It feels really weird to be proud of my state. Living in Kansas for six years, every time the politicians voted on something that had to do with rights (rights for women, gays, etc.) you knew how it was going to go. And it was shameful. Now that we are living in somewhat of a progressive state, it is nice to see them moving forward. Yesterday, the state passed a same-sex marriage bill and it will be signed into law today. So very, very proud. Before getting too far into this post, I am linking this article from the Daily Currant. The Daily Currant is political satire, so
unfortunately this isn't true. If it were, Minnesota would be better off for
it. Because she is an awful, awful person. Just awful.
Minnesota is the twelfth state in the country to pass a same sex marriage bill. Nine in the Northeast (basically all of New England), Washington, and Iowa. Iowa is a bit surprising to me based on where it is geographically. Washington D.C. also recognizes same sex marriage. Along with these states, the Coquille Indian Tribe (Oregon), the Suquamish Tribe (Washington State), and the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians (Michigan) have recognized same sex marriage. Go us Natives! There are some states (New Jersey, Illinois) that recognize civil unions. Basically they are okay with gay people staying together and having rights, but not comfortable enough to use the phrase 'married'. That's just too weird I guess. I feel that civil unions being recognized by states were the stepping stones to the same sex marriage movement we are now witnessing in this country today. Without these civil union states, we may not have as much progress as we have now.
When you think about these twelve states passing this law, you think that this is great progress, and it is! However, in the world we live in now, you would think that there would be more. The population is becoming more accepting of alternative lifestyles, but there are the holdovers that yearn for the good ol' days. Days of women staying in the kitchen, men being sexists assholes all the time, and gays staying in the closet. Looking at states that have constitutional bans on same sex marriage, there are twenty five (TWENTY FIVE!). To no one's surprise, every state south and east of Kentucky has banned same sex marriage. Also the Midwest from Texas north to North Dakota. The Bible Belt and the Grain Belt. Sadly, my home state of Michigan falls into this category (shame on you Michigan!). Half of our country has told people that they are not allowed to marry those that they love. Is this as bad as Jim Crow Laws? No. But it's damn close. In the ratings of oppressive laws Jim Crow comes in at number 1 and banning gay marriage is 1A.
I know that the biggest argument opponents of gay marriage have is 'one man and one woman is marriage'. I know that traditionalist cannot see the present for they are blinded by the past. I know that change scares people. I also know that change can bring people together. I also know that the best way to move forward is to look to the past and the mistakes that have been made. I also know that love knows no gender. Love is love and marriage is just a word and a piece of paper.
14 May 2013
04 May 2013
Sun, Rain, Snow, Sleet, Sun
'How bout this weather?' Whenever you need to make small talk with someone you don't really know, you can always go with this old one. It can lead to conversations that have nothing to do with the weather, but it is a jumping off point. But let's talk about this weather we have recently had in Minnesota.
Last weekend, it was in the seventies. SEVENTIES! The last of the winter snow did not stand a chance. We took advantage and had the windows open. We walked around a nature center not far from here. It felt good to get out and not have to bundle up. Don't get me wrong, I love the winter, but what I can't stand is that couple of weeks each year when it goes back and forth from spring to winter. With the nice weather, everyone was looking forward to the spring and what it had to offer. What did it offer? Snow. And rain. And sleet. And eventually sun again.
There was a nice little storm that came through and the seventy degree weather dropped like a rock. A forty degree drop to be exact. Here in the eastern suburbs of the Twin Cities we saw just a few inches of snow. South of here got upwards of fourteen to eighteen inches. In the western part of the state had a state of emergency called. The snow here was gone by the end of the day. Thanks to the rain because it warmed up just enough to do that. In the evening, it cooled off but it didn't snow, it was too warm for that. It was more of a sleet. Fun stuff. We woke up to a little bit of snow on the ground, but it didn't stick around. A few days from now it is suppose to be back up to the sixties and seventies.
People around here are pissed. And why not? Lots of people are just sick of winter. It's been around for a long time. Two weeks into December we got our first real snow and most of it melted by the middle of April. When we went on our vacation, the only snow that was left was the big piles that show up when parking lots and driveways get plowed out. While we were gone, there was a small snow storm. It stuck around for a week and was officially gone. Everyone was ready to move past the winter and into spring. Plans were being made for gardens, baseball fields were cleared, the grass was starting to turn green. Then we got this. Rain, sleet, and snow. Awesome. I love winter, but if it's spring time, it needs to be spring. Once you see the grass turns green, there should not be snow.
Later on in the week, it is suppose to be back up into the seventies and after this past week, if it snows one more time, I think people might start sacrificing goats to appease some sort of god.
Last weekend, it was in the seventies. SEVENTIES! The last of the winter snow did not stand a chance. We took advantage and had the windows open. We walked around a nature center not far from here. It felt good to get out and not have to bundle up. Don't get me wrong, I love the winter, but what I can't stand is that couple of weeks each year when it goes back and forth from spring to winter. With the nice weather, everyone was looking forward to the spring and what it had to offer. What did it offer? Snow. And rain. And sleet. And eventually sun again.
There was a nice little storm that came through and the seventy degree weather dropped like a rock. A forty degree drop to be exact. Here in the eastern suburbs of the Twin Cities we saw just a few inches of snow. South of here got upwards of fourteen to eighteen inches. In the western part of the state had a state of emergency called. The snow here was gone by the end of the day. Thanks to the rain because it warmed up just enough to do that. In the evening, it cooled off but it didn't snow, it was too warm for that. It was more of a sleet. Fun stuff. We woke up to a little bit of snow on the ground, but it didn't stick around. A few days from now it is suppose to be back up to the sixties and seventies.
People around here are pissed. And why not? Lots of people are just sick of winter. It's been around for a long time. Two weeks into December we got our first real snow and most of it melted by the middle of April. When we went on our vacation, the only snow that was left was the big piles that show up when parking lots and driveways get plowed out. While we were gone, there was a small snow storm. It stuck around for a week and was officially gone. Everyone was ready to move past the winter and into spring. Plans were being made for gardens, baseball fields were cleared, the grass was starting to turn green. Then we got this. Rain, sleet, and snow. Awesome. I love winter, but if it's spring time, it needs to be spring. Once you see the grass turns green, there should not be snow.
Later on in the week, it is suppose to be back up into the seventies and after this past week, if it snows one more time, I think people might start sacrificing goats to appease some sort of god.
Support and Move On
Jason Collins earlier this week became the first active male athlete in the four major sports to open up about his homosexuality. In an article for Sports Illustrated, he put everything out in the open with the first line:
He has said he appreciates the support, but he just wants everyone to move on past his announcement. So far, so good. His team is out of the playoffs and the focus is on the teams still playing. I truly hope that once the NBA season starts next year, sports commentators do not focus on him during games just because he is openly gay. The last thing that I am sure anyone wants to hear is 'and in comes Jason Collins and everyone knows that name because he is the first openly gay male athlete...' It is not meant to be disrespectful, but it kind of is. Think of it in this context: substitute 'openly gay' for 'black' or 'white'. It just seems shallow and in poor taste. Just be happy for the man and move on. Continue to support his decision to come out and move on. He does not need to be treated any differently because of who he is.
Coming out as an athlete must be difficult. It is macho man, testosterone driven society. Those societies are always the ones that are slow to adapt to change. You are always going to have closed minded fuckheads like Chris Culliver. You are always going to have people that are not comfortable with themselves and therefore are uncomfortable with things that are not the same as them. To counter that, you have people like Chris Kluwe who absolutely decimated a Maryland state delegate last year in a letter laced with both profanity and sound reasoning because of the man's comments. If a team is suppose to be a 'family' should they not support their 'brothers'? Should they have their back every second of every day whether it is on the field or off?
As our country slowly becomes more and more accepting this kind of story it will no longer be a headliner type story. It will end up being a little blip on the five o'clock news. People will look at it and think 'okay, but how is he going to contribute to my team this year?' Every social movement starts with the action of one. And that one action can cause an avalanche. And what a great avalanche it can be.
'I'm a 34-year-old NBA center. I'm black. And I'm gay.'Not only is this great for him, but it is great for the sports world. He has received support from athletes in other sports, teammates, sports commissioners, even the President. The media has covered it the right way, speaking to all the support he has received and ignoring any negative comments. But honestly, what kind of moron would speak negatively about this? Someone that wouldn't mind being labeled a villain the rest of their life, that's who. Reading the article, you can tell that this is a huge relief to Collins, and he struggled with the decision to come out. The thing is, he doesn't want this to be a big deal. It is what it is and he just wants to play basketball next year. He is not a star in the NBA nor is he a big contributor off the bench. He is a guy that in a year or two probably will not have a job just because there are always better players out there and he is not one of them. But who knows, he may have chosen this time in his life to come out to ensure that he does get a job next year. What kind of positive publicity would a team get signing him? It would be huge. He could be an evil genius choosing this time to ensure he gets a paycheck next year. Okay, not really.
He has said he appreciates the support, but he just wants everyone to move on past his announcement. So far, so good. His team is out of the playoffs and the focus is on the teams still playing. I truly hope that once the NBA season starts next year, sports commentators do not focus on him during games just because he is openly gay. The last thing that I am sure anyone wants to hear is 'and in comes Jason Collins and everyone knows that name because he is the first openly gay male athlete...' It is not meant to be disrespectful, but it kind of is. Think of it in this context: substitute 'openly gay' for 'black' or 'white'. It just seems shallow and in poor taste. Just be happy for the man and move on. Continue to support his decision to come out and move on. He does not need to be treated any differently because of who he is.
Coming out as an athlete must be difficult. It is macho man, testosterone driven society. Those societies are always the ones that are slow to adapt to change. You are always going to have closed minded fuckheads like Chris Culliver. You are always going to have people that are not comfortable with themselves and therefore are uncomfortable with things that are not the same as them. To counter that, you have people like Chris Kluwe who absolutely decimated a Maryland state delegate last year in a letter laced with both profanity and sound reasoning because of the man's comments. If a team is suppose to be a 'family' should they not support their 'brothers'? Should they have their back every second of every day whether it is on the field or off?
As our country slowly becomes more and more accepting this kind of story it will no longer be a headliner type story. It will end up being a little blip on the five o'clock news. People will look at it and think 'okay, but how is he going to contribute to my team this year?' Every social movement starts with the action of one. And that one action can cause an avalanche. And what a great avalanche it can be.
24 April 2013
Beer Tax
There is a possibility of the state of Minnesota raising the taxes on alcohol and I'm okay with that. It is an effort by the Democrat led state government to help balance the budget, something you would think most would be in favor of. When anyone hears the term 'tax hike' or 'tax increase' panic sets in. No one likes to pay more for something they enjoy. Hell, I get mad every once in a while when I fill up my Jeep because I know that about fifteen years ago, it cost about a dollar a gallon and not three fifty. In the days of running the government on a deficit and credit, it would be nice to live in a state that is trying to get ahead of it's own debt and get back into the black. By all accounts, if the tax hike were to go through, it could raise the cost of beer about two dollars a case. Buying a pint at the bar would cost an extra seven cents. At least that is the line that is coming out of the Capitol.
On the other hand, the state brewers and liquor lobby (yes, we have one of those!) are saying that the cost will be much higher to them and to the consumer. Here's how it breaks down from the perspective of the brewers: all brewers pay a tax of $4.60 for each barrel (thirty one gallons) of beer they make. For one litre bottles of spirits and liquor, the makers are charged $1.33 tax. Wine is also taxed, but varies based on alcohol content. So the tax for each seems pretty low to me and that is how the brewers would like to keep it. With the proposed tax hike, the beer brewers would pay $27.75 for each barrel of beer brewed (I couldn't find information on the new tax price for liquor or wine). Instead of seeing a seven cent per pint and two dollar hike on a case, the brewers are estimating that it would be double that. So, fourteen cents and four dollar respectively.
Now this rate hasn't changed since 1987, so it would be a shock to the brewers to have to pay this new tax. It all comes down to the bottom line for the brewers and how strong their lobby is. Of course they want to keep the tax rate the same, it means that they have to pay less to sell their product. If they pay less, they make more. Business sense says why mess with something that works. The problem is that everyone has to make sacrifices when it comes to the state wide budget. This time, it's the brewers that might have to take the hit. Yes, it is a huge jump going from five dollars to twenty eight, but with them paying so little for so long, it should be time to help out their state. I think that if the proposed tax was about ten to fifteen dollars less you would see less push back from the brewers. Both sides would win, the state is still getting more tax money and the brewers aren't getting taxed as much as first proposed.
People aren't going to stop drinking just because the price goes up. They might drink less in one sitting or they might go from buying a case of beer a week to a case of beer once every two weeks, but isn't that a good thing? Isn't it a little bit healthier for us? These proposed higher taxes aren't going to put brewers out of business, they just won't be making as much of a profit margin as they once were.
Below is a quote from an article in the Star Tribune written by Baird Helgeson.
On the other hand, the state brewers and liquor lobby (yes, we have one of those!) are saying that the cost will be much higher to them and to the consumer. Here's how it breaks down from the perspective of the brewers: all brewers pay a tax of $4.60 for each barrel (thirty one gallons) of beer they make. For one litre bottles of spirits and liquor, the makers are charged $1.33 tax. Wine is also taxed, but varies based on alcohol content. So the tax for each seems pretty low to me and that is how the brewers would like to keep it. With the proposed tax hike, the beer brewers would pay $27.75 for each barrel of beer brewed (I couldn't find information on the new tax price for liquor or wine). Instead of seeing a seven cent per pint and two dollar hike on a case, the brewers are estimating that it would be double that. So, fourteen cents and four dollar respectively.
Now this rate hasn't changed since 1987, so it would be a shock to the brewers to have to pay this new tax. It all comes down to the bottom line for the brewers and how strong their lobby is. Of course they want to keep the tax rate the same, it means that they have to pay less to sell their product. If they pay less, they make more. Business sense says why mess with something that works. The problem is that everyone has to make sacrifices when it comes to the state wide budget. This time, it's the brewers that might have to take the hit. Yes, it is a huge jump going from five dollars to twenty eight, but with them paying so little for so long, it should be time to help out their state. I think that if the proposed tax was about ten to fifteen dollars less you would see less push back from the brewers. Both sides would win, the state is still getting more tax money and the brewers aren't getting taxed as much as first proposed.
People aren't going to stop drinking just because the price goes up. They might drink less in one sitting or they might go from buying a case of beer a week to a case of beer once every two weeks, but isn't that a good thing? Isn't it a little bit healthier for us? These proposed higher taxes aren't going to put brewers out of business, they just won't be making as much of a profit margin as they once were.
Below is a quote from an article in the Star Tribune written by Baird Helgeson.
“I am against it, absolutely against it,” Joe Mangin, 85. “The people who like to drink, we are being discriminated against.”This brings to mind when Wichita was deciding on whether or not to go smokeless in bars. Smokers were up in arms over having to go outside to kill their lungs and save mine. The main argument was that they were being discriminated against because...well that's just it, there never was a good argument. Just because a law has been passed or a tax is in the process of being enacted and it affects you and your vices does not mean the government is discriminating against you. Not being able to drink from a certain water fountain or not being able to marry someone is the government discriminating against you. Know the difference.
16 April 2013
Marathon Reaction
Watching my niece play while oblivious to what is happening in Boston right now.I miss being a kid sometimes.
— Michael Litzner (@Litzner) April 15, 2013
Above is what I tweeted regarding the explosions during the Boston Marathon yesterday. My niece was playing on the floor with her toys not paying attention to anything else. She doesn't watch the television unless there are cartoons on...or I'm trying to watch a sporting event. So it was great that she was not paying attention so we did not have to talk to her about it. How do you explain what is happening when a bomb goes off to a four year old? Is there a way to explain it? I don't think there is. Not unless you want to shatter their illusion of a safe world. When my nephew came in he started asking what had happened. He is old enough to watch something happening on the TV and figure some stuff out. So he started asking questions and we answered the questions the best we could without many details.
I now have three nieces and one nephew who all were born into the post 9/11 world. They will never know what it was like to not have to take your shoes off at the airport or living without a color coded fear spectrum. They will always have to travel with three ounces of shampoo and conditioner and nothing more. They will have to deal with these fears and stresses until something more monumental happens (be it for better or worse). I don't know if they will understand what it was like. They will read about the events in their history books, but might not be able to fully grasp the situation. It is along the same lines as someone my age reading or watching the events of Pearl Harbor. Sure, I have seen the video of the attack, I have read the first hand account, I have listened to Franklin Roosevelt's speech, but I do not know the instant feelings and reaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)