In case you missed it, Proposition 2 on the November ballot is an amendment to the Texas Constitution that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. KPRC-TV has a story about city officials protesting this amendment:

City Controller Annise Parker and several other city officials joined gay rights activists outside City Hall to voice their opposition…

Parker — who is openly gay, has a partner and adopted children — fears if the Proposition 2 passes, it will promote hate and discrimination against homosexual couples.
"I would hope and pray that most Texans wouldn’t embrace something like this. But, if they don’t know about it and they walk into the ballot box and all they see is something that talks about a defensive marriage or in support of marriage, they are going to vote for it without realizing it," Parker said.

Apparently anyone supporting this amendment is a hater, while someone voting for it who may just read the language in the voting booth is too stupid to figure out what it means. How murky is it? From the Texas Secretary of State’s website:

Prop. 2 HJR 6 Chisum - Staples
Ballot Language
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."

Brief Explanation
HJR 6 would provide that marriage in Texas is solely the union of a man and woman, and that the state and its political subdivisions could not create or recognize any legal status identical to or similar to marriage, including such legal status relationships created outside of Texas.

Sounds pretty complicated. The controversy will be coming to a polling place near you November 8th.

This weekend, during the Oklahoma-Kansas State football game, a student killed himself with a suicide bomb outside OU’s football stadium. OU officials were quick to dismiss the event as the action of a screwed-up kid, not a terrorist:

"We know that he has had what I would call emotional difficulties in the past. There is certainly no evidence at this point which points to any other kind of motivation other than his personal problems," said University President David Boren over the weekend.

But it looks like there may be an Islamic terror connection after all, according to WorldNetDaily:

Doug Hagmann, a seasoned investigator, told WND he was informed by multiple reliable law-enforcement sources familiar with the investigation into the incident that authorities recovered a "significant amount" of "jihad" materials, as well as Hinrichs’ computer.

Hagmann also said those same sources indicated police and federal agents "had pulled additional explosives from [Hinrichs’] house," including triacetone triperoxide, or TATP, "homemade explosive [that is] very potent but relatively easily manufactured."

TATP was also used in the July mass transit bombings in London, CNN reported, and was used by attempted bomber Richard Reid, who packed his shoes with the compound in an unsuccessful attempt to destroy a U.S.-bound American Airlines flight in December 2001.

Maybe Osama is a K-State fan. Meanwhile, the kid’s family is in denial:

His sister, Berkeley Hinrichs, says her brother said he wasn’t sure what he wanted to do with his life.

She also says it’s possible her brother was doing an experiment and didn’t mean to kill himself.

All in all, this is a sad, frightening story that should’ve been covered better by the national media.

[Hat-tip: Don the Übertipster]

A Brownsville, Texas jury has awarded the family of a teen killed in a rollover accident a $30 million judgement against Ford Motor Company. The Chron carries the AP story, which tells us that the family sued on the basis that the 1993 Ford pickup had a weak roof design which caused the teen’s death.

The jury found Ford ninety percent at fault, while the driver who pulled onto the roadway and struck the family’s pickup apparently got the remaining ten percent of the blame. According to the family lawyer:

"It’s shameful that we have to come to court to fight this case when they know they are selling trucks that have weak roofs and don’t protect consumers," Marchan said in a story in Tuesday’s editions of The Brownsville Herald.

Those allegations are, of course, disputed by Ford:

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said Ford products are safe and meet strict government safety standards.
"Our condolences go out to the family, but Miss Garcia died because of the negligence of another driver hitting the Garcia vehicle while traveling at highway speeds," Vokes said in a written statement.

Apparently there is also contention over whether the teen was wearing a seatbelt, as both sides claim she either was or was not wearing it at the time of the crash. Regardless, it is interesting that a jury would assign almost sole blame to an auto manufacturer while the driver who actually struck the family’s vehicle appears to assume a very secondary role.

As you might expect, Ford does plan to appeal the verdict, so the case is not closed.

Better late than never. Fire away, folks.

Matt Forge Toon Archives

E-mail Matt

I know what you’re thinking, "Yeah, yeah - everyone’s got their story." That may be true, but mine was a typical Forge experience, which is never typical. You may want to get a map to keep up…

(more…)

There’s always next year.

Matt Forge Toon Archives

E-mail Matt

I just wrote a post at my personal blog, True Anomaly, about the big political event of this season up here in Colorado.  The reason I think this issue might be of interest to y’all down there is that for now, the GOP is in control in Texas.  It used to be in Colorado, and now the foundations that were built by Colorado Republicans in the past are being torn down as fast as possible by our Democrats.  The same thing can happen down there if y’all aren’t careful to maintain a strong conservative power base with wide appeal to all Texans.

There are two referenda up for a vote next month, referred to as "C & D".  These two referenda are a direct attack on the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which mandates limits on state government spending and a refund to taxpayers of all tax revenues above the allowed level of spending.  Referendum C would allow the state to keep the monies that would be refunded to taxpayers for the next five years and ratchet up the level of spending, while Referendum D would allow the state to issue a lot of debt.

Needless to say, I’m hoping these things don’t pass, but the proponents of these things have a lot of money and support behind them.

Now, as for Texas state spending and taxes…well, the legislature can’t figure that one out and I’m not going to try either!