I was talking to a friend about how she should intentionally mess up her laundry for fun since it would make laundry much more interesting. She then asked me who would buy the new clothes that would eventually result from this temporary amount of fun. I told her the Clothing Fairy would come by and replace all of her messed up clothes with new clothes in the latest fashion.
Naturally, I started to think, "What if there was a magical fairy that could cure all of the world's problems?" Could you just think of all the possibilities that could exist with the various magical fairies that would have to exist for this to work? Here are some examples:
The Annoying Neighbor Fairy: Having trouble with your neighbor? Are they playing absurdly loud music until 4:00 AM only to change the type of music from techno to acid rock? Well worry no more, my friends because the Annoying Neighbor Fairy will wait until that neighbor falls asleep (or passes out) and "relocate" your neighbor to a house far, far away.
The Bad Driver Fairy: Someone cut you off? Someone driving down the wrong side of the road or through construction zones to get by that tiny bit of traffic? Someone just completely disregarding human life while cruising down your residential street at 120 MPH? Fear not for the Bad Driver Fairy will revoke said driver's license and impound their car in their mystical impound in the sky. There's no phone number to get it back!
The Economic Crisis Fairy: Stock market declining? Economic indicators showing your country is going down the toilet? Investment brokers needing more Prozac than usual? Help is on the way! The Economic Crisis Fairy will stimulate your economy with a wave of their magical wand, infusing the market with magical cash and restoring consumer confidence in your economy. Within moments, your everyday citizens will be eager to go out and buy that useless crap you've been putting on shelves!
The Health Care Fairy: Sick as a dog but don't have insurance? Can't get yourself fake citizenship in a country like France or Canada so you can take advantage of their free health care? No need to cross the border any more! The Health Care Fairy uses their extensive knowledge of American Medical Bureaucratic Systems to cut through the red tape as well as "softening" the hearts of those medical board directors to give you your procedure for free. So when you need that quadruple bypass surgery, you know you're covered.
The Hangover Fairy: Had too much to drink last night? Spending your morning bent over the toilet? Does the sound of a pin dropping make your head throb? Forget about it! The Hangover Fairy is here to make sure that your nights of liver abuse have no affect on your ability to get through the next day! No more vomiting, no more headaches, and no more unpleasant aftertaste! Get your drink on without the annoying consequences of tomorrow!
That's just a few. There's more I can think of, but not at the current moment. I might add to this eventually.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Random rants of a political nature...
First off I think that it's imperative to address the upcoming election. One cannot address the current election without discussing the candidates. As for Obama, I have had quite an opinion of him. I'm an admirer of his charisma, his personal charm, and his ability to rally people to politics like no one else has done in quite some time. However, when it comes down to being the candidate of "change," I think he gives it more lip service than actual substance. He has many "right" ideas, such as a progressive tax scale to balance the budget (hopefully) and giving the middle class the ability to have more spending power (which is the base of a good economy). He at least wants people to be able to have affordable health care, although it's still a far cry from a nationalized health care system that would provide free care (and by "free" I mean free when you walk in the door, but you pay for it through tax revenues) to everyone. His strategy for Iraq is decent, I suppose. Getting the soldiers back home is a good goal, albeit more difficult than anyone really knows. By adding Biden to the ticket, Obama makes up for an apparent lack of experience in "executive" and "foreign policy" arenas and gets a VP who can mentor him and be a representative of the United States abroad, which as oftentimes been the VP's delegated role when the President doesn't wish to go somewhere. If Obama were to meet some sort of an unfortunate end, Biden would be a fine choice to step into the presidency and serve out the remainder of Obama's term.
Then you move onto McCain. Me being a heavily biased liberal, I cannot objectively speak about McCain. His Republican tax platform is ludicrous (in the sense that it won't balance the budget), his desire to cut down government even more is a disaster (since government has problems doing what it is supposed to do at its current capacity), but I guess I admire his desire to end the useless riders that get attached to a bill that assign money to states like Alaska to buy off a Senator's or Representative's vote to pass the bill. I just used Alaska not because the senator is easily bribed, but because everyone should know by now that McCain's VP is from the state of Alaska. But his policy in Iraq is finally "catching up" to that of the Democrats and saying that a timetable is an okay thing, insofar as conditions on the ground are met (blah blah blah). McCain, not having a huge reputation for being a social conservative (despite him saying he does), picked a woman who has those credentials to be his running mate. Sarah Palin is a self-described hockey mom (although it should be grandmother), who is ardently religious (and carries the many beliefs associated with extreme religious beliefs), and apparently got up at 3:00 AM every day to go kill some moose when she was a kid. I recently read the viewpoint of a conservative friend of mine who said that Sarah Palin made her glad to be a conservative woman. I suppose she is the conservative woman's choice (at least a semi-progressive conservative woman's choice) but she is certainly a minority amongst Americans. Her hard-line conservative values are actually strongly outside the mainstream about just as much as the Republicans claim Obama is too liberal and outside the mainstream. I think the reality of the situation is that more people are becoming liberal and progressive while fewer people are clinging to their traditional beliefs. Sarah Palin's experience with 2 years of governorship, 3 terms as a mayor of 9,000 people, a member of the Oil and Natural Gas Board in Alaska (and her father just happens to be an oil driller), a member of her 9,000 population town's city council, and a former runner up/Miss Congeniality in the Alaskan beauty contest really highlight her (lack of) qualifications. The conservatives complain the Barack Obama simply has experience in being a community organizer... but his community had over 5,000,000 people in it (at least I think that's how much Chicago has...). Who would you say has more experience, the mayor of 9,000 and the governor of 600,000 or the organizer of millions? Maybe I just have fuzzy math going on...
Then there's the whole hooplah about Proposition 8. I've written extensively on this topic many times and in many places. The meat of the argument really just boils down to this: if we're a society that preaches equality, then we, as citizens, have an obligation to ensure that EVERY citizen is treated equally. For those who are not in California or familiar with California politics (or even American politics), Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that legally defines marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman, excluding any homosexual couples from the process. The Supreme Court of California said that such exclusion is unconstitutional (which kind of makes it strange that an amendment is being ratified since it was deemed unconstitutional to begin with...). In my view, it's simply tyranny of the majority at work once again in the United States to terrorize and imprison a minority group who does not have the means to stand up for itself politically.
Then you move onto McCain. Me being a heavily biased liberal, I cannot objectively speak about McCain. His Republican tax platform is ludicrous (in the sense that it won't balance the budget), his desire to cut down government even more is a disaster (since government has problems doing what it is supposed to do at its current capacity), but I guess I admire his desire to end the useless riders that get attached to a bill that assign money to states like Alaska to buy off a Senator's or Representative's vote to pass the bill. I just used Alaska not because the senator is easily bribed, but because everyone should know by now that McCain's VP is from the state of Alaska. But his policy in Iraq is finally "catching up" to that of the Democrats and saying that a timetable is an okay thing, insofar as conditions on the ground are met (blah blah blah). McCain, not having a huge reputation for being a social conservative (despite him saying he does), picked a woman who has those credentials to be his running mate. Sarah Palin is a self-described hockey mom (although it should be grandmother), who is ardently religious (and carries the many beliefs associated with extreme religious beliefs), and apparently got up at 3:00 AM every day to go kill some moose when she was a kid. I recently read the viewpoint of a conservative friend of mine who said that Sarah Palin made her glad to be a conservative woman. I suppose she is the conservative woman's choice (at least a semi-progressive conservative woman's choice) but she is certainly a minority amongst Americans. Her hard-line conservative values are actually strongly outside the mainstream about just as much as the Republicans claim Obama is too liberal and outside the mainstream. I think the reality of the situation is that more people are becoming liberal and progressive while fewer people are clinging to their traditional beliefs. Sarah Palin's experience with 2 years of governorship, 3 terms as a mayor of 9,000 people, a member of the Oil and Natural Gas Board in Alaska (and her father just happens to be an oil driller), a member of her 9,000 population town's city council, and a former runner up/Miss Congeniality in the Alaskan beauty contest really highlight her (lack of) qualifications. The conservatives complain the Barack Obama simply has experience in being a community organizer... but his community had over 5,000,000 people in it (at least I think that's how much Chicago has...). Who would you say has more experience, the mayor of 9,000 and the governor of 600,000 or the organizer of millions? Maybe I just have fuzzy math going on...
Then there's the whole hooplah about Proposition 8. I've written extensively on this topic many times and in many places. The meat of the argument really just boils down to this: if we're a society that preaches equality, then we, as citizens, have an obligation to ensure that EVERY citizen is treated equally. For those who are not in California or familiar with California politics (or even American politics), Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment to the State Constitution that legally defines marriage as a union between a single man and a single woman, excluding any homosexual couples from the process. The Supreme Court of California said that such exclusion is unconstitutional (which kind of makes it strange that an amendment is being ratified since it was deemed unconstitutional to begin with...). In my view, it's simply tyranny of the majority at work once again in the United States to terrorize and imprison a minority group who does not have the means to stand up for itself politically.
To drill or not to drill? There really is no question...
One of the big issues coming up in the election is the matter of sending expedition teams off various coasts in the United States to find out if there's any oil out there to drill for and to invariably decrease our need for "foreign oil." Well, let me speak on this for a minute.
Many people might expect me to go the way of the environmentalist and argue about how oil rigs will end up polluting the atmosphere and make our beaches and coastal areas unsightly when you look out and there's this massive oil rig staring right back at you. However, although those are decent reasons to not allow for the drilling of oil offshore, I have different reasons for my desire to not see oil drilled offshore.
First off, the argument that we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is actually misleading. Oil is a global commodity traded at a global price. The value of the dollar is really the only thing that affects the price for American consumers differently than that of people in other countries. Also, it has been stated in the CIA World Fact Book (something you can look up online) that in 2004, the United States was exporting 1,048,000 barrels of oil PER DAY. I thought we were still looking to reduce our dependence on foreign oil back then. So why were we exporting it to other locations? I would also like to say that the fact that other nations' data has been updated in more recent years while the United States information has remained stagnant. Conspiracy? Perhaps...
Secondly, it will take years for the oil rigs to actually get set up and start drilling. Exploration teams have to first be sent in to see if there is actually any oil beneath the surface off the various coasts. If they manage to find a bed of oil big enough to exploit, they'll mark it and send a rig out to begin drilling. But rigs take two years to manufacture from order to completion (as I saw on a TV special, I believe either on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel). Naturally, oil companies don't have spare rigs sitting around waiting for oil to be discovered. That would take expenses to maintain and they would have to have land to store the rigs. After the rig is built, it has to be shipped from the construction yard to the location of the drilling. Moving the rigs overland is hard enough, but the rig also doubles as a craft that can move out into the water after it is sent there. So, the rig is also using gasoline to move into position. Sometimes places where the explorers thought there was a lot of oil actually had less oil than was expected, which can be equally infuriating to both producers and consumers. So not only will it take years to actually get the oil manufacturing infrastructure in place, it might not actually yield any significant results.
Thirdly, since we have no nationalized oil industry there is no way to ensure that the oil that is drilled out of the ground will actually stay in the United States. As stated in the first reason, oil is a global commodity. The oil we drill in the United States can just as easily be shipped out to foreign nations as it would be to keep it in the United States. It also doesn't matter if the oil is drilled off the coast of California or in the desert sands of Saudi Arabia, the price for each barrel of oil will be the same. Oil companies do have a goal of trying to minimize costs while maximizing revenues (as they push into our heads during accounting all the time) if they can still drill oil out of the ground for the (made up) price of $20 per barrel, why not go ahead and ship it to Vietnam or China or Japan to make $129 per barrel? Besides, the companies who drill oil are not always the companies who sell gasoline. Dutch Royal Shell Company is one of the rare companies that does both. Exxon-Mobile recently said it was looking to get out of the gasoline-selling industry and focus more specifically on drilling and the sale of petroleum. As I stated before, if it's going to cost the same to drill a barrel of oil from the United States as it is from Saudi Arabia, there's no national loyalty to whom they sell it to. If America nationalizes its oil industry and eliminates corporate national disloyalty, then I think we could drill for oil and force for it to go to American consumers.
Fourthly, the oil companies keep changing their story as to why the price of fuels are so high. Shortly before Katrina, the oil companies were complaining that the reason for the gas price hikes were due to the lack of refineries in the United States. Since then, I've heard no progress being made in the construction of refinery sites in the United States. Perhaps I didn't keep my ear to the ground on that one, but many were at least put out of commission when Katrina hit the area. Now the oil companies are complaining about supply and demand when there are oil producing nations that are not producing at full capacity (and are able to do so, as they claim, if they had a buyer for the oil). So if we're not exhausting the oil that can currently be produced, then why do we need to find new sources of oil? Also, in California specifically, we have lowered our demand for oil over the past two years, yet we have not seen a corresponding decrease in the price of gasoline in the state. It's still up from where the price was two years ago.
I wrote on a forum not too long ago that the statement that drilling for oil off the coast of the United States will lead to less dependence on foreign oil (thus leading to a decrease in price) is either ignorant or purposefully misleading. As I have stated, oil is globally traded on an open market not guaranteeing where it comes from. The rigs will also take years to be put into place so the benefits from offshore drilling will not be felt for a while (definitely contrary to the "immediate" relief that Americans would like). Also, since corporations have no national loyalty, there is absolutely no guarantee that the oil drilled in the United States will stay in the United States. It's just about as likely as a California State Quarter with Yosemite on the back will stay in California its entire life. I say if we want to drill off the coast we either need to nationalize our oil industry or else we need to have a written guarantee by the corporations that would be exploring for oil off the coasts that the oil will be sold domestically at a reduced market price so that way we can actually "solve" the problem of higher gas prices and our "reliance" on foreign oil.
Many people might expect me to go the way of the environmentalist and argue about how oil rigs will end up polluting the atmosphere and make our beaches and coastal areas unsightly when you look out and there's this massive oil rig staring right back at you. However, although those are decent reasons to not allow for the drilling of oil offshore, I have different reasons for my desire to not see oil drilled offshore.
First off, the argument that we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil is actually misleading. Oil is a global commodity traded at a global price. The value of the dollar is really the only thing that affects the price for American consumers differently than that of people in other countries. Also, it has been stated in the CIA World Fact Book (something you can look up online) that in 2004, the United States was exporting 1,048,000 barrels of oil PER DAY. I thought we were still looking to reduce our dependence on foreign oil back then. So why were we exporting it to other locations? I would also like to say that the fact that other nations' data has been updated in more recent years while the United States information has remained stagnant. Conspiracy? Perhaps...
Secondly, it will take years for the oil rigs to actually get set up and start drilling. Exploration teams have to first be sent in to see if there is actually any oil beneath the surface off the various coasts. If they manage to find a bed of oil big enough to exploit, they'll mark it and send a rig out to begin drilling. But rigs take two years to manufacture from order to completion (as I saw on a TV special, I believe either on the History Channel or the Discovery Channel). Naturally, oil companies don't have spare rigs sitting around waiting for oil to be discovered. That would take expenses to maintain and they would have to have land to store the rigs. After the rig is built, it has to be shipped from the construction yard to the location of the drilling. Moving the rigs overland is hard enough, but the rig also doubles as a craft that can move out into the water after it is sent there. So, the rig is also using gasoline to move into position. Sometimes places where the explorers thought there was a lot of oil actually had less oil than was expected, which can be equally infuriating to both producers and consumers. So not only will it take years to actually get the oil manufacturing infrastructure in place, it might not actually yield any significant results.
Thirdly, since we have no nationalized oil industry there is no way to ensure that the oil that is drilled out of the ground will actually stay in the United States. As stated in the first reason, oil is a global commodity. The oil we drill in the United States can just as easily be shipped out to foreign nations as it would be to keep it in the United States. It also doesn't matter if the oil is drilled off the coast of California or in the desert sands of Saudi Arabia, the price for each barrel of oil will be the same. Oil companies do have a goal of trying to minimize costs while maximizing revenues (as they push into our heads during accounting all the time) if they can still drill oil out of the ground for the (made up) price of $20 per barrel, why not go ahead and ship it to Vietnam or China or Japan to make $129 per barrel? Besides, the companies who drill oil are not always the companies who sell gasoline. Dutch Royal Shell Company is one of the rare companies that does both. Exxon-Mobile recently said it was looking to get out of the gasoline-selling industry and focus more specifically on drilling and the sale of petroleum. As I stated before, if it's going to cost the same to drill a barrel of oil from the United States as it is from Saudi Arabia, there's no national loyalty to whom they sell it to. If America nationalizes its oil industry and eliminates corporate national disloyalty, then I think we could drill for oil and force for it to go to American consumers.
Fourthly, the oil companies keep changing their story as to why the price of fuels are so high. Shortly before Katrina, the oil companies were complaining that the reason for the gas price hikes were due to the lack of refineries in the United States. Since then, I've heard no progress being made in the construction of refinery sites in the United States. Perhaps I didn't keep my ear to the ground on that one, but many were at least put out of commission when Katrina hit the area. Now the oil companies are complaining about supply and demand when there are oil producing nations that are not producing at full capacity (and are able to do so, as they claim, if they had a buyer for the oil). So if we're not exhausting the oil that can currently be produced, then why do we need to find new sources of oil? Also, in California specifically, we have lowered our demand for oil over the past two years, yet we have not seen a corresponding decrease in the price of gasoline in the state. It's still up from where the price was two years ago.
I wrote on a forum not too long ago that the statement that drilling for oil off the coast of the United States will lead to less dependence on foreign oil (thus leading to a decrease in price) is either ignorant or purposefully misleading. As I have stated, oil is globally traded on an open market not guaranteeing where it comes from. The rigs will also take years to be put into place so the benefits from offshore drilling will not be felt for a while (definitely contrary to the "immediate" relief that Americans would like). Also, since corporations have no national loyalty, there is absolutely no guarantee that the oil drilled in the United States will stay in the United States. It's just about as likely as a California State Quarter with Yosemite on the back will stay in California its entire life. I say if we want to drill off the coast we either need to nationalize our oil industry or else we need to have a written guarantee by the corporations that would be exploring for oil off the coasts that the oil will be sold domestically at a reduced market price so that way we can actually "solve" the problem of higher gas prices and our "reliance" on foreign oil.
Semantics Aside
Here we go again, another case of "ring around the rosie" with the horrifying issue of gay marriage.
Here's my very concise argument to the people who don't want to let it happen: seriously, go take the stick out of your rear, sit down, and meditate on things for a minute.
Let's go over the arguments, shall we?
1) Gay marriage is an assault on our traditional values, the sanctity of marriage, and the sacred institution of the family!
Answer: No it's not. I want Bible verses, please. Please show me exactly where it says that "No man shall enter into the covenant of marriage with another man, nor shall a woman enter into the covenant of marriage with another woman. It is forbidden and this sin shalt not stand in My presence." If you can find a verse very close to that, then I'll laugh at you and say, "So what?" Times change.
The "sanctity" of marriage? Please. People get married, divorced, have children, become abused, neglected, and commit adultery all the time in "sanctified heterosexual marriages." How many times do you actually hear of homosexual partners cheating on each other? It happens, just like in heterosexual marriages. That's the whole point. They're no different. Marriages between heterosexual couples are anything but sanctified. Marriage can be a wonderful, beautiful experience between two people who are in love and wish to share lives (and if you are so inclined to believe, eternity) together. Believe me, I have nothing against the so-called institution of marriage as it stands now. I hope to be involved in such a relationship myself. However, I cannot abide by people who claim that marriage between heterosexual couples is somehow "holy" and "sanctified" when it is broken and needs serious correction before it could truly be called by those adjectives. Fix the problems with your own sexual orientation before you go meddling in the affairs of other people's.
Also, the institution of the family has changed over the years. No longer is a family simply considered "mother, father, kids." Parents die, get divorced, get remarried, etc. etc. etc. Families come in many shapes and sizes now. Some people are raised by grandparents, others by aunts and uncles, others by not just their parents but their grandparents and their aunts and uncles as well. Some people grow up in foster homes, orphanages, with adoptive parents. How are these things the "traditional" family? A family really consists of a group of people who love each other, are willing to sacrifice for each other, and share a bond closer than that of friendship. Just because you have a mother and/or father doesn't mean you're close to them. Just because you're linked by genes doesn't make them family. Consequently, people who aren't of your genetic make-up can be closer to you than your biological kin could ever be. What defines the family then? And who says that two men or two women could not properly raise a child? There is no prerequisite that says you HAVE to be a heterogendered couple to properly raise a child, otherwise, you've messed it up. Single parents can raise children just fine (my mother and uncle are good examples of children raised by a single parent). So if a single parent can raise a child just fine, then why not let two people do it? They'll give the child the attention they deserve, they love they need, and the nourishment required. Besides, all the adoption agencies and foster homes are complaining that they are overcrowded and could use more couples to get into the adoption business. So if the need is so great, then why exclude people who genuinely want to do what's best for a child? The answer: simple prejudice and simple-mindedness.
2) In California, at least, homosexual couples are already given protection under civil unions. They only want the name "marriage" applied to them.
If civil unions are the same thing as marriages, then it's a matter of semantics. So why not just let them call it marriage? Let's look to some things, shall we? Marriage is a religious institution that has been secularized by the United States government for purposes of taxation benefits as well as insurance and retirement benefits. Essentially, marriage is one big benefits package. If you look at marriage as a religious institution, as many religious groups do and will when making their argument in argument 1), then under the Constitution of this country, Congress (and if Congress can't, then no state government can) cannot bar the free practice of religion. Therefore, I would argue to you that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. But since marriage in the United States is not a religious institution, but rather a secular one, then I would bring up Brown vs. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas of the early 1950s. This brought up the whole idea of the "separate but equal" issue. While the case proved that the institutions that were involved in the Brown vs. BoE case were not equal, I think the same principle can be applied here to the whole Civil Union vs. Marriage debate. The two institutions of civil union and marriage are defined as "separate but equal." Essentially they offer the same things (at least when it comes to benefits from the State of California). But in the era of racism and segregation that proliferated the Southern United States from the 1860s to the 1960s (and even until today in some parts) can we argue that this whole civil union thing is just another way of legal segregation. It's California's own Jim Crow Laws in effect. We don't want to give homosexuals the right to marry, so let's just let them have this completely separate institution called "civil unions" that will allow them to gain benefits, but keep them out of our churches. Grow up.
My mom, who actually instituted argument 2) at the dinner table last night, actually had a really good idea to solve this whole problem. Let's just get rid of marriage as a secular institution. Let's just call all state "marriages" civil unions from now on. If you want to get married, you'll go into a church and they can perform the lavish ceremony that you want and it will be all religious (and to each church their own), but you'll sign a "Civil Union License" instead of a "Marriage License." That way, marriage will stay where it belongs, in the churches, and the government will be neutral and equal to all its citizens (as it should be). What would be so wrong with that? I would like to see anyone argue that point effectively without entering into an endless stream of religious psychobabble that is completely inadmissible in a secular argument. It's not up to the government to keep your religious tenants safe, it's up to the government to keep all religions safe (as long as they are not harming people, private property, or the Constitution).
3) Gay marriage will lead to bestiality and all kinds of other evil activities!
Yes, that's what they said about interracial marriages 50 years ago. Again, grow up. Besides, if you're worried about bestiality, you can deny marriage rights to an animal. They are not citizens of the United States, so they don't deserve equal protection under the law as we do.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (I'm only picking this church out because I have been a member of it and have had some experience with this faith), as is customary, issed a statement stating that members needed to vote for the upcoming amendment to the California Constitution banning gay marriage as it is necessary to "preserve the sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family." I will argue that this statement is both unnecessary and hypocritical. We only need to make the case for my argument against the "sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family" in Part 1 of this two-part note. The hypocritical part is where I shall make a new argument.
The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith to give a definitive standard of what the Mormons (the followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have been known as) believe. All in all there are 13 Articles of Faith. The one I would like to draw everyone's attention to is Article 11, which states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." If this Article is supposed to be one of the pillars of the LDS Church's beliefs, then why are they contradicting it by asking their members to deny the right of people to worship God in their own way? Isn't marriage a religious institution that is afforded to the race of men by God to establish the institution that we now know as the "family?" Well, if a church's definition of God's Will is different then theirs, then are they not worshiping "how, where, or what they may?" Perhaps the Article, like the Second Amendment of the Constitution, was very vague. Perhaps it really intended to say, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may; except in the case of gay marriage, which would lead to the dissolution of the family and the collapse of all modern civilization, in which case the aforementioned Article of Faith is to be suspended until the abhoration of gay marriage is abolished." I might draw the ire of some of my LDS friends, but one cannot deny the fact that this is a contradiction of principle. One cannot say that they allow men to worship God how, where, and what they may while imposing restrictions upon them when they want to worship in a manner different from them.
To all religions, I say let your own religion dictate whether or not you are willing to marry homosexual couples in your church and allow the government to remain neutral on the subject and grant equal protection to all its citizens under the law.
Here's my very concise argument to the people who don't want to let it happen: seriously, go take the stick out of your rear, sit down, and meditate on things for a minute.
Let's go over the arguments, shall we?
1) Gay marriage is an assault on our traditional values, the sanctity of marriage, and the sacred institution of the family!
Answer: No it's not. I want Bible verses, please. Please show me exactly where it says that "No man shall enter into the covenant of marriage with another man, nor shall a woman enter into the covenant of marriage with another woman. It is forbidden and this sin shalt not stand in My presence." If you can find a verse very close to that, then I'll laugh at you and say, "So what?" Times change.
The "sanctity" of marriage? Please. People get married, divorced, have children, become abused, neglected, and commit adultery all the time in "sanctified heterosexual marriages." How many times do you actually hear of homosexual partners cheating on each other? It happens, just like in heterosexual marriages. That's the whole point. They're no different. Marriages between heterosexual couples are anything but sanctified. Marriage can be a wonderful, beautiful experience between two people who are in love and wish to share lives (and if you are so inclined to believe, eternity) together. Believe me, I have nothing against the so-called institution of marriage as it stands now. I hope to be involved in such a relationship myself. However, I cannot abide by people who claim that marriage between heterosexual couples is somehow "holy" and "sanctified" when it is broken and needs serious correction before it could truly be called by those adjectives. Fix the problems with your own sexual orientation before you go meddling in the affairs of other people's.
Also, the institution of the family has changed over the years. No longer is a family simply considered "mother, father, kids." Parents die, get divorced, get remarried, etc. etc. etc. Families come in many shapes and sizes now. Some people are raised by grandparents, others by aunts and uncles, others by not just their parents but their grandparents and their aunts and uncles as well. Some people grow up in foster homes, orphanages, with adoptive parents. How are these things the "traditional" family? A family really consists of a group of people who love each other, are willing to sacrifice for each other, and share a bond closer than that of friendship. Just because you have a mother and/or father doesn't mean you're close to them. Just because you're linked by genes doesn't make them family. Consequently, people who aren't of your genetic make-up can be closer to you than your biological kin could ever be. What defines the family then? And who says that two men or two women could not properly raise a child? There is no prerequisite that says you HAVE to be a heterogendered couple to properly raise a child, otherwise, you've messed it up. Single parents can raise children just fine (my mother and uncle are good examples of children raised by a single parent). So if a single parent can raise a child just fine, then why not let two people do it? They'll give the child the attention they deserve, they love they need, and the nourishment required. Besides, all the adoption agencies and foster homes are complaining that they are overcrowded and could use more couples to get into the adoption business. So if the need is so great, then why exclude people who genuinely want to do what's best for a child? The answer: simple prejudice and simple-mindedness.
2) In California, at least, homosexual couples are already given protection under civil unions. They only want the name "marriage" applied to them.
If civil unions are the same thing as marriages, then it's a matter of semantics. So why not just let them call it marriage? Let's look to some things, shall we? Marriage is a religious institution that has been secularized by the United States government for purposes of taxation benefits as well as insurance and retirement benefits. Essentially, marriage is one big benefits package. If you look at marriage as a religious institution, as many religious groups do and will when making their argument in argument 1), then under the Constitution of this country, Congress (and if Congress can't, then no state government can) cannot bar the free practice of religion. Therefore, I would argue to you that banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. But since marriage in the United States is not a religious institution, but rather a secular one, then I would bring up Brown vs. The Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas of the early 1950s. This brought up the whole idea of the "separate but equal" issue. While the case proved that the institutions that were involved in the Brown vs. BoE case were not equal, I think the same principle can be applied here to the whole Civil Union vs. Marriage debate. The two institutions of civil union and marriage are defined as "separate but equal." Essentially they offer the same things (at least when it comes to benefits from the State of California). But in the era of racism and segregation that proliferated the Southern United States from the 1860s to the 1960s (and even until today in some parts) can we argue that this whole civil union thing is just another way of legal segregation. It's California's own Jim Crow Laws in effect. We don't want to give homosexuals the right to marry, so let's just let them have this completely separate institution called "civil unions" that will allow them to gain benefits, but keep them out of our churches. Grow up.
My mom, who actually instituted argument 2) at the dinner table last night, actually had a really good idea to solve this whole problem. Let's just get rid of marriage as a secular institution. Let's just call all state "marriages" civil unions from now on. If you want to get married, you'll go into a church and they can perform the lavish ceremony that you want and it will be all religious (and to each church their own), but you'll sign a "Civil Union License" instead of a "Marriage License." That way, marriage will stay where it belongs, in the churches, and the government will be neutral and equal to all its citizens (as it should be). What would be so wrong with that? I would like to see anyone argue that point effectively without entering into an endless stream of religious psychobabble that is completely inadmissible in a secular argument. It's not up to the government to keep your religious tenants safe, it's up to the government to keep all religions safe (as long as they are not harming people, private property, or the Constitution).
3) Gay marriage will lead to bestiality and all kinds of other evil activities!
Yes, that's what they said about interracial marriages 50 years ago. Again, grow up. Besides, if you're worried about bestiality, you can deny marriage rights to an animal. They are not citizens of the United States, so they don't deserve equal protection under the law as we do.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (I'm only picking this church out because I have been a member of it and have had some experience with this faith), as is customary, issed a statement stating that members needed to vote for the upcoming amendment to the California Constitution banning gay marriage as it is necessary to "preserve the sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family." I will argue that this statement is both unnecessary and hypocritical. We only need to make the case for my argument against the "sanctity of marriage and the institution of the family" in Part 1 of this two-part note. The hypocritical part is where I shall make a new argument.
The Articles of Faith were written by Joseph Smith to give a definitive standard of what the Mormons (the followers of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints have been known as) believe. All in all there are 13 Articles of Faith. The one I would like to draw everyone's attention to is Article 11, which states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." If this Article is supposed to be one of the pillars of the LDS Church's beliefs, then why are they contradicting it by asking their members to deny the right of people to worship God in their own way? Isn't marriage a religious institution that is afforded to the race of men by God to establish the institution that we now know as the "family?" Well, if a church's definition of God's Will is different then theirs, then are they not worshiping "how, where, or what they may?" Perhaps the Article, like the Second Amendment of the Constitution, was very vague. Perhaps it really intended to say, "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may; except in the case of gay marriage, which would lead to the dissolution of the family and the collapse of all modern civilization, in which case the aforementioned Article of Faith is to be suspended until the abhoration of gay marriage is abolished." I might draw the ire of some of my LDS friends, but one cannot deny the fact that this is a contradiction of principle. One cannot say that they allow men to worship God how, where, and what they may while imposing restrictions upon them when they want to worship in a manner different from them.
To all religions, I say let your own religion dictate whether or not you are willing to marry homosexual couples in your church and allow the government to remain neutral on the subject and grant equal protection to all its citizens under the law.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Don't Tread on Me
I'm going to take a break from the normally comical, sarcastic, yet truthful notes I normally write and write a serious, political one.
There is a Native American song that says, "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." When I began to think about this quote at length, I started to realize how much this statement is true, especially when it comes to a lot of the pressing issues of our time. Global warming, national/state debt, Social Security, wars, energy, urbanization, etc.
For too long have the older generations been borrowing the world from our generation and future generations. During the election of 2000, a major focal point was what to do with the budget surplus that had developed within the latter years of the Clinton administration. For the first time in our history, we were finally talking about what to do with extra money the government had collected from the taxpayers. In no other time that we have been recording the national deficit has there ever been a surplus. Each administration, Democratic and Republican, has been slowly adding to the ever-mounting amount of money that someone, someday has to pay back.
Of course, there are circumstances wherein a deficit was necessary, such as the Great Depression, where extra money had to be spent to encourage growth and stimulate economic progress. However, in times of prosperity, there should be absolutely no reason that the country should be borrowing money for its expenditures. After the Dot-Com boom of the 1990s we have seen a see-sawing ebb and flow of the national economy. However, the national deficit has been steady climbing up every year. With the war in Iraq costing the nation around $2,000,000,000 a week we can only wonder not only, "What else could we be using that money for?" but "Who is paying for it?"
Naturally we do not have money in the budget for such extravagant expenses with the lopsided tax cuts granted by the G.W. Bush Administration to the people of America. During Bush's time in office there have been cuts to the Federal Income tax as well as cuts in the Capital Gains tax. With two huge sources of revenue cut, how were we ever supposed to pay for a $2,000,000,000 a week war? Namely the Congress has decided that we're going to put it on a credit card. The creditors: China, Belgium, Japan, and a hole slew of other foreign nations. The United States was once regarded as the creditor nation of the world, giving out aid, loans, and grants to several developing nations. Now, we're the world largest debtor owing more to foreign entities than any other nation, and more than likely several nations combined. Other holders of the United States' national debt do include local sources, such as private individuals (there are many middle-class bond holders, as well as upper-class bond holders) and corporations (who oftentimes will buy U.S. Treasury Notes and Bonds to add a steady amount of income in a stable investment). But there are problems with everyday citizens holding bonds and also with corporations holding bonds.
First off, private citizens holding bonds is basically holding a credit card bill for the future generation. The government says, "We don't have enough money to pay for everything now, so we need you to pay a certain amount now and in about 15-30 years we'll pay you double that amount." Despite the fact that I have seen benefits from my father purchasing government bonds, I still feel that the inherent risk of shouldering debt on others is not as good as a payback. Every time someone buys a bond, the government has to spend a portion of its budget to pay the interest as well as the principal amounts on the bonds every year. When the individual citizens hold bonds, they're usually in the amount of $100 or $200 a bond, a rather trivial amount when compared to our $1,000,000,000,000+ national budget. But when corporations buy bonds, they usually buy them in the hundreds of thousands. Corporations are happy to spend a small amount of their cash in exchange for a promise of future cash flows. They do it all at the expense of our future.
Each time a bond is issued, one generation pledges that it will not bother to pay back a debt today but will instead ensure that the debt will be satisfied at a later date. During the 1980s, under Ronald Reagan's presidency (the love-child of the current Republican candidates), the national deficit soared to nearly half a trillion dollars a year. Eight years of Reagan, half a trillion a year, equals nearly four trillion dollars in debt. The national deficit doubled just in the 8 years Reagan was in office. The Reagan Era was from 1980-1988. Since bonds last for usually around 30 years, guess when those things are going to be due? Somewhere between the years 2010 and 2018, just in time for most of us to graduate college, get a job, and start paying taxes. These upcoming years are the years that the generation named the "Baby Boomers" are starting to retire. Right now, politicians never like to mess with senior citizens and their fixed incomes. And why should we? They've lived a long life, working hard, and contributing to the system. They deserve to enjoy the twilight years of their life in relative peace and harmony without the fear of absorbent taxes breathing down their necks. But along with their massive numbers retiring, they are going to demand money for social security to help stabilize their fixed income and help provide for a better standard of life.
During the entire time of our parents' and grandparents' working lives, there was always the knowledge that the next generation would be larger than the previous generation, thus allowing for Social Security to virtually take care of itself. As people retired, the larger pool of younger workers would be able to shoulder the load and help pay for the previous generations' Social Security expenses. As many of you may be aware, this is the first time that the next generation is no longer as large as the previous generation. There is a massive swell of Baby Boomers retiring within the next ten years and there are not enough younger workers to shoulder the massive load that will be placed upon the Social Security system. There have been various solutions to this impending problem, such as giving people the ability to have private accounts to invest their own money in, or raise the rate at which the people are taxed for Social Security (FICA), or raise the cap that exists on income earned to be taxed for Social Security (I believe it's currently $97,000). But so far Congress and the President have made vague attempts to solve the problem, go nowhere, and give up on it. Leaving us with no clear solution as to what's going to happen to our future. All of this is compounding upon rising fuel costs and the so-called "energy crisis."
Naturally as the nation's energy needs grow we have to provide for the nation's various needs. Whether it's electricity for new, high-definition plasma TVs or fuel for the newest SUV/Truck/Car, America has always been one of the world's largest energy consumers. With the price of oil rising within the previous months (they say due to the declining value of the dollar, which must have declined a hell of a lot in the past year) we have been looking for various alternatives to oil, which include biofuels, electric batteries, and hydrogen fuel cells. Of course, when your government is run and bought off by the oil and natural gas industry, people tend not to want to race to find a new way to replace oil. Or if they do, they want oil companies to have a huge stake in it so they don't lose a massive amount of money. Also, I constantly hear/see adds on the radio/television that there is no shortage of oil. We just need to find it. The oil is out there and the oil companies are looking for it, and carefully drilling it out so the environment doesn't get all caca-ed up. Of course when you build a multi-story oil rig on top of an ocean, there's absolutely NO WAY that the thing is going to generate ANY polution. You just have to burn off excess oil that's pulled out of the ground (part of the standard safety regulations of drilling for oil) and you have to maintain all the equipment by lubricating it with... oil. But if the oil companies say that there's a lot of oil out there, then why does it cost so damn much at the gas pump? They say, "There's not enough refineries in the United States, so we have to refine it elsewhere and cargo boat it to your shores." That's right. Because having refineries next to the oil fields and shipping it overseas is a very, very expensive process. Most of the refineries that exist in the world are located next to the oil fields. These are notably in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq (although they're not really working right now), Venezuela, Kuwait, and Russia. The United States has a number of refineries also, since we also pull oil out of the Gulf of Mexico and in the Great Plains states. The whole reason you put the refineries next to the oil fields is because it's PRACTICAL! Why would you want to take oil from a field in Saudi Arabia, tanker it over to the United States, refine it in a refinery where the labor is more expensive and the cost of production is higher, and then sell it to a local market? The only reason for that would be so you can mark-up your selling price to the consumer. If it costs (hypothetically) $1 per gallon of gasoline to refine and ship from Saudi Arabia and the mark-up for gasoline at the pump is 100%, then Americans would be paying $2 a gallon at the pump. However, if it costs $2 a gallon to refine and ship a gallon in the United States, then you can get $4 at the pump. A $2 per gallon profit is a lot better than a $1 per gallon profit, isn't it? Also another troubling question to ask, is that if we're so strapped for oil in the United States, then why are we exporting over a billion barrels of domestically harvested oil every year? Refinery problems? No demand? No corporate loyalty to any country?
With the advent of biofuels, the United States, as well as the rest of the world, has had to take food out for the production of the fuels. In Italy, they are having a shortage of a type of wheat that is necessary to make pasta. In the United States we are losing corn, which is used not only for human consumption, but as for feed for most of the livestock that we consume. The world's food prices have begun to rise due to the use of food products for fuel. This was an unintended, but easy foreseen, consequence of biofuels. Our food prices are beginning to rise and the world is starting to suffer for it.
With the slow advancement of alternative sources of energy, biofuels (which are marginally cleaner than petroleum-based products), and the increased need for oil, our generation is going to have to deal with the plight of global warming. Whether or not you believe in the phenomenon is rather irrelevant. The fact of the matter is (pointed out in Austin Powers in 1993) that there are holes in the O-Zone layer. This has been directly attributed to man-made emissions from factories, vehicles, and various other chemicals. Again, the government has attempted to make a stab at correcting this problem, but they have made little headway. American car manufacturers complain that fuel standards that are set by the government are unrealistic to achieve by the scheduled date. Most foreign automakers have already achieved or exceeded the fuel standards. Why do the American Automakers complain? It's mainly because they're stuck in the archaic world of producing SUVs and over-sized trucks. These vehicles rely on a heavy chassis, large frame, and huge engine. None of these things are good for fuel economy. Sure, they've developed a couple of hybrid SUVs, but these get about as good of gas mileage as a standard sedan, that's 10 years old. American automakers haven't quite realized that the future of auto-sales is not in SUVs but rather in fuel efficient vehicles. So then they whine and bitch when auto sales are down because no one wants their 10 mile-per-gallon vehicles, at least no one sane.
On top of all of this national and international discourse on our national government doing nothing to address the nation's problems while footing us the bill for later, we have our own Californian government to worry about. If you've even watched about 5 minutes of news that isn't sports or the weather, there's always a story that talks about the state's looming budget crisis. Some estimates say we're only $10,000,000,000 in debt, others say it's higher (around $14,000,000,000 or $15,000,000,000). What does the government do about it? What they've always wanted to do about it: cut spending and raise bonds to pay off the immediate debt so the government can keep functioning. "What's wrong with that?" you might ask. Let me tell you what's wrong with that. Right now, 11% of the California state budget goes to paying interest on bonds. 11 out of every 100 dollars we spend pays other people for helping us not pay for things. The government of California is fickle to the point that when the Democrats even just mentioned that they should raise taxes to generate some extra revenue, the Republicans immediately said they would filibuster any budget proposal that would include higher taxes. The Republicans' answer for our budget crisis is to just keep cutting government programs, which are already underfunded, and just get the budget back in balance. So where do we cut the budget from? Our underfunded schools? Lower state employee salaries (their union will never allow for that)? Cut back on CHP recruitment and new enlistments? Stop paving roads for a few years? Get rid of some people in every state agency? Give the legislators a pay raise? What? State agencies could become more efficient, it's true. But the problem with trying to correct systems run by the government is that government is run by politicians. Politicians don't like to change. They have their way of doing things and they like it that way. Ever since we made it hard to raise our own taxes to pay for anything, the legislature has gotten into the habit of raising bonds for any kind of expenditure ever. Any new initiative that calls for the funding of improvements to schools, roads, levies, water systems, etc. has always been done through the funding of bonds. And remember what we said bonds were a while ago? Credit card statements for future generations. So the state of California is just wracking up a huge credit card bill for us and saying, "Thanks for taking care of that!" and then laughing as they begin to retire and go live in the Bahamas.
I say it's time we stopped putting up with all this horse manure. People are borrowing our Earth and are unwilling to to pay their fare share. One day this debt will come due and when it does, we'll be living in much more horrid conditions than you will ever imagine. Tax rates will inevitably HAVE to rise. People who believe otherwise are in an imaginary, fantasy world where money can grow on trees or print itself without worries of inflation. We should stop accepting the fact that current generations are unwilling to accept the burden for their purchases and start saying that if you want something, you need to pay for it NOW! We are basically being taxed without proper representation in Congress. Despite the fact that Barack Obama has the following of many youth in this country, what exactly are his policies that benefit us? What is he going to do about the rising cost of tuition in this country? What is he going to do about the deficit? What is he going to do about Social Security? What is he going to do about anything? Sure he does have plans for many of the things I just asked, but when it comes down to negotiating with an archaic Congress, can he really get any of it done? Political change does not begin with one man. Our elective system was made so that way we could get rid of the corrupt, the inept, and the unworthy.
Our politicians need to be made aware that the youth of this country are not here for them to exploit. I would not want anyone to give me their credit card debt for $9,000,000,000,000 dollars, nor would I want to hand mine to my children. I say we start to organize and tell the politicians of the country to not use us as their doormat. We need to recall the spirit of the 1960s youth for revolution and change, and upon the 1770s spirit of revolution about being heard in the government. We should march upon capitol buildings carrying the flags of the revolutionaries that stated "Don't Tread On Me." I would love to organize a protest and I would like anyone who is interested to let me know. I would be willing to file for the permit, pay any expenses that go along with that permit filing, and everything. It is time to not stand idly by and allow the rest of the world to tell us what we should do. Students, young adults, and anyone who is tired of Congress (both state and federal) levying bonds for expenditures should be willing to at least write their Congressperson and tell them that it's ineffective. I have already written to all of my representatives and they have all given me canned responses. I'm tired of receiving the same response for an issue that is not only relevant to our generation, but necessary for the future of the nation.
So rise up! Be heard! And do not let them tread on you!
There is a Native American song that says, "We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." When I began to think about this quote at length, I started to realize how much this statement is true, especially when it comes to a lot of the pressing issues of our time. Global warming, national/state debt, Social Security, wars, energy, urbanization, etc.
For too long have the older generations been borrowing the world from our generation and future generations. During the election of 2000, a major focal point was what to do with the budget surplus that had developed within the latter years of the Clinton administration. For the first time in our history, we were finally talking about what to do with extra money the government had collected from the taxpayers. In no other time that we have been recording the national deficit has there ever been a surplus. Each administration, Democratic and Republican, has been slowly adding to the ever-mounting amount of money that someone, someday has to pay back.
Of course, there are circumstances wherein a deficit was necessary, such as the Great Depression, where extra money had to be spent to encourage growth and stimulate economic progress. However, in times of prosperity, there should be absolutely no reason that the country should be borrowing money for its expenditures. After the Dot-Com boom of the 1990s we have seen a see-sawing ebb and flow of the national economy. However, the national deficit has been steady climbing up every year. With the war in Iraq costing the nation around $2,000,000,000 a week we can only wonder not only, "What else could we be using that money for?" but "Who is paying for it?"
Naturally we do not have money in the budget for such extravagant expenses with the lopsided tax cuts granted by the G.W. Bush Administration to the people of America. During Bush's time in office there have been cuts to the Federal Income tax as well as cuts in the Capital Gains tax. With two huge sources of revenue cut, how were we ever supposed to pay for a $2,000,000,000 a week war? Namely the Congress has decided that we're going to put it on a credit card. The creditors: China, Belgium, Japan, and a hole slew of other foreign nations. The United States was once regarded as the creditor nation of the world, giving out aid, loans, and grants to several developing nations. Now, we're the world largest debtor owing more to foreign entities than any other nation, and more than likely several nations combined. Other holders of the United States' national debt do include local sources, such as private individuals (there are many middle-class bond holders, as well as upper-class bond holders) and corporations (who oftentimes will buy U.S. Treasury Notes and Bonds to add a steady amount of income in a stable investment). But there are problems with everyday citizens holding bonds and also with corporations holding bonds.
First off, private citizens holding bonds is basically holding a credit card bill for the future generation. The government says, "We don't have enough money to pay for everything now, so we need you to pay a certain amount now and in about 15-30 years we'll pay you double that amount." Despite the fact that I have seen benefits from my father purchasing government bonds, I still feel that the inherent risk of shouldering debt on others is not as good as a payback. Every time someone buys a bond, the government has to spend a portion of its budget to pay the interest as well as the principal amounts on the bonds every year. When the individual citizens hold bonds, they're usually in the amount of $100 or $200 a bond, a rather trivial amount when compared to our $1,000,000,000,000+ national budget. But when corporations buy bonds, they usually buy them in the hundreds of thousands. Corporations are happy to spend a small amount of their cash in exchange for a promise of future cash flows. They do it all at the expense of our future.
Each time a bond is issued, one generation pledges that it will not bother to pay back a debt today but will instead ensure that the debt will be satisfied at a later date. During the 1980s, under Ronald Reagan's presidency (the love-child of the current Republican candidates), the national deficit soared to nearly half a trillion dollars a year. Eight years of Reagan, half a trillion a year, equals nearly four trillion dollars in debt. The national deficit doubled just in the 8 years Reagan was in office. The Reagan Era was from 1980-1988. Since bonds last for usually around 30 years, guess when those things are going to be due? Somewhere between the years 2010 and 2018, just in time for most of us to graduate college, get a job, and start paying taxes. These upcoming years are the years that the generation named the "Baby Boomers" are starting to retire. Right now, politicians never like to mess with senior citizens and their fixed incomes. And why should we? They've lived a long life, working hard, and contributing to the system. They deserve to enjoy the twilight years of their life in relative peace and harmony without the fear of absorbent taxes breathing down their necks. But along with their massive numbers retiring, they are going to demand money for social security to help stabilize their fixed income and help provide for a better standard of life.
During the entire time of our parents' and grandparents' working lives, there was always the knowledge that the next generation would be larger than the previous generation, thus allowing for Social Security to virtually take care of itself. As people retired, the larger pool of younger workers would be able to shoulder the load and help pay for the previous generations' Social Security expenses. As many of you may be aware, this is the first time that the next generation is no longer as large as the previous generation. There is a massive swell of Baby Boomers retiring within the next ten years and there are not enough younger workers to shoulder the massive load that will be placed upon the Social Security system. There have been various solutions to this impending problem, such as giving people the ability to have private accounts to invest their own money in, or raise the rate at which the people are taxed for Social Security (FICA), or raise the cap that exists on income earned to be taxed for Social Security (I believe it's currently $97,000). But so far Congress and the President have made vague attempts to solve the problem, go nowhere, and give up on it. Leaving us with no clear solution as to what's going to happen to our future. All of this is compounding upon rising fuel costs and the so-called "energy crisis."
Naturally as the nation's energy needs grow we have to provide for the nation's various needs. Whether it's electricity for new, high-definition plasma TVs or fuel for the newest SUV/Truck/Car, America has always been one of the world's largest energy consumers. With the price of oil rising within the previous months (they say due to the declining value of the dollar, which must have declined a hell of a lot in the past year) we have been looking for various alternatives to oil, which include biofuels, electric batteries, and hydrogen fuel cells. Of course, when your government is run and bought off by the oil and natural gas industry, people tend not to want to race to find a new way to replace oil. Or if they do, they want oil companies to have a huge stake in it so they don't lose a massive amount of money. Also, I constantly hear/see adds on the radio/television that there is no shortage of oil. We just need to find it. The oil is out there and the oil companies are looking for it, and carefully drilling it out so the environment doesn't get all caca-ed up. Of course when you build a multi-story oil rig on top of an ocean, there's absolutely NO WAY that the thing is going to generate ANY polution. You just have to burn off excess oil that's pulled out of the ground (part of the standard safety regulations of drilling for oil) and you have to maintain all the equipment by lubricating it with... oil. But if the oil companies say that there's a lot of oil out there, then why does it cost so damn much at the gas pump? They say, "There's not enough refineries in the United States, so we have to refine it elsewhere and cargo boat it to your shores." That's right. Because having refineries next to the oil fields and shipping it overseas is a very, very expensive process. Most of the refineries that exist in the world are located next to the oil fields. These are notably in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq (although they're not really working right now), Venezuela, Kuwait, and Russia. The United States has a number of refineries also, since we also pull oil out of the Gulf of Mexico and in the Great Plains states. The whole reason you put the refineries next to the oil fields is because it's PRACTICAL! Why would you want to take oil from a field in Saudi Arabia, tanker it over to the United States, refine it in a refinery where the labor is more expensive and the cost of production is higher, and then sell it to a local market? The only reason for that would be so you can mark-up your selling price to the consumer. If it costs (hypothetically) $1 per gallon of gasoline to refine and ship from Saudi Arabia and the mark-up for gasoline at the pump is 100%, then Americans would be paying $2 a gallon at the pump. However, if it costs $2 a gallon to refine and ship a gallon in the United States, then you can get $4 at the pump. A $2 per gallon profit is a lot better than a $1 per gallon profit, isn't it? Also another troubling question to ask, is that if we're so strapped for oil in the United States, then why are we exporting over a billion barrels of domestically harvested oil every year? Refinery problems? No demand? No corporate loyalty to any country?
With the advent of biofuels, the United States, as well as the rest of the world, has had to take food out for the production of the fuels. In Italy, they are having a shortage of a type of wheat that is necessary to make pasta. In the United States we are losing corn, which is used not only for human consumption, but as for feed for most of the livestock that we consume. The world's food prices have begun to rise due to the use of food products for fuel. This was an unintended, but easy foreseen, consequence of biofuels. Our food prices are beginning to rise and the world is starting to suffer for it.
With the slow advancement of alternative sources of energy, biofuels (which are marginally cleaner than petroleum-based products), and the increased need for oil, our generation is going to have to deal with the plight of global warming. Whether or not you believe in the phenomenon is rather irrelevant. The fact of the matter is (pointed out in Austin Powers in 1993) that there are holes in the O-Zone layer. This has been directly attributed to man-made emissions from factories, vehicles, and various other chemicals. Again, the government has attempted to make a stab at correcting this problem, but they have made little headway. American car manufacturers complain that fuel standards that are set by the government are unrealistic to achieve by the scheduled date. Most foreign automakers have already achieved or exceeded the fuel standards. Why do the American Automakers complain? It's mainly because they're stuck in the archaic world of producing SUVs and over-sized trucks. These vehicles rely on a heavy chassis, large frame, and huge engine. None of these things are good for fuel economy. Sure, they've developed a couple of hybrid SUVs, but these get about as good of gas mileage as a standard sedan, that's 10 years old. American automakers haven't quite realized that the future of auto-sales is not in SUVs but rather in fuel efficient vehicles. So then they whine and bitch when auto sales are down because no one wants their 10 mile-per-gallon vehicles, at least no one sane.
On top of all of this national and international discourse on our national government doing nothing to address the nation's problems while footing us the bill for later, we have our own Californian government to worry about. If you've even watched about 5 minutes of news that isn't sports or the weather, there's always a story that talks about the state's looming budget crisis. Some estimates say we're only $10,000,000,000 in debt, others say it's higher (around $14,000,000,000 or $15,000,000,000). What does the government do about it? What they've always wanted to do about it: cut spending and raise bonds to pay off the immediate debt so the government can keep functioning. "What's wrong with that?" you might ask. Let me tell you what's wrong with that. Right now, 11% of the California state budget goes to paying interest on bonds. 11 out of every 100 dollars we spend pays other people for helping us not pay for things. The government of California is fickle to the point that when the Democrats even just mentioned that they should raise taxes to generate some extra revenue, the Republicans immediately said they would filibuster any budget proposal that would include higher taxes. The Republicans' answer for our budget crisis is to just keep cutting government programs, which are already underfunded, and just get the budget back in balance. So where do we cut the budget from? Our underfunded schools? Lower state employee salaries (their union will never allow for that)? Cut back on CHP recruitment and new enlistments? Stop paving roads for a few years? Get rid of some people in every state agency? Give the legislators a pay raise? What? State agencies could become more efficient, it's true. But the problem with trying to correct systems run by the government is that government is run by politicians. Politicians don't like to change. They have their way of doing things and they like it that way. Ever since we made it hard to raise our own taxes to pay for anything, the legislature has gotten into the habit of raising bonds for any kind of expenditure ever. Any new initiative that calls for the funding of improvements to schools, roads, levies, water systems, etc. has always been done through the funding of bonds. And remember what we said bonds were a while ago? Credit card statements for future generations. So the state of California is just wracking up a huge credit card bill for us and saying, "Thanks for taking care of that!" and then laughing as they begin to retire and go live in the Bahamas.
I say it's time we stopped putting up with all this horse manure. People are borrowing our Earth and are unwilling to to pay their fare share. One day this debt will come due and when it does, we'll be living in much more horrid conditions than you will ever imagine. Tax rates will inevitably HAVE to rise. People who believe otherwise are in an imaginary, fantasy world where money can grow on trees or print itself without worries of inflation. We should stop accepting the fact that current generations are unwilling to accept the burden for their purchases and start saying that if you want something, you need to pay for it NOW! We are basically being taxed without proper representation in Congress. Despite the fact that Barack Obama has the following of many youth in this country, what exactly are his policies that benefit us? What is he going to do about the rising cost of tuition in this country? What is he going to do about the deficit? What is he going to do about Social Security? What is he going to do about anything? Sure he does have plans for many of the things I just asked, but when it comes down to negotiating with an archaic Congress, can he really get any of it done? Political change does not begin with one man. Our elective system was made so that way we could get rid of the corrupt, the inept, and the unworthy.
Our politicians need to be made aware that the youth of this country are not here for them to exploit. I would not want anyone to give me their credit card debt for $9,000,000,000,000 dollars, nor would I want to hand mine to my children. I say we start to organize and tell the politicians of the country to not use us as their doormat. We need to recall the spirit of the 1960s youth for revolution and change, and upon the 1770s spirit of revolution about being heard in the government. We should march upon capitol buildings carrying the flags of the revolutionaries that stated "Don't Tread On Me." I would love to organize a protest and I would like anyone who is interested to let me know. I would be willing to file for the permit, pay any expenses that go along with that permit filing, and everything. It is time to not stand idly by and allow the rest of the world to tell us what we should do. Students, young adults, and anyone who is tired of Congress (both state and federal) levying bonds for expenditures should be willing to at least write their Congressperson and tell them that it's ineffective. I have already written to all of my representatives and they have all given me canned responses. I'm tired of receiving the same response for an issue that is not only relevant to our generation, but necessary for the future of the nation.
So rise up! Be heard! And do not let them tread on you!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Around the Office (Part 2 of ?)
Today's topic: Two office personalities. (Perhaps among other things)
With my limited work within the place I work I would say that there are two major personality types within the workplace with regards to work delegation. The first are what I call equalists and the other are elitists.
I generically come into contact with work from about 5 different people in the office on a regular basis. We'll call everyone by their real names, just to make it interesting. The elitists I will call Person A and Person B (these are their real names...) and the equalists I will call Person 1, Person 2, and Person 3 (Again, these are their real names).
First I'll focus on the differences between the two. The equalists are the people who will give work to you because they don't have all the time in the world to complete the work they have. However, when they do give you work, they complete it as best as they can before they pass it on. The best instance of this comes with dealing with Purchase Orders. I used to have to copy the purchase orders, stamp the copies and the originals with different stamps, enter an online IM ticket system and make an entry, then send the copies to accounting and file the originals. Well, the powers that be decided that the only thing that needed to be done with those purchase orders was to staple them and file them. This turned a 10-step process into a 3-step process. The first step is the stapling, the second step is the hole-punching, and the third step is the actual filing in the filing room. The equalists will at least staple the Purchase Orders (POs) before passing them on to me. Sometimes I'll get POs that have been stapled AND hole punched. This makes my job so much easier. All I have to do is walk to the filing room and put them in the proper binder. Person 2 and Person 3 do this all the time.
The elitists are people who feel that anything not in their job description somehow feels "beneath" them and they do not want to do it. Thus they delegate it to someone else. When I get POs from the elitist, the person doesn't even bother to take the 5 seconds it would take to staple both corners of the PO before putting it in the filing inbox. She paper clips it. There is a slight chance that she has not gotten the memo that POs no longer need to be photocopied (even I didn't know it for a while) and she still is within that mentality. But I would imagine that the other two equalists who work on the POs with her would have told her. So that is what gives rise to my impression that she (I will now refer to her as Person B) is an elitist.
Now, POs aren't the only thing in which I experience elitist and equalist behavior. The Person A and Person 1 are reserved for this area since they are the highest up in the management structure (or at least as I understand it). Person A is probably the prime example of an elitist and Person 1 is a prime example of an equalist.
Person A is a nice person. They bake cakes for special occasions, willing to loan you money when you go out to lunch for a going away party and you didn't bring any cash on you, stuff like that. However, when it comes to work delegation, Person A is a huge elitist. Person A loves to hand you work, even when it completely exists outside the bounds of your job description, existing in another dimension of existence in fact. Person A likes to walk into your office and start asking you, "Are you busy?" When you start to reply, "Yeah, I have enough to do..." Person A will immediately say, "Good. Now I have a project for you..." This begins the long and arduous process of Person A attempting to explain what he has in his head. I believe that Person A does not in fact speak English when he talks about his various projects. I believe he speaks an ancient language, long believed to be extinct, that he believes you should miraculously understand when he starts going over the various terms (called "legal jargon" in modern slang) in this language. Now some of the words in this ancient language are the exact same as the words in English. Such valuable words like, "the" and "and" and "you know what I mean?" By the time he's done orating in tongues, you smile, nod, and say, "I'll get on it when I have the time."
Now, since you have understood nothing of what Person A has said to your face, you decide to wait about 15 minutes and then you send him a written e-mail asking him to explain EXACTLY what he wants you to do. A work day later for you (which for me is Monday, Wednesday, or Friday) you get the response which, much to your delight, is written in English. However, much to your dismay, you read the e-mail and it is very vague and encompasses a very large topic. So you send a response back taking into account your interpretation of what was stated within the e-mail and you explain what you believe to be what Person A is asking of you. Another work day later you get the response that says, "Yes. That's good." So, you begin your work. You do all of the steps outlined in the project and you compile all the information needed and write up anything that needs to be written and you submit it to Person A. A week later he asks to meet with you face to face.
In this meeting, Person A then starts speaking that ancient language again, but you can only imagine that he's dissecting your work since there are a lot of pen marks on your written work and he points to it frequently. He ends some of his sentences with an upward inflection in his voice, which represents a question in English. So, you have to give a response, although you're just spewing random words, hoping they make sense. Person A apparently seemed satisfied with your response and keeps going over your work. After about half an hour he finally speaks his first sentence in English to say, "I don't think you got what I wanted out of this project." He then reverts back to his ancient language and after another 15 minutes he says, "So take it, revise it, and get it back to me." You then go back to your office, put it in a drawer somewhere, and forget it ever existed. Person A seems to forget it ever existed as well, but you try to avoid Person A as much as possible just in case he magically remembers.
Now Person 1 would have a different attitude towards this whole project. First off, Person 1 would not even want me to do such a long, arduous project based on instructions given in another language. Second, she would believe that such a project was outside of my scope of responsibility, and therefore not necessary for me to do. Person 1 constantly argues with Person A on what kind of work to give me. Person A will say that I should be proofreading contracts to make sure that he worded everything correctly. Person 1 will say that I shouldn't need to and that it is their work to do, not mine. If the wording of the contract is wrong, then it is their responsibility to fix it. Person 1 is an amazing person. She gives you work, but it's always work that's either "no rush," or fully within your responsibilities. And Person 1's definition of "no rush" is basically do it when you're bored out of your mind and you're resorting to writing blogs to pass the time. But it's okay for right now 'cause I'm on break.
Perhaps you have worked with such people in your office. Elitists and Equalists may be perfectly wonderful, amazing human beings outside of work, but within work they have different personalities. Elitists want to do as little work as possible while shoving as much work as possible in your face. Equalists are just that, they believe that they should share their own burden of the work, when possible, and give you what needs to be given. So, if you're in an office and you find yourself coming into contact with an elitist, do what I do: either run into the restroom or take the scenic route to wherever you're going, a scenic route that takes you into parts of the office that you've never been to before... on a different floor... in a different building...
With my limited work within the place I work I would say that there are two major personality types within the workplace with regards to work delegation. The first are what I call equalists and the other are elitists.
I generically come into contact with work from about 5 different people in the office on a regular basis. We'll call everyone by their real names, just to make it interesting. The elitists I will call Person A and Person B (these are their real names...) and the equalists I will call Person 1, Person 2, and Person 3 (Again, these are their real names).
First I'll focus on the differences between the two. The equalists are the people who will give work to you because they don't have all the time in the world to complete the work they have. However, when they do give you work, they complete it as best as they can before they pass it on. The best instance of this comes with dealing with Purchase Orders. I used to have to copy the purchase orders, stamp the copies and the originals with different stamps, enter an online IM ticket system and make an entry, then send the copies to accounting and file the originals. Well, the powers that be decided that the only thing that needed to be done with those purchase orders was to staple them and file them. This turned a 10-step process into a 3-step process. The first step is the stapling, the second step is the hole-punching, and the third step is the actual filing in the filing room. The equalists will at least staple the Purchase Orders (POs) before passing them on to me. Sometimes I'll get POs that have been stapled AND hole punched. This makes my job so much easier. All I have to do is walk to the filing room and put them in the proper binder. Person 2 and Person 3 do this all the time.
The elitists are people who feel that anything not in their job description somehow feels "beneath" them and they do not want to do it. Thus they delegate it to someone else. When I get POs from the elitist, the person doesn't even bother to take the 5 seconds it would take to staple both corners of the PO before putting it in the filing inbox. She paper clips it. There is a slight chance that she has not gotten the memo that POs no longer need to be photocopied (even I didn't know it for a while) and she still is within that mentality. But I would imagine that the other two equalists who work on the POs with her would have told her. So that is what gives rise to my impression that she (I will now refer to her as Person B) is an elitist.
Now, POs aren't the only thing in which I experience elitist and equalist behavior. The Person A and Person 1 are reserved for this area since they are the highest up in the management structure (or at least as I understand it). Person A is probably the prime example of an elitist and Person 1 is a prime example of an equalist.
Person A is a nice person. They bake cakes for special occasions, willing to loan you money when you go out to lunch for a going away party and you didn't bring any cash on you, stuff like that. However, when it comes to work delegation, Person A is a huge elitist. Person A loves to hand you work, even when it completely exists outside the bounds of your job description, existing in another dimension of existence in fact. Person A likes to walk into your office and start asking you, "Are you busy?" When you start to reply, "Yeah, I have enough to do..." Person A will immediately say, "Good. Now I have a project for you..." This begins the long and arduous process of Person A attempting to explain what he has in his head. I believe that Person A does not in fact speak English when he talks about his various projects. I believe he speaks an ancient language, long believed to be extinct, that he believes you should miraculously understand when he starts going over the various terms (called "legal jargon" in modern slang) in this language. Now some of the words in this ancient language are the exact same as the words in English. Such valuable words like, "the" and "and" and "you know what I mean?" By the time he's done orating in tongues, you smile, nod, and say, "I'll get on it when I have the time."
Now, since you have understood nothing of what Person A has said to your face, you decide to wait about 15 minutes and then you send him a written e-mail asking him to explain EXACTLY what he wants you to do. A work day later for you (which for me is Monday, Wednesday, or Friday) you get the response which, much to your delight, is written in English. However, much to your dismay, you read the e-mail and it is very vague and encompasses a very large topic. So you send a response back taking into account your interpretation of what was stated within the e-mail and you explain what you believe to be what Person A is asking of you. Another work day later you get the response that says, "Yes. That's good." So, you begin your work. You do all of the steps outlined in the project and you compile all the information needed and write up anything that needs to be written and you submit it to Person A. A week later he asks to meet with you face to face.
In this meeting, Person A then starts speaking that ancient language again, but you can only imagine that he's dissecting your work since there are a lot of pen marks on your written work and he points to it frequently. He ends some of his sentences with an upward inflection in his voice, which represents a question in English. So, you have to give a response, although you're just spewing random words, hoping they make sense. Person A apparently seemed satisfied with your response and keeps going over your work. After about half an hour he finally speaks his first sentence in English to say, "I don't think you got what I wanted out of this project." He then reverts back to his ancient language and after another 15 minutes he says, "So take it, revise it, and get it back to me." You then go back to your office, put it in a drawer somewhere, and forget it ever existed. Person A seems to forget it ever existed as well, but you try to avoid Person A as much as possible just in case he magically remembers.
Now Person 1 would have a different attitude towards this whole project. First off, Person 1 would not even want me to do such a long, arduous project based on instructions given in another language. Second, she would believe that such a project was outside of my scope of responsibility, and therefore not necessary for me to do. Person 1 constantly argues with Person A on what kind of work to give me. Person A will say that I should be proofreading contracts to make sure that he worded everything correctly. Person 1 will say that I shouldn't need to and that it is their work to do, not mine. If the wording of the contract is wrong, then it is their responsibility to fix it. Person 1 is an amazing person. She gives you work, but it's always work that's either "no rush," or fully within your responsibilities. And Person 1's definition of "no rush" is basically do it when you're bored out of your mind and you're resorting to writing blogs to pass the time. But it's okay for right now 'cause I'm on break.
Perhaps you have worked with such people in your office. Elitists and Equalists may be perfectly wonderful, amazing human beings outside of work, but within work they have different personalities. Elitists want to do as little work as possible while shoving as much work as possible in your face. Equalists are just that, they believe that they should share their own burden of the work, when possible, and give you what needs to be given. So, if you're in an office and you find yourself coming into contact with an elitist, do what I do: either run into the restroom or take the scenic route to wherever you're going, a scenic route that takes you into parts of the office that you've never been to before... on a different floor... in a different building...
Axle Envy
Whenever I drive on the road, I am constantly surrounded by, and often threatened to be crushed by, VOUS (Vehicles Of Unusual Sizes - rip-off from the Princess Bride, I know). I'm sure you know these vehicles. They are unmistakable. They are either vehicles that people refer to as "trucks" although their technical term should be, "'Roided up pick-ups." There are also some that are referred to as "SUVs" (which stands for Super Uber Vehicle-crushing-machine-that-doesn't-obey-nobody's-rules-but-their-own). There are also others that are regular cars, like the ones that you and I drive, but their owners decided that their car needed to be an extra 4 feet off the ground.
But really, it's not the car that I blame for all of my potential dangers while driving on the road. That would be like saying a plastic bag is the culprit of many toddler suffocation cases. While this statement is partially true, it is in fact, the toddler (or in the case of the cars, the driver) that causes the suffocation. The bag is merely the instrument that carries out the suffocation.
The people who drive VOUSs are a very particular breed of individual. While there are obvious exceptions to the generalizations I am making, I have made some very good observations about these people:
1) If the normal person's ego was the size of a house, then the VOUS driver's ego is the size of Jupiter, maybe larger.
2) The driver of a VOUS thinks that the sheer size of their vehicle makes up for the need to signal on the road. A blinking light doesn't say "I'm comin' in!" like the sight of a VOUS suddenly appearing in your lane 6 inches from your face.
3) VOUS drivers constantly feel the need to go from lane to lane in the hopes of getting to the red light one car ahead from where they were the red light before.
4) VOUS drivers have severe emotional issues.
5) VOUS drivers believe that any vehicle that has not been risen at least an additional 10 inches off the ground (assuming that your vehicle is not at least 2 feet off the ground already) is "un-American" and "un-patriotic" and "un-manly/womanly" and "is not what a real man/woman would drive."
6) VOUS drivers are completely oblivious to any other vehicle on the road, with the exception of other VOUS vehicles and diesel trucks, those being the only other vehicles they can see.
7) VOUS drivers believe that all traffic laws are on an "as you feel like it" basis with them. Their vehicle status gives them special privileges and everyone needs to respect that.
8) One parking space? Please, VOUSs get at least 2.
9) "Compact" means "I need to compact my 6-foot long, 6-foot wide vehicle into this space."
And this is just the list that I can come up with off the top of my head. I really could go on and on, but it would take too long. But honestly, how many people have experienced VOUS drivers who have these attributes? And we're not talking about the people who have VOUSs because they NEED them, they have them because they WANT them. They believe the perception of wealth is better than the accumulation of wealth. And they believe that having their VOUS gives them the image they're looking for. I don't know how many times I have been cut off by people in VOUSs, or have had people in a VOUS go into the merge-in lane while everyone else is waiting patiently in the normal lane to go through the intersection. Nor have I seen so many people unwilling to signal a lane change, nor have I seen so many people unwilling to look over their shoulder before changing lanes either. I try to avoid freeways as much as possible because of VOUS drivers.
And the one thing I'll never understand is how much that they can bitch about the price of gas when their VOUS's tank holds 100 gallons of gasoline and gets them 1 highway/0 city (borrowed from the Simpsons) miles per gallon. I once stopped at an intersection and saw 9 VOUSs parked 3 across and three deep. If I had my current cell phone back then, I would have taken a picture of it and put the caption beneath it saying, "Vehicle: $30,000-$50,000, Gas: $100+ a fill-up, DVDs for the trip: $250 + tax, Knowing you're contributing to high gas prices and global warming and not giving a damn: Priceless"
But the VOUS drivers are not the only people who exhibit this behavior. I have my "Theory of Inverse Horsepower Relations." The theory states as follows: "The more the horsepower, the smaller the id." So those people with tiny cars with an engine that has enough power to start towing the state of Rhode Island across the country also exhibit the same attributes. The only difference is that not only do these people not like to follow traffic laws, they like to go the speed of light while doing it. And it's so utterly ridiculous when you see some tiny BMW taking up 2 spaces in a parking lot because they feel their car is so precious that if a leaf were to touch it, their world would crumble and die. I sometimes get the urge to park over 2 spaces too, but right next to the idiot with their car, and get as close to their driver's side door as possible so they can't get in. But unfortunately for me, oftentimes these drivers are crafty and they park in a space that has a car to the left of their lefternmost parking spot, and I can't pull it off. It's no fun blocking the passenger side, especially when my driver's side door is over there. But one day... I'll have my revenge. And if that person threatens me, I'll use my indispensable car tool: The Club.
I say that we need to find a solution to these vehicles and their owners. We need to give them a state to call their own. A state where they already like fast cars and big trucks: a state like Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas. We'll let them hook up all of their towing materials to the boarders of the state and we'll let them tow it out into the ocean and form a new continent. And they can drive however they want all over that state and leave us normal drivers in peace. I think if we did this, national test scores would rise, driving safety would increase by at least 200%, crime would be down, the national debt would decrease, there would be no poverty, the housing crisis would take care of itself, and everyone would get a cool $1 billion in cash. If you're interested in this, please write your Congressperson as soon as possible.
But really, it's not the car that I blame for all of my potential dangers while driving on the road. That would be like saying a plastic bag is the culprit of many toddler suffocation cases. While this statement is partially true, it is in fact, the toddler (or in the case of the cars, the driver) that causes the suffocation. The bag is merely the instrument that carries out the suffocation.
The people who drive VOUSs are a very particular breed of individual. While there are obvious exceptions to the generalizations I am making, I have made some very good observations about these people:
1) If the normal person's ego was the size of a house, then the VOUS driver's ego is the size of Jupiter, maybe larger.
2) The driver of a VOUS thinks that the sheer size of their vehicle makes up for the need to signal on the road. A blinking light doesn't say "I'm comin' in!" like the sight of a VOUS suddenly appearing in your lane 6 inches from your face.
3) VOUS drivers constantly feel the need to go from lane to lane in the hopes of getting to the red light one car ahead from where they were the red light before.
4) VOUS drivers have severe emotional issues.
5) VOUS drivers believe that any vehicle that has not been risen at least an additional 10 inches off the ground (assuming that your vehicle is not at least 2 feet off the ground already) is "un-American" and "un-patriotic" and "un-manly/womanly" and "is not what a real man/woman would drive."
6) VOUS drivers are completely oblivious to any other vehicle on the road, with the exception of other VOUS vehicles and diesel trucks, those being the only other vehicles they can see.
7) VOUS drivers believe that all traffic laws are on an "as you feel like it" basis with them. Their vehicle status gives them special privileges and everyone needs to respect that.
8) One parking space? Please, VOUSs get at least 2.
9) "Compact" means "I need to compact my 6-foot long, 6-foot wide vehicle into this space."
And this is just the list that I can come up with off the top of my head. I really could go on and on, but it would take too long. But honestly, how many people have experienced VOUS drivers who have these attributes? And we're not talking about the people who have VOUSs because they NEED them, they have them because they WANT them. They believe the perception of wealth is better than the accumulation of wealth. And they believe that having their VOUS gives them the image they're looking for. I don't know how many times I have been cut off by people in VOUSs, or have had people in a VOUS go into the merge-in lane while everyone else is waiting patiently in the normal lane to go through the intersection. Nor have I seen so many people unwilling to signal a lane change, nor have I seen so many people unwilling to look over their shoulder before changing lanes either. I try to avoid freeways as much as possible because of VOUS drivers.
And the one thing I'll never understand is how much that they can bitch about the price of gas when their VOUS's tank holds 100 gallons of gasoline and gets them 1 highway/0 city (borrowed from the Simpsons) miles per gallon. I once stopped at an intersection and saw 9 VOUSs parked 3 across and three deep. If I had my current cell phone back then, I would have taken a picture of it and put the caption beneath it saying, "Vehicle: $30,000-$50,000, Gas: $100+ a fill-up, DVDs for the trip: $250 + tax, Knowing you're contributing to high gas prices and global warming and not giving a damn: Priceless"
But the VOUS drivers are not the only people who exhibit this behavior. I have my "Theory of Inverse Horsepower Relations." The theory states as follows: "The more the horsepower, the smaller the id." So those people with tiny cars with an engine that has enough power to start towing the state of Rhode Island across the country also exhibit the same attributes. The only difference is that not only do these people not like to follow traffic laws, they like to go the speed of light while doing it. And it's so utterly ridiculous when you see some tiny BMW taking up 2 spaces in a parking lot because they feel their car is so precious that if a leaf were to touch it, their world would crumble and die. I sometimes get the urge to park over 2 spaces too, but right next to the idiot with their car, and get as close to their driver's side door as possible so they can't get in. But unfortunately for me, oftentimes these drivers are crafty and they park in a space that has a car to the left of their lefternmost parking spot, and I can't pull it off. It's no fun blocking the passenger side, especially when my driver's side door is over there. But one day... I'll have my revenge. And if that person threatens me, I'll use my indispensable car tool: The Club.
I say that we need to find a solution to these vehicles and their owners. We need to give them a state to call their own. A state where they already like fast cars and big trucks: a state like Alabama, Mississippi, or Texas. We'll let them hook up all of their towing materials to the boarders of the state and we'll let them tow it out into the ocean and form a new continent. And they can drive however they want all over that state and leave us normal drivers in peace. I think if we did this, national test scores would rise, driving safety would increase by at least 200%, crime would be down, the national debt would decrease, there would be no poverty, the housing crisis would take care of itself, and everyone would get a cool $1 billion in cash. If you're interested in this, please write your Congressperson as soon as possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
