kevin's blog

So this week there was talk of sports in my office.

 Of course to me this is all but gibberish. I don't get it, am not interested in it, and generally get bored listening to it.

But I decided to listen to the smack talk and yammering anyway. And after listening and asking some questions I decided maybe I was a little more interested. Especially since all the talk was about college football.

Football is the only sport I am actually interested in even mildly. So everyone is talking about NCAA conferances and divisions and so on.  They ask me to pick a team and join in and I don't know anything about it so I start asking what teams are in this and what does that mean blah blah blah.

So I find out that U of K is in the SEC conferance and that U of C is in the Big East conferance. Well I attended UC. So I was more inclined to choose the Bearcats. But everyone at work only worries about the SEC since they are all from around here. Auburn FSU, U of F, Alabama and so on. So I decide to pick UK for the SEC and I will keep track of them for this season. 

For whatever reason I thought it would be a good thing and in my head I remembered watching a news story while I still lived in Lexington about UK "starting a new Football program" so I thought that previous to 1997 UK had no football. So I make the comment that I think it will be fun since UK's football program is so new it may be cool to start rooting for them and see how they improve over the years. Well everyone laughs and says, I think UK has had a football program for awhile now, it's not a new team.

I wasn't sure and I said, well I lived there I'm sure I remember them talking about starting a football team. And I was all sure I was right.

So I start googling. This is when I found out that I couldn't have been more wrong. No wait I could have. I could have said that UK had no football team and NEVER had a football team.

As it turns out, UK is actually THE FIRST college FOOTBALL team IN the SEC.    In the year 1881!

1881! The first. The oldest football program in the SEC. As you can imagine there is a fine amount of ribbing taking place. I am forced to speak very carefully right now about anything to do with history. lol.

If I say Blah blah blah the very first thing I am going to hear is "And how old is Kentuckies football team"?

Oh god yes I deserve it! I deserve it every little bit. And it's fun. I have learned some things already about ranking and program development.  I am pretty confident right now that this year will be handing UK it's ass on a football shaped platter, but it will still be cool.  There is a UK game scheduled for ESPN and ESPN2 this season and I apparently will be hosting those little get togethers at my place. COOL! Football gives you a reason to have friends over and drink beer!

That's a good enough reason to support it as far as I am concerned.

GO BIG BLUE!!!! WOOOOOT!

Alot has gone on.

I am sure alot more will.

Do I want to post it right now? No.

But I will break it down eventually. Just know that things change and in so doing they are not bad. We are all constant travelers no matter how you percieve that movement, it is still happening. So change is an absolute. If nothing changes, you're not really living.

BOY OH BOY am I living!

Oh well. Much love for the homies! V-dub in the house yo!

So i got in Seattle Sunday afternoon. By the way this entry may be a bit scattered causethe Lynda.com lady is giving the keynote nw and I am listening and typing at the same time.

She is glad we are here.

We are glad we are here. So everyone is happy.  So far this trip has been really great. Last night we went to the VIP party and it was awesome.

They held it at a pretty good sized arcade, "Gameworks", this was incredible. They shut down the whole place and opened up Every game to free play from 6 pm to 10 pm. Lots of claping now cause Kevin Lynch is starting his keynote, for Adobe.

Yeah that guy looks like Oliver from the Brady Bunch.

Now there are some videos running of people from the "community" gushing all over the acquisition. Yeah, I don't think this room is as full of investors as they may have thought it is.

OK favorite quote, Some little asian guy" I'm really just standing here with an upside down umbrella to catch all this goodness that is going to be pouring down on us".

That's pretty funny.

Now Kevin is talking about what to expect from the joint venture. He says not to worry that they are going to start feature stacking cause they know what they have and they don't want to  screw anything up.  I just want to hear him say that Flash will have a direct .PSD importer with layer support.

That is really imortant to me. Look at it this way, there is an entire presentation at this conference on how to use a stepped process to import .psd layers into flash more easily.  So that implies that it is not going to be any time soon that we will see the .psd importer.

Now he is running a flash video for a jaguar commercial. Ok, I'm gonna stop now for a bit. Connectivity not withstanding, which has been the only Not so great part of the conferance, but I'll talk about that later.

I'm heading back to the "establishment clause" again.

So if you are not interested, then skip it and go on to some blog that has boobies, or a video of a cat licking something it shouldn't. There'll be no joy for you in this mudville.

After reading and reading and somewhat obsessing over the "establishment clause" some more, I have come to two conclusions.

Number 1: Lawyers are idiots, and we are even bigger idiots for listening to them as much as we do.  I have read tons in the last couple weeks, and once you take away 30% of the vocabulary that is used in the law basicly to make people feel like they don't understand it, it is all pretty simple arguments. It is the language you have to get past. And that is not easy. They purposefully make it hard to read and understand so that they continue to justify how important and how smart they really are.

Number 2:  Chruches should be paying taxes to the federal government.  I have been looking and the longer I look the less reasoning I see for churches to be a tax exempt organization. Other than tradition of course.

I have a solid argument lined up here. With lots of referances. So this is part one.

Look at it this way, a significant reason that the american colonists started talking rebellion, back in the day, was because the colonists were being taxed by the king, and then the king had several laws saying that anyone who's income exceeds this much, must also pay a tithe to one of these "authorized" churches.

So the government was FORCING the people, to pay taxes and also forcing them to pay a tax directly to the church.

 A large part of our national heritage has to do with people not being required to give money to a church if they don't want to.  So how did it come to pass that churches ended being able take in money and not have to pay anything in taxes.

I think you would be just as shocked as I was to find out.

I can't get to the comments section to let you know it's not a problem if you wanna mess around with the blog.

So it's fine. Do whatever you would like man.
Just as long as all my rants don't get whacked.

So I installed firefox!

The blogo looks fine in firefox.

unfortunately not everyone uses firefox. Since IE6 is still the "defaultest" browser out there I will look into making the blogpart simply a page of a flash page.
But I'll have to talk to the Q-bone about that action.

There is still a problem with this website.

Most of the time I and several other people can't scroll down the page.

If you are having this same problem, I'm sorry. I don't know how to fix it and I know Q has been pretty busy lately. I haven't even asked him yet if he can check into it.

But I might try to snoop around in it, and get someone else to look at it with and see if it can be fixed.

Lets come at this gay marriage thing from a new direction.
Lets stop pointing out the discrimination part as the basis.

I'll get back to basics, fundamentals if you will.

The debate should be a question to establish what marriage is and what part the government plays in marriage.

SO! Is marriage a legal based institution or a religous institution?

Don't try that "It's Both" crap. You have to establish it's basis firmly.

I have no problem with the idea that marriage can be or shoud be a PURELY religous institution. That would leave all the decisions about who can and cannot get married up to the denominations of the religions and there rulling councils and so on.

BUT if marriage is a purely religous institution then new laws have to be passed and a new governmental institution created to cover all the legal aspects of what marriage traditionally entailed in government.

What does marriage entail LEGALY?

Ownership: The properties of ownership associated with marriage are inheritance, shared obligation, and custoday of children. So you have to have an agreement between two parties that assets collected while under contract are shared dependant on the agreement of the two parties.
Obligations accrued while under contract are shared dependant on the agreement of the two parties. Custody of children born of the two parties is to be determined by desire and means of the two parties.

Priviledge: Of these two individuals under contract there is an expectation of privacy from each to the other. Generally if something is told by one to the other in confidence, that information should be considered priviledged from public scrutiny.

Basicly that's it.

Marriage in the religous sense is a spiritual contract between two people and the deity of there choosing to honor the commitments set forth by the religous edicts they live by.

The odd part is that as of today and for the last 2000 or so years, marriage has been both religous and legal at the same time. Most systems of government don't have an issue with that since 60% of the worlds governments are still technically Theocracies where law is scripted directly from the dominant religous majority.

The system we have tried to implement in the united states purposefully and willfully acknowledged and attempts to maintain a seperation of church and state so that individuals may in fact practice whatever religoin they want without fear of recrimination from the religous majority, even if that religous majority happens to be in political power at the time.
That's an awesome idea.
Freedom means freedom for everyone. Cool.

So now we are stuck with the issue that the government in all it's branches, charges money of citizens for the right to partake in a religous ceremoney because that general religous ceremony traditionally involves legal ramifications that the government is inclined, and required, to weigh in on.

Without the religous ceremonial aspect of marriage it is just a legal civil union of two individuals property rights, custodial rights, and information priviledges, and limitations on those same elements depending on some states. Now I got married by a judge, in a park, on Haloween day. I had to purchase a license from the state government that allowed me to be joined in holy matrimony, a phrase the judge was required to state, and that was printed on the certificate of license to be wed.

So legaly speaking I was charged by the government for the right to undergo a religous ceremony, even though the only aspect of my wedding that was religous were the parts of it that were required to be said by the judge.
Yeah, technically it is wrong in two ways.
Number one, I was charged by the government to be allowed to go through with a religous ceremony.
Number two, the license I purchased from the government that was required before the government would recognize our union legaly endorsed G*D on the license and in the signed statements of agreement.

At the time I was a full blown quasi-militant athiest. So I was forced by the government into recognizing something I did not want to recognize, and the guidance in my marriage before the government would legaly recognize the rights and priviledges that are part and parcel with making this two party contractual union.

So we have a significant problem in the system.
Is marriage religous or is it legal. Because the fundamental basis of our constitution actually disallow marriage to be both things in the eyes of the government.

If Marriage is a legal institution that is beholden and protective of rights and priviledges associated with two individuals making a contractual agreement to follow guidelines and put in place legal protections for inheritance ownership custody and priviledge, then it has to eliminate it's religous referances.

Not because it has to ignore religion, but because it cannot be a legal government istitution that endorses religion as a preferential "component" of a set of legal protections and priviledges.

If Marriage is to be a purely religous ceremony that binds two individuals spiritualy based on shared beliefe and willingness to adhere to the rules and edicts set forth by that religion and community then the government cannot charge a fee for "registration" purposes to recognize that union.
And legaly CANNOT recognize that union.

So if marrige were to be a purely religous institution, what happens when a man or women dies. How then would it be decided how the assets of that person or distributed?

Legaly the government would have no way of making a determination other than vested interest and intent of the deceased. If the deceased leaves no will and there is some question as to who is the legal owner of stuff, then would the government have to defer to the standing of the religous individuals localized religous practices and edicts?
Pretty much. If both people were known to be baptists then any contesting of the rights of the joined individuals would have to be defered to a court of their religous group.
The results of that could then be handed over to the government as proper and complete.

In the event that marriage is a legal institution then guidelines and laws can be set by legislation that clearly define those and in the event of contested rights government courts make the determination and precedent is set.

Even now lets say a jewish couple is wanting divorce. Well as it is now you SHOULD be allowed to use jewish religous laws in the divorce process since the jewish couple were required to state their religous type and commit to recognizing G*D in the state application and license or registration they had to pay for so that they could have the legal protections and priviledges of marriage in the first place, but in most civil divorces the individuals religious laws are thrown out in favor of civil property ownership and inheritance practices with precedent.

Of course most of those precedents are actually set with older christian standards of the times in which they prevailed so you apply one religions precedent onto another religion with no consideration to the actual religous edicts and customs of the people applying for divorce.

So in the case that Marriage is a legal institution, and religous marriage is a spiritual institution they cannot live together as the same entity.
Otherwise you are obligated, legaly, to discriminate against people who are not of the religous group that currently sits as majority of the dominat political environment.

Look at it this way.
Christianity says that Blashpemy cannot actually be forgiven. To worship a false god is unforgivable.

It is widely accepted in current moderate christiantity that ALL THINGS can and will be forgiven if you truly seek redemption.

So since marriage as it is right now is basicly a judeo-christian mingling of legal precedent and cermony, Can athiests get married?
Yes.
I did.
But from the standpoint of legality, how can I get married, which is still in all states recognized as a contract between two people and G*D, if I don't believe in G*D?
most common response-"Oh you don't have to say G*D at the ceremony and you can be married by a justic of the peace or a judge so you don't have to do it in a church blah blah blah".
But it says G*D on the marriage license!
"Yeah well that's just tradition".

Is tradition more important than legal accuracy?

I don't see how it can be. If that were acceptable then taditionaly there would still be slavery in the south.

So if tradition doesn't impede my right as an athiest/pagan/hindu/taoist/satanist/worshiper of cuthullu the before time god, then how does being homosexual have any impact on my ability to get married?

"Well that's different, G*D says that man shall not know a man as he would know woman, it's a direct law of G*D"
Uhm...So is worshipping false gods. It's actually the number one rule. The most prominent. The most direct. The unforgivable!
"Well it's forgivable, all things are forgivable if you truly want redemption"
Even being gay?
"Sure it is forgivable, but you have to stop doing it and seek G*Ds forgiveness"

So if someone stops being gay and decides to marry a person of the opposite sex it should be perfectly OK for them to do that?

"Absolutely, they should seek out forgiveness and find a spouse of the opposite sex and be married and live happily ever after".

So if two athiests, a man and a women, want to get married do they have to stop being athiests before they can get married?

"No I don't think legaly you can stop someone from getting married because of there religous affiliation or lack there of".

So if two satanists, a man and a women, want to get married do they have to stop being satanists before they can get married?

"No I don't think legaly you can stop someone from getting married because of there religous affiliation".

But both of those things by the religous law are far worse than being gay. They are a direct violation of the first principle set forth by G*D. Why is that they can get married but a gay couple can't.

"Because it is a man and a woman getting married, and our constitution says that you can't discriminate against someone based on their religous affiliation".

But you can discriminate against them based on gender?

"No, but gender is not the issue with homosexuality, sexual preferance is".

Gender is the issue, you are discriminating against them based on the gender of the person they choose to enter into Marriage with.

"Gender is only as much a part of the issue as it is declared by G*D that same gender sex is wrong and immoral".

But who said it was about having sex? I thought it was about who could and could not get married?

"It is because sex is an integral part of marriage, and same gender couples can't have children and the point of marriage is to have sex and bear children".

Where the hell did that come from? I don't remember seeing any part of my marriage license that said I was required to have children for my marriage to be legal!

"Well that's what G*D intended, marriage is a union of man and woman so that children can be made".

So humans can't actually procreate without a marriage license? That just an ignorant lie! If it is G*D's explicit direction that marriage is for the creating of children, then what happens when a married couple finds out that one of them is unable to help create children? Should the marriage be null and void?

"Of course not, lots of people can't have children. They still have the option to seek medical remedies or artificial insemination or surrogate mothers or adoption".

So why can't gay couples who are married seek out those same options?

"Because a child needs a mother and a father in their life. Not two fathers".

Then we should be killing off the orphans that noone wants? Since they don't have either a mother or father, just an institutional minder who they are what? Are they even still human at that point?

"That is just rediculous, and offensive you liberals always come to the solution of killing the children don't you"!

I'm not a liberal! I'm a conservative. I also happen to be an American Patriot. I believe in the constitution and the American way of life.
You on the otherhand are not an American Patriot.

"HOW DARE YOU, I Love this country and my family has fought and died for this country, and for you to say that YOU are more of an American than I am is insane, insulting, and untrue, if you were a conservative american you would be agreeing with me and not trying to help "the gays" destroy our american values, and eliminate the family, and erode our morals down to the point that we are all a bunch of animals rioting through the streets day and night".

You ARE NOT AN AMERICAN PATRIOT! You are first and formost a Christian are you not? Do you put your religion above all other things? Isn't that what you are supposed to do to be a good Christian?

"Yes my religion is the most important thing in my life, my connection to G*D is my priority, but it is also to make sure that G*D's message is delivered to all people and that we all accept Jesus into our lives so we can be at peace and love each other".

Ok there you go. You are not an American Patriot. You are a Christian, your first priority is your religion. My first priority is the constitution of the united states. Your Primary allegiance is to your faith and Jesus. My primary allegiance is to this republic for which is stands.

"Under G*D, it says for which it stands UNDER G*D, so even the framers stated that G*D was most important, and that the country is guided by the Christian beliefs of our forfathers".

No it's not. The constitution clearly states that there is to be a seperation of church and state, and the pleadge of allegiance wasn't even created until more than one hundred years AFTER the constitution in 1892, and it wasn't until 1954 that the words "Under G*d" were even added to the pledge. All of this is a matter of CONSTITUTIONAL RECORD since these changes were all made AS AMMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION!
So if you really want to be smarty about it, the reason UNDER G*D was even added was as hommage to President Lincolns Gettysburg Address which was an acknowledgement of the role religion plays in American SOCIETY, not American LAW.

SO back to the idea that it is OK to descriminate against someone based on Gender...

"This is not a gender issue it is an issue of what the bible says and what G*D says".

Then I guess this argument is over. Because there is no precedent in the law and many precedents and direct LAWS in the constitution that say one religion cannot decide how everyone has to live. It is very clear about it. You should look it up.

It is called the "Establishment Clause" of the "First Ammendment" to the Constitution of the United States.

There is another very direct determination in the form of a ruling by the supreme court in 1947 everson v.board of education, Justice Hugo Black held:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

So a law cannot ban one group of individuals from getting married because a religion says that group should not be married.
In so doing that law is in direct violation of one of the first ten amendments to the consitution. And those first ten amendments are called "The Bill of Rights" and are to establish the rights and protections and the very FOUNDATION of what America is about.

SUCK ON THAT PAT ROBBERTSON!

I think I got jipped.

I am pretty sure I created the word, "Asshat©(kbyrd2000)" or Ass-hat.

About 6 years ago I was yacking in some forum, and irc about video games, as is my way, and there was a stupid discussion about "black-hats", versus "white-hats", and I started calling anyone who writes a virus or worm for ANY REASON, an Asshat©(kbyrd2000).

The whole ordeal had to do with people writing worms and viruses and expanding and release the technical scope of server side exploits and trying to explain it away as a public service, getting the word out so it could be fixed.

Then I started using just any old time, when referring to people who were asshole like, but far worse.

I used it everywhere I could get away with it.

And now, it is pretty much a geek term.
And some asshat© (kbyrd 2000) has an entire website dedicated to explaining that asshat©(kbyrd2000) was first used in sweden and made this whole big funny coming to america thing out of it.

So lets give credit where it is due. I have not accomplished much in this life, but I am confident that Asshat©(kbyrd) is mine!

Thank you.

This is really scary.

Unitary Executive and Construction Consolidate

Seriously. The idea that the "unitary executive" concept is being written into all the passed laws.

That is directly a subversion of the principle and law of division of power. And that my friends, is when you have a new king.