Warren Invoked for Obama Inauguration Invocation (Alliteration!)

I'm not sure if I understand what the entire hullabaloo is on Obama choosing Rick Warren for his inauguration invocation.

So, the way I see it, a religious ceremony begins the state ceremony. Not so much separate, but that's another story for another day. It doesn't mean Warren is now apart of Obama's administration, offering any advice, or involved in any decision making or policy debate. I'm not even sure Obama even owes anyone an explanation for the choices he makes.

I get that many minority groups helped get him elected, and he was the way better choice than old man McCain and crazy lady Palin, but I am certain that not every group is going to be happy about every choice he makes. Bottom line is that he can't please everyone at once. He's going to make a certain group happy while he annoys another. He'll then make the one he annoyed happy while making the other annoyed. It's a political cycle that is inherent from human behavior and human nature.

Perhaps then blog posts like Chris Durang's post on The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/gay-and-feeling-hurt-by-o_b_152348.html, feel a little misplaced. He speaks to the fact that Obama has his own reason for choosing Rick Warren, but he feels left out since he is gay. I understand his argument about the non-afflicted not feeling the affliction, but I'm not sure he understands that he too is one that is non-afflicted, such as what faces a young Latina in certain places of the world.

I don't know, maybe I'm so jaded by things, and don't take offense to much, but unless something is really egregious, like Obama saying "All gay people should die," I don't think the gay community should be angered by such a small action of choosing Rick Warren for the invocation, as I believe it will disappear very quickly from the collective consciousness of the nation and the world. It is an historic event, but to focus on such a small bit of it seems, like I said, misplaced, and nitpicky. I don't think an invocation is necessary for an inauguration, but seems religion is a powerful force in culture, I let it alone. I know that Rick Warren has horrible views on homosexuality, and that he supported Prop 8, but I can't fault Obama from doing what he wants at his own inauguration.

And on the new meanderings about Warren becoming Obama's new Reverend Wright controversy crap, I say shut it because it's just stupid. There's no reason for this comparison, and people need to stop getting butt-hurt about it. Not to be insensitive to the gay community, as I strongly feel Prop 8 is horrible, but there are other things to direct your energy, like overturning Prop 8, instead of vilifying Warren for 5 minutes in the spotlight. You get Obama for 4 years, possibly 8 years, and we can work toward a more perfect union, inclusive of homosexuals and other minorities alike.

A Bone to Pick and Snow in Sin

Ok, so I was filling out a graduate app today, well finishing it up, and I came across so many inconsistencies with app itself and the directions given on the department's page. I probably wasted so much paper because I printed out the wrong things. I have no idea why the documents on the app were just printable files, but they were interactive pdfs on the dept's site, because that doesn't make any sense. It's the Internet for Chrissake! Everything has a starting point, and you can point a link to anything!

Why do we continue to make it increasingly hard for anyone to do anything in this world? For instance, do graduate apps need to be as convoluted as referenced above? How about this: One application for everything. Start to finish, every piece of information you want from the applicant, on one long form (or any continuous stream of information). If more than one person needs to look at said application, make copies on your own paper, because if I need to send duplicates of everything, but it then gets only one person looking at it, essentially I've wasted my money for half the viewing audience.

I'm honestly surprised it is so hard to find the information you need to apply to graduate school. It is almost if the schools don't want many applicants. It makes sense, considering how many applicants there are in any given term, but only a small percentage is taken into the program "due to funding". Simply put: "We don't want to flood the market with experts, and if you don't want to attempt it, that's better for us".

I'm not really sure I've made much sense, but these are annoyances I've encountered today.

Now for some news:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/las-vegas-snow-sets-recor_n_152151.html

Snow in Vegas! Now, if only it would make its way to the Valley. It's been 20 years, I think it's time for another showing.

Billo the Clown Forgetting What Free Speech Is

Heh, Megyn Kelly told Bill O'Reilly to shut up. She was in his face and told him he was wrong. I wish everyone did that! He'd go around crying like a little baby that no one believes him.

The best part is at the end when he claims atheism isn't a religion when she said TWICE it was by COURTS, who INTERPRET the LAW for EVERYONE. Billo the Clown needs a reality check. It is sad to see that people watch him support his very large head and ego, validating his delusions.

There was a really funny spoof of the Bush shoe with Billo's meltdown on Inside Edition, but I can't find the video online. Poo.

Auto Bailing!

Who cares right? Nah, pretty much wrong. I have a position on this auto bailout of the Detroit 3 automakers (General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler) and I'm pretty much for it.

I have to say, the Senate failing to pass it because of a few Southern Republicans makes me extremely mad that our system allows for such pettiness. AL Senator Shelby, TN Senator Jim Corker and KY Senator Mitch McConnell all were playing political games when they should have realized what the House and the White House were behind. They were behind a plan to allow GM and Chrysler to survive another few months without having to file bankruptcy. They pretty much saved jobs that were on the verge of extinction. They were behind a plan to keep American products from falling to foreign products. However, the three leading Republicans that defeated the bill in the Senate prevented all that to add their own little pettiness.

Some believe it is because they have foreign automakers in their own states, like Honda and Hyundai in Alabama, Toyota in Kentucky and another, which I can't think of right now, in Tennessee, and that may well be, especially since those companies do not use union labor. I think the labor is definitely is the root of the problem, which is an unfair attack on the UAW and other labor unions. One of the tenets of Republicanism is free market all around, and labor unions prevent that because it is an unfair advantage to the workers to get the compensation that they think is just, but the market does not. It's unfortunate that a person who works in the United States Senate gets to decide what people who work for a living make and holds the fate of their company hostage to get what they want.

It's unfortunate that the worker has the become the focal point of the conservative voice on this issue, especially since they only do the job assigned to them for adequate compensation. They didn't run the companies into this mess, they didn't create the mission to create Hummers or other gas guzzlers that eventually hurt the business. That's not up to them. They get just compensation and some health and pension benefits, just like government employees, like Sen. Shelby, albeit a lot less. It is not fair to throw the problem onto their backs to make a point, not in these tough economic times. Not to benefit any other entity or the like.

So here's the thing: If those automakers fail, say hello to even more economic woes. Say hello to HUGE job loss, and not just at the factories of the automakers, but at the dealerships, especially ones with service stations and shops. It's pretty much guaranteed that if GM or Chrysler files for reorganization bankruptcy, nobody is going to buy from them, even if they sell their cars for way less than they're worth, because there is no trust that the car will be taken care of, with respect to warranties and guarantees. The companies are done and liquidation bankruptcy will be their last resort.

There has also been this disconnect with the financial bailout and the auto bailout. Why is one more important than the other? Why is no one caring about those executives or their employees pay scale? Why do automakers have to define exactly what they are going to do with the money when we have no idea what the banks are doing with the money, nor resuming normal lending practices? It doesn't make any sense to treat all these entities so differently when they are all in the same boat.

The bottom line is if the auto bailout fails, even though it's a loan, and not injecting capital into banks like Paulson did with the banks, you can expect huge ripple effects in the entire economy. Think of how much money states get from sales tax revenue on new car sales, and then you'll see why it is important for these automakers to stay around.

One last thing: I'm not sure if Sen. Shelby realizes, but the foreign automakers aren't doing so hot right now either, especially those in Japan, which has been hit hard by this economy. We probably wouldn't know much into it, like if Honda or Toyota are asking their government for money to stay afloat. Those automakers could pack up and leave Alabama if they needed to, and we'd be out of manufacturing of cars for good. We'd have to import all of our cars, and they'd be that much more expensive. 

Also, I hear everyone getting all butt-hurt about the government using our tax money for these bailouts. What do you think they use to pay for other normal government programs, like defense or education? You don't hear everyone crying about that. Once you give it up, it's no longer yours. Just some food for thought.

My Thoughts on Huckabee's Gay-Sexism

I know it's a bit old (from Tuesday), but I was extremely frustrated by Mike Huckabee's appearance on the Daily Show. First off, he got two segments, which also annoyed me, but I saw what Jon Stewart was trying to do, at least with the second segment. It dealt with Prop 8 and Huckabee's strong support of the same-sex marriage ban (he is from Arkansas; but his wife looks like a man, so I don't know, maybe he's trying to pull a Larry Craig?). Here's the segment:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

So here's my thing: Did anyone else see that the only argument Huckabee had was, in essence, semantics? Because that's all I saw.

I would like to break down his argument in sections. His first point was procreation. Of course, gay couples cannot procreate like a heterosexual couple can, but as Jon points out, there are numerous avenues a gay couple can go down to "prep" the next generation. Things like artificial insemination from a sperm donor, which is expensive, but definitely an alternative that is open to lesbian couples, and being taken advantage of by heterosexual couples that cannot have children on their own (in and of itself a Christian disgrace). Another avenue is adoption, and studies have shown that kids can grow up healthy if they are given the love and affection and attention that they need, even if it's from two dads or two moms. Talk about a general population crisis, especially in other countries. If we gave every gay-married couple 2 kids, why I'm sure our foster care services, orphanages, and general poverty would be greatly improved. So when Huckabee suggests that marriage is reserved for a man and a woman on the insistence of procreation, he is sorely missing the point.

My next point is one that Jon makes, which is discussing the Bible's role in marriage. Yeah, all of the forefathers of Judaism had multiple wives (it's a case for variation, since there weren't as many people then as there are now), so what? You know, that's not my major beef. What my major beef is religious folk pick and choose what is supposed to be followed from the Bible, and want literalism from those selected verses (like creation), but as soon as an outsider suggests that marriage thing from the Bible should be taken literally, they're are yelled that they are taking the Bible "too literally". Where does something like that end? It's impossible to tell, because religion is powerful enough to allow hypocrisy to exist relatively unfettered. My basic thing is, you either take the Bible literally or you don't. You either allow polygamy or you don't. You either believe in Jesus' teachings (all of them) or you don't. You either stone gays or you don't. But if you stone gays, you have to stone adulterers and the like too, so perhaps that might not be the best thing to believe in. My point is thus: Since you don't believe in polygamy, why not same-sex marriage?

Huckabee then suggests a slippery slope fallacious argument that if we change the definition, we have to include every lifestyle change, like polygamy. No, you don't, because we already agreed that polygamy is illegal, and gay couples don't want to have more than one partner, they just want to have the right to have ONE, like everyone else does in this world.

Again, Huckabee throws around shades of meaning with regard to "equality". You know, we're either created equal with all of the same rights as our neighbors, or we're not. It's that simple. You know how simple it is? It's so simple, that for many many years, black people were classified as 3/5 of a person. It's so simple that, before that, most black people were slaves. If it's simple one way, why not the other, right? Privileges are not the same as rights, I agree. Having a license to drive a car is not a right, but a privilege. But, at least in this country, we have a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I believe marriage fits into all three of those. Life; it's been shown that marriage extends life expectancy, or that for some, marriage is a way to live life. Liberty; We are a free people, and all that is granted to free people should be the same, no matter your race, age, creed, religion, or sexuality. And the Pursuit of Happiness; well, isn't that every one's ultimate goal, to be happy? I have not met a soul who has not wanted some sort of happiness in their life. And you know what, for some, marriage is happiness, and we should not, no, we SHALL not interfere with that pursuit, regardless who that marriage is to.

Then there is the big one: Huckabee suggests there is a"big difference" between being black and being homosexual. He obviously is stuck in the 50s. For many years, it is widely accepted by psychiatrists and psychologists that homosexuality, much like heterosexuality is not a lifestyle choice, but a biological occurrence with no conscious choice of the individual whether to be gay or straight. Jon rightly stops him by saying he knows many more than Huckabee does, and rightly puts him in his place that his argument is malarkey. Jon is right, religion is absolutely a lifestyle choice, and one that takes the cake in protections from the government. (Remember what I said above, religion is powerful enough to do what it wants, in the face of conflicting information.)

Then Huckabee shows his hand by going back to "redefining the word". Who cares? What does it do to people? Aren't the monotheistic religions individualistic anyways? Meaning that what one person doesn't affect your own salvation, as long as you follow what you're supposed to do? Words are redefined everyday, every decade, every century. Does gay even mean what it did when  "Deck the Halls" came out? I don't think so, unless guys "don their gay apparel" of a shirtless vest and tight leather pants a la New York nightclubs of the 1970s.

My last point that I want to make is thus: "we have to agree to disagree, because you're not going to change my mind" is horrible, and humans tend to be this way. This is where being a skeptic comes in handy, because open minds trump all. Truly open minds, not the ones that say "I'll try anything once". Because once you become a skeptic, you say, well let's see how it works out, and if new information comes in to either support or contradict what we originally knew, then we'll go from there. None of the other stuff that says we're going to only believe the first thing and not any other new information. This is what I feel Huckabee is stuck in. He feels so strongly in this position of man and woman = marriage, but he won't even let others try it out to see if it will work. What is truly telling, is that in the 6 months in California where gay couples married, no one exploded, and life went on, ob la di ob la da, and since it wasn't in the sensory experience of Mike Huckabee, I'm sure he was none the wiser, and did not lose any sleep.

Perhaps when we all come to realization that what someone else does doesn't affect our own existence too greatly, then we can truly embrace the idea of personal liberty or what discrimination truly means to human existence.

(Sorry if there were spelling or grammatical errors, I was too fucked to proof-read after writing all of that above)

Good News on the Prop 8 Front/Michelle "Idiot" Bachmann

This news story that came out today is good news on the Prop 8 front. The California Supreme Court is going to hear a few cases regarding Prop 8:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081120/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_lawsuits;_ylt=ArbHuc46jAtVeAdFSOo.W4MXIr0F

I really hope that the decision will be the same, even though the argument has to be tweaked slightly. From my understanding, the cases presented by the plaintiffs will be more on the side of how the proposition was worded and presented to amend the California State Constitution. The presentation will have the principles of discrimination behind it though, and I'm sure the spirit of the current protests around the country. According to the article, CSC has overturned some initiatives because of their wording with respect to an amendment or a constitutional revision. I hope they decide on the side of NO DISCRIMINATION in California and tell all religious institutions they have no business in state affairs.

Also good news for the gays: Connecticut has just begun marrying after following California with their own Supreme Court decision to allow same sex marriage. This is exceptional, because about a third of Connecticut is part of New York City's Metro area, so a lot of people work in New York, but live in Connecticut. I'm not sure where I was going with this, but it's good nonetheless. Hopefully they won't have to deal with the same thing California is dealing with in 2 years. Although, I wouldn't be surprised.

On another note, I'd like to present you with something that mystifies my concept of intelligence and ignorance:

Exhibit A: Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) on Hardball a couple of weeks before the election:

Now, about 4 weeks and a reelection to the House later, she appeared on Hannity and Colmes (bleh). May I present Exhibit B:

I seriously feel bad for Minnesota's 6th Congressional district. She won a plurality of the vote, but not by much, with a third party candidate garnering 10% of the vote. Although, on the other hand, they did vote for her, so they get what they want. They get a retarded, idiotic, ignorant, idiot of a woman that obviously doesn't understand QUOTING, VIDEO, and TRANSCRIPTS on the wondrous inventions older than her called the TELEVISION. Regardless of what she intended to say, she said what she said, and it's too late to go back and change your meaning, especially we all know what she meant in the first place. To then go back and call what she said "urban legend" when it came from her own MOUTH is utterly ridiculous. What is she now, a part time tall-tale teller? Did she just do what we all dream of doing by crating her own urban legend beyond mythic proportions? Does she believe she's performing Jedi mind tricks on Alan Colmes to change his mind in an instant? Does she believe she can do magic and make it disappear? I can tell it is none of these. She's just a retard in the United States House of Representatives. Even though she represents only a portion of the people of Minnesota, she still votes for the entire country. Please vote present, Michelle! We don't want you to hurt yourself!

One last thing: Since when has the United States Government overtly allowing such "special needs" people into it? 

Prop H8 ... and my shame of being a Californian...

I have to say... Tuesday was great and crap at the same time. I am proud to be an American, but shameful about being a Californian. This is what my shame amounts to at the moment (image above).

Why, you ask, is my shame bringing feelings about the Jim Crow south that I was never apart of? Well, I shall lay it out for you in the simplest terms that I can. OK, so Proposition 8 passed in California on Tuesday which would ban same-sex marriage in the state and cancel the ruling by the Supreme Court that said it was allowed earlier this year. It would be an amendment to the California State Constitution defining marriage between a man and woman ONLY. Now, about 18,000 gay couples got married in California since May. Their marriages are assured to continue to be valid by the State Attorney General, but I have some misgivings. Let me give you a scenario that I thought of the other day. Say Gary married Steve in June 2008. Steve got into a huge auto accident last month. Gary, being Steve's spouse, wants to visit Steve in the hospital. The hospital happens to be a private hospital and not a government-run facility. The hospital denies Gary the right to see Steve in the hospital. Gary sues the hospital. Gary wins on the basis that the Attorney General said their marriage was still valid in the face of Prop 8 and the subsequent amendment to the constitution and the hospital wrongly disallowed Gary to visit Steve. However, the lovely appeals process is taken up by the hospital, claiming that the marriage is unconstitutional. Now, I'm not a constitutional law student, or even a law student, but it seems easy for this case. I could be wrong, so bear with me, or please, tell me I'm wrong. So anyway, the appeals process takes the case all the way back to the California Supreme Court. Since it is their job to determine whether or not a law is constitutional, they refer to the State Constitution. The Amendment states in plain language that marriage is between a man and a woman and side the case with the hospital. Unfortunately, all the 18,000 marriages granted by California are basically found unconstitutional. Even though the attorney general said they would be safe. I believe all it takes is one case to make it so.

But Alex, you haven't equated Jim Crow to the issue at hand yet. I know, I'm getting there: So here's the deal, what do we do with same sex couples that would like to have the same rights as hetero-couples? Well, since we obviously don't want to grant them marriages like everyone else, we say civil unions. Here's where the connection makes sense. I'm sorry, but civil unions are nothing more than "separate but equal". I for one found the Jim Crow laws to be beneath that of decent human nature, and I am ashamed it took so long for them to be abolished. But apparently it is OK for same sex couples to feel the same type of discrimination? In 2008? Separate but equal should not be language I'm using at this stage in US history, and I am ashamed I am using it now. We, as a nation, elected a black man to the highest office in the land, yet we continue to subject different parts of the population to undeserved discrimination? So what if civil unions are exactly like marriages. That's not the point. Many people fight battles based on principle, and in this case, it is the principle. I know marriage is just a word, but Westerners have placed so much meaning behind the word, it leads a country to continue to discriminate and make others feel less welcome or less of a citizen. That is my point, because civil unions just do not cut it. There are many churches or synagogues out there that will perform the religious ceremonies of same sex couples. The only other aspect is to be allowed in one's civic life to get a marriage license and not a civil union license. Why is it so hard for people to let others do what they wish, considering we live in the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE? It's not free to hand someone something separate but equal, and it is not brave to allow that to happen when you know it is wrong.

I would like to add that it is also shameful the ads for Prop 8 that were everywhere stating that same sex marriage would be forced upon Californians, churches would lose their tax-exempt status because they would be against it, and that children would have to learn it in school. None are true, but it was all they had because their main argument would violate the line between church and states. Utterly shameful. And another thing: Hey LDS church based in Utah, mind your own business! Was California all up in your shit when you were allowing polygamist marriages because Mormonism said that was OK? I highly doubt it. Since the United States loves the whole thing about states' rights, keep to yourself in Utah, and Californians will continue to keep to themselves. Again, mind your own fucking business! You wouldn't have recognized the gay marriages anyways!

I hope the California State Supreme Court overturns Prop 8, and call it what it is: complete and utter discrimination, allowing all free citizens of this great nation to do whatever they want as long as it is not breaking any laws or hurting anyone else. It's not like their having gay sex in a church.

I'll leave it at that. Please feel free to leave any comments.

Karl Marx & Joe Biden... So Not Joking!

Look at this from over the weekend where Joe Biden was interviewed by a central Florida newswoman:



Ok, so this has gotten some airtime in the last day or so, and I've seen two sides to the argument on this interview and Biden saying "is this a joke?" Today, I watched a bit of Studio B with Shepard Smith on Fixed News, and it was my first look into the situation. He was pissed at the insinuation that Biden question the journalistic integrity of the newswoman (WFTV's Barbara West). He said he could not see why it was not a valid and apt interview. He mainly focused on the section of the interview where she quotes Marx and asks Biden if Obama should be equated to socialist ideas and Marx. He interviewed a clearly conservative public relations expert who agreed with Shep. Shep was visibly annoyed at the situation. Here is the segment in its entirety (I found it on Studio B's page on FoxNews.com, and it was the MAIN video staring me right in the face):



Then, when I got home from work, I tuned into my favorite news show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He had, obviously, the exact opposite opinion of the situation. Also, a much shorter segment. I hate to bore you with videos, but I like the information to come directly from the source instead of through my filter of a brain. (Notice how Palin pronounces "inaugural". Great stuff!)



Now he says that West, the woman who interviewed Biden, stated that she's a health correspondent. I followed up on that. This link kinda say that: http://www.wftv.com/station/1874549/detail.html. The other purported piece of info is that her husband is a Republican strategist or consultant. She's a registered Republican and her husband, Wade West has consulted numerous Republican candidates in the past (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/wftvs-barbara-1.html)

Here's the thing: Politics have polarized this country. It is getting harder and harder for a journalist not to show their bias. For some, they love to hold it on their sleeve. In this case, what I take issue with the is Shep's reaction. I do not understand the outrage. Why is comparing Obama to Marx so apt? I do not think it is. Redistributing wealth is the name of the game when you tax someone. Person A makes $10. The government taxes Person A $2. They then take that $2and use it for anything their hearts desire. Like funding polar bear mating rituals or beaver DNA. Scientist B then receives said $2 to do said research. I don't know about you guys, but that seems like a redistribution of Person A's wealth to me. I don't understand why so many Americans think socialism is so bad. It's already infused with our capitalistic society. Schools, some energy providers, some forms of health care, and at least in the US, Social Security, are all forms of socialistic principles working for the betterment of our capitalistic society. "Spreading the wealth around seems OK to me, since the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, mostly by no fault of their own. I love Biden's response of asking whether these questions were jokes and real questions.

I think Barack Obama hits the nail square on the head when he says people like him can afford to pay higher taxes and still live comfortably. The middle class drives the economy. If consumers are not consuming, the producers aren't producing, which means workers aren't working, and around the down spiral we go. Economics can be simple. We have to make sure the right people are getting the help they deserve, Democrats, Republicans and the other crazy people who inhabit this country.

Perhaps this Barbara West character could stick to reporting on health stories and not asking the tough questions. Unfortunately for the folks who watch Fox news, the line reads, "HOW DARE BIDEN TREAT HER SUCH A DISRESPECTFUL WAY!!! SHE'S A JOURNALIST!!" So much for the facts, and so much for journalistic integrity. "....Senator Biden, is it true that Barack Obama is a Muslim?...." The world may never know.

I hope that post was cohesive. It is late and I'm tired. Thanks for reading.

The Social Issues...

Here are some questions that I found on the Internets that I would like to give my position on. I welcome any comments on my answers, so don't be shy.

1. Abortion: for or against?
I would say, since I'm what the right calls a pro-abortionist, that I'm for abortions. However, that is a completely wrong and dangerous characterization of my position on the issue. I believe that a person is in complete control over their own body, and women have the choice whether or not they want to seek an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. That stance in no way says "I'm an abortionist, let's kill all the unborn babies! Wooooo!!" while I run in the street naked. That's ridiculous, and completely false. I'm PRO-CHOICE, and I am against legislating anything that would infringe on the right of a woman to cancel and claim a mulligan on a pregnancy. I'm for so-called partial birth abortions if the health of the mother is dire or in the case of rape and/or incest (sometimes if could be both!). I also am for full-term births with adoption at the end to parents that can handle a child, and not sending them to foster care. I am for the choice to leave the baby with authorities without prosecution of the mother because there is nothing more damaging to a child staying with a mother or family that cannot support a new child. The position of the pro-life company is completely fine to me, but to suggest that since I'm pro-choice, I'm somehow pro-abortion is a fallacy.

2. Would our country fall with a woman president?
In a word: Yes. No no, I kid. Of course not. Look to the UK with Margaret Thatcher. They're still around. Sure, their system is a little different than ours, but then I present you with a multitude of states that women governors. Think of the states as little nations. As far as I'm aware, no state has fallen off the flag yet with women governors.

3. Do you believe in the death penalty?
Unfortunately, I do not. To kill someone for killing someone seems a bit hypocritical to me. Just because you feel justified by using such force because you're hiding behind some arbitrary law made up by the moral authority goes against that moral authority's main message, especially in this country. America has been defined by all intents and purposes a Christian nation. I believe their God, along with the Jewish one, that killing is not a good thing. There's no footnote, "Only in the cases to exact revenge by creating arbitrary laws, which make it 'illegal'" It is very plain language, in my mind, and to quote the St. James version of the Bible: "Thou shalt not kill." Now to the hypocrisy of it all: For a nation that does profess to be a Christian nation and all of its morals and values, the death penalty certainly does not jive with this sentiment. I understand the position of the people who are for it, but I think parsimoniously, it just doesn't work.

4. Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?
Sure, why not. At least create a federal medical marijuana law, so cancer patients who live in California can freely go around the United States with their medical marijuana without fear of getting arrested for possession or felony intent to distribute. I'm not down with the whole crowd that says it's not addictive, because it is. It manifests differently than other drugs, and possibly more slowly, but it is, and I'm dead serious, addictive, psychologically and physically. I would support a legalization of it in the same way cigarettes are legalized. Tax the shit out of it, and everything will be gravy. If you want people to stop using it, just look at how many people smoke cigarettes today compared to 50 years ago. I will agree that statistically it is less dangerous than drinking, which is why I would support a legalization and taxation.

5. Do you believe in God?
I'm agnostic, and I firmly believe that atheists are just as dogmatic as believers. As it says in the Bible, God is truth, and unfortunately truth is extremely hard to pinpoint. I think I'll stay a skeptic for now.

6. Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?
For sure. If the only way one could get married would be in a church, I could see the difficulty, but marriage in this country at least is independent of any religious affiliation. There's nothing wrong with a piece of paper from the county registrar-recorder stating Adam and Steve can have the same rights in union as Adam and Eve. The Constitution calls for equality for all, and that includes sexual orientation. I don't see the argument that it ruins the sanctity of marriage, because church and state are separate. No one is forcing religious organizations to recognize these marriages, and who would want them to anyways?

7. Should the alcohol age be lowered to 18?
This one is tough, because it is working in other countries fine, producing the same amount of alcoholics as the US does. Forget that argument for a second and let's look at the principle: If a person can vote, enlist or get drafted in the military, get jury duty, and assume all of the other wonderful perks of being an adult, shouldn't that same person be allowed to drink and gamble like the rests of adults 21 and over?

8. Should the war in Iraq be called off?
I am a strong believer that we are wasting American lives in a misbegotten war that should not have begun at all.I hear the argument "Well, the troops would rather fight them over there than here." Really?1? And to think, here I sat thinking they thought the opposite! However, that isn't an argument to use in support or nonsupport of the war. It is completely missing the point of the central argument that we went their for WMDs, Iraq was linked to 9/11, and all the other bullshit that was fed to us in 2003. Hell, even the Iraqis don't want us there now. I think it's about time everyone took the hint and we left, nice and easy.

9. Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?
As long as the million is untaxed. Which means I wouldn't do it for $500,000, since the capital gains tax would rape the million dollars out of my pocket. The idea that the flag represents sits in ideology and design. Destroying one measly piece of fabric constructed to the specifications of that flag does not automatically mean I renounce all that the flag stands for and what it means, because the symbol is not destroyed by the fire. It is everlasting in innumerable depictions and occurrences. If someone were dumb enough to give me money for it, then that's their bad.


I didn't do all of the questions because some were a bit stupid or specific, and I really didn't care to answer them.

Swan on "W."

On Friday, I saw "W.", directed by Oliver Stone. I must say, I was pleasantly surprised, and found what most people were saying were true. It was fairly even-handed in its depiction of a yet unfinished figure in world history.

It was less politically motivated than one liberal or conservative might think. In fact, being a pseudo-expert in psychology, there was one blaring theme present: Daddy issues. Apparently Bush wants his father to accept him like Jeb, and whether or not Junior could live up to Senior. That was the underlying drama for the 2 hours, instead of just a documentary done by actors.

The only political tickings they showed was the lead up to the Iraq war, from about the fall of 2002 to about 2004, before the election. Pretty much everything was how I believed it to be, from watching news and everything for the last 2 years. It was almost a mea culpa, but fell short, as there was only one person to admit there were no WMDs.

Josh Brolin, Richard Dreyfus, Jeffery Wright, and Thandie Newton overall were the best representations of their characters. Dreyfus was chilling as Cheney and Newton was almost Condy to a T. But the shining impersonation was Brolin's Bush. Probably the funniest moments were when he threw in some Bushisms.

Pretty much, I recommend anyone left, right or center to see this movie. It's nothing too ground-breaking, but what can we ask for when talking about Bush?

But speaking of Colin Powell, today on Meet the Press he had some great things to say:


I especially like the part of about Muslims. "So what..." is exactly right Mr. Secretary.

It's the Economy, Stupid...

So that's a famous quote by Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992. And I totally agree. No need for these personal attacks by the McCain campaign involving Rezko and Ayers. It's just stupid and unnecessary. Negative attacks have shown to historically work, if only for the fact that people are sheep and the vast majority are too gullible for their own good. But right now, it doesn't work. There is one thing that is necessary to talk about now: the economy. I'll do that now.

I'd like to start with a year ago with Jim Cramer form CNBC's Mad Money. He basically foresaw this calamity that we're in now while talking about the Fed:




Now we've got the Dow, the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500 declining for the last 8 days. The problem now is that the credit markets are frozen. Ali Velshi from CNN, who makes a shitload of sense said on Larry King this:

"But, Larry, I can't believe I'm saying that the stock market is sideshow here. It's not even the one that matters. What matters is your connection to these frozen debt markets, the fact that companies can't borrow money, in some cases, for operations. And that could affect your job and your salary -- the fact you can't get a loan if you needed one right now, a mortgage, and the fact whoever is going to buy your house, if you're trying to sell it, can't get financing for that."

Now that the bailout passed, which I'm not too sure about yet because it still has to yet work, and the highly volatile market is so emotional that it HASN'T worked, it continues to decrease.

Now I've been telling everyone I run into not to panic because it just adds to the fervor that eventually reaches the market and goes round and round and round again until we're in 1929 again and an another Great Depression looms on the horizon. Apparently 6 in 10 Americans believe that last sentiment. I feel sorry for that fact. Let me put it in to perspective with the aid of Phil Town, who like Warren Buffett has made his shitload of money in the stock market.

http://www.philtown.com/phil_towns_blog/2008/10/djia-estimates.html

He explains that the market is overvalued right now, and that's why it's on the decline. Since the credit market is frozen, stocks are heading to their correct values. According to historical prices and price/earning values, we've been expecting this problem and it's been a long time coming since the 1980s. Basically, I must reiterate the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: DON'T PANIC. There is a natural ebb and flow to this thing, and it's unfortunate that deregulation and predatory lending brought us to this place.

But, guess who's not talking about the economy? You guessed it, Fox Noise Channel:



Please, please, please, get this bitch off the air. Along with Sean Hannity.

I'll have more on the economy in the coming days.

The First Post!

Welcome welcome!

For anyone reading, I thought I would grab a place to blog about anything and everything dealing with current. Recently, I've been watching a lot of news and reading a lot on current events. Pretty much it's been all political, because that's what's dominating the news cycle, but I want to continue this after the election, so I'm not sticking to just election coverage like everyone else out in the blogosphere. Current events intrigue me and I've got much commentary on the world.

So let's start out with my reference in the blog title. I'm sure most, if not all, will get it. Yes yes, it's from Sarah Palin's first network interview with Charlie Gibson when they discussed the Bush Doctrine. Now I don't know about any of you, but the way she responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" with the nastiest tone, like "How dare you ask me that stupid questions, you mean mean man!" it struck me as somebody who doesn't get it. To be honest, since I was in high school and wasn't paying attention when Bush laid out his "doctrine" regarding terrorism, I didn't know what it was either when Charlie asked Palin. Now, since she didn't know what it was, she should have just said it. Unfortunately, that started a slippery slope on a glacier in Alaska with Sarah Palin sliding down without a prayer from Pastor Moothy (sp?). Then her constant stating that she was always against to the Bridge to Nowhere, "Thanks, but No Thanks" sent chills down my spine every time I heard it on TV. Now don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Alaskans or the folks in the more northern states, but the accent has got to be kept on the DL. She was for the Bridge, and even had a t-shirt that was making fun of the little community, but she didn't understand the IRONY involved.

Then, she had those interviews with Katie Couric. I understand it's a campaign, and when you have something in your campaign that could possibly hurt, you hide it. But Sarah let her loose lips get the best of her. Not being able to tell the American public what you read?!? That's like me saying I use the Internet but won't tell anyone what sites I use and just "all of it, whatever pages come across my screen". That's a mighty large Internet right? So is reading every publication known to man, let alone the ones you can actually read (the ones written at a third grade level, of course). Then the bombshell that she couldn't even name another Supreme Court decision that she didn't agree with, considering the fact that 3 months earlier she appeared on an Alaskan news program (with an interviewer and questions and the whole kit'n'kaboodle) discussing how she disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling in Exxon v. Baker, allowing Exxon to pay less damages in the Exxon Valdez spill, WHICH WAS IN ALASKA! For someone who claims to be Alaskan, seems pretty fishy to me. And I don't want to here the defenders of her and the haters of Katie saying that was "Gotcha Journalism!" because the only other people int he room were the production crew. Probably 3 or so people other than Sarah and Katie. She couldn't name a single one. Shoot, I don't care if you couldn't name one you disagreed with, but how about the ones we all learn in high school that supported slavery. Everyone should disagree with those! Plessy v Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision to name a few. Unbelievable! Look, if she actually believes that she is capturing the vote by doing these things (I'm not concerned with the fact that she says now that they were not very good interviews) is preposterous!

Then the debate, the glorious debate. I go back to a quote my friend had on his facebook. I'm not sure who said it, but I'm just gonna paraphrase the gist. It said that if you want a President who you'd like to have a beer with (G. W. Bush), then you deserve a shitty economy, a crappy life, and a government that doesn't work for you, but for themselves. You deserve a sub-average way of handling things, and what you should get is a shitty lawyer when you have a lawsuit, and a bungling surgeon when you need open heart surgery. All the winks, the 'you betchas', the 'Joe Six-Pack' and the hockey mom comments are utterly sickening. Look, that's all well and good on the campaign trail for the people that eat that up (I'm looking at you, Bible belt), but not for a crowd of nearly 70 million folks. It's not endearing and it looks like all you have going for you in some type of personality that flies with some but doesn't fly with others. It looks like all you have is a brain that is only 10% used (with about 9% for all necessary life support functions). Here's the thing: memorization of speeches is not a remedy for America. It's a death wish. Because when the world is ending (over-exaggeration of some crisis), you won't have time to memorize a speech. You'll have to be candid, and I don't think she can be, at least with everyone involved, not just the Republican base.

Now, as her approval ratings continue to be a drag on the McCain campaign, we go to the polls and there will be folks who vote for her. I have a customer who told me he'd rather he be President if McCain kicks the bucket instead of Joe Biden, because he said that you know Obama is going to be heading to the likes of JFK, RFK and MLK. That's not a good thought, especially since he'd rather Palin be prez than Biden. Where's the disconnect? Where's the sense of logic and reason? Why do we have to live in the "United Stupid of America," to quote Bill Maher? When 40% or so of voters support John McCain for president, they are also supporting Sarah Palin for the job too. That's 40% too many. I refuse to live in a society that condones such an affront to the power of the human mind. I couldn't care less if she has executive experience and the other three don't. That's a technicality. All it takes is a clue, and she ain't got one.

Sorry for the long read, but I've been holding in all these thoughts for a while. Tomorrow I'll have a few shorter points on the other main current event in the news for the past few weeks, the economy. So stick around.