Well, in fairness, we've all seen some of the crap that paper's published. :-) Take, just as an example, the fact that they asked for evidence when the guy had stated up front that there was none. That's just annoying, is what that is.
Also, me being me and getting how I get about language, I object to the use of "accusing" to describe the crazypeople's speculation that Strickland might be gay. Nobody ever "accuses" anyone of being straight (in the political arena; in the gay community, it happens all the time), and the sooner we get our language used to the idea that homosexuality is not a crime or misdemeanor, the better off we'll all be. (I know it's the crazies using "accuse" and not you; I'm just saying.)
Yeah, it's definitely a pity that it's still such a stigma here in the heartland.
As a formerly abused child, I have to state that it is indeed possible to have healthy relationships as an adult.
Yes, as can I. Which is why *I* would also salute anyone who voted against such a poorly worded resolution.
I definitely salute him. Too bad I live in California, or I would vote for him too.
2006-10-26 01:39 am (UTC)
I envy you for that.
It took a lot of hard work, and still does. It's not enough to look in the mirror and say "I'm OK, you're OK". But it is possible, and worth it.
Agreed. I'm in a relationship right now and my boyfriend knows that I had been molested when I was very young. He lets me set the pace of the relationship and if I asked him to give me a little space for a day or so, he respects that too. Which makes me realize I'm a very lucky girl and I'm holding onto him.
What does help is that I'm immensely comfortable with him, since day one. We were friends before we moved onto the next level. I can be myself with him.
To claim that it's not possible for a survivor of child abuse (of any kind) to have a healthy relationship is a load of crock. If it wasn't possible, I would not be in the best relationship of my life.
The fact that Strickland has been married for to the same woman 18 years apparently is not evidence to be considered
Not that I condone the absolute idiocy of the right wing loonies, but the fact that he has been married means nothing.
Perhaps they think he's a McGreevey
clone! Yeah! That's it!
Not nothing. It's circumstantial evidence, but it's still evidence.
Yes. It is evidence that he is married. Not that he isn't gay. :-)
Okay, off-topic question for you, since you are more learned about the english language than I: have you seen the George Allen ads that ask if you've seen Jim Webb's false negative ads?
Is that a proper way of saying that the negative ads are incorrect? When I hear "false negative" I think of "false positive" medical tests - meaning that the result came back positive, but it was really negative. So I sarcastically say "false negative? So Jim Webb is putting out positive ads for George Allen?!"
Yeah, I'm a bit of a loon.
The fact that he is married to a woman is solid evidence that he's married (res ipsa loquitur); it is circumstantial evidence that suggests he's not gay. That is, of course there have been gay men married to women, but in these times, this is less and less likely.
Re the Allen ad: I haven't seen that particular one (or if I have, I've tuned it out; I tend to let my attention wander when the poltical commercials come on, and incidentally, don't you think the cable company should be able to work something out where I don't have to get Steele and Cardin and Erlich and O'Malley ads in Virginia?!), but I don't have any problem with the construction. False is an adjective, and so is negative, and therefore each should only modify a noun; in order for false to modify negative, you'd technically want the adverb falsely. I hear what you're saying about "false positive", but in those cases 'positive' is nominalized, so in an ad hoc sort of way false is modifying a noun after all. If you say, for instance, "The test came back positive, but it was false", you don't mean the test was false -- you mean the positive result was false. That is, 'it' doesn't refer to 'the test'. Right? Because the test isn't true or false, it just is. The result is either positive or negative -- and contrary to what you've got up there, it's not that the result comes back positive but is really negative, it's that the result comes back positive but should have come back negative. The result really is positive, in the case of a false positive -- it's just wrong. :-)
In the case of the Allen ad, then, the voice over is declaring that Webb's ads are both negative and false -- not that they aren't really negative. Parallel example: if you speak of a big blue house, it's not the blue that's big, is it, it's the house. (I thought for a long time about whether to use this example, because colors are tricky, but I went with it anyway. We can quibble about it some more if you want to spam Gini's LJ. [g])
That is, of course there have been gay men married to women, but in these times, this is less and less likely.
Except that there is a very recent example of this in the political arena. ;-)
don't you think the cable company should be able to work something out where I don't have to get Steele and Cardin and Erlich and O'Malley ads in Virginia?!)
It's not the cable company's fault - I get the same ads over DirecTV. It is the local network affiliate broadcasting the ad; it's not an ad being aired in a designated time slot given to the cable provider for running their own low-grade ads.
I find the Steele ads to be mildly amusing. But when almost all of the commercials during the news broadcast are political ads...to quote valley girls: gag me with a spoon!
I didn't say that it was conclusive, just that it does not seem to be taken into consideration.
I didn't actually watch, but I heard about that. What a jerk.
I'm still laughing at the remix
of the debate.
Whoah... looks like I picked a good election cycle to skip.
(Now before people accuse me of not doing my patriotic duty and filling out an absentee ballot, I'm pretty sure I'm still registered in Massachusetts. And there's really only a governor's race there between a couple of candidates I don't care much for. Although my memory is a bit foggy. I'm almost positive I never switched my registration to Ohio.)
How's life treating you I keep forgetting that you're here!
Out of mere curiosity, did the term "Sympathy For The Devil" possible end up being inspired by my comment on The Prestige review? Not being narcasistic, just curious :o)
I didn't think about it consciously, but now that you mention it, yeah, I believe it did.