Open letter to Governor Schwarzenegger

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

While you are entitled to your belief on this matter and were well within your right to express you opinion during the campaign, as Governor of California you owe the people your support (or at least silence) once the people have expressed their will through a fair election. I was very disappointed to read in the LA Times about your CNN interview where you expressed your "hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8."

Now as the week has progressed I continue to wonder where is your response is to the vigilantism carried out on supporters of Proposition 8 who are only guilty of legally supporting a proposition placed on the ballot as approved by the State's Attorney General and Secretary of State.

Today, again in the LA Times you are quoted as saying about Proposition 8 "that it's unconstitutional," which makes absolutely no sense given Article 18, Sections 3 and 4, of the California Constitution. It is apparent that the people are given the right to "amend the Constitution by initiative" and "if approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election." While I was surprised to learn how easy it is to amend the Constitution, there is no basis for the State Supreme Court to do anything but uphold the Amendment as written.

Are voters stupid?

Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, believes the California voters are not able to understand the written election information produced by the Secretary of State and approved by the Attorney General, and make an informed decision. It is disappointing to hear the level on contempt the Speaker has for the voters of California.

Unfortunately, I think people (voters) thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was ("Eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry." see below). I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution ("Changes the California Constitution..." see below) to diminish freedom ("...eliminate the right..." see below) in our state.
- Nancy Pelosi, November 7, 2008

Proposition 8 is only 14 words:

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

Attorney General's official title and summary:

Eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Given the relative simplicity of Proposition 8, obviously the Speaker must question the results of the other 11 proposition voted on during the November 4, 2008, election.

The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Readability Index puts the information sent to the voters on par with Sports Illustrated and Time Magazine (Grade 11 to 12), which is judged to be significantly simpler than the IRS code (and text of the other propositions).

California voters can change Constitution

There has been some discussion about the ability of the people to change the California Constitution. Well by checking the document it is clearly, YES!

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 18  AMENDING AND REVISING THE CONSTITUTION

SEC. 3.  The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.

Hopefully, if Proposition 8 passes, no one challenges the voters decision and if they do, the California Supreme Court follows the writing of the Constitution.

Presidential Qualification and Best Choice

Many have ask weather the current Presidential and Vice President candidates are qualified for the position? The simple answer is "yes."

Article II of the US Constitution provides for the qualifications for President...

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Constitutional Amendment XX, Section 3, covers the rules for the Presidency when either the President or Vice President are not qualified...

...if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Given all of the candidates are qualified for the position of President of the United States, are they the "best" people for the position? This is too vague to be a realistic question. "Best" is based upon personal view and "best" takes every possible context of the candidate and the position they are running for.

In the long run, yes, these are the "best" candidates for the positions because these are the people their parties have nominated for the election. The winner of the 2008 electoral college will be the "best" because the country selected that team to become our top executive.

In a few short weeks we'll know our "best" choice of President and Vice President for the next term in office.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington

The recent nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and her story reminded me of Frank Capra's classic movie with one of the great American hero, Brigadier General, James (Jimmy) Stewart.

Whoopi Goldberg, Matt Damon, MSNBC, Keith Olberman, and others act similar to the "Taylor Machine" trying to crush and lick the VP nominee. Palin should feel comforted by the words from The Gettysberg Address that inspired Smith to put up his fight

"...that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln

Hopefully, like "Smith" the VP nominee will continue to speak to the people, not get discuraged by lies (even if it becomes a "hopeless cause"), and outlast the "corruption" trying to control the media.

Simple to Complicated

California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, took the very simple Proposition 8 Amendment language in the proposed law and created his own version with a significant bias.

Here the law is in its entirety...

Section 1. Title

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

Section 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Very simple and straight forward... but Jerry Brown decided to embellish this text in his "Ballot Label" (wording used on the actual ballot) and "Ballot Title and Summary" (wording used on the Sample Ballot). The Ballot Label reads:

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little financial impact on state or local government.

A description of this action can be located in a local news broadcast. The entire text for the ballot and sample ballot for this (and other propositions) can be found on the Secretary of State website.

Casa D' Ice

Bill Balsamico has become a public figure (and presidential candidate) because of his lack of political correctness and his restaurant's Famous Sign. Bill speaks out frequently about current events that lack any common sense and upset him. Many of his statements, while strong, represent the thoughts of many Americans tired of giving away everything (including those paid for by American's lives) trying to relieve our collective "White Guilt" (see Shelby Steele's book).

Chuck Speaks

Chuck Norris speaking out about cleaning up our language, taking us back to our founding philosophy, and move beyond old slanderous discussions.

Case in point is George Carlin's classic early 1970's monologue of the "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television," which seems tame by what is frequently overheard in today's society.

15-year old mature enough for consensual group sex!

The case of Genarlow Wilson (click name for 2/10/2007 earlier post) is in the news again and ESPN is taking credit for helping to resolve this "injustice." I just want to be sick. How on earth can anyone think a 15-year old has the maturity needed for consensual sex? Given this logic, the driving, voting, and drinking ages should be dropped to 15 too. Maybe 15-year old kids should be allowed to join the military to fight and possibly die in battle too.

I do not like Imus BUT...

Given Rev. Jesse Jackson's comment on Fox about "power relationship" as criteria to be used for determining the appropriate punishment for use of "inappropriate" language, is not a 1984 presidential candidate (13% of popular vote and 9% of electoral vote) more powerful than a sports analyst (Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder), baseball general manager (Al Campanis - Jackie Robinson's travel roommate), professional golfer (Fuzzy Zoeller), professional baseball pitcher (John Rocker), Washington, DC, mayor aide (David Howard), and elementary school teacher (Ruth Ann Sherman)?

Since the Rev. Jackson's apology was accepted for using the term "Hymie" (excuse - "said but not recorded/broadcast") without employment consequences, it seems that the good reverend should now extent an apology for not coming to the aid of the people noted above when they received significantly harsher consequences to their "mistake" than he.

It is apparent that both the good reverend and Rev. Al Sharpton (2004 presidential candidate) use this type of "error in judgement" as a stepping stone for their own power base without regard to their own "error in judgement."

One selfless act

What is your selfless activity? Please share your thoughts too.

As I was driving to donate blood at my local Red Cross the other day, I realized this was probably the only selfless act that I make an effort to do consistently. And even this I have had months and sometimes years that have slipped through between donations. I do have a wife, children, and contact with much of my extended family where hopefully I am more unselfish than not with them, but I gain way too much from them to consider any acts there selfless.

Also, it is not to say that I have not donated money to worthy causes, that I have not helped out a friend in need, nor that I have not volunteered with my kids activities. But in all of those activities, I probably gained as much or more through my act than others did, and my driving force was to fill an immediate need within a group (volunteer) or support my causes (money). This is not to say they were selfish but I do not think they were truly selfless either. Miriam-Webster OnLine dictionary defines selfless as “having no concern for self.”

Donating blood is a relatively small and simple act that I had not given much thought about until that day. I am blessed with having blood type o-negative, which is also know as the “universal donor” because nearly everyone can receive my blood in an emergency without worry of blood mismatch (I’m sure there is a technical term). Some how I never caught Cytomegalovirus (CMV), which is a common virus carried by more than half of the US population. Most people who have the virus never know it and for the average healthy person, CMV does not cause a problem. However, for patients whose immune systems are not functioning properly (e.g., premature babies, cancer patients, and others who cannot fight infection), CMV can be very serious. (CMV info source) Because of these two factors there have been times in my life where I have been called to donate blood when there was a critical need. Nowadays it seems like there is always a critical need for blood.

This posting is not intended to influence others to donate blood; however, if it does that’s okay. While I hope I can continue to donate blood for many more years, as I age odds are against me because there continue to be new hazards in the world that can render someone blood harmful to others or hopefully I’ll just get too old. So I’ve decided in 2007 I need find and start that next selfless activity for me to continue when the time eventually comes that I can no longer donate blood.

As I am looking for another selfless activity, it would be great for others to share their hidden selfless activities. I realize that many cannot donate blood because of societal regulations, health reasons (including fainting), and religious beliefs, so there must be numerous other activities available.

It seems to me that the US (and world) would be much better off if each of us would find just one selfless act that we could make our own to pursue that provided good without direct benefit to someone we know and without promoting one of our causes. Until you find your selfless activity to pursue, please continue to volunteer for and donate to those many other unselfish opportunities you have in your life.

If you are asking how does this tie in with the concept of this blog? I was there with you, until I realized that we have started to let governments perform acts that previously were provided by unselfish or selfless people. It seems to me that the more we pursue and support these activities first, the easier it will be to push governments back to the roll that they should do and do best.

As I finish this post, I realize that donating blood may not be as selfless as I had hoped, it improves my well-being.

Housewives?

Is it me or did Bravo change the definition of housewife? Merriam-Webster OnLine defines housewife as “a married woman in charge of a household.” So, I have to ask what is Bravo’s definition for their show “Real Housewives of Orange County”? I thought you had to be married to be a wife, since one maybe two of the five women are married, they have missed the point. It is hard to call a “working mother” a housewife, in the traditional sense of the word, since their obligations are at least split between work and household.

I give Bravo credit for finding some of the most dysfunctional people in Orange County to appear in this show. Coto De Caza (a.k.a. Coto) is pictured as being typical Orange County but it is really just a bunch of want-a-bees. While it is not depicted that way in the show, Coto about 15 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and at least another five miles further away from the “real” shopping of Southcoast Plaza or Fashion Island. Coto lacks the real money and prestige of Newport Beach, Huntington Harbor, San Clemente, Dana Point, or Laguna.

There are plenty of “real” housewives in Orange County but I’m sure they would not make for “Bravo TV” because they are not much different than the housewives through out the country. They put their families before their careers; spend much of their time taxing kids with friends from event-to-event; help with homework; volunteer with school, scouts, sports teams, etc.; and skip the plastic surgery for funding for college or retirement. They are the unsung heroes whose hard work has been trivialized by Bravo.

Could this happen to your child?

This is the start of title the title for the website supporting Genarlow Wilson. And, the answer is...Not if you are involved! This young man was charged and convicted “Aggravated Child Molestation for a voluntary act of oral sex” with a 15-year old girl when he was two years her senior. Also, he was acquitted of a rape charge stemming from the same incident.

Mr. Wilson’s mother, Ms. Juanessa Bennett, provides more information about the crime in her January 2006 interview with BlackAmericaWeb. The article clearly shows this was not a simple case of a boy becoming intimate with his girlfriend but a New Year’s Eve party in a hotel where there was a video tape catching the action. Obviously, the classes in Civics are not being understood if a high school senior with a 3.2 GPA has not learned that the activities he participated in at best were inappropriate and likely to have been illegal.

Where are the parents of these kids? It does not take much imagination and/or interaction with your kids to understand that this party in a hotel room was unlikely to be a “positive” experience and that any problems could have long term negative implications. Less than a decade ago Georgia had a sexually transmitted disease outbreak among middle and high school age children (1999 Frontline documentary), which CNN noted as a Wake-up Call was an opportunity missed.

What’s most appalling is that there are people in our country that believe a child of 15 is capable of determining “consensual sex” with its potential for life changing consequences, while not having the maturity to legally operate a motor vehicle on the roads, purchase cigarettes, or be in possession of alcohol. It was not too many years ago that the voting age moved from 21 to 18 and so did the age of majority. It is tough enough to make good decisions at 18, 19 and 20, so how can anyone expect someone 15 to be capable make an intelligent choice about sex, especially when faced with pressure from older classmates?

As usually the ACLU has been involved in a related issue, but misses the “forest” of the problem because it focused on the “tree” of a single individual “minority” right. The CWA sheds a little more light on ACLU claims.

While former President Clinton struggled with the concept that intimacy without intercourse is “sexual relations,” it is clear that the activities in this case are so, and it is only appropriate that children be protected from undue exposure and/or pressure to such activities.