4.11.08
Obama's President!
Labels:
Politics
Well, according to FiveThirtyEight.com. They call Ohio Obama's, and therefore say all the dominoes will fall. Hip hip HOORAH!!!
Thanks, Google!
Labels:
Politics
Real-time results. Well, one of the many sources, but it's cool! (Sorry East-coasters who get cut off!!!)
VOTE VOTE VOTE, and don't forget to...
Labels:
Politics
VOTE!!!
One more time, now, VOTE!!
In a few hours, we can watch real-time results here with Google.
Also, this is a cool place to rate your polling location. As of right now, I'm the only one from Utah who has done so!!!
3.11.08
Hmmm...disturbing.
Labels:
From the depths,
Politics
Well, most people who read this either don't know or already know my view on same-sex rights. And those who have discussed this quite deeply with me (read: Brady) know that I'm not exactly jumping for joy over the way the LDS Church got involved in California. If you really need an explanation, it's because I was just waiting for this to happen:
Even just an opinion, I think this is bad on many levels. First of all, we opened the door for intense and incorrect scrutiny which does more harm for the church than Prop 8 passing will do good.
To me, the whole 'marriage' issue is a semantic one. First of all, marriage to me will always be what marriage has been. As of right now, marriage to me is COMPLETELY different from marriage is to my next-door neighbor. Does that mean his marriage isn't a marriage? What one person or group (or nation) calls marriage will not ever affect what marriage is to me.
Same-sex couples have been asking primarily for three rights: the right to file a joint-tax return/insurance, the right to hospital visitation, and the right for inheritence. None of those infringe on my rights, therefore I don't see why they shouldn't be entitled to them. Brady made the argument that when married, they would be able to adopt--that argument is weakened by the fact they already can adopt. Brett offered a solution that I agree with. He coined it the Abbott and Castello act, which would allow every citizen the right to name someone (any sex) as their "partner," to receive these benefits. That would enable a college student to name his roommate as someone who could visit him in the hospital, those without close, immediate families to name a benefactor (w/o a will, obviously), and even allow a household of roommates to file a house tax return if so desired. A good solution? Accepting homosexuals and granting them the same benefits heterosexuals receive doesn't mean that you condone the practice at all. What do you think?
Even just an opinion, I think this is bad on many levels. First of all, we opened the door for intense and incorrect scrutiny which does more harm for the church than Prop 8 passing will do good.
To me, the whole 'marriage' issue is a semantic one. First of all, marriage to me will always be what marriage has been. As of right now, marriage to me is COMPLETELY different from marriage is to my next-door neighbor. Does that mean his marriage isn't a marriage? What one person or group (or nation) calls marriage will not ever affect what marriage is to me.
Same-sex couples have been asking primarily for three rights: the right to file a joint-tax return/insurance, the right to hospital visitation, and the right for inheritence. None of those infringe on my rights, therefore I don't see why they shouldn't be entitled to them. Brady made the argument that when married, they would be able to adopt--that argument is weakened by the fact they already can adopt. Brett offered a solution that I agree with. He coined it the Abbott and Castello act, which would allow every citizen the right to name someone (any sex) as their "partner," to receive these benefits. That would enable a college student to name his roommate as someone who could visit him in the hospital, those without close, immediate families to name a benefactor (w/o a will, obviously), and even allow a household of roommates to file a house tax return if so desired. A good solution? Accepting homosexuals and granting them the same benefits heterosexuals receive doesn't mean that you condone the practice at all. What do you think?
Electoral College gives out E's...
Labels:
From the depths,
Politics
Well, most people I know don't agree with the Electoral College. Anybody who knows me knows that I don't like it. If the population doesn't agree with it...WHY DO WE STILL USE IT!?? Anyway. NYT Opinion brings this little stat to our attention:
How about that?
Trouble is, the EC is written into our constitution. How are we going to deal with that?
[thanks to kottke.org]
In the unlikely event that all 213 million eligible voters cast ballots, either John McCain or Barack Obama could win enough states to capture the White House with only 47.8 million strategically located votes. The presidency could be won with just 22 percent of the electorate’s support, only 16 percent of the entire population’s.
How about that?
Trouble is, the EC is written into our constitution. How are we going to deal with that?
[thanks to kottke.org]
Christmas Idea #1...any takers?
Labels:
From the depths
So...Herman Miller is releasing a new chair called the Embody. Anybody remember the Aeron? That was SO yesterday. Anyway, just another idea for anybody buying me a Christmas present. Haha...
2.11.08
1.11.08
Should I?
Labels:
Politics
Well, the decision to post this took a lot longer than usual. I was seriously debating whether I could, but then I realized how strongly I feel about this year's election. With the results to be had in less than 3 days now, I must write simply and clearly: McCain and Palin are not the leaders for this country at this time. People can argue against that with rhetoric, but quite simply, there is very little about that ticket that I can conscientiously--as a freedom-lover, a faithful christian, and a self-declared intellect--support. That's all I will say in the matter.
Now, the part that took me a while to decide to post. First, I will say that I feel really bad that Palin was suckered into this. It's not for me to say if she handled it right or not, but it was the first thing that has happened in this campaign to make me sympathize with her. However, it's also a very candid look at the governor. Yep.
Now, the part that took me a while to decide to post. First, I will say that I feel really bad that Palin was suckered into this. It's not for me to say if she handled it right or not, but it was the first thing that has happened in this campaign to make me sympathize with her. However, it's also a very candid look at the governor. Yep.
Brett's Brain: The Economist endorses Obama
Brett's Brain: The Economist endorses Obama
Not that British people can vote, but it still means something. Here's an excerpt (chosen with considerable bias, of course):
The Economist: Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
