![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
So apparently there's much a-buzz about a certain It in Austin, TX these past few days. (as pointed out by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
notapipe) Long story short?
Wife of Republican governor (of TX) supposedly leaving him soon.
Supposed Reason: "...his extramarital excursions of the male variety." (quoted from here)
Yes, you've read that right. (There's much relevant linkage here, here, and here.)
The other guy, supposedly?
Apparently it's the Secretary of State.
::twitch:: dudeonastick I don't think I can make this up if I tried.
oh. aheh. ::hides the polislash:: ahem. you know what I mean...
And it's not even the fact that the intimation of a relationship makes me cackle with glee of a very![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
current_affairs and LexLuthorInOffice sort of way. It's not even the fact that this is hypocrisy right in the face of it all and etc. etc.
'Cause right now I'm kinda torn between the "don't bash the gay!" with the "you spineless, powergrubbing asswipe." ('cause Republican Gov. from Texas who signed certain 'marriage' related bills? yes.)
I kinda just pity him, if it's true, because the dude signed the TX defense of marriage act and there's pretty much near no place he can go to get support now. The right-wingers hate his guts, the liberals hate his guts, and everyone else is screaming "hypocrite!" The poor schmuck. Kinda makes you want to tar and feather him, eh?
[]
And a semi-related touch on the topic ofwayfairer's rant on the slasher who was against gay marriage...
::twitchy::
okay, I'm just kinda gonna put my neck out there an mention that even though the stance seems awful strange, perhaps it's not *entirely* off-the-wall?
I mean, one could read non-con, and not support it right?
*Granted*, rape hurts other people, whereas the argument goes that homosexuality involves two concenting adults and thus hurts no one.
However, the view *exists* that gay marriage will hurt other people, too, and no matter how illogical that view may seem, it is held and believed in and I'm not sure a rant will entirely *work* (although the prescence of a rant makes *me* feel better).
An example perhaps:
Many of the asians in my aquaintance are familiar with the practice of assigning kids problem sets of math and grammar as soon as it the concepts could be pounded into their little heads; afterschool tutoring, for as much as could be handled, piano lessons down the throat and violin lessons if you can manage.
It's a method of developing mental discipline, you might say, and I've come across people who were *horrified* at the concept, who've said that it is *detrimental* to the kids (that it *hurts* the kids) and that they've never met a happy asian family.
And yet *I'm* still probably gonna do the same for my kids, because *I* believe that the early training has helped my mind develop and that *I* believe that it does no harm.
::shrugs:: Now, I know the example may not be the best, and the parallels are weak but. My point is, it's all subjective, no?
And, yes perhaps it's true thatguardian_writer was out of line in stating her opinion, I haven't had a chance to read her exact words, and I'm not quite sure how much she was aware that her words were a direct slap in the face to possibly a significant percentage of her friendslist, but I'm glad that she made her opinion known.
Stunned at the tactlessness and absurdity and hypocrisy of it, but glad nevertheless.
It's in the same way that I'm glad forwayfairer's rant, even though I kinda feel that the rant might not entirely get through, on an argumentative basis, because of how automatically defensive the person to whom it is addressed might get. As a stump speech, it is marvelous, it is wonderful for rallying the troops and making one feel justified and happy on our moral high ground.
As a persuasive argument however, it...might not get heard, if y'know what I mean. I kinda feel that it might fall short of it's goal of persuasion, since no ground was given, no leeway, no mercy.
I'm not sure which Book of War (Sun Tsu or Machiavelli or ?) it is where it state to never corner an enemy; do so and they'll have no retreat. Do so and they'll have nothing to lose, and can you say flame war? yes.
::wry smile:: In any case, voila! Welcome to the rammifications of free speech!
'Cause really?
Free speech means that I have a responsibility to be offended, sometimes on a daily basis, and not to 'strike' back but rather to carefully 'engage'.
Free speech (in it's plural form, in society, in context) not only means to be able to rant at will in one's own corner of the 'net or the world or whereever one might be, but to be challenged in the speaking.
And in some way...In some way it's better, ne?, to be challenged in the speaking. It's veritable proof that you (as a person, as an entity, as an experience, as a group of thoughts, as a bunch of ideas) are not only not alone, but that you are unique.
Or at least that's how I view it.
[]
In sight of the previous rant on free speech, may I extend hugs tocalichan, ladyjaida, fabu, stephdray, carmarthen, marquesate, lasergirl69, cawti, franzeska, d_r_o_n_e, and every which one of you that've ever willingly [or not? ::wink::] discussed a topic on which we've disagreed. I'm a brat sometimes when I argue (and I try to watch that though I sometimes don't succeed) and please know that I always enjoy the different opinions and viewpoints presented because ya'll are so refreshingly diverse.
[]
...::blinkies:: y'know. I wonder how much my frustration/bratty-ness comes through in my writing.
...
::blush::
erm. aheh.
Let's just say that the 'delete' key? It's a blessing.
Then again, I'm firmly of the 'bite your tongue if you can't say it nicely' philosophy (in its "nice=precise=effective" definition). So.
[]
Along perhaps similar topics, an old censorship post byprzed, and a post rejecting the use of the "semicolon" argument to impede conservative protestors by theferrett (pointed out by wayfairer).
The last in particular I like and find telling. My personal reactions occur something along the lines of "Well, it's about *time* that someone 'cheated' for civil rights!" and being vaguely guilty at that thought because you don't *stoop* to your opponent's level and THEN being appalled because, dude, that's so gryffindor and you can't get nowhere if you don't have at *least* as effective tactics as the opposition.
::sporfle:: welcome to my brain.
notapipe) Long story short?Wife of Republican governor (of TX) supposedly leaving him soon.
Supposed Reason: "...his extramarital excursions of the male variety." (quoted from here)
Yes, you've read that right. (There's much relevant linkage here, here, and here.)
The other guy, supposedly?
Apparently it's the Secretary of State.
::twitch:: dudeonastick I don't think I can make this up if I tried.
oh. aheh. ::hides the polislash:: ahem. you know what I mean...
And it's not even the fact that the intimation of a relationship makes me cackle with glee of a very
current_affairs and LexLuthorInOffice sort of way. It's not even the fact that this is hypocrisy right in the face of it all and etc. etc. 'Cause right now I'm kinda torn between the "don't bash the gay!" with the "you spineless, powergrubbing asswipe." ('cause Republican Gov. from Texas who signed certain 'marriage' related bills? yes.)
I kinda just pity him, if it's true, because the dude signed the TX defense of marriage act and there's pretty much near no place he can go to get support now. The right-wingers hate his guts, the liberals hate his guts, and everyone else is screaming "hypocrite!" The poor schmuck. Kinda makes you want to tar and feather him, eh?
[]
And a semi-related touch on the topic of
wayfairer's rant on the slasher who was against gay marriage...::twitchy::
okay, I'm just kinda gonna put my neck out there an mention that even though the stance seems awful strange, perhaps it's not *entirely* off-the-wall?
I mean, one could read non-con, and not support it right?
*Granted*, rape hurts other people, whereas the argument goes that homosexuality involves two concenting adults and thus hurts no one.
However, the view *exists* that gay marriage will hurt other people, too, and no matter how illogical that view may seem, it is held and believed in and I'm not sure a rant will entirely *work* (although the prescence of a rant makes *me* feel better).
An example perhaps:
Many of the asians in my aquaintance are familiar with the practice of assigning kids problem sets of math and grammar as soon as it the concepts could be pounded into their little heads; afterschool tutoring, for as much as could be handled, piano lessons down the throat and violin lessons if you can manage.
It's a method of developing mental discipline, you might say, and I've come across people who were *horrified* at the concept, who've said that it is *detrimental* to the kids (that it *hurts* the kids) and that they've never met a happy asian family.
And yet *I'm* still probably gonna do the same for my kids, because *I* believe that the early training has helped my mind develop and that *I* believe that it does no harm.
::shrugs:: Now, I know the example may not be the best, and the parallels are weak but. My point is, it's all subjective, no?
And, yes perhaps it's true that
guardian_writer was out of line in stating her opinion, I haven't had a chance to read her exact words, and I'm not quite sure how much she was aware that her words were a direct slap in the face to possibly a significant percentage of her friendslist, but I'm glad that she made her opinion known.Stunned at the tactlessness and absurdity and hypocrisy of it, but glad nevertheless.
It's in the same way that I'm glad for
wayfairer's rant, even though I kinda feel that the rant might not entirely get through, on an argumentative basis, because of how automatically defensive the person to whom it is addressed might get. As a stump speech, it is marvelous, it is wonderful for rallying the troops and making one feel justified and happy on our moral high ground. As a persuasive argument however, it...might not get heard, if y'know what I mean. I kinda feel that it might fall short of it's goal of persuasion, since no ground was given, no leeway, no mercy.
I'm not sure which Book of War (Sun Tsu or Machiavelli or ?) it is where it state to never corner an enemy; do so and they'll have no retreat. Do so and they'll have nothing to lose, and can you say flame war? yes.
::wry smile:: In any case, voila! Welcome to the rammifications of free speech!
'Cause really?
Free speech means that I have a responsibility to be offended, sometimes on a daily basis, and not to 'strike' back but rather to carefully 'engage'.
Free speech (in it's plural form, in society, in context) not only means to be able to rant at will in one's own corner of the 'net or the world or whereever one might be, but to be challenged in the speaking.
And in some way...In some way it's better, ne?, to be challenged in the speaking. It's veritable proof that you (as a person, as an entity, as an experience, as a group of thoughts, as a bunch of ideas) are not only not alone, but that you are unique.
Or at least that's how I view it.
[]
In sight of the previous rant on free speech, may I extend hugs to
calichan, ladyjaida, fabu, stephdray, carmarthen, marquesate, lasergirl69, cawti, franzeska, d_r_o_n_e, and every which one of you that've ever willingly [or not? ::wink::] discussed a topic on which we've disagreed. I'm a brat sometimes when I argue (and I try to watch that though I sometimes don't succeed) and please know that I always enjoy the different opinions and viewpoints presented because ya'll are so refreshingly diverse.[]
...::blinkies:: y'know. I wonder how much my frustration/bratty-ness comes through in my writing.
...
::blush::
erm. aheh.
Let's just say that the 'delete' key? It's a blessing.
Then again, I'm firmly of the 'bite your tongue if you can't say it nicely' philosophy (in its "nice=precise=effective" definition). So.
[]
Along perhaps similar topics, an old censorship post by
przed, and a post rejecting the use of the "semicolon" argument to impede conservative protestors by theferrett (pointed out by wayfairer).The last in particular I like and find telling. My personal reactions occur something along the lines of "Well, it's about *time* that someone 'cheated' for civil rights!" and being vaguely guilty at that thought because you don't *stoop* to your opponent's level and THEN being appalled because, dude, that's so gryffindor and you can't get nowhere if you don't have at *least* as effective tactics as the opposition.
::sporfle:: welcome to my brain.
no subject
My best friends have opposite opinions to me on most things and we sometimes burst out laughing because we cannot possibly agree, but we respect each other and we know we are opinionated.
I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate (can I add some more 'hates', please? ;-) people who always do a meak 'in my humble opnion' or 'may/might I please possibly say that I might possibly have this wee little totally unimportant opinion'.
(exagerrations? Moi? No.... :-)
Why? I mean you have an opinion, fine, GO ON! Say it out loud, be controversial if you want to be but stick to your bloody opinions and don't crawl/spit-lick or do the humble-act.
Stay true to yourself and what you believe in. Opinions are good, rants are good, and even serious pissed-offedness is good. Is all good, just as long as one doesn't humble and bow down. Pah!
Re:
'Cause thing is, more often than not you're not always dealing with friends in regards to whatever the disagreement is. Sometimes the respect *isn't* there. It might not even be casual aquaintances, and I understand the need to not bow down BUT there's also a need to arrive to a place where you'd both be equally heard.
And it's not always the case that the loudest and proudest one will win the case, 'cause sometimes I simply don't have the lung power. And it is amazing how sometimes a "pardon me?" will smooth the way for discussion.
All in all, I would rather do a 'humble-act' than be misunderstood; especially considering that my journal is generally unlocked and basically anybody could browse.
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
Re:
no subject
allowing men to marry men, and women to marry women, is not within the church's best interest (but as church and state are now separate, that wouldn't really pose an issue), but neither within the state's. the only compelling REASON same-sex marriages should be allowed is the highly personal statement that "everyone should be allowed to love who they want", and as obvious as this may seem to most of us, it is not something that can be formulated and argued in legal terms (also, you ARE allowed to love whomever you want, and even live with whomever you want; it's just the technical term "marriage" and its traditional and financial advantages that are out of your reach).
there are no real advantages to the state in allowing same-sex marriages, other than perhaps a somewhat higher percentage of happy citizens, which honestly isn't that big a concern when you have money tipping the scale. it can be argued that a gay couple doesn't breed, thus negating the whole "point" of marriage as an institution.
and i'm not saying that these aren't outdated views from the angle of our newer society, or that i'm against same-sex marriage (in fact i am very much for), but as we push further and further towards individualism and liberalism, we have to keep in mind the aspects that make up society: what's best for you isn't always best for the group, and vice versa.
...also, isn't the question of same-sex marriage mainly (if not purely) a Christian debate? considering we have religious freedom in most western countries, it's kind of an interesting log to throw onto the fire.
Re:
the only compelling REASON same-sex marriages should be allowed is the highly personal statement that "everyone should be allowed to love who they want"
because it's gotten to be more on a civil rights issue as well, were the financial advantages aren't there. True, the financial advantages are there *because* a breeding couple is advantageous to the state. However, that would therefore pretty much negate anybody who's barren or sterile and couples who choose to remain childless. ::shrugs::
but as we push further and further towards individualism and liberalism, we have to keep in mind the aspects that make up society: what's best for you isn't always best for the group, and vice versa.
ooo, also a good argument. I was going more for the 'different perspectives' angle than not, though that statement will get you into the quagmire of the "What's best for the country" debate (which, actually, I think our democratic candidates are duking out right at this moment ::snicker:: poor fellows, America is a tough crowd, to say the least).
isn't the question of same-sex marriage mainly (if not purely) a Christian debate?
Well, there's the matter of civil rights, really, with the differentiation of that and 'marriage' and the "Separate is NOT equal" argument that's paralleled in Brown vs. Board of Education (ie. the segregation of blacks and whites in the school system)
Re:
Re:
no subject
I'm still trying to clarify my thoughts on the anti-gay marriage slasher and I may post more about this on my journal, but the short answer, for me, has to do with objectification. There's an accusation that's levied at slashers that we're objectifying gay men and homosexual desire for our own sexual fulfillment. Generally, I think this is hogwash, but in the case of someone who believes homosexual *behavior* is wrong and yet reads, and more importantly *writes* slash, I feel it is somewhat accurate.
The original post has been deleted or friends locked, so I can't read the writer's exact words, but from what was quoted in someone else's journal, she seems to be saying that it's ok for her to be aroused by reading / writing about homosexuality, but not for homosexual individuals to enjoy their sexuality. It feels disrespectful to a whole community of people, in a way that chan or noncon doesn't. Perhaps this is because people don't generally publicly identify themselves as pedophiles or rapists. Perhaps it's also because fanfic generally handles chan and noncon in a fantastical way, which encourages the viewer to disassociate the depiction from reality.
I also can't remember when we disagreed, certainly I've never seen you act like "a brat"!
no subject
As for the anti-gay-marriage slasher? I seriously wonder what she thought her friendslist and/or lj readership was composed of, because there's several prominent slashers on her friendslist who are activists and/or out, to post something like that in an unlocked post is really asking for it.
Even still, I think it's perhaps better known than kept festered.
As for the last, I think we've disagreed somewhere down the line because I participate in you frequent LJ discussions...I'm not exactly sure which. As for the brattiness, let me just bless the 'delete' key. ;)
no subject
♥
(I'm sick too if it's any consolation. probably isn't, but... hehh.)
Re:
no subject
But I definitely agree with you that the response post was probably too forceful. It was a rant, through and through, and I didn't agree with how it presented parts of its case.
Re:
*snerkling*
No wonder the White House Gnome is so defensive all the time.
::giggles::
Re: ::giggles::
Re: ::giggles::
Re: ::giggles::
Re: ::giggles::
Re: ::giggles::
Re: ::giggles::
Re:
And I'm not entirely sure you could call it 'presenting' its case although it *would* induce much flag waving. All in all, I feel it serves as a rallying cry more than a persuasive document to the opposition (which, heh, might actually tie in neatly with my 'intended' social audience vs. 'actual' literary audience post that I've mentioned in my bad!fic post).
Re:
no subject
Hee! Hey, I respect anyone who can challange me in an argument. I have no time for people that back down. XD;; Particularly since sometimes I'm not right at all!
Re:
Yeah, her profile doesn't even say where she's from, and I don't know for sure, but her environment probably would have a great deal to say if they knew of her fandom activities. Her most recent post states that she's taking a bit of a break from it and I do hope that she does some soul searching...
no subject
So really, I feel a bit sorry for her. I think I'd be rather miserable if I were ashamed of myself for writing slash, especially considering the amount of free time I've devoted to this particular hobby. I *don't* think there is anything morally wrong with gay marriage. Just the opposite. I think it is morally wrong to deny gay people the right to marry. I do hope that she either changes her beliefs or withdraws herself from the slash community. Because if she *doesn't* have some sort of conversion, she'll probably end up being a pariah in the community anyway.
Personally, I don't have a problem with anything she said. I don't agree with any of it, but I won't take issue with it. However, if I were on her friends list, I would probably defriend her, simply because I don't see the point of having someone on my friends list whose fundamental beliefs are diametrically opposed to mine.
And as to the political scandal -- *sporfle* That's fricking hilarious!!! The governor of Texas?!?!?
Re:
mehp, there's so much drama already about it that I'm not sure if she'd be able to go back to 'business at usual'. She *could* create a whole 'nother LJ and pseudonom, but it would be horribly tho, if she wanted to carry over any of her previous writings...
::grins:: and yes. Governor of Texas. Signed the freaking defense of marriage act too.
Oh, and get this:
That's from the 'Secretary of State' link I have in the post. Connor is the SoS, Perry is the Governor, to "spend more time with family" is a badly abused replacement for "no comment"...::grins::
no subject
And hugs back at ya. I'll walk away from a screaming match, but I'll happily engage in an civilized exploration of disimilar opinions. Luckily, most of the folks I 'talk' to on a regular basis are relatively civilized.
But I'm not sure that I agree with 'offended' in your statement above. I see offensive things on a daily basis and will recoil and avert my attention. I prefer the thought of being challenged, of having my normal pattern of life disrupted enough to force me to examine my preconceptions, my assumptions and my routine. Being offended doesn't trigger an introspective reaction; I'll turn away with a grimace. It's the difference between Mapplethrope and Larry Flynt, I think.
Re:
Being offended doesn't trigger an introspective reaction
...which was part of the point I was trying to make. The rant I've linked to seems to me like an 'offended' reaction; some people just turn away when offended while others go on the attack. Being offended doesn't *naturally* trigger an introspective reaction, and I find that I myself usually just turn away and when I realize that I'm doing it I turn back.
For a long long time I didn't *let* myself get offended, partially because I didn't even recognize that I was being offended and partially because I was protecting myself from the majority of things that offend me.
In effect I was stunting my own right to freedom of speech because I didn't want to admit there was anything that needed saying.
Re:
Re:
Story
Comment too long: Part 1
The item the second: WHOOOO!! Touched a hot button here, for me:
Many of the asians in my aquaintance are familiar with the practice of assigning kids problem sets of math and grammar as soon as it the concepts could be pounded into their little heads; afterschool tutoring, for as much as could be handled, piano lessons down the throat and violin lessons if you can manage.
It's a method of developing mental discipline, you might say, and I've come across people who were *horrified* at the concept, who've said that it is *detrimental* to the kids (that it *hurts* the kids) and that they've never met a happy asian family.
And yet *I'm* still probably gonna do the same for my kids, because *I* believe that the early training has helped my mind develop and that *I* believe that it does no harm.
I'm much in the camp of those who say, yes, it does very much harm. [NB: I'm discussing this here, not to be poking you with a pointy stick, but because you seem to enjoy the "reasoned discourse from opposing points of view" as evidenced by item the third]
I believe it would be far more fair to say the intense drill-and-performance routine for children is not at all harmful to some, only a little harmful to the vast majority of children, and vastly unfair and destructive to a small subset of the population.
Some kids are just born sensitive, artistic types. My eldest is that way. (okay, treading over into her personal life here, which is one of my no-no's but...in a just and worthy cause, and maybe saving *your* hypothetical someday child from the pain of a mum who doesn't understand.) EK is the sort of kid who was born empathic. She has only recently managed to play competitive games (she turned 10 on Monday) without crying...WHEN SHE WOULD WIN. She stopped crying over losing when she was 3, developmentally appropriate and all that. She cried for winning because she could feel the other person's disappointment so intensely. EK is chewed up alive in pieces by a traditional classroom, and tends to focus far too strongly on the things she is interested in. Giving her a drilling regimen would be tantamount to teaching her how to focus all of her Obsessive and Compulsive tendencies on academics. This would result, if she managed to survive it, in an adult who associated the joy of learning and education with her own worst aspects of mental health.
If she survived it. ANd here's why I'm airing her inner soul, without her permission, on the internet.
EK has friends. SOme of her friends, as one might imagine living in the bay area, are asian, both racially and culturally. One of these friends we've known since the girls were just babies. This friend just turned 11. Only child, apple of her parents eye, no expense spared in her private-school education, piano, violin, tae kwan do, extra drills every night, tutoring, top of her class, every year since kindergarten (and how fucked is that? class rankings announced in Kindergarten!!). She's the golden child. the one who will grow up to be the CEO, the President, the frickin' power behind the throne someday.
This friend just attempted suicide. At just-shy of 11. (Messily, and rather inexpertly, thank any deity who is listening. amen.) Because she was afraid to face her parents. Because death seemed like a better alternative than telling them she wanted to stop the after-school tutoring, so she could see some of her friends more often.
Some kids are harmed by a culture that tells them that focus and academic achievement on paper is the be-all and end-all of life. The valedictorain of my high school class committed suicide, rather than tell her parents she'd flunked a class, that first quarter off at Columbia.
Certainly, many many kids come through those sorts of trials no where near as damaged by the experience. But some do. It is the duty of every parent to look, long and hard, at their preconceptions of how to raise children, and see how well that model fits this particular child.
Re: Comment too long: Part 1
hear hear. The main problem with the early tutoring model, I think, is that too many parents use it as a babysitting substitute, which is very much of the no. It's like the flip side of the wrong that is to just plunk kids in front of a TV all day, and really needs to be tempered with personal attention too.
MUCH hugs for your perceptiveness about your daughter and how you've adapted it to the way you've raised her, too many people would have just resorted to drugs or what have you and made her just 'deal' with the school system.
As for the girl? Yeah, there's much of those stories. There quite a lot coming from Japan especially, with the way their high schools and universities have entrance exams: you hear 11 year olds getting ulcers and heart problems, it's insane...
Re: Comment too long: Part 1
Comment too long: Part 2
But I think your analogy is a good one. Don't ban the practice of the drilling and focusing young minds, in the interests of education. But also, don't apply a single standard wily-nily (willy-nilly?), to everyone.
Because sometimes the thing that has 4 hooves like a horse, two ears like a horse, long legs like a horse, swishy tail like a horse, and gallops in herds across the plains?
Is a Zebra.
Re: Comment too long: Part 2
Is a Zebra.
XD
I don't think anybody had explained this issue in *quite* such a way; but so true.
Re: Zebra
no subject
And... yeah, you don't know me, I just wandered in via
Re:
nah, no worries, apparently all involved was trying to keep it very very much on the down low, only apparently it's slowly approaching the level of an open secret...
::glomp:: and welcome to the insanity! feel free to browse or haul out the pitchforks, as need be...
no subject
I also have to say I agree with you about
I'm not one with the tact either, though. >.>;;
It's also possible that, had I read the original post, I would have been on the same level with
Also, just thought I'd note that your posts brighten my dingy-est days. . .even though I don't always agree with you. ^_-
Re:
aww ::blush:: thankee. ::glomp:: that makes me happy on many levels.
no subject
Personally, I think it's all inflammatory reactionary bunk. And I will freely admit that a large part of my opinion is based on the fact that not even the independent media in Austin has said peep about this supposed huge scandal that will rock the Texas government.
If he hasn't been served with papers yet, then the only people who'd know about it are Mrs. Perry and her lawyers. And I find it very hard to believe that if there was a leak from "credible inside sources" that they wouldn't bother to tell the press. Convenient, that.
Re:
Anyhoo, it's either 1) absolutely nothing, 2) a major coverup by the conservative press, 3) rumor-mongering. But if there's a chance that it might be true, I might as well pass along word to keep an eye out.
And if it's false? ::wry grin:: It's really nothing more than what the LOTRips fandom gets up to daily.
no subject
Apparently it's the Secretary of State.
Oh Holy God. That's brilliant. I'm torn between indignation at his hypochrisy (and low-down, slimy, adulterous cheating) and a certain horrified delight.
If this turns out to be true and the story breaks and hits the mass media, then my two favourite potical scandals ever (the Alexander Hamilton/Aaron Burr duel in 1804 and Congressman Preston Brooks clubbing Senator Charles Sumner over the head with his cane on the Senate floor in 1856) have just been joined by a third.
I can't wait for this to hit CNN.
As for Wayfarer's rant--For the most part, I'm right up there next to her cheering her on. While I sympathise with people who truly believe that gay marriage is against God, stating so while writing and reading slash is bloody hypocritical.
One pet peeve, though: The phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. It's from The Declaration of Independence. Therefore, it's not a Constitutional right.
Re:
see, there's a really good chance that even if it *is* true, it'll never hit the press. You'll have people taking time off to "be with their families" and a careful slide from public spotlight...
Re:
no subject
*ambles off*
Re:
no subject
no subject
no subject
Re:
no subject
I agree with
Re:
Re: