Homodox

Bette Davis 1908-1989

Bette Davis would be turning 100 this week, so the Boston Globe has an article on her.  Yes, I took the accompanying quiz, and yes, I got all the answers right.  What does that say about me?  Well, I've always scored high on the classic gay quotient when it comes to Broadway and old movies.  I score surprisingly low on fashion and body piercings.  Go figure.

In the 1950s Davis and then husband Gary Merrill made their home at Cape Elizabeth, Maine.  Remember that Davis was a New Englander (as was fellow icon Katharine Hepburn).  On Payson's mantle there was a picture of Davis, Merrill and some others partying together.  It was always a small reminder that what I took for nostalgia, had been the present in Payson's life.  Davis was camp to me, a person to him.  She had so many great movie lines, but my favorite from All About Eve: "Zanuck, Zanuck, Zanuck, what are you two? Lovers?"

Genealogical Writing

I've written quite a few articles thus far. I'm always happy to share those articles with people if I'm able. No one who writes a scholarly genealogical article is paid for it. Sometimes the journal owns the copyright (which I've signed over) and sometimes they allow the author to retain copyright. Since no money is involved (except for the amount I've shelled out to research the article), I'm very content for someone to use that information and give me credit for it. That's my bottom line. Give me a thank you, footnote, acknowledgment, or something similar and I'm good to go.

I often want people to subscribe to the journal because keeping these journals going is important to me and to genealogical scholarship in general. Also, I like people to use libraries because (gasp) I'm a librarian. So, if I ever point people in a certain direction is for those reasons and not for remuneration of any kind.

I know of several people who do genealogy full time. All of them survive on private client research and not on book royalties or the like. Some of the genealogists are independently wealthy to begin with. Others are dependently wealthy (that is, they have spouses whose wealth and/or salary is enough to survive on). I would think you would need at least a dozen genealogical books in print at any given time in order to keep your head above water and I don't know of anyone in that situation at present.

So, I know most people think genealogy should be absolutely free for everyone. Well, I don't. However, I do my own research for myself and thus, I would be spending the money anyway, so I'm fine with sharing. I've had more than a few bad experiences with sharing my information and seeing it pop up in places I didn't intend it to [without acknowledgment]. But, dems is da breaks.

Genealogical Information

A reminder to anyone who finds this blog doing a google search on genealogy: If you would like more information on a subject, either email me or leave me your email in a comment. Otherwise, I have no way to contact you other than a follow-up in the comments section. There is a link to my genealogy page and my email is on that page. Thanks!

EPG

I suppose if you knew nothing else about Payson, the fact that he named his car Suzabella would be enough to know he had elan.  We met through an ad for bridge players and thus commenced a fifteen year friendship.  He was old enough to be a father figure and through our card game conversations I came to know much about him.  He was witty and urbane.  He didn't suffer fools gladly (and that meant me if I goofed when playing bridge).  His downeast accent flowed with charm and his smile and laugh were infectious. 

Michael and I are rather old-fashioned.  We enjoy an evening of bridge and martinis, and apart from the gay thing, we would fit very nicely into the 1950s.  We were Scheinwold bridge players but retrained ourselves as Goran players to accommodate Payson's style.  We learned what a Hattie Rose overcall was.  As we passed a round out, we would all say, "I almost had a bid.  What?  One Club.  Well. . . "  I loved it when he called me Skeezix.

Payson passed away on Tuesday morning from cancer at age 82.  I lost so many peers in the late 80s and early 90s to AIDS, that I'm somewhat inured to such news.  On the other hand, I've crossed that magic boundary where I've lived long enough that the generation who came before me, will start leaving; i.e. the natural way of things.  I'm so glad Payson and I were friends.  I remember reading an article, which I cannot locate, that gay men didn't have friends outside their generation for various reasons.  As always, I was the exception to the rule.  I'll miss him tremendously.

Dissension Is Good

If the democrats lose it's Obama's fault.  He could have waited to run for president.  Hillary has won most of the democratic strongholds and some republican states.  Obama's victories have come in republican states where a democrat has no chance of winning in the general election. 

I'm humbled that someone would take the time to disagree with me!  Very cool.  There are two main points in this statement to address.  (1) Obama could have waited to run.  This is true.  If elected he'll be the third youngest person to be elected behind JFK and (wait for it) Bill Clinton [TR was younger than all of them, but succeeded to the presidency.]  My problem with this paradigm is that the presidency is viewed like Space Mountain.  Evidently there is a line and one shouldn't jump the queue.  In 1960, certainly LBJ and Humphrey were more experienced as senators and probably thought they were next in line.  Yet, JFK got the nomination and won the election.  Jimmy Carter in 1976 also jumped into the game with very little experience nationally.  I think that part of the appeal of the Obama campaign was that the time is now.  This can be argued, as his experience v. Sen. Clinton's experience can be argued, but stating that he should have waited somewhat smacks of sour grapes for the Clinton supporters.

(2) Hillary has won more of the democratic strongholds.  This is also true.  New York, California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey went for Clinton.  Each of these states went blue in the last four elections.  The underlying (and I believe false) assumption is that if Clinton is not the nominee these states will be in play.  Is that really so?  I believe these states will be blue no matter who the democratic nominee is.  Pennsylvania also went blue in the last four elections, but Ohio was red in 2004 and 2000.  I find it more interesting that Obama might actually put Virginia and Georgia in play in 2008.  I think you can guarantee the democratic nominee California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois off the top.  The battleground states of Ohio (Clinton), Missouri (Obama), Nevada (Clinton), Georgia (Obama), Minnesota (Obama), Wisconsin (Obama), Iowa (Obama), Virginia (Obama) are pretty much Obama-land.

I don't think his argument holds up under scrutiny.  But thanks for writing!

A Pennsylvania Upset?

DavidKC shows you how.

Winning and Losing

Americans are obsessed with winning or losing.  Somewhere along the way, we've turned everything into a competition.  Reality shows now feature who can dance better, sing better, design clothes better, wear the designer clothes better, eat more cockroaches, travel the world, and a few more things I'm blissfully unaware of.

On Tuesday the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in Medellin v. Texas.  Many headlines spoke of President Bush losing, and certainly in a way, his side lost the argument.  More headlines discussed this as a death penalty case, but that fact is tangential to the actual legal question that SCOTUS interpreted.  Reading the opinion one sees that the court was seeing if a provision of the Vienna Convention, signed by the U.S., was self-executing or not.  If not, Congress needed to pass legislation in order for that part of the treaty to be U.S. law.  In the end six justices decided that it was not self-executing, Congress needed to act, and therefore the president did not have the power to tell the courts in Texas what to do.  The remedy for the situation is inherent in the opinion.  President Bush needs to ask Congress to pass a bill that will execute that part of the Vienna Convention.  After that, he will have the power to dictate to the courts in Texas (or any other state).  So, it's not a win or lose situation.  It's a process of definition and refinement in our laws.

Likewise in Massachusetts, a casino bill was shot down and most headlines noted that Governor Patrick lost in a contest with House Speaker DiMasi.  Not so.  This was a proposal for economic benefits to the state.  We govern ourselves and thus this proposal was made and put in the public forum.  It was reported upon, studied, and in the end defeated.  This is government by the people.  Now, the true question is what to do with a budget shortfall in lieu of no new revenue from no new casinos.

I'm just tired of the pissing contest mentality in the news.  If I want winning v. losing I'll read the sports section.

Citizen Crain

Chris Crain included my story over at his blog Citizen Crain.  Read the comments too.  I wish they were fighting over me, but as the subject of the posting, I think I was little more than an afterthought.

McSquizzy

Is it just me, or don't you think all squirrels have a Scottish brogue?
McSquizzy: That was just a warning. Try it again, I'll be kicking your furry, brown bahookie! Mess not with the furrytail clan. Defenders of the good, crusaders of the righteous....guardians of the pine.

The Election and SCOTUS

Many political writers are noting that different percentages of Senators Clinton and Obama's supporters will refuse to vote in November should their candidate not get the democratic nomination.  I will not be one of them.  Whoever, the democrat nominee will be (go Obama!) I'll be voting for that person.  One major reason will be the membership of the Supreme Court.

Those of us on the left of the political spectrum have dodged a major bullet in the eight years of the George W. Bush administration.  He has only appointed two justices: Roberts who replaced Rehnquist (a one for one conservative swap) and Alito for O'Connor (-1/2 a conservative for a moderate swing).  It could have been much worse.  Although the subject of the Supreme Court comes up in every presidential election, as an issue it is usually dwarfed by national security and the economy.  However, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, two of the liberal votes, will no doubt retire in the next four years.  Therefore, they need to be replaced by liberal justices in order to maintain the parity we have today.  If the electee of 2008 is re-elected then Scalia and Kennedy may well retire also, and the shape of the court could very well change.

It's rather impossible to predict how a justice will act after an appointment.  Certainly Nixon appointed both Rehnquist and Blackmun and they turned out to be very different judicial personalities.  Ford appointed Stevens.  Reagan appointed O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy thus giving the court two of the most famous moderate swing voters of the last 25 years.  Bush I appointed Souter and Thomas, again, divergent justices.  But we really can't take the chance of John McCain as president.  SCOTUS appointments may be one area where he will throw a bone to the ultra-right partisans and a generation will pay the price.