Homecoming becoming less gender-rigid

November 27th, 2004

The New York Times has an interesting article on how gay and lesbian students are causing many schools to choose their homecoming “kings” and “queens” in a less stereotypical way.

An anti-marriage activist: musings on the psychology of intolerance

November 26th, 2004

The New York Times had an article today about Phil Burress, an activist in the movement against same-sex marriage rights over the past nine years.

The Times says “It is easy to think of the campaign to ban same-sex marriage as a recent phenomenon, … [but] the movement’s backbone is built on little-known activists like Mr. Burress, a former union organizer who has devoted the last decade of his life to stopping gay marriage.”

I find it fascinating how this “self-described former pornography addict” is characterized as “closed-minded and intolerant of dissenting views;” one source for the article says “he and other spokesmen for the campaign believe that if you don’t subscribe to their view, there is something morally wrong with you.”

This sounds like yet another instance of a person trying to escape a life that feels out of control and unfulfilling not by deciding to live deliberately and reflectedly, but rather by throwing oneself at a new idea heart and soul and hanging on for dear life, lest any consideration of the world outside or any acknowledgement of shades of gray toss one into the chaos again. We humans crave comfort and stability, and perhaps the diversity of human experience, particularly when it enters into conflict with any dogma that is central to how an individual shapes his or her life, is a threat that must be annihilated, all the more so if one fears that the alternative is the abyss.

I’m sure the thinks he’s on the right side of the issue (pun intended):


“I don’t have a homophobic bone in my body,” [Burress] said. “What I’m concerned about is having these things forced on our culture.”

Protected: The Chudnovsky Brothers

November 23rd, 2004

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

ACLU: “Refuse to Surrender your Freedom”

November 22nd, 2004

The ACLU is launching a campaign called “Refuse to Surrender your Freedom.” It aims to collect 100,000 signatures by inauguration day (Jan. 20, 2004), to show our resolve as civil libertarians that we will keep fighting for our rights.

The ACLU also noted in an email

In the last two weeks, thousands of people - deeply concerned about the direction our country has taken - have spontaneously joined the ACLU.

Half of voting America is sorry…

November 18th, 2004

This site is funny in a sad sort of way…

http://72.3.131.10/gallery/1/

Ohio to recount votes after all!

November 17th, 2004

Details here.

Foreign-born citizens eligible to run for president?

November 16th, 2004

One good thing coming out of Arnold Schwarzenneger’s foray into politics is a renewed interest in amending the Constitution to remove the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen. See, for example, AmendForArnold.com.

Barney Frank, among others, has been advocating such an amendment, as can be seen in this House Judiciary Committee hearing. More details can be found here.

With a celebrity endorsement, maybe this has a chance of passing. That would be a good thing…

Fred Phelp reads The Washington Post

November 14th, 2004

… and, in particular, the articles on growing up gay in America. His church of hate was trying to get this teenager excoriated by his church, but the community rallied around him. Here’s the story.

Voting irregularities

November 13th, 2004

Here’s a compendium of voting irregularities during the 2004 election:

The DES key used to encrypt people’s ballots on the Diebold machines is freely available here.

There are a few campaigns underfoot to demand an investigation into these problems; one is sponsored by People For the American Way, and the other by MoveOn.

Third party candidates have announced plans to sue for a recount in Ohio.

The so-called “mandate”

November 12th, 2004

So Bush has been claiming that his victory represents a “mandate.” I think a 3% difference between the candidates is hardly that.

Sure, the standard electoral map seems overwhelming:


but if we look at the percentage of the population that voted for each candidate, the picture is more complex:



and, if we weigh each geographic area by its population, the mandate disappears altogether:


Look at this page for more details.