A small majority shouldn't be able to take rights away from the minority

I was fortunate to get a few hours off work last night to go to the No on 8 rally. It helped that my boss was the person leading the caravan to the rally. It was held down the street from where I live actually. There was so many people, we stopped traffic and walked through the streets. There was a big police presence but they just worked to re-route traffic. There was such peaceful love all around. It felt good to help in the fight for my gay and lesbian friends and be a representative of the majority for the minority. Equal rights for all!

Yes We Did

What a night! It all started when I couldn't stay asleep. I woke up at 10am, after working til 4am the night before. I walked to my polling place and waited an hour in line. The time flew as I talked with those around me. It was like a block party. Everyone happy to wait. Happy to vote. I walked away from the polls with a smile so big, I couldn't have made it go away even if I wanted. Regardless of what the outcome was going to be, I knew I voted for history and for change. My day went by in a haze, with the one highlight being free Starbucks coffee for voting.
At work I couldn't concentrate. So, when things settled down, I quietly closed my door and told my co-workers, if the supervisors look for me, give me a text, and I drove to my friends for an election party. On my way NPR gave me the good news. Barack wins! Even typing those words now I tear up. I arrived at the party to share the moment with good friends and my Raymond, which meant the world to me. We hugged each other tight. Our hugs had meaning. See, we've been talking about this candidate and this election in our circle for what feels like forever.
We watched McCain's speech and commented on how a part of us felt bad for him now. Now that the fight is over could we really see the human side of him. We agreed that he's a great man, but it was just not the right time for him. A few people remarked that perhaps 8 years of McCain might have been better than the last 8 years with Bush.
Then, Baracks speech! When he walked out I couldn't help but jump up and down. "That's my President!" I kept yelling. "That's my President!" Because never before has my vote gone to the winning candidate. And, not to mention a candidate I've felt such deep passion for. His speech brought tears to my eyes, I'm not afraid to say. What an awe-inspiring turnout of support, in Chicago, Washington, all around the US and abroad. I didn't want him to stop talking. I wanted to stay in the blissful communal moment with my friends longer. I can't tell you the last time I felt this happy. I know we have a long road ahead, and only time will tell what kind of president Barack will be, but I do know the hope that I have that he'll be a great one and that is what is fueling my joy right now.
When I left the party to head back to work, people were out in the streets with signs, cheering to passing cars, embracing one another, and taking pictures of the celebration going on around them. Car horns, including mine, cheered them on more.
My joy is slightly lessened by the news that Prop 8 is looking like it's going to pass, which would change CA Constitution to ban gay marriage. I live in a gay community, I have gay co-workers, one of which got married when it was legal, and another who hopes to be married one day. I talked to the man behind me in line at the polling place, who said he's never volunteered before or been so involved and that this was a RIGHT he wanted very much. I know their hearts are breaking tonight, so mine is too. I'm hoping this issue comes to a vote again.

IMDB Love

MAMITAS IMDB PAGE

Scroll to user comments. Someone independently saw the thesis film I edited at a film festival and commented on it's IMDB page! I can't wait to edit the feature!

How Dare You?

The Colbert Report is kicking ass and taking names!

CLICK on this LINK to see the WORD!

So very smart.

Everything I'm talking about!!!

Simply A Brilliant BRILLIANT response to the "Lipstick on a Pig" debacle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adeLtg0_10Q


How long is John McCain going to hide behind silly charges of sexism, simply to distract the American people from his policies? Only time will tell if this strategy will work.

I'm so angry about this vice president choice as a woman. As a woman I'm offended. I would love someone to look me in the eyes and tell me this choice wasn't made simply for political reasons. Go on, tell me this is a fabulous choice for McCain. It's not. Otherwise, she'd be talking policy and doing more interviews...Instead, her rhetoric and the truth don't line up, so she's backtracking all over the place. And, McCain doesn't have to field questions about his own flip-flopping ways, he can hide behind her and her wave-making. Then, when people ask the tough questions, call them sexists. Smart smart move.

She says she will oppose earmarks, but Alaska has asked for MORE earmarks per PERSON than ANY other state. She said she didn't support the bridge to nowhere...but she did, until Congress didn't support it. Then she jumped ship. But Alaska kept that money. Her selection is a joke.

A sampling from a NY Times piece

The Rhetoric and the Reality

A political convention is a license if not to lie then at least to tell the truth creatively. At their quadrennial gatherings over the last two weeks, Democrats and Republicans presented their records and their platforms — and those of their opponents — through typically partisan lenses that blurred or distorted the real picture.Both sides filled the airwaves with dubious claims, exaggerations and selective statistics. Here is a reality check for a sampling of statements made at the conventions.

John McCain

Republican convention speech, Sep. 4

"I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them.”

Reality Check

The number of jobs grew substantially during Mr. Clinton’s presidency, as did median income, but the numbers depend on the category and year cited. An August Census Bureau report shows median household income fell by $324 from 2000 to 2007, not the $2,000 Mr. Obama cited. The $2,000 figure probably referred to median non-elderly household income, which has dropped by $2,010 since 2000. If counting from 2001, the year Mr. Bush took office and the last recession ended, overall median household income rose $778 by 2007. While it is true that incomes grew far more under Mr. Clinton (by $5,312 from 1993 to 2001), the median household income adjusted for inflation in 2007 was still the third highest on record.

Mr. Obama correctly quotes former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who resigned as Mr. McCain’s campaign co-chairman amid the ensuing controversy. But Mr. Obama, in trying to make Mr. McCain guilty by association, is exaggerating to call Mr. Gramm the author of a McCain plan. Mr. Gramm is a longtime friend of Mr. McCain and is identified with deep tax cuts for corporations and upper-income people of the sort proposed. While advisers say he retains more influence than the campaign publicly acknowledges, Mr. McCain’s proposals come mainly from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush White House economist and congressional budget director who is the campaign’s chief economic adviser.

This refers to Mr. McCain’s answer at a forum last month when the Rev. Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church asked the candidate to give a specific number for the income level that divides the rich from the middle class. “How about $5 million?” Mr. McCain initially answered. The audience laughed and Mr. McCain went on to say: “But seriously, I don’t think you can” cite a number. He also foresaw how the opposition would use his answer. “I’m sure that comment will be distorted,” he said. The nonpartisan FactCheck.org concluded that was what Mr. Obama did — distort what it called Mr. McCain’s “clumsy attempt at humor.”

Mr. Obama’s health-care plan alone would absorb all revenue from letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. He says other big-ticket items — expanded national security, foreign aid, veterans and education benefits — will be offset with savings from leaving Iraq, cuts in subsidies and spending earmarks, and fees for polluting emissions. But the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has concluded that both he and Mr. McCain “would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years” —Mr. Obama by $3.5 trillion in the decade and Mr. McCain by $5 trillion.

Mrs. Clinton spent much of her primary campaign pounding Mr. Obama because she said his health care plan would not cover 15 million people. “Most of the Democrats have plans that cover everybody; Senator Obama does not,” she said at one event. Unlike her plan, Mr. Obama’s program would not include a mandate that every American obtain health insurance. But like hers, it would make it possible for everyone who wants to have insurance to get it. While the Obama campaign quarreled with the 15 million estimate, it agreed that under its plan, there would be people who would not seek out health insurance, including some well-off people who did not want it, some young people who did not think they needed it and some lower-income people who would qualify for Medicaid but for whatever reason did not enroll in the government program.

The $2,500 figure is based on assumptions that have provoked debate among experts. The Obama campaign says his plan would save more than $200 billion in health care spending each year and that would average $2,500 for each family. But his aides acknowledge a lot of those savings would not go directly to families but to the government or private employers, and there is no guarantee they would be passed along to families in the form of higher salaries or lower taxes. Some experts also say the Obama plan is overly optimistic about how quickly and deeply it can cut health care spending. Some say the savings Mr. Obama envisions would not be realized for a decade or more, rather than by the end of his first term, as he has suggested. Mr. Obama’s plan, for instance, relies on saving $77 billion a year through computerizing medical records, an estimate taken from a Rand Corp. study in 2005 that also warned it would take 15 years to realize such savings. The Congressional Budget Office in May criticized the Rand estimate’s methodology in projecting such sizable savings. The Obama campaign has fought back by rounding up other experts who endorse its plan as tough but doable.

The recent Senate fights over financing the Iraq war have pitted Democratic measures, which require a timetable for troop withdrawals as a condition for funds, against Republican proposals providing money without strings. Mr. Obama has voted for his party’s measures and against the others. Mr. McCain has done the opposite, voting for the White House-supported versions and against the Democrats’ measures. In short, both senators can be said to have voted both for and against war financing.

Mr. McCain vows that he would be “a pro-life president,” but his position on abortion rights marks him as someone who sees the issue primarily as one for the states and the judiciary, not the president. He opposes amending the Constitution to ban abortion and instead supports state constitutional amendments. In his 2000 presidential campaign, he repeatedly said he opposed repealing the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision because women would be forced into illegal and dangerous operations. He now says he supports its repeal, but would not use the case as a litmus test for potential nominees to the Supreme Court.

This drastically simplifies what the candidates' tax plans would do. Mr. McCain would preserve all of the Bush tax cuts, while Mr. Obama would let them expire for those making more than $250,000 a year. Mr. McCain would also double the child tax exemption to $7,000 and reduce business taxes. Mr. Obama would reduce income taxes and provide credits for people earning less than $250,000 a year. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama's plan would amount to a tax cut for 81 percent of all households, or 95.5 percent of those with children. The center calculated that by 2012 the Obama plan would let middle-income taxpayers keep about 5 percent more income on average, or nearly $2,200 a year, while Mr. McCain would give them an average 3 percent break, or about $1,400. The richest 1 percent would pay an average $19,000 more in taxes each year under Mr. Obama's plan but see a tax cut of more than $125,000 under Mr. McCain.

John McCain

"My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.”

Reality Check

The number of jobs grew substantially during Mr. Clinton’s presidency, as did median income, but the numbers depend on the category and year cited. An August Census Bureau report shows median household income fell by $324 from 2000 to 2007, not the $2,000 Mr. Obama cited. The $2,000 figure probably referred to median non-elderly household income, which has dropped by $2,010 since 2000. If counting from 2001, the year Mr. Bush took office and the last recession ended, overall median household income rose $778 by 2007. While it is true that incomes grew far more under Mr. Clinton (by $5,312 from 1993 to 2001), the median household income adjusted for inflation in 2007 was still the third highest on record.

Mr. Obama correctly quotes former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who resigned as Mr. McCain’s campaign co-chairman amid the ensuing controversy. But Mr. Obama, in trying to make Mr. McCain guilty by association, is exaggerating to call Mr. Gramm the author of a McCain plan. Mr. Gramm is a longtime friend of Mr. McCain and is identified with deep tax cuts for corporations and upper-income people of the sort proposed. While advisers say he retains more influence than the campaign publicly acknowledges, Mr. McCain’s proposals come mainly from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush White House economist and congressional budget director who is the campaign’s chief economic adviser.

This refers to Mr. McCain’s answer at a forum last month when the Rev. Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church asked the candidate to give a specific number for the income level that divides the rich from the middle class. “How about $5 million?” Mr. McCain initially answered. The audience laughed and Mr. McCain went on to say: “But seriously, I don’t think you can” cite a number. He also foresaw how the opposition would use his answer. “I’m sure that comment will be distorted,” he said. The nonpartisan FactCheck.org concluded that was what Mr. Obama did — distort what it called Mr. McCain’s “clumsy attempt at humor.”

Mr. Obama’s health-care plan alone would absorb all revenue from letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. He says other big-ticket items — expanded national security, foreign aid, veterans and education benefits — will be offset with savings from leaving Iraq, cuts in subsidies and spending earmarks, and fees for polluting emissions. But the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has concluded that both he and Mr. McCain “would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years” —Mr. Obama by $3.5 trillion in the decade and Mr. McCain by $5 trillion.

Mrs. Clinton spent much of her primary campaign pounding Mr. Obama because she said his health care plan would not cover 15 million people. “Most of the Democrats have plans that cover everybody; Senator Obama does not,” she said at one event. Unlike her plan, Mr. Obama’s program would not include a mandate that every American obtain health insurance. But like hers, it would make it possible for everyone who wants to have insurance to get it. While the Obama campaign quarreled with the 15 million estimate, it agreed that under its plan, there would be people who would not seek out health insurance, including some well-off people who did not want it, some young people who did not think they needed it and some lower-income people who would qualify for Medicaid but for whatever reason did not enroll in the government program.

The $2,500 figure is based on assumptions that have provoked debate among experts. The Obama campaign says his plan would save more than $200 billion in health care spending each year and that would average $2,500 for each family. But his aides acknowledge a lot of those savings would not go directly to families but to the government or private employers, and there is no guarantee they would be passed along to families in the form of higher salaries or lower taxes. Some experts also say the Obama plan is overly optimistic about how quickly and deeply it can cut health care spending. Some say the savings Mr. Obama envisions would not be realized for a decade or more, rather than by the end of his first term, as he has suggested. Mr. Obama’s plan, for instance, relies on saving $77 billion a year through computerizing medical records, an estimate taken from a Rand Corp. study in 2005 that also warned it would take 15 years to realize such savings. The Congressional Budget Office in May criticized the Rand estimate’s methodology in projecting such sizable savings. The Obama campaign has fought back by rounding up other experts who endorse its plan as tough but doable.

The recent Senate fights over financing the Iraq war have pitted Democratic measures, which require a timetable for troop withdrawals as a condition for funds, against Republican proposals providing money without strings. Mr. Obama has voted for his party’s measures and against the others. Mr. McCain has done the opposite, voting for the White House-supported versions and against the Democrats’ measures. In short, both senators can be said to have voted both for and against war financing.

Mr. McCain vows that he would be “a pro-life president,” but his position on abortion rights marks him as someone who sees the issue primarily as one for the states and the judiciary, not the president. He opposes amending the Constitution to ban abortion and instead supports state constitutional amendments. In his 2000 presidential campaign, he repeatedly said he opposed repealing the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision because women would be forced into illegal and dangerous operations. He now says he supports its repeal, but would not use the case as a litmus test for potential nominees to the Supreme Court.

This drastically simplifies what the candidates' tax plans would do. Mr. McCain would preserve all of the Bush tax cuts, while Mr. Obama would let them expire for those making more than $250,000 a year. Mr. McCain would also double the child tax exemption to $7,000 and reduce business taxes. Mr. Obama would reduce income taxes and provide credits for people earning less than $250,000 a year. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Mr. Obama's plan would amount to a tax cut for 81 percent of all households, or 95.5 percent of those with children. The center calculated that by 2012 the Obama plan would let middle-income taxpayers keep about 5 percent more income on average, or nearly $2,200 a year, while Mr. McCain would give them an average 3 percent break, or about $1,400. The richest 1 percent would pay an average $19,000 more in taxes each year under Mr. Obama's plan but see a tax cut of more than $125,000 under Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama at first flatly opposed lifting longstanding restrictions on offshore drilling, but a month ago he suggested that he would be open to additional drilling if it were part of a broader energy plan. "If in order to get that passed,'' he said, "we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well-thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage, I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done." Mr. Obama also says he supports nuclear energy, although he has not been as specific as Mr. McCain.

Mr. McCain's proposed tax credit of up to $5,000 for families would probably likely help some uninsured and healthy Americans find good coverage, policy experts say. But those with health problems would have trouble, and most plans are more costly than the proposed credit in any case, some analysts add. But workers with employer-provided coverage would have to pay income taxes on the value of their insurance, long excluded from taxable income, to encourage cost awareness. As for Mr. Obama's plan, small businesses currently insuring their workers would benefit from new subsidies. Those that do not insure workers would face new costs. Obama advisers, and some nonpartisan analyses, say these employers would more likely withhold raises than cut wages, and freeze jobs rather than drop workers.

Barack Obama

Democratic convention speech, Aug. 28

"Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime.”

Reality Check

The number of jobs grew substantially during Mr. Clinton’s presidency, as did median income, but the numbers depend on the category and year cited. An August Census Bureau report shows median household income fell by $324 from 2000 to 2007, not the $2,000 Mr. Obama cited. The $2,000 figure probably referred to median non-elderly household income, which has dropped by $2,010 since 2000. If counting from 2001, the year Mr. Bush took office and the last recession ended, overall median household income rose $778 by 2007. While it is true that incomes grew far more under Mr. Clinton (by $5,312 from 1993 to 2001), the median household income adjusted for inflation in 2007 was still the third highest on record.

Mr. Obama correctly quotes former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who resigned as Mr. McCain’s campaign co-chairman amid the ensuing controversy. But Mr. Obama, in trying to make Mr. McCain guilty by association, is exaggerating to call Mr. Gramm the author of a McCain plan. Mr. Gramm is a longtime friend of Mr. McCain and is identified with deep tax cuts for corporations and upper-income people of the sort proposed. While advisers say he retains more influence than the campaign publicly acknowledges, Mr. McCain’s proposals come mainly from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former Bush White House economist and congressional budget director who is the campaign’s chief economic adviser.

This refers to Mr. McCain’s answer at a forum last month when the Rev. Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church asked the candidate to give a specific number for the income level that divides the rich from the middle class. “How about $5 million?” Mr. McCain initially answered. The audience laughed and Mr. McCain went on to say: “But seriously, I don’t think you can” cite a number. He also foresaw how the opposition would use his answer. “I’m sure that comment will be distorted,” he said. The nonpartisan FactCheck.org concluded that was what Mr. Obama did — distort what it called Mr. McCain’s “clumsy attempt at humor.”

Mr. Obama’s health-care plan alone would absorb all revenue from letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. He says other big-ticket items — expanded national security, foreign aid, veterans and education benefits — will be offset with savings from leaving Iraq, cuts in subsidies and spending earmarks, and fees for polluting emissions. But the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has concluded that both he and Mr. McCain “would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years” —Mr. Obama by $3.5 trillion in the decade and Mr. McCain by $5 trillion.