Conrep derailed by cold. Film at eleven.

So we went back into the hall, and I listened to Jackie and the Crooklets sing their Sam-winning songs (I hadn't heard the latter before; amazing) and then heaved myself on to my hind legs and played while DJ sang Mina's Song. I don't think I made too many mistakes. Then Phoenix came on to the stage, I went back to my seat, and I ought to be able to tell you which song they played, but I honestly can't. It might even have been "Joan."

Because the next thing I knew I was being summoned back to the stage to sing "Sam's Song."

This (for those who may not know, and may be wondering whether I took the Martin or the Davis Jr. part) was one of the first original songs I co-wrote with soren_nyrond, and it seems to have struck a chord in many filkers' hearts, such that for a long time it's been the "traditional" closing number at British filkcons. I thought, since we hadn't been able to go for several years, that it might have quietly been dropped, or replaced with something a bit more recent, but apparently not yet. With the result that by the time I had croaked my way to the end I had to be scooped up in a ladle and poured back into my seat. Well, not literally, but I was very happy.

The closing ceremony went off swiftly and efficiently, as these things tend to do, with gifts for the guests, and rounds of applause for everyone who had contributed to what was already recognised as another successful con, and then it was dinner time for everyone except the poor techies and anyone they could dragoon or cajole into helping them tear down all the stuff they'd just had to put back up. My contribution was to rescue my poor neglected keyboard, and as it turned out the wrong keyboard stand, and plonk them back in the room before taking Jan to dinner in the restaurant.

This time everything worked perfectly. Jan had the roast, and I had a rather nice haddock fillet, and I even managed a very pleasant chocolate dessert, once I'd scraped the white gunk off it. (I don't do cream.) And then, after a quick trip back to the room, we returned to the lounge area and I parked Jan next to Marion (whom she said she'd hardly had a chance to talk to all weekend), sat down in a chair opposite, and promptly fell asleep.

What happened after that, you shall hear anon.

On the South Dakota thing

Here's a link to a story about this, with a comment on the story included from the originator of the bill, Rep. Phil Jensen.

At first I was inclined to dismiss this. I have a lot of faith in the good sense of the American people as a whole, and it didn't seem to me likely that this was anything more than some politician grabbing himself some publicity to get in good with the "religious" right. The article would seem to indicate that there's rather more to it than that, and that this idiocy has a measurable chance of getting in.

As both of my readership will know, I have a serious problem with the concept of "justifiable homicide" in itself. I can see that in cases of immediate and extreme personal danger, when the only possible defensive action on the face of things is a lethal one, there's an argument that that action should be excused, and if that was in fact the case, I would agree with that argument. Apart from that extremely limited set of circumstances, I don't see it as being a concept that holds up.

But--and this I think exposes the fallacy--what kinds of actions that might come within the scope of this bill would threaten the life of an unborn foetus without at the same time threatening the life of the woman carrying it, a life which presumably would (and certainly should) be just as important to the person faced with the problem as that of the embryo? In other words, how is it more "justifiable" to kill someone who's threatening the life of your unborn whatnot than to kill someone who's threatening the life of your loved one? I can only think of one situation where this bill would make any difference, and that is abortion.

Jensen says that abortion is a legal act and that therefore the bill doesn't apply to abortion, but I think he's looking forward to a time when the Republicans will, he hopes, manage to get it made illegal again. If this is on the books already, then that will make providers of abortions fair game. (Plus, of course, anyone who sells cigarettes to a pregnant woman, or fails to give up their seat on a bus, or, you know, gives the woman a nasty shock or something. Who's to say what might threaten the life of a foetus?)

(And--it's just occurred to me--what happens when a woman has a miscarriage? When her own body not only threatens, but terminates, the life of her unborn child? Would that mean the husband or whatever would be within his rights to kill HER?)

Jensen says he wants consistency in the law. I wonder if anyone's asked him how this bill might commensurately enlarge the definition of "justifiable homicide" in the case of men; if it doesn't, then maybe there's a Fourteenth Amendment case to be made here. Will vasectomy providers also have to go about in kevlar body armour in case some nutjob decides that no man has the right to dispense with his own God-given ability to produce sperm? Will men with a low sperm count be banned from having sex in case they don't actually manage to hit the target, as it were--prospectively threatening the life of a foetus that doesn't actually exist yet?

Bottom line; any law that excuses more murders is a bad law. I hope it will be defeated, and if not, that public opposition will be swift, vociferous, and ultimately successful.

And a grammatical question

What are people's feelings on the phrase "the both" (as in "this town ain't big enough for the both of us")?

I ask because the Countess has taken violently agin it, and thinks it's both wrong (in the context of Brit English) and American in origin. I've consulted various weighty tomes on grammar and found no determination one way or the other. I've certainly heard it here and there all my life, so it never struck me particularly as a solecism, just a variant, with the same meaning as "the two of us."

Comments from linguists, Brits, Americans, Germans, and anyone else welcomed. What do people think?