Proposition 8

Uh oh's....

a controversial topic.

I will attempt to lay out my thoughts succinctly. Well, how about with limited verbosity?

What is Proposition 8?

It was a California State ballot measure.
The ballot measure was an amendment that would override portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases.[16] The Constitution, as proposed by the measure, would include a new section (Section 7.5) to Article I, placing it between the state Equal Protection clause and nondiscrimination in business and the professions. The new section reads:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

California's State Constitution put the measure into immediate effect on November 5, the day after the election.

Whats that mean?

If you are gay... no marriage for you. But you can have civil unions. This would only affect California though.

Whats the big deal?

Well you see... if you were gay, before this measure passed you could get married...

Proposition 8
(as of November 26, 2008, 1:48 pm PST)[2]
Votes Percentage
Yes 6,838,107 52.3%
No 6,246,463 47.7%
Blank votes 296,462 N/A
Total votes cast and counted 13,412,761[3] 100.00%
Voter turnout 77.5%

Now if you are gay, you can not get married. It would also invalidate all previous marriages that had occurred between gay couples. So if you are gay, you are probably pretty pissed and not married anymore.

This proposition was pushed through by a coalition of religious organizations. Now to the good part...

My take on it

This is a civil rights issue.

Wait nooo..... marriage is between one man and one woman, the Bible tells me so! Thats great and all that the New Testament supports that general idea, but California is not a Constitutional theocracy. Nor is its constitution the Bible.

Its citizens are entitled to equal rights and that is what this issue is really about. Civil unions are not the same thing as marriage under state and federal law. This means those who are in a civil union do not share the same benefits as those who are married. This means a specific demographic (Gay California citizens) of the population are refused rights that all others enjoy.

So I say call it whatever you want, civil unions, marriage, permanent couples... whatever. But confer the same civil rights to all citizens.

Oh, and my thoughts on the religious groups that are complaining about gays being pissed at them... I do not buy in to that whole we are poor religious victims boohoo pity us nonsense. When you lobby to deny rights to your fellow citizens you cross the line from being an objective observer of politics to politically active citizens. If you are an active citizen who fights for legislation you better be willing to accept the blowback that occurs (legal of course) from your actions. Especially when it relates to citizen rights. Example: If some group pushes to deny a person marriage rights if they follow a certain religion, you should not be surprised when the victims of that legislation call out those who targeted them. It is the same principle here.

I get that some very religious types feel that the "word" marriage is being violated. But this proposition was not about a word, it was about the rights of citizens and denying them legal benefits that everyone else enjoys.

Steps to happiness

Hokie or real, you decide

Connect
Developing relationships with family, friends, colleagues and neighbours will enrich your life and bring you support

Be active
Sports, hobbies such as gardening or dancing, or just a daily stroll will make you feel good and maintain mobility and fitness

Be curious
Noting the beauty of everyday moments as well as the unusual and reflecting on them helps you to appreciate what matters to you

Learn
Fixing a bike, learning an instrument, cooking – the challenge and satisfaction brings fun and confidence

Give
Helping friends and strangers links your happiness to a wider community and is very rewarding

Political Analysis 08

It is time again to choose between evils again.

Every four years we get the honor of 'choosing' who our next president will be. We used to have a culture that pushed us to vote for the person we believed in. Now our culture dictates we vote for the person 'most likely to win'. We are taught that the only candidates likely to win come from the Democrat or Republican parties.

We (the people) do not choose the candidates for those parties. We could, but generally the party leadership decides beforehand the people they think would be acceptable. Then we just enjoy the illusion of deciding who gets to be the nominee for the party out of that preselected group. There have been exceptions to this trend in our history, but for the most part that is the way the system seems to work.

So who are we looking for this presidency?

The one on the way out...

Hillary Clinton

It appears that despite her late comeback she is on the way out. While she is close to Obama in citizen votes, she is losing to him in party leader ("superdelegate") votes. Perhaps the Democratic party does not want to be ruled by the Clinton's for the next four years.


Now to the very likely contenders...

In the Red Corner...

John McCain


The 'Maverick' Senator of Arizona.

Pros:
- Voted against the use of torture by the US military
- Was held in a concentration camp in Viet Nam and against sympathizes with war vets
- Knows the military and is familiar with wartime situations
- Experienced in politics, knows how to pass votes he needs to get through.
- Is not close to the fundamentalist religious right of the Republicans.

Cons:
- Will follow the Bush strategy of perpetual war in Iraq and preemptive war with Iran.
- Knows nothing about economics, will increase spending and further kill the economy. Our wars waste billions, spending money we dont have wastes billions, he would do both. He would tell you that three wars (Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan) and seven hundred military bases across the world are necessary to save us from the terrorists.
- Is a tool for lobbyists.
- Talks big talk on change, but really that change is not significant.
- He is really old!
- He makes bad choices in priestly allies. That is what he gets for trying to pander to an electorate he never cared about anyway.

If you do not like endless wars, he is not your guy. If you like sound fiscal policy he is not your guy. Personally I used to like him, but the more I have read about him the less I agree with just about everything he stands for.



In the Blue Corner...

Barak Obama


The Senator of 'Change'.

Pros:
- The slickest orator this side of Quintillian.
- Very likeable, smart and new to the political scene. Gives one the impression he has not bought into the system yet.
- Recognizes that some things need to change for the country to prosper.
- Has a decent understanding of the younger voters and their needs.
- Comes from a modest background.
- He sees that our foreign policy does not work and openly says he would try something new. Like... heaven forbid, talking to people and fostering alliances.
- He can pull off presidential very well.
- Foreign nations already love him. He could be our next JFK.

Cons:
- He may take longer to bring the troops home than he promises.
- Many of the people closest to him (wife and two pastors who were mentors) either revile the country or are pretty racist. While it is a persons right to have an opinion, it makes one wonder what influence they have on him. The thought is that he talks about seeing past divisions and unifying the country, but then surrounds himself with people who see only division. Bush promised to be a uniter as well.
- Will nearly quadruple government spending. This could very well break our economy. He has a history of being a runaway spender with taxpayer money.
- Despite his public statements to the contrary, he still tips his hat and makes nice with powerful lobby groups which have influenced our fiscal and foreign policy to the disasters they are today.
- He is an unknown quantity due to his lack of time in office. Will he be another Bush or the leader he presents himself to be? We do not know.

If you like sound money policy, he is not your guy. If you like small government, he is not your guy. Despite that I still like the promise he represents, which is a new direction in foreign policy.


Ultimately, both guys will bloat up the government even more. They will both cave to a point to special interests. The big difference I see is that one will spend all of our money on foreign wars and keep us hated worldwide. The other will spend all of our money at home and make us loved worldwide. Either way, we will become a much more bankrupt nation. So the way it looks to me at the moment, we can be broke and loved, or broke and hated.

Not too bad for a 13 year old

Baby tiger don't be sad
Baby tiger they stole your dad

Your mommy was taken away from you
And your so young you do not no what to do

Your tiny roar fills the air
But still you no no one is there

Lost in the night your rage burns wild
It's hard to survive when you're only a child

The poachers will pay someday you promise
So when you stalk your prey remember this

The humans that hurt you and knocked you down
Shan't harm you anymore while I am around

Heather, age 13

Man eats his hands for fear they may be possessed!

No not really, though I thought of this due to a recent event in Vermont. Apparently the town of Brattleboro decided to issue a non-enforceable petition to repudiate Bush and Cheney for violating the Constitution (big C not little c). The great thing is that some lovely citizens wrote to the council about that local petition. Lets look at one of the comments....

"The petition prompted Brent Caflisch to go to his computer in Rosemount, Minn. "Maybe the terrorists will do us all a favor and attack your town next, our country would be much safer with several thousand dead wackjobs in Vermont," he wrote.

It went on to say terrorists could kidnap the three Select Board members who voted in favor, "cut their heads off, video tape it and put it on the internet.""

Woah... theres a lot of glare coming off of that dome! Apparently there were many more (Approx 60) sent along this line of thinking. What does this petition actually say?

It reads thusly: "Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictments for consideration by other authorities and shall it be the law of the Town of Brattleboro that the Brattleboro Police, pursuant to the above-mentioned indictments, arrest and detain George Bush and Richard Cheney in Brattleboro if they are not duly impeached, and prosecute or extradite them to other authorities that may reasonably contend to prosecute them?"

What basis do these people have to indict Bush and Cheney for crimes against the Constitution? Well... let us have a history lesson...

The presidential oath of office is located in Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution. Every president, and vice president must swear to it before the nation and god.

This part is pulled from the US National Archives, enjoy!
"The Presidential Oath of Office was set down in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The oath originally proposed was much shorter, requiring the President-elect to swear only to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." James Madison, a delegate to the Convention from Virginia, believed that the Chief Executive should be bound by oath to support the articles of the Union—the very document the Convention was struggling to create. Along with George Mason, another Virginia delegate, Madison proposed that the President also be made to swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""

So what does this all mean? It means the President, and his Vice President swore an oath of office and are expected to abide by that oath. The oath says they will Preserve, Protect and Defend, not simply one of those actions, but all of those actions. Though if Bush did not swear that oath then I guess he did not do anything wrong... oh wait...



I guess he did swear that oath.

Now every president is going to make mistakes, but it can be argued that this one actively violated that oath. One can argue about the Executive position lately on Due Process, Eminent Domain, First Amendment Freedoms, Fourth Amendment Rights, Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel and so on. Why am I saying all this? Simply to illustrate that this town council has a reason to issue such a petition. Whether one agrees with it or not.

So what pisses me off about this whole issue?

What the fuck are people thinking when they suggest that terrorists should come in and kill thousands of Americans? They claim to support Constitution devouring laws that Bush issues 'for our own safety'. Yet they want to violate Bush's intent to keep terrorists from killing Americans? This makes no sense. Also, since when does wanting to protect the constitution make one a friend of terrorists? I thought it was a very American thing to want to protect our freedom and our founding document of law. They like to argue that to protect freedom we need to give away our freedom. I find that to be an illogical statement.

Regardless of whether you agree with that Vermont town or not, I say try to use reason and abstain from wishing terrorist death upon your fellow citizens. Where has the capacity for logical rebuttal or civil disagreement gone? Fear of terrorism, fear in general, erodes an individuals capacity for clear thinking. Perhaps this serves as a lesson that this kind of illogical fear, which can drive people like Mr. Caflish to wish such heinous things up on his people, is still alive and in need of remedy.

Doggie Translators

"The barks were tape recorded and then digitized on a computer, which used software to study their differences.

The computer correctly identified the different situations 43 per cent of the time. Although it was not a high success rate it was far better than human recognition, the researchers said.

The computer was most accurate in identifying the "fight" and "stranger" contexts, and was least effective at matching the "play" bark.

The results appear in the journal Animal Cognition, and suggest that dogs have acoustically different barks depending on their emotional state.

The researchers also performed a second test, in which the computer identified individual dogs by their bark.

The software correctly identified the dogs 52 per cent of the time, again much better than the human result, suggesting there are individual differences in barks even though humans are not able to recognize them.

The team also plans to compare the barks of different breeds to discover what they have in common. "

It does not apply to me

Who wrote the following statement on February 12, 1779: “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader”?

Samuel Adams wrote that.

What I find interesting is that the founding fathers all speak about liberties. The Constitution was designed to be interpreted via the intent of its makers. The founding fathers seemed to think that the greatest threat to America would not come from an external army or force, but from the peoples willingness to surrender their liberties. What is fascinating is that as a body, the nation does not feel that such ideas apply to them today.

"Thats a Wrap!"

Burrito
Main Entry:
bur·ri·to Listen to the pronunciation of burrito
Pronunciation:
\bə-ˈrē-(ˌ)tō\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural bur·ri·tos
Etymology:
American Spanish, from Spanish, little donkey, diminutive of burro
Date:
1934

: a flour tortilla rolled or folded around a filling (as of meat, beans, and cheese)


Take a look at these burritos...




Did you say to yourself at any point, "thats not a burrito, thats a wrap!". You know why you did not say that, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH FUCKING THING AS A WRAP! It is an artificial marketing term used to describe a burrito! A BURRITO! It is like the wrap is supposed to be some chic new menu item that no one ever thought of before. I am so special because I do not eat sandwiches, how vulgar. I eat wraps, like a civilized person. No you tard, you eat burritos.

Interestingly, the top one is supposed to be a wrap, and the bottom a burrito. But wait... whats this? They are both flour tortillas rolled or folded around some kind of filling... I wonder what they could be?

Come Again?

I wonder how many people have had a conversation like this one.

Person: America is the greatest country ever. All other countries are number two or lower. That is why it is ok that we do whatever we want in the world, because we are the best country there is and thus we are always justified in our actions.

Me: Ok, point taken. Just our of curiosity, what makes the ole USofA so great? Do not get me wrong, I love this country too, but I want to understand where you are coming from in this opinion.

Person: The fact that we are more free than any other country in the world. Also, we are more prosperous than any other nation.

Me: Excellent! What makes us more free than say Canada?

Person: Our Constitution and the way this country was founded. Look at what we have done in the last 200 years that all these other nations have not. It is because we are more free.

Me: Cool, so you are against the Patriot Act, revocation of Habeas Corpus, torture and laws or actions by the government that violate the constitution.

Person: Well... no. All those things are ok because they are for our own protection against the terrorists.

Me: But... you just said that what sets us apart from everyone else was our freedom. Do you think taking away our individual liberties and violating the document they are based upon is diminishing what makes us great by your estimation?

Person: Well of course not, we have to win against the terrorists right? Sometimes you have to change the rules to win. Plus, the constitution is a little outdated anyhow.

Me: Wait... I thought you said that our freedom is what makes us great. How does being less free establish your position?

Person: Why do you hate this country so much? If you do not like it why not just move somewhere else?

Me: I think you are diverging from the topic. I never said I did not like America. I do not see how supporting the constitution and every Americans right to personal liberty translates to hating this land.

Person: If you do not want these laws in place you want the terrorists to win, therefore you must not love America. Or you are a coward who just wants to surrender to them.

Me: Say wha...?

Is it just me or does basic reasoning go out the window anytime islam or terrorists are mentioned? Sometimes I feel like im on crazy pills.