Edmund Schweppe

In which Josh Whedon provides the reasoning behind his endorsement in the 2012 US Presidential election: ( Embedded YouTube behind the cut )

also known as "Holy cow, both those guys ate their Wheaties!" ( Some thoughts behind the cut tag )

These opinions, of course, are worth at most whatever you've paid me for them. After all, I thought the first debate wasn't a "game-changing moment", and everybody else thought it was a huge win for Romney.

His speech at the Democratic National Convention, as compared to Mitt Romney's speech at the Republican one last week, that is.

It wasn't as smooth as President Clinton's speech the night before, and more details on future proposals would have been nice. He did call out some of the more egregious nonsense on the Republican side ("take two tax cuts and call me in the morning"). More importantly (IMNSHO), however, Obama's speech held a far more positive vision of America - and he pitched that speech to all sides of the political debate.

Best of all, nobody came out ranting at the furniture this time. (Seriously, Clint, WTF?)

In other political news, today was the Massachusetts state primary election. I voted, even though the races I cared about were uncontested. Most of the electorate didn't bother; in my precinct of roughly 2200(?) voters, only 174 ballots had been cast with an hour to go until the polls closed. The poll workers and I joked that there might be a wee bit of a difference come November.

Well, I did my duty and watched Mitt Romney's big speech at the Republican National Convention.

Personally, I wasn't impressed. It looked like Mitt kept stepping on his applause lines. That bit about how Obama didn't have any business experience brings up the question of how much business experience Mitt's running mate has (answer: none). Celebrating Neil Armstrong's life was a nice touch, unless of course you're running on a government-is-bad-so-let's-cut-it platform. Staples as an "office" company? Err, okay. The lines about women starting businesses were okay, although I'd be a lot more convinced that he cared about women if he'd mentioned anything about pay equality.

Also, WTF was that Clint Eastwood speech about? And did Marco Rubio just torpedo his career with that "we chose more government, not more freedom" gaffe?

The good news? That particular political clown show is over.

of why the Fourth of July matters.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

(Transcript from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html)

Massachusetts is one of the states holding Presidential primary elections today. I didn't get to the polls until about half an hour before closing, and my ballot was number 306. Given that the precinct has around 2500 registered voters, that's pretty piss-poor turnout.

On the other hand, Obama was the only name on the Democratic ballot, Romney was fully expected to win the Republican nod (his legal residence is still in Massachusetts) and who the heck cares about the three-way bunfight for the Green-Rainbow Party nomination? Besides the three candidates, and possibly their mothers, that is.

As I noted in my previous entry, Barbara Lenk, the most recent nominee to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has been the focus of quite a bit of a kerfluffle by virtue of her being the first openly gay nominee. There have been a few recent developments that folks might be interested in:

First, Judge Lenk has been confirmed:

Barbara A. Lenk, a veteran Massachusetts Appeals Court judge, won confirmation yesterday to a seat on the Supreme Judicial Court, becoming the first openly gay judge to serve on the state’s highest judicial body.

The Governor’s Council confirmed Lenk on a 5-to-3 vote. She is Governor Deval Patrick’s fourth appointment to the seven-member SJC, which issued the landmark 2003 ruling that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriage.

The three councilors who voted against Judge Lenk claimed that her sexuality had nothing to do with their decisions.

Second, Sally Naumann, whose testimony at Lenk's confirmation hearing inspired my mother to write a letter to the Boston Globe, had a letter of her own published in the Globe. Ms. Naumann, alas, is firmly convinced that homosexuality is a choice and that gays and lesbians are actively recruiting new members for their secret cabal.

Third, and on a much happier note, my extremely cool Mom says thanks.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has nominated an appellate judge from my home town of Carlisle, Barbara Lenk, to fill an open seat on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. This is the same court whose decision in Goodridge vs. Department of Public Health first legalized same-sex marriage in the United States.

The nomination has caused a bit of a kerfluffle, since Lenk happens to be a lesbian. In fact, if confirmed, she would be the first openly gay justice on the SJC. She also is married, having wed her partner after the Goodridge decision took effect. Sadly but unsurprisingly, that led to some unpleasant testimony at her confirmation hearings, including this bit from another Carlisle resident:

"This will be a clarion call to all that want to indoctrinate our children into homosexuality," testified Sally Naumann, who, like Lenk, lives in Carlisle. "How will we ever be able to say no to our children?"

In reply to that article, my mom, who still lives in Carlisle, wrote the following letter to the editor of the Boston Globe:

IN YOUR April 29 editorial "Decision on Lenk should focus on her record, not her sexuality," you write that Sally Naumann testified before the Governor’s Council that Judge Barbara Lenk’s nomination to the state Supreme Judicial Court would be "a clarion call to all that want to indoctrinate our children into homosexuality." I have lived in Carlisle for 50 years, and known Naumann for most of that time. Our sons went to school together. Never have any of my gay friends, co-workers, and neighbors tried to indoctrinate me or my sons into homosexuality. They have been too busy living active, fruitful lives contributing to our town, state, and country.

And that is one of the reasons why I have an extremely cool mom.

The GOP/Tea Party "shut it down!" crowd haven't shut down the Federal Government (yet). But they have managed to force the cancellation of ...

... a ceremony marking the first battle of the Revolutionary War.

As reported on boston.com:

In a shot that may be heard 'round the nation, Concord officials canceled tomorrow's kickoff Patriots Day event marking the dawn of the American Revolution because of the looming threat of a federal government shutdown.

At Meriam's Corner, members of the Concord Independent Battery planned to fire their cannon at 1 p.m. tomorrow while the area's Minute Man companies marked the fighting that pushed the British regulars back to Boston on April 19, 1775.

But the exercise — which kicks off a raft of Patriots Day events this month — was called off because it would have taken place at the Minute Man National Historical Park, which will close if a federal shutdown takes place at midnight tonight.

[ ... ]

"The Meriam's Corner event really is the kickoff for our Patriots Day observances," Sideris said. "We have done an awful lot of restoration around the Battle Road, which refers to the path the British had to follow as they fought all the way back to Boston Harbor – 16 miles and all along the way the colonists were firing on them."

The event is cancelled regardless of whether or not the government shuts down tonight, because the organizers couldn't get permits from the National Park Service. Minute Man National Historical Park contains many of the battle sites, including the North Bridge, Meriam's Corner and the Bloody Angle, and a Federal shutdown means all of them will be closed to the public.

Scuppering Patriots Day ceremonies because you're not getting your way on Planned Parenthood funding? Yeah, that's real damn patriotic. </sarcasm>

Today is Election Day in the US, as I'm pretty sure that most of the USAians who follow this journal know. The user icon is a picture of the sign directing people to my own precinct's polling place; I've always liked the juxtaposition of "voting" and "own risk". Yeah, democracy can be dangerous, and voting can be risky; but it's the least-bad method I know of to run a country.

For those of us for whom today is election day - have you voted yet? I have.

And I want to do my little bit to boost the signal:

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/10/18/things-i-dont-have-to-think-about-today/

It's all over my friends-list, and in fact all over the news, but in case anyone missed it, a Federal judge has declared that California's "Proposition 8" (which banned same-sex marriages in the state) violates the US Constitution.

From boston.com:

A federal judge overturned California's gay-marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually force the U.S. Supreme Court to confront the question of whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.

The ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker touched off a celebration outside the courthouse. Gay couples waved rainbow and American flags and erupted with cheers in the city that has long been a magnet for gays.

The full decision is available on the court's website at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf (343kb) (and copies are all over the Web by now). Chief Judge Walker's conclusion is striking:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Walker's not what anyone would call a flaming liberal. He was originally nominated by Ronald Reagan, and appointed by George H.W. Bush, rotating to the Chief Judgeship in 2004. Maybe that'll keep the cries of "judicial activism!" down for a change.

There's an interesting article in today's Boston Globe about how people respond to news stories that happen to confirm their preexisting notions - and, more importantly, fail to respond to stories that tend to disprove them:

In the end, truth will out. Won’t it?

Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

(emphasis in original)

It's probably ironic that one of my first reactions to this article was to wonder how I could check the writer's claims. On the other hand, it makes intuitive sense to me that someone holding a strong belief about X is very likely to grant great credence to stories that support that belief, and great skepticism towards stories that refute it.

And it certainly explains the fruitlessness of much political discourse.

If you have not already cast a ballot in today's special election, and you are in fact a registered voter, get thy buttocks into gear and do so.

I, personally, would prefer that you vote for Ms. Coakley over Mr. Brown. But vote, dammit!

From today's Boston Globe:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who carried aloft the torch of a Massachusetts dynasty and a liberal ideology to the citadel of Senate power, but whose personal and political failings may have prevented him from realizing the ultimate prize of the presidency, died at his home in Hyannis Port last night after a battle with brain cancer. He was 77.

He was "my Senator" for effectively my entire life.

Sailor, rest your oars.