Good Old Neon

John Krasinski will be in town(Boston)at Brookline Booksmiths this weekend to discuss DFW and his adaptation of Wallace’s, Brief Interviews with Hideous Men. Saturday, November 7, 4pm John Krasinski David Foster Wallace’s Brief interviews with hideous men Boston-bred actor John Krasinski (“The Office”) dreamt of one day bringing the work of his favorite writer to film. A year after David Foster Wallace’s untimely demise, Krasinski makes his directorial debut with Brief Interviews With Hideous Men, based on Wallace’s book of that same name. Join him at the Booksmith as he sings the praises

I scored a pirated e-book version for my Kindle, and I couldn't be more excited.

I believe this was already foretold by PANTHER.

It can, for that individual.

Not anymore, there's an App for that.

Um, I don’t know where you’ve been, but it’s already been proven that Obama is not a citizen, and he’s only 13, and only looks older on account of some sort of glandular malfunction. So, there's like, precedent, man.

Ugh – their website is the sort of website that almost makes me wish that the internet was never invented. The single most important piece of evidence these organizations have consistently failed to provide (which, is understandable considering none exists), is how, in unequivocal terms, does same sex marriage irrevocably damage “traditional” marriage. At the barest of bare minimums, if something is to remain illegal, shouldn’t at least one single piece of unambiguous evidence be required to support the supposition? The opposition’s reasoning can pretty much be reduced to, and this is fr

We could, and have, done worse. I’m going to put an exploratory committee (and a really powerful microscope) together – look for a really big (small) announcement soon.

This. (p.s. – it sounds like Susie Sunshine knows how to party, would you happen to have her phone number?)

I am, of course, being sarcastic, but if the issue truly is the sanctity of marriage and preserving its purity – it would appear to me, to be consistent, we should take steps to make it much more difficult to attain a divorce – at least in cases where the marriage was codified in a church, and/or administered by a priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. Edit: There are certain attitudes and beliefs that do not demand and/or deserve my respect and understanding, racism comes to mind, as does homophobia.

Personally, I would like to preserve marriage’s sanctity by outlawing divorce – with one exception, a notarized note from god, granting his permission. I’m sure I can get lots and lots of thrice divorced politicians and other members of the religious right to back my proposal, enthusiastically. Edit: I would also like to add, that I would also like to see us stop pussyfooting around, and get back stoning adulterers to death.

Exactly, but the answer can be summed up thusly:

I could watch Kate Winslett read from the list of contents on the back of a paint can, for hours on end, and be happy.

You might want to slip them a few copies of this: http://www.amazon.com/NurtureShock-New-Thinking-About-Children/dp/0446504122 There’s some great stuff on school and educator related subjects, academic performance, cognitive ability, adolescent behavior, both good and bad, etc.

For the record I’m straight (not that there’s anything wrong with that), but it is an issue that I feel very strongly about. I have several gay and lesbian friends and family members that I love dearly, which, really, is beside the point. Like you, I consider this a civil rights issue, not unlike what other minorities have gone through and fought for in the past. Fortunately, the tide is turning, and fear and ignorance is giving way to compassion and acceptance. Ironically, religion, the institution that pays lip services to the importance of the aforementioned is acting as a barrier, but t

Maine voters overturn state’s new same-sex marriage law http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2009/11/04/maine_voters_overturn_states_new_same_sex_marriage_law/ Depressing news, but as Andrew Sullivan has pointed out, the culture is shifting - from his blog: But I do want to point out that, from the perspective of just a decade ago, to have an even split on this question in a voter referendum is a huge shift in the culture. In Maine, where the Catholic church did all it could to prevent gays from having civil rights in a very Catholic and rural state, gays do have equality

I said I don’t see a vast distinction between conservative Christians and the religious right – and by and large, in matters pertaining to how they vote or the candidates they support, I don’t. As the religious right would not exist without the participation of conservatives and/or Christians. It’s fair and accurate to say that not all conservative Christians vote in line with the religious right, but I think, based on Pew research, it’s accurate to say that most do, as that is what the numbers show. So, again, on the aggregate, I don’t think there’s a vast distinction. In the next election

My point, is that the religious right is, pretty much by definition, made up of conservatives and Christians, so in that sense, they are one in the same.

I agree, and that was not my intent. I’m extremely critical of religion, but I do not discriminate against people who hold religious beliefs (I know, this is sounding dangerously close to, “some of my best friends are black.”). However, I am critical of folks who wield their beliefs as a weapon, or allow their beliefs to cloud all judgment. And you’re right, movement is too strong a word, and I’m casting too wide a net.

I’m not convinced that there’s a vast distinction. I respect that you have friends who voted for Obama, but again, on the aggregate, voters who define themselves as conservative and/or christian voted overwhelmingly for McCain.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, and what you’ve said may be true of individuals, but on the aggregate, the movement is diametrically opposed to extending rights to gays and lesbians, protecting the environment, freedom of choice, etc. That’s not a stereotype, it’s a fact. However, unlike the current conservative movement, racial stereotypes are not based on a given races clearly defined mission statement.

As an individual – nothing (that I’m aware of). But as a group, and a voting block, a case could be made that conservative Christian are sort of fucking up the political process, stifling progress and denying rights to people I care for, and deeply.

Fair enough, but the last time I checked, it’s pretty much impossible to choose your race, your sex, your sexual orientation, etc, whereas believing the sort of backwards shit the rightwing has come to represent is a choice. Palin for example, I think it's pretty safe to say that the verdict is in, and she is, in fact, a total fucking joke, yet, a substantial portion of the population chooses to believe she’s the second coming, of what, I’m not sure, but they choose to love and follow her despite the fact that she’s a total moron, or, even worse, precisely because she’s a total moron – i.e. re

I won’t apologize for holding a dim view of a goodly percentage of my fellow Americans. It’s not that I think I’m smatter or superior in any way, because I’m not, I just have very little patience for the willfully ignorant – and those are just the sort of folks Dunham is mining (Palin mines, Limbaugh mines, Fox News mines, the entire fucking Republican Party mines and so on and so on….) And that, of course, is fine, but like cryptique pointed out, he should be raked over the coals for catering to them. As for Silverman, she claims her act is satire, and I tend to believe her. Unlike Dunham