Weighing A Masterpiece

dish_david

David was originally intended for the buttress of the Florence Cathedral. But William E. Wallace figures that Michelangelo knew that at a weight of 8.5 tons, devising a proper support system for the sculpture would be “an impossible task.” The artist “realized the impossibility of the job from the earliest moment, even before he began carving the figure,” insists Wallace. “This realization, in effect, liberated him”:

Given the familiarity of the David, it is difficult for us to appreciate just how novel it is. Despite many highly regarded precedents in Florentine art for the representation of David, Michelangelo carved a unique work: an oversize, illogically nude figure with almost no identifying attributes. One could hardly imagine a more peculiar means of representing the young shepherd boy of the Bible, nor a more inappropriate figure to adorn the cathedral. I believe David looks as it does because Michelangelo, realizing that it would not be placed on the cathedral buttress, was free to carve a completely original work. And that is precisely what he did.

(Photo by John W. Schulze)

“Justice” Under Occupation

west_bank_all_cases

Dish alum Zack Beauchamp illustrates the consequences of the West Bank’s two-tiered criminal justice system on young Palestinians:

Take stone-throwing, a historically common Palestinian attack on Israelis that some Jewish settlers have adopted. 45 percent of all Palestinians arrested were convicted, and exactly zero of the 54 arrested Israelis were. … Now, since most stone-throwers are likely Palestinians, it makes sense that many more Palestinians would be arrested for that particular crime. However, it turns out that Palestinians are also more likely to be indicted (conviction data wasn’t available) than Israelis in general. Once again, the difference in legal system is the clearest explanation. It’s much easier to arrest and detain Palestinians in military courts than Israelis in civil ones. That makes it correspondingly easier for prosecutors to get what they need for indictments.

Roi Maor provides more background that complicates the picture a little:

The most important fact overlooked in the article is that the Israel Police, which provided the figures, does not investigate crimes committed by Palestinians against other Palestinians. These investigations are carried out by the Palestinian Authority. On the other hand, the Israel Police investigates all crimes committed by Israelis in the West Bank, regardless of the nationality of the victim. It is only natural then, that Israelis will be massively overrepresented in its arrest statistics. This overrepresentation is exacerbated by the fact that many crimes committed by Palestinians against Israelis are also investigated by the Palestinian Authority, depending on the nature of the crime and the residence of the perpetrator.

Second, Beauchamp seems to have missed the fact that the figures provided to AP are solely about minors. Admittedly, AP does not do a good job of highlighting this distinction, but it does mention it twice in the same short piece. Why does it matter? Because until October 2010, Israel defined the age of minority differently for Israelis and Palestinians. For the former, it was up to the age of 18, for the latter it ended at 16. The figures provided by the Israel Police are for 2008-2013, and it is unclear which definition the police used. Knowing their record-keeping practices, I would venture to guess it is based on a chaotic mix of both definitions.

An interactive feature from Al Jazeera explores the matter of youth detention in more depth:

About 700 Palestinians under the age of 18 are detained in the occupied territories annually. Since 2000, more than 8,000 Palestinian youth have been arrested. Most are detained on charges of throwing stones. As of March 1st, 210 Palestinian youth were held in Israeli detention. A 2013 UNICEF report concluded that the mistreatment of Palestinian children in Israel’s military detention system is “widespread, systematic and institutionalised”.

A Blow To Race-Based Admissions, Ctd

Counterintuitively, Jeffrey Rosen argues that liberals should be happy about the Schuette ruling:

In cases like affirmative action bans, where citizens (including minority citizens) vigorously disagree about whether the policy in question are likely to harm minorities or help them, the conservatives held, the court should practice judicial restraint and defer to democratic decision making. Breyer didn’t need to hold his nose to support this. Far from it. He enthusiastically defended the importance of letting democratically accountable bodies decide whether affirmative action should be adopted or rejected. …

Liberal defenders of affirmative action should embrace Breyer’s reasoning, rather than reluctantly tolerating it. The framework provides a principled reason for criticizing conservatives when they resort to judicial activism to strike down state policies that permit affirmative action. As Breyer wrote: the Constitution “favors decisionmaking though the democratic process. Just as this principle strongly supports the right of the people, or their elected representatives, to adopt race-conscious policies for reasons of inclusion, so must it give them the right to vote not to do so.”

Richard Kahlenberg thinks race-based affirmative action is on its way out, which he says is a good thing:

In 2012, my colleague Halley Potter and I examined a number of states that had outlawed considering race in admissions, often by voter referendum. In addition to Michigan, these states include Arizona, California, Florida, Nebraska, Washington and others. Six states, we found, have spent money to create new partnerships with disadvantaged schools to improve the pipeline of low-income and minority students.

Eight states have provided new admissions preferences to low-income and working-class students of all races. Eight states have expanded financial-aid budgets to support the needs of economically disadvantaged students. In three states, individual universities have dropped legacy preferences for the generally privileged—and disproportionately white—children of alumni. In three states, colleges created policies to admit students who graduated at the top of their high-school classes. And in two states, stronger programs have been created to facilitate transfer from community colleges to four-year institutions.

How well have these programs done in promoting racial and ethnic diversity? In examining 10 leading public universities, we found that seven were able to maintain, or exceed, the proportion of African American and Latino students they had achieved through racial preferences in the past. So it can be done.

Frum also supports the “class, not race” argument:

Lyndon Johnson’s America was a country slashed by a color line of racial domination and subordination. Even the most affluent black citizen of the United States could expect to face humiliating economic and social discrimination. Meanwhile, the white majority overwhelmingly regarded itself as “middle class,” standing on a more or less equal footing with other “middle-class” whites.

Today’s America is a country whose class distinctions are growing as extreme as those in Edwardian England. Johnson’s assumption that non-black Americans all enjoyed more or less equivalent opportunities “to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities” seems poignantly out of date. A white skin may still correlate less with poverty than does a darker skin. But that skin alone long ago ceased to convey much in the way of privilege to the less affluent half of white America.

It’s true, even Oprah can encounter rude treatment in a Swiss boutique. Day in, day out, however, William Julius Wilson’s prediction has been vindicated and more than vindicated: In 21st-century America, class trumps race.

But Julianne Hing points out that class-based solutions don’t always help black students:

California, for one, has yet to recover from the disastrous impact of Proposition 209, the nation’s first statewide affirmative action ban, which state voters passed in 1996. Despite adopting aggressively class-based, race-neutral admissions policies to stay in line with Prop 209, the state’s flagship universities have not been able to return black student enrollment to their pre-1996 levels.

Today, California’s university system is educating an increasingly economically diverse but racially isolated crop of students. Roughly one-third of University of California undergrads qualify for federal Pell Grants, but in 2012-2013, black students made up just 2.4% of UC-Berkeley’s enrolled undergrads. African-Americans, meanwhile, make up about 6.6% of the state’s population. The economic workaround is not working alone.

What Is Your Cat Thinking?

It’s hard to say:

Dogs have lived with us for as many as 30,000 years—20,000 years longer than cats. More than any 194other animal on the planet, dogs are tuned in to the “human radio frequency”—the broadcast of our feelings and desires. Indeed, we may be the only station dogs listen to.

Cats, on the other hand, can tune us in if they want to (that’s why they pass the pointing test as well as dogs), but they don’t hang on our every word like dogs do. They’re surfing other channels on the dial. And that’s ultimately what makes them so hard to study. Cats, as any owner knows, are highly intelligent beings. But to science, their minds may forever be a black box.

Still, there may be hope. As scientists begin to experiment with new ways to study animal intelligence—from eye-tracking technology to fMRI machines—they may yet find a way to peek inside the feline mind.

Where The Males Have (Little) Vaginas And The Females Have (Big) Penises, Ctd

A reader calls the headline of this post “offensive and biologically wrong”:

A new sexuality is found in nature if it gets crunched down to chicks with dicks? Bullshit! The gynosome is an amazing discovery; it is not like anything else ever found. But to reduce it to human sexuality removes the wonder of the diversity on this earth.

She points us to Annalee Newitz, who asserts that “the gynosome isn’t a penis”:

As Jason Goldman explains in an article about the gynosome, this is a hitherto unknown form of sexual organ in the animal kingdom. When female members of the Brazilian bug species Neotrogla mate with males, they insert their gynosomes into the male’s sexual organ. Once inside the male’s body, the gynosome inflates and grows spines, then absorbs both sperm and nutrients from the male for several days.

I’m sorry, but does this sound like a penis to you? When was the last time you found a penis that grew spines, absorbed nutrients, remained erect for 75 hours, or allowed its owner to get pregnant? Pretty much the only thing this organ has in common with a penis is that it’s used to penetrate a partner during sex.

She scoffs, “when it comes to sex, humans are still hopelessly in thrall to our anthropomorphic urges – which is to say, our urge to see every animal’s behavior as a reflection of our own.” Ed Yong, on the other hand, defends the characterization:

As Diane Kelly, who studies penises, points out:

“As a technical term, a penis is a reproductive structure that transfers gametes from one member of a mating pair to another.” Which is exactly what is happening here.

Newitz points to differences. “When was the last time you found a penis that grew spines, absorbed nutrients, remained erect for 75 hours, or allowed its owner to get pregnant?” Actually spines are pretty common; long sexual bouts are pretty common; and the gynosome doesn’t absorb nutrients—it collects sperm packets that contain nutrients, which the animal then eats in the normal way. The key difference is that rather than delivering sperm, it collects it—as I stated right up top. And the only reason we think of penises as sending sex cells in that direction is that we never knew any other set-up could occur. Now we do, which either forces us to introduce a new term and demand that it be used, or to expand the bounds of our old term. I prefer the latter. I’m generally a lumper, rather than a splitter.

TWSS?

The Best Of The Dish Today

Never forget E.B. White!

Today, I argued that Obama was on the verge of another meep meep in foreign policy with Syria and Iran; that Rand Paul’s criticism of Reagan’s spending and deficits is a vital part of resuscitating conservatism; and that the Onion should have the last word on the circumcision debate. Plus: climate change’s threat to global security; and the power of psilocybin in tackling anxiety.

Some brief links on the Becker book. Ronan Farrow had a terrific interview with Becker today – tough but fair. Check it out. Lisa Keen has a superb takedown, as does Kevin Jennings. Petrelis piles on to HRC’s spin. I think it’s safe to say that there have been episodes of the 700 Club that have gotten a better reception in the gay community.

You can leave your unfiltered comments at our Facebook page and @sullydish.

35 more of you became subscribers today. Join them here.

And see you in the morning.

A Two-Way Sleep

Holly Allen extols the virtues of sleeping in separate beds:

Sharing a bed is good for sleeping together, but not actually sleeping together. We all know the importance of sleep, so why then do we still choose to share our beds with the kickers, the snorers, and the human dish_twinbedsfurnaces that we love?

“Man since time immemorial has made preparation for sleep, either laying an animal pelt on the ground or using plant matter as some sort of mattress,” according to sleep expert Dr. Neil Stanley. “Originally we all slept together on the ground, mainly because we had nowhere else, but also for warmth and security.”

Warmth and security? We have flannel pajamas and deadbolts now.

There have been times throughout the history of slumber that couples did not share a bed. Ancient Romans retreated to their separate quarters in the evening. On The Dick Van Dyke Show, Laura and Rob Petrie turned in to their separate beds, and I bet they slept great.

(Image via Flickr user AZAdam)

Seeing Blue, Ctd

A reader offers some help to others:

I read your snippet on the effects of blue light with interest, as my partner has Delayed Sleep Phase Disorder. We have a whole system in place at the house for the timing of optimal lighting. This includes blue LEDs pointed at him during the day and software applications to reduce blue lights on all the media screens at night. F.lux reduces blue light in your computer/iDevice screen according to your time zone, while Twilight for Android does the same thing for your mobile. So when I’m reading the Dish late at night, I now don’t have to worry that it’s corrupting my circadian rhythm as well as my mind.

Happy Bard Day

Daniel Hannan notes the occasion:

Four-hundred-and-fifty years ago today, in a village in the West Midlands, the greatest imaginative intelligence evolved by our species was born. Lawrence Olivier called Shakespeare “the nearest thing in incarnation to the eye of God”. John Dryden wrote that, of all the poets, “he had the largest and most comprehensive soul”. Thomas Carlyle asserted, “I know not such a power of vision, such a faculty of thought, if we take all the characters of it, in any other man.” For Harold Bloom, “Bardolatry, the worship of Shakespeare, ought to be even more a secular religion than it already is. The plays remain the outward limit of human achievement: aesthetically, cognitively, in certain ways morally, even spiritually.”

Bob Duggan traces the spread of bardolatry:

Once the modern taste for the individual took hold … Shakespeare found a home beyond England’s shores. American colonists staged plays by Shakespeare as early as 1750. “There is hardly a pioneer’s hut that does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare,” Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in 1835 in Democracy in America. From the very beginning of the American experiment in democracy, Shakespeare and his individualized characters inspired a government of, by, and for the people, to paraphrase the Gettysburg Address of that notorious Shakespeare lover Abraham Lincoln. As kings fell and democracies rose throughout Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, Shakespeare (often in vernacular translation) showed the way, sometimes in the form of music, as in Giuseppe Verdi’s operas Otello and Falstaff, which provided the popular soundtrack to the political movement by which modern Italy was born.

Noting that Virginia Woolf wrote “man has Shakespeare & women have not” in an early draft of To the Lighthouse, Stefanie Peters considers what the playwright’s works have meant for women:

What has changed in 450 years of performing, reading, writing Shakespeare? The history of women interacting with Shakespeare’s plays is also the history of women’s rights, suffrage, and of the feminist movement. It is a history of women being silenced and of finding ways to speak out anyway. Shakespeare has been, and is, an uneasy ally in this history. He complicates but also enriches our idea of what a woman is. Too often we are still Katherinas, forced to compromise our dignity in order to retain our voice, or else our insistence on speaking is blamed for our tragedies, like Juliet. But the reason why we still read Shakespeare’s women, is that they are women. Goneril, Juliet, and Katherina are finally not ciphers. Whatever else they may be, they are true women, and they have true voices.

Meanwhile, Stephen Marche reflects on the best modern adaptations, Julia Fleischaker assesses booksellers’ recent claims to have discovered a dictionary Shakespeare annotated, and Roy Peter Clark shares the Shakespeare-penned sentence that changed his writing. Zooming out, Claire Hansen remarks on the author’s mystique:

Shakespeare knew very well that the spirit of a man – the reputation and fame that lingers on – jars imperfectly with the physical being of the body. That is what leads to the assassination of Julius Caesar in Shakespeare’s play: his physical limitations, his humanity, cannot match up to the imagined godliness of his mind and spirit.

In celebrating Shakespeare’s birth-date this year, it is well worth distinguishing between man and colossus. The fertile and imaginative potential of Shakespeare’s plays will continue on “so long as men can breathe or eyes can see” (Sonnet 18) – as long as there are hands and minds to enjoy them and to experiment with them, remaking the plays for the times and places of now and the future.

But this is a different phenomenon to Shakespeare the man; and any attempts to reconcile the two will always prove wanting. That, perhaps, explains the ongoing impulse to both worship and to question William Shakespeare.

Previous Dish on Shakespeare here, here, here, and here.

Ancient Survivors

Popova gushes over Rachel Sussman’s The Oldest Living Things in the World, a book of photos and essays about organisms more than 2000 years old:

With an artist’s gift for “aesthetic force” and a scientist’s rigorous respect for truth, Sussman straddles a multitude of worlds as she travels across space and time to unearth Earth’s greatest stories of resilience, stories of tragedy and triumph, past and future, but above all stories that humble our human lives, which seem like the blink of a cosmic eye against the timescales of these ancient organisms — organisms that have unflinchingly witnessed all of our own tragedies and triumphs, our wars and our revolutions, our holocausts and our renaissances, and have remained anchored to existence more firmly than we can ever hope to be. And yet a great many of these species are on the verge of extinction, in no small part due to human activity, raising the question of how our seemingly ephemeral presence in the ecosystem can have such deep and long-term impact on organisms far older and far more naturally resilient than us. …

From a broken arm in remote Sri Lanka to a heart-wrenching breakup to a well-timed sip of whisky at polar explorer Shackleton’s grave, her personal stories imbue the universality of the deeper issues she explores with an inviting dose of humanity — a gentle reminder that life, for us as much as for those ancient organisms, is often about withstanding the uncontrollable, unpredictable, and unwelcome curveballs the universe throws our way, and that resilience comes from the dignity and humility of that withstanding.

The Dish has highlighted Sussman’s work over the years.