| journal | contact |
| Alternate Entries |
|
||
|
|
Friday, December 17, 2004 The new HRC logo?
 
No comment.
Thursday, December 16, 2004 Yeah, they're up to the, uh, challenge.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004 Sometimes I look at the blog's statistics: number of page hits, referrers, browsers, the normal stuff. And then there's Top 50 of 103 Total Search Strings - the things people have typed in that has lead them here. The top? "Rodney King." Do I know why? Not a clue. "XXX Santa" also figures in the top five. But my favorite: "baby gap Republicans." Now the chances are these are folks looking for references on the recent claims, popularized by David Brooks in his NY Times column, that red staters are making babies faster than blue staters, which means, so the argument goes, trouble down the road for blue staters (These claims have been widely derided, for any number of reasons). So the "baby gap" with regard to "Republicans."But at this point, my gut reaction is overwhelmingly "oh, yeah, suburbanites in madras shirts and khakis buying tiny little socks and shirts." Possibly because just last week I, neither suburban, Republican, nor owner of madras anything, found myself in a Very Dangerous Store: the Baby Gap. Where there are hundreds of incredibly cute, irrestible, wildly expensive clothing items for very tiny people, people who will grow out of said items in about the same time it will take me to get around to getting another haircut. This is why. I read that, and I was a goner. I had no defenses. I bought lots. posted by jeev | 4:00 PM |
Monday, December 13, 2004 Hilary Rosen: just say no. She's bad for musicians, bad for the intellectual commons, and very, very bad for gay people:Replacing Jacques [as head of the HRC, an important gay civil rights organization] temporarily are Michael Berman, a longtime supporter of gay causes who is straight, and Hilary Rosen, an HRC veteran and former recording industry lobbyist who wrote an essay in The Advocate, a national gay and lesbian magazine, this month. She argued that in a conservative era, gays should push for civil unions, Social Security, pension, and tax benefits. ''Paving a middle road for people to walk down is not caving in, it is building a future," she wrote.Not that the HRC is my choice for gay rights groups: they've always had a yen for power and the urge to be subservient to whoever has it at the moment, principles be damned. And not that the pursuit of marriage rights is the be-all and end-all of gay activism. But the truth is, the card has been played, the game is underway, and talking about "middle roads" now is simply retreating. Shame-facedly. With our tails between our legs. For wanting the same rights every heterosexual person simply has. And that is just unacceptable. Particularly when the much discussed common wisdom that "moral values" drove this election has been shown over and over to be based on, well, nothing: Did "moral values"—in particular, the anti-gay marriage measures on ballots in 11 states this week—drive President Bush's re-election? That's the early conventional wisdom as Democrats begin soul-searching and finger-pointing. These measures are alleged to have drawn Christian conservatives to the polls, many of whom failed to vote last time. The theory is intriguing, but the data don't support it. Gay marriage and values didn't decide this election. Terrorism did.posted by jeev | 10:30 AM |
|
|
