This is a Test

This is a test to find out what happens when I schedule a post to be posted at a time that does not exist. 2:10am, Sunday, March 13, 2011.

See, it's Daylight Savings Time again and at 2:00am, our clock jumps forward one hour to 3:00am.

(Yeah, I know the servers probably run on UTC but that's not the point. :) )

Facebook

It would seem as though I've abandoned this blog in favor of Facebook. And I suppose that's fine. The only problem is this: Facebook doesn't allow for the long-ish posts I can provide here. Not sure what (if anything) I want to do about that. :)

Imran, stop spamming!

I wonder if this means I'm popular now....

Some asshole has been comment spamming on my Two Magic Words post. And it's really, really annoying to have to come in and delete posts each and every time he does it. This asshole's name is possibly Imran (based on a URL he spammed in the comments) and Imran is really starting to piss me off....

Roxio Creator 2010 Special Edition

GOD DAMN FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT SOFTWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This fucking asshole software is supposed to make transferring stuff to DVD easy but it's fucking shit. This crap is no where near ready to be released and they've even already released a "Service Pack" to address some of the fucking problems. But the goddamn software can't fucking make menus correctly, locks up for no good reason and is just in general a FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT SOFTWARE!!!! How the FUCK did this bullshit pass their testing department? Do they have only one fucking computer there to test shit on? These bugs are Class A bugs!

I FUCKING HATE THIS SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Yes, I feel better now.)

California's Supreme Court and Prop 8

I suppose it's time I finally weigh in on the California Supreme Court's decision on Proposition 8. And my opinion may surprise you.

I haven't read the entire decision (it's over 100 pages long) but from what I've gleaned from it their decision was the right one. No, I'm not happy that it means I am now a third class citizen simply because I didn't marry someone of the same sex between June and November of last year. And here's why. The court was asked to decide whether or not Proposition 8 was a "revision" or an "amendment". I thought while watching the Court proceedings that the "revision" argument was actually a fairly weak one. And it seems I was correct.

The Court decided it was an amendment and that the People can amend the California constitution through the initiative process even if, and this is important, that amendment is "unwise". They did not reverse their ruling from last year saying that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. As to how the Justices can reconcile the apparent dichotomy there I'm not sure.

They also ruled that the 18,000 or so same-sex couples who were married can stay married even though the state's constitution now says those marriages are invalid. Some have said that this is the great wisdom in the ruling. Perhaps now the matter will be brought up to the United States Supreme Court under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. (The minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority.)

In the future (if not already), I bet we'll hear from these discriminatory people who voted Yes on Proposition 8 that the judges were right. And these are the same "activist judges" they were so opposed to last year! These opponents to gay marriage seem to really have short attention spans.

I believe the Court's ruling is probably correct. (Again, I haven't read the whole thing; I'm not sure I'm going to.) The ruling means that it is just as easy to repeal Proposition 8 as it was to enact it. And that may also be the wisdom of the Court.

The struggle continues.

"Heather" is gagged!

I'm not sure I could be much happier with the last two days and the annoying (and illegal) Robocalls for auto warranties and "lower" credit card interest rates. Today, a judge has granted the temporary restraining order forbidding these fucking asshole companies! from making any more phone calls. The press release is below and is taken from http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/robocalls2.shtm.

(I realize some folks reading this may not like my choice of colorful language above but sometimes, a little foul language is really the only choice in adequately describing how I feel. :) )

Judge Orders Halt to Illegal Robocalls Selling Deceptive Warranties

Today Judge John F. Grady of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a temporary restraining order stopping telemarketing company Voice Touch, Inc., its principals James and Maureen Dunne, its business partner Network Foundations LLC, and Network Foundations principal Damian Kohlfeld from making any further calls in violation of the Do Not Call Registry and other provisions of the Telemarketing Sales Rule and the FTC Act. The FTC filed the case yesterday, charging that the defendants were operating a massive telemarketing scheme that used random, pre-recorded phone calls to deceive consumers into thinking that their vehicle’s warranty is about to expire.

“Today the FTC has disconnected the people responsible for so many of these annoying robocalls,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “We expect to see a dramatic decrease in deceptive auto warranty calls, but we are still on high alert.” If consumers continue to receive unsolicited robocalls to numbers on the Do Not Call registry, they should report them to DoNotCall.gov.

In a related matter filed by the FTC, Judge Grady yesterday issued a temporary restraining order against automobile warranty sales company Transcontinental Warranty, Inc., and its CEO and president, Christopher Cowart, who are clients of Voice Touch. In both cases, the court found that the FTC established a likelihood of success on the merits.

The court barred deceptive claims about extended warranties, froze the defendants’ assets, and appointed receivers over Transcontinental and Network Foundations to ensure that documents are preserved and assets are not dissipated. The restraining orders are in effect until a preliminary injunction hearing set for May 29, at which time the judge will reassess what type of relief should remain in place until the case proceeds to trial.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Media Contact:

Peter Kaplan
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2334

Staff Contact:

Steve Baker or Todd Kossow
FTC Midwest Region
312-960-5634

(FTC File Nos. 092-3110, 082-3263)
(RobocallsTRO.wpd)

"Heather From Account Services" Is Finally Sued!

FINALLY!

You've probably gotten these calls. They started with "Heather from account services" and have moved on to dire warnings that your car warranty is about to expire (regardless of whether or not you even have a car) or that you need to act now to lower your credit card interest rates (regardless of whether or not you even have a credit card).

From the FTC site at http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/05/robocalls.shtm (which will probably change, disappear or move at some point so I've reproduced the page here. It's from a government agency and, as I understand it, anything produced by the government is in the public domain.)

I particularly love this paragraph:

The FTC is asking the court for Temporary Restraining Orders that would halt the illegal practices while the cases proceed, impose an asset freeze on all the defendants, and put two of the corporate defendants under the control of court-appointed receivers. The agency also is seeking a permanent injunction that would force the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains so they can be used for consumer redress.

And below is the entire release from the FTC.

FTC Files Suit to Stop Illegal Robocalls Pushing Vehicle “Warranty” Extensions

Companies Charged With Making Hundreds of Millions of Deceptive Calls to Consumers

The Federal Trade Commission is asking a federal court to shut down a telemarketing campaign that has been bombarding U.S. consumers with hundreds of millions of allegedly deceptive “robocalls” in an effort to sell them vehicle service contracts under the guise that they are extensions of original vehicle warranties.

In two related complaints filed in federal court, the Commission took action against both the promoter of the phony extended auto warranties, as well as the telemarketing company that it hired to carry out its illegal, deceptive campaign. In its complaints, the agency contends that the companies are operating a massive telemarketing scheme that uses random, pre-recorded phone calls to deceive consumers into thinking that their vehicle’s warranty is about to expire. Consumers who respond to the robocalls are pressured to purchase extended service contracts for their vehicles, which the telemarketers falsely portray as an extension of the manufacturer’s original warranty.

“This is one of the most aggressive telemarketing schemes the FTC has ever encountered,” said FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz. “I’m not sure which is worse, the abusive telemarketing tactics of these companies, or the way they try to deceive people once they get them on the phone. Either way, we intend to shut them down.”

According to papers the FTC filed with the court, the robocalls have prompted tens of thousands of complaints from consumers who are either on the Do Not Call Registry or asked not to be called. Five telephone numbers associated with the defendants have generated a total of 30,000 Do Not Call complaints. Consumers received the robocalls at home, work, and on their cell phones, sometimes several times in one day. Businesses, government offices and even 911 dispatchers also have been subjected to the calls.

Those who answer the pre-recorded calls hear a message telling them that their vehicle warranty is about to expire and that they should “extend coverage before it is too late.” They are told to “press one” to speak to a “warranty specialist.” The “specialists” then mislead consumers into believing that their company is affiliated with the dealer or manufacturer of the consumer’s vehicle. They try to sell consumers a service contract for between $2,000 and $3,000, which they falsely portray as an extension of the vehicle’s original warranty. The seller of extended auto warranties sued by the FTC allegedly took in more than $10 million on the sale of these deceptively marketed service contracts.

In their robocalls, the companies dial every phone number within a particular area code and prefix sequentially, without knowing anything about the vehicles of the consumers they call, or whether those consumers’ numbers are on the Do Not Call Registry, the FTC alleged. Consumers who asked that the calls be stopped often were met with “abusive behavior” or were simply hung up on, according to the papers filed with the court. Some of the defendants used offshore shell corporations to try to avoid scrutiny, and a top officer in the telemarketing company bragged to prospective clients that he could operate outside the law without any chance of being caught by the FTC, the papers stated. This defendant also claimed that he makes 1.8 million dials per day and that he had done more than $40 million worth of dialing for extended warranty companies, including one billion dials on behalf of his largest client, according to the court papers filed by the FTC.

In addition to the robocalls, the FTC charged that the company selling the warranties mails out deceptive postcards to consumers, warning them about the imminent expiration of their auto warranties. The postcards are designed to mislead consumers into believing that they are being contacted by their dealer or manufacturer, and the postcards offer consumers the chance to “renew” their original warranties.

The complaints charge that the defendants’ deceptive practices violate the FTC Act, and that the defendants also have violated the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”) by calling consumers whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry. The complaints further charge that the defendants violate the TSR by calling consumers who previously had asked not to be called; by concealing their phone numbers so they would not show up on caller ID, a practice known as “spoofing”; by failing to identify themselves to the consumers they called; and by failing to disclose that the call was a sales pitch.

The FTC is asking the court for Temporary Restraining Orders that would halt the illegal practices while the cases proceed, impose an asset freeze on all the defendants, and put two of the corporate defendants under the control of court-appointed receivers. The agency also is seeking a permanent injunction that would force the defendants to give up their ill-gotten gains so they can be used for consumer redress.

The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 14, 2009. The complaint against the robocaller names as defendants a Florida-based company called Voice Touch Inc., and two of its principals, James and Maureen Dunne. It also names an Illinois-based company affiliated with Voice Touch called Network Foundations, LLC and a principal in that company, Damian Kohlfeld. The second complaint names a Florida-based company called Transcontinental Warranty Inc., which sells extended auto warranties, and the company’s president and CEO, Christopher D. Cowart.

The Commission would like to acknowledge the extraordinary cooperation that telecommunications carriers AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless provided in the investigation of the case. The Commission also greatly appreciates the help of several state attorneys general.

The Commission votes authorizing the staff to file the complaints were 4-0.

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. A complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,500 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Peter Kaplan,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2334

STAFF CONTACT:
Steve Baker or Todd Kossow,
FTC Midwest Region
312-960-5634



(FTC File Nos. 082-3263, 092-3110)
(Robocalls.wpd)

I Can't Believe....

...I've sided with Republicans. For once, I agree with my Republican congressman. Is the sky falling??

It's about the Digital TV transition delay. Thankfully, it failed to pass in the House of Representatives today. As I wrote to both of my Senators (Democrats) and to my Congressman (Republican), the benefits to the 90% of the country greatly outweigh the slight inconvenience to the remaining 10% who will be without their beloved Televisions for a couple days. Being able to watch The View is NOT a right.

I HATE INTERNET EXPLORER!!!

How can a huge company like Microsoft make such a non-standards compliant and buggy web browser!?!? It's just absurd!

Grrrrrr........

Proposition 8: I Told You So....

I sorta kinda hate to say it, but I told ya so.

Now that Proposition 8 passed (and Ken Starr of the Whitewater investigation which turned into an investigation into President Clinton's sex life has signed on to argue for upholding Proposition 8), supporters of Proposition 8 have filed a brief with the California court which seeks to have nullified all 18,000 or so same-sex marriages performed while they were legal. Remember what I said in my post about "Valid" marriages and fear? They're doin' it.

According to an Associated Press article titled "Calif. AG urges court to void gay marriage ban" published today:

The sponsors of Proposition 8 argued for the first time Friday that the court should undo the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters banned gay marriage at the ballot box last month.

The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief telling the court that because the new law holds that only marriages between a man and a woman are recognized or valid in California, the state can no longer recognize the existing same-sex unions.

I seem to remember something about the Yes on 8 Campaign saying they don't want to take away rights. Fucking hypocrites.

Debt and the So-Called "Magic Words"

It's mildly amusing to me that the most popular page by far on this blog is "Kevin Trudeau's Two Magic Words". Soon, it will surpass the page loads of even the main blog page. That's all. It's just amusing to me....

Bryan Loses His Cool

The November 2008 election is over. And I've been declared a second-class citizen in three states not worthy of the same rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities of a straight person. And, in still another state, a less-qualified parent than no parent at all. All simply based on how I was born; I am a gay man.

The Yes on 8 Campaign waged a campaign based on deceit, outright lies, and fear. Even when presented with clear, logical reasons why the proposed "amendment" was badly written and fundamentally flawed, people still said they would vote to eliminate my right to have the same benefits and privileges as a straight person has.

Ironically, now same sex marriage will indeed be taught in schools but not in the health and sex education curriculum which parents have the full right (and, frankly, obligation) to exclude their children from shoudl they not want their children in sex ed. Gay marriage will now be taught in social science and history where they, as far as I know, do NOT have the right to exclude their children. Their oh-so-precious children will now be taught about gay marriage regardless.

In Arkansas, the voters decided that, simply because I am gay, I can not adopt nor be a foster parent to a child. How the FUCK do they think that denying their children a family helps the family? Exactly WHY is being gay such a horrible, awful thing that, "Oh my god! We can't have the children knowing about that!!!" Here's a newsflash; nearly ALL gay people were raised by straight people. And, to top it off, these are children nobody else wants; how does denying people who want to raise them help raise them!?

In Florida, I can't even have a domestic partnership. The voters decided that I should not be allowed even a "separate but equal" government-recognized union. How the HELL are these laws and so-called "amendments" even fucking constitutional!? There is absolutely no logical reason why a government should be denying rights to one group of people simply because of the way they were born.

I am not evil. I do not want to recruit your children. I am not less qualified to be a parent than no parent.

Fuck you, Supporters of these absurd bans!

Proposition 8: The Slippery Slope

I see a lot of the old, ridiculous arguments being brought up in favor of removing the rights of gay couples to marry. "Children need both parents", "It isn't natural", "I think it's gross", "What's next? People marrying their goats?", etc., etc., etc., ad naseum. So, if Proposition 8 passes (I don't think it will), I have a few other constitutional amendments I'd like to propose.

1. Only marriage between a fertile male and a fertile female is valid or recognized in California.
2. Once married, a child must be produced by a married couple within 4 years. Failure to do so results in a non-refundable child-free-fee of $1,500 paid to the State which doubles every 9 months the fertile couple remains childless.
3. Marriage is permanent and can not be revoked, annulled, dissolved, or otherwise canceled by any party at any time for any reason.
4. Eyeglasses are unnatural and shall be destroyed on sight.
   
5. Boogers are gross. It shall be a felony to knowingly or unknowingly display or cause to be displayed any booger at any time in any place for any reason.
   

Look, none of the fears of the Yes on 8 Campaign have come true in California. Not a single, solitary one. No church nor religious leader has been sued (successfully or unsuccessfully) for refusing to perform any marriage--much less a same-sex marriage--that they don't want to. Churches have been free to not marry anybody they so chose; the failure of Proposition 8 to pass will simply not change that.

I welcome your comments, as always.

Proposition 8: The Will of the People

A lot has been made of "The Will of the People" being overturned regarding Proposition 8 and 2000's Proposition 22.

Proposition 22 passed by 61.4% of the vote in California's 2000 presidential primary. It tried to add section 308.5 to the California Family Code. Section 308.5 was one sentence: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Careful readers will note that it's the same sentence proposed by Proposition 8.

As you may know, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that this law was a violation of the State's Constitution. Thereby giving rise to the oft-uttered "The courts overruled the will of the people!!!"

Here's the thing. Yes; the court did overrule the will of the people. Because, sometimes, the Will of the People is wrong.

It was the "Will of the People" to keep slavery legal in the South. It was the "Will of the People" to deny women the right to vote. It was the "Will of the People" to keep Blacks "Separate but Equal" for segregation. It was the "Will of the People" to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews in Germany.

The "Will of the People" can be wrong.

To think that the so-called "Will of the People" is always right is patently ridiculous.

Supporters of Proposition 8 frequently call the Justices who overturned Proposition 22 "activist liberal judges." What they don't tell you (or just plain don't know or outright lie about) is Proposition 22 was overturned by a Supreme court consisting of 7 justices; 6 of whom were appointed by Republicans. And, I'm sure I don't need to say that the current batch of Republicans is usually against allowing Same-Sex Marriage. So, to call these justices "liberal" is hypocritical at best and patently ignorant at worst. (To be fair, I haven't bothered to find out the Justices' decisions to find out their past opinion record.)

And, is being an "activist judge" so wrong? I'm pretty sure it was an "activist judge" who ruled that Segregation was unconstitutional. I'm pretty sure it was an "activist judge" that ruled to give women the right to vote.

It appears that to be an "Activist Judge" all you have to do is make a decision that someone doesn't like. WHAMMO! You're an Activist Judge and you're EVIL! Unless, of course, you make a decision that someone agrees with; then you're a wise and learned judge.

I welcome your comments.

(I realize that comparing the rights of any two consenting adults to get married to the Holocaust is a bit extreme but that was the point. It speaks to the "Slippery Slope" arguments that are used to oppose same-sex marriage. "If we allow two women to marry each other, what's next? A man marrying his goldfish!!!????")

Proposition 8: Of Family and Email

Over the weekend, I got this message from a friend. I've posted it here with both his permission and his endorsement.

Hello,

Yes, not my traditional “howdy” or “what’s up?” or “how’re you?” but “hello”. I’m mad…hell, I’m furious!...and I’m going to do something about it!

Everyone receiving this email knows me personally. For some reason I consider you family or friend or somewhere in between. That includes a certain level of respect for each other and appreciation for our rights as human beings. It’s with this in mind that I write this email.

If anyone reading this email votes “yes” on Prop 8, then please do NOT EVER speak to me again!

Yes, I mean that!

I don’t care what my connection to you is, because if you support Prop 8, you are not welcome in my house or my life EVER again. Period. I don’t care why you vote that way, because in the final analysis it’s a vote that says I’m somehow inferior to you and not deserving of the same basic human rights and privileges you enjoy. That’s bigoted and discriminatory and I will NOT have ANYONE in my life that feels that way!

This is NOT a religious issue, because our country’s founding principles are a separation of Church and State. This is NOT a personal issue, because what I do with the man I love has NOTHING to do with you personally. This is NOT a social issue, as allowing me to form a publically-recognized committed-union with someone I want to spend my life with in NO WAY weakens your marriage. And if you think it does, then your marriage is a pretty crappy sham…

Don’t tell me to calm down, either! >8-(

How would you expect your Black friends to react to your affirmation of some KKK creed? How would your Jewish friends react to you denying the historicity of the Holocaust? How would your female friends respond to being told they are patently inferior and not deserving of equal rights?

THIS is the social movement of our times, no less important or controversial than the Woman’s Suffrage movements of the 1920s or the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. If you missed out on your chance to DO THE RIGHT THING in the past, then here’s your chance in the present! Support equal rights for all, not just those who look and pray the way you do.

VOTE NO on PROP 8!

And yes, I absolutely mean and will stand by EVERYTHING I’ve written here.

Hugs,
David

p.s. – if you want more info…believe me, I’ve a ton. This entire campaign is based on lies and intentional misinterpretations! No Church can be sued any more than it can today (i.e. the Catholic Church will be no more required to perform gay marriages than they are required to marry divorcees today). And comparing polygamous marriage or under-age or sibling marriage as anything related to gay marriage in this proposition is somewhere between an intentional disingenuine straw man argument and a bold-faced LIE. It’s like condemning all people of faith because some zealots blow up buildings…!

I've heard from David since he sent his message went out; his loving family is still voting Yes on Proposition 8. It's ridiculous beyond any measure how his family, who says they love David, still want to deny him and others the rights they themselves enjoy simply because of whom David may want to marry. And in the process cause the so-called loving ties to be severed.

Is "tradition" so strong, so engraved, so entrenched that it is worth alienating those who you say you love?

While I may not be prepared to sever ties with family and friends on this issue I definitely understand the depth of his emotion.

Please, vote no on Proposition 8 in California. Or, vote No on Arizona's Proposition 102 and Florida's Proposition 2.

Like with all these postings, I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: Of Field Trips and Indoctrination

The "Yes on 8" campaign has recently taken issue with a field trip taken by a San Francisco Public School First Grade class to City Hall. See their side of the story ( http://tinyurl.com/49ec7n ) for their take on it. (Sorry, you'll have to cut and paste it; I simply do not want to drive traffic to their site.)

What they do not tell you in that story is:

• The field trip was the idea of a students parent.
  
• Like all field trips, the students needed parental permission to go.
• Only two families opted out of the field trip.

The Yes on 8 campaign tries to tell you that your children will be "indoctrinated" into thinking that gay marriage is the same as heterosexual marriage by such trips. That your children will be educated without your consent on the subject. And that's just a lie. Permission slips are required for field trips; parents can opt out of having their children included in the health discussions that would involve any discussion of marriage. Children aren't educated in a vacuum devoid of parental involvement.

(Why is "indoctrination" bad only when it isn't what you want indoctrinated?)

The Yes on 8 Campaign's Co-Manager, Frank Schubert, said "I doubt the school has ever taken kids on a field trip to a traditional wedding." Of course they haven't. Heterosexual marriages are commonplace; there's nothing educational, remarkable or otherwise noteworthy in them. However, for the first time in California's history, same-sex couples are getting legally married. That is a very noteworthy occurrence regardless of one's personal feelings on the matter of marriage.

(According to the original story in the San Francisco Chronicle the students had a personal relationship with the person getting married! It's not like the school trotted the class off to just any marriage ceremony. It was, indeed, a teachable moment.)

In their ridiculously slanted "story" the Yes on 8 campaign trots out Santa Ana Unified School District board member Rosemarie "Rosie" Avila who says,

"Prop. 8 protects our children from being taught in public schools that 'same-sex marriage' is the same as traditional marriage. We should not accept a court decision that results in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay. That is an issue for parents to discuss with their children according to their own values and beliefs. It shouldn't be forced on us against our will."

According to the California Secretary of State's webpage, Orange County (which is where Santa Ana is located) voted 60% for George W. Bush, Republican, in the 2004 General Election. San Francisco County voted 83% for John Kerry, Democrat. Clearly, Orange County is more conservative than San Francisco County. So, does the comparisons in school boards really hold up? I think not.

Surely, Ms. Avila knows that a field trip requires the parent's permission. And surely, she also knows that a parent can opt out

Asolutely nothing is preventing parents from taking an active role in the education of their children. Ms. Avila seems to ignore the facts and react only on her fears.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: "Valid" Marriages And Fear

If Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California") passes you can bet that there will be legal challenges to the legally performed same-sex marriages being currently performed in California. I'd wager that those challenges would take on the tone of:

"Well, it's in the constitution that your marriage isn't valid. So, the state should deny your benefits and privileges. I don't care if your marriage was performed in August 2008; the constitution says it isn't valid, so bugger off."

Though, I doubt they'd use the word "bugger".

Do you really want to have children dragged through the courts being told that the two people they call parents no longer have a valid marriage? Do you want children to have to be told in school that, yes, some same-sex marriages are legal but some aren't? Do you want to have to explain to your children the horrors of why same-sex marriage is illegal? Please. Think of the children.

Yes, I'm using a "fear" tactic to oppose Proposition 8; the same type of fear tactic that supporters use. I'm doing it to make a point. The "Yes on 8" seems to be solely based on fear; fear of what will happen to the children. However, they ignorantly don't realize that none of the fears they keep saying will happen are happening.

See, Gay Marriage is ALREADY LEGAL in California. And not ONE of the supposed "fears" the supporters bring up is happening.

Please, vote no on Proposition 8. It's for the children of this litigious society.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8: The Mormons' Hypocrisy

The Mormon church, for some bizarre reason, is vehemently against governments giving the same rights and privileges offered to gay couples as are offered to straight couples. I'm, of course, referring to Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") here in California. (I have another post which details a number of difficulties with that seemingly simple sentence.)

However, the Mormons must have to do a number of strangely contorted mental gymnastics to get around what their own scripture says. Specifically, Doctrine and Covenants 134:9, which reads:

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

How is the Mormon's use of their buildings, satellite networks (also this page from the Mormon Times) in any way not mingling their "religious influence with civil government"?? And before you say that there are no churches that support gay marriage you might want to check what the Metropolitan Community Church or the Universal Unitarian churches say on the issue. Surely, there are other "religious societies" which support same-sex marriage, or Marriage Equality.

On the positive side of things, there are a (probably small) number of Mormons who oppose Proposition 8. People in this and similar groups (such as these reasonable folks) risk being excommunicated from, disfellowshipped from, or otherwise punished by the church for publicly going against their church leaders.

The Doctrine and Covenants may call it "mingling religious influence"; I call it a downright totalitarian abuse of power.

I welcome your comments.

Proposition 8 in California

Next month, voters of California will either attempt to write discrimination into the state Constitution or keep discrimination out of it. Proposition 8.

Proposition 8 ("Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.") I think it is badly written, ambiguous, divisive, and on the wrong side of history.

First, it's nearly impossible to legally define "man" and "woman". It can't be done by mere appearance; there are many masculine-appearing women and feminine-appearing men. It can't be defined by which sex one self-identifies with; what's to stop someone from saying they feel like a man just to get married to her lesbian partner? It can't be done by inspecting genitalia; there are many pre-operative transsexuals and there are many female impersonators who have implants to heighten the illusion as well as other concerns. It can't be defined by who can and can't bear children or who does or does not produce sperm; does a woman who's had a hysterectomy suddenly become male or does a man who's been castrated suddenly become female? And, finally, it can't be decided by looking at chromosomes; women born with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome have XY chromosomes but in all other respects are female.

As a result, the proposed "amendment" is ambiguous in to whom it applies.

Besides, I can't think of *ANY* previous constitutional amendments that are specifically designed to *ELIMINATE* rights of a certain group.

Supporters of Prop 8 say that gay couples can have "domestic partnerships"; that's the same "separate but equal" argument used in segregation. There are many automatic rights and benefits granted by the government in a marriage but require a skilled lawyer for a domestic partnership--if they're even available to that domestic partnership. Separate is hardly *EVER* equal and it isn't in this case either.

Take, for example, the requirement that a domestic partnership requires the two people to live together. There is no such requirement for a marriage. And that's just one example.

Finally, Proposition 8 is on the "wrong side of history." Supporters claim that Proposition 8 only maintains "traditional" marriage. It was 'traditional' to deny women the right to vote. It was 'traditional' to keep slaves. It was 'traditional' to deny inter-racial marriage. Those traditions were wrong--they still are--and so is this 'tradition' of governments only offering certain benefits to heterosexual couples.

Prop 8 should be defeated. If they really want to "protect marriage" they should outlaw divorce.

I welcome your comments.

Kevin Trudeau's Two Magic Words

(This has become, by far, the single post popular post in any of my blogs or websites I've ever written. If you find the information here useful or amusing (or, anything, really) please feel free to leave a comment; I'd love to hear what y'all think. August 6, 2010)

A Review of Chapter 12 of Debt Cure$™ "They" Don't Want You to Know About.

If you've seen the infomercial for Kevin Trudeau's Debt Cure$™ book you're probably wondering what the "Two Magic Words" are. In the infomercial he claims that these Two Magic Words will clear up your credit almost overnight. If you're suspicious of such hyperbole, you should be.

First off, there aren't two magic words. There are eight of them. Or maybe six if you count an acronym as a word. So, right out of the proverbial starting gate, Mr. Trudeau has lied to you.

Discharged Debt

The first set of "magic" words are "Discharged Debt". How will using that with your creditor help clear your credit? Good question. But it only applies to those who (1) have declared bankruptcy, and (2) whose debts have been discharged by the court but not reported by the creditor to the credit agency.

Mr. Trudeau tells the story of one of his seemingly billions of friends, Dan Nolastname, who declared bankruptcy but never bothered to check his credit report after his debts were discharged by the court. the following year, he applied for a mortgage and, surprise, surprise, one of the debts hadn't been reported as discharged and was holding up the mortgage approval process. It seems to me that not checking your credit report (for free at www.annualcreditreport.com; do it now; I'll wait. ) after completing a bankruptcy proceeding would be about the smartest thing to do. And, who in their right mind would apply for such a big loan without first making sure the credit report was 100% accurate before hand?

"Dan Nolastname" paid the $9,500 debt he didn't owe just to get the mortgage going through. (He later sued the old creditor and got his $9,500 back as well as $14,000 in "fines and attorney fees".)

Regardless, this situation doesn't seem to me to be the fault of the creditor; it's Dan's fault for not making sure that all his discharged debt had been properly reported to the credit agencies. Due diligence, my friend; make sure there are no errors on your credit report. It's really that simple.

Identity Theft

The second set of "magic" words is "Identity Theft".

Mr. Trudeau tells an unprovable story of yet another among his seemingly billions of friends, Kurt. Kurt apparently had a $15,000 debt being reported by American Express to the credit agencies. Kurt apparently didn't have - and never had - any American Express account. Kurt then told "Customer Service", after having lawyers allegedly send letters saying the debt wasn't his, that he "must be the victim of identity theft."

And, "poof!", according to Kevin Trudeau, the debt was removed from the credit report. He never comes out and says that you should claim that any legitimate debt on your credit report isn't yours because of identity theft but why else include this section if it isn't at least implied. In fact, he says,

"If there is something on your credit report that is a total mystery, you need to tell the credit card company or the bank that it is just not yours! Two magic words = identity theft. You should be able to get immediate improvement!"

No admonition to check for why it's a "total mystery"; he just tells you that if you don't recognize it, you must have been the victim of identity theft! This seems to me to be nothing more than a thinly veiled suggestion that you claim identity theft on any debts you don't want to pay.

The Statute of Limitations

And the third set of "magic" words is "The SOL". What? He means "The Statute of Limitations". Which careful readers will note is actually four words.

If the Statute of Limitations is up on a debt, it can't be collected. (The Statute of Limitations varies from 3 years to 15 years depending on the type of debt and the state in which the debt agreement was entered.)

He appears to advocate just ignoring your debt until it just goes away. He says to call the debt "alleged" and to never admit (or pay a tiny amount of it) to anybody who calls or writes about it. And, while legal, it certainly isn't ethical. If you signed a contract to pay for something, it's your obligation to pay it.

Summary

The only real and good advice in all of Chapter 12 is "Stay on top of your affairs and you can head off problems a lot quicker." Surely, you don't need a 300+ page book to tell you that. Save your money; or borrow the book from the library like I did.

In my opinion, the best way to "get rid" of your debt is to pay it off. It's your ethical obligation to do so. Bankruptcy should be only used when severe unforeseen circumstances arise (death of a wage earner, etc.) which severely limit your ability to pay the debt you owe off. Above all, you should not enter into a debt contract if you know you don't have the means to pay it; that's lying and is utterly, completely wrong.

-----

For a review of the whole book, not just Chapter 12: Review of Kevin Trudeau's Debt Cures Book

Kevin Trudeau, in my opinion, offers absolutely nothing of value to anybody but himself. Ever. In anything he writes, says, does, thinks, or plans.

(While I'm not exactly sure what is trademarked (either "Debt Cures" or "Debt Cure$") it's owned by either Debt Cures, LLC (curiously, the copyright holder of the book) or Kevin Trudeau himself. Why set up an LLC? Well, it's a Limited Liability Company which, unless I'm wrong, means that the person or persons who set it up are not personally responsible for any of its debts or obligations. So, perhaps, another cure for your debt is to set up some sort of shell company, an LLC, and sink it into oblivion.)

On a related note: The FTC has banned Kevin Trudeau from Infomercials For Three Years, Ordered to Pay More Than $5 Million for False Claims About Weight-Loss Book.

September 14, 2010: On another related note: Judge Orders Kevin Trudeau to Pay More Than $37 Million for False Claims About Weight-Loss Book. Seems like Kevin can't keep his hands outta the cookie jar.