Today I am having lunch with another attorney who is openly gay. I met her and her partner last week at a firm event, and we scheduled this lunch to discuss her experiences with the firm (at the event she indicated they were positive). G., the attorney I am lunching with, is quite friendly and clearly the lipstick--not that that really matters, except that I often find myself unable to make conversation with the more masculine lesbians ("No, I don't follow football; did you see Wicked?" "No, I didn't see Wicked, but I am building a new deck." "I bought a new shirt." [Silence]). Anyway, lesbians of all types are people who do go through similar struggles as I do, and they deserve respect, but I am not the only one who feels a little awkward.
Nonetheless, I am looking forward to our lunch today.
PS: I have already had my very first actual gay date (as opposed to drunken hook-up)!!! I shall post about it this weekend.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
JFK terrorists
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm a little behind on the attempted terror plot at JFK airport. I blame that on work and not having a usable laptop power cord (which will change this weekend as Friday is payday!!!!). However, because just yesterday the fourth suspected terrorist surrenendered, it gives me something of a reason to post on it now.
Now many are pointing to the fact that these guys are more like Larry, Curly, and Moe (and I guess now, Shemp) trying to perpetrate a plot. We heard Similar murmurings about the Fort Dix Six. Honestly, I don't care how amateurish these plots were. Last I checked, the generally accepted elements for an attempt crime were 1) The intent necessary to perpetrate the crime, and 2) some action taken in furtherance of the plot (naturally what sort of action this requires is the subject of considerable debate, but I'd bet that obtaining photgraphs of the target, soliciting financial and technical assistance, and recruiting others qualifies).
Assuming we can prove these elements (which oughtn't be too hard unless evidentiary rules exclude the recorded conversations, a distinct possibility) then, to cautiously paraphrase George Tenet, this should be a slam dunk.
I'm not going to advocate torture (wink), but even if these guys are the Three Stooges of the terrorist world, I think it perfectly approriate to interrogate them (aggressively) for information on other more urgent terrorist threats. Then punish them to the fullest extent of the law.
And like Alan Shore, I know I'll get letters.
Now many are pointing to the fact that these guys are more like Larry, Curly, and Moe (and I guess now, Shemp) trying to perpetrate a plot. We heard Similar murmurings about the Fort Dix Six. Honestly, I don't care how amateurish these plots were. Last I checked, the generally accepted elements for an attempt crime were 1) The intent necessary to perpetrate the crime, and 2) some action taken in furtherance of the plot (naturally what sort of action this requires is the subject of considerable debate, but I'd bet that obtaining photgraphs of the target, soliciting financial and technical assistance, and recruiting others qualifies).
Assuming we can prove these elements (which oughtn't be too hard unless evidentiary rules exclude the recorded conversations, a distinct possibility) then, to cautiously paraphrase George Tenet, this should be a slam dunk.
I'm not going to advocate torture (wink), but even if these guys are the Three Stooges of the terrorist world, I think it perfectly approriate to interrogate them (aggressively) for information on other more urgent terrorist threats. Then punish them to the fullest extent of the law.
And like Alan Shore, I know I'll get letters.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
GOP Debates
Pink Elephant will not be watching the debates for three reasons in descending order of weight:
1) There are currently 789,462 Republicans jockeying for the nomination that is, oh, about a year and a quarter away. Sure, the primaries start in 9 months, and we need to weed these folks out. However, we have only 3 serious contenders (and then 1 sorta serious contender who is not yet official and thus will not be at the dabate), but with the a stage as populous as China, no one is going to get to say anything of any real substance. The questions might as well have only yes or no answers. You want to know what these people think (or say they think)? Then visit their websites.
2) I have a happy hour to go to.
3) I don't have a TV in my new apartment yet.
1) There are currently 789,462 Republicans jockeying for the nomination that is, oh, about a year and a quarter away. Sure, the primaries start in 9 months, and we need to weed these folks out. However, we have only 3 serious contenders (and then 1 sorta serious contender who is not yet official and thus will not be at the dabate), but with the a stage as populous as China, no one is going to get to say anything of any real substance. The questions might as well have only yes or no answers. You want to know what these people think (or say they think)? Then visit their websites.
2) I have a happy hour to go to.
3) I don't have a TV in my new apartment yet.
Monday, June 4, 2007
DOMA
I can't say this much better than Andrew Sullivan, so I won't try.
I will add, the only not-even candidate that has shown consistent federalism is Southern Conservative Fred Thompson. I've said before: I like him, I just don't think he would be a wise choice this time around. Unless we want another (and worse) President Clinton, we need to think very critically about how our candidate will appeal to moderates.
I will add, the only not-even candidate that has shown consistent federalism is Southern Conservative Fred Thompson. I've said before: I like him, I just don't think he would be a wise choice this time around. Unless we want another (and worse) President Clinton, we need to think very critically about how our candidate will appeal to moderates.
Dating
Today marks the birth of a new category for this blog: dating. I must reiterate, however, this blog is not about sex, and discussions of dating will not become a ribald string a NSA hook-ups (not my style anyway).
Cards on the table: I've never dated much. I had a couple of beards in high school, but they were more of the standing date for dance variety. Nonetheless they did the job, even in college people would ask me if was still dating ____. (Aside: my senior year beard just recently got married).
In college, I was still very closeted, and would go to parties, but ALWAYS go home alone (a couple of times I would crash at a friend's place, but that would involve sleeping and nothing else). I always used the excuse "I'm too busy to date," and incidentally my lack of dating is what makes my mom suspicious.
All that is to say, I never got the cheesy high school "not-too-serious-but-feels-like-it-anyway" kind of starter dating that most people get. I have no idea what do, and I'm about a decade behind on that front. Regardless, I decided this weekend, that if I am going to be out this summer (new city and all), I might try some casual dating. Emphasis on the casual. I don't think I am in a place right now where I can seriously contemplate a boyfriend.
Now comes the challenge: I want casual not too serious dating (meanign doign stuff together, but not feeling obligated always to be with the same person) but I am not exactly looking for the mindless sexual encounters and one night stands that is the stereotype of the young gay dating scene. I'm more interested in going to dinner, taking walks, watchign movies, and so on. So basically I want more serious romantic dating that I can treat casually, hmm. Anyway, just musing. I don't have a plan of action to share, but this is something I've been thinking about.
Oh and, Icon: your point in the comment to my last post is very well taken. I'm not even sure I can get away with the old line, "really I'm just a libertarian" with most. Though I might keep my politics in my back pocket if I ever want to end something quickly :)
Cards on the table: I've never dated much. I had a couple of beards in high school, but they were more of the standing date for dance variety. Nonetheless they did the job, even in college people would ask me if was still dating ____. (Aside: my senior year beard just recently got married).
In college, I was still very closeted, and would go to parties, but ALWAYS go home alone (a couple of times I would crash at a friend's place, but that would involve sleeping and nothing else). I always used the excuse "I'm too busy to date," and incidentally my lack of dating is what makes my mom suspicious.
All that is to say, I never got the cheesy high school "not-too-serious-but-feels-like-it-anyway" kind of starter dating that most people get. I have no idea what do, and I'm about a decade behind on that front. Regardless, I decided this weekend, that if I am going to be out this summer (new city and all), I might try some casual dating. Emphasis on the casual. I don't think I am in a place right now where I can seriously contemplate a boyfriend.
Now comes the challenge: I want casual not too serious dating (meanign doign stuff together, but not feeling obligated always to be with the same person) but I am not exactly looking for the mindless sexual encounters and one night stands that is the stereotype of the young gay dating scene. I'm more interested in going to dinner, taking walks, watchign movies, and so on. So basically I want more serious romantic dating that I can treat casually, hmm. Anyway, just musing. I don't have a plan of action to share, but this is something I've been thinking about.
Oh and, Icon: your point in the comment to my last post is very well taken. I'm not even sure I can get away with the old line, "really I'm just a libertarian" with most. Though I might keep my politics in my back pocket if I ever want to end something quickly :)
Friday, June 1, 2007
Yikes
For all her moderate posturing, Hillary reveals herself to be a tried and true member of the free-markets-are-evil left.
(I wrote this post on my lunch break, so I stopped stealing from the firm)
(I wrote this post on my lunch break, so I stopped stealing from the firm)
That's a switch
According to this CNN article, the Democratic candidates are doing to more to appeal to religious voters and top Republicans seem to be shying away from discussing their faith publicly.
I wonder if this is a blip or trend that suggests I can come back into the tent.
Aside: People keep saying the GOP needs someone like Fred Thompson to mobilize the base (i.e. religious conservatives). I'm not sure Fred would be a wise choice, not to say I don't like him. The base will be mobilized regardless (two words: Hillary Clinton), and focusing too narrowly on the base is going to alienate the moderates again meaning we will lose.
UPDATE: Here is the article that Andrew Sullivan linked to (h/t Matthew). The money quote (also highlighed by Sullivan) is
A couple of things. I readily disagree with Rudy on abortion and gun control, but since when is Rudy pro-partial birth abortion? Has he come out against Stenber v. Carhart? Is this an older position that has been swept under the rug as he runs for president? I'm not being argumentative, but that line surprised me. How DARE he, though, advocate equal rights for a minority. After all, homosexuals are a minority because they like to do icky things to each other (now, I'm being argumentative). Also it's interesting that this litany of sins mentions nothing about national defense, federalism, fiscal policy, or limited government, which is kind of what I thought conservatism was about. I'm in my 20s and already behind the times, I guess.
Seriously though, I need to get of the blog and do some paid work.
"I don't think that a person who's running for a secular position as I am should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs think is immoral or not immoral," Romney said in an AP interview last week in response to a question about whether he believes homosexuality is immoral.
Giuliani didn't want to talk about his faith, either. "The mayor's personal relationship with God is private and between him and God," his campaign told AP.
I wonder if this is a blip or trend that suggests I can come back into the tent.
Aside: People keep saying the GOP needs someone like Fred Thompson to mobilize the base (i.e. religious conservatives). I'm not sure Fred would be a wise choice, not to say I don't like him. The base will be mobilized regardless (two words: Hillary Clinton), and focusing too narrowly on the base is going to alienate the moderates again meaning we will lose.
UPDATE: Here is the article that Andrew Sullivan linked to (h/t Matthew). The money quote (also highlighed by Sullivan) is
Paul Nagy, the group's top-gun in New Hampshire, believes nominating Giuliani would be disastrous for the American conservative movement. Along with other activists, Nagy signed a letter seeking additional signatories to the anti-Rudy declaration. The letter states: "Rudy Giuliani is an unacceptable Republican nominee for President of the United States. He is pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-registration of handguns, and pro-homosexual rights. He is the most liberal Republican candidate for President in our nation's history."
A couple of things. I readily disagree with Rudy on abortion and gun control, but since when is Rudy pro-partial birth abortion? Has he come out against Stenber v. Carhart? Is this an older position that has been swept under the rug as he runs for president? I'm not being argumentative, but that line surprised me. How DARE he, though, advocate equal rights for a minority. After all, homosexuals are a minority because they like to do icky things to each other (now, I'm being argumentative). Also it's interesting that this litany of sins mentions nothing about national defense, federalism, fiscal policy, or limited government, which is kind of what I thought conservatism was about. I'm in my 20s and already behind the times, I guess.
Seriously though, I need to get of the blog and do some paid work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
