Jurisdiction

So I hear from Yahoo News that the proposition 8, that Californians in California voted on to alter California's constitution is being upheld in court!  *GASP*  who would have thought that a majority of people voting in a democracy would put in place a change in laws that would be upheld by the court!  I thought that we just voted for fun and the courts just did whatever the special interest groups that bitched the loudest told them to do, now apparently there's this link between the separate branches of government where they are actually supposed to cooperatively function using standards set forth by the people for the people!  

Everyone seems really surprised at this, all I can say to that is: What the hell?  Someone needs to go read Roberts rules of order and brush up on the fact that the whole democratic meeting and voting thing is for the RULE of the MAJORITY and merely the RIGHTS of the MINORITY.  That is, a minority can bitch about something before the majority stuffs it back in their whiney assed faces.  And at that point, the rule is a rule as made by the majority and the minority, having voiced their concerns can go home and pout, but everyone had a chance to speak on the issue.  And I find it interesting that homosexual special rights groups speak the loudest and most often on the issue and yet the majority STILL voted that gay marriage isn't marriage.  

Now they are all surprised that their supreme court which is supposed to enforce and uphold a proper interpretation of the constitution agrees with the change to the constitution.  Except for one of them, who, in my opinion, needs to go back to school and take some classes on politics and how systems of governments work, based on his quote:  "The rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to marry that this court recognized [in last year's opinion], it places at risk the state constitutional rights of all disfavored minorities," Moreno wrote. "It weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority." (taken from yahoo news) 

He is complaining because the rule of the majority doesn't just give the minorities it disagrees with everything they want? He complains because a courts ruling before a constitutional change is different from after a constitutional change?  Perhaps he'd like to bitch that women can vote, since, before that ammendment was made women were convicted of voting illegally and given jail time for it.   When the constitution changes by the will of the people, that is now the new standard and what it was last year, or, hell, even ten minutes ago, doesn't matter unless everyone gets together to re-amend it out.  Further, as noted by the head justice, it is not the job of the court to change the constitution, merely to uphold it.  

Furthermore, for Moreno to say that the constitution (even California's alone) is a bulwark of fundamental rights for minorities is pure BS!  That's not what it was for, a constitution is to protect the rights of the citizens (the majority of citizens) from it's own government, not to protect the minority from the majority.  

Further amusing is the basic assumption that the constitution is in the wrong, from the tone I have read in Yahoo news, to the quotes, to the people who bitch the loudest on facebook, everyone starts with the assumption that it is wrong.  Wait a minute!!! these are the same sources that told me that our morality is fluid, and changes to fit the opinion of the public, and stuff is okay now that wasn't fifty years ago because times have changed... well, here times change again and suddenly they all say "our morals are not fluid! just because everyone agrees with it doesn't make it right!"  it's very revealing that the media has an agenda and when everyone disagrees they bitch and when everyone aggrees they use it as an ontological proof for their position.  Pure hypocrisy!  

How about everyone who doesn't live in california quits bitching about what california does as a state.  They can hand out pez dispensers filled with PCP on every street corner in California for all I care, I don't live there.  But if the majority votes for it, the minority can bitch, but the majority will rule, and the courts will not convict people for handing out Pez dispensers with PCP in them.  

Lets all point and laugh!

There are a few topics that are so sacred that you cannot joke about them.  Their sacredness is proven by the fact that when you joke about them, horror quickly ensues:  Example:  The sacrifice of Christ on the cross.  Sure, laugh!  then you burn in hell for eternity.  I contend however, that if laughing at a thing is not the punishment for laughing at it, it is free and clear to be laughed at.  

People like to take humor and turn it into  "Hate" or "irreverence"  or "prejudice"  meanwhile hypocritically claiming that they themselves are freed of these vices.  To tell the truth I'd rather be encumbered with these vices and have the benefit of a strong and healthy sense of humor to protect me from myself. 

People who take themselves too seriously poison everyone around them.  

Yes there is someone who set me off on this rant!  I will explain, specifically, so that you can see what I mean. 

I had a friend whose status message states "I am passionate about two things: Abolishing Abortion and human trafficking"  here they get stuck in the sticky compounding problem.  

If we are going to be drab and serious and shove an entire pack of preparation H up our backsides followed by a heated spiny twisting stick, we will acknowledge that Abolishing is a verb modified jointly by abortion and human trafficking as intended, 

however, barring the pointy stick in the rectum, abolishing is a single verb.  They said they were passionate about two things.  So clearly abolishing can't be the only thing they are passionate about.  this means the other thing they are passionate about is human trafficking, this leads me to conjecture that perhaps there is a causal relationship going on here:  Abortion reduces the number of humans, this means less stock for the human traffickers, therefore, anyone who is passionate about human trafficking could reasonably be against abortion, just as a cattle farmer is against wolves showing up and eating his stock!

Here's where the hole puckers, because people don't like human trafficking.  Actually that's an unfair generalization.  SOMEONE must like it because it happens requiring a buyer and a seller, in seperate parts of the world so you can thusly traffick the peoples aforementioned.   Anyhow, the majority of white americans are unfomfortable with it because they retain a vestegial attachment to the past, and this hits too close to home... for people who lived like 200 years ago... and were wealthy enough to own slaves... who were sold by their own people living across the ocean... who are still trafficking people and we sit and wonder about it... anyway, I digress. 

The point is that the higher the pucker factor, I contend the more we ought to be able to laugh at ourselves and the topic.  Take the comic The Far Side for example.  The poor author has been dogged again and again by the find people of amnesty international because he portrays a few comical torture-related situations.  I mean, come on, the idea that a torturer who hates his job and thusly is being tortured by torturing doesn't strike you in the least funny?  Its like a hay farmer with hay fever, it's a cruel (but still grossly amusing) irony!  and all they want to do is pucker up on the spiny twirling stick, and torture themselves about it by complaining to the author (which adds another level to the cruel irony as the people who are against torture are offended by the idea that a torturer might be tortured by having to torture people) 

At any rate, we have trouble laughing at things, and often at that point we really NEED to laugh at them.  Otherwise we'll die from some heart-related disease.  

If laughing doesn't punish you, by all means laugh!  if others will punish you for laughing, laugh at them, and then for your ballsyness, bravado, and ignorance, laugh at yourself.  And if you can't do any of those things, you'd better call amnesty international and ask them to help you end your life because you are spending the duration torturing yourself!