HOME BLOG ACTIVISM WRITING MAIL
 

Friday, November 7, 2008

Well, the monkeys are shooting the directed-energy weapons at me as I write. The new thing now is to target the left side of my brain instead of the suffocation. To me it's all the same crap. Shame on them. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, please see the Activism page.)

Other than the never-ending directed energy monkey poo flicking, things have been pretty good. As always, life is hard and I still sleep in my van to mitigate what the monkeys do. But I have pretty much accepted this as the normal way of things for me. Maybe some day these mafia monkeys (or CIA, or whoever they really are) will be stopped. Until then, I persevere.

They must be desperate because there have been more monkeys making "mafia hit signs" at me with the nasty faces. One monkey (somehow a human being, that is) scowled at me and made the sign while I was walking out of the bank. I don't mind because they're just showing the world what they really are.

Recollections

Some more random recollections that may be pertinent. I remembered recently that when I was in China I saw one man fussing with some device in the trunk of his car. The trunk was open and I got a quick look at what he had in there; the interesting thing that caught my eye was that he was scowling at me, as if I wasn't supposed to see what he had there. It sort of looked like one of those metal detectors with the V-shape at the bottom; but if this is somehow related to what they do, I don't know. He could have just been one of the those who like to scowl at me, and the device in his trunk may not be pertinent; I really don't know. I thought I'd just mention it for the record.

As an interesting side note, today I saw a Chinese woman who purposely shined her bright lights at me (she was in her car). This is nothing new for the perpetrators, but what's different is it almost never a woman, and especially never ever a middle-aged Chinese woman. I was very surprised to see this, and wondered if China's goverment wasn't working in tandem with corrupt elements of our own government in order to attack and intimidate me. I am not intimidated. I would no more take down my website to appease corrupt elements of the Chinese government than I would to appease corrupt elements of America's government.

Defenses

I've mentioned this previously, but I've verified it empirically now several times and it really seems to be true: They can visualize me in the van *better* when the temperature of everything around me (including the van) is cold. The juxtaposition of my warm body against cold everything else is ideal for them to visualize me with their through-the-walls crap. So for those looking to defend themselves: Try to keep a warm temperature in the van (or whatever you sleep in) so that your body's heat signature blends in more with the surroundings.

Comfort

I was just thinking that despite everything these people do to me, I am comforted by the following thought: The fact that any resources--including manpower and weapons, vehicles, etc.--they use against me cannot be used simultaneously against someone else. I like to think that over the years I may have saved other innocent young men and women from harm simply by virtue of the fact that a person, or weapon, or aircraft cannot be in two places at the same time, and no matter how deep their pockets are, no organization has infinite resources. No one should have to go through what I have gone through in this life (and continue to endure) and it is of comfort to me to know that by their attacking me, they cannot attack other innocent people with the same resources.

Friday, November 7, 2008

A Sea Change, but the Sea is Choppy

The election is over and we have our nation's first Black president, Barack Obama. I never thought I'd live to see the day of either a black president or a female president, so I am elated. I join millions of others in tendering the highest of hopes for this intelligent, capable man.

But at the same time, like many other Californians I am disappointed in the outcome of Measure 8: Somehow, someway, this abomination of an idea passed. Honestly, I never thought it had a chance; if I did, I would have campaigned harder against it, and now I regret that I did not.

I have listened intently to the news, read newspapers and online blogs and articles, and after reading the opinions of many proponents of Measure 8, I can honestly they don't have a single compelling argument among them. There is absolute no logical, justifiable reason for passing Measure 8. For those just tuning in, here is the text of Measure 8:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The majority of proponents of Measure 8 say that adding this notion to California's Constitution will protect the "sanctity" of marriage and the family. The following table illustrates how well Measure 8 preserves the sanctity of marriage:

Marriage ApplicantsLegality of Marriage
A rich, horny 85-year-old man and an enterprising 18-year-old womanOkay!
A violent, alcoholic man and a drug-addicted woman. Any child they have will be addicted to crack (in the womb) and beaten into a lumpy purple eggplant by the husband.No problem!
A young male executive marrying the boss's daughter not out of love but to climb the corporate ladder. He will neglect his children and screw his secretary on a regular basis.Hunky dory!
Two drunk, stoned strangers (one male, one female) who meet at a bar in Vegas and will wake up the next morning and have the marriage annulledPeachy keen!
Two underworld gangsters (one male, one female), planning to expand their criminal clanCan do!
Any of the approximately 50-75% of male-female couples in California whose marriages will ultimately end in divorceJust fine!
One law-abiding, taxpaying man in love with another law-abiding, taxpaying manNO WAY!
One law-abiding, taxpaying woman in love with another law-abiding, taxpaying womanABSOLUTELY NOT!

Also at issue is what is meant by the terms "man" and "woman". It seems to me that the following would be allowed under Measure 8:

One man, and one woman who used to be a man (and had a sex change)
One woman, and one man who used to be a woman (and had a sex change)

Would proponents of Measure 8 really be OK with the above? If so, then it seems the only thing they care about is that one parent has male genitalia and the other one has female. Does this variety in genitalia really ensure a good, wholesome marriage? Or is a good marriage based on something else?

Some proponents of Measure 8 cited the "longevity" or "tradition" of male-female marriages as a justification for excluding others. One proponent interviewed by the Los Angeles Times said the following: "Go to any country, any place in the world. Marriage between a man and a woman has been a part of our being clear back to the days of early time." Well, for that matter, so has slavery, which dates not only to the colonial days of America but back at least as far as the time before Christ when Jews were enslaved in the deserts of Egypt. Perhaps we should amend the California Constitution to allow slavery, too.

Then there is the Biblical argument. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore proponents say that's how it must be. Put aside for a moment the very compelling argument of separation of church and state as codified in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Shall we follow the Bible to the letter? The Bible also says we should stone evildoers until they die (Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3, 5). Shall we stop lethal injection and bring out the stones? What sort of stones should we choose--broad, flat ones or sharp, pointy ones? How much blood should the evildoer bleed before we can know for sure he/she is dead? Should we aim to bash his/her skull in, or should we take out the evil one's kneecaps first?

The truth is, there is no cogent argument for Measure 8. And proponents of Measure 8 need to know that whether or not gays are allowed to marry, gay couples will still get together, and gay couples will still have children (either biologically or through adoption). If your child goes to school with another child who is the son or daughter of a gay couple, you will still have to explain to your child why his/her friend has two Mommies or two Daddies. Measure 8 doesn't outlaw gay people or their children, and you can try to cocoon yourself and your children away, but unless you live on the moon you will eventually have to face the realities of the real world in which not every person thinks like you, dresses like you or has the same sexual orientation you do.

The biggest losers of Measure 8 are the children of gay couples who, though they may be loved and well tended to by their two Moms or Dads, must now face the stigma of being labeled a "bastard" or "illegitmate child" because society won't let their parents marry. What a shame.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

On the Verge of the Vote

Election time is two days away. If you haven't thought about the candidates or particularly the issues, now is the time to break out the voting pamphlet and sample ballot. I find that the voting process is much more comfortable and enjoyable when I know ahead of time exactly how I'm going to vote. I think perhaps that "voting frustration" is experienced most often by those who only make up their minds when they're actually in the polling booth. You know who you are!

Don't get me wrong: I'm not knocking you. I used to be you! But you'll find it doesn't really take you that long to carefully consider all the measures and candidates. I usually read the pamphlet and and then mark up the sample ballot. You can take your marked sample ballot with you right into the polling booth. It makes the experience a quick and easy one.

Sink the 8-Ball

Just say NO to Measure 8! This measure just goes to show that bigotry is still alive and well in 2008. How shameful that the proponents of this measure were even able to get enough signatures on a petition to put it on the ballot in the first place. This measure discriminates against gays. I myself am not gay but I know oppression when I see it. This measure is just plain wrong, in so many ways.

For those castaways just returning from an uncharted island, Measure 8 aims to amend California's constitution in order to redefine marriage as being between only a man and a woman. The main question I have is, Why? Is it to preserve the "sanctity of marriage"? If so, then whose definition of "sanctity"? The Bible's? Because in the United States of America we have a little thing called separation of church and state that forbids legislating religion. It's called the First Amendment of the great Constitution of the United States of America. Let me quote it for you now:

Right of Religion and Expression (1791). Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obviously the first clause is the salient one here. Legislating religious beliefs violates the highest law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America. So to argue that "the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman" or that man-woman marriage is inline with Judeo-Christian (religious) beliefs is completes bogus here. We are talking about the law here, about California's constitution, and religion has no place here.

So what reasonable argument exists for doing what Measure 8 advocates? The answer is, none at all. I understand that some Californians are religious people and disapprove of the gay lifestyle. They are certainly entitled to their opinions but they should not be allowed to enact their religious beliefs as law. A vote for Measure 8 is a vote to oppress a category of people because of their sexual orientation. This is as un-American as it gets.

Another "argument" I have heard is that, well, gays can have civil unions while marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. This smacks of the "separate but equal" discrimination against blacks in the 1950's. Let's not go down this road again. Law-abiding, gay California citizens are entitled to all the state protections and benefits that any other California citizens are. We are not talking about marriage in its religious connotation; no church of any denomination will be required to marry two gays. We are talking about marriage as a civic institution, one that comes with certain right and benefits (such as tax-related benefits) as well as responsibilities. Gay couples are already living together, paying taxes and raising children. It is completely un-American to deny them the right to marry. That is their right, if they so choose.

Do the right thing and vote NO on 8.

 
 
free web templates
web templates web templates web templates web templates web templates web templates
flash templates flash templates flash templates flash templates flash templates flash templates