It always find it amusing when stuffy old Connecticut gets ahead of, say, San Francisco in matters progressive. Usually we get little recognition for it; while California was busy making headlines last year, Connecticut quietly started legally marrying gay couples. So I was amused to hear that San Francisco had also copied another program my adopted hometown started offering about eighteen months ago:
-- The New York Times (editorial), May 22, 2008.
The Times editorial didn't mention that within two days of the city approving the card, the federal government swooped in with raids on Hispanic neighborhoods, followed a few months later by a raid on a community agency fishing for information via an outrageously vague warrant for "all documents" from 2003 onward. The city filed a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security and has also fought and withstood a Freedom of Information Act request from anti-immigrant activists aimed at getting a list of everyone who has received the card. I'm not all that big a fan of our mayor, John DeStefano, but on this issue, he's definitely on the right side:
Looking back on these immigrant communities and the many others that have integrated themselves into New Haven in the years since, DeStefano tells The Politic, “We’re the same city we’ve always been—an American city that has been home to large immigrant populations, including my grandparents and many other people’s grandparents, great-grandparents, and parents.” And he compares the circumstances of current Hispanic immigrants “without papers” to the many Italian Americans, including his own grandparents, who were called “‘waps’ [*]—without papers” when they arrived in New Haven over a hundred years before.
-- thepolitic.org
[*I think the epithet above should be "wops" rather than "waps."]
That John Davenport may actually have been some sort of distant cousin of mine on the maternal side, though my direct descent is through a poorer and less respectable Davenport who ended up down south.
The goal of the ECRI program is to provide people (not just illegal immigrants but also seniors, students, etc.) who can't get a driver's license or other ID something they can use to open bank accounts and identify themselves if they have contact with the police. The intent was to improve public safety. Not carrying large sums of cash (for lack of a bank account) makes people less of a crime target. Not being afraid to report a crime because one has no legal identification, likewise. It's also a city library card (always a good thing) and can be used at parking meters and as a debit card at some local businesses.
The card has been fairly successful, but the city needs as much of the population as possible to get one. Otherwise it just becomes a proxy for illegal status, which under a less friendly government could be a disaster. While I'm not overwhelmingly enthusiastic about government and government-issued ID, I'm generally pro-immigration and against harassment of illegal immigrants. My father could easily have been just as illegal fifty years ago if it weren't for the double luck of Cuba's Communism being a political issue and his parents having assets they could sacrifice to get themselves out of the country in a hurry. But I somehow never got around to getting a card. Unlike several thousand inhabitants of my city, I have the luxury of not needing one.
Today, though, in solidarity with my fellow Elm City residents of whatever legal status, I applied for my card, complete with yet another dreadful photograph of myself. It's a small and easy thing for me to do, but tremendously important for others.
I should have done it sooner.
I recently had an interesting conversation, when I mentionned 1949's movie Border Incident, which starred Ricardo Montalban. He plays a Mexican immigration agent who passes himself off as an illegal because some of his fellow countrymen are getting killed north of the border. The other person felt that the illegals were getting their just desserts, because they were breaking the law. That was a rather strange position, coming from a legal immigrant from Ukraine.
Posted by: Serge | March 28, 2009 at 10:06 AM
I think this is a great idea and I would definitely support a similar card if it was proposed in my state (where immigration is also a huge hot-button issue). I especially like that it can also serve as a library card and a debit for meters. Multi-purpose cards are a boon for overflowing wallets.
Posted by: AJ | March 28, 2009 at 07:59 PM
AJ... Multi-purpose cards are a boon for overflowing wallets
...and a curse to people who tend to misplace things. Of course I'm not referring to wife. That'd be ungentlemanly.
Posted by: Serge | March 28, 2009 at 08:14 PM
Susan... About your being carded, we know that you like sheep, but isn't this going a bit too far?
Whoa.
That frying pan almost hit me.
Posted by: Serge | March 28, 2009 at 08:18 PM
On the one hand, it's cool that you got the card. On the other hand, I can't help but think of Heinleins dictum that when a society has gotten crowded enough to need ID cards, it's time to move elsewhere... :-)
Posted by: Michael A. Burstein | March 29, 2009 at 05:56 PM
Michael,
I gather you have similar objections to driver's licenses and passports? Since we already have both of those, I fear the ID card ship has already sailed.
I do have some issues with government ID, and the card's usability in parking meters strikes me as potentially problematic. I don't have EZ-Pass because of similar concerns. On the other hand, the city already knows where I live through at least four different agencies, so I'm not giving them new information, and the value of the card in protecting others outweighs this.
It did occur to me that if these IDs were used unofficially as a proxy for illegality that with my Spanish surname I'm probably actually inviting trouble by using it. I decided to listen to my better nature instead of my paranoia.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | March 29, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Serge,
I like sheep. I dislike having my picture taken. I further dislike having it posted. I further dislike having it linked to and pointed out to people.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | March 29, 2009 at 10:05 PM
while California was busy making headlines last year, Connecticut quietly started legally marrying gay couples.
Is Connecticut so below the radar of the bigots that the latter didn't notice what it was doing? Or was its quiet approach the one that California should have taken? I'm not sure that would have worked either, even if it were in the state's nature to do anything quietly. I expect that the bigots mentionned above always have California in their sights, and are ready to 'shoot' even when it just twitches. Maybe they think that, if the Union's state with a population close to all of Canada's is allowed to legalize these degenerate acts, the whole country will fall like a house of cards, but not if Connecticut does it.
Posted by: Serge | April 01, 2009 at 09:23 AM
Good job, Susan! I expect Virginia will be one of the last states to help illegal immigrants, if they ever do.
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | April 01, 2009 at 07:47 PM
I don't actually object to the ID cards as much as Heinlein did. (Or rather, Heinlein's character Lazarus Long.) But there's something about a national ID card that makes me uncomfortable, possibly because it reminds me of the whole "Your papers, please" concept.
Posted by: Michael A. Burstein | April 01, 2009 at 10:48 PM
Michael,
Well, this is only the city, and the federal government (under Bush, at least) hates it. And it's alternate "papers" -- I could just use my driver's license.
I'm increasingly annoyed by the number of businesses that seem to feel they are entitled to my SS# for ID. I'm starting to lose track of all the fake ones I hand out to places like Hollywood Video which I do not see as having any need whatsoever for the real one. Isn't using it for ID supposed to be illegal for private businesses?
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 01, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Michael... On the other hand, we already are living the whole "Your papers, please" concept.
Posted by: Serge | April 02, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Susan, look at it this way: By getting the card and having a Spanish surname, you're screwing up their statistics.
It isn't illegal for anyone to ask for your SS#. You don't have to provide it. (But they don't have to do business with you.) It's not like SS#'s are any sort of secret any more; only stupid companies think that knowing it proves anything.
Posted by: Seth | April 02, 2009 at 11:48 AM
This is of course assuming that anyone actually figures out that my surname is Spanish. Most people around here assume it's Italian.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 02, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Is Connecticut so below the radar of the bigots that the latter didn't notice what it was doing? Or was its quiet approach the one that California should have taken?
It's small, and it was done fairly quietly and in two stages. The legislature approved civil unions a couple of years ago without court involvement. That was then challenged and the court mandated marriage. So there wasn't one single big change, but two smaller ones. And Connecticut is not as prone to dramatic, eye-catching protests as, say, San Francisco, and we didn't have any exciting mayoral civil disobedience or anything. I guess it's just not done here. We just very slowly plow on along doing the right thing.
It's also possible that since we're part of the den of sinfulness which is blue New England, home of the occasional moderate Republican, the right-wingers have just given up on us.
Also of note recently is that New Hampshire's legislature is passing similar legislation and that Iowa's court rules on the topic tomorrow. Neither of these is making big headlines either.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 02, 2009 at 01:31 PM
Still, Susan, I wonder if California would have succeeded even if it had taken a less dramatic spproach. Well, the bottom line is that the door has been pried open and, before you know it, New England's sinfulness will have spilled all over America the Beautiful.
Posted by: Serge | April 02, 2009 at 05:41 PM
Susan... I like sheep.
Even sheep in wainscotting ?
Posted by: Serge | April 02, 2009 at 05:42 PM
By the by, Iowa's Supreme Court followed suit this morning and legalized same-sex marriage there. First state in the Midwest to do so. That made the New York Times website front page.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 03, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Susan... To quote the town drunk in Hitchcock's The Birds...
It's the end of the world!!!
Posted by: Serge | April 03, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Iowa Rep. Steve King warns that this might turn his state into a gay marriage Mecca. That sounds better that the Governator's dire warnings against a Gay Apocalypse a few years ago when San Francisco's mayor authorized the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Posted by: Serge | April 03, 2009 at 02:19 PM
Yaaaay Iowa!
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | April 03, 2009 at 02:29 PM
Iowa Rep. Steve King warns that this might turn his state into a gay marriage Mecca.
I feel like checking which direction Boise is already, so I can pray in that direction.
It's a little south of west. But should I take the great circle direction which will be north of west? I'll look into it tomorrow (being none of gay, married or religious, I feel no urgency in aligning my prayer mats).
Posted by: Neil Willcox | April 03, 2009 at 03:32 PM
Boise is in Idaho....
Posted by: AJ | April 03, 2009 at 03:52 PM
Des Moines. Stll South of West.
You know, you should only allow one state with the same initial letter in the union. that would make it easier for ignorant foreigners.
(Yes, 24 states will have to use greek or cyrillic letters. I'll still find it easier to tell them apart).
(Idaho: potato and panhandle; Iowa: corn and that big bend in the Mississippi river. Okay, got it.)
Posted by: Neil Willcox | April 03, 2009 at 04:06 PM
Iowa? Think corn fields, ghosts and baseball, all in the same wonderful movie.
Posted by: Serge | April 03, 2009 at 04:38 PM
If it's any consolation, I know nothing about the geography of any other country. We're all "ignorant foreigners" to someone ;)
Posted by: AJ | April 03, 2009 at 05:35 PM
AJ... Where is Québec?
Posted by: Serge | April 03, 2009 at 05:51 PM
Being a defiantly coastal sort of person, I am suspicious of all those states with what I consider an excessive proportion of vowels anyway. But Iowa's Court done good today.
I will point out that for those who wish to stalk other Rixo commenters (and lurkers), there is a map at upper right which portrays you all as glowing red dots (sort of like the aggressive laser pointers in Starcrash) and lists what towns your ISPs think you are visiting from. So that might be a starting point for a geography lesson.
I personally wish the lurker from Krk, Croatia, would speak up.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 03, 2009 at 05:52 PM
There's also someone in Mexico. I think I'm the red dot slightly to the northwest of the one near the Gulf of Mexico.
Posted by: Serge | April 03, 2009 at 06:08 PM
Serge, Quebec is somewhere between British Columbia and Newfoundland, and that's about as far as I can narrow it down ;)
I'd like to blame my ignorance on homeschooling, but I'm guessing a lot of public school students couldn't place Quebec on the map, either, since a lot of them can't even place our own states on the map.
Posted by: AJ | April 03, 2009 at 11:04 PM
AJ... I was teasing you. Heck, most people don't pay attention to geography unless they have to. I am reminded of one of the last things that someone said in TV series MASH:
"Vietnam? Where is that?"
Posted by: Serge | April 03, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Québec is north of Vermont, 5.5 hours from where I live. I know this because I looked up driving directions for Anticipation when I was deciding whether or not it made sense to take the train (no) rather than get a carpool together.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 04, 2009 at 02:13 AM
There's a timed test here where you have to name all fifty US states in ten minutes. I sometimes succeed and sometimes forget one or two, which is very embarrassing.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 04, 2009 at 02:24 AM
I think your map thinks I'm in High Wycombe. Which is where my brother's Godmother lives. (She would be my godmother too except she was in Sarawak when I was christened).
...I am suspicious of all those states with what I consider an excessive proportion of vowels anyway... I personally wish the lurker from Krk, Croatia, would speak up.
If it weren't insulting to all slavic languages, I'd suggest sending them some of the excess vowels from the American Midwest.
As for Québec, apart from having been in Montreal for 5 days 20 years ago, I know where it is, as it was settled early from the sea, so looking from the east, you head between Newfoundland and Nova Scotia (the big island and not-quite island off the eastern coast) and then start colouring in the coasts of the St Lawrence seaway until you run into the United States and have to abandon your firewood.
There's an enormous expanse to the north as well, but I get dizzy just thinking about it.
Posted by: Neil Willcox | April 04, 2009 at 05:54 AM
I was in Montreal for a few days when I was two but do not remember the experience. I'm looking forward to worldcon. I hadn't realized how close Montreal was to me (closer than Baltimore!) so I feel a bit silly for not having made any trips there on my own.
Speaking of Croatia, a little google-searching suggests to me that "Zdunich" (the surname of the Repo actor-writer-lyricist-composer-artist) is Croatian. He pronounces it zuh-doon-itch. So maybe they already have an ample supply of vowels which are just invisible and extremely skinny and thus not obvious in print?
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 04, 2009 at 07:03 AM
Still, Susan, I wonder if California would have succeeded even if it had taken a less dramatic spproach. Well, the bottom line is that the door has been pried open and, before you know it, New England's sinfulness will have spilled all over America the Beautiful.
California hasn't entirely not-succeeded. It's just taken a colossal step backward that's going to take years to undo. In the meantime, perhaps Californians will choose to spend their money on getting married in Iowa and Connecticut since (AHEM) neither state has a residency requirement.
"New England's sinfulness" HA HA HA HA HA. How things do change (from the perspective of centuries).
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 04, 2009 at 07:06 AM
I do like the sheep in Wainscotting. I'd never seen that sketch before. I was thinking "sounds like a small English village" even before they made the joke.
I thought the cricketers in the laboratory were just as funny, though.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 04, 2009 at 07:14 AM
Neil:
Don't worry, you have lots of camouflage. There are also visits from Aylsbury and Thatcham.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 04, 2009 at 07:15 AM
The last time I went to Quebec was after the 2004 worldcon in Boston. That felt strange. Boston in 1980 had been my first worlcon and I had driven with some buddies from Quebec City. In 2004 I followed the exact same road, but in reverse. (Mind you, the car wasn't going in reverse. You know what I mean.) The only difference is that I was by myself, and I was now citizen of another country. What shocked me was how little time it took to get there, without a bunch of clowns who'd stop all too frequently for whatever reason struck their whim. By the way, do not cross the border at the end of the Labor Day weekend.
Posted by: Serge | April 04, 2009 at 07:55 AM
About California and years to undo the damage of the Prop 8 nastiness... Yesterday, I wrote to a homosexual buddy I used to work with and who still lives in SF. When I asked if he'd heard the news about Iowa, he was ecstatic, and optimistic that, one day, soon, he'll be able to marry another man if he so chooses.
Posted by: Serge | April 04, 2009 at 07:59 AM
I've crossed the border at the end of Labor Day weekend and the end of the July 4th holiday weekend (Canada Day?) It pretty much sucks, though I've found the July one worse than the September one. Won't be an issue with this year's worldcon.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 04, 2009 at 11:37 AM
The July crossing is worse than September's? Goodness. I dare not contemplate how abysmally sucky July's must be. By the way, Susan, planning to bring wood across the border?
Posted by: Serge | April 04, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Regarding the difference in approach between New England and California... I wonder if things would show less progress if not for California's confrontational attitude. Someone breaks ground, gets the powers-that-be and the average folks upset because they are publicly doing and saying what 'should' be done and said privately. Still, it gets some of the average people thinking. Later, others who feel the same way as the loud complainers have it a bit easier when the make their case. I dunno.
Posted by: Serge | April 04, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Serge, I actually really enjoyed geography as a kid, but I only ended up learning US geography.
I suppose there's no real reason to NEED to know world geography, which is why most people are ignorant of it, but it still feels a little weird to live in a world and not know where a lot of its countries are.
Posted by: AJ | April 04, 2009 at 03:44 PM
AJ... I actually really enjoyed geography as a kid
I wonder if what makes SF fans become SF fans also makes them tend to learn just because. The problem is when we've had leaders who don't like learning, and who learn no more than is necessary.
What is it that Ambrose Bierce once said?
"War is God's way to teach Americans about geography."
Posted by: Serge | April 04, 2009 at 05:14 PM
Bierce was a clever man, but I think he might be wrong in this case... I don't think most Americans bother to learn where the countries we're at war with are.
It does seem like a lot of SF fans do have a love of learning, though, but I think that could also be said of most avid readers of most genres.
Posted by: AJ | April 04, 2009 at 06:58 PM
AJ... Maybe Bierce was being generous.
Posted by: Serge | April 04, 2009 at 09:08 PM
Or maybe back then, people DID learn geography during the war. They didn't have things like the Internet to distract them ;)
Posted by: AJ | April 04, 2009 at 09:22 PM
AJ... Speaking of Bierce, it's my understanding that nobody knows how he died because, after deciding America wasn't for him anymore (what with things going on like women demanding the right to vote), he moved to Mexico and just disappeared.
Posted by: Serge | April 04, 2009 at 09:38 PM
My understanding is that he went to Mexico because he was interested in what was happening there at the time, not so much because he wanted to avoid what was happening at home.
What was happening in Mexico at the time was the Revolution, and he went and watched it from up close, so it's generally considered most probable that he copped a bullet and wound up in an unmarked grave somewhere.
(I read a short story once that begins with Bierce about to be dealt summary execution by Mexican soldiers, when time freezes and a guy in a silver jumpsuit appears and says, "Ambrose Bierce, I'm from the future and I've come to save your life by taking you back with me. It'll be fine, history says you just disappeared. Coming?"
And Bierce says no. Because after all he wrote "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge", so he knows how this is likely to end, and even if it doesn't he doesn't want to spend the rest of his life worrying that it's going to.)
Posted by: Paul A. | April 04, 2009 at 11:36 PM
Paul A... I stand corrected, and relievedly so, about why Bierce left America. Now, I am curious to see Old Gringo, Gregory Peck's last movie, and in which he played Bierce.
As for Incident... I remember reading a review Jacob's Ladder that made a reference to that story. I was bummed. I hope that reviewer never told his readers who Rosebud was.
Posted by: Serge | April 05, 2009 at 01:31 AM
I wonder if things would show less progress if not for California's confrontational attitude.
There always needs to be someone to be confrontational and someone to work quietly. That's how progress gets made. Sometimes it can be the same person. Did you see Milk yet? He was doing a pretty good job of playing both roles at once.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 05, 2009 at 07:35 AM
I haven't read anything by Bierce except The Devil's Dictionary, but I loved that.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 05, 2009 at 07:37 AM
I just went and read "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge." Nice work by Bierce.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 05, 2009 at 07:49 AM
Susan... I had very much wanted to see Milk at the Castro when I was in San Francisco, back in February, but it didn't work out. I just realized that it's out on DVD. Somehow I missed the ads about its release, but it's now on top of my queue.
As for taking the quiet approach to get what one wants... I had been doing that at work, but, a few days ago, I realized that my manager had done nothing to keep that promise made as part of my yearly review almost two months ago. I switched back to the confrontational approach. My threats to go to Personnel may not get me what I want, but they sure scared the boss.
Posted by: Serge | April 05, 2009 at 10:03 AM
About Bierce... My apologies for goofing up on the title of Bierce's Owl Creek story. I should probably look up more of his stuff. (Like I have enough time for all the books I have already lined up.)
Posted by: Serge | April 05, 2009 at 10:06 AM
We have a book containing all of Bierce's fiction (as well as two copies of Devil's Dictionary). The cool thing? It was one of my husband's college text books.
You see, his teacher wanted to teach a class on early American horror authors, but the college turned it down. So she decided to teach a literature class instead, and they didn't tell her what literature she had to teach, so it was American horror :) They covered Poe, Lovecraft, and Bierce.
Posted by: AJ | April 05, 2009 at 05:29 PM
Wow, that is one cool idea for a literature class!
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 05, 2009 at 09:52 PM
I know! I'd take that class in a heartbeat.
Posted by: AJ | April 05, 2009 at 10:30 PM
Another theory, put forward by Phil Foglio in one of his comics, is that Ambrose Bierce's horror pieces were actually based on true stories, and he went to ground because a blasphemous creature from beyond time had read the story he wrote about it and was coming to complain about his portrayal. According to this theory, Bierce is still out there somewhere - and perhaps, one day, if you're being pestered by blasphemous creatures from beyond time...
Posted by: Paul A. | April 05, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Paul A... That sounds like the premise of a SciFi Channel movie I'd wnt to watch.
Posted by: Serge | April 06, 2009 at 09:52 AM
And next up on the marriage equality front: Vermont!
This one did make the New York Times website front page.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 07, 2009 at 02:10 PM
Another theory, put forward by Phil Foglio in one of his comics
Where? Where?
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 07, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Susan... Vermont too. New England's sinfulness is spreading.
Posted by: Serge | April 07, 2009 at 02:40 PM
Yes, the Vermont law was the leader on the midday TV news!
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | April 07, 2009 at 03:36 PM
Any chance some of that New England sinfulness can spread this way? I'm sick of my state being so backwards.
Posted by: AJ | April 08, 2009 at 04:30 AM
Yesterday, the DC Council voted to accept same-sex marriages from other states, which will be interesting because every DC bill has to be approved by Congress.
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | April 08, 2009 at 03:06 PM
Marilee... So many things... I wonder if all of them would have happened with a Republican in the Oval Office.
Posted by: Serge | April 08, 2009 at 04:46 PM
AJ:
Here is the projected schedule for the expansion of sinfulness, based on the calculations of Nate at fivethirtyeight.com.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 09, 2009 at 06:17 PM
So, New Mexico is at least 6 years away from drowning in sinfulness? The day that happens will be interesting since we're one mile above sea level.
Posted by: Serge | April 09, 2009 at 07:50 PM
Don't you folks realize the danger of allowing this?!!! If two women can marry each other, and if they have a son, the boy might grow up liking girls. He might even want to have sex with them!!!
Wait.
Oh.
Nevermind.
Posted by: Serge | April 09, 2009 at 08:06 PM
Serge, looks like I'll be drowning in sin before you are.
Oh wait, I can swim. I guess I'll be fine.
Posted by: AJ | April 10, 2009 at 03:10 AM
Good for you, AJ. Me, I swim with the grace of a rock. As for the sinfulness having originated from New England, I am reminded of this exchange from 1776:
Posted by: Serge | April 10, 2009 at 10:10 AM
LOL Serge.
Actually, I have about the grace of a rock, too. I guess I might swim better now than I did the last time I tried. I was a teen then, and I have a little more padding on me now to help with the floating, and more coordination from all the dancing. But I still avoid pool parties just in case.
However, I would learn to swim just to avoid drowning in sin ;)
Posted by: AJ | April 10, 2009 at 02:08 PM
I can swim fairly well. I even had junior lifesaving training long, long ago.
I guess that means I can just revel in sin without drowning in it?
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 10, 2009 at 02:17 PM
I found the following today in Salon.com:
That New England sinfulness spreads further and further.
Posted by: Serge | April 14, 2009 at 02:41 PM
LOL Susan! When I was tall and skinny, I still had to push down every stroke so I could stay underwater. We had an in-ground backyard pool when we were stationed in Virginia Beach and I used to come home from scbool and just sleep directly on the water. Until my brother got home and cannonballed.
Posted by: Marilee J. Layman | April 15, 2009 at 04:43 PM
I took part in a junior lifesaving test once, but as a rescuee. I wasn't the first choice, as I was six inches taller than my friend who was taking the test and at the time was not a natural floater. However I was the only choice who could get my swimming costume from home and get back to the school on time when his original floating body fell ill.
So I guess I'm qualified to splash about and pretend to drown in sin.
Posted by: Neil Willcox | April 16, 2009 at 05:17 AM
Neil... his original floating body fell ill
There is something sinister about those words.
Posted by: Serge | April 16, 2009 at 06:10 AM
When I did the lifesaving course at camp we had to rescue a counselor who was extremely tall and husky, even more so compared to us kids. Fortunately we didn't have to get her all the way out of the water, just to a dock where we could support her upper body above water easily while hanging on ourselves. She did not make it easy.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 16, 2009 at 02:19 PM
Another theory, put forward by Phil Foglio in one of his comics
Where? Where?
This was in the Stanley and His Monster miniseries Foglio did for DC Comics in the early 1990s; Bierce shows up to help Stanley rescue the Monster.
It was originally supposed to be John Constantine, but DC wouldn't allow it, in case small children decided they wanted to read more of his adventures (which, if you know about Constantine, you know are generally not appropriate for small children). One of those cases where being forbidden to do something allows/requires a writer to be a bit more creative than he would otherwise have been.
Posted by: Paul A. | April 17, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Paul A... if you know about Constantine, you know are generally not appropriate for small children
I guess they might be traumatized by the scene where Constantine cuts an angel's wings off with a chainsaw.
Posted by: Serge | April 17, 2009 at 01:08 PM
Did you know that an eagle with the head of a king chewing on its own wing is an alchemical symbol?
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 17, 2009 at 02:33 PM
I didn't know, Susan. What is it a symbol for?
Posted by: Serge | April 17, 2009 at 02:41 PM
"Without hope, the Universe gives up."
I watched Milk tonight.
Posted by: Serge | April 18, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I found the following today in Salon.com about California's gubernatorial race, about San Francisco's Gavin Newsom:
I'm curious if Newsom will resume his fight to make same-sex marriage legal.
Posted by: Serge | April 22, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Serge:
He can't do anything directly even if he becomes governor (which I think is unlikely). They have to pass another constitutional amendment to allow it. He could campaign for it, of course, but he's such a lightning rod that his help is sort of a mixed blessing at this point.
The alchemical symbol is from something called the Ripley Scroll and is known as the Bird of Hermes. It's said to represent mercury, and eating its own wings tames it, meaning stabilizes it.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 22, 2009 at 02:18 PM
Still, Susan, one could hope that one of the candidates will campaing for it. As for Newsom being a lightning rod, that's true, but anybody who comes out in favor of same-sex marriage will de facto become a lightning rod. Unless enough of that New England sinfulness seeps all the way to the West Coast.
Posted by: Serge | April 22, 2009 at 02:34 PM
Serge:
Did you pay any attention to the campaign at all? The Prop 8 ad using Newsom's "whether you like it or not" comment was one of the most successful ads of the campaign and may have tipped the balance in favor of Prop 8. I respect his position and willingness to back it up with action, but frankly, we don't need any more help like that.
Calling respect for others' rights "New England sinfulness" was funny once, but like most jokes it gets less and less funny every time it's repeated.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | April 22, 2009 at 02:53 PM
I shall retire that joke, then.
Posted by: Serge | April 22, 2009 at 03:17 PM
Maine governor John Baldacci signs same-sex marriage into law
Posted by: Serge | May 06, 2009 at 04:28 PM
Next up: New Hampshire!
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | May 06, 2009 at 05:58 PM
MASH's David Ogden Stiers has come out of the closet.
Good for him.
Posted by: Serge | May 06, 2009 at 09:02 PM
California's Supreme Court overturns the gay-marriage ban.
Yay!
Posted by: Serge | May 15, 2009 at 02:47 PM
It's from before Prop 8.
Damn.
Posted by: Serge | May 15, 2009 at 02:55 PM