To whom this may concern, which should include every American imaginable:
I am writing today because I wanted to be sure that you have heard from the tens of millions of Americans who firmly believe that marriage should be allowed equally for everyone, with no restrictions based on gender constructs or sexual preferences.
Too often we have remained silent, watching helplessly as events are put into place by religious bigots across the country to create a second class citizenry. Today I am writing to urge you to take action to protect the marriage rights of gay and lesbian Americans everywhere.
In a much-needed ruling federal judge Vaughn Walker determined that California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, reinstating the decision of the California Supreme Court in 2008 that finally legalized same-sex marriage and created an equal citizenry for everyone. The 7 million Californians that voted to restrict marriage were wrong to do so, and I hope your carefully reviewed examination of the matter comes to the same conclusion.
Forty-four states have now adopted laws restricting the definition of marriage to only a man and woman, depriving millions of gays and lesbians of the full equality gauranteed to them by the Constitution. Out of thirty states where a constitutional amendment on marriage has gone to the people there is a measurable increase in stress and hate crimes directed against members of the LGBT community. Overwhelming margins in these elections perpetuate the extreme hate regarding a decision that has no bearing on the lives of straight Americans anywhere.
The answer is simple common sense: enforce equality for EVERYONE, not bigotry. The shared wisdom of our founders must be listened to, and not denied to a minority. Marriage connects families, partners, children, friends, and established a community in itself that is beneficial to all within it. Please do not deny this basic fundamental right to people that are forced to consider themselves second class citizens. A child's love and support from his or her same-sex parents is not enough; full protection under the law is required as well, and is what every child deserves.
I urge you to take whatever action necessary to protect marriage for everyone, gay and straight alike. A constitutional amendment to ban marriage for anyone is the wrong thing to do. Please listen to and understand the wisdom of Judge Walker's ruling, for my sake and the sake of millions of other LGBT peaple alike.
Thank you for your time,
~Eric Taylor Bennett
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Hyundai Elantra or Volkswagen Jetta SE?
Alrighty so here's the breakdown: I need a car. I'm tired of walking everywhere, and I'm excited to have saved up this long, but I don't want to be impulsive either. This is the end of the month and so dealers are waving their flags shouting "deal! deal!" and I don't want to fall for it unless it genuinely IS a deal. So here's what we got:
I have $10,000 saved up. I can spend it all, or save a little and spend the rest on something else, who knows. But that's what I got. The two contenders I'm wrestling with right now are the 2010 Volkswagen Jetta SE and the 2010 Hyundai Elantra. The two models I'm looking at have pretty much every feature I could possibly want: XM radio, sunroof, automatic, cupholders, everything is almost identical.
The few differences between them do lean me towards the Elantra, though. It gets like 4mpg better on city and hwy, has better crash test ratings, but only slightly, it costs less to insure, and it has a 10yr/100,000 mile warranty vs. Volkswagen's 3yr/30,000 that only covers like the powertrain. But there's one BIG difference that the Volkswagen has over the Hyundai: it's name.
Most people I talk to shrug their noses at Hyundai, and the review I get from people that have owned them are mixed. Consumer Reports says that Hyundai has come a long way, and for compact cars the Elantra is the Top Pick for 2010. But everyone loves Volkswagen. It's the #1 car company in the world right now.
Name means a lot to me, mainly for resell value. I'll only be owning this car for probably 3 years. I really want to work overseas for the Peace Corps after I get my Bachelors, so I'll be selling whatever I get and using that money for either travel or to pay down my student loans. I need to be able to sell whatever I get for a good amount. Kelly Blue Book says that both cars will likely lose about the same percentage value over 3 years, based off previous year models selling rates. That kinda shocked me.
The Jetta I test drove today is $21k. No discounts, no incentives, no 0.0% financing, nothing. The Elantra I test drove they are marking down from $19k to $15k as long as I do the $10k down payment in cash, which is no problem. That's a pretty big incentive, especially since I'll probably be able to sell it in 3 years for what I put down on it.
The Jetta means higher gas prices, higher insurance, higher monthly payments, and a less safe ride. As I type this now it seems the choice is clear, at least for buying a new vehicle. I could buy used car, even a 2009, and save money, too, but I really really want a new car. I'm biased against owning something that someone else may have trashed, or that may have unforeseen costs associated with repairs that forced it to be sold used in the first place.
So that's the gist of it. Hope it wasn't too much of a rant. You comments are much appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
~Eric
I have $10,000 saved up. I can spend it all, or save a little and spend the rest on something else, who knows. But that's what I got. The two contenders I'm wrestling with right now are the 2010 Volkswagen Jetta SE and the 2010 Hyundai Elantra. The two models I'm looking at have pretty much every feature I could possibly want: XM radio, sunroof, automatic, cupholders, everything is almost identical.
The few differences between them do lean me towards the Elantra, though. It gets like 4mpg better on city and hwy, has better crash test ratings, but only slightly, it costs less to insure, and it has a 10yr/100,000 mile warranty vs. Volkswagen's 3yr/30,000 that only covers like the powertrain. But there's one BIG difference that the Volkswagen has over the Hyundai: it's name.
Most people I talk to shrug their noses at Hyundai, and the review I get from people that have owned them are mixed. Consumer Reports says that Hyundai has come a long way, and for compact cars the Elantra is the Top Pick for 2010. But everyone loves Volkswagen. It's the #1 car company in the world right now.
Name means a lot to me, mainly for resell value. I'll only be owning this car for probably 3 years. I really want to work overseas for the Peace Corps after I get my Bachelors, so I'll be selling whatever I get and using that money for either travel or to pay down my student loans. I need to be able to sell whatever I get for a good amount. Kelly Blue Book says that both cars will likely lose about the same percentage value over 3 years, based off previous year models selling rates. That kinda shocked me.
The Jetta I test drove today is $21k. No discounts, no incentives, no 0.0% financing, nothing. The Elantra I test drove they are marking down from $19k to $15k as long as I do the $10k down payment in cash, which is no problem. That's a pretty big incentive, especially since I'll probably be able to sell it in 3 years for what I put down on it.
The Jetta means higher gas prices, higher insurance, higher monthly payments, and a less safe ride. As I type this now it seems the choice is clear, at least for buying a new vehicle. I could buy used car, even a 2009, and save money, too, but I really really want a new car. I'm biased against owning something that someone else may have trashed, or that may have unforeseen costs associated with repairs that forced it to be sold used in the first place.
So that's the gist of it. Hope it wasn't too much of a rant. You comments are much appreciated.
Thanks in advance!
~Eric
Friday, January 22, 2010
Pre-reading blog: "Sex and the Cinema"
Similar to my previous blog, I've done research on this field of study before for another class in the past. I believe the article in our book must be addressing the liability of production studios including sexually explicit scenes such as graphic sex scenes and full nudity in feature-length movies and box office blockbusters. The examples of censorship are many.
Consider the rating system. A "G" movie we would all likely feel safe taking our young children to. We know it's likely going to be some animation with singing or something like Air Bud: Golden Receiver, with a lovable pooch of some popular variety. A "PG" movie may contain some violence and might give our little ones a nightmare if they're not old enough to understand it. A "PG-13" movie is recommended for adolescents or older, people who have had a few more life experiences and can understand the context and concepts that the movie may represent. Up until this level, most production studios have no problems with rating their movies as such. It's after this level that producers start to consider their material more carefully.
"NC-17", like "PG-13", has an age limit to be admitted by oneself. This reduces the amount of potential ticket-buyers, since young teenagers are often afforded enough responsibility by their parents to be dropped off at a theatre and left unattended. Similarly, movies rated "R" significantly cut down their potential number of viewers. "R" also usually carries with it some sexually explicit material, which touches on a whole new level with regards to sponsorship, and that's what Sex and the Cinema refers to.
If you're a potential sponsor like McDonalds, you're not as likely to endorse a sexually explicit movie because you want to cater to the larger family consumer base. You'd rather offer toys resembling the latest Dalmations movie than a nude Barbie Doll. Movie producers consider where they're getting their funding in addition to who's going to be buying their tickets at the theatres.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Movies are a form of business, and executives are of the habit of doing tried and tested means for successful business ventures. It can have a limiting affect on different levels of public exposure to controversial themes such as homosexuality, and it may lead to children being "sheltered" by over protective parents, but I don't think it's large enough of a concern to worry about for the general population. I may change my opinion after I read the actual article =)
And that's the two main points I remember, as well as what I found on a quick Google search. Now onto the article!
Consider the rating system. A "G" movie we would all likely feel safe taking our young children to. We know it's likely going to be some animation with singing or something like Air Bud: Golden Receiver, with a lovable pooch of some popular variety. A "PG" movie may contain some violence and might give our little ones a nightmare if they're not old enough to understand it. A "PG-13" movie is recommended for adolescents or older, people who have had a few more life experiences and can understand the context and concepts that the movie may represent. Up until this level, most production studios have no problems with rating their movies as such. It's after this level that producers start to consider their material more carefully.
"NC-17", like "PG-13", has an age limit to be admitted by oneself. This reduces the amount of potential ticket-buyers, since young teenagers are often afforded enough responsibility by their parents to be dropped off at a theatre and left unattended. Similarly, movies rated "R" significantly cut down their potential number of viewers. "R" also usually carries with it some sexually explicit material, which touches on a whole new level with regards to sponsorship, and that's what Sex and the Cinema refers to.
If you're a potential sponsor like McDonalds, you're not as likely to endorse a sexually explicit movie because you want to cater to the larger family consumer base. You'd rather offer toys resembling the latest Dalmations movie than a nude Barbie Doll. Movie producers consider where they're getting their funding in addition to who's going to be buying their tickets at the theatres.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Movies are a form of business, and executives are of the habit of doing tried and tested means for successful business ventures. It can have a limiting affect on different levels of public exposure to controversial themes such as homosexuality, and it may lead to children being "sheltered" by over protective parents, but I don't think it's large enough of a concern to worry about for the general population. I may change my opinion after I read the actual article =)
And that's the two main points I remember, as well as what I found on a quick Google search. Now onto the article!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
English 1C - Pre-Reading Blog #1
Well, shoot. I can't help but cheat on this blog a little since I read Paulo Freire's Banking essay last summer. I'll see what I can recall...
The main point regarding the Banking Concept of Education involves students acting as nothing more than storage "banks" for information and knowledge rather than critically analyzing and utilizing the information they are taught. In this equation, teachers are the powerful "bankers" that make deposits into their empty-headed students. Although originally I viewed this as an archaic idea, it's still very present in today's world.
It's also very problematic. Simply memorizing data and regurgitating it for the occasional test when required creates quite a dilemma. Students are encouraged to take everything they learn at face value and not question their authority figures. While this is useful for mathematics, it prevents a student from fully understanding the implications of a myriad of other subjects.
Imagine political science, or psychology, or philosophy. If our views and understanding of these subjects was never questioned or critically evaluated would we even have such topics to study? How often does our understanding of the world become challenged over the decades? If we continued to study the same old ideas, never improving upon them, our society would be more than dull - it would arguably cease to function due to its lack of adaptability.
When students question the information they are given, they understand it better. The teacher might even learn a thing or two about how to better describe the subject in the future, or even learn the answer to a question that had been bugging him for some time. This establishes a dialogue with which both the student and the teacher are on equal footing and one with which the student is more likely to succeed in his academic environment.
That was the main point I recall - that the Banking Concept in general is a poor method of teaching in today's world. It has its merits, such as preparing students for standardized testing or teaching them mundane job skills, but we'll save that discussion for next time.
The main point regarding the Banking Concept of Education involves students acting as nothing more than storage "banks" for information and knowledge rather than critically analyzing and utilizing the information they are taught. In this equation, teachers are the powerful "bankers" that make deposits into their empty-headed students. Although originally I viewed this as an archaic idea, it's still very present in today's world.
It's also very problematic. Simply memorizing data and regurgitating it for the occasional test when required creates quite a dilemma. Students are encouraged to take everything they learn at face value and not question their authority figures. While this is useful for mathematics, it prevents a student from fully understanding the implications of a myriad of other subjects.
Imagine political science, or psychology, or philosophy. If our views and understanding of these subjects was never questioned or critically evaluated would we even have such topics to study? How often does our understanding of the world become challenged over the decades? If we continued to study the same old ideas, never improving upon them, our society would be more than dull - it would arguably cease to function due to its lack of adaptability.
When students question the information they are given, they understand it better. The teacher might even learn a thing or two about how to better describe the subject in the future, or even learn the answer to a question that had been bugging him for some time. This establishes a dialogue with which both the student and the teacher are on equal footing and one with which the student is more likely to succeed in his academic environment.
That was the main point I recall - that the Banking Concept in general is a poor method of teaching in today's world. It has its merits, such as preparing students for standardized testing or teaching them mundane job skills, but we'll save that discussion for next time.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Joe Medeiros, and the Last Crusade!
Oh my Gawd, Joe, why couldn't you have given this lecture at the beginning of the semester? Ever since 2000 when I started going to Sierra I've been nothing but confused and lost as to what I want to do with my life. I've never had a helpful counseling experience, and no other methods of figuring out what I'd like to do have panned out. Your speech gave me so much encouragement. I haven't had a chance to check out the sites you gave us, or the handouts, what with finals and all, but there's nowhere else I can really turn to. I've always been indecisive. I've loved every class I've ever attended, and have been good at every job I've ever applied myself to. But being versatile has hurt me in that I don't know what I really want to do. I like everything, but haven't found anything I truly love. Some of the suggestions you gave out in class got me thinking.
In particular was your speech about getting into a career that you're happy with. I mean, something that benefits society rather than just yourself. Being able to live and finish each day knowing that you've done good for the world and have something to show for yourself. Something ethical, something that benefits mankind, something that has a future. Whether its a green collar job, helping out with education, or working for the Peace Corps, something you can be proud to tell your friends and family.
Mind you finals are a bit stressful for this week, so I still doubt I could concentrate much on doing a self survey to find my true purpose right now, but just five more days and I'll be all over it.
Thank you Joe Medeiros!
In particular was your speech about getting into a career that you're happy with. I mean, something that benefits society rather than just yourself. Being able to live and finish each day knowing that you've done good for the world and have something to show for yourself. Something ethical, something that benefits mankind, something that has a future. Whether its a green collar job, helping out with education, or working for the Peace Corps, something you can be proud to tell your friends and family.
Mind you finals are a bit stressful for this week, so I still doubt I could concentrate much on doing a self survey to find my true purpose right now, but just five more days and I'll be all over it.
Thank you Joe Medeiros!
If you're not for Zero Waste, how much waste are you for?
Gary Liss has to be one of the most animate speakers we have had this semester. Like a salesman who thinks he's sold his most expensive product, he finished the class with the biggest grin I think he could possibly muster.
That doesn't say much for his taste in clothing, though.
When I first saw Mr. Liss my eyes fell on his dirty shoes. If you're going to wear a suit, at least wear decent dress shoes. I know it sounds miniscule and unimportant, but I was raised that first impressions can't be taken back, and Gary didn't start off well in the appearance department. His suit also just didn't fit him well. His pants were saggy and he kept pulling them back up to his waist. At least tighten your belt a notch. And he smelled like his jacket and trousers had been in a dry cleaner bag for a year. When he pulled out a comb in the middle of class it occurred to me he could just do for a haircut instead.
Again, I know, miniscule and unimportant, but I remember his wardrobe vividly, and it detracted from his speech a bit.
All that said, his topic of Zero Waste was inspiring. This weekend I went down to the coast for my field project, to Mt. Tamalpais, and drove by a sea of those green waste garbage containers. It must have been trash day, or maybe tomorrow. These were the green, blue, and black containers. Very picturesque, although I would imagine few visitors to the city would know exactly what they were for or what their purpose was other than to dispose of garbage.
Zero Waste should be how we do business. Native Americans survived for thousands of years doing it just fine, who are we to continue to screw it up when we know we can clean it up instead? Mind you I'm no economist, or accountant, but it seems pretty clear to me that companies could start going Zero Waste today and not need to look back. And not just companies, but communities, too. Even though I live with three of the laziest roomates imaginable, and probably the most wasteful to boot, if our entire neighborhood got in the mood I'm sure they wouldn't want to be the only wasteful ones.
Great speech Gary, but next time, clean up the suit ;)
That doesn't say much for his taste in clothing, though.
When I first saw Mr. Liss my eyes fell on his dirty shoes. If you're going to wear a suit, at least wear decent dress shoes. I know it sounds miniscule and unimportant, but I was raised that first impressions can't be taken back, and Gary didn't start off well in the appearance department. His suit also just didn't fit him well. His pants were saggy and he kept pulling them back up to his waist. At least tighten your belt a notch. And he smelled like his jacket and trousers had been in a dry cleaner bag for a year. When he pulled out a comb in the middle of class it occurred to me he could just do for a haircut instead.
Again, I know, miniscule and unimportant, but I remember his wardrobe vividly, and it detracted from his speech a bit.
All that said, his topic of Zero Waste was inspiring. This weekend I went down to the coast for my field project, to Mt. Tamalpais, and drove by a sea of those green waste garbage containers. It must have been trash day, or maybe tomorrow. These were the green, blue, and black containers. Very picturesque, although I would imagine few visitors to the city would know exactly what they were for or what their purpose was other than to dispose of garbage.
Zero Waste should be how we do business. Native Americans survived for thousands of years doing it just fine, who are we to continue to screw it up when we know we can clean it up instead? Mind you I'm no economist, or accountant, but it seems pretty clear to me that companies could start going Zero Waste today and not need to look back. And not just companies, but communities, too. Even though I live with three of the laziest roomates imaginable, and probably the most wasteful to boot, if our entire neighborhood got in the mood I'm sure they wouldn't want to be the only wasteful ones.
Great speech Gary, but next time, clean up the suit ;)
Friday, May 1, 2009
Extra Credit - Under Our Skin
Last night I went to see that documentary on Lyme disease, "Under Our Skin", and I have to say it probably earned the distinction of being the creepiest show I've seen on campus. Easily 15 minutes into it I kept scratching my leg, neck, or arm, imagining some tick crawling through my hair. The documentary was around an hour and a half long, and at times I was squirming so much my chair would creak audibly, which made me even more nervous. The student sitting next to me would repeatedly shake her leg up and down as well, and reajust in her seat from time to time. She must have been as uncomfortable as I was.
And that had to be the intention of the filmakers. I dreamt about events from the movie in my sleep, and couldn't stop talking about it at work today. If their purpose was to be to spread the word about the dangers of Lyme disease, they achieved their goal with me.
For those that didn't go, the film wasn't just 24-hour footage of ticks crawling over people biting them in their sleep. It followed several people in their fight to overcome the harsh symptoms of living with late stage Lyme disease. Most of these people were nothing more than average Americans, regular folk from all walks of life, young and old. One couple, I believe their name was Jenn and Sean, although I couldn't take notes in the darkness, had it particularly rough. Jenn was filmed in so much pain she could barely control her body, went through seizures, had to inject her own antibiotics through a catheter, and all the while doctors were saying there was nothing wrong with her.
The film touched on the troubling realities of insurance providers refusing to pay for treatments or canceling full coverage all together for people that needed them to pay for the thousands of dollars of medical bills they accrued. It linked together corrupt doctors to national guidelines for treating the disease that insurance providers would reference in court cases. One doctor who represented insurance companies would claim in an interview that there was no such epidemic of Lyme disease, while another would be asked the same questions and say its unmistakable. Although the filmakers likely tried to skew some of these interviews to help present their cause, it was hard for me to find much fault in what was said by both sides.
The overall feeling portrayed about the plight of people with Lyme disease was grim. Doctors that legitimately agree to help people are few and far between, and research is lacking in the field for effective treatments. Some people have lived with pain and other symptoms for 15 years or more, and several have died. Babies would either be miscarried or born with physical deformaties. There seemed to be a glimmer of hope at the end, though, that the corrupt financial aspects of curing Lyme disease and the lack of knowledge on the subject were finally being dealt with.
Despite the overall creepiness feeling, I thoroughly recommend you all to go watch this movie. I think they said it would be out in theatres in a couple months, hopefully nation-wide. At work today it was funny; everyone I talked to about the disease seemed to know everything the movie said was uncommon knowledge. Most people I talked to knew somebody living with Lyme disease or someone who had contracted it in the past. Maybe it is more of an epidemic after all.
And that had to be the intention of the filmakers. I dreamt about events from the movie in my sleep, and couldn't stop talking about it at work today. If their purpose was to be to spread the word about the dangers of Lyme disease, they achieved their goal with me.
For those that didn't go, the film wasn't just 24-hour footage of ticks crawling over people biting them in their sleep. It followed several people in their fight to overcome the harsh symptoms of living with late stage Lyme disease. Most of these people were nothing more than average Americans, regular folk from all walks of life, young and old. One couple, I believe their name was Jenn and Sean, although I couldn't take notes in the darkness, had it particularly rough. Jenn was filmed in so much pain she could barely control her body, went through seizures, had to inject her own antibiotics through a catheter, and all the while doctors were saying there was nothing wrong with her.
The film touched on the troubling realities of insurance providers refusing to pay for treatments or canceling full coverage all together for people that needed them to pay for the thousands of dollars of medical bills they accrued. It linked together corrupt doctors to national guidelines for treating the disease that insurance providers would reference in court cases. One doctor who represented insurance companies would claim in an interview that there was no such epidemic of Lyme disease, while another would be asked the same questions and say its unmistakable. Although the filmakers likely tried to skew some of these interviews to help present their cause, it was hard for me to find much fault in what was said by both sides.
The overall feeling portrayed about the plight of people with Lyme disease was grim. Doctors that legitimately agree to help people are few and far between, and research is lacking in the field for effective treatments. Some people have lived with pain and other symptoms for 15 years or more, and several have died. Babies would either be miscarried or born with physical deformaties. There seemed to be a glimmer of hope at the end, though, that the corrupt financial aspects of curing Lyme disease and the lack of knowledge on the subject were finally being dealt with.
Despite the overall creepiness feeling, I thoroughly recommend you all to go watch this movie. I think they said it would be out in theatres in a couple months, hopefully nation-wide. At work today it was funny; everyone I talked to about the disease seemed to know everything the movie said was uncommon knowledge. Most people I talked to knew somebody living with Lyme disease or someone who had contracted it in the past. Maybe it is more of an epidemic after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
