Normally, I'd highlight the sources of things I'm going to rant about, but in the case of a couple of them, I'm suspending that policy. Not that I don't want to share the blog traffic love and all, but just because I want my rants to be a little limited in scope. Sort of like when you bitch to just one or two friends or a sibling about something rather than the whole group of friends or the entire family. Know what I mean?
Cases in point: Sunday, I'm enjoying a leisurely afternoon and I read about a fellow blogger in far-off Utah who is family (i.e. GLBTIQ and/or GLBTIQ-friendly, for those who don't know what I mean when I say "they're family".) Said blogger wrote about "being friended" by a colleague who has a Facebook or MySpace page or some social networking something or other. Apparently, the friending colleague is putting together a phone bank at his house in Salt Lake to call voters in California and persuade them to vote for Proposition 8.
Don't know what that is? It's a proposition on the ballot this November in California that, if it passes, will constitutionalize the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. In other words, it will legalize discrimination against those who wish to marry who don't fit the one man/one woman bill. Obviously, this upset my fellow blogger for reasons that hit close to home and said blogger then wondered whether to give this friended colleague a piece of her mind or just let it go. Given that such laws would actually affect said blogger if she ever wishes to marry her eventual life partner, it's a legitimate question.
What is my point in all this? My point is, I'm getting old, cranky, and tired of this kind of bullshit from other people. "Other people" being people like the friended colleague who feel they have to protect an institution from another group of people when the original group of people are doing a shitty job protecting the self-same institution. Too vague for you? Let me be direct. What do heterosexuals have to protect when more the 50% of straight marriages end in divorce?
My recommendation to the fellow blogger: unfriend your colleague and when he asks why, tell the numbskull, "I may have to work with bigots, but I don't have to be friends with them."
/rant number one
*****
Here's my second rant: Seems a buppie (that's a black, urban yuppie, by the way) in the area is lamenting the sad, sad fact that s/he may be reduced to wearing an outfit twice because the recession is finally taking its toll. I'm not even going to go into all the whys and wherefores this narcissistic self-pitying totally raises my hackles, sets my teeth on edge, and just generally pisses me off.
Instead, I left this comment on their blog:
I wish I felt sorry for your current cost-cutting state of affairs. Having to pinch pennies is never fun, but the reality is, it's what the majority of us have been and should have been doing for the last eight years or more. If the current administration has taught us nothing, it's that you can't spend without having an equal or greater amount in the bank/stock options/savings/the cookie jar to match or offset spending. We are reaping the rewards of our insatiable need to spend, spend, spend for tomorrow we die and who gives a fuck. (And sadly, those of us who do give a fuck are paying for those who don't.)/rant number two
I hope your situation, and the rest of the country's, improves soon. Until then, there are worse things than having to wear the same outfit twice: Death comes to mind.
*****
My third rant comes from my photography blog and an anonymous commentor. Those who have read my blog(s) know, I dislike anonymous commentors, particularly when they post snarky, inappropriate, or belligerent comments. As long as you own your comment (and you'll notice I have a few anonymous commentors, but they sign a name or nom de plume at the end of their comments), I'm totally open to whatever it is you have to say. I don't mind being called on my crap, but if you're going to call me out, have the balls/ovaries to own it. Drive-by comments don't fly with me.
I've digressed. Here's the picture I posted.
For posting this photo, an anonymous commentor calls me "low". Yeah.According to the anonymous commentor, I'm "low" and "violated [this guy's] right to privacy" by taking and posting his picture. As I said earlier, I have no problem with you calling me low, but don't do it anonymously. Very, very uncool. And you will suffer my wrath and a follow-up post.
/rant number three
*****
Okay, I know I said I wasn't going to discuss McCain-Palin, but honestly, that freak show has me so puzzled. I don't even know where to begin.
I guess I won't. I'll just reiterate that Wednesday, October 1 is Volunteer for Obama Day here at Tewkesbury Place. As I said before, please join me or make a contribution if you can. The circus has to end. Or, to quote Obama, we can be the change we've been waiting for.
Photo copyright: D.C. Confidential
14 comments:
OK - confused, how exactly is that low?
as a native californian, i am embarrassed about prob 8. i was so proud when gay marriage was declared unconstitutional and this prop makes me kinda angry that i happened to change my voter registration to VA this year (i had been voting absentee in CA since i moved to DC) otherwise, i would be proudly voting NO on this piece of crap.
and why the heck does utah care about cali? can't they keep their anti-gay marriage sentiment confined to that state?
i'm sorry. i'm not normally this angry, i promise. but legalizing discrimination just makes my blood boil.
Spencer: Your guess is as good as mine.
OC Girl: Prop. 8 is embarrassing. As for why people in Utah care about what's going on in California... It's a little entity called the Mormon Church, which believes they have a divine duty (along with all the other religious wack-jobs) to save the world from "those gays and their gay lifestyle" and which is actively politicking in California for Prop. 8. (Don't even get me started on how the IRS should pull their 501(c)(3) status for this activity.) Makes my blood boil, too.
Whooo GURL! you let it rip today and well you should. My hair got a little singed from the heat but other than that I hear ya.
I updated my blog ... but the update in short form is that the co-worker has been de-friended ever since I saw that on his profile.
I commented over on your photo blog, so I won't go into it here. I don't think you're low at all. I think the lines of photography and reasonable expectation are blurry. That being said, fantastic picture!
That is all.
why do we say that 50% of marriages between a man and a woman end in divorce, and not give the statistics of the gay relationships who are or not married. I don't think that only marriages between a man and a woman, or relationships without marriage between a man and a woman, have any more divorces or breakups than gay relationships. These days people of all backgrounds usually don't end up with just one person, and we find out more and more how people have a difficult time just being loyal to one person, whoever that person may be. It affects everyone. So I think that whatever one is, they just wish to protect their beliefs, and it's unfair to wonder why heterosexuals should care about what they protect. Everyone has the right to care about the lifestyle they choose to pursue. Just my two cents worth. I think we should spend more time worrying about the children in this world who have crimes committed against them, so that they can grow up and even know how to love and trust anyone. Let's pray that congress passes the Protect our Children Act.
LG: Maybe it's selfish on my part, but good on you for defriending that guy.
Kim/Brad: If it's unfair to care about what heterosexuals want to protect then the reverse is also true: it is unfair to care if homosexuals want to marry. What concerns me more than heterosexuals fighting to protect marriage or divorce rates among all couples or whether churches choose to get involved, is the very fact that there are those who believe we need to constitutionalize marriage.
In truth, marriage historically was a contractual agreement that had to do with properties rights and had nothing to do with religion or God's sanction of the union. Marriage was seen as a way of securing and maintaining kingdoms. As such, it was an institution regulated by the state. In point of fact, most marriages in the U.S. are an open violation of the separation of church and state. If people want to defend marriage as being between one man and one woman, then they should stipulate within religious organizations and make the act of contractual unions for property rights and protections the purview of the state.
In other words, like the Europeans, what the U.S. should do is legalize marriage for everyone (I'll even throw polygamists into this, since that's a situation you and I can both understand, given our religious backgrounds) and it should operate thusly. If you wish to be married for the purposes of protecting your property rights, etc., you must go to city hall and be married by the state. If your religion requires your marriage to be sanctioned/sealed by God and/or if you wish to have your marriage sanctioned by a religious community, then you can go and be married in a church.
All of that said, I agree with you, if I've understood correctly. We should stop worrying about marriage rights and start worrying about laws to protect our children from predators. If the guy in Salt Lake wanted to start a phone tree for that, I'd join him, because that's worthwhile!
Brad and Kimberly,
"Just trying to protect their beiefs" is a twisted justification for hate crimes.
Tewks, I'm getting old and cranky too. I've decided to make a list of people I just won't bother to tolerate anymore -- and that decision was made today even before I read your post.
Come on over to my cyberspace if you want to read my list of people I'm just not going to bother being polite to anymore.
- Phoebe
You know how it is, if people are too busy spending all their time to fix your life and make you life it the way they want, they don't have to fix their life, their broken relationships, and their frelled up way of thinking.
Phoebe: As you know, I respect each person's right to their opinions. Ergo, I respect Brad's and Kim's right as much as I respect yours and eveyrone else. Doesn't mean I have to agree with anyone's though. It's the beauty of being a contrarian and a mediator. :-)
Cele: That's generally the problem with so many fixes in society. It starts with the pot calling the kettle black.
"Seems a buppie (that's a black, urban yuppie, by the way) in the area is lamenting the sad, sad fact that s/he may be reduced to wearing an outfit twice because the recession is finally taking its toll."
Seriously??
Liz: Fer realz. Go to this entry on DC Blogs and you'll find it.
I'm trying to catch up on this blog. Who knew you'd been so prolific the last several weeks??
I agree with all of your rants I must say.
Wow, what a horrible thing to have to wear an outfit twice! Clearly that person couldn't live in my shoes since I wear the same outfits to work every week. Hah! Honestly, I hate that the country is in the situation it's in, but I'm hoping that some (many) folks out there will wake up and smell the coffee! Too many people have been living WAY out of their budgets and WAY in debt. Hopefully, this is a wake up call to them.
Maya: I don't know that I, personally, have been prolific, but there's certainly been plenty in the news and politics to blog about. After Nov. 4, this blog will go back to be a black hole with little or no content. I'll have to start thinking of stuff to write again! :-)
Post a Comment