Blogbody

One of my very good friends, Kevin, as well as my old CEO back from my Spoke days, work at a company called MerchantCircle. Kevin recently opined about how the focus of MerchantCircle relates to the upcoming presidential election.

First, a quick note about what MerchantCircle does: think "social networks for businesses" and you kind of have the idea. Instead of focussing on the consumer, like review sites like Yelp and CitySearch do, they focus on the business. Businesses can "partner" with other businesses for coupon deals (think "friends"), create their own home page, (think "profile page"), and provide an official response for praise or criticism of their business.

I find his points interesting specifically because of the waves Fred Thompson is now making as he begins his candidacy. Fred Thompson is claiming that he, like Howard Dean, will use the power of the internet and social networks, to run a more effective campaign for less.

So far we've heard about Barrack's MySpace page, but I don't really think things like that are a good demonstration of how Web 2.0 can be utilized to improve our democracy. MySpace is, afterall, mostly about kids who can't even vote, or stoners who likely won't.

However, more focussed communities like MerchantCirlce (small businesses), Digg (high tech workers, perhaps?), or online schools (ie: University of Phoenix, etc) might provide an excellent conduit for engaging in deep, thought-provoking exchanges about specific issues.

Forget town halls, virtual town halls, or even debates - they are too general and end up suffering from the "law of diminishing returns" because their audiences cover such a broad base. I think engaging with a specific community about needs specific to them, on a mass scale, would really open our eyes up about the candidates. I would love to see an online chat with Digg users, or a forum for MerchantCircle users to ask tough questions.

Update: MerchantCircle just recently celebrated it's one-year birthday. Congrats to them. I love the idea of bridging local small businesses and the vastness of the internet.

My only complaint would be that they focus on the business owner and not the consumer, but that's not really a valid complaint because they readily point out to and integrate consumer-focussing sites, ending up being a companion to them more than a competitor.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

For all this talk about how Spring and whether it is good or bad or we get it or don't get it, there is one thing about this whole discussion that really irks me: javablogs.com. Based entirely on the subject, rather than the content, the "popular entries" are currently "I Don't Get Spring" and "I Don't Get 'I Don't Get Spring'". To prove my point, I titled this post something even more "headline grabbing" - and I won't be surprised that it makes it's way to the top of the popular entry list.

I propose we fix JavaBlogs. Why not start a system where blogs in a community (Java, Politics, whatever) can be rated after they have been viewed? Then those ratings can be applied in the popular topics. On top of that, it catches those who don't visit javablogs.com but instead come through RSS feeds.

Anyone else think JavaBlogs' popularity system is a bit lame?

PS: Sorry to be a tease with the subject, you'll find no flame war about Spring in this entry (though I have recent entries talking about it, so go there if you want).

PPS: I'm planning to write a blog community service exactly like this, but for Politics. Perhaps the JavaBlogs community can join me and we can produce a generic system that works for any community. Or, for those Java folks that are also political couch potatoes, let me know if you'd like to help out.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 07:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)

My brother and I have both decided that our blogs have become diluted due to our continuous rants about politics. Rather than try to make our blogs both about politics plus (technology OR music/screen writing), we decided we'd create a blog just for politics that he and I will share. Our normal blogs will then be just for our "other" stuff.

So, without further ado, I offer you: Lightbody on Politics (name subject to change).

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 09:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Lorraine talks about why she supports civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples. My response follows:

Education

So we can't call it "marriage" purely because some people are unable to understand that marriage has multiple definitions and multiple meanings (state and religion)? Seems like we're catering to the ill-informed and education is a better medicine. It really seems to me that the majority of the population doesn't understand the difference between a state-recognized marriage and a church-recognized one.

Even fewer are aware of the supreme court cases that define exactly what separation of church and state is. I cite the Lemon Test in about every post about religion, but I'll do it again:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

Dictionary definition

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Marriage also is the following:

• The state of being married; wedlock.
• A common-law marriage.
• A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
• A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
• Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Legal definition

"Heather has Twenty Mommies and One Daddy?" - you've got to be kidding, Lorraine. There is no way that gay marriage will lead to other marriages involving family members, animals, or multiple partners. It's so easy to define marriage as something that includes gay couples but excludes those other things that it's not even worth bringing that argument up (though if someone isn't able to do the critical thinking about it, I'll gladly help you understand).

Gay Elite

Regarding the "Gay Elite", I'm not sure who they are, but it sounds like you've been listening to the Republican talking points a little too much. Sounds quite a bit like the "Liberal Elite" and the "Elite Media" to me. You know, one of those phrases that when the new talking points come out you'll ever every talking head on the talk shows repeating ad-nauseum. Regardless, I lived in San Francisco and those "Gay Elite" never pushed for teaching anything other than the law (or their proposed law) in public schools. So I can tell you that "Heather has One Daddy and a 'Special Pet'?" is not what a those "Gay Elite" I know would propose teaching.

Lorraine, I have to say, I'm happy that you support civil unions for gay people and are willing to break from the Republican platform. You said yourself these people want to settle down, but then you go and say that they want to force their way on everyone. Well which is? Do they want to be covert or overt? And if there are a couple bad apples, as there are in every group, you've got to be able to distinguish them from those that really just want marriage, which is the argument at hand.

Separate but equal

Under your proposal we end up with two names (civil union and marriage) recognized by the state which are equal in nature? Doesn't that seem both redundant and frighteningly similar to "separate but equal"? Of course, we can't just remove marriage from the state laws, because then married couples will get pissed off. But if we don't call it the same thing, we head down the path of "separate but equal" again -- this time separate definitions that are supposedly equal.

Plus, think of the overhead law-makers will have to go through now. Instead of writing laws for "married couples", they now have to use the phrase "married couples or civil unions". What a pain in the ass! We do want a smaller government right? Why should we have to administer two things that are exactly the same thing? If I were running a company that did that, I would fire the person who came up with that money-draining idea.

Unhinging morality

Give them their legal rights, but don't cause another chaotic scene in religion. Don't unhinge morality.

What does this mean? I assume you mean, "don't try to make religions accept marriage". I don't believe anyone has proposed that. This is a state issue and religion isn't really part of the argument (for gay people, at least). I agree that gay couples should take the battle with their church if they want, but it has nothing to do with state laws.

Check out my last post for a couple of good threads on religion and its place in the state.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I took part in a very good debate with several folks about gay marriage. This thread, as well as another on creationism was very nice because even though we had disagreements, we were courteous and I think we all gained a bit from it. We need more debates like this in the mainstream media. John Stewart is right, we can't have anymore crap like Crossfire or Hannity & Colmes. We need good, honest, intellectually satisfying debate.

PS: The blog that these threads came from is Ogre's Politics & Views. He describes himself below:

Lifelong Republican, but the party has left me. I'm leaning towards the Constitution Party, but still considering Libertarians.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 01:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Oh man -- I've never seen such beautiful use of the word fuck in a long time. Apologies to those who are offended, but the article, despite it's over the top language, actually does have a couple good points. But mostly, it'll make any of you liberals feeling down in the gutter feel just a little better.

I suppose it's a guilty pleasure.

Though -- if anyone wants to argue the points (re-stated below), please feel free to do so:

• Blue states have the lowest divorce rate; Red states have the highest.
• Blue states pay for more federal taxes per capita than Red states do; Red states gain from those taxes per capita than Blue states do.
• Red states have the highest murder rates.

Sorry for the generalizations, but they were too good to pass up. If you don't like it, you can either ignore it or come up with some good counter arguments. But don't bother to flame, it's not welcome.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (1)

After an attempt at civil political discourse, I encountered a guy named Brian who posted recently this post. While I would love to try to understand the reasoning behind this man, I don't have the time or energy (or probably patience) to comprehend his post... at least online.

I can only hope that most of the 59,000,000+ people that voted for Bush don't feel this way.

(To be fair, I'm sure there is equally similar hate literature against all Christians and the "right wing nut jobs" -- I don't associate myself with those either)

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 09:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

My conservative friend who voted for a Democrat president for the first time ever just sent me an article in BusinessWeek giving an opinion on How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap.

You have to sign up for a free membership to read it, but I'll outline a few points below (I don't think I can copy the entire content):

The tax cuts have boosted the aftertax incomes of the top 1% of households, with average incomes in excess of $1,000,000, by 10% -- compared with a 2.3% increase for middle-income families with average incomes of $57,000 and a 1.6% increase for the bottom 20% of families, with average incomes of less than $17,000. The tax cuts for millionaires alone have reduced government revenues by $90 billion a year, more than the lost revenues from tax cuts for the 80% of families making less than $100,000.

I think the most telling quote is this:

As an intended consequence of the Bush tax cuts, the share of federal taxes paid by the bottom 80% of taxpayers has increased, while the share paid by the top 1% has dropped.

So for all those people that think Bush's tax cuts were for the poor -- think again.

When it comes to taxes, I tend to first jump to the flat tax idea. Why shouldn't everyone just be taxed 20 cents on the dollar? Isn't that fair?

But then I think about the fact that I make a lot more money than a McDonalds worker who is trying to improve his life. If he earns $15,000 a year and we take $3,000 -- that really hurts him. But if I make $200,000 (I wish!) and we take $40,000, I'm still doing really well. It just seems "right". As a successful person, I'm more than happy to offer up my taxed income in place of those that need their share to purchase essentials things like warm clothes and food.

The flip side of the argument is: what incentive is there to work to keep doubling your income if you don't actually double the money you take home? For example, going from $25K to $50K might net you 30% more relative income than going from $50K to $100K. So why should I bother to do it? I'll tell you why: because money isn't everything. People who want to kick ass will do so even if the rewards aren't monetary. Don't underestimate the value of power and self-satisfaction.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 09:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While wandering the blogosphere, I came across American Lady. I asked her to write about why she was a Republican and Bush supporter given Bush's feelings towards abortion as well as his dismantling of Title IX.

Instead of replying via the comments section in her blog, I'm hoping she and I can have civil political discourse via our personal weblogs.

Rather than getting bogged down in tearing apart each others entries line by line, I'd rather focus on the overall message in effort to get above partisan politics. I'll just jot down some overall thoughts after reading her first entry.

• Liberals: Liberals, such as feminists and civil rights advocates, have always been subjected to challenges. The perspective of history makes those early advocates look less silly than they did at the time. Remember, being a liberal is merely being someone who proposes alternative ideas to today's problems. Don't hate them for that, but instead try to learn something from them.
• Abortion: I personally do not approve of abortion, but I understand that current social situations have led to the need for it (cases of women committing suicide or dying from underground abortions are undeniable). What I would like is for us to eventually be able to reduce abortion to a place where it is used in only the most extreme circumstances (mother's health, rape, incest, etc). I also don't believe in any death penalty, including that rapist you mentioned. I just don't believe that any God would approve of it.
• Birth control: Similarly, I'd love for us to get live in a world where personal responsibility was the best form of birth control. But again, history has shown that we haven't lived in that world. Rather than saying, "sorry, you're screwed", I'd like to keep the option available but also focus on education and moral responsibility such that it isn't needed.
• Equal pay: I don't know of anyone that proposes women get paid the same as a man who is more qualified. But I do know people who wish for women and men to be paid the same, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, or anything else -- assuming that they are equally skilled. While you may feel like that fight of feminists is ridiculous now, always remember that people also thought it was ridiculous back when women didn't even have the right to vote.
• AIDS: We cannot simply dismiss AIDS as a problem due to irresponsible minors. It is an epidemic in Africa and is by leaps and bounds the most deadly transmitted disease in human history. We must find a solution both medically and socially.
• Patriotism: World War 2 was pretty clear cut: a country attacked us, so we attacked back at that country and the countries that were allied with that country. Today's world is not that clear cut. No country attacked us and our role in Iraq isn't so straight forward.
• Anti-Americanism: Don't fall in to the trap that people who question the policies of our government are ant-American. Political discourse is the greatest form of patriotism, as it keeps us honest. Just as I would never want a government entirely controlled by Democrats, I'd never want a country that all feels the same way. Difference of opinion should be valued and we should all try to learn from it (that's exactly why I'm engaging in these discussions with you).

Lorraine, you didn't discuss Title IX, but I can assume how you feel about it. I too believe in self discipline and hard work. I am 22 years old, I'm consider myself extremely successful thus far, I have a published book, and I am extremely happy. I definitely understand what hard work is all about. But I also have known people who have faced adversity much greater than I have. Some were able to overcome it, some were not. All of them worked as hard or harder than I have. I'd be more than happy to explain why I think hard work isn't enough and why government should help out (to some degree) to bring equality to all. But we can save that for another day.

Right now I'd like to ask you to discuss your feelings on gay marriage (after all, it is the big social issue of the day). The Republican platform is pretty clear where it stands on this issue, and I'd like to know if you feel the same way, and if so, why. You can read my previous posts on gay marriage here and here.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 06:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Economist.com | America's next president

With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd.

The summary of the article says it best:

Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks.

I was given this article by a friend of mine who is a self-described "flag waiving Republican" and just a few days ago planned to vote for Bush. Yet today I learned he will indeed, with a heavy heart, vote for Kerry. Before I learned about this, I sent him this email:

I just realized why you should vote for Kerry -- Congress! Let me
explain:

You worry that Bush will harm America more in foreign relations, but you want to support him because you believe Republicans will pursue Free Trade and direct the economy in the right direction. You fear that Kerry could set up an economic situation where your children will suffer economically.

But -- take in to account that Congress will be Republican-controlled (between 52 and 54 Senate seats will be Republican). With Kerry in office, you'd have the chance at restoring the image of America globally, but you'd have a safe bet that a Republican House and Senate would ensure that Kerry's policies wouldn't get too far and that Republican policies would get plenty of attention.

It seems to me that voting for Kerry is a great position for you. You get the best of both worlds. Besides, I'm not sure if Bush is really a conservative when it comes to the economy either. He's spent so much and has no plan to curb the costs, and his administration has overseen the largest increase in government jobs since in the last 50 years (I'm making that up, but it sure feels like it).

Anyone who is Republican out there and is having a hard time deciding between Bush and Kerry -- please think about what I said and read the article on Enconomist.com. I believe that it is possible for most US citizens to win this election if John Kerry is elected.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 02:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I finally convinced my brother to get off his butt and start writing again. And, not surprisingly (because he is a great writer), he put together a great piece on why John Kerry needs to win this election (hint, it's not about John Kerry at all).

Also, the Votemaster finally came out of the closet. I have copied the text of his entry below because the site is so overloaded (not surprisingly):

In a nutshell, because living abroad I know first hand what the world thinks of America and it is not a pretty picture at the moment. I want people to think of America as the land of freedom and democracy, not the land of arrogance and blind revenge. I want to be proud of America again. The U.S. media do a spectacularly bad job of informing Americans about what is going on in rest of the world. After Sept. 11, the U.S. could do no wrong. The entire world was on America's side. The invasion of Afghanistan was seen as completely justified. After all, the Al-Qaida leadership had to be decapitated. No one questioned that.

But Iraq was a completely different matter. Bush, Cheney, and Powell said they had conclusive proof that Saddam had WMD and could attack at any instant. The rest of the world wanted to see the proof. No proof was forthcoming. The answer was "trust us." We now know there were no WMD. There weren't even factories or labs to produce them. Saddam was an evil dictator with evil fantasies but he was no threat to America. Yet former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that the planning to invade Iraq began the day Bush was inaugurated. The administration simply misused the horror of Sept. 11 as a convenient excuse for doing something that was already in the works.

Let me tell you a short story. When I was in elementary school, the school was plagued by a bully. He was the biggest, strongest kid around and would beat up anyone he didn't like. We were all exceedingly polite to his face, but hated his guts behind his back. One day he was chasing some poor kid and he tripped and skidded a considerable distance, scraping his face on the rough asphalt of the playground. He was bleeding and in pain, screaming for help. But nobody came to help him. We all just walked away. George Bush is the world's playground bully. The world sees him--and by inference, America--as arrogant, self-centered, and mean. I spoke to Americans from dozens of countries at the DA caucus. Everyone told the same story--the world hates America. When talking to foreigners, I can tell them about the Bill of Rights or freedom or World War II, or whatever I want, but all they see is this big, stupid, arrogant, playground bully and a stolen election in Florida last time. I think America deserves better. I want America to be respected in the world again, and John Kerry can restore the respect America deserves.

Don't believe me that the world hates us? The Guardian, one of Britain's most respected newspapers, ran a column by Charlie Brooker last week ending with this paragaph: "On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed ..." Then it gets so bad that I refuse to quote it. Maybe Brooker is a nut and maybe it was a joke, but the fact that a serious newspaper would publish this piece shows how deep the hatred of George Bush runs. And this comes from our closest ally. Imagine what people in Spain or Indonesia or the Arab world think.

Now you might be thinking: Who the hell cares if America is the world's pariah, along with, say, North Korea and Zimbabwe? Well, I care, for one, and I think most Americans want to be respected for being a democracy rather than simply being feared because we have more nuclear weapons than anybody else. You can't make the world love you by running commercials full of snarling wolves on worldwide TV.

But there are some practical matters to consider as well. If you look at British and Canadian publications, such as The BBC, The Guardian, The Economist, and The Globe and Mail, you get a picture not colored by partisan electoral considerations. You sometimes wonder if they are reporting the same war as the U.S. media. The situation in Iraq has deteriorated very badly. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the war, mostly women and children. Well over 1000 American soldiers--many of them just kids who signed up for the National Guard and never expected to go to war--have been killed there and thousands more have been maimed for life. Americans are being killed daily in increasing numbers and unless there is a radical change, this will go on for years. Reenlistment rates are way down and manpower needs are way up. With a President Kerry, there is hope that other countries might contribute serious numbers of troops to help stabilize Iraq. With a second Bush administration they will just say: "You broke it, you fix it."

If other countries won't help out, Bush is going to be faced with an unpleasant choice: accept another Vietnam-type quagmire lasting for years or reinstitute the draft. There is no way we can win in Iraq with current troop levels. Something has to change. More of the same won't work. And it is an open secret that after the election, Bush is going to ask Congress for another $70 billion down payment on Iraq. Who is going to pay for it? We are.

In addition, the U.S. needs the help of other countries to gather intelligence about terrorists, cut off their funding, and track them down. Trouble is, when the playground bully comes asking for help, everyone just walks away. A new president who shows respect for the world instead of arrogance will get a lot more help. And we need help, believe me.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 10:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

(Note: I decided that between now and 11/2, I'm going to write once a day about the issues that are at stake locally and nationally. This is my first entry.)

So I was in LA this week on business. I spent much of my time in traffic to and from work, listening to ultra conservative AM talk radio. Much to my chagrin, when I got home I found the paper version of this in my mail box. Yay.

Curious I decided to watch the video that shows young, hip, diverse men and women explaining why they are voting Yes on Oregon State Proposition 36. Here is an overview of the video with the most interesting quotes I found (there are a LOT of them):

Open with cool rock music playing and a graphic design that looks frighteningly similar to the old Napster.com layout

"Is No really the way to show that we care?"

"A vote of No is not going to show to people that we care"

Of course not. Instead, let's show all those gays we care by saying they can't have what they so desperately want. Since we really care about them, maybe we should even try to force them to be straight.

"It spanned across 5,000 years of human history... you have to go back to Genesis..."

"Marriage is the most incredible thing that God ever created -- it's awesome"

Yes, and everyone knows that God should totally dictate political policy. Thomas Jefferson clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. It's not like he helped create the longest running democracy in the world.

"Gay marriages will be put on the same platform as heterosexual marriages and taught as equal to our children"

Gasp! You mean we would have to teach tolerance and equal rights to your... children???

"... 3 years old, she's going to be asked to make decisions, and understand concepts, and understand things that are probably beyond her... we want every opportunity to point her in the right direction"

Honestly though -- since when did "gay marriage" turn in to "let's teach three year olds what anal sex is"? This issue is about gay marriage, not about sex education laws. Feel free to propose a law that restricts that -- I'd probably even vote for it (sex ed was a waste of time). I can just see it now:

3 year old girl: "Daddy, why do Tom and Rick kiss on the mouth?"
Girl's father: "Well, honey, you see, Tom likes to put his erect penis in to Rick's anus and rub it back and forth vigorously. Now that gay marriage is legal, I am forced to propose this lifestyle an alternative option for you, dear. And since sexuality is nurture and not nature, you obviously will now become a homosexual"

"Homosexuals are subject to the exact same restrictions as heterosexuals"

Yes, but are heterosexuals subject to the exact same restrictions as homosexuals? Think about that one, Sherlock.

"They can do whatever they want -- they have equal rights. Don't let them tell you they don't have equal rights"

Wow. I didn't know that. The pamphlet I got that pointed me to this awesome website actually says: "There are legal ways gay and lesbian couples can get benefits married couples have. They're available through a will, medical power of attorney, insurance policies, etc. Even married people have to jump through hoops to get benefits." Exactly! That pesky marriage hoop. I'm sure gays would much rather get power of attorney when their partner just got run over by a semi-truck and a doctor needs a medical decision made immediately.

Fade out from rock music in to slow acoustic guitar, as some dillweed explains that this is not a civil rights issue

"Sexual preference is not something that you're born with"

"The idea of the gay gene has been totally rejected by the public. So you can't be born gay. This isn't a civil rights issue like the color of your skin."

Since when? Last I heard the issue was not medically decided either way. But I do know that all my friends that are gay never woke up one day and swore off the opposite sex. Rather, it was a feeling they had in them all their life and finally got the courage to be open with it. I guess they are liars.

Pan to black woman, explaining that her parents are appalled this is called a civil rights issue

"He grew up at a time when there was a lot of segregation... when they hear that this is being used as a civil rights issue... you can't compare the two"

I really liked the touch of not only using a black person, but a black woman to contrast the difference between being sexuality and skin color. I must admit, very smooth.

"Scripture can become illegal and outlawed"

"The next thing that is going to happen is that portions of the bible will be declared as hate literature"

Yes. Fortunately we can still read Catcher in the Rye to our three year olds. This wouldn't be the first time that historic documents were banned by those crazy liberals. Oh wait, yes it would.

"It's going to affect how we preach the bible and whether or not if I have to marry two homosexuals and maybe I could go to jail someday if I don't"

Well, if you're a state officer, then yes you'd have to marry them. But...

"If Measure 36 doesn't pass and your pastor refuses to marry a gay or lesbian couple, he could be setting himself up for a major lawsuit"

Oh!? A pastor??? Yeah, you'd totally get arrested or sued for that. Remember: in the US we don't respect your freedom to practice religion how you want.

"The opposition knows that if they can win in Oregon, it's likely they can win in other states"

Actually, on a serious note: this is true. Due to some wacky commerce supreme court decision like ten thousand years ago. Basically, it is quite possible that once one state allows it, others will have to recognize it.

"The opposition has recruited young adults to drop out of college and spend their time and energy to get people registered to vote"

BLAST those gays for forcing adults to drop out of college and throw away their lives for the pursuit of an obvious abomination. If only college students were adults that could make up their own minds...

"We cannot let 2% of the population redefine marriage"

Exactly. And it's a good thing we didn't let 15% of the population redefine what a whole person was a few years back, right?

Fade in to American flag with male vocals in the background proclaiming "I can believe", and then a whole section on how we can all make a difference

I actually want to talk about two things:

1. Activist Judges
2. Definition of Marriage

Activist Judges
The phrase "activist judges" really pisses me off. Somehow it became a Republican talking point and has spread like wildfire to the point where people actually think we live in a Democracy where the people's voice matters.

Hello? McFly? We live in a representative democracy, and a particularly good one at that. It is designed with a very complex and strict set of checks and balances between three branches of government.

To say that there are "activist judges" who would rather do politics than listen to the voice of the people is just stupid. The whole point of a judge, in the perspective of our checks and balances, is to overturn laws when they deem them to be unconstitutional or otherwise harmful for American citizens.

Fortunately for us, Mr Jefferson and his pals once again saved us from these evil activist judges by constructing a system in which our president can choose who the judges are (and our next President most certainly will!), and our elected congress can enact constitutional amendments that will tie the hands of those pesky judges.

Enough said. If you believe in activist judges, you need to take a civics class. Now, about activist mayors (Gavin Newsom, for instance)... that's another story.

On to point number 2:

Definition of Marriage

The other big claim going on with this whole issue is that gays and liberals are trying to redefine marriage. Well first of all, any language expert will tell you that languages, including the almighty English language, evolve over time. But more to the point, words have multiple definitions. Mr Webster tells me that...

1. ...
   1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
   2. The state of being married; wedlock.
   3. A common-law marriage.
   4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
2. A wedding.
3. A close union: "the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics" (Lloyd Rose).
4. Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

Now isn't that interesting. The first thing that springs to mind is that link I placed earlier in this post about the separation of church and state. Specifically, the "Lemon Test" requires that:

a law involving religion is constitutional if it has a secular (non-religious) purpose, is neutral toward religion (neither for or against it), and does not result in "excessive entanglements" between government and religion.

Specifically, laws must not be put in place that are neither for nor against a particular religion over another. Since there are clearly some religions that allow gay marriage, we already are restricting certain religions from practicing their beliefs. On top of that, I think it is pretty clear there is now "excessive entanglements" around this issue.

So clearly marriage, in terms of the state definition of it, has nothing to do with Adam and Eve right? Because if it did, that wouldn't be very "neutral", right? If that were the case, some judge might try to rule as unconstitutional or something silly like that.

OK, enough. For those of you who feel that gay marriage detracts from "the real thing" (a quote I read recently by some ultra conservatives in response to Mr. Bush's claim that civil unions might be OK), I suggest you learn to not let the private actions of others bother you so much. I mean, this is a free country after all, and people are going to do things that annoy you. So you better learn now to live with it, or, as many conservatives love to shout out: Love it out leave it.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Pretty much the only place I keep track of the presidential race is at the Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004. This site is great: non-partisian news and tracking of individual state polls. I highly recommend everyone check it out.

The "Votemaster" also has a lot of good advice about the election, including today's important note that the next president will also likely select a few of the next members of our Supreme Court. If it wasn't already clear: this election will be one of the most important in this country's history. So, as P-Diddy told me today when he called my house: Vote or Die

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 09:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Malcolm Gladwell wrote The Tipping Point, which was recommended to me by Auren, and I devoured it almost immediately. The other day my mom forwarded an article to me. It's long, but very interesting (though the Freudian analysis of the SUV is a little much). I asked her if she knew who wrote the article (it was copy-and-past by email) and that was when I learned that the author is Mr. Gladwell.

I highly recommend you read Big and Bad: How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety. It's truly amazing to see how twisted American consumer minds have become.

Personally, I will always drive a small, nimble car. Stick shift too, of course.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (2)

A few weeks ago, before SF opened the flood gates even wider with the gay marriage controversy, I had written up quite a long paper trying to break down every argument against gay marriage that I had heard up until now.

I decided against posting it primarily because it was mostly something I wanted to write for the value of being able to think through the issue. Last night I was thinking about it again, and I'm still unable to find one even remotely valid reason why gay marriage should be banned.

Interestingly enough, while thinking through this issue, I did come across the understanding why some people are so against affirmative action, given that there are many valid reasons why it should or could be illegal. I was quite happy to be able to do some hard thinking about a problem and come out with a new perspective and understanding on an issue (though, I still support affirmative action, at least in the form of taking race and background in to consideration).

But I'm still unable to find a single "valid" reason why it should be banned. I invite anyone who is against gay marriage to help me understand their viewpoint. Don't worry, I'm not trying to ask you to come up on stage so I can sandbag you. I merely want to understand the rational behind over 50% of my fellow citizens.

Here's a quick rundown of my "responses" to the various argument I've hard in the past:

* immoral - well, maybe that is the case, but our courts have shown in the past that there has to be serious and provable harm caused on society for them to outlaw immoral behavior (take pornography, for instance)

* sanctity of marriage - our divorce rates are incredibly high. Also, we let Brittney Spears get married in Las Vegas because she was drunk: marriage (under government at least) is not sacred.

* destroys the idea of a normal family - I don't know about you, but many of my friends have half brothers, step sisters, step fathers, etc. The normal family appears to have been long gone for many of us.

*those for civil unions but not marriage - if they have the same rights, shouldn't it be the same thing? This feels very akin to "separate but equal"

PS: The reason I brought up and thought about affirmative action when thinking through this issue is that both are appear to be forms of discrimination.

PPS: I give props to President Bush for doing what he thinks he needs to do (even though I think he's a bastard for doing it). At least he has to the guts to make a stand. Kerry and Edwards both piss me off by trying to have it both ways -- they want to still appeal to the 50%+ of the US population, but at the same time they don't want to alienate the 10% either. I can't stand it when Democrats try to sit on the fence like this. I want a president who can make a stand (but also make the "right" stand).

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (16) | TrackBacks (1)

This weekend I was at a work party where I ran in to Auren Hoffman. He made a comment that I hadn't blogged in a while, and so today I found something to talk about: his recent post comparing Howard Dean to Pets.com.

While I can't say that Mr. Dean is as silly as that stupid sock puppet (plus the puppet never got that craaaazy), I am amazed at how quickly he went from 60 to 0, and Kerry from 0 to 60. The part that interests me the most is how the media coverage shifted so dramatically. I don't know if it was public opinion tipping the media, or the media tipping the public opinion, but some changed almost overnight.

In the last few weeks, every news story I've read says that Kerry is getting votes because voters believe he has "best chance of defeating Bush". What drives me nuts is that it is almost the same quote over and over again. In fact, news reports that just build off of a previous report seem way too common these days. It makes me wonder: how easy would it be for a news story to get "out of hand" and begin to make news rather than report it?

For example, CNN's general manager said yesterday that they overplayed Dean's famous "scream" (which, by the way, I've heard the various remixes but never have seen the original thing). What is to prevent a single seed of a news story from sprouting in to a chain reaction, like in the case of Kerry's "reason for winning" or Dean's crazy red-faced scream? It really seems all too easy for the media and the public to get carried away in what Auren called a "feedback loop".

Now, even though I am a Democrat, I want to make it clear that I don't think anyone in the media (for the most part) is pushing any political agenda. I'm not saying people were "out to get Dean" or that Kerry has some evil empire working behind the scenes. I am not suggesting that there a right-wing slant in the media (nor a left-wing). I'm merely using this political situation that is unfolding so quickly before our eyes as an opportunity to examine how these news stories came to be.

This situation is more unique that previous current event new stories, primarily because of the dramatic shift in perceived public opinion as portrayed in the news. Usually these mutations happen over months or even years, but this one happened in days. If I didn't have about 10 million better things to do, I'd be curious to see what reading day-by-day recaps of the first primaries would reveal in the attitude and writing, including where that first seed was planted that led to the idea that Kerry has the "best chance" of defeating Bush. Did the news story cause the polls to change, or were the polls truly just the news story? Or is it a little bit of both and the media has always been that way?

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So I woke up this morning and looked at the top news so far. What I found was that the Supreme Court is holding up the right of the government to withhold the names of detainees considered to be threats to our national security. I had meant to bring this stuff up earlier after I saw Ross Mayfield object to the Patriot Act II, but it was this latest news that really pissed me off. (By the way, check out the various comments and trackbacks on Ross's blog, there is some good discussion there)

"It is better to let ten guilty men go free than one innocent man stay locked up". Yes, it's clich�. Yes, it's not actually realistic. Yes, Jonah Goldberg does make some good points with regards to various clich�s like that one. Take away the numbers (10 vs. 1, 3000 vs. 19, whatever) and the underlying principle: we should err on the side of protecting the innocent than locking up the guilty. Well, duh, even conservatives, like Goldberg, understand that.

So where is the disconnect between the left and the right on this issue? Is it disagreement on the numbers? I don't think so. Numbers are just too blind. For example, would Goldberg let go one guilty man in order to save one innocent man? Would I? What about letting go all the innocent men in prison in exchange for one guilty man? What if the man is Osama Bin Laden? My point is, numbers don't mean shit, and it's not a black and white line. The clich� is merely there to express the underlying principle that our country needs to continue to uphold. The Supreme Court is the one that is supposed to uphold these principles and closely weight state power with the rights of the individual and decide what is best. That is their responsibility -- and no one said it was easy.

However, it's not just this simple. Those defending Bush/Cheney's War On Terror (or more specifically, the tactics such as the Patriot Act and this latest court ruling) will argue that it truly is in our national interest to not release those names. Really? Who told you that? Dick Cheney? George W. Bush? Why should I trust them? This is coming from a drunk driver (statistics show that by the time a drunk driver is caught he's usually done it up to a 100 times before) and a man who might have as much oil money clogging up his arteries as there is in his bank accounts. Are these people really looking out for my interests?

So the next question is: who would I trust to make that decision? Honest Abe Lincoln (who, by the way, was born on Feb 12th, my birthday, so I'm very partial to Mr. Lincoln)? Clinton? Dean? God no. These people are most likely just as out of touch with my interests as the fat cat Republicans. I know, I'm starting to sound an awful lot like a hippie Green right about now. Yikes. Either way, my point is there are very few people I would trust to actually make this decision.

I'd like to get back to why withholding these names is in our best interest. Can someone explain to me why that is the case? Call me naive, but exactly what harm would it cause? Suppose Osama learns that half of a sleeper cell in San Diego is actually detained. OK, so now what does he do? He either does nothing (no harm there) or he has to react. Reaction requirements movement and communication. These things are exactly what the CIA is looking for in order to pinpoint him. Yes, there is the chance he might actually react, replace the cell, and bring down 9/11 part II on us. There is also a chance that his reaction might be just what we need to find and capture him.

But which is more likely? Are the odds 10:1? 3000:19? At what point do we decide that yes, the names should be released, or no, the names are too sensitive to give out. The problem is that none of us will know. And I don't just mean "the public" -- I mean the people who even have the complete set of information. The White House, CIA, FBI -- whatever. There is no way to know the odds, just as there is no way to know the number of guilty people to let go to save an innocent man. If there is no way, then what do we do? Fortunately, it's still a binary choice and so there's only a 50% chance of making the wrong decision. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court made the wrong decision today.

Why? Because if we don't know concrete numbers, if there is no way to make a truly informed decision, then the only thing we can fall back on is the underlying principles our country is supposed to be standing on. In the entire United States history, every single time we've preemptively judged or acted, we've faced serious consequences. Bush et al do not deny that today's War on Terror is a preemptive strike. On its face it doesn't sound too bad. Hell, for months after 9/11 I was ready to enlist in the military, fly out to any old Middle Eastern country, and kill anything that moved. But then again, I was pissed off.

Then I cooled down. Then I remembered my history classes in high school and college and I couldn't recall one situation where a preemptive action was viewed in a positive light. It is said hindsight is 20/20. In fact, the only thing certain is the past. No one knows what the future holds. So if that is the case, and if I were in Vegas placing a bet, I'd put all my money on the outcome of this War on Terror as being bad. I'd do this not only because I personally believe it is wrong, but also because the hard facts and previous experience have shown that this kind of action turns out badly.

So for those of you thinking, "God this commie is out of his mind, the government is protecting YOU", you might want to read your history books again. Though it took years for this change to happen, laws like the Alien & Sedition Acts were eventually overturned and later Justices would be quoted as going so far to say that unless there was "provable immediate danger" (I'm paraphrasing) to the country, an individual's rights should never be trumped by the state. I don't see any immediate danger. I don't see anyone giving me any evidence. In fact, the only evidence I've been shown so far on this War on Terror has so far been proven to be either completely false (a lie) or at the very best utterly misleading. Weapons of mass destruction? And don't give me that "even-if-there-aren't-weapons-Saddam-was-a-bad-guy argument"... sure he was. He also was supported by the United States. And more people are dying due to AIDS and civil wars in Africa every year than have ever died in Iraq. It's a complete joke to try to say we're actually interested in the freedom and rights of everyone. No, we're interested in our vested interests, and Africa has no value to us (yet... there are some big oil pipelines opening up on parts of the coast). I'm OK with being concerned only about ourselves (I suppose I'm a selfish person). OK, sorry about that little tangent.

Anyway, I'm pissed off about today's news. We continue to move in the direction of a police state with the main weapon used against us being fear. I'm not afraid of some crotchety old man in Afghanistan, and I'm not afraid of another terrorist attack where I live. Shit happens, I'll either deal with it and live or I'll be dead. I'm much more worried about a far less transparent (and much more concerning) situation where my phone can be tapped, my computer bugged, and even my body locked away -- all without any reason. Just as individual people have to be help accountable, our government should be held as accountable (more even, given the power they wield). Without accountability, our checks and balances are lost and the very principle on which this country was founded is lost.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

A few weeks back I ran across the story of John Titor (here and here). Anyway, I read through some of the posts and kinda chuckled at the absurdity of it all, but in the back of my mind I had this haunting feeling that this hoax had a remarkable amount of truth to it.

Now, don't take me wrong -- I don't believe the story one bit. But it was amazing that while reading this story I found myself seeing parts of the story not as farfetched as one might assume a story about a time traveler from 2036 sent back to 1975 to retrieve an IBM 5100. Particularly eerie were his "predictions" of trouble in the mideast and political struggles related to them in the United States. I can't help but feel that this next election is going to be critically important for the sake of the safety and wellbeing of the entire world. And I'm not talking about the desire to continue to make the rich get richer under the false precept that we must rid the world of all terrorists (anyone who doesn't drive Ford or Chevy, belong in the NRA, or say misunderestimate).

Anyway, back to the reason I was prompted to post this original. I titled the entry Mad Cow purely because I remembered John Titor claiming that Mad Cow would become a huge problem in the US. And then this week, what else hits our beef markets... none other than bovine spongiform encephalopathy (say THAT three times fast!) Like I said, I don't believe that anyone traveled back from 2036 to pick up and IBM mainframe, but this guy clearly knew how to strike in to the fears of his readers. Maybe more than he possible knew given the current political scene we're faced with in Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea, and most importantly, the United States.

I recently finished reading Dude Where's My Country and I couldn't help but get super motivated by Michael Moore's message to do whatever it takes to keep Bush from being reelected next year. I truly, truly believe he has caused far more harm to this country than anyone else, including Bin Laden (I expect to get quite a bit of slack for that one... feel free to write me or comment).

I'm currently reading Treason, which I must say is a terrible book. Not because I don't agree with anything Ann Coulter says, but because she writes so poorly. The first few pages of the book are filled with such venom (and NO humour!) that I could barely stand to finish the first chapter. However, out of respect for various points of view, I plan to complete this book so I can fully understand the issues both the left and right cannot seem to ever agree on. Most of all, I'm searching for understanding, though maybe there are better books that can offer that without being so utterly hateful.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 03:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (14)

My book is now shipping at Amazon! I'm guessing that means it is available pretty much anywhere now, or will be very soon. If you haven't ordered yet, that's OK... it "usually ships within 24 hours"! (Sorry, I've been waiting for the Availability section of Amazon to change for weeks now)

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 01:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

My mother just sent this article to me:

t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | Anyone But Bush

Without getting too much in to a political diatribe (I know most of my 3 whole loyal readers are here for technology rants, not politics), I pretty much agree with everything said there. I am a democrat, but mostly because of the social issues they support. I hate to admit it, but I am probably pretty similar to Arnold in my political views -- except for the fact that he voted for prop 187.

So I don't hope Bush doesn't get re-elected because he's not a Democrat (God forbid Lieberman became President, he's probably just as bad!) -- but more because he's a slime ball. What saddens me the most about Bush's term is that it has made very painfully obvious how gullible and, dare I say it, stupid the majority of US citizens are. In my ignorance, I truly thought we were past that.

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Looks like the Democrats (Davis or Bustamente, who knows) will continue to run our state since the Republicans can't get their act together. Good news!

Posted by Patrick Lightbody at 12:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)