Here's the thing. Michael Jackson was a tragic story from beginning to end. Cautionary tales about fame, Peter Pan syndrome, a sort of stolen innocence to the way he sang. He was always intriguing, always engaging, and that's exactly why he captivated the hearts of millions.
But he was fucked. Totally. Miserably. Absolutely broken, and absolutely tragically.
Here's hoping he gets reincarnated as someone who is allowed to have a childhood.
*clink*
-Tommy
P.S. Farrah Fawcett - you were too lovely. You deserved a better death, on a slower news day.
The 70s died today, and took the 80s with it.
- Mood:
nostalgic
That's the only way I can really describe how the Obama Administration has left me feeling this week. We voted for him, and we'd do it again, because being ignored by the Administration is better than being hunted down from a helicopter with assault rifles.
But we are in a unique position - the product of an interracial, half black, half white marriage, residing in the white house, with Democrats in full control of both houses of Congress. And yet Obama's campaign slogan of "fierce advocacy" for the GLBT community - for the repeal of "unconscionable" measures like Don't Ask, Don't Tell (even when recent polling of the whole country shows 60+% support its repeal) and the highly discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act - rings hollow as the Administration has quietly dropped these issues one by one. The Administration has become increasingly tone-deaf when it comes to the rights of every American, and action is not living up to rhetoric.
But we must be patient! Obama is really a supporter of equal rights! He's a reasonable and logical person - he's just biding his time, trying to do bigger and better things like bring health care to every American and save the economy! Right? That's what I believed, at least.
So then, why did Obama's justice department file a brief this week, defending DOMA, that specifically raised a series of legal points that were both disturbing and insulting? Rather than just defend the law on the books (a questionable "duty," indeed, seeing as how Eric Holder has essentially ignored all enforcement of federal marijuana policy in states with medical marijuana on the books), the brief goes considerably further - using tried-and-true tactics like comparing homosexuality to incest and pedophilia or, even more shocking, arguing that the US Government can deny a class of people equal rights for financial reasons (namely: the government makes more money if we are not allowed to file joint tax returns). Defending the brief is one thing, but this is like rubbing salt in the wounds of people who can't help but remember seeing their joy at electing Obama turn to shock and hurt at losing the right to marry in California within the span of a few hours.
"Tone-deaf" also describes the gesture made today, hastily and in reply to a major backlash from the gay community (and threats to pull out of a DNC fundraiser, natch), to extend "benefits" to same-sex partners of federal employees. That sounds impressive at first, but this cynical ploy doesn't cover the most tangible of benefits - health insurance. In fact, the "benefits" granted by this Presidential Memorandum (not an Executive Order, by the way, a memo which expires with the Presidency) include small conveniences like relocation assistance, long-term care insurance, and the ever-wonderful civil right of being able to claim a sick day to care for a partner or same-sex partner's sick child. And naturally this only applies to Federal Employees, and was largely going to be implemented anyway. Thanks for being a "fierce advocate," Mr. President.
Obama is clearly avoiding the issue - and the ensuing culture war - to try and solve more pertinent issues. Fine. What is NOT fine is having the DOJ author a brief that equates same-sex marriage with pedophilia and incest. Not even Bush - Mr. "Federal Marriage Amendment" himself - did that.
I understand that there are a lot of challenges facing America, and there are political realities that require patience from leaders of the GLBT movement. But we finally have control of the legislative and executive branches of this country, and none of the Democrats that run the show can abandon that chickenshit desire to appease a completely unreasonable right-wing base long enough to do what they must certainly feel is morally right. Instead, they play a sly dance, taking money from major gay fundraisers while wink-wink-nod-nodding to us as they issue legal briefs equating us with pedophiles and argue - quite ridiculously - that refusing to recognize our unions saves the government money. That's downright cruel, and doubly so that it comes from someone many of us have posters of, someone who promised us he heard our voices and knew firsthand the meaning of our struggle for equality.
I still believe Obama will solve some of America's greatest problems. I am just considerably less convinced that people like me will be welcomed as a part of that America when all is said and done.
-Tommy- Mood:
disappointed
Harmless nut who wouldn't kill a fly? They're ALL harmless nuts - until they do harm.
Some snippets:
--
The criminal complaint says Murray, originally from Rexford, N.Y., is the registered owner of eight guns.
--
--
Here's a big, big unreported gap for you: Where did a guy known for walking down the street in a cape and talking to himself get eight guns and $85,000? When you have that kind of firepower and money at your disposal, you are no longer a crazy lone nut talking about killing the president - you have the weapons and the resources to bring you close to, if not at, your goal.
In a severe recession with most Americans losing their savings and their homes, where did a guy like that get eighty-five grand and change?
Not a credible threat, my ass. Credible threats have money. They have resources. They have weapons. And they have that little flint of crazy determination that makes them do the unthinkable. And a week after Dr. George Tiller was assassinated in Kansas, every far-right "lone nut" type -- convinced by a steady stream of far-right propaganda and hate speech that they are fighting The Great Battle at the End of the World and that Obama is either the Devil Himself or at the very least the End of America -- EVERY ONE OF THOSE IS A CREDIBLE THREAT.
-T
So when push comes to shove, what do I choose to blog about? My lovely boyfriend? The shifts in my life? I broke my foot two weeks ago; do I blog about that? My doubts and fears about my career?
No. I will write about how much I hate one insignificant man, who I have never met: Marc Porter Zasada. He is my mortal enemy. Part poet, part professional philosopher, this absolutely insufferable human being has somehow scraped together a living out of the time-honored tradition of musing, with his hodgepodge of assorted and entirely uninteresting thoughts comprising the bulk of his short radio segments on NPR's Santa Monica affiliate (of course), KCRW. His asinine, pretentious douchebaggery is broadcast weekly to the unfortunate masses of the Greater Los Angeles region; the basin, the Inland Empire, heck, even the High Desert has to listen to this self-aggrandizing bastard deliver a five-minute speech about being an effete, priveleged westsider who thinks what he thinks are deep thoughts. He speaks with the shallowness of a man who likes to think about hardships but cannot understand what it is to experience them. The Urban Man™, who speaks of himself in the third person, is a Prius-driving, latte-sipping yuppie liberal hipster who makes other prius-driving, latte-sipping yuppie liberal hipsters (LIKE MYSELF JESUS) foam at the mouth with general disgust.
He is a bad person and he should feel bad, and there is one real reason for this: His world begins and ends at the beach, in his tiny little bubble by the 405, and rarely do men of his ilk venture east into the real world unless they want to pick up a hooker. People like him make movies like "Crash" from behind the walls of their gated communities and then they "muse" on how deep they are, using their entirely unwarranted success to nab a segment babbling self-righteously in narrative monologue about inane shit on KCRW.
Some facts about The Urban Man™:
- The Urban Man™ refers to himsef in the third person.
- The Urban Man™ can only get off to the dying gasp of a strangled hooker*.
- The Urban Man™ has a penis and prostate, but no balls.
- The Urban Man™ likes to google his own name, but only clicks on the links to his own site.
- The Urban Man™ drives a fuel-efficient vehicle, but uses a tank of gas a day.
- The Urban Man™ likes to compare his body to those of other middle-aged men by checking them out. This is not because he is gay -- in fact, he is not. This is because he is self-absorbed.
- The Urban Man™ masturbates to the sound of the beach.
- The Urban Man™ thinks he is very down to earth.
- The Urban Man™ thinks Santa Monica is a big city. He is afraid of Los Angeles and its many poors.
- The Urban Man™ probably works out at Curves.
- "Today in L.A., the jacaranda trees just began to show purple: soon to bloom everywhere, like the city itself, in passionate excess." THE URBAN MAN™ ACTUALLY WROTE THIS JESUS CHRIST I HATE HIM SO MUCH.
- The Urban Man™ thinks he is down to earth.
- The Urban Man™ trademarked the phrase "Urban Man," really.
- The Urban Man™ is probably reading this right now, and will babble about the surreal experience of reading a stranger's hateful rants next Monday on NPR.
- The Urban Man™ wears a black fedora because it thinks it makes him more sophisticated.
- If you scroll down to the bottom of The Urban Man™'s page there is a hidden text link that says "jew" with a link to the Wikipedia Article for Jew. I have no explanation for this one. ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
brilem discovered this.
And now the confession: When The Urban Man™ comes on my radio, I cannot change the dial. I have to listen. Granted, I may be on my way to Trader Joe's in my own equally fuel-efficient car, Obama and No-on-8 bumper sticker and all, admiring the mountains and musing on the nature of life in Los Angeles myself, and I still cannot help but listen with completely disgust fascination with a train of thought that has long since derailed.
-Tommy
* I have no proof to substantiate this claim.
- Location:Santa Monica
You know what this means, gentlemen...
♥♥♥ Mandatory Gay Abortions for all!!! ♥♥♥
But no, seriously, can we have health insurance yet?
-Tommy
"George Bush didn't get a pass from the liberal media!" they cry.
Bush DID get a pass for 8 years from the media: it was called the Iraq War, and it cost a lot more than an iPod.
(This common iPod, by the way, was an upgrade to video from the Queen's old Mini, and some lucky White House intern had loaded it up with Broadway tunes, which she is said to be fond of. Which makes the "bad gift!" story even less of one.)
-T
get in the air,
get the HELL out of Washington D.C.
and don't come back.
There you go, now. Baaaaaack to Texas. You just relax and take it easy there.
(And Dick Cheney's in a wheelchair.)
It's over. Right now, right this second, it's over.
Whew.
-T
1161-3218-5392
Post your codes in the comments!
-Tommy
( how 'bout some HATEORADE )
There are plenty of inane and stupid things coming out of unfocused, upset "no on 8" supporters - protests where organizers start arguing about where they want to march, anti-religious rhetoric, and an equal amount of spelling and punctuative errors. But the difference is, one of these groups should be irrationally angry: they just lost their existing right to marry!
Passions are high; the discourse is mostly not civil. Nor should it be.
-T
How can you be sitting in the voting booth, happy and proud to be voting for a historic candidate, a symbol of the America we forgot was there, an America that aspires to be better than it is - a symbol of triumph over enduring discrimination and disenfranchisement...
...then jump down the ballot and, without reservation, vote to disenfranchise and discriminate against another group of people?
And how can this happen more than four million times?
One of the best things to happen to America in its entire history happened last night - and one of the worst things, too... at the same time.
All that bile worked. It worked in English, it worked in Spanish, it worked red, it worked blue, it worked inland, it worked on the coast, it worked in our hick farms and our dense cities.
Few words, a dry mouth, a broken heart, and complete horror.
One of the worst moments of my life... mere moments from one of the happiest.
I can't forgive it. It makes me sick.
- Location:California uber alles
- Mood:
crushed - Music:Fanfare for the Common Man
PRESIDENT
FUCKING
BARACK
OBAMA
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
- Music:YES WE FUCKING DID
Make it happen.
- Music:Fanfare for the Common Man
In 2000, America needed voter turnout. In 2004, we predicted that energized new voters would materialize - and it didn't happen.
I can give you plenty of reasons to vote - and I'm short on reasons not to play a role in shaping your own future. The only reason I can see for not voting is willful ignorance - and if you ARE willfully ignorant, if you support things out of that ignorance that harm your fellow citizens and speak to blind nationalism, fear, bigotry, or greed - yes, you reallly should stay home. But short of being that kind of voter, get out there and do it.
Vote for change. Vote for the future. Vote green. Vote blue.
Vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Vote for High Speed Trains. For infrastructure improvements. For rail expansion.
Vote against l'aissez-faire economics. Against discrimination and bigotry. Against the status quo. And against the last eight years. Vote against anything anywhere that tries to deny or take away someone's rights, someone's happiness, someone's opportunity. Vote against anyone who wants to take these things away.
Vote if you live in swing states. Vote if you don't. Vote nationally, then... do your homework, and vote local. Throw down a stake in your future.
Because all those people out there - the ones who want to take away your rights, start wars with Iran, discriminate against gay people, and establish a fundamentalist Christian theocracy?
You'd better believe they'll be voting.
-Tommy
There's a very real reason Proposition 8 proponents are fighting dirty: they're wrong. And it falls to the lonely homophobes with computers across the country to orchestrate a Distributed Denial of Service attack - the IPs originated from Georgia, Texas, and California - to try and prevent the message from being available.
What's that called, when you intimidate a minority group and try to take away their rights?
What I find disturbing is how many otherwise-sane people are voting for this bilious, hateful tripe. We're not out of the woods - we may well see many liberal Californians tricked or manipulated into voting for the largest rollback of civil rights in at least fifty years. And if not this year, they'll just try again next year.In my opinion, the biggest danger to California's GLBT community comes not from social conservatives (we know how they're voting), but the on-the-fence types who are typically very liberal but for some reason buy one of the many specious arguments being made in favor of eliminating rights for our fellow citizens.
If you are one of these people, or know one of these people, please read below. I will list ten things about Proposition 8 that are such bilious and vile lies that they deserve to be refuted. Here are ten things I hear most frequently:
1. "Traditional marriage is under attack."
The institution of marriage and its importance have, many feel, been undermined, but it is divorce and adultery, not same-sex commitment, that threatens to undermine marriage.
Don't get me wrong, though - Marriage IS under attack... from Proposition 8's supporters. Contrary to all the claims of victimization from the Yes on 8 people, the simple legal fact is: Proposition 8 eliminates the existing rights of Californians to marry members of the same sex. The simple fact is, Proposition 8 supporters are the aggressors, not the defenders.
It is currently a right within this state, whether someone chooses to agree with or exercise it or not. I choose not to own a gun, and I find gun ownership reprehensible; however, this is a right that exists in this country and in this state. Eliminating that right would infuriate most of the same people who seek to eliminate our rights to marry regardless of gender.
2. "Marriage has always been the sanctioned union of a man and woman." / "Proposition 8 protects families."
"Traditional marriage" is a deceptively false phrase; when one looks at the history of marriage throughout civilization, so many different examples emerge that it is hard to find a standard-bearer. The "wife-visiting" marriages of ancient Japan? The polygamy of the Old Testament? The family-business arranged marriages of the Victorian era? The women-as-property marriages of the pre-suffrage years? Mixed-race marriages, which were only legalized in the 1950s? No-fault divorces and the sexual revolution? The institution has always varied from society to society based on various standards, and those standards are constantly evolving. The fact that it is a question in and of itself is evidence that society has a need for same-sex marriage; relationships and families that need the legal and societal protections that marriage provides.
Proposition 8 does not protect families; it tears them apart by denying them legal recognition of their status as a family, and this is the true goal of Proposition 8's supporters.
3. "If Proposition 8 doesn't pass, churches will be forced to accept same-sex marriage or risk losing their tax-exempt status." / "Churches will be forced to perform same-sex weddings!" / etc.
4. "Unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be forced to learn about gay marriage in school!"
This is not true - both former California Secretaries of Education and the current one have said this. Marriage is generally not taught in public schools; furthermore, the state's broad opt-out law allows any parent to take their children out of any particular class for any reason.
In a sense though, they ARE right: if gay marriage exists, sooner or later children will learn that it exists. And if you can't pretend it isn't there or explain it away, then you yourself have to admit that it exists as well. That's what makes this the most compelling argument. The problem is, nothing in Proposition 8 says anything about education, just like nothing in Proposition 8 says anything about religious freedom. The only thing Proposition 8 does, in a simple, single sentence, is eliminate an existing right.
But wait, Tommy, you might say, I saw that ad that had pictures of first-graders (yaay!) in San Francisco (booo!) attending a same-sex marriage field trip! (hisssss!) Doesn't that prove that it IS being taught in school? To that I'd say, no, dipshit, get the facts: that "field trip" was an outing organized by parents in the class to go visit their first-grade teacher's wedding, which happened to be a same-sex marriage. I'd let my kid go, but none of the parents in the class had to let theirs go, and a few abstained. It was an extracurricular activity organized by supportive parents, parents who are mortified to see their children being used in political advertising against their will.
5. "Proposition 8 ensures that children have their rights - the entitlement to a mother and father."
This is a lie and an argument of specious legality at best. The argument that the existence of gay marriage somehow infringes on the rights of children is completely insane. By that token, divorce should be outlawed as well, shouldn't it?
In fact, ironically, the only rights that would be stripped from children would be if Prop 8 passed - same-sex families would be denied certain legal protections associated with marriage. Children of same-sex families (and sorry, no matter what your narrow definition of "family" is, they do exist, marriage or no marriage) would be denied legal protection associated with marriage, including joint filing status and census counting, and would have their entire familial unit treated as a second-class entity.
6. "It's in the bible."
Show me the pages. First of all, the bible says nothing about gay marriage, and for good reason: how can the bible be expected to weigh in one way or another on an institution that doesn't exist?
But oh, I'm sure you're referring to one of those verses condemning homosexual acts (as the orientation as we know it to scientifically exist today was not recognized back then) that are "in the bible," and subject to a variety of theological research. Passages in Dueteronomy, Leviticus, and Romans are popular - a handful out of more than a million verses in the world's best-selling book. The problem with these verses is that they are cherry-picked and denied context by a movement of bigotry - much like pro-slavery bigots would quote verses in the bible on slavery to support a practice we now condemn.
The bible says the same things in the context of homosexuality and in the same chapters:
- DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately. - DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death. - MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced. - LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed. - MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir. - DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.
The funny thing is, none of THESE things are treated in contemporary society the same way homosexuality is. Why should we focus on only one of thousands of Old Testament provisions that were supposedly nullified by Jesus in the New Testament? Why should we assume the laws of a pre-Christ Hebreic society (subject to often vague English translations, at that) are unchanging and absolute as applied to our own?
But hey, maybe I can't talk you into interpreting your "religion" differently, or seeing the fallacies of man's interpretation of what is supposedly God's word. Fortunately, I don't have to, because neither the State of California or the United States is a theocracy. Our law is not based on the Bible. And whether you like it or not, we have specific legal provisions in place to make sure our law is not based on the bible. We can make no law abridging the freedoms of your religion, and in turn, you can make no law abridging our freedoms in the name of religion. It's a great system, isn't it? So why fuck with it and write a theocratic law into a secular document?
7. "Gays and Lesbians already have the legal rights of married couples; they don't need 'marriage,' too. So Prop 8 wouldn't really do anything except restore the definition of marriage."
As Civil Unions do not exist in the state, California had been operating under a strong domestic partnership registry prior to the judicial announcement; this gave all registered domestic partners, regardless of gender, a number of benefits and entitlement under California law. However, it did NOT uphold the full benefits of marriage, including census consideration, tax filing status, etc. Furthermore, domestic partners MUST cohabitate to register their status; married couples do not need to have this designation to form their legal commitment.
California's domestic partnership law was ruled a "separate and unequal" entity by the State Supreme Court, much as segregation was struck down in the 1950s and 60s. To quote Wikipedia: "The decision found that "equal respect and dignity" of marriage is a "basic civil right" that cannot be withheld from same-sex couples, that sexual orientation is a protected class like race and gender, and that any classification or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is subject to subject to judicial scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the California State Constitution."
8. "If same-sex marriage continues to be legal, it will cost our society more money through lawsuits."
This is a particularly dubious claim that mixes up the right of free enterprise to decline service (a photographer, for example, refusing to photograph a gay wedding) with the very real legal ruling that states that someone cannot refuse to administer medical treatment on discriminatory grounds (for example, administering IUV fertilization to a lesbian).
However, that is neither here nor there; lesbians who have artificial insemination have nothing to do with marriage. Private photographers, on the other hand, are still at will to decline employment on whatever grounds if they so choose. And contrary to specious claim that gay-agenda lawsuits will drain our economy dry, the nonpartisan state agencies in charge of economic analysis have stated that if gay marriages stop, billions of local dollars in marriage spending will stop as well; it is actually good for our local economy. That's ironically why the busboys I work with oppose Prop 8; it takes tip money out of their pockets in an otherwise party-lite recession.
9. "Preachers who oppose same-sex marriage will be tried for hate speech."
Another false claim. The example of this happening often cited happened in, get ready for it: Canada.
Canada. Not even Massachusetts; they had to find another country. Prop 8 backers couldn't even find an example of this happening in our own country, because guess what? "Hate speech" is still protected speech. The only limitations on your freedom of speech as established are literal incitements to violence and threats against others, and that applies to your preacher, too; so, unless Pastor Bob plans on giving a sermon in which he instructs you to find and murder gay people, he'll be all right.
10. "The right to religious freedom is harmed or infringed upon by gay marriage being legal."
You'll note I didn't address one claim that I frankly hear a lot: the "slippery slope" argument: basically, if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow incest, child rape, dogsex, and polygamy, because, you know, why the fuck not? The reason I don't address this is because it is fucking ludicrous. There is no comparison between the legal recognition of a union between two people and pedophilia, bestiality, incest, and polygamy. Two consenting adults in a mutually beneficial relationship receiving the support and legal protection of their community doesn't compare in any way. It's a ludicrous, fear-mongering, hateful marginalization of a group of people who are all too often marginalized themselves. It has no believability in legal or societal terms, so to even repudiate it is to treat it as legitimately as the above sanitized (and, I would argue, MUCH more dangerous) points.
The amazing thing is how persecuted the persecuters can manage to make themselves feel. When you look at these common claims, most of them are phrased defensively in an attempt to win over more passive voters and paint the Yes campaign - which has begun an increasingly intense campaign of terror and intimidation - in a heroic light.
But here's the deal: there is nothing heroic about eliminating the rights of your fellow citizens. We've done it before - to Latinos, African-Americans, Armenians, Chinese, Japanese, Jews, Italians, Irish - hell, any group with which someone has had a bigoted axe to grind has gotten it pretty bad in this country, and in this state as well. This is the civil rights issue of our generation; we cannot afford to balk and vote with fear to condemn those who live in the minority in our state.
That's why both Senators, the Governor, the mayors of our major cities, our unions, and all our major newspapers have condemned and opposed Proposition 8. Because it is beyond the gloating smirk of a victory in the Culture Wars; it is outright cruelty and bigotry masked in the grotesque yellow banner of a shimmering, happy family (the message to gays: your family need not apply).
It is more than, as the ads say, wrong. It is fear and hate masquerading as political theater. It must be defeated. No votes for it, nor excuses for voting for it, can be tolerated or entertained - it is evil in our midst, the very real kind of human evil we have seen before in history. It is the meanest and pettiest part in all of us. It is what we aspire to surpass as a people, as a state, as a nation.
Be better than that, but don't stop there; try your hardest to make someone else - someone you know, someone you talk to, someone that cares about you - try to make them better than that, too.
-Tommy
(P.S. I will not entertain requests to LJ-cut this post.)
- Location:California
- Mood:
aggravated
News was made today here at home when the Los Angeles Times editorial board, which is as conservative as one can get in a city this liberal, endorsed Barack Obama for President. This is a big deal as the Times has not endorsed a presidential candidate since Richard Nixon was running for re-election (and, uh, we all know how that one turned out - which may be why the Times kept quiet on the subject in subsequent elections).
So I thought it would be interesting to analyze how each population center in California approached these ballot measures.
For a quick primer, here is a summary of each ballot measure and how I recommend Californians vote on them (exactly WHY is in my excellent please-read-it guide linked above):
President: Barack Obama
1A: High Speed Rail Bond - Yes
2: Humane treatment of farm animals & chickens - Yes
3: Children's Hospital Bond - Yes
4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification for a minor's abortion - No
5: Nonviolent Drug and Drug-Related Offenses; Sentencing/Parole/Rehab -
6: Unfunded Law enforcement budgetary mandate - No
7: Renewable energy quotas - No
8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry - No
9: Victims' Rights criminal justice amendment - No
10: T. Boone Pickens natural gas powered vehicle giveaway bonanza - No
11: Redistricting Reform - Yes
12: CalVet program extension (home loans for veterans) - Yes
So without further ado, let's investigate how various newspapers' editorial boards interpret these, and I how it makes me feel:
( LA Times / SF Chronicle )
( San Diego Union-Tribune )
( OC Register (sucks) )
( Fresno Bee )
( Bakersfield Californian )
( Sacramento Bee )
( San Jose Mercury News )
Now I am off to enjoy my weekend - you enjoy yours!
And if you do live in California and don't want to read my own excellent guide, just remember: in my opinion, the two most important votes a Californian can make to build a better future are a Yes vote on Prop 1A and a No vote on Prop 8. Few elections give us greater opportunity to shape our state for the better; we can do so by building for the future and rejecting bigotry.
-Tommy
- Location:California
- Location:34.059555, -118.246262
The People: Who I'm voting for this election cycle should be pretty obvious. I think it goes without saying, frankly, that I want to live a life where I am not destroyed by atomic bombs and maybe even have health insurance. A socially-conservative acid-tongued rube from Alaska and a deregulation-obsessed, warmongering corpse do not offer a future for America I want to experience.
And, you know, it couldn't hurt to throw a couple blue votes towards Congress, while you're at it.
No, the meat and potatoes of this year's presidential election lies in the initiatives, and that's where I'm going to focus. In fact, this year Californians face some of the most important initiative choices in the state's recent history, and paying attention to them is absolutely vital.
State Measures
( Proposition 1A: YES! )
( Proposition 2: YES )
( Proposition 3: YES )
( Proposition 4: NO )
( Proposition 5: YES? )
( Proposition 6: NO )
( Proposition 7: NO )
( Proposition 8: NO NO NO NO NO )
( Proposition 9: NO )
( Proposition 10: NO )
( Proposition 11: YES )
( Proposition 12: YES )
Now, let's move on to some interesting local measures in various population centers of the state:
( Los Angeles County Measure R: YES )
Now, a few quickies...
( L.A. City / L.A. School Bonds )
That takes care of L.A. County and the City of Los Angeles. But there's more, and it's interesting. Let's scour the Bay Area for my most interesting picks (sorry, guys, but most of the local bond issues are gonna have to be up to you):
( Santa Clara County Measure B: YES )
( San Francisco: HILARIOUS )
(Sorry, Alameda county, your shit isn't that interesting! Although the Berkeley local measures are hippie-licious.)
Last but not least are a few of San Diego's more interesting proposals:
( San Diego County Prop A: YES / Prop D: NO )
Ok, I am becoming increasingly tired, so thank you for reading. Hopefully this was both entertaining and informative.
The last word: This is one of the most important elections in a generation, especially in California. Vote. Vote vote vote vote vote. (Unless you hate fags, in which case, you know, maybe it would be prudent to not vote. Your guy's not going to win the state anyway. Just have some beers and watch the game.)
In all seriousness - Happy voting!
-Tommy
- Location:Los Angeles County, California
- Mood:
accomplished
So I made my own:
Yes, I made this particular one, although
brilem came up with some of the best analogies. Pass it around, and let's get some good others on this variation in the comments section!-T
Some of the reasons included:
- The area's history and storied architecture
- Proximity to major parks - a rarity in LA
- Sense of community and artistic culture
- General walkability and safety.
Of course, the APA's list generally includes places that are hip in various cities - but it's nice to see some planning-related awards going to a place I've already learned is amazing.
(I would love to see a metro rail station here, though. That's about the only thing the neighborhood seems to be lacking, even if it has frequent and efficient bus service.)
Of course, with such notoriety comes the danger of continued development and over-gentrification, which can disrupt the balance that makes this place such a great neighborhood to begin with. Whether they speak Spanish or English, pricing out the artists, workers, and small businesses (as has been done in Silver Lake and Los Feliz, turning them into traffic-snarled cesspools of white yuppies and rich dog-walking hipster cunts) is a grave danger the community faces.
I am not railing against gentrification, by the way - just too much of it. Echo Park right now feels just about right. We must work to ensure the community is not eroded in the name of progress, or risk losing the distinctions that make us a great little gem in the heart of Los Angeles.
-Tommy
Profile
- catsonmars
- Ёбни в рот!
- Cats on Mars!
Syndicate
