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%

Just how fast can Linux boot?

TheWindBlows wrote in response to the linked article...

Wait until 9.04 one of its goals is to boot even faster. Windows 7 boot is optimized and boots at about the same speed Ubuntu boots right now though as far as desktop loading goes I'm not sure that Windows wins in that.

There is a project called fastboot or something that basically puts most all of the init stuff into background at a lower priority and 'cheats' to get to the desktop faster. Looks great to me. My prob is with post and grub. I have a LOT of stuff inside my computer, and it takes almost 10 seconds to just get to the grub menu, and another 15 seconds to get to the desktop. The projects aim is to get those start up things that were put into background eventually started up before they are needed, but not before you are given any functionality over the desktop.

I look forward to it.

One of the questionable things is that networking support won't be up when you get to the desktop, that it will take almost another 5 seconds before it will be up. Soo, I see that as "If the first thing I want to do is jump on the Internet, start up time to web browsing will take almost as long as it previously took to boot. What is the down side here?

Now what I think would be cool is if an onboard Linux could boot up and be used right away, many claiming desktop / web support available within 2 seconds of hitting the power button. What if this could be used while your computer is booting in the same way you use a Live CD while the OS is installing. Then while doing whatever it was you wanted to do, a little message could pop up "Your desktop is ready, would you like to switch now?" This would absolutely rock, and I don't think it would be terribly difficult to integrate.

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.

The Pirate Bay

If you desire to steal expensive software and not pay anything for it, Gnu/Linux was recently assessed at being a $25 billion piece of work.

The purpose of information is for it to be shared. Disney fights this hard because they understand it; Disney is the master of theft, and they will crush anyone that tries to invade their territory.

The Pirate Bay is only a glimmer of how great a Free Culture could be. They get strength from greed and oppression. Only in the world we live in today with the members of th MPAA and RIAA buying the government and forcing their monopoly onto the world could a site like the pirate bay thrive. As it is mentioned in the video, they have no content of their own, and yet from this pure black market of culture, they make hundreds of millions of dollars.

Though as other commenter's mentioned, The Pirate Bay is a very comprehensive, and powerful site with some of the highest traffic in the world. That can't be cheap.

However, the statement that The Pirate Bay has none of its own content is not quite true. They made two movies: Steal This Film and Steal This Film: Part II.

The first movie is about the raid on The Pirate Bay. The second movie is about the history of the exchange of ideas, and what powerful people have done to try to stop it.

For a more specific historical look at British common law regarding copyright, and copyright law in the United States, I HIGHLY recommend Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig, a man who is my personal hero. If you simply are not the book reading type, he has some great videos crying out "oh why, oh why, can we not follow the constitution!" (ok, a little poetic licence). This is one of my favorites.

Something I hope to write about soon is about the corruption of our United States Congress, and how the entertainment industry poisnns their way into getting special legal protections for their should be dying business model.

The key: If you as a politician don't support the entertainment industry, you don't get to use our medium; no TV, no Radio, no News coverage of your events; unless you count getting to buy infomercials along side teeth whitening gel and VegiBlender 2000. And all this puts you where next to your opponent?

All that before smear campaigns and lobbyists.

Only a seriously sick corrupted fuck could ever support the PRO-IP Act, which totally explains why there were only 5 coegressmen that voted against it, like Ron Paul.

As we watch our country erode away, how can people really try to put all this on the president. One man. Diamond got sued into oblivion for their mp3 players, but when Apple bent over to the RIAA, who now gets all the credit for making mp3 players famous. And consumers are thrilled. Makes me sick.

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.

You just can't outlaw stupid...

This could probably be a whole series, but this is just in relationship to a recent visit to the local superior court house to help a friend do some research on his case. It made me think about the procedure of things, and the up and coming prop 5 on the ballot. See link if you are not familiar.

Just to note, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Though that should probably be at the bottom of my page, I am just saying it now in case I don't ever get amount to putting it on my page... as with many things :)

(UPDATE: There now is a little disclaimer next to the copyright notice, woot)

That being said, I am getting a stronger and stronger impression that a public defender is about as helpful as having Brutus and Judah as military advisors; they are not traitors to the cause... necessary... yet... but they swear to have your best interests at heart. So anachronisms aside, I think the system as it is designed is GREAT! If you look at the law and the job the judge and public defender have to do, it is amazing. The standard, if you look at the rules, are VERY high for protecting the interests of an accused... the problem? Same problem you have in any game where everyone knows the rules of the game except you. You CAN NOT win in that situation, and as the title suggests, you can't outlaw stupid. So what happens, and whose fault is it, especially when they, or anyone for that matter, already has evidence against you?

Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people that never take the time to learn the law, mostly because it is considered boring or uninteresting... but complain when the systems does not work the way (they thought) it was supposed to. Know why it fails? Because between a seasoned judge, district attorney, and oddly enough your own lawyer, you are still the weakest link.

Ok, getting back on track, what does this have to do with prop 5? In the blindingly fast process of arraignment I observed, there were two ways that cases went. Plead guilty and receive the minimum mandatory sentence graciously offered by the judge and set date for sentencing, OR plead not guilty to which you were asked a series of 'simple' questions that waive as many of your constitutional rights as possible. Ironically, I bet that was what they thought "not guilty" avoided.

The one that really got me was the "Do you want to give your lawyer more than 45 days to review your case?" You think this would be a very simple, straight forward question, right? Of course it is! The 6th amendment gives you the right to a speedy trial. With misdemeanor charges in California, that means they have 45 days to prove their case, or dismiss. However, some people need more time than that to fight the evidence against them, otherwise there would be a violation of due process, taking what was meant to be a protection and turn it against you.

So my question is this: Why is the accused being asked at an arraignment without an attorney how long it will take a lawyer to put their case together, especially when you have the right to waive at ANY time, but you can never un-waive? Isn't this a better issue to discuss with the lawyer, and allow the lawyer to advise the client on?

(UPDATE: Evidently you can waive and unwaive at any time, more or less, but it resets the clock for the D.A.; 45 days starts over)

But of course that issue was handled in Miranda v. Arizona. Not only do you already have so many rights to protect you, but police have to explain them to you before 'many things can happen'. You have a right to an attorney (further, you have a right to a competent attorney, US v. Pope) and all that other good stuff. Do people just not get that those rights still apply when you are in court, not JUST with police?

There are too many clichés about "common sense" to pick one, but it appears to me that it is a big issue of law. For example, if you are unsure of what entering a plea necessarily does, why are you answering the question? But at the same time, why should a judge be explaining those "special circumstances" to you? I only read about this recently. When you enter a plea, as offered by the judge, you acknowledge validity of the proceedings. Sure, you got all these rights and stuff, and you and the court are going to argue many things. If you enter a plea, you are not necessarily waiving a right, but it can be used against you later. Or more simply, arraignment is a stage in the proceedings. Once you enter a plea, you are assisting in moving things forward. Well, what if there was something that you could have challenged in that stage? Well, as we have seen in many movies, is that you can only say "guilty, not guilty, or no contest". But what if you just say nothing? Can you get in trouble for not saying anything at all? What if you don't understand what is going on, but you know you have the 5th amendment to protect you in some way?

Maybe it is insignificant, as I really haven't researched it thoroughly, but if you do not enter a plea, the judge is forced to enter you into a plea of not guilty, with the interesting side effect of never having a record of your acknowledgement of the validity of the proceedings. It is called a "mute" plea, and goes on record as such. My impression that pleading can be used against you later; "Well, if any of your rights had been violated before this point, why didn't you say something. Sorry, too late". Anyway, take that for what it is worth, I look forward to looking into it further.

Ok, so as briefly mentioned earlier, accused have the right to a competent attorney. Did a little homework on what that really means. I discovered, for lack of a better word, really quite hard core. US v. Pope is very interesting. I am sure to anyone that hasn't read it will finish saying, "Wow, I never knew the standards for lawyers are so tough!". They should understand the evidence being used against you, what is legal, and defend their client to the best of the ability like any other lawyer. Some lawyers may have special arguments or tricks up their sleeves, and that doesn't count. Neither do obscure interpretations of the law, but they should be up to date on relevant cases, particularly for the local county and state.

So what inspired this post was outrage, nearly getting up and yelling at the judge Better judgment told me that could have resulted in nothing but bad, by comparison to sitting there quietly. I painfully could not justify taking the risk, despite feeling that any lawyer worth his weight in water would have done things differently. Nobody there for misdemeanor weed possession had representation. I think there were about a dozen people there for such charges.

And here is one of those places where entering a plea would be bad. These people were being charged with a crime the people of California are trying to change, with prop 5. Among other things, it would reduce minor possession to an infraction and a $100 fine, and no civil assessment, meaning it would be just like a traffic ticket where you just have to pay the fine, and you are done.

These people moved forward with misdemeanor proceedings, to which all I could think was WHY?!? Don't plead guilty to something that might not be illegal in two weeks?!? The law is retroactive in this case. Pleading innocent wouldn't make sense either because you are still moving forward with something that might not even be illegal in two weeks.

Why not simply request a continuance? Two week continuance? First request? I'd bet you could ask for a two week continuance for ANYTHING! Like, "Umm... I don't know if I want a public defender, I need to ask my mom" would be a good enough reason, let alone the fact that the law may dramatically change very soon.

As I said before, any lawyer worth their weight in water would have made that argument, and any lawyer that didn't should be charged with malpractice.

UPDATE: I wrote this with a lot of frustration and obviously didn't look over it when I wrote it. I will go back and fix some of these really broken sentences in the near future. Sorry to inconvenience anyone that was interested in what I was trying to say. FIXED!

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.

Flatland

My comment on slashdot to the above linked article on DRM free music, and comments by slashdot readers:

Why are people negotiating with the recording industry? The music industry will always be strong as long as people value culture. How that industry exists will always change the way it looks. For a brief period of time, a recording industry was born: A group of non talents that could leech money from talented people by creating distribution methods prohibitively expensive to the average band. As these magicians took all the band, they made you famous by eventually putting you and your art on tv that made them even more money. As it had been mentioned above, the recording industry is taking away the last pieces of profit on music by birthing their own talent and using technology to give the appearance of talent. Now that they have "taped into the source", they don't even need real talent to sell out for them to make big money because they already owned the music before it was created. Further, the junk they spout out can easily become "famous" because they write the news on "What's Hot!".

The recording industry tried and has nearly killed the music industry, an industry that used to be about free speech, expression, enjoying life, and sharing sorrow. The internet is the first chance at getting that integrity back. The internet can and needs to kill the recording industry to allow the music industry to come back. Music industry will be strong when artists can be completely independent and are no longer tempted to buy into the pyramid scheme that has for so long been damaging to our culture. The days of packaging information into virtual units and selling them for money is ending.

ALL music should be free for distribution across the internet and it would be in bands best interest to make it happen. Popularity would rise from real talent, and not what the recording industry tells us is hot. The only fair restrictions should be to protect consumers as trade mark law intended. The only "DRM" that should exist would be one that allows a consumer to authenticate music, the same way RSA is used to authenticate transmissions. Watermark digital content to artists are certain to be recognized for their own work, and not renamed by some DJ or cover band. The demand for live concerts would swarm, just as it has in Brazil where "piracy" has birthed a previously non-existent music industry that is only getting stronger. Music will return to the way it was meant to be with live concerts, and t-shirts. CD's would be sold as a luxury item for $3-5 where all the money goes to the musicians, and you have shown your appreciation for the band. Piracy of these albums and their cover art would make no sense when the music is already freely available.

Free Culture will kill the economy and destroy profits for: No talent hacks, shady middlemen, distribution cartels, lip syncers, talent scouts, concert promoters, music 'stores', or any other person that has made a living exploiting musicians. Oh how will our economy ever survive? Is our economy so dependent on crooks that if we took them out it would collapse? How sick would that be if it were the truth? and if true, I think it is time for that change to take place. Oh god, it would be like... talented artists would be making money from their art... and fans would rejoice in music!

And while it is still only hope, I look forward to seeing the RIAA dying the horrible flaming irritable bowel syndrome death they deserve on March 25 when EMI will do what it should have done years ago.

Education Reform

Been looking for sites addressing issues regarding education reform. Thing from different types of schools, school size, how teachers are taught, homework (as mention recently), and found there is a lot of scattered opinions addressing single issues or advocating specific programs. What I want to find is a site with a collection of issues and either links or data that support each side. Not always easy. I finally found one sight that manages to sort them out to make broad research a bit easier. Check the above link.

If anybody knows of any sites like described, and better than the one mentioned, would love to hear about it.