Getting Gay With Number Theory

Why is it gay? Because I'm doing it.

So I'm reading this cool book about some of Leonhard Euler's better known papers, and two nights ago -- while plodding my way through the tedious, repetitive nature of Euler's signature style -- I was exposed for the first time to Goldbach's conjecture. It completely blew my mind. All even numbers greater than two can be expressed as the sum of two primes. Whoa.

Learning something like this for the first time is like finding out two completely different people you've known for years somehow know each other. It's quite disorienting.

It turns out that Goldbach and Euler exchanged letters on the subject, and that Euler wound up offering up the version of the conjecture that we're familiar with today. Neither one has been proven, but it's hard to prove that something is infinitely true, I suppose. No matter, it's still one of Euler's most accessible and intuitive ideas.

When I first thought about this conjecture I was reminded for some reason of the stunning relationship between odd numbers and perfect squares. I remember being knocked right on my ass the day I learned that the distance between consecutive squares is exactly the consecutive odd numbers. For example, the first few squares are 1, 4, 9, 16, 25 and 36. The distance between these numbers are, respectively, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11. And apparently it goes on like this forever.

(I don't know if there is a similar significance for cubes, as in 1, 8, 27, 64, 125, 216 and 343. The difference between these numbers are 7, 19, 37, 61, 91 and 127, which apparently are the centered hexagonal numbers. I have no idea if that means anything.

So here's where I took it. The counting numbers start as 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. But the odd numbers that separate the squares begin with three. Isn't 1 the first odd number? The solution seems to be to start counting at 0, as the distance between 0 and 1 is 1, and both numbers squared are the same. So you would start counting the perfect squares as 0, 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, etc. That seems unnatural for some reason, but I suppose it lends credence to the idea that you always start counting with zero, i.e. the "what year does the millenium start?" ridiculousness).

Anyway, these relationships got me thinking about the nature of the numbers 0, 1, and 2. They seem to be the most mysterious of all counting numbers, and here's why: 0 is the only number that is neither negative nor positive, 1 is the only number that is only divisible by itself and nothing else, and 2 is the only even prime. I found myself watching questions roll around in my head like, is zero a prime? Is one? What?

By the way I'm writing my noodling meanderings here without doing any research, because I want my thoughts to be fresh. Later I'll go look it up and find out that, duh, I wasn't even close. But how awesome is it to think about things like this? You can look up the answers in any old book. Trying to come up with the answers first is the fun part.

The other thing about zero that blew my mind was the close relationship it seems to share with infinity, a subject into which I shan't delve too deeply. (Nor for that matter dare I wade into the madness of Riemann.) But I remembered that a shortcut between the two can be found in an expression involving the limit as n goes to infinity of n and 1/n. Just putting n in the denominator instead of the numerator switches infinity to zero, like it ain't no thing.

I guess I always knew that calculus was the study of the infinite and the infinitesimal, but I never really thought much about how easy it is to go from zero to infinity. Does this mean zero and infinity are somehow the same thing? No, that's gay.

(BTW I checked and 1 is indeed not a prime number, which makes all the sense in the world to me. A prime is any number that is divisible by itself and one. And one. Not "or one.")

Love it.

Crash-Test Bailout

For the first time in my politically-aware adulthood I'm unsure what to think about a political controversy. The auto industry's current crisis and Washington's waffling leave me speechless, which is terribly unusual of me.

I hear good arguments for and against a bail-out for the Big Three. I can't tell if giving GM, Chrysler, and Ford emergency access to the TARP kitty is sticking up for the working man or rewarding bad corporate behavior. Even the jaw-dropping spectacle of executive jet-gate of last week wasn't enough to convince me one way or the other.

I hear the argument that sending (lending?) hundreds of billions of dollars is tantamount to rewarding decades and decades of bad behavior, and that maybe the American automotive industry needs a jolt in the right direction -- a greener direction.

After all, gas is super cheap again. There's no reason to think that gas won't be relatively cheap again once the world's economy settles down. Will we see another army of gas-guzzling tanks that pass for SUVs blanket the landscape once again? After all, it seems to be what Americans want when times are good. So there's the case for letting the Big Three sleep in the bed they made.

Yet I can't imagine what it would be like to see unemployment rates double in a fortnight if the Big Three are allowed to fail, which is exactly what we're hearing is going to happen. After all it's not just the car companies that will go into bankruptcy or shut down. The domino effect will spread far and wide into the Michigan landscape. Businesses that have nothing to do with the auto industry will fold. Ghost towns will replace blue-collar strongholds. The very backbone of the American middle class will be vanished within weeks.

I don't for a minute buy the conservative jaw-flapping about this being the fault of the unions. We've had organized labor in the American auto industry for generations before the dawn of the SUV revolution of the 90's, so drop it. I'm sure that we all need to share the pain -- executives and employees alike -- but don't try to blame the average working man and woman for this mess. If you think unions are too burdensome, ask yourself what the criminal state of health care insurance has to do with the mess we're in right now.

So although there are strands of this argument I can get my hands around, I don't know what to think of the larger picture. I feel like I should fall in line with congressional democrats, but I can't. I want to stand up and fight for anything that republicans resist, but I can't. I want to wear my second-hand GM t-shirt with knowing irony, but I can't. I just don't know what to think this time. And that's weird.

President-Elect Obama told the auto executives to fly back to Washington one more time and present a clear case for a bailout, but I don't think they're going to get one. I think it's going to be devastating. One way or another the Michigan auto legacy is going to have to reinvent itself in the midst of an economic juggernaut. It will be messy, and it will be a long time before Michigan rebounds.

I just wish I knew how I felt about it.

Yeah, I Totally Believe In That Stuff...

A lovely duality was on display today on the New York Times website. Science on the left, nonsense on the right. (Hey, isn't that how it usually goes?)

The article on the left is an opinion piece about the possibility of bringing back the woolly mammoth, ala Jurassic Park. It hasn't happened yet of course, and it may not ever happen -- but the story is based on real research by real scientists published in a real, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

In stunning contrast the article on the right is a profile of executives and businesspeople who consult card-reading gypsies to calm their worries in a tumultuous economic climate. At a time when the household dollar is being stretched almost to the breaking point, the Times informs us that "psychics" are laughing their way to the bank. (At least the editors had the good sense to put this foolishness in the Fashion & Style section of an otherwise sober and reasonable newspaper.)

I've heard tell that people are more prone to believe in superstitious ideas -- and thus way more susceptible to snake-oil salesmen -- when they are forced to deal with situations that have high uncertainty levels, like fishing in unfriendly seas or betting on chance-based games. Using the word uncertain to describe the world economy right now is an understatement of criminal proportions.

And so fools and their money are parted yet again, in a time when the market is experiencing spasms unseen since the Great Depression. When something as vast and hopelessly complicated as the world economy surges, lurches, and convulses in fits of desperation, a psychic is just as reliable a resource as a tenured professor at a school of economics.

Listen, I know that as a good skeptic I should be encouraging people to engage themselves in the scientific process, or to expose them to critical thinking so they can see how easy it is to be fooled by shysters, but I shan't. I'm lazy, bitter, and jaded. Rational thinking in American popular culture? That ship, I'm afraid, has long since sailed. Speaking out against irrational beliefs is tantamount to screaming at a tornado, and I have too much homework to do. Besides, bitching about something is way more fun than doing something about it.

So even though it pains me to see charlatans began to circle just as things start to go from bad to worse, I believe there's no point in blaming people for being too stupid not to know that the "psychics" they consult for financial advice are either fakers or certifiable lunatics. In a way, the customers almost deserve to get ripped off. Food? Bills? Mortgage payment? Deposit in a savings account for little Melissa's college education? Nah, let's go get a psychic reading instead. It'll make us feel good.

The clients interviewed for this article speak of voices of calm and assurance in the midst of a maelstrom, which to them is worth the money they fork over. Right. I can speak calming words and offer gauzy, vague promises of a better tomorrow for half the price. Line forms to the left, fucktards.

Caveat emptor. These dickholes deserve each other.

That's Gay (Part II)

My republican father and I really got into it yesterday over the global meltdown. He insists the whole thing is ACORN's fault, while I stomp my feet and point fingers at Alan Greenspan & Co. We're both right, and we're both wrong. But that doesn't stop us from screaming over each others' respective heads, in a lighthearted and half-funny way.

At the end of my father's closing argument about the fundamentals of our economy, I couldn't help but add one final zinger. I reminded him that while things look grim now, at least we managed to fend off gay marriage one more time. The world's economy may be crumbling, but at least we stopped the homos at the gate. Americans may be losing their homes, but at least the American family is safely intact.

My father laughed. I'm glad we share a dark sense of humor.

So here's my latest take on gay marriage. WE ARE FIGHTING THE WRONG FIGHT. We need to rethink our attack, and it would be just super if we could stand up for our rights without vandalizing churches along the way. I'm sorry, but grow the fuck up.

Stephen Colbert is getting his panties wet over a new emerging civil war between the African-American and gay communities. He promises to report new developments as he makes them up. I'm glad at least someone has his head in the right place. This is a made-up war, and it makes me sick. It reminds me that the old divide-and-conquer strategy still works like magic.

This is not about black vs. gay. After all, as Mr. Colbert reminds us, which side will claim Little Richard? A false dichotomy is one thing, but this is like being stuck in a middle school playground only with cable news networks instead of children. "Fight! Fight! Fight!" Two kids who don't even really hate each other that much can be reduced to sadistic cavemen in this environment, and it's up to the rest of us - as responsible adults - to break it up.

As I said last week, I'm more than happy to admit that the gay rights movement has had a largely white public face, and there have been unfair comparisons with the black civil rights movement. This means that it's not so easy to cobble struggles together while refusing to look at resistance of one group from another.

But...

...let's please remember that rights are rights, no matter who be the oppressed. Getting caught up in race vs. sexual orientation misses a central theme: freedom. Why did blacks march, fight and die in the streets of the South? Is it any different from why gays and lesbians stood up for their dignity at Stonewall? What is the underlying principle? Can we agree that there is a kernel of similarity in this respect?

I know I'm playing both sides of the argument, but I posit we can not make any progress until we put the race question to rest. Yes to both sides. Yes the gay rights movement needs to reach out to other minority communities and make an effort to see beyond it's own collective troubles. And yes, African-Americans who vote against gay marriage rights are out of their minds for forgetting the struggles of their own people when it came time to stand up and claim their dignity. Both sides of this argument are right. Now may we move on to claiming our civil rights, please?

If we want to assign blame anywhere, I think it should be churches that discriminate. Using the Bible as a shield to hide behind while gay bashing is almost as sad as it is laughable. I don't care what color your skin is. How easy it must be to forget that the Bible sanctioned slavery as well as polygamy. Religious people are largely against gay marriage, and I say we let them do what they will... in their churches. (By the way, Jesus wasn't a hater. Just sayin'.)

Anyway, we live in a country where thankfully the churches do not get to decide the law. They get to decide what is proper and improper within their own enclaves - they are free to do that - but they may not dictate law. That's why gay marriage laws will ultimately pass.

In a way, marriage is just a word. The gay community co-opted it decades ago, and we continue to use it today. All we need now is the blessing of our government so that we are guaranteed the same benefits and protections awarded to straight married couples, across all state borders. This is a legal battle, not a religious one. Let the churches - including the black churches - do what they want. Move it to the courts.

This is finally about freedom. This is why we will ultimately win. Let us take to the courts and to the streets, but let us do so peacefully and with our own story. While reaching out is crucial, let us finally untangle the black civil rights movement from the gay rights movement in some subtle respects. We have our own civil rights movement to worry about. We cannot rely on other minority groups to automatically sign off on our struggle.

Anyway, we'll do it with them or without them. Watch us.

That's Gay

Gay marriage isn't going anywhere, apparently. Those pesky civil rights issues never seem to go away, no matter how ruthlessly you deny them.

And deny them we will! It's just doubly ironic that the state of California is now the new anti-gay marriage beacon. California? Really?

As much as I hate having my civil rights trampled upon, I think it's time for the gay community to take a step back and rethink the struggle, and I'm not the only one.

I was heartened to hear a thoughtful and provocative interview with writer and political pundit Jasmyne Cannick on NPR this week. Keeping race in the mix of the aftermath of Prop 8 is crucial, and Ms. Cannick, an African-American lesbian, helpfully reminds NPR listeners that the gay civil rights movement is not happening in a vacuum.

We are reminded of the deep and longstanding ties between the black civil rights movement and the black church, and the folly of trying to separate the two when it comes to getting out the black vote on gay rights. She elicited one or two angry callers, refusing to accept the idea that African-Americans shouldn't automatically line up to support the (largely white-dominated) gay rights movement, but I think I agree with her.

Civil rights is a tricky issue. Our country lurches forward at an unpredictable pace when it comes to civil rights, but we are getting somewhere. A (white gay) friend and I were just talking about gay marriage last night, and he expressed concern that the marriage issue is starting to sound more whiny than ever. He waxed nervous about the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the worstening global financial crisis, and other bigger fish.

At the end of the day, Joni Mitchell may have gotten it right when she quipped, "We don't need no piece of paper from the city hall keepin' us tied and true."

I expressed my opinion that a good social barometer for society's tolerance of minorities is public service. Who was the first African-American to serve in a public office? Who was the first female? The first openly gay man or woman? The first Latino? When did it happen? Where?

All glass ceilings either cracked or shattered once the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's blew a hole open in the social infrastructure. It began to happen, it happened, and it continues to happen for each and every minority group. We have an African-American president-elect. Nuff said.

Gay marriage will come. Trust me. Within ten years, maybe less, the Supreme Court will rule gay marriage-bashing unconstitutional for all states. Until then, of course we must fight. Of course we must push our agenda. But let's remember that an openly gay person of any color can get a good job, land a nice apartment, and openly pursue the love affair of his or her choice in just about every major city in this country. And they can do it largely without fear of, you know, murder.

Think about trying to pull off even the simplest lifestyle essentials like this only thirty years ago. We've come a long way. Heck, Madison Avenue openly courts the gay discretionary dollar (what's left of it). And let's please also not forget that the world is bleeding. There is suffering all around us, and we are not the only ones suffering from discrimination.

When we homos try to pull our movement away from the African-American struggle (yikes a church!) while at the same time trying to equate the two movements, smackdowns like Prop 8 will continue to pass. As Ms. Cannick reminded us again and again, we need to go back to the drawing board on this one. Let's involve ourselves in other struggles of humanity, not just the gay one. Let's make this about basic human rights for everybody.

After all, we gays are born organizers and fabulous hosts.

The Road Ahead Is Tougher Than We Think

Last night, amidst all the chaos and jubilation of Obama's victory, one detail went virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media.

A subliminal message was tucked into the concession and acceptance speeches. Well, not in the speeches themselves, but the reactions from the respective crowds.

When McCain first mentioned Obama's name in his concession speech, the crowd leapt into booing and jeering. John McCain had to miss a beat in his delivery to calm the crowd. Not good.

Thirty minutes later when Barack Obama mentioned John McCain in his acceptance speech, there was nary a boo to be heard. In fact, there was light applause. Not bad.

Some people in America desperately hate Barack Obama. And I don't mean hate like I hate going to the dentist; I mean hate like I hate you and everything you stand for and I'm looking for my pitchfork. McCain got his McCainiacs totally whipped up into an anti-Obama fevor, and now they have to accept his victory. Some of those McCainiacs have a darkness in their hearts that is frightening.

In the eyes of these passionate few, we now have a secret Muslim, socialist, elite, maybe-terrorist with one foot in the White House door. Bridging the gap between the 53% of voters who supported Barack Obama and the hateful fringe of the 47% of voters who supported McCain will no doubt be one of our new president elect's most daunting challenges.

I wish Barack Obama luck, and I congratulate him. Dark clouds on the horizon will not dim America's mood today.