Dad (Brett)
All around rockstar geek. Brett enjoys his job as a Clinical Data Manager (helping research medical breakthroughs at Celgene); in his time off he enjoys reading books, watching movies, and learning new tricks on his camera and in Photoshop. He absolutely adores his wife and 2 daughters.
Mom (Erin)
Complete supermom. Erin loves her job as a Youth Field Researcher (aka 'mother'); in her plentiful spare time (ha!) she enjoys sleeping, re-reading Twilight or Harry Potter, and cuddling with Brett.
Aeriana ('Wacko', 'Princess')
Hybrid Angel/Devil. Aeriana loves her mommy and daddy, each of whom she loves to test at times and pretend innocence at others. A veritable sponge, Aeriana wants to do anything she sees an adult doing; she loves babies and especially adores her little sister, taking great care of her every need.
Zoe Jean ('Stinker', 'Cutie')
Growing fast, Zoe wants to be just like her big sister. Very goal oriented, she'll find a way to get that toy she's been looking at. She loves her pacifier and can't help but snuggle up to her blanket. Zoe is as relaxed as they come, she just loves chillin' out and watching TV.
Recently the Boy Scouts of America celebrated the 100th anniversary of its founding with a special Jamboree. President Obama was invited to speak at the event, however he decided that appearing on The View was more important. Understandably, and thankfully, Obama has suffered quite a bit of backlash because of that decision.
What ended up happening at the Jamboree was that they played a pre-recorded message by the President to the Jamboree attendees - at which point there's video showing the Boy Scouts in attendance loudly booing him throughout his message. When I heard about this I was deeply disappointed. I don't care much for what President Obama is doing for (or is that 'to') this country, but he's still the President of the United States and therefore I feel that the Boy Scouts have a certain responsibility to show respect.
"A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent."
Somehow those who booed the President's message momentarily forgot about 'courteous', 'kind' and 'reverent', and I'd assume in cases where some joined in due to peer pressure, 'brave' was also temporarily forgotten. (Though in all fairness, I could do better in fully keeping the scout law in my own life.)
Anyway, I often read the Glenn Beck newsletter which highlights some of the things he mentions on the radio and today there was a blurb mentioning that he talked about the Boy Scouts incident (including the video clip below). Inwardly I groaned; Beck is well known for being ready to criticize the President... but I checked out the video anyway and was pleasantly surprised that Beck was also disappointed with the Boy Scouts.
That's one of the things I like about Beck; though he sometimes goes a bit overboard and though the fact that he's on the air for 4+ hours a day sometimes gets him in trouble, he truly seems to have respect for the offices of these people he so vehemently disagrees with.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading Freakonomics, and I'm currently on the lookout for its sequel, SuperFreakonomics at a yard sale... Mean while, Money magazine posted a great, short little glimpse into the Freakonomics mind.
A couple weeks ago I found (searched out?) the need to explicate the Foxconn situation in China. In the days since, several developments have occurred that I thought I'd share.
- Foxconn raised salaries of employees (who were already making a lot of money compared to other Chinese).
- Foxconn announced another salary increase planned for the fall.
- People applauded Foxconn's efforts.
- Foxconn announced that it is looking to move some production to Taiwan or Vietnam.
The overall result is that some Foxconn employees will get paid a bit more. Other Foxconn employees will lose their job entirely. This may take some time, the production flow of these types of companies doesn't really allow for any kind of immediate shift, but because the labor costs rose in China it now makes more business sense to take the production elsewhere.
Can we get some media outlets to vent their 'righteous indignation' towards the other media outlets who cost people their jobs? No?
(To be fair - the future Taiwanese or Vietnamese Foxconn workers will benefit from this move so an objective viewpoint may be that this is all a wash. But what drives me nuts about this is that people were clamoring for better working conditions for the Chinese and instead caused many of them to have no working conditions at all.)
The NJ Primaries are June 8th and I wanted to add some information for our friends and neighbors who are part of the 7th Congressional District of NJ (use maps here or enter your zip code at the top left here to see your congressional district.)
For the Democrat Primary, Ed Potosnak is running uncontested.
For the Republican Primary, incumbent Leonard Lance is up against three others who claim to be "Tea Partiers". Personally, I've looked forward to voting against Leonard Lance ever since he voted for Cap & Trade. Here are his challengers' websites so you can learn (if you're interested and/or voting in the Republican primary) a bit about them and decide if any of them, or Lance himself, is who you want running against Potosnak this fall.
Sometimes I really hate news reports. In the past couple of months I've seen numerous reports on the "alarming number of suicides at Foxconn". Foxconn is a Chinese company that makes electronics for big name corporations (Apple, Dell, Sony, HP, Amazon, and others) and the headlines have read "Another suicide at Foxconn!", and "10th Foxconn employee this year takes own life!" The body of the reports then claim that Foxconn is a terrible, awful place that we should boycott or otherwise hold responsible the corporations that use Foxconn to assemble their products, etc.
Here's the problem, Foxconn is an incredible company (though don't take that to mean they're perfect, the company is run by imperfect humans after all) and these articles are risking the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers, not to mention all of those around the world invested in and employed by the companies that contract out to Foxconn.
Do I sound callous? That's what the articles are banking on - emotional reactions, I mean who could possibly support suicides? Not me. Hopefully not anyone else. I do however support facts. Facts such as these:
- Foxconn employs 486,000 people (to give scope, Salt Lake City has a population of about 182,000 - so Foxconn employs 2.7 Salt Lake Cities). - In the first 5 months of 2010 there have been 10 suicides committed by Foxconn employees. - That means that Foxconn has an annual suicide rate of 4.9 per 100,000 people - In comparison the average suicide rate for China as a whole is 13.9 per 100k (that means Foxconn, as a sub-population of China, has cut the rate of suicides by 65%) - In other countries (per 100k): Japan: 24.4; Switzerland: 17.5, France: 17.0, Sweden: 13.3, New Zealand: 13.2, Canada: 11.6, United States: 11.1, Australia: 10.9, U.K.: 6.8
In other words this company that is taking the wrath of the media (and many who follow the media) has a better suicide rate (by far!) than countries we consider great places to live.
On another positive note, the media firestorm is getting Foxconn to implement various methods to attempt to reduce that number even further, which is fantastic. Unfortunately, this isn't the only thing people in the media want.
What people are calling for is increased wages and better living/working conditions for Foxconn workers. I disagree. Do I sound callous again? Give me a chance to explain.
Apple recently released the iPad, which Foxconn helps to build. The base iPad model is priced at $500. Because of that price, Apple sold 1 million iPads in the first 28 days. If Foxconn paid it's employees more (who currently make at least 4 times as much as the average rural Chinese, plus have their room and board included), Foxconn would have to charge Apple more. If Foxconn charges Apple more, Apple will charge customers more. If iPads (and other electronics) cost more, people will buy less of them. If people buy less electronics then Foxconn will not be able to employ as many workers and all of those workers who are let go will have their salary cut by at least 75% and their living conditions diminished considerably.
It's common sense that only becomes common when the facts are all laid out - something that most of the media fails to do because "Foxconn creates relatively good conditions for workers" is never going to catch as many eyes as "Foxconn deaths are everywhere!!!"
Any time someone says that we should close the sweatshops or the "awful" factories in China, think twice. If the working conditions are THAT bad, people will stop working at a company, but generally speaking a job in a sweatshop that pays $60 a month (less than half of what Foxconn pays) is better than the $30 a month they can expect elsewhere ($30/month is the average salary in rural China).
Do I wish Chinese workers had better jobs and better lives, sure! Do I wish the suicide rate was 0/100k, sure! But if our goal is a better life for these workers, then creating a crisis where none exists resulting in them LOSING their jobs is downright immoral.
The real answer, if you want to make the lives of Chinese workers better, is to buy more Chinese products. You buy more products, more Chinese workers can get 'good' jobs. Also, support education in China (and other countries); people are taking these $60-$120/month jobs because it's either that or work in the fields for $10-$30/month. If they had better educations they could become more productive and command higher salaries. But don't by any means boycott companies and cost these poor people their jobs.
(By the way, this rant was brought to you as a result of me being stuck in Costa Rica - where the poverty is also heartbreaking - with nothing to do for a few hours, and no good way to let off steam to Erin instead of the blogosphere.)
State Primaries are coming up (some have already passed). NJ has its primaries on June 8th, you can go here to see the primary dates for other states (click the button to the top-right of the map).
In the April 1990 LDS General Conference, Elder Russell M. Nelson stated that "A saint is an honorable citizen, knowing that the very country which provides opportunity and protection deserves support, including prompt payment of taxes and personal participation in its legal political process." (full talk)
And if you've got a few minutes to read, here are some other pertinent General Conference talks.
I've been reserving political commentary for my Back In Focus blog; however I figured a lot of readers of this blog would be quite interested in this.
Today, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, spoke to BYU-I students about the right to religious freedom in America. If your first reaction is 'eh, politics... why would I care?', then I'll point you to this quote from the beginning of his speech. "There is a battle over the meaning of that [religious] freedom. The contest is of eternal importance, and it is your generation that must understand the issues and make the efforts to prevail."
Elder Oaks touches upon Prop 8, the civil rights movement, the founding fathers, and the church throughout the world. It's very interesting and very timely.
Other quotes that really stood out to me:
"Unpopular minority religions are especially dependent upon a constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion. We are fortunate to have such a guarantee in the United States, but many nations do not. The importance of that guarantee in the United States should make us ever diligent to defend it. And it is in need of being defended. During my lifetime I have seen a significant deterioration in the respect accorded to religion in our public life, and I believe that the vitality of religious freedom is in danger of being weakened accordingly."
"A second threat to religious freedom is from those who perceive it to be in conflict with the newly alleged “civil right” of same-gender couples to enjoy the privileges of marriage."
"Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights."
"we must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice."
"As Latter-day Saints, we should never be reticent to declare and act upon the sure foundations of our faith. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification."
I recommend you watch this brief companion interview video, and then read Elder Oaks' speech in its entirety.
Erin has taken them all in stride, but I know she really doesn't care to read my 'silly' political posts. Generally if I post something on the blog it's either something she's already heard me talk about a ton, or it's something she will be hearing me talk about a ton.
So, in an effort to relieve Erin of having to see my silly posts every time she looks at our blog, I've created a new blog to house all of my wacky thoughts on currents events, news, and any movies/books/etc that I feel like commenting on.
I realize most people read this blog for family news/pictures; for those who fall into that category, enjoy having a newly re-dedicated blog with fewer distractions. For the one or two 'crazies' out there who actually enjoy reading my posts (whether because you think my bold ignorance is amusing, because you're masochistic, or maybe just because you're my mom), check out my new blog at Back-In-Focus.blogspot.com. I've transferred over most of my past posts, and have already written one new post exclusive to Back In Focus.
I would love to get people to post comments on the new blog, disagreeing with me and giving me another point of view to see, so feel free to rip my posts apart in the comments. I won't mind, I promise. And as always, let me know if any part of the site isn't working for you, I tinkered around with the code again.
The California Supreme Court today handed down a victory for all Americans, and especially all Californians. They formally ruled that the Prop 8 affirmation that California will only recognize marriage between a man and a woman was valid and legal. I see this as a strong victory for everyone, even those who support gay marriage. If the State Supreme Court had ruled to overturn the proposition, it would have essentially been saying "the right of the people to rule themselves through a free election is no longer relevant".
I've made no secret of the fact that I don't support gay marriage; partly due to my religious beliefs and partly because of the non-marriage-related legal ramifications of such a move (i.e. religious rights being trumped by activists). But regardless of your feelings about gay marriage, today is a day to celebrate the great U.S.A.
There is already talk that a proposition to overturn the Prop 8 language is in the works for the 2010 mid-term elections. I have no problem with that. If it turns out that the majority of Californians in 2010 vote to allow gay marriage, I'll accept that. I won't necessarily be happy, but I'll be proud to live in a country where people were allowed to vote and where the majority made the law.
There's a real danger for our country and our states when non-elected judges begin legislating from the bench, which would have been the case in the event of a Prop 8 overturn. We have a separation of powers for a reason, and our liberties would erode (even faster than they already are) if those separations became meaningless. Congratulations California on utilizing your right to vote, both now and in the future.
-------------------------
In related news (re: separation of powers)... When faced with the prospect of filling a U.S. Supreme Court seat, President Obama said "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role." However when it came down to it, he apparently put political expediency ahead of his 'reverence' for the Constitution. I have no problem with a female Hispanic on the Supreme Court, I couldn't care less about the gender or race or height or weight or any other physical trait of a Justice. However I believe President Obama saw an opportunity to gain demographic favor by nominating the first Hispanic to the bench despite the fact that she said "court is where policy is made..." (seriously, you have to see this clip) when the U.S. Constitution clearly gives that role to the Legislative branch, not the Judicial branch. (Not that this is surprising, given the nomination of Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State despite her lack of qualifications, just another political move at the expense of America's well-being).
-------------------------
In even more related news (re: personal liberties)... at least 35 states are introducing legislation to reaffirm their 10th amendment rights. The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It's nice to see Americans (myself included) waking up to the pillaging of our personal freedoms by the federal government which has been happening since long before Jan 20th.
Over the 30 year span from 1980 to 2009, the average fuel efficiency of cars changed from about 23 mpg to 25 mpg. As unfortunate as that sounds, let's not pretend that cars have not improved. Improvements were weak in fuel efficiency, but stellar in safety, comfort, style, technology, acceleration, braking, etc. I mean, we went from this...
(mmmm, velour... now go get a napkin to clean up your drool)
to this...
Pretty impressive, and I'm personally willing to live with an average annual increase in fuel efficiency of 0.3% in exchange for my stow-and-go seats, automatic doors, and ipod connection. However now that Obama is putting forward a new standard which will require upping that annual increase to just under 6%, what do people think will happen to the rest of the car's innovations? I mean an engineer can only focus on so many things.
There are two ways to increase fuel efficiency... first is to improve how well the engine works (extremely expensive), second is to make the car lighter. I have a feeling that cars will become lighter more than the engines themselves will become more efficient. What happens when you lighten the frame of a car? It crumples more easily in an accident. What happens to road-noise when you take out heavy noise-dampening components? You have to yell to each other just to be heard. Politicians like to pretend that things don't require trade-offs, but in reality this new fuel efficiency mandate will genuinely mean some level of trade off from your personal safety and comfort to a decrease in emissions of a harmless gas (despite what the EPA would have you think).
To me this is a common sense chain of events, and it's nice to see someone who has already witnessed this. The link below is for an article reviewing Honda's Insight Hybrid. It seems that for this car, Honda tried to both lighten the car as well as make the engine more efficient over all. Read the article, ask yourself if you'd rather drive the Insight over your SUV, then cross your fingers that some miracle happens to save us from this presidency.
P.S. Fuel efficiency could also be improved by having American drivers lose weight (lighter loads for the car to move); but of course the government would never try to dig into our personal lives like that. Just like they would never need to nationalize our banks or take over our car industries... ...
Many of our blog visitors live nearby, many don't. Part of the information below will be most directly interesting to those in our area, but by no means should the rest of you skip this post. I have been somewhat impressed with the way our district's congressman has been working (newly elected this past Nov.); but even if you don't live in NJ 7th District, you can follow up on your own congressman by checking out www.house.gov.
As for my local representative, Congressman Leonard Lance, I think he's doing a pretty good job. I agree with him on many things - like his push to stop tax hikes, cause well, I like my money. But I do disagree on a few things as well - like his backing of extreme taxation of bonuses received by AIG executives... you know, despite the bonuses being legal, contracted, specifically accounted for in the bonus legislation, and the frightening precedent of using the IRS as a weapon wielded by weak-kneed politicians fluttering in the emotional winds of the current populace. But I digress.
What I do really like about Rep. Lance is that he seems to truly want to serve his constituents. I get regular emails and newsletters from his office that would normally annoy me a bit ("I'm Leonard Lance and look what I did!") except that they are also occasionally accompanied by mini-polls where you can directly let his office know where you stand on current hot-topics.
This is dangerous ground and could also potentially annoy me... as I inferred above, I'm not a fan of politicians who follow the current crowd trends; I'd rather have one that sticks by his standards even at the potential peril of his elected seat. Part of the reason we have a democratic republic rather than a straight-up democracy is that the elected officials are supposed to be more level headed than the general public... in theory at least. But I really think Rep. Lance has set things up nicely; generally his mini-polls are phrased as "Here's the issue, here's my stance, do you agree or disagree." He straight out says "this is how I feel", but also allows for people to counter him and send comments to his office explaining their own feelings. It may all be a facade (at least that's what the cynic in my head keeps telling me), but at least I feel like he's humble enough, or politically wise enough, to consider alternate views and concede that he may not always know everything (gasp!).
Anyway, my point here is that during a time when I believe most Americans (myself included) feel disenfranchised with the political system, it seems that we in NJ's 7th District have at least one ear willing to give our shouts a moment's thought. So those who live here and are interested in following Rep. Lance's progress, check out his home page and sign up for his emails. If you live elsewhere, look up your congressman and see if they too are lending their ear (and if they're not, make sure and force them to hear you with your vote when their seat comes up next).
I really love America, the ability we have to affect and control the government rather than being effected and controlled by the government, is an incredible blessing. And just with all blessings, there are pre-requisites to their continued reception; in this case it requires the majority of citizens to take part in the political process and to do what they can to be heard. If we ignore that right, one day we may wake up and no longer have it.
Erin might kill me for going off on a tangent, but maybe I can forestall some of her wrath by promising that I won't go on another rant like this... for at least a few weeks. ;-)
The issue at hand started with a car company in India introducing a revolutionary new car, the Tata Nano, due out in July. This car is incredible. It has very few features - no A/C, no radio, no airbag, low horse-power... but the tiny thing seats 5 people (barely), gets over 50 mpg in the city (60+ on the highway), and amazingly costs less than $2000. Seriously.
The car is being sold in India and is targeted to the population who rides mostly on motorbikes; entire families squeezing onto a single motorcycle, with babies and children being clutched close as they weave in an out of traffic. The Nano will finally give a huge market of Indians a safer way to travel that is still affordable and gives them a huge amount of personal pride. What a wonderful development.
At least, I think it's wonderful. Rajendra Pachauri doesn't seem to think so. Dr. Pachauri, from India, is an economist and chairman of the glorious (pardon the sarcasm) IPCC, he (representing the IPCC) was co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 along with Public Enemy Hypocrite #1, Al Gore.
You'd think Dr. Pachauri would be happy for his fellow Indians to progress, to be able to provide safety and pride for their families. Instead the 'scientist' says he has nightmares about the car. Bad experience with the iPod Nano causing bizarre trauma and a desperate need for counseling??? Nope, he's terrified about the carbon emissions that this development will cause.
Let's not mention the fact that man-made global warming is a fallacy and that CO2 emissions have never been shown to have any real effect on the global climate... let's ignore that for now. Dr. Pachauri works for the UN, he travels frequently, lives lavishly, and gets paid extremely well. I have no idea what kind of car he drives, but I can bet it doesn't get between 50-60 mpg. Would Rajendra be willing to transport his family through the streets of a big city on an old motorbike? I think not, but he has nightmares about other people not having to do so.
Dr. Pachauri is a perfect reflection of Al Gore; they both profess to believe the world is headed into the toilet due to man-made global warming (more likely they have personal financial reasons, you know - their jobs, to promote the deception). However both of them are willing to let third-world citizens suffer in poverty to prevent man-made global warming and they refuse to change their own lavish lifestyles. I don't have details on Pachauri, but Al Gore's Tennessee home results in 22 times as much CO2 emissions as the average American household. And that doesn't take into account his other two homes, his multiple cars, his entourage, and his frequent travel (often via private jet). I can't imagine that Al's good buddy Rajendra lives too differently.
The hypocrisy just drives me nuts, that these wealthy people who could retire in luxury today if they wanted to, are so strongly against the poverty stricken in India getting a small hand up. To give you a rough idea... it would take about 300 of the new Tata Nanos on the streets of India to equal the CO2 emissions of Al Gore's first home (again, not counting his two other homes, his cars, his entourage, and all of his flights - by the way, one hour in an average private jet is equal to approximately one year in an average American car). That's 300 families who will be traveling a lot safer and holding their heads a little higher.
Crazy hypocrites aside, I am very pleased to see the developments in India. This release may provide inspiration and motivation for auto-makers the world over to re-think their current market plans. It may also inspire many people in first world countries to reconsider whether they actually need all the expensive gadgets in their cars/homes. I, myself have taken a few moments to rethink my auto-lifestyle... and I've confirmed that I do indeed need automatic doors, power steering, and an iPod connection in my gas-guzzling minivan. But that's just me.
More reading (you made it this far, why not continue?):
So the apparent message here is that democracy works, but only if the majority vote falls on 'my side' of the arguement... (as a side note, this is not a single-issue phenomenon; some people disturbingly predicted riots and possibly even a second civil war if Obama had not won the election).
After a brutal struggle to protect families, California's Proposition 8 passed by a margin of 52.5% to 47.5%. The proposition adds to the California State Constitution the words "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The California Constitution stipulates that propositions which get a majority vote become law the day after the election (in this case, Nov. 5, 2008).
Of course the fact that the majority of Californians are opposed to same-sex marriages doesn't seem to matter to those who voted 'No'.
1) Thousands of people went to the streets on Wednesday in protest of the proposition, resulting in several arrests - Can you imagine the size of the protest if the proposition had failed? Oh wait, everyone would be accepting the democratic decision, possibly crying, possibly packing their things to move to another state, but definitely not out in the street protesting and banging on the sides of buildings in groups numbering in the thousands.
2) Three groups are asking for stays/injunctions on the proposition claiming that "radical changes" can't be made with a ballot initiative - They may or may not be right, I'm no lawyer, but upholding thousands of years worth of traditional marriage seems hardly "radical". Also, if the proposition was fundamentally flawed in procedure, why is this only coming up now that it has passed, and why the heck did opponents of the initiative spend $37 million trying to convince people to vote No?
3) The argument is still being made that the proposition is discriminatory because it withholds a fundamental right from a single group - Except that marriage is not a fundamental right since it requires obtaining a license, paying a fee, meeting the requirements, etc. The proposition also does not discriminate against a single group, it bars multiple groups from marriage; this includes same-sex couples, multiple partner couplings, under-age couples, inter-species couples, incestuous couples, etc.
4) San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom has promised to continue marrying same-sex couples until he is sued and forced to stop - You mean that high-profile law that was just passed by a majority of the people in your state isn't 'force' enough? The mayor is being cheered by his city for deliberately breaking the law???
This kind of stuff really ticks me off. One group feels passionately about an issue and either fails to realize that the opposing side is just as passionate or just doesn't care. A battle that we thought we had won through following proper procedure turns out to be still going on and once again looks like it will be in the hands of liberal activist judges who forget that the law is created by the will of the people. If same-sex couples/proponents want to change the state constitution or law, they should go through the proper channels of legislation and ballot initiative that the law provides, rather than relying on a handful of judges to (mis)interpret the law.
The battle rages on, let us hope that we will continue to prevail in protecting marriage and family.
Election Day is tomorrow. If you didn't get a chance to vote early, make sure you take the time to do so tomorrow, many states have laws that allow you to take time off of work so that you can get to the polls.
Not sure if you're registered, or where your polling location is... check out this website. CanIVote.org
So last night Barack Obama was on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. At one point while talking about working together with the Republicans on non-partisan issues, Obama said the following:
"You look at something like global warming, that's really an "all hands on deck" kind of situation. If we don't get everybody on board, conservative hawks who are worried about us buying oil from the Middle East, tree huggers and environmentalists who are worried about, you know, the polar bears, bringing all those folks together and saying everybody's got a legitimate point of view. Let's figure out how to solve the problem. That's the kind of attitude we're going to need going forward."
Now these could have been the words of any number of politicians (including McCain), I pick on Obama here only due to the perfect timing because in just the past couple of weeks I've seen all of the following headlines (among others).
- "Idaho gets earliest snow since records began in 1898"
- "B-r-r-r-r: Denver shatters 118-year-old temperature record"
- "Gore addresses Global Warming at Harvard... with near 125-year record breaking low temps"
- "'This is going to be catastrophic' - Farmers' Almanac says cold winter ahead"
- "Cyclists 'braved freezing cold temps' to promote global warming awareness"
- "Cold temps in Oregon break 118-year-old record"
- "First October snow since 1922 blankets London as global warming bill debated"
- "Switzerland sees most snow for October since records began"
- "Florida breaks 150 year record [for low temperatures]"
Seriously though... in a tanking economy, let's reach across the aisle and make sure everybody is 'on board' to spend billions (maybe trillions) of dollars to combat global warming... it's almost too late!!!
Okay, so I promise this blog hasn't turned into a political rant or anything, it's still all about the Garner family. The recent posts have been mostly because Erin and I have had some good discussions on those topics and I wanted to share my thoughts. This article is again political, but I had to share it for several reasons. First, I think Orson Scott Card is an excellent writer; second, I think the topic is right on the money; and third, I think it's cool that ldsmag.com made it on Drudge Report... I mean seriously, has that ever happened before???
Politics is full of strange ideas and bizarre words. Filibuster sounds weird, supermajority sounds pretty cool, but what do they mean? More importantly, how will the election results in two weeks potentially be affected by these concepts?
Let's imagine that the Senate has 54 Democrats and 46 Republicans, and let's imagine that each Senator votes with his party on every bill (obviously this doesn't happen, but we'll pretend for simplicity's sake). Under these assumptions, any Republican bill will never get the majority vote and every Democratic bill will easily get the majority vote. So is the minority party, representing 46 percent of the country, completely powerless? Fortunately for the sake of democracy (unfortunately if you're rooting for the Democratic Party ideal), the answer is that the minority does have some power (on top of not-part-of-this-simple-explanation backroom negotiations, committee deals, party non-hardliners, etc), the minority can utilize the filibuster.
By Senate law, the presiding officer of the Senate gives the floor to any Senator who requests it; once a Senator has the floor, he or she can speak on whatever they want for as long as they want provided that they drink only milk or water, remain standing, and take no breaks. Using this temporary control of the floor to delay a vote is called a filibuster. In the past, Senators have read recipes, given discourses on the Constitution, and relayed family stories to take up time and delay votes. The longest continuous filibuster in U.S. history was held by Senator Strom Thurmond for just over 24 hours.
At the end of the filibuster (they can't last forever), the vote will still happen and a filibuster won't necessarily change the votes of other Senators, but the goal is to delay other business when the rest of the Senate is hoping to move through many other pressing items, it's just a temporary road block. A filibuster, or as usually happens anymore, just the threat of a filibuster can help shape legislation even before it comes to a vote, giving the minority party a little power in the Senate to negotiate more favorable terms.
So that's a filibuster, what the heck is a supermajority? In the Senate, at least for the present discussion, a supermajority is when a vote has three-fifths or more support, or 60 out of the 100 votes. In the Senate, a supermajority has the ability to invoke cloture (or 'a quick end to debate'). The effect of the supermajority rule is that a successful filibuster (success being defined here as able to resist a motion of cloture) requires 41 or more dedicated Senators who would not move for cloture. One party having a supermajority effectively eliminates the ability to filibuster and removes the minority party's negotiating capabilities (assuming again that all members of each party are voting in line with the rest of their party).
So how does this affect the 2008 elections??? Well, if current polling accurately reflects how elections will go on Nov. 4th, Barack Obama will win the White House, the Democrats will strengthen their majority in the House of Representatives, and the Democrats could possibly gain a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate. In other words, Republicans (and conservative-leaning independents) are going to be severely weakened. Now, depending on your political positions, that may or may not be a good thing. But it's certainly something to think about.
The Wall Street Journal posted an article that talks about this and the effects that a Democratic supermajority could have on legislation for at least the next two years. The article is obviously partisan against the Democrats and I disagree with a few of the issues, but the general idea comes clear.
Of the points mentioned in the article, the issues that would bother me the most include 'union card check', higher taxes (not on income tax, unless you're making over $250k, but on long-term capital gains taxes), climate control, free speech (the Fairness Doctrine is a disturbing idea), and trying terrorists in U.S. courts. On the other hand, I would welcome net neutrality, education reform and business reform (though in all fairness it was the Democrats' fight against reform in the past few years that helped destroy the market today). Not to mention that while much of America is currently disappointed with how little Congress accomplishes (10% approval rating? seriously?), a fully Democratic Congress working with an Obama White House would certainly get a lot done... we just need to decide if the things getting done are the right things.
Anyway, my point of posting all of this was to say that on November 4th, there is more on the line than just the presidency. There are senate seats open, house seats open, possible local elections, and in some states there are ballot initiatives, and it's important to keep in mind all of the far-reaching effects your vote can have, filibuster-proof supermajorities being just one.
Two very helpful sites to be prepared when you walk into that voting booth are:
Vote-USA - this site will give you a customized sample ballot if you enter your street address. This helps you know if you'll be voting for a Senate Seat, House Seat, etc. and lets you see all of your options (for example, entering my town shows all presidential candidates, all candidates for an open senate seat, all candidates for an open seat in my congressional district, and two referendums).
Ballotpedia - this site gives more information about ballot initiatives for your state, though keep in mind that from what I've read the contributors have at least a slight liberal bias. (Is there such a thing as an unbiased approach to politics?)
It's better that you don't vote at all than to vote blindly.
On November 4th the country votes for the next President of the United States; in California the voters will also be deciding where they stand on Proposition 8. I've been learning more about this from friends, the news, and from blog posts of my cousin Gina. I've looked into both the ProtectMarriage.com and the NoOnProp8.com websites to try to get both sides of the story. Even though I don't live in California, I thought I'd post my thoughts in case anyone from California happened to read this.
First of all, let me say that I am 100% against any form of discrimination regardless of who it may be directed towards (race, gender, sexual preferences, etc.). The ProtectMarriage.com website talks about discrimination and how it's not a driving force for the proposition. "Proposition 8 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. Under California law, 'domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits' as married spouses. (Family Code § 297.5.) There are NO exceptions. Proposition 8 WILL NOT change this." In fact, I imagine Proposition 8 is one the most straight-forward, easiest to understand referendums ever voted on; it consists of 14 words to be added to the State Constitution "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
The back-story to the whole issue is that in 2000, California's Proposition 22 (the same 14 words, this time within legislation rather than the state constitution) passed by a margin of 61% to 38% (over 4 million voters agreed with the proposition). In May 2008, the California Supreme Court (the voice of 4 un-elected judges) overturned the proposition as well as a 1977 law to make same-sex marriages legal within the state.
Some may say 'what's the big deal, what does legalizing gay marriage matter to anyone besides the two getting married?' I've learned that the answer is 'quite a bit'.
- 1st grade children in California were recently taken on a school field trip to witness the lesbian wedding of their teacher (5 months after the State Supreme Court decision). California law requires health classes to address marriage, however the administrators who were asked could not recall any students ever having been taken on a field trip to witness a wedding between a man and a woman, even though the state law mandating the discussion of marriage has been in effect for years.
- School children of all ages must legally be taught that same-sex and traditional marriage are the same thing, regardless of the personal beliefs of the families involved. The school systems, who have care of our children for much of the day, are legally required to teach that same-sex marriage is morally acceptable (and morally equal to traditional marriage), again regardless of the personal beliefs of the families.
- Kindergartners in Massachusetts (where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004) were given a 'diversity packet' which included a book that teaches about same-sex households. Parents who requested to be notified when this topic was being discussed and to be allowed to opt their kids out (akin to kids being opted out of sex-ed class) were informed that this was not a 'parental notification issue'. One father, who said he was willing to stay at the office until they were more willing to accommodate the parents of the 5-6 year old children in the school's care, was arrested.
- A Catholic orphanage in the UK closed its doors because of Homosexuality Equality laws that would have forced them to provide adoptions to same-sex couples. Also, Catholic Charities in Boston, MA has already been forced to stop providing adoption services. There are many orphanages and adoption agencies that are religiously based/funded in the U.S./California, what will happen to those agencies and the children they represent if the agencies are forced to choose between either placing children in homes that don't meet their religious moral standards, or closing their doors? In fact, the LDS church's Family Services for the New England area is now based out of New Hampshire rather than Massachusetts specifically for this reason.
- Legalized same-sex marriages introduces the possibility of lawsuits against churches who won't host or officiate at those weddings. It also opens the door to lawsuits against churches who preach against same-sex relationships, potentially calling the sermons 'hate speech'. The 'No On Prop 8' website says that Prop 8 has no direct bearing on potential lawsuits, and they are right. But anyone familiar with legal proceedings and rulings will understand the potential that this precedent will set. Legal rulings are frequently based on precedents, allowing the State Supreme Court's decision to stand would set such a precedent (even in other states).
- Religious schools that provide housing for married students may be legally obligated to provide housing for same-sex couples, regardless of the religion's spiritual beliefs and teachings.
- Photographers will be legally obligated to photograph same-sex weddings, doctors will be legally obligated to perform artificial insemination for same-sex couples, and other professions may be legally obligated as well or face charges of 'discrimination', all regardless of the professional's religious beliefs and irrespective of the fact that there are other photographers, doctors, etc. who are willing to provide the requested services.
Other notes of interest:
- The 'No On Prop 8' website says "In California, we let people decide what is best for themselves – without government interference." However, this whole issue is about the government over-ruling the will of the people. The people made their decision, and by a margin of almost 2-to-1 voted to prohibit same-sex marriages, it was then the government who interfered and reversed this. The system is designed to work in a way that the government follows the will of the people, not the other way around.
- Another quote from the 'No On Prop 8' site, "It’s not the government’s place to tell couples who have been together for years whether or not they are allowed to marry." I have a very hard time with this, claiming that the government should not limit the availability of marriage opens a whole can of worms. Why stop with couples, what about 3 or 4 people who have all been 'together' for years, can the government block those marriages? What about the laws requiring parental consent for under-age weddings? If the government shouldn't try to regulate marriage, then what right do they have to 'discriminate' based on age?
- Ultimately this is not just an issue that affects homosexual couples; it affects kids, families, churches, adoption agencies, orphanages, professionals, businesses, and more.
One last thing I wanted to mention. When our founding fathers worked to create a system of checks and balances in our country, they created three branches of government (taking inspiration from prior civilizations/governments dating back to Ancient Greece/Rome). The first branch is the Executive Branch (with such offices as the President of the United States), this branch enforces laws. Second is the Legislative Branch, Congress, which creates/writes the laws. Third is the Judicial Branch (judges) which interprets the law. Members of the Judicial Branch are appointed, not elected.
The boundaries of the Judicial Branch to interpret laws has increasingly become vague and frequently crossed. These appointed judges on the California State Supreme Court, by overturning not only the people's referendums (Proposition 22) but also the legislated law (the 1977 state law defining marriage as between a man and woman), have overstepped their bounds and have effectively created/written their own law. It is the responsibility of the people to ensure that each branch of government maintains its boundaries and to ensure that our country is governed by the will of the people.
As I said before, I have no desire to discriminate and proponents of same-sex marriages have every right to pursue legislation granting them validation of marriage; however this must be pursued through the proper channels, not through bizarre over-turnings of the will of the people by out-of-bounds appointees. Keeping this in mind, I encourage everyone to vote Yes on Proposition 8. If you don't live in California, feel free to pass this blog post along to those who might.
Yes on Prop 8, for the rights of all.
------------------------
Update: My Aunt Jenny just posted a similar blog entry, but included an excellent article and video that I wanted to share as well.
We're currently 43 days from Election Day; this is one of the most historic elections for our proud nation.
Depending on state laws you may be able to vote early if you're afraid your schedule will be tight on Nov. 4th. In Jersey you can get an absentee ballot without needing a reason (click here).
Check out your state laws or clear some time on your schedule for the 4th, do your research and get to know your candidates (try factcheck.org to clear up the many misconceptions about each). Do whatever it take to make sure your voice is heard.
Dad (Brett)
Mom (Erin)
Aeriana ('Wacko', 'Princess')
Zoe Jean ('Stinker', 'Cutie')
Breaking the (Scout) Law
If You Live In NJ, Read This
Change of Venue
Seriously???
