Showing posts with label annoyance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label annoyance. Show all posts

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Dumbledore

Was gay.

Interesting, I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, but interesting nonetheless.

A few questions. Why is it necessary to sexualize Dumbledore when it didn't come up in the seven books? Is making him gay just something trendy to do?

Sometimes I am a little put off by the current fashion of including a stock gay character for whom sexuality just comes up constantly. I realize that people focus on the sexuality of gay people naturally because it's what makes us different, but there's more to me than my bedroom activities. I guess I just don't want to be seen merely as "the gay guy." However, the more people define characters by their sexuality the more I worry that people will define me that way without getting to know me.

On the other hand, it is nice to see gay characters because perhaps it helps normalizes homosexuality. Maybe I'm just too sensitive. Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

(H/t matt-CNS)

Update:

I realize that it is probably better to have Dumbledore be a beloved and important character. Let him have his role in the story independent of of his sexuality, and then reveal casually that he is gay.

Nonetheless, the reaction to the revelation (both positive and negative) just worries me that Dumbledore will go from being a great wizard character to a great gay wizard character. His sexuality will be inextricably tied to his identity and take on an importance not really warranted by his role in the Harry Potter stories.

If we could look at him as a great wizard character (who happens to be gay), it would be fine. I suppose what really bothers me is that we can't. I'm not mad at JK Rowling for outing him, I'm mad that we care so much that she did. Me included.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

memory

Yesterday I was driving and had a great idea for a post. I recall thinking it was both poignant and clever. Now for the life of me I can remember what the hell it was about.

I am annoyed.

Friday, September 21, 2007

Back to cranky

Just a short little post at Cato-at-Liberty raised my blood pressure or caused me mild depression, I can tell which. Thrust of the post:
But while we’ve still got a moribund and bloated government postal service, Germany’s privatized Deutsche Post seems to be at the leading edge in global shipping and business services. We’ve got congested, government-owned, and union-dominated seaports, while Dubai will be host to a huge and efficient intermodal system.
Who'd have thought that we would be looking at Germany as an example of less bureaucracy?

I truly, TRULY believe that the best thing our government can do for our economy is to get out of the way. We can argue all day long (and we would, since we never seemed to get anywhere) about whether government should subsidize our health care, and I will concede that the nature of that good makes it a complicated debate. However, why do we have a transportation bill where the question is not how much will we subsidize an industry (or really, a single company) instead of why should we be subsidizing it?

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

The situation

Tim noticed that I have been rather doctrinaire lately. He posits that it is because some left wing boy broke my heart. It's true that my mind has been elsewhere lately, but actually it's quite the opposite: people seem to fall in love with me too easily. I know it sounds a bit conceited, and I, of course, say it with tongue in cheek (this time my own), but really I am not used to this.

Back in my "straight" days, I was basically asexual. I ignored girls sexually, and was oblivious and indifferent as to whether they ignored me. Sexual attraction was largely a non-issue.

All of a sudden, I spent a summer out of the closet, and went, admittedly, a little wild. Now I can't seem to leave the summer in the summer. Not a day seems to go by without a text from some guy I met last summer (thankfully, David got the message. Though I doubt he reads the blog). One guy even offered to fly me back to the city for a long weekend. I'm not saying we're in stalker land, but then again I don't really know where that line is.

Here's the odd part, while I consider myself above average on looks, intelligence and personality, I don't think I am enough on any measure to warrant the kind of attention I am getting. It's not that I don't like the attention, it just confuses me. I like the attention; I want people to want me, but I feel a little guilty about leading the boys on.

Monday, September 3, 2007

Happy Marxism Day

Apart from being a school boy with a three day weekend (my school year always started in mid-August), I never much cared for this holiday. It sounds Marxist. It's basically our softer and older version of the International May Labor Day (which incidentally commemorates events that took place in the U.S., but I suppose we didn't need two labor days in this country)

It really doesn't affect my life too much now that automatic and internet banking are so pervasive and I often forget to get my snail-mail for days. Also many, if not most, retail stores still open their doors, and even have sales. As a student I can still do my work on Federal holidays (and often have to). When I graduate, I can bill for work on weekends and holidays just the same as work done on other days. So all in all, my only complaint is that it just leaves a bad ideological taste in my mouth.

Tangent: the discussion Matt had about capitalism with some Yugoslavian youths made me sad inside.

In other news: time to put away those white dinner jackets and linen suits. I don't care who says the rules have changed.

Note to the World

Unless I am close enough to kiss you, I do not want to smell you. This is true whether you smell good or bad.

Please take note.

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

States Rights = bigotry (?!)

Sen. Mike Gravel, who is apparently seeking the Democratic Nomination for president in 2008 (excuse me while I try to remember exactly who Mike Gravel is . . .), is not happy that Hillary Clinton deferred to states rights in defining "marriage," though she strongly supports equality of benefits (incidentally, though Hills' stance mirrors my position, this one issue is not enough to make me even consider supporting her in anything other than retirement). You can see a video of the statements to which Gravel refers at the bottom of this page.

Mike Gravel states, in part:

By drawing upon the language of states rights, Hillary embraces the tradition of John Calhoun and the defenders of slavery along with Strom Thurmond and the segregationists. Throughout our nation's history, every time national public opinion turns against oppression, opponents of progress use states rights to present themselves as defenders of liberty in the face of federal power.

States rights has always been the last refuge of the bigots. Now Hillary has given rhetorical cover to the homophobes. If she wins the Democratic nomination, opponents of gay marriage will cite her statement to justify their opposition to national marriage equality over the next decade.

Now I much beg Senator Gravel's pardon, but it seems a little dangerous to put all our eggs in the Federal basket. Why, isn't DOMA federal legislation? Didn't the FMA start in federal government (and admittedly die there)? Or the Federal Estate Tax that will hit gay couples quite significantly once it is reinstated? Has the Senator from Alaska noticed that at least 16 states plus the District of Columbia have workplace protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation while ENDA continues to languish in a Democrat controlled Congress?

OH wait, I get what Gravel's doing: he's trying to get attention by using a relatively insignificant issue to compare the front-runner in his race to a defender of slavery. And we trust people like this with our government?

PS, I NEVER thought I would be defending Hills on this blog. That Sen. Gravel made me do that is the most irritating thing of all.

Monday, August 6, 2007

Why I am not taking your calls anymore

David,

By now it should be clear to you that we are not "over;" we are a "never were." I really don't want to hear from you in the future. Let me tell you why.

1) I made it clear from the beginning that I am not looking for a relationship. I am only in town for the summer, so anything long term is out of the question. Also, you know I am only just barely out, and any dating I do is more about testing the waters than looking for a boyfriend. The expiration date of whatever we were has passed.

2) Despite my being clear about our having no future, you sure got possessive really quick. You flipped out when I mentioned I had a date with another boy. You tried to make me feel guilty, even though I WAS ALWAYS CLEAR THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE SERIOUS. You even got me to apologize just to shut you up. That was a big strike against you. When you asked later if I had seen 401(k) again, I lied when I said no. Shame on me, sure, but I was trying to avoid another scene.

3) Then the next time we went out, you got someone's phone number. Were you trying to get back at me, or are you just a hypocrite? Either way, strike two.

4) It might have been nice for you to have paid once. I know I made more money than you, but it's not like I took you to Bistro Vendre Trop Cher to flaunt it. I was careful only to take you to places that you could afford as well. Yet, never even a suggestion that you could pay this time. Classy. Strike Three. In baseball you would have been out at this point. Lucky for you, I don't follow sports.

5) The moment I decided not have any more to do with you came at Pride. HUGE red flags went up when you revealed your cavalier attitude towards HIV testing. Thank God this prude was always very careful.

6) When two weeks before my trip I said, "let's see what my schedule is like after my trip," that should have tipped you off that I am pulling away.

Oh, and while we're at it, here are some other things I don't like about you.

7) You smoke. [Note to blog readers, although I will fight for the smoker against the government, it is a disgusting habit, and it doesn't make me want to kiss you].

8) You have no obvious goals or ambitions.

9) I have to explain my jokes to you.

10) You called me "honey." I never want to be called "honey." "Dear" is even worse. We weren't even close to point where you could try out pet names.

11) You reacted very badly when I mentioned that I am not a Democrat. I don't expect you to agree with me politically, but I do expect that you can at least allow me to have my own opinions.

So, David, I hate to be the bad guy, but you leave me no choice. We are not compatible at all. I wish you the best and hope you can grow up some. However, you will not be growing with me. Please lose my number.

Most sincerely,
Pink Elephant

PS: I've met someone else.

FYI, and annoyance

FYI:

If you buy the soundtrack to hairspray on iTunes it comes with a video of Zac (since we're secret [i.e. pretend, i.e. I'm delusional] boyfriends, I don't need to tell you his last name) performing Ladies' Choice.

Maybe it's on the actual CD too, but iTunes tends to be cheaper.

Now for the annoyance:

Yesterday, I went shopping and stopped in at Nieman Marcus. I never buy anything there, but I like to look at the mannequins to get ideas of things to buy at more reasonably priced stores or expensive stores on super-sale. (ALSO, I found this D&G cashmere and modal t-shirt priced at a ridiculous $200, but it is the softest thing I have ever touched in the whole world. If I were the son of a billionaire, I would be wearing it right now).

There was one retail queen salesman that gave me a sneered "if you need anything, let me know" in tone of voice that strongly conveyed a not-so-subtle "as if you in your Banana Republic jeans could afford anything here!"

Now, first I was carrying a Diesel bag (super-sale) and they freaking sell Diesel at NM! Second, it's not like I was in Wal-Mart sweatpants and a Hanes Pocket-T. And THIRD and this is the big one, just because he has the dream job of one out every ten boys (until he is discovered as a triple threat in the local production of A Chorus Line, that is), and has to max out his credit cards just to look presentable to his customers does not make him better than me! The fact that I won't buy a $200 t-shirt doesn't mean I can't afford it, it just means that I have other priorities (though I cannot stress enough how unbelievably soft and luxurious that t-shirt was). I am not Vivian from Pretty Woman, dammit!

Yes, I know am being judgmental too, but somehow it seems better to judge people on their irresponsible spending habits than their lack of unreasonably priced designer clothes. So, as we say down south, "Bless his heart" (Translation: I hope his Prada suit still fits him when he's eating ALPO in retirement).