Prop 8 and the Aftermath

Gay Marriage is perhaps the issue of our time. In California, where the major gay marriage battle took place, Prop 8 passed reversing the state Supreme Court ruling from the Spring. In my short lifetime* I have never seen a political issue that raised such a ruckus. I knew that no matter how the vote came out emotions would continue to flare. I did not expect what has since happened. The numerous protests have far exceeded my expectations.

It appears obvious that the emotions for the pro-gay marriage crowd are more greatly stirred up than the opponents. Had the vote gone the other way, I doubt the protests would have been so numerous and well attended. Candlelight vigils would be more likely with lots of punditry and plans for potential legal changes. I don't see this as an issue of one side being better more mature, but actions fueled by different emotions. From what I can tell the pro-gay marriage proponents see this as the civil rights struggle of their lifetime. On the other side, the opponents see themselves as protecting something that's sacred to them. If pushed into the right corner, they could act the way that the pro-gay marriage supporters have.

Many of the pro-gay marriage folks blame the passage of Prop 8 on the LDS church due to it's strong support of the measure. While the LDS church did provide a great deal of man power and financial support (via individual member contributions). The LDS presence in California is rather small and not near enough to sway an election, at least as far as voter support is concerned. The efforts for the LDS members certainly had an impact, but that's not unusual. It's common for people who believe in a cause to put in a little bit extra to support public policy they believe is right. Being better organized is not a crime.

While I believe the efforts of the faith groups in California did much to pass the proposition, the No-on-8 people hurt themselves as well. They committed the worst public relations nightmare...ON PURPOSE. Of course they probably did not think it would be a problem, and I'm willing to be that many still don't considering what's happened in the weeks since. Stealing lawn signs, while somewhat innocuous, is still a major problem. It's not so much that it happened, it's the scale on which it happened. Both sides were party to this particular indiscretion, however, it appears that the No-on-8 group perpetrated this on a grander scale. Combine that with the vandalism that occurred, and you have a serious problem.

The vote on November 4th did not quell the emotions, and may have insighted even more anger. I haven't heard as much about vandalism, though I've heard of threats against supporters of Prop 8. The most prominent might be Scott Eckern, the former Art Director from the California Musical Theater. Eckern donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and was essentially forced out of his job. Now boycotts are planned for all things Utah, even the Sundance Film Festival, which is interesting since Robert Redford likely would have opposed Prop 8 (I don't know for sure).

Proponents of gay marriage continue to do themselves a disservice by the public behavior that's making the news.  Rarely is such behavior justified.  It continues to damage the reputation of the position.  This group would be better served by taking the high road, rather than submit to the basest emotions that's enslaved them.  Granted the displays are largely performed by a minority, but not enough voices from the camp at large have risen to condemn the behavior.  If there are voice's that have not been loud enough.  If the gay community wants to be taken seriously and people listen to them, they much reach out.  Being angry and passing blame will continue the most damaging factor surrounding this issue.  People who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to due so without retaliation.  I support the rights to boycott, but I do not support intimidation and vandalism.  That amounts to totalitarianism and violates the spirit of the rights these folks claim to be after.

The real solution is to privatize marriage.  Marriage is a religious ceremony and should remain so.  We would be better served to have the domestic partnership or civil unions for all at the state level, and let the religions take care of the marriage aspect.  I think that two adults should be able to have the same rights as a married couples.  This is especially important when it comes to visitation rights and medical decisions.  This is more than about marriage.  This can cover cases of an elderly parent and a child where the child is responsible for the care of the elderly adult.  I think there are a lot of situations where these rights can come in very handy for the benefit of society.

Another kicker on the marriage front is the issue of polygamy.  So far the gay marriage supporters have not made effort to gain equality for those small towns in southern Utah and northern Arizona.  If they did that, they'd actually be consistent when they say they are just looking for equality.  I know there are issues in some of the compounds where underage marriages are forced, but looking at things from the side of consenting adults you could make the same case the gay marriage supporters are making.  I can probably guarantee that most of them would oppose the idea.

The issue of polygamy left me thinking about the issue in a different way.  If people marry polygamously in this country, they go to jail (in theory at least).  What if gay people get married, do they go to jail?  Gay marriage is simply not recognized.  Why the inconsistency in the 21st century?  Shouldn't we just say that polygamous marriages are not recognized.  Perhaps you could fine people if they are able to sneak one into the legal system, then just annul it.  I guess it's the cohabitation thing that gets people into trouble, but is the government going to arrest some guy that's living with multiple women who are merely girlfriends?  I doubt it.  Maybe it's just one of those imponderables.

That's my take on the aftermath.

* Contrary to what my wife says, I still consider myself relatively young.

American Talib*

Last night I listened to a speech by Frank Lindh (it's an hour with the Q&A at the end, but well worth it), the father of John Walker Lindh, given at the Commonwealth Club of California**.  His speech was given about two years closer to the incident.  I rarely hear anything at all about John Walker Lindh now.

I remember the pictures of John Walker Lindh when this hit the news.  Knowing his age at the time, I just hoped that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  After listening to the speech by Frank Lindh, I still lean toward that conclusion.  My knowledge of the situation is limited, because I haven't studied it very deeply.  I am glad that he was given the reduced 20 year sentence, because from what I remember and from what Frank Lindh states in his speech, the media*** as a body were ready to hang this guy.  Politicians weren't too nice either.  I think if they could have held a public execution at Yankee Stadium, you'd have a sell-out crowd and some massive profits for scalpers.

In the chaos that emerged around 9/11, it's was hard to really get a bearing on what was going on.  I remember waking up to 107.5 The End thinking it was a prank.  I was half asleep and couldn't make out everything they were saying.  I finally tried another station the second or third time the alarm went off and realized something was really going on.  I had to go to another apartment, because we were TV free, to actually see the footage.  I think the events for the next several months are similar what I experienced that morning.  John Walker Lindh became an easy target due to the inflamed emotions at that time and many did rush to judgment.

Frank Lindh portrays his son as a sincere seeker of Islam; somebody who had a deep connection with the religion and wanted to serve the nobel goals it espoused.  His reason for being in Afghanistan was to help people he felt needed his assistance.  His original destination was Pakistan, but after being there for a time, he joined a cause he felt was nobel.  Frank indicates that John had support for going to Pakistan, but went to Afghanistan without informing his family (Frank stated that had John contacted him about it, he would have said no).

I am left with the question as to why John did not discuss going to Afghanistan with his parents, where he's had a practice of doing so.  Was it because he knew what they would say and he felt strongly about going?  Did he know he was getting involved in something he knew he shouldn't be?  Was he dragged into something without time to think or act?  From the speech it's not entirely clear, what the exact story is.  We may have to wait before we get the full story of what happened.

Frank gives a vivid accounting of what happened based on what he knows and does a good job of setting up the historical context of the events.  Even though he criticizes the media, he acknowledges the motivation and spirit of the time the events took place.  It's possible that had John Walker Lindh been found at a later date, the media would have handled things differently, but still with severity.

My biggest issue with the speech came during the Q&A session.  A few questions were asked containing the implied assumption the John was a terrorist, or at least along those lines.  Frank seemed to tackle setting that straight more than answering the question.  I don't have a problem with him correcting what may be a misconception, but the way he did so came across a little too defensive for my taste.  Overall the speech was interesting and I could tell this was told by a passionate father who cares deeply for his son.  The question is whether that passion and love has clouded his judgment.

I do hope that the story told by Frank Lindh is accurate.  It's hard to say for sure.  Considering one statement John made in an email regarding the Cole bombing where he stated that the US ship being in the harbor was considered an act of war and it was justified.  That statement isn't that helpful without the proper context.  John might be better of to remain in prison.  I think that it will be hard for him to earn a living and some nut will try to pull something.  That would be tragic, if he is innocent of being a traitor.

* I know the common way to say it is American Taliban, but that's plural and John Walker Lindh is only one person.

**You can access the Commonwealth Club of California on iTunes as a podcast.  The podcast is the regular weekly radio show.  They invite speakers from all areas and interests (Naomi Klein, PJ O'Rourke, Anthony Bourdain, etc...).  It's a worthwhile podcast to check out.  I recommend that along with the Authors @ Google series that can be found on You Tube.

*** According to Lindh there were numerous headlines and articles condemning his son.  I couldn't find much, except for place that charge money.  Maybe more to be updated.

Pregnant Man?

This should be filed under "Why is this news?".  If it were an actual man who got pregnant, that would be news.  If it's a woman who had a sex change, it stupid.  It's not miraculous or amazing, or newsworthy when somebody gets pregnant when they were born with the proper equipment.  If a hermaphrodite gets pregnant, that's more newsworthy than this nonsense.  The attention this story gets has more to do with some people's fascination with oddities of people than of anything truly amazing.  From what I've seen of the trailers, Barbara does ask some direct questions.  The fact that she performs the interview at all is a little disappointing.  I have no personal ill will toward the transgender people.  I don't doubt there is something very complicated going on with them.  I can't imagine going through that kind of surgery if somebody is just mildly confused about their identity.  I'm pretty sure that this kind of issue runs pretty deep and it's something I probably will never come close to understanding.

That said, the story does not deserve that much attention, at least stop referring to Thomas as a pregnant man.  It's just not the same.  

Obama-nation

I ceratainly see Obama's election to the presidency of the U.S. is historic.  I don't consider myself a fan of Obama, but as I stated earlier, I will give him a chance.  My differences with him are largely philosophical, but I like him personally.  Most of my gripes deal with the public image and deification of Obama.  This clip is from Gene Healy of the Cato Institute and he's expressing himself right after Obama was declared the winner.  I do agree with him in some ways, though I do think that he comes across as too cynical.  I want to live with as little government involvement in my life as possible.  I don't like The way that Healy basically roots for Obama's failure as a president.

I have mixed feelings.  I don't want the government follow the track it's been on for the last 8 years for sure.  I hope that Obama can do some good things to correct that and at least restore some dignity to the Office of the President.  Obama comes across as a person who is willing to listen and to learn.  He does have the chance to be this era's Abraham Lincoln.  As Dan Carlin states on this edition of his podcast (follow the link - it's about an hour, but it's really good), Obama will be tempted by the powers that Mr. Bush is leaving him.  The question is whether he can keep his nose clean.  I'd really admire the guy if one of the first things he did in office was to undue the Bush policies of wiretapping and such.  I do think that Obama has to be an extraordinary president.  It won't be enough to be better than Bush.  Homer Simpson could do that with a can of Duff Beer in his hand.

The most important thing about Obama winning the White House is the mental barrier that's been torn down.  He's the first legitimate black candidate to ever run for the presidency.  I don't think it taking so long is a just result of racism, maybe more a hangover from previous years of racism.  I think that it boils down to him being a candidate who appealed to more than just one segment of the population.  I don't think it would have worked in the '70's or '80's, but I think the '90's could have seen a black president, had the right person came a long.  It's easy to have a long list of white presidents, when they are virtually the only ones who run.  The mental barrier that Obama may have broken I think opens the door for people of other races to run.  There's already talk of the Louisiana governor running in 2012, who happens to be of Indian descent.  It may be a little gimmicky at this point, but I think it's good that this is happening.

Obama's victory, plus Hillary's campaign, changed things for women as well.  Sarah Palin could have backed things up a little bit.  The field is more open for women, though I still think that it will be harder for a woman in this country than for a black man.  I think it requires more of a paradigm shift, because of the way that our political system runs.  Hillary's run does show though that's it's not just a pipe dream, as much as I dislike her (maybe I did a little too much Rush in the early '90's).

What's with the McCain People

I didn't really like any candidate this  election.  I bashed on Obama, more the status bestowed by the media, extensively.  I don't have as much to say about McCain.  Since he was behind most of the way, it's hard for the media worship to get to me.  Why do people boo the announcement?  Did the Kerry people boo in 2004?  Do these people not understand how Bush screwed things up so that McCain didn't have a chance?

McCain The Pain

I've expressed some of my beefs dealing with Obama.  Most of which center on the messiah-esque aura given him by the media.  As a third party voter, probably for life, I have issue with McCain.  They are not as numerous as those for Obama, due in large part to the fact that the media wasn't in love with McCain the way they were for Obama.  I might feel a bit different if we got Fox News.

My first beef with McCain, and this goes for most of the Republican candidates, was the way he blew off Ron Paul during the debates.  I consistently referred to Ron Paul as the Al Sharpton of the Republican party.  He had no chance, so he felt safe to speak his mind.  He on occasion said some nutty things, but he also made valuable points.  The Republicans treated his comments with such disdain, when it appears they didn't quite understand his points.  They seemed to prefer throwing down the straw-man, because dealing with Paul's points would take too much effort.  For all his short-comings, Paul added some needed kick into the Republican race.

My other issue with McCain is his choice of Palin.. This was obviously a last ditch attempt to woo some voters.  It backfired, because McCain failed to consider the choice deeply enough.  I think he figured he was going to lose, so he might as well go out big.  Unfortunately he goes out looking somewhat foolish.  He would have been better served by selecting a running-mate who had better credentials and gone out with some honor.  I also feel a different choice would have provided him a more credible shot overall.  It became hard to take his campaign too seriously with Palin on board.  I don't doubt my opinion is somewhat colored by the SNL skits, but that's part of the picture.  I don't really care that much about the stuff being revealed post-campaign.  To me that's just dirt that doesn't matter that much.

That's pretty much it.  It's certainly easy for a cynical person like me to get more annoyed at the popular candidate.  It's probably as self-esteem issue, but I like it that way.

More on Obama

Actually this isn't so much about Obama as it is about the media adoration of Obama, AKA Obamania.  It's definitely swelled with last night's victory over McCain.  There are only a couple things things that irk me.  When people fawn over other people, I am deeply troubled.  There isn't a single person who can solve our problems and to put somebody on a pedestal like they are the messiah who will save his people does a disservice to the citizens and the object of adoration.  Granted, this election is historic and has unleashed powerful emotions from many people, understandably so.

My first issue is about the historic-ness of the event.  It is historic, though I don't like how it's been framed by some.  I keep hearing on the news how great it is we finally elected a black president.  The way it is said, it's as if we've had a black candidate in every election since the mid '60's and America finally had the moral courage to take a chance on a black man.  Obama is the first legitimate black candidate EVER!  Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made their efforts in the past, but they never got very far.  They struggled with the fact that they were running to be black presidents.  Their appeal was mainly to black voters.  Obama reached out to all voters.  He didn't run on a 'black platform'.  There's also Alan Keyes from the Republicans, but like I said in an earlier post, I think he's nuts (the real kind).  The election is historic and I'll go with that; I just don't like the references to Obama breaking the black ceiling.  I know some voted based on his color, but that didn't carry him.  I think he really connected with a lot of people.  I don't fall in line with his philosophy and that will be an issue (that infamous spread the wealth comment just doesn't work for me).

I'm tired of being shown footage of other places in the world.  I know that people in these places may feel a connection with Obama.  It just seems that the news agencies are trying to show the US that we made the right decision, because these foreign folks are celebrating.  Honestly, I don't want their approval.  We were voting for our president, not theirs.  Getting it right is up to us to decide.  It's that I mind knowing that some people around the world are happy about the outcome, but it's being played way too much.  Along with that, I'm tired of seeing the news people near tears.  Too many are treating this like it's a holy communion.  It's an election; historic as it is.  Before we start celebrating too much, let the guy get in office and do something first.  The history doesn't count for another 20 years when there's some perspective.

That's my final post on Obama, at least for a while.  I'm not trying to be down on the man.  I do want to give him a fair chance, though philosophically we are divided.  I certainly doubt the country is going to fall apart.  It will hard to beat Bush at his own game.  I have a natural repulsion to things/people gaining overwhelming popularity.  It took me until 1.5 months ago to finally get an iPod.  I'm sure it's a personality disorder.  I will discuss McCain in a little bit.  I have less to say, because he spent so much time behind in the polls and the media didn't fawn over him that much.  His public image couldn't get under my skin as much as Obama.  I had less feeling that McCain was getting shoved down my throat.

Meet El Presidente

So we now have a new president.  I must admit I'm a little POed that the race got called before I even got back from Ryan's birthday party.  It wasn't much of a surprise.  I haven't decided how I feel overall.  I'd be torn if either candidate had won.  I guess that's the price when I prefer to not be part of an in crowd.  I think overall Obama can do a good job, but there are things that have bugged me for a while.  Most of it is the aura that seems to surround Obama.

1.  The Rock-star status he's been given.  I wrote earlier that he's treated like the messiah returning in glory to redeem the people.  I remember when he spoke in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention.  He was this big deal for not accomplishing that much.  Not that I'm in position to become a senator or anything.  He was just a state senator running for the senate against...NOBODY!!!!  I know Alan Keyes got in the race...LATE, plus that man is certifiably nuts.  To me, that's not an accomplishment that deserves the acclaim that appeared to be given to Obama.

2.  The Oprah endorsement is an issue, not that it's necessarily Obama's fault.  Oprah kind of bugs me as it is, because she promotes things like 'The Secret'.  She generally does a poor job of taking the role of Devil's Advocate, much less bringing on voices that would adequately question the notion.  If I were in Obama's position, I'd probably take the Oprah endorsement.  I'm really just bugged when it comes to Oprah, because she's never endorsed a candidate before, then all of a sudden Obama is this magical candidate.  Let me just say, if he'd been white (as opposed to half-white) Oprah would have passed over him.  As Steve Salerno has stated on his SHAM blog, this is considered racism (the idea of voting for Obama because he's black - you'll have to read the comments to get to this point).  I think Oprah would have gone with the Dem anyway, but the endorsement would have been held back.  Personally, I'm OK with Oprah endorsing Obama in a general sense, though the celebrity endorsement thing bugs me on all sides, but that's another story.  Basically, I'm bugged by the BS of Oprah trying to come off that it's not race and Obama is some transformative figure.  Maybe I'm just cynical, but that really set me BS detector off.

3. Obama does give me the same feeling I get when I see Kevin Trudeau on TV.  I think I'm just distrustful when people sound a little too positive about things.  It just doesn't seem natural to me.  A lot of it is just politics, because politicians speak in ways that make listening to their speeches like reading horoscopes.  They sound specific, but they're really general and can be applied to just about anything.  Change we can Believe in vs. Country First.  To me that's all the same and meaningless.

Overall, I'm going to give Obama a fair chance.  He does seem to have the personality where he's be open to outside information, certainly way more than Mr. Bush has been.  I think McCain would have been too closed, much more like Bush, in that area.  I think I would trust McCain's decisiveness in a crunch over Obama.  Maybe we should let Prop 8 fail, then Obama and McCain can move to Cali and have a kid who will balance these traits perfectly.  Obama's pick of Biden as a running mate was brilliant.  I wanted to give Biden a chance in the primaries, but he sunk to fast.  Obama certainly showed wisdom in his choice, where McCain showed complete desparation.

Kim asked me this weekend, for the umpteenth time (since dodge the question every time), if I could only vote for McCain or Obama, who would it be.  Usually I said something like 'I have more than two choices'.  I finally gave her a real answer and told I'd probably go with Obama.  I still stand by that and hope for the best.  I still tend to think that we're in for a one-term presidency.  We've had two 2-termers in a row and with the current situation, there's a lot on the table with extremely high expectations.

Being a third-party person, it makes it easier to accept the winner of the race.  I am really bugged by those of either party who act like the winner is not their president if he came from the opposing party.  Even if McCain had won, I'd still support him as president.  I'd piss and moan about some things, as I will with Obama.  I think I'd do the same had Bob Barr won.  I think complainers like me are necessary to keep us in from turning into dodos.

I do think the republicans made a mistake selecting McCain.  I don't think the field was that great on either side, but the republicans were pretty bad.  I wish that Ron Paul hadn't been so nutty.  He injected some great points into the debates and it's unfortunate that the other candidates didn't take some of those point more seriously.

As an aside, a fella in my toastmasters club called Palin as the running mate about a month before the announcement.  Very prophetic, if you ask me.

Anyway.  Cheers for Obama.

The Logic of Life

I finally got around to finishing another book.  It's only taken 6 weeks or so.  This last book written by Tim Harford comes from the pop-economics genre that's rising in popularity.  This genre tries to apply economic theory to other areas of life to explain why certain things happen.  In a lot of ways, it's the economics of human psychology.  This is a follow-up to Harford's previous book The Undercover Economist.  The major premise of The Logic of Life centers on the belief that people are rational.  Harford defines people who are rational as those who respond to incentives, whatever the incentive may be.

To start, Harford is a very good writer.  The topics that he covers could easily put the reader to sleep, but Harford has a writing style that keeps the subject matter interesting and meaningful.  He's obviously passionate about economics, but he is able to combine is passion with economic knowledge and the ability to communicate.

The book looks at similar kinds of things as Freakonomics, by Steven Levitt.  The highlight of the book was the chapter on marriage.  He shows how marriage has changed based on economic theory.  He even makes a case for divorce.  He doesn't necessarily advocate divorce, rather he shows how women have become empowered by work and education, and easier divorce.  This has resulted in making divorce less treacherous for women now than in the past.  Harford believes this has ultimately led to declines in domestic violence, as the woman has an out from a marriage.  Specific situations may vary, but the trend appears to exist.

Another interesting chapter is about rational racism.  This isn't where people consciously hate blacks, but where companies tend to overlook resumes of people with African-American sounding names.  This is caused by a few factors.  First, the hight number of resumes that many companies get, makes it difficult to do deep read of each resume.  Because, experience tends to show that folks with the African-American names tend to not have the required skills, generally due to lack of education, the recruiters know that a resume with a given name likely won't work.  One reason that it continues, is that it works.  It's not that it's a good thing, but companies can afford to discriminate because it doesn't affect they're competitiveness, where blatant racism (hating blacks) would.  The rational racism still allows them to get the right mix of minds.

Support for this comes from a computer simulation where students were assigned colors (green or purple) to be employees with other students as 'employers'.  The employees were to get jobs and the employers were to hire them.  Employers were to select students based on a cyber-die that were rolled for a 'test score'.  The employees had the option to get an education before each test.  Getting an education weighted the die so they had a higher probability for a hight score.  Employers were penalized for selecting employees who did not get an education.  In the end, the one color became discriminated against, because the employers learned, that color had a lower tendency to get the education.  Those employees in turned became less likely to get the education, because they knew they were being discriminated against because of their color.  It became a cycle, that at first was merely random.

Overall this is a good book.  It's one that I'll likely pick up again to reread and gain more insight.  I definitely think that better understanding economics in general, is a good idea.