Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/001044.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/001044.php on line 91
February 04, 2004
What I Would Have Talked About

If I'd had time to blog today.

I'd have discussed how the Massachusetts ruling is going to make the religious conservatives scream and how it's the first step toward the inevitable division between a "civil union" (for everyone, het, gay, bi, trans, whatever) that's the piece recognized by the law and "marriage" as a purely religious institution. This will allow different religions to take their own stance based on their dubious standards of morality and keep the state and church separate on this subject. Mark my words. Some day, most of us will be wearing the union label.

I'd have puzzled over just exactly when the CIA's mandate changed. You know, the one that forbid them to conduct operations on USofA territory.

I would had a few rude things to say about Republicans against ethics.

I would have made yet another post on the horrors of executing the mentally incompetent.

I might have wept, but I would surely have ranted about this Auschwitz comparison and about how true it is.

I would have said to take a look at this site, which is new to me.

I would have recommended we all bookmark this site since I'm sure we're all gathering various primary-related sites to check over the next few months.

I would have been shaking my head over this, and this and this especially, with the list of USofA companies documented as having done the kind of business with Iraq that can lead to development of WMD.

Posted by AnneZook at 01:54 PM


There was a shift in the rules about where the CIA could wark after 9/11 that was supposed to be about sharing information with the FBI.

We need some real oversight on intelligence agencies. I was part of NSA when I was in the military and our rules were crystal clear.

Posted by: Bryan at February 4, 2004 04:51 PM

I first encountered "civil unions" when a European friend got married in Amsterdam. There were two entire ceremonies: most of the honorees and attendants at the religious ceremony were family; the civil ceremony was mostly friends. Two parties, with two cakes.....

You'd think there was a wedding planners' lobby out there pushing for this.

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at February 4, 2004 10:57 PM

Bryan - I'd find it reassuring if most of the citizens of this country even understood just how many 'security agencies' we're running. And some of them puzzle me. Why, for instance, does the Department of Energy need an intelligence force?

Jonathan - That's a brilliant idea. I know there are already wedding planners targeting gay couples but the notion that the industry could nearly double its business by providing 'civil ceremony' trappings along with the more traditional festivities...it's brilliant!* And just think how good it would be for the economy. Heh.

(* I can use exclamation points. I'm an amateur, so I'm exempt.)

Posted by: Anne at February 5, 2004 11:08 AM

Has someone been policing exclamation points again?!? Don't they have anything better to do!?!

But seriously, what's the point of having a punctuation mark that's "improper to use in polite company"?

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at February 5, 2004 05:34 PM

Well, considering that I just dissed Taranto for his use of exclamation points, I felt a bit guilty about using them myself, you see.

I just think Taranto's are...let's say, inappropriately placed. The use of exclamation points in "journalism," even in opinion/commentary, used to be vanishingly rare. The OpinionJournal, and Taranto in particular, uses them frequently to create the sense of a scandalous revelation.

Posted by: Anne at February 6, 2004 11:00 AM