Gina Harris's Blog, page 95
August 6, 2018
Instagrammed
Back in 2012 I got onto Twitter, almost accidentally. I got onto Facebook in late 2008, though that was deliberate. I'm just not really an early adopter when it comes to social media. Anyway, I am now accidentally on Instagram.
Maybe "accident" is the wrong word, but "on" is probably incorrect also. Let me explain.
I got onto Twitter because public figures that I was interested in were not on Facebook. Some people that are on Twitter also seem to use Instagram more, and do more interesting things with it. I would often click on links to photos. At one point I even looked into creating an account, but you needed to download the application to your phone. That required choosing which version depending on your phone type. My internet access is all through a PC, so an account clearly wasn't meant to be, but I could still click on tweeted links.
A few days ago I clicked on one link, and I got curious about something related. I clicked on something for the profile that posted that picture and was prompted to log in, but there was also an option for signing up.
Without having the app, I found that interesting. Yes, you can sign up on a PC, without installing anything. Then the fun part was finding that all my logins were already taken. Granted, it was six years ago, but one of the reasons the phrase "sultryglebe" appealed to me was that I didn't think anyone else would be attached to it. It worked for Twitter, but not for Instagram. I had not intended to be "sporktastic" on Blogger; it just happened after everything else I had thought of was already in use.
I ended up as "thesultriestglebe", which I now have sincere doubts about that, especially as I almost immediately started gaining followers. (They all appear to be people I already know via Facebook or Twitter).
I have been thinking about exiting Facebook for some time, based on privacy issues and the deep penetration of Russian trolls. However, I value the connection with people, and it would be hard to recreate that. Instagram wasn't really going to be the answer anyway, because they are a part of Facebook, but also, you still need that app.
I do have an Instagram profile now, and I have 14 followers. I have no ability to post a picture. It looked like it was going to allow me to upload a profile photo from my PC, but didn't work. So I guess the big change is that I can now comment on photos.
Obviously, I could change all of that with a phone upgrade, though this hardly seems like the time for that. There is the money/plan issue, but also I feel like one of the really good things about my life is that when I am away from the computer I am truly unplugged.
I do not doubt that #365feministselfie would be easier from a phone that the current process, but I continue in my own process of slowly embracing technology in a peaceful way.
Maybe "accident" is the wrong word, but "on" is probably incorrect also. Let me explain.
I got onto Twitter because public figures that I was interested in were not on Facebook. Some people that are on Twitter also seem to use Instagram more, and do more interesting things with it. I would often click on links to photos. At one point I even looked into creating an account, but you needed to download the application to your phone. That required choosing which version depending on your phone type. My internet access is all through a PC, so an account clearly wasn't meant to be, but I could still click on tweeted links.
A few days ago I clicked on one link, and I got curious about something related. I clicked on something for the profile that posted that picture and was prompted to log in, but there was also an option for signing up.
Without having the app, I found that interesting. Yes, you can sign up on a PC, without installing anything. Then the fun part was finding that all my logins were already taken. Granted, it was six years ago, but one of the reasons the phrase "sultryglebe" appealed to me was that I didn't think anyone else would be attached to it. It worked for Twitter, but not for Instagram. I had not intended to be "sporktastic" on Blogger; it just happened after everything else I had thought of was already in use.
I ended up as "thesultriestglebe", which I now have sincere doubts about that, especially as I almost immediately started gaining followers. (They all appear to be people I already know via Facebook or Twitter).
I have been thinking about exiting Facebook for some time, based on privacy issues and the deep penetration of Russian trolls. However, I value the connection with people, and it would be hard to recreate that. Instagram wasn't really going to be the answer anyway, because they are a part of Facebook, but also, you still need that app.
I do have an Instagram profile now, and I have 14 followers. I have no ability to post a picture. It looked like it was going to allow me to upload a profile photo from my PC, but didn't work. So I guess the big change is that I can now comment on photos.
Obviously, I could change all of that with a phone upgrade, though this hardly seems like the time for that. There is the money/plan issue, but also I feel like one of the really good things about my life is that when I am away from the computer I am truly unplugged.
I do not doubt that #365feministselfie would be easier from a phone that the current process, but I continue in my own process of slowly embracing technology in a peaceful way.
August 3, 2018
Album Review: The Secret Cinematic Sounds of Jimmy Urine
It's been a while since the MSI album and concert, so my memory may have dulled, but I feel safe saying that it sounded nothing like Jimmy Urine solo.
That's not too surprising; there was never any reason to think that MSI's sound would be the only or truest expression of any of its members. It does make listening to The Secret Cinematic Sounds of Jimmy Urine pretty fascinating.
There is a strong '80s influence, with some of the songs having been written long ago. One review mentioned that "Salome" could go right on to the Heathers soundtrack, but I say "Not For Me" sounds like the middle of a John Hughes film, when everyone is getting all broody on their way to the actions that will shake them out of their respective funks and bring on the upbeat music.
I particularly loved "Patty Hearst" and "Fighting With The Melody" - for different reasons - but I have to give special attention to "All Together Friends Forever". It sounds like the theme song of a children's show, but the kids in the audience are children of the corn or something. Maybe you can't put your finger on why it's creepy, but it is creepy, and that lack of definition makes it more unsettling.
(There is an associated short film. I'm sure it would give one explanation for the creepiness, I'm not sure I want the mystery solved.)
All of this leaves me really wishing for artist commentary: what inspired each track? What does it mean to you? What movies or video games would they go to? I believe Jimmy would give answers that were interesting, insightful, and fabulously odd.
That is why I was looking at other reviews. I usually don't, but I was left wanting to know more. I didn't find much, so that just leaves me with listening and extrapolation.
It could be worse.
https://www.jimmyurine.net/
https://twitter.com/jimmyurine
That's not too surprising; there was never any reason to think that MSI's sound would be the only or truest expression of any of its members. It does make listening to The Secret Cinematic Sounds of Jimmy Urine pretty fascinating.
There is a strong '80s influence, with some of the songs having been written long ago. One review mentioned that "Salome" could go right on to the Heathers soundtrack, but I say "Not For Me" sounds like the middle of a John Hughes film, when everyone is getting all broody on their way to the actions that will shake them out of their respective funks and bring on the upbeat music.
I particularly loved "Patty Hearst" and "Fighting With The Melody" - for different reasons - but I have to give special attention to "All Together Friends Forever". It sounds like the theme song of a children's show, but the kids in the audience are children of the corn or something. Maybe you can't put your finger on why it's creepy, but it is creepy, and that lack of definition makes it more unsettling.
(There is an associated short film. I'm sure it would give one explanation for the creepiness, I'm not sure I want the mystery solved.)
All of this leaves me really wishing for artist commentary: what inspired each track? What does it mean to you? What movies or video games would they go to? I believe Jimmy would give answers that were interesting, insightful, and fabulously odd.
That is why I was looking at other reviews. I usually don't, but I was left wanting to know more. I didn't find much, so that just leaves me with listening and extrapolation.
It could be worse.
https://www.jimmyurine.net/
https://twitter.com/jimmyurine
August 2, 2018
Band Review: Flam!
Three years ago I reviewed The Paul & John, a San Francisco rock duo featuring Paul Myers.
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2015/10/band-review-paul-john.html
I knew at the time that it was not Myers' first musical project, but more of his past work is now available, including a Bandcamp page now for Flam!.
I don't know if it is the name source, but one definition of "flam" is a rudimentary drumming pattern, with a stroke preceded by a grace note.
There are many grace notes in the Flam! compositions. Myers describes them as musical meditations that started when he was experimenting with software. Not all of the tracks are upbeat, but there is a freedom and playfulness that comes through in many.
I especially responded to the funk in "The Threat Down", and to "The Place Where We Shared Our Truths". That one is full of little grace notes. "Islands to Plunder" has a quasi-industrial sound.
Myers has indicated that there is more to come, but currently I could only find ten tracks on Bandcamp and one additional arrangement on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiz1l4uW0pk
However, I am also happy to report that on the Bandcamp page he has also included the original album from The Gravelberries, including some bonus tracks. I am not including it as part of this review, but of course I listened to it. I mean, why wouldn't you?
https://paulmyers.bandcamp.com/album/flam-garden-variety
https://www.youtube.com/user/ColonelPablo
https://twitter.com/pulmyears
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2015/10/band-review-paul-john.html
I knew at the time that it was not Myers' first musical project, but more of his past work is now available, including a Bandcamp page now for Flam!.
I don't know if it is the name source, but one definition of "flam" is a rudimentary drumming pattern, with a stroke preceded by a grace note.
There are many grace notes in the Flam! compositions. Myers describes them as musical meditations that started when he was experimenting with software. Not all of the tracks are upbeat, but there is a freedom and playfulness that comes through in many.
I especially responded to the funk in "The Threat Down", and to "The Place Where We Shared Our Truths". That one is full of little grace notes. "Islands to Plunder" has a quasi-industrial sound.
Myers has indicated that there is more to come, but currently I could only find ten tracks on Bandcamp and one additional arrangement on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiz1l4uW0pk
However, I am also happy to report that on the Bandcamp page he has also included the original album from The Gravelberries, including some bonus tracks. I am not including it as part of this review, but of course I listened to it. I mean, why wouldn't you?
https://paulmyers.bandcamp.com/album/flam-garden-variety
https://www.youtube.com/user/ColonelPablo
https://twitter.com/pulmyears
August 1, 2018
For good people to do nothing
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
One of my Black History month books for 2018 was The Strange Career of Jim Crow by C. Vann Woodward. I didn't love it.
The original publication date was 1955, and the book is very much in that older droning style, where everything feels long and boring. I think that was an academic rule then, like it wouldn't feel right to make a history book interesting, no matter how interesting the events were. Perhaps that is my age showing.
Even worse, my newer version had some notes added later, trying to account for the Civil Rights movement and the civil unrest of the 60s. There were some wonderful testimonials of his goodness and commitment to equality in the book, which I think were a reaction to Woodward becoming more conservative later. I don't doubt the sincerity of the man in 1955, but I immediately noticed the growing paternalism in his later writing. I don't know if that has to be held against the earlier writings, but I'm sure that denial doesn't help.
Actually, in that way, C. Vann Woodward may have most efficiently argued his own point.
The 1955 parts of The Strange Career of Jim Crow contain information on the ten to twenty years right after emancipation. It is a fairly short work, so there is nothing about debt peonage or attempts to keep freed people working on their old plantations. To be fair, it is more of an urban work, and some of the worst examples of fighting against emancipation come from rural areas. I suspect Woodward was overly optimistic, but could have been worse. Regardless, Woodward found several examples of the races mingling harmoniously in the South during Reconstruction.
Part of that is pointing out that in some ways the South was - if not less racist - at least more used to frequent contact between Black and white people than the North. Slavery did allow for frequent contact, and Woodward's argument was that once Black people were free they integrated fairly well.
As much as I suspect that he missed some key points in deciding that, it was clear that at least some people were fine sharing rail cars and public areas, and I am willing to believe that was true. What was more important was that there were always some people working against it. A vocal minority worked hard to stir up dissent, lobby, and do anything possible to reverse gains in equality.
In that way it seems like the book would have been more about the birth of Jim Crow rather than the career, but his point was that it was a Northern import.
(I suddenly wonder how much Woodward accepted the Lost Cause school of thought, but I don't know and finding out isn't a priority right now.)
The strongest lesson that I took from the book is that even if the majority of people are fine with progress, there will always be some working against it. Complacency lets them succeed.
That is why not talking about racism to avoid making anyone uncomfortable doesn't work. That is why waiting for the old racist generation to die out doesn't work. They are continuously undermining and require active countermeasures. It is lovely to think that people are basically good and won't fall for that, but there has been plenty of evidence to the contrary, even before 2016.
The C Vann Woodward of 1955 appeared to be striving for equality, sometimes making his case to hostile audiences, but generally remaining very pleasant. When things got unpleasant in that fight for equality, he started blaming outsiders (West Indians especially) and wondering if certain actions were really necessary. He praised Dinesh D'Souza and spoke against the hiring of John Hope Franklin as being racially motivated, despite the fact that Franklin was an excellent historian doing important work. There is no indication that Woodward saw the irony, and plenty of people still thought he was a great guy.
Equality doesn't come easily. It requires a fight. It requires grappling with racism, no matter how many people get offended at admissions that racism exists and that they may have been affected by it.
You will find a lot of think pieces out there right now suggested otherwise, but they are ignoring history.
One of my Black History month books for 2018 was The Strange Career of Jim Crow by C. Vann Woodward. I didn't love it.
The original publication date was 1955, and the book is very much in that older droning style, where everything feels long and boring. I think that was an academic rule then, like it wouldn't feel right to make a history book interesting, no matter how interesting the events were. Perhaps that is my age showing.
Even worse, my newer version had some notes added later, trying to account for the Civil Rights movement and the civil unrest of the 60s. There were some wonderful testimonials of his goodness and commitment to equality in the book, which I think were a reaction to Woodward becoming more conservative later. I don't doubt the sincerity of the man in 1955, but I immediately noticed the growing paternalism in his later writing. I don't know if that has to be held against the earlier writings, but I'm sure that denial doesn't help.
Actually, in that way, C. Vann Woodward may have most efficiently argued his own point.
The 1955 parts of The Strange Career of Jim Crow contain information on the ten to twenty years right after emancipation. It is a fairly short work, so there is nothing about debt peonage or attempts to keep freed people working on their old plantations. To be fair, it is more of an urban work, and some of the worst examples of fighting against emancipation come from rural areas. I suspect Woodward was overly optimistic, but could have been worse. Regardless, Woodward found several examples of the races mingling harmoniously in the South during Reconstruction.
Part of that is pointing out that in some ways the South was - if not less racist - at least more used to frequent contact between Black and white people than the North. Slavery did allow for frequent contact, and Woodward's argument was that once Black people were free they integrated fairly well.
As much as I suspect that he missed some key points in deciding that, it was clear that at least some people were fine sharing rail cars and public areas, and I am willing to believe that was true. What was more important was that there were always some people working against it. A vocal minority worked hard to stir up dissent, lobby, and do anything possible to reverse gains in equality.
In that way it seems like the book would have been more about the birth of Jim Crow rather than the career, but his point was that it was a Northern import.
(I suddenly wonder how much Woodward accepted the Lost Cause school of thought, but I don't know and finding out isn't a priority right now.)
The strongest lesson that I took from the book is that even if the majority of people are fine with progress, there will always be some working against it. Complacency lets them succeed.
That is why not talking about racism to avoid making anyone uncomfortable doesn't work. That is why waiting for the old racist generation to die out doesn't work. They are continuously undermining and require active countermeasures. It is lovely to think that people are basically good and won't fall for that, but there has been plenty of evidence to the contrary, even before 2016.
The C Vann Woodward of 1955 appeared to be striving for equality, sometimes making his case to hostile audiences, but generally remaining very pleasant. When things got unpleasant in that fight for equality, he started blaming outsiders (West Indians especially) and wondering if certain actions were really necessary. He praised Dinesh D'Souza and spoke against the hiring of John Hope Franklin as being racially motivated, despite the fact that Franklin was an excellent historian doing important work. There is no indication that Woodward saw the irony, and plenty of people still thought he was a great guy.
Equality doesn't come easily. It requires a fight. It requires grappling with racism, no matter how many people get offended at admissions that racism exists and that they may have been affected by it.
You will find a lot of think pieces out there right now suggested otherwise, but they are ignoring history.
July 31, 2018
The Golden Girls were right
I got some unexpected context for an episode of The Golden Girls yesterday.
We did not watch it regularly growing up, but have come to enjoy it via syndicated reruns. We have gotten into some of our favorite shows that way.
This episode was "Dorothy's New Friend", Season 3, episode 15, first airing January 16th, 1988.
(As this was the day before my 16th birthday, I remember quite clearly that I was at a dance that was my first official date, and boring enough to make me wish I had waited until I was officially 16 for that first date. But I definitely didn't watch TV that night.)
In the episode, Dorothy makes friends with a writer played by Bonnie Bartlett, whom you may remember as the Widow Snider who married Mr. Edwards on Little House on the Prairie, but eventually left him over his alcoholism after their oldest adopted son's murder drove him back into the bottle. I guess we should have realized she was going to be unreliable.
Barbara Thorndyke gives Dorothy sparkling conversation and entry into literary circles, but is a snob who keeps subtly insulting Blanche and Rose. The last straw is when Dorothy discovers that the club they were going to go to is restricted, so Sophia's date would not be allowed in: Murray Guttman is Jewish.
I don't know how long ago it was that we first saw the episode, but I think I felt like that conflict made Barbara kind of cartoonishly bad. Restricted country clubs were from the '60s. Golden Girls was the '80s. Anyone who was still doing that had to have some problems.
Well, yes, I still think that, but those problems were more common than I thought.
I just finished A Secret Gift: How One Man's Kindness and a Trove of Letters Revealed the Hidden History of the Great Depression by Ted Gup. Gup's grandfather Sam Stone had set up a bank account under an assumed name and put an ad in the paper offering to send help to those who needed it. He initially planned to send 75 people $10 each, but there were so many applicants that he halved it to $5 for 150 people. The title oversells it a little.
Stone's family were Jews from Romania who had to flee the country when antisemitic persecution increased. He spent time in Pittsburgh, then Canton, Ohio where the gift-giving took place, eventually having enough money to winter in Florida.
That was in the '50s, so perhaps it not so surprising that he ended up next to a restricted apartment building. I guess it's not quite the same as a red-lined neighborhood - Jews can be on the street, just not in this building - but okay, that is before the main thrust of the Civil Rights Movement, so maybe we should expect things to be bad.
Except one of those building residents married the author's mother, obtaining an exemption for her to live in the building. Sign that they weren't really that committed to racism? Or maybe not, because his country club, La Gorce, did not end its restrictions until 1990.
La Gorce is in Miami Beach. A restricted country club in Miami in 1988 really wasn't that far-fetched.
When Dorothy expresses her disbelief, Barbara says it's the club's policy, not hers. Besides, they serve a great breakfast and the parking is free.
It does sound less cartoonish now, but it also sounds more damning. How could you ever think that free parking is a good reason to overlook racism?
I view the episode differently now; as braver, and more necessary. It was made at a time when pressure needed to be applied, and was getting close to paying off. I never doubted the need for the "Fore" episode of Designing Women, when Anthony is recruited into the country club to try and avoid sanctions. I knew about that kind of racism, but there's always more.
To be fair, my family has never been likely to join a country club. Also, this area has been so opposite of integrated that it would be easy to not even know if there were restrictions. All through my school years I only knew three Jewish families, and I never knew of them being excluded. I probably wouldn't. My naivete lasted a while.
Still, sometimes you find things out, and then you need to take a stand. Beyond that, I have reached a point where I believe I need to work harder to find things out. There are a lot of things that might not affect me yet. That doesn't mean that they don't matter.
One irritating thing in the book was the author expressing some chagrin that some of his older relatives still feared antisemitism sweeping the country. The book was published in 2010. Do those relatives seem to have more of a point now?
I think I know what to write about tomorrow.
We did not watch it regularly growing up, but have come to enjoy it via syndicated reruns. We have gotten into some of our favorite shows that way.
This episode was "Dorothy's New Friend", Season 3, episode 15, first airing January 16th, 1988.
(As this was the day before my 16th birthday, I remember quite clearly that I was at a dance that was my first official date, and boring enough to make me wish I had waited until I was officially 16 for that first date. But I definitely didn't watch TV that night.)
In the episode, Dorothy makes friends with a writer played by Bonnie Bartlett, whom you may remember as the Widow Snider who married Mr. Edwards on Little House on the Prairie, but eventually left him over his alcoholism after their oldest adopted son's murder drove him back into the bottle. I guess we should have realized she was going to be unreliable.
Barbara Thorndyke gives Dorothy sparkling conversation and entry into literary circles, but is a snob who keeps subtly insulting Blanche and Rose. The last straw is when Dorothy discovers that the club they were going to go to is restricted, so Sophia's date would not be allowed in: Murray Guttman is Jewish.
I don't know how long ago it was that we first saw the episode, but I think I felt like that conflict made Barbara kind of cartoonishly bad. Restricted country clubs were from the '60s. Golden Girls was the '80s. Anyone who was still doing that had to have some problems.
Well, yes, I still think that, but those problems were more common than I thought.
I just finished A Secret Gift: How One Man's Kindness and a Trove of Letters Revealed the Hidden History of the Great Depression by Ted Gup. Gup's grandfather Sam Stone had set up a bank account under an assumed name and put an ad in the paper offering to send help to those who needed it. He initially planned to send 75 people $10 each, but there were so many applicants that he halved it to $5 for 150 people. The title oversells it a little.
Stone's family were Jews from Romania who had to flee the country when antisemitic persecution increased. He spent time in Pittsburgh, then Canton, Ohio where the gift-giving took place, eventually having enough money to winter in Florida.
That was in the '50s, so perhaps it not so surprising that he ended up next to a restricted apartment building. I guess it's not quite the same as a red-lined neighborhood - Jews can be on the street, just not in this building - but okay, that is before the main thrust of the Civil Rights Movement, so maybe we should expect things to be bad.
Except one of those building residents married the author's mother, obtaining an exemption for her to live in the building. Sign that they weren't really that committed to racism? Or maybe not, because his country club, La Gorce, did not end its restrictions until 1990.
La Gorce is in Miami Beach. A restricted country club in Miami in 1988 really wasn't that far-fetched.
When Dorothy expresses her disbelief, Barbara says it's the club's policy, not hers. Besides, they serve a great breakfast and the parking is free.
It does sound less cartoonish now, but it also sounds more damning. How could you ever think that free parking is a good reason to overlook racism?
I view the episode differently now; as braver, and more necessary. It was made at a time when pressure needed to be applied, and was getting close to paying off. I never doubted the need for the "Fore" episode of Designing Women, when Anthony is recruited into the country club to try and avoid sanctions. I knew about that kind of racism, but there's always more.
To be fair, my family has never been likely to join a country club. Also, this area has been so opposite of integrated that it would be easy to not even know if there were restrictions. All through my school years I only knew three Jewish families, and I never knew of them being excluded. I probably wouldn't. My naivete lasted a while.
Still, sometimes you find things out, and then you need to take a stand. Beyond that, I have reached a point where I believe I need to work harder to find things out. There are a lot of things that might not affect me yet. That doesn't mean that they don't matter.
One irritating thing in the book was the author expressing some chagrin that some of his older relatives still feared antisemitism sweeping the country. The book was published in 2010. Do those relatives seem to have more of a point now?
I think I know what to write about tomorrow.
July 30, 2018
When selfies stick
I am doing #365feministselfie again. I started July 1st.
I went through a full year the first time, and then stopped, and it was good. Some people missed them after I stopped, but there are ways in which it's kind of a drag having one more thing to do each day, even though it's a relatively simple task.
I first became aware of it as a thing through http://www.shakesville.com/, and the page administrator recently started doing it again, which she writes about here:
http://www.shakesville.com/2018/01/365feministselfie.html
I have not been anywhere near as visible or active as her in anything, but her post resonated because I also feel the trend toward dehumanization, and dangers that come with it. I will write more about that later. I could see the value in asserting myself again as human and real and believing in the value of humanity and reality.
Again, there is some work to it, trying to keep it interesting, though maybe it doesn't need to be interesting. If there is a day that I leave the house, I try and capture that. Animals are good. Reading a lot of different things keeps the book selfies an option.
One nice change is that it took me much less time to get used to how I look. I think the first time around it took about three months before I was okay with looking the way I do. This time it only took about a week.
There were also surprises, like seeing how much happier I looked after getting just a couple of hours of respite time. It kind of made me feel guilty, that it would affect me so much, but it did hit home how much I need it. I think it's visible.
Recently I got another reminder as I posted an unsmiling picture and got far fewer likes and one gentle encouragement to smile. No one means any harm, and no one even caused any harm, but yeah, women are supposed to smile. We get it in public, and posting the selfies is a way of being public.
But if this is about being a full and real person, I am not always wearing a radiant smile. I am an unpaid caretaker dealing with a progressive disease and my house is in foreclosure. I am sad and worried a lot. Though I acknowledge that my ability to frequently smile is noteworthy, and that my smile is good. Good teeth. I also haven't seen a dentist in about two years, which is a concern.
I get tired, and I keep my sense of humor most of the time. but I need the freedom to be fully human: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
(I didn't know the pillow was doing that to my nose until I saw the picture, but that happens sometimes. It's life.)
There should still always be plenty of animal pictures.
(I'll get Mavis and Lilly in some shots eventually.)
I went through a full year the first time, and then stopped, and it was good. Some people missed them after I stopped, but there are ways in which it's kind of a drag having one more thing to do each day, even though it's a relatively simple task.
I first became aware of it as a thing through http://www.shakesville.com/, and the page administrator recently started doing it again, which she writes about here:http://www.shakesville.com/2018/01/365feministselfie.html
I have not been anywhere near as visible or active as her in anything, but her post resonated because I also feel the trend toward dehumanization, and dangers that come with it. I will write more about that later. I could see the value in asserting myself again as human and real and believing in the value of humanity and reality.
Again, there is some work to it, trying to keep it interesting, though maybe it doesn't need to be interesting. If there is a day that I leave the house, I try and capture that. Animals are good. Reading a lot of different things keeps the book selfies an option.
One nice change is that it took me much less time to get used to how I look. I think the first time around it took about three months before I was okay with looking the way I do. This time it only took about a week.
There were also surprises, like seeing how much happier I looked after getting just a couple of hours of respite time. It kind of made me feel guilty, that it would affect me so much, but it did hit home how much I need it. I think it's visible. 
Recently I got another reminder as I posted an unsmiling picture and got far fewer likes and one gentle encouragement to smile. No one means any harm, and no one even caused any harm, but yeah, women are supposed to smile. We get it in public, and posting the selfies is a way of being public.
But if this is about being a full and real person, I am not always wearing a radiant smile. I am an unpaid caretaker dealing with a progressive disease and my house is in foreclosure. I am sad and worried a lot. Though I acknowledge that my ability to frequently smile is noteworthy, and that my smile is good. Good teeth. I also haven't seen a dentist in about two years, which is a concern.
I get tired, and I keep my sense of humor most of the time. but I need the freedom to be fully human: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
(I didn't know the pillow was doing that to my nose until I saw the picture, but that happens sometimes. It's life.)
There should still always be plenty of animal pictures.(I'll get Mavis and Lilly in some shots eventually.)
July 27, 2018
Band Review: Split Single
Some time ago, someone retweeted Jason Narducy and I saw it and liked it.
Following a politically astute musician and adding him to the review list was of a no-brainer for me; discovering the sexiest elbows in rock music was just a bonus.
There was still the question of which act to review. Narducy has been in and performed with many bands, including Superchunk and the Bob Mould Band. However, Split Single is his solo project, and it is current, with new music coming out in Novemeber. That made it the most logical choice as an area of focus (though it does not rule out going back and checking out Verboten or Verbow some day).
Split Single was also a pleasant surprise.
I guess I was expecting it to be more punk. That wasn't even a lowered expectation - I love punk - but being caught off guard changes your perspective. I wasn't expecting the less aggressive, more indie sound. I'm tempted to say it was slower than I was expecting, but that could give the wrong impression about the energy of "Untry Love". I could say how thoughtful "Leave My Mind" is, but that could imply that I don't give punk credit for thinking.
Probably the best thing to do is just say that Split Single is really good! You should check it out!
Just for the record, though, "Monolith" does sound pretty punk.
http://www.splitsinglemusic.com/
https://www.facebook.com/splitsingle
https://www.youtube.com/user/splitsinglemusic
https://twitter.com/splitsingleband
Following a politically astute musician and adding him to the review list was of a no-brainer for me; discovering the sexiest elbows in rock music was just a bonus.
There was still the question of which act to review. Narducy has been in and performed with many bands, including Superchunk and the Bob Mould Band. However, Split Single is his solo project, and it is current, with new music coming out in Novemeber. That made it the most logical choice as an area of focus (though it does not rule out going back and checking out Verboten or Verbow some day).
Split Single was also a pleasant surprise.
I guess I was expecting it to be more punk. That wasn't even a lowered expectation - I love punk - but being caught off guard changes your perspective. I wasn't expecting the less aggressive, more indie sound. I'm tempted to say it was slower than I was expecting, but that could give the wrong impression about the energy of "Untry Love". I could say how thoughtful "Leave My Mind" is, but that could imply that I don't give punk credit for thinking.
Probably the best thing to do is just say that Split Single is really good! You should check it out!
Just for the record, though, "Monolith" does sound pretty punk.
http://www.splitsinglemusic.com/
https://www.facebook.com/splitsingle
https://www.youtube.com/user/splitsinglemusic
https://twitter.com/splitsingleband
July 26, 2018
Band Review: Thunderkief
Thunderkief is a doom/drone/sludge band from Austin, Texas. I am reviewing them after hearing about them from artist Becky Cloonan.
The doom/drone/sludge comes from their Facebook page. I started listening expecting more of a black metal vibe, but it was immediately sludge that came to mind. Not only that, I was immediately able to see the majesty of sludge. Their music oozes over and under all in its path so completely and so unapologetically.
I was not able to find a lot from Thunderkief; there is about 21 minutes worth on Bandcamp. It is still a strong introduction.
https://www.facebook.com/Thunderkief/
https://thunderkief.bandcamp.com/
The doom/drone/sludge comes from their Facebook page. I started listening expecting more of a black metal vibe, but it was immediately sludge that came to mind. Not only that, I was immediately able to see the majesty of sludge. Their music oozes over and under all in its path so completely and so unapologetically.
I was not able to find a lot from Thunderkief; there is about 21 minutes worth on Bandcamp. It is still a strong introduction.
https://www.facebook.com/Thunderkief/
https://thunderkief.bandcamp.com/
July 25, 2018
A wrinkle in storytelling
Having almost given up on the idea of organized blogging and clear sequences, I will be throwing in some thoughts on movies and other things in with the reviews of my Black History month reading. Today I want to write about A Wrinkle in Time.
I have read Madeline L'Engle's original trilogy multiple times. Okay, I did not know there were two other books until recently, but still, for those three I am a fan. I will probably check out the other two soon.
Anyway, I have affection for the book and I have a strong appreciation for Ava DuVernay (with multiple posts on Selma and Queen Sugar to back it up). I was looking forward to seeing it, but getting some reservations from negative feedback I was hearing.
I saw it and liked it. I did come away understanding better why some people would not like it or would react strongly against it, and some of that has to do with audiences. After yesterday's post, that seemed like a natural topic for today.
I need to talk about the differences between the movie and the book, so spoilers follow.
The twins are gone. To be honest, they never contributed that much, to the first book especially.
Meg's father is white, and may still be of Irish extraction, but Meg's mother is Black. Charles Wallace is adopted and appears to be of Asian extraction. Principal Jenkins is Black also.
Instead of working for the government and having disappeared that way, the father (whom we shall now refer to as Alex, because both parents are Dr. Murray) was doing independent research, and when he figured out how to tesser, he did it, winding up on the planet Uriel.
Instead of living far out in the country, they are in a more urban situation, with some rundown buildings but also some nicer houses. The leader of the mean girls has a view into the Murray backyard. Meg's initial squabble is not punching a boy making fun of her brother, but bouncing a ball at that girl, hard.
Calvin's problem isn't a large squabbling family, but a verbally abusive father who is always berating him.
That is a lot of redheads re-imagined as Black. That reminds me of something I read about the new Annie, in that the change made sense because the point of Annie being Irish was prejudice. Her red hair and Irish roots made her less appealing for adoption, but that doesn't have the same impact today. Blackness, on the other hand, can. It's something to think about.
Overall, though, something in 2018 should be more racially diverse than something from 1962. That shouldn't even be a question.
There was also a gender switch for the Happy Medium, and a flirtation between him and Mrs. Whatsit. I don't know that I cared strongly about that change one way or another.
The other changes are more essential, and this could be where some people struggle. That doesn't make them bad.
For example, with IT we saw illusions and then internal synapses, rather than even the best CGI depiction of a brain: cerebrum and cerebellum. I think that was necessary. The brain would have looked hokey, no matter how well-executed it was. What was done instead conveyed a brain without being cheesy.
That IT had control of what was essentially a virtual reality situation, rather than having control of an entire planet with people suffering, but having chosen to comply and conform through fear... okay, that may take away some food from thought. However, you don't have to worry about the little boy being re-educated to get the right rhythm for playing ball.
In this case, a planet Camazotz became The Camazotz, an evil force trying to spread its influence. That's an oversimplification of the struggle between good and evil, but for the adolescent target audience I think that can be okay. They are asked to join the fight, they can see that their flaws are not only allowable but powerful, and they can see that even the mean girl is hurting inside. (There is a small glimpse of how evil plays out.) Those are all things that can help.
My biggest objection was that the tessering kept getting messed up by Meg. The original plans could have made sense and been fine, but someone who was not comfortable with the process kept being able to direct others. I still don't hate it, because Meg's stubbornness is supposed to be a key personality trait. It is a powerful thing when she can decide she does not want the perfect version of her, that her brother loves her the way she is, and she can then go into a tesser smiling because that she will still be herself on the other side is fine. It's important for teens to know that.
Part of how they accomplish that is they do some dirt to Alex Murray. He not only chose to tesser away from his family, but he kept going, wanting to "shake hands with the universe" when he should have been holding Meg's.
It may not be a coincidence that the person I know who hated it most had a great father and lost him to death.
Is that necessary for the movie to work? Probably not, but the sense of abandonment crushes Meg in a way that she is not crushed in the book. I think this is where the twins become more than superfluous, because a family of three is concretely smaller than a family of five.
Alex Murray's carelessness and ego may not need to be the cause of his disappearance (also, he has been gone for longer here), but is it something that a lot of people can relate to? Sure. Is it worth reiterating that family is more important than high achievement, or is its own achievement? Sure.
Also, they make Charles Wallace really talkative in his precociousness, instead of so quiet. Frankly, having spent some time with various children, that kind of seems more realistic now.
And that's what I think the majority of the changes did; they made the material something that - even though it is speculative fiction - feels familiar to an audience of today. It is not a period piece.
I can support that.
Also, there was one thing that I loved that isn't so much a change as an embellishment. In this case both Dr. Murray's are not only scientists, but she has a micro focus and he has a macro focus, and that allows them to do better work together.
Cool.
I have read Madeline L'Engle's original trilogy multiple times. Okay, I did not know there were two other books until recently, but still, for those three I am a fan. I will probably check out the other two soon.
Anyway, I have affection for the book and I have a strong appreciation for Ava DuVernay (with multiple posts on Selma and Queen Sugar to back it up). I was looking forward to seeing it, but getting some reservations from negative feedback I was hearing.
I saw it and liked it. I did come away understanding better why some people would not like it or would react strongly against it, and some of that has to do with audiences. After yesterday's post, that seemed like a natural topic for today.
I need to talk about the differences between the movie and the book, so spoilers follow.
The twins are gone. To be honest, they never contributed that much, to the first book especially.
Meg's father is white, and may still be of Irish extraction, but Meg's mother is Black. Charles Wallace is adopted and appears to be of Asian extraction. Principal Jenkins is Black also.
Instead of working for the government and having disappeared that way, the father (whom we shall now refer to as Alex, because both parents are Dr. Murray) was doing independent research, and when he figured out how to tesser, he did it, winding up on the planet Uriel.
Instead of living far out in the country, they are in a more urban situation, with some rundown buildings but also some nicer houses. The leader of the mean girls has a view into the Murray backyard. Meg's initial squabble is not punching a boy making fun of her brother, but bouncing a ball at that girl, hard.
Calvin's problem isn't a large squabbling family, but a verbally abusive father who is always berating him.
That is a lot of redheads re-imagined as Black. That reminds me of something I read about the new Annie, in that the change made sense because the point of Annie being Irish was prejudice. Her red hair and Irish roots made her less appealing for adoption, but that doesn't have the same impact today. Blackness, on the other hand, can. It's something to think about.
Overall, though, something in 2018 should be more racially diverse than something from 1962. That shouldn't even be a question.
There was also a gender switch for the Happy Medium, and a flirtation between him and Mrs. Whatsit. I don't know that I cared strongly about that change one way or another.
The other changes are more essential, and this could be where some people struggle. That doesn't make them bad.
For example, with IT we saw illusions and then internal synapses, rather than even the best CGI depiction of a brain: cerebrum and cerebellum. I think that was necessary. The brain would have looked hokey, no matter how well-executed it was. What was done instead conveyed a brain without being cheesy.
That IT had control of what was essentially a virtual reality situation, rather than having control of an entire planet with people suffering, but having chosen to comply and conform through fear... okay, that may take away some food from thought. However, you don't have to worry about the little boy being re-educated to get the right rhythm for playing ball.
In this case, a planet Camazotz became The Camazotz, an evil force trying to spread its influence. That's an oversimplification of the struggle between good and evil, but for the adolescent target audience I think that can be okay. They are asked to join the fight, they can see that their flaws are not only allowable but powerful, and they can see that even the mean girl is hurting inside. (There is a small glimpse of how evil plays out.) Those are all things that can help.
My biggest objection was that the tessering kept getting messed up by Meg. The original plans could have made sense and been fine, but someone who was not comfortable with the process kept being able to direct others. I still don't hate it, because Meg's stubbornness is supposed to be a key personality trait. It is a powerful thing when she can decide she does not want the perfect version of her, that her brother loves her the way she is, and she can then go into a tesser smiling because that she will still be herself on the other side is fine. It's important for teens to know that.
Part of how they accomplish that is they do some dirt to Alex Murray. He not only chose to tesser away from his family, but he kept going, wanting to "shake hands with the universe" when he should have been holding Meg's.
It may not be a coincidence that the person I know who hated it most had a great father and lost him to death.
Is that necessary for the movie to work? Probably not, but the sense of abandonment crushes Meg in a way that she is not crushed in the book. I think this is where the twins become more than superfluous, because a family of three is concretely smaller than a family of five.
Alex Murray's carelessness and ego may not need to be the cause of his disappearance (also, he has been gone for longer here), but is it something that a lot of people can relate to? Sure. Is it worth reiterating that family is more important than high achievement, or is its own achievement? Sure.
Also, they make Charles Wallace really talkative in his precociousness, instead of so quiet. Frankly, having spent some time with various children, that kind of seems more realistic now.
And that's what I think the majority of the changes did; they made the material something that - even though it is speculative fiction - feels familiar to an audience of today. It is not a period piece.
I can support that.
Also, there was one thing that I loved that isn't so much a change as an embellishment. In this case both Dr. Murray's are not only scientists, but she has a micro focus and he has a macro focus, and that allows them to do better work together.
Cool.
July 24, 2018
Black History Month 2018 - Books about race
One of the interesting things about this round of reading was that I found books that I thought were really race-specific. Yes, that does sound horrible, but it's not.
Most of the books I read tend to be history books. That is partly due to a personal gravitation toward history, but also that history is good for teaching us about current conditions. History helps us understand what is going on and why it is that way, and helps us see the potential in our situation.
Therefore, if I am deciding whether or not to recommend a history book to others, that will be mainly based on how interesting it is, but a lot of that is readability. Did the author give enough background information so you don't need to come in with a lot of knowledge? Or did the author throw so much information out there that you will get bogged down and bored? (There were some books this cycle that were a lot of work. I'm not saying I regret reading them, but I'm not recommending them.)
There were some books in this reading cycle that focused on race, with history as a context but nonetheless mainly about how we are now. I find the audiences for those much more specific.
Debby Irving's Waking Up White and Finding Myself in the Story of Race is a book for white people. Maybe a Black person who was adopted into a white family and has not had a chance to know many people of color would benefit from this book, but generally speaking if you are Black, you already know. You do not need this book.
There is nothing wrong with that. It's not an argument against the book. I think Irving does a pretty good job. I think the class she took that inspired the book sounds phenomenal, and that more people should take similar classes.
It is a little bit WASP-centered, which could be a turn-off for some. I am not sure if it would be helpful for non-Black people of color - it might inhabit an odd middle ground for them.
Probably the most useful thing about the book is that because Irving herself has had to start her own "waking up" process, she is gentle with others about it. So if you are the kind of white person whose hackles get raised when you hear people talking about racism and you do not believe you are racist (but maybe you have this nagging sense that you can't quite dismiss) this book is probably the best introduction for that.
(If you already accept institutional racism as a problem and have seen some of the issues, the third book is going to be more for you.)
Some of the most profound parts for me had to do with the aging parents, and communication with them. I think that can come in handy too.
If you are Black, you may really benefit from reading Post-Traumatic Slave Syndrome: America's Legacy of Enduring Injury and Healing. It takes all of the micro agressions and effects of slavery, red-lining, and discrimination, and how that can affect the people experiencing it. After acknowledging the issues, it does spend some time on strategies for dealing with it, but the bulk of the book is saying "Hey, this is there and it hurts us in ways we may not realize."
In that way, I suppose it is a book about mindfulness. Therefore when some of the solutions also become issues of mindfulness, there is a logic to that.
I found it interesting, but I suspect it would be much more profound for a Black person. Fellow white people, we may not get much out of it. I don't know about other people of color.
Again, I really think this is okay. Our life experiences result in different needs, and sometimes the answer is reading different books. However, I think the third book can be for everybody:
So You Want to Talk About Race by Ijeoma Oluo
This isn't as gentle an exploration as Waking Up White, but it is really well-organized where the information builds up logically and makes a good case. It is not overly lengthy and felt shorter because of the momentum it built. There is a wonderful clarity of communication, and I appreciate that she acknowledges the way she has been affected, like some initial discomfort in a park. I believe this book can benefit people of all races.
It is conceivable that some people who are sensitive on the racism topic will be offended. If that could be you, start with Irving and work your way up.
And if that doesn't seem like enough, don't worry! There are many more books out there. I recently read a review for a new one, Deconstructing White Privilege by Robin DiAngelo. It sounds like that one is for white progressives who believe that racism is common among other people, but that they are above it. I could be wrong about that, but if not, you probably don't know who you are. Read it so you can understand "other people" better.
Anyway, there is information out there. Even if not all books out there are for you, Oluo's book for sure, and quite possibly Irving's or DeGruy's book (depending) are for you. So that's a start.
Most of the books I read tend to be history books. That is partly due to a personal gravitation toward history, but also that history is good for teaching us about current conditions. History helps us understand what is going on and why it is that way, and helps us see the potential in our situation.
Therefore, if I am deciding whether or not to recommend a history book to others, that will be mainly based on how interesting it is, but a lot of that is readability. Did the author give enough background information so you don't need to come in with a lot of knowledge? Or did the author throw so much information out there that you will get bogged down and bored? (There were some books this cycle that were a lot of work. I'm not saying I regret reading them, but I'm not recommending them.)
There were some books in this reading cycle that focused on race, with history as a context but nonetheless mainly about how we are now. I find the audiences for those much more specific.
Debby Irving's Waking Up White and Finding Myself in the Story of Race is a book for white people. Maybe a Black person who was adopted into a white family and has not had a chance to know many people of color would benefit from this book, but generally speaking if you are Black, you already know. You do not need this book.
There is nothing wrong with that. It's not an argument against the book. I think Irving does a pretty good job. I think the class she took that inspired the book sounds phenomenal, and that more people should take similar classes.
It is a little bit WASP-centered, which could be a turn-off for some. I am not sure if it would be helpful for non-Black people of color - it might inhabit an odd middle ground for them.
Probably the most useful thing about the book is that because Irving herself has had to start her own "waking up" process, she is gentle with others about it. So if you are the kind of white person whose hackles get raised when you hear people talking about racism and you do not believe you are racist (but maybe you have this nagging sense that you can't quite dismiss) this book is probably the best introduction for that.
(If you already accept institutional racism as a problem and have seen some of the issues, the third book is going to be more for you.)
Some of the most profound parts for me had to do with the aging parents, and communication with them. I think that can come in handy too.
If you are Black, you may really benefit from reading Post-Traumatic Slave Syndrome: America's Legacy of Enduring Injury and Healing. It takes all of the micro agressions and effects of slavery, red-lining, and discrimination, and how that can affect the people experiencing it. After acknowledging the issues, it does spend some time on strategies for dealing with it, but the bulk of the book is saying "Hey, this is there and it hurts us in ways we may not realize."
In that way, I suppose it is a book about mindfulness. Therefore when some of the solutions also become issues of mindfulness, there is a logic to that.
I found it interesting, but I suspect it would be much more profound for a Black person. Fellow white people, we may not get much out of it. I don't know about other people of color.
Again, I really think this is okay. Our life experiences result in different needs, and sometimes the answer is reading different books. However, I think the third book can be for everybody:
So You Want to Talk About Race by Ijeoma Oluo
This isn't as gentle an exploration as Waking Up White, but it is really well-organized where the information builds up logically and makes a good case. It is not overly lengthy and felt shorter because of the momentum it built. There is a wonderful clarity of communication, and I appreciate that she acknowledges the way she has been affected, like some initial discomfort in a park. I believe this book can benefit people of all races.
It is conceivable that some people who are sensitive on the racism topic will be offended. If that could be you, start with Irving and work your way up.
And if that doesn't seem like enough, don't worry! There are many more books out there. I recently read a review for a new one, Deconstructing White Privilege by Robin DiAngelo. It sounds like that one is for white progressives who believe that racism is common among other people, but that they are above it. I could be wrong about that, but if not, you probably don't know who you are. Read it so you can understand "other people" better.
Anyway, there is information out there. Even if not all books out there are for you, Oluo's book for sure, and quite possibly Irving's or DeGruy's book (depending) are for you. So that's a start.
