burning like matchsticks in the face of the darkness

Okay, I know I've complained before about the ACLU of Massachusetts form to contact legislators, but this morning I got an email from them ("5 days left; 5 bills to pass!") about 5 bills to try to get through before the legislative session ends on July 31 and the unchangeable Message Recipients are "Your State Senator, Your State Representatives" but I know at least one of these bills has already unanimously passed the House! (Because my State Rep emailed to tell me so earlier this month as a follow-up to an email thread we'd had earlier this season in which I was asking her to support the bill.)

And there's almost no information for ME about the bills so that I could, yanno, elaborate more personally about why these bills are important to me or what impact they would have that I'm concerned about or whatever.

The email to me says:

For this action, we're asking lawmakers to act on five key issues:

• Ban the sale of cellphone location data.
  
• Rein in face surveillance.
  
• Address the opioid crisis.
  
• Pass the Parentage Act.
  
• Tackle maternal health inequities.

The form email to the legislators says:

As your constituent, I urge you to take the following steps before the session ends:

1. Address the opioid crisis using an evidence-based, public health approach - We need to use every available tool to save lives.

2. Tackle inequities in maternal health - Expand access to midwifery care, birth centers, and other reproductive health care services.

3. Pass the Parentage Act - Don't let these long-overdue reforms slip through the cracks! It's time to protect all children and families in Massachusetts.

4. Ban the sale of cellphone location data - This predatory practice puts us all at risk of surveillance and harassment, especially domestic violence survivors.

5. Rein in government use of facial recognition - Pass commonsense safeguards that have been vetted and are ready to go.

So, just off the cuff:

#4. Per my Rep, "H.4844, An Act Providing Protections for Reproductive or Gender-Affirming Care Location Information, has passed unanimously in the House [on July 10] and will now be sent over to the Senate."

#3. I Googled the Parentage Act, which I thought had also passed, and there's a June 12, 2024 press release that says, "Having passed the House of Representatives 156-0, the bill now goes to the Senate for its consideration."

Yes, I should definitely email my Senator about those -- but I'm not gonna form email my Senator AND Rep to ask them to pass these bills when one of those people has already fucking passed the bill.

I'm honestly not even sure what specific bills these other numbers are referencing. I looked up ALCUM's legislative priorities for this session, and "opioid" isn't on that page, so idk what #1 is about, and I really don't love making vague asks of my legislators.

#2, I think is probably re: "Birthing Justice & Maternal Health Equity (S.1415)"

Okay, re: #5, there is very helpfully: "Facial Recognition Commission Recommendations (H.1728/S.927) | Learn More | Testimony | Take Action!"

Somerville, MA

Last summer [scroll down here for my locked post at the time], Somerville (MA) was updating their domestic partner ordinance and took the opportunity (as a somewhat last-minute decision) to expand it to include polyamorous domestic partnerships.

Last July 1, my partner shared Somerville City Councilor (Ward 2) JT Scott's post about it on FB.

Yesterday, my partner Shared their FB Memory of the announcement and said, "Has it been a year already?" Councilor Scott commented this morning: "It has been a year... and several families have registered... and we just might be introducing some new modifications to make it even more inclusive before the end of 2021!"

So that's exciting!

(Also, this is prompting me to finally make the post I've been accumulating since March of assorted polyam legal etc. news 😂)

+

Cambridge, MA

After Somerville's June 29, 2020, domestic partnership update, The People's Republic of Cambridge quickly (tried to) follow suit.

March 8, 2021, my partner Shared a FB post (which links to this blogpost) about Cambridge finally passing their updated domestic partner ordinance.

Someone asked a series of ... maybe sincere, maybe concern-trolling? questions and my partner initially responded based on how the Somerville ordinance worked (assuming Cambridge's would be similar) and then later made a follow-up comment:

I’ve now read the Cambridge City ordinance [...] and it’s really well written. It _does not_ have the single partnership restrictions that Somerville does, and it also has a bunch of sections that address all sorts of things, including parental/guardianship rights, withdrawal from a partnership, notification of existing partner when a new partnership is created, etc. I suggest reading it to see how Cambridge is handling this.

https://cambridgema.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame&MeetingID=2656&MediaPosition&ID=12316&CssClass&fbclid=IwAR2Cg0OWu4iuy3FKksbpR2MlWP3vhuKok8iHL4Zt-VUBBh50ZdxNvGJZ6MI

It’s worth noting that I think Somerville’s ordinance was very off-the-cuff, while Cambridge’s ordinance was written in conjunction with the newly-formed PLAC [Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition], whose press release is linked above. So I’m inclined to believe that future ordinances and laws will look more like the Cambridge ordinance.

+

Arlington, MA

April 30, 2021, a WickedLocal article reported:

In what could be a watershed moment for multi-person relationships, Arlington became the first town in Massachusetts to approve domestic partnerships of more than two people when Town Meeting approved an amendment to a warrant article Wednesday, April 28. 

The motion states the town will recognize domestic partnerships containing two or more people, which is more inclusive of people in polyamorous relationships or other non-traditional family situations. The town recognition helps people in those relationships achieve the same kind of civil rights permitted to married couples, including visitation rights at health care facilities and access to children's school records. 

Somerville and Cambridge are the only communities in Massachusetts recognizing domestic partnerships between more than two people. However, those were proposed through city ordinances, which can only be removed if appealed by private residents. Because Arlington is a town, the motion approved at Town Meeting is subject to review and approval from the state Attorney General's office, and without any town having approved this type of motion before, Arlington will be in unprecedented legal ground when the AG reviews it. 

Originally, the article proposed at Town Meeting was to solely recognize domestic partnerships of two people. Town Meeting member Amos Meeks proposed the amendment extending the definition of recognized domestic partnerships to people who are in polyamorous relationships. Meeks said he worked with Town Meeting member Guillermo Hamlin and the Rainbow Commission, who helped put together the original article, as well as the Polyamory Legal Advocacy Coalition, an organization promoting the rights of people in polyamorous relationships. 

Meeks, who said he lives together with his two life partners, said the formal recognition would help him and anyone else in a similar relationship achieve certain civic rights, such as getting onto the insurance plans of their partners.

I haven't heard about the status of the AG ruling on this since, but it's still exciting.

***

In other legal news:

California, USA

March 6, 2021, CNN published an article "Three dads, a baby and the legal battle to get their names added to a birth certificate":

Under a 2013 California law, a third parent can be added to a birth certificate after a child's birth if it can be shown that recognizing only two parents would be detrimental to the child.

[...]

The judge ruled in their favor before their daughter Piper was born in 2017. Jenkins believes they are the first polyamorous family in California, and possibly the country, to be named as the legal parents of a child. CNN has not been able to confirm that.

+

March 15, 2021, the New Yorker published an article: "How Polyamorists and Polygamists Are Challenging Family Norms" (ht/t were_duck on Twitter)

[sidenote: Aida Manduley, one of the polyam folks profiled here, was involved in Eve Rickert's transformative justice process -- and does not come off well in Rickert's report.]

From my partner in the group chat:

This article is interesting so far. It starts with polygamous Mormons, except they’re not fundamentalist, they’re excommunicated/non-practicing, and they converted to Mormonism _because of_ polygamy.

But in some ways, very much the Mormon polygamy vibe:
> “We already told him that, if he wants to add another wife, Brandy and I have to find her,” she said. “It’s not just going to be someone who Mr. Eternal Hope thinks might work. We’re the ones that have to live with her all the time.”

Utah, Somerville, and Cambridge get a shout out in the same paragraph.  

[...]

From one of Aida’s partners:
> Andy said that the idea was not “a sexy orgy bonanza” but a conscious rejection of two things: first, “dividing relationships into two categories—one category being people with whom you have sex and the other category being people with whom you don’t have sex,” and, second, “saying that those categories are defined by some deeply operative distinction that changes the fundamental nature of a relationship.” Polyamory, Andy acknowledged, is hard. “If it were easy, everyone would be doing it,” they added ruefully. The key was to “deal with the things that are abundant from a place of abundance and with the things that are actually scarce from a place of compassion and generosity.”

[...]

My one ~complaint is that so far the article has focused on full-time cohabitating units, which is not (and may never be) my personal situation.  

I would add these excerpts from the article:

Andy grew up in New Hampshire. “It’s not a place I would recommend growing up if you’re trans, for sure,” they said. “I learned when I was young that there was something very wrong with me that nobody would ever understand.” At Skidmore, they studied sociolinguistics. They had their first polyamorous relationship there, in a lesbian triad. “I started meeting more queer and trans people and realizing that it’s not that there’s something broken and weird about me.”

They went to law school in New York City. “I started encountering the idea that the state tells you about how the world works, what a family looks like, what gender is supposed to be,” they said. “As I was studying, I started to learn that there are discrepancies between the state’s stories and reality.”

That led Andy to think about personal choices. “I had had it in my head, Eventually, I’m going to have to do the grownup thing and find the spouse that I can tolerate and produce children. It’s going to suck. The first thing you realize might be, Oh, I don’t actually have to be a girl. Or, I don’t have to be in a relationship with the one person who provides the completion of my Platonic soul for the rest of my life. Whichever linchpin gets pulled out first, it all comes falling down. And once it’s all fallen down you can say, O.K., I’ve got all these pieces and now I can build something.” Andy gestured at the house and their spouses. “And this is what we’ve built,” they said.

[...]

Andy talked about a watershed moment for gay rights, in 1989—the case of Braschi v. Stahl. Miguel Braschi was being evicted from the rent-controlled apartment he and his partner shared, after the partner died, of AIDS. The landlord contended that the lease was transferrable only to family, and that Braschi wasn’t family. Braschi sued. The judge issued a stunningly progressive ruling saying that family should be based on the reality of daily life—these two men lived together, shared finances, took care of each other—and not on “fictitious legal distinctions,” such as marriage certificates. In Andy’s view, the subsequent campaign for gay marriage represented a missed opportunity. “In 1989, he said that a marriage certificate was a fictitious legal distinction,” Andy said with wonder. “The gay-rights movement took that and said, ‘Actually, no, we’re just going to throw that out and try and get married. That seems like a better plan.’ Imagine if we had taken that idea—that legal protections for family should be granted based on the reality of daily family life and interdependence and networks of mutual care rather than on fictitious legal distinctions—and run with it.”

[...]

Even before the Dargers’ book was published, Joe had started seeking out receptive Utah politicians. Rather than framing the issue as one of freedom of religion—an argument long rejected by Utah and federal courts—Joe framed it as a free-speech matter. “If we purported to be married, that was the felony, but I could call them mistresses—not a problem,” he told me. “Speech is our fundamental, most important right. Everything arises in language, and your identity is defined by language. If you can’t claim your identity, you grow up under a grave injustice.”

Serendipitously, this morning's daily lectionary readings were: Isaiah 61:1-7 and Romans 7:1-6.

I saw FCS-Ian last night 'cause there was Council after Rest and Bread.  The copier's still broken, and he asked me if I still had the lectionary sheet* and I said yeah, not with me but at home, that I was planning to bring it to church and that I could also email him the Thursday daily lectionaries for the weeks until Lent.  I got home and couldn't find it, so I typed up the Thursdays until Lent from my RCL book.

*Two Thursdays ago, he hadn't printed up slips, so I used his sheet of the month's daily lectionaries, and took it with me, thinking he had another copy, and the next week he didn't have a copy but I still had mine in my bag.

He replied later this morning:

Thank you very much.  It is so nice to see you on Thursday mornings.

Bless,
Ian

***

Today was really busy at work.  I literally didn't get done all the things I had to get done.  I didn't feel like I was dropping balls, though, and I did take various breathers (including a comfortable lunch -- outside! -- with Cate).  Scott said he'd never seen me so busy.  I pointed out that the day Sonia came to visit was really busy.  He said that was the second busiest.

At one point, he complimented me on a phone call he had been present for, said I clearly work in the Negotiations unit.  I said that was funny because when Jim had approached me and said, "A project for your diplomacy skills," I had mentally recoiled, thinking, "Least favorite part of my job -- diplomacy, politic, negotiation."  Scott said be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that I'm good at it.  "In certain contexts," I insisted.  (I feel like what Scott was present for wasn't much of a negotiation.)

I am good at being mad at people, and I am good at taking care of people -- these are modes I operate really well (comfortably) in.  I debated going to Blue Shirt tonight, because I was feeling like I needed to recharge and being around people was going to drain me further.  But I went anyway.  I got a sandwich and a fruit&sorbet smoothie -- yay healthy food.  It was just Kathy and Gianna, and Gianna was leaving.  We talked about church and family and etc.  (Laura Ruth greeted me with, "Doctor [surname].")  Erica, and Jeff, came later.

Laura Ruth told the story of going to Scott Brown's office today -- she was at the State House to lobby for trans rights, and Scott Brown's office is right near her Senator's office (Sonia Chang-Díaz) -- and confessing that she had thought she didn't need to know anything about Scott Brown because she was so sure that Martha Coakley would be elected, and so she doesn't know anything about him, and she talked to his legislative liaison or somebody (I forget) and asked questions, including, "My congregation is really progressive, so what can we do to support you, given how different we are?" and the guy said, "Talk to us -- write to us, email us ... we have to represent the whole state, not just a part of it."

Around 7 (I got there around 6) Laura Ruth and Jeff had their meeting about re/New etc.  Well, it started with Laura Ruth saying that she and Jeff needed to have their meeting, and I got up, and Jeff said, "It's an open meeting," and I sat back down.

I wasn't sure how helpful I would be, but I had some potentially useful thoughts, and I was really useful in practical matters of reminding them of things they had said they would talk about, asking Laura Ruth if she should input into her phone calendar a change they had agreed on verbally, etc.  At point I said, "And people wonder why I'm never planning to quit my job -- this is what I do," and Laura Ruth said something about Calling (in a way which Affirmed that this is a gift of mine).

They talked about "Christian rockstar music," and she made a disgusted face.  She said, "My nephew's a Christian rockstar.  I love the boy, but it's nauseating," and she mimed preening flowing hair.  I said, "Would you feel the same way if he were gay?  I'm just thinking, with the [miming], that if he were gay, you would be like, 'Oh, that's so [mentally searches for a good word].' "  She was appropriately abashed and said, "Point taken, you don't even need to finish the sentence."

At one point, Laura Ruth mentioned a couple in the church and referred to them as a straight couple and then said, "Well, I don't know -- [male name] might be trans."  I said, "Trans people can be straight," and later, "If one person uses masculine pronouns and the other person uses female pronouns, they're an opposite-gender couple -- who may or may not identify as queer."  Jeff asked, "When are we [First Church] gonna do queer theory 101?" and I got all excited.  He said, "I probably sound like my grandma does on race," and Laura Ruth assured him that wasn't so, and she also said she wasn't sure she even knows what queer theory is.  I said that "queer theory" in the academic sense contains a lot including a lot of stuff I don't necessarily understand, but that what Jeff meant, like GLBT Issues 300, is something I'm really excited about -- about the nuances of language and the difference between sex and gender and all that.

We finally departed around 8:30.

Other good things about today: The job candidate didn't mind my taking him outside, the glitches that there were seemed to be fine, my W-2 came in the mail so I can now file my taxes, the FCS prayer retreat is 5pm-5pm so I don't have to miss the teaching part of that workday.

Edit: Tiffany and I made a date for coffee before she leaves, and I asked if she wanted to meet at Mr. Crepe or somewhere else, and she said, "Why break with tradition? Mr. Crepe works for me."  ♥

I'm reading When the Drama Club is not Enough: Lessons from the Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students while the dryer goes.

From the Introduction:

[...] January 1989, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released its Report of the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide.  The report stated that 30 percent of youth suicides are committed by gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth.  [...]
    Not long after this report was published, the gay and lesbian community in Massachusetts found itself in unusual election-year circumstances.  The two gubernatorial candidates, Republican William Weld and Democrat John Silber, were in a close contest.  Vying for the gay vote, Weld promised he would, if elected, address the problem of youth suicide and support pending legislation to establish a commission to study the needs of gay and lesbian youth.  If the legislature did not pass the bill, he further promised that he would establish a commission by executive order.  Silber, who had been a vocal opponent of gay and lesbian rights, was silent on this issue.  True to his word, after he was elected, Governor Weld created the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth and swore in the appointed members, charging them with finding ways to reduce the high rate of suicide among gay and lesbian youth and to prevent the violence perpetrated against them.

That election was in 1990, when I was seven years old, and he served for six years.  I have vague memories of the Weld-Kerry debates six years later (when I was in seventh grade), but I couldn't actually tell you why I liked William Weld.  But I did.  Probably the only politician I will ever like -- and given my detail-oriented critique mode nowadays, even that probably wouldn't survive if I went back and actually paid attention now.

Page 5 of today's metro was "Lawful prostitution? San Fran considers it." It's an AP article -- though the metro stops after, "Some form of prostitution is already legal in two states. Brothels are allowed in rural counties in Nevada. And Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consulting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels." I did not know that about Rhode Island :)

***

Mark Puelo's column informed me:

If passed, Question Two would be stricter than current law by requiring those under the age of 18 who are caught to enroll in a mandatory drug prevention program and perform up to ten hours of community service. Besides paying the same $100 citation as adults, minors could also face up to $2,000 in fines should they fail to complete the substance abuse prevention training, and their parents held liable if they don't pay.

Blah. I was all stoked to vote Yes on Question 2. I hadn't realized it makes the law even stricter re: youth.

It's probably still an improvement on the whole. Opening paragraph: "On Election Day, voters in Massachusetts have the opportunity to remove the criminal penalties associated with possessing one ounce or less of marijuana. In place of possible arrest and jail time, Referendum Question Two creates a system of civil penalties for adults with a fine of $100 and the immediate loss of the contraband substance."

***

Speaking of Massachusetts ballot questions... I need to decide how to vote on Question 3 (greyhound racing).

Amusing thing about Question 1 (income tax): Jen after RED last week said she's from NH (no sales tax, no income tax), and she would vote against adding it in NH but also against taking it away in MA.

Edit: via davis_square: "http://www.imagineelection.com/ If you fill out your address in the top left corner, the site will show you what your ballot will look like November 4." Commenters point out that it's not entirely accurate (and point out the more complete WhereDoIVoteMA.com for Massachusetts residents). Apparently I have 6 party choices for President. I feel like I should actually look into these -- since Massachusetts is going to go blue regardless. (I really hate the electoral college system, but on a personal level I am comforted that my vote for President doesn't count, because that significantly reduces my stress level.)

( gym )

***

( from today's metro )

***

Seen yesterday: "If Somerville was an ice cream, what flavors would it be?"

***

forwarded mail: bank statement, Meetinghouse Concert postcard
correctly addressed mail: birthday card+check from my grandmother, birthday card from my parents

birthday card from my parents:
Front: [image of a tv with an image of the Master behind Buffy, from "Prophecy Girl"] text below: "It's your birthday. The creatures of the night will soon gather."
Inside: [Buffy theme song plays] text: "Time for ice cream and stake." [my mom wrote: "Oh come on - how could I resist?"]
And the back has the "Welcome to Sunnydale, enjoy your stay" sign

I gleed at the Buffy card and my housemate asked if I was a fan of Buffy.  I almost said, "What you mean 'was'?" but just said yes.  She asked if I'd followed Joss' subsequent ventures and I said yes.  She then said, "Should I make you a Jayne hat?"  I laughed and said I'm not much of a hat person.

* It got down into the 60's overnight!  Awesome.

* I am still so happy about Amy's news from yesterday.

* I forgot to mention that on Wednesday, Will told me the Name Sign he'd thought up for me -- a book opening, but with the halves of the book looking like the E sign.  How perfect is that?

* We watched "In God We Trust" (tWW 6.20) today.  I like Vinick a lot.

* Katie read me my Onion horoscope, and it is MADE OF AWESOME.
"You've never really been concerned with the plight of the giant panda, but that was before you found out about panda porn."

* MaryAlice informs me that M&M/Mars backtracked almost immediately on the animal rennet thing.  (Apparently DemocraticUnderground was all over this issue.  Hi, my flist fails at vegetarianism.)  This is especially good as I've been wanting chocolate lots recently.  Possibly a response to stress?  I don't really know.

* fox1013 made "gay patron saint" Katie Heigl icons.
::ponders which icon I could swap out for the next three months::

* Eric informed me that the e-mail from the union titled "Final Ratification Election results" (which I thusly ignored) also had a macroed spreadsheet for calculating your new salary.
The "structural increase" is 2.6%, then there's a "progression increase," so ultimately I get a 5.64% increase.  Whee, money!  (This also makes me feel better about all the money I'll be spending on Europe.)
    I actually almost included the actual numbers of my current salary and my new salary, 'cause it felt natural, but then I felt awkward, like it would be uncomfortable for readers, flaunting how much I make [which is not huge in the grand scheme of things, but with a flist full of students and temp workers....].

* I think this is the third day this week that I've heard bagpipes at Harvard Square on my way to the T.

* Eric texted me: "Theyre opening a qdoba at harvard sq."

* dinner at Firefly

I actually had gaydar for once and pinged my waiter as he came over.  "May I ask where you got your necklace?" conversation confirmed it.
And the fact that I was having dinner by myself meant I got to listen to his repartee with all the other customers.
P.S. He said his name is Randy, which of course I think is unfortunate.  But yes, otherwise, fabulous.

I was sad that they didn't have the white sangria I had passed on last time, but I ordered the red sangria.
When my $13 mushroom crepes arrived I initially felt put out that there was so not enough food to merit that price, but they were really yummy, plus I was still full five hours later, so bravo.

On my way out I noticed a rack of free periodicals, including BayWindows, MetroSource, stuff@night, and some others I didn't recognize/pick up.

* Tom Stoppard's Indian Ink ( Okay, so this part -- the play, and the socializing associated with it -- is actually kinda mediocre. )

***

Oh, and on Thursday, I got a mass e-mail from Sen. Patricia Jehlen (to all the people who had written to her about the amendment), and near the end she writes:

Why not "Let the people vote?"

Many people had asked that we not use parliamentary procedure to delay a vote.  This did not happen.

Many people believed that the vote was on "letting the people vote."  It was not.  It was a vote on the merits of the amendment.  The question before us was, "Not less than one-fourth of all the members elected to the Senate and House of Representatives, in joint session, hereby, declares it to be expedient to alter the Constitution by the adoption of the following Article of Amendment, to the end that it may become part of the Constitution."

Our constitution allows for amendments proposed by the legislature to move forward with majority support in two successive conventions.  But initiative petitions like this one face a lower barrier: they require only a quarter of the legislature to approve.  Still, the framers clearly did not intend the legislature to be a rubber stamp.  (At the end of this letter, I'm adding the Herald's editorial on this topic.)

In fact, since 1919, the legislature has been presented with nine citizen initiative petitions for constitutional amendments.  Of the nine, only three were advanced to the voters by the legislature.

[...]

Yeah, you better believe I'm forwarding that to Joe F.

It feels a little like '04 redux 'cause I'm around the same sorts of people (and in some ways literally the same people, thanks to the magic of LJ), but it's a completely different feel, of course.  (And wow, who would have thought the Senate would come down to Virginia, and Montana?)

( state stuff )

So, during Heroes tonight I caught part of a Vote No on #1 ad which mentioned how most grocery store cashiers are teenagers and if grocery stores sell liquor, they will be the ones under all this pressure to confirm that liquor-buying customers are in fact over 21.  I could see this being a problem when it first goes into effect and it's new and a big deal, but my suspicion is that it would stabilize.  I say this mostly because there are grocery stores that sell booze (like the place we went in Atlanta) and they seem to be fine.  Anyone have thoughts, especially people who are familiar with places where grocery stores do sell booze?  [I was about to say that my personal preference would probably be to remove the age restriction on the sale of both booze and tobacco, 'cause I have inherited my father's "less laws = better" tendency, and it occurred to me that one can buy cigarettes in any CVS, where the cashiers are almost all teens, and that seems to work out fairly well.  I know there are sting operations regarding selling cigarettes to minors, but given how many minors get people to buy booze -- and cigarettes -- for them, I'm not sure the consumption-by-minors of booze would increase much with grocery store sales.]  Erm, I still owe comment replies on the same-sex marriage post, but should really finish reviewing Portrait and wash my dishes before going to bed.

*

Relevant links:
Massachusetts State Initiatives
Massachusetts Chapter 272

zomg, how can people not want to know?

People act like I'm such a freak when I pull up Google (or whatever) when they raise a question I don't have an answer to.  But any question worth asking is worth answering.

And I have yet to read a convincing Christian apologetic -- especially for why the Virgin Birth is so important.

(On a positive note: vietcong linked to a really interesting Slate piece: "What if Mary wasn't a virgin?" by Chloe Breyer, and after that I started reading the other articles in the series and I haven't read any I like so much as that one, but they have been interesting so far.)

My dad sent me this article about how Upton Sinclair hid the fact that Sacco and Vanzetti really were guilty.  I remain opposed to the death penalty for all the same reasons I was before (Sacco and Vanzetti were merely why I believed Massachusetts would never legalize the death penalty) but wow, watch me cease to have any respect whatsoever for Sinclair.  (Best line: "It is much better copy as a naïve defense of Sacco and Vanzetti because this is what all my foreign readers expect, and they are 90% of my public.")

[Edit: When my dad sent me the article, it was not behind a login wall, but it is now. Heather kindly provided a generic login. In case it disappears entirely, ( here's the full text of the article )

*breathes*

[Is it bad that I feel metaphorically at home when I am hating people?]