I'm Just Sayin'

You know, it is awesome when you have just the coolest friend. Sometimes, if you really thought about it, you might not even really know why you're friends or why you get along so well, but you just do. And it works and you really don't care why; you're just glad that it does. Other times you know exactly why you get along and why you're friends with that person. That's a lot easier when things hit a bump or a snag or some other poetic obstacle that creates strife and/or angst in between friends. (Hey, I needed the strife and the angst to go with all of the bumps and snags! I was waxing poetically.)

When something comes up (you know, that strife-y angst creator) that puts a little distance or some sort of barrier in between you and your friend for a little while, it really sucks on both sides. Suck, suck, suck. No one wants it to suck and no one likes the suckiness. And both people really only want it resolved (or better yet, just to go away) as soon as possible.

All of this applies mainly to women. Women are a ridiculously complicated creature. And each one has their own instruction manual. Guys are easier. This is an example of how a guy's brain works:

And here is an example of how a chick's brain works:

Since the differences are so subtle, I'll just mention that the female's brain is much more complicated than the male's brain. Now try navigating through TWO of those when two women are involved. Yeah, you get it.

But here's the thing: You'll eventually talk it out. More times than not, things will be alright. (That's because you're friends. That's what friends do. They work stuff out. Because stuff is going to come up. Guaranteed. Unfortunately.) Even after it's OK though, sometimes there's this little part in back of your head or on the lower left hand side of the cockpit there that maybe isn't so sure about something. You don't know what, you can't put your finger on it, so you don't even really know if there's something there, but you wonder if there is.

And right about then, mid-wonder or mid-looking for that damn switch, your buddy comes through for you. Your buddy sends you a text that has less than 10 words, but this is one time when size really isn't important. Whatever it is, and it's different for everyone, it just let's you know that they get it. And they get that you get it. They let you know that they know how you feel and the other way around. And it's not anything cheesy like the "L" word or anything like that. It could say "Yo! Butthead!" It just depends. Whatever it says, your buddy knows, that after you read it, you'll know that everything's OK. And when you respond in a brief, yet similar fashion, they'll know everything's OK, too.

That's when you kind of realize that you do know why you're friends (if sometimes you couldn't always pinpoint it before). And that's when you realize that you do know why you like them. You like them because they "get" you. And they like that you "get" them. You "get" them because they're real, they're not phony or fake, and they're honest (and very polite). (It's really easy to "get" someone when you don't have to try and figure out what you're "getting".) And they "get" you because...well...you're not really sure how they do that, but they do. And man, are you glad.

The point is that they're pretty nifty. Now if there was only some way to let 'em know that......

Sphere: Related Content

I Don't Want Those Recycled

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Sphere: Related Content

Yes Means No and No Means Yes? Really?

Apparently, if you're part of a group that is trying to get a certain ballot proposition passed and you're starting to have doubts about whether or not you're going to succeed, the best thing to do is to send out certified letters to all businesses who have donated money to opposing your proposition and warn them that if they do not make an equal contribution to your campaign that "...they will be publicly identified as opponents of traditional unions unless they contribute to the gay marriage ban, too." Oh, and don't forget to include a donation form. So just to paraphrase: If all else fails, try extortion. Wait. What?

According to the folks at 10News, that is exactly what the group ProtectMarriage.com has done as part of their campaign that is for passing Proposition 8. For those of you who are fortunate enough as to not have to reside in this cesspool of silliness and self-importance, if Proposition 8 were to pass it would create an amendment to the State Constitution to define a "marriage" as being between one man and one woman. (I'm guessing they had to throw the "one" in there so that the whole state isn't inundated by the FLDS or anything like that. I'm also guessing that they used the terms "man" and "woman" instead of "male" and "female" so as to avoid people lining up outside courthouses to marry their dogs. And as I've said before, I'm a little disappointed by that, as watching someone marry their dog would be something I'd really like to see! Just once! I think it'd be hilarious. Instead of rice, we could throw kibble. The dog could have the ring around it's neck. The preacher could conclude with, "I now pronounce you man's best friend....AND wife! You may now lick your bride. It's a shame we're going to miss out on all of that.)

But the way Prop 8 is written is a little tricky. If you are for gay marriage, then you want to vote NO on Prop 8. But if you are against gay marriage, then you want to vote YES on Prop 8. If you are against gay marriage, but for people marrying dogs, you'll have to sign my petition if I ever get it finished. I don't really care for how it's set up because usually, if you like something, you say yes. "Do you like pie?" "Yes! I like pie!" "Do you want some pie?" "Yes! I'd like some pie!" But in this case, if you like something, you have to vote no. "Do you like gay marriage?" "Yes! I like gay marriage!" "Do you want gay marriage?" "Yes! I will vote YES! No, I mean, no I don't! But I do! The gay marriage part! That's yes! But the vote? The vote is yes! No, wait! I mean no! Wait! Dammit!" It's just a big mess, just all higgeldy-piggeldy. (We need a new Proposition. The Proposition that says that Propositions should be voted on like pie! The slogan? "Vote like pie!")

So the soft-headed group over there at ProtectMarriage.com sends out this letter to all businesses who opposed Proposition 8 (and therefore supported gay marriage. See? I said it was confusing.) which tells them that if they don't donate the same amount to ProtectMarriage.com as they donated to Equality California, a group that, as you can imagine, is also opposed to Proposition 8. The letter read in part, "Make a donation of a like amount to ProtectMarriage.com which will help us correct this error. Were you to elect not to donate comparably, it would be a clear indication that you are in opposition to traditional marriage. ... The names of any companies and organizations that choose not to donate in like manner to ProtectMarriage.com but have given to Equality California will be published." Yeah, see, that sounds just a little bit like a lot of extortion. A whole lot of really stupid extortion, but extortion nonetheless.

The letter, with a very convenient donation form attached, was signed by four members of the group's executive committee:

• Ron Prentice - Campaign chairman
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Edward Dolejsi - Executive director of the California Catholic Conference





• Mark Jansson - A member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (no photo)








• Andrew Pugno - The lawyer for ProtectMarriage.com.

The letter did not say when or where the names of the businesses would be published. And when Prentice was asked about this ridiculous attempt to bully businesses into giving them money "or else", what do you think he said? Of course! "...initially said he was unaware of any such effort." When asked specifically about the letter, however, he said that the letters "...were authentic" and they were "...asking businesses backing the other side 'to reconsider taking a position on a moral issue in California'." To "reconsider" under some asinine threat? The only thing anyone should be "reconsidering" at this point would be your sanity, sir.

The story goes on to say that Prentice said the letter was intended for large businesses, such as Time-Warner and Comcast, that had contributed to Equality California. He also mentioned that the list of contributing businesses includes companies "...such as Pacific Gas & Electric, Levi Strauss and AT&T." He stated that, ""I think the IDing of, or outing of, any company is very secondary to the question of why especially a public corporation would choose to take a side knowing it would splinter it's own clientele." Well, the ID-ing of a company isn't secondary, it's a non-issue. Who the heck cares? It's not like the list of donors for any campaign is a classified document, guarded by big dogs and laser beams (again, something I'd really like to see). But doesn't identifying at least five of these companies that you are demanding money from kind of defeat your stated purpose of the letter? Now that we all know that those five companies gave to Equality California, your leverage that you were using against them, ie, the threat of "outing", wouldn't seem to be very effective right now, would it? (And puh-lease, PG&E?? What am I going to do if I don't like that they made that donation? Tell them to shut off my power because I'm going to build a windmill to generate my own power? That'll show 'em! They're the freaking power company! Good luck with that one!)

Oh, and nice use of the term "the outing". Well, sir, that had a little touch of a homophobic ring to it. I see you've picked up on the gay lingo rather quickly. Didn't I see you staring at that busboy over lunch yesterday? I think I did. I think you're a little gay.

But gay or not, a one Robert Stern, who is the president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies, has said that there is "nothing illegal about ProtectMarriage.com hitting up Equality California supporters for money." Now, there may well not be anything illegal about the practice of doing so in and of itself. But I'm finding it a bit difficult to swallow that the manner in which ProtectMarriage.com went about it is not illegal. If you're sending someone a letter that tells them that if they do not do something, then they will take this action which is intended (in their small, small, walnut-sized little brains) to, in some fashion, harm the person who does not comply. THAT is legal?
A one Sonya Eddings Brown, who is a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com, said that around 36 companies received the letter and those not responding with a monetary contribution "...would be highlighted in a press release and on the campaign Web site." She went on to justify the poorly masked extortion efforts as "...a frustrated response to the intimidation felt by Proposition 8 supporters, who have had their lawn signs stolen and property vandalized in the closing days of the heated campaign." Naturally, she did not provide any examples of this.

Well, at least she admitted that they're frustrated. It would be frustrating if all of the arguments that I had for or against something were flimsy at best and people were beginning to see through the hype and fear that I might have been trying to conjure up. That would be frustrating if there really wasn't anything that I could say to make people get my point. But see, when your point is that you just don't like something because you don't agree with it and need to impose that belief, not in means that promote your belief for yourself and your family, but in ways which are directly against those who you disagree with, that's a problem.

I can't even get into their arguments against this thing because they're ridiculous. I will say (out of fairness so it's not like I can't see both sides or something) that the only legitimate argument they have going for them is that a gay marriage was already voted on by the state in 2004. Yes, the people of California voted against gay marriage. And that was somehow overturned by the most liberal appeals court in the country. That does seem like a legitimate point.

However, on a purely fundamental level, the problem that I have with Prop 8 is that it would put the ban on gay marriage in the State Constitution. The Constitution, whether at a Federal or State level, is not supposed to be a restrictive document. It is supposed to be an empowering document. When you start putting things in the Constitution that restrict the freedoms of the people, you're setting yourself up in the future for a nightmare you cannot even imagine. You just can't make the Constitution a restrictive doctrine. It goes against all of the basic principles upon which the country and it's individual states were founded upon. And you certainly can't attempt to do that by extortion campaign money out of your opponents, for cryin' out loud!

Oh, and higgeldy-piggeldy means "a real mess".

Sphere: Related Content

Turmoil in Pictures

And now, some of my favorite little blurbs that describe plenty of stuff going on these days. They're all sadly insightful, painfully true and freaking funny as well. What could possibly go wrong? Don't answer that. (Some questionably offensive language in two pics. I mean, it's offensive if you're offended by that sort of thing. I usually try to avoid intersparsing the F-bomb in here, but once every gazillion posts I don't think will drive any of the eight of you off. And if it did, well, I'd be sad because I'd feel like I just hadn't toughened you up at all.)

And below, my personal favorite. Whoever put that up down on Wall Street is my hero.

Sphere: Related Content

Upside-Down = Bass-Ackwards

As I'm sure that any day now people from the US government will be reading this blog so that they can better understand all they don't seem to know or acknowledge about the current housing/mortgage/foreclosure/dumbass situation that is making me crazy. Any day. I can feel it! I just hope they hurry. My head is going to explode if I have to continue to see misrepresentations of the US economic debacle.

From the phoning-it-in folks over there at Reuters, comes the article " 'Under water' mortgages are growing threat to US". Aside from the poor wording, (Are they? Are the mortgages out there actually "growing threat"? Like in their garden? Cultivating the "threat" like marijuana up in the foothills? Come on, Reuters. Is that the best you can do?) what are they saying? That we've become like the lost city of Atlantis? Not enough scuba gear to go around for all homeowners? Don't we have enough to deal with as it is without having to live under water as well?

Actually, I kid. (It keeps me from leaping to my doom.) If your mortgage is "under water", you're not really underneath any water. Although you could be just as screwed as if you were. Reuters claims that "under water" on your mortgage is defined as "owing more on a mortgage than the house is worth." Now, maybe things have changed, I haven't seen the rule book in a long, long time (which has definitely factored into this mess), but that's called "upside down", not "under water". But as you can imagine, being "upside down" isn't all that great either. If you're "upside down" AND "under water", you're so screwed. What they call it isn't really my point, though.

They say that, as the financial situation in the US spirals to places not yet known, one in six "homeowners" are finding themselves upside down in their mortgage. I've quoted "homeowners" because if they actually "owned" the "home", they might not have this problem. I'd prefer the term "mortgage payers", but they go with "homeowners". (But it's just because they're clueless, that's all.) The article claims that because of all of the upside down-ness, it is "threatening the U.S. economy with a new wave of foreclosures and bankruptcies." To which I said, "It is?" (Actually, that's not all I said. The first thing I said was, "That's bull S.")

The entire article builds on that incorrect statement/assumption and it is misleading at best. See, what your home is currently worth has little to NO impact on your ability to make a payment on your mortgage. Well, it should have little to NO impact on your ability to make a payment on your mortgage. You're not paying for what your house is worth day-to-day. You're paying back the money you borrowed, regardless as to what you borrowed it for.

When is it, exactly, that a house did not become something to live in? People seem to think that their house is this big huge investment from which they will see great returns and great rewards and life of servants in togas feeding you grapes as you recline on a chaisse lounge by a pool with fountains. The problem with thinking that way is that it makes the assumption that one will always see a gain on top of their investment. The only way that is going to happen all the time is if housing prices continually increase. Forever. That's unrealistic, which is why it doesn't happen. Things do plateau once in a while. (Welcome to Once In A While. Next stop: You're Going To Be Here A While.)

Because people have the ill conceived idea in their head that if they become a "homeowner" that they will suddenly have a big, huge ATM with an unlimited supply of cash that they can just dip into (with a ladle or without) whenever they feel like it. Sure. That's realistic. It will have a garage where they can park both of their unicorns as well! And spare bedrooms for when Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy come for Thanksgiving Dinner.

But aside from it being ridiculous to expect that your house will always increase in value, it's still unrelated to your ability to pay the mortgage. If you borrowed $100,000 and agreed to pay back $1,000 a month, that's the agreement. How does that change if your house is suddenly worth $90,000 or $80,000? You have still borrowed and spent the original $100,000. Nothing is different in that regard. How does that cause bankruptcy and foreclosure? Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

I don't recall hearing people complain about their car payment. I'll guarantee you that anyone with a car payment has a vehicle that is worth less now than when they bought it. (Yes, I am fully aware of 'depreciation'. It's the concept I'm working on here. The concept.) But are people getting their vehicles repossessed right and left because they're all upside-down or topsy-turvy or pell-mell on their loan payments? Of course not. It's the same...what? The same concept, correct.

Just as things go down, things go up. I find it amazing that these same people that are freaking out because the price of their house has gone down expect it to STAY down, but when the price of their house is going up, they expect it to KEEP going up. But if they thought it was going to go up in the first place, why would they think it would never go up again? Just sit tight, people. Oh, wait. That's right. You couldn't afford the house in the first place. You were only hoping to hang out long enough to see the price go up a bit so that you could make a quick buck. But that didn't turn out so well for you. Now you're in the position that is very similar to that of the illustration below as far as what you feel your house is doing to you. Good luck with that.

Just remember, upside-down, sideways, inside-out, bass-ackwards, none of those things have anything to do with someone not being able to pay their mortgage. If you hear or read stories that imply such a thing (and how can you avoid them? I know I've been trying to not listen to moronic sob stories for months now. No such luck.) be skeptical and ask lots of questions. If for no other reason than just to watch them squirm when they figure out you're onto them. (But not in the same way as the illustration above. Thank God.)

Sphere: Related Content