Police Under Siege

December 2nd, 2009

It almost seems as if the cops are being hunted up here. We lost 5 officers in less than a month, with no apparent motive. These murders were especially egregious, not only for the fact that four officers we killed at once, but also because the murderer seems to have slipped through the cracks in the justice system time and again with everyone passing the buck of legal responsibility. The pathetic ineptitude of the prosecutors who handled the many charges that Maurice Clemmons faced in Washington alone defies reason. He was even given a psychological evaluation in October and found to be a “risk to public safety, but not enough of one to justify commiting him” (Tacoma News Tribune). I can only hope that this horrific event and the Ft. Hood tragedy bring about effective changes in how the justice system deals with repeat violent offenders, issues of legal sanity with regards to public safety, and the interference of political correctness in assessing the dangers presented by individuals (read: profiling). It’s just shameful that it takes a shock to the conscience to spur us to action.

Manners Matter

September 14th, 2009

Well, was this the weekend for tantrums and tirades or what? It’s fairly obvious that we are not as polite a society as we could/should be, but sometimes the light shines a little brighter on that notion than usual. And never does it shine as brightly as it does in Hollywood and professional sports. On Saturday, we got to see a side of Serena Williams that I honestly have never seen before. In her last match at the U.S Open facing Kim Clijsters, Serena was called for a “foot fault” at the line during her serve. She grabbed a new ball to serve, but before doing so, turned to the linesperson who called the foul and lit into her with alleged profanity and obvious anger, shaking her finger at her and walking toward her, racket in hand. The linesperson went to the seated judge to let him know what was going on, and went back to her seat. Serena then approached her again, this time shaking her racket at her (looked to me like she was telling her off, but some witnesses claim she was threatening the linesperson). Here’s the video from ABC news: Serena Williams
The foot fault resulted in a double fault, which moved Clijsters to within one point of winning. Serena was then charged one point for her unsportsmanlike conduct, and the match was given to Clijsters, with the crowd loudly booing. Williams has since been fined $10,000 for the tantrum by the U.S. Open and the review process has begun. For me, the long and short of it is this: Williams shouldn’t have been called for the foot fault to begin with, because she was so close on the line and it is almost never called in a match of this importance when it’s that close. Even John McEnroe made that point, and with his reputation for on-court antics, he should know. But after watching the video, Serena went after the linesperson pretty aggressively, and I can see why they would want to hold her accountable for that. There’s a decorum that is expected of a professional athlete that she violated; and she admitted as much in later interviews. It’s not like Serena has a reputation (like McEnroe does), so I say take the fine and chill.
Before the fire from that confrontation had even begun to wane, up comes the MTV Video Music Awards. Notorious for its indulgence of galaxy-sized egos, this show didn’t disappoint. The tribute to Michael Jackson was heartfelt and appropriate, not to mention thoroughly enjoyable. But the moment of the night was everyone’s favorite copycat-attention whore-egomaniacal-originality-challenged rap star, Kanye West  showing himself for the self-aggrandizing turd that he is. As 19 year-old Taylor Swift took the stage to accept her first VMA for best female video, here comes Kanye, grabbing the microphone from her and proclaiming that Beyonce’s video “Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)” was “one of the best videos of all time”. The boos descending from the crowd were cacophonous, and deservedly so. I’ve never been a fan of Kanye, but that was always because of his product. (I don’t call it his “music”, because he samples so much that practically none of it is original material, and therefore, not his) I also never cared for his notorious childish public behavior, from his meltdowns every time he doesn’t win an award, to his bizarre rant about “George Bush hates black people” at the Hurricane Katrina benefit concert; I always felt that he takes the concept of “any publicity is good publicity” to sub-guttural depths in an inexcusably arrogant fashion. I believe in free speech, but I believe more strongly in using that right constructively. I will give Kanye this: At least he consistently fails to do so.

Peace.

rob

Two Quick Notes………

September 8th, 2009

Rod Blagojevich is still going strong. His new book of memoirs came out today, entitled “The Governor”. In it, Blago again refutes the charges against him and insists he was railroaded out of his job; but that’s old news; we’ve heard it all before. What struck me was his interview with Harry Smith of CBS’s “The Early Show”. During this show we got the absolute best Blago performance yet; he actually made quite a compelling argument. This particular exchange between he and Smith was what caught my attention:

“Not only does (Fitzgerald) have it all wrong, that’s a mutilation of the truth.   The facts are that, the very day before I was arrested, I had instructed my chief of staff to work out the tactics of a routine political deal that would have put 500,000 people to work in Illinois, that would have expanded health care for 50,000 to 300,000 working families.

So, Smith asked, “There was no pay to play?”

“Not only was there no pay to play…” Blagojevich responded.

“At any point in your administration?” Smith interrupted.

“However you define that,” Blagojevich continued. “If you’re saying there was in any activity that dealt with quid pro quo thing — one thing for another — absolutely not with regard to my behavior, or my activities.

“And you did not try to sell Sen. Obama’s?”

“The truth is in hundreds of hours of taped (wiretapped) recordings,” Blagojevich replied. “The government, at a sensational press conference when I was locked up in a jail cell, said what you just referred to, (that it) was stopping a crime spree before it happened. They used snippets of conversations from those private taped conversations. The big irony here is that the very accusers who said those things, who used those snippets of conversations out of context, went to court to have an order that prevented me and you from hearing all of those tapes.

“All of those tapes should be heard. The truth is in those tapes. And just the opposite is true. This is a story that is upside down.
“So,” Smith inquired, “you’re not corrupt, there is no corruption, there was never any corruption in your administration?”

“I have never done anything that would be a crime or even intended to be a crime,” Blagojevich said flatly. “When all of the taped conversations are heard, that will be proven to be true. I will be fully vindicated. The issue is, when will those taping be heard? I’ve advocated since January for those tapes to be heard. I was hijacked from office at an impeachment trial that didn’t allow me to move my innocence.”

That exchange makes me really want to hear the tapes, and to ask why they haven’t been made public. Perhaps prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald feels it would compromise his case; I don’t know, but if Blago can get me to start asking questions in what previously seemed like a slam-dunk case against him, I’ll bet a lot of people are starting to. The trial is set to begin later this year.
In what could be considered somewhat of a surprise, former First Lady Laura Bush has publicly come out in support of President Obama’s upcoming address to school children across the nation. Mrs. Bush is quoted in the AP saying “it’s……really important for everyone to respect the president of the United States”. Why this is somewhat of a surprise is due mostly to the hoopla surrounding the address itself; critics of the President say that Obama is taking the opportunity to use the address for political gain, influencing children and thereby influencing their parents, the voters. Opponents are accusing the Obama administration of trying to “indoctrinate” children to the President’s agenda, some even going so far as to say that they will keep their children home from school that day. That’s a parent’s right, and to each his own. I just think it is a classy thing for the former First Lady to say. She went further in saying of President Obama, “He’s tackled a lot to start with and that’s made it difficult”. On the subject of her husband’s refusal to openly criticize President Obama, Mrs. Bush said that her husband believes that President Obama “deserves the respect and no second guessing on the part of a former president”. Also, very classy. Of course, former Vice President Dick Cheney has been all over President Obama on the CIA investigations, so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques”, the war in Afghanistan, and a range of other issues. I expect Cheney to defend himself, considering how much mud has been slung in his direction. But Democrats are still fighting the wrong enemy; they need to focus on the here and now and stop trying to vindicate themselves and their agenda by attacking the former administration. I think in the upcoming mid-term elections, their arrogance will be their undoing.

Peace.
rob

God doesn’t hate

August 31st, 2009

I don’t know a lot, but I know that God doesn’t hate people.  He hates evil, no matter who perpetrates it.  I’m not perfect, nor do I consider myself righteous, so I don’t go around condemning people for what they do or what they believe.  And if the Bible is to be believed, that’s the way God wants us to behave.  So what does it say when one who claims to speak for God to those who would follow him says publicly that he will pray for the death of the President of the United States?  It says that crazy people are everywhere, and they’ll use whatever means are available to them to draw attention to themselves.  Fox News is reporting about Steven Anderson, Pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe Arizona:  during a recent sermon entitled “Why I Hate Barack Obama”, Anderson was quoted as saying,

I hope that God strikes Barack Obama with brain cancer so he can die like Ted Kennedy and I hope it happens today”. 

He goes further in saying,

“I’m gonna pray that he dies and goes to hell when I go to bed tonight. That’s what I’m gonna pray”. 

If Anderson had said this at a protest rally, he would just be another nut.  If he said it at some Klan rally, they’d probably give him a medal.  But for this man to stand in the pulpit of a church and spew the vile, disgusting hate speech that he has and call himself a man of God is beyond incomprehensible, it’s downright evil.  And it is my opinion that he will get his 15 minutes anyway, because what he said was so outrageous.  Personally, I don’t think anyone should give him the time or the means to repeat bile-infested hate like that, but it’s a free country. 

Like I said before, I am not a perfect person.  I try to do the right thing and fail regularly, like everyone else.  But there’s a line that should never be crossed for the sake of common decency, if nothing else.  Anyone who claims to represent God can’t also hate his children.  To me, this man represents the worst of humanity, and in my opinion, certainly has no right to call himself a man of God.  The saddest part of this is the questions that still need to be answered:  Who in this man’s congregation agrees with him?  And if they don’t, will they do something about it?  I guess we’ll have to wait and see, but just like everyone came down on President Obama for not disassociating himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, anyone who sits still while this venom-spitting hate-monger infects the air with his drivel should be called out for it, because doing nothing is facilitating him.

 I don’t agree with what the President is doing in terms of economics and social policy, but I don’t hate him or anyone else.  And I certainly don’t wish him ill of any kind.  Neither does God; I’m pretty sure about that.

 

Peace.

rob

Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009

August 26th, 2009

President Obama called Sen. Edward Kennedy the “greatest Senator of our time”. While I may politically disagree with Sen. Kennedy, I can’t honestly say that President Obama is wrong. I can think of no other elected official who was a more determined, compassionate, dedicated servant of the people he represented than Edward Kennedy. From what others say about him, he was personally easy to like, despite any shortcomings that will get more than enough mention in the coming days. I try to always look for the good in people, and there was plenty to see in Sen. Kennedy. He fought hard to pass legislation on nationalized health care, he was a co-sponsor of the “No Child Left Behind” Act, he shepherded the Family and Medical Leave Act through a rough senate vote, was a stalwart supporter of civil rights legislation, fought for Title IX (equal access for women), more student aid for military servicemen, a higher minimum wage, and to quadruple the amount of money the federal government spent on finding a cure for cancer. His list of accomplishments is obviously much longer than what I’ve listed here, and there will be countless articles written about him in the days to come as his legacy is analyzed and his epitaph written, so I won’t belabor an obvious point. Rather, I’d like to say what he meant to me.
It would have been easy for me to dislike Sen. Kennedy, based solely on our political differences. He was a liberal; I’m a conservative. He was for hate-crime legislation; I’m against it. He was pro-choice; I’m pro-life (side note: I don’t believe that abortion supporters are ‘pro-death’ or ‘anti-life’, just that they don’t share my view of when life begins). He was for gun control; I’m definitely against it. Yet despite the fact that I disagreed with him on many things, I couldn’t help but admire him for his principled stance against the things he saw in our society that he felt were wrong and needed  to change. I may not have agreed that health care should be nationalized, but the point that gets missed is that this is the greatest country on earth, and millions of our citizens can’t get the health care that they need, and he wanted to fix that. I didn’t agree that guns should be banned or that citizens should not have the right to carry them, but violent crime is rampant in our country, and children are, many times, innocent victims of our society’s violence, and he wanted to fix that. I did not agree that a murder is somehow more egregious because of the race or sexual orientation of the victim and the murderer, but people in this country are murdered sometimes simply because they are black, or Asian, or gay, or Jewish, and he wanted to do whatever he could to stop the hate. How can you fault him for his ideals, regardless of the solutions he espoused? I certainly can’t.
My heart goes out to Edward Kennedy’s family, friends, and colleagues. And all of us should honor his contribution to making our country, and the world, a better place. I will end with one of Sen. Kennedy’s most famous quotes, which is taken from the eulogy he gave at his brother Robert’s funeral:

“My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it; saw suffering and tried to heal it; saw war and tried to stop it.
Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will someday come to pass for all the world.
As he said many times, in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him:
‘Some men see things as they are and say why.
I dream things that never were and say why not.’”

God Bless you, Teddy.
Peace.
Rob

Shameless Politicians

August 20th, 2009

Some efforts by politicians to have their way are veiled well, like the recent disclosure that the consulting firm that the Obama administration is using in its efforts at health care reform has close ties to David Axelrod, Obama’s senior strategist. Here’s the connection: AKPD Message and Media, founded by Axelrod, along with firm GMMB, were paid $12 million by Health Economy Now and Americans for Stable Quality Care, a coalition that includes Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, to produce ads promoting President Obama’s health care reform. The same firms received over $300 million to manage ads for Obama’s presidential campaign. One could argue that Axelrod may receive some of the money being paid to these firms. Now, to be fair, Axelrod left the firm on Dec. 31, 2008, with the agreement that it owed him $2 million. But critics now question whether the firm was hired to indirectly fund his severance package. Sounds a bit dubious, doesn’t it? Even if you could prove that Axelrod got these firms hired for the job, you’d have a hard time proving he was still getting paid. These folks do their best not to leave a trail.
On the other hand, some politicians make their bias so obvious that to deny it is simply ludicrous. Case in point: Ted Kennedy, longtime Senator from Massachusetts, who is now battling cancer, has sent a letter to the Massachusetts legislature and to Gov. Deval Patrick (D) requesting that the legislature change the law to make it legal for the governor to appoint a person to fill a vacancy in the state’s senate seat when a senator retires or dies. The current law provides for a special election within 5 months of any vacancy. Kennedy’s representatives say that the request does not signal that he is losing his battle with cancer, but rather, that “it is vital for this commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election.” Really? So, if that’s the case, then why did the Democrat-controlled Massachusetts legislature pass the law in the first place? One strong candidate in the race to answer that question: The law was passed in 2004. Wait for it……………….At the time, legislative Democrats — with a wide majority in both chambers — were concerned because then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney had the power to directly fill any vacancy created as Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president. Massachusetts has had 2 Democratic senators for many, many years, and Mitt Romney could have changed that. So how do you keep the other side from winning? Change the rules, of course. According to Fox News, “While Democrats hold a potentially filibuster-proof margin in Congress, the outcome of a health care reform bill could hinge on a single vote and some moderate Democrats have been wavering”. So the truth of the matter is not so selfless and patriotic as Sen. Kennedy would have you believe. Every the party loyalist, he wants to make sure that the Dems keep their 60-vote Senate majority if he is unable to continue his term.
I guess we should expect no less from the gutter-sniping snakes that currently occupy political offices, but they could at least try not to be so two-faced about it.

Peace.
rob

Michael Jackson

June 30th, 2009

The recent passing of Michael Jackson hit me pretty hard. I am a big fan of his music, and have been since I first heard it back in the 1970s. As a matter of fact, he was the original artist of what was my second “favorite song”, and the first one I learned to dance to. Back then, Elvis was still with us, and Hound Dog was my favorite song. Then my older brother bought Michael Jackson’s Off The Wall album, and it became the standard music in our house. From then on, it seemed like every song, every day, was a Michael Jackson song. Now there were a lot of hits on that album, but my hands-down favorite was Don’t Stop ‘Till You Get Enough. There was a dance back then called “the rock”, which was basically what it sounds like: rock your hips back and forth to the beat of the music. Being that I was limited in my dance ability, this was perfect for me. Thinking about that time in my life now brings back a lot of good memories: Growing up in my Grandmother’s house, fishing all summer long, hide-and-seek at dusk until it was too dark to see anyone, lightnin’ bugs, summer showers and thunderstorms, wishing you were older so you could go to the parties and dances that your older siblings went to, kickball, the playground where everyone hung out, freeze-cups (frozen kool-aid in Styrofoam cups; if you didn’t make them yourself, you could buy them from the nice old man down the street for 25cents), and so many other memories that come to my mind every time I hear that song. Kenny Chesney has a song called I Go Back, in which he talks about the feeling he gets when he listens to the songs he first heard during his childhood and high school years. I didn’t really get it until now. It’s too bad that I didn’t get it before we lost him.
      Say what you want about his so-called “quirky” behavior, but Michael was a good person. He did a lot of good things for many, many people; his charitable contributions alone would put most celebrities to shame. He made personal appearances for various charities, visited children’s hospitals, and opened the doors of his home to many kids who would never have had such opportunities, all while selling in excess of 750 million records, and re-defining the term “music video”. Honestly, can anyone deny the impact of Thriller? And in my opinion, he put on the greatest Super Bowl halftime show EVER. PERIOD. When those tens of thousands of people held up those painted boards that turned the stadium into a mural of children from around the world while Michael sang Heal the World, I stood there with an amazed smile and loved Michael Jackson  all over again. Nobody, in my estimation, has even come close to that performance. It brings tears to my eyes to watch it now.
Michael and Lionel Ritchie also gave us USA for Africa and We Are The World. I recently purchased the DVD of the entire event. For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, you are truly missing something special. It is a song that was recorded by 45 of the top recording artists in the country in 1985. They literally recorded it in one night, after the American Music Awards. There are too many details to list here, but suffice to say the DVD is worth buying to see how this magnificent event, which raised $63 million dollars for famine relief in Africa, unfolded. I doubt that anyone less than Michael, Lionel, Harry Belafonte, and Quincy Jones could have pulled it off.
I never believed any of the child molestation accusations leveled at Michael, and was glad to see him acquitted. It seems like that really hurt him more than he let on, because he never really recovered from it. It also seems that during that time he was being taken advantage of by those around him in his inner circle. All of which lead up to the tragedy of his death, never having been able to pull off the musical comeback that he wanted. I think he had a very hard time gearing up for it, knowing the media scrutiny he would face. He did record a comeback video, and finished it supposedly 2 days before he passed away. If it’s as good as has been reported, we may soon have a new reason to love Michael’s music.
I wish I were more eloquent and could write something that would touch the heart of everyone around the world. I’d love to send a message out that everyone would see and be inspired by to make the world a better place. Michael Jackson did that, and his words speak so profoundly:

I’m starting with the man in the mirror
I’m asking him to change his ways
No message could have been any clearer:
“If you want to make the world a better place, just look at yourself and then make a change”

God bless you, Michael. Thank you for enduring all that you did to bring hope, joy, and love to the world.

Peace.
rob

ICON

June 26th, 2009

Wow, being the youngest of the three host of the show I must admit that I have not had the pleasure of enjoying the icon of pop music, Michael Jackson, as long as Rob and Travis have. All of us will have our memories about the man, some will site his legal troubles and others will flaunt his unremarkable and uncanny ability to capture not only America but also the Worlds attention at the snap of a camera.

I’d like to focus on the one thing that I know Michael Jackson would love for us to focus on in his passing, and that’s his music. I talked with a guy yesterday that said and I quote, ” This is big, this is like Elvis dying in our parents generation.” How very true that is, I like to connect it to Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, and J. P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson…yes “The Day The Music Died.” June 25, 2009 that day came once again, and quite possibly for the last time. I just can’t foresee any auto-tune artist performing that at 50. One thing that is being lost in the wake of this tragedy is that Michael was the first African American Artist to appear on MTV.

Instead of trying to blanket the whole situation I’ll discuss what Michael meant to me as a kid. I was and am an animal lover; therefore “Free Willy” was one of the best movies as a kid that I got to see. It was the first movie I ever cried during. The crazy thing is that the whole movie I waited to hear Michael Jackson’s song “I’ll be there.” That song is a childhood favorite for me. The other song that I would call my favorite would be “The girl is mine”, what an awesome duet. Of course in his later years Michael made poor choices in his personal life that might affect his legacy, but for me he will always be remembered as the guy who wrote the “Lisa it’s your birthday” song on the Simpson’s, and The King of Pop because of all the people who practice this craft no one, I repeat no one has ever been more emulated as an artist. Justin Timberlake to Jay-Z and everyone in between have sampled this man in some way.

The measure of a man is not the path he takes but the size of the footprints he leaves, and those who have left the biggest footprints by no means have lived a perfect life…every word so true.

A rebuttal….

June 12th, 2009

It’s not often that we get such a good comment on a blog that I feel the need to point at it (actually, it’s never happened before) but I feel as tho Pedro’s comment on Rob’s blog needed it’s own posting. So without editing anything, here is his retort:

Regarding your analysis of what government can or cannot do, I mostly agree with it. Where I disagree with you is with your analysis of history of marriage as well as some other statements you seem to imply.

From a historical standpoint marriage in most of the cases did not originate with religion, their social origins are many, but most of the time it has to do with something as elementary as men and women agreeing to live together, or with the distribution of wealth, or property, or it has to do with relationship with families and so forth. Most marriages originated with an agreement between a man and a woman to live together, and the state had nothing to do with that (nor religion). Sometimes the state intruded, but only regarding matters of justice given a social complexity. For instance, in many societies that accept these kinds of arrangements you will find some jurisprudence regarding the rights of men, women and children who constitute a family unit in some way. Even in ancient societies like the Celts, or in America (the continent) were very much like that.

I do agree though that marriage can be shaped by religion, as Christianity did shape the way marriage was carried out in Europe. However, we must point out that marriage is not itself a Christian institution. It existed long before Christianity, and it was seen as something foreign to it during the first centuries of Christianity. In fact, during the two thirds of the Middle Ages, the Church had little or nothing to do with marriage. It was strictly a civil matter. After the Lateran Council of 1179, when the Western Church consolidated its power within governments in Western Europe, that the Church became concerned about marriage in the quality of sacrament. The reason for this is that the union of Church and state during that part of the Middle Ages required priests and bishops to get into matters regarding wealth and how it is distributed to widows, to children, family relatives, and their relationship with the Church. After the Counter-Reformation, with the Council of Trent, the Church did require a priest to bear witness to the vows so that the Church (and Catholic states) can recognize it as valid marriage.

So, contrary to what you say, marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. Sometimes a religious institution does not recognize a marriage recognized by the state, and sometimes the state does not recognize a marriage that a religion does. Regarding gay marriage, the issue is with the state recognizing marriage, not religion.

My second disagreement with you has to do with the fact that the state *can* define what marriage is, regardless of what the origin of marriage might have been. Such a definition should not be in the constitution, though, but at a lower level. Under the law (and strictly from a legal standpoint) marriage is a contract … period. It is not a “divine” institution, it is not a “religious” institution, it is merely a contract. Sometimes, the state needs to define what kind of a contract it is, so that the state can recognize some rights to those who enter into the agreement. A married couple has rights that an unmarried couple does not have. Here lies the whole problem with gay marriage.

My apparent third disagreement with you has to do with the right of certain people to protest because the “people” made a decision and amended the constitution to ban gay marriage. That right is ultimately based, as you well state, on the natural rights of people which, from an ethical (objectively good) standpoint, should never be taken away in principle. The reason why the amendment was passed had nothing to do with ethics, but with morals (uses and customs). As I always repeat myself: sometimes what people hold as moral is not necessarily ethical. Almost all the arguments presented by those who oppose gay marriage have nothing to do with ethics, but with morals which can be secular or religious. One of the secular arguments goes like this: “family and marriage are fundamental for society and it is placed in danger if it is changed the way the GLBT wants it, those two social institutions are in danger.” Of course, this argument begs the question. In what way are both of these institutions in danger if gay marriage were recognized, other than the scenario presented by Lewis Black in “Red, White and Screwed”? Aren’t these institutions more in danger with all the reality shows about it out there? The other secular argument is that “marriage between man and a woman is natural, therefore we should preserve what nature has determined that should be”. But this is a “naturalistic fallacy”: just because something is regarded as natural does not mean that it is ethically correct, and if unnatural does not mean that it is ethically incorrect. Nature has not determined that we should take aspirin if we have a headache, but it is not an evil act.

We have also the religious arguments against gay marriage, but for a real democracy to last (as you well point out), these religious beliefs cannot be forced on everyone, since we must preserve the freedom to believe as we choose to believe regarding God, gods, or anything we think the afterlife is.

I agree with you that the amendment of the constitution to ban gay marriage is fundamentally baseless in a democratic society. However, my third discrepancy with you is the apparent statement you seem to make that because the people talk, then the people who were defeated by these amendment should not protest. On the contrary, they should protest, and keep their own campaign alive, until the time comes again to amend the constitution to guarantee rights for the GLBT community. Even when the courts upheld the amendment, and they are right from a juridical standpoint, the GLBT community has duty to express that such an amendment is simply not right, it does not matter how many times the majority decides it is correct.

Pedro

I’m tired of being just another employee

June 5th, 2009

We live in an economy that has ruined many lives. Those of us lucky enough to still have jobs typically fear that we will keep them. Nothing seems guaranteed any more. The company I work for had a meeting earlier this year which let us all know that we were doing well and everyone was safe. Not 3 months later half of the building I work in is being laid off. It’s not even because we aren’t doing well, it’s just a corporate decision that is affecting tons of people including people who have worked here over 10 years. I am tired of being at someone else’s will. I want to control my own destiny financially. I think I have found a way.

Next week I will be doing a show on Wed with a couple of my friends to tell you about Efusjon. Efusjon is an energy drink first and foremost, but it also has the opportunity to help make me financially independent. It also can do the same for you. We will be talking more about this next week. If you can’t wait, click the link above. You can get a rundown there.

This will finally give me the financial independence that I want, and I know that so many of you want. I hope some of you will join me in this journey and maybe even you can find the same success I’m already seeing in this club. I can assure you, I would never put all of the hard work that I have put into this show/website at at risk of losing it’s following to back something that I don’t fully believe in.

–Trav