fine whine

Well, I did it. I wrote fifty thousand words in one month, into what is loosely to be considered a novel. It is in some parts a work of fiction, which is enough for my standards of ethics or whatever lets me get away with what I just polished off. Moreover in this last day (really the second to last day as I am only an hour into the real last day), I think I churned out some seven to nine thousand words, in well under as many hours. My typing rate must have been phenomenal, as I had to have been coming up with the words as fast as my fingers could type them. I'm more than happy to have earned my little winner's image, and look forward to next year's ordeal with nothing but enthusiasm (as sometime in the intervening eleven months I will need to add an outline and probably some character sheets to that). Now it's time for me to go to bed.

I still haven't remembered the brilliant thing I meant to put up yesterday, so this isn't about that. Instead, this morning's Zippy-esque phrase was "carne asada", whatever that means, over and over.

I don't know if anybody else ever reads it, but Bill Griffith draws this amazing comic strip called Zippy the pinhead that cannot be described easily. It is absurdist and surreal, maybe even dadaesque, all the while skewering pop culture and so much more. Anyway, on more than many occasions the entire strip consists of muumuu'd Zippy repeating a phrase over and over again (in context it make a little more sense) and I was reminded of this this morning as my mind kept repeating "sildenafil citrate" over and over from the time I awoke until I could turn on a radio for some relief. This isn't the first time I've had a spoken phrase stuck in my head, just the most recent. Apparently the spammers succeeded in getting the product stuck in my mind, though that doesn't really get them any money.

I had something else to talk about too, but now I've forgotten it.

I printed a twelve page email today, needing only one page's information. I never print emails, so this felt even worse. My disdain for the far-too-liberal printing practices of my coworkers only deepens my guilt. And then, unthinking, I printed the damn thing again just for half a page of information. Captain Planet's going to kill me.

So I'm listening to NPR on the drive home today, just like any other day, except it's really dark out and they're talking about gay marriage. The darkness I could explain because I left later than usual, but the marriage issue took me a little longer to puzzle through. The Massachusetts legislature has apparently set the groundwork for a massive debate on gay marriage by basically legalizing it.

Whoa. That is so completely against the prevailing leadership stance it made my head reel. To think that some people in power out there might have their heads screwed on straight (ha ha ha) boggles the mind. Yet I am straight and married, to boot. Why would I want to extend this institution to those deviants? Hear me out: We here in America are all about freedoms. Freedom to this and that and we protect these rights so dearly we need to foist them on the rest of the world. Are you forcing women to dress from head to toe in unflattering clothes? Then we're after your ass! We want to make sure that woman has the right to a bare midriff (we'll sell her clothes to cover everything else, just barely, of course) but god forbid she want to marry a Tom, Dick or Harry but a Tammy, Delores or Harriet! God indeed, as this country is apparently still run by a god and not some principles of freedom and self-determination. Somewhere in the rush to power apparently the ability to separate religious mandates and the rule of law goes by the wayside, and anything that could be considered morally contentious by some becomes illegal to all.

This is nothing new: laws banned consumption of alcohol and the marriage of interracial couples. Times changed and those laws were superseded by rational thought, so why are we stuck in an ultraconservative backwater whatever? And don't even start blaming Bush, as it was everybody's dearest Mr. Bill Clinton himself who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. The overt war reference is likely just a coincidence, though military language permeates governing just as much as white protestant morality does.

Now to me. I still am a white protestant, but somehow I have this idea that the government should let gays get married. Legally it has nothing to do with love at all, but has much more practical implications such as, oh, the inheritance of property and social security widow's benefits. Why not extend such benefits to any two people willing to commit for life to each other? Contracts being what they are, just fill in the names, have the justice of the peace take care of it, and shazam, two husbands. Or wives. I think Massachusetts has set a good precedent, though the rumblings of a constitutional amendment to protect this man and woman business troubles me greatly. KEEP MORALITY OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION!

You may notice that there is nothing in the constitution against gambling or close dancing, two things that major religious groups oppose vehemently. You may furthermore notice no law preventing the eating of meat on Lenten Fridays, or non-kosher foods. Again, these are major religious provisions but they aren't federal law. So let homosexuals get married as per the government and let the churches, which are not bound by equality shit, keep them out. So you can have Mr. and Mr. Bob Whatever, but not in this church, and so on. This is what Las Vegas and the justices of the peace are for. And once this starts, dominoes will fall and the more liberal churches will relent. With open arms.

A truly shrewd state would take advantage of the situation and offer gay marriage to any couple willing to pay a minimum of taxes, be they property, income or sales. Whatever, just to get some money in the government coffers. The dough would roll in, I'd think. ARE YOU LISTENING, ARNOLD?

I'm sorry, but I generally don't bandy potentially unpopular opinions or capital letters around much, but the more times I hear this argued it really steams me. It's a basic freedom, people, and if we're not letting gays marry THE TERRORISTS WIN. Okay, maybe that's crossing the line, but to even have thought this I'm a thought criminal anyway. Please forget you ever read this if you want to see your children grow up.

I am so back on track with the novel. I've got my target rate picked out and I've already exceeded it for today. So enough about that. I needed to open up a new bottle of lens cleaner tonight, and as usual had to struggle with the stupid plastic they put on the top. You know, the stuff that says "Tamper evident"? I think if I were the sort of person to tamper with a bottle of lens cleaner packed in a box, I'd also get rid of anything that claimed to be evidence of any tampering. And what would you do with something like that? Slip red pepper in there? Some virus? Admittedly the eyes are a great place to introduce germs and contagions, but seriously, who does that? It's just like the razorblades in candybars idea: didn't they do a study proving the whole thing to be a hoax? And why do they have to put the same crap on my Cool Whip containers? I think I'd be able to tell if it's been tampered with, thank you.

And while I dwell on the idea of stupid production ideas, I'd like to find out why DVDs that claim to include "deleted scenes" don't include them all. I realize all footage isn't necessary, but in the example of, say, Old school, which features Will Ferrell dangling a fish on its cover (and in scenes I remember from trailers), doesn't include said scene in either the film or its outtakes. Why not? It was likely pretty funny, so why leave it out? Bad bit budget? Come on. And take for example The family man with Nic Cage asking "What am I doing here?" and two large guys in matching uniforms reply, "You're the best damn tire salesman in New Jersey", which too was expurgated from the film but not its promotional campaign. Could we have a little consistency, folks? Please?