Inauguration Liveblog

by Benjo

11:07 AM: Update: Looks like Roberts was actually the epic flubsmith. Either way, the important point remains: the Constitution has been all but set aside over the last eight years, and I will not stand to see it suffer the same fate for the next four. Therefore, I am not recognizing Obama as my president until they do it over.

9:10 AM: I want to be optimistic, but the first task every president faces is the simplest: say what the Chief Justice just said. And dude failed it miserably.

9:07 AM: NOT!!!!

9:06 AM: I miss Bush already.

9:05 AM: Feinstein: "Everyone please stand." Except Cheney. Heh.

9:04 AM: This inauguration ceremony is proof that there's a fine line between the truly touching and the boring as fuck.

8:59 AM: Marshall: "I think there are some moments for which the only fitting commentary is silence." Dude, the Marxist state you've worked so long to bring about is literally moments away from starting, and you can't think of anything to say about it? What a hack.

8:55 AM: Josh Marshall calls images of Cheney in a wheelchair "iconic." The MSNBC commentators expressed a similar idea--I think their word was "symbolic." But there was a report on Fox News earlier that debunked this notion: it turns out it simply is what it is. Someone needs to communicate this to the liberal media.

8:51 AM: J'ada says "The era of misunderestimation is over." Or is it just beginning?

8:43 AM: Twenty minutes before Obama takes the oath, Kevin Drum blogs about Jeffrey Goldberg blogging about bloggers who blog about minorities that won't soon rise to power in other countries. I keep thinking, at some point, maybe you want to stop doing this third-degree blogging and just absorb this moment. I don't know, is it just me or is Drum being kind of ridiculous?

8:39 AM: Chris Matthews reacts to the look on Barack Obama's face as he emerges from the Capitol building: "He knows they're here for him." Right on, future Senator. Right on.

8:35 AM: The Yglesias liveblog begins. His thoughts on the transfer of power are overshadowed by his decision, on this important day, not to seek the limelight, but instead to capitulate to stereotype: he is blogging from the couch.

8:32 AM: Not to dwell on the Caucus, but it should be noted that they are doing almost as remarkable a job at noting who has arrived as CNN is at showing it. Kudos for the service you are doing, NYT.

8:23 AM: The Caucus posts a picture of the outgoing and incoming first couples. I zoomed in to isolate the new presidential dance move that Michelle seems to be debuting for the Bushes:
8:07 AM: Ambinder speaks. Um, we're inaugurating the first black president, and all you can talk about is security? Stop avoiding the issues, Ambinder.

8:00 AM: Ambinder is speechless: two straight posts with a picture and no words. We can see the images on MSNBC, Ambinder, but none of the channels are broadcasting what's in your head. What's in your head, Ambinder?

Good morning, readers. It is January 20, 2009, and news is literally being made. As soon as other livebloggers start having thoughts about it, I'll give you my reactions to them.

Inauguration Liveblog Alert

by Benjo

Apologies for the lack of recent posts; I'd pledged to finish knitting a scarf from my dog's fur, using the recipe listed here, so that I could wear it to the inauguration ceremonies. Unfortunately, chihuahuas turn out not to be very scarfable. As a casual scholar of the first President Harrison, I was not about to brave the inauguration scarfless, so I will be consuming the inauguration televisually.

Lucky for the public, so will thousands of members of the liveblogosphere, and I will be liveblogging their liveblogs tomorrow. So the moment that there is second-hand, reactive news, you can read about it right here.

News Year 2009 Resolution

by Szabe

This year I make a News Year resolution. I make it out of 3 shoots of vodka and some cranberry's juice!

That is joking. But really, people say to me, Szabe, do you resolute anything for News Year 2009, and do you keep it? I am sadful to say, it is January 8, and I already break my resolution!

What did I resolute? I wanted to resolute only one thing, and something that break a bad habit. One of my most bad habits is breaking News Year resolutions! So my only resolution for this year is to go one month without breaking a resolution. I make it almost one week with no trouble, but finally yesterday the urge get too hard. It always do!

What did all of you resolute? And do you do anything fun for New's Year Eve? And if yes, why not you invited me? Just jokes!

Something Stinks.

by Benjo

A reader sent me a story that ran in Saturday's Times about the dangers of so-called "third-hand smoke." Sensing a suspicious familiarity, I walked down the hall to Edward's office. He was out, but a cursory glance at his desk revealed exactly what I'd suspected: he had submitted an almost identical story to the Times earlier in the week. They'd swapped one of their columnists' names for Edward's and printed it, verbatim--almost. The full, shocking tale is below.

The NYT story begins:

Parents who smoke often open a window or turn on a fan to clear the air for their children, but experts now have identified a related threat to children’s health that isn’t as easy to get rid of: third-hand smoke.

Now compare that to Edward's:

Parents with bad gas often open a window or turn on a fan to clear the air for their children, but experts now have identified a related threat to children’s health that isn’t as easy to get rid of: third-hand fart.

NYT continues:

“When their kids are out of the house, they might smoke. Or they smoke in the car. Or they strap the kid in the car seat in the back and crack the window and smoke, and they think it’s okay because the second-hand smoke isn’t getting to their kids,” Dr. Winickoff continued. “We needed a term to describe these tobacco toxins that aren’t visible.”

Whereas Edward writes:

"When their kids are out of the house, they might fart. Or they honk the backdoor horn in the car, so to speak. Or they strap the kid in the car seat in the back and crack the window and polish off a bit of the ol' stainless stool, and they think it's okay because the second-hand fart isn't getting to their kids," Dr. Winickoff continued. "We need a term to describe these flatulatory toxins that aren't visible."

Invisible farts aside, there is a very serious threat underlying Edward's article. And here we see the gravest of NYT's crimes. While the article is liberal with alarming language--"threat"; "toxic"; "highly carcinogenic"--it is far less so with evidence. The few statistics it mentions deal with parents' perceptions of the risks of third-hand smoke, while omitting information about the number of children who actually got sick or died because of these perceptions.

Edward's reporting is far more robust in this respect:

A new study in Science finds a 50% greater risk that later in life, pre-teens who have previously been exposed to third-hand fart will exhibit behavioral disorders. These include weird snoring; excessive buffalo wing eating; and burial of hands in the sweatpants, with what the scientists call "a little too much hand movement."

* * *

I have to admit: I was torn about whether to post this. I loyally read and greatly respect the Times. But I was finally swayed when I read a couple sentences at the end of Edward's piece that drove home the gravity of this issue:

Scientists cite another consequence of fart residue: imitative behavior. Children who are exposed to third-hand fart are almost guaranteed someday to become farters themselves.

NYT, do the right thing. Publish the original story. The world needs to know.

If Friends Were Flowers: A New Year's Poem

by Edward J. Albenstein

A poem to express my gratefulness for your readership, and my wishes for a warm, loving year.

If Friends Were Flowers
by Edward J. Albenstein

If friends were flowers, I'd pick you.

If friends were chapters, you'd be #1 in my book.

If friends were weights, I'd lift you to grow stronger.

If friends were health food, I'd want you inside me.

If friends were muffins, I'd eat your bottom.

If friends were groceries, you'd be at the top of my list.

If friends were nets, you'd be a full one, because you're always able to give me butterflies.

If friends were friends' senses of humor, you'd be my favorite thing about you.

If friends were friends' bands' demos, I'd give you a listen, for sure. But let's be honest here--it's not because I'm expecting to like you. Because odds are, I won't. Odds are, I'll think you're an asshole. I'm doing it because you're my friend's band's demo. And when you get down to it, friends' bands' demos are friends, which means you listen to them. Even if they are assholes.

If friends were water, I'd keep you around even though you're pretty bland.

If friends were video games, I'd be reaching the point where I have to get straight with myself about you. Yes, I was happy when you came into my life. And we had lots of great times. I mean, your graphics are fucking sick. But I don't know, man. After so many years of you burning my eyes, not to mention my brain cells, I feel like it's time to grow up and acknowledge that, with every day I sit on the couch with you, I become one day fatter, one day dumber, and have one additional day's worth of hot chicks that are now out of my league.

If friends were the garbage, I'd dump your ass, because you fucking stink.

If friends were toilets, I'd sit on you and begin farting immediately.

If friends were keys on a keyboard, you'd be a new kind of key that deletes the last few lines. And I'd use you right now, because that was a little harsh.

If friends were the truth, this is what you'd be:

If friends were fly balls, you'd be an amazing catch.

If friends were birthdays, I'd celebrate you every time you came around.

If friends were flowers, I'd pick you.

New Year's Eyewear Company Folds

by Benjo

The new year is not happy for everyone. We forget this simple fact all too easily. Case in point: the company that makes those 200x New Year's Eve glasses went out of business this morning. Story follows.

COOKEVILLE, TN – Derek Bulworth lifted his glittery blue 2009 glasses and wiped a tear from his eye. “Thus ends an era,” he said, turning his key one last time in the door to the factory he helped build. At 12:01 AM on the morning of January 1st, Bulworth's company, New Year's Eyes, which has made millions of pairs of New Year's Eve glasses over the past decade, announced plans to cease operations by March.

Bulworth went into business with his partner, Frank Bart, in 1998. Success did not come immediately.

“My idea was to have the glasses say 'NYE', which is an acronym not only for New Year's Eve, but also New Year's Eyes, our company name. The stem of the Y would align precisely with the bridge of the nose, and the branches of the Y extended upward, following the curvature of the eyebrow. It was perfect.” The rest of the acronym, however, proved less ideal. “We had 100,000 of these things made, and we learned, based on customer feedback, that N- and E-shaped lenses are not conducive to vision, which is a key part of the glasses-wearing experience.”

Bulworth and Bart retooled over the following year, and they released their first numerical lenses in time for the new millennum. “The zeroes worked perfectly,” Bulworth said. “You look through the middle zeroes, you can see; you look through the last two zeroes, and you can still see—it's almost crazy. We had an embarrassment of zeroes that year.” Shaking his head, Bulworth continued, “God, what I wouldn't give for one of those extra zeroes now.”

This winter, after a decade of success, Bulworth made the difficult decision to close shop when the majority of his retailers informed him that they would be significantly scaling down their 2010 orders.

Asked to explain their cutbacks, Bulworth said, “it's simple. The number of orders we got for next year is exactly the same as the number of one-eyed people out there. Nobody but them will tolerate a 1-shaped lens.”

Bulworth considered completing the limited number of orders, but it was not worth the overhead of keeping the factory open. “We were offered a generous bridge loan by a pirates' trade group, but it just wasn't enough.”

Still, Bulworth remains determined.

“We're not done yet,” he says. “This company will be back stronger than ever when the year is optic-ready again. Whether it's me running the company or my grandkids, you can bet that this market will be ours for the taking in the 2990s and 3000s.”

Recession Culprit Caught

by Benjo

Incredible news: they caught the guy who caused the recession! Here's the article from The Orange County Sun:

Man Behind Recession Arrested
ORANGE COUNTY, CA - Don Wakefield, 34, of Orange County, is in custody on charges of causing the recession, bringing a much-needed bit of hope to residents in Orange County and beyond that their economic hardships may be poised to come to an end.

Orange County Police Chief John Davis flashed thumbs up to cameras as he escorted Wakefield into the county jail.

“We got the bastard,” Davis said.

A seven-fingered police officer fastens handcuffs on Wakefield.

Police forces were tipped off to Wakefield's identity following a post he made last week on the website Buyer's Remorse, a support group for shopaholics.

"I don't know how to say this," Wakefield said in the post, dated last Thursday, "but I haven't really spent anything this year." Forum members responded with unfiltered anger and scorn. "Our shopaholism has made this economy great for years," said one user. "You've ruined it for us and everyone!"

Following an anonymous tip from a forum member, police raided Wakefield's home, abducting Wakefield and finding exactly what they had feared: room after room filled with last season's clothes.

"I've been on the force twenty years, and I've never seen anything like this," Davis said. "I mean, if you don't spend your fair share, there's going to be a recession. Everyone knows that. To knowingly withhold your dollars like that—it's unthinkable that someone could be so inhumane."

While the rest of the population spent more this year than in 2007, Wakefield's inactivity singlehandedly resulted in an almost 50% drop in spending.

In initial testimony obtained by The Sun, Wakefield was forthcoming about the nature of his offenses.

"This time last year, I was a shopaholic myself," Wakefield told investigators. "Last winter, I went all out, and got the most incredible clutch of clothes. It was so good, just such a breathtaking clutch. So I wanted to ride it out as long as I could. I got to the point where it's March, it's April, and I'm not buying anything new. Eventually, the clutch burned out, but I was so deep into what I was doing that I kept on going." According to the record, at this point in his testimony, a tearful Wakefield flicked the cuff of an argyle zip-up sweater, whose elastic was visibly imperfect. "Now look at me."

Wakefield will be charged under California's Consumer Latency Prevention Act, according to Chief Davis. Initial reports suggesting that Wakefield would be charged for federal crimes were false: since Wakefield's lack of shopping did not cross state lines, federal consumer latency laws do not apply.

Under the terms of California's law, as a first-time offender, Wakefield's penalty would be limited to a fine of up to $25,000. However, he could face significant jail time if convicted of causing a second recession.

“I'm so relieved they caught him,” said Martha Dierdorf, 41, who owns a small business in San Jose. “Removing this leech from the system takes the load off of small business owners.”

Indeed, many analysts predict that, in the weeks following Wakefield's apprehension, stock prices will increase by 40 to 50%, returning to their pre-recession levels.

“This is what I'd call a massive bail-in,” said Goldman analyst Walt Hurt.

However, many Californians expressed dismay at the leniency of the penalties facing Wakefield. "The government needs to crack down here," said Mike Wagman, 58, of Long Beach. "I mean, me, I'm a conservative. I'm a believer in the free market: that the market works best for everyone when the government keeps its grubby hands out. But within reason. When I hear that someone didn't buy anything new for a year?" Wagman's voice trailed off. "Well, if you want to know my opinion, that guy deserves the ultimate."

Wakefield was drawn to confess, according to his testimony, when he saw the year-over-year economic numbers. "Spending was down, what, like 40% from this time last year? Well it was down 100% for me. Take that out, and maybe everyone would be fine right now." Wakefield wiped a tear from his eye. "It hurts to think about, you know?"

Google Mind

by Benjo

A reader forwarded this article to me. I haven't seen it anywhere else, so I'll post it in full. Amazing, the things Google is doing.

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA - Google Inc. has announced plans to have the minds of half of the world's population online by 2012. The program, which will begin operations in early 2009, will give Google "the largest searchable database of human minds this world has ever seen," according to Google spokesman Jerry Reynolds.

"No human civilization has ever created a human-mind database like this one," Reynolds said. “Not even the more technology-minded cultures, like the Romans.”

The database and corresponding search engine, called Google Mind, will at first be limited to memory banks, but will eventually expand to include emotions and, over time, imaginations and fantasies. Google executives predict that by 2018, users will also be able to stream live thoughts via so-called "mindcams."

Proponents of Google Mind herald the tool as a powerful resource for users of all nationalities, ages, and races. "This will bring about a revolution in the ability of those with very strange points of view to determine if there are in fact others who feel the same way," says Frank Leonard, professor of mind-search history at the University of Eastern California.

"Suppose you think something totally ridiculous–like, that Mick Jagger's solo records are better than the Rolling Stones' albums. Now what if some co-worker always tells you you're the only person in the world who feels that way? Well now, with the click of a button, you can find out that, hey, actually, there's some guy in Rotterdam or Irkutsk who feels the same way, and you prove your co-worker wrong. That's called putting power in the hands of the powerless.”

The search engine is not without its critics, however. The complaints hinge on a perceived loss of privacy that could result from the publication of human thoughts.

“We believe this leads down a slippery slope,” said ACLU spokesperson Roberta Gleason. “If Google is releasing people's thoughts to the public, who's to say they won't release our search histories in the future? For many people, their search history is their identity, and if identities aren't worthy of protection, what is?”

Average citizens were more enthusiastic.

John Alberts, of San Francisco, recalled a recent conversation in which he and a friend shared their opinions of the top movies from the past decade. "It was probably a ten, twelve minute conversation," Alberts said. "Now, we'll just be able to look each other's opinions up on Google Mind, and we'll never have to have the conversation. I see that as the biggest benefit—the ability to cut back on the time you have to spend talking things out with people.”

The program, which will cost an estimated $200 million to build, will leverage the technology behind Google Book Search, an online card catalog of over 7 million books that went live in 2004. For the Mind project, Google engineers have developed technology to convert human thoughts to book form, which can then be fed into the book-scanning engine.

“That was the only real new step,” said Reynolds, the Google spokesman. “But I mean, it's a stretch to even call it 'new.' After all, humans have been converting thoughts into books for hundreds if not thousands of years. It's called writing.”

Google sees the Mind project as the first in what could be a long series of new initiatives. “We hope to begin scanning animal minds once the human project is up and running. We'll finally know what Spot thinks of us,” says Reynolds, with a laugh.

And if that goes well? “In the near term, we've got our eyes on plants and trees. As for the longer term, I'm not at liberty to say." Reynolds grins mischievously. "So if you want to know, you'll just have to query me for it."

The Cats-Apstrophy!

by Szabe Kovacs

Edward J. write the post about news. My favorites of news come about the cats. I love the story: Cat-astrophy: 300 Dead Cats in Man's Freezers. He say that "Cat-astrophy," so like Apostrophe, but like with Cats instead of Appos! He go on:

Police say they found 300 dead cats stuffed into the freezers of Michael Louis Vondueren, a 47-year-old man from Sacramento, whose home was littered with cat feces.

So the freezer cats come out of the freezer to leave poop-litters in Michael's house! Poor Michael. I like cats but I don't light their feses!

Then Michael later say:

This is just the latest incident of humans behaving badly in California. Over the weekend, a 24-year-old from Santa Rosa was arrested at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom for punching a camel on a dare.

Michael, be careful when to punch a camel on a dare! The camel kick the dare and give it the second hump and then you have two camels!

North African Dare

I bring you more the crazy memories. I am Szabe, to Hungary, Don't forget me!

An Outlier

by Edward J. Albenstein


In his most recent column, David Brooks writes about Malcolm Gladwell. He begins:

All day long, you are affected by large forces. Genes influence your intelligence and willingness to take risks. Social dynamics unconsciously shape your choices. Instantaneous perceptions set off neural reactions in your head without you even being aware of them.

What do these ideas have in common? They are intuitive. They are as inherently familiar to young children as they are to the mentally decrepit. Any of them would be an ideal topic for the term paper you need to start writing because it's due tomorrow. And yet, all of them--with the help of a cute name ("blink!"), a few "wouldn't ya know it" anecdotes, and a dollop of catchy rhetoric--have been compiled into books that have catapulted their author to the top of every best seller list they can find. Why? That author was none other than the sorcerer of the Amazon sales rank, Malcolm Gladwell.

There's something I must reluctantly admit: the second paragraph is mine. Brooks's actual second graf was less like a portrayal of reality, and more like a recap of a wet dream starring a hipster-fro and a pair of undulating, steamed-up, right-wing glasses.

Before I go any further, a clarification is in order. I have nothing against pop science. Books like The Selfish Gene, The Moral Animal and Guns, Germs and Steel have been instrumental in making readers with even the most rudimentary scientific knowledge conversant on their subjects. Each of these texts was able--in plain language, and (unfortunately, I think) with minimal use of statistics and charts--to present some of the research that led to the most fascinating discoveries about the world around us.

My gripe with Gladwell, then, is that he skips the spaghetti and goes straight for the meatballs. To read Gladwell is to reach for the trophy without bothering to run the race. Swinging like a gibbon through a forest of anecdote-trees, Gladwell makes it clear on page after page why he is the undisputed master of the "how fucking cool is THAT?!" school of science writing.

The distinction between Gladwell and, say, Richard Dawkins can be illustrated as the basic difference between this:

"At high temperatures, liquids high in fultose create brilliant rainbows of gaseous matter. For example, wave your Bunsen burner around a can of fultose-rich Dr. Pepper for long enough, and the soda will turn yellow."

and this:

"I burned some Dr. Pepper with a torch lighter yesterday, and it turned fucking yellow!"

Now Dr. Pepper doesn't actually turn yellow when you burn it. And Lord knows I'd be first in line to read an article full of sentences like the second one if it did (and if people lined up to read articles, which I truly think they should). But the point is, what do we get out of these two passages? From the first, we take away a general piece of knowledge about fultose that will inform any future fultose-oriented activities in which we might engage. In the second, we find out that something totally epic happens when you burn Dr. Pepper.

I think it's clear what I'm getting at. Look, the last thing I want is for the airport bookstore industry to go out of business. So keep buying Gladwell's books, and read them if you like them. But let's keep in mind that, somewhere in between imparting knowledge and teaching, there is an important step we might call grasp. Which, come to think of it, would make a pretty decent title for Gladwell's next book.

Commenting in Other Languages

by Benjo

By popular request from my non-American readers, I have decided to enable foreign language functionality in the comments. Effective immediately, any reader comment on Benjoblog may be written in either English or ancient Greek.

To comment in ancient Greek, simply write out the phonetic representation of your comment using the English alphabet.

For the benefit of my non-ancient Greek readers, I will promptly translate all ancient Greek comments into English. (Due to a technical blip in Blogspot's software, I will not be able to write out the English exactly, but will instead transliterate it using Germanic runes. I appreciate your understanding.)

Fish Food

by Benjo

I apologize for my silence following the Of-fish-ial Fish Joke post. As you might imagine, emails poured in from all corners of the globe in response to the post. Not only did it take hours to read and respond to all these emails, but it took days to assemble my new do-it-yourself unfolded square globe.

But I'm back, and I want to answer the most common question:

If you eat fish, are you still a vegetarian?

This is a topic of ongoing confusion for people all over the world, so let us clear it up now.

Strictly speaking, no. One who eats fish but not meat is called a pescetarian. The reason this is so confusing for people is that they think pescetarians are those concerned with the apocalypse and the final destiny of humankind. While this topic may be of coincidental interest to a pescetarian, it is unrelated to dietary choice; the proper word for such a person is an eschatologist.

Many readers disputed this interpretation, though; as one asked,

Aren't eschatologists, you know, poop people?

In fact, a "poop person" is a scatologist. Mind, you, we are off the topic of food now; while scatologists study feces, they do not eat it. The word for someone who eats shit is vegan.

The Offishial Fish-Joke Post

by Benjo

A reader sends the following joke my way:

Q: What do you call a fish with no eyes?
A: A fsh.

Goldfsh

The reader's implication, of course, was that the fish, having no eyes, cannot see that he has misspelled the word "fish". However, fishes cannot read, and therefore this joke is not funny.

Not one to be denied a good laugh, I took to Google, certain that there must be some good ichthyological humor out there. My search yielded two gems:

Q. What do you call a fish with two knees?
A. Tunyfish!

Q. What do you call a fish with cable?
A. Telefishion!

These marvelous, dare I say Shakespearean, jeux de mots inspired me to create my own. So, readers, I present to you my first original fish-themed joke:

Q: What do you call a clothes store run by a fish and a guy named Abercrombie?
A: Abercrombie and Fishtch!

* * *

I invite you, in the comments, to fry up your own fish-jokes! It's very easy:

1. Think of a word with a syllable that sounds like fish.
2. Think of a question whose answer has that word in it.
3. Substitute fish for the fish-like syllable.
4. Pat yourself on the dorsal fin, because you've just written a hilarious joke!
   

I close with the first, and I believe best, joke that I've ever written. See if you can find the fish reference in it.

Q: What kind of resting can be very intriguing?
A: Interesting!

Top Questions

by Benjo

The question I'm asked most frequently by my readers is:

What question are you asked most frequently by your readers?

Great question.

The second most common question is about HDMI cables. Namely:

Are all HDMI cables the same? Some cost like 10 times as much as other ones--but they sure LOOK the same!

They sure do. But they are definitely not all the same. Just one bit of proof that they're not all the same: different ones cost different amounts of money. And as everyone knows, you get what you pay for. With HDMI, if you're paying under $100 per cable, you're basically throwing away the money you paid for your TV. I happen to have spent a lot of time at Circuit City over the years, and have personally bought a TV before, so trust me--I know what I'm talking about.

Hello, Internet.

by Benjo

Let's get right to the issues. First up: gay marriage.

Let us be lovers; we'll marry our fortunes together.
- Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel (gay musicians)

The last week has seen an outcry among liberal Californians who are angry about the passage of Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage. Many of my readers have requested that this blog's first post be devoted to my thoughts on this important issue.

Now, in thinking about any ballot measure, we must carefully consider both its moral and legal implications. Having spent literally hours looking into both aspects, I can state unequivocally that gay marriage is both wrong and illegal.

I can personally attest to its wrongness: one time I put it as the answer to a math problem about the slope of a line, and to be sure, that test came back with more red ink than Ashley Todd's face. Astute readers will no doubt accuse me of logical fallacy in this explanation. To them, I submit: of course, gay marriage has changed since the days of grade school. Today, it is a problem not of algebraic slopes, but of slippery ones. To wit, if we start allowing gays to marry, society will take its cue from Simon and Garfunkel, who not only wanted America to let them be lovers--i.e., gay marriage--but also, to let them marry their fortunes.

For input on the legal end, I turn to my colleague Benjo Joben, who blogs about legal issues. Says Joben:

Benjo, you are absolutely correct to draw the parallel with fortune. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled on exactly these terms in the historic Schiavone v. Fortune case, 477 U.S. 21 (1986). I don't want to wade too deep in the findings--which involve mandamus, writ, statute, and a bunch of other really wonky stuff. But to put it in layman's terms: the Court ruled 6-3 that the slope was indeed slippery. The dissent, which has spurred a decades-long wave of activism aimed at overturning the ruling, argued heatedly that the Constitution contains no Slippery Slope Clause. But Justice Blackmun, writing for the majority, famously stated, "Would that we were a nation of spelunkers, my mind might be elsewise. But, as nature provides no carabiners, this slope is simply too slippery."

So there you have it. I don't know about you, but this is one fortune that I think we ought to keep in the cookie.