But for the record....

if this does happen to me and there's no realistic or unrealistic chance of me coming out, feel free to pull the plug if I'm any sort of burden. If not though, please prop me up somewhere nice, preferably near a second story window of a creepy old house so I can freak out the neighborhood kids. In the case of my passing , I would like ½ my ashes put into a small statue made in my likeness, which hopefully will be kept on a mantle, and the other ½ dumped from the very top of the parachute ride at Knott's Berry farm during the Halloween haunt. Not for any spiritual reason of course, but just because I would find that really funny. Oh yeah, and sing Freebird while you're doing it.

Cheers Yo.

Why the Shiavo case makes me ill.

Reason #1:
"In cases like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life."
-Pres. George W Bush

You have got to be freaking kidding me! The man who ordered the "Shock and Awe" Bombing of Baghdad, a city of 6 million people on intelligence so crappy that if he had even decided to routinely research the sources, he would have found them to be full of holes, now cares about life? I mean, all partisanship aside, to say that he cares about "life" is one heck of a falsehood. After all, who holds the record in Texas for most executions under his watch? George W. Bush. Who bragged during the state of the union address about having terrorist leaders killed instead of captured? George W. Bush. And finally, who spent less than a half hour on average reviewing each clemency case while he was Governor without pardoning one defendant? George W. Bush. So yes, George bush is anti-abortion as we all know, but can you really say "He argues in favor of life"? No. Definitely not.

Reason # 2:

"Right now murder is being committed against a defenseless American citizen in Florida. Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be immediately replaced, and Congress will continue working to explore ways to save her."
- Tom DeLay

The Hammer. The man who has been indicted 3 separate times for house ethics violations and then had the rules changed so that he would not be investigated. The man who started a charity for children which was used primarily as a way to fund raise for his next campaign. By far, one of the most corrupt politicians of our day. He also advocates killing prisoners, defended torture in Abu Gharib and encouraged the bombing of Iraq. And yet here he is claiming that he will not rest until she is safe. Or at least until the camera's are off. Mr. DeLay has also voted against any sort of health care reform so it appears his concern is only for those who are completely incapacitated instead of just suffering .Makes you wonder if maybe there is a more nefarious reason for this support?


Reason# 3
" Not everything is politics George"
-John McCain in response to the whisper campaign started by Karl Rove during the 2000 primary, claiming that John McCain's adopted child was really illegitimate among other accusations.

"Great political issue, great for pro-life debate- will help against Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida."
-GOP memo on how to handle this woman's tradgedy.

So what the above memo says is that this is the perfect chance to hurt another senator and further expand the Republican majority. In other words, how can we turn her pain into our gain? And once those marching orders were given, out rides the GOP in full battle garb working late on a Sunday even. Is it just me or weren't they once the party of "limited government?" maybe I'm just cynical, who knows. Maybe George Bush and Tom Delay really do believe that saving one American woman's life is worth more than thousands of dead and maimed Iraqi children, committing numerous ethics violations, slander, being guilty of intellectual blindness, etc. But if that is the case, then I think I'm a little more scared of them than I everwas before.

What really bothers me more than the political posturing is the way that this poor families struggle has been turned into a circus, and at the parents request it seems. And the simple fact is, if they do remove the feeding tube the Right wing will use her as a martyr to their noble cause of protecting life. And if they do give custody to her parents ( which doesn't seem very likely) then the Dem's will use her as an example of how the Repub's want to control everything. Regardless, this whole scene just sucks.

But really, isn’t pristine untouched wilderness over-rated?

The main argument for drilling in ANWAR is that it will make us less dependent on foreign oil. Wouldn’t it make just as much sense to require SUV manufacturers to improve oil efficiency? Or maybe, and I know this is crazy, but couldn’t we just start to switch to an energy source that doesn’t require us to go to war or strip mine the planet just to maintain supplies? I would think that investing in renewable energy sources instead of non-renewable one would be the way to go, but that’s just me. I’m kooky like that.

Here Comes Da Judge!

Three days ago one of those “little events” I mentioned happened out here in California. A Republican judge appointed by our conservative former governor Pete Wilson (Mr. Electricity Deregulation) ruled that the Ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional because there was “no rational purpose” to deny marriage to gay couples.

Now here’s the part I really love about this story. There’s no way that the Christian Right can reasonably say that this guy is an “Activist Judge™” since he used logical arguments and past precedent to define his reason’s why he struck down the ban. He explained that by “Californians agreeing that gay couples should have some rights through civil union laws then past precedent and logic dictates that marriage should be available to them.” The specific case he mentioned to prove this was “Brown vs. Board of Education.” Ouch. So what that means then, (in my best GW Bush imitation), if you are against this, then you are for segregation. And you’re letting the terrorists win.

One of the other interesting things about this decision it has historical precedent in the fact that California was the first state to allow inter-racial marriage. Why this is significant is that according to polls in the early 1940’s over 90% of the US was against legalizing Inter-racial marriage yet the courts made the “outrageous” decision to go against the national consensus in the name of upholding the constitution. By comparison, only 6o% is against gay marriage today.

To me, to argue that gay marriage is wrong is a pretty hard sell nowadays( at least legally) and to see that you need really to go no further than the main argument’s provided by the groups in the article who opposed this decision.
“Tradition supports that marriage only consists of a man and a woman.” Um, well actually marriage has traditionally been a contract that was more about property rights and “who-belongs-to who” than anything else. Also, if we really want to go by “tradition” we should
Reinstate slavery.
Take away women’s rights.
Arrest war-profiteers (Sorry, there goes half the Bush cabinet.)
Define “Citizen” as a white-male landowner.
So yeah, tradition dictating reality probably isn’t the best argument out there so I’m a little surprised they used that one. I’m sure there next one will be better:

“The state has a legitimate interest in restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples as a way of encouraging procreation.” Ok, so I was wrong. This one’s even worse.
Dear Anti gay marriage group,
Hi. Welcome to the 21’st century. You may not have noticed but the world is overpopulated as it is so I’m not sure how much the state should be encouraging people to have children. People seem to do a pretty good job of that on their own. But regardless of that there are plenty of ways now for both male and female homosexual couples to have kids. And, as studies have shown, kids raised by gays are no more or less messed up then kids raised by heterosexual couples. Also, if the studies prove true and only 1-2% of the population is gay, then really you’re only talking about a few hundred thousand people here and I really doubt that is going to cause the end of humanity. Also, more children means more poor folks, more poor folks means more social programs, more social programs means less tax cuts for the rich. And we all know how much you guys hate that. Hope this helps.
Love,
Matt

Strangely enough, one of the best arguments for gay marriage I’ve ever read came from “World,” a far-right Christian magazine. Basically, the author stated that “All of the arguments used now against gay marriage are the same ones used against inter-racial marriage 70 years ago s and that the only line they should use is that it’s wrong because god says so.”(Actually it was Paul and not God, but that’s another blog) And this is a great argument for the pro-gay marriage side because we are not a Christian theocracy nor have we ever been one. So it’s Ok for people to believe that it’s wrong, but rule of law says they need to keep that to themselves.

The simple fact is that this recent legitimization of gay marriage represents a huge change in our society. And change can be a big, ugly, scary, messy thing especially if it challenges long-standing beliefs in what is considered “normal.” I mean, if 80 years ago you said that blacks and whites should be able to marry, Women should have all the rights of men, and people of color should be treated equally under the law people would have thought you were insane. But now the opposite is true in each and every case and all it took was a few brave people willing to do what was right. Sometimes that person is a woman who refuses to give up her bus seat, sometimes it involves a well-organized march and extended campaign, and sometimes it takes just one decision by a lone judge who takes that whole “Equal protection” clause seriously.

Now of course this decision will be appealed and it will probably make it all the way to the 9th circuit court. But for now, it’s one more win for civil rights which is always a good thing.

Hello? Is there anybody out there?

Hi. I'm Matt and this is my blog. Say hello blog.

I suppose I should start and say why I created this blog. You see, I have another blog already with my beautiful wife that was originally supposed to be about our family and 2-year old daughter. And for the most part it was like that in the beginning.Except that as time went on it started to become more about politics, cultural issues, and the general state of the world than anything else. The thing that really led to this change though is that I am a bona-fide news junkie and I just want to share my thoughts and outrage and the current state of the union with everyone around me because I just *know* they should hear all about the goings on that i have discovered!Because many of our family members lean to the right and also because I knew they were tired of hearing me rant I decided to devote a small section of our blog for just this purpose. However, considering my lack of time and web savvy it ended up being a little too creatively stifling and plain. So, after much deliberation and a quick Google check for "Free Blog" I decided that this would be my new avenue of expression.

As for the title" The Tide is Turning," I took that from the Roger Waters song of the same name. That song really seemed to define how I feel about the world and the direction we're taking as a society: A combination of despair, anger, frustration, and hope rekindled in the little events that can trigger big changes in the way things are done around the world. Just to make things clear up front, I consider myself a progressive and lean to the left on most issues so most of the things I write will be from a liberal point of view. I do realize I'll probably offend a few people here and there with my viewpoint's but I think that's part of the appeal of the whole "Blog-revolution" thing in that it forces people to open their minds to new ideas, even if only to further enforce the beliefs they already have.

So, with that said, come on in, pop open a cold one and I'll leave the light on for ya.'