Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Barbara Branden, Biographer of Ayn Rand, Dies at 84




Barbara Branden, who helped popularize Ayn Rand’s philosophy of self-interest in the 1960s but caused a schism among Ms. Rand’s followers with an unauthorized biography she wrote after the theorist’s death, died on Dec. 11 in West Hollywood, Calif. She was 84.
The cause was a lung infection, said Jonathan Hirschfeld, a nephew.
Ms. Branden and her former husband, Nathaniel Branden, were at the center of Ms. Rand’s inner circle during its heyday in the 1950s and ’60s, a following that included future scholars and economists, most notably Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, who went on to shape the conservative Republican and libertarian movements.
They disseminated Ms. Rand’s ideas in newsletters and journals, organized her lecture tours, gave lectures themselves and helped establish organizations for the study of Objectivism, the philosophy of rational self-interest and unregulated entrepreneurialism that Ms. Rand developed in her best-selling novel-manifestoes, “The Fountainhead” (1943) and “Atlas Shrugged” (1957).
Ms. Branden’s biography, “The Passion of Ayn Rand,” published in 1986, four years after Ms. Rand’s death at 77, was a generally admiring portrait. Baring details of a famously guarded émigré’s life, it recounted Ms. Rand’s affluent childhood in Russia, her family’s penury after the Bolshevik Revolution, her self-assurance from an early age about her own greatness, and one revelation that was a bombshell.
Beginning in 1953, when Ms. Rand was nearly 50, Ms. Branden wrote, the intellectual mother of principled self-interest had ardently pursued an interest in Ms. Branden’s husband, Nathaniel. Though 25 years apart in age, they had an affair for about 15 years.
Ms. Branden knew about it because Ms. Rand had insisted from the start that both spouses — Ms. Branden and Ms. Rand’s husband, Frank O’Connor — give their consent.
Ms. Branden revealed the story, she said, partly to set the record straight about Ms. Rand’s sudden banishment of the Brandens from her circle in 1968. She had denounced them in a widely circulated essay, claiming they had exploited her financially. The couple denied the accusation.
In fact, Ms. Branden wrote, Ms. Rand expelled them because she had learned that Nathaniel Branden was involved with a third woman. She faulted Ms. Branden for not telling her about that other woman. The Brandens divorced soon afterward.
The revelation led to a rift among Ms. Rand’s acolytes. Philosophical differences underlay the dispute, but by most accounts, opinion about Ms. Branden’s book became the stand-in for the disagreements. Ultimately the Ayn Rand Institute, established in 1985 by the Rand estate to promote her ideas, split in two.
On one side were followers who rejected the book as heresy (though not as a lie, since private letters in Ms. Rand’s estate confirmed the story). Others, who saw the book as an important chronicle of movement history, formed the Institute for Objectivist Studies in 1990 (later renamed the Atlas Society). In their view, Ms. Branden’s book paid tribute to Objectivism, which at its root defines reality as a set of objective, absolute (rather than relative) observable truths. And the story Ms. Branden told was the objective truth, they said.
Ms. Branden was born Barbara Joan Weidman in Winnipeg, Canada, on May 14, 1929. Her parents, Rebecca and John Weidman, owned a wholesale restaurant supply business. She attended the University of Manitoba and transferred to the University of California, Los Angeles, where she received a bachelor’s degree in philosophy in 1951. There she met Mr. Branden, a fellow Canadian, who shared her enthusiasm for Rand.
At the time, Ms. Rand and her husband were also living in Southern California, having moved there from New York during the making of the film version of “The Fountainhead,” a 1949 release starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal. Learning that Ms. Rand was nearby, Ms. Weidman and Mr. Branden sought her out and befriended her.
Ms. Rand and her husband returned to New York in 1951, the same year Ms. Weidman and Mr. Branden moved there to begin postgraduate studies at New York University. They soon joined Ms. Rand’s inner circle, a group Ms. Rand referred to — with the facetiousness of a hardened anti-Communist — as the Collective.
During this time Ms. Branden and her husband — they married in 1953 — wrote a series of essays authorized by Ms. Rand and published them in 1962 as a book, “Who Is Ayn Rand?”
Besides Mr. Hirschfeld, Ms. Branden is survived by four other nephews and two nieces.
“The Passion of Ayn Rand” received positive reviews. Critics called it an evenhanded treatment of Ms. Rand’s life story and ideas. The sociologist Peter L. Berger, writing in The New York Times Book Review, cited “a certain moving quality” to Ms. Branden’s “evident effort to be fair to a woman about whom she has very mixed feelings.”
The book was made into a television movie in 1999 for Showtime. Helen Mirren won an Emmy for her portrayal of Ms. Rand; Julie Delpy played Ms. Branden.
Ms. Branden continued lecturing on Objectivism for years. In 1991, she published a quasi-memoir about her life in Ms. Rand’s orbit, titling it “Ayn Rand and Her Movement: An Interview With Barbara Branden, Rand’s Close Colleague and Administrator of Her Movement.”
In a 2008 interview with the biographical resource Contemporary Authors Online, Ms. Branden said she had no regrets about any aspect of her relationship with Ms. Rand. Though they were “often terribly painful and difficult,” she said, “I would not have missed those years.”
“The years of research and writing ‘The Passion of Ayn Rand’ were the happiest period of my life,” she added. “Perhaps there is something more to ask of life. But I don’t know what it might be.”

 
 
Pope Francis  Christmas Address
 
 
 
2013-12-25
(Vatican Radio) “In this night, as the spirit of darkness enfolds the world, there takes place anew the event which always amazes and surprises us: the people who walk see a great light.”
In his homily during Christmas Midnight Mass, Pope Francis reflected on “the mystery of walking and seeing.”
Walking, he said, brings to mind the whole of salvation history, beginning with Abraham, our father in faith. “From that time on, our identity as believers has been that of a people making its pilgrim way towards the promised land. This history has always been accompanied by the Lord!” And yet, the Pope said, “on the part of the people there are times of both light and darkness, fidelity and infidelity, obedience, and rebellion; times of being a pilgrim people and times of being a people adrift.”
Pope Francis said that in our own lives, too, “there are both bright and dark moments, lights and shadows. If we love God and our brothers and sisters, we walk in the light; but if our heart is closed, if we are dominated by pride, deceit, self-seeking, then darkness falls within us and around us.”
But, he continued, “On this night, like a burst of brilliant light, there rings out the proclamation of the Apostle: “God's grace has been revealed, and it has made salvation possible for the whole human race.
“The grace which was revealed in our world is Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, true man and true God . . . He came to free us from darkness and to grant us light.”
The Gospel of the Mass tells how the shepherds were the first to receive the news of Jesus’ birth. “They were the first because they were among the last, the outcast,” the Pope said. “And they were the first because they were awake, keeping watch in the night, guarding their flocks.” The Holy Father called on us to join the shepherds, to pause before the Child in silence, thanking God and praising His fidelity.
Pope Francis concluded his homily with the plea: “On this night let us share the joy of the Gospel: God loves us, he so loves us that he gave us his Son to be our brother, to be light in our darkness. To us the Lord repeats: “Do not be afraid!” (Lk 2:10). And I too repeat: Do not be afraid! Our Father is patient, he loves us, he gives us Jesus to guide us on the way which leads to the promised land. Jesus is the light who brightens the darkness. He is our peace. Amen.”
Listen to Sean Patrick Lovett's report:
Below, please find the complete text of Pope Francis’ homily:
Homily of His Holiness Pope Francis
Christmas Midnight Mass
25 December 2013

1. “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light” (Is 9:1).
This prophecy of Isaiah never ceases to touch us, especially when we hear it proclaimed in the liturgy of Christmas Night. This is not simply an emotional or sentimental matter. It moves us because it states the deep reality of what we are: a people who walk, and all around us – and within us as well – there is darkness and light. In this night, as the spirit of darkness enfolds the world, there takes place anew the event which always amazes and surprises us: the people who walk see a great light. A light which makes us reflect on this mystery: the mystery of walking and seeing.
Walking. This verb makes us reflect on the course of history, that long journey which is the history of salvation, starting with Abraham, our father in faith, whom the Lord called one day to set out, to go forth from his country towards the land which he would show him. From that time on, our identity as believers has been that of a people making its pilgrim way towards the promised land. This history has always been accompanied by the Lord! He is ever faithful to his covenant and to his promises. “God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all” (1 Jn 1:5). Yet on the part of the people there are times of both light and darkness, fidelity and infidelity, obedience, and rebellion; times of being a pilgrim people and times of being a people adrift.
In our personal history too, there are both bright and dark moments, lights and shadows. If we love God and our brothers and sisters, we walk in the light; but if our heart is closed, if we are dominated by pride, deceit, self-seeking, then darkness falls within us and around us. “Whoever hates his brother – writes the Apostle John – is in the darkness; he walks in the darkness, and does not know the way to go, because the darkness has blinded his eyes” (1 Jn 2:11).
2. On this night, like a burst of brilliant light, there rings out the proclamation of the Apostle: “God's grace has been revealed, and it has made salvation possible for the whole human race” (Tit 2:11).
The grace which was revealed in our world is Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, true man and true God. He has entered our history; he has shared our journey. He came to free us from darkness and to grant us light. In him was revealed the grace, the mercy, and the tender love of the Father: Jesus is Love incarnate. He is not simply a teacher of wisdom, he is not an ideal for which we strive while knowing that we are hopelessly distant from it. He is the meaning of life and history, who has pitched his tent in our midst.
3. The shepherds were the first to see this “tent”, to receive the news of Jesus’ birth. They were the first because they were among the last, the outcast. And they were the first because they were awake, keeping watch in the night, guarding their flocks. Together with them, let us pause before the Child, let us pause in silence. Together with them, let us thank the Lord for having given Jesus to us, and with them let us raise from the depths of our hearts the praises of his fidelity: We bless you, Lord God most high, who lowered yourself for our sake. You are immense, and you made yourself small; you are rich and you made yourself poor; you are all-powerful and you made yourself vulnerable.
On this night let us share the joy of the Gospel: God loves us, he so loves us that he gave us his Son to be our brother, to be light in our darkness. To us the Lord repeats: “Do not be afraid!” (Lk 2:10). And I too repeat: Do not be afraid! Our Father is patient, he loves us, he gives us Jesus to guide us on the way which leads to the promised land. Jesus is the light who brightens the darkness. He is our peace. Amen

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Enigma codebreaker Alan Turing receives royal pardon

The Guardian London England
Alan Turing
Alan Turing, right, with colleagues working on the Ferranti Mark I computer. Photograph: Science & Society Picture Librar/Getty Images

Alan Turing, the second world war codebreaker who took his own life after undergoing chemical castration following a conviction for homosexual activity, has been granted a posthumous royal pardon 59 years after his death.

The brilliant mathematician, who played a major role in breaking the Enigma code – which arguably shortened the war by at least two years – has been granted a pardon under the Royal Prerogative of Mercy by the Queen, following a request from the justice secretary, Chris Grayling.

Turing was considered to be the father of modern computer science and was most famous for his work in helping to create the "bombe" that cracked messages enciphered with the German Enigma machines. He was convicted of gross indecency in 1952 after admitting a sexual relationship with a man.

He was given experimental chemical castration as a "treatment". His criminal record resulted in the loss of his security clearance and meant he was no longer able to work for Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), where he had been employed following service at Bletchley Park during the war. He died of cyanide poisoning in 1954, aged 41.

Announcing the pardon, Grayling said: "Dr Alan Turing was an exceptional man with a brilliant mind. His brilliance was put into practice at Bletchley Park during the second world war, where he was pivotal to breaking the Enigma code, helping to end the war and save thousands of lives.

"His later life was overshadowed by his conviction for homosexual activity, a sentence we would now consider unjust and discriminatory and which has now been repealed.

"Dr Turing deserves to be remembered and recognised for his fantastic contribution to the war effort and his legacy to science. A pardon from the Queen is a fitting tribute to an exceptional man."

David Cameron described Turing as a "remarkable man". The prime minister added: "His actions saved countless lives. He also left a remarkable national legacy through his substantial scientific achievements, often being referred to as the father of modern computing."

There had been a long campaign to clear Turing's name, including a private member's bill. In 2009, an "unequivocal apology" was issued by then prime minister Gordon Brown. An e-petition calling for a pardon received 37,404 signatures when it was closed in November last year. The request was declined by the then justice minister Lord McNally on the grounds that Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence.

A pardon is normally granted only when the person is innocent of the offence and where a request has been made by someone with a vested interest, such as a family member. On this occasion, a pardon has been issued without either requirement being met.

There was mixed reaction to the announcement. Iain Standen, chief executive of the Bletchley Park Trust, said Turing was "a visionary mathematician and genius whose work contributed enormously both to the outcome of the war and the computer age".

He added: "The pardon gives further recognition for his outstanding contribution not only to second world war codebreaking but also the development of computing."

Dr Andrew Hodges, tutorial fellow in mathematics at Wadham College, Oxford, and author of the acclaimed biography Alan Turing: The Enigma, said: "Alan Turing suffered appalling treatment 60 years ago and there has been a very well intended and deeply felt campaign to remedy it in some way. Unfortunately, I cannot feel that such a 'pardon' embodies any good legal principle. If anything, it suggests that a sufficiently valuable individual should be above the law which applies to everyone else.

"It's far more important that in the 30 years since I brought the story to public attention, LGBT rights movements have succeeded with a complete change in the law – for all. So, for me, this symbolic action adds nothing.

"A more substantial action would be the release of files on Turing's secret work for GCHQ in the cold war. Loss of security clearance, state distrust and surveillance may have been crucial factors in the two years leading up to his death in 1954."

Writer David Leavitt, professor of English at Florida University and author of The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turing and the Invention of the Computer (2006), said it was "great news". The conviction had had "a profound and devastating" effect on Turing, Leavitt said, as the mathematician felt he was being "followed and hounded" by the police "because he was considered a security risk".

"There was this paranoid idea in 1950s England of the homosexual traitor, that he would be seduced by a Russian agent and go over to the other side," Leavitt said. "It was such a misjudgment of Alan Turing because he was so honest, and was so patriotic."

With the situation in Russia regarding LGBT rights, and the recent decision by the supreme court in India to reinstate the criminalisation of homosexuality, "for this to come from the Queen, is going to send a really important message, especially to the Commonwealth", Leavitt added.Prof S Barry Cooper, professor of mathematical logic at the University of Leeds and chair of the Turing Centenary Advisory Committee, said: "There was a slight worry that the private member's bill had got slightly bogged down. So this is fantastic. And a sign of the growing reputation of Alan Turing, a growing sense of what he did for this country and what so many other people at Bletchley Park did."

Liberal Democrat peer Lord Sharkey, who introduced the private member's bill in the House of Lords, said: "This has demonstrated wisdom and compassion. It has recognised a very great British hero and made some amends for the cruelty and injustice with which Turing was treated.

"It's a wonderful thing, but we are not quite finished yet. I will continue to campaign for all those convicted as Turing was, simply for being gay, to have their convictions disregarded. That will be a proper and fitting and final end to the Turing story."

Gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said the royal pardon was long overdue, but also due to "another 50,000-plus men who were also convicted of consenting, victimless homosexual relationships during the 20th century".

Though an inquest recorded a verdict of suicide, Turing's mother and others maintained his death was accidental.

Turing made highly significant contributions to the emerging field of artificial intelligence and computing. After the war, he worked at many institutions, including the University of Manchester, where he worked on the Manchester Mark 1, one of the first recognisable modern computers.

Sunday, December 22, 2013

The Silicon Valley-ization of San Francisco

Peter Thiel
Peter Thiel does not speak for the silent majority.

Photo by Fred Prouser/Reuters

Silicon Valley has been reaching its tentacles into San Francisco for some time now, just as the suburban tech companies of Puget Sound—Microsoft, Amazon, and now Google and Facebook too—infiltrated Seattle. But the scale of the San Francisco infestation is far greater. For years, increasing numbers of techies have been commuting from San Francisco to the Valley, but with startups increasingly populating San Francisco itself, the foreign host seems to have taken up native residence. The indigenous populations are concerned that they are being invaded by pod people seeking to turn San Francisco into the Next Silicon Valley. These pod people raise the rents, they have their own buses, and many of them don’t know who Cesar Chavez was.  (N.B. I am a New York pod person who used to work for Google.)

The archetype of the Silicon Valley techno-libertarian is inimical to everything that artist-friendly, countercultural, way-left-of-American-center San Francisco has historically stood for. Ex-PayPal billionaire Peter Thiel is the de facto spokesman for these types, whether he’s complaining about how it’s not politically correct “to articulate certain truths about the inequality of abilities,” or funding Ron Paul, or wanting to abolish the Food and Drug Administration, or bemoaning how giving women the right to vote hurt the libertarian cause. Yes, he gives back, but in the form of utopian moonshots at the technological singularity.

Back on planet Earth, you’ve also got the founder of seed accelerator Y Combinator, Paul Graham, another smart fellow with a bit of a John Galt complex. He says that most people think that it’s unfair that 5 percent of people have half the total worth, but “an experienced programmer would be more likely to think is that all?” Or there’s Greg Gopman, until recently the CEO of San Francisco–based AngelHack, who thinks that “there should be an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for the working class,” as he posted on Facebook earlier this month. “The difference is in other cosmopolitan cities,” Gopman added, “the lower part of society keep to themselves.” (During a protest against Google’s buses, a union organizer exploited this Monty Burns persona by posing as a Google employee and shouting at protesters, “This is a city for the right people who can afford it.”)

Advertisement
Advertisement

Gopman is a caricature of the quintessential Silicon Valley go-getter as often portrayed in the tech press: a young white male, innovative, wet behind the ears, indifferent to social convention, and soon very rich thanks to a hot new idea that attracts a wave of venture capitalist cash his way. It’s a testament to the capitalist dream at work, the power of innovation when the government just stays out of the picture and lets the Galts of the world take over. Their ideal vision of San Francisco would indeed be a scary place, where the rich could call the shots on the grounds that they are “giving back” in the form of productivity and jobs, even if a huge chunk of the population is excluded from those benefits.

But theirs is not the San Francisco that the majority of techies would like to see. It is just the vision of the most loudmouthed techies. The VC/startup crowd presented in the press is only one facet of a larger culture, and hardly the most flattering one.

As a software engineer, here are some rough statistical generalizations I can make based on the thousands of engineers—not businesspeople or execs, though some later moved into those roles—whom I’ve met in the field. They are male by a significant margin. They are otherwise the most diverse group of people I have ever been around, with a sizable percentage of immigrants from Asia, Europe, and South America. Particularly after George W. Bush’s election, there appeared to be very few Republicans among them. More of them go to Burning Man than to church. They are reflexively social libertarians. (The tech scene contains a strong polyamorous community, for example.) They are openly horrified by the irrationalism of much American political discourse of the right and center-right, by which I mean everyone from James Inhofe to Max Baucus—i.e., well over half of the Senate. Like economists Joseph Stiglitz and Nouriel Roubini as well as Warren Buffett, they see that inequality does not make for a stable political system, and they are broadly supportive of public policy measures that would help rebalance the scales. They don’t complain about taxes much. They don’t reflexively loathe Big Government—a programmer friend of mine marveled at what a mess healthcare.gov was next to the elegant and efficient government-run health website of Sweden—but they don’t think of it as the cure for all ills. Remember, a lot of these people are from the former Soviet Union and China, and are fully aware that calling Obamacare “Communist” is tantamount to spitting on the memories of millions dead. If they happen to live in a district with great public schools, they’d send their kids there both for cost and civic reasons; if they don’t, they won’t martyr their family to a dysfunctional educational system. Hence, expensive private schools.

For these more rank-and-file techies, the Next Silicon Valley should not go to über-capitalist, libertarian extremes. Instead, it should be a pragmatic assemblage of what has worked best around the world—a functioning, integrated society, not one in which the haves and the have-nots barely speak the same language. (Note that Silicon Valley’s decadelong congressional representative, Mike Honda, is a hardcore liberal, winning his past two elections with more than 70 percent of the vote.)

The lay techies are not flashy, tend not to seek attention, and tend to associate with like-minded individuals. Like-minded individuals largely do not include tech journalists, who tend to lack basic technical knowledge. (Hey, I just report what I hear.) So the tech journalists instead go to the flashy entrepreneurs who will talk to them: people like Greg Gopman and Yahoo’s old-boy network. And those tech journalists who are most contemptuous of Silicon Valley archetypes, like Valleywag’s Sam Biddle, spend more time writing click bait about those wannabe Howard Roarks than about the far more influential techies who founded, say, MoveOn and ActBlue. Founded in 2004 by theoretical physicist Ben Rahn and MIT computer science grad Matt DeBergalis, ActBlue has attempted to continue the Howard Dean campaign’s decentralized-network model for grassroots political activism, even as the Democratic Party hasn’t embraced it. DeBergalis has a new startup, Meteor, an open-source Web app development platform more interesting than Coin, Bitcoin, and Uber put together. But as I said, programmers don’t read tech journalism.

Neither ActBlue nor its compatriots like the Progressive Change Campaign Committee—which was co-founded by the late cyberactivist Aaron Swartz and initiated the successful Draft Elizabeth Warren campaign—are enough to undo the income inequality that has ballooned in America over the past 30 years, and that has hit the middle and working classes of San Francisco particularly hard. Progressive organizations like these have a vision for the future of San Francisco—and for every place that could become a Next Silicon Valley—that represents the majority of tech workers’ beliefs. They are better bellwethers for the tech laity than the seething froth that populates the front pages of TechCrunch and Pando. These kinds of sites follow money rather than technology, they interview the wrong people about the wrong things, and they contribute to the image of Silicon Valley as a bunch of entitled white boys. Silicon Valley has its fair share of those sorts, but they drown out the voices we should really be listening to.

Vatican Science on Christmas and Creationism

James Dickey The Daily Beast

In an exclusive interview, the bishop who heads the Pontifical Academy of Sciences accepts the theory of evolution, critiques capitalism, and defends his fellow Argentine, Pope Francis.

Christmas is a season of marvelous and mystical experiences, and maybe it seems churlish to let science and history intrude. What if the Star of Bethlehem was a comet? What if Christ was born in May instead of December? What if the whole literal Biblical picture of how we came to be here is open to question (as it certainly is)? Would that ruin the Christmas experience somehow? Would we grown-ups feel like children who’d had Santa Claus snatched away from them?

131220-dickey-pontifical-tease
Pope Francis (C) attends the funeral service of Italian cardinal Domenico Bartolucci in Saint Peter's Basilica at the Vatican November 13, 2013. (Max Rossi/Reuters)

Some would, for sure. But this emotionally dangerous ground between faith and science, metaphysics and physics, is familiar territory for Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, a friend and fellow countryman of the Argentine-born Pope Francis.

Bishop Sánchez is the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It is housed in an elegant little building surrounded by gardens right in the heart of the Vatican, and it promises to be the epicenter of some seismic controversies to come.

Atheists and fundamentalists, both, will be tempted to say the whole notion of a pontifical academy of science is a contradiction in terms. Back in the fiery heyday of the Inquisition, after all, pontiffs and scientists were in deadly opposition, just as Bible-waving Evangelicals and cold-blooded evolutionists are squared off today in the creationist wars that plague American education.

But over the centuries the views of the Catholic Church have evolved, in fact, and conservatives are going to be shocked once again by the way this papacy broadens its message of reconciliation to include an ever-wider spectrum of humanity, including skeptical scientific researchers and intellectuals.

“If we don't accept science, we don't accept reason,” says Sánchez, “and reason was created by God."

The academy, which in various forms dates back to the early 17th century, is today avowedly “non-sectarian” and includes among its 80 members many non-Catholics, non-Christians and, it is fair to say, some non-believers, not to mention some of the most famous scientists and social scientists in the world. Over the years, scores of the academy’s members have won Nobel Prizes, including the awards for chemistry, physics, medicine and economics.

Sanchez’s central preoccupation at the moment comes under the rubric of social sciences, but also reflects what might be called the new crusading spirit of the church on behalf of the poor. A conference convened by the academy in November, at the pope’s request, addressed the issue of human trafficking and called for it to be declared “a crime against humanity.”

Sánchez defends ferociously the pope’s recent critique of predatory capitalism, and a recent trip to Texas didn’t make Sánchez any more sanguine about the virtues of the so-called free market. “Some say America is an oligarchy for the multinationals,” he said. The wealthy arrange to get all kinds of subsidies, while the working class and the poor struggle to survive. “The poor people pay for the rich people,” as Sánchez put it.

When I met the bishop at the World Policy Conference in France earlier this month, I expected he’d shy away from talk about creationism, evolution, the origin of the universe, life in the womb, miracles and, yes, the Christmas Story. But not at all. This 71-year-old philosopher and scholar of St. Thomas Aquinas is perfectly comfortable with the spiritual message of a reasonable church and with the evidence-based lessons of science, which exist, he argues, on separate planes.

“The notion of creation is completely different from the notion of evolution,” said Sánchez. “Creation is a philosophical notion that comes from The Bible. It says that God, from nothing, created being.” That is the central concept, he said, and science has no real explanation for how that might happen. But evolution is different. There is a great deal of evidence, he said, that there is evolution in nature and that species evolve.

The great confusion comes, according to Sánchez, when people try to use science to prove or disprove the existence of God. “This is like saying you can prove the existence of the soul,” said Sánchez, and about that he has no doubt.

Over the years the progress of science has caused many in the Catholic Church to rethink what they thought they knew, like the location of Heaven and of Hell. “In the past, we said they are [physical] places,” Sánchez explained, as if they could be pinpointed on a map of the cosmos. But that was back in the Middle Ages when people believed the universe was organized in spheres with Earth at their center, then the sun and the moon and the stars, and beyond them, Heaven. Hell was under the ground in the center of this planet. Now Paradise and the Inferno are understood philosophically as states of being, not places on a chart.

“All these questions of physics and metaphysics have changed because physics have changed,” says Sánchez.

At the same time, advances in biology have expanded the definition of life. In the past, says Sánchez, the church considered that an embryo did not have human life until it began to take on something resembling human form, about 40 days into a pregnancy. “Now we say if the first cells [after fertilization and conception] have DNA, the genetic coding for human beings, then they have life.”

There is still plenty of room for miracles in Sánchez’s universe.

He tends to agree with scientists who think the Star of Bethlehem that guided the three kings of Asia to the infant Jesus was really Halley’s Comet. Other theories hold that it was a supernova or an alignment of two or three planets. “Of course, it might have been a complete miracle,” said Sánchez. “God can suspend natural laws.” But the bishop prefers to associate those sorts of miracles mainly with the story of Jesus. The raising of Lazarus from the dead is particularly important. “To return the soul to the body, this is a very special miracle,” said Sánchez.

As to the timing of Christmas, there’s not much doubt in the bishop’s mind that the date is not really Jesus’s birthday. Nobody really knows when Jesus was born (we won’t get into the debate about whether he ever was born at all). Many historians agree that December 25 was chosen because it coincided with the ancient Roman festival of Saturnalia, which came in the depth of winter and looked forward to the renewal of the cycle of life in the months ahead. Feasts were held and gifts were given. It all fit into a pattern of nature and faith, as does Christmas—except for one thing.

“I come from Argentina,” says Sánchez. “And there, Christmas comes in the middle of the summer.” Half joking, Sánchez said this is a problem often discussed among the clergy of the Southern Hemisphere, who see the timing of the holidays as totally biased in favor of the Northern Hemisphere. “Maybe an Argentine pope can change that,” said Sánchez, laughing.

Probably not. But, then again, the changes in store under this papacy have only just begun.

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Kim Jong-un’s Aunt Appears to Survive Husband’s Purge

 Choe Sang Hun The New York Times

SEOUL, South Korea — Kim Kyong-hee, an aunt of the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, appeared to have survived the purge and execution of her husband, Jang Song-thaek, as her name re-emerged in a leadership list in the North’s state-run media over the weekend.

The North’s Korean Central News Agency on Saturday included Ms. Kim’s name in the roster of top officials appointed to a national committee in charge of organizing a state funeral for Kim Kuk-tae, a former party secretary who died on Friday at age 89.

In North Korea, whether an official’s name is included in such a list is an important gauge on whether the official is favored by the regime. Ms. Kim was placed sixth in the list that included most of the well-known top party and military figures. The list also included Vice Premier Ro Du-chol, one of the people said to have been close to Mr. Jang, discrediting recent news reports in South Korea that Mr. Ro might be one of the senior North Koreans allegedly fleeing a widening political purge at home following Mr. Jang’s dramatic fall from power.

Mr. Jang, 67, long considered to be the No. 2 man and mentor of Kim Jong-un, was executed on Thursday on charges of plotting to overthrow Mr. Kim’s government, North Korea announced on Friday. North Korea also indicated that it was purging those close to Mr. Jang, who was accused of building a network of followers in the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea, the government and the Korean People’s Army.

Mr. Jang and his wife had been widely seen as parent-like figures for Kim Jong-un helping their nephew establish himself as supreme leader. As her husband’s purge has unfolded in past weeks, Ms. Kim’s name has also disappeared from North Korean media, triggering speculation over her fate.

Although the entire extended family of a traitor was often executed or sent to a prison camp in North Korea, analysts have said that Kim Jong-un would likely save Ms. Kim. She is the only, beloved sister of Mr. Kim’s father, Kim Jong-il, who ruled North Korea before him.

Diminutive, frail and reportedly sick, Ms. Kim, 67, seldom appeared in public during her brother’s rule. But following his death, she raised her public profile, assuming more titles, accompanying Mr. Kim in his public appearances and attending the meetings presided over by him.

Sitting erect and grim-faced in an oversize chair, she had been the only female face in the North Korean leadership filled with uniformed generals.

Analysts have seen her as a regent helping guide her nephew through Pyongyang’s treacherous internal politics to ensure a smooth generational change in her family dynasty. But her true status within the regime and her relations with her husband had always been a subject of speculation.

Some analysts said that her value to Mr. Kim was largely symbolic: She was the eldest surviving blood kin for Mr. Kim, one of the links Mr. Kim had to his grandfather, the North’s founding president, Kim Il-sung, whose godlike status among North Koreans helped legitimize Mr. Kim’s own rule. Following Mr. Jang’s execution, the North’s state-controlled media exhorted its people to stay loyal to the “blood line” that Mr. Kim inherited from his father and his grandfather.

Even before Mr. Jang’s downfall, analysts in South Korea had speculated that he was estranged from his wife. The couple’s only child, a daughter, committed suicide in France in 2006, according to the South Korean media. In a party meeting on Dec. 8 that condemned Mr. Jang as a traitor, he was called a depraved and corrupt womanizer.

Yoon Sang-hyun, a deputy floor leader of the governing Saenuri Party in South Korea, told reporters on Dec. 8 that Ms. Kim had been “separated” from Mr. Jang and did not oppose his purge.

North Korean media outlets reported on Saturday that Kim Jong-un visited a military institute that has designed major buildings in the North. It was his first reported public activity since the South Korean intelligence agency first reported Mr. Jang’s likely fall from power two weeks ago.

Page 2 of 2

North Korea also said its government held a massive ceremony in Pyongyang on Saturday to hand out medals to exemplary soldiers and workers, the Korean Central News Agency reported. On Sunday, the news agency said Mr. Kim visited the construction site of a ski resort his government was building near his country’s east coast.

Such visits appeared to have been designed to show to the people that Mr. Kim was in charge despite the removal of Mr. Jang, who had been a fixture in the North Korean leadership for decades and widely seen as the second-most influential man.

While rewarding those loyal to Mr. Kim, however, the regime vowed ruthless punishment for anyone Mr. Kim saw as a challenge — a message driven home by Mr. Jang’s execution, which has been reported as top news in North Korean media. North Korea had purged top officials and family members of the leader before, but it was highly unusual for the regime to reveal the execution of one of them to the public. Analysts remained divided over whether it was a sign of instability or a demonstration of confidence on Mr. Kim’s part.

In an editorial on Saturday, the Rodong Sinmun, the North’s main party newspaper, said a true revolutionary was “one who has no qualms about pointing his gun barrel at anyone who dare challenge the leader’s authority, no matter who he is, even if he is a blood kin of the leader.”

The editorial invoked a famous North Korean slogan: “How dare you challenge the leader?” In the North Korean propaganda, it was credited to Choe Hyon. A former North Korean defense minister and fierce loyalist for Mr. Kim’s grandfather, Kim Il-sung, Mr. Choe was said to have brandished his pistol during a party meeting in 1956 that the late Mr. Kim used to purge his rivals and establish his family’s monolithic rule that continues today.

Mr. Choe fought alongside Kim Il-sung as Korean guerrillas who attacked Japanese colonialists in the early 20th century. The offspring of these guerrillas formed the loyalist core of the North Korean elites. Kim Kuk-tae, who died on Friday, was one of them. Hence, a state funeral for him.

Mr. Choe’s son is Vice Marshal Choe Ryong-hae. The top political officer in the Korean People’s Army, he is now considered the North’s second most influential man following Mr. Jang’s execution. He has risen rapidly in the North Korean hierarchy since Kim Jong-un took power following his father’s death in December 2011. By April last year, he outranked Mr. Jang by winning a seat in the Presidium of the Political Bureau of the Workers’ Party. He accompanied Mr. Kim in his public appearances more often than any other North Korean official this year.

But “in the feudalistic Stalinist system of North Korea, even Choe Ryong-hae is nothing more than a ‘disciple or warrior of the leader’ who can be dismissed overnight,” said Cheong Seong-chang, a long-time researcher on the North Korean political system at Sejong Institute in South Korea, citing the fates of some of the people who had previously been known as a No. 2 man in Pyongyang.

Planned Braves stadium move highlights race, class

The Associated Press

For the Braves, abandoning downtown Atlanta for the suburbs means moving closer to the team's fan base and developing money-making restaurants and amenities. Team officials say it's simply good business.

But the decision also highlights long-standing disparities over wealth, where people live and transportation — all facets of life connected to race and social class inAtlanta. The Braves will be moving from an area that's predominantly black and relatively poor compared to whiter Cobb County — where the team says more ticket-buyers live. Although it is long past segregation, the hometown of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. is far from integrated, and the city's politics, business and even sports teams reflect that gap.

Consider what Rick Grimes views from his home blocks from Turner Field each time there's a game: fans, mostly white, streaming past on the sidewalk.

"I would say the large majority of people who support the Braves are white folks," said Grimes, who is African-American.

While no one would reasonably accuse the Braves of making a decision based on race or class, one scholar says major attractions often migrate toward money.

"It becomes a class issue in a lot of ways," said Larry Keating, a Georgia Tech professor emeritus who has studied Atlanta's development. "A lot of the primo stuff that is highly valued by the society ends up going where the wealthiest areas are."

Team officials say they were looking at other factors. When Atlanta did not negotiate terms acceptable to the Braves, the team found a suburban government willing to pay for a chunk of the proposed stadium. The Braves will also own the property around the stadium, meaning it can develop restaurants and stores within walking distance. There are few amenities around Turner Field. Team officials say the new site would offer better transportation access considering the majority of fans come from north of the city.

"We don't look at the exact makeup of the race, religion factor of that ticket buyer," said Derek Schiller, executive vice president of sales and marketing for the Braves. "What we're concerned about as a business that sells tickets is where do our ticket buyers come from? ... We are moving closer to where the majority of our ticket buyers come from."

Like many cities, metro Atlanta has an urban core that includes a large population of black residents and suburbs that are typically whiter. Atlanta famously marketed itself as "The City Too Busy To Hate" as other Southern cities resisted integration. But the city has long-standing racial divisions.

Once owned by media mogul Ted Turner, the Braves grew a national fan base as their games were carried on cable systems around the country on one of Turner's TV stations. To support its argument for leaving, the Braves released a map based on ticket sales data that showed its fans were clustered in an arc north of downtown Atlanta that ran through the suburbs.

That information also shows fans tended to purchase single-game tickets at the highest rates in places that were several times as rich as neighborhoods closest to the stadium and much whiter. Of the communities with the ten highest sales rates, all but one were north of the current stadium and had median household incomes ranging from roughly $61,000 to $100,000. Those communities ranged from 58 to 85 percent white, according to counts by the U.S. Census Bureau.

For this analysis, The Associated Press examined last year's ticket sales by zip code as tallied by the Braves and compared it with Census counts and estimates showing the population of adults in those areas along with race and income. The analysis ignored zip codes with less than 10,000 people and those more than 100 miles from the current stadium. The comparisons are imperfect. The zip code areas used by the Census do not perfectly align with postal zip codes. The sales figures do not include season ticket purchases, people who pay in cash or customers who refuse to supply their addresses. Braves officials think the sample likely undercounts suburban fans since at least some suburban commuters presumably buy tickets using Atlanta work addresses.

In contrast to the Braves, the NFL's Atlanta Falcons decided to remain downtown after Atlanta agreed to contribute $200 million in tax money toward a $1 billion new stadium.

Some see class, not race, as the more relevant divide. C.J. Stewart, who coaches Braves star Jason Heyward in batting, sees poverty as a deterrent to ticket sales. He runs a charity that uses baseball to teach students, many poor and from the city, about life. Stewart's coaching business is independent of the Braves.

"It's hard to go to a Braves game when you're hoping and praying that your child graduates from high school," he said.

Some suburban fans acknowledge the panhandling, barred windows and vacant lots in the area around Turner Field make them wary. The proposed stadium is near an exhibition center and a mall anchored by a Costco and Sears.

"What I don't like about the games, to be quite frank, is the security aspect," said Rocco Lionetti, who works with his brother at a suburban Cobb garage. "When you leave the stadium, you run to your car because you don't want to get mugged."

Lionetti said his views are shaped by security concerns, not race, and he would attend more games if the stadium was near bars and restaurants.

One politician was criticized for invoking — whether intentionally or not — racial politics when discussing the stadium. The chairman of Cobb County Republicans, Joe Dendy, said in a written statement that he rejected calls for bringing rail transit to Cobb County. For years, much of the debate about MARTA has been wrapped in racial politics. White communities surrounding Atlanta rejected the transit system in votes during the civil rights era. Surveys show the transit system's customers are roughly 74 percent black.

"It is absolutely necessary the solution is all about moving cars in and around Cobb and surrounding counties from our north and east where most Braves fans travel from, and not moving people into Cobb by rail from Atlanta," Dendy wrote in a news release.

Dendy declined an interview, but said in an email that his remark was not about race, but rather his opposition to a prior rail project that was rejected by voters.

Four generations of E. Lee Sullivan's family have lived in the Mechanicsville neighborhood near Turner Field. She said she understands the concerns of suburban fans, at least to a point.

"You know, you can dress it up and say it diplomatically and say crime in the area, which really breaks down to 'I'm scared a black person is going to rob me,'" said Sullivan, who is black.

She acknowledged the neighborhood had a crime problem that she blamed on poverty, not race. Sullivan blames Turner Field and its massive parking lots for sapping the vitality of a commercial district that once included a theatre, a bakery and a library.

"They ruined all that, they wiped that all out," she said. "Now they're just kind of like, ok, we're going someplace else."

___

Associated Press writers Jack Gillum in Washington; Mike Schneider in Orlando, Fla.; and Charles Odum in Atlanta contributed to this report.


Friday, December 13, 2013

GAY RIGHTS AND PUTIN’S OLYMPICS

David Remnick The New Yorker

gay-right-and-the-olympics.jpg

In Vladimir Putin’s Russia—official Russia—there is no controversy about the rights of gays and lesbians. Controversy suggests a serious clash of ideas and opinions; controversy suggests points of view that are in opposition and, potentially, subject to change. This is not the case when it comes to the human rights of homosexuals in Russia. In the Kremlin, in the parliament, in the courts, in the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, and on television there reigns a disdainful and intimidating unanimity: homosexuals are a threat to morality, to the family, and to the state. In the words of Masha Gessen, a journalist and longtime activist, “They want to throw us back in the closet.”

In June, the Russian parliament, the Duma, passed a law barring “propaganda” about “nontraditional sexual relations” without a single dissenting vote. (Some local legislatures, including those of Ryazan, Arkhangelsk, and St. Petersburg, had already approved versions of their own.) The national law is an extraordinary expression of hysterical and vindictive homophobia. The law defines the offending “propaganda” as “the purposeful and uncontrolled distribution of information that can harm the spiritual or physical health of a minor, including forming the erroneous impression of the social equality of traditional and nontraditional marital relations.” It effectively prohibits gay-rights demonstrations, opens the door to implicitly sanctioned discrimination, and inflicts second-class citizenship on gays and lesbians in Russia.

Putin claims that the law does nothing to infringe on the lives and rights of homosexuals (“They’re people, just like everyone else”); he insisted that the Russian people supported the legislation and, thus, must have it; he also says he is concerned that homosexuality is contributing to the country’s low birth rate.

Activists find this disingenuous at best. The law insures discrimination and provides a xenophobic regime with an Other to rally against. The activists also contend that the legislation is part of a larger ideological and legislative effort in Russia that seeks to stigmatize nongovernmental organizations as “foreign agents” and the West, in general, as a threat. The leadership invokes an anti-gay rhetoric reminiscent of the way Soviet leaders used to denounce Jews as “internal enemies,” the agents of foreign capital and spy services. Human-rights groups and L.G.B.T. organizations in Russia say that the law has opened the door to real misery: this year alone, they have documented hundreds of acts of violence, including murders, against gay men and women; workplace discrimination; and hateful (and sanctioned) rhetoric in the official media.

When I lived in Moscow, as a correspondent for the Washington Post, in the late nineteen-eighties and early nineties, an extended period of general, even euphoric liberalization was in full swing. Most of it centered on the easing of strictures on the press and on cultural and political life; it only slowly extended to sexual issues. Gays and lesbians still lived in the shadows. The Great Soviet Encyclopedia referred to homosexuality as “a manifestation of Western decadence.” Boris Malenkov, the chief sexual pathologist of the hospitals in Leningrad, told a local paper that homosexuals should be registered by the state so that “they can be treated.”

I remember talking with gay men, who cruised the park in front of the Bolshoi Theatre and hung out in a grim restaurant called the Sadko Café; they said they were still terrified of harassment from police and street thugs. They spoke with intense longing of the new freedoms that gays were experiencing in the West. Igor Kon, a pioneering sociologist specializing in sexuality, told me then, “People here think gays are depraved and want nothing more than rough sex or to seduce children. To change such attitudes would take a lot of time. Just to begin the discussion is dangerous.”

And yet there were signs, in those days, of bravery and better things to come. An activist named Roman Kalinin put out a gay-oriented newspaper called Tema. Later came tiny publications, such as Gay PravdaThe Partner, and Queer, and, much later, such online presences as Radio Indigo and Gay Rainbow. An especially audacious activist named Yevgenia Debranskaya would get arrested quite often at pro-democracy rallies and, in jail, shout through the bars, “I am a lesbian!”

In 1991, people came from all over the country to a gay-film festival that played in both Moscow and St. Petersburg. In 1993, with Boris Yeltsin in power, the Russian government very quietly got rid of Article 121, the anti-sodomy laws, which had also, at times, been used to prosecute dissidents. The move hardly reflected a disappearance of homophobia in Russia; no small part of the motivation was to win acceptance for Russia abroad.

But, for a decade or so thereafter, life seemed relatively more relaxed for gays and lesbians. Gay bars and discos appeared. Various small L.G.B.T. groups formed, more as community-building organizations than as overtly political groups. In those years, Gessen told me, “people were living in what they thought was a normal country—not Western Europe, but not the Soviet Union, either.” Their lives were getting better; now, having come out, they are exposed and deeply vulnerable. “Their friends knew, their neighbors knew, their pediatrician knew. Now we have nowhere to go, not even the closet.”

Putin, who came to power in 2000, had worked in the secret services and was far less inclined toward tolerance. A couple of years ago, I was talking about human-rights issues with Dmitri Peskov, Putin’s close aide and spokesman, and he broke out in a wide smile.

“Actually, coming here in the car I was listening to the radio,” he said. “Do you know what was the first item on the news? The State Department of the United States expressed its gravest concern about the policy in Russia toward gays!” Peskov was referring to a version of the gay-propaganda law, which was then before the legislature in St. Petersburg. “I thought, What is the State Department of the United States doing? With their national debt! With their collapsing economy! With a leak of industry in the country because everything is in a financial bubble! With a nightmare in Afghanistan, with a nightmare in Iraq, with a nightmare in the global economy! And they have a deep concern about gays in Russia. Ha-ha! So I was really in a very good mood because of this!”

The Russian officials I meet always seem surprised that so many Westerners care at all about the rights of gay men and women. A few days ago, a senior official told me that such concerns were the inventions of the Western press. The reaction to questions about gay rights is usually either dismissive laughter or anger at what they view as self-righteous foreigners determined to embarrass Russia. When Putin went to Amsterdam in April, the city flew the rainbow flag, and he was confronted with questions about the propaganda law; he fumbled through his answers.

Even as anti-gay legislation began moving through the provinces and the prospects for gay life were dimming, a younger generation raised in post-Soviet circumstances seized what liberties were available. The Putin regime directs nearly all of its propagandist attentions to television, leaving some liberal outlets, like the radio station Ekho Moskvi (Echo of Moscow) and the Web television station Dozhd’ (Rain), more or less to their own devices. (Putin’s system of targeted censorship is far less expensive than the totalist Soviet version.) Two Moscow city magazines,Afisha and Bolshoi Gorod (Big City), recently published astonishingly good special issues devoted to gay life, with stories and analyses as varied, deep, and liberated as those you would hope to find anywhere in the world.

But the general picture presented to the vast majority of the public through state television is miserable and threatening. Last month, on Rossiya 1, a well-known host named Arkady Mamontov devoted an episode of his show “Special Correspondent” to the topic of homosexuality. He and his reporters portrayed gay activists as Western-funded agents out to corrupt the moral foundation of the country. Mamontov said, “Western sodomites are trying to sneak into Russia and mobilize a protest movement among our own perverts.” The meteorite that had crashed down on the city of Chelyabinsk was a warning from God, he said; if the indulgence of homosexuals continued, Russia would, like Sodom and Gomorrah, be destroyed for its moral turpitude.

Mamontov is hardly unusual. Leaders of the Russian Orthodox Church regularly declare on television that homosexuality is a harbinger of apocalypse. This is important, because of the way Putin has promoted and elevated the Orthodox Church as a symbol of Russianness.

Lest anyone think that Putin is not controlling the expressions of homophobia in the official Russian media, he just appointed Dmitri Kiselyov, a former television anchor, head of the new state news agency. In April, 2012, Kiselyov went on Rossiya 1 andsaid to a rapt studio audience:

I think that to fine gays for propagandizing homosexuality among teen-agers is not enough. They should be prohibited from donating blood or sperm. And their hearts, in the case of a car accident, should be buried, or burned, as unfit for extending anyone’s life.

The applause that followed was as startling as the statement itself. (One gay activist called Kiselyov “the new Minister of Truth.”)

Pavel Astakhov, an official in the children’s-rights bureaucracy, said, according to the A.P., that promoters of families with same-sex parents should be rendered “outcasts—damned for centuries as destroyers of the family and of human kind.” Masha Gessen, who has both Russian and U.S. citizenship, told me that she and her partner fear the state might take legal action and seize their children. Next week, they are moving from Russia to the United States. She feels this is the safest course. “I am now a person with a pink triangle,” she said.

All of this recent activity—the unpunished cases of harassment and violence, the ominous tone of the official press, the statements from the government and the Church—comes in the months and weeks leading up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi. (I’m planning to cover the games for The New Yorker and NBC.)

A couple of days ago, I met with a group of L.G.B.T. activists from various cities in Russia. Anastasia Smirnova, a young woman from St. Petersburg, is the coördinator of the umbrella rights group the Russian L.G.B.T. Network, representing fifty-five regions and seventeen offices. When I said to Smirnova that the West could hardly congratulate itself for having erased homophobia and that the repeal of sodomy laws and the rise of gay marriage were, in historical terms, recent victories, she said, “The major difference between Russia and the U.S. is the political climate. In Russia at the moment, there is no political will—even on behalf of the tiniest parties, for example, or decision-makers at the lower levels—to support the equality agenda.”

Beyond that, “homophobic policy, homophobic attitudes, and violence are openly encouraged by the highest officials in the country,” she said. “Recently, there was a forum called the Holiness of Motherhood held in Moscow—a very high-level event, with representatives of the government, the Russian Orthodox Church, reporters, educators, psychologists. The commissioner for children’s rights gave an opening speech, and he said that the protection of traditional family values is now a national-security issue for Russia. And everyone who is engaged against these values has to be proclaimed a pariah … and prosecuted…. This is obviously a very threatening sign that we are criminals against the nation.”

Maria Kozlovskaya, a lawyer for the group Coming Out, said that in the Stonewall era American gay-rights activists could hope to rely on institutions like the press and the courts. Before the anti-gay-propaganda legislation passed, there were gay sports contests in Russia, small festivals and forums—signs of vitality. Now homophobic groups, some of them with nationalistic or Fascist ideas, feel free to harass gay men and lesbians, the activists said. In some cities, organized groups with names like Homophobic Wolf have posted pictures of gay men and lesbians online, the better for them to be identified and pursued on the street. Some have found placards plastered on the doorways of their buildings saying that a gay person lives within. Humiliation has become the stuff of everyday life. When Smirnova was eating dinner at a restaurant with her girlfriend recently, the proprietor came over and asked them to leave. “And there was no public display of affection,” she said. “They just knew we were a couple.”

Activists have met with leaders of the International Olympic Committee hoping to increase awareness of the situation, but so far they have found that they have not fully captured the sympathies of the I.O.C. or the Games’ corporate sponsors, much less those of the Russian government. The activists argue that Russia, by discriminating so clearly and aggressively against gay men and women, is in violation of the Olympic Charter and ought to be pressured to change. South Africa, South Korea, and Afghanistan are among the countries that have been sanctioned in one way or another because of their human-rights violations against women or minorities. The activists are concerned that national Olympic committees around the world are warning their athletes not to make any show of protest at the Games, lest they offend their Russian hosts.

Smirnova told me that they were not calling for a boycott—they know that would be futile—but there is likely to be at least an attempt to stage protests in cities beyond Sochi in the days before the Games. “We can’t allow ourselves to be seen as people who are something less than human,” she said.

Above: Police officers detain a protester after clashes with gay-rights activists during a gay-pride rally, in St. Petersburg, on October 12th. Photograph: Anatoly Maltsev/EPA.

Rosewood