More evidence that it matters who occupies the Oval Office.
By and large ignored by the mainstream media is the highly important issue of Net neutrality, or the obligation of an Internet service provider to act as a gateway, not a gatekeeper. In a setback for ISP giants such as Comcast, Verizon and the like, the FCC ruled last week in favor of the little guy, in favor of net neutrality, blocking carriers from interfering with your online experience by selectively slowing traffic or blocking sites.
The new chairman of the FCC is Julius Genachowski, an Obama appointee. (That's part of the perks of being the Chief Exec - you can pick the guy you want to effect the change you want. In this case, Genachowski represents a welcome change from Bush-era big-business-friendly consumer-ignoring policy.)
Predictably, at the increasingly partisan-hacktastic Wall Street Journal, the action was dismissed: "In recent days, more than one has referred to the proposed rules as 'a solution in search of a problem,' " writes blogger Andrew LaVallee. (In a story posted four days ago that has drawn exactly one, yes, one comment.)
I reserve my right to differ.
“These regulations will not significantly change the industry landscape given that wireline providers currently do not block any traffic,” an Oppenheimer Funds analyst is quuted as saying in that same WSJ bit.
He might be right. But what's being done here is preventing the carriers from doing so in the future. And that's how you solve problems, with proactive measures such as this, with clear, sensible regulation AHEAD OF TIME so you don't have to take out a trillion-dollar loan from China to bail out an entire out-of-control industry a few years later. But the lessons of (recent) history are SOOOO hard to learn.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Ten Free Predictions / 9-22-09
No charge.
Events are predicted in order of occurrence, with numbers reversed because I'm a bit of a weirdo.
10. Health care reform will pass, without a public health insurance option, but with a mechanism to activate government insurance if certain conditions are met.
9. You or your significant other or one of your siblings will get H1N1. You/He/She will spend a day in bed then be fine.
8. The Seahawks will finish the year 8-8, "tied" with the 49ers atop the NFC West, except San Fran will win the division lamely on a tie-breaker.
7. A major cell phone provider will fail and be gobbled up by a competitor by early 2011. (I'm looking right at you, Sprint. And glancing sideways at you, T-Mobile. And wishing it were you, Verizon. Bite me, at&t.)
6. The Dow Jones will reach and surpass its former closing-bell peak of 14,164.53 sometime in the fall of 2011.
5. The Mariners will reach the 2011 World Series. No further details provided at this time.
4. Barack Hussein Obama will coast to re-election as President of the United States of America. Coast, I tell you. Reverse Reagan '84 style.
3. The Republican Party will split in half sometime in or after 2013. A chain reaction will ensue, culminating in the split of the Democratic Party and the emergence of the Green Party as a non-negligible political force. Five parties are in our future. Don't try and stop it.
2. A major terrorist attack on par with or exceeding the carnage of 9/11 will take place on American soil in the teen years of this century. Tragically, we may have to get used to one of these per decade, as our government continues to do nowhere near enough to stem the tide of anti-Americanism.
1. Some time after 2030, retired government officials, prominent scholars and brilliant political scientists will converge on Philadelphia for a Constitutional Convention during which they will update the Constitution to ensure its survival in an age quite different than 1787.
Events are predicted in order of occurrence, with numbers reversed because I'm a bit of a weirdo.
10. Health care reform will pass, without a public health insurance option, but with a mechanism to activate government insurance if certain conditions are met.
9. You or your significant other or one of your siblings will get H1N1. You/He/She will spend a day in bed then be fine.
8. The Seahawks will finish the year 8-8, "tied" with the 49ers atop the NFC West, except San Fran will win the division lamely on a tie-breaker.
7. A major cell phone provider will fail and be gobbled up by a competitor by early 2011. (I'm looking right at you, Sprint. And glancing sideways at you, T-Mobile. And wishing it were you, Verizon. Bite me, at&t.)
6. The Dow Jones will reach and surpass its former closing-bell peak of 14,164.53 sometime in the fall of 2011.
5. The Mariners will reach the 2011 World Series. No further details provided at this time.
4. Barack Hussein Obama will coast to re-election as President of the United States of America. Coast, I tell you. Reverse Reagan '84 style.
3. The Republican Party will split in half sometime in or after 2013. A chain reaction will ensue, culminating in the split of the Democratic Party and the emergence of the Green Party as a non-negligible political force. Five parties are in our future. Don't try and stop it.
2. A major terrorist attack on par with or exceeding the carnage of 9/11 will take place on American soil in the teen years of this century. Tragically, we may have to get used to one of these per decade, as our government continues to do nowhere near enough to stem the tide of anti-Americanism.
1. Some time after 2030, retired government officials, prominent scholars and brilliant political scientists will converge on Philadelphia for a Constitutional Convention during which they will update the Constitution to ensure its survival in an age quite different than 1787.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Taoist Christian, Part 4 / 9-14-09
Part four of many.
Honesty is a good policy, they say. Let's see how that works.
A friend/family member, whose opinion I value extremely highly, remarked to me once (and I paraphrase recklessly) that my foray into Taoist philosophy was a step away from a community-based spiritual life and instead a step toward individual self-fulfillment. This person didn't mean it as either a good or a bad thing, I'm guessing. But as always, it was an astute observation. And since this spiritual journey of mine is taking me far, far away from Christian community at this time, the remark has stuck in my craw. It's been a while since I've attended church. (A while exceeds a year.) And there are reasons for that.
First and foremost, I ceased to experience the benefits of community worship when I realized just how at odds my image of God was compared to most of my fellow worshippers.
I don't believe in a superhuman God who barges in at unpredictable times to address certain situations.
I view most or all of the Bible as allegorical or as a compilation of ways folks have found to explain God and life, not a factual account of verifiable events, certainly not a document divinely dictated. Yes, I mean the Gospels, too.
I am angered by legalism and intolerance and exclusivity, each of which is on ugly display before, during and after most modern American Protestant worship services. As far as I can tell.
I can't listen to a sermon or sing hymns or choruses without discrediting most of the text in my mind. Which sucks, considering how much I love music, and how good music can enhance a spiritual experience. (Come to think of it, that last thought merits its own post, and soon.)
I believe in a highly impersonal God. An inscrutable, un-knowable God who defies definition, whose nature is far too Mysterious to grasp.
Clearly I don't belong in an evangelical worship service. But you want to take this one notch further. I can tell. Go ahead. Ask it.
"I will. How can you be ANY sort of Christian, given those qualifiers? And why would you even want to be?"
Glad you asked. When I say "Christian," your image of what that means probably has little to do with where I'm at.
But think of it this way. What if Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Jay, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, what if some or all of those guys were NOT actual historical figures? What if instead of them having existed, they were instead idealized versions of lesser humans, created by brilliant and powerful storytellers of the late 18th century? Or synthesized from various histories, but not living, breathing people themselves? Or what if four out the seven existed, but the others were made up?
Would America as we know it cease to exist? Would it quit functioning? Would our Constitution vanish into thin air? I'm thinking no on all accounts. It would be some pretty heavy shit to deal with, and we'd have to do more than a few mental somersaults and some national soul-searching, but we wouldn't write ourselves a new set of laws based on communist ideology. (And that's just too bad, I tell you.)
I am NOT saying that God/Jesus/Moses/Paul are imaginary figures. Just that the Bible is here and with us, and how it came to be with us is not as big of an issue as what we choose to do with the information it contains. It's not like the collective wisdom of three millenia of writing and debate about this God, like all of that is somehow imaginary. I can Google all that. It can't be invented or denied; it's there plain as day in trillions and trillions of little 1's and 0's.
What I AM saying is that I see God through the lenses of my personal experience, the wisdom contained in scripture, my upbringing, my friends and family, my limited understanding of Christ. I don't hunt for spiritual truths in the Koran or in Viking mythology and I don't care for atheism. But I'm OK with that; those are not my paths and I could not imagine myself taking them. I do consult the Tao Te Ching. And Jeremiah. And Luke. Those places are where I'm from and where I am.
Therefore, I am a Taoist Christian.
Honesty is a good policy, they say. Let's see how that works.
A friend/family member, whose opinion I value extremely highly, remarked to me once (and I paraphrase recklessly) that my foray into Taoist philosophy was a step away from a community-based spiritual life and instead a step toward individual self-fulfillment. This person didn't mean it as either a good or a bad thing, I'm guessing. But as always, it was an astute observation. And since this spiritual journey of mine is taking me far, far away from Christian community at this time, the remark has stuck in my craw. It's been a while since I've attended church. (A while exceeds a year.) And there are reasons for that.
First and foremost, I ceased to experience the benefits of community worship when I realized just how at odds my image of God was compared to most of my fellow worshippers.
I don't believe in a superhuman God who barges in at unpredictable times to address certain situations.
I view most or all of the Bible as allegorical or as a compilation of ways folks have found to explain God and life, not a factual account of verifiable events, certainly not a document divinely dictated. Yes, I mean the Gospels, too.
I am angered by legalism and intolerance and exclusivity, each of which is on ugly display before, during and after most modern American Protestant worship services. As far as I can tell.
I can't listen to a sermon or sing hymns or choruses without discrediting most of the text in my mind. Which sucks, considering how much I love music, and how good music can enhance a spiritual experience. (Come to think of it, that last thought merits its own post, and soon.)
I believe in a highly impersonal God. An inscrutable, un-knowable God who defies definition, whose nature is far too Mysterious to grasp.
Clearly I don't belong in an evangelical worship service. But you want to take this one notch further. I can tell. Go ahead. Ask it.
"I will. How can you be ANY sort of Christian, given those qualifiers? And why would you even want to be?"
Glad you asked. When I say "Christian," your image of what that means probably has little to do with where I'm at.
But think of it this way. What if Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Jay, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, what if some or all of those guys were NOT actual historical figures? What if instead of them having existed, they were instead idealized versions of lesser humans, created by brilliant and powerful storytellers of the late 18th century? Or synthesized from various histories, but not living, breathing people themselves? Or what if four out the seven existed, but the others were made up?
Would America as we know it cease to exist? Would it quit functioning? Would our Constitution vanish into thin air? I'm thinking no on all accounts. It would be some pretty heavy shit to deal with, and we'd have to do more than a few mental somersaults and some national soul-searching, but we wouldn't write ourselves a new set of laws based on communist ideology. (And that's just too bad, I tell you.)
I am NOT saying that God/Jesus/Moses/Paul are imaginary figures. Just that the Bible is here and with us, and how it came to be with us is not as big of an issue as what we choose to do with the information it contains. It's not like the collective wisdom of three millenia of writing and debate about this God, like all of that is somehow imaginary. I can Google all that. It can't be invented or denied; it's there plain as day in trillions and trillions of little 1's and 0's.
What I AM saying is that I see God through the lenses of my personal experience, the wisdom contained in scripture, my upbringing, my friends and family, my limited understanding of Christ. I don't hunt for spiritual truths in the Koran or in Viking mythology and I don't care for atheism. But I'm OK with that; those are not my paths and I could not imagine myself taking them. I do consult the Tao Te Ching. And Jeremiah. And Luke. Those places are where I'm from and where I am.
Therefore, I am a Taoist Christian.
I was bored / 9-14-09
To call this post half-baked fluff would be a compliment.
I've lived under eight presidential administrations. (I was born two months before Nixon resigned.) For fun, and to pass time instead of cleaning house, I thought I'd rank the Chief Executives using extremely subjective criteria thay may or may not be relevant and may or may not be fair and may or may not be accurate. Blogging's great in that judge-jury-executioner way.
Anyway, Presidents received grades out of 20 in five cleverly named categories:
Overall Performance re: EConomy (OPEC)
EFfectiveness in FOreign RelaTions (EFFORT)
LAsting Legislative Accomplishments (LALA)
Fiscal, INstitutional and Environmental Responsibility (FINER)
LEadership, Inspiration, Accountability (LEIA)
I started each President off with a 10 in each category and added or subtracted for accomplishments or massive fubars; maximum grade in a single field is 20. Total score is out of 100. That works out nicely.
I considered more than simply my uninformed gut and spotty memory. But just barely. Oh yeah, the criteria.
OPEC: Were there recessions? Long periods of uninterrupted growth? Was the country's economy better off in general after that president's service ended?
EFFORT: Did the administration advance the ideals of freedom and democracy in an effective and generally non-belligerent way? Were conflicts focused, short, and relatively bloodless? Was new ground broken with an important ally or rival?
LALA: I realize that's Congress' job. But was the President able to assert himself enough to affect policy in a substantial and positive way for future administrations? In other words, was he able to do what he set out to do?
FINER: Were the budget, the deficit, the system of government and the land itself handled with care or disregard?
LEIA: How loved/unloved was the President during his term and upon leaving office? Was his administration clean or disgraceful? Did his Presidency exhort Americans to be a better people? Is he generally respected or admired or ridiculed several years after exiting the office?
With all that being said...
8. George W. Bush, score 13 (3/3/4/0/3)
Basically sucked everywhere. Broke lots of things. 13 might be too high.
7. Nixon, score 35 (6/15/4/9/1)
Not exactly an A-plus either. Left Vietnam, visited China. Plenty of other well-chronicled problems.
6. Carter, score 38 (4/4/8/13/9)
Bah. Overmatched by the job.
5. Ford, score 50 (9/13/7/12/9)
Not exactly a lot of variance from the starting 10. Not much time to distinguish himself. Or embarrass himself, for that matter.
4. Reagan, score 56 (10/18/6/6/16)
Moral: It helps a lot to take down the USSR. Covers for some serious failures.
3. Obama, provisional score 62 (12/16/10/8/16)
Provisional. Incomplete. Did not finish assignments. Yet.
2. Clinton, score 69 (17/16/12/19/5)
Not allowing bin Laden to become, well, bin Laden, would've helped. Also, not pardoning the phone book on his last day, not lying under oath... brilliant otherwise.
1. George H. W. Bush, score 79 (14/19/13/18/15)
Probably the best President since FDR.
I've lived under eight presidential administrations. (I was born two months before Nixon resigned.) For fun, and to pass time instead of cleaning house, I thought I'd rank the Chief Executives using extremely subjective criteria thay may or may not be relevant and may or may not be fair and may or may not be accurate. Blogging's great in that judge-jury-executioner way.
Anyway, Presidents received grades out of 20 in five cleverly named categories:
Overall Performance re: EConomy (OPEC)
EFfectiveness in FOreign RelaTions (EFFORT)
LAsting Legislative Accomplishments (LALA)
Fiscal, INstitutional and Environmental Responsibility (FINER)
LEadership, Inspiration, Accountability (LEIA)
I started each President off with a 10 in each category and added or subtracted for accomplishments or massive fubars; maximum grade in a single field is 20. Total score is out of 100. That works out nicely.
I considered more than simply my uninformed gut and spotty memory. But just barely. Oh yeah, the criteria.
OPEC: Were there recessions? Long periods of uninterrupted growth? Was the country's economy better off in general after that president's service ended?
EFFORT: Did the administration advance the ideals of freedom and democracy in an effective and generally non-belligerent way? Were conflicts focused, short, and relatively bloodless? Was new ground broken with an important ally or rival?
LALA: I realize that's Congress' job. But was the President able to assert himself enough to affect policy in a substantial and positive way for future administrations? In other words, was he able to do what he set out to do?
FINER: Were the budget, the deficit, the system of government and the land itself handled with care or disregard?
LEIA: How loved/unloved was the President during his term and upon leaving office? Was his administration clean or disgraceful? Did his Presidency exhort Americans to be a better people? Is he generally respected or admired or ridiculed several years after exiting the office?
With all that being said...
8. George W. Bush, score 13 (3/3/4/0/3)
Basically sucked everywhere. Broke lots of things. 13 might be too high.
7. Nixon, score 35 (6/15/4/9/1)
Not exactly an A-plus either. Left Vietnam, visited China. Plenty of other well-chronicled problems.
6. Carter, score 38 (4/4/8/13/9)
Bah. Overmatched by the job.
5. Ford, score 50 (9/13/7/12/9)
Not exactly a lot of variance from the starting 10. Not much time to distinguish himself. Or embarrass himself, for that matter.
4. Reagan, score 56 (10/18/6/6/16)
Moral: It helps a lot to take down the USSR. Covers for some serious failures.
3. Obama, provisional score 62 (12/16/10/8/16)
Provisional. Incomplete. Did not finish assignments. Yet.
2. Clinton, score 69 (17/16/12/19/5)
Not allowing bin Laden to become, well, bin Laden, would've helped. Also, not pardoning the phone book on his last day, not lying under oath... brilliant otherwise.
1. George H. W. Bush, score 79 (14/19/13/18/15)
Probably the best President since FDR.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Sure, We Hate, But At Least We're Cowards About It / 9-11-09
In the latest skirmish over whether items of public record may be viewed by the public, the side aiming to keep open records from being open has won a round.
(Not that you can tell where I stand on this issue.)
Judge Benjamin Settle today granted the request of Protect Discrimination Washington, I mean, Protect Prejudice Washington, I mean, Protect CivilRightsDenialIsAFunGame Washington, to keep the signatures of R-71 under wrap of secrecy. For the time being.
To its credit, the Secretary of State's office and now the state's Attorney General wish to appeal so the signatures will become part of the public record, as they have been for past initiatives.
(R-71 is a citizens' initiative aimed at removing certain civil rights granted gay couples earlier this year by the state legislature. It will appear on the November ballot. A yes vote on the initiative, perversely, keeps those civil rights intact. Vote no if you're in favor of hate.)
Got this from the Seattle Times:
"Settle said people have a right to participate anonymously in the political process, and the state's Public Records Act is likely unconstitutional because it abridges that right. The decision alarmed state officials and public records advocates, who said he misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent and would eviscerate open government laws."
So, a silver lining. Good.
More from the Times:
"But state Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris told the judge that Protect Marriage hasn't shown significant harm beyond rude comments or phone calls - nothing that would 'be appropriate to overturning the state's strong tradition for open government.' "
I feel better. Well, not better. But hopeful. Meanwhile, YES on R-71.
(Not that you can tell where I stand on this issue.)
Judge Benjamin Settle today granted the request of Protect Discrimination Washington, I mean, Protect Prejudice Washington, I mean, Protect CivilRightsDenialIsAFunGame Washington, to keep the signatures of R-71 under wrap of secrecy. For the time being.
To its credit, the Secretary of State's office and now the state's Attorney General wish to appeal so the signatures will become part of the public record, as they have been for past initiatives.
(R-71 is a citizens' initiative aimed at removing certain civil rights granted gay couples earlier this year by the state legislature. It will appear on the November ballot. A yes vote on the initiative, perversely, keeps those civil rights intact. Vote no if you're in favor of hate.)
Got this from the Seattle Times:
"Settle said people have a right to participate anonymously in the political process, and the state's Public Records Act is likely unconstitutional because it abridges that right. The decision alarmed state officials and public records advocates, who said he misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent and would eviscerate open government laws."
So, a silver lining. Good.
More from the Times:
"But state Assistant Attorney General Jim Pharris told the judge that Protect Marriage hasn't shown significant harm beyond rude comments or phone calls - nothing that would 'be appropriate to overturning the state's strong tradition for open government.' "
I feel better. Well, not better. But hopeful. Meanwhile, YES on R-71.
9/11: An Alternate History / 9-11-09
Some news briefs for you.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2002 -- President Bush today announced an end to combat operations in eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border.
Remaining Taliban warlords surrendered all claims to power in a ceremony earlier this week, shortly after an American-British force of nearly 300,000 troops began to overwhelm the country with brute force and sheer numbers.
"We can now turn our goal to the imminent capture of Osama bin Laden," Bush said.
RALEIGH, Sept. 11, 2003 -- Osama bin Laden was sentenced to death today for his part in masterminding the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center precisely two years ago.
Death penalty groups picketed outside the courtroom, sporting signs such as "Scum is still scum / But life is still life / And murder is still murder."
"This is America," President Bush said at a press conference following the verdict. "I welcome peaceful dissent on this and other issues, but I am pleased with the jury's decision. The death penalty exists for reasons like these."
Bin Laden, who was captured late in 2002, was convicted after ten-month trial relatively free of controversy. More than a dozen prosecution witnesses detailed bin Laden's involvement in planning the bombings.
BOSTON, Sept. 11, 2004 -- President Bush reiterated his pledge today that his second term would be dedicated to preserving Social Security benefits for the foreseeable future - at the expense of his tax cuts enacted three years ago.
"Lower taxes are good for the economy and good for entrepreneurship across the nation," Bush said. "But responsibility to future generations dictates that tax cuts be temporary. I have changed my mind in this regard and will push for my 2001 tax relief package to expire in 2006, four years early. There is a time and a place for everything, including tax cuts."
Bush can afford to ignore the far right on the issue of taxes. The Bush-Crist ticket is trouncing its Democratic opposition by an average of 26 points in major polls this week, and most electoral projections have 48 states in the red column.
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 11, 2005 -- Relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina continue to run smoothly and on schedule, according to high-ranking government officials.
"This could have been a major disaster the likes of which our country has never seen," FEMA chief Michael Black said. "A Category 5 hurricane is capable of wiping a city off the map, but our systems worked. Local authorities were organized and ready, having completed a partial evacuation before the inadequate levees failed."
Two deaths have been reported in connection with Katrina thus far.
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 11, 2006 -- An independent autopsy of deceased Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, done by a team of EU physicians, ruled out foul play in the dictator's death.
Hussein ruled Iraq from 1979 until a fatal heart attack on August 31 of this year.
NEW YORK, Sept. 11, 2007 -- Final plans were unveiled today at a ceremony at Ground Zero, detailing a record-setting skyscraper (the planet's second-tallest building and tallest in NY history) and accompanying memorial on the site of the old twin towers of the World Trade Center.
The plans call for a single tower stretching 1,911 feet in the air, overlooking a massive rolling staircase of memorial buildings dedicated to victims of the bombings from six years ago, plus remembrances of the role the NYPD and NYFD played in rescue efforts.
SEATTLE, Sept. 11, 2008 -- Nationwide Service and Remembrance Day kicks off locally this year with than 800,000 participants from across the Northwest ready to spend the day away from school and work. They will join a projected 10 million volunteers nationwide who've pledged to dedicate the day to community projects such as mentoring kids, stocking food banks and refurbishing homeless shelters.
NSRD, the brainchild of Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Illinois), is only three years into its existence, yet has already become the largest community service organization in the nation.
"What this program does is remind us that just like on Sept. 11, 2001, we're all in this together, one nation, indivisible, with much more that unites us than divides us," Obama said in a statement.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 11, 2002 -- President Bush today announced an end to combat operations in eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border.
Remaining Taliban warlords surrendered all claims to power in a ceremony earlier this week, shortly after an American-British force of nearly 300,000 troops began to overwhelm the country with brute force and sheer numbers.
"We can now turn our goal to the imminent capture of Osama bin Laden," Bush said.
RALEIGH, Sept. 11, 2003 -- Osama bin Laden was sentenced to death today for his part in masterminding the deadly attacks on the World Trade Center precisely two years ago.
Death penalty groups picketed outside the courtroom, sporting signs such as "Scum is still scum / But life is still life / And murder is still murder."
"This is America," President Bush said at a press conference following the verdict. "I welcome peaceful dissent on this and other issues, but I am pleased with the jury's decision. The death penalty exists for reasons like these."
Bin Laden, who was captured late in 2002, was convicted after ten-month trial relatively free of controversy. More than a dozen prosecution witnesses detailed bin Laden's involvement in planning the bombings.
BOSTON, Sept. 11, 2004 -- President Bush reiterated his pledge today that his second term would be dedicated to preserving Social Security benefits for the foreseeable future - at the expense of his tax cuts enacted three years ago.
"Lower taxes are good for the economy and good for entrepreneurship across the nation," Bush said. "But responsibility to future generations dictates that tax cuts be temporary. I have changed my mind in this regard and will push for my 2001 tax relief package to expire in 2006, four years early. There is a time and a place for everything, including tax cuts."
Bush can afford to ignore the far right on the issue of taxes. The Bush-Crist ticket is trouncing its Democratic opposition by an average of 26 points in major polls this week, and most electoral projections have 48 states in the red column.
NEW ORLEANS, Sept. 11, 2005 -- Relief efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina continue to run smoothly and on schedule, according to high-ranking government officials.
"This could have been a major disaster the likes of which our country has never seen," FEMA chief Michael Black said. "A Category 5 hurricane is capable of wiping a city off the map, but our systems worked. Local authorities were organized and ready, having completed a partial evacuation before the inadequate levees failed."
Two deaths have been reported in connection with Katrina thus far.
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 11, 2006 -- An independent autopsy of deceased Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, done by a team of EU physicians, ruled out foul play in the dictator's death.
Hussein ruled Iraq from 1979 until a fatal heart attack on August 31 of this year.
NEW YORK, Sept. 11, 2007 -- Final plans were unveiled today at a ceremony at Ground Zero, detailing a record-setting skyscraper (the planet's second-tallest building and tallest in NY history) and accompanying memorial on the site of the old twin towers of the World Trade Center.
The plans call for a single tower stretching 1,911 feet in the air, overlooking a massive rolling staircase of memorial buildings dedicated to victims of the bombings from six years ago, plus remembrances of the role the NYPD and NYFD played in rescue efforts.
SEATTLE, Sept. 11, 2008 -- Nationwide Service and Remembrance Day kicks off locally this year with than 800,000 participants from across the Northwest ready to spend the day away from school and work. They will join a projected 10 million volunteers nationwide who've pledged to dedicate the day to community projects such as mentoring kids, stocking food banks and refurbishing homeless shelters.
NSRD, the brainchild of Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Illinois), is only three years into its existence, yet has already become the largest community service organization in the nation.
"What this program does is remind us that just like on Sept. 11, 2001, we're all in this together, one nation, indivisible, with much more that unites us than divides us," Obama said in a statement.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Days of Swine and (Runny) Noses / 9-10-09
Oooo! The swine flu!!
Run away!!!
H1N1 will infect plenty of us this winter. It will kill some of us. Just like the regular flu does every year.
That's because it IS a regular flu, complete with - brace yourself, a terrifying revelation awaits - flu-like symptoms. It has some peculiar characteristics, like how it tends to targets young people instead of old. It's going to reach a pandemic stage. It will spread like crazy. You or someone you know WILL get it this fall or winter. Oh, did I forget to mention: It also causes little squiggly piggy tails to sprout from your forehead.
All right, so it's not exactly Ebola. Although the next wave of deaths, coupled with a certain shortage of H1N1 vaccine, will test that theory in the media. I hate to sound so callous, but I just can't get worked up about it and it annoys me heavily that reporters do. I guess it just doesn't rise to the level of news I'd drop everything to watch. It will be costly, in terms of lost productivity in the workplace, but otherwise... pfff.
Still, the kids will be washing their hands and covering their coughs with a passion this fall. I'm such a paranoid hypocrite.
(Is this post's title too obscure of a joke? Just curious.)
Run away!!!
H1N1 will infect plenty of us this winter. It will kill some of us. Just like the regular flu does every year.
That's because it IS a regular flu, complete with - brace yourself, a terrifying revelation awaits - flu-like symptoms. It has some peculiar characteristics, like how it tends to targets young people instead of old. It's going to reach a pandemic stage. It will spread like crazy. You or someone you know WILL get it this fall or winter. Oh, did I forget to mention: It also causes little squiggly piggy tails to sprout from your forehead.
All right, so it's not exactly Ebola. Although the next wave of deaths, coupled with a certain shortage of H1N1 vaccine, will test that theory in the media. I hate to sound so callous, but I just can't get worked up about it and it annoys me heavily that reporters do. I guess it just doesn't rise to the level of news I'd drop everything to watch. It will be costly, in terms of lost productivity in the workplace, but otherwise... pfff.
Still, the kids will be washing their hands and covering their coughs with a passion this fall. I'm such a paranoid hypocrite.
(Is this post's title too obscure of a joke? Just curious.)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Duck Season: Use a Blount Instrument / 9-8-09
I know I'm a few days late chiming in here, but sometimes a topic or a thought bounces around in your head for a while, then falls out fully formed, ready to post. That's what happened here with the whole punch fiasco at the end of last week's Oregon-Boise State football game.
I got really bothered the more I read about how Oregon did the right thing in suspending LaGarrette Blount for the entire season after Blount decked opponent Byron Hout with a punch after the final whistle of last Thursday's game. (BSU won 19-8. Insert your personal celebration/lamentation here.)
No, the only thing the Ducks' athletic braintrust did right was allow him to practice all year so he could still pursue the career he came to college to, well, pursue.
Yeah, Blount's nominally a political science major, but with the kind of season he had in '08, 17 touchdowns and over 1,000 yards rushing, he was on track to join the NFL after this year, barring injury. (Little did we suspect the nature of the injury in question.)
I got really bothered all weekend by people saying he got what he deserved. Does he have anger management issues? Seems to. Does he deserve to be suspended? Oh yeah. Does he deserve to have his livelihood threatened? No.
Before you go all "he got to go for school for free, stop defending his indefensible actions" on me, realize two things. First, his scholarship has nothing to do with my point: Threatening his career is too harsh of a move. And then, keep in mind I'm not defending his violent act. What an idiot. Probably. (More on that in a moment.)
As the weekend dragged on and more folks chimed in, I got really bothered by the assumption that Blount's retaliation, for whatever Hout did and said to him, was disproportionate. It may well have been. The dude might just have lost his temper because that's what he does, and he can't control himself, and that's what his upbringing and his nature saddled him with.
Or he could have been enraged by racial slurs, ten dirty cheap shots throughout the game, a boatload of comments about his mother's sexual preferences... or two out of those three. In that case, I have no problem whatsoever with him suckerpunching the offender/s.
It gnaws on me that I'm seemingly the only one who thinks that way. But then again, let's not forget I AM morally and intellectually superior to the entire living population of humankind, and you should count yourself privileged just to be allowed to read my blog. So there.
Anyway, it sure looks like Oregon suspended him for the whole season to save face. 'Cause it's the best PR move for the university. Restoring his ability to practice is admirable, because it allows him to maybe get a shot a playing pro ball, but even that is insufficient. I'd sit him three games and suspend him in advance for any bowl game/bowl trip the team earns. That way the consequence hangs over him the whole year, removes a known hothead from your year-end celebration, and he still gets a chance to redeem himself on the field in the meantime. But that's just too reasonable of a solution.
P.S. If you want to get into the whole race aspect of this, which I don't, feel free to click here, which takes to a discussion on blacksportsonline.com of said punch, and of course, the video thereof.
I got really bothered the more I read about how Oregon did the right thing in suspending LaGarrette Blount for the entire season after Blount decked opponent Byron Hout with a punch after the final whistle of last Thursday's game. (BSU won 19-8. Insert your personal celebration/lamentation here.)
No, the only thing the Ducks' athletic braintrust did right was allow him to practice all year so he could still pursue the career he came to college to, well, pursue.
Yeah, Blount's nominally a political science major, but with the kind of season he had in '08, 17 touchdowns and over 1,000 yards rushing, he was on track to join the NFL after this year, barring injury. (Little did we suspect the nature of the injury in question.)
I got really bothered all weekend by people saying he got what he deserved. Does he have anger management issues? Seems to. Does he deserve to be suspended? Oh yeah. Does he deserve to have his livelihood threatened? No.
Before you go all "he got to go for school for free, stop defending his indefensible actions" on me, realize two things. First, his scholarship has nothing to do with my point: Threatening his career is too harsh of a move. And then, keep in mind I'm not defending his violent act. What an idiot. Probably. (More on that in a moment.)
As the weekend dragged on and more folks chimed in, I got really bothered by the assumption that Blount's retaliation, for whatever Hout did and said to him, was disproportionate. It may well have been. The dude might just have lost his temper because that's what he does, and he can't control himself, and that's what his upbringing and his nature saddled him with.
Or he could have been enraged by racial slurs, ten dirty cheap shots throughout the game, a boatload of comments about his mother's sexual preferences... or two out of those three. In that case, I have no problem whatsoever with him suckerpunching the offender/s.
It gnaws on me that I'm seemingly the only one who thinks that way. But then again, let's not forget I AM morally and intellectually superior to the entire living population of humankind, and you should count yourself privileged just to be allowed to read my blog. So there.
Anyway, it sure looks like Oregon suspended him for the whole season to save face. 'Cause it's the best PR move for the university. Restoring his ability to practice is admirable, because it allows him to maybe get a shot a playing pro ball, but even that is insufficient. I'd sit him three games and suspend him in advance for any bowl game/bowl trip the team earns. That way the consequence hangs over him the whole year, removes a known hothead from your year-end celebration, and he still gets a chance to redeem himself on the field in the meantime. But that's just too reasonable of a solution.
P.S. If you want to get into the whole race aspect of this, which I don't, feel free to click here, which takes to a discussion on blacksportsonline.com of said punch, and of course, the video thereof.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Obamacare? Puh-leeze / 9-06-09
Just so we're clear.
The Democrats in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives are not interested in becoming your doctors. They're not medical professionals. Presently, they're sanitation engineers. Yes, I mean janitors and garbagemen and women. Seriously, what do you think they've been doing for the past seven months? Every piece of legislation from the legislators, every piece of leadership from the executives, all their efforts have been directed to cleaning up the piles and piles and piles of malodiferous dung left behind from years of reckless Republican rule.
They don't have time to run your HMO. They don't have time to manage your medical care, so they're not even going to try. (And give the death panels a rest, unless you work for FOX "News" and you have a responsibility to your employer to undermine the administration.) No, all our elected officials want to do, besides get re-elected and receive fellatio from ladies and gentlemen of varying levels of attractiveness, is find a way to keep your escalating health care COSTS from causing even more of you to slip into bankruptcy. That's why all the talk of government-run health care is a giant scare tactic. Democrats are interested in establishing a government-run health INSURANCE plan. No care. Just insurance. You know, to prevent companies from gouging you, not that they ever would, not when all their shareholders demand is that fewer and fewer claims be honored and that profits continue to escalate. (Did you catch the sarcasm, or was it too obvious?)
That's what is meant by the term "public option." An option to buy insurance from the government. It's not a green light for something like "Obamacare" in which the President might dedicate an afternoon to making house calls, or reviewing your pre-existing conditions, or arranging appointments for you to see a doctor in Anchorage three months from now for that odd-hued boil on your behind.
Obama, The Great Redistributor, is aiming to give your real financial relief in the one spot of your budget that needs it the most; the public option is a gratuitous naked effort to redistribute wealth from insurance company profits to your wallet. You can say no if that sounds awful.
(Hey, incidentally, the term "Obamacare" needs some work, my reactionary conservative nutjob friends. You used "Hillarycare" in '93. That worked. But it was lame then and now just sounds unimaginative when it plops from your lips today. Try harder.)
Anyway, to explain my point further, I snagged the upcoming paragraph from Politico, where the writing is clearer, conciser and generally less juvenile than on my blog.
The White House line has been: “We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition. There are lots of different ways to get there.” But now [Obama's] going to step on the gas a little harder. One top official gave this formulation: “He has consistently said that he thinks the public option is an important way to make sure that there is both cost and competition control. He’s also said consistently that if someone can show him a better way or another way to get there, he’d be happy to look at it. But he’s never committed to going with another way. He’s always said he’d be happy to look at any proposal that gets to these goals, but that he thinks this is probably the best better way to do it.”
As you can glean from those words, Obama is set to deliver a major speech soon on this issue. Wednesday, actually. Pay attention.
The Democrats in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives are not interested in becoming your doctors. They're not medical professionals. Presently, they're sanitation engineers. Yes, I mean janitors and garbagemen and women. Seriously, what do you think they've been doing for the past seven months? Every piece of legislation from the legislators, every piece of leadership from the executives, all their efforts have been directed to cleaning up the piles and piles and piles of malodiferous dung left behind from years of reckless Republican rule.
They don't have time to run your HMO. They don't have time to manage your medical care, so they're not even going to try. (And give the death panels a rest, unless you work for FOX "News" and you have a responsibility to your employer to undermine the administration.) No, all our elected officials want to do, besides get re-elected and receive fellatio from ladies and gentlemen of varying levels of attractiveness, is find a way to keep your escalating health care COSTS from causing even more of you to slip into bankruptcy. That's why all the talk of government-run health care is a giant scare tactic. Democrats are interested in establishing a government-run health INSURANCE plan. No care. Just insurance. You know, to prevent companies from gouging you, not that they ever would, not when all their shareholders demand is that fewer and fewer claims be honored and that profits continue to escalate. (Did you catch the sarcasm, or was it too obvious?)
That's what is meant by the term "public option." An option to buy insurance from the government. It's not a green light for something like "Obamacare" in which the President might dedicate an afternoon to making house calls, or reviewing your pre-existing conditions, or arranging appointments for you to see a doctor in Anchorage three months from now for that odd-hued boil on your behind.
Obama, The Great Redistributor, is aiming to give your real financial relief in the one spot of your budget that needs it the most; the public option is a gratuitous naked effort to redistribute wealth from insurance company profits to your wallet. You can say no if that sounds awful.
(Hey, incidentally, the term "Obamacare" needs some work, my reactionary conservative nutjob friends. You used "Hillarycare" in '93. That worked. But it was lame then and now just sounds unimaginative when it plops from your lips today. Try harder.)
Anyway, to explain my point further, I snagged the upcoming paragraph from Politico, where the writing is clearer, conciser and generally less juvenile than on my blog.
The White House line has been: “We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition. There are lots of different ways to get there.” But now [Obama's] going to step on the gas a little harder. One top official gave this formulation: “He has consistently said that he thinks the public option is an important way to make sure that there is both cost and competition control. He’s also said consistently that if someone can show him a better way or another way to get there, he’d be happy to look at it. But he’s never committed to going with another way. He’s always said he’d be happy to look at any proposal that gets to these goals, but that he thinks this is probably the best better way to do it.”
As you can glean from those words, Obama is set to deliver a major speech soon on this issue. Wednesday, actually. Pay attention.
2000 and counting / 9-6-09
Relax. Not a post about Bush and Gore and Florida.
I think the average sports fan in the Northwest forgets the following fact a little too easily:
If Ichiro Suzuki were to never play another professional baseball game again, he would still be elected to the Hall of Fame.
Ichiro is uniquely awesome... wait wait, hold on a sec, let's not go down this path, you know, the one along which I heap every superlative in the thesaurusictionary on him, and which ends with me pulling off my bra and hurling it onstage, screaming at the top of my estrogen-pulsating lungs, "I LOVE YOU ICHI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
No. Strictly a mathematical affair tonight.
Since his arrival in MLB in the spring of 2001, Ichiro has accumulated exactly, precisely, 2,000 hits, on the button. Got the milestone hit earlier this afternoon in Oakland.
He has 250 hits more than the second-place guy (Derek Jeter, maybe you've heard of him) during that time frame.
Ichiro is the fourth player in history to rack up 2,000 or more hits in a single decade. (Joining Rogers Hornsby, Sam Rice, and Pete Rose, all of whom played all 10 years that decade, not just nine like Ichiro. Slackers.)
He set the single-season hits record along the way, 262 in 2004. That record had stood since 1920. (Bragging alert: I was in the stadium.)
He has more hits in the past nine years than ANY OTHER PLAYER ever had in ANY NINE-YEAR PERIOD in baseball history. Look here for confirmation.
He was 27 when his career began on this side of the ocean; in Japan's pro league, Ichiro racked up 1,278 base knocks. Should he reach 2,979 as a major leaguer, he will have more professional base hits than Pete Rose. Yeah, the guy who holds the all-time record.
He's 35 and he beats out infield hits every week.
He's hitting .363.
Eventually, he'll retire. Not soon. But eventually. Instead of taking him for granted, as I sometimes have, keep in mind that he is one of the greatest baseball players in history. We're insanely lucky to have him.
I think the average sports fan in the Northwest forgets the following fact a little too easily:
If Ichiro Suzuki were to never play another professional baseball game again, he would still be elected to the Hall of Fame.
Ichiro is uniquely awesome... wait wait, hold on a sec, let's not go down this path, you know, the one along which I heap every superlative in the thesaurusictionary on him, and which ends with me pulling off my bra and hurling it onstage, screaming at the top of my estrogen-pulsating lungs, "I LOVE YOU ICHI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
No. Strictly a mathematical affair tonight.
Since his arrival in MLB in the spring of 2001, Ichiro has accumulated exactly, precisely, 2,000 hits, on the button. Got the milestone hit earlier this afternoon in Oakland.
He has 250 hits more than the second-place guy (Derek Jeter, maybe you've heard of him) during that time frame.
Ichiro is the fourth player in history to rack up 2,000 or more hits in a single decade. (Joining Rogers Hornsby, Sam Rice, and Pete Rose, all of whom played all 10 years that decade, not just nine like Ichiro. Slackers.)
He set the single-season hits record along the way, 262 in 2004. That record had stood since 1920. (Bragging alert: I was in the stadium.)
He has more hits in the past nine years than ANY OTHER PLAYER ever had in ANY NINE-YEAR PERIOD in baseball history. Look here for confirmation.
He was 27 when his career began on this side of the ocean; in Japan's pro league, Ichiro racked up 1,278 base knocks. Should he reach 2,979 as a major leaguer, he will have more professional base hits than Pete Rose. Yeah, the guy who holds the all-time record.
He's 35 and he beats out infield hits every week.
He's hitting .363.
Eventually, he'll retire. Not soon. But eventually. Instead of taking him for granted, as I sometimes have, keep in mind that he is one of the greatest baseball players in history. We're insanely lucky to have him.
A New Hope / 9-6-09
I should explain... there are reasons no blog posts appeared here between July 25 and September 4.
No, I did not spend six weeks incarcerated for public urination following an incident at Safeco Field. That's just a mostly inaccurate nasty rumor.
No, I did not spend the month of August sailing around Cape Horn with the family. We barely made it to the Falklands.
No again, I did not remodel my house, crash my computer, or even enroll in rehab, as attractive as that last option sounds. (Replacing two planks on the deck, installing antivirus software and going four days in between alcoholic beverages is about as far as I got on all three of those ventures.)
I just got burned out on writing, that's all. I'm back in the groove again, especially after Friday night's directionless spouting on a topic that makes me so angry I can hardly organize my thoughts.
But I digress, which is no surprise.
I have posts in the works about Ichiro, Taoism, Obama's approval ratings, the swine flu, health care, the Seahawks, my at-last-completed novel, and rankings of U.S. Presidents who've served in my lifetime. All those are coming this week or next. Some tonight.
So you can stop holding your breath.
No, I did not spend six weeks incarcerated for public urination following an incident at Safeco Field. That's just a mostly inaccurate nasty rumor.
No, I did not spend the month of August sailing around Cape Horn with the family. We barely made it to the Falklands.
No again, I did not remodel my house, crash my computer, or even enroll in rehab, as attractive as that last option sounds. (Replacing two planks on the deck, installing antivirus software and going four days in between alcoholic beverages is about as far as I got on all three of those ventures.)
I just got burned out on writing, that's all. I'm back in the groove again, especially after Friday night's directionless spouting on a topic that makes me so angry I can hardly organize my thoughts.
But I digress, which is no surprise.
I have posts in the works about Ichiro, Taoism, Obama's approval ratings, the swine flu, health care, the Seahawks, my at-last-completed novel, and rankings of U.S. Presidents who've served in my lifetime. All those are coming this week or next. Some tonight.
So you can stop holding your breath.
Friday, September 4, 2009
And the rant goes on... / 9-4-09
I know, I know, I'm not exactly coherent tonight. The more I write about gay rights, the more passionate I get about the issue. And I hear the most inane things from people who appear at first to have brains and cognitive capacity. All of which makes me even more ranty than usual.
I'm sorry, but "Marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore marriage is between a man and a woman" is not a valid argument to deny gay partners the right to marry.
I'm sorry, but "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it's wrong" is not a valid argument in any debate. The Bible also says the sun stood still for a day (Joshua 10: 1-15), and that poses quite a few physics-related problems. And I'm not even going to get into Leviticus.
I'm sorry, but "If it's a good enough code for me to live by, it's good enough for everyone to live by" is not a valid argument. Do you see any way through which that might backfire? Like maybe if more than one opinion, one philosophy, one religion happened to exist side by side the same country?
I'm sorry, but the founders did not directly quote Scripture in the U.S. Constitution, so let's keep it out of state constitutions too, okay? You want to use it to make a point? Sure. But that doesn't give you the green light to cut and paste it into law.
I'm sorry, but your marriage is not threatened by allowing Kurt and Burt to tie the knot. You have lost no rights; the certificate is still valid. More to the point, you still need to listen to your spouse on occasion if you want the relationship to last. Look, you still need to floss at night if you want to avoid gum disease; your neighbor's flossing habits, or lack thereof, are not magically going to impact your own. (Yes, I DID just compare listening to your spouse to flossing.)
*briefly pauses rant, takes breath*
I'm sorry, but "Marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore marriage is between a man and a woman" is not a valid argument to deny gay partners the right to marry.
I'm sorry, but "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore it's wrong" is not a valid argument in any debate. The Bible also says the sun stood still for a day (Joshua 10: 1-15), and that poses quite a few physics-related problems. And I'm not even going to get into Leviticus.
I'm sorry, but "If it's a good enough code for me to live by, it's good enough for everyone to live by" is not a valid argument. Do you see any way through which that might backfire? Like maybe if more than one opinion, one philosophy, one religion happened to exist side by side the same country?
I'm sorry, but the founders did not directly quote Scripture in the U.S. Constitution, so let's keep it out of state constitutions too, okay? You want to use it to make a point? Sure. But that doesn't give you the green light to cut and paste it into law.
I'm sorry, but your marriage is not threatened by allowing Kurt and Burt to tie the knot. You have lost no rights; the certificate is still valid. More to the point, you still need to listen to your spouse on occasion if you want the relationship to last. Look, you still need to floss at night if you want to avoid gum disease; your neighbor's flossing habits, or lack thereof, are not magically going to impact your own. (Yes, I DID just compare listening to your spouse to flossing.)
*briefly pauses rant, takes breath*
It's something, at least / 9-4-09
Here's my first volley in the R-71 battle.
While we wait for the courts to decide if the signatures on R-71 are to remain public, I have something only semi-wasteful of your time that you can ponder.
When you click here, you'll be directed to No on R-71, which is acting as an anti-gay-rights home page of sorts for Washingtonians; it's put together by the same folks who brought you the initiative in the first place. Click through the members. See if you recognize someone. If you do, consider sending them a message. Something polite.
("F*cking hater! Get your slimy holier-than-thou paws off my friend's sex life!" is probably not your best strategy.)
Something like "Gays are entitled to civil rights too. Please consider that R-71 is not about marriage, but about about guaranteeing equal rights to gay couples in matters such as visitation rights, medical care, estate planning, and power of attorney. These are options you take for granted, but which you seemingly want to deny to gay partners, and I wish you would reconsider. Thanks for listening." That will have a more than 0 percent success rate. Not much more, granted, but it'll also make you feel better, which is something.
Oh, you can follow this link too, it's the same.
While we wait for the courts to decide if the signatures on R-71 are to remain public, I have something only semi-wasteful of your time that you can ponder.
When you click here, you'll be directed to No on R-71, which is acting as an anti-gay-rights home page of sorts for Washingtonians; it's put together by the same folks who brought you the initiative in the first place. Click through the members. See if you recognize someone. If you do, consider sending them a message. Something polite.
("F*cking hater! Get your slimy holier-than-thou paws off my friend's sex life!" is probably not your best strategy.)
Something like "Gays are entitled to civil rights too. Please consider that R-71 is not about marriage, but about about guaranteeing equal rights to gay couples in matters such as visitation rights, medical care, estate planning, and power of attorney. These are options you take for granted, but which you seemingly want to deny to gay partners, and I wish you would reconsider. Thanks for listening." That will have a more than 0 percent success rate. Not much more, granted, but it'll also make you feel better, which is something.
Oh, you can follow this link too, it's the same.
Spouting / 9-4-09
OK, R-71 qualified for the November ballot. I've moved past denial and bargaining. Trying to sort through anger, planning on skipping depression, moving toward acceptance.
(R-71 is an citizens' intiative here in Washington aiming to remove civil rights the legislature granted gay couples earlier this year.)
But I want to get into the public-record side of things. The group that got R-71 on the ballot, Misguided So-Called Christians With Nothing Better To Do, er, I mean Protect Marriage Washington, is fighting the release of the names of folks who signed their petition.
Those signatures are public record, under state law; the group's attorneys are asking for the names to remain sealed. A Tacoma judge says he'll review the case and might rule as early as Thursday as to whether anonymity is granted.
From R-71 attorney Sarah Troupis, quoted at seattletimes.com: releasing the signatures "directly leads to the threats, harassment and reprisals that we worry citizens of Washington will be subject to."
Let me get this straight. (No pun intended.)
You want to use our system of government, which operates on the assumption of open records, to further marginalize a group of citizens, and you want the folks who support your efforts to remain anonymous.
You're afraid that the people you are trying to take civil rights away from will get upset? I grant you that. I'm hopping mad, and it's not even my rights you're directly messing with.
You're afraid they'll turn violent? Hmm. Is that because you view gays in general as somehow sub-human creatures, predisposed to assault you for your opinions? After all, you are trying to put them in a second-class box.
Let's expose hate and discrimination for what they are. Let's have the signatures out in the open, like they have been for every other initiative in state history, and let the chips fall where they may. If a signer of R-71 gets beat up, prosecute the offender for a hate crime, but please, let's not begin to operate this government in secrecy and fear. Instead, may the best ideas win.
P.S. 1. Oh yeah, I don't think excluding gays from civil rights married couples have access to is going to be that best winning idea. But knock yourself out.
P.S. 2. I will be posting extensively on this topic.
(R-71 is an citizens' intiative here in Washington aiming to remove civil rights the legislature granted gay couples earlier this year.)
But I want to get into the public-record side of things. The group that got R-71 on the ballot, Misguided So-Called Christians With Nothing Better To Do, er, I mean Protect Marriage Washington, is fighting the release of the names of folks who signed their petition.
Those signatures are public record, under state law; the group's attorneys are asking for the names to remain sealed. A Tacoma judge says he'll review the case and might rule as early as Thursday as to whether anonymity is granted.
From R-71 attorney Sarah Troupis, quoted at seattletimes.com: releasing the signatures "directly leads to the threats, harassment and reprisals that we worry citizens of Washington will be subject to."
Let me get this straight. (No pun intended.)
You want to use our system of government, which operates on the assumption of open records, to further marginalize a group of citizens, and you want the folks who support your efforts to remain anonymous.
You're afraid that the people you are trying to take civil rights away from will get upset? I grant you that. I'm hopping mad, and it's not even my rights you're directly messing with.
You're afraid they'll turn violent? Hmm. Is that because you view gays in general as somehow sub-human creatures, predisposed to assault you for your opinions? After all, you are trying to put them in a second-class box.
Let's expose hate and discrimination for what they are. Let's have the signatures out in the open, like they have been for every other initiative in state history, and let the chips fall where they may. If a signer of R-71 gets beat up, prosecute the offender for a hate crime, but please, let's not begin to operate this government in secrecy and fear. Instead, may the best ideas win.
P.S. 1. Oh yeah, I don't think excluding gays from civil rights married couples have access to is going to be that best winning idea. But knock yourself out.
P.S. 2. I will be posting extensively on this topic.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)