gl.
by month:
* March 2002
* April 2002
* May 2002
* June 2002
* July 2002
* August 2002
* September 2002
* October 2002
* November 2002
* December 2002
* January 2003
* February 2003
* March 2003
* April 2003
* May 2003
* June 2003
* July 2003
* August 2003
* September 2003
* October 2003
* November 2003
* December 2003
* January 2004
* February 2004
* March 2004
* April 2004
* May 2004
* June 2004
* July 2004
* August 2004
* September 2004
* October 2004
* November 2004
* December 2004
* January 2005
* February 2005
* March 2005
* April 2005
* May 2005
* June 2005
* July 2005
* August 2005
* September 2005
* October 2005
* November 2005
* December 2005
* January 2006
* February 2006
* March 2006
* April 2006
* May 2006
* June 2006
* July 2006
* August 2006
* September 2006
* October 2006
* November 2006
* December 2006
* January 2007
* February 2007
* March 2007
* April 2007
* May 2007
* June 2007
* July 2007
* August 2007
* September 2007
* October 2007
* November 2007
* December 2007
* January 2008
* February 2008
* March 2008
* April 2008
* May 2008
* June 2008
* July 2008
* August 2008
* September 2008
* October 2008
* November 2008
* December 2008
* January 2009
* February 2009
* March 2009
* April 2009
* May 2009
* June 2009
* August 2009
* September 2009
* December 2009
* January 2010
* February 2010
* March 2010
* April 2010
* May 2010
* June 2010
* August 2010
* October 2010
* November 2010
* March 2011
* June 2012
* July 2012
* August 2012
* September 2012
* October 2012
* November 2012
* December 2012
* January 2013
* February 2013
* March 2013
* April 2013
* June 2013
* July 2013
* August 2013
* September 2013
* April 2014
* August 2014
* November 2014
* December 2014
* January 2015
* March 2015
Sunday, March 11, 2007
1:27 PM: dogs of war [#] [1]
i don't like using violence-based language when describing situations (struggle, fight, war, defeat, victory) or third-person projection ("they" are wrong, "they" don't care), but it feels that every election cycle we're called upon to yet again justify the existence of homosexuals and the validity of abortions and in my frustration it's difficult not to invoke that style.
three awful initiatives are on their way to the 2008 ballot. the first two are from lon mabon & the "oregon citizens alliance," who just can't leave us in peace:
* ip22: "Amends Constitution: Makes Oregon Constitutional Guarantee Of Free Expression Of Opinion Inapplicable To "Conduct" Or Personal Behavior." wow. because we -really- need restrictions on freedom of speech. i'm sure he means to manipulate this if it passes to be used against his favorite hated group, sexual "deviants."
* ip23: "Prohibits Instruction At Public Schools (Including Colleges, Universities) That "Approves," "Endorses" Homosexual, Bisexual, Transgendered Behavior." i wasn't in oregon during amendment 9, but this sounds a lot like it.
the third just makes me cry. i was dead set against measure 43, and this is 10 times worse:
* ip 16: "Amends Constitution: Prohibits Abortion, Harming Fetus, Gives Fetus Rights Of Person; No Exception For Woman's Life, Health." defining the point when a fetus becomes a "distinct human entity” to give it the rights of personhood dangerously trivializes and enslaves the woman carrying the fetus (in addition to reducing -her- personhood rights). so far, no steps have been taken to certify the initiative for circulation, but it's a long wait till 2008. something crazy is bound to happen.
bracing for impact...
Meh meh meh meh meh meh!
Thanks for the update on this. Even if -- or perhaps *especially because* -- it's such dreadful news.
: Sun Mar 11, 03:15:00 PM PDT