![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jan. 19th, 2005
But I read the Post online most days (left-leaning, but [a] in the USian sense and [b] not that far to the left), and this morning one headline says "Bush Upsets Conservative Supporters". Always delighted to hear that conservatives are upset (wishing no harm or unhappiness on my friends who happen to be conservative, you understand -- merely wishing them political frustration), I clicked on through. Inside headline says "some supporters" instead of "conservative", but no biggie.
It seems that the president is backing off on the federal marriage amendment nonsense, since he knows he can't win the issue and no longer needs the political capital anymore to win the election. (Okay, that's my angle, not the article's.) I'm obviously pleased to have less effort being made in that direction, and I frankly almost don't care why he's backing off -- as I see it, the reasons* to stop pursuing a constitutional amendment are (1) you don't agree, (2) you don't think it should be a federal matter, or (3) you just plain don't give a damn [anymore] -- as much as I care that he's backing off.
Sure is pissing off the goofs in these so-called "family" groups, though.
Everybody get that -- the United States is conflicted on the question of Social Security, but not on equal rights.
On the one hand, I'm furious with the right for continuing to maintain that "the nation" is "united" on any of their (or our) pet issues -- I'm pretty fucking tired of defeat turning into disenfranchisement. But on the other hand, it occurs to me that they can't all be liars and spin doctors -- for all I know, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family really does believe that the nation is united on marriage. And that's a pretty big chunk of disillusionment he's got in his eye, there, and I'll tell you, all I can do is laugh.
* In fact I do rank the reasons; I don't actually think very much of just-not-giving-a-damn, but when the issue came up last time, I was more pleased with those lawmakers who said they didn't personally think gays ought to be allowed to marry, but voted against the amendment anyway than I was with those who voted against it because they agree that gays should have the same rights as straights. Upset some people with that, I think, but I'll tell you what: the thing is it's not, or it sure the hell shouldn't be, a federal issue. [I get that the amendment is a question of whether to make it a federal issue; but I think (not being a Constitutional scholar) the clauses on (a) commerce and (b) full faith and credit, plus the 10th Amendment, pretty well preclude an additional amendment defining marriage federally.] And the folks who voted against the thing despite their personal feelings are the only ones we know for sure cared that it's not a federal issue. I was as glad to see the amendment go down as the next girl, but I don't want Congress to get in the habit of turning things federal that shouldn't be just because they're that charged by the issue. Had I been aware of anyone whose official statement said "I'm voting against the amendment because it shouldn't be a federal matter, and my personal feelings about gay folks marrying couldn't possibly be less important", that would have been who I was most pleased with. This concludes the Fox-is-not-as-liberal-as-you-thought special for this morning.
It seems that the president is backing off on the federal marriage amendment nonsense, since he knows he can't win the issue and no longer needs the political capital anymore to win the election. (Okay, that's my angle, not the article's.) I'm obviously pleased to have less effort being made in that direction, and I frankly almost don't care why he's backing off -- as I see it, the reasons* to stop pursuing a constitutional amendment are (1) you don't agree, (2) you don't think it should be a federal matter, or (3) you just plain don't give a damn [anymore] -- as much as I care that he's backing off.
Sure is pissing off the goofs in these so-called "family" groups, though.
"The president is willing to spend his political capital on Social Security reform, but the nation is greatly conflicted on that issue," said [Tom] Minnery, vice president of public policy for Focus on the Family. "The nation is united on marriage."
Everybody get that -- the United States is conflicted on the question of Social Security, but not on equal rights.
On the one hand, I'm furious with the right for continuing to maintain that "the nation" is "united" on any of their (or our) pet issues -- I'm pretty fucking tired of defeat turning into disenfranchisement. But on the other hand, it occurs to me that they can't all be liars and spin doctors -- for all I know, Tom Minnery of Focus on the Family really does believe that the nation is united on marriage. And that's a pretty big chunk of disillusionment he's got in his eye, there, and I'll tell you, all I can do is laugh.
* In fact I do rank the reasons; I don't actually think very much of just-not-giving-a-damn, but when the issue came up last time, I was more pleased with those lawmakers who said they didn't personally think gays ought to be allowed to marry, but voted against the amendment anyway than I was with those who voted against it because they agree that gays should have the same rights as straights. Upset some people with that, I think, but I'll tell you what: the thing is it's not, or it sure the hell shouldn't be, a federal issue. [I get that the amendment is a question of whether to make it a federal issue; but I think (not being a Constitutional scholar) the clauses on (a) commerce and (b) full faith and credit, plus the 10th Amendment, pretty well preclude an additional amendment defining marriage federally.] And the folks who voted against the thing despite their personal feelings are the only ones we know for sure cared that it's not a federal issue. I was as glad to see the amendment go down as the next girl, but I don't want Congress to get in the habit of turning things federal that shouldn't be just because they're that charged by the issue. Had I been aware of anyone whose official statement said "I'm voting against the amendment because it shouldn't be a federal matter, and my personal feelings about gay folks marrying couldn't possibly be less important", that would have been who I was most pleased with. This concludes the Fox-is-not-as-liberal-as-you-thought special for this morning.
much better
Jan. 19th, 2005 06:26 pmhave purchased pine-and-canvas "dresser" and assembled it. four drawers -- HUGE difference. huge. it is much easier, as dr. pangloss probably noted, to put everything in its place when there is, in fact, a place for everything.
it occurs to me that a "control freak" icon would probably not go amiss.
it occurs to me that a "control freak" icon would probably not go amiss.
wait, wait, could this change everything?
Jan. 19th, 2005 10:21 pm"A thoroughgoing elucidation of the formal characteristics of shape rules awaits future research." (Stump, 2001)
i like the phrase "awaits future research", for a start -- it's a thoughtful way the establishment has of saying HEY, KIDS, HERE'S A PAPER THAT NEEDS WRITING -- but i also like the idea of the formal characteristics of shape rules. and 2001 wasn't that long ago. it's possible it hasn't been done in the interim.
[makes note to talk about this with prof tomorrow]
i like the phrase "awaits future research", for a start -- it's a thoughtful way the establishment has of saying HEY, KIDS, HERE'S A PAPER THAT NEEDS WRITING -- but i also like the idea of the formal characteristics of shape rules. and 2001 wasn't that long ago. it's possible it hasn't been done in the interim.
[makes note to talk about this with prof tomorrow]
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1; emphasis added.
of course. morphemes bad; paradigms (= words) good. of course. and i'm still dancing about the possibility of the shape rules thing i mentioned earlier. do any of the rest of you ever feel an almost overwhelming urge to walk on your hands or stand on your head? (i do, but it's always defeated by my even more overwhelming urge not to break my neck.)
John 1:1; emphasis added.
of course. morphemes bad; paradigms (= words) good. of course. and i'm still dancing about the possibility of the shape rules thing i mentioned earlier. do any of the rest of you ever feel an almost overwhelming urge to walk on your hands or stand on your head? (i do, but it's always defeated by my even more overwhelming urge not to break my neck.)