Political Football season

I recently read a book called Zeitoun by David Eggers. It was about a Muslim man who immigrated to the US. He worked his butt off and built a successful business. He married and had a family. Essentially, he was living the American dream. But he happened to live in New Orleans and after Katrina, it all became a nightmare. He stayed in the city until he was eventually arrested under martial law. Of course, they suspected him of being a terrorist. They kept him locked away for months with no contact with the outside world.

This book just comes to mind, because I'm thinking that Muslims are just another part of the fabric of this nation. Here's a guy who came and worked hard. He's a Muslim and he's built a life here. During the early days of Katrina he was involved in rescuing many of his neighbords. But for some reason there's a lot of nonsense going on right now that demonstrates that religious tolerance is still something we need to work on.

Okay to this mosque in NY thing. The arguments against the mosque seem to be. 1. This is hallowed ground and this a stick in the eye to everyone. 2. We don't know who is funding this.

1. I understand that Ground Zero has now become symbolic for anyone who is an American and really beyond that. But I'm not sure about the proximity argument. So the proposed mosque is a few blocks from ground zero. Is 10 blocks far enough? 20? Why is it being 4 blocks away an insult to anyone? And why is a center dedicated to religious devotion disrespectful. I understand that the 911 killers were radical islamists, but this is like saying we can't build a church there because David Koresh thinks he was a Christian.

2. It's not about the money. It's not like everyone's done due diligence for all the churches that suck up prime real estate around the globe. As long as it's not funded by radical islamists, that's all anyone really has the right to know.

3. So sadly enough, this really is just about religion bashing. And it's really sad to see the same people who usually proclaim to be faithful defenders of the Constitution be the first in line to do the bashing. I'm begining to think none of these folks actually know what the Consitutiton says. Palin clearly does not. Hint for her. Freedom of speech means that people are allowed to disagree with you.

I'm very sorry to have seen this whole thing become a political football.

The end of the war (sort of)

What is the worst foreign policy in the history of US came to a fairly quiet end last week. The madmen in charge are all gone. Bye Hussein. Bye Junior. Bye Cheney. The US invaded a country based on a human rights issue, a bunch of fabrications about the danger of the country and a desire for oil. Really, this was the stretch of military doctrine to the impossible. I don't care if there was a poorly drafted UN resolution. This was pure agression. I am very very glad that the Cold War ended before Junior became president, or none of us may still be around.

I sorted of expected more or a recap. So many people were killed. So much was achieved. This is the future of Iraq. There seemed to be very little of that. Why? Is it because we achieved so little? It seems like the people of Iraq are in many ways in worse condition then they were. Is it because, really, we've still got 50,000 mostly military people there? Is it because we've got another war still going on and we are all suffering from war fatigue? Poor us, having to hear about it in the news.

I'm just trying to figure out why this wasn't a bigger deal.

Where the writing is going.

I'm falling woefully behind in writing my novel. It just doesn't seem like a year is enough. Maybe I need five years.

Not a surprise, but it's hard to find time for any writing. It's always the last priority. But I am moving forward a little at a time.

I seemed to have skipped from Chapter 1 to Chapter 3. At least that seems like my interest for the moment. I guess there's no rule that I have to write everything in order. But maybe that just means Chapter 2 wasn't interesting enough. We'll see.

Update on the kids

Little S has really been making strides in the right direction. She can't get into a sitting position by herself yet, but if put in that position, she can generally sit for several minutes on her own. She can't crawl yet, but she's beginning to scoot around. She's curious about things and will move around to try to reach them. She can bear weight, but she doesn't walk yet. But these are good things. But as she gets more curious about the world, she is challenging us a bit more. She really doesn't like to be held for long periods of time anymore. Feeding takes forever, because she's going to try to grab the spoon, fork or anything else within her grasp. She's been on a recent kick of getting up at 3 in the morning, which seems to indicate, that she likes to get up around then and wants some stimulation. It doesn't seem to be about eating or diaper changing, just boredom. At least she's a good co-sleeper. She sticks to her place in the bed. With J, it was always a foot in the face, and then her yelling, when I tried to gently remove her toe from my nostril.

But every little milestone with her still seems like a big deal. Now we put her in high chair and she can't grasp and eat Cherios by herself, but she's very interested in throwing them on the floor. And yes, even my cleaner half can deal with that. It's a good milestone. But J has been yelling at her about that. J knows at 3 if she threw food around in the same manner, she would be getting a time-out. So she yells at S, because the parents haven't been. Okay, so we're applying a double standard, based on age and ability, but J doesn't get that. Even though we keep telling her that it's different because S is a baby. I'm not sure how to make that sink in.

At the CP support group, one of the parents was talking about how special needs kids can end up pretty spoiled. Parents are so happy when they do anything, that they get away with murder. I think he's probably right in large part, but I don't know what to do about that yet.

Tidbits on Overturn of Prop 8

One small step. Another several years and millions of dollars before there is any real resolution on this issue. I haven't read the ruling, but I've heard some smart people talk about it.

So the judge doesn't talk about it, but he's gay. Does it matter? One could argue that he had a vested interest in the outcome. I don't buy it. That same logic would mean a woman could never rule in an abortion case. Or a black could never judge a civil rights case. He's also a Republican. Should we exclude Republicans from ruling on cases where Republcans might benefit? Some are screaming about this, but the Prop 8 people didn't contest it earlier and won't make it part of their appeal, because it's a loser issue.

One of the arguments is that we've just overruled the "will of the people" in democratic parlance. The people of California voted for this, so to overturn this is to thwart the will of the people. Here's the thing. The Constitution was made to protect people from the oppression of the government and each other. It's actually got a bill of rights meant to protect individuals. Prop 8 is the first time that a majority of people have voted to Constitutionally strip rights from a specific class of people. You can argue what level of protection of people in this class deserve, but I think it would be hard for any judge to use a device like a Constitutional amendment to take rights away rather than protect them.

Jerry Brown and Arnie were in large part charged with a response on behalf of the State. Neither really gave a crap and didn't help the pro-Prop 8 groups at all.

There is a fundamental flaw with the argument that this ban somehow protects the family. The Pro Prop group really struggled with any showing of why allowing gay marriages would somehow impact their marriage contracts. Most of what they argued amounted to little more than prejudice against gay people.

Along the same line, they contended that producing children was a fundamental part of marriage and only marriage. This would be great in an idea world, but this argument falls flat because there are plenty of kids born to unmarried people. There are also many kids who have a parent die and aren't raised by a man and woman. In other words to say gay parents weren't suitable parents, they would pretty much need to say any child born out of wedlock or any child who had a parent die was also in an unsuitable position. Marriage does not equal kids. Biology just doesn't work that way.

Back in law school we learned about different levels of scrutiny for legislation based on classifications. For instance, the state could pass laws regarding race or relgion, but these would be under strict scrutiny. Essentially, the state would need a really compelling reason. But usually, instead of strict scrutiny, most laws get a rational basis test. That means the state gets to pass laws as a regular part of its business and someone complaining about it has the burden of proof. The judge in this case used the rational basis level of scutiny, meaning he gave Prop 8 the benefit of the doubt and made the people contesting it prove up their case. Only a minor legal point, but it could play a big part in the appeals.

Emails from Wifey today.

Poor Wifey spent part of her day wrestling with the State. These are her emails to me this morning.

Hmmmm

Been waiting here 45 min
3 front desk people chatting for the last 45 min
No other client came in after me
One other client called in b4 me 30 min ago by case worker
Funny thing is, they were chatting for 45 min about how they were swamped
They did not look swamped
They need more case workers and less front desk
I think about how hard my front desk works- wonder if there is a pay difference

Oh I didn't mention that the fd person almost sent me to San Carlos - she asked me if this was a first time medical app. I said yes. She's like then you need to go to San Carlos. I almost did but remember that the app said to bring it here and phone person too. I showed her my app and she said oh, ok I guess you are here. aiyah!

Are you kidding me? This fd person who has proceeded to complain to second person about office politics and managers- seriously non stop chit chat for an hour - now proclaims that she's already exhausted.

Seriously, if arnold walked in here I wouldn't blame him if he said to cut staff here

Oh and she just told someone she's about to go on break.

As if she hasn't been on break for last hour and 15 min

Weather yesterday.

I took 3 days off this week, but really, it just amounts to one play day. The rest is just the endless chores that go with being a dad in this modern world and the illnesses that seem to strike my family more often than they should. Today was mostly chores. Same with tomorrow. The only fun day was yesterday.

So S was to daycare and Wifey went to work because she has fewer vacation days than I do. It was me, my parents, and Little J. My parents hadn't been up to Marin so we decided to make a day trip out of it. We left the house at around 9. It was sunny. By the time we got to the city, it was about 50 degrees and foggy. Our first stop was Golden Gate bridge. We couldn't see 15 feet in front of us. For those of us who live in the Bay Area, that's just an accepted part of being out here. The Golden Gate Bridge is a trap. The weather often sucks. It's cold up there.

We drove through the rainbow tunnel, past Muir Woods all the way down to Stinson Beach. It's quite a trek in good weather, and just crazy when it's foggy out there. It's great that everyone was able to hold onto their breakfast. Little J loved the beach. She loved the sand, the sticks, the rock. She wanted to touch everything, except the water. The water scared her. I asked her which made more noise, her or the ocean. She said, she was louder, but the ocean made more. She loved running around in her bare feet. The beach was cloudy but not windy like the bridge.

We continued north until we hit the little town of Olena. We stopped for lunch. Little J ate a pound of french fries and most of a grilled cheese sandwich. It was very impressive. Sunny and hot through lunch.

We went on a short hike near the visitor center there. It was the epicenter of the 1906 SF earthquake. Point Reyes is a pretty interesting geographic place. It's really an island that sits on the other side of the fault on the Pacific Ocean plate. It was an island that started out near Santa Barbara several million years ago. It's slowly been working its way north. But for the time being, it's gotten jammed against, the continental plate and formed a peninsula. Beautiful weather out there.

After that we drove out to the Point Reyes lighthouse. Foggy and wet and wild and a 20+ mile drive. Pretty crazy drive. I'm not sure, J got what the lighthouse was about.

Drove back through Petaluma. Sunny.

Hit San Francisco. Cloudy.

South a little further. Sunny again.

I've never been anywhere else where the weather changes every fifteen miles. Maybe it's unique to the Bay Area. I'm not sure.