Good morning.
Tuesday in Whitewater will be mostly sunny with a high of 79. Sunrise is 6:12 and sunset is 7:41 for 13 hours 29 minutes of daylight. The moon is a waxing gibbous with 93.2 percent of its visible disk illuminated.
The Whitewater Finance Committee meets at 5 PM and the Aquatic Center Committee meets at 5:30 PM.
On this day in 1835, the first Great Moon Hoax article is published in The New York Sun, announcing the discovery of life and civilization on the Moon:
The “Great Moon Hoax,” also known as the “Great Moon Hoax of 1835,” was a series of six articles published in The (New York) Sun, beginning on August 25, 1835, about the supposed discovery of life and civilization on the Moon. The discoveries were falsely attributed to Sir John Herschel and his fictitious companion Andrew Grant.
The story was advertised on August 21, 1835, as an upcoming feature allegedly reprinted from The Edinburgh Courant. The first in a series of six was published four days later on August 25. These articles were never retracted; however, on September 16, 1835, The Sun admitted the articles were in fact fabricated.
Last night, on a 6-1 vote, the Whitewater School Board voted to approve a resolution authorizing the school district budget to exceed its revenue limit by $5,500,000 per year for four years for non-recurring purposes. This resolution will go before the district’s voters in November.
The possibility of an operational referendum has been a topic in this community, most notably on social media. For nearly everyone discussing this referendum, the only significant question is whether they support or oppose the resolution. This libertarian blogger has a different matter to address today. (For those who want a yes or no on the referendum question, any other aspect of the topic seems like a dodge. On the contrary, I have an equally significant, if not greater, issue to consider today. If others cannot grasp that there are underlying considerations, well, that myopia is theirs alone.)
While there is a reasonable case to be made against a referendum now (as against a smaller one in the spring), nearly everyone who has expressed opposition to the referendum publicly has failed — often embarrassingly — to do so.
My aim is not to make that case against the referendum, but to note how inadequate the approaches of last night’s referendum critics were. This is no small matter: this community has descended so that many of our fellow residents lack the emotional and intellectual discipline to contend over a topic persuasively.
Again and again, for those too ignorant or overwrought to understand: every medium favors a particular tone in communication. Print, audio, video, and in-person presentations are all different in their nature and so in their limits. In general, the more immediate the medium, the calmer and subtler the presenter should be. Print can carry strong invective, audio mild invective, video even somewhat less, and in-person debate and presentation the least of all. In place of invective, one substitutes humor —even wit — and polemics delivered in a more relaxed, conversational style.
People are angry over many topics; to advance their objectives effectively, they must tailor their presentations to the medium in which they’re presenting, setting aside intense feeling for clever advocacy. This is obvious to most, yet a few remain oblivious.
In the discussion last night, two commenters speaking against the referendum were, respectively, dull and dyspeptic. I’d take dull over dyspeptic, but neither is impressive.
This brings me, now, to board member Maryann Zimmerman, the one board member who voted against a November referendum. One can guess that her politics (so best as I can discern them) are certainly not mine. (We have never met or spoken, as I occupy an intentionally distant perch, although I did once notice her and her family at one of Whitewater’s Christmas parades. They were a charming, endearing sight, truly so.)
And yet, and yet, can this community not see that her manner on this topic, and on other topics (notably open government), is superior to the underthought or overwrought approaches of others who might share her politics? Or, for that matter, even some of those who oppose her politics? She is more composed in manner and more insightful in her counter-proposal than others who oppose the referendum. It’s not even close.
I had this conversation with a journalist last night: while in opposition to anyone in a debate I would always prepare as though an underdog, of everyone who has been on the board in the last twenty years, Zimmerman would strike me as the most formidable opponent. (Someone in this community once wrote to me that Zimmerman did not know what she was doing. Oh no, she knows exactly what she’s doing, and has a far better grasp than the man who thought otherwise.)
We do not have, however — and sadly will not have — a discussion over referendums where those on both sides present well and formidably. That’s the failing of this community over the last generation: we have a school district and a college campus, yet lack the proper discipline that learning in those institutions should bring.
_____
Forthcoming topics (in no particular order): Development in Downtown Whitewater (Follow-Up), The Value of a UW-Whitewater Education, A New Ethics Ordinance, Polling Places in the City (Further Considerations), and Steps for a Public Interest Campaign.
Fly Over Schiaparelli Crater on Mars – Animated From Orbiter Imagery: