20150929

What just happened.

Prelude

When I was young, girls had penes. In my dreams they often still do. How this jibes with the fact that I consistently find chicks with dicks mildly alarming when they turn up in porn, I don't quite understand.

Fugue

I am weary of living in Squalor. I tell Paul, on the lawn just outside the open front door: I can't live like this. Like what? says he, and I indicate with a sweeping arm the avalanche of dirty laundry our housemates have left in looming piles everywhere. I tell him: I know you were upset about it before we went on vacation, but I'm upset about it now. That's it, I say. I'm putting everyone on notice. Claim it and stow it by next Saturday or it's trash. I go poking around some of the clutter. There are books on shelves along the staircase, some of which I know belong to Bob. These are piled with laundry, too.

At the top of the stairs I am in the long house, and these central second story rooms are my favorite rooms. In some sense they are mine, though I am not a regular occupant. I set about straightening and am faced with the choice: Make the beds or no? I recall recent Internet advice that making the bed every day helps dust mites propagate. I contemplate a system whereby thinnish top mattresses are daily removed and hung on the walls, so as to kill or discomfit the mites. The side room, in a place where there's no room for a side room, has beds under eaves; it both the playroom in the house in Folsom where I grew up and the guest room in the Paynes' house in Vermont.

Yes, this is my favorite room of the house—and I tell JoJo as much—even though it's now on the ground floor and on the end of the house, with a single window in the middle of the back wall. There is a train going by; except maybe we're on it. And there must have been a door there in the wall, because now we're out on the lawn, on the corner, near the school bus stop, and I'm chatting with Sharon, in a very pleasant and quiet dusk, about the film festival we're about to go to. The festival is in Brooklyn, which reminds me, Aren't we in Brooklyn now? Yes, Sharon says. It may no longer be the long house, but this house is certainly in Brooklyn.

The bus comes. Neither Sharon nor I has ridden this line before, and Sharon asks the driver questions, holding up transit. A young hipster woman offers aloud the advice that we "Figure it out, people." Sharon figures it out and we board, only now we're in a taxi, four across the back seat: Sharon, I, Hipster Woman, Hipster Woman's companion, who happens to be Hipster Man. She is short, cute, ruddy, hair in a bob, Henry Blake fishing cap. Peppermint Patty, I think, but nobody asked me. (In retrospect, she might have been a long-lost acquaintance from the Fruity Pebbles gang in Newark.)

I am in that mindspace where I could be truly annoyed at her "Figure it out, people" or just pretend annoyed. I say, I hope that wait wasn't too long for you. She responds with what I perceive as elaborately fake singsong niceness: No, it wasn't. I respond, I'm so sorry!—matching her intonation exactly, mockingly. She laughs and says, I said it wasn't. I know that's what she said, but I was just being a bitch. I say to her, Oh, I thought you were just being a bitch. She laughs. We're keeping it light. We're sitting smoosh next to each other but we're a million miles apart but we're keeping it light. Like you do.

We talk about the film fest. Are you a fan of the films of Jim Jarmusch? I ask her. Are you kidding? she says: In the last three hours I've become one! She mentions that she and her companion saw a film at the fest the other day featuring a woman in a tiny bikini; apparently its tininess was something to behold. I recall having heard a radio announcer mentioning something very similar, and offer that this must be The Tiny Bikini Film Festival. But of course it was probably just one film that they both saw. Or maybe she heard the same radio broadcast and never saw the film at all. And maybe the radio man was making shit up as well.

Although the taxibus never dropped us off, we're in a diner now in the bustling city, and the counter guy, who is possibly Chris Pratt, is speaking into a contraption that he intends as a microphone, but it's really a funky old camera. Or maybe a pizzelle iron. In either case, he amuses as intended. There are funky contraptions hung about the walls of the diner; it's hipster heaven. There are also a couple floor-model Victrolas (Victrolae?). I wonder that the Victrolas aren't just useless things to be in the way, since there are no records about, but apparently some of the staff enjoy putting round things that are not records on the turntable and playing them. This, I am assured, allows them to here short-wave radio from under the sea.

The hipster chick, still by my side at the counter of the diner, tells me that the server, Doug, "...is smarter than you. Doug is smarter than me. Doug is smarter than everyone we know." Everyone knows that Chris Pratt is a goofus, but I believe her. Hell, I've never known what "smart" means.

At this point I have to pee. So I pee. And then, Don't Ask Me Why, the big silhouette grasshopper vomits Maalox instead of tobacco juice. It sets up like cement within seconds. Shortly thereafter, my friend, who is part Queen Latifah as Big Mama and part LaWanda Page as Aunt Esther—they intersect at the hat—chases some bullies away. She's always been good to me.

20150925

And on that Frostian note...


I've always felt the whole "personal/civic responsibility" bugbear is something of a straw man. Sure, the case for increased activism makes itself; but when we're talking about the elected, it's more to the point to accuse both parties of acting openly and vigorously against the interests of the American people than to accuse them of failing to take responsibility for those actions; the latter is an afterthought. Besides, the alternative shown here, blaming the other party, is exactly the kind of drama our televisions have trained us to expect. How are we surprised?

This kind of commentary further lets our gubmint off the hook by acting as if they are blind followers of trend or fashion themselves. They are not. The decision to side with Capital and corporatism is not an idle "Oh well, might as well back the stinking rich horse" choice you make over lemonade; it's a decades-long program to dupe the overwhelming majority of citizens (i.e., the stupid ones). And it's been swimmingly successful.

I'm never one to shirk the decrying of humans as fucking idiots; but you gotta admit, the evil scheme was choice: Take all the neocon goals and themes—trickle-down fairydust; demonization of the most vulnerable populations (bootstraps, baby!); deregulation; corporate welfare; civil rights as anti-American values (no, seriously! up is down!); and the inevitably pernicious influence of a liberal education—and inextricably link all these in the propaganda machine to the two things about which the peasantry will feel most violently protective: GOD and GUNS.

(1) God says this and god says that and god sees you in the voting booth and god will bring you coal this Christmas—er, I meant send you to hell to suffer unspeakable torment for all eternity, my bad—if you so much as utter the phrase "women's reproductive rights".

(2) In the Great American Dream, "Get off your land or I will shoot you" has evolved slightly to "Get off my land or I will shoot you"—but not an inch ferre.

I saw it coming at age 15, observing my grandmother's pavlovian response to the suddenly political messaging of her fuckstick televangelists. Even my parents—half-hearted "let's sleep in on Sunday" evangelicals at that point—bought the hype to some extent. Years later, my formerly anti-establishment dad embraced W.'s "regular guy" anti-intellectual, pro-gun bullshit loudly and proudly.

And what do you know? The terrorists have won.

Robert Frost in Interzone #418

"My little horse must think me queer
Because of what I do with steer."


20150818

Real House Trans White Wives

It appears Real Housewives of Atlanta and the White House are running neck and neck.


20150817




Continue reading the main story
%
0
’05
’06
’07
’08
’09
’10
’11
’12
’13
’14
’15
"For some, this line of thinking offers an uncomfortably deterministic theory about American presidential politics." —Nate Cohn

Yes. Yes it do. As Nick Walker Hirsch fumes, 
This article treats [Hillary] Clinton as the protagonist in some kind of political drama in which progressive (white) liberal supporters of [Bernie] Sanders are framed as either an obstacle, a nuisance, or a fifth column within the rank and file, while Clinton is lauded for having tied up the money before the race even began... 
"She has won the so-called invisible primary, the behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that helps decide the nomination. She has more endorsements and cash than just about any candidate in American history." 
...If Clinton and Jeb! Bush are really so powerfully entrenched with the moneyed elites in this country that we can just treat their candidacies as inevitable, why do we bother having elections? We could all save ourselves a lot of time, money and pretense and just let the rich people sort it out without all of those bothersome plebs mucking up the works.
Just so. The question is whether the data or the conclusion came first. Nate Cohn is NYT's knockoff Nate Silver, whom they lost to data journalism stardom, whatever the fuck that is. (It's clear and worth chuckling over that NYT was hoping people wouldn't notice the Nate2Nate swap—like turning on Bewitched in 1969 without being bothered or bewildered by the new Dick on the block.) 

It's entirely likely, in my view, that NYT editorial owns this brand up to and including dictating the outcome which Mr. Cohn's analysis must prop up. As Nick points out, the whole piece comes from a Clinton-as-a-historical-inevitability POV. Mr. Cohn's tenor—frequent recourse to "Democratic elites", greater discussion of party than of voters—suggests that NYT has already accepted, and expects its readership to accept, that the Age of the Electorate is over. The American people don't elect their officials: they rehearse some tepid cheers over the Candidates (2) that Capital Built, while the media, like Briar Rose's godmethren, amusingly bicker over the color of their outfits. 

Oh, sure, throw in lots of drama in the public square for window dressing. The "issues", those enterprises of great pitch and meme-ment don't worry The Money one bit. They serve only as a welcome distraction for the ideological. Besides, more often than not, they aren't even issues to begin with; they're gossip. My FB page has decayed into 10 percent issues and 90 policing of how people react to and discuss the issues. Which fuck that methodically to fine powder.

Of course, Mr. Silcohn and NYT are not wrong. We folks who espouse Sanders are the crazy people. We are "the overwhelmingly white, progressive left"—and in a refreshingly novel turn of events, that image sells like Wal*Mart China-made clothing to downtrodden Black America as well as it sells to white centrists and conservatives. That is what happens, I warrant, when you devote three decades to sabotaging public education, criminalizing communities of color, traducing science, and stigmatizing intelligence. The vast horde of under-educated, shit-fed hinterland masses already accept the new federal figurehead selection model. That is why they have thrown their support behind a professional wrestling superstar called Donald Trump. 

20150816

Let's disagree to agree.


This is an admirable sentiment propped up with artifice. Everything from "We are one species" forward is, in my view, inarguable. But "there really is no such thing, scientifically, as race" is fundamentally disingenuous: it's like saying there's no such thing as "generosity" or "jealousy" because capital-S-science doesn't have formal definitions or standards for these qualities. Even worse, it actually obfuscates a basic principle of life science: that evolution is fluid; speciation is nothing but sufficiently distant cousinage. Except with a monoculture (like the Cavendish banana) defining a clade doesn't prohibit or discourage subclades. And denying subdivision of species is not merely idle sophistry: race-blindness would catastrophically diminish the efficacy of screening and managing sickle cell disease, Tay-Sachs disease, and similar genetic disorders.

Not surprisingly, the pugilistic Bill Nye above is quoted too restrictively: Mr. Nye supports his message re human unity with a more nuanced (and more entertaining) discussion of the science behind it.
We obsess about whether our dog is a pug-Jack Russell terrier mix with corgi overtones and an oaky finish. 'An approachable little dog.' Whatever. They’re all dogs, okay? And so the idea of a purebred is just a human construct.
Er... ok. Again, I take the point, but I think there's a difference between "a human construct" (i.e., a mental schema humans make up to explain something) and an actual thing humans actually constructed (i.e., Scooby Doo and Gidget*, via selective breeding). The problem comes when you start speaking as if "science" and human communication were the same thing:
If a [Papuan] hooks up with a Swedish person all you get is a human. There’s no new thing you’re going to get. You just get a human ... there’s really no such thing as race. There’s different tribes but not different races. We’re all one species.
Granted! But who said the word "race" meant "species"? I think the general public—insofar as they consider it at all and without resort to scientific terminology—understand "species" primarily as "members of a clade genetically similar enough to successfully reproduce." There is no way any common use of the word "race" today means the same thing. It is nonsense to proceed from the proposition that recognizing race denies the unity of the species. Bill Nye can draw a Venn diagram of this as easily as the next scientist. But he is a science populist/popularizer, a humanist, and (absent a skosh of evidence to the contrary) a Good Person, and he thus considers the ultimate message so important as to trump (not Trump—for there we are talking speciation) the finer points of science. I respectfully dissent.

Of course we must emphasize the universality not just of our species but of our entire biosphere. That we are all "in this together"—that the survival of life on earth depends on our species behaving intelligently in the broadest possible societal context—is the most important truth we have before us. To present bad science and popular myth, even in ultimate support of this overarching goal, is to act in bad faith—to betray the goal itself.

-----
* BTW, that dog is dead now.