Thanks to a series of fortunate events, I was able to get some early Christmas gifts for Cris and myself:
And thanks to getting both; I was able to get to do a first hand comparison. Hopefully the contents of this post may prove useful to those considering getting the new Apple laptops.
Also pictures in the gallery
Read MoreHey, it was bound to come up in this blog right? Hahahaha!
So Proposition 8, in a nutshell is, quite frankly, one of those perfect examples why I think “religion” has no place in government policy. Lets be honest here, is there anything else that would make this sort of non-issue an issue? That shit is rooted in religious views no matter how you slice it. But again, I don’t say that religion should mind its own business because of it being “wrong” or “right” – but more of because religion is bound to give rise to conflict in any pluralistic society.
Proposition 8, taken from an article:
…aims to end same-sex marriage in California by amending the constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
While there certainly are nuances with regards to my stand on this, I’m interpreting “marriage” in this article in a “legal” context. If you can’t find the time to delineate the two, then that’s really not my problem. All the same, I’m going into “legal-union” (i.e. not sacrament) mode as far as this post goes.
I’ve been racking my brains trying to come up with a “reasonable” way of presenting how liberals differ from conservatives without resorting to the arrogant, presumptuous “we know more, because we experience more” argument.
I decided to write this “piece” because for one, I like these cerebral sorts of arguments. If you look at my past posts about similar topics (politics, religion, you name it), I try to exhaustively explain my thought process – because everything has a context, and if you are aware of the context, it’s easier to “understand.”
Before we begin, I’d like to invite you to watch the TED video I posted in the past – which discusses conservatives and liberals – and their dynamics in a society.
Both sides certainly have to exhibit a certain degree responsibility when interacting with the other – however, I will have to be honest in saying that from my observations, it’s always a matter of our side having to “water down” our actions. As far as I have seen, there has never been a case where the other side had to “compromise.” If ever they “did,” it was not nearly as close to the degree we’ve always had to exert. I guess such is the fate of minorities.
What bothers me though, is that even the mere “acceptance of things as they are” seems to be so far from what they are willing to do. Either we step in line with their views, or we are labeled as destructive forces in any social structure.
As such, I personally believe there should be a limit as to how far our side has to “bend” for the other – because God knows we’ve been bending enough. We bend any more and we would not be true to ourselves… we can’t have that now can we?
There is so much more we are capable of doing to truly be “fulfilled,” but we keep that in check because we know we’re in the minority. It would’ve been good if people simply accepted others as they were – lock stock and barrel. It would’ve been good to recognize that each individual has his or her own way of seeing/dealing with life. And while each of us are broken in our own way, each one of us also has something valuable to contribute – and that’s precisely because of who were are… not who we “try” or “want” or “ought” to be.
You may ask me why I’m so firm in my resolve – a resolve that, by conservative standards, may very well damn my soul to hell (an exaggeration of course, but you get the picture). The answer isn’t that complex at all, and I will attempt to show you in the form of a photograph. Read More