In an Oct. 30 article in the Huffington Post titled, Confessions of a Lawn Sign Stealer, St. Olaf visiting professor Phil Busse (theatre dept) wrote:
If I need to justify my actions, I could argue that I was trying to achieve some great public service for rural voters. In his 2004 book, What’s The Matter With Kansas, Frank Rich explains that working class and family farmers, like these in Minnesota, increasingly vote conservative and against their own interests. By pulling out the McCain signs, I was hoping to curb the impression for passing motorists that family farmers in Minnesota supported McCain. Or, at least that’s the most high-minded explanation that I can offer.
Busse is also Executive Director of the Northwest Institute for Social Change (more bio info on that page).
See today’s Nfld News article titled St. Olaf prof confesses to sign theft in blog.
Writing the essay was an opportunity to explore and talk about political speech and the desire that most of us have to express our politics — both in mature and immature ways, and sometimes a mix of the two,” Busse said in the e-mail. “I’m disappointed that most readers seem to have focused on the thefts, and not on the larger thoughts.”
Here’s an immature thought: I’m now voting for McCain/Palin. That’ll show ‘em!
Interesting finds, Curt. I can’t explain my desire to continue to defend this guy I’ve never met, but I would point out that that Mercury is really quite substantive, even if it’s framed racily.
Sean, I don’t get why you defend this guy. Usually, you’re so rational.
I’m amused by the idea that Busse engaged in civil disobedience, like Mandela, Martin Luther King or Ghandi--people who risked their lives for grand causes.
Somehow I can’t place Busse, whose big gesture was tiptoeing through farm yards stealing signs in their company. My favorite line from his Huffington piece was:
“Even so, yanking out the signs and running like a scared rabbit back to my idling car was one of the single-most exhilarating and empowering political acts that I have ever done.”
Honestly, calling this a guy a dork is unfair to all the other dorks out there.
The line you quote is exactly what I liked about the essay. He knows it’s stupid, he knows it’s wrong, but there’s still a satisfaction to it. I admire that self-awareness.
And, Curt, surely even you’ll agree that it’s not “rational” that anybody should lose their job, be attacked in a statewide paper, and potentially have to spend 90 days in prison just for stealing three little signs and writing about it.
Will: Civil disobedience can be used to silence another individual’s free speech. I recall in the movie, “Freedom Song”, when some parts of Mississippi were dominated by the KKK, terribly racist signs were posted on the roads into KKK territory. Stealing those signs would be committing civil disobedience (by my definition, not David L.’s). Civil disobedience is pretty rare, and sign-stealing as a type of it is even more rare, but in my opinion, it still qualifies.
David L.: #1 I consider the brick-throwing Suffragettes as civil disobedients, and I believe so do the history books. The same for students squatting in a school president’s office, if they’re protesting racist or similarly heinous school policies. At least we agree that the union workers’ act of sabotage is not civil disobedience.
#2 An unjust political party? If the theft was to draw attention to the injustices of McCain/Palin, even prospective injustice if they become president/vice president, then it fits in my understanding of civil disobedience.
Anne: I didn’t have the courage to say that.
Curt and Sean: I love free speakers. Depending on specifics, I love civil disobedients. It’s part of the job of being disobedient to risk one’s career, one’s reputation, one’s freedom. In that regard, I don’t have sympathy for Busse. He knew what he was doing, he knew what he was posting online. He knew the consequences.
I remember the words of my favorite lawyer, “Most of my clients convict themselves [when they testify].” He convicted himself. Que sera, sera.
Jerold: you need to seriously re-examine your definition of civil disobedience. I think most people would agree with me that civil disobedience means refusing to obey a law or policy that you disagree with. In this case, neither John Mcain, Sarah Palin, or the sign owners, were in any position to enforce laws of any kind on Busse.
Way back in this thread (I got distracted by real life for a while) one of Busse’s students complained that Bussed reduced his grade on a presentation about talk radio because he wore an Obama shirt, saying that Busse didn’t respect his right to free speech.
The grade reduction wasn’t a criticism of his right to free speech but a fair recognition of the fact the shirt diminished the effectiveness of his presentation. Since he was being graded on the effectiveness of his presentation and not on a paper being turned in, his grade suffered. The student missed the point completely, which means the reduced grade probably was well-deserved.
Free speech gives you the right to wear what you want, it doesn’t make you immune to people’s reactions to your choices.
Back to the sign issue, removing KKK signs in the middle of the night probably was justified because the protesters could not do so publicly for fear of being lynched by the authorities themselves.
Busse could have reported his thefts, returned the signs and voluntarily paid a fine and apologized to the sign owners, writing about the whole experience. My problem is that stealing a few random signs from strangers as an act of civil disobedience makes no sense on its face. The act has to have an understandable purpose. It can be a small act, like refusing to move from your seat on the bus, or a huge one, like standing in front of a tank in Tianneman Square. It can be an anonymous act, like working the underground railroad or stealing KKK signs from the side of the road, but it needs to be about making change in society, not getting a personal adrenaline rush.
In the same way that the shirt rendered the student’s presentation ineffective, the sheer pointlessness of the anonymous random theft rendered Busse’s greater argument ineffective. In fact, by choosing an act that focused attention on the theft, his greater argument was ignored and his venue to teach and discuss it was eliminated. Whether he was right or wrong, he failed to make his point effectively.
In short, he flunked.
When you think about it, with that kind of political strategy, he seems more in line with McCain’s campaign than he ever imagined.
Will: I am not a great fan of Wikipedia for controversial issues but it’s where Google first suggested and its first paragraph is on point for my position. If you would rather either of us do more research, I would be delighted to do my share. Just say the word.
From Wikipedia:
The relevant term is “or of an occupying power”, which I would further expand to include “a prospective occupying power”.
I understand your and others’ narrower definition. I don’t agree with it. When someone is oppressed or threatened, people who break laws *nonviolently* to resist the oppressor are engaging in civil disobedience. Normally, I agree it’s against a state oppressor often through an unjust law.
I’ll be more explicit in my reason for using a broader definition. If someone in the 1960s stole a “KKK Territory” sign and made a public statement about it, because the KKK was an oppressive if not occupying power, I’d consider it civil disobedience. If David Duke or similar presidential candidate had his signs stolen, I would use the same analysis, again if it was made public. This series of examples extends to McCain or Obama signs, if laws are broken and a public statement is made against their oppressive policies. I don’t distinguish between an actual occupying power or a power capable of occupying.
I don’t know that it matters, but I’ll note that because of the election irregularities of 2000 and 2004, some would classify Bush’s administration as an occupying power. If Bush was running for a third term and his signs were stolen, would that not be civil disobedience? Why change the analysis for McCain/Obama?
I don’t see the importance of using a narrower definition, such as what you or David L. proposed. If you can explain why the definition should be more narrow, you may convince me. Rather than being conclusive about what you consider the definition to be, rather than being patronizing, explain why you think this term needs a narrow definition.
Jerold, I won’t try to say whether or not the Busse sign theft was civil disobedience or not. That will depend on how the courts define it at the time of the hearing.
The bullet is not the damage, it’s the hole…the bullet being the sign theft and the hole being the damage done to the sign owner’s freedom of speech and expression, sense of peace and well being in their own home base that has been damaged.
I have to agree, virtually 100% with Sean on this one… Sean is 19 (?); I am 72 … but I know a critical thinker when I see one.
Congratulations, Sean, it’s hard to be a critical thinker in these days of “teaching to the test”.
I agree that although it is literally wrong, and against the law, I like it that Busse wanted to do something outside the box, that made him feel good, regardless of all the strictly framed issues.
There’s a nuance to what he did, a somewhat mitigating factor, albeit maybe tiny.
What I dislike most is what Don McGee put a name to in the LWV forum last week … politics as a “blood sport”. There are so many punitive people out there, just hang the guy, who cares why he did it, who cares if he is sorry and feels foolish, Black and White … no Gray.
Just like the ‘three strikes you’re out’ laws… who cares if the guy who stole bread and milk from the convenience store has hungry kids and no job…. just put him in prison for the rest of his life, warehouse him, and forget all about dealing with the underlying problem.
Keep it up, Sean … I like the way you speak to the issue, not just to the personality. Maybe you should be a judge; you seem to have a great depth for exploring the nuances. There’s enough computer ‘people’; be a Judge!
Bright: It’s not up to the courts to define civil disobedience. Courts administer justice, not definitions.
If you read my several posts, you’ll see that we agree. The sign-owners had their property stolen. Busse is responsible. The sign-owners can seek redress in court as can the state.
Jerold, you are right, I meant interpret, not define.
Kiffi, I hope you don’t put me in the hang em high category. I did however need to state that there are victims, no matter how little the imposition, and even though no blood was spilled, an idea and freedom to express them are pretty important and should not be forgotten during the admiration of the provocateur.
Jerold, see post 60. It came up before yours did. Weird. But that’s my response to 61.
I think this guy’s 15 minutes are up.
Kiffi- You said, “…I like it that Busse wanted to do something outside the box, that made him feel good…” I don’t call this critical thinking. I think “narssistic” would be a better term. You say this is illegal, and it cost Mr. Busse quite a bit because of it, but your inference is that it is justified. I just don’t agree with that. When we have to break the laws to express our opposition to a person’s opinion (stealing their yard signs), we are not addressing some questionable law. We are infringing upon that person’s freedom of speech, andI just don’t believe we have a “right” to do that. I think it would be better to have a dialogue with that person. At least those two people can come to some understanding, even though they might not agree.
Hi, John! I am not answering for Kiffi, cuz she’s pretty good at answering for herself, but allow me to jump in and say that I think the amount of justice Busse has had heaped on him is a bit much, even though I believe like you do that what he did is real bad, it’s not like he took away their right to speak at all ever again, and for this reason, the punishment seems too harsh for the crime, imho.
I don’t think it was smart of Busse to steal the lawn signs, but to leave his position because of it is preposterous. I don’t agree with what he did and agree it was fairly juvenile, but what’s the issue here? The cost of the signs? Decreased advertising/marketing for a candidate? Free speech? Is this really a big deal? We had people arrested at the RNC (and DNC) for giving their free speech and were denied (and arrested) because of it. And we’re going to focus on someone who stole lawn signs? That is a “sign” of how people really need to look at some real issues revolving democracy and our voice.
Bright & Josh- I agree that the punishment was a little steep. If I read the report correctly, he didn’t just leave. He was asked to leave. I get concerned with this type of arrogance against our laws, though. Again, I have a hard time justifying the action. Perhaps the punishments/judgements need to be adjusted? I agree that there seems to be, what I call, an extremism in certain areas of our society. It is like we cannot tolerate being offended. I heard a great story along those lines, but I’ll not take up blog space to share it here.
From what I heard he was only here for one semester and to teach one class only. So he wasn’t a permanent staff member.
I support his decision to leave.
Peter,
You’re right, he was only temporary. While that makes the punishment less severe (than giving up a permanent position), it makes it seem even more striking that he had to leave when he would have left anyway in six weeks.
John, I haven’t heard that there was any pressure on him to resign, though it wouldn’t surprise me.
Sean- Well, you know the old saying- don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.
A couple of points: Being asked to leave St. Olaf is not punishment; it is a consequence. Having a position at St. Olaf is not a right; it is a privilege. It is a privilege he shouldn’t have.
Second: I applaud St. Olaf for taking a principled stance. St. Olaf is, and hopefully will remain, a “college of the Church” which promotes virtue above knowledge.
David said:
David, as a current student, I don’t think they promote virtue above knowledge. I think they go alongside each other.
And if Busse were forced out, I agree that it wouldn’t have been a “punishment,” but I’m still comfortable saying that it would have been a low thing to do. And whether as a logical consequence or an intentional punishment, we can still hit a point where we say, “Wow this guy really got screwed for something that wasn’t that big a deal.” I think we hit that point a while ago.
Sean: Sullying the good name of St. Olaf is a big deal, especially if you are a parent paying $45,000 per year to have your child go to the school.
David: Your last post confused me. Did St. Olaf make a principled/virtuous or an economic decision? Not that they’re mutually exclusive. Not that you know why they pushed him out. I’m just trying to understand which you think it was.
As a counterpoint to the main thread of this discussion, here’s an interesting comment on the degree to which professors’ political views — on either side — actually influence their students:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/books/03infl.html
Note that the live question in the referenced article is not whether professors should or shouldn’t express their own views — it’s about whether such expression, good or bad, has much effect.
Paul Z.- That’s an interesting article. I remember the experience of I and my wife in college. Because of a couple professors, we completely abandoned our moral roots of our families. It took a few years and an intervention of God to get our heads back on (No, it wasn’t acid or any drug use- just philosophies). I still know a few people from that period that never changed back, and I would say they are still adrift. I also have some Olaf students through our home each year. I think what happens to them depends on their individual experiences and the particular professors they are exposed to. I know of a couple families we had contact with who had concerns about what was happening to their children, and there were other young people who were grounded enough to withstand the onslaught. From these simple observastions, I’m not sure I could make a general judgement. I do believe the statistics of the report as far as liberal philosophies in general dominating the college scene. This, in itself, is no more problem than if, for some reason, higher education was rife with conservatives. I does come back to the specific person involved, IMHO.
David,
I don’t think Busse “sullyed” St. Olaf. I think it’s really unfortunate that he mentioned his position at St. Olaf in his piece, but I just can’t imagine anyone finding the writings of one visiting professor and assuming that the whole faculty is like that. If a faculty or staff member is convicted of a serious crime (i.e., more than stealing three political signs), then I don’t object to them being removed, but generally, the college does not and should not have any control over what faculty do with their own time.
John,
Your post #76 there has me intrigued, but what exactly do you mean when you say “there were other young people who were grounded enough to withstand the onslaught.” The onslaught of what, exactly? Surely liberal political views alone don’t cause someone to become “adrift”?
It gets ickier about Busse — see this article in the new issue of City Pages
http://www.citypages.com/2008-11-05/news/huffington-post-sign-stealer-phil-busse-has-a-history-of-journalistic-malpractice/
Sounds like someone should teach the powers that be at my alma mater how to use google on new hires….
Sean- My use of the term “onslaught” wasn’t meant to be derogatory. I was using it more to describe the intensity that a college campus normally has. The young people I had in mind had never really been in an atmosphere where they really had to come up with answers to defend their beliefs. Others had more experience with that out of their pasts. That is why I said, “… From these simple observations, I’m not sure I could make a general judgement…” I believe each situation is specific to the individual involved. Does that make sense?
John, I see that you’re not trying to make a point about every student, but when you say, “because of a couple professors, we completely abandoned our moral roots of our families,” it seems to suggest some really strong changes. Even if they don’t affect everyone, what are these sort of profound moral degradations that professors would cause?
I’m finding the City Pages article rather delightful — and it confirms the suspicion that he was forced out. I can’t believe the student they quoted is the same one who has a grudge against Busse for the Obama shirt incident, though!
Sean- I can only speak knowlegeably from our own experiences. Deception is a very subtle thing. We can easily recognize a harsh or bold affront, but the subtle ones, where a person gains our trust and eases us away from what we believe, are the most damaging. They are usually intertwined with some truth, some half truthes and some untruth. It is like we are lulled away from really investigating what is being told to us. When we did question something, we were then given this logic, if a person is right about some things, then they must be right about all things. Also, when we were confronted with the qualifications of the professors, we assumed they must be correct. This is where the value of critical thinking enters in. We just did not stick with it. The changes were dramatic, but they did not come about overnight. As I said, I can only speak out of our own experience, here, but as I have talked to other people about their experiences, there seems to be a common thread between them.
Sean: St. Olaf isn’t controlling what Mr. Busse does with his time away from St. Olaf; it is controlling what he does with his time at St. Olaf, namely, he ain’t goin’ have none.
John G,
IN #83 you seem to describe cynical manipulation of innocent minds by clever but devious professors. As you know, a lot of us here in the 55057 zip code ply the professorial trade. As one of them, I’m sensitive to any implication that such behavior is widespread among or characteristic of my professional colleagues (or of me, of course).
I don’t know that you’re actually leveling such a charge. But perhaps, for clarity, you could explain whether you see your unhappy experience (you used the word “onslaught”) as typical, atypical, anomalous, or what? Are many “professors” really devoted to corrupting young minds? Or did you just run into an outlier?
Paul Z.- First off, my personal experience dates back 40+ years. Those were different times with different challenges from today, yet I believe there are similarities in the level of formative developement in the same age groups, comparing then and now. I don’t think there is any conspiracy in higher education to turn out a bunch of clones of the professors, nor do I believe there is a conscious “manipulation of minds” going on.
My use of the term “onslaught” seems to be a real kicker for many, and I’m not sure I understand why. Here are a bunch of young people experiencing their first taste of freedom from the daily oversight of their parents, thrust into a cloistered environment with completely new peers. They are trying to figure out how to live with a couple other people who probably have different expectations, habits, preferences, etc. They suddenly do not have the social safety net they were used to for in four years of high school. They are being challenged on every front to evaluate everything they have ever believed in their short life. Then, besides all this, they are being expected to learn a whole lot more information at a deeper level and in a shorter period of time than they have ever experienced. If this is not an “onslaught”, then I don’t know what is. It is little wonder to me that some of them “fall away” from the beliefs they grew up under, jump off the deep end with substance abuse, or even suicide. This is a very high pressure time in their lives. Some come out strengthened by it, others do not. Does that make sense?
There is a great value in academic circles placed upon “peer revue,” or seemingly so. I personally question how this is any kind of safeguard or basis for credibility. If your thought processes, opinions, research or conclusions are only exposed to those people who believe like you do, then how is this objective? This blog has been great for me, because I have been able to discuss my beliefs with people who believe differently than I. I would not have this opportunity in any other part of my life. I’m not sure this is necessarily a common practice in academia, since, as I have heard expressed in other threads here, there are certain litmus tests a person must have before their ideas will even be considered. This type of ingrowness is, I believe, a weakness in any group where it is practiced. Just because a person is a college professor, I do not believe this elevates them to some level of objectivity that is above being questioned, either in their professional or their personal lives. But this is all just my opinion.
John, I would like to echo your comments, especially the last paragraph. We should all remember that many “uneducated” non-degree holding people all around the world have made major contributions to the whole world and have accomplished great things without even going noticed. I could list dozens, but I am sure that they would be picked apart for all the times they fell a little short.
On the other hand, many academians, by the very nature of trying to master one particular area of study, can be lost in the details of their discipline and never accomplish a single major thing. Not saying this is true of every one, mind you. And I am not saying there is no value in holding a doctorate, masters, and so on.
My point is, to be clear, that anyone with any amount of education can do great things and make great things happen. Rosa Parks is one example I feel I can safely put forth.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/onslaught
Paul Z.: So? As I read this, “…an especially fierce attack ; also : something resembling such an attack …” I do not see any moral implications. It discribes a stream of events that are difficult to stand up to, or at least process. Unless I’m completely missing something here, I think I used the word correctly.
Paul: I would interested to hear your analysis of Griff’s original question: Civil disobedience or amazing stupidity?
Obviously Mr. Busse is a very educated person with a “liberal” bias. What causes someone that educated to do something that even a 1st grader knows is wrong? And, what causes him to suggest that people should see the “bigger” picture?
One characteristic that I have noticed in my children from their post-secondary education is that they come back more liberal, but less critical. I attribute it to their tendency to confuse critical thought and compassionate action.
I think that is what happened to Mr. Busse. Liberal is good; conservative is bad. Farmers are too dumb to know this. Passing motorists are too dumb to recognize that farmers are dumb. Therefore, destroying signs is actually protecting people.
He displayed what my friend, Ross Currier, calls sophisicated intelligence. Unfortunately, he just needed more common sense.
OK, here’s what I’d like to know. From Nick Waterman’s City Pages link, what the hell is Phil “Kamakazi” Busse doing wearing a Speedo, holding a pneumatic nail gun?
http://www.citypages.com/2008-11-05/news/huffington-post-sign-stealer-phil-busse-has-a-history-of-journalistic-malpractice/
David L.- You know the problem with common sense? It just isn’t too common anymore.
John G.,
Thanks for your thoughts in #86. The word “onslaught” still feels pretty strong to me, as it’s cognate with “strike”, “slay”, and others like it. But you seem not to have meant in this sense, and that’s fine with me.
I doubt that anyone disagrees with you that college life can be challenging and stressful for students. And I’m glad to hear that you don’t see college faculty en masse preying on defenseless young minds, at least not “consciously”. (Do we do it unconsciously?)
Your last paragraph, on peer revue [sic ... sorry, but the phrase made me think of a dance line of British aristocrats ... not a pretty sight] lost me. I wonder whether you and I have the same notion of peer review in mind. In mathematics and science, at least, peer review is a system of submitting one’s professional work to the scrutiny of professionals with similar training — i.e., peers.
Far from inviting knee-jerk approval from like-minded ideologues, the peer review system aims explicitly to elicit skeptical reading and reaction. And it succeeds — big time: Academics are professional skeptics, and they love their work.
You referred, too, to “certain litmus tests a person must have before their ideas will even be considered.” If you’re dissing thoughtlesss orthodoxy of any kind then I’m with you. But could you be more specific about how you think this applies to academia? Are professors more prone to rigid orthodoxy than others?
Then you wrote:
Just because a person is a college professor, I do not believe this elevates them to some level of objectivity that is above being questioned, either in their professional or their personal lives. But this is all just my opinion.
It’s my opinion, too. Could anyone disagree?
David H,
In #90 you asked: Paul: I would interested to hear your analysis of Griff’s original question: Civil disobedience or amazing stupidity?
Assuming I’m the Paul you mean (there are several of us out here), here’s my view: Sign-stealing from private property is not civil disobedience as I understand it. As others have said, civil disobedience is normally directed at public or governmental entities, not at other private citizens. There may be some borderline cases, but this one doesn’t come close for me.
I agree (as does Mr Busse, by the way) that the theft was stupid. Whether the stupidity was “amazing” depends, I guess, on one’s amazement threshold.
Never having met Mr Busse, I have no opinion about your view of him as “a very educated person with a liberal bias” and a “tendency to confuse critical thought and compassionate action”, or about whether these characteristics, if indeed they apply to Mr Busse, actually made him do the deed.
Paul Z.- As far as professors”unconsciously” preying on young minds, I don’t think that is possible.In my simple definition of preying, it presupposes a deliberate plan to entrap. I don’t think that can be done “unconsciously”.
Thanks for the diplomatic correction on “revue.” As I have said before, my mind will completely run ahead of my typing and editing skills. I get into trouble when I try to insert comments between other daily tasks. As far as peer review, I have had this argument be used against my evaluations of data just because I was considered “outside” the field of study. I think your perspective on peer review is different than I have heard before, and I agree with your method.
As far as thoughtless orthodoxy, I think anyone can get trapped into a rut in their thinking as long as they do not open themselves up to objective evaluation. Objective evaluation can occur within any discipline as long as there is transparency among those involved. Where I get concerned is when certain foundational tenets of a perspective are not alowed to be questioned even though there is not emperical evidence that they are actually laws that can produce the same results in every instance. Jerold F. and I had a very good discussion (or at least I thought so) regarding evolution and the difference between using it to support the source of all life or just the origin of specific species. I was actually admonished on another thread here that unless I embraced the theory of evolution as foundational truth, my evaluations of certain observations could not be scientific. That is what I refer to as a litmus test. I call this orthodoxy, just as I would label religious zealots who would claim that evolution does not occur. But I really don’t want to go further in discussing evolution on this thread as I don’t believe it has any bearing on the original subject. I only use it as an example to respond to your questions in paragraph 5 of your post #93.
Paul Zorn -- in 94, I think you meant to address David L , not David H
David H. is quite right in #96 — I did indeed mean to address #94 to David L., not David H. (Too many Pauls and Davids around here … our parents should have been more creative.)
I think there are some big issues imbedded in this subject. but come on, the guy is gone, and I don’t know if it was rightly or wrongly (the exact circumstances under which he left) but I do know this…
I live on St. Olaf avenue, Every election year, if I want to make sure my lawn sign collection remains intact over Friday and Saturday nights, I have to remove them up to the porch. I have spoken to my friend and neighbor Greg Kneser about this many times, as the signs usually disappear after one is awakened by a group of young people giggling (yes, often a bit drunkenly) in the front yard/sidewalk.
I have always had trouble keeping any Democrat candidate lawn signs in my front yard, as did many people this year with their Obama signs.
Frankly, we shouldn’t even be using all these plastic lawn signs; they are very environmentally unsound. Maybe, by the next election time, we can figure out some better way to support/advertise our choices.
Kiffi-brilliant idea! What about cloth flags that just say Republican,Democrat or New Party we have needed for so long?
They could be cleaned and re-used every year, and hung from out of reach positions, or set into some sort of permanent frames.
Kiffi: During the campaign for Ward 2, twice I’ve suggested a law for Northfield requiring that single-use signs, like election yard signs, be made from recyclable material. I noticed that the Obama/Biden signs had the recycle logo but I didn’t see the logo on any other signs.
There are a lot of seemingly little things that Northfield can do to stay on the cutting edge of environmentalism, not for the sake of being better than other cities, but for the sake of slowing the harm done to our ecosystem.
I’d like plastic bags, such as those used for packaging groceries, to be required to be 100% biodegradable. It’s progress that they’re recyclable, but some are still thrown away.
Each of these small steps will probably encounter some resistance. Perhaps Northfield as a whole won’t choose more eco-friendly laws. At least I’d like to see them presented to the public to get discourse started.