The Chik-Fil-A Fiasco

This post is a little late but I couldn't resist staying away from the whole Chik-Fil-A thing.  I could sum up my thoughts into one simple phrase ("Get over it") but that wouldn't be fun.  I will preface this post with this: This post is not necessarily about my own personal beliefs about traditional marriages versus gay marriages.  This post is simply what I think about the whole situation.  I have friends who are gay and I am friendly with gay people.  I am not gay and the lifestyle is not for me, but I do not judge others who decide to live that kind of lifestyle.  If people want to debate on what is right or wrong using the Bible, then debate with this in mind:  Jesus says not to judge (because that is his job), and we must love one another.  We don't have to like what they do but we should still love them (and God knows I've gotten upset with Jon enough times... or even my kids... because of something they may have done that I didn't like but that does not change how I feel about them).  With that said, let's move on...

For those of you who may have been living under a rock and missed out on the whole thing, I'll explain briefly what went down.  The CEO (Dan Cathy) voiced his personal opinion on same-sex marriages and publicly advocated against it.  This caused such a big uproar among the gay community (as well as the people who support gay marriages).  People who support gay marriages staged "Kiss-Ins" at various Chik-Fil-A locations, boycotted the restaurant and verbally trashed the CEO and the corporation.  In response to that, people who support traditional marriages, the CEO's opinion and as well as one's right to an opinion organized an Appreciation Day on August 1st 2012 where thousands across the US flocked to the chains to purchase food.  Chik-Fil-A later announced that Appreciation Day actually broke record sales for the corporation.

Speaking of record-breaking sales, I think it's pretty ironic that the gay community and its supporters indirectly caused Chik-Fil-A to bring in record sales on August 1st.  Think about it - if the gay community and its supporters didn't make a big deal out of it, the chain of events probably wouldn't have happened and Chik-Fil-A wouldn't have raked in millions upon millions in sales that day....

As parents, we tell our children that when someone is bullying you or is being mean you should just ignore the bully.  If you ignore the bully enough, eventually the bully will leave you alone because he/she will get bored and/or since the bully isn't getting the kind of response that he/she wants, the bully will stop.  In this situation, it certainly seems that the CEO of Chik-Fil-A is the gay community's "bully."  I think maybe the gay community should have just ignored their bully and went on about their lives.

I certainly understand there's a need to defend yourself.  I am certainly the type of person who will stand up to defend myself if I feel insulted or ridiculed in any way.  I normally don't back down from that and I don't encourage anybody to become a doormat.  Ever.

Now, the CEO was entitled to his opinion.  It was just that - a personal opinion.  Yes, people are not always going to agree with everybody else's opinions.  That's the beauty of the country that we live in.  You can say what you believe without suffering legal repercussions unlike many other countries.  We have the freedom to think, to be our own persons, and also to disagree with others.

I find this whole thing a little bit silly.  The liberals tend to complain about religion being forced down their throats by conservatives saying that they shouldn't have to be subjected to lectures about how they're living the wrong life.  Let them live their lives in peace.  And I agree.  If people want to do whatever they want to do, let them.  It's their lives and if you believe in God then it's between them and God.  If you believe in Heaven and Hell then ultimately God will decide where they will go... not us.  The best we can do is at least let them know about God and if they push it away then so be it.  It's their decision.

Now - speaking of leaving the people alone and letting them live their lives in peace - that goes for religious people as well.  If they want to voice their opinions on certain topics, let them do so in peace.  If they want to live a Christian life and hold certain beliefs that clash with yours, let them do so in peace.  It seems to me that since we are living in an age of "equal rights" people feel the need to argue about it each chance they get.  Nowadays, instead of Christian people trying to force their beliefs down people's throats, it is the other way around.  It is the non-Christians that want to push their beliefs down Christian people's throats.

Here is something that I hear often.  If you don't agree with somebody or if you're not liberal enough then you're closed minded.  I frigging hate that word.  People believe what they want to believe.  People do what they want to do.  Just because someone does not believe the same things that you do does not mean they are too liberal or they are too conservative (in other words, closed minded).  Just leave each other alone and respect each other.  Respect.  Now that is a dying art nowadays.

One big thing that came out of this was the Boston mayor wanting to ban Chik-Fil-A restaurants from his city.  Honestly, that's a bit outrageous.  See - everyone is upset because one person (not a corporation... a person) voiced his opinion.  Now the Boston mayor is voicing his own opinion saying he disagrees with the CEO and because he disagrees with the CEO, he will not allow Chik-Fil-A into his city.  By doing this, isn't the Boston mayor doing exactly what he is mad at the CEO about?  In trying to ban the chain (he is not legally allowed to do so.  Read this interesting post about the First Amendment here), he is ultimately preventing citizens their right to eat wherever they want.  If they want to eat at Chik-Fil-A... just frigging let them!  This whole thing is just plain silly in my opinion.  (Maybe I shouldn't even state my opinion - I might experience extreme backlash here.  Seriously.  This is ridiculous.)

Let's focus on one more thing.  Legal rights of American citizens.  American citizens have laws protecting them from discrimination.  Everyone has a legal right to work (well, except the illegal immigrants that that's a whole 'nother rant); everyone has a legal right to work in a hospitable environment.  Now - if Chik-Fil-A was in the news for illegally discriminating against the gay community I would stand with the gay community in a heartbeat.  Being part of a minority group I would hope that every type of minority is protected from things like that.  However, this is not the issue here.  Chik-Fil-A did not illegally discriminate against someone.  Chik-Fil-A did not break any laws.  It was just an opinion.

So, if you like Chik-Fil-A... keep eating there.  If you're too upset about the comment that the CEO made... don't eat there.  Yes, it is actually that simple.

'Not Guilty' Verdict for Casey Anthony

The "Not Guilty" verdict for the murder of Caylee Anthony is definitely the most controversial verdict since the O.J Simpson murder trial.  The entire nation is angry (some may be relieved), shocked, and appalled at the jury; and everyone has no qualms about letting everybody know what they think of Casey Anthony.


Gone are the days (if only temporarily) of worrying over terrible news of the drought in the South, wildfires, and drug-related crimes.  There's bigger news to talk about.  The verdict has rocked the country and I have a pretty good idea that we'll continue to hear about this for at least 6 months from now.


My initial response upon hearing the verdict from a co-worker was shock, then frustration (how can our legal system fail!?  I know - that's a loaded question), then ultimately - understanding.  Before I start getting eggs hurled at my house for what I just said, let me state my case.  Finally - I have something worthwhile to blog about, and I get to exercise my passion - law.  Finally, a legal background that I get to use!


On the outside it's easy to form our own opinions based on what we hear from the media.  It's easy to decide that Anthony is guilty and that she should rot in jail for murdering her daughter.  But if it were you sitting in the jury seat, would you have easily come to the same decision?  Could you just have easily put a potentially innocent person in jail and maybe on Death Row? Granted, there's just too many suspicious things going on, lots of evidence that clearly points to her (right?), and she just keeps lying about what actually happened.  As crazy as this case may have seemed, we all have to remember that there are rules/laws to follow and yes, even Casey Anthony is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  I'll cover the crimes that Casey Anthony was charged with, the evidence that was presented, the claims that Anthony made, the rules the jury had to follow and where I think this case went wrong.


The Charges:
Casey Anthony was charged with four things...
1. Felony Murder in the First Degree
2. Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child
3. Aggravated Child Abuse
4. Four counts of providing false information to a police officer


Anthony was charged with child neglect back in 2008 on the basis that Caylee was still alive.  When it was determined that Caylee was indeed deceased, they dropped the charge against her and proceeded to charge her with the four crimes above.  My personal thought:  So a child must be alive for a parent to be charged with child neglect?  I wholeheartedly disagree.  If parent neglected his/her child for a month by not giving the child food/water (which ultimately caused the child's death), how can it NOT be neglect?  Apparently the law decrees that the child neglect charge is unnecessary because there are four other charges (which she HAS to be guilty of, right?  Right!).  Sadly enough, I personally think that if the child neglect charge stuck, the jury would have found her guilty of at least that.


The Evidence:
1. Hair in Anthony's trunk.  *Fun Fact: If any of you know me well enough, you'd know that I'm a big fan of the Body Farm over at the University of Tennessee.  They use donated bodies to conduct research on the circumstances of death, how long it takes to decay in certain environments and so forth.  Very cool.  It was actually the Body Farm that discovered hair banding - forensic evidence that proves whether the hair came from a living or a deceased person.  After death, the roots of the hair will develop a dark band.  The hair found in Anthony's trunk proved that a deceased person was in the trunk at one time.
2. Air samples taken from the same trunk showed chemical compounds that is present in the stages of decomposition.  However, it is still unconfirmed whether it was a human decaying in the trunk.
3. Chloroform was found in the car trunk.
4. A search on Anthony's home computer found Internet searches of "neck breaking", "how to make chloroform", and "death".  Casey Anthony's mother took responsibility for the Internet searches.
5. Laundry bag, duct tape and plastic bags found at the crime scene matched the materials found at Anthony's home
6. A heart-shaped outline was found on a duct tape found at the crime scene.  However, the outline faded when the duct tape was dusted for prints.  Heart-shaped stickers were found at Anthony's home.
7. A Winnie The Pooh blanket was found at the crime scene; the blanket was similar to the blanket that was missing from Caylee's bed.


After all the evidence, the case has got to be open-and-shut, right?  But there has to be other things to consider.  Let's take a look at Anthony's claims (or defense or whatever you want to call it)....


Anthony's Claims Defense:
1. Originally she stated that a nanny had kidnapped Caylee
2. She also stated that it was an accidental drowning (and that her father helped her cover it up... which her father denies doing)
3. She alleged that her father had sexually abused her since she was 8 years old and that her brother made sexual advances towards her.  With no clear knowledge of who Caylee's biological father was, both men were tested to see if they were Caylee's father.  (Can we say ew?)  The tests were negative and we still have no idea who the biological father was.  I'm not seeing why this claim has any validity in the case.  What does Casey's supposed sexual history have to do with her daughter?


We have to remember that we weren't the ones sitting in on the trial.  We didn't hear and see all the evidence, we didn't hear all the arguments and we didn't hear all the witnesses testify.... that is, unless you were glued in front of the television the whole time and watched the entire trial.  It's easy to talk with your friends, family and church members and come to the conclusion that Anthony is guilty.  Maybe she is.  Maybe she isn't.  Only she and God knows (as well as accomplices if there were any).  In determining whether a suspect is guilty of any type of crime, there are laws to follow.  There are no real punishments against a jury for coming up with a "wrong" verdict, but if it is found that a jury failed the follow the laws, and/or cannot come to an agreement on a verdict, the judge would probably call a mistrial.


Jury Rules:
1. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt of the following criteria in order to determine that the suspect is guilty.  If there is doubt of just one criteria, the jury will be required to return a verdict of not guilty or they may return a guilty verdict of a lesser crime - provided that all the criteria is met.
2. If they cannot agree on a verdict for the charges, they will be required to look at all the lesser crimes and decide if any others apply to the evidence provided.
3. The state has the burden of proof.  The jury is required to look to the state for the evidence and the explanations of the evidence.  The jury cannot base their decisions on the defense not being able to prove that Anthony did not do it.  They must look at the evidence that proves she did.
4. It is up to the jury to decide which evidence is reliable, if it is reliable and which evidence to ignore (because it is too circumstantial, etc).
5. The vote must not be unanimous but the type of verdict must be agreed on (murder in the first degree, second degree, etc).


Let's look at the charges and the criteria for each:

• Murder in the First degree (which can be either a felony murder or a premeditated murder
• Felony murder
• Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
• The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in the commission of Aggravated Child Abuse OR The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempting to commit Aggravated Child Abuse.
• Casey Marie Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony.
• Premeditated Murder
• Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
• The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony.
• There was a premeditated killing of Caylee Marie Anthony.
• Aggravated Child Abuse
• Casey Marie Anthony knowingly or willfully committed child abuse upon Caylee Marie Anthony and in so doing caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.
• Caylee Marie Anthony was under the age of eighteen years.
• Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child
• Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
• Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony OR The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

Since the jury couldn't find Casey Anthony guilty of anything above, they now have to look at the lesser crimes.

• Murder in the Second Degree
• Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
• The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony.
• There was an unlawful killing of Caylee Marie Anthony by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.
• Manslaughter
• Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
• Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony OR The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.
• Murder in the Third Degree
• Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
• The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in the commission of Child Abuse OR The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempting to commit Child Abuse.
• Casey Marie Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony.

She could have also been charged and found guilty of the two lesser crimes:

• Attempt to Commit Crime
• Casey Marie Anthony did some act toward committing the crime of Child Abuse that went beyond just thinking or talking about it.
• She would have committed the crime except that someone prevented her from committing the crime of Child Abuse or she failed.
• Child Abuse
• Casey Marie Anthony intentionally inflicted physical or mental injury upon Caylee Marie Anthony OR committed an intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to Caylee Marie Anthony
• The victim was under the age of eighteen years.

Based on these criteria, the jury has found Casey Anthony not guilty.  The vote did not have to be unanimous but there had to be just enough votes to be the majority.  The majority decided that none of the evidence presented met any of the criteria 100% for any of the crimes and that there were reasonable doubts that Casey Anthony was directly responsible for the death of her daughter.

Where the case went wrong:
The evidence was there.  As clear as day.  But the problem lies with the DA.  The State didn't do a good enough job of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony is responsible for the death of her daughter.  There were just too many circumstantial evidence.  It's apparent that Caylee was murdered.  It wasn't exactly clear who did it.  There were loopholes in the Defense but the jury chose to ignore that.  If the child died of an accidental drowning, why would there be a need to put duct tape over Caylee's face?  We all know that duct tape is mostly used to bind a victim and/or to quiet them.  If Caylee was already dead, there would be no need to put tape over her mouth.  If it really was accidental drowning, why didn't she (or her father, who said he helped cover it up) just call 911 and have the body taken away and have a proper funeral?  Unless they had something to hide...But, there's always a "but"....

Reasonable doubt can be an annoying, pesky little thing, but if it were you sitting in the hot seat and you really were innocent, you'd be damn thankful for reasonable doubt.

Now that the verdict and the trial is out of the way, what is stopping the State from charging Anthony as an accomplice?  In the eyes of law, an accomplice is someone who participates in the crime knowingly, willingly and with common interest.  An accomplice aids in the crime without actually committing the crime itself.  The accomplice could aid the crime in any way, but more specifically knowing about it and not doing anything about it and/or helping someone cover it up.  If someone is found guilty of being an accomplice of a crime, the accomplice will receive the same punishment as if he/she physically committed the act.

Something tells me that even though this particular trial is out of the way, the case is far from being over.

My stand on immigration

Do you ever get the urge to shout "Oh no! Not another teen movie!" when you see a commercial promoting the latest teen B-movie? Or how about "Oh no! Not another reality show!" Well, you're about to say "Oh no! Not another political post!"

Frankly, I'm the same way. As soon as the election's over, I'm usually just about ready to tune out anything related to politics and let Washington do its job of screwing up America... See no evil, hear no evil. Even though I once contemplated voting for Obama, I couldn't help but feel a strange defeat when he won the election. Instead of being a pessimist, I figured I should look more into the issues and see exactly where Obama stands and maybe try to find some understanding in his positions.

This will probably be the first of several posts in the foreseeable future that will address social issues. It would be far too difficult to tackle different issues and discuss them at length in one blog so I figured I would address them separately. Starting with immigration.

As I write this post, I keep myself in check and remind myself constantly that I have friends out there that may or may not be bothered by about I'm about to write. Last time I checked, this was still America and we still have freedom of speech. Just don't take it personally (unless you're one of them).

I have no qualms about saying that I detest illegal immigrants. Let me explain why. I have serious issues with people that take advantage of the government (whether you're legal or illegal). It's highly likely that illegal people depend more on the government than legal people do. Why? Probably because they can't get a job, a decent one at least. You're required to show proof that you're legal to work. Sadly, there's tons of people out there who will hire illegal people to save money. I have issues with people that smuggle themselves into the country to take advantage of what's not theirs. I have serious issues with people that overstay their welcome and take advantage of what's not theirs. I have serious issues with people that take advantage of what's not theirs and send them home to Mexico and other South America countries to share what's not theirs in the first place. See the pattern?

In the past, illegal immigrants were entitled to rights as protected under immigration laws (my response: #%$!). They were also given equal medical care. They were not turned away at doctor's offices and hospitals just because they weren't a citizen. Citizen or not, they are human beings. Guess that outweighed everything. Who knew? The funny thing is, our Bill of Rights was created to preserve the social balance of America. The rights were reserved for citizens. Somehow along the lines, it got expanded to whoever else just happened to be occupying space in the country. Why? Because they're protected under immigration laws (again: #%$!).

I decided to look into what Obama had to say about immigration.

1. Obama wants to create secure borders. He will add additional personnel, infrastructure and technology at the border and at our ports of entry.
Score one point. I agree with extra security. However, if the money spent on extra security doesn't balance out with the success rate of keeping immigrants out then what's the point of having them? We're better off just handing the money to the immigrants. We should try our best to maintain our borders and do what we can to prevent illegal people from finding a way in. However, one of the major problems we have right now is that the immigrants are claiming to be tourists. They enter the country with a temporary visa and they overstay their welcome. What are you going to do about that? Here's my advice. For those who claim to be tourists and temporary visitors, stick a needle in them and inject a tracking device. When their time's up, authorities will come a-runnin' and boot them back home.

2. Obama wants to fix the "dysfunctional" immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.
Lose one major point. This counts as two points. Increasing legal immigrants to meet job demands? At a time like this? I lost my job! Almost 4,000 people just lost their job at UTMB in Galveston. Thousands others are going to be laid off in the next few months by various companies. AMERICAN people! And Obama wants to let them "help" us with employee shortages? Oh, that's right. Illegal immigrants will do anything to earn cash to send back home so they'll work for far less money than American people deserve to be paid. Pitiful. As for keeping families together - just send them ALL back to Mexico. If they wanna stay together, they've got to go. I don't think the whole family should be allowed to stay in America on the basis that one of theirs is a citizen. No offense to my friends, but in the Mexican culture - they tend to have lots and lots of babies. Babies they can't afford. Babies they put on Medicaid. Babies they feed with our American tax money, not their own money. Just because one child makes it into America doesn't mean that his tons of brothers and sisters should be allowed to as well.

3. Obama wants to remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.
Score one point, sort of. More like half a point. While this is a good idea, how does he plan to do that anyway? It isn't 100% foolproof. Employers will still hire undocumented workers and they'll find ways to hide it from the system. Why? Because they're cheap. Paying cash under the table is one way to hide the workers from the system. If he comes up with an airtight plan and implements it well, I'll be impressed.

4. Obama will support a system that will allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
Score one point. My question is - how big of a fine? If it's a teeny tiny fine, I won't be happy. Put the cash earned from fines back into our economy. Learning English is a must. I'm tired of having to cater to immigrants who don't know English. Employers are seeking employees that are bilingual so they can cater to a wider range of customers. Fine - I understand the business side of it. You'd want to make as much money as possible. But it's not fair to us that aren't bilingual, especially in my field. We can't get a particular job we would otherwise be qualified for because it's bilingual-required... and for what? To cater to illegal immigrants who don't deserve our services in the first place? Especially legal services.

5. Obama believes that America needs to work with Mexico and promote their economic development to reduce immigration.
Score one point. Good idea. But it isn't our problem. OK, technically - it is sort of our problem because their poor economy just encourages their people to come in and take advantage of ours. Which is doing pretty crappy right now anyway. We just need to take extreme measures to keep them out. My fear is this: We'll see a repeat of Iraq. Not the war but the dependency on America. If we had just left things alone in Iraq, we wouldn't be dealing with horrible situations over there right now. If anything, we left Iraq in a bigger mess than it was before. They're dependent on us now to complete what we started and help them get up on their feet. If we help Mexico improve their economy, they may become too dependent on us and try to hang on longer than they should. Instead of being rid of them, we'd still be stuck with them. PLUS, my opinion is: What business do we have to "help"another country with their economic problems? Look at our own!!!!


I want to stress that I have nothing against Mexicans in general. In fact, I have a very close friend who's Mexican. I love her and her family. My beef is with the illegal immigrants (whether you're European, Asian or whatever else - but living in Texas, we're dealing with a huge immigration problem with people from Mexico). I do not think it's fair to all the legal immigrants who entered the country legally, who worked hard to become citizens, have jobs, pay taxes and live their lives as Americans just to have the illegal ones to come along and use their tax money.

So far, it seems that Obama has scored some points with me regarding immigration. But we have all learned that politicians don't always do what they promised. So whether this is a false promise or not, we'll see.

Be on the look out for other posts analyzing social issues and Obama's stand on them. Let's see how many points Obama has with me at the end....

Score so far: 1.5 points out of possible 6

Off to a shaky start - but at least he has some points.

After the election

The frenzy is finally over. Almost. Maybe not. It's been a week since Obama won the election. The news coverage and media has died down considerably since then - but photos and articles are still popping up all over the Internet. Obama tours the White House. Obama's wife asks Hillary for help. Hotels are filling up in DC for the Inauguration. The Obama family are given secret names by the Secret Service...

OK, first off - Do these people realize that the Secret names aren't so secret anymore? Calling them secret names and posting them on the Internet makes the whole point moot. Guess there really is freedom in the media. Or maybe, just maybe the Secret Service is betting on America being dumb enough to believe that those are the Secret names. Regardless, I guess they're better than "The Eagle has landed."

When word came that Obama won, I felt a tiny - really, a trickle - of shock. But I ask myself, why? In our heart of hearts, I'm sure we all knew that Obama was going to win. How could he not? A young, charming black man who had an amazing way of putting down McCain in debates that you'd think he was actually being friendly and helpful. He was always flashing those pearly whites and chuckling to himself. Guess people like an optimist. Glass is half full, right?

In the past 200+ years of presidential elections, there have been critics. Somehow, I think this time, it's different. Somehow, I believe that if you criticized Obama, you'd be called a hater. A racist.

Presidential jokes have been around for a long time. Black jokes have been around a long time. Blonde jokes - probably even longer. But now, we'll probably see presidential AND black jokes begin to surface. If we chuckled, would we be called a racist?

I was watching TV today - Whoopi Goldberg was a guest on Rachael Ray's cooking show. They discussed the election (what else?). Whoopi made me think. She said that although blacks have been accepted in America and have been given equal opportunities, she had just now realized that she never felt fully accepted until Obama's election. She was carrying around a suitcase that was labeled "Black American." Now, she feels, she can put that suitcase down and carry one around that just says "American." I think that's heartwarming. That brings me back to my point. Blacks have been accepted for years now. But after the election, no doubt they feel even more accepted. So now - if we make a blunder, would we be called a racist? I wonder...

Along with the election, Californians voted on Prop 8. Prop 8 discussed whether gay marriages should be declared invalid. Prop 8 was voted yes. Now - all the gay marriages that have taken place in the State of California in the past 6 months (since the passing of the bill) will no longer be recognized as legal. A huge blow to the homosexuals and a huge celebration for others.

I read a random blog that was written by a lesbian. She was a strong supporter of Obama. She voted for him. She was excited at the prospect of all new things that Obama promised to bring. She happened to overlook that Obama does not support gay marriages (um... HOW!?). She went on to express her sadness and disappointment.

Although Obama does not support gay marriages, he does support civil unions. And doesn't these people understand that Obama had nothing to do with Prop 8? With this election over, I am dreading the day that partial birth abortion becomes legal again. But - being an optimist, I guess I have to say that I'm glad that at least gay marriages have been overruled. For now.

I'm sure many of us are familiar with the term "the day that music died." It has to do with a few musicians that died in a plane crash together. They were icons and in their deaths, they became a permanent fixture in the music industry. I would have to say... the day Obama got elected, it felt like "the day that America died." Not because he's black - but because of the radical changes that he will try to bring.

Defending My Decision

Since it's Election day and everyone's making such a big deal out of it, I figured I'd go with the flow and have a little say in it. I've tried to refrain myself from participating in the madness, but I decided that I wanted to have a voice.... especially since a lot of people I know keep trying to convince me to vote a particular way. Of course, that's to be expected right around Election time. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion and I'm definitely entitled to my own. Yes, I think voting is a big deal, but when the two choices are Dumb and Dumber (who is which is something I'll keep to myself), sometimes it's just best not to vote. I didn't vote. Before you political activists start whining, I'm going to explain exactly just why I didn't vote. Then maybe, if you understand my position, you'll hush and go on about your business.

This isn't meant to convince anyone to vote for a particular party. This isn't meant to convince anyone to NOT to vote. Even though I know I don't have to explain myself to anybody, I have decided that I want to. Chances are, you've already voted or voting is over. Either way, I still want to get my thoughts across.

My reasons for not voting:

#1: Texas has always been a strong Republican state. It wouldn't have mattered which way I voted - McCain/Palin would win regardless.

#2: As I stated above, when the choices are Dumb and Dumber, how can you vote? It's not about who will fix our problems - it's about who's less likely to make a bigger mess.

#3: If I voted for McCain, I would be supporting the war. That's a no-no. We should have NEVER invaded Iraq in the first place. That's old business that Bush #1 started and it should have been left alone. Here's a little history lesson: Iraq has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. By all means, if you find Bin Laden, I've LOVE to torture him Saw-style.

#4: If I voted for Obama, I could potentially be helping him overturn the Partial-Birth Abortion ban. A good friend of mine said "How can you in good conscience vote for someone that goes against what you strongly believe in?" Extremely valid point. If I voted for Obama, it would have been because of the promising economic future and universal health care. If, in his four years of presidency, he overturns the Partial-Birth Abortion ban, how could I ever live with myself if I was partly responsible for making it happen?

#5: Republicans tend to focus more on the wealthy. Being a working class citizen that's financially struggling, I kind of have an issue with that. Yes, they are being taxed. They pay a slightly higher tax if they make over $250,000 a year. However, they are entitled to a few extra tax breaks that the lower-income families don't have. Spread the wealth around!

#6: On the other hand, Democrats are known to be sympathetic to the less fortunate and believe in helping them out. While I don't consider myself poor (compared to many others), I also have an issue with this. Although I am financially struggling, I refuse to rely on the government for help. If I can find ways to stay afloat, I'll go down that path. I have an extreme problem with those that sit back and take advantage of everything the government offers them: Food Stamps, WIC, Medicaid/Medicare, SSI, SSDI, and much more. I have a friend who was denied help because she made $1 or so above their limit. She had one child, a college education, actively seeking employment and was in need of temporary help. On the other hand, I know a couple who's expecting their fourth child (on purpose) and they're using EVERY government help available to them. Here's the kicker: they aren't doing much of anything to seek better employment or even education (they're not educated beyond high school).

There's lots of things wrong with this country nowadays. I think we're FUBR'd. We're too much into the deep right now for any immediate relief. It'll take years and several honest/smart people to fix this mess. People who aren't politicians. I don't think either candidate is qualified on the basis of lack of experience (Obama) and poor economic planning (McCain). Regardless of who wins tonight, I just hope they can refrain from screwing up America in the next 4 years.

I just received a text message from a friend and I thought I'd pass it on: "Due to long lines, Obama voters are asked to vote on Wednesday. Thank you."

Hoorah for Palin

I was a skeptic. First-term Alaskan governor... what could Palin know about running the country? Probably not much. To top it all off, she has a family to worry about, not to mention an infant son with Down's Syndrome. My first thought was, she shouldn't be worrying about the nation, she should be focusing on her family.

After watching her speech (bits and pieces of it anyway), I was impressed. My opinion of her changed. Regardless of what's going on with her family, I feel confident putting the future of America in her hands. Now if only McCain would just somehow disappear after becoming president....

At times like these, I give praise for free speech. None of the execution-style type of shooting for me for saying bad things about the superior being that's running (or might run) the country. He has to be what, 100 years old?

Enough about McCain. A week ago, the majority of us had never even heard of Palin. I didn't know who she was, what she stood for and what she planned to fight for until now. It was more of an introductory speech - introducing herself and her family to the nation. And it was a nice one.

She has a likable personality and she's got a bit of comedienne in her. I like her philosophy - she sold the previous governor's private jet because she felt it was too luxurious. What's so cool is she listed it on Ebay. She's an Ebayer! She fired the personal chef and she drives herself to work. That's my kind of woman. People who can't cook and drive for themselves are lame.

I do have some disagreements over what she stands for, of course. Like staying in the war, for instance. Enough is enough. But what am I gonna do about it? The way I figure it, any Republican would be better than a Democratic.

If McCain-Palin isn't elected president, I do have one encouraging remark for Palin. She's a much better public speaker than Bush and McCain combined.

To read her speech, visit http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_text

Bits and Pieces

Plenty has been going on lately, both in my personal life and out there in the world, especially in politics. Normally, I don't care much for politics but this year, I took a special interest in the running mates and actively voted in the party nominations. Now that McCain is up for President, I lost interest....

No, this isn't going to be a long political blog. That's boring. My mind is racing with a lot of little comments about a wide variety of subjects. While presidency is important (like, really?), it's at the bottom of my list right now.

Today, I'm off from work. Work has been slow this week (Thank God for that, after a horrible week last week), so my boss gave us the option to work in another department or stay home. Naturally, I decided to stay home because I have things I need to do.

I realized this morning that I was growing up. My first thought was "I can sleep in!" I have to laugh...nowadays, sleeping in means sleeping until 9am after a week of waking up at 5am. I miss those days where I wake up at noon, but at the same time, I feel it's time to grow up and wake up earlier. I get a lot more things done during the day now. Being productive is a good feeling. Also, I tried sleeping close to 12 hours the other day and I woke up with nothing but a headache and feeling horrible. Not doing that again!

Here's a little bit of news. I received my paralegal certification in the mail yesterday. Yipee! I am now "Maryellen Sarles, CLA". That has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Since receiving my certification, this only means one thing - another round of job hunting. I sent out 7 resumes yesterday so let's see if I hear anything. I don't want to hear an excuse from the employers, "You have no experience." Yeah, maybe I have no experience but I have certification so I know my shit. Excuse my language.

I'm going apartment hunting today among many other errands I need to do. So good luck to me finding an apartment I'll be satisfied with (safety, neighborhood and price). I absolutely love where I'm at. I don't want to move for numerous reasons, number one being that I can keep my 3 pets. Now, if I can just find a better paying job, I'd be able to stay (and paralegal jobs pay goooood moolah). If not, I'd have to move. I have two weeks to figure everything out. Like that's going to happen.

Change of subject: I have to commend McCain. He's trying hard to stay in the spotlight after Obama's been getting all the attention. Poor guy, Obama's getting all the rave because he might be the first black president. Then the RNC experienced a set-back for a couple of days because all the attention was on Hurricane Gustav (wanna bet he's black?). Recently, McCain grabbed all that attention back. He's named a woman for his running mate. And her 17-year old daughter is pregnant (AND people are joking John Edwards is the father). I don't blame her daughter. What else is there to do in Alaska but to stay warm by having sex? Jokes aside, this is turning out to be an interesting election. No matter where the votes go, this election will have a first-something. First black president or first female vice president. AND, I'm willing to bet that McCain is going to croak in the next 4 years, thus making Palin the first female president (Ha! Take that Clinton!). I'd LOVE to see that happen. Kill three birds with one stone: 1. Republicans take over the US again, 2. McCain isn't the president, and 3. Clinton gets to sit back and watch another woman bask in her glory.

Well, I better get going. I have to be an adult now and go do my duties. Now, if I can just get this fat cat off my lap....

Things we have no control over...

We're finally seeing a small decrease in the price of gas, but I'm afraid it's only temporary and before long, the price is going to be driven up again. By this time next year, I suppose we might be facing prices close to $5 a gallon (and I'm talking about Texas, here).

Personally, I am feeling the impact of the rising prices... not with just gas but with everything else. Amazingly, just because the price of crude oil/gas has gone up, everything else has gone up as well. Here's what I determined... It all begins with gas resources.

Gas companies raise prices which results in an increase in shipping cost. Therefore, all stores and namely, grocery stores have to increase THEIR prices to meet the shipping cost and still make a profit. So, as consumers, we're experiencing the brunt of it. We're at the bottom of the food chain. You'd think with all the rising prices, we'd all get a little bit of extra income to balance it all out. Inflation... you've heard of it, right?

Gas companies raise their prices because they want a profit - simple as that. I don't want to hear the gas companies blaming other countries for raising their prices. Exxon Mobil alone posted a PROFIT of $11.7 BILLION in the fourth quarter ALONE of 2007. I repeat... $11.7 BILLION profit! That's the largest profit ever recorded by ANY company in history. Sadly, after doing some research, I discovered that Exxon Mobil is based in my very own lovely state, Texas - up in the Dallas area (Irving, to be exact). None of that foreign company or foreign oil/gas resources excuse - they don't apply! If Exxon is doing so well, it would be safe to assume the other companies are flourishing as well. Pathetic.

People are all in a frenzy worrying about gas prices. They're trading in their trucks and SUVS for sensible vehicles that have good mileage. As a result, dealerships are facing horrible losses, especially those that don't really manufacture vehicles with good gas mileage, namely Ford. US-based airlines are on the brink of bankruptcy too, if they haven't filed yet. Only Southwestern Airline is booming - but that's because they took a risk years ago of buying bulk fuel ahead and locking in their prices. They're paying what fuel cost years ago, not what it cost now. Smart.

I've gotten tons of emails urging people to buy gas from specific companies or on specific days. With enough people coming together and acting all union-like, gas prices are sure to drop!!! *Gasp!* Let's go! Yeah right, like that's going to work. People, it isn't going to work and the gas companies know it. We need gas. In Economics 101, it's simple. We have a need and they supply it. So therefore, they're in control and we have no choice but to buy at their prices. Where else are we going to get fuel for our cars? We might be able to find other ways to energize our homes but as long as we got a country full of cars running on gas, we don't have a choice.

I suppose we're faced with the age-old question... should fuel be regulated by the US government, or even the state governments? There are lots of pros and cons to this. When it comes to this, I remain undecided. It might be good to have the government regulate the cost, keeping the gas companies (especially Exxon) on a leash so they don't go out of control on raising their prices. However, if gas prices dipped way down below, we might not benefit from it because the government might want to make a profit off of THAT.

Profit, schmofit. The world's a crazy place. Must we add the headache of rising fuel cost and of course, the rising cost of EVERYTHING else in the US? Give us a break.