Okay, people!

[silveradept]

This is where things get... fun? Nah. Nothing important in my daily diet of insanity. Reading more books for Sci-fi... got a sneaking suspicion that things are about to get hectic.

In the parts of speech meme, I’m a preposition. Yay me.

Oh, well. I have to give torakiyoshi credit for pointing this gem out to me. Helps me to understand some of the fuzzy bits in others, and confirms my suspicion that the community includes feathers and scales, as well as some creatures that are generally considered mythical. And it's a well-written piece, too. Recommended for anybody who has inklings that they or someone else may have some of the fur in them.

Okay, now, time for the abrupt shift. The following material is me venting heat about potentially many things all at once. If you're not inclined to see the ire, then stop now.

Still with me? Good, let's begin.

What the hell is all the fuss about when it comes to two people of the same sex marrying? Perhaps recent experience taints me, but I just do not see why every politician and their successor suddenly decides that they want to put a gay marriage ban into place, or at least to "define marriage as existing only between one man and one woman." The increase in articles and proclamations is alarming. Are these people following Bush's endorsements, or is there some untapped reserve of fervor that comes to light with this? What's better, others, in defiance to that, have started issuing marriage licenses and officiating ceremonies. (By the way, for those interested in Washington trips, Seattle I believe has joined the list of those issuing. Not so far a detour.) My mother's right in saying that trying to force the issue only means that we'll still be contesting it many years down the road.

Yeargh. If two people want the benefits of being joined, they really should get it. If there are clerics who want to officiate something like that and give it their blessing, call it marriage and get on with it! (To be honest, I'm not sure what to do about civil officials. If they want to call it marriage, and the license says so, so be it. If they want it to be a "civil union", then I hope that they eventually realize the semantic war is pointless and call it marriage anyway, but for the moment, I'll accept them so long as they aren't really substantively different from all the benefits gained from marrying.)

Howard Stern should not be pulled from the airwaves so long as contemporary music continues to sing and espouse the things that Stern talks about. So either do a wholesale cleanup (which would eliminate a large portion of the rap market, I'll admit) of the airwaves, or put Stern back on. If you don't like him, have him get yanked for poor ratings, not for content.

France is now a hotspot to watch. We'll see if the religious symbols ban sticks past its probationary year. I understand the position of those who want to keep schools secular places, but I think that education in religion (not necessary religious education) is a key component to turning out a properly-equipped student. So the void created by banning conspicuous religious symbols needs to be filled with some means of allowing students to ask questions about people of other faiths. I'm waiting for the first pentagram to appear, honestly, and to see what happens with it.

Speaking of religious people, I can't say I have a fondness for street preachers. One of my likely more cynical sides says that it's not economic - the investiture of time compared to the results can't be worth it. Now, for those who consider it some labor of faith will gladly put in the time for no return at all. This I realize. However, I find more meaning and example of what faiths believe in by observing the people who profess to them (which, of course, generally makes me envious of people who have a strong commitment to a faith that they live, not just preach.) and by studying the teachings given, as much as possible without someone else's view trying to cloud things.

Whatever happened to voting ideologically? If the Democratic candidate was chosen because of his potential to beat Bush in an election, that says nothing about his stances on issues! In theory, everyone should be voting for the candidate that most agrees with their viewpoint, not because they think he has enough appeal to get elected. I'm no fan of Bush, but if the other turns out to be no better, then my vote must reside with another candidate. "Go ahead... waste your vote!" Or worse, "If you don't vote for our Candidate, you're voting for Bush." Sigh. It really is a popularity contest, isn't it? I thought we had gotten beyond those by the time we got out of high school.

Why are music programs the first to go? Generally, they're one of the most important things in an education... a sound appreciation for the Art is a necessity for a good education in my opinion. But because the standardized tests don't teach music, the administration is indifferent or hostile (in my high school's case) towards the program. The tests aren't the end, only a means, and a poor one at that. Stop teaching to the tests, and start educating the kids!

I think that’s all the frustrations that I have right now. There may be more later, but feel free to take offense or write comments to any of them. It's a real grab bag... and I think with all that vituperation spat out, I can go to bed.

Comments

[torakiyoshi.livejournal.com]

Cathartic, isn't it?

And why didn't you steal the meme I posted (http://www.livejournal.com/users/torakiyoshi/356251.html), too?! It was so good! ;)

-=TK

[silveradept]

I didn't feel like stealing that meme. I'd make one of my own.

[unspeakablevorn.livejournal.com]

Your stance on voting is largely correct, however it does ignore the current state of the voting system in the United States.

The problem with voting with only ideology in mind is that if you do vote for a third party in the current system, you are indeed essentially taking away your vote from the party you would have voted for if there were only the two major parties. In short: the minor parties really do not have a chance of winning, but a vote for them does not count at all toward parties that are ideologically similar.

This is part of the reason why Lincoln won in 1860: the Democrats were divided into two parties, and neither got enough votes to defeat Lincoln - despite the fact that Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in many Southern states. A similar thing happened in the 2000 election - more than a dozen states were closely enough contested that Ralph Nader alone got more votes than the difference between Al Gore and George Bush, including two states (Florida being one) with enough electoral votes to make Gore win the presidency had he won them.

America's election system does not reward voting for a minor ideology. There are, however, voting systems that do - an important one is condorcet voting, wherein each voter ranks each candidate according to his preference and then the candidates are ranked according to the collective rankings of everyone.

Vorn

[silveradept]

Well, I would hope that the parties in our system are ideologically different enough that voting for one or the other makes a definite statement. This may not be true, as far as I know.

I would like to see something more like condorcet voting, and not just because it would force people to become more involved in their politics. It would allow for people to vote ideologically and not be accused of screwing things up. Can we get some ballot initiatives to change the ballot?