amit.asaravala.com

Why is it that two of the best songs of 2008 have the worst lyrics?

First, there’s Human, by The Killers.  It sounds great, but what sort of crap is a chorus that asks, “Are we human? / Or are we dancer?”

That’s right — not even “dancers”, plural. Just “dancer.”

The first few times the Wife and I heard that one on the radio, we tried to explain it away. Surely, we’re just hearing it wrong, we said. They must be saying something else — like “Are we human … something something… cancer?” “Answer?” “Prancer?” “Ants, sir?”

I heard somewhere that human/dancer question has something to do with the late Hunter S. Thompson.  But that doesn’t make it any better.  You still don’t want to be caught singing along when you hear it at Starbucks — and yet, you so know you want to sing along.

And then there’s James, who are back together after an excruciatingly long hiatus to make Hey Ma, one of the best albums of 2008.  The title track sounds like another one of the fun anthems James is often known for. So you start singing along. And then you realize it’s a protest song, which is fine because, hey, you like a good protest song….

And then you realize you’re at a stoplight with the windows rolled down and you’re shouting along to the chorus that goes: “Hey, ma, the boys’ in body bags / coming home in pieces.”

Come on! You’ve just guaranteed that the song won’t ever get any radio time.

Oh well, I guess I’ll go check out that new Christmas album by the Tourettes Support Group Singers now. I hear their version of Silent Night is sublime.

Is it weird that after the boy goes to bed, we look at pictures of him (instead of heading off to bed ourselves)?

On Tuesday, citizens in Arizona, California, and Florida will vote on controversial proposals that would amend their state constitutions to explicitly ban same-sex marriages.

Opponents argue that the amendments are discriminatory and a backward step for civil rights.  Indeed, in California, where same-sex marriage is currently legal, it is a fact that a “yes” vote would remove rights from one group of individuals while retaining it for another.

Proponents of the bans, however, argue that the amendments are really about defining the term “marriage” rather than about taking rights away from gays and lesbians.  For example, ProtectMarriage.com, the group behind the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in California, claims on its Web site that Proposition 8 “does not take away the rights that same-sex couples already have under California’s domestic partner law.”  Furthermore, it says, “California law already grants domestic partners all the rights that a state can grant to a married couple.”

If that is the case — if current domestic partnership laws already bestow full legal rights to any two citizens who wish to commit their lives to one another — then one wonders why the extra legal status of “married” is even necessary in our civil code.  Shouldn’t we strive to keep our laws as streamlined as possible by removing clauses that don’t provide any additional legal benefits?

So my proposal is this: Let’s strike the term “marriage” from our state constitutions.

In other words, let’s take the definition of marriage out of the hands of the law and let’s only involve the state in granting domestic partnership rights.  That way, states can continue to provide equal rights to all citizens, and “marriage” can be defined and bestowed by whatever church or official a couple chooses to respect.

The truth is, I suspect such an amendment would not get much support.  After all, many people would ask: Why should I give up my right to be married to placate a group of people who believe differently than I do?

Consider that question again: Why should I give up my right to be married to placate a group of people who believe differently than I do?

It’s a question same-sex couples in California are being forced to ask themselves at this very moment.

The shoe is not so comfortable on the other foot, is it?

She says:

“How weird is it that when we want to add new members to our family, we just make them?”

From a travel article about Scotland on sfgate.com today:

At 1,300 feet, you can see 365 degrees to all the other islands in the Hebrides.

Clearly the editor gave 112% on that article.

I just looked out the kitchen window, over the top of my neighbor’s house, to see… Angel Island on fire!

(Update: Jeff has posted much better photos over on his site.)

There’s nothing about it on television news at the moment (~9:20pm), nor on sfgate.com or kron4.com.  Yet, several Twitter users are clearly seeing the same thing I’m seeing, as the screenshot of the search shows below.

I’m not sure I’m ready to agree with the claim that Twitter can compete (in some ways) with AP and other news wires, but I can now see its utility in connecting you to others who are sharing a common experience.

I’ve been meaning to post this one for a while: Kiva, an amazing nonprofit that lets anyone loan small amounts of cash to business owners in developing nations, now returns loan repayments to your account as soon as the borrowers make them.  Previously, you had to wait months until the entire loan was repaid before you got your share back.

We are happy to announce that Kiva will now return repayments to lenders as soon as those repayments are received by Kiva. Because of this change, you’ll be able to re-lend funds right away instead of waiting until the end of the loan term.

As a result of this change, $33.32 in Kiva Credit has been released to you and is now available for you to use. You can re-lend these funds, donate or withdraw them.

This is a great move because it means you can get your money back into circulation quickly — ideally by loaning it to another entrepreneur who needs it.  When that entrepreneur starts to pay back the loan, you can apply those payments to yet another loan — and on and on, helping several people in one or more developing countries all with the same base amount of $25, or $50, or $200…

This one’s from the Economist:

One of the things I never understood when I was a journalist (and still don’t) is the copy editor’s penchant for puns.  Typically the last in the chain to see an article, and typically responsible for crafting the story headline, copy editors — for whatever reason — feel its their duty to take perfectly straightforward headlines suggested by writers and section editors and turn them into bad jokes.  Why?  What’s the point?  Are they just bored?

I once asked the copy chief at one magazine why they do it.  “It’s a long tradition,” he said.

In other words: They do it because they’ve always done it.  And they’re bored.

Some RSS headlines from CNN that popped up on my Google home page today:

All messages that begin with “I need to talk to you” always lead to news you don’t want to hear. (The same is true of “We need to talk.”)