All the major news media are buying the ridiculous gig of email from Google. Which is a freakin' April Fools joke. USA Today, Reuters, even vet tech reporter John Markoff at the NYT have bought it, hook, line, and sinker. Let's see - a gig of space per person, for free, with extra fun search goodies as well? How much would that cost to run? A lot. Why would Google do that? Where's the money to be made from giving away a gig of free storage to anyone who wants it? The Google press release is dated April 1. No doubt - it's a joke. And the media are a bunch of suckers.
Dean, White House counsel under Nixon and therefore someone who definitely knows corrupt administrations when he sees them, has got a new book out - Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush" - and he's inteviewed at Salon about it:
If the Bush-Cheney scandals are "worse than Watergate," why hasn't this administration produced a whistle-blowing John Dean?
First, I make very clear in the book that while the underlying conduct is worse than Watergate, it has not -- yet -- erupted into a scandal like Watergate. Like anyone at the White House, yours truly included, you first try to work within the system -- to right things you know are wrong. Take former terrorism czar Richard Clarke. He certainly tried to get the Bush administration to address the problems of terrorism sooner rather than later, but failed. After leaving government he remained troubled about the Bush administration's failures to deal with terrorism, for he knows better than most that the war in Iraq only added to the problems. So he testified truthfully before the 9/11 commission -- which is all I did. Or take former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. He tried to work within the system. However, he was fired for telling the truth and expressing his well-founded concern about Bush's excessive tax cuts for the upper incomes. This is a presidency that does not like the truth told about their activities.
If, as I believe to be the case, things are going to get rough for Bush and Cheney given the potential scandals they face, others like Clarke and O'Neill may fill the role I found myself having to fulfill. But the stakes are higher now. No one died because of the abuses of power known as Watergate. Too many have died (and more in the future may) because of the abuses of power by this presidency. That's why their abuses are worse than Watergate.
It's a good time for Bush-bashing books - and I'm not talking about Franken/Moore/Ivins-style Bush-bashing. Dean, Unger ("House of Bush, House of Saud"), Suskind ("The Price of Loyalty"), Phillips ("American Dynasty"), and, of course, Clarke ("Against All Enemies") bring credible attacks on the Bush administration to the front of the new releases at Borders. This will make a diference in the end.
Amy Hunt of the MGLPC had this to say in her blog at boston.com:
Governor Romney, most House Republicans, and Rep. Phil Travis, in order to make an attempt to block marriage licenses on May 17th and keep gay families stigmatized in some way, had no choice but to throw their support to Vermont-style civil unions, as repugnant to them as real marriage. Congratulations. You could not have achieved a tinier win: Your amendment attempts to confer equality under state law to same-sex couples, and write that attempt into the Constitution of the Commonwealth.
Of course, see all the blogs in the blogroll - Chris at Left Center Left and Rachel Wortman most notably. In addition, don't miss Amy Hunt's blog at the Globe, and the Phoenix's coverage. It was nowhere near as intense outside as it had been two weeks ago, but inside, it was actually significantly worse. Previously, the pro- and anti- crowds were split, each in a different section facing the House chambers. This time, the antis tried to infiltrate the pro area and disrupt our chanting and singing. While the bussed-in crowds from last time were absent, there were some awfully angry people there. The cops were prepared for crowds like last time, though - much better organization, fencing, patrolling, etc than last time. For the last couple hours of debate, the Great Hall, where the big TVs were, was rocking with a big pro-marriage crowd, buoyed by a run of fantastic speeches from our allies in the House and Senate. Only two antis spoke during that run, in fact - Philip "I'm not a homophobe, but..." Travis, who supported the "compromise" amendment in the end because the alternative was getting rid of Fathers Day and Mothers Day in schools (no, seriously - he said that) , and Paul Loscocco - who sponsored one of the no-gay-marriage-OR-civil-union amendments but here called for getting rid of the term marriage from the laws completely, giving civil unions for all, which, as you probably know, is what I think is best. Loscocco ended up vehemently opposing the "compromise" amendment - not because it gave too much to gay people but because it created second-class citizens. Hey, he's right - I'm not going to complain about how long it took him to get there if he's there, right?
Well, we lost - for now. Honestly, I expected to lose by a lot more, once it was clear that most of the hardliners were going to vote for this amendment rather than no amendment. In the end, the vote was 105 to 92, with 2 votes not counted (which served the same as votes against, since an absolute 101 were needed for it to pass). That's 15 more votes for our side than last time, including a couple surprises. I highly doubt that anyone who voted against it this time will switch and vote for it next year (though there's the fear of losing allied seats to opponents in november's election - more on that later.) so in theory, all we need to do is flip five yes votes to kill this next year. Frankly, I'd be shocked if we CAN'T pull that off, after months of non-world-ending gay marriages showing the undecided/wishy-washy that this really doesn't hurt them at all.
Of course, the real worry is keeping our allies in their seats. The Catholic church is going after certain supporters of same-sex marriage with all guns blazing. We're going to need to fight hard to protect them, and to target vulnerable extremists ourselves. Democrats here in Massachusetts have had it relatively easy - the only major election (i.e., Congress/Senate/governor/Presidential) with serious Republican involvement over the last 8 years or so have been the gubernatorial races. We don't have any vulnerable Congressmen, the party with the second highest combined vote total in the last two Senate races was the Libertarian party, and, well, do you thinl Kerry's going to face a real challenge here? But now, we liberals have a real honest-to-god fight on our hands, to defend and sustain our state's reputation as a bastion of individual rights and progressive causes.
To that end, I'm going to be putting together a database of all those who voted for equal rights today - and who will now pay a political price for it. Republican or Democrat, they deserve our support now. As soon as I can figure out how to set it up, I'll be providing links to donate to their campaigns, as well as contact information to volunteer. Additionally, I'm going to go through all the polling data I can find (or perhaps more accurately, I'm going to ask MassEquality if they already have this information) and find those legislators and senators who voted for the amendment today whose districts strongly disagree with that vote. Challengers to those seats who are willing to support equal rights will also get my support and cheerleading - no matter the party.
Back from the ConCon, and the site seems to be working again. I'll be posting a summary/wrapup/etc later tonight... To put it simply, we lost, but we lost well. More to come.
Go read the latest over at Left Center Left - Chris is far better at picking up and analyzing the Globe's coverage than I am. It looks like the Senate leadership is looking to "clarify" the language to keep Finneran's lackeys from deserting. This is very, very good, I think. There's a pretty solid block of 77 votes against anything - all we need is to pull another 24 votes over, and Travaglini lurching to the right could help push moderates away from the "compromise" amendment. From what I can tell (totally pulling it out of my ass, possibly, but still...), a decent amount of the squishy middle support for the "compromise" rests on the assumption that civil unions are equal to marriage - separate, but equal in all other regards. Once you start exposing the truth, that any civil unions that'd be acceptable to the DOMA crowd would be anything BUT equal. They're trying to define the benefits as applying to the individuals, rather than the couples, which would gut a large chunk of civil unions. Will enough extremists be willing to accept eviscerated civil unions to replace the moderates driven off by the elimination of the fig leaf of pseudoequality?
As mentioned earlier, I'll be at the State House tomorrow, though not on Tuesday or Wednesday, if this keeps going - gotta work. If you're there, I'll be the guy in the Oberlin t-shirt - I wore that to the big anti-Iraq war march last year and it got recognized, so hey, if I catch the attention of a few Obies...
Sorry 'bout the lack of posting the last few days - I've either been jet-lagged, busy, or boring. I'll be at the State House tomorrow, so no posting during the day - I'll be calling Rachel with updates once she gets home from work at 3pm or so EST. I'll try to have a wrap-up of the day when I get home as well.
I recently got an invitation to join Orkut, Google's invite-only social networking thingie, via xian. I feel so connected now. =)
Here and here, all without comments yet. I'll be going through and explaining as much as I can about each picture over the next couple days. Right now, I'm just shocked that I'm still awake. Probably time to pass out.
So Richard Clarke and Bush's smear campaign against him are everywhere. He testified earlier today - I heard him on Fresh Air while driving from the airport - CNN International and the Lufthansa in-air TV news show both gave him brief coverage. Well, holy shit. This could demolish Bush.
Just got in from Prague - there were power and internet issues while there. I'll post more later - let's just say it was great. Oh, and there'll be pictures shortly.
I'm off - I hopefully will be posting along the way, but no promises. Worst case - big post on Wednesday. I think the camera's working, so lots of pictures of Prague, then, too!
24 hours from now, I'll be somewhere over the Atlantic. I'm getting a bit nervous, to say the least, but I think it'll all be fine. More tomorrow - I'm going to bed REAL early and waking up REAL early, so that I can adjust to it being Prague time as soon as I'm on the plane tomorrow evening and it's dark...
...I just can't motivate to get moving. It's supposed to start snowing in a few hours, and I'm having a hard time feeling like it's worth driving in to work, just to get snowed in and have a hellish drive home. If I don't get out the door soon, I might as well just work from home anyway.
Those doofuses in Congress really know no bounds:
H. R. 3920
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 9, 2004
Mr. Lewis of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Everett, Mr. Pombo, Mr. Coble, Mr. Collins, Mr. Goode, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Kingston) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL.
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004".
2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.
The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court?
(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.
3. PROCEDURE.
The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.
4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.
This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.
They're making this up, right?
I just saw someone make an interesting point - while the Spanish elections may be the first time that al Qaeda has actually caused regime change (which is a bit of a stretch, but we'll accept that for now), that wouldn't be the first time that terrorists have managed to cause regime change, through elections, in a major Western democracy. Jimmy Carter. Hostages. 1980. Ring any bells?
...'cos there's a new one, and its name is Sedna, named after the Inuit goddess of the ocean. It's probably smaller than Pluto, and it's WAY out in the Kuiper Belt, the mass of debris three times farther out from the Sun than Pluto. According to the Beeb, the difference between this object and other KB objects, such as Quaoar (named after the creation goddish thing from the Tongva mythology, a group of Los Angeles-area Native Americans), or Varuna (which is named after an Indian god), is that it appears to be in its normal orbit, while the other objects "originated in the KB but have since been perturbed into different orbits". Or something. Of course, the question over whether this is a planet or just another large-but-not-large-enough object is far from settled.
Instahack thinks it's the end of the world. Or something like that. Geez - imagine how flipped out they'll be when Kerry wins!
Atrios sums it up better than me, of course:
The people of Spain voted out the party which failed to protect them from a terrorist attack, and this proves they aren't serious about fighting terrorism.
Well, they are. If you want to see just how dumb, take a look at this thread on the Socialist victory in Spain. Yes, it's from the message board I've avoided actually pointing towards before. It's a board that started out as a wrestling discussion board, but now it's a lot more. In any case, there's no way I can summarize this and still get the point across. According to these wingnuts, voting for the Socialists in Spain is giving in to Al Qaeda. Yes, because the right-wingers were doing such a great job by lying about who they thought did the bombings for political gain, because they realized they'd be in deep shit if everyone knew it was Al Qaeda, since they'd wasted resources supporting the invasion of Iraq rather than actually doing something about Al Qaeda. Spin, baby, spin!
I've got no response for this kind of crap. If you can come up with anything, let me know, and I'll post it there. I could say something along the lines of "Actually, it sounds more like they're rejecting Aznar for his failed anti-terrorism policy of not actually fighting terrorism, but saying that he is." But that wouldn't get anywhere. Wingnuts. *sigh*
Someone reads the Globe - so you don't have to! Anyway - he reads this article, which reinforces his supposition that things ended the way they did on Thursday because there weren't enough votes to pass the compromise amendment through the final hurdle. Yes, the wingnuts came out in force to vote it to a third reading, but that's because the alternative was to go home and not have a chance at any amendment at all. The count is approximately 78 for the compromise amendment to 77 against it, with everyone else up for grabs. Yup, the 29th is going to be INSANE. I'll be there.
Oh, and Rachel? Dave also found an article at the Globe that points out how ridiculously unlikely it is that the SJC would go along with Romney's attempt to block gay marriages until after any amendment goes to the people. If they were going to cave in any way, it was going to be on the civil unions possibility, but the majority of four stood strong there - they're definitely not going to fold on this. Arlene Isaacson, your hero and mine, compared Romney to segregationist governors resisting school integration:
"He will make himself in history the equivalent of the Southern governor standing in the school house door with his arms crossed saying you can't come in," Isaacson said. "That's how he will be viewed in history. What a pitiful legacy."
Oh, burrrrrn.
note - this is a work in progress. I haven't really thought this through entirely yet, but I want to get something down on paper. Or on the screen. You know what I mean.
As we all know now, it looks like Al-Qaeda was behind the Madrid bombings. There've been five arrests, three Moroccans and two Spaniards of Indian descent, or something like that, with potential ties to Moroccan extremist groups. And Al-Qaeda has claimed responsibility. So what does this mean?
Well, first, take a look at this story from Daily Kos, Stirling Newberry's piece and this story from the Beeb on tomorrow's elections in Spain. The political impact in Spain is going to be massive - if the reports are true and the government was told that this was probably Islamist terrorists and NOT ETA on Thursday...well, that's beyond horrible. Anzar's people basically lied so that the voting public wouldn't realize that the attacks were, to a very real extent, the result of Anzar's support for the Iraq invasion. Which, of course, was massively opposed by the Spanish populace.
But I'm thinking more about Matt Stoller's piece, criticizing Democrats for their weak responses to Madrid. As Matt puts it:
The right has come up with a gut response to this type of violence. Kill some motherfucker right now, and delegitimize anyone who suggests consideration of other approaches. This approach, though satisfying, doesn't work. Killing a Baathist regime won't get rid of Al Qaeda, and in fact weakens our global alliances to deal with such a threat.
At the same time, I can't find a different response to what happened in Spain from any American political leader. The right is crying out for blood and an end to liberalism (what else is new), and the left is horrified or silent. Neither is a satisfying response, but only one - the right's - is a governance philosophy that can sustain a political structure (even though that structure is represssive). Until John Kerry, and Democrats in general, can come out with an approach to such atrocities that moves beyond what the right is saying, instead of ignoring or echoing it, can a productive national dialogue about how to conduct foreign policy truly emerge, and a true governing consensus be crafted.
Yup. Feeling lousy about terrorism doesn't end terrorism. Invading Iraq didn't end terrorism. We need security measures, yes - the Democrats have been very strong on this, and, frankly, have been stronger on this issue throughout the Clinton administration as well, even if not everyone realizes it all the time. But we don't have any idea how to END terrorism. I personally believe that there is a liberal response to terrorism, one that can do far more to prevent future terrorist acts than the rightist chest-thumping, one that fits into the liberal tradition and worldview.
The rightist approach to crime is similar in many ways to its approach to terrorism - blame the perps and punish them. Root causes aren't relevant - in fact, trying to point out that bad acts are the result of a multitude of influences AND the bad decisions of the bad actors means you're coddling the criminals, that you're excusing the terrorists, etc... But the only way to make a long-term impact on the crime rate is to see why the crimes are being committed and try to address the situation. This works with terror, too - the Tamil Tigers and the IRA are good examples of how you can address terrorism by working to resolve the issues provoking terrorism.
Ack. That's about as far as my brain's gotten so far. Let me try to get a bit more out, if not all that organized. The Guardian said some of what I'm talking about in their lead editorial on Friday:
The victims of the commuter train bombings in Madrid and the Spaniards who came out of the streets last night surely deserve more than party political responses. Europe too needs to mould a different response to its September 11. Spain has a history which places it at the crossroads of the European and Arab worlds. It understands both traditions. It is a country where once Jew, Muslim and Christian lived together. An international conference, to bridge the divide between Muslim and Christian communities, should be one first step. But there are many others. We need to take the fight against terror out of America's hands. We need to get beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys, and seek a genuinely collective response. Europe should seize the moment that America failed to grasp.
That might be a little too squishy and anti-American, but the basic point is dead on. Why did three Moroccans and two Moslem Spaniards of Indian descent feel that they needed to kill hundreds of people in Madrid? A large part of that probably comes from the horrible job that the Europeans have done in integrating their immigrant communities into the rest of society. But let's look deeper - what's going on in Morocco that's led to extremist groups there? Why are they attacking Spain?
ok, that is definitely all I've got so far. More to come when I'm more conscious.
I've added a second blogroll - it's just below the calender on the right. As I find blogs that are covering the marriage situation in Massachusetts, I'll add 'em. If you want to steal the code yourself and put it on your page, feel free - just take this link and put it in a JavaScript tag. If you want to be added, email me.
I was talking with Adam, a guy I met and hung out with yesterday for most of the convention. We were wondering why there was no Fred Phelps presence at the ConCon - after all, it seems like a perfect fit for him. I mean, he sent his minions to Oberlin just because we had a gay AD. Well, I just found out why he wasn't there. He had a previous commitment picketing a Rod Stewart concert. Seriously. Something about the hair, I guess.
On a more serious note - this same asshole is going to be going to New Paltz. I'm not entirely sure when - the flyer says March 15th, next Monday, some news articles say the 14th and 15th, and their schedule says April 4th. I'll try to find out more and get it up here so that anyone in the New York area can get up to New Paltz and help support the village against the jackasses.
Take a look at this - Lisa Riba noticed something very, very interesting in the text of the amendment:
Let's just parse it out, shall we?
"Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union if they meet the requirements set forth by law for marriage"
That seems fairly straightforward, but take a look at the "requirements set forth by law for marriage" in the preceding sentence:
"only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Massachusetts"
In other words, "Two persons of the same sex shall have the right to form a civil union if they are a union of one man and one woman"
Yeah. So this actually bans civil unions as well. One of the points made last night for voting against this amendment is that it hasn't been reviewed by legal scholars, etc...and this is a perfect example of why that's a problem.
A blog at boston.com by Amy Hunt, a leader of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus. Go read it.
After reading Rachel worrying, I just want to sound an optimistic note. One of the votes yesterday showed that the extremist cause is pretty much doomed. Here's a graf from the Phoenix:
The second vote was to substitute the Leadership amendment for the original anti-gay amendment proposed by Representative Phil Travis of Rehobeth, which would have limited marriage only to "one man and one woman." The vote for the second time? 136 to 62. In other words, the vote to kill the antigay measure that had caused all the fuss in the first place wasn't even close. So much for Travis's grumbled assertion at the microphone during the first day of the ConCon that if legislators would only vote on his proposal it would easily pass. In terms of legislative support for gay rights, this was a huge victory – one that may be easy to overlook given how confusing the ConCon process was.
Crash. And. Burn. The extremist position is a loser, and just about everyone knows it. There is not a snowball's chance in hell of anything without civil unions passing. I honestly don't think that Travaglini would vote for that, for example. The only question left, as I see it, is whether the extremists are, in the end, willing to settle for civil unions or not. We'll find that out in a couple weeks.
It's just a few quick clips of out-of-tune singing (and yes, the worst offender is me), but I thought you might be interested in hearing what I did yesterday:
Kristen Lombardi at the Phoenix continues to give us the best coverage out there.
The ConCon will resume March 29. In order to successfully pass, the Leadership amendment needs to get one more majority vote. Before that happens, however, further amendments can be offered. The Loscocoo amendment is expected to resurface. The Travis amendment is probably dead for now. Anything can happen. But it's clear that there is a growing consensus to ensure that same-sex couples are given rights that can't be taken away by voters. And that's a position few pro-gay advocates believed they'd be in last month when the ConCon convened.
That's a damned good point. The WORST case scenario now is civil unions, and there are still a ton of fights the bad guys still have to win to get even that far. It's a real possibility that some of the extremists who voted for the third reading of the civil union amendment just did that so that they'd have another chance to tweak it and get their language back in. After all, the Republicans switched en masse, and were joined by extremist anti-marriage Democrats like Philip Travis and Marie Parente. Take a look at the roll call and see how many circles on the first two votes (no votes on killing off the other amendments) turned into squares on the third vote (the third reading vote). If the vote last night had failed, it'd be over. There'd be no chance for them to get anything anywhere near the ballot. If they're not able to alter the text of the amendment on the 29th, will they still vote for civil unions, despite the extreme opposition many of them have for even that?
For more coverage of the proceedings from yesterday, check out the Phoenix (shocking, I know). They've also got a bunch of photos. I probably show up in the background in a number of the big crowd shots, but don't bother trying to pick me out. =) You can also see a few pictures of one of the two groups of people who show up at EVERY protest for ANYTHING in the Boston area, along with the ANSWER/Workers World Party fruitcakes - the fathers' rights people. Seriously, protest anything at all, and these guys will show up. If they'd been this dedicated as parents earlier, maybe they wouldn't have to be protesting now, huh? =) Anyway - more to come as I start to really wake up. I'll be posting what few pictures I managed to take before my camera killed itself, and hopefully the audio clips I recorded while in the singing crowd outside the chambers will be decent enough to post, too. And of course, any additional coverage, analysis, etc will be posted as soon as I see it.
Obviously, we're not in a good way today, but this made me feel a little better:
I'm not long for this conscious world, so this'll be brief. I'll do a writeup in more detail tomorrow, including some audio clips and a few pictures, but I wanted to get a few things out quickly.
We were definitely outnumbered early on - but by mid-day, the tide was turning, and by 4:00 or 4:30, the anti-marriage types had almost all left the State House, with the non-bussed-in protestors sticking around outside for another couple hours. No question - we had control of the halls of the State House for most of the afternoon and all of the evening. Of course, that didn't mean anything by the time of the vote...
I met some good people, and blew out my voice singing "My Country 'Tis Of Thee", "This Land Is Your Land", etc... My feet hurt, I'm really tired, and I'm really, really pissed. The Republicans, with the exception of Shaun Kelly, all voted for the amendment. It'd been expected (or at least hoped) that most of them would still vote against the compromise amendment, but they were brought into line by Romney, I'd guess. I'll read the coverage and try to reconcile it with what I saw in person tomorrow...
Yeah, it failed. F'n Republicans. I wrote up a bunch of stuff - I'll post it tomorrow. Now I need sleep.
Unfortunately, Andy will not be able to keep you updated as to what is happening at the Constitutional Convention. He gave up his power outlet to reporters from the LA Times and the Washington Post.
Instead, Andy will be calling me to post updates. You will be able to read these updates at my blog, Rachel is dreaming of spring.
I will do my best to blog until he is back at a computer or until this is over.
...you probably won't recognize me, but hey. I'm in a black leather jacket, pretty battered, with the obligatory stickers on it, black denim shirt underneath. I'm around 5'6", brownish hair, glasses, lugging around a big black computer bag. Say hi if you DO recognize me. =)
It’s a little before 10:50am, and it’s absolutely insane here, out in front of the State House. There are an unbelievable number of anti-marriage protestors here – we’re being drowned out. They’re matching “equal rights!” chants with “Jesus Christ!” As if there’s a contradiction for wanting BOTH. Religious bigotry is fun, isn’t it?
I’ve got a couple stickers now – a MassEquality sticker on one side of my jacket, and a “I agree with the SJC” on the other, but they’ve got masses of identical pre-printed signs, yellow stickers they’re handing off to everyone they can find, and orange scarves with crosses on them. This is really intense. More later – trying to conserve battery power. Plus I can barely see the screen – it’s pretty bright out. More later…
(and now later! As of around 11, 11:15...)
Got to be honest - I'm really afraid this might break into violence by the end of the day. There is a LOT of anger and hate here.
I did just see something a little heartwarming though - a marriage advocate chanting "No discrimination!" while handing out donuts to anti-marriage types...but crap. ANSWER and the Workers World Party are here. Sigh...
The racial makeup of the two sides are interesting. Proymarriage is almost all white kids, atleast so far, while the antis include a much largger number of minorities.
I really should have worn my Oberlin t-shirt...
More to come, of course.
So it took me quite literally an hour to find a freakin' hotspot. The place that I expected to have one, well, didn't. Shocking, I know. I finally found one, and I'm exhausted from running up and down Beacon Hill - it really is a hill! Anyway - next post is the first hour or so on the ground...
Well, I've found a few WiFi sources within a block or two of the State House, so I'm going in tomorrow. I'll be there from some bizarrely early hour of the morning 'til it ends - or midnight, 'cos I'll have to catch the subway before it shuts down at 1am, anyway. I'll run out periodically to post, so the updates won't be quite as fast-and-furious as they were a month ago, but I'll have a different perspective this time. And I'll be there in person, which matters, I think. So yeah - check back here all day tomorrow for the latest on the debate and votes on the various anti-gay marriage amendments threatening to emerge from the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention.
The Boston Phoenix has a fantastic article by Kristen Lombardi on the current situation as we head into tomorrow's renewal of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention. She goes through the ideological, the practical, and the filthy political rationals for votes and what could result. Good reading.
And just a reminder - I will be live-blogging the debates tomorrow, which start at 2pm EST, I think. I'll be online and reporting for the duration from home - I may be heading into Boston tonight to go to a candlelight vigil, and possibly going in tomorrow morning before coming home in time to blog the proceedings. We'll see...
If you've read Kevin Phillips' American Dynasty, or if you've just been paying attention, you know that one of the motivating factors for Bush II's campaign was vengance for his father's defeat by Clinton. This was personal, it seems. Well, I was just thinking - I'm still really fucking bitter about Dukakis. Seriously. A man who's willing to take very unpopular positions (flag-burning, death penalty) and never waiver, because he refuses to compromise his convictions? A card-carrying member of the ACLU? A died-in-the-blood liberal, maybe the most emphatically liberal major party candidate for president ever? And he gets beaten through the slimiest, most nauseating dirty tricks yet invented? Yeah, I'm bitter.
So what does this have to do with Bush II's "I'll avenge you, Daddy!" thing? Bush I lost to Clinton - Bush II, Bush I's son, beat Gore, Clinton's designated successor. Bush I beat Dukakis - Bush II WILL lose to Kerry, Dukakis' ex-lt. governor and another Massachusetts liberal. Right on. As a proud Massachusetts liberal, I WANT MY VENGANCE ON THOSE TEXAN BASTARDS! And come November, I will HAVE IT! HA!
I'm in one of those moods, in case you couldn't tell.
I'm blaming it on the Ritalin - first time I've had Ritalin in the evening since...damn, a week and a half ago? Only the third time I've had Ritalin at all since eight days ago...I guess I shouldn't be surprised that it's messed with my system a bit. But it gets worse: I've got that damned Zamfir song from Kill Bill stuck in my head. I am not making this up. Someone please shoot me now...
She's over here. I went to college with her. She's writing here about why gay marriage means so much to her, even though she's as straight as the day is long. Oh, and Rachel? Technically, you weren't the only straight person in Queer Acts. A certain ex of mine was in that class too, and her bisexuality was just a front, and you know it as well as I do. So stop frontin'. =)
Everybody's first reaction is just to talk about the Sidney Blumenthal thing - and that's really coo, don't get me wrong - but take a look at what else they've got on tap:
Damn - where would we be without Salon, anyway? Since we haven't heard anything about them running low on cash for a good long while (and since they're expanding significantly here), I'd imagine that the subscription or click-thru ad model is actually working for 'em. Good. I love Salon and this just shows why.
Now I can be human again!
Via Josh Marshall, from this morning's White House press gaggle:
Dr. Rice met with the commission recently, and even though only five members of the commission showed up, she sat down and visited with them for some four hours.
Now, I love that they're trying to push the "Commission people didn't show up for everything!" angle, as if that actually, y'know, means anything. But what I really love here is McClellan's word choices. Doesn't that sound as if she deigned to have tea with them, or something like that?
The gaggle went on from there to mention Kerry's rodeo comment...
Q: Scott, purely from a PR point of view, how do you respond to a criticism launched by Senator Kerry yesterday who said, “The President finds time to go to a rodeo, but he doesn’t have more than an hour for the 9/11 Commission?” -- wouldn’t you acknowledge that, however well you think the administration, the President, and however unprecedented you think the cooperation is, isn’t he vulnerable to some criticism --
McCLELLAN: Suggest -- look at the facts. I mean, I’ll just point out the facts. Not suggesting; I’m pointing out the facts.
Q: We would never suggest you do anything else, Scott. But my point is, don’t you think that there might be some kind of PR problem for the President when his chief challenger can say, you’ve got time to got to a rodeo, and you don’t have time for the 9/11 Commission?
Do I get too much pleasure out of watching McClellan barf on himself like that? Nah. Never. In other parts of the gaggle, he ran away from Helen Thomas pointing out that the Bush administration's "cooperation" with the commission wasn't exactly unprecedented - she busted out Watergate, which, of course, freaked out Scottie. Throughout the whole spiel, he dodged and bent over backwards trying to avoid saying whether Dear Leader Bush would stay for over an hour with the commission. After a spiel about how important the commission is and how Bush values it, we get this:
Q: Why does he complain all the time, then --
McCLELLAN: -- because he never forgets September 11th.
I couldn't make that up if I tried.
So the Mass. state-level Democrats are begging for cash from their federal-level counterparts. Romney's promised $75,000 for every Republican nominee for the state senate and/or state house of reps. This gets me to thinking - maybe it's time for me to become a Republican. Seriously. If there aren't any serious candidates from the GOP in Lowell for my representative's district, I could probably get the nomination, and then get $75,000 to campaign against a Finneran Democrat. I've been saying for a while that I plan to vote for the Republican candidate rather than my Finneranite - well, why not be that Republican candidate myself? That's probably not what Romney is really looking for, of course, since I'm to the left of the Democrats, let alone the Republicans, but still...it's tempting.
I went three days without posting anything - it's been a LONG time since I've done that. I'm really needing my meds. =)
Anyway - I'll be going to the State House on Thursday for the Constitutional Convention. Hopefully, I'll be able to find WiFi or a phone line - if so, I'll be posting rather often. Otherwise, I'll be posting after I get home sometime late at night. More on this as we get closer...
Lisa Duggan at the Nation has a great, great piece on gay marriage and why the fight needs to be broadened beyond just same-sex marriage:
Moral conservatives have so far taken the lead in the struggle to frame the meaning of the "marriage crisis." In their apocalyptic imagination, the stability of heterosexual unions and the social order they insure are threatened on all sides--by the specter of gay marriage, by women's independent choices within and outside marriage, and by government neutrality, toleration or support of single-parent and unmarried households, especially among the poor. But wait! It gets worse: As Stanley Kurtz argued in The Weekly Standard last August, "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and 'polyamory' (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female."
I'm not sure, given the rise of transgender activism, just how many combinations there are of male and female. But the dystopic vision is clear. Moral conservatives want to prevent courts and legislatures from opening a Pandora's box of legal options--a flexible menu of choices for forms of household and partnership recognition open to all citizens, depending on specific and varying needs. Such a menu would threaten the normative status of the nuclear family, undermining state endorsement of heterosexual privilege, the male "headed" household and "family values" moralism as social welfare policy.
This isn't just a call to open the institution of civil marriage to same-sex couples - it's a call to redefine how the state recognizes relationships between its citizens. Great stuff in here. Go read it.
...but strangely productive. I've been hacking code today - I finally got deep enough into Maven, a really nifty project-scoped build tool for Java from the Apache project (with a lot of Ant hooks in it), that I was able to start writing a plugin for it to handle Visual Studio 6 projects - the product I'm writing all-new build scripts for is mainly Java, but still has some lingering C++ and VB/VB.NET stuff lurking around. So I've been reading up on Maven for a week or so - there's not much in the way of good documentation on it - and I've finally gotten to the point where I can start getting some prototypes out.
There's nothing quite as exhilarting as the first few days of coding on a new project, once you've gotten the initial research done and you're ready to actually DO something. Honestly, this is why I code in the first place, the rush this gives me... There's a tremendous sense of accomplishment, just from writing the first skeletal aspects of a bigger project. It's...I dunno. How to explain this? To get to this point, I have to know what I'm doing, and by writing some good initial code, I prove to myself that I do know what I'm doing. Once I've gotten this far, I know that the rest will come - it may take a while and it may be unbelievably hard, but it'll get done. I get tempted to hack all night - I've read enough about the early MIT hackers and heard enough from my dad about his own 24+ hour hacking exploits that an all-nighter working on a nifty new tool (as opposed to an all-nighter working on a project for class or a customer) seems strangely romantic to me. I won't be doing that tonight, obviously - without Ritalin in my system, I'm getting tired at truly random times - but it's soooo tempting...
I ran out of Ritalin yesterday, and I haven't heard back from my psychiatrist yet, though I called him early yesterday morning - it looks like this could be the event I've dreaded since I first was diagnosed and started taking it: a week without Ritalin. If he's out of town or something, I'm in deep doo-doo. So yeah - I'm probably going to be mildly insane for the next few days. Pardon the incoherence.
...for the light blogging - been busy at work. I should be more active over the next week or so...I've already taken next Thursday off from work for the Mass. constitutional convention...if I can find enough WiFi near the State House, I may be in Boston for the debates. Otherwise, I'll be here, liveblogging it via the TV.
