>> ^Shepppard:

Meth is a helluva drug.


Nah. Meth makes you hyper and obsessive. And it ruins your teeth; his teeth aren't rotting out.

I bet this guy smokes a lot of pot, and maybe has had some really fantastic LSD experiences a couple times.

As much as I like Zizek, his notions about ecology are bogus. They show a deep ignorance about biology and the natural world.

For instance, he asks us what kind of "unimaginable catastrophe" could have put petroleum in the deep strata of the earth. But petroleum is laid down precisely when there [i]aren't[/i] any catastrophes--nothing to disturb the layers of organic matter being deposited on the bed of the ocean or deep lake, no lava flows or the sediment collecting on top, no major earthquakes or other geological disturbances to break open the petroleum deposits and allow them to leak out, etc.

Nature [i]isn't[/i] just a series of catastrophes. Sure, they happen. But many species are so intricately interwoven with others through thousands of years of co-evolution that it's impossible to think that catastrophe conditions are the norm. And it is, indeed, human hubris that has caused so many devastating environmental problems today.

I actually liked it. It's a tremendously complex video that rewards watching it several times and expending effort interpreting it. The man with the gun--did he shoot Gaga, or is planning to shoot himself? Perhaps he--Alejandro, apparently--is meant to signify a gay man trapped in a straight marriage. Note that in the bedroom, he and Gaga are both constrained by cables from the ceiling, as if they are marionette puppets. Perhaps he killed himself, and is thus the man buried by Gaga in the funeral procession.

What's the with the man wearing the Star of David with a cage around his head, and the man nearby wearing a stylized pyramid? Is Gaga just throwing a bone to the conspiracy theorists, or do they play a more significant role in the video? I am tempted to say that they do. They are presented with the lockstep march of the soldiers, offering commentary on the way they are closely regimented and controlled.

Just a few points: Every costume Gaga wears appears to symbolize some means of control or liberation. Nazi Dictator Gaga, as I have dubbed her, in the black outfit with the goggles, is a symbol of externalized, nefarious control. Cabaret Gaga, in the underwear, seems to represent purely carnal sexual liberation--just plain sex--which is outside her system of control, but does not seem to seriously subvert it. Machine Gun Madonna Gaga might is a woman who--like Dictator Gaga--has seized masculine, phallic power to herself, but in a rather dangerous way. Following the appearance of the M-16 bra, we see that the soldiers are led to violence and domination. Red Latex Nun Gaga symbolizes is like Dictator Gaga in that she represents control--but passive, internalized control, rather than external control--but is nonetheless just as controlling; she has, by accepting the system of control into herself, enslaved a man into a desperate, entirely inappropriate heterosexual marriage. The flip side is Anti-Christ Gaga, who, like Cabaret Gaga, symbolizes sexual liberation from control--but in a spiritualized, highly subversive form--though the flash of an appearance of Dictator Gaga may indicate that this, too, is part of the machinations of the system of control.

There's plenty more one can say. A number of narrative threads, occurring simultaneously, can be teased out of the video.

Also, lots of man-candy. Yay!

>> ^ant:

Who was that on the target? James Bond? Heh.


I think it might have been Hitler.

Heh, it's not often that I see something genuinely positive come out of my hometown. Usually, news from around here has something to do with tornadoes or religious bigotry.

So, yeah, I'm pretty happy to see something like this hit the web as hard as it has.

I'm just laughing at the first guy's trying to cut the standing tatami mat. If the thing leans over like that, you're doing it wrong. The guy clearly doesn't know how to handle that sword.

Did anyone else here hear the blast itself?

I was nine years old at the time, living about seven miles away as the crow flies. Shook the windows of my home. I had no idea what had happened until my mom turned on the TV.

I spent a nail-biting twenty minutes waiting for word from my father. He was working a couple miles away at the state capitol, and I knew he had to interface with Federal authorities from time to time. He was just fine, but the window in his office had been blown out--fortunately, he'd been in the parking lot at the time.

The following weeks were a bit harrowing. The newspapers were filled with horrible images of the destruction, full color pictures of injured people being wheeled to ambulances, and the text all telling the stories of those who were trapped for days before being pulled out of the rubble. My young brain was horrified that this was all happening so close to me.

The Murrah Building bombing is still a big deal in OKC. The local NPR station ran a special on the topic on the anniversary. I have to say, I nearly cried.

Oh, lordy. That Catullus quote took me by surprise. Read that poem in Latin II. I scared the dogs, I was laughing so hard.

The vast majority of average gay folks aren't. But there is a fringe that looks on the gay movement as more of a societal prybar. As with the comment above, they look on this as a chance to 'change' religion/society/attitudes/people as opposed to obtaining simple secular rights.

Again, you reveal substantial ignorance of gay activism and advocacy. Most gay advocacy is directed toward fighting societal attitudes that harm LBGT folk. We don't want people to yell "faggot" or "dyke" at us, seek to have us fired from our workplaces for our orientation or sexual identity, or beat or even kill us for being open about who we are. We don't like being treated like dirt, so we try to change people's minds.

I don't see what's so radical about this.

However, the primary means for achieving these ends are education and persuasion. I'm unaware of any significant group that seeks to achieve that sort of change through the force of law; the notion is reprehensible, and the results would in fact be counter-productive.

But let's be hypothetical and say no-one currently is voicing these radical positions(it's untrue, but let's go with it). Laws have a nasty way of generating unintended consequences - and religious groups are rightfully concerned over the vague language in gay marriage legislation. Ask someone in the 60's whether anti-discrimination laws would be used to put girls in all-male schools, and they'd say "Don't be ridiculous... That isn't the intent!" And yet - that's what happened. Laws get passed, and then the law gets PUSHED in unintended ways. I think religious groups are more than justified in being concerned that these vague gay marriage laws (which contain no specific language to protect them) would be used in future legislation against them - 1st Ammendment or not.

All I'm saying is that if we're going to do this - let's take the time to do it right. Give gay couples their civil unions that extend all the secular benefits of marriage. Craft the law so it has concrete, specific language limiting the law to ONLY extend to secular standing. Let each church make it own rules for 'marriage' as they see fit, with protections that allow churches to refuse gay marriages without being sued for it.

First, I'd like to see an example of all-male schools being forced to accept girls. If it is happening, it must be a state or local issue; single-sex educational institutions, both public and private, are perfectly allowable under Federal law.

Second, I don't see how worries that churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages are at all well-founded. Churches cannot be forced to accept female or black pastors, and cannot be forced to perform interracial marriages. Yet legal protections for the equality of women and racial minorities are far stronger and more firmly entrenched in the American legal system than protections for LGBT people.

There are simply no plausible legal avenues by which churches might be forced to perform same-sex marriages.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.
It is an issue - and one I appreciate. However - see above. You can't just say, "OK - gay marriage is legal" and ignore the fact that there are thousands of churches who will refuse to perform the ritual, and who happen to have 1st Ammendment rights protecting that stance. Civil unions are the best solution here, even though they are not perfect.

Who's talking about forcing churches to perform gay marriages if it's against their values? I'm not aware of any prominent gay rights advocates who oppose people's right to dissent from such actions or conscientiously decline to involve themselves in such ceremonies. Churches can't even be forced to perform interracial marriages, if the members of the church are opposed.

I am aware that some opposed to the legalization of gay marriage have claimed that churches conscientiously opposed to gay marriages would be forced to perform them, but such claims do not have legal justification, and misrepresent the goals of gay rights advocates. We don't want to force people by law to accept us--we just want to be able to live our lives with the same freedoms and privileges everyone else has.

Further, it must be noted that there is no shortage of churches actively supportive of gay marriage. There are plenty of them even right here in Oklahoma, in the middle of the Bible Belt. Surely, if freedom of religion is that important to you, you would want to defend the rights of these churches to affirm same-sex unions as marriage.

>> ^dannym3141:

How do you get to be kinda gay? Not that i'm interested or anythin.....


Short answer: Being born that way.

Long answer: Sexuality's complicated sometimes. I like girls enough that, if I met just the right one, I might be interested in making a go of it. But not enough that, generally speaking, I'm terribly interested in more than appreciating a woman's good looks sometimes. I sort of fall between the cracks between "bisexual" and "gay."

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Nothing wrong with this. If the gay movement stuck to sensible steps like this then they'd find people much more amenable to their agenda. Sadly, they tend to tie far too many radical agenda items in with too few good ones, and act all surprised when there is opposition. It is a problem with agenda groups on all sides.


Now maybe--being kinda gay myself--my perspective is just a bit skewed, but I don't know what you're talking about here. Most of the gay activism in my area is concerned with things like funding for a new health clinic to help deal with LGBT concerns, or putting laws on the books against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation--in half of all states in the US, you can be fired simply for being gay. Heck, until a couple years ago, school administrators could discriminate against LGBT kids in the OKC metro area without any consequences. Fully half of all homeless teenagers in my state are gay, bisexual, or transgendered, and suicide is the leading cause of death among LGBT teenagers. These are the things gay activism is overwhelmingly concerned with in most areas of the US. I hardly think that working to alleviate these problems is radical.

The American public is overwhelmingly in favor of allowing gay and bisexual folk to serve openly in the military. So that's not too radical, either.

About the only "radical" agenda item that's really pushed is gay marriage--which is given a disproportionate amount of press when compared to other LGBT issues. But the reasons for pushing for marriage instead of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" are quite practical rather than merely ideological. What a "civil union" might be is rather nebulous, and civil union and domestic partnership statutes as enacted thus far in the US often do not approach the breadth of rights accorded to married couples, and are in legal limbo regarding state reciprocity agreements. Accordingly, the only way to guarantee equivalent rights to married couples is for LGBT unions to have the same legal identity.>> ^choggie:

Oh and gay marriage?? Many more homosexuals who have been in monogamous relationships with their partners for years prior to all the activism associated with changing the marriage laws of states, would rather things stay they way they are-You don't need sanctions to live/love together, and the tax breaks are insignificant.


Many more? Really? To the contrary, in my experience. Do you have studies that say otherwise? Or are you perhaps better linked in with the gay community than I--a gay man--am? I must confess my doubts.

Tom Coburn is incredibly conservative, but he's honest, and he votes according to his conscience. Heck, he co-sponsored a bill with Obama. I voted against our other senator, Jim Inhofe, but I may very well vote for Coburn. I don't agree with his policies, but I love his integrity.

Yes. Yes, he is.

I'm fortunate enough to live in the same metro area as these guys, so I went to their big New Year's Eve concert.

There were people in flower and butterfly costumes dancing on stage.

>> ^spoco2:
Fuck, that was bloody terrible. "I know, let's just put in some shots of anime porn to make it seem 'edgy'"
URgh


I think those are just ads that happened to be nearby the shoot. It's the Akihabara district, after all. Soft porn adverts and people dancing around in strange costumes is sort of par for the course around there.

My analysis: four gay Vaders attempting to seduce four C-3PO's through the power of dance.