?

Log in

No account? Create an account
burning like matchsticks in the face of the darkness
 
[Most Recent Entries] [Calendar View] [Friends View]

Sunday, June 22nd, 2003

Time Event
7:24p
"night falls like people into love"
it's only passive aggressive if you secretly WANT me to read it without ever intending to talk to me about it
-Joe
Am I the habit you're too tired to break?
-Dar Williams, "Closer to Me"

Normal people give up on relationships, but i’ve never been good at letting go. Maybe because i’ve never had that many people, or maybe it's because of my deeper obsessive stalkerish desire to know everything about everything/everyone. However, i’ve drifted away from most everyone i went to high school with, now that i think about it. I would still like to know what’s going on in their lives, surely, but i haven’t made great efforts to stay in touch, neither have efforts been made on their parts, and i don’t consider it any great loss. Maybe that’s really more accurate: i want to keep abreast of what’s going on in people’s lives, but i only put effort into maintaining relationships i care about.

I am learning more and more that relationships need work. My mother said that her father didn’t believe in working at relationships, that you just have a relationship, you don’t work at it. I can see how that could work for some people, for some friendships, but i think in order to have a really strong and meaningful relationship you have to work at it. Of course, some relationships require more work than others.

I told Joe of my new analogy for my relationship with him: “a soft-core abusive relationship.” It’s a very faulty analogy, but it’s just that it feels like i keep going through the same cycle over and over: i feel neglected, bitch him out, he apologizes and things are better for a while... repeat cycle.

But honestly, every time we talk (like capital letter Talk) i learn important things, about how he works and such. Speculation is good for no one; it breeds dwelling, wallowing, etc. I don’t always like the answers i get, but it beats the heck out of brooding speculation.

I told him, “Believe me, i will always call you on your shit, and i will never stop caring about you.”

sometimes it seems like love is just a fancy word for compromise; you gotta read between the years, you gotta write between the lines, you gotta try to understand the grandness of the man behind the petty crimes and let him off easy sometimes


j after watching a Family Guy episode:
in said episode, stewie (rex-harrison-goes-maniacal-and-is-also-baby) goes to daycare and falls in love with a brunette named janet. he is sent into throws of psychological and well-nigh-metaphysical torment, which is funny because this fellow-toddler lacks his unnatural new-born intellect (and britishness). in fact, the only word she is capable of saying, and her only wordlly interest, is the following:

"cookie"

this is every relationship i have ever had.
For myself i will go further and say that is why i don’t have relationships. Why i have so few friends and so little desire to date anyone.
10:29p
dabbling in politics
The same-sex marriage debate has hit the blogosphere (and not for the first time) and my head hurts.

I think i need to establish what i see as the purpose of marriage since arguments in the conservative section seem to focus not so much on the legitimacy of same-sex relationships in and of themselves but rather on what same-sex marriage would do to marriage as an institution.

Marriage is a lifelong commitment to a person. To be that person’s primary person. To be there when no one else is. Love, honor, cherish, protect... for better and for worse... in sickness and in health. And there’s usually sex involved. And often children. Government being involved in marriage means that there’s a framework for such things as divorce, child support, division of property after death, inclusion in health insurance, being able to visit partner in a hospital and being authorized to make life-and-death decisions. I expect most if not all of these things can be accomplished outside of marriage with enough time, money, energy, and legal knowledge. I think it is perfectly legitimate to automatically include them in marriage.

Quick note on the polyamory slippery slope argument. We are merely asking for the right for everyone to marry a single life partner regardless of the sex or gender of either partner. This relates to transgender issues, but i’m not gonna get into that. I have yet to be convinced that polyamory can work long-term. I’m not opposed to it and i wish anyone the best in it, but i just don’t believe it is possible to have more than one person as your primary person. Hence i’m not arguing for poly-marriages. I know this gets into weird territory as far as sharing health insurance and such and i don’t have good solid answers for why it’s fair for your health insurance to automatically cover a “spouse” but not someone else about whom you may care equally but who is not recognized by the legal system.

This is the part where i quote and whinge copiously.Collapse )



I think i’ve mentioned this before:
Iraqi doctors now say what our intellectuals and our reporters should have felt in their bones. Iraq's children were dying not because of us, but because of Saddam. And even the parades of dead children were part of a monstrous hoax.

Dr Amer Abdul a-Jalil, the deputy resident at Baghdad's Ibn al-Baladi Hospital, has told the London Telegraph that "sanctions did not kill these children -- Saddam killed them".

"Over the past 10 years, the government in Iraq poured money into the military and the construction of palaces for Saddam to the detriment of the health sector," he said.

"Those babies or small children who died because they could not access the right drugs, died because Saddam's government failed to distribute the drugs."

As the hospital's chief resident, Dr Hussein Shihab, confirmed to Newsday: "We had the ability to get all the drugs we needed. Instead of that, Saddam Hussein spent all the money on his military force and put all the fault on the USA. I am one of the doctors who was forced to tell something wrong -- that these children died from the fault of the UN."

Dr Azhar Abdul Khadem, a resident at Baghdad's Al-Alwiya maternity hospital agreed: "Saddam Hussein, he's the murderer, not the UN."

In fact, Dr Oasem al-Taye, who now runs the Baghdad Children's Hospital, said last week that after Saddam's fall he'd found plenty of medical supplies and equipment at a hospital once reserved for leaders of Saddam's regime.

"They were willing to sacrifice the children for the sake of propaganda," he said bitterly.

THE parades of dead children were part of that same propaganda.

Doctors say hospitals were forced to keep the bodies of babies who had died prematurely or of natural causes for up to two months until Saddam had enough to stage a parade of the little corpses, with women bussed in to act as "mourners", screaming insults at the US in front of television cameras.

"All 10 hospitals in Baghdad were involved in this and the quota for the parade was between 25 and 30 babies a month, which they would say had died in one day," Dr Hussein al-Douri, deputy director of the Ibn al-Baladi hospital, told the Telegraph.

Muslims traditionally bury their dead immediately, so keeping the bodies of the babies added to the grief of their parents.

"The mothers would be hysterical and sometimes threaten to kill us," said al-Douri, "but we knew that the real threat was from the government. They would have killed our families."
Have i mentioned that the reports of the mass looting of Baghdad museum were incredibly exaggerated? (InstaPundit has more.)



Oh, and Guantanamo?
Remember that New York Times sob story we noted yesterday about the illegal enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay? Here's the last sentence in the Times article: "Hospital officials said that about 5 percent of the inmates were suffering from depression and that they were being treated with antidepressants, typically Zoloft."

Today's Times carries a story titled "More Americans Seeking Help for Depression," according to which "more than 16 percent of Americans--as many as 35 million people--suffer from depression severe enough to warrant treatment at some time in their lives." That means the Guantanamo inmates are much happier than Americans are! If that's so, could it be that they're being treated too humanely?

- from the WSJ Opinion Page (June 18)
*giggle*

Seriously, though.

My dad wrote an e-mail to the DNC after viewing the “Bushenstein” film on their website (Bush builds his perfect Supreme Court Justice). He said something like, “I disagree with some of the things Bush has done, and I might vote against him in 2004, but then you guys go and do stuff like this...” 2nd sentence of the e-mail he gets in reply: “It’s Democrats like you who help us to make a difference.” I have established that my father is a “Republican with a heart,” no? More seriously, a WSJ reader says of the ad:
I see two white males, one white female, one Hispanic male, and one African-American male being used to make "the perfect Supreme Court justice, a right-wing extremist the likes of which have never been seen before." And what parts of which does the DNC use? The vision and brains of the white males, the teeth of the white female, the sneakiness of the Hispanic male and the arms of the African-American male. Isn't this extremely racist and sexist? And don't let them say they're trying to depict what goes on in Bush's mind. No Republican wrote that garbage. Bush is actively supporting women, Hispanics and African-Americans based on their conservative principles. This trash comes from the same party that recently tried to fire about 10 African-Americans so that their party could be more competitive in future races, and that refused to give sufficient support to Carl McCall's candidacy for New York governor.


Political leader slash? Beat this.



Mouse, not keyboard, use causes carpal tunnel syndrome?
10:33p
I've been busy.
Wednesday-SundayCollapse )

Monday:

I leave for NYC Monday. [Arriving Port Authority at 3:30] I will return on Thursday. [11am out of Port Authority, but i’m working that evening so i probably won’t get in touch with anyone until Friday.] I may or may not post while in NYC. I may or may not check my e-mail while in NYC. I do not have a cell phone. Try not to miss me too much. (And feel free to leave copious comments/e-mails even if it may be a few days before i get them.)

<< Previous Day 2003/06/22
[Calendar]
Next Day >>
Me and the Text   About LiveJournal.com