Let's Just Set the Record Straight Right Now

Wikipedia actually has an entry called "common misconceptions." Whoa, nelly - this'll be one long article.

Via TDW.

Why I Can't Wait to Leave This Rat's Nest of a City

The latest in an apparently never-ending series.

Come the night, I like to study with a nightcap. Or seven. Anyway, the problem is that I sometimes go to a certain gay bar, in the hope that I can relax, review my notes, and have a quiet cocktail.

Sadly, no. Philadelphia (the most passive-aggressive city I have ever known) is home to gays that somehow think I would be thrilled to talk to them - notwithstanding that i) my head is buried in a book, ii) these men are walking antiques, and/or iii) my body language is very obviously and eloquently saying "go away."

To no avail. Some choice quotes from tonight's abortive attempt at studying:

"It's like I told my caseworker...."

"My son would love you."

"I don't tell my wife where I drink."

Ugh. Chicago, honey, I'm comin' back to ya!

Know Thine Audience

I just received the first issue from my one-year subscription to The New York Review of Books. The promotional cover says, prominently, under an image of (what I take to be) Sonia Sotomayor: "Welcome Wise Reader!"

Oh, sweet NYRoB: I may not be a wise Latina - or a wise anything, for that matter - but my, how you do flatter! Make that a two-year subscription.

If You Liked Das Boot

...then you will positively wet yourself over Das Tub.

Palin Knows Shit About [Blank]

Sarah Palin has received a certain amount of flak recently for using the word "refudiate," a mangling of the words "refute" and "repudiate."

Though I am a language maven, I'm not put out by this. Rather, I'm put out by the context in which she has most recently used this neologism. She is asking for "peaceful Muslims" (the adjective is an insult to Muslims) to "refudiate" the planned construction of a mosque not far from the World Trade Center site in Manhattan. I have commented on this view before, and found it wanting.

For this reason, I hereby declare that Palin knows shit about religious freedom, equal protection, and anti-bigotry. Raise your hand if you're surprised. No one? Bueller?

It's Done

Gays can marry in Argentina. Onward and upward!

And America - are you paying attention?

Distractions

Sorry for the lax blogging. I have been studying for the Illinois bar exam. I will resume active blogging when I feel like it - prolly after the exam.

Motivation

A health club in Jersey City knows where it comes from: hatred.

Heh, heh. Stupid Mel.

HT: TDW. Yes, again!

China Just Got a Bit Awesomer

Because of this.

HT: TDW.

A Spectacle in Life and in Death

I have Eastern Europe on my mind today - don't know why. Here's an interesting write-up on a new documentary called The Autobiography of Nicolae Ceausescu. The film, by Romanian director Andrei Ujica, is culled from archival footage, and is said to show the dictator's refulgent narcissism - which, as always, leads to blinding self-delusion.

Of course, we all know how that kind of thing ends. (A warning. This link is to a short clip from a documentary showing the show trial and execution of the Ceausescus on Christmas Day, 1989. It is fascinating, but remember that it shows an execution. You've had fair warning and I don't want to hear any complaints.)

The Romanian revolution of 1989 was the only one of that year to see a widespread outbreak of violence. Romanians are laudably vigilant when it comes to preserving the memory of those bloody days and the bloody regime they vanquished. An example. I visited Bucharest with two friends in 2006. We walked by the building that used to house the Securitate, Romania's notorious secret police. That building was badly damaged in the revolution, and one could well have imagined that, with their freedom won, Romanians would want to finish the job and obliterate in its entirety this symbol of their repression.

As it happens, they didn't destroy it, but they didn't exactly rebuild it, either. Instead, they built a sleek, modern, optimistic building that rises from the old building's shattered hull. It says "look forward" and "never forget" at the same time. It is very poignant.

It seems that Ujica's film does much the same thing, with celluloid instead of glass, brick, and mortar. I can't wait to see it.

Today's Captive Minds?

Tony Judt of The New York Review of Books, on the continuing relevance of Czeslaw Milosz. All goes well until Judt lurches into an odd comparison between today's regnant capitalists and communism's Kool-Aid drinkers. Well - someone has an axe to grind.

Vatican Reforms Canon Laws Concerning Abusive Priests

Here's an interesting article from The Irish Times on the matter. The main revisions:

• In "clear" cases, bishops may now defrock priests by decree alone, without having to resort to canon trial.
• Acquisition, possession, or distribution of child pornography will be treated in the same manner as direct abuse.
• The statute of limitations is extended from ten to twenty years after the victim's 18th birthday.
• All cases of abuse of a mentally handicapped person will be treated as cases of abuse of a minor, regardless of the victim's age.

The pattern of the Church is this: when your back is against the wall, take a good first step, then take no more. These reforms are good and welcome, but they are simply not enough. For instance, why is there a statute of limitations at all on abuse cases? And why doesn't canon law require bishops to report suspected cases of abuse to the civil authorities, who alone can dole out real punishment?

Argentina's Senate Approves Gay Marriage Bill

The president will sign it and make her nation the first in Latin America to recognize gay marriage. Huzzah.

Online Segregation

Here's a fascinating article on segregation in social networking, viz., Facebook is for whites, MySpace is for blacks. This shit just goes everywhere with us, doesn't it....

How America Got Its Name

It's a good story.

Best CYA Journalism of the Day

Here's a story by Ed Pilkington of the UK newspaper, The Guardian. Pilkington traveled to Manning, South Carolina recently, to interview Alvin Greene. You know Alvin Greene - the complete nobody who somehow, without so much as a campaign or an indictment-free criminal history, managed to get himself elected as the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from that state. Yeah, told you you knew him.

Anyway, the story, despite being surprisingly short, actually prompted within me the stirrings of compassion for Greene. I haven't lacked for examples of Greene showing just why he is spectacularly unsuited to either role (nominee or elected official); I was already convinced of that, and I was unmoved. But the modesty of Greene's surroundings, as described by Pilkington, really drew home just how out of his league the poor guy is. Ditto his family members, who seem to exhibit a "circle the wagons against outsiders" mentality and will undoubtedly manufacture outlandish mythologies to explain his inevitable loss.

Greene is so plainly incompetent that the campaign will necessarily be a brutal and unedifying farce. This isn't baseball, no mercy rule applies - Greene must take the inevitable pummeling through November and then he gets to go home. I love political Guignol, but to enjoy the spectacle-to-come would be little more than naked sadism.

Anyway, back to my point. Most of the article prompted such reflections on the bathos of Alvin Greene. And then, toward the end, Pilkington lurches into that annoying "two sides to every story" mode that so many journalists use to appear fair-minded when, in reality, they are just covering their asses. First, he says that

South Carolina's Democratic candidate for the US senate is a mix of glaring inadequacy and raw political conviction. He repels and inspires, moments of lucidity interspersed with moments of the complete opposite.

Not so. I defy anyone to provide one genuine example of Greene being inspirational. Let's have one genuine example of Greene's lucidity. Pilkington makes it seem as though Greene's personality is manifold and subtle. This is silly fence-straddling - whatever the problem is with Alvin Greene, it isn't complexity.

Pilkington then closes with this humdinger:

Next stop will be the main election in November in which he will face Jim DeMint, the Republican senator who will deploy all the firepower of an incumbent. Greene will be outgunned, outwitted and humiliated. He will lose in a landslide.

Now where have I heard that before?

Uh, how about "only in your crazy British head"? Is the author really trying to suggest that Greene is some kind of unknown political Wunderkind in the model of Bill Clinton? I'm all for the devil's advocate, but this is simply ludicrous. Come on. Alvin Greene is not winning the election, and he is not a Wunderkind. To suggest otherwise in the face of crushing, overwhelming evidence to the contrary is just lazy narrative-mongering. Or even worse: Pilkington actually thinks there's a chance that Greene may win and he doesn't want to find himself on the outs with South Carolina's new senator. That's the first law of journalism - thou shalt cover thine ass.

Other Peoples' Desperation Is Not Art

Don't try telling this guy, though. He collects the signs of homeless people.

But in the way the signs crystalize their makers' despair and suffering, they are quite moving, shocking even. They have an effect on you, and good art does that too. So maybe I'm wrong.

I'd definitely pass on it as a collecting interest, though. That's for sure. It may be art, but it doesn't have to be a hobby.

Most Narcissistic Indulgence of the Day

A woman has made a robot of herself. No, that's not weird, why would you think that?

"You Can't Plan a Good Themed Brunch in Seven Days, Never Mind Paradise"

...a fact often overlooked by creationists. From the "Eve" episode of Second City's series, "Sassy Gay Friend." All marrow of humor sucked clean here.

It's Like Drudge for Smart People

Check out againstdumb.com. I don't like that there's no "about" info, though. Who's behind the site? Is it the Moonies?

Regardless. Here are some headlines you probably won't see in mainstream news sources:

"Constitutional compromise and slavery"

"Tom Stoppard bemoans loss of printed word in favor of moving image"

"Ancient Greek mystery cults"

"The World That Never Was: A history of anarchists"

"Vienna, site of spy trade, no stranger to cloak-and-dagger work"

"Ian Buruma on Christopher Hitchens's memoir (and narcissim)"

"Wyatt Mason on the challenges and rewards David Foster Wallace offers his readers"

"A brief history of air conditioning"

Hello, my afternoon. Nice to meet you.

HT: Frum, via Andrew Sullivan.

The Pitfalls of Online Dating

Some interesting thoughts on online dating here. Dan Ariely of Duke thinks it focuses attention on categorizable but superficial qualities, making it difficult to form the holistic impression that underlies real attraction and compatibility.

He's probably right - but in my case, at least, the real problem is that I'm in Philly. The talent is lacking here.

Is Gill Ripe for Reversal?

Last week, in two rulings, a federal judge in Massachusetts held that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The cases were Gill v. OPM and Hill v. HHS. Of especial interest is Gill, in which DOMA was held to violate the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Blogger Jack Balkin argues that we should stash the champagne for the time being. (Helpful follow-up from Balkin on the equal protection angle here; both the initial post and the follow-up are worth reading.) He fears that Gill is in serious jeopardy of being overturned by the First Circuit or the Supreme Court. Such an outcome would make the current euphoria a mere prelude to more, and greater, disappointment.

Balkin's analysis of the court's rather ironic Tenth Amendment argument is intriguing, but what really interests me is his analysis of the court's equal protection argument. Here, Balkin echoes qualms I have always held about equal protection arguments concerning gay rights: the applicable standard, rational review, is rather easy to meet. To pass constitutional muster, a law making distinctions based on sexual orientation need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Moreover, such laws are presumptively constitutional, so the burden is on the challenging party to show unconstitutionality. By contrast, a law making distinctions on the basis of race - the archetypal "suspect class" - must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. Such a law is also presumptively unconstitutional, meaning that the government has the burden to show constitutionality.

Balkin thinks that Judge Joseph Tauro's equal protection logic is "way ahead of the national consensus[.]" Looking at the current composition of the federal appeals courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, Balkin's caution is warranted. It is far from a foregone conclusion that no rational basis exists for DOMA. That basis need not be praiseworthy, or defensible, or justified - merely rational. If an appeals court concludes that Tauro overreached, it could upset the apple cart entirely. Current jubilation over the broad scope of Judge Tauro's holding may yet give way to disappointment.

Balkin is particularly disquieted by how Judge Tauro's "animus" analysis. Laws motivated by naked animus to a particular group - and goodness knows, there's a lot of animus against gays -fail the rational review test. Here, Balkin finds it a stretch to argue that politicians who supported DOMA - like, say, Bill Clinton - were homophobes motivated by pure animus. And yet, that is how Judge Tauro concluded that animus was present.

I think Balkin is asking the wrong question here. It isn't whether the politicians that enacted DOMA can be classified as homophobes (a word I'm not keen on, by the way). It's whether they were motivated to pass DOMA by animus toward gays. That's a different question. Non-racist people can say or do racist things, often without intending to do so. Likewise, non-homophobic politicians can be motivated by animus toward gays when they enact a law that bars federal recognition of gay marriage - especially when one of the stated reasons for the law is keeping marriage to its traditional role as the preserve of heterosexuals only.

Balkin also thinks that the animus logic is weak because the politicians who voted for DOMA were motivated by fear not of gays, but of their constituents. Undoubtedly so - but this argues too much. First, the test is for animus, not fear, and they are not necessarily the same thing; animus can be motivated by imperious disdain for an especially powerless minority group from which the majority has nothing to fear. (In the words of Robert Frost, such a majority "[laughs] the loud laugh the big laugh at the little.")

Animus is a broader concept, encompassing fear but extending beyond it as well. Animus can be borne from, say, righteous certainty or cultural antipathy, and it can be reinforced by laziness and ignorance. Legislators need not fear a group to act with animus toward that group.

Second, and more importantly, the same or something similar could be said of any politician's vote. If it were always a defense to an animus charge that a legislator merely channeled his constituents' animus in order to get reelected, then when exactly does a legislator legislate with animus? And even if this point were valid - so what? In a representative democracy, isn't it assumed that politicians represent the will of their constituents? Do those constituents have some sort of right to animus that is denied to their representatives - put differently, are laws enacted directly via plebiscites (like Proposition 8) immune from an animus inquiry? I should think not. And if voters cannot directly legislate unconstitutional animus via plebiscites (not in theory, anyway - pace Prop 8), how is it that they could do so indirectly through their elected representatives?

So you don't have to fear a particular group to harbor animus toward them. And for the legislators, "just doing what my voters told me" isn't a defense. These two observations make me more sanguine, I guess, than Balkin about the animus argument in the ruling.

More broadly, however, I share Balkin's qualms and worry that today's equal protection jurisprudence is not ideally suited to resolving issues of disparate treatment of gays. Gill may be the right outcome, but now may not be the right time. In this respect, Gill echoes a broader consideration affecting all attempts to litigate gay rights issues: the current composition of the judiciary and the current construction of the applicable civil rights laws ensure that most cases will be hard-fought, and that the consequences of a potentially precedential loss could be great.

To date, gay rights activists have had a stunning string of successes in court - far more than I would have imagined. (Where is Iowa, anyway?) Moreover, the track record of litigation is today much brighter than that of political action (we all know where California is, literally and figuratively). But sometimes I feel like we are living on borrowed time; I worry that a major courtroom setback is right around the corner somewhere.

My preferred strategy for the long haul is legislation, not litigation. I would rather persuade people and their legislators of the rightness of equality for gays than litigate on not-overly-friendly terrain and risk a precedent-setting loss that could damage the cause for decades. All the same, I'll take victories where I can find them, however fleeting they are. So maybe a small glass of bubbly won't hurt.

Blago to Jurors: Be as Crooked as Me

Here's a story from Esquire. It's about the merciless beating that Rod Blagojevich (pictured at right) is taking in court, and hypothesizes that Blago's best strategy, at this point, is to pursue jury nullification. That's the name for the residual discretion that jurors have to decline conviction despite a finding of guilt. While it is not often sought, jury nullification does have an ancient pedigree in the Anglo-American legal tradition.

I take a dim view of jury nullification. The argument for it is, essentially, a plea to the subjective sympathies and views of the jurors. It involves asking the jurors to decline to convict because of some fundamental concern that - the argument goes - is not accounted for in the legal system. Jury nullification was put to ignominious use in the pre-1960s South, when white jurors would often refuse to convict white men guilty of lynching blacks. In theory, it can be a tool for securing justice despite the law; in practice, however, it has more often been a tool for securing injustice despite the law.

Furthermore, it's poor form. An attorney who argues for jury nullification - whether for fair goals or foul - is essentially asking the jurors to abdicate their role in the judicial process. Pressing for nullification is probably never unethical, but I do think that a lawyer actively undermining the judicial system is a tad, well, unseemly.

In Blagojevich's case, to pursue nullification, he would have to argue that, because corruption is widespread among politicians, no politician could withstand such scrutiny. Accordingly, the only just course is to acquit. This is the argument in Esquire.

I have some problems with this.

First, no. A logical chasm exists between the concepts "no politician could withstand such scrutiny" and "the only just course is to acquit." Why? What sense does that make? Since when do we acquit guilty politicians because there are other guilty politicians we haven't caught yet? What would make a juror want to do that? The argument makes no sense at all and is silly.

Second, also no. The factual premise "no politician could withstand such scrutiny" is not true. It just isn't. A juror hearing this argument would think: They're not all as bad as you are, Mr. Blagojevich. You have to face the fact that you are indeed bottom-of-the-class material.

Third, no again. As argued above, I think it's wrong to pursue jury nullification in almost every case - certainly in the case of a corrupt and arrogant pol like Blagojevich. Save it for very rare cases of gross injustice.

Fourth, nowhere in this article is any basis in fact given for the suggestion that Blago's legal team is actually considering such a move. This is a hypothetical scenario. I think it's important to point out things like that.

WTF of the Day

Here's a video of a Holocaust survivor visiting various European concentration camps with his family, where they dance to the tune of Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive." First impression is rather against it, I think, as being in poor taste. But I will say this: how chuffed do you think the survivor was? If his life were mine I'd do something similar. What better way to throw a last, great "eat it" at the Nazis?

Crazy Protestants Doing Crazy Protestant Things

We Catholics find ourselves on the defensive a lot these days. But it's nice that we can at least look down on these yokels.

Chimp Wars!

Yes, they happen. But a killjoy at Psychology Today wants to put the kaibosh on the conclusions that journalists have been drawing.

Still - has anyone told Karl Pilkington?

HT: Sullivan.

Double Rainbow All the Way Across the Sky

Today's video for stoners, and the inevitable remix, here.

Update: Perhaps the story is more sinister than we thought....

A Reimagining

Sometimes, Roald Dahl ain't dark enough.

(Warning: definitely not office-friendly.)

Way to Cave to the Hecklers, Boys

Playboy pulls out of Portugal (quiet in the back!) after publishing some infelicitous cover art.

Ichiro Punches Woman, Woman Way Into It

That's one way of headlining it, anyway. By the way, did none of the announcers notice that Ichiro totally copped a feel? "Fan-friendly" is right!

HT: TDW.

Passive-Aggressive Thought of the Day

It's amazing that, for as long as my blog has been up and running, I have not yet received a single comment on any of my posts. Maybe nothing I've written is good enough to deserve a comment. I guess that's the only conclusion to draw.

Oh well. (Sigh)

Mental Note

What with my discussions of the military and the French, and a few other things, I have decided that my blog has been entirely too gay of late. Time to butch things up a bit. Football's pretty damn straight, unlike other sports - I'll start there.

For Want of a Segue

...whole paragraphs have been lost. From the Wikipedia page for the French playwright Victorien Sardou:

In 1857, Sardou felt the pangs of actual want, and his misfortunes culminated in an attack of typhoid fever. He was living in poverty and was dying in his garret, surrounded with his rejected manuscripts. A lady who was living in the same house unexpectedly came to his assistance. Her name was Mlle de Brécourt. She had theatrical connections, and was a special favourite of Mlle Déjazet. She nursed him, cured him, and, when he was well again, introduced him to her friend. Déjazet had just established the theatre named after her. Every show after La Taverne was put on at this theatre. Then fortune began to smile on the author. Nine years after getting married to his first wife, she would pass away.

Emphasis mine. And for the record, that last sentence has a problem with pronoun/antecedent agreement. Did fortune herself die? Sloppy!

Gay SAT

After a brief hiatus from blogging, I'm back at it. And what better way to celebrate than with the introduction of a new recurring feature. Because I'm currently studying for the Illinois bar exam, I have tests on my mind, which probably explains why the new feature will be "Gay SAT." (Well, erm, half-explains it.)

That's right, I will periodically post questions that might appear on the SAT if it were run by the gays. (That, of course, is ridiculous, as the Freemasons currently have a lock on the test.)

The officially recognized SAT - or, as Carrie Prejean might call it, the "opposite" SAT - has 160 questions plus an essay. My goal with this feature is, over time, to create 160 questions, along with a sample essay question and response. That way, I'll have a complete test that can compete with the so-called "normal" SAT. I can start shopping it to states like Massachusetts or Iowa, or cities with gay ghettos for their high school students. Once they adopt it, I'll make a mint designing prep courses and stylish number two pencils and the like. And since no one reads this damn blog anyway, I needn't worry about the kids having the questions and answers in advance. It's brilliant!

So here we go with three questions, starting with that old SAT knockabout, the analogy. Maestro, please:

1) "Not liking showtunes" is to "moving violation" as "not going to the gym" is to:

a) Double homicide

b) Mountain

c) Lobster Thermidor

d) Plagiarism

__

2) The book Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, is about:

a) Space

b) Time

c) Both a and b

d) The best cocktail ever

__

3) Peter and Peter are planning their commitment ceremony. They have $500 between them to spend on the event. Peter spends $50 on a rabbi-priestess and $125 on fairly traded South African calla lilies. Meanwhile, Peter spends $75 on a handwoven llama hair baldacchin and $30 on a Tiffany watch (a gift for Peter). How much money do they have left over?

a) $180

b) $210

c) $175

d) Where do you get a Tiffany watch for $30?

Answers next week!