Emperor Rants and Observations - Latest Comments

Re: Sarah Palin: The Real Dope (pun intended)

mcwald20 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:01:24 -0000

palin is a real dope and will show this every day.
talk away lady.

Re: Legalize Hemp and Marijuana

Emperor_Bob — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:14:02 -0000

Alcohol, Tobacco and Pharmaceutical Drugs all do much more harm to the
body and society as a whole. There aren't any good, legitimate
reasons for Marijuana being illegal.

Re: Legalize Hemp and Marijuana

DrugLord — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:44:23 -0000

You are true about that: there are several types of hemp and some don't have THC concentration near the level where it could be called a drug. Some things just need to change, but as that doesn't mean I agree with any kind of legal drug.
_______________________________________________________________
Drug treatment center in Los Angeles

Re: Sullivan’s Oath of Office

jimegged — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:56:11 -0000

You are absolutely right here Bob. We must guarantee everyone equal protection of the law. If we begin to systematically select who we protect we risk the failure of our entire system. This would allow would be dictators like George W. Bush to try to muscle their way into positions of power. The result of which would be the enslaving of the rest of the proletariat into serfdom.

Re: About The Emperor

tmichael1 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:13:37 -0000

Interesting post. I have stumbled and twittered this for my friends. Hope others find it as interesting as I did.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

Emperor_Bob — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:02:40 -0000

The definition used in the municipal code is as follows:

"Discrimination means any direct or indirect act or practice of exclusion, distinction, restriction, segregation, limitation, refusal or denial or any other act or practice of differentiation or preference in the treatment of a person because of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, marital status or physical or mental disability, or the aiding, abetting, inciting, coercing or compelling thereof."

Sexual orientation would be added to the list of protected classes.

I've made the ordinance available for download here

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

drewM — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:39:40 -0000

I haven't reviewed the ordinence in question, so I could be wrong. However.
I was under the impression that it only covered hiring for a job or applying
for a credit or apartment; not to being fired from a job you've already held
for a while or being evicted. Feel free to correct me if I misunderstand.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

drewM — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:34:16 -0000

It's not *entirely* the same thing, because it's much easier to descriminate
against someone for their race or their sex or their disability because
those things are extremely visible, and impossible to not notice. I'm not
saying gay people should have to hide the fact that they're gay, necesarily,
just that it's a lot easier for a racist to pick up on the fact that
someone's black than it is for a homophobe to pick up on the fact that
someone's homosexual. Unless, of course, the gay person in question is
announcing that fact to any and every person in hearing range, in which case
he's being an annoying prat who deserves to get canned because he's going
out of his way to make the rest of the staff uncomfortable for no reason at
all. Er, for applying for a line of credit that argument is a great deal
weaker, yes. Granted, having the legal recourse to pursue those who
descriminate is nice, but in the real world I'm finding it hard to see how
such a case could be won by the gay person. Unless an employer or a
homeowner or a credit union employee blatantly says, *in writing* or in
front of *friendly* witnesses, that you're not accepted due to gayness, I
don't know how anyone could prove in a court of law that descrimination took
place.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

Emperor_Bob — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:54:01 -0000

Bigotry takes many different forms, it's not always about not getting a job, not getting a home, or not getting credit. It is sometimes about losing a job, your home or credit. Religion is the perfect example because it may not be readily obvious at first glance (and it really IS a choice, unlike sexual orientation).

Let say you have a great tenant. They are quite, pay their rent on time, never have any complaints, willing to take care of little things around the property without asking to be reimbursed or bothering you with it. Then one day, you see your tenant going door to door handing out literature to the neighborhood. Curious, you ask him what he is doing and come to find out he's a Seventh Day Adventist. Like a lot of "good" Christians you believe that Seventh Day Adventists are evil and you don't want to rent to their kind. Now, the law in this case gives the tenant some recourse, because it would be hard for the landlord to prove that the eviction wasn't due to the tenant's religion. However, given the same circumstance, and instead of handing out religious material, you witness your same sex tenants kissing in a non "roommate" sort of way saying good bye. Well you don't want to rent to their kind and the law does nothing to stop you. You can evict them. If one of them works for you, you can fire them even though they did nothing inappropriate on the job. If you're a credit officer and you see the same thing, you can throw the application in the trash without concern. If anyone questions your decision all you have to say is that you don't make loans, hire, promote, rent to, sell to "that" kind. Even if they may be a part of some other "protected" class, it doesn't matter because you are free to treat ANYONE as you please based on their sexual orientation, even if they are heterosexual.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

drewM — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:13:08 -0000

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

drewM — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 02:45:22 -0000

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

Emperor_Bob — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:55:20 -0000

The law isn't going to stop bigotry. The law doesn't stop bigots from discriminating against others by race or religion either. What it does do is give those that have been discriminated against legal recourse if they lose their job or homes due to discrimination. To say the law isn't necessary to protect people of ALL sexual orientations, is to say the law isn't necessary to protect ALL races, religions, genders, etc...

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

drewM — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:20:29 -0000

Any public official should be aware that the vocal majority will be whining and be nothing compared to the silent majority that is just fine with the status quo. If he did indeed here both sides of the issue equally then he'd be fully aware that many of the communications are from people outside of his jurisdiction and, thus, unaffected by the ordinance. No matter which way you personally feel about the issue, the mayor is a spineless weasel hiding behind a flimsy pretense because Republicans are far better at making elected officials' lives difficult than Democrats are. Darling Lisa has been opposing any sort of action on towards gay marriage or even civil unions for years for that same exact reason. I mean there may be some actual bigotry there too but whether there is or is not is pretty inconsequential, in my opinion.

In my mind, though, the situation brings up a few questions that I feel should be answered before I can fully throw my support into the ring of the gays. As I'm an unknown here let me first state categorically that I love gays. I think gay people are fantastic. I live near San Francisco and before that I was an actor at UAA. I think it's fair to say that I am around at any given time a fairly significant amount of gay people and, as a straight male, this does not bother me. (I actually get a bit offended if gay men -don't- check me out, to be perfectly honest.) You want yer government-sanctioned gay marriage? I am aaall over that. I think that y'all should be as free to throw yourselves madly into a 10-year, monogamous relationship of candlelight dinners and sponge baths before ending it abruptly when someone comes back to find their partner blowing the pool boy as all hetero couples are.

That aside.

I honestly fail to see how sexual preference even comes up in regards to job hiring or getting a loan. While I'm finding it rather humorous to imagine the reasoning that would be used by anyone denying a homosexual person a line of credit ("No offense Jim, but while we're okay with giving the biker gang down the street home loans, you are just too *gayyyy*") I'm finding it equally humorous imagining how that information would even be revealed. "Name?" "Big gay Al." "Sex?" "All the time, from hot, sweaty men!" "Gender?" "I thought I just told you...?" "Never mind." I mean I don't exactly feel the need to talk to random strangers, especially not ones who I'm relying on to think I am not-insane, about how much I *love* to do it with girls. Even the ones I'm pretty sure are themselves straight. They don't care and they shouldn't. It's none of their business. I could see the logic for *keeping* the job (it gets awkward when your cubicle buddy won't shut up about trying to bond over the cute member of the opposite sex that keeps passing by but when you have to tell that person you don't even share a viewpoint on what gender is attractive, that could lead to trouble--not the fault of the gay person, understand, that's totally the straight person's problem in that case but unfortunately the gay person's more likely to get fired. Which, is, ridiculous. Yes. But it's a different argument.) Or if, I dunno, some gay people get evicted because the straight bigots nearby got tired of the constant orgiastic homosexual sex going on next door (Though if it was straight sex and I was that neighbor I would still be tempted to stir up a fuss out of sheer jealous spite). However as far as I can tell the ordinance only covers hiring and acceptance practices, not what comes later. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference is different from discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or disability because in order to be turned down for a job because you're gay the employer would first have to actually know you're gay. Though, I suppose he could suspect, in which case "your application was denied on the grounds of suspected gayness" would become a legal and accepted reason for not getting a job. This both amuses and frightens me. Moving on.

As stated previously, all enacting this law effectively does is tell employers that they have to lie about their bigotry and come up with any plausible excuse to cover it up. Considering how tight the job market, and housing market, is these days, opportunities to do this are legion. Assuming that this law is enacted and Gay G. McGay from Gayerton, (a suburb of Ketchican) prances in with the full crossdressing getup on, somehow aces the interview despite this, (another highly amusing visual) and scores well on all the tests... it doesn't matter. These days, an employer will have at least a dozen if not more applications on his desk that will be likely to have similar or better qualifications than whoever my fictional stereotype has. And even if he doesn't, he can just lie and say that he does, and Mr. stereotype has absolutely no legal recourse.

I think it's insane that people are so up in arms about what sexual orientation other people, or indeed they themselves, are. In my mind, people should care a lot less and be a lot more comfortable with themselves and each other, and just let people do their own thing as long as it's not bothering anybody. However, I fail to see what enacting this law will actually accomplish in terms of real world impact on homosexuals in the working class or trying to break into said class. It gives the activists something to crow about, sure, ego boosts are wonderful, but I think y'all need a little more help than that.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

Daniella — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:17:43 -0000

I sent an email to the Assembly as a whole and also to Mr. Sullivan.
To commenter Lena: the problem with your logic about the 'majority' is that 2500 out of over 200,000 ISN'T the majority. It's just the folks who voiced their opinion to the mayor directly. Also, there is no way to quantify these numbers or their intent. It was simply an off hand statement the Mayor made to justify his veto. Not to mention in a representative democracy we elect our decision makers, this is not a direct democracy. Our elected officials who were chosen to decide on this matter are the Assembly. They decided by a majority to pass the ordinance. The mayors veto was undermining, reckless and smacks of a desperate attempt to keep the powerful elite happy. No one can deny that the Anchorage Baptist Temple took a very public stance on this matter and unduly influenced their congregation (which is over 2000 people, as stated on their website.) to complain to local law makers.

The majority does not generally make good decisions for the minority. That's why this decision wasn't set to a public vote, but instead to a panel of educated and objective officials who can make decisions impartially for the whole.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

Emperor_Bob — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:56:58 -0000

When it relates to issues like road projects or budget items, then yes the representative should represent their constituents to the degree that they can. When it comes to protecting people from discrimination, then an elected official should do what is right, not what is popular or expedient. Promoting bigotry, hate and discrimination is NEVER right.

You also neglect that the Assembly members who voted for the ordinance were also representing their constituents. In order for the mayor to be justified in vetoing the vote of those representatives, the bar should be higher than he doesn't think it is needed.

Even if you could convince me that the Mayor should do whatever the majority wanted (which you can't) it would have to be more than 2500 out of 180,000 registered voters (1.4%). Prevo has that many cult members. This is a very vocal minority that is not representative at all of the majority of Anchorage citizens. They are driven by religious zealotry, not equality for everyone. They are driven by hatred and intolerance and for the Mayor of Anchorage to side with them is more than just disappointing, it's disgusting and shameful.

As for the question of whether outside agitators were bussed in for the testimony at the assembly, that is a known fact that Ossiander acknowledged and still allowed them to sign up after the original hearing date.

I'm waiting for the Municipal Clerks Office to email a copy of the Mayor's Oath of Office. I'm sure they were busy with other more important things than emailing me a copy of something that should be publicly available on their website. But when I see it, we can talk about the actual oath that the Mayor took to see if he acted accordingly in vetoing the ordinance.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

the problem child — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 19:44:23 -0000

Thanks for this supportive post. And yes, if the discrimination was against breeders this law would have passed easily.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

twitter-19329138 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:34:02 -0000

The fact that the majority isn't always right doesn't change the fact that it's still a representative's duty to *represent.* It's not the representative's fault that the vocal majority of his constituent group is on the wrong track. If non-Anchorage-residents are getting their opinions in disguised as Anchoragites, then that's a sign that the communication system needs checking methods implemented.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

Emperor_Bob — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:43:20 -0000

The majority isn't always right. The majority once thought slavery was ok. The majority once thought that women shouldn't have the right to vote or own property. This is a case where the minority was asking for equal rights in employment, housing and credit. Even if the majority doesn't believe people deserve protection based on their sexual orientation, he is mayor of the entire municipality, not just the ones he agrees with.

I'm not convinced that those messages were from Anchorage residents at all. Most of the testimony at the Assembly hearings against the ordinance was bussed in from outside Anchorage. Prevo made a concerted effort to get his cult members to contact the mayor. It was a vocal minority inspired by fascist leadership.

The law won't stop all bigots, just like there are still people that won't hire or rent to some minorities in violation of the law. But what the law would provide is legal recourse for those people that are victims of discrimination. People wouldn't be in fear of losing their job or their home if it became known they were gay.

By vetoing the ordinance Sullivan has validated that it's ok to discriminate based on sexual orientation. He did it with the lamest of excuses. He witnessed the venomous hatred that was spewed by opponents to the ordinance and then said there was no evidence of a problem? He's a bigot and his veto MUST be overturned.

Re: Sullivan lowers the bar. Promotes Bigotry and Hatred.

twitter-19329138 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:49:47 -0000

It is the obligation of ANY duly elected representative to pay attention to the desires of and act in accordance with his constituents' wishes. While many politicians do take that to extremes to stay in popularity, Sullivan's statement implies that most of the people who directed opinions at him voiced opposition to the measure. Regardless of his personal feelings, he could not ignore the comments directed at him on the matter.

As for the measure itself, I think it would be lovely if people didn't have to worry about discrimination in looking for jobs and whatnot. However, I don't believe anti-discrimination laws will help anything. While an employer couldn't officially use that as a reason not to hire people, they could still produce a hostile or unwelcoming environment. With the help of other employees to witness on the employer's behalf, someone could face discrimination in the workplace after being hired with no recourse for relief. Aren't people, then, better off finding a workplace that will welcome them without being required to by law? You're not going to cure the disease by treating the symptoms.

Re: 10 Points of Change: 2. Campaign contributions restricted to individuals eligible to vote

Emperor_Bob — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:15:49 -0000

We have been a corporate aristocracy for decades. Our elected officials are the best that money can buy.

Re: “It will break him.”

oboulo — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:00:34 -0000

Yes, I stand with Barack Obama in his reforms for the health care system. There are many reasons why his reforms must be be quickly implemented, firstly more than 47 million U.S. residents have no health insurance, and the numbers keep growing. Secondly our Working families are experiencing double-digit increases in the costs of their health insurance, more out-of-pocket costs for doctor visits and skyrocketing prices for prescriptions, forcing many to delay getting needed medical care or worse...last but not least the failure of the previous health care systems will demand for new reforms such as this, playing politics at the time when millions of citizens life is at stake will certainly hamper the well-being of the country.
Interesting report below:
Link : http://en.oboulo.com/the-failure-of-america-s-h...
Fingers crossed!

Re: Emperor’s World View

Emperor_Bob — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:28:26 -0000

Thanks for taking the time to read it.

Re: Emperor’s World View

syrin — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:20:09 -0000

Thank you, I appreciate your perspective.

Re: Emperor’s World View

Emperor_Bob — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:29:34 -0000

Just added to "Emperor's World View"

I’m not a Christian but I’m going to appropriate Galatians 5: 22-23 as good standards to try and live up to.

22 In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

When I read Spirit in that context, I interpret it as the “Human Spirit”. But I join with Christians or anyone else who truly try to live up to that standard. [credit to Alaskan Librarian for the inspiration]

Re: 10 Points of Change: 2. Campaign contributions restricted to individuals eligible to vote

blackandmild — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:14:33 -0000

I agree campaign finance reform is the number one issue that threatens to derail the will of the people in the republic left by our forefathers. We are tuning in to a corporate aristocracy.