Thank you God. That is all I can say. I had heard rumors of the Oakland A's ending their attempts at relocating to Fremont recently and was a little skeptical at first because this little endeavor has been up and down at best. But today it was reported by the San Jose Mercury News that the A's are indeed not going to be pursuing a move to Fremont after all.
The Oakland A's move to Fremont is dead.
In a statement released this morning, A's owner Lew Wolff said the team is stopping all work on a stadium in the Southern Alameda County community.
"After much consideration, today we informed Mayor Wasserman and City Council members that the Oakland Athletics will cease efforts to relocate our franchise to the City of Fremont," Wolff says in a statement released by the team.
I couldn't be happier. The thought of a professional sports team stadium in my city was pretty ridiculous to start with. The location they were planning on putting it into was even more ridiculous. The amount of greed expressed by the city and the city council was even more ridiculous than that. This was just a ridiculous idea to begin with.
I think Fremont is better off without the A's in town. It really would have only benefited a handful of people, a few businesses and a lot of greedy developers. The traffic would have been stupid, the land waste would have been enormous and the cost to the taxpayers of the city would have been immense.
So while Lew Wolff, owner of the A's, thanks Fremont for "all we have done" to try to help them get here, I am thanking him for finally coming to his senses and putting the kibash on the entire idea.
I was reading an article in my newspaper earlier today and was brought to laughter, then to disgust, when I read the headline GOP reprimands six who backed budget. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
You mean to tell me that because a state legislator voted for tax increases in the recent California budget that the California Republican Party is slapping them on the wrist by withholding funds for the campaigning in the future? Although this is said to be largely symbolic, I tend to look at it as largely divisive and utterly ridiculous.
The lawmakers were elected by the people in their districts. They were no doubt contact by many people, some for them, some against, that asked, if not begged, that they somehow pass a budget so California could get back to business. These men and women, regardless of their political affiliation, had an enormous task ahead of them and though it took the better part of an eternity to pass the stinking budget, they finally got one passed.
Yes, it had tax increases. Yes, it had cost cutting. The most important thing though is that it put California back in a place to conduct business again.
I was not exactly a fan of the budget to be honest. I am not happy about tax increases. No one can really be happy about tax increases when we are in a toilet of an economy and waiting for the handle to get jiggled. But I am very happy that spending is being curbed. The budget, as it was passed, had all sorts of problems but it got California moving forward again.
And to think that the state Republican party moved for, and succeeded in getting, a resolution against members of their own party is unbelievable. I knew politicians were filthy animals. I didn't know they were cannibals.
Oh well, as I wait for the Obamasiah's economic stimulus/recovery plan to trickle down to me I will be trying to figure out how to keep the state of California out of it. Not sure I will succeed seeing as it appears the government wants to take everything we have to give it large companies and other institutions, including my state, but I gotta try.
Let's just hope the CRP doesn't come knocking on my door to scold me for not being pissed off enough at the budget.
Today is President's Day in the United States, a day in which we bloody Americans celebrate the king pin of democracy in our land, the President of the United States. The reality of this day, however, is that it is really a celebration of George Washington's birthday.
I really haven't studied President Washington as much as I should have but there are a few things about the man that I find fascinating and totally worthy of having a day all to himself for. He was the typical American trying to live the typical American dream and he painted an example of how all men should live when it comes to defending your place, taking care of business and being selfless. I will say that I am not fond of everything about him, but for the most part, if I had to go to war, I would love to server under his leadership.
Much of what I based my opinion is taken from the stories about him as a young man, a soldier, a warrior, a politician, a businessman and a land owner. He was involved in all of these things from a very young age and stayed that way until he died after living a very long and rewarding life.
One look at the life of George Washington, though brief, outlines some of the more significant characteristics and experiences he had. He was homeschooled, he took up surveying at an early age (which ultimately led to him knowing the terrain upon which he fought way better than his adversaries), he took an interest in politics and the happenings of the day and he became involved in military service of a very young United States (actually, the US hadn't really become the US when Washington was at his younger age).
He was a cunning warrior on the battlefield but he lost a significant number of battles in which he fought. Yet he fought still and won the most meaningful battles when it counted. He was selfless in politics and service. He was against partisanship. He was for his country and its people.
Looking on the President that was George Washington I can't help but want for all presidents to find their similarities to President Washington and tap into that when serving.
Regardless, today celebrates the birth of our country's first president and, in some way, all presidents since then. To all of our surviving presidents I say thank you for your service and patriotism. Though was may disagree with much of your service or many of you decisions, you still have had a job that few really want to take on. You deserve this day. Enjoy it.
According to a Bloomberg News article Citigroup and seven other US banks are spending federal bailout money on large stadium naming rights deals.
Citigroup Inc., targeted by lawmakers for paying $400 million to put its name on the New York Mets’ new ballpark, and seven other banks that received government funds may face questioning by Congress for spending $845 million on stadium sponsorships.
I have no qualms about putting the government in its place. So in regards to this article I can say without prejudice that the government has failed its people in monumental fashion on this one.
How can a bank help its struggling homeowners when they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising? People are still being foreclosed on, homes are still being lost, businesses are still going under. Why in the bloody hell would a bank that sought out federal financial aid use any portion of that money on naming right to a stadium? No jobs would be created in the making of that stupid move. No homes would be saved, no people would be helped. So how does that reflect the intention of the government to help out its people?
I know that the Obamassiah is trying to make changes to bailout fund handling, and he talks a big game when it comes to doling out cash, but I cannot see how he is going to make sure that stupid crap like this doesn't happen under his $800,000,000,000 bailout plan. Yes, he can limit executive salaries, bonuses and stock options. But how is he going to reach deep into the heart of the business and put an end to financial mismanagement like this? Without going communistic/socialistic in the process? I just don't see how that is going to work.
In the meantime I think I will use my part of the federal bailout money to buy some tickets to some sporting events. Oh wait, we don't actually get any money as part of the Obamanator's plan to save the world from financial destruction. That's right.
But since my tax dollar are going to buying a sweet new sign on several ball parks, can't a brother get a couple of tickets? Just as a thank you?
Today was an historic date for the United States of America. Today, the people of this country packed more people into the capital mall than ever before. It was history in the making.
For those that have ever followed any of my rants here it would come as no surprise that I was not, and still am not, excited about President Barack Obama. I cannot get behind this whole "history being made" trip associated with today. We elected a man to be our next president. We did not elect a messiah, a savior or God.
He is just a man. I know that he is black. Well, part black. And that his election to president is a momentous occasion because of the racial implications surrounding that. And I am glad that the color lines have been shattered by his election. Cool. Can we move on from that now? I just wonder.
I wonder why it is that Obama's half-blackness even has anything to do with today. Granted, it was historic that we as a country elected a man of color in November. The fact that he was of minority decent played really no role in the decision made by the majority of people in the United States. At least I would like to think that. Voting, or not voting, for someone because that someone is of a particular gender, ethnicity, age or religious belief seems somewhat prejudicial to me. And I want to give the benefit of the doubt to our country that we elected this man because of the promises he made to us during his campaign. But I wonder.
[FOR THE RECORD: I did not vote for Obama. When I say we I mean we as a country. I am part of this country and am part of the we, even if I did participate in the electing of Barack Obama as president.]
Perhaps I just don't understand the hysteria surrounding today. Or perhaps the real celebration is not in the election of the man but his actual internment into the house. Maybe the real celebration is that George W. Bush is out of office. Regardless, I wish we could see that Obama is just a man. Half-blackness and popularity not withstanding, he is just a man.
Please do not take my words to mean that I am a racist, against minorities in office or in some way against the thought of someone of color being president. That is not the case. I myself stem from a minority heritage, a heritage fraught with struggle and hardship. It was nothing like the injustices suffered by our black brothers and sisters, but it was enough so that looking back on history I am able to see that minorities in America have always had a hard time being accepted. Skin color and ethnic heritage have never been an issue for me and never will be.
No, I think my issue with President Obama is the platform that he runs upon and the unadulterated status as hero and savior he has not only managed to obtain but has done nothing to quiet down. He is a man. Not a super man. Just a man. He won the presidency on a fairly narrow margin (I believe it was 53% to 46%) and has left the better part of the country wondering what the hell is going to happen if he implements even half of the things he promised he would in his campaign. If he held true the ideals of morality and humility that many of the leaders of the civil rights movement professed, wouldn't you think he would have already made it clear that he is just another guy doing a job that the people asked him to do? I just wonder.
And in that same vein, wouldn't a man that seeks unity among the people of the country he is now leading seek first to squash the over-emphasis of those that are making more of him being black than anything else? We should not be making President Obama our first black president. We should be making him our next president. Period. Is he using this time as a means to bring the people of the United States together? I just wonder.
I am not worried about his holding the highest political office in the land. Nor am I in fear of what can happen if the ideas he presented during his campaign and throughout his transition planning time are ever brought to fruition. But I am concerned with the level that the most vocal and outspoken people of the country have elevated him to. Yes, he is a good looking man. Yes, he is half-black. Yes, he is tall. Yes, his wife know how to dress the part. Yes, he has great speech writers. Yes, he smokes. Yes, he uses the internet. Yes, he knows how to hide his actual place of birth. Yes, he knows how to dodge hard questions. Does any of that make him a great leader? I just wonder.
I suppose all we can do is pray for him, his administration and his decisions. Lord knows he will have a lot of deciding to do. I can only pray that he heeds to advice of solid counsel and that he makes decisions that cover the multitude of the country in a way that does not alienate or persecute those that are not covered by his decisions.
1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2
After all is said and done, though, he is still my president. He is still my leader. And he still deserves my prayer. More than anything else, he will be inheriting a country that is in terrible disarray, one that has lost a lot of trust in our leadership and has lost even more trust in the Republican party. We are hurt and hurting. We are broken. We are battered. And we need, more than anything, a strong leader that we can rally around not because of his skin color or political party but because of his character, his strength and his wisdom.
Can we as a country do that? Can we bring ourselves to set aside his ethnicity, his political party, his political beliefs so we can focus on his ability? I just wonder.
I have been wanting to write this for a few days now and for various reasons have not been able to. Now I am, so here it comes.
I have been bombarded with news of protests, demands, marches and talk over the last few weeks. A lot had to do with the recent killing of Oscar Grant by a BART police officer on New Years. But just as much has had to do with the escalation of violence in the middle. That violence is the military push by Israel into Gaza against the terrorist Hamas organization.
A bulk of the chatter surrounding these protests, demands and the what not has centered on Israel and how inhumane and out of place people believe their military advances to be. To that I cannot help but wonder how anyone sees that? Hamas has been bombing Israel for entirely too long (more than once is entirely too long in my opinion) and Israel has shown great restraint in asking, peacefully and diplomatically, for Hamas to stop that crap. Hamas chose not to heed Israeli requests and Israel was put into a position to defend itself.
Why would anyone tell a country not to defend itself? Yes, I know that advancing on Gaza seems like an attack against Palestine. But is there some chance that Palestine has been in concert with Hamas? News reports wouls suggest that. And not only has Hamas established themselves in Gaza, they have also continued to barage of bombings on Israel throughout the Israeli advancement. Country after country, person after person, voice after voice is calling upon Israel to stop the violence, yet it seems as though no one is holding Hamas or Palestine responsible for what has taken place. Except Israel. They are holding Hamas and Palestine responsible. Yet no one sees the Israeli side of it.
Why would a country that has been attacked in military fashion to want to open a can of whoop ass on the folks doing the attacking? Wouldn't you? If someone was throwing rocks at you would you not defend yourself from that until the throwing stopped? That is what Israel is doing. Yet people are holding Israel in contempt for their defending of their country.
I am not usually one to take sides in foreign affairs. Seriously, that is something that, to be honest, I feel is best settled by those in the heat of it. But as my airwaves are being held hostage by folks right here in the Bay Area marching in protest and placing demands on the US state department to get involved in favor of Gaza, I can't help but look closer at this. And I gotta say, unless I am not seeing the entirety of this situation (which there is a likelihood of) then I cannot see how Israel should be told to stop attempting to squash the attacks being levied upon them.
Am I wrong for thinking this way?
In keeping with my growing confusion over those that would protest the outcome of a vote, today I was astonished to read an article in the Oakland Tribune outlining a protest that took place in San Francisco on Friday night. It was a protest that again affected traffic and involved the protesting of a church.
When is this madness going to end? Why, in a city that voted close to 100% No on 8, are people protesting? Who are they trying to win over? They are blocking traffic which is raising the costs of their city by making police officers work overtime or making their police department work more officers, they are negatively affecting thousands of people and they are throwing a massive tantrum in a city that didn't even vote for the proposition they are protesting. What sense does this make?
And what sense does it make to protest the LDS church in any city? So they donated money for a cause they believe in (no, I am not a Mormon, I am a Christian). Would you want people coming after you because they are mad that you gave to a cause you believe in? That is just plain stupid. Actually, it is more mob-like than anything, giving the appearance that they are trying to intimidate people for their support of an initiative that the protesters don't like.
They are a church. The Christian church did the same thing. They stood behind their values and morals and asked their members to do the same thing. No one can make anyone do anything, not even in the church. Targeting the LDS is plain wrong. Targeting anyone is just wrong.
I wonder when will come a day when those that do not agree with someone can actually peacefully coexist with those they do not agree with, without protesting them, without calling them names, without defacing their property, without any of the foolishness that was exhibited in this campaign. I know both side participated in this type of activity. I know many people that had their "No on 8" signs defaced, stolen or damaged. One of my "Yes on 8" signs was stolen from my front yard.
This type of behavior is silly, stupid, immature and wrong. We can disagree without becoming mortal enemies. But for crying out loud, if you must speak up on your opinion, can't you do so without targeting an individual or organization. Speak your mind. That is awesome. Many American's have fought many battles and lost their lives in many cases so that we can stand on a street corner and speak loudly against those ideals that we think are wrong. But keep it to that. Speak loudly, speak clearly and make your point your point. You don't need to storm a church to do that.
I heard today that there was going to be a protest in North Hollywood tonight. There was mention of it on Craigslist as well as other places on the Internet. And at first I couldn't believe it. But when it was mentioned that a church was being targeted in this march it became obvious that this was indeed happening.
I am amazed. I am amazed at the outcry on the internet surrounding this proposition. I am amazed at how many No on 8 people are speaking out on the Internet and now, it would seem, in person. 52% of the state of California voted for proposition 8. There was even support for Proposition 8 among homosexual people. The people spoke loud and clear and the response to this vote is to protest, block traffic, target a church for their monetary donations and otherwise throw a loud tantrum? What the hell is wrong with this picture?
If a proposition to approve of same-gender marriage was passed and those opposed to it were protesting, marching and targeting the likes of PG&E, Apple Computers and Google, wouldn't those that fought for their proposition be up in arms at the thought of that? What names would they call these people? How would they be depicted in the media? How would things be different?
If the feelings of those opposed to maintaining marriage as being between a man and woman felt as they do why did they not attempt to get a ballot measure passed like those that got Prop 8 on the ballot? Why did they think the outcome would be different now as opposed to eight years ago when we as a state voted the exact same way? And how in the world can they now turn to the courts to have a vote overturned... again? If those that oppose marriage being between a man and woman really had the desire to see marriage opened up why would they not ask the state to vote on it?
Is it perhaps because they knew they couldn't win it by vote and instead chose to turn to the same court system that overturned the people's vote last time? That would be my guess.
And for the record, your tantrums, pity parties and whining in public are not really going to sway anyone's opinion. It might make people mad at you, but I can almost guarantee you no one will choose to vote your way or support your cause - that opposed you before - if you continue to attempt to quiet their voices at the behest of a handful of judges.
There were probably no greater a controversial ballot proposition this past election than that of Proposition 8 in my home state of California. The erroneously named "Same-sex marriage ban" proposition had gotten the attention of just about every state in the nation along with just about every media outlet in the nation. It was one of the most expensive, if not the most expensive proposition campaign ever and it is likely to be far from over now that California has, for the second time, voted to recognize marriage as being between a man and a woman.
For those unfamiliar to this proposition (have you been living under a rock?), the entire premise of the proposition is the adding of the following text to the California constitution:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."
Somehow this has gotten the name of the "Same-sex marriage ban" proposition. The "OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY" as "PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL" in the California voter guide was "ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY". It was even referred to in some circles as the "Gay Marriage ban" proposition.
I have to tell you I was extremely disappointed with just about every aspect of Proposition 8 with the exception of it's passing. The text of the proposed constitutional amendment was the exact same text that was proposed in the 2000 election under proposition 22. The text of the law specifically states "marriage between a man and woman". Minor apologies to those of you who believe that this was a same-sex issue, but the reality of it is that this proposition was for people that believe marriage to be between a man and woman. This was not a "same-sex" issue, it was a "marriage between a man and woman" issue.
I found it ironic that so many people turned the desire of a group of people that want to protect marriage into something that was based on same-gender marriage or homosexual marriage. That is ludicrous. And to say it eliminated rights is just as ludicrous. In 2000 the people of the state of California voted to make marriage valid only when between a man and woman. 52 of 58 counties voted for Prop 22. It was passed overwhelmingly by the people of the state.
Eight years later four judges, four, on the California supreme court overruled the people's decision stating the Prop 22 was unconstitutional because it discriminated against couples of the same gender that sought marriage. Since when have judges been given the right to overturn vote results? If they can do that, why vote at all? Why not just ask judges to pass all of our laws for us?
So they did. They overturned Prop 22 and for the last five and a half months marriages were being performed between couples of the same gender. They in effect handed the right of marriage to people that up until that time did not have the right to marry under that context. Keep in mind that people of the same gender that have sought to become united have been able to do so for some time now under California's and America's laws recognizing civil unions. The only difference is that the term "marriage" has not been recognized in California as marriage unless it was between a man and a woman. Until the judges got involved.
So their decision then gave the Attorney General the ability to label Proposition 8 as "Eliminates the rights of same-sex couples to marry". Astonishing. Why not read the text of the proposed law and label the proposition as such? "Recognizes marriage as being between a man and a woman". That sounds more like the proposed law to me.
For the record I want to say that I have no ill feelings toward anyone. I don't hate homosexual people. I am not afraid of homosexual people. I am not mad at homosexual people. My opinions on marriage are not about the choices people make in their lifestyle. They are about what I believe marriage is. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
I do, however, get bothered somewhat by folks that believe that because someone makes a choice they should be granted rights that they would not normally have had they not made that choice. These are the people that make statements associating homosexuality to ethnicity or gender. People that believe the struggle of the homosexual community is akin to the struggle of African-Americans that marched with Dr. Martin Luther King or Malcolm X. People that associate homosexuality to me being a male or me being Mexican. Thanks for trying to make your point but please do not place your sexual preference in the same category as my ethnic heritage or my gender. I didn't choose to be a man nor did I choose to be Mexican. Homosexuality cannot be compared to these.
It can be compared to being a Christian. Or being a smoker. Or being a Republican. Those are all choices that are made. And not one of them carries with it a privilege afforded it simply because one aligns himself or herself with that particular group. A smoker that is told to smoke outside a restaurant because it is a non-smoking restaurant is not being discriminated against. The smoker chooses to smoke and must smoke according to the law.
A man that wants to marry has every right to marry. But if that man chooses to wed another man, according to the law, he cannot. He can unite with the other man in a civil union. But he cannot marry him. Simple. Understandable. Nondiscriminatory.
I am glad the political campaigning is over. I am glad the elections are over. And I am glad that Proposition 8 passed. I know this is not over yet. We live in a state where when certain people don't get what they want they throw a fit and scream until someone bends. I can assure you there will still be noise on this matter for some time.
But I can also assure you that the state of California has spoken in a mighty voice and it has said clearly that marriage, regardless of your position on it, is supposed to be between a man and woman. It is clear. It is understandable. And now it is constitutional.
History was made tonight. Put simply, a major shift has been made in the thinking and philosophy of the nation as a whole. We, the United States of America, have voted for someone that is not white.
While I cannot say that I am thrilled about the election of Mr. Obama as president I cannot help but be thrilled to be alive at a time like this. No, I didn't vote for him. But it is still historic. It is still a great learning lesson for my kids. It is still an opportunity to pray for our leaders. And regardless of whether it was McCain or Obama I can feel good knowing I did nothing to elect him. However, he is my president so he is deserving of my family's prayers.
1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:1-4
I love how Timothy did not leave any wiggle room when he wrote this. He did not say that if you approve of the king, or agree with those that are in authority, or if you voted for the new president that you should pray for that person. No, he said that we should pray for, intercede for and make supplications for all people, kings and all those in authority. Make no mistake about it, president-elect Obama is a man in a position of authority.
I do not agree with him. And he was not my choice for president. And all of my children knew my position on Obama (Adriannah almost cried when they announced Obama was the winner - and they were not tears of joy). But I do want him to be saved. I want him to think in a manner consistent with how Christ would think when he makes decisions. To that end the first thing we did, as a family, when it was announced Obama had won, even as Senator McCain was giving his concession speech, was pray for Barack Obama, his family, his appointees, our congress and our country. That is what we are supposed to do, regardless of our feelings for the man. Have you prayed for him yet?
To my new president I have only this to say to you: Congratulations on shattering a line that has desperately needed to be shattered. Please use discernment, wisdom and conscience in office rather than partisan ideology. We have had more than enough of that.
