Californians are in a battle over Proposition 8 on whether or not to add to the California Constitution this clause:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Voting “yes” on the proposition adds the language; voting “no” leaves the constitution as is.

I’m always extremely weary of direct citizen-driven changes to state constitutions.   Constitutions shouldn’t reflect torch-and-pitchfork-mob-like citizenry activism.   Instead, they should reflect well-thought-out, well-debated, well-researched, and broadly-supported ideas and statutes.   Using the U.S. Constitution as an example, there was a reason why in 1787 only 55 delegates debated and wrote the Constitution, and there is a reason why it takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.   Amending the U.S. Constitution is deliberately hard, as it should be, so as to not reflect immediate, transitory changes people might desire.   Otherwise, we end up with a document that becomes so ever-changing it ceases being a strong, tried, and honorable document and instead becomes weak and diluted.

Proposition 8 in California is a citizen-driven attempt at changing the California Constitution.   Immediately, therefore, I am skeptical of it.   But my skepticism doesn’t cease there.   What else about this proposition that makes me shiver is the thought of enshrining into a state constitution language that legally and directly casts one group of people as a sub-class to another group (California, of course, isn’t the first state to do this, though).

Shouldn’t this fundamentally be a question about civil rights?   Shouldn’t this be a conversation about are we willing to say to one group of people they’re second-class citizens?   That they’re less human than the rest of us?   That they’re less worthy of enjoying the same rights as the rest of us?   Same-sex couples deserve the same basic rights that opposite-sex couples enjoy: the rights to marry, the rights to have a family, the rights to share medical benefits, etc.

Furthermore, for anyone objecting to same-sex marriage on the grounds it will deteriorate the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, please explain to me how a loving gay couple is going to destroy your marriage.   Give me evidence of a same-sex marriage that has damaged your marriage or the marriage of any other heterosexual couple you know.   Can’t do it?   Then stop using this excuse as an excuse to deny rights to others.

As a reason for supporting Proposition 8, the vote yes website cites in 2000 61% of Californians supported Proposition 22 that used the same words Proposition 8 uses, except Proposition 22 didn’t change the California Constitution.   The measure was decided by the California Supreme Court to be unconstitutional:

The state Constitution’s guarantees of personal privacy and autonomy protect “the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice,” said Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the 121-page majority opinion. He said the Constitution “properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.”

It seems to me that people in opposition to same-sex marriage basic civil rights are going to look as foolish as those in decades ago who opposed civil rights for African-Americans.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I’m one.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

With “Wario Land: Shake It” here.

(Nod: Fumin)

Designed by: Armada and NuFrame
Year: 2008

Remember these guys?

They’re back:

(Nod: Americablog)

A cool look at 50 movie posters from the original films and their remakes.

(Nod: Smashing Magazine)

The “Weekend Update Megapixel Giant Touch Map” (at about 5:30 remaining in the video).

Kudos to SNL to speaking to us broadcast graphics developers (and teaching us a lesson). :-)

Worth another watch:

The grassroots movement spreads to the pumpkin patch.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

Yes, the last “debate.”   Although, perhaps for tonight’s rendition, I can actually drop the quotes.   I thought this was by far the closest any of the debates have come to an actual debate.   Both candidates were directly engaging and responding to one another, and Bob Schieffer did well in making sure they did exactly that.

As I noted last month, Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager said:

This election is not about issues.   This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.

Well, Mr. Davis.   This third debate confirmed what we should take away from John McCain: that he is an angry old man.   The obvious display of contempt toward Obama, the fidgeting, the rolling of his eyes, the sneering, the sarcasm, etc. all add up to McCain having an anger problem.   As David Gergen on CNN noted, McCain “looked angry. It was an exercise in anger management up there.”   In the tough times we face, we don’t need a leader who cannot control his emotions; we need someone who can calm us and reassure us.   John McCain cannot do either.

The best line from John McCain in all three debates came tonight.   McCain said:

Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago.

A good line, one I’m surprised he waited until 19 days before the election to use.   The line, though, has a problem.   While McCain is technically not Bush, voting for his policies 90% of the time gets you pretty close to being him, no?

And apparently Barack Obama is at fault for the McCain campaign being so sleazy.   McCain said this:

And I know from my experience in many campaigns that, if Sen. Obama had asked responded to my urgent request to sit down, and do town hall meetings, and come before the American people, we could have done at least 10 of them by now. […] So I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different.

President Bush is a Republican leader who is incapable of accepting blame for his actions.   John McCain is a Republican leader who is incapable of accepting blame for his actions.   But just remember, John McCain is not George Bush.

In the same exchange as the quote above, McCain said this:

And of course, I’ve been talking about the economy. Of course, I’ve talked to people like Joe the plumber and tell him that I’m not going to spread his wealth around. I’m going to let him keep his wealth. And of course, we’re talking about positive plan of action to restore this economy and restore jobs in America.

That’s what my campaign is all about and that’s what it’ll continue to be all about.

Is John McCain in denial?   Does he not see the ads his campaign puts out?   That 100% of them recently were negative?

Finally, Sarah Palin introduced us to Joe Six-Pack.   Tonight, McCain introduced us to Joe the Plumber.   Now, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that I like the name Joe.   But why does the McCain campaign have this infatuation with Joes?!   As an average Joe speaking for Joe Public, knock it off.

Final verdict: again, McCain needed a game-changer.   Didn’t happen.

Nothing about St. Olaf here:

(Nod: Ben Smith)

A consortium of left and right activists have called on the Obama and McCain campaigns to drop the rules for this coming Wednesday’s debate to allow for actual debate.   At minimum, they request the host, Bob Schieffer, be allowed to ask follow-up questions “so the public can be fully informed about specific positions.”

Today at work, I was talking with a coworker, and he mentioned he could only stomach watching about twenty minutes of the debate this past Tuesday because neither candidate actually answered the question they were given.   My coworker, I’m sure, is not the only one who feels this way, and this likely plays into the disillusionment that many voters have toward politics.   Candidates can do themselves a favor while doing the voters and American democracy a favor by allowing for actual debate.   Time to lose the rules that lose voters from the process.

In case you’re looking for some political pumpkin-carving ideas, the AP has you covered.

A disturbing report on the Big Brother front:

A terrorist surveillance program instituted by the Bush administration allows the intelligence community to monitor phone calls between the United States and overseas without a court order as long as one party to the call is a terror suspect.

Adrienne Kinne, a former U.S. Army Reserves Arab linguist, told ABC News the NSA was listening to the phone calls of U.S. military officers, journalists and aid workers overseas who were talking about “personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism.”

This is how it starts and one reason why the Patriot Act is dangerous.   We already have “unpersons” (enemy combatants), and now surveillance is being stepped-up.   Next come the Thought Police and the Ministries of Truth and Love.   George Orwell is someone I’d not like to see proven right.

UPDATE (25 Oct): Replaced second video that somehow was switched on the Brightcove server.

(Nod: Marc Ambinder and Ben Smith, respectively)

No more drunk emailing:

The Goggles can kick in late at night on weekends. The feature requires you to solve a few easy math problems in short order before hitting “send.” If your logical thinking skills are intact, Google is betting you’re sober enough to work out the repercussions of sending that screed you just drafted.

(Nod: Alex)

Tom Toles is great.

Yay, another “debate.”   I was glad to see that both candidates were willing to eschew the debate rules to allow for some actual debate.   Tom Brokaw didn’t like that so much.

Senator McCain came into the debate needing a game-changing moment, something to either damage Senator Obama or give himself a huge lift.   Neither happened, so this was a lost opportunity for McCain and a loss overall.   Obama owned McCain tonight.   He connected with the audience and the viewers at home, and he was clear, physically secure, stylistically sound, and very presidential.

Some thoughts:

John McCain is old. While not ever mentioned directly or indirectly, the generation gap between Obama and McCain was stark.   McCain really seemed like a old man.   In several camera angles while Obama was delivering an answer, McCain was in the background wandering around the stage aimlessly.   He made several attempts at jokes (hair transplants?) that he was the only one laughing at.   And he twice made the comment that we need someone with a cool or steady “hand at the tiller.”   Maybe this is a generational thing, but I had no idea what that meant.   (A tiller is “a bar or lever fitted to the head of a rudder, for turning the rudder in steering.”)

My friends. A quick search through the transcript yields 19 times that McCain said the phrase “my friends” an average of about 1 time every 5 minutes.   He has turned a phrase meant to be endearing and connecting into a tired, overused (old?) phrase.

Hypocrisy. McCain: “We don’t have time for on-the-job training, my friends.”   Because your vice presidential pick is oh-so ready to lead on day one.

Petraeus. For all of McCain’s praise and name-dropping of General Petraeus, he ought to understand what Petraeus said about declaring victory in Iraq.   McCain and Governor Palin both repeat the line about winning in Iraq and leading troops to victory, but the general says this: “This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade… it’s not war with a simple slogan.”   The McCain campaign, of course, would have us all thinking differently.

McCain’s contempt of Obama. Let the video speak for itself:

Obama. He had two highly connecting responses.   On service:

And the last point I just want to make. I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m interested in doubling the Peace Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country that can be involved in their community, involved in military service, so that military families and our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden of renewing America.

And on health care:

Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.

Michelle and Barack. While the McCains left the hall, the Obamas stuck around well after the debate ended to chat with audience members voters.   One more reason why they can connect so well with regular Americans even though they’re painted as “elite.”

James Fallows at The Atlantic writes this:

In these circumstances, and with a presidential election four weeks away, is it conceivable that candidates will waste time arguing whether one of them has been in the same room with a guy who had been a violent extremist at a time before most of today’s U.S. citizens were even born? (William Ayres was a Weatherman in the late 1960s. Today’s median-aged American was born around 1972.) Of course, it’s not only conceivable: it’s the Republican plan for this final push “turning the page” on economic concerns and getting to these “character” and “association” questions about Barack Obama.

Grow up. If John McCain has a better set of plans to deal with the immediate crisis, and the medium-term real-economy fallout, and the real global problems of the era fine, let him win on those. But it is beneath the dignity he had as a Naval officer to wallow in this mindless BS. I will say nothing about the dignity of a candidate who repeatedly winks at the public, Hooters-waitress style.   A great country acts great when it matters.   This is a time when it matters for politicians in the points they raise, for journalists in the subjects they write about and the questions they ask of candidates. And, yes, for voters.

Changing the subject, aka “hey look over there” politics.

I think, though, the call to “act great” could apply to the Obama campaign also.   Yesterday they released a film about McCain’s role in the Keating Five scandal.   While I agree that the scandal was about banking, finance, and corruption and thus has relevance in today’s economic crisis, I remain unsure that it matters in the long-term and unsure if it was wise that the Obama campaign has officially endorsed it as an issue.   I understand the value in talking about it, perhaps from the surrogate level, because it paints a factual picture of McCain.   I hope, though, that Obama doesn’t dwell on this scandal the film has been released, let the media talk about it today, move on tomorrow.   There are far too many present-tense scandals and crises to deal with.

New rule: we stop calling the “debates” debates.   Merriam-Webster defines a debate as:

a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides

Discussion between two sides.   As in both sides interact with each other.   Now check out some of the rules for tonight:

An audience member will not be allowed to switch questions. Under the deal, the moderator may not ask followups or make comments. The person who asks the question will not be allowed a follow-up either, and his or her microphone will be turned off after the question is read. A camera shot will only be shown of the person asking not reacting.

While there will be director’s chairs (with backs and foot rests), McCain and Obama will be allowed to stand but they can’t roam past their “designated area” to be marked on the stage. McCain and Obama are not supposed to ask each other direct questions.

No follow-ups, no interaction.   What kind of debate is this?   Can you imagine if Lincoln and Douglas had these kinds of rules?

The no follow-ups rule pains me because politicians answer the question they want to answer, not necessarily the one they were asked.   Follow-ups by the moderator (or here even from the audience members) provide a means to make sure they answer the actual question a means to ensure voters are that much more well-informed.   This is what made the Palin-Couric interview so deadly and what doomed the vice presidential debate.

We deserve better than this, Obama and McCain campaigns.

(Nod: Political Wire)

In celebration of The Google’s 10th Anniversary, they re-released their first internet archive, so you can search the January 2001 Internets.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

The Obama campaign has released an app for iPhone and iPod touch. Talk about a candidate who a) is in tune with the times and b) embraces today’s technologies.

(Nod: Ben Smith)

Sarah Palin started the debate strongly.   She connected with viewers, she was cheery, and she was folksy. The problem, though, was she was spouting off canned answers and talking points the entire evening.   Asked about one thing, she talking about something else or didn’t even answer the question.   At one point, she even said:

I may not answer the questions that either the moderator
or you [Biden] want to hear.

Her delivery, while cheery, was rushed, like she was racing to get through all the things she had to remember to say.   It reminded me of preparing for an essay exam in college.   You know the types of questions that will be asked, so you memorize as much as you can, and when you sit down to write your essay, you a) try to remember everything, and b) try to work everything in even if it doesn’t quite fit.   As the debate progressed, she seemed to run out of talking points, and as a result, her answers became less solid.   And for me, at least, the folksyness was too much after 90 minutes.

Joe Biden seemed to start fairly weakly.   He seemed unsure of how to debate Palin.   But once Palin proved she had something to say (no matter the veracity or purpose), he became more comfortable, and he settled into a method of effectively answering questions and calling-out Palin, McCain, and Bush.

In the end, I think it was very clear who prepared for the debate this week and who has been prepared.

Some of my favorite moments (via the transcript):

Biden:

So you’re going to have to place replace a $12,000 [health care] plan with a $5,000 check you just give to the insurance company. I call that the “Ultimate Bridge to Nowhere.”

About global warming, here’s Palin:

But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don’t want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?

And Biden’s response:

If you don’t understand what the cause is, it’s virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade.

I enjoyed this line from Palin:

People aren’t looking for more of the same.
They are looking for change.

Yes, exactly.   I’m glad we agree.   And I enjoyed this exchange, too:

IFILL: So, Governor, as vice president, there’s nothing that you have promised as a candidate that you would that you wouldn’t take off the table because of this financial crisis we’re in?

PALIN: There is not. And how long have I been at this, like five weeks?

Biden on McCain’s “maverick” status:

Look, the maverick let’s talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He’s been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people’s lives.

He voted four out of five times for George Bush’s budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he’s got there.

He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He’s not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.

He’s not been a maverick on the war. He’s not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.

Can we send can we get Mom’s MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can’t we can’t make it. How are we going to heat the heat the house this winter?

He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter.

So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.

Finally, Biden had the most powerful response of the evening:

A message from the Librul Hollywood Elite:

Warning: some strong language.

(Nod: Ben Smith)