Steve Dyer

The post Google Correlate appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.

On Tuesday, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto called for the legalization of gay marriage nationwide, a move in accordance with a ruling from Mexico’s Supreme Court last year that found it was unconstitutional for states to ban same-sex marriage.

The AP reports: 

Speaking at an event on the International Day Against Homophobia, Pena Nieto said he signed initiatives that would seek to add same-sex marriage provisions to Mexico’s constitution and the national civil code.

Pena Nieto said he would seek to reform Article 4 of the constitution to clearly reflect the Supreme Court opinion “to recognize as a human right that people can enter into marriage without any kind of discrimination.”

“That is, for marriages to be carried out without discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or nationality, of disabilities, of social or health conditions, of religion, of gender or sexual preference,” he added.

The profile page of Pena Nieto’s Twitter account was turned rainbow-colored Tuesday as he made the announcement.

Por un @Mexico incluyente que reconoce en la diversidad, una de sus mayores fortalezas #SinHomofobia. pic.twitter.com/6ooZGuPEsD

— Enrique Peña Nieto (@EPN) May 17, 2016

Gay marriage is currently legal in Mexico’s capital, Coahuila, as well as the Quintana Roo state. The legislation proposed by the president would add same-sex marriage rights to the nation’s constitution and civil code.

Watch video of Peña Nieto proposing the legislation, below.

The post Mexican President Calls for Legalization of Gay Marriage Nationwide: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad.

On Tuesday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that his government will enact new protections for transgender citizens. The moves comes on The International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia.

According to the Canadian Department of Justice, the new legislation will update both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the country’s Criminal Code to include gender identity and gender expression as a “distinguishing feature of a person.” If enacted the legislation would criminalize discrimination, harassment and violence based on that feature.

CBC reports: 

Trudeau made the announcement after he received the Laurent McCutcheon Award, named after the pioneer in the fight against homophobia who served as president of the Montreal hotline Gai Écoute from 1982 until 2013.

The award highlights Trudeau’s continued support for lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual individuals in Quebec and across Canada.

“I believe in a Canada where men can give blood, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Trudeau said. “Where transgender people are protected by the law.”

“A Canada where all prime ministers are proud to walk with the LGBT community during gay pride parades.”

The bill aimed at safeguarding transgender Canadians is to be tabled in the House of Commons on May 17, the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia.

“We must carry on the legacy of those who fought for justice by being bold and ambitious in our actions,” Trudeau said. “And we must work diligently to close the gap between our principles and reality.”

Trudeau also took to Twitter on Tuesday to share the news.

Today, we’ve tabled a bill to protect Canadians from being discriminated against based on gender identity or gender expression. #FreeToBeMe

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) May 17, 2016

…the bill also extends hate-crime sections of the Criminal Code to include those targeted based on gender identity. https://t.co/7zdYFNLEDZ

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) May 17, 2016

 

Watch Trudeau make the announcement, below.

You can read Trudeau’s full statement, below:

“Today, I join Canadians – and people around the world – to recognize the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

“Everyone deserves to live free of stigma, persecution, and discrimination – no matter who they are or whom they love. Today is about ensuring that all people – regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity – feel safe and secure, and empowered to freely express themselves.

“On this important day, I encourage all Canadians to raise awareness, and mobilize to end the violence, prejudice, and judgement faced by LGBTQ2 persons.

“As a society, we have taken many important steps toward recognizing and protecting the legal rights for the LGBTQ2 community – from enshrining equality rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the passage of the Civil Marriage Act. There remains much to be done, though. Far too many people still face harassment, discrimination, and violence for being who they are. This is unacceptable.

“To do its part, the Government of Canada today will introduce legislation that will help ensure transgender and other gender-diverse people can live according to their gender identity, free from discrimination, and protected from hate propaganda and hate crimes.

“Today, let us unite in a global celebration of diversity, and reaffirm our commitment to unequivocally defend LGBTQ2 rights as human rights. We will never stop fighting for a safer, more equal, and more just world for all of our children.”

The post Canadian PM Justin Trudeau Announces New Transgender Rights Legislation: WATCH appeared first on Towleroad.

This is not a drill.

Read more We Are Closing The Toast July 1st at The Toast.

Donald Trump definitely did not make those phone calls pretending to be a PR spokesman for Donald Trump that Donald Trump admitted Donald Trump made.

15-year-old Canadian William Gadoury has translated his interest in the Mayan civilization into two remarkable discoveries. Gadoury noticed that the locations of the biggest Mayan cities matched the locations of the stars in Mayan constellations. Furthermore, the star charts pointed to the existence of a previously unknown city, the ruins of which have since been uncovered by satellite photography.

"I did not understand why the Maya built their cities away from rivers, on marginal lands and in the mountains," said Gadoury. "They had to have another reason, and as they worshiped the stars, the idea came to me to verify my hypothesis. I was really surprised and excited when I realized that the most brilliant stars of the constellations matched the largest Maya cities."

Someone start a Kickstarter campaign so that he can visit those ruins! (via @delfuego)

Update: Due to a mislabeled file on Wikipedia, I used a photo of an Aztec compass instead of a Mayan image. I have replaced with an image of the Mayan zodiac.

Also, per my post about media coverage of science yesterday, I'll point out quickly that there's much to be skeptical about re: this story (see this post from a Mesoamerican archaeologist). More likely than not, there's a Mayan scholar mailing list going bananas right now...I'll let you know if I hear anything specific.

In the meantime, this story in the Independent contains some satellite photos of the location in question. (via @gunnihinn)

Update: Vice: That 15-Year-Old Kid Probably Didn't Discover a Hidden Mayan City.

The rectangular feature seen on satellite is likely an old corn field (it's not the right shape to be a pyramid). There are indeed ancient Maya sites all over the place, and satellite imagery and LiDAR are being used to discover them, but this doesn't seem to be one of those cases...

On the bright side, the "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" study has been successfully replicated again. Science rolls on...

Tags: archaeology   astronomy   Maya civilization   science   William Gadoury

Interested in webcam young girls? take a look: Chat Sexo Gratis
Follow us on social media: Myspace

Another reader request. Devon:

“What do you think of the controversy over Hamilton and its historical accuracy? Are the criticisms fair? It seems like a good example of politics overriding artistic quality in the way you’ve criticized in the past.”

I can’t say anything about Hamilton critically; I haven’t seen it. I have listened to the soundtrack a few times and it is decidedly not for me. But a play is not its soundtrack and I can’t say if the play is as good as its reputation or not. (And unless I win the lottery, probably never will.) I have certainly noticed the ways in which appreciation for the play has taken on a life of its own. I’ve also read some of the criticism from historians. I feel like the specific question of the play’s historical accuracy is kind of limited and boring. But there are more interesting, larger questions that connect here.

First, I agree with the great Isaac Butler on just about everything in this piece. It’s essential to separate two things: a work of historical fiction’s artistic value and its historical accuracy. Both are important. People who consume historical fiction (or fictionalized history or whatever) should have a basic sense of when and how the fiction diverges from our best guess of the historical record; people who fictionalize history should feel no guilt over liberally departing from the historical record if that’s what’s best for the story. Part of what made Zero Dark Thirty so egregious was that the producers repeatedly insisted it was a work of faithful history, comparing it to a documentary in the film’s publicity countless times. As far as I know, nobody involved with Hamilton has presented it as an attempt at perfect historical fidelity. Like… I’m pretty sure Alexander Hamilton didn’t rap that much. If the creators are upfront about their departures, and the audience understands the nature of historical fiction, no harm and no foul.

The bigger issue, though, I think is more important, which is the question of the correct relationship between the politics of a piece of art and its quality. I do think that we have seen a wide scale, passionate embrace of art criticism that presumes the purpose of criticism is to adjudicate whether and how well art fulfills the functions of contemporary social liberalism. In the era of Takes, there is an entire wing of criticism – a large and growing concern – that asks to what degree any given work of art confirms the kind of vague intersectional race, gender, and sexual politics that have become the default language of our culture industry. That art is considered well crafted which best dramatizes the stories that this form of social liberalism tells about the world. This type of Takes criticism also judges how well a given work practices socially liberal principles through diversity, either the diversity of its perspective or the diversity of its creators. Both of these are laudable goals, though Takes criticism has an uninspiring track record when it comes to fairly and consistently sorting what failure or success looks like in this regard.

I get a fair amount of emails from people who are mad that a work of art they consider undeserving is receiving praise, or that a work of art they consider good is receiving criticism, because of success or failure in properly demonstrating the consensus political norms. Often I agree with them, but I’m forced to laugh, because in their opposition they’ve ended up doing precisely what they accuse others of doing: allowing a work of art’s political reception to overwhelm their aesthetic appreciation. Putting politics first.

There are reams that you could write about this; I already have, as have others. Probably the most important point is simply that, as bad as this stuff can be for aesthetics, it’s even worse politics, as it fits in perfectly with contemporary liberalism’s addiction to symbolism over substance and utter inability to sort one from the other. But I think it’s worth making a smaller point: the short-term political interests of the contemporary audience is precisely the sort of thing that will cease to matter over time, and if we want to engage culturally in the spirit of a longer historical lineage of criticism, we should worry about the demise of aesthetics at the hands of politics. Because it’s aesthetics that endure.

As someone who reads a fair amount of books that were published long ago, I find few things quite as baffling as trying to parse their political context. That’s true even when I’m armed with a good understanding of what the major players and actors were in the given time period. Politics is filled with exceptional nuance, small-but-crucial distinctions, linguistic cues that seem inscrutable to those who haven’t been steeped in their discussions for ages. I find it easy to adapt to the cultural changes that inflect older books; mores about sex and nobility and justice and friendship, I find, are more accessible across the ages. But politics is hard, and the political work that endures is that which most effectively ties immediate and ephemeral political realities to more enduring aspects of human existence. Or so it seems to me.

Look at Gulliver’s Travels, for example. The book was, above and beyond anything else, a political satire, and yet it’s hard to imagine that this resonates with most of its readers. I read it last year for the first time in (god) 20 years or so. I was no more able to really grasp the political implications than I was when I read it as a young teenager and wasn’t even looking for them. I kept seeing aspects of the book that I could tell must have had important satirical elements, but they just meant nothing to me; I’m not a creature of that time. But the book has endured, and not because 12 year olds are masters of 18th century Anglo politics. The story’s fantasy elements, and Jonathan Swift’s verve in delivering them, have survived the passage of time; its politics, for most people, haven’t. Of course, there are politics at work in Aeschylus and Hamlet and To the Lighthouse, but those are the politics which can be removed from their immediate historical context and still enlighten, challenge, or disturb. Critics who want to contribute to developing an enduring and meaningful reputation for a particular book or movie or album should probably emphasize what’s timeless instead of what’s timely. And the kind of politics I’m talking about are very much part of our particular political and cultural moment.

Yet this is precisely what Takes never do. Takes always emphasize the local and the immediate. It’s their nature; the endless churn of the #content cycle ensures that the machine will produce mostly writing of immediate but rapidly-declining relevance. Takes criticism thus most often locates a piece of art in a particular contemporary context, but almost never shows how that art connects to more enduring themes. I know that many people flatter themselves to think that we’re in some sort of unique political era, that we’re on the cusp of a permanent adjustment of how we deal with power and difference. But this strikes me as the pretense of people from every political era.

I have no idea if people think Creed, Transparent, or Lemonade are good art as art, because the focus on their good politics has been so relentless. In the long run that’s good for nobody, artist or consumer.

Think about a book like Uncle Tom’s Cabin. These days it functions as much more of a historical document than a literary one, an archival text used to demonstrate attitudes towards slaves, slavery, and abolition in the immediate pre-war period. We now have a great deal of (convincing) arguments for all of the ways in which the book is problematic, and that work is important. But I think the book is rarely read anymore not because of its various and deep political problems but because it’s just not a very good book. Meanwhile, no matter how many new Takes are written that problematize Huck Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird — and, crucially, no matter how right they very well might be! — I find their reputation secure. When Tolstoy died, people traveled from thousands of miles away to pay their respects. Riots and strikes broke out across Russia. They renamed the village where he died. I don’t think his artistic reputation is going to be affected by talking about what a shitty husband he was, even though he was a shitty husband, and it’s important to say so, and our understanding of artistic greatness should recognize the role gender inequality has played in the production of art.

Look, obviously the relationship between artistic reputation is a huge topic and far bigger than a couple cherry picked examples. I do think, though, that it’s sensible to say that when you constantly put politics before aesthetics you risk making the work you champion appear incapable of standing on its own artistic value. And this is a point that I really wish the people now writing politics-first criticism would understand: the problem isn’t always or just that you’re overpraising art that suits your politics, but that in doing so you’re actually undervaluing that art. That is, by focusing so relentlessly on the degree to which a given movie or book or show satisfies the dictates of limp bourgeois social liberalism, you actually damage your ability to influence its enduring reputation. Perception of mass critical opinion is weird and chancy and uncertain, but there’s little question that the initial reaction of critics helps to determine a piece’s eventual stable reputation. Later critics may affirm that initial reception or reject it, but they almost always read through the prism of what’s been said before. To restrict your contribution to how well a piece of art fits within current progressive norms, which will surely appear inscrutable and arbitrary in just a few decades, is a way to write yourself out of a more lasting conversation.

Good politics are used in the service of making bad art every day. Monsters make masterpieces. This is not news.

So if you’re mad that Hamilton has gotten as much hype as it has, because of the way liking it now functions as a kind of membership card for cultured progressives, and if you’re a Hamilton fan who feels that the backlash against the play sidelines its artistic merit in an unfair meta-conversation, the news is good: time is an imperfect but powerful corrective for overemphasizing short-term political attitudes in criticism. I’m sure some people will intentionally misread this post, but I’m not saying that you shouldn’t write about Hamilton and race or Hamilton and representation or Hamilton and the economics of Broadway. All of those things sound like great things to write about. I am saying, though, that you should ensure that when you do write these things, you write about how well done they are, about how effectively the play wrings drama and meaning from them, about whether the politics deepen and complicate the art rather than merely exist within it. The easiest way to undermine the durability of your opinion on Hamilton is to write about nothing but its role in satisfying the expectations of cultural progressives. The easiest way to undermine Hamilton‘s long term reputation is by praising the show in a way that sidelines aesthetics in favor of those politics.

Stuff that’s lionized today will be forgotten tomorrow. And a lot of it will be stuff that was championed not because of its quality but because of what lavishing that praise was meant to say about the champions. Whether Hamilton will be one of them, time will tell.

Last week we told you about an amusing fake feud that started online between the Obamas and the Windsors, namely Barack and Michelle v. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Harry.

It all began with a challenge from the Obamas saying that the Brits better bring it at the upcoming Invictus Games in Orlando, Florida.

Hey, @KensingtonRoyal! Are you ready for @InvictusOrlando? Game on. pic.twitter.com/S34KrEv5Is

— The First Lady (@FLOTUS) April 29, 2016

Unfortunately for the Obamas, Queen Elizabeth II happened to be around when Harry got the message from Michelle. That left us with the memorable, “Boom, really, please” line from HM.

Unfortunately for you @FLOTUS and @POTUS I wasn't alone when you sent me that video 😉 – H.https://t.co/sjfSQvkzb6

— Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) April 29, 2016

Now, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau–apparently feeling left out of the love loss contest (hey, Canada is part of the Commonwealth)–decided to get into the beef-stakes with a mic drop of his own: one armed push ups.

Mic. Dropped.

Watch, below.

The post Justin Trudeau Just Served Queen Elizabeth, Prince Harry, and the Obamas a One-Armed Mic Drop: WATCH  appeared first on Towleroad.

This is NUTS. The members of the Armored Combat League get dressed up in medieval armor and go at it, hard. Like full on with knives and axes and clubs.

We've seen guys' fingers get cut off, we've seen guys' knees kicked in, we've seen guys break both of their arms in the same fight, we've seen guys get all their teeth knocked out because the helmet smashes up against their face or something, some guy had to get flown out by helicopter because he has blood in his brain...

Makes movie fighting seem a lot more like dancing, doesn't it? (thx, byrne)

Tags: video

Louis C.K.’s new series Horace and Pete just wrapped up its 10-episode run (check out our review here), and it turns out that C.K.’s latest experimental release hasn’t been yielding the kind of profits he had hoped for — at least, not yet. Speaking to Howard Stern today, C.K. revealed that the original plan was […]

by Dan Savage

Caption: "Die Stadtwerke Augsburg haben zunächst an zwei Straßenbahn-Haltestellen Bodenampeln installiert - so soll es vor allem für abgelenkte Handynutzer mehr Sicherheit geben!"

Translation: "The Augsburg City Transport Authority installed groundstoplights at two tram stops to increase safety especially for distracted cellphone users."

You gotta love the Germans just stringrandomwords together to makenewwords. IwishwedidthatinEnglish.

Full disclosure: When I lived downtown, shortly after I moved to Seattle, I almost stepped in front of a speeding bus on Western Avenue. I was reading a book while I walked around a deserted, pre-condo-tower Belltown. And I came... this close... to being killed. If I had been walking a split second faster... I would've been killed. But God didn't want me to win a Darwin Award that day. Because God had had a plan for my life... a plan that included this.

[ Comment on this story ]

[ Subscribe to the comments on this story ]

Stitching together thousands of images, photographer Levon Biss produces huge and detailed photographs of tiny insects; prints of 10 mm bugs are 3 meters across. An exhibition of Biss' photos will be on display at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History. All three images above are of the orchid cuckoo bee at different levels of zoom. This video shows how the photos are made:

Tags: Levon Biss   photography   video

Look, you’ve got something I want (space facts), and I’ve got something you want (echidna pics). I’m sure we can work something out.

Former U.S. Senator Harris Wofford (D-PA), who was married to his wife Clare for 48 years until she died from Leukemia when they both were nearly 70, writes movingly of his love affair and the one that found him after she died. His more recent love affair, with 40-year-old Matthew Charlton, has been going on for 15 years, and they’re about to “join hands, vowing to be bound together: to have and to hold, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until death do us part.”

Wofford met Charlton in a chance meeting on a Florida beach.

Writes Wofford in the must-read NYT essay:

To some, our bond is entirely natural, to others it comes as a strange surprise, but most soon see the strength of our feelings and our devotion to each other. We have now been together for 15 years.

Too often, our society seeks to label people by pinning them on the wall — straight, gay or in between. I don’t categorize myself based on the gender of those I love. I had a half-century of marriage with a wonderful woman, and now am lucky for a second time to have found happiness.

Wofford, who was succeeded in office by Senator Rick Santorum, says he’ll marry again on April 30. He says he never thought he’d see the day:

For a long time, I did not suspect that idea and fate might meet in my lifetime to produce same-sex marriage equality. My focus was on other issues facing our nation, especially advancing national service for all. Seeking to change something as deeply ingrained in law and public opinion as the definition of marriage seemed impossible.

I was wrong, and should not have been so pessimistic….

…Twice in my life, I’ve felt the pull of such passionate preference. At age 90, I am lucky to be in an era where the Supreme Court has strengthened what President Obama calls “the dignity of marriage” by recognizing that matrimony is not based on anyone’s sexual nature, choices or dreams. It is based on love.

Congrats to the couple. May we all find our own happiness.

Here’s a brief clip published in February about Wofford from the Corporation for Civic Documentaries:

The post In Moving Essay, Former U.S. Senator Harris Wofford Announces Marriage to Man 50 Years His Junior appeared first on Towleroad.

Stelian Firez recently shared a really boneheaded web form for entering your phone number:

Soon afterward, several people attempted to conjure up even more cumbersome ways to ask people for phone numbers:

"Solutions" by Jeff Bonhag, Paulo Gaspar, Dan Kozikowski, and Justin. (via @ftrain)

Update: Thomas Park went old school with a rotary dial.

Tags: Stelian Firez   web development

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker (R) was booed off stage while speaking at an LGBT event on Wednesday night over his failure to support a transgender rights bill.

If passed, the bill would extend anti-discrimination protections in the area of public accommodations to transgender citizens in the state.

The Boston Herald reports: 

Baker spoke [at Boston Spirit Magazine’s LGBT Executive Networking Night] for about 18 minutes as 30 demonstrators stood silently in the front row holding signs that read “Public Spaces = Our Spaces. Trans Rights Now!” until he finally addressed the issue.

“We should not discriminate against anyone in the commonwealth of Mass.,” Baker said.

“If and when (the bill) lands on my desk, I’ll talk to all parties involved,” he started to say before a chant of “Sign the bill” broke out.

Baker tried to rally by returning to the opioid epidemic and urging those in the crowd to “continue to have those conversations,” about the public access bill, but he was shouted at and booed.

He then walked off the stage and left the ballroom at the Boston Marriott Copley Place.

Baker reportedly did not address any specific LGBT issues during his speech:

Lorelei Erisis, a transgender resident from Ayer who works in Cambridge, called it “one of the most politically tone-deaf speeches I’ve ever heard.”

“Forget trans people, this is an LGBT event and he barely even mentioned LGB issues, never mind the public access issue,” she said. “He talked about the MBTA, he talked about his success with the opioid issues, which are all very important issues for him to be working on, but they are not necessarily relevant to this room full of rainbow flags. His silence to us is a de facto promise that he will veto. I hoped to be a Gov. Baker fan. I wanted to be optimistic.”

After the incident, Baker did not change his stance:

A statement from the governor’s office said, “He supports the 2011 legislation that expanded protections to transgender individuals and looks forward to reviewing additional legislation should it reach his desk.”

Watch video of Baker being booed, below.

The post Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker Booed Offstage at LGBT Event – WATCH appeared first on Towleroad.