Proposition 8 Upheld

This isn't about gay rights or homosexuality or the 'sanctity of marriage'. It's too late to get start wars over semantics and separation of church and state.

This is about the political system of the united states. This is about democracy and what it means. Who holds the power, the people or the court? What should the people be allowed to determine and what is a true majority?

The court was unlikely to overturn the will of the people, even if the will of the people was so muddled. It was also unlikely to 'divorce' 18,000 people. For such a liberal state its strange that judges should take such a strict constructionist action without realizing the precedent they are creating.

The court made a cowardly decision, with the motive of angering the least amount of people while clearly favoring one. The court had a chance to establish the rights of the minority. The idea of majority rule that pervades through our political system has always stood alongside minority rights. How do millions of people, with no real stakes in the issue, allow themselves to rule on it?

If so many of the ground breaking moments of our history had been put to a minority vote, the great progress on slavery and segregation is unlikely to have happened. That is not to compare the gay civil rights movement to the African American civil rights movement. That is a huge mistake. It is not the same fight, but it is a fight none the less.

The only chance California has is to put another Proposition on the ballot, since this last one barely passed. However, its time to look at the bigger picture. The picture beyond the rights just stripped away without the least guilt. It's time to look at what the court has said: Majorities, bare majorities, can take away the rights of minorities.

This should not be taken lightly. Who will be the next ostracized group that through propaganda will be oppressed by the Majority? What should such Majority be? A mere 51%?

For people so set on holding Majority rule, it sure didn't pan out that way when it came to electing Bush to the White House, where Gore had the majority there too, but even then there is things in effect to counteract the power of the majority to help the 'smaller states'. If we're willing to defend the rights of a state, why not defend the rights of a people?

1%. That's what determined the difference in California. That's what took away the rights to a whole group of people, and under what pretense?

Can the majority back up their choice without resorting to religious rhetoric? A factor, that has no right to impose itself on the political system . This is not just a travesty to the gay community but to the American political system because aside from what you will believe, and you have you're right to believe so the basic foundation of American politics has been broken, an ideal that was clear to the MINORITY that decided to create this nation in the first place, what if the majority had been allowed to rule then?

It really is shameful. It is not only shameful that the court would uphold this, it is shameful that the proposition made it on the ballot. It is shameful that this proposition passed.

It is shameful that 50% of Californians believe they have the right to take other people's rights away and it is shameful that the court has rewarded that behaviour.

I'd like to believe Judges ruling in a high court could understand the simple principle of Majority rule, minority rights.

The Gambler by Dostoyevsky

The Gambler, a short novella, by Dostoyevsky surrounds many of the psychological and 'moral' themes common to Dostoyevsky's work. There is obsession, love, and vice. There is of course the usual generalizations:focusing on his own Russians but attacking the Germans, Poles, and especially the French.

The characters are hard to empathize with, but they are given just enough humanity to not make them entirely hateful. It would serve well to have at least one character with noble motives, so as to not give the work the dark tone, at times insufferable tone, it develops.

The first two-thirds start off slow, with Dostoyevsky straying a bit from his usual style. IT ultimately serves as simply a set up for the climax and denouement of the story which are the true beauty of it.

As many of Dostoyevksy's works, the work improves steadily as it progresses both in style and in content. There does seem to be a jolt, as the time gaps between the journal entries become longer but it really is worth suffering through. The climax of the story is almost absent, as it it is told in retrospect but it does not make the emotional debris it leaves behind any less poignant.

American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House

Jon Meachan creates an informative, easy flowing account of the Jackson years. No matter what side you stand on, for with Jackson there tends to not be a middle ground--its either love or hate like so many of the great personalities of the past. The account created by Meachan in American Lion creates a comprehensive encyclopedia of the White House years, creating an intricate story with lively characters, including as in any great story line a constant foil be it in the form of Henry Clay or John Quincy Adams.

There would of course have been great interest in more information, especially regarding Jackon's early years that would have helped shed a light on the many motives behind Jackson's actions especially since his stances were so strongly based on his own personal ideologies.

Although clearly taking a Pro-Jackson stance, Meachan makes sure to not shy away from Jackson's mistakes. He does however give Jackson an easy pass on many of his mistakes and shies away from really questioning his often Messianic leanings. He gives Jackson a free pass on his slavery views and on the economic depression that followed his two terms in office.

Overall its a good read that sparks a great interest in early American history (Can't wait to start books on John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson). One of the most interesting aspects is realizing how the great figures emphasize the importance of specific branches of government. There has not been a non-executive politician to have the strength, respect, and power that Clay, Webster, Calhoun, and Adams had in Congress during Jackson's reign.

Short of Celebration

The cities of Atlanta and New York were treated to a less than celebratory Cinco de Mayo.

The sports fans of these cities may be drinking for all the wrong reasons.

Today both the Atlanta Hawks and the New York Yankees were humiliated.

The question is, which one was worse?

The answer seems easy: Atlanta Hawks.

Not only was the game of more importance. It's a PLAYOFF game.

It was a blowout. An embarrasing blowout in a game that was still relatively close at halftime. They COLLAPSED in the second half.

Working against the Yankees. It's only May, it was only a four point loss.

There needs to be rivalry points put in here, however.

There needs to be homefield advantage put into this.

There needs to be expectations invovled in this.

Everyone in their right mind knew Atlanta stood no chance against the Cleveland Cavaliers. Much less in Lebron's house.

The Yankees are different. There's no reason why they should now be 0-5 against the Boston Red Sox.

If you're team can't find it in themselves to step up against their biggest rivals there is cause for worry.

The fact is the Yankees are now 0-2 against the Red Sox in Yankee Stadium. That doesn't sound promising.

Being swept at home is heartbreaking. Being swept at home by the Red Sox?

Maybe those tequila shots can block it all out.