So, I had a bad experience with a doctor yesturday.
Of course, it was an eye doctor but it does go to show the dangers of doctors abusing their authority. I went for my first eye exam in about two years. I've worn glasses since I was 5, so I'm well versed in these visits. I picked a new guy, because he was close to my apartment and got an appointment for my vacation week. Just looking for the basic exam and to get a new prescription because my current glasses are showing their age. I also have a coupon for a $40 gift certificate when I get my glasses at this great little place in Boston called S.E.E.
I should have expected problems when I had to wait an hour and a half for my exam after I got there early. Suffice to say, I was not thrilled. But, what happened next was the real problem. The doc takes a visual exam of my eyes, does the Glaucoma test, does the wall test, and that's it. He didn't actually check my prescription. You know, the "Is it better now... or now" test. Its such a familiar part of an eye exam that its even gotten into commercials. None of that. He pronounces my vision with my glasses to be 20/20 or better. He then proceeds to lecture me about how near-sighted I am (like I wasn't aware) and start insisting on me getting a referal from my primary care physician so he can dilate my pupils. Now, this always happened as a normal part of the exam before, but whatever. I already knew I wasn't coming back to him so I tried to put him off and ask about getting my prescription.
The guy refuses to write me a prescription. He insists I come back for that. He proceeds to then say I need to come back THREE more times and starts suggesting ways for me to make a reason for my PCP to give me a referral. I'm just too upset to even know what to do. I should have held my ground, but it was intimating. I mean, I tried to bring up what I needed, and the guy flat out refused me. I called my HMO and they were uniformly unhelpful so I called back my doctor and insisting on getting a prescription saying I didn't know when I could come back due to work demands. They were also unhelpful but acted like they'd see if he could mail it to me.
Its all so frustrating. It was supposed to be a simple little eye exam and its just left me feeling helpless and frustrated. I don't appreciate someone taking $15 from me and gosh knows what from my HMO just to make me wait 90 minutes for a 5 minute exam that wasn't even complete. And I expected my HMO to be more interested in a doc trying to extort additional visits from a patient, since they are paying more of that then I am. The only good thing is I had this appointment this week because my annual eye exam is done by calendar year so I can get another as of next week and have it paid for. They better, anyway. I'm also going to talk to my employers insurance agent (who is not an employee of the HMO but an independant guy who handles a lot of accounts with them) and see if he can do anything since he specifically said that's what he was there for. Wish me luck.
12.30.2003
12.27.2003
movie review two years too late
Okay, so I finally saw Shallow Hal, only about 2 years after it was released. Quite a hot-button issue in the fat community with a lot of people making judgements sight unseen, myself included. You know what? We were right, and we didn't need to watch this garbage to know that.
Everything that upset people at the time was entirely accurate. The only problem was that some people expected us to be won over by the heartfelt ending. They refused to admit that we had a right to see it as condesending and insulting. I'm sorry, but "I love you anyway" just doesn't feel quite as nice as "I love you" no matter how much you want it, too. The movie's producers seem to be missing a point even made in the movie. Just because a conditional love is offered doesn't mean a fat person won't see through it.
Still, the real devil is in the details. Oh, forget the absurd sight-gags that really upset me before I saw the film. The just plain stupid attention to detail is what really irked me. They actually seemed to have the Rosemary character down at a couple points, but the character kept contradicting herself. I mean, we do see her being realistically self-conscious when showing off her lingerea to Hal, and that felt very honest. But, the scene before she is being the same way about wearing hot-pants and a belly shirt in front of her parents. I mean, I understand where the character is coming from, but I also don't get why a self-apologizing fat person would even own hot pants or a bikini. They made her apologetically fat when it was convenient and uncompramisingly fat when it was convenient. There was just no consistancy. I'd have found it all much more satisfying if her character had been more defiant and self-confident. Or, at least give us reason to think Hal is giving her such self-confidence. I just didn't see that developed, so it all felt pieced together.
And honestly, 1 boyfriend? I mean, I know it happens, but still, its not that common either, is it? Again, the movie just promotes a ghetoization of fat people rather than challenging those perceptions. It pretends to be unconventional, but only after it makes time to acknowledge all the conventions. Heck, even the Peace Corps was a stupid plot point, since they actually wouldn't allow a woman like Rosemary to participate. I know the Peace Corps was really just a punch line, but its a reminder of just how shut out fat people are.
And I still can't get around the "in spite of" ending. Give us something. Some acknowledgement that there ARE people who would honestly find Rosemary beautiful. We're here. Get used to it. But no, she's doomed to "in spite of" and told to be happy about it. All the movie really does, then, is to defend the status quo and only dare to suggest the perfectly conventional message. Safe, perhaps, but nothing edgy about. Just more of the same. Give me "Inclusive of" any day over "In spite of".
Everything that upset people at the time was entirely accurate. The only problem was that some people expected us to be won over by the heartfelt ending. They refused to admit that we had a right to see it as condesending and insulting. I'm sorry, but "I love you anyway" just doesn't feel quite as nice as "I love you" no matter how much you want it, too. The movie's producers seem to be missing a point even made in the movie. Just because a conditional love is offered doesn't mean a fat person won't see through it.
Still, the real devil is in the details. Oh, forget the absurd sight-gags that really upset me before I saw the film. The just plain stupid attention to detail is what really irked me. They actually seemed to have the Rosemary character down at a couple points, but the character kept contradicting herself. I mean, we do see her being realistically self-conscious when showing off her lingerea to Hal, and that felt very honest. But, the scene before she is being the same way about wearing hot-pants and a belly shirt in front of her parents. I mean, I understand where the character is coming from, but I also don't get why a self-apologizing fat person would even own hot pants or a bikini. They made her apologetically fat when it was convenient and uncompramisingly fat when it was convenient. There was just no consistancy. I'd have found it all much more satisfying if her character had been more defiant and self-confident. Or, at least give us reason to think Hal is giving her such self-confidence. I just didn't see that developed, so it all felt pieced together.
And honestly, 1 boyfriend? I mean, I know it happens, but still, its not that common either, is it? Again, the movie just promotes a ghetoization of fat people rather than challenging those perceptions. It pretends to be unconventional, but only after it makes time to acknowledge all the conventions. Heck, even the Peace Corps was a stupid plot point, since they actually wouldn't allow a woman like Rosemary to participate. I know the Peace Corps was really just a punch line, but its a reminder of just how shut out fat people are.
And I still can't get around the "in spite of" ending. Give us something. Some acknowledgement that there ARE people who would honestly find Rosemary beautiful. We're here. Get used to it. But no, she's doomed to "in spite of" and told to be happy about it. All the movie really does, then, is to defend the status quo and only dare to suggest the perfectly conventional message. Safe, perhaps, but nothing edgy about. Just more of the same. Give me "Inclusive of" any day over "In spite of".
12.23.2003
merry december
I have a couple weeks off to celebrate the season. Going home for a week and then just hanging around for a week. Should be a nice relaxation. Work has been very stressful for a couple months and it hasn't helped that I've been sick off and on. Lots of little frustrations, too. It doesn't help that my girlfriend's been so busy with buying a house that I've hardly seen her for weeks. And even before that, we had a stretch of about two months where we were alternatingly sick. Not like I haven't seen her, its just not the full girlfriend experience. But, its understandable. Just not helping with the stress.
But, I get to go home and play with my dad's big screen television and computer. Generally not do much. And that's not bad.
So Merry December to you all, and you can still comment with an email to get my online Christmas Card. Hope life holds you well.
Opps. I forgot I've been using lower-case in my titles. Good thing I can fix that. hehe
But, I get to go home and play with my dad's big screen television and computer. Generally not do much. And that's not bad.
So Merry December to you all, and you can still comment with an email to get my online Christmas Card. Hope life holds you well.
Opps. I forgot I've been using lower-case in my titles. Good thing I can fix that. hehe
12.21.2003
random thoughts #2
I really REALLY REALLY feel bad for any children or young adults who get subjected to a Kidz Bop CD or video. Have you seen the commercials for these crimes against nature? Basically, they take pop songz and santize them by way of having them sung by kidz who can't really sing, but you hope no one notices if you get enough of them together to sing in a very large group. Judging by the video, these are those disturbing children that I'm pretty sure are produced by Disney in labs. You know, those bland, attractive in that manufactured to specificationz way, who've clearly been bred for acting in Disney movies. I'm guessing the Kidz Bop kidz are the rejectz from the Disney factories who are bought wholesale. All very disturbing.
My favorite Reese's Limited Edition flavor (check out my first post for more), White Chocolate, is back for good. I'm so psyched. I can stop hording the White Chocolate miniatures now! I think the Inside Outs are now perminant, too, but I didn't really care for those. The flavor balance is just all out of whack.
Has anyone else noticed the subtle fat hatred in those Jazzy ads for Chili's restaurants? You know, the ones with some "regular person" singing about Chili's in some style of music. There are about 4 of them, and they all follow the same pattern. Start with a wide shot of regular person singing. Cut to food. Cut to regular person at the restaurant with friends. Logo. Close up of regular person signing. All except one. That one happens to have a fat woman as the regular person. It skips the at restaurant with friends and the close-up. It only has the wide-shot. It all seems kind suspect to me. I mean, its JUST the fat woman who doesn't get the close-up out of all the ads. That seems too convenient to me. Meh.
I'm all done with my Christmas shopping. Yay! Woo hoo! Not that I'm a last minute type, but I have a nasty tendancy to fret about gifts so much that I don't even have them come Christmas. I freak myself out much more then necessary. I had a brief period of panic that I was going to do that again and just got something impulsive for my girlfriend. But its something. Its the thought that counts, not the overthinking.
Speaking of my girlfriend, I'm now dating a home-owner. Again, woo hoo! And, also, that's kinda scary. Not as scary as when I first found out an exgirlfriend was married. And that happened when I was 20! I don't have many ex's either. hehe
Red Sox fans are the most self-important, self-absorbed sports fans around. They don't deserve a World Series victory, and I hope they never get one and that every star player their turn on gets one. Already happened with Roger Clemmens and Wade Boggs and Mo Vaughn had a near miss. Looks like Nomar gets to be the next to try to show-up the team and fans which responded to his loyalty and unfailing dedication by treating him like dirt.
Oh, that's right, no one here cares about sports.
I'm sending out an online Christmas Card this year. Respond to this message with your email if you want to get one. Unless you already got it.
That is all.
My favorite Reese's Limited Edition flavor (check out my first post for more), White Chocolate, is back for good. I'm so psyched. I can stop hording the White Chocolate miniatures now! I think the Inside Outs are now perminant, too, but I didn't really care for those. The flavor balance is just all out of whack.
Has anyone else noticed the subtle fat hatred in those Jazzy ads for Chili's restaurants? You know, the ones with some "regular person" singing about Chili's in some style of music. There are about 4 of them, and they all follow the same pattern. Start with a wide shot of regular person singing. Cut to food. Cut to regular person at the restaurant with friends. Logo. Close up of regular person signing. All except one. That one happens to have a fat woman as the regular person. It skips the at restaurant with friends and the close-up. It only has the wide-shot. It all seems kind suspect to me. I mean, its JUST the fat woman who doesn't get the close-up out of all the ads. That seems too convenient to me. Meh.
I'm all done with my Christmas shopping. Yay! Woo hoo! Not that I'm a last minute type, but I have a nasty tendancy to fret about gifts so much that I don't even have them come Christmas. I freak myself out much more then necessary. I had a brief period of panic that I was going to do that again and just got something impulsive for my girlfriend. But its something. Its the thought that counts, not the overthinking.
Speaking of my girlfriend, I'm now dating a home-owner. Again, woo hoo! And, also, that's kinda scary. Not as scary as when I first found out an exgirlfriend was married. And that happened when I was 20! I don't have many ex's either. hehe
Red Sox fans are the most self-important, self-absorbed sports fans around. They don't deserve a World Series victory, and I hope they never get one and that every star player their turn on gets one. Already happened with Roger Clemmens and Wade Boggs and Mo Vaughn had a near miss. Looks like Nomar gets to be the next to try to show-up the team and fans which responded to his loyalty and unfailing dedication by treating him like dirt.
Oh, that's right, no one here cares about sports.
I'm sending out an online Christmas Card this year. Respond to this message with your email if you want to get one. Unless you already got it.
That is all.
12.19.2003
freedom tower unvailed
Final designs for the Freedom Tower complex in NYC were unvailed today. Still not sure what I think about them. Some of the renderings make it look stunningly dramatic and others make it look underwhelming.
I should preface this by saying that I personally thought they should rebuild the towers as they were. Aside from being a nice big FU to the people responsible for the destruction of the WTC, I actually liked how they looked. I know architects slammed them, but there was just something about their simplicity and bluntness that really worked in the urban environment. In cities, we always see buildings shoe-horned to fit the surroundings. That was actually an artistic conceit of the Hancock Tower in Boston, which I actually like a lot. Still, there was something refreshingly defiant about the Twin Towers. Not only did they have the balls to build a big box in the biggest city on Earth, they went and built another right next to it. They demanded attention. Which, no doubt, is what made it an attractive target as well.
As stunning as the Freedom Tower appears to be, part of the design seems intended to deflect attention. A VERY significant part of its upper struction looks skelatal, which has the effect of making the Towers seem transparent. Like its trying not to be notice. Something just doesn't sit right with me about that. I don't like the idea of us trying to bind ourselves in the face of threats. I am encouraged by the idea of standing front and center. It projects strength, perminance. As beautiful as the Freedom Tower is, it seems like an effort at camoflage. Pretending nothing was every really there to begin with.
Actually, I'm most initially impressed by the sister structures which occupy the Trade Center land. Towering about as high as the meaningful part of the main tower, they also rise above the buildings around it. The slanting roofs make for a powerful addition to the skyline from the Statue of Liberty.
But, the execution will be key. Maybe the computers are ghosting the top of the tower too much, and it will really be a visible and tangible proof of the tower's reach towards the sky. Maybe the companion buildings will be colored drably so they don't make as potent an addition as they might. But, its all interesting, and I'm eager to see it proceed, even if its not what I would have liked to see.
I should preface this by saying that I personally thought they should rebuild the towers as they were. Aside from being a nice big FU to the people responsible for the destruction of the WTC, I actually liked how they looked. I know architects slammed them, but there was just something about their simplicity and bluntness that really worked in the urban environment. In cities, we always see buildings shoe-horned to fit the surroundings. That was actually an artistic conceit of the Hancock Tower in Boston, which I actually like a lot. Still, there was something refreshingly defiant about the Twin Towers. Not only did they have the balls to build a big box in the biggest city on Earth, they went and built another right next to it. They demanded attention. Which, no doubt, is what made it an attractive target as well.
As stunning as the Freedom Tower appears to be, part of the design seems intended to deflect attention. A VERY significant part of its upper struction looks skelatal, which has the effect of making the Towers seem transparent. Like its trying not to be notice. Something just doesn't sit right with me about that. I don't like the idea of us trying to bind ourselves in the face of threats. I am encouraged by the idea of standing front and center. It projects strength, perminance. As beautiful as the Freedom Tower is, it seems like an effort at camoflage. Pretending nothing was every really there to begin with.
Actually, I'm most initially impressed by the sister structures which occupy the Trade Center land. Towering about as high as the meaningful part of the main tower, they also rise above the buildings around it. The slanting roofs make for a powerful addition to the skyline from the Statue of Liberty.
But, the execution will be key. Maybe the computers are ghosting the top of the tower too much, and it will really be a visible and tangible proof of the tower's reach towards the sky. Maybe the companion buildings will be colored drably so they don't make as potent an addition as they might. But, its all interesting, and I'm eager to see it proceed, even if its not what I would have liked to see.
12.14.2003
we got him. now what?
It seems that the No. 2 fugative in the world has been caught as we dragged a bearded Saddam Hussain out of a hole. A couple of thoughts...
Damn good we got him alive. It frustrated me to no end the way we murdered his sons. Not that they are good people, but that they could have led us to their father and provided other valuable information. Oh yeah, and be brought to justice the old fashioned way. Instead, we sent an absurd ammount of manpower into a residential neighborhood rather than wait them out. This left the disturbing prospect that we were either lied to about Iraq's WMD threat or that the one man who would know where they were was still out there. Guess that last one is crossed off the list, as long as he didn't supply anyone else with the info in the 8 months it took to catch him.
That's another thing, 8 months? And he wound up being exactly where we always thought he'd be? Am I missing something here? Why did it take this long when he was still out by his hometown?
Finally, one thing keeps popping into my head every time I hear this refered to as perhaps the most extensive manhunt in history. I hinted at this in my opening. This better not be the most extensive manhunt in history, because there is someone out there we need to catch even more and we've been actively after him for over a year longer than Hussain. Remember what started the whole War on Terror? Wasn't Saddam. It was someone else who is apparently still out there and well funded to boot. But we caught Saddam. So I guess the administration is hoping people will forget about what really started this and how we never did catch the No. 1 fugative.
Damn good we got him alive. It frustrated me to no end the way we murdered his sons. Not that they are good people, but that they could have led us to their father and provided other valuable information. Oh yeah, and be brought to justice the old fashioned way. Instead, we sent an absurd ammount of manpower into a residential neighborhood rather than wait them out. This left the disturbing prospect that we were either lied to about Iraq's WMD threat or that the one man who would know where they were was still out there. Guess that last one is crossed off the list, as long as he didn't supply anyone else with the info in the 8 months it took to catch him.
That's another thing, 8 months? And he wound up being exactly where we always thought he'd be? Am I missing something here? Why did it take this long when he was still out by his hometown?
Finally, one thing keeps popping into my head every time I hear this refered to as perhaps the most extensive manhunt in history. I hinted at this in my opening. This better not be the most extensive manhunt in history, because there is someone out there we need to catch even more and we've been actively after him for over a year longer than Hussain. Remember what started the whole War on Terror? Wasn't Saddam. It was someone else who is apparently still out there and well funded to boot. But we caught Saddam. So I guess the administration is hoping people will forget about what really started this and how we never did catch the No. 1 fugative.
12.12.2003
people suck
Sorry. I know I haven't posted here in forever. December is my busiest time at work, especially last weekend. I actually worked both days during the Blizzard. Wheeee! And apparently people in Massachusetts completely freak out in the face of snow, buying bread like they are getting trapped for winter. But, I keep thinking of things to write about, really. I just usually collapse long before I can get around to writing them. So what finally inspired my return to the blog? Me being pissed of. Sorry to do this to you, but my friend at work has left early and my girlfriend is busy buying a house and out of range for me to bitch to, so you get stuck with it.
People really suck sometimes.
I went to lunch today. I was only buying lunch because I've been too exhausted and sick to get into work on time, much less make a sandwich on the way here. So, I went out for pizza. My favorite place, unfortunetly, was out of Sicilian which is the only stuff they do right, so rather then wait for hot sicilian (which is not that good to begin with, and would be undercooked because that's what they do when someone is waiting) I went next door to a lesser pizza joint with higher prices. Not much higher, but considering a better place is right next door it still strikes me as pretty ballsy.
Anyway, I get my pizza, and they stick two pieces of Sicilian on a paper plate. Not a great set-up, but whatever. Problem is, some guy is crowding me to begin with and as I'm trying to get off to a table, he bumps me causing me to drop the pizza. So there is $5 wasted. An accident, sure, but caused by him crowding me to begin with. The real kicker is, the guy doesn't even acknowledge any of this. Acts like its all on TV or something and didn't involve him. Doesn't apologize at all, even after I glared at him. Really pissed me off. Mostly, though, because I'm not out $5. I spend money on some frivilous things, but I utterly hate wasting money. Drives me insane. Really just bothers me very deeply. Not sure why, because its not like I'm a spend-thrift. I just like getting my money's worth on things, and getting litterally nothing just doesn't sit right at all with me. It just leaves me completely crest-fallen and upset.
So, that's what just happened to me. Sorry to stick you with it, but I had to get it out to someone. Stay tuned for something better later. I promise.
People really suck sometimes.
I went to lunch today. I was only buying lunch because I've been too exhausted and sick to get into work on time, much less make a sandwich on the way here. So, I went out for pizza. My favorite place, unfortunetly, was out of Sicilian which is the only stuff they do right, so rather then wait for hot sicilian (which is not that good to begin with, and would be undercooked because that's what they do when someone is waiting) I went next door to a lesser pizza joint with higher prices. Not much higher, but considering a better place is right next door it still strikes me as pretty ballsy.
Anyway, I get my pizza, and they stick two pieces of Sicilian on a paper plate. Not a great set-up, but whatever. Problem is, some guy is crowding me to begin with and as I'm trying to get off to a table, he bumps me causing me to drop the pizza. So there is $5 wasted. An accident, sure, but caused by him crowding me to begin with. The real kicker is, the guy doesn't even acknowledge any of this. Acts like its all on TV or something and didn't involve him. Doesn't apologize at all, even after I glared at him. Really pissed me off. Mostly, though, because I'm not out $5. I spend money on some frivilous things, but I utterly hate wasting money. Drives me insane. Really just bothers me very deeply. Not sure why, because its not like I'm a spend-thrift. I just like getting my money's worth on things, and getting litterally nothing just doesn't sit right at all with me. It just leaves me completely crest-fallen and upset.
So, that's what just happened to me. Sorry to stick you with it, but I had to get it out to someone. Stay tuned for something better later. I promise.
12.04.2003
$40 air freshener
I had a BIG MOMENT last night. One of those signs of adulthood. Probably one of the last I will experience, actually, as I'm really getting a touch too old to have any Adult Firsts. But at least one was left.
I got my first Christmas Tree on my own. Woo hoo!
Out of college, I lived with my now ex-girlfriend and she had a fake tree which predated me and I never really felt was mine and besides, was fake. Last year, I opted not to get a tree since I was not on good terms with my roommate and my now girlfriend had one at her place anyway. She lent me a little fake tree which suited my needs, anyhow.
But this year, there is no fall back. My girlfriend is probably not getting a tree at all since she will be moving just before Christmas. I have big living room just begging for a tree. I thought about getting a fake one, but one wiff of the massive wreathes in my office building's lobby convinced me that I needed a real tree.
I'll be decorating it tonight. I have lights which I used to decorate my windows last year and picked up some ornaments at le Boutique Target. Have to let the branches drop first, of course. Which is essentially all I know about Christmas trees. Its a nice looking sucker. Not too big, but nicely full. I'm all excited. I woke up and the pine scent was just all over the place. Gotta love the real deal. And I've always been a sucker for room's lit by Tree lights. Its one of those enduring childhood memories that always moves me. I can't wait.
The funny thing, of course, is that I'm celebrating Christmas at all. I'm religious non-committed, after all, being an agnostic. Just goes to show how secularized the holiday has become. Although, I've always been a sucker for the Charlie Brown Christmas special precisely because it is so religious. I am not be of faith, but I have tremendous respect for those who are and do it right, encouraging others not by bluster or force but by living as examples of the teachings of their faith. The Charlie Brown special is doing it right. Reminding us what Christmas really means, both if religious and secular terms. Its one of only a handful of Christmas specials which is explicitly anti-consumerism, and you have to love that. Even The Grinch can't quite claim to be that as its more interested in stripping away the artifice to show the true meaning. That's not quite the same thing as Chuck's explicit condemnation of consumpsion celebrating. And I respect the hell out of how they do it. Painting Christmas without Santa and Rudolph and Snowman but rather with the hope of the Savior. Christmas get's slagged for being an unimportant religious holiday, but Charlie Brown provides an important rebutal to that line.
But, I can't say I went with Chuck's choice of trees when I got my $40 Air Freshener. At least's not some weird color or made of aluminum or (shudder) inflatable.
I got my first Christmas Tree on my own. Woo hoo!
Out of college, I lived with my now ex-girlfriend and she had a fake tree which predated me and I never really felt was mine and besides, was fake. Last year, I opted not to get a tree since I was not on good terms with my roommate and my now girlfriend had one at her place anyway. She lent me a little fake tree which suited my needs, anyhow.
But this year, there is no fall back. My girlfriend is probably not getting a tree at all since she will be moving just before Christmas. I have big living room just begging for a tree. I thought about getting a fake one, but one wiff of the massive wreathes in my office building's lobby convinced me that I needed a real tree.
I'll be decorating it tonight. I have lights which I used to decorate my windows last year and picked up some ornaments at le Boutique Target. Have to let the branches drop first, of course. Which is essentially all I know about Christmas trees. Its a nice looking sucker. Not too big, but nicely full. I'm all excited. I woke up and the pine scent was just all over the place. Gotta love the real deal. And I've always been a sucker for room's lit by Tree lights. Its one of those enduring childhood memories that always moves me. I can't wait.
The funny thing, of course, is that I'm celebrating Christmas at all. I'm religious non-committed, after all, being an agnostic. Just goes to show how secularized the holiday has become. Although, I've always been a sucker for the Charlie Brown Christmas special precisely because it is so religious. I am not be of faith, but I have tremendous respect for those who are and do it right, encouraging others not by bluster or force but by living as examples of the teachings of their faith. The Charlie Brown special is doing it right. Reminding us what Christmas really means, both if religious and secular terms. Its one of only a handful of Christmas specials which is explicitly anti-consumerism, and you have to love that. Even The Grinch can't quite claim to be that as its more interested in stripping away the artifice to show the true meaning. That's not quite the same thing as Chuck's explicit condemnation of consumpsion celebrating. And I respect the hell out of how they do it. Painting Christmas without Santa and Rudolph and Snowman but rather with the hope of the Savior. Christmas get's slagged for being an unimportant religious holiday, but Charlie Brown provides an important rebutal to that line.
But, I can't say I went with Chuck's choice of trees when I got my $40 Air Freshener. At least's not some weird color or made of aluminum or (shudder) inflatable.
12.03.2003
more false advertising from ralph
It seems Ralph Nader is threatening to run for President again in 2004.
Ugh.
Nader ran an openly dishonest in 2000 and he's been proven wrong repeatedly over the last 3 years. He tells us there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. What bull shit! And now he's pretending that the last three years haven't shown him to be a liar. Did he campaign against Bush is 2000? Nope. He ran anti-Gore attack ads. Everytime one of his dishonest portrayals of Democrats was taken to task, he trotted out some absurd justification. He claimed Pro-Choice advocates had nothing to worry about if Bush got elected. Well, we've already seen what's happened there. Which Pro-Choice folks knew back in 2000. But what did Nader say? He claimed that Thomas and Scali were Democratic nominees for the Supreme Court. Not literally, be he felt they needed to be blamed for them. Sure, in retrospect, a bigger fight should have been put up on both of those extreme right-wingers, but the result of that would have meant Clinton couldn't have gotten Ginsberg and Breyer confirmed, and believe me, we'll be very happy to have Ginsberg and Breyer on the Supreme Court in the coming decades. Also, the friendly atmosphere allowed an undercover liberal through on Bush the elder's watch. Yes, its politics as usual. That's how things get down, unfortunetly. You need to pick your fights. What you do is you push for a strong Democratic party with a strong Progressive element. That's the voice of this nation and it will carry the GOP to the center. But by attacking the Democrats, Nader did the Progressive movement a powerful disservice. And everything he insisting wasn't going to happen has. Either he is irresponsibly naive or arrogantly dishonest. Either way, he has no business running for office. You want to make your progressive voice heard? Case a vote in the Democratic primary for the candidate you feels best represents your beliefs. Don't help Nader hurt the progressive movement again. His ego-stroking campaigns have done nothing to create a progressive party in the United States. Quite the opposite, actually, as he's made a point to not help the Green Party although they are suffering seriously for their association with Nader and his dishonesty. Serves them right, frankly, but it still makes a mockery of one of Nader's stated motivations.
I could go one, but I'll instead direct you to better sources on Nader...
Nader fudges the truth at ReasonOnline
Blame it on Nader, a great index of sites on Nader's many positions
Ralph Nader knows better from the great writer Joe Conason
Nader should apologize, not run again from the Christian Science Monitor
I'm really not a fan of Nader. And I'm someone who literally grew up being taught to regard the man as a hero. I learned what an important and couragous man he was from an early age from my mother, and I read about him more and more as I grew up and was inspired by his committment and passion. He's spit on all of his tremendous work making this a better and more fair nation but running a dishonest Presidential campaign and now thinking about doing it again.
Ugh.
Nader ran an openly dishonest in 2000 and he's been proven wrong repeatedly over the last 3 years. He tells us there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. What bull shit! And now he's pretending that the last three years haven't shown him to be a liar. Did he campaign against Bush is 2000? Nope. He ran anti-Gore attack ads. Everytime one of his dishonest portrayals of Democrats was taken to task, he trotted out some absurd justification. He claimed Pro-Choice advocates had nothing to worry about if Bush got elected. Well, we've already seen what's happened there. Which Pro-Choice folks knew back in 2000. But what did Nader say? He claimed that Thomas and Scali were Democratic nominees for the Supreme Court. Not literally, be he felt they needed to be blamed for them. Sure, in retrospect, a bigger fight should have been put up on both of those extreme right-wingers, but the result of that would have meant Clinton couldn't have gotten Ginsberg and Breyer confirmed, and believe me, we'll be very happy to have Ginsberg and Breyer on the Supreme Court in the coming decades. Also, the friendly atmosphere allowed an undercover liberal through on Bush the elder's watch. Yes, its politics as usual. That's how things get down, unfortunetly. You need to pick your fights. What you do is you push for a strong Democratic party with a strong Progressive element. That's the voice of this nation and it will carry the GOP to the center. But by attacking the Democrats, Nader did the Progressive movement a powerful disservice. And everything he insisting wasn't going to happen has. Either he is irresponsibly naive or arrogantly dishonest. Either way, he has no business running for office. You want to make your progressive voice heard? Case a vote in the Democratic primary for the candidate you feels best represents your beliefs. Don't help Nader hurt the progressive movement again. His ego-stroking campaigns have done nothing to create a progressive party in the United States. Quite the opposite, actually, as he's made a point to not help the Green Party although they are suffering seriously for their association with Nader and his dishonesty. Serves them right, frankly, but it still makes a mockery of one of Nader's stated motivations.
I could go one, but I'll instead direct you to better sources on Nader...
Nader fudges the truth at ReasonOnline
Blame it on Nader, a great index of sites on Nader's many positions
Ralph Nader knows better from the great writer Joe Conason
Nader should apologize, not run again from the Christian Science Monitor
I'm really not a fan of Nader. And I'm someone who literally grew up being taught to regard the man as a hero. I learned what an important and couragous man he was from an early age from my mother, and I read about him more and more as I grew up and was inspired by his committment and passion. He's spit on all of his tremendous work making this a better and more fair nation but running a dishonest Presidential campaign and now thinking about doing it again.
won't someone please think of the soldiers
It seems the Pentagon is considering battlefield use of the Segway Human Transporter.
Haven't we put the men and women of our armed forces through enough?
Those are those bizarre little two wheel scooters that balance themselves in some complicated and ingenious way that you don't quite understand but is supposedly one of the most brilliant inventions ever even though it looks kinda goofy and no one can actually imagine people using the darn things. Supposedly, its virtually impossible to fall off the thing. Although our President seems to have managed to fall off the un-fall off-able Segway. (Seems he forgot to turn it on)
But our soldiers? In battle? Do we really need to spend the millions you just know we are spending to figure out that a battlion of Marines puttering around on scooters is not likely to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy. Somehow, I just can't picture some exciting and inspiring military combat video game involving scooting about.
And for that matter, what the heck is with all of these exciting and inspiring military combat video games? They seem to be all over the place. Forget the handful of blatent exploitations of the Iraq war. I'm talking about the combat simulators, usually either based in modern day urban warfare situation or in World War II. There just seems to be so many of them. I understood it to a point, butthere is a point when it just feels like too much. My dad is into them, and he actually served in the armed forces. Okay, he served in the Navy and JFK and John Kerry notwithstanding, that's not really a combat activity, but it still seems weird that a vetern would be interested in playing pretend soldier. Still, it seems a bit more understandable for him than for the majority who are playing the games who surely have never even been remotely in combat situations. The weirdest are the games that do multiplayer "death-match" games in their real World War II. That just freaks me out. I mean, I can sorta wrap my head around doing honor to those who fought in defense of freedom in World War II against the Nazi's with video games which chronicle their couragous efforts. Video games aren't just play anymore. They are a way of archiving our culture, our history. But using this as a backdrop to kill people over a high-speed connection just seems weird to me.
Oh, well. I guess mine is not to question why.
Haven't we put the men and women of our armed forces through enough?
Those are those bizarre little two wheel scooters that balance themselves in some complicated and ingenious way that you don't quite understand but is supposedly one of the most brilliant inventions ever even though it looks kinda goofy and no one can actually imagine people using the darn things. Supposedly, its virtually impossible to fall off the thing. Although our President seems to have managed to fall off the un-fall off-able Segway. (Seems he forgot to turn it on)
But our soldiers? In battle? Do we really need to spend the millions you just know we are spending to figure out that a battlion of Marines puttering around on scooters is not likely to strike fear into the hearts of the enemy. Somehow, I just can't picture some exciting and inspiring military combat video game involving scooting about.
And for that matter, what the heck is with all of these exciting and inspiring military combat video games? They seem to be all over the place. Forget the handful of blatent exploitations of the Iraq war. I'm talking about the combat simulators, usually either based in modern day urban warfare situation or in World War II. There just seems to be so many of them. I understood it to a point, butthere is a point when it just feels like too much. My dad is into them, and he actually served in the armed forces. Okay, he served in the Navy and JFK and John Kerry notwithstanding, that's not really a combat activity, but it still seems weird that a vetern would be interested in playing pretend soldier. Still, it seems a bit more understandable for him than for the majority who are playing the games who surely have never even been remotely in combat situations. The weirdest are the games that do multiplayer "death-match" games in their real World War II. That just freaks me out. I mean, I can sorta wrap my head around doing honor to those who fought in defense of freedom in World War II against the Nazi's with video games which chronicle their couragous efforts. Video games aren't just play anymore. They are a way of archiving our culture, our history. But using this as a backdrop to kill people over a high-speed connection just seems weird to me.
Oh, well. I guess mine is not to question why.
11.29.2003
surprise, surprise
Much talk in the news about the President's "surprise" visit to Iraq. The Administration is spinning this as some daring act of heroism on the President's part. I suspect most of America is responding in the manner my mom did. To paraphrase, "Damn right he should be going over there after he's had all of those people risk their lives for him."
My mom was a big supporter of the bombing or Afganistan. As was I, actually. Indeed, as was most of the international community. But like me, and most of the international community, she's never seen the connection to the War on Terror and the War on Iraq. A couple years ago, my mom was being down right jingoistic, but now she's been completely put off by Bush. I guess it just goes to show its not just the good will of the world he has squandered as he has turned attention away from an increasingly active Al quieda and to the hardly imminently threatening Iraq. So, upon hearing that he was visiting the troops, she thought it was literally the least he could do.
Of course, he's also facing some pretty tough questions from the White House Press Corps over this. Mostly because he just pissed them all off by lying to most of them for weeks and hand-picking a select group of reporters who got to tag along. It reminds me of Valentine's Day in elementary school when it was made very clear to me and my class mates that we had to get Valentine's for everyone, lest anyone feel left out. I guess they didn't touch such lessons in sensitivity to other's feelings back when Bush was in grade school. The greater concern is whether those invited were chosen because they were especially friendly with the White House. And, of course, the President does himself no favors when he basically tells the left out and lied to reporters that they should be thanking him.
This is not to say that a level of secrecy wouldn't have been warrented. Regardless of my personal feelings about his job performance, I certainly can acknowledge that a great deal of care is needed when visiting a war zone. And while it certainly has hints of his grandstanding habits, I am sure the troops appreciated it in a way that the crew of the Air Craft Carrier the White House placed just out of sight of San Diego wouldn't.
Still, it all just feels so over the top. Like W. realized he could live out his spy fantasies as he sneaks around "undercover" posing as a couple with Condi Rice. And of course, his paternal instincts kept kicking in as he threatended to turn Air Force One around if the reporters didn't behave. Seems like this all could have been accomplished if the President planned to have Thanksgiving Dinner at a military base in Germany but was really bound for Iraq. Then you can get a full press contingent who just don't know the scope of their visit until they find themselves getting off the plane in Baghdad.
The other thing is, it doesn't seem like it was all that safe. I mean, he did fly one of the two planes outfitted as Air Force 1. Even with a fighter patrol and AF1's impressive defense measures, seems like that would be a pretty noticable target. They actually were spotted by a British Airways pilot. I'm not expert, but you have to think that some Iraqi with a beef against the US might have noticed it, too.
But, they felt it was secure, so I'll go with their judgement. I'm more concerned by their typical stand-offish response. I'd be more impressed with this sort of thing if it wasn't always so overtly orchestrated or if they weren't premptively defensive. It is reminding me of the minor out-cry over Bush's plane hopping on September 11. A lot of people were fairly upset that our President was not providing visible leadership in one of the darkest hours of American history. But the Secret Service were also fairly concerned about safe-guarding the President's safety. The nation hoping made sense, even if the risk was slight. A few people would find issue, but they really weren't being fair. And yet, the White House still felt compelled to lie about it and make up a story about how they knew Air Force One was being targeted and they had to evade attack. It was all fantasy. They had no such information. Now, they didn't have any reason to lie. They had a reasonable explanation and an understanding public, but they still were making up stories. That's really disturbing all on its own.
My mom was a big supporter of the bombing or Afganistan. As was I, actually. Indeed, as was most of the international community. But like me, and most of the international community, she's never seen the connection to the War on Terror and the War on Iraq. A couple years ago, my mom was being down right jingoistic, but now she's been completely put off by Bush. I guess it just goes to show its not just the good will of the world he has squandered as he has turned attention away from an increasingly active Al quieda and to the hardly imminently threatening Iraq. So, upon hearing that he was visiting the troops, she thought it was literally the least he could do.
Of course, he's also facing some pretty tough questions from the White House Press Corps over this. Mostly because he just pissed them all off by lying to most of them for weeks and hand-picking a select group of reporters who got to tag along. It reminds me of Valentine's Day in elementary school when it was made very clear to me and my class mates that we had to get Valentine's for everyone, lest anyone feel left out. I guess they didn't touch such lessons in sensitivity to other's feelings back when Bush was in grade school. The greater concern is whether those invited were chosen because they were especially friendly with the White House. And, of course, the President does himself no favors when he basically tells the left out and lied to reporters that they should be thanking him.
This is not to say that a level of secrecy wouldn't have been warrented. Regardless of my personal feelings about his job performance, I certainly can acknowledge that a great deal of care is needed when visiting a war zone. And while it certainly has hints of his grandstanding habits, I am sure the troops appreciated it in a way that the crew of the Air Craft Carrier the White House placed just out of sight of San Diego wouldn't.
Still, it all just feels so over the top. Like W. realized he could live out his spy fantasies as he sneaks around "undercover" posing as a couple with Condi Rice. And of course, his paternal instincts kept kicking in as he threatended to turn Air Force One around if the reporters didn't behave. Seems like this all could have been accomplished if the President planned to have Thanksgiving Dinner at a military base in Germany but was really bound for Iraq. Then you can get a full press contingent who just don't know the scope of their visit until they find themselves getting off the plane in Baghdad.
The other thing is, it doesn't seem like it was all that safe. I mean, he did fly one of the two planes outfitted as Air Force 1. Even with a fighter patrol and AF1's impressive defense measures, seems like that would be a pretty noticable target. They actually were spotted by a British Airways pilot. I'm not expert, but you have to think that some Iraqi with a beef against the US might have noticed it, too.
But, they felt it was secure, so I'll go with their judgement. I'm more concerned by their typical stand-offish response. I'd be more impressed with this sort of thing if it wasn't always so overtly orchestrated or if they weren't premptively defensive. It is reminding me of the minor out-cry over Bush's plane hopping on September 11. A lot of people were fairly upset that our President was not providing visible leadership in one of the darkest hours of American history. But the Secret Service were also fairly concerned about safe-guarding the President's safety. The nation hoping made sense, even if the risk was slight. A few people would find issue, but they really weren't being fair. And yet, the White House still felt compelled to lie about it and make up a story about how they knew Air Force One was being targeted and they had to evade attack. It was all fantasy. They had no such information. Now, they didn't have any reason to lie. They had a reasonable explanation and an understanding public, but they still were making up stories. That's really disturbing all on its own.
11.27.2003
happy thanksgiving
Sorry for the last post, but I just had to say it. Funny way two months of daily personal insults can take their toil.
I hope everyone's Thanksgiving is going well. Turkey Day has never been a big deal to me, probably because I'm a vegetarian. My Thanksgiving memories are of being at relatives and feeling uncomfortable at everyone trying to accomidate me. That's the thing that sucks the most about being a veggie is other people feeling bad about not accomidating you. I genuinely don't mind. Obviously, its something I'm used to and completely understanding about, but it makes me feel bad that they are feeling bad, and its all just a big vicious cycle.
So, the last two years, I've just stayed by myself all day. Actually, I did that the previous two years when I lived with my ex, but that was mostly because I wasn't allowed to see her family so the option of spending the day with her was out of the question. BUT ANYWAY... I've just kept to myself the last two years and I really don't mind. Its kinda nice. I'm making some Salmon Mignon, got myself one of those little Frisbee pies so I've got that covered, and am just going to chill out. Watch some parade, watch some football, and just relax. I actually have to work on Friday (and Sunday, for that matter) so the little break will come in handy. Might even catch up on some email I've been long delinquent on and maybe right some posts I keep meaning to. Maybe if I toss them all out at once, my cyber stalker won't know what to insult! Now there is an idea.
But, until then, my best wishes for a happy holiday to you all, and special good wishes to Kell and her progress with NaNoWriMo. Happy Thanksgiving!
I hope everyone's Thanksgiving is going well. Turkey Day has never been a big deal to me, probably because I'm a vegetarian. My Thanksgiving memories are of being at relatives and feeling uncomfortable at everyone trying to accomidate me. That's the thing that sucks the most about being a veggie is other people feeling bad about not accomidating you. I genuinely don't mind. Obviously, its something I'm used to and completely understanding about, but it makes me feel bad that they are feeling bad, and its all just a big vicious cycle.
So, the last two years, I've just stayed by myself all day. Actually, I did that the previous two years when I lived with my ex, but that was mostly because I wasn't allowed to see her family so the option of spending the day with her was out of the question. BUT ANYWAY... I've just kept to myself the last two years and I really don't mind. Its kinda nice. I'm making some Salmon Mignon, got myself one of those little Frisbee pies so I've got that covered, and am just going to chill out. Watch some parade, watch some football, and just relax. I actually have to work on Friday (and Sunday, for that matter) so the little break will come in handy. Might even catch up on some email I've been long delinquent on and maybe right some posts I keep meaning to. Maybe if I toss them all out at once, my cyber stalker won't know what to insult! Now there is an idea.
But, until then, my best wishes for a happy holiday to you all, and special good wishes to Kell and her progress with NaNoWriMo. Happy Thanksgiving!
fed up
Some folks over at the BFB may have noticed that I've been hounding a particular poster and I thought I'd explain my actions fully. "Mary" is the same person who has posted here under a number of nick names, most recently as "Timmy the Troll". In addition to posting a host of bigoted and hateful things here on a daily basis for over two months, he/she also encouraged others at a hate site to troll my site. And yes, they ARE the same person, even if Mary sneaks in a post pretending otherwise. She posted as Timmy and as herself with the same IP address on the same day while she was also posting at the BFB. And it is an absolute certainty that she encouraged others to join in harassing me. Sorry, but I don't find her claim of innocence to be remotely true. You don't get to round up people to attack someone, and they act like you had nothing to do with. He/she is a pathetic liar and just a sick excuse for a human being.
No, I don't play nice with a person like that. Funny thing happens when you viciously insult someone on a daily basis for two months.
Moreover, his/her pattern of posts on the BFB have been textbook trolling. No, not of the outrageous variety, but rather of the kind who tries to change the subject from advancing the civil rights of fat people at every turn. His/her posts are uniformly counterproductive, but in a subtle enough manner that it may not be apparent unless you knew what he/she is up to. I'm hardly clairvoyant. I just know who was responsible for organizing a troll attack on this site. I also know that she used the same MO at NAAFA's site where she tried to make an issue out of a non-issue just to change the subject and put fat activists on the defensive for something they didn't even do.
No, I don't appreciate that. I'm sick of it. I'm fed up with people like that. You folks don't see the effects of his/her attacks on this site. You might see an occassional post before I can delete it, but I doubt you understand the scope of what he/she has been up to. I'm not kidding when I say his/her harrassment has been a daily affair. Indeed, it's contributed to a drop-off in my posting because I am just so sick of having to deal with their personal insults every time I post. I'm frankly more sick to see that person posting at a site that should be a valuable resource, and I'm not just not going to stay quiet about it. I'm not going to play nice with some cyberstalker. I'm just not.
No, I don't play nice with a person like that. Funny thing happens when you viciously insult someone on a daily basis for two months.
Moreover, his/her pattern of posts on the BFB have been textbook trolling. No, not of the outrageous variety, but rather of the kind who tries to change the subject from advancing the civil rights of fat people at every turn. His/her posts are uniformly counterproductive, but in a subtle enough manner that it may not be apparent unless you knew what he/she is up to. I'm hardly clairvoyant. I just know who was responsible for organizing a troll attack on this site. I also know that she used the same MO at NAAFA's site where she tried to make an issue out of a non-issue just to change the subject and put fat activists on the defensive for something they didn't even do.
No, I don't appreciate that. I'm sick of it. I'm fed up with people like that. You folks don't see the effects of his/her attacks on this site. You might see an occassional post before I can delete it, but I doubt you understand the scope of what he/she has been up to. I'm not kidding when I say his/her harrassment has been a daily affair. Indeed, it's contributed to a drop-off in my posting because I am just so sick of having to deal with their personal insults every time I post. I'm frankly more sick to see that person posting at a site that should be a valuable resource, and I'm not just not going to stay quiet about it. I'm not going to play nice with some cyberstalker. I'm just not.
11.24.2003
for all of my bald gay readers
Some very positive news out of the Bay State this weekend. While Massachusetts has tended to poll in favor of gay marriage, the numbers have always been close. Back in April, it was 50% supporting and 44% opposing, and that was before the jump in opposition that was seen in national polls after the Lawrence decision from the Supreme Court and Canada's move to legalize gay marriage. One might have suspected a surge in opposition after last week's court ruling.
Actually, it was the opposite. Well, kinda.
Support stood firm at 50% but opposition took a steep drop. Also, opposition to a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage was even stronger, sitting at 53% opposed. That has to be a positive sign that the Commonwealth can hold the line on this, even if the politicians try to dump an Ammendment in our laps. Especially since the soonest it would be on the ballet would be during a mid-term election year with a Governor race to boot. A high turn-out would reduce the chance for a bill with marginal poll numbers to sneak through.
When asked about affording the legal rights and responsibilities, some polls saw the numbers climb very high, in fact. Up past 70% support, actually. This offers more reason to suspect that if this issue can be framed properly, that support will jump. If people know this discussion is about the civil institution and nothing to do with their personal religious beliefs, I think a lot more people would be uncomfortable opposing gay marriage. All interesting signs. One negative, though, is that the state's Governor and Attorney General and blatently misinterpreting the rulling as permiting Vermont-style civil unions instead of marriages, when almost all legal scholars and observors have noted how emphatic it was they were talking about marriage and that "seperate but equal" wouldn't remedy their concerns. But, I suspect the politicians are intent on calling the court's bluff on this one, and the court could well back down. I'd be comfortable with a seperate system, as long as it was called marriage, too. Either that, or start calling all civil marriages, civil unions and be done with it.
In non-gay marriage related news, I'm increasingly pissed off with these anti-baldness ads. It seems like once or twice a year, some baldness "cure" puts out an ad which is just out-right mean-spirited, and that time is now. Honestly, I can't think of a better case of someone promoting a stigma to promote their product. Not to say that there isn't stigmatization of baldness in our culture, but there is still something uncomfortably annoying about the way they are trying to promote those prejudices. I regard baldness cures in pretty much the same light as diet products to begin with, but outside of the dreck from Stacker 2 or, apparently, Amstel Light, they usually aren't just mean when promoting stigmas. Still, I'm not sure their faux emotional promotion of the same stigmas is any better. In a lot of ways, I can see how the mother who tells a story of how their child hated them for being fat doing a lot more damage than the gleeful cruelty of of an actress portraying a girlfriend bashing the boyfriend's formerly receeding hairline by means of praising his hairied self. But, lesser of two evils style discussions like this are always dramatically uninspiring. (yeah, i know that makes no sense, but it sounds nice) But the cruelty of the baldness cure ads increasingly seem to be more interested in promoting stigmatization than in just taking advantage of it.
Actually, it was the opposite. Well, kinda.
Support stood firm at 50% but opposition took a steep drop. Also, opposition to a Constitutional Ammendment banning gay marriage was even stronger, sitting at 53% opposed. That has to be a positive sign that the Commonwealth can hold the line on this, even if the politicians try to dump an Ammendment in our laps. Especially since the soonest it would be on the ballet would be during a mid-term election year with a Governor race to boot. A high turn-out would reduce the chance for a bill with marginal poll numbers to sneak through.
When asked about affording the legal rights and responsibilities, some polls saw the numbers climb very high, in fact. Up past 70% support, actually. This offers more reason to suspect that if this issue can be framed properly, that support will jump. If people know this discussion is about the civil institution and nothing to do with their personal religious beliefs, I think a lot more people would be uncomfortable opposing gay marriage. All interesting signs. One negative, though, is that the state's Governor and Attorney General and blatently misinterpreting the rulling as permiting Vermont-style civil unions instead of marriages, when almost all legal scholars and observors have noted how emphatic it was they were talking about marriage and that "seperate but equal" wouldn't remedy their concerns. But, I suspect the politicians are intent on calling the court's bluff on this one, and the court could well back down. I'd be comfortable with a seperate system, as long as it was called marriage, too. Either that, or start calling all civil marriages, civil unions and be done with it.
In non-gay marriage related news, I'm increasingly pissed off with these anti-baldness ads. It seems like once or twice a year, some baldness "cure" puts out an ad which is just out-right mean-spirited, and that time is now. Honestly, I can't think of a better case of someone promoting a stigma to promote their product. Not to say that there isn't stigmatization of baldness in our culture, but there is still something uncomfortably annoying about the way they are trying to promote those prejudices. I regard baldness cures in pretty much the same light as diet products to begin with, but outside of the dreck from Stacker 2 or, apparently, Amstel Light, they usually aren't just mean when promoting stigmas. Still, I'm not sure their faux emotional promotion of the same stigmas is any better. In a lot of ways, I can see how the mother who tells a story of how their child hated them for being fat doing a lot more damage than the gleeful cruelty of of an actress portraying a girlfriend bashing the boyfriend's formerly receeding hairline by means of praising his hairied self. But, lesser of two evils style discussions like this are always dramatically uninspiring. (yeah, i know that makes no sense, but it sounds nice) But the cruelty of the baldness cure ads increasingly seem to be more interested in promoting stigmatization than in just taking advantage of it.
11.20.2003
what to write, what to write...
Been debating topics to write about for a few days. I've been really burned out all month from work and haven't been writing as much as I'd like. Thank goodness I abandoned NaNoWriMo, because I'd be in no shape to write anything. But, this isn't a whine about work blog. Not that I think my superiors are web saavy enough to find me anyway, but I *really* am not interested in either boring you with that or dwelling on work on my own time.
Been thinking about writing a follow up to the gay marriage debate. For all my hand-wringing over worries of a back-lash, I've also found two reasons to look more optimistically at the situation. For one, gay marriage in Massachusetts is inevitable. Its gonna happen, that's pretty clear right now. That means any move to ban gay marriage is going to be a move to revoke people's rights, a move to end happy marriages. I'm not sure that will sit well with a lot of people. Arguing for the status quo is always easier, and in 6 months, gay marriage is going to be the status quo in the Commonwealth. The debate of gay marriage is dominated by moderates who currently disagree with gay marriage, but not that strongly. It may really challenge those people when real faces are put on this issue.
Also, I'm encouraged that the GOP wants to make an issue out of gay marriage in 2004. I think they are radically overestimating how much this means to that vast expanse of moderates. The people in the middle are precisely the type to be motivated by discouragement over the jobless "recovery", massive budget deficits, and the lack of focus in the Iraqi occupation. Abortion never ignited these people. Why is gay marriage going to? The real kicker is I think a lot of those people actually would support gay marriage if they thought about it too long. Especially since the GOP seems ill-prepared to keep the gay-hating attack dogs at bay, which will really put off the moderates. The hyperbole employed by even Republican leaders is going to annoy people. This maybe a deciding issue in 2004, but only if the GOP is hanging themselves with it.
But that's about all I have to say about that.
Thought about doing my second random thoughts post, but I really only have one random thought. How long will it take Ashton Kutchner to get washed-up enough to be doing Old Navy commercials?
Oh, and White Chocolate Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Miniatures freaking rule. I wish they'd make that a perminant variation. Its easily the best of the Reese's limited editions this year. I hated the Honey Roaster ones. Bleck!
And did you know Bloom County is (kinda) coming back? Opus anyway. Really, this is too important for a random thought. I loved Bloom County and Outland back in the day when I was too young to understand all of it. Its due back in the form of Sunday only strip starting this Sunday. Expect it to join Boondocks and Get Fuzzy among my linked comics. I've always loved the funny pages, especially the artists who really respect the medium. I'm still a little annoyed that we don't get any more Calvin and Hobbes. I'd also LOVE to be able to own all of the Peanuts strips over the years. Schultz *made* comic strips what they are. To paraphrase Get Fuzzy's aritst, all comics are either rip offs of Peanuts or rip offs of Far Side. (Darby Conley actually said that all comic strip artists fall into two categories: those who started out ripping off Far Side, and those who won't admit they started out ripping off Far Side because they still are).
Have two longer posts I want to write, but I suspect they'll bore the heck out of my readers. Well, except the troll who can always be depended upon to read very closely to find out the best way to misrepresent something to justify his/her obsession with me. With the impending release of X-Men 2 on DVD, I kinda want to talk a bit about my super-hero fandom. You see, its funny because I hate comic books, but love comic book movies. That's pretty much the jist of the considered post, except I also bitch about why Warner Brothers is planning a new Superman movie instead of trying to build on their already successful Superman property, Smallville.
I also wanted to write a bit about my thoughts about being a moderate progressive (which in non-progressive circles means a solid progressive) but I think I've overdone it with politics in the last couple of days.
So, I write about nothing much. Just be glad I'm not discussing the latest episode of Angel or something horribly bloggish like that. hehe
Been thinking about writing a follow up to the gay marriage debate. For all my hand-wringing over worries of a back-lash, I've also found two reasons to look more optimistically at the situation. For one, gay marriage in Massachusetts is inevitable. Its gonna happen, that's pretty clear right now. That means any move to ban gay marriage is going to be a move to revoke people's rights, a move to end happy marriages. I'm not sure that will sit well with a lot of people. Arguing for the status quo is always easier, and in 6 months, gay marriage is going to be the status quo in the Commonwealth. The debate of gay marriage is dominated by moderates who currently disagree with gay marriage, but not that strongly. It may really challenge those people when real faces are put on this issue.
Also, I'm encouraged that the GOP wants to make an issue out of gay marriage in 2004. I think they are radically overestimating how much this means to that vast expanse of moderates. The people in the middle are precisely the type to be motivated by discouragement over the jobless "recovery", massive budget deficits, and the lack of focus in the Iraqi occupation. Abortion never ignited these people. Why is gay marriage going to? The real kicker is I think a lot of those people actually would support gay marriage if they thought about it too long. Especially since the GOP seems ill-prepared to keep the gay-hating attack dogs at bay, which will really put off the moderates. The hyperbole employed by even Republican leaders is going to annoy people. This maybe a deciding issue in 2004, but only if the GOP is hanging themselves with it.
But that's about all I have to say about that.
Thought about doing my second random thoughts post, but I really only have one random thought. How long will it take Ashton Kutchner to get washed-up enough to be doing Old Navy commercials?
Oh, and White Chocolate Reese's Peanut Butter Cup Miniatures freaking rule. I wish they'd make that a perminant variation. Its easily the best of the Reese's limited editions this year. I hated the Honey Roaster ones. Bleck!
And did you know Bloom County is (kinda) coming back? Opus anyway. Really, this is too important for a random thought. I loved Bloom County and Outland back in the day when I was too young to understand all of it. Its due back in the form of Sunday only strip starting this Sunday. Expect it to join Boondocks and Get Fuzzy among my linked comics. I've always loved the funny pages, especially the artists who really respect the medium. I'm still a little annoyed that we don't get any more Calvin and Hobbes. I'd also LOVE to be able to own all of the Peanuts strips over the years. Schultz *made* comic strips what they are. To paraphrase Get Fuzzy's aritst, all comics are either rip offs of Peanuts or rip offs of Far Side. (Darby Conley actually said that all comic strip artists fall into two categories: those who started out ripping off Far Side, and those who won't admit they started out ripping off Far Side because they still are).
Have two longer posts I want to write, but I suspect they'll bore the heck out of my readers. Well, except the troll who can always be depended upon to read very closely to find out the best way to misrepresent something to justify his/her obsession with me. With the impending release of X-Men 2 on DVD, I kinda want to talk a bit about my super-hero fandom. You see, its funny because I hate comic books, but love comic book movies. That's pretty much the jist of the considered post, except I also bitch about why Warner Brothers is planning a new Superman movie instead of trying to build on their already successful Superman property, Smallville.
I also wanted to write a bit about my thoughts about being a moderate progressive (which in non-progressive circles means a solid progressive) but I think I've overdone it with politics in the last couple of days.
So, I write about nothing much. Just be glad I'm not discussing the latest episode of Angel or something horribly bloggish like that. hehe
11.18.2003
wow.
The top court in Massachusetts just tossed out a ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts and have ordered the legislature to fix it within 180 days. The kicker is, they specifically stated that Vermont style Civil Unions would not satisfy the court's concerns with the law. Simply put, seperate but equal ain't enough. Hawaii and Alaska both saw the same thing, but each were able to get amendments passed. Although an amendment to the State Constitution would probably pass, it also seems like there is enough support in the state Senate to prevent it from getting out of convention. What's more, procedures in Massachusetts would prevent such an amendment from taking effect until 2006, at which point the genie will be decidedly out of the bottle.
I'm frankly stunned at this. It's been hanging for about 6 months as the Court considered the case, a really extraordinary length of time for deliberation. Moreover, I was expecting the court to take the stance lower courts did, that this is an issue that is best left to the legislature. I kinda agreed with that, too, but never very strongly. I am deeply concerned about what damage could be done to the movement for gay rights by too much coming too soon. I mean, the Supreme Court only recently decided that having consentual gay sex was a protected activity, and even THAT caused an outrage. I worry that more mainstream unease with homosexuality could be ignited if the marriage thing came too quickly. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore how many extraordinarily important changes took place in this country because the courts stepped in. Indeed, the only important change in civil rights that took place without the courts was the abolishing of slavery, which the Supreme Court got very, very wrong. They got segregation wrong, too, but they also took the opportunity to fix that. Sometimes, that is the only way for change to take place.
I guess my concern is that I don't think this is the only way to break down bans on gay marriage. I think it is increasingly clear that things are moving overwhelmingly in the direction of supporting gay rights, and it may well have happened within a decade or two on its own. If, however, constitutional ammendments are passed, that will make things MUCH more difficult. Especially in the thankfully unlikely event that a federal ammendment gets passed. But, even gay marriage opponents don't think that's a good thing. A few of them aren't as hypocritically conservative as others.
Former Rep. Bob Barr, for instance, is at least consistant to his philosophy. Hardly a friend to the gay lobby, he is the guy who spearheaded the stupid fight for the Defense of Marriage act. But, he's at least being consistant. The DOMA allowed states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed out of the state and denied federal benefits to gay partners. Seemed like a much ado about nothing, at the time, but it seems Barr has a soft touch. He's an ardent federalist, and doesn't like the idea of meddling with the constitution to either restate what the DOMA already does or more importantly, forbid states from setting their own marriage laws as they sit fit. He is, it seems, one Republican who really means it when he says "State's Rights". He doesn't just want it when it serves his idealogy. I still think the guy is dead wrong, but I do admire ideaological consistancy like that.
But, for now, a huge victory for gay marriage may be 180 days away. I just hope it isn't a prelude to a lot of huge setbacks.
I'm frankly stunned at this. It's been hanging for about 6 months as the Court considered the case, a really extraordinary length of time for deliberation. Moreover, I was expecting the court to take the stance lower courts did, that this is an issue that is best left to the legislature. I kinda agreed with that, too, but never very strongly. I am deeply concerned about what damage could be done to the movement for gay rights by too much coming too soon. I mean, the Supreme Court only recently decided that having consentual gay sex was a protected activity, and even THAT caused an outrage. I worry that more mainstream unease with homosexuality could be ignited if the marriage thing came too quickly. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore how many extraordinarily important changes took place in this country because the courts stepped in. Indeed, the only important change in civil rights that took place without the courts was the abolishing of slavery, which the Supreme Court got very, very wrong. They got segregation wrong, too, but they also took the opportunity to fix that. Sometimes, that is the only way for change to take place.
I guess my concern is that I don't think this is the only way to break down bans on gay marriage. I think it is increasingly clear that things are moving overwhelmingly in the direction of supporting gay rights, and it may well have happened within a decade or two on its own. If, however, constitutional ammendments are passed, that will make things MUCH more difficult. Especially in the thankfully unlikely event that a federal ammendment gets passed. But, even gay marriage opponents don't think that's a good thing. A few of them aren't as hypocritically conservative as others.
Former Rep. Bob Barr, for instance, is at least consistant to his philosophy. Hardly a friend to the gay lobby, he is the guy who spearheaded the stupid fight for the Defense of Marriage act. But, he's at least being consistant. The DOMA allowed states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed out of the state and denied federal benefits to gay partners. Seemed like a much ado about nothing, at the time, but it seems Barr has a soft touch. He's an ardent federalist, and doesn't like the idea of meddling with the constitution to either restate what the DOMA already does or more importantly, forbid states from setting their own marriage laws as they sit fit. He is, it seems, one Republican who really means it when he says "State's Rights". He doesn't just want it when it serves his idealogy. I still think the guy is dead wrong, but I do admire ideaological consistancy like that.
But, for now, a huge victory for gay marriage may be 180 days away. I just hope it isn't a prelude to a lot of huge setbacks.
i hate the music industry
Have I mentioned how much I hate the music industry? Because I really hate the music industry. They are destroying music, running their business like idiots, and then they blame their fans for their troubles. I've never downloaded an album I could have bought. I have bought albums because I had downloaded tracks, though. I'm not alone, either. Downloading has, at times, made me more motivated to be interested in music.
I'm lucky that my favorite band, R.E.M., is astonishingly downloader friendly. Although in this day and age that's really just being fan friendly. I'm amazed at what they do for their fans interested in their work, and it has managed to increase my interest in one the handful of acts I'm really interested in. A while back, they released an entire album online. Not new stuff, granted, but it was an album of remixes from their most recent album. A mixed bag, but it was just plain awesome that they did it. Even offered album art to download. They've also offered their explicit endorsement to a fan downloading site which fosters trading in bootlegs and B-Sides among their fans. They even got better when they recently offered access to ALL of their videos and some live video to boot. Yes, ALL of their music videos. How cool is that? I mean, this is a band known for their cutting edge and creative videos, and they've got it all there. This is an act doing things right. They've also got the clout to do that. Most artists are too busy being stuck in the disturbingly unfair contracts that are standard in the music biz. Any time the music companies claim they are doing things to protect the poor artists, they are lying. Its that simple. Did you know a musician whose music is sold online as a download is still charged in their royalties the cost of damaged CD's? Do you know how many pennies an artist receives from those low-overhead music downloads? Do you know the music companies aren't even bothering to PAY the artists for the download services they set up?
I recently bought an MP3 player. Well, okay, not really. Its one of those CD players that can play CD's burned with MP3's. A cool comparmise from a real MP3 player. But, it requires blank CDs, which I've started using a lot. I stocked up on them years ago when I first got a CD burner because they were dirt cheap. And I mean CHEAP. I got 250 blank CD's without paying a cent through really generous rebates. Now, I wouldn't expect that forever, but the regular price was still good. Now, they cost a ton. And why? Because they are secretly taxed and the proceeds go directly to the music companies. Its supposed to also go to artists, but guess who isn't paying the artists their share of these taxes? The tax is secret because its built into the retail price of the blank CD's, much like blank cassette tapes. The theory is that it is to pay for the music downloading that goes. But, you pay whether you use the CDs to back up files or to burn music. Doesn't matter. Everyone pays.
Which is pretty much when I stopped feeling remotely sorry for the music industry. Why shouldn't I steal music when I've already been fined just in case I steal music? Honestly, how am I supposed to think what I'm doing is wrong when I'll be punished for it whether I do it or not.
What's frustrating is that the companies are sitting on a goldmine in their back catalogs. This is stuff they aren't making a red cent on, but absurdly get to control. Dump all of that great old stuff on a site, charge a low monthly or yearly fee, and allow unlimited downloading. And don't handicap the files, either. Allow them to be used however the buyer pleases. Fair use is protected in the US, even if the music comapnies don't like it. I can tell you I'd sign up for that. I remember a Mama Cass special a while back (check my post from 9.20.2003) and I kept thinking that I'd love to hear more of her early folk stuff. But I'm no idiot. That stuff is non-existant on CD. I'd have loved to have been able to just jump online and download it. I can think of tons of stuff I'd love to have. Yes, it'd cost money to set up, but this is stuff they aren't earning a dime on that could definetly bring in some cash. Plus, it'd work to preserve culture, which ought to be an obligation of the Music Industry. But, as we've seen with the attacks on copyright limits, the entertainment biz doesn't much care about advancing the arts and sciences.
Ah, screw it. I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting, but I feel better having screamed. Don't you?
(Major brownie points to anyone who can identify that without googling)
I'm lucky that my favorite band, R.E.M., is astonishingly downloader friendly. Although in this day and age that's really just being fan friendly. I'm amazed at what they do for their fans interested in their work, and it has managed to increase my interest in one the handful of acts I'm really interested in. A while back, they released an entire album online. Not new stuff, granted, but it was an album of remixes from their most recent album. A mixed bag, but it was just plain awesome that they did it. Even offered album art to download. They've also offered their explicit endorsement to a fan downloading site which fosters trading in bootlegs and B-Sides among their fans. They even got better when they recently offered access to ALL of their videos and some live video to boot. Yes, ALL of their music videos. How cool is that? I mean, this is a band known for their cutting edge and creative videos, and they've got it all there. This is an act doing things right. They've also got the clout to do that. Most artists are too busy being stuck in the disturbingly unfair contracts that are standard in the music biz. Any time the music companies claim they are doing things to protect the poor artists, they are lying. Its that simple. Did you know a musician whose music is sold online as a download is still charged in their royalties the cost of damaged CD's? Do you know how many pennies an artist receives from those low-overhead music downloads? Do you know the music companies aren't even bothering to PAY the artists for the download services they set up?
I recently bought an MP3 player. Well, okay, not really. Its one of those CD players that can play CD's burned with MP3's. A cool comparmise from a real MP3 player. But, it requires blank CDs, which I've started using a lot. I stocked up on them years ago when I first got a CD burner because they were dirt cheap. And I mean CHEAP. I got 250 blank CD's without paying a cent through really generous rebates. Now, I wouldn't expect that forever, but the regular price was still good. Now, they cost a ton. And why? Because they are secretly taxed and the proceeds go directly to the music companies. Its supposed to also go to artists, but guess who isn't paying the artists their share of these taxes? The tax is secret because its built into the retail price of the blank CD's, much like blank cassette tapes. The theory is that it is to pay for the music downloading that goes. But, you pay whether you use the CDs to back up files or to burn music. Doesn't matter. Everyone pays.
Which is pretty much when I stopped feeling remotely sorry for the music industry. Why shouldn't I steal music when I've already been fined just in case I steal music? Honestly, how am I supposed to think what I'm doing is wrong when I'll be punished for it whether I do it or not.
What's frustrating is that the companies are sitting on a goldmine in their back catalogs. This is stuff they aren't making a red cent on, but absurdly get to control. Dump all of that great old stuff on a site, charge a low monthly or yearly fee, and allow unlimited downloading. And don't handicap the files, either. Allow them to be used however the buyer pleases. Fair use is protected in the US, even if the music comapnies don't like it. I can tell you I'd sign up for that. I remember a Mama Cass special a while back (check my post from 9.20.2003) and I kept thinking that I'd love to hear more of her early folk stuff. But I'm no idiot. That stuff is non-existant on CD. I'd have loved to have been able to just jump online and download it. I can think of tons of stuff I'd love to have. Yes, it'd cost money to set up, but this is stuff they aren't earning a dime on that could definetly bring in some cash. Plus, it'd work to preserve culture, which ought to be an obligation of the Music Industry. But, as we've seen with the attacks on copyright limits, the entertainment biz doesn't much care about advancing the arts and sciences.
Ah, screw it. I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting, but I feel better having screamed. Don't you?
(Major brownie points to anyone who can identify that without googling)
11.13.2003
wes clark loses me
This is what you get for pandering to the jingoistic American Legion. I wanted to like Wesley Clark, I really did. But I cannot support a candidate who believes in meddling with the first amendment. We have never passed a repeal of our First Amendment rights, and we never should. Freedom of expression is perhaps our most important liberty. It is supremely American and it is an insult to all that our flag stands for to suggest we roll-back those rights. This is a liberty our founders took very seriously, and it is something every American should be proud of.
I got to sit through a day long American Legion propaganda session when I did Boy's State in high school trying to pressure us to support their effort to re-write freedom of expression. Their lack of a coherant point was breath-taking. It was pure jingoism meant to indoctronate 16 and 17 year olds. Indeed, the whole flap over flag burning is a much-ado-about-nothing scenario. It's a fake issue. Flag burnings happen so infrequently as to further make a mockery of the supposed justification of re-writing the constitution. This just doesn't deserve such attention. Its an issue being exploited by people. This is no reason to undermine the Constitution.
America is more than a symbol. It is more than 13 bars, 50 stars, and a field of blue. What makes our nation is justice, liberty, freedom. That is what our soldiers fight for when the fight under our flag. This is what my father and my grandfather fought for. Not for the flag itself, but for what it means. Frankly, I think it represents a massive failure in teaching civics that this is not just understood. That people don't understand that the flag is nothing compared to what this nations really stands for. We, as a nation, clearly have not adequately informed our citizenry of what it means to be an America. Our Constitution ought to be much more sacred than our flag. Even if you don't think people ought to be burning flags, how can you think it merits meddling in such a genuinely sacred symbol of America.
I don't like it that people burn the flag to make a point. I think it is callous and unproductive. But that is their right. If it is okay for someone to promote horrible racism, how can we say that burning some fabric is the more heinous crime? Both are bad, but also are proof of the resiliency of the American nation and the American spirit. Someone burning our flag is no threat to our nation. How dare we repeal the first amendment to outlay such an unimportant issue. We should not embarass the generations to come with the specticle of a crossed out amendment. We made a mistake once in our history, and it remains a national shame that we abused our Constitution over such a trivial issue as alcohol. There are important reasons to ammend the Constitution. Flag burning is most decidedly NOT it.
Some say that this amendment is intended to be for our veterens. Rather than tamper with a liberty those veterens served in defense of, why not provide more health care for those have performed duty for the armed forces? Why not shore up the benefits our injured soldiers can recieve. A former POW who was shot twice in the line of duty was offered a paltry 30% disability. That is respect for our veterens? Effort that could be spent protecting those who risk life and limb for all that that this nation stands for is instead spent pursuing a silly perversion of our Constitution.
So, I have lost a great deal of respect for Wesley Clark. He was pandering to an American Legion audience. He should know better. As should Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich who have also consistantly supported repealing a freedom of expression. Howard Dean has gone the route of attacking the first ammendment but not clearly stating that HE wants to attack the first ammendment. I don't get it, either, but thus far he hasn't had the power to actually make this issue a problem. And much credit must be given to John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman who have defended the sanctity of our Constitution in the US Senate, as did Carol Moseley-Braun when she served as Senator. I can't find what Al Sharpton thinks, but I guess he doesn't support amending the Constitution. I still single out the Senators who have made a real contribution to defending our Constitution and am especially ashamed of the Representatives who made a contribution to meddling with it.
I got to sit through a day long American Legion propaganda session when I did Boy's State in high school trying to pressure us to support their effort to re-write freedom of expression. Their lack of a coherant point was breath-taking. It was pure jingoism meant to indoctronate 16 and 17 year olds. Indeed, the whole flap over flag burning is a much-ado-about-nothing scenario. It's a fake issue. Flag burnings happen so infrequently as to further make a mockery of the supposed justification of re-writing the constitution. This just doesn't deserve such attention. Its an issue being exploited by people. This is no reason to undermine the Constitution.
America is more than a symbol. It is more than 13 bars, 50 stars, and a field of blue. What makes our nation is justice, liberty, freedom. That is what our soldiers fight for when the fight under our flag. This is what my father and my grandfather fought for. Not for the flag itself, but for what it means. Frankly, I think it represents a massive failure in teaching civics that this is not just understood. That people don't understand that the flag is nothing compared to what this nations really stands for. We, as a nation, clearly have not adequately informed our citizenry of what it means to be an America. Our Constitution ought to be much more sacred than our flag. Even if you don't think people ought to be burning flags, how can you think it merits meddling in such a genuinely sacred symbol of America.
I don't like it that people burn the flag to make a point. I think it is callous and unproductive. But that is their right. If it is okay for someone to promote horrible racism, how can we say that burning some fabric is the more heinous crime? Both are bad, but also are proof of the resiliency of the American nation and the American spirit. Someone burning our flag is no threat to our nation. How dare we repeal the first amendment to outlay such an unimportant issue. We should not embarass the generations to come with the specticle of a crossed out amendment. We made a mistake once in our history, and it remains a national shame that we abused our Constitution over such a trivial issue as alcohol. There are important reasons to ammend the Constitution. Flag burning is most decidedly NOT it.
Some say that this amendment is intended to be for our veterens. Rather than tamper with a liberty those veterens served in defense of, why not provide more health care for those have performed duty for the armed forces? Why not shore up the benefits our injured soldiers can recieve. A former POW who was shot twice in the line of duty was offered a paltry 30% disability. That is respect for our veterens? Effort that could be spent protecting those who risk life and limb for all that that this nation stands for is instead spent pursuing a silly perversion of our Constitution.
So, I have lost a great deal of respect for Wesley Clark. He was pandering to an American Legion audience. He should know better. As should Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich who have also consistantly supported repealing a freedom of expression. Howard Dean has gone the route of attacking the first ammendment but not clearly stating that HE wants to attack the first ammendment. I don't get it, either, but thus far he hasn't had the power to actually make this issue a problem. And much credit must be given to John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman who have defended the sanctity of our Constitution in the US Senate, as did Carol Moseley-Braun when she served as Senator. I can't find what Al Sharpton thinks, but I guess he doesn't support amending the Constitution. I still single out the Senators who have made a real contribution to defending our Constitution and am especially ashamed of the Representatives who made a contribution to meddling with it.
11.12.2003
oh, me of little faith (and ability)
Not long after I "gave up" on my novel, I started reconsidering what my issues were. I largely decided that my concept was the primary problem and it was just too weak for what I wanted to do with it. Now, when I first thought about doing NaNoWriMo, I had an idea pop into my head right away but I dismissed it as too science fiction-ish. This wasn't entirely fair, as the idea was really a sort of post-modern after-life mythology, but it seemed close enough. When I gave up on the college story, though, I reconsidered my original idea. In about 6 hours of thinking about it, I had a very fully formed plot, a strong cast of characters, two alternative endings, and a very good understanding for the physical reality of the novel. I was feeling very secure, and very silly for my prior defeatism. But, I continued to procrastinate the actual writing.
I finally sat down today to work on it, and I tossed off 1,000 words in about an hour. Problem is, I hated it. So, I'm back where I was before, only with a better idea now. I'm still thinking overly visually. I'm seeing the story, but that doesn't mean I'm translating it well at all. I still have the basic problem that I don't know how to write fiction. Based in no small part to me not reading much fiction. I'd like to get back to it, so I'm thinking of the project on hiatus, but I have no illusion that I'll be able to do anything this month. But, I'm really excited about the idea which leaves me a little creatively frustrated.
Ah, well. For another day, I suppose.
I finally sat down today to work on it, and I tossed off 1,000 words in about an hour. Problem is, I hated it. So, I'm back where I was before, only with a better idea now. I'm still thinking overly visually. I'm seeing the story, but that doesn't mean I'm translating it well at all. I still have the basic problem that I don't know how to write fiction. Based in no small part to me not reading much fiction. I'd like to get back to it, so I'm thinking of the project on hiatus, but I have no illusion that I'll be able to do anything this month. But, I'm really excited about the idea which leaves me a little creatively frustrated.
Ah, well. For another day, I suppose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)