Welcome to mistersite.net, home of... well, something unique, I hope. Be sure to check out all those lovely links to the left to see who I am, what I do, and what I like. Read my blog too... it's right under this paragraph. And leave a comment, so I know you've visited.
Blogger: mistersite.net Blog :: Create Post
It's late, and I'm a little tipsy again. I had two White Russians at home tonight, and I made them, which is even worse because I add extra vodka. Why do I only post on here after a few drinks?
Anyway, things are going okay. I just need to kick my own hiney and get stuff done... like the 20-odd pages I have to write for my distance learning course, or the little stupid things like paying parking tickets, changing my "address of record" for the various people who send me mail, or organizing my filing cabinet that just piles up and eventually becomes unmanageable. I think that's how evil gets me usually... not one big thing, but death through a thousand cuts. It's the little crap that doesn't get done because I start and get distracted, or there's an extra step in there or something, and then it's a big mess and I'm unorganized and everything goes to pot.
I'm a passionate person, and the various things in my life - school, work - suck the passion out of me. Maybe that's why I do so much for church and friends, because they're the only thing I'm passionate about. Something for me to think about, anyway.
That's all I have for tonight. I'm going to bed.
posted by jimmy at 01:12 -
Read comments here!
Turkey Day.
Things I'm thankful for:
1. That it's 1:20am and I'm still more than a little buzzed.
2. That Thanksgiving was at my apartment, so I could get more than a little buzzed and not have to worry about getting home.
3. That my roommates consist of a professional chef and a professional baker.
4. That said professional chef and baker made much of my Thanksgiving meal.
5. That the Swiss Medley I made not only turned out well, but was complimented by one of the coworkers of said professional chef (who incidentally works at one of the top 25 restaurants in the country).
6. That at least one member of my family FINALLY TURNED HIS FREAKING CELL PHONE ON so I could call and wish all the family out east a happy Thanksgiving.
7. That I spent Thanksgiving surrounded by people I love and cherish.
8. That said people I love and cherish didn't laugh too hard when I acted like a mermaid in a game of charades.
9. That my cat is the best cat in the world.
10. That after a wonderful day of eating, drinking, and making merry, I still have three more days off work!
Happy Turkey Day, everyone. Remember to buy nothing tomorrow.
posted by jimmy at 01:22 -
Read comments here!
It's Sunday, and you know what that means...
...I'm avoiding writing a paper again. This one compares the theology of the movie The Gospel of John with the theology of the book. The movie was bad, bad, bad, which was a shame because I really liked the book. But I'm writing a paper about it anyway, because that's the kind of thing I do to get the credits so I can graduate in June.
My cat was really antsy last night. I don't know why.
Right now I'm looking for another job, because I'm not really all that satisfied in the job I have... quite frankly, I'd like to make more money than I'm currently making, Fuller doesn't have the money to pay me more, and I know that with my Mad Skillz I could get more money doing something else somewhere else. So I'm looking around again. (And yes, my boss does know I'm looking around.) If anyone's got leads on any jobs in technical theatre, educational theatre, higher education, computer tech support, media services, audio/visual, basic carpentry, or (best of all) sitting around and thinking great thoughts, please let me know.
Seriously, you should check out the Politics page. It's good, even for people who disagree with me (although if anyone's disagreeing with me about Pat Robertson, they probably won't like anything else I have to say.) I like discussions. Discussions are good.
That is all.
posted by jimmy at 11:14 -
Read comments here!
Cosmetic Changes
In case you didn't notice from the fact that the page looks so incredibly different, I made a few cosmetic changes to the way the site works. I've also gotten rid of the art and the words, to be replaced later with a central page that has a bunch of creative stuff on it... to be honest, I really don't think my art or my writing is up to the level just yet where I'm comfortable putting it in front of the whole planet. Maybe at some point it will be.
posted by jimmy at 19:46 -
Read comments here!
posted by jimmy at 01:12 -
Read comments here!
A Brief Rant. (The Curmudgeon Speaks.)
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury:
It's November 10th.
November. Freaking. 10th.
So why is it that when I went into Target today, the CHRISTMAS stuff was up? It's over a month and a half away! And I heard from some of my more frequent-retail friends that it's been up since BEFORE HALLOWEEN. That's a good TWO MONTHS before Christmas.
I remember when the Christmas season began at Thanksgiving. You took the turkey crap and horn o' plenty down, put away all the harvest imagery that resonates soooo well with our post-agricultural society, and put up all your Christmas crap, in the process getting so mad at Christmas that you wonder if Jesus couldn't have just rode into town from God-knows-where like the Lone Ranger rather than being born and making us suffer through 2000 (and counting) years of inane drivel about snowflakes and bells and trees and a fat guy.
But now... before Halloween? What am I supposed to freakin' do, hang my Christmas tree decorations next to my jack o' lantern? Send the kids out with costumes and Christmas lists?
At this rate, by the time I'm 40 Christmas season will be year-round, and I'll have to suffer through garish colors, ridiculous imagery, crappy music, and unbelievably gaudy decorations for the rest of my life. Or at least, until I buy my own island and declare it a Christmas-Free Zone.
I'm going to start a movement: From now on, for me, Christmas season officially begins on December 20. It runs through midnight on December 27. During that week, I will have whatever Christmas spirit 25 years of life in this primitive society hasn't crushed out of me yet. But before December 20, or after December 26, anyone desiring any kind of joy, frolicking, or merry-making from me, had better have at least one good stiff drink to offer me. (Come to think of it, doing that between December 20-26 wouldn't be a bad idea either.)
That is all.
posted by jimmy at 00:37 -
Read comments here!
Let's get political again.
I wrote this brief essay a few months ago on one of the Christian political message boards I frequent - that rare discussion site on which both liberals and conservatives are well represented and engage in lively, but rarely unpleasant, discussion. In light of the choice of Texans tonight to enshrine in their state Constitution the denial of civil rights to gay people - marriage and civil unions alike - I'm reposting that essay here. I welcome discussion.
C'mon... you all know you missed the controversial stuff ;)
A Christian Case for Civil Unions
One of the reasons many conservatives give for the idea that we liberals can be seen as opponents to "Christianity" is our support of gay civil unions/gay marriage. How could we, the argument goes, support the acknowledgement and promotion by the State of acts which many Christians believe to be completely immoral? (I would, of course, ask the same question of them concerning war, but that's another discussion.) Here I, as a self-professed "liberal," confessing Christian, and supporter of gay civil unions, will lay out the legal reasons why I believe that the State should not only grant gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples, but in fact get out of the marriage business altogether.
Contention 1: From the perspective of the State, the question of whether or not homosexuality is an ontologically immoral act is completely irrelevant. When at its best, this country has always understood that arguments for the illegalization of certain activities required a basis in the language of human rights - in other words, that one should, when arguing that a certain act should be illegal, be able to demonstrate that someone's inalienable rights would be violated by the continued legality of such an act. A good case in point is sex before marriage - while many people on this board would agree that it is a morally wrong thing to do, there is not (as far as I know) an enforceable law on the books in this country illegalizing it. It's pretty clear to me that homosexual acts, whether or not they are moral, when entered into by consenting adults, do not violate anyone's inalienable rights - and thus the government should take a neutral stance on such acts. Questions on the morality or immorality of such acts cannot come into play so long as they continue to take place between consenting adults.
Contention 2: From the perspective of the State, marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people, conferring certain benefits - like hospital visitation, access to Social Security benefits, etc. - granted by the State and by society. The parties in the contract, from the State's perspective, are the two people entering into the contract and the State itself, which grants the contract. This State is, however, legally barred by the 14th Amendment from discriminating in favor of or against any party deemed capable of consenting to a contract - which means that it should not be able to restrict its granting of the contract "marriage" only to parties consisting of a man and a woman. The idea of marriage being a covenant before God - though still something I personally believe in as a Christian - is completely foreign to the State, which must maintain a position of complete neutrality on such matters. Therefore, religious concerns should not enter into the equation when discussing to whom the State gives marriage contracts; and since (as I have demonstrated above) there is no legal reason for the State to consider homosexual couples any differently from heterosexual couples, the State's continued discrimination against homosexual couples in the granting of marriage contracts is unjustifiable and in fact (I believe) illegal under the 14th Amendment.
Contention 3: There is a certain amount of confusion afoot, because the contract the State grants and the union blessed by the church are both called "marriage" and often (but not always) coincide with one another (in that couples married in the church also sign marriage certificates with the State, and thus are considered "married" by both.) However, it is evident to me that there is at least a partial understanding in our society that these terms do not mean the same thing, because I don't see any Catholics saying that the civil marriage contract should not be permitted between divorcees, or Christians of any stripe insisting that courthouse marriages should not be considered valid by the State because they aren't blessed by a minister. Thus we can say that to a certain extent there is already an understanding in this country that there is an ontological gap between what the church considers "married" and what the State considers "married."
Proposition: Since (as I have established) the State cannot take a position on the morality or immorality of homosexuality, nor restrict marriage contracts to persons of a certain gender, it has to grant the same contract to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples alike. What I propose is that since "marriage" is such a loaded term - meaning so many things to so many people, and with the added conundrum of additional religious meaning brought in by Christians and other religions - marriage itself be an issue between a couple and their church, family, and/or friends. In other words, I think the government should get entirely out of the business of deciding what is or is not a marriage, and leave this question to individuals or communities. If a couple gets "married" in a church, they would also get a "civil union" contract from the State; the same goes if they go to their local courthouse or Justice of the Peace.
I think this is something we can all get behind, conservative and liberal alike. It has the effect of both ending this form of institutionalized discrimination against couples for which there is no legal basis, while maintaining the ability of churches (if they so desire) to remain "pure" in granting the title of "marriage" to whomever they desire. It makes questions of covenant between people and God the property of the churches and the people, rather than being decided in houses of government.
Any thoughts?
posted by jimmy at 21:05 -
Read comments here!
Log
Archives:
After
2.9.2003
9.23.2002-2.6.2003
6.1.2002-8.21.2002
