(no subject)

Couldn't get back to sleep this morning after unseelie left.

So I tossed around for a while and then got up and assembled the things I need to get done... tax related stuff mostly, plus the info to mail off rent check.

It's hard to focus when you're sleep dep'd.

I love all the amazing technology I'm learning about and seeing here. I wish I could tell you all about the stuff I've seen, but I'm not allowed to put it in print. Ask me in person if you want to hear about some of the stuff that has really stood out. And a lot of similar stuff can actually be found at www.gizmodo.com. Nifty technology site; some of it is boring but some of it is really amazing, like a mind-controlled wheelchair.

Not feeling nearly as bitchy today as yesterday, thank goodness. Still kinda frustrated with all the pr folk I'm dealing with. They push and they push and they push, and then when you actually want something they send you a fricking press release and expect you to wade through it for a basic piece of info. How incredibly obnoxious...
Meanwhile a lot of them seem not very intelligent. "Already available in stores" is NOT the ship date, you idiot. If I wanted to know that I would have said, "IS it available in stores."

I seem to be experiencing a lull in projects again, which means that now is the time to assemble my story ideas and pitch anything that seems do-able. Eep. Meep. Scary. But you gotta do what you gotta do. unseelie would say the price of failure is not death, except that those words don't do anything for me. Hate to say it, but they are for him, not for me. There might be words that make me shudder and push that barrier a little further, but for me at least, those aren't them.

I am feeling impatient about certain things. "But I want my ice cream NOW, mommy!" Bah humbug.

That article and my parents

My father read the article and said,


The Village Voice article was pretty disappointing though. Stripped of its verbiage, it is just saying, gay marriage is okay because, well, because we say it is.


My mother actually UNDERSTOOD the article, but is annoyed about the fact that the meaning of marriage is drifting away from man/women/religious/maybe children. She doesn't mind civil unions being broken up piecemeal, and she doesn't mind religious people doing as they please as far as religious unions. But she thinks Marriage, husband, wife, etc. should continue to mean one man, one women, religious joining, with the subtext of bearing children.

What she did say that really disappointed me was:

I'll agree that the govts. of the world should never have
gotten involved with marriage....it should have remained for the
church/synagogue/whatever to deal with.

Good so far... But then she took this sharp right turn.

We're finding out that this one
ruling is opening a whole kettle of fish. Will clergy be *forced* to marry
those whose union isn't recognized by that religion? Will certain things
which are currently illegal (adult/child relationsips, for instance) become
legal because the gay lobby has gotten very good at pushing their hidden
agendas? The list goes on.

Notably my father also mentioned the possibility of the government forcing clergy to marry same sex couples or groups. That's ridiculous! If the Canadian government DID try to do that, they'd be fools for trying. There are clergy who would quite happily marry same-sex couples and/or groups. Likewise, the ruling is about LEGAL marriages, not religious, and what the religious clergy do has nothing to do with the ruling.
And I'm just appalled that she would suggest that the next step in the (duhn duhn duhn) Gay Lobby's Hidden Agenda would be pedophilia. Um, hell NO. Pedophiles will never have enough support to get pedophilia legalized (thank goodness).

So when I told my mother that I was insulted by her implication that the gay lobby would ever be in favor of pedophilia, she said:

Why would you be offended? I live in Canada but I'm not a member of
the government so when someone says something I don't agree with about the
Canadian government, why would I be offended?

Now, is she saying, "You're not gay so why is that statement offensive?"
Or is she saying,
"You're not an activist for gay rights, so the statement should not be offensive."

Opinions?