North Carolina Constitution Ammendment.

Normally, I try to stay out of politics around here because the system is so screwed up that I'm not entirely sure that it matters any longer.  However, something came up that *DOES* matter.  Recently, the North Carolina Senate passed a resolution to ammend the state constitution to define marriage between one man and one woman. 

Here's the senate bill:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2011&BillID=s514&submitButton=Go

And here are the votes:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=S&RCS=933

In case you are wondering about the votes in the house, here you go:

http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/10121625/

And here's who's currently in the house:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=House&sSortOrder=district

(Sorry, I couldn't find something nice like the Senate...)

Anyway, this is *really* important, as now the way has been cleared for the populace to vote on the definition of marriage.  Say what you will, this a huge deal because North Carolina is the last state in the South East not to have a formal definition of marriage in its constitution.  So, if you are 18 or older and live in North Carolina, you *need* to get out to vote on the referendum on May 8. 

(Fun side note - guess when my marriage anniversary is - May 8!)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Now that the facts are out there, please allow me to commentate for a moment.

Hi, I'm Phil.  If you are reading this, then we probably know each other at least well enough to be facebook friends (since really - who else reads this blog?).  So, you *probably* know where I stand on this issue.  In case you don't, here it is:  I am absolutely against this amendment.  First off, North Carolina laws on the books are quite clear regarding gay marriage.  Essentially gays can't get married, and gay marriage from other states is not recognized.  So, this amendment won't change anything day to day anyway.  So, why is it so important?  (As a side note, I also think that these laws are backwards and wrong, but that is a topic for another blog post...)

Well, first of all, North Carolina is the only state in the South East without a definition of marriage in the constitution.  So, the writing is on the wall.  Sooner or later marriage probably should be defined.  But do we really want to have such a 20th century outlook on it?  (It's true!  the "traditional marraige" that people keep going on about is a fairly recent invention.)  How about defining marriage as a contract between two consenting adults, regardless of gender?  The real problem as I see it is that if this amendment passes, it's going to be incredibly hard to reverse it.

Secondly, why should we be adding more things to the books?  Thomas Paine said "That government is best which governs least."  I definitely agree with this.  So, even if you like the status quo of only straight people should be able to get married, then why bother voting to ammend the state constituion?  It's just more stuff on the books.  (And this stuff isn't even good stuff...)

Next, why should this even be an issue?  I'm a bit embarrassed that gay marriage isn't allowed.  You know what?  I'm actually aghast that there is a different term for straight marriage versus gay marriage.  Are there two people who love each other and want to spent the rest of their lives together?  It's called marriage.  Period.

One of the big arguments for this is religious.  In virtually every holy book from around the world, homosexuality is a sin.  Personally, I am a Baha'i and my religion also condemns homosexuality.  So, why would I be in favor of gay marriage?  Because of two reasons: 

Firstly, I do not think that laws (let alone constitutional amendments!) should be based on religious laws.  Baha'is also teach drinking and smoking is wrong.  But I also do NOT think that these should be made into laws.  If my moral code does not allow for it, then guess what, I should be free to choose not to do it. 

Secondly, I actually don't think that homosexuality is wrong. God gave us an intellect to work things out for ourselves.  In my mind,  holy books are good guidelines, but they are just that.  Guidelines.  At the end of the day, you (and you alone) are responsible for your actions.  Now, if you sit down and think about it, you come to the conclusion that homosexuality is still wrong (AND there should be a constitutional amendment stating such), then please let me know your thought process.  Cuz even if you do come to the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong WITHOUT the help of a holy book, then really what is the harm in allowing it?  Nobody is getting hurt.  So why legislate against it?

Now, if you are really getting hung up on the religious part of it, then you should really be pushing for the following things to also be outlawed:

• Polyester and other blended fabrics (Leviticus 19:19)
• Shaving and short haircuts (Leviticus 19:27)
• Cussing your parents (Leviticus 20:9 - It's a capital offense, BTW)
• Shrimp, Crab, etc (Leviticus 11:10-12)

Another common argument that I hear a lot is that it's a slippery slope.  The argument goes "Well, if you allow gay marriage, then you have to allow any sort of marriage."  (Common examples are a marriage between a man and a pet, or a man and a piece of furniture.)  That is, frankly, bullshit logic.  There are certain drugs that are legal, but others that are not.  There are certain cars that are legal, but others that are not.  And if you want to go slippery slope, then couldn't the same slippery slope argument be made about banning gay marriage?  It would go something like this:  "Well, if you only allow straight people to get married, then you must also restrict it down to straight people of child-bearing age.  Oh, and while we're at it, of the same ecconomic background.  Heck, why not just throw same religion and race in there too?"  The end result is that we're only talking about one thing:  Gay Marriage.  None of the other slippery slope arguments are relevant.

One last argument that I hear is that people are trying to "protect the sancitity of marrige".  What ... the ... hell?  Seriously?  This is a real argument?  There are at least two reality shows that I can think of that try to get two strangers to meet and get married in a few weeks time.  (The Bachelor and the Bachelorette are what I'm thihnking of.)  And what about those perfectly legal Vegas weddings that disolve in less than a  year?  Are those really sacred?  

In the end, I just don't get why there is any curfuffel over two loving people getting married.  From a legal point of view, it should just be two people who are essentially entering a contract, which will grant extra privelleges to both parties (such a hospital visitation rights, and tax filing priveleges).  So, why should the law care what gender the people entering the contract are?  From a religious point of view, I can certainly see where there would be a stopping point  But why should I be forced to practice someone else's religion?  How would you feel is Sharia law was instituted just because there was an overwhelming majority of Muslims in your area?

So, please, get out and vote on May 8.  Volunteer to help raise awareness.  Do something.  This vote, unlike many other votes, is actually very important.

Oh my, that was awkward

You wouldn’t think you would say that watching The Amazing Race perhaps, but there you are. So I’m continuing my inane trek to catch up on all season on TAR, and I just started Season 8. True fans will realize this is the first “family” season, and one of the highest rated “most annoying teams”. But let’s get right to the oddities.

Right out of the gate, they announce the families and already it hits home this is going to be an odd season. “…and we have the Weaver family, blah, blah, blah, … and we have the Black family..”, who indeed, were black. Thankfully their last name was actually Black and this wasn’t some racist announcer. On a sad note, they seemed nice, calm and friendly, and were first to be eliminated.

Next we have a dad and his three daughters (guessing 2 in high school, 1 in college). Then we have 3 brothers and 1 sister, all college age. This only gets awkward as the brothers start talking about the daughters. Dude, that’s jailbait. Of course, this was made worse when one of the daughters mooned the siblings. Yeah, I said that. Of course the guys responded in kind later, but you expect that from guys honestly. Though maybe not on TV.

The Paolo family had a fun NY accent. Unfortunately they couldn’t stop yelling and actually hitting each other. You might expect this from the dad, but he was rather collected. But the oldest son and his mom kept smacking each other around. Hello, child services?!

Yet the families weren’t the only one to make us feel weird. The producers decided to have a stop and activity in Talladega. There they had to go out on the track and race a weird family bicycle. This was fine for everyone. Everyone except the family who’s dad had been killed on a racetrack. You’d think someone might have looked that up ahead of time. Even more impressive, the producers had yet another race event later in the show. This time go karts, but still. Why not just punch that family in the gut upon arrival and get it over with?

There was also a family where the dad is old school biblical and believed the man rules everything. They were eliminated early. In the end, the young siblings edged out the dad/daughter team by only minutes to win it all. Sadly, not much “where are they now” gossip to be found on this season. Perhaps everyone just wants to forget the awkward.

Clay “sorry to hear about the bumps on your ass” Berry

So how do I get to step 3 - Profit?

"We've all been there. You just got done your happy hour (plus 3) with some co-workers, you're downtown waiting for the El, and you've really, REALLY got to go wee. Or, you know, its 4PM on a Friday afternoon and life is a happy hour, and you got to go wee. So you decide to pee behind the trash can at 13th street. Except its a subway station, so the floor is tile and the trashcan is metal, and sound travels REALLY well, so suddenly your urination sounds like a water main break. Oh, and that wall behind the trashcan - not really a wall. More like a FLOOR TO CEILING window that is exposed to the busy underground concourse just outside the station that's, you know, just behind City Hall. So you're subtle little bladder relief is now an experience shared by the fifty people that are near you."
This was going to be added to my latest post regarding my misadventures on SEPTA and public transit in general. So I began thinking - "people make money writing witty things on the Internet, or writing reviews of things on the Internet, or spreading gossip on the Internet, or just being pissed off (as opposed to be pissing on a window) and telling everyone on the Internet that will read what you're pissed off about."
People have made entire careers off of this, or just posting stuff on the Internet in general. Some people have told me I can be fairly amusing at times, especially when it comes to writing things, and I begin to think "maybe I too can become an Internet phenom and make some money and notoriety and move to a tri-level mansion in the Hollywood Hills."
Why not? Just get more and more people to read it, and voila. RICH!
Let me be honest. I enjoy sharing this with people, and I enjoy making them laugh, but do I really feel the need to make a career out of it? Not really. And frankly I'm not so sure that "blogging" by just anyone should really be so highly regarded.
Don't get me wrong. I think the Internet and technology in general have given a voice to millions and quite possibly can help us communicate better as people and give some people a chance to shine where in a less technically savvy world they wouldn't be able to.
That voice has been given to a lot of jackasses too. I think back to a time before the Internet. A time that to be a writer you had to be accomplished and having had years of training, then you maybe get published in a newspaper, magazine or even a book of some kind.
Let's just say those people could tell the difference between your, you're and yore.
I still have trouble deciphering between then and than, and I have a bachelor's degree and like to think of myself as fairly intelligent.
I guess my point is maybe having at least some kind of checks and balances aren't such a bad thing. It at least could help whittle down between the next William Faulkner and the guy who has to say "First" on every talk back.
Even now. I'm writing this on a blog followed by eight people. I'll publish a link on Facebook, but even then (or than) I won't have that much of a readership. I'm even going to throw some random names in to see if they notice. I'm talking to you Catherine Sami, Jen Buzas, George Deery, Charles "Chickie" Mullen, Beth Hoyt Hale, Raymond "Rusty" Hohl, Tanya Dapkey, Bill Kleinz, Melissa Wallace and John Sinclair!
I'm just trying to make a point, but I'm not really sure which. I like reading blogs, and wish all the best to those that write them that they can have success. I just wonder how important it really is.
I'm in IT. But I've so far written about movies, television, and public transportation. I don't have degrees or advanced experience in cinematography, executive producing, or urban planning. Yeah Jen Barr. I'm referring to you. (anything?) I should be writing papers on utilizing ESXTOP to streamline Virtual Machine deployment and how to use Powershell to find the powerstate of said machines.
So I think that's all I had to say. That's a lot for something that started with me seeing a guy pissing underground.
So feel free to comment. Thanks for reading, and look forward to more random musings.
Wow, I think I've just proven my own point. I'm writing this in a room with my three kids and wife. The baby is watching the Wiggles and trying to grab the mouse. The other two are continually asking when they can get back in to play on the Barbie page. And the wife keeps asking where the baby is, even though she's right next to me.
For this to be a full time job it needs to be a full time job. You know, like a WRITER. Like Andy Feindt.

Tootles!

SEPTA Blog, Volume 2

Long overdue - SEPTA rants from August until earlier this morning. Enjoy!

August 2010
- Feces in the stairwell of the train station? Must be Monday
- There's a guy on the train ready to PARTY!!! He's about 65, shirt unbuttoned to his belly button, pink tie untied around the back of his neck, and that collar is POPPED! He's also snapping to a tune no one else can hear. Maybe he’s heading to American Bandstand? The enterprise center is only two stops away
- Thinks a garbage truck ran into a crab truck at 69th street at the El concourse this morning. I certainly hope I take this wonderful fragrance to work today.

September 2010
- Three people up a guy decided to open the other door - and literally the two people between us stopped and hesitated, kind of rocking back and forth. Seriously I think that unexpected decision point caused an aneurysm - so I take it back. You go right ahead squeezing through one door - it takes less time than having to make a decision.
- Ma'am, please hold your umbrella a different way. I'd prefer not to have my genitals impaled. Regards, the guy behind you.

October 2010
- Nothing more rewarding then running for the P&W with a cold just to have it pull away after you're sure they saw you. Bag.
- Apparently the El is stuck in first gear today. Taking a nice leisurely creep back to 69th street.

November 2010
- "Please stand clear of doors" is the "watch the tramcar please" of the El

December 2010
- It’s no secret SEPTA has trouble with the doors on the El. Doors open and close while hearing the "PLEASE STAND CLEAR OF DOORS" about 30 times before the engineer actually gets out of his seat. This morning one of the passengers couldn't wait, stepped up and jammed his fingers in the door and pulled it shut.
- SOMEONE on the El took their hot garbage bath this morning
- Thank you SEPTA for never disappointing. Since all trains are local, all four say Norristown, and not a person nor an accurate sign to tell you which is the next out. Looking forward to blogging about you in 2011

January 2011
- In terms of etiquette, where does "clipping your fingernails on the train" sit? I guess just slightly above clipping your toenails
- I'm at my Station with about 20 SEPTA guys. This is awkward. Carry on my SEPTA blog if you don't hear from me again :)
E - And now my train has conveniently broke down. Just waiting for the Septa MIB
Phil - Hey if you're stuck waiting on a train with a web enabled phone, now would be a great time to blog, as you say. :-)


Thanks for the inspiration Phil. I just did done do'd it.

The first 20 minutes of Eragon review.

Hopefully, I am not getting into a rut here.  However, I wanted to post a quick movie review while the scent was still fresh.  So, I present to you, my review of the first twenty minutes of Eragon.

In a spirit of full disclosure, I should probably say that I am reading the Eragon books right now.  I'm about halfway through the third one, and I am *really* digging them.  I haven't been this excited about a book series since Frank Herbert.  (And BTW, thank you so much Frank for destroying that  series in the third book.  Harumph!)  I had heard that the movie version of Eragon was bad... but really how bad could it be?  I figured that a lot of fanboys didn't like it since it wasn't faithful to the book.  In my mind, books are movies are two completely different media and so changes are just ducky with me.  As long as it is still entertaining.  I've only gotten through about 20 minutes of the movie, so it may get better.  However, a recently added blogger to this site (cough-Clay-cough) tells me that it just gets worse from here.  But, I'm stupid, so I'm probably going to finish it.  Anyways, here's my problems with the first twenty minutes of Eragon:

(I would say "Spoiler Alerts!", but that's like giving a spoiler alert to someone who's about to bite into a rancid hamburger - yeah I'm telling you information that you didn't know, but I'm saving you pain in the long run.)

The credits actually said "Based On Books by Chis P."  I think that it really should have been "Loosely Inspired by books by Chris P."

The first line spoken by a character on screen is "Not having my stone makes me unhappy.  Do not prolong my unhappiness."  I'm going to leave that there without any comment.  (And when the first line gives you leaves you worried... ugh....)  BTW, that was John "I'm so bad ass that they made a movie about being ME" Malkovich who said that line.  Bless his heart, he did about as well as he could with this crap...

So, Roran decides to leave home so as to avoid the draft.  (Definitely a change from the book, but I'm OK with that, so long as it makes sense, which it very much does not.)  OK... so, he's leaving a piss-ant little village so that he doesn't get drafted.  Where the *hell* is he planning on going?  Or is he planning on becoming a hermit until he's old and gray?  (I'm assuming that it'll take some time for him to get to Surda, if that's him plan, since the king told Durza not to let Eragon get there.  So, that implies that it's not right around the corner - in the book, they are about as far away as possible, but they didn't really give specifics in the movie...)

Speaking of Roran, they introduce him by having him and Eragon play a game a grab ass.  And I know that this is supposed to endear the two characters and make the audience say "Hey, these two are close.  We should definitely care about them."  However, what it left me saying was "Really?  While condensing a 350 page book into 100 minute movie, we really need to see two jackasses wrestling for 3 minutes?  That's 3 percent of the movie, guys..."

And speaking of which.... 100 minutes?  WTF guys.  This is kind of an epic tale.  Especially if you are planning sequels.  What constraints could you have possibly been under to cut it down so much?  (Unless the original cut was like 3 hours long and they decided to try to minimize the pain to the audience, which is kind of admirable if you think about it.)

So, the time line... OK so...  This is a hard one...   I know that the book gave Eragon and Saphira a few months while she was growing.  And I know that the movie just wanted to futz with the timeline to get things moving.  But seriously... this is how you do it?  In case you're wondering here's the growing process in the movie:  the dragon hatches and is tiny.  A few days after birth, she goes for her first flight, wherein she gets hit by a bolt of lightning and grows freaking huge in about 10 seconds.  Here's how I think that the creative meeting went:
Some dude:  "Uh... yeah...  We need to get the movie going fast.  So, we need to grow the dragon *quick*.
Another dude:  "Huh.... OK, we're changing so much of the story, why not just take some liberties here? We still got the Ra'zac, right?  How about they happen to run across Eragon, neither the Ra'zaoc nor Eragon really knows who the other is, Saphira feels the danger from far off, and so she calls out to Eragon with the mental link and he goes back to her. Then she makes him flee wherein they lay low for a few weeks, which would give her time to grow?  We could do a montage!"
Some dude:  "Nah, too complicated.  People might get confused."
Another dude:  "OK..  How about the Ra'zac just can't find him or the town for a few weeks.  That would even give us some more time to develop Roran."
Some dude:  "That's good... but here's the thing.  I'm not really good at my job.  Can't we get even *less* confusing."
Another dude:  "We could have Saphira ... like ... uh ... struck by lightning?"
Some dude:  "Brilliant!  Let's go with that.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get a frap."

Another of my bloggers actually pointed this out:  The guy who they cast as Eragon is actually prettier than the lady that they cast Arya.  Who is an immortal elf princess.  Described as having preternatural beauty, which dogs Eragon throughout the book.  But no, I guess that having some dumb-ass farm boy bumpkin be more effeminate than her makes sense.

Oh, and since we're on Arya...  She is introduced in the book as riding hard through a forest at night, wherein she and her companions are beset by Urgals (kinda like Tolkien's orcs) and a major battle ensues where magic is unleashed and it is truly epic.  In the movie two arrows come out of nowhere kill her companions and she is pushed off her horse.  Seriously.  That's how the movie opens.

And then, instead of being this mysterious character, Arya is reduced to a school girl.  The bad guys capture her and then she and the big baddie (Durza) start taunting each other. (Happens at least once, and I assume will probably keep happening throughout the movie.)  This is about the level of their writing:
Scene:  Durza, who is an evil sorcerer whose grasp for power has allowed evil spirits to invade his body, has Arya, a fair elven princess, tied to a table.  Durza is pissed, since he has been trying to interogate Arya, but she won't give:
Durza:  Tell me where the stone is!
Arya:  No.
Durza:  Please?
Arya:  No.

Arya:  Hey, Durza.
Duraza:  Yeah - are you going to tell me something?
Arya:  Yeah, the stone hatched.
Durza:  Oh - you're mean.
Arya: 

Lest I forget Brom, played by the adorable Jeremy Irons (who just *really* wants to be in a good fantasy movie, bless his heart).  He's sitting in a bar one night.  There is a contingent of soldiers (who, don't forget have been conscripted into the army against their will, most probably) in there with him. So, Brom starts drunkenly telling a story to the other town folks in the bar about the Dragon Riders and how they were cool and they will rise to power again.  (The implication being that the king sucks and should be overthrown.)  The guards, worried about stirring up trouble, say to him "Hey shut up.  That's bordering on treason."  So, Eragon (remember, a 15 year old farm boy bumpkin) says "Let him finish."  So, the guard does.  And Brom continues his drunken tirade against the king.  When he's done, they toss him out of the bar.  Really good opportunity for some tense drama, which just slipped through their fingers....

And Clay tells me it gets worse!!!  Ladies and Gentlemen, I have seen Troll 2 multiple times.  However, I'm not sure how this will get much worse.  I may or may not be able to face the pain of the rest of this movie.  Stay tuned. :-)

Welcome to the newest blogger!

Clay just joined the team and he has already posted.  I like the cut of his posting jib.  Everyone welcome him and let the comments start rolling in!

To those that don't know him, Clay is one of the guys that I met in the Jaycees.  Really good guy.  However, I would advise against losing a game of poker at his house.  You may well be taking home a piece of his menagerie.  :-)

Are Vending Machine Designers Inherently Evil, Or Just Stupid?

We’ve all been there. Errrrrrrr….Urrrrrrrr. Errrrrrrrrr……Urrrrrrrr. That’s the sound of your dollar going in…then getting spit back out. Very annoying. It’s bad enough that I have to put up with this, but what really cramps my brain, is the WHY.

Physically what is happening is a scanner is looking at my dollar, then accepting or rejecting it. No system is perfect, and thus you will have some unjustified rejections from time to time. That’s not the problem. The problem is why is there a scanner in the first place.

At some point in the dollar accepting vending machine history, were people actually successful in sticking in pieces of paper or something? I doubt it. And even if that was happening, how thorough would the scanner have to be to detect the difference between printer paper and money? I mean, damn.

So here we have some idiot trying to prevent full on dollar counterfeiting. Did he really think something with the capital, brains, technology and chutzpah to counterfeit was going to go on some kind of all night vending machine spree, getting all the free Cokes he could stand? Really?! And even if he did, I mean, how many could you possibly drink or load before you either had to pee or someone noticed?

But the insanity of the situation doesn’t stop there. Because we have this highfalutin scanning technology, the price of the drinks has to go up to justify it. So I’m paying more to be more annoyed?! And some people just can’t take it. And they end up shaking the machine. And then dead. Perhaps a small subset of those movers and shakers mind you, but it is statistically possible to say that adding scanners to vending machines has directly lead to more deaths.

Way to go, techno-geek.

Preach on, brother Beavis!