![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Friday follies.
Dec. 11th, 2004 12:10 am...well, I gave a segment draft to my other advisor, and it got the wringer taken to it on content. It's probably going to have to have a new framework either constructed around or carved out of it entirely. And that's only after two or three of the five - I'm trying to write on four, and it's turning out like the old style rather than the new, but that's probably okay. I'll make the new structure out of it once I get everything put on paper, in the second revision. Or the third... or the fourth... Twenty-three pages (soon to be twenty-four) and still going strong. Length will not be an issue, excepting where it needs to be shorter. This helps to put my mind at ease. If over the weekend I get the fourth book down in draft to give to my first readers, I'll be happy, because while I promised one, they get two. It'll just keep me going, that's all.
Note to those still contemplating university choices: Always read the requirements of your intended major. Even though I knew what I was getting into, it would be far easier if I had not taken this route. Ultimately, it may be more rewarding, but it is not for the faint of heart, or those with carpal tunnel syndrome. Or those who are scared of a writing project above five pages. (This one's actually about six or seven five pagers all rolled together and given a major conclusion at the end, but still.)
Did I mention that it rained today and yesterday? Another couple opportunities for snow missed. And with no snow, then I can't do great snow-fu like these guys. And speaking of foo, why not read it's RFC? (Much like a FAQ, it is, and is very comprehensive about Foo.)
Since I live in a college town, I suppose it would be only natural before I ran across an article proclaiming beer made from coffee, something that can combine the intoxication of alcohol with the caffeine of coffee. Perfect for an all-night party, keeping you both buzzed and buzzed.
And, just to get liberal dander up, in an not wholly unexpected (if you look at the results of the election) maneuver, an Alabama state senator wants to prohibit state funds from being used to purchase any books or materials that promote homosexuality or paint the lifestyle as acceptable. The librarian-in-training tells me that if I were there, to thumb my nose at him and buy stuff anyway, especially stuff considered literature or great books, just to drive the point home. What I'm more worried about is if this bit passes and isn't atomized by the court system, then others will get the bright idea to do the same. As a member of one of those eleven states that passed amendments against my opposition, I wouldn't be surprised if something like this came down the pipe, especially if a Republican were to become governor. Or if Il Presidente decided to press his advantage and pass something like this federally. (Again, I'm expecting a nice even burnination by the court systems, but that's subject to change) It's not that I think the country's a bunch'a morons, it's just that I think the people get sold on a very slick plan and then have no way of demanding a refund when the rug gets pulled out from under them.
Example? Proposal Two, passed here in my state, was initially campaigned as a matter strictly relating to the definition of marriage. Opponents had said that it contained sufficient latitude to stake a challenge to things like domestic partner benefits being extended to same-sex arrangements, but proponents said that they weren't doing it for that - merely to change the definition of marriage. And the people believed them, and voted it in. Now, however, certain groups, being the opportunistic wolves they are, are using the newly minted amendment to do precisely what the opponents had feared - extending that latitude to provide the threat of a "taxpayer suit" against the state, forcing them to stop paying those domestic-partner benefits because "the taxpayers" said they didn't want such things, by voting in Proposal Two. Nothing concrete yet, but it's a perfect example of the political bait-and-switch that happened. Repealing an amendment would probably be another ballot issue, and the climate isn't going to let such a thing happen. So because the people were distracted by the shiny, other people suffer. Understand my irritation?
As opposed to Canada, whose government just pulled a brilliant move, using the same tactics, and changed their federal definition of marriage to include the possibility of two homosexuals being married. Since it's not direct federal legislation to the provinces, they can't repeal it, and soon enough, the courts will likely thrash Alberta for not following the new definition and any laws that might come out of it. It worked both ways - to enshrine a belief I consider abhorrent, and to prevent that belief from being enshrined. I suppose, both times, the people got the short end of the political trick, but with my bias, I see one as beneficial and the other as harmful. I'm sure there are others that see it differently.
Which, I suppose, has been the point that the supporters of such things have been trying to drill into their opposition's heads - try looking at things from our side of the fence, see our reasons why. Address those concerns in a way we can handle, and we'll grumble, but you'll at least gain some degree of legitimacy. If you just run roughshod, exploiting your small majority, the backlash will hurt when it catches up to you. Not that a reactionary policy is the best one, but it's the most likely one once the power shifts.
I know this seems undeniably intolerant of me, but I wonder if the people who propose and pass legislations like Prop. 2 have ever actually had someone they consider a good friend come out to them, or found out that one of their great role models was gay? Having had my best friend come out to me was a bit on the unsettling side, and it popped me out of my haze and forced me into a decision - did I really believe that I was a tolerant person, or was I only fooling myself? Hopefully, I am, and continue to be, a tolerant person. Since then, I've found out a couple other of my friends, and one of the most beloved professors at our university, are also gay. Having such people actively in my life had altered my political consciousness and my image of what gay men are, for the better, I would hope. I wonder, I really do, whether the legislators ever actually get to know a real gay person, as a person, rather than as a gay person. Makes me wonder how much![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
welah's parents thought about Prop. 2 before they voted, because of their exposure to a real homosexual by virtue of their son.
Tonight was also a night where I gave my older sister some dating advice. Well, not really. I just listened while she worked out an acceptable justification to the conclusion she'd already made and just didn't trust herself enough to go do. (If that sounds familiar, remember, she is my sister.) Perhaps listening is one of the gifts I'm supposed to give to the world in this incarnation. If that's so, then maybe not being the best athlete isn't so bad...
...suffice to say, I'm going into hibernate for a few hours, to ponder, to contemplate, to have possibly pornographic dreams (but if I do, I don't remember them. More's the pity.) and to wake up refreshed. Well, three out of four isn't bad.
Note to those still contemplating university choices: Always read the requirements of your intended major. Even though I knew what I was getting into, it would be far easier if I had not taken this route. Ultimately, it may be more rewarding, but it is not for the faint of heart, or those with carpal tunnel syndrome. Or those who are scared of a writing project above five pages. (This one's actually about six or seven five pagers all rolled together and given a major conclusion at the end, but still.)
Did I mention that it rained today and yesterday? Another couple opportunities for snow missed. And with no snow, then I can't do great snow-fu like these guys. And speaking of foo, why not read it's RFC? (Much like a FAQ, it is, and is very comprehensive about Foo.)
Since I live in a college town, I suppose it would be only natural before I ran across an article proclaiming beer made from coffee, something that can combine the intoxication of alcohol with the caffeine of coffee. Perfect for an all-night party, keeping you both buzzed and buzzed.
And, just to get liberal dander up, in an not wholly unexpected (if you look at the results of the election) maneuver, an Alabama state senator wants to prohibit state funds from being used to purchase any books or materials that promote homosexuality or paint the lifestyle as acceptable. The librarian-in-training tells me that if I were there, to thumb my nose at him and buy stuff anyway, especially stuff considered literature or great books, just to drive the point home. What I'm more worried about is if this bit passes and isn't atomized by the court system, then others will get the bright idea to do the same. As a member of one of those eleven states that passed amendments against my opposition, I wouldn't be surprised if something like this came down the pipe, especially if a Republican were to become governor. Or if Il Presidente decided to press his advantage and pass something like this federally. (Again, I'm expecting a nice even burnination by the court systems, but that's subject to change) It's not that I think the country's a bunch'a morons, it's just that I think the people get sold on a very slick plan and then have no way of demanding a refund when the rug gets pulled out from under them.
Example? Proposal Two, passed here in my state, was initially campaigned as a matter strictly relating to the definition of marriage. Opponents had said that it contained sufficient latitude to stake a challenge to things like domestic partner benefits being extended to same-sex arrangements, but proponents said that they weren't doing it for that - merely to change the definition of marriage. And the people believed them, and voted it in. Now, however, certain groups, being the opportunistic wolves they are, are using the newly minted amendment to do precisely what the opponents had feared - extending that latitude to provide the threat of a "taxpayer suit" against the state, forcing them to stop paying those domestic-partner benefits because "the taxpayers" said they didn't want such things, by voting in Proposal Two. Nothing concrete yet, but it's a perfect example of the political bait-and-switch that happened. Repealing an amendment would probably be another ballot issue, and the climate isn't going to let such a thing happen. So because the people were distracted by the shiny, other people suffer. Understand my irritation?
As opposed to Canada, whose government just pulled a brilliant move, using the same tactics, and changed their federal definition of marriage to include the possibility of two homosexuals being married. Since it's not direct federal legislation to the provinces, they can't repeal it, and soon enough, the courts will likely thrash Alberta for not following the new definition and any laws that might come out of it. It worked both ways - to enshrine a belief I consider abhorrent, and to prevent that belief from being enshrined. I suppose, both times, the people got the short end of the political trick, but with my bias, I see one as beneficial and the other as harmful. I'm sure there are others that see it differently.
Which, I suppose, has been the point that the supporters of such things have been trying to drill into their opposition's heads - try looking at things from our side of the fence, see our reasons why. Address those concerns in a way we can handle, and we'll grumble, but you'll at least gain some degree of legitimacy. If you just run roughshod, exploiting your small majority, the backlash will hurt when it catches up to you. Not that a reactionary policy is the best one, but it's the most likely one once the power shifts.
I know this seems undeniably intolerant of me, but I wonder if the people who propose and pass legislations like Prop. 2 have ever actually had someone they consider a good friend come out to them, or found out that one of their great role models was gay? Having had my best friend come out to me was a bit on the unsettling side, and it popped me out of my haze and forced me into a decision - did I really believe that I was a tolerant person, or was I only fooling myself? Hopefully, I am, and continue to be, a tolerant person. Since then, I've found out a couple other of my friends, and one of the most beloved professors at our university, are also gay. Having such people actively in my life had altered my political consciousness and my image of what gay men are, for the better, I would hope. I wonder, I really do, whether the legislators ever actually get to know a real gay person, as a person, rather than as a gay person. Makes me wonder how much
welah's parents thought about Prop. 2 before they voted, because of their exposure to a real homosexual by virtue of their son. Tonight was also a night where I gave my older sister some dating advice. Well, not really. I just listened while she worked out an acceptable justification to the conclusion she'd already made and just didn't trust herself enough to go do. (If that sounds familiar, remember, she is my sister.) Perhaps listening is one of the gifts I'm supposed to give to the world in this incarnation. If that's so, then maybe not being the best athlete isn't so bad...
...suffice to say, I'm going into hibernate for a few hours, to ponder, to contemplate, to have possibly pornographic dreams (but if I do, I don't remember them. More's the pity.) and to wake up refreshed. Well, three out of four isn't bad.
