Friday Gay Blogging

Just a few stories that struck my fancy. There are lots more out there.

Timothy Kincaid has a note on the Utah marriage announcement that generated a little controversy -- rather less than one would expect, all things considered. What struck me about it was this comment about recognition of gay marriages, which I've made a point of before:

Not because their state will recognize their marriage; most probably won’t. But because their neighbors will.

I've called it "social validation," and it's the main reason the word "marriage" is so important. It marks your place and status within the group, and it's a major reason I'm not willing to hand the word over to the churches -- it's not theirs.

On a related note, an article on straight support from Gay.com:

When Marisa Miller married David Wolfson last year, the couple added a statement to their vows that they both passionately believe in the right of all people to marry regardless of sexual orientation.

Of course, there's always a radical PC asshole in the mix:

Some, like Pattrice Jones, compare straight couples' efforts at solidarity to a white person joining a whites-only country club and making a quick statement of support for blacks who are excluded.

"Just don't join the club; it's that simple," said Jones, a lesbian author.

After a wedding last year in which a straight couple read a statement of solidarity with gay couples, Jones said her "gay friends rang to tell me about it. They were horrified and really annoyed. We all felt it was so wrong to grab all the benefits that marriage gives you and just make a little statement to calm your guilt."

Can we talk about the unbelievable arrogance in the comment about calming your guilt because your gay friends can't get married? Lord. Love. A. Duck. Why should this person assume that straights are guilty about getting married? I've yet to meet a straight married couple who feel guilty about it. And why should they? Particularly someone who is generous enough to use their own special day -- and it's about them, honey, not about you -- to make a statement in support of us? Y'know, Miz Jones, they didn't have to do that.

Another part of the price tag -- for DADT, anyway. This report, from Andy Towle, has that sort of irony I'd rather not see more of:

Between 1998 and 2003, the GAO found that more than 60 gay linguists were discharged from the Army under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

Now, the Army finds itself in urgent need of linguists so it is planning to offer a six-figure bonus to retain them:

Writes Steve Ralls in the Huff Post: "This morning's Christian Science Monitor reports that the Army is preparing to offer a staggering $150,000 retention bonus to service members who are proficient in Arabic, "in reflection of how critical it has become for the US military to retain native language and cultural know-how in its ranks."

So, in addition to a moral waiver for your drug-dealing, wife-beating, petty larceny, or whatever, if you speak Arabic you can make a bundle just by staying in. Nice deal.

Kanye West seems to have made himself a one-man hip-hop pro-gay army. From Towleroad, this video:



And via Joe.My.God, this quote:

Open your fucking minds. Open your minds. Be accepting of different people and let people be who they are. You know how many people came to me calling me gay cause I wear my jeans the fresh way? Or because I said hey, dude, how you gonna say 'fag' right in front of a gay dude's face and act like that's ok. That shit is disrespectful.

Also via Joe, some interesting news about divorce rates among married gays -- or, in this case, "civil unioned."

Between December 2005, when gay and lesbian couples gained the legal right to formalise their relationships, and December 2007, there were 24,629 civil partnerships in England and Wales.

Couples have to wait at least a year before they can apply for a dissolution of their partnership.

Her Majesty's Court Service told PinkNews.co.uk that between December 2006 to 28th July 2008, there have been just 245 petitions for a dissolution.

As Joe notes:

Of course, most of those civil unioned in the first year were probably long-time couples whose relationships had already weathered many years, possibly making them less likely to separate quickly. Still, I find this 1% number rather remarkable.

So do I. I suspect that in fifty years, divorce rates might be comparable, after it's no longer such a struggle to get married in the first place. But maybe not.

And in a related note, Joe -- who is a wellspring of news this week -- pointed us to this report on adoption:

Men are twice as likely as women to adopt a child, the CDC's latest adoption figures show. There are a number of surprises in the CDC data, which come from 2002-2003 interviews with a nationally representative sample of 12,571 U.S. residents aged 15 to 44.

At least part of this seems to be fueled by gay male couples wanting children:

"We've seen an increase in same-sex couples adopting, and this is a trend all over the country," Hober tells WebMD. "If you think about same-sex couples, gay men who want children really have to adopt, but gay women can have their own children. I don't see as many gay female couples adopting as gay male couples."

So much for the "selfish hedonist" meme.

Dessert by Parou Tudo, thanks to Made in Brazil.



And as an added treat, watch the video:



I mean, is he cute, or what?

TTFN

Link Dump

Not much energy this morning -- I'm just sort of drained from the past couple of weeks. (Gods! How did I ever manage working 60 hours a week? I can't even do 40 these days without it showing.)

At any rate, some stories/posts that deserve your attention:

Another Proposition

Via Andrew Sullivan, news about another proposition on the California ballot. Worth a "yes" vote, I'd say.

Good News

This one's around: over 125,000 lowland gorillas discovered in previously unexamined territory.

Hamdan

This post from Davenoon at LG&M sort of summarizes the whole mess that the trial of Salim Hamdan typifies: our legal system is a shambles, we have no moral authority left, and everything this administration has done in the "war on terror" it has created has backfired badly. Heckuva job, fellas.

Song

Maybe it's just me, who peers out periodically from the citadel of "high art" music into popular culture, but I am eternally amazed by the musical sophistication displayed by the better pop and rock groups. There are exceptions, of course, in which the ideal is a total lack of sophistication and "artifice" (by which they seem to mean that for an artist to actually create a work of art is somehow selling out).

I've been listening, as you probably know if you're following my jottings at all, to Nickelback. Mostly All the Right Reasons, which is probably their best album to date, but also more recently Silver Side Up, which I believe was my introduction to their music some years ago. (Yeah, well, it was one of those "sitting in a bar and this good song came on the jukebox, and I went over to check it out" sort of things. I think it was that disc, but don't quote me on it -- I was pretty foggy at that point.)

You have to be prepared to listen, I mean really listen, and you have to be prepared to take it seriously. One of the downsides of music-as-context, as opposed to music-as-event, is that it's a given, and we tend not to pay much attention to it. It's always there, and most of it's of indifferent quality. (Sturgeon's Law, again.)



And so over the past couple of years I've been struck by the sheer amazing musical inventiveness and sophistication of such groups as Depeche Mode, Icehouse, Journey, and now Nickelback. (A note: I had no idea how popular they were when I encountered them. I didn't care -- hell, John Tavener isn't "popular" in that sense, and I love his music. I still don't have a good handle on it, except I understand that Depeche Mode and Journey are megabands, Icehouse pretty much ignored, and Nickelback resented -- at least, that's what it seems like.)

Beethoven can make me cry. Picture this -- a concert many years ago by the Fine Arts Quartet, a series for which we had tickets, and that night's program included the fifteenth quartet, the Op. 132, which is one of the most affecting pieces of music I've ever heard. Boyfriend is sitting there rapt and glances over to his boyfriend (that would be me) during the "Heilige Dankgesang." He got all worried because I was sitting there with tears streaming down my face -- I'm talking floods here, an effing tidal wave. That damned piece just destroyed me. Gods, it was so honest and so beautiful!

Something like "How You Remind Me" or "Savin' Me" can do the same thing -- maybe not the tears, but the same emotional state, the involvement, the complete submersion in what's going on in the song. It's the honesty, I think, and there's a misunderstanding that so many young artists act on: you don't have to be artless to be honest. That's why making good art is so damned hard. It's too easy to get lost in the effects, to move into the worship of form over substance (one of my main objections to Minimalism and Deconstructivism), and to lose the genuine impulse that caused the whole thing to begin with, to forget why you're doing it, but you have to walk that edge or you're just making noise. Emotion without craft is just acting out.

I should also note that I have no patience with "cool." At least, not in the realm of art. (Maybe that's why I don't like jazz very much -- it just strikes me as cold and intellectual, and I look for hot and passionate. Yes, I can reconcile Depeche Mode with that -- that kind of irony requires engagement, but expressing it needs distance -- you can't have the one without the other, after all.) That's probably another reason I like Nickelback: they are not "cool" at all. They are warm and yeasty and unruly. And amazing craftsmen.

This has been another installment of "what to write about when the political news is too much 'same old'."

Rushing

Which is faintly obscene at this hour, but there you have it.

It's the price you pay for getting up early, but waking up slowly.

Excelsior!

(Probably no post today, but I did update the "Damned if you do" post from yesterday.)

Reviews in Brief: Yaya Sakuragi's Tea for Two, Vol. 2

To start off, go read my review of Vol. 1 of Sakuragi's Tea for Two at Epinions.com so the rest of this will make some sense to you.

There -- got a handle on it?

Not that the story is so complicated, but it gets more so in Vol. 2: Tokumaru and Hasune are an established couple now, although a secret one: the sense is that this kind of relationship is not thoroughly approved, although not strongly disapproved in general. Tokumaru has gotten over his shyness about sex, although he still objects to PDAs, even if they're not so public. It's fairly obvious, however, that on Hasune's end of the equation the ruling paradigm has become desire (which, let me note, is a much more complex emotion than simple lust). In fact, the boys' mutual desire now forms the basis of their relationship.

Into this almost-idyll drops Tokumaru's old school friend Goh, who has returned from a year abroad and winds up in Tokumaru's class. Goh is now married and the father of twins, and his dedication and determination to go back and contribute to his new community start Tokumaru thinking about his own future. Then Hasune starts having doubts about his own life -- he is the next head of the family and the next grand master of the tea ceremony, a tradition his family has maintained for generations. He starts to resent what he sees as his lack of freedom in making his own choices. He breaks away and meets Tokumaru, whose reaction, as might be guessed, is the opposite of the expected: he understands, although he can't articulate it very well, the love that Hasune has for his family's traditions, and is appalled at his lover's rebellion. After all, he fell in love with Hasune watching him perform the tea ceremony. To add to his confusion, Goh has suggested that Tokumaru consider traveling with him after graduation as a way of finding his path in life.

Just to make it a little more complicated, Tokumaru, being the impulsive big-mouth he is, comes out to his sister -- by mistake -- and to Goh. His sister is pissed because all of her friends are in love with Hasune; Goh doesn't really approve, but he understands.


The humor that was such a marked element of the first volume is still here, but muted. It forms a gentle, sympathetic undercurrent to what is, after all, a story about kids turning into adults and starting to make decisions about their lives. What I find remarkable is the way that both Tokumaru and Hasune seem to take shape before our eyes, turning from harum-scarum (and in Hasune's case, fairly randy) teenagers into young adults grappling with their futures. The relatively simple motivations become more complex: Tokumaru shows a degree of thoughtfulness and concern for others that are new for him -- it seems that Goh's maturity is rubbing off on him a bit -- while Hasune's eternal horniness is tempered by tenderness and he is able to be much more forthcoming about his insecurities, at least with Tokumaru.

High recommendations again -- this is still one of the best yaoi series I've run across, and it's getting even better: even though the boys are surrounded by sympathy and understanding, the conflicts are real. It's fun watching them start to grow up.

From Blu Manga, and it's just out.

Damned If You Do. . . . (revised and updated)

Well, it looks as though the Daily Dish has folded itself firmly into the McCain Attack Machine. It seems that Barack Obama has played the race card, according to McCain, and Chris Bodenner finds that, yes, he did -- by responding to McCain's attack:

I have no doubt that the increasingly-desperate McCain campaign, bereft of any affirmative arguments for their candidate, will try to subtly inject and amplify identity politics in order to corral white, working-class voters (McCain all of a sudden opposes AA in Arizona? What a coincidence!). But I think Obama's in the wrong here. For a while now, he's oh-so-subtly insinuated on the stump that Republicans will highlight his race to portray him "out of the mainstream." He's right, of course -- some will, and some have (including McCain). But that shouldn't be an excuse for Obama to point it out directly, as a way of eliciting sympathy from voters. If he wants to call out Republicans for their cynical use of cultural warfare, stick with sound-bytes like "he's got a funny name" or "he's not patriotic enough." But if Obama really wants to be a "post-racial" candidate who "transcends race," he should abstain from offering up any reference to how others will portray him as black.

This is one of those no-win situations for Obama, and reminds me of nothing so much as the recent reports that McCain's campaign had ready, in addition to the ad attacking Obama for not visiting the troops in Landstuhl, an ad attacking him for visiting the troops, if he had done so. (And the motivations for the Pentagon's actions in that whole scene are questionable, at best.)

So there's no need for Obama to invoke it himself. Doing so will only give the McCain campaign an excuse to cease upon it, distort it, and feed it to the black hole of identity politics.

But one hallmark of Obama's campaign, and of he himself as a campaigner, is that he confronts these things directly. The McCain campaign doesn't need an excuse -- pardon me, but it's being run by Rove's henchmen now, or hadn't anyone noticed? If they can't find something in reality, they will make it up. The purpose is not to bring forth legitimate challenges to Obama, but to get the smears into the discussion, and Bodenner is falling right into line. Bodenner is, I think, missing the damned-if-you-do element here: if Obama doesn't respond to this sort of thing, it goes unchallenged and becomes "true"; if he does, he's accused of playing the race card.

Sullivan, now that he is back in the saddle, thinks Bodenner's argument is hunky-dory. I suppose this gives him a chance to prove that he really is a Republican, after all.

So far, my hope for a substantive, elevated debate between Obama and McCain has not exactly been borne out, has it?

You sort of have to wonder where Sullivan's brain has been: just ask yourself which candidate has been talking about issues and programs, and which one has turned to attack ads.

Update:

Jake Tapper makes a breathtaking stroke toward regaining the title of "stupidest git in Washington" with this comment:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does it not seem as if Obama just said McCain and his campaign -- presumably the "they" in this construct -- are saying that Obama shouldn't be elected because he's a risk because he's black and has a foreign-sounding name?

Jake, Jake, Jake -- you just don't get it: McCain's back to the tried-and-true tactics of Karl Rove here: let your undercover surrogates say all this shit so you don't get pinned with it. Have you noticed who's running St. John's campaign now?

Of course not.

Barbara O'Brien provides her usual penetrating analysis of the whole issue.

Update II:

As a further fillip to Tapper's cluelessness, read this bit from CNN's Political Ticker, quoting an ad from the McCain campaign:

“It shall be known that in 2008 the world will be blessed. They will call him ‘The One,’” says the announcer in the minute-long video, over images of light shining from the heavens and a gospel music-like soundtrack, interspersed with clips drawn from Obama speeches.

“And he has anointed himself. Ready to carry the burden of The One,” continues the announcer. “He can do no wrong. Can you see the light?”

And from Pam's House Blend, we get the key to the code:

Are you a Democrat? Are you an Obama supporter? If so, you probably didn't read the "Left Behind" series, and you might not even recognize these code words:

"The One"

"Anointed Himself"

These are phrases about the Antichrist.

'Nuff said?

Update III:

Jed Lewison gets it, as does Joe Trippi (Well, pretty much -- I think Lewison's misreading Bodenner's comments.)

He's Such A Card!

More on Orson Scott Card's hysterical and ill-informed anti-gay screed from John Scalzi. Worth a read, and the comments are quite good as well.

I should note, also, that this is not the Orson Scott Card I remember from Songmaster. Not at all.

National Radio Hall of Fame Follow-up

Well, I wasn't able to post my comment on this article at the Chicago Reader: their filters didn't like my HTML, and I couldn't figure out why not. Update: Took out the links, got it posted. Here it is anyway, but please read the article first:

The induction of James Dobson into the National Radio Hall of Fame is another example of the reasons for the disdain in which Americans have come to hold the traditional media. Regrettably, this article and Deanna Isaacs' handling of Bruce DuMont do nothing to save the situation. There are two important points here on which Isaacs gave DuMont a pass when he should have been challenged.

First, the "election." "The public has spoken?" Please. Anyone who pays attention to these things knows that the only thing an on-line poll demonstrates is who has the largest e-mail list. PZ Myers of Pharyngula regularly invites his readers to skew the results of polls on right-wing sites, and he's certainly not alone in that, on either end of the political spectrum. On-line elections are a prime example of the old Chicago mantra, "Vote early and often." Why should we think the results of this one were somehow pure? And why was DuMont allowed to get away with this assertion?

Second, and by far the more egregious miss on Isaacs' part, is the implicit idea that the protest is somehow a function of the left's attempt to stifle dissent, which is a right-wing talking point that DuMont exploits and I'm sure Dobson is only too happy to see in print. Contrary to DuMont's assertion, this is not only about "political philosophy," and the principal objection is not to what Dobson says, repellent as it is. Most of those protesting would, I think, be among the first to support Dobson's right to voice his beliefs. The fact is, which both Wayne Besen and Rick Garcia mention in their comments quoted here, that Dobson is a liar. He regularly misrepresents facts and, when that doesn't work, makes them up. This is not at all an unfounded assertion: it's well documented and is a characteristic of socially regressive extremists, of which Dobson is only the most prominent example. (Box Turtle Bulletin is only one Web site that regularly documents instances of these distortions.)

This reflexive mendacity is what is being affirmed by this induction, and yet Isaacs meekly accepts DuMont's claim that there is no criterion for "political philosophy" and slides past the real objections -- apparently there are no criteria for veracity and integrity, as well. (And in that light, DuMont's sanctimonious appeal to "fairness" in his comment speaks for itself.)

If anyone wonders why the traditional media has so little credibility these days, one only need read something like this.

Bleh

Unlike, apparently, thousands of other blogs, I'm up and running today. Unfortunately, it's been a hard task finding something to comment on. Check back later -- if nothing else, I may cross-post a comment to an article in the Chicago Reader I'm thinking about right now. It's really illustrative of the plight of the traditional media and why its reputation is in the toilet.

Friday Gay Blogging, with Wingnut Watch

Now There Are Two

The big news of the week is Massachusetts' repeal of its 1913 out-of-state marriage law. From 365gay.com:

The Massachusetts House has repealed a 1913 law used to bar the marriages of same-sex couples who are residents of states which would not recognize their unions. The measure already has passed the Senate and Gov. Deval Patrick (D) has said he will sign it.

Watch for New York and New Jersey to legalize SSM within a year.

Update:: Gov. Patrick has signed the bill, which includes a waiver of the usual 90-day waiting period before it becomes effective. It's a go.

Proposition 8

Is probably going down the tubes. From LA Times, via Joe.My.God (as well as others), this news:

Giving a financial and public relations boost to gay marriage proponents, PG&E announced today that it is giving $250,000 to the No on Proposition 8 campaign.

The utility also said it will spearhead the formation of a business advisory council that will seek to get other businesses around California to to defeat the ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

This comes hard on the heels of the announcement that WordPerfect founder Bruce Bastian is donating $1 million to the cause.

And the California attorney general's office has made its own move. The right wing, of course, is turning to activist judges:

In a move made public last week and applauded by same-sex marriage proponents, the attorney general's office changed the language to say that Proposition 8 seeks to "eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry."

Jennifer Kerns, spokeswoman for the Protect Marriage coalition, called the new language "inherently argumentative" and said it could "prejudice voters against the initiative."

Proponents of the measure said they want voters to see ballot language similar to what was on the petitions that began circulating last fall.

"This is a complete about-face from the ballot title that was assigned" when the measure was being circulated for signatures, Kerns said.

On the other side, Steve Smith, campaign manager for No on Proposition 8, applauded the language change.

"What Proposition 8 would do is eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry, which is exactly what the attorney general put in the title of the measure," he said. "It will be very difficult for them to win the case."

Political analysts on both sides suggest that the language change will make passage of the initiative more difficult, noting that voters might be more reluctant to pass a measure that makes clear it is taking away existing rights.

Dale Carpenter on Obama on Same-Sex Marriage

This is a couple of weeks old, and I may have mentioned it before, but here's a really dumb article from Dale Carpenter on Obama's positions on same-sex marriage and Proposition 8.

n a recent statement, Barack Obama said that he rejects "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and similar efforts in other states. At the same time, Obama has repeatedly said that he opposes gay marriage. While his views are perplexing as a matter of logic, this episode reminds us that Obama is, after all, a politician who’s trying to get elected.

I don't think I'd be too far off base to interpret this to mean Carpenter is anti-Obama, and that concerns on same-sex marriage are secondary to getting an anti-Obama piece published.

There's really a very simple answer, which Carpenter touches on tangentially in his piece but doesn't really address head-on (of course, if he did, there would be no article): Like Arnold Schawrzenegger, Obama believes marriage is between a man and a woman, but also that his personal beliefs should not be the law of the land.

There -- that wasn't so hard now, was it?

Update: John Corvino has an equally convolute post making much of nothing on this issue. It's quite similar to Carpenter's.

Obama’s not alone in this apparent contradiction: Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state’s Republican governor, holds a similar juxtaposition of beliefs: that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that the state’s supreme court did the right thing by declaring California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

What contradiction? Gentlemen, I have a news flash for you: this is the way an American should think. It appears that neither writer can wrap his head around the concept of the law as something separate from personal beliefs, which is something that Obama, McCain, and Schwarzenegger seem to have figured out quite nicely. I think that just demonstrates the toxic effect of the right-wing noise machine on public discourse in recent years.

Orson Scott Card: A Special Tribute

Here's a commentary on Orson Scott Card's latest anti-gay screed. The man's getting really unhinged. And his books have gotten boring.

Dessert later -- I'm not finding anything I love right now.

Update: Whee! Found something nice, courtesty of Made in Brazil:

Calling BS on Aravosis

AmericaBlog is one that I read daily, with full awareness that it's rabidly partisan, often shrill, and sometimes borderline unhinged. This one, however, stopped me cold. Citing this WaPo story, John Aravosis says in his post:

Washington Post calls being gay a "lifestyle choice"

[. . .]

And it's not just the headline, it's in the article itself. They're talking about being gay (unless they're going to claim that they meant opposing abortion is a "lifestyle choice," and if so, they're entering Alice in Wonderland territory).

In point of fact, no.

In the online version of the story, the headline is different, and the only use of the term "lifestyle choices" in in the lede:

For nearly two years, a young political aide sought to cultivate a "farm system" for Republicans at the Justice Department, hiring scores of prosecutors and immigration judges who espoused conservative priorities and Christian lifestyle choices.

I think we can all agree that a "Christian life" is a matter of choice.

Even in the version Aravosis has posted, the "lifestyle choices" bit in the subhead can't really be taken as a reference to gays. The widest interpretation, as far as I can see, still leaves it value-neutral, and the obvious connotation is that it's about the right wing.

There's been plenty to criticize WaPo for over the past few years, enough that I don't think we need to make shit up. I've seen Aravosis spin stuff until it made me dizzy, but this is beyond the Pale. (He's even got this one labeled "gay." Please.) One of the advantages Left Blogistan has over Right Blogistan is that we don't do that.

Let's keep it that way.

DADT: The Video

I hadn't realized how screamingly funny the testimony supporting DADT could be.




Brian Jones is a laugh riot even without Jon Stewart's commentary.

And This Is News

Exactly how? From NYT, confirmation of what was pretty obvious:

Senior aides to former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales broke Civil Service laws by using politics to guide their hiring decisions, picking less-qualified applicants for important nonpolitical positions, slowing the hiring process at critical times and damaging the department’s credibility, an internal report concluded on Monday. . . .

The report, prepared by the Justice Department’s inspector general and its internal ethics office, centered on the misconduct of a small circle of aides to Mr. Gonzales, including Monica Goodling, a former top adviser to the attorney general, and Kyle Sampson, his former chief of staff. It also found that White House officials were actively involved in some hiring decisions.

According to the report, officials at the White House first developed a method of searching the Internet to glean the political leanings of a candidate and introduced it at a White House seminar called The Thorough Process of Investigation. Justice Department officials then began using the technique to search for key phrases or words in an applicant’s background, like “abortion,” “homosexual,” “Florida recount,” or “guns.”

The levels of corruption achieved by the so-called "values" wing of the political spectrum are more or less stupefying. Whether Goodling can be charged with perjury is, when it comes right down to it, an open question, but "prevarication" seems to be her middle name.

It's All One Thing

Which is actually the title of Will Shetterly's blog. (Shetterly is a marvelous writer who needs to write more stories.)

However, this is about something different.

First, from Marshall Jon Fisher in The Atlantic, an essay on bike messengers from 1997:

Although couriers spend their days delivering the packages that keep corporate America running, they share a distrust of authority and a disdain for the pallid indoor worker. Ford, who is twenty-six, graduated from Wesleyan University with a dual degree in studio arts and premed. Like a number of messengers I have talked to, he was thoughtful and articulate, despite the Dudes and "like"s peppering his speech. His goatee twitched and his tongue studs flashed as he spoke in a machine-gun rhythm. "I was thinking about medical school, but this is just so much more entertaining. Why would I want to forfeit my youth to go to medical school?"

Next, what may be the next breakthrough in physics:

Lisi knows that by even addressing the Einstein comparison he risks coming off as a lunatic, but too many people have reached for the E-word for him to ignore it totally. "Yeah, I am a guy working on physics outside of academia," he says, shuffling his bear paws on the Pergo floor. "But I'm nowhere near Einstein's caliber. Certainly in terms of what I've accomplished, and also because this theory might be wrong. It's not a justified comparison."

There's nothing unusual about Lisi suggesting that he might be off target. Only one grand theoretical picture of reality can be correct, after all—both mathematically consistent and experimentally validated against the real world. All the rest are just scribblings on paper. What is truly peculiar is that this scientist hobo, a man who abandoned the security of academia to take his chances as a physics nomad, has any shot at all at being right.

What's the connection? you say.

According to Joshua Goldstein, a demographer at Princeton, adolescence will in the future evolve into a period of experimentation and education that will last from the teenage years into the mid-thirties. In a kind of wanderjahr prolonged for decades, young people will try out jobs on a temporary basis, float in and out of their parents' homes, hit the Europass-and-hostel circuit, pick up extra courses and degrees, and live with different people in different places. In the past the transition from youth to adulthood usually followed an orderly sequence: education, entry into the labor force, marriage, and parenthood. For tomorrow's thirtysomethings, suspended in what Goldstein calls "quasi-adulthood," these steps may occur in any order.

From our short-life-expectancy point of view, quasi-adulthood may seem like a period of socially mandated fecklessness—what Leon Kass, the chair of the President's Council on Bioethics, has decried as the coming culture of "protracted youthfulness, hedonism, and sexual license."

Actually, I tend to think youthfulness, hedonism and sexual license are good things, which is probably why I'm not a Republican. Aside from that, though, I find the idea of social drop-outs as a defining element of culture a fascinating one.

Just think about the possibilities.

(All via Patrick Appel at Daily Dish.)

McCain on Gay Adoption: Incoherent At Best

Again from Patrick Appel, this choice segment from a McCain interview with George Stephanopolous:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What is your position on gay adoption? You told the “New York Times" you were against it, even in cases where the children couldn’t find another home. But then your staff backtracked a bit. What is your position?

MCCAIN: My position is, it’s not the reason why I’m running for president of the United States. And I think that two parent families are best for America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, what do you mean by that, it’s not the reason you’re running for president of the United States?

MCCAIN: Because I think — well, I think that it’s — it is important for us to emphasize family values. But I think it’s very important that we understand that we have other challenges, too. I’m running for president of the United States, because I want to help with family values. And I think that family values are important, when we have two parent — families that are of parents that are the traditional family.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there are several hundred thousand children in the country who don’t have a home. And if a gay couple wants to adopt them, what’s wrong with that?

MCCAIN: I am for the values that two parent families, the traditional family represents.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’re against gay adoption.

MCCAIN: I am for the values and principles that two parent families represent. And I also do point out that many of these decisions are made by the states, as we all know. And I will do everything I can to encourage adoption, to encourage all of the things that keeps families together, including educational opportunities, including a better economy, job creation. And I’m running for president, because I want to help families in America. And one of my positions is that I believe that family values and family traditions are preserved.

WTF?

As several commentators have pointed out, a gay couple is two-parent family.

Reviews in Brief: Makoto Tateno's Yellow

Makoto Tateno is a mangaka doing yaoi whose work I've learned to keep an eye out for. The first series I happened across by her was Yellow, an action adventure involving two "snatchers," free-lancers who recover illegal drugs for various clients, usually the police. Inside the larger story line, there are several substories of the more-or-less standard cops-and-robbers variety.

Taki and Goh are partners: they are snatchers and get their assignments from Tsunuga, the somewhat mysterious owner of the cafe below the apartment they share and where they take their meals. Goh’s attempts to seduce Taki form an ongoing motif throughout the series. We see Taki’s resistance start to erode in Volume 2, as we also see more and more that Goh is quite serious in his feelings. This "main" story finally becomes the focus in the third volume: Taki, as might be expected, has a dark secret in his past, and when he realizes how that secret has come back to occupy his present, in the guise of two assassins who have come back for him, he is devastated. He also realizes that he loves Goh, who the assassins see as an impediment to their goal. All the threads come together in the last two volumes -- Taki's past, Tsunuga's past, the assassins who call themselves the "Sandfish," and Taki's growing love for Goh.

Oddly enough, if you search this series online, you will meet a repeated blurb that claims Taki is masculine and straight, and Goh is feminine and gay. Nothing could be farther from the truth: yes, Taki is straight and Goh is gay, but both are tough, aggressive men (and, in fact, Goh is the seme to Taki's uke). It’s a treat to see in this series the interplay between these two, particularly as the final crisis comes and we realize just how deeply their feelings for each other run.

Tateno's graphic style falls well within the standard for manga; the men are slender and muscular, with elfin features. One notes that Taki's eyes are more prominent than Goh's, which I'm coming to take as a signal as to which partner will be uke and which seme in a yaoi.

The series is published by Digital Manga Press, and I do recommend it highly: it’s a cut above most in this genre in the complexity of characters, and there’s a refreshing dearth of big-eyed waifs. There is a more detailed discussion at Epinions.

A note: The covers in this series accurately reflect the black-and-white graphics inside, which doesn't always happen.

PZ Myers

PZ Myers

I've quite deliberately refrained from commenting on PZ Myers and the consecrated cracker controversy. If you want to backtrack on it, you can do a search at Pharyngula. However, a reader at Daily Dish has composed a forceful and passionate commentary on the issue. The key quote:

That bears repeating: this is not the middle east; this is not the middle ages. This is a free society. And in a free society, there exists no right to not be offended. If the Catholic church can get away with desecrating what others consider sacred (or, for those of us who have no concept of sacredness, at least special) - if they can call a loving union between two gay men or women an "abomination", if they can call the union into which I hope to enter someday a "perversion", then damn it, I reserve the right to desecrate what they consider sacred also. Respect is a two-way street - if they want my respect, they must give me theirs. If they want Myers to respect them, they must also respect him (and Mr. Cook for that matter). But this is something of which religion in general seems incapable - they always want respect, but reserve the right to give none in return.

The Church's history is one of cynicism, arrogance, and exploitation. And for that it deserves my respect? I think not.

Read the whole thing.

Morality

Good post by Barbara O'Brien at Mahablog on the composition of evil. I've called it "the abuse of power," which I think incorporates her comments on empathy, but she may be going a level deeper. Worth a read.

Not the Brightest Porch Light on the Block

It's hard to pinpoint that one, sometimes, but fortunately, it seems lately that all you have to do as a default is check out K-Lo's posts at The Corner. Via John Cole, this gem:

If Obama could go to Germany and give a speech in English and be not only understood but well-received, why does he say we all need to learn another language?

Cole didn't include this part, which I think is even funnier:

I say that as a big proponent of Latin learning. But I'm guessing Obama had other languages in mind ...

Does anyone really wonder why I think the right is just totally clueless?

(And, for those who are about to say I've missed the point, no -- I get it. It's just that Lopez' sense of humor is about as polished as that of any other right-wing hack.)

Wingnut Watch

A post by The Author at Pam's House Blend with a timeline of anti-gay Christianist distortions of social science research.

The reason they do this is obvious: they can't find any legitimate research that supports their agenda.

And they have no problems with lies in the service of Christ.