|
|
Saturday, April 23rd, 2005
|
|
|
Your Linguistic Profile:
|
85% General American English |
10% Yankee |
5% Upper Midwestern |
0% Dixie |
0% Midwestern |
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
Lots of stuff...but first, a quiz:
| You scored as Existentialism. Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.
“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”
“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”
--Jean-Paul Sartre
“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”
--Blaise Pascal
More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...
Existentialism | | 95% | Utilitarianism | | 75% | Hedonism | | 70% | Justice (Fairness) | | 65% | Kantianism | | 30% | Nihilism | | 20% | Strong Egoism | | 15% | Divine Command | | 5% | Apathy | | 5% | </td>
What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
created with QuizFarm.com |
Last Friday was my birthday. I am now 26 years old. Gah. I did get a new office chair and a cellphone for it, though. So anyone who'd like to call me, just email me and I can give you my number.
Immensly enjoying my Political Science class. "Battle lines" are just starting to be drawn and I've sniffed out a couple Reaganites in the class, so I imagine we'll probably do a good deal of pissing one another off in the next couple months. Sounds fun to me.
I'm heading into the peal season for tabling events for the Greens as we go into summer and I think I'm going to have a blast...
I'll write more soon... I'm exhausted right now.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, April 9th, 2005
|
|
|
we are now official a one party state. It was unofficial before. The Democrats always played "good cop" to the GOP's "bad cop" with kinder rhetoric and *slightly* better policies,
but no longer.
We now have two Republican Parties. Send that Joe Biden quote to
everyone you know. That is the face of the Democratic Party.
As soon as the two IRV-related bills run their course in the state
House and Senate, I will be mailing this email to progressive local
Democratic elected officials that I respect and ask them to justify
their continued membership in party that can even say these things with
a straight face, while claiming to be the party of working class
people.
I ask that you do the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dems: Bums
By Matt Taibbi, New York Press
Posted on March 29, 2005, Printed on April 1, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/21608/
"Terror, terror, terror, terror, terror. I would say to John, 'Let me
put it to you this way. The Lord Almighty, or Allah, whoever, if he
came to every kitchen table in America and said, "Look, I have a
Faustian bargain for you, you choose. I will guarantee to you that I
will end all terror threats against the United States within the year,
but in return for that there will be no help for education, no help for
Social Security, no help for health care." What do you do?' My answer
is that seventy-five percent of the American people would buy that
bargain."
- Joe Biden, in The New Yorker, on what he would say to John Kerry
"Look, the answer is, we have to do an unbranding. We have to brand
more effectively. It's marketing."
- Kerry, in the same piece, on the Democrats' need to sell themselves
as tough
Around the same time Joe Biden was selling New Yorker reporter Jeffrey
Goldberg on the idea that the only hope for the Democratic Party was to
abandon all social programming and invade the planet, some interesting
polls were taken in the three countries most involved in the Iraq
invasion.
In the United States, a Washington Post/ABC News poll released on March
16 showed that 53 percent of Americans think the Iraq war was not worth
fighting, 57 percent disagreed with President Bush's handling of the
Iraq war, and 70 percent said that the number of U.S. casualties
incurred in the war was unacceptable.
In Australia, one of the U.S.'s last stalwart partners on the war, the
government's approval rating fell below 50 percent for the first time
in ages, with a new poll showing Labor with a 52-48 advantage. Prime
Minister John Howard conceded that the drop was due to public
dissatisfaction with the continued presence of Australian troops in
Iraq.
In Britain, meanwhile, a spate of polls was conducted in anticipation
of the May 5 elections. Because of the huge majority owned by Tony
Blair's Labour Party in the House of Commons - 408 seats to 162 for
the Conservative party - Blair is almost certain to be reelected to a
third term. But the Labour advantage is dropping fast, losing about a
percentage point a month in recent months, with Iraq the main cause. In
February, the Labour advantage was 38 percent to 32, with the remainder
going to the Liberal-Democrat party. This month, it's 37-34.
Conventional wisdom anticipates that Labour will retain its advantage
but lose about two-dozen seats. Blair's personal approval rating,
meanwhile, has plummeted to around 35 percent, mirroring a slide
enjoyed recently by George Bush, who has been in the mid 40s since the
New Year.
Blair is also facing a major scandal over Iraq that is inspiring
demonstrations all over the country. In a documentary aired on the show
Panorama this weekend, MI6 chief Richard Dearlove said that he had
briefed Blair well before the war that America's Iraq intelligence was
"fixed" to meet the administration's goal of invading Iraq at all
costs. Dearlove said that nine months before the invasion, he attended
a meeting in Washington at which he concluded that war in Iraq was
"inevitable" - a conclusion he shared with Blair.
"The facts and intelligence" were being "fixed round the policy" by
U.S. President George Bush's administration, Dearlove said. The
documentary claims that Blair had signed on to support the war as early
as April 2002. Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary who resigned
over Iraq, echoed Dearlove's comments.
"What was propelling the prime minister was a determination that he
would be the closest ally to George Bush and they would prove to the
United States administration that Britain was their closest ally," Cook
told the program. "His problem is that George Bush's motivation was
regime change. It was not disarmament. Tony Blair knew perfectly well
what he was doing."
In the midst of all of this, the Democratic Party is preparing its
shiny new 2008 position on Iraq and terror. Described in Goldberg's New
Yorker article, the political plan is centered around a new faction
that calls itself the "National Security Democrats" (a term coined by
that famous liberal, Richard Holbrooke) and is led by revolting
hair-plug survivor Joe Biden. The position of the "National Security
Democrats" is that the party should be "more open to the idea of
military action, and even preemption" and that the Democrats should
"try to distance themselves from the Party's Post-Vietnam ambivalence
about the projection of American power." Additionally, the Democrats
ought to reconsider their traditional stance as an opposition party and
learn to embrace Republican heroes like Ronald Reagan.
"Everyone knew 'Reagan is dangerous,' remember?" Biden says. "He talked
about freedom, and what do we do? We say it's bad speech, dangerous
speech." Democrats, he says, "are making the same mistakes again."
It would be easy to dismiss the Biden revival as a cheap stunt by a
discredited party hack with all the national appeal of the
streptococcus virus, except for one thing. Biden's "national security"
camp includes all four of the expected main contenders for the
Democratic nomination - Biden himself, Hillary Clinton, Indiana Sen.
Evan Bayh, and John Edwards. New Mexico governor Bill Richardson,
another outside contender, is also a member of this camp. We are going
to be hearing a lot about "National Security Democrats" in the next
three years.
The Democratic party leadership's persistent and bizarre campaign of
self-condemnation and Republican bootlicking is one of those things
that, on its face, makes very little logical sense. It makes cultural
sense; we have come to expect that the cultural figures we call the
Democrats will respond to electoral failure first by sniveling and
finger-pointing, and then by puffing up their chests and telling their
dates they know how to handle themselves in a bar fight. From the
Republicans we expect just the opposite; beaten at the polls, they
immediately start cozying up to snake-handlers and gun freaks and
denouncing school lunches as socialism. It is impossible to imagine a
Newt Gingrich responding, say, to LBJ's Great Society by concocting its
own expensive plan to feed the poor black man - but we fully expect
that a Democrat who loses an election will suddenly start to reconsider
his opposition to pre-emtpive invasion and Reaganomics.
We expect these things, so they strike us as logical when we see them
happen. But they make no sense. A merely cynical opposition party would
be emboldened by poll numbers showing majority opposition to the war to
court those votes. And a moral one would seize upon news of the sort
coming out of Britain to argue to not only to their own voters (who
would unanimously support them in this aim), but to the country at
large, that the invasion of Iraq was based upon a fallacy, illegal and
impeachable.
But the Democratic leaders do neither. Instead, they tell 53 percent of
the country that they are mistaken, and throw their chips in with the
other 47 percent, who incidentally support the other party and are not
likely to ever budge. They then go further and try to argue that
fighting the war on terror requires abandoning health care, education
and Social Security - an idea that, let's face it, makes no fucking
sense at all.
Franklin Roosevelt never argued anything like that, and he fought a
global world war against two mighty industrial powers. But now 4,000
retards in caves are going to close down the entire American school
system. If that is the Democratic idea of looking "strong," one hates
to imagine what weakness would look like.
© 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/21608/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But there's hope! A popular blogger and former Democrat is organizing Moving Day 2005, to have a massive move from the Democratic Party to the Greens. This is a way for progressives to move to a party that truly represents your values and to make an immediate political impact not only for the Green Party, but for the Dems as well. Hopefully this will be just the scare they need to start backing Instant Run Off Voting, seeing as their scare tactics will have failed to keep people loyal to their party.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://movingday.typepad.com/
Moving Day on June 21st, 2005!
I have reached a turning point.
I propose that we declare this year's Summer Solstice, Tuesday June 21, 2005, to be Moving Day. Whereupon longtime Democrats such as myself, on one day and en masse, move to a party that has the set of values and principles that the Democrat party not only used to stand for, but used to successfully fight for, both on the legislative floor AND in the hearts and minds of the American people.
It is time that we joined the Green party, bringing to it the sheer numbers of people it now lacks to wield significant political power, and begin the long journey of creating a world that will be better and sustainable for generations hence.
I am the product of generations of proud and believing Democrats. I have never been a hardcore political activist, nor a marching protestor against things my government has done that I vehemently disagreed with. I have believed in the traditional values of the Democrat party that my father and his father believed in. I have believed in the progressive path. The defense of the common man and small businessperson upon which this country was built and has endured for over two centuries. I have fought against attempts to split our party, and have held fast through the last two national election cycles, hoping against hope that true leadership and a compelling and simply-stated set of principles would emerge.
I cannot begin to describe the deep sadness I have when I think of what the Democrat party has lost. but have now, as a single individual, come to the conclusion that the Democrat party is a failed and ruined institution. It it truly, and fundamentally time to move on.
I am by no means the first person to arrive at this point, but I believe I am exemplary of a particular type of Democrat. A dyed-in-the-wool Democrat that until now has vowed to hang on for as long as it takes. I now feel that that strategy is doomed. And our country with it, if a major and significant shift does not occur, and occur very quickly. In the present political environment, time is definitely not on our side if we continue on our current path.
By means of a shrewd forty-year-long strategy, the Republican party has slowly and inexorably captured the ideological playing field and rigged the semantic rulebook. Low income labor workers with modest incomes and families with no medical insurance now proudly vote Republican, convinced that the superficial Republican talk of family values is somehow more American than those of the Democrats.
Our country is now being led down a path that truly frightens me. I am not so worried about myself as I fear for the future generations that will inherit the great burden of debt and hatred we will reap from our country's current political actions, both foreign and domestic. Our leaders have abandoned the great and honorable tradition of drawing the world to our model of freedom, liberty, and justice by means of our own moral behavior and actions, and now foolishly lead the world toward endless hatred, division, and calamity by means of their bellicose war-mongering and misguided geopolitical blunderings
I hold no ill feelings toward the Democrats. I believe there have been many decent, thoughtful, and hardworking Democrats, doing their best to hold the line against an increasingly leveraged Republican message. But I no longer believe the Democrat party can produce the message that will attract back all those that have abandoned it for the false promises of the far right.
I believe that we must abandon a party that can only manage, at its best, to offer up a weak and reactionary protest after the fact. That is not enough to save this country. We need a new model.
That model, that set of values, that truly and deeply progressive and whole vision already exists. It can be found in the Green party.
The Green Party of California Platform (from the Green Party of California site)
- Ecology & Earth Stewardship
- Social Justice & Liveable Communities
- Peace & Nonviolence
- Democracy & Electoral Reform
- Community-Based Sustainable Economics
Ten Key Values
- Ecological Wisdom
- Grassroots Democracy
- Social Justice
- Nonviolence
- Decentralization
- Community-Based Economics
- Feminism
- Respect for Diversity
- Global Responsibility
- Sustainability
Follow these links and read these principles. I cannot find a single solitary thing that I disagree with in the whole lot of them. In fact in them I see a whole range of ideas and principles and strategies that I have already embraced wholeheartedly for decades.
In this move we will not be rejecting the values and traditional platform of the Democrat party, but rather heeding the call of a more compelling and clear vision of an attainable future. I have been won over. And I believe that many other Democrats just like me, if given an indication of a mass movement, will do likewise.
Only in this new internet age could we truly hope for a rapidly organized conscious and coordinated movement on this scale. It cannot be centralized. It will take the decentralized and individual initiatives of thousands and thousands of individuals to trigger a significant move.
Yes, there are great political risks in this strategy, and there are many that will use fear to try to retain their internal power in the Democrat party. I have previously argued myself for revitalizing the Democrat party, but no longer believe that it's possible. Something is fundamentally, and fatally, wrong with the Democrat party. And I believe that thousands of others believe likewise, but are afraid to move to the Green party one at a time.
I believe a mass migration is possible. I believe it's possible to recapture the spirit of us all as a group. I believe that in order to do this we will have to take control of our national destiny at the grass roots.
I do not want, nor will I accept any form of ownership, management, or control over this idea whatsoever. I offer only the idea itself, and the personal opinion that it needs tooccur no later than this Summer in order to have time to fundamentally affect the 2006 mid-term elections. I believe that the Summer Solstice, a natural symbol of our planet's place in the cosmos, is a suitably auspicious date for this mass act to take place, and that the five months between now and that date is long enough for this idea to take hold, grow, and be sufficiently planned and supported.
This movement, if it is to succeed, must take hold and grow completely on its own. It must emerge as the additive ideas and supporting inventions and facilitations of many others scattered across this great country. Perhaps it will be taken up by moveon.org, or the progressive bloggers. I don't know. I don't believe this is about knowing how it will happen. I believe it is primarily about believing that it is possible. And turning the idea loose in the ideosphere.
Everything else will take care of itself.
Just spread the word.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Put this banner up on your websites if you want to join the effort!
http://movingday.typepad.com/
SPREAD THE WORD, EVERYONE!
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, March 26th, 2005
|
|
|
 | You scored as Beast. Codename: The Beast
Full Name: Henry P. McCoy
Mutant Powers: Increased agility, strength and stamina.
Henry "Hank" McCoy is a founding member of the X-Men. Among all his original teamates, Hank had the best childhood, between loving parents, and so his temper and way of living was one of the happiest at the mansion. Beast's mutation at first was hardly noticable, but while away from the team, Hank made a terrible mistake: testing a new substance that he was using to study the x-factor. Beast tried the substance on himself. This caused a further mutation on his body, covering him with gray fur (that later became blue), fangs and great nails. He had then indeed become a "beast".
One of the only students at the mansion who took up an education beyond that of the Xavier school, Beast's studies were in the biogenetic area of his field. Possessing a quick wit, a wry sense of humour, and scholarly wisdom, he also has a penchant for quoting the classics and poetry. Despite his beastly exterior, he is possesess incredible genius, making him one of the most intellingent minds in the world.
Beast | | 80% | Professor X | | 65% | Storm | | 65% | Banshee | | 65% | Shadowcat | | 60% | Iceman | | 60% | Nightcrawler | | 55% | Jean Grey | | 50% | Archangel | | 45% | Cyclops | | 40% | Colossus | | 35% | Rogue | | 35% | Wolverine | | 30% | </td>
Which X-Men member are You?
created with QuizFarm.com |
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, who have you all voted for for President of the United States in every election you've ever voted in? Same question to non-Americans for the equivalent in your countries as well.
1.) Is Party Affiliation the chief motivation for your vote?
2.) Do you generally vote a straight party ticket?
3.) Have you ever regretted a Presidential vote you've cast? If so, who would you have voted for in their place if you could go back in time?
MY ANSWERS:
My votes:
(I was 6 months too young to vote in 1996, so 2000 was my first eligible year)
2000: Al Gore (Democrat)
2004: David Cobb (Green)
1.) My goal is to grow my party in the long term, so I have to say "yes" to this. Though if it's a Green, I can safely say I like their politics. But the other upside is that I've personally met every Green candidate that I voted for.
2.) It's fairly impossible to vote straight Green Party since we aren't in every race, but I vote for every Green on the ballot. Though it's quite possible, I've never yet voted for a Republican. Everyone else I voted for on my 2004 ballot were either Democrats or Libertarians.
3.) I regret giving Al Gore my vote in 2000. It left a bad taste in my mouth when I did it in November 2000 and it still tastes bad today. If I could go back, I would have voted for Ralph Nader, who was my first choice in that race, but I was scared off with "spoiler" talk.
How about the rest of you?
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Thursday, March 24th, 2005
|
| Time: | 2:08 pm. |
| Mood: |  amused. |
|
You Are 25% Left Brained, 75% Right Brained |
The left side of your brain controls verbal ability, attention to detail, and reasoning.
Left brained people are good at communication and persuading others.
If you're left brained, you are likely good at math and logic.
Your left brain prefers dogs, reading, and quiet.
The right side of your brain is all about creativity and flexibility.
Daring and intuitive, right brained people see the world in their unique way.
If you're right brained, you likely have a talent for creative writing and art.
Your right brain prefers day dreaming, philosophy, and sports.
|
|
|
Comments: Read 1 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Saturday, March 19th, 2005
|
|
|
Two years ago today, George W. Bush declared an illegal war on a nation that did not attack the United States, armed only with rumors of Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never found, against the advice of many top military and diplomatic officials, and with the votes of more than a couple Democratic Senators and Congressmen.
Since then the story has changed, so that when it was announced that the search for the WDMs that were the original justification for invasion was called off and were officially proclaimed to have never existed there, there wasn't even a whisper. Of course, we were now two justifications past all that, we were spreading democracy to a people who had lived under a brutal dictator. Though, they conveniently left out that those atrocities they endured were largely ignored by many of the same officials in the White House that brimmed with righteous indignation at them 15 years after the fact. Or that we'd been allies with that brutal dictator -- or any brutal dictator or terrorist who would take an anti-communist stance...even Osama bin Laden.
Today, I and my fellow Greens worked a table at an event on the second anniversary of the beginning of this stupid war and to demand that it be ended.
As Green Party of Seattle Tabling Coordinator, I was in charge of the dual table that included both the Seattle Greens and the State Party. With the help of Judy Olson, Dave Coons, Cynthia Cantrill, Joe Szwaja, Robert Losey and several others, we talked the swarms of people that came to our booth.
It could also be noted that it helps to be under cover in pouring rain when attracting people to your booth. :)
The response was overwhelmingly positive and even with more people manning the booth, we were always talking to someone. People were buying T-shirts, tote bags, buttons, bumper stickers, Green Party peace flags, signed up about three new members to the Seattle Greens, passed out alot of literature and in two and a half hours, pulled in $229.00 in sales and donations. Over twice what we made at the Anti-Inaugural Protest.
The March was very large and the Green presense was a noticeable one. We had three visible banners and spotted a number of our peace flags in the crowd. Afterwards, I had some lunch in the Center House with a number of Greens.
It was a very good day. Here are a few shots of the event:
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Wednesday, March 16th, 2005
|
|
|
My final project was to pick something I believed should be considered a human right and give the arguments for it and disect the arguments against it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Gillis
Philosophy of Human Rights
Final Project Paper
Clausen
The Right to Marriage Equality for Same Sex Couples
The debate over same sex marriage is probably one of the most hotly contested in the United States today. The objections for legally recognizing same sex unions range from the oddly pragmatic – loss of tax revenue from the extra couples receiving tax breaks –- to the plain bizarre – statements about the eventual result of legalized bestiality and polygamy and according to Dr. James Dobson in an anti-gay fundraising letter he sent out in 2004, “the fall of Western civilization itself.”
What I hope to accomplish in the paper is to not only to make an effective case for why marriage equality is and should be considered a human right, but to debunk its opponents’ objections for legalizing it and their questionable epistemic justifications.
First and foremost in this debate is the emotional charged and hyperbolic language that opponents of marriage equality have chosen to sprinkle their objections with. From Reverend Jerry Falwell two days after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, blaming those very attacks on “the feminists, and the gays and lesbians” among others, proclaiming ridiculously that, 'you helped this [terrorist attack] happen’ to the absolutely absurd remarks from hyperbole all-star Senator Rick Santorum, who said of the Federal Marriage Amendment put to Congress in 2004: "The future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance. Isn't that the ultimate homeland security—standing up and defending marriage?"
They’re right, of course. Why is why the state the Massachusetts – the lone state to recognize marriage for same sex couples -- has the highest divorce rate, is plagued with the most violent crime, has the highest rate teen pregnancy and the very foundations of civil society begin to collapse.
Oh wait. It hasn’t. In fact, Massachusetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country, while many of the states that have the great opposition to same sex marriage, predominantly in the South, are among the highest.
It must disappoint Dr. Dobson and his ilk that the earth hasn’t yet opened up swallowed Massachusetts. The problem with his sort of Cassandra-like warnings about same sex marriage is that, if legalized in just one place and the sky fails to fall, he runs the risk of his apocalyptic vision looking just a little silly.
So why exactly are the arguments so loud and overblown? Largely because they need to be. Well, if one were to take these charges out of a mindset that requires a direct line to infallible moral truth and into the arena of civil discussion, they really ring quite devoid of sound reasoning. To compensate, they simply turned up the volume. As French philosopher Michel de Montaigne put it, "He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak.”
That’s where religious language comes in. Many of the arguments made against same sex marriage, just like those against interracial marriage, women’s rights, religious freedom and even democracy itself, were overtly religious in the language of their objections and in their warnings of dire consequences, like this prophetic gem from Dr. Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” website:
“…the younger generation and those yet to come will be deprived of the Good News, as has already occurred in France, Germany, and other European countries. Instead of providing for a father and mother, the advent of homosexual marriage will create millions of motherless children and fatherless kids. Are we now going to join the Netherlands and Belgium to become the third country in the history of the world to “normalize” and legalize behavior that has been prohibited by God himself? Heaven help us if we do!”
And this continues the unfathomable self-martyrdom of the conservative fundamentalists. “They’re coming to get you” is a concise way to sum up their dire warnings of the consequences of legalized unions being extended to gays and lesbians. Dr. Dobson wrote on his website:
“Censorship is already in full swing. One of our Focus on the Family radio programs on the subject of homosexuality was judged by the Canadian Radio and Television Commission to be “homophobic.” The radio station that carried the broadcast was censured for airing it, and I have not been able to address the issue since.
Is that kind of censorship coming to the United States. Yes, I believe it is. Once homosexual marriage is legalized, if indeed that is where we are headed, laws based on what will be considered “equality” will bring many changes in the law. Furthermore, it is likely that non-profit organizations that refuse to hire homosexuals on religious grounds will lose their tax exemptions. Some Christian colleges and universities are already worrying about that possibility.”
Now ignoring for a minute that Dr. Dobson’s program is “homophobic”, there is a misunderstanding of the Separation of Church and State in this country. This would mean that while no same sex couple could be denied the right to marry, no church could be forced to admit such people as members or be forced to perform a marriage ceremony for them. But that would require logic on Dr. Dobson’s part and he’s already leaping the rational mountain that allows him to play the martyr card when the President of the United States is a member of his helpless and “persecuted” religion and the very politicians he fundraises for have control of all three branches of the United States government.
So much for reason.
Of course, this would get in the way of him doing what many in the conservative religious right do. Fantasizing that they’re Indiana Jones, tied to the stake and trying to keep their eyes glued shut as all of the horrible liberals, feminists and gays are opening the Ark and letting all manner of evil, destructive things out.
And that is forgetting that we are indeed in a nation that was founded on principles that include a Separation of Church and State. It is well justified to hold a belief or principle based on religious belief, but to take that belief out of the realm of religious faith and put it into secular civil law, requires something just a little more tangible and less entrenched in a “proof paradigm” centered moral philosophy. Reverend Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State put it well when he said, “…laws made by legislators must be rooted in constitutional values and reasoned analysis, not someone’s personal take on scripture. Put bluntly, if your representative in Congress can’t explain a vote…without ‘proof-texting’ it to the Bible, he or she has failed to do the work of a legislator in America.”
And then many will take the position that the re-election of President George W. Bush, a strong supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendment - the first addition to the Constitution since Prohibition to limit the rights of Americans - and the passage of many statewide bans of same sex marriage at the polls is proof that the American people stand against same sex marriage. But what they fail to say that had racial desegregation or the abolition of slavery been put to a vote in their day, they would have failed just as dismally. And you’d be hard pressed, even in conservative circles, to find anyone who supports or can morally justify either of those practices anymore.
Some even, argue that gay marriage being legalized would give lesbians and gays “special rights” that don’t apply to anyone. This of course is a fabrication. Were same sex marriage legalized, then hetereosexuals would have the same right to enter into a sexless, loveless marriage with a person of the same gender to whom they are not attracted, love romantically or have any desire for, just as many closeted gays and lesbians have done in marriages with people of different genders for decades. Now, that’s equality.
And finally, there is the argument that same sex couples and those who support their right to marriage want to “redefine marriage”. In his May 17th, 2004 article on ConservativeTruth.org, John Schmidt proclaimed, “The fact is that no one has the authority to redefine marriage. What is important is for someone in authority to stand up and proclaim, ‘There is no right to redefine Marriage by anybody, anywhere, any time.’”. Which relies again on misinformation and emotionally charged language. The unspoken lie is that marriage has been redefined throughout the ages. Once a means of solidifying and condensing power, land and military might between families and confirming the continuity of a bloodline for inheritance. These marriages were arranged for political purposes by the parents and sealed by the one undisputed authority in those days. The Church.
The concept of marriage being a romantic union based on love is a relatively new one, only dating back a few hundred years. So the idea that marriage has meant one thing since the dawn of time and is only now being expanded and refined, is a ridiculous one.
So, why in the face of all this anger and vitriol and spitting and screaming would same sex couples still want to wed? A number of reasons. They want to marry because they love one another, want to share in financial, moral and legal decisions and responsibilities to one another. Because many have already spent years and even decades caring for each other and want to make it legally binding.
They marry because they’ve adopted or want to adopt children and share custody as parents. Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married couples. Among them listed on the website of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group:
Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits – resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
Immigration rights. Bi-national families are commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.
Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.
Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.
These are rights that many people – gay and straight alike - are fighting to have recognized for all people equally, because it is unfair to deny them to any family because they do not fit the narrow, traditional molds prescribed by Senator Santorum and Dr. Dobson. That the harm they claim these unions inflict on society or children can not be proven in any sort of scientific, irrefutable way. Nor can they explain that even their traditional molds have produced many of the Eric Rudolphs and Timothy McVeighs of the world. The problems of domestic violence and emotional harm can not be so easily explained or pawned off on those they choose to exclude from their ministries or from what makes the most conservative among us comfortable.
But in the end, those outside of the narrow definitions of what these opponents deem acceptable are not looking for acceptance, though that would be nice. They’re merely looking for tolerance and equality in the eyes of the law.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important.”
And is that really too much to ask for?
SOURCES:
The Log Cabin Republicans website: “Talking Points: What the Radical Right Says About Us”: http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/talking_points_radical_right_quotes.html
Church & State Magazine, Vol. 58. No. 3: “Politics and Proof Tests: Why I Disagree With Jim Dobson and Jim Wallis” by Revered Barry W. Lynn.
Human Rights Campaign website: “HRC Marriage Center”: http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm&TPLID=63&ContentID=17353
Focus on the Family website: Eleven Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage: http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032427.cfm
50 State Comparisons: 2004 Edition, Published by the Taxpayers Network.
Conservative Truth.Org website, “There Is No Right To Redefine Marriage” by John F. Schmidt, May 17th, 2004: http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2269
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what do you think?
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Tuesday, March 15th, 2005
|
|
|
 | You scored as Satanism. Your beliefs most closely resemble those of Satanism! Before you scream, do a bit of research on it. To be a Satanist, you don't actually have to believe in Satan. Satanism generally focuses upon the spiritual advancement of the self, rather than upon submission to a deity or a set of moral codes. Do some research if you immediately think of the satanic cult stereotype. Your beliefs may also resemble those of earth-based religions such as paganism.
Satanism | | 75% | atheism | | 71% | agnosticism | | 67% | Buddhism | | 67% | Christianity | | 29% | Judaism | | 29% | Hinduism | | 29% | Paganism | | 25% | Islam | | 13% | </td>
Which religion is the right one for you? (new version)
created with QuizFarm.com |
|
|
Comments: Read 4 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
Senator Johnson,
I was more than dismayed to see your name in the "Nay" column on the roll call for SSB 5326 today, the bill "Providing home rule charter cities the ability to choose their election system".
One would think coming out of a nasty Gubernatorial election that our state legislators would be looking to find ways to improve our election systems to prevent such an ugly, and tense situation.
Had the state of Washington had a system of Instant Run Off Voting or Ranked Choice Voting -- of the very type that the bill you voted against today prevented Vancouver from using, though it had been approved by voters 6 years ago -- we could have very easily resolved a close election between Chris Gregoire and Dino Rossi without even a fraction of the vitriol and partisan nonsense that typically overcomes both Democrat and Republican alike in these contests.
For one, IRV discourages the sort of negative campaigning that personified the Gregoire/Rossi race, since all candidates are jockeying for their opponents' supporters' second choice on the ballots.
And with each "instant run off", eliminated candidates' first choices votes go into the tallies of the voters' second and third choices, allowing for election results that truly represent the values of Washington voters and not just based on the fear of the least favorable of the two largest dogs in the fight. Who knows who the 44,000 Ruth Bennett voters would have picked at their second choice? It certainly would have given the eventual victor a much more decisive victory instead of the partisan sniping that cost tax payer money and only discouraged voters from getting involved in politics in the first place.
And thirdly, IRV takes that very fear out of elections and eliminates the "spoiler effect" entirely. This would not only shatter the glass ceiling for third party and independent candidates, but would allow for a better debate with a wider range of voices and choices and could only work to increase voter turnout and participation.
Of course, the loudest voices in opposition, in my experience, has been from legislators such as yourself who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
The message this sends voters like me is that if fear were taken out of our elections and voters were free to choose among a wide range of candidates, that deep down, you know that many of your current voters would not choose you.
I will keep this vote in mind when you come up for re-election in 2006.
Thank you for your time,
Mike Gillis
Kent, WA
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
Haven't posted any new entries in a while, but I finished my first tabling event as Tabling Coordinator last week. International Women's Day certainly wasn't as loud or as rowdy as the Inauguration Day protest, but we did a fair bit of networking with people from many different organizations like Planned Parenthood, who are quite aware of the Democrats' recent retreats on abortion rights and the Welfare Rights Organizing Coalition, which is exactly the sort of group that the Greens need to attach ourselves to and precisely the sort of groups the Dems neglect.
So I'm very interesting in possibly doing some volunteer work with the WROC (http://www.wroc.org) in the next year. A big part of networking and growing the Green Party is to join groups whose cause we champion, work our asses off for them and be openly Green.
And thew work ahead of us this year seems so big, but we have to tackle it head on. The Dems are abandoning alot of political terrain on worker's rights, consumer rights, gay rights and reproductive rights and we have to snatch it up. I'm going to fight to get the Greens to get a charter amendment on the ballot in Seattle to make it illegal to enforce the PATRIOT Act within the city.
This is something that has been successful in other cities and it would be a shoo-in in a liberal oasis like Seattle. And a victory like that for the Greens will not only energize our membership and grow our volunteer base, it would be a textbook case of having a real impact on a national issue from a local perspective.
So to start, I've been sprucing up the tabling fare, which means alot of art projects to keep myself busy for a while. My next trick will be to translate the Green Party's positions on issues and their contrast with the Democratic and Republican Parties to a big sandwich board for display. Basing it off of this official site: http://www.therealdifference.org/ I'll take some pics when I finish it.
Have a paper to write this weekend for my final project for my "Philosophy of Human Rights" class. I'm going to writing on how marriage equality should be extended to same sex couples. I'll post it here when I finish it.
Wish me luck!
And in other news, I'm now addicted to the show "Firefly" and am retroactively pissed at FOX for cancelling it. If you haven't seen it, it's a sci-fi show with a western twist with excellent writing, brilliant dialogue, great characterization and a wonderful cast. Pick up the Complete Series DVD set if you can.
You'll thank me.
|
|
Comments: Read 2 or Add Your Own.
|
|
Sunday, February 27th, 2005
|
|
Saturday, February 26th, 2005
|
|
|
Here's an event I'll be Tabling with for the Green Party of Seattle in just a week or so. If you're in the vicinity of the Seattle Center, feel free to drop by, say hi and maybe even toss a few coins in our coffers.
Sunday, March 6th: International Women’s Day – Seattle Center House (12pm-5pm)
http://www.iwd-seattle.org/
This will be my first tabling event as Tabling Coordinator! Wish me luck!
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Sunday, February 20th, 2005
|
|
|
Author Hunter S. Thompson Kills Himself
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050221/ap_on_re_us/obit_thompson
1 minute ago Top Stories - AP
ASPEN, Colo. - Hunter S. Thompson, the acerbic counterculture writer who popularized a new form of fictional journalism in books like "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas," fatally shot himself Sunday night at his home, his son said. He was 67.
AP Photo
"Hunter prized his privacy and we ask that his friends and admirers respect that privacy as well as that of his family," Juan Thompson said in a statement released to the Aspen Daily News.
Pitkin County Sheriff Bob Braudis, a personal friend of Thompson, confirmed the death to the News. Sheriff's officials did not return calls to The Associated Press late Sunday.
Juan Thompson found his father's body. Thompson's wife, Anita, was not home at the time.
Besides the 1972 drug-hazed classic about Thompson's time in Las Vegas, he is credited with pioneering New Journalism — or "gonzo journalism" — in which the writer made himself an essential component of the story.
An acute observer of the decadence and depravity in American life, Thompson wrote such books as "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" in 1973 and the collections "Generation of Swine" and "Songs of the Doomed." His first ever novel, "The Rum Diary," written in 1959, was first published in 1998.
Other books include "Hell's Angels" and "The Proud Highway." His most recent effort was "Hey Rube: Blood Sport, the Bush Doctrine, and The Downward Spiral of Dumbness."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy shit...
Wow...
I don't know what to say, I'm a huge fan of Hunter's and his writing is some of the funniest, smartest, most twisted stuff around.
In fact, a passage from "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72" was one of the final straws on that camel's back, causing me to leave the Democratic Party.
"Fear in Loathing in Las Vegas" will remain one of the funniest books I've ever read and the only book that isn't "The Lord of the Rings" that I've read more than four times.
I'll guess I'll end this on the passage of his that affected me most, from "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72":
"But what about next time? Who is going to explain in 1976 that all the people who felt they got burned in '72 should "try again" for another bogus challenger? Four years from now there will be two entire generations - between the ages of 22 and 40 - who will not give a hoot in hell about any election, and their apathy will be rooted in personal experience. Four years from now it will be very difficult to convince anybody who has gone from Johnson/Goldwater to Humphrey/Nixon to Nixon/Muskie that there is any possible reason for getting involved in another bullshit election."
Rest in peace, Hunter.
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Friday, February 18th, 2005
|
|
|
Should be easier to make out the Space Needle at small sizes and in black and white now...
Thoughts? Criticisms?
|
|
Comments: Read 5 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
Bill Gates
Circle I Limbo Oakland Raider Fans, General asshats
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind PETA Members, Scientologists, The New York Yankees
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow Parents who bring squalling brats to R-rated movies, Rednecks, Saddam Hussein
Circle IV Rolling Weights NAMBLA Members, DMV Employees
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled River Styx Qusay Hussein
Circle VI Buried for Eternity River Phlegyas Creationists
Circle VII Burning Sands Uday Hussein, Osama bin Laden
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement Republicans, George Bush
Circle IX Frozen in Ice Design your own hell |
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Monday, February 14th, 2005
|
|
|
Here's a second draft based on some feedback I've gotten. I'm very happy with it.
What do ya think?
|
|
Comments: Add Your Own.
|
|
Sunday, February 13th, 2005
|
|
|
Today, I wrote the Governor of California the following letter:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governor Schwarzenegger,
I realize this is an unusual reason to write to you, but at the very least I hope you will find this letter amusing.
I work at a Barnes & Noble in Tukwila, WA and one evening an irate customer came into my store and demanded to use our search computers for personal use. This something we don't allow and we refused. He made quite a commotion about it until he threw our employees a dirty look and stalked off.
Suspiscious, my manager Todd followed him as the man grabbed a copy of your book, The New Encyclopedia of Modern Bodybuilding, and went into the Men's restroom with it.
My manager entered just as the man had your book poised over the urinal, about to mitirate upon it. Sizing up the situation immediately, Todd demanded that the man stop and give him the book.
Reluctantly, the man handed the book back to Todd, unsoiled and left.
Governor Schwarzenegger, I would like to nominate my manager, Todd Maxfield-Matsumoto for an appropriate civic award or perhaps a letter of thanks for his efforts.
If this is at all possible, could you have your response mailed to the following address:
Todd Maxfield-Matsumoto
c/o:
Barnes & Noble Bookstore #2607
300 Andover Park West, Suite #200
Tukwila, WA 98188
Thank you for your time,
Mike Gillis
Kent, WA
|
|
Comments: Read 3 or Add Your Own.
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
mikegillis's journal
exhausted.
energetic.
accomplished.
confused.
satisfied.
artistic.
excited.
melancholy.