Horror without suspense is like sex without love: you can appreciate the technicalities, but ultimately there’s no reason to care.
-- Last Sentence of a review of the slasher film Hatcher
A telling comment in an ultimately throw-away review of a movie few will hear about and fewer will see. Such is the value of such things, or can be, though some reviewers (often the second stringers) don't have enough fun with them. Good reviews often go beyond the source material ... some in the NY Review of Books spend around half of the space barely mentioning the actual book itself. Anyway, yes, that line was written by a woman. Still, quite a few women "care" about sex without love, since even marriage does not always guarantee that. And, if casual sex is not supposed to be about "caring," well, that does explain a lot of the emotional (and physical) problems that often arise.
A slamdown on a claim by Fred Thompson that no state legislature accepted same sex marriage, just the courts, links to an article that speaks of an attempt in 2005 -- vetoed by Gov. Arnold on the reasonable claim that a "defense of marriage" state constitutional provision barred the move -- to pass "the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act." Interesting framing -- some do think/believe that "religious freedom" includes same sex marriage ceremonies and official secular sanction of them. The article referenced that court action in California made it a leader in the area of interracial marriage. And, a concurring opinion there too referenced how marriage can be a freedom of religion issue.
It should also be noted many people on the Right on not really gung ho about civil unions either. And, a couple state legislatures did pass them, including California and Connecticut. Again, it amuses me that some now suggest "marriage" is the problem ... we are "fine" with other rights of same sex couples. The Sen. Craig mess suggests otherwise. BTW, suggestions by those such as Mitt Romney that we need some constitutional amendment to protect us from states who want to allow it explains why it is soooo easy me for me not to take Republican candidates seriously.
Meanwhile, talking about a woman's P.O.V. ...
Julie wrote on September 7, 2007 8:42 PM:
Yummm, keen brains, good looks, no-nonsense guts and good taste in how to pick a woman. What's not to like?
Good speech too ... the rhetorical devices alone ("instead of," "we," appeals to the future, etc.) stand out. As does a comparison of the pictures on the covers of the hard and soft cover versions of Elizabeth Edwards' bio ... the latter is more troubling. BTW, on a recent Rachel Maddow (Air America) appearance, she reiterated her controversial point that the the first black and woman presidential candidate might be a good story, but it doesn't justify making JE an also ran story.
As is often the case, her blunt speech can rub some the wrong way, but it has some bite. Last time ... didn't seem that long ago ... we were told Kerry was the winnable (not that he would win ...) candidate. But, in fact, some polls etc. suggest Edwards has the best shot in the general, and along with Obama, turns on much of the base (see a quickie straw poll on Thom Hartmann yesterday) as well.
But, apparently, he is an also ran ... self-fulling prophecy?