Thursday, April 30, 2009
who put the bomp in the bomp bomp bomp
I now bring to you the misadventures of Captain Useless and the Invisible Man!!!
Posing as mild mannered project managers, no one suspects their dangerous alter ego's. THE WONDER TWINS CAPTAIN USELESS AND THE INVISIBLE MANNNNNN.
Captain Useless is able to twist any thing into an asinine labor intensive project that will just need to be reversed the next morning!
The Invisible Man... is well Invisible... one second he is there, the next... he is still there but you just can't see him...
Together this duo can alter the workload and schedules of entire departments with ease. last minute configuration changes, and failure to respond are just two tools in their arsenal. They also poses the ability to turn any complication into a catastrophic affair.
These two are a force to be reckoned with, and all who try to cross them, have walked away wanting to set fire to small animals. Such is the power of THE WONDER TWINS CAPTAIN USELESS AND THE INVISIBLE MANNNNNN.
coming soon... the adventures of Plausible Deniability man! It's Plausible Deniability man here to tell us he never told us to do the stuff he told us to do and he doesn't even know who we are
Posing as mild mannered project managers, no one suspects their dangerous alter ego's. THE WONDER TWINS CAPTAIN USELESS AND THE INVISIBLE MANNNNNN.
Captain Useless is able to twist any thing into an asinine labor intensive project that will just need to be reversed the next morning!
The Invisible Man... is well Invisible... one second he is there, the next... he is still there but you just can't see him...
Together this duo can alter the workload and schedules of entire departments with ease. last minute configuration changes, and failure to respond are just two tools in their arsenal. They also poses the ability to turn any complication into a catastrophic affair.
These two are a force to be reckoned with, and all who try to cross them, have walked away wanting to set fire to small animals. Such is the power of THE WONDER TWINS CAPTAIN USELESS AND THE INVISIBLE MANNNNNN.
coming soon... the adventures of Plausible Deniability man! It's Plausible Deniability man here to tell us he never told us to do the stuff he told us to do and he doesn't even know who we are
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
What you say?
My finger nails a green... well, two of my fingernails are green. But that's not what I want to talk about... I forget what I wanted to talk about.
I could drone on about my delusions, and my dreams...when I dream...but I won't. so how about a musical interlude:
Son look at all the people in this restaurant
What d'you think they weigh?
And out the window to the parking lot
At their SUVs taking all of the space
They give no fuck
They talk as loud as they want
They give no fuck
Just as long as there's enough for them
Gotta get on the microphone down at wallmart
Talk about some shit that's been on my mind
Talk about the state of this great of this nation of ours
People look to your left, yeah look to your right
They give no fuck
They buy as much as they want
They give no fuck
Just as long as there's enough for them
[Piano Solo]
Son look at the people lining up for plastic
Wouldn't you like to see them in the national geographic?
Squatting bare-assed in the dirt eating rice from a bowl
With a towel on their head and maybe a bone in their nose
See that asshole with a peace-sign on his licence plate
Giving me the finger and running me out of his lane
God made us number one because he loves us the best
Well maybe He should go bless someone else for a while, give us a rest
They give no...
Yeah and everyone can see
They give no...
We've eaten all that we can eat
I could drone on about my delusions, and my dreams...when I dream...but I won't. so how about a musical interlude:
Son look at all the people in this restaurant
What d'you think they weigh?
And out the window to the parking lot
At their SUVs taking all of the space
They give no fuck
They talk as loud as they want
They give no fuck
Just as long as there's enough for them
Gotta get on the microphone down at wallmart
Talk about some shit that's been on my mind
Talk about the state of this great of this nation of ours
People look to your left, yeah look to your right
They give no fuck
They buy as much as they want
They give no fuck
Just as long as there's enough for them
[Piano Solo]
Son look at the people lining up for plastic
Wouldn't you like to see them in the national geographic?
Squatting bare-assed in the dirt eating rice from a bowl
With a towel on their head and maybe a bone in their nose
See that asshole with a peace-sign on his licence plate
Giving me the finger and running me out of his lane
God made us number one because he loves us the best
Well maybe He should go bless someone else for a while, give us a rest
They give no...
Yeah and everyone can see
They give no...
We've eaten all that we can eat
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
There is no title
I can't sleep. I should say I can't stay asleep. So I suppose it would be more accurate to say I can't sleep well.
It's not something new, I've had fights with this as long as I can remember. But that doesn't really make it easier to deal with. If you ever have gone long enough without good sleep, specifically REM sleep, you start to lose it. I mean really lose it. You can start to hallucinate and have psychotic breaks. Not that I think I'm having any of those problems, but I definitely feel like I have a loser grip on reality... or a more firm grip... perhaps I really AM Freddie Mercury...
Ok Internets let me try to illistrate this for you. Imagine a song you heard in passing, not a bad song, not teribly catchy, and it get's stuck in your head. Annoying... now imagine you can't get that song out of your head... but only like 2 lines of that song... and you can HEAR it...over and over and over... that's kinda what it's like when I try to sleep...
That wasn't a very good example..
It's not something new, I've had fights with this as long as I can remember. But that doesn't really make it easier to deal with. If you ever have gone long enough without good sleep, specifically REM sleep, you start to lose it. I mean really lose it. You can start to hallucinate and have psychotic breaks. Not that I think I'm having any of those problems, but I definitely feel like I have a loser grip on reality... or a more firm grip... perhaps I really AM Freddie Mercury...
Ok Internets let me try to illistrate this for you. Imagine a song you heard in passing, not a bad song, not teribly catchy, and it get's stuck in your head. Annoying... now imagine you can't get that song out of your head... but only like 2 lines of that song... and you can HEAR it...over and over and over... that's kinda what it's like when I try to sleep...
That wasn't a very good example..
Friday, April 10, 2009
"Did you know..."
Presenting, a brief taste of the stupid topics of conversation I have had to listen to today:
"... the Japanese had endearment camps for the Jews"
"... the Russian czar only hated Jews because of his dad, and when they took his family into the basement they had pockets full of jewels so the bullets bounced off and they thought they were magic and that's how they got away"
"... the Japanese killed the Jews too"
"... they couldn't prove Hitler is dead because the German soldiers wouldn't let them do a DNA test"
"... suicide is the only thing that separates humans from animals."
"... the government hasn't given us the technology to study animal brains, so we don't even know if they have brainwaves."
"... the Japanese had endearment camps for the Jews"
"... the Russian czar only hated Jews because of his dad, and when they took his family into the basement they had pockets full of jewels so the bullets bounced off and they thought they were magic and that's how they got away"
"... the Japanese killed the Jews too"
"... they couldn't prove Hitler is dead because the German soldiers wouldn't let them do a DNA test"
"... suicide is the only thing that separates humans from animals."
"... the government hasn't given us the technology to study animal brains, so we don't even know if they have brainwaves."
Friday, April 3, 2009
Is this heaven? no it's Iowa!
The following is what I view as a judicial smack down to the common arguments against gay marriage; (1)tradition, (2) promoting the optimal environment for children, (3) promoting
procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5)
preservation of state resources.
I almost want to take this and recite these counter arguments in some public forum, then drop the mic and stand there in a "what now bitches" pose. I'd seriously love to see someone try to find a good counter argument to any of these points. But I digress, read on.
Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.
Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children. The second of the County’s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and oppositesex parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court concluded the classification employed to further that goal—sexual orientation— did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and over-inclusive.
The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.
Promotion of Procreation. Next, the court addressed the County’s argument that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court concluded the County’s argument is flawed because it fails to address the required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and lesbians from civil marriage.
Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships. The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex marriage more stable.
Conservation of Resources. Finally, the court rejected the County’s argument that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective. Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not substantially further the suggested governmental interest.
Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Having addressed and rejected each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate—religious opposition. Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds, explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute. “Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”
Constitutional Infirmity. In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally infirm, the court stated:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination. We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s
marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution.
::SQUEEEE::
procreation, (4) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, and (5)
preservation of state resources.
I almost want to take this and recite these counter arguments in some public forum, then drop the mic and stand there in a "what now bitches" pose. I'd seriously love to see someone try to find a good counter argument to any of these points. But I digress, read on.
Maintaining Traditional Marriage. Initially, the court considered the County’s argument the same-sex marriage ban promotes the “integrity of traditional marriage” by “maintaining the historical and traditional marriage norm ([as] one between a man and a woman).” The court noted that, when tradition is offered as a justification for preserving a statutory scheme challenged on equal protection grounds, the court must determine whether the reasons underlying the tradition are sufficient to satisfy constitutional requirements. These reasons, the court found, must be something other than the preservation of tradition by itself. “When a certain tradition is used as both the governmental objective and the classification to further that objective, the equal protection analysis is transformed into the circular question of whether the classification accomplishes the governmental objective, which objective is to maintain the classification.” Here, the County offered no governmental reason underlying the tradition of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, so the court proceeded to consider the other reasons advanced by the County for the legislative classification.
Promotion of Optimal Environment to Raise Children. The second of the County’s proffered governmental objectives involves promoting child rearing by a father and a mother in a marital relationship, the optimal milieu according to some social scientists. Although the court found support for the proposition that the interests of children are served equally by same-sex parents and oppositesex parents, it acknowledged the existence of reasoned opinions that dualgender parenting is the optimal environment for children. Nonetheless, the court concluded the classification employed to further that goal—sexual orientation— did not pass intermediate scrutiny because it is significantly under-inclusive and over-inclusive.
The statute, the court found, is under-inclusive because it does not exclude from marriage other groups of parents—such as child abusers, sexual predators, parents neglecting to provide child support, and violent felons—that are undeniably less than optimal parents. If the marriage statute was truly focused on optimal parenting, many classifications of people would be excluded, not merely gay and lesbian people. The statute is also under-inclusive because it does not prohibit same-sex couples from raising children in Iowa. The statute is over-inclusive because not all same-sex couples choose to raise children. The court further noted that the County failed to show how the best interests of children of gay and lesbian parents, who are denied an environment supported by the benefits of marriage under the statute, are served by the ban, or how the ban benefits the interests of children of heterosexual parents. Thus, the court concluded a classification that limits civil marriage to opposite-sex couples is simply not substantially related to the objective of promoting the optimal environment to raise children.
Promotion of Procreation. Next, the court addressed the County’s argument that endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court concluded the County’s argument is flawed because it fails to address the required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation. The court found no argument to support the conclusion that a goal of additional procreation would be substantially furthered by the exclusion of gays and lesbians from civil marriage.
Promoting Stability in Opposite-Sex Relationships. The County also asserted that the statute promoted stability in opposite-sex relationships. The court acknowledged that, while the institution of civil marriage likely encourages stability in opposite-sex relationships, there was no evidence to support that excluding gay and lesbian people from civil marriage makes opposite-sex marriage more stable.
Conservation of Resources. Finally, the court rejected the County’s argument that banning same-sex marriages in a constitutional fashion conserves state resources. The argument in support of the same-sex marriage ban is based on a simple premise: civilly married couples enjoy numerous governmental benefits, so the state’s fiscal burden associated with civil marriage is reduced if less people are allowed to marry. While the ban on same-sex marriage may conserve some state resources, so would excluding any number of identifiable groups. However, under intermediate scrutiny the sexual-orientation-based classification must substantially further the conservation-of-resources objective. Here again, the court found it was over- and under-inclusive and did not substantially further the suggested governmental interest.
Religious Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. Having addressed and rejected each specific interest articulated by the County, the court addressed one final ground believed to underlie the same-sex marriage debate—religious opposition. Recognizing the sincere religious belief held by some that the “sanctity of marriage” would be undermined by the inclusion of gay and lesbian couples, the court nevertheless noted that such views are not the only religious views of marriage. Other, equally sincere groups have espoused strong religious views yielding the opposite conclusion. These contrasting opinions, the court finds, explain the absence of any religious-based rationale to test the constitutionality of Iowa’s same-sex marriage statute. “Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . . . The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions. Instead, the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil contract . . . . Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”
Constitutional Infirmity. In concluding the marriage statute is constitutionally infirm, the court stated:
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination. We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s
marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded. Iowa Code section 595.2 denies gay and lesbian people the equal protection of the law promised by the Iowa Constitution.
::SQUEEEE::
to sleep, perchance to dream.
I dreamed a dream and saw the flames of disaster consuming my friends and my family, and I wept for I knew not that I was in a dream. As I ran to them the flames parted, and I was able to see the destruction and terror unobstructed before my eyes. But I could not reach them. The flames had parted, the way was clear but ever they were out of my reach. Should I ever reach them the flames would engulf us and burn us to ruin. Then they were taken. To where I know not, I was not allowed to follow. "Don't you understand!" I would cry. But then I would not remember who was being taken away. Suddenly everything was slipping away. It was another time, later is all I knew, and I was in pursuit of those that had been taken from me. And hunting those responsible, but for what I no longer knew. And once again I wept, for I knew now the dream I dreamed was not just a dream.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)