God; direct & indirect causes; & the death of Saul, king of Israel

excerpts from 1 Chronicles 10

v2 The Philistines overtook Saul and his sons…

v3 The battle pressed hard against Saul, and the archers found him, and he was wounded by the archers.

v4… Therefore Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.

v13a So Saul died for his breach of faith… he did not keep the command of the Lord…

v13b-14 [And also Saul] consulted a medium, seeking guidance. He did not seek guidance from the Lord.

v14b Therefore the Lord put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David.

3 human events led to Saul’s death. A battle with the Philistines turned against and his foes began to defeat his army. Saul did not escape, being struck by an arrow. Lastly, as he was dying, he hastened his death by killing himself (rather than dying directly from the blow of his enemy).

Yet, the text tells us that Saul’s death was a sentence. Not the natural results of losing a battle, not random, not chance. And not a sentence from the direct agent of his death, but a sentence from the Lord. It was against the Lord that he had sinned, not keeping his commands & seeking guidance elsewhere.

[This was not the intention. Saul was the first human king of Israel. In a sense, he replaced God, who had been their king and Lord. At the very least, he was an steward of that throne. The Lord had ruled and guided the Israelites according to his Law, created for their good, and consulted his will, the only omniscient sovereign source of guidance.

Saul should've picked up where God left off. He had no sovereign, all-knowing will. He obviously was far short when it come to moral purity and upright character, attempting many times to murder his servant David. But he threw off the light burden of his Lord, accepted the heavy yoke of depending on himself, and brought the Israelites into corruption and servitude. This was the source of his guilt.]

How do we reconcile the last bold statement with the first 3? Archers shot him, he falls on his sword, God puts him to death? They can’t all be literally true. The Lord rules the earth through direct and indirect causes. This the case here.

Take this truth and hope in and fear it. He’s in control, but he also allowed it to happen (and we all have many it’s).

John Piper writes in his book Spectacular Sins,

By ordain I mean that God either caused something directly or permitted it for wise purposes. This permitting is a kind of indirect causing, since God knows all the factors involved and what effects they will have and he could prevent any outcome. So his permission is a kind of secondary causing, but not a direct causing.

The credit card thief apprehended…

This is a continuation of this story/post.

It was a woman that I knew.  At least, I had met her several times and spoken with her briefly.  Originally, she was the wife of a friend of a friend.  So there were several degrees of separation and besides helping she and her husband out a few times (putting them up in a motel for a friend who reimbursed me, buying them some food), I barely interacted with her and had not spoken with her for several months.

I ID’d the photo and the detective said he already had leads and ended up arresting her that day.  A few days later I called and she was no longer in jail.

A few disconcerting things I’ve learned since then: she is very familiar with other social service providers/folks in the community.  And her reputation is not a good one and several people I spoke to knew she was in jail and were not surprised to hear what had happened.  It is likely that they played my friend and played him big time.  What do you do with that?  How do you keep that from creating bitterness, either towards them or towards others who lead transient lifestyles?  I wanted to protect my friend from that knowledge, but unfortunately he was dragged into it because she dropped his name to the police and he received a call.  So now he knows, or can at least presume, at the deception.

There were a few other ways that she and her husband betrayed the trust given them and exhibited poor stewardship in the investment others made in them with time and money (and probably love/emotions, though that’s harder to measure and is just as much about the person giving as the person receiving).   I won’t go into any details.

I saw her husband recently while he and I were in the same room– me doing tax prep volunteering, he one of the clients  that day.  It was awkward.  I don’t know if that was my perception/expectation and he was just having a bad day, or if there was real tension.  If he wasn’t a part of it, I will assume he at least knew by this point what had happened and would expect he knew that she was using my credit card, though he could have believed it was with my permission.  (her story to the police was that it was my card #, given to her by one of my friends who had asked if I was willing to help them out).

So what do I do with that relationship, if that’s what you can call it?  I have no negative feelings towards her husband, but am I adding a burden or possibly entering into a conflict by trying to reach out to him in some way?  Or in just talking to him if I see him at the library?  I don’t know.

I have not heard from the police again, though I did receive a copy of the charges and a victim packet from the State’s Attorney’s office.  I returned that and haven’t heard from them either.  I will plan on this being the end unless something crazy happens.

Anyway, I hope this has provided some clarity about what to do if your credit card info is stolen/used, how the justice system works, and provokes thinking about what to do when we’re a victim.

Seven Social Processes that Grease the Slippery Slope of Evil

• Mindlessly taking the first small step
• Dehumanization of others
• De-individuation of self (anonymity)
• Diffusion of personal responsibility
• Blind Obedience to Authority
• Uncritical conformity to group norms
• Passive tolerance of evil through inaction or indifference

All of this in new or unfamiliar situations.

This was a list created by Philip Zimbardo.  You can view his TED talk here.  It’s about how circumstances determine evil rather than people being set as either good or bad apples.  His primary recent example is the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal.  What would drive people we thought were good soldiers to do this?  A combination of things opened the pathway, including superiors who turned a blind eye because they wanted to soften up the detainees for interrogation, being located in an area rarely visited, working the night shift, etc…

It’s not all grim as he also hypothesizes that the “Lucifer Effect” (also the name of a book he’s written) can also be wielded to turn people into heroes, rather than monsters.

If you’ve ever heard of the Stanford Prison experiment (very famous, perhaps infamous, psychology experiment back in the 60s or 70s), this is the guy who created and ran that experiment.  Check out the talk, it’s about 23 minutes in length.

SLED embodied

This is part of my Roe-tradictions series.  Read the intro.

SLED is an acronym popularized by a pro-life apologist named Scott Klusendorf. It stands for Size, Level of Development, Environment, and Degree of Dependency.  He asserts that these are the only differences between a newborn baby and a fetus and argues therefore that both should have equal moral status.

The following news from 2/7/09 in Florida brings focus to the Environment argument.

Doctor loses license in live birth abortion case CNN.com

A doctor’s license was revoked Friday in the case of a teenager who planned to have an abortion but instead gave birth to a baby she says was killed when clinic staffers put it into a plastic bag and threw it in the trash.

According to Florida law, “A fetus born alive cannot be put to death even if its mother intended to have an abortion.”

If you’ve read my ethics introduction you can see how fun this is for me. First, I detect in myself an intellectually jovial attitude. I want to stop and make sure we acknowledge the tragedy of what happen and not dehumanize and make an example of it. I grieve that this woman went to have an abortion and rejoice that a miracle saved her from going through with such an act. Unfortunately, for all involved, this miracle was unexpected and people panicked. I do not think that the nurses there would ever plan to murder a child nor do I make the claim that abortion clinics in general favor this kind of action. However, justice needs to be done and I hope that Dr. Renelique not only is not granted an appeal for his Dr license but also that people are prosecuted because murder demands justice.

That being said, this touches on several of my ethics principles. First, motives. The Florida Law talks about intentions. They don’t matter once the fetus is born.  Since abortion is legal in this country for any reason and at any time (a combination of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood), intentions cannot matter before the fetus is born.  

This doesn’t bother me because I’d argue that, since motives matter, the intention to abort a child is wrong in the first place. So, Florida is saying that a fetus (a non-alive thing) that somehow becomes alive must stay alive. Moments before, if it dies, okay. Moments after, if it comes out, save it. This baby was in need of serious medical help. They didn’t burn it with chemicals, or stab it, as they would’ve done in the womb—so it was not an act of commission, but omission that they wish to prosecute.

So the Florida law must mean that the medical professionals are obligated to do everything to keep alive a child born alive, even the product of a botched abortion if the fetus is barely hanging on. Literally, seconds or minutes between the abortion attempt and the delivery and the legality changes! This leads into another of my principles, human rights contradictions. The issue of time there is one of them.

To come back to SLED, what the Florida Law is likely responding to is an environmental change.  We turn a blind eye to what happens in the womb, which is considered a right to privacy issue because it is the women’s body (and under current law and public opinion, justifiably so). But we are also people that are moved by imagery, and the thought and idea of a delivered baby being abandoned makes us all cringe on the inside. Girls at proms abandon babies in the bathroom and become national news. Moms drown their kids in a lake and blame a black car thief and the story is national news for months. We are sensitive to this.

All I’m saying is, to be consistent, we should be concerned about both. In this specific situation, either this doctor and his office should be excused for disposing of the live baby or they should be criminals for what they were attempting to do in aborting the kid.

*The response of the philosopher is the most consistent from a pro-abortion rights perspective. They might say that we can commit infanticide until the age of 2 or so, when the baby obtains moral consciousness. For more info, read Peter Singer, a philosopher and animal rights activist that has led this intellectual movement.

**For a more biased account of this tragedy, read this article at Town Hall. It has a much funnier and crass way of saying what I said: In abortion doctrine, when a “tumor of the womb” passes through the birth canal into the open air, it suddenly becomes a living child. This Miracle of Transpostvagination is a great mystery…

***The day after I posted this a friend sent me a link to another CNN news story. In an effort to be as intellectually honest as possible and to consider all angles, I’d like to link to and quote it.  This article gives more of a defense of the abortion clinic, including the following information from an unnamed “expert”: ” ‘the standard of care for a premature infant delivered at less than 23 weeks is not to attempt resuscitation,’ so even if the baby had been born at a hospital, no measures would have been undertaken to save it, according to the affidavit.”

A new word I bring the masses: “Roe-tradictions”

Please see my introduction to my ethics post.  There I explain my main ethical principles I use to help me discern between black, white, grey, right, wrong, freedom, obligation, etc… I don’t have a philosophy spelled out but I list 5 principles that are kind of like 5 prisms through which I view an ethical quandary.

Within ethics, I am particularly interested in human (legal) rights (to make a distinction between that and “doing” social justice, in which of course I am strongly in favor) and bioethics.  And if you can combine the two of them at the same time– well you will have my attention.

Over the past few years, I have kept track of some news articles related to pro-life issues that either show anectodal proof of exceptions to common sense (persistent vegetative state people who wake up or extreme premie babies that survive abortion attempts) or provide some of these human rights/legal contradictions that I discussed under point 2 in my ethics introduction.

A recent incident in Florida inspired me to find those articles again and meditate on the different issues and motives at play and expose some of the contradictions inherent in American abortion rights discourses.  I will write about it in my next post.

I am going to start compiling and commenting on them in a “Legal and human rights contradictions surrounding pro-life issues in America” ethics series. Or, American abortion rights contradictions for semi-short.  In a word? “Roe-tradictions.”

Introduction to my ethics

I have a lot of interest in ethics. I’ve got my own brand of ethics I guess you could say, and rather than try and explain it on a theoretical level, it would be easier to just do application. I have some favorite principles that I’ll briefly list and discuss.

1) Human rights discourses and contradictions. One of my favorite classes in college was Anthropology of Human Rights. Among other things, we looked at lists and beliefs in human rights and how they were often mutually exclusive. For example (I wrote my research paper on this) the United Nations supports full abortion rights yet comes down strongly against female feticide, aka targeted abortion of female fetuses. The UN, in its various human rights discourses, contradicts itself.

2) If at all possible, be libertarian. I prefer less laws, not more laws. I am (this is a generality) for legislating morality when it directly harms the object receiving the action (drunk driving, murder) but okay with allowing things, even if I think they’re immoral, if it only has an indirect effect (adultery, the argument for the legalization of drugs).

3) I’m a Christian. This impacts my moral beliefs. It impacts my goals of ethics and when and which exceptions I make to the above rules. Also, it adds a factor foreign to secular ethics’ discussions: the value of God’s character and sovereignty. Therefore an act can be unethical merely because it harms God, even if (for the sake of argument) it harms no one else.

I only expect or care to discuss the character of God and the significance to ethics with other Christians who affirm the same thing. I do not expect others with different preconditions to care about this line of reasoning, in fact, they should not be persuaded in this manner.

However, believers and non should understand that my Christian faith is the back drop for the final two principles, motives and conscience.

4) Motives matter. Ex a) if someone is drowning and you try to save them and they die, good. If someone is drowning and you don’t want to risk your own life and do nothing, bad. Same outcome, different motives, different ethical conclusion.

5) Conscience. We should follow it. This should be the final word, but it’s not because we are imperfect, sinful people. Many people have followed their convictions into doing very bad things. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” So it’s not infallible, but in situations in which the right thing to do is not clear, it is a guide. Furthermore, it can be the determining factor of what is and is not ethical. If your conscience says go ahead, you should, and if it says to stop, stop.

Finally, the application is to find consistency. That’s the goal. It’s very impractical to have to think through every single ethical quandary. So you want to find principles and then apply them consistently. An example would be the Hippocratic Oath’s “Do no harm.” That lets you know (if you decide Do No Harm is a principle you assert) that murder is wrong, defending yourself with a weapon is wrong, etc…

I often argue my point by finding inconsistencies in another event or person’s position or circumstance.

The credit card thief identified… pt1

This is a continuation of this story/post.  I really didn’t expect to hear anything else on this credit card case from the police, unless it was way later.  But i’ve been called two more times by police officers.  The first was by the same cop who had followed up the first time, gathering information because they were going to try to look at surveillance video.  I ended up providing names of homeless people I know especially those that I’ve put up in a hotel with my credit card.

The second call was today.  It was someone new, saying the case was transferred to his department (investigations maybe?).  They know who it was!  He gave me a name.  It might mean something to me.  He’s coming by my work tomorrow to show me a picture from the ID that they showed once.  So… I will leave this off here with some suspense.

This person has several warrants therefore nothing would happen until they found her (I presume they do not know her exact whereabouts for that reason, in other words).  So, either way, they will be looking for her.  My experience knowing a couple of people with warrants here is that it can be some time… on minor charges, there’s not these movie-like “APB’s for Mr. X who fits this description”.  The cops, at least some of them, know these people by name, have known them for some time.  And they don’t walk around with a mental list of who’s got warrants, so you’ve got to either have that info in mind, or be given a reason to be suspicious to look them up… and that’s after coming across the person.

Anyway, he implied that I would be making a decision whether or not to press charges.  I didn’t anticipate that.  I figured that they stole from Chase Bank, not me– I guess they stole my identity?!  This is a FELONY he said– scary.  Maybe that’s for the identity theft part of it?

What will I do if that’s the case?  Will it matter if I know the person?  Does it matter to me that it’s a woman?  (Hint: I might be slightly less likely to press charges against a woman– sorry ladies who want equal treatment– I still think you should get equal pay for equal work!  But call me a sexist if you want to).

I’m glad he’s showing me the picture tomorrow.  I don’t know that having a lot of time to think about it before seeing it would really help.

Other observations:

• I’m really impressed with the Police Dept.  They didn’t give up quickly, but then the case didn’t die out.
• It’s got a “cool vibe” to it.  Admittedly, that’s probably the voyeur/desire to live vicariously in me.  Too much watching TV over the years and developing unrealistic ideas of suspense and excitement.
• I really want to mourn for the people doing this.  And if I press charges, it’s not out of malice.  Hate the crime, love the criminal.  Especially those who, even though they could go about it a million different ways, were committing a crime for which part of the motivation was a warm bed on a cold night.

Ramblings on the swearing-in of President Obama

Today (his first day in office) he passed a series of orders that (so cnn.com says) mandate high ethical standards and transparency for his officials/appointments. It would be about time. I think he means it; not sure if it will happen. And I think it’s dangerous because to me, transparency is transparency. No secret wars, no propping up of dictators, no operating through proxies, no paying private military companies or paid foreign soldiers. Not only a lack of motives, but to me it means the presence of explanations—why we do something, of the factors involved in a decision, honest evaluation of decisions (and admitting mistakes). Thanks for setting the bar high, President Obama—but now I’m going to hold you to it.

The other things people are looking for him to do worry me or at least cause some hesitation. He seems poised to prepare a 16 month-ish withdrawal plan from Iraq—I’m glad he’s doing what he promised; I’m unsure of what the best thing to do is. Revoking the “Mexico City policy” aka the “Global gag rule.” (Google it). While I’m pro-life, I’m also pragmatic and democratic—the election of Obama is certainly an indicator of what a majority of Americans would think about this. This policy doesn’t directly impact lives, like abortion laws in the US, some I hesitate to protest based purely on moral reasons. It’s all about goals—and it’s pretty clear that it’s the goal of most of the wealthy, western world to have less people in the poor parts of the world. There are certainly understandable reasons for this (wanting to limit the effects of poverty, disease, etc…). I don’t share that goal, for both pragmatic and moral reasons, but primarily theological reasons that I don’t expect others to agree with and do not think should impact legislation/administration—the idea of the sovereignty of God; trusting it; and knowing that it’s good.

I’m certainly not excited. That’s probably got more to do with my personality than my thoughts on Mr. Obama. I wouldn’t be excited if Mr. McCain were stepping into the office either. Either way, I was going to have a heavy heart (and that’s why, ultimately, I abstained from voting for president). I’d call my state of mind “dubiously hopeful.”

I don’t expect my life to be changed much by any of this. I realized during this election season that my local officials probably had much more to do with my quality of life—I don’t discount the importance of national elections, but it elevated for me the importance of making educated decisions about local and county elections. I do think my life may be adversely affected in a way I cannot easily perceive—the amount of debt we will ring up under Obama’s economic plan (I’m sure this would have happened some under McCain as well). It is our debt. It will be paid with my taxes, or cuts in my Mom’s social security, or cause us to have a less desirable relationship with our national creditors (i.e. China) during the course of my adult life.

In the words of Derek Webb in his song “King and a Kingdom”

My first allegiance is not to a man, a country or a flag; my first allegiance is not to democracy or blood. It’s to a king and a kingdom.

Some of the enthusiasm on the parts of many Americans is really weird to me, sometimes downright frightening. It made me very uncomfortable to hear “O-BA-MA” chants. Maybe I should look at sporting events and fans in the same cynical light, however, this seems far too significant and sober and real for this kind of exultation. Because I worry that it is intentionally much more than exultation; exaltation. He is just a man.

Of course, I am pleased that we have a black president. This is truly historic. Admittedly, I haven’t thought about it much lately. The economy and other things seem to provide opportunities for our president to make much more significant things happen, besides just being the first of a demographic category. Which is kind of cool.

I don’t get the religious/spiritual stuff that has gone on around this inauguration. Many were up-in-arms about Rick Warren’s invitation to pray (“How dare Rick Warren believe what he believe!). Atheists sued to remove the language of God. Mr. Obama had several people pray and went to a prayer service the next morning. I have not heard any liberals say or write negative things about Mr. Obama. Why is none of the anti-christian and anti-religion talk directed at him? Because he ascribes to a watered-down (my words), universalized (his words) version of the faith? He still affirmed that Jesus died for his sins, the thought which one British theologian dismissed as “cosmic child abuse” and the theological tenet that offends many and has offended many for 2000 years. In some ways, he’s what I always hoped for: a Christian who could affirm something like that and everyone love him because of all the other fruits of his life! But I really can’t believe that is the case. What’s the deal? Mr. Obama invited Rick Warren. He schmoozed with him at his church. He quoted scripture, invoked God, and cheered other invocations of God.

I want to develop a habit of praying for this man/administration/government. Not because of something inherent about him, but, it’s like important and stuff. I doubt I’m going to pray as fervently or want to prioritize like some I knew growing up (for whom praying for our “presidents and leaders” was near the top of the list) but at this time it’s needed. While I disagree with him strongly on some issues, I do believe that he is concerned with what works and overall is someone with a somewhat similar moral compass. I believe he’s open-minded thus I feel that praying that God would grant him discernment and wisdom and the proper understanding on certain issues is actually something he’s humble and flexible enough to submit to.

Three times in one calendar year!

I commented on this before here.  As a summary, in March-ish of 2008 someone stole money out of my wallet (I think, and I think I know who, and when/how, but can’t prove it).  And in August, someone broke into my apartment and stole cash, a borrowed iPod, checks, my passport (I think), and who knows what else that I’m not missing.  Each time I filed a police report.

 

The latest incident was more fortunate—for me at least.  My credit card was used at five different motel/hotels in town in about one week.  I discovered two of the transactions as I checked my account activity online.  The card was in my possession the entire time.  I reported this to the bank as fraudulent activity and filed a police report.  My goals in writing this post are to do the following: explain (i.e. provide some reassurance as to how the process works) how I took care of this with the bank; talk about working with the police; and my personal feelings/what I’ve learned.

 

Working with the bank

This was the easiest part, and I knew it would be.  As consumers in the USA, we have some really cushy laws protecting us when it comes to credit card fraud.  First, the credit card provide cannot hold you liable to more than $50 in the event of theft, regardless of the amount charged.  Many times, they will waive it completely.  That was my experience.  I’m not a huge Chase fan, but they deserve some praise here.  I have a Chase/VISA Amazon.com card so I will give them all merits in this case.

 

***It is important to know that Debit cards don’t have nearly as much protection.  You are only liable to $50, IF you inform the bank within 48 hours of learning of the fraud.  There may be a limit for credit cards but it is much longer.  This is one reason some people advise people to use credit cards rather than debit/check cards, though there are probably many more reasons to use Debit (primarily, to avoid getting yourself in debt).***

 

I was on the phone with Chase for about 15 minutes over two conversations.  They mailed me something (which showed that there were actually 5 frauds) and had me verify what I did not purchase, I sent it back, and they cancelled the transactions.  They cancelled my card and had me a new one within 1.5 weeks.  I give them an A- overall, my only complaints being the time to wait for a new card (it was around Christmas and some people might really “need” the card so they could put themselves into debt buying gifts :-/) and a letter I received that said to call someone but I never received a call back.

 

A week or so later, I decided to file a police report as well (for more on my motivations, read here).  This was not necessary for self-preservation reasons, and if you’re shaken up or just “want to put it all behind you” then maybe you decide not to do this.  Otherwise, you should, as it can help to prevent this in the future and may have some therapeutic affects as well.  Since it was not a crime that occurred at a specific time and place, I went by the station on a day off.  After waiting about 15 minutes, an officer called me into a room and took my information, what happened, etc… It was very easy, though more time-consuming than speaking on the phone with Chase.

 

About two weeks later, I received a call from another officer who had been investigating.  She told me that one of the hotels were told on the phone that it was a “reservation for a homeless person.”  This is helpful for me, in identifying what I may have done to compromise my information and how I could prevent this in the future. (However, I already suspected such, and will probably not act differently in the future, as far as helping out the homeless goes.  Unless I’m told that a specific action of mine got my credit card # in someone else’s hands, I’m not going to change my whole life and make entirely different decisions).  This makes me think that I may know the person and it may not be random, though the first officer told me that this crime is very common here.

 

Another two weeks have passed and I have not heard anything else.  Is this someone I know?  If yes, then perhaps my ignorance is not good.  Otherwise, I’m not worried.  Hopefully if this happens to you things will work out just as well.

Local elections, Champaign County/Illinois- UPDATED

This is to provide resources for you if you would like to be a more informed voter next Tuesday, especially in our State and local elections here in Illinois.  Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of information out there in any one place.  Here’s my suggestions for becoming more informed

1. Decide on what is important to you.  Are you passionate about the justice system?  (You should spend more time reading about judges and the State’s Attorney).  Are you concerned with environmental issues?  That is part of the platform of Naomi Jakobbson, who is running for a state congressional position.  Etc… Then, really read up on those races.  Google search for the candidates to see if they have web sites, which should hopefully have more info than any other source.

2. Familiarize yourself with all the races so that you can make an informed decision on as many as possible.  Figure out what exactly each elected official does, and make an effort to think about what qualities and/or beliefs you think are important for that job.  Then browse through the News-Gazette articles and the Voter’s Guide.

3. Talk to others.  Today at work I learned that my co-worker used to work for the Forest Preserve.  It just so happens that one of the things on the ballot is a property tax increase to give the Forest Preserve more money.  I now know much more about the Forest Preserve than I did before.  Consider what people would know at your job.  I work for a bank.  Thus, I plan to talk to people who work with releasing mortgages about what they know about the County Recorder’s office and see if they have an opinion on what could be done better, because one of the races is for the County Recorder.

4.  Vote.  It’s free.

The race I am most passionate about at this time is State’s Attorney.  I am supporting the challenger, Janie Miller-Jones.  I won’t get on a soapbox here but if you’d like to know more reasons, please ask.  And if you don’t care, vote for her!

Resources

UPDATE: I’m not going to delete all the News-Gazette info below, but they’ve put it all on a free section of their web site, found here: http://www.news-gazette.com/special/2008_election/

And here’s the direct link to the County Clerk page where you find out where you vote and all the district information as well as a sample ballot so you know exactly which contests you will vote on: https://www.champaigncountyclerk.com/elections/registration_status.html

County Clerk’s Office. Here you can find where you go to vote and information on the elections.  Everyone should read the Voter’s guide, especially the part that lists all the positions up for election and the names of each candidate.  Also there are pretty good descriptions of the Referenda on the ballot.  The voter’s guide is a PDF and is found here.  It’s also important so that you can know which district you are in.

Second, I went through all the News-Gazette’s from this month.  Unfortunately, they require you to pay to read the archives online, so you’ll have to go to the library (or to that neighbor’s house who keeps all the newspapers for months at a time).  You can find them at the Champaign Library, upstairs in the back left corner near all the magazines.  I’m going to list by race where you can find articles and a list of the editorial choices.  They’re not in very good order so you’ll just have to sort through them.  For each position I’m listing the date and page #, and editorial date in italics.

Third, the political party sites.

I myself plan to go back because I didn’t know which district I was in for different races so I need to look that up first.

Recorder: 10/29, A5.  10/16

Circuit Clerk: 10/28, A5.  10/21

Champaign Co Board, Dist 1: 10/20, A5.

Champaign Co Board, Dist 7: 10/23, A5. 10/24, A1.

Champaign Co Board, Dist 8: 10/22, A2.

Champaign Co Board, Dist 9: 10/25, A4.

All 9 districts for Champaign County Board discussed in editorial on 10/30

US House of Representatives: 10/14, A3. 10/24, A5.  10/28

IL House 103th District: 10/18, A1.  10/14

IL House 104th District: 10/17, A1.  10/12

Auditor: 10/18, A5.  10/22

Coroner, 10/20

US Senate, 10/31

State’s Attorney, 10/16

Champaign County judges, 10/20

Forest Preserve tax: 10/28, D1.

Champaign City property tax increase for general assistance fund, 11/1.  10/31

School sales tax: a lot of places

POLITICAL PARTY SITES

Champaign County Democrats’ candidates

Champaign County Republicans’ candidates

OTHER HELPFUL LINKS

IL State Board of Elections

Champaign County