While this is a political/environmental message, it is really well done. The narrator’s voice, for example, is perfect.

via Wimp

The nastiness around Proposition 8 has generated quite a few public displays from the more mean and venal people in the US. This guy Perkins (from the Family Research Council) seems to be a typical conservative Christian right-wing political and cultural activist. He opposes the standard things – homosexuality, abortions, sexual education for youth, etc, etc. According to the wiki site he also seems comfortable utilizing the Klu Klux Klan’s support base. No surprises there.

It’s also no surprise that he can’t actually argue and that the attorney David Boies (since he can argue) makes Mr Perkins look the fool. So when I went to Dispatches From the Culture Wars on Science Blogs and started to watch the clip, I wasn’t surprised to find myself shaking my head at the foolishness of it all. What I do find continually surprising (surprisingly so) is the deep painfulness of it. I can never watch video like this straight through.

For example, at 1:15 when Perkins cites abortion as a legislative parallel (Roe vs. Wade) and he says “abortion was no where near the political issue that it is today when the court interjected itself in 1973 to this issue.” “Interjected itself?”  Excuse me! (I paused the clip there, and went to clean the bathroom.) Ms McCorvey (she who was named Jane Roe) wanted to make a decision about her pregnancy and Texas’ anti-abortion laws denied her that right. She took it to court. The court reviewed the case (and reviewed it, and reviewed it). It went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Justices made a decision.

That decision is the whole point of the presence of the court system in the US. Its purpose is to be there to adjudicate arguments in a reasonable manner in line with the laws of the nation. The use of the word “interjected” in Perkins speech implies that the court insinuated itself into a place it had no authority or standing and that is exactly what it does have. Anyway, this is an example of why I find stuff like this so very painful.  It is also when Mr Perkins lost any chance of swaying me to see his side of things. I respond to patently emotional manipulation with irreversible scepticism.

So when (at 2:55) Mr Boies is asked to respond, you see that head-titled wide smile, and I understood that smile to say (what an idiot, this is like shooting fish in a barrel). I felt included and a part of the coming judgement upon Mr Perkins in part because Mr Boies never said anything like that. He relied upon his smile, his mild gesture, upon understatement. He acted as if he trusted me to make a sensible decision. Mr Boies’ strategy is much more effective than Mr Perkins’. Both are emotional, but at this point Mr Boises has not made himself look like a fool so I am at least willing to listen.

Then Mr Boies goes on to list the problems with the speech of Mr Perkins. One particularly interesting bit: in response to the claim that the judge ignored social science data Mr Boies says (3:02) “cite studies that either don’t exist or don’t say what you say they do.” Nice. And a normal response to unsubstantiated claims – produce the evidence. “There weren’t any of those studies. There weren’t any empirical studies. That’s just made up. That’s junk science.” There are a few really good lines in there. One of them was “The witness stand is a lonely place to lie.” and “We put fear and prejudice on trial and fear and prejudice lost.”

The transcripts (or as much of them as I have read – and checking the site today it doesn’t seem to be loading) bear out the contention that there is no evidence of harm to society offered by same sex marriage. There’s also a wikipedia article on Perry v. Schwarzenegger that lists “findings of fact” and the supporting evidence (with references so you can go check it out). Those findings (and facts) are pretty interesting. You can read the complete list of facts here (starts on page 54, ends at page 109 – there are 80 0f them).

After defining what marriage is and isn’t, the section “Whether any evidence shows California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions” (starts with fact 42), decimates the idea that same sex marriage will harm society. In fact the facts show the opposite.  Despite this, I have no illusions that Mr Perkins (or the people he represents) will change their minds. I mean there are still people that think allowing interracial marriage was a mistake.

At 4:22 the host asks Perkins to give “us some evidence as to the harm that would be created by allowing same sex marriages.” Mr Perkins goes immediately to the harm done to children raised in a same-sex household. He then conflates no-fault divorce with dangers to children and implies that same-sex households offer the same dangers to children. (Pause button – my kitchen counters and cupboard doors got a good soapy wipe-down.) That seems to me to be an argument for promoting marriage amongst same sex people. If marriage (and the commitments it fosters) support healthy children, then any state should want to make marriage a viable option for those couples who want to (or are) raising children together.

Boies responds at 5:29. Same smile but here he is gesturing more emphatically, at least at the beginning. It’s as if he is responding to the tension created by Perkins’ reference to the stereotypical fears of those it does not understand or want to include in the concept “our nation.”)  He points out the fallacy of the no-fault divorce aspect of Prop 8′s proponents’ arguments. He then cites the existence of studies in other countries (Canada being one) and other states that demonstrate that there is no harm to society by allowing same sex marriage. He ends with the contrary, that empirical studies of the last 20 years show that allowing same sex marriage promotes stability and reduces harm.  By the end of his speech his arm gestures have calmed, and of course so has his audience. It was really nicely done, whether conscious or not. Take the irritation and upset caused by Perkins and undermine it (and him) by both fact and gestural calming.

How does Perkins respond? At 8:25 he uses the “interjecting” technique again and ties his idea of traditional marriage to “the history of the human race.” (Walked the dog.) Jeez. Fail, dude. Fail.

My final comment on this is about Brayton, the blogger responsible for “Dispatches From the Culture Wars.” He says “Boise absolutely destroys Perkins. It’s not a close call who wins.” While no where near as silly as Perkins’ attempt at emotional appeal, it does situate the dialog between Boies, Perkins and the commentator as a skirmish with a clear victor. That isn’t actually true because Perkins’ appeal at the end hoping for a “sane” decision from the Supreme Court and his concept of what it means to be human (and the non-empirical history of the species that was woven to support it) will not change. The “win” will not stop the cultural civil war ongoing in the US. Brayton’s comment is a fist pump celebration for a nice move on that part of one of his team’s members. It has no more relevance to the actual state of the war than a football fan’s yahoooooooo when one of the opposing team reveals his momentary clumsiness.  I get the rush, but the thing is when Prop 8 first passed in California, it was exactly the same feeling that the proponents (e.g. Tam) felt in their “victory.” I got that too. The sense of victory Brayton felt is also, just about as meaningful.

Reason can never win in a contest against emotion. At best reason can be used to foster one set of feelings (self-preservation and economic desire are good ones) that are in opposition to another set of feelings (fear and stereotyping, for example – a constant for mean and venal people). Boies’ masterful use of non-verbal emotional signals along with the constant verbal reference to reason and fact is a good model. There was no fist pumping in evidence.

By the way, it took me almost two hours to be able to watch the whole 8 or so minutes. That’s how painful I find this. Still, my bathroom is now much cleaner. So are my kitchen counters. And the dog is walked and the garden watered.

via Dispatches From the Culture Wars

I’ve been reading a compilation called The Dragonfly (named after her most famous poem). There are bits that rocket straight out of the known universe

Then it swelled up
the sack of tears
but it wasn't punctured
I'll keep it in a little
Greco-Roman vase
he'll bring it to my house
triumphant elephant of pain!

and there are brilliant moments of clarity, breath-catching in their honesty

The objective and determining mind is a neat trick.
Cosmopolitan wisdom may be the best of our
canastras. The self-determining mind may be
a cheap trick. Convinced of the contrary I pondered
the country's internal crises and observed adrift on
the town's principal river a sardine can.

She is a political poet who writes about the fractured world of Europe in the build up to the second world war. She was born in 1930 to into an Italian Jewish educated and politically active family.

She committed suicide in 1996.

also via the Wooster Collective

via the Wooster Collective

In late October of 1885 Johannes Brahms, in a town in central Germany, introduced his deeply allusive Symphony No. 4 to the world for the first time. At the same time, the Mayor of Tacoma, Jacob Robert Weisbach, his police force, and the Noble and Holy Knights of Labor decided that all the Chinese in town had to go. These European immigrants (the mayor had recently immigrated from Germany, according to The Ledger) said “the Chinese must go.”

So there I was, driving south late on this rainy Friday night. I was about 8 miles north of Tacoma when, flipping the radio, Brahms’ 3rd movement of his 4th symphony comes belting out. My head slipped sideways; the juxtaposition of what was here that fall of 1885 and what Brahms was trying to do with his 4th set off a sort of interior historical image and sensation slide that feels a bit like having multiple theaters running different films simultaneously from inside my head. I know where I am, but when is here exactly?

Of course part of my response was because I was really pretty tired my then and my imaginative filters begin to degrade under certain circumstances. It was dark, and the river of red light running up ahead of me felt, in that moment, as if it were organic, a huge powerful living thing – living in such a way that my requiem might be sung sooner than planned.

I don’t suppose a river of receding cars counts as a mob but I suppose it could feel that way if your life was threated by the power of its current and I did feel threatened. I was tired enough to know I had to stop driving soon. I wonder what the Chinese of late fall 1885 felt being herded out and forced to leave for Portland?  (And what the people in Portland felt upon receiving them.) There was talk of just killing them and thereby ending “the Chinese problem” and I suppose there were many unsolved Chinese murders during those years.

I found myself wandering through the historical and cultural landscapes so oddly intertwined by the advent of Brahms on the road past Tacoma. I was wondering if the Mayor had ever heard Brahms. Perhaps seen him at the market one day?  Did he come from the same region in Germany? Wasn’t Albert Einstein  already born then? Do beauty and civilized behaviour ever join hands? Wasn’t that the time Germany was colonizing Africa? How many people in Arizona want to end “the Mexican problem”? Did the anyone in Tacoma get the irony that their expulsion of unwanted immigrants came only a few years after the then president decided to deal with the “Indian problem” by the Indian Appropriations Act? Did they ever get that they were uninvited, unwanted immigrants? Is Starbucks still open?

Then there was this bad accident, slow traffic and Brahms ended. Starbucks was not open, my head returned to more or less normal-tired, and once past the accident scene, I drove the last 15 minutes to my friend’s house, and, in just a few minutes, will crash on her couch.

Night.

From The Onion

and then there’s this:

This shit is the best thing to come out of the US in fucking years.

via Pharyngula

I find it interesting to see how some politicians can learn to utilize the power of the internet and others just can’t seem to get the implications.

From: The Pirate Bay