More Than Mean (Video)

More Than Mean (Video)

April 27, 2016

I think there is a danger there of being mean to people and humiliating people and embarrassing people just because it might get you ratings. It is a disturbing trend. —Bruce Nash

The only habit of allowing trolls to be mean, especially to women, whenever and where ever they want has gotten out of control. It’s time to stop them.

“Stop being mean!”

That is the Tipster’s response when I put her to bed for the third time. In her six-year-old world, having an 8:00 bedtime is mean; the sun isn’t quite down yet, there’s still daylight, so she thinks she still has time to play. We have boundaries and schedules I am obligated to enforce for her own good, so therefore, in her mind, I’m the mean one.

Raising a little girl in today’s environment. I want her to be as independent and strong as her mother and she shows every sign of having all those qualities. Grandpa Bob tells me Kat didn’t like going to bed, either. Yet, when I look at the world into which she’s growing up, one that demeans and ridicules women just for being women, I worry. A lot. I think I have plenty of good reasons.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that one of the nation’s top software engineers, Jessie Frazelle, received so many death and rape threats that her employer had to hire bodyguards to guarantee her safety. She recently moved to another company and while she has yet to make any kind of statement the general consensus is that she was harassed out the door, that the company knew about the harassment and did nothing to stop it. Last July she wrote:

Ever since I started speaking at conferences and contributing to open source projects I have been endlessly harassed. I’ve gotten hundreds of private messages on IRC and emails about sex, rape, and death threats. People emailing me saying they jerked off to my conference talk video (you’re welcome btw) is mild in comparison to sending Photoshopped pictures of me covered in blood.

Then, earlier this week, Frazelle tweeted:

I lost something I loved so much and a small piece of my soul standing up for myself, and I just don’t know if it was worth it.

— jessie frazelle (@jessfraz) April 22, 2016

I wish I could say this was an isolated problem. I wish I could say this was a new problem. Neither of those statements would be true, though. Being mean to women online is as old as the Internet itself and the toll it is exacting is severe.

The same day that the Frazelle story was posted, The Washington Post ran a story questioning whether 31-year-old Fairfax County firefighter Nicole Mittendorff was harassed so severely that she committed suicide last week. What makes this story particularly upsetting is that the trolls who have continued to hound her claim to be her fellow firefighters. An investigation is underway, but no matter what they find, and it’s almost certain that someone will be charged in this case, the fact that nothing was done to stop the continual barrage of mean comments, that no one was able to sufficiently stand up for her and back the trolls down, incriminates the entire online system.

Being mean, especially to women, has reached epidemic proportions. While this is just observational speculation, I’m willing to be that one could ask any woman with an internet account if they’ve had someone they don’t know say something mean about them online and probably 9 of every ten, if not more, would say yes. I know Kat’s gotten comments, especially when we first started seeing each other. She was able to handle those quickly, though. Not everyone is so lucky.

We laugh when Tonight Show host Jimmy Kimmel has guests read mean tweets about themselves but the very fact we find those tweets and other similar comments funny is a part of what allows the online abuse of women to flourish. Part of the reason trolls say the mean things they say is because they think what they’re doing is absolutely hilarious and that if we don’t “get it” that we need to “lighten up.” There is no humor in threatening to rape or kill women, though. It’s not funny to send them pictures covered in what appears to be blood. There’s no joke behind telling women they asked for it. Every last bit of it is mean.

#MoreThanMean started trending on Twitter yesterday after a Washington Post video was posted where two sports reporters, Sarah Spain and Julie DiCaro, sat down and had sports fans read, out loud, some of the mean tweets the two women receive every day. The effect was emotional and drove home just how easy it is to type things that we never would consider saying to someone in person. The men reading the tweets were clearly uncomfortable and some even cried. You not only need to see this video, you need to share this video. Take a look:

Stop and think. Mother’s Day is coming up in a couple of weeks. Would you talk to your mother like that? Would you tolerate someone talking to your sister, your girlfriend, or your spouse with those words? Not if you have an ounce of decency in you, you wouldn’t. Those of you who have daughters, what if someone spoke like that to her?

Being mean has become so much a part of our culture, though, to the point that we have justified it and built organizations around it, and now embodied it in one of our leading presidential candidates. In a follow-up story on the boycotts we mentioned last week, a new article from Business Insider shows just how much hate and meanness there is around letting transgender people use the restroom with which they most identify. People of color have been beaten at presidential campaign rallies and the candidate has encouraged such mean behavior.

We have created a culture of mean and tolerated it far too long. The time has come for us to stand up, to confront the online bullies, especially those who harass women. We don’t have to necessarily be mean in response to meanness. I think responding with, “If you wouldn’t say it, don’t type it,” is a good start. And yes, unfortunately, there are people who are willing to say mean things. One of them is inexplicably running for president and appears to be winning his party’s nomination. Are we really willing to allow the election of a president who is mean?

This is the primary reason we don’t allow comments on these pages. We tried it a few years ago and even then the mean and rude comments were enough of a problem I made the decision to simply not provide a forum where such statements could exist. I am still of the mind that unmoderated comments are unnecessary and unhelpful.

#MoreThanMean needs to become a battle cry. We cannot allow this culture of mean to continue. Lives are at stake. The lives of people we all hold dear, even if they’re not old enough to be online yet. For all the Tipsters and the Ravens and the Emmas and every other little girl out there who are not yet able to speak for themselves, we need to shut this culture of mean down now.

If you wouldn’t say it to someone’s face, don’t type it. And confront those who do.

Current Issues / Fashion

Shopping Habits Die Ugly

April 26, 2016

Whoever said money can’t buy happiness simply didn’t know where to go shopping. —Bo Derek

You’ve changed your shopping habit and it’s killing a quintessential piece of America

I’m old enough to remember having to go downtown to shop. Back then, all the stores were downtown. They were open from 10:00 AM until 5:00 PM except on Thursdays, when they stayed open late, until 7:00 PM. At least, that’s how it was in the small Kansas and Oklahoma towns we called home. Back then, if both your parents worked, your shopping choices were either Thursday night or Saturday, neither of which was an especially pleasant experience. Just having to be downtown at night could be harrowing.

I remember the first large indoor mall I visited: Woodland Hills Mall, Tulsa. At the time, its location seemed rather far out, well removed not only from downtown but most of Tulsa’s suburbs. There was nothing around but fields and pasture. Shopping there was a surreal experience and we wondered why in the world anyone would want to drive all the way out there. If you were to visit that location now, however, not only is the area heavily populated, it’s had to go through three or four efforts at revitalization to avoid becoming run down.

Recently, someone gave Kat’s dad, aka “Grandpa Bob,” a real treasure: a 1969 Rand-McNally Atlas. Looking at the map for Indianapolis back then, I-465 was only completed on the west side and the primary destination was Lafayette Square Mall. Drive along North Lafayette now and there are times the mall looks completely abandoned and even the few stores that do remain are small, discount-driven stores with goods of highly questionable origin and quality.

Our shopping habits are changing again, and as they do we’re slowly but surely killing off what has become a bastion of American retail and excess: the shopping mall. Already, there’s an entire website dedicated to tracking mall closures. Now, Green Street Advisors, a real estate research firm, is saying that department stores need to close hundreds of locations if they are to have any hope of returning to profitability. In short, there are too many malls with too many department stores and it’s bringing the entire retail sector down.

The plight of department stores isn’t new and has been fairly well documented. Just last week Sears announced it would be closing 78 more stores (mostly KMart stores) this year. Macy’s warned last September that it would close 40 stores this year. We’ve seen this coming for a few years and that has, if anything, accelerated the rate of change in our shopping habits. We’re buying more online and from discounters now than we ever have.

Yet, more closures are needed if these once ubiquitous department stores are to stay in business. Green Street’s report suggests Sears close nearly half its existing locations. JCPenney needs to close approximately 320 stores, while Nordstrom probably needs to shutter 30 locations, and Macy’s needs to ax another 70 on top of the previously announced 40. All this is necessary if the store brands are to remain profitable.

Store brands are likely to take heed to this advice. They’re watching what’s happening to similar retailers in the UK and it’s not a pretty sight. UK retailer BHS went into administration yesterday, a prelude to possible bankruptcy as did menswear giant Austin Reed. And the once popular mall stalwart Aeropostale was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange on Friday after its stock price has failed to break the $1 mark since last September.

All this spells death for traditional suburban malls who depend on large department stores as their anchors. Malls have seen anchors cut the amount of floor space in some locations and even abandon leases in some others. When that happens, shopping at those malls screeches to a sharp stop. Smaller inner-mall stores, which rely on traffic driven by the anchors, quickly fold and leave. The next thing mall management knows, their vacancy rate exceeds 40% and once that happens the end days are near.

Let’s face it, though: no one really likes shopping at the mall anymore. This isn’t the 80s. We would much rather shop discounters such as TJ Maxx or Marshalls and when we do shop a major department store we’re more likely to go in, find what we need, and leave. We don’t have enough expendable income to waste time just wandering around and exploring the mall.

No one has said yet whether they’ll follow Green Street’s advice. If they do, though, you can most likely kiss your mall shopping habit goodbye. With store closures in the numbers that the report recommends, only a fraction of mostly newer malls would be able to survive. Within two years, the entire retail landscape could change dramatically.

I find it a bit ironic that suburban shopping centers and malls were responsible for killing many downtown shopping districts and now those malls are finding out what it’s likely to become obsolete themselves. Few downtowns ever recovered. Mall deaths may be even more permanent.

So, get your food court fix now and maybe make an extra trip to Spencer’s Gifts for those naughty little things. The mall is one shopping experience whose future is not pretty.

Current Issues / PotD / science

Suicide Has Our Attention For Now

April 26, 2016

Our nation has not made the level of investment on a federal level that can have the positive effect on suicide that has happened for the other leading causes of death. —Dr. Christine Moutier, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

charles i. letbetter - suicide has our attention now

We’ve callously tried to ignore suicide for years but as the numbers go up we have to pay attention

We’ve all known someone who didn’t make it. Suicide hit close to home again a couple of weeks ago when the owner of the restaurant where Kat and I have our infrequent lunch dates decided he couldn’t go on. That was not the first such incident either of us has encountered, though, and the numbers are going up.

Suicide has our attention now. With the release of the CDC’s latest report last week, news and media outlets jumped on the unexpected and alarming news that suicides in the United States have jumped, overall, by a whopping 25 percent since 1999. Statistically, that 25 percent is frightening enough, but when the numbers are broken down into specific groups the fear factor spikes. Just take a look at some of the larger increases:

Suicide among Native Americans increased a dramatic 89% among women, 36% among men.
Suicide among white women increased by 60%.
Suicide among white men increased by 28%.
Suicide among girls ages 10-14 tripled.
Both women and men between the ages of 45-60 saw increases of 63% and 43% respectively

There almost seems to be one bright spot in that deaths among black males is one of the few areas that saw a decrease. Oh, but wait, that group has seen a severe increase in homicide over the same period, which more than offsets the suicide statistic.

There’s also a disturbing shift in the mode of suicide. While firearms and poisoning (which includes drug overdose) are still the most common methods, suffocation (hanging) incidents increased by 25 %.

When faced with this topic, the first question out of our mouths is almost always, “why?” The truth is, we don’t always know, but looking at the economic divisions we see that suicides were higher in all age and gender groups where income and economic opportunity were lowest. Even with the passing of the Affordable Care Act, which wasn’t fully implemented until after the study’s end date, availability of mental health care among the poor is exceedingly scarce. The entire psychiatric field relies almost entirely upon insurance receipts and mental health care is one area where insurance companies risk significant loss because of the need for ongoing treatment. Insurance looks to cut its losses by limiting coverage and raising rates, which, in turn, means that those most at risk are least likely to get the help they need.

We also know that there is an increased sense of desperation across the country and social media may be feeding into that problem. Young adults seem to be especially prone to this problem as pressures from parents are high to get a job, even though entry-level positions can be difficult to find. An increase in the importance of standardized testing at school increases the emphasis on academic performance. Meanwhile, when looking at Facebook and Instagram all one seems to see are photos of other people going to concerts and on expensive vacations and buying expensive clothes. This isn’t motivating. Instead, feeling that they are the only ones in their group not succeeding leads to a sense that they never will succeed and might as well stop trying.

Depression is a well-known factor in one’s decision to end their own life, but what we can extrapolate from this study is that the causes of depression are increasing and the depression itself is more severe. Women suffering through long periods of gender and pay inequity increases rates of depression. Repeated loss of employment, long-term unemployment, and seeing their skill set become irrelevant are among the major causes of depression among middle-aged men. General concerns about safety, ability to care for families, pressure to conform to societal standards and the feeling that government isn’t helping are all contributing factors.

With this, our attitudes toward suicide are slowly changing. The death of comedian Robin Williams brought the topic to the forefront of conversation for a moment and we slowly began to realize that the conversation we were having wasn’t the right one. Still, we find ourselves unsure what to do, how to help, or what to say when we fear that someone we know may be suicidal. Based on what we are beginning to understand, here are some tips to keep in mind.

Keep the number for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline in your phone: 1-800-273-TALK (8255)
Be aware of any signs of abuse and/or bullying as these are leading factors across multiple groups
Don’t be afraid to say something. Posting “I wish I had known” on Facebook after the fact doesn’t help anyone.
Learn how to listen. Listening, keeping your mouth shut, avoiding platitudes or empty advice, are valuable traits.
Know what to say. There are numerous resources online to help. You already know someone who needs help. Be ready.
Suicide is not “the cowards way out,” nor does it negatively affect one’s spiritual situation. Don’t even go there. Guilt doesn’t help.
Consider how your own actions may be making someone else’s life difficult. The words we say, the way we treat others, are all factors.

Now that suicide has our attention, let’s do what it takes to reverse course. I’m not naive enough to think that every suicide is preventable, but there is a lot we can do to reduce the number. We can no longer feign ignorance or pretend that the issue doesn’t apply to anyone we know. We have an obligation, if not to society, at the very least to our friends to put this issue on the front burner. We don’t have to wait for medical science to come up with a cure. For a significant number of people, we are the cure.

There’s no downplaying the severity of suicide any longer. Now, we do something.

pop culture / PotD

Rewards For Surviving

April 25, 2016

The rewards of freedom are always sweet, but its demands are stern, for at its heart is the paradox that the greatest enemy of freedom is freedom. —Os Guinness

As frustrating and maddening as our lives can become, there need to be rewards along the way for simply surviving

We often find ourselves on Monday morning thinking through the events of the weekend and shaking our heads. Sure, there were some good moments, but those were peppered with the bad, the ridiculous, and the downright frustrating. If there are supposed to be rewards for working hard and persevering, they didn’t necessarily seem to choose this weekend to show up. Consider:

Two women were shot last night on Indy’s East side. Both are in stable condition.
A Two-year-old drowned in a neighbor’s pool.
Yet another person was shot and killed at a Westside apartment complex. Apartments are becoming battle zones.
For the second time in a week, human remains were found in the White River.
Six armed robberies were reported in one night, mostly aimed at women.

I ‘m not sure whether that’s enough to make one want to turn right around and go back to bed or pack up and move somewhere a little less populated. I don’t think Indianapolis is really any worse than any other major city. There are times when the universe decides to dump a whole lot of bad on us at once. When that happens over a weekend we get to Monday morning staggering, feeling as though we’re hung over from a party we don’t remember attending.

During times like this, it can be really difficult to keep focused on long-term goals. When surrounded by the negative it becomes difficult to imagine that anything positive is ever going to happen. Our brains understand that if we keep moving forward, doing the things we know we have to do, that we will eventually succeed. Our emotions don’t necessarily buy that argument, though, and Mondays seem like a very good time to tumble into depression and not come out.

Generally speaking, utilizing a system of rewards and punishments has proven to be less than effective, especially in educational matters. However, I remain convinced that when we feel as though the universe is punishing us for merely daring to exist we deserve rewards simply for managing to survive. I worry every time Kat visits a friend who lives in an apartment complex or drives on I-465. She deserves rewards for surviving both those experiences. The kids were non-stop narcissists over the weekend. We deserve rewards for letting them live.

You, of course, have your own troubles and challenges and you, too, deserve your own rewards. The problem is, it’s Monday. We can’t exactly go skipping work or whatever simply because we need to recover from the weekend. So, here are some ideas for rewards you might give to yourself that won’t dramatically interfere with the rest of your day.

Donuts. Indy is blessed with a wide selection of donut shops. Yelp lists over 20. That should, in theory, put one near you. Even if it doesn’t, there’s always the Krispy Kremes at your local Speedway. The sugar will help launch you into whatever comes next.
Beer. Okay, so depending upon when you’re reading this it might be a wee bit early to start indulging in alcohol just yet, but by noon it’s fair game and Indy has a plethora of breweries so finding one shouldn’t be a problem. Maybe treat yourself with one at lunch and see if it doesn’t improve your outlook on the day.
Call your mom, or a sibling, or someone else whose voice makes you happy. These are the times I miss being able to call Poppa and just say hi. A calm, familiar voice can turn a day around in a heart beat.
Shopping. You may need to be careful here. Don’t burst your budget so that you have nasty credit card bills coming at you in the future. A little retail therapy can make a significant difference in your day, though, even if it’s just picking out something online.
Quick sex. There’s probably not enough time for all the romance and foreplay to which you’re accustomed, but a quick nip before work or at noon isn’t a bad use of your time and is the one thing that is likely to put a smile on your face.

There are other rewards you can find, I’m sure. Do something that brings you pleasure and makes you smile. Perhaps a chocolate covered strawberry, or a little extra creme in your coffee this morning. Rewards don’t have to be large or extravagant to be effective. You can reward yourself in thousands of different ways if you think about it a moment. Sometimes, just taking a moment to think can be a reward itself.

Weekends aren’t always pleasant and relaxing. If yours was a bit more challenging than you would have liked, take a moment and reward yourself. After all, you’ve survived once again. Not everyone can say that.

Just For Fun

Sunday Comics

April 24, 2016

We don’t apologize for a joke. We are comics. We are here to make you laugh. If you don’t get it, then don’t watch us. —Joan Rivers

After a week full of seriousness, we find it appropriate that Sunday is filled with humor

Growing up, there was a direct link between Sundays and humor. That link came in the form of the Sunday Comics, the full-color separate section of the newspaper that was the one thing all week worth reading. Of course, in our house reading the paper didn’t come until Sunday afternoon, after church, after dinner. Poppa would take the front section with all the news, Mother would take all the ads and coupons, and my brother and I would fight over who got to read the comics first. Peanuts, Blondie, and Family Circus were the highlight of our week.

Of course, comics today are delivered online, whenever you want them. I’ve not had a Sunday edition of a newspaper hit our front steps in a few years, which is rather sad. As much as I lament the decline of the newspaper, being able to read the Sunday comics at 5:00 AM is rather cool, and there’s no recycling necessary come trash day.

There are other ways to fill one’s Sunday, or any day of the week for that matter, with laughter. There are other kinds of comics besides those running in the Sunday paper; you know, the stand-up kind. Like my friend Courtney Kay Meyers in the pictures above. Actually, I’m not sure CKM is doing a lot of comedy these days. She’s been going to school and is apparently about to graduate next month. At least, I think she’s about to graduate. She sent me an invitation to a graduation party. There may yet be a punchline coming. That’s one of the fun things about comics, though: they keep you thinking and laughing at the same time and most anything is possible.

So, since it’s technically illegal for me to post Blondie or Beetle Bailey here without express written permission, which I don’t have, I’m going to give you that other live-action form of comedy, starting with CKM herself, from about 6 years or so ago, back when she was starving all the time, not just every third day. The other comics are just for fun because it’s Sunday. We all need the laugh.

Melissa McCarthy is absolutely hilarious, as usual, on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon.

https://youtu.be/saOHKFWW3tU

And you thought you knew Irish food …

In case you were wanting acting lessons from Tom Hanks …

If John Oliver and Cookie Monster did your local news …

Current Issues / Mythology / PotD

Take Your Boycott And Shove It

April 24, 2016

I can say unequivocally that the boycott does not work. It’s never complete enough to have impact unless it’s backed by force, and I don’t think anybody in America seriously proposes that. —Helen Suzman

charles i. letbetter - take your boycott and shove it

There are literally hundreds of boycotts going on right now and none of them matter because, by and large, they don’t work.

There is a very real chance that I am going to offend some people today, and, according to comic Ricky Gervais, that’s not a bad thing. The man who has made the better part of his living off hurling insults at people and making them feel bad thinks we all should stop trying to be so damned politically correct and speak our minds. Of course, the danger in such a statement is that not everyone’s mind is running on all cylinders which could end up being a dangerous thing that ultimately leads to this stupid thing called a boycott.

I follow trends pretty closely, not because I want to adapt them, but from both fashion and advertising perspectives they are important in taking the temperature of a given society or specific demographic group. The latter part of this week I’ve seen a trend emerging quietly, among white people primarily, folks who aren’t necessarily inclined to be terribly upset by Prince’s death, that makes me ill. Some people want to boycott Target stores because they are willing to allow transgender people to use the restroom facilities of the gender with which they identify. Another incredibly insane movement wants to boycott the twenty dollar bill because they oppose the Department of Treasury’s decision to put Harriet Tubman on the currency, replacing one of our worst presidents ever, Andrew Jackson.

Let me state, unequivocally, that if you support either one of these boycotts you are a fucking idiot. The Target boycott won’t work because its based on an unrealistic fear that no intelligent person believes. The twenty dollar bill boycott won’t work because it’s just plain stupid and fueled by ignorance and racism. More than both those factors, though, boycotts don’t work because they’re ineffective and the sooner we stop throwing the word around as though it were some magic tool for getting our way, the better.

Do you have any idea how many different groups are attempting pointless boycotts right now? The website ethicalconsumer.org, which I neither support nor endorse, keeps a list of ongoing consumer boycotts that is about as complete as any. The list is ridiculously long and includes a number of companies that always seem to have someone boycotting them, such as Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Ben & Jerry’s, H&M, Kellogs, and that company everyone loves to hate: Monsanto. Guess what: NONE OF THE BOYCOTTS ARE WORKING! They won’t. They never will.

Why? Because the boycott as an economic tool is fundamentally flawed and even in cases where it might appear that a boycott worked, it was other external factors that likely led to any significant change.

I was impressed by a report done by Stephen J. Dubner over at Freakonomics this past January. The report, originally done for radio, takes a look at one of the most famous boycotts of modern times: The Montgomery Bus Boycott. If ever there were a boycott that seemed to work, that would be it, right? That one would appear to be a shining example of what can happen when a group of people exerts their economic force onto a situation. But Daniel Diermeier, dean of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, doesn’t think it was necessarily the boycott that led to the desegregation of buses. He states:

Being able to identify the actual causal impact of the Montgomery boycott is very difficult, probably impossible. There are some people that argue, at the end of the day, it was really the legal strategy of the NAACP that really was the decisive component. And it’s difficult to disentangle that. I think most scholars that have looked at this particular case would argue that the boycott became a symbolic event that triggered an entire social movement.

As historians have broken down the event, we come to understand that Rosa Parks was no random bus rider, that Montgomery was no random location, and the boycott was no random activity hastily slapped together by a preacher from Atlanta. Rather, the event was but a part of a longer-term strategy to effect a chance in the civil rights laws across the country. The boycott put a face on a burgeoning movement but it was the strategy of the movement, not the boycott itself, that resulted in change.

The same applies to any other boycott we see that one might consider successful. There has to be an over-arching strategy and organizing force capable of widespread support and influence that understands how boycotting is a very specific tool and, like trying to use a hammer to thread a needle, doesn’t work when applied incorrectly. The vast majority of announced boycotts don’t even come close to having the reason and authority behind them to be successful.

Too often, boycotts such as the ones announced this past week amount to nothing more than an attempt at moral bullying. The same organization that announced the boycott of Target has also tried boycotting Disney multiple times for a variety of reasons. I’m sure you’ve noticed how well that boycott is going [insert sarcastic eye roll here]. Their entire purpose behind the boycott is to force Target into changing their policy for no reason other than to match up with the organization’s right-wing religious-based morality. What they’re doing is nothing more than an attempted “might makes right” tactic that is doomed to failure.

If anything, this week’s boycotts are likely to backfire. Even when the cause is a good one, and neither of these are, boycotts often end up having the reverse effect. Why? No one likes to be told what to do. We especially don’t like to be told where to shop, what to eat, or what to wear. Boycotts that attempt to affect those industries are doomed before they even start.

For boycotts to work, they have to appeal to a matter of conscience that exceeds our commitment to our buying habits. Interestingly enough, there is one form of boycott that might actually have an impact. Note what is happening in the move against North Carolina’s HB2 law, aka the bathroom bill, which prohibits people from using any other restroom facility than the one determined by the gender identified on their birth certificate. This has to be one of the most stupid laws on the planet and people are responding appropriately by leaving the state of North Carolina to wallow in their own ignorance. Not only have a number of entertainers canceled performances in the state, but major corporations that had been planning expansions there have decided to move their operations elsewhere. While not officially an organized boycott, at least, not as far as we can tell at this point, the movement has gained so much momentum that the United Kingdom has warned LGBT tourists against traveling to either North Carolina or Mississippi because of their anti-gay laws. This movement is still developing, though, so we’ll see what it takes to actually get the laws overturned, which is the only acceptable outcome.

Generally speaking, though, and in overwhelming proportion, announcing a boycott is rather like saying you don’t like pea soup because of the way it dribbles down your great-grandmother’s chin. You’re being a stupid, ignorant bully and the rest of the world would kindly thank you to shut-the-fuck-up. Boycotts don’t work. If that offends you, tough. Deal with it.

Hashtag Philosophy / pop culture / PotD

Odd Thing That Irritates Me

April 23, 2016

One thing above all gives charm to men’s thoughts, and this is unrest. A mind that is not uneasy irritates and bores me. —Anatole France

charles i. letbetter - odd thing that irritates me

#OddThingThatIrritatesMe is trending on Twitter and it irritates me that I have so many items to add to the list

I was not born with my father’s easy-going temperament. My brother was. I’m not sure he’s raised his voice for anything other than a Rangers’ game in the past 30 years. Poppa was gentle, the very definition of being “slow to anger.” I envy that quality and it rather irritates me that I don’t have it.

Me? I got my Grandpa Slover’s short fuse. I seem to have inherited a number of his traits, from walking with my hands behind my back to having a low tolerance for mindless noise. The temper is what gets me in trouble most often, though, and none of my attempts to adjust that over the years have succeeded.

So, when I got up late this morning, I found it somewhat fortuitous that #OddThingThatIrritatesMe would be trending. There is much that irritates me. Given sufficient time, I could probably create a list that would dominate Twitter for the entire week. Sad, isn’t it? Especially compared with some of the rather mild irritants that have been posted by others. Consider these:

#OddThingThatIrritatesMe knowing the government reads my tweets yet they don’t take the time to like them

— Morgan Waite (@MORGyonce) April 23, 2016

Only serving breakfast until 11 AM. Breakfast is a ALL DAY MEAL! #OddThingThatIrritatesMe pic.twitter.com/CcLgMJbBV1

— Fergus The Cat (@FERGUSthe_CAT) April 23, 2016

#OddThingThatIrritatesMe – when people use the bathroom stall right next to me when every other one is open.

— Brittaney Phelps (@brittaneyphelps) April 22, 2016

See? Those are mild irritants at best. If anything, I’m irritated that everyone else’s irritants are so pallid. What irritates me is a long list of grievances that have grown from mild annoyances that were not worth mentioning to major issues that make me want to scream. I am irritated that I have such faults.

Nonetheless, I feel compelled to share what irritates me because I know that doing so irritates other people and if I’m going to be irritated then I damn well want company. So, here are just a few of the things that irritate me.

Knowing damn good and well that I bought something at the store yesterday but not being able to find it when I need it. This happens far too often and, of course, when I need that particular item is usually when I’m in the middle of cooking and don’t have time to go traipsing around all over the kitchen trying to find where it was misshelved. This is made all the more infuriating knowing that I’m the one who put up the groceries.
When it’s still dark out and the cats decide to scare the living shit out of me. Our three cats almost always get up when I do of the morning because they know I’ll turn the light on in the kitchen and that pleases them for some stupid reason. They take advantage of this time when the children are still asleep to chase each other and play, which can be rather cute. But they don’t make a lot of noise as they chase each other up and down the hall. I’ll be sitting here typing away and all of a sudden, WHOOSH! There are three cats running along the back of the couch and under my chair and over the desk and then gone again. Startles me every time.
Phones that make noises during the night. If I could, I’d leave my cell phone on silent mode all the time. Doesn’t matter how cute or funny the ringtone is, it irritates the living hell out of me every time one goes off because there’s never any warning and it disrupts my train of thought, or my nap, whichever is happening at the moment. Silent phones mean missed messages, though, so I have to turn it up during the day and too often I forget to turn it back down before I go to bed at night. So, somewhere around two in the morning, I’m jolted awake as my phone all-too-loudly informs me that, “A new message has been received.” Kat has her phone set to just chirp, but that little noise comes off as condescending, flaunting the fact that whatever message just arrived isn’t for me. We need quieter phones.
Kids toys that shouldn’t make noise, but do. As I’m typing, the Tipster is awake and attempting to play with the tea set she got for her birthday. Logically, that shouldn’t be a problem unless her tea party turns into a wild Barbie rave. But the ceramic cups and plates clink every time she sets one down, and she’s six, so it’s not like she’s the most graceful being on the planet. So, I’m hearing this constant arhythmic high-pitched clink, clinkety-clink, clink, clink, clink while I’m trying to concentrate on what I’m doing. Good thing spell check is turned on.
Having to stop what I’m doing to refill my coffee cup and take my medicine. Whether I’m writing or editing pictures, concentration is critical and any interruption is less than appreciated. The problem comes that my brain doesn’t work without coffee and bad things happen if I don’t take my meds. Inevitably, I’ll be deep in thought, fully committed to whatever I’m doing, reach for my coffee cup and … empty. Now I have to interrupt the flow of my work, walk to the kitchen, fill my coffee cup, return to the desk, find that comfy spot in my chair again, and try to remember exactly what the hell I was doing. Taking medicine is just as bad. I easily lose 10-15 minutes of productivity every time.
Writing something really cool with an especially wonderful picture and no one reads it. This happens a lot on the weekend. I spend just as much time on our Saturday and Sunday articles as I do those during the week, but if the weather’s good they aren’t read by more than two or three people. I understand, when it’s pretty and warm and all spring-like, who in their right mind wants to stay indoors and read something irrelevant off the computer? Understanding doesn’t prevent me from being disappointed, though, and it irritates me when I feel like all that work was for nothing.

I could go on and on and on, but we both have better things to do than sit here listening to me gripe about the tiny little irritants that aren’t going to go away. I’m sure you have your list as well. We all do. And that list never seems to get shorter.

Advertising / pop culture / science

Measuring Your Footprint

April 22, 2016

We in the industrialized world make a greater difference because our ecological footprint, our impact on the condition of the environment, is 40 to 50 times larger than that of people in the developing world. —Maurice Strong

We do not exist without leaving a scar upon the plant. Our obligation, our responsibility to the universe, is to make that footprint as small as possible.

We learn in elementary school the basic balance of life on this planet. We breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants, all the green living things around us, take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. Just that easily, we keep each other alive, a carefully balanced symbiotic relationship that has been in place for millions of years. When perfectly balanced, neither leaves a footprint. Such a balance is difficult to maintain,though. As our population has increased, we have, partially of necessity, reduced the amount of green around us. This throws the whole planet out of balance and, because that balance is so precise, any imbalance in either direction causes bad things to happen. There’s no point arguing about who is at fault, we must focus our effort on reducing the size of the scar we leave and bring us closer to the balance between carbon life forms and plants that keep life sustainable.

Welcome to Earth Day, 2016. This is the 46th, I think, celebration and the day and normally we would encourage people to be out planting stuff. However, for most of us in the Midwest, weather conditions are not exactly cooperative. The ground is rather wet and muddy from yesterday’s rain and there may be more on the way before this afternoon is done. Not exactly prime planting weather. Still, there are things one can do to help address your impact on the plant and one of those is measuring your carbon footprint.

For those not quite up on the lingo:

car·bon foot·print

[ˌkäːrbənˈfo͝otprint]

NOUN

the amount of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds emitted due to the consumption of fossil fuels by a particular person, group, etc.

The term sounds like some mix of science and feel-good pseudo-spirituality, but it is a real measure of just how much an impact you are having upon the planet. Understand, this is more than just the amount of carbon dioxide you emit when you take a breath. If your carbon footprint were only limited to that measure, we wouldn’t have any problems at all. The issue comes that, especially in industrialized countries such as the United States, anything we do that involves consuming fuel most likely also adds to the amount of carbon dioxide we put into the air. Because the greater number of our vehicles run on fossil fuels that release carbon and the majority of our electric power comes from burning coal that releases carbon, every time we so much as turn on a light we are adding to our carbon footprint.

This, then, brings us to the question of just how much carbon does one person produce? Obviously, that answer varies from one person to the next. There are online calculators at the EPA website as well as the Nature Conservancy that can determine the full size of the carbon footprint for your entire household. These calculate factors such as home energy, food consumption, recycling, and transportation.

What I found this year, though, is a tool that measures where my footprint is the largest: online. We tend to not think about it, but when we are using our computers and accessing the internet, not only are we consuming energy in our home or workplace, we’re also consuming energy at the location of at least two servers, one that belongs to our Internet service provider and another that holds the website we’re accessing. The more tabs we have open, the larger the footprint we’re leaving.

There are two things that make this measurement tool cool. First, it’s a free plug-in for the Chrome browser. I’m not sure what the technological limitations are that prevent it from being available for other browsers, but at least for this year, Chrome users are the only ones who can take advantage of it. Second, and this is what sold me, it is sponsored by the makers of my favorite Scotch: Johnnie Walker. The whiskey distiller has pledged to plant up to 75,000 trees to offset the online carbon footprint measured by the plug-in. More details about the brand’s involvement can be found in this article.

I installed the plug-in on my desktop just about 24 hours previous to my writing this article. In that length of time, my online browsing has generated 3467 grams of carbon, roughly the equivalent of using a microwave for over 365 minutes. To offset that amount of carbon, Johnnie Walker will need to plant 37.2 trees.

37 trees in 24 hours. Extrapolate that out and I would need to plant 13,505 trees a year just to offset the amount of carbon generated by my daily computer use. That’s a lot of trees. Obviously, I need to find ways to make my footprint considerably smaller. Both the EPA and Nature Conservancy have plenty of ideas for how to do that so I won’t bother repeating them now. I’m already running a bit long here. You know best which options work well for you.

Our relationship to this planet is delicate. We cannot afford to continue growing our population and our cities and our economies in the manner to which we have become accustomed without incurring some very serious consequences. Already this year, every month has been the hottest on record. While spending a little less time online or using tools to put unused tabs to sleep may not seem like much of a big deal, the cumulative effort of everyone measuring and watching their carbon footprint adds up.

I don’t know if my boys are going to ever give me grandchildren. They might. Maybe. If they do, I would like to know that my grandchildren can enjoy playing outside safely, can breathe the air and drink the water safely, and not have to alter their lifestyle because of bad choices we’re making now. Measure your footprint and make some adjustments.

For Earth Day.

Music / PotD

Prince, Chyna, and Immortality

April 22, 2016

The key to longevity is to learn every aspect of music that you can. — Prince

charles i. letbetter - prince, chyna, and immortality

Prince changed music. Chyna changed women’s wrestling. But would we want either of them to be immortal?

Here we are again, mourning the death of yet another music legend. If I had any purple left in my wardrobe I might be wearing it today. Maybe. Earlier this week, I listed Purple Rain as one of the top five songs that everyone needs to hear. Now, that’s all anyone wants to play. Everyone jumps on the bandwagon when an artist dies.

There’s also a temptation to curse 2016 for being unreasonably evil in killing off people who mean a lot to our culture and in whom we have a great deal of invested emotion. I saw one tweet yesterday that claimed the aliens were calling all their spies back home before the disaster of this fall’s presidential election. While unlikely, that explanation comes about as close to making sense as anything else does at the moment.

Yesterday just plain sucked for everyone except, possibly, Queen Elizabeth II, who turned 90. And even if her day went as badly as everyone else’s, the Queen gets a do-over in June when her birthday is officially celebrated.

The rest of us, however, started the day with news of Chyna’s death. That was bad enough. Chyna was one of those people who always seemed to be struggling against public perception. Few people paid attention to women’s wrestling before Chyna got into the game, and she changed that. She made it more sexy, more entertaining. That wasn’t enough, though, and she kept looking for something I’m not sure she ever found, some level of acceptance that alluded her.

When the news began to filter onto the Internet that Prince is dead, the initial tone was one of disbelief. After all, he’d been the target of false death announcements before and having TMZ break the news is like asking for a giant here-we-go-again eye roll. Only when the Associated Press joined in on the story did the shock and sadness really begin to set in and spread a purple wave of sadness around the globe.

Were it a more quiet news day, we would probably be talking about the death of Brenda Soto, a 16-year-old Fairfax county, Virginia student who was beaten to death by other girls while at school. There are multiple issues there that need to be discussed, including the accusation that multiple students stood by and recorded the beating on their phones instead of doing anything to help.

Our collective attention can’t seem to handle more than one topic at a time, though, and for the moment, all our attention is on Prince. The rock star’s death is bound to become one of those “where were you” moments for a lot of people. I am seeing in the global reaction’s to Prince’s death a pattern similar to what happened when Elvis died unexpectedly in 1977. All the shock, all the despair, mostly coming from people my age and a wee bit younger, those for whom songs like Purple Rain, Raspberry Beret, and When Doves Cry influenced some formative part of their adolescence, is very similar to that of women of a certain age when Elvis died.

I remember being in the car with Poppa, on my way to a piano lesson, when the news of Elvis’ death came on the radio. I wasn’t of the generation that worshipped him, though, so while I appreciated the impact he’d had on music, I wasn’t necessarily a fan (which hasn’t changed). Similarly, teens today are not overly familiar with Prince and the various iterations and changes he went through. Those who are really into music appreciate his impact, but they’re not as likely to be fans and most won’t understand why their parents and the rest of the world are turning everything purple.

What I expect to come next are the conspiracy theories. Prince led a life that is ripe for speculation. After all, since his 2001 conversion to Jehovah’s Witness, Prince had acted less like a rock star and more like a delusional cult member (which is the most accurate way to describe all Jehovah’s Witnesses). Even though he had returned to performing and seemed to be in good form when he rocked Atlanta earlier this month, one has to wonder if the strange religious beliefs, particularly that part about not allowing blood transfusions or organ transplants, might have factored into his death.

There’s also the fact that Prince died a mere two months after one of his more famous girlfriends, Vanity. That there might have been some connection between their deaths is already a tale that is gathering some steam and, given the romantic twist, could quite likely take off.

Or maybe he’s out golfing with Elvis and Bowie in Bermuda.

With the tremendous number of deaths among music legends and other celebrities this year, one might find it interesting that just this past Wednesday The Guardian ran a story about the possibility of digital immortality. The theory here is that while it might be impossible to preserve one’s body forever, given the natural decaying of biological tissue, one might be able to digitally preserve all of one’s memories, experiences, personality, and wisdom in a digital form, and then present that back through some type of chat bot with an avatar resembling the face of the deceased. The name of the company is Eternime and the product isn’t quite ready for prime time. Their website says they hope to be in beta sometime “next month,” without any indication as to which “next month” that might be.

But what if we could preserve the personality, the spirit, and the essence of people like Prince or Bowie or Elvis? Would we really want to keep them around in that form? We have their music, which is influential on their own. Do we really need a digital Prince to repeat back some of his previous questionable statements? Regardless of how great his music was, this was the guy who said, “When I found out that there was eight Presidents before George Washington, I wanted to smack somebody,” and “Anyway, all these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can’t be good for you.” Do we really need that nonsense lingering around? I’m not sure immortality suits everyone terribly well.

And that’s why I might not wear purple today, even if I had some. All that was great about Prince happened before 2000. In fact, one could easily, in my opinion, make the argument that after his 1998 album Lovesexy everything else pretty much sucks. To return to an earlier analogy, think young Elvis versus “old” Elvis (he died when he was 42, so “old” is a matter of perspective). With both artists, the songs that made them famous and for which they’ll always be remembered are the ones at the front of their careers. Prince hasn’t had a number one hit since 1989’s Batdance. After that, the highest any song ranked on the charts was The Greatest Romance Ever Sold, which topped at #63 in 2000. He hasn’t had a song hit the top 100 since 2004’s Call My Name.

So, as great as he once was, maybe it’s best that we let Prince and everyone else go. Immortality isn’t everything it’s cracked up to be and sometimes the more we know about our heroes and legends, the less likeable they become. We’ll miss what we liked about them, that part of them that touched our lives, but that doesn’t mean we should keep them around forever.

And hey, maybe the movie Men In Black was right: They’re not dead, they just returned to their home planet.

Current Issues / PotD / science

Water That Is Safe

April 21, 2016

Rivers, ponds, lakes, and streams – they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do – they all contain truths. —Muhammad Ali

Water is the very essence of life, but is it ever safe to drink?

I was standing outside with the Tipster this morning waiting on her bus in the rain. As we stood there, huddled under my umbrella, she noticed the water running off the side. Being the silly little six-year-old that she is, she tipped her head back so that the top of her head was exposed to the rain.

“What are you doing?” I asked in a rather incredulous tone. As with many six-year-olds, getting her ready for school this morning was a trying set of circumstances and I really wasn’t in the mood for nonsense.

“I’m drinking the rain off the umbrella,” she giggled.

I pulled her back up under the umbrella with a warning, “You don’t want to do that.”

She’s six. She’s not going to let a statement like that go unchallenged. So, naturally, her response was, “Why?”

What came out of my mouth was, “Because the cats have been all over it,” which is a cop-out because the cats have been all over everything in our house. What I really meant, though, was something more like, “I have no idea what the Ph balance of the rainwater here is and given all the manufacturing on this side of town I’m not sure any of the rainwater is safe without some form of filtering.” That version would have gone right over her little head, though. Cats are much more relatable.

If you’ve driven around Indianapolis lately, you’ve probably seen the billboards and/or heard the radio ads from Citizens Energy, the company that manages and oversees the Indianapolis water supply. The ad campaign has been an attempt to garner public support and understanding for a proposed rate increase to water bills in the areas that Citizens covers. The situation, as presented by Citizens, sounds dier. Some pipes are over 100 years old and much of the original infrastructure is crumbling. Replacing all those pipes is expensive. The plan worked. Yesterday, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) approved a rate hike that will increase the average residential water bill by $5 a month starting in May.

The rate hike doesn’t actually ensure that the water we receive through our taps is any cleaner when it leaves the treatment facility, but that it’s less likely to be contaminated between there and your home. In short, what the rate hike does is help prevent Indianapolis and the surrounding areas from experiencing a water disaster like what happened with Flint, Michigan. Clean water passing through aging pipes is about as dangerous as, well, drinking water falling off an umbrella. All manners of nasty chemicals leach into the water supply with no means of control.

As Americans, we take the quality and ubiquity of our water supply for granted. Almost everyone alive today has grown up with running water. We are accustomed to turning a knob and having the water flow at quantities and pressures we could take for granted. That’s why Flint’s water crisis was so alarming. We, as a general populace, weren’t even aware that such a disaster could happen.

Scientist and climatologists have been warning us for years, though, that our supply of drinking water is becoming increasingly unsafe. As with most matters of earth science, no one wants to listen. The stories are of gradual decline, of a slow erosion that isn’t necessarily evident every time one looks out the window. In 1990, the Acid Rain Program was created as part of the Clean Air Act, but corporate and industrial opposition to the limits established by those laws has been severe and through continued lobbying the laws have been diminished to the point they’re hardly recognizable.

Keeping our drinking water clean is neither cheap nor easy. Earlier this month, Citizens was happy to announce that, “… drinking water produced at all of the utility’s treatment plants is safe …” but that announcement didn’t come until after the Environmental Protection Agency proposed adding an area downtown to its list of superfund sites. Being on this list allows federal funds to be used in cleaning up the area. Two of Citizens’ wellfield areas, along Riverside and 16th streets, would be included in that cleanup. Until then, anything from those wellfields has to go through extra treatment before it’s ready to be consumed.

Spring is deceptive in its ability to make everything look so clean and pure. We just assume that what we drink and sprinkle over our gardens is healthy and safe. A major effort is required to keep us as safe as we think we are, though, and your Indiana state legislature isn’t helping any. Bills attempting to eliminate or significantly limit the EPA’s rules, especially those regarding groundwater, are frequently introduced and there is a vocal lobbying effort to prohibit all EPA legislation completely.

As beautiful a state as Indiana could be, you’d think we’d value our natural resources more and want to keep them clean, but apparently that’s not necessarily the case across the board. Some would rather indulge the continued dumping of raw sewage and spew horrible chemicals into the air. What may seem harmless to some, eventually impacts us all. Rain eventually falls and little girls try to drink the rain from their umbrellas.

You would think such an act would be innocent and safe. It should be.

Advertising / Art

The Obscenity of Art

April 21, 2016

Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. —Herbert Marcuse

charles i. letbetter - the obscenity of art

To the extent that the purpose of art is to connect us with an emotion, can anything produced ever be considered truly obscene unless it generates no emotion at all?

Yes, it has happened again. Once more, some prurient patrol of public prejudice has assumed the mantel of moral responsibility for the planet and attempted to stamp out the obscenity that is art. Apparently my articles are not getting in front of enough eyes because I know damn good and well we wrote about this at least three times last year. Yet, for those who weren’t paying attention, here we go again.

This time, the offense takes place in Englewood, New Jersey where there is apparently a city ordinance prohibiting public display of nude images in certain spaces. Specifically, according to the Associated Press, “nude images have to be kept in interior rooms not visible from public areas.” This 1992 ordinance created a problem for Laura Borghi of Borghi Fine Art Gallery when it came time to hang a work by painter Tom Dash this past January. Due to the size of the canvas, Ms. Borghi claims that she had limited options as to where to display the piece. So, she chose the front window of her gallery. [We’ll just assume that there is ultra-violet protection on the glass to prevent the sun’s rays from destroying the pigment in the paint. Otherwise, she would be a very bad gallery owner.]

Dash’s artwork, by the way, is, “an ink jet collage of photos of two women painted over in acrylic paint.” One of the women happens to be showing her bare buttock.

Englewood city code enforcement officer Walter Deptuch, who apparently takes his job very seriously, issued Borghi a violation requesting that the artwork be removed. I’m guessing that “request” failed to use the magic word “please,” as Borghi refused to move the painting. She was then threatened with “fines of $1,250 per day and the threat of up to 90 days in jail.” Rather severe consequences for showing someone’s bare bum.

Ms. Borghi has, of course, filed suit as she should, and, of course, that immediately causes any elected official, or city employee, to clam up, so there has been no statement from the city attempting to justify what would seem to be a rather over-the-top reaction to something that likely offends fewer than five percent of the town’s populace. I’m just guessing at that statistic, but given the number of bare butts one sees on prime time television these days I hardly see how Dash’s artwork can be considered obscene on those grounds.

As we’ve stated before, though, obscenity and art rather go hand and hand. Getting the attention of image-weary humans requires an increasing shock value and whether the art form is visual or verbal or musical, artists across all genres find themselves crossing that might, to some, be considered a line of good taste in order to express themselves in ways that communicate stronger emotions. A little obscenity here and there is necessary for some art to stand out and, quite honestly, whose definition of obscenity are we using in the first place?

As I was reading about this situation yesterday, another email dropped into my inbox (yes, I still use email) showing off a new print ad for an exhibition at Sweden’s Sven-Harrys art museum called Swedish Art: Now! I’m sure they argued over that title for hours. The exhibition includes the Tomas Hämén fossilised dinosaur faeces sculpture, Asstral Traveler. The print ad includes a picture of that piece of sculpture with lead copy that states: “You’d better sit down for this.” Body copy later encourages, “Admire it above, then take in the real thing…” At that point, my inner 15-year-old can no longer hide and burst out giggling. Here’s the ad:

Yes, you are seeing that correctly. Hämén carved a butt plug from fossilized dinosaur shit and the museum thinks you might want to sit and take it in. I sincerely apologize for the adolescent giggles continuing on this side of the Internet. I don’t’ know whether the folks who created the ad, M&C Saatchi, Stockholm, intended the slightly erotic inferences, but I certainly hope they did. Certainly, no one in Sweden seems to be claiming there to be any obscenity here, but I can’t help but wonder how well the same ad would play in Englewood. If Ms. Burghi cannot display the bare butt, can she display a fossilized butt plug?

The degree to which our world is off its moral rocker is evident in the fact that I am offended that someone else took offense at something I don’t see as offensive. Screams of obscenity get thrown around all over the place and one might reasonably argue that creating such a dustup over a relatively insignificant display of a woman’s bare bum is a pretty good way to generate some free marketing. Although, with attorney’s fees and court filing costs, I’m not sure “free” is exactly the appropriate term.

Speaking of attorney’s, the one representing Ms. Borghi in all this, Brian Bernstein, is confident they will win because both the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions prohibit censoring art in any way. There’s no special obscenity exception clause. He states:

“There’s nothing new about government efforts to suppress artistic expression, especially if it might be viewed by some as controversial. Art that challenges convention makes an attractive target for the government.”

With most municipal budgets being as tight as they are and city resources in most places being so slim, I’m rather surprised that the city of Englewood would want to suffer the expense of such a lawsuit in the first place. Don’t be surprised when they settle out of court and the whole matter gets dropped.

I’ve seen the AP wire story in no fewer than seven publications over the past 24 hours. That should be sufficient attention that Ms. Borghi isn’t likely to have much trouble actually selling the artwork, which, I assume, was her goal in the first place. Doubtless, the price may have increased a little bit. I’m fairly certain Tom Dash doesn’t mind a little extra publicity coming his direction, either.

Obscenity is a tag that often carries some value in the art world. If a work is strong enough to offend the prudish, the artist must be saying something important, no? And if that message is so elevated that the artistically naïve and ignorant don’t “get it,” then the artwork must be especially valuable. Such is art world logic.

Personally, I don’t find artwork obscene and would be just fine if this whole argument would go away. What’s obscene is the way a handful of galleries and curators control the art market, driving up prices for a handful of artists, while preventing other artists from being shown in major galleries at all. That’s where the real obscenity in art lies.

Oh, but I’m not supposed to talk about that. Damn, I’m likely to get into trouble now.

Oh well.

Current Issues / PotD

Sex And Politics

April 20, 2016

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. —Plato

Given a choice between sex and politics, the wise person chooses sex

Now that the New York primaries are over and went exactly the way everyone knew they would, the circus that is presidential primary politics moves to Indiana in advance of the primary on May 3. Many times, having a late primary means that your vote really doesn’t count for much. In the past two election cycles, the nomination of both parties has pretty much been decided by the time the Indiana primary rolled around. Not so this year. Both Democrats and Republicans are involved in races that are close enough in delegate counts as to make every last vote in the Indiana primaries worth something (despite what some pundits are saying). So, all five of the remaining candidates will be hitting the state hard and heavy over the next two weeks to try and convince Hoosiers to vote for them.

What should Hoosiers do? Have sex. Not with the candidates, mind you. None of them are attractive enough for the thought of having sex with them to not be cringe-inducing. I’m pretty sure a couple of them have to blindfold their spouses before getting into bed at night. And we’re fortunate that the list has dwindled to five. One of the advantages of a late primary is that we don’t have to put up with that messy political orgy that started the season. Still, given the choice between politics or sex, we’re all better off choosing the sex.

Let’s face it: we’ve been listening to these yahoos spout their lies and hate-inducing clap-trap for over a year. Media of various forms have inundated us with every stupid word they’ve said, every insult they’ve spouted, every ridiculous idea they’ve proposed, and every opinion on which they’ve flip-flopped. Whichever party one favors really makes very little difference. The candidates who have survived thus far do not offer any real hope for our country.

So, if we’re going to get screwed anyway, we might as well do it in a way that is at least pleasurable. Sex is so much better than politics, makes people so much happier, and even in the worst of circumstances doesn’t endanger as many lives. Here are a few reasons sex is better than politics:

You, alone, get to decide who fucks you. Politics is like rape in that you’re getting fucked by someone you don’t like in a manner you don’t enjoy and then you’re told it’s your fault. With consensual sex, you choose who’s in bed with you. You don’t have to worry about some lame southern state screwing it up for the rest of the country or taking it up the backside from the electoral college. The sex partner you get is the one you choose.
When the sex is bad, there are ways to fix it. Not all sex is good, which you understand if you’ve had sex more than once. However, the majority of bad sex comes from poor communication between partners and can be resolved with a little time and patience. Bad politics, though, last a minimum of four years and there’s not a damn thing you can do during the interim to make it any better.
Even bad sex is still good. Even when the sex isn’t as wonderful as you might have preferred, at least you come out saying, “Hey, I got laid!” You don’t have to share the details and no one actually cares if you fudge the orgasm count a few times. Bad politics, however, is never good. Bad politics is like finding out your partner has an STD even the CDC doesn’t know about yet. You’re doomed. The bumper sticker won’t scrape off and people scream at you for electing the douche that sent the economy into the toilet and got West Virginia nuked.
Sex only affects the lives of you and your partner(s). Even if you’re cheating with someone who is also cheating on someone, the total number of people affected is likely to be less than ten. When politics goes awry, however, the fate of the entire world can be at stake. Millions of innocent lives can be lost. Clean air and drinking water can be ruined forever. Generations who linger long after our demise can suffer because of one bad political decision.
Cleaning up after sex is relatively easy. When the sex is over, you take a shower, wash the sheets, re-adjust the lamp shade, and then go on about your day. Or night. The backside of politics isn’t so easy. Who cleans up after war? Not the politicians. Who has to find a new source of drinking water? Not the politicians who allowed it to be polluted. Who replaces the air we can no longer breathe? Not the politicians who allowed it to become poisoned. Who replaces all the jobs that are lost due to bad foreign policy? Not the politician who implemented the failed policy. Politics is sloppy and leaves you with the mess every time.

As the presidential candidates roam from town to town the next two weeks, they’re going to make a lot of speeches in a lot of different places. Your best move? Don’t go. Leave them all talking to empty chairs. Send a message that Hoosiers are fed up with their lies and their hate and their condescending attitudes toward the Midwest. Instead, stay home and have sex. Or go to a strip club. Or take your significant other to a strip club and then have sex. Or watch porn together. Or try out a new butt plug. There are myriad options that are better than attending a political rally where no one cares about your opinion.

Mind you, I’m not saying you shouldn’t vote. By all means, everyone who is eligible should be at the polls on May 3. Your vote counts more in this election than it has in a long time. Be there. Do the deed. But don’t think for a second that anything leading up to the actual election matters; it doesn’t. Protesting doesn’t matter. Picketing doesn’t matter. Yelling and screaming doesn’t matter. None of the candidates give a shit what you think; they’ve already made up their pathetic little minds. The ONLY way to send a message is to stay away from their stupid events, all of them. Void the damn political polls. Then vote.

And have sex.

Current Issues / Photography

Pulitzer Prize Depression

April 19, 2016

The Pulitzer Prize is an idea; it’s a vote of confidence. Like literature, it exists purely in the mind. —Jeffrey Eugenides

I’m not eligible for a Pulitzer Prize, but if I were I’m not sure I’d want the honor

The annual Pulitzer Prizes were awarded yesterday and, as with every year for the past 30, I had just a momentary touch of jealousy. There was a very brief period in my life where I thought I wanted that particular recognition, or at least, the money that goes along with it. The cash would always come in handy, but I no longer truly desire that prize because what one has to photograph to win the damn thing doesn’t suit me particularly well.

If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, let’s take a look at the Pulitzer winners in the photography categories for the past ten years. Stop me when you notice a pattern.

2007 Breaking News Photography: Oded Balilty of Associated Press For his powerful photograph of a lone Jewish woman defying Israeli security forces as they remove illegal settlers in the West Bank.

Feature Photography: Renée C. Byer of The Sacramento Bee For her intimate portrayal of a single mother and her young son as he loses his battle with cancer.

2008 Breaking News Photography: Adrees Latif of Reuters For his dramatic photograph of a Japanese videographer, sprawled on the pavement, fatally wounded during a street demonstration in Myanmar.

Feature Photography: Preston Gannaway of Concord (NH) Monitor For her intimate chronicle of a family coping with a parent’s terminal illness.

2009 Breaking News Photography: Patrick Farrell of The Miami Herald For his provocative, impeccably composed images of despair after Hurricane Ike and other lethal storms caused a humanitarian disaster in Haiti.

Feature Photography: Damon Winter of The New York Times For his memorable array of pictures deftly capturing multiple facets of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.

2010 Breaking News Photography: Mary Chind of The Des Moines Register For her photograph of the heart-stopping moment when a rescuer dangling in a makeshift harness tries to save a woman trapped in the foaming water beneath a dam.

Feature Photography: Craig F. Walker of The Denver Post For his intimate portrait of a teenager who joins the Army at the height of insurgent violence in Iraq, poignantly searching for meaning and manhood.

2011 Breaking News Photography: Carol Guzy, Nikki Kahn and Ricky Carioti of The Washington Post For their up-close portrait of grief and desperation after a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti.

Feature Photography: Barbara Davidson of Los Angeles Times For her intimate story of innocent victims trapped in the city’s crossfire of deadly gang violence.

2012 Breaking News Photography: Massoud Hossaini of Agence France-Presse For his heartbreaking image of a girl crying in fear after a suicide bomber’s attack at a crowded shrine in Kabul.

Feature Photography: Craig F. Walker of The Denver Post For his compassionate chronicle of an honorably discharged veteran, home from Iraq and struggling with a severe case of post-traumatic stress, images that enable viewers to better grasp a national issue.

2013 Breaking News Photography: Rodrigo Abd, Manu Brabo, Narciso Contreras, Khalil Hamra and Muhammed Muheisen of Associated Press For their compelling coverage of the civil war in Syria, producing memorable images under extreme hazard.

Feature Photography: Javier Manzano of Agence France-Presse For his extraordinary picture, distributed by Agence France-Presse, of two Syrian rebel soldiers tensely guarding their position as beams of light stream through bullet holes in a nearby metal wall.

2014 Breaking News Photography: Tyler Hicks of The New York Times For his compelling pictures that showed skill and bravery in documenting the unfolding terrorist attack at Westgate mall in Kenya.

Feature Photography: Josh Haner of The New York Times For his moving essay on a Boston Marathon bomb blast victim who lost most of both legs and now is painfully rebuilding his life.

2015 Breaking News Photography: Photography Staff of St. Louis Post-Dispatch For powerful images of the despair and anger in Ferguson, MO, stunning photojournalism that served the community while informing the country.

Feature Photography: Daniel Berehulak of The New York Times For his gripping, courageous photographs of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa.

2016 Breaking News Photography: Mauricio Lima, Sergey Ponomarev, Tyler Hicks and Daniel Etter of The New York TimesFor photographs that captured the resolve of refugees, the perils of their journeys and the struggle of host countries to take them in. Also receiving the prize is the Photography Staff of Thomson Reuters For gripping photographs, each with its own voice, that follow migrant refugees hundreds of miles across uncertain boundaries to unknown destinations.

Feature Photography: Jessica Rinaldi of The Boston Globe: For the raw and revealing photographic story of a boy who strives to find his footing after abuse by those he trusted.

There you have it: ten years worth of Pulitzer prizes for photography. Every one of those entries represents not only amazing photographs, but unbelievable amounts of pain, sacrifice, loss, and incredible risks, including their own lives. One doesn’t get the pictures awarded here without going where no sane person would want to go and taking pictures that, in a perfect world, would never need to be taken.

Therein lies the reason I don’t want a Pulitzer. If I’m winning a Pulitzer prize for photography, it is because someone else has suffered to such an extent that their suffering is visible through the photographs awarded. Of all the pictures on the list above, only the 2009 award for images of President Obama’s first presidential campaign didn’t come with someone facing death, disease, and/or destruction. Yes, we need to see those pictures, and they almost certainly need to be pushed to the front so that we have to visually confront the horrible reality that faces people other than ourselves. We need to know that while we’re complaining about a WiFi signal, Somali refugees are dying by the hundreds in cold ocean waters. We need to see the suffering caused by a pandemic such as Ebola. Without those pictures, we are not able to appreciate the horrible conditions and we are not as inclined to help rectify those problems.

I’ve known Pulitzer prize winners over the years, though, and those people don’t come out of long-term assignments like that without a few scars, both physical and mental. Not all of them are able to continue. Ghosts of their subjects, some of whom have died in the photographer’s arms, haunt them every time they raise a viewfinder to their eye. Nightmares of bombs going off or people in need tugging at their clothes prevent them from being able to sleep. Some winners refer to the prize as a curse for they can never shake those images and the heart-wrenching emotions that go with them.

Maybe my pictures of a little girl sitting on a stump and being silly are not earth-shatteringly important. Maybe my pictures don’t open people’s eyes to horrible conditions around the world. Maybe my pictures are sometimes simplistic portraits of people who hold no other significance than just wanting to have their picture taken. I’m okay with that.

There are photographers whose pictures are frightening, whose pictures bring your worry, and whose pictures maybe even induce some level of guilt. Those are the ones that win Pulitzers. But if my pictures make you smile, give you a reason to feel confident or good about yourself, or bring back a happy memory, then is that not its own prize? And most the time, I’m not at risk of contracting a deadly disease and dying six months later. I’m good with that.

However, should you feel the need to give me $10,000 for my effort, I won’t turn it down.

Music / PotD

Dude, You HAVE To Hear This Song

April 19, 2016

All music is folk music. I ain’t never heard a horse sing a song. —Louis Armstrong

Many songs are good, but there are a handful of songs you want to share with the world

Like most American kids, I grew up surrounded by a wide array of music. While gospel tended to be dominant there was plenty of contemporary and classical music across every genre. We grew up with a broad appreciation for music and it was rare, especially by the time my brother and I were both teenagers, that there wasn’t something playing on the stereo from the moment we woke up each morning until our parents forced us to bed at night. Even then, the ear bud coming from my radio made sure there was s song to keep me company in the dark.

Being surrounded by all that music, especially during a period when rock music was at its best, we became accustomed to hearing really incredible music all that time. I know I would be horrible at trying to be a full-time music critic in today’s environment because there is so little of what I hear now that stands up to the monumental achievements of The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Three Dog Night, and so many, many others. A song has to be more than good to get my attention, it has to be outstanding and different.

There have been but a few times in my life when someone has said to me, “Dude, you have to hear this song,” when I didn’t wince on the inside. Those few instances, though, started early and stick in my memory even though a couple of the songs have been dropped from anyone’s standard repertoire. My father rarely got excited about a song. My father was an even-keeled man who rarely got too terribly excited about anything. But there were a couple of times in the 70s when it actually happened: Poppa got excited about a song.

The first time was in 1970 and I remember the experience as clearly as if it were yesterday. Poppa had attended a conference where the leader of a youth choir (those were really popular at the time) had adapted Jerry Reed‘s Preacher and the Bear for the group. Poppa enjoyed the song so much that he brought the group’s album (which was generally as amateur as one might expect) and he couldn’t wait to play that song for us the instant he got home. We hadn’t yet heard Reed’s version (it never was much of a radio hit), so the song was quite a novelty. Of course, being my father, he tried turning the song into a joke he could tell from the pulpit and, being my father, that attempt failed miserably. And while I don’t care to remember the name of the group on that old album, I have to smile every time I hear Jerry’s version of the song. Take a listen.

Poppa would get excited a few months later that same year when Three Dog Night released Joy to the World. I have a little more difficulty explaining this one other than it was on the radio a lot and it was one of the few songs Poppa would turn up and didn’t mind too much when I sang along with it, loudly, and probably off key. We never owned the single nor the album. I was too young at the time to be investing in such things and, honestly, we were poor enough at the time when the $5 for an album represented a fair amount of grocery money. Nonetheless, I caught Poppa turning this song up every time it came on, even when he was well into his 60s. I think you understand why.

There was a lot of incredible music throughout the 70s and if I tried to list every song that influenced me in some way we’d be here for weeks. As the disco craze developed, though, there was one song from the Saturday Night Fever soundtrack that started a movement of its own and launched the career of an incredibly under-appreciated musician named Walter Murphy. He’s not someone who tours, ever, but the depth of his talent has not only influenced a number of movie soundtracks but is the glue that holds together the music productions of the animated show, Family Guy. Now, every time I hear that familiar theme I can’t help but think of this song:

A lot of music from the early 80s that we thought we liked at the time makes me shudder now. We listened to some really, really horrible stuff for a few years. So, when Prince released his sixth album along with a movie by the same name, my first reaction was one of skepticism. The sound was so different from the other junk we were hearing that it took listening a couple of times or more before I caught on to exactly what was happening. Finding the song now in its original form is challenging. You certainly won’t catch it on any of the streaming services and where it does exist is usually in a remastered form. While the visual quality is lacking, the video below is as close as I can come to the original version of the song that gave the early 80s some definition.

https://youtu.be/F8BMm6Jn6oU

Micheal Jackson was one of those performers I grew up listening to and was astonished by his continual development and ability to out-perform whatever his previous effort had been. While his entire catalog is full of one hit right after another, it is a song from his 1987 album that has always stood apart for me as one of the most meaningful and long-lasting. Man in the Mirror didn’t get a lot of attention at the time, initially being eclipsed by the title track from the album, Bad, but it eventually hit number one on the Billboard charts the next year. Over time its message has proven to be one of the most enduring and effective and is still one of the most downloaded songs ever.

Once we get into the 90s, my choices for songs that I really want to share grow fewer and farther between. Unfortunately, I’m bumping up against both a time and world limit. So, we’ll just have to save the more recent songs for another time. There’s a lot of new music being released today. Maybe one of those will be a song we all really want to hear.

Advertising / pop culture / video

Progress We Think We’ve Made

April 18, 2016

Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning. —Benjamin Franklin

It’s easy enough to think that we’re above some of the errors of the past, but we may not be as progressive as we think.

I was left shaking my head this morning when Business Insider published an article with 18 ads we would consider horrible and terribly insensitive in today’s society. The purpose of the article was to give us the positive feeling that we have progressed significantly from the ads shown. Among them were racist soap ads, racist Jell-o ads, ads encouraging giving soda to infants, and ads denigrating women in just about every form imaginable. One aftershave ad even seems to encourage rape with copy that reads, “If she doesn’t give it to you, get it yourself.”

We like to think that we have progressed far beyond the stereotypes and social insensitivities of those ads. No one in their right mind today would put a picture of a pear with copy that says, “This Is No Shape For A Girl.” We know better, right? And we’ve even passed federal legislation so cigarette makers can no longer tell us that four out of five doctors smoke Camels. Yet, when we take a broad look at the bulk of advertising in place today, we may not have made as much progress as we would like to think.

Take a look through the advertising on your mobile device or, if you’re old school any major magazine. Notice how many of the ads still favor a stereotypical view of Caucasian people, especially in the areas of fashion, beauty, business, and travel. Within those sectors specifically, a whopping 80% of ads are tilted toward a white audience. Even worse, in many of those ads, especially those related to the hospitality industry, when a person of color is included in the ad it is almost always in a position of service, such as a waiter or hotel staff, further perpetuating the idea that those ethnicities are, for some stupid reason, supposed to serve the white man. Some studies in the health care area show that racial disparities in advertising actually have a negative impact upon the health status of disaffected populations.

Women aren’t faring much better. Just last year, the Bic company ran this ad:

This ad is so offensive to women on so many levels I have to wonder if there was any managerial or even adult oversight in the creation of this campaign. The very notion that women need to think like men for any reason is deplorable, and the inference that women aren’t already the boss are just the start. What does it mean to “look like a girl?” Exactly how does one “act like a lady?” Astonishingly, though, we still see this sort of advertising far too often.

The rape culture in advertising is still alive and well, also. An ad in Bloomingdale’s holiday catalog last year included the caption, “Spike your best friend’s egg nog when they’re not looking,” under a photo of a man leering at a young woman who wasn’t paying attention. Those are the kinds of attitudes that endanger women everywhere as they dismiss the concept of absolute consent. How are we still letting these things get into print?

Ads featuring gay, lesbian, or transgender people are still a hot button and advertising still gets it wrong as often as it gets it right. I hesitate to imagine what our children or grandchildren will think of us when they look back twenty years from now and see that ads such as this one still manage to get air time without censorship:

https://youtu.be/EumiDLgd-T4

Fortunately, the New Hampshire bill passed and the Supreme Court finalized the question of gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean that advertising has caught up or has any fewer stereotypes of gay and lesbian couples than it did before. Even if we didn’t have a part in the creation of such politically misguided advertising, we should be embarrassed that we would even allow such patently offensive material to air in the first place.

Even more liberal advertisers have not made as much progress as we would like to think. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA) only removed this billboard after an overwhelmingly large public outcry against it:

Even by 1970s standards, that ad is offensive not to mention that it is misinformative. Eating a vegetarian diet doesn’t help if one’s general intake and eating habits are still unhealthy. Yes, there are diabetic and obese vegetarians. Shaming people because of their size is not helpful.

Ad agencies like to think they’re at the forefront of bringing out social change. Certainly, there are a number of ad campaigns that have done a lot of good in moving us to be more inclusive, understanding, and accepting of each other, as well as encouraging more healthy behavior. But before we get a cramp patting ourselves on the back, we need to take a good look at the places where we still reinforce old stereotypes and insensitive and offensive behavior. We’ve likely not made as much progress as we would like to think.

pop culture / PotD

Weekend Of No Regrets

April 18, 2016

The water cooler conversation in every job I’ve had is sports, it’s what did you do this weekend, it’s ‘How are your parents doing?’ —Kal Penn

charles i. letbetter - weekend with no regrets

Don’t let social media guilt you into thinking you had a bad weekend. It was just fine.

Nope, I didn’t attend Coachella this weekend. Chances are pretty high you didn’t, either. Sorry, but if I have a spare $1,500 I’m not likely to spend it on tickets to a music festival at some polo club in Indio, California. I don’t really care who was there. I don’t give a damn what they were wearing or which pseudocelebrity’s nipple ring showed through her top (yeah, I would have thought pseudocelebrity was hyphenated but my editor insists that it’s not). I didn’t attend a major league baseball game, or even an NBA playoff. I didn’t go to the movies. I didn’t even watch Netflix. I didn’t do any of the things my newsfeed is trying to convince me I missed over the weekend.

Do I have any regrets? Not a one. I would hope that you don’t, either. While the celebrities and movie stars flaunt the fact they don’t have anything better to do with their time or their money, but want to make sure you see them anyway, we were hanging out here in Indiana, of all places, quietly having a good weekend, building memories, doing things that actually yield a positive result and build a stronger community.

One of the downsides of social media is seeing what everyone else is doing. Pictures of friends and celebrities in far off exotic places or on vacation, can cause us to feel that our normal, everyday, sometimes less-than-thrilling lives are somehow incomplete because we’re not doing any of the really “cool” stuff. We may be jealous. We may feel depressed. We might think that our lives are incomplete.

You know better. You’ve always known better. You know as well as I do that chasing frivolous things just for the attention ends up being shallow. You don’t need me to pull out the dozens of sociological studies that show we’re at our happiest when we’re spending time with friends and family, or just relaxing and reading a book. You don’t need me to remind you that our lives feel better and more fulfilled when we completely unplug from all forms of media every once in a while. Yet, when all those pictures start popping up in Facebook and on Instagram, we still get those twinges of guilt that perhaps we didn’t do enough, or didn’t do the most cool things.

What did we do this weekend? We had Long’s donuts for breakfast. We tilled the garden and started getting it ready to plant. There was a huge piece of shrubbery that has been bugging us, so Kat’s dad came over and helped rip that monster from the ground. We celebrated a couple of birthdays. Kat gave her sister a scalp massage. The kids made new friends, managed to get absolutely filthy more than once, made their own pizzas, and enjoyed having birthday cake. Bubbles were blown. Laundry was washed, folded, and put away. Kat came to the rescue of a friend with a baby sitting need and I spent some time Skyping with my 18-year-old. Somehow, we managed to find time in there to buy groceries, write four articles, and Kat was at the salon from open to close on Sunday.

Each and every one of the things we did holds more value than getting sunburned while standing in the middle of a field trying to listen to a band that you can’t even see. We were productive, we got some rest, and we spent time with people who are genuinely important to our lives.

We don’t have to travel hundreds of miles and pretend to be something we’re not in order to have a good weekend. Neither do you. We had a good weekend. No regrets. I’m willing to bet yours was just as wonderful. Drop the guilt and enjoy the memories.

Fashion / Fashion Review

Do We Need Fashion Reviews?

April 17, 2016

charles i. letbetter - do we still need fashion reviews

A bad review is like baking a cake with all the best ingredients and having someone sit on it. —Danielle Steel

As the world of fashion changes, so must how we report and review fashion shows.

In case you’ve not been reading very long or don’t know me very well, for the past five seasons I’ve written reviews of women’s ready-to-wear fashion shows for Pattern. Prior to that, I would write similar reviews and either publish them here or on Facebook, depending on what seemed to make the most sense at the time. Beyond that, I spent many years at the end of those runways in the photographer’s pit and backstage capturing images for agency clients. My relationship with and understanding of the world of fashion is long and probably deeper than the average photographer.

Against that background, perhaps you can understand my interest when an article crossed my path this past week with the headline, The Extinction of the Fashion Critic. Fashion critics? Extinct? Last I checked, we hadn’t lost anyone. I know most the major magazine’s fashion reviewers and they’ve all been in reasonably good health, other than the perpetual jet lag and never seeming to get quite enough sleep. Everyone’s Twitter account is still active, so I don’t think we’re dying off just yet.

I do understand the premise of the article, though. With everything changing in the world of fashion, one might wonder exactly how fashion review and criticism is going to adapt. The article overstates some aspects, though, and I want to take a moment to clarify those.

Fashion is not seasonless. I find the very notion that seasons have come to an end to be utter bullshit. If you believe such tripe, you’re not paying attention. If anything, seasons are more important than ever and statements this past February from both the Paris and Milan governing fashion bodies solidified that fact. Despite what a few designers are doing in terms of “see now, buy now,” fashion seasons don’t go away, they merely catch up to real time.
Designers have always moved around. The fact that Ms. Michault seems to think that this is detrimental to fashion in any way demonstrates either her lack of understanding of the industry, her naivete about designers, or possibly both. As designers grow, change interest, or want to explore new opportunities, they change houses and the competition for the best designers is as high as it has ever been. Designers are going to move.
Gender ambiguity does not dilute fashion review in any way. If anything, as more designers blur gender lines or completely remove any gender identity, the need to carefully review and critique those collections becomes all the more important. Genderless fashion has an extra burden to remain interesting and attractive while omitting the lines and silhouettes to which we are most accustomed.
Only a small handful of critics receive any form of compensation or indulgences from fashion labels. Sure, there may be a gift bag on your seat when you arrive, but everyone present gets the same gift bag. Even more important, as bloggers have become a stronger presence at fashion shows, many indulgences have diminished. Bloggers are not given the same consideration as print critics and are frequently traveling on their own dime.

All that being said, however, as the fashion world slowly changes, so will the how, when, and why of fashion reviews and criticism. While I don’t expect a lot to change this season, and probably not the one after that, that we would need to adapt to those changes just makes sense. Here are some of the adjustments I expect us to be making in the next few seasons:

Critics will be more picky about which labels they review. The number of designers showing at the four major fashion weeks continues to grow, making it impossible to even given a glancing nod to most. My most ambitious season saw us covering over 200 shows over the four weeks, and that left me thoroughly exhausted. As fashion changes, we are going to more carefully consider which shows are of greatest interest to our readers and limit our coverage accordingly.
Labels that do “See now, buy now” options are likely to become a priority. When the fashion on a runway isn’t going to be available for six months, if at all, it becomes less important to readers than what is available to them right now. If a piece can be purchased immediately, it matters more whether that piece matches trends, works with other things you have in your closet, or has a severely limited life span. So, it makes sense to put more time and effort behind these collections.
Pre-season and capsule collections will get more attention. Note: not every designer does pre-season collections and more than a few designers have listed that additional work as a substantive factor in their creative fatigue and burnout. That being the case, we may eventually see a reduction in the number of pre-season collections. Where they exist, though, and especially with designer-retailer capsule collections, reviews that relate those clothes to the main collection become more important. If there is significant difference between the two, we may be seeing signs of a shift in trends that could affect one’s purchasing decision.
Critics may begin to consider cross-label pairings more frequently. As things in the fashion industry change, the relationship between critics and consumers is likely to become tighter. With so many different labels hitting stores, shoppers want help in knowing what matches. Rarely does anyone actually wear an ensemble as it is shown on the runway. Rather, they match Armani slacks with a Chanel jacket over a Dior blouse. Reviews that help aid those decisions will become increasingly important.
Reviews may be adapted for different social media platforms. We’ve seen a bit of this already as critics frequently live tweet from fashion shows and some even provide brief video clips when they’re seated in a position that makes such possible. Instagram reviews have been a thing for four seasons now and don’t show any signs of letting up. Don’t be surprised when reviews start popping up as ads or publish directly to a magazine’s Facebook page.

Guessing at all the changes yet to come to the fashion industry is impossible, and it’s certain that none of that change is likely to happen quickly. Through all this change, consumers need a consistent and reliable voice to guide them through all the turmoil. Fashion critics are far from extinct. Our reviews are more important than ever. And, as always, we’ll be right there with a look at trends and quality and a sense of what works for you.

Thank you for reading.

PotD / science

Beware The Friendly Seduction

April 17, 2016

Most virtue is a demand for greater seduction. —Natalie Clifford Barney

The people who seem the friendliest may not always have your best interest in mind

As salacious as today’s topic may seem, I’m going to start with a story that comes from growing up in church. No, seduction and church don’t exactly sound like they should go together, but you might be surprised at the many ways in which churches are home to some of the most dangerously seductive people on the planet.

Growing up as a pastor’s son, we moved around Kansas and Oklahoma a fair bit. We also visited a lot of churches. When we would first move to a new church Poppa would often warn: “Beware the person who is the first to greet you because they’re most likely to do you the most harm.” His warning proved true every time. The people who would be on the welcoming committee, those who were first in line to offer their help in getting settled in or acquainted with the community had ulterior motives. They wanted us to do things their way and mistakenly thought that they might be able to wield some influence by posing as friends. When we would eventually move, the same ones that seemed most happy to see us arrive were the most delighted to see us leave.

That lesson carried forward into my adulthood and I found it often true in business as well. There is a seduction that takes place when a company is trying to hire someone new; they want their company to appear appealing, friendly, like it would be the perfect place for you to spend the rest of your life. You take the job, though, and discover those “friendly” people are manipulative, back-stabbing, and vindictive. After a while, one begins to look upon this friendly form of seduction with caution. Who do we trust? Who do we believe? Is anyone actually sincere?

Turns out, there’s actual science behind what we’ve been experiencing our whole lives. While that information doesn’t make me feel any better about people we’ve met in the past, especially some of those I experienced when we were children, it does, at least, explain their motivation and gives us all the more reason to be cautious in the future. Friendly seduction is everywhere and is even cultivated by many business seminars. We have good reason to be careful. The question is, are you one of those dangerous people?

Look at your resumè. Do you have the term “people skills” anywhere on there? For years, businesses of every kind, from the fast food joint on the corner to the Fortune 500 company downtown, have been looking for employees with good “people skills.” What they’re looking for, using the appropriate jargon, are prospective employees with a high level of emotional intelligence. The term was first posited in a 1990 study by Peter Salovey at Yale and John D. Mayer at the University of New Hampshire. The findings of that study then became a 1995 best-selling book by Daniel Goldman, who was, at the time, a science reporter for The New Yorks Times. Where friendly seduction had occurred naturally in a few people before, the emotional intelligence movement began cultivating those with “people skills” and promoting them to positions of importance.

Now, let’s be extremely clear: having good people skills does not inherently make one a bad person. The whole premise of emotional intelligence is that being in touch with one’s own feelings and emotions helps make them empathetic to the feelings and emotions of other people and therefore, at least in theory, better able to understand their perspective and respond accordingly. Having a strong emotional intelligence is critical in any people-facing position and some of those qualities are important in developing our ability to get along with others. Emotional intelligence on its own is not inherently a bad thing.

However, since 1990, researchers have found that some of those with high emotional intelligence may not be the nice guys they pretend to be. Two separate studies in 2014, one by Ursa Nagler, et al., and another by Sarah Konrath, et al., built upon previous research to show that those with high emotional intelligence tend to be narcissistic, manipulative, malicious, and exploitative. On the lighter end of this friendly seduction, they are always looking to turn a situation to their advantage. They create and spread rumors, gossip, and misinformation. At its worse, these people use their ability to read others as a means of controlling them, persuading them to do things they otherwise would not, and working situations to the detriment of others. Before you know it, you’re “best friend” at work is behind you getting fired, or losing that promotion, or killing that great project you’re on.

And they do it all with a smile on their face.

While encountering these people at work is bad enough, they can be even more dangerous in social situation. Emotionally intelligent people come across as fun, engaging, often humorous, and charming, everything you might want in a potential mate. On the back side of this friendly seduction, though, they take advantage of that social appeal to rape and batter those who are least expecting such behavior. Highly emotionally intelligent people may cause us to drop our guard so that we’re not as aware of impending physical danger.

Again, not everyone with a high emotional intelligence is a bad person. In fact, they, themselves, are more likely to be duped or misled because of their overconfidence. They often think they have control of a situation when they don’t. Highly emotional intelligent people are just as likely to be the victims of seduction as they are the perpetrators.

Being attracted to friendly people is in our nature and a necessary part of building a workable society. The vast majority of friendly people you meet are sincere and their friendships are worth pursuing. Beware the person at the front of the line, though. The seduction they offer is not in your best interest.

Not even at church.

Advertising / Art

Time To Lighten Up

April 16, 2016

Perhaps the soundest advice for parents is: Lighten up. People have been raising children for approximately as long as there have been people. —George Will

So much of what we’ve done and talked about this week has been rather serious. It’s Saturday. Time to lighten up a bit.

I’ll admit that I’m taking some unusual risks with this particular post. I mean, it’s not every day I post a flaccid penis on these pages, not even in an artistic sense, which is what we were going for here. However, this being Saturday and, for a large part of the country, a very nice and pleasant day, I’m not expecting too terribly many people to notice. I know we’re going to be out working on the garden and I anticipate that most everyone else is going to be doing something outdoors as well. When the weather is as nice as it is supposed to be today, I don’t expect too many visitors to a silly and unrelated web page. You have better things to do.

I’m also aware that there have been some rather serious tones to conversations and such this week. I’ve especially seen that stress recently among my advertising colleagues where everything from upfronts to account reviews has had people on edge to the point that they’re second guessing what were legitimately good ideas. For example, the folks who manage the KFC account tweeted this image yesterday:

Personally, I found the ad hilarious. Look at how high the woman’s arm is above the man’s lap. She’s obviously removing a piece of chicken from a bucket. Yet, the immediate response on the Internet was so overwhelmingly negative that the tweet was deleted in less than an hour. Obviously, a lot of people need to lighten up, don’t you think?

Then, there was the case where AMC Theatres floated the concept that they might begin allowing people to text during movies in some of their theatres. Now, if you have been in an AMC theatre any time in the past five years you know damn good and well that it’s actually rare for AMC or any other cinema chain to enforce a no-texting policy. All the AMC statement did was confirm that they weren’t going to try to police the situation any longer. Oh, Americans are so fucking uptight that they went apoplectic over the very idea! After a couple of days of such nonsense, AMC reversed course:

NO TEXTING AT AMC. Won’t happen. You spoke. We listened. Quickly, that idea has been sent to the cutting room floor. pic.twitter.com/JR0fo5megR

— AMC Theatres (@AMCTheatres) April 15, 2016

The need for us to lighten up is so great that it’s noticeable to people in other countries. Sean Cummins, the lead behind that Doritos Super Bowl commercial “Ultrasound,” inadvertently setting off a whole wave of abortion debate, told AdWeek that commenters

“… need to take a chill pill. Anything that’s kind of funny and a bit out there is going to be controversial these days. Pepsi felt happy enough to run it. It was totally fantastic … about as realistic as dogs buying Doritos.”

After all that, the need to lighten up a bit this weekend should be rather obvious, and I can’t think of any better way to do that than to take a humorous look at our own industry and some of the lighter things that have shown up this week.

For example, The Variable, an agency in Winston-Salem, NC has developed a delightful set of short spots highlighting some of the far too real aspects of ad life. I’ll put a couple of them below, but you’ll want to check out the whole concept at AdLand Adventures.

Oh god, have we suffered through this one before …

And this one … every f’n day …

There are a plethora of heartfelt, emotionally wrenching ads out at the moment, taking an overly serious tone at selling products that really aren’t that serious. So, when a traditionally conservative client decides to lighten up and work with humour, it’s worth noting. In this case, it’s the Jewish Film Festival in Toronto making it clear that, yes, you’re Jewish enough to attend. Here are a couple of my favourite spots.

https://youtu.be/WSG304K4kO0

https://youtu.be/td1z3xvt2oI

That last one .. yeah, For those who didn’t get it, that’s a reference to circumcision. Ouch.

Finally, there’s this two-minute piece from Dollar Beard Club. This is just so very much over the top that one can’t help but laugh a bit.

https://youtu.be/_Su0neQKm1I

There we go. For the four or five of you who actually scroll past the opening image, I hope this has been enough to help you lighten up a bit and that the rest of your weekend has a little less stress than i might have. We’re all much too serious for too many hours of the day. Finding reasons to smile more are critical for all of us to survive.

pop culture / PotD / video

Dating Discrimination

April 16, 2016

I tried to make up for being short by affecting a strut, by adopting the voice of a much bigger man, by spending more money than I made, by tipping double or triple at bars and restaurants, by dating tall, beautiful women. —Mickey Rooney

charles i. letbetter - dating discriminating

There has always been discrimination in dating, but when that discrimination turns to blatant racism we need to examine our motives

I’m not too big on giving dating advice for the simple fact that dating is not something I have to do with any great frequency. Sure, I’ve had enough duds and disappointments to understand the emotions attached, but I don’t have the endless horror stories that I know some people experience, either. My criteria are fairly simple: she has to be smart, attractive enough that I’m not afraid to take her picture, and not likely to crush me if she slips and falls. Kat fills those requirements quite nicely along with several bonus points. I’m happy, thank you.

I never was any good at all the dating apps everyone seems to think are the solution to their relationship problems, though. Over the years, I think I’ve tried them all. Match never sparked anything. eHarmony outright turned me down. Plenty of Fish tended to smell. And Tinder left me totally depressed when no one ever swiped right. Yawn. Over it. I fail to see the attraction.

Apparently I’m an anomaly, though, or maybe I’m just too old. For people Kat’s age and younger, those apps are a significant part of their lives and reading their profiles can be very revealing. Sometimes, perhaps a bit more revealing than they intended. While we expect people to be a bit discriminating in whom they might choose to date, when that discrimination turns to blatant racism then perhaps it’s time we seriously started questioning who we are.

Since I’m not on any dating apps regularly, I didn’t realize there was a problem until the issue popped up on The Daily Show this past week. Host Trevor Noah has not been shy in tackling the topic of racism at all levels of society, which is necessary. Too many people think we have gotten past racism when in fact it is still just as entrenched as ever, we just make more of an effort to hide it. At least, we did until this presidential election cycle in which being racist seems to be a key plank in some candidates’ platform. The Daily Show’s Jessica Williams and Ronny Chieng applied their usual humor in exploring the topic. Take a look:

While the piece made me chuckle a few times, it also caused me to wonder just how widespread this problem of dating racism actually is. After all, I can see where the larger the sample, such as in New York or LA, the more frequently one might see the problem. Do the same signs show up in the Midwest as well? I knew the answer before I asked the question, but I went ahead and verified my suspicions anyway.

Checking up on racist dating isn’t easy for an aging white guy to do. First, I had to go back to all those apps, re-install them, and then request my passwords. Then, after updating my profiles a bit, with new pictures and such, I started looking at the profiles each app thought I should consider. Sure enough, the second profile I hit started with, “white guys only please.” Going on through, some were even more aggressive. “Asian men can keep their small dicks to themselves,” and, “Don’t talk to me if your whole family isn’t white.” Then, there were those who were outright offensive. I won’t bother repeating them. I spent less than 30 minutes on all the apps combined and found over 20 openly racist profiles.

What this shows is that not only are we more racist than I had realized, we’re also incredibly hypocritical. Ask people what they look for in a good relationship and they’ll almost always come back with the standard altruistic qualifiers such as kindness, intelligent, funny, hard working, good with children, and other such nonsense. Based on the profiles I saw, what women are really looking for is someone rich enough to take them nice places, has a house big enough for all their kids and pets, drives a nice car, is down for some kinky shit in the bedroom, and, oh yeah, had better be the right race.

A couple of things worth noting at this point. Obviously, being a straight male, I didn’t see any of the other guys’ profiles. I doubt I would be surprised, though. I’ve met too many men in the Midwest who wear their racism like a badge of honor. Also, the racist statements weren’t limited to white women. Black women, at least those in my immediate area, make the same statements against Hispanic and Asian men as do white women. Dating racism isn’t just “a white girl thing.”

What hurts is that we know better. There’s not a single one of us who wasn’t taught from the time we were very tiny that who we love isn’t a matter of looks or physical attraction, but a matter of hearts that are passionate for each other. I’ve often told Kat that I dislike the question, “Why do you love me?” Real love, where it dares to exist, has no qualifiers. We don’t love someone because they’re pretty, or tall, or a certain race. When we honestly, earnestly love someone, it is because we choose to love them. Period. End of statement. Love that must come with qualifications cannot be real for love must be pure or it doesn’t exist at all.

I know dating is difficult for a lot of people and yes, we are going to be naturally discriminating about certain qualities we find attractive. If we are being blatantly racist in our search, though, not only are we cutting ourselves off from really wonderful people, we’re also presenting ourselves as someone who hates. No one wants to date a hater. Someone who appears attractive on the outside and has hate on the inside is not someone most of us want even in our circle of acquaintances. No one needs a hater in their life.

This exercise made me really appreciate not being out in the dating scene. I saw a lot on those apps that was unattractive in so very many ways. I was rather shocked at how people chose to present themselves. Maybe it’s time for everyone to take a step back and consider who and what they really are. Find the hate and get the fuck over it. Not only will you be better for it, I dare say you’ll find the rest of the world more accepting as a result.

Good luck.

Current Issues / Social Commentary

Time To Kill State Legislatures

April 15, 2016

The frame of mind in the local legislatures seems to be exerted to prevent the federal constitution from having any good effect. —Henry Knox

charles i. letbetter - time to kill state legislatures

We must overhaul our state governments if we hope to preserve basic human rights and prevent stupidity from running amock

Our founding fathers could never have imagined what has happened to our state legislatures. When the United States was founded, the concept of state government was that decentralization of power would prevent a totalitarian regime, such as presented by the British monarchy under King George, from taking control. From their perspective, smaller, more local governments would be better able to respond to and appropriately address the needs of the people living within the region. The concept was one that made sense and largely worked for the first 80 or so years of our existence.

The situation surrounding the Civil War demonstrated the danger in allowing states to have too much control, however, and it became obvious at that point that some restrictions were necessary to address those issues where state legislatures might pass laws contrary to the federal constitution or in violation of other federal laws. While some laws were passed, though, the concept of states rights is so deeply embedded in our political culture that anything far-reaching that would have any real impact has always been struck down.

What our founding fathers could not have imagined is a set of conditions we currently face. We now have a population that is extremely mobile. It is quite rare for anyone born in the last 60 years to not travel more than 50 miles from their birthplace. Instead, we move all over the place, from one coast to the other, on a regular basis. Our travel, whether for business or pleasure, has us moving through, or over, multiple states at a time. We now have a society where laws passed in one state not only affects their own citizenry but can have a direct and immediate effect on those living outside the state.

Unfortunately, at the same time, we also find ourselves in a position where partisanship at the state level is stronger than it has ever been and the desire on the part of state legislators to further their own political ambitions overrides the needs of their constituents. Laws are more likely to be written by lobbyist and corporate marketing departments than any legislator or anyone actually accountable to the people of the state. The result is that state legislatures are producing a plethora of bad laws that are not only a disservice to the people in their state but in many cases they have a ripple effect for the entire nation.

Space and time prohibit me from being as exhaustive as I would like, but here are just a few of the more recent examples of state legislatures going where they have no business:

Voting rights in Alabama and 22 other states are significantly more restrictive going into this year’s presidential election.
Illinois Senate President John Cullerton proposed a bill this week that would tax Illinois drivers 1.5 cents a mile for every mile driven or approximately $450 a year.
Just last month. Mississippi passed a religious freedom bill that is the worst in damaging LGBT rights.
North Carolina has not only passed a law requiring transgendered people to use the bathroom identifying with their birth gender, they also prohibited cities from adopting laws that would protect LGBT citizens.
Tennessee’s governor vetoed a bill that would have made the Bible the official state book but this week the same Tennessee legislature passed a bill that would seriously limit access to mental health care for LGBT people.
We are well aware of Indiana’s incredibly restrictive new anti-abortion bill and despite large-scale public condemnation of the law Governor Pence shows no indication of backing down as he did with last year’s RFRA law.
When it comes to attempts to discriminate against LGBT people, Oklahoma takes the cake with a record-setting 26 new bills introduced this year specifically designed to limit LGBT rights within the state.
My home state of Kansas has done such an incredibly lousy job with education financing that they had to pass an unfathomable law allowing unlicensed teachers in the classroom in order to make up for a severe teacher shortage.
Texas passed laws dramatically expanding the conditions under which a person can carry a concealed weapon, including on college classrooms, dorms, and campuses.

Mind you, this short list isn’t even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the ridiculousness of state legislatures. They’ve done things such as prohibit even considering or researching things such as alternative power sources, mass transit options such as high-speed rail, and limitations on the dumping of chemicals into state waterways. State legislatures have literally taken food out of the mouths fo their poorest citizens with restrictions on accessibility to federal assistance programs such as food stamps. Even with the passage of federal health care laws, state legislatures have found ways to limit services and coverage for the poorest of their citizens. In all 50 states, the list of misdeeds and offensive legislation is long and sickening.

And while state governors and legislatures are quick to scream all about states rights, they certainly don’t mind exercising authoritative control over city governments. Laws passed in the past two years at state levels have prohibited cities within those states from raising or setting a minimum wage, expanding voter accessibility for city elections, protecting citizens from various forms of discrimination, and opting out of ill-conceived statewide testing for students.

We have no reason to continue supporting such a dysfunctional form of government. The condition of state legislatures across the country in no way resembles what our founding fathers intended. We need to completely overhaul the system from the very ground up and completely eliminate the opportunity for the level of legislative stupidity that has become commonplace at every state house across the union.

How might we do this, you ask? After all, it is a fool who complains without offering a solution. You should know me better than that. Here’s what I’m thinking works:

Kill off state legislatures completely. So long, good-bye. Not the actual people, mind you. We’re not advocating homicide. But the entity itself has to go.
Replace legislatures with elected committees responsible for dispersion of state and federal funds, but without any ability to pass legislation.
All state elected positions, including that of governor, are decided every two years, not four, so as to give constituents more immediate response to removing those who do not act in line with their will.
Remove matters regarding voting rights, discrimination, and all matters of human and civil rights from any form of state-level control. These are not matters states have any business controlling. Moreover, citizens should not have to worry as they travel from state to state as to whether their rights are safe.
Elected committees mentioned above would have the ability to draft potential legislation, but any state legislation would be subject first to a popular vote which could not then be vetoed by the governor or any state agency.
All state laws and policies would be subject to audit on a regular basis to ensure that they comply with all facets of the federal constitution, specifically, those related to due process and equal access.

Obviously, there are details underlying those statements that need a great deal more thought and attention than I have space here to give them. Consider this a starting point in the conversation. We cannot continue to tolerate the current idiocy of state legislatures and their current construct defies any significant change regardless of who might be elected to those positions.

We no longer live in a country where people are isolated to a specific geographic region. When one state fucks up it affects us all. The time has come for a more comprehensive and nationally cohesive approach to lawmaking. Kill state legislatures. Reform the system. Move forward.

Current Issues / PotD

The Bourgeoisie Internet

April 15, 2016

When the bourgeoisie sees that power is slipping out of its hands, it brings up fascism to hold onto their privileges. —Buenaventura Durruti

charles i. letbetter - the bourgeoisie internet

Holding back information, making it available only to the rich, is the type of bourgeoisie move the Internet was meant to destroy

This battle has been fought before. This battle will be fought again. The haves versus the have-nots. The rich versus the poor. The bourgeoisie versus the commoner. Wars have been fought along these very same lines, and yet, despite whatever changes may take place, we still find ourselves back at this very same division where the few who control the money and power not only dominate society, but institute means by which they can keep information, money, and opportunity out of the hands of everyone else. This time, however, the weapons on both sides are somewhat different, and the lines are a bit more muddied.

First, let’s be very clear of how we’re defining bourgeoisie. The term originates in the middle ages and under those conditions, through the 19th century and as a catalyst for the French revolution, the bourgeoisie were those who controlled the capital, what eventually became banking, and access to money in any form. There was a shift, though, in the 20th century as both Lenin and Marx used the term to describe anyone of privilege. Not only would they have considered the one percent that controls today’s money bourgeoisie, they would likely extend that definition to many of us as well. In contemporary terms, bourgeoisie isn’t simply a matter of having money and power, but actively working to keep those at the lower end of the scale from having access to the same.

Let me give you some examples. You might be bourgeoisie if:

You own a home in a neighborhood that regulates how tall your grass grows
You own a car that cost as much or more than many people’s houses
Your children attend a school that requires uniform dressing
You own clothes so expensive that a standard ensemble cost more than a semester’s college tuition
You pay over $100 for name-brand athletic shoes and you’re not an athlete
You believe that your ability to pay more for goods and services makes you better than those who pay less
You collect “art”

Matching just one of those statements probably doesn’t fully qualify you as bourgeoisie but, if you match two you might want to question your values, and if you match three or more you might seriously want to take a look at your motivation.

One of the things which the bourgeoisie has traditionally controlled is the flow of information. The concept present at the inception of the United States revolution that there might be such a thing as a “free” press was popular for its potential to inform, educate, and enlighten the masses, not just the college-educated elite. A free press was supposed to be the great equalizer that prevented the bourgeoise from taking control of the government. Obviously, that didn’t work as major media is now controlled entirely by oligarchs.

One of the founding reasons for creating the Internet was to break the hold of universities (generally considered a holding of the bourgeoisie) over research information. When Leonard Kleinrock and his staff first developed ARPANET in the 1960s, their purpose was to share information between universities in hopes of accelerating progress through discovery and innovation. When Tim Berners-Lee first posited his thesis for the World Wide Web in 1989, he, too, was looking at the ability of this new technology to “level the playing field” so that everyone could have equal opportunity and access. The goal was to never charge for anything, but to have everything free and open to the public.

Yeah, that was the goal. Look around you. Want online access to your local newspaper? Paywall. Want to stream unlimited movies and television shows? Subscription required. Want enticing discounts that save money and shipping on almost everything you buy? Membership required, $99 a year.

While many of those prices might be justified due to the cost of producing materials, that’s not true across the board. There are many cases where access and information is withheld, placed behind a paywall or requiring a subscription, simply because they can. One of the worst offenders, in that case, is research information, the very thing that the Internet was supposed to make available to everyone. For free.

That system, however, is being challenged in a very strong way. Alexandra Elbakyan, a 27-year-old graduate student from Kazakhstan who, in the spirit of Napster and Wikileaks, built a database and published 50 million scholarly research articles. For free.

I won’t repeat the full story, which you can read in The Washington Post but her reasoning is sound. Most research, especially in the United States, is conducted under some form of government grant, meaning that taxpayer money is going into the research. However, when a research paper is completed, researchers aren’t allowed to just toss it out there and let everyone have a look. Instead, they’re required to publish their papers through a peer-reviewed journal. Research fellows and professors at every level of academia are judged based largely on how many papers they’ve had published. And it gets worse.

Researchers are not paid by the journals who publish their research and in most cases are required to sign over the copyright to their paper. So, the journal is getting their content for free. They then charge universities and libraries for subscriptions to those journals, subscriptions that can easily top $5,000 a year. Access to a single article runs, on average, $35 per person. The total accumulation is something in the neighborhood of $10 billion a year. All for access to something that, arguably, shouldn’t cost anything in the first place because, as taxpayers, we’ve already paid for it.

This is the new war with the bourgeoisie. Access to information is the new line in the sand along which battle lines are being drawn. The bourgeoisie see information as a way to increase their wealth and keep the bulk of information limited to those who can afford to access it. They not only put information behind paywalls and limit access to members, they also control the very access points for “free” information. While smartphones may seem ubiquitous, they’re not. Even in the United States, there is still as much as 40% of the population without regular access to the Internet in any form. Data prices via cell phone have consistently risen over the past ten years and even home access providers, such as AT&T, are beginning to add data caps in an attempt to extort more money from customers. As they do so, they limit access to information and, by extension, opportunity.

Those who are membres of the bourgeoisie attempt, of course, to justify their actions. An economic system dependent upon ever-growing profit margins supports continued abuse by the bourgeoisie. Creating a genuinely flat playing field that is open to everyone requires an economic model quite different to the no-holds-barred capitalism to which we’ve become accustomed.

Yet, there will be, there must be change. Every time the two sides meet, where those who are “common” take on the bourgeoisie, there is change. More players such as Ms. Elbakyan will enter the fray. Those determined to upset the status quo of Internet access will force changes.

But be aware that there is a battle here. Pick your side carefully.

Advertising / Photography / PotD

Throwing Shade Over Coffee

April 14, 2016

I like coffee because it gives me the illusion that I might be awake. —Lewis Black

Either the coffee is right or everything is wrong

Competition is everywhere. We compete for time, we compete for attention, we even compete with ourselves when it comes to matters such as losing weight or going to the gym. We understand competition both from a personal and commercial perspective and we typically don’t think too much of one product throwing a little shade at their competition. We rather expect that. After all, they have to compete for our attention before they can compete for our dollars.

Coffee is a competitive business, to be sure, but at the same time, it is one of the things that unites a lot of people. Meeting over coffee is one of my preferred ways of getting together with people. How people drink their coffee, or whether they drink coffee, tells me a little bit about them.

Where we don’t necessarily expect competition, though, is among dictionaries. Certainly, it has always existed, with each claiming to be either the most precise or the most complete. The dictionary business has changed dramatically, though, as the Internet has developed. People are buying fewer dictionaries than ever before, and major search engines now provide the definition of a word simply by typing it in, so we don’t even need to visit a dictionary’s website. Spell check doesn’t help the dictionary business, either, though that function isn’t always reliable.

I’ve just given you three very different and distinct topics within three paragraphs, loosely tied around the concept of competition. Yet, what brings all these together this morning, and the only reason I’m writing about them in the first place, is the shade one dictionary threw at another over coffee, which thereby highlights just how competitive the word business can be.

The whole thing started when the top-ranking dictionary.com posted this tweet:

pic.twitter.com/WKbijevQ7o

— Dictionary.com (@Dictionarycom) April 11, 2016

Seems a rather appropriate tweet given this is National Library Week, doesn’t it? A gentle hint at how our word choice carries basic emotions. But look carefully at the picture. Do you see the problem? The folks at Merriam-Webster, you know, that more traditional dictionary that folks my age used all through school, caught the error and were quick with a comeback.

.@Dictionarycom There’s no cream in that coffee.

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) April 11, 2016

Oops! Major shade thrown. By a dictionary.

If ever there were an example of needing to not only double check but triple check one’s work, this is it. Even in the dictionary business,where competition tends to be more elevated and subtle, if one makes an obvious error in public be sure that the competition is going to pounce on the opportunity to take advantage of your mistake, even if it’s one most people probably didn’t even notice the first time around.

And most people didn’t notice. No one had said a thing about the fact that the coffee in the picture didn’t have any visible signs of being creamed until Merriam-Webster brought it to our attention. Most people tend to skim their Twitter feeds anyway and we actually pay attention to less than ten percent of what we see there. Had the competition not been watching, chances are that even if someone caught the error they likely wouldn’t say anything. After all, who wants to take on people who work for a dictionary? For most mortals, such a challenge could end badly.

The other lesson to be learned here is that pictures have meanings and definitions just as much as words do. One can’t just take a random picture and slap it with a set of words that have no relation, or worse yet, contradict the image. You’ll notice that in the picture we used here the coffee does have cream. Uhm, you did notice that she’s holding coffee, didn’t you? Maybe I’m expecting too much of some, but I’m sure one or two people caught on without having to scroll back up and check. My point is, though, that matching the right picture with the right words can be quite challenging. It took over an hour of wading through the archives before we found a coffee picture that actually had cream in it. Imagine what the challenge would be like for someone who didn’t have such a collection at their fingertips. Finding the right picture can be every bit as challenging, and every bit as important, as finding the right words.

Which brings me to my final point: this is what happens when marketing departments use stock photos rather than buying original imagery. Dictionary.com was slammed because someone in the marketing department, possibly an intern, was instructed to pair a stock image with a literary quote [we’ll just assume that dictionary.com has permission to use the image and didn’t steal it from the Internet]. Business is too competitive to be risking your image with stock photography, especially when the photo doesn’t match the message.

In the end, this isn’t a huge, earth-shattering or career-ending faux pax. I doubt anyone lost their job and this isn’t the type of thing that is going to sway anyone’s opinion about which online dictionary to use. There are lessons to be learned from the situation, though; lessons we all should remember so that we don’t repeat the same mistakes.

And we all could probably do with another cup of coffee.

Photography / PotD / Social Commentary

Photography, Just Because Or Despite

April 13, 2016

We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless. —Lech Walesa

The reasons for being a photographer are both noble and challenging

I seriously hesitated before choosing this morning’s pictures. These pictures were taken on the Tipster’s third birthday. Today, we celebrate her sixth. She’s grown a lot, changed a lot, but those eyes are still as dark as midnight and that expression on her face is still a mixture of happiness and curiosity and sheer mischievousness. Despite all that, though, when I might have had opportunity to take her picture again yesterday, on exactly the same perch where these were made, I didn’t. My excuse was that I’d left my camera inside and didn’t want to risk leaving the kids in the yard by themselves, not even for the few seconds it would have taken to get the camera. The real reason, though, was one of a different caution: I didn’t want anyone to see me taking pictures of a child without her mother present.

The reality of being a photographer in 2016 forces us into making those decisions that we really don’t want to make. Despite all the advances in technology, despite all the court cases upholding photographers’ rights, despite all the precautions we might take to avoid any indication of wrongdoing, too often we find ourselves not even bothering to take out the camera rather than risk our intentions being misunderstood.

I read a beautiful, if not somewhat altruistic, article yesterday about “Photography For Photography’s Sake.” Photographer Eric Kim gives a very noble look at the real reason we are photographers: the love of taking pictures. It’s not the money (what money?), nor the chance at fame, nor even the chance to get free gear (if one is willing to play that game) that drives us, but rather the thrill that comes when we capture that perfect (for now) image that makes us feel good about our place in the world and our ability to document life on this planet, creating beauty, permanently capturing the temporal. Being a photographer is a wonderful profession even without the occasional perks.

Despite all the pat-on-the-back positivity, though, the same website carried an article about Greek tourists being harassed, one even having their phone taken, because their intentions were misunderstood by a group of overly-aggressive mothers. The tourists were taking pictures of a fountain, the kind that shoots up jets of water from a concrete surface. There are hundreds of them in the US, but this one happened to be in Southend, Essex. Like most every other similar fountain, children were playing in the water. The mothers mistakenly assumed that anyone taking pictures of the fountain must be paedophiles and confronted the shocked tourists. One of the mothers even posted on Facebook that she had “busted a paedophile ring.” In fact, she had done no such thing. She had merely ruined someone’s vacation. All three tourists were quickly cleared by police of any wrongdoing, but the stigma holds.

Misunderstanding about why we do what we do, the increasing lack of respect given to our profession, makes it extremely difficult at times to enjoy what we do. While we may want to take pictures simply for the love of taking pictures, there are too many times when we stop and have to second-guess whether the picture we might consider taking is worth the potential trouble it may cause. This current environment of distrust impedes our creativity and casts dispersions on our intentions despite the fact we’ve done nothing wrong.

In some cases, that lack of trust results in open hostility that makes being a photographer dangerous. One prominent presidential candidate has even gone so far as to corral photographers at his campaign rally, encouraging others to “beat them up,” and even laughing when one falls or gets hurt. While this example may seem extreme in the same sense that this candidate’s entire campaign is extreme, it is indicative of just how hostile the world has become toward people who carry cameras.

While I would very much like to ignore that hostility and walk around taking pictures of this and that all day long, I don’t. Not only is there the general suspicion with which we have to deal, there are alleged colleagues who would superimpose an unrealistic sense of perfection not only upon their work but everyone else’s. For them, no photograph is worthwhile so long as the slightest flaw exists. The eyes have to be in just the right position and the “catch” in a person’s eyes has to be in just the right place and there has to be the perfect number of hairs blowing across her face and they have to be the perfect length and if everything is not perfect then the photo is worthless. Sorry, I don’t consider that photography. What we capture is imperfect because life and the world is imperfect and the beauty of it all is found in the imperfections.

What few seem to realize is that every time a photographer is challenged about their work, despite whatever noble or seemingly righteous intentions on may have, we ultimately second guess why we are photographers in the first place. Are we photographers just because we love the act of taking pictures or are we photographers despite an aggressive society that fails to understand the artistry and beauty we find in everything.

The weather forecast for this afternoon is pleasant enough that I’ll likely let the kids play in the yard, and if I do then maybe, just maybe I’ll consider taking another photo of the birthday girl. Kat still won’t be home, such is the downside of being a responsible adult, but perhaps I’ll take the risk anyway. Both kids make great subjects and I know our immediate neighbors know I’m a photographer and won’t give our activities a second thought. I’ll still worry about those passing by. Will someone call the police or child protective services? Will someone stop and try to challenge what I’m doing? But maybe I’ll enjoy taking pictures just because, despite all the risk.

Maybe.

Fashion

Gucci’s Jesus Shirt Is Flammable

April 12, 2016

Pontius Pilate was the first great censor and Jesus Christ the first great victim of censorship. —Ben Lindsey

Recall of silk products is a concern, but there’s some irony when a deity is thrown into the mix

I know, this isn’t exactly the sort of headline one expects to see on a Tuesday morning. In fact, one doesn’t expect to see this manner of headline ever. I certainly hadn’t planned on writing one. Nonetheless, here we are, and yes, the story is all too real.

The problem begins with how fabric, particularly silk, is being manufactured. We both know good and well that there aren’t this handful of silkworms laboring furiously to provide the world’s luxury apparel makers with the thousands of bolts of silk they use each season. We also know that all fabric has to be processed in such a way that it meets industry and government standards for safety. One of those safety factors is flammability. In short, your clothes should resist catching on fire, not turn you into a human torch.

There’ve been two recent product recalls, however, because apparently there is more than one manufacturer who isn’t giving their product a good coating of the stuff that makes textiles less likely to erupt in flames. One involved some 20,000 rayon scarves sold under a name I’d rather not give any traffic. I found it rather disturbing that the scarves, which are worn around the head and neck, have been sold for two years and only now is someone figuring out that they’re flammable. Fortunately, fewer women are smoking these days and I’m guessing not too many women wear scarves while standing near an open flame. Still, it would only take one instance of a head becoming fully engulfed to make for some very bad publicity.

What really got my attention, though, because I never have trusted Chinese-produced rayon in the first place, was when Gucci’s silk t-shirts were recalled, also because they have this bad tendency to be flammable. There are three t-shirt designs affected, two of which are rather nondescript sheer silk with stripes. Neither are of a style I would drop $700 or more to wear. However, the third shirt isn’t one we normally associate with flammability. Take a look:

Gucci men’s silk t-shirt

Yes, you’re seeing that correctly. Gucci put a picture of a crucifix featuring Jesus Christ himself on one of their silk t-shirts. I’m guessing this one probably retails on the higher end somewhere around $1300 each. I won’t speak to the overwhelming insincerity of paying $1300 for a silk Jesus t-shirt, although that falls right in line with the idiocy of giving to televangelists. Neither do I care to go off on a tangent regarding how incredibly disrespectful and sacrilegious it is to put Jesus on a t-shirt at all, though if one is going to do so, at least it’s silk.

Rather, it’s the fact that this Jesus is flammable that is dripping with irony that I simply can’t pass up. The image of the one who supposedly saves you from the flames of hell could actually erupt in flames itself if one is standing, oh, say around a campfire singing Kum-by-yah a little off key. One just doesn’t expect to find that wearing a depiction of Jesus might result in accidental immolation; we tend to leave that act to radicals, not people who drop $1300 on a damn t-shirt.

Obviously, Gucci didn’t actually intend for its Jesus t-shirt to be flammable and, given that fewer than 60 of the shirts were even in production, the owners are being contacted directly and their money being returned.

Still, maybe this should give Gucci and other fashion labels some pause about trying to use religious symbols to make fashion statements. Don’t. Because if you piss off a deity, there’s no fabric on this earth that can withstand the flames of such wrath.

Or maybe Jesus didn’t like the royalty split.

Either way, the shirts are off store shelves. A rather effective way to say Jesus wasn’t pleased.

[insert evil grin here]

charles i. letbetter

I think there is a danger there of being mean to people and humiliating people and embarrassing people just because it might get you ratings. It is a disturbing trend. —Bruce Nash

Share this:

Like this:

Whoever said money can’t buy happiness simply didn’t know where to go shopping. —Bo Derek

Share this:

Like this:

Our nation has not made the level of investment on a federal level that can have the positive effect on suicide that has happened for the other leading causes of death. —Dr. Christine Moutier, chief medical officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention

Share this:

Like this:

The rewards of freedom are always sweet, but its demands are stern, for at its heart is the paradox that the greatest enemy of freedom is freedom. —Os Guinness

Share this:

Like this:

We don’t apologize for a joke. We are comics. We are here to make you laugh. If you don’t get it, then don’t watch us. —Joan Rivers

Share this:

Like this:

I can say unequivocally that the boycott does not work. It’s never complete enough to have impact unless it’s backed by force, and I don’t think anybody in America seriously proposes that. —Helen Suzman

Share this:

Like this:

One thing above all gives charm to men’s thoughts, and this is unrest. A mind that is not uneasy irritates and bores me. —Anatole France

Share this:

Like this:

We in the industrialized world make a greater difference because our ecological footprint, our impact on the condition of the environment, is 40 to 50 times larger than that of people in the developing world. —Maurice Strong

car·bon foot·print

Share this:

Like this:

The key to longevity is to learn every aspect of music that you can. — Prince

Share this:

Like this:

Rivers, ponds, lakes, and streams – they all have different names, but they all contain water. Just as religions do – they all contain truths. —Muhammad Ali

Share this:

Like this:

Obscenity is a moral concept in the verbal arsenal of the establishment, which abuses the term by applying it, not to expressions of its own morality but to those of another. —Herbert Marcuse

Share this:

Like this:

One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. —Plato

Share this:

Like this:

The Pulitzer Prize is an idea; it’s a vote of confidence. Like literature, it exists purely in the mind. —Jeffrey Eugenides

Share this:

Like this:

All music is folk music. I ain’t never heard a horse sing a song. —Louis Armstrong

Share this:

Like this:

Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning. —Benjamin Franklin

Share this:

Like this:

The water cooler conversation in every job I’ve had is sports, it’s what did you do this weekend, it’s ‘How are your parents doing?’ —Kal Penn

Share this:

Like this:

A bad review is like baking a cake with all the best ingredients and having someone sit on it. —Danielle Steel

Share this:

Like this:

Most virtue is a demand for greater seduction. —Natalie Clifford Barney

Share this:

Like this:

Perhaps the soundest advice for parents is: Lighten up. People have been raising children for approximately as long as there have been people. —George Will

Share this:

Like this:

I tried to make up for being short by affecting a strut, by adopting the voice of a much bigger man, by spending more money than I made, by tipping double or triple at bars and restaurants, by dating tall, beautiful women. —Mickey Rooney

Share this:

Like this:

The frame of mind in the local legislatures seems to be exerted to prevent the federal constitution from having any good effect. —Henry Knox

Share this:

Like this:

When the bourgeoisie sees that power is slipping out of its hands, it brings up fascism to hold onto their privileges. —Buenaventura Durruti

Share this:

Like this:

I like coffee because it gives me the illusion that I might be awake. —Lewis Black

Share this:

Like this:

We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless. —Lech Walesa

Share this:

Like this:

Pontius Pilate was the first great censor and Jesus Christ the first great victim of censorship. —Ben Lindsey

Share this:

Like this:

Login

Follow Us