Friday, February 27, 2004

test post to the feed 

Feed me!

Thursday, February 26, 2004

Not a big fan, but... 

Rosie O'Donnell just got married. I really don't think she's funny, and I could care less whether she plays for the "my team" instead of the visitors, but this is incredibly relevant to the gay marriage issue.

She was recently sued by her employer, and that puts the focus on why the rights, not the nomenclature, are what are really at issue here: http://www.signorile.com/articles/nyp107.html

All other viewpoints (religious and political especially) aside, this really hits the central argument - are homosexual couples entitled to the same rights that heterosexual couples are? We're not talking about religion here - every religion is fully within its rights to exclude anybody they decide - for example, 27 year old white longhaired stunningly handsome programmers from Florida. That's not the issue here.

The real question: is the government in the business of deciding who matters and who doesn't? Who deserves this pile of rights over here and who doesn't? Which of us are, to quote Animal Farm, "more equal than others"?. Should testimony given to a close-as-possible confidante (which whether you agree with gay marriage or not, gay couples are to each other) in a gay relationship enjoy the same legal protection that it would if you were involved in a heterosexual relationship?


"Would the media giant Gruner & Jahr have decided to sue Rosie O’Donnell over the downfall of Rosie magazine if same-sex marriage were legal? Bizarre as it might sound, Rosie believes the answer is no, and her explanation is both fascinating and plausible.
“If you are a heterosexual talk show host and you’re sued by a major corporation, anything you have said to your husband is privileged information,” she said in an interview on my radio program on Sirius OutQ. She was referring to two rights of marriage that few of us ever think about—until we’re sued for $100 million, or brought to court for something far more minor. One is the spousal immunity privilege, which, if you watch enough Law & Order or The Practice, you know means that, in general, a husband cannot be compelled to testify against his wife and vice versa. The other is known as the privilege for marital communications, which protects confidential correspondence between spouses. These are just two of hundreds of rights granted by marriage—rights that gay couples don’t have.

“If you are a homosexual talk show host,” O’Donnell continued, “and you’re sued by a corporation, anything you have ever said and/or written to your spouse/partner/wife is allowed to be entered into the record. It is totally unfair.”

She believes that Gruner & Jahr’s lawyers were well aware of that inequity and exploited it to their advantage.

“Any and every thing I wrote to [my partner] Kelli, you know, which they were using against me, some of my essays—you know, when you get into a deep, dark place and you say, ‘You know what honey, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.’ Well, if the honey is the same sex as you, that is evidence in a trial, and that’s hard to believe in America ... . And if they didn’t have access to some of those letters I wrote to Kelli, I don’t think they would have sued me. Because, innately, what they were thinking was that I would rather give them money than show the truth of my darkest part to America ... .” "

George W. Bush says no. I say definitely.

This is about more than gay/straight, left/right, Bush/Kerry. This is about encouraging monogamy, which is one of the things the apoplectic fit crowd claims to be for.

Sunday, February 22, 2004

One of the many reasons why I back John Kerry 

He's not going to back down when the chickenhawks attack his commitment to defense:.

“I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did. I'm tired of Republicans trying to divert attention from the real issues -- here in Georgia you've lost 70.000 jobs, you've got 1.3 million Georgians without health insurance -- and that's what this race should be about. These are the real issues they should be willing to talk about instead of engaging in the politics of fear and questioning our commitment to fighting for the country we fought for in uniform.

“One way or another we're going to have a debate about the future not the past. We’re not going to let them make this about a war 34 years ago, when we need to talk about the war today.

"Republicans like to question the patriotism of Democrats who question the direction of our nation. They put Max Cleland in an ad with Osama bin Laden to question his commitment to the defense of our country. This President came to Georgia to campaign for Saxby Chambliss and didn't say a word about it. Now his surrogates are at it again. Well, I don't think that politics of fear has any place in our country, and I'm still waiting for the Republicans to tell me what more Max Cleland has to leave on the battlefield of Vietnam to prove his commitment to our country."

Pretty much, it's a great big middle finger and a challenge to anybody in the GOP (especially it's chickenhawk leadership: Bush, Cheney, DeLay, Lott, etc.) to "come get some", to quote Ash in the Evil Dead series. If they want to make this about whose patriotism is the biggest, let's count battlefield wounds and be done with it.

This sort of absolute crap needs to be countered exactly like this - quickly, forcefully, and without any sense of tolerance - and should have been countered by Gore in 2000 when they alloed Bush to successfully deflate his war credentials then.

I'm energized, and I can't wait for the Kerry/Bush debates.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

I feel my grip on reality slipping... 

Heh heh heh.

I just started playing Star Wars Galaxies. Background for the uninitiated: this is essentially an online world. You assume an identity in the Star Wars world, set shortly after the end of the original movie. The game is always going and people just pop in and out

My buddy Steve (mmogwitterings in the blogroll to the right) hooked me up with a free week, during which time I've managed to get my wookie marksman/scout about a third of the way toward bounty hunter, which I'm told is the longest road in the game - leave it to me to pick the hardest path. I suppose the end result of my path will be hunting Jedi, although that's a long way off from where I am now.

During the week I got hooked, which I guess is the point of giving away a week. So tomorrow I'm headed to the local Best Buy to pick up my very own copy and see what a month is like.

Anyway, if anybody's on the Eclipse server, give a shout to Vaargh, and I'll swing by and we can go hit some missions or "visit the beautiful fountains of Naboo" or - something. Still figuring this MMOG thing out, but it's pretty fun so far.

If this is a "liberal" media... 

I shudder to think what a conservative media looks like. (info via future blogging hall of fame inductees - pandagon)

Those "liberals" at the Washington Post are at it again.

Say you're a newspaper editor. There's a new book critical of GWB that needs to be reviewed. Do you assign a nonpartisan reviewer, somebody without an ax to grind, to the task? A professional book reviewer maybe?

Not if you're the editor of the Washington Post. If you're him, you assign the review to James Pinkerton and neglect to mention the fact that he's a right-wing columnist who "worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns," practically guaranteeing this hatchet job.

"Liberal media" my Aunt Sally. And before anyone among the three or four regular readers asks, I don't have an Aunt Sally. The fact of the matter is that among my six aunts there is not a single name y that fits well into this sentence, where x is anything: x, my Aunt y. So I picked a better y than the sampling group. Sue me.

This page is powered by Blogger. Woo woo.   Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

RSS Feed is here.