my apologies to everyone around me for being so cranky, by the way.
so anyway, i blew off my personal training session tonight and am now covered in a blanket, drinking tea and watching suzanne somers sell jewelry on the home shopping network. apparently she was a "groundbreaking pioneer" in the world of celebrities selling CZ jewelry on TV. she started in '94. time flies.
seriously, though, aren't the salespeople on HSN amazing? they can talk about a necklace or a blender for 20 minutes straight! if i ever go into sales, i am totally going to turn to HSN for lessons and inspiration.
anyway. onto the bullets.
things that blew my mind this week
- the BBC's alcohol experiment - a widget where you insert how many drinks you had the night before and it tells you the caloric equivalent in food. to avoid depression, i will not be using this again.
- these pictures of the flood in venice. i especially like the guys who are like, "fuck it. we are knee deep in water, but we are going to have a scotch."
- prop 8 - the musical. the video itself is hysterical, but what's more interesting are the comments on the new york times blog entry. i didn't know any right wingers even read the times, but some of the first comments are from opponents of gay marriage complaining about the "moral bankruptcy of those who support gay rights," who "cannot engage in an actual, fair discussion about the issue." an interesting arrow to sling considering one of his conservative cohort's contributions to the discussion was: "GROW UP. YOU LOST. MOVE ON. Stop whinning (sic). I did not vote for Obama. My side lost. I'm moving on."
after a reader asked matthew what, exactly, he had against gay marriage, he replied:
first of all, if we judged the merit of heterosexual marriage on its ability to provide stable environments and raise responsible citizens, the practice would have been revoked centuries ago. second of all, in modern society's loose definition of "having children" (adoption, surrogacy, in vitro, that man that gave birth), gay couples have almost the same ability to have children as any straight couple. i say, give gay couples the chance to help rectify the situations of the thousands of children in foster care who were fucked up by their straight parents. third of all, there is nothing i hate more than the "i'm not racist, i have a black friend" excuse. doesn't this guy watch reality TV? nothing gets your ass beat faster than that. and then there's his sanctimonious "i love you, i just don't love what you do" shtick. if i were his gay "friend," i would ditch this guy in a second because of his condescending, holier-than-thou attitude. oh yeah, that and the fact that HE GETS TO DECIDE HOW I LIVE MY LIFE.
You ask me to demonstrate how gay marriage threatens society. I ask you to demonstrate how it contributes. Heterosexual marriage contributes to society by providing a stable environment in which children can be born and raised to be responsible citizens (which is in the government’s best interest). Homosexual couples, by definition, can not have children on their own and have no potential to provide this benefit to society. This is the logical reason they do not qualify for marriage.
For the record, I have gay friends whom I love. Unlike many vocal opponents of prop 8, I do not believe that loving someone equals approving of their behavior.
side note, i just searched TDF for cheap theater tickets and noticed there is an eagles tribute band playing at b.b. king's next week named spread eagle.