Sad and alone in the office

[judecorp]

Here I am, entering books into a database. This is thrilling, let me tell you! At the rate I am going, I will be out of a job in a week unless there is more work on the horizon. I suppose I could pace myself but it's tedious and I would like it to be done.

It will be pitch black when I have to walk back to my car. It's kind of creepy because my office is in the middle of where the riots were and there are a lot of broken and boarded-up windows... so it's like walking through a ghost town. In the dark. Fun!

I am on pins and needles about this Constitutional Convention business. I hit refresh on Bay Windows every five minutes or so, waiting to see if they are going to recess or continue talking. Please, people, keep talking! Think of my family!

If a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage goes to a popular vote, even here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, it will pass. But what I want to know is, why does ANYONE think that any civil rights issue that affects a minority should be put to a popular (aka: majority) vote?

Guh.

Comments

[jadefu.livejournal.com]

Deval Patrick had the best quote in this article.

"Marriage equality is with us and has been with us for a couple of years, and the sky has not fallen and western civilization has not crumbled," he said.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I wish it were possible for Deval to just put a stop to this nonsense.

[dch4.livejournal.com]

Because a century or so ago, politicians started selling the masses the idea that the US was a Democracy rather than a Constitutional Republic. And in a Democracy, the will of the masses is what rules. So therefore the masses believe they should have the ability to vote on everything and go with what the majority wants, no matter how badly it tramples on the rights of the minority.

Not that I'm cynical or anything, mind you. I honestly wish I could go back to disgusted. Disgusted actually motivated. Cynical just results in bitter commentary in a friend's LJ.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I wonder if ANY of these people took social studies in elementary school. I mean, really. This is like fourth grade stuff.

Since when do we have to vote on every little stinking thing?

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

Since when do we have to vote on every little stinking thing?

Because politicians can use the issue to get people to vote for them.

This has nothing to do with the USA being a republic or a democracy. It's all about politicians trying to stay in office, and thus in power.

Conservative Christians are a large, powerful, and easily manipulated group of voters. "Vote for me or the devil wins" is a powerful motivation to millions of Americans. It's the reason Bush won a second term in office.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Very good point.

[authentichris.livejournal.com]

I agree wholeheartedly. It smacks of eugenics/nazi era stuff that we want the state to have a role in family plans/etc. I think that, at most, the state is the arbiter of divorce contracts, and one to try and help the well being of the children involved, when practical, and when extreme circumstances rear their heads.

But, I agree with you here, and i'd go so far to say that there are other issues that aren't dissimilar; i.e. smoking in public places is a civil rights issue. I dispise smoking/smokers, but I must support their right to do as they please. No smoking in BARS? BARS!

Back to marriage, i'm straight and married, and it doesn't comfort me that the state has blessed my union, it smacks of having to seek permission from the government for rights that are inalienable. their permission--and the underlying tax benefits that go with it--makes me shiver. Validating the fact that they have ANY authority to preside over marriage-type contracts...well, it's horrible.

Remember inalienable rights?

I agree with you on civil rights...

i hope that your union is not impacted by this law, and I know that you don't need the blessing of the bureaucrats to have a valid and productive and loving marriage.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

What's ironic is that even in some of the states that have passed those awful marriage amendments, they will allow same-sex couples to go to court to "divorce." What an awful double standard.

Now I have to disagree about the civil rights of smokers. I mean, I think if people want to smoke in their homes or their backyards or whatever, they should be able to smoke. If you really want to give yourself cancer and other physical problems, have at it! But to be able to smoke in public places infringes on the rights of other people... how do you justify the fact that staff and other folks' lives are in danger when someone is allowed to smoke in a public place?

While I realize that our relationship will not mean less to us if amendments pass, it certainly makes that relationship less valid and productive. There are a whole lotta benefits and protections at stake.

[amyura.livejournal.com]

I agree.

Allowing two people to marry really only produces GOOD things for society-- family stability, ease of wills and hospital visits, more people with health insurance. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. My right to get married to someone of the opposite sex, or even my right to be a nasty homophobe, isn't infringed upon if you marry a woman.

Smoking in public, on the other hand, DOES infringe on nonsmokers' rights. My right to breathe somewhat clean air should come before someone else's right to smoke.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I totally agree.

[authentichris.livejournal.com]

The smoking question is what i'll address:

1.) People know smoking is harmful.

2.) Public places: it's a freedom and free association thing. I have never been forced into a bar, and I can easily avoid places that do me harm, just as I could avoid mcdonalds's.

3.) I could choose to not work in a place that allowed it, I could chose to avoid it without impacting my life much...sure there would be bars, and concerts, and if here was demand....people would proide appropriate response.

It's essentially the same arguement that the anti gay people make. Meaning, they are protecting society against the evils of teh gay.

Once you go down that road, and once government is anything more than a benign arbiter of civil liberties, it is a road to serfdom and evil.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's hardly the same. Having gay people get married around you can't give non-gay people cancer or emphysema or chronic lung disease. I mean, we (as a society) frown on pregnant women who smoke, right? Why? Because society's belief is that the woman is hurting her child, right? So why does society have a ridiculous double standard - fetuses should be protected from smoking but not children and adults?

With the job market as awful as it is, what if someone CAN'T get a job outside of a restaurant/bar/concert hall where there is smoke? Should someone not work if the only available job is in a bar? And as for wait staff, everyone has to rotate shifts to include the smoking section - no choice. At least, that's how it was when I was dating a server. And those shifts in the smoking section SUCK for a non-smoker.

No one forces anyone into a bar, that's true. But allowing smoking inside bars kind of forces lots of people out of them. If you want to have smoking bars and non-smoking bars, well okay, I could get behind that. But it's not fair that I could never go into a bar ever in my life because it would make me sick! (I am horribly sensitive to cigarette smoke.)

At the risk of trolling....

[authentichris.livejournal.com]

1.) the job market is, by every metric, astonishingly good. We're spoiled, and we feel entitled to high pay, low contribution jobs. Jobs have been fine since 2003, unemployment is 5.1%. We overspend, and overconsume. There are always opitons for those willing to help others, and no options for those that are 'entitled.' don't work in a job that has hard requirements.

Look in at yourself, figure out why you're having a tough time.

I've had less than 4 cigarettes in my life. i think it's a tax on stupidity, and a way of getting morons out of the gene pool. I prefer the outcome of a non smoking environment.

But a higher principle to me is the notion that the Government must have limited power. the same power that decides that your marriage is a threat is the power that makes the government meddle in private contrats.

i would support cool drinking places that are non smoking. But I would rather have a choice.

Re: At the risk of trolling....

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I agree that the majority of americans overspend and overconsume. I also agree that the majority of americans tend to think they need more than they really do, and will spend every cent that they get (so increases don't help). Now I could be completely and totally wrong, but I don't think I'm one of those people. I am not a spender. I live simply, reuse everything I can, and was raised by depression-era people (my grandparents). So I have a bit of a different perspective than the average american.

That said, there are job opportunities out there but I would hardly say our job market is astonishingly good, especially since it is something that is relative to location. Here in western MA, there is a dearth of full-time, living-wage jobs but the number of low-wage, part-time, non-benefitted jobs is out of control. It may not matter as much here because we have a high college student population who is glad to take these jobs, but if you are an adult who needs a survivable wage, it's tough here. We're not a major metro area so opportunities are limited.

I don't feel like I, personally, am having a tough time because I am in a situation where we CHOSE for my to take a lower-skilled, lower-hour, lower-pay job to have a healthier pregnancy. But if I had been looking for a full-time social work gig comparable to my skills, experience and job history? They just don't exist around here.

I also would support cool drinking places that are non-smoking. But if they don't exist, I'm going back to lobbying for anti-smoking laws.

Re: At the risk of trolling....

[authentichris.livejournal.com]

Well, one issue is the specifity of the industry--for whatever reason, people wanna be in the social work field...and that's a job that is in high demand relative to the spaces. That pushes wages down

But, there are few (relatively) people that wanna be nurses compared to the need, so an RN can earn a lot more with comparable skill sets. That there are few jobs in one sector doesn't make an economy.

but...I do get what your saying, that the regional differences in the economy are tough. One of thge problems mass has is with restrictive zoning laws, keeping lots big distorts the real estate economy to such a degree that there is a hosing shortage. danabnrml9 talks abou this a bit.

The problem with the last sentence is big. If something doesn't exist, you'll force it through legislation. If someone wants to freely associate--you should NOT be able to tell them what to do. Period. Freedom has to be cherished and guarded. It's not stupid cowboy bravado and jingonistic rhetoric.

it's having principles that dictate that even if something inconveniences me, even if it makes it tough for me to act...it's gotta be acceptable. I think cigarette smoking is a tax on stupidity. I think the tobacco companies are murderers for hiding and lying, and chemically manipulating their product.

But I think their product (and drugs, and other things) should and must be legal, because it gives the government recourse to protect us from other things.

And then the government, and not God/Nature/The Universe...becomes the provider of rights.

And then when a jackass like George Bush comes into office, he can play willy nilly with the rights that we have.

Re: At the risk of trolling....

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Yeah but I don't have a problem with the legalization of cigarettes. It doesn't bother me that people choose to smoke. Let them choose to smoke! Let them kill themselves and make themselves sick! It doesn't matter to me.

But when I'm out somewhere, hrm, let me think of an example. When I'm out with my kid at the zoo and we're sitting on the bench having a snack and all of a sudden we're overcome with cigarette smoke? I have a problem with that. I don't feel that it's restricting freedom by telling someone that they can't smoke somewhere - it's not telling them they can't smoke.

I can walk around naked in my own house but if I decided to go to the zoo in my birthday suit, I would be kicked out and/or arrested. Is that a freedom restriction? I can own a gun in my house but can I bring a gun to an elementary school? Is that a freedom restriction? I suppose we think differently about these things.

And I don't really want to start ANOTHER discussion in this thread, but the idea that social work salaries are so low because there are so many people competing for the jobs is laughable. There are reasons that SW salaries are lower than nursing salaries, and competition is not one of them. There are a LOT of nurses out there. It's all about what is valued in our society and what is not. And in current society, medicine and business are EVERYTHING.

Re: At the risk of trolling....

[authentichris.livejournal.com]

Well, the zoo may be an exception because of its funding; if it gets federal/state/taxpayer funds then it should curb the smoking. Same thing with stadiums, other things that get taxpayer money (stadiums shouldn't get taxpayer money, for what it's worth).

but if people want to freely assocaite in a bar...and smoke and drink and have unprotected sex while consuming a hamburger and using marijuana while sunbathing....the goverment has no authority in that matter.

---

As far as the demand/supply thing, I'm not wrong. there are few jobs relative to the number of people that want them, and want to do that work. Salaries are low because the demand for the job is low relative to the supply of people that can do the job.

Re: At the risk of trolling....

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

but if people want to freely assocaite in a bar...and smoke and drink and have unprotected sex while consuming a hamburger and using marijuana while sunbathing....the goverment has no authority in that matter.

I guess I don't understand your logic. So you're saying it's okay for the government to restrict freedoms in a place where they provide some funding, but it's not okay in a private establishment? I'm just trying to make sure I follow you properly.

Are you saying that if Mr. Jones wants to open a sex and drugs bar, and Mr. Smith wants to open a cigars and wine bar, etc., then that should be okay? I guess in some ways if you're talking about everything then it doesn't sound as silly.

However, we DO have restrictions on things. Maybe not cigarettes (in all places) but things like nudity, sex, drugs, firearms, noise, emissions, etc. So should we remove all restrictions (god help us with the environmental restrictions, no matter how lax), or is cigarettes your personal mission? Because I don't see how one could fight for "smoker's rights" and not "nudist's rights" or whatever, using that libertarian-type argument.

~//~

My first SW job after graduate school was at a homeless shelter and it paid about $25K. There were two applicants. There were two jobs available. Both of us got hired. Supply and demand? Hardly.

Re: At the risk of trolling....

[authentichris.livejournal.com]

your own experiences aren't indicative of anytihng, and neither are mine...anecdotal evidence, etc, etc.

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

What an awful double standard.

I'm not sure it's a double standard, so much as an opportunity for them to be gleeful about the divorce.

All the anti-gay marriage crows needs are a few divorces, and they'll start claiming that it's proof of their beliefs about the instability of gay marriages.

"We don't even allow gay marriage, but we had 40 gay divorces last year" is a great tag line for a poster or political ad. Even if the gay divorce rate is lower than the heterosexual divorce rate it won't matter to the pundits. They're looking for statistics they can twist to meet their agendas. Truth is irrelevant.

One of my former bosses hated gays with a passion. He used to brag about his platoon having deliberately abandoned a homosexual soldier to die behind enemy lines during operation Desert Storm.

One day, the topic of gay marriage came up, and he ranted for about 20 minutes, including a proud, puffed up retelling of the above mentioned military exploit.

Knowing his opinion of women and marriage (which was only marginally better than that of homosexuals) I rendered him speechless with the words:

"If you hate gays so much, why would you deny them an opportunity to get divorced?"

After a few minutes he said, "I have to think about that" and walked away.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I guess I will probably NEVER understand why ANYONE cares about who anyone else marries. I mean, some of my friends have gotten together with real douchebags but it doesn't really impact MY life in any negative way.

Then again, I'm one of those crazy pinkos.

[artjax.livejournal.com]

I'm very saddened by what's happened in your state today. I am trying to be hopeful about the ballot outcome, but, it's sometimes hard to have hope when you know what you've stated in your last paragraph is probably true.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I don't like being a pessimist, but sometimes realism is not at all positive. And it sucks.

I just wish people would get their heads out of their asses.

[skreeky]

Hell, I don't think people need the permission of their families to get married, why the hell should they need permission from the damn gubbermint.

*sigh*
I pretty much said my piece for the day elsewhere though.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

I hear ya.

[anitsirk.livejournal.com]

you're over in southwest, eh?
chris lived in John Adams when we started dating.


i say call a security guard for a walk to the car.

[judecorp.livejournal.com]

Well, it's not an issue right now as no one is living on campus. But I will certainly see how it goes when the semester picks up again - especially when my mobility becomes limited.