February 2004
I think this just goes to further my love-hate relationship that I have with Joyce.
You're Ulysses!
by James Joyce
Most people are convinced that you don't make any sense, but compared
to what else you could say, what you're saying now makes tons of sense. What people do
understand about you is your vulgarity, which has convinced people that you are at once
brilliant and repugnant. Meanwhile you are content to wander around aimlessly, taking in
the sights and sounds of the city. What you see is vast, almost limitless, and brings you
additional fame. When no one is looking, you dream of being a Greek folk hero.
Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.
26 February 2004
I know that I’ve spent a great deal of time on the issue of gay marriage rights in my blog, but it’s time once again to return to the topic because questions of civil rights are very dear to my heart. I’d like to point out some very poignant passages from one who had more rhetorical eloquence in his pinky than I will ever have.
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent- resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
Dr King felt strongly about the issue of segregation that was commonly being upheld, particularly in the south, and particularly in Birmingham. But we are at the crossroads of this tension again. The Massachusetts court and City Hall in San Francisco have brought the issue of gay marriages directly in our faces. They are showing the world the injustices that have been brought against the gay community for so long. This is nonviolent direct action that these institutions hope to use to bring about negotiation. Instead, we are facing an America that is greatly divided, with visceral emotion on either side. I implore my readers to consider the logic of the situation. Why must a society that claims that it is based on freedom and equality be so hard-hearted to constantly create a marginalised Other? We’ve done it with the Black community, we’ve done it to women, we’re doing it now to gays. Who is next?
Again Dr King appeals to us:
An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Is this not exactly what the Massachusetts court said about the law forbidding same-sex marriage in their state?
In the founding of this nation, Thomas Jefferson wrote to King George III:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
How can we, as Americans, hold up a proposal to amend our constitution to deny rights to our own law-abiding citizens? How can we look at our fellow man and say, “you are inferior to me and equal protection under the law does not include you”? How can we look at our children and say, “those people are different from us and therefore deserve fewer rights”? How can we look ourselves in the face as we perpetuate hatred toward a particular community? In many cases, these people will sleep easy with the adage that “God is on their side.” I do not think that God is on their side, if they are, in fact, good Christians. Christianity, as far as I can ascertain by the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, is about love and kindness. Creating a second class citizenry isn’t particularly loving or kind. In fact, it reeks of past mistakes that this country and others have made and continue to make. It is also not the Christianity that I have seen in numerous letters from Christian Reverends who are admonishing the statements made by Christians who spew hatred.
I must also make some statement to those who say that one should not compare the current situation with the gay community to the injustices experienced by the Black community. My question to them is, “why not?” Is injustice not injustice simply because you happen to disagree with who is on the receiving end of that injustice?
The other statement that seems to accompany the opposition so frequently is one that causes me the most grief. And that is the prefaced remark, “I don’t have a problem with gays, but………………….” But what? The moment that you interject with the “but,” you have negated your initial statement. If I were to make a statement such as, “I don’t have a problem with Blacks, but I don’t think that they should be allowed to share the water fountain with whites.” Society has answered that question, but it wouldn’t make me less of a racist to say such a thing. What about this one? “I don’t have a problem with Muslims, but I think that they should not be allowed to congregate in large groups.” The very definition of a prejudice is to see a certain group as inferior. Take your compassion to the mirror with you. I don’t have a problem with my face, but I’d like my lips to be a little puffier. The second part of the statement proves that you do, indeed, have a problem with your face. Your rhetoric just went down the drain, your so-called compassion with it. If you are saying these things and claim that you even have gay friends, then I feel sorry for your gay friends because I for one wouldn’t stand to be constantly reminded of my inferior status by my friends.
The real fact of the matter is that once you make an amendment that basically says that gay relationships are not to be esteemed and equal to other relationships of the same nature, you immediately leave to interpretation that they are not esteemed and equal to others by the law. And once we’re at that stage, we’re on a slippery slope to repeat the civil rights mistakes we tried to correct 50 years ago.
17 February 2004
LIES!! ALL LIES!!
My Personality
12 February 2004
I am beginning to despise the state of Georgia. Or perhaps I've already crossed the line and am now fully into contempt. Georgia is now (on top of the ban on smoking and the evolution fiasco) attempting to further ban gay marriage . I know I've already had my rant on the 5th of this month (scroll down if you didn't read it already) on the issue of gay marriages. Now, I want to set some more records straight. First the institution that we currently call marriage is a relatively recent occurance. For a fairly good source liston the history of marriage, consult this site. Once we educate ourselves about the evolving (can I use that term?) nature of marriage, we'll begin to see that discrimination of this sort is unacceptable in a truly free society.
Now, because I feel the need, I want to point out some of the more brilliant parts of this article.
"We need to protect the voices of the people from the tyranny of judges," said Sen. Mike Crotts (R-Conyers), the resolution's author. "The people's voices should be louder. This country was founded on faith-based, conservative values."
Hrm. One: we have three branches of government for the express purpose of checks and balances. If one feels that the aim of the constitution is not being upheld by another branch, isn't it their duty to intervene? I should hope so. Two: "faith-based, conservative values," eh? Faith-based, I might give you, although most of the founding fathers had a different idea of faith-based than many do today. Not to mention that they expressly wrote that there must be a separation of church and state. Therefore, your "faith-based" laws become a moot point. And conservative? Ask 17th century Britain about the conservative nature of the people who were exported here. (Yes, exported. Britain didn't want those rabble-rousers in their own country.) So, Sen. Crotts, you're wrong on multiple counts.
Francis J. Mulcahy, executive director of the Georgia Catholic Conference, said marriage is seen as a civil and sacred institution in the church. "We do not see this as a form of discrimination against homosexuals," Mulcahy said. "But we still believe that marriage is a union, going back thousands of years, between a man and woman."
Mr Mulcahy, what do you think the definition of discrimination is? Merriam- Webster just told me what I already knew. Discrimation is "prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment." Isn't that exactly what denying a group the rights of the majority is? And as for your statement on marriage, please see my first paragraph.
At any rate, I agree with the Mass. ruling because our history has indeed taught us that separate is never equal. Or has it? I'm beginning to think that history has taught us nothing, as we're making the same civil rights mistakes that we were making before.
11 February 2004
The nanny state attempts its next strike.
A proposed smoking ban has entered into Georgia Legislature this week. Now, I want to rant for a bit about why this is a silly idea, no matter what the proponents say. This is not because I am a smoker, although it does mean that I have something at stake here, but it is primarily because I am a libertarian. Here's my take on the situation.
The government wants to decide for all privately owned businesses which legal activities can take place in their establishments. Let me emphasise the idea here that these are not public areas, as many proponents are arguing. These are not government owned businesses, and your tax dollars do not go toward the funding of these businesses. Now that that is cleared up, we can get to the heart of why I think county-wide, state-wide, or even federal-wide bans on smoking in private businesses are bad ideas. I'm not going to go on about my "rights" as a smoker, because I don't have those rights in private establishments.
People argue that they don't want to smell like smoke after leaving one of these establishments. They need to remember that if they really want to affect change they should simply choose not to patronise these places. No one forces them to go to a restaurant that allows smoking. They choose to go. Similarly, they can choose to go somewhere. The emphasis here is on choice. If enough non-smokers decided to boycott restaurants and bars that allowed smoking, then those businesses would decide (for themselves) not to allow smoking. However, market forces have not dictated this for whatever reasons. Rather than whine to the goverment that you don't want your sprogglings around cigarette smoke, put your money where your mouth is. You'd be surprised at how effective this could be.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of bars will be hurt by this ban. Not that this matters to the Do-Gooders who aren't the ones frequenting these places anyway. In the interest of public health, they instead want to take away the right of choice from the business. What happens, though, when enough people think that you should lose your right to something in the interest of public health/safety/security/etc. You're not going to be thrilled are you? Well, I for one won't feel sorry for you. Give the government an inch, and they'll take a mile.
And now it's anecdote time. I was in Florida several months after their smoking ban went into effect. I spoke to quite a few bartenders during my stay, and every one of them were unhappy about it. They had lost business. They had lost regular customers. They had lost a large part of revenue that came from those smokers who order "one more drink" while they're finishing their cigarette. The bar/restaurant combos were hit the hardest, it seemed. Sure their restaurant was doing fine, but the bar? Not so much. So, when people tell me about how the bars and restaurants are doing fine in California, Florida, New York, etc, I shake my head. I've talked to the guys behind the bar, the guys who count on those folks sitting there for a long time ordering drinks and (you guessed it) smoking. Many people are saying that the smokers can just go outside and smoke. Well, if your customer is outside smoking, they aren't ordering drinks! Oh dear, the logic train! I've been in the food service industry. I worked most of my college career as a waitress in various places. And I'll tell you now that my favourite section to work was the smoking section. Why? They tend to order more bar drinks. They tend to linger (and therefore often order more food). My tips were often better. So, when folks tell me that the ban isn't going to hurt an economy that's already weak (although getting better in metro Atlanta at least), I want to tell them to stuff it and go talk to some of the bartenders. See what they have to say. In the end, it affects them more deeply than many of the nay-sayers.
The fact of the matter is that it should be left up to the businesses to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking in their establishments. If they think that it's a sound business decision to disallow smoking, then I'm fine with that. What I'm not fine with is the government making the decision for them. I'm not asking the government to ban perfumes (which are often repugnant to me), or even more extreme, to ban the Spring because I'm allergic to pollen and have the right to always breath fresh, clean, unpollenated air. There is always going to be things that are offensive to someone. Are we going to systematically ban everything that might be considered offensive? What will be next? Your video games? Your fast food? Your alcohol? Or haven't we learned enough about prohibition?
10 February 2004
Today's rant is brought to you by Atlanta Traffic.
I hate traffic. When I moved to the metro area after living in DC, the one thing I could not get over was the lack of any sort of organised public transit. Atlanta has MARTA, but MARTA is a joke, and everyone in this city knows it. Entire websites are dedicated to the problem. And it is a problem.
Several months ago, I saw the remnants of two accidents in one week on the same on ramp onto 75 southbound. I wondered at the time how on earth someone is paying so little attention on a frelling on ramp that they wreck their car. After my experience yesterday, I still don't have the answer, but it no longer surprises me. Yesterday I left work at the usual 5:00pm, along with 90% of the working force in this city. Fortunately for me, I'm trying to get downtown instead of out into the suburbs. Yay me. However, at this particular on ramp I was witness to the idiocy of the Atlanta Driver (tm). Let's first describe this on ramp. There are two lanes from a left turn that have a light allowing them to get onto the ramp. Right turns come from a single lane that is to yield to oncoming traffic. So, I pull up to the lanes and stop to wait on the oncoming traffic to pass so that I can merge in. I'm yielding! Other people apparently do not have my patience. This large van barrels down the ramp behind me, and for a fleeting moment, I think, "this guy's going to run into my car and slam me into the oncoming traffic." Luckily, he didn't hit me. But what he did do bordered on the ridiculous. He spun out around me and stopped to my right. Shall I remind everyone that this is a SINGLE lane of traffic that this moron has decided should be two lanes? Needless to say, no one was injured, but the fact of the matter is that people simply don't pay attention. No wonder there are no fewer than five accidents on the major arteries of the city prior to 5pm every day. Yes, folks, that's every day.
At any rate, I hate Atlanta traffic. I dislike Atlanta Drivers (tm). It gets worse all the time. Who decided that it was a good idea to merge three main arteries of the city into a single road to go through downtown? Well, I imagine that was cheaper than trying to put in a better rail system. Besides, no one in this city is going to give up their SUVs for anything in the world. Especially not to ride public transportation with those people. Nevermind that most major cities now have working mass transit systems that people of all socio-economic levels use. But that's another discussion for another day.
5 February 2004
Finally, something makes sense. At least, it makes sense in my mind. Admittedly, I'm an unmarried heterosexual female, but I applaud the Massachusetts court. Probably because I'm a liberal, but most likely because, above all, I honestly feel a need to eliminate discrimination against marginalised groups. I guess that's why I'm a liberal, although I don't see how, exactly, being for equality especially marks anyone as being liberal. Ah well. I can live with it. Now, back to my mini-rant against those who oppose gay marriages.
First, I'd like to point out that a large number of non-Christian, non-religious couples are allowed to married (provided that they are of the appropriate age and are of the opposite sex). Therefore, I no longer want to hear arguments about the "sanctity" or "religious nature" of marriage because it's a steaming pile of excrement. Or rather, it's a steaming pile of excrement in legal terms. If we're going to bring in the God issue, then we're dealing with an entirely different issue that has little to do with marriage and gay rights and much more to do with the separation of Church and State. Let us never, ever forget that.
As so-called "leaders" of the free world, shouldn't we be setting a precedent in our tolerance of others? I am not naive enough to think that there will never be marginalised groups in our society. Human nature is what it is, and it seems that very little can be done to change it. Granted, we've made leaps and bounds in the past century. Women were allowed the vote. African-Americans were given the vote. Tremendous measures have been taken to ensure that these groups were given opportunities that had previously been denied them. This is not to say that the board was completely erased of certain tendencies on the part of some to see these groups as perfectly equal. We don't live in a perfect society. At any rate, I've digressed. Back to the topic at hand.
Honestly, the major reaction against allowing gay marriages has been a religious one. So, you're a Christian and think it's wrong. So, you think the courts overstepped their boundaries (Roe v. Wade anyone?). I don't think someone else's marriage is any of your business. And that's really what it comes down to for me. It doesn't affect my life one way or another if the gay couple next door is married or "living in sin," as the saying goes. What it does affect is that couple. It affects next of kin rights. It affects taxes. Civil unions are only an issue of semantics, and often do not include full rights of married couples.
Civil unions are only the answer if allowed the full legal rights of "marriage" and become open to heterosexual couples who would like to leave the religious nature of marriage out of the equation. That way, we can refer back to my first point, where it would be acceptable to keep marriage a religious ceremony. As it is now, this is not an option.
4 February 2004
I don't have much to rant about today, and so I bring to you another quiz!
-Perfect- You're the perfect girlfriend. Which
means you're rare or that you cheated :P You're
the kind of chick that can hang out with your
boyfriend's friends and be silly. You don't
care about presents or about going to fancy
placed. Hell, just hang out. You're just happy
being around your boyfriend.
What Kind of Girlfriend Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
You hear that Matt? Quizilla says I'm the perfect girlfriend! WOO! I knew it all along!
3 February 2004
So, I'm continuing my yoga. It seems to be getting slightly (and I do mean slightly) less difficult. There is one girl on the video who is just unnatural. I don't trust people who can lie on their backs, spread eagled straight out and touch their toes to the floor on both sides. Okay, maybe I'm just jealous because I can't do that. I can't even come close to doing that. It's probably even safe to say that I will never be able to do that. I can imagine that woman folding herself into a suitcase. Ah well. We can't all be human pretzels.
In other news, Janet Jackson's breast was revealed at the end of the Super Bowl halftime show. In the end, who cares? Remember that clip from a news bit shot in a locker room that showed a penis? Yes? No? Maybe? I don't recall it getting this much attention. A breast was shown. Why is this headlining news? I only saw the last 6.5 minutes of what looked to be a pretty good game. Are you hearing about the winning field goal for the Patriots in the last seconds of the game? Not from where I'm sitting. I'm sorry that I don't care about Janet Jackson's breast. I sit at home watching prime time television while commercials for Valtrex (a medication for genital herpes) run, commericals for Trojan condoms run, commericials for any number of feminine hygiene run, etc. Oh, wait! They don't show actual breasts. Bah, I say! There are enough commercials aired at all times of the day for bras and panties. They're called "unmentionables" for a reason! However, Janet Jackson's breast crossed some line. Forgive me if I still say it's just not particularly interesting or newsworthy. I must say, though, that Sally Jenkins had an interesting column in the Washington Post about the incident.
return to antiblog