On Reading Fagan's The Long Summer
More! More! More books that I'm just getting around to writing about. Here's another one: Brian Fagan, The Long Summer : How Climate Changed Civilization (New York : Basic Books, 2004; xvii + 284 pages).
I liked it. So far I've liked both books by Fagan that I read, and I expect I'll read more. This one is about how climate may have altered the course of civilization. About 10,000 years ago the Earth saw a warming trend and we're still in that warmer-climate state (the "Long Summer" of his title). The warming changed the habitat and habits of animals and plants and local climates shifted markedly. How much was climate change the driving force behind the development of agriculture, the domestication of plants and animals?
I liked the book. Here's my book note. I'm not sure I liked it quite so well as his The Little Ice Age (my book note), but I liked it and they complemented each other well, so I found it valuable to read both of them.
I saved this following excerpt because I like the description of the "restless, idle young men" problem and its solution. Perhaps this is the traditional solution of what to do with a surplus of "restless, idle young men"?
According to the historian Titus Livius, the Bituriges of the Marne / Moselle area were the most powerful Gallic tribe of the day [fifth century BC]. They were such successful farmers that their population exploded and restless, idle young men threatened law and order. Their chief, Ambigatus, "wishing to relieve his kingdom of the burdensome throng," chose two of his kinsmen and charged each of them to lead a migration, the one eastward, the other southward toward Italy. Thousands of young men made their way across Europe seeking farmland and plunder. While the elderly, slaves, women, and children stayed home to till the land and tend herds, the warriors wandered freely, kept in order by feasts, commemorating rank and deeds in battle. Their ferocity was legendary. The Greek geographer Strabo remarked that "the whole race is madly fond of war, high-spirited, and quick to battle." [p. 203]
Open Mind vs. Empty Head
For reasons that we don't need to detail, I was doing some online research today on the topic of perpetual-motion machines (PMMs). This bit that I quote below is an excerpt from his answer to the question given, but it conveyed the idea pretty succinctly, I thought. As you might imagine, being an atheistic, gay scientist, I often find myself in the path of "closed-minded" barbs.
Question:
You state repeatedly that the laws of thermodynamics absolutely forbid that a working design for a PMM will ever be presented by anyone. Isn't this being a bit closed minded?
Answer:
I get email to this effect, but it seems that a lot of people fail to distinguish between an open mind and an empty head. Open mindedness doesn't consist of believing in things or accepting ideas because someone has described a thing or presented an idea. Some things don't exist (you might believe in Leprechauns, but I'm waiting for the fossil evidence) and some ideas are just wrong. One often hears that there is always at least a minute chance that an idea might be right. To this I often reply with a request for an estimate of the probability that during the next century it will be found that the earth is flat after all. 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? I realize that the question is facetious, but it does prevent a silly argument from going on any farther.Open mindedness simply consists of a willingness to change your mind in the presence of reasonably convincing evidence that you are wrong.
[Randall Woods, "Perpetual Motion Machines: Frequently Asked Questions", c. 1997, accessed 11 May 2009.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, It's Only Rocket Science
Harvey Milk Day
Today, 22 May, was Harvey Milk's birthday. He was born in 1930. In 1976 he successfully ran for a spot on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco; he was the first openly gay man to win an election for public office in the United States.
Last night, 21 May, was another significant anniversary in this arc of history: the 30th anniversary of the "White Night Riots" in San Francisco. The previous year, on 27 November 1978, Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White, a former city supervisor. White was acquitted of murder but found guilty of voluntary manslaughter by his all-white jury of peers, receiving a mere seven and two-thirds years sentence.
When the verdict was announced the community was outraged. Rallies became protests became a night of rioting in a gay backlash that had not been seen since the days of the Stonewall Riots in New York in 1969.
This bit of history is powerful, emotional stuff for me. My homo awareness was still very limited at the time. I may have heard about Harvey's death in college. When White's verdict I definitely heard about it and his notorious "twinkie defense". Naturally, I also heard about the absurdly small sentence and probably heard about the riots, but also probably not feeling terribly involved personally. I was just starting graduate school at the time.
Later those events grew in importance. I read Randy Shilts' book "The Mayor of Castro Street : The Life and Times of Harvey Milk". Some time later I saw the documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" (the entire 87 minute film is available to watch free at hulu.com). I cried.
That film begins with the unforgettable moment when Diane Feinstein, then also a Supervisor, announced the murders of Milk and Moscone. I can easily remember still the cries of shock and disbelief that came from the people attending the press conference. I still cry.
Via Joe.My.God, here is an interesting, contemporary news-film clip about the riot. I've watched it once today, and that's probably enough for me for awhile.
In: All, Faaabulosity, Personal Notebook
Subjunctive Death
I listen with dismayed amusement as the once Vice-President Dick Cheney continues to justify his paranoia and abuse of power by announcing, in escalating numbers, the number of people who did not die while he was president…err, vice president.
Lately I've been seeing it as "thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands". Frankly, I don't know why he stops there. Does he think "millions or tens of millions" might lack credibility? I don't see how those numbers can be less credible than the ones he uses.
How are we to count the deaths that did not actually occur, specifically those that did not happen because of terrorists attacks that did not happen? One also wonders whether all these deaths that did not happen did not happen on just one or two occasions or they spread out, not happening, all during Cheney's reign.
I hate to sound like a liberal, atheistic mathematician here but it sounds rather like we've got a classic "divide by zero" situation going on here with a result that is technically "undefined", "indeterminate", or "doesn't make sense". In layman's terms we seem to be evaluating the effectiveness of unicorn repellent. How many unicorns have you not seen lately?
The implication, as a corollary, seems to be that Cheney regrets not waterboarding even more people. The reasoning: if he had waterboarded, say, twice as many "detainees" ("torturees" is too hard to say), he could have prevented twice as many deaths: twos of thousands, twenties of thousands, perhaps two-hundreds of thousands!
On Reading A Life in Twilight
I am a big fan of J. Robert Oppenheimer and I like reading about him. I just wrote a book note about Mark Wolverton's A Life in Twilight : The Final Years of J. Robert Oppenheimer (New York : St. Martin's Press, 2008; 339 pages).
What an excellent book it was! (You can tell I liked it from the way I babbled on writing about it.) Wolverton chose to leave the famous, Los Alamos Oppenheimer years to others and concentrate instead on JRO's life after the notorious Atomic Energy Commission hearings about his security clearance.
It was fascinating. There were all those elements of the tragic Oppenheimer coming to fruition, but there were many events in those nearly two decades that deserved the attention this book gave them. I won't even start the list here because my lengthy book note mentions quite a few of them.
Particularly after the security clearance issue gave them the pretext, reactionaries have always thought of Oppenheimer as an untrustworthy, liberal commie traitor; liberal scientists like myself see him objectively as a martyr to McCarthyism and personal vindictiveness on the part of Lewis Strauss and Edward Teller.
This passage below made me wonder why it's always the reactionaries who get to believe that the liberals are a threat to their country? (Yes, it's rhetorical and ironic, that question.)
Oppenheimer's case was different, though. Not only was he the leader of the scientists, he had an extensive leftist background, with a formerly Communist wife, brother, and sister-in-law, just or starters. Although he wasn't alone in such associations among the Manhattan Project scientific elite, he was the most prominent of those who were on to move in lofty government circles after the war, and arguably the most influential of all the atomic scientists. Obviously such a man continued to bear watching, thought some high government officials. [p. 15]
There was one other thing. A few times Oppenheimer was quoted saying this:
[p. 90] "Explaining atomic physics to the layman is both impossible—and necessary."
It's clever and I suppose sounded magnanimous and fit in with people's expectations that atomic physic (booga booga!) was sooo mysterious and inscrutable that it could never be understood by mere mortals.
I believe that is wrong, at least today. (Sorry Oppie!) It still is necessary but it also is possible–at least that's the philosophy and foundational belief of Ars Hermeneutica. Granted, it's unlikely the non-scientist will start solving integral equations, but all the main ideas are accessible and can be understood by anyone who wants to take a bit of time to understand them.
Authors beware: I pan books by "science writers" who prefer to obfuscate and mystify parts of science as inaccessible and not to be understood rather than getting on with making the effort to write clearly and explain.
On Reading The Age of Entanglement
Reading proceeds apace, but writing about the books seems to happen in big clumps. For instance, my book note on Louisa Gilder's The Age of Entanglement : When Quantum Physics was Reborn (New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 2008. xvi + 443 pages). Perhaps if I wrote less I could write sooner.
Oddly, I didn't realize how much I had enjoyed the book until I wrote about. I found it quite engaging and, despite the author's defensiveness about writing narrative nonfiction (and her queasiness cause me a bit of queasiness at first), I thought it was not only engaging but high in scienticity. She's done a very careful and thorough job with keeping her science precise, and I thought she showed quite a depth of understanding in what is described as her first book.
From my collection of quotations noted but unused in the book note, this one about the distinction between a theoretical physicist and an experimental physicist. It's pretty much true, but a bit of reflection makes it unsurprising.
"How do you tell an experimental physicist from a theorist?" asks [experimental physicist John] Clauser more than thirty years later, in his northern California desert home encrusted with sailing trophies and plaques. Running his finger along the thick spines of schoolbooks, he beings to answer his question: "A "theorist" will have: lots of textbooks (the experimentalist will have some engineering ones, too)." He taps these with his finger. "Lots and lots of "Phys. Rev. Letters."" In fact, a bookshelf taking up a whole wall is crowded with the pale green journals. "Biographies of the great, and books written by them." Clauser gestures through the door of his wood-paneled office. "But the "experimentalist" will have"—he turns: here, in the hallway beside the kitchen door, is another floor-to-ceiling bookshelf, packed with rows and rows of narrow, shiny softcover book spines in garish fluorescent colors—""catalogues."" He grins. "Anything I need to make, if I don't have the pieces already, I look for it here. I can make anything." [pp. 260—261]
In: All, Books, It's Only Rocket Science
Beard of the Week LXXIX: Up, Up, Up and Away
This week's pair of stylish, mid-nineteenth-century beards belong to Les Frères Tissandier,* the brothers Albert Tissandier (1839-1906) on the left, and Gaston Tissandier (1843-1899). Albert was the artist, known as an illustrator, and Gaston was the scientist and aviator.†
The Tissandier Brothers were pioneering adventurers (only Gaston did the flying) in high-altitude balloon ascensions. From the U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission's "The Race to the Stratosphere":
During the nineteenth century, balloonists had blazed a trail into the upper air, sometimes with tragic results. In 1862 Henry Coxwell and James Glaisher almost died at 30,000 feet (9,144 meters). Sivel and Croc.-Spinelli, who ascended in the balloon Zénith in April 1875 with balloonist Gaston Tissandier, died from oxygen deprivation. The last men of the era of the nineteenth century to dare altitudes over 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) were Herr Berson and Professor Süring of the Prussian Meteorological Institute, who ascended to 35,500 feet (10,820 meters) in 1901, a record that stood until 1931.
The first men to reach 30,000 feet (9,144 meters) did not know what they were facing. It is now known that at an altitude of only 10,000 feet (3,048 meters), the brain loses 10 percent of the oxygen it needs and judgment begins to falter. At 18,000 feet (5,486 feet), there is a 30 percent decrease in oxygen to the brain, and a person can lose consciousness in 30 minutes. At 30,000 feet (9,144 meters), loss of consciousness occurs in less than a minute without extra oxygen.
About that harrowing experience, here is Gaston's account from his autobiography: Histoire de mes ascensions: recit de vingt-quatre voyage aériens (1868-1877).‡
I now come to the fateful moments when we were overcome by the terrible action of reduced pressure (lack of oxygen). At 22,900 feet torpor had seized me. I wrote nevertheless, though I have no clear recollection of writing. We are rising. Croce is panting. Sivel shuts his eyes. Croce also shuts his eyes. At 24,600 feet the condition of torpor that overcomes one is extraordinary. Body and mind become feebler. There is no suffering. On the contrary one feels an inward joy. There is no thought of the dangerous position; one rises and is glad to be rising. I soon felt myself so weak that I could not even turn my head to look at my companions. I wished to call out that we were now at 26,000, but my tongue was paralyzed. All at once I shut my eyes and fell down powerless and lost all further memory.
He lost consciousness and their balloon ultimately descended while he was unconscious. When he awoke it was to find his two companions dead.
Gaston wrote quite a number of books, over 17 according to his Wikipedia entry. The majority are about ballooning, but it seems that he also had a passion for photography, which was then in its infancy. In fact, several of his titles appear to be in print, including A History and Handbook of Photography.
From Project Gutenberg, two books by Gaston Tissandier are available:
- En ballon! Pendant le siege de Paris (link)
- La Navigation Aérienne L'aviation Et La Direction Des Aérostats Dans Les Temps Anciens Et Modernes (link)
For photographic entertainment, visit this site at the Library of Congress Tissandier Collection of 975 photographs, etchings, and other images emphasizing the early history of ballooning in France; about half of the images are digitized and online.
Finally, because I love research librarians, here is the Library of Congress' Tracer Bullet on "Balloons and Airships".
———-
* Crédit photo: Ministère de la Culture (France), Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine (archives photographiques) diffusion RMN / Référence: APNADAR022912 / Photograph by the studio of Nadar / source link.
† You may have detected the buoyant-flight theme that has preoccupied BoW for a couple of weeks. It's because I recently read the very enjoyable Lighter than Air : An Illustrated History of Balloons and Airships, by Tom D. Crouch (Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, in association with the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, 2009; 191 pages). My book note is here.
‡ From Indiana University's Lilly Library, an online exhibit called "Conquest of the Skies: A History of Ballooning", provides a chance to see images from Gaston Tissandier's book Histoire de mes ascensions: recit de vingt-quatre voyage aériens (1868-1877) ("History of my [balloon] ascensions : accounts of 24 aerial trips").
In: All, Beard of the Week, It's Only Rocket Science
Phony Moralizing
Earlier today I hear a news headline / story on NPR (see also, for one more example) that quoted Dick Cheney* as referring to objections to waterboarding# as "phony moralizing".
I naturally presume that this is directed at liberals like myself, particularly atheistic moral relativists who don't believe that a god is necessary to account for rules for good, civilized behavior.
I am, at this point, not too clear about what "honest moralizing" might be, although if it related to the very popular fundamentalist-christian moralizing, it would be mostly directed toward preventing equal rights for gay people, justifying a sort of economic Darwinism for the wealthy, and otherwise making excuses so that reactionaries can get some sleep at night.
I found myself wondering whether "phony moralizing" might have currency as a conservative talking point / buzz phrase, but that's not so clear. The google (today) only gave me 4520 hits for the phrase, a great many of which seem to flow directly from the specific remark of Cheney's referred to above.
Gosh, perhaps this is the genesis of a new conservative buzz phrase, right here. How exciting! I wonder whether it will gain more popularity than Bush's "at the whim of a hat" or "step up to the ball"?
———-
* For people who read this a few years from now when the name is associated principally with US war crimes, Dick Cheney was, from 2001 to 2009 the much reviled Vice President of the United States, also noted for introducing the phrase "fuck yourself" into the Congressional Record.
# A universally recognized method of torture, at the time of this writing sometimes described as "controversial" largely because people like Cheney kept saying that it was "controversial", thus generating the apparent but false controversy. This is similar to the treatment of other matters like, e.g., climate change, by the Bush/Cheney administration.
Short & Succinct
Some blog I read suggested that I (among other readers) might enjoy watching this video of Richard Dawkins being interviewed for the BBC by one Matthew Stadlen, who seems agreeable enough but it otherwise unknown to me.
Although I enjoyed Dawkins' answers, it was not the answers as such that impressed me so much as his succinctness and his willingness not to run on at the mouth but simply to stop when he'd answered the question. Quite a bit more information got conveyed in the short time alloted.
Out of curiosity I clicked on a number of the other 5-minute interviews by Mr. Stadlen, not exactly for comparison but to see what people had to say. A remarkable number were surprisingly inarticulate. However, there were interviews with two others that I watched that did impress me and that I enjoyed watching and hearing just to see what they would say: one was with Stephen Fry, the other was with Micheal Gambon.
Oddly, the BBC wouldn't let me embed the two interviews above so you'll have to click through if they interest you enough. My impression is that the Dawkins interview is the more recent, so perhaps this shows a willingness on the part of the BBC to join in the fun of sharing.
One other thing I wanted to point out: their embedded flash player has a volume control that goes all the way to eleven.
In: All, Music & Art, The Art of Conversation
Beard of the Week LXXVIII: Zeppeliner
This week's beard, the best example we've seen so far of an actual "goatee", belongs to Ludwig Dürr (1878–1955), remembered as the chief engineer who built the successful Zeppelin airships.
After an unsatisfactory one-year period in the navy, Dürr was hired, on 15 January 1899, as an engineer at Luftschiffbau Zeppelin GmbH, the company that had been formed by Count Ferdinand Graf von Zeppelin to build rigid, hydrogen-filled airships. While working at their design offices in Stuttgart he completed his last semester of the Royal School of Mechanical Engineering, took his final exams, then Immediately went back to work for Count Zeppelin, moving to the company's new location in Friedrichshafen, in southwest Germany on the north shore of Lake Constance ("Bodensee" ).
Zeppelin's company, in the beginning, was beset with difficulties raising money and avoiding disaster. The first dirigible, known as LZ 1 (LZ = "Luftschiff Zeppelin" or "Zeppelin Airship"), at 420 feet long and 32.8 feet in diameter (the largest thing ever built to fly at that time), the airship proved underpowered and hard to manage in strong winds. Bad publicity meant no hoped-for government funding. LZ 1 was broken up for scrap and the company dissolved.
However, Zeppelin kept Dürr around. A few years later King Karl of Württemberg lent his support and Zeppelin, with Dürr as his chief engineer, set out to build LZ 2. This new ship was the same size as LZ 1 but had more power engines (provided by Daimler, as before). It was launched in January1906 from its floating hanger on Lake Constance, as seen in this photograph.
Unfortunately, LZ 2 was also difficult to maneuver in strong winds, but Zeppelin and his crew managed an emergency landing when an engine failed. While they celebrated their safe landing, LZ 2 was destroyed by a storm.
LZ 3, launched that October, flew several flights successfully, but the government wasn't terribly impressed yet. They gave him money to continue some work, promising to buy LZ3 and LZ 4, provided the latter could stay in the air for 24 hours.
In August 1908 the new airship was taken for a flight up the Rhine Valley. Again, engine failure forced the dirigible down. A storm came along, blew the nose of the ship into a stand of trees, and a hole tore in the gas bags. Rubberized material, flapping the wind, generated a spark that ignited escaping hydrogen and LZ 4 went up in flames.
Now the indefatigable Zeppelin finally felt like the time had come to give up. But then, what happened?
Prepared at last to accept defeat, the seventy-year old Count was stunned by the public outpouring of support that would be remembered as "the miracle of Echterdingen." Almost without his noticing it, the Count, who had persevered in the face of overwhelming disappointments, emerged as a revered public figure. The old man and his airships decorated a wide range of consumer items, from children's candies to ladies' purses, hair brushes, cigarettes and jewelry cases. Copies of the soft white yachting cap that was the Count's sartorial trademark were sold in stores across Germany, along with an assortment of items from toys to harmonicas bearing Zeppelin's image. Schools, streets and town squares were renamed in his honor. And now, in his time of greatest need, the German people came to the support of the Count.
In an age of rampant nationalism, Germans looked to the Zeppelin airship as a symbol of national pride. From the Kaiser to the youngest schoolchild, Germans dispatched money to the Count, the sum eventually reaching 6.25 million marks. Those who could not afford to make a cash contribution sent farm products, home-made clothing, anything they thought might help. The ill-fated flight of LZ 4 up the Rhine, Zeppelin would later remark, had been his "luckiest unlucky trip".
[Tom D. Crouch, Lighter Than Air: An Illustrated History of Balloons and Airships (Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), p. 83.]
Zeppelin reformed his company, still with the loyal Dürr as chief engineer, and this time success was theirs and Zeppelin's name is etched in popular history.
Dürr's name is not quite so well known as Zeppelin's, but he's not forgotten. I was delighted to discover that there is a school in Friedrichshafen named in his honor — the Ludwig-Dürr-Schule — where they are justifiably quite proud of their namesake. Here is the google translation of the page "How has our school its name?" that I've enjoyed reading. Visit the welcome page and you can also see the staff plus the menus for lunch.
On the subject of zeppelins, here is a nice, short history by the US Centennial of Flight commission.
There is a Zeppelin Museum in Friedrichshafen. Among many interesting exhibits there is a reconstruction of the passenger areas of the LZ 129 Hindenburg, which famously burst into flames and crashed during landing in Lakehurst, New Jersey on 6 May 1937, killing 35 of the 97 passengers and crewmen aboard. The tragedy brought an end to the practice of filling lighter-than-air ships with highly flammable hydrogen.
Luftschiffbau Zeppelin GmbH is now known as Zeppelin Luftschifftechnik GmbH (in English), and they still build zeppelins. I read that, in conjunction with Airship Ventures, Inc., one of their new zeppelins is making commercial, mostly sightseeing, flights near San Francisco.
Finally, some visual dessert.
- This page has a nice collection of images of zeppelins in world stamps.
- This page, thanks to the generosity of the grandmother of one Charlie Grant, offers a collection of newspaper clippings about the Hindenburg and its tragic end.
In: All, Beard of the Week, It's Only Rocket Science
When is Marriage not Marriage?
I'm reading these remarks made by the Catholic Bishop of Portland, Maine, Richard Malone, and it perplexed me. Several times I was perplexed.
I am deeply disappointed in the Maine Legislature and the Governor for making same-sex marriage legal in our state. We believe that the vast majority of Maine's people believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that calling same-sex relationships marriage doesn't make them so.1 Marriage as we have known it for millennia has served as the cornerstone of society.2 The family, consisting of mother, father and children, has served throughout the ages as the natural place for the healthy development of children into well adjusted and productive citizens.3 Same-sex marriage is a dangerous sociological experiment that I believe will have negative consequences for society as a whole.4
[quoted in "Maine's Bishop Malone: Gay Marriage 'A Dangerous Sociological Experiment'", Queerty, 8 May 2009.]
1 In his first sentence Malone points our that "marriage" between same-sex couples has been legalized in Maine. But then, in this sentence he says that calling it "marriage" doesn't make it so. This is certainly a quandary. So, I ask myself, if calling it "marriage" (even though the bishop seems to think that it is, indeed, "marriage"–see previous sentence) does not make it "marriage", what's the bishop so upset about? He's just said that it's not actually "marriage" even if it is called "marriage", despite the fact that he refers to it as "marriage". Honestly, most catholic doctrine is much easier to figure out than this.
2 Too easy, of course, since marriage as "we have known it for millennia" — as documented in the bible itself — has rarely been restricted to the simple, binary man+woman thing. Hoo boy!
3 Cheap shot: all pedophilic catholic priests had one-woman/one-man parents but are not usually recognized as "well adjusted and productive citizens".
4 I'm still confused. Earlier, in that blindingly Jesuitical tour-de-force the bishop established that same-sex "marriage" is not actually "marriage" even if it is to be called "marriage", and yet he now seems concerned about this "dangerous sociological experiment" that, apparently, is not only called "marriage" but is actually "marriage".
You know, I'm thinking it's really much easier being an atheist.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity, Laughing Matters
MN: Plurality Say Let Surpreme Court Decide
For awhile I have saved a link* about a poll on the topic "Same-Sex Marriage in Minnesota" conducted by, and reported by, the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Here was the question:
As you may know, the Iowa Supreme Court recently legalized same-sex marriage in that state by declaring unconstitutional a state law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Do you believe Minnesota should pass a state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage or legalize same-sex marriage or make no changes in its marriage laws and leave it to the Minnesota Supreme Court to interpret the state Constitution?
And here are the summary results:
33% Prohibit same-sex marriage
25% Legalize same-sex marriage
35% Leave it to the MN Supreme Court
6% Don’t know/refused
I am not surprised by the one-third who think it should be prohibited, nor by the smallish quarter who want it legalized.
I am truly surprised by the more than one-third who chose "leave it to the Minnesota Supreme Court". Even more remarkably this one-third stays pretty solidly near one-third across all the demographic groups that the Tribune could identify.
My goodness but we have been subjected to an awful lot of disingenuous haranguing over the issue of courts deciding the question of marriage equality in the states, and a number of very loud people have tried desperately to convince anyone who would listen that letting the courts decide is some support of unconstitutional tyranny that, of course, it most definitely is not.
But here we have a plurality of Minnesotans who quite evidently feel that deciding the issue is a perfectly reasonable, even desirable thing for their supreme court to do.
There you go: yet another bit of democracy in action that I haven't heard being applauded by any self-righteous, self-proclaimed protectors of liberty and the American way.
I am applauding.
_____
* Thanks to Timothy Kincaid, "Minnesota Poll on Marraige", Box Turtle Bulletin, 1 May 2009.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
"Advocacy" Means Doing Something
On some issues, though, I really don't see anything but black and white. Among them is the "question" of granting full equal rights to gay and lesbian Americans, which really isn't a question at all. It's a long-overdue imperative, one that the nation is finally beginning to acknowledge.
Before his inauguration, President Obama called himself a "fierce advocate of equality for gay and lesbian Americans." Now, with the same-sex marriage issue percolating in state after state and with the Pentagon's "don't ask, don't tell" policy ripe for repeal, it's time for Obama to put some of his political capital where his rhetoric is.
[Eugene Robinson, "MIA On Gay Marriage", Washington Post, 8 May 2009.]
As I understand it, "fierce advocacy" probably requires actually at least saying something every now and then. I'm finding it interesting how many people are noticing that our "fierce advocate" in the White House has said remarkably nothing.
We know that arguing that marriage equality is "something best left to the states" is just a way for national politicians to avoid taking any responsibility for fiercely advocating for equality, but isn't it then odd that when the states do something for marriage equality that none of these fierce advocates cheer the states' actions?
We know that all those anti-gay folks who continually trotted out their rhetoric about "activist judges" were just hiding their homophobia behind what they thought was a rational argument (in fact, though, one that refuses to acknowledge separation of powers and the importance of the judiciary), but I don't remember hearing cheers when state legislatures began taking the lead on marriage equality. What's that about?
Applauding the twelfth, or fifteenth, or thirty-fifth state that finally recognizes marriage equality for its citizens will look more like a timid after thought than the leadership of a "fierce advocate".
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity, Feeling Peevish
The Quiet but Sane Majority
In the last couple of days, as a counterpoint to events unfolding in New Hampshire and Maine, there was a bit of drama in the District of Columbia. and, at the center of his own little dust-devil of craziness, former Mayor, now Councilman, crazypants* Marion Barry.†
The council voted unanimously, all 13, in favor of recognizing same-sex marriages that had taken place in jurisdictions where they are legal. Immediately after the vote, it seems that Crazypants Barry invoked a rule calling for a re-vote because he hadn't been paying attention and didn't know what he was voting for. The re-vote ensued. The bill passed 12 to 1, Crazypants Barry being the sole no vote.
So Crazypants Barry goes on a tirade announcing that this act was immoral and that black people in the District would not stand for it and that there would likely be "civil war" over the matter.
Well! He has, apparently, since toned down the "civil war" remarks a bit; today I saw stories in which Crazypants Barry claimed he was "jiving". Still Crazypants after all these years.
But the point is this: many in the media and those reading the media were too willing to believe the Crazypants that blacks in the District would not accept this action by the council, that there might be a "civil war" (incited by Crazypants and some of his violently anti-gay preacher friends who vowed to work against council members who voted in favor, preachers who have since been reminded that they violate the terms of their tax-exempt status if they try to influence elections of council members).
In short, too many people were willing to accept that Crazypants Barry actually spoke for a majority of black residents in the District. On that matter they are wrong.
Let me quote Ta-Nehisi Coates ("Another Point On Barry And Gays", theAtlantic.com, 6 May 2009)
There are 12 members of the City Council. Seven of them are black. One is Marion Barry.
The District of Columbia is majority black. The Council of the District of Columbia is majority black. Only one of those is the Crazypants, who obviously does not speak for the majority of DC blacks.
Through their council members the black majority population of the District of Columbia has decided in favor of moving towards marriage equality for same-sex couples.
This is a good thing.
———-
* The term is due to Queerty. At least, my use of it is.
† Just to demonstrate the "crazypants" moniker, here's Joe.My.God's summary of the Barry career so far:
"Bitch Set Me Up!" said then-DC Mayor Marion Barry in 1990 about the prostitute who led him into a crack cocaine sting, which lead to a six-month stint in a federal prison. Three income tax evasion investigations, a DWI arrest, and four wives later, the current DC Councilman Marion Barry felt no fucking shame in joining the NOM crowd today to lead chants about the immorality of same-sex marriage.
Barry was quoted as saying "I am a politician who is moral." I think "crazypants" is justified, but I knew that decades ago when he kept getting re-elected as mayor.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
Beard of the Week LXXVII: Come Out and Get Married!
This week's gorgeously multi-colored beard belongs to the newly out-as-gay David Ogden Stiers, beloved of many TV fans for his portrayal of Major Charles Winchester for six years on the television series "M*A*S*H". (Photo source.)
Excerpting from The Advocate:*
Television and voice actor David Ogden Stiers has come out of the closet at age 66.
According to PopEater, when recently asked by the Gossip Boy blog if he is gay, Stiers succinctly said, "Yes, I am. Very proud to be so."
[…]
"I could claim noble reasons as coming out in order to move gay rights forward, but I must admit it is for far more selfish reasons," Stiers said. "Now is the time I wish to find someone and I do not desire to force any potential partner to live a life of extreme discretion for me."
That is a fabulous reason to come out, in addition to all the other reasons one can think of. It's hard enough to find a boyfriend and what are sometimes known in gay circles as mixed marriages (one in, one out) can be very, very difficult to maintain harmoniously. Many differences between partners aren't necessarily serious friction in a relationship†, but I've always felt that there were two serious impediments to harmony in a potential relationship: a big difference in economic status and a big difference in outness.
Not to mention that having a boyfriend facilitates coming out to one's friends, co-workers, and others. For we of the shy-homo ilk, it can be difficult to find an excuse for the bold and direct: "Hi! My name is Jeff! I'm gay!" However, having a new boyfriend provides many a pretext for the indirect, such as "Oh, my new boyfriend and I went to a movie this weekend." Of course, later on one reaches the simple and dignified "I'm Jeff, and this is my partner Isaac." Some day soon we'll probably even move on to the simpler and more dignified "I'm Jeff and this is my husband, Isaac."
So here's our wishing best of luck to Mr. Stiers on finding love and maybe even getting married if he wants to, an idea that was inconceivable back in the "M*A*S*H" days.
Today, of course, we are celebrating Maine's filling out the quincunx of states recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples. This morning the Maine legislature finished all of its voting and sent the bill to Governor John Baldacci, who seemingly signed it within minutes. I suspect he didn't want to risk losing the #5 spot in the history books to the governor of New Hampshire, who is still prevaricating. One hopes he reads the remarks of Baldacci as he signed the legislation.
This action of Governor Baldacci is surprising and most satisfying. Only a few months ago he had made some noises along the usual "man-woman" line of platitudes, but in recent weeks he began hinting that his attitude was changing. No one seems to know exactly why, but it could be that, as he has said, he listened to people in his state debate the issue, and he reflected, and he realized that he and his state would be better off if he got out of the way of history (to paraphrase Steven Butterfield, House member from Bangor, whose remark was brought to our attention by Chris in the comments).
I want to quote some bits from the Governor's press release ("Governor Signs LD 1020, An Act to End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom", 6 May 2009).
“I have followed closely the debate on this issue. I have listened to both sides, as they have presented their arguments during the public hearing and on the floor of the Maine Senate and the House of Representatives. I have read many of the notes and letters sent to my office, and I have weighed my decision carefully,” Governor Baldacci said. “I did not come to this decision lightly or in haste.”
[…]
“In the past, I opposed gay marriage while supporting the idea of civil unions,” Governor Baldacci said. “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.”“Article I in the Maine Constitution states that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor be denied the equal protection of the laws, nor be denied the enjoyment of that person’s civil rights or be discriminated against.’”
There are innumerable occasions when homophobes, during the so-called "debate" over "gay rights" say mean-spirited, hurtful, and hateful things, and I admit that I take them personally. After all when they talk about gay people, they mean me.
Well, the good news is that as each successive state surges forward into history and affirms marriage equality for same-sex couples, I take that personally, too, and it's a very nice feeling.
———-
* Neal Broverman , "M*A*S*H Star Stiers Comes Out", Advocate.com, 5 May 2009.
† I am, after all, speaking as an atheist married to a Catholic priest.
In: All, Beard of the Week, Current Events, Faaabulosity
The Children of Friends
I've had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children.
— Samuel Wurzelbacher / Joe the Plumber, quoted most anywhere
Oddly, Isaac and I have a number of friends who are actually heterosexual, and who actually have children, and who like it when we spend time with their children. Oddly, their children like us, too, and we even enjoy their company. Imagine!
I know that I have a limited imagination and, as an atheist, I don't exhibit nearly the christian love and compassion of such ultra-christians as Sam / Joe, but I can't actually imagine having a "friend" who would express an attitude like his. No doubt that would make both of us happy, me and the never-would-be friend.
In: All, Faaabulosity, Feeling Peevish
Maine Verges on Marriage Equality
Not wanting to be the last state in New England to provide marriage equality for same-sex couples, the Main House of Representatives has approved a bill recognizing the right:
The Maine House of Representatives by a vote of 89-57 on Tuesday approved a bill that would allow same sex couples to marry in Maine.
[…]
Before its final vote, the House defeated an amendment to send it out to referendum.The bill now must go back to the Senate where final enactment is expected as early as Wednesday morning. The Senate last week voted 21-14 in support of the measure.
[Judy Harrison, "Maine House approves gay marriage bill", Bangor Daily News, 5 Mary 2009.]
Maine Governor John Baldacci has been coy about his intentions but hinted in recent days that he may be wanting to sign the bill, perhaps recognizing the unique historic opportunity for select governors who choose to be well remembered in the history books.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
Marie Osmond on Marriage, Productivity [?], and "Whatever"
When it comes to marriage, … I think that civil rights need to be for all. When you start mixing religion into that and beliefs, you know, I do believe in the Bible. My daughter understands my beliefs. And, and, uh, you know, God said to be married and be productive with your children and, and, you know, replenish the earth or whatever.
–Marie Osmond on marriage equality [quoted by Andy Towle, "Marie Osmond on Gay Rights and Her Lesbian Daughter", Towleroad, 5 May 2009.]
I will try to avoid the sarcasm and simply say that I am stupefied with amazement at how remarkably inarticulate "traditional-marriage" proponents can be when defending their position on the matter of denying equality to same-sex couples.
One begins to think that perhaps their position is indefensible.*
———-
* Oops, it would seem that a bit of sarcasm sneaked in there, but let's be honest: just how long did you expect that promise to last?
In: All, Faaabulosity, Laughing Matters
Tasing & Waterboarding
For at least a couple of years I've been reading, with increasing horror or disgust or something nasty like that, stories of police abusing their tasers. Too many people have been subjected to this twenty-first century style of police brutality, too many have died or been injured, too many have suffered outrageously while law-enforcement celebrates its discovery of "non-lethal" enforcement tactics.
This latest incident crystallizes some points.
Prison officer Walter Schmidt zapped visiting children with a 50,000-volt stun gun to give them a taste of life in a Florida jail. Two of the kids were knocked screaming to the floor with burns on their arms. One child went to the hospital.
"It wasn't intended to be malicious, but educational," said Schmidt. "The big shock came when I got fired."
[Mark Frauenfelder, "Prison officer surprised he was fired after zapping children with 50,000-volt stun gun", BoingBoing, 4 May 2009.]
I'm sure Schmidt felt quite clever about his "big shock" pun, but I am shocked that he was surprised by this outcome. Worse: it was reported elsewhere that some parents, when asked for their permission for the taser demonstration on their child, agreed.
Who could possibly think the "demonstration" was a good idea?
Is it just me or is there not a great resonance between "non-lethal [at least, most of the time]" use of the taser and waterboarding of political prisoners by the Bush administration who assured us that it was not torture because it caused "no permanent damage [most of the time]" to major organs, i.e., was "non-lethal [most of the time]".
What is the relationship between the Torture Administration and the recent poll by by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life that found that the more frequently one attended religious services the more likely one was to believe that torture is sometimes permissible.
I'm sure there are some deep conclusions to be drawn there. For the moment I'll be satisfied by noting that the "religiously unaffiliated" (including those atheists present) were the least likely to agree that torture was ever permissible.
I suppose we could talk yet again about that silly fundamentalist notion that without some god telling us what to do, atheists can't possibly have any morality, but it gets so tiresome repeatedly explaining to self-righteous people who refuse to hear the truth.*
———-
* I hate to step on a good exit line, so here we are in the footnotes. This observation reminds me of an incident from decades ago, when I was in college. I was at the laundromat in Mt. Vernon, Iowa, standing in front of three washing machines, patiently separating my laundry into whites, permanent press, and something else. Across the machines I was being watched by an oldish white woman who harangued me, going endlessly on and on about how youngsters like me were so irresponsible that we didn't even separate our laundry anymore.
For some reason this reminds me of a quotation I recently read–although it's more the inverse that applies–attributed to Chico Marx: "Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?"
In: All, Current Events, Plus Ca Change...
Breast Implants for Jesus
Personally, if I were a fundamentalist, god-fearing christian fearing the fundamentalist god, I'd believe that said god created all of creation for the benefit and happiness of good, god-fearing christians on the earth, provided they loved Jesus. Now, among those creations would most definitely be silicon — just look at computers!
Now, if some fundamentalist, god-fearing christian woman wanted to put god's gift of silicon where it would be right next to her heart with breast implants, well, that's like having jesus right next to her heart, and what could be more beautiful than that?
Now, if someone went to all that trouble out of her love for jesus, wouldn't she want to share that love of jesus with lots of other fundamentalist, god-fearing christians who love jesus?
I'm sure you can see by this point that photographs might be part of the picture [!] and that exposing one's breasts in photographs is just a heart-felt way of showing one's love for jesus and sharing the good news.
That's what I'd think.
On the other hand, I'm merely an atheistic, homosexual pornographer. Nevertheless, I still think that sharing photographs of oneself naked is a good thing although, if I were on the receiving end, I'd prefer something other than Carrie Prejean's jesus-enhanced boobs (see the "atheistic, homosexual pornographer" remark and concentrate on the "homo" part.)
Also, as an atheistic, homosexual pornographer I am firmly convinced that such things as photographs displaying the wonders of creation and the love of jesus can help people discover that sex and sexual desire are wholesome, natural parts of every day life, and therefore a good thing to be encouraged.
However, I am not head of the Miss California organization, nor am I the head of a notorious hate group that opposes marriage equality for same-sex couples, nor am I a social conservative who reveres beautiful, inarticulate but god-fearing women who look good in bikinis and machine guns.
Those people, I fear, may use different criteria in their judgement. Could be a tough call for Joe the Plumber.
Alas.
In: All, Current Events, Snake Oil--Cheap!