Brian D. Buckley

Evan is four months old.

What’s it like having a baby? Is it like I thought it would be? Better? Worse? Different? What did I think about babies before he was born, and what do I think about them afterward?

Let’s break it down.

Before:

A crying baby is one of the most annoying sounds in the universe.

After:

Surprisingly, my brain has learned to tune out the crying, for the most part. Obviously I still hear it, and still respond if needed, but it doesn’t bother me like it used to. I think it’s partly because I know how to respond, and I can usually get him to stop, so there’s more of a feeling of control. But partly, you just get used to things.

Before:

Parents who talk about nothing but babies are the worst.

After:

I still think so, but I have a different perspective on it now.

Having a baby is like moving to Mars — permanently. You still have all your old plans and goals and interests, but they all take a bit of a back seat to the fact that you’re on Mars now.

If you’re talking to friends who think Mars is boring, you should respect that, and not let it dominate the conversation. On the other hand, if your friends aren’t willing to at least ask “How’s life in that Martian colony?” and devote, say, 20%-30% of the conversation to the answer, they’re kinda being dicks.

Before:

You change his diaper when it’s wet or dirty.

After:

You change his diaper when it’s dirty, or if it’s been a while since the last change. The diaper is always wet.

Before:

Changing a diaper is gross.

After:

Eh. I mean, it’s not the greatest thing in the world, but it’s quick and easy and you get used to it in a matter of days. Of all the baby-related chores, diaper changing is probably the one I mind least. Feeding is actually a lot worse, in terms of inconvenience, because it takes ten times as long.

Before:

Babies need some help going to sleep sometimes.

After:

Babies are utterly incapable of going to sleep, ever, without a parent’s help. Betsy and I actually call it “the sleep dragon” because he seems so afraid it’s going to get him. Even thought it gets him half a dozen times per day.

Before:

Babies are helpless. If we quantify it, a baby’s ability to take care of himself is a flat zero.

After:

A baby’s ability to take care of himself is a negative number. Why? Because not only can a baby not care for itself, it will actively fight your attempts on every front. Rocking him to sleep? No, we must scream bloody murder to scare off the sleep dragon. Changing his diaper? We must flail and wiggle through the whole procedure. Feeding? We must turn away, block the bottle with our hands, and spit up everything we drank. Choking hazard in a ten-mile radius? Into the mouth it goes.

There aren’t many times when I side with the Book of Genesis over scientific theory. But the theory of evolution says babies were designed for survival, and Genesis says babies are a punishment for adults, and I can tell you right now which one makes more sense.

Before:

I have no opinion about baby sneezes or baby hiccups. Kind of cute, I guess?

After:

Baby sneezes are kind of cute. Baby hiccups are an affliction devised by Beelzebub in the Eighth Circle of Torment as penance for some transgression in a former life. Why? Because a hiccuping baby is a baby that will not go to sleep, no matter how tired he (or you) may be. So you’re in limbo, holding this child who is too cranky to do anything but receive constant soothing, just waiting for either the end of the hiccups or the sweet release of death.

Maybe they’re over. *hic* Maybe that was the last one. (pause) I think that was the last — *hic* Dammit. Okay, it’s been ten minutes, maybe now — *hic* AAAHHHHHHHHHHHH

Before:

I’ll feel bad for him when he gets hurt.

After:

I’ve been amazed at how strongly I feel pain when he’s hurting. Whether he’s going through physical pain (from needles, for instance), or fear, or loneliness, it isn’t just that I feel sympathy — it actually hurts me.

Before:

Toys that light up or make loud noises or sing chirpy, obnoxious songs are the absolute worst.

After:

This is still 100% true.

The biggest mystery, to me, is why parents sing or play chirpy, obnoxious songs for their kids when the kids are too young to pick their own music (or care much either way). When kids are older, and have preferences of their own, it might make more sense. But when they’re really little, they’ll listen to (and enjoy) pretty much any kind of music. So at that point, it’s really just you — the adult — that’s actively choosing this crap.

Before:

Childbirth is awful.

After:

This is true.

Yes, you have a baby at the end of it, and yes, that’s wonderful. But wonderful and horrific aren’t like acid and alkaline, where they cancel out. They’re separate. They’re both there, despite each other.

The pain of childbirth makes me really, really angry, because of the way people act like it’s fine, that’s just how life is. Because apparently, if something just happens often enough, it must be okay, right? See, I have this weird idea that if something utterly horrible and agonizingly painful happens more often, that’s not better, it’s worse. Crazy, I know.

The thing is, Betsy had a very easy delivery, relatively speaking. The pain medications worked relatively well. Labor wasn’t extremely long. There were no major complications. And even so, it was horrific and agonizing. So many people have gone through so much worse, and I can’t even imagine.

Guys (or girls, anyone who’s going to be a birth partner), listen to me. Labor and birth are very complicated and very difficult, no matter how often you may hear things like “Her body will naturally know what to do.” It is your job, your responsibility, your duty, your requirement, to learn everything you can about this process and be as prepared as possible. She needs you. The doctors and nurses may be great (they were for us), but she needs you.

Before:

Taking care of a baby is really hard work.

After:

Yes and no.

Yes, the first six weeks or so are truly exhausting. The lack of sleep isn’t like in college, where you pull an all-nighter and you’re dragging the next day — it’s more like you’re pulling ten consecutive all-nighters with some naps sprinkled in, and oh by the way, the baby’s hungry again because it’s been like two hours since the last feeding. And I’m the father — I had the easy job.

On the other hand, once you get past the initial Wall of Insanity, it’s really not that bad. Once nice thing about baby care is that it’s impossible to procrastinate. If the baby’s hungry, you’re feeding him right now. If his diaper is dirty, it’s time to change it. Baby care is mostly reactive. There’s not a whole lot of strategic planning, and frankly, you don’t have to be all that smart to do it. You just have to be willing to get up and do whatever’s needed — over, and over, and over, and over.

Of course, I’m very lucky in the sense that Betsy’s working and I can devote most of my time to taking care of Evan. If I were trying to work part-time and take care of him full-time, things would be much crazier.

Before:

It’ll be great when he can learn how to smile at me.

After:

I completely underestimated just how great this development would be. Not just because I like seeing him smile (which I do) or because I like to know he’s happy (which I also do), but because it’s the first time he can really give something back.

In the very early days, parenting is especially selfless because, as a parent, you don’t get much in return for the endless hours of care, aside from the satisfaction that you’re taking care of your child. But when he learns how to smile, it’s this wonderful reward, and it means you get a little something in return. It means you get to be a little bit selfish. And that’s nice, sometimes.

[source]

This happened just last night. A federal judge — appointed by George W. Bush, no less — temporarily blocked the travel ban across the entire country.

Our biggest victory so far, but not our last.

In case you’re wondering why people are so upset about the travel ban: This is why.

Still one of my favorite movies of all time.

I’m just now realizing that Bill Murray stars in no fewer than four of the films in my cinematic pantheon, the other three being The Man Who Knew Too Little, Moonrise Kingdom, and What About Bob? You’d almost think he was super talented, or something.

Planning is underway for a protest rally in Washington, D.C., and across the country. Just as the Women’s March focused on women’s issues, the March for Science will promote scientific research as an indispensable guide to government policy, and will protest various anti-science actions of the current administration. No date has been set yet, but their Twitter account — @ScienceMarchDC — has about 300,000 followers already.

I’m one of them. I was excited about the march from the moment I first heard about it. I doubt I’ll be able to join them in person, but I plan to support them and spread the word.

Not everyone shares my enthusiasm, it seems.

An op-ed in today’s New York Times, written by someone named Robert S. Young, calls the march “a terrible idea.” Young is a scientist himself. What are his objections?

The biggest one seems to be that he’s against politicizing science. He writes:

A march by scientists, while well intentioned, will serve only to trivialize and politicize the science we care so much about, turn scientists into another group caught up in the culture wars and further drive the wedge between scientists and a certain segment of the American electorate.

I sympathize with his concern … a little. But I don’t think there’s much justification for it.

For starters, I’m not sure it’s possible to politicize science any more than it already has been. Scientists are already caught up in the culture wars. The wedge between them and “a certain segment of the American electorate” could hardly be much deeper.

More importantly, if “politicizing science” means that researchers — and those who feel passionately about science — are getting more involved in the political process, I think that’s a wonderful idea.

(Incidentally, this isn’t just “a march by scientists,” it’s a march for anyone who supports science. I’d guess that actual scientists will be in the minority, and that’s fine.)

Getting political has a bad reputation. The political process is widely seen as dirty, corrupt, dishonest, and ineffective — and it is all those things, to varying degrees. But it is the machinery of democracy. It is the least bad system we’ve come up with so far. Getting political means participating in democracy, and democracy, as we well know, must not be a spectator sport.

I’m always puzzled when people say things like “Actors shouldn’t talk about politics.” This has roughly the same internal logic as “Accountants shouldn’t talk about skiing.” You’re not barred from talking about something just because you aren’t an expert.

How much more, then, should scientists — who are experts in matters critical to government decisions — have at least an equal voice in public debate? If politics is dishonest, who better to shine some truth on it? Conversely, if you believe that a certain course of action will literally kill every human being on earth, how can you justify keeping out of the process that could change it?

Of course, it goes without saying that scientific research itself should be (or try to be) nonpolitical and nonpartisan. Scientific papers are about presenting data and deriving factual conclusions. Political opinions don’t belong in scientific papers for roughly the same reason that Locutus of Borg doesn’t belong on Dancing with the Stars (although, now that I say that, I’m kind of intrigued). But that doesn’t mean scientists themselves, who are humans and voters and parents and taxpayers, have any reason to stay out of an arena that affects our humanity and our representatives and our children and our tax-funded projects.

Will the march make scientists seem partisan? Probably. But then, we’re living in an age when making factual statements is a partisan act. And in fact, telling the truth has always been partisan. “Cigarettes cause cancer.” “Women and men have equal intelligence.” “The earth revolves around the sun.” These are all factual, verifiable statements that are (mostly) uncontroversial today, but at one time or another, each of these statements would have placed you firmly on one side or another of the culture wars. So if we’re in the battle anyway, shouldn’t we at least be able to march?

Young also writes:

Scientists marching in opposition to a newly elected Republican president will only cement the divide. The solution here is not mass spectacle, but an increased effort to communicate directly with those who do not understand the degree to which the changing climate is already affecting their lives. We need storytellers, not marchers.

He suggests honest, open, face-to-face conversation with those in the community who may not understand what science is all about.

And that, of course, is also a wonderful idea. So much of the conflict in politics, government, and life is fueled by misunderstanding. Conversation helps. My opinions have changed countless times over the years — for the better, I hope — and that’s largely because of conversations.

But conversations and marches are not mutually exclusive. We can do both. And we should. His argument against the Science March — that it will be a mass spectacle, likely to further polarize an already divided nation — could be applied to almost any large political rally. When Martin Luther King gave his “I Have a Dream” speech to hundreds of thousands of supporters in Washington, wasn’t that a “mass spectacle”? Didn’t that “further drive the wedge between” civil rights supporters and opponents? Yes — but it had positive effects too.

(I am not, of course, comparing the Science March to Dr. King’s speech in any way, except for the specific parallel above.)

Marches are useful. Those who already love science may get even more excited — and more likely to vote, write to Senators, or seek public office. Those without a strong opinion may do a little more reading. Elected officials will notice that a sizable chunk of their constituency feels a certain way, and isn’t shy about saying so. Even among those vehemently opposed to certain scientific conclusions — or science itself — it will at least stir up some conversation.

The op-ed is fairly thoughtful, worth reading and considering. But as for me, “politicizing science” means armoring truth to step into the fray. And I say, bring it on!

Found on Imgur:

The top comment:

The Guardian reports:

The Trump White House carried out an abrupt purge of the state department’s senior leadership last week, removing key officials from posts that are essential to the day-to-day running of the department and US missions abroad.

[…] The purge has left a gaping hole at the heart of US diplomacy: the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has yet to be confirmed and the Trump team has not named candidates to fill several levels of leadership under him.

[…] In the past, the state department has been asked to set up early foreign contacts for an incoming administration. This time however it has been bypassed, and Trump’s immediate circle of Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, son-in-law Jared Kushner and Reince Priebus are making their own calls.

At the same time, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been demoted, and is now merely an optional attendee at the National Security Council, while Steve Bannon has been added to the roster.

Look, I understand, the executive power of the United States resides in the President, and Trump has enormous leeway to do what he wants with the executive branch. But having the authority to do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.

Trump is gutting the executive branch of anyone who might challenge him, and he’s not being subtle about it. This is really, really bad.

A couple days ago, when I ranted about Trump’s horrible new immigration ban, I didn’t really expect a lot of people to care. I figured it would blow over like everything else.

I’ve never been happier to be wrong.

Judge Blocks Trump Order on Refugees Amid Chaos and Outcry Worldwide

The judge’s ruling blocked part of the president’s actions, preventing the government from deporting some arrivals who found themselves ensnared by the presidential order. But it stopped short of letting them into the country or issuing a broader ruling on the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s actions. […] Mr. Trump — in office just a week — found himself accused of constitutional and legal overreach by two Iraqi immigrants, defended by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Outrage over Trump’s immigrant ban helps ACLU raise more money online in one weekend than in all of 2016

The ACLU said it has received more than 350,000 online donations totaling $24 million since Saturday morning. The non-profit organization that aims to protect individuals’ rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution typically raises about $4 million online in a year, according to Executive Director Anthony Romero. […] The ACLU now has 1 million members. Its membership has doubled since the election.

I don’t think the text quite does justice to this remarkable fact, so here’s a graph:

37 Nobel laureates and thousands of others are opposed to immigration ban

Meet the scientists affected by Trump’s immigration ban

U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) released the following statement on the President’s executive order on immigration:

“Our government has a responsibility to defend our borders, but we must do so in a way that makes us safer and upholds all that is decent and exceptional about our nation. […] We should not stop green-card holders from returning to the country they call home. We should not stop those who have served as interpreters for our military and diplomats from seeking refuge in the country they risked their lives to help. And we should not turn our backs on those refugees who have been shown through extensive vetting to pose no demonstrable threat to our nation, and who have suffered unspeakable horrors, most of them women and children. Ultimately, we fear this executive order will become a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism.”

Senator Mitch McConnell:

“But I am opposed to a religious test. The courts are going to determine whether this is too broad.”

Growing Number of G.O.P. Lawmakers Criticize Trump’s Refugee Policy

[Senators McCain and Graham] were not alone in their criticisms. Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that while he supported stronger screening, the order had been “poorly implemented.” […]

Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, likewise said the order was “overly broad” and that the blanket travel ban “goes to far.” Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee seemed to echo those criticisms, adding that “while not explicitly a religious test, it comes close to one, which is inconsistent with our American character.”

Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, went further, questioning the hastiness of the order’s rollout and calling for a re-evaluation of the White House’s unilateral effort. “In my view, we ought to all take a deep breath and come up with something that makes sense for our national security and again for this notion that America has always been a welcoming home for refugees and immigrants,” Mr. Portman said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Similar concerns were voiced by some Republicans in the House. Most prominent among them was Representative Michael McCaul, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, who said that “it was clear” that adjustments were needed to the order, but defended it in principle. Representative Will Hurd of Texas, a former undercover C.I.A. officer, called the measure “the ultimate display of mistrust” that would “erode our allies’ willingness to fight with us” and put Americans at risk.

Travelers Stranded and Protests Swell Over Trump Order

The White House pulled back on part of Mr. Trump’s temporary ban on visitors from seven countries by saying that it would not apply to those with green cards granting them permanent residence in the United States. By the end of the day, the Department of Homeland Security formally issued an order declaring legal residents exempt from the order. But the recalibration did little to reassure critics at home or abroad who saw the president’s order as a retreat from traditional American values.
[…] While Mr. Trump denied that his action focused on religion, the first iteration of his plan during his presidential campaign was framed as a temporary ban on all Muslim visitors. As late as Sunday morning, he made clear that his concern was for Christian refugees, and part of his order gives preferential treatment to Christians who try to enter the United States from majority-Muslim nations.
[…] Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain, who met with Mr. Trump in Washington on Friday and has sought to forge a friendship with him, initially declined to comment on the policy on Sunday when pressed by reporters during a stop in Turkey. But under pressure from opposition politicians, her spokesman later said the British government did “not agree with this kind of approach.”

Who Hasn’t Trump Banned? People From Places Where He’s Done Business

These countries [Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates], unlike those subject to the ban, are ones where Donald Trump has done business. In Saudi Arabia, his most recent government financial disclosure revealed several limited liability Trump corporations. In Egypt, he had two Trump companies registered. In the United Arab Emirates, he had licensed his name to a Dubai golf resort and a luxury residential development and spa. Some of these entities have since been closed, and others remain active.

Trump’s Immigration Order Jolts Iraqis, U.S.’s Top Allies Against ISIS

President Trump’s executive order on immigration is straining relations with the partner the United States needs most to reclaim the Islamic State’s stronghold in Mosul: the Iraqis. Iraqi officials were taken aback by the directive, which they learned about through the American news media because they had not been consulted first.

How Trump’s Rush to Enact an Immigration Ban Unleashed Global Chaos

Gen. John F. Kelly, the secretary of Homeland Security, […] was still getting his first full briefing on the executive order when President Trump signed it. […] Jim Mattis, the new secretary of defense, did not see a final version of the order until Friday morning, only hours before Mr. Trump arrived to sign it at the Pentagon.

A man takes a selfie with Google co-founder Sergey Brin (left), who is an immigrant from the Soviet Union, at a recent protest.

Silicon Valley’s Ambivalence Toward Trump Turns to Anger

The tech companies’ reaction was more forceful than that of other industries. Just about everyone in Silicon Valley came from somewhere else or is a son or daughter of someone who did or is married to someone who did. That list starts with the most famous Silicon Valley citizen of all: Steve Jobs, the Apple co-founder, whose biological father immigrated from Syria in 1954. […] Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, who sits on two of Mr. Trump’s advisory committees, wrote on Twitter that the ban was “not the best way to address the country’s challenges.” Mr. Musk was born in South Africa.

Questions multiply over Bannon’s role in Trump administration

Stephen K. Bannon — whose nationalist convictions and hard-line oppositional view of globalism have long guided Trump — was directly involved in shaping the controversial immigration mandate.

(If you’re interested, my thoughts on Bannon — from back during the campaign — may be found here.)

Meanwhile, in other news:

Petition for Trump’s tax returns gets record number of signatures

A WhiteHouse.gov petition demanding that President Trump release his personal income tax returns has broken the website’s record for signatures. As of 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, the petition had received 369,550 signatures. That’s close to 2,400 more than the previous record holder.

Once again, that petition is here. The number of signatures is now over 432,000 and still rising rapidly.

McCain blasts Bannon placement on National Security Council

John McCain is harshly criticizing the elevation of White House strategist Steve Bannon to President Donald Trump’s National Security Council, calling the move “radical” because it minimizes the role of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Because, you know, the former head of a racist, xenophobic Trump propaganda site didn’t have enough power already.

And finally, this sad and horrifying breaking news:

6 killed, 8 injured by gunmen who invaded Quebec City mosque

Multiple people were killed and others injured Sunday after gunmen opened fire on worshipers at a Quebec City mosque as evening prayers were ending in what Quebec’s premier described as an act of terrorism.

[…] The shooting is a particular shock for Quebec City, a quiet white-collar city with a low crime rate. In 2015, the city reported two murders. The metropolitan area has 800,000 people.

[…] Canada has seen increasing anti-Muslim hostility over the past year, but still nowhere near the level witnessed in the United States and Europe.

All this — the hatred, the ignorance, the hardening of hearts, the deadening of minds, the growing disregard for the truth — it has to stop. We have to stop it.

And we will.

More to come soon.

(link)

How do we know who to let in, and who to keep out? Let our new President explain:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

So we want to keep out people who…

• “…do not support the Consitution.” Like, say, a President who’s suggested throwing out due process?
• “…would place violent ideologies over American law.” Like, say, a President who supports illegal torture?
• “…engage in acts of bigotry or hatred.” Like, say, a President who once proposed banning all Muslims from the U.S.?
• “…engage in…violence against women.” Like, say, a President who brags about sexual assault?
• “…engage in…the persecution of religions different from their own.” Like, say, a President who signed this very executive order, which orders the Secretary of State:

…to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. [Trump has explained that this provision is designed to prioritize Christians.]

So, good news! If we can get Trump to leave the country, his own executive order should keep him from coming back in.