Bearcastle Blog

While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

[US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, dissent to majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, quoted by Mary Hall, State of the Union: Obama Walking in the Footsteps of FDR, Huffington Post, 3 February 2010.]

I haven't read the opinion for myself yet, but why wait when someone else gives us a delightful soundbite?

I'm far from surprised that the current majority of the Roberts court should wish to remove the fetters from corporations when it comes to campaign contributions, I think it bizarre that they should decide is as a First Amendment issue and further expand the exceedingly peculiar and undemocratic notion that corporations have constitutional rights. I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again.

A long-time friend of mine, quite inadvertently and perhaps to his lasting regret, brought up the subject of special relativity : we briefly touched on the idea central to special relativity that the speed of light (in vacuum) is constant (as measured) in every inertial reference frame.^*

At first hearing it's a rather unsettling idea, and of course one wonders how one could possibly make a physical theory around such an idea and have it come out in any meaningful way. Well, one can if one is Einstein, and there are unexpected and startling consequences that flow logically from that simple idea about the speed of light.

The next step in our conversation–not surprising since I was party to the discussion–was "what book should one read to learn these things about special relativity?"

Well, that turned out a bit of a poser. I was certain that we should have something appropriate in our Scienticity Book Notes collection, but there was nothing. Nothing at all!

Well, that was a deficiency that needed some attention. So, we need to have some books read about special relativity and some notes written. Therefore, I've put together a tentative wish list of titles that look promising.

I say "promising"–there are no guarantees. Everyone who writes a book on a subject has unique ideas about what should be discussed and how to go about it, and I'll admit that not all of those ideas align with my ideas about what should be in the book.

I'd like a book about light — not about vision, or color, or art, or optics, but light itself, what it is, how we think about it now, how we used to think about it, how unusual is its place in the physical universe, and then about how the idea of the constancy of the speed of light (in vacuum, in inertial frames, etc.) lies at the heart of special relativity (which is a theory of "electrodynamics", i.e., a theory of moving charged particles and interactions with electromagnetic fields, i.e.², essentially a theory of light).

I don't think the readers I have in mind are much interested in deriving mathematical consequences and such, so there needn't be a go at developing, say, the Lorentz-contraction equations, but the concepts and ideas must be explored for the average reader in a nonpatronizing way.

It may be too tall an order. I'd just as soon not write the book myself at this time, although it would make a fabulous subject if it's not been written. (Please let me know if you personally know of such a book.)

And so, the following reading list, the result of a rather cursory look at some sources to try to uncover some candidate titles.

• Brian Cox, Why Does E=mc2?: And Why Should We Care? (Powell's synopsis). I'm not so interested in the "deeper" meaning of that famous equation — it's really far from the most important idea of special relativity despite it's explosive significance — but the synopsis suggested that Cox might explore the ideas in a useful way.
• Richard P. Feynman, Six Not So Easy Pieces: Einstein's Relativity, Symmetry, & Space-Time (Powell's synopsis). I know, even Feynman's "Easy Pieces" are far from easy, but if one is in the mood to read slowly and savor, there's a high density of delight in Feynman's expositions, and I'd like to know just how hard these seem to normal people.
• Alan Lightman, Great Ideas in Physics (Powell's synopsis). This book isn't exclusively about light or relativity, but the few other books I've read by Lightman were very nicely written and he impressed me with with profound understanding of the ideas he talks about, so it made this list with high hopes.
• N. David Mermin, It's about Time: Understanding Einstein's Relativity (Powell's synopsis). I knew Mermin's name during my years as a working physicist from his writing, which I regarded highly. This apparently is his attempt to do just what I would like to see done, so I'm keenly interested in the result.
• Nigel Calder, Einstein's Universe : a Guide To the Theory of Relativity (79 Edition) (Powell's synopsis). When I was a young pre-scientist, Calder had quite a reputation as a popularizer, but I've never read any of his writing so I can't comment. Maybe this is the jewel we seek?

If you know about these, or have other titles to suggest, please chime in.

If you'd like to read and write about some of them as part of your Science-Book Challenge (What, not already signed up? Tsk. Use that link and do it now!), that would be fabulous and will help other people when the question comes up again, as it most certainly will.

———-
^*You can take this to mean any frame of reference, i.e., viewpoint, that is moving at a constant velocity, i.e, not accelerated; accelerated frames of reference are the subject of general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravitation). If you'd like to know more about this idea of reference frames, I can recommend the now vintage but very fine film "Frames of Reference", which you will find as the second video offering in this blog posting of mine.

Just this week I was having lunch and a man came into the shop wearing unusual flannel trousers, green flannel that was printed with little figures of some sort that I couldn't quite make out but that might have been teddy bears.

Well! I thought, that's unusual. I hadn't seen flannel trousers quite like these — at least, not during the daytime. Hmm. They did indeed look a lot like pajamas, once I thought about it a bit. Could it be that here was the vanguard of a new fashion trend?

Yes, apparently it could. Seemingly within mere hours (the prepared mind and all that) this bit of news fell in front of my eyes:

A Tesco store has asked customers not to shop in their pyjamas or barefoot.

Notices have been put up in the chain's supermarket in St Mellons in Cardiff [Wales] saying: "Footwear must be worn at all times and no nightwear is permitted."

A spokesman said Tesco did not have a strict dress code but it does not want people shopping in their nightwear in case it offends other customers.

[from "Tesco ban on shoppers in pyjamas", BBC News, 28 January 2010.]

Not only is it a fashion trend, it's an international fashion trend.

I don't exactly what I think of it. Not much, I suspect, although I am the son of a mother who wouldn't have been caught dead in public with a single curler in her hair. Chances are, if it's a guy wearing the pajama bottoms and he's not wearing underwear…well, let me not be too crude to finish.

Ms [Elaine] Carmody, who spoke after spending £102 in the supermarket, added: "If you're allowed to wear jogging bottoms, why aren't you allowed to wear pyjamas in there, that's what I don't understand?

"I think it's stupid really not being allowed in the supermarket with pyjamas on.

"It's not as if they're going to fall down or anything like that. They should be happy because you're going to spend all that money."

I was with Ms. Carmody — that comparison to jogging bottoms makes good sense — until she got to her concluding analysis: "It's not as if they're going to fall down or anything like that."

Could that be what drives the store's policy, a fear that the pajama bottoms might fall down?

Is that what people fear most about pajama bottoms? I'd never known.

“Studies have shown that three-quarters of service members say they are personally comfortable around gays and lesbians. Two-thirds say they already know or suspect gay people in their units. This raises important questions about the assertion that openly gay service would impair the military. In fact, it shows that gays and lesbians in the military have already been accepted by the average soldier.

“Additionally, at least twenty-five foreign militaries now let gays serve openly, including our closest ally, Britain. Although we lead rather than follow these militaries, there is no evidence suggesting that our troops cannot effectively carry out the same policy change as those nations did.

“In 2008, a bi-partisan panel of retired General and Flag officers carefully reviewed this matter for a year and concluded that repeal would not pose a risk to the military's high standards of morale, discipline, cohesion, recruitment, or retention. Interestingly, an increasing number of active-duty officers who have reviewed “don’t ask, don’t tell” indicate that the policy, not the presence of gays, is detrimental to the armed forces’ need for skilled personnel who are able to serve without compromising their integrity and, by extension, that of the armed forces as a whole.

“As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military. It is time to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow our military leaders to create policy that holds our service members to a single standard of conduct and discipline."

[emphasis mine; excerpt from former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili's statement, from "In Message To Pentagon Leadership, Gillibrand, Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Say It’s Time To Repeal 'Don’t Ask Don’t Tell'", press release from Kirstin Gillibrand's Senate office, 27 January 2010.]

There has been some rejoicing on the side of equality (and some pursed-lipped tsk-tsking on the anti-equality side) since Cindy McCain came out in support of marriage equality and joined the "NOH8" campaign.

I suppose it's gratifying to have a prominent Republican do the right thing, but how many gold stars must one dispense to someone who finally–finally!–does the right thing? It feels more like it did when one was expected to congratulate an official of the Bush Administration if he managed not to do something really, really stupid for a change.

But here's the tsk-tsking part (hands on hips please): "I don't think Cindy McCain has a right to call us 'haters'. Just because we believe marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean we hate homosexuals."

Well, I find it ever harder to lend any credence whatsoever to this claim. The sole argument in its favor has a very scholastic ring to it, going something like this: "Oh, I don't hate homosexuals; I love my God, and He hates homosexuals."^*

There's really no other way around it so far as I can tell. Virtually all opposition to marriage equality is traced by the anti-equality crowd to their book of stories. It begins with the observation that "God made them man and woman", apparently using an Adam-and-Eve model to invent the notion that marriage is somehow exclusively man-and-woman; and ends with nohing from Leviticus that homosexuality is "anathema", which is construed in the present day by the anti-equality mob to be something really, really awful–yea, perhaps even hateful. With that belief as their foundation, I find the claim of "hating the sin but loving the sinner" a little hard to swallow.

There are two very useful side-effects to the courtroom process of Perry v. Schwarzenegger : facts are being established under oath (i.e., courtroom rules rather than broadcast television rules), and those who are being forced to disavow their specious arguments, fabricated "facts", and hateful rhetoric are suffering embarrassment. This is extremely useful to the cause of equality.

While we're here and vaguely on the subject of religiously fueled hatred, I wanted to point out a very interesting article at Good As You (G-A-Y), "Those who can't remember the past...", where Jeremy has dug up a few facsimile newspaper clippings to share with us and to establish that those religious bigots who wish to claim that religion was never used to enforce ideas of prejudice against black people, have no basis in historic fact.

The clippings, mere examples of newspaper "reporting" of the time, have these headlines:

• "Florida Baptists Oppose Integration" (1954)
• "Missionary Baptists Oppose Integration" (1957)
• "Tarboro Free Will Baptists Oppose Racial Integration" (1955)

To be honest, there's nothing terribly startling about these facts, but it gives them a sense of heightened contrast against the specious arguments and fabricated claims, keeping reality feeling a little more steady.
———-
^* I know I've mentioned before the shocking oddity from an interview I read years ago with then-president Reagan, in which he was quoted as saying, in answer to a question about his recent cancer surgery: "Oh no, I didn't have cancer. I had something inside of me that had cancer and it was removed." Chilling.

Jerry Sanders, mayor of San Diego, appeared this week as a witness for plaintiffs in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, and he's written about the experience and his own conversion to equality.

The pull-quotes:

• "I realized that all opposition to same-sex marriage, including my own opposition, was grounded in prejudice."
• "When government tolerates discrimination against any class of people, it makes it easier for citizens to do the same thing."

Then two years later [after his 2005 election as Mayor of San Diego], the City Council passed a resolution supporting a court challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage. I had 10 days to decide whether to sign or veto the resolution.
[...]
As late as the evening of the ninth day, I believed I would veto it.

That night, my wife and I hosted a gathering of gay and lesbian friends and neighbors in our backyard. I told them I intended to veto the resolution. Then I listened as they explained how disappointed and hurt they were that I would want to deny them a fundamental civil right, the right to marry the person you love and have that marriage recognized by the rest of society.

About 15 people spoke that night. But before the first one was finished, I shared their disappointment. It was then that I realized that all opposition to same-sex marriage, including my own opposition, was grounded in prejudice.
[...]
Sometimes I find it hard to believe that I came so close to making the wrong decision, and to endorsing government-sanctioned discrimination. As it turns out, I was reelected to a second term the next year. My position on marriage equality definitely made it more difficult. But I know I would have regretted vetoing that resolution a lot more than losing that election.

Now, more than two years later, I have testified in federal court about my decision and the rationale behind it. I told the court that, as someone who has spent most of his lifetime in public service, I understand that when government tolerates discrimination against any class of people, it makes it easier for citizens to do the same thing.

[excerpt from Jerry Sanders, "Proud to Testify for Marriage Equality", Huffington Post, 22 January 2010.]

Today one of my Republican colleagues introduced a proposal to brazenly overturn sound scientific work done by our nation's leading public health experts and prohibit the Environment Protection Agency from doing its job to protect the health and welfare of the American people. This extremely damaging proposal is a political stunt designed to effectively strip the EPA's power to curb harmful air pollution.

Senator Murkowski's proposal takes the form of a "Resolution of Disapproval" under the Congressional Review Act. It is so extreme that it would legally overturn scientists' very conclusion, based on decades of scientific study, that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health and the environment, and it would have the effect of prohibiting the EPA from making the same conclusion in the future. It could block any action by the EPA to protect our families, our communities, and our economy from greenhouse gas pollution.

This resolution represents an irresponsible attempt to take away the power of an independent agency whose sole purpose is to protect the health of our families, friends and neighbors and the environment we live in.

excerpt from Senator Jeff Merkley, "A Dangerous Proposal", Huffington Post, 21 January 2010.

I took a few minutes today to glance through yesterday's trial transcript from Perry v. Schwarzenegger (transcript of the proceedings for Wednesday, 20 January 2010, of Perry v. Schwarzenegger (Volume 7, pages 1480–1741), and found a few things that caught my attention.

You may recall that during the campaign last fall, accusations were made that the Catholic Church and, particularly, the Mormon Church were bankrolling the "Yes on 8" campaign, nominally run by "ProtectMarriage.com" and, in addition, were significantly involved in operations. Those charges were vehemently denied by officials of both churches.

To no one's surprise, we can now establish that they lied. Much of yesterday afternoon's proceedings were spent examining a number of documents obtained during pretrial discovery relating to those questions of involvement. Herewith a few interesting paragraphs.

From an email written by Ron Prentice, head of "ProtectMarriage.com" to, if I remember correctly, members of the Catholic Bishop's Conference:

"The total projected cost for the [ballot] qualification effort has been set at 1.5 million. Thus far, 1.25 million has been raised and spent. The monies have come from four primary sources thus far: The Catholic community of San Diego, due to the involvement of Auxillary Bishop Cordileone, Fieldstead & Company, who pledged 50 cents for each dollar raised in January for the effort, Focus on the Family, and small gifts from direct mail efforts by ProtectMarriage.com." [p. 1612]

From another memo, this time written by a PR person with the Mormon Church:

"Since the first Presidency letter was read in every ward throughout California last month, I have been frequently asked what our [i.e., the Mormon Church's] role in Public Affairs will be in the Prop 8 campaign." [...]
"As you know from the first Presidency letter, this campaign is entirely under priesthood direction – in concert with leaders of many other faiths and community groups forming part of the ProtectMarriage.com Coalition. [pp. 1622--1623]

The emphasis is mine, of course.

Finally, a bit from "Plaintiff's exhibit 2561", another document from LDS records:

"You may know that the Mormons have been out walking neighborhoods the past two Saturdays, with about 20,000 total volunteers."

Isn't it interesting how many Mormons were willing to volunteer to help restrict the rights of gay and lesbian people?

Sometimes–okay, most times–spring can't come soon enough to suit me, so the arrival of crocuses, then daffodils, is always most welcome. When the daffodils appear I love to visit the US National Arboretum to take a walk in "Fern Valley" (where the daffodils used to be, but where one still sees a nice collection of woodland wildflowers growing in the woodland) or the Azalea Collection (where most of the daffodils are now).

This is neither of those, but we can still enjoy a break from the winter doldrums with some beautiful flowers.

Camellias at the National Arboretum

One day last year (2 May 2009, to be precise) we had a free Saturday afternoon so we decided to spend it at the Arboretum, which is not all that far from where we live. There was something going on at the main exhibition hall that had their parking lot filled so we decided to be spontaneous and see something we'd never quite made it too before: the Dogwood Collection (Arboretum map).

It was a very clever choice on our part. Everything there was in glorious display. Just outside the area where the dogwoods were planted were some azaleas, camellias, and a peony or two. The azaleas in particular were rather flamboyant, as you can see in the photograph below.

The Flickr Album: U.S. National Arboretum, 2 May 2009. As I mentioned in the notes there, we hadn't taken the camera with us that day but Isaac did have his new Blackberry along, so we took these pictures with it. We didn't know how many images it might capture, but we found out when we ran out of space just before taking any of the dogwoods themselves.

Brilliant Azalea

Today, I watched^* a snippet of video deposition of one Paul Nathanson, who was to be called as a defense witness (i.e., supporting the anti-equality side of the argument) in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, until his name was withdrawn. The given reason for withdrawing his name, of course, was incredible fear of persecution at the hands of the gay menace; the rather obvious reason, after one sees this bit of his deposition, is that he would only have weakened the case for the defense.

Now, it comes as no surprise really that witnesses under oath might not sound so convincing in stating a case against marriage equality as they do, say, in free-wheeling television commercials underwritten by, say, the Mormon Church. However, this bit of deposition sounds rather more like making the case for plaintiffs than anything else.

The video can be seen at the website of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, here. (AFER also is helpfully posting their copies of the hearing transcripts here.)

Here is the transcript of the beginning of the deposition excerpt that startled me so much. I believe the questioner here is Mr. David Boies, co-counsel for plaintiff (i.e., the fair side). Remember, this is an opponent of marriage quality:

Q – Do you know what position the American Anthropological Association takes, if any, with respect to the issue of gay marriage?
A – They support it. They support it.
Q – Do you know what the position, if any, of the American Psycho-Analytic Association is with respect to gay marriage?
A – They support it.
Q – Do you know what the position of the American Psychological Association is, if any, with respect to gay marriage?
A – They support it.
Q – Do you know what the position is of the American Psychiatric Association…
A – They support it.
Q – … with respect to gay marriage, if any?
A – They support it.
–
Q – Are you familiar with the American Academy of Paediatrics?
A – No. No, I’m sorry, I am. And they also support it.
Q – They also support what?
A – Gay marriage.
Q – Do you know any of the reasons why the American Academy of Paediatrics supports gay ma
A – They see no problem for children.

———-
^* H/T Jeremy at Good As You.

I was interested to discover that a number of things I have done professionally have no verbs. How did we ever get anything done? (Although, I also find it interesting that I've worked at times as an "engineer", whose professional noun is exactly the same as the verb of the professional activity, "to engineer".)

It also occurred to me that many names of occupations are agentive forms of verbs for the characteristic activity: weaver, cobbler, driver, cleaner, writer, robber, teacher, and so on. But there are some occupations, like chemist, where not only is the name not an agentive form of a verb, but in fact there's no verb at all for the characteristic activity. What a chemist does (I guess) is to apply the science and technology of chemistry to practical or theoretical problems — but there's no verb for that, no "chemicize" or "chemistrate" or whatever.

[Mark Liberman, "Professional verbs", Language Log, 31 December 2009.]

Perhaps there is no verb for what chemists and physicists and biologists and mathematicians do because — wait for it — nobody knows what they do? Actually, one could say that one principle activity of all of them is "research", although that doesn't really address the problem.

Well, gosh, word is (via Joe.My.God) that Mark Fiore's cartoon, "Learn to Speak Tea Bag", has caused some upset among conservative political extremists. Imagine!

Is there, then, any better reason than that to do some viral spreading with this metaphorical blog sneeze?

[YouTube link for those who don't see the embedded player.]

So that I can locate it easily, here is the short segment of Rachel Maddow talking with Ted Olson and David Boies, Perry v. Schwarzenegger lawyers for plaintiffs.

I have to admit that it thrills me to listen to Ted Olson say, "If you listen to these individuals and you hear our arguments, you are going to agree with us."

[YouTube link for those who don't see the embedded player.]

Yesterday morning, in a federal courtroom in San Francisco, began the trial of the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger, widely known as the "gay-marriage trial". This is the lawsuit brought against the state of California, challenging the constitutionality of proposition 8, the sate constitutional amendment that outlawed same-gender marriages in that state when they were already legal.^*

Almost needless to say, this is an exceedingly important case, at least for me and my fellow conspirators of the homosexual menace. For us it's the chance for justice, equality, and civil right to triumph over irrational fear, bigotry, and oppression. The other side, apparently, believes it's their chance to demonstrate that their god really, really does hate homosexuals.

I don't plan to "report" on the progress of the trial, nor do I plan regular commentary as such. On the other hand, it's a significant interval in the arc of American civil rights and it will likely seep into whatever I'm thinking about over the next few weeks–or longer, if Isaac and I have to start making wedding plans sooner than we expected. I don't like making predictions about matters like this — it violates my physicist's fondness for verifiable statements — but I have difficulty seeing how any rational adjudicators can find for the defendants. However, given my reference to "rational adjudicators", I can hear you thinking that the Supreme Court is likely part of the suit's future.

In my earliest days online (usenet, c. 1992) it was a very popular activity in certain circles to "debate homosexuality". It always seemed a pointless activity to me, like "debating rocks" or "debating clouds" — what was there to "debate"? — but some loved the full-contact sport. (College students and those of sophomoric bent always seem drawn to pointless "debates".)

Some seemed to feel that they were honing their "arguments" but "honing" for what purpose wasn't clear to me either. Debates in the streets, I guess.

At that time the "procreative argument" that was meant to demonstrate that same-sex relationships were not "natural" was very popular and thought to be unassailable by those who used it.

It always started and ended in the same way: same-sex relationships were not natural because two men or two women couldn't have children, and that was what their male/female parts were "meant" for. But, one objected, what about mixed-sex couples who either couldn't or chose not to have children in their relationship? That objection was always brushed aside with something that approximated this idea: mixed-sex couples, in some Platonic-essence subjunctive world of male-types and female-types, could in essence procreate even if a particular instantiation was unable or unwilling to do so, so it's still "natural".

I kid you not. This "debating point" was taken very seriously by some, regardless of how obviously, ridiculously specious it was. Perhaps I should describe it as prima facie specious to make it sound more court-roomy, since this "argument" is still with us and has already turned up in the cloud of discussion surrounding Perry v. Schwarzenegger,

Fortunately, and rightly, the "argument" is sounding even sillier (if that's possible) than it did 15 years ago, and I have to say I'm happy enough to see that it will finally show up on the record in a courtroom where it can be laughed out of existence, as it should be.

The anti-equality forces that promulgated Proposition 8 were very vocal about their opposition to "the homosexual lifestyle", usually invoking children somewhere in their propaganda–a time-honored tradition with reviled social groups. Oddly, when the time comes to put their self-righteousness on the record in courtroom transcripts, they scatter like cockroaches in a kitchen when the lights are suddenly turned on. One of the defendants, who begged earlier last year to be made part of the case, is now begging to be left out. The governor and attorney general of California have both refused to defend the case in any way, perhaps realizing how quickly their names in the history books can become blackened with tarnish.

Before the trial began, Judge Walker planned to allow the proceedings to be recorded on camera, and for said recordings to be posted on YouTube. Not televised, but the next best thing. Oddly, the anti-equality defendants raced to the US Supreme Court to get the decision stayed. As I write the temporary ban is in place until at least tomorrow evening.

Why would the anti-equality people, who feel so self-righteous about their "moral" position on the matter, shun the light of national scrutiny? They claim a fear of violent retribution — remember when homosexuals were "pansy" weaklings that one could tread all over with impunity? — but we all know better, don't we? Recall the cockroaches in the kitchen. When on the record and under oath, their testimony is likely to whither faster than one could exclaim "Jesus Christ!" It could be embarrassing at least; at unlikely best it could silence their empty claims for years to come the way Kitzmiller v. Dover quieted the intelligent-design creationists, at least for a bit.

How in the world has it come to pass that we lovers of "the love that dare not speak it's name" have now moved out into the full sunlight demanding truth, honesty, and recognition when, a mere five decades ago, collective and individual shame was the acceptable strategy for surviving in a time when one's irrepressible love was both illegal and classified as a mental illness?

The homophobes really have no one to blame but themselves for this turn of events. Most gay and lesbian people had worked out schemes for living quiet, if not always satisfying and rewarding, lives. However, the "don't shove it down out throats" crowd just wouldn't leave us alone. Police made raids, then made arrests, then loudly published names just to ruin the lives of homosexuals. Shock treatments were touted as "humane" cures. Homosexuals were hounded and persecuted by McCarthyism as a far more tangible target than communists.

We weren't shoving it down anyone's throat but our persecutors amazingly kept opening their mouths and swallowing it, but blaming us for their discomfort while they enjoyed having social scapegoats that they thought were easy to blame and would never fight back.

Well, it got tiresome and finally went too far. Every year some of us celebrate the turning of the tide when homosexuals said enough is enough. We want to be left alone and you just won't leave us alone, so here we are to claim our rights as full citizens. Every year "gay pride" events around the country mark the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots that started on 27 June 1969, which is why such events typically happen in late June.

I think the dynamics of homophobia, both individual and societal, are pretty well known by now. Whence comes the idea that homosexuality is "shameful" I don't know–it could keep lots of graduate students busy for a long time writing theses about it. But, given the strength of the shame, we have seen for years the intense reaction it creates in some people who will go far beyond any rational response to their dislike of homosexuality with violence towards gay people and whatever legal forms of persecution they can contrive. Shakespeare gave us the truth from Gertrude's mouth: "the lady doth protest too much"; today we can easily recognize that person bearing the burden of shame trying to contrive ways to make him stop, to remove temptation by making succumbing to temptation too awful to contemplate.

But denying one's nature to that extent is a grave mistake and now the truth is out of the bag, that train has left the station, and the horse has escaped the barn. Pride has been the antidote to the venom of self-hatred and societal disapprobation.

And so here we stand at the edge of liberty and the beginning of equality for another group of people–my group of people. Whether it will happen through this lawsuit I can't say, but it's happening and this moment marks a big advance either way.

I was thinking today about the pitiful stance of some religious groups towards marriage equality for gays and lesbians, those who feel it necessary to proclaim that gay marriage somehow detracts from "traditional marriage". It's being revealed that the idea is as empty as it seemed, and it set the tone for the beginning of this lawsuit. (see "He Doesn't Know").

Think about it for a moment. Suppose, say, that the Pope had chosen to proclaim that "expanding marriage to more people, to loving gay and lesbian couples, can only strengthen traditional marriage by opening participation to all loving couples who wish to proclaim their enduring relationship".

I can't think of any way to make it clearer that "arguments" invoking "traditional marriage" are empty and arbitrary. And now equality foes have really dug their own grave by inflating "marriage" to an institution of such vital importance, so central to civilization as we know it, that gays and lesbians would be foolish idiots not to want it! Ah well, who am I to complain if they can't win for losing–or vice versa.

I appreciate the attention and support of my friends–and our friends–on this matter. We couldn't have done it by ourselves.
———-
^* If you'd like to read some comprehensive background on the trial, you might try:

• Theodore B. Olson, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage : Why Same-Sex Marriage is an American Value", Newsweek, 9 January 2010.
• Margaret Talbot, "A Risky Proposal : Is it too soon to petition the Supreme Court on gay marriage?" The New Yorker, 10 January 2010.

When 30 seconds of video makes me laugh this much, naturally I want to share the joy with all y'all who might not otherwise have this much fun today. Besides, it's my blog.

[YouTube link for those who don't see the embedded player.]

p.s. The music is original for this video. That is so cool.

[Thanks to Andy Towle.]

Creatures, including humans, "can be protected or endangered", the pope, 82, told the Vatican diplomatic corps in a traditional January address focusing mainly on environmental issues.

"One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes," he said, citing "certain countries in Europe or North and South America".

[excerpt from "Pope slams gay marriage", Brisbane Times, 11 January 2009.]

I am thrilled. Here with the recent move by Portugal to legalize gay marriage (see, e.g.), I thought we'd reached the stage where one more progressive country recognized loving and enduring relationships between people of the same gender.

But, if the Pope can be believed, it would seem that countries around the world, without telling me, have been outlawing heterosexual procreation, banning mixed-gender marriages, and forcing positively everyone into fruitless, same-gender unions. Such nirvana!

Does he really, really believe that the human population is threatened with extinction because some of us are not busy making babies as fast as we can? Doesn't he realize that the "what if everyone did that?" argument (about anything!) was passe even in my youth? Does he really believe that one more same-gender marriage might topple the apparently synthetic heterosexual facade and cause all straight people to come over to the forbidden dark side? I guess the pope's job description calls for being able to believe lots of unbelievable things.

As I've pointed out before, we (i.e., the homosexual menace) are quite capable of reproducing as necessary to save the species. Why, we don't even have to enjoy it to get the job done!

For example, one of the arguments that the anti-gay-marriage side has increasingly turned to outside the courtroom is that allowing same-sex marriage would hurt heterosexual marriage. At the pretrial hearing, Judge Walker kept asking Charles Cooper, the lawyer defending Proposition 8, how exactly it did so. “I’m asking you to tell me,” he said at last, “how it would harm opposite-sex marriages.”

“All right,” Cooper said.

“All right,” Walker said. “Let’s play on the same playing field for once.”

There was a pause—it seemed like a long one to people in the courtroom, though it was probably only a few seconds. And Cooper said, “Your Honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don’t know.”

[final paragraphs from Margaret Talbot, "A Risky Proposal : Is it too soon to petition the Supreme Court on gay marriage?", The New Yorker, 18 January 2010 issue date; viewed 9 January 2010.]

Okay, it clearly isn't a Friday night, but it also isn't the evening of New Year's Day when I was thinking about this program, either. I'm sure our imaginations can handle it.

Hors d'Oeuvres — Astro-Weenie Christmas Tree

If there's a concept that could use re-introducing for 2010, I think it's smart. That's smart as in "what the smart hostess" from the 1950s will be serving for her smart evening's entertainment. No doubt something witty and cunning, something suitable for the space age!

I own an incalculable debt of gratitude to Charles Phoenix for finally bringing to my attention the definitive recipe for Spam Cake. Mr. Phoenix makes his living from his passion for collecting slides of family living from the 1950s and thereabouts. It's retro to the max and one never knows what delights are hidden just around the next slide. Like Spam Cake.

Or the "Astro-Weenie Christmas Tree". I remember when that was slide-of-the-week in the emailing list, and what an amazing sight it was: a shining, space-age cone of enticing appetizers on toothpicks. Very, very, smart.

Let's begin then, with this video demonstration by Mr. Phoenix recreating this smart party-starter.

[YouTube link for those who don't see the embedded player.]

Entrée — Ravel : La Valse

Waltzes on New Year's Day make a traditional celebration, but I was as I often am in the mood for something a little non-traditional, so our waltz this time is The Waltz by Maurice Ravel, a favorite of mine. Here is an excerpt from Phillip Huscher's notes for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra:

La valse is not the piece Ravel planned to write. In 1906 he began to sketch Wien (Vienna), a tribute to Johann Strauss, Jr. and “. . . a kind of apotheosis of the Viennese waltz, with which is mingled in my mind the idea of the fantastic whirl of destiny.” This is still true of the music Ravel finally composed in 1919, at the request of the impresario Sergei Diaghilev. But fate now made the waltz a bitter reminder of a vanished era and newsreels showed that Vienna was no longer a city in its glory.

Certainly the bittersweet irony is strongly evident, but I also hear a lot of humor in it even if the humor is a bit macabre. Diaghilev didn't much care for the piece when he heard it, we're told. I like this quotation, attributed to Francis Poulenc (source):

Ravel, c'est un chef-d'oeuvre, mais ce n'est pas un ballet. C'est la peinture d'un ballet.
[Ravel, it's a masterpiece but it's not a ballet. It's the painting of a ballet.]

Here's the scenario as Ravel published it in the score (source):

Through whirling clouds, waltzing couples may be faintly distinguished. The clouds gradually scatter: one sees at letter A an immense hall peopled with a whirling crowd. The scene is gradually illuminated. The light of the chandeliers bursts forth at the fortissimo letter B. Set in an imperial court, about 1855.

I am always enchanted by the way the first waltz tune seems to appear ever so gradually out of the whirling mists.

We're accustomed to hearing the work in the gorgeous orchestration (by Ravel), but for tonight I thought something a bit more unusual and intimate.^* This is a performance of an arrangement for two pianos, played by "twin sisters" whose names are given nowhere I can find them.^‡ The piece is slightly over 10 minutes long, so it's given in two parts.

[YouTube link (part 1, part 2) for those who don't see the embedded player.]

Dessert — "Cherpumple"

This is another very, very cunning dish prepared by Mr. Phoenix. It's a pie/cake concoction that he calls the "dessert version of the turducken". I think that's probably ample introduction to get going with.

[YouTube link for those who don't see the embedded player.]

Digestif — Debussy : Danses Sacrée et Profane

Well, it's not exactly keeping with the waltz theme although the middle section is vaguely waltz-like. However, this gorgeous work by Debussy is sure to aid the digestion — something quite welcome after a big slice of that cherpumple. Besides, much of it is so achingly beautiful that it really needs no excuse to be heard.

This is a work for harp and strings (in this version). Originally written on a commission as a demonstration for a chromatic harp, it's always played on the pedal harp (since the chromatic harp disappeared rather quickly):

In 1904 Pleyel, the famous Parisian firm of instrument manufacturers, approached Debussy with a commission for a new test piece for chromatic harp, intended for use in the diploma examinations at the Brussels Conservatoire. Pleyel had introduced and patented the chromatic harp in 1897. Unlike the conventional concert harp, which is tuned according to the notes of the diatonic major scale, and has seven foot pedals, each of which corresponds to a single scale degree and its chromatic alterations (i.e. natural, sharp, and flat), Pleyel's instrument had no pedals. Instead, a separate string was provided for each chromatic note throughout its range. [source]

This performance (on pedal harp) is from 2007 by Ensemble Instrumental de Corse,
Marielle Nordmann, harp.

[YouTube link for those who don't see the embedded player.]
———-
^*If you want an orchestral version, here, in two parts, is a fine performance by Simon Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic: Part I, Part II.

^‡ [Added a day later:] A friend writes with the information that the "twin sisters" are Susan and Sarah Wang. Thanks for the information, Richard.

From about 1965, here is an hysterical "public-service" film which, today, seems reasonably amusing: "Perversion for Profit (Part I)". In it you will find out the "truth" about the perverting effects of pornography, particularly gay pornography with which, apparently, one glance turns the glancer into a twisted communist of some sort. It's worth keeping in mind that this film is from a time when homosexuality carried considerable social stigma, in addition to being both illegal and an official "mental illness". But I hasten to point out that the perversions illustrated (literally–it's difficult to known filth when you see it unless you've seen it) in the film are not limited to homosexual ones. Oh deary me no.

The description tells us: "Anti-pornography film produced by financier Charles Keating, linking pornography to the Communist conspiracy and the decline of Western civilization." The stated party responsible for its production is the "Citizens for Decent Literature, Inc." (a very early form of astroturf, evidently). I was enchanted to see that it was presented by George Putnam, "outstanding news reporter". Wow! Who wouldn't like a byline like that! His visual aids, too, are state-of-the art for that pre-PowerPoint dark age.

From Mr. Putnam's mouth:

We know that once a person is perverted, it is practically impossible impossible for that person to adjust to normal attitudes in regard to sex. [...] Never in the history of the world have the merchants of obscenity, the teachers of unnatural sex acts, had available to them the modern facilities for disseminating this filth.

Oh dear, and that was well before the internet ! Clearly we are deep into the end of civilization without even realizing it. Naturally, as a not-well-known pornographer myself, I chortle in deviant delight at these developments that help me distribute my filth and pervert the youth of America with it; I just wish there really were that much "profit" in it for me. My experience, alas, is more of the "Porn for a Pittance" type.

Of course, the main argument for stemming the tide of filth is along the "save the children" lines. However, I can't quite see what's actually upsetting the "Citizens for Decent Literature". Perhaps it was just another bid to get people all excited so that they'd contribute money to conservative causes.

There are several interesting theories presented in the film, including a sort of "gateway to depravity" theory, that a glimpse or two of one of these magazines will instantly lead young boys into investigating harder (if you'll pardon the expression) stuff.

Now, not to feed your lustful flames but solely in the interest of education and awareness of this problem, here is the link to "Perversion for Profit (Part II)".

[Thanks to Michael Shermer for pointing this out to me.]