Weasel Words, not for the win

Proponents for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage go to court to stop their California statewide proposition from being described as "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry." Why? The description, although accurate in a state that permits gay marriage, is "prejudicial."

"We feel the ballot language is so inflammatory that it will unduly prejudice voters against the measure," said Jennifer Kerns, a spokeswoman for ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8. The proposed "fair, non-prejudicial" wording on the ballot - 'Marriage,' or 'Rules Regarding Marriage' - has the minor problem of not actually telling people what they are voting for or against, which would be putting this statement into the state Constitution: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

This is being touted by the "vote yes" supporters as *not* having an impact on gay rights. Because if you didn't have a right in the first place except by some sort of aberrant mistake for a month or two, then it's not taking anything away, now is it?

(Someone remind me which of the Ten Commandments is the one about bearing false witness? I'd also like to see the Bible that defines marriage only as between a man and a woman, I really would. Because last time I looked at mine it also defined marriage between a king, his 3000 wives and concubines, a shepherd and his employer's two daughters, and a bunch of other alternatives, right down to a family including a man, his wife, and his wife's servant's kid and also a man, his daughters, and their incestuous pregnancy. So somebody's Bible seems to be missing a chapter or 50. And this is before I even go through recorded history which has recorded quite a few permutations on the 1 man+1 woman model.)

I'm not even going to link to the Orson Scott Card ravings about how horrible it is that activist judges are applying the law equally to citizens instead of letting some people's rights be decided by majority vote. Let that happen and you've got women thinking they can vote and slaves walking around like freedmen and now you're gonna have CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER! MASS HYSTERIA!

*eyeroll*

Shakespeare Podcast reviews

Four Podcasts in one day. Well, for reasons I'm about to describe, I didn't listen to two of them for long.

Shakespeare's Sonnets, Read by a Guy From NY
I didn't even make it past the introduction, which started: "They say I have to read this stuff and hey, service is better served than time, y'know? So here are Shakespeare's sonnets and I'm supposed to say what I think about them. I feel so stupid. Here goes."
*click*

Shakespeare-on-iPod
Still love the title. Loathe the person doing it, and the "scholarship" he rode in on. This is one of those "Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare" people, which is already putting my back up, but I'd be willing to listen to an argument about how Hamlet is based on events in the life of Edward de Vere. Well, I would if there was an actual *argument,* with, like, proof or context or petty details of that ilk. I'm picky like that.

What I got? A couple of sentences about how de Vere "met this Prince who had lots of retainers and it made de Vere feel bad" as a lead-in to "and we see this in the play when Hamlet commented on Fortinbras' army" without so much as an attempt to point out that in context Fortinbras was an invading usurper and maybe that context has something to do with anything... I can't even finish this sentence without going into italics and all caps and far too many exclamation points. I certainly couldn't finish the podcast.

Someone needs to take some authors aside - Patricia Cornwall, I'm looking at you too - and point out that "I'm smarter than all you sheeple because I say so, so NYAH! So bow in amazement at the power of my ego proclamations unsubstantiated argument" is not form of debate that should be used past the age of 7.

Reduced Shakespeare Company
I don't know why I hesitated, I should have just up and subscribed to this right away. Commentary on acting, their shows & how they're developed, etc. It's actually more about the theater life than Shakespeare, but it's informative and silly. Can't get better than that.

Will@Warwick
A podcast associated with the Warwick conference on Shakespeare (hey, thanatos_kalos! Grab someone out of the A/V department and see what they can set up for the Whovian conference!), it is 20ish minutes with some of the presenters, and therefore a wide range of actual experts and scholars. It is no longer active as the conference is over (I could weep) but well worth the retro-download. So far I've listened to "Editing Shakespeare," wherein the guy who edited the Oxford Edition talks about what went out, what went in, and what regrets he has in retrospect. (I had no idea there were two different versions of Lear in the Oxford.) I've also listened to "Shakespeare in Manga," about adapting the Bard to that form, and right now I'm in the middle of an absolutely riveting cast about language in Shakespeare which includes people delivering lines in Original Pronunciation (and the jokes that have been lost without that) and also an actor going through multiple lines in multiple deliveries/accents. Abso-friggin-lutely fascinating.

The web page has full details of all episodes. Checking out their related iCast page archive digs up podcasts on things such as nanotechnology in daily life (for those who voted for science), women in the gaming industry (I know that's going to ring a few flister bells), and other things. Check out the archives from previous seasons as well.


No vote tonight, I'm off to knit. New vote tomorrow in the afternoon.