Have come across some nice photo projects recently:
- Souvenir d’un Futur — architectural photos of fading high-rise public housing in Paris.
- Wet Paradise — street-style photos from a swimming pool in Prague (more info)
- Liisa Luts photographs her own wedding (more info)
So it turns out there’s a surprising number of quirks and weirdness to the UK’s laws around marriage and civil partnerships:
- Only same sex couples can get civil partnerships (campaign to eliminate this inequality)
- You can annul a marriage if:
- the person you married was pregnant at the time, and you aren’t the father
- you didn’t properly consent to the marriage (for example, you were drunk or forced into it)
- it wasn’t consummated (that is, you haven’t had sex with the person you married since the wedding) (opposite-sex couples only)
- the other person had a sexually transmitted disease when you got married (opposite-sex couples only)
- If you’re getting married you must exchange some formal wording
- If you’re having a civil ceremony, you can’t include anything religious
- Via a document comparing civil partnership and marriage for same-sex couples:
- Marriage certificates include the names of only the fathers of the parties; civil partnership certificates include both parents
- Marriages are registered on paper, in a hard copy register; civil partnerships are recorded electronically
- Marriage notices include the addresses of both parties; civil partnership notices do not
Quite a few years ago when I visited the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum I was very much struck by one exhibit: JFK’s response in 1961 to a reporter asking whether the Communist system would “prove more durable than ours.”
The question and answer changed my thinking about the period of history spanned by the Cold War. I had been thinking about the Cold War as if it were a conflict in which ideology really only mattered insofar as it affected military and strategic objectives. (So for example, some countries were more likely to establish an alliance with the U.S.S.R. because they were more sympathetic to Communism.)
But here, on the day Yuri Gagarin became the first person to orbit the earth, was a serious question and a serious response about whether a method of structuring the economy and organising production could be more efficient and fruitful than the one adopted by the United States: the idea that political systems can differ, and should be judged, not only by their how they increase GDP or improve social justice, but also by how efficiently they guide scientific progress.
The full exchange:
QUESTION: The Communists seem to be putting us on the defensive on a number of fronts, now again in space. Wars aside, do you think that there is a danger that their system is going to prove more durable than ours?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that we are in a period of long drawn-out tests to see which system is – and I think the more durable, not better, but more durable. We have had a number of experiences with this kind of competition. A dictatorship enjoys advantages, in this kind of competition, over a short period, by its ability to mobilize its resources for a specific purpose. We have made some exceptional scientific advances in the last decade, and some of them – they are not as spectacular as the man in space, or as the first Sputnik, but they are important. […]
I do not regard the first man in space as a sign of the weakening of the free world, but I do regard the total mobilization of men and things for the service of the Communist Bloc over the last years as a source of great danger to us, and I would say we are going to have to live with that danger and hazard through much of the rest of this century.
My feeling is that we are more durable in the long run. These dictatorships enjoy many short range advantages that we saw in the Thirties. But in the long run, I think our system suits the qualities, and aspirations of people, the desire to be their own masters – I think our own system suits better. Our job is to maintain our strength until our great qualities can be brought more effectively to bear.
A few other interesting tidbits from the press conference:
- The very first question (would the US help “an anti-Castro uprising or invasion in Cuba”?) and answer (“this government will do everything it possibly can, and I think it can meet its responsibilities, to make sure that there are no Americans involved in any actions inside Cuba”) are quite extraordinary in light of the Bay of Pigs Invasion less than a week later. It does seem that JFK was technically accurate, but boy, it’s one seriously misleading answer.
- For some reason JFK was unwilling to label Fidel Castro as a Communist, despite agreeing that “he has appointed a great many Communists to high positions.”
- JFK believed that getting fresh water from salt water cheaply would be a scientific accomplishment to “dwarf any other.”
To climb Indonesia’s Puncak Jaya (4,870 m), you fly in a small aircraft to a village near the peak, then walk 5 days through “very dense jungle” with “regular rainfall” to reach the base of the peak. Reaching the summit requires another day, at which point, you’re: (a) about 500km from the equator; (b) surrounded by glaciers (!); and (c) 4km from Grasberg Mine, one of the largest open pit mines in the world (map) (!!).
I suppose the workers get in and out of the mine via helicopter but there must also be some sort of road–? Climbing mountains isn’t supposed to be easy, but this does remind me of the Goon Show: “For a hundred miles Bloodnok and his party hacked their way through the jungle that ran alongside the arterial road.”
Anne Applebaum argues that though most people don’t worry about threat of nuclear war anymore, Russia’s nuclear weapons are the reason the West isn’t even able to sell Ukraine defensive weapons.
There is no need to resurrect the Cold War, but the resurrection of the word deterrence might not be such a bad idea, if only to make the madmen think twice before they carry out nuclear exercises or secretly enrich some plutonium. Ninety-nine percent of nuclear strategy is a stupid psychological game, which no one plays with enthusiasm. But if you refuse to play it at all, then you lose.
(I actually think there’s a possible world in which a country is an important and significant military force despite having no nuclear weapons, but since this doesn’t apply to the actual world, this is a difficult theory to test.)
“I was born Lew Alcindor. Now I’m Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.”
“The torments of Ronnie O’Sullivan, snooker’s greatest player.”