A LITTLE SUBTLETY PLEASE?

Here's one to wrap your brain around. We all know about the electoral college right? Remember campaign 2000, or have we all started donating boxes of those memories to Goodwill to make room for new ones? The electoral college is the current "constitutional" process by which we elect one to the "most important" office in American politics. If you're not familiar with how this stuff works head on over to How Stuff Works to find out how all this stuff works. Suffice it to say, some of our founding fathers supposedly thought that choosing a president by popular vote was too reckless and some of our other Founding Fathers believed that having congress choose our president was too terrifying. So every state was assigned a number of electors equal to the number of that state's congressman and representatives. In 2000 many voters were shocked to find out that although George W. Bush had not received the majority of the popular vote, he would still be our President. Many supporters of Bush used the constitution to uphold this decision siting that the system was set-up this way and changing it would be unconstitutional.

California holds 55 electoral votes, the most in the nation. Traditionally all 55 electoral votes are given to the candidate that wins the state's popular vote - a Democrat in the last 4 presidential elections. Enter the Presidential Election Reform Act. A ballot initiative that would give one electoral vote to the winner of each of California's 55 congressional districts. If this initiative is passed The Republican Party is poised to receive about 20 electoral votes even if they lose the state as a whole to Democrats. This is equal to winning a state such as Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or Illinois; or even winning in 2 Marylands, Minnesotas, or Arizonas; or winning 1 Utah, 1 Iowa, 1 of the Dakotas, 1 Maine, and a Delaware in a pear tree.

The people supporting the Presidential Election Reform Act claim that it will make the electoral process fairer and more democratic. Which might be true because it seems the Democratic party is up to the same shenanigans in North Carolina - a state that notoriously leans Republican. The Democratic controlled State Legislative branch took up a bill that would restructure the voting process in the same way.
In this example there are a mere 15 electoral votes up for grabs as compared to the behemoth that is California's 55.

What is going on here? Have elections really been turned into an arbitrary scoring system based on statistic and demographics. Candidates choose which regions to campaign in and which ones to not waste their money on based on historical voting outcomes. Talking points and campaign speeches are littered with hot button issues that statistically rally a certain group of voters. Now they're realizing that through clever redistricting they can score a few extra points than usual and "steal" elections.

What makes all of this electoral juggling so easy to accomplish is a 2 party system. Anyone can juggle 2 balls; it takes much more skill to juggle even just one more. Give us Red, Blue AND White candidates and see how hard it would be to shuffle our votes from one side to the other now.

SHOW ME YOUR HOSE!

On July 21, 2007 it seems that a portion of the San Diego Fire Department was "forced" to march in the San Diego Gay Pride Parade. For the record the picture on the right is not one from the actual parade in San Diego. These overly enthusiastic Firemen are from Melbourne according to the info on the pic which I stole from This Chump's photo stream over at Flickr.

From what I've gathered about this story from radio, print, and online sources is that for 15 years the San Diego Fire Department has been participating in the local Gay Pride Parade. An engine crew had volunteered to represent the Department in the parade before the day of the event on the 21st. At the last moment, the crew that volunteered canceled because one of their men had a family emergency. Subsequently, at the last minute, four firefighters because they were assigned to a station near the parade route were asked to represent the city in the parade. The men expressed their concern in doing so and said they would only do it if it was an order. Apparently they were ordered.

One of the firefighters was quoted by the AP as saying: "I was forced into a situation that would compromise what I hold true and what I believe in." The complaint continues to state that the men had to endure harassment in the form of catcalls and shouts of "Show me your hose" and "You can put out my fire." The men have since retained lawyers as well as the help of the Thomas More Law Center with their fight.

A spokesperson for the fire department said:
"At the last minute the crew in that community was asked to step up and represent our agency in the parade," he said. "We have a responsibility and we take it seriously to participate in these parades."



So let's think about this for a moment. Why do firemen march in parades to begin with? To show their support for the community. To remind everyone that they're the guys working at a moments notice to protect the city from the destructive nature of fire. To give something for all the little boys to stare and marvel at. It sounds to me as though they were not asked to do anything different in this parade from what they normally do in other parades.

No one asked them to wear skimpy yellow swim trunks and red leather vests and to dance and gyrate their hips along the parade route like the chaps pictured above. They were asked to represent the Fire Department in a parade that celebrated part of the community they serve. It is as simple as that. If the department was not represented in the parade it may have given the wrong impression to those within the community. By no means am I saying that it would be right for the gays in the community to make a big sassy stink because for the first time in 15 years a firetruck was not part of the festivities. All that I am saying is that these men were asked and subsequently ordered to do their job which, I'm sorry sometimes includes marching in parades.

I do think these men have rights though. Not agreeing with their lawsuit does not mean that I believe they do not have the right to refuse marching in the parade. It is a sensitive issue and one needs a little more than last minute notice to decide to march in a Gay Pride Parade. There is the stigma of simply having marched in the parade to consider isn't there? Maybe these men were afraid that by marching in the parade others would think they were gay? Maybe they were concerned that just by being in the parade they would find their formerly masculine firefighting selves suddenly bursting into flames of gayness from which they would never emerge straight again. They've seen it happen before. They've seen their friends marching in the St Patrick's Day Parade turning into pale skinned, loud mouthed, drunks right before their eyes. They've seen their buddies in the Italian American Day Parade transform into hairy, overweight mobsters in the course of an hour and a half. You shouldn't expect them to subject themselves to the chance that they might be changed forever by this experience, and you shouldn't be surprised that they are suing.