I read this at my sister's wedding. It was a christian wedding, with my grandfather (a Lutheran minister) helping with the presiding.

My parents read it at my brother's wedding, which was an extremely secular wedding where the wedding party was holding beer during the important bits of the ceremony.

1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.

4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I am not, by an large, a religious man. I grew up in a Christian household, where we were exposed to fairly strong Christian beliefs, but my parents, despite their imperfections, believed in letting us think and decide for ourselves what our beliefs were. In time, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing that forces or requires my belief in any god.

However, I do accept and belive in love, and this passage provides a very strong understanding of it. Ultimately, love is positive. It looks at people, seeks the best in them, and rejoices in that.

Marriage is about love. It is about two people asking (and hopefully receiving) a recognition of their love for each-other. If not in a theological sense, then at least in a legal one.

I cannot in any way understand how removing the ability for two people to marry is anything but the antithesis of love.

Proposition 8 is the opposite of love. It is nothing but hate. You cannot protect an insitution of love by removing it from a set of people. It is not possible, and it is not worthy of respect.

To close with another wise passage:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In a fashion, marriage is the ultimate pursuit of happiness.

This is me, after a rum'n'Dr Pepper because Obama's the next president of the United States of America:


I don't put much stock into patriotism or nationalism. By and large, we as humans cannot choose our nationality, and defining our identity due to accidents of birth does not make much sense to me. However, Obama delivered his speech tonight as he has delivered the entire campaign: with a message of hope, a promise of execution, and the demeanor of a leader.

I am proud of what America has done tonight. It is not something that came about as an accident of people rising up, but because of the tireless effort of hundreds of thousands to get the message out that this man, in this time, can lead the most powerful nation on Earth to bigger and better things. It remains to be seen whether or not he will deliver, but right now, I believe that he can.

Yesterday, I spoke with my father on the phone and he expressed his doubts about Obama's ability to help the U.S. in this time of great trouble. I can understand that. I have doubts as well. Obama's going to face some especially trying times to guide us out of this crisis. I cast my vote for him because he had presented the best argument and logic to get us out of this, and by extension the rest of the world, too. It will not be easy, it will not be fast, but as a number of his predecessors, I do believe he can and will rise to the occasion.

Franklin Roosevelt was elected in the most trying event of the 20th century and was re-elected twice based on his ability to handle the problems that he faced so well. It's arguable that he could have been re-elected a third time had he survived.

Abraham Lincoln faced what cannot be understated as the most trying crisis a country could ever face and came through as one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen. He was re-elected once and, much like Roosevelt, he probably would have gone much further had he survived.

Barack Obama can join these great men. The challenges are hard, but he's not one to shrink from the challenge or push off the duty. He can be a great president, and I believe that he will be.

Yes, we did... because YES, we can.

First, taken from karenhealey:
On the theory that we could all use a hearty dose of positive energy and general warm fuzziness while we wait, none too patiently, for better times; that *no* one I know is getting told often enough what a good job they are doing just getting through this crazy, lovely world. Take a second, and mention something you like about me (if such a thing exists) in the comments. Then repost this to your own journal, and have some goodness for yourself.

I'm pretty sure that Ive been far more engaged in this election than any other. The presidential race has by far gotten the most newsplay (as usual), but what it's mostly done is bring to light the problems I have with the American political system.

I still dislike the primaries. I dislike the electoral college. I'd much prefer an instant run-off election without any primaries. I'd prefer a popular vote.

Moreso than that, I hate the voter registration and subsequent voter caging tactics that are engaged in. I hate that campaigns feel that they need to pressure votes to vote or not to vote.

Registration should be automatic: if you're a citizen and 18 years old, you're registered to vote. (One state does this.)

Voting should be automatically absentee and thus effectively compulsory. Lacking that, election day needs to be a national holiday. Stop the schools. Stop the working. Give people a chance to get out and vote.

And voting methods needs to be balanced across the states. The fact that they're not even always consist WITHIN a given state means that problems like what happened in Florida in 2k and are even happening now in North Carolina and could likely happen elsewhere over the next week.

It's a travesty that all votes are not created equal, at least on the presidential level. But all politics are local politics. So besides the big races, I've taken a lot of time to look at the city and state measures.

City-side, it reflects a liberal atmosphere and I think I'm for just about all of the measures.

State-wide, there's a couple bonds, a couple energy measures and a few regarding crime. While I don't want to say that anything there is unimportant, there's a sense of sameness to many of the twelve measures. And as cool as I think high speed rail is, I can't say that if 1A doesn't pass I'll be too broken up.

That said, there's two very important measures. Prop 8 is the one that's getting most of the airplay, and it's a reprehensible piece of legislation. On a personal level, I don't think that marriage should be legally defined at all, so in that sense I'm against it. But since it's really a measure about adding a separation of rights between people.

But Prop 8 is actually the lesser of two problems. It's bad, but it's not nearly as bad as Prop 4, which is a very real step in the march to take away rights from women. Every time I try to sit down and write out a concise argument against Prop 4, I find that I'm consumed by anger such that it becomes difficult to think.

If you're an American, go vote next week. Take some time off work (or school), and wait in the line if you need to, but go through with it, regardless of the weather or whatnot. It's a right and a choice that shouldn't be squandered. As much as you might think your vote doesn't matter, it does... especially on the local level.

Otherwise if you see a bunch of things that limit our rights and take away our freedoms pass... you can wonder what might have happened had you gone out to the booth

I've been giving a lot of thought to the bailout today. This morning I felt sick to my stomach at the thought. This isn't too suprising, because $700,000,000,000 (or more) is a lot of money. I have a hobby of examining insanely big numbers in the theatrical movie industry. This is a couple orders of magnitude greater. It's a bit greater than I can comprehend and the thought of it being used badly really gets to me.

After it failed, I felt relief. All that I've been reading indicates that this is a bad plan, and it'd likely cripple the US Gov't for a number of years while those who caused the problem would get away so they could do it all again.

And now, hours later after I've had more time to think I'm starting to feel anger, possibly bordering on rage. This isn't just a bad plan, it's a terrible plan. The money would be controlled by a few individuals, the oversight is beyond ridiculous, and the limitations imposed on the companies and individuals who caused the mess is beyond pathetic.

Yes, it's a terrible problem, a financial crisis that's bigger than any that most of us have seen in our lives. However, it's a crisis that will go away and can be solved by reasoned, considered thinking. This or any kneejerk bill isn't going to help, and could make it all worse.

My understanding isn't absolute, but I'm going to try and break down what I have gleamed and then make alternative suggestions.

Let's start with the ideological stuff. This isn't anything that would make or break the bank in either direction, but it matters a hell of a lot from a message standpoint. In the general public we understand that there are a relatively small group of people who can be held responsible due to their influence as executives in the companies who are facing problems.

There are two provisions in the bill which seek to limit what these people can get. The first is in direct pay (essentially penalizing companies who pay execs more than $500k) and the second is in the 'golden parachutes'. I'm all in favor of limiting exec pay. Except half a million is ridiculously high. In fact, I'd guess that it's going to be higher than some of these people already get. Plus, they're penalized, but not prohibited from giving higher pay. If I'm to understand how that'll work, company that's in the shitter will sell off a bunch of bad loans to the federal government and then... have to cover some additional fine if they pay their execs too much, thereby giving some miniscule amount of that money back? Seems kinda weak.

And as far as the parachutes, the limitations (unknown to me what those are at this time) only apply to new contracts. Any existing employment agreements already apply. That means if an exec is due $10m or whatever if he's fired... he still gets the $10m.

So how would I correct that? Two provisions: first, execs cannot be paid more than the median household income in the United States. That's a hard limit. Currently it's about $50k a year. They won't be significantly disadvantaged, since they can still reap the stock options the company may give. And that way their financial solvency is tied to how well they do their jobs: i.e. making sure the companies get out of the shitter and back on track.

Second, All existing parachutes are suspended. Any future ones are limited to the equivilant of one year of the exec's salary. Harsh, I know. It'd be bloody difficult for me to find a new job after getting a $50k severance package. I don't know what I'd do.

Next is who gets to decide how the funds are disbursed and how oversight into this happens. As the bill was proposed, the treasury secretary (Paulson, in this case), is given complete authority to do with the money as he sees fit. Oversight consists of five people, one of whom is Paulson.

Umm... right. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't want to give an appointed individual the keys to the kingdom. In fact, I'm not even sure I'd trust it to elected officials. I'd much prefer a system that can run itself automatically. Instead of having the judgement left to those who are giving the money, I'll leave it to those who are taking it.

Let the companies who have the bad loans decide if they want to sell them to the government. If they decide to do so, they MUST comply with a number of regulations, including those listed above. Said regulations would apply to any company acquired by or that acquires any company that chooses to comply (so they don't have a loophole of shuffling the companies around after the money's been given. Once they buy in, they must play by the rules.)

This gives the companies the choice: They can try to deal with the problem by themselves, or they can take the easy money. I'm really quite curious what those execs would choose between the strong personal financial stance in a company saddled with debt and shitty stock or one where they need to take a massive pay cut but that'll be doing much better. Risk reward system, and all.

And finally, we need to understand how the debt will be recovered. Under the current plan, this is... apparently magical. There's some hope that at some point things will be better and the government can recoup the debt. And after five years, congress can give suggestions on how to do that.

That's really kinda weak, really. So instead, all stock transactions get taxed .25%. I'm led to believe that this will generate about $150bn a year. Second, any company that chooses to receive the disbursement will be taxed an additional .25%. This latter would be removed once the debt is paid off. Effectively, this would throw the entire cost of the recovery in the hands of those who engaged in the problem and those of us who don't engage in stock trading (which is separate from stock owning) wouldn't be inconvenienced. The long term investments such as retirement accounts and so forth should be fine, since unless there's a catastrophic crash, the market will recover and they'll be good... and if there is such a crash it won't matter regardless.

And that's it, really. Writing this up (and making dinner in the middle) used up a lot of anger. I doubt it's an entirely useful plan, but it seems a damn sight better than anything that's been brought up so far.

9/11 was like getting popped in the nose.

Katrina was like shitting your pants in the middle of the school dance.

We have seen a marked difference in the official reaction to each. 9/11 was short, violent, and active. It provided an easy response and target. It was boom! done and over, and we could react.

Action.

Katrina hit hard and moved on. It was bad, but it could have been worse, right? Right? You could take a bit of time to get things rolling. Besides, there was nothing to strike back at. Could you feel it? Could you sense that "Oh, shit, we really fucked this one up?" sense from the Powers that Be as they were thinking VERY LOUDLY, "Please, don't look at me. I'm going to go to the bathroom to clean myself up. I'll come out when everyone's gone home."

Inaction.

The United States works very well when there's something to hit. Terrorism? Sure, we'll kick Osama's ass from here to kingdom come. WMDs? Say hello to Shock and Awe, suckers! Drugs? Zero tolerance! Knock the motherfuckers down and THEN they'll think twice! Time and again, year after year, when it comes to a problem, the US response is to hit hard. It's nasty, brutish, and short, but it works... sorta.

This time there isn't anything to strike back at. Mother nature isn't a target we can declare war on. Time and again, the belief has been hammered home to American children that we have conquered nature. That FINALLY, we have achieved what God commanded us to do:

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." - Genesis 1:28

It's bullshit. We do not now, nor have we ever, controlled nature. We have just been very lucky. What's sadly ironic is that we have not learned our lesson for hurricanes. We get hit by something like three major hurricanes every five years. We got hit by one deadly earthquake (SF 1906), and our entire architectual focus is on making sure something like that doesn't happen again. The hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas in 1900 killed over twice as many who died in SF, AND we get more than one major hurricane every two years, but what do we do?

We cut the funding to defense we have. We exacerbate the problem of global warming, which gives hurricanes their energy. We ignore critical reports which cite the three worst crisis our country might face in the near future, two of which have now happened since the report was delivered. (I pray for San Francisco.)

Luck favors the prepared. We have BEEN lucky, but we were not prepared, and our luck ran out, big time.


I haven't been feeling very emotional about this, but when I had to fill up gas this morning, I pulled into a gas station that I knew had slightly better prices than anywhere else around here. I looked up at the sign and almost started crying.

"Oh, thank God," I thought as I pulled out my credit card. "It's still only $2.69."


9/11 changed the face of politics in our country. Katrina could very well cripple it.