ps
I don't always write at coffee shops. But we don't have breakfast foods or coffee at the house, and I was hungry.
montana
Hey there, I am writing from Wild Joe's, a rather large coffee shop on Main street of Bozeman, Montana. This is my third time at this coffee shop, because it is one of the only place I can get free internet that is relatively close to where I am staying. But more on that later.
I landed Friday at 8:00pm, to freezing weather and a cozy airport. The airport had a fireplace in it. It was like landing at a log cabin. I would have landed four hours earlier had I not completely missed my flight. I got dropped off in front of LAX departures at 7:45am for a 8:39 flight. Yeah, what? The line was enormous, and the lack of communication from the airline was, uhm, made me want to rip my eye balls out with an ice pick. My flight was departing before I even got inside. Good thing it really didn't matter if I was late. It actually kind of worked out that I was running behind. Sure I missed out on the bachelorette activities, like sticking a toilet paper tube on the end of a plunger, and sharing embarrassing stories about the bride. Oh yeah, and then the whole thing about actually seeing the bride. But more of that to come later. Because I was running behind I got to enjoy a wonderful bowl of chili and the absolutely most delicious sweet potato fries that have ever been stuffed into my mouth. Seriously, incredible. I was at the Denver airport for a three hour layover. Everyone in Denver was really nice. It made me consider moving there. That was before I landed in Montana, where the city of Bozeman has the nicest people, the town was cute, and the snow covered mountain surrounding the fields and farms made me never want to leave. Working in the morning, and skiing in the afternoon. That sounds like the life! Except when you realize very few flights actually ever go directly out of Bozeman, and that might eventually get annoying, plus the knowing the name of everyone you pass on the street might be a double edged sword. After thinking this thought I then came to realize I pass the same people in San Francisco all the time. I guess it's just nice to be back in a place so fueled by the outdoors. It's refreshing. It's nice being away from the hustle and bustle. I have been to Montana twice before. Once when my mom and I drove all through the night in our Toyota van that looked like a space ship and a mouse combined, when I was considering going to school at the University of Montana. Missoula was a cool town. The second time my friend Matt and I took a road trip in the middle of summer. We stayed with Megan, went wakeboarding, and saw the movie Lara Craft. I remember that because we were waiting around for Megan to finish something up and that was the only movie playing at that time. She took us to Mackenzie River Pizza Company (which is more or less a block from where I am sitting at this moment). She took us floating down the river, which was my first experience of river floating, and on our way back got stopped in the middle of the road by a bunch of cattle that decided to stay put. That was a good trip.
This has been a great few days as well. My very dear friend was getting married. I bought my ticket without thinking twice, I wouldn't miss this for the world. A few other people from Washington came over. We were lucky enough to have people take care of us. Let us stay in a house all on our own. A great house actually, that despite the kitty who I swear was on coke, was in a perfect location. Close to downtown, close to the college campus, close to Safeway. And a giant food co op I have yet to go to, but I think I might before I leave. Because we didn't rent a car, and therefore had no form of transportation except for out feet, we got a very good view of the neighborhood. We walked up and down almost every block near us. Saw beautiful houses, beautiful dogs, a cool park, big icicles, and churches of every denomination. Also because we didn't have a car we visited Main street A LOT. We went to the same breakfast place twice. Nova Cafe. It's bad ass and delicious. Our hostess was from Santa Cruz, and was up here for the winter helping her sister who owns the place with her partner. It was pretty cool.
The bride was busy all week, so I understand not actually seeing her until the wedding, and even then she was busy visiting with everyone. That is ok though, because we will eventually get to hang out Im sure. It was nice seeing some people from school, and meeting new people. It was a great wedding, with a down home "country" "blue grass" band, and an open bar. Can't go wrong with that.
Overall I have loved my Montana adventure, but I a ready to not just be sitting around and shopping. Also, Im getting sick, waking up with green boogers and headaches. Ewe.
until next time!
I landed Friday at 8:00pm, to freezing weather and a cozy airport. The airport had a fireplace in it. It was like landing at a log cabin. I would have landed four hours earlier had I not completely missed my flight. I got dropped off in front of LAX departures at 7:45am for a 8:39 flight. Yeah, what? The line was enormous, and the lack of communication from the airline was, uhm, made me want to rip my eye balls out with an ice pick. My flight was departing before I even got inside. Good thing it really didn't matter if I was late. It actually kind of worked out that I was running behind. Sure I missed out on the bachelorette activities, like sticking a toilet paper tube on the end of a plunger, and sharing embarrassing stories about the bride. Oh yeah, and then the whole thing about actually seeing the bride. But more of that to come later. Because I was running behind I got to enjoy a wonderful bowl of chili and the absolutely most delicious sweet potato fries that have ever been stuffed into my mouth. Seriously, incredible. I was at the Denver airport for a three hour layover. Everyone in Denver was really nice. It made me consider moving there. That was before I landed in Montana, where the city of Bozeman has the nicest people, the town was cute, and the snow covered mountain surrounding the fields and farms made me never want to leave. Working in the morning, and skiing in the afternoon. That sounds like the life! Except when you realize very few flights actually ever go directly out of Bozeman, and that might eventually get annoying, plus the knowing the name of everyone you pass on the street might be a double edged sword. After thinking this thought I then came to realize I pass the same people in San Francisco all the time. I guess it's just nice to be back in a place so fueled by the outdoors. It's refreshing. It's nice being away from the hustle and bustle. I have been to Montana twice before. Once when my mom and I drove all through the night in our Toyota van that looked like a space ship and a mouse combined, when I was considering going to school at the University of Montana. Missoula was a cool town. The second time my friend Matt and I took a road trip in the middle of summer. We stayed with Megan, went wakeboarding, and saw the movie Lara Craft. I remember that because we were waiting around for Megan to finish something up and that was the only movie playing at that time. She took us to Mackenzie River Pizza Company (which is more or less a block from where I am sitting at this moment). She took us floating down the river, which was my first experience of river floating, and on our way back got stopped in the middle of the road by a bunch of cattle that decided to stay put. That was a good trip.
This has been a great few days as well. My very dear friend was getting married. I bought my ticket without thinking twice, I wouldn't miss this for the world. A few other people from Washington came over. We were lucky enough to have people take care of us. Let us stay in a house all on our own. A great house actually, that despite the kitty who I swear was on coke, was in a perfect location. Close to downtown, close to the college campus, close to Safeway. And a giant food co op I have yet to go to, but I think I might before I leave. Because we didn't rent a car, and therefore had no form of transportation except for out feet, we got a very good view of the neighborhood. We walked up and down almost every block near us. Saw beautiful houses, beautiful dogs, a cool park, big icicles, and churches of every denomination. Also because we didn't have a car we visited Main street A LOT. We went to the same breakfast place twice. Nova Cafe. It's bad ass and delicious. Our hostess was from Santa Cruz, and was up here for the winter helping her sister who owns the place with her partner. It was pretty cool.
The bride was busy all week, so I understand not actually seeing her until the wedding, and even then she was busy visiting with everyone. That is ok though, because we will eventually get to hang out Im sure. It was nice seeing some people from school, and meeting new people. It was a great wedding, with a down home "country" "blue grass" band, and an open bar. Can't go wrong with that.
Overall I have loved my Montana adventure, but I a ready to not just be sitting around and shopping. Also, Im getting sick, waking up with green boogers and headaches. Ewe.
until next time!
when do i get to vote on our marriage?
When you are done reading this article, here is another one.
The US does not sign decriminalization of homosexuality in UN declaration.
Prop 8 Inquisitors "Command" Court To "Bow"
By Jeffery Feldman
With arrogance worthy of the Spanish Inquisition, leaders of the anti-civil rights "Proposition 8" group filed a brief 'commanding' the California Supreme Court to 'bow' to their will and nullify 18,000 marriages. In other words, "Happy Holidays, California! And here's your gift: a great big shiny box of lives destroyed." Ah, good times.
Luckily, California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, filed his own brief asking that the court nullify Proposition 8 on the grounds that it extinguishes civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The first report comes from Lisa Leff at the Sacramento Bee:
SAN FRANCISCO -- The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions. The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing 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..."For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges - as servants of the people - to bow to the will of those whom they serve - even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened." (link)
I am no constitutional expert, but I am pretty sure that the the only time a legal brief counts as a commandment is when God writes it--on stone (see, e.g., The Bible).
The Los Angeles Times sums up the Attorney General's brief to the court and the subsequent rattling chains of the "Yes To 8" inquisitors:
In a surprise move, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate Proposition 8. He said the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage "deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution."
It is the attorney general's duty to defend the state's laws, and after gay rights activists filed legal challenges to Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Brown said he planned to defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.
But after studying the matter, Brown concluded that "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."
Backers of Proposition 8 expressed anger at Brown's decision not to honor the will of voters, who approved the measure in November. "It's outrageous,"said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8. (link)
What is sad in this exchange--or maybe frightening--is the total ignorance of U.S. constitutional democracy exhibited by the Prop 8 backers.
The idea that civil rights can be stripped by a simple majority plebescite is not just unethical, but actually violates the principles on which our system of government is based. First off, it is unconstitutional to pass laws that deprite citizens of rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution (e.g., equal protection), a basic point the Prop 8 folks do not seem to get. Second, the purpose of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitution as form of systemic balance to the other two branches of government--not to bow down to them.
The language of the 'Yes To 8' brief suggests that group see itself in a moral struggle not just to strip gay people of rights, but to mobilize public against the California judiciary.
Time will tell which effort will hold the day. However, I suspect there are few judges in California (or anywhere else) who respond well when lawyers 'command' them to 'bow' down. Come to think of it, nobody responds well. And when you think about it, that really is the point of this whole Prop 8 nonsense, is it not? Try to strip American citizens of their equal rights, and when that does not work: raise a bloody stink about the supposed despotic decline of the United States judicial system.
The US does not sign decriminalization of homosexuality in UN declaration.
Prop 8 Inquisitors "Command" Court To "Bow"
By Jeffery Feldman
With arrogance worthy of the Spanish Inquisition, leaders of the anti-civil rights "Proposition 8" group filed a brief 'commanding' the California Supreme Court to 'bow' to their will and nullify 18,000 marriages. In other words, "Happy Holidays, California! And here's your gift: a great big shiny box of lives destroyed." Ah, good times.
Luckily, California Attorney General, Jerry Brown, filed his own brief asking that the court nullify Proposition 8 on the grounds that it extinguishes civil rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
The first report comes from Lisa Leff at the Sacramento Bee:
SAN FRANCISCO -- The sponsors of Proposition 8 asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to nullify the marriages of the estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who exchanged vows before voters approved the ballot initiative that outlawed gay unions. The Yes on 8 campaign filed a brief arguing 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..."For this court to rule otherwise would be to tear asunder a lavish body of jurisprudence," the court papers state. "That body of decisional law commands judges - as servants of the people - to bow to the will of those whom they serve - even if the substantive result of what people have wrought in constitution-amending is deemed unenlightened." (link)
I am no constitutional expert, but I am pretty sure that the the only time a legal brief counts as a commandment is when God writes it--on stone (see, e.g., The Bible).
The Los Angeles Times sums up the Attorney General's brief to the court and the subsequent rattling chains of the "Yes To 8" inquisitors:
In a surprise move, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate Proposition 8. He said the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage "deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution."
It is the attorney general's duty to defend the state's laws, and after gay rights activists filed legal challenges to Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, Brown said he planned to defend the proposition as enacted by the people of California.
But after studying the matter, Brown concluded that "Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification."
Backers of Proposition 8 expressed anger at Brown's decision not to honor the will of voters, who approved the measure in November. "It's outrageous,"said Frank Schubert, campaign manager for Proposition 8. (link)
What is sad in this exchange--or maybe frightening--is the total ignorance of U.S. constitutional democracy exhibited by the Prop 8 backers.
The idea that civil rights can be stripped by a simple majority plebescite is not just unethical, but actually violates the principles on which our system of government is based. First off, it is unconstitutional to pass laws that deprite citizens of rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution (e.g., equal protection), a basic point the Prop 8 folks do not seem to get. Second, the purpose of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitution as form of systemic balance to the other two branches of government--not to bow down to them.
The language of the 'Yes To 8' brief suggests that group see itself in a moral struggle not just to strip gay people of rights, but to mobilize public against the California judiciary.
Time will tell which effort will hold the day. However, I suspect there are few judges in California (or anywhere else) who respond well when lawyers 'command' them to 'bow' down. Come to think of it, nobody responds well. And when you think about it, that really is the point of this whole Prop 8 nonsense, is it not? Try to strip American citizens of their equal rights, and when that does not work: raise a bloody stink about the supposed despotic decline of the United States judicial system.
so, Im at this cafe - 2
Different cafe, same title. So, what do you do when you know some sort of support group is meeting, but you can't figure out what the group is for? I've been sitting here for over an hour overhearing...ok, listening intently (they're lives are obviously more interesting than what's going on in mine), to four people. Two women to men. A thin blonde women, whine about how her mother didn't make her a baby book, how her older brothers picked on her, and how she used to be 200 lbs. At this moment Im thinking, well, maybe its a weight loss group. But the beautiful dark haired younger women across the table opens up something about a psych ward. Hmm? The blonde woman then continues to ask the cute white boy of his three temptations. Of what though, of what??? I couldn't hear hear the actual subject of the said temptations. At this point Im feeling a little sneaky. Maybe I should put my headphones in. But I don't. I consider alcoholism, but two of them are drinking wine. Crap, Im still confused. They are comparing first borns to babies, to middle children. Maybe birth order has something to do with the reason they all are in this support group. As I get ready to pack up my stuff the begin talking about a book the blonde one had received for Christmas from a relative. The one by Carrie Fisher. Funny, I actually read a review about that book a few weeks ago. Anyway, they then go on to talk about other books they have gotten regarding bi-polar disorder. Shit, now I feel like an ass.
And the answer to the question I posed earlier. ... You stop listening. It's none of your damn business.
And the answer to the question I posed earlier. ... You stop listening. It's none of your damn business.
left or right
I went for a hike this weekend. Weather.com called for rain, and they were right, but only for about ten minutes. After that, the clouds opened up and it was sunny and crisp all day. Perfect hiking weather. We headed out from Berkeley, towards Stinson Beach. It really was beautiful. We drove for what seemed like miles and miles before we finally found the unmarked junction turn off. At this point in the adventure I would like to pause and wonder aloud, what exactly makes a road, a junction? This is odd because to me at some point this meant that this totally small little gravelly (yes I said gravelly) road was bigger, or used more than it is now. Because why isn't it just called a road, or a street, or court, or lane? Nope, its a junction. An unmarked junction actually. Anyway, we turned left and past the most quaint, cutest, and marvelous town. With one elementary school, one fire station, and one skate park. We also passed lots of cows, and horses, and weird huge tall wire tipi looking things used by the US coast guard. Don't ask don't tell?
We finally got to the trailhead. The trail we were planning on hiking was, The Coast Trail from Palomarin Trailhead to Alamere Falls. Yeah, waterfalls, going into the ocean. Mmm, pertty. Not too long after we began the hike we came to a T. We could go left, to follow the Coast Trail. Or go Right to follow some other trail. For some reason at that very moment, we all agreed to go right. The trail name (I forget what it was), sounded more correct than the actual trail we were supposed to be on. We had obviously forgotten the name of the correct trail. Also, we why thought it was a good idea to go away from the ocean is beyond me.
So we continued on. Hiked and hiked and hiked. A lot of uphill, no lakes or waterfalls. As it was getting late we began to get suspicious. So under this beautiful canopy of trees we pulled out the map. ... Fuck ... We were supposed to take a left. For some reason this was funnier than normal, considering we only had to make ONE decision the entire hike. Left or right? And we chose the wrong one.
It was a great day of fresh air, and beautiful views. Hopefully I will hike to those falls at some point. Below are photos. Woohoo!
We could actually see the city, and Sutro tower from here. Sweet.
We finally got to the trailhead. The trail we were planning on hiking was, The Coast Trail from Palomarin Trailhead to Alamere Falls. Yeah, waterfalls, going into the ocean. Mmm, pertty. Not too long after we began the hike we came to a T. We could go left, to follow the Coast Trail. Or go Right to follow some other trail. For some reason at that very moment, we all agreed to go right. The trail name (I forget what it was), sounded more correct than the actual trail we were supposed to be on. We had obviously forgotten the name of the correct trail. Also, we why thought it was a good idea to go away from the ocean is beyond me.
So we continued on. Hiked and hiked and hiked. A lot of uphill, no lakes or waterfalls. As it was getting late we began to get suspicious. So under this beautiful canopy of trees we pulled out the map. ... Fuck ... We were supposed to take a left. For some reason this was funnier than normal, considering we only had to make ONE decision the entire hike. Left or right? And we chose the wrong one.
It was a great day of fresh air, and beautiful views. Hopefully I will hike to those falls at some point. Below are photos. Woohoo!
We could actually see the city, and Sutro tower from here. Sweet. 
so Im at this cafe
There is a cafe about two blocks from my house. I like it because it is close. It has beer. It has wine. It has coffee. It has food. I like it because half is indoors, half is outdoors. That's nice on a cool but not cold evening. They have live music. They have cool art. This sucks because his type of place attracts a certain type of person. ----> It is not uncommon to see people holding a joint and passing around to the 70 year old sitting next to them. Because of all these things it also attracts people, who I wonder do anything else in life besides smoke cigarettes, roll joints, drink beer, and tie the laces of their couture shoes they really can't afford, but they are filing bankruptcy in a few years anyway, so why does it matter. Woah, that was really harsh and judgmental. And they could be saying the same thing about me, and my collared shirt, Chrome bag, and choice of beer selection (speakeasy). Yes, true. Maybe it is me making me feel better about myself, but I would like to think that I will do something more than act like an artist. Yeah, I said it. I am bringing up this issue. I am hesitant to people who are "artists". People, who in my experience, mean well, but when you get down to the knitty gritty of it are nothing more than what you see. Beer and piercings.
Im sure this is a lie, and my neighbor who all I ever see doing (drinking and drugs) is just a cover up for the successful driven artist she says she is going to be. Ok, there is me being judgmental again. Every person, lives the life they want to live, more or less, because they see things appropriate or not, what makes them happy or not. All of this makes the world go round. If everyone were the same this world would be a pretty boring place. How about instead of being judgmental I call it observant.
I do respect artists, and talented creatives. Those of which who seem to drive to be more than what they are, and are willing to work hard to get where they want to be. I find these people tend to have balance.
Anyway, I guess my point is everything in moderation. And as far as the cafe, I will continue to come because it is close to my house. Even though when I arrive home at night my clothes smell of Camels and Marlboro.
Oh, and they have free internet. Word.
Im sure this is a lie, and my neighbor who all I ever see doing (drinking and drugs) is just a cover up for the successful driven artist she says she is going to be. Ok, there is me being judgmental again. Every person, lives the life they want to live, more or less, because they see things appropriate or not, what makes them happy or not. All of this makes the world go round. If everyone were the same this world would be a pretty boring place. How about instead of being judgmental I call it observant.
I do respect artists, and talented creatives. Those of which who seem to drive to be more than what they are, and are willing to work hard to get where they want to be. I find these people tend to have balance.
Anyway, I guess my point is everything in moderation. And as far as the cafe, I will continue to come because it is close to my house. Even though when I arrive home at night my clothes smell of Camels and Marlboro.
Oh, and they have free internet. Word.
ugly sweater parties
Too bad I had no energy and was a complete downer. I did discover however, that my phone has a flash. Sweet.
The music was awesome. I want to hire the dj.
Ugly Sweaters
This box was in the corner. Do you think they meant to spell it like this?
The party was more crowded than this at some point. For some reason I was obsessed with the mirror and green lights.
The music was awesome. I want to hire the dj.
Ugly Sweaters
This box was in the corner. Do you think they meant to spell it like this?
The party was more crowded than this at some point. For some reason I was obsessed with the mirror and green lights.
i went photo crazy
My friend and I visited the Marina this past Saturday. It was pretty outside. Wintery, but pretty. Like always, it was nice to get out of the mission. Besides the pricey shopping the Marina offered up a few surprises this particular Saturday. It was the first weekend in December, so holiday festivities were abound. Some unucky fellow was walking around in an enormous Jelly Belly outfit handing our free candy. There was a pony giving children rides. There was free popcorn. Pirate holiday clowns face painting. There was even an ice princess. And, when I thought it couldn't get any better, there was some old guy pushing around what looked like a toy shopping cart (because it was all plastic), with a 3 foot tall toy santa in the basket. He walked into a radio shack. What? Im sure these events really aren't much for the reader, but in a day that was just supposed to be a nice fresh air day out of the Mission, turned into a very unexpected but pleasant day of events.
I guess the randomness was also supported by the fact that I ran into three different people that afternoon that I knew. Three people that are in complete separate circles, we just happened to be at the right places at the right time. It was cool.
I guess the randomness was also supported by the fact that I ran into three different people that afternoon that I knew. Three people that are in complete separate circles, we just happened to be at the right places at the right time. It was cool.
i bought a paper this morning
It took me to the end of the day to actually read the entire paper. Between the person moving very very slowly through the BART gates, to the multiple red stop hands stopping me from continuing across the street, I read the damn thing. Ok, I skimmed some. Like the praising of the 49ers for actually winning a game. And of course, for their opportunity to gush sake, it had to be Farve and his Jets. Whatever. Hey red and gold, you suck. You do. No amount of cheering and hooraying for this one particular fluke is going to change the fact that you are weak. So, stop picking up the stones and kicking the dirt in the face of the future hall of famer. You got lucky.
Continuing on to one of the articles I actually did read. Ok, opinion piece, but still. It was about EHarmony.com and how they settled. I completely agree with Mr. Lakely here, and with someone that commented on his piece saying, "I'm just waiting for heterosexuals and Christians to file lawsuits against gay match-making services so that they will have their own categories. According to this precedence, they will have every right to do so because you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual or religious orientation. Pretty soon, everyone will be filing lawsuits against everyone else." And another comment. "And if none of this idiot's matches work out, let me guess, he'll sue."
Seriously though, as much as Mr. McKinley maybe wanted to prove a point (which Im not saying that was his actual motive, but may have something to do with the fact that eHarmony was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren, who had ties with the conservative group Focus on the Family, just a guess. ), this is not the way to do it.
Read opinion piece below.
EHarmony settlement erodes everyone's freedom
James G. Lakely
Monday, December 8, 2008
The decision by EHarmony to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit last month by creating a same-sex matchmaking service is no victory for justice. It did nothing less than allow government to take away the freedom of entrepreneurs to establish and stick to their own business plans.
In 2005, Eric McKinley logged onto EHarmony's matchmaking service, and was troubled to learn that the Web site did not offer him the option of "male seeking male." McKinley promptly filed a complaint with the New Jersey Attorney General's Civil Rights Division, which picked up the case, accusing EHarmony of discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Instead of continuing to fight the government - which enjoys limitless public resources and can afford to litigate indefinitely - EHarmony decided to submit. That result should trouble anyone who values liberty, no matter where one stands on gay rights.
Simply put, EHarmony did not discriminate against McKinley - if the definition of "discrimination" is to have a meaning tethered to a modicum of common sense.
McKinley was not barred from signing up for the dating service as, for instance, blacks were barred from sitting down at whites-only lunch counters in the Jim Crow South. EHarmony simply didn't provide the service McKinley wanted: male-male matchmaking.
EHarmony's business plan was focused on what it spent enormous sums of money to research - the key components of male-female partnerships. Demanding that EHarmony accommodate same-sex clients is akin to walking into an Asian grocery store, discovering they don't have kosher meat, and suing for religious discrimination.
The issue here is freedom - specifically, economic freedom and the freedom of association. EHarmony, like any private entity or individual, has the fundamental right to associate with whomever they choose so long as no one else's rights are violated.
The Web-based matchmaking marketplace is virtually limitless, providing many online options to suit all kinds of people's needs. In fact, in the wake of a similar suit filed in California in 2007, a competing dating service (chemistry.com) started running ads criticizing EHarmony for not matching up same-sex couples.
That's how these things should be settled - in a free-market forum that protects the liberty of EHarmony to retain its business plan and different dating sites to retain theirs. The disturbing precedent set in this case logically opens up same-sex matchmaking services to frivolous but expensive lawsuits from troublemaking heterosexual clients.
That destructive road was opened because government gets very little push-back when it erodes, little by little, our constitutional freedoms.
James G. Lakely is managing editor of Infotech & Telecom News, a publication of the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Ill. To comment, e-mail him at jlakely@heartland.org.
This article appeared on page B - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Continuing on to one of the articles I actually did read. Ok, opinion piece, but still. It was about EHarmony.com and how they settled. I completely agree with Mr. Lakely here, and with someone that commented on his piece saying, "I'm just waiting for heterosexuals and Christians to file lawsuits against gay match-making services so that they will have their own categories. According to this precedence, they will have every right to do so because you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual or religious orientation. Pretty soon, everyone will be filing lawsuits against everyone else." And another comment. "And if none of this idiot's matches work out, let me guess, he'll sue."
Seriously though, as much as Mr. McKinley maybe wanted to prove a point (which Im not saying that was his actual motive, but may have something to do with the fact that eHarmony was founded by Dr. Neil Clark Warren, who had ties with the conservative group Focus on the Family, just a guess. ), this is not the way to do it.
Read opinion piece below.
EHarmony settlement erodes everyone's freedom
James G. Lakely
Monday, December 8, 2008
The decision by EHarmony to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit last month by creating a same-sex matchmaking service is no victory for justice. It did nothing less than allow government to take away the freedom of entrepreneurs to establish and stick to their own business plans.
In 2005, Eric McKinley logged onto EHarmony's matchmaking service, and was troubled to learn that the Web site did not offer him the option of "male seeking male." McKinley promptly filed a complaint with the New Jersey Attorney General's Civil Rights Division, which picked up the case, accusing EHarmony of discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Instead of continuing to fight the government - which enjoys limitless public resources and can afford to litigate indefinitely - EHarmony decided to submit. That result should trouble anyone who values liberty, no matter where one stands on gay rights.
Simply put, EHarmony did not discriminate against McKinley - if the definition of "discrimination" is to have a meaning tethered to a modicum of common sense.
McKinley was not barred from signing up for the dating service as, for instance, blacks were barred from sitting down at whites-only lunch counters in the Jim Crow South. EHarmony simply didn't provide the service McKinley wanted: male-male matchmaking.
EHarmony's business plan was focused on what it spent enormous sums of money to research - the key components of male-female partnerships. Demanding that EHarmony accommodate same-sex clients is akin to walking into an Asian grocery store, discovering they don't have kosher meat, and suing for religious discrimination.
The issue here is freedom - specifically, economic freedom and the freedom of association. EHarmony, like any private entity or individual, has the fundamental right to associate with whomever they choose so long as no one else's rights are violated.
The Web-based matchmaking marketplace is virtually limitless, providing many online options to suit all kinds of people's needs. In fact, in the wake of a similar suit filed in California in 2007, a competing dating service (chemistry.com) started running ads criticizing EHarmony for not matching up same-sex couples.
That's how these things should be settled - in a free-market forum that protects the liberty of EHarmony to retain its business plan and different dating sites to retain theirs. The disturbing precedent set in this case logically opens up same-sex matchmaking services to frivolous but expensive lawsuits from troublemaking heterosexual clients.
That destructive road was opened because government gets very little push-back when it erodes, little by little, our constitutional freedoms.
James G. Lakely is managing editor of Infotech & Telecom News, a publication of the Heartland Institute in Chicago, Ill. To comment, e-mail him at jlakely@heartland.org.
This article appeared on page B - 5 of the San Francisco Chronicle
please, insert foot in mouth, now
I wrote a post about my opinion on the current Starbucks situation a few days ago. I went there this morning, to a different shop than I spoke about (there are four in close proximity to my work). After I told him my drink he said, "Hey, what's your name again?" I told him, and he said, "Oh, that's right. You go to the other shop as well right?" I said yes. He replied, "Hi, I'm Jerome, nice to meet you. I am the manager for both stores."
He was so nice, and made me smile so much. Im not going to stick my foot in my mouth too far, but he did make me choke a little bit. Nice work Jerome.
He was so nice, and made me smile so much. Im not going to stick my foot in my mouth too far, but he did make me choke a little bit. Nice work Jerome.
watch this
Besides practically making me pee my pants, this couldn't be closer to the truth.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
a good Sunday afternoon
One of the reasons I love San Francisco. The awesome view from Medjool. An overpriced gem, but a gem none the less, in the middle of the mission. I suppose you are paying for the view. Which is fine with me. I had no idea there was a hostel in the same building. When I move away and don't know anyone in this city anymore I wouldn't mind staying there.
want to sit down?
I was riding BART home the other day. It wasn't a particularly crowded day, but all the seats were taken. I was sitting near the doors, which I usually do, not sure why, I just always have. A women got on, who I thought was pregnant. Not super preggo, but had a little baby bump. I took out my head phones and said, "Hi, would you like to sit down?" As I stood up. She gave me a look and said, "No thanks." Yeah, pretty sure she was not pregnant. Oops. I felt like and ass.
skinny?
I've basically come to the end of my rope with Starbucks. What used to be the Cadillac of coffee, is now the McDonalds of convenience. With any store or service you will run into great employees, and horrible ones. People that always have a smile on their face, to people who frown at every sunny day. This consistent inconsistency of employee attitudes is not my problem with the bucks, that's the person not the company. My issue with the coffee shop is with how "non-bucks" it has become.
The hand-crafted drinks they promise to remake until they are exactly how YOU ordered it, are now just any other thing that can be mass manufactured from an assembly line. I blame this on two things. One being that us as customers can sometimes be way too impatient, and way too needy. Less compromising, less kind to the person in front or behind us, and easy to jump on any drink that hops on the counter, even though it is obvious to everyone else that yours is up about ten drinks later. The one with no foam, not extra foam. Perhaps us customers should really slow down and listen. The second thing is that I feel the philosophy of the entire company has changed. This may be a totally jaded opinion, but it feel it none the less. Starbucks almost used to be like a get away. Like a special treat. Not mass manufactured. I have used that saying twice now because to me it feels like the drinks come with no love, no care, no uniqueness, just the name. Perhaps this view is partly because we as a whole have just become an entire coffee nation. With any ol shop popping up on any open corner. Not just Starbucks. Maybe the entire coffee culture has become too regular, too much of our everyday. But then again I don't think this is entirely true because people have been drinking coffee forever, and they are still drinking it. What Starbucks did was create an atmosphere, and thing about it. They created a culture for better coffee, for the elite of coffee. They taught us to expect the best, and not settle for less with our espresso. So, because of this I feel like my complete disappointment is warranted. If they had not made a to do about it in the first place I would have no reason to be disappointed, but when you teach your customers something, then start to not believe in it or deliver it yourself, you can expect to be dropped.
I am not bashing Starbucks by any means, but this comes from trends I have seen with them in the past few years. They have closed shops for barista training. Offered incentives for customers. Tried to bump up their customer service. Closed shops for good and fired employees. I feel like they are trying to get back to their roots, but are failing. For one it starts with hiring the right people. Not just any joe blow that walks off the street. I appreciate that they are an equal opportunity employer, and that they provide benefits for part time employees, but that does not mean management should settle for less than best service. Be fair, but be right. I have ran into really great baristas and really frustrated baristas. Baristas who almost make you feel as though they are doing you a favor by getting you what you ask for. Then baristas who are so very sweet they will go over and above to make sure you have a great experience. There are people on either ends of the spectrum in every industry, everywhere. But, to a company that seems to pride itself on being the best, I would expect that they keep a better handle on who they hire to represent them.
For a long time it was hard for me to go to any place else besides Starbucks, but now I almost never want to go there. I guess it is all up to preference. And since exploring other coffee shops around I have found many other great places to get my morning kick. What sparked me in writing this was the other morning I went into Starbucks. I wanted a Grande, NF, Sugar-free Vanilla Latte. Not that hard of a request compared to others i've overheard. The girl behind the counter in the forrest green apron said, a skinny? I said, a NF, SF Vanilla Latte. She said, we call them skinny here. Uhm, excuse me? First of all, I have been coming to this particular shop forever now, and since when do they call this drink that I get everytime a skinny? And even so, I don't care. You know what I want, write it on the cup, punch it in, and make it. It doesn't matter to me what you call it behind the bar to make it easier to make, call it skinny, call it fat, I don't care, but do not try and correct me. If they want people to know the new lingo then they should print an enormous billboard over the shop that says, please order like this, other wise we will not serve you, we will make you feel stupid that you don't know how to order our insanely difficult beverages. Whatever happened to the customer is always right. It's not like I said, "Hey, coffee, now, in one of those medium sized cups, with half hazelnut, 3 packets sugar, and one teaspoon non-fat milk." I was nice, said please and thank you, and would expect the same from you.
This had never happened to me before, so Im assuming they had a meeting and got talked to by their manager saying they really wanted everyone to try and use the "correct" ordering lingo. This is all fine and well, but there is no need to be an ass about it. Just in case you find yourself in this same predicament google "Starbucks Lingo" and you will be overwhelmed with what you find.
I admit anything can get old after awhile, especially if you have it a lot. Change is good. Maybe I am being to harsh. Or, maybe not.
The hand-crafted drinks they promise to remake until they are exactly how YOU ordered it, are now just any other thing that can be mass manufactured from an assembly line. I blame this on two things. One being that us as customers can sometimes be way too impatient, and way too needy. Less compromising, less kind to the person in front or behind us, and easy to jump on any drink that hops on the counter, even though it is obvious to everyone else that yours is up about ten drinks later. The one with no foam, not extra foam. Perhaps us customers should really slow down and listen. The second thing is that I feel the philosophy of the entire company has changed. This may be a totally jaded opinion, but it feel it none the less. Starbucks almost used to be like a get away. Like a special treat. Not mass manufactured. I have used that saying twice now because to me it feels like the drinks come with no love, no care, no uniqueness, just the name. Perhaps this view is partly because we as a whole have just become an entire coffee nation. With any ol shop popping up on any open corner. Not just Starbucks. Maybe the entire coffee culture has become too regular, too much of our everyday. But then again I don't think this is entirely true because people have been drinking coffee forever, and they are still drinking it. What Starbucks did was create an atmosphere, and thing about it. They created a culture for better coffee, for the elite of coffee. They taught us to expect the best, and not settle for less with our espresso. So, because of this I feel like my complete disappointment is warranted. If they had not made a to do about it in the first place I would have no reason to be disappointed, but when you teach your customers something, then start to not believe in it or deliver it yourself, you can expect to be dropped.
I am not bashing Starbucks by any means, but this comes from trends I have seen with them in the past few years. They have closed shops for barista training. Offered incentives for customers. Tried to bump up their customer service. Closed shops for good and fired employees. I feel like they are trying to get back to their roots, but are failing. For one it starts with hiring the right people. Not just any joe blow that walks off the street. I appreciate that they are an equal opportunity employer, and that they provide benefits for part time employees, but that does not mean management should settle for less than best service. Be fair, but be right. I have ran into really great baristas and really frustrated baristas. Baristas who almost make you feel as though they are doing you a favor by getting you what you ask for. Then baristas who are so very sweet they will go over and above to make sure you have a great experience. There are people on either ends of the spectrum in every industry, everywhere. But, to a company that seems to pride itself on being the best, I would expect that they keep a better handle on who they hire to represent them.
For a long time it was hard for me to go to any place else besides Starbucks, but now I almost never want to go there. I guess it is all up to preference. And since exploring other coffee shops around I have found many other great places to get my morning kick. What sparked me in writing this was the other morning I went into Starbucks. I wanted a Grande, NF, Sugar-free Vanilla Latte. Not that hard of a request compared to others i've overheard. The girl behind the counter in the forrest green apron said, a skinny? I said, a NF, SF Vanilla Latte. She said, we call them skinny here. Uhm, excuse me? First of all, I have been coming to this particular shop forever now, and since when do they call this drink that I get everytime a skinny? And even so, I don't care. You know what I want, write it on the cup, punch it in, and make it. It doesn't matter to me what you call it behind the bar to make it easier to make, call it skinny, call it fat, I don't care, but do not try and correct me. If they want people to know the new lingo then they should print an enormous billboard over the shop that says, please order like this, other wise we will not serve you, we will make you feel stupid that you don't know how to order our insanely difficult beverages. Whatever happened to the customer is always right. It's not like I said, "Hey, coffee, now, in one of those medium sized cups, with half hazelnut, 3 packets sugar, and one teaspoon non-fat milk." I was nice, said please and thank you, and would expect the same from you.
This had never happened to me before, so Im assuming they had a meeting and got talked to by their manager saying they really wanted everyone to try and use the "correct" ordering lingo. This is all fine and well, but there is no need to be an ass about it. Just in case you find yourself in this same predicament google "Starbucks Lingo" and you will be overwhelmed with what you find.
I admit anything can get old after awhile, especially if you have it a lot. Change is good. Maybe I am being to harsh. Or, maybe not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)