christopher de la Torre

: : : : : : : : : : :

It’s an understatement to say that progressives are pissed off at Tuesday’s outcome in Maine. A legislative marriage victory for same-sex couples in the state was shattered when a bare majority vote stripped those couples of their Constitutional rights. It’s a scenario we saw in California last year with Proposition 8. In fact, Maine’s hate campaign mirrored that of California when it relied on fear tactics to achieve success. The nasty lives we lead.

What’s interesting about Maine is that the class question seems to be front and center, in contrast with California where the black community was initially (and wrongfully) blamed for punching the Prop 8 nuclear switch for couples there. It was never a question of “class” in California (more accurately, the role of fear in politics), but class analysis has smothered Maine these past few days like butter on a fresh lobster.

Today, a colleague circulated a piece from UNDERNEWS — the online report of the Progressive Review, a Maine publication edited by Sam Smith — titled “The Gay Marriage Defeat.” While I had a question about the accuracy of Maine being the “second” state to allow same-sex couples to marry (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont — Indeed California prior to Prop 8 — came before Maine’s 2009 legislation), the piece offers a fresh perspective and combines some commentary from other reputable sources.

To expand on a point in the article, in 1788 James Madison wrote that “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” [The Federalist No. 51]

I finished the article and scrolled down and, naturally for any public issue like this, the comments begged to be torn apart. They silently gnawed at me so, being a bit hungry myself, I took a stab and began to chew. Here is the carnage that ensued (I come in about half-way):

Anonymous said…
Sam – I think you’re missing an important point in this debate. A man and woman joined together is the only way we get procreation … absolutely essential to the survival of society. As such, it deserves a unique place in society, and that is what marriage has been. If gays want rights of marriage, most (all?) of those are available through other means than changing the name and position of marriage. Because marriage is both religious and civil things get unnecessarily complicated.
November 4, 2009 8:56 PM

Anonymous said…
Consider the possibility that it wasn’t the Catholic Church’s crude homophobia, but instead gays’ and progressives’ hysterics that swung the vote.
November 4, 2009 9:35 PM

Grand Junction, CO said…
Anonymous-Procreation and marriage are not synonymous. I am going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that a civil recognition of a same sex couple is not going to drop the birth rate to zero. Marriage does exist in both religious and civil contexts. If a church does not want to recognize same sex marriage, fine. If a church wants to dictate who can and can’t be recognized in a civil context, not fine. Separation of church and state…absolutely essential to the survival of American society.
November 4, 2009 11:49 PM

Anonymous said…
Marriage originally was unrelated to the raising of children and all those claiming otherwise are largely ignorant of history. Marriage began as a way for wealthy and powerful families to control and increase their wealth through contracts and dowry arrangements. It had nothing to do with love or “family values”. It was a civil, economic contract. That is what civil marriage still is.

While religions have a say in their blessing of a particular union, such blessings are not legal in and of themselves without a civil marriage license. However, it is perfectly legal to have a civli marriage that is not blessed in any way by any religion. In other words, legally speaking marriage is still a civil and economic contract. As such, individual religions should not be allowed to impose their definitions of marriage on those that do not share their beliefs.
November 5, 2009 10:26 AM

Christopher said…
The point re marriage and procreation is well-taken. Only problem is this: how exactly would affording all citizens the right of marriage (gay or straight) threaten procreation in any way? It’s a simple question with a simple answer: it doesn’t.
November 5, 2009 11:17 AM

Christopher said…
But it is worth exposing the warped rhetoric: “…as such, it deserves a unique place in society, and that is what marriage has been.”

What affording marriage to same-sex couples does threaten is the status quo — something cherished by conservatives and essential for the preservation of many a religious institution (exclusion/privilege vs. inclusion/equality).

Shall we cut the crap and call attention to the pink elephant in the room?
November 5, 2009 11:22 AM

wellbasically said…
Societal strictures against homosexuality are there for a reason, to encourage procreation. So people who are on the fence sexually have to be straight if they want to have sex. From an evolutionary standpoint procreation is essential not just to your genes but to your village-level society.

In addition, the favor placed on the heterosexual married is not something that’s easy to take away. (“Now that I’m married, at least everybody knows I’m not gay.”)

I’m not against gay marriage but it makes sense to understand where these people are coming from, and they’re coming from a natural place. It’s no surprise that the poorest section Maine opposes gay marriage; they have fewer things that make them feel valuable.

I know this is impossible to get through to “progressives” but if you just encouraged growth and wealth in those people you would have a lot easier time with gay marriage. Your own anti-growth tax policies and regulations are harming your social agenda.
November 5, 2009 12:54 PM

Christopher said…
Homosexuality exists in nature, and therefore is natural. If only to curb population, biological evolution has authored homosexuality for a reason. When in doubt, consult science.

Do not confuse religious agenda with that of biological evolution. As many Christian faiths dictate, for instance, the world was created in 6 days. To say that “these people are coming from a natural place” is incorrect. They are instead coming from a man-made place: religious ideology.

Religious ideology was not invented by nature. Both man and his natural tendencies, however, were created by nature. Empirical evidence trumps “faith” in this case.

Get it straight. (No pun intended.)
November 5, 2009 1:42 PM

Christopher said…
In closing: Mother Nature (genes, propagation of the species, etc.) is a diverse creature and is not limited by our rudimentary societal views and principles.

Why is it that our species has a collective brain-freeze when it comes to acknowledging this?
November 5, 2009 1:48 PM

wellbasically said…
I didn’t claim it was unnatural. It’s certainly possible that homosexuality is important to humans as a way to have sex and not procreate when it is not environmentally advantageous to procreate.

However it is in the interest of the species to multiply and that’s why homosexuality is discouraged in every human society. At the village level it was important to replenish and expand the young people to do the jobs for the village and take care of the old people. Our society is not really so different.

Some extreme lefties, it is true, hope that humans become extinct. And those on the right believe that humanity should expand its use of the earth and so on. So the procreation debate does in fact relate directly to politics and economics.

November 5, 2009 4:00 PM

Christopher said…
Again, I understand your point. But survival of the species is not about replenishing our numbers anymore — something that may have had merit in our distant past, but no longer holds true.

There are many possible reasons as to why biological evolution might introduce homosexuality into the equation in order to control an increase in population: right now, I would say there are about 6.7 billion of them.

I agree with your assessment of procreation correlating to politics and economics (an argument for another time), but the challenge here is to appreciate how religious ideology should never be a reason to afford rights to some but not others.

Those who would do so are traveling a slippery slope; it’s only a matter of time before the status quo turns back on them. To bring this back to evolution, natural selection and competition illustrate how many isolated events over a period of time can fiercely change the playing field in the long run. And tampering with human rights is to tamper with nature.

November 5, 2009 4:44 PM

Read UNDERNEWS’ “The Gay Marriage Defeat”

: : : : : : : : : : :

It was Benjamin Franklin who wrote that “the only things certain in life are death and taxes.” But what do you do when it comes down to a choice between higher taxes and death to the city? Between 2001 and 2008, many New Yorkers chose death.

A new study by the Empire Center for New York State Policy that shows middle-class people leaving the state in droves is one more piece of evidence that proves taxes have an effect on behavior, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Via National Center for Policy Analysis: “Escape from New York”

: : : : : : : : : : :

Her name is Judi Harvest: lovely woman, brilliant artist, wonderful friend, and she has a way with pairing wine and cheese that will beckon you back for more. But there is no question: the art is the real attraction. Harvest’s Venetian Satellite — after an illustrious residency in Venice — has landed in Chelsea, New York’s west side art mecca. The piece now resides in the lobby of the West Chelsea Building at 526 W. 26th Street. More info after the jump.

image courtesy Judi Harvest

A note from Harvest:

VENETIAN SATELLITE is inspired by Telstar, the first communication satellite, launched from Cape Canaveral on July 10, 1962. Telstar pioneered the global communication network that today ties together the eyes and ears of the world with international phone calls, live TV broadcasts, satellite radio, emails, mobile phones and more.

Installed here in the heart of Chelsea, in the dimensions of the original Telstar, it is my hope that VENETIAN SATELLITE will be an inspiration to all in sharing the ideal of better communications.

In this age of wireless relationships, it is important to remember and frequent the places where conversations still are an art form.

Welcome to West Chelsea Building, COMMUNICATE!

A special thank you to Gloria and Raymond Naftali for their dedication to the arts and visionary creation of the West Chelsea Building.

Visit Judi Harvest online for dimensions and materials.

I took this photo with artists Luis Colan and Judi Harvest in March of ‘09.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Brilliant photographer and good friend Burt Sun’s upcoming film, Bel Bora, documents the great Brazilian artist. Watch the first trailer.

a film by Burt Sun and Andre Costantini © 2009 Belborba film 

: : : : : : : : : : :

Does serendipity, in fact, come easily? Or is it the product of something? “Difficult” need not be synonymous with “displeasure.” “Challenge,” is the word, I believe. Besides, most humans aren’t observant enough to notice serendipity when it hits them square in the jaw.

I understand the point, but to think that there are things that come easily is suspect: love, happiness, chance encounters, spontaneity.. it’s just too easy an explanation, I think.

: : : : : : : : : : :

“The best part of waking up…” went the popular 80s coffee commercial jingle. You really have to sing it to get the full effect, but just imagine this: an above-average suburban housewife pulling away her Egyptian cotton sheets and double-packed Nautica bedspread, joker face on, flaring her nostrils to take a giant whiff of what awaits just past the frostbitten bay window in the kitchen — a freshly brewed piping hot pot of coffee, just seconds away from her wanton lips.

It’s a funny image (especially if you recall the hairstyles that went with the ads), but like it or not, that’s pretty much like what the first cup of the day feels like. To most of us, brewing our first cup brings some comfort.

I’ve (almost) memorized the time it takes for my coffeemaker to brew about 4 cups. The percolating sound is part of my morning routine, and I always know when it’s finished because the final cycle takes a bit longer than the rest. The aroma begins to fill the apartment at about 3 or 4 cycles and when it’s done, the rush of hot liquid running from the pot to my mug makes my mouth water before I take the first sip. Brewing a fresh pot is a ritual, and it’s the ritual that literally forces me to slow down, take a deep breath, and smell the coffee.

Then there’s single cup brewing. What started as an office convenience inevitably found its way home. Sterile. Calculated. Convenient. Single serve coffee brewing may have been made for drones in cubicles, but it wasn’t long before expediency found a new brew. And while single cup brewing promises convenience, it might be wise to do some homework before you commit to a brand new kind of coffeemaker.

Single cup brewing isn’t for everyone. I remember chatting with a friend who still laments the loss of his classic coffeemaker; he misses the sounds and the steady aroma that once coaxed him out of bed in the morning. Now, brewing a cup takes seconds. He wonders if what he gained is enough to justify what he can only remember with each nostalgic spell. But he says he loves the immediacy of it all; it’s something that helps him keep focus during his hectic schedule. There’s no waiting, no fuss, no messy cleanup (sound like an infomercial yet?) and best of all, he says the coffee actually tastes pretty good.

Keurig popularized single serve brewing with the K-Cup. The airtight plastic cup includes its very own filter and just enough grounds for one or two cups, “the perfect amount of ground coffee to satisfy every taste profile,” claims the Keurig website. During the brew process, the combination plastic foil lid is punctured and hot water is forced through the filter and into the cup positioned below the spout. While the cups are made for Keurig coffee systems, the company has licensed the technology to various roasters, so you’ve probably seen K-Cups especially made for Green Mountain Coffee and other popular brands. Other variations of the K-Cup include the Senseo Coffee Pod and the Tassimo T Disc.

If you’re helplessly on the go (or just ready for something new), here are a few ideas that might get you percolating.

On the fence? The Keurig website provides more than enough info to help you make up your mind. But buyer beware: these babies aren’t cheap. If you’re extra lazy, er, I mean if you’re really on the go, you might want to look into the Platinum model. The built in water reservoir makes it easy for those who point and shoot with difficulty first thing in the morning. If you’d like a slimmer model and can do away with a few frills, the Special Edition is comparable, and at $30 less you can cut your guilt by a cup or two.

No matter how perturbed traditionalists like myself might find themselves in front of one of these high tech machines, single serve culture is on the rise. For product reviews and blog posts with up-to-date single serve tidbits, bookmark One Cup Coffee Titan. For something a bit more quirky, try the Single Serve Coffee blog; here you’ll find everything from innovative designs to fun products based on your favorite television shows.

While I can’t personally vouch for the expeditious experience that is single cup brewing (because I don’t mind the wait), it may be a worthwhile solution if you’re a mom on the go, a hopeless workaholic with an 80-hour workweek, or someone who just likes a good brew without having to wait for it.

For more information on Keurig’s leading competitors, go to Senseo online and Tassimo online.

More from “the caffeine eccentric”

Read my column on Edge

: : : : : : : : : : :

Watch the 1984 Folgers “Farm Morning” commercial:

With Devil’s Halo, Me’Shell NdegeOcello draws on the artistic success of two decades and seven albums to deliver an experience sublime in its subtlety, but with an undercurrent that will mercilessly tear at your emotions.

photo courtesy NME.com

Her unpredictable nature seems to be her gambit — a marvel shared by a mere handful of lasting music deities. Since her departure from the Maverick label, she’s made a few noteworthy diversions into jazz and experimental and, having managed to build a more-than-impressive following while fortuitously avoiding the mainstream, NdegeOcello delivers her latest with a fierce devotion that’s largely forsaken by fickle audiences steeped in musical illiteracy.

NdegeOcello’s 1993 debut, Plantation Lullabies, stunned audiences by redefining organic soul; the burgeoning cult sensation represented the classic hip-hop dream, oscillating between race, politics and sex — and effortlessly bringing them together. Her return to the search for freedom resonated instantly, garnering praise from some and eliciting scorn from others. Such is the tapestry from which angels and rebels are made.

When Madonna signed the Berlin-born Me’Shell Lynn Johnson to Maverick nearly twenty years ago, she must have been touched by intuition. To her followers, if to no one else, NdegeOcello may be the savior of rock-n-roll. Two decades later, the portrait of this humble icon is the perfect symmetry of masculine and feminine, hostility and remorse; fuck the brand, she’s created her own universe.

NdegeOcello’s eighth studio album is a cosmic narrative about love, sex and betrayal; it’s lonelier than Comfort Woman and less sweet than Bitter. Effortlessly progressing between tracks, the album opens with the schizophrenic “Slaughter,” giving way to the sultry homesickness of “Tie One On.” The punk-inspired “Mass Transit” and ska-laced “White Girl” chase the satisfying acerbity of “Lola” and nebulous wiles of “Die Young,” and the album is left desolate with the seductively understated “Crying In Your Beer.”

Simply put, Devil’s Halo is what angels and rebels are made of. And in Me’Shell NdegeOcello’s universe, symmetry is sublime.

Read my review on Edge.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Having a clearcut plan to address our economic woes should inspire me with confidence that’s long overdue. So why do I get the chills when I read this?

As the president has said, the U.S. must spend less and invest more. We must produce more at home, and export more. If that is the case, then inevitably the mercantilist nations that have used export-led growth to drive their economies — China, Germany, Japan and others — also have to change course. They have to save less and spend more, import more and export less.

Via Huffington Post: Obama and China: Vanadlism or Vision

: : : : : : : : : : :