« 15 augustus 2004 - 21 augustus 2004 | Main | 29 augustus 2004 - 04 september 2004 »
27 augustus 2004
Same-Sex Marriage DOES Cause Breakups!
In this late stage of the game, I'm often offended by people bringing up homosexuality like it's just another political notion, or worse, a social-engineering soupbone for the Rabid Right to gnaw on. I'm put off by having to even bring up my being gay when it's a conscious shift in conversation.
I'm the last person in the world to think that any of us <irony>faggots</irony> are somehow flaunting our sexuality by merely stating that we're gay or that we're partnered to someone of the same sex. On the contrary, I find others to be flaunting their sheltered, bourgeois, homogeneity by assuming in the first place that everyone they meet is straight. And if some of you out there want a good look at the gay agenda, well, there it is: stop assuming that hegemony is the same thing as totality.
Yep, that's it, AnnSeanRushWPatAdNauseum, that's all of it. Stop assuming, because you're turning u and me into asses.
Just because you state—from however visible a pulpit—that there's somehow a "tyranny of the minority" with your so-called "activist judges" and "sinister gay agenda", doesn't make it true. It doesn't even make it plausible.
Toqueville identified it a long time ago. He coined the original phrase "tyranny of the majority" in America (see how clever Right Wingnuts can be, flip-flopping that word over and creating a whole new dogma out of it?) Here's a quote from his famous book, "Democracy in America". The quote is from Volume 1, Chapter 15: Unlimited Power of the Majority, and Its Consequences, Part II:
When I refuse to obey an unjust law, I do not contest the
right which the majority has of commanding, but I simply appeal
from the sovereignty of the people to the sovereignty of mankind.
It has been asserted that a people can never entirely outstep the
boundaries of justice and of reason in those affairs which are
more peculiarly its own, and that consequently, full power may
fearlessly be given to the majority by which it is represented.
But this language is that of a slave.
A majority taken collectively may be regarded as a being
whose opinions, and most frequently whose interests, are opposed
to those of another being, which is styled a minority. If it be
admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that
power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be
liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their
characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the
presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their
strength. *c And for these reasons I can never willingly invest
any number of my fellow- creatures with that unlimited authority
which I should refuse to any one of them.
[Footnote c: No one will assert that a people cannot forcibly
wrong another people; but parties may be looked upon as lesser
nations within a greater one, and they are aliens to each other:
if, therefore, it be admitted that a nation can act tyrannically
towards another nation, it cannot be denied that a party may do
the same towards another party.]
In my mind, the salient part: "Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength.", because contained in it is the word I've been looking for to describe the apparent strength of the American Right: agglomeration. That is not to say that that's all there is to the Republican Party. I would not be so bold as to lump them all together; they're doing the lumping all on their own. But they do lead with it. More to the point, look at all the initiatives the Bushies consider important, and then consider for yourselves, what all those initiatives have in common, from the point of view of agglomeration.
They're defensive. Look up the synonyms of 'defensive' and tell me that most of those don't apply. Oh hell, I'll post 'em here:
arresting, averting, balking, checking, conservative, coping with, defending, foiling, forestalling, frustrating, guarding, in opposition, interrupting, opposing, preservative, preventive, protecting, resistive, safeguarding, thwarting, uptight, watchful, withstanding
So with Cheney's recent comments (or restatements, as some have pointed out) about Mary being contrary to W's just days before the Republican National Convention, and with small-government Republicans (remember those?) being squeezed out while W screeds "I'm compassionate!" from the bully spot, I wonder if gay marriage actually DOES cause straight people to split apart.
The bulk of the behavior of the pro-Bush agglomerate is only a piling-on attempt (often successful) to frustrate and arrest the initiative of those who oppose. Not very constructive—much less inventive—and it leaves them with no bandwidth left to ponder the question "and then what?". Seriously, what does the car-chasing dog do when he finally catches the bumper?
Before a real, nationally-televised split could possibly happen, though, I'm sure the ameliorators and the -cough, cough- peacemakers (blessed be) will want to reduce the importance of same-sex marriage into a very small platform plank. One small enough for the effete white straight men to brandish with stealth and effectiveness.
Posted by jeff at 12:20 am | Comments (0) | TrackBack
26 augustus 2004
Limbeck
On my very first trip to Tucson to spend time with Sam, 2 days after I got there we went to see Limbeck. I was blown away. That time, Sam and I learned a lot about each other. This time at Limbeck, almost a year later, I'd we learned we were right. Goddamn, I love that man.
Go see Limbeck if you get a chance. They've just started a national tour.
Posted by jeff at 11:43 am | Comments (0) | TrackBack
YAQ
eXpressive: 8/10
Practical: 6/10
Physical: 4/10
Giver: 8/10
You are a XPIG--Expressive Practical Intellectual Giver. This makes you a Catch.
You are a magazine-cover, matinee idol dreamboat. Parents love you and want to set you up with their kids. However, first dates are tough because it takes time for your qualities to come out.
You are generous and kind. You think first and act later. You are cool in a conflict, but your practical side means if your partner throws out emotional appeals ("why can't we do what I want for a change?") they will grate on your nerves, even when the conflict is resolved.
You're a romantic. You enjoy the thrill of the hunt, and you don't just fall into bed with anyone. You pay close attention to your significant other's needs, and this makes you an excellent lover and partner. The problem is that your friends and lovers may find it so easy to express things to *you* that they lose sight of whether you feel as comfortable with *them*! This doesn't necessarily make you feel under-appreciated -- you're too well-adjusted and self-aware for that -- but you may feel restless. Thus you seek adventure in your life outside the relationship to prove and actualize yourself.
Of all the types, you would make the best parent.
You are coiffed.
Didja see "Big Fish"? 'Cause you're like Ewan MacGregor in "Big Fish."
Of the 5303 people who have taken this quiz, 9.7 % are this type.
---------------------------------------------
Take the Quiz: 20 Questions to a Better Relationship
Posted by jeff at 12:46 am | Comments (0) | TrackBack
24 augustus 2004
Splitting the Ticket
Dick Cheney lubes up a refreshingly blunt statement opposing federal meddling in whole same-sex marriage thing and slips it up W's backside. But knowing George, I imagine it won't even hit the sides. Good Ol' Dick Cheney [before he dicks you] seems almost like a real dad towards his lesbian daughter, Mary.
Desperation or Candor? Stunt or Shunt? Father or Blather?
The American Right swoops in with "compassionate!"
The American Left with "duplicitous!"
The American Middle with "huh?"
The American Me says, "Gee, I've never seen this one before...splitting the incumbent ticket during an election?"
Grab the dramanine, chil'ren! Or the spin'll kill ya.
[Update: links added below]
CNN
New York Times (free registration may be required)
San Francisco Chronicle
Washington Post (free registration required)
Fox "News" ...oops, Foxnews isn't carrying the story yet. [Update: there's a video, buried on the right side under -ahem- "You Decide" There's also now a story about the story, whose leading sentence does not bear out in the article.]
New York Post ...oops, they don't have it either.
(..say, doesn't Mr. Murdoch own both of these?)
Posted by jeff at 09:15 pm | Comments (0) | TrackBack
23 augustus 2004
Alien vs Predator
Today, Sam, Fred, Donovan, Shan, Marcello and I ended up heading out to the movies after we hung out at the Lonestar. We ended up seeing Alien vs Predator, a brilliant film which uses deft allegory—oh, who am I kidding...this movie is for nerdy mooks who like to see things blowed up real good. And sometimes, I'm a nerdy mook.
It was a fun movie, except for its attempt to insert the Predator culture into human history as the template—if not the source—of some religions. Now, don't get me wrong, they do fit the bill quite nicely....they're, well, predatory, they manufacture their own raison d'être by unleashing a horror on the world and then accepting the mantle of 'savior' for themselves. They expend the unwitting by convincing them to serve a greater good while refusing to abide any cost to themselves.
Oh, and when all else fails, there's always a scorched-earth policy and destroy all evidence just in case people want to bring up the past to use against them.
Perhaps this is unfair to religions. There are other groups, other phenomena for which the above all apply.
So, the best thing the movie had going for it? Two words: Raoul Pova. Click on the pic for a bigger version.
Add to the list using sex to steer the populace, I suppose. GoodLordJesusSkateboardingChrist, he's pretty.
Posted by jeff at 12:13 am | Comments (0) | TrackBack