A Revealing Perspective

LakeishaQueen writes:

Reply to your comment on: The Dr. Phil Show - Same Sex Marriage: Right or Wrong?

...

Reply to your comment on: The Dr. Phil Show - Same Sex Marriage: Right or Wrong?

Please DO NOT COMPARE BLACK PEOPLE TO HOMOSEXUALS! We do not have deviant sex. We dont molest teen boys. We dont mimic real sex by using an anus as a vagina. And we dont form bizarre "marriage" partnerships where we screw up childrens minds becuase they cant grow up with a mommy and a daddy! FUCK YOU!

The Dr. Phil Show - Same Sex Marriage: Right or Wrong?

SAME SEX MARRIAGE: RIGHT OR WRONG?
EXCLUSIVE: AFTER THE TAPING

Dr. Phil hosts a debate on same sex marriage.

After the show taped, the debate kept going and the cameras kept going. Watch as an audience member causes an outburst as she gets involved ...

Wow, a lot of emotion here, and also very insightful.

Please DO NOT COMPARE BLACK PEOPLE TO HOMOSEXUALS!

When I compare gay marriage to the civil rights movement, I am not talking about "black people". Also, when I talk about civil rights, I am not talking about any one person, protest, or legislation. When I say civil rights, I mean the enlightenment philosophy of the past 120+ years that has begun to acknowledge people as human beings. The failure of democracy is the lack of credit given to minor sensibility in favor of a "majority rule". Most people are ignorant about most things, simply because there are so many things in the world to learn about. I know I am a victim of this myself. I would be the last person to ask about car safety standards, how to put a man on the moon. I do have an opinion on a methodology for resolving such problems, but that is not the way democracy works. But an EXAMPLE of the oppression of PEOPLE in this country was the case resolved regarding Loving v. Virginia. The Racial Integrity Act said nothing about black people, just that whites could only marry other whites, and "others" could marry whoever they want, just not whites. So that isn't 'black people', it just includes 'black people'.

We do not have deviant sex. We dont molest teen boys.

*sigh* This makes me really sad. Haven't you noticed a pattern yet AT ALL? Haters don't discriminate. Haters just hate because that is what they do. And while I appreciate the compliment and confession that neither you nor I are child molesters, I get the feeling that was not the "we" you were talking about.

But if that is not what you meant, it actually is difficult to understand what you could have meant. Did you mean that there has never been a black person that has abused a child or engaged in deviant sexual practices, or do you mean that the African American community as a whole isn't an organization for the systematic sexual abuse of children? If you meant the first, that is absolutely wrong. It can not be said about ANY group of people, subject class or otherwise. Child molesters are gay, straight, single, married, black, white, brown, yellow, red, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, tall, short, old, young, smart, dumb, attractive, ugly, everything. The same is true for victims. We all want to protect our kids, and while it would be very convenient to look at someone and just know, but you can't! But if you want to look at the numbers, and if you talk with victims, child molesters are most always parents, then relatives / siblings, then neighbors. Child molesters outside of this group are really quite rare, but it still happens.

At the same time, systematic molestation has not only never been the habit of those groups. But most of them have been accused of systematic molestation through out history. Did you ever see the movie borat? There are still places in the world where it is taught that Jews systematically round up children, have bizarre sex with them, then kill and eat their victims, and make dradles out of their bones. Some people might think that is funny, but can you imagine a society of people that actually believe that? Part of the reason opium became illegal was because it was said that Chinese would use it to lure innocent white school girls into their dens where they would be gang banged until they committed themselves to a life of satanic worship. I am sure you have heard some of the stereotypes about black men / families. These horror stories all seem to have a very similar theme; the most gruesome possible tale devised to encourage hate against the group. I have actually met people that thought being 'black' was contagous, that if you touched a black person, or hung out with black people, it would make you black, literally changing your skin color. It had even been taught for a long time in the mormon church that people with black skin had been cursed that way by god because their souls has sided with Lucifer in the celestial war.

So what surprise is it that the same old bullshit stories that have been used against every minority in history are being used again against homosexuals. The stories are as true as they have always been. You act as if blacks are the only group of people to ever be discriminated against. The civil rights movement was about people that wanted to be seen by the law as people, and not their culture, skin color, gender, national origin, or veteran status. Why not take the opportunity to actually read the Civil Rights Act.

We don't mimic real sex by using an anus as a vagina.

So would you be ok with homosexuality if there was just laws against anal sex? Wait, I think the law already addressed this. Are you saying men and women don't have anal sex, or just that when man and women have anal sex it isn't deviant? Or when men and women have anal sex it isn't to mimic a vagina? Does a hand mimic a vagina? When women masturbate, do they think about their hand being a penis? Is oral sex gay?

Is exploring the many possibilities that two people can stimulate each other physically and emotionally deviant? Is any sexual gratification without the intent of conception right at that moment deviant? What if a man and a woman are having sex because they are trying to have a baby, but they enjoy it, is that deviant too?

Last I checked, many straight women love their ass hole played with, and many straight women do dot. Some like anal penetration or dual penetration, and others are terrified or disgusted by it. Same applies to lesbians. Some straight men want to fuck a woman in her ass. Others have tried it and don't like it, others have never tried because they are afraid to ask, or are not interested at all. Some straight men like their ass hole played with, some like it penetrated, during sex, during foreplay, whatever. Some men enjoyed being fucked with a strap on, but only by a woman. Every conceivable combination is liked and disliked to varying degrees by all PEOPLE.

I will agree that most guys like to experiment with putting their penis in things. Sometimes just to see what it is like, or what might happen. Woman do the same thing with their vaginas, rubbing things on it, or sticking things in there.

All this has nothing to do with being gay or straight, again, it is the practice of human beings, because we are curious animals that do all kinds of weird things. Deviant means to be different, and as we have discovered about sexuality, deviant today would be NOT to experiment with our bodies, alone, with other people, or just one other person we love and trust very much. Deviance would be shame, and isolating yourself from your own body.

So again, there is no difference between being gay or straight in those respects. It is true that men do not have a vagina, and women do not have a penises. The only thing that makes gay people different is that they want to share, love, experiment, or enjoy someone that is physically like themselves, and depending on how you choose to define it, are more attracted to that prospect or gender then they are to the other.

And we don't form bizarre "marriage" partnerships where we screw up children's minds because they cant grow up with a mommy and a daddy!

So here is that 'we' word again. Are you talking about you and me? Are you saying that if a man and a woman get married that it can't be bizarre because bizarre only means gay, or do you mean that only black people when it is a man and a woman it can not be bizarre? As for the rest of the statement, I am puzzled. "Can't grow up with a mommy and daddy" --causes--> "screw[ed] up children". So are you saying that if there may have been a chance that the kid might have had a mommy and daddy then the kid won't be screwed up? I don't even understand what you are even trying to say here, just by virtue of reality. Well technically, if a baby was conceived at all, then there is a mommy and daddy, and that kid MIGHT have stayed with that 'couple', so until medical science changes, I don't think that is going to change.

Or do you mean that kids that don't stay with those biological parents are going to be screwed up? In that case we should outlaw adoption. But you did say "a mommy and daddy", so does that mean we can still give children to parents that already have biological kids of their own? I guess that might be a possibility, and even legal, but what harm comes to kids that are adopted by adults that are sterile? Would you have a problem with letting gay adults that have biological children of their own, or only those that still live with the other parent? What if the spouse is a widow and remarried, should it be ok for someone with kids, but remarried to someone else, be allowed to adopt?

Should we make it illegal for non-married people or single people to adopt? If a good mother is widowed when her child is young, should we take the kid away unless she remarries, or should the kid be taken away no matter what?

It is wonderful when a child can grow up with many wonderful happy healthy people in their life. We all need heroes and role models to help us guide our way to what we want from life, and to build strong social structures that help sustain the human species. For some people that is very easy, and for some very hard. Some kids are planned, others are not. Plenty of planned kids have difficult lives, and many unplanned kids grow up to be wealthy and successful.

But, what situations do we understand are unhealthy and do harm children? If we must not allow kids to grow up without a mommy and daddy, I see that as very sweeping. I don't think it would be possible, but I also really don't see it as necessary.

FUCK YOU!

Well, you certainly seem to have some very strong feelings about the situation, and if this really is about doing the best we can to help children, and encourage people to have happy and healthy lives, respect the past, the present, and our culture, then not only are you likely doing the best you can as individual to meet that end, but the world is going to be a better place with people like you that will stand up and speak their mind.

Let's just be careful in setting government policy that we are clear as to our intents and purposes, rationalize policy with sound facts, and be careful what stories we share about other people, particularly sweeping generalizations about a person of a particular ethnic background, gender, hair color, sexuality, religion other than to promote communication and dissolve unnecessary, unproductive, or simply untrue stereotypes. As for the true ones, lets try to be practical and keep such generalizations in perspective.

Thank you for taking the time to write, you gave me a lot to think about, and I will rethink my perspective and over generalization that black, poor, and uneducated people voted yes on prop 8 because they are in part the same group. There is obviously more to the issue than that, and I look forward to sharing your perspective with others.

Take care,
Keith

Warning, Jesus got involved. Some adult content was inspired by and included in this email.

YesJesusYes writes:

Hello Homosexual.

Do you want to know why we so successful in passing Proposition 8? Because of YOU! (Thank you!!) How much money did you contribute to the "vote no on prop 8!" campaign? Probably zilch, based on the pitiful amount of money that was raised to counter our pro-family advertising. How many "vote No!" rallies did you go to? Based on the pathetic number of anti-8 rallies (and even more pathetic number of participants at them), you probably didn't go to a single one, did you? In fact, if just one fifth of all homosexuals in California would have given $50 to the "vote no!" campaign, you would have outspent our "yes!" campaign by millions. If just one tenth of homosexuals in California, who claim to be so against this proposition, had actually protested or rallied, there would have been hundreds of thousands protesting in the streets of California. Hahahahaha! I saw about 20 protesters. This leaves me with one simple conclusion: YOU DON'T CARE! You pretend to care, but you don't! Why else would the vast majority of you and all your homo California friends do absolutely NOTHING?! Oh, sure, there are a few random die-hard homosexuals who gather in little 50 to 100 person rallies to "stand up" for your homosexual agenda, but the rest of you, MILLIONS of you, don't give a rat's ASS about your "equal" rights!

I'll let you in on a little secret: My church has known for YEARS that the homosexual community is apathetic, unorganized, and unmotivated. (Except when it comes to your parties and disgusting gay parades) Why do you think my pastor gets away with preaching anti-homosexual, pro-family messages on regular basis? It's because he knows you people won't do anything and simply don't care! You're all too hung over to show up and protest at our church on Sunday mornings, because all you do is party and do drugs. Does that offend you? Well truth hurts.

Actually, I have to take that back. I can't give you ALL the credit for passing proposition 8. If I did that, I would be ignoring the tens of millions of dollars and countless hours of organized effort ME and my church put in to passing it. I do have to pat myself on the back a little. You see, I've given 10% of everything I make to my church EVERY month. Do you know how much money that is? (It's thousands and thousands of dollars a year.) Do you have any idea how many of me and my friends/family give thousands and thousands of dollars to our anti-homosexual churches each and every month? (millions and millions a year.) Our churches are organized and have every bit as much money as we need to defeat homosexuals each and every time a proposition or constitutional amendment comes up for vote. That's why gay people are losing their rights all over this country! Did you know 30 states have now passed (by VOTE!) constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage? Hmm….it sure sounds like we're winning to me!

Good luck changing this country with your youtube posts and angry emails. While you sit on your ass at your computer, I'll be rallying with my fellow anti-homosexual Christians, raising money to continue taking away you and your homosexual friends' rights. And every time I see one of your pathetic rally of 20 or 30 homosexuals huttled together on a street corner, first I'm going to laugh, then I'm going to think of you and wonder if you're a) partying, or b) sitting on your ass in front of your computer. Then I'll laugh again.

YesJesusYes

My reply:

1) I will totally agree we are having way more fun than you. Personally though, I don't do drugs.

2) I am married to a woman, and ban on gay marriage doesn't stop my wife or I from having as much sex as either one of us with either men or woman. It is really great to be attractive, just fyi.

3) If 10% of your income amounts to "thousands" of dollars a year, I am sorry. But thank you for yet another example of how it is easier to get money from poor people than rich people; it is why they are poor!

4) You only make ten * thousands of dollars a year, and rather than saving for a college fund, let alone move to a nice neighborhood, buying better food, keeping a nicer house, tutor for your kids to get better grades, you give that money to some fly by night group that calls themselves a religion? I love this "fuck the dead sea scrolls, we got words on gold" joke. It would only be funnier if I was the one getting the money, which leads to...

5) The church (members, pastors, whatever) loves gay bashing, and going to protests while good little mommy bakes cookies for their good little Mormon husbands. But he who works hard has to play hard. Do you have any idea how many blow jobs I have gotten from really nervous "homophobic" Mormon in their 20's? I have many gay friends and every one of them has a sugar daddy. And you know who helps make this happen? People like you! Guys that are attractive and out of the closet are self empowered, have no repressed homosexual feelings, and have nothing to hide. They are also choosey. That is no fun. On the other hand, you get one of these homophobic, church going, perfect husband types and start talking about how uptight woman can be sometimes, and it is amazing how quickly the conversation will turn to "why can't women be more like men?", to "have you ever tried?" to "I wonder what it is like?", to "Would it be ok i I sucked your cock, I'm not gay! But don't tell anyone / my wife. She would be all weird about it." These guys always think they are soo original. But it is too funny how virgins think so hard and are all confused and stuff to always come up with the same answer. I just smile, and tell them "I understand sure you can suck on my cock a bit, and don't worry, you can fondle my balls too".

6) It doesn't matter. Unless you believe your own propaganda, nothing is going to change. Teachers can teach about love all they want, male male, male female, female female, whatever. And I don't know if you have paid any attention to the national issue, but this whole prop 8 thing has got every kid in every school talking about gay marriage. I thought that was what you were trying to stop, and you call your little temporary restraining order a win? YOU and your church made homosexuality the biggest issue in this country after the election, and after that, you successfully changed the minds of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the Governator against prop 8 and pro gay marriage. The only "victory" you got was pandering to the poorerst and least educated and told them all kinds of horror stories... only to get 52% of the vote. HA HA HA!!! You do know WHY the supreme court has never heard the ban on gay marriage issue? Cause they have already said that it is a CLEAR violation of equal protection, and separation of church and state. With California finally taking the ranks to get a ban on gay marriage, this will mean the supreme court is going to actually address the issue directly. While you go to church and whine about all the fun the gays are having, and how they must be the reason why your marriage sucks, or whatever else poor people do, some of us actually pay attention to what is going on with regard to the law, and follow what the supreme court does, and how they think. Something my friends laugh about every once in awhile with regard to "apathy" is how few people actually know the supreme court addresses more than one or two case a year. So until the bill is signed into law, anyone planning to get married still can, and nobody married now will loose their marriage licenses at all. Its called contract law and de facto segregation. Do you have any idea how the this system of government works at all, or do you only know how to spread the lies and get people to sign petitions to "save the children"?

7) Well, despite this email obviously being targeted to a mass audience, and my name merely being on a list with (I am sure I could name a few) others, Any other implications I have already blogged about, and if you care to read / comment, I would love to have more to share and laugh about with my friends. http://nakedpenguins.org

And last but not least, thanks for giving me something to write about. I have been a bit busy partying and loving life recently, but not having too much to blog about, ant this was inspiring. Who would have thought I would be so influential as to get on your list. I feel so special.

And don't forget that the whole church is a lie, that they cheat you with a smile on their face, there is no god, and when you die you will have gone from a whole fake life of servitude to an imaginary superhero just to make someone else rich. There is no heaven. You had one life and you just wasted it on nothing. "And it would be funny if it just wasn't so sad".

And now we are both laughing. What a great world we live in that two people can make each other so happy, despite our differences.

Have a nice life, and keep on reaching for that rainbow, or planet, or whatever your adorable little fan club dies.

Keith

I love youtube!

Update on prop 8

So I was updated recently regarding Scenario #1 in my Californians Vote God Hates Fags.

Sadly, in a way, not a possibility. Governor does not sign such laws into place... but it is still up to legislature to interpret what the law actually does. It looks like it is going to go route #2 or #3, as I have been hearing there are already seven appeals in place, + 2 lawsuits against the Mormon church working on a case for voter fraud for she many lies in their campaign to manipulate the vote. I am betting that the churches lies will be seen as free speech unless there is some part I am missing.

It will be interesting to watch, particularly under the upcoming administration.

Some are making points that "no on prop 8" failed because the yes on 8 people tried a LOT harder to canvass the state with their message. My question is how much of that is true, because of (relative) apathy, and how much of that was half the fighters, not hoping so much that it would pass, as leaving it to the supreme court? If the latter, I strongly hope that apathy does not spill over into the support for making a good case in the supreme court.

And on another note, hurray to the (some 18,000?) protesters camping out in front of the Mormon church in LA. While that may have made more sense 2 weeks ago, I find it hilarious that as the church thought they were fighting the gays off, and keeping them away from their family / children, their church is now where they can see more gays than a pride parade in SF.

Hm....

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA... *stop to inhale* HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think I might just cry a little that is so funny.

California voters rule "God Hates Fags"

So I got to talk to a friend last night that gave me some comfort in the bureaucracy of the issue. Key points:

Scenario #1
1. Governor Schwarzenegger said regarding prop 22 that he supported equal rights, but that as governor he had to support the will of the people BUT that he would leave it to the courts to decide.
2. If that means he is going to stand by the decision of the California supreme court, he can let the issue sit for 30 days, after which not being signed would automatically be vetoed.
3. The state senate is not in session. The senate could over turn his veto with a 66% majority... if they were in session.
4. Prop 8 dies

Scenario #2
1. Governor Schwarzenegger "respects the will of the [majority of] the [voting] people", signs the bill, leaving it to the Supreme court to possibly decide.
2. Five constitutional amendments have been proposed, which would require a 75% majority of the people, AFTER it gets the approval of some high majority of the senate and house each (one 66%, the other 75%. This has all but been completely been burned, never going to happen... so we can hope.
3. The supreme court has refused to hear any issue on gay marriage because they believe the issue has already been resolved. Gay marriage ban is CLEARLY unconstitutional under the 14th amendment equal protection clause.
4. Now with 30+ states with gay marriage bans, and particularly California banning gay marriage, The supreme court will have to hear the issue and make their final ruling.
5. And in case it needs to be said: there were some strong compilations with people that voted yes on 8. Sadly if black, but also the poorer the person, and the less educated you were, the more likely the person was to vote yes on 8. Asian and Hispanic were tied, white people voted no, as well as educated and middle to upper class voted no. So for an extra point, where do most supreme court justices typically fall in that demographic?

Separate issue:

prop 8 still has to be interpreted, so despite all the lies spewed by the churches to successfully sway the poor and uneducated, there is a little lie that got through from the no on 8 side. Married gay couples will not loose their marriage licenses, otherwise it is de facto segregation. The licenses were lawfully obtained at a time when it was legal. there is nothing in prop 8 that makes this retroactive, not to mention the courts get to interpret the law... a court that has already decided on the issue. The language may be "very clear", but the implications are still completly open to interpretation.

Further, until the bill is signed into law, it is still legal. Therefore anyone planning to get married may consider moving their plans up to ASAP.

Scenario #3
Civil Unions are brought up to date to be equal to 'marriage', and marriage is abolished as being a clear violation of separation of church and state, as well as equal protection, effectivly making prop 8 irrelevant. This could happen either in California, but there is a decent chance this is what would happen in the supreme court.

I'd like to see this issue resolved sooner... you know, like today like I expected. But as history has shown, the harder you try to oppress people for a longer period of time, the blow back when they are finally unwilling to put up with it has larger and larger implications as time goes by.

It is more than simply not over, one can say that this has really just begun.

To anyone else that cared about the California propositions, this is how things split according to LA Times:

Propositions Precincts reporting: ~95.0%

• 1A: High-speed rail Yes 52.2% No 47.8%
• 2: Farm animals Yes 63.2% No 36.8%
• 3: Children’s hospitals Yes 54.7% No 45.3%
• 4: Abortion notification Yes 47.6% No 52.4%
• 5: Drug offenses Yes 40.2% No 59.8%
• 6: Criminal justice Yes 30.5% No 69.5%
• 7: Renewable energy Yes 35.1% No 64.9%
• 8: Gay marriage ban Yes 52.0% No 48.0%
• 9: Victims’ rights Yes 53.2% No 46.8%
• 10: Alternative fuels Yes 40.1% No 59.9%
• 11: Redistricting Yes 50.5% No 49.5%
• 12: Loans for veterans Yes 63.4% No 36.6%

Happy Election Day!!

I am enjoying election day. The only upsetting thing is the people I know with VERY strong opinions on a number of issues, and to be fair share my opinion on most of the propositions, but are not voting. I fear too many people that might share my opinions will not vote, while the minority (like yes on 8 people) will vote in record numbers.

Anyway, there was a great discussion, and a lot of people brought up some interesting questions I enjoyed covering. Anyway, here they are.

---

Are we over regulating business or not enough?

People talk about free market like as if it is an anything goes. If that was true, why was "Wealth of Nations" and "The Theory of Money and Credit" such massive works?

Free market theory theory of economics, IMHO, isn't about what the government shouldn't do, it is about what it CAN'T do given the nature of an economy. The government can be a normal competitor, and one with BIG money, but it can't make bad businesses successful. Money doesn't create wealth, no matter how much you give away. We can redistribute wealth, and that costs money. Doing useful work is the only thing that improves the 'wealth of a nation'.

Sure, people are greedy, but people are driven by greed to do really great things. Greed can always lead to corruption, but what? Somehow our politicians are above that? What country have you been living in? At least greedy businessmen have something to loose. I think the most important thing we can do set high standards and educate people. And the balance? Employees are greedy, and nothing is more greedy than a consumer.

I don't get this whole "how much regulation is enough?". No amount of the wrong regulation is going to work. We need to look at what types of regulations can and can not work. Price fixing DOES NOT WORK. Taxes need to be product and revenue neutral. Regulations need to be equal, but the government needs to know its place. Mises says that one of the few roles of government that it can play that are different than any other large consumer is the handling of broken contracts. In particular, when someone provides goods, services, or money today to get goods, services, or money in the future, and one of those parties fails to meet their obligation, then the government can intervene to see that the failing party is treated fairly in the liquidation of it's assets as appropriate. That is why this bailout thing is such a nightmare! Businesses that have proven not worthy of survival, for many different reasons, need to die. The government needs to ensure that those businesses are liquidated in a fair manner. Instead, they are being propped up? Why?!?

Now I know that isn't all that is happening. Anyone can buy these loans, and if the government wants to get into that business, then they can be an equal player, but buying any loan under its fair market value makes little sense.

The place where there can be a problem is when government tried to drive the market in a direction it doesn't want to go. I think a great example of this is the drug war. We spend tons of money, for a number of different reason to artificially reduce the supply of certain drugs deemed unsafe. What happens? price goes up. That isn't regulation, that is just manipulation. Regulation would be oversight into ensuring drugs were made cleanly and that customers knew what they were getting. Government could give oversight to certification programs that have various standards, just like the FDA, BBB, HUD, and such. If someone is brewing drugs in their bathtub, they should be shut down for the fire hazard. If a place has quality equipment that is well maintained, doctors, clean needles, safe rooms, and counseling services, not only should they get an A+ like the health department does for restaurants, but nobody is going to buy from the drug dealer on the street corner. And I thought this was all about keeping people safe. It has worked in European countries that have adopted this, and I think Canada has a similar program, and that was exactly the result. Also, a good number of people cleaned up, not to mention drug crime virtually disappeared. How can we keep saying that the type of regulation we have today is working when the number one cause of accidental death in this country is from overdose prescription drugs?

Free market says the best players win that give the customer what they want with quality and at a low price. Government has the power to encourage the best business, and that is the type of regulation we need. We can also use a lot of it. But the current ideology in regulation is fundamentally and it has been proven for a very long time that it CAN'T work, and it is those types of regulations that need to be eliminated.

What I see by both sides is blaming bad regulations as PROOF of too little regulation by liberals, and too much regulation by conservatives. There are tons of books on this stuff, not just by Mises and Smith, but too often it really looks like Congress is just guessing at what would work. Why not back off, study the market, and then see where they can find the competitive advantage. Personally, I think if the government likes what a company is doing, they should buy the product, not mess with how much money they aren't going to take away from them.

This is in part why I think Fair Tax makes sense. It was the result of a large, quality study. The government needs taxes, not to mention the government supports this great country where the market exists. I like the way the Ferangi in Star Trek see the market, as a large river that must carefully be navigated. Regulating taxes is like building a damn. A consumption tax puts the damn as far down stream as possible, and in just one place where everyone knows. What we have right now is water polution. When it comes to supply and demand, income taxes just discourage income, which manifests itself in some very bizzare ways. Same with payroll taxes, estate taxes, corporate taxes, and other things. We have this crazy mess of nets in this "river", and rightfully so businesses have to traverse it; a businesses ability to navigate the river directly coorilates to competitive advantage. And when somebody wins, they call it a loop hole.

Pull out the unnecessary nets. The market place is difficult enough to figure out without all these artifical barriers. Tax consumption in a fair way as Fair Tax proposes (Personally, I think the prebate would eliminate a need for welfare, but maybe that's just me), and in any place where the market fails, jump in there and compete, and stop just handing out monopolies to the highest bidder that meets some kind of short sighted goal. The market is rough, and every time the government tries to do something unnatural, trying to tame something that can't be tamed, it just keeps resulting in a cascading effect of "unintended consequences".

---

Did the GOP change McCain?

McCain hasn't changed at all. I think knowing him, Palin was the perfect pick. The issue was that McCain was the perfect pick to put up against Hillary. The PROBLEM is that McCain didn't change his strategy. An over simplification of the issue was that Hillary would have come off as an unrealistic leftist, while McCain made off as the conservative / left moderate. The problem (for him) is honestly Obama's change thing. He wants to revolutionize socialism (what some have called democratic socialism). McCain's plan of attack didn't anticipate this at all, and not knowing how to deal with it, he has defaulted to sticking with a failed game plan OR he is being consistent. Either way, we are now forced to decided between a democrat, and a socialist.

And only one is seen as a traitor to their party.

Republicans have not stood on a conservative platform in over 20 years, and conservatives that loved their party are jumping ship. Republicans on their conservative platform saw the advantage of pandering to the religious right. The problem is that they ended up selling out and letting their constituents take over so far as to sell out on their conservative beliefs.

I consider myself a conservative, and do republicans, but my democrat friends say I am an extreme libertarian. I had hope and belief that Republicans had conservatism as the fore front of their policy, but the constant compromising and this neo-conservative nightmare has become "do whatever sounds nice for the people that support us".

Some people like this. Obviously, otherwise why would the Republicans have adopted it? They just under estimated the number of people that are conservative because it is the best thing for the country, not their self serving interests. There are people that love Palin, and there are Republicans that see McCain's move to the left as a positive, encouraging bipartisanship.

And I think it would have been enough for a win against Hillary. It was just the wrong strategy against Obama when it comes to getting the majority of electorates. I do not fault McCain for sticking to what he believes in, if you can at least believe for a moment that he did that. I think the fault lies more with the GOP. I know many people would say this is crazy, but I think the reason Ron Paul was not supported by the GOP is because he is hated by the media / entertainment industry. The GOP be that it couldn't beat the media at that game. Ron Paul ran on a platform of change. dramatic change back to logic and traditional conservatism that believes in a rational science of politics. I think with the back of the GOP, and unfortunately the religious right that would never have voted for Obama, HIS conservative platform of change, getting the Republican party to what it stood for, and had MAJOR victories throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's would have brought hope to people that we can get back to what worked, within an enlightened vision, versus this radically untested democratic socialist platform of Obama's. The media would have been forced to back off and cover the election in the way it could to get ratings. McCain's coverage is proof that the media doesn't go light on any candidate it doesn't support, and McCain got hit harder than has been seen in a long time. McCain's actual weaknesses didn't help either.

I really think Paul could have stood up to the heat, and I really wish there could have been a real debate between Obama and Paul rather than that monkey dance we were made to endure. IMHO, the reason McCain could not hit any of Obama's weaknesses was because on his important faults, McCain is virtually the same person. I seriously wish some of those weaknesses could have been addressed by a real, experienced, and lovable conservative.

To anyone that follows business stuff, the GOP was to the entertainment industry what Rubbermaid was to Walmart; a disposable asset that could be manipulated in their favor. And to (certain) music lovers, the only chance they had was what happened between ICP and Disney. ICP may not have done as well, as they could have.. but they are doing a whole lot better than Rubbermaid.

The GOP didn't know when to quit, so their voters did instead.

---

Why Palin was a good pick for McCain

1) She was/is the highest rated governor in the Country.

2) Alaska joined the Union for its oil reserves, and Palin strongly believes that this country needs energy independence (despite any reasons / understanding or how closely she may have had business with oil companies).

3) She is not a Washington insider / new face

4) She is a role model for women that take the same position as her on women's issues, not to mention she is a very positive example of a person that takes that kind of position


And as I mentioned earlier, all together, I think the pair / plan would have beat Hillary. It is just senseless against Obama. The GOP picked the perfect weapon, for the wrong type of target.

McCain sold the "I am not Bush" plan. Palin is the "I am not Hillary" plan. In addition to being the complete opposite of Hillary with respect to the issues mentioned above, Palin is a more likable person (remember polls saying in 2000 that Bush was the candidate voters would most like to sit with and have a beer? I meant something), and 5) she is really hot.

Hillary never would have had a chance.

---

When did Obama break?

When do you think it happened?


I think it happened in the last few weeks before the primary. Hillary's hate. McCain's hate. I think Obama saw this as something that was only going to help him, but really sad that he could not have had a real fight debating technical issues.

He is great at the "Hope" "Change" speeches that get all the idiots drooling over him, but he also really has the ability to get down to specific details and argue their merits and set out a clear vision such as his "A Call to Renewal" podcast from 2002.

I said it to myself around the primary that Obama was a great gift, and the best we could really wish for to lead this country... but we don't deserve him, and our petty BS is going to break a really great man. I know this is just what some really hate hearing, but he reminds me of John Coffey from The Green Mile; he was this miracle given to us that by our greed and hate we would destroy for our own selfish, petty reasons.


Now is he broken? Maybe. Could he just need some rest and recover soon after today?

I have Hope.


On a separate note, I hated him a LOT up till recently for supporting the bail out, and further for supporting the PRO-IP Act. But going to give him a chance, and hope it plays out well, like Lessig or Patry being given the position of Internet Czar. Preferably Patry cause I know there is already a position of Internet Advisor Obama has made for Lessig in his cabinet.

---

United States Naval Academy is nothing to scoff at

While I am not a McCain fan AT ALL, and while it is sad that neither Palin or McCain have ANY higher education, and both Biden and Obama have great educational achievements, it is worth keeping in mind that McCain did graduate at the bottom of his class from the United States Naval Academy, which for any of you who are not military buffs, is about the most prestigious, not to mention most difficult, training facility in the world. It would be little different than criticizing an athlete for getting nearly last place in the Olympics. Yeah, it is nearly last, but it is the MF'n Olympics. Or bottom of your class from MIT, Harvard, or Stanford

I don't think it is really something that can be used to criticize his experience. The disgusting mess of this war? Now that is certainly something well worth using against him... I just think it is a separate issue from his academic achievements.

This was in your lifetime if you are half way to voting age

Is this what people really think today about equality?

Bjornredtail writes in response to this video against prop 8:

Lessig didn't comment on what I think is the strongest argument in favor of prop 8: Individual Freedom.

I think that having state recognition of homosexual marriage will be used to force people and their organizations to recognize gay marriage, regardless of their personal beliefs.

This is far more worrisome than the limited inequality that would exist if prop 8 passed. The state recognizes civil unions, and the state would not block a gay couple from being married without state recognition.

My response:

Can you explain how civil rights forced white people to like black people, or [forced] anybody to believe that blacks were equal just because they were given equal protection under the law? The only argument I have heard on this issue is that being gay is a choice, and being black is not. [So one is treated] like a disease [and the other like an illness]. You speak like these were things we were forced to do. I disagree, maybe they were the RIGHT thing to do. Or is civil rights just a defense against the uppity? What do you really believe?

Note: Comments on youtube are limited to 500 words, which requires me to pick words sometimes too carefully in ways that are too quickly to the point at the expense of clarity. With more room on my blog, I have restored the comment in full with the parts that I think needed more clarity. I have done this before, but this time I just thought I would take a chance to point it out.

Response to McClintock's opinion on the California Propositions

@Josh and Tom

I do not see how you can call yourself a Libertarian or a conservative and support prop 4 or 8. I am a registered libertarian because I believe the constitution outlined a framework for the limitations in the purpose government is meant to serve. There are certain things people CAN do and there are things that people CAN NOT do. The only role I see necessary for the government is infrastructure and contract enforcement / dissolution, with very broad interpretation. Roads, power lines, Internet are infrastructure issues. Issues from murder to civil rights are a matter of social contract. Good policy is the only thing that can legitimize a government. When a government goes beyond its role of infrastructure and contract enforcement, it becomes illegitimate. This was a fundamental flaw identified with democracies by the Greeks is that Governments that serve the majority rather social contract of the society for the individual, you end up with a class-ism separating people into groups for which the government serves, and others to which are only slaves.

Marriage is a social contract. It may have many varieties with regard to religion, race, eye color, and hair style, but natural law allows two people to coexist in what ever way they desire. God's law, if you would have it: Anything that can happen on a deserted island. Two people can coexist and either work together, or not. These are the fundamental laws put into place by the natural order of the universe. That can not be regulated legitimately any more than making heavy things smaller controls gravity.

Now, a legitimate government can recognize that individuals may wish to coexist in a way that is mutually beneficial. This is a natural social contract. The government can, as part of its role it serves in assisting with social contracts, reduce the obligations on parts of the individuals to contribute to the government because in the way that the government is there to assist people, those people are already assisting people with each other. To make matters simple, the government will only recognize one such commitment between any two people at a time (not including dependents, but that is a different type of social contract). This amounts to reduction in taxes, joint filing, hospital visits, and other such things that make them a unit in the eyes of the law, and recognizing the reduction of work necessary by the government because these two people are partly doing the governments job with respect two those individuals, for each other.

Between person + person = contract and the recognition of that contract by the government, what legitimate role could the government have in judging who the members of that contract after we have recognized then as citizens.

Under this interpretation of the role of government and legitimate social policy, person + dog = marriage is legitimately illegal because the dog is not a citizen, and therefore can not enter a legal contract in any way that is enforceable by the government (don't read too much into it, it was only meant to be taken at face value and the context). person + child = marriage is not legitimate because the government does not recognize children as adults. Government recognizes its citizens, and children are still wards of the parents. In a society, with regard to social policy alone, there is a social contract that says "I will be a part of this society, but I don't want you to have sex with my kids". This social contract is enforceable by law going back to natural law / deserted island. People need to know the differences between being part of the society, and being alone in nature.

So as Wanda Sykes puts it, if you are against same-sex marriage, don't marry a member of the same sex. You don't want to enter into a certain contract with somebody, you don't have to; another part of the governments role.

Now, more of the way that this role of government is recognized is in the first amendment, with regard to religion. The contract of Marriage exist in all religions I know of. It is an important part of peoples faiths. The religious implications are irrelevant with regard to the role the government plays.

Government should not regulate religion, religious ceremonies, or other things that have no legitimacy having a relationship to the law. However, there is no reason why the government should not be allowed to call its relationship to this social contract that coexists with the persons faith, also marriage. If the government can not legitimately coexist with the word marriage for the implications it can have with regard to a persons faith, then either the relationship needs to be abolished, or the name needs to change for people to recognize and respect its differences.

Marriage for all, or we need to only have civil unions.

Now prop 4 is a little more complicated. I mentioned earlier the legitimacy the government has to step in with regard to relationship with minors, but this is something different. The elements and legitimacy of the government with regard to social contract contrasted with natural / God's law. Natural law says, as in what will happen in nature, is that a woman becomes fertile. With regard to the moral standards of our society, it is very young, but nature only knows a female as either prepubescent, and fertile. We can mess with it in all kinds of ways. We could force medication on people, we can chain chastity belts on them, we can even traumatize them with terrible stories of whores and witchcraft, but none of that changes the natural order of things.

Further, there is way more to reproduction and fertility than man + woman = baby, or eggs + sperm = baby, or penis + vagina = baby. Look at infant mortality rates around the world, and see it is more complicated then that. Women that want to become mothers that have lived so far very rewarding lives that want to expand on their experiences by adding motherhood to that experience are warned of the dangers of possible complications involved in breeding. It is common to expect possible mis carriages in early term. Part of this comes from nature knowing and regulating this. The natural law causes some people to not become mothers, causes people to die during childbirth, causes miscarriages / spontaneous abortion. A big part of that is a womans body can know if it is right to have a baby. In nature, animals frequently kill their young if they know that the children would not survive, and that if the mother takes care of herself, she is going to have better opportunities to actually have a healthy litter or whatnot in the future. Obviously, this is most common amongst mammals.

This is a complicated and emotional issue. While this may have sounded like an argument to support abortion, that was not the purpose. The places where the government can get involved with regard to abortion were outlined in Roe v. Wade, which was NOT a 'free for all' on abortion. It clearly outlined circumstances and situations where the government at different levels could get involved. To any supporter of pro-choice or pro-life as each life to be referred, I hope you know and understand exactly what Roe v. Wade actually decided, because I will agree that it addressed the core "issue" in a very unique way, unlike much of any other supreme court decision before or after.

So to social contracts and natural law, it makes it is illegitimate for the government to not recognize the right to privacy rights of minors IN THIS UNIQUE CASE. Driving, smoking, drinking, voting, owning property, and many other things that are rights, privileges, and benefits of civilized society. In this way, the government has an obligation to uphold the requests of the parent with regard to those issues as the child is still a legal defendant. Over simplifying, in every other case, the government is protecting the people from the government such that benefits do not become hindrances, even if they continue to be liabilities.

For lack of a better term, the government does not enable women to become pregnant in the way that all the other things of a great society can offer. Further, the courts have recognized the wisdom of Edward Abbey and this legal relationship between citizen and government:

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State."

God / Nature has already given a woman the right to choose, in many ways. As the government has decided its role in enforcing the social contract of expectations of the part of society for a fertile woman, we leave to the woman what would otherwise be left to nature. There is no legitimate reason for an issue so closely related in the natural contract between a woman and nature for something like the government to come in and apply its ideas about age and maturity on an issue with which the government had no role to play.

Other than that, most everything else there is to say on the matter has been said. Parents should have the right to form open and honest relationships with their children as their defendants as they see fit. There is little justification for government to impose mandates on parenting other than the strict guidelines with regard to overt abuse and neglect. Teachers can be compelled to teach certain subjects and for certain core material be covered because parents are trusting their kids with that teacher. The government is expected to regulated, especially when it comes to a government (public) school. To give the government the power to force parents to talk about anything with their kids can be understandable, but it is completely illegitimate with regard to the role of government.

As for the other issues:
prop 1: infrastructure. Will this proposal over all make a positive contribution to the infrastructure of California? Yes.

I have some issues with the way that those contracts are given out, but that is a completely different issue that is not going to be resolved by revising this bill in any way.

2: Social policy? Well, that is why we vote. Is this the minimum standard we as a society want to set for providing these types, whether they be used domestically or for import. I think it is a good bill, but it is not complete. If we want this to be our social policy, it needs to be more than a restriction on California farmers. Prop 2 should be a consumer protection not a farm animal protection; farm animals are not citizens. The restriction should be on what is legal to produce and sell in this state. Then California is setting a good example in its policy, and providing for protections for consumers that wanted that policy. Seems easy enough. So vote yes if you think this is good and can be improved, or reject it for either disagreeing with the idea, or because we should not make bad laws that need to be fixed later. I side with only passing good laws.

3. Government might have a legitimate role in medicine, but it has utterly failed in every attempt. The progress made has been by individuals, doctors, and organizations that have been forced to battle the government. Yuck, what a mess. Government needs to get out, figure itself out before trying to just do MORE. Out of the context of what government has done for health care, this proposal makes no sense in our present economic situation.

5. Something the government has gotten overly involved in and screwed up horribly. The number one cause of accidental death in this country is prescription drugs followed by non prescription drugs. The drug war wasn't just a failure, but it should have reinforced this idea of the role of government and splitting up people into classes it very damaging to society. Our only solution to drug problems in the past (at least drugs the government can't give out patents for and such) is use it as an excuse to circumvent civil rights laws, and lock up undesirables. The issue has become more complicated, and we have learned that prohibition does not work. This will be a delicate issue, and while I could be in support of a sledge hammer to the issue, I recognize the desire by people for this to be a progressive matter, and that aside from the problems with the law, there are some real issues with drugs that need to be addressed. Prop 5 is a very well designed step towards a society that supports and protects social policy.

6. I think about the same is true for prop 6 as prop 5, but I am less familiar with the details and implications of the proposals, but feel that right or wrong, it is a legitimate role of government to address this issue, and that the people I would be most concerned about this bill being affected are in support of it.

7. Infrastructure? NO! This is a private business matter. There are TONS of problems with power companies in the state due to well intentioned BAD policy. This might possibly have a place in some state that had a handle on the issue, but it is particularly awful to try to throw on top of the heaping pile of [junk] that has become utilities management in this state. This is the most corrupt industry in this state, rivaled maybe only by telecommunications.

9. The way McClintock is putting it, such a law is already in place. If there is a problem, it is being addressed from the wrong angle. I am for victims rights, but there is a limit to everything before it just becomes [bad].

10. I completely agree with McClintock's argument.

11. Same

12. Same

The government is not your god. What a sick implication that you would petition the government to address issues completely outside of its role or purpose. Take some responsibility for your own lives, and use sound judgment before giving up your rights to make the government to do your bidding, cause some how historically, that never quite seems to work out. The government is power hungry and happy to take anything you give it. Think of Stephen King's "Needful Things". Be careful what you wish for.

UPDATE: Glad I blogged this, cause my reply wasn't posted. maybe it was too long, but I had a lot to say. Rather than starting a new post, I want to share the thoughts I had in the few hours after this posting.

With regard to the principles I argued for that make a legitimate government, I started thinking more about something humorous about this election. We are stuck picking between a democrat, and a socialist. With regard to some of the comments made on the Mark Levin Show (Afternoons PSD Sirius Patriot 144) about Obama's anti-founding fathers, anti us constitution comments from 2001 on Chicago Public Radio, I started reflecting on "Trying something different". If failure is a reflection of the plan then it is not terribly difficult to argue the plan didn't work. Our founding fathers told us what would work, and how this country would ultimately fail. They were right. So if we are going to praise them for what they did so well, maybe we should give them a little more credit for this countries failure.

Barack Obama has Hope for Change. republicans (little 'r' just for you Mike Church) have the worst fears of his Marxist regime, as they put it. I have been arguing for awhile that arguing with others that the constution is GREAT, bug that we gave up on it long ago. We live in a Media run, strongly religious right, communist nation. So maybe the republicans are right, and maybe the reason this isn't getting any huge attention because this is exactly what people want, and kinda don'd want to use the forbidden 'C' word to describe their beliefs because it has been such a taboo subject since the McCarthy Era and the Rosenburg trial. Or maybe they just havn't actually read the Communist Manifesto and understand the vision Marx had.

So what if Obama wants to try this new social experiment of what I have refered to as "democratic socialism". Obviously some people disadreed with Ron Paul on his reasons why people should not vote for him; "If you think that government has to take care of us, from cradle to grave, and if you think our government should police the world, [then I am not your cannidate]" he says.

With all the problems in this country right now, I think people are desperately looking for something different, in a major way, possible just in protest of how bad things have gotten screwed up so bad. The country wants to take another look at communism, but with more of a classless approach, a compassion for the american dream that works on giving a helping hand to everyone that wants to try. People are saying screw progress, we want help today.

I don't think this is the best solution for the country... but I do recognize that despite the fact that I think what is flanned is totally wrong in so many ways, I am exactly in the margin to get the most help... if you ignore the possibility of the whole system collapsing in on itself such that nobody can get any help.

Maybe this is the last I can hope for instead of feeling so cynical. I am told to worry about the economy, so I look into it (reading up on some of the great minds on the issue, such as Smith and Mesis) and see the people that are meant to ei leading this nation doing what appears to be down right guessing! All I can think is WTF, a HS Economics clas could show you why what you are doing is totally messed up. Taxes, people complain about taxes. So a real study is put forth to find the best system for all that would not change the present level of income. Pure reform. Real research was done my some of the best minds and finally produce a masterpiece. Finally some rational legislation based on logical reason and historical fact. The Fair Tax. What happenr? It gets ignored! All democrats can say is "Sales Tax is regressive". Read the damn bill! Yeah, it is pretty freaking long, but NOTHING compared to the montrosity of the present system.

It is crazy and frustrating. I am more sympathetic of the people happy that Obama has won than the people claiming the end of the world that McCain lost. I think a lot was totally fucked up by the Clintons, and Bush is being blamed for not fixing it. I CAN NOT accept all the blame being thrown at Bush in the face of a democraticly controlled congress. But fuck democratically controlled, there are 435 members of congress with all their stupid little commities trying to get everything right. Yeah, Bush wasn't a great leader, but this isn't Boy Scouts, you are United States Congressmen. With such a push over of a president, why wasn't this the time for Congress to shine?

Hmm...

Well Here's to HOPE. I am glad people like Obama... but other than that, I don't think I have anything positive to say. Maybe later... on a different subject.

Wanda Sykes puts things into perspective

Thanks feministing.com for sharing this video in your article on gay marriage.

Prop 8 is SOOO GAY!

I have not been pro 8 at any point, but I feel so strongly about it, I feel had begun to feel ignorant, not understanding how ANYONE with any sense of good inside of them could support this measure to change our constitution.

Oh, and to double check, does it seriously need a 50%+ vote to pass? or is it 66% like the US Constitution?

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/2/210

A good article on how the APA resolved the matter. I interpret the last line as to mean that heterosexuals hold certain values about their heterosexuality that conflict with homosexuality.

The funniest thing I see about this is that the church seems to find homosexuality WAY more normal than I do, or much anyone else I know.

What I hear from no on 8 people is that gay is normal for some people, that is just the way they are, and I am different.

The Yes on 8 people say that everyone really wants to be gay and that if people learn about being gay or that being gay is ok, everyone will become gay, and nobody will take care of their families or children or society because being gay is just too wonderful, but the human species will die out!

And even if there was some chance of that being true, is the idea of continuing the species, or heterosexual intercourse, or the opposite gender so detestable to you you need a law to make sure everyone else has to suffer as much as you sacrifice on a regular basis?

Can I just stop for a moment and say... WTF!?!?!?!??

Of course there is always the possibility that this is just the most politically correct way of saying they REALLY like sex,and know what a pain they can be in relationships such that if men can get their pleasure from other men, they will never get laid again.

The more I think about it, the yes on 8 people must have the biggest homo fantasy EVER about the world and the way people work. In a way... it is kinda hot.

It is like as if being hetro is some kind of struggle to make the world a better place, to which I just go HUH?!?

I have been with men and women. I appreciate them each in their own way, but discovered I am VERY straight. It even hurts some times because I believed it was all programming and that everyone in a natural environment was bisexual... and I felt SOOO enlightened... but alas it took me no time at all to realize I was hopelessly straight. I think the biggest part is smell. Guys are gross, and the scent of a woman drives me CrAzY!

I guess being heterosexual is just natural for me.

So again I ask, where the hell are these people coming from, if not of a place of deeply repressed homosexuality?

How about for a poster: "Sorry boys, it isn't as gay as you think. No on Prop 8!"

Sherrie Lockwood

Have you noticed anything? She seems to be about the only person posting all the yes on 8 videos. Further, she is censoring all the comments so that there are only comments from people that are yes on 8. I have seen a full range of comments, and most op the prop 8 videos have many thousands of comments. Hers? only a few hundred, yet she has some of the most watched videos. viewings in the tens of thousands.

It appears she has me blocked me from sending her any kind of messages or commenting on any of her videos. I think that is very telling.

I checked out her web site. WOW, she is very active. HUGE website about herself, church, children, and scout troop. As if her hundreds of videos were not enough.

The really weird thing is with all the stuff she is saying about traditional family, she is a single mother of three boys.

I have nothing wrong with that, and she really appears to be a great mom, and her kids seem really cool, looking through her site... but how is that in any way "traditional", in so far as she seems to keep making the argument?

I think she is the best example of a person with an alternative lifestyle that is a wonderfully supportive parent that has raised some great children. Who is to say you can't call what she has a family? Anyone to pity those kids for coming from a "broken home" really needs a reality check.

Ironic, I think.

I'll skip the history lesson on this one.

DON'T READ THIS POST!!!

The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion. ~Henry Commager

Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

A free press can be good or bad, but, most certainly, without freedom a press will never be anything but bad. ~Albert Camus

Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them. ~Mark Twain, 1935

I posted the above to a video on youtube "Vote YES On prop 8-Six Consequences" by user sherrielockwood. She has heavily censored the comments on her page to ensure that only people that share her opinion can leave comments on her page. How sad.

Well, with people able to post their opinion almost anywhere they like, maybe it is nice she keep a little sanctuary for her dying little cause :)

Is there any chance that all these people saying that they need to fight this cause because God wants them to... when it fails, will that mean that they will understand that they were wrong?

*sigh* Don't worry, I know it is too much to hope for.

That makes me think though. I don't have anything against Sarah Palin. She is a cute little underdog. Despite disagreeing with certain opinions of hers (not all), I do have a concern for her mental well being. I am not implying that she is crazy...yet, because I think it is great when people can draw strength from where ever they can get it, Superman, Jesus, Captain Picard, whoever. It is wonderful.

The place I am concerned is what will happen when she looses. She and her supporters have proclaimed that she is "filled with the Holy Spirit", and while I might really like to fill her with my Holy Spirit, is there a chance she may just loose it when the votes are finally counted, and so few were for her and her man? I don't mean violent crazy, or locked up crazy, but if she really thinks she is the instrument of her god, what will it say about God when her god is ineffective at getting her to president of the senate?

Ha Ha HA!!! ok, maybe I just can't talk about this seriously... Never mind.

I am sure she will come up with some kind of excuse for everything in the end. Hell, she isn't going to stop being a politician. :)

To Jonanda42:

Jonanda42, thanks for the request for comment, but reading your page got me into a rant. my comment ended up being way too long to post, so here is what I wrote in full. A reply comment would be appreciated. My other rant on California prop. 8 is included in the article as well.

Take care
---

Thanks for the request for comment. I'll share what I think the most important point is:
I wrote a full opinion on one aspect of the issue (not my usual satire) on my blog. The short of it, many states had constitutional bans on interracial marriage as recently as 2000. Not enforceable since 1963 with Loving v. Virginia, the year before the civil rights at of 1964 that gave extended equal protect of the law regardless of race, GENDER, religion, and national origin. So, are people really arguing that equal protection regardless or gender was a mistake, or needs to be dissected more carefully? With our grossly incompetent congress at this point in time, the reference you want to give them is the bible?!? The bible is a cute piece of fiction with some interesting stories that reveal a lot about life 1600 years ago, and further back for the old testament. People are actually arguing the relevance of the bible to guide our politics, but disregard the constitution as dated because the founders could not have known what todays world would be like? BULLSHIT! I think our founders understood a hell of a lot more about tyranny than the vast majority of the country. Back to prop 8 for a sec, this is the PERFECT example of how democracy is a doomed failure. You want to read an ancient text that was actually based on fact? Read The Histories, a fantastic piece about what the Ancient Greeks learned about why democracy sucks; key point: despite whatever works, it eventually comes down to the majority being able to do whatever they want to the minority. 51% of people can vote to change the constitution while 49% oppose? That is FUCKED UP, and the fact that this is even on the ballot pisses me off. Blacks only make up 15% of the American population... so what? that means the other 85% can RAPE them for anything their hearts desire? Sadly, equality didn't come through change in the hearts of Americans. It took some rouge supreme court justices that looked at the heart of the constitution to understand the great theory of America and FORCED it upon an unwilling majority declaring "WAKE THE FUCK UP, THIS IS AMERICA!!!". So go on and impose your little democratic gestapo because some law might make you come out of the fucking closet, or tell your children they have the right to make informed decisions about love. The one great thing about even the remote chance this might pass is that it will justify an appeal to the United States Supreme Court where it will be found unconstitutional, and it will force EVERY STATE to recognize gay marriage. And not only will your your precious little children be taught about love between two people, but right next to Loving v. Virginia their history books will cits that nasty time in history before fags v. California.

All you can hope for is deadly cancer that will turn you into dirt (sorry, heaven is a lie) so you won't have to see a place where fags can marry. Sorry suckers, it is going to happen, and your gay son is going to help.

No on Prop 8!

This was a letter I sent in response to a very angry reply I received regarding some satirical comments I left on a "yes on prop 8" advert on youtube. Sorry I do not have the original comment as I can not find a way to track my youtube comments. oh well.

Oh, to note though, the various pieces of satire basically had a theme of me cheating on my wife and my gay lover wanting to marry me, which was why I needed prop 8 to pass, and how prop 8 is an important step towards establishing traditional marriage as being between a white man and a white woman (As was the law in many states up until as late as 2000, seriously, though technically unenforcible since 1963 with Loving v. Virginia)

Anyway, here was my response:

hmm... I seem to have written too much today, or too many people are posting to quickly that I don't know which message you were replying to.

Anyway, I quickly tire of the same repeat arguments from both sides. I prefer to express myself through satire; making an argument for the opposition that exposes them for their wrong. Anyway, if perchance your question of "what does this have to do with race?" was actual curiosity I would love to share my perspective assuming you are even still reading this.

For a long time African Americans could not marry. This was more in the time of slavery and such, but it did take some time after until African Americans could have 'legal' marriages. More quickly than states giving African Americans the right to marry each other were states quickly scrambling to impose laws that separated marriages of blacks, Chinese, and Latino marriages from traditional white marriages. For the most part they could marry each other, but only whites could marry whites.

With a lot of argument over "rights" and such, like women wanting to vote, in 1924, the state of Virginia passed a constitutional amendment, passed by the majority of the people, making it a felony for interracial couples to marry.

The Title: Racial Integrity Act of 1924, and was strongly pushed as a measure to help preserve "traditional marriage".

This was the law when Mr. and Mrs. Loving left Virginia in 1958 to get married in a neighboring state where it was legal. Upon their return to Virginia, they were promptly arrested, their marriage annulled as unlawful, and they were sentenced to prison.

They appealed.

Their fight would not be won until 1963 (5 years later) in the Supreme Court where the acceding opinion would declare that these laws were an abomination to the heart of equal protection and due process of law. One year later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed baring discrimination on the basis of RACE, color, religion, GENDER, or national origin.

Even after that, racial discrimination laws would stay in place, though unenforced until as late in many states as 2000, just 8 years ago.

This is how this issue is EXACTLY the same. And maybe Californians want to go back to 1924, protecting marriage for its traditional meaning, and being gay was a disease just like being black (remember disease = genetic / hereditary disorder), or maybe the judges in Loving v. Virginia were right, that "equality for all" is something we should embrace and to all that opposed have learned a lesson that the government is meant to help and support all Americans, not the majority of them. Paraphrasing Obama (though I know he supports prop 8) "This isn't Straight America, this isn't Gay America, this is the United States of America!"

With some of these racist marriage laws having been repealed in far less than half your lifetime, what would you, your family, or friends say if told African Americans need to have Civil Unions because traditional marriage is for white people... but DON'T WORRY, Civil Unions give you all the same rights as white people... except you can't call it that, that's all. Think of the children. We wouldn't want them getting confused!

I hope such an idea strikes rage in your heart at such a notion.

May this give complete clarity on my position, and if you actually read this far, thank you for listening.