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)