Foresters

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT1+shtml/070857.shtml

Issued at 400 AM EST SAT NOV 07 2009

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT1+shtml/070835.shtml

Issued at 400 AM EST SAT NOV 07 2009

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCMAT1+shtml/070834.shtml

Issued at 0900 UTC SAT NOV 07 2009

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIAPWSAT1+shtml/070835.shtml

Issued at 0900 UTC SAT NOV 07 2009

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at1+shtml/083413.shtml?5-daynl

5-Day Uncertainty Track last updated Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:38:54 GMT


Wind Speed Probabilities last updated Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:08:44 GMT

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCUAT1+shtml/070629.shtml

Issued at 130 AM EST SAT NOV 7 2009

( Horse dragon at 2 days and 8 hours eck )

( :) )

octopon - Pirates of DarkWater fandom asylum. Completed!

gotham_gazetteCompleted!</i>

vagrant_story - Vagrant Story fandom asylum. WIP; will be deleted unless more interest is shown.

And,

Please feel free to join commedia; a personal project of mine, aiming to review and analyze comics (and other selected media) that feature DC Comics' The Joker.

It is currently a WIP because I am still going through my 500+ hardcopy!issues collection. I do not download torrents/scans.

I'd like to point out that currently I have two polls up for debate, as can be seen here explaining two routes the asylum's project can take. IE: spoiler free reviews, spoilerific reviews, and whatnot. =) Otherwise, the FAQ and The Rules are already up. The tags/memory post is still a WIP.

I am also open to affiliating with other comic book and/or Batman related asylums, except for RPGs.

Thanks again for yesterday's clicks. All clicking done!

( Pet the babies ... mind the teeth )

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT1+shtml/070233.shtml

Issued at 1000 PM EST FRI NOV 06 2009

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCMAT1+shtml/070232.shtml

Issued at 0300 UTC SAT NOV 07 2009

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCDAT1+shtml/070233.shtml

Issued at 1000 PM EST FRI NOV 06 2009

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIAPWSAT1+shtml/070233.shtml

Issued at 0300 UTC SAT NOV 07 2009

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at1+shtml/023313.shtml?5-daynl

5-Day Uncertainty Track last updated Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:33:30 GMT


Wind Speed Probabilities last updated Sat, 07 Nov 2009 03:08:44 GMT

( friday )

I was looking for statistics* about same-sex marriage opposition when I ran across this precious article posted back in June. (Warning for extreme sexism and various other acts of privilege.)

The author--Sam Schulman--goes on at length about what he objects to about same sex marriage, and what he thinks marriage really is. Bolded sections are emphasis added.

The relationship between a same-sex couple, though it involves the enviable joy of living forever with one's soulmate, loyalty, fidelity, warmth, a happy home, shopping, and parenting, is not the same as marriage between a man and a woman, though they enjoy exactly the same cozy virtues. These qualities are awfully nice, but they are emphatically not what marriage fosters, and, even when they do exist, are only a small part of why marriage evolved and what it does.

Got that? It's important. He's tackling the key issue of what is marriage, which is absolutely crucial to any non-religious discussion of and why same-sex couples can't have it. Brace yourself... 'cos he hits the same conclusion about "traditional marriage" that I got, only he thinks it's a good thing.

Marriage, whatever its particular manifestation in a particular culture or epoch, is essentially about who may and who may not have sexual access to a woman when she becomes an adult, and is also about how her adulthood--and sexual accessibility--is defined.

Marriage is not about raising children, or living together and sharing resources, or being a unit in the community. Marriage is about female sexuality--and the control thereof. In case that wasn't obvious from his earlier quotes, he makes sure you understand:

This most profound aspect of marriage--protecting and controlling the sexuality of the child-bearing sex--is its only true reason for being, and it has no equivalent in same-sex marriage.

He also points out that "A same-sex marriage fails utterly to create forbidden relationships." He seems to think they are important--nay, mandatory, because, "without social disapproval of unmarried sex--what kind of madman would seek marriage?" He then goes on to talk about the "kinship" that marriage creates:

Even in modern romantic marriages, a groom becomes the hunting or business partner of his father-in-law and a member of his clubs; a bride becomes an ally of her mother-in-law in controlling her husband. There can, of course, be warm relations between families and their children's same-sex partners, but these come about because of liking, sympathy, and the inherent kindness of many people. A wedding between same-sex lovers does not create the fact (or even the feeling) of kinship between a man and his husband's family; a woman and her wife's kin.

This kinship is important to him--he says

In a world without kinship, women will lose their hard-earned status as sexual beings with personal autonomy and physical security. Children will lose their status as nonsexual beings.

That latter seems like a bit of a red herring, and he doesn't explain it well. But it does tie into some of his other points, about marriage and illicit sexuality and the importance of at least giving lip service to the idea of virginity.

Marriage, to him, is all about men getting access to women's sexuality, and since same-sex marriage turns that concept on its head, it is wrong.And he doesn't even spend much time grumbling about the "wrongness"--he's bitching about how the inevitible failure of same-sex marriage (because marriage can't survive without illicit sexuality and forced kinship) will destroy the last vestiges of men-owning-women marriage.

Umm.

Yay?



* Stats: Specifically, I was trying to find out if the opposition splits equally along gender lines, or if more men oppose same-sex marriage than women. Any relevant research info would be welcome.

This entry is crossposted at http://elf.dreamwidth.org/280002.html. You can comment there with OpenID from your LJ or IJ account. Comments so far:

I managed to find somebody to gender-trade with at the Forum, so now I have a pair of frozen hatchlings and, as soon as these two grow up, a pair of adults. They are not breedable though, so their only function will be to look pretty on the scroll... until the next Halloween at least.

Edited, because I forgot to post the new hatchling.

( Clicks preferred )

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/11/final-reminder-for-bookshops.html

A quick reminder (as I was just asked) that today is the day that the bookshop Graveyard Book party reports have to be in to Harper Collins. By 9 pm PST.

http://files.harpercollins.com/Mktg/HarperChildrens/PDF/GraveyardContest_rules.pdf are the rules and info for those who lost them.

Hi Mr. Gaiman,

I was disappointed today to read you won't be part of the judging for The Graveyard Book contests. My not-wealthy, middle-of-nowhere bookstore just sent in its entry, and something we're concerned about is the fairness of judging.

For example, independent bookstores like Powell's (I'm sure you know) easily have enough money and are in a convenient enough location to ask you to come at one time or another. Against stores like that, who were able to put more money into their parties, we stand little chance.

I don't think that it's a lost cause for us; we were very creative. I'm just nervous to know you won't be judging. Can you tell me whether you think the judges will take things like size and location of bookstores into account? It would make me sleep a little easier until the results are announced.

Tusen takk,
Allison

Well, per the rules, the judging is based on:

(i) Overall creativity of the Party, as demonstrated by the invitations, signage, decorations, activities, entertainment, and refreshments.
(ii) Customer attendance and response (i.e., enthusiasm, costumes, participation).
(iii) Ability to capture and represent the spirit of The Graveyard Book.
...specifically to reward creativity, and not the ability to outspend other shops. (That was also why the party had to actually be at the bookshop, and not at another location.)

I asked my editor, Elise Howard, and she said,

Gosh, yes. Here's what we think is happening. We are looking at all the entries. On Monday, we'll send you the best 11, from which you will choose the Grand Prize Winner. The rest will get the first-prize package. So the short answer is that you ARE helping to choose.

The longer answer is that we will be very fair and will consider creativity, which includes work done with available resources, along with pure execution. (Don't you think? We haven't done anything yet; still waiting for more entries to come in.)

...which means that

a) I was wrong and will be the ultimate judge, from the shortlist. (Damn.)

and

b) everyone's on a level playing field.

Does that help reassure you?

PS -- Widgett's Graveyard Book Dessert competition winners have been announced over at http://www.needcoffee.com/2009/11/06/graveyard-book-dessert-challenge-winners/.

This one had NOTHING to do with me at all. But lor' the winning desserts look tasty...

All grown up now, thanks!

(Thanks for the clicks! I’ll be ninja-clicking each posted egg and hatchling)