One of the many drafts that for some reason never got published (I think because I needed to go back and find the goldfish link). I am glad the election is over, but post election thoughts still linger.

---

Today, I read yet another article on the registration of fraudulent voters. This time, the registrant was a dead goldfish in Illinois. Which begs the question, how and why did the goldfish get registered.

Originally, the only people eligible to vote in the United States were land owners. In other words, you got to vote if you could show title to a parcel of land. Then blacks got the right to vote, followed by woman’s suffrage, which are both positive societal advances.

Voting is a privilege that every citizen of our country enjoys. But why do we need groups running around registering everybody? If a person wants to vote, they ought to figure out how to get themselves registered and do it of their own volition?

Critics might argue that certain segments of the population don’t feel comfortable dealing with the government and feel they will be discriminated against. Fair enough, but I can’t alter how these people feel when dealing with the government. (Shoot, I don’t know anybody who enjoys dealing with the DMV.) Perhaps there are other similar arguments.

Nonetheless, if a person wants to vote, that person should take the initiative to get themselves registered. Period. No ACORN. No other groups reaching out to register these folks. One vote per person, and each person takes it upon themselves to vote.

Moreover, each person, in registering to vote, should have to show some sort of identification. Again, critics might argue that some people don’t have identification and don’t feel comfortable going to get it. To which I answer: then that person shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Period.

Our system must have safeguards built into it to ensure that each person get one and only one vote. So far, this election cycle shows that the absence of safeguards is fertile soil for gross abuse and voter fraud. On balance, what is worse: allowing hundreds of thousands of false registrations or requiring a extremely small portion of the population, who don’t have picture identification, to get identification before they vote?

If ACORN et al. wants to be useful, I propose that rather than register people to vote, which obviously they cannot do ethically, they help these people get their picture identification and then give them detailed instructions on how to get themselves registered to vote. The so-called "disinfranchised" then get their ID’s and get to cast their ballots.

The only people who lose in this situation are Mickey Mouse, dead goldfish, and the Dallas Cowboys.

A buddy and I rode Santiago Oaks for the first time since my accident there four months ago. I must admit I had a little fear after climbing the B’s and starting the decent, which translated into an endo (up and over the handle bar) on a sandy slope thanks to much too much front break. Sometimes when mountain biking, you have to let it roll and hit the breaks in a safe location. Steep, sandy slopes don’t qualify.

In the sections of drops where I wrecked, I rolled them (meaning I carried no speed into them and rolled down them weight back and front tire always on the ground) rather than dropping them with speed. It was nice to get through the section. Weirdly, when I hit the last drop where I am sure I wrecked (still have post concussion amnesia), I was absolutely certain it was the place like a tickling of a memory once remembered, but now forgotten.

In an effort to avoid further wrecks, it was my first ride with my All Mountain Post (AMP) seat dropper. Getting one’s seat out of the way makes a huge difference in getting one’s weight back and avoiding endos. Especially on XC bikes.  Some pics of my new seat dropper (the dark in the top right and lower left are thanks to not getting the shutter cover fully open.)

Above: Full upright position. The hardware is relative small (where the wire goes into the seatpost). I used white trash zip ties to affix to my frame, but will replace with wire mounts once I am sure I like where it is located. I really need an extra six inches of wire.

Above: Down 1"

Above: all the way down (down 4").

Above: closeup of down all four inches.

Above: Closeup of it down of it fully up.

The seatpost is actuated with the blurry level over my shifters on the top of the bar.

Closeup version from the other angle of the actuating lever. The only problem with the lever, the wire blocks the mount point for my left side light. Not a big deal in the summer, but during the dark months I need those lights for night riding…

So far, it works pretty well. Time will tell whether I really like or mostly like it.

I just can’t stop reading about the response of the opponents of Prop. 8. And I find a certain amount of amusement with the picketing, white substances, and all the other stunts these opponents are pulling against the Mormons and other religions that supported Proposition 8.

Don’t these people have jobs?

From the LA Times :

Jim Key, a spokesman for the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center, said barbs by gay marriage activists were directed at church leadership, not individual Mormons.

"We’re making a statement that no one’s religious beliefs should be used to deny fundamental rights to others," he said.

My response to this comment:

1. Since when is gay marriage a fundamental right? (Which, by the way, is a semantics trick on the part of gay rights advocates to imply that gay marriages is a type of right that gets the highest form of legal scrutiny when faced with a statute that tends to restrain the right–a compelling state interest. In practice, meeting the compelling state interest standard is nearly impossible.) As of today, gay marriage isn’t even a right, let alone a fundamental right.

2. What about a person’s fundamental right to practice their religion (actually, if I remember correctly, free exercise of religion is not a fundamental right any longer thanks the the U.S. Supreme Court)? Where were the "fundamental rights" police when doctors were being threatened with revocation of their licenses because their religious beliefs don’t accommodate artificial insemination of lesbians?

Those in favor of prop. 8 should counter to stalemate: "We’re making a statement that no one’s sexual orientation should be used to deny fundamental rights to others."

Religious freedom, unlike gay marriage, is actually a right granted to the people in the Bill of Rights. How does gay marriage, which isn’t a legal right at all, therefore trump free exercise of religion?

3. A person’s religious beliefs forms part of their value set, which they have every right to voice in a democratic process. Just like the anti-religious values gay rights advocates vote for. What makes their values better than my values? Why should only their values be voiced in the democratic process?

Because gay rights advocates don’t agree with religion?

This is yet another example of elitism at its finest. The "dumb" people shouldn’t be allowed to vote (i.e., they shouldn’t cast a vote reflecting their religious values). Yet again the attitude of "you’re too stupid to vote" rears its ugly head. Even worse, stupid is defined by whether you agree or disagree with Mr. Key’s point of view.

I was initially surprised that nobody in the gay community seemed concerned about judges overturning the voice of the people. But as I have watched the campaign unfold, I see now that gay rights activists have no interest in democracy, which is why they continue to protest and act like buffoons.

They are for an autocracy, where they are in charge. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that they are all for court intervention once again, even now that the people have spoken twice.

Law school warps your mind in to an endless debate about where to draw lines. So I put this out to the gay community:

• Would gay rights advocates support a minority of murderers who believe they have a "fundamental right to kill people" and are therefore being discriminated against by people whose morals dictate that murder is wrong?
• Would it be wrong for those who believe murder is immoral to seek passage of laws to outlaw murder in their society if they believe it to be wrong?
• Would seeking passage of anti-murder laws amount to "hate" of murderers?

I can see the counter argument: murder affects the rights of another person, whereas gay marriage does not affect the rights of anybody but the gay couple.

In actual practice, however, gay marriage has been shown to affect the rights of parents to dictate the values their children are taught in school, the rights of doctors to refuse to artificially inseminate lesbian couples based on contrary religious values, and the rights of religious based adoption agencies to refuse adopting to homosexual parents based on the church’s religiously based opposition to homosexuality.

The end result is the same. Murder impinges on the right of the killed. Gay marriage impinges on the free exercise of religion and on the right of parents to choose what values their children are taught.

These are important rights to religious folks and parents, and must be part of the equation.

** Aside: I can’t help but wonder if gay marriage would come out differently if (1) gays would agree with notification to parents of all gay rights materials distributed and taught in schools and allow parents to remove their children when objectionable values were discussed (or at least be notified and have the opportunity to instill different values to their children, (2) leave small children out of the equation and, if gay rights must be discussed, do it at an age-appropriate level where a child is mature enough to have the sexuality discussion, and (3) allow for religious based values to be respected when those with religious values and gay rights come into direct conflict.

It has been telling to watch the aftermath of the passage of prop. 8 in California. Rather than revel in the democratic process, the prop. 8 opponents are having a cow. Well, not really. They can’t have progeny, even cows. In the aftermath of prop. 8, gay rights advocates have shown their poker hand when they should have folded and tucked their cards back into the deck to fight again another day.

I mentioned in a previous post that I thought the real motivation of gay-rights was, in part, anti-religion sentiment on the part of gays. It turns out I am correct. Aside from targeting the Mormon temples (which so far as I can tell has produced as collective "ehh!" from the church) and Catholic churches, this story of an attack of a cross bearing elderly lady in Palm Springs caught my eye.

What was planned as a peaceful candlelight service in front of City Hall took a hostile turn when the crowd began pushing and a cross was torn from Burgess’ arms. The cross ended up in pieces on the ground. [After being trampled by angry gay-rights activists)

Somebody apparently caught it on video as well, which shows the gay rights advocates a pitchfork and torch away from burning a church down.

After the election, the LA Times produced a photo essay of the protest at the Mormon temple in Westwood. Many of the signs in the pictures had some sort of "Hate" ("H8") message, as if people in favor of prop. 8 hate them. (My favorite: "Mormon Hate Out of My State.")

The attacks on religion cause me to ask, who is hating whom?

Most of the prop. 8 supporters were very clear to communicate that the issue to them was one of morality and ideology rather than hatred. There is a difference. People can have a set of values, and even disapprove of choices made, and still offer love and support to the same person making the choices. This isn’t hate — it is using the democratic process to mold society in an image of what majority considers mainstream and right. This is precisely the reason for having democracy, so that no one person (e.g., a king or judge) or a minority group can dictate to the majority the morals of their society. The majority of Californians decided (twice) that gay marriage should not be recognized. Prop. 8 supporters articulated a number of reasons for their support, most of which focused on the ancillary effects of gay marriage for children and free practice of religion, and none of which that were based on hatred of gays as people.

The only haters in all of this are the gays. They are free to disagree, assemble outside churches and temples (provided they do not interfere with the free exercise of worship), but attacks on religious people and tearing crosses, listing those who donated to prop. 8 and encouraging gay rights supporters to do what is in their power to make life difficult for there donors, causing people to be fired from their jobs, staging loud and obnoxious demonstrations during worship services, and the general vitriol observed in these protests against Mormons (this one is really classy ), Catholics, and other supporters of prop. 8. This is hatred. Hatred of religion, morality, and more generally the people themselves that share in these values.

Hate? In a prior post I mentioned that I have a gay colleague. Over the last two months, he has gone from friendly to not talking to me. As our path’s don’t often cross, I didn’t read too much into it, even when friendly greetings from me to the gay colleague were ignored as recently as two weeks ago. That is until another Mormon colleague of mine who works more closely with him came into my office yesterday and made the same observation.

Hatred? By who?

From a recent article detailing the steps the gays are taking against the Mormons was this interesting tidbit :

"At a fundamental level, the Utah Mormons crossed the line on this one," said gay rights activist John Aravosis, an influential blogger in Washington, D.C.

"They just took marriage away from 20,000 couples and made their children bastards," he said. "You don’t do that and get away with it."

OK, so I may have a degree in Molecular Biology, but can somebody explain to me how gay couples have children? Better yet, will somebody explain to me how a gay couple could have a child that is not a bastard (i.e., born of two parents that are not married)?

From my sister’s blog :

I feel the need to get on a little political soapbox for a while. This is not about who won the election, but rather us as Americans. First off, I am so sick of hearing people say, "we need a change". What the heck is that supposed to mean anyway? A change from what? I will tell you what kind of change I think we need…we need a change of the American people feeling entitled to anything and everything they want. Since when have so many "wants" become "necessities"? Why are we not saving when the going is good? Why do we feel like the rich owe us something? It annoys the living you know what out of me. It is not a governments responsibility to make sure things are always smooth sailing for us. I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but we make do. We budget (I am not always perfect at sticking to it, I must say) and we recognize our position. Do I hope to be rich some day, you better believe it, but if it doesn’t happen I sure hope I am just happy with what I have because I recognize it is a lot and I will continue working hard to achieve our goals.

On a different vein, I am also sick of everyone bad mouthing George Bush. He has done a ton for us as a president…mainly kept our country safe since 911. I imagine that is not an easy task. I don’t agree with all his fiscal policies, but you know what, he has kept us in an offensive position with the terrorists and to me, that means a ton. I am glad we are fighting them on their soil and not ours. And frankly, we need to finish the job we went over there to do. I am all for bringing our troops home, but not until we have finished the job we started. So, everyone get off his case. He has been a good president with good morals and I truly believe the desire to do what is best for this country. I appreciate that he is a religious man as well, because so am I and I want a president who prays and tries to have some divine guidance. It is not George Bush’s fault that we are in an economic downturn, not the republican party…sure there are certain factors that influenced it, but really the economy does this. It will get better and until then we may just have to forgo that new pair of shoes.

You know what change I want to see. I want all of us (me included) to be wiser with what we have, more grateful for what we have and a whole lot less selfish. There you go.

Couldn’t agree more.

John F. Kennedy famous said "Ask not what you country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. "

Does anybody live that principle any more? Senior citizens vote based on who will ensure they get the most $$ deposited in their bank accounts and ensuring somebody else pays their medical bills; Brock Obama plans to ensure over 50% of the electorate pays no tax so they will vote for him again; Republican (and Democrat) legislators use earmarks to pay back favors; Joe Biden (and others) pay millions of campaign dollars donated by constituents to family members (who have token campaign jobs) to enrich themselves; and the list goes on and on and on.

Does anybody still live President Kennedy’s principle?