Should Science-Deniers Chair Technical Congressional Committees?
It should come as no surprise that I think the answer is a resolute "no". This is from Bob Park's "What's New" for 27 November 2010.
4. FAITH: LIFE IN A MULTICULTURAL DEMOCRACY.
I have a number of devoutly religious physics colleagues who are able to partition their life: scientist on one side, devout believer on the other. I can only admire the ease with which they move from one side of the partition to the other. With climate change as the greatest threat we face, we may only hope that Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), a member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce since 1997, has such a partition and equal alacrity in making the transition. He submitted a letter to his colleagues earlier this week asking for their blessing in his campaign to assume the gavel of Energy when Republicans take control of the chamber. Shimkus rejects the posibility of man-made climate disaster. "The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a Flood," Shimkus then quoted God's promise to Noah after the flood. "never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done." Genesis8:21-22. "I do believe that God’s word is infallible," Shimkus said, "unchanging, perfect."
In: All, Briefly Noted, Common-Place Book
Adams on Cage
I don’t agree with those who consider Cage the most important composer after Stravinsky. I think much of his later work is fundamentally, even tediously, didactic. A work like ‘4′33″’ is a demonstration, a lesson in how to listen, so to speak. But to equate its artistic value, as some have, with a work like ‘The Rite of Spring’ is to confuse art with philosophy.
[John Adams, quoted in "John Adams : Up Front", New York Times, 19 November 2010; the occasion was John Adams' review of a new biography of John Cage, Begin Again, in "The Zen of Silence", New York Times, 19 November 2010.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Music & Art
Is Wall Street Worth It?
Most people on Wall Street, not surprisingly, believe that they earn their keep, but at least one influential financier vehemently disagrees: Paul Woolley, a seventy-one-year-old Englishman who has set up an institute at the London School of Economics called the Woolley Centre for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality. “Why on earth should finance be the biggest and most highly paid industry when it’s just a utility, like sewage or gas?” Woolley said to me when I met with him in London. “It is like a cancer that is growing to infinite size, until it takes over the entire body.
[…]
In 1940, a former Wall Street trader named Fred Schwed, Jr., wrote a charming little book titled “Where Are the Customers’ Yachts?,” in which he noted that many members of the public believed that Wall Street was inhabited primarily by “crooks and scoundrels, and very clever ones at that; that they sell for millions what they know is worthless; in short, that they are villains.” It was an extreme view, but public antagonism toward bankers and other financiers kept them in check for forty years. Economic historians refer to a period of “financial repression,” during which regulators and policymakers, reflecting public suspicion of Wall Street, restrained the growth of the banking sector. They placed limits on interest rates, prohibited deposit-taking institutions from issuing securities, and, by preventing financial institutions from merging with one another, kept most of them relatively small. During this period, major financial crises were conspicuously absent, while capital investment, productivity, and wages grew at rates that lifted tens of millions of working Americans into the middle class.Since the early nineteen-eighties, by contrast, financial blowups have proliferated and living standards have stagnated. Is this coincidence? For a long time, economists and policymakers have accepted the financial industry’s appraisal of its own worth, ignoring the market failures and other pathologies that plague it. Even after all that has happened, there is a tendency in Congress and the White House to defer to Wall Street because what happens there, befuddling as it may be to outsiders, is essential to the country’s prosperity. Finally, dissidents like Paul Woolley are questioning this narrative. “There was a presumption that financial innovation is socially valuable,” Woolley said to me. “The first thing I discovered was that it wasn’t backed by any empirical evidence. There’s almost none.”
[John Cassidy, "What Good Is Wall Street?", The New Yorker, 29 November 2010.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Current Events
Beard of the Week LXC: Good Company
This week's beard belongs to Stephen Sondheim (b 1930, on the right), joined here by George Furth (1932–2008, on the left). They're here to provide an excuse for me to write a bit about our musical-theater troupe's recent production of "Company", a musical with book written by Furth, music and lyrics written by Sondheim. The show opened in New York at the Alvin Theatre on 26 April 1970 and ran for 690 performances, closing 1 January 1972 (details). It won 6 Tony Awards for 1970:
- Best Musical
- Best Music (Stephen Sondheim)
- Best Lyrics (Stephen Sondheim)
- Best Book (George Furth)
- Best Director (Harold Prince)
- Best Scenic Design (Boris Aronson)
"Company" was the show I chose to direct as the 29th show our musical-theatre troupe (our Facebook page; find photo albums with "Company" photographs there) has done, opening its 15th season. It's a show that I first performed in way back in 1977, when it wasn't all that long gone from Broadway. I played 'cello in the orchestra then and I played 'cello in the orchestra for our production–it keeps me from fidgeting during the show, otherwise I'd just be pacing about in the back of our theater worrying. Besides, it's lots of fun to play. (By the way, there are a number of differences between the "Company" I played for in 1977 and the "Company" we did in 2010; Furth and Sondheim made revisions in 1996 that changed quite a bit; they are amusingly summarized in this essay.)
So I chose "Company" because it's a show I've always liked with a strong score and an equally strong book, and because we had the performers to do it the way I wanted to see it done. Besides, our group had not yet "done Sondheim" and it was about time that we did. We've done our share of shows with challenges, but there's no challenge quite like a Sondheim challenge. After we'd finished the performances one of the cast members said to me, "After our read-through I went home and thought 'whew, we might never make it through this one' — but we did!" And indeed everyone performing did an admirable job with some very difficult material, creating an engaging theatrical evening.
"Company" is a show without a plot; it doesn't tell one story linearly from beginning to end. Some critics now and at its premier love to make a big deal out of this, calling it a breakthrough as the first ever "concept musical". True enough but overstated in my view, since non-musical theater had been using a number of such "theatrical" approaches to storytelling for a number of years. Let's remember that musical theater is still theater. Still, "Company" did break out of some confining boundaries limiting what musical theater could do and how it could do it. This show also does a delightful job of puncturing the overblown wind-bag critics who love to define "the modern musical" as having songs that "advance the plot". Perhaps they can rescue their little theories by proclaiming "Company" a post-modern musical!
The show functions as a collection of short stories–or perhaps "short plays" would be more precise–that all deal with the central theme : "relationships". The character about whom the show pivots is Bobby (or "Robert", or "Bob", or "Rob-O", or "Bobby Bubi"–everyone has a different pet name for him), an unmarried guy in his mid-thirties (or, ahem, mid-forties with our cast). The other characters are 5 couples, Bobby's married (or soon-to-be married) friends, and 3 of his current girlfriends, Kathy, April, and Marta; every character has only a first name.
Joanne & company singing "It's the Little Things You Do Together", while Bobby gets caught in the middle of Sarah and Harry demonstrating karate.
The short plays are vignettes looking as aspects of the relationships of the couples with themselves and with Bobby, who plays the role of observer, or between Bobby and one or another of his girlfriends. The question that keeps coming up is why isn't Bobby married yet. It's clear that Bobby has some relationship issues, but it's not clear exactly what those relationship issues are. A small industry of critics and analysts has grown up around the question of Bobby's motivations, but I don't think it matters that much. In practice it was enough for me to realize that as the show progresses, each of the relationship vignettes demonstrates to Bobby why it's better not to get married until, after a catalyzing moment toward the end of the show, Bobby can see all of the situations as demonstrating reasons to get married. It's part of the strength of Furth's writing that each vignette has a superficial portrayal of conflict or ennui between couples that's built over a stronger element of love and commitment.
In addition to using Bobby as a unifying character, the play uses a rather peculiar organizing frame : a surprise birthday party for Bobby's 35th birthday. The entire cast is assembled on stage for the party at the beginnings and ends of the acts, and parts of it intrude into other scenes throughout the show. Except for one instance (Marta meets Susan and Peter when Bobby takes her along for a visit), the characters never meet each other outside the birthday party. The musical theme for the birthday parties is an incessant "Bobby Baby" fugato that the audience has trouble forgetting but the cast has difficulty remembering!
At the beginning of the show it appears that Bobby's emotional life relies heavily on his relationships with the married couples and you can hear this in the "Bobby Baby" music, which is integrated with the opening "Company" number. The couples make a number of demands on Bobby and he tries to satisfy them all, but as the show progresses it becomes clear that Bobby is much more important to the couples than they are to him and the musical elements that represent that dependence start to become harsher and more irritating until finally it's a chaotic mess and Bobby yells "stop!" to it all. Coinciding with his transformation into a person truly ready for a significant relationship with another person comes his emotional independence from his married friends. All of this gets rolled into the birthday party fragments; it's a birthday party that keeps repeating, working out Bobby's emotional involvement until, in the final birthday-party scene, Bobby simply doesn't show up — and all his friends get the message.
Against this background of the recurring birthday party, which is the only part of the play that arguably takes place in the actual present time–although even that is questionable since the birthday party keeps replaying itself with slight differences each time–are all of the scenes with Bobby and the individual married couples or Bobby and one or another of his girlfriends. During many of these scenes songs are sung that comment on the emotional elements of the scenes. As often as not the songs are not sung by participants in the scenes, but by the rest of the company, who serve as an all-knowing greek chorus. The entire company sings as well at the opening of each act : "Company" at the start sets the stage for the storytelling and establishes a starting point for the relationships Bobby has with all the other characters; "Side by Side / What Would We Do Without You?" opens the second act with a singing-and-dancing psychodrama (who knows where it takes place!) that propels the show to its end (but is a lot less peculiar than the similar number at the opening of Act II of "Follies").
It can all sound rather weird and hard to follow, but none of that troubles the audience one bit. The dialog and situations are engaging and there's a perceived emotional flow to events that make it quite easy to follow, despite the fact that there are at least 11 different locations used with only one set, and that there is nothing that really moves in any sensible way through real time. Some analysts like the conceit that the birthday party is the only "real" part of the show and that everything else takes place in Bobby's head as he's blowing out his birthday candles. Well, whatever. Again, I don't think it matters too much and the audience is willing to accept all the theatrical elements without hesitation — so long as there's good direction, I guess I should assert.
As an element of the birthday party, there's a birthday cake that plays an important role as symbol, or at least seems to. At several points (I didn't count but it's about 5) Bobby is encouraged to make a wish and blow out the candles. In the first instance, he fails totally. Later on he's assisted by everyone else at the party. Later he blows out some. In the last party instance, at the very end of the show, all the guests leave and Bobby appears alone ons stage. He smiles and successfully blows out all the candles just as the curtain closes and the show ends. The audience is left with the feeling that the birthday cake was a very important symbolic element and that Bobby accomplished something at the end when he finally blew out all the candles on his own, but I daresay that no one would be able to articulate exactly what the birthday cake symbolized. It evidently represents something like Bobby's relationship impotence brought on by his reliance on superficial relationships with his married friends, a reliance that disappears during the show, or something like that. But it, too, doesn't matter so much since the audience finds that it provides a sense of emotional closure to the story.
Clearly the birthday cake was to be a very important prop in the show, which is why, months before we came close to production, I talked to our chief stage engineer and asked him how he felt about creating a fake birthday cake with LED candles. Fortunately he loved the idea and made for us a splendid one.
The birthday cake also had an important task in getting the show started. I feel that exactly how a show starts deserves some attention so that it can draw the audience in immediately. Many, even most musicals do this with a musical overture followed by the curtain's opening on a theatrical world in progress on stage. To me, "Company" seemed too post modern, too self-conscious for this traditional style of beginning, especially as there is no musical overture that precedes the first action on stage. To start, then, I made us of a tradition we have of having Isaac enter the darkened hall to speak about the show directly before it begins. Normally we would follow Isaac with a spotlight until he finished, let the overture play, and then open the curtain as indicated.
Instead, I left the curtain open before the audience arrived. They saw the set in darkness but forgot about it by the time the beginning of the show arrived. When Isaac emerged for his remarks, I had him carry on the lit birthday cake that, without comment, he set at the edge of the stage. After his remarks he walked down the main aisle to the orchestra "pit" in the back of the hall at the same time that Bobby walked onto the stage and the stage lights came up to start the show. A few minutes later, during the first birthday party scene, character Amy picked up the birthday cake for Bobby to essay blowing out the candles and the story was fully underway. No one in the audience mentioned this device in my hearing, but it worked for me.
There was one other little innovation for our production that I don't think anyone noticed, but which I think had an important effect. I used only stage lighting for this show, and no follow spots. The spotlights work nicely and are very useful, but "Company" seemed so much an ensemble storytelling effort to me that I felt a follow spot would be intrusive. I think it worked well and accomplished the effect I was after.
Speaking of "ensembles", we've done a number of shows, some with biggish casts and some with small cast, that were "ensemble" shows, but "Company" felt to me like it relied more on the ensemble efforts of the cast than others I can think of. There are 14 named parts in the show (which we did with 13 players because health problems forced one cast member to leave the show before we finished production), and every part requires acting, solo and ensemble singing, and dancing. Except for the role of "Bobby" none of the character roles are terribly large, nor starring roles, but they are each terribly important. (You try singing that "Bobby Baby" fugato with one of the voices missing.)
So, while the cast aren't here to defend themselves I'll tell you that each one of them did a remarkable job pulling with all the others to make our production of "Company" a successful evening of musical theater. When I cajoled each of them into doing it I'm not sure they knew what they were in for, but they found out soon enough to worry it some but they confidently met the challenge. In the end I think it was the right show for the right people to perform at this, the right time to perform it, and they pulled it together into something quite memorable. As part of my thanks I'll also mention Karen who did choreography for "Side by Side" that delighted me, our crack stage-management team who did some of the fastest, most precise scene changes ever, the orchestra of 11 players who sounded remarkably orchestral, Steve (sound), Melissa (lights) and George (sound effects) who made all the magic seem easy, Jane for her graphic design & production assistance, and the intermission gnomes who kept the audience sweet for the second act.
There are endless stories I could tell–our journey through this production was not always smooth–but I don't know that anyone would care much about them except for me and maybe one other person.
The source of the photograph above is this obituary of George Furth.
In: All, Beard of the Week, Music & Art, Personal Notebook
Mencken on Crowdsourcing
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
— H.L. Mencken
The Stag Cookbook : Some Recipes
The other day I saved a link (probably via BoingBoing) for The Stag Cookbook : Written for Men by Men, collected and edited by C. Mac Sheridan, with an introduction by Robert H. Davis; New York : George H. Doran Company, 1922; 197 pages [google books link], so that I could see what manly cookbooks were like nearly 100 years ago.
The entire book is available online and it was fun reading. I like to see, from cookbooks from different eras aimed at men, what the presumed level of kitchen knowledge is assumed. I noticed this ever so much reading a 1950s cookbook for men published by Esquire and aimed at men who were absolute beginners; the familiarity with kitchen techniques they assumed was much greater than one could reasonably hope for today.
Anyway, as I read a few recipes presented themselves for safe keeping. I was particularly pleased to find a recipe for wilted lettuce that's not so distant from my grandmother's technique. Here also was something finally to give me a good idea of what a "pone" is.
———-
XI [p. 43]
George F. Worts
SWEET POTATO PONE
There are two sure ways of identifying a true southerner. One of them is to play "Dixie." Unlike your northerner, or counterfeit southerner who springs to his feet and looks exalted and proud when the band strikes up that swinging anthem, your true, or southern southerner rarely springs. Generally he just sets and waggles one boot, and looks happy or sentimental, according to his nature. That is one way of detecting your true southerner. The second and surer way is to announce in a tremulous voice: "Gemmen, dat potato pone am done set."
The sweet potato pone is strictly a southern dish. It is served south of the Mason and Dixon line hot and smoking. You don't need much experience as a cook, although the old rule which also places "perfect" after "practice" of course holds good. Your ninth potato pone will be better than your third. Here is the how:
Grind up raw sweet potatoes in a meat chopper until you have one quart. Mix the grindings thoroughly in a bowl with molasses—enough molasses so the mass is soft and sticky, or spongy.
Mix in a heaping tablespoonful of lard.
Add a teaspoonful of allspice.
Put the mixture in a cake tin and place in a slow oven. Stir constantly until a rich brown hue is attained, then smooth over with a knife or spoon and allow to bake slowly until a mellow brown crust is formed.
Remove from oven, allow to cool slightly, cut in slices and serve. General Robert E. Lee would walk ten miles for a slice of it.
———-
XV [p. 49]
Richard Walton Tully
HAWAIIAN CROQUETTES A LA "THE BIRD OF PARADISE"
It was about fifteen years ago that I first visited the Hawaiian Islands in search of material for my play, "The Bird of Paradise," and during the course of my sojourn I made many friends among the natives, often living weeks at a time with them in out-of-the-way villages. Although their food was radically different from ours in many of its contents and modes of making, it was always palatable, and often strikingly delicious. However, most of the native dishes contained ingredients which we cannot obtain here, but I did learn how to make what some of my friends have nick-named Hawaiian Croquettes a la "Bird of Paradise," the materials for which are easily procured. And it is a dish so wonderfully appetizing that I constantly prepare it for guests of epicurean tastes.
First grate the meat of half a coconut, and add to it a cup of (cow's) milk, mixing thoroughly, and straining through cloth. Melt two tablespoonsful of butter over a low flame, rubbing into it with the back of a spoon five tablespoonsful of flour, stirring until very smooth. Then add slowly the strained coconut and milk liquid, stirring constantly until very thick. Season meanwhile with one and a half teaspoonsful of salt; one of paprika, and one of grated onion. Finally add two cups of cold, boiled, shredded mullet, or any other firm white fish, and two cups of cold, boiled, chopped lobster, and after stirring. allow to cool.
Shape into croquettes, or balls, allowing a rounded tablespoonful to each ball; roll in fine cracker crumbs; dip into an egg which has been slightly beaten and to which one-quarter of a cup of water has been added; again. roll in cracker crumbs.
Have a deep pan of fat, hot enough to fry a piece) of bread a golden brown while you count forty, and cook the croquettes therein for about a minute; then drain on paper, and serve with olives.
———-
XXXIV [p. 80]
Charles Hanson Towne
Corn Pudding
There ia no dish I like better than a Corn Pudding made just like this;
1/2 cup of cream
I tablespoonful of flour
1/2 tablespoonful of salt
1 teaspoonful of sugar
1 tablespoonful of butter
A pinch of baking powder
Cook for a half hour and serve immediately. It is brown on the top, and in a deep dish it is the most succulent course a man could wish for. I want others to share it with me. I wish I could give a party every night with this as the piece-de-resistance!
Editor's Note:—In speaking of the origin of this dish Mr. Towne says that it was "first made by my wonderful colored housekeeper, Hattie Jefferson."
———-
LXI [p. 131]
Terry Ramsaye
LETTUCE (a la Red Creek)
In behalf of my favorite fodder, the tender leading lettuce that's newly sprung in June, I am pleased to present a method of introducing it to the human system with a maximum effectiveness.
Wilted Lettuce:—It is said that this dish comes to us from the Hessians. If this be treason let us make the most of it.
Having obtained the lettuce, young and tender and fresh from the patch, plucked before it is yet headstrong, toss it into a bucket of cold water to crisp it.
Repairing to the kitchen, place on the hot stove a skillet and heave into it a good sized cupful of chopped bacon. Let it fry thoroughly. Add a dessert spoonful of salt, a pinch of mustard, a couple of tablespoonsful of granulated sugar and good cider vinegar in quantity slightly in excess of the bacon fat. Let it simmer smartly until well blended. Meanwhile lay out the lettuce in noble heaps on the plates on which it is to be served. Chop up a handful of green onions, a bit of the tops will do no harm, and at the last moment stir them into the concoction in the skillet.
While the whole is sizzling and boiling vigorously, pour the mixture over the lettuce, using a spoon to apportion the nifty bits of bacon about, and serve forthwith.
By this method one can take aboard amazing quantities of lettuce, which is most desirable in view of the fact that this gentle herb contributes strongly to the summel languor when taken in adequate quantities.
———-
Fulfilling the Meaning, not Redefining
I want to say to the gentleman to my left [Brian Brown], gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the vote they did not redefine voting. When African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table. We have no desire to change marriage. We want to be entitled to not only the same privileges, but the same responsibilities as straight people.
— Cynthia Nixon [quoted by Steve Pep, "Cynthia Nixon To NOM Pres: 'We Have No Desire To Change Marriage' ", Towleroad, 3 October 2010.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Faaabulosity
Ban Ki-Moon : Reform Discriminative Laws
Human rights make up one of the three pillars of the United Nations, alongside development and peace and security. Protecting human rights means protecting the rights of everyone, without distinction or discrimination, and paying particular attention to the most vulnerable and marginalized, who may face special obstacles to the full enjoyment of their rights.
In this context, I recognize the particular vulnerability of individuals who face criminal sanctions, including imprisonment and in some cases the death penalty, on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Laws criminalizing people on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity violate the principle of non-discrimination. They also fuel violence, help to legitimize homophobia and contribute to a climate of hate. That is why, in May of this year, during a visit to Malawi, I called for such laws to be reformed worldwide.
No doubt deeply rooted cultural sensitivities can be aroused when we talk about sexual orientation. Social attitudes run deep and take time to change. But cultural considerations should not stand in the way of basic human rights.
— UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, 17 September 2010 [source]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Faaabulosity
It Does Take Some Thought
"Think of a single problem confronting the world today," says Bill Bryson, in full rhetorical flow. "Disease, poverty, global warming… If the problem is going to be solved, it is science that is going to solve it. Scientists tend to be unappreciated in the world at large, but you can hardly overstate the importance of the work they do. If anyone ever cures cancer, it will be a guy with a science degree." There is a fractional pause, then a sheepish smile. "Or a woman with a science degree."
[…]
"You don't need a science degree to understand about science," [Bryson] insists. "You just need to think about it."[Max Davidson, "Bill Bryson: 'Have faith, science can solve our problems' ", Telegraph [UK], 26 September 2010.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, It's Only Rocket Science
Teabagging and Mad Hattery
The Tea Party is many things at once, but one way or another, it almost always comes back to a campaign against that unsafe urban hellscape of godless liberalism we call our modern world.
[Matt Taibbi, "Tea & Crackers", Rolling Stone, 28 September 2010.]
Is teabagging — that pitiful longing for the "Leave it to Beaver" idyll of the 1950s that never really existed — the death rattle of white hegemony in America? As a godless liberal embedded in a socio-cultural sea change, it's tough for me to tell but that seems to be what's going on, that this is the strangled sound traditional conservatism makes when, to appropriate Grover Norquist's metaphor, the Republican party is reduced to something of a size that can be drowned in a bathtub.
P.S. to Obama & Biden : talk about whiney liberals all you want but the best way to re-energize the liberal wing of your party, and the liberal faction of independents, is to do something liberal.
In: All, Common-Place Book, Reflections
About The Nice Ones Next Door
And I’m not referring to the homosexual who may be the nice one who lives next door; I’m talking about people who are committed to a radical homosexual agenda….
— a random homophobe named Jim Garlow [quoted by Mike Tidmus, "God Delusioned: Jim Garlow and Matt Staver", Mike Tidmus blog, 27 September 2010.]
While I was passing by, I thought I'd mention that even though Isaac and I may look like the nice ones who live next door, we are, in fact, committed to a radical homosexual agenda, as soon as we find one. I often think this is why I took to writing pornography with such alacrity, so that I could shock my suburbanite neighbors by looking like the nice one who lives next door but in fact being the one with the secret agenda.
In: All, Faaabulosity, Personal Notebook
It Was Hot
Well, how nice. Our area of the country, greater Washington DC, has been acclaimed by The Weather Channel as having had the worst summer of any major area in the US in 2010 (Jon Erdman, Tim Ballisty and Chris Dolce, "Top 5 Worst Summers", not dated/accessed 24 September 2010). There are several extreme conditions, like storms and drought, that were part of their judgement, but heat was a big factor, of course. The big factor was the one that I noticed myself, namely the number of days when the high temperature was over 90 F.
I had the impression, as early as the beginning of July, that we were having an unusual number of days at a time with temperatures over 90 F. That obviously led to the question of whether my impression was correct that, in my memory, we rarely had more than, say, two days in a row so hot, maybe one week a summer with each day so hot, but not endless strings of days over 90 F and close to, if not exceeding, 100 F. (That latter only happened on about three days, which is more typical.)
Phew, I wasn't just imagining it:
The summer of 2010 was a scorcher in many parts of the world, including the eastern U.S., where Washington, D.C. and New York, N.Y. broke records for their warmest summer since recordkeeping began. According to the Washington Post's "Capital Weather Gang" blog, (full discosure: I write a weekly climate science column for that site) this year marked the first time that city has experienced an average summer high temperature that was greater than 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures in D.C. reached or exceeded the 90 degree threshold on 52 days during June, July, and August, which together comprise the meteorological summer months. The average low temperature this summer was also far above average in D.C., with 71 days having had a low temperature of 70 degrees or higher, the Post reported.
[Andrew Freedman, "Warmest Summer on Record for DC and New York", Climate Central, 1 September 2010.]
Now, there are interesting questions we might consider about just what it means to say this was our "hottest" summer. Average high temperatures, average low temperatures, number of days above a certain temperature, and others. These are derive, really, from the idea that it's very hard to describe a statistical population with a single statistic, like an "average", although that rarely impedes our attempts to do so.
But number of days over 90 F is useful (similar to a median measurement) and it was certainly noticeable to me. Any temperature in the 70s seems mostly comfortable to me, the 80s generally feel "warm" to me, but cross 90 F and the air feels "hot" to me. The good part, I suppose, is that once it's "hot" I wilt but it doesn't much matter to me whether it's 95 F or 105 F.
Here's another interesting way to look at this idea of "hotter summer". This graph takes each day's "average temperature" (itself a slippery concept) [source] against a 30-year average and reporting the difference, showing us that most days were notably hotter than "average":
It doesn't provide relief from the heat, but I get some sense of vindication out of it.
In: All, It's Only Rocket Science, Personal Notebook
Dollars Could Lead to Voting
In my reading this morning this sentence happened in front of my eyes:
The legendary right-wing operative [Karl Rove] has been hard at work amassing $32 million for his tax-exempt organization ….
[source]
It's a discussion of money in politics, a common topic this close to an election, and a topic of considerable importance I think.
The common wisdom–which I'd very much like to see utterly debunked, or at least displaced–is that votes all come down to money: whichever candidate raises more money, whichever "side" of an issue brings in more cash, wins the vote! Wrapped up in that conventional wisdom are so many stereotypes (e.g., about how easily voters are swayed by paid political advertisements), and so much wasted money, that it irritates me.
But maybe, I thought when I read this, there's room for evolution. So Mr. Rove has the potential for 32 million, let's call them "votes" for now, that he can buy and distribute as he pleases. For some reason this put me in mind of the US Senate, Republicans, and the filibuster. Used to be, at least on the set of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", that a filibuster in the Senate required endless and continuous actual talking. However, it seems that all that talking was finally recognized as tiring and a waste of time, so instead of an actual filibuster (for each proposed bill has been the tactic recently, but that's beside the point) one merely has to say the word "filibuster" and it magically invokes a requirement for 60 votes for pseudo-cloture to pass a bill, instead of the 51 votes otherwise called for to do the job.
How easy and convenient the modern filibuster has become, all streamlined and soundbite-ish in scope, thus saving time for really important things.
In a similar vein I being to see the possibility for streamlining this political money-raising process. It's much too time-consuming and tiring, not to mention expensive. What a waste of money that could better be spent 1) on liberal social programs and 2) on conservative welfare for the rich. Can't we take a clue from the modern Senate and make the whole process less costly and time consuming. Of course!
Suppose for a moment that instead of contributing actual dollar to one or another entity for the purposes of supporting one or another candidate or proposition, contributors might instead merely make "pledges" to give so many dollars. To quantify it, make one pledge equal to one dollar.
Now, with this single level of abstraction there's really no need to make the pledges to intermediary organizations or entities, is there? One could simply make a number of "pledges" in favor of a particular candidate or proposition directly, and the candidate or proposition with the most "pledges" wins, replacing the earlier notion that the candidate or proposition with the most money behind it wins.
The next obvious simplification then would be to have a special day, call it "pledging day". We could put "pledge" machines in every community, give people a few hours off work, and everyone can go to a nearby location and "pledge". In the evenings people could gather and have parties while the "pledges" are counted to see which candidates or propositions gathered the most "money", thereby winning their races. And with all that it could be done without the time-consuming need to gather actual money, or the expensive waste of gathering and spending actual money, surely a win-win for all political parties and the community of pledgers as well.
I can see that there's a potential problem with ensuring that wealthy people and corporations get to make enough pledges, but that's no doubt a perennial conversation in the ongoing great experiment called democracy.
In: All, Eureka!, Will Rogers Moments
Breaking: Republicans Promise Conservatism
Wow. Republicans took off their ties and visited a hardware store in Virginia to make their "Pledge with America". I guess this is different from Newt Gingrich's infamous "Contract with America" from 1994 in that it's merely a "pledge", and not a "contract" with contracted deliverables. I haven't read it yet so I won't mock too much, but I can't say I was surprised to hear my local-radio announcer sum it all up as "reduced taxes, less regulation, and smaller government". Let's hold hands and–oh, I don't know, sing "Kumbaya"?–and remember the golden Bush years of bedget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy, lack of regulation leading to melt-down of financial markets, and the huge expansion in federal spending that apparently indicates "smaller government".
All of that aside, this is what stood out for me as I started reading about the big news:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) summed it up: "The point we make, in this preamble to our pledge, is that we are not going to be any different than what we've been."
[quoted by Andy Towle, "Read: The GOP's Election Year 'Pledge to America'", Towleroad, 23 September 2010.]
I can easily imagine that the point of the remark might be to assuage the fears of, shall we say, "traditional" conservatives who worry about their party's being waylaid by fanatical, wacky teabaggers, but…
…but, isn't "not going to be any different than what we've been" the obviously tautological definition of what it means to be "conservative"?
In: All, Current Events, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
Who's To Judge "Pastor" Long?
Our story thus far : notedly homophobic mega-christian "pastor" Eddie Long has been accused by three young men of being a sexual predator. Nothing new there, of course.
Photographs of "pastor" Eddie, appearing in very tight muscle t-shirts and taken with the iPhone he holds in his hands, have surfaced. (For instance, see here.) These are photos that he allegedly sent to one of the alleged victims of his predation. Nothing untoward here; most clergy we know take photographs of themselves in their bathroom mirrors showing their progress at the gym to send to their parishioners. (Go ahead and follow the link; he's looking pretty buff in those poses, but he does have his clothes on.)
Enter stage right: Ted Haggard, former mega-christian "pastor" who had a little bout of teh gay himself but got over it very quickly. He's fully cured now but feels empathy for Long, since Ted knows how these "accusations" can damage a reputation (and a lucrative mega-church leadership position). He's made a statement in support of Long, worrying that public perception might outrun the facts. Just how big are "pastor" Long's biceps anyway?
Here's the part that raised my eyebrows. After suggesting that we, the court of public opinion, wait to judge until the facts are known, Haggard is quoted as saying (again, from here)
"Nobody's guilty until the court says he's guilty."
Woah! I have to admit that I'm a little surprised that a man, a former mega-christian "pastor", would leave that ultimate judgement to the secular courts and not to the god that he professes watches and cares about and–ultimately–judges everything he does.
But who knows how the minds work of homophobic mega-christian "pastors" on the down low?
In: All, Current Events, Raised Eyebrows Dept.
In Court : Science vs. Creationism
Someplace in my reading recently I happened upon the "memorandum opinion" in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982). My attention was drawn to it because of a remark about how it "defined science". Well, I wouldn't go so far as "defined" although the characteristics of the scientific enterprise are outlined, and that may have been a first for American jurisprudence (but I haven't made a study of that history yet).
Judge William R. Overton summarizes the case succinctly in his introduction:
On March 19, 1981, the Governor of Arkansas signed into law Act 590 of 1981, entitled "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." The Act is codified as Ark. Stat. Ann. &80-1663, et seq., (1981 Supp.). Its essential mandate is stated in its first sentence: "Public schools within this State shall give balanced treatment to creation-science and to evolution-science." On May 27, 1981, this suit was filed (1) challenging the constitutional validity of Act 590 on three distinct grounds.
[source]
The grounds were 1) that it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution; 2) that it violates a right to academic freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment; and 3) that it is impermissibly vague and thereby violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The judge ruled in favor of plaintiffs, enjoining the Arkansas school board "from implementing in any manner Act 590 of the Acts of Arkansas of 1981". So, there is where so-called "scientific creationism" was pushed back out of the scientific classrooms, and the reason creationists began–yet again–with rebranding and remarketing creationism, this time as "intelligent-design" creationism, to try to wedge it back into the scientific curriculum.
The opinion is refreshingly brief and to the point. It's difficult to avoid the impulse simply to quote the whole thing.
In his discussion of the strictures of the "Establishment of Religion" clause, Judge Overton quotes from opinions by Supreme-Court Justices Black and Frankfurter
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church-attendance or non-attendance. No tax, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or what ever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause … was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
[Justice Black, Everson v. Board of Education (1947)]Designed to serves as perhaps the most powerful agency for promoting cohesion among a heterogeneous democratic people, the public school must keep scrupulously free from entanglement in the strife of sects. The preservation of the community from divisive conflicts, of Government from irreconcilable pressures by religious groups, or religion from censorship and coercion however subtly exercised, requires strict confinement of the State to instruction other than religious, leaving to the individual's church and home, indoctrination in the faith of his choice. [Justice Frankfurter, McCollum v. Board of Education (1948)]
The phrases that jump out at me are "means at least this" and " the public school must keep scrupulously free from entanglement in the strife of sects". He also quotes Justice Clark (Abbington School District v. Schempp (1963)) as saying "[s]urely the place of the Bible as an instrument of religion cannot be gainsaid."
Put them together and it's quite clear, as Judge Overton wrote, that "[t]here is no controversy over the legal standards under which the Establishment Clause portion of this case must be judged." Of course, this doesn't keep certain christianist sects from repeatedly trying to assert that their version of a holy book is somehow an American historical and cultural book and not an "instrument of religion". To the objective observer, of course, those repeated attempts merely underscore the importance and continuing relevance of vigilance in keeping schools "scrupulously free from entanglement in the strife of sects".
Judge Overton begins section II this way:
The religious movement known as Fundamentalism began in nineteenth century America as part of evangelical Protestantism's response to social changes, new religious thought and Darwinism. Fundamentalists viewed these developments as attacks on the Bible and as responsible for a decline in traditional values.
He continues with more brief historical notes about "Fundamentalism" (NB. his remark that it traces its roots to the nineteenth century) and its renewed concerns with each passing generation that America is finally succumbing to secularism and its civilization is at last crumbling, paralleling the conviction of millennialists that their longed for second coming of Jesus is forever imminent. Perhaps needless to say, since I am a scientist, I'd like to see predictions about the second coming and the end of civilization given a time limit so that, when said events fail to materialize in the required time, we can consider the parent theories to be disproven.
In particular he notes that fundamentalist fever was pervasive enough that teaching evolution was uncommon in schools from the 1920s to the 1960s; sentiment and practice only changed as a response to Sputnik anxiety in the early 1960s, when curricula were revamped to emphasize science and mathematics. In response, the concepts of "creation science" and "scientific creationism" were invented as a way to repackage the usual anti-evolution ideas. As Judge Overton says
Creationists have adopted the view of Fundamentalists generally that there are only two positions with respect to the origins of the earth and life: belief in the inerrancy of the Genesis story of creation and of a worldwide flood as fact, or a belief in what they call evolution.
It's a false dichotomy, of course, but is an idea heavily promoted (usually implicitly) by modern creationists. Of course, it's a double edged sword: when creationists work so hard to instill the idea that it can only be creationism or Darwinism, they are perceived as losing big when creationism is, yet again, crossed off as a viable "science" option by the courts.
In the remainder of this section Judge Overton examines in some detail the testimony and evidence of "Paul Ellwanger, a respiratory therapist who is trained in neither law nor science." It's revealing stuff, demonstrating that "Ellwanger's correspondence on the subject shows an awareness that Act 590 is a religious crusade, coupled with a desire to conceal this fact." It's an arrogance on the part of creationists that we've seen over and over again, his recommending caution in avoiding any linkage between creationism and religion and yet continually using rhetoric about Darwinism as the work of Satan. There's more that I won't detail here. His conclusion for this section:
It was simply and purely an effort to introduce the Biblical version of creation into the public school curricula. The only inference which can be drawn from these circumstances is that the Act was passed with the specific purpose by the General Assembly of advancing religion.
In a nice rhetorical flourish, Judge Overton echoes this conclusion in the opening of section III:
If the defendants are correct and the Court is limited to an examination of the language of the Act, the evidence is overwhelming that both the purpose and effect of Act 590 is the advancement of religion in the public schools.
Section 4 of the Act provides:
Definitions, as used in this Act:
- (a) "Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.
- (b) "Evolution-science" means the scientific evidences for evolution and inferences from those scientific evidences. Evolution-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife; (2) The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (3) Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds; (4) Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and (6) An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life.
- (c) "Public schools" means public secondary and elementary schools.
The evidence establishes that the definition of "creation science" contained in 4(a) has as its unmentioned reference the first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis. Among the many creation epics in human history, the account of sudden creation from nothing, or creatio ex nihilo, and subsequent destruction of the world by flood is unique to Genesis. The concepts of 4(a) are the literal Fundamentalists' view of Genesis. Section 4(a) is unquestionably a statement of religion, with the exception of 4(a)(2) which is a negative thrust aimed at what the creationists understand to be the theory of evolution (17).
Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(1) describes "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God.Defendants argue that : (1) the fact that 4(a) conveys idea similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis does not make it conclusively a statement of religion; (2) that reference to a creation from nothing is not necessarily a religious concept since the Act only suggests a creator who has power, intelligence and a sense of design and not necessarily the attributes of love, compassion and justice (18); and (3) that simply teaching about the concept of a creator is not a religious exercise unless the student is required to make a commitment to the concept of a creator.
The evidence fully answers these arguments. The idea of 4(a)(1) are not merely similar to the literal interpretation of Genesis; they are identical and parallel to no other story of creation (19).
Judge Overton continues to draw connections between the act's definition of creation science, coupled with testimony, and it's undeniable connections to religious doctrine and its lack of identifiable standing as anything that might conceivably be identified as "science". He also examines, and denies, the creationists' false dichotomy that I mentioned above that the origin of humankind must be described either by Darwinism or creationism.
And then he makes these exceptionally straightforward assertions:
In addition to the fallacious pedagogy of the two model [false dichotomy] approach, Section 4(a) lacks legitimate educational value because "creation-science" as defined in that section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is "accepted by the scientific community" and is "what scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics. First, the section revolves around 4(a)(1) which asserts a sudden creation "from nothing." Such a concept is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable (25).
If the unifying idea of supernatural creation by God is removed from Section 4, the remaining parts of the section explain nothing and are meaningless assertions.
Section 4(a)(2), relating to the "insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism," is an incomplete negative generalization directed at the theory of evolution.
Section 4(a)(3) which describes "changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals" fails to conform to the essential characteristics of science for several reasons. First, there is no scientific definition of "kinds" and none of the witnesses was able to point to any scientific authority which recognized the term or knew how many "kinds" existed. One defense witness suggested there may may be 100 to 10,000 different "kinds." Another believes there were "about 10,000, give or take a few thousand." Second, the assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species. There is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by natural law.
The statement in 4(a)(4) of "separate ancestry of man and apes" is a bald assertion. It explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory (26).
Section 4(a)(5) refers to "explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood." This assertion completely fails as science. The Act is referring to the Noachian flood described in the Book of Genesis (27). The creationist writers concede that any kind of Genesis Flood depends upon supernatural intervention. A worldwide flood as an explanation of the world's geology is not the product of natural law, nor can its occurrence be explained by natural law.
Section 4(a)(6) equally fails to meet the standards of science. "Relatively recent inception" has no scientific meaning. It can only be given in reference to creationist writings which place the age at between 6,000 and 20,000 years because of the genealogy of the Old Testament. See, e.g., Px 78, Gish (6,000 to 10,000); Px 87, Segraves(6,000 to 20,000). Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable by natural law; nor is it tentative.
"Creation science…is simply not science." Now, there's an unequivocal statement! This was a very clear death knell for creationism in its guise as "creation [so-called] science" and the beginnings of the ill-concealed attempt to rebrand religious creationism, this time as "intelligent design".
Please note that the five "characteristics of science" given above by Judge Overton are in no way a "definition" of science, which only reinforces my own impression that Judge Overton was thinking very, very clearly on the subject. I am quite ready to agree with him that the five things he lists are indeed characteristic of science. It is not a comprehensive list, and it doesn't claim to be a comprehensive list–another thoughtful and precise step on Judge Overton's part–but they are correct, precise, and enough in this last section of his opinion to counter very thoroughly the claims of creationism to being a science.
This gets us about halfway through Judge Overton's opinion and this listing of some "characteristics of science", and I'll stop here. Before I read the opinion I feared, based on the evidently casual and inaccurate comment that led me to it, that the Judge may indeed have tried to "define" science, a difficult task that I was convinced hardly belonged in court proceedings. I was delighted to discover that Judge Overton instead developed careful and precise "characteristics of science" that served the purpose of the court and are undeniably correct.
In: All, It's Only Rocket Science
Tiny Stories
The “shortest horror story ever written” is usually attributed to Frederic Brown:
The last man on Earth sat alone in a room. There was a knock on the door.
Ron Smith shortened this further by changing knock to lock.
[from Greg Ross, "Short-Shorts", Futility Closet, 16 September 2010.]
Smith's change certainly shortened Brown's original, but I think that Brown's original story was much stronger and more horrifying, although the paranoia of Smith's version is amusing.
They're neither so brief as the poignant six-word story [allegedly] by Ernest Hemingway:
For sale: Baby shoes. Never worn.
A few years ago I wrote a fifty-word story called "Morning Breaks", but I have to apologize because I can't locate the text right now. You'll be the first to know when I find it again.
In: All, Common-Place Book, Writing
Mehlman in Purgatory
That noisy hum we're hearing on the gay blogs I read is all about "Repulsive Anti-Gay Quisling Homophobic Scumbag Asshat Closeted Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman" 's [to quote Joe.My.God, a useful place to find summarizing evidence for the epithets] coming out as gay.
You may recall that Mehlman, in his role as chair of the Republican National Committee, he was responsible, along with Karl Rove and G.W.Bush, for designing and implementing Bush's re-election campaign strategy in 2004 that used gay and lesbian people as a wedge issue and thereby littering 11 state constitutions with anti-marriage-equality amendments by the end of the election season. That's just one of his visible infractions as a gay-wolf in Republican-sheep clothing.
I'm no apologist for Ken Mehlman, who headed the Republic National Committee during George W. Bush's presidency and was the architect of much of the anti-gay rhetoric and policies during that time. But […]
No matter how anti-gay Mehlman's previous positions have been – and there's no argument here about the veracity of that record nor how much he was rightfully despised by the LGBT community – the former GOP chair must be acknowledged for finally coming out.
Steven Petrow, "In Defense of Ken Mehlman: Former GOP Chair is no Roy Cohn", Huffington Post, 26 August 2010.]
I'll acknowledge it : he's finally come out. However I find that I'm in no mood to engage in the tidal wave of platitudes congratulating his courage (courage would have been coming out in the summer of 2004), or his personal struggle on the long road to self-realization. Many of us have been on that road; few of us were able to rest our heads in our own $3-million New-York condo during the struggle.
Thanks to the investigative journalism of the frequently reviled Mike Rogers we've known since 2004 that Mehlman is gay but, inexplicably, this was one juicy bit of sensationalism that Fox Entertainment failed to "report". When it comes to lying hypocrites like Mehlman I'm sure you can deduce my feelings about political outing.
There is one potential silver lining : by coming out now Mehlman is still young enough that he might, with a great deal of hard work, personal application, and expenditure of wealth, still have enough time to right some of the wrongs he was responsible for and start making amends, but he'd better get a running start. I'm sure he'll feel better but this is no paradise yet; it's merely his entry to political purgatory.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
The "Moral Concerns" of Marines
On a different, but related subject, [Marine Corps Commandant General James] Conway suggested that if the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” law is repealed, the Marines may consider allowing Marines not to share quarters with homosexuals.
Conway said the Marines may make such housing arrangements “voluntary” to accommodate any “moral concerns.” He said many Marines are “very religious” and because of their moral concerns “don’t want to room” with homosexuals.
[news story quoted by Andy Towle, "Marine Commandant: Marines May Allow Straight Soldiers to Live Separately from Gays Over 'Moral Concerns' ", Towleroad, 24 August 2010.]
Is it just me or is there an odd incongruity with Marines–trained and ready to hit the beaches , lead an invasion force into battle, kill and be killed–worried about who might be sleeping the the same room with them the night before?
I'm also wondering where "thou shalt not kill" falls on that whole Marine "very religious" spectrum of "moral concerns"–relative to not sleeping near gay Marines, of course.
In: All, Current Events, Faaabulosity
The Long Road
The same is true of the trajectory of the same-sex marriage issue. Gay couples began going to court to claim a right to marry at almost exactly the same time that women began turning to the courts to claim a right to abortion. The student body president of the University of Minnesota Law School brought a marriage case in the Minnesota state courts in 1970, after he and his partner were denied a marriage license by the local county clerk. In a dismissive two-page opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment’s due process clause was “not a charter for restructuring” the “historic institution” of marriage “by judicial legislation.” The United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Numerous other cases followed, in California and other states, throughout the 1970s. The lawsuits were not successful, but that’s not my point. The point is that these cases, and the claims on the Constitution that they presented, were hiding in plain sight. Few people outside the gay community — or more precisely, outside a well-informed subset of that community — were even aware of their existence. I know I wasn’t. The notion of legally sanctioned same-sex marriage seemed too far-fetched to ponder, until it didn’t.
[Linda Greenhouse, "Hiding in Plain Sight", New York Times, 12 August 2010.]
In: All, Common-Place Book, Faaabulosity