1. Borrowed my friend Rick’s 1992 Toyota pickup and retrieved my snow blower from Somerville
2. Used a power-washer to clean off a tarp
3. Had my fantasy football teams go 2-0
4. Didn’t shower on Saturday
5. Didn’t shave all weekend
6. Cleaned my basement
7. Resisted the temptation to get a pedicure when Juliet was getting her nails done (which is regrettable, as my toenails are a mess)
(File under “dabbling in gender stereotypes”)
Apropos of nothing to do with the hideous Michael Vick situation, I read somewhere that his ne’er-do-well brother Marcus had 757 tattooed on his arm to represent Newport News, his home. Which got me to thinking — what if they overlay a new area code over 757? Does he have to get a new tattoo? Or will he keep it real with a throwback 757 phone number?
The whole overlay concept makes me feel old. When I was a kid, Massachusetts had two area codes — 413 for Western Mass., and 617 for the rest of the state. Then 617 was split into 617 and 508, which marked the debut of New England Telephone’s catchy "July 16 is the date, when Worcester goes to 508" slogan. Now there’s a slew of others — 617 was split again into 617 and 781; 781 added the 339 overlay. And then 617 added the 857 overlay (The WordNerd was the first person I met to score an 857 number).
Back when area codes only went up to X19 (219, 319, 419, etc.) I used to have a RainMan-like ability to identify area codes ("302?" "Deleware!") … not unlike my RainMan-like ability to memorize WordPerfect 5.1 commands ("Print?" "Shift-F7!").
I am told I had memorized the license plates of all of my neighbor’s cars when I was 5. Which is funny, given that I couldn’t tell you the license plate on my current wheels.
Isn’t the parable of David and Goliath so cliche and "done" now that, in effect, David is overrated and Goliath is actually the underdog?
Confusion between "in progress" (an idiomatic phrase meaning "going on, underway, a work in progress" — with progress meaning "movement as toward a goal") and the incorrect "in process" (process — "a series of actions, changes or functions bringing about a result") drives me nuts.
At least I assume the latter is incorrect.
I know it sounds wrong and it bugs me, thus it must be incorrect.
First off, I owe this post to the fact that I found myself listening to conservative talk radio tonight. And I feel dirty because of it. And angry. And sad. And foolish. It wasn’t by choice. When I got in the car, WRKO was replaying Game 2 of the 2004 World Series. Later, when I got back into the car, dickhead conservative yakker Michael Savage was on.
Savage was ranting tonight about how damaging
it was for America’s children, tuned into last night’s Oscar’s to have to hear Melissa Etheridge thank
her wife and children, the confusion it would cause children, and Dear
God, what will we tell the children. That segued into a boilerplate rant against liberal Hollywood and the liberal media. Whatever. Annoying conservative talk radio white noise, what can I do about it? My own fault for staying on 680 AM.
But then, when I got home, I was reading yesterday’s "Ideas" section from the Globe, and saw Jeff Jacoby’s column on Washington State’s Initiative 957, which is getting a lot of ink lately (I added an article from the Post-Intelligencer to my articles list on the list, but thought this actually merited a blog entry). Essentially, the "Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance" is, through some "street theater politics," as their chairman puts it, offering up some language that, in theory, would force social conservatives and same-sex marriage opponents to put their money where their mouth is …
The way we are challenging Andersen is unusual: using the initiative,
we are working to put the Court’s ruling into law. We will do this through
three initiatives. The first would make procreation a requirement for legal
marriage. The second would prohibit divorce or legal separation when there are
children. The third would make the act of having a child together the legal
equivalent of a marriage ceremony.
Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating
the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions
which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we
hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitutional and thus weaken
Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see
the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the
sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.
So, Jacoby calls the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance’s argument specious (which is missing the point of their efforts, but I digress) — "Marriages can serve any number of purposes — cementing the bond between partners, guaranteeing financial security, having a legitimate sexual outlet, ensuring companionship, and so on … " All of which seem to be purposes that could easily be served by a same-sex union, as far as I can tell.
Jacoby he continues with the fundamental argument that I just don’t buy, whether it’s Jeff Jacoby, Mitt Romney or that asshole Michael Savage making it …
"Because sex between men and women can result in children [OK, I buy that much, although as the parent of a three year-old produced by IVF, I can attest that you don't even need to be in the same room to conceive, but I digress again], and because children tend to do best when raised by their mothers and fathers, society has a vested interest in encouraging long-term, monogamous, heterosexual marraige. [emphasis added by me]."
Woah. Hold the phone.
I realize this has been argued to death, but are there actual studies and statistics that show children do significantly better with a father and a mother rather than two loving, committed, same-sex parents? Could someone produce these for me? And what exactly does "do best" mean? I know many screwed-up products of two-parent homes, just like I know many well-adjusted products of single parents and divorced parents.
I dunno, I guess Savage just pissed me off. It’s really non-productive and pointless to get pissed off at conservative talk radio hosts. I wish I were more articulate about things like this. This is going to sound like grandstanding, but it makes me sad and angry that people I know and care about have to deal with this sort of bigotry and virtiol and bias on a day-to-day basis. It’s not like it’s anything new to them, I guess.
Stupid conservative talk radio.
