Friday, December 12, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Prop 102 Official Results from AZ Sec State - Wins, 56%
California Secretary of State Prop 8 Results - appears to be winning, 52% yes with predominantly yes leaning precincts still reporting.
Florida Marriage Amendment - Wins - 62% yes
I am totally NOT depressed today, regardless of how crappy or possibly not crappy Obama is, the nation and people of faith scored a huge WIN in 3 states for traditional marriage and the ability to teach our children our values.
If you didn't see the No on 8(california Marriage initiative) commercial I recommend watching it on youtube, the voters shut those lies down. In short the video depicts MORMON missionaries (they actually use the phrase "We're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" in the video) breaking into a lesbian couples home and stealing their wedding rings and marriage license. Metaphor or NOT the video is a total lie and a major misrepresentation of young men who provide selfless service for 2 years in the prime of their lives. It completely distorts the truth and singles out the LDS church out of a group of more than 500 religions and faith based organizations supporting Proposition 8.
People of faith in California, Arizona, and Florida proved that hard work and dedication triumphed over lies and deceipt.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The news seems to love comparing experience and "readiness" of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates for office, in that case let's just make an assumption that since we cannot simply or easily judge the quality of a candidates' time in office we are forced to compare the quantity of actual work experience including non political service(excluding schooling although we could add that in if you are upset by it), in that case here are the numbers:
McCain = 22 years in the Navy, 4 years in US congress, 22 years in US Senate, Total: 48 years work experience
Obama = 1 year at Business machines(83-84), 3 years as community director(85-87), 4 years of work after Harvard Law school as attorney and lecturer at Univ of Chicago(92-96), 8 years in Illinois state senate, 4 years in US Senate(04+), Total: 20 years work experience
Palin = 1 year as reporter(88)? 4 years city council(92-96), 6 years mayor(96-02), 4 years as Chair of Alaska Oil and Gas Commission(02-06), 2 years Governor(06+, Total: 17 years (should we count raising children as work experience? I'd say yes because anyone working full time knows that's easier than raising kids, OK, I've talked myself into it and if you argue against it than you're a bigoted anti-stay-at-home-mom chauvinist), so accounting for that we'll say 3 more years for that- Total of 20 years work experience(oddly close to what Obama has)
Biden = 2 years public defender, 2 years city council, 36 years US senate = Total: 40 years in political service (Holy CRAP did this guy ever work outside of politics? answer is Yes, wow, for two whole years as a public defender)
Total for McCain / Palin: 68
Total for Obama / Biden: 60
Experience comparison round 2
After doing this I thought, OK - this could be biased, let's simplify it further and say anything AFTER their last round of school is considered "real work" and hence qualifies as work experience, let's run the numbers:
McCain: Graduates from Naval Academy 1958, to 2008 = 50 years experience
Obama: In this case we're going to go from his bachelors from Columbia (83) since he has a period of work experience between that and Harvard Law School (88-91 excluded): 21 years experience
Palin: Graduates from University of Idaho: 1987: 21 years of experience
Biden: Graduates from Syracuse University College of Law in 1968: 40 years of experience
Total for McCain / Palin: 71
Total for Obama / Biden: 61
Hmm - let's argue that? Why would I choose to use only post schooling experience you ask? Although as an overly educated student loan slave I firmly believe school is harder than work and many times much more difficult I also think that it isn't looked at on a resume in the same light as a "real job", HR departments look at school as one segment of life experience and work experience as another, hence my consideration of only post graduation experience. I also think that the propensity for group think and hive thinking is much greater in an educational environment than in a work environment where there is a far greater diversity of experience, backgrounds, age, talents, interests etc, the educational environment looks at things idealistically and critically, in the "real world" your grades aren't on the line, your job and bottom line is, it's kind of a different experience wouldn't you agree?
So who wins? On simple duration of experience, I'd say McCain has it hands down over Obama, together McCain and Palin have it over Obama and Biden. If you compare Palin to Obama it's actually pretty close, leaving aside "quality" and "depth" of experience, if you throw those factors in it probably leans towards Obama although he's a lawyer so that should be a couple of negative points. If you compare Palin to Biden, wait, you really can't, Biden's been in the Senate for his entire career(other than 2 years as a Public Defender), if anyone in the whole dang world doesn't understand my needs is that blowhard so I can't even remotely consider him.
I'll have to say for now that McCain/Palin score on the "simple" experience comparison. Plus, did I say Biden sucks?
Timelines for McCain and Obama are from George Washington University:
Timeline for Palin from ABC News and wiki:
Timeline for Biden from Reuters and wiki:
After writing this post I decided I'll have to revisit other aspects of the candidate comparisons in subsequent posts, what I thought was simple turned out to take longer and that excluded any kind of quality analysis of the candidates experience.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/tolerance definition "2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own "
I personally like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' recent discussion on tolerance in respect to the subject of gay marriages:
Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom
Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished.  Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.”  Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.
In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.
As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,
Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.  The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds – including same-sex marriage – does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term “hate speech.” We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.
There are those who claim that religious or morally motivated individuals are intolerant because they do not accept a course of action or activity because it clashes with thier values. In reality they won't consider a person tolerant until they are accepting or condoning of the activity with no value judgement whatsoever.
I really like this video on tolerance: