Quite some time ago I was reading an article online that ticked me off. In an effort to express my agrivation, I wrote my own article reporting on it the way that I do.
Palo Alto Daily News
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Page 17
Niggers Trade Genitals for Crack, Scientists' Get Good Laugh
By Lauren Neergard
Associated Press
In a recent dual study on poverty on Africa, scientists offer impoverished natives $5 (a large amount of money in many areas) in return for their genitals. Many of the Jungle Bunnies claimed they had sick and or starving parents, mothers, children and other family members that they would do anything to relieve their suffering. One participant of the study claimed, “Sex isn’t even that great with all the dirt and disease plaguing the area. Without food, water, or medicine there isn’t much of a life. There are more important issues here than temporary physical pleasure that must be considered.” Many other participants had similar responses, among 3,000 from South Africa, 2,784 Kisumu, Kenya, and 4,996 from Rakai, Uganda.
Another doctor from the National Institute of Nap Prevention argued how simple the procedure was, “I doubt many had any idea what was going on… I don’t speak gibberish, but I think quite a few thought they were getting hair cuts or some kind of welfare.” The doctor snickers a bit before giving a hearty laugh before returning to a patient having a Kermit the Frog toy placed in his rectum as a practical joke.
Despite the many testimonies, a concurrent study immediately outside the clinic where scientists posed as drug dealers allowing participants to trade their $5 crack cocaine. “It was the funniest thing, these stupid niggers were essentially selling their genitals for crack” noted Dr. Anthony Fauci Director of the International Ku Klux Klan. On the other hand Dr. Kevin DeCock made the important point “It’s not a magic bullet, but a potentially important intervention against future generations of Coons that are ruining the economy in a time of growing global commerce.”
Studies like this are proving to not just be helpful to the local communities by preventing these animals from breeding, but after the niggers are busted for possession of crack cocaine by our own police department, we loose no money or crack, and have a large storage of large black cock that can be bleached and given to underprivileged white men in America for increasing profits. With growing success, similar studies plan to take place in China to help curb the Chink epidemic. While there were plans to bring this cure to Jerusalem, Jews claim they have been doing this for thousands of years to their poor people claiming Abraham, a popular cultural icon, started the trend to prevent jock itch from sand. "No Jock, No itch", so goes the saying.
In related news, study in America reveals molestation by priests not so bad, but builds character. Church attendance soars as government supports practice with these new findings, and Circumcised girls make better mothers, fewer sluts. Final statistics to be reported later this week.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
A Revealing Perspective
LakeishaQueen writes:
Wow, a lot of emotion here, and also very insightful.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
God is faith
I really hate this term, and has likely been the biggest turn off to organized religion that has ever crossed my path for consideration. Here is just another example of such errancy .
Hetman writes:
But as new theories, models of understanding, have been tested and evolved over this time, we have perfected to the best of our ability, a path to true understanding and communicating about our world.
Wikipedia, on the Scientific Method, opens with:
What this quote plainly takes out of context is what those bodies of techniques that are integral to understanding the difference between "science" and just "any other philosophy". This is the foundation where we decide what we are going to accept as truth, and what we regard as ideas and speculation. This model illustrates it well, from the sciencebuddies.org web site:
The last step that is not included (because this is a guide for students doing science fair projects) is that the results must be independently verified. Further, and this is the real kicker, the independent results must match as exactly as possible. In general, any hole in a theory breaks it, when such conflict can be verified through an independent study, particularly when such studies come up with better models that more accurately relate a phenomenon. Then further there is the whole difference between causation and correlation. It takes more than seeing two things together to say that one thing causes another, but that is a bit more complicated.
So what does this mean really? I think it means that we either have to accept or reject it as a foundation for absolute truths. It doesn't mean that things that aren't proven by science are false, it just means that they aren't proven as true... by the same token, science can prove that things are NOT true, but it does not mean that things that can not be proven to be false are true.
So in every way I have ever been able to look at things, the bible is just a book. It Is like any other book, there are good books, and there are bad books. Good ones not worth reading, and bad ones worth reading too. Personally, I think there are a lot of other better books worth reading. Unless you just want to know what all the hype is about, go ahead, but i'll just say it is a pretty bad book not worth reading. I am far from saying this simply because it is old it is somehow out dated, it is out dated for many other reasons that would require a close analysis of the text, which is not what I am going to go into at this moment.
Well, to be honest, the old testement is entertaining as insight to what primitive humans undertsoof about the world. It is worth reading from that perspective. The sequel on the other hand has the taste of Uwe Bolle and Michael Moore.
Now I can reconize that I am not taking into account all the impact that "the new testement" has had on history, as many kids today can't appreciate the impact of Birth of a Nation or Citizen Kane had on film, I have lost interest as many kids today will have difficulty appreciating Star Wars in the face of so many fanatics getting in their face telling them how it is the greatest movie ever, and making it out to be so much more than it really is, the latter being more relevant in this case for me, but knowing that the former is a big issue for many people I know that have ever had to endure going to an orthodox church.
More I just don't get...
hufflepuff17 writes:
Hetman writes:
No one ever said [evolution and creationism] could not coexist. They just cannot coexist in science class. Just like alchemy and chemistry cannot coexist in science class. God is faith based. Evolution is based fact.I respond:
I think it is a little more like comic books are not legitimate reading material for an English class.I think some people are just looking for different thins in the world. Some people see it as something small that if they could just understand it, then they can control it and live out the perfect life. I think some of these people also see things as "if it works, it must be right". The problem with this is is the limitations of our own self observation. So many questions have been asked for centuries about 'what is truth?' and 'how do we measure it?'. There have been models for truth through out history. We still look to classical Greek texts to see how in many ways we have not changed. Our children are not born knowing or understanding more about our universe than civilizations of long ago.
Science takes faith too, the faith that we are seeing and understanding things in the same way. It is a philosophy, a method for all of us to look at the world in the same way. By your definition, science is just easier. Where the hell did you get that impression?
Religious faith is based on an exploitation of the human necessity for truth, and tries to give people an easy way out to look at the world. They give you little books with simple stories to memorize, and you are done! True philosophy is a commitment to constantly working towards better understanding.
In theory, organized religion could be a pathway towards understanding, but instead it the infomercial diet pill of the mind.
If you could understand this, you would get why evolution is not a FACT, it is a THEORY.
But as new theories, models of understanding, have been tested and evolved over this time, we have perfected to the best of our ability, a path to true understanding and communicating about our world.
Wikipedia, on the Scientific Method, opens with:
[This theory] refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.I would argue that this has been the goal of philosophy throughout history. "Bodies of techniques" is what is specific about the scientific method, while the rest is philosophy. Religion falls into the realm of philosophy, and by this definition, I am sure any theist could argue that by this definition, religion plays this role for people's lives, while science only refers to "stuff" and "things" that their god put here. This keeps science outside the scope of being able to say anything new, different, or conflicting with reality, well, their reality.
What this quote plainly takes out of context is what those bodies of techniques that are integral to understanding the difference between "science" and just "any other philosophy". This is the foundation where we decide what we are going to accept as truth, and what we regard as ideas and speculation. This model illustrates it well, from the sciencebuddies.org web site:
So what does this mean really? I think it means that we either have to accept or reject it as a foundation for absolute truths. It doesn't mean that things that aren't proven by science are false, it just means that they aren't proven as true... by the same token, science can prove that things are NOT true, but it does not mean that things that can not be proven to be false are true.
So in every way I have ever been able to look at things, the bible is just a book. It Is like any other book, there are good books, and there are bad books. Good ones not worth reading, and bad ones worth reading too. Personally, I think there are a lot of other better books worth reading. Unless you just want to know what all the hype is about, go ahead, but i'll just say it is a pretty bad book not worth reading. I am far from saying this simply because it is old it is somehow out dated, it is out dated for many other reasons that would require a close analysis of the text, which is not what I am going to go into at this moment.
Well, to be honest, the old testement is entertaining as insight to what primitive humans undertsoof about the world. It is worth reading from that perspective. The sequel on the other hand has the taste of Uwe Bolle and Michael Moore.
Now I can reconize that I am not taking into account all the impact that "the new testement" has had on history, as many kids today can't appreciate the impact of Birth of a Nation or Citizen Kane had on film, I have lost interest as many kids today will have difficulty appreciating Star Wars in the face of so many fanatics getting in their face telling them how it is the greatest movie ever, and making it out to be so much more than it really is, the latter being more relevant in this case for me, but knowing that the former is a big issue for many people I know that have ever had to endure going to an orthodox church.
More I just don't get...
hufflepuff17 writes:
God and Evolution cannot "Co-exist" because saying God used evolution to create everything is belittling his sovereign power and it being a miracle. We will never be able to wrap our minds around God or how he does things because we cannot conceive perfection or infinite power. So don't try and put God into a box so we can think we understand how he does things because we never will. Evolution is just our way of trying to put the creation story into a box and not letting it be what it really is, which is a miracle.My reply:
"Evolution is just our way of trying to put the creation story into a box and not letting it be what it really is, which is a miracle."I just know there is something here with these people that I am NEVER going to understand. My only comfort is that this belief does something for them that makes their lives either happier, or more stable. But it still makes me sad.
It is really interesting you would say that because I would not hesitate to say exactly the opposite, that the wonderful place that is our world with all of its things to study and observe, the bible tries to take all that greatness and put into a small box by taking out of context some ancient story of privative human understanding of the universe and trying to say that is exactly the way things must be because it has been accepted for thousands of years.
I WILL agree I put the bible into a box (more like a can to be exact) by limiting my perspective to seeing it as just another book. Why not actually look at the history of the text you revere so greatly. No Star Wars fan boy calls another any less of a "believer" just because they acknowledge that George Lucas's wife may have had a really big role in the original trilogy. The Bible is a collection of stories kept by ancient people and their understanding of the world. Good stuff, very interesting, but why are you taking it apart to be something it is not? What an insult to the PEOPLE that took the time to put and keep it together.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
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:
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%
Monday, November 03, 2008
Great people inspired by great people
One of the early things I loved about Obama was his fight for open government. He was the first state senator to have a podcast telling the people he represented what he was doing for them, or at least what was going on.
So I feel lucky to have stumbled upon one of hid podcasts from 2002, being cited by another man I have a lot of respect for, Linux Torvalds.
Some quick citations:
Linus Torvalds talk about Richard Stallman, GPL and Obama on digg pointing to
Black & White By Linux Torvalds detailing how his 17 year commitment to Linux has come from what he loves, not what he hates, arguing that GPLv3 and RMS build on the later. Linus cites a speech of Barack Obama, A Call to Renewal, where he argues for people to see the good in religious and non-religious faith rather than divisions which are really so few when it comes to our desire to find truth, even if it doesn't always feel that way.
RMS is an odd guy, but I see him an iconic. He is that totally weird crazy guy talking about a different better world, completely uncompromising. I watched a video of him criticizing the OLPC where he was ranting about how it was filled with proprietary software that he couldn't remove, but the parts that were removable, he did. Now this may seem odd, cause many know the OS is is Linux based. So what is he talking about? The device firmware. He was upset that there were components in the computer that he wasn't allowed to know how they work. I laughed, but at the same time I understood. He is just the Jerry Farwell of the F/OSS world. As far as GPLv3 is concerned, I think it is a highly defensible position in a world where F/OSS is threatened in many ways. Sometimes it is just really hard to not hate what can be an alternative to what you love. My original switch to Linux was out of hate for the problems I was having with Windows, and was looking for an alternative. I had already done the Mac thing... and there is no reson to rehash that. In the 1 year and 10 months I have been windows free, I feel inspired by every problem I encounter, and accomplished with each solution I find and can share with others. Battling DRM on the other hand, or flat out buggy code, versus under developed code, just make me cynical and depressed. I have since come to LOVE Linux... but I still have a hard time escaping hate toward windows each and every time someone describes a problem that is a fault of its design and methodology or such. This has also come from no longer trying to sell Linux or Ubuntu, and focusing more on free software.
So I am amazed at both these men for their ability to find the message of love to oppose the messages of hate. Obama and Torvalds have had some heavy hitters, people very uncompromising in their position. Something that each of them iterate is that it isn't about converting the radicals, or getting people not to listen to them, it is about providing a better alternative that can inspire people to get involved.
I can't do either of these men any justice, and I would encourage everybody to read Torvalds article, and the transcript of Obama's podcast from 2002. But thinking about their words, I think this is what I find amazing in Lawrence Lessig's speeches. He talks about all the harm done in the world, with respect to culture, but with all of his focus on the simple changes we could implement to make this world a more amazing place.
Obama talks about how we can regress to citing dogma from scripture, but we can do the same thing with our law. We can't just point to law or the bible and say that is all we need. In any debate you need to get to the heart of the argument. I am sad to say that the "Yes on 8" people have put more effort into that. I think as far as pure debating goes, the yes's won, if only because the no on 8 people find the issue so simple with regard to equal rights and freedom what else is there really to say?
It can't just be obvious, or there wouldn't be an opposition. We live in a day where women have the right to vote in the United States, but how do you think Susan B. Anthony was able to argue on behalf of women in a world where there was nothing to compare it to. She had to fight that civil rights movement alone with the people that stood by her. Issues like slavery were not as obvious as we are taught in schools today; that was a major social reconstruction.
There is a lot more I want to say, but this has already gone way off topic, but I will say this: It has given me the hope back that I needed to support Barack Obama and stand by him. I am hurt by some things that I disagree with him on, but this Call to Renewal and his infomercial before he world series tells me we need this type of thinker, and kind of person that has spent more tie talking with families and real Americans than I ever have.
I don't know why he has supported some of the things he has supported, as I have mentioned, but I will trust that he will listen to the people, that that he has made informed decisions, even if not alwas the perfect one. More importantly, I think he keeps a very open mind, at least as open as I hope I can be, or that others would judge me by.
So here on November 3, here is -1 undecided voter. It is my hope that every undecided voter is undecided for the purpose of due diligence right up to the last moment, allowing our minds to be as open to possibilities as we can hope for our future.
So I feel lucky to have stumbled upon one of hid podcasts from 2002, being cited by another man I have a lot of respect for, Linux Torvalds.
Some quick citations:
Linus Torvalds talk about Richard Stallman, GPL and Obama on digg pointing to
Black & White By Linux Torvalds detailing how his 17 year commitment to Linux has come from what he loves, not what he hates, arguing that GPLv3 and RMS build on the later. Linus cites a speech of Barack Obama, A Call to Renewal, where he argues for people to see the good in religious and non-religious faith rather than divisions which are really so few when it comes to our desire to find truth, even if it doesn't always feel that way.
RMS is an odd guy, but I see him an iconic. He is that totally weird crazy guy talking about a different better world, completely uncompromising. I watched a video of him criticizing the OLPC where he was ranting about how it was filled with proprietary software that he couldn't remove, but the parts that were removable, he did. Now this may seem odd, cause many know the OS is is Linux based. So what is he talking about? The device firmware. He was upset that there were components in the computer that he wasn't allowed to know how they work. I laughed, but at the same time I understood. He is just the Jerry Farwell of the F/OSS world. As far as GPLv3 is concerned, I think it is a highly defensible position in a world where F/OSS is threatened in many ways. Sometimes it is just really hard to not hate what can be an alternative to what you love. My original switch to Linux was out of hate for the problems I was having with Windows, and was looking for an alternative. I had already done the Mac thing... and there is no reson to rehash that. In the 1 year and 10 months I have been windows free, I feel inspired by every problem I encounter, and accomplished with each solution I find and can share with others. Battling DRM on the other hand, or flat out buggy code, versus under developed code, just make me cynical and depressed. I have since come to LOVE Linux... but I still have a hard time escaping hate toward windows each and every time someone describes a problem that is a fault of its design and methodology or such. This has also come from no longer trying to sell Linux or Ubuntu, and focusing more on free software.
So I am amazed at both these men for their ability to find the message of love to oppose the messages of hate. Obama and Torvalds have had some heavy hitters, people very uncompromising in their position. Something that each of them iterate is that it isn't about converting the radicals, or getting people not to listen to them, it is about providing a better alternative that can inspire people to get involved.
I can't do either of these men any justice, and I would encourage everybody to read Torvalds article, and the transcript of Obama's podcast from 2002. But thinking about their words, I think this is what I find amazing in Lawrence Lessig's speeches. He talks about all the harm done in the world, with respect to culture, but with all of his focus on the simple changes we could implement to make this world a more amazing place.
Obama talks about how we can regress to citing dogma from scripture, but we can do the same thing with our law. We can't just point to law or the bible and say that is all we need. In any debate you need to get to the heart of the argument. I am sad to say that the "Yes on 8" people have put more effort into that. I think as far as pure debating goes, the yes's won, if only because the no on 8 people find the issue so simple with regard to equal rights and freedom what else is there really to say?
It can't just be obvious, or there wouldn't be an opposition. We live in a day where women have the right to vote in the United States, but how do you think Susan B. Anthony was able to argue on behalf of women in a world where there was nothing to compare it to. She had to fight that civil rights movement alone with the people that stood by her. Issues like slavery were not as obvious as we are taught in schools today; that was a major social reconstruction.
There is a lot more I want to say, but this has already gone way off topic, but I will say this: It has given me the hope back that I needed to support Barack Obama and stand by him. I am hurt by some things that I disagree with him on, but this Call to Renewal and his infomercial before he world series tells me we need this type of thinker, and kind of person that has spent more tie talking with families and real Americans than I ever have.
I don't know why he has supported some of the things he has supported, as I have mentioned, but I will trust that he will listen to the people, that that he has made informed decisions, even if not alwas the perfect one. More importantly, I think he keeps a very open mind, at least as open as I hope I can be, or that others would judge me by.
So here on November 3, here is -1 undecided voter. It is my hope that every undecided voter is undecided for the purpose of due diligence right up to the last moment, allowing our minds to be as open to possibilities as we can hope for our future.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
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!"
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!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
