The Babes, Another Story Missed

Once again I find myself not listening to a family member read a pair of newspaper articles my grandfather had clipped about Christmas due to COVID, this time because I'm isolating having had a very recent exposure (and being super tired so joining a zoom isn't in the cards). 

If you don't know this about me, I'm agnostic bordering on atheist, but my grandfather was a Methodist minister.  He grappled with ethics and lessons of good and evil both in his role as a religious leader as well as in his job at BU as a professor who taught society and ethics.  A few years ago, near the start of the ongoing pandemic, I shared the essence of one of the articles that he would read to my family throughout my childhood and someone in my family has read at the annual gathering each year since his passing.  I'd like to share the other and how I have long questioned the wisdom but how I now firmly don't believe it and why.

The article is from WWII and is about the author having recently read something about a conqueror sweeping through Europe.  The author was surprised to find that the conqueror was not the current threat but instead Napoleon.  He then goes on to explain that the "sign onto you" that God sends the shephards is not something fantastical but something every-day: a babe born in a manger, the most mundane of mundane occurences.  He continues but the general idea of the rest is that as long as there are babies being born, it's a sign from God that He still believes in us and that there is always hope.

So here's the thing: it's a wonderful idea... and after a fashion it's sort of true... but it's also blinding.  The point of the article is roughly that things don't change in a way that is not reversable and, more generally, that things that threaten us today may seem bad, but they will not be our end.  But none of that is true.  Things change irreparably.  After WWII, we will never return to a world without the threat of nuclear annihilation.  And the more we take for granted that things will continue the way they always have, the less we are able to adapt to growing threats. 

For example, climate change has been a pressing concern for several decades now.  I was well aware of what was coming back in the 1980's already as a young kid.  But if we assume the sea levels can't possible rise substantially, that our coastlines and weather patterns are relatively static, then we won't do things to try to avoid that future AND won't do anything to protect ourselves.  The longer we are blind to the situation we are in, the harder it will be to do anything meaninful.

Another good example is COVID-19 (and pandemics in general).  Yes, there are scientists researching pandemics generally, and even COVID-19 in specific, but we, as a society, do not appear willing to accept where we find ourselves.  COVID-19 has been, and continues to be, a mass disabling event.  Many don't know that, many that do don't seem willing to do much about it.  We ignore the risks.  Collectively, we have decided that we should return to how we lived prior to the start of the pandemic in most ways.  And it's true that we have made some good strides toward coping with the initial illness (vaccines, paxlovid) but we do not currently have any treatment for any form of long covid, nor do we have a firm understanding of its different forms, just knowing the symptoms/impacts we have seen.  And even the full list of symptoms/impacts are continuing to evolve.  But we turn a blind eye to it and say that clean air, masking, and other precautions are too much.  Like climate change, we struggle a lot with covid because of lagging indicators and somewhat invisible impacts.  I could go on for days, but suffice to say, we have shown that we cannot handle delayed impacts (including multi-day incubation periods) and appreciating invisible connections (like the damaged covid causes to all organs and systems).  And like climate change, we have not risen to the challenge that we face and therefore are continuing to cause undo harm to so many and ostracizing those who take reasonable precautions.

Ok, one more example: the current politcal climate in the US.  In November 2024, we elected Trump to be President.  We knew about Project 2025 which was a playbook for a lot of things, but among them, how to generally wreak havoc in government and get away with it.  That playbook drew on fascist principles and strategies.  Historians were warning from the early days about what to look for and everything they warned us about came to pass.  Courts have provided precious little in the form of pushback, but at least they provided some, where it has been entirely lacking from Congress.  The expectation from many is that when Trump leaves office, we'll return to the status quo.  The expectation is that what happens elsewhere (transitioning away from a democracy) can't happen here.  The reality is something different.  The reality is that there is every reason to believe that we either worn't have a 2026 presidential election or that it won't be what we expect it to be.  Even if we have such an election, there is every reason to believe that the playbook of the right will be adhered to with even greater competency than it has been in 2025 and that a greater ill will arrive to the US.

I don't have answers.  I don't know that anything can be done.  And that's the point.  What I do know is that it's possible for things to change for the worse and for it to not be recoverable, at least for humankind.  I know the world changes.  I know that our circumstances change if we feel like things will always be the same, we will not adapt sufficiently (level of response or speed of response or, even more likely given the above 3 current examples, both).

So, it is a lovely sentiment that as long as there are babes, there is hope and there is evidence of God's love, but that line of thinking is somewhat folly.  It can easily land you in complacency and the belief that "this crisis shall end and we will inevitably be fine." which is simply not the case. 

The first article still rings true.  It is about how the story of Christmas is about more than just good feelings but about struggle and there being real evil in the world.  My post about that can be found here: Who Took Herod Out of Christmas

First They Came For The Vulnerable (Post Election Anger and Pain)

First they came for the vulnerable...
and you said f' them, yolo, and promoted not caring about others for 3.5 years.
and then, well, here we are.... did you think promoting a society where we didn't care about those perceived as vulnerable would lead somewhere else?
Do you care yet? Still only about select groups?
#ItsSoMuchWorseThanYouThink #ItDidntHaveToBeThisWay #NotEveryoneSurvived #NotEveryoneWillSurvive #IDontKnowHowToMakeYouCare #DoYouGetItNow 

I'm Tired

I'm tired...

I'm tired of hearing that we don't need masks because COVID is over (it's not)

I'm tired of hearing that COVID is now just like getting the flu (yes, people have been saying this since spring of 2020... who is saying it has changed but the fact that it's not hasn't changed significantly... there are things we can do now for some people but not for everybody ... including those of us who are fully vaccinated and on medication that prevents us from taking PAXLOVID ... and not for every outcome... such as so many of the Long Covid issues, including organ damage, brain fog, chronic fatigue syndrome-like symptoms)

I'm tired of hearing that masks are a significant burden (seriously? If I can wear one and put up with you being an ignorant jerk, you can wear one and put up with my caring about your health)

I'm tired of people not at all understanding precautions... yes, you can have a picnic in the field where we're performing... we're just asking that if you're going to be near us (ie, in a crowd watching the performance) that you mask.

I'm tired of people mistaking not testing for there's less spread (newsflash, even if you don't get x-rayed, if I break your arm, your arm is still broken)

I'm tired of hearing "but if this is just the conditions we have to live in going forward, are we expected to always take these precautions?" (yes... oh and by the way global climate change means we should shift the way we generate energy and deal with transportation and change our infrastructure... and 9/11 happened so we have security theater at airports... and the American Revolution happened so we don't send taxes to the UK... and we wear things on our feet when we enter businesses... and we have requirements for our cars that need testing every year to continue driving them... facts on the ground change, we learn new information, we adapt)

I'm tired of fighting for the privilege to provide my services for free in a way that I will be safe. (nothing says "thank you" like telling me I'm not worthy of, you know, existing)

I'm tired of knowing that nothing I say will change the minds of those that care about me (or those that say they do) and help them understand that it's still dangerous, not only to me but to them too (and yeah, I know this post won't change your mind. it's not for you, it's for me).

I'm tired of understanding that this is indeed the rest of my life... none of this will change, the spread will continue to stay at high levels with waves but where the valleys will never get to low spread, I will never go to a movie again (benefit/risk analysis is a thing), I will always have to watch what I eat (sure, covid has no impact on this but being diabetic sucks in some ways), I will forever be fighting for inclusion or will just have to drop participation, and you will never understand why my soul aches.

I'm tired

OPENAIR Circus gripe 2018

Ok, I don't often quite so publicly complain but I need to get something off my chest.  Please don't take this as a general complaint or something that is truly out of the ordinary for a given year.  I have had similar scenarios play out in the past and I will have them play out again in the future.  It is not likely to change the course of my life or the OPENAIR Circus.... it is, indeed, just a rant... a pure and personal rant.

I run the OPENAIR Circus.  From the end of June through the beginning of August, I essentially have the backseat and back end (trunk?... no, that's not the right term for a hatchback, right?) of my car taken over by equipment for the Circus and spend somewhere between 12 and 26 hours on the program, between being at the field for 3 hours a day 3 days a week, not counting setup and take-down (which each takes around 20-30 minutes on a good day) and stilting workshops or stilt making workshops or some other activity on the weekend, as well as the administrative work of sending out emails, coordinating with teachers and other volunteers, and just odds and ends (such as switching what equipment is in my car between one day and the next).

I do all this as a volunteer, giving back to the community that has given me so much in my life.  I do it because of the joy it brings others.

So, to the parent that complains that a particular class isn't going to perform because they haven't learned the most elemental of the skill they were set to learn because the children "only getting three classes instead of five - through no fault of [their] own" and is disgruntled enough to complain about how she has to tell her son he doesn't get to perform... I want to say this:

• I know we often joke at the OPENAIR Circus about my having control over the weather... I don't actually make it rain though... and as evidence from the first Thursday where I was at the field making the decision to call of classes rather than having listened to everybody earlier in the day and calling them off sooner, I really do try to ensure that we only cancel when we absolutely must.
• I work a full-time job and do this on top of that job.  I know it may seem like I work part-time or full time for the OPENAIR Circus or that we have any paid staff beyond the teachers, who themselves are only paid for the time they're actually at the field and even then are not paid a rate I would expect to pay them for gigs outside the summer program.  
• Not only do I volunteer my time, but I expend 6 days of work-vacation for what is really just about 1, maybe 2 days, overall, of actual relaxation.  My colleagues who don't pay close attention expect that my week off is similar to their vacations and so expect it to be rejuvenating instead of what it truly is which is physically, mentally, and emotionally taxing.
• I'm sorry you feel like 3 hours of instruction wasn't worth the $20 you spent.
• I'm sorry that you feel that your son should be in a performance that is open to the public even if he didn't learn a skill to perform.
• You are one of the reasons that I, year after year, question my sanity for doing this volunteering.

But all that would be unprofessional and poor customer service, so instead, I reply

"I can certainly appreciate your frustration.  It certainly is never optimal to have 2 of 5 classes rained out.  The report I got from the teacher is that just about none of the students had learned the basic element of completing a yo-down plus yo-up.  If [the child in question] can yo-down and yo-up, we would welcome him to be part of a filler in between acts if he's interested.  If so, just let me know.

Understanding that this has not been what you were hoping for from our program, I've removed you from the email list.

Sincerely,
Peter"

ok, end rant, moving on with my day

Reason for Violence in Schools is Separation of Church and State?

Before I get started, I'd like to point out that this is not targeting most religious people... many religious people would never make this assertion.... those that do, well, that takes a special kind of... well, ok, I've made my disclaimer, go ahead and read

message reads:
Dear God, Why do you allow so much violence in our schools? - A concerned student;
Dear Concerned Student, I'm not allowed in schools. - God

Let's explore this a bit shall we?  First, this is a direct response to the mass shootings we've seen at schools... so let's look at other places where mass shootings have been happening.

theaters - well... yeah, heathens go to theaters, they're the devil's playground.  Full of violence and sex and filth.  Makes sense that God would allow violence there.

malls - heathens go to malls to shop.  Look at all those evil places like Victoria's Secret and Apple and TJ Max and...

college campuses - well, duh

military bases - well, since we allowed gays in, right?  (oh, sorry, I seem to have moved to calling the person relaying the message homophobic somehow... I would say I'm sorry but I suspect you're realizing that I'm not particularly happy with anybody expressing this opinion)

churches... oh.. wait... God allows violence in churches because... hm...

Republicans, Racism, and President Trump

If you've missed it, Republicans in the House and Senate have been outraged by President Trump's lack of racism denouncing.  Their interest in distancing themselves from leaders of racist groups is nothing new.  David Duke, former head of the KKK, has been disavowed by various Republican candidates over the years.  Conventional wisdom says that you can't get general support if you're supported by hate groups.

The Republican establishment certainly believes this.  After the defeat in 2012, they had an analysis of the election performed.  The lesson learned was that they should seek the votes of minorities because the white majority was dwindling and the party could not continue to expect to win if it maintained its thorough reliance on white men.  This, of course, comes after the highly racial backlash against Obama's victory in 2008.  The backlash saw racist dog whistle remarks from many of the leaders in Congress as well as blatant racist remarks from the citizens attending rallies against Obama.  There was a strong push to delegitimize Obama's win by suggesting he wasn't a US born citizen... one that Trump would join and come to the forefront of in the years after 2008.

2016 rolled along and the Republicans actually managed to run some candidates for President that were not white men... There were quite a few candidates (17), but among the top 10 were 1 white woman, 1 black man, 1 indian-american man, and 1 man of Cuban descent.  That's right, almost 1/4 of the Republican Presidential ticket were non-white-men.  That's impressive given the breakdown in Congress which shows that while Democrats having a little over 80% as many seats in the two chambers of the Federal legislative branch, they have 3 times the number of women (78:26) and nearly 6 times the number of minorities (94:16).  In fact, the Democrats have just about the same ratio of minorities to whites in office at the Federal level as the country has in its population.  That indicates that the Republicans have a long way to go to bring their office-holders looking like the citizens they are there to represent.

So, the Republicans ran 13 angry white men, 1 angry white woman, and 3 angry minority men in 2016.  That's a lot of anger in one room... too much, in fact, so they had debates of <= 10 candidates instead.  As you might expect, the woman in the group was the first to be taken down by the candidate that would, throughout the campaign, disparage and demean women.  Good news for Trump: white nationalists tend to also be misogamists, so the base of his support is well in hand.  Trump continued to name-call and demean his opponents and serving up red meat for his fearful followers in the form of suggesting that land-based immigration from Mexico, Chinese trade, NAFTA, Obama-care, and Islamic Extremist terrorism were the biggest threats to the US and only he knew how to resolve them.  Care to count the racist elements of that train of dangers?  Go on, take a moment to do the math and find the percentage of issues that are race-based.  Trump was calling things as he saw them, or at least how people thought he saw them, and that was a strong selling point.  Based on responses at rallies, being openly racist, misogamistic, self-aggrandizing, and anti-media were the biggest winners for Trump.

Supporters ate it all up.  Finally, a candidate willing to be openly part of that group that the popular culture has been so opposed to.  Popular culture, for decades, has been anti-racism and anti-misogamy.  Trump's supporters loved the concept that political correctness was why their leaders tempered their words and used dog whistles instead of being, what popular culture would consider, openly racist and sexist.  It's stifling our discussions, they would say, to not be able to talk in terms popularly considered to be racist and sexist without being called racists and sexists.  After all, how can you have an honest discussion about Mexicans being rapists, Muslims being terrorists, women being emotional wrecks, and Blacks being lost sheep, duped into voting for a party that doesn't represent them, all these topics, while being labeled as someone who believes negative things about particular races and women?  How can you possibly stand up for racist beliefs when you'll be called a racist?  It's hard, I'm sure.

Anyway, the point being that for decades, the Republican party leaders had welcomed the quiet racism and almost-under-the-radar sexism, using dog whistles, code words that many of us understood the true meaning of but could be denied.  Now, Trump was openly saying the racist and sexist things the dog whistles had indicated in a seemingly-defensible way.  Much in the same way that the anti-government undercurrent that has supported the Tea Party was fostered by the Republican establishment and right wing news and talk shows, the undercurrent of racism and sexism, while based in a culture from the past, has been nurtured and given aid and comfort by the same parties.  The Tea Party has become a problem for the Republican establishment because of a lack of interest in negotiating or doing anything that could be identified as promoting government... an issue that the Republicans trying to accomplish anything in Congress, even with control of both chambers, are running into now and undoubtedly questioning their push to get to this point.  Likewise, Republican leaders are looking at the support being given to the racists now and railing against it.  They were the ones that helped get us here though.  It's hard to take Fox News saying that the President is not treating the situation appropriately when they've been pushing us in this direction for quite some time.

So, here's the question I have: Are the Republican leaders in Congress right to think that they can't be openly supportive of white supremacists?  And are labels so damaging and so upsetting to people that they would prefer to empower the worst of the racists than to recognize that maybe, just maybe, they are indeed a bit racist and maybe, just maybe, they should accept being labeled as such when they say racist things.

Mini Rant - I don't like that law so I won't follow it

I love people who explain that a law is unjust because they're not complying to it and that they're not complying to it because it's unjust. Was just listening to a call-in show where someone said that he had 10 cars that were in violation with the emissions standards based on his not having gotten them checked recently and that he hadn't done so because he didn't have time and the emissions standards law is not reasonable. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be the ones that believe in authority? I guess that links us back to the Bundys huh? So, let me get this straight, it's not o.k. to not follow the instructions of the police or not to follow the laws of your city, state, or country... unless you don't agree with them... well, o.k., it's still not o.k. to not follow the instructions of the police or not follow the laws of your city, state, or country... unless... um... I guess unless you're Conservative? I would say "unless you're white" but I don't want to assume this guy was white (though the racist in me is assuming that, "you betcha") and I'm pretty sure that Conservatives would still have a problem with a white Liberal not obeying the law when they feel it's unjust.

That's it, I'm done, I just can't anymore.... o.k., maybe I can

I'm so tired of it all.

I'm tired of people on the Right feeling like they're the only ones that care about morals.  The Left has morals just as much as the Right does.  Our value systems and beliefs may be different, but both sides believe and rely just as heavily on their morals.

I'm tired of people on the Left saying that it all falls down to <x> whether that be racism, sexism, stupidity, backwardness, or whatever.  I'm tired of hearing that the reason that people didn't come out to vote for Clinton was because of sexism, or that both sides are the same... something that has been said in past elections by many many people without there being a woman on the ballot.  I'm tired of feeling like those who I should be allies with consider me to be part of the problem because I try to understand the other side rather than just assuming what we've come up with is the answer to why they voted the way they did, or the reason they didn't come out to vote.

I'm REALLY tired of hearing that the only reason to dislike Hilary is sexism and that the honest-to-God reasons that I dislike her (I voted for her but she was the lesser of two evils) are invalid and cannot possibly be real, never mind the reasons that the Right might have voted against her given their positions on things such as: taxes, being pro-choice, wars, trade, and while not a position, her being the face of the Big Bad Establishment.

I'm tired of feeling on the wrong side of everything.  Regardless of what side I'm talking to it seems, I'm on the wrong side of it.

I'm tired of realizing that so many people in this country are so angry and are, I hope, blinded by that anger and blinded by some of the rhetoric, that they vote, in my opinion, against they're better interests and against the interests of those they love.

I'm tired of it all.

I'm so tired that I want to just give up.  I can't do it anymore.  I'm not going to post anymore about anything political on Facebook.  I'm not going to comments on others' posts.  Given that a lot of the people I'm dealing with on Facebook are OPENAIR Circus folk and I can't handle how they must think of me based on what they've said and what I've said, I'm going to disengage from that community....

I can't leave the OPENAIR Circus though... o.k., so I'll teach and organize but I won't engage with people on a personal level.  I can do that.  I can teach and organize the other teachers without really talking to any of the adults ... or the other teachers beyond discussing the program and their classes.  I can generate the schedule, update the website, generate the registration forms, organize the performances, hold stilting workshops, I can do all of it and retreat from the friendships I've formed over the years....

All those friendships... the ones I've valued so much and have helped keep me going throughout it all... I can dismiss them... right?  I can turn away from those I like, those I love, those I respect... I can do that....

O.k., maybe not...

X-Men: Apocalypse (spoilers... duh)

First off... spoilers... duh

So, let's start with the really quite desperately low hanging fruit.  There was a lot of concern about Olivia Munn's acting chops when it was announced that she would be playing Psylocke.  Sadly, or fortunately, depending on whether she's a good actress.  She had all of about 3 lines.  Those lines were rather blandly delivered, but they were pretty blandly written too, so is it her fault or the writer's?  We may never know.  What I do know is that Olivia (and the PR machine for the movie) made a huge deal about her enjoying fighting with swords.  I know that Psylocke is a badass fighter and has psychokinetic powers.  I also know that Psylocke in this movie spends all of like 2 minutes fighting, and most of that is just posed stuff and not actually combat.  Drawing your sword and putting it to someone's throat or cutting a car in half and then posing with lots of CGI do not count as combat.  So, yeah, as you may have figured out, I'm severely disappointed in the movie because of that.

Slightly less low, but still low hanging fruit.  Why... why... WHY are we still having Mystique appearing "naked"?  Admittedly, they finally put some clothes on her that was somewhat almost reminiscent of her comic costume, but it took the entirety of 2, count them TWO trilogies to get us there.  They had the opportunity with the semi-reboot to fix it, but no.

Next topic.  Can we, for the love of comic book movies, not force every movie to act as 10 different entities?  This one was not just completing the set of 3 movies and therefore rounding out the story arcs of several characters, most notably Magneto, Mystique, and Professor X.  But my biggest annoyance with the multiple-functions would have to be the attempt to promote the next Wolverine standalone, otherwise why divert to Stryker's facility at all.  Seriously, the action at Stryker's facility did not promote anything other than to remind us that Wolverine was there which then supports the post-credit sequence... which was also lame.  This movie is 2 hours 27 minutes, and how much could that have been reduced by using another, less time consuming plot device to get the 6 heroes away from the rest of the youth at the school?  Because this movie was trying to be too much, the story telling suffered.  This is just sad since this movie deserved better.

Back to sexism.  There's this great opportunity with the X-Men with such powerful women characters.  They, in fact, tend to be the most powerful of the X-Men.  Yes, Cyclops has his beam, Wolverine is near invincible, and Xavier, well, let's just put him aside for a bit.  Then you have the likes of Storm, Jean Grey and Rogue.  Talk about power houses.  Rogue was introduced in the original trilogy but never came to the fruition that would see her character truly showcase herself.  Storm was there too, and while she showcased her abilities, they were never quite awe-inspiringly, jaw-droppingly demonstrated as they really should be.  In this movie, we have the promise that we'll see more, since she's a horseman of Apocalypse... but no, we still barely see anything... just a bit of lightning in the final fight, not much more than that.  Jean Grey seems to be the only one we really get to see show off in a semi-constant manner.  O.k., and Mystique... she's also shown with her powers and her badass fighting (as poorly choreographed as it is in the original movie.  But I maintain that the women of the X-Men remain under-represented in terms of just how magnificently powerful they are, both in terms of their abilities and in terms of their characters.

There's one last thing that I'm going to complain about, at least in this post.  The villains.  And this topic has a few sub-topics.

First of all.. Magneto.  I get it, we need to have Magneto in every movie because he's a draw... but, no, seriously, please don't.  Have him show up briefly or something but don't have him be a lackey of the big-bad.  He's a big-bad on his own.  He doesn't need Apocalypse to empower him.  I must accept that this was a trilogy and therefore they're rounding out his arc, but perhaps in the next X-Men movie he can either play a much smaller role or not be there?  Perhaps he shows up to recruit for the Brotherhood but doesn't actually do anything else?  Or maybe it's just mentioned that he's off recruiting or hasn't been heard from?

I like that Psylocke walks away having witnessed Apocalypse being betrayed by both Magneto and Storm.  I love that both Magneto and Storm betray Apocalypse with good reason... but Apocalypse dies (or so it seems).  I'm tired of the arch-enemy dying at the end of the movie.  If Apocalypse hadn't just woken up during the movie, I would have been more accepting as he could have created other villains over the years that would come up later.  The original X-Men trilogy had a common enemy, even if Phoenix stole the show in the final part of the final episode.  I want a bit more of that.  And the enemy doesn't have to be on the forefront... you could have had Apocalypse show up, create 4 horsemen for the X-Men to fight, or create another super-villain, and stay in the background and come back in the second and third episodes of the trilogy.  Magneto, it can be said, is that common villain I'm looking for... and I agree that he could have been, but I would say he hasn't been in this trilogy.  In fact, he's played roughly the same role in each of the first two movies: reluctant hero -> villain.  And then he transitions in this movie to the pattern of villain -> hero.  But he's never the big-bad.  He's always reacting to others.  This is fine, but I want something a bit more.  I want the leader of the Brotherhood of Mutants.  I want a series of movies based on the sentinels.  I want Apocalypse empowering mutants and sending them to battle the X-Men on his behalf.  In short, I want a big-bad with staying power that doesn't just do a quick one-off thing in each movie (such as sending the missiles back at the ships that fired them or parking a stadium around the White House and taking over a few sentinels for around 30 minutes).

And lastly, Apocalypse deserved better story telling.  He's a big-bad and you saw that he needed an introduction.  Do that introduction well and don't rush the rest of the story.  You could easily have made this movie a two-parter.  Introduce Apocalypse, let him start recruiting, have the X-Men tangle with a couple recruits... maybe even kidnap Xavier in the first movie and blow up the estate and leave that as the cliff hanger.  That way you spend an entire movie just on the recruiting and don't rush through it.  The first movie becomes more a story about the formation of the 4 Horsemen and the second movie becomes a much better movie about the X-Men coming together and finding their ability to work together.

Alright, that's it for the moment.  Hope you enjoyed this rant.  Have other aspects of the movie you didn't like?  Do you feel I've judged the movie too harshly?  Let me know.

Clothes and sexism

As discussed previously, I'm evil and sexist.  Accepting that, I'm going to point out a few things about fashion.  Don't worry, this will be short.

First, the easy stuff that's not surprising to anyone.  Women's clothing is horrific and sexist.  No functional pockets and sizes being wildly different by company are just two ways in which this is the case.

That said, and here's the stuff I'll get flack for and proves further how I'm evil and sexist, expectations from men and women are different and have undertones of sexism too.  Professional clothing.  For a long time, women's professional fashion tended toward the showing of skin.  This is obvious sexism as it treated women as sex objects.  As time has gone by, offices have become more accepting of women wearing a much larger variety of clothes, including many that disregard the earlier sex-object fashion sense.  Men's professional fashion, on the other hand, while also changing, has not changed nearly as much.  Men are expected to wear pants.  Not shorts, pants.  In business casual environments we're allowed to wear t-shirts, but to be truly professional, we have to wear long-sleeve shirts, preferably button-down dress shirts.

I've heard more than a little discussion about how offices keep temperatures lower than women would like and that some of the reason for this is that men wear suits and therefore the office temperature is set to make them comfortable.  Here's some quick, highly unscientific observation on my part: women prefer much higher temperatures than men.  There is a constant complaint in my office of the building being too cold and as constant that complaint is, the men don't feel cold at all, ever, in any room, period... and we're not wearing suits.  We're wearing long sleeve shirts and pants, yes, but no jacket.  The top button of our dress shirts (or indeed sometimes the top 2, depending on the guy) are open.  And now we're back to that point I was making in the third paragraph.  Would the men wear shorts if we were permitted?  Probably.  I'd certainly be more comfortable in shorts and a t-shirt, but that's not considered professional.  I'm limited to long pants, whether it be "smart" jeans or long dress pants.  If I could, I'd wear "smart" jean shorts or dress shorts.  I'd still be perfectly fine with the temperature by the way, I'd just be slightly less likely to be sweating on any given day.

"So, what's the problem?" you might ask.  Well, it's 2-fold.  First, there's a hidden double-standard that nobody talks about.  Women have professional clothing that is a lot lighter and airy and doesn't have to cover as much of the body... but the range permits heavier clothing that covers just as much as men are required to wear.  The second part of the problem isn't a sexist problem at all, it's an environmental one.  By forcing men to wear heavier clothes, by forcing us to be warmer, offices need to be cooler, which requires much more energy in the summer.  In the winter, everybody wears heavier clothing because, well, it's colder outside.  But in the summer, when we should all be wearing lighter clothing so we're not as hot outside, men aren't permitted to.  Yes, we would still need air conditioning even if everyone were allowed to wear lighter clothing, but we would need less of it.

So, there's my rant on clothing.  Yes, I know, I'm a man and can't possibly understand the hardships of women and the demands on them from fashion.  Yes, I know, clearly these hardships of men are nothing in comparison to those of women (even though professional clothing for women now is far more diverse than men's clothing and includes clothing that is virtually the same, if not identical, to men's).  But you know what?  You already pointed out that I'm a sexist by simply being a man, so, why shouldn't I prove it a bit by speaking my sexist mind.

Women and Men in Movies

Alright, let's start with the fact that I know I'm probably going to make a lot of people upset by something in this post, for different people it will be something different, but I'm sure I'll make you upset by the end by something.  Let's also point out that this is going to be somewhat stream of conscience and not an argument over one thing, such as whether there should be women-only cast spinoffs of movies.... though I'm relatively confident that will come up given that I just watched a youtube show with a group of people arguing about it.  I also recognize that this isn't going to be some of my best writing, in part because it's just a rant, and probably not a very good one at that.

First aspect of women and men in movies, though, is going to be "I'm going to see that movie because so-and-so is hot".  For the love of movies, if you're going to see a movie to see a guy or a girl, you should just stay home and rent a porn with a lookalike or get a video with them in it and watch that over and over again instead of spending the $8-12 on a one-off viewing.  To me, movies are exercises in story-telling, first and foremost.  They are not opportunities to watch hot people be hot, they're opportunities to watch hot people perform in a story... I mean... they're opportunities to watch people perform in a story... ok, it helps when you cook with better ingredients and certainly part of visual story-telling is the scenery and, though it sounds shallow, beautiful people make for better scenery most of the time.  That said, I don't go see any movie because of a hot chick (or hot dude for that matter)... I go see it because I think it'll be fun or I think it'll have a good story.  I'm happy that women are going to see Marvel movies, but it saddens me whenever I hear that they're going because the men are hotties.  I know that men do the same thing and that creates 2 problems for me: 1) I'm ashamed for my gender and 2) it takes a lot out of my being annoyed by women who see Thor because Chris Hemsworth is hot topless.

All-women-lead casts.  Alright, the discussion online centered around what franchise should have an all-women-lead spinoff (other than Ghostbusters).  One person picked Mission Impossible, another picked Bridesmaids.  The person that picked Bridesmaids made the argument that she didn't want to see women playing male roles but instead wanted to see women being women and talking about things women talk about.  I'm sorry, there are already movies geared toward women, just as there are movies geared toward men.  There's nothing ground breaking about movies geared toward women with leading women, and it doesn't further the discussion, or the fact that there shouldn't need to be a discussion, of women playing different roles in movies.  There's also no way you can suggest that men in Mission Impossible are playing me, they're playing spies and heroes.  Men in Mission Impossible don't talk about normal man things.  Sure, a comedy movie about women would further the goal a little, but it has to be a movie for men or for both men and women.... not a movie that women bring their husbands/boyfriends to because their husbands/boyfriends brought them to X-Men and it's payback time.  Women in, let's say action movies, can also play different roles within those movies.  They can play stereotypical women roles, they can play stereotypical guy roles, they can play ... whatever.... point is, women and men have a wider range of characters than have historically been portrayed.  We're just starting to see geeky characters in action movies not be insanely wimpish and also not being super-awesome... expand it all and you're breaking barriers and proving that we don't need one-dimensional characters (Ethan Hunt), we need multi-dimensional characters (Loki, Magneto) and we need more of them to be women so that we can get past the whole discussion, then we can let it flow naturally to the point where we don't see the token woman or the token man but instead see true ensemble casts.

In conclusion, we should go to movies for the stories, not how sexy the people in them are and while we shouldn't need to think about whether we should cast strong women characters or whether we have enough women characters, we do for the time being until it becomes natural that there are strong women characters as often as there are strong men characters and the same with supporting roles.

Wako Comparisons

I've seen several posts comparing Wako's gang shootout to riots in Baltimore.... I'm not so sure that a gang shootout is really something you can compare to a riot so easily.

• One comparison suggested that there weren't mass arrests in Wako, but 170 gang members were arrested.
• One comparison suggested that since tear gas wasn't used, the police weren't as intense..... police were firing their guns at the gang members, that's not as intense as tear gas?
• One comparison suggested that since the National Guard wasn't called in, it wasn't being taken as seriously.... this comparison was made 1 day after the shoot out, the National Guard has been typically pulled into scenes much later than the first riot in the area... And by the time the comparison was made, the ATF and FBI were on the scene, the area was cordoned off, not really sure what the National Guard would have done
• I've seen a photo and the suggestion that the police were being super-relaxed in their handling of the gang members... Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but I certainly can't tell from one photo and I most definitely don't know enough about the scene to know if they really could have behaved any differently (when you're entirely overwhelmed numerically you often react differently than if you have a ton of cops in riot gear)
• And now I've seen something asking why the media is calling it a gang shootout instead of a riot.... that's because IT WAS A GANG SHOOTOUT... if the riots in Baltimore were gangs shooting each other rather than gangs and others tearing apart some businesses, the story there would have been a gang shoot out as well.

Not everything is equivalent.
Not everything is a prime example of the difference in how police treat blacks vs whites.

Here's one more comparison: The location of the gun fight has been closed down as a franchise and will not re-open.  CVS re-opened one of the sites of the riot in Baltimore and has pledged to support the community.  Please tell me which community is being treated as dangerous and problematic to invite into a business.

I'm not saying there isn't white privilege, there absolutely is.  I'm not saying police behavior isn't part of that white privilege, it absolutely is.  I'm not saying that the riots weren't poorly reported, they absolutely were.  But just because gang members are being called gang members instead of thugs doesn't mean that the reporting isn't appropriate.

I leave you with one last comment: with all these comparisons, none of them are pointing out that 9 people are dead and 18 injured.

"I'm not picking a side" nonsense

I'm so tired of people saying "I'm not a liberal or a conservative, I refuse to be labeled"... yes, o.k., so you're also not any of the following labels, right? heterosexual/homosexual/bisexual, religious/atheist, political, moral/immoral, male/female, human, alive, conscious.  Just because you make your own decisions about what is right/wrong and what the best options are in society/international politics/national economics/etc doesn't mean that you are not somewhere on the liberal/conservative scale.

Just because I self-identify as human, atheist, heterosexual, economic-liberal, social-liberal, and good-government (ask if you don't know), doesn't mean that I will always agree with those who self-identify the same way.  Yes, I am a registered Democrat, but that's only because Democrats tend to agree with me and Republicans tend to disagree with me.  I'm not therefore forced to vote Democrat, I'm just forced, in the primary, to indicate which Democrat I'd rather see in the general election instead of being able to say which Republican I would rather see.... and in my state, that means I more often will have a decision to make than otherwise.  If I were in another state, maybe I'd change my affiliation, but it wouldn't change the criteria by which I would vote in the general election.

Labeling isn't a bad thing.  In the case of politics, it cleanly and concisely gives us a starting place.  If you meet someone and they want to know about your political ideals, you don't have to go through every issue, you can just explain in a few, or even one, terms and deal in generalities at the start.

By the way, what kind of music do you like?  What?  You like a type of music?  Nonsense, I thought you refused to be labeled and I was sure that you would go through the entire list of artists you like.

Snow Rant - 5-Feb-2014

It snowed today.... a lot.  Holy crap that's a ton of heavy snow.

O.k., let's start off by dishing out the praise where it belongs.  Trash collectors and USPS workers work through the inclement weather and have to tramp through the foot high snow to keep aspects of our lives operating as if nothing were going on.  There's also something to be said to those civic minded folk that shovel out before required to.  I went out to shovel and found myself in good company.  I saw 3 people in nearby shoveling their walkways and several others had already shoveled out.

Praise provided where due, now it's rant time.

Let's start with those who shovel into the street.  I get it if you don't have a front yard, but there are many who don't have an excuse.  Shoveling into the street isn't just illegal, it's stupid and unneighborly. Why is it stupid and unneighborly?  You may not think about it, but where does the snow go once you've shoveled it into the street.... that's right, it gets pushed by plows into peoples' driveways and curb cuts.

Very similar to shoveling into the street is not shoveling out your curb cut.  Yes, it's great that you shoveled your side walk, but how are people supposed to get to it if you didn't shovel out the curb cut? I know the plow will probably come and load some more snow in the way, but at least reduce the amount of snow people have to crawl through to get to your pristine sidewalk.  I like to shovel out to the street on either end of my side walk.  That way if my neighbor hasn't shoveled out yet, or the next person down the way doesn't, there's an outlet to the street anyway.

O.k., two pet peeves down, what's next?  I know, how about neighbors who shovel out their driveway INTO YOUR SIDEWALK.  You know what?  If you shovel your snow onto someone else's area to shovel, you.... are.... a.... jerk.  Period.  No, really, I don't care if you don't think you have somewhere else to put it, I don't care if you're using a snow blower and it's just easier, that's it, you're a jerk and there's absolutely nothing that you can say to suggest otherwise.  Yes, I have a neighbor who does this EVERYTIME it snows.... and often they do it without shoveling their sidewalk, which is just inspired.

Now, before I wrap this up with a final anger based on my experience today, let me say that Somerville does an amazing job of plowing.  I hear about various cities and towns where the streets are not plowed to the pavement.  I drive through some of it.  While the last storm heaped more praise on Somerville's plowing than I thought it deserved (side streets had over an inch of snow on them and people were proclaiming "down to the pavement"), they typically do a pretty damn good job.  That being said, I typically have to shovel a couple feet to make my corner curb cut accessible to those crossing the street.  Today was even worse.  Today I shoveled out my car, I shoveled out my side walk, I shoveled about 2 feet into the street to get from the curb cut to the open pavement.... and then I had to shovel 6 feet from the edge of the sidewalk in front of my driveway, into the street, to reach where the street had been plowed.  In the time it took for me to shovel those 6 feet of street, plows came by 6 times to plow the other side of the street and 1 time coming the opposite direction (the one time coming back the opposite direction, it didn't push the snow toward the sidewalk).  Again, Somerville does a great job, I just wish they could plow ever so slightly closer to the curb on my side of the street... throwing the snow some 8-10 feet is hard on my back.

O.k., that's it, that's my rant for the day, hope you have been entertained :-)