Holy Virgin Reindeer!

Mary, Mother of REINDEER! Thank you, so so much, Zoo Borns, for lighting up my rainy weekend with this gem:

The little Reindeer was a surprise when he was born at the Zoo on Sept. 18 in an exclusively female Reindeer exhibit. (Scientists do not believe there was any miracle involved, though; Boris’ mother was just unexpectedly pregnant when she arrived at the Zoo in May.)

"Scientists do not believe any miracle was involved"... Thank you, San Diego Zoo, for having a fabulous sense of humor!

And "Joey to the World" everyone! 

Happy Thanksgiving!

Red Kuri Squash for my Thanksgiving Day soup!

I am up ridiculously late because I wanted to prep/cook a lot of vegetarian goodies before tomorrow morning.

This year, I am very grateful that my two older brothers are also atheists. Our sibling Thanksgiving has been a tradition for several years, and I appreciate not having that awkward moment of "grace." Mostly, I will be thankful that I have family close by whenever I need them, and they have been there for me many times. I am thankful that my baby niece is beautiful and happy and healthy and that modern science has made childbirth safer for all women. I am very lucky.

But, then again, I don't believe in luck. I like the term "blessings," but it doesn't really mean anything for me. I guess I could say that I just feel grateful for what I have.

What are you thankful for this Thanksgiving? Science? I sure am. And to live in a country where I'm at least not stoned to death for espousing my views. Thanks, America.

Eat up, everyone!

Crystal Cathedral files for bankruptcy OR Jesus and Money

Boo hoo. Your giant mega church just filed for bankruptcy. You avoided paying vendors to the point that they felt they had to sue you in order to get their money. Reverend Schuller has been at the head of the church since he founded it in a drive-in movie theater decades ago. He tried to pass on leadership to his son, but then removed him when there was some kind of family disagreement about the direction in which the church should head. Now, Schuller's daughter, Sheila, runs the church.

She said the bankruptcy declaration "is just one more chapter in the book that He is continuing to write -- and we know that God's plans are good -- we have no doubt His chapter will be good!"

Ha. Yeah. Chapter 11 in the Good Book. Schuller isn't the worst of the worst. He doesn't practice hate speech. He doesn't espouse a completely literal take on the Bible. On the topic of homosexuality and gay marriage, he generally dodges around it, saying that he thinks that male/female marriage is the ideal... blah, blah, blah.  But he believes in destiny and that God meant for him to carry His message and all that.  Most of their sermons are completely generic and carry a message about "YOU can do it, just trust in God and he'll take care of EVERYTHING" and phony self-esteem messages.

The biggest problem I have with the Crystal Cathedral and similar type churches is how much money they suck out from trusting citizens. That money could be put to soooooo many better uses. Instead, it constructed a multi-million dollar building out of glass.

It also is just plain silly. Take, for example, this interview the church had with an author about God and Money. Appropriate, I thought, given the church's financial troubles. Let me give you the highlights of the author's financial advice:

First, pray. Invite the Lord of the universe to be part of your financial life. Then secondly, review. Review what you had come in and go out that week [...] And then lastly, celebrate [...] celebrate when the Lord allows you to pay off that credit card. Celebrate together.

SSC:    How did you get into the finances found in God's word? I find that fascinating.
HD:     Well back in the early seventies, my business partner asked me to join him in a study of the bible to find out what it said about money. We didn't know. We had new families and a new business. So we spent a year and read through the entire bible and identified two thousand three hundred and fifty verses dealing with money.
SSC:    I had no idea there were that many bible verses on money.
HD:     It totally blew us away. Fifteen percent of everything that Jesus said had to do with money.
SSC:    Wow, so it must be important.
HD:     It is. And I think the real key for us is that Christ knew that from time to time all of us would have struggles over money. I believe He wanted to equip us to handle money wisely so that's why He gave us these principles that are so applicable today.

Then he basically says to not spend more than you have to on anything and put all surplus money towards paying off debt. Well, DUH. I don't think you need Jesus to tell you that. I also find it interesting that he left out verses like this:

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"

-Matthew 19:23-24

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" -Matthew 19:21
 

I'm just saying that it's almost impossible for a Christian to NOT be hypocritical. 

So, if the Crystal Cathedral didn't espouse the worst kind of Christian hate, can I still be pleasantly amused by their Chapter 11?

I just think that if you're going to be a church or pretend to be a prophet in the name of Jesus, you can't go around collecting and spending millions annually.  It's hypocrisy and a waste of money and time that could be devoted to something better.

Back to Normal, Post Election

Election Day has come and gone and I was super psyched to walk down the street to our polling place, all prepared with my sample ballot filled out and at the ready for reference. Jerry Brown became our governor (again) and Barbara Boxer pulled through. Prop 19 died, surely to rise again. California now requires only a simple majority to pass the budget, but now a 2/3 vote is required for all fees and fines. But air pollution restrictions and standards remain progressive. Some of the saddest news for me was not that Republicans took control of the House (at least the Dems still have the Senate), but that Iowa citizens booted out 3 Supreme Court Justices who ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. What. A. Blow. Guess that proves that Iowa isn't quite as progressive as I'd like to think. *sigh*

The real sign that we're back to pre-election norms? This blog. We still have only two followers and our page views have returned to the normal 3 or 4 a day. Thank goodness. I don't know that I'm ready yet to have 300 to 500 views a day. But what that does demonstrate to me is that people are starved for information when it comes to certain issues. Like voting "yes" or "no" on judges! There was nothing else out there. What really surprised me was when another Blogger linked to OURS! This guy pretty much was doing what we were, posting the way that he and his girlfriend were going vote... but he referred to this site as a part of the "punditocracy." Not at all in a complimentary way, but me? A Pundit? A 24 year old, usually poor, white female living in an over-crowded and run-down apartment in Hollywood? Awesome. As a friend said, make me a sign and put it on my desk! Anyway, when I tackle issues like that in the future, I'm going to be even more thoroughly researched.

Now, however, I am happy to return to our usual atheist blog, protesting against infringements upon secularism, with a political slant. I don't think I'm ready for so much attention.

Last Chance before you vote!

Alright, get it all out now! I've been reading some of the comments from the judges post and while some are from conservatives thanking me for showing them how to vote opposite from me (which is fine, although there are way more conservative websites out there telling you how to vote), some are from people with very good points.

That's why I view this website as a forum, it's really tough to dig into every corner of every person on the ballot, and I value what others have to say.

One Anonymous commentator mentioned two judges that I gave a "NO" vote to that do have liberal endorsements. Mainly, Randy Hammock and Alan Schneider. After looking around, I can see that this reader probably subscribes to the L.A. Times. Both were endorsed by the paper.

After reading a little more, it looks like Schneider is significantly more qualified than Tom Griego.  He's endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans and will likely be a good judge.

The Times states that both Randy Hammock and Mark Ameli are highly qualified, which they both seem to be. Hammock is endorsed by both Republicans and Democrats, while Mark Ameli is only endorsed by Democrats. But as the Times said, "In Office No. 28, voters are in luck because they have two good choices. Randy Hammock is a seemingly tireless lawyer who left his practice to serve the Los Angeles Juvenile Dependency Court as a referee. Mark K. Ameli is an experienced and accomplished civil litigator." If both are qualified, I'll stick with my original pick. But it's good to know that either one would do a good job if elected.

The other issue brought up is about John Noguez for County Assessor.  Anonymous stated that he is corrupt and has ties to the Bell city officials who awarded themselves giant salaries and were generally shady politicians. I found an article about it here. And even the Washington Times reported on it just a few days ago. Even though John Noguez has more endorsements, the L.A. Times has backed John Y. Wong... which is pretty much the only endorsement he has. I previously had a NO vote for Mr. Wong, but if the LA Times thinks he's qualified and the accusations against John Noguez are at all true, perhaps the Times is right that we need someone less political in the office of Assessor. This shouldn't even be an elected position!


So, to re-cap:
SCHNEIDER: Yes
GRIEGO: No

HAMMOCK: No
AMELI: YES

NOGUEZ: No
WONG: Yes

Again, I really appreciate the input from people, even if they choose to be anonymous or some choose to be rude or obnoxious. I just think it's important that people try to EDUCATE themselves and actually get out there and VOTE! It's hard to wade through the sea of misinformation and lack of information, so we all need to help each other.

PROP 24

This is what I wrote yesterday regarding Prop 24.

PROP 24: Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability initiative statute. 
During budget negotiations this past year, California created new tax laws that would allow businesses to save money. The debate is over whether this benefits small business or fat cat corporations. Does this save the state budget or drive business/jobs away from California? Eliminating those tax breaks would bring in $1.3 billion to the state which would most likely, in turn, go to our schools. That's a good thing. I'd also like to point out that MAJOR funding for the "No on 24" campaign has come from Viacom, Time Warner, and other big corporations. Obviously, they stand to benefit. However, almost all newspaper editorials have come out against Prop 24, as have a lot of genuine small business owners. This has already been in effect for two years, I guess a few more years can't hurt. NO on 24.

However, I'm still in debate over this Prop. A lot of very liberal organizations whom I normally agree with have come out in support of Prop 24. We're talking the ACLU, American Federation of Teachers, League of Women Voters, plus about a million Democratic and LGBT organizations. 

So what to do? I think I may just encourage this household to cancel each others' votes out on this one.

Electing Judges

This is one of the most time consuming tasks and confusing tasks for me as a voter. How do I figure out whether to vote "Yes" or "No" for all of these judges? To be honest, this year, I'm voting straight Democrat for all of the elected officials. I'm sure there are some independent candidates who are worthwhile, and I'm sure not ALL Republicans are complete social conservatives. If we weren't living in a political era of staunch partisanship,  I would at least consider other candidates. But right now, I'm voting Democrat 100%.

But judges don't have a political affiliation. So where do you start?  I begin with the American Bar Association. They are an independent association of lawyers and law students that provide accreditation to law schools and seek to help their profession and increase diversity and reduce bias in the courts. They tend to lean to the liberal side and back Roe v. Wade 100%. This year they also put out an official statement urging every state in the union to permit same-sex unions. Go ABA! The ABA also rates judges on levels of qualification.

I also refer to the League of Women Voters, which is basically non-partisan, but it gives a lot of good information on all of the judges on the ballot, including endorsements, which I find rather telling.

Finally, I use a crazy conservative site, Judge Voter Guide to let me know who to vote against. They are soooooo conservative that they disapprove of even the most moderate Republican judges. Basically, they hate all judges, but really do their research (however misguided it may be)!

Supreme Court Justice
Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye: Yes. Although she is a Republican, nominated by Gov. Schwarzenagger, and is religious, she has been rated as "exceptionally well qualified." The perception is that she's fairly moderate, and socially liberal. She comes from an immigrant family and grew up extremely poor. I'm a sucker for American Dream stories. I tend to find these types to be empathetic individuals. I think she'll be fine.

Ming W. Chin: Yes. This is a tough one because he was a part of the minority decision to vote against Same-Sex marriage, but he has also voted against parental consent for abortions. Again, voted "well qualified."

Carlos R. Moreno: YES! This is an easy one. Voted for Same-Sex Marriage, against parental consent... very liberal.

Court of Appeal 
Robert M. Mallano: YES
Victoria G. Chaney:  NO
Jeffrey W. Johnson:YES
Judith M. Ashmann: YES
Walter Croskey: YES
Steven Suzukawa: NO
Orville "Jack" Armstrong: NO

Paul H. Coffee: NO
Steven Z. Perren: YES
Laurie D. Zelon: YES

Frank Y. Jackson: NO
Tricia A Bigelow: NO
Elizabeth Annette Grimes: NO


Office No. 28
Mark K. Ameli: YES
Randy Hammock: NO


Office No. 117
Tom Griego: YES A user comment made me look more closely at this race, and it appears that
Alan Schneider: NO  Schneider is actually more qualified and is endorsed by both sides. See recent  post for more info!

Office No. 136
Amy D. Hogue: YES

Superintendent of Public Instruction
Larry Aceves: YES (Both seem to be decent choices, but I like Aceves emphasis on peer training for teachers and his endorsement from the LA TIMES)
Tom Torlakson: NO

County Assessor
John Y. Wong: NO Actually, after a comment from a reader, I looked into this race more closely.
John R. Noguez: YES (endorsed by Democrats)   Please see my more recent post for more info!

Whew. This was really difficult and time consuming. With most of the judges, I simply decided to vote against those who were endorsed by right wing conservatives. Personally, I don't think the electorate has any business voting for judges. I think they should be appointed and reviewed. They shouldn't have to think about getting re-elected, only about making sound and fair decisions. Leave politics to politicians.

P.S. The spacing throughout this post is kind of wonky... sorry about that. Blogger is funny sometimes. 

California Propositions 2010

This November 2nd, California will confuse and befuddle its electorate by putting before them the task of voting on numerous Propositions. While some people adore propositions because they believe in direct democracy, I abhor them because they bring us nightmares like Prop 8, ruin the state budget, and contradict existing laws. Anyone can get a Prop on the ballot if they have enough money to get enough signatures from harried customers outside of Trader Joe's.

So, in short, I don't like Propositions. It's also nearly impossible to tell sometimes if they're even good or bad. Sometimes they have good ideas, but bad execution, or have no allocated funds, and put California even further into debt. California politicians hide behind these Props, hoping that some rich citizens will put up the cash to get medical marijuana legalized or some other such legislation. Of course, dirty Republicans do the same... hoping that some rich citizens will put up the cash to ban same sex marriage. Propositions are generally bad news, but they're still up for a vote and intelligent votes matter, so here's my take on them.

Prop 19: Legalizes Marijuana in California
Awesome. Let's figure out the details later. Neither of us smoke, but we don't want our friends who do partake to be arrested for it. Let's tax the hell out of it, decriminalize it, regulate it, and keep folks out of jail. Done. Yes on 19.

Prop 20/27: Redistricting of Congressional Districts
Prop 20 essentially upholds Prop 11 from this summer's primaries that establishes a 14 person committee to redraw California districts. Consists of Democrats, Republicans, and individuals who aren't registered with either party. But I guess Prop 20 futzes around with what was already established in Prop 11. It's funded by a billionaire, Charles Munger, Jr., the son of a Wall Street tycoon.

The idea behind fussing with redistricting is that it would make districts more fair and less tailored to individual party preferences and would make each district more homogeneous. The idea is to reduce the gerrymandering of districts. It's very anti-incumbent. But my real question is how this 14 person committee is going to be held accountable. How do we know that it will be fair? Opponents to Prop 20 state that it contains Jim Crow type laws because it "mandates that all districts (including Assembly, Senate, and Congress) must be segregated by income level and mandates that all districts be segregated according to 'similar living standards' and that districts include only people 'with similar work opportunities." (that's straight from the rebuttal to the arguments for the prop, so it's hard to know if that's true?) The Sacramento Bee is the only newspaper to editorialize against the bill, and the League of Women Voters has also come out against it.

PROP 27 basically negates Prop 11 from the primaries and keeps redistricting in the hands of the Legislature.

I'm going go with the Sacramento Bee on this one and vote NO on 20 and 27 to let Prop 11 do its job. Let's see if this committee can do a better and more fair job of drawing up districts. We'll see how that goes and then change it if necessary.

PROP 21: Establishes $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to help fund state parks and wildlife programs and grants surcharge vehicles free admission to all state parks.
Awesome. I'm willing to pay this because I'm a big animal/nature loving hippie and I always forget to purchase a parking pass ahead of time when I go to state parks. So, yeah. I'm willing to do that. Sorry if you aren't. YES on 21

PROP 22: Prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.
Um.... Boy, this sounds nice. It's mostly funded by the League of California Cities, but as the Sacramento Bee points out, in a year where city managers have awarded themselves with gigantic salaries and perpetrated massive fraud (as in Bell, CA), this doesn't sit very well with a lot of people. Transportation workers and libraries support Prop 22, while health and education workers worry that this will limit their own funds. I say that while the state is in financial crisis, let's not limit our ability to make ends meet. NO on 22

PROP 23: Suspends implementation of air pollution control law requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year. 
Um. FUCK NO. NO ON 23. Yeah, so let's just go back to polluting. I doubt that this will create more jobs and those jobs will simply be lost once this is repealed and these laws are enforced. Let's move forward and create jobs surrounding green and renewable energy and businesses. What a joke. NO NO NO NO NO on 23

PROP 24: Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability initiative statute. 
During budget negotiations this past year, California created new tax laws that would allow businesses to save money. The debate is over whether this benefits small business or fat cat corporations. Does this save the state budget or drive business/jobs away from California? Eliminating those tax breaks would bring in $1.3 billion to the state which would most likely, in turn, go to our schools. That's a good thing. I'd also like to point out that MAJOR funding for the "No on 24" campaign has come from Viacom, Time Warner, and other big corporations. Obviously, they stand to benefit. However, almost all newspaper editorials have come out against Prop 24, as have a lot of genuine small business owners. This has already been in effect for two years, I guess a few more years can't hurt. NO on 24.

PROP 25: Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related legislation from two-thirds to a simple majority. Retains 2/3 vote requirement for taxes.
Thank goodness. I've been hoping to see this on the ballot for awhile. Part of the reason that California can't get a budget passed on time is because the minority of Republicans in this state hold the budget hostage. It's infuriating. Just look at the supporters (Federation of Teachers, Professional Engineers, Nurses Association) versus the opponents (Chevron, Philip Morris, Anheuser-Busch, Shell Oil). It's kind of obvious who stands to benefit from giving Republicans more control than they've earned in this state. YES ON 25. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!


PROP 26: Requires that certain state and local fees be approved by two-thirds vote. Fees include those that address adverse impacts on society or the environment caused by the fee-payer's business.
No. I think I made my opinion clear on 25. This kind of shit ruins our state every year. This would mean that before the State Legislature decides to levy fines on polluters, they need Republican approval. Republicans who are funded by companies like those who oppose Prop 25. Number one supporter of Prop 26? You guessed it, CHEVRON. I'm sure they'd love to stop paying fees for ruining the environment. NO ON 26!!!!!!!!!!!

PROP 27: see above PROP 20
NO. 

Many thanks to Ballotpedia for being a valuable resource for info on the Propositions. Grab your "Official Sample Ballot" and fill in your choices ahead of time to avoid panic in the voting booth! Tomorrow, I will try to tackle the judges for our district! Yipes!  
 

Computer Crap Out

Thank you, Mac Store of Pasadena for fixing my computer for free! Apparently, my video card has a history of being fickle, and they replaced it for free. Thank goodness, because that was a serious moment of panic.

Otherwise, I'm working on pouring through all of the Nov. 2 election material so that I can get some really good stuff on here. Stay tuned! Those judicial elections are so tricky!

REGISTER TO VOTE!

Today, Monday, October 18th is the LAST DAY to register to vote in California for the November 2nd primary.

If you are not registered to vote already, please do so! Go to your local library or post office and pick up the form. It simply has to be postmarked by today! If you want to vote by mail, you must apply by the 26th!

This is an atheist blog, but it's also a political one. Religion shouldn't interfere with our political system, but since it's such an influential factor for so many politicians (and so openly so), the two sadly seem to go hand in hand. 

I've been house/dog sitting lately, which has made it more difficult to post, so this is just a quick reminder. Californians have A LOT to vote on because of our crazy propositions, so I'll be going through the voter information guide over the coming days. That's just as much for me as it is for anyone else who cares to know my opinion and listen to my research!

GET POLITICAL! DON'T LET THE CRAZIES RULE THE VOTE!