This one of the clearest videos I have seen of the recent shooting of Oscar Grant by BART police in San Francisco in the early morning hours of January 1, 2009 in San Francisco-Oakland area.
This video shows the officer, Johannes Mesherle, reach for his gun, stand up and then shoot Grant, who is lying face-down and handcuffed on the platform.
Oscar Grant died from the shooting.
It has been speculated whether Mesherle thought he was reaching for his taser or his gun. I've handled both and there is a difference in not only weight, the feel, but also the mechanisms required to operate either piece of equipment.
Are we to believe that officer Mesherle, as a trained individual, didn't know the difference between a gun and a taser?
Original Source: The San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center
Friday, January 9, 2009
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
New White House China: Priceless
Maybe you've heard about outgoing first lady Laura Bush and her recent shopping spree for new White House china to the tune of $485,000?!
They say that taxpayer funds will not be used, but at this point, with the Bush Admin track record, does that really even matter?
I mean, really though--there are on average 2 million Americans without jobs, with more layoffs expected, in large part due to the disastrous policies of this administration and less than 2 weeks of them leaving the White House, they choose dinnerware amounting to almost half a million dollars? Like it's a necessity!
Have they never heard of Ikea?
Sounds like high time for another tea party folks.
They say that taxpayer funds will not be used, but at this point, with the Bush Admin track record, does that really even matter?
I mean, really though--there are on average 2 million Americans without jobs, with more layoffs expected, in large part due to the disastrous policies of this administration and less than 2 weeks of them leaving the White House, they choose dinnerware amounting to almost half a million dollars? Like it's a necessity!
Have they never heard of Ikea?
Sounds like high time for another tea party folks.
Everyone Wants A Bailout These Days!
Normally I don't follow this type of news-tainment, and this seems quite tongue in cheek, no pun intended, but the porn industry has thrown their hat into the ring and is lining up to get a bailout from good 'ol uncle sam.
According to a statment by Larry Flynt:
"People are too depressed to be sexually active," Flynt said in the statement. "This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex."
Find article here.
According to a statment by Larry Flynt:
"People are too depressed to be sexually active," Flynt said in the statement. "This is very unhealthy as a nation. Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex."
"With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind. It's time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America. The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly."
I guess you can lose for asking....maybe I should get started on my own proposal.Find article here.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Time For A Change:
I was appalled to recently discover, via office conversation, that the annual pay of a U.S. Congressman was roughly $160,000. As Congress currently enjoys an average approval rate of 9% it seems the pay scale is out of line with the performance of these Representatives and Senators. This pay scale disparity between our 'public servants' and the average American is one of many indications of the sorry state of affairs that the citizens of the United States are currently in. Only 1.93% of the population make over $250,000. Why is the pay of Congress so much closer to what a small number of Americans earn, rather than earning an amount more in align with what the majority earn?
There are a number of solutions that have come to mind, not only to rectify what I think is an outrageous amount of money being spent on salaries in which those so paid are the same ones deciding their pay raises. These ideas would not only help to get the pay scale back to more reasonalbe levels, but may also help to level the playing field a bit in order to provide the opportunity for the average American to take a crack at this politics thing.
1. Limit Congressional and Senatorial pay to the median salary earned by the average American worker with a full time job. Varying statistics place this number somewhere in the range of $37,000 to $41,000 for all races and sexes combined for 2007. Median income in 1965 was roughly $6900. Being a Representative or Senator is, after all, a public service and should not be a means to enrich oneself.
2. Any pay raise must be made in relation to the raise in the federal poverty level, currently about $21,200 for a family of 4. There has been no meaningful change in the federal poverty level when comparing 1965: $3,223 to 2008: $21,200, unlike the jump for Congressional pay for the same time window of 1965: $30,000 to 2008: $169,300.
3. Publicly funded campaigns. Our representatives and senators perennially complain about having to always stump for campaign contributions for the next campaign. They say this is one reason why they cannot get anything done. Fair enough -- take the profit out of politics.
4. Limit the amount of money spent on campaigns to $150,000. If they haven't learned how to do it better and do it for less, it's either high time they figured it out or just get out of the game period. You Tube and Blogger. Need I say more?
5. Use of public airwaves for campaign debates. The government can and should require media outlets, such as radio stations and television stations to grant time to debates which are free, fair and open to all parties as part of the requirement to keep their license to use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. This can help alleviate the problem with $$$ and give the lesser known candidates a chance to be heard.
6. No more campaign commercials. They are a major waste of money and they do not inform anyone about the issues. If the average American cannot be bothered to spend more than 30 seconds informing themselves about some of the most important issue they could decide on, then they will not benefit from a 30 second slash and burn t.v. or radio ad.
7. No media owner or company should be allowed to own more than one form of media in one market. There should be no overlapping ownership in markets immediately adjacent to said market as well. No more Wal-martization of the media. We should go back to 'mom & pop' journalism, not the homogenous mis-information we currently suffer under.
These are ideas that have occurred to me at this point. I acknowledge they may not be perfectly crafted but it's a start.
There are a number of solutions that have come to mind, not only to rectify what I think is an outrageous amount of money being spent on salaries in which those so paid are the same ones deciding their pay raises. These ideas would not only help to get the pay scale back to more reasonalbe levels, but may also help to level the playing field a bit in order to provide the opportunity for the average American to take a crack at this politics thing.
1. Limit Congressional and Senatorial pay to the median salary earned by the average American worker with a full time job. Varying statistics place this number somewhere in the range of $37,000 to $41,000 for all races and sexes combined for 2007. Median income in 1965 was roughly $6900. Being a Representative or Senator is, after all, a public service and should not be a means to enrich oneself.
2. Any pay raise must be made in relation to the raise in the federal poverty level, currently about $21,200 for a family of 4. There has been no meaningful change in the federal poverty level when comparing 1965: $3,223 to 2008: $21,200, unlike the jump for Congressional pay for the same time window of 1965: $30,000 to 2008: $169,300.
3. Publicly funded campaigns. Our representatives and senators perennially complain about having to always stump for campaign contributions for the next campaign. They say this is one reason why they cannot get anything done. Fair enough -- take the profit out of politics.
4. Limit the amount of money spent on campaigns to $150,000. If they haven't learned how to do it better and do it for less, it's either high time they figured it out or just get out of the game period. You Tube and Blogger. Need I say more?
5. Use of public airwaves for campaign debates. The government can and should require media outlets, such as radio stations and television stations to grant time to debates which are free, fair and open to all parties as part of the requirement to keep their license to use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES. This can help alleviate the problem with $$$ and give the lesser known candidates a chance to be heard.
6. No more campaign commercials. They are a major waste of money and they do not inform anyone about the issues. If the average American cannot be bothered to spend more than 30 seconds informing themselves about some of the most important issue they could decide on, then they will not benefit from a 30 second slash and burn t.v. or radio ad.
7. No media owner or company should be allowed to own more than one form of media in one market. There should be no overlapping ownership in markets immediately adjacent to said market as well. No more Wal-martization of the media. We should go back to 'mom & pop' journalism, not the homogenous mis-information we currently suffer under.
These are ideas that have occurred to me at this point. I acknowledge they may not be perfectly crafted but it's a start.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Now, THAT'S A MANDATE!
Obama wins 349 Electoral votes vs. McCain's 147 Electoral votes.
Obama wins Popular Vote By 63,112,190 vs McCain's 55,867,094 as of 9:51am Pacific Standard Time, giving Obama 52% Vs. McCain 46%.
Four years ago, Bush declared he would expend his political capital because he had earned it and he was given a mandate by the electorate.
Hardly...this is what a mandate looks like.
No vote stealing required!!!
Obama wins Popular Vote By 63,112,190 vs McCain's 55,867,094 as of 9:51am Pacific Standard Time, giving Obama 52% Vs. McCain 46%.
Four years ago, Bush declared he would expend his political capital because he had earned it and he was given a mandate by the electorate.
Hardly...this is what a mandate looks like.
No vote stealing required!!!
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Political Satire is not dead!
Political satire has a long, rich history in this country. The roasting of politicians and other public figures via comedy and exageration is a necessity in a democratic republic such as ours and is guarenteed by the First Amendment. Sadly, this fundamental right has been and continues to be under attack. It is always refreshing when someone can creatively and intelligently express themselves while criticizing those in power--or potentially in power, as this fine American - Hockey Mom does here:
You can also find it here.
You can also find it here.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Why I voted no on Proposition 8
For those of you who do not live in California, or those who do and are unaware, Proposition 8 is currently on the ballot for the 2008 general election in November. It is a proposed amendment to the California constitution that would officially designate marriage as exclusively for a man and woman. The full text reads as follows:
I am a firm believer and supporter of the United States Constitution and of the California State Constitution. These Constitutions are the fundamental foundation of this country and of the state. While imperfect in creation, they are necessary and vital for a free people. I based my primary opposition to Prop 8 on these two Constitutions.
Proposition 8 would violate the equal protection clauses found in the California State Constitution Section 7 and in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Prop 8 would deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law by denying them the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientation. The right to form relationships, marry and create families with another consenting adult is a fundamental human right. Allowing only a specific type of person, or one approved on the basis of their sexual orientation as seen through the prism of a particular religion, would deny equal protection to these unprotected or unapproved members of the population. Marriage discrimination is not new to California. Similar discrimination was struck down about 60 years ago in the California Supreme Court decision Perez v Sharp which ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional.
I haven't seen any discussion on this, but it seems to me that Proposition 8 would also violate Section 4 of the California State Constitution as well as the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion. People opposed to gay marriage usually base their opposition on religious grounds. According to this view, marriage is between a man and a woman based on God’s word as it appears in the bible and other religious texts. If a law or constitutional amendment were passed to specifically deny anyone other than a heterosexual couple marriage rights based on a religious ideology or text, that law would be unconstitutional because it is respecting or preferring an establishment of religion. It denies those so affected equal protection under the law on religious grounds. It fails to take into consideration the fact that some people are atheists or believers of religions that do not condemn non-heterosexual people, or neither atheists, but rather those who practice no religion. If there were no biblical or other religiously motivated proscriptions against homosexual marriage, then there would be no basis for such discrimination other than personal opinion, which fails to form a firm basis for a constitutional amendment or constitutionally sound law.
Prop 8 also violates the spirit of Section 1 of the California State Constitution, which states:
There may be nothing more private than the private, intimate relationships we form, whether they be with family or a mate. The right and opportunity to form the bond of marriage facilitates the possession and protection of private property as well as the safety, happiness and privacy of the relationship. These matters should not be intruded upon by either the government or by private citizens' personal beliefs.
When challenged, Prop 8 supporters have failed to produce factual evidence on exactly how gay marriage will threaten the 'institution of heterosexual marriage'. With the divorce rate averaging 50%, it appears that heterosexuals are attacking the institution quite well on their own. In reality, allowing gay people to marry poses no actual or potential threat to any heterosexual marriage, especially when you consider that the parties to these marriages will never meet or otherwise affects each others lives. Governments allow individuals to marry because they recognize that marriage creates stability within society.
On a visceral level, I disagree with Proposition 8 and with people who feel they can dictate another adults life based on their own personal opinion. I disagree with people who feel they have the only answer or know the only way to live a valuable, productive, acceptable life. I certainly do not have the answer and make no claims to have it and I am not willing to deny another human being the ability or opportunity to find those answers in their own way.
Proposition 8 is not something that should be put into the California Constitution. It goes against the idea of a Constitution, which should always be used to protect the rights of the people rather than negate those rights or deny future rights or offer those rights to only a select group. Quite simply the hatred of homosexuals seems to be the last semi-acceptable public prejudice. It should not remain so.
PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
I am a firm believer and supporter of the United States Constitution and of the California State Constitution. These Constitutions are the fundamental foundation of this country and of the state. While imperfect in creation, they are necessary and vital for a free people. I based my primary opposition to Prop 8 on these two Constitutions.
Proposition 8 would violate the equal protection clauses found in the California State Constitution Section 7 and in the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Prop 8 would deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law by denying them the right to marry based solely on their sexual orientation. The right to form relationships, marry and create families with another consenting adult is a fundamental human right. Allowing only a specific type of person, or one approved on the basis of their sexual orientation as seen through the prism of a particular religion, would deny equal protection to these unprotected or unapproved members of the population. Marriage discrimination is not new to California. Similar discrimination was struck down about 60 years ago in the California Supreme Court decision Perez v Sharp which ruled that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional.
I haven't seen any discussion on this, but it seems to me that Proposition 8 would also violate Section 4 of the California State Constitution as well as the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting laws respecting an establishment of religion. People opposed to gay marriage usually base their opposition on religious grounds. According to this view, marriage is between a man and a woman based on God’s word as it appears in the bible and other religious texts. If a law or constitutional amendment were passed to specifically deny anyone other than a heterosexual couple marriage rights based on a religious ideology or text, that law would be unconstitutional because it is respecting or preferring an establishment of religion. It denies those so affected equal protection under the law on religious grounds. It fails to take into consideration the fact that some people are atheists or believers of religions that do not condemn non-heterosexual people, or neither atheists, but rather those who practice no religion. If there were no biblical or other religiously motivated proscriptions against homosexual marriage, then there would be no basis for such discrimination other than personal opinion, which fails to form a firm basis for a constitutional amendment or constitutionally sound law.
Prop 8 also violates the spirit of Section 1 of the California State Constitution, which states:
All people are by nature free and independent and have
Inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
Liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
There may be nothing more private than the private, intimate relationships we form, whether they be with family or a mate. The right and opportunity to form the bond of marriage facilitates the possession and protection of private property as well as the safety, happiness and privacy of the relationship. These matters should not be intruded upon by either the government or by private citizens' personal beliefs.
When challenged, Prop 8 supporters have failed to produce factual evidence on exactly how gay marriage will threaten the 'institution of heterosexual marriage'. With the divorce rate averaging 50%, it appears that heterosexuals are attacking the institution quite well on their own. In reality, allowing gay people to marry poses no actual or potential threat to any heterosexual marriage, especially when you consider that the parties to these marriages will never meet or otherwise affects each others lives. Governments allow individuals to marry because they recognize that marriage creates stability within society.
On a visceral level, I disagree with Proposition 8 and with people who feel they can dictate another adults life based on their own personal opinion. I disagree with people who feel they have the only answer or know the only way to live a valuable, productive, acceptable life. I certainly do not have the answer and make no claims to have it and I am not willing to deny another human being the ability or opportunity to find those answers in their own way.
Proposition 8 is not something that should be put into the California Constitution. It goes against the idea of a Constitution, which should always be used to protect the rights of the people rather than negate those rights or deny future rights or offer those rights to only a select group. Quite simply the hatred of homosexuals seems to be the last semi-acceptable public prejudice. It should not remain so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
