Kirk was basically a Democrat (and he did later run for state office as a Democrat). I don’t know anything about this year’s candidates since I haven’t been following it (not living in Dallas in all).
I haven’t been following the election either, as I’m no longer living in Dallas. I did hear a radio advertisement the other day, criticizing Ed Oakley for his attempt to rezone some land and thus force the landowner to sell his property. Sure it was a negative attack ad, but hey, it’s a serious issue. How can people vote for someone who shows so little respect for property rights?
I’m also not a big fan of cities giving concessions to attract sports stadiums, so Ed Oakley’s fuss over losing the Cowboys stadium to Arlington is bothersome. Dallas doesn’t need to be wasting its time and money on building Jerry Jones a football stadium.
So just off the bat, that’s two reasons against Ed Oakley.
Well, Dallas gets the Super Bowl in 2011, that’s a big money maker for the city.
Yes, but is it really worth it? The city of Arlington is putting up hundreds of millions of dollars to finance the stadium. In exchange we get even more traffic jams–we already have the Rangers’ Ballpark a couple of blocks from the new Cowboys’ stadium. I doubt that a Superbowl will bring in $300 million of value to the city.
And then there’s the use of eminent domain. That land where the stadium is going up wasn’t empty; people used to live there. I’m pretty disgusted with Arlington for agreeing to put up the funds. Dallas really dodged a bullet when they lost the stadium deal. Now Dallas doesn’t have to pay for the stadium, and they still get spillover benefits from hotels and whatnot when the Superbowl crowd comes to town.
I am not familiar with how the Cowboys’ stadium is financed, nor would I suppose that the 2011 Super Bowl (or a likely second Super Bowl hosting in the future) would make up for the money that Arlington has put into the stadium. But when it comes to stadiums/arenas/etc. as a whole, I am pretty apathetic about public financing. It is one of those issues where I believe legislators almost always exaggerate the pros of a stadium while minimizing the cons, and their constituents almost always exaggerate the cons of a stadium while minimizing the pros. Plus, there is a value in stadiums, arenas, and other “entertainment” facilities that cannot be measured monetarily.
In the name of full disclosure, before Jasen outs me, I do make my living working for a company who specializes in retractable roof stadiums, and the new Dallas Cowboys stadium is one of them. But I would hold these views even if I did not work in that industry.
“Plus, there is a value in stadiums, arenas, and other “entertainment” facilities that cannot be measured monetarily.”
I recognize that. I do think that if cities refused to finance them, the owners would still find a way to build them.
I agree. However, until EVERY or nearly every city and state refuses to finance stadiums, owners will just move teams to cities that do offer public financing. It’s an all-or-nothing deal. So, cities have to play ball, pun intended. It’s like all business, boycotting doesn’t do the boycotters any good (and barely hurts the boycottee) unless they get a significant majority of people/groups/cities to join their boycott. If not, the business sells its goods to those who are buying.
Yeah, for example, the Seattle Supersonics are threatening to leave Seattle unless the city gives them a bucket full of money for a new stadium.
A major factor that goes into selling stadiums is development that’s supposed to happen in the area as a result. And that was the baseball stadium has been a big disappointment for Arlington.
Arlington’s government though has had a consistent track record of seeking these can of things (Six Flags, the BallPark, the Olympics). The Olympics would have been cool even if the traffic would have been a complete disaster given the area’s mass transit.
“the traffic would have been a complete disaster given the area’s mass transit.”
Arlington is the nation’s largest city without a public transportation system.
http://www.ci.arlington.tx.us/connections/2001/06/article_04.html
Sigh. If you don’t mind, please follow this link:
http://forums.zealfortruth.org/viewtopic.php?t=3674
for some comments on the topic of this blog post.
I knew that Jew, the Olympic plan was for it to be a regional event (although Arlington’s government was the major force behind trying to get it), and Dallas’ and Ft. Worth’s mass transit wouldn’t be up for it.
Yeah, sorry, I wasn’t criticizing you Jasen. I was just posting that for people who don’t know anything about the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.
It’s kind of dumb for Dallas to have their whole DART system, when it’s basically useless because it only works inside the Dallas city limits. Come on, the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex is huge and sprawling. Mass transit won’t work until *everything* is covered. I’d give up my car if I could get around the entire metroplex conveniently, but it’ll never happen as long as mass transit is left up to the individual cities.