Friday, November 7, 2008
Well, the monkeys are shooting the directed-energy weapons at me as I write. The new thing now is to target the left
side of my brain instead of the suffocation. To me it's all the same crap. Shame on them. (If you don't know what I'm talking
about, please see the Activism page.)
Other than the never-ending directed energy monkey poo flicking, things have been pretty good. As always, life is hard
and I still sleep in my van to mitigate what the monkeys do. But I have pretty much accepted this as the normal way of things
for me. Maybe some day these mafia monkeys (or CIA, or whoever they really are) will be stopped. Until then, I persevere.
They must be desperate because there have been more monkeys making "mafia hit signs" at me with the nasty faces. One monkey
(somehow a human being, that is) scowled at me and made the sign while I was walking out of the bank. I don't mind because
they're just showing the world what they really are.
Recollections
Some more random recollections that may be pertinent. I remembered recently that when I was in China I saw one man fussing
with some device in the trunk of his car. The trunk was open and I got a quick look at what he had in there; the interesting
thing that caught my eye was that he was scowling at me, as if I wasn't supposed to see what he had there. It sort of looked
like one of those metal detectors with the V-shape at the bottom; but if this is somehow related to what they do, I don't know.
He could have just been one of the those who like to scowl at me, and the device in his trunk may not be pertinent; I really
don't know. I thought I'd just mention it for the record.
As an interesting side note, today I saw a Chinese woman who purposely shined her bright lights at me (she was in her car).
This is nothing new for the perpetrators, but what's different is it almost never a woman, and especially never ever a middle-aged
Chinese woman. I was very surprised to see this, and wondered if China's goverment wasn't working in tandem with corrupt elements
of our own government in order to attack and intimidate me. I am not intimidated. I would no more take down my website to appease
corrupt elements of the Chinese government than I would to appease corrupt elements of America's government.
Defenses
I've mentioned this previously, but I've verified it empirically now several times and it really seems to be true: They can
visualize me in the van *better* when the temperature of everything around me (including the van) is cold. The juxtaposition
of my warm body against cold everything else is ideal for them to visualize me with their through-the-walls crap. So
for those looking to defend themselves: Try to keep a warm temperature in the van (or whatever you sleep in) so that your body's
heat signature blends in more with the surroundings.
Comfort
I was just thinking that despite everything these people do to me, I am comforted by the following thought: The fact that any
resources--including manpower and weapons, vehicles, etc.--they use against me cannot be used simultaneously against
someone else. I like to think that over the years I may have saved other innocent young men and women from harm simply
by virtue of the fact that a person, or weapon, or aircraft cannot be in two places at the same time, and no matter how deep
their pockets are, no organization has infinite resources. No one should have to go through what I have gone through in
this life (and continue to endure) and it is of comfort to me to know that by their attacking me, they cannot attack other
innocent people with the same resources.
Friday, November 7, 2008
A Sea Change, but the Sea is Choppy
The election is over and we have our nation's first Black president, Barack Obama. I never thought I'd live
to see the day of either a black president or a female president, so I am elated. I join millions of others in tendering
the highest of hopes for this intelligent, capable man.
But at the same time, like many other Californians I am disappointed in the outcome of Measure 8: Somehow, someway,
this abomination of an idea passed. Honestly, I never thought it had a chance; if I did, I would have campaigned harder
against it, and now I regret that I did not.
I have listened intently to the news, read newspapers and online blogs and articles, and after reading the opinions of
many proponents of Measure 8, I can honestly they don't have a single compelling argument among them. There is absolute
no logical, justifiable reason for passing Measure 8. For those just tuning in, here is the text of Measure 8:
Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The majority of proponents of Measure 8 say that adding this notion to California's Constitution will protect the "sanctity"
of marriage and the family. The following table illustrates how well Measure 8 preserves the sanctity of marriage:
| Marriage Applicants | Legality of Marriage |
| A rich, horny 85-year-old man and an enterprising 18-year-old woman | Okay! |
| A violent, alcoholic man and a drug-addicted woman. Any child they have will be addicted to crack (in the womb)
and beaten into a lumpy purple eggplant by the husband. | No problem! |
| A young male executive marrying the boss's daughter not out of love but to climb the corporate ladder. He will neglect his
children and screw his secretary on a regular basis. | Hunky dory! | |
| Two drunk, stoned strangers (one male, one female) who meet at a bar in Vegas and will wake up the next morning
and have the marriage annulled | Peachy keen! |
| Two underworld gangsters (one male, one female), planning to expand their criminal clan | Can do! |
| Any of the approximately 50-75% of male-female couples in California whose marriages will ultimately end in divorce | Just fine! |
| One law-abiding, taxpaying man in love with another law-abiding, taxpaying man | NO WAY! |
| One law-abiding, taxpaying woman in love with another law-abiding, taxpaying woman | ABSOLUTELY NOT! |
Also at issue is what is meant by the terms "man" and "woman". It seems to me that the following would be
allowed under Measure 8:
| One man, and one woman who used to be a man (and had a sex change) |
| One woman, and one man who used to be a woman (and had a sex change) |
Would proponents of Measure 8 really be OK with the above? If so, then it seems the only thing they care about is that one parent
has male genitalia and the other one has female. Does this variety in genitalia really ensure a good, wholesome marriage? Or is a
good marriage based on something else?
Some proponents of Measure 8 cited the "longevity" or "tradition" of male-female marriages as a justification for excluding others. One
proponent interviewed by the Los Angeles Times said the following: "Go to any country, any place in the world. Marriage between a man and
a woman has been a part of our being clear back to the days of early time." Well, for that matter, so has slavery, which dates not only to the
colonial days of America but back at least as far as the time before Christ when Jews were enslaved in the deserts of Egypt. Perhaps we should
amend the California Constitution to allow slavery, too.
Then there is the Biblical argument. The Bible says marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore proponents say that's how
it must be. Put aside for a moment the very compelling argument of separation of church and state as codified in the First Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States. Shall we follow the Bible to the letter? The Bible also says we should stone evildoers until they die (Deuteronomy,
Chapter 17:2-3, 5). Shall we stop lethal injection and bring out the stones? What sort of stones should we choose--broad, flat ones or sharp,
pointy ones? How much blood should the evildoer bleed before we can know for sure he/she is dead? Should we aim to bash his/her skull in, or should
we take out the evil one's kneecaps first?
The truth is, there is no cogent argument for Measure 8. And proponents of Measure 8 need to know that whether or not gays are allowed to marry,
gay couples will still get together, and gay couples will still have children (either biologically or through adoption). If your child goes to school
with another child who is the son or daughter of a gay couple, you will still have to explain to your child why his/her friend has two Mommies
or two Daddies. Measure 8 doesn't outlaw gay people or their children, and you can try to cocoon yourself and your children away, but unless you live
on the moon you will eventually have to face the realities of the real world in which not every person thinks like you, dresses like you or has
the same sexual orientation you do.
The biggest losers of Measure 8 are the children of gay couples who, though they may be loved and well tended to by their two Moms or Dads, must
now face the stigma of being labeled a "bastard" or "illegitmate child" because society won't let their parents marry. What a shame.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
On the Verge of the Vote
Election time is two days away. If you haven't thought about the candidates or particularly the issues, now is the
time to break out the voting pamphlet and sample ballot. I find that the voting process is much more comfortable and enjoyable
when I know ahead of time exactly how I'm going to vote. I think perhaps that "voting frustration" is experienced most often
by those who only make up their minds when they're actually in the polling booth. You know who you are!
Don't get me wrong: I'm not knocking you. I used to be you! But you'll find it doesn't really take you
that long to carefully consider all the measures and candidates. I usually read the pamphlet and and then mark up the
sample ballot. You can take your marked sample ballot with you right into the polling booth. It makes the experience a
quick and easy one.
Sink the 8-Ball
Just say NO to Measure 8! This measure just goes to show that bigotry is still alive and well in 2008.
How shameful that the proponents of this measure were even able to get enough signatures on a petition to put it on the
ballot in the first place. This measure discriminates against gays. I myself am not gay but
I know oppression when I see it. This measure is just plain wrong, in so many ways.
For those castaways just returning from an uncharted island, Measure 8 aims to amend California's constitution
in order to redefine marriage as being between only a man and a woman. The main question I have is, Why? Is it
to preserve the "sanctity of marriage"? If so, then whose definition of "sanctity"? The Bible's? Because in the United States
of America we have a little thing called separation of church and state that forbids legislating religion. It's called
the First Amendment of the great Constitution of the United States of America. Let me quote it for you now:
Right of Religion and Expression (1791). Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Obviously the first clause is the salient one here. Legislating religious beliefs violates the highest law of the land, the Constitution
of the United States of America. So to argue that "the Bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman" or that man-woman marriage
is inline with Judeo-Christian (religious) beliefs is completes bogus here. We are talking about the law here, about California's
constitution, and religion has no place here.
So what reasonable argument exists for doing what Measure 8 advocates? The answer is, none at all. I understand
that some Californians are religious people and disapprove of the gay lifestyle. They are certainly entitled to their opinions but
they should not be allowed to enact their religious beliefs as law. A vote for Measure 8 is a vote to oppress a category of people
because of their sexual orientation. This is as un-American as it gets.
Another "argument" I have heard is that, well, gays can have civil unions while marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.
This smacks of the "separate but equal" discrimination against blacks in the 1950's. Let's not go down this road again. Law-abiding, gay California
citizens are entitled to all the state protections and benefits that any other California citizens are. We are not talking about marriage
in its religious connotation; no church of any denomination will be required to marry two gays. We are talking about marriage as a
civic institution, one that comes with certain right and benefits (such as tax-related benefits) as well as responsibilities. Gay couples
are already living together, paying taxes and raising children. It is completely un-American to deny them the right to marry. That is their
right, if they so choose.
Do the right thing and vote NO on 8.
|
