mr. rogers

i am one of those rare angelinos who actually uses public transport in this city. not necessarily because i'm a big proponent of public transportation (though i am), but because it is extremely convenient, cheap, and faster than driving. i live and work a few blocks from the subway (yes, los angeles does have a subway), so it's very convenient.

and because i take the subway, i get to see all of the interesting people who also take the subway. the women with crazy hair who talk to themselves, the guy who takes the 5:45 north hollywood train who always stares at me lasciviously, the christian evangelists, the homeless man who plays a beat-up quitar for change, the FIDM students with their emo haircuts and bedazzled chuck taylors.

these are the people who i see everyday. they've become almost a comfort as i sit half-awake on my 10 minute commute into the office. i don't know they're names, i don't speak a word to them, and most of them aren't going to the same place i am, but they are the people in my neighborhood. and i think it's a good thing.

elle s'habille en technicolor

i've spent much of the past week getting things arranged for my trip to paris in june. despite studying french language, literature, culture, and history for over 7 years, i'm afraid to death that i'll walk out of the metro and i'll have forgotten it all.

which i suppose is not as bad as my mother's reoccuring nightmare that the plane will crash into the ocean. i reminded her of the beginning of hotel new hampshire and suggested the family split up and take two separate flights. i don't think that cheered her up.

the more you know

did you know that there is a town in arkansas called 'bald knob'?

well, now you do.

ghost

i had dinner with Secretkings last week. much fun was had with the margaritas and the fubar and the talk of wisconsin and ethnic food and koreatown. it made me miss the days when he hated living in pasadena and i was a weho neophyte.

we began talking about the "good old days" of gay blogging (god, that makes me sound like a conservative--the good old days part, not the gay blogging). and i was cleaning up some of my links from past incarnations of my blog, and it made me think about it even more. there are so many blogs that are gone, written by people i used to talk to all the time but have faded out into the ether. in a sense, it is the natural birth and death cycle of life, of people weaving in and out of your sphere. but in another, it's just sad--i miss a lot of them.

at dinner, we talked about how cool it would be to have a gay blogger reunion. it's of course cool in concept, but now that i've thought about it, i'm not so sure. i remember how awkward some of those blog get togethers were, even back when i'd be e-mailing often with these people. it seems like now, when many of us haven't even blogged for long stretches of time, that it would just be like a high school reunion. sometimes it's better just to let the past--and the people in it--go.

this title has been censored to promote tolerance

i've been following the complaint filed against georgia tech on free speech and religious expression grounds, and while i'm only slightly informed about it at the moment, here are my first thoughts:

while it proports to be about free speech, from the complaint at least it seems more about two students complaining that other people with differing opinions aren't institutionally chastised. the free speech argument is based on the school's speech policy, which prohibits speech being used to "injure, harm, malign, or harass" someone or group, as well as prohibiting assualt, vandalism, and denigration. none of these restrictions are per se unconsitutional, as there is much case law on how speech which is harmful (harassment, fighting words, vandalism, libel and slander, etc.). whether they were enforced lawfully is another question which discovery will better shed light on, since the complaint is neither a reliable source for the facts nor does it go into sufficient detail (though from what i've seen elsewhere, the instances cited in the complaint seem to be at the least vulgar and crude).

i admit that i'm biased against their political position, but i just have a problem seeing the plaintiffs as oppressed. regardless of the thin line between competing rights that this complaint straddles (and there is one, though one that's already been argued before), i just invision this coming back to bite the conservative christians in the ass. much like the equal access act, conservative christians could find any ruling in their favor to be used against them. it's not that hard for a skilled lawyer to draw a reasonable line from unrestricted expression of religious beliefs (no matter how harmful) against homosexuality to unrestricted expression in support of homosexuality (which could be based on religious belief)--which would make it difficult for people like the plaintiffs to block pride events or plays with titular vaginas.

which brings me to the tin man's suggestion that we just form our own religion. our beliefs could have the same imprimature of legitimacy that others claim for the bible, DOMA and DADT could be attacked on first amendment grounds, and my bar tab could be considered tithing and therefore would be tax deductible. excellent.

build up

i has been a week since my last, well, "happy ending." yes, i have been that busy and tired. which also means i'm starting to get a little cranky. i think i'll have to remedy things when i get home.