DBD 2.25.10. Your California: Imperial County
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 2:53 AM PST
798 comments
*grzzz. Grzzzzzzzz. GRZZZZZZZZZZZ* it was 4:30am and my phone alarm, set to vibrate, was buzzing atop some spare change on the small table next to my foldout couch. I had it set thus, because the noise it produces makes me want to eat my own ears. At the very least, it forces me to get up and turn it off. I sat blearily on my bed, eyes crackly with sleep and a hangover, debating whether I could summon the strength to heave myself into action or collapse back onto the mattress. I actually had a pool party to attend later that morning, and I could really use the sleep. But when would I be this far south in California again? The decision was made.
I had two hundred miles to drive, six miles to hike, and 6 hours to do it in. The key was soon in the ignition, and I was off, heading east into the sunrise over the parched, dusty big toe of Your California: Imperial County.
Imperial
Vital stats:
Population: 163,972
Major Towns: El Centro, Brawley, Calexico
Highpoint: Blue Angels Peak, 4548 ft
Major Landmarks: The Salton Sea, the Colorado River.
San Diego is a fine city. I found myself in and around it for a week not too long ago for a good friend’s wedding. The sun shone hot while fog stayed just off the coast. People were generally pleasant. The Rock Bottom Brewery next to UCSD was solid, as usual. In fact I’ve found that San Diegans are some of the finer people you can meet: diverse, with the California can-do spirit and Midwestern friendliness, without the Bay Area’s intellectual elitism or LA’s center-of-the-world superficiality. However, San Diegans love to let people know how other areas compare to San Diego (worse, in their estimation), and going outside in temperatures below 75 or above 82 degrees causes them to become completely inert, like reptiles. And if it rains they curl into a ball, scream in terror at what is surely, in their estimation, The Rapture, then whimper quietly until once more becoming completely inert. Basically San Diegans are complete weather pussies. But in other regards they’re fine, so I’ll let it slide. …This time.
or "Camp"
In either case that morning I found myself speeding east, out of San Diego and into one of California’s most extreme and most controversial counties. Baking desert on the border with Mexico and Arizona comprises the bulk of Imperial County. The Salton Sea, a saline lake below sea level formed when the Colorado River flooded for two years in 1905, sits in the middle.
Slow for the cone zone. And drug sniffing dogs.
So close to the border, Imperial County has much influence from Mexico; there are 3rd and 4th generation Mexican immigrants, and 3/4 of its citizens speak Spanish as their first language. The deep catholic faith of Hispanic immigrants combined with the generally conservative-leaning white farmer population of Imperial County skews the population towards social conservatism. In a highly controversial move, the Imperial County Board of Supervisors offered their support of the sponsors of Proposition 8, the only county in California to do so.
"I swear this wasn't here yesterday"
Perhaps more curious is that despite being one the driest counties in the nation, almost all of Imperial County’s economy is based on water, specifically that from the Colorado River. When fields further north lie unplanted, the constant sunshine allows the fields of the Imperial Valley to flourish with irrigation water from the All-American Canal. The county is so sunny, in fact, the Blue Angels practice at NAF El Centro because the weather is clear nearly year-round.
Fortunately for me, the high that day was predicted to be only 95 degrees. As I-8 veered south, I knew I was near my destination as I slowed for a cone zone manned by the USBP. They waved me through after ascertaining that I was little threat, and proceeded to the In-Ko-Pah Park exit and onto a well-graded, but dusty, dirt road. As with most of these county adventures, it seems that the closer one gets to a county highpoint, the more insane people one encounters. Close to the trailhead, there was a series of high voltage towers that buzzed overhead as I drove past. Underneath these towers was a trailer home with a beat up car out front. It’s hard to tell in this picture, but there were dozens of boxes next to the trailer home. Inside the boxes appeared to be hundreds and hundreds of parakeets.
Moral of story: Living under high voltage wires turns you into a parakeet.
After another few hundred yards on the 4x4 road I’d decided the GTI had had enough and pulled off to park. Although it wasn’t much past 7:30 am, it was already 70 degrees out. I’d read reports of encounters with USBP on this very hike, so I left a note in my windshield detailing how long I’d be out and my cell #.
The dirt road wound up a dry, rocky hillside. Brush and cacti clung to life in crevices. I had read reports that this area was very active with migrants crossing the border, and this would soon become amply evident. I assumed that since I was out in broad daylight in the middle of summer, no one would pay me no bother as it seemed an unlikely time for a border crossing. Then, as I neared a spur towards a communications tower outpost, I heard the faint but steadly increasing thwub-thwub-thwub of helicopter blades. Ten seconds later a USBP helicopter rose over a hillside to the northeast. Where was it going? To check out a report of some Salvadorians in a crate in Mexicali? Some drug runners in a tunnel in Tijuana? No. It slowly came to a standstill in midair…over my GTI. It descended downward in a circle to a height of a few dozen yards, then hightailed it back over the hillside. Watching the scene, I did not have time to take out my camera and take pictures. I continued walking.
Not five minutes later, two USBP Suburbans came down the trail. The lead truck rolled down his window and a very overweight version of Dale from King of the Hill said "that yer car?" "Uh, yes." He mumbled something into his radio, probably about the bogie in sector 12 he had cleared, then turned back to me "good to know. Where you headed?" "Blue Angels Peak." "Alright then. You be real careful out there." "Okay, thanks!" "No…real careful. I’m serious." I paused, nodded, and continue onward. When I got down to my car later that morning, another fine gentleman greeted me...
"Is that an automatic weapon in your pocket or are you just excited to see--oh."
It seemed folly for me to be too concerned. I did not know it at the time, but two nights before, in a similarly remote area near Campo, one of that border guard’s compatriots was shot in the head and killed while on duty by a border-crosser or drug runner. But to me it was just a beautiful day out on a fine desert trail. Ignorance is bliss sometimes.
Bullet use is limited to the amount you can fire before your finger freezes like that.
As I marched southward towards the peak, an ever increasing amount of trash presented itself.
Scene from "Stalking the wild Rishi."
While there was typical 4x4 trail junk of empty shotgun cartridges and beer remnants, there were also much plastic bags, articles of torn and tattered clothing, empty, broken water jugs, and, arrestingly, a single child’s shoe. This made me pause. It wasn’t a fancy crosstrainer or Nike anything, it was just hard black material on top and a thick rubber sole. How did it come to pass that only one was left? A dozen scenarios, none pleasant, ran through my head as I pictured the shoe’s owner when the shoe fell to its final resting place. I continued on. The trail disappeared in a small gully, and, only a few hundred yards from the summit, I struck out cross country.
The preponderance of places a human could easily hide, was striking.
If I needed to cross from Mexico to the US, surely this would be my route. Shortly before 9am, I found myself on the summit. Looking west, a thin line of border fence in the flatlands, interrupted by a mountainous ridgeline, struck off towards the Pacific, and the horizon. South, the Mexican border followed by endless dry hills. To the east…not much. There was no border fence or other demarcation between Mexico and the US. Honestly, I couldn’t tell where one began and the other ended. The sky everywhere was dusty and hazy from the agriculture of the Imperial Valley.
While I’d love to be able to go on about the desert beauty and wonder and opportunity about this special county, I really can’t. With perpetual 20%+ unemployment, a single-track economy, and run by bigots, Imperial County is truly a terrible place, and I do apologize to you, Mike Mohamed, if you ever read this, for saying that, but it’s true. Surrounded by the trash of illegal immigrants, in the middle of a bone-dry desert choked with cactus and rattlesnakes, looking up at a polluted sky, not 1/8th of a mile from Border Mile Marker 231, and a few dozen miles from a hypersaline, dying lake, I thought about the oddity of the situation.
Migrants used this area to get from Mexico to the US. Why? They were going from one bleached desert hellscape to another bleached desert hellscape. From a drug war to a culture war. From unemployment to back breaking labor, if they’re lucky enough to get a job. And not only did immigrants do this, they did it by the thousand. And they would lose their clothing, they would be parched of water, they would walk for miles without a shoe over cactus and broken glass, they would do anything to reach Imperial County. Why?
Boundary Marker 231
Because there is opportunity far beyond the place I was walking. Immigrants have held a special place in the American economy and the American way of life, and the people crossing knew this. Long past the dry heat of the Coachella Valley lay a new life, a wonderful life, that maybe the migrant would never live, or only his child would live, years from now. So maybe Imperial County is a fitting metaphor for the United States’ crusty, hard exterior. For all the United States’ outward-facing problems, it still has a young, growing population, the world’s largest economy, the world’s 2nd most competitive economy, and the best higher-education system in the world. And this, surely, will open the portals of future opportunity.
Even for those living in Imperial County.
via brianpetersonphotography.com
GO CALIFORNIA! GO MIKE MOHAMED! GO BEARS!
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
13 recs |
798 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I do love these series.
I would conjecture that the best place to cross, however, is Big Bend National Park in Texas. No fences! And the Rio Grande is a few feet deep, and about 25 feet wide. We threw rocks across the border at Mexico, and while there 4 or 5 random Mexicans came by selling drinks or petrified snakes or other tourist crap. Which was weird because Big Bend completely empty, and then 1km is a Mexican border town.
Ah, see the problem there is that you end up in Texas.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 10:05 AM PST up reply actions
I imagine Big Bend, is better patrolled than a lot of other places, given that it is a National Park. Its not like once you cross the border, you can’t be stopped.
by Tedfordisgod on Feb 25, 2010 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
Per YO: The Prophet will chat with us
Live chat with Mike Mohamed on March 4
I’m happy to report that Cal linebacker Mike Mohamed has agreed to participate in a live chat on Thursday, March 4 from 1-2 p.m. The chat will be exactly one week before the beginning of spring practice, so Mohamed will be able to look ahead to the spring and answer any other questions on your mind.
Here’s the plan:
1. Dust off your dinosaur names
2. Think of some questions
3. ???
4. Prophet!
I am a Vereenian.
Huge basketball game tonight
Faraudo’s preview of Arizona game
Let’s face it, this is a new experience for the Golden Bears: They are playing this weekend for a Pac-10 championship.
The one that has eluded Cal for nearly 50 years.
Will they be nervous? Tight? Anxious?
"I don’t think so," Theo Robertson said. "It’s just basketball. All the other stuff that comes with these games is something we’ve worked for. I don’t know why we should be afraid of it."
Added Jerome Randle: "I don’t understand how anyone can get nervous. The crowd doesn’t bother me. I’ve been playing basketball so long."
Jamal Boykin said he’s more than OK with playing in front of a national TV audience.
"I love playing on ESPN. You get a sense the whole world is watching," he said, "Everyone gets very excited to play on ESPN."
The fact is, this isn’t a do-or-die night for the Bears. They could could lose tonight against Arizona and still win the conference crown. And they could sweep the Wildcats and Saturday afternoon’s matchup with second-place Arizona State and still not clinch the conference title outright.
I am a Vereenian.
Rec'd.
Fantastic work Spazzy. Amazing to think about what these immigrants will brave in search of a better life, and on a side note, if you really want to stop illegal immigration, fix Mexico.
There are also some interesting nuances here about how not all immigrants realize the backbreaking labor that they’re limited to in the US, i.e., farm work and slaughterhouses.
don’t be a ==>
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Indian Batsman Sachin Tendulkar breaks an "impossible record"
India’s Sachin Tendulkar scored a double-hundred against South Africa in a one-day match on Feb. 24, 2010. For the 1.5 billion people who follow cricket — making it, by some reckoning, the world’s second most popular sport after soccer — it was a moment to match Roger Bannister’s 4-min. mile in 1954.
To understand why the mark was long thought impossible, consider the odds against it happening. In a one-day game, each side gets to bat 50 six-ball overs — that’s 300 balls or, in American baseball terms, “pitches.” It’s rare that a single batsman gets more than 150 pitches, so the batsman would need a hit rate higher than 100% to get to 200 runs. Tendulkar got his 200 runs in 147 pitches, a hitting rate of 136.5. Very few players have scored at a faster rate, and none had the combination of patience and skill to score fast and stay on the pitch long enough to get to 200. Only one other time in the past 10 years has a batsman gotten to 190. In a career spanning 21 years, Tendulkar himself had just three scores in excess of 150 before today’s feat. The closest he had scored was 186, against New Zealand in 1999.
7
I don’t know that a double century is an impossible record, considering that Tendulkar was only 14 runs away in 1999.
Hasn’t Don Bradman done it as well?
Now, averaging 99.94 over a career . .. that’s a cricket achievement.
While I agree that Don Bradman is probably the greatest batsman in cricket history, he has not reached the double century mark in a single day before.
7
Actually my knowledge of cricket stops at a general idea of how the game is played, Bradman and Tendulkar. I can’t continue this conversation, as I fall outside the usual CGB Venn Diagram.
My parents don’t have grapefruits, since they’re both on cholesterol medicine. I learned when I was home over Christmas that my 4th favorite fruit (the pomelo) is considered close enough to a Grapefruit that I had to eat all 5 that I had purchased from Costco by myself.
I really wish it were easier to get fresh fruit in downtown SF. You can get an apple or banana anywhere, but other than that, it’s impossible.
Except for Crocker Galleria’s farmer’s market today!
7
Dude, there’s a cool blue building at the end of the street called the Ferry Building. Lots of fresh fruit there 7 days a week. Even when there’s no farmers’ market.
I know, but that’s still a good ten minute walk. Which is tough. I’m talking about being able to run downstairs and pick up fresh fruit to bring back to your desk.
7
Pics or you live in Kern County and there is plentiful fruit everywhere
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I don’t see any fruit there.
Goodbye Bob Gregory. I am soooooo 6 dimensional now!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 25, 2010 11:23 AM PST up reply actions
Really???? You don’t see ANY fruit in that overhead picture of San Francisco? OK…….
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions
In my stupidity, I may have stumbled upon something here.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
nope
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
Embarcadero Center Safeway?
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
Mychael Urban: Wow. Probably Dye at this point. Good outfielder, could adapt to RF at AT&T, good RBI guy.
by natteringnabob on Feb 25, 2010 9:16 PM PST up reply actions
Cricket is boring to watch, fun to play. I was toads stroking hella dongs last time I played it, but then the dudes told me I was holding the bat like an American style baseball bat instead of a cricket bat. I did much more poorly after that.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Cricket is a snooze-fest (five days! no winner! yay!), but I do feel baseball could be improved with a tea interval.
Don’t they do 1-day test matches now?
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
The longest version is 5 days. Then there is a one-day version which is 8 hours and now there is a newer version which is only 4 hours (so about the length of a baseball or football game)
In other words, Go Bears!
it’s called the 7th inning stretch?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
No, but they serve $8 watered-down Budweiser’s.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Feb 25, 2010 11:06 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
nice post
Will you be travelogueing Del Norte County next?
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
Mychael Urban: Wow. Probably Dye at this point. Good outfielder, could adapt to RF at AT&T, good RBI guy.
Not next, but eventually.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:44 PM PST up reply actions
GTFO TO THE GAMES:
Cal Fans,
This week, we host two of the most important games in the recent history of Cal Basketball, as we are on the cusp of our first conference championship in 50 years. We are also going to be celebrating the careers of five decorated seniors.
We need every seat in Haas Pavilion to be full for these two games. If you have tickets for the game, we need you to use them. If you don’t have tickets for the game, I encourage you to purchase yours today at CalBears.com. If you have tickets, but are unable to use them, I ask that you pass them off to someone who can be there. (click here to transfer your tickets)
I know that both of these games have start times earlier than we are used to, but we need to have Haas filled before the tip-off to help us create a home-court advantage.
Thursday’s game tips-off at 6 p.m. and is featured as a national broadcast by ESPN. We had a great crowd for College Gameday last year, and we need to show the country Haas Pavilion can host the best atmosphere in college basketball.
Saturday’s game against Arizona State tips off at 12 noon and is our last home game of the season. Before the game starts, we will be honoring our five seniors for all of their hard work and dedication to Cal Basketball, so make sure to arrive early.
Please help us close out the season on a strong note and help us bring home a conference championship for the first time in 50 years.
We hope to see you all out there on Thursday and Saturday and GO BEARS!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
LONG BEACH, Calif. – Fifth-ranked California posted its fastest times of the season in the 200-yard medley relay and 800-yard freestyle relay and stands in fourth place after the first day of the Pac-10 Women’s Swimming Championships on Wednesday at the Belmont Plaza Olympic Pool. The defending conference and NCAA champions, the Golden Bears have 108 points and trails third-place Stanford (112 points) as well as co-first place teams Arizona and USC (116 each).
Cal’s foursome of junior Sara Isakovic, junior Erica Dagg, sophomore Liv Jensen and junior Hannah Wilson posted an automatic NCAA qualifying time of 7:01.16 in the 800-yard freestyle relay. It was the second race of the night for Jensen. The Cal quartet of sophomore Colleen Fotsch, freshman Caitlin Leverenz, junior Amanda Sims and Jensen swam an NCAA consideration time of 1:38.08 to finish third in the 200-yard medley relay.
“We got off to a solid start tonight,” Cal head coach Teri McKeever said. “We had some new people in new positions compared to last year, and I think they’re doing a nice job with that. Everybody got to swim tonight and both relays are going to get invited to NCAAs; that was the goal. I thought Liv Jensen did a really, really nice job. We just have to get ready for tomorrow and see what happens.”
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
BERKELEY – California jumped out to an early lead and scored five tries by match’s end, holding the University of British Columbia scoreless until the final minutes in a particularly physical match to open the “World Cup” series Wednesday on Witter Rugby Field as the Golden Bears won, 39-7.
The Bears (17-0) will carry a 32-point advantage into the second and final match of the series on March 24 in Vancouver.
“We took a bit of a thumping today but maybe my guys learned something,” said UBC head coach Spence McTavish. “We’ll find out in a month, won’t we?”
“What we try to do against the Thunderbirds is match their intensity level and make our tackles. We didn’t let them break our lines inside,” said winger Dustin Muhn.
Brothers Danny and Neill Barrett scored Cal’s first two tries as the Bears leaped out of the gate quickly in characteristic 2010 fashion.
“There were 13 other guys out there putting us in position to score,” said Danny. Asked why the Bears appeared to relish the physical style of the match, the sophomore said, “Everyone knows that the Canadians come to play and we had to stand up for ourselves and put a shoulder on them.”
The T-Birds spent more time in Cal’s end of the field during the second half and finally found the try zone when UBC outside center Jon Anthony cut inside to score a try before injury time. Connor Fuller’s conversion rounded out the scoring for the visitors.
“We still have some room to reach higher toward our potential, but I liked how we came out in the second half and kept battling even though we left some tries unscored,” said inside center Sean Gallinger.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Baseball loses to UC Davis, fuck you carp:
The California baseball team (3-1), after a successful weekend winning three straight over Southern Utah, struggled Wednesday versus UC Davis, falling 8-0 in a non-league contest Feb. 24 at Evans Diamond. The Golden Bears, who had outscored Southern Utah 46-0, was limited to five hits and gave up 17 hits to the Aggies (3-1). Sophomore catcher Chadd Krist had two of Cal’s five hits, including a double in the fifth inning to raise his batting average to .533 (8-for-15) with three doubles, a triple and a home run on the year.
The winning pitcher for UC Davis was sophomore left-hander Nathan Slater (1-0), who threw 6.0 innings with four hits, one walk and four strikeouts. The losing pitcher for the Bears was junior right-hander Kevin Miller (3.2 innings, nine hits, four runs, two walks, three strikeouts). Three freshman pitchers – left-hander Joe Kurrasch and right-handers Michael Lowden and Trevor Hildenberger – threw the completion of the game for Cal, with Lowden performing the best allowing two hits, no runs with a strikeout in 2.0 innings of relief.
Besides Krist’s double, sophomore shortstop Marcus Semien had the other extra base hit for the Bears with a double in the third inning. Sophomore right fielder Danny Oh and freshman center fielder Darrel Matthews had the other two hits for Cal. Daniel Cepin went 5-for-5 with three RBI for the Aggies.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
High school coaches clinic set for 4.2-4.3
BERKELEY – The 2010 Cal Football High School Coaches Clinic will be held April 2-3 at the Hilton Garden Inn in Emeryville. The clinic is now open for registration and will serve as as a great opportunity for coaches to network with each other as well as listen to and learn from the Cal football coaching staff and featured guests. San Diego Chargers defensive coordinator and former Cal All-American linebacker Ron Rivera will serve as the event’s key note speaker. Cal football head coach Jeff Tedford will also be featured.
For more information or to pre-register for the clinic, call the Cal football office at 510-642-3857. Pre-registration fees are $30 per person if received by March 26 with a five dollar discounted $25 per person pre-registration rate available to coaching staffs with five or more clinic attendees. Registration at the door is $35 per person and available at the Hilton Garden Inn beginning at 4 p.m. on Friday, April 2. The Hilton Garden Inn is located at 1800 Powell Street in Emeryville. Mention the “Cal Football Clinic” to receive a discounted rate of $109.00. Room reservations can be made by calling 510-658-9300.
Rivera and Tedford will be featured on the first day of the clinic Friday, along with Cal offensive coordinator Andy Ludwig and defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast. An evening social will follow. The remainder of the Cal coach staffing and additional guest speakers to be announced soon will highlight Saturday’s second day of the clinic. There will also be an opportunity for clinic attendees to take in a Cal football spring practice Saturday afternoon at Memorial Stadium.
Rivera has been the defensive coordinator with San Diego since October of 2008 after spending a year and a half as the Chargers’ linebackers coach. He was previously the defensive coordinator for the Chicago Bears from 2004-06, producing a 2005 squad that set an NFL record by allowing only 61 points in eight home games, led the NFL in scoring defense (12.6 ppg) and ranked second in total defense (281.8 ypg). In 2006, his unit paced the NFL in takeaways (44), while ranking third in scoring defense (15.9 ppg) and fifth in total defense (294.1 ypg) en route to the NFC title and an appearance in Super Bowl XLI. Rivera was the linebackers coach with the Philadelphia Eagles for five seasons (1998-2003) after beginning his coaching career with the Bears as a defensive quality control coach from 1997-98. As a player, Rivera was a member of Chicago’s 1985 Super Bowl champions and spent nine NFL seasons with the Bears (1984-92) after his All-American collegiate career at Cal from 1980-83. He is still ranked among Cal’s all-time leaders in tackles (No. 4, 336), sacks (No. 6T, 22.0) and tackles for loss (No. 8, 47.5).
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
fjirst nice post! love the comentary! off topic....
what?
so ok. yesterday i was at officemax as getting a bunch of office crap….and saw the most awesome useless absolutely esential piece of office equipment i had seen in years….
a pen….
a pen that includes a laser pointer built into the end….
a pen that includes a laser pointer built into the end and an led flashlight….
and ! a 1Gig flash drive.
so awesomely useless i had to get one.
Go Bears Go
How much was this James Bond (if he were an office worker) pen?
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 8:23 AM PST up reply actions
like $25.
about the cost of a decent pen, cheap lazer pointer, and flash drive combined….
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 8:24 AM PST up reply actions
I’m now sort of expecting an e-mail from your mom asking me if you’d like this as a brithday or Christmas gift.
I am a Vereenian.
i say yes. it's cute. and useless.
perfect for an attourney.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 8:30 AM PST up reply actions
I have instructed you in how you are to reply: “CALumbus Bear doesn’t want shit unless it has a big script Cal on it, like a game worn helmet, a custom jersey of #96 with Oski Bear as the name, or Cal curtains for his Cal den.” Please stick to the script.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 8:31 AM PST up reply actions
By e-mail. Very rarely. Most recent communication was seeking Christmas gift advice for CALumbus.
I am a Vereenian.
Good move. You’re maturing. At least that’s what your mom said to me last night.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 9:08 AM PST up reply actions
Oh dang, penicillin will do nothing for that huge BURN!!!
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
Have you read the “SkyMall” catelogue that’s in airplanes? They have pens that have audio recorders and even mini cameras, so you can record meetings while the pen stays in your jacket pocket.
Downside is — what if someone asks to borrow it?
7
Then you hope she’s hot and wearing something low-cut.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
Here we go:
http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/dvr-pen.html
Uses For The Hidden Pen Camera Video Recorder:
Sting operations
Law enforcement
Journalists
Office meetings
Conversations
Home / Office security
7
careful
using this feature in California…
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
Mychael Urban: Wow. Probably Dye at this point. Good outfielder, could adapt to RF at AT&T, good RBI guy.
by natteringnabob on Feb 25, 2010 9:18 PM PST up reply actions
Recording a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation is illegal in California. In some other states, only the consent of one party to the conversation is required.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
Actual legal question:
If I were in a meeting with that pen in my pocket and someone in the room, on video, admitted guilt to something (I dunno, let’s call it embezzlement or something)… because that video was taken without consent, is the evidence inadmissable in court or is it admissable, but I’m also guilty of a crime?
7
The confession should be admissible in court, because the exclusionary rule, which suppresses evidence obtained illegally, applies only to illegal actions by the government. The Bill of Rights only restrains governmental action, not action by individuals. So as long as you were not a government agent or acting at the request of the government, the confession (or any other material that you obtained illegally and then turned over to the government) would be admissible. You, however, could be prosecuted for a crime.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
As far as I can tell, it would be admissible
There’s no general exclusion for evidence obtained through corrupt means. The exclusionary rule normally only applies to evidence gotten by the police through illegal searches and interrogations.
Now, if you wanted to sue the guy for embezzling YOUR money, then I suppose it might be excluded on equitable grounds.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
my single best investment…
was a green laser pointer, military grade. Some folks complained at how bright it was.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Were you that asshat that laser pointed me in the eyes last week from the building across the street? You made me paranoid for about two hours and disrupted a perfectly good internet po…. youtube session.
Remind me never to consult you for stock tips.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 10:14 AM PST up reply actions
the green is much brighter even at only 5mw due to the eye receptivity
though you can get em at substantially higher power ratings.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 10:23 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Yeah, it says <5 mW, but it so badass. I think it emits at 510 nm? Almost as badass as football coaches named Clancy.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I just wanted to say hey, what an awesome DBD. Imperial is one of the two counties in California I’ve never been to (Alpine is the other, talk about extremes), and seeing this story made me want to get down there at least once, even if it might be sort of a dump.
So anyway, thanks. (And now I’d better go get ready for work.)
-kat
Member of the Lost Tribe of Mooch
The Salton Sea is the single most depressing place I’ve ever been, and I’ve been to Ohio, Iowa, AND West Virginia! When I was there it was the lake was lined in 2 ft of dead fish.
On behalf of Iowa & West Virgina I must protest, these two states are quite beautiful in their own right, no comment about Ohio though.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Beautiful rolling hills with picturesque farms, cornfields – what’s wrong with that? Covered bridges etc. I know its nothing compared to California, but still.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
It does have a Americana purity about it that can’t be matched, although the Field of Dreams site was FUBAR.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
It sucks. It might be usable for T-ball, the grass sucks, and there’s no mound whatsoever. Definitely not worth the 20 min drive from the highway.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Hey not that I would recommend anyone visit Iowa as a tourist destination, no real reason to go there, but its not as bad as many of the other parts of the country that I’ve been in.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Agreed. It’s way better than Nevada.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
i like Nevada....no vegetation to get in teh way of the rocks.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
I have this running argument with my wife about trees getting in the way of scenery. Having grown up in Western Europe (all trees cut down for industrial revolution and WWI) and southern California, I find large quantities of trees to be an impediment to scenery. They also make a lot of interstate drives very dull indeed on the east coast, when you’re going through a tree tunnel for hours.
The missus thinks I am insane about this. The only time I’ve ever has someone agree with me, much to her horror, was when we were in Iceland (no trees) and got to talking to an older Icelandic couple who had one kid living in DC and another in Boston. They said they had flown to DC and decided to drive to Boston so they could see some of the east coast, but “mostly all we could see was trees, it was a bit boring.”
So, plainly, I have to move to Iceland.
Well, a lot of the time if the trees weren’t there, it would only be rolling hills. Not exactly “scenery” you would be excited about. I think you can take enjoyment from the trees—but I’m from rural Oregon, so what do I know.
I guess you could argue that California and Iceland have much more interesting hills than say New England, inasmuch as they are geologically younger? Certainly more dramatic to look at.
As for trees, this is just a personal preference. I’m generally in favor of them, but the differences need to be pretty pronounced for me to be able to actually identify one from another… e.g., I could just about pick out a giant redwood from a Japanese maple. My wife despairs of my disconnect from the natural world, but let’s see her pick out an old BMW M1 on the highway based on the right rear light.
I would definitely argue that the hills in New England are less interesting because the are older/more eroded. (No one tell KenCraw about geological time!) Newness is one of the reasons Hawaii’s landscape is so novel and beautiful.
(No one tell KenCraw about geological time!)
Come on now, that wasn’t necessary.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
It was completely unnecessary, but whenever I read conversations nitpicking religious arguments like the one below… I am always thinking, “Heehee, that religion thinks the universe was created in seven days.” Kind of ruins any sort of subtlety in the other arguments.
by paleodan on Feb 26, 2010 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
If it’s germane to the discussion, that’s one thing. Outside the context of a related discussion, I think we should all be more tolerant of others’ belief systems, whether we agree with them or not.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
WHAT?!?!/ SOMETHING UNRELATED TO THE DISCUSSION!!???!! AND IN THE DBD, TOO!?!?
PS Great post on rugby
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
In that post, I was sort of explaining why I didn’t post anything in that Prop 8 discussion. Because no one was ever going to convince KenCraw he was wrong—and he is terribly wrong—because his opinion was based entirely in his religious beliefs.
I am of the opinion that religion serves no positive purpose, and is actually detrimental to the human race. So I play it all for laffs.
by paleodan on Feb 26, 2010 11:47 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I find this view to be rather ignorant of the positive power that religion can and has had in certain instances throughout history.
AndBears does not agree with me.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Feb 27, 2010 6:00 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Do you want to borrow my copy of The God Delusion? I was of your opinion (the good outweighs the bad) before I read that book. Dawkins did a very thorough job convincing me I was wrong.
I’ve read The God Delusion. Religion as a social construct has had its uses, though I’d agree that it has been abused many, many times over the centuries (as any other social construct has). Religion on a personal level, however, has helped a lot of people through a lot of tough times.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Feb 28, 2010 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
i would also have to add that the art, both musical and visual, and architecture that came out of religion is really worthwhile. a lot of it, anyways
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
by GoldBlooded on Feb 28, 2010 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
But we would have art and music anyways…the only reason that religious-themed stuff exists is because The Church paid for it.
And The Church has all its wealth because of the money of its members. Artists are able to find funding nowadays without church support.
right, they get the RIAA to sue people for them. i definitely enjoyed the monuments to excess when i was in europe last summer. i doubt they’d exist in the same fashion that they do to this day, but nobody can say for sure except doc brown.
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
I also enjoyed seeing the giant buildings that God apparently needed instead of food for his people when I was in Europe. They were so big and ever so delightfully not food for his people.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I don’t know that this is entirely fair. The poor get stiffed whether by secular or ecclesiastical authorities. Whether you’re looking at a castle or the Vatican, either way it’s designed to keep people down.
There’s an inverse relationship between the money on the table and the odds that an organization allegedly for the people will actually be doing anything for the people.
True enough, but churches purports to be acting in the name of God, and to be following the teachings Jesus about giving all you have to the poor.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
Perhaps I am the only one here who thinks this, I don’t know, but it would seem to me that if you need help getting through a lot of tough times, well, basically, you just gotta Go Bears!
Fuck this God shit!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
My theory has always been that religion causes tons of problems, but that if religion didn’t exist these same problems would still exist. Human beings have found idiotic reasons to kill each other for thousands of years. If religion isn’t the cause, then we’re killing each other over class, or race, or nationality, or politics, or soccer team allegiance, and so on and so forth.
It’s like the one south park episode with the otters and illogical humans who refuse to eat their food off of their bellies.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
humans who refuse to eat their food off of their bellies
Their society must not yet have developed the concept of a recliner and a TV set.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
do yourself a favor and watch every south park episode, already!
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
But all of those other problems (besides soccer team allegiance) can reach some sort of resolution. Religious (and soccer team) beliefs, are irreconcilable. There is no sort of end-game to reach, the fight will just continue forever.
Right now we have wars over religion and water and class and race. If religion didn’t exist there would be one less permanent reason to fight. (Race isn’t even as immutable as religion.)
Here I fixed it for you:
Religion on a personal level, however, has helped a lot of peoplethrough a lot of tough timescompartmentalize their fear and rage in an unhealthy way.
I think it would be better—well it would definitely be more reasonable—if people just let shit happen. No need to blame Poseidon for the earthquake, that was just an inevitable movement of the earth. And with the correct, rationale, maybe they will build a sturdier house, instead of making a bigger goat sacrifice.
And I think it would be better if people all shared what they didn’t need and only took what they did. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.
I think it’s important to understand people’s personal beliefs and why they hold them, rather than to simply (and arrogantly) dismiss them as some sort of personality defect. I understand where you’re coming from on this subject, but I think it’s the sort of narrow dogmatism that just as easily turns off those who don’t immediately agree with you as religious fundamentalism does on the other end of the spectrum.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
by ragnarok on Mar 1, 2010 8:35 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe if you pray hard enough to Jesus, he’ll buy you one for his birthday.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
There are a number of churches hereabouts – many but by no means all with predominantly African American congregations – who seem to think that this works… The preponderance of Lexus ES 350s from PG County with messages about being blessed being one indicator.
If those people were TRULY blessed, wouldn’t they have a higher-end Lexus than an ES 350? If Jesus really loved them, they’d have at least an LS 400.
by atomsareenough on Mar 1, 2010 7:03 PM PST up reply actions
I’d like to bring your attention to Janice Joplin’s Song “Mercedes Benz”…
Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
Ragnarok: Great Man or Greatest Man?
You’re right. I try to empathize with people religious beliefs, and I hope I don’t come off too judgemental in real life. But when I see someone whose house burned down say, “Well such-and-such god must have wanted me to learn such-and-such lesson,” I want to yell, “NO, you just needed to stop using space heaters in the middle of the night!”
What if the lesson their god wanted them to learn was not to use space heaters in the middle of the night?
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
God is really a micro-manager, isn’t he?
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Well check this out…..religion is (as far as we know) unique to the human race, which may make it a species marker. Surely it has contributed to our social success and survival somehow. Seriously, Patton Oswalt fucking nails it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55h1FO8V_3w
CGB: Preventing the rest of the Cal blogosphere from getting press passes since 2006.
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 28, 2010 9:11 PM PST up reply actions
A few places like that are nice. An entire state with that same landscape = Boring.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
Nevada? Nebraska?
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
Nevada?? There are the Sierra Nevada mountains in the west, the Great Basin in the north, and Vegas, Lake Tahoe, and Hoover Dam besides. Nebraska is boring.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
Nebraska does have the College Baseball World Series in Omaha, a rite of passage for us seamheads.
Truth or cougar: carp will make it there before Cal baseball does.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Pretty sure that is entirely up to you…
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 11:02 AM PST up reply actions
Flag'd
I’d somehow have to get The Warden to approve an off-grounds trip.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
True that, I forgot about the ankle bracelet around your ring finger…
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
Omaha actually seems like a cool little city. That doesn’t mean the whole of Nebraska isn’t boring though.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 11:06 AM PST up reply actions
ok I’ll agree on the borders of it (Las Vegas is not interesting landscape btw) but once you get 30mi into Nevada its snore-city till you get to the other side
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 11:01 AM PST up reply actions
No, but Vegas is more interesting than Des Moines. I’m not actually a fan of going to Vegas, but you have to admit it’s interesting.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 11:07 AM PST up reply actions
Pyramid Lake
very eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerie
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
Mychael Urban: Wow. Probably Dye at this point. Good outfielder, could adapt to RF at AT&T, good RBI guy.
by natteringnabob on Feb 25, 2010 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
Granted West Virginia can have its moments, but how in the world is Iowa beautiful?
Wow, corn! Oooohhh! More corn! This city is HUGE, how do I pronounce Des Moines again?
I was born in Indiana, I don’t claim its beautiful, or interesting because that would lying, and lying is rude.
Yeah, but Indiana is boring, hell of flat. Only Western Kansas/ Eastern Colorado is as bad.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
He’s hella from Iowa give him a break
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 10:54 AM PST up reply actions
Kansas is probably high in the running for most boring state. I drove through it coming from the west, and coming from Colorado, it’s hard not to feel bad for Kansas for having such a boring landscape. It was a tough day of driving.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 10:59 AM PST up reply actions
somehow I feel N. and S. Dakota shouldn’t be exempt from this convo, although I’ve never been there.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Don’t they have some sort of mountains going on somewhere though? (shows how much I know about the Dakotas)
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 11:03 AM PST up reply actions
South Dakota has Mt. Rushmore. So it must be better than Kansas, which has nothing.
I am a Vereenian.
what about N. Dakota, which has more old people than young people?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
My sister-in-law is from Minot, North Dakota. She tells me that North Dakota has temperatures of – 54 F, floods that bring out sewer rats the size of cats, mosquitos the size of helicopters, bowling leagues, a cabin that Theodore Roosevelt once lived in, a fort that George Armstrong Custer once commanded, and a city motto in Minot of: “Why Not Minot?”
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
HOW COULD YOU FORGET THE INTERNATIONAL PEACE GARDEN????
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
My sister-in-law has never been there. Apparently, that’s not something North Dakotans do.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
Does she hate peace or just international peace?
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
I took a PACS class at Cal. Biggest mistake of my Cal life.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 11:58 AM PST up reply actions
I have embarrassed myself, yet again.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Failure to know the location of Wall Drug is a pretty serious offense.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
The only thing worse?
Actually knowing the location of Wall Drug
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
…I’ve been to Wall Drug. They have cheap coffee. Their “free ice water” is disgusting though.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:31 PM PST up reply actions
I went to Sturgis once. Mistake.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
No, it was biker week, and I was there with my Toyota Celica.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 11:09 AM PST up reply actions
I was also there, which was also a mistake.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 11:36 AM PST up reply actions
Consider yourself lucky.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
To be fair, he posts at CGB. So, hes already very lucky to be part of this elite group.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yeah, it’s not like just anybody can sign up for a screen name and make posts!
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
WHAT!!!!
how did i get in then?
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 2:41 PM PST up reply actions
Rockchalk Jayhawk? I hear Lawrence is nice in a Davis, CA-way kind of nice.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Yeah, they’ve got Lawrence. But like, Kansas doesn’t even have the real Kansas City.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
It has a Kansas City. The locals refer to KC-K and KC-MO so that everyone’s clear what they’re talking about.
Yeah, but KC-K sucks. Hence my referring to KC-MO as the “real” Kansas City.
I actually like KC-MO a lot. I could see myself retiring there or something.
by atomsareenough on Feb 26, 2010 8:51 AM PST up reply actions
Lawrence is nice, I can attest, and that part of the State isn’t totally flat.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Lawrence is nice, I can attest, and that part of the State isn’t totally flat
Larry Eustachy, the current So Miss BB coach and former partygoing Iowa State coach, agrees.
School: Kansas
Larry says: "Here’s a story that sums it up: Last season, I met this hottie at K-State at a party after we lost and I was talking to her and I was like, ‘What are you doing here? Why aren’t you going to KU? The girls down there are much hotter. You belong there.’ "
I am a Vereenian.
is that where they find all the dinos? If so, I agree and N. Dakota is exempt from such a discussion.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
South Dakota is amazing.
Utah is pretty sweet too.
I’ve driven cross country 2×.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 25, 2010 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
I was blown away by Zion National Park. Drove through it at sunset with wildfires 30 miles away. Pretty intense
Goodbye Bob Gregory. I am soooooo 6 dimensional now!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 25, 2010 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
I’ve been to Zion too. A fantastic visit even without local wildfires.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Zion is fantastic. They have so many great parks in Utah.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:32 PM PST up reply actions
Mount Rushmore is waaay more amazing in person than when you see in pictures.
Also, they have the Crazy Horse Monument – which is simply unbelievable… the world’s largest mountain carving!
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
They can suck my caucus. We need to reform the primary system so badly.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 11:13 AM PST up reply actions
I agree; it would be a great first step in helping reduce or eliminate corn subsidies.
I don’t understand the problem with EVERYONE VOTING AT THE SAME TIME
7
India stages its elections, so instead of having 1 bil people voting at once, it happens over a month or so.
So, the country you love, ironically, does not follow the voting pattern you desire
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
But what does that have to do with anything here? I never pointed to India as some sort of ideal example…
7
Dude, you love India. Youd marry India if you could. Youd fuck India so hard, right in its Tamil Nadu! Don’t deny it! DON’T DENY IT!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
While I am not offended, I am greatly disturbed that you took the time to picture how to engage in sexual intercourse with a country and where you would have to put your penis in order to have sex with it.
7
Worst places I have ever been
Ft Hays, Kansas (actually anywhere in Kansas except Lawrence)
Needles, California
Anywhere in southwestern New Mexico
Ft. Stockton, Texas
Abilene, Texas
Significant portions of rural Louisiana and Mississippi
Goodbye Bob Gregory. I am soooooo 6 dimensional now!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 25, 2010 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
Anywhere in southwestern New Mexico
SW NM is great!
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 2:30 PM PST up reply actions
Uhhhhhhhhhhhh, no.
Goodbye Bob Gregory. I am soooooo 6 dimensional now!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 25, 2010 2:42 PM PST up reply actions
Okay I take that back. SW NM is full of scenic beauty.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 2:44 PM PST up reply actions
dude just drag a box of Pyramid Hef into the wilderness yourself…
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 3:01 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I might have to disagree with you because Needles, SW New Mexico, and rural Mississippi are just remote and poor places without a lot of people. But doesn’t nature count for something? I think the worst places are terrible cities, where all the nature is ruined, and the city is close to worthless—with unhappy people and ugly architecture. I’m thinking specifically in my experience of Oklahoma City.
Oklahoma has to be pretty much the worst place in the US, otherwise we wouldn’t have given it to the Native Americans.
by atomsareenough on Feb 26, 2010 11:47 AM PST up reply actions
Cal FB Junior Day and Schollie Offer
Auburn (Wash.) defensive tackle Danny Shelton fits the mold of a prototypical nose tackle. California, the first school to offer him, runs the defense he likes. Five more schools have offered since the Bears did, including two early favorites. The 6-foot-3, 285-pounder won’t make it to Berkeley this weekend for Junior Day, but he says he is far from making a decision…
Aaron Green, RB (San Antonio, TX)
Aaron Green, a 5-foot-9, 175-pounder from SA Madison High is a complete back. With the exception of his size, Green is everything you look for in an elite back. He has excellent acceleration, maintains good top end speed, has the ability to shift gears and change direction at the drop of a dime. And because of his low center of gravity he has phenomenal balance. He has struggled with some recent injuries and had a better sophomore season than he did as a junior, but he is one of the most highly sought after recruits in the country regardless of position.
We got no shot
Goodbye Bob Gregory. I am soooooo 6 dimensional now!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 25, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
UT guy?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
He’s going to be a national recruit but if he gets away from UT, I’ll be shocked. Of course, a lot can change.
See Seastrunk, Lache.
Goodbye Bob Gregory. I am soooooo 6 dimensional now!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 25, 2010 11:19 AM PST up reply actions
I was thinking of postponing the recruiting threads until start of March
But damn man, I might have to start it up again now.
Email: bearsnecessities@gmail.com
Tyson Alualu
Pat Kirwan from nfl.com mentions Tyson Alualu as one of his top 10 players to be watched at the combine.
Tyson Alualu, DL, California
Some would say I am reaching for this guy when I only list 10 players. And sure, there are a number of other guys I can’t wait to watch. But I just got done watching Alualu play three games on tape, and I just couldn’t exclude him from this list. The guy can play anywhere on the defensive line because he’s an athlete with a great motor. Alualu will excel in the running events at the combine and while he sits somewhere near the No. 7 defensive tackle on most boards, he should move up after this weekend. I saw the effort at Senior Bowl practices, and we will all see it again in the drills at the combine.
Competing against $C on recruiting
George Farmer, WR (Gardena, CA)
This 6′2″, 197 lb., 4.38 forty speedy wide receiver has long been thought to be a slam dunk for the Trojans. But not so fast. The receiving mate of 2010 Trojan recruit, Robert Woods (Both played at Serra high school) has recently gone on record as saying he is open to all suitors. While the Trojans remain "high" on his list, don’t look for a verbal commitment any time soon.
Austin Seferian-Jenkins, TE (Gig Harbor, Washington)
With three tight ends from the 2009-2010 prep class already in USC’s fold, it would appear that the Trojans don’t have a pressing need at the position. However, Seferian-Jenkins, who goes 6′7″ and 245 lbs, has the size and athleticism that intrigues the Trojans (and almost all of the premier national programs). Of greater importance is that Seferian-Jenkins lists USC, along with UCLA as "high" on his list.
Greg Townsend Jr., (Beverly Hills, CA)
Son of the former Raider linebacker, Greg Jr., has all the traits of a great defensive end. 6′4″, 240 lbs, with a nose for the ball, Townsend had 10.5 sacks in his freshman and sophomore years. Townsend lists the Trojans as "medium," but has camped at USC, which should help the Trojans cause.
Rivals has Florida and Oklahoma “High” on Seferian-Jenkins’ list.
Silver jerseys
As previously posted, Cal will be wearing these tonight. Just saw this picture on uni watch:
Why do we have to sport such lame-ass jerseys. Fuck Oregon and Nike.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 25, 2010 8:54 AM PST up reply actions
on our rugged eastern foothills
stands our symbol clear and bold
Big C means to fight and strive and win for stupid silver lame’
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
Mychael Urban: Wow. Probably Dye at this point. Good outfielder, could adapt to RF at AT&T, good RBI guy.
by natteringnabob on Feb 25, 2010 9:23 PM PST up reply actions
All black people look the same to you. Thats wacis!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Wow. You're not kidding.
Soooo…. when did you guys start wearing gray? What, is this sweatpants material or something?
This looks terrible. It could be worse though. The G’town shorts are much, much more ugly.
Better pics, plus warm-ups...
…at the Jumpman site. I don’t mind the warm-ups, but the jerseys are just so bland. They could have incorporated at least blue and/or gold highlights or some kind (like behind the lettering and numbering).
We got downgraded from GoldenBears to SilverBears
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Aw, hell, we’re like the South Korean short track speed skaters
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
maybe we could market it as PalladiumBears?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Platinum Bears, only the finest for Cal!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Competing against da Razorbacks
Kyle Boehm
QB San Jose, California (Archbishop Mitty) 6′3″ 205 4.9
This pro-style QB has received offers from Arizona State, California, Washington, Wyoming. Oregon has also shown interest. As a drop-back passer with incredible accuracy , Kyle would be a perfect fit for Bobby Petrino’s system. Unfortunately for Kyle though, Arkansas has its own highly touted 2011 QB prospects instate.
Brendon Austin
OL Parker, Colorado (Chaparral) 6′5″ 263 5.9
According to Scout.com, Brendon was "an All-League choice the past two seasons, Austin was also named to the 2009 All-Colorado squad." He has received offers from Arizona, California, Colorado, Notre Dame, Stanford, and others.
Just wondering: How good is Archbishop Mitty football these days? (Yes, I know we got Anthony Miller from there.) Does Mitty compete w/ Bellarmine and St. Francis (the WCAL powers back in my day)?
I am a Vereenian.
From the same website article
Shane Wynn
WR Cleveland, Ohio (Glenville Academic Campus) 5′6″ 147 4.4
This short, speedy track star has received a slew of offers from such places as Miami, North Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Ohio State, Illinois, and others. At first, he disappears behind his tackles, but one sliver of daylight and then he is running with empty turf in front of him. UPDATE* As of today, Arkansas is no longer on Shane’s Rivals list.
5 foot 6 and 147 lbs?!?! It’s Vinny Strang-esque!
I am a Vereenian.
I peed next to Vinnie Strang in Knoxville once… He told me he doesn’t like revisiting getting knocked the fuck out on that punt return penalty…
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 10:57 AM PST up reply actions
Hells Yeah! Bringing my brother (a Davis grad) to his first Cal Basketball game, too. Gonna make him yell.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
I wish I’d done that, I did the 7 pack, 4 conference, 3 OOC, and got scalped tix for the Wash St. game, (awesome seats, row E right behind our fearless AD). It was fun to sit in the student sec for the OOC games though “Safety School” chants to Princeton was fun, if a bit random.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
nice. ivy's as a safety school
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
Well, they are the Safety school of the Ivies, I’ve heard that’s what Harvard & Yale chant at them.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
That’s kinda silly, given how Princeton is consistently ranked up there with Harvard and Yale (sometimes ahead).
I know US News and World Report is biased, etc, but… http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-universities-rankings
They have Princeton tied for first with Harvard and ahead of Yale.
I suppose the “safety school” of the Ivies is probably Brown
7
Brown
the Santa Cruz of the Ivies. No end of hippie jokes slathered on Brownies on the east coast, especially by trust fund alums of other Ivy schools.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
Mychael Urban: Wow. Probably Dye at this point. Good outfielder, could adapt to RF at AT&T, good RBI guy.
by natteringnabob on Feb 25, 2010 9:25 PM PST up reply actions
section 17, row E. Does anyone know what time the doors open?
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Feb 25, 2010 10:28 AM PST up reply actions
In the “Asian Heritage Night” so I get my rally towel!
by Yes We Cannon on Feb 25, 2010 9:27 AM PST up reply actions
will be wearing the straw behind the basket
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
by GoldBlooded on Feb 25, 2010 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
No, if not for this horrible coincidence of scheduling I’d be on The Bench screaming my head off. I’m only a freshman, but I’m obsessed with Cal sports already. I’ll be wearing my Bench shirt to the midterm to support the team in spirit. It’s the best I can do :(
Oh, the midterm is during the game.
/forgiven
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
Make sure you reprimand the professor for poor midterm scheduling when the course feedback is collected at the end of the semester.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:54 PM PST up reply actions
IT'S A TARP!
The University of Mississippi has drawn criticism over the years for its mascot, “Colonel Reb.” The mascot was associated with the old South and was considered racist by some.
This week, the students voted to replace Colonel Reb, but the replacement may have some saying, “It’s a trap!,” reports CBS station WFOR-TV in Miami.
Multiple media outlets are reporting that a movement is gaining steam to make Admiral Ackbar, from the Star Wars movies, to be the next on-field mascot for Ole Miss. Ackbar appeared in the movie Return of the Jedi as the leader of the Alliance fleet.
I am a Vereenian.
I think Mr. Lucas would say “BOOM! Infringement” on this real fast.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 9:18 AM PST up reply actions
maybe
they can buy Donald Duck from UofO.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
Mychael Urban: Wow. Probably Dye at this point. Good outfielder, could adapt to RF at AT&T, good RBI guy.
by natteringnabob on Feb 25, 2010 9:26 PM PST up reply actions
Fuck yeah he would. Have you noticed in the ads for those new “Droid” phones, they have to state at the bottom that ‘Droid’ is a registered trademark of LucasFilm or some such entity he owns. “Star Wars” was great, but his real genious was holding onto the copyrights for everything.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
The copyright was strong with young Lucas.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 10:08 AM PST up reply actions
Really? “Droid”? Come on. It’s a word.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 10:26 AM PST up reply actions
What about when they used to call nickels “droids.” Give me 5 droids for a quarter, you’d say
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
It’s just a shortened form of Android.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 11:08 AM PST up reply actions
I get the origin, but he’s got the rights to the word. If you said ‘fornian’ it would still be a new word, and he’s got great lawyers. You can copyright almost anything, like the font of ‘California’, and the happy birthday song.
Ragnarok: Great Man or Greatest Man?
Copyrighted “Threepeat” in a specific tangible medium? Or do you mean he trademarked it?
I am a Vereenian.
Great post Spazzy
I’ve only been through Imperial on my way to from and from San Felipe on a spring break trip, so much of the time in the county was spent drinking on said bus and not looking at the barren wasteland… Thanks for the deeper insight, I might have to now make a return trip and stop in said wasteland…
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
grzzz. Grzzzzzzzz. GRZZZZZZZZZZZ
At first I thought you were gonna tell a story about Bartholomew the Bear.
Yes, I was kinda disappointed for a while, but ended up enjoying the story.
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
RRRAAAWWWWWRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Goodbye Bob Gregory. I am soooooo 6 dimensional now!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 25, 2010 11:10 AM PST up reply actions
Apparently the salton sea has more chemicals thant an inorganic chemistry lab, including high levels of selenium (note: still no Stanfurdium)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea
Sounds like the runoff is increasing the salinity of the Salton Sea by 1% per year. It’s significantly more salty than the Pacific Ocean but less salty than the Great Salt Lake.
Also of note, the sand dunes in Algodones Dunes were used in the movie Return of the Jedi, which brings it altogether with the Ackbar—>Ole Miss news.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Feb 25, 2010 10:08 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
Rec’d solely for “still no Stanfurdium”
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 10:58 AM PST up reply actions
I need a shorter sig line
but I think that’s going in the revised version.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
Mychael Urban: Wow. Probably Dye at this point. Good outfielder, could adapt to RF at AT&T, good RBI guy.
by natteringnabob on Feb 25, 2010 9:28 PM PST up reply actions
also, if I may suggest, we bring back the BeastMode map w/ the # of couties Spazzy has been to.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Yea I didn’t have time to do one last night…
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
z
Wilner on Cal’s spring practice. Not much here, but I thought I’d post it anyway. I’ve never been to the Spring Stretch, or whatever Cal Football does on Cal Day, as it usually conflicts with the much cooler Picnic Day (I’m sure some of you Cal band guys have been?). Will there be a few thousand peeps there? Can I sneak in a “water bottle?”
* Cal
Start: March 11
End: April 24
Spring game: April 17. (The Bears don’t have a spring game in the traditional sense. The 4/17 practice is the annual Cal Day/Fan Appreciation Day.)
Three questions (out of many):
1. How quickly will the players learn new defensive coordinator Clancy Pendergast’s system? (It’ll take six months, not six weeks.)
2. Will Brock Mansion of Beau Sweeney pose any kind of serious threat to Kevin Riley? (Don’t count on it.)
3. Who emerges as the most dependable members of a secondary that played poorly last season and lost star CB Syd’Quan Thompson? (Sean Cattouse is the best bet.)
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
O line improves with
health and continued work under the same coach and together.
kickers? who fuck’n knows. I sure hope at least our coverage is better, even if kicking struggles with distance.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
hoping the underclassmen (Siddoway, Ragland, Brazinski, Galas, Schwneke) can team up with the more established guys like Schwartz and MSG so Cal can actually give Riley his necessary 10 seconds to pass.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
You should be able to bring in pretty much anything, people had brought dogs into Memorial last year…
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
????
I was talking about smuggling things into Spring Game/Practice Day thing
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 11:42 AM PST up reply actions
That’s embarrassing for CruzinBears
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I feel like Twist on his wedding night :*(
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
Urgent! Iowa has stumbled on to something of importance!
by chowder on Feb 25, 2010 10:45 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
Another package deal in the works?
Defensive lineman Gabe Wright (Columbus, Ga./Carver) informed ESPN affiliate Web site NoleInsider.com that he and Under Armour All-American running back Isaiah Crowell may choose the same school.
“I think we gonna be a package deal. You will be getting two if you get either one of us probably,” he said.
Alabama, Auburn, California, Clemson, Florida State, Georgia, Mississippi State, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee are among the many schools that have offered the Columbus Carver pair.
Wright added, “I don’t want to spend too much time with recruiting this summer. I think I want to trim my list some and focus on those schools more. I’m just looking for a school I fit into at. I would like to play early, I mean who doesn’t want to play early. I’m also looking for a school that can fill the stands.”
More from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Carver-Columbus football stars Isaiah Crowell and Gabriel Wright tend to be talked about as a pair. As a result, they are often thought of as a package deal in recruiting. But that’s not necessarily the case. "They’re separate individuals," Carver coach Dell McGee said Thursday morning. "I’m not saying they wouldn’t [consider signing with the same school]. But I think they both have different things they’re looking for and they both have different personality types." Of course, every school would like to sign both of these elite prospects. Both are consensus top 10 prospects in the state of Georgia for the Class of 2011. I have Crowell (6-foot, 204 pounds) No. 1 in my "Tentative Top 10″ and Wright (6-3, 273) No. 5.
Cal Baseball
That’s a goose-egg. At home. Cepin went 5-5 for the Ags. Miller gave up 9 hits and 4 earnies in 3.2 innings.
Hopefully this is JuJu’s way of clearing the way for the fall football contest.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
No.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
link?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
ITS ONE OF THE OFFICIAL STORIES ITS LIKE THE 8TH POST WHY ARE YOU EVEN HERE IF YOU DONT READ THE DBD I MEAN FOR THE LOVE OF BAKBAK
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2010/2/25/1325870/dbd-2-25-10-your-california#comments
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I really don't have time for this type of a conversation today but...
I assume that
and run by bigots
Is in reference to the previously mentioned statement:
the Imperial County Board of Supervisors offered their support of the sponsors of Proposition 8, the only county in California to do so.
If I’m wrong about that, forgive and ignore the following commentary (or perhaps clarify what your justification for the statement), otherwise:
If our society is ever going to progress, we’re going to have to do far better than we currently do at recognizing the real motivations of their opponents. Ignorant name calling and unfairly degrading of people who share a different view point, does nothing to help us reach reasonable compromises nor to be tolerant of one another.
Calling someone a bigot merely because they supported or voted for Prop. 8 can only mean one of three things:
1. You don’t understand/know some of the arguments presented in support of Prop. 8.
2. You assume that the non-bigoted arguments for Prop. 8 are a smoke-screen for underlying bigotry.
3. You don’t know the definition of bigot.
I supported and voted for Prop. 8 because I believe marriage is an institution designed to protect the procreative union. Society relies on procreation for its future and it has been shown time and time again that healthy societies have high percentages of children being raised by their biological parents. Having an institution who’s goal in life is to encourage a life long union of people who may procreate is a worthy thing. Limiting that institution to those who are capable of procreation, or at a very minimum appear capable of procreation, is necessary for the institution to accomplish its goals. Gay couples are obviously not capable of procreation and therefore should be excluded from the institution.
I challenge you to find a single bigoted word in that argument. You can disagree on the purpose of marriage and whether the purpose advanced is a good thing, but it is wholly NOT a bigoted perspective.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
by TwistNHook on Feb 25, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm just glad
that I can count on your support for a ban on marriage of women over the age of 50. Do not let the old ladies marry, they cannot breed!
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_over_age_50
2008: 70 year old Omkari Panwar gave birth to twins, a boy and a girl, in India via emergency cesarean section. The babies weighed 2 pounds each. Omkari became pregnant through IVF treatment, which she and her husband pursued in order to produce a male heir. Omkari has two adult daughters and five grandchildren. Omkari does not have a birth certificate, her age has been estimated by her claim that she was nine years old when the British Raj left India in 1947. In response to hearing that she’d possibly broken the record for world’s oldest mother, Omkari stated, “If I am the world’s oldest mother it means nothing to me. I just want to see my new babies and care for them while I am still able.”
BOOM! LAWYERED!
7
You’re basically advancing an argument for #2 in my list of reasons to assume that supporters of Prop. 8 must be bigots. “If you REALLY believed that, you’d support X too!” And there’s been a thousand of these thrown out there as if they’re real.
But it’s not so simple with the 50 year old woman, is it? Since other 50 year old women can existingly be married from when they were fertile. Denying one marriage when the other is allowed to remain in it is a bit different. Plus, laws always have aspects of them that are not perfect for simplicity’s sake and also to deal with existing legal principles that would make the “ideal” situation difficult.
It’s much more clean-cut with gays. There’s no age issues, no infertility issues. It’s simple, they can’t procreate at all.
Are we really going to go through all of these “gotchas” that “prove” my motivations are bigoted?
yeah, I support not allowing women who are beaten by their husbands on a daily basis to get divorced. (obviously, that’s sarcasm)
Do I think divorce is out of control in this country? Yes I do.
Do I have a good legal solution to this problem? No I don’t.
How is that relevant to gays marrying?
What? You mean we didn’t change your view solidified by 40 years of dogma with one internet argument?
WHAT?!?!?!?!?!??!
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:05 PM PST up reply actions
because
you are attempting to rationalize a restriction to gays marrying based on a very technical point – gays can’t procreate with each other. If you’re going to do so, you have to be able to restrict marriage to other people based on the same point – if they cannot procreate, they cannot marry. You can’t have it both ways – either all people who cannot procreate are denied marriage, or you are just treating gays differently…which is the whole point.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
No, that’s not true at all. There are thousands of laws which have loopholes that allow people to take advantage of the benefits when they weren’t the targets of it.
It’s entirely different to just say “well, these loopholes exist and I don’t have a good way to deal with them” than to support opening new loopholes to allow new people to mis-use the law.
fair point
but I’m saying, if there’s a ballot measure that calls for a ban on post-menopausal women, you would have to vote for it, right? After all, your entire original post was explaining that you voted for a ban on gay marriage because gay people cannot procreate. So, if a ballot measure comes up attempting to ban marriage by post-menopausal women…you have the exact same situation.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
It’s not the exact same situation for a number reasons:
1. How do we determine if she’s post-menopausal?
2. What’s the benefit of making the change? Are we hurting anything by allowing them to get married?
And #2 is important. When gays marry, there’s no denying it completely strips marriage of it’s procreative purpose. It’s clear that it’s about love, not about procreation if nothing else because it’s a big change and big changes imply things.
Post menopausal women have been getting married for all of known history and not until the birth control revolution of the 60’s did anyone mistake marriage as being anything but a procreative union.
not until the birth control revolution of the 60’s did anyone mistake marriage as being anything but a procreative union.
I highly doubt there is a factual way to defend this statement
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
Other than it being blatantly obvious and it taking a generation of lying to ourselves to make that point not blatantly obvious.
100 years ago when you got married, you had kids and when you didn’t it was a tragedy, an unlucky break.
Actual marriage meaning a procreation based one?
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:22 PM PST up reply actions
100 years ago, world lifespan was around 35 years. You want to return to these times?
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
100 years ago CalBear81 was a spry 21. Me-ow! Those were some hot times!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
so, tractors with spoilers…
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 1:25 PM PST up reply actions
no. the state regulates marriage (and the church before that)
because there is money involved. sometimes lots of money.
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
Throughout western history, that has only been true for the wealthy. The poor (i.e. the overwhelming majority of people) typically married whoever they wanted. And, anyway, the existence of state or church laws governing marriage does not preclude love and companionship as being important reasons to marry.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
the church blessing was a bone thrown to poor people
the reason it was regulated was due to money.
i fully agree that love and companionship are valid reasons for people to enter into a marriage contract…..
BUT IT IS A CONTRACT FIRST
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
So...
it’s ok to ban marriage between two people who cannot procreate…unless there is no existing law banning it? That seems a bit circular, no?
To quote you, "When [post-menopausal women] marry, there’s no denying it completely strips marriage of it’s procreative purpose. It’s clear that it’s about love, not about procreation if nothing else because it’s a big change and big changes imply things.
And your last point has undermines the whole thing – instead of talking about procreation, we’re now talking about historical precedence. That is a completely different, if equally flawed argument (multiple wives, no interracial marriage, pre-teen brides, slave wives, etc)
If you want to stick to your guns here, that gays should not be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate, you have to see it through. It seems to me that you are very willing to be dispassionate on that point when it comes to gays…but when it comes to anyone else that can’t procreate (post-menopausal women, sterile people, etc), you are very willing to be make exceptions
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
This
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
It’s true. He’s singling out gay people, and it’s hard to say that the reason why he’s singling them out ISN’T rooted in animus. That was what the federal court case challenging prop 8 was all about.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
I think you’re the one making a circular argument. I’m not the one who is looping back around to force the reason for one exemption onto another. Or are you just ignoring the response that elderly marriage was a reality well before society lost its sense that marriage was about the procreative union?
Look… what I would support as civil marriage is not what is currently law. There would be no no-fault divorce. There would be no artificial contraception. There would be no IVF.
Additionally, there would be things that while I wouldn’t make a legal issue I would council individuals to avoid. I wouldn’t support elderly people who’ve been single their whole lives getting married. They really are stretching the intent of marriage.
But that’s not the reality of the world we live in.
Marriage, as it stood 5 years ago was the acceptable compromise for our day and I’m willing to accept that compromise, as far from ideal as it is. However, changing it yet again to push it even further from where it was in the past as a clearly procreative union is unacceptable to me.
And to be completely clear, there’s plenty of non-gay oriented changes that could come along that I would stand up and fight.
So I completely reject your notion that it’s about gay people. It’s a pragmatic balance of being willing to accept the reality of the day and doing my best to support keeping marriage about the procreative union. You’re trying to force a false wedge between what I’m trying to accomplish and the pragmatic means by which it is accomplished.
So yes, history is a factor in the equation, but it’s not the fundamentals.
Finally, you’re making a false distinction when you phrase Prop. 8 as an active changing of marriage. From the big picture it was keeping things the same. Yes, from a microscopic view it was changing marriage because the court previous intervened to change marriage. In fact this was a “Veto” of the court’s decision.
Yes, from a microscopic view it was changing marriage because the court previous intervened to change marriage. In fact this was a "Veto" of the court’s decision.
That sounds like a pretty big change for the millions of gay couples that already had gotten or were planning getting married in the future, dontchathink?
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
I’d almost rather you say “I don’t support gay marriage because my religion tells me so, and the thought of two men loving each other intimately contrasts with my worldview.” At least that’s honest and up front. I hate the dodging and hemming and hawing and pretending like there’s a scientific justification for it.
In the central valley, hundreds of thousands of devout Mexican catholic migrants are procreating like CRAZY due to lack of birth control and education. I don’t say that to be racist, but the teen pregnancy rates in Madera, Tulare, and Kings county are some of the highest in the entire world, (forget the developed world.) There is huge unemployment or underemployment, and generally “society” there is godawful. Your theory that “a procreative society” is a healthy one is hugely contrary to a LOT of data. In general, lower (but not negative) fertility rates correlate with higher HDI and standard of living.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Obviously, you’re right that I’m purposes avoiding mentioning my Catholic beliefs, but I do that out of respect for the fact that most people here aren’t coming from that worldview.
The Catholic Church believes that much of what we teach can be determined from the world around us and so natural explanations for things are very much worth sharing and propagating. I think in this case as well as many others, a natural explanation free of religious content can be made and so I’m struggling (and I use that word because it is more difficult to make an argument where I don’t have the full philosophical and meta-physical concepts and theories to rely on) to do so.
Finally, I didn’t say “"a procreative society" is a healthy one”. Please don’t warp my words. I said “healthy societies have high percentages of children being raised by their biological parents”. It’s a vastly different statement.
Those counties you mention have rampant out-of-wedlock birth rates as well, something that the Catholic Church discourages more than just about anyone. If those Catholics would actually follow Church teaching, they’d be in a lot better shape.
The church also taught them that condoms are bad…
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
So? If a high enough percentage are procreating and raising their children so as to benefit society, long term, what logical difference does it make?
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 2:49 PM PST up reply actions
It still would…. 9 child families don’t usually work out too well…. but that’s neither here nor there
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
mormons/catholics everywhere beg to differ…seriously, they beg…cause they have so many children
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
by GoldBlooded on Feb 25, 2010 3:04 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Am I supposed to answer that?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
You’ve been using a condom, or not having sex…. my response was to the old church teaching of no condoms.
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
It’s still current Church teaching that you can’t use a condom.
So yes, we’ve been limiting our sex. We’re not incapable of refraining, just like those central valley Catholics.
There’s no reason that if you follow Church teaching you can’t limit the number of children you have and make sure that those children are all raised in a loving marriage.
but isn’t sex without children a sin as well? or am i just learning the wrong thing from monty python?
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
How would gay marriage significantly change the percentage of children being raised by biological parents? Gay married couples would be a very small percentage of the total number of married couples.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 2:56 PM PST up reply actions
what about girl-on-girl?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
by carp on Feb 25, 2010 2:42 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
Marriage does not have a procreative purpose. Procreation has a procreative purpose. Marriage has a social purpose.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:09 PM PST up reply actions
Awesome parties with coke and skinny jeans!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Clearly, Superman never made it to the Olympics.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 2:22 PM PST up reply actions
I think we figured out a way to bring CBKWit back from the dead!!!!!
Keep it up guys, plus I think CBKWit has it right on this one, as does turkey below :)
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:10 PM PST up reply actions
But the question is: would you personally support a law banning all infertile couples from marrying? If not, then your opposition to gay marriage is not based on the procreation-only view of marriage.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
This
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
That’s also not true.
I don’t care to have the government trying to figure out who is and is not infertile nor do I can to deny two people who desire to enter into a procreative relationship the benefits of marriage because they are unable to conceive.
So you would support a Civil Union that benefits the couple in every way that “Marriage” does, but not give them the title because that is reserved for procreation-based unions?
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
No, I wouldn’t allow for civil unions. The benefits are for those who enter into an actual marriage.
it’s not a “name only” issue for me.
I don’t care to have the government trying to figure out who is and is not infertile
Yet you would fully support the government trying to figure out, amongst married straight couples, who is cheating on whom, and punish those accordingly?
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
nor do I can to deny two people who desire to enter into a procreative relationship the benefits of marriage because they are unable to conceive.
Unless they are gay.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
If they plan on only having sex with someone of the same gender, I think it’s safe to say they aren’t interested in entering into a procreative relationship.
What if they also want to provide a home for one of the millions of adoptable children?
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:24 PM PST up reply actions
Right but they would be providing a valuable service very similar to procreation, because someone somewhere out there procreated without having a stable procreative relationship or marriage, and thus left a child parent-less out in the world
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:27 PM PST up reply actions
What part of P in V until S reaches the O’s do you not understand?!?!?
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:34 PM PST up reply actions
Actually Painkillers in the Vanguard until Santana rocks the Orpheum, but close.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:36 PM PST up reply actions
Lots of gay couples procreate through the wonder of IVF. How are they different from a straight couple of does the same?
So, let me get this straight. He wants people to get married and procreate, because procreation is important, but using medical technology to… help people procreate, which he says he values…. should be illegal.
Ohhh, I think it’s because during the process they make a lot of extra embryos, right? And he thinks they’re all babies. I bet that’s it.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
...
I was just stating what he believes. Don’t preach to the choir, brotha.
Hell, I hate kids. I’m in favour of anything that decreases them.
7
Oh, I was just trying to understand his thought process. I wasn’t calling you out.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:43 PM PST up reply actions
Lets be honest. There wa sa little Fuck You, Rishi in that post. Theres a little Fuck You, Rishi in every post you do!
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Why can’t we all have a little Fuck You Rishi in all of our posts?
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
Don’t we already
Just kidding. I like Rishi sometimes!
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
So, if I understand you correctly, the fact that one can procreate is more important than the fact that one can create a stable and loving enviroment for the raising of children (which could be biologically half of the parents)?
I just want to make sure I understand here.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Why do you care to have the government figure out who is and isn’t gay? Why do we have to take people’s gender into account?
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
I don't think it's that difficult
you’re saying that if you cannot procreate, you cannot marry. So once a woman hits menopause, she should not be allowed to marry, right? It doesn’t matter what happened beforehand – once they hit menopause, if they are not already married, they cannot get married. Easy.
Again, I am glad to have your support on this movement against old, useless ladies.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Let’s evict them too!!!!!! Twist?
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:11 PM PST up reply actions
You have a very narrow view of marriage, which I certainly do not share. Shall we pass a law that infertile people are not allowed to marry? Or that people who wish to marry must sign a pledge to have children? Those would be legitimate restrictions based on your view of marriage. In fact, based on your view of marriage, those restrictions ought to have been included in Proposition 8. The absence of those restrictions in Proposition 8 leads me to believe that the initiative was not based on a procreation-only view of marriage, but on a fear/dislike of gay people. I am certainly willing to believe that these were not your motivations. But in light of the millenia of hatred toward and brutal mistreatment of gay people, it is not unreasonable to believe that many people were motivated to support Proposition 8 out of bigotry.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
by CalBear81 on Feb 25, 2010 11:53 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Don’t be ridiculous. Imperial County society is under siege from the gays moving into the county by the millions, destabilizing cities and causing crime, riots, and general mayhem via their lack of procreation wherever they go.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
So THAT’S why they were telling me to be careful. Gays might infiltrate my engine while I was hiking and destabilize it.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:00 PM PST up reply actions
But in light of the millenia of hatred toward and brutal mistreatment of gay people, it is not unreasonable to believe that many people were motivated to support Proposition 8 out of bigotry.
As a disclaimer, I voted against Prop 8. I don’t care what gay people do with their personal lives, as long as it doesn’t affect me in any way.
That said, honestly, this statement is really unfair. I’ve heard the same argument applied by Jesse Jackson types — that if a black man doesn’t get hired for a job or accepted into a college, that it must be bigotry, due to millenia of mistreatment, and that is not fair.
You can’t assume that because someone doesn’t believe in homosexual marriage, they must hate gay people.
7
I agree totally, but
part II
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 11:59 AM PST up reply actions
A lot of actual bigots like to throw the term “reverse discrimination” around, but it exists in some cases. The most egregious of these was the claim I heard throughout high school: “Black people cannot be racist”.
7
I actually do think that ’reverse discrimination" occurs, if very rarely.
The problem, though, is that good old fashioned discrimination is rampant in our society, and people who throw “reverse discrimination” out there do so as a way of claiming that “regular” discrimination no longer exists.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
agreed
I’m just saying that most people who throw out the term “reverse discrimination” do so as a way of implying that “regular” discrimination no longer exists. “Regular” discrimination is certainly still a huge issue, and is much more systemic and wide spread than “reverse” discrimination.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
yeah, the direction of discrimination shouldn’t differentiate it
Remember, the enemy's end zone is DOWN!
There’s no such thing as “reverse” discrimination. Either it is discrimination, or it isn’t. It doesn’t matter if it’s done by the majority or the minority, or by the powerful or by the less powerful.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:20 PM PST up reply actions
You can’t assume that because someone doesn’t believe in homosexual marriage, they must hate gay people.
I agree entirely. And that is why I was careful not to make such a statement. I said it can be assumed “many people” do not support gay marriage because of anti-gay bigotry, not that everyone who opposes gay marriage is so motivated. In fact, I specifically said that I am willing to believe that kencraw is not motivated by bigotry. But in light of the vitriol spewed by some people (note: not ALL people) — it would be ridiculous to argue that many people were not motivated by ant-gay bigotry.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
I want to be clear that I do agree with you that there are plenty of anti-gay bigots out there and that I’m sure most of them voted for Prop. 8.
At the same time, I think that the majority of people who supported and voted for Prop. 8 were not bigoted. They may not have fully thought through why marriage should be between a man and a woman, but their religious foundations and their logical foundations made it clear to them that it was a different type of relationship than a gay relationship and deserved specific protection. (of course what I’m suggesting is that what is a vague sense in their mind is in fact that heterosexual unions are procreative whereas gay unions are not.)
But for what’s important to me here, it’s key that there’s a recognition that not all people who supported Prop. 8 were bigots. I’m not concerned what the perception of the percentages are.
Ken, you’re practically defining bigotry.
why marriage should be between a man and a woman, but their religious foundations and their logical foundations made it clear to them that it was a different type of relationship
big·ot (bĭg’ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ./blockquote>
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
Spazzy, come on. That’s just ridiculous.
Are you logical faculties really that weak?
Stating that something is different from something else, when it is IN FACT different, it not bigotry. Heterosexual intercourse can be procreative. It isn’t always, but it can be. Homosexual sex can never be procreative. They are FACTUALLY different relationships.
Pointing out that they’re factually different does not make it bigoted. It is not “intolerant” to point out that they’re different.
You may want to pretend that it’s the same type of relationship, but it is IN FACT different.
Now, to be fair, there are times when we treat different things similarly. Society treats a Catholic marriage and a secular marriage the same when in fact they are quite different (expectations, responsibilities, etc.). However, it is not bigoted to point out that they are different. It’s then society’s job to decide if those differences justify a difference in treatment.
Stating that something is different is not bigotry. The part that makes it bigotry is being
intolerant of those who differ.
Please explain how Prop 8 represents “tolerance” or otherwise acceptance of gay marriage.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 3:03 PM PST up reply actions
It’s not “tolerance of gay marriage” but “gay marriage” isn’t a person. Tolerance of gays is what is relevant to bigotry. And allowing them to live their lives as they wish, hiring them if they’re the best applicant for a job, not discriminating against them in employment or housing, etc., these are all the marks of tolerance.
Not giving them a specific government privilege because their sexual unions don’t qualify for that benefit is not a lack of tolerance.
“Sexual union”? Marriage isn’t solely about sex; certainly government recognition marriage is not primarily about sex. The government doesn’t check to see whether people who marry are having sex and/or procreating.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:19 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, but prop 8 is determining that they don’t qualify for the government privilege based on voter (ie your) beliefs. Furthermore, you’re not allowing them to “live their lives as they wish.” They can’t get married, because people who voted Yes on 8 are preventing them. Don’t pretend like it’s total folly for gays to want to get married, some wacky plan from outer space, it’s simple: bigots are preventing their marriage because they are intolerant of people who are different (gay) based on their long-held beliefs about what constitutes marriage. That is what defines “bigotry.”
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
Not getting a government benefit because you don’t qualify is not preventing people from living as they wish. You know what, I’d sure like to get the Cash for Clunkers value for my car but since my car is too fuel efficient, I don’t get the benefit. Boy, I’d sure like a new car, but the government is ensuring I can’t “live (my) life the way I wish” since I can’t get the Cash for Cluckers benefit.
So of course I understand their desire to get married, but their just not eligible. They’re free to go live their lives. Not free to get whatever government benefit they desire, live it. They can live with their partners, participate in any sexual encounter they want with their partner, form wills that give each other their stuff when they die, whatever they want.
You’re confusing a government benefit that exists to encourage a certain behavior (one they’re not participating in) and being able to freely live your life.
You know, I was kinda pissed about this too. I have an old, crappy car that still happens to get decent mileage. Why don’t I get to trade it in for cash when other people are trading in perfectly good trucks just because no one cared about gas mileage 5 years ago when they bought it?
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Voters didn’t write the cash for clunkers program. Apples and oranges, Ken. YOU determined who “qualifies” for a marriage. It isn’t a car loan, dude, it’s about loving another person. Stop hiding your bigotry.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 10:51 PM PST up reply actions
I feel like we’ve all calmed down about this, but you.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I’m calm, but I disagree with the notion that, by definition, Ken is not a bigot, and does not wish to be called as such. And really, in relative terms, the “pain” that comes from being called a bigot is pretty minor compared to the pain of not being able to marry the one you love because someone else doesn’t like either of you.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 26, 2010 9:54 AM PST up reply actions
To be fair, gay men have the same right that straight men do to get married to a woman.
Not that this is an argument of any sort, but just putting it out there.
7
"live their lives as they wish."
That isn’t being fair…
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 26, 2010 9:55 AM PST up reply actions
What are the expectations of a Catholic marriage?
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Well for one, there is no divorce and remarriage. Also, there’s a higher expectation that you have kids and you’re required to raise them in the faith. Things like that.
What ahppens to people who are Catholic, but don’t follow that? Do people stroke their chins and cluck their tongues and say “What is to be done with these people?”"
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
i don't as much as i used to....
errr….
Go Bears Go
by Rocksanddirt on Feb 25, 2010 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
That is absolutely not true. There is divorce, and there is remarriage if one secures an annulment (which is frighteningly easy to do, just ask my parents who divorced after 40 years and 3 kids, got an annulment, and remarried in the church).
Also, divorce without annulment does not preclude one from remaining a fully practicing Catholic — it only prevents one from remarrying in the Church.
To be clear, my statement was about expectations, not about what you can get away with.
I agree annulment is frighteningly easy to do these days. But what an annulment says is that the marriage never existed, so technically, that 2nd marriage is that person’s first.
And people who get divorced and still participate in the Church are supposed to recognize that in the eyes of the Church they are still married and are separated for necessity’s sake and if they were to ever get remarried they should refrain from receiving the sacraments.
Of course there are plenty who ignore those teachings and continue to receive and the Church charitably looks the other way.
It doesn’t change that the expectation when you get married is what I stated above.
Does it disturb you how what distinctions the Church makes, and how it decides which things it will “charitably look the other way” about, and which things it will not be so charitable about?
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 4:57 PM PST up reply actions
There are very few things that in practice the Church is not extremely charitable about. What gets said from the pulpit varies greatly, but I see very few instances where a parish in the end doesn’t tolerate someone who can hit the mute button and show up anyway despite their un-orthodox beliefs.
Said another way, It’s EXTREMELY rare that communion is denied to anyone much less anything like excommunication.
So, generally I encourage the Church to be more firm overall. However, there’s a history of abuses on the other side so it’s an area one has to tread into carefully.
It’s then society’s job to decide if those differences justify a difference in treatment.
Yes, like making colored folks go to a different school?
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
Yes, exactly. And in that case, society decided that skin color difference does not justify different behavior. At first through the courts but later through legislation like the equal rights amendment.
In this case, we’re talking about a difference in action. The difference between potentially procreative sex and homosexual sex. There was a comment above about “how can the government tell if you’re gay?” The reality is that the government can’t and if a gay person enters into a heterosexual marriage, it will allow it. In other words, it’s not about what you feel inside, it’s about your actions.
If your church is so concerned about the difference between “procreative sex” and "homosexual sex’, then they can decide which marriages they want to bless or not bless based on that criteria. However, I don’t see why that distinction is one that the LAW needs to recognize and use as a basis for discrimination.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:26 PM PST up reply actions
They are factually different forms of intercourse. The relationships aren’t necessarily factually different.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
My argument is that the factually different forms of intercourse inherently make them a factually different type of relationship, just as my love for my brother or parents is, while just as strong a love as that for my wife, a factually different type of relationship in no small part because it doesn’t include sex.
But gay relationships DO include sex. Not necessarily penis-vagina sex, but it’s a sexual relationship all the same. It’s very much in the same category as the relationship you have with your wife; it’s just a slightly different (though VERY likely overlapping) set of sexual activities.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:22 PM PST up reply actions
Right, but the difference in that sex is substantial in that it’s not procreative.
And let me get down to brass tax here with a possibly too personal story:
Early in my marriage, we weren’t ready to have children (or so we thought) and we hadn’t yet fully embraced the Church’s teaching on contraception, so we used it. Since we’ve had children we have embraced that teaching but after we had a couple of kids quickly we wanted to slow things down, which is of course much more difficult without contraception.
Point of this being, I can tell you from the voice of experience that few of you have that there is a HUGE difference between our relationship when the sex we were having was neutered of it’s procreative ability and now. Our relationship is SIGNIFICANTLY different because of it. I can say with assurance that there is a fundamental difference between a potentially procreative sexual loving relationship and a non-procreative loving relationship.
That’s a fact.
Well, if you don’t engage in any forms of non-standard intercourse or touching, then maybe it is a little different. But understand that YOUR relationship is the abnormal one, and society and law is not obligated to adhere to your standards and yours alone.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Fair enough. Although I do have a right to go to the ballot box and vote to make society more to my liking just like everyone else.
And to get back to the root of the discussion, if my motivations are not bigoted but truly about appreciating the difference between potentially procreative relationships and non-procreative relationships, I’d really appreciate it if people don’t call me a bigot. (which is what happens when people say “people who voted for Prop. 8 are anti-gay bigots”.)
The state should not tell people how they can lead their lives, and should not discriminate against one group because they have a different preference than the majority of society.
If marriage was solely a religious, procreative joining, then the church (a private institution) has every right to say who can and cannot get married. However, because marriage is now also a state institution with economic and legal ties, it is immoral and unjust to discriminate against any group.
I would, however, accept it if the state only granted “civil unions” to everyone, for purposes of law, and marriage was only a religious act.
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
by oskisunbear on Feb 25, 2010 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This is really what it comes down to. The government should have replaced the word, “marriage” in all its legal mumbo jumbo with the word, “civil union” a long time ago. I’m a Christian and I believe marriage is a life committment and a sacred institution governed by churches. A civil union is a legally binding status. I have no problem giving anybody a civil union with all the rights and privledges that modernn "marriage’ today has that wants one. I guess I could have saved myself some typing and just said I agree with your last sentence, Oskisunbear.
Except marriage is not a solely religious act. Plenty of non-religious people get married. It’s a social institution, and you can’t practically have the same thing with two different names. It’s the same reason “separate but equal” wasn’t really equal.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 4:59 PM PST up reply actions
No, the idea is that the state only does Civil unions, for everyone, and that leaves marriage to the churches which are not controlled by the State.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Yeah, but then you’d create one set of people who get to be considered “married” and one set of people who aren’t. Considering that ALL legally/religiously sanctioned matrimony is simply known as marriage, that is the accepted term for having a spouse.
We could just as easily call the civil version “marriage” and let the churches perform “religious unions”, but I’m sure they wouldn’t want that either.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 5:07 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, but so what? From a public policy point of view, all people would be treated equal; whatever the churches do is their business, and I’m sure that there still would be some churches out there quite happy to marry gay couples.
Problem solved!!
Prophet!
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I don’t see how it’s fair to let religious institutions monopolize such an important word. I’m not a religious person, but I want to get married when the time comes. Having to call it a “civil union”, because I don’t belong to a church or whatever, is stupid. Besides, regardless of what it says on the form, people are still going to call it “marriage”, irrespective of whether it was sanctified by some religious authority.
Besides, right now we ALREADY have civil marriage and religious marriage, which are separate things. I don’t see what we gain by changing the word on the legal documents.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 5:17 PM PST up reply actions
Hmmm...
So, you say everyone would just call it marriage? Then where’s the problem with that? And religious institutions get to monopolize all sorts of important words now: “soul” “afterlife” etc. Should the state regulate these words too?
The problem now is that the state only offers one type to one class of person, which leads to the charge discrimination. I think the whole argument is 90% silly, but its very emotional for a lot of people. I believe that saying that the sacred institution of marriage (in some people’s minds) is safely controlled by whatever church they go to, will remove the anger and fears that surround this issue.
And besides, the state should stick to practical things, like laws, not people’s feelings about the definition of words.
Just my thoughts
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
if a black mandoesn’t get hired for a job or accepted into a collegeis made subject laws specifically banning him from engaging in activities or agreements that other citizens have a right to engage in, that it must be bigotry, due to millenia of mistreatment
Now your analogy is a little more analogous.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:18 PM PST up reply actions
Well, just because Jesse Jackson or whoever makes an argument in a scenario where it doesn’t apply, it doesn’t mean that the argument is itself invalid; it could simply be that it doesn’t apply in one scenario, but it does apply in the other.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
I think the point I’m making is that you’ve got to watch out with the “millenia of mistreatment in the past” argument when arguing discrimination or bigotry.
7
Rishi, I’m fairly certain you understood my point. But just in case, here it is in more detail: (1) anti-homosexual bigotry has existed for thousands of years in western culture, to the point that until the 19th century it was a crime which was punishable by death in many countries, and it remained a crime in some American states until as recently as 10 years ago; (2) although such bigotry has certainly lessened, it continues to exist among many groups, and is strongly supported by some religious institutions; and (3) that at least some of the people who supported Proposition 8 had to have been motivated by the same anti-homosexual bigotry that has permeated western society for those thousands of years and which continues to exist.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
I understand, and I’m not criticising you personally. While you personally may not generalize, there are plenty of people who do, especially given how much animosity stems from political disagreements. At least some people who disagree on political matters will use labels like “bigot” or “racist” as an excuse.
7
I am in total agreement with you. (OMG!) I have always thought that calling a person a racist was one of the worst insults imaginable. But those terms are now so overused that they have become almost meaningless.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
And likely racis
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 1:53 PM PST up reply actions
I am going to hat myself (more so) for actually genuinely continuing this conversation, BUT
Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that marraige is best served for those who can raise children. As gay couples cannot procreate, you believe they should not be allowed to marry.
However, couldn’t they adopt or have an in vitro fertilization involving a 3rd party (either with a 3rd party sperm into one of the women in a lesbian couple or using one of the gay man’s sperm going to a surrogate)?
So, either:
a) you do not believe gay couples should adopt or have in vitro fertilization involving a 3rd party
OR
b)you would similarly restrict marriage for heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate or do not plan to
This seems remarkably limiting to me, but perhaps I am mis understanding your position.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
a. I would make IVF illegal if I was king, yes.
There are plenty of infertile people who some day find themselves pregnant.
like the Virgin Mary
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:14 PM PST up reply actions 3 recs
I think this epic comeback has slithered through the cracks (and it shouldn’t).
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
I think that would make them “fertile.”
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:15 PM PST up reply actions
Right. And the second they become pregnant it means, at the time of their marriage, that they were actually fertile.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:20 PM PST up reply actions
Often times when people argue with you, KenCraw, they think they have to disprove your points to lessen your credibility.
Honestly, I think your “delightfully unique” views are so far to the edge of mainstream society that merely forcing you to explain them to their logical extremes could lead to lessening your credibility. I don’t mean this as an insult, you are obviously entitled to your own views. But when you say you want to make In Vitro Fertilization illegal, I think it reflects just how extreme some of your views are.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I think he was actually talking about Idiosyncratic Vaseline Fountains.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 1:22 PM PST up reply actions
Clearly, Superman never made it to the Olympics
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
I think this should be the response when someone posts a ridiculous argument, statement, etc…
Clearly Superman never made it to the Olympics
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
Clearly Superman never made it to the Olympics
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 2:02 PM PST up reply actions
I can't dedicate more time to this...
Sorry, you guys know that I’ll talk until I’m blue in the face on a topic I’m passionate about, but I really don’t have a ton of time for this.
Here’s what I ask of all of you who disagree with me:
1. Ask yourself if you think I legitimately believe what I’m saying and it’s not about being bigoted but it’s truly about marriage being about procreation
2. If you answer yes to the above question, refrain from calling me a bigot.
You can spend all the time you want trying to convince me that marriage shouldn’t be about procreation or that the existing set of loopholes for non-procreative couples should be changed, but recognize that my motivations are not about being bigoted.
That’s all I ask froim this conversation.
I don’t necessarily want to label you a bigot, I was just enjoying people poke holes in your “procreation” based argument, cuz that is completely bull
Things to Remember: Girls usually don't like it when you yell out "Beast Mode!" when switching to doggy style. - TFLN
by CruzinBears on Feb 25, 2010 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
1) Honestly, if you had seen your point all the way through, that ALL people who cannot procreate (not just gays) should not be allowed to marry, then I would think that you’re a bit out there, but not bigoted (ok, maybe bigoted against people who cannot procreate, but not against gays). But since you are so willing to make exceptions for EVERY OTHER group of people that cannot procreate EXCEPT gays, I think it’s pretty clear what’s going on here. Being unable to procreate is clearly not the issue which creates the distinction in your mind – the group that is being treated differently by you is Gays, not people who cannot procreate
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
by CBKWit on Feb 25, 2010 12:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
what’s part 2)?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
2) Clearly, Superman never made it to the Olympics
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
You continue to insist I’m a bigot, eh?
Perhaps I should provide a list of people that can’t get married based on today’s laws that I support that aren’t gays:
1. Mothers and sons
2. Fathers and daughters
3. Brothers and sisters
4. Cousins
5. People already in a marriage
Why do we have these exceptions? Because they just might procreate and we want to discourage that.
Groups I would add to the list if I was king:
1. People who have children with other people besides who they’re going to marry (exception: if you already have children with multiple people you could marry one of the existing co-parents)
2. People who wouldn’t sign a form that says “we’re open to children that result from our marital union”
I don’t know why you refuse to accept that I acknowlege that there are loopholes and they’re difficult to address and so I don’t have good answers for each of them and am willing to accept the current compromise.
But it’s not just about gay people and I hope the above list makes that clear. You’re falsely assuming that it’s just about gay people.
People who wouldn’t sign a form that says "we’re open to children that result from our marital union
This, again, is fine from a private standpoint…. If Catholics want that to be part of it, its all well and good. But the state can’t force anyone to do anything. Otherwise we’d be dirty commies. Or fascists.
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
Obviously most of society agrees with you and that’s why it’s on my “if I were King” list, but the government does this sort of thing for lots of other contracts/benefits. As an example, unemployment requires you look for a job and you have to sign a form saying you’ll try.
Marriage is a voluntary institution and you can chose to enter into it of your free will. If you don’t like the terms, don’t do it.
I don’t think that would make us fascists or communists.
Kencraw, you have convinced me that you are not a bigot. You are a nut.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
HA!
Well, I guess I’d rather be considered a nut than a bigot.
I’m not quite sure why adding new restrictions to marriage that require you state you’re open to children (which by it’s very nature wouldn’t be enforceable since merely not having children wouldn’t prove anything), would make me a nut, but OK.
Marriage is a voluntary institution and you can chose to enter into it of your free will.
Not if you’re gay. Then you don’t “qualify” for “government benefits” because you’re “not eligible.”
I suppose the conversation goes something like this: “Why can’t I marry Steve?”
“You’re not eligible.”
“Why am I not eligible?”
“Because you don’t qualify for the government benefit.”
“On what grounds do I not qualify for the government benefit?”
“Your lack of eligibility.”
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 10:55 PM PST up reply actions
1. high potential for abuse, non-consenting child
2. high potential for abuse, non-consenting child
3. high potential for malformed offspring
4. lower potential for malformed offspring (are there laws in all states against first cousins getting married?)
5. breach of contract
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
Well, in the first four cases, yes, absolutely. Although in those cases, I’d argue that there is already an implied legal relationship between the parties, and so a legal union sans sexual relations would be fairly pointless.
In the fifth case, it’s mostly about sex, although forming a marriage-type legal union without the consent of the current spouse may be cause for a breach of contract anyway, even if that extramarital legal union doesn’t result in sex.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins
Twenty-five states prohibit marriages between first cousins. Six states allow first cousin marriage under certain circumstances, and North Carolina allows first cousin marriage but prohibits double-cousin marriage. States generally recognize marriages of first cousins married in a state where such marriages are legal.
Cousin marriage legal
Alabama
Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina*
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
So yeah, there are are a ton of places where first cousins can get married, no questions asked. Also, second cousins can get married in all 50 states and DC.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
Also, second cousins can get married in all 50 states and DC.
Sure, by the time you get as far apart as second cousins, there isn’t a much greater chance of malformed children than with any other person in the general population.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
your original argument was, simply, that gays should not be allowed to procreate, so they should not be allowed to marry. Since your entire argument rests on procreation, I am focusing on procreation. This list of five groups who cannot marry is irrelevant, since they can procreate. Obviously, they cannot marry, and for different reasons. That’s fine and dandy, but not all relevant to the discussion at hand.
Our discussion, based on your original post, is about restricting marriage on the basis of procreation. That was your entire point. So my simple question has been, since you voted to prevent gays from marrying because they cannot procreate, shouldn’t you vote (if it was put on the ballot) to ban post menopausal women from marrying, because they too cannot procreate? Simple as that.
Again, if you say yes, and if you also say that sterile people, etc, should not be allowed to procreate, then I would agree that you are not bigoted. But if you keep making exceptions for every other group of people who cannot procreate, while excluding gays, it becomes pretty obvious that your argument isn’t really based on procreation (since you’re making exceptions for these other groups who also cannot procreate), but is instead based on homosexuality.
All this stuff about loopholes and other reasons for denying marriage is irrelevant. If you want to have a discussion about that, that’s fine, but it’s completely different. The issue at hand is about denying a single group of people one right because of one simple, technical fact. Unless you agree that other groups should be denied the exact same right because of the exact same simple, technical fact, then the real reason behind denying gays marriage is obviously different.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
sorry, first line should read
your original argument was, simply, that gays cannot procreate, so they should not be allowed to marry
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
I shan’t go too far into this because a great deal of pixels have died on this subject already, but I would say this:
I don’t agree at all with your restrictions on marriage from a legal standpoint. I understand where you’re coming from as an issue of Catholic morality, but I suspect that we have reached a point as a society where the definition of marriage as a legal institution is going to have to part company with the religious definition in terms of the restrictions on who may participate, because the people – from whom government draws its authority – are starting to change their views on the law.
Following Catholic theology doesn’t make you a bigot., but it does prompt you to propose marriage restrictions that are too overtly religious and correspondingly are becoming almost a generic establishment issue. Better to sever the two definitions, I suspect: render unto Caesar etc., and move on.
It’s impossible to know what is going on in your mind, so I can’t answer what you legitimately believe about the purposes of marriage. But your procreation-only argument for opposing gay marriage is so fundamentally flawed that it is hard to see how a reasonable person could believe it. If you oppose gay marriage because of deeply-held religious convictions, that is certainly your right. And if you said that was your reason, I would not criticize you for it. But I can’t accept the procreation-only argument, because it is internally completely inconsistent and illogical.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
If we’re going to use pedantic arugments that don’t hold water, if you’ll notice, I never actually said “people who support Prop 8 are bigots.”
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:38 PM PST up reply actions
…that go great with pomegranite seeds, a little blue cheese, and viniagrette, yes, those.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 12:43 PM PST up reply actions
Speaking as someone who is merely observing this conversation from the outside without having participated,
I answer question #1 “no.”
Your positions are preposterous after-the-fact justifications.
Shawn Spencer: "I’m receiving a transmission from your husband. Really more of a voicemail, if I'm being honest. A status update. Perhaps a twitter."
Burton Guster: "I believe it’s called a tweet."
Shawn Spencer: "There’s no way I’m saying that."
So, do you believe women over 45 should not be allowed to marry? Or, people who have been sterilized? And if not, why not?
Gay couples are obviously not capable of procreation and therefore should be excluded from the institution.
That makes no sense. Gay couples are going to exist whether or not you let them marry. Heterosexual couples who can’t or won’t procreate will also continue to exist. If you want to encourage procreation (for whatever reason; frankly, I think we could probably stand to have fewer people rather than more people, but that’s a separate issue), then why not favor policies that encourage procreation, rather than deny people the ability to get married? How does letting gay people get married affect ANYBODY’S procreative ability?
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
I want to make it clear that I’m not encouraging “rampant” procreation. My point is not that we need to procreate more, it’s that WHEN we procreate it should be within the marital union (because that’s the point of the marital union) and that society should support that union because it’s a difficult thing to raise those children and they’re the best equipped as their biological parents to do so.
I’m encouraging rampant attempted procreation.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Society does support the marital union. What you’re not explaining is why society should explicitly NOT support gay unions as well.
Furthermore, I disagree that procreation is “the point” of marital union. Procreation LONG, LONG predates marriage. All animals and plants procreate, and they don’t get married. Many human beings procreate without getting married. Marital unions are a way of organizing ourselves socially, and while it does bear some relationship with procreation, obviously, I think that it’s not as central as you make it out to be, certainly not in this day and age. Besides, the fact is that marital unions have taken and do take many different forms in different cultures, which undermines this notion that marriage is always 1 man and 1 woman of similar age and status, and a prototypical nuclear family.
At the end of the day, you’re entitled your preferences, but I don’t see why you would change the law in order to strip away people’s rights just to suit your preferences. If you don’t like gay marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same gender. Plus, you have given no evidence, except your own unsupported postulations, about what exactly the PROBLEM is with gay marriage. Where is the negative impact that necessitates its prohibition?
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:08 PM PST up reply actions
This is the fairest point of this afternoons discussion (as separate from this morning).
Here’s why it matters that it not apply to homosexual unions:
Benefits that society give are only special when they’re unique. If the government gives everyone $100, that doesn’t drive any behavior. However, if the government gives $100 to people who go to church every week, that’s going to drive a specific behavior, and it’s why a state religion is banned in our constitution (amongst other reason).
So, whenever society gives out a benefit, it’s important that to the best of the ability of society that benefit is limited to those who are participating in whatever activity it is that society is trying to encourage by giving that benefit. When it gets applied to more people, it dilutes the power of the benefit.
That’s effectively CBWit’s point about elderly marriages and I agree with him in principle that you should limit it to the right group, but there are practical limitations involved.
The purpose of marriage is to encourage those who’s sexual unions may result in children to join in a life long relationship so that those children will be raised by their biological parents. When we dilute it beyond that, it minimizes the benefit.
Marriage isn’t a “benefit”. It’s not some exclusive club. We are an open society of free people who sort ourselves out and choose our own partners and relationships and organize ourselves into family. I don’t know why you are so obsessed with “procreation”, because that’s not what marriage is about. It’s about family. Family is so much more than simply fucking and making babies, and you are 1) simplifying it to just that; and 2) essentially advocating that certain classes of people shouldn’t get to have and form their own familes. I think that’s a cruel if not immoral position to take.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:35 PM PST up reply actions
It absolutely is a benefit.
One doesn’t need a civilly recognized union to have a family. Just ask the polygamists in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. They’ve got huge families and none of them are married as far as the state is concerned.
But when one has a government recognized marriage they get tax breaks and medicare benefits and social security benefits and a whole slew of other things that they wouldn’t get otherwise.
Whether its a benefit or not, everyone should have a chance at receiving the benefit. You can’t say one way is better than the other because its the majority.
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
No, not because it is the majority, but because they’re the targets of the benefit. Oskisunbear put it in the exact opposite form in the next comment down. it’s about giving a benefit to people who might procreate so they enter into relationships that help them do it responsibly.
Well, those polygamists have their own religious institutions and are so socially self-segregated that they simply go without the approval and recognition of society. I’m sure they would simply prefer that polygamy were legal and recognized, though. However, they’re not recognized, even though that so-called procreative factor is present. But, social/governmental recognition is NOT simply about the procreative act.
Polygamy aside, we give these benefits to couples because they have decided and mutually agreed to be family units. They are not legal family units simply because they procreate.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:51 PM PST up reply actions
Marriage is a social construct because people decided it probably wan’t so good for males to follow their biological instincts and hump everything in sight in order to spread their seed as far as possible. Marriage actually limits procreation.
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
Ah, so you admit it is about procreation?
I completely agree. See my above post about my clarifying that this is not about increasing procreation but about making it responsible.
The original intent anyway.
As you said above in your post, society decided skin color should be a basis for determination. Then society evolved.
Marriage, I believe, has evolved in the same similar way.
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
OK, fair enough. That’s your perspective and I respect that. If that’s your view, I can see why you’d support gay marriage.
Mine is that evolving marriage away from procreation is a bad idea and thus I want to keep it about procreation.
My whole point is that it’s not bigoted to think that. It’s just a different view of marriage and it has nothing to do with disliking gay people or being intolerant of them.
agree to disagree?
My heart skips a beat every time I hear the band strike up 'Our Sturdy Golden Bear'.
You decide to pick a fight about gay marriage. Everybody responds for the most part with reasonable criticisms of your argument, and you keep claiming that people are calling or have called you a bigot. It seems like this is just a tactic to prevent people from criticizing the lack of logic in your opposition to gay marriage, because by doing so we are thereby calling you a bigot, and are being intolerant.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
You could say I decided to pick a fight, and of course I could have just let Spazzy’s comment in the original post go, but at the same time, I laid out the logic of what spazzy said that upset me (Imperial county supports prop. 8 → bigots) that was implied in the message.
And whether or not Spazzy’s intent was that strong, I hear this logic communicated all the time. Lots of people DO call people who voted for Prop. 8 bigots. So, yes, I’m a bit sensitive to the subject and felt a defense was justified (it’s the DBD, not a topical post). I guess my point was I feel that if I picked a fight, it was provoked in some way.
I feel I’ve made all the necessary defenses of the criticisms so I won’t re-iterate them here, but I think it is fair to say that many of those arguments, while not explicitly saying I was a bigot were by the nature of their argument implying it.
I know I’m not going to win many people over regarding gay marriage, opinions run too strong. But I hoped that this would be an opportunity to make progress on the false charge of bigot that is thrown at all Prop. 8 supporters.
Whether I did will be hard to judge, but I’m hopeful I at least made some impact in that regard.
Well, you have managed to make me see that while some people who oppose gay marriage are bigots, others are merely lunatics.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
Well, you can keep ramping it up from “nut” to “nuttier than a fruitcake” to “lunatic” to try and rile things up again, but holding a drastically different view of the nature of our sexuality and our sexual relationships (and thus marriage) doesn’t seem to be worthy of that level of animosity.
Kencraw: The ideal world you envision, in which you would get to impose your personal idiosyncratic sexual rules on the rest of us, is profoundly disturbing to me. Your dismissal of human love and companionship as a reason for marriage, your statement that you don’t think older people should marry, your desire to criminalize adultery, thus placing the government in control of people’s sexual activities, your desire to made birth control and artificial means of conception illegal — I find these view, in their totality, to be very bizarre. I really and truly think you are crazy.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
Just about every one of those is a mischaracterization of my views:
1. I never suggested love and companionship wasn’t a reason for marriage, it’s not the SOLE reason for marriage. A marriage is about more than just love.
2. Perhaps I didn’t state this one as completely as I could have (a victim of this format), but there are instances where I’d council against it. I’m also not dead-set against it depending on the motivations. I specifically said that I wouldn’t outlaw it.
3. You must not have been in the old discussions on this board about criminalizing adultery, but it was criminal for most of American history, which meant that when one divorced you likely didn’t get a good share of the marital assets. In other words, I’m against no-fault divorce. It’s not at all about the state constantly monitoring marriages.
4. I explicitly stated I don’t favor making contraception illegal despite finding it immoral.
Going further, every one of my views was the NORM 50 years ago. Were they all crazy/lunatics? OK, so it’s a vastly different view than you hold, but your condemning huge swaths of human history by calling me crazy for those views.
Going further, every one of my views was the NORM 50 years ago.
So? Slavery has been a human institution for most of history. Segregation was the ‘norm’ 50 years ago. History is full of good things and bad things. You have to explain why the world would be a better place if things were the way you want them to be.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
1. Not true. You said the one and only reason for marriage is procreation. You said that over and over again.
2. Very generous of you not to make it illegal for older people to marry. But I think its nuts that you would even have to make such a disclaimer.
3. I don’t know about marital assets or whatever thread you are talking about. I do know that you want to criminalize adultery, and thus impose your personal sexual rules on everyone else under force of law.
4. I don’t recall saying that you wouldn’t make contraception illegal. If you did, then I’m wrong on that. But you did say that you would make IVF illegal if you had that power.
There are lots of beliefs that people have held in the past that we now regard as pretty darn sick. Beating your wife was acceptable, if perhaps frowned upon by polite society 100 years ago. Slavery was entirely legal and fiercely defended by large numbers of people 150 years ago. Depriving women of any right to control their own property was the law 50 years ago. Lynching was illegal but widely practiced 50 years ago. Just because something was acceptable 50 or 100 years ago doesn’t make it decent or moral or sane.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
1. Show me the quote where I said “the one and only reason”. I didn’t say that. I said it’s necessary for marriage, but not that it is the only thing necessary. Love is critical for a good marriage.
2. Fine. But don’t misrepresent what I’m saying.
3. It only imposes those rules on those who decide to join in the marriage contract. Anyone who would prefer to be free of that legal requirement can avoid marriage. As I said, it’s about no-fault divorce. Since marriage is a civil institution, divorce is too and without adultery being illegal, it wouldn’t be cause for a fault bearing divorce. But I guess you think it’s OK for a guy to run out on his wife and 3 kids and shack up with a woman half his age and then still get 50% of the marital assets, yes? Personally, I think she should get the vast majority of them. Call me crazy for that if you like, but I think it’s pretty reasonable and what I mean by criminalizing adultery (as I said, a similarly lengthily conversation was had on this board a long time ago which is why I didn’t go into details figuring most knew the background of that.).
4. Read your post 3 up from here at 6:08 PM.
Finally, I think the burden of proof lies with those who want to change the law, not those who are standing on the side of history. Yes, there are times history has been on the wrong side of things, but it’s the baseline and I take comfort knowing my “crazy” views have some precedence.
There is no point in continuing to go round and round on this. You are convinced that you are among the righteous, while I find many of the opinions you have expressed to be morally troubling and downright nutty. I strongly doubt that any common ground can ever be found.
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
I don’t think you’re a bigot, nor do I think that all the people who voted for prop 8 are bigots. I think you have honestly held and more or less non-malign beliefs. However, I do think the prop 8 campaign was largely motivated by animus and bigotry, and anti-gay bigotry and the ideology which inspires it is quite widespread and dangerous, and its effects can be seen far and wide, such as in Uganda, where they are about to pass a vile and barbaric law which will result in the death and imprisonment of many unfortunate people.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 5:50 PM PST up reply actions
However, I do think the prop 8 campaign was largely motivated by animus and bigotry
And this, I’m pretty sure, was the main point of Spazzy’s original throwaway line from the DBD above. Regardless if you, kencraw, are not a bigot and are not anti-gay (which I actually don’t think you’ve shown today), the vast majority of the people who are pro-prop 8 ARE bigoted against gays. If you can’t see that, then you don’t know who your fellow supporters are. Make no mistake, this is not about some “sanctity of marriage” – Prop 8 is anti-gay.
See, this is just the thing. I go to Church with these people, I know them as friends, I was even lightly involved in the campaign.
Stated bluntly, you’re wrong. You’re the one who doesn’t know them.
These people, the vast majority of them have similar views to me. Sure some of them may be OK with IVF and others are OK with contraception and yet a different group holds a different view on this or the other thing, but as a whole they recognized two things:
1. Marriage and procreation are bound (that’s why the slogan was “protect families”, it was a recognition that marriage → procreation → families).
2. No-fault divorce sucks.
So, while after I took most of a day I really didn’t have time for (I’m still at work trying to pound out something due tomorrow (ugh)) to defend myself, you’ll give me a pass individually, while condemning similarly minded people elsewhere who weren’t here to say “this” to my comments.
And the proof is in that it was gay marriage that was the sticking point. When it was gay hate crime legislation, nobody balked. When it was defining gays as protected by equal protection laws, nobody balked. Why? Because fundamentally we all believe that it’s wrong to hate gays and want to see them protected as much as anyone else from discrimination.
Are there anti-gay bigots out there? Of course. But they no more speak to the movement or the proposition than the anti-Mormon gay bigots out there who clearly showed in their actions after Prop. 8 passed that they hated the Mormons for more than just Prop. 8.
It’s not “Prop H8” as some like to say. It’s just a different worldview of what marriage is about. There are A LOT more of us, people who hold views much more similar to mine than the collective here, than any of you (apparently) realize in California.
And I won’t sit by idly while they’re labeled bigots because we’re not.
This doesn’t fly. Marriage is not under attack. The sanctity of marriage as an institution – that boat pushed off from shore hundreds of years ago.
If this was so strongly about “protecting marriage” then why aren’t there propositions about “criminlizing adultery” or “outlawing IVF” or “getting rid of no fault divorce” that are on the ballot? These sound like they’re just as big – if not bigger – threats to “marriage” as 8% of the population wanting to get hitched? Where is THAT popular support?
And are you seriously saying that most Prop-8 supporters are not anti-gay? Really? You’re saying that people voting against gay marriage only have marriage as an institution to protect as their motivation? If you’re convinced of that, then, well, I don’t know what else to say.
Anyways, your historical articles + majority viewpoints ring really poorly for me – from 1882 through 1962, there was a law that kept Chinese out of this country. The majority of people agreed with that viewpoint too.
The no-fault divorce revolt is slowly gaining steam and as I said, that’s the other common ground. The reason it’s not coming as quickly is there wasn’t a huge catalyst to bring it to the forefront.
The reason you don’t see the rest of them is because as I said, the consensus isn’t there.
And yes, I’m seriously saying most pro-8 people are not intolerant of gays (being more specific than “anti-gay”, which could mean just about anything) and the proof, as I said, is the general support for gay protection legislation that has already passed that wasn’t opposed. Do you have proof to the contrary other than you don’t like my argument?
And an important qualifier, it’s fine that you don’t like the argument or think it valid, but the point is not that it’s the “best” argument but that it’s one we believe. So, call us misguided if you want, but don’t call us bigots.
One final point I want to drive home: I don’t know you, so I can’t speak for you personally, but for the average Bay Area person, their world is very insular. The 40% of people in the Bay Area (25% in places like Berkeley and SF) who supported Prop. 8 feel so intimidated that they aren’t willing to speak up. I have a much more broad base than that average Bay Area person. I grew up in that environment as a son of your typical Bay Area liberals but have branched out and was amazed to find just how insular the Bay Area community is.
I think the average Bay Area person is very ignorant of what the rest of the state, much less the country, is like and what motivates those people.
This fuels statements like “well, I don’t know what else to say.”
This was actually in the Prop 8 trail testimony – so far above “supporter” and into the actual movement behind prop 8.
in federal court, attorney David Boies spent time walking Tam through a Web site for a Chinese-American evangelical Christian group that featured a headline reading “Studies Show That Homosexuality Is Linked to Pedophilia.”
Tam serves as secretary of the group, known as the American Return to God Prayer Movement.
The Web site also contained a link to another article claiming gays were 12 times more likely to molest children.
“So you supported this Web site making these kind of statements?” Boies asked.
“Uh, yes,” Tam said.
“Do you believe that homosexuals are 12 times more likely to molest children?” the lawyer continued.
“Yeah, based on the different literature that I have read,” Tam replied.
Yeah, no bigotry there.
Make no mistake, Broekhuizen and Ahmanson (who began the funding for Prop 8) are VERY anti-gay. Ahmanson is part of an extreme right wing Christian movement whose goals and beliefs are to return the US to biblical law, including executions for those guilty of sodomy. Broekhuizen is the mother of the founder of Blackwater. These are not “defense of marriage” people – these are anti-gay bigots.
So, call us misguided if you want, but don’t call us bigots.
Lou Engle, who was one of the biggest supporters of Prop 8, started a sermon this way:
"My son Jesse, he’s nineteen years old. God has given him dreams, to go to San Francisco to launch a house of prayer, one block from the Castro District – where the homosexuals boast the dominion of darkness. He’s going there with weeping in his heart. With the dream that prayer is stronger than the dominion of that spirit.
…He said to me, “dad,” he said, “as long as I’m there I don’t think the Lord will judge San Francisco.” [boos, angry murmur from Engle’s audience]…
He’s nineteen years old. He’s starting to cast out homosexual spirits out of our new converts. It’s scary as hell. The whole thing’s scary. But fathers are to send their sons into the darkest places."
yeah, no bigotry there. I apologize, you’re absolutely right. the Prop 8 backers all only have our better welfare in mind, not any hatred of gays.
Yeah, I think the trial demonstrated pretty convincingly that the prop 8 movement was motivated to a large degree by animus.
by atomsareenough on Feb 26, 2010 9:03 PM PST up reply actions
I stand by my statement, and I do not consider it a throwaway line.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 11:01 PM PST up reply actions
So, after hours of discussion on this,
I’ll add my 2 cents.
I respect Ken for sharing his views, which he had to know wouldn’t be too popular here. I think the reality is, though, that many Christians oppose gay marriage because they believe that homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible. Why they care so much more and get more worked up about the “homosexual agenda” than about something like pre-marital sex is that homosexuality is much more obvious than those other types of sins.
Example: my family is watching HGTV (which often features couples). It may be a show we like, but if a gay couple is featured, my parents will change the channel. Other times, it’s clear that a heterosexual couple is living together and NOT married (also a sin according to the Bible), but they’ll continue watching the episode. Why? Because every time the gay couple is on screen together, my parents are reminded that they are living a sinful lifestyle (according to their beliefs). But just looking at a man and woman together doesn’t immediately make them think that there is a sinful relationship going on. The gay couple makes them feel uncomfortable because of the obvious sin.
So Ken, I’m fine with you making your case. I certainly understand where you’re coming from. But it might be better if you just came out (so to speak) and told people the underlying reason you don’t support gay marriage is because you believe homosexuality is a sin.
I've been Honked...
Christians oppose gay marriage because they believe that homosexuality is a sin, according to the Bible. Why they care so much more and get more worked up about the "homosexual agenda" than about something like pre-marital sex is that homosexuality is much more obvious than those other types of sins.
Many, many things are sin according to the bible, are they not? And aren’t most of those sins much more widely prevalent than homosexuality? I think the reasons they don’t get so worked up about those other ones is because most of them are guilty of, or their family members and loved ones are guilty of, most of those other sins, such as premarital sex for example. It’s so much easier to point your finger and castigate others than to honestly assess and hold to account your own self and loved ones.
That, and I think a lot of it really boils down to the “ick” factor. If you’re not gay, then the very concept of gay sex, especially gay male sex, sounds frankly kind of gross and unsavory and it may seem inexplicable why someone would engage in it. That lack of ability on the part of many to empathize or understand with gays also contributes to the animus factor, and helps them seem like an “other”.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:41 PM PST up reply actions
You have just addressed human nature. Dealing with my own brokeness is way more difficult than focusing on someone else’s. Unfortunately I think another factor at play here is a political one. “The liberal commuist pinko gay agenda” has long been a talking point for the “Moral Majority”. It’s concise and easy to harp on during election time and freaks the Bible Belt people out. The bigger problem is lots of people don’t believe in protecting the sanctity of marriage at all. They’re just convinced by politicians that they’re way of life is under attack by those damn liberals and they need to unite to stop it.
For a Catholic, sex that interferes with the procreative capacity is sinful. That means if you’re having non-vaginal sex or if you’re interfering with vaginal sex so that procreation isn’t possible.
So yes, of course, I think homosexual sex is sinful.
But to all of you contracepting out there: your sex is just as sinful from my vantage point (and the Church’s) as homosexual sex. But you know what, I still come and talk with you, I shake your hands when I see you at a practice or game (even Twists!). I call my my Cal Bear friends, and I mean that.
There really is no difference in my mind and I don’t view gays any differently.
At the same time, I allow for those heterosexual couples who contracept to get married because I know that someday they may stop or there may be an “accident” and I want those children to be raised in that marriage. So, no, it’s not just about gays being sinful. It’s about procreation.
Of course I desire for everyone to turn away from sin. At the same time, what I desire to see law is a subset of that. Freedom of religion in this country is a good thing.
Kencraw, for what it’s worth, I respect and appreciate your ability to openly and frankly discuss our philosophical differences here. I completely disagree with you about many things, but I think you’re entitled to your beliefs and your point of view. I don’t think you’re hateful. I don’t think you hate gay people, or any of us, or hate anyone who doesn’t believe as you do or act in accordance with your beliefs.
You’re not hateful. And so, maybe “bigoted” isn’t the right word. I don’t exactly know what is, but I say this, and I don’t say it spitefully or anything like that, but I do believe that there is some… judgmental-ness or something that maybe isn’t exactly bigotry, but it’s… maybe in the same direction. I mean, I’m not Catholic, or even Christian. I’m sure you might think that, for example, as a non-believer I’m probably going to hell. You’re entitled to think that, but as a normal person, for someone else to tell you that you’re going to hell is kind of a fucked up and judgmental thing. It may not be motivated by hate, but it’s definitely condemnatory in some way. And you know, it’s okay for you to think that, but it’s not right for you to organize laws and social policy around those beliefs.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
I really appreciate comments like this atomsareenough. And I want to apologize for any judgmental Christians who claim to know the state of your soul. I’ve heard people tell others that they’re going to hell and it deeply saddens me. They know not of what they speak.
Now, I do of course desire you to come to faith and that you come to know God. And I do fear for those who don’t know God and their eternal fate, but I trust in God’s mercy and love.
And I completely agree there needs to be a limit to what laws are put in place that are related to what the faith of the people of this country believe. There is a balance between morals that come from faith that are generally applicable to society and those that are solely about one’s particular religion. You don’t hear me advocating for making contraception illegal, as an example. The 1st amendment exists to allow for this freedom.
This is why I was very careful not to make a religious argument for why marriage needs to remain a solely heterosexual union. It really is about a general principle of marriage being about protecting the procreative union and that principle need not rely solely on my Catholic faith, even though it is informed by it.
That’s fair, and like I said, you’re entitled to your beliefs, so I’m happy at the end of the discussion to agree to disagree. I do want to say though, I believe that we will eventually allow gay marriage, and I believe and hope that you will one day see that you were wrong about this, and that the “procreative” aspect of marriage that you seem to value so highly is NOT under threat or in need of any special treatment. Heterosexual couples having biological children are always going to be the majority and to some extent the norm, if you will. It’s one of those things that is so embedded in our way of life that it’s unquestionably going to continue to remain at the core of our family life. However, the inclusion of gay couples is not going to diminish or weaken the institution of marriage in any way, and in the long term, I think you will see that born out by history.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 4:55 PM PST up reply actions
Well, I hope you’re right. Evidence from Europe suggests that to not be the case. As gay marriage has been legalized, ironically the marriage rate and the birth rate have dropped dramatically.
Of course causality does not prove causation, and we’re very early in this “experiment” but it’s my fear.
You’re right, it’s early. For what it’s worth, though, the divorce rate in the US is supposedly lower in states with gay marriage than it is in states which ban gay marriage.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 5:02 PM PST up reply actions
Evidence from Europe shows nothing of the sort, actually
While gay marriage has been legalized mostly in northern European countries, which are by far the most socially liberal, they also rank higher up on the birth rate tables.
Gay marriage is legal in five countries in Europe: Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain.
There is no western European country that reproduces at a “replacement” rate. France has the highest birth rate at 1.95 babies per woman, which is due more to social policy (women are heavily incented, through generous maternity policies and actual cash payments, to bear children) than to religion, as it’s one of the more secular countries in Europe.
The rest of the countries look like this:
Gibraltar: 1.95
Iceland: 1.90
Ireland 1.85
Norway: 1.78
Denmark: 1.74
Finland: 1.73
Sweden: 1.67
Netherlands: 1.66
UK: 1.66
Belgium: 1.65
Liechtenstein: 1.52
Malta: 1.51
Portugal: 1.49
Switzerland: 1.45
Germany: 1.41
Austria: 1.39
Greece: 1.37
Italy: 1.31
Spain: 1.31
These are 2008 statistics. Gay marriage has been legal in Sweden for less than a year, in Norway for less than two. Netherlands legalized it in 2001, Belgium in 2003 and Spain in 2005.
In Belgium, the birth rate has increased from 1.62 in 2003 to 1.65 in 2008. In the Netherlands, their rate has increased from 1.65 to 1.66. Spain, with its very low birth rate, has increased from 1.26 to 1.30 since legalization. In all of these countries, the increase has been steady. In fact, there is not a single country where the birth rate has declined after legalizing gay marriage.
by Scootie on Feb 25, 2010 6:33 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Rec'd for hard data!
Italy: 1.31
Particularly damning, considering the whole catholic thing.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
My response to this is to say that while I sure hope what you’re saying is true, from a macro view, it still looks bleak to me.
The society that legalizes gay marriage is one that’s already accepted the notion that marriage and procreation are not closely linked. So I take the fact that their birth rates are this low as a sign that the fundamentals were already lost.
Said another way, gay marriage being legalized is a symptom of the larger problem regarding their view of marriage, not the cause. The fact that birth rates are so low is another symptom.
But don’t get me wrong, I’d be happy to be wrong about this.
Even though I completely 100% disagree with your parents notion of homosexuality, I appreciate your openness and honesty about the crux of the matter, and not trying to paint preventing gay marriage as the salvation of society based on science.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 4:07 PM PST up reply actions
If our society is ever going to progress, we’re going to have to do far better than we currently do at recognizing the real motivations of their opponents. Ignorant name calling and unfairly degrading of people who share a different view point, does nothing to help us reach reasonable compromises nor to be tolerant of one another.
I would argue that another part of society progressing would be to stop letting religious beliefs dictate how our secular government treats a minority group under the law. Although I do agree with your above point.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Viliami Moala, DT (Sacramento, CA)
When you size up Vei Moala, you have to stand back a few feet for the full view. He’s that immense.
Grant High School’s 6-foot-3, 330-pound lineman has size 16 feet and hands the size of “shovels,” according to Pacers coach Mike Alberghini.
Wide shoulders, massive thighs, but no overhanging gut. He also has an engaging smile and a personality that belies his ferocious play.
“He’s the total package,” Alberghini said. “A leader, a good person, a good student, a great player. He’s everything.”
Viliami Moala (Sacramento, Calif./Grant) revealed his most important decision factor for ESPN affiliate Web site WeAreSC.com.
“I pretty much want to stay close to home,” he said. “I want to be close enough for my parents to be able to see me play. That’s a major factor.” Moala added that the education provided by the school would be equally important.
That said, USC, Washington, Washington State, California, Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon and Oregon State among others could be in the mix for his services.
Alabama, Florida and Miami-FL are among the schools away from home that recruited the ESPNU 150 Watch List prospect.
Youtube – Vei Moala (from 1:25) Sacramento Bee’s Bee’s Prep Football Player of the Year candidates
Yes, SQT is from Grant. Mr. Moala looks like a future Tiny Bates Award winner given to a senior from the Sacramento Valley region. This year’s winner was SQT. Glad to see he wants to play close to home!
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Feb 25, 2010 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
Ten Reasons Your Workout Sucks
http://www.gymjunkies.com/10-reasons-your-workout-sucks/
My favourite one:
10. Because you are good.
Yep, you’re in decent shape. You are stronger than most, faster than most, and hell you look better than most. But you are not at you’re personal best. You have settled. You are complacent. And you are complacent because you are "good". Challenge yourself to be your best self.
7
Savon Huggins, RB (Jersey City, NJ)
Offers piling up for explosive RB Huggins
Savon Huggins has been on the national radar since his freshman year, and the soon-to-be senior showed why he will be a dominant force for Jersey City’s St. Peter’s Prep this fall. The running back has been a highly recruited playmaker since his sophomore season, with a rare blend of size and breakaway speed. Huggins impressed with good hands as a receiver in the passing drills, having shown marked improvement in his route running over the past year.
On signing day, Huggins hauled in an offer from Alabama’s Nick Saban. This past Friday he got an offer from Notre Dame in the mail. With the offers piling up, Huggins will continue to be one of the most sought-after backfield prospects in the nation. Along with ’Bama and ND, Huggins has received offers from Penn State, Rutgers, Miami and Florida — but there is currently no leader in the mix.
“Things are going well and I’m excited about everything that has been happening so far,” Huggins said. “But right now, I am really just focusing on getting ready for my last season at the Prep.”
Huggins also vowed that this year, Prep will beat Don Bosco, the North Jersey program that finished this year as the No. 1 team in the nation according to several polls, including MaxPreps and Rivals.com.
I didn’t see Cal mentioned anywhere… Have we offered him?
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
http://hsnewjersey.scout.com/a.z?s=401&p=8&c=1&nid=3773429
School Interest Level / Offer / Visit Date
California / Med Interest / Yes / None
7
Sweet! I’m excited, and we haven’t even seen the current recruits in action yet.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
Ray Hamilton, TE (Strongsville, OH)
Class of 2011 prospect Ray Hamilton (Strongsville, Ohio) has received a scholarship offer from Notre Dame bring his total up to roughly 20, ESPN affiliate Web site IrishSportsDaily.com reports.
Oklahoma, Boston College, California, Michigan Ole Miss, Pittsburgh, Stanford and West Virginia, where his father Tom played college ball, have also extended scholarship offers.
“I have no favorites, but at the same time I’m definitely genuinely interested in a good amount of schools and taking it one day at a time,” Hamilton said. “I’m doing my research on each school so when I make the ultimate decision, I’ll be making the right choice for the next four or five years of my life.”
He also explained what he wants in a program, “I want to feel the campus atmosphere. It should feel like a home away from home environment. Definitely want to build a relationship with the whole coaching staff, but in particular you want to build a relationship with the position coach because ultimately that’s who you’re going to be spending the majority of your time there with.”
“Also the academics. When football is all said and done, whenever that is for me, what’s my degree going to do for me for the rest of my life? Where can I network and how good of a degree is it? You want to set yourself up for life after football.”
solarise, do you know what time the cal junior day is this saturday and if it’s open to the public?
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Feb 25, 2010 12:42 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks. Right when the pre-game for the young alumni starts. I guess I’ll stop by after the basketball game to see if anything is still happening.
California Football. At home in Strawberry Canyon since 1923.
by CaliforniaEternal on Feb 25, 2010 1:15 PM PST up reply actions
Best Craigslist posting ever?
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/clt/1616836329.html
I was classmates with this guy at Georgetown. Priceless – because it’s so true. So far he has no takers.
by 33SwisherSweet on Feb 25, 2010 12:55 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
I think I hear Ohio Bear furiously drafting his own Craigslist posting right now
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
At the risk of eliciting “this ain’t yo twitter” responses…I’ve decided to severely cut my coffee intake, from 3+ cups a day to one at most. Anyone here done anything similar, and if so, tips?
Probably 8oz cups? Or occasionally lattes (or, to be more precise, South Indian filter coffee, which for those who know, is the shit).
something kind of like this: http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-Express-3-Cup-Stovetop-Percolator/dp/B0000CF3Q6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1267136135&sr=8-1
brought it from home when I came to Berkeley. Also, I brought up some coffee from Madras which my parents by (by the suitcaseful!) every time we go to India
this was established yesterday, as I am on the council of the same Indian club Rishi was (and started?)
We need a CGB South Asian roll call…. Let’s see, we have:
Avinash
me
HolmoePhobe
royrules
Rishi
boomtho
…am I missing anyone?
Harsha
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Haha, whoops. I meant to put Harsha’s name 2 lines higher. But I guess he can be slightly segregated for bruinness.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:11 PM PST up reply actions
Against the Bruins? Guilty as charged. I have dated one once though, so I’m not completely bigoted. It’s more disapproval than prejudice, really. :)
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:52 PM PST up reply actions
carp
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Why, out of curiosity?
I only drink 1 cup a day max myself (though I might have tea as well), but I don’t think it’s such a big deal either way. Though, if you put cream and sugar in your coffee, then drinking a lot of it might not be the best thing for your health.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
I have high cholesterol for my size/weight (I’m 6’2 180 and pretty athletic but my cholesterol level was 200). Part of wider dietary changes I’m making for health reasons
Eat oatmeal for breakfast, it helps a bunch
Costs STILL assessed against Twist
by CALumbus Bear on Feb 25, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah I’m switching to that, along with fish oil tablets, this coffee thing, generally more whole-grain stuff. Hopefully it will help
What does coffee have to do with cholesterol?
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6242467
Gist: Filtered coffee is OK, but espresso or perc coffee may raise cholesterol levels
6 cups! You only drink 3. I’m sure there are probably other more important steps you should be taking.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 3:13 PM PST up reply actions
if you like eggs, try the yoke free version. Sure, it’s a little weird to pour your eggs out of milk carton, but it is very high in protein, very low in calories, fat, and cholesterol.
Stay the hell away from crustaceans (shrimp, lobster, crab, etc). Those babies are loaded with cholesterol.
Can u count the isoprene units?
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
You just have to tough through it. As you’re cutting down remember that tea and chocolate also have low levels of caffeine, and you’re probably going to have a couple days of headaches. But, with caffeine as opposed to cocaine, your body adjusts quickly,
Did I go through this? Yes, I currently have to limit my caffeine intake to no more than one cup of coffee (equivalent) a day which gets tricky if I have 1/2 cup in the morning and then a soda and then loose track of alcohol substitutes.
Ragnarok: Great Man or Greatest Man?
My wife gave up coffee in the morning for our first, and she said that was the hardest part of being pregnant.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
I gave it up the first trimester, and then I relaxed to 1/2 cup/day for finals, and now that’s my bar. I usually only drink coffee once a week now, but considering all the other things I’ve given up, its nice to have a little taste of something special.
Ragnarok: Great Man or Greatest Man?
I refrained from a very inappropriate joke here. Be thankful, ma’am.
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 4:01 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah,
I think she was wasn’t quite as tight for our second, and she has turned out fine.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
You have a dirty mind, I did mean strict (although she’s always strict with me)
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Yeah, sorry. AndBears already had my mind going in an unseemly direction, and then your post popped up right below….
by atomsareenough on Feb 25, 2010 5:13 PM PST up reply actions
I’m trying to cut back, too. I think it upsets my pooper.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
yeah, I got a little GI thing going on, and I don’t think it helped that I porked down six-ish cups of coffee (black – just how I like my men).
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Oakland: Tax the poor, warn the rich.
The People vs. Carp will meet soon to discuss an (allegeldy) altered parking pass, which involves a fine that is 6 times the amount of someone who doesn’t use a pass at all.
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Goodbye Bob Gregory. I am soooooo 6 dimensional now!
by Fire Starkey on Feb 25, 2010 3:03 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
That’s hilarious.
This Simon Edhouse guy has an old Twitter page that details some of the back story of the incident. So yeah, it’s real.
Check that. He claims that it's a fraud...
BUT he’s a real guy. I mean, how else would he have a twitter account, am I right?
YO to finally act like a reporter
http://www.ibabuzz.com/beartalk/2010/02/25/football-an-introduction-to-pendergast/
"We lose to Stanford in many sports, but if you want to make a Cal team quit, bring a weapon."
--Coach Clark
Well, I must say I genuinely did not expect the firestorm this post created.
I suppose it’s fitting, though, given the county.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
The firestorm
Came from Kencraw’s post, not yours. But I’m not surprised his post created this somewhat one sided discussion.
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Yeah after a vey long day, I was really excited to see you had written the DBD. Then really liked the DBD (great job dude!), then scrolled down to be entertained by the inanity that was sure to unfold and … hooooooooly gay marriage batman… i came away from some parts of the discussion bothered and sad. But no mind, I really enjoyed your photo essay! :) Cheers CGB, I’ll try again tomorrow. XO!
Clearly, Superman never made it to the Olympics.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Yo dawg, heard u like to drive so we put a car in your car so you can drive while you drive.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 11:05 PM PST up reply actions
I thought the thread needed some cuteness
Norcalnick's chick. Go Bears!
by aee07 on Feb 25, 2010 4:28 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
Yikes
I just got the free tixs, Sec 13, row 22, oh well I guess just being there is the important thing
Am I known as Cugel the Clever for nothing?
Nathan Hughes, DE (Klein, TX)
(via scout.com)
6’6" – 245
4.8 40
Offers: Arkansas, Baylor, Cal, Colorado, Houston, LSU, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Okie St., Oregon, Stanford, TCU and Texas Tech.
Interested in: LSU, Oklahoma and Texas.
Prep: As a sophomore 83 tackles, 17 tackles for loss, 6 sacks and 2 forced fumbles in 10 games. As a junior 86 tackles, 11 sacks and 2 forced fumbles.
Analysis: Hughes has an amazing frame for a high school kid. He has a great work ethic and motor, which is essential at the DE position. He does a great job getting off blocks, even though he was often double and even triple teamed. He also utilizes his hands very well, and does not let blockers get into his body. Nathan does a great job against the run, and because the teams in his league are primarily running teams, it’s hard to gauge where he is as a pass rusher. Hughes needs to work on his initial burst and his speed, but he will be a beast at the next level.
[WBB] Chairese Culberson, SF (Berkeley, CA)
No. 26 junior Chairese Culberson has an early top three
Chairese Culberson, the 6-foot wing prospect from Berkeley High School (Calif.) has an early list of leaders in her recruitment. According to her Cal Ballaz club team coach Leroy Hurt, California, Washington and UC-Santa Barbara are in the mix currently. She is the No. 26 ranked prospect in the 2011 class according to ESPN HoopGurlz.
Hey Spazzy: Next time you do a DBD, be sure to talk about abortion, will ya?
Snobby Chick - Senior Division
Thanks. I realize (and have talked to the writers) about this and I know I toe a fine line between “Cal related content” and “Spazzys travel blog lulz look at me.” Knowing that people find it interesting makes me feel better about that.
HYDROTECH FOR DC
by Spazzy Mcgee on Feb 25, 2010 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
The summer series of better know a county was one of my favorite things this summer. Please keep on the road!
Hi
Welcome to CGB. Please feel free to jump in on any conversation at any time. We are a welcoming people and would love to have you here. I hope you enjoy your time here!
7
hmm
this is a strange kind of hazing… I’m still carrying this brick around. But I’m almost done making my pledge paddle.
Giants pitching coach Dave Righetti. "I treat Timmy differently from most pitchers: I leave him alone."
Bengie Molina: "I don't understand why they didn't want to commit to another year, with my numbers and my experience and things like that." Brain Sabean: "He's certainly welcomed back with open arms".
carp (paraphrased): "117 elements, and still no Stanfurdium"
by natteringnabob on Feb 26, 2010 9:32 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
