There is no 'N' in strumpet, you Diplodocus.

February 16, 2009

Serial Twit

caltechgirl it's not about IDEOLOGY, you fucking turd it's about breaking poor people's backs. Gas goes up $0.14/ gallon INSTANTLY

caltechgirl Sales tax OVER 10%, and then increases in income tax and car fees. Do you want people to MOVE OUT FASTER?

caltechgirl I wish I hated my house and I could afford to sell it. I'd leave CA tomorrow.

caltechgirl I can't afford to stay.

caltechgirl FTR, the fucking turd in question was some stupid ass liberal state senator who evidently only represents RICH PEOPLE

caltechgirl I
think if you find yourself in a hole this deep, the first question you
should be asking is not how do we fill the hole, but rather...

caltechgirl ... how did we get here? What are the bad decisions that led us here. And then don't repeat them.

caltechgirl Because you can only blame "the economy" so much.

caltechgirl I
thought the democrats were the champions of poor people. I guess that's
true only until they need them to bear the brunt of their mistakes.

The above was in response to some opportunist idiot on the TV taking advantage of the camera in his face to make the budget mess all about Democrats vs. Republicans.

That's just ignorant. What it's about is how much are we going to take and who's listening. Have you heard the man-on-the street interviews in the media? NO ONE wants you to solve the problem by choking us to death with taxes. NO ONE. Yes, some tax increases are necessary, but how are we spending the money? Isn't there something that can be done without shoving it, quite literally, on to the backs of your constituents?

I've heard both sides point out that this economy is based on spending. Great. Explain to me, then, how people can get the economy going by spending when it costs them more NOT ONLY to buy items, but also TO GET TO THE STORE. And more of their income goes back to the state to begin with. These people are barely spending, and you're threatening to put a BIGGER hurt on their wallet?

You don't improve this state by taking money from people. You encourage them to give the state more than you would take by giving them incentives to buy.

As much as I hate the sheer size of the "porkulus" package that the President will sign tomorrow, I have to point out that it is based on INCENTIVES. And maybe that's why people were willing to pass it. Because the help is obvious. It's money going to people. Not coming out of their pockets. At least not today.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:34 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Because the help is obvious. Actually, I would beg to differ.Money going to people has to come from somewhere. Since the government produces nothing, that money comes from other people. This is unlikely, on the whole, to be of any help, as we're rapidly approaching the point where 1) There aren't enough people to soak anymore 2) China grows uneasy enough with our nation's debt that they stop lending, or start calling some of their markers due. Economic downturns occur. I would posit that whatever DC does is likely to lengthen and exacerbate the recovery. I base that opinion on empirical evidence from the past. Is there spending in the bill that I support? Sure. Roads, bridges and other infrastructure ( I work in power generation) in this country are antiquated and should be updated or replaced. Unfortunately, these needs existed before, but they aren't really vote buyers, which is why things like the Minnesota bridge collapse happen.

Posted by: physics geek at February 17, 2009 09:28 AM (MT22W)

2 I thought the democrats were the champions of poor people. They are. That's why they have created so many of them by taking as many jobs, homes, and as much money as they away from the middle class and the rich. The more poor, the more power they gain. And that is what they're after, isn't it?

Posted by: DCE at February 17, 2009 07:26 PM (bzJcf)

3 Problem is not that there is not enough money..there is just too much spending by governments...governments at all levels. And since governments NEVER produce anything it is always someone else's money that governments spend. The only way to beat them is to quit producing anymore than it takes to live. When there is no one left to loot they will have to feed off each other and maybe that will be the end of them

Posted by: GUYK at February 19, 2009 11:59 AM (uyoGg)

4 I downtown with you wanting to get the fuck out of CA. Too bad Big Sur is on the Left coast instead of the Right.

Posted by: Sam at February 20, 2009 04:55 AM (kN++T)

5 货架、货架

Posted by: 货架、 at March 26, 2009 06:14 AM (8j21L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 30, 2009

Keep your laws off my octuplets!

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've likely already seen the story of the Southern California who woman who gave birth to the world's first known surviving set of octuplets.

What you may not know, is that (no surprise) despite the family's plea for privacy, the vultures have been hard at work and have discovered that she already has (gasp!) six children, these babies were conceived (gasp!) via IVF, and that she's (wait for it........) a single mother living with her bankrupt parents.

"Where are the ethics??" scream the journos and the academics. "How could you justify fertility treatment for a woman who already has a pack of kids? Don't you have a MORAL OBLIGATION to keep a poor (reputedly on Medicaid), single woman from populating the planet with her bastards that the rest of us are going to have to support?"

There oughta be a law! A law I tell ya! (read the comments here)

Well, there is a law. Just not here. I'm sure you've heard of China.

The selfsame "voices of the people" who decry this woman's choice to have a large family are the same folks who cry out bitterly about China's One Child policy.

Either fertility is regulated or it is not. How many children is too many? Is it a sliding scale based on your ability to pay for them? If so, I'd wager most of us would have disappeared up the abortionist's vacuum tube.

Somehow they also fail to mention that if it's my choice to have a child or not, that includes BOTH outcomes: having the baby or not having the baby. The faceless critics lamenting this woman's "irresponsible choice" (a phrase uttered by a so-called Bio-Ethics expert during a news report this morning) are also the same crew lobbying so hard to keep abortion legal.

I'm sorry, but I thought "Keep your laws off my body" was an absolute. Or does that just apply to the popular choices?

I haven't even touched the infertility aspect of this case. Many of my dear friends struggle with infertility, some have pursued multiple courses of treatment. Some, ultimately, decided that the pursuit was futile despite the deepest longings of their heart for a biological child. Having seen the struggle that so many endure, it seems to me that any successful procedure resulting in a healthy baby is a win. Perhaps those of you who have been down this road would like to chime in.

Certainly, it is a pertinent question, how will this mom support 14 children? But how does a 14 year old support one baby? How do two parents with two careers handle two or three small ones? Raising kids is not easy for anyone at anytime. 14 children, including (reportedly) 2 with special needs and 8 infants presents a huge challenge, but that doesn't mean necessarily that the children will be neglected or hungry. In fact, it's entirely possible that these 14 kids will be MUCH better off than some kids with only one or two siblings.

You can't have it both ways, either people get to choose the family they want, or they don't. And if they don't, who makes the rules? Based on what?

It works so well elsewhere, after all....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:47 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Excellent article, truly! If the parent is not able to care for the children at that point the state would step in and take them. But like you said... how do we know she can or can't? It's none of our dang business.

Posted by: pam at January 30, 2009 12:01 PM (l6NIn)

2 Beautifully said. And quite right. Once you start trying to legislate this kind of thing - it's bad for everyone and you end up like China. Of course I wonder where she got the money for IVF - is it covered under medicaid? I won't take anything the media says as being true - they have tipped their hand on how they feel about any children at all... So I'll just go back to my life and not worry about this woman... Imagine that - I'm going to walk away and let her live her own life!!!

Posted by: Teresa at January 30, 2009 02:03 PM (ybEr8)

3 the local media have stated that the mom works at a fertility clinic. Insinuating, of course, that her bosses provided free services since IVF is NOT covered by Medicaid.

Posted by: caltechgirl at January 30, 2009 02:46 PM (IfXtw)

4 Ouch. I'm split both ways on this. I'm totally against any government interference in this matter, but I hope to hell she's able to care for all of them. I have nothing but the utmost contempt for mothers who keep having children and don't take care of them (like my wife's niece). Either other family members have to pick up the slack, or they end up in foster care (almost the worst outcome). If they are going to continue having kids they have to take full responsibility for their raising and care. Legal sanctions for a mother's irresponsibility? Probably. I think the niece should be breaking rocks until every last one of her kids (5 at last count) turn 18. But government dictating how many kids one can and cannot have? Sorry, that's how China handles things. Caltechgirl's argument wins.

Posted by: diamond dave at January 30, 2009 07:16 PM (iBUsJ)

5 I'm confused -- I went to the links but I only saw comments indicating that they thought the mother was irresponsible. Where are the "journos and the academics" who are screaming that the government should regulate the privacy of a woman's body? Though I think it *is* freaking irresponsible to have ANY child, one or six or eight, when you cannot not emotionally, physically, or financially support them, I don't know anyone who says (other than insane web people who I've never met) that there should be a law that regulates the number of children people can have in this country.

Posted by: SBC at January 31, 2009 08:03 AM (1Q6g4)

6 Did you even SEE the news? These talking heads were EVERYWHERE.

Posted by: caltechgirl at January 31, 2009 10:23 AM (IfXtw)

7 I'll be honest, I don't watch the local news that much if at all. But I do watch CM, KO, and RM -- the liberal trifecta of talking heads -- and I don't remember them saying anything other than it happened and I can't even remember if all of them said the the births happened. Most of what I've been reading or seeing is about the stimulus bill anyway... I remember a story on NBC saying that octuplets are at risk for a ton of health things (which is in fact GOOD that they reported on that)...maybe its on the morning shows? I mean, I can understand people talking about the responsibility of the woman the same way I can understand talking about the responsibility of teenage pregnancies but there were talking heads who said we should regulate how many children? Are these talking heads who are saying this on Fox? But it sounds like that issue that people are having isn't so much about how many children can one have but should IVF procedures be cleared to someone that has more than double the average number of children per American household. It may be treated like organ donation where medical boards decide if people are either young enough or healthy enough for the procedure because even though IVF has a hefty bill at the end (so its usually a procedure only available to the upper middle class - rich groups), it still takes time and resources from other people. But that's going to be up to the individual hospitals and companies probably in the end...I would be surprised if it ever became a legal issue and I would imagine every *real* pro-choice woman would fight any regulation.

Posted by: SBC at January 31, 2009 03:10 PM (1Q6g4)

8 I completely agree that it's nobody's business as to how many children a person should be able to bring into this world, especially not the business of any government. BUT... Prospective adoptive parents have to go through rigorous background checks, psychological, financial, etc., especially here in the United States, which is why so many end up going to China for their unwanted children. Why shouldn't there be some sort of the rigorous background checks for prospective in vitro fertilizations? Especially some serious looking into someone's psyche as to why after having experienced the thrill of parenthood 6 times over anyone needs to reproduce again. If it is so necessary to have even 1 more child, why not adopt? AND... From what I have come to understand of this situation (just so happens this young woman lives in my hometown of Whittier) this mother of 14 children is not gainfully employed as she is a full-time college student, nor is there a father in the picture. I would assume (and I'm sure the media will dredge this up eventually) that the mother subsists on Welfare. God only knows how she can afford the in vitro process. I was on Welfare years ago while trying to raise my 1 and only child after my divorce. I was 32 at the time (I had been had been gainfully employed and paid taxes since I was 16 years old), and I knew full well that I was at the government's mercy as to my personal life. I had to show bank statements, receipts from my utilities, receipts for childcare, and I was told that I could be investigated at any time, meaning they could come into my home, look in my cupboards, interview my neighbors, whatever. So the media is doing to this woman what they should have done to our new president, and yes, in comparison, that is wrong on so many levels it boggles the mind. But once you put yourself in a position of being scrutinized whether for public office or for personal gain via benefit of living off of tax payer's dollars, all bets are off. God bless her for not "selectively harvesting" 6 or 7 of these babies, but all in all, someone needs to take a hard look at the mindset of someone who needs to bear 6, 7, or 14 children when there are so many little one's who need homes. Sorry to go on so long. Kind of a heated subject for me since speaking to several family members and friends who live in Whittier.

Posted by: My Awesome Mix Tape #6 at January 31, 2009 07:02 PM (K9H6U)

9 I didn't comment when you first posted because my initial snarky thought was that she did it so she could become a TV star and make money that way b/c of her huge family. Appears that is, in fact, the case. To me that makes a big difference - I don't care how many kids you have, 1 or 15 or 25, you shouldn't be doing it in hopes of getting endorsement deals. Kids shouldn't be bargaining chips for career moves.

Posted by: beth at February 03, 2009 10:29 AM (Slkto)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 27, 2009

The News from LA LA LAnd...

Most of the time, the news just disgusts me and makes me sad....

But every once in a while it also gives me hope....

Posted by: caltechgirl at 05:31 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

January 21, 2009

Like Cheese on Chinese Food

Republican rhetoric coming from The One, that is:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Changefest '09 - Obama's Inaugural Speech

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

I'm not a big fan of Jon Stewart, and I often think he's just plain unfunny. But when he nails it, he nails it. This made me laugh. A lot.

Thanks to my afternoon Therapy Pool pals (Hi Stan!) for telling me to find the clip!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 4 kb.

November 06, 2008

You're here, you're queer, GET OVER YOURSELVES

For the record, I voted NO on Prop 8, folks.

Now that THAT's out of the way, let me get to my point. Last night's protest rallies in West Hollywood and elsewhere did NOTHING to help the No on 8 cause.

The election is OVER. The ballots have been counted. The "No on 8" side lost.

Sitting in a busy intersection, holding up traffic and waving signs from an election that's past now doesn't make people want to support you. It makes people think you are a bunch of whiny crybabies with nothing better to do than to hold them up in traffic. Which, as we LA folks ALL know, is shitty without protesters blocking up the main intersections.

So get over it. Wipe your tears. Get up and fight back. The RIGHT way. The SMART way. Don't make your opponents so upset that they resent you. That's no way to "win friends and influence people."

You looked like a bunch of sissies in front of a big bully last night. Seriously. Do you WANT to play to stereotypes? Do you think that's anyway to bring people to your cause? Sure it rallies people who agree with you, but the majority of Californians (at least according to the vote) probably thought it was pathetic and predictable from a "bunch of whiny sissies"...

You have plenty of recourse beyond crying in the street: go to court now, although I doubt you'll get far with that (for two reasons*), AND put it back on the ballot as soon as you can. And in the meantime, conduct yourselves so as to make people feel more favorable toward gay marriage outside of CA's two big urban centers.

I feel your pain. I know, it's really sad. In some cases, it's devastating, and I know you want to be able to cry and rage together, but YOU CAN NOT DO IT in the middle of the street. Sure, it's your right to peaceably assemble, and I'm proud that 99% of folks last night WERE peaceful, but it's just not a smart strategy.

Acceptance of gay relationships has always been an uphill battle, so in order to get this changed, the strategy has to be smart and focus on getting the opposition to see gay people as simply PEOPLE. Not whiny, childish, idiots. There's a lot of stereotype to get past. This kind of disruptive public display doesn't help.

From the MOMENT the polls closed on 11/4 and the first announcements showed 8 running behind, it was going to be a long and difficult campaign in the next election. But the goal, and what will END this endless cycle of "gay marriage propositions," should be acceptance and tolerance in general. By everyone. We should be working to help people come together across CA and the world.

Not just for or against one ballot proposal or another. Which it seems HAS been the strategy.

Wouldn't it be smarter (albeit harder, I admit) to work on people's thoughts and attitudes in a LONG TERM sense, rather than playing on their fears regarding their senses of self (e.g. only bigots vote yes on . People will vote their conscience. Help them understand what they fear.

Welcome Instapundit fans! Thanks for dropping by! Feel fee to click around and come back if you see something you like!

** Two reasons (in my completely non-legal opinion) below the fold:
more...

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:32 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 5 kb.

1 So, I was talking to your favorite ex-roomie about how legally it could happen to overturn the results, and it was a pretty interesting discussion. The basic idea that Joe was saying is echoed in the SF Gate: "The suit by San Francisco, Los Angeles and Santa Clara County argues that any measure allowing a majority of the public to take away minority rights violates principles of equality at the heart of the state Constitution." So, the point is, even if the majority of the people vote to take away the rights of a minority, it can't happen because of the nature of constitution. (Something about, its not giving rights to someone, its taking away rights already afforded.) And we're talking about the CA constitution not the US. The states retain their own choice to whether they choose to contradict themselves or not...you know, that whole states' rights thing. And that's why we have the courts as a check. I'm not sure if I'm cool with overturning the votes. I personally don't think we're going to see gay rights really come to fruition for at least another 5-10 years and that's being very optimistic. Just like we needed all the racists to fade away so the country could do something historic like it did a couple nights ago, we have to wait for the homophobes to disappear too. But I totally aqree that that feeding the stereotype doesn't help AT ALL. But people are reeling right now...give them a bit of time to recover.

Posted by: SBC at November 06, 2008 12:06 PM (dp4iL)

2 People will vote their conscience. Help them understand what they fear. First off, I'm not a CA resident and have no dog in the hunt. However, if I were in CA I would have voted "yes on 8." Second, people did vote their conscience. To assume they did otherwise is unfair. To assume they voted in fear is also unfair. There are a lot of people opposed to gay marriage for whom it is a deeply moral and spiritual issue. Their consciences will not allow them to see gay marriage as OK. That is not bigotry, imho. It is not phobic, imho. It is just a simple difference of opinion on what is and is not the true definition of marriage.

Posted by: jen at November 06, 2008 12:07 PM (Jp+mD)

3 that's exactly why I'm advocating a campaign that shows gay people as PEOPLE from here going forward. If you change people's minds, you WILL change their votes. Eventually.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 06, 2008 12:11 PM (IfXtw)

4 "That is not bigotry, imho. It is not phobic, imho. It is just a simple difference of opinion on what is and is not the true definition of marriage." It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia. I don't see how the state (not any churches) recognizes a marriage of two men or two women affects your spiritual and moral fibers. I don't understand how someone's religious convictions can be so weak that they cannot allow a secular entity recognize a gay couple because it has the same name as their partnership. I just can't see past this...to echo CTG, I see fear, not a solid conviction of religious ideas. Maybe this comes from the fact that I have a strong sense of faith in a religion that is not the dominant one in this society...maybe I'm just used to having more stronger faith than others and they're just afraid to flex that muscle further. But each time I try and step back to look at it, I see fear, inflexibility, and discrimination. It was not long ago where society would have called my interracial marriage offensive to their spirituality and morality...and the country for the most part has gotten over it. For this reason alone, I can't idly let other people take away the rights of my friends.

Posted by: SBC at November 06, 2008 01:21 PM (dp4iL)

5 For some reason, it just reminds me of this oldie from the Onion. http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28491

Posted by: Chalkie at November 06, 2008 02:05 PM (EZmj/)

6 Good for you taking a stand. Hang tough - it's never pretty when civil/social change happens...

Posted by: Richmond at November 09, 2008 04:33 PM (M6+VC)

7 SBC: "...we have to wait for the homophobes to disappear too" Nice. Anyone who disagrees with you is a homophobe? I would have supported gay marriage before, but seeing people acting like a bunch of petulant children has cost the movement MY vote. Grow up.

Posted by: bristlecone at November 10, 2008 06:10 AM (UCzh5)

8 Dropping the term 'homophobia' in most discussion would be a start. There are a *lot* of people a) feel its not the govt's business what other people do in their bedrooms, b)don't wish gay people any ill,c)are willing to support civil unions of some sort but d) think it is 'wrong' or at least 'abnormal'-- for which latter position non-religious arguments can be made, e)don't buy the blanket form of the 'just made that way' argument (and think legal gay marriage would fully enable indoctrination by the public school on the issue), f) don't want a foundation of all societies, far back into prehistory, redefined so gay people can, by court order/fiat, be granted a sign of approval for their way of life by people who don't feel that way, and whom they failed to persuade. Sorry, but gay is not the same thing as 'black', even in objective terms of evolution. One particular gene gives immunity from malaria -- two copies of the same gene causes sickle cell anemia. The latter is collateral damage of the former -- and for the affected *individual* it is certainly not fine and dandy even if it is 'natural'. We can recognize the dysfunction of it w/o making any moral claim about the person. Another example -- some people are born blind -- do we feel the need to give them driver's licenses in the name of fairness? Or to redefine what a drivers license is so we could adopt the pretense that sighted and blind 'drivers' are the same? Surely what might be termed 'behavioral sterility', precisely if it is involuntary, might be arguably considered a dysfunction and not within healthy variation? People can have sincere, thoughtful arguments and disagreements without slurring the one side as 'homophobic' -- that paints their views and irrational hysteria and therefore not worht considering or engaging. Big counter-productive mistake.

Posted by: newscaper at November 10, 2008 06:34 AM (t+F7R)

9 To keep referring to those who voted for Prop. 8 as homophobic is neither constructive nor accurate and makes about as much sense as saying those who voted against Obama are racists. Gay marriage is not viewed as a threat to traditional marriage. It is viewed as validating a lifestyle and a choice( see Anne Heche, Julie Cypher, et al) that a majority of people view as sinful.

Posted by: patrick at November 10, 2008 06:41 AM (ZxkIC)

10 While you are correct that any constitution is what the people say it is (else consent of the governed is a myth), your voting rights analogy is erroneous. The U.S. Constitution never prohibited either women or blacks from voting. Guaranteeing suffrage did not contradict or repeal anything in the Constitution, other than curbing the states' latitude in determining suffrage.

Posted by: j.a.m. at November 10, 2008 07:10 AM (vapBJ)

11 And then there was the "blame the blacks" crowd. White gays have a house full of dirty secrets. If you're gay you'll know.

Posted by: Jon at November 10, 2008 07:33 AM (zK8hO)

12 If the gay marriages made between the State Supreme Court ruling and the election are still valid but marriage is between a man and a woman, then divorce can only be between a man and a woman. Many of you guys and gals are going to regret getting mixed up with heterosexual sexual politics when you find there is no way to legally divorce. Having been married (heterosexually) three times, I don't see what the urge is. As to the constitutional issues, a court proclaimed a "right" that was novel and by no means explicit and not recognized by the authors of the constitution nor by the general population. The voters corrected the judges with one method open to them - the initiative. The only other method of the voters expressing their legitimate power is by recall of the judges who voted for the decision and their replacement by judges who read the constitution the same way that the majority of voters do.

Posted by: Whitehall at November 10, 2008 08:30 AM (FCAIs)

13 It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia. Sure. However, this is a bad strategy. It doesn't help one's political cause when one dismisses the other side's position as a mental problem. I'd suggest that those who can't put themselves in the place of the opposition should chill for a bit, and let others who can represent their side for a while. Among other hobbies, I am a target shooter. Some of the rifles I use have been banned in California and elsewhere as "assault weapons," primarily because they look "scary." They don't function as machine guns (part of the definition of an actual military assault rifle), but their military underpinnings allow me to take advantage of tax-funded engineering that the military does (accurate rifles are expensive enough as it is). The problem is, they look like what our military uses currently, so it's easy to get support for "keeping them off our streets." Now I know that a lot of this support is based on emotions and ignorance, since many supporters of such bans would bristle at bans on other firearms. However, does it do any good to just write people off as emotional and ignorant, when they can vote? Not all of us can empathize with the other side, or see the logic in our opposition. That's fine. Strategically, though, those of us who can't should try to find people who can, to help persuade.

Posted by: BarryD at November 10, 2008 09:32 AM (Zo3yX)

14 There is an easy resolution for this. Have the state record civil unions only, for everybody. That actually is what the state does at this time. It's really not the state's business to enter into a religious discussion. Survey after survey has shown that a majority of people are willing to grant gays the right to a civil union. In point of fact, whatever is recorded by the state IS a civil union governed by the laws of the state and NOT the laws of the relevant church. The distinction is particularly clear in the cases of divorce, where the Catholic church refuses to recognize the dissolution of a civil union. The word marriage carries strong religious connotations, and raises all kinds of issues which the various churches resolve in different ways. So, let the states record civil unions, and leave the discussion of what constitutes a marriage to the individual congregations.

Posted by: Valerie at November 10, 2008 10:27 AM (qIfnY)

15 Look I am a conservative raised (but no longer an active participant) in the Mormon church. I grew up in a time when "rolling F**s" was considered a fun way to pass a boring afternoon. I never participated and disapproved and I am ashamed now that I wasn't horrified. I am often uncomfortable in social situations with people I percieve as gay. (Who knows? "Gaydar" doesn't work for Mormons.) So I qualify by current definitions as being "homophobic". On the other hand I don't oppose gay marriage. I know that orientation of all kinds doesn't "rub off". I have worked with gay people and found that toughness, focus, hard work and leadership can be added to all the stereotypes I learned as a child. Beyond that I deeply believe the government should stay out of the bedroom. But I don't like the word 'homophobe'. It puts me in the same group as the "After we stone you, you're all going to hell and you're moving up the arrival of the anti-christ." In my view "homophobe" like "racist" is just a code word for "anybody who disagrees with me". Besides I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Have a little patience and historical perspective. Within living memory gay sailors were sent to Portsmouth for 20 years. This is an issue that will be won, it's just a matter of time. Especially in California, why not go for real change? "Hi my name is Josh. There are two men I call dad, Bill and Joe. Bill taught me how to throw a football. Joe taught me how to not look like a fool dancing. They have been together for 25 years (show modest tract house). I love Bill and Joe--and my girlfriend Shirley."

Posted by: William Kovacs at November 10, 2008 11:53 AM (F/98t)

16 Look I am a conservative raised (but no longer an active participant) in the Mormon church. I grew up in a time when "rolling F**s" was considered a fun way to pass a boring afternoon. I never participated and disapproved and I am ashamed now that I wasn't horrified. I am often uncomfortable in social situations with people I percieve as gay. (Who knows? "Gaydar" doesn't work for Mormons.) So I qualify by current definitions as being "homophobic". On the other hand I don't oppose gay marriage. I know that orientation of all kinds doesn't "rub off". I have worked with gay people and found that toughness, focus, hard work and leadership can be added to all the stereotypes I learned as a child. Beyond that I deeply believe the government should stay out of the bedroom. But I don't like the word 'homophobe'. It puts me in the same group as the "After we stone you, you're all going to hell and you're moving up the arrival of the anti-christ." In my view "homophobe" like "racist" is just a code word for "anybody who disagrees with me". Besides I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Have a little patience and historical perspective. Within living memory gay sailors were sent to Portsmouth for 20 years. This is an issue that you will win, it's just a matter of time. Especially in California, why not go for real change? "Hi my name is Josh. There are two men I call dad, Bill and Joe. Bill taught me how to throw a football. Joe taught me how to not look like a fool dancing. They have been together for 25 years (show modest tract house. I love Bill and Joe--and my girlfriend Shirley."

Posted by: William Kovacs at November 10, 2008 11:54 AM (F/98t)

17 Look I am a conservative raised (but no longer an active participant) in the Mormon church. I grew up in a time when "rolling F**s" was considered a fun way to pass a boring afternoon. I never participated and disapproved and I am ashamed now that I wasn't horrified. I am often uncomfortable in social situations with people I percieve as gay. (Who knows? "Gaydar" doesn't work for Mormons.) So I qualify by current definitions as being "homophobic". On the other hand I don't oppose gay marriage. I know that orientation of all kinds doesn't "rub off". I have worked with gay people and found that toughness, focus, hard work and leadership can be added to all the stereotypes I learned as a child. Beyond that I deeply believe the government should stay out of the bedroom. But I don't like the word 'homophobe'. It puts me in the same group as the "After we stone you, you're all going to hell and you're moving up the arrival of the anti-christ." In my view "homophobe" like "racist" is just a code word for "anybody who disagrees with me". Besides I don't understand the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Have a little patience and historical perspective. Within living memory gay sailors were sent to Portsmouth for 20 years. This is an issue that will be won, it's just a matter of time. Especially in California, why not go for real change? "Hi my name is Josh. There are two men I call dad, Bill and Joe. Bill taught me how to throw a football. Joe taught me how to not look like a fool dancing. They have been together for 25 years (show modest tract house). I love Bill and Joe--and my girlfriend Shirley."

Posted by: Bill at November 10, 2008 11:57 AM (F/98t)

18 "It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia." And it's very hard for me to see the 'phobia' charge as anything but an ad hominem attack deeply rooted in ignorance. Does either view tell us anything other than about where we are standing? The problem with the whole 'phobia' charge is that I would have voted 'Yes' to prop 8. But explaining that with 'phobia' runs hard into the fact that I can sit down and eat dinner with a gay couple. I can work with a gay man. I can and have been friends with gay and lesbian people. Partly it's because I don't really see them as 'gay'. I see them as men who are having homosexual contact with each other. If I couldn't be friends with everyone who did something I didn't approve of, I'd soon find myself striking the whole world off of my list of possible friends. My relationship to a gay man is similar to my relationship to a female friend who bounces from one overwrought serial relationship to another. I don't approve of that lifestyle either. But if anyone needs a friend that doesn't want to get in bed with them, it's someone like that, so what am I supposed to do? There are some people out there just wierded out over the whole idea of homosexuality, but they hardly constitute the whole of the opposition to gay marriage. And for that matter, people who were wierded out by the whole concept don't necessarily support it once they stop being wierded out by it. Really, you are going to have to deal with the fact that the majority of people who oppose gay marriage don't do so because they fear gays, but because they pity them. That's going to be alot harder of a position to overcome than fear, and it is going to require the gay community to do a number of things it currently finds totally heritical: stop being a community, stop claiming that you are gay because of genetics (or epigenetics if you aren't the gay equivalent of a flat earther), stop adhering to a sterotype, and generally stop acting as if your life was defined by your sexuality. In other words, you are going to have to stop acting like 'gays' and start acting like 'people'. And even then, there is going to be a certain percentage that is still going to look at your behavior the same way they look at someone who is alcholic or addicted to drugs. That's not 'phobia' or even 'bigotry', and to be frank the whole ridiculous argument that you are gay because of epigenetics of some sort reinforces the whole idea that this is just disfunctional behavior.

Posted by: Celebrim at November 10, 2008 12:01 PM (yXo7J)

19 you guys lost a long time ago. the villain, if you'd like to go and have a chat with him, is SF Mayor Gavin Newsome. when he decided to violate the law by issuing licenses to people who were by law prohibited from receiving them, he lit fire that is currently burning you. instead of using his bully pulpit to lobby for californians to change the law by vote, he cut them out of the discussion. how many of the people who voted against you were only there because they felt pushed there by the CA Supremes. how many would have gone the other way if they were asked first, and not simply slapped upside the face with a wet fish? so we should ask ourselves who benefits. first, Newsome benefited by making sure that all those REALLY far leftists who voted for Matt Gonzalez, the wacky lefty Green party guy who got 47% to Newsome's 53%. for those who don't get it, that means that the guy who introduced gay marriage in the US was the conservative in the mayoral race in 2003!!! the second group who benefits is the people who run groups like Human Rights Campaign. see, if they were to actually succeed in getting citizens to vote for gay marriage, they would be out of a job. their attitude is, keep the gays in line by pissing off everyone else.

Posted by: Sean at November 10, 2008 12:14 PM (ayO6b)

20 gay marriage is such a fundamental part of the California Constitution Yeah, that would be why no one ever heard of the "right" before 4 judges decided to invent it, because it's a fundamental part of the Constitution. In 1972, the CA Supreme Court claimed that the CA Constitution's protection against "cruel or unusual punishment" meant that the death penalty was unconstitutional. CA voters responded by passing a Constitutional Amendment saying that nothing in the Constitution forbade the death penalty. The CA SUpreme Court upheld that Amendment. So, we have 1: Court squints really hard, and finds a "right" in the CA Constitution, for a small group (convicted murderers) that suits their personal preferences. 2: Voters say "you guys are full of it", and pass a Constitutional Amendment overturning the illegitimate decision. 3: Court defers to the will of The People. BTW, just so we're clear here: being a "minority" doesn't give you more rights than being part of a majority. That would be an absurd negation of democracy.

Posted by: Greg Q at November 10, 2008 01:32 PM (87k2j)

21 Wow, didn't realize there were so many responses to my comment. I'll try to take them one at a time. bristlecone -- I'm sorry if I offended you by using that term. I honestly didn't realize it charged up people the way it did. And not everyone who disagrees with me is a homophobe -- there are plenty of people who believe that there should be no legal marriages in society or think there should only be civil unions, etc. that has nothing to do with treating a gay union differently in the eyes of the law than a straight one. But, I will say this -- if you're going to change your vote because of how other people act as opposed to what you believe in, you need to "Grow up" more than I do. To the others, who combined a lot of the same points: 1) A reiteration of the apology for using the word homophobia...though I'm curious why no one is all getting upset with the word racist except for I think one. I wasn't meaning it as a slur, btu as a way to describe people who don't support the full integration of gay rights in society. But perhaps I can better describe it this way with some specific examples that have cropped up in my own life: I think someone is racist when they work with people of all races, eat with them, socialize with them, but then turn to me and tell me that I really shouldn't marry outside my own race/culture. I think someone is sexist if an employer highers more females because he feels like he can keep them in line easier. I think someone is homophobic when they fear that the sanctity of their marriage is at risk by the STATE recognizing a gay marriage. So for all of you don't fall into that last category, I would most likely not refer to you as homophobic. Someone mentioned that they thought the majority of people don't fear the sanctity of their own marriage, that makes me feel a lot better actually. But to those who think its sinful...why? And there are plenty of things that are sinful to a group of people that is legal under the law -- i.e., alcohol consumption, sex before marriage, birth control, working on the Sabbath, eating meat, etc. Just because something is sinful to you or people who share your belief, should we deny the rest of the population who doesn't? 2) Maybe you don't think gay is the same thing as black, but should the LAW think that? I'm ok with people feeling actually uneasy with gay activities, but I take issue with people who would take away rights that should be treated equally across the board. In fact, I know plenty of people who get visibly sick if you talk about gay sex, but they would never vote to take away their rights. As for the blind argument -- the blind aren't given driver's licenses because they are physcially unable to perform a certain task. Please tell me who being gay makes on physically unable you to support and love another person the way a man and woman does in marriage. Or is about the sex in the end? And just to let you know, homosexuality has been witnessed in almost 1500 species at this point. 3) I wasn't trying to make a strategy to convince people to support gay rights. I was talking they way I talk when I'm in CTG's home or office, wasn't trying to be politically correct and didn't even realize the word angered so many people. I will try to post more PC again and I'm sure you'll all call out CTG when she isn't writing PC either. And again, I'm sorry to offend the ones who posted, but I think there are "homophobes" - people who fear gays -- in society, and I do hope their views fade away like racism did over time. Again, I think this is going to take a lot more time than the gay community may wish it were like CTG said. Desensitization to the subject in a way. I actually think that a good chunk of society has become a lot more open than I would have though a decade ago.

Posted by: SBC at November 10, 2008 01:48 PM (oqS+F)

22 ) Maybe you don't think gay is the same thing as black, but should the LAW think that? Well, let's see. We have a 14th Amendment to the Constitution that was passed to ban racial discrimination. We don't have any amendments passed to ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation, and CA doesn't, either. So yes, the law should treat "gay" differently than "black".

Posted by: Greg Q at November 10, 2008 02:26 PM (87k2j)

23 My opposition to gay "marriage" is nuanced (heh). I don't believe the government should be in the business of redefining words. That is Orwellian. Marriage, as it is nearly universally understood, means the union of a man and a woman. Why do gays want to co-opt the heterosexual's term? Gays need their own word/concept. Can a group of people who form a "community" become married in the eyes of the law? Why not? Where does the redefining end?

Posted by: mockmook at November 10, 2008 03:03 PM (kA365)

24 Losers. Everyone thought the rally to block traffic was lame.

Posted by: left coast liberal at November 10, 2008 06:45 PM (yg49V)

25 In re: "homophobia" I think the problem people have with this term as opposed to "racist" or "sexist" is that "homophobia" means "fear of (gays)." Yes, I know that's not quite how it's meant anymore, but that's still how it's interpreted. If we could come up with some different term, that might help. But as it is -- we're not "afraid" of them. So when we state our beliefs about the gay lifestyle or whatever and then get told "You're homophobic!" it makes us go "Huh?" Then we try to explain that we're not afraid, and get told again "You're homophobic!" You can also substitute in "full of hate" or "hateful" or "You hate me" or "You hate gays" in there as well. But the thing is... we're not afraid, and we don't think we're hateful either... so being told that we are just makes us go "You're delusional!" And thus we have a very hard time giving your arguments the shrift they properly deserve. As another poster stated: Stop acting like "gays" and start acting like "people who happen to be gay" and you'll win a lot more converts to your cause. Dropping "homophobic" and/or "full of hate" into every argument just isn't the way to do that. I'm straight, but I think it's just as flattering if a guy tries to hit on me as if a woman does. I just tell them I'm not interested, same as I would for any woman who I'm not interested in. If I lived in California, I don't know how I would have voted. I think the best actual solution would be the whole "government does civil unions, religions do marriages" dichotomy, and as such, I probably would have voted for the proposition simply to be in opposition of the redefinition of the word "marriage." But that'd really be my only reason. I don't care what you do in your bedroom or who you do it with, or what you call that person you do it with either. Something many people don't know is that Salt Lake City actually has a "domestic partner" program for its employees. You can designate *anyone* as your "partner" -- be it a spouse, a relative, a friend, or whatever. Many gay people who work for the city thus have full benefits of a "civil union" right here in the heart of "Mormondom." As I recall it, the (Mormon-dominated) City Council unanimously approved the plan, and (to my knowledge) the church didn't make any statement one way or the other about it. There was a bit of controversy about it for about 2 weeks. Nobody's cared since. See how nicely that worked? Govt calls it "domestic partnership" instead of "marriage" and nobody cares. . . . . .

Posted by: JC at November 11, 2008 12:48 AM (kHvUx)

26 Democracy sucks when your side loses. I guess if these celebtards don't pay their taxes it's ok for me too? No?

Posted by: Bandit at November 11, 2008 05:57 AM (/R+6i)

27 Protesting at Mormon Temples ,calling Blacks the N-word because they supported Prop 8 by 70% margins... Why don't you direct your ire at the religion that voted for Proposition 8 by a probably 100% margin....That's right: Muslims..What did you say?..I didn't hear you?.... No, you go after the soft target mild mannered Mormons...Totally gutless...

Posted by: sirpatrick at November 11, 2008 08:13 PM (ZxkIC)

28 Let's get a few things out on the table: Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. To protect the important institution of the family we should protect traditional marriage. That's the Prop 8 pro side. Now you may disagree with this or agree with it (I stand on the agree side) ... BUT ... There is NOTHING 'homophobic' or 'anti-gay' about the above statements. support for Prop 8 was NEVER a 'hate' thing, it was always a "Whats wrong with keeping marriage the way its been for 2000 years of civilization" thing. No hate, no 'phobia' just pro-family and pro-traditional-values. Ad hominem is a well-known fallacy and the 'hate' charge on the pro Prop 8 side is PURE AD HOMINEM. It is disgusting, insulting and beneath contempt for gay-activist extremists to be so violent, pissy and outrageous in calling anyone who happened to disagree on this hatemongers. oh, and the N-word stuff an the violence at Saddleback church sure showed class. not! THEY are the 'hatemongers' with such vile and personal attacks. And to do it after the vote makes them out to be vile, violent, hateful and *impotent*. Worst of all worlds. I THINK IT SHOWS TO MANY PEOPLE THAT THEY DID THE RIGHT THING IN SUPPORTING PROP 8. IF THE PEOPLE WANTING THIS ARE SO EXTREME, VIOLENT AND BIZARRE, ITS SURELY NOT THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR SOCIETY.

Posted by: Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 09:54 PM (uuYgX)

29 1) Even the Greeks who celebrated homosexuality confined marriage to a man and a woman. Marriage was for procreation and homosexual lovers were for recreation. And these homosexual relationships were long term committed relationships. 2) I'm willing to bet that a large portion of us who voted yes on prop 8 would be willing to vote in favor of civil unions, which already exists in many places. The gay community however insists on marriage. This is partly an effort to destroy conventional morality, partly an effort to force acceptance of a lifestyle. Many of us are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior without endorsing it. This is not good enough for homosexual activists. 3) Even if I was in favor of homosexual marriage I would have voted yes on Prop 8 because it was a "right" created by judicial fiat, directly opposed to the will of the people. There is no Constitutional right to homosexual marriage, in either the State or Federal Constitution. 4) It is not an issue of equal rights either. I have the right to marry a woman and cannot marry a man. Homosexuals have the right to marry a woman and cannot marry a man. That's the definition of equal. 5) If you allow homosexual marriage, by what possible standard can you deny polygamy? State interest? Morality? Majority opinion? Does anyone seriously think that Muslims, fundamentalist Mormons and hippie communes won't immediately start pressing for the rcognition of polygamy?

Posted by: gahrie at November 11, 2008 09:58 PM (4gHqM)

30 "the second group who benefits is the people who run groups like Human Rights Campaign. see, if they were to actually succeed in getting citizens to vote for gay marriage, they would be out of a job. their attitude is, keep the gays in line by pissing off everyone else." ROFLMAO! HRC are purely one of the liberal special interest group arms of the Democrat-liberal-establishment complex, designed not to advance any agenda except the electing of Democrats. Actually achieving the agenda would be a real bummer for them. gays need to stay on the plantation with the blacks, union members, welfare recipients and govt workers, or the whole 'system' breaks down!

Posted by: Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 10:04 PM (uuYgX)

31 "It's very hard for me not to look at as not phobia. I don't see how the state (not any churches) recognizes a marriage of two men or two women affects your spiritual and moral fibers." You dont see it, but others do see how Govt recognition impacts societal mores. We know this from looking at how divorce and welfare laws impacted family structure and breakdown. And borken families are harder on kids, its well known. So concerns about what will happen to family structure when marriage is redefined are NOT irrational. What is YOUR phobia with having some allowance and recognition for the more important role of man-woman-marriage-based families, over and above other family units? Why are you afraid to recognize the importance of traditional family in the raising of children etc.? Or acknowledgement that this would be a legit concern? Why cant you be open-minded enough to see the importance of marriage institution from the traditionalist POV, instead of ignoring their reasons and insisting that you can detect motivations of those with a difference POV? (hint: you cant) Being "PRO-TRADITIONAL-MARRIAGE" is not necessarily "anti-gay".

Posted by: Travis Monitor at November 11, 2008 10:15 PM (uuYgX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 27, 2008

Dear African American "Community Leaders",

You are all a bunch of fucking hypocrites. That's right. I said hypocrites. I call BS on you and, as they say in South Park, I declare shenanigans!

Some idiot with bad taste and a worse sense of humor hangs a Sarah Palin doll from a noose and you don't respond? Dare I even suggest that you think it's funny because she's running against your Obamessiah?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but about 10 years ago you all were so mad about a BEAR in a noose that you forced USC to abandon a decades old student tradition of hanging bruins (the UCLA mascot) from tiny nooses. LITTLE TINY TEDDY BEARS. In UCLA shirts. You said it was racist. You said that it was reminiscent of the lynching of black men by the KKK. You said you were offended. So we stopped hanging TEDDY BEARS.

I get your point, though. Hanging people is not a joke. It's MURDER. And that's never funny.

And now, these people have NOT A BEAR, but a life-size mannequin of a woman, dressed as Sarah Palin, hanging from a noose in their yard and you say not one word. Why?

I'll bet my house that if it was Barry Obama swinging from the yardarm you'd have had 3 press conferences already, and called the police out to arrest these homeowners for a hate crime. Perhaps for racial intimidation.

And yet you say nothing about this. I'm offended by it, and I'm clearly not black. Not as a conservative, or because I am a woman, but because I think it's disgusting. Hanging a bear, or a skeleton, or something clearly not representing a particular person is one thing, demonstrating by your Halloween display that you wish someone a painful death is quite another.

And I still want to hear your outrage. If you all could muster that kind of vitriol for a few teddy bears, I bet you can come out and preach it about this Sarah Palin mannequin.

I'll be sure to be there to support you when you do.

Regards,
CTG

h/t Flap

Posted by: caltechgirl at 08:08 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 349 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Of course they won't say anything. Just like that display someone had of McCain doing the KKK thing chasing BO. They are all hypocrites. BTW, I love it when you're so mad you curse.

Posted by: Stacy at October 27, 2008 08:16 AM (92p8H)

2 I can't believe the outrageous crap these idiots have been pulling! I'll be sooo glad when this election is over... except when I said that to my husband this morning he said: "even when it's over it won't be over". Spoilsport.

Posted by: pam at October 27, 2008 08:18 AM (l6NIn)

3 Just down the road from me a guy had a ghost hanging from a tree with Obama printed on it; everyone was up in arms, wanting to burn the racist's house, etc etc...good gawd people, get a grip! I agree, if this had been a black, male mannequin there would have been hell to pay, I bet!

Posted by: Michele at October 27, 2008 08:27 AM (Jplxy)

4 This is so disgusting that I am sick to my stomach. It's absolute BS to say its ok because its Halloween. Absolute BS. I'm sure people on both sides think this is disgusting.

Posted by: SBC at October 27, 2008 09:10 AM (5s6Ga)

5 Totally wrong. Only a fool can defend murdering and lynching effigies.

Posted by: Joe C. at October 27, 2008 09:53 AM (wKdud)

6 OMG, I am totally in love with your blog. Love your writing style. I must come back.

I agree with you on this post, what is wrong with people? I have no answers, only further questions. It makes me sick.

Posted by: Leslie at October 27, 2008 03:30 PM (ovRlN)

7 Un-fucking-believable!

Posted by: Lauren at October 27, 2008 04:17 PM (Pt1kf)

8 He may not be your favorite person, but Keith Olbermann just named this idiot who made the effigy art the "Worst Person in the World" today. He repudiated it his show which I'm sure you can see eventually up.

Posted by: SBC at October 27, 2008 06:03 PM (JLqd9)

9 I'm sure you got their attention. Uh-huh.

Posted by: Pasadena Closet Conservative at October 27, 2008 08:40 PM (Q3iRb)

10 It's sick and disgusting to the nth degree, but not at all surprising. These idiots are so bigoted, racist, and downright stupid, I'm never surprised by how low they will stoop in pursuit of their goal. No matter which candidate it had been - yes even Obama or Biden hung in effigy - it's wrong. It's not art and it's not cute. We don't see this being done by the other side and if it were done, it would be roundly condemned. But at least we know the "enemy". We have seen what they accept without a blink. Remember this, know what you're fighting so you are never taken off guard or think they have anything resembling "feelings".

Posted by: Teresa at October 28, 2008 03:50 PM (mMa3+)

11 I think between the attack hoax in Pittsburgh and the recent ATF bust of skinheads plotting to assasinate Obama and a number of African Americans, there's plenty of crap coming from the conservative side too. These are the outliers that tarnish the political process that makes this country great. But pray tell, please inform me of who the "enemy" is. And how should a good American respond to such "enemies." Just curious. Really.

Posted by: SBC at October 28, 2008 08:03 PM (JLqd9)

12 I totally agree - it's an offensive display. How is it that women somehow escaped the "hate crimes" definition? I'm sure that many violent crimes are committed against women because someone hated their gender and wanted to exert control.

Posted by: Conservative Belle at October 29, 2008 03:29 AM (r0SN0)

13 You're right, see this: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081029/world/obama_effigy_6

Posted by: Contagion at October 30, 2008 04:42 PM (V7qLP)

14 Contagion beat me to posting the opposing story of someone doing the same thing with Obama's image.

Posted by: Amy at November 01, 2008 11:05 AM (IGC2m)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 30, 2008

Joining the Club

Welcome to the Conservasphere to another Pasadenan, The Pasadena Closet Conservative!

He/She chooses to remain anonymous because,

I dare not "out" myself because I would run the risk of being held hostage by liberals at some Ashram while being brainwashed with MultiCultural/PoliticallyCorrect/GroupThink/Socialist "isms" until I hollered "I'm Nancy Pelosi's bitch", begged for mercy and changed my party affiliation using a pen filled with my own blood.

I feel you. It's hard out here for a ~~pimp~~conservative. Especially in the 'Dena, where most folks are either too wealthy to pay attention or too conservative to speak of their political leanings. I myself choose to remain carefully anonymous for these reasons.

In any case, thanks for putting yourself out there. There's a bunch of us on the interwebs, some anonymous, some eponymous. Check my right sidebar for the "Bear Flag League", a group of conservative Cali bloggers, many of whom are here in SoCal as well.

And Welcome!

h/t the Proc and FCBlog

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:57 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

April 19, 2008

Blogging in the 'Dena

Local blogging is alive and well in Pasadena, and the bloggers are a great crew to hang out with!

Just got home from the reasonably-semi-annually Pasadena bloggers picnic. Ok, it was really Foothill Cities, as the actual group who were there span an area from La Canada to San Dimas, and blog on everything from photography to journalism, to local politics.

Hubby and I decided to take the Princesses, and they were super well behaved. And of course, after running around the park all afternoon they are too pooped to pop! Both of them are napping on the bed at the moment.

Check out the blogs of the folks who were there:
Miss Havisham, who organized the whole shindig (YAY!)
Aaron Proctor
West Coast Grrlie Blather
Altadenablog
Palm Axis
The Real Zajac
Frazgo
KChristieH
Pasadena Daily Photo
Eye Level Pasadena
LA Times Pressmens 20 year club

And I know I missed a couple of people, so if you were there and aren't represented, or you see someone not on the list, let me know in the comments.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 04:29 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Hi CTG, It was great meeting you today, along with your hubby and pooch royalty. It was my first time meeting the local blog community in person and I had a blast. I plan on posting these links, too. Thought I'd have to look up a few, but you've done my work for me. Thank you! The only one you missed that I'm aware of is up2daterealestate.com. Again, great meeting you.

Posted by: Petrea at April 19, 2008 08:51 PM (/2r0z)

2 one more: http://mickieszoo.blogspot.com/ That's Naughty Mickie, the Doo Dah Queen.

Posted by: Petrea at April 19, 2008 08:53 PM (/2r0z)

3 Okay, third comment and then I'll stop. Did EyeLevelPasadena really show up? I'm so bummed I missed her.

Posted by: Petrea at April 19, 2008 09:26 PM (/2r0z)

4 Yep Eye Level Pasadena showed up (Jill & Gavin!) And thanks for the props, CTG! Very nice meeting you and your husband in person. I had a great time..and nice to meet your cute dogs.

Posted by: AP at April 20, 2008 10:24 AM (hG4jP)

5 Yay! It was great to meet you. Thanks for the wonderful fruit!

Posted by: Kelly at April 20, 2008 01:06 PM (U7JnM)

6 I'm in love with your dogs, and the grapefruit! Exceedingly tasty. Thank you!

Posted by: Miss Havisham at April 20, 2008 05:57 PM (gP0WJ)

7 for clarification: I didn't taste your dogs, although I may have had a momentary lapse in judgment and licked one.

Posted by: Miss Havisham at April 20, 2008 06:04 PM (gP0WJ)

8 I'm bummed. I lost the post-it note about the "west of the Mississippi" college you spoke of. I'll figure it out and then I'll be on the net to discover more. You might enjoy Floyd's site. A very interesting ditty on the Dunbar Hotel if you scroll down a few entries. http://bigorangelandmarks.blogspot.com/ A pleasure to meet you Ms Caltech

Posted by: Palm Axis at April 20, 2008 06:26 PM (d4L/c)

9 Darn it! I've got to get my ear back to the ground; I didn't realize this was happening. Oh, well: we'll have to have a blog-gathering once Hub and I get settled in Glendale. (Moving on Memorial Day weekend!)

Posted by: Attila Girl at April 23, 2008 01:36 PM (Hgnbj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 23, 2007

San Diego Fire News

Joanie is almost literally liveblogging the fires from Northern San Diego County. Lots of pictures, information, and links on her site.

Be sure to scroll down through the posts over the last few days!

Stay safe, Darlin'!

Posted by: caltechgirl at 10:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

October 22, 2007

Southern California Fire Information Roudup

Dozens of wildfires all over the Southern California area.

View Larger Map

Most seem to be natural or accidental in nature (mostly from wind-downed high voltage lines), but the Santiago Canyon fire near Irvine was deliberately set. Bastards.

Fires in LA in October is as natural as Hurricanes in Florida in August. Northeasterly winds, called the Santa Anas bring hot dry air down from the high desert into the valleys and foothills, and well, it doesn't take much to start a big fire.

The LA Times has a good round-up and photo galleries. KCAL 9 is on the air live with updates, as new fires continue to pop up every hour or so in addition to the major fires in Malibu, Castaic, Canyon Country, San Diego, Irvine, Ontario, and Lake Arrowhead......

Here's links to information on School Closures and Evacuation Centers.

Folks with large animals can take them to the Ventura County Fairgrounds, the Orange County Fairgrounds, or Pierce College Equestrian Center. Bring Food, Water, Water Tubs, and Medicine. Many animal shelters and vet offices will care for smaller pets, too. Call around for information. In emergencies, pet owners can call (81 991-6384 to set up an emergency rescue in the Malibu OR Agua Dulce areas. For more animal info, check here.

It goes without saying, folks, but if you're in the fire area, get out when they tell you to leave, and if you're not in a fire area, stay the hell out. The firefighters need to get in and out without having to drive around your looky-loo ass.

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:52 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 3 kb.

October 12, 2007

Top Ten signs I've gotten into Pasadena Politics...

I get all of these jokes....

Lifted shamelessly 100% from FCBlog. For all you SoCaler's:

With all the talk about the Rose Parade and the China controversy and our fearless (?) leaders international dealings..it's time for another Top Ten.
From the home office in Beijing, China:
TOP TEN FLOATS THAT WON'T MAKE IT INTO THE ROSE PARADE
10. Chris Hansen's Dateline NBC Decoy Float For Internet Pedophiles
9. The Ad Hoc Committee On Floats Float
8. The Other Guy In Wham! Float
7. The Turkish-Armenian Friendship Float
6. The Float Put Together By PUSD Kids Who Get All F's
5. The Sid Tyler Float Of "Tobaccy & Shoe Polish"
4. Al-Qaeda's "Death To America" Float
3. Sock On Float
2. Anthony Portantino Ate My Float
1. Robin Salzer's Float Of Roses Smothered In Brown Mustard & BBQ Sauce

And you really should vote for Robin's. Mmmmmmm Robin's. We were there Wednesday night in fact. I wonder.... if I say how much I love the Spud Skins (This is the ONLY way I will eat potato skin. And only at Robin's.) will Robin write me up in the next menu, too?

Posted by: caltechgirl at 12:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 2 kb.

August 22, 2007

Pasadena: whiners with no priorities

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you my neighbors:

For Stephen Lipira, a citywide police crackdown on gangs going on for the past year has virtually transformed his North Raymond Avenue neighborhood.
"You would think we were in the Bronx," says the Pasadena Neighborhood Coalition vice-chairman.
Things are so bad now, agrees fellow member Lorraine Montgomery, she's thinking of moving out after 20 years.
"It's not only the harsh grating noise but also the vibrations that you can feel over your entire body."
As part of a tripling of police enforcement levels in Northwest Pasadena in response to 10 homicides in the past 19 months, the police's fleet of helicopters - two Enstrom F28F's, a Bell 206 BIII, and two Bell OH-58 Kiowa Warriors - has been busy.
The Foothill Air Support Team (FAST), shared by 10 area cities, has flown out on about 4,482 emergency calls in Pasadena just in the first six months of this year. Taking off from the Arroyo Seco, the helicopters can fly to a crime in 45 seconds, on average, said Pasadena Air Operations OIC, Lt. Robert Mulhall.
"The effectiveness of the helicopter is unparalleled when it comes to speed," said Chief Bernard Melekian. "I think any resident who calls for a police response would appreciate the additional eyes and ears."

You think, Bernie? For what it's worth, I agree with you. I live not very far from the idiots quoted above. I worry about the gang problems in Pasadena over the last few months. I see what's going on in the streets, too.

But I know that keeping our kids from KILLING EACH OTHER (and the rest of us in the crossfire) is a hell of a lot more important that a little extra noise from the helicopters. Where did these people lose their sense of perspective? And they claim to be NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVISTS? Give me a freaking break. If one of them was the target of a crime, I suspect they'd demand the helicopter go after the bad guys, post haste, and all the noise be damned.

I'm all in favor of noise ordinances for things like airports and industrial sites, if there's a reasonable way to reduce noise for neighborhood residents. But to cut back on the ability of the police to do their job just because you don't like the noise? Are you kidding me? What's next? No sirens on police cars, ambulances, or fire trucks? And speaking of sirens, why all of a sudden is it the helicopters that bother you? 90% of the time when I hear the chopper, the sirens come right behind. And they are a hell of a lot more annoying, and certainly louder than the helicopter, even when it hovers over my street.

And one other thing, you whiny crybabies. Next time you hear the helicopter coming, go in the house and turn on your fans. I think you'll be surprised to note you can't hear it anymore. Just like I can't.

h/t Centinel at Foothill Cities

Posted by: caltechgirl at 11:35 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 510 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Well, as I write, I hear a helicopter. I enjoy hearing them. It is the sound of my tax dollars at work. Just like I like to hear the street sweeper clean our street and the parks service mowing the lawns in the parks. I have never really gotten angry at them, I just hope that they catch the fucktards that are making our neighborhoods miserable to live in!

Posted by: GMT at August 22, 2007 12:00 PM (IfXtw)

2 Frankly, I find the boom-cars driven late at night a heck of a lot more irritating than I would find a helicopter. (And I can't help but think Pasadena must have lots of those, 'specially if they've got a gang problem). Like you said: I wonder what these folks'd say if they were a victim of a crime.

Posted by: ricki at August 22, 2007 12:57 PM (O5SYw)

3 Maybe we should rearrange the flight path of LAX over their house? I hear a jumbo jet every 4 minutes here, if not more often. And I'd bet a good solid green dollar that they've flown on one of those, thus disturbing my home life!

Posted by: Bill at August 22, 2007 04:41 PM (WAMm7)

4 How much do you want to bet... and I'm betting BIG dollars here... these are parents of "gang bangers". Really. I'm thinking they don't like the police much at all. Those are generally the ones who complain about the most ridiculous crap when the cops show up. I'm surprised they didn't go on to say how "racist" the cops are. Yeah, I lived in an area much like that for 13 years. I know all about these morons. The paper in our town at that time had this big feature article about one of the worst "gang houses" in our neighborhood (it led the city as #1 on the dirty dozen houses... *sigh*) you would've thought angels hovered over the place the way it was written - it's just disgusting. Looks like they haven't gotten any better.

Posted by: Teresa at August 22, 2007 05:19 PM (rVIv9)

5 One of the very few things I regret about a summer working for the DA's office in LA was not having a chance to take up an offer of an LAPD helicopter ride-along. Hopefully the offer still stands.

Posted by: Dave J at August 22, 2007 06:41 PM (PEbS4)

6 I was just about to point out that helicopter noise pales before the noise of the frickin' gangbangers, but Ricki beat me to it.

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at August 22, 2007 07:13 PM (Yh9SA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

122kb generated in CPU 0.0243, elapsed 0.0819 seconds.
80 queries taking 0.065 seconds, 246 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 1452
Files: 15
Bytes: 12.9M
CPU Time: 1:07
Queries: 106973

Content

Posts: 1959
Comments: 6192

Feeds

February 16, 2009

January 30, 2009

January 27, 2009

January 21, 2009

November 06, 2008

October 27, 2008

June 30, 2008

April 19, 2008

October 23, 2007

October 22, 2007

October 12, 2007

August 22, 2007

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds