The Temple by ...

One of the unintended consequences of having a blog is that occasionally I get a flurry of google searches for a topic that alerts me that something is going on. Generally it's not anything particularly important, but some group of people somewhere are suddenly interested in a topic and the search words they are using get some of them to my blog. It happened in mid-March when the Oregon farmer Steve Keudell was electrocuted. The search terms "Steve" and "blog" got them here. In that case I actually posted about it to try to redirect traffic to a site where they might actually get the information they wanted. And people sent me his site url. And, I'm pleased to report that he seems to be recovering well. Friday, the following was posted on his blog:

Steve is continuing his recovery at Emanuel Hospital at the Burn Center in Portland. He will be there possibly through Monday before he gets moved to the Rehab. Institute of Oregon (RIO) at Good Samaritan Hopsital. One of the reasons for the delay in the move is the nursing/medical side of his condition. For now, Steve still needs medical attention to his arm wound. Family visitors are keeping Steve company and he is still having physical therapies every day.

Yesterday, Steve composed the following message:

"I thank all of you who have been following my progress on the blog. Your concern and prayers have overwhelmed me. My recovery would not have been possible without all of your love and support. I am anxious to get on with my physical therapy and continuing recovery. I'm looking forward to giving all of you a handshake and a hug after I get home."

When I suddenly got a lot of people searching for Mary Beth Kepner I knew that something new must have happened in the Ted Stevens case.

And recently I began getting people searching for Elizabeth Gloria Pounds. I'd mentioned her in a post about the memorial for her mother Toni. When I asked a friend why, I learned that, sadly, Elizabeth had died too.

So last night, and again this morning, I started getting people searching for things like

• find birthtown of poet, author of the temple, born in 1909
• poet born 1909 the temple

What was this all about? Looking at the result of one of the google searches that got them to my post on Famous People Born in 1909, I found this link to the Times:

Win a week’s holiday for two on Rhodes,
as the guest of On the Beach.

Read the article below and answer the questions at the end of the text. Clues to the answers can be found within the text:

Letter to Puzzle-loving Friend: "Guess where I am: the land of a favourite television programme, where many outdoor scenes were filmed. Indeed, if you read this note carefully, you will find the first letters of a certain number of consecutive words. When joined (without rearranging), they make a catch phrase for which it is known. The centre for outdoor filming was this town, once capital of an ancient kingdom.

It was also the birthplace, in 1737, of an author; writings include Common Sense...

Included, further down, is this clue which got people to What Do I Know?

My search for televisual nostalgia has already taken me further afield — 40 miles north-northeast to a village station. It’s just west of a second town, where a poet (born 1909; works include The Temple) spent part of his childhood.

The answers the contest is looking for are to these questions:

1 Name the programme and catch phrase

2 What is the name of the second town?

Well, it turns out that there are a few poems called "The Temple." The first poet that comes up in google is George Herbert, but that turns out to be a book of poems called "The Temple" and he was born in 1593 anyway.

Next I found

The Temple by Amy Lowell

Between us leapt a gold and scarlet flame.
Into the hollow of the cupped, arched blue
Of Heaven it rose. Its flickering tongues up-drew
And vanished in the sunshine. How it came
We guessed not, nor what thing could be its name.
From each to each had sprung those sparks which flew
Together into fire. But we knew
The winds would slap and quench it in their game.
And so we graved and fashioned marble blocks
To treasure it, and placed them round about.
With pillared porticos we wreathed the whole,
And roofed it with bright bronze. Behind carved
locks
Flowered the tall and sheltered flame. Without,
The baffled winds thrust at a column's bole.

But she's a women and the clue refers to the poet as 'he.' And she was born in 1874.

Next came:

Kenneth Patchen - The Temple

To leave the earth was my wish, and no will stayed my rising.
Early, before sun had filled the roads with carts
Conveying folk to weddings and to murders;
Before men left their selves of sleep, to wander
In the dark of the world like whipped beasts.

I took no pack. I had no horse, no staff, no gun.
I got up a little way and something called me,
Saying,
'Put your hand in mine. We will seek God together.'
And I answered, 'It is your father who is lost, not mine.'
Then the sky filled with tears of blood, and snakes sang.

But he was born in 1911.


Next:

THE TEMPLE

WHAT of Louvain and of Rheims
Made for God by man? What then?
Here be temples more than man's
Wrought by God for His own men.

Scattered in the rain and frost,
Marred of beauty, there they be,
Temples of the Holy Ghost,
Broken, ruined piteously.

Bodies all so finely wrought,
Cunning deftness shaped them well;
These, God's ultimate, loving thought
For His Spirit's citadel.

Beautiful from head to foot,
Young, dear darlings all unflawed
For their mother's kiss. What brute
Dares deface the image of God?

Oh, the Temple's down! all marred
Gay and golden boys must lie:
Bitter-sweet as spikenard
Is the old name we called them by.

Hush! God's Temple in its fall
Breaks to set the spirit free
From the golden cage and thrall.
Into heaven-winged liberty.

From the cage the bird is flown,
Sings so high above our sphere.
Hush,--be never a sigh or moan:
The fledged bird flies without fear.

All our loves are gathered in,
Every gay and golden lad;
On new raiment, white and clean,
They behold God and are glad.

But the name attached is Tynan, Katharine. Another woman. Nothing against women, but they were looking for a male poet here. And just so I don't leap to conclusions about the gender based on the name, I checked.

Katharine Tynan (23 January 1861 – 2 April 1931) was an Irish-born writer, known mainly for her novels and poetry.

The date doesn't work either.


There's another book:

God on the Hill: Temple Poems from Tirupati
by Velcheru Narayana Rao , David Shulman

This clue isn't going anywhere. It's easier to start with the birthplace of the author of Common Sense, which I had to read in school. So where was Tom Paine born? Wikipedia says he was born in January 29, 1737 Thetford, NorfolkGreat Britain.

Using google maps we can easily find what's 40 miles northeast of Thetford (A on the map):








Norwich seems too big to be a village station. (According to Wikipedia it was the second largest city - after London - in the 11th Century. So I googled "the M&GNR, heritage railway. Norwich" which got me to this list of historic railways in Norfolk (Norwich is in Norfolk):

Norfolk is home to several Heritage railways and preserved stations.

North Norfolk Railway

The North Norfolk Railway operates a five mile route between Holt and Sheringham on the Norfolk coast. It was preserved in 1964, and the extension to Holt opened in 1987.^[1]

Mid-Norfolk Railway

The Mid-Norfolk Railway operates an eleven and a half mile route between Dereham and Wymondham Abbey. A further six mile extension to County School railway station is planned. It is also proposed to connect the line to the National Rail main line at Wymondham railway station.^[2]

Bure Valley Railway

The Bure Valley Railway is a 15 inch gauge railway that runs for nine miles between Aylsham and Wroxham.^[3]

Wells and Walsingham Light Railway

The Wells and Walsingham is a 4 ft 8½ in gauge railway which runs for four miles from Wells-next-the-Sea to Walsingham.

Checking each of these was tedious and not giving the information I was looking for - a station built in 1901. But as I was doing all this the name of Stephen Spender popped up.

Well, back on my list of people born in 1909 is a British poet - Stephen Spender. But when I checked on him earlier I saw that he was born in London, so I was looking for a different poet. But as I double-checked the contest clues, it doesn't say that he was born in this village, but spent time there. It pays to read carefully the first time. So I quickly looked up Stephen Spender and Wikipedia says

Spender was born Kensington, London, to journalist, Edward Harold Spender and Violet Hilda Schuster, a painter and poet.^[2] He went to Gresham's School, Holt and later Charlecote School in Worthing, but was unhappy there.

Worthing is in West Sussex, so that leaves Holt. Holt is on the list of historic railways. Back to google maps.


Holt is five miles west of Sherringham which is also on that list. So, Holt seems to be the answer they want for question 2.

[Update 4pm - Something's not right here. The village station that's "now part of a heritage railroad" is "just west of a second town, where a poet..." But Holt (where the Spender spent part of his childhood) is west of Sherringham. "Just east" would work fine since Sherringham is five miles east of Holt. But after a bit more checking, there are two towns on the Mid-Norfolk Heritage Railway line that look to be under 10 miles west of Holt - Fakenham and Wells-next-the-Sea. So Holt can still be the answer to question 2.]

So, why couldn't I find the poem "The Temple" by Stephen Spender. Googling "Stephen Spender The Temple" gives us the answer. Those puzzle makers are very sneaky. Yes, Spender was a poet. But his work "The Temple" was a novel. From Wikipedia:

The Temple is a novel written by Stephen Spender.

This novel was written after Spender spent his summer vacation in Germany in 1929 and recounts his experiences there. It was not completed, however, until the early 1930's (after Spender had failed his finals at Oxford University in 1930 and moved to Hamburg). Its frank depictions of homosexuality made it impossible to publish in the UK though, stopping it from being published in the UK until 1988.

It would have really been embarrassing if I had done all this sleuthing and it turned out that The Temple was mentioned in my short bio on Spender in the Famous People Born in 1909 post. Fortunately, that wasn't the case. There I listed his novel "World within World."

So, if anyone reading this wins the trip to Rhodes, the least you can do is send me a postcard.

Sommersturm at CMU Film Space

We already heard about Film Space last year - free Saturday night films at the art building at Chiang Mai University - but somehow we never made it there. It's not far - a ten minute bike ride - so we decided to go tonight. So I googled to see what was on tonight and found Thomatfilms a blog that covers what's playing in Chiang Mai. Thai doesn't have a final 's' sound, so they substitute a 't' sound if there is an 's' at the end of a word. So I'm guessing Thom is punning that with at films. Bi-lingual jokes are fun.

This yellow car was parked in front of the Design Center. I'm guessing it's a piece of student art. From Thomatfilms we learned:

During February, Film Space presents “The Month of Iron Hoofter.” March is “The Month of Bad Luck Money.”

Film Space is to the right and in the back of the CMU Art Museum, in the Media Arts and Design building across from the ballet school. Now that the weather is cool, they are resuming their rooftop showings, weather permitting. You might want to bring something to sit on or lie on. A contribution is requested in the donation box at the entrance – you should leave 20 baht. Well worth supporting.

At Film Space Saturday, February 28: Sommersturm / Summer Storm (2004) by Marco Kreuzpaintner – 98 mins – Germany, Comedy/ Drama/ Romance.

Fourth and last in the “Hoofter” series: gay love in Germany. Tobi and Achim have been best friends for years. As cox and oarsman, they have helped their team win several rowing cups in the past and are now looking forward to the big regatta in the countryside. But this trip is no summer camp anymore and the first problems soon arise. As Achim’s relationship with his girlfriend grows more serious, Tobi starts to realize that his feelings for Achim run deeper than he’s willing to admit to himself.

There's a little restaurant - Din Dee - run by a Japanese woman right there too, with a great space. It's a round, earth building. There's something about being in a round room that feels right to me.






After dinner, it was almost dark, and a sliver of a moon hung over the mountains and you could see Wat Doi Suthep lit up on the mountain.





We were looking forward to watching the film up on the roof, but something was wrong with the sound, so it was going to be in a room. Which turned out to be air conditioned, something we haven't experienced much. Evenings have generally been cool and we like using the electric fan rather than air conditioning anyway. But they did turn it off near the end of the movie and it slowly warmed up, so that when we went out if felt nice and cool outside.

My first reaction watching the film was, "Was this still a problem in Germany in 2004?" Well, probably the story was written ten years before it came out and there was a gay rowing team called the Queerstrokes, so some folks were a little more out than others. But anti-gay stuff is just part of all attacks on people who are different from the norm, by people who need to pick on someone else to cover their own insecurities. And coming to terms with sexuality - straight or gay - is scary for most people.

The movie was nicely done, nearly all the characters were likable, even the ones who weren't at first, showed some decent views of themselves. And the only thing I could see that would have gotten it its R rating were bare female breasts. Unless gay automatically rates an R.

Red Shirts Yellow Shirts

[Wed. Feb. 25, 2009, 9am Thai Time]
Monday, E suggested we go eat at the Buddhist Vegetarian place. She'd passed it on the way to work and it was open. It had been closed for three or four months. We got there and the buffet didn't have much selection and there were only a few people there. But some friends of E came over to talk. I got the gist of what they were talking about but when they left I checked with E to make sure I got it right.

Saturday night there had been a gay pride parade scheduled for Chiang Mai. But a group of red shirts had showed up and told them that this was not part of Thai tradition and that they should pack up. They decided to listen to that and canceled the parade.

The reason the restaurant had been closed so long is that they had gone down to Bangkok to feed the protesters who had shut down the airport. So we were in a Yellow shirt place. The red shirt group supports former Prime Minister Thaksin who is trying to come back to Thailand and become prime minister again. The yellow shirts support the current government. Things were falling into place. When we had our anniversary dinner, some of the people were late because the street had been closed and there were people marching. Well, it turns out that was a red shirt demonstration. So far we haven't seen anything ourselves. But E only partially joking suggested that it might not be safe to eat at this restaurant because the red shirts knew it was a yellow shirt place.

In my experience, while there has always been a certain level of interpersonal violence in Thailand, this seems like a different sort of turn of events. I'm not sure. I've been more focused on other things.

There was also news of two different Westerners killed in the South recently, and just the other day a foreigner's head was found in a plastic bag hung from a bridge in Bangkok. I suspect that was grisly enough it made the US papers. But none of this, as I said, has been visible to us in our daily lives.
After lunch at this place, which is free if you only get rice and one other item, you wash your own dishes. E laughed as we were leaving and I noted that the foreigner in the top picture was wearing a red shirt in a yellow restaurant.

Anchorage, Alaska Prop 8 Protest

We went to lend our support to today's protest. Everyone was polite and friendly. I went up into the new parking garage to take this picture. Another man was there also taking a picture. I said I counted about 70 people, two more including us. He said, "I can't be there. I'm a teacher. I just can't risk it." Wow. We aren't just talking marriage here. I hope he's being overly cautious. He knows he has legal rights, but "people can make my life miserable." His partner did join the crowd, but he's retired. So, while I think it probably is overkill, I've tried to cut out or blur any faces that might otherwise be recognizable. I think the people there were willing to have their pictures here, but I didn't get a chance to ask everyone. (If you'd like your face visible, go to my profile and email me. Any obviously visible face is with permission of the person.)

News people are the exception to the blur rule.

After marching through downtown this way and that way, the group stopped for a picture at city hall. Then went on marching further. We were getting hungry so we slipped into the Teriyaki Box for some noodles.
Then we headed back to the car and off to the Native Heritage Center open house. As we got back to the Atwood Building, the sky was opening up a bit.

[Update: someone posted more pictures at Northernvisions.]

Why I Think the Prop 8 Arguments are Wrong

[Brief Overview:

• I haven't commented on Prop 8 so far, the issues are complicated, and I don't want to be simplistic.
• There's an anti-Prop 8 and pro equality rally scheduled for Saturday in Anchorage at noon at the Atwood Building, so now is the time to comment.
• I found an article from a pro Prop 8 website that 'debunks' arguments for same-sex marriage.
• I took that article and give my reactions to the debunking.
  
  • Despite all the logical facade, the basic anti same-sex argument boils down to:

  • Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil [I think he meant social] engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.

  • A second key factor is claiming that male-female marriage is the natural order of things and that marriage cannot be socially constructed. That argument seems to be contradictory. If marriage between men and women was not and cannot be socially constructed, then socially constructing same-sex marriage simply will not work anyway. Nature will win out. No need to spend $37 million to fight it.
    
• There's more, but I think those are the highlights.]
  
  Post Starts Here:
  
  Last week Jay noted that while I took pleasure in the historical event of Obama's election, I had not mentioned that the one civil rights landmark was marred by the passage of Propostion 8 in California and similar anti-gay marriage in a couple of other states.
  
  Since then, there have been anti-Prop 8 demonstrations in California and demonstrations are being planned for Saturday in Anchorage and Fairbanks. Anchorage's is at
  
  noon November 15 at the Atwood Bldg on 7th between E and F.
  
  And I still have not commented on this. In part, because it is probably the most divisive issue this election and such issues require particular care and tact if I'm to discuss it in a way that tries to present opposing views objectively. And since I find the anti-gay marriage argument ultimately lacking in merit, I'm hard pressed to do this well. Besides, what more can be said about this?
  
  Well, I started a long detailed look at the arguments I thought were being made. After several pages on biblical commandments, I realized I was writing a tract that no one was going to read. Then I switched tactics and started looking at some pro Prop 8 websites to see what they were arguing. One, essentially had no serious arguments for opposing gay marriage. It was as though it were so obvious they didn't need to say anything. But a second one did spell out ways to deal with arguments opposed to Prop 8. There was one particularly well written piece that went through argument after argument. I realized, wearily, that I was going to end up doing a long post after all. But so be it.
  
  Gregory Koukl's piece, "Same-sex marriage - challenges and responses" stands out because it doesn't mention religion and uses a logical argument that, with just a couple of exceptions, is free of blatant emotional appeal.
  
  I've taught enough graduate students to know that critical thinking is not a skill one necessarily acquires in the US school system, even after four years of college. And if you don't trust my judgment, just consider all the people who bought houses using sub-prime loans. So, I can't just link to this post and assume that even an educated reader will automatically see the problems in Koukl's discussions. So, hang on. I've given up trying to do this in just a brief synopsis. It's too complicated. Well, ultimately it comes down to some basic issues, but to really address the arguments I need to go into detail.
  
  I'll give brief quotes from his article and paraphrase the rest. You can go to the article itself to see whether I'm doing him justice.
  
  His overview of the problem has two points:
  

  First, changing the definition of marriage implies that marriage is just a matter of cultural definition.

  This would mean, he says, that all the rules about marriage would be overthrown - “It’s privileges, protections, responsibilities, and moral obligations are all up for grabs.” He says that polygamy will also be on the table.
  
  In a sense he is right - this is an ontological debate. Ontology is the field of philosophy that deals with the question of what is real. The basic responses are
  a. Realist Position: The truths of the social world are ‘out there’ in nature for us to discover
  and
  b. Nominalist Position: The social world is socially constructed. Humans shape and constantly reshape the concepts and the institutions they live in.
  
  Both these responses have generated adherents and detractors, are complicated, have situations where they obviously apply and situations where they don’t. One difficulty I see is the impossibility of separating out the physical reality from the social reality. For instance, motherhood and fatherhood are physical realities that are ‘out there’ in the sense that a child is the physical consequence of a sexual act of its parents.
  
  But is an adoptive mother not a mother? What is a family? Is it the American ideal of mother, father, and two point three kids? Is it the extended family of many cultures including several generations and aunts and uncles? Is it a blood relationship or a spiritual bond among people living together?
  
  Our formal upbringing and culture tend to favor the realist position. It is the ideology of mainstream natural science. But many critics of social conditions, such as the role of women in society, monarchy, slavery, the caste system in India, would argue that these institutions are socially constructed and institutionalize and justify a system that gives some people power and others little or none.
  
  By declaring unilaterally that marriage is a natural phenomenon rather than culturally defined, Koukl attempts to cut off the social construction option altogether. But, from my perspective, this is like declaring (but not proving) that his opponents’ basic assumption is wrong.
  

  Second, a marriage license for same-sex couples would be a governmental declaration that homosexual unions are no different than heterosexual unions in the eyes of the law.
  
  If so, then “marriage” is nothing in particular and can be restructured at the whim of the people. Even as I write, there are cases wending their way through courts in Utah challenging prohibitions on polygamy. Why not, if “marriage” is just a social construction?

  
  As you can see where he says “marriage is nothing in particular and can be restructured at the whim of the people” he is merely repeating his ‘realist’ argument from the first point. He then goes on to complain that:
  

  It will then be impossible to deny homosexuals full adoption rights. For the first time in the history of civilization a culture will declare that neither mothers nor fathers are essential components of parenthood; neither makes a uniquely valuable contribution. Same-sex marriage will deny children a right to a mother and a father.
  

  Ah, so his real gripe is that homosexuals would be able to adopt kids. He argues this later on - that kids need both a mother and father. I don’t disagree that having both genders as role models is good for kids. That may, under ideal conditions, be considered the best possible situation. But it doesn't mean that kids can't also have a great upbringing with two same gender parents. After all, there are also lots of single parent families without that. There are orphans who have neither. (So it would be better to leave them in foster care than to have gays or single people adopt them according to Koukle's arugment.) And other people - aunts, uncles, grandparents, good friends - can, and do, play those roles for kids. It isn’t a deal breaker.
  
  He then goes on to say, quite rightly, this is all very complicated. So he’s going to respond to common arguments for gay marriage and show their problems. What I’m going to do is look at his responses and show the problems with those.
  
  

  1. “We’re being denied the same rights as heterosexuals. This is unconstitutional discrimination.”
  There are two complaints here. First, homosexuals don’t have the same legal liberties heterosexuals have. Second, homosexual couples don’t have the same legal benefits as married couples.

  He argues that gays have the same rights everyone else has - to marry someone of the opposite sex. No one else has the right to marry someone of the same sex, so gays aren't discriminated against. He creates this bizarre analogy:
  

  Smith and Jones both qualify to vote in America where they are citizens. Neither is allowed to vote in France. Jones, however, has no interest in U.S. politics; he’s partial to European concerns. Would Jones have a case if he complained, “Smith gets to vote [in California], but I don‚t get to vote [in France]. That‚s unequal protection under the law. He has a right I don’t have.” No, both have the same rights and the same restrictions. There is no legal inequality, only an inequality of desire, but that is not the state’s concern.
  
  

  There are several problems with the analogy. Logically it fails because Jones could move to France and apply for French citizenship, but gays don't have an analogous option. Probably more important is the implication that homosexuality is a choice. My sense of this issue is that Kinsey's continuum of sexuality from totally straight on one end to totally gay on the other end is probably the most accurate reflection of people's sexual tendencies. So for people on the gay end, an 'interest' in French politics, isn't a whim or quirk, it is who they are.
  

  2. “They said the same thing about interracial marriage.”
  
  

  The difference here, he says, is that interracial marriage is about males and females. It was a mistake that has been corrected because skin color is irrelevant. He uses a clever analogy here.
  

  Consider two men, one rich and one poor, seeking to withdraw money from their bank. The rich man is denied because his account is empty. However, on closer inspection, a clerk discovers an error, corrects it, and releases the cash. Next in line, the poor man is denied for the same reason: insufficient funds. “That’s the same thing you said about the last guy,” he snaps. “Yes,” the clerk replies. “We made a mistake with his account, but not with yours. You’re broke.”

  I say this is a clever analogy because the logic in the example is clear. It had me stumped for a while. But then I remembered that when you have an analogy, there has to be correspondence between the example and the actual situation. That's the problem. This story is NOT analagous to the gay marriage situation. Why? Let's try to match the two.
  
  Who is the rich man and who is the poor man in the interracial situation and what is 'the money?" It's hard to say because they don't match. Let's set up the analogous interracial situation.
  
  A white (rich) man with a dark suntan comes into the county clerk's office to get a marriage license. At first the clerk says, "I'm sorry, but black men can't marry white women." Then he checks and finds out he's really a white man with a suntan. "Oh, my mistake, here's your license." Then the black (poor) man, next in line, is told the same thing. "But you gave the last guy his license." "Ah, because we checked and found out he was really white."
  
  He didn't get asked if he was a man. He got asked if he was black. The correction ultimately, when interracial marriage was approved, was not a simple, "Oh we made a mistake and you turn out to be qualified by our rules." No, it was, "We have decided to change our rules and now if you are black, you can get married to a white."
  
  The ban against interracial marriage was, like the ban on same sex marriage, based on tradition, it was said to be the natural order of things, and it was done within a power structure where whites had the power to exclude blacks, all supported by passages lifted from the bible to justify this power structure. It seems to me that this argument by the pro-gay marriage folks - banning gay marriage is analogous to banning interractial marriage - is, after all, a good one. Koukl tries, cleverly I admit, to distract us and say it still preserved the male-female part. That may be true, but it's irrelevant. The ban against interracial marriage was socially constructed and then socially deconstructed. Basically Koukl's argument that gay marriage is against the natural order of things is no different from what those opposed to interracial marriage said.
  
  Therefore, he argues that gays are not discriminated against, have no legal rights denied, because they have the same rights as everyone else - to marry someone of the other gender. They just choose not to. But this ignores the Kinsey continuum and assumes that you are either male or female, black or white, with no shades of gray. Kinsey's research, plus more recent studies clearly show that gender - with the ultimate example being hermaphrodites - is not a neat dichotomous issue.
  
  In the second part, he says that it may be true that gays are denied some entitlements, but says that's ok because entitlements are not guaranteed to everyone the way rights are, and with good reason, marriage is favored because it is the base of civilization. More on that below.
  
  3. “We shouldn’t be denied the freedom to love who we want.”
  
  Read this passage carefully. It's critical. Basically he says, gays won't gain any new freedoms with the right to get married. They can do all things married people do. There's only one thing they won't get - respect, societal approval.
  
  

  This [gaining new rights through marriage] will not happen because no personal liberty is being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do – express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things. ..
  

  Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone – of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference – from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.

  Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect...

  Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil [I think he meant social] engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.

  To me, this is the most revealing passage of the whole article for two reasons:
  A. Koukle essential reveals his underlying beliefs - he thinks gay marriage is deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant. This is a theological and emotional reaction to the idea of gay marriage. All the rest of this essay, I think, is an attempt to use non-religious, non-emotional methods to try to convince people who do not share his religious and emotional objections to marriage. They aren't his fundamental objection. They are just window dressing. This is the gut issue driving everything else: "I think gay marriage is disgusting." These are the same arguments that were made for banning interracial marriage. According to Wikipedia,
  
  

  The trial judge in the [Loving case - the one in which the US Supreme Court finally overturned the interracial marriage ban -] case, Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, proclaimed that

  “	Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix.

  
  All the elements are there - contrary to nature (God's will), socially destructive (interference with His arrangement), and morally repugnant (God sets the standards for what is morally right and He did not intend for the races to mix.)
  
  B. The second significant aspect of this one is that this strong opponent of homosexuality has basically said, "look, they've gotten everything they want - they can have sex, they can live together, they can play married, etc. He's basically ceded that homosexuality is legal and that in practical terms, gays have everything, relating to marriage type relationships, that non-gays have. Except societal approval of the arrangement. While the exception is a big one, to focus only on that and not see how far society's acceptance of gays has progressed would be myopic. Gays' progress toward total equality has moved much faster than did African-Americans. OK, I know the ultimate (at least in today's vision) legal prize still eludes, but a lot has been achieved.
  
  
  4. “Marriage is about love.”
  He rejects this altogether and says marriage is about children.
  
  

  On reflection, though, it's clear that love and marriage don’t always go together.

  In fact, they seldom do.

  If marriage were about love, then billions of people in the history of the world who thought they were married were not. Most marriages have been arranged. Love may percolate later, but only as a result of marriage, not the reason for it.

  Further, if love were the sine qua non of marriage, no for better or for worse promises would be needed at the altar. Vows aren’t meant to sustain love; they are meant to sustain the union when love wanes. A pledge keeps a family intact not for love, but for the sake of children.

  The state doesn’t care if the bride and groom love each other. There are no questions about a couple's affections when granting a license. No proof of passion is required. Why? Because marriage isn’t about love.

  
  
  5. “Marriage is constantly being redefined.”
  
  Well, it might appear that way, but however marriage has changed over time, there is still the basic pairing between a man and a woman. The reason? See 6.
  
  6. “Not all marriages have children.”
  
  No, he acknowledges, but that is the purpose of them.
  

  Clearly, not all families have children. Some marriages are barren, by choice or by design.

  This proves nothing, though. Books are written by authors to be read, even if large ones are used as doorstops or discarded ones help ignite campfires. The fact that many lie unread and covered with dust, or piled atop coffee tables for decorative effect doesn’t mean they were not destined for higher purpose.

  So, if you don't have children, your marriage serves a lower purpose. Unread books? Nice try, but some people get married with no intention of having children. And some people who have children, had no such intention.
  
  Clearly, there are examples, of marriages without love (#4), but not all marriages were intended to have children. Marriages were also intended to unite families and clans. The royalty of Europe betrothed children to create alliances. Sure, having children would probably strengthen those alliances, but producing competing heirs might also endanger the alliances.
  
  If marriage is not about love, but about keeping the loveless couple together to raise their children, then it would seem that not forcing gay men to marry women might increase the likelihood that marriages would stay together. Allowing gays to get out of the hetero marriage
  market - by allowing them to get a legally sanctioned same sex marriage - I suspect the divorce rate among male-female marriage would go down. Fewer children would be born into to families destined for divorce. In fact, while we're at it, the next logical extension here would be to ban all divorce.
  
  
  7. “Marriage is a social construction we can redefine as we please.”
  
  I've discussed this above. Kukle takes the realist position that marriage is a natural phenomenon that cannot be redefined by society. I think that if he really believed that, he wouldn't fear people making changes, since the natural human affinity for male-female marriage, the purpose to have children, etc. would 'naturally' guarantee the long term health and survival of marriage. Only if marriage truly were a social construction, could humans significantly change it. And he says this himself:
  

  If the definition of marriage is established by nature, then we have no liberty to redefine it. In fact, marriage itself wouldn’t change at all even if we did.

  So, it doesn't matter if we allow same-sex marriages.
  
  Well, maybe he doesn't believe what he says. The very fact that he is concerned about the future of marriage suggests to me, that deep down, he understands that it is socially constructed and that he wants to make sure that the present construction stays that way he wants it.
  

  Same-sex marriage is radically revisionist. It severs family from its roots, eviscerates marriage of any normative content, and robs children of a mother and a father. This must not happen.

  If male-female marriage is the natural state and humans cannot socially construct marriage, then how would same-sex marriage eviscerate marriage? But if he admits that marriage is socially constructed, then male-female marriage would no longer be 'natural,' but just a human construction. You just can't have it both ways. Sorry Mr. Koukle.
  
  OK, that's how I see it. I've felt a little rushed here to get this out today. If there are flaws in my reasoning please point them out.

Partial Redemption for Alaskans?

The ADN says yesterday's vote counting has erased Ted Stevens' 3000+ lead and now Begich is 814 votes ahead. That was after 60,000 absentee and questioned ballots were counted. There are still 40,000 ballots to go.

When I was poll watching there were about 40 questioned ballots while I was there (7am-4:30pm) out of about 800 votes. They fell into the following categories:

• People not on the list because they were voting outside their regular polling place.
• People not on the list who thought they were in their regular polling place (and some of these had spouses with them who were on the list, and some were on my list of people supporting Democrats in that polling place.)
• People who were on the list, but said they had moved. Even though they were on the list, and in most cases still living in the same area, they had to vote a questioned ballot and to fill out a new registration with their new address. If they hadn't said anything they could have voted regular.

Anyway, does it reflect differently on Alaskans if one more person votes for Begich than Stevens or vice versa? It still means half the people who voted marked a convicted felon.

But, Democrats. What would you have done if your candidate had been convicted and there was a Democratic governor who would get to appoint the next senator and maybe keep the office Democratic? Especially if the governor had suddenly burst onto the national scene and been a big hit with the 'real' Democrats and could appoint himself and thus move back to the national scene?

While I agree that voting for a convicted felon doesn't play well for the rest of the world, I do understand it as a tactic to further one's cause. And I'm not sure given a roughly similar situation, Democrats wouldn't have done the same. A number of people in both parties (yeah, I know there are more than just two) are more than willing to abandon their professed principles if it means they 'win.' I personally believe that our behavior reflects our values more than what we say. So these people really do, in my book, value 'winning' over their other professed values.

The real key is to convince enough voters to vote for the candidate who isn't a felon so the issue becomes moot. If we stop electing candidates with dark clouds hanging over them (you mean there is no one else well qualified?) then parties will stop nominating indicted candidates.

I don't know if the remaining 40,000 votes (if that's an accurate number) are going to split like the 60,000 counted so far. If they do, then it is moot. And Alaska will be in a new era as is the US.

By the way, the NY Times reports today on the 'unnamed McCain campaign figure' who 'leaked' that Palin said Africa was a country. He's a hoax. So, maybe we gain a bit more credibility on that count too. But my question is, did Palin know that Africa was a continent, not a country? Her comments in a press conference later didn't really inspire confidence. She didn't flatly deny she'd said that, rather she made like it really didn't matter.

"If there are allegations based on questions or comments I made in debate prep about NAFTA, about the continent versus the country when we talk about Africa there, then those were taken out of context..."

In any case, our governor needs to be more careful about her facts - maybe that's why most of her public discussion avoids them - see this latest press conference video. The Anchorage Daily News cover story in Monday's paper quotes her saying:

And banning books. That was a ridiculous thing also that could have so easily been corrected just by a reporter taking an extra step and not basing a report on gossip or speculation. But just looking into the record. It was reported that I tried to ban Harry Potter when it hadn't even been written when I was the mayor.

Well, ok, so I'm just trying to check the record. When was the first Harry Potter book published? Wikipedia says:

Since the 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which was retitled Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in the United States, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide.

And when was Palin mayor of Wasilla?

The official bio at the Governor's office site leaves out dates:

Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla.

The McCain campaign site doesn't have the dates either.
So, back to Wikipedia:

Palin was a member of the Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996 and the city's mayor from 1996 to 2002.

But I better double check with other sources to be absolutely certain. Time magazine mentions "the 1996 campaign for mayor of her hometown, Wasilla..." The Anchorage Daily News had a long feature in 2006 which included this:

Previous offices: Wasilla City Council, 1992-1996; Wasilla mayor, 1996-2002; Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-2004.

OK, then,

• Palin was mayor starting in 1996 until 2002.
  
• The first Harry Potter book came out in 1997.
• The second book in the series was published in 1998.
  
• The third one in 1999. when Palin had three more years to serve as mayor.
  
• The fourth one, The Goblet of Fire, came out in 2000.

The way I read things, not only had Harry Potter been written by the time she was mayor, but it had been published. Maybe she meant, "in 1996, when I became mayor, Harry Potter hadn't even been published." But Governor, you have to say what you mean. If you say " it hadn't even been written when I was the mayor" then we're going to assume that is what you mean. Part of being a politician is being able to get your facts right and say what you mean. (Now, if the ADN has falsely quoted you, I apologize profusely on this point.)

When I first saw the bogus list of Palin's books to ban, I immediately knew it was a hoax. It had too many well known and loved books. We certainly would have heard about that - all the way in Anchorage - had she tried to ban that long list of books.

But it wasn't Harry Potter that people were concerned about. People did check their facts - better than the governor seems to check hers - and there was a librarian who told us that she'd been asked about removing books. And I personally had a chance to hear Howard Bess discuss how his book, Pastor, I'm Gay kept disappearing from the library, no matter how often he donated new copies. And that Palin's church was campaigning to get books out of the library.

So, first, people did check facts. Yes, there were scurrilous stories, but also a number that were solid. That goes with the territory. The governor, for example, is still talking about Obama 'palling around' with terrorists.

Second, I understand how someone can forget or misspeak details now and then. It happens to me all too often. I understand being more concerned with the big picture than the details. There is, however, a big BUT that goes here. If you don't have any of the details right, then your big picture is built on falsehoods. If we disregard the hard facts, then every model of the world is equal. Everyone has a right to their opinions, but the rest of us don't have to buy them.

We need politicians who have a broad picture of how the world works that is grounded on a solid base of proven facts. Palin did a pretty good job of this with the AGIA proposal. She had outstanding public administrators backing her up on that. But since the first hints of Troopergate and then the nod from McCain, it's been very heavy on questionable theory and little proven fact.

Interesting October Google (and other) Searches

Well, using Google analytics, I've got the last 30 days or so. By far the most popular page was President and Vice President Job Duties with almost 2500 folks going there. It gained renewed interest after Sarah Palin talked about the vice president job duties. It also seemed that a lot of teachers gave assignments on that topic judging from the number of people search vp duties from schools. They got there googling a variety of phrases like:

• "what does the 5 things a vice president of the united states do" Part of me thinks google should have a message that says, "No hits until you fix your grammar." But only if it's coming from a computer using English.
• job without duties (vp) - item without comment

The next highest was Victor Lebow's Complete Original 1955 Article

Some of the unique search terms were:

• "men that are gay having sex whet aman" - That got the person to the Eliot Spitzer post
  
  
• "what do bears know that people don't" - This one got to the posts on wildlife in Anchorage
  
  
• "famous people born on lunar eclipses" - "famous poeple born" get a lot of people to the post on Famous People Born 1908 . Nothing there about eclipses though.
  
  
• "will do what's best for the people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive with the president?s agenda in that position" - from Paris, on a Spanish language Mac - I hope they weren't learning English using Palin's interviews
  
  
• "what do people look like in alaska" - Pale? What sort of answer was this person expecting?
  
  
• "what part of alaska do moose come from?" - Moose Pass?
  
  
• "how do you pronounce teklanika" - They got a bit about Teklanika, but no help pronouncing it. For the record people say Tek Kla NEE Ka. And while we're at it, the 1989 oil spill was near Val Deez, even though it's spelled Valdez.
  
  
• "anyone ever get in trouble for leaving off a dependent to join the military" - from someone in Oklahoma- is this like the new laws about dropping off kids you can't handle?
  
  
• "teeth been sold out" - got to “Bear Tooth vp debate sold out” - from the UK
  
  
• "mccarthy alaska 4th july videos" - Here's a Google screw up. They got an archive page in July, but not the videos of July 4th in McCarthy
  
  
• "tiberius gracchus and obama" - did someone else really make this association between these two folks, or had they seen the post once and were trying to find it again?
  
  
• "governors appointing themselves us senators" - hmmm, wonder what could have spurred this query? Sarah, any thoughts?

Happy Go Lucky Day

The sky was still very blue when I ran around the Santa Monica Airport this morning (instead of down to the beach.) Just before I'd left, the doorbell rang and two people were there to get my mom to vote for Proposition 9[8], the proposition that is attempting to overthrow the California Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage in California. I was agitated just thinking these people were at the door. When my mother said she agreed it was terrible to teach gay marriage to 2nd graders (that's what a political ad that keeps playing on the television asserts) I lost it completely. "You believe that bullshit?" They left. Fortunately, when I explained what the proposition wanted to do, my mom said she was opposed to it. But I still really needed to run.
By the time I saw this sign amongst someone's Halloween decorations - yes the people around here get excited about Halloween - I'd forgotten all about it, but was pleased to see the sign.
In the afternoon we went to the movies at Pico and Westwood. I hate parking garages, and this one was bumper-to-bumper both ways when I drove in.

Where's the Happy-Go-Lucky part, you're asking. Well, that was the name of the movie. My mom still likes movies, but she can't keep up with subtitles any more. This one seemed to get good reviews and was supposed to be an upbeat movie.

It is and it isn't. All the reviews focus on Sally Hawkin's performance. It is outstanding, but so are a number of other actors. There isn't much of a story. It's like a dozen scenes edited together. We hang out with Poppy and her friends for a couple of days in and around London. There are teachers - primary school, Flamenco (worth it alone), and driving (another incredible performance.) And there's a perfect performance by a six or seven year old kid. Everyone is outstanding. And the opening credits are shown around Poppy riding her bike.
Then dinner next door at Jaipur Indian restaurant. Just the name of the place was enough to pull me in, but they were so busy and brusque, that I figured they were not interested in knowing that'd I'd been to Jaipur. The food was ok, but not special. But it's nice to have a mom who's willing to eat strange food.

Maureen Dowd's Trip to Alaska

Maureen Dowd of the NY Times was in town last week taking notes. Here's a brief excerpt:

I wandered through the Wal-Mart, which seemed almost as large as Wasilla, a town that is a soulless strip mall without sidewalks set beside a soulful mountain and lake.

Wal-Mart has all the doodads that Sarah must need in her career as a sportsman — Remingtons and “torture tested” riflescopes, game bags for caribou, machines that imitate rabbits and young deer and coyotes to draw your quarry in so you can shoot it, and machines to squish cows into beef jerky.

I talked to a Wal-Mart mom, Betty Necas, 39, wearing sweatpants and tattoos on her wrists.

She said she’s never voted, and was a teenage mom “like Bristol.” She likes Sarah because she’s “down home” but said Obama “gives me the creeps. Nothing to do with the fact that he’s black. He just seems snotty, and he looks weaselly.”

She also went to the James Dobson's focus on the family gay curing session and the women against Palin demonstration at Loussac Library.

Here's a link to the whole Dowd column.

Would Your Mother Make a Good VP?

I got asked in a telephone poll yesterday whether I viewed Sarah Palin favorably. How do you answer that? Fortunately, the pollster was pretty loose and accepted my non-responsive answer of, Yeah, I'd like her to stay my governor.

You may love your mom and still not think she'd be a good vice president or president.

Rating Palin as a Person

My first personal interaction with Sarah Palin - an early political talk and question and answer session at the University of Alaska Anchorage being the one in which I actually talked to her - left me feeling both impressed and a little skeptical. She was unpretentious, didn't pretend to know things she didn't know - she just said, "I need to learn more about that" or "What do you suggest on that?" I'm generally a pretty good judge of whether people are genuine and if she wasn't that day, she got past my crap detectors. But it also seemed like she had a long way to go to beat the Republican establishment, and then the former Democratic Governor. But she did both. So I'm cautious about underestimating her now.

But it's possible to evaluate someone differently for different roles. The public person I saw was someone I liked. I don't agree with things she believes, but she listened to others and didn't have any of the facade politicians normally have. I realize that people in Wasilla saw a lot more, if not cunning, at least very focused drive to get what she was after.

All in all, I think she's smart, but has been raised in a limited environment where she was overly influenced by fairly narrow religious beliefs. I personally don't think abortion is a good thing, but I think it is morally much more ambiguous than right-to-lifers would have it. The fewer the number of abortions the better, but ultimately, each woman has to make that decision for herself. But someone who truly believes there's a soul from the moment of conception, probably has a moral duty to stop abortion. But teaching creationism alongside evolution? That's just ignorance in my mind. But I think that Sarah is smart enough and curious enough that she could grow beyond her roots on some of the more stifling beliefs.


Rating Palin as a Governor

Running for governor she took on her corrupt party leaders. It didn't hurt her cause that the FBI raided some of their offices and indicted some of them during the campaign. And then she did stand up to the big oil companies in Juneau. First on the petroleum profit tax increase and then on the Alaska Gasline Incentive Act.

In some ways these were ethical stances - the oil companies had done their best to buy the legislature through campaign contributions, trips to Prudhoe Bay, and other junkets, and through Bill Allen (pled guilty) on the PPT bill and the gasline. She had good advisers on this and stood up to the oil companies. But basically, she wants to drill ANWR (no Alaskan politicians think they can oppose drilling and win), and fought protection of polar bears that might threaten offshore oil drilling. And in recent weeks (is it really only weeks ago this came out?) her firing of the head of the troopers was the first public glimpse of another side of Palin.

All in all, while I didn't vote for Palin, I think by standing up to the Republican party and the oil companies, she probably did a lot more good for Alaska than her Democratic opponent would have done. Up til now, she's been a good governor and that's why she's got such high ratings.

Rating Palin as a VP or President

Most people who eventually run for president have had pretty broad life experiences in their college and early post college years a time in their lives when they are still forming their moral understanding of the world. I don't think Palin had those kinds of experiences until she was in her 40s as Governor, an age when it is harder - though not impossible - to change. Only then did she make her first trip outside the US (not counting Canada I assume), did she deal with people outside of Alaska on serious issues. (There could be other experiences I'm unaware of, but I doubt there was much significant interaction with people different from Palin.)

The Republican spin machine is ludicrously calling black, white in their effort to paint Palin as experienced. Despite their claims that being head of the Alaska National Guard gave her commander-in-chief experience and that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her important international policy experience, any Alaskan who knows anything, knows that's total nonsense. I doubt that Palin could have named more than one or two current Russian leaders before last week, or could have picked out Georgia on a world map. (I'm not sure she could have picked out the state of Georgia on a US map.) Or could tell us about the Russian Revolution, even when it was, let alone who played leading roles. (Most Americans couldn't do that either, but most Americans aren't running for vice president.) When I read Ropi's blog, I'm amazed at what a modern Hungarian high school student studies. In many ways I'd say Ropi's knowledge would make Palin's knowledge of the world embarrassing. That's not to say Ropi is in any way ready to be a US Vice President, but I'd dare say his basic knoweldge about the world, about world history, and even his least favorite subjects like math and biology, are well beyond what Sarah Palin or even most American high school graduates know.


So, as you can see, evaluating Sarah Palin isn't that easy. It depends what you're evaluating her for. I think that socially I'd enjoy her company and conversation at dinner [aside from the fact that she's the VP candidate.] We have different values and beliefs, but she's bright and it would interesting to hear what she has to say about what she believes.

For her performance as governor, I give her high marks so far. The Monehan affair is a sign of her lack of experience in the ethics of organizational protocol, especially governmental organizations, where merit systems are the standard. Whether she would have (under normal circumstances) learned and adjusted in response was one of the things that would have told us whether she was just a fluke who came along at the right time with the right qualities, or whether she had the potential to grow into a serious stateswoman.

As a potential Vice President, and thus a potential President I have to assess her against very different criteria. A gifted ice skater who's sent to the Olympics without a lot of training and competitive experience could do well, but the odds aren't good. Our Olympic tryouts wouldn't let that person in. Palin hasn't tried out. She hasn't competed beyond the Alaska championships. We're a state with fewer than 700,000 people! That means she really hasn't been tested at all in the big leagues. And we're talking about one of the most important jobs in the world. Scary is all I can say.

The Peace Corps, at least when I was in training, had a category called "high risk - high gain." It meant they thought the trainee could either be a super volunteer or a total washout. In Sarah Palin, at this point, I see the high-risk part, but I simply don't see the high-gain part. (Yes if my life was dedicated to fighting abortion and gay rights, and bringing back SUV's, God into schools and government, I could see the high-gain label, but that isn't me.)


What Happened to the Fighter Who Stood Up to Her Corrupt Party Leaders?

One more observation. The one thing most Alaskans would agree on about Sarah Palin is that she stood up to her corrupt party leaders, at a time when that really was risky, and declared her party chair unethical. She resigned saying she simply couldn't continue on the Oil and Gas Commission under the circumstances. That was a gutsy thing to do and bought a lot of credibility for her among Alaskans.

But what happened to that Sarah Palin? Now we see a Sarah Palin who is compromising those brave acts by following the orders of the likes of Karl Rove and his Orwellian soulless-mates. The Palin who spoke of cooperation and who worked with Democrats in Juneau, is now throwing mean, baseless accusations at Obama (Making "community organizing" into an epithet is consistent with the Republican game plan of poisoning every word that describes their opponents.)

The openness that impressed me so much when I first saw her has turned to deception about her record in front of the national audience and a week in hiding from the press. The old Sarah Palin would have giggled at the claim that her position of governor gave her serious commander-in-chief experience or that she was a Russian policy expert. Rudy Ruedrich (the Alaskan Republican Party chair she outed as corrupt) must be wondering how that strong-willed Sarah Palin has turned into the docile, obedient student of the even more corrupt Karl Rove and gang.

One explanation is that Sarah Palin is a superb actress and brilliant strategist and her fight against the Alaskan Republican party was a devious Machiavellian plot, and Lyda Green has pegged Palin right all along. (A great example of Palin's amateur status is her giggling on the radio talk show when the hosts called Lyda Green a bitch (hmmm, I never thought I'd cite Dan Fagan as a reference, but he paints the picture of the audio I heard when it was available) instead of telling them they went way over the line. That YouTube tape now has this message: "This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by a third party.")

A more likely explanation is that Palin is absolutely no match for the level of play in national Republican circles and that being on McCain's ticket has her totally compliant to the Rovian team that sold George W. Bush to the American public. Twice.

Brideshead Revisited - New Movie revisits the old book and tv series

Doug, you shouldn't have left so soon. We needed you at dinner after watching this movie to fill in some of the questions we had about class and school in England. I'll get to that later.

The title gives away a lot. We'll be revisiting Brideshead often. And the movie will visually be in and out of the shadows, blacks and whites, reflecting how we see all the characters - partially revealed partially in the dark. Sometimes I think the directors have a good laugh as people read all sorts of things into their films. But I was struck, over and over again by how people walked in and out of shadows; how only one side of a face was lit, the other dark; how the light danced - on cigarette smoke, on the shimmering walls of the canal.

When I took a photo class long ago, I remember that an ideal photo had in it some total white and total black. As you watch the clips, you'll see the cameraman does that in many (most?) scenes. I need to go back and see if that is true throughout. Even outside in sunshine, there's the black band on the white hat, or shadow masking some part of the frame.
Matthew Goode, as Charles, stood out as the student who goes to Oxford in the early 20th Century and quickly falls in with Sebastion, Lord Sebastian, the troubled, very rich young man with a suffocatingly Catholic mother and a father who's escaped her choke hold for a cheerier life in Italy leaving the children in her clutches. All the acting was good (Emma Thompson played the mother). But while Ben Whishaw's Sebastian allowed him to be dramatic in a more flamboyant way, Goode had to work within very narrow confines, his eyes and lips doing much of the acting. Or so I remember it.




My questions that beg for Doug's participation in the discussion had to do with the role he was supposed to play. Despite the fact that his mum had died when he was little, and that his father never looked at him when they spoke, which they barely did, he was incredibly comfortable with who he was. His second day at Oxford, though he wasn't from any of the proper prep schools, sitting in a room with Oxford's very out and camp gay crowd - with there being little hint of his prior gay experience - he appears totally at ease with himself and the situation and responds with complete composure to the taunts he receives.

OK, I know the book is famous and I think I saw some episodes when this was a series on tv. Maybe it's all clear in there. But while there were hints here and there that he was trying to fit in, it really isn't until the end that he tells Julia straight out how much he needed being part of Brideshead. Yes, we were told that in scenes along the way, but Goode's calm composure in every situation, seemed too cool. I would have liked to see a bit of self-doubt. The words "I wanted to fit in" weren't accompanied by an edge in his voice, a shadow (not literally, there were plenty of those) on his face. He always knew exactly what to say in dicey situations (well, these were dicey in a very upper class way, like wearing the proper shirt for the occasion, meeting Mother) with no hesitation, with the right inflection, and a hint that this was all rather easy.

Of course, he may have been that rare person who actually had that much comfort at a young age in who he was to carry it off. That would have been what made him so attractive to all around him. And the hint at the end that perhaps he was like Rex, the American, and that all this was simply calculated, was tantalizing, but I didn't see enough of this in his character to give me doubts about his intentions. I'm so naive.

I need to go back and find out which, if any, of the characters the author Evelyn Waugh saw himself as. Doug, fill me in. Or Jay, maybe you have some insights.