There’s been a long, hard-fought row out here in California recently regarding the battle for — or against — the rights of homosexual couples to marry. The most recent development in this conflagratory twist of mangled legal struggles, voter initiatives, independent petitions, and sign-waving protests backed by the blaring horns of passing vehicles was a decision made by the Supreme Court of California to uphold the initiative passed by the voters during our last election, the now-infamous Proposition 8, which banned gay couples from being able to legally marry.

Now, let me say that I’m in full support of same-sex marriage rights. I think that gay couples deserve and should have access to all the same rights and priveleges as their heterosexual counterparts, without question; all (wo)men being created equal and such, it’s the only logical course insofar as I can apply the term “logic” to anything having the least bit to do with our legal systems. To wit, I think that the simplest and most efficient answer to this would be to eliminate the term “marriage” from any legally binding documents, and generate a whole new class of state-sponsored interpersonal unions by which all such relationships, presently divided into ‘marriage’ and ‘civil union’, would fall; some sort of superclass which could override the existing preconceptions, thereby stymieing the ongoing battle about whether calling one sort of relationship by any given title is proper given the historical precedent surrounding any given concept as defined by what amounts to mutable terms forced into submissive hatemongering by those resistant to change.

But I digress. What I really mean to rant about in this particular instance, all bigotry aside, is the anger I’ve seen lashing back at the Supreme Court for making the decision that they did. And why? Because it “stops same-sex marriage”. Which is a perfectly good hate to hold, I think — however, that’s not what their decision did in the least. What was presented before the Court, what they made their ruling on, was not whether gay marriage is “right” or “wrong” or whether homosexual couples should be bestowed with the same rights as those of us “batting for the other team”. No; what was placed before them was a simple question: Was the voter-approved initiative enough to enforce such smallminded uselessness? And it was. This isn’t a question of right or wrong, or of hate or love. It was a simple question of the ability of the voters of this state to, through democratic action, alter the course of their own destiny. Whether you agree with the choice made or not, I think it’s important to maintain faith in the democratic process. To indicate a loathing that the Court refused to repeal this measure is, in my mind, tantamount to wondering why ANY decision the voters make isn’t immediately overruled by the Judicial or Executive governments; after all, if we want the Court to tell us that what we voted for — whether we, personally, voted “for” it or not — is reversible based on their own whimsy, we set an increasingly dangerous and very toxic precedent for them to remove any sense of rights or anything else, really, from tax measures to school funding to whatever else we can find to vote on.

I support the Supreme Court’s decision. This does not mean that I support the ignorant minds that wrote and presented the proposition; it does not mean that I support the bigotry of the voters who set back the progress of the free world — in my mind, of course — by approving it. It does not mean that I’m against the rights of one “class” or “type” of person over any other; it means that I support the democratic process, even when, through it, things which I can hardly stand to witness come to pass. Every year, things get pushed through local, state, and national elections that fill me with a crawling sense of dread for the dystopian finality we, as a people, seem intent on structuring for our children. However, this gives me not despair, but hope. It gives me the hope that one day, things will change, things will be different. It shows me that, while we may not be making the progress I might prefer, we are capable of making progress. It inspires me to be involved in the system more directly, to spread the words and feelings that I hold dear, so that when matters relating to them lay before us on ballots, we can speak of one mind, of one voice, and echo our hunger for change through the halls of legislation.

So to those of you spouting anger and vitriol at the Supreme Court of California, keep in mind, they are preserving the only process by which this measure CAN be overturned: democracy. It’s “We, the People” not “They, the Court” who are ultimately responsible for the outcome of our elections, for the developing trends in our regional and national politics, for the emergent mob mentality of the new era as we attempt to forge ground left unsettled by our forebears. So, do not focus your ire at them; they only validated a process, not an ideal. What the focus of the years to come should be is the restructuring of the public mind, the swaying of the voting masses to the ideals that you wish to see blossom in this life. If we lose our focus by driving rage into the hearts of those not truly our enemies, then we shall have nothing left with which to fight the battles we must face to recreate reality.

After talking with xarexerax for a bit, we came to the conclusion that, at some point in the distant future, we would require some form of mission statement summarizing what the principles, purpose, and objectives of Elitist Idiots are. After a bit of colluding, we came up with the newly posted “Mission Objectives” page.

So what, then, is all this about? Is this just some platform for us to spout off whatever rant we feel like? Well, partially. It is nice to have dedicated web space available for whatever nefarious purposes I may have (and believe me, I can come up with many nefarious objectives.) But there’s not much gratification in just speaking into the endless void of Al Gore’s Internet.

No, what we’re looking for is comments. We want people to respond. We even made it nice and easy for people to create user accounts. We would have allowed for anonymous comments, but that’s just inviting spam.

So, comment on things. Tell us what you think. One of the posts here sparked a lot of conversation when we publicized the post on Facebook, but there, the comments are quickly lost, loosing any future value they may have. Comments posted on the post itself, however, remain there indefinitely. Any future reader, any poor soul who may get trapped in this later on, will be able to read not only our stance on whatever the subject is, but the debate created by our community around the subject.

We aren’t here to create a pulpit. We’re here to create a community. A thinking community.

I haven’t posted here since migrating from my personal blog. Between the chaos of the wedding I had to star in two days ago, the business of making that all happen, and the ever-present dedication to doing work and keeping up on “real life” in the midst of a particular brand of insanity, I still can’t even say that it’s just that I’ve not had the time — in fact, if anything, I’d be claiming those unnecessarily as excuses if I devoted my reasoning to such pursuits and attempted to justify my silence through the applied repetition of having had other or better or more important things to tend to. No, the reason I’ve fallen quiet over the last few weeks is more than that; it’s an indication of something that actually delayed this project entirely from the onset on through our eventual merger into this unified face. Quite simply, I’m just no good at sharing my space with others.

It’s not an issue of something as simple as being nervous about attaching myself to other’s words, or vice-versa, but a deeper-seated idea of self-centered trepidation and self-depricating concern that perhaps others wouldn’t want my words to be entangled with their own, that my voice is my own and does not carry the weight and worth of another unless by some virtue of fortune or fate I manage to scribe something which could capture the crux of their own internalized philosophical persistence, that I might breathe life into the thoughts they hold to themselves amidst the pressure to examine the world around them insightfully. Between my own conceited sense of unique individuality and the due deference to my fellow poster’s muse, I find myself having less and less to ponder on my own time between worrying whether I will tread on toes in the process.

Whatever the case, I’m resolved to fix it. Elitist Idiots is certainly meant to be evocative of our group mentality, of our communal cynic lens through which the world filters into this playground of overdone intellectualization and sarcastic commentary on the world around us, and I’m not interested in allowing my own voice to dissolve amongst the politically charged discourse that Cerias brings to the table, or to any of the other material that’s in the works to be brought up here in the communal celebration of our combined yet individually-driven slant on the things with which we all, as humans, interact with and muse upon in the quest to form a distinct and interesting worldview, dredging from our shared experience to form the foundation of what we believe about everything we can conceive as able to be believed in.

On that note, there’s one other problem that’s holding me back to date; as much as I enjoy taking some time to write what insights I can on any given subject, the relative appearance of subject matter through the course of my daily life is, in fact, somewhat lacking. I’ve been pushing myself to keep up, to keep writing, to keep putting my thoughts and musings out there to be examined and contemplated, but I’m running low on the fuel for this cycle, the raw idea and conceptual seed from which my fingers flow forth a stream of words to bring some meaning to itself — so, if any of you have any questions, any anecdotes that might inspire, please … let me know. I aim to please, but as this effort of teamwork has taught me, I cannot blaze all trails alone — nor would I, had I the chance.

So yesterday was a special election in California. A bunch of measures were before the public, most of which involved tax increases. One of the measures passed; the measure that would prevent California lawmakers from giving themselves pay raises in years in which the budget is in deficit. Given our history, I get the feeling that a political career in California will no longer be desirable. Pay scales will  be stuck at this rate indefinitely. The objective is to get legislators to actually balance the budget every year. But there’s a problem with that.

You see, California is the only state that engages in deficit spending. As the third largest economy in the world, we apparently feel it’s appropriate to treat ourselves as a soverign nation when it comes to fiscal policy. Fortunately, the Constitution prohibits us from engaging in our own monetary policy. Well, we could try charging our own seperate commercial paper rate, but that’d just be silly. So we’ll end up with legislators motivated to balance a budget, sure, but we spend more on social programs that we make on taxes.

The obvious solution to this is raise taxes until we can afford the social programs we demand of our government. Hell, our *republican* governor tried this approach. We voted down every single tax increase. Since we aren’t willing to pay for the services we’re getting, what’s the next solution?

Cut spending. This has become the only option. We demand of our state that it “live within it’s means.” Yet we also demand things like police officers, firemen, teachers for our schools, road improvements, working street lights, and a myriad of other things that the state has to fund.

I’m fairly conservative when it comes to economic and taxation issues. I can get behind the idea of keeping taxes low. I know I enjoy keeping more of my paycheck. But don’t complain, California, when teachers are laid off in mass, when response times to fires and crimes are increased, when the roads are terrible, when the state begins to break down. We, as a state, decided that none of this was worth paying more in taxes.

Congratulations. I hope you like what we’ve won.

Propaganda needs to stay far away from our schools, plain and simple. We don’t send our children to get an education in ethics; that’s the job of the parents. We send them to get an education in the truths and facts of the world around us, hoping there won’t be a spin placed on it. Or at the least, any spin will be balanced enough to not unduly influence them. At least, that’s what we should want.

The education industry is very liberally biased. I think this has to do with a matter of ethos. When liberals feel they have a duty to give back to the world around them, they tend to get jobs working in social services, like education. When conservatives feel they have a duty to give back, they join the military. Yes, it’s a broad generalization, but if you think about the differences between these two institutions, you’ll see it isn’t without foundation.

Being a good Californian, I do agree with some liberal messages. But do I want to be preached at about them in school? Do I want children, too young to differentiate between instructor opinion and fact, to be preached at in school? By all means, no. State sponsored propagandizing of the education system undermines the very principle of a fair and unbiased government, doesn’t it?

So teachers, do more to separate your personal opinion from the material you teach. You do a great disservice to your students by informing them what they should think. Instead, teach them how to think. Have them make the choice on their own.

Students, carry this message to your teachers with this handy t-shirt.