Charlie: Scalzi's book is on my "to read when I get it" queue (I have a hold on for the first available copy across the Minuteman Library network...currently five are either "on order" or "being processed").
My current reads are Steven Gould's Reflex (the hardcover/"new read"), L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach (the paperback "re-read"), and David Weber/Steve White's In Death Ground (Palm, saving the Baroque Cycle for a long flight when I will have uninterrupted reading time).
Patrick: you're welcome, of course, even though you're an evil tempter trying to get me to go to more cons.
I may try to squeeze Vericon in between Arisia & Boskone; it's got the useful feature of being closer(!) than the others (no pesky river crossings in the cold wind to deal with).
Mary Kay's reaction to ConDFW is remarkably similar to mine (modulo the "recovering from surgery" part, at least as far as my current plans are concerned).
Readercon...hmm. The problem with that is that it's impossible to commute to, meaning that it's like an out of town con that I have to "fly" to by bus (or rent a car to drive to), without the benefit of actually seeing another city. A thought, anyway.
Connie H: I picked up The Victorian Internet from the used section of the Harvard Book Store some time ago, and promptly lost it in the house's book swarm. I'm sure I'll find it, eventually.
It's always fun to spot things that you're absolutely certain that Pratchett made up, and find out that, well, he didn't....
Hardback/"daytime reading": Just finished Henry Petroski's Pushing the Limits, next up is Pratchett's Going Postal.
Small-format paperback/"bedtime reading": Just finished a re-read of John Varley's Millennium, currently re-reading Starship Troopers. Most recent new read in this category: the Christopher Anvil collection Interstellar Patrol.
The Baroque Cycle is queued up on my Palm, so by the strictest sense of Patrick's question would be disallowed...but I do a lot of e-book reading on the Palm. Especially of books that are big and heavy in their dead-tree format.
Dave: Let me join in the group thanking you for participating in this discussion with an open mind; not so open as to accept everything uncritically, but open enough to listen to and seriously consider others' arguments, and to allow yourself to be convinced if you find them convincing.
Thank you also for your letter, and for sharing it with us.
Let me also say that I (sadly) won't be at Glasgow, but should you make it to a Boston-area con at some future time, I would join the "want to buy you a drink" list--and I don't even drink!
I just have to say, I love this thread, and I appreciate everyone's effort in being calm, rational, thinking people over an issue that like so many can lead to very strong emotional reactions.
As for The Economist, they do have a strong libertarian streak; they first supported same-sex marriage some time ago, and Jonathan Rauch (author of Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America) was writing for them at the time.
Xopher's point is well-taken; I often make it in a different way, asking if politicians supporting only "civil unions" would be satisfied if their existing "marriage" were converted to a "civil union"--hey, it's equal, you're not losing anything, right?
Dan:
I welcome your good-faith effort to address this issue. However, during the debate here in Massachusetts, many religious organizations fulminated against both same-sex marriage and civil unions; preprinted signs specifically said "NO TO GAY MARRIAGE - YES TO JESUS - NO TO GAY CIVIL UNION". It's difficult to compromise with that viewpoint, for obvious reasons....
Dave:
Granting, for the sake of argument, that "marriage" is solely "for the children" (I don't agree): gay couples have children. The fact that, generally, those children are not genetically related to both parents is not relevant, unless you're also arguing that adoptive parents, blended families, and remarried widows or widowers are not actually marriages.
In the "it's worse than we thought" department, via BoingBoing:
VerifiedVoting is reporting an International Herald Tribune article on blocking of the Federal Voting Assistance Program website from overseas Internet providers "for security reasons".
Of course, the likelihood that overseas American voters may be more likely to vote against Bush doesn't have anything to do with it, right? If it did, they'd say "for job security reasons".
CHip: I get "this worked fine until 2000" because the Commonwealth did not fail even though imprisoned felons were allowed to vote until then. Nothing to do with Florida.
The last (and still so far only) time that the Massachusetts Constitution was amended to remove rights, it removed the right to vote from serving felons. (Released felons can still vote.) This worked fine until 2000.
Stefanie's point is well taken.
Thanks for the update, JM. I know many folks are wishing that Gardner's recovery continues to proceed apace.
I suppose the time has come for me to consider joining the GMail brigade. Should you still have a lovely though non-engraved invitation available, I would graciously accept it.
Sadly, I have no footman to send over with this missive.
The Boston Globe's had some great typos lately, including a headline about "isloationists".
If the FMA was really brilliant maneuvering, there would not have been twice as many Republicans crossing the line than there were Democrats (even counting Zell Miller as a Democrat, which despite the label I generally don't).
In particular, giving John McCain a chance to publically disagree with GWB was probably not their best move at a time when they're trying to use him as a counterweight to Kerry after the Kerry-McCain speculation/rumors/discussion/etc.
Avram: they're shutting down miles of freeways up here, and the train/subway station under the FleetCenter. Commuter train passengers will be taking shuttle buses in from northern suburbs.
Abby: New Hampshire is a swing state. The closures will royally screw up commuters from the north. Hmmmm......
My wife and I currently have no children, and our marriage ceremony was in her parents' back yard, officiated by the mayor of the town. No religious involvement, no procreation--so by many of the anti-same-sex-marriage "arguments" it's just as invalid as any of the marriages that were able to finally begin taking place yesterday.
Is it any wonder why I'm so angry at the opponents who spout said arguments?
I got stuck dealing with a dead hard disk and couldn't make it up to Cambridge City Hall tonight. I'm considering a quick trip up during lunch, assuming I'm not home waiting for the refrigerator repairman (it's been that kind of week).
But no matter how crazy things are for me today -- and it is now TODAY, the City of Cambridge, my city, has been issuing licenses for 45 minutes now -- I will be thinking happy thoughts that finally, my marriage license means something new. It means something I can share with those who have been denied it in the past. Ron Crews can claim that his marriage is somehow devalued by this; mine is strengthened.
Shared joy is increased.
Let. There. Be. Love.
Let there be love!
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 28 |
Total: 28 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Christopher Davis:
Show all comments by Christopher Davis.