thoughts & links & thoughts on links

[tacotimecop]

goals

One of my life goals is to sing a karaoke song well, with the microphone, from start to finish. Another, less important goal, is finding a suitable career. There's always time for work but only a short window for looking good in the spotlight.

[tacotimecop]

tweeteration

I have an art show in less than a week and, despite allowing myself to stay up all night a couple days in a row to get into the creative zone, I have hit a mental block with drawing and painting. On the flip side, I think I’ve been making some pretty sweet tweets lately so that’s something to write home about but never actually share with family.

[tacotimecop]

election

I have been thinking a lot about the argument of voting for a major party candidate - HRC - over a third party candidate - hopefully referring to Jill Stein - and how it has been framed. Op/ed pieces often refer to the obligation that non-conservative voters have to the general populace. At times it is discussed as an ethical argument - not voting for someone who could tip the balance in favor of an idiot bigot - and at other times, as an issue of morality, following one's individual duty as an American. The problems with using these type of generally-understood pleas is that they skim only the top level of a rhetorical argument, which ignores the tradition of rhetoric. Loosely put, ethics refers to the behaviors of an individual and morality places the complex ideas of 'good and bad' as an extension of community. When a commentator writes that voting for a third party candidate is screwing over America, they are not only over-simplifying an argument, but they are basing their appeal on their own personal moral subjectivity and in effect, shaming people for acting as a member of a community and/or with autonomy, which is kind of one of the foundations of democracy (although we don't actually live in a democracy rn*). I will not be voting third party. I thought about it a lot, talked to people, read bunches, and came to the conclusion that while I am not a huge HRC fan and I am still angry at the way Bernie was unfairly treated by the DNC as an extension of HRC (among other issues) I don't agree with enough of Jill Stein's message nor do I trust in her ability to implement it. I also do not believe it would be right for me to theoretically contribute (not really an issue in WA state) to the election of someone who is racist, bigoted, and misogynistic, and who has repeatedly been accused of such during his long "successful" career (lol). That is my personal view although as someone who also seeks to be an ally to minority groups, I also believe that is the correct moral decision. The biggest problem I have had with this election is the way in which reliance on sharing personal opinion has superseded civilized discourse. It signifies a deeper problem our country has with the media's influence and a growing trend of anti-intellectualism. I was especially troubled by the way in which Bernie supporters were attacked by HRC supporters. I often saw only a vague reference to 2000 election, in which many believe Perot swung the vote to Bush**. My point here is: I think those who seek to change minds would do better to follow a model - see and argue multiple sides of an issue, draw from both personal and expert opinion, and make a logical argument. In general, we probably do need to change some minds, although idk how likely that is. However, it is truly not enough to just state that it is someone's duty as an American to vote for or not vote for a particular candidate; if we really want to make things better, we all need to engage in conversation by asking questions, sharing information, and seeing other points of view. Also, fgs, let's all start voting in local elections bc that shit matters.

[tacotimecop]

PhD Blues

I think my ideal job is someone who writes letters to the editor and yelp reviews. How do I parle this into something sustainable until I buy that winning scratchy lotto.

[tacotimecop]

This should be required reading. I can’t imagine how that might occur, however, since the education system has removed pretty much all civics education from schools, but that’s a topic for another post.

This importance of this book rests with the way information on how to handle contact with police is treated as privileged by the families of law enforcement officers and attorneys. The author, James Duane - a law professor who has millions of hits from his YouTube lectures on the topic - outlines the two basic questions you must answer if a police officer stops you. Regardless of your guilt or innocence, if you are accused of a crime, you should never answer questions or plead the fifth. You can and should always ask for a lawyer.

Duane gives many brief examples on how innocent people have been coerced into confessions and people ignorant of the law have been given life sentences. What most people may not know is the police are under no obligation to tell you the truth. Appellate courts routinely back up the police’s questionable methods of interrogation. Equally as troubling is the federal legal code, which not only is impossible to fully know, but which may be loosely interpreted by prosecutors. Freeing an endangered animal caught in a net could result in ten years in federal prison and tens of thousands in fines.

This book highlights several ways in which the legal system is designed to improperly and unjustly prosecute people. Besides the incoherence of the organization of the legal codes, there are also major issues with the manner in which the police operate - they feel they are a part of the prosecutors’ team; the influence of international legal statutes; and Congress’s almost constant passing of laws (no one knows the exact amount) which are nearly always poorly worded and open to interpretation.

What is absent from this book is more practical advice on how to survive getting pulled over; a remark on the influence of for-profit prisons*, donation laws, and the politicalization of the justice system. However, there are lengthy discussions and books on these very relevant problems. Unfortunately, few are as concise and informative as Duane’s how-to on what not to do.

*Read this excellent piece on one reporter's undercover stint at a for-profit prison : http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/cca-private-prisons-corrections-corporation-inmates-investigation-bauer

[tacotimecop]

There has been controversy for some time about white actors taking over lead roles in ‘Asian’ movies and most recently ScarJo in Ghost in the Shell and Tilda Swinton in Dr. Strange have been grouped together as two examples of poor choices in casting. While Ghost in the Machine’s whitewashing is both concerning and symbolic of a much larger problem in Hollywood, the case of Dr. Strange may be less a case of whitewashing and more a correction of the previous cultural insensitivity by Marvel comic writers.

The Ancient One in the original comics was a combination of multiple tropes: wise, mystical, and from a secret location in Asia. American readers could not be expected to know the cultural differences of geographical regions. Thus, qualities of this character embody the dress, look, and speech of different countries and from false stereotypes. This is one-dimensional character written by a white man, tasked with pushing the plot forward for the benefit of a white character.

Curiously, the casting and setting decisions in Dr. Strange - to remove the negative stereotypes from the storyline - haven’t been applauded in any publication I have found. Unlike Ghost in the Shell - which is a Japanese work set in fictional Japan and recast with white actors - this is not an example of an Asian source material whitewashed for film audiences. However, with so few examples of Asian actors filling roles originally written as such, should characters, conceived and written by white men, be kept culturally intact? Does the race/culture of the person who conceptualized the character give greater license over film casting choices? Is it more important to avoid/ rewrite past cultural insensitivity or to cast underrepresented actors?

[tacotimecop]

Mind Boner

I have been desperate for conversation and starving for collaboration. At various points in my day I feel all of this motivation and energy humming like an electric current. It’s like my mind is a boner and it wants to inseminate connections with other people. Basically, I’m pretty bored with my time consuming solo activities and it doesn’t help that I’m also out of tv.

[tacotimecop]

An uber driver, who was a man of color with a dark complexion, told me this week that while being pulled over by cops the previous week, the female officer approached nervously, told the driver she "was afraid of him," and brought her partner to the car to finish/repeat the same questions. He told me there is nothing he feels like he can do to complain or to ensure it won't happen again (it had happened before). He doesn't want to be on a watch list or make more trouble for himself so he has to just deal with being targeted. It is criminal that the major metropolitan police forces across 350 cities have not come together to assure the American people that they will not put unqualified officers out in the field. Those who are in positions to use deadly force cannot be afraid of their fellow humans and citizens. This particular case is such a tragedy and it is (arguably) made worse by the officer's refusal to address her own biases in shooting an unarmed man. Reform in training and weapons policy will tragically be slow to happen when the victims continue to be blamed. Lastly, shame on the NYT for not using Crutcher's name in the byline.

[tacotimecop]

dating

I believe most people are not dicks; most have good intentions and some take time to consider their actions. That is a fairly general statement because the particularities of individual behaviors are endlessly more complicated. I’ve found a lot more grey area in the ways romance impacts potential partners’ approaches to truthfulness and respectfulness. Dating is much like gambling; there is an ante to play and raising the stakes can result in larger reward just as often as it can loss. The societal influence of dating requires a certain savvy approach - not showing all of one’s cards so to speak. Entering into a successful relationship, though, eventually and always requires that you do - you cannot know if you’ve won or lost without seeing the hand through to the end.

In dating, most people feel you have to do a certain amount of bluffing. This might be misrepresenting your commitment to hiking or overpaying for a restaurant you don’t frequent. The argument is that it is necessary to do so to keep people in the game. I agree that dating requires a certain reservation and finesse. However, the basis should never be rooted in dishonesty. It is ethically questionable, also, to be in game for the sake of the game but that concept also calls into question the personal responsibility one must have over their decision to play in the first place. It’s important to risk the loss but one should never gamble with more than they can lose.

A few years ago, I was just getting out of a ten year relationship. It had not been one based on love or respect for several years before the end. The decision to date again shortly after - having a relationship with someone else who, like me, wasn’t ready for one -wasn’t the best. After that ended, I was very sad for a long while. Even the thought of getting on a dating site was pretty nerve wracking but eventually I made a plan to approach it like I do most things - research, experience, reflection, repetition. Going on let’s just say hella dates led me to the conclusion that everyone (except narcissists) suffers from some degree of self-esteem issue, social anxiety, shame; etc. That made going out made going on dates so much easier. If we are all essentially the same in that we’re a sum of our varied experiences, then there are parallels of experience we all share that can potentially serve as the basis for truthful and positive interaction.

Despite the potential for connection, the success of it is further divided by compatibility - and - the different ways in which people relate to others after experiencing pain and suffering. Ive had my fair share of trauma, loss, and humiliation and it took awhile to become sensitive to others rather than keeping myself removed from others. I found that sharing and listening is truly cathartic. The pain that remains after life changing events never truly goes away but connecting with others in the sense of truly sharing conversation in an open and honest way is what makes us stronger and healthier. However, if someone has not overcome their pain, they won’t be able to stay in the game. It takes at least two to play but if only one person has cards, the other person is essentially losing with each hand. One cannot always share without listening or always be listening without sharing. This type of unbalance is not based in truth, trust, or respect.

These behaviors are usually small signs indicative of an individual’s nature. Ive found that there are generally two ways in which a person evolves from heartbreak and sadness: a person may choose to develop their ability to empathize with others or they may act out, and cause others pain. For example, take the games people play often in the beginning of relationships: the fun and flirty getting-to-know-you games that are unique to new lovers, psychological power games where in both participants must be aware and consenting, and the apathetic or selfish way in which one person toys with the affections of another. The former and the latter are the most difficult to identify since understanding a person’s motivations is an inexact science. It takes time to gather the data necessary to know enough about a person to make a judgment call. Is the new person in your life acting with reservation but demonstrating kindness of spirit or are they someone who enjoys the attention and energy another offers them, with no intention of true reciprocity. Do they listen and ask questions or do they simply “unload” and not reciprocate? Do they know themselves and their actions. Do they know what they want?

Not knowing is not a negative in itself for we discover so much of ourselves through other people. However, it is imperative that one consider if their actions are ethical, the universality of which is also questionable. As I stated above, I value honesty and kindness, and lately, I been giving perhaps too much benefit of the doubt to others. My biggest challenge is to not let negative experiences season my future relationships and to not repeat the same patterns of giving without receiving. Yet, how does one know how much energy and self to give and how much responsibility to take for their own emotional response? How much can a person blame their behavior on mental illness or a really sad Facebook article about hurt animals? And [insert more poker parallels].

There is no tried and true checklist for qualities to look for in a romantic partner(s) since flexibility (both kinds) and understanding are so essential to establishing the baseline of a new relationship. It is thus the unfortunate reality that in order to assess a person’s true nature - one of generosity or selfishness - one has to spend significantly the currencies of time and feelings. The essential game in romance is that there is no reward without risk. Seeking true connections with authentic people requires playing in the blind. And trying to keep a gambling metaphor going through a blog post requires using poker terminology sporadically and incorrectly.

[tacotimecop]

There are some interesting parallels between the Clinton-Trump debate and the series of Kennedy-Nixon debates. Kennedy won this first televised debate because he used the medium to his advantage and, visually contrasting with an ailing Nixon, looked relaxed, young, and healthy. Yet, it’s unclear who had the stronger message. Over 80% of radio listeners gave the win to Nixon and most historians agree that he won more points than Kennedy. The ability to successfully argue and reason, however, doesn’t make a winning president.

Candidates have always promised changes that would be - legally and ethically - far outside the actual scope of their branch’s power and influence. But this is a necessary dance as voters look to candidates for not just leadership, but for the symbolic representations of ideals of leadership. It is so very unfortunate that, in this immediate time where “our country” could start to de-radicalize the idea of social equity and equality, a large percentage of some of the poorest populations do not want change.

In the case of the upcoming debates, Clinton is too similar to Nixon. She will use the right words and make reasoned arguments (hopefully) but will not connect with voters. She has four heavy strikes against her: lack of trustability due to DNC campaign fraud (and DWS/Kaine kickbacks); lack of accountability from the Secretary of State email server debacle; being a woman who is neither motherly nor warm; and the perception of being in ill-health. It is inconceivable that she is in this position and might lose. She has had the DNC working solely for her; mountains of corporate and banking money; Clinton Foundation benefitting from her Secretary of State position; not to mention the clear nepotism from Bill’s WH connections.

I believe the primary problem plaguing the HRC campaign is that it is run solely by HRC; seemingly she is of high enough intelligence that she only trusts her own guidance. Evidence for this is that repeats the same mistakes too often and after each spectacle, there is rarely word of a staffer’s firing. History tells us that Nixon had a similar issue of operating alone; in contrast, Kennedy had several key advisors he relied on, especially during his campaign. If HRC trusted staff in her circle and empowered them to advise her, would the same cycle of lie-apologize-lie-apologize happen? With the experience of seasoned politicians this should not happen. We know Trump is a buffoon but HRC has made his racist/sexist/buffoonery too much a center point of her campaign to deflect from her own sneaky buffoonery. She would have had no problem at this point in the election if she had operated above the board. What does it say about a candidate who repeatedly acts as if she is above the consequences of rules, laws, and ethics?

One of HRC’s biggest mistakes was not personally apologizing to Bernie supporters and not firing DWS. That gave Jill and Gary an opportunity to suck up disgruntled voters with the third party fun straw. Now, with 50 days left, it seems unlikely that the HRC campaign can or should make any stab at authenticity; it’s too late to try being real, admitting wrong; and fixing past mistakes. Case in recent point is her repeated illnesses which she refuses to discuss in a way that relates to a future presidency including the possibility that Kaine might have to take over. Ignoring the issue does not make it any less vital a concern to voters. As a voter, I am concerned that she does not feel a responsibility to address our concerns. Personally, I am not sure I can vote for someone, either, that will not address - and perhaps knowingly contributed to - the alleged primary election fraud.

By and large, the most dangerous part of this election is the chaotic destruction of the electoral process by a select few in positions of leadership in the DNC, RNC, and the media. How insane is it that there was no corporate responsibility in media ad buy? The first time Trump said something racist, ads should have been pulled until the media cut back his coverage. We, as consumers and voters, should have done more to see the danger in passively advocating for our candidate without fighting the spread of hate. Because he is not a politician but a personality, Trump has been given endless mulligans in this political charade and this false authenticity somehow appeals to a large percentage of the voting public who believe his endless “mistakes” are charmingly real. Do these people understand that, as an entertainer, everything he does is actually scripted? - apparently not. I would not doubt that Trump could go on stage wearing a white hood, apologize and claim it wasn’t a hood, retract the apology on Twitter, and still end up in the White House. Just like Kennedy. (jk, they didn’t have Twitter in the 60s).

[tacotimecop]

I’m conflicted on how I feel about the fashion industry. As someone who has fluctuated between weight categories over the past ten years, I have certainly had my share of trouble shopping for clothes, and even though I haven’t shopped in plus-sized for over six years, I still have had to shell out a lot of money over the years to find quality outfits in a flattering cut. The middle of the line brands regularly bend to trends so even when I did start to fit into the regular banana republic collection, for example, I never wanted to buy the trendy cropped sweaters or short dresses that rotate through the seasons.

With my PhD student budget, dressing in simple styles and cuts, as I have always preferred, is difficult because the most classic lines are extremely costly. Even now as I am able to buy “normal” sizes, there are few options for basic, yet quality, affordable styles and I wish the fashion industry would meet the needs that I have, as a consumer who wants to feel positive about her body, and pretty in her clothing.

That being said, as an artist who respects the art of fashion, I also find it troubling that fashion is expected to fill the dual role of design/art and product. Of course the couture and runway fashions - almost always impractical for daily wear - differ from the prêt-à-porter, or ready to wear fashion. Fashion designers are artists and I question if we, the public, should demand they alter their creative vision to meet the demands of the average woman. High fashion has a lot of influence over the average store lines and interpreting the trends of fashion for the average woman’s body is not always possible. Models - as much as the public views them as unhealthy automotons - have the skills necessary to be a canvas for fashion art. (I have only seen one person try to pull off a knock off of the McQueen-era pony shoes and seriously, respect.) It is unfair the way that models, women who are naturally slender, and/or work hard at reaching their body goals often bear the brunt of answering for the media’s standards. It is not right to shame a person for their physical form. Let us not forget that women often have to answer for this while it is men who often are in positions of power in media and fashion.

This fashion industry and the media’s overuse of the physical body ideal will hopefully change in future years to include more of an acceptance of how healthy looks in many forms. I also think that the public should consider if the converse of rejecting the media-ideal to glorify the zaftig frame is not also exploitative of the female form. We are starting to accept fuller hips and butts and woman with these features have been a part of runway shows and on magazine covers. Yet, these are nearly always women who are small in stature and, the way in which curvier body types are features deceptive. Kim Kardashian, for example, is supposedly a size 2, as is Beyoncé. We view Marilyn Monroe as someone who was plus sized but with the conversion from 1940s sizes to today, she was most likely an size 6-8. Famous plus sized models are usually around a size 10. These are not truly voluptuous woman; they are people whose bodies deviate slightly from the media ideal. The fact that they are supposed to be representative of “normal” body types sends a message that it is ok to be a different shape, as long as you are still slender and able to fit into high fashion brands with sizes that rarely go above a size 6/8/10. Is this problematic and if so, how do we qualify the way in which the media/fashion industry standardization of beauty and “alternative” beauty impacts the average woman?

To refer back to the article, should design houses be influenced or shamed into altering their methodologies and the traditions and art as fashion to meet the needs of the average consumer? If the article is correct, it would be in their financial best interest to do so. However, I think a better answer than asking the traditional houses to change is to increase funding for arts and artisans - which is pretty nonexistent as it stands - and support the new fashion designers who seek to cater to this market. Designers with a passion for this market will undoubtedly be motivated to dress fuller body types in a flattering and fashionable way - hopefully not using surplus fabric for their creations. I have never understood why the plus sized brands of a moderate price range rely on bold patterns and animal prints to style their tent-like clothes or why they seek to interpret, badly, the fashion trends that honestly do not always flatter a voluptuous body. Larger women should not have to choose between a baby doll dress or a sack. Designs for plus sized women should not simply be an extension or a rejection of current trends; they should be made to highlight, not hide, their shapes. Every woman deserves to feel good about her body. If we consider that the media will be slow to change, we should start considering that the influence will remain a constant. Seeing equality in body/dress acceptance and access is in supporting how, for all individuals, the way in we dress ourselves is an extension of art as a personal brand and identity.