Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000917.php on line 91

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/000917.php on line 91
November 18, 2003
Well, well, well

Massachusetts' Supreme Court has ruled that banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. However, I'd say ruling that a "ban" is unconstitutional isn't quite the same thing as ruling in favor of gay marriage. It isn't exactly a "green light", especially when you consider that the court (rightfully) stopped short of requiring that gay couples be immediately issued with marriage licenses. ("Rightly" because I think requiring the Legislature to "fix" the situation was the correct approach. I'm not a legal expert, though.) It's a step beyond the "right to register" that's been granted in some places, even though that was a significant 'win' for the people involved. I don't mind small steps...as long as we're making steady progress.

And everyone have a moment of silence at some point today, for Italy's loss.

(Have you noticed that the ban on pictures of soldiers killed doesn't apply to the Italians in this situation? It was almost a shock, to see a picture of a casket, that's how successful the Bush Administration has been in keeping the lapdog media off the topic. If it was me, I'd put a picture of a casket, even an empty one, draped with a flag on the front pager of my newspaper and then run a story about the Administration's futile attempt to pretend no one is actually dying.)

The pro-USofA propaganda machine that's gearing up in Iraq continues to come fire and mockery. Excellent.

And, since our previous policy of putting up billboards and issuing playing cards hasn't pacified the Iraqi population, we're turning to an official policy of assassination. And, you know, targeting civilians. Way to win those hearts and minds, guys. A few retaliatory raids like the one I heard about last night, the one where an 11 year-old boy was killed, and they're totally going to love us.

There's an interesting debate going on over whether or not Iraq's new government should be religious or not. I wish there was a way we could know what groups of ordinary citizens thought. (I know...the Sunni and Shi'a official positions are obvious, but what do the people really think?)

Anyone who was listening to NPR last week (Thursday afternoon, to be precise) wouldn't have been surprised to hear that we're turning over control of Iraq to an Iraqi government but not actually planning to pull out our troops at the same time. I was listening to an interview and I heard that we need to have an Iraq government ruling the people in "safety and security" and the only way to provide "safety and security" was with USofA troops.

Remember Afghanistan? The first stop on our road to global domination the war on terror? Things, it would appear, aren't going that well. Not if the U.N. is pulling out workers.

Is a "virtual health system" with links to everyone's health information everywhere a good idea, or just a sneaky approach to the infamous Total Information Awareness concept?

I guess we all need to take a break now and then (I wrote about cheesy movies yesterday, after all), but why is Brooks littering the pages of the NYTimes with a pointless discussion of women's magazines?

Let me point out that writing an essay for a national newspaper about your obnoxious stupidity doesn't somehow make those qualities admirable. I do approve, however, of her attempts to change. Even thought I don't drive California highways, I'd like to hope that a few Denver drivers might read her column and learn from it.

I won't know what I think about 'blog elitism' until I know if I'm one of the 'cool kids' or not, okay? (My personal history suggests that I'm not.) Seriously, I know there are those who check their stats obsessively and who care more about getting a lot of traffic than about what they actually saying but I don't think it's to the point of being a disease yet. There are still a lot of folks who are blogging to get the word out about the stories they care about, and to share their opinions of the same.

Posted by AnneZook at 10:24 AM


Howard's essay in the Washington Post wasn't really about blog elitism as much as about blog insularity, and it was specific to the literary blogs she happens to read. Nonetheless, the diary nature of blogs does lend itself to self-obsession, preaching to the choir, etc., which is why blog writers (particularly ones who characterize their writing as political blogs) need to make an extra effort to be outward-directed and accessible to new readers. All the Andrew Sullivan-this and Instapundit-that stuff going on where people rail against right-wing bloggers whose opinions they don't like seems such a waste of breath and bandwidth to me, when we could be using that energy to talk about important stuff like Bush in London or the Safety Dance.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at November 19, 2003 07:19 AM

That's interesting, because I really thought it was about elitism, and a second reading didn't actually change my mind. I still come away with it with the impression that he sees a lot of blogging as people trying to get attention - as a sort of popularity contest.

Posted by: Anne at November 20, 2003 08:11 AM