Just a quick update.
I'm leaving tomorrow for an 8-day trip to Europe. Planning for that trip plus other busy-ness is why I haven't blogged in a bit. Also, I'm working on something big. I don't want to give specifics or anything because I have no idea what it's going to look like or be on, and I certainly don't want to give a deadline I know I can't make.
With that said, if I get a chance to blog about something I will. Otherwise, have a nice week+.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
The One Political Chart You Must Read
No joke. You want to know how your Senator or Congresswoman contributed to the current national debt? Check out this wonderfully organized, interactive chart:
Votes That Pushed Us Into The Red
It's so beautiful. Crystal clear. The chart breaks down the recent economic policies into the three categories: the tax cuts (Bush), the wars (Bush, some Obama), and the stimulus package (Obama). In 2001, the U.S. had a balanced budget and we were projected to be out of debt some time in 2008. The biggest contributor to the decline from a balanced budget to the current massive debt? The Bush Tax Cuts.
The two things Republicans voted for? Wars and tax cuts. Democrats on the other hand voted either for the stimulus package, wars and stimulus, or all three policies (wars, tax cuts, and stimulus).
So now, you can see who voted on the biggest failure, and you can hold them responsible for it.
Votes That Pushed Us Into The Red
It's so beautiful. Crystal clear. The chart breaks down the recent economic policies into the three categories: the tax cuts (Bush), the wars (Bush, some Obama), and the stimulus package (Obama). In 2001, the U.S. had a balanced budget and we were projected to be out of debt some time in 2008. The biggest contributor to the decline from a balanced budget to the current massive debt? The Bush Tax Cuts.
The two things Republicans voted for? Wars and tax cuts. Democrats on the other hand voted either for the stimulus package, wars and stimulus, or all three policies (wars, tax cuts, and stimulus).
So now, you can see who voted on the biggest failure, and you can hold them responsible for it.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Activision Supports Animal Cruelty?
My final rant of the day.
Oh. If you're under 18, you probably shouldn't be reading this blog anyway, but you should definitely check with your parent before clicking this link. I'm just trying to CMA here.
The evidence: http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/64956/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/articles/74738/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-specs-ops-hands-on-preview/
You know that Sarah McLaughlan commercial? The SPCA one, where she's singing angel, and you see picture after picture of sad looking animals, and all of a sudden you find yourself blubbering, looking for the tissues, and feeling like an inhuman monster even though you're never even squashed a spider? In case you'd forgotten:
Feel like crap now? Good.
Now imagine you're a game developer. And you really hate dogs. So what to do? Take those wonderful, loving, sweet creatures, strap C4 to their backs, and blow 'em up.
Oh hell no!
Nope. Not buying it. Not buying it, nor anything made by any of the development/parent/whatever the hell you want to call them companies.
No. Not ever. NEVER.
While the gaming development community loves to pretend that their games are played by age-appropriate audiences, let's be honest: we all know a little 4-year-old Suzie who loves to knife and consistently makes sure she knifes you at precisely the wrong time. So now little Suzie gets to see a bigger version of Fluffy blow up.
Way to stay classy. I hope you all go to that special hell, the one reserved for child molesters, and people who talk in movie theatres.
I've reviewed Activision's list of games (see here on Wikipedia): I'm considering boycotting the entire company. We'll see.
Oh. If you're under 18, you probably shouldn't be reading this blog anyway, but you should definitely check with your parent before clicking this link. I'm just trying to CMA here.
The evidence: http://www.g4tv.com/games/xbox-360/64956/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3/articles/74738/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-specs-ops-hands-on-preview/
You know that Sarah McLaughlan commercial? The SPCA one, where she's singing angel, and you see picture after picture of sad looking animals, and all of a sudden you find yourself blubbering, looking for the tissues, and feeling like an inhuman monster even though you're never even squashed a spider? In case you'd forgotten:
Feel like crap now? Good.
Now imagine you're a game developer. And you really hate dogs. So what to do? Take those wonderful, loving, sweet creatures, strap C4 to their backs, and blow 'em up.
Oh hell no!
Nope. Not buying it. Not buying it, nor anything made by any of the development/parent/whatever the hell you want to call them companies.
No. Not ever. NEVER.
While the gaming development community loves to pretend that their games are played by age-appropriate audiences, let's be honest: we all know a little 4-year-old Suzie who loves to knife and consistently makes sure she knifes you at precisely the wrong time. So now little Suzie gets to see a bigger version of Fluffy blow up.
Way to stay classy. I hope you all go to that special hell, the one reserved for child molesters, and people who talk in movie theatres.
I've reviewed Activision's list of games (see here on Wikipedia): I'm considering boycotting the entire company. We'll see.
Weed-Killer Company Looks To Grow Killer Weed
Brilliant headline by the way. I take no credit for it.
Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304665904576383832249741032.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
I would love to snatch up about 500 bucks worth of this stock (after reviewing balance sheets of course; maybe if anyone asks I'll post how I pick stocks).
Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304665904576383832249741032.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
I would love to snatch up about 500 bucks worth of this stock (after reviewing balance sheets of course; maybe if anyone asks I'll post how I pick stocks).
Beautiful Evidence of Anti-Abortion Hypocrisy
Even though I'm not even thirty, I still sometimes worry about my blood pressure.
Today is just such a day. You can't get much clearer evidence of hypocrisy than this:
http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion-was-different-when-the-anti-choice
Rick Santorum. A man so vile that the gay community felt compelled to name a certain sexual. . . shall we say substance?. . . after him. A man who has heartlessly argued again and again that abortion is wrong under all circumstances. . .
Unless his own wife's life is at stake. Then it's okay. Even if you have to authorize a "horrific" so-called partial-birth abortion.
How can you get much clearer? America, where are your women? Where is the outrage? What the hell? How many more times must the GOP tell you that they don't care about you before you begin to believe them? If you are poor, the GOP thinks you didn't work hard enough. If you are a woman, the GOP thinks your role is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. If you are black, then you should be out in the fields picking cotton or playing football. If you're Latino, back to the strawberry fields. And if you're Native American. You get the worst of it all: you get forgotten.
Here are some stories from abortion clinic workers and others about women who were clearly anti-abortion, yet were getting abortions: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Protect our own. Loyalty at any cost. When will Americans stop being loyal to a party that has proven regularly, nearly constantly, that they have no care for the common person?
When I can come up with a reasonable alternative to suggest to you, I will. Until then, who knows? Maybe I'll run for office.
Today is just such a day. You can't get much clearer evidence of hypocrisy than this:
http://early-onset-of-night.tumblr.com/post/6502308112/our-abortion-was-different-when-the-anti-choice
Rick Santorum. A man so vile that the gay community felt compelled to name a certain sexual. . . shall we say substance?. . . after him. A man who has heartlessly argued again and again that abortion is wrong under all circumstances. . .
Unless his own wife's life is at stake. Then it's okay. Even if you have to authorize a "horrific" so-called partial-birth abortion.
How can you get much clearer? America, where are your women? Where is the outrage? What the hell? How many more times must the GOP tell you that they don't care about you before you begin to believe them? If you are poor, the GOP thinks you didn't work hard enough. If you are a woman, the GOP thinks your role is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. If you are black, then you should be out in the fields picking cotton or playing football. If you're Latino, back to the strawberry fields. And if you're Native American. You get the worst of it all: you get forgotten.
Here are some stories from abortion clinic workers and others about women who were clearly anti-abortion, yet were getting abortions: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Protect our own. Loyalty at any cost. When will Americans stop being loyal to a party that has proven regularly, nearly constantly, that they have no care for the common person?
When I can come up with a reasonable alternative to suggest to you, I will. Until then, who knows? Maybe I'll run for office.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Musical Gems - The Theremin and the Chapman Stick
I have a very timid relationship with music. It is one of my favorite methods of expressing emotion, yet I'm too untrained to speak its language with any degree of fluency. Still, I do plan on being a rather well-trained musician at some point. I would definitely like to learn how to play these:
The Theremin: A musical instrument which uses two antennae and radio frequencies. The pitch antenna is controlled by the right hand, and pitch rises the closer the hand is moved towards the antenna. The volume antenna is controlled by the left hand; the further the distance, the louder the tone.
The Chapman Stick: A musical instrument roughly based on the guitar or bass, usually ten to twelve strings, played by tapping or hammering the strings (as opposed to strumming, picking, or plucking)
That video has it all; geek cred, a girl, and musical leetness. Nerdgasm!
The Theremin: A musical instrument which uses two antennae and radio frequencies. The pitch antenna is controlled by the right hand, and pitch rises the closer the hand is moved towards the antenna. The volume antenna is controlled by the left hand; the further the distance, the louder the tone.
The Chapman Stick: A musical instrument roughly based on the guitar or bass, usually ten to twelve strings, played by tapping or hammering the strings (as opposed to strumming, picking, or plucking)
That video has it all; geek cred, a girl, and musical leetness. Nerdgasm!
Friday, June 10, 2011
GOP Tells Students To "Go Home", Don't Worry About The Government
A statement from a senator who obviously forgot who his constituents are:http://wonkette.com/447142/iowa-gop-legislator-tells-young-people-not-to-worry-about-government-go-home
Let's focus on two particularly deafening statements:
"I do not like it when students actually come here and lobby me for funds." - Iowa State Senator Shawn Hammerlink (R-u surprised?)
You don't like it? You don't LIKE it?? Way to come off sounding like a three-year-old toddler who "doesn't like it" when mommy takes his toys away. Let's actually take a close look at what you don't like: You don't like when the people who are affected by the laws you pass come to you and tell you what they need. They are your bosses! They elected you! Do you really think it would fly with any other boss if you responded to them with "I don't like it when my boss actually comes here and tells me what to do"? How long would you have lasted in any other job?
You don't like hearing from students, I don't like hearing from stuck-up politicians who have their heads so far up their asses that they have forgotten whom they are accountable to. I guess we'll both have to deal.
Second -
"But actually spending your time worrying about what we’re doing up here, I don’t want you to do that."
Now granted, I don't know how old these kids are, but if the video is showing one of them, they aren't that far off from 18, the legal voting age in the U.S. Just to be clear, Hammerlink tells kids who are close to voting age not to worry about what the government is doing and to just go home. He is telling the people who are almost old enough to elect him to go home and that he doesn't like hearing from them.
Senator Hammerlink, when those kids go to the polls in a few years to cast their all-important vote, what do you think they will remember? Do you think that your haughty, condescending attitude contrasted positively with the understanding words of the Democratic senator who "understands exactly where [the students] are coming from"? Do you think they will vote for someone who all but tossed them out of the meeting? What about their parents, their teachers, their friends, their families, and now, thank the universe, the Internet?
I am interested in viewing the entire video if anyone has it. I'd like to see what the "intense discussion" was. Did they get into a shouting match? How badly did Senator Hammerlink mistreat these kids, whose intention was to lobby for funds for their education? They are asking to be taught, asking to have the materials to be taught well, and Hammerlink is telling them to go home and not worry.
The scary part to me is the appeal that the kids "not worry" about what the government is doing. What, exactly, Mr. Hammerlink, do you want us to not worry about? What are you doing that you don't want your constituents worrying about? Iowans are your bosses, Mr. Hammerlink; would you expect a boss not to worry about what his subordinate is doing?
I'm a take-action kind of gal, so here is the link to Mr. Hammerlink's official Iowa Legislature page:http://www.legis.iowa.gov/Legislators/legislator.aspx?PID=7489
Here is his contact information:
Legislative Email: shawn.hamerlinck@legis.state.ia.us
Home Phone: 563.843.3922
Home Address: 802 Davenport St., Dixon IA, 52745
Occupation: Education, Adjunct Professor - Augustana College
Feel free to tell Senator Hammerlink your opinion of how he handled the meeting with the students.
Bonus: This is the same senator who apparently referred to state employees as "bottom feeders". http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_ee86a284-9073-11e0-b753-001cc4c03286.html
Let's focus on two particularly deafening statements:
"I do not like it when students actually come here and lobby me for funds." - Iowa State Senator Shawn Hammerlink (R-u surprised?)
You don't like it? You don't LIKE it?? Way to come off sounding like a three-year-old toddler who "doesn't like it" when mommy takes his toys away. Let's actually take a close look at what you don't like: You don't like when the people who are affected by the laws you pass come to you and tell you what they need. They are your bosses! They elected you! Do you really think it would fly with any other boss if you responded to them with "I don't like it when my boss actually comes here and tells me what to do"? How long would you have lasted in any other job?
You don't like hearing from students, I don't like hearing from stuck-up politicians who have their heads so far up their asses that they have forgotten whom they are accountable to. I guess we'll both have to deal.
Second -
"But actually spending your time worrying about what we’re doing up here, I don’t want you to do that."
Now granted, I don't know how old these kids are, but if the video is showing one of them, they aren't that far off from 18, the legal voting age in the U.S. Just to be clear, Hammerlink tells kids who are close to voting age not to worry about what the government is doing and to just go home. He is telling the people who are almost old enough to elect him to go home and that he doesn't like hearing from them.
Senator Hammerlink, when those kids go to the polls in a few years to cast their all-important vote, what do you think they will remember? Do you think that your haughty, condescending attitude contrasted positively with the understanding words of the Democratic senator who "understands exactly where [the students] are coming from"? Do you think they will vote for someone who all but tossed them out of the meeting? What about their parents, their teachers, their friends, their families, and now, thank the universe, the Internet?
I am interested in viewing the entire video if anyone has it. I'd like to see what the "intense discussion" was. Did they get into a shouting match? How badly did Senator Hammerlink mistreat these kids, whose intention was to lobby for funds for their education? They are asking to be taught, asking to have the materials to be taught well, and Hammerlink is telling them to go home and not worry.
The scary part to me is the appeal that the kids "not worry" about what the government is doing. What, exactly, Mr. Hammerlink, do you want us to not worry about? What are you doing that you don't want your constituents worrying about? Iowans are your bosses, Mr. Hammerlink; would you expect a boss not to worry about what his subordinate is doing?
I'm a take-action kind of gal, so here is the link to Mr. Hammerlink's official Iowa Legislature page:http://www.legis.iowa.gov/Legislators/legislator.aspx?PID=7489
Here is his contact information:
Legislative Email: shawn.hamerlinck@legis.state.ia.us
Home Phone: 563.843.3922
Home Address: 802 Davenport St., Dixon IA, 52745
Occupation: Education, Adjunct Professor - Augustana College
Feel free to tell Senator Hammerlink your opinion of how he handled the meeting with the students.
Bonus: This is the same senator who apparently referred to state employees as "bottom feeders". http://qctimes.com/news/local/article_ee86a284-9073-11e0-b753-001cc4c03286.html
Thursday, June 9, 2011
CNN's Belief Blog
Here's something a little different: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/08/10-things-the-belief-blog-learned-in-its-first-year/?hpt=hp_t2
I found #4 to be the most interesting personally. I've been on various chat platforms, and I used to hang out in the religion rooms. It never failed to amaze me how little the Christians in the room would know about their own book. I could quote passages from the Bible that Christians argued didn't exist until I put up chapter and verse.
I don't have a problem with the Bible. It's filled with all the same stuff you'd see on TV today; blood, sex, violence, porn, drugs, rock and roll. But for me, the Bible is a snapshot, a guidebook for a culture that existed 2,000 years ago. Does that mean the Bible isn't valuable? Of course not. We don't claim that major works of fiction aren't valuable, but we also aren't claiming to be worshipers of the White Whale.
In current cultures we treat religion as a separate piece of our lives, a distinct room which we fill with whatever we decide our beliefs to be. In the past, religion was much more practical. It was meant to be used as a daily guidebook, constantly consulted during applicable situations. Even though I don't believe in the Bible, my family still followed its advice when we planted a lemon tree. There are 600+ laws in the Bible, covering all aspects of life from birth to death to marriage to agriculture to specific architectural designs for their temples.
Given the demonstrably practical nature of the Bible, I'm not sure if that ancient culture would have even identified what they were doing as a "religion." I can certainly imagine an ancient Israelite working according to the Bible because it's the way she thinks, the way she feels, part of her identity. One of my professors in college described a lot of the laws in the Bible as a way of making Jewish culture distinct from those around them. The laws of the Bible become a "this is what I do because I'm Jewish, that is what they do because they aren't." Perhaps the world's first written form of discrimination?
I don't know if many Christians want to actually read the Bible. It may force them to think, which is something they may not want to do. It is certainly easier to swallow what your preacher tells you, and go on your way, thinking you're doing right by your fellow man. But are you really?
I respect Islam far more than I do any other Western religion that I've been exposed to. Islam requires consistent, daily practice. You cannot be a "Sunday Muslim" the way people are "Sunday Christians." The religion doesn't allow for it. Most Muslims I've met are far more informed about what their religious books say; this stems from the belief that they are supposed to study and understand the Qu'ran for themselves. Yes, they have Imams, just as Christians have pastors, but the individual comprehension of the Qu'ran is key. If Islam had not valued individual education, we likely would have lost all of the ancient scientific information we enjoy today. Instead, it would have been destroyed in the Dark Ages, a Christian endeavor which obliterated many many ancient works of literature, art, and science.
In the "Information Age," ignorance should be viewed as a cultural disease. Now, access to information is simply too easy to permit intelligent people to allow themselves to be lazy thinkers or followers. The way forward is not rooted in the laws and traditions of the past, though they offer value in providing a glimpse into human nature. Instead, the future belongs to the trailblazers, the thinkers, the rebels. Jesus himself was a political dissident, and he challenged established authority to the point that they felt the need to put him to death. To say that slightly differently, the established authorities considered Jesus to be such a threat to their way of life that Jesus was put to death. To be "truly" Christian, shouldn't one follow in his footsteps?
I found #4 to be the most interesting personally. I've been on various chat platforms, and I used to hang out in the religion rooms. It never failed to amaze me how little the Christians in the room would know about their own book. I could quote passages from the Bible that Christians argued didn't exist until I put up chapter and verse.
I don't have a problem with the Bible. It's filled with all the same stuff you'd see on TV today; blood, sex, violence, porn, drugs, rock and roll. But for me, the Bible is a snapshot, a guidebook for a culture that existed 2,000 years ago. Does that mean the Bible isn't valuable? Of course not. We don't claim that major works of fiction aren't valuable, but we also aren't claiming to be worshipers of the White Whale.
In current cultures we treat religion as a separate piece of our lives, a distinct room which we fill with whatever we decide our beliefs to be. In the past, religion was much more practical. It was meant to be used as a daily guidebook, constantly consulted during applicable situations. Even though I don't believe in the Bible, my family still followed its advice when we planted a lemon tree. There are 600+ laws in the Bible, covering all aspects of life from birth to death to marriage to agriculture to specific architectural designs for their temples.
Given the demonstrably practical nature of the Bible, I'm not sure if that ancient culture would have even identified what they were doing as a "religion." I can certainly imagine an ancient Israelite working according to the Bible because it's the way she thinks, the way she feels, part of her identity. One of my professors in college described a lot of the laws in the Bible as a way of making Jewish culture distinct from those around them. The laws of the Bible become a "this is what I do because I'm Jewish, that is what they do because they aren't." Perhaps the world's first written form of discrimination?
I don't know if many Christians want to actually read the Bible. It may force them to think, which is something they may not want to do. It is certainly easier to swallow what your preacher tells you, and go on your way, thinking you're doing right by your fellow man. But are you really?
I respect Islam far more than I do any other Western religion that I've been exposed to. Islam requires consistent, daily practice. You cannot be a "Sunday Muslim" the way people are "Sunday Christians." The religion doesn't allow for it. Most Muslims I've met are far more informed about what their religious books say; this stems from the belief that they are supposed to study and understand the Qu'ran for themselves. Yes, they have Imams, just as Christians have pastors, but the individual comprehension of the Qu'ran is key. If Islam had not valued individual education, we likely would have lost all of the ancient scientific information we enjoy today. Instead, it would have been destroyed in the Dark Ages, a Christian endeavor which obliterated many many ancient works of literature, art, and science.
In the "Information Age," ignorance should be viewed as a cultural disease. Now, access to information is simply too easy to permit intelligent people to allow themselves to be lazy thinkers or followers. The way forward is not rooted in the laws and traditions of the past, though they offer value in providing a glimpse into human nature. Instead, the future belongs to the trailblazers, the thinkers, the rebels. Jesus himself was a political dissident, and he challenged established authority to the point that they felt the need to put him to death. To say that slightly differently, the established authorities considered Jesus to be such a threat to their way of life that Jesus was put to death. To be "truly" Christian, shouldn't one follow in his footsteps?
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Automotive Sensor Cross-Reference Chart
So, I'm appealing for a little help. I'm finishing up school for automotive service technology. I made this chart as a cross-referencing guide for what a technician can expect certain sensors to read under certain conditions. I'm trying to make it simultaneously as accurate as possible while also allowing for differences between manufacturers. Sorry if it's a little blurry; it's the best Paint would do. I welcome suggestions.
Why Do Americans Continue to Give Obama a Pass? Because It's Not His Fault
From the fine folks at Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/06/06/why-do-americans-continue-to-give-obama-pass/
I want to take a close look at this article and break it apart piece by piece, so that I can ask the questions that Liz Peek doesn't bother to address, but instead lays squarely on Obama's shoulders without any consideration for the actions of others.
Ms. Peek begins by citing a list of failures, from "pitiful job creation" to "paralysis on immigration" to what she considers a "world-view patently at odds with mainstream."
Okay, let's start by taking a look at some of those "mainstream" views. A recent ABC poll showed that 8 out of 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use, and around half believe it should be legalized in a more general context (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503). This Kansas branch of NBC cites a 60% approval rating for medical marijuana -- a state that can hardly be called the bastion of liberal politics (http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Poll-60-percent-of-Americans-support-medical/c1R1odu6dUeP-5rnH0VBeA.cspx). Even the website on which Ms. Peek's article appears quotes a "slim majority of Republicans" (53%) favor legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/04/21/medical-marijuana-support-grows-polls/).
Yet Republicans have consistently come down against any efforts to legalize medical marijuana -- in spite of their other constant call to arms, the restriction of "big government." Excuse me, Ms. Peek, but if the government is telling me what medication I can and cannot use for my illness, how is that supporting a small government? (http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/c144dca4-409c-11e0-b58f-001cc4c03286.html, and http://newmexicoindependent.com/69054/republican-bill-would-end-medical-marijuana-program, and I'm sure there are others)
Obama has not come out against medical marijuana. He publically stated he would withdraw federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and caregivers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html). He supports the use of marijuana as a medical treatment for glaucoma and cancer, and he explicitly states that he would like to see federal law change so he does not have to punish doctors for providing prescriptions for medical marijuana (http://granitestaters.com/candidates/video_obama_02.html).
Read that again, Ms. Peek. Obama wants to change federal legislation so the government will not interfere with a doctor's recommended medical treatment. President Obama wants the government out of medical marijuana. If I didn't know better, I might think he was a Republican, and one who is a bit more in touch with "mainstream views" than you suggested. Hypothetically speaking, if Obama was to introduce legislation that would make medical marijuana legal federally, would the Republicans bow to what the "mainstream" is asking for?
Perhaps medical marijuana is just a fluke. Let's look at gay marriage shall we? Is Obama out of touch with people on this issue?
According a Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage. In a breakdown of the poll, all self-identified groups of people saw an increase of approval between 2010 and 2011 except for one group - Republicans. With 70% of those aged 18-34 supporting gay marriage, the future does not look bright for discrimination (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx). In the interests of "balance", I looked up how many people oppose gay marriage? The (considerably right-wing) articles that came up saying the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage were older than 2009; the first listing an article from 2004.
Oh, and before I turn to look at Obama's stance on gay marriage, I wanted to remind Ms. Peek that we are discussing government laws that restrict a person's ability to marry the adult of their choosing. That's right, big government is in your bedroom, telling you whom you can and cannot sleep with, create a family with, receive social and legal benefits from, and so on. The Republicans are opposing legislation that gets the government OUT of one of the biggest decisions I could make in my life. And the Republicans are opposed to the government telling me what I can and cannot do, right?
Right?
In February 2011, Obama announced he would no longer "oppose legal challenges to DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)" (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/23/nation/la-na-obama-gay-marriage-20110224). While largely a symbolic act, it had the effect of forcing Congress to hire its own lawyers if they wished to defend DOMA. Congress - of which the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Neat trick, Obama. You know you can't get the legislation passed yet, so you're forcing the Republicans to legally defend an Act which goes against the wishes of the majority of the American people. Brilliant!
I will concede that Obama originally came out as against the recognition of legal gay marriage, softening his stance by recommending civil unions that would enjoy the same benefits. I found it a little odd listening to the echoes of segregation coming out of a black man's mouth, but stranger things have happened. However, he has recently taken gradual steps that suggest maybe he's coming out of the discrimination closet, so to speak, as pointed out by this Fox News post (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/28/obama-suggests-stance-gay-marriage-evolve/).
Oddly enough, as of the writing of this posting, you are slightly correct, Ms. Peek, in that Obama is out of touch with the mainstream view. But perhaps you meant is that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage? Sorry, I can't give you that part. Half credit.
In some cases, Republicans are actually more in touch with the American mainstream than President Obama. Former RNC chairmen Ken Mehlman announced not only that he supports gay marriage, but that he is gay himself (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/08/former-rnc-chairman-is-gay-will-support-gay-marriage.html). GOP Senator Allan Kittleman (R-Howard) of Maryland is a long-time supporter who cites his passionate belief in equal rights as the motivator for his support (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2011/02/gop_senator_announces_support.html). My favorite: A former Iowan Republican state senator announced that he was forming a group called Republicans For Freedom, a group for gay-marriage supporters in the Republican Party. His justification? The small government argument. A true Republican! (http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Ex-GOP-senator-to-announce-pro-gay-marriage-group-1402696.php)
I've looked at these two issues with how Obama relates to "mainstream" American views. Here's a few more, a little less in-depth:
Abortion:
A recent Gallup poll revealed that the majority of Americans oppose abortion morally and support some legal restrictions for it (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx). Obama himself voted against legislation banning partial birth abortion, but has supported states' rights to restrict late-term partial-birth abortions (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm).
Grade: Full credit, but with a caveat. The Gallup poll noted that the pro-life/pro-choice boundaries were drawn along age lines, not gender lines, suggesting the possibility that what could be considered "mainstream" views may shift in the coming decades. If so, Obama is a visionary, or "on the side of history." If not, then yes, full credit for Obama being "out of touch."
Immigration:
Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe the top priority regarding immigration should be the active pursuit of visa violations, followed by increasing security forces on the border at 61% (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0712/Americans-top-priority-on-illegal-immigration-visa-violators).
Obama has consistently supported amnesty, while generally 2/3s of Americans oppose it (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls/oppose-amnesty.html). On the other hand, Obama did support legislation making it easier to verify the citizenship status of employees, which increased the prosecution of employers of illegal aliens (http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/obama-immigration.html), a position supported by 71% of Americans (http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/illegal_immigration_polls_surveys/index.shtml).
Grade: Incomplete - Immigration is a very complicated topic, so in some ways Obama agrees with mainstream and in other ways he doesn't. His policies also have shifted over time, making it more difficult to grade. My opinion is also that current events suggest that immigration is a bit lower on the priority list due to the laser-like focus on jobs and the economy, so the diversion here between Obama's views and the "mainstream" is less of a flashpoint than it was in the 2008 election.
This is not a complete list. I'll probably do another short blog comparing Obama's view on taxes with "mainstream," specifically the "Taxes On The Rich" so oft-quoted by the media, to further flesh out Ms. Peek's point on Obama being out of touch with mainstream views.
I also intend to further delve in to her article. Why hers? Because she either lightly touches directly, or suggests indirectly, nearly every single controversial issue that Obama and the Republicans disagree, while simultaneously employing logic that considers half the issue at best. I intend in further blogs to show that Ms. Peek has failed to go beyond the very surface of the issues, and missed the critical answer to the question she posed: The reason why Americans are going easy on Obama is because they knew he has a psychotic Republican party to deal with. The Republicans have made it so difficult that Obama would find a fight in trying to buy a box of facial tissue for the Men's bathroom. Americans know this, they can see it, so they understand that ANY victory Obama gets is miraculous. And he's gotten some rather important ones.
Anyway, I'll adress this and more later. For now, I'm going to go smoke a bowl and kiss my wife. ;)
I want to take a close look at this article and break it apart piece by piece, so that I can ask the questions that Liz Peek doesn't bother to address, but instead lays squarely on Obama's shoulders without any consideration for the actions of others.
Ms. Peek begins by citing a list of failures, from "pitiful job creation" to "paralysis on immigration" to what she considers a "world-view patently at odds with mainstream."
Okay, let's start by taking a look at some of those "mainstream" views. A recent ABC poll showed that 8 out of 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use, and around half believe it should be legalized in a more general context (http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503). This Kansas branch of NBC cites a 60% approval rating for medical marijuana -- a state that can hardly be called the bastion of liberal politics (http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Poll-60-percent-of-Americans-support-medical/c1R1odu6dUeP-5rnH0VBeA.cspx). Even the website on which Ms. Peek's article appears quotes a "slim majority of Republicans" (53%) favor legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/04/21/medical-marijuana-support-grows-polls/).
Yet Republicans have consistently come down against any efforts to legalize medical marijuana -- in spite of their other constant call to arms, the restriction of "big government." Excuse me, Ms. Peek, but if the government is telling me what medication I can and cannot use for my illness, how is that supporting a small government? (http://www.ravallirepublic.com/news/state-and-regional/c144dca4-409c-11e0-b58f-001cc4c03286.html, and http://newmexicoindependent.com/69054/republican-bill-would-end-medical-marijuana-program, and I'm sure there are others)
Obama has not come out against medical marijuana. He publically stated he would withdraw federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and caregivers (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/us/19holder.html). He supports the use of marijuana as a medical treatment for glaucoma and cancer, and he explicitly states that he would like to see federal law change so he does not have to punish doctors for providing prescriptions for medical marijuana (http://granitestaters.com/candidates/video_obama_02.html).
Read that again, Ms. Peek. Obama wants to change federal legislation so the government will not interfere with a doctor's recommended medical treatment. President Obama wants the government out of medical marijuana. If I didn't know better, I might think he was a Republican, and one who is a bit more in touch with "mainstream views" than you suggested. Hypothetically speaking, if Obama was to introduce legislation that would make medical marijuana legal federally, would the Republicans bow to what the "mainstream" is asking for?
Perhaps medical marijuana is just a fluke. Let's look at gay marriage shall we? Is Obama out of touch with people on this issue?
According a Gallup poll, 53% of Americans support gay marriage. In a breakdown of the poll, all self-identified groups of people saw an increase of approval between 2010 and 2011 except for one group - Republicans. With 70% of those aged 18-34 supporting gay marriage, the future does not look bright for discrimination (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First-Time-Majority-Americans-Favor-Legal-Gay-Marriage.aspx). In the interests of "balance", I looked up how many people oppose gay marriage? The (considerably right-wing) articles that came up saying the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage were older than 2009; the first listing an article from 2004.
Oh, and before I turn to look at Obama's stance on gay marriage, I wanted to remind Ms. Peek that we are discussing government laws that restrict a person's ability to marry the adult of their choosing. That's right, big government is in your bedroom, telling you whom you can and cannot sleep with, create a family with, receive social and legal benefits from, and so on. The Republicans are opposing legislation that gets the government OUT of one of the biggest decisions I could make in my life. And the Republicans are opposed to the government telling me what I can and cannot do, right?
Right?
In February 2011, Obama announced he would no longer "oppose legal challenges to DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)" (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/23/nation/la-na-obama-gay-marriage-20110224). While largely a symbolic act, it had the effect of forcing Congress to hire its own lawyers if they wished to defend DOMA. Congress - of which the Senate is controlled by Republicans. Neat trick, Obama. You know you can't get the legislation passed yet, so you're forcing the Republicans to legally defend an Act which goes against the wishes of the majority of the American people. Brilliant!
I will concede that Obama originally came out as against the recognition of legal gay marriage, softening his stance by recommending civil unions that would enjoy the same benefits. I found it a little odd listening to the echoes of segregation coming out of a black man's mouth, but stranger things have happened. However, he has recently taken gradual steps that suggest maybe he's coming out of the discrimination closet, so to speak, as pointed out by this Fox News post (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/28/obama-suggests-stance-gay-marriage-evolve/).
Oddly enough, as of the writing of this posting, you are slightly correct, Ms. Peek, in that Obama is out of touch with the mainstream view. But perhaps you meant is that the majority of Americans oppose gay marriage? Sorry, I can't give you that part. Half credit.
In some cases, Republicans are actually more in touch with the American mainstream than President Obama. Former RNC chairmen Ken Mehlman announced not only that he supports gay marriage, but that he is gay himself (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/08/former-rnc-chairman-is-gay-will-support-gay-marriage.html). GOP Senator Allan Kittleman (R-Howard) of Maryland is a long-time supporter who cites his passionate belief in equal rights as the motivator for his support (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/annapolis/2011/02/gop_senator_announces_support.html). My favorite: A former Iowan Republican state senator announced that he was forming a group called Republicans For Freedom, a group for gay-marriage supporters in the Republican Party. His justification? The small government argument. A true Republican! (http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Ex-GOP-senator-to-announce-pro-gay-marriage-group-1402696.php)
I've looked at these two issues with how Obama relates to "mainstream" American views. Here's a few more, a little less in-depth:
Abortion:
A recent Gallup poll revealed that the majority of Americans oppose abortion morally and support some legal restrictions for it (http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx). Obama himself voted against legislation banning partial birth abortion, but has supported states' rights to restrict late-term partial-birth abortions (http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm).
Grade: Full credit, but with a caveat. The Gallup poll noted that the pro-life/pro-choice boundaries were drawn along age lines, not gender lines, suggesting the possibility that what could be considered "mainstream" views may shift in the coming decades. If so, Obama is a visionary, or "on the side of history." If not, then yes, full credit for Obama being "out of touch."
Immigration:
Sixty-eight percent of Americans believe the top priority regarding immigration should be the active pursuit of visa violations, followed by increasing security forces on the border at 61% (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0712/Americans-top-priority-on-illegal-immigration-visa-violators).
Obama has consistently supported amnesty, while generally 2/3s of Americans oppose it (http://www.numbersusa.com/content/polls/oppose-amnesty.html). On the other hand, Obama did support legislation making it easier to verify the citizenship status of employees, which increased the prosecution of employers of illegal aliens (http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/obama-immigration.html), a position supported by 71% of Americans (http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/illegal_immigration_polls_surveys/index.shtml).
Grade: Incomplete - Immigration is a very complicated topic, so in some ways Obama agrees with mainstream and in other ways he doesn't. His policies also have shifted over time, making it more difficult to grade. My opinion is also that current events suggest that immigration is a bit lower on the priority list due to the laser-like focus on jobs and the economy, so the diversion here between Obama's views and the "mainstream" is less of a flashpoint than it was in the 2008 election.
This is not a complete list. I'll probably do another short blog comparing Obama's view on taxes with "mainstream," specifically the "Taxes On The Rich" so oft-quoted by the media, to further flesh out Ms. Peek's point on Obama being out of touch with mainstream views.
I also intend to further delve in to her article. Why hers? Because she either lightly touches directly, or suggests indirectly, nearly every single controversial issue that Obama and the Republicans disagree, while simultaneously employing logic that considers half the issue at best. I intend in further blogs to show that Ms. Peek has failed to go beyond the very surface of the issues, and missed the critical answer to the question she posed: The reason why Americans are going easy on Obama is because they knew he has a psychotic Republican party to deal with. The Republicans have made it so difficult that Obama would find a fight in trying to buy a box of facial tissue for the Men's bathroom. Americans know this, they can see it, so they understand that ANY victory Obama gets is miraculous. And he's gotten some rather important ones.
Anyway, I'll adress this and more later. For now, I'm going to go smoke a bowl and kiss my wife. ;)
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
My Precious Snowflake Likes Being In Debt
Utter ridiculousness: Many young adults feel "empowered" by their debt.
FTA: "Researchers found that the more credit card and college loan debt held by young adults aged 18 to 27, the higher their self-esteem and the more they felt like they were in control of their lives. The effect was strongest among those in the lowest economic class."
Wow. Really guys? That's like having a badge of honor because you beat up the retarded kid. We are now glorifying debt to the point that kids are getting a self-esteem boost from it?
Debt is not your friend. Debt is slavery. There is NO good debt.
Does this mean I'm suggesting that we not use credit cards? Of course not. While I think all debt is evil, I'm not saying it isn't necessary. Not many of us have enough spare cash laying around to buy a $150,000 home. Not many of us even have the money necessary to make a down payment on said home. My current two-year unemployment stint aside, I worked really really hard to make sure that I kept my credit score golden. High schools threaten delinquents with bad remarks on their permanent record, but the reality is that your permanent record is your credit score. Now even your very livelihood could depend on a decent FICO.
More and more those on the edge are finding themselves insolvent because of the loop they get caught in. I get laid off, I can't pay my debts, I lose my good credit score, I can't find a job because of my low score, I can't pay my debts, my credit score goes lower, rinse, repeat until you die. These "kids" don't realize that yet. They look ahead and see time, 40+ years that they think they have available to save enough for the retirement they think they are entitled to. But then a recession occurs that robs you of the better half of a decade worth of work experience, right after you get out of college with no work experience because you decided to focus full-time on school. Then you have an injury and can't work for a year. Or maybe you get into a car accident and now don't have the money for transportation to get you to a job. Debt, like marriage, is something that people should think about very carefully before entering, because it's very difficult and often extremely messy to get out of. Unfortunately, in the days of Brittney Spears annulments and TARP bailouts, convincing kids that they need to be aware of consequences is nearly impossible.
In my perfect world, I would have enough money to take a few families and really change their lives. I'm not talking about a credit counselor you meet with once every two weeks and spend maybe an hour with. I'm talking really help someone with living their life, from therapists to help with family/mental/emotional issues, doctors to help with medical issues, accountants and financial planners, a complete team. I would like to take that group of people to a family and help them become a stable, loving, happy family.
Maybe when I'm rich or when I win the lottery. Or maybe I'll get really ornery and start a non-profit.
FTA: "Researchers found that the more credit card and college loan debt held by young adults aged 18 to 27, the higher their self-esteem and the more they felt like they were in control of their lives. The effect was strongest among those in the lowest economic class."
Wow. Really guys? That's like having a badge of honor because you beat up the retarded kid. We are now glorifying debt to the point that kids are getting a self-esteem boost from it?
Debt is not your friend. Debt is slavery. There is NO good debt.
Does this mean I'm suggesting that we not use credit cards? Of course not. While I think all debt is evil, I'm not saying it isn't necessary. Not many of us have enough spare cash laying around to buy a $150,000 home. Not many of us even have the money necessary to make a down payment on said home. My current two-year unemployment stint aside, I worked really really hard to make sure that I kept my credit score golden. High schools threaten delinquents with bad remarks on their permanent record, but the reality is that your permanent record is your credit score. Now even your very livelihood could depend on a decent FICO.
More and more those on the edge are finding themselves insolvent because of the loop they get caught in. I get laid off, I can't pay my debts, I lose my good credit score, I can't find a job because of my low score, I can't pay my debts, my credit score goes lower, rinse, repeat until you die. These "kids" don't realize that yet. They look ahead and see time, 40+ years that they think they have available to save enough for the retirement they think they are entitled to. But then a recession occurs that robs you of the better half of a decade worth of work experience, right after you get out of college with no work experience because you decided to focus full-time on school. Then you have an injury and can't work for a year. Or maybe you get into a car accident and now don't have the money for transportation to get you to a job. Debt, like marriage, is something that people should think about very carefully before entering, because it's very difficult and often extremely messy to get out of. Unfortunately, in the days of Brittney Spears annulments and TARP bailouts, convincing kids that they need to be aware of consequences is nearly impossible.
In my perfect world, I would have enough money to take a few families and really change their lives. I'm not talking about a credit counselor you meet with once every two weeks and spend maybe an hour with. I'm talking really help someone with living their life, from therapists to help with family/mental/emotional issues, doctors to help with medical issues, accountants and financial planners, a complete team. I would like to take that group of people to a family and help them become a stable, loving, happy family.
Maybe when I'm rich or when I win the lottery. Or maybe I'll get really ornery and start a non-profit.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Firsties
I am Becky's first blog post. Hi. :)
Blurb about me:
I am nearing my thirties, a college graduate who has gone back to school to become an auto mechanic. I like working with my hands and my head. You'll probably figure out what my interests are once I start posting more on this blog.
Why a blog? I suspect it's the same reason other bloggers post: I think I have something interesting to say. Maybe you'll agree with me. Maybe not. I hope you'll comment and click the ads. :)
Blurb about me:
I am nearing my thirties, a college graduate who has gone back to school to become an auto mechanic. I like working with my hands and my head. You'll probably figure out what my interests are once I start posting more on this blog.
Why a blog? I suspect it's the same reason other bloggers post: I think I have something interesting to say. Maybe you'll agree with me. Maybe not. I hope you'll comment and click the ads. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)