¡Feliz Navidad!

On this day before we give thanks

While we all get ready to gather with family and friends and give thanks for all the blessings and good things in our lives tomorrow, we should all take a minute to think about the people of India and particularly Mumbai/Bombay.

Gambling for the family

On Mateo's walk today—I'm still walking him in spite of his nefarious breaking of my nose—I passed one of the many charming neighborhood businesses, the Palomar "Casino". It isn't a casino, but just a cardroom, where mostly middle-aged, mostly men spend pretty much their entire days playing poker and pai gow and watching horse-races and sporting events. Given the odds of the things, it is obvious that most of these people are losing money, money that they probably don't have. There just aren't that many people with actually disposable income coming to El Cajon Boulevard to gamble.

Parked right in front of the Palomar Casino was a rather large, red pickup truck, prominently displaying several bumper stickers claiming that California's Prop 8 against same-sex marriage was necessary to save the family. Whatever the merits of that argument, the irony of the person making it spending his day gambling in a crappy little cardroom wasn't lost on me. If you want to save the family, get the fathers of those family's out of the cardrooms and casinos, stop them from gambling and idolizing professional poker players. That's one hell of a lot more serious threat to the family than people of the same sex entering into legally binding contracts to take responsibility for one another off the state's hands.

Something quizzical

So, the Church of Latter Day Saints and the Knights of Columbus together with groups like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council dumped literally millions of dollars into California, most of it from outside the state—so much for any idea of states' rights and the self-determination of states—because there was a very important ballot initiative this year, one that goes to the very center of the family and deals directly with what some Catholic Bishops and other religious conservatives have called America's "culture of death".

That's right, there was a ballot initiative to require minor girls to either inform a parent or, in cases where parents are abusive, another designated relative or, in cases where there are no good family relationships, a judge before they could procure an abortion. It is hard to imagine something more central to family life than the protection—in most cases—of the rights of parents over an overzealous interpretation of the right of privacy of minor children. After all, in almost no other cases do we think that minor children have a right to privacy against their parents. Their school records are open to their parents, their medical records are open to their parents, they cannot get a flu shot without the permission of their parents, they cannot buy cough syrup, and so on. In fact, we think that parents have very strong rights over their children—to deny this is either truly radical individualism or totalitarianism, either of which is inimical to the family and to religion.

And certainly, a group like the Knights of Columbus that has fought so hard against abortion would want to do all it could to prevent these abortions by at least interposing this important bit of familial dialogue before the decision is made.

But, you see, religious conservatives who care so deeply about the family spent very little on this initiative, which failed. Instead, they poured over $30 million dollars into making sure that gays and lesbians could not enter into civil marriages in California. They bought ads that claimed that Churches would lose their tax-exempt status—granted by the Federal Government, not California—when they refused to recognize such marriages—ignoring the fact that any Church currently can deny marriage to anyone they choose. They used the images of children without their parents' permission and over their parents' objections. They spent and lied and used people because gays and lesbians are the greatest threat to the family.

So, the next time I am told by anyone involved with Yes on 8 just how much they care about babies and families, I'm going to explain just what they ought to go do to themselves. What they care about is icky gays, aborted fetuses and familial relationships be damned.

Mea culpa!

So, today, Alan Greenspan realizes that the economic theory that has guided his life for forty years—and that he used to run the monetary policy of the United States—rests on incorrect assumptions. Apparently, overseeing the internet bubble didn't help him see it or prevent him from beginning the housing bubble as a way to help us out of that one. I never understood why he was highly regarded when he was in office—I suppose it was the way he nurtured the image of the incomprehensible mandarin, with his mysterious mutterings that made us all think he must really be smarter than the economists who could actually make themselves understood or perhaps his long-ago associations with Ayn Rand—but I don't think he gains any merit for figuring out now that he helped screw everything up. 

He's done us no good; it's time for him to shut up.

Keep your money for your campaigns

Quite rightly, American political law forbids foreign nationals from donating money to candidates or campaigns. So, for instance, my partner, who is a permanent resident of the United States but a citizen of Argentina, cannot donate money to McCain or Obama or for Proposition 7 here in Californian or against Proposition 8 or in favor of either of the two very annoying people running for our City Council seat—seriously, guys, if I keep getting mailings from you, I will write in someone else.

The idea, of course, is that those who are not citizens should not have a say, either through their votes or through giving funds to help people or campaigns gain others' votes, in our political campaigns. All for the best, I say! 

For, while there might seem to be something mildly unfair about being governed by those you did not get to pick, that is the difference between citizenship and non-citizenship, or anyway one of the differences.

But, by parity of reasoning, it seems that people from outside California—i.e., non-citizens of the State—should be barred from donating to campaigns within the State. There is something distasteful and disingenuous about the massive amounts of money pouring into California to support Proposition 8—a referendum to change the State's Constitution to bar same-sex marriage, since the (mostly conservative) State Supreme Court has ruled that there is no basis in the Constitution for making a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage. By what right should residents of New Jersey or Minnesota or Utah (the campaign is largely bankrolled by the Latter Day Saints and there aren't that many Mormons in California) have a say in campaigns that affect Californians? We don't let them cast ballots here, why should we allow them to spend money to influence the vote here? (And, I'm willing to be fully principled: I don't think any out-of-State money should be allowed in our campaigns, whichever side it's on.)

On causality

One of our Vice Presidential candidates believes that, without worrying about what causes global warming—after all, that is living in the past and everyone knows that the past is utterly irrelevant to the present or, heavens, what we really care about: the future—we can come up with a solution for it. Many other people might have thought that to stem the effect one would need to eliminate or alter the cause. Could her lack of basic causal reasoning abilities help explain why she also doesn't believe in evolution or seem to have a grasp of scientific method? What else might she be unable to fathom?