I'm home from a long day at work and soothing my tired mind and body by catching up with the online world.
Money is tight right now for me, and I'm taking advantage of winter break to work as many hours as they'll give me at the book store. Of course, the holiday season falls in the middle of all of this, and I'm sure we can all agree that no matter what holiday you celebrate, it tends to be somewhat expensive.
One thing I will say about this year, compared to my other years working in retail during the holidays, is that the people I've encountered so far have been pretty nice. It always feels so much better to help people when they've been decent to you. This time of year usually seems to bring out all the frustrated, cranky, and rude people (quite often non-readers shopping for readers) who avoid social interaction the rest of the year. But so far this year the pleasant people outnumber the jerks, and on behalf of all my fellow employees, I thank all of you who are nice to those of us who are truly doing our best to get you what you're looking for.
The best thing about working in a bookstore is that most of the customers are readers, though I do work at one of those chains that also carry DVDs and CDs, so that's not always a guarantee. But when you're dealing with someone who is a reader, no matter what they read, there is usually a common bond between you on some level, and I love that. I don't think people who work in other forms of retail get that very often.
The holiday I celebrate is Christmas, and I'd like to take this moment to ask Santa to leave Jake Gyllenhaal under my tree this year, wearing nothing but a big red bow and that Santa hat from Jarhead.
About a month ago, I had a birthday. My friends all wanted to take me to see a movie, and their original plan was to take me to see Elizabethtown. It's time to confess an embarrassing secret. I used to like Orlando Bloom waaay too much. What can I say? I really like guys with British accents and he totally did it for me in Pirates of the Caribbean. But that's the only thing he's ever done that hasn't sucked, in my opinion. Now, don't be bombarding me with e-mails, all you Lord of the Rings fans. Those movies just aren't my cup of tea. I think they present a really ridiculous good vs evil, black or white, overly simplistic picture of the world. It's far too easy to watch those movies and hear Bush saying "You're either with us or against us." That's the kind of mindset those movies embody for me.
Anyway, back to my embarrassing crush on Orlando Bloom. So, my friends all know that he was my guy not so long ago and were set on taking me to see Elizabethtown. The last Orlando movie I bothered to actually see was Troy, which pissed me off because it eliminated the part of the story where Achilles goes mad over his LOVER'S death by changing Patroclus into his cousin. Please!
My waning affection for pretty boy Orlando and the dismal reviews for his latest film lead to me suggesting we pick a different movie, and we ended up going to see Jarhead. Jake Gyllenhaal is one of those guys who can be either really hot or kind of scary looking (he did nothing for me in The Good Girl, for instance), but lately he's been looking oh so fine. I really love the hairy chest and he's got one of the hottest treasure trails I've ever seen.
Jarhead was an okay film. For entertainment value, it didn't do all that much for me, other than giving me a chance to ogle Jake. But I did think it dealt very well with a lot of the harsh realities of a soldier's life, especially after they've been to war and more or less tossed aside (I'm talking about the flashback to Jake's father, a Vietnam vet, and the end of the movie itself).
I really can't wait to see Brokeback Mountain, speaking of Jake. My only concern is that they won't come near to doing justice to the short story, which is truly beautiful. It's about time, though, that Hollywood presented a gay love story between two men who are the idealized version of 'manhood' (ie cowboys) and just happen to be gay. They're still so stuck on the accepted stereotypes of gay men for the most part.
Anyway, I guess that's all for tonight. I just wanted to write because I've been a very bad blogger so far. I freely admit this and hope to do better.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Mea Culpa
Okay, okay. I seriously misjudged the amount of time I'd have free on a holiday weekend. And the week since has been what is affectionately termed 'Dead Week' here on campus.
Now, I hear these wild tales that some colleges actually give students the week off from classes to study in the week before finals, hence the name 'Dead' week. Here, though, it's called Dead week because you're dealing with looming finals on top of classes and many Profs think it a dandy time to have projects or papers due.
Finals week starts tomorrow, but I think for me this term Dead Week was actually much worse, so I can actually start to breathe a bit easier. Once my finals are behind me, I'll have a month of 'freedom', at least from classes.
Anyway! I've got a stack of things I've been jotting down to blog about for over a month now. Most of it is already hopelessly outdated, so I'm going to just start fresh.
I hope those of you who live in the United States had a pleasant Thanksgiving. I know dealing with family can be less than fun a lot of the time for most people. One of my favorite holiday films is Home For the Holidays. If you haven't seen this movie, you really should. It's very funny.
Still, I did enjoy seeing most of my family this year. I did have to refrain from throwing a turkey leg at one of my Aunts, though. This particular Aunt is a 36 year old single mother to a nearly five year old daughter. You'd think she'd have a lot of important things on her mind. But what was her main topic of conversation at dinner? The split between Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey!
I wish I were kidding, especially given the fact that most of the people at dinner had no idea who she was even talking about.
Don't get me wrong. Celebrity gossip can be fun at times. It has its place. And I don't mind saying that I wouldn't say no to a few sweaty hours of alone time with Nick Lachey should the opportunity present itself, though I'd hate myself the next day!
But this was clearly the topic that was of most interest to my Aunt and it depressed the hell out of me to see someone so given over to the inanities of pop culture (if you can even call Nick & Jessica that) and so blinded to anything that really mattered.
One such thing is the proposed splitting up of the Ninth Circuit court. I live in one of the states that will be most effected if such a thing occurs, and it's truly a scary thought. Yet if I'd raised the issue at dinner (and really, why didn't I? That's a failing on my part that I must own), I'm probably not wrong in thinking that no one would have had any idea it was being planned.
Bernie Sanders, the man who should and hopefully will be Senator Elect Sanders at this time next year, had some very important things to say on this topic in his recent interview with The Progressive.
Like with many issues, I seem to be one of the all too few around me who understands that what is happening in politics isn't just some distant sideshow you can tune in and out of and that has no bearing on your life. The Simpson/Lachey breakup would be what falls under that category.
Most people do just want to tune out, like my friend Andie who always proclaims "I don't want to talk about anything negative today!" While they're tuning out, things are getting worse. Maybe being a gay man lends me a more attuned awareness of how it all matters? If straight people had to watch the political climate to see if they could marry or not, maybe they'd pay more attention to Washington DC and less attention to the The Newlyweds?
No, that's not fair. And it's also not accurate. I've been gay all my life, but I used to be just as oblivious as others are. And Andie is a lesbian who just doesn't want to think about serious matters.
I guess I just had the good fortune to make a friend or two who were able to help me open my eyes to what was going on.
And maybe that's what we all need to do. Next time you're talking with a friend or sitting across from an Aunt at Thanksgiving dinner, listen politely to their in depth discussion of the current murder case du jour or the celebrity break up of the week, and then respond by going just as in depth on something that REALLY matters.
I'll have to keep that in mind for Christmas dinner.
Now, I hear these wild tales that some colleges actually give students the week off from classes to study in the week before finals, hence the name 'Dead' week. Here, though, it's called Dead week because you're dealing with looming finals on top of classes and many Profs think it a dandy time to have projects or papers due.
Finals week starts tomorrow, but I think for me this term Dead Week was actually much worse, so I can actually start to breathe a bit easier. Once my finals are behind me, I'll have a month of 'freedom', at least from classes.
Anyway! I've got a stack of things I've been jotting down to blog about for over a month now. Most of it is already hopelessly outdated, so I'm going to just start fresh.
I hope those of you who live in the United States had a pleasant Thanksgiving. I know dealing with family can be less than fun a lot of the time for most people. One of my favorite holiday films is Home For the Holidays. If you haven't seen this movie, you really should. It's very funny.
Still, I did enjoy seeing most of my family this year. I did have to refrain from throwing a turkey leg at one of my Aunts, though. This particular Aunt is a 36 year old single mother to a nearly five year old daughter. You'd think she'd have a lot of important things on her mind. But what was her main topic of conversation at dinner? The split between Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey!
I wish I were kidding, especially given the fact that most of the people at dinner had no idea who she was even talking about.
Don't get me wrong. Celebrity gossip can be fun at times. It has its place. And I don't mind saying that I wouldn't say no to a few sweaty hours of alone time with Nick Lachey should the opportunity present itself, though I'd hate myself the next day!
But this was clearly the topic that was of most interest to my Aunt and it depressed the hell out of me to see someone so given over to the inanities of pop culture (if you can even call Nick & Jessica that) and so blinded to anything that really mattered.
One such thing is the proposed splitting up of the Ninth Circuit court. I live in one of the states that will be most effected if such a thing occurs, and it's truly a scary thought. Yet if I'd raised the issue at dinner (and really, why didn't I? That's a failing on my part that I must own), I'm probably not wrong in thinking that no one would have had any idea it was being planned.
Bernie Sanders, the man who should and hopefully will be Senator Elect Sanders at this time next year, had some very important things to say on this topic in his recent interview with The Progressive.
Like with many issues, I seem to be one of the all too few around me who understands that what is happening in politics isn't just some distant sideshow you can tune in and out of and that has no bearing on your life. The Simpson/Lachey breakup would be what falls under that category.
Most people do just want to tune out, like my friend Andie who always proclaims "I don't want to talk about anything negative today!" While they're tuning out, things are getting worse. Maybe being a gay man lends me a more attuned awareness of how it all matters? If straight people had to watch the political climate to see if they could marry or not, maybe they'd pay more attention to Washington DC and less attention to the The Newlyweds?
No, that's not fair. And it's also not accurate. I've been gay all my life, but I used to be just as oblivious as others are. And Andie is a lesbian who just doesn't want to think about serious matters.
I guess I just had the good fortune to make a friend or two who were able to help me open my eyes to what was going on.
And maybe that's what we all need to do. Next time you're talking with a friend or sitting across from an Aunt at Thanksgiving dinner, listen politely to their in depth discussion of the current murder case du jour or the celebrity break up of the week, and then respond by going just as in depth on something that REALLY matters.
I'll have to keep that in mind for Christmas dinner.
Friday, November 04, 2005
E-Mails
Turning to the old e-mail inbox, I have two or three e-mails lamenting my naivete when it comes to electoral politics.
One, from Rose, wonders the following: "Do you really think that you can just urge people to kick certain politicians out of office and it's that easy? Hello, the system isn't controlled by the voters (and never was), it's controlled by MONEY. No candidate can gain enough voter recognition to get the vote unless they've got massive amounts of money, which means they're already tied to special interests and not working for those who vote for them. Until that changes, nothing in D.C. will change in the least."
Rose makes an excellent point, of course. To effect real wide scale change, we do need to see some serious, no-loop-hole electoral reform legislation pass, something that does take the money out of politics. There are many ideas out there that have been espoused for years by progressives, such as providing free air time to each candidate and having public funding of elections, that would be a huge step towards leveling the playing field and getting more people into office who actually care about public service.
But while Rose and others who wrote are right in what they say, it does come down to the voters in the end. If enough of us turn out and vote against someone, they're not going to be holding office. If enough progressive minded people got together and organized behind a candidate, be they Democrat, or Green or whatever, who was more progressive than the Incumbent, they'd stand a real chance of electing that candidate. And even if they didn't actually succeed in electing them, they'd still be demonstrating to the Democratic party that they're going to be facing serious challenges from the left if they don't quite moving away from their base.
We won't get serious reform of the corrupted electoral system until we send more serious reformers to Congress. Maybe if more of us got out and did something besides just voting (which is obviously very important in and of itself!), we could help get alternative candidates elected in both primaries and general elections. Volunteer for a Green candidate or a truly progressive Democrat, help them raise their visibility and get their ideas out there in a system that is indeed stacked against them from the beginning.
It's easier on a local level, of course, and it's equally important that we fill state and local offices with progressive candidates. But, naive or not, I do truly believe that we can bring about change if we work hard enough. We can start the ball rolling.
Nose_in_a_Book (love the name!) writes to ask what I've been reading since the last time I mentioned what I was reading. Well, just as I've had so little time to blog lately, I've also had less time than I'd like to read. Bearing that in mind, the books that are currently stacked up on my bedside table in the process of being read are Nicholson Baker's A Box Of Matches; Bernard Malamud's A New Life; David Lodge's Small World; and David Leavitt's The Body of Jonah Boyd. Then, of course, there are various anthologies and collections (short story anthologies such as several volumes of The Best American Short Stories series & the Penguin Book of Gay Short Stories; essay collections like Gore Vidal's United States) that I'm always slowly working my way through and enjoying, one story or essay at a time.
And of course, my stack of magazines. I subscribe to several weekly, monthly, and quarterly magazines and I'm always doing my best (and often failing!) to keep up with them in addition to everything else.
I have an e-mail from a reader wondering which of the TV reviews on Third Estate Sunday Review is my very favorite. That's a tough question, because each weekend those reviews are truly the highlight of my Sunday morning. I'm going to have to be honest and say that my favorite is whichever one I'm reading on any given Sunday morning, and last weekend's review of Freddie was no exception!
I laughed so hard while reading it, and I recognized so much truth amid the humor. This one especially rang true, because Freddie Prinze Jr was totally the sort of blandly sexy, safe crush I used to have a few years back! Of course, for me he was even then always overshadowed by others. I mean, you can't watch I Know What You Did Last Summer and come away with any other male image in mind besides Ryan Phillippe's locker room shower/towel scene!
Speaking of Ryan, my ultimate crush of days gone by, I recently saw the movie Crash. I have to tell you, I was seriously impressed with the film itself, and with most of the performances. It's one of those all too rare films that really makes you think, and not just for a few minutes after the film ends. I think it's one of the best films dealing with the realities of racism in this country that I've ever seen. So if you haven't seen it, you should really think about renting it.
With that said, Ryan Philippe looked oh so pretty as always, and I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't still gladly take him to bed for a meaningless fling. But as usual, his performance was all surface. It just stood out more in a film where he was working with some truly talented actors, and which called for some real depth on his part.
Maybe one of these days, Ryan will end up trying to salvage his career with a TV show. Maybe he could even go back to his roots, having once played a gay teen character on the soap One Life to Live. Ryan's performances, based so much on looking hot while he fails to emote, are a staple of daytime TV these days. Someone should do him a favor and slip him the casting director's number at Passions.
One, from Rose, wonders the following: "Do you really think that you can just urge people to kick certain politicians out of office and it's that easy? Hello, the system isn't controlled by the voters (and never was), it's controlled by MONEY. No candidate can gain enough voter recognition to get the vote unless they've got massive amounts of money, which means they're already tied to special interests and not working for those who vote for them. Until that changes, nothing in D.C. will change in the least."
Rose makes an excellent point, of course. To effect real wide scale change, we do need to see some serious, no-loop-hole electoral reform legislation pass, something that does take the money out of politics. There are many ideas out there that have been espoused for years by progressives, such as providing free air time to each candidate and having public funding of elections, that would be a huge step towards leveling the playing field and getting more people into office who actually care about public service.
But while Rose and others who wrote are right in what they say, it does come down to the voters in the end. If enough of us turn out and vote against someone, they're not going to be holding office. If enough progressive minded people got together and organized behind a candidate, be they Democrat, or Green or whatever, who was more progressive than the Incumbent, they'd stand a real chance of electing that candidate. And even if they didn't actually succeed in electing them, they'd still be demonstrating to the Democratic party that they're going to be facing serious challenges from the left if they don't quite moving away from their base.
We won't get serious reform of the corrupted electoral system until we send more serious reformers to Congress. Maybe if more of us got out and did something besides just voting (which is obviously very important in and of itself!), we could help get alternative candidates elected in both primaries and general elections. Volunteer for a Green candidate or a truly progressive Democrat, help them raise their visibility and get their ideas out there in a system that is indeed stacked against them from the beginning.
It's easier on a local level, of course, and it's equally important that we fill state and local offices with progressive candidates. But, naive or not, I do truly believe that we can bring about change if we work hard enough. We can start the ball rolling.
Nose_in_a_Book (love the name!) writes to ask what I've been reading since the last time I mentioned what I was reading. Well, just as I've had so little time to blog lately, I've also had less time than I'd like to read. Bearing that in mind, the books that are currently stacked up on my bedside table in the process of being read are Nicholson Baker's A Box Of Matches; Bernard Malamud's A New Life; David Lodge's Small World; and David Leavitt's The Body of Jonah Boyd. Then, of course, there are various anthologies and collections (short story anthologies such as several volumes of The Best American Short Stories series & the Penguin Book of Gay Short Stories; essay collections like Gore Vidal's United States) that I'm always slowly working my way through and enjoying, one story or essay at a time.
And of course, my stack of magazines. I subscribe to several weekly, monthly, and quarterly magazines and I'm always doing my best (and often failing!) to keep up with them in addition to everything else.
I have an e-mail from a reader wondering which of the TV reviews on Third Estate Sunday Review is my very favorite. That's a tough question, because each weekend those reviews are truly the highlight of my Sunday morning. I'm going to have to be honest and say that my favorite is whichever one I'm reading on any given Sunday morning, and last weekend's review of Freddie was no exception!
I laughed so hard while reading it, and I recognized so much truth amid the humor. This one especially rang true, because Freddie Prinze Jr was totally the sort of blandly sexy, safe crush I used to have a few years back! Of course, for me he was even then always overshadowed by others. I mean, you can't watch I Know What You Did Last Summer and come away with any other male image in mind besides Ryan Phillippe's locker room shower/towel scene!
Speaking of Ryan, my ultimate crush of days gone by, I recently saw the movie Crash. I have to tell you, I was seriously impressed with the film itself, and with most of the performances. It's one of those all too rare films that really makes you think, and not just for a few minutes after the film ends. I think it's one of the best films dealing with the realities of racism in this country that I've ever seen. So if you haven't seen it, you should really think about renting it.
With that said, Ryan Philippe looked oh so pretty as always, and I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't still gladly take him to bed for a meaningless fling. But as usual, his performance was all surface. It just stood out more in a film where he was working with some truly talented actors, and which called for some real depth on his part.
Maybe one of these days, Ryan will end up trying to salvage his career with a TV show. Maybe he could even go back to his roots, having once played a gay teen character on the soap One Life to Live. Ryan's performances, based so much on looking hot while he fails to emote, are a staple of daytime TV these days. Someone should do him a favor and slip him the casting director's number at Passions.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Opposition Required
It's really not my intention to only post once a week. It's just worked out that way lately. I've had mid term exams, work, and the death of a pet to deal with in the past week.
And then, on top of all that, the nomination of Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. I expected a far right Conservative (and, honestly, I think that's what Miers was, too). This one comes with a long paper trail demonstrating his far right Judicial activism, which should make it easier for the Democrats to filibuster the nomination.
Of course, that could lead to the elimination of the filibuster, since the infamous 'Gang of 14' is said to be splintering. What a shock that the Republicans who agreed to that deal (that they would vote to protect the filibuster if the Democratic Senators would agree to only filibuster 'extreme' nominees) would break it the minute the issue arises!
The message the public is getting is that Congress will only be an independent branch of the Government when it suits the Religious Right. At least it's a message that's coming through loud and clear, and one that can only benefit the left in 2006.
One of the things that bothers me the most about the nomination of Alito, aside from the obvious, is that Bush would be cutting the number of women serving on the court in half. Do we really need another white male on the court? The answer to that is a resounding NO.
A picture from a few years back comes to mind. Remember when Congress passed that bill banning so called Partial Birth abortions, and the picture was of Bush, surrounded by a group of other white men, signing the bill into law as they all smiled?
Make one of the men African American and slap on some Judicial Robes, and you could have the future slim majority of five on the Roberts court as they take away a woman's right to choose.
The Democrats may be fighting a losing battle, but even if they are they've got to fight it. They can't back down from using the filibuster on Alito. If nothing else, it sends the strong message that the Democrats WILL be an Opposition Party. They may even be able to cobble together enough votes from some of those seven Republicans from the 'Gang of 14' or other more moderate Republicans to actually save the filibuster and keep Alito off the Supreme Court at the same time.
We'll never know unless they try.
The Senate Dems showed some backbone yesterday, surprisingly, by forcing the Senate into a closed session to discuss the lack of follow through by the Republicans on an investigation into the pre-War intelligence and the Bush Administration's possible manipulation of it. Let's hope they continue that trend of standing up and making themselves heard with Alito.
They also need to start an investigation immediately into the revelations today that the CIA is running a secret prison system for terror suspects in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and Thailand. We've seen what the Bush administration allows to happen to prisoners in non-secret prisons like Abu Ghraib. My blood runs cold at the thought of what the CIA are getting up to in the secret ones.
I'd say 'That's not America', but the sad fact is that it IS America these days, and we've got to put a stop to that.
I've got to work tonight. I have some e-mails to respond to, which I may write about after work tonight, but if I don't get to it then, I will tomorrow.
And then, on top of all that, the nomination of Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. I expected a far right Conservative (and, honestly, I think that's what Miers was, too). This one comes with a long paper trail demonstrating his far right Judicial activism, which should make it easier for the Democrats to filibuster the nomination.
Of course, that could lead to the elimination of the filibuster, since the infamous 'Gang of 14' is said to be splintering. What a shock that the Republicans who agreed to that deal (that they would vote to protect the filibuster if the Democratic Senators would agree to only filibuster 'extreme' nominees) would break it the minute the issue arises!
The message the public is getting is that Congress will only be an independent branch of the Government when it suits the Religious Right. At least it's a message that's coming through loud and clear, and one that can only benefit the left in 2006.
One of the things that bothers me the most about the nomination of Alito, aside from the obvious, is that Bush would be cutting the number of women serving on the court in half. Do we really need another white male on the court? The answer to that is a resounding NO.
A picture from a few years back comes to mind. Remember when Congress passed that bill banning so called Partial Birth abortions, and the picture was of Bush, surrounded by a group of other white men, signing the bill into law as they all smiled?
Make one of the men African American and slap on some Judicial Robes, and you could have the future slim majority of five on the Roberts court as they take away a woman's right to choose.
The Democrats may be fighting a losing battle, but even if they are they've got to fight it. They can't back down from using the filibuster on Alito. If nothing else, it sends the strong message that the Democrats WILL be an Opposition Party. They may even be able to cobble together enough votes from some of those seven Republicans from the 'Gang of 14' or other more moderate Republicans to actually save the filibuster and keep Alito off the Supreme Court at the same time.
We'll never know unless they try.
The Senate Dems showed some backbone yesterday, surprisingly, by forcing the Senate into a closed session to discuss the lack of follow through by the Republicans on an investigation into the pre-War intelligence and the Bush Administration's possible manipulation of it. Let's hope they continue that trend of standing up and making themselves heard with Alito.
They also need to start an investigation immediately into the revelations today that the CIA is running a secret prison system for terror suspects in Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and Thailand. We've seen what the Bush administration allows to happen to prisoners in non-secret prisons like Abu Ghraib. My blood runs cold at the thought of what the CIA are getting up to in the secret ones.
I'd say 'That's not America', but the sad fact is that it IS America these days, and we've got to put a stop to that.
I've got to work tonight. I have some e-mails to respond to, which I may write about after work tonight, but if I don't get to it then, I will tomorrow.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
A Week of Milestones
Man, I take a week 'off', and look at all that happens. Indictments are about to be handed out, Miers is pulled as the nominee to replace O'Connor, and the death toll of American troops in Iraq passes 2,000.
Speaking of which, I attended one of the many candlelight vigils held all over the country yesterday for the 2,000 Americans (not to mention the countless Iraqis) who have died in Bush's illegal war, and I have to say that it was a truly moving event. The thought of so many people, most of them already victims of this country's poverty epidemic and of what passes for an educational system here, losing their lives so that big business could get their hands on Iraq was devastating to all of us as we stood in the cold with our candles.
One woman standing near me was the mother of one of those lost soldiers, and her determination to see that this war is brought to an immediate end and that those who lied to us to force us into war are brought to justice was truly inspiring.
We're starting to see a glimmer at the end of that tunnel, I think. The Plame case is highlighting for everyone the lengths that this Administration went to get the all out war on Iraq that they wanted.
Now the Democrats need to wake up and realize that continuing to support this war will not do them any good. With so many now opposed to the war, I really wonder what it's going to take to wake them up to this reality. What are they waiting for, a time when the polls show 100% are against it?
It's yet another failure of the Democratic party to LEAD on anything. That's largely why we ended up in this mess in the first place, but they don't seem to have learned any lessons.
Which is why I was loudly cheering Cindy Sheehan this week when she called on us all to oppose Hillary Clinton in 2008 if she continues to support the war. That needs to be our stance with all candidates for high office, both next year in the Mid Term elections and in 2008. If they're not in support of bringing our troops home now, they don't get our votes. It's as simple as that.
John Kerry, meanwhile, is finally starting to get the idea, as he called for the withdrawl of 20,000 troops in December after Iraqi elections. Bit late, John, and way too short of the necessary total withdrawl. But at least you're starting down the right path, at long last.
It's sad that a Senator calling for a reduction is such a big new story, though. We should be hearing multiple Senators (and Members of the House, and Governors, and State officials), not just a precious few, joining in the chorus of the American people calling for immediate and total withdrawl. We need to make these people realize that they serve at our pleasure and we'll be holding them accountable on election day.
Well, Harriet Miers is no longer a Nominee for the Supreme Court. Clearly, the next step is for Bush to nominate a hardcore Conservative with a paper trail to prove it and please the people he really works for, the Religious Right. The upside is that the Democrats are pledged to filibuster any extreme nominees, so this could work in our favor. But anything that depends on Senate Democrats is a big if in my book.
Still, I firmly believe that Miers was just as much a hardcore conservative as John Roberts is and as whoever Bush nominates next will be. So we're not losing, as some are suggesting, a moderate nominee in favor of a Conservative one.
No matter how you look at this, it's a huge blow for the Bush White House. They're falling victim to the curse of the Second Term, and I couldn't be happier. By pulling this nomination, he's made himself look like the weak, lame duck President he's becoming, and he's also highlighting his indentured servitude to the Religious Right. After this, there can be no question in the minds of Americans who Bush's masters really are.
Call me optimistic, but I think all of this is going to work in our favor in a major way in 2006 and 2008. Even in the short term, it means we'll have O'Connor on the Court for the next few months at the very least, so the precarious balance there will be maintained.
And if you're still worried about what's going to happen with the Supreme Court (and who isn't?), you should read this Howard Zinn article in the new issue of The Progressive. Zinn reminds us that we shouldn't be looking to the Court (or Congress, or the White House) as the source of justice or for our basic rights.
Here's an excerpt, but you really should read the whole thing:
"The Constitution gave no rights to working people: no right to work less than twelve hours a day, no right to a living wage, no right to safe working conditions. Workers had to organize, go on strike, defy the law, the courts, the police, create a great movement which won the eight-hour day, and caused such commotion that Congress was forced to pass a minimum wage law, and Social Security, and unemployment insurance.
.................
Speaking of which, I attended one of the many candlelight vigils held all over the country yesterday for the 2,000 Americans (not to mention the countless Iraqis) who have died in Bush's illegal war, and I have to say that it was a truly moving event. The thought of so many people, most of them already victims of this country's poverty epidemic and of what passes for an educational system here, losing their lives so that big business could get their hands on Iraq was devastating to all of us as we stood in the cold with our candles.
One woman standing near me was the mother of one of those lost soldiers, and her determination to see that this war is brought to an immediate end and that those who lied to us to force us into war are brought to justice was truly inspiring.
We're starting to see a glimmer at the end of that tunnel, I think. The Plame case is highlighting for everyone the lengths that this Administration went to get the all out war on Iraq that they wanted.
Now the Democrats need to wake up and realize that continuing to support this war will not do them any good. With so many now opposed to the war, I really wonder what it's going to take to wake them up to this reality. What are they waiting for, a time when the polls show 100% are against it?
It's yet another failure of the Democratic party to LEAD on anything. That's largely why we ended up in this mess in the first place, but they don't seem to have learned any lessons.
Which is why I was loudly cheering Cindy Sheehan this week when she called on us all to oppose Hillary Clinton in 2008 if she continues to support the war. That needs to be our stance with all candidates for high office, both next year in the Mid Term elections and in 2008. If they're not in support of bringing our troops home now, they don't get our votes. It's as simple as that.
John Kerry, meanwhile, is finally starting to get the idea, as he called for the withdrawl of 20,000 troops in December after Iraqi elections. Bit late, John, and way too short of the necessary total withdrawl. But at least you're starting down the right path, at long last.
It's sad that a Senator calling for a reduction is such a big new story, though. We should be hearing multiple Senators (and Members of the House, and Governors, and State officials), not just a precious few, joining in the chorus of the American people calling for immediate and total withdrawl. We need to make these people realize that they serve at our pleasure and we'll be holding them accountable on election day.
Well, Harriet Miers is no longer a Nominee for the Supreme Court. Clearly, the next step is for Bush to nominate a hardcore Conservative with a paper trail to prove it and please the people he really works for, the Religious Right. The upside is that the Democrats are pledged to filibuster any extreme nominees, so this could work in our favor. But anything that depends on Senate Democrats is a big if in my book.
Still, I firmly believe that Miers was just as much a hardcore conservative as John Roberts is and as whoever Bush nominates next will be. So we're not losing, as some are suggesting, a moderate nominee in favor of a Conservative one.
No matter how you look at this, it's a huge blow for the Bush White House. They're falling victim to the curse of the Second Term, and I couldn't be happier. By pulling this nomination, he's made himself look like the weak, lame duck President he's becoming, and he's also highlighting his indentured servitude to the Religious Right. After this, there can be no question in the minds of Americans who Bush's masters really are.
Call me optimistic, but I think all of this is going to work in our favor in a major way in 2006 and 2008. Even in the short term, it means we'll have O'Connor on the Court for the next few months at the very least, so the precarious balance there will be maintained.
And if you're still worried about what's going to happen with the Supreme Court (and who isn't?), you should read this Howard Zinn article in the new issue of The Progressive. Zinn reminds us that we shouldn't be looking to the Court (or Congress, or the White House) as the source of justice or for our basic rights.
Here's an excerpt, but you really should read the whole thing:
"The Constitution gave no rights to working people: no right to work less than twelve hours a day, no right to a living wage, no right to safe working conditions. Workers had to organize, go on strike, defy the law, the courts, the police, create a great movement which won the eight-hour day, and caused such commotion that Congress was forced to pass a minimum wage law, and Social Security, and unemployment insurance.
.................
The right of a woman to an abortion did not depend on the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. It was won before that decision, all over the country, by grassroots agitation that forced states to recognize the right. If the American people, who by a great majority favor that right, insist on it, act on it, no Supreme Court decision can take it away.
The rights of working people, of women, of black people have not depended on decisions of the courts. Like the other branches of the political system, the courts have recognized these rights only after citizens have engaged in direct action powerful enough to win these rights for themselves."
Zinn is right, and we all need to be reminded that the real power for change comes from us and no one else. The people of the United States have forced every single change for the better that has occurred in this country's history. Nothing was handed to us by Courts or Congress, and nothing ever will be.
Zinn's faith in the people to stand up for what matters is one I share, especially after attending that vigil last night.
Certainly the death this week of Civil Rights pioneer Rosa Parks should be a striking reminder to us all of what one person can accomplish. But Rosa Parks wasn't alone in her determination to bring about change, and neither are we.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Harry & Harriet, Sittin' in a Tree.....
Things are a bit less hectic now, so hopefully I should be posting more regularly than I did this past week.
Where to start? With Miers, of course.
Seems that back in 1989, Harriet Miers supported a ban on all abortions except when the mother's life was in danger.
No one should really be surprised at this news. Bush was never going to nominate a moderate or anyone willing to put their personal beliefs aside in favor of the rule of law.
So now the far righters can breathe a sigh of relief and rush to confirm. And what of the Democrats? We've got a Minority Leader in the Senate who praised Miers the moment she was nominated and in fact bragged that he recommended her to Bush. How much of a fight are they going to put up now?
I say we should flood the Minority Leader's office with calls, letters and e-mails demanding his resignation as the leader of the Senate Democrats for his support of Miers. Reid himself is anti-choice and he seems to have made sure he recommended someone to Bush who held the same beliefs.
The danger with Miers is that all we really have to go on are her personal views. She hasn't ever been a Judge, so we have no way of knowing how she'll let those personal views affect her rulings. But given the views she has and the crowd she hangs around with, we can assume the worst.
We can assume that she'll help set back the clock on a woman's right to choose, on gay rights, and on civil rights in general. We can assume that she'll be a great friend to big business over individual citizens, and a supporter of the tyranny of the Administration she's served over all of our civil liberties.
And we can assume she'll do all this not based on a fair assessment of the law, but on political and ideological reasoning. That sort of Judicial activism has no place on any of our courts, let alone the highest one.
I'd have no problem with Miers or anyone who is personally anti-choice being appointed to the Supreme Court if they had a record that demonstrated that they put the law above personal ideology. No one should be blocked from any job based on personal views. But they should be blocked when they're going to make all decisions based on those views and nothing else.
These aren't abstract issues. These are people's very lives at stake. How many women will die from botched back alley abortions if these neo cons get their way?
This is my very life at stake. Forget for just a moment about the rights I should have but don't yet like the right to marry the person I love someday, or adopt a child anywhere in the country. My very right to have sex with another guy in my own bedroom could be taken away. It was only just officially guaranteed a couple of years ago, remember. My right not to be fired from a job (or to be hired at all) because of my sexuality could be taken away.
These are issues that matter to millions of real people in this country, and the Senate Democrats seem to be doing nothing about it. They need to oppose and filibuster Miers and any other nominee who either can't demonstrate they won't be an extremist on the court of has already demonstrated they will be.
I know how we got stuck with this gang of incompetent thugs in the White House. Some old fashioned electoral fraud (not once, but twice!) took care of that. But how did a putz like Harry Reid end up as the leader of the left in the Senate?
Oh, yeah! Duh. I forgot. The 'left' is more than just the minority in the Senate (and the House, for that matter). They're in the minority of the minority!
Most of the Democrats in Congress are Centrists like Hillary Clinton. Many aren't even really of the left at all. Look at Joe Lieberman. Look at that old homophobe, Robert Byrd!
With Democrats like them serving, it's no wonder they chose a guy like Harry Reid to be their leader.
They're are probably about 15 Democrats in the Senate who can be relied upon most of the time to be reasonably liberal, maybe 20 if we really stretch our definition. Even those 15-20 disappoint more often than not. In the House, there are probably 30-40.
This is a sorry state of affairs. Why do we let these men & women get elected time and again? We need to send a message next year and send some truly progressive people to Washington to start kicking some ass!
Look, the current Supreme Court is a very aged group. Chances are, Bush could nominated 1 or 2 more Justices. Hopefully, if that happens, it'll be AFTER the mid term elections. We'll have had another chance to change the make up of the Senate and put people in there who will really oppose far right nominees, to the point of stopping them from being confirmed.
Let's take a serious look at the 2006 Senate races and see what we can do. And that doesn't mean supporting Democrats and opposing Republicans. It means supporting progressive candidates and opposing Center/Right candidates, no matter their party.
Kick Joe Lieberman out of office in Connecticut. Kick Bill Nelson out of office in Florida and Ben Nelson out of office in Nebraska. And for God's sake, let's not give Robert Byrd another term! I don't oppose any candidate based on their age or the amount of time they've already served. If they're doing a good job, let them keep doing it. But Byrd, though he may have scored some points by speaking out against the Iraq war, is a homophobic relic. So let's kick him out.
We need to replace Republicans with liberals, but we also need to replace many Democrats with liberals. If we just keep sending back the same people, or their ideological clones, we're the ones who are enabling all this.
I wanted to talk about several things tonight, but I guess I climbed up on my soap box and now it's getting late.
Where to start? With Miers, of course.
Seems that back in 1989, Harriet Miers supported a ban on all abortions except when the mother's life was in danger.
No one should really be surprised at this news. Bush was never going to nominate a moderate or anyone willing to put their personal beliefs aside in favor of the rule of law.
So now the far righters can breathe a sigh of relief and rush to confirm. And what of the Democrats? We've got a Minority Leader in the Senate who praised Miers the moment she was nominated and in fact bragged that he recommended her to Bush. How much of a fight are they going to put up now?
I say we should flood the Minority Leader's office with calls, letters and e-mails demanding his resignation as the leader of the Senate Democrats for his support of Miers. Reid himself is anti-choice and he seems to have made sure he recommended someone to Bush who held the same beliefs.
The danger with Miers is that all we really have to go on are her personal views. She hasn't ever been a Judge, so we have no way of knowing how she'll let those personal views affect her rulings. But given the views she has and the crowd she hangs around with, we can assume the worst.
We can assume that she'll help set back the clock on a woman's right to choose, on gay rights, and on civil rights in general. We can assume that she'll be a great friend to big business over individual citizens, and a supporter of the tyranny of the Administration she's served over all of our civil liberties.
And we can assume she'll do all this not based on a fair assessment of the law, but on political and ideological reasoning. That sort of Judicial activism has no place on any of our courts, let alone the highest one.
I'd have no problem with Miers or anyone who is personally anti-choice being appointed to the Supreme Court if they had a record that demonstrated that they put the law above personal ideology. No one should be blocked from any job based on personal views. But they should be blocked when they're going to make all decisions based on those views and nothing else.
These aren't abstract issues. These are people's very lives at stake. How many women will die from botched back alley abortions if these neo cons get their way?
This is my very life at stake. Forget for just a moment about the rights I should have but don't yet like the right to marry the person I love someday, or adopt a child anywhere in the country. My very right to have sex with another guy in my own bedroom could be taken away. It was only just officially guaranteed a couple of years ago, remember. My right not to be fired from a job (or to be hired at all) because of my sexuality could be taken away.
These are issues that matter to millions of real people in this country, and the Senate Democrats seem to be doing nothing about it. They need to oppose and filibuster Miers and any other nominee who either can't demonstrate they won't be an extremist on the court of has already demonstrated they will be.
I know how we got stuck with this gang of incompetent thugs in the White House. Some old fashioned electoral fraud (not once, but twice!) took care of that. But how did a putz like Harry Reid end up as the leader of the left in the Senate?
Oh, yeah! Duh. I forgot. The 'left' is more than just the minority in the Senate (and the House, for that matter). They're in the minority of the minority!
Most of the Democrats in Congress are Centrists like Hillary Clinton. Many aren't even really of the left at all. Look at Joe Lieberman. Look at that old homophobe, Robert Byrd!
With Democrats like them serving, it's no wonder they chose a guy like Harry Reid to be their leader.
They're are probably about 15 Democrats in the Senate who can be relied upon most of the time to be reasonably liberal, maybe 20 if we really stretch our definition. Even those 15-20 disappoint more often than not. In the House, there are probably 30-40.
This is a sorry state of affairs. Why do we let these men & women get elected time and again? We need to send a message next year and send some truly progressive people to Washington to start kicking some ass!
Look, the current Supreme Court is a very aged group. Chances are, Bush could nominated 1 or 2 more Justices. Hopefully, if that happens, it'll be AFTER the mid term elections. We'll have had another chance to change the make up of the Senate and put people in there who will really oppose far right nominees, to the point of stopping them from being confirmed.
Let's take a serious look at the 2006 Senate races and see what we can do. And that doesn't mean supporting Democrats and opposing Republicans. It means supporting progressive candidates and opposing Center/Right candidates, no matter their party.
Kick Joe Lieberman out of office in Connecticut. Kick Bill Nelson out of office in Florida and Ben Nelson out of office in Nebraska. And for God's sake, let's not give Robert Byrd another term! I don't oppose any candidate based on their age or the amount of time they've already served. If they're doing a good job, let them keep doing it. But Byrd, though he may have scored some points by speaking out against the Iraq war, is a homophobic relic. So let's kick him out.
We need to replace Republicans with liberals, but we also need to replace many Democrats with liberals. If we just keep sending back the same people, or their ideological clones, we're the ones who are enabling all this.
I wanted to talk about several things tonight, but I guess I climbed up on my soap box and now it's getting late.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Still Here
Hello again. I've done something incredibly foolish. I agreed to take on 'extra' hours at work several nights this week. The problem with that, of course, is that those hours aren't really 'extra' for me. I usually spend them doing my reading for classes and my blogging.
So why, then, did I agree to do this? I have this natural inability to say no when asked for a favor. It seriously gets me into all kinds of irritating situations. Example: last Spring Break, instead of enjoying the week off by doing something fun, I agreed to house & pet sit for some friends who were going out of state for the week.
Which lead to a truly miserable week of sitting around their house watching DVDs and staring out the windows at the rain, bored to tears.
But did I learn from that? Hell no. When my boss came up to me at work this weekend and asked if I had any 'extra' hours, my reply should have been "Other than those five or six I waste sleeping every night? No."
Instead, I found myself saying yes and giving up prime study hours.
All of which is by way of explanation for the lack of posts so far this week. I did write a lengthy post on Saturday, however. The reason you never read it was that it ceased to exist somehow or other before it was completely finished.
At any rate, tonight isn't one of the nights I'm working, so I'm sacrificing some study time to blog so no one thinks I've run off with some campus stud for a life of passionate sex that leaves no time for blogging.
I do have a few e-mails to answer. There were a few asking where I was, so that's been covered. I had a question from Book_Fanatic asking me if I'm reading anything good lately. Great question. I'm of course swamped right now in class reading, so that doesn't leave a lot of time for personal reading. And of course, I tend to be scattered between several books at once anyway. But, yeah, I'm reading a few interesting things. I tend to read more fiction for fun while classes are in session and more non-fiction during Summer break or times when I don't have a ton of non-fiction I'm already reading for classes.
I just picked up Senator Boxer's new novel, A Time to Run. I'm a fan of the Senator from California. I can't pretend that I'm discovering any great literary talent (she has a co-author, as many famous people tend to when they try their hand at writing), but the story is interesting and reveals a fascinating insider's look at politics. The basic outline of the plot is that a liberal female Senator from California is handed documents at the last minute that could derail the all but certain confirmation of a far right Latina law professor who has been nominated to the Supreme Court.
I'm also reading Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking, which is basically a reflection on the grieving process, written a year after the sudden death of her husband John Gregory Dunne. It's proving to be an interesting, if sad, read. Anyone who's ever suffered a personal loss will find a lot to relate to. Didion really impresses me with her amazing ability to take whatever is happening to her or in the world around her and relate to it through the written word.
I'm also about to start Barbara Ehrenreich's newest, Bait and Switch. Nickel & Dimed was incredible and I have high hopes for this one, which is actually more in line with my own situation, since I'm currently in college and in massive debt to pay for these classes I'm knocking myself out to pass!
What else? I swear there are at least ten more books I've started and am in the process of reading. Oh, one is In Maremma, by David Leavitt and his partner Mark Mitchell. Leavitt writes short stories and novels that I strongly recommend everyone read. They're among my favorite books overall, and certainly among my favorite when it comes to gay fiction. I love the short stories best, but the novels are very good, too.
Anyway, this one is non-fiction that the two wrote together about their experience buying a run down farm house in Italy (in the unfashionable part of Southern Tuscany) and making it into their home.
God, I'd love to do that! Not necessarily in Italy (thought not necessarily not in Italy!), but it would be really amazing to find some place in the world that you truly love and make a home there with the person you love.
Okay, you got me. I'm a romantic at heart, in spite of all the lusting after hot guys I constantly do.
Speaking of which, I also had an e-mail from Nigel wondering, since I'd joined Rebecca in expressing our mutual lust for Paul Walker, if there were any guys in politics I thought were hot. (By the way, Rebecca has several new picture posts up of other lustworthy celebs up, so check those out!)
That's a tough question, Nigel, given that most of the guys in politics aren't exactly matinee idols. It may just be that I'm trying too hard at the moment to think of someone, but the truth is I could only come up with one person in politics that I'd actually want to go to bed with and that's San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
I can't think of anyone in the House off the top of my head that I'd find sexy. Over in the Senate, the pickings are mighty slim. Senator Kerry is a very attractive man, but I can't say I'd ever consider him to be sexy. Senator Obama is just too skinny for me, somehow. Senator Feingold isn't too bad.
But, really, I just don't see myself adding any of them to any top ten lists any time soon. Everyone feel free to share your own political pin ups, if you've got 'em, and I'll try and think of others.
So why, then, did I agree to do this? I have this natural inability to say no when asked for a favor. It seriously gets me into all kinds of irritating situations. Example: last Spring Break, instead of enjoying the week off by doing something fun, I agreed to house & pet sit for some friends who were going out of state for the week.
Which lead to a truly miserable week of sitting around their house watching DVDs and staring out the windows at the rain, bored to tears.
But did I learn from that? Hell no. When my boss came up to me at work this weekend and asked if I had any 'extra' hours, my reply should have been "Other than those five or six I waste sleeping every night? No."
Instead, I found myself saying yes and giving up prime study hours.
All of which is by way of explanation for the lack of posts so far this week. I did write a lengthy post on Saturday, however. The reason you never read it was that it ceased to exist somehow or other before it was completely finished.
At any rate, tonight isn't one of the nights I'm working, so I'm sacrificing some study time to blog so no one thinks I've run off with some campus stud for a life of passionate sex that leaves no time for blogging.
I do have a few e-mails to answer. There were a few asking where I was, so that's been covered. I had a question from Book_Fanatic asking me if I'm reading anything good lately. Great question. I'm of course swamped right now in class reading, so that doesn't leave a lot of time for personal reading. And of course, I tend to be scattered between several books at once anyway. But, yeah, I'm reading a few interesting things. I tend to read more fiction for fun while classes are in session and more non-fiction during Summer break or times when I don't have a ton of non-fiction I'm already reading for classes.
I just picked up Senator Boxer's new novel, A Time to Run. I'm a fan of the Senator from California. I can't pretend that I'm discovering any great literary talent (she has a co-author, as many famous people tend to when they try their hand at writing), but the story is interesting and reveals a fascinating insider's look at politics. The basic outline of the plot is that a liberal female Senator from California is handed documents at the last minute that could derail the all but certain confirmation of a far right Latina law professor who has been nominated to the Supreme Court.
I'm also reading Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking, which is basically a reflection on the grieving process, written a year after the sudden death of her husband John Gregory Dunne. It's proving to be an interesting, if sad, read. Anyone who's ever suffered a personal loss will find a lot to relate to. Didion really impresses me with her amazing ability to take whatever is happening to her or in the world around her and relate to it through the written word.
I'm also about to start Barbara Ehrenreich's newest, Bait and Switch. Nickel & Dimed was incredible and I have high hopes for this one, which is actually more in line with my own situation, since I'm currently in college and in massive debt to pay for these classes I'm knocking myself out to pass!
What else? I swear there are at least ten more books I've started and am in the process of reading. Oh, one is In Maremma, by David Leavitt and his partner Mark Mitchell. Leavitt writes short stories and novels that I strongly recommend everyone read. They're among my favorite books overall, and certainly among my favorite when it comes to gay fiction. I love the short stories best, but the novels are very good, too.
Anyway, this one is non-fiction that the two wrote together about their experience buying a run down farm house in Italy (in the unfashionable part of Southern Tuscany) and making it into their home.
God, I'd love to do that! Not necessarily in Italy (thought not necessarily not in Italy!), but it would be really amazing to find some place in the world that you truly love and make a home there with the person you love.
Okay, you got me. I'm a romantic at heart, in spite of all the lusting after hot guys I constantly do.
Speaking of which, I also had an e-mail from Nigel wondering, since I'd joined Rebecca in expressing our mutual lust for Paul Walker, if there were any guys in politics I thought were hot. (By the way, Rebecca has several new picture posts up of other lustworthy celebs up, so check those out!)
That's a tough question, Nigel, given that most of the guys in politics aren't exactly matinee idols. It may just be that I'm trying too hard at the moment to think of someone, but the truth is I could only come up with one person in politics that I'd actually want to go to bed with and that's San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
I can't think of anyone in the House off the top of my head that I'd find sexy. Over in the Senate, the pickings are mighty slim. Senator Kerry is a very attractive man, but I can't say I'd ever consider him to be sexy. Senator Obama is just too skinny for me, somehow. Senator Feingold isn't too bad.
But, really, I just don't see myself adding any of them to any top ten lists any time soon. Everyone feel free to share your own political pin ups, if you've got 'em, and I'll try and think of others.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Enter Miers, Stage Right
The master of low expectations has struck again. Today Bush nominated his close friend and confidant, White House Counsel Harriet Miers, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.
What do I mean about the master of low expectations? Bush drove all our expectations down last July when he nominated yet another white male to replace the first female Justice ever to serve on the court, thereby cutting the number of women serving in half.
This time around, I'm sure many people are so relieved that it's at least a woman nominated to replace O'Connor that they already see this nomination in a more positive light than they did the Roberts nomination. Even I was relieved in the first moment of reaction to see that another woman had been nominated, regardless of her views. Two is certainly a bare minimum of female Justices, a number the court should never again go below.
But, truly, we're seeing the Bush team in action here again. Make sure the people expect nothing and then, when you give them the tiniest fraction more than nothing, they think it's a victory. They've been doing this since before the 2000 election and it's worked wonders for them most of the time, I'm sorry to say.
It already sounds like certain Senate Democrats are lining up to confirm Miers. It was reported today that Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, 'likes' Miers and in fact had recommended her to Bush as a candidate to replace O'Connor.
Of course, Harry Reid is hardly who I'd look to for advice on a good Supreme Court nominee. He's an anti-choice centrist.
John Roberts had a record that he deflected with personal charm while refusing to answer most questions. Harriet Miers has never served in a Judicial capacity and probably has a lot less of a paper trail to indicate her positions on crucial issues.
Stories have already come out saying the Conservatives are angry at Bush for picking Miers, saying her views are unknown and she could be pro-abortion or pro-any other of the right's bogeyman issues. Of course, Conservatives were going to be angry if Bush picked anyone even a fraction to the left of Justices Scalia and Thomas. But it's doubtful he did.
No one seems to know for sure what Miers' take on important issues like abortion, civil rights and gay rights are. But c'mon. This is a close personal friend and trusted adviser of George W. Bush. Is she likely to prove a moderate on the court?
So far we already know that when she was President of the Texas State Bar, she tried to get the American Bar Association to change its position endorsing the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision.
Does that mean she'll be anti-choice once she's on the Court? No one can say for sure. But it's not a good sign.
The Democrats need to take their time with this nomination, make sure they sound Miers out and go over all available documents. Just because she's a woman doesn't make her another O'Connor, and this is the crucial 'swing vote' we've all been talking about for the last three months.
With what Reid said today, though, I fear that Miers is all but confirmed in the minds of many Centrist Democrats, barring any surprises. I'm so sick of seeing them roll over so Bush can rub their tummies! But we shouldn't be surprised. They just stand for more toned down versions of what he stands for, after all.
We need some real liberals to come to Congress and start kicking ass, people!
Anyway, it was a busy day for me here. I've wanted to blog about Miers since this morning, and this was my first chance.
On a completely different note, I have to say that I really enjoyed Rebecca's picture post celebrating Paul Walker's nips! Truly, a woman after my own heart! Paul Walker was once just the sort of blond pretty boy I lusted after back in the She's All That/Varsity Blues days, but he's matured into a sort of rugged sex appeal, less pretty and blond, that still earns him a spot in the top ten on my Celebrities I'd Fuck list! Mr. Walker would look even better with a bit of chest hair, I might add. He's already got a sexy treasure trail that I'd LOVE to follow.
See, even when things are looking down, you can always take a moment to enjoy some healthy, old fashioned lust for some celebrity beefcake!
What do I mean about the master of low expectations? Bush drove all our expectations down last July when he nominated yet another white male to replace the first female Justice ever to serve on the court, thereby cutting the number of women serving in half.
This time around, I'm sure many people are so relieved that it's at least a woman nominated to replace O'Connor that they already see this nomination in a more positive light than they did the Roberts nomination. Even I was relieved in the first moment of reaction to see that another woman had been nominated, regardless of her views. Two is certainly a bare minimum of female Justices, a number the court should never again go below.
But, truly, we're seeing the Bush team in action here again. Make sure the people expect nothing and then, when you give them the tiniest fraction more than nothing, they think it's a victory. They've been doing this since before the 2000 election and it's worked wonders for them most of the time, I'm sorry to say.
It already sounds like certain Senate Democrats are lining up to confirm Miers. It was reported today that Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader, 'likes' Miers and in fact had recommended her to Bush as a candidate to replace O'Connor.
Of course, Harry Reid is hardly who I'd look to for advice on a good Supreme Court nominee. He's an anti-choice centrist.
John Roberts had a record that he deflected with personal charm while refusing to answer most questions. Harriet Miers has never served in a Judicial capacity and probably has a lot less of a paper trail to indicate her positions on crucial issues.
Stories have already come out saying the Conservatives are angry at Bush for picking Miers, saying her views are unknown and she could be pro-abortion or pro-any other of the right's bogeyman issues. Of course, Conservatives were going to be angry if Bush picked anyone even a fraction to the left of Justices Scalia and Thomas. But it's doubtful he did.
No one seems to know for sure what Miers' take on important issues like abortion, civil rights and gay rights are. But c'mon. This is a close personal friend and trusted adviser of George W. Bush. Is she likely to prove a moderate on the court?
So far we already know that when she was President of the Texas State Bar, she tried to get the American Bar Association to change its position endorsing the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision.
Does that mean she'll be anti-choice once she's on the Court? No one can say for sure. But it's not a good sign.
The Democrats need to take their time with this nomination, make sure they sound Miers out and go over all available documents. Just because she's a woman doesn't make her another O'Connor, and this is the crucial 'swing vote' we've all been talking about for the last three months.
With what Reid said today, though, I fear that Miers is all but confirmed in the minds of many Centrist Democrats, barring any surprises. I'm so sick of seeing them roll over so Bush can rub their tummies! But we shouldn't be surprised. They just stand for more toned down versions of what he stands for, after all.
We need some real liberals to come to Congress and start kicking ass, people!
Anyway, it was a busy day for me here. I've wanted to blog about Miers since this morning, and this was my first chance.
On a completely different note, I have to say that I really enjoyed Rebecca's picture post celebrating Paul Walker's nips! Truly, a woman after my own heart! Paul Walker was once just the sort of blond pretty boy I lusted after back in the She's All That/Varsity Blues days, but he's matured into a sort of rugged sex appeal, less pretty and blond, that still earns him a spot in the top ten on my Celebrities I'd Fuck list! Mr. Walker would look even better with a bit of chest hair, I might add. He's already got a sexy treasure trail that I'd LOVE to follow.
See, even when things are looking down, you can always take a moment to enjoy some healthy, old fashioned lust for some celebrity beefcake!
Friday, September 30, 2005
No Time For Silence
Here it is, a Friday night, and I'm not out doing something wild & crazy, I'm not out being romanced by the guy of my dreams. I did catch a movie with some of my friends, so I guess I'm not utterly pathetic. But, boy, life sure isn't like the movies, is it? How many Friday nights are spent solo in the movies?
Of course, it doesn't help that more often than not, I find excuses to avoid going out with my friends.
The truth of the matter is that sometimes I can be sitting there with my friends, and they're all having a wonderful time, and I'm just feeling really, really alone.
Don't get me wrong, I love them all dearly. They're my friends. But sometimes I wonder what it says about me that I've ended up being friends with people who only want to talk about what's going on in their love lives.
Forget talking about politics, or anything serious. If I even try, it's like I'm killing the fun. They just don't care.
Well, I shouldn't say that. They care for awhile when election time rolls around. And they care enough to bitch briefly here and there about Bush & co, as long as it doesn't turn into a real discussion. But most of the time, they just don't want to talk about it.
In fact, I have this one friend in particular. Let's call her Andie.
Andie is a wonderful person, very outgoing, always the life of any party or gathering. She's also a really strong woman, someone who came out to her parents and everyone else she knew when she was still in high school. She was very concerned last Fall about the outcome of the Presidential election, and I had several nervous calls from her on election night, as things started to look dicey and then downright bad.
But most of the time, you can't talk about anything political with Andie. There has been more than one occasion when someone (and, believe it or not, I don't mean me!) has tried to start a discussion about something- the war in Iraq, environmental issues, etc.- and Andie has put a stop to it with "I don't want to talk about any negative things today!"
I'm not someone who has to talk about politics all the time. What's going on is important, yes. But there are many other things I enjoy discussing. Books. Movies. TV Shows. Hot guys. Life in general.
But it's really frustrating to me that so many people, so many intelligent people, take Andie's general attitude. They'd rather not think about anything 'negative'. Ignore it, and it'll go away, in other words.
That doesn't do us any good. In fact, that just let's these people in power continue to do whatever the hell they want. They know that they'll face serious protests and outrage from a large number, but they also know that an even larger number is going to be so wrapped up in their own lives that they won't bother paying attention or caring until it's too late.
So many of my friends, when we get together, just want to talk about their personal lives and nothing else. I hear about countless relationship dramas, family dramas, or work dramas. I admit that those things matter, too, but why are they our only focus?
And why do I always end up going along with those conversations, biting back what I really want to talk about so that I won't bore everyone? I feel like a total closet case when I'm with them, hiding who I really am because they probably won't approve! Only it's not my sexuality I'm hiding, it's the large part of me that cares about what's going on outside of our own little circle.
I get so depressed over it sometimes, and I think it's just me. I'm too serious. I should be just having fun. I should just go with the flow. Sometimes I really, really want to just not care. I wish I could stop and live a blissful life where the only thing that matters is how my hair looks and getting that hot guy into bed. Life would be so much more simple.
But that's not who I am and if I'm honest, I'm proud that it's not.
If that gorgeous guy who catches my eye and makes his way across the room to talk to me is going to decide I'm too serious for him, so what? Even the most gorgeous guy becomes a hell of a lot less attractive if he doesn't care about the world we're living in.
Don't get me wrong, if he's really gorgeous, I'd probably think 'What the hell, life is short', and spend a night with him. But I'd know it was nothing more than that. I could never settle for less with a guy that could be someone important in my life, so why do I so often let myself settle for less with my friends? Why do I let them set the topics of conversation and make me feel like some boring drag on the conversation if I dare talk about something that interests me and affects all our lives?
I saw blogging as a way to start speaking out more about what's going on in our world, but blogging shouldn't be the only outlet.
I've changed a lot in the last few years, and I think the friends I have now are more indicative of who I used to be. I would never want to lose them, but it's time that I start being myself around them. In a way, it's like coming out of the closet all over again. And just like when you come out of the closet, you have to accept that some people will want to be in your life and some may not.
It's their choice. They need to be who they are, but I need to be who I am. Hopefully, we can find some balance.
Either way, this isn't a time in history when any of us can afford to be silent.
Of course, it doesn't help that more often than not, I find excuses to avoid going out with my friends.
The truth of the matter is that sometimes I can be sitting there with my friends, and they're all having a wonderful time, and I'm just feeling really, really alone.
Don't get me wrong, I love them all dearly. They're my friends. But sometimes I wonder what it says about me that I've ended up being friends with people who only want to talk about what's going on in their love lives.
Forget talking about politics, or anything serious. If I even try, it's like I'm killing the fun. They just don't care.
Well, I shouldn't say that. They care for awhile when election time rolls around. And they care enough to bitch briefly here and there about Bush & co, as long as it doesn't turn into a real discussion. But most of the time, they just don't want to talk about it.
In fact, I have this one friend in particular. Let's call her Andie.
Andie is a wonderful person, very outgoing, always the life of any party or gathering. She's also a really strong woman, someone who came out to her parents and everyone else she knew when she was still in high school. She was very concerned last Fall about the outcome of the Presidential election, and I had several nervous calls from her on election night, as things started to look dicey and then downright bad.
But most of the time, you can't talk about anything political with Andie. There has been more than one occasion when someone (and, believe it or not, I don't mean me!) has tried to start a discussion about something- the war in Iraq, environmental issues, etc.- and Andie has put a stop to it with "I don't want to talk about any negative things today!"
I'm not someone who has to talk about politics all the time. What's going on is important, yes. But there are many other things I enjoy discussing. Books. Movies. TV Shows. Hot guys. Life in general.
But it's really frustrating to me that so many people, so many intelligent people, take Andie's general attitude. They'd rather not think about anything 'negative'. Ignore it, and it'll go away, in other words.
That doesn't do us any good. In fact, that just let's these people in power continue to do whatever the hell they want. They know that they'll face serious protests and outrage from a large number, but they also know that an even larger number is going to be so wrapped up in their own lives that they won't bother paying attention or caring until it's too late.
So many of my friends, when we get together, just want to talk about their personal lives and nothing else. I hear about countless relationship dramas, family dramas, or work dramas. I admit that those things matter, too, but why are they our only focus?
And why do I always end up going along with those conversations, biting back what I really want to talk about so that I won't bore everyone? I feel like a total closet case when I'm with them, hiding who I really am because they probably won't approve! Only it's not my sexuality I'm hiding, it's the large part of me that cares about what's going on outside of our own little circle.
I get so depressed over it sometimes, and I think it's just me. I'm too serious. I should be just having fun. I should just go with the flow. Sometimes I really, really want to just not care. I wish I could stop and live a blissful life where the only thing that matters is how my hair looks and getting that hot guy into bed. Life would be so much more simple.
But that's not who I am and if I'm honest, I'm proud that it's not.
If that gorgeous guy who catches my eye and makes his way across the room to talk to me is going to decide I'm too serious for him, so what? Even the most gorgeous guy becomes a hell of a lot less attractive if he doesn't care about the world we're living in.
Don't get me wrong, if he's really gorgeous, I'd probably think 'What the hell, life is short', and spend a night with him. But I'd know it was nothing more than that. I could never settle for less with a guy that could be someone important in my life, so why do I so often let myself settle for less with my friends? Why do I let them set the topics of conversation and make me feel like some boring drag on the conversation if I dare talk about something that interests me and affects all our lives?
I saw blogging as a way to start speaking out more about what's going on in our world, but blogging shouldn't be the only outlet.
I've changed a lot in the last few years, and I think the friends I have now are more indicative of who I used to be. I would never want to lose them, but it's time that I start being myself around them. In a way, it's like coming out of the closet all over again. And just like when you come out of the closet, you have to accept that some people will want to be in your life and some may not.
It's their choice. They need to be who they are, but I need to be who I am. Hopefully, we can find some balance.
Either way, this isn't a time in history when any of us can afford to be silent.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Chief Justice Blues
You're most likely to find new posts from me here either in the afternoon or late at night, just so you know. Classes, along with the reading, writing, and studying that goes with them, take up a lot of my time, especially in the evenings. I grab what free time I can for myself, and now that I'm blogging, too, things are probably going to be pretty tight for awhile, time wise.
And did I mention that I work weekends? So much for a social life! And here I thought the college years were supposed to be all about parties and hooking up. Did the movies lie? What a horrible thought!
So, today was the day that John Roberts was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as our new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The guy is only fifty years old and you know that our Government officials all have the best health care our tax money can provide (for them, of course, not for us!), so we're looking at the guy who is going to lead the court until 2040 or so.
In light of that, you might have thought the Democrats in the Senate would have put up a bit more fight. Sure, 22 of them voted against him, but so what? Given all the unanswered questions and the refusal to release all the documents relating to his work in the White House, particularly during George Bush I's Administration, the Democrats should have filibustered him on principle alone.
They did it with John Bolton, remember. They shut down his nomination because documents from the State Department weren't handed over. They should have done the same here.
But apparently enough of them were won over by his smiling charm and that adorable little son of his, paraded around just enough to paint the perfect picture of decency and family values.
Well, now we're stuck with him. Maybe he'll surprise us. Once on the court, Justices have been know to shock those who appointed them, or to slowly change over the years and become more moderate.
But can you really imagine this administration appointing anyone who wasn't going to stick to the Conservative hard line all the days of his life? I can't. They wouldn't leave anything to chance.
I read today in one of the news articles that Roberts was confirmed by the biggest majority ever for a Chief Justice. Someone Bush appointed got the biggest majority ever. Way to go Senate Democrats! Ever hear of the term 'opposition party'?
Of course, to have an opposition party, we'd have to have people serving who are actually in opposition to what the Republicans stand for. And the majority of elected Democrats aren't. They just stand for a more moderate, toned down version.
Anyone who cares about their freedoms and civil liberties should be worried right now. And as a gay man, it's doubly worrying to me that issues affecting my daily life, like my right to someday marry the person I love, to adopt children, to not be discriminated against in the work place because of my sexual orientation, and possibly even the right to have sex with the person I love in the privacy of our own home, will be coming before a court headed by a man who most likely holds the same rigid views as George W. Bush.
Some people are saying that it's okay, because it doesn't change the balance of the court. Roberts replaced the equally conservative Rehnquist, so the status quo isn't affected.
Bullshit. First of all, Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor to start with, so don't fool yourself for a second into thinking that the next Nominee won't be just as conservative. Bush showed that altering the balance is his primary goal. And you know what? Had Rehnquist not died, there's no real doubt in my mind that Roberts would still have been confirmed today, as O'Connor's replacement. The Democrats weren't going to fight his nomination either way.
So don't lull yourselves into complacency. The balance is going to shift and the shit will be hitting the fan for decades to come. The only way the Democrats will fight the next nominee is if some skeleton emerges from his or her closet, or if the nominee is abrasive enough to make them feel safe doing so. John Roberts came off as such a nice guy that a lot of the Democrats seemed to be scared to oppose him strongly.
And don't think Bush & co didn't notice that. Look for the next nominee to be just as charming, if they can manage it.
Forgive me if I sound a bit defeatist right now. But the fact of the matter is, things aren't going to change until we make them change. It's time to vote this bunch of Centrist Democrats out of office and replace them with true liberals. That's the only way we're going to truly oppose the Republicans.
These scaredy cats in Congress aren't going to strongly oppose anything Bush & co put forward until they're sure it won't hurt them with centrist voters. Well, what more do they need? Bush is lower in the polls than he's ever been. When do these idiots feel safe enough to start showing some real backbone? And when do the Republicans wake up to the fact that Bush is nothing but a big old anchor around their necks? When will they finally distance themselves?
It's coming, but can it come quickly enough to spare us another John Roberts sitting on the bench in O'Connor's seat?
I wouldn't bet on it. But the horrible truth is, we all stand to lose a lot without even placing a bet.
I hate to end on a down note. Worse, I hate to go to sleep in a bad mood. But wait! Tom DeLay was indicted today and had to 'temporarily' step down as House Majority Leader.
Ah, now that's something to smile about.
That and some sweet dreams about the hot guy in a tight t-shirt that left nothing to the imagination who sat next to me in class today should be enough to have me feeling optimistic again in the morning.
And did I mention that I work weekends? So much for a social life! And here I thought the college years were supposed to be all about parties and hooking up. Did the movies lie? What a horrible thought!
So, today was the day that John Roberts was confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as our new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The guy is only fifty years old and you know that our Government officials all have the best health care our tax money can provide (for them, of course, not for us!), so we're looking at the guy who is going to lead the court until 2040 or so.
In light of that, you might have thought the Democrats in the Senate would have put up a bit more fight. Sure, 22 of them voted against him, but so what? Given all the unanswered questions and the refusal to release all the documents relating to his work in the White House, particularly during George Bush I's Administration, the Democrats should have filibustered him on principle alone.
They did it with John Bolton, remember. They shut down his nomination because documents from the State Department weren't handed over. They should have done the same here.
But apparently enough of them were won over by his smiling charm and that adorable little son of his, paraded around just enough to paint the perfect picture of decency and family values.
Well, now we're stuck with him. Maybe he'll surprise us. Once on the court, Justices have been know to shock those who appointed them, or to slowly change over the years and become more moderate.
But can you really imagine this administration appointing anyone who wasn't going to stick to the Conservative hard line all the days of his life? I can't. They wouldn't leave anything to chance.
I read today in one of the news articles that Roberts was confirmed by the biggest majority ever for a Chief Justice. Someone Bush appointed got the biggest majority ever. Way to go Senate Democrats! Ever hear of the term 'opposition party'?
Of course, to have an opposition party, we'd have to have people serving who are actually in opposition to what the Republicans stand for. And the majority of elected Democrats aren't. They just stand for a more moderate, toned down version.
Anyone who cares about their freedoms and civil liberties should be worried right now. And as a gay man, it's doubly worrying to me that issues affecting my daily life, like my right to someday marry the person I love, to adopt children, to not be discriminated against in the work place because of my sexual orientation, and possibly even the right to have sex with the person I love in the privacy of our own home, will be coming before a court headed by a man who most likely holds the same rigid views as George W. Bush.
Some people are saying that it's okay, because it doesn't change the balance of the court. Roberts replaced the equally conservative Rehnquist, so the status quo isn't affected.
Bullshit. First of all, Roberts was nominated to replace O'Connor to start with, so don't fool yourself for a second into thinking that the next Nominee won't be just as conservative. Bush showed that altering the balance is his primary goal. And you know what? Had Rehnquist not died, there's no real doubt in my mind that Roberts would still have been confirmed today, as O'Connor's replacement. The Democrats weren't going to fight his nomination either way.
So don't lull yourselves into complacency. The balance is going to shift and the shit will be hitting the fan for decades to come. The only way the Democrats will fight the next nominee is if some skeleton emerges from his or her closet, or if the nominee is abrasive enough to make them feel safe doing so. John Roberts came off as such a nice guy that a lot of the Democrats seemed to be scared to oppose him strongly.
And don't think Bush & co didn't notice that. Look for the next nominee to be just as charming, if they can manage it.
Forgive me if I sound a bit defeatist right now. But the fact of the matter is, things aren't going to change until we make them change. It's time to vote this bunch of Centrist Democrats out of office and replace them with true liberals. That's the only way we're going to truly oppose the Republicans.
These scaredy cats in Congress aren't going to strongly oppose anything Bush & co put forward until they're sure it won't hurt them with centrist voters. Well, what more do they need? Bush is lower in the polls than he's ever been. When do these idiots feel safe enough to start showing some real backbone? And when do the Republicans wake up to the fact that Bush is nothing but a big old anchor around their necks? When will they finally distance themselves?
It's coming, but can it come quickly enough to spare us another John Roberts sitting on the bench in O'Connor's seat?
I wouldn't bet on it. But the horrible truth is, we all stand to lose a lot without even placing a bet.
I hate to end on a down note. Worse, I hate to go to sleep in a bad mood. But wait! Tom DeLay was indicted today and had to 'temporarily' step down as House Majority Leader.
Ah, now that's something to smile about.
That and some sweet dreams about the hot guy in a tight t-shirt that left nothing to the imagination who sat next to me in class today should be enough to have me feeling optimistic again in the morning.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
The First Post
Welcome to Seth in the City. I should probably tell you all up front that I'm not in that city. Though one of these days, I'd like to be. For now, I'm a lot farther to the west.
You're probably curious about who I am, and that's always an interesting question. How do you label yourself? We all seem to rush to find our labels in life, most of them coming from whatever career we choose and whatever relationships we put the most stock in. "I'm a Doctor." "I'm a father." "I'm a broker." "I'm a lover" "I'm a star, baby!"
I really don't like defining myself by labels. We're all so much more than any specific role in life. But for the sake of introducing myself, I'll toss out a few labels that could be said to fit my current status in life, in no particular order:
College Student
Son
Progressive
Gay male
Wage slave to corporate America
Brother
Liberal
Friend
Reader
History Major
Partially Reformed Television Addict
American
I think that will suffice for now for a general picture of the sort of person I am.
This blog is about my life and the world I find myself living it in. And what a world, huh? I think we're going to get to the sunshine of a brighter day sooner or later, but for the moment we're practically living in the neo Dark Ages.
You'll notice that I'm a history major. One of the things that has always fascinated me the most about history is how arbitrary it is. Think about it for a minute. None of us has any control over where we're born, or in what time period. Fate made me a 21st century American, and there's nothing I can really do about that, short of changing my nationality. But even then, I'd still have been shaped by growing up in this country, in this time period.
The cool thing, though, is that we do have some control over how we help shape the place and time we're born into. Especially in the age of the Internet, when we can all make ourselves heard and come together like never before.
This is going to be a very political blog. There's no getting around that. Life itself is political. You can't exist in this world without being directly affected on a daily basis by politics.
So you can expect me to be sharing my views on a lot of political issues, pretty much all the time.
But this isn't going to be a blog just about politics. This is going to be about life as I find it. I'll write about college life, about movies, music, books, or television shows that catch my interest. I'll write about my friends and family. I'll definitely be writing about hot guys. Sexuality is just as big a part of our lives as politics. In fact, the two are very much intertwined these days, especially if you happen to be a gay guy or a lesbian.
So, if you're someone who's going to be offended by political views that are decidedly to the left of the majority of Democrats currently holding office, this blog may not be your thing. If you think George W. Bush is doing a decent job, or if you think John Roberts is going to be a hell of a good Chief Justice, you're not going to find much here at Seth in the City to agree with.
On the other side of the coin, if you think the Democrats in Congress are doing a good job, if you think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are excellent Minority Leaders, if you think Hillary Clinton is a Liberal, then you, too, will find yourself without a lot to agree with here.
Democrat is no longer synonymous with liberal, if indeed it ever truly was. There are some true liberals holding elected office nationally as Democrats, but they're in the minority of the Minority party. Our Congress is made up of the Conservatives and the Centrists, with a smattering of liberals here and there.
So you won't find me patting Democrats on the back just because they serve with a D after their names and aren't as bad as the other guys. 'Not as bad' is not good enough.
And if you're someone who just can't stand to read a blog in which a gay guy dishes on hotties, hit the road. I like guys, and I'm going to be talking about them a lot.
Just to fill you in on my 'type' of guys, I should say that I'm mostly attracted to dark haired guys. Chest hair is a definite turn on, but not an absolute necessity. Think Jude Law, Ewan McGregor, Mark Ruffalo. Hot guys in glasses and/or with accents get bonus points.
Of course, if I'd been writing this blog a few years back, you'd be surprised at how different my tastes were. I preferred smooth blond guys back then. Think Ryan Phillippe, think Hayden Christensen.
My tastes moved from the rather bland, safe teen-idol type guys to the sort of guys who you could actually imagine fucking as I grew more comfortable with being gay and being a sexual human being.
But that's the fun thing about life. We don't stay the same. We grow, we change, we learn. At least, we're supposed to. Maybe someone should clue Bush & co in on this?
Nothing is really off limits here. You'll find me talking about just about anything that comes to mind.
Tomorrow I'll be adding some links to some excellent political blogs I frequent, as well as some other sites, so check back for that.
Right now, I've got a TON of reading to do for my classes tomorrow, so I should get to it.
You're probably curious about who I am, and that's always an interesting question. How do you label yourself? We all seem to rush to find our labels in life, most of them coming from whatever career we choose and whatever relationships we put the most stock in. "I'm a Doctor." "I'm a father." "I'm a broker." "I'm a lover" "I'm a star, baby!"
I really don't like defining myself by labels. We're all so much more than any specific role in life. But for the sake of introducing myself, I'll toss out a few labels that could be said to fit my current status in life, in no particular order:
College Student
Son
Progressive
Gay male
Wage slave to corporate America
Brother
Liberal
Friend
Reader
History Major
Partially Reformed Television Addict
American
I think that will suffice for now for a general picture of the sort of person I am.
This blog is about my life and the world I find myself living it in. And what a world, huh? I think we're going to get to the sunshine of a brighter day sooner or later, but for the moment we're practically living in the neo Dark Ages.
You'll notice that I'm a history major. One of the things that has always fascinated me the most about history is how arbitrary it is. Think about it for a minute. None of us has any control over where we're born, or in what time period. Fate made me a 21st century American, and there's nothing I can really do about that, short of changing my nationality. But even then, I'd still have been shaped by growing up in this country, in this time period.
The cool thing, though, is that we do have some control over how we help shape the place and time we're born into. Especially in the age of the Internet, when we can all make ourselves heard and come together like never before.
This is going to be a very political blog. There's no getting around that. Life itself is political. You can't exist in this world without being directly affected on a daily basis by politics.
So you can expect me to be sharing my views on a lot of political issues, pretty much all the time.
But this isn't going to be a blog just about politics. This is going to be about life as I find it. I'll write about college life, about movies, music, books, or television shows that catch my interest. I'll write about my friends and family. I'll definitely be writing about hot guys. Sexuality is just as big a part of our lives as politics. In fact, the two are very much intertwined these days, especially if you happen to be a gay guy or a lesbian.
So, if you're someone who's going to be offended by political views that are decidedly to the left of the majority of Democrats currently holding office, this blog may not be your thing. If you think George W. Bush is doing a decent job, or if you think John Roberts is going to be a hell of a good Chief Justice, you're not going to find much here at Seth in the City to agree with.
On the other side of the coin, if you think the Democrats in Congress are doing a good job, if you think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are excellent Minority Leaders, if you think Hillary Clinton is a Liberal, then you, too, will find yourself without a lot to agree with here.
Democrat is no longer synonymous with liberal, if indeed it ever truly was. There are some true liberals holding elected office nationally as Democrats, but they're in the minority of the Minority party. Our Congress is made up of the Conservatives and the Centrists, with a smattering of liberals here and there.
So you won't find me patting Democrats on the back just because they serve with a D after their names and aren't as bad as the other guys. 'Not as bad' is not good enough.
And if you're someone who just can't stand to read a blog in which a gay guy dishes on hotties, hit the road. I like guys, and I'm going to be talking about them a lot.
Just to fill you in on my 'type' of guys, I should say that I'm mostly attracted to dark haired guys. Chest hair is a definite turn on, but not an absolute necessity. Think Jude Law, Ewan McGregor, Mark Ruffalo. Hot guys in glasses and/or with accents get bonus points.
Of course, if I'd been writing this blog a few years back, you'd be surprised at how different my tastes were. I preferred smooth blond guys back then. Think Ryan Phillippe, think Hayden Christensen.
My tastes moved from the rather bland, safe teen-idol type guys to the sort of guys who you could actually imagine fucking as I grew more comfortable with being gay and being a sexual human being.
But that's the fun thing about life. We don't stay the same. We grow, we change, we learn. At least, we're supposed to. Maybe someone should clue Bush & co in on this?
Nothing is really off limits here. You'll find me talking about just about anything that comes to mind.
Tomorrow I'll be adding some links to some excellent political blogs I frequent, as well as some other sites, so check back for that.
Right now, I've got a TON of reading to do for my classes tomorrow, so I should get to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)