I am meeting my parents at my youngest brother's college in that part of the world where Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia all cluster fuck. I am really excited to see my brother, as he is in the middle of his first semester at school. But this trip also makes me a little sad.
It is outside of Pittsburgh.
Pittsburgh has an Ikea
Pittsburgh has a Trader Joe's
Pittsburgh is more economically viable to have these things. And Buffalo does not.
Man...
James's Journal
My Podcast Link
10/03/2008 21:32 #45924
West Virginia?10/03/2008 09:04 #45913
VP Debate NoteJohn Edwards always seemed like he was doing a preacher impression. Last VP debate I saw I clearly remember John looking into the camera with that dura-flame fire in his eyes and said marriage is between a man and a woman and that is that so there end of discussion. Preachers, when saying things like that, bug the shit out of me.
Last night was a different story. Joe Biden got the question about same-sex couple rights. He knocked it out of the park for me. No difference between a het couple and a homo-awesome couple.
Sarah skirted the question by talking about marriage and god and stuff, ignoring the issue entirely. But since she changed the topic to marriage, the next question was "Do you support same-sex marriage". And that is when things got interesting.
Joe said no, he and Obama do not support it. But the way he framed it was so different from what Edwards had said four years ago and he said it in a way that fixes the biggest problem with the discourse of same-sex marriage. He framed it was the government must make the two equal in terms of rights. Gay marriage is a religious thing and the government wont force a church to do anything.
Many people, including many homosexuals, do not understand that the marriage debate has two components: civil marriage and religious marriage. We only care about civil marriage, as churches can perform marriages if they are so enlightened. The other side only talk about the sanctity of their religious marriage. Joe Biden isn't even talking about that and the differences between civil unions and gay marriage are inconsequential in terms of a first step towards marriage equality.
How the discourse has changed in four years. While it is far from perfect (perfection would be no marriage at all. Am I right guys? Am I right?) it dismantles the GOP argument pretty well from a rhetorical stand point.
kisses,
-James
Last night was a different story. Joe Biden got the question about same-sex couple rights. He knocked it out of the park for me. No difference between a het couple and a homo-awesome couple.
Sarah skirted the question by talking about marriage and god and stuff, ignoring the issue entirely. But since she changed the topic to marriage, the next question was "Do you support same-sex marriage". And that is when things got interesting.
Joe said no, he and Obama do not support it. But the way he framed it was so different from what Edwards had said four years ago and he said it in a way that fixes the biggest problem with the discourse of same-sex marriage. He framed it was the government must make the two equal in terms of rights. Gay marriage is a religious thing and the government wont force a church to do anything.
Many people, including many homosexuals, do not understand that the marriage debate has two components: civil marriage and religious marriage. We only care about civil marriage, as churches can perform marriages if they are so enlightened. The other side only talk about the sanctity of their religious marriage. Joe Biden isn't even talking about that and the differences between civil unions and gay marriage are inconsequential in terms of a first step towards marriage equality.
How the discourse has changed in four years. While it is far from perfect (perfection would be no marriage at all. Am I right guys? Am I right?) it dismantles the GOP argument pretty well from a rhetorical stand point.
kisses,
-James
tinypliny - 10/03/08 21:35
Extending that concept further, I would avoid saying "couples" as well. This is not a flippant comment. For me, death is so real and life feels so short that any man-made ridiculous impediment toward achieving happiness seems like an inhumane thing to do - as bad or even worse than racism and other societal evils. If people want to live as a family, there can be no greater joy than allowing them to achieve that harmony in their lives.
Religious and/or short-sighted legal arguments forcibly erecting barriers towards happiness seem so cruel, hypocritical and petty to me. :/
Extending that concept further, I would avoid saying "couples" as well. This is not a flippant comment. For me, death is so real and life feels so short that any man-made ridiculous impediment toward achieving happiness seems like an inhumane thing to do - as bad or even worse than racism and other societal evils. If people want to live as a family, there can be no greater joy than allowing them to achieve that harmony in their lives.
Religious and/or short-sighted legal arguments forcibly erecting barriers towards happiness seem so cruel, hypocritical and petty to me. :/
metalpeter - 10/03/08 19:38
I wish I could have stayed awake for that part. Hey it was could and I need a blanket so out I went. So since I didn't hear what they said I can't comment on that. But there is a difference between state marriages and ones done in a church. If I have heard correctly Canada legaly says there is a difference and because of that if someone in a church won't Marry you they don't have to and they can't be forced or sued for it. I also don't think it should be called "Gay Marriage" . This is going to sound like a joke but I'm serious. Why can't two life mates get married. There are often times when friends are like family where two people are like brothers or cousins and are really tight or when one old person takes care of someone who is less old. If these two people got hitched they would get rights that they normaly wouldn't get. Currently it is a state issue but I think it needs to be a national issue really and here is why. What if two people are in love and they get married in Boston well then one of the couples company closes or movies to Chicago so they both move, Well in that state the Marriage isn't recognized but then would they have rights and legal protection for things they took care of in boston. See how confussing it gets. But see if there was some federal law that said States had to recognize marriage rights given in other states then that would really help. The other issue is, is same sex divorce legal where marriage is? Not everyone stays together for ever.
I wish I could have stayed awake for that part. Hey it was could and I need a blanket so out I went. So since I didn't hear what they said I can't comment on that. But there is a difference between state marriages and ones done in a church. If I have heard correctly Canada legaly says there is a difference and because of that if someone in a church won't Marry you they don't have to and they can't be forced or sued for it. I also don't think it should be called "Gay Marriage" . This is going to sound like a joke but I'm serious. Why can't two life mates get married. There are often times when friends are like family where two people are like brothers or cousins and are really tight or when one old person takes care of someone who is less old. If these two people got hitched they would get rights that they normaly wouldn't get. Currently it is a state issue but I think it needs to be a national issue really and here is why. What if two people are in love and they get married in Boston well then one of the couples company closes or movies to Chicago so they both move, Well in that state the Marriage isn't recognized but then would they have rights and legal protection for things they took care of in boston. See how confussing it gets. But see if there was some federal law that said States had to recognize marriage rights given in other states then that would really help. The other issue is, is same sex divorce legal where marriage is? Not everyone stays together for ever.
tinypliny - 10/03/08 18:36
"I don't know how you can separate the civil right from the civil benefits! I don't know how you can be for one, against the other, and still be thought of as friendly to the cause. Someone please help me with this."
You cannot. I agree. I don't interpret what Biden said as being any favourable to gay-rights that what Palin babbled about. See below.
"I don't know how you can separate the civil right from the civil benefits! I don't know how you can be for one, against the other, and still be thought of as friendly to the cause. Someone please help me with this."
You cannot. I agree. I don't interpret what Biden said as being any favourable to gay-rights that what Palin babbled about. See below.
jason - 10/03/08 17:28
I have a feeling I'm going to regret the effort, but I'd like to add a few things.
I've actually tried to make an argument similar to Biden's before to some people, and it was summarily rejected. Why? Because "separate but equal" is a relic from a time gone by, and we need not look to the past for an answer. I am sympathetic to that idea. I wonder how prevalent that view is. Maybe some of you can fill in the blanks for me?
Then again, politicians can say whatever they want, especially if they don't actually have to take action that has any effect on the problem, and they don't have to answer for themselves. Biden voted YES on the DOMA, so presumably he's deferring to the states. He can say whatever the hell he wants when he won't have to deliver, and he doesn't strike me as a states rights kind of guy.
In fact, I'm more libereal than Biden is on this. I don't know how you can separate the civil right from the civil benefits! I don't know how you can be for one, against the other, and still be thought of as friendly to the cause. Someone please help me with this. I know that when I made the argument before I was made to feel like I was definitely anti-gay. It actually made me more liberal on the topic.
I have a feeling I'm going to regret the effort, but I'd like to add a few things.
I've actually tried to make an argument similar to Biden's before to some people, and it was summarily rejected. Why? Because "separate but equal" is a relic from a time gone by, and we need not look to the past for an answer. I am sympathetic to that idea. I wonder how prevalent that view is. Maybe some of you can fill in the blanks for me?
Then again, politicians can say whatever they want, especially if they don't actually have to take action that has any effect on the problem, and they don't have to answer for themselves. Biden voted YES on the DOMA, so presumably he's deferring to the states. He can say whatever the hell he wants when he won't have to deliver, and he doesn't strike me as a states rights kind of guy.
In fact, I'm more libereal than Biden is on this. I don't know how you can separate the civil right from the civil benefits! I don't know how you can be for one, against the other, and still be thought of as friendly to the cause. Someone please help me with this. I know that when I made the argument before I was made to feel like I was definitely anti-gay. It actually made me more liberal on the topic.
tinypliny - 10/03/08 13:22
Alright, I don't see why its so tough to be clear on this issue. I don't like both their answers.
Biden first: You support equal rights for all couples but won't support marriage because it has a religious edge? So religiously, you are uncomfortable with giving all couples equal rights? Or as you phrased it, you won't be forcing the church to reconsider their stuffy position.
Don't you think religion and spiritual beliefs are a right in themselves? If you cannot guarantee them, don't go about saying that you will give all couples equal rights. That is a white lie.
(e:James), you bring up the two faces of marriage - civil and religious. But marriage is an artificial construct. We were not born to marry, we were born to reproduce. So marriage is an artificial non-biological construct with its roots in law and religion. I think the essence of marriage is to allow couples to have legal rights AS WELL AS the spiritual well-being in the knowledge that their partnership is recognized and celebrated by the society as a whole. If one or the other facet of this construct is missing for some couples, in my opinion, they are being given a raw deal. The church-state non-involvement is a perfect excuse for clothing your real hypocritical opinions.
An ideal situation would be to take away all and any significance attached to the church/temple performed facet of marriage. Make it mandatory that every couple need to have a legal registered marriage in a court such as the lease for your flat or the deed for your house. If you are rich and can afford to spend the money or simply want to get your family together for the event, by all means, have your wedding ceremony at the Church/temple/wherever, in addition to the legal registration. With time, this practice will ensure that the "religious" component gradually loses any significance whatsoever and marriage will simply be a legal contract (which it is, right now but not many are comfortable accepting the idea).
Palin second: You are confused PR-driven soul. If you believe that religiously you can't agree to Gay marriage let alone rights, just say so. No one is going to be surprised (as many have already pointed out) or even care.
Alright, I don't see why its so tough to be clear on this issue. I don't like both their answers.
Biden first: You support equal rights for all couples but won't support marriage because it has a religious edge? So religiously, you are uncomfortable with giving all couples equal rights? Or as you phrased it, you won't be forcing the church to reconsider their stuffy position.
Don't you think religion and spiritual beliefs are a right in themselves? If you cannot guarantee them, don't go about saying that you will give all couples equal rights. That is a white lie.
(e:James), you bring up the two faces of marriage - civil and religious. But marriage is an artificial construct. We were not born to marry, we were born to reproduce. So marriage is an artificial non-biological construct with its roots in law and religion. I think the essence of marriage is to allow couples to have legal rights AS WELL AS the spiritual well-being in the knowledge that their partnership is recognized and celebrated by the society as a whole. If one or the other facet of this construct is missing for some couples, in my opinion, they are being given a raw deal. The church-state non-involvement is a perfect excuse for clothing your real hypocritical opinions.
An ideal situation would be to take away all and any significance attached to the church/temple performed facet of marriage. Make it mandatory that every couple need to have a legal registered marriage in a court such as the lease for your flat or the deed for your house. If you are rich and can afford to spend the money or simply want to get your family together for the event, by all means, have your wedding ceremony at the Church/temple/wherever, in addition to the legal registration. With time, this practice will ensure that the "religious" component gradually loses any significance whatsoever and marriage will simply be a legal contract (which it is, right now but not many are comfortable accepting the idea).
Palin second: You are confused PR-driven soul. If you believe that religiously you can't agree to Gay marriage let alone rights, just say so. No one is going to be surprised (as many have already pointed out) or even care.
joshua - 10/03/08 10:56
To be honest both of them creeped me out last night.
To be honest both of them creeped me out last night.
james - 10/03/08 10:52
Yes. There were no real surprises in terms of policy last night. Even though there was half a team of mavericks on stage.
Yes. There were no real surprises in terms of policy last night. Even though there was half a team of mavericks on stage.
joshua - 10/03/08 10:50
Right, but what I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure you knew that before the debate anyway.
Right, but what I'm saying is that I'm pretty sure you knew that before the debate anyway.
james - 10/03/08 10:47
Despite her rambling answer I figured it out. ^_^
Despite her rambling answer I figured it out. ^_^
joshua - 10/03/08 10:41
She doesn't support gay marriage. I'm pretty sure y'all knew that.
She doesn't support gay marriage. I'm pretty sure y'all knew that.
james - 10/03/08 10:15
Ya, Palin avoided the question. She tried to talk about religious marriage and rights. She was trying to have it both ways. Yes, I think everyone has rights, how tolerant of me. But don't worry guys, I don't think they deserve rights or anything. So when she was done puking buzz words Gwen Ifill said "good, so you both agree".
And that was magic.
Ya, Palin avoided the question. She tried to talk about religious marriage and rights. She was trying to have it both ways. Yes, I think everyone has rights, how tolerant of me. But don't worry guys, I don't think they deserve rights or anything. So when she was done puking buzz words Gwen Ifill said "good, so you both agree".
And that was magic.
dcoffee - 10/03/08 10:08
Biden was unequivocal about the civil rights guarantees of the constitution. I didn't even understand what Palin was talking about. She has a gay friend or something. I'm glad Biden was so direct about everything.
Biden was unequivocal about the civil rights guarantees of the constitution. I didn't even understand what Palin was talking about. She has a gay friend or something. I'm glad Biden was so direct about everything.
10/02/2008 12:56 #45893
Dina MartiniaIt is October and I am listening to the Dina Martina Christmas album. It is the funniest album of holiday music since Motorheads.
And who is this Dina Martina you may ask?
Why, only the finest drag performer.
Merry Christmas everyone!
And who is this Dina Martina you may ask?
Why, only the finest drag performer.
Merry Christmas everyone!
tinypliny - 10/02/08 15:24
OMG, I love Christmas music. S/he is next on my to-listen playlist!! Thanks. :)
OMG, I love Christmas music. S/he is next on my to-listen playlist!! Thanks. :)
10/01/2008 09:38 #45874
ObeyHow could you say no?
libertad - 10/01/08 21:59
I am strangely turned on. I'm so ashamed.
I am strangely turned on. I'm so ashamed.
james - 10/01/08 11:35
Leather Daddy Obama.
And don't you dare disobey him or it is spanking time for you.
Leather Daddy Obama.
And don't you dare disobey him or it is spanking time for you.
joshua - 10/01/08 11:28
Ahh - that explains it. In that case the motivation is clear!
Incidentally, what are we obeying?
Ahh - that explains it. In that case the motivation is clear!
Incidentally, what are we obeying?
james - 10/01/08 09:57
A little background. This poster was put up at the Folsom Street Fair: the worlds largest street fair. Also, the worlds largest fetish event. So put the leather daddy hat on him and BAM!
ps - thank you copy editor.
A little background. This poster was put up at the Folsom Street Fair: the worlds largest street fair. Also, the worlds largest fetish event. So put the leather daddy hat on him and BAM!
ps - thank you copy editor.
joshua - 10/01/08 09:47
My God - does the deification of the man ever stop? What do you think about that video with the kids singing pro-Obama songs? I saw it last night and thought it was ironic that only a few years back liberals said to my face that Bush Administration personnel were the second coming of Goebbels. I mean really... it was an awkward paradox. On one hand I thought it was cute - how could you not? On the other, though, I felt like I was watching this - :::link:::
Still though James, you have to admit - my criticism aside, Obama would never wear that hat!
PS - as your unofficial copy editor - change the title of this entry!
My God - does the deification of the man ever stop? What do you think about that video with the kids singing pro-Obama songs? I saw it last night and thought it was ironic that only a few years back liberals said to my face that Bush Administration personnel were the second coming of Goebbels. I mean really... it was an awkward paradox. On one hand I thought it was cute - how could you not? On the other, though, I felt like I was watching this - :::link:::
Still though James, you have to admit - my criticism aside, Obama would never wear that hat!
PS - as your unofficial copy editor - change the title of this entry!
09/30/2008 15:18 #45862
BlenderMy landlords snagged us a blender before it went into our neighbors trash. They are awesome.
For a blender that was second away from being covered in diapers and vegetable peelings, it is the sweetest blender I have ever used. It has made life so much better in the two weeks I have had it.
Chocolate Milk:
Skim milk, water, whey protein, a table spoon cocoa powder, a few drops of stevia. So deliciouis, almost no fat or sugar. WIth the cocoa I couldn't make this before because you just can spoon mix the stuff into anything.
Fruit and Vegi smoothie.
non-fat yogurt, skim milk, whey protein, celery, whole lemon, whole apple, parsley, spinach. Because it is a blender and not a juicer the mix has some bits of solid vegi, but is such an easy, delicious way to have a mess of raw goodness.
Tzatziki dressing.
non-fat yogurt, juice of 1/2 lemon, whole peeled cucumber, garlic, dill. I used to make a tofu-based dressing with many of these ingredients but was much more watery. This has the same amount of protein and is even more delicious.
I know these recipes aren't exotic or interesting, they are just things I wouldn't have been able to make without a blender, or a much larger food processor.
Thank you gods of the garbage for making tummy happy.
For a blender that was second away from being covered in diapers and vegetable peelings, it is the sweetest blender I have ever used. It has made life so much better in the two weeks I have had it.
Chocolate Milk:
Skim milk, water, whey protein, a table spoon cocoa powder, a few drops of stevia. So deliciouis, almost no fat or sugar. WIth the cocoa I couldn't make this before because you just can spoon mix the stuff into anything.
Fruit and Vegi smoothie.
non-fat yogurt, skim milk, whey protein, celery, whole lemon, whole apple, parsley, spinach. Because it is a blender and not a juicer the mix has some bits of solid vegi, but is such an easy, delicious way to have a mess of raw goodness.
Tzatziki dressing.
non-fat yogurt, juice of 1/2 lemon, whole peeled cucumber, garlic, dill. I used to make a tofu-based dressing with many of these ingredients but was much more watery. This has the same amount of protein and is even more delicious.
I know these recipes aren't exotic or interesting, they are just things I wouldn't have been able to make without a blender, or a much larger food processor.
Thank you gods of the garbage for making tummy happy.
tinypliny - 10/01/08 19:59
Nice. I need to try the Tzatziki dressing. Blenders are actually the "sliced bread" of cooking. Sliced bread unfortunately gets all the undeserved idioms.
Nice. I need to try the Tzatziki dressing. Blenders are actually the "sliced bread" of cooking. Sliced bread unfortunately gets all the undeserved idioms.
metalpeter - 09/30/08 19:09
I have to ask one question is it strong enough to make frozen Strawberry Daquaris?
I have to ask one question is it strong enough to make frozen Strawberry Daquaris?
I actually like it down there. It is beautiful country and I would love to get down there on some mountain bike trek.
You have to be able to love the fact that once you cross that PA line you see "ADULT" on the side of a mountain like the Hollywood sign. The billboards of "The Lowest Beer and Cigagette prices allowed by Law!!!" as well. I guess those mountaineers know their A,B,C's I suppose ;-)
Not to mention, The Stillers! ;-D
PS: Yeah, I am heavily influenced by the Yinz love the Stillers video and crappy karaoke that (e:Drew) has been posting.
Yeah, but how cool that you are going there and can bring back stuff from TJ's and "The Big I" :D