Election

Let's say I agree with your proposition that there are 8 relevant issues. How many issues must a candidate agree with before you would vote for them?

I don't view a vote for someone as a whole hearted endorsement. Papa Combs always said that they he didn't vote for people, he voted against the other guy. So if there are two candidates running for the same race, why not vote for the one you absolutely know won't move these issues in any way you agree with?

On another note, I saw on Sullivan's blog that during this election cycle more gay candidates were elected to public office than ever before. That's not all that interesting in itself. What is interesting is not one of those gay elected officials is Republican. Not in any state legislature and not in Congress. That's astounding. As I believe was said on the blog - the Republican party now partly defines itself on the basis of excluding an entire minority group.

Election Day

Hoping election day can get this going once more.

I chose not to vote for anyone this year. I just can't seem to put my support behind any candidate, not just because I don't like them, but because I think all of their policies are absolutely terrible. While I understand that I will never find a candidate with whom I agree with all the time, I think there is a minimum level of agreement that is necessary for one to consider voting for them. And I don't find that with any candidate.

I think for the large part, we agree with each other on most issues (moore's anyway, you brooks people who read this are weird). 1) We all want full protection and validation of same-gender couples in the law, 2) we want more open and free trade, 3) we want serious, long term planning for the national debt by addressing medicare, medicaid, social security and defense spending, 4) we want the military to be used less for nation building and extensively worldwide, 5) we want a more sane and simplistic tax code that greatly reduces deductions for businesses and individuals, 6) we are okay with emergency fiscal stimulus but think its basically impotent given that its tools of tax cuts and direct spending are also used aggressively during periods of sustained economic growth, 7) we want systematic change in health care and 8) we want social safety nets for the poor and less social support for the middle and upper class.

I think those are the serious issues in this election. I think we all agree pretty closely on all of them (exception of health care since I'm sane and you people are commies but we know it needs structural change). But to be honest, I can't find candidates that agree with us on many of those issues. Republicans and democrats do not address any of those at all. Why should I give support to any candidate who doesn't seriously address the great issues of the day, or if they do address it, do so in ways in which I disagree?

So who did you vote for? Why did you vote for them? And, do they agree with you on issues in which you feel are the most important?

Making themselves a Target

Business Dumbassery Award #1 - Target





I sure you guys have heard of the Target boycott, initiated by gay rights groups when Target donated $150,000 to a group that supports Tom Emmer, an anti gay governatorial candidate in Minnesota. The donation itself is appalling enough (though legal thanks to the recent Citizens United ruling), but its the lack of foresight by Target executives that really irks me. First, why contribute $150,000 to a political candidate anyways? $150,000 is a lot of money. Are you really going to get $150,000 in return from having your man in the Minnesota governor's mansion? Also, did it not occur to these guys that a large, highly public donation to an outspoken critic of gay marriage might upset gay people, who are probably big Target shoppers? They consist of about 5% of the population, and they ain't shopping at Wal Mart. Now left leaning groups are boycotting Target, big institutional investors are worried, and the donation may derail Target's attempts at moving into the San Francisco market, which they have been trying to do for years. Nice move, dumbasses.





Business Dumbassery Award #2 - Manchester Grand Hyatt

Target should have learned from a local San Diego douchebag, Doug Manchester. Manchester made millions building up the San Diego Bayfront into a beautiful area teeming with hotels. The crown jewel of his developement was the Manchester Grand Hyatt, the 3rd tallest building in San Diego and probably it's most awesome hotel. Manchester then pulled a target and decided to get political. During the Prop 8 campaign, he donated $125,000 to a group that supported Prop. 8. Boycotts and protests ensued. Manchester is a brilliant businessman, but what the hell was he thinking? Who did he think was staying in his urban, upscale waterfront hotel? Its not families who want to go to Sea World. Its people in town for business and upscale travelers (i.e. gay people). Even the name of the hotel is gay. Manchester Grand Hyatt? You might as well have called it "Doug's Fabulous Hotel". The hotel itself has mentioned that the boycott has cost the hotel about $2.4 million but some groups have the number even higher. Anyways, lesson as always, don't get involved in politics if you are trying to sell something.

Sharks!

I thought stingrays in La Jolla was bad, but apparently they are coming close to shore to avoid the 20 foot beasts that are crusing around La Jolla Cove these days. There have been three shark sightings in the past week in and around La Jolla Cove in the last week. Not the little ankle biters that are usually around, but full grown great whites. Normally they don't hang around San Diego, but they apparently they are showing up this year for some reason. Something to think about the next time you guys come in town and we kayak over to see the seals again. My solution, let that killer whale from Sea World who killed that trainer swim around and munch on sharks. They are the only animals in nature that have been known to kill great whites, and that one has a mean streak. They don't want to kill the whale, so let it take out it anger on some giant man eating fish, or at least scare them back to Northern California or LA. Problem solved.

This isn't about politics

A post not about politics. Wow!

I get asked for money about 20 times a day. Maybe it comes with being a pastor of an urban church. Maybe its just part of living in Baltimore. I don't know. Our church office gets called literally about 15 times a day by people requesting money for help with eviction notices or electric bills - just those two things. I've had two people in my office today affiliated with the church, ask for money (and residence in the church basement). I was parallel parking my car while talking on the phone yesterday. My a/c doesn't work in my car very well so i had the windows down. Even though I was in the middle of parking and in the middle of talking on the phone, some guy literally stuck his head in my windows asking for money. I get asked at almost every single street corner I walk down and even by my landlord (the nerve!).

It's this constant barrage of endless need. Many are looking for money for drugs. I know this and I'm starting to learn who they are. Many are not. How do you deal with this and remain faithful to a scripture that says "give to all who ask of you" and "why not rather be wronged? why not rather be cheated" while at the same time not enabling drug addicts and at the same time not becoming insane/cynical/broke? (and remember, it's not just a suggestion to be faithful to those scriptures, its actually part of my job description). how do you deal with it?

Traditional Family

Responding to Adam's post on traditional family

I think this whole thing is weird. There is no "traditional family" especially in regards to the bible (of which many seem to claim their tradition comes from). I've read the bible more than most and a lot less than I should have, but you can't read scripture seriously and walk away thinking that what social conservatives call a "traditional family" is anything like what is presented in the bible.

The bible sees marriage as an economic exchange between families - namely between the husband and the father. The husband gains from this exchange. He gets a wife who provides him with children (and sex). Children aren't just good because they're cute and fun and fulfilling, but they're good because they are your health insurance. Honor your mother and father literally means to take care of your parents when they're old and can't work anymore. That's why losing children is so horrible in the bible - it also means your own death. But the father gains too. He gets a dowry. The wife also gains.

Women at the time were dependent on men to take care of them physically and economically (likewise men were dependent on women economically too, but that's a different matter). Women literally had to stay pregnant all the time because so many children died during childhood that they needed to have as many as possible. They couldn't do all the same types of physical labor that men did even though their physical labor can only be accurately described as backbreaking as well - making bread took hours and hours of grinding and smashing - all of us, even you steven, are too much of wimps to do what everyday women did back then.

This is what marriage has always been throughout human history - an economic exchange between different parties. This isn't to say that there wasn't joy, love and happiness in these marriages, only that marriage wasn't for the purpose of romantic love. Also during times when many men died due to war, disease or genocide or whatever, polygamous relationships became normal because there were too many single women. Men took on many wives as a means to take care of them and to have more children. This too is very traditional, just not by Sarah Palin's standards.

There were no traditional male/male or female/female relationships because marriage wasn't about romantic love. Protests in scripture about male/male or female/female "relationships" were always about same-sex sexual practices that were almost always abusive either through rape, war, humiliation, slavery or involving children. They aren't "traditional relationships" because same-sex marriage doesn't make sense economically until children become economic costs as opposed to economic assets - like what happened in affluent urban societies after the industrial revolution.

so yeah. that was long.

Politics Thought Dump

Obama Dumps Biden in 2012 and Picks Hillary for VP

Personally, I think it's a fantastic idea and a good way to setup Hillary for a presidential run in 2016. I'm over Biden. Then again, I was never really for him anyway.

Christiane Amanpour: Liberal. Biased. Terrorist.

I'm a huge fan of Sunday morning talk shows. Meet the Press, This Week, Fox News Sundays. One of the best parts of the Sunday morning roundup of news has always been This Week's "In Memoriam." It's haunting and humbling to see the names and ages of the men and women who have died in the service of their country. The network respectfully only displays the names of soldiers that have been officially released by the Pentagon, I assume to allow families to be notified and mourn. In what I believe was just an attempt to put her own rhetorical twist on the segment, the new host, Christiane Amanpour stated, "We remember all of those who died in war this week, and the Pentagon released the names of 11 U.S. servicemembers killed in Afghanistan."

Taking a page from Palin's playbook, the neoconservative base has gone into a craze. The above statement was ooooobviously a biased, liberal verbal manipulation to convince the American public to mourn those that died on the other side of the battlefield. But really, is mourning any loss of life a bad thing? Isn't all human life sacred? Where the hell are the Christianists when you need them? Wait, these are them.

A Long History and Tradition.

I probably should write a longer post on this. And probably will. But just a thought. Social conservatives always argue against gay equality (marriage, adoption, job discrimination, housing discrimination, etc) on the basis that the "traditional family" has a long history and tradition - that generations and generations, cultures upon cultures, religion through religion. But could it be that through all of human history, we have just killed gays? Maybe it's that only in the last 50-100 years, a few select societies have evolved to the point where we just don't murder those that dare to be different. Do we really want to rely on that rich history of tradition as a model of virtue?

A couple of my favorites

My favorite Sullivan post as of late:

He avoided a second Great Depression. The bank bailout, however noxious, worked. GM may soon be returning a profit to the government. Health insurance reform will stick and, with careful oversight, could begin to curtail runaway healthcare costs. Financial re-regulation just passed. Two new Supreme Court Justices are in place after failed attempts at culture war demagoguery. Crime - amazingly - has not jumped with the recession. America is no longer despised abroad the way it was; torture has been ended; relations with Russia have improved immensely; Iran's regime is more diplomatically and economically isolated than in its entire history; even the Greater Israel chorus has been challenged. Moreover, if the House goes Republican this fall, it renders a second Obama term as likely as Clinton's became (how many Independents would want to hand over the government to Palin and the current GOP in Congress?). On the economy, the employment outlook remains bleak - but not desperate if you look at the long run

Oh, and his approval ratings are at a shockingly low 45%!!!

My favorite picture as of late:

My favorite thought as of late:

Why do I work at a job I don't want just to buy the things I don't need?

My favorite Fox News statistic of the week:

Only 1.38% of Fox News viewers are black. Yay!

My favorite graph of the day:

My least favorite idea of the week:

Massachusetts awards all of his electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote?? Is Massachusetts the new DC? Taxation with representation.

Told you so . .

In my last post, I half-heartedly opined . . .

Conservatives go into a Bible-tent frenzy at the notion that the repeal of DOMA or equal rights for gay Americans will infringe upon their religious freedom. But not just any religious freedom, just Christianity freedom. Evidently the Constitution only meant to apply to Christ-lovers.

Evidently, I was right:

Paging Dr. Kevorkian

I am currently watching the Bachelorette with Jey right now. You know what is awesome? Getting to work at 7 AM, working all day without a lunch, going to school for 3 hours immediately after work, and then having to go through this bullshit. This chick has just slept with two other dudes within the last 48 hours, and is crying that one of her suitors left her for his hometown sweetheart. My strategy is to feed Jey enough red wine so that she falls asleep and I can watch the Miltary Channel. The Military Channel at 11 PM is awesome. They can't sell any commercials since there are like 7 people watching, and it is awesome. But until we do, lets get to some blogging.

Military Policy

I agree with Adam that we should cut defense. But I think the strategy we should ask is how do we defend ourselves and protect ourselves more efficiently. There are more aircraft carriers in San Diego Bay right now than any other single nation has in their fleet. We have troops in nations like Germany that do very little to protect us. Why should we subsidize Germany's national defenses?

One thing I do believe is that we should have some soldier's protecting certain resources around the globe that protect our national interests. I hate to say it, but I think we do have to be prepared to go to war for oil. I know, hear me out. We can't survive without it. We don't have enough to maintain. But Steven, we can move to renewable sources and move away from oil. Shut up hippie, we really can't. Oil is the most efficient thing we have right now to move around our cars, trucks, and planes, so we are stuck with it until we can find something better. So maybe a couple bases in the Middle East isn't a bad idea. If we didn't support Israel unconditionally and if we had better support from our allies, we could protect our interests with less. We would have less terrorism to deal with. If we didn't do stupid stuff like start never ending wars in places like Iraq, it would help us out to.

The modern Republican party refuses to make any cuts to defense, Medicare, and Social Security. They are not conservatives. They are idiots. We should make defense more efficient and less costly. (Note: Spray tanned "Tobacco" John Boner (Boehner) did suggest raising the retirement age for social security, one of the few good ideas I have heard from a Republican in a while. I will give credit where credit is due. I still won't forgive him for happily handing out checks from the Tobacco lobby on the House floor.)

Lebron James

I hate Lebron, and not just for murdering Cleveland and hijacking ESPN for a month. I hate him because I signed him to a contract in 2014 in Dynasty mode of NBA Live 2009 shortly before "The Decision" aired and his douchiness was revealed to the world. I then was forced to trade him for Dwight Howard. And I don't like Dwight Howard. So F you Lebron.

Stingrays

If there is one thing worse than Lebron, its Stingrays. 30 people were stung in one day by Stingrays in La Jolla Shores. Why do they hate America? I have some hypothesises (hypothesi?)
1. Revenge for Oil Spills
2. ESPN's airing of the Decision.
3. Megyn Kelly of Fox News
4. Frequent La Jolla Shores beachgoer Steven Moore's constant urination in their home,

A Few Posts in One

Eddie is in New Orleans, so I have some spare time to post a few thoughts that have been churning around in my head.

Outsourcing the Military.

Barney Frank and Ron Paul, an odd couple, wrote an article in the Huffington Post recently about the need to reduce military spending in an effort to reduce the deficit. They make extremely valid points - which may be the reason they are ignored by both parties. But my take on it is this: while sure it might reduce the deficit, wouldn't it also create jobs?? We have 15,000 troops in Japan! Newsflash: the war ended 65 years ago, Japan is a stable democracy. It's like a bad case of the babysitter that just won't leave!

We have installations in Germany, Korea, Japan, Bulgaria, Italy, Kyrgystan, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Israel, Djibouti, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Cuba, Bahrain, the Phillipines and yes, even Greenland. Just imagine if we brought all of those troops home. Not only would we reduce the deficit, but we bring home their families, their discretionary income, their part-time jobs, their full-time jobs. Immediate job creation - immediate deficit reduction. I don't know what we would do if Greenland were attacked. Oh yeah, we still have over 5,000 nuclear warheads. Ready at a moment's notice. To destroy the world. Comforting.

Have you even read it??

Cliches are really only fun when you used as weapons of argument. Our family's favorite was brought to us by the eloquent Hannity: Why do you hate America? But the most recent is, "Have you even read _______? Have you?!!?"

It started with the Arizona legislation. Supporters of the bill hurled that verbal javelin at any ignorant, unpatriotic, freedom hater that dared criticize the bill or inquire as to its possible ramifications. "Have you even read the bill? (no pause) No, I didn't think so. You don't know what you're talking about."

It's transformed into the trump card in any political discussion. And the answer is, I haven't. That's not my job. It may be fun to read Lawrence v. Texas or watch Elena Kagan verbally discombobulate John Cornyn on television, but it's not what we do. We trust the media (and no, not just one source, but a combination of many) to read the raw data and report it to us. It's their job to read the raw data - the Supreme Court case, the legislation, the transcript of the confirmation hearing, the memo from 30 years ago.

I haven't read the Arizona bill. I haven't read the transcript regarding the Blank Panther farce. And you will not win an argument with that line . . . hater of America.

Prediction: Republicans will not take the House or the Senate in November.

Why? It seems in their effort to attract Tea Party followers and meld* themselves into one, Republicans have taken a genius play out of the Tea Party playbook: no new ideas. It's common knowledge that the extent of the Tea Party movement's policy positions are protest signs. Try this . . . google "Tea Party Policy Positions" and then try to find one. Please note the difference between a policy and a "talking point." A "talking point" is something like, cut taxes, secure the border, support the military, cut spending. Those are not policy positions. It's not even an article about a policy position. Hell, it's barely a fucking headline.

Conservatives love mentally masturbating to the thought that they are the party of ideas (Newt Gingrich?), but if I hear tort reform and selling insurance across state lines one more time as the solution to America's healthcare crisis, I might just refudiate* myself. If I hear that tax cuts will solve our deficit problem, either you don't know history or don't know how to read a graph or both. It's infuriating and it will not win you elections.

*Editor's Note: "meld" is a new word combining "melt" and "mold" that Sarah Palin inspired me to create.

Dichotomous Conclusory Thoughts.

• Conservatives go into a Bible-tent frenzy at the notion that the repeal of DOMA or equal rights for gay Americans will infringe upon their religious freedom. But not just any religious freedom, just Christianity freedom. Evidently the Constitution only meant to apply to Christ-lovers. Try to build a mosque in New York or Tennessee and no way, you can't do that! That must be one of those strict interpretations of the Constitution, huh?
• Conservatives want the government to be stripped down to its basic functions and spending dramatically curtailed. Yet, they still want the government to fix oil leaks. Doesn't that take money, expertise, resources, agencies, etc?
• Gays in the military would destroy the fabric of the military, harm unit cohesion, and distract from the life and death mission. But isn't the Republicans who argue that our men and women in uniform are the most professional in the world? Can these professional adults not handle the occasional gay in the workplace? Almost every business in America are professional enough to handle us. Then again, maybe capitalism is that advanced.

Moore Family World Cup Blog

Since the Moore Family Blog is slower than Adam Moore's junior high track 110 meter hurdles time, I propose we start a new one - The Moore Family World Cup Blog. It has some similarities to this blog, only 10,000 times better. I added some music to it so make sure to have your speakers on.

So I created a new blog for us and posted the link here. Check out the site and add your thoughts on the World Cup.

Go Team USA!

Moore Family World Cup Blog