Right.

I’m only writing this blurb because I’m procrastinating studying for a physics final that is in 10 hours. That I haven’t started studying for. YAYFACE!!!!

We’ll be back shortly, in the meantime, please study hard for physics and come take my final for me! =)

Love and some CHOICE verses,

Jinx the pile

In the words of Todd Dwyer,

Finally, the end of 8 years of fascism in this country — an end to two stolen elections — a new beginning for democracy and renewed hope and for an American reunion in these United States. America has been liberated from the dictatorial rule of the imbeciles who ruined this country.

Now that all the election dust has settled down, what did you think? Did you have a crazy good time on Tuesday night when Obama was announced as the winner? Did you flip out at Californians for the proposition results? Did you yell out your window at innocent passersby? Did you get ridiculously drunk and don’t remember most of the night?

Some election highlights:
President/VP – Barack Obama/Joe Biden (D)
Prop 4 – not passed
Prop 8 – passed
House – held by Democrats
Senate – held by Democrats

Two weekends ago, my dad took me to Santa Clara’s voting office or whatever it’s called so I could vote early. Since I didn’t know much about most of the propositions and people running for local offices, my dad offered me his cheat sheet (aka his ballot, his opinions, and my mom’s instructions for local government positions). It was actually really cool sitting in the car discussing propositions with my dad; the car ride was extra long because he thought I needed ID but I left mine in my dorm because I thought I didn’t need it (turns out I didn’t), so we drove home and added 30 minutes round trip. XD

Of course, I’ve heard plenty on certain propositions at school, especially 4 and 8. What resulted was a really interesting discussion with my dad, where he just kept throwing thoughts and possibilities at me, but in the end let me make my own decision. I ended up voting roughly as follows:

1A – No. Based on my dad’s argument that with the economy in recession, we shouldn’t be borrowing money from the future.

2 – Yes. What’s it to me to pay a little extra for the expensive food? Personally I think the arguments that we’ll be importing from Mexico are ridiculous. I think I will purposely buy California produce, and so much of the country relies on us that I think there won’t be a choice.

3 – No. Again, because bonds are just a way to borrow money from the future.

4 – No. My roommate justified a no vote to me pretty well, plus my discussion with my dad made me think about the supposed consequences and actual consequences if it passed.

5 – I don’t remember how I voted on this one. I might’ve left it blank because I didn’t understand it.

6 – No. Again, because it’ll cost the state money that it doesn’t have. Basically, no matter how good an idea something is, the reality remains that we have to prioritize when we don’t have money. You should care less about whether your food is organic or not when you’re starving to death.

7 – Yes. Even though this costs the state money, I went for yes on this one because I believe the reliance on foreign oil, and on oil in general, is something that has to change. Plus, I might possibly end up in alternative energy research, so having money would be nice.

8 – No. Hell no. Does the phrase “Jim Crow Laws” ring a bell?

9 – I think I voted no, again because it costs the state more, albeit indirectly. Notifying victims –> fewer paroles –> more prisoners left in prison –> more money to maintain prisons.

10 – No. Not only is this about bonds, I also believe that the initiative to build alternative fuel cars needs to come from the car companies themselves. Current car companies need to realize the need to change their direction, and the pressure for that should come from us, the consumers. We live in a free-market economy (theoretically), so let that work itself out.

11 – Holy shit yes. Screw you gerrymandering politicians.

12 – No. Because of bonds, again.

I am proud to be a voting American.

You’re walking down a street and you see a middle-aged woman collapse about 300 feet away, at the crosswalk up ahead. You are a trained and certified EMT (Emergency Medical Technician) and know what you can do to help her. However, you are off duty and are not under the liability umbrella of the medical director at the hospital where you work. Legally, you are not bound to help this woman, but what about ethically?

Analyze this situation from an ethical standpoint. Remember that you might be charged with assault/manslaughter if anything happens to the patient. Hell, she might even press sexual harassment charges!? (Don’t say we didn’t warn you, Count Mein…) You might do something that you thought was right, but ended up hurting her more. She might have a DNR order (“Do Not Recuscitate”) that you’re violating. A lot of things could go wrong, but a lot of things could go right. So what should you do?

For those who never learned or don’t remember Ethical Decision-Making from Mr. Jason Friend, read on…

The major schools of ethical thought are as follows:

• Utilitarianism: what’s best for the greatest number of people is the right thing (as Dwyer says, “It is the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people that is the true judge of what is morally right and wrong.”)
• Moral Rights: everyone is born with unalienable rights that cannot be taken away under any circumstances, nor by any government or law. Arguably most important of these is the right to choose for oneself, closely followed by the right to life and the right to know the truth.
• Justice Ethics: addresses fairness in distribution (who gets treated how and who gets what), retribution (who gets punished and how/how much), compensation (if you get treated unfairly, do you get something in return and what/how much do you get).
• Categorical Imperative: if everyone did this action in this kind of situation, would it be bad? For example, if everyone stuck their gum on the bottoms of desks, would it be bad? Yes. All the desks in the world would be stuck full of gum. (It’s like WWJD but WWTROTWD — what would the rest of the world do?)
• Golden Mean: the right thing to do lies in the middle path between two extremes. If an action/situation lies too far in one direction, one must do the extreme opposite to compensate and pull back into the middle (that’s a bit confusing, so just remember that it’s the middle path).

Not all of these are necessarily applicable to the subject at hand. Also, please excuse these very brief explanations that most definitely don’t do justice to the philosophers who originally wrote on these subjects.

For more reading/research: Utilitarianism (Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mills), Moral Rights (Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Paine), Justice Ethics (John Rawls… I think), Categorical Imperative (Immanuel Kant), Golden Mean (Aristotle)

I don’t know if you’ve been following the news as closely as I have, but it’s election day is on the horizon so if you didn’t know that Paris Hilton is running for president, you really should pay attention.

Here’s the quick backstory: John McCain created a campaign advertisement that compared Barack Obama to celebrities, such as Paris Hilton, and criticized his energy plan. So Paris puts on a leopard-print swimsuit and some flashy high heels, thanks the “white-haired guy” (McCain) for promoting her as a presidential candidate, and created a hybrid of the McCain and Obama energy plans that actually… might work.

Barack wants to focus on new technologies to cut foreign-oil dependency, and McCain wants offshore drilling. Well, why don’t we do a hybrid of both candidates’ ideas? We can do limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, while creating tax incentives to get Detroit making hybrid and electric cars. That way the offshore drilling carries us until the new technologies kick in, which will then create new jobs and energy independence. Energy crisis solved!!

Sure, the idea has some flaws that need to be ironed out, such as where the hell we’re going to get the money for offshore drilling and tax incentives (oh right, more taxes – my apologies for the cynicism), but it is a really interesting way to combine the ideas of both candidates. We’re already working on new technologies, such as hybrid/fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuel, but it still not cheap enough for everyone. Nobody wants to depend on foreign fuel, so offshore drilling with environmental oversight makes a lot of sense. I don’t really know enough about this topic or the current presidential debate to go too into detail about anything, but that’s just my quick opinion. And I mean hey, Paris gets a lot of airtime, especially with her new hit(?) reality show, “Paris is my new BFF” which my roommate and I get a riot out of whenever it’s on, so she obviously must be popular enough to hold her own in a presidential election! I support this idea, so I’m voting for her because this message is “totally hot.”

So actually, I should probably vote for the creators of funnyordie.com, who actually wrote the script. Hmm… Will Ferrell and Adam McKay leading the country? Well, we’d definitely be in for some HILARIOUS broadcasts! And who knows, I might actually start paying attention to politics!

Teeheehee >:3

A few of my thoughts:

Yes on Prop 1A: This is something I’ve been really excited to vote for since I heard about it over the summer. I’ll be the first to tell you that California’s public transportation system isn’t where it should be. In our area, most people drive because it is so much more convenient. However, with rising gas prices (well actually, they’ve fallen recently, but they’re still pretty high) and all the stories about how we’re destroying the planet with greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions, it really is time to find a solution that will revolutionize our transportation system. According to the informational website, expanding the train system will have the smallest environmental impact out of the three main forms of public transportation (trains, airports, and highways) as high-speed trains use 1/3 of the energy required for an airplane trip or 1/5 of the energy required for a car trip. The electrically-powered trains will save 12.7 million barrels of oil per year by the time it is financially self-sustaining in 2030, while decreasing air pollutants and reducing automobile accidents.

And besides, how cool would it be to get on a train in San Jose and get to Los Angeles in half the time it takes to travel from Boston to Troy? And if that sounds oddly specific, it’s because I’ve looked at that route before… multiple times =) If we just focus on the issue of convenience, taking a train will be so much more convenient than the entire process of booking a flight, getting to the airport two hours early to go through a tedious security process, baggage claim, and everything associated with that. Financially, while the flight will be about $97 for a 50 minute trip opposed to $51 for a 2 hours and 9 minute trip, the projected carbon dioxide saved per trip will be about 288 lbs. WOW. And if you’re not convinced, check out this spiffy website, complete with trippy animation!

This is something that is going to happen – it is inevitable, so why not start this project now? It will generate about 160,000 construction-related jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs, which will definitely boost the economy. And the best part – no new taxes. Supposedly =D

(All facts and figures from the CAHSR website)

No on Prop 2: So call me evil, but I stand on the side of voting NO on proposition 2. Prop 2 requires for more humane treatments of certain farm animals, such as the chance to stand up and spread their limbs for a set amount of hours per day, etc. I giggled when I read about that. While this leads to more humane treatments of animals, it will lead to a decrease in supply. And as we learned in our senior economics class, as supply goes down, demand goes up. And when demand increases, the cost will also increase. We are not all going to go vegetarian, so the demand for fresh eggs and meat will not decrease so California will have to turn to another method of meeting this demand, which will lead to importing from other states or across the Mexican border. Hmmm…

No on Prop 4: In my opinion, Prop 4 is heading in the right direction because it is trying to protect underage kids. However, Regina is completely right when she says that girls who are afraid to tell their parents will find more dangerous and illegal ways to get an abortion. This is really dangerous because while they can try and increase the use of protection, it is a fact that the government is not going to be able to do anything to keep minors from having sex. Underage pregnancies will continue to happen, and putting Prop 4 into effect will not protect minors in all cases. If they do not want to go to their parents, and physicians are required to notify the parents, there is no other option but to go to either a sketchy back alley clinic, or practice self-induced abortion. Coat hanger, anyone?

So effectively, Prop 4 will not force the kids to open up to their parents – it may actually drive them to do something dangerous. It’s a nice try in the right direction, but not the best solution.

No on Prop 8: Check out EW’s post here and the comment response by “Inculpatuspuer” because it really puts out a good argument that I 100% agree with. Don’t be intimidated by the length, it is a very very good read that I encourage everyone to look at before they vote if they’re on the fence.

Expanding on a point EW made on the idea of a “traditional marriage” being based on Christian beliefs – I saw “Religilous” when it came out a couple months ago, and one scene I remembered was a crowd protesting against same-sex marriage, holding signs along the lines of “GOD HATES GAYS.” Bill Maher went up and asked one of the protesters why they hated gay people, to which they responded” I don’t hate gays. But God does.” I’m not bashing on religion, as I believe that people can have their own opinions, but when religion becomes a basis for legislation, we need to take a step back and reanalyze the situation. In the end, what is marriage exactly? Are gays that are getting married really bothering anyone? Does it discredit the idea of a traditional marriage? Why are we so resistant to change? Divorce used to be unheard of and now look where we are today – people in some countries (like Portugal) can file for electronic divorces. America is in debt, the planet is dying, and our economy is in the (pardon my language) SHITTER, so why are we making this such a big deal?

When I have more time, I might actually come back and expand in detail on one of these.

I’m filling out my absentee ballot right this second and I realized that I really only have an opinion on a few of these topics…

No on Prop 8 There is no way I could have worded any argument against Prop 8 better than Earplitting just did, so I would like everybody to read what she has to say about it. I completely agree with her. I realized that I never gave same-sex marriage that much thought until last year, when I learned that one of my good friends here at school is gay, and now I can’t imagine denying her the right to be married, or any right for that matter.

No on Prop 4 (Notifying parents 48 hrs before an abortion) I’ve heard both arguments on this one, and this decision is a bit harder. I do agree that parents should know if their daughter is getting an abortion, however I more strongly think that girls who are afraid to tell their parents will be finding more dangerous and illegal ways to get an abortion.

Tell me what you think about these or other propositions/measures/etc otherwise I’m just voting for these two and president. My ballot will be sent out by tomorrow! how exciting.

Appalling. That’s the word I use…over and over and over again. It’s just appalling that a group of people could get together and decide to put arbitrary restrictions on a social institution as central to our society as marriage. Not only is marriage a sort of coming-of-age practice in our culture, but it comes with many legal and economic benefits. Married spouses have a much stronger legal bond. With that bond comes a sense of security that the strongest most enticing civil union in the world cannot guarantee. And then there’s the cultural connotations that come attached to marriage: there’s an implied sense of loyalty and committment that the community does not give to other relationships–however loyal and committed they may be.

If you couldn’t tell already, I have a very strong opinion on this….I actually wrote an persuasive ethics paper in AP Lang arguing why the U.S. should allow same-sex marriage. That was the first time I really thought about this topic; then within a month’s time of writing the paper I found out that my cousin is gay. By no means am I using that discovery to explain my strong convictions. Nor am I trying to win some odd sympathy because of this. It just makes the injustice hit a little closer to home.

To me, the biggest (and most absurd) point of contention people supporting Prop 8 use in their arguments is the concept of the traditional marriage. From my own experience, this concept is closely tied to many orthodox Christian teachings. Now I really don’t know much at all when it comes to Christianity and other related religious beliefs, so I’m not even going to try and pretend like I do. What I am going to address is the simple conclusion that many public figures have been coming to from this traditional marriage concept. In their views, a marriage is traditionally defined as a legally binding and recognized union between a man and a woman. Why? Because that is the way that the Western world has been defining marriage for centuries, and that is the way that it should remain. Only recently have homosexuals been coming out into the open about their sexual orientations. Only even more recently has our society started to pay attention to their justified demands for equality. In the minds of Prop 8 supporters, any changes made to an institution as highly touted in our society as marriage would only sully its name, weaken its value. Never mind that they are denying legal recognition of mutual love to millions of people. They are just protecting the name of marriage. But I ask you, at what cost? So that is their argument in a nutshell. Since marriage has been defined in that way for many many years, it should stay that way. Of course, it makes perfect sense. For centuries the world was defined to be flat. That was the traditional and socially accepted view. FYI, Columbus didn’t fall off the edge of the earth.

For those people, I have one simple request, religion aside, politics aside. Stand in front of a mirror. Look yourself in the eye and ask yourself this: Am I worthy of denying a fellow human being the simple right to be legally acknowledged for loving someone else? Am I important enough to impose my own views on people I don’t even know, on people whose beliefs don’t even threaten my own way of life? Do I really deserve to decide what our society deems as a socially and legally allowed relationship, what our society deems acceptable love? By the way, if you actually come across someone who can confidently answer “yes” to these questions, I wouldn’t suggest introducing them to me. :)

So I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone. I really am. Reading over what I’ve written, “bitter” is a word that could jump to your mind. But if there’s one thing that seems wrong for one person to do to another, it is to prohibit them from being publicly and legally recognized for having a loving relationship with someone else. If there’s one thing that just seems like “the right thing to do,” however cliche that may sound in our cynical world, it is to VOTE NO on PROP 8.

All right. I’m getting off my soapbox now. It’s safe to come out. Oh yeah, I’m voting absentee (mailed my ballot last week). And I’m thrilled with being enfranchised : )