I have to submit an unbridled plug for a friend of mine. Nathalie, darling, I am so proud of you!
For those of you who don't know her, she is a good friend of mine from back in the Philadelphia Film Festival days. She is one of those women who is a triple threat: beautiful, intelligent and talented. The last time I saw her was when she was attending Columbia and I was living in NYC. It has seriously been YEARS.
And I recently sent out a blind email to all the old email addresses I have in my address book, and lo and behold, Nathalie responded. Even more amazing? She is here in DC, doing some incredibly important work. I suggest you check out this site and keep up with what is really going on in the world around you...
Friday, June 30, 2006
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
My life is mediocrity
You may have noticed that I posted a lot of educational/political stuff lately. The real reason behind that is the fact that I have no life. With my back out and all my friends busy with real lives - oh, and with Anthony off in Pakistan and Afghanistan with Secretary Rice - I have been stuck at home every day after work with nothing but two evening walks with Grace to look forward to.
Do you want to know how bad it is? Do you really? Yesterday, Grace, Pookie and I lounged on the bed from 4PM on, first watching World Cup soccer (I missed Ghana and Brazil, but I was there to see France kick some Spanish arse), then a little bit of Cash Cab on the Discovery Channel, quickly followed by a mean preparation of vegetarian rice something-or-other, and more lounging and watching Adrian Grenier in 1999's deliciously mediocre teenage dramedy, Drive Me Crazy, with Melissa Joan Hart.
The excitement for this evening? Garlic pasta, garlic bread, and good old Nanny McPhee. Life doesn't get any sweeter than this.
Do you want to know how bad it is? Do you really? Yesterday, Grace, Pookie and I lounged on the bed from 4PM on, first watching World Cup soccer (I missed Ghana and Brazil, but I was there to see France kick some Spanish arse), then a little bit of Cash Cab on the Discovery Channel, quickly followed by a mean preparation of vegetarian rice something-or-other, and more lounging and watching Adrian Grenier in 1999's deliciously mediocre teenage dramedy, Drive Me Crazy, with Melissa Joan Hart.
The excitement for this evening? Garlic pasta, garlic bread, and good old Nanny McPhee. Life doesn't get any sweeter than this.
Depressing stuff
In today's Express:
Jury Finds 9 Guilty in Shooting Death of Newlywed
Copenhagen, Denmark
Nine people were convicted on Tuesday of murder or accessory to murder in the killing of a 19-year-old woman gunned down by her older brother because her Pakistani family disapproved of her choice of husband. The jury returned guilty verdicts against the nine, all family members or friends, for the murder of Ghazala Khan. Sentencing is expected as early as Wednesday.
Ugh, ugh, UGH.
Jury Finds 9 Guilty in Shooting Death of Newlywed
Copenhagen, Denmark
Nine people were convicted on Tuesday of murder or accessory to murder in the killing of a 19-year-old woman gunned down by her older brother because her Pakistani family disapproved of her choice of husband. The jury returned guilty verdicts against the nine, all family members or friends, for the murder of Ghazala Khan. Sentencing is expected as early as Wednesday.
Ugh, ugh, UGH.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
On a greener note
The Supreme Court is now hearing a case intended to force the EPA to curtail carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping chemicals from automobile tailpipes. Spearheaded by the state of Massachusetts (GO MASSHOLES!), the case is challenging the Bush administration on their stance on global warming.
The following article that I pulled off the internet (that was in turn pulled off of the Environment News Service site) explains the issue more clearly than I ever could:
A coalition of 12 states, three major cities, one island government and several environmental groups Friday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.
The coalition, led by Massachusetts, is asking the court to review a decision issued last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA. That ruling let stand the EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly and the other parties argue that "this case goes to the heart of EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time."
"If ever there was a case that warranted Supreme Court review, this is it," Reilly said. "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to address the problem of global warming."
The petition maintains that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent on statutory interpretation, because it allowed EPA to refuse to regulate greenhouse gases based on policy considerations outside the scope of the Clean Air Act.
"Delay has serious potential consequences," the petition states. "Given that air pollutants associated with climate change are accumulating in the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the window of opportunity in which we can mitigate the dangers of climate change is rapidly closing."
The petition claims that the EPA "arbitrarily and capriciously" concluded that the Clean Air Act does not provide the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The petition states that the Supreme Court's review "is necessary to prevent the agency from continuing to claim that a decision of this Court prevents it from taking regulatory action to address climate change."
The case originated in 1999, when various environmental groups filed an administrative rulemaking petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.
In August of 2003, the EPA denied the pending rulemaking petition. At that time, EPA also stated that, as a policy matter, it would not set motor vehicle emission standards even if it had authority. In October of 2003, this decision was challenged.
On July 15, 2005, the federal appeals court for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 to let the EPA's current position on greenhouse gas pollutants stand. In August, the full bench of the appeals court for the D.C. Circuit was asked to hear the case. The court denied that request with a 4-3 decision, paving the way for the Supreme Court appeal.
The parties to this lawsuit include states with both Republican and Democratic administrations - California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, the District of Columbia, American Samoa Government, and the cities of New York and Baltimore.
"Scientists are clear about the danger that global warming poses to public health and the environment," said New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber.
"What also is clear, and what was affirmed by two prior EPA general counsel, is that EPA has authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming," Farber said. "We cannot permit EPA to walk away from its responsibility in this critical area."
"Global warming is one the biggest threats facing the planet and we cannot delay action," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Left unchecked, it can cause devastation to our economy, public health, natural resources. It is time for the Environmental Protection Agency to step up and fulfill its responsibility to fight this problem."
The environmental groups that are parties to the lawsuit include the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
"The lower court's blatant punting on global warming is a travesty. Despite the plain and simple language of the law the lower court refused to act," said John Stanton, vice president for the National Environmental Trust, one of the environmental groups petitioning the Supreme Court. "It's time for the nation's highest court to correct the lower court and take on global warming."
"Global warming is real, it's happening now and President [George W.] Bush has the legal authority to regulate the pollution that's causing it. He just doesn't want to," said Stanton. "The Supreme Court must overturn the lower courts judicial activism and give this case a proper hearing."
The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute supports the EPA's position. “The voting majority of the D.C. Circuit deserves thanks for reaffirming the Court’s initial decision and keeping the judicial branch out of what is essentially a legislative question,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Counsel Hans Bader on December 2, 2005 just after the lower court ruling was handed down. “Besides the fact that the plain language of the Clean Air Act grants no powers to the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, any court-ordered solution to the controversy over greenhouse gas emissions would constitute a violation of the separation of powers," said Bader. "Clearly, Congress is the proper forum for such policy debates.”
Remember that the global warming debate is a very important issue that affects all of us. It is a quality of life issue for us, for our parents, for our children, and for our children's children. We need to advance the cause of the environment now. So continue to write to your elected representatives and let them know how you feel on environmental issues.
The following article that I pulled off the internet (that was in turn pulled off of the Environment News Service site) explains the issue more clearly than I ever could:
A coalition of 12 states, three major cities, one island government and several environmental groups Friday petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not have to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.
The coalition, led by Massachusetts, is asking the court to review a decision issued last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. EPA. That ruling let stand the EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly and the other parties argue that "this case goes to the heart of EPA's statutory responsibilities to deal with the most pressing environmental problem of our time."
"If ever there was a case that warranted Supreme Court review, this is it," Reilly said. "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to address the problem of global warming."
The petition maintains that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling is at odds with Supreme Court precedent on statutory interpretation, because it allowed EPA to refuse to regulate greenhouse gases based on policy considerations outside the scope of the Clean Air Act.
"Delay has serious potential consequences," the petition states. "Given that air pollutants associated with climate change are accumulating in the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the window of opportunity in which we can mitigate the dangers of climate change is rapidly closing."
The petition claims that the EPA "arbitrarily and capriciously" concluded that the Clean Air Act does not provide the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The petition states that the Supreme Court's review "is necessary to prevent the agency from continuing to claim that a decision of this Court prevents it from taking regulatory action to address climate change."
The case originated in 1999, when various environmental groups filed an administrative rulemaking petition requesting that EPA set motor vehicle emission standards for four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.
In August of 2003, the EPA denied the pending rulemaking petition. At that time, EPA also stated that, as a policy matter, it would not set motor vehicle emission standards even if it had authority. In October of 2003, this decision was challenged.
On July 15, 2005, the federal appeals court for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 to let the EPA's current position on greenhouse gas pollutants stand. In August, the full bench of the appeals court for the D.C. Circuit was asked to hear the case. The court denied that request with a 4-3 decision, paving the way for the Supreme Court appeal.
The parties to this lawsuit include states with both Republican and Democratic administrations - California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, the District of Columbia, American Samoa Government, and the cities of New York and Baltimore.
"Scientists are clear about the danger that global warming poses to public health and the environment," said New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber.
"What also is clear, and what was affirmed by two prior EPA general counsel, is that EPA has authority to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming," Farber said. "We cannot permit EPA to walk away from its responsibility in this critical area."
"Global warming is one the biggest threats facing the planet and we cannot delay action," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Left unchecked, it can cause devastation to our economy, public health, natural resources. It is time for the Environmental Protection Agency to step up and fulfill its responsibility to fight this problem."
The environmental groups that are parties to the lawsuit include the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Advocates, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, International Center for Technology Assessment, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
"The lower court's blatant punting on global warming is a travesty. Despite the plain and simple language of the law the lower court refused to act," said John Stanton, vice president for the National Environmental Trust, one of the environmental groups petitioning the Supreme Court. "It's time for the nation's highest court to correct the lower court and take on global warming."
"Global warming is real, it's happening now and President [George W.] Bush has the legal authority to regulate the pollution that's causing it. He just doesn't want to," said Stanton. "The Supreme Court must overturn the lower courts judicial activism and give this case a proper hearing."
The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute supports the EPA's position. “The voting majority of the D.C. Circuit deserves thanks for reaffirming the Court’s initial decision and keeping the judicial branch out of what is essentially a legislative question,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute Counsel Hans Bader on December 2, 2005 just after the lower court ruling was handed down. “Besides the fact that the plain language of the Clean Air Act grants no powers to the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide, any court-ordered solution to the controversy over greenhouse gas emissions would constitute a violation of the separation of powers," said Bader. "Clearly, Congress is the proper forum for such policy debates.”
Remember that the global warming debate is a very important issue that affects all of us. It is a quality of life issue for us, for our parents, for our children, and for our children's children. We need to advance the cause of the environment now. So continue to write to your elected representatives and let them know how you feel on environmental issues.
Two steps forward, one step back
In today's newspaper, I'm reading about a study that concludes that men who have several older brothers (by the same mother) have an increased chance of being gay. This conclusion is lending weight to the biological origins of homosexuality. This could be a big step forward for the gay community.
And because there are much better writers out there than me, I am pasting a piece of Neil Swidey's August 14, 2005 article in the Boston Globe, What Makes People Gay, here to explain some of the recent advances in scientific research regarding the biology of being gay:
Proving people are born gay would give them wider social acceptance and better protection against discrimination, many gay rights advocates argue. In the last decade, as this "biological" argument has gained momentum, polls find Americans - especially young adults - increasingly tolerant of gays and lesbians. And that's exactly what has groups opposed to homosexuality so concerned. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think tank in Washington, D.C., argues in its book Getting It Straight that finding people are born gay "would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true."
Some advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights. That could be true, but then again, freedom of religion enjoyed federal protection long before inborn traits like race and sex.
For much of the 20th century, the dominant thinking connected homosexuality to upbringing. Freud, for instance, speculated that overprotective mothers and distant fathers helped make boys gay. It took the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 to remove "homosexuality" from its manual of mental disorders.
Then, in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay's findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.
Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.
In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer's discovery of the "gay gene." In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn't quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.
That hasn't happened yet. But the clear focus of sexual-orientation research has shifted to biological causes, and there hasn't been much science produced to support the old theories tying homosexuality to upbringing. Freud may have been seeing the effect rather than the cause, since a father faced with a very feminine son might well become more distant or hostile, leading the boy's mother to become more protective. In recent years, researchers who suspect that homosexuality is inborn - whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb - have looked everywhere for clues: Prenatal hormones. Birth order. Finger length. Fingerprints. Stress. Sweat. Eye blinks. Spatial relations. Hearing. Handedness. Even "gay" sheep.
LeVay, who is gay, says that when he published his study 14 years ago, some gays and lesbians criticized him for doing research that might lead to homosexuality once again being lumped in with diseases and disorders. "If anything, the reverse has happened," says LeVay, who is now 61 and no longer active in the lab. He says the hunt for a biological basis for homosexuality, which involves many researchers who are themselves gay or lesbian, "has contributed to the status of gay people in society."
These studies have been small and underfunded, and the results have often been modest. Still, because there's been so much of this disparate research, "all sort of pointing in the same direction, makes it pretty clear there are biological processes significantly influencing sexual orientation," says LeVay. "But it's also kind of frustrating that it's still a bunch of hints, that nothing is really as crystal clear as you would like."
Just in the last few months, though, the hints have grown stronger.
In May, Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones - those scent-related chemicals that are key to sexual arousal in animals. The first compound came from women's urine, the second from male sweat. Brain scans showed that when straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. That didn't happen with gay men. Instead, their hypothalamus lit up when they smelled the male-sweat compound, which was the same way straight women had responded. This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation comes on the heels of work with sheep. About 8 percent of domestic rams are exclusively interested in sex with other rams. Researchers found that a clump of neurons similar to the one LeVay identified in human brains was also smaller in gay rams than straight ones. (Again, it's conceivable that these differences could be showing effect rather than cause.)
In June, scientists in Vienna announced that they had isolated a master genetic switch for sexual orientation in the fruit fly. Once they flicked the switch, the genetically altered female flies rebuffed overtures from males and instead attempted to mate with other females, adopting the elaborate courting dance and mating songs that males use.
And now, a large-scale, five-year genetic study of gay brothers is underway in North America. The study received $2.5 million from the National Institutes of Health, which is unusual. Government funders tend to steer clear of sexual orientation research, aware that even small grants are apt to be met with outrage from conservative congressmen looking to make the most of their C-Span face time. Relying on a robust sample of 1,000 gay-brother pairs and the latest advancements in genetic screening, this study promises to bring some clarity to the murky area of what role genes may play in homosexuality.
This accumulating biological evidence, combined with the prospect of more on the horizon, is having an effect. Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something "deeply rooted" in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he'd spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that "many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation." His message: "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."
In other news, I fell down my front stairs this past Saturday night. It was raining, Grace was pulling on her leash, and my flip-flops weren't giving me much traction on the cement. I landed square on my back so there is now a beautifully gargantuan blue-green-yellow bruise in the shape of a heart on the small of my back. Now all I need to do is fall down in the shower to achieve the back pain trifecta.
And because there are much better writers out there than me, I am pasting a piece of Neil Swidey's August 14, 2005 article in the Boston Globe, What Makes People Gay, here to explain some of the recent advances in scientific research regarding the biology of being gay:
Proving people are born gay would give them wider social acceptance and better protection against discrimination, many gay rights advocates argue. In the last decade, as this "biological" argument has gained momentum, polls find Americans - especially young adults - increasingly tolerant of gays and lesbians. And that's exactly what has groups opposed to homosexuality so concerned. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian think tank in Washington, D.C., argues in its book Getting It Straight that finding people are born gay "would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against 'discrimination;' and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true."
Some advocates of gay marriage argue that proving sexual orientation is inborn would make it easier to frame the debate as simply a matter of civil rights. That could be true, but then again, freedom of religion enjoyed federal protection long before inborn traits like race and sex.
For much of the 20th century, the dominant thinking connected homosexuality to upbringing. Freud, for instance, speculated that overprotective mothers and distant fathers helped make boys gay. It took the American Psychiatric Association until 1973 to remove "homosexuality" from its manual of mental disorders.
Then, in 1991, a neuroscientist in San Diego named Simon LeVay told the world he had found a key difference between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men he studied. LeVay showed that a tiny clump of neurons of the anterior hypothalamus - which is believed to control sexual behavior - was, on average, more than twice the size in heterosexual men as in homosexual men. LeVay's findings did not speak directly to the nature-vs.-nurture debate - the clumps could, theoretically, have changed size because of homosexual behavior. But that seemed unlikely, and the study ended up jump-starting the effort to prove a biological basis for homosexuality.
Later that same year, Boston University psychiatrist Richard Pillard and Northwestern University psychologist J. Michael Bailey announced the results of their study of male twins. They found that, in identical twins, if one twin was gay, the other had about a 50 percent chance of also being gay. For fraternal twins, the rate was about 20 percent. Because identical twins share their entire genetic makeup while fraternal twins share about half, genes were believed to explain the difference. Most reputable studies find the rate of homosexuality in the general population to be 2 to 4 percent, rather than the popular "1 in 10" estimate.
In 1993 came the biggest news: Dean Hamer's discovery of the "gay gene." In fact, Hamer, a Harvard-trained researcher at the National Cancer Institute, hadn't quite put it that boldly or imprecisely. He found that gay brothers shared a specific region of the X chromosome, called Xq28, at a higher rate than gay men shared with their straight brothers. Hamer and others suggested this finding would eventually transform our understanding of sexual orientation.
That hasn't happened yet. But the clear focus of sexual-orientation research has shifted to biological causes, and there hasn't been much science produced to support the old theories tying homosexuality to upbringing. Freud may have been seeing the effect rather than the cause, since a father faced with a very feminine son might well become more distant or hostile, leading the boy's mother to become more protective. In recent years, researchers who suspect that homosexuality is inborn - whether because of genetics or events happening in the womb - have looked everywhere for clues: Prenatal hormones. Birth order. Finger length. Fingerprints. Stress. Sweat. Eye blinks. Spatial relations. Hearing. Handedness. Even "gay" sheep.
LeVay, who is gay, says that when he published his study 14 years ago, some gays and lesbians criticized him for doing research that might lead to homosexuality once again being lumped in with diseases and disorders. "If anything, the reverse has happened," says LeVay, who is now 61 and no longer active in the lab. He says the hunt for a biological basis for homosexuality, which involves many researchers who are themselves gay or lesbian, "has contributed to the status of gay people in society."
These studies have been small and underfunded, and the results have often been modest. Still, because there's been so much of this disparate research, "all sort of pointing in the same direction, makes it pretty clear there are biological processes significantly influencing sexual orientation," says LeVay. "But it's also kind of frustrating that it's still a bunch of hints, that nothing is really as crystal clear as you would like."
Just in the last few months, though, the hints have grown stronger.
In May, Swedish researchers reported finding important differences in how the brains of straight men and gay men responded to two compounds suspected of being pheromones - those scent-related chemicals that are key to sexual arousal in animals. The first compound came from women's urine, the second from male sweat. Brain scans showed that when straight men smelled the female urine compound, their hypothalamus lit up. That didn't happen with gay men. Instead, their hypothalamus lit up when they smelled the male-sweat compound, which was the same way straight women had responded. This research once again connecting the hypothalamus to sexual orientation comes on the heels of work with sheep. About 8 percent of domestic rams are exclusively interested in sex with other rams. Researchers found that a clump of neurons similar to the one LeVay identified in human brains was also smaller in gay rams than straight ones. (Again, it's conceivable that these differences could be showing effect rather than cause.)
In June, scientists in Vienna announced that they had isolated a master genetic switch for sexual orientation in the fruit fly. Once they flicked the switch, the genetically altered female flies rebuffed overtures from males and instead attempted to mate with other females, adopting the elaborate courting dance and mating songs that males use.
And now, a large-scale, five-year genetic study of gay brothers is underway in North America. The study received $2.5 million from the National Institutes of Health, which is unusual. Government funders tend to steer clear of sexual orientation research, aware that even small grants are apt to be met with outrage from conservative congressmen looking to make the most of their C-Span face time. Relying on a robust sample of 1,000 gay-brother pairs and the latest advancements in genetic screening, this study promises to bring some clarity to the murky area of what role genes may play in homosexuality.
This accumulating biological evidence, combined with the prospect of more on the horizon, is having an effect. Last month, the Rev. Rob Schenck, a prominent Washington, D.C., evangelical leader, told a large gathering of young evangelicals that he believes homosexuality is not a choice but rather a predisposition, something "deeply rooted" in people. Schenck told me that his conversion came about after he'd spoken extensively with genetic researchers and psychologists. He argues that evangelicals should continue to oppose homosexual behavior, but that "many evangelicals are living in a sort of state of denial about the advance of this conversation." His message: "If it's inevitable that this scientific evidence is coming, we have to be prepared with a loving response. If we don't have one, we won't have any credibility."
In other news, I fell down my front stairs this past Saturday night. It was raining, Grace was pulling on her leash, and my flip-flops weren't giving me much traction on the cement. I landed square on my back so there is now a beautifully gargantuan blue-green-yellow bruise in the shape of a heart on the small of my back. Now all I need to do is fall down in the shower to achieve the back pain trifecta.
Friday, June 23, 2006
For three days after death hair and fingernails continue to grow but phone calls taper off (Johnny Carson)
I'm reading a blurb in today's newspaper about the memorial service for publisher/ex-diplomat Phillip Merrill. It says that 1,500 attended. One thousand. Five hundred.
Mr. O'Laughlin, my fifth grade social studies teacher who was wiser than I ever gave him credit for at the time, once told us that if, when you die, you can count on one hand the number of friends you have, then you have died a rich man. I believe this to be true and that is what makes it so extraordinary to me that fifteen hundred people offered their condolences to Merrill's family. It is hard to conceive that all those people were entirely sincere in their sentiments.
Oh, do not think that I believe that associates will not be affected by the untimely death of someone they know, and even that they will feel a pang of loss as well as sympathy for the survivors, but when these grand DC memorial services reach such heights in attendance and "importance," I find it difficult to imagine the event has not become entirely politicized. It is the antithesis of what I would ever want for myself or a family member.
Many of you may argue that such a huge swelling of human flesh is good and right because these people are just paying their respects and honoring a great person, much like the Rosa Parks memorial services. However, I believe that funerals and memorial services are very intimate occassions - very difficult for the surviving family members. I don't believe that publishing accounts of the affair in the newspaper or bringing in the Vice President contributes any merit to the service. (Admittedly, there are many people who would rather have the all-out soire than to have a private family affair, and I fully support their right to do this. I am only explaining my aversion to the whole idea.)
When my grandmother died, it was an incredibly difficult time for my family. There were too many loose ends for some, and not enough time for others. We experienced a loss so deep that it physically hurt. She was a tour de force and no one who met her could ever forget her. She was blessedly unique.
While I was not directly involved in arranging the funeral affairs (that would be my mother), I do know that there was some opposition to a viewing and my grandmother's burial being overseen by a priest. In the end it was arranged to have a public viewing and a private family-only funeral with a Catholic priest.
What happened was tragic. Friends and associates of my grandmother came to the viewing and loudly discussed how disappointed they were that they were not invited to the funeral as well. They actually sat there and planned to have a little cemetery gathering at the burial site immediately after the family funeral was over. It was rude, thoughtless, and downright vicious.
I understand that they were upset at the loss of my grandmother, and that is specifically why my mother held a public viewing in the first place. However, I feel that the family's decision should have been respected. We needed to grieve too.
It makes you wonder if these people were really her friends. What kind of pepple can do that to a family?
So it all comes back to counting your friends on one hand. Me personally, I would only want my closest friends and family in attendance. (And I don't want a funeral at all - I don't plan to be buried.) And frankly, that would be a very small number. I wouldn't want people like those at my grandmother's funeral to make my surviving family members as miserable as we were. Losing a loved one is already difficult enough - doing so in the public eye (like the Merrill family) is unthinkable.
I may as well start making up an attendance list now...
Mr. O'Laughlin, my fifth grade social studies teacher who was wiser than I ever gave him credit for at the time, once told us that if, when you die, you can count on one hand the number of friends you have, then you have died a rich man. I believe this to be true and that is what makes it so extraordinary to me that fifteen hundred people offered their condolences to Merrill's family. It is hard to conceive that all those people were entirely sincere in their sentiments.
Oh, do not think that I believe that associates will not be affected by the untimely death of someone they know, and even that they will feel a pang of loss as well as sympathy for the survivors, but when these grand DC memorial services reach such heights in attendance and "importance," I find it difficult to imagine the event has not become entirely politicized. It is the antithesis of what I would ever want for myself or a family member.
Many of you may argue that such a huge swelling of human flesh is good and right because these people are just paying their respects and honoring a great person, much like the Rosa Parks memorial services. However, I believe that funerals and memorial services are very intimate occassions - very difficult for the surviving family members. I don't believe that publishing accounts of the affair in the newspaper or bringing in the Vice President contributes any merit to the service. (Admittedly, there are many people who would rather have the all-out soire than to have a private family affair, and I fully support their right to do this. I am only explaining my aversion to the whole idea.)
When my grandmother died, it was an incredibly difficult time for my family. There were too many loose ends for some, and not enough time for others. We experienced a loss so deep that it physically hurt. She was a tour de force and no one who met her could ever forget her. She was blessedly unique.
While I was not directly involved in arranging the funeral affairs (that would be my mother), I do know that there was some opposition to a viewing and my grandmother's burial being overseen by a priest. In the end it was arranged to have a public viewing and a private family-only funeral with a Catholic priest.
What happened was tragic. Friends and associates of my grandmother came to the viewing and loudly discussed how disappointed they were that they were not invited to the funeral as well. They actually sat there and planned to have a little cemetery gathering at the burial site immediately after the family funeral was over. It was rude, thoughtless, and downright vicious.
I understand that they were upset at the loss of my grandmother, and that is specifically why my mother held a public viewing in the first place. However, I feel that the family's decision should have been respected. We needed to grieve too.
It makes you wonder if these people were really her friends. What kind of pepple can do that to a family?
So it all comes back to counting your friends on one hand. Me personally, I would only want my closest friends and family in attendance. (And I don't want a funeral at all - I don't plan to be buried.) And frankly, that would be a very small number. I wouldn't want people like those at my grandmother's funeral to make my surviving family members as miserable as we were. Losing a loved one is already difficult enough - doing so in the public eye (like the Merrill family) is unthinkable.
I may as well start making up an attendance list now...
Monday, June 19, 2006
Crunching some stats
Yeah, so I went to UDC today to register for summer statistics with Anthony's credit card and Anthony in tow. The good news is that...oh wait, there is no good news. I need to pass a pre-qualifying exam in August for one of my core classes and it is entirely on statistics. I have never taken a statistics class. UDC had an evening class scheduled this summer for Elementary Statistics. Of course, I arrive and then *poof!* the class disappears.
Now I'm reduced to learning statistics on my own, and begging Kevin and Hottie to provide me with their old textbooks. Grrr, I hate learning the old-fashioned way (really, who wants to be motivated? I want SPOONFEEDING, I tell you. SPOON. FEEDING.). Sigh.
Well, wish me luck.
In other news, Andrew was here this weekend with the whole fan-damily, looking for an apartment. What's that, you say? Ah, yes, my Masshole is moving to town. He too, like me, is crazy enough to return to school. Even crazier though, he decided to attend Georgetown. HA! is all I have to say to that. But my nights and weekends will all of a sudden be full of a shiny, white Irish kid. Yay!
Dave is also in town right now, under the auspices of attending Eric's DC Improv graduation. We all know it was really for the Yankees/Nationals game (the Yanks got spanked!), but that shouldn't put a dimmer on Eric's spirits. Half of the crowd will be personally provided by his own group of friends, lovers, and Ben's mom. All we really need is some body paint and a couple of pom-poms and we're set to go.
Another item of good news is that I returned to the gym this morning. I'm not exactly ignoring my doctor's orders because I'm using the stair climber and the stationary bike (look Mom, no injuries!) so there won't be all that impact on my legs and back. I even did some stretching and crunches. It's just nice to get back into a little bit of an exercise routine after sitting on my tush for the past two weeks. I am horrible at sitting back and relaxing so these past two weeks have been entirely painful for me, in more ways than one.
My leg only feels slightly worse than it did this morning, so I don't think I traumatized myself too much. I think I will take on some light weight-lifting tomorrow! The ecstasy I feel can only be compared to that of Homer when Duff beer is available.
Now I'm reduced to learning statistics on my own, and begging Kevin and Hottie to provide me with their old textbooks. Grrr, I hate learning the old-fashioned way (really, who wants to be motivated? I want SPOONFEEDING, I tell you. SPOON. FEEDING.). Sigh.
Well, wish me luck.
In other news, Andrew was here this weekend with the whole fan-damily, looking for an apartment. What's that, you say? Ah, yes, my Masshole is moving to town. He too, like me, is crazy enough to return to school. Even crazier though, he decided to attend Georgetown. HA! is all I have to say to that. But my nights and weekends will all of a sudden be full of a shiny, white Irish kid. Yay!
Dave is also in town right now, under the auspices of attending Eric's DC Improv graduation. We all know it was really for the Yankees/Nationals game (the Yanks got spanked!), but that shouldn't put a dimmer on Eric's spirits. Half of the crowd will be personally provided by his own group of friends, lovers, and Ben's mom. All we really need is some body paint and a couple of pom-poms and we're set to go.
Another item of good news is that I returned to the gym this morning. I'm not exactly ignoring my doctor's orders because I'm using the stair climber and the stationary bike (look Mom, no injuries!) so there won't be all that impact on my legs and back. I even did some stretching and crunches. It's just nice to get back into a little bit of an exercise routine after sitting on my tush for the past two weeks. I am horrible at sitting back and relaxing so these past two weeks have been entirely painful for me, in more ways than one.
My leg only feels slightly worse than it did this morning, so I don't think I traumatized myself too much. I think I will take on some light weight-lifting tomorrow! The ecstasy I feel can only be compared to that of Homer when Duff beer is available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
