S. . .S. . .S. . .

Paul Allen and Bill Gates, 1981

Beth Crowley, Boston

No, the international Morse code distress symbol is . . .  — — — . . .  The above stands not for SOS but for “Scottsdale, Seattle, San Francisco.”  That’s where I’ve been since last Saturday.  Not complaining mind you, certainly not with all that’s been going on back home in the East.  That’s the Northeast United States and the Eastern Mediterranean.  Who would have thought five feet of snow on the ground in Boston (still counting) and feats of immeasurable depth in the Mediterranean basin? 

Khalil Hanmra, Associated Press

What is the world coming to?  More importantly, where is it headed?  I have absolutely no idea, which I’m pretty sure puts me in the distinguished company of its governments, journalists, and wags.  Then again, perhaps I didn’t catch their prediction that the most dangerous, volatile region in the world would be turned upside down in a matter of hours by Facebook and Twitter.  Seems reminiscent of that Humpty Dumpty 1989 Berlin moment when an utterly surprised world chanted together, “Wall?  Coming down?  What Wall?”

We are witness to an Internet revolution in every sense of the phrase.  And here I am, on a serendipitous pilgrimage to the holiest sites of its enabling: Seattle and its environs (Microsoft calls neighboring Redmond home) and the San Francisco Bay area with not only Silicon Valley but the Stanford Research Institute that on October 29, 1969 received the first Internet message ever (the two letters “LO” out of an attempt to send “LOGIN”) out of Los Angeles—the next stop on my Revelation book tour. 

Log noting first Internet message, originating out of U.C.L.A.

As for Scottsdale’s role in all this history, well, let’s just say it’s home to GoDaddy, today’s largest Internet domain registrar business…and a television sponsor on this Sunday’s broadcast of the Super Bowl—GO STEELERS (just had to sneak that in). 

Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin West

Not Frank Lloyd Wright

But these cities are known for a lot more, and with good reason.  Each has its own unique beauty and character.  Frank Lloyd Wright set up his “winter camp” in Scottsdale in 1937, now called Taliesin West, and forever changed this conservative region’s architecture.  Seattle is known for its many beautiful views, liberal thoughts, and musical groups but is Mecca to coffee addicts everywhere and home to the very first shop of the “Microsoft” of the coffee world: Starbucks.  Let us bow our heads and give thanks.

Original Starbucks, Pike Place Market, Seattle

Lombard Street, San Francisco

And then there is San Francisco.  What is there to say about this place that imagination has not already captured?   There is its beauty, its pace, its openness.  It is unique in all the glorious connotations of the word.  It also has a terrific Greek restaurant, Kokkari, where I will be having dinner with friends from Mykonos and elsewhere when this post goes up Saturday morning at 12:05 AM, Eastern Standard Time.  Hopefully, I’ll be awake in time to make my 2 PM signing at M is For Mystery in San Mateo. 

After all, book tours should be joyful pilgrimages.  See you in LA.

Jeff ­— Saturday

Kamala Harris Elected Attorney General of California

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, in front of City Hall on November 12, 2008 who filed for 2010 campaign for Attorney General.
---Photo by Mona T. Brooks / monabrooks.com

from the L.A. Weekly

Kamala Harris Defeats Steve Cooley For California Attorney General

We've been saying for a while that the math didn't look good for Steve Cooley. But now we can go ahead and make it official.

Steve Cooley has lost. Kamala Harris will be the next attorney general of California.

Out of an abundance of laziness caution, we've held off until now. But we're getting tired of waiting for the AP to call this thing, and Eric Garcetti has already beaten us to the punch anyway.

A mathematical explanation/justification after the jump.

The Secretary of State's office has been keeping track of the uncounted ballots on its website. That report lists 394,000 untabulated votes as of this morning, but that's out of date. There are no more than 154,000 ballots remaining, and there are probably less. Update at 2:50 p.m.: With updates from four counties, there are now 124,000 ballots left, at most. (Explanation below.)

The county websites have more up-to-date figures in some cases than the Secretary of State. Using those numbers, we can say that Harris is leading by 49,535 votes. (2:50 update: 51,141 votes.) Given the geographic breakdown of the remaining uncounted ballots, we expect her to expand her lead by another 10,000 votes or so, ending up with a margin of six tenths of a percent (46.0-45.4).

In order to win the race, Cooley would have to win the remaining uncounted votes by a margin of 66-26. (Update at 2:50: Cooley would now have to win by 72-20.) The likelihood of that happening is extremely close to zero. One of his best counties was Orange County, and his margin there was only 60-31.

​If we knew nothing about the remaining ballots, you might say that Cooley has at least a chance. But we do know where the ballots are coming from -- they're mostly from counties that favored Harris -- and we know that they're mostly provisionals, which have also favored Harris.

We'd expect Harris to win the remaining votes by a tally of about 50-42. That's just based on geography and doesn't factor in her advantage from provisionals.

We now have much more information about how this race will end up than the AP and the L.A. Times did when they called the governor's race for Jerry Brown at the stroke of 8 p.m. on Election Night.

It's time to call it. Harris has won.

Congratulations, Ms. Harris. Job well done.

So Totally Pumped! These two pieces accepted in Randy Higbee's 6 Squared Show!!!

Soooo...off to Costa Mesa CA for these two little 6x6 inch oil pieces. They will be shown in some amazing company for sure! (http://www.randyhigbeegallery.com/Home.html) Opening night December 4th...show hangs till December 23rd...be there and get squared!!!

The March toward Marriage Equality

When Proposition 8, the amendment to the California Constitution limiting marriage to a man and a woman, passed, it did so by a rather narrow margin -- 52% to 48%.  Opponents to same sex marriage received tremendous financial support from religious groups, especially the Mormon Church.  This amendment served as a response to an earlier California Supreme Court ruling that overturned bans on same gender marriage because they were inherently discriminatory and akin to bans on interracial marriage, which had been overturned in California by the Courts.  What is interesting about California is that it's easier to amend the constitution than pass a budget, and so needing only a simple majority, the voters reversed the court ruling.  That effort led to efforts to overturn the California law by taking it to federal court and arguing that this ban stands contrary to the "Equal Protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Leading the challengers to the law was an interesting pair of attorneys -- two men who faced off against each other in 2000 before the Supreme Court.  The issue then was the 2000 Presidential Election, a case in which the Supreme Court stepped in and ended Florida recounts and handing the election to George W. Bush, even though Al Gore had won the popular vote.  Maybe you remember that.  Anyway, Theodore Olson, Bush's lead attorney in that case, would go on to be Solicitor General -- the position that Elena Kagan held until receiving confirmation yesterday as our next Supreme Court Justice.  Olson is a conservative, a republican, and an advocate for gay marriage!  Sometime back he wrote an important op-ed piece in which he argued for a "conservative case for same sex marriage."   In that piece he wrote:

When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.

So, earlier this week, arguing for the opponents to Prop. 8, his position was vindicated by the Court, when Federal Judge Vaughn Walker argued in his ruling that that tradition alone, including the presupposition that marriage fosters procreation,  is not sufficient to deny rights to one segment of society that is not accorded to another.  

I know that there will be much outcry about activist courts that overrule the will of the people.  Remember, however, that it was the "will of the people" that banned interracial marriage.  It wasn't the legislatures that overturned that discriminatory practice, but the Courts.   It was the will of the people that segregated buses, lunch counters, and schools.  It wasn't legislation that overturned these discriminatory practices, it was the Courts (only afterwards did the Civil Rights legislation get passed to affirm what the courts had already deemed appropriate). 

More important than the initial effects of this ruling are the longer term ones.  Remember that in that earlier election, the vote was rather close -- just a 4 point margin.   While California is considered more liberal than most states, there large swaths of the state that are fairly conservative.  In addition, the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon Church have significant presences and they both actively backed Prop 8.  In addition, while Latinos and African Americans tend to vote Democratic, they also tend to be social conservatives.  Finally, while the trend in 2008 led to the amendment, recent polls suggest that the wind is at the back of those who support same gender marriage.  So, what's next?

Obviously this will be appealed, and expect it to go all the way to the Supreme Court.  My sense is that the Appeals Court will sustain the District Court judges ruling.  What will be interesting is whether the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case.  It may not choose to do so.  If it does choose to rule, then the question is -- where will Anthony Kennedy take his stand?  If it goes all the way and the Supreme Court rules in favor of the opponents of Prop 8, then we have a perfect storm.  If Prop 8 is ruled unconstitutional then so is every other marriage ban across the nation -- including federal ones.  I think that's what scares religious conservatives (and even many moderates and liberals -- remember that the President has expressed his own discomfort with gay marriage).     

The cultural wind is at the backs of those who support same sex marriage.  Society has become more and more accepting of gays.  In addition, it is becoming increasingly clear that homosexuality is not a chosen "persuasion," but a genetically defined orientation.  The judge in this case accepted as foundational the premise that this is not something that is either "chosen" or "changeable."  My sense is that among those under 40, the majority is not only accepting of gays, but supportive of gay marriage.  The idea that marriage is primarily designed to support procreation is no longer foundational.  We marry for love and companionship, with children as a secondary element.  Besides, with adoption and artificial insemination  there are other avenues for creating families. 

If society is moving in this direction, the religious community seems to be somewhere behind the curve.  It will be a long time coming in Roman Catholic Churches, whose teaching reinforces the principle that marriage, sex, and procreation all go together (my uniformed assumption is that the Orthodox churches would be somewhere in the mix here -- at least regarding the importance of tradition).  Most evangelical churches will stand back from it because they believe it is contrary to their reading of scripture.  Thus, that leaves more moderate to liberal Mainline Protestant churches.  We are, to this point, a mixed bag.  The United Church of Christ and the Evangelical Lutheran Church have taken the most progressive positions.  Disciples of Christ have left these issues to congregations -- with discussion at the "level" of the General Church essentially staying out of the conversation.  What is important to note in all of this is that no church will be "forced" to marry anyone they don't wish to marry.  Although clergy fill a societal role in officiating at weddings (we sign off on the licenses), we are not required to act contrary to theology or beliefs.  

So, where will this lead?  Only time will tell! 

What a Hateful Liberal Bigot Looks Like

They have always existed, but they have become more emboldened with the recent leftward lurch in American political direction. I am talking today about liberal bigots, those lefties who are not only obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, but who also regard and treat those who disagree with them with vitriolic hatred. You frequently hear them harping about wanting freedom of speech, the right to express their opinions and viewpoints publicly, even the right to have their alternative lifestyles accepted by the mainstream public as 'normal' or at least 'acceptable'. But this freedom of speech, this right to express opinions and viewpoints, can never, ever extend to those who disagree with them. Perfect case in point came this past weekend with the Miss USA pageant questioning incident. As I previously discussed in another recent post, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a contestant in the pageant. She is a beauty queen, a model, and she had a simple goal, to win a beauty pageant title. She wasn't looking to change the world on Sunday night, and certainly when it came to the question-answer stage she did not expect a controversial question on an epic hot-button sociological and moral topic. In any event, that is exactly what she received from pageant judge Mario Lavandeira, who goes by the professional name of 'Perez Hilton'. Lavandeira is a gay activist and celebrity blogger, and basically asked Prejean whether she supported 'gay marriage', and to give the reasons behind whatever her feelings were on the issue. Carrie Prejean simply replied from her heart, basically saying that she did not support the idea, that she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that basically this was how she was raised, taught, and now fundamentally believed. In the immediate aftermath of the pageant, at which she nearly won, finishing as the first runner-up, Hilton said that Prejean was a 'cunt', and then took to the internet and video-blogged that Hilton lost because she was "a dumb bitch." So in other words, Hilton as a gay activist has a right to voice his opinion on the issue, and the mainstream American public is supposed to tolerate not only that viewpoint, but also his public expression of it. But the same right is not extended to Carrie Prejean. Because she disagrees with Hilton on this issue, and because she had the audacity to answer his question with honesty, she is pilloried as some sort of bigot and neanderthal thinker, and then called names as well? How far does this freedom of expression, this right to your own viewpoints go, Mr. Hilton? And it wasn't just Perez Hilton, but also most of the 'gay rights' movement, and in fact most liberals as well, who ganged up on Carrie Prejean. In doing so they exposed themselves publicly for what they really are, a group of hateful bigots, everything that they claim to be against. This is the United States of America, and we are supposed to celebrate, support, and grow from the expression of differing opinions, not denounce them with hatred, ignorance, and profanity. It isn't as if Carrie Prejean said that any gay who actually got married should go to hell. She didn't say they should be arrested, tortured, or even publicly embarrassed if they tried to marry. She did not express that she didn't like gay people in general, and didn't call them any names. In short, she said nothing that would incite hatred or intolerance of gays. She simply answered the question put to her regarding the issue of marriage, stating that it should be between a man and a woman, which it should. Not an opinion, but a fact since the early days of man, and one that has only gained any public forum at all since the fringe gay element of society began imposing it's radical views on the vast mainstream 'straight' majority just a few decades ago. Carrie Prejean simply answered a direct question without lambasting or profaning anyone, but the response that she received in reply has been what we have come to typically expect from the liberal community. We conservatives love an open debate, love ideas expressed in public, and embrace the notion of having them put to the test of a vote. That is the true spirit of American freedom and diversity and exceptionalism at work. There are groups who have wanted that freedom of speech repressed in the past: Nazis, Communists, and brutal dictators of all stripes go this way. Add now to that group the ultra-liberal bigots who want anyone shut up and shut down who does not agree with them, from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter to Carrie Prejean. For anyone out there who agreed with Perez Hilton's response to Carrie Prejean, not his view on the topic of gay marriage, but with his response to Sunday night's question-answer session, then you can count yourself in that group of liberal bigots. NOTE: As with every entry at this Blog, there is a 'Comments' button below. You can do so anonymously, but it would be appreciated if you had the courage of your convictions to add at least a real name.

California's Sane Marriage Proposal

"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept, and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said 'This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of Man.' Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." - Genesis 2:21-24 **** Let's face it, no matter what the radicals, the profane, and the borderline insane will try to tell you, there are two sexes. They are male and female, just as Adam and Eve in the Genesis creation story. The main differences are their physical and sexual characteristics. Man was created with a penis and sperm. Woman was created with a vagina and eggs. For anyone who thinks normally and rationally, the ramifications are obvious. Genesis explains in clear terms how God created man, and then created woman for a purpose. That clear purpose is that the two different sexes will unite together as one. This is the origin of the concepts of marriage, the very concept of family itself. Throughout the history of mankind it has always been understood that the natural order called on men and women to join, have children, nurture those children in family, and propagate their genes to help foster the growth of mankind. There have always been those among us who were deviant, and rather than become attracted to those of the opposite sex, they were instead attracted to those of the same sex. But this was always, in every culture in man's history, considered a deviance, a negative to be avoided. It was considered an extremely unnatural act, the joining of two people of the same sex in a sexual union. For the vast majority of the history of the United States of America, almost 200 of our 232 years as a nation, this 'homosexuality' was seen as a form of mental illness. In the past three decades, this deviance has 'come out of the closet' and attempted to shove its way into mainstream society. Those who practice homosexuality have used a liberal tilt in American media and the court system to gain perceived 'Rights' that were never enumerated into the Constitution. In some states, they have even fought to gain a right to marry. In every corner of the world, marriage has always been recognized as the institution whereby a man and woman formally come together as one family. The homosexuals, or 'gays', and other liberal elements have attempted to make marriage, now legal only between men and women as it is naturally and morally correct, extend to these gay couples. This past week, tens of millions of Americans voted in three states on this issue, and once again sanity won the day. Florida, Arizona, and most interestingly and importantly California joined what is now a list of 30 states across the nation by installing specific constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This past week in California, 'Proposition 8' created that same ban in what is considered the most progressive state in the union. The majority in even this normally ultra-liberal state recognized and voted to constitutionalize this vital institution. Back in 2000, the people of California had already spoken, and had created a law to ban gay marriages. However, the most liberal and radical U.S. district court in the land ruled the law itself illegal, and opened the way for legalized gay marriages, hundreds of which took place in recent months. The people of California, outraged that a court over-ruled their will, went back to the drawing board and took the matter out of the courts hands. The new law is now a basic element in the state constitution, which the court cannot alter. The people of California have thus clearly spoken twice in the past decade on this issue, as has the American population in every instance in which it has come before them. You can argue the sanity of the minute percentage of the population who practice homosexuality. You can argue about the merits of accepting this deviance rather than shunning it. You can argue the validity of trying to find some 'cure' through the increased research possibilities with today's genetic advances. But one thing that you cannot argue is the natural order in the man-woman relationship, and its historical, cultural, and moral expression in the institution of marriage. Allow a misguided gay man to simply do what he wants and marry another man, just because he thinks that he should be allowed to, is ludicrous on its face. Tell me you have a 'right' to do this, and I will ask you why I cannot have the 'right' to marry a 14-year old girl, or my good dog 'Petey', or my refrigerator. Think that is ridiculous? That is just how ridiculous the large majority of Americans view the idea of gay marriage. In an election that saw progressives come to political power, Californians and others once again showed sanity this past week in supporting the tradition of marriage. This not about any 'hate' towards these people, as they would try to sell it. I speak for millions in saying that far from hating gays, we feel sorry for them, recognize that their 'problem' is biological and possibly genetic, and hope that one day they will overcome these deviant desires. What this is about is defending a Sacrament from becoming defiled by deviance. The Church teaches that Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, one of its Sacraments, the most important and fundamental building blocks of the faith and mankind's morality. Thankfully Americans still agree that a man shall leave his parents and cling to his wife, and not his husband or his child or his pet.