The Governator: A Political Girly Man

A little late? Yeah. And while I'm close to losing my head without news like this, I'm still hearing about it and I still want to scream in Schwarzenegger's face.

(by the by, is it okay for me to criticize government leaders?)

This past Tuesday California had yet another "special election" because Arnold can't lead to save his life. Because Arnold does not understand that this is a republic, not a democracy. We, the people, vote in others to represent our interests and ideals and they, in turn, go to work full time to ensure we, the people, get what we say we want. This is for a few reasons:

1. The People do not have the time to follow up and research--and vote for--all of the laws to be passed.

2. The People largely do not have the smarts to deal with all the laws to be passed.

But Arnold doesn't get this. It felt neat at first when he threatened the legislature with "taking it to the people" but after a while, the people got tired. We've our own crap to deal with.

He can be entertaining to be sure, but he's too scared to lead. Coward. To use his own words, Arnold is a political girly man.

You see, everytime there's a big decision to be made and the legislature throws their arms in the air and Arnold can't rally them up--which is almost every time--he takes it "to the people."

And it costs m-o-n-e-y. So much effing money.

As some may well know, California also cannot (a) balance a budget and (b) pass a budget. So what does he do? Special Elections.

And with the nationwide economic crisis with California suffering moreso than some other states, gasp, Arnold knows he has to cut some programs.

And what does Arnold like to cut? Education. Fire.

Now my involvement in politics admittedly ends too soon and I have no other answers. However, a friend of mine on a privatized blog of mine asked a key question:

What is he not willing to cut if he's willing to cut Education and Fire?

Before the election this past Tuesday, Arnold and his ilk were running around saying things like "I don't like to threaten with fear, but I have to. If you do not pass these propositions, I will have to cut education."

Just wait. There's more.

All the propositions failed. By a landslide. Arnold's reaction? "You guys sent a strong message this past Tuesday, that we need to live within our means. We need to cut education."

Arnold.

That is NOT what we said.

We said: do your job. Figure it out. We don't have time for this.

Don't come back and say "well, the people hath spoken" because that's political speak for "if this doesn't work, it's not my fault your child can't afford to attend a college here, to take his music and physical education class. The people voted."

Let's not forget the state is in more debt, I hear, even with the economy aside, than we were when Gray Davis was Governor.

You're taxing the hell out of us, too. You're just spreading it around so it doesn't seem like it. Our vehicle registration fees are doubled. It costs money now to get a smog extension. Our sales tax has been hiked. Thousands upon thousands of teachers are now out of a job and more are scared they're next. Schools have closed. Fire stations. I actually heard a leader say "don't worry, we still have enough firemen to get to everyone. It just might take a bit longer to get to your house."

Come on now. Seriously?

You know you can't run for President. Your tenure as Governator is, thankfully, coming to a close. There's very little to lose here. So stand up and do something. If you run for the Senate or the House, well. We know what kind of congressman you'll be. A lazy one.

I didn't vote for you the first time nor the second time, and you can bet your ass I won't vote for you again.

Go back to Hollywood.

Going to Sunstone!

My husband and I are celebrating our seventh anniversary this Sunday, and we're doing so at Sunstone West.

Perhaps a bit of an odd choice (we were going to go to Tahoe), but the timing is great and there are a few friends I'm looking forward to seeing.

It should be a good time; I'm really looking forward to the discussions. If you'll be there, shoot me an email!

California Missions

For my U.S. History class, we read a short book entitled Monterey in 1786: Life in a California Mission, The Journals of Jean François de la Pérouse.

Since I realize not everyone lives in California, here's a short history. The California Missions of the 1700s were placed along the coastal areas of California: San Jose, Monterey, San Rafael (one I've visited), San Francisco, Santa Cruz, etc. Each of these missions were headed by Spanish colonists and were there for the express purpose of converting the Native American people to Catholicism.

With questions regarding the new land, trade possibilities, and other issues, King Louis XVI of France asked Pérouse to head an expedition to the colonies to make notes of everything: land, weather, plants, people, etc. so they could learn more of it to see if they could perhaps capitalize on it. This book is part summary and part Pérouse's personal journal of the trip and says much of the Spanish treatment toward the Native American people.

A few things struck me as I read:

First, that the Spaniards sought not to understand the Native American way of life, but simply to judge it, deem it anarchist and godless, and then seek to save them. No matter the motivation they would use to convert the people, those in charge "agreed that converting the Indians to European ways was not merely desirable, but indeed a moral necessity" (40). It earlier states "There was, in their eyes, only one true religion, the one the Spanish monks were bringing with them to the Monterey Bay area" (28).

The Indian people for various reasons all came to the missions voluntarily and, once baptized, were stuck. Without experience with organized warfare, a tradition of strong leaders and of long, drawn out decision-making processes, they also had language barriers between them. No real weapons to speak of.

Mostly, though, they had the fear of God instilled in them. It states,

"The Spaniards also had an enormous psychological edge...while the Indians seemed to have been burdened by the incapacitating belief that the Spaniards were powerful magicians, deriving their powers not just form the bullets in their guns, but directly from the gods. Proof of the alliance between the Spaniards and the gods was everywhere: the monks were seen constantly talking directly to their gods, and it seemed obvious that their gods were answering them. To rebel against the monks and soldiers meant to rebel against their gods as well" (31)

Does anyone think these people had a choice?

In civilizing the Indian people, the Spaniards managed also to take away everything that defined them. Their link to the land. Their homes (they weren't allowed outside the mission). Their calendars and rituals. All gone. Mission president Fermín Lasuén said of the conversion process:

"This can be accomplished only by denaturalizing them. It is easy to see what an arduous task this is, for it requires them to act against nature. But it is being done successfully by means of patience and by unrelenting effort" (33)

The result of such actions? Deep depression. "Unable to rebel, their old way of life destroyed, they sank into the deepest gloom" (33)

But this one really stuck out to me:

"To enjoy membership in this new community, the Indians were invited to partake in the ritual of baptism, thus allowing them to communicate with the spirits and gods who had given the newcomers such great power and wealth. What the Indians could not have understood, however, was that the waters of baptism were, in the eyes of those administering it, taking away not only something called 'sin' but freedom as well...

The Indians had to be kept at the mission, by force if necessary, lest they revert to their old ways and stray into sin. To preserve the soul, the monks understood to regulate the Indians' every activity, monitor their behavior, and teach them (by whatever means necessary) the correct mental and spiritual attitudes...they were now wards of the church - their lives, their bodies, even their thoughts no longer their own." (30)

I think this could all be read in a few different ways aside from the literal historical aspect of it.

Any thoughts?

It's the end of the world as Dr. James Dobson knows it

We apparently are not alone in having a prophet.

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family also seems to have a bit of clairvoyant talent - or at least a time travel machine. This sixteen page letter, itemizing every Obama repercussion from talk radio to child pornography was written (or will be written?) in 2012 by "A Christian."

Now, it's a little late now, and for that I apologize. If only more voters would have been made privy to this letter prior to voting for Barack Obama, we would be spared so many awful things. So far, the predictions have come true. Senator Obama is now President-elect Obama, after all.

First, understand that a vote for Barack Obama means a new far-left democratic majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. The three conservative justices left are going to be called "originalists" because, unlike liberals, they adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution. These "originalists" argued, in vain far too many times it seems, that their job as Justices is to interpret the Constitution, not come up with heretical new laws. That's the job of the heretical liberal Congress.

So, if you ever wondered how the world would come to a crashing end, Dr. James Dobson and Co. would like to enlighten you:

1. The most far reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual ‘marriage’ was a “constitutional right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex ‘marriage’ violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution…This was a blatant example of creating law by the court, for homosexual ‘marriage’ was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the authors have imagined that same-sex ‘marriage’ could be derived from their words.

Huh. I didn't know marriage was mentioned at all in the Constitution.

2. The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.

Forced to seek out homosexual scoutmasters. I can just imagine any interview that may go on:

"So. Are you gay?"

"Duh, of course."

"Hired."

"So, what are you doing Friday night?"

Come on! This would ask that a person NOT discriminate based on sexual orientation - which, sorry, should be the case.

And besides all of that, why is it okay to imply a homosexual man would try to get it on with "young boys"? Are we really intent to perpetuate this myth that all gay men are pedophiles?

Wow.

I mean, I get it. You wouldn't allow a grown man to sleep in a tent with young girls. You'd have the adults (all of them) sleep in...that's right, different tents. Not necessarily for the protection of the kids so much as for the protection of the adults as well. Easy enough. Moving on.

3. Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one personal choice.

I still don’t get this. Should we instead continue to pretend homosexuality doesn’t exist? The schools, and I know this because my husband is going through the end process of becoming a teacher in California, understand how important it is to be a safe place.

Not talking about it in the schools won’t help. The schools need to help children understand and respect people, and you should too. Now, I don’t know that we’re going to have a conversation like this going on, but I mean, “A Christian” from the future seems to think it's likely, so I guess we can’t totally rule it out:

“Here’s Jack and Jill. They have ‘traditional’ sex.

“Here’s Dan and Dean. They have really cool ‘gay’ sex. It’s pretty awesome, actually. You should try it sometime. Here are some pictures!”

No.

This is more about respecting different people. And uh, if you live in California, you do have the right to opt your child out of comprehensive sex education. If your state doesn't allow it, you can work to have that changed. America is pretty cool that way.

4. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born.

I think this is a nod to the "present" vote Obama gave as a Senator - uhm, yeah. Like he said, it was already law that you couldn't do it, and he didn't want to compromise Roe v. Wade. Me thinks Focus on the Family shot itself in the foot here.

And really, does anyone really believe this will happen? Anyone?

...
You might be surprised to read what will happen regarding Iraq, Russia, Iran, and Israel (Tel Aviv gets bombed, apparently. Huh)
...

5. Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.

Because Obama decided to introduce Universal Healthcare, after all, and it really sucks. Old people are thought more and more to have a duty to go home and die. I'll bet this news would thrill Dr. Kevorkian who could just set up practice specifically for speeding up the process.

6. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this, since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output.

I realize I'm not a registered Democrat, but as a liberal leaning heretic, I'm all for $7 a gallon gas. I was getting a little too excited - if you know what I mean - the day we paid $4.70 for a gallon of gas here in California - so close to $5 a gallon! SO CLOSE!

7. As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity…and broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant rebuttal to the program by a liberal ‘watchdog’ group. Many listeners gave up in frustration, advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically…Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010.

We're going to force conservative talk radio out of business for...offering the other side? I hate it when that happens.

Now, I know some of you might be waiting to hear about how electing Obama will lead to legalization of child pornography. It is not on the .pdf version of the document, but it is on this document. Why it's gone on the other version, I don't know. But it's worth reading. I really hope this isn't what people think.

8. In addition, law enforcement officials can no longer stop the distribution of child pornography, after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the such distribution violated freedom of speech and interstate commerce laws.

Yeah. I don't get this one either. Maybe it was deleted in the .pdf document because it's just so ridiculous. At least I hope so.


Of course, the letter concedes,

Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for ‘change,’ and they voted for him. They did not realize Obama’s far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently (it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years. Christians did not realize that by electing Barack Obama – rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 – they would allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great instrument of oppression.

But, I mean, Dr. James Dobson wouldn't really want the Supreme Court majority to belong to ultra-conservative right wing Republicans, would he?

Would he?

As a last note, I'd like to offer this quote from Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, regarding the 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams:

"The other side - the Adam's people - said [Jefferson] was a 'howling atheist'...they said if he won, that rape and incest and murder would be taught in schools. Finally this Connecticut newspaper apologized in 1993."

Everyone's a prophet.

Church, State, and Gay Marriage: Part 1

If you don't know what California is up to these days, you should. The world is progressing, and this issue is likely to spread to each state.

I plan to revisit this topic often up until November 4th. It's worth discussion, and not because gay people might get a chance to marry, but because we need to take these opportunities to understand and learn some compassion - deep breath, I didn't say "acceptance" - compassion. Too many people actually push others away in their zeal when the end goal is to bring more into "the fold."

And even if that's not your particular goal, nothing good ever came from hatred, disgust, and fear.

California's Proposition 8 calls for an amendment to the state constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I made my opinion rather clear in my recent Associated Content article, but let me reiterate that I haven't cast my vote yet.

Churches who may otherwise spit at each other (many churches consider the LDS church a cult) have allied in light of this proposition. They have asked their members to go door to door, pass out flyers, post signs and/or make phone calls to get others to vote yes. The arguments they use transcend religion but are, quite frankly, stupid. To avoid beating a dead horse any more than I may, I'll just invite you to visit my article to see what, exactly, makes them stupid (thanks).

Some choose to stay away from such scripts and carnal arguments and wish to simply proclaim what is the fundamental belief of most Christian people - that God deems homosexuality a sin.

For members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the argument may go deeper than their own individual feelings toward the matter - "Because the Prophet said to." But first, I want to discuss "Because God said it's a sin."

Only the Old Testament seems to speak directly against homosexual acts with verses such as Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (Leviticus 18:22). It's hard for many people to accept Old Testament dogma, however, when it's so oft surrounded with other doctrine found unacceptable or at least unrealistic to modern day society. For example, no one cares how many steps you take on the Sabbath anymore. The New Testament seems to only hint at an anti-homosexuality stance and is likewise up for interpretation.

"Because God said homosexuality is a sin" isn't good enough. As a belief, it's fine, but it certainly won't work to convince atheists and agnostics. Even for many believers it won't work for the reasons stated above: personal interpretations abound, as do rejections of some Old Testament doctrine in light of New Testament doctrine. There are also those who think the government shouldn't say who can get together, as long as it’s between consenting adults. Our government hasn't yet and should never tell a church what to do or believe. It's the whole "separation of Church and State" bit.

A person can believe homosexuality is a sin - that's their right. Just don't think that "Because God said so" will convert anyone.

And besides, let he who is without sin throw the first stone, anyone?

I say we leave this whole "sin" thing alone.


The next argument is exclusively LDS, but because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is playing such a large part in the effort to pass Proposition 8, I think it merits some space here.

Because the Prophet told me I should support the amendment.

While there are Latter-day Saints who recoil and become grossed out at the idea of homosexuality, there are some who don't necessarily think it'll be the end of the world if gay couples married. These same people intend, however, to vote otherwise because the Prophet asked them to.

Allow me to explain.

LDS scripture states, in short, that when the Prophet speaks, it is as if God Himself were speaking. So when President Thomas S. Monson, speaking as Prophet, tells the membership to vote in support of Proposition 8, the faithful sweep their own personal convictions aside, suck it up, and do what the Prophet asks them to because God's ways aren't our ways, and neither our understanding His.

As a belief and a reason to vote, this should be respected and it should be enough - as should dissenting opinions. It's when fear mongering emails pop up in an effort to get its readers to vote accordingly that I want to pull all of my hair out (and I have a lot of hair, people. Show some mercy).

Religious doctrine teaches that we are not supposed to or can know everything, but that reasoning tires after a while. People want to understand. They want their head to agree with their heart and vice versa. It's not fun to defend a belief that seems insane or discriminatory to the majority with little to back it up, and so facts are made up and "what if" situations are conjured based on...nothing, but it's done because it will work as a means to a righteous end.

Others will buy the arguments because they "sound" good and they "sound" right. Let's face it, we like to be scared. "The End Times are near," and the world - America especially - is on a downward spiral, as they say. Because the written word holds so much innate authority and there's so much to do, people will blindly invest their trust in what merely sounds good. But they shouldn't. We shouldn't.

But we do. I know I have.

I just have to wonder if maybe, just maybe, we try to convince ourselves that the information we read is right because we're unable to reconcile our gut instinct with proposed truth.

That makes sense to me.