Much as I love the convenience of modern blogging, be it livejournal, myspace, blogger, vox or what-have-you, I think I have lost something. Somehow, the work involved in coding (badly) my own html pages encouraged a higher quality of writing as well. I enjoy the minutiae of my life that get recorded in the fast food blogging style, but I miss the obligation to think about what I wrote. I never write stuff like this anymore.
Five years later, that is the sort of thing that resonates most.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
elusive sleep
I can't seem to get back to sleep. I drifted off around midnight and was awoken (though not enough to answer the phone) by a not-terribly-drunk dial from Walter. We're getting old now. The drunk dials aren't so drunken and instead of interrupting other drunken reveling, they interrupt sleep. I can't even call him back because he indicated that he was on his way to sleep. I sort of miss my mid twenties right now.
I blame my inability to sleep on the howling from downsttairs. Tonight it is coming from directly under my head. That must be the room where they put the poor devil at night. The irritating thing is that he started up almost immediately upon my turning out the light to sleep! The forty five minutes I'd been lying in bed reading prior? Silent. I hate that dog so very much.
I blame my inability to sleep on the howling from downsttairs. Tonight it is coming from directly under my head. That must be the room where they put the poor devil at night. The irritating thing is that he started up almost immediately upon my turning out the light to sleep! The forty five minutes I'd been lying in bed reading prior? Silent. I hate that dog so very much.
Friday, October 27, 2006
geo-meme
This was suprisingly entertaining...
Or maybe I'm just a dork. I do recommend doing it with a real mouse though. It was harder to get the states where I wanted them than it should have been with my laptop!
50 States Game
Score: 94% Avg Error: 4 miles Time: 253 seconds
Or maybe I'm just a dork. I do recommend doing it with a real mouse though. It was harder to get the states where I wanted them than it should have been with my laptop!
50 States Game
Score: 94% Avg Error: 4 miles Time: 253 seconds
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
oh Canada!
Dear Canadians who record and upload Studio 60 on Sunday nights, you are my favorite people! I had to go to bed before it aired here last night, and now I am sitting at work waiting for my first color change in the dance show and I'm watching last night's TV while I'm doing it. Yay!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Happy Creation Day!
No seriously. (Ok, I really couldn't do that with a straight face, so it's a good thing you can't SEE my face!)
According to church scholars (with the use of a list of equinoxes and a DART), God made the world on October 23, 4004 BC. At noon.
My question is, noon in what time zone?!
And, of course, the year may be off by one because when they did this precise math, they hadn't yet run into the clever arabic concept of zero, and therefore failed to account for the year 0. There is also that niggling little issue of Herod and Jesus overlapping, that probably skews things by at least three or four years.
So the year may be a bit off, but the date, we're good on that. October 23. At noon.
So happy 6011th birthday weirdo religious earth. Or maybe 6012th... Hardly matters, we're still not giving you an intergalactic drivers licence until you turn 7000, so keep doing those loops until then.
According to church scholars (with the use of a list of equinoxes and a DART), God made the world on October 23, 4004 BC. At noon.
My question is, noon in what time zone?!
And, of course, the year may be off by one because when they did this precise math, they hadn't yet run into the clever arabic concept of zero, and therefore failed to account for the year 0. There is also that niggling little issue of Herod and Jesus overlapping, that probably skews things by at least three or four years.
So the year may be a bit off, but the date, we're good on that. October 23. At noon.
So happy 6011th birthday weirdo religious earth. Or maybe 6012th... Hardly matters, we're still not giving you an intergalactic drivers licence until you turn 7000, so keep doing those loops until then.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Thanks, Dad...
Check out this editorial from the good old Daily Press! (Shamelessly republished here without permission so that in three years when the link is broken or consigned to some lost web archive I will still know what I was talking about. Copyright 2006, Daily Press.) And, though obviously it amuses me to title this post, "thanks Dad", just as obviously the confluence of my opinion and that of the paper is no more than happy circumstance. Just in case anyone is dumb enough to think otherwise.
Say 'no'
The 'marriage' amendment protects nothing and harms us all
Daily Press - October 22, 2006
We Virginians have a remarkable opportunity. We can make a statement that will resonate across this nation - and that is no exaggeration.
If we go to the polls on Nov. 7 and reject an effort to sully our state constitution with the words of a misguided effort to "protect" marriage, then we will have reminded Americans what constitutions are for. They are not for limiting human relationships. They are not for restricting freedom. They are not for muddling and meddling in the intimate questions of who may love whom and how that love is to be protected and nurtured.
The Marshall-Newman amendment - more typically referred to as the amendment to ban same-sex marriage - is a legislative train wreck waiting to happen. If allowed to leave the station on Election Day, it would amend the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution with language that is, at best, ambiguous in terms of its legal effects and, at worst, mean-spirited and bigoted.
Let us look instead at Section 1 of Article 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Virginia:
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Entering into marriage is most assuredly a way of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Yet the lawmakers - content though they may have been to leave the word "men" unamended, thereby failing to recognize the other half of the population - would define marriage as "only a union between one man and one woman."
Never mind that Virginia law already prohibits same-sex marriage.
For proponents of this amendment, the law is not enough. They must carve into legal stone their effort to protect them from ... what?
Activist judges in other states is the usual answer. Unnamed robed people who would impose their values on Virginia.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
But at the core the truth is that this amendment speaks of two things:
A deep-seated prejudice against gays and lesbians.
The reality that there are among us, always, people who seek to use fear and prejudice for their own political advancement.
Let's be clear: The vast majority of Virginians who will vote for this amendment - 99.9 percent of them - are good, decent, honorable people. They will not vote for it because they "hate" anyone. They will believe they are protecting marriage, which is a noble motive. Nonetheless, their support of this amendment will be a mistake, one that, should the amendment pass, will be corrected by their children or grandchildren who will, some day in the future, wonder how we could have been so ignorant.
But until the day of correction comes, unnecessary pain will be inflicted on the many Virginians who are gay or lesbian and who would like their relationships, the families they make together, to have the public and legal sanctions associated with marriage. This amendment would cruelly deny that - nor will it even allow such relationships under another name, such as civil union.
State law already outlaws civil unions, and the constitutional amendment would put an unnecessary exclamation mark on that prohibition. This newspaper has argued for civil unions, because they would allow the legal protections associated with marriage that gay and lesbian couples seek. They would offer a compromise, as imperfect as all parties might see it.
But amendment proponents do not want compromise. And it is in their insistence on sealing every opening to the possibility of legally recognizing gay and lesbian relationships that they overstep and invite rejection of this amendment in a state where voters would surely have accepted, by large measure, this first sentence of the proposed change:
"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions."
That would have made the point. That would have been sufficient. That would have left the door open for civil unions. But no, they insisted on this language as well:
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
Those 62 words are the command to open a Pandora's box. No one knows what they will mean to all number of relationships - including heterosexual relationships that might "approximate" marriage, or various stage-of-life agreements. The legal issues are too many to examine here, but those words will give individuals a new set of tools to inflict pain on each other. They will tear down, or at the very least expose to attack, protections, relationships and agreements that already exist.
A BARRIER TO CHANGE
Make no mistake, this amendment goes beyond its stated intent of protecting marriage. It hurts gays and lesbians. It will hurt unmarried partners regardless of their sexual orientation. It will hurt us all.
And for what?
Society's attitudes toward gays and lesbians are changing, and the change, for the most part, has been for the better. The amendment is an attempt to stop that change, to put up a barrier that says, "this far, and no farther."
But there is no evidence that gays and lesbians who seek marriage - or civil union - do any harm to marriage or society or themselves. All, in fact, are strengthened by committed relationships. Commitment should be encouraged by society.
It is the cheapening of marriage by heterosexuals that threatens society. It is the birth of children outside of stable family relationships that is so problematic.
And it is simply irrational to think that same-sex marriage has any relationship to these problems. Passage of the amendment might even make them worse because it could threaten the stability of families headed now by two women or two men.
Differing faith groups have differing views on this amendment. No faith group needs a constitutional amendment to instruct it on how to define marriage, nor could any faith group be compelled to accept same-sex marriage if it did not want to.
Across the nation, 20 states have adopted amendments similar to the one proposed for Virginia. Some people point to that acceptance as justifying the effort here in Virginia.
How much better it will be for all Americans, not just Virginians, if we in this state point back on Nov. 7 by rejecting this amendment. Doing so will not legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions. But it will be an emphatic statement that the language of this amendment goes too far. That it is unnecessary. That it is mean. And that it has no place in the constitution of Virginia.
We Virginians have a remarkable opportunity on Nov. 7. Let's reject this amendment and show the nation the path back to common sense.
Say 'no'
The 'marriage' amendment protects nothing and harms us all
Daily Press - October 22, 2006
We Virginians have a remarkable opportunity. We can make a statement that will resonate across this nation - and that is no exaggeration.
If we go to the polls on Nov. 7 and reject an effort to sully our state constitution with the words of a misguided effort to "protect" marriage, then we will have reminded Americans what constitutions are for. They are not for limiting human relationships. They are not for restricting freedom. They are not for muddling and meddling in the intimate questions of who may love whom and how that love is to be protected and nurtured.
The Marshall-Newman amendment - more typically referred to as the amendment to ban same-sex marriage - is a legislative train wreck waiting to happen. If allowed to leave the station on Election Day, it would amend the Bill of Rights of the Virginia Constitution with language that is, at best, ambiguous in terms of its legal effects and, at worst, mean-spirited and bigoted.
Let us look instead at Section 1 of Article 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Virginia:
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
Entering into marriage is most assuredly a way of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Yet the lawmakers - content though they may have been to leave the word "men" unamended, thereby failing to recognize the other half of the population - would define marriage as "only a union between one man and one woman."
Never mind that Virginia law already prohibits same-sex marriage.
For proponents of this amendment, the law is not enough. They must carve into legal stone their effort to protect them from ... what?
Activist judges in other states is the usual answer. Unnamed robed people who would impose their values on Virginia.
THE HEART OF THE MATTER
But at the core the truth is that this amendment speaks of two things:
A deep-seated prejudice against gays and lesbians.
The reality that there are among us, always, people who seek to use fear and prejudice for their own political advancement.
Let's be clear: The vast majority of Virginians who will vote for this amendment - 99.9 percent of them - are good, decent, honorable people. They will not vote for it because they "hate" anyone. They will believe they are protecting marriage, which is a noble motive. Nonetheless, their support of this amendment will be a mistake, one that, should the amendment pass, will be corrected by their children or grandchildren who will, some day in the future, wonder how we could have been so ignorant.
But until the day of correction comes, unnecessary pain will be inflicted on the many Virginians who are gay or lesbian and who would like their relationships, the families they make together, to have the public and legal sanctions associated with marriage. This amendment would cruelly deny that - nor will it even allow such relationships under another name, such as civil union.
State law already outlaws civil unions, and the constitutional amendment would put an unnecessary exclamation mark on that prohibition. This newspaper has argued for civil unions, because they would allow the legal protections associated with marriage that gay and lesbian couples seek. They would offer a compromise, as imperfect as all parties might see it.
But amendment proponents do not want compromise. And it is in their insistence on sealing every opening to the possibility of legally recognizing gay and lesbian relationships that they overstep and invite rejection of this amendment in a state where voters would surely have accepted, by large measure, this first sentence of the proposed change:
"That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions."
That would have made the point. That would have been sufficient. That would have left the door open for civil unions. But no, they insisted on this language as well:
"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage."
Those 62 words are the command to open a Pandora's box. No one knows what they will mean to all number of relationships - including heterosexual relationships that might "approximate" marriage, or various stage-of-life agreements. The legal issues are too many to examine here, but those words will give individuals a new set of tools to inflict pain on each other. They will tear down, or at the very least expose to attack, protections, relationships and agreements that already exist.
A BARRIER TO CHANGE
Make no mistake, this amendment goes beyond its stated intent of protecting marriage. It hurts gays and lesbians. It will hurt unmarried partners regardless of their sexual orientation. It will hurt us all.
And for what?
Society's attitudes toward gays and lesbians are changing, and the change, for the most part, has been for the better. The amendment is an attempt to stop that change, to put up a barrier that says, "this far, and no farther."
But there is no evidence that gays and lesbians who seek marriage - or civil union - do any harm to marriage or society or themselves. All, in fact, are strengthened by committed relationships. Commitment should be encouraged by society.
It is the cheapening of marriage by heterosexuals that threatens society. It is the birth of children outside of stable family relationships that is so problematic.
And it is simply irrational to think that same-sex marriage has any relationship to these problems. Passage of the amendment might even make them worse because it could threaten the stability of families headed now by two women or two men.
Differing faith groups have differing views on this amendment. No faith group needs a constitutional amendment to instruct it on how to define marriage, nor could any faith group be compelled to accept same-sex marriage if it did not want to.
Across the nation, 20 states have adopted amendments similar to the one proposed for Virginia. Some people point to that acceptance as justifying the effort here in Virginia.
How much better it will be for all Americans, not just Virginians, if we in this state point back on Nov. 7 by rejecting this amendment. Doing so will not legalize same-sex marriage or civil unions. But it will be an emphatic statement that the language of this amendment goes too far. That it is unnecessary. That it is mean. And that it has no place in the constitution of Virginia.
We Virginians have a remarkable opportunity on Nov. 7. Let's reject this amendment and show the nation the path back to common sense.
Blog me here, blog me there...
Tom linked to my last post from his myspace blog, and his comments were just cute and funny, as well as pointed, and I wanted to share. Also Tom is cool, and those of you who are on myspace would probably like him.
I am constantly frustrated by the online division of my friends. There's the myspace contingent, the livejournal faithful and even some folks over at Blogger (which I find irritating because I can't just keep track of them on a friends style page.) I wish all of these things were integrated. Grr...
I am constantly frustrated by the online division of my friends. There's the myspace contingent, the livejournal faithful and even some folks over at Blogger (which I find irritating because I can't just keep track of them on a friends style page.) I wish all of these things were integrated. Grr...
Saturday, October 21, 2006
No, no, a thousand times, NO!
Dear Virginia,
I love you, I always have, and I always will, but this is evil.
I just got my absentee ballot the other day. If I actually stay in this state for a full year, well, one of these years I'll have to change my official residence. As long as I am still touring and wandering around after work though, I cling like a limpet to my Virginia residency! I don't WANT to be a New Yorker for real. I just play one on TV. There's nothing on the ballot this year that required much thought for me. No, I still hate Jo Ann Davis (though this year I didn't have to write in a candidate in order to oppose her - one year I voted for my dad!), and yes, I still object to stupid and hateful constitutional amendments. Actually, I object to constitutional amendments in general. I think constitutions should be fairly streamlined (ha!) and that most things can be taken care of via legislation, rather than amendments. But I especially object to evil ones.
Voting makes me happy though. You should do it too, it's fun!
I love you, I always have, and I always will, but this is evil.
I just got my absentee ballot the other day. If I actually stay in this state for a full year, well, one of these years I'll have to change my official residence. As long as I am still touring and wandering around after work though, I cling like a limpet to my Virginia residency! I don't WANT to be a New Yorker for real. I just play one on TV. There's nothing on the ballot this year that required much thought for me. No, I still hate Jo Ann Davis (though this year I didn't have to write in a candidate in order to oppose her - one year I voted for my dad!), and yes, I still object to stupid and hateful constitutional amendments. Actually, I object to constitutional amendments in general. I think constitutions should be fairly streamlined (ha!) and that most things can be taken care of via legislation, rather than amendments. But I especially object to evil ones.
Voting makes me happy though. You should do it too, it's fun!
I didn't need to know that.
I've learned a new thing about my neighborhood in the past few days. The people who live across the street behind us? NEVER TURN OFF THEIR PORCH LIGHT! I would never have known that, had my landlord not gone on a tree killing spree. Seriously, people, it's the middle of the night. Turn it off!
Jenny - this is dumb...
I've just spent a lot of time spiffying up this blogger page so that I can try to clone everything I post over at livejournal, but the truth is, blogger is not nearly as useful as livejournal. Livejournal is so much more, well, more everything! Accessible - you can post from phone, text, im, email or the traditional method using the web or any number of downloadable clients. Customizable - I was very disappointed about how little you can customize the look of your blogger blog without knowing how it was written. Livejournal makes it easy to make your journal look exactly the way you want it to, and while I am not willing to paint my ROOM in my team's colors the way that paint company on TV wants me to, I want my journal painted that way! Useful - Here I can set the entire journal to a less viewable mode, but not individual posts the way I can at livejournal. There is tagging here, like livejournal, and that's fine, but I miss the silly fun things like current mood and current music.
And most of all, there is no real community here - I don't have the convenience of a "friends page" where I can view the most recent posts of my nearest and dearest, or just my interesting imaginary friends.
Though the random questions on the profile page are fun. I'll give it that...
And most of all, there is no real community here - I don't have the convenience of a "friends page" where I can view the most recent posts of my nearest and dearest, or just my interesting imaginary friends.
Though the random questions on the profile page are fun. I'll give it that...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)