onejdc

Before I forget (again), let me promote Wapshott Press' Storylandia vol. 1 and Bloglandia vol. 2, both of which have pieces by yours truly. It's a rare opportunity to support...well, a writer that's not exactly starving at the moment, but one who is hard-pressed to afford a really nice meal at a sit-down restaurant.

sirlarkins asks: I'm doing some transcription work for a gay man who has a really pronounced lisp, and in the course of listening to his voice I found myself wondering: what's the documented history, if any, of the appearance of the gay lisp? How far back does it go? Is it a phenomenon of modern gay culture, or what? Curious.

You know, I should be able to answer this one really easily since it's right in my area of interest, but honestly I don't know...except for one interesting tidbit. The eleventh century Byzantine chronicler Michael Psellos, when describing the sexual relationship of the Emperor Constantine IX with a male court entertainer, writes about how the entertainer had "that kind of impediment to his speech." Now he may not have been describing a lisp specifically, but the context - where he all but describes Constantine leaping into bed with the guy - makes it clear what he was trying to tell his readers by pointing out that detail. So, who knows, maybe the lisp has been a signal gay men have been using and passing on for a very long time.

I still have one more question to answer, but I'm tired so it's off to watch "The Colbert Report" and then to bed.

Kelly asks: How is our reconstruction of historical events affected by our own historical moment and can we ever really understand history?

Oh my God, there are entire books - many of them very thick - written on that topic, so I'm not even going to try to answer that here. But hopefully my personal opinion will suffice. I do think it is impossible to escape bias, both the bias that emerges from our ideological beliefs and from our particular vantage point in time and space. At the same time, unlike many scholars who describe themselves as "postmodern" or "post-structuralist", I do think it is possible to reconstruct the past - or maybe more accurately construct an adequate view into the past - using empirical data and methods. But I would agree with post-structural historians that there are "historical truths" instead of "historical truth", and that we must consider multiple viewpoints and tap into multiple modes of understanding (cultural, gendered, etc.) to find such "truths."

That's my opinion in a nutshell. I consider it a moderate position between "postmodern" and "traditional." Frankly while I can understand the extreme "postmodern" view that "truths" are constantly in flux, I really don't think there's any point in doing history if you think it is entirely impossible to escape our own historical moment.

dfordoom asks: Do you think the witch persecutions of the 16th and 17th centuries have been exaggerated, possibly for political reasons? Some fairly wild figures have been thrown about, figures sometimes running into the millions!

Oh yes. There are the obvious suspects, mainly neo-pagans determined to create a history of systematic persecution of European pagans up into the 1800s. As a side note, it's always perplexed me why that's necessary. I can understand, especially as an anti-Foucaultian/anti-post-structuralist gay man, the solidarity and personal satisfaction that comes from uncovering a tangible historical continuity, but it's not like there aren't many potent stories of pagan persecution. Of course, it's not just them, but people with a particular axe to grind (like *cough* Richard Dawkins) who tend to exaggerate how widespread the witchcraft craze was and ignore that it was a specific historical phenomenon rather than an atrocity standard for pre-modern Europe (to be fair, though, lots of movies perpetuate this mistake, right down to Monty Python and the Holy Grail). To sum up my own view, I think it's wrong to view the witch craze in a purely religious light, rather than taking into account society and politics too.

You might enjoy Brian Levack's The Witch Hunt in Early Modern Europe. It's dry and aggressively academic, but he delves into all the socio-cultural, legal, political, and religious factors that made the witch hunts possible, offers up plenty of statistics, and drops interesting tidbits like the fact that the majority of witches persecuted in Finland were men.

mojo_iv asks: An old friend of mine who was a member of the Nation of Islam once claimed that north African muslim ships(he called them "the Barbary Pirates") had regular contact with Central American native populations for centuries before Columbus' expedition... any truth to this?

No...well, I should say, there's no evidence of this. It does remind me of a theory, taken somewhat seriously by a couple of historians, that the real reason King João II of Portugal declined to sponsor Columbus' voyages was because Portuguese explorers already found out that there was a land mass blocking any possible western sea route to India. The reason we don't know about this is because much of Portugal's royal archives were destroyed in a fire caused by the Great Lisbon Earthquake. And it is true that we don't know a great deal about what medieval Portuguese navigators actually knew in the Middle Ages because of the fire. Of course, it's fun to speculate about it, but it still leaves open the questions of why the Portuguese didn't try to settle the Americas sooner or why (and how) it would have been kept secret.

It's more common than you might think for historians and certain groups to claim to have "discovered" America first, either because people would naturally love to turn conventional historical wisdom on its head or because it would be a great claim for their nationality/ethnicity/whathaveyou. For example, Welsh patriots still like to bounce around the legend that a Welsh prince, Madog ab Owain Gynneth, not only "discovered" North America but established a colony somewhere in the southeastern, modern day United States during the thirteenth century. Then there's Gavin Menzies, who claims (with hardly any proof) that the Chinese came across North America in 1421. But barring some kind of revolutionary discovery it's pretty safe to say that the only people to beat Columbus to the Americas from the Euroasian land mass in recorded history were the Vikings.

chrysalisspirit asks: There are remains of a fortress/building in Siberia:
http://englishrussia.com/?p=1206

My sister, who's an architect, says it's reminiscent of Roman architecture. I'm not entirely convinced that the Romans have gotten as far as Siberia, especially not so far as to build fortresses. What else could it be?

I had no idea that fortress exists, so I'm glad I posted the question in the first place! According to this and this, the fortress was Mongolian, although I couldn't find anything more definite. I think it is still possible that it was built using Roman architectural principles; after all, it's far from impossible that certain knowledge and techniques couldn't have spread from the Roman Empire to central Asia via the Persian Empire, especially by the time the Mongolians rampaged their way into Siberia and Russia.

Still, you raise an interesting question: what if the Romans made it further than we think? Our knowledge of ancient Rome is so spotty it's difficult to say for certain what the Romans did not know. To use an extreme but I think still applicable example, it's arguably conceivable that the Romans knew about or suspected the existence of the Americas, but all the literary evidence has been lost or perpetually misinterpreted. Anyway, the easternmost major point in the Greco-Roman world was Cherson, a Greek port city on the Black Sea in modern day Ukraine, which is still thousands of miles away from Siberia, but who knows if at least the people of Cherson heard stories about Siberia from traders and passing nomads.

Today is my only day off this week, and it'll be a while before I have a day off again. That's fine; I could use the money, but the time is still appreciated.

Capitalizing on a gorgeous morning, I thought that I might as well hop on a motorcycle and go for a ride up to a nearby town. Fountain Hills is a nice destination just 15 or 20 miles up the road; it's a pretty place to stop and read a book for a spell.

Last week d_klein and I swapped bikes for a while. I offered him the Ducati to ride for a bit and he left me in care of his GSX-R750 (a bike for which I have a certain affinity). Since today promised to be a good opportunity to log a few miles, I took the GSX-R out for a spin in the nice weather.

I geared up and headed north. I arrived at Fountain Hills in a few minutes, but the scenery was so alluring and the weather so nice that I couldn't help but continue on one of my favorite local roads. A while later and some 80 or 90 miles from where I set off, I reached Payson. The weather was clear and cool (in the 70s; in the valley it's in the 90s) and the mountains were gorgeous. I took a few photos for posterity.

( Photos )

--B.

The empire strikes back

In recent weeks, we've taken huge steps towards blocking spam accounts on LiveJournal. In fact, we've suspended as many as 30,000 accounts in a single day! We've implemented several pre-emptive measures to prevent the creation of spam accounts, and we've honed our detection of suspicious content. Spam bots are a crafty lot, so we'll continue to refine our tactics and keep up the good fight to keep you safe from spam attacks on LiveJournal.

RSS feeds again

If you're addicted to xkcd_rss, icanhaschzbrgr, or other syndicated feeds, we're pleased to report that we've resolved the update error that was mucking up your RSS feeds. While content was being pulled correctly, it wasn't being posted to the feeds themselves. Late last week, we finally nailed down what we hope was the root problem, so content should post properly. We thank you for your patience.

Wii have killer CSI Deadly Intent contests!

c_s_i

If you're a gamer who loves CSI, have Wii got news for you! c_s_i is sponsoring killer contests. Simply post a question to a member of the CSI crew. The winner will get a free copy of CSI: Deadly Intent for Nintendo Wii (with a retail value of $39.99) and get their question answered by a member of the CSI writing team! There's also a fantastic monthly contest. To enter, join c_s_i, play the online version of CSI: Deadly Intent, and respond to a two-part query for a chance to win a Wii! Entries will be judged on composition and originality. Sorry, but you must be a U.S. resident and over 18 years old to participate. Check out the rules here.

Enveloped in postcards

Last week, we asked you to send in postcards to help us decorate our drab concrete walls. Here's a photo of the results so far! Thank you so much and please keep them coming! You can mail them to Frank the Goat, Esq., c/o LiveJournal, Inc., 539 Bryant Street, Suite 210, San Francisco, CA 94107. Be sure to include your username, since we'll be giving ten random users paid account credits.

Photos of the week

If you haven't visited our new LiveJournal photo community, you're in for an amazing visual trip. LiveJournal users from around the world will take you on a scenic journey to everywhere. Post your own pictures or kick back and enjoy at lj_photophile. You can view some of this week's awesome photos after the jump. Please start tagging with geographic location, since we'd like to track all the places around the world represented in this community. Keep on commenting too!
( Read more... )

Somehow this work of art improved my mood immensely:

I love that the election of a conservative Republican governor in a state known for having...well, conservative Republican governors and the downfall of a Democratic governor wildly unpopular for reasons largely unrelated to his party affiliation are "bad news for Obama." This is not to say that I don't think there's not any "bad news" to be had, especially if Obama doesn't actually want to be remembered beyond the whole "first black President" thing as just Bill Clinton II: The Living Death of the American Left. But congratulations, "news" media, on still managing to turn two actual news stories into pointless speculation for the pundits to chew endlessly on, I guess.

As for Virginia, my home, my cradle, and still my favorite mountainous, East Coast state, I suppose it was inevitable that we'd get a governor engineered in one of the great theocrat mills, in this case Regent "University". Maybe my moving was a good thing after all.

And, finally, I need to get crackin' on sending hardcore gay pornography to at least 237,638 citizens in Maine. On a serious note, it never gets any less depressing to see thousands of people eager to use the ballot box to proclaim their opinion that you and your relationships are simply inferior.

In response to user comments from last week, we want to let you know that we'll remain LJ cut-free for the next month in order to get more eyeballs on our evolving newsletter. As for product coverage, that continues to be our top priority. For more granular detail, however, we recommend you join lj_releases.

Super-tweak for Yandex search

Some of our beta testers expressed privacy concerns using the Yandex search engine. Here's why: Last week, when you ran a search, you could see the usernames (and only the usernames) of everyone who commented on an entry, even if that entry was switched to Private or Friends Only after it was originally indexed. You could NOT see the actual comments from Friends Only or Private posts. In response to your input, we've implemented a fix to keep all user activity currently marked Friends Only or Private completely hidden. If you'd prefer your public content not to be indexed by Yandex, click here and use the settings labeled Search Inclusion (this covers your entire journal) and/or Comment Search Inclusion (which covers comments only). To test drive Yandex search now, click here.

Postcards from the edge

Several years ago, we asked LiveJournal users to send postcards to help us decorate our dull, white-washed offices. Since a good idea warrants repetition, we're at it again (same issue, new address). We hope you'll surround us with LiveJournal love by sending your postcards to Frank the Goat, Esq., c/o LiveJournal, Inc., 539 Bryant Street, Suite 210, San Francisco, CA 94107. We'll post snapshots right here. Be sure to include your username, since we'll randomly pick 10 lucky recipients to win free paid account time.

Conquer Writer's Block

Here are some excerpts from this week's most popular question of the day:

If a friend or relative makes a racist or homophobic remark, do you tend to confront them or let it slide? Are you more likely to confront them if it offends you directly or someone else who seems reluctant to speak up?

1. I find it easier to stand up for other people, and i wouldn't let it slide if they made a rude or hurtful comment.
2. Usually if a friend makes a racist or homophobic remark, I tend to let it slide. I think that while i would not say such things myself, I have no right to censor those around me.
3. This happens all of the time. I confront some relatives, but I refuse to if they are drunk or watch Fox News.
4. I'd let it slide if it was just a private remark... As much as I despise bigotry and intolerance, I know that you can't change people-they have to change themselves ...
5. Confront! confront! confront! Politely, but without equivocation.
6. SPEAK UP. Always, always, always speak up. Letting something slide lets ignorance win. No matter if it offends me directly, or someone else, I will confront the speaker and let them know that's not ok.
7. I don't get offended personally. As an immigrant, woman, gay and person of color if I took every single potentially offensive remark seriously I wouldn't get anything done.
8. I punch them in the balls. With my mind.
9. I do speak up, but often very timidly because I feel that I'm white and therefore I don't really have any authority to lecture someone on what's racist and what isn't...
10. Generally speaking, I do not let this shit fly, because it reduces me as a person, to this non-person and it replicates the destructive discourse that makes sure that sexual minorities, racial minorities, women, people with disabilities, trans people and every intersection thereof into something other than human... And sometimes... I'm just too tired to deal with it, so I roll my eyes, make a sarcastic remark and hope the conversation moves on quickly.

For more daily questions and user comments, join writersblock. FYI, we don't want to invade your privacy, so we haven't credited individual users for their responses. We'd appreciate your feedback on this!

Spotlight community of the week

We can't resist making one last midnight trip to the ol' pumpkin patch. If you adore crazy costumes, fiendish festivities, and bottomless candy consumption as much as we do, this community has just what it takes to light up your jack-o-lantern.


halloween_fan

Photos of the week

We received so many incredible photos, we had to close our eyes and point. We uploaded a selection of awesome images at our new lj_photophile community. Please join and start posting (try to keep the width at around 625 for the sake of consistency)! We'd love for you to tell us more about your photos! You can help us select spotlight photos by commenting on your favorites. Once again, we thank you for making our online world more beautiful!

shutter	pancetta	ilya_gorokhov

Curtains

Thanks, again, for tuning in. We look forward to seeing you next week.

The most fascinating thing about Andrew "Bell Curve" Sullivan - besides his tendency to embody within himself and his warped, destructive career everything wrong with the American media, in spite of not being American himself - is how, as if driven by a compulsion, he must try to pis off the gay rights movement at least once a year. I suppose a therapist would say that Sully is possessed by a profound, fundamental self-loathing, in which case who can blame him?

Thanks to justincognito, I found this gem, which I couldn't help but polish off:

"No More Matthew Shephards." That's HuffPo's headline for the hate crimes amendment to the Defense Appropriation bill. It's absurd.

It is absurd...if you take it as anything but the sort of rhetorical hyperbole common to political journalism, a field that, to be fair, Sully has little if any knowledge about (to quote Homer, "In case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic!"). I think it's more accurate to say it's absurd to treat such a heading as some kind of definitive statement that can be responded to empirically. Well, absurd, dishonest, either or both work.

Does anyone seriously believe that a hate crimes federal law will actually prevent gay bashing? How exactly?

Yes, it's not like there are actual arguments used by the opposition that can be addressed here. In Sully's world, Twitter can single-handedly topple the regime in Iran, but Google can't be used to find information on the opposing side on any given issue. To be fair, though, Sully doesn't have much time to actually indulge in many debates in his blog. Judging from all the posts that are nothing but wholesale quotations and links, Sully obviously isn't able to spend too much effort on blogging. Also it isn't like he's paid for...[Actually, the blog is part of his job. - Ed.] Really? [Yes! - Ed.] Oy.

Of course, why actually make an honest, detailed assessment and rebuttal of a position when you can just pick on a four-word heading? I'm sure it's a prime example from the Sullivan Playbook of Lazy Debating, right next to the section about how you can get away with trying to make eugenics a fad again.

What it will do is allow for extra federal penalties for anyone found guilty of such an attack if its victim was selected by anti-gay bias and if local authorities refuse to prosecute.

Funny how responding so literally to obvious hyperbole can only make you sound like a dick.

Now recall that Matthew Shepard's murderers were given the harshest sentence allowed under the law (a hate crime provision would have added nothing) and that sentence was passed down in the absence of any hate crime law in Wyoming. So this bill has zero actual relevance to the Shepard case: in fact, the Shepard case is really salient in showing why hate crimes laws are unnecessary.

Seriously, does Sully just keep Megan McArdle around because she's one of the few halfway respectable online pundits who make him look like a competent political commentator by comparison?

I mean, the gall and deliberate ignorance in that one little paragraph floors me. No, it can't possibly be that there's any deeper motive driving supporters of hate crime legislation or that they're thinking not of individual victims but the group in question or that weird little matter of mens rea in criminal law, it's all about punishing gay bashers extra hard and nothing else.

Obviously I'm not thrilled that Sully opposes hate crimes legislation for the LGBT community, and to be completely frank I find it downright disgusting that this kind of attitude comes from a prominent member of the gay community. That said, I am perfectly willing to accept that there are perfectly sound arguments against hate crimes legislation that aren't built on cues taken from a "South Park" episode, even though I would still most emphatically disagree. But it's not Sully's position here that grinds my gears, it's how he expresses it: "Let me treat the title of an article like an actual coherent defense of the bill and its proponents' motives." Christ, just firing off a flippant "Every crime is a hate crime!" and leaving it at that would have been more intellectually rigorous. Let me consult that copy of the Sullivan Playbook of Lazy Debating, which I have suddenly and miraculously retrieved. Just as I suspected, the very first point is, "Your opponent's position has no reality outside of your own mind." I knew it!

And never forget he does this, in a blog associated with a once respected publication, and is not only paid for it but remains a respected media figure (oh, Glenn Greenwald, what are you thinking?! Queer solidarity can only go so far, you know.)

Anyway, let's hold our noses and dive back in.

But, again, the proof of the pudding: Let's see what results this amendment gets within six months, and every six months thereafter.

Or, you know, we could see the results from the dozens of other hate crime laws that have been passed over the years. After all, there are lots of books and articles and things. (I know it's pointless to point this kind of thing out; we are, after all, dealing with the man who apparently believed that George W. Bush had no gay rights record before he became President, as if he was never the governor of a state or something.)

Meanwhile, have some great cocktails at the White House, guys. Get a souvenir.

How appropriate that Sully would react to what a large number of members of his community are touting as a victory with bitchy disdain. We already know you feel nothing but contempt for your fellow gay men; no need to keep reminding us, Sully!

Is it wrong of me to actually bet over whether or not a married friend of mine is going to have an affair and/or get divorced?

In my defense it is as close to a sure bet as I've ever been.