Another Grim Outcome

5 November 2008

I was up for about 23 hours, went to bed, and slept, uh, for about three hours.

I decided to get on-line and see if there'd been a further reversal-of-fortune for Proposition 8, the California measure to outlaw same-sex marriage. Although in the past the electorate had voted to ban same-sex marriage, conventional wisdom, going into this election, was that the Proposition would fail by a clear margin. I believed this convention wisdom, and saw it as the one real bright spot of the election.

But as the numbers started to come-in, it began to seem that the Proposition would pass by about the margin by which it had been expected to fail.

Now, with 22587 of 25429 precincts reporting, the measure leads 4,843,531 to 4,519,010 — about 52% to 48%. There has been a little drift in the percentages since I had last checked, but nothing that suggests that there will be some marked difference in the relative shares reported amongst the later-reporting precincts. Basically, the remaining precincts would have to have voted about 64% against the Proposition for it to fail.

I had been planning to remove the Vote No bumpersticker from my note-book computer if the measure failed. I'm inclined to leave on for a while now, as a gesture of protest. But I'm concerned that it may just depress some of the people around me, so I'm going to conduct an informal poll amongst them.

I guess that, one way or another, the sticker has a short shelf-life. A little more than eight years ago, a Proposition 22, perhaps better known as the Knight Initiative and as the defense of marriage act, set out to achieve much the same ends as this latest Proposition 8. Now-a-days, No-on-Knight is quite meaningless to the vast majority of people, and No on 22 would be mysterious to an even larger group.

Tags: , , , , ,

6 Responses to Another Grim Outcome

  • oshi says:

    I saw a bumper sticker for it here this morning, go figure. While it is depressing it reminds me that there are like-minded people out there. I would see no problem leaving the sticker on your computer for at least a few weeks, or even up to a year (or more?), I don't think it will be forgotten in that time span.

  • BigTigerMonkey says:

    Cheer up.

    The no-on-8'ers had bad karma when they trespassed upon and stole my property. I respect their difference of opinion, but not their law breaking.

    Here, one of my boys wrote an article with your favorite cartoon character:

    "I don't need Barack Obama's help to “spread the wealth around.” I spread my wealth around every time I hire somebody, expand my business, or just go to the general store and buy a quart of milk and loaf of bread. As far as I know, only one bloated plutocrat declines to spread his wealth around, and that's Scrooge McDuck, whose principal activity in Disney cartoons was getting into his little bulldozer and plowing back and forth over a mountain of warehoused gold and silver coins. Don't know where he is these days. On the board at Halliburton, no doubt. But most of the beleaguered band of American capitalists do not warehouse their wealth in McDuck fashion. It's not a choice between hoarding and spreading, but a choice between who spreads it best: an individual free to make his own decisions about investment and spending, or Barney Frank. I don't find that a difficult question to answer. More to the point, put Barney & Co in charge of the spreading, and there'll be a lot less to spread."

    • Daniel says:

      Your boy shows a gross misunderstanding of McDuck; and, in process, will have alienated fans of McDuck who might otherwise have attended to what your boy was trying to convey.

      Carl Barks creäted McDuck as an exemplar of his own sense of true virtue. McDuck, like Donald, is perpetually unlucky. But, unlike Donald, McDuck is resolved always to be tougher, to work harder and smarter than others. And, thus, McDuck amasses a great fortune. If it is taken from him by fate — and this has happened — he just works harder and smarter than others, and gets it back. McDuck drives the hardest of bargains, but he always honors his end of those bargains, and never steals.

      In-so-far as your boy calls McDuck a plutocrat, your boy doesn't seem to know what plutocrat means. McDuck plainly wants laissez-faire; and, for whatever might remain of the state in McDuck's notion of utopia, meritocracy.

      BTW, McDuck isn't nearly my favorite cartoon character. I'm not even sure that he ranks above you and Flaming Pig-Dog Lau, when it comes to cartoon characters.

      • BigTigerMonkey says:

        ... misunderstanding of McDuck; ...will have alienated fans of McDuck who might otherwise have attended to what your boy was trying to convey.

        Dude, most current fans of McDuck are the physical and financial wards of their parents. However, that can Change™.

        Carl Barks creäted McDuck as an exemplar of his own sense of true virtue.

        Excellent. I shall found the McDuck party. While it won't be unlucky, or unskilled, like the BullMoose party, I can't guarantee it will be less fowl.

        McDuck drives the hardest of bargains, but he always honors his end of those bargains, and never steals.

        Never steals! Now that would indeed be Change™; which would entail that lifetime entitlement achieving un-elected bureaucrats and term-un-limited Congress-critters would be in stark raving opposition.

        BTW, the San Jose Police department's investigation into the theft of my property is a pathetic joke. The San Jose Police department is grossly incompetent. It looks like I'll need to hire a lawyer to sue the police before I sue the people who stole my property. I'll be talking to one of my lawyers this afternoon, and if the net result is that police officers are fired and have their pensions shredded, good, I no longer give a damn about people that can't be bothered to do their job for which I pay them my taxes. I call the police very infrequently, but when I do call them, I expect service, pronto. Pathetic. Really pathetic.

        • Daniel says:

          Indeed, most current McDuck fans are children. Your boy needs to plan — and to plan competently — for the future, instead of p_ssing off the kids.

          Make sure to check with Big Greg and with Bigger Greg before you sue the San Jose Department of Police. That department might be one of their holdings. No point in running down your inheritance with court costs. (Granted that the courts might be part of their holdings as well, but some of that money is going into costs-of-production.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.