They allow gay marriage.
Looks like i'l be moving back there eventually =P
A few things about the decision that i've run across. 60 years ago, the courts in CA were the first to strike down something called miscegenation laws, which outlawed interracial marriage. They've now taken similar steps with gay marriage.
This isn't" activist judges," as the Rove-right would call them. The CA legislature - which is, um, you know, democratically elected - has twice passed laws permitting gay marriage. Both times, the Governator vetoed them, citing the voter approved ban that the courts now overturned. He is supportive of gay rights, and has said that unless another such ban is passed (and the religious right is trying to put it on the ballot for November, attempting to put it in the CA state constitution) he will be happy to sign any such pro-gay marriage legislature in the future.
Somewhere out it the blogosphere, someone made a very good point. Sexual orientation is actually more inherent, immutable, and self-defining than gender, or perhaps even race. Its not a choice, its something that is.
Lastly, again from somewhere in the Internets, was a discussion about civil unions vs. marriage. I've always detested civil unions. It wreaks of "separate but equal." But lets be honest here, gay marriage isn't about religion, or marriage, or gay, or whatever. Its about love, and two people wanting to proclaim their love to each other and the world, and become "family." It is the declaration of the discovery of a soul mate, one of the most inscrutable and important moments in one's life.
And it should be available to all. And there is no way to deny it without implicitly saying that homosexual love is something less than heterosexual love.
I am so very happy to be from California.
~M
Monday, May 19, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Apropos to Journalism
And also to my post yesterday about the study about The Daily Show/Colbert Report.
One of my main arguments for saying that they are journalists is the interview portion of the show. Stewart asked prepared, well-informed, and intelligent questions, with clear logic and a desire for an actual answer behind it.
Last night, he had on Douglas Feith, who was Undersecretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld. Feith has released a book about the administration 's internal and external discussions in the run-up to the Iraq war. Believe me, i watch the news (because i'm a bit of a junkie), and you don't usually see interviews like this. In fact, you rarely if ever do.
Watch HERE. And learn.
~M
One of my main arguments for saying that they are journalists is the interview portion of the show. Stewart asked prepared, well-informed, and intelligent questions, with clear logic and a desire for an actual answer behind it.
Last night, he had on Douglas Feith, who was Undersecretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld. Feith has released a book about the administration 's internal and external discussions in the run-up to the Iraq war. Believe me, i watch the news (because i'm a bit of a junkie), and you don't usually see interviews like this. In fact, you rarely if ever do.
Watch HERE. And learn.
~M
I am Millennial, hear me....well, roar over the internet!
For those who know me, you know i'm not really a person who has an overabundance of pride in things. School spirit? "eh." College spirit? "we have sports teams? God i hate my school..." patriotic spirit? "have you seen the title of this blog?"
About the main things i take pride in are my friends and my creative stuff (shows, stories, etc).
But i've been having an awful lot of Generational Pride. Or what you can call Millennial Pride, because i realize just how cool our generation is.
Guess what? others are noticing. Thanks Obama.
I can't tell you the number of articles i've been reading about the generational gap that has appeared in national politics (consensus reading something like this: below 45? Obama. Above 65? Clinton/McCain.) . As a result of this sudden noticing of the Gen-Y'ers, more and more attention is being spent analyzing who we are.
For those who don't know, Gen-Y (aka Millenials) is roughly those born 1984/5 onward to the late 90's. We're inventive, and the first tech/internet savvy generation. Oh, and did i mention we lean to the Left (come on, i had to throw politics into this). We grew up under Clinton I, but came of age in the catastrophe that is Bush II.
Don't believe me? looky-looky (i got Hooky!)
If you want a good article, here's Bob Herbert from today's NYT Op-Ed section.
money quote:
--
“Millennials mostly reject the conservative viewpoint that government is the problem, and that free markets always produce the best results for society. Indeed, Millennials’ views are more progressive than those of other age groups today, and are more progressive than previous generations when they were younger.”
--
Anyways, just thought i'd say that we rock. Hooray for inclusive, progressiveness. Take that, Boomers!
About the main things i take pride in are my friends and my creative stuff (shows, stories, etc).
But i've been having an awful lot of Generational Pride. Or what you can call Millennial Pride, because i realize just how cool our generation is.
Guess what? others are noticing. Thanks Obama.
I can't tell you the number of articles i've been reading about the generational gap that has appeared in national politics (consensus reading something like this: below 45? Obama. Above 65? Clinton/McCain.) . As a result of this sudden noticing of the Gen-Y'ers, more and more attention is being spent analyzing who we are.
For those who don't know, Gen-Y (aka Millenials) is roughly those born 1984/5 onward to the late 90's. We're inventive, and the first tech/internet savvy generation. Oh, and did i mention we lean to the Left (come on, i had to throw politics into this). We grew up under Clinton I, but came of age in the catastrophe that is Bush II.
Don't believe me? looky-looky (i got Hooky!)
If you want a good article, here's Bob Herbert from today's NYT Op-Ed section.
money quote:
--
“Millennials mostly reject the conservative viewpoint that government is the problem, and that free markets always produce the best results for society. Indeed, Millennials’ views are more progressive than those of other age groups today, and are more progressive than previous generations when they were younger.”
--
Anyways, just thought i'd say that we rock. Hooray for inclusive, progressiveness. Take that, Boomers!
Monday, May 12, 2008
2 great articles
I highly suggest reading these two. If you only have time for one, do the second.
First up, a short article about The Daily Show/The Colbert Report, and dissecting the news they disseminate...and coming to the conclusion that despite what the shows' hosts profess, they actually are journalists.
read HERE.
The second is a piece by NPR about two families, each with a boy who at an early age (read: 1 year old) began to identify as trans-gender (a boy believing he is a girl trapped in the wrong body, and vice-versa). The families take radically different approaches to the thearapy. Further proof that nature is not, by default, hetero-normative. (That last one was a shout out to the one at Vassar...)
vie Andrew Sullivan, read HERE.
enjoy!
~M
First up, a short article about The Daily Show/The Colbert Report, and dissecting the news they disseminate...and coming to the conclusion that despite what the shows' hosts profess, they actually are journalists.
read HERE.
The second is a piece by NPR about two families, each with a boy who at an early age (read: 1 year old) began to identify as trans-gender (a boy believing he is a girl trapped in the wrong body, and vice-versa). The families take radically different approaches to the thearapy. Further proof that nature is not, by default, hetero-normative. (That last one was a shout out to the one at Vassar...)
vie Andrew Sullivan, read HERE.
enjoy!
~M
and we're live in...
Hey, i know its been forever. I almost forgot about this, until yesterday when my brother asked if i was going to be writing in it ever again. So I thought i might do just that =)
As i've said, this is a place for my thoughts, and my thoughts don't include my day-to-day life. Yes, i realize that contradiction. But i've fully embraced the inherent contradictions in living, so i'm ok with it. So in keeping with contradictions, lets describe myself a bit further.
Socailly: liberal (if you know me, you know this to be true), economically: a realist (you can't have an econ major and not want to laugh at policy wonks and all they get wrong, not to mention discussions about NAFTA or other free-trade agreements), with a peace-nik/diplomacy based foreign policy view. But that certainly doesn't mean i haven't learned the lessons of the "real world," because i throw Machiavelli-cynicism into my world view. what does that mean, exactly?
It means we should consider invading Burma.
(And its Burma, not Myanmar. The Junta renamed the country because they felt like it, and recognizing the name change means recognizing the power of the Junta.)
This is not to say that we're going to, or even if we are litterally able to muster enough force to do so. I'm just saying that its something that should be done.
The war in Iraq is just stupid, because we should be focusing on Afganistan. And i would usually say "but that aside," but i can't at this moment. Because we never should have invaded Iraq. Ever. Never ever ever never ever. Stupid to the Nth degree.
But Burma is inhearently different. Its own government is seizing the aid sent by the US, the UN, and other organizations and countries, and isn't giving it out to its own cyclone-raveged people. They refuse to grant foreign works visas so they can help the sick, wounded, or dead. Burma used to be one of the worlds largest exporters of rice, and now it can barely feed itself. This is the same country that beat and imprisioned the Monks last year who were protesting governemnt mandated food prices and gathering money for the poor.
Not even China, everyone's older brother in that part of the world, can persuade the Burmese junta to allow foreign aid. Without aid to help clean the destruction, the possibility of a devastating disease ripping thru that part of the world becomes very real.
But why invade? I mean, isn't like invading Iraq? Saddam was certainly repressive to his own people. First off, teh basic premise is different. The cliche of "welcomed as liberators" wasn't true in Iraq, but it has definate possibility in Burma...only it wouldn't be "liberators" it would be "thank god, Food!" When a governemtn harms its own people, in this new, world community, there is an obligation for us to help our fellow man.
But it will never happen, specifically because Iraq happened. The era of US interventionalism is on its death-bed, and it has G.W. Bush and all the neocons to thank for it. Look, US Interventionalism can be a good thing. But it can also be disasterous. Espeically because the same problems from Iraq would resurface, except in the place of Iran you'd have China. How do you make a governemnt in Asia without China having a major say? You can't.
But forceful intervention, to save lord knows how many lives, is something to be considered.
~M
As i've said, this is a place for my thoughts, and my thoughts don't include my day-to-day life. Yes, i realize that contradiction. But i've fully embraced the inherent contradictions in living, so i'm ok with it. So in keeping with contradictions, lets describe myself a bit further.
Socailly: liberal (if you know me, you know this to be true), economically: a realist (you can't have an econ major and not want to laugh at policy wonks and all they get wrong, not to mention discussions about NAFTA or other free-trade agreements), with a peace-nik/diplomacy based foreign policy view. But that certainly doesn't mean i haven't learned the lessons of the "real world," because i throw Machiavelli-cynicism into my world view. what does that mean, exactly?
It means we should consider invading Burma.
(And its Burma, not Myanmar. The Junta renamed the country because they felt like it, and recognizing the name change means recognizing the power of the Junta.)
This is not to say that we're going to, or even if we are litterally able to muster enough force to do so. I'm just saying that its something that should be done.
The war in Iraq is just stupid, because we should be focusing on Afganistan. And i would usually say "but that aside," but i can't at this moment. Because we never should have invaded Iraq. Ever. Never ever ever never ever. Stupid to the Nth degree.
But Burma is inhearently different. Its own government is seizing the aid sent by the US, the UN, and other organizations and countries, and isn't giving it out to its own cyclone-raveged people. They refuse to grant foreign works visas so they can help the sick, wounded, or dead. Burma used to be one of the worlds largest exporters of rice, and now it can barely feed itself. This is the same country that beat and imprisioned the Monks last year who were protesting governemnt mandated food prices and gathering money for the poor.
Not even China, everyone's older brother in that part of the world, can persuade the Burmese junta to allow foreign aid. Without aid to help clean the destruction, the possibility of a devastating disease ripping thru that part of the world becomes very real.
But why invade? I mean, isn't like invading Iraq? Saddam was certainly repressive to his own people. First off, teh basic premise is different. The cliche of "welcomed as liberators" wasn't true in Iraq, but it has definate possibility in Burma...only it wouldn't be "liberators" it would be "thank god, Food!" When a governemtn harms its own people, in this new, world community, there is an obligation for us to help our fellow man.
But it will never happen, specifically because Iraq happened. The era of US interventionalism is on its death-bed, and it has G.W. Bush and all the neocons to thank for it. Look, US Interventionalism can be a good thing. But it can also be disasterous. Espeically because the same problems from Iraq would resurface, except in the place of Iran you'd have China. How do you make a governemnt in Asia without China having a major say? You can't.
But forceful intervention, to save lord knows how many lives, is something to be considered.
~M
Friday, January 4, 2008
Change is the Name of the Game
Ok, so its been a month. I've been busy! My show goes up in like, 10 days, i'm going on a retreat for it this weekend, not to mention that i was in Newport for a while.
But my life's boring (so it will be another post later). Lets get to the good stuff....politics!
I love being right, btw. I've been saying since, oh, August that people need to pay attention to Huckabee. And oh, wait, what? He won the Iowa caucuses (which are bs, but still) over a millionaire Romney by 9 points? Yeah, thats what i thought. Don't get me wrong, i don't agree with Huckabee. I think he's wrong about almost everything. But have you ever seen the man on a talk show - like Daily Show or Colbert? I want to say to him "I disagree with everything you stand for. ...But please, tell me more about what you think." He is, quite frankly, undeniably charismatic and well, likeable. And i tend to not like Republicans as a rule.
What do i think Huck & Chuck's (that would be Chuck Norris, btw) win means? Depends on New Hampshire, really. But a knee jerk reaction says that Romney has to have a stunning win, or he is over. With Romney weakened, McCain will be in good shape if he can beat Guliani in NH. And who the hell knows what Huckabee will place.
Don't get me wrong. I would love, love, if Huck got the Republican nomination. Because he could never, ever win. He's too regressive, too conservative, no matter how likable he is. It would be a Dem shoe in.
Now for the Democrats. Given how the last few weeks have gone, i'm not surprised that Clinton got 3rd (but thats misleading. There was less than half a percent difference between HRC and Edwards), and i'm not surprised that Obama won. But its still a little awesome in some ways, because Obama won by 8 points in a state that is 94% white. Here another interesting figure for you:
"Nearly 6 in 10 Democratic voters were first time Caucus goers, and 41 percent of them went to Obama." [From Politico.com]
In a year where caucus attendance among Democrats doubled, this is huge. Also, polls indicate that "Change" was the most important aspect of a candidate, and that it trumped "expierence." In this way, a vote for Obama is actually a correct one. He ain't no Baby Boomer - and i can rail on baby boomers for a long, long time, so i won't here. Suffice it to say that an Obama presidency will be less endowed with the virulent hatred that defines post-60's-Vietnam Baby Boomer politics.
Clinton's downfall has been that the Media dubbed her "the inevitable" for most of the year. And spinning a primary/caucus result is all about expectations. Now, with her loss in Iowa, expectations of her are in a reasonable place (where they were catastrophically high before). I sincerely hope she decides she doesn't have to go negative against Obama, because i believe that will only hurt her more. And everyone needs to remember, this one won't be decided until Super Tuesday (Feb. 5th), when a rather large chunk of the country will hold their Primaries all at the same time. And its entirely possible that it won't even be decided then.
But my point is that HRC is still viable on a national level...she just is being held back by the early states. Personally, i see it as Obama v. Clinton, with the edge going to Clinton (but we'll see if her national appeal is lessened after NH). I'm ignoring Edwards, who i don't care enough about to spend many words on.
Either way, i'd be happy with an Obama or Clinton Presidency, and less thrilled about an Edwards one. Just below Edwards would be McCain, then Guliani, and then after that i would shoot myself (not really, but the sentiment is there).
But my life's boring (so it will be another post later). Lets get to the good stuff....politics!
I love being right, btw. I've been saying since, oh, August that people need to pay attention to Huckabee. And oh, wait, what? He won the Iowa caucuses (which are bs, but still) over a millionaire Romney by 9 points? Yeah, thats what i thought. Don't get me wrong, i don't agree with Huckabee. I think he's wrong about almost everything. But have you ever seen the man on a talk show - like Daily Show or Colbert? I want to say to him "I disagree with everything you stand for. ...But please, tell me more about what you think." He is, quite frankly, undeniably charismatic and well, likeable. And i tend to not like Republicans as a rule.
What do i think Huck & Chuck's (that would be Chuck Norris, btw) win means? Depends on New Hampshire, really. But a knee jerk reaction says that Romney has to have a stunning win, or he is over. With Romney weakened, McCain will be in good shape if he can beat Guliani in NH. And who the hell knows what Huckabee will place.
Don't get me wrong. I would love, love, if Huck got the Republican nomination. Because he could never, ever win. He's too regressive, too conservative, no matter how likable he is. It would be a Dem shoe in.
Now for the Democrats. Given how the last few weeks have gone, i'm not surprised that Clinton got 3rd (but thats misleading. There was less than half a percent difference between HRC and Edwards), and i'm not surprised that Obama won. But its still a little awesome in some ways, because Obama won by 8 points in a state that is 94% white. Here another interesting figure for you:
"Nearly 6 in 10 Democratic voters were first time Caucus goers, and 41 percent of them went to Obama." [From Politico.com]
In a year where caucus attendance among Democrats doubled, this is huge. Also, polls indicate that "Change" was the most important aspect of a candidate, and that it trumped "expierence." In this way, a vote for Obama is actually a correct one. He ain't no Baby Boomer - and i can rail on baby boomers for a long, long time, so i won't here. Suffice it to say that an Obama presidency will be less endowed with the virulent hatred that defines post-60's-Vietnam Baby Boomer politics.
Clinton's downfall has been that the Media dubbed her "the inevitable" for most of the year. And spinning a primary/caucus result is all about expectations. Now, with her loss in Iowa, expectations of her are in a reasonable place (where they were catastrophically high before). I sincerely hope she decides she doesn't have to go negative against Obama, because i believe that will only hurt her more. And everyone needs to remember, this one won't be decided until Super Tuesday (Feb. 5th), when a rather large chunk of the country will hold their Primaries all at the same time. And its entirely possible that it won't even be decided then.
But my point is that HRC is still viable on a national level...she just is being held back by the early states. Personally, i see it as Obama v. Clinton, with the edge going to Clinton (but we'll see if her national appeal is lessened after NH). I'm ignoring Edwards, who i don't care enough about to spend many words on.
Either way, i'd be happy with an Obama or Clinton Presidency, and less thrilled about an Edwards one. Just below Edwards would be McCain, then Guliani, and then after that i would shoot myself (not really, but the sentiment is there).
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Wheel of Time
In case anyone hadn't heard...
Wheel of Time news
Life has been on and off for me these past few weeks. Promise an update soon =P
~m
Wheel of Time news
Life has been on and off for me these past few weeks. Promise an update soon =P
~m
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)