Aug
24
Bread And Circuses
August 24, 2010 | Leave a Comment
We spent last week away on the Isle of Wight. For those not familiar with this fabled land, it’s an island just off the south coast of England separated from the mainland by a bit of water called The Solent.
I’ve only ever been there for a couple of day trips before, one of which involved that ever-so-British insistence on going into the sea despite thick fog and cold winds, which will tell you what the weather was like. So one thing I hadn’t registered before this visit was how classically English countryside the landscape is. Seriously - think of what you’d expect to see in the classic English country view and it’s everywhere you look on the Isle of Wight. Rolling fields, woodland copses, little villages with thatched cottages nestled between hills, hedgerow-edged country lanes, sheer cliffs falling into the sea, hilltop churches; they’re all there. In a lot of ways you don’t register how little of this typical England you see in the ordinary course of events, especially living and working in a city. I know it’s all still out there in parts, but on the Isle it’s like it’s all been concentrated into one small area and you’re just so much more aware of it.
We stayed on the edge of a village called Godshill, which is one of the most relentlessly pretty villages you can imagine, and though it’s one of those tourist villages where it’s not clear if there’s somewhere to buy a pint of milk, it does have some good eating. Being an island with a decidedly agricultural bent, there’s a wealth of great produce available from both land and sea, and in a shameless plug, I’ll say that we didn’t find those things being put to better use than at a pub in Godshill called The Taverners. You’ve got to love somewhere that worries about its food miles but can also list them in fractions, or even in one case “640 yards”. Even down to locally sourcing the flour that they use to bake their own bread, The Taverners is a winner on the local produce front, and they do it all justice in the cooking. All our time in San Francisco has given The Mrs and I a serious love of sourdough bread, and The Taverners does a fabulous loaf of the stuff. If there was a way to keep it fresh I’d have brought home a car load. Which ironically would have bumped up its food miles by a factor of hundreds :-)
Of course, the downside of holidaying in England is the uncertainty of the weather, which did its level best to be as uncertain as possible last week. It was so variable that weather forecasts changed dramatically from hour to hour, and while a lot of the rain thoughtfully fell overnight, most of the time there was a generally grey aspect that always threatened more. Given that part of the rationale for going was to help entertain some friends’ kids, that limited the options slightly, but it also led to at least one lifetime first for me: we went to the circus.
Now, I’m not sure how I’ve reached the age I have without ever having been to a circus, but somehow it’s happened. And obviously now they’re not like they used to be, as they can’t have evil animal acts, so I suspect I’ve missed the golden age. But was it what I was expecting? Not exactly. To begin with, the scale of this one was … smaller. When you think of circuses, they tend to be those huge Big Tops with hundreds of seats ranked up around the ring and enough overhead space for a serious trapeze act or three. This one was more intimate - no trapeze as such, though various acts worked off the ground, and no tendency to inspire the gasps of awe that I tend to associate with high wire acts and people being thrown and caught high above one (can you tell my circus expectations are totally informed by films?). But it was a fun way to while away a couple of hours; there was a clown, there was a ringmistress - yes, terribly modern :-), there were young women in many sequins, and athletic young men being athletic. And to give it its due, the two kids in our party were rapt. They loved the slapstick of the clown, and they sat amazed at the acts, so on probably its most basic measure, I’d have to say it was a success.
I’ll be frank and say that it wasn’t the most amazing holiday ever, but it had its moments, and for the gorgeous landscape alone I’d say the Isle of Wight is somewhere worth passing some time.
Aug
13
Marriage Matters
August 13, 2010 | 1 Comment
Following up from my last post I thought I’d reflect a bit more on the Prop 8 case and for the benefit of the Brits and anyone else who didn’t follow the detail I present a (long) summary of the key points and an unexpected shift in my own perspective arising from it:
The Prop 8 case was fascinating, mostly for the startling lack of effort that seems to have gone into the case of those defending the ballot initiative, and also for the nature of the legal team seeking that Prop 8 should be declared unconstitutional.
As I noted last time the legal team was led by Theodore Olson and David Boies, both experienced litigators with past form arguing all the way up to the Supreme Court, most famously when they were on opposite sides of the Bush/Gore fight following the 2000 election. Ted Olson went on to be part of GWB’s legal team and is a card-carrying Republican, as well as the most experienced of currently-active Supreme Court litigators. The fact that these two legal giants came together and saw this as a case capable of winning is, to me, an incredible testament to the strength of the case for same-sex marriage(SSM) and also to the protections that should be inherent in the US Constitution (which is the foundation of trying to have the initiative declared unconstitutional, obviously). More, the fact that Olson in particular was able to see past the the dogma of his political ’soulmates’ and take a stand for what he perceived to be right makes him worthy of significant respect.
Almost more astonishing than this alliance though, is the way the case itself unfolded. (Note to keep things clear - the case was brought on behalf of two California couples who argued that the result of the Proposition was to deny them their right to marry - therefore the prosecution and plaintiffs in this case are people against Prop 8 and the defendant was the State of California. The State, by the way, declined to defend the Proposition in court - effectively saying that it agrees the proposition is unconstitutional - leaving it to a group of anti-SSM activists to assemble a defence).
When it came to the trial, Olson and Boies presented what was to every neutral viewpoint I’ve read, a robust, rational, compelling case that systematically dismantled every argument against SSM. They made the case that not only was the intention and effect of the proposition to deny rights to an identifiable minority, but that the institution of marriage is in no way harmed by SSM, while those who cannot create legally protected unions are indeed harmed by that fact. They called the plaintiff couples, and other affected parties, and a list of expert witnesses to show how marriage has evolved over time, how the LGBT community is discriminated against, and how the campaign for Prop 8 had been conducted through lies, smears and false innuendoes. By every account it was a textbook case.
The defence case, conversely, was simply bizarre. The initially six-strong witness list was whittled down to two, allegedly because the other four feared the wrath of the violent homofascists if they testified (yes, I know…). With hindsight though it seemed they also failed to take part because their pre-trial depositions actually strengthened the case against Prop 8.
Among other points, the depositions of some of these witnesses confirmed that marriage equality would strengthen family stability, and that lesbians and gay men have a long history of being discriminated against, including by propositions such as this one…
The two defence witnesses they did call to the stand were catastrophic for their case. One ‘expert’ supposed to demonstrate that LGBTs are not politically vulnerable (ie not prone to being legislatively discriminated against) had only had one peer-reviewed article published, and that was about Prop 8 itself.
The second was so bad for them you’d think he was a prosecution plant. He turned out to have NO relevant research qualifications or published works, and didn’t even know what past Supreme Court judgements had said about the right to marriage. Worse (for them), he made plenty of statements about how marriage equality would be a good thing; that it would be, among other things, “a victory for, and another key expansion of, the American idea” - and this is the key anti-SSM witness!
Olson and Boies even called one of the defence witnesses who had declined to appear, one of the Official Proponents of Prop 8, and just took him apart.
Last week, when Judge Vaughan Walker ruled on the case and declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, he would clearly have been prepared for the cries of “activist judge!” that inevitably sprang up. He was probably also prepared for the shrieks that as an alleged gay man he should have recused himself from the case (right, because all those straight white judges keep recusing themselves from cases affecting straight white men…), and he was probably prepared for the attempt to pass a Congressional motion condemning his ruling. But his ruling itself - all 130+ pages of it, should be all the defence he needs of his actions - it’s argued dispassionately, based heavily on facts as presented by both sides in the case, and establishes both key legal principles that the prosecution sought, based on the actual case presented to him.
Last Sunday in the wake of the ruling, and pending possible appeals, Olson and Boies both took to the morning talk TV shows. Olson ripped up the challenges to him on Fox News, which in other times would be his natural constituency, and David Boies took on Tony Perkins of the grimly homophobic Family Research Council on CBS and, in the vernacular, tore him a new one. This comment from Boies in particular has been well circulated but is worth repeating:
And what we saw at trial is that it’s very easy for the people who want to deprive gay and lesbian citizens the right to vote, to make all sorts of statements and campaign literature or in debates where they can’t be crossexamined. But when they come into court and they have to support those opinions and they have to defend those opinions under oath and cross-examination, those opinions just melt away. And that’s what happened here. There simply wasn’t any evidence. There weren’t any of those studies. There weren’t any empirical studies. That’s just made up. That’s junk science. And it’s easy to say that on television. But witness stand is a lonely place to lie. And when you come into court, you can’t do that. And that’s what we proved. We put fear and prejudice on trial, and fear and prejudice lost.
This gets to the heart of it. When robbed of the ability to scaremonger; when forced to justify their claims with evidence; when compelled to address the real world, not the world they make up based on one reading of one ‘holy’ book, every argument that the anti-LGBT forces can rally is revealed as bigotry or sham, and it withers and dies.
Bringing this to the personal, something has struck me as this case has unfolded, which is that in some ways my own viewpoint has been affected by the arguments here. The Mrs and I regard ourselves as married. We occasionally use the word ‘husband’ of each other, and we talk about our wedding. But strictly speaking, we’re civil partners. This hasn’t ever tended to bother us, since we legally we have every right and responsibility of marriage, just not the name. And legal recognition is what concerns us.
But we don’t live in a country where the concept of ’separate but equal’ has such powerful connotations. We don’t live in a culture which has so painfully and publicly endured a period where ’separate but equal’ was a code phrase for ‘institutionalised discrimination’. Simon Hughes, one of the sad shower currently running our country, recently made a commitment to ‘proper’ marriage equality in the UK. Not long ago I wouldn’t have been bothered much one way or the other. But after really, seriously, examining my feelings about marriage equality, not similarity, and especially after looking at what separate but equal actually means, I find I am bothered. Very much so.
There will inevitably more on this subject over time.
Aug
4
A Few Words On Prop 8
August 4, 2010 | 1 Comment
If you followed me on the SF blog, you’ll be aware that I became mildly obsessed with US politics while I was there. In truth, I still am - more so than I can find the energy to be about this shower of opportunistic bastards we’re stuck with in the UK certainly.
And it was while I was in the US that the voters of California, a majority of them at any rate, elected to remove the right of same sex couple to marry. They did so on the same day that the country as a whole was energised by the election of Barack Obama, which made that day bittersweet for a lot of Californians.
Earlier this year, a case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8 was heard by a judge in San Francisco. There’s a lot of coverage elsewhere of the case itself, so I won’t get into the detail - suffice it to say that the State of California itself was the defendant, and the State chose not to defend the Proposition. It was left to a ragbag of anti-equality types to do so, and their case in defence of the Prop was laughably thin; expert witnesses who weren’t expert in marriage, witnesses who actually accepted the benefits of same sex marriage, it was a joke. The case against was thorough, impeccably reasoned, and entirely robust. I’m not just saying it as someone who would obviously want Prop 8 overturned; that’s a pretty broad consensus.
And most remarkably, the advocates of the case were two men called Theodore Olson and David Boies - incredibly experienced litigators who’ve argued before the US Supreme Court, and astonishingly, against each other. They actually represented Bush vs Gore in their contested election. Ted Olson went on to be one of Dubya’s Solicitors General. That’s right - someone who worked as the legal muscle for George W Bush is a stronger advocate of marriage equality than the increasingly disappointing Obama.
Today, Judge Vaughan Walker issued his ruling. Proposition 8 is Unconstitutional. Over more than 130 pages of carefully considered analysis, he found that, as he concludes:
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.
It’ll be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court of course, so the matter doesn’t end here. But this is huge. The Constitution should, in theory, stop the majority enshrining in law any kind of discrimination against a minority. And the arguments against same sex marriage are all about doing exactly that. Exactly how the anti-SSM forces will argue otherwise will be interesting to see.
But in the meantime - Great Day.
Aug
4
Some Reviewin’ (1)
August 4, 2010 | Comments Off
Thought I’d get back into exercising my critical faculties.
Sherlock is the BBC’s new take on (you’ll never guess) Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, devised this time by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss. The twist this time is that it’s a modern day version in a world where Doyle clearly never wrote the originals. Now since I watched the first episode I’ve been tempted to explore what the actual impact of that fact alone would be on this world - the history of detective fiction obviously would have taken a different path, there would be significant cultural differences (no previous adaptation nor any of the countless works influenced by the stories would exist, and a lot of people’s careers would have been different), and potentially the science of forensic criminology itself would be in a different place - the impact of Doyle’s work is actually pretty broad. But while it might be interesting to see some hints of that explored in the series, it would probably represent a fairly pointless shift in focus away from the actual drama.
So two of three stories in this new version in, what’s it actually like? Well, the basic set up is essentially the same: iconoclastic loner with apparently uncanny powers of observation and deduction sets himself up as the world’s only consulting detective, providing advice and occasional humiliation to the police. Needing to find someone to share the rent of his central London flat, he’s introduced to an army doctor recently invalided home from the conflict in Afghanistan. Said Doctor/flatmate becomes his sidekick/foil and so The Odd Couple set-up is complete. They’ve stuck to most of the details - 221B Baker Street, Inspector LeStrade, Mrs Hudson (Una Stubbs on fine form; “I’m your landlady dear, not your housekeeper”), and I’m pleased to note have retained Watson’s character as more the man of action that Doyle presented than the bumbler that a lot of adaptations have gone for.
The series’ style on the other hand is resolutely modern, with fast edits, graphics overlaid on the pictures to represent Holme’s thought processes, and a few too many arch references to ‘The Gays’ to be entirely naturalistic (Mrs Hudson again: “It’s all right dear, we get all sorts round here. Mrs Turner next door’s got married ones!”)
In terms of the stories themselves, things are a bit of a mixed bag so far. The first of the three in this first series, A Study In Pink, takes a lot of its cues, though not all its plot, from the first published Holmes story A Study In Scarlet. Series creator Steven Moffat has combined a number of the elements of the source into an original mystery which manages to hold its own against the weight of all the set-up that needs to be accomplished in its ninety minutes. In fact, the clever direction and editing of the opening scenes, showing three unconnected people all apparently committing suicide in the same way, do a really solid job in using the visual nature of the medium to create an intriguing scenario that doesn’t make the viewer feel cheated when all the facts are revealed later on. For this to work at all it must have been scripted that way, so credit is due all round.
The unfolding of the plot happens at a fair old lick, and the whole thing is presented with a confidence that most British TV drama (and certainly that aimed at adults) is entirely lacking. It’s helped by some truly sparkling dialogue, particularly between the two leads (played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman - the former pitch perfect, the latter remarkably un-annoying compared to his usual performances, at least in the first episode) that really shows Moffat at his best.
The setting up of Mycroft is handled very well, and the establishment of an ongoing mystery apparently driven by someone called Moriarty offers hints of a lot to look forward to.
Episode two, The Blind Banker, is written by Steve Thompson. On paper (or IMDB) Thompson’s TV writing credits seem somewhat less extensive or impressive than those of the series creators, and frankly, this doesn’t add much quality to his record. The plot takes some elements from that strand of original Holmes stories involving mysterious messages in an unknown cypher (think The Five Orange Pips or The Adventure of the Dancing Men), but wrap it in a terribly thin tale about smuggling that considering the conscious updating going on feels oddly Victorian with its Chinese Tongs and circuses. I could draw attention to any number of plot contrivances in this one that served to pull me wholly out of the drama, and indeed have in other online fora, but for me the worst sin of this story is in reducing the interesting characters of the pilot to something more like the caricatures that populate so many other Holmes adaptations. Worse, the relationship at the end of the pilot is that of two people who have gone through a life threatening and life changing experience together. The Blind Banker offers a pair who seem barely able to tolerate each other.
The huge disadvantage to having a series of only three stories is that one duffer like episode two weighs down the quality of the whole to a disproportionate degree. Next week’s third episode is written by Gatiss, so I have my hopes for its redemption, but when it inevitably comes back there needs to be a greater consistency than these first two episodes have managed. And assuming they don’t wrap up the Moriarty mystery in episode three, a longer series would at least present an opportunity to build it up better. I’ll be interested to see what happens here in both the short term of next week and the longer term of the series’ future.
Jul
23
Since We Last Saw Our Hero…
July 23, 2010 | 2 Comments
… a great deal has happened.
First things first - the apparent eighteen month gap below is at least partially covered by my temporary settling at Suddenly San Franciscan (which should also tell you where I physically was a chunk of that time). I moved blogging activity over there because I wanted to create a specific narrative of my thoughts, views and activities as a transplanted Brit in the City By The Bay. To some degree it worked, but for reasons I won’t go into here, as I went into them there, it wasn’t as successful a move as we’d hoped. I’ll keep that site up for the foreseeable, just as a record.
So now I’m back, and have been for a few months. I didn’t restart blogging until now because I had this slightly mental idea of taking a break - time off work, quiet time with The Mrs, a removal from pressures including even those I applied to myself to write stuff online. The reason this was slightly mental is that I should have known better. I’ve been kept busy with various things, this period coincided with The Mrs being on a deadline for a book, and any number of other things have meant that not only am I not feeling especially chilled after a decent interval off, but I’m now feeling new stress because I need to find a job.
Fortunately at least on that last front there are some irons in the fire which I’ll pull out to talk about when the time is right.
In the meantime, hello again world. For anyone new to me blogging (hello Twitterpeeps); a quick summary before we resume regular stuff:
44 years old, London-based, married with cat, previous form in corporate management, radio and TV production and for the last twelve years or so, all digital, all the time. Been leading teams in digital businesses, developing online communication strategies and generally trying to be as good at it all as possible.
Blogging on and off (mostly on) since April 2001, with what I laughingly like to think is an eclectic subject range that certainly takes in digital stuff, comics, film (I used to do film and TV reporting professionally), books, etc as well as regular diversions into politics and current affairs. Also whatever else I find briefly of interest.
When I set up the San Francisco blog I set down some ground rules for the stuff I wanted to talk about, etc. This time I’m going to let things evolve as they go and see what kind of flavour this place ends up with. I’ve done a quick tidy of the blogroll to trim out anyone who appears to have stopped for good, but haven’t yet got round to adding in new people, which I will over the next few days. I also need to give the template a complete overhaul and add in some new widgets - possibly a job for the weekend.
Anyway - that’s what you missed last time on Glee.
Sep
12
I’m Not Here
September 12, 2008 | Comments Off
Sep
10
The Ground Rules Going Forward
September 10, 2008 | Comments Off
So - further to the random comments I’ve made recently about moving this blog forwards, I’ve set myself a framework for what I write on here* in the future. These are as follows:
1) Most postings should be me observing/commenting on things in the real world, which should help get me back to the kind of blog I originally set this out to be.
2) At least once a week I will post a serious review of something, which will help reinforce the original intention of also having an outlet which will help my critical faculties not atrophy. I reserve the right for the ’something’ to be a book, a film, a comic, a play, a game, a website, or anything else which I feel lends itself to my interest. This is in lieu of reinstating the entirely separate part of the site for reviews that I used to have.
3) Where I write about ’stuff that happened to me’, it should wherever possible be in relation to the specific experience of being an alien in a strange land. That should offer plenty of scope for anecdotal posts that are at least more interesting than just me, being me.
I think that abiding by that should keep me (you’ll forgive the pun considering where I now live) on the straight and narrow.
* Important note: ’on here’ is what we would technically term ‘entirely inaccurate’. I’m moving to a new URL for the term of my life as a resident of The City By The Bay. I figure, new location in real life, new location in blog life. I’m currently tweaking the new home, so the next posting here will consist of a big ‘Go Here’ notice.
Sep
9
As Birthdays Go…
September 9, 2008 | 1 Comment
… it’s possible that this was my suckiest ever (can you tell I live in California now?)
Just very far from home, rattling around in a temporary flat by myself and feeling thoroughly sorry for myself as I sat and ate my solitary dinner.
Ho hum, that’s all done with now. Onwards to what promises to be a very interesting next year.
Aug
31
The Way Forward
August 31, 2008 | Comments Off
So a while ago I mentioned that I’d been contemplating the future of this blog, then I went quiet on the subject, then the next thing I mentioned was that I’m (we’re) moving from London to San Francisco, then I went quiet on the subject.All these things are interlinked. The prospect and process of moving put a hold on my thoughts for the future of the blog, then the final details of the move, which in the end came upon me with startling suddenness, stopped me writing about that.
But now I’ve moved and have made some decisions.Yes, I’m in San Francisco. The Mrs and the cat are joining me in a little over a month, I’ve found somewhere for us to live while we’re here, and although I’m currently without a home connection, I at least have a few minutes to write about what I want to do next.
When I was thinking about my blogging history (and this thing’s been around in one form or another since 2001, so there’s a little history to think about), I considered what I wanted the site (and note I don’t just say the blog) to be early on and what it’s ended up becoming.Originally the site was more than just the blog - I had a fairly substantial reviews section which I made sure I added to regularly to keep my critical faculties exercised. The blog itself used to be the kind of blog I liked to read - with plenty of comment on current affairs, links to weird and funny stuff I found on the web and an occasional comment about my life. This last element has increasingly come to dominate, and now I feel like I’m writing a bunch of entries about stuff I’ve done, and increasingly few about the world at large. That’s not the kind of blog I like to read.
So it’s time for a change of direction, some new ground rules for myself, and hopefully a more interesting experience for anyone who still stops by.
More in the next day or so.
Jul
24
“Leavin’! On A Jet Plane….”
July 24, 2008 | 7 Comments
This is the huge news. Following my stint in San Francisco at the end of last year/start of this, I’m going back. For a couple of years. With The Mrs. And the cat.
I was actually asked to do this just before I came back to Blighty at the end of March, but it’s taken a long time to get sorted. However, I now have my shiny new US visa, and The Mrs has his (and that’s a saga and a half…) and will be leaving within the week.
Jinkies!