Shared posts

07 Dec 09:04

Smooth Out The Allergy Situation

Grocery Store | KS, USA

Me: “Hiya! What can I do for you?”

Customer: “Yeah, I’d like to exchange this peanut butter.”

(She hands me the peanut butter and the receipt.)

Me: “Oh, okay. Any reason? Is it bad?”

Customer: “Oh, no, it’s not bad. It’s just that it’s the chunky kind, and I need creamy.”

Me: “Oh! Well, if you want to go grab the one you want, I’ll get you fixed up and on your way!”

(She goes and gets the creamy peanut butter and comes back. I check the prices and hand her the right one.)

Me: “All righty, you’re all set! Have a good day!”

Customer: “Thank you!” *laughs* “I can’t believe I picked this up. I can’t have the one with the chunks in it. I’m allergic to peanuts!”

(She walked off and my manager and I exchanged very confused glances.)

06 Dec 11:36

How Rosalind Franklin’s “Photo 51” Told Us the Truth About Ourselves

by Marcel Chotkowski LaFollette
Franklin_DNA_1200p

Rosalind Franklin and Raymond Gosling, “Photo 51″ (courtesy King’s College London)

Beautiful, isn’t it? Peer deep into this photograph’s heart, eye, vanishing point. Despite the beauty, no hammered stare, of any length, unlocks meaning or maker. The image (inviolate) defies casual analysis. Perhaps, you wonder, identification of topic or photographer is irrelevant. No clues visible (except perhaps to a biologist). Ah, now you read the label. The shoulders sigh (aesthetic surmises fade), the eye winks (no joke), and a scientist strides onto the stage and grips the podium (serious stuff).

The iconic X-ray diffraction photograph of DNA taken by physical chemist Rosalind Elsie Franklin (1920–1958) might seem timed to the season. Auld lang syne, and all that. The genetic material glimpsed in Photo 51 connects all living things and the image thus metaphorically captures human past, present, and future. It also marks an important milestone in science. In the last half-century, research that drew from Franklin’s photograph has brought advances in biology, medicine, paleontology, and many other parts of life.

Under a microscope, cells reveal their own truths, possessing the potential to separate conception from context. By convention, science (which makes the invisible visible) renders the visualizer invisible. Discoveries are disassociated (divorced) from he (or she) who stained the cell, mixed the reagents, pushed the buttons, coded the data. In an era when cameras record every baby step and every entertainer’s misstep, it may be difficult (if you are outside that world) to comprehend a culture in which (in theory) the photographer does not attach to the image. Analysis matters. Publication matters. Claiming credit first matters. The photographs themselves are allegedly, well, just part of the work.

This particular image had led Franklin to conclude in 1952 that the strands of DNA might form a helical structure but she was cautious and wanted more data. And therein lies the back story: Franklin’s own vanishing point.

Novelist Josephine Tey once accused historians of flattening the past into a “peepshow,” drawing historical actors as “two-dimensional figures against a distant background.” Let us pull Franklin into the foreground, replace the center of the image with her face (three-dimensional), and consider whether knowing about the photographer matters.

In January 1953, Maurice Wilkins, one of Franklin’s colleagues in the laboratory at King’s College, London, shared her photograph (without her knowledge) with two other scientists also in the DNA hunt. James Watson and Maurice Crick (the men who, in another famous picture, seem to be ogling a curvy “double helix” model as if it were a naked Venus) interpreted the image (and other material attributed to Franklin). Watson, Crick, and Wilkins raced into print, pushed Franklin aside, and achieved fame and fortune. Franklin was allowed to stand at the back of the stage: her article was the third in the journal issue. Watson’s arrogant dismissal of Franklin’s work continued for decades after her death. Credit should go to the flyboys, the creative geniuses, not the others. “Technical stuff” was “woman’s work.”

Franklin had grasped the image’s essential truth, before others saw it, but the Nobel Prize is not awarded in memoriam. Die too soon and you never get to wear a fancy dress. Watson, Crick, and Wilkes made the list four years after Franklin’s death. It is left to history to reconsider (some would say “redress”) such matters. Scientific encyclopedias up through the 1990s included “Franklin, Benjamin” but not “Franklin, Rosalind.” Newer works now recognize Rosalind’s contributions and dissect the social and cultural attitudes that reinforced and stood silent at her marginalization.

The notion that a photographer’s identity might, as a matter of cultural practice, be detached from her photograph may seem an anathema within the world of art, where exhibitions celebrate the vision of those who hold the cameras, even if their names are unknown. Credit is a cultural practice: a matter of grace and humility when shared, a matter of despicable boorishness when unfairly stolen. Fortunately, there is a form of historical geometry: a line (reinforced) attaching Franklin to this photograph and its meaning in time.

At first glance, such context remains obscured from the viewer. The photograph’s mysterious, cloudy strands wind themselves around our eyes and engender thoughts of beauty. But for those who value integrity, well, pull on that line and reach for Rosalind Franklin. No vanishing point to memory or to our common humanity. Credit due.

This essay was originally published by the Hillman Photography Initiative at Carnegie Museum of Art, which investigates the life cycle of images: their creation, transmission, consumption, storage, potential loss, and reemergence. For more on the Initiative and to offer public commentary on this image, click here.

06 Dec 11:35

Assorted Stupidity #68

by Kevin
  • It sucks to lose things, it really sucks to lose an envelope full of cash, and it super-sucks to lose an envelope full of stolen cash because you dropped it in a police officer's driveway. A passerby found it and, because this happened in Nebraska, gave it to the homeowner. The cash plus other evidence led to a search warrant that resulted in charges of felony mail theft.
  • If somebody told you this week that he had a bridge he wanted to sell you, and you were in Michigan, he might have been telling the truth. Police there said a 40-foot, 5,000-pound bridge that had been reported stolen on Wednesday turned up the next day about 20 miles away. Apparently there is no word so far on who stole it or how. I'm guessing the why involves cutting it up for scrap metal, although it seems like there would be easier ways to get scrap metal. Like in smaller pieces. Maybe they just had a thing they needed to bridge?
  • Have you been planning to set up your own highly intrusive and completely ineffective security checkpoint? Today's your lucky day, because a government-surplus seller is offering Rapiscan backscatter scanners on eBay for just $7,995. You previously paid $113,000 apiece for these when you bought them for the government, but since the government doesn't use them anymore for very good reasons, it unloaded them so now you can buy them again. If you're interested please contact me first because I have a great deal for you on a bridge with a scanner at each end.
  • As a special bonus, each one probably comes with several terabytes worth of naked pictures of the American public. Probably a bunch of terrorists in there too, who knows?
  • A New Mexico school district has shown its commitment to the War on Drugs by punishing a student for crushing and snorting some Smarties candy. Not only did the student probably not do that, candy isn't drugs. Which is why you wouldn't snort it. Yet the district has punished the student for violating drug policies. KQRE News said it "asked the superintendent if the district has a rule on the books that classifies certain candy as drugs," and he said no. KQRE then asked him "if the district would implement a new rule or at least strengthen its drug policy to include Smarties." Apparently realizing the reporter was now mocking him, he got defensive. "If snorting candy becomes the new normal," he insisted, "then we will investigate and look at a new policy." No, you'll look at a new policy in response to the complaint the family is about to file, actually.
06 Dec 11:32

Quote: Nicer White People

by Ampersand

Chris Rock:

Here’s the thing. When we talk about race relations in America or racial progress, it’s all nonsense. There are no race relations. White people were crazy. Now they’re not as crazy. To say that black people have made progress would be to say they deserve what happened to them before.

Right. It’s ridiculous.

So, to say Obama is progress is saying that he’s the first black person that is qualified to be president. That’s not black progress. That’s white progress. There’s been black people qualified to be president for hundreds of years. If you saw Tina Turner and Ike having a lovely breakfast over there, would you say their relationship’s improved? Some people would. But a smart person would go, “Oh, he stopped punching her in the face.” It’s not up to her. Ike and Tina Turner’s relationship has nothing to do with Tina Turner. Nothing. It just doesn’t. The question is, you know, my kids are smart, educated, beautiful, polite children. There have been smart, educated, beautiful, polite black children for hundreds of years. The advantage that my children have is that my children are encountering the nicest white people that America has ever produced. Let’s hope America keeps producing nicer white people.

It’s about white people adjusting to a new reality?

Owning their actions. Not even their actions. The actions of your dad. Yeah, it’s unfair that you can get judged by something you didn’t do, but it’s also unfair that you can inherit money that you didn’t work for.

06 Dec 11:32

Living While Trans — Snapshots of Daily Corrosion

by Grace Annam

Not too long ago, Autumn Sandeen wrote about an experience she had trying to get a consumer discount she qualified for.  Sandeen is a career Navy veteran.  She’s the real deal, when it comes to standing up for herself and others like her.  For instance, to protest Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, She handcuffed herself to the White House fence, alongside Dan Choi and others, knowing that she would likely be arrested and booked as though she were a man — a terrifying prospect for any trans woman — and then she wrote about how the arresting officers and custodial personnel treated her.

This was a much smaller matter.  She learned that her phone company had a discount program for veterans, and she applied for it.  Her DD214 (the official documentation of her discharge) has her old name on it, but she also has a copy of the court order for her name change.  So she sent both. Her DD214 with her old name, and a copy of the court order changing her old name to her new name, the new name being the name on her account with the phone company.

The phone company couldn’t figure it out.

Suppose that you serve in the military and get discharged, and then get married and take the last name of your spouse.  In such a circumstance, to get your veteran’s discount from the phone company with an unchanged DD214, you’d have to do exactly what Sandeen did.1

I received a post card back stating the discount was denied. The reason was because the name on my DD214 didn’t match my name.

She called them.

I talked to a very nice customer service agent, explaining my confusion of being denied the discount. She put me on hold and talked offline to their discounts office, and they reaffirmed that I was denied the benefit because the name on my DD214 didn’t match my current name. She, in a tone which indicated, “I don’t understand how this person with a male name could somehow be you” was clearly confused.

Sandeen outed herself. She explained, explicitly, that she was trans.  The rep called a supervisor onto the line.

I explained why my billing name didn’t match my DD214 name. After putting me on hold, he came back on the line to tell me for processing I needed to send in a copy of my change document.

That would be the copy of the court order which she included, originally, with the DD214.  She explained that she had already submitted it.

He again put me on hold, and came back on the line and said, they did have my change of name document on file as I’d sent it in with my DD214.

He apologized.

The process took Sandeen about 40 minutes.

It wasn’t the end of the world.  Sandeen worked through it.  It just took 40 minutes more of her life that it took out of most other people’s.

It seemed familiar to me.

Recently, I paid off a car which I bought a few years ago, before I transitioned.  The bank which loaned me the money sent me the title… in my old name, despite the fact that I had, in the interim, changed my name with the bank.  They explained that they “had to” do it that way, because that was the name on the loan.

So, I took the signed-over title to my friendly and helpful town clerk (who is, in fact, friendly and helpful) and asked her how to get the title in my new name.  Her first thought was that I could sign my old name and sign it over to myself in my new name, but then she pointed out that I’d have to pay the retitling fee, and that didn’t seem fair. Also, I pointed out, part of the process of my changing my name was that the court had ordered me not to use the old name on legal documents, and so it didn’t seem like a good idea to sign my old name to a document with a current date on it.  She agreed.  She called the state DMV, and they said it should not be a problem, and directed her to the appropriate form.  There would be no charge.  I filled it out and sent it in.

Awhile later I got a letter from the state:  they could not process my title request, because I needed to get the old owner to sign it over to the new owner.

A few days later, when I had time during business hours, I drove over to town hall again.  I showed the letter to the town clerk.  She sighed. She called the DMV.  She explained the situation.  They said they would have to get a supervisor.  She explained it to the supervisor, who put her on hold.  We chatted while she was on hold.

“This should not take so long,” she said, “they work in the same room.”

As a police officer, I have access on duty to the state motor vehicle files.  I sometimes run my own name and DOB or my own license plate in order to check that the connection is working.  I know perfectly well that under my vitals a list of previous names comes up.  I’m not happy about it, but there it is.  It’s one reason I fear being pulled over.

“I can tell you what happened,” I offered.  She waited expectantly. “They ran my name, and looked at the previous name, and then they looked at my gender marker, which I have not changed because in order to change it the state requires me to answer questions about what is between my legs, which I think is none of the state’s business, and then they had to have a discussion about it.”  (“Discussion” was the word I chose in an effort to be polite.  I’ve listened to office workers discuss a trans person’s entry, and there’s usually some laughter involved.  Not the light-hearted kind.)

Her mouth twisted. We resigned ourselves to a wait.

Fortunately, there was a practical limit; the DMV offices were due to close.  After a few minutes they came back on the line and told her that it would be fine, and there would be no need for further paperwork.

Now, we provided them with no more information than they already had in front of them, available in my own records, which pop up when you run my name.  It was theoretically within their power to save me, and the town clerk, and ultimately their clerk, this trouble.

But, apparently, a male name and a female name could only be a title transfer, and it was less trouble to stuff an envelope with a form letter than it was to run my name and DOB and read the screen.

Total time and trouble:  for me, about an hour, and for the town and state employees, about half an hour.  Fortunately, there was no other impact.  I wasn’t, for instance, prevented from selling my car because I did not have a title I could sign over to the buyer.  I was “lucky,” if you squint hard and tilt your head sideways.

When I transitioned, I had to change my name with various financial institutions.  The procedure varied.  Most wanted me to send them a copy of the court order, which I did, and then they changed my name.  One simply changed it after I answered the security questions.  One, my actual bricks-and-mortar bank, told me that they could not change the name on my account even though I was standing in front of the manager, showing her the original court order with the fancy crimped seal over the judge’s actual signature, together with the new driver’s license which my state had issued in my name on the strength of exact same copy of the original court order.  No, she told me, I would have to go to the Social Security Administration and get them to change my name in their system, and then I would have to bring that paperwork back, and then they would change my name on my account.

I had a better idea.  I checked with my wife, re-routed the automatic paycheck deposit… and we closed the account.

Then we opened a new account with a different local credit union… using my state-issued driver’s license and nothing else.  They didn’t need to see the fancy court order, because they didn’t know that I had once had a different name.  It would show up in a credit check, but they didn’t need to do a credit check, because they weren’t extending me credit, I was giving them money.  They didn’t need to know that I had once had a different name, apparently, to take my money and store it for me and make more money with it in the meantime.  And the other bank, the one where we closed our account… they didn’t need to know about the name change, either, in order to give us our money back.

What did it cost us?  Measurably, not much; a few hours of time.  Less tangibly, the knowledge that we don’t fit, that procedures are not designed for us, that when we need to do something in our lives which involves our IDs, we should budget more time, and carry more proof of who we are, and be prepared to answer invasive questions about our genitals.

Later, I took the court order to the Social Security Administration. They changed my name.  I also showed them a letter from my doctor certifying that I had undergone irreversible medical treatment, and they changed my gender marker.

At the end of her story, Sandeen advocated and asked a rhetorical question:

I told him their intake process felt both discriminatorily sexist – as more women than men change their names at marriage – and transphobic.
Intentional sexism or transphobia? Probably not. But a process or policy doesn’t have to be intentional to be discriminatory, does it?

The bank manager who told me I had to go through the Social Security Administration was expressive and thoughtful and sincere and helpful and looked up the nearest SSA office and printed out directions and hours for me.  I don’t think her bank’s policy was intentionally discriminatory.

But the result was.

Grace

  1. Since drafting this, I have been told that married people can actually get their DD214 changed.  The Department of Defense refuses to change the DD214 for trans people because it is an “historical document”… but the DoD changes the DD214 for people who change their names through marriage. Go figure.
06 Dec 11:32

…and maybe they won’t kill you

by Myca

Ijeoma Oluo, in a series of tweets:

Don’t play in the park with toy guns and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t ask for help after a car accident and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t wear a hoodie and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t cosplay with a toy sword and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t shop at Walmart and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t take the BART and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t ride your bike and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t reach for your cell phone and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t go to your friend’s birthday party and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t sit on your front stoop and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t “startle” them and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t “look around suspiciously” and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t walk on a bridge with your family and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t play “cops and robbers” with your buddiesand maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t work in a warehouse repairing instruments and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t stand in your grandma’s bathroom and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t pray with your daughters in public and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t go to your bachelor party and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t have an ex boyfriend who might be a suspect and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t call for medical help for your sister and maybe they won’t kill her.
Don’t hang out in the park with your friends and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t get a flat tire and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t park in a fire lane and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t reach for your wallet and maybe they won’t kill you.
Don’t let your medical alert device go off and maybe they won’t kill you.
I’m done for today. My heart can’t handle any more.

This is the context. And every fucking time it happens, white people pop up to explain why it’s fine, it’s okay, none of that is important and black people have nothing to complain about.

Don’t comment if you can’t handle not being a jerk about this. You’re discussing people’s lives and deaths. Show some respect.

06 Dec 06:25

"When I was a freshman, my sister was in eighth grade. There was a boy in two of her periods who..."

“When I was a freshman, my sister was in eighth grade. There was a boy in two of her periods who would ask her out every single day. (Third and seventh period, if I remember correctly.) All day during third and seventh she would repeatedly tell him no. She didn’t beat around the bush, she didn’t lie and say she was taken—she just said no.
One day, in third period, after being rejected several times, he said; “I have a gun in my locker. If you don’t say yes, I am going to shoot you in seventh.”
[[MORE]]
She refused again, but right after class she went to the principal’s office and told them what happened. They searched his locker and there was a gun in his backpack.
When he was arrested, some of my sister’s friends (some female, even) told her that she was selfish for saying no so many times. That because of her, the entire school was in jeopardy. That it wouldn’t have killed her to say yes and give it a try, but because she was so mean to him, he lost his temper. Many of her male friends said it was “girls like her” that made all women seem like cockteases.
Wouldn’t have killed her to say yes? If a man is willing to shoot someone for saying no, what happens to the poor soul who says yes? What happens the first time they disagree? What happens the first time she says she doesn’t want to have sex? That she isn’t in the mood? When they break up?
Years later, when I was a senior, I was the only girl in my Criminal Justice class. The teacher, who used to be a sergeant in the police force, told us a story of something that had happened to a girl he knew when she was in high school. There was a guy who obviously had a crush on her and he made her uncomfortable. One day he finally gathered up the courage to ask her out, and she said no.
The next day, during an assembly, he pulled a gun on her in front of everyone and threatened to kill her if she didn’t date him.
He was tackled to the ground and the gun was taken from him. When my teacher asked the class who was at fault for the crime, I was the only person who said the boy was. All the other kids in the class (who were all boys) said that the girl was, that if she had said yes he would’ve never lost it and brought a gun and tried to kill her. When my teacher said that they were wrong and that this is what is wrong with society, that whenever a white boy commits a crime it’s someone else’s fault (music, television, video games, the victim) one boy raised his hand and literally said; “But if someone were to punch me and I punched him back, who is at fault for the fight? He is, not me. It’s self-defence. She started it, so anything that happens to her is in reaction to her actions .It’s simple cause and effect.”
Even though he spent the rest of the calss period ripping into the boys and saying that you are always responsible for your own actions, and that women are allowed to say no and do not have to date them, they left class laughing about how idiotic he was and that he clearly had no idea how much it hurt to be rejected.
So now we have a new school shooting, based solely on the fact some guy couldn’t get laid, and I see men, boys, applaudin him, or if they’re not applauding him, they’re laying blame on women as a whole. Just like my sister’s friends did. Just like the boys in my Criminal Justice class did.
This isn’t something that’s rare. This isn’t something that never happens, or that a select group of men feel as if they are so entitled to women that saying no is not only the worst possible thing a woman can do, but is considered a form of “defence” when they commit a crime upon them (whether it be rape or murder-as-a-reaction-towards-rejection).
Girls are being killed for saying no to prom invites. Girls are being killed for saying no to men. They are creating an atmosphere where women are too scared to say no, and the worst part is? They are doing it intentionally. They want society to be that way, they want women to say yes entirely out of fear. Even the boys and men who aren’t showing up to schools with guns are saying; “Well, you know, I wouldn’t do that, but you have to admit that if she had just said yes …”
If you are a man and you defend this guys’ actions or try to find an excuse for it, or you denounce what really happened, or in any way lay blame on women, every girl you know, every woman you love, has just now thought to themselves that you might lose your shit and kill them someday for saying no. You have just lost their trust. And you know what? You deserve to lose it.”

-

cry laugh feel love peace panic:  

"Wouldn’t have killed her to say yes? If a man is willing to shoot someone for saying no, what happens to the poor soul who says yes? What happens the first time they disagree? What happens the first time she says she doesn’t want to have sex? That she isn’t in the mood? When they break up?" -vampmissedith.tumblr.com

THIS IS MANDATORY READING!

(via feminist-space)

EVERYONE STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING AND READ THIS.

(via stfueverything)

06 Dec 06:25

Weird Ecology: On The Southern Reach Trilogy – The Los Angeles...

ON A BITTERLY cold day in January 2013, a dolphin was discovered swimming in the famously noxious waters of the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn. A crowd soon gathered by the Union and Carroll Street bridges and along the banks of the canal. The NYPD showed up to monitor things; a news helicopter hovered overhead. Living nearby at the time and alerted by a friend’s text, I went over to have a look. The sight was hard to credit. There it was, unmistakably a dolphin, swimming slowly back and forth in one of the most phantasmagorically polluted waterways in the world. Signs of the dolphin’s distress were evident — a bloody dorsal fin, periods of what appeared to be torpor alternating with spells of agitation. After several hours — people standing vigil, snapping pictures with their phones — the dolphin stopped moving. A hush fell on the crowd; even the cops looked stricken. The dolphin bobbed in the grey-green water, inert, manifestly dead. A necropsy later revealed it to have been ill: riddled with tumors, malnourished, its kidneys failing. 

I thought of the Gowanus Canal dolphin while I was reading Annihilation, the first volume in Jeff VanderMeer’s Southern Reach trilogy.  At a mid-point in the book, the narrator — she identifies herself only as “the biologist” — spots a pair of dolphins swimming in a canal.

"I knew that the dolphins here sometimes ventured in from the sea, had adapted to the freshwater. But when the mind expects a certain range of possibilities, any explanation that falls outside of that expectation can surprise. Then something more wrenching occurred. As they slid by, the nearest one rolled slightly to the side, and it stared at me with an eye that did not, in that brief flash, resemble a dolphin eye to me. It was painfully human, almost familiar. In an instant that glimpse was gone and they had submerged again, and I had no way to verify what I had seen. I stood there, watched those twinned lines disappear up the canal, back toward the deserted village. I had the unsettling thought that the natural world around me had become a kind of camouflage."

The biologist is several eventful days into an expedition exploring Area X, the mysterious, unpopulated stretch of southern coast where, thirty years ago, an Event occurred. (And here I need to interrupt myself. Area X is a beguiling creation, the riddle at the center of these marvelous books, and I will endeavor not to spill its secrets here. Still, I can describe the basic set-up.) The official explanation for the Event is ecological disaster, but this is a fiction. The truth is weirder (a word I will be resorting to often in this review) — the truth is, no one understands what happened. There was an Event, and after the Event, there was Area X. The Event created a border. The area outside the border is controlled by the Southern Reach, the government agency set up to monitor, investigate, and contain Area X. The Southern Reach has, over the years, launched serial expeditions into Area X. Many of them have ended in disaster. The biologist is participating in the twelfth expedition. By the time she sees the peculiar dolphin, the expedition has already started coming apart.

The biologist is an expert in transitional environments: in-between places, where different ecosystems overlap. What does she make of Area X? It features several transitional zones, moving from cypress swamp to salt marsh to beach and ocean. It appears to be a pristine environment — that is, signs of man seem largely to have been erased: “The air was so clean, so fresh, while the world back beyond the border was what it had always been during the modern era: dirty, tired, imperfect, winding down, at war with itself.” And yet the fauna of Area X displays signs of oddness. There is the dolphin in the canal. A boar behaves strangely. A “moaning creature” lurks miserably in the weeds. Beyond the animals, there is the abandoned village, the old lighthouse on the beach, and the tower, “which was not supposed to be there.” The tower postdates the Event of thirty years ago — it’s an Area X addition to the landscape. If it is a tower, it’s an inverted one, because it rears not up but down into the earth. It seems to be made of stone but really isn’t. Inside the tower is an inscription, a very long inscription, spiraling down the wall as it descends underground, composed of luminescent flora: “Where lies the strangling fruit that came from the hand of the sinner I shall bring forth the seeds of the dead to share with the worms…” Deep within the tower, the biologist and her fellow expedition members come to realize, something is creating the inscription. Far below them, someone or something is writing on the wall.

So then, what kind of place is Area X? Most certainly it is a transitional environment. In Area X, one thing turns into another — it’s a site of transformation and transmutation. And Area X is weird — weird as in, “that’s weird,” and weird as in Weird Tales and H.P. Lovecraft’s philosophy of Weird. Lovecraft used the term “Weird” to describe his own work and the work of other writers he liked — tales not necessarily supernatural in intent but that aim to create a sense of dread, awe, terror, and the like. As Lovecraft wrote with characteristic fervor: “Children will always be afraid of the dark, and men with minds sensitive to hereditary impulse will always tremble at the thought of the hidden and fathomless worlds of strange life which may pulsate in the gulfs beyond the stars, or press hideously upon our own globe in unholy dimensions which only the dead and moonstruck can glimpse.”

If what VanderMeer creates with the Southern Reach books is a twenty-first-century version of weird fiction — and indeed the Lovecraft influence is clear in the trilogy — it’s a Lovecraft turned on his head, mashed with other influences. The early novels of J.G. Ballard might be one influence (I’m thinking particularly of the way Ballard’s characters psychologically adapt to drastic examples of “climate change”). Andrei Tarkovsky’s films Stalker and perhaps Solaris might be another. And then, interestingly, there is an entirely different heritage that VanderMeer seems to be drawing on: the American naturalist tradition running from Thoreau to Rachel Carson to Annie Dillard to, more recently, David Quammen and Elizabeth Kolbert.

While there are moments of satisfyingly psychedelic Lovecraftian freakout in all three Southern Reach books, VanderMeer is clearly not coming from the same place as poor old benighted H.P., and that’s why I feel he turns Lovecraft on his head. Lovecraft’s tales, effective as they often are, especially when read at a certain age (my adolescent brain was happily scrambled by H.P’s frequent and fearful allusions to “non-Euclidean geometry”), were written in the heyday of eugenics and are full of a shuddering preoccupation with and aversion to interbreeding (actually, any kind of breeding), miscegenation, degeneracy, and devolution. VanderMeer’s books, it seems to me, embrace all these things. His is an ecologically minded Weird fiction. In the books, Area X is not a channel into the primordial ooze where tentacled, bloblike Old Ones lurk (à la Lovecraft). Area X is frightening, yes, but what appears to be happening there is not a reversion to Chaos and Old Night but what we might see as the start of a comprehensive reversal of the Anthropocene Age.

What makes Area X weird exactly? In his recent book Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, Timothy Morton coins the term “hyperobjects” to describe events or systems or processes that are too complex, too massively distributed across space and time, for humans to get a grip on. Black holes are hyperobjects; nuclear materials such as uranium and plutonium, with their deep-time half-lives, are hyperobjects; global warming and mass species extinction are hyperobjects. We know, we live with, the local effects of these phenomena, but mostly they are quite literally beyond our ken. In one sense they are abstractions; in another they are ferociously, catastrophically real. Because they are so massively distributed in terms of causality and consequence, they refute or distort our homely notions of time and space.

In Morton’s terms, then, Area X is a hyperobject. In the books, the Southern Reach’s attempts to theorize and “think” Area X are pitifully inadequate. Area X is beyond all that. It is Weird in a way that transcends concepts of natural or unnatural. Trying to describe what it’s like to live with hyperobjects (to the extent that we can at all), Morton himself invokes Lovecraft:

"Gravity waves from the “beginning of time” are right now passing through my body from the edge of the universe. It is as if we were inside a gigantic octopus.  H.P. Lovecraft imagines the insane god Cthulhu this way. Cthulhu inhabits a non-Euclidean city, just like Gaussian spacetime. By understanding hyperobjects, human thinking has summoned Cthulhu-like entities into social, psychic, and philosophical space. The contemporary philosophical obsession with the monstrous provides a refreshing exit from human-scale thoughts. It is extremely healthy to know not only that there are monstrous beings, but that there are beings that are not purely thinkable, whose being is not directly correlated with whatever thinking is."

Ecological disaster has granted Lovecraft a whole new currency in the twenty-first century. He’s come to resemble one of the lunatic scholars he invented to furnish his tales with a critical apparatus: Ludvig Prinn, the comte d’Erlette, “the mad Arab Abdul Alhazred.” He’s been named as just this sort of disreputable precursor or prophet by the writers and artists affiliated with the Dark Mountain collective in England. In their original “Uncivilisation” manifesto and in the annual anthologies they’ve produced for the past few years, Dark Mountain writers have, like Morton, tried to think ecology after the end of the world. In the words of “Uncivilisation”:

"And so we find ourselves, all of us together, poised trembling on the edge of a change so massive that we have no way of gauging it. None of us knows where to look, but all of us know not to look down. Secretly, we all think we are doomed: even the politicians think this; even the environmentalists. Some of us deal with it by going shopping. Some deal with it by hoping it is true. Some give up in despair. Some work frantically to try and fend off the coming storm. Our question is: what would happen if we looked down? Would it be as bad as we imagine? What might we see? Could it even be good for us? We believe it is time to look down."

The Dark Mountain project offends a lot of people. It gets called defeatist, misanthropic, “collapsitarian.” But surely there is something in the air (and in the soil, and the ocean) these days. It is a very literal kind of Weltschmerz. It is not about (or not just about) apocalypse-mongering or twenty-first-century millenarianism. The hyperobjects are here. Imaginative responses to them (which is to say, to total ecological collapse) can take many forms: Morton’s theory. The testimonies and rites of Dark Mountain. And, in their own way, the Southern Reach books.

In Authority, the second book in the series, VanderMeer steps back from the biologist’s experiences inside Area X and turns his attention to the Southern Reach itself. If Area X can be regarded, from a certain perspective, as a high-functioning ecosystem, then the Southern Reach is the opposite. John Rodriguez, aka Control, is the newly appointed director of the Southern Reach. Much of Authority is given over to Control’s hapless attempts to impose order on the disintegrating conditions he encounters there. The staff is secretive, mutinous, possibly insane; the prevailing mood is a kind of paranoiac cluelessness. Control’s plans are undermined and sabotaged at every turn. For him, the Southern Reach proves to be almost as inscrutable as Area X.

Behind the Southern Reach is Central, the shadowy parent organization. Behind Control is his mother, a high-clearance operative for that parent organization, as her father was before her. Control toils, then, in the family business, and Authority becomes, as it moves along, a kind of family story. The third book in the series, Acceptance, traces this family story further while interweaving other stories set during both the past and present of Area X. We encounter characters from the previous books in a very new light. A bigger picture—a much bigger picture—emerges in fragments and hints. The history of Area X and Central turn out to be intimately intertwined. The family story expands to include basically everyone.

The books themselves operate in a similar way. They draw on multiple genres and blend traditions we’ve come to regard as distinct. They contain all kinds of echoes. For instance, reading them, I sometimes heard Thoreau. In 1846, Thoreau climbed Mount Katahdin in Maine. His account of the ascent in The Maine Woods culminates in a famous passage in which, on reaching the summit, he becomes disoriented and starts thinking wild thoughts:

"This was that Earth of which we have heard, made out of Chaos and Old Night. Here was no man’s garden, but the unhandselled globe. It was not lawn, nor pasture, nor mead, nor woodland, nor lea, nor arable, nor waste land. It was the fresh and natural surface f the planet Earth, as it was made for ever and ever, — to be the dwelling of man, we say,—so Nature made it, and man may use it if he can. Man was not to be associated with it. It was Matter, vast, terrific,—not his Mother Earth that we have heard of, not for him to tread on, or be buried in,—no, it were being too familiar even to let his bones lie there,—the home, this, of Necessity and Fate. There was clearly felt the presence of a force not bound to be kind to man. It was a place for heathenism and superstitious rites,—to be inhabited by men nearer of kin to the rocks and to wild animals than we…. What is it to be admitted to a museum, to see a myriad of particular things, compared with being shown some star’s surface, some hard matter in its home! I stand in awe of my body, this matter to which I am bound has become so strange to me. I fear not spirits, ghosts, of which I am one,—that my body might,—but I fear bodies, I tremble to meet them. What is this Titan that has possession of me? Talk of mysteries!—Think of our life in nature,—daily to be shown matter, to come in contact with it,—rocks, trees, wind on our cheeks! The solid earth! the actual world! the  common sense! Contact! Contact! Who are we? where are we?"

In A Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, written 130 years later, Thoreau’s literary descendant Annie Dillard uneasily contemplates the teeming, spendthrift multiplicity of life:

"The picture of fecundity and its excesses and of the pressures of growth and its accidents is of course no different from the picture I painted before of the world as an intricate texture of a bizarre variety of forms. Only now the shadows are deeper. Extravagance takes on a sinister, wastrel air, and exuberance blithers. When I added the dimension of time to the landscape of the world, I saw how freedom grew the beauties and horrors from the same live branch."

Exuberance blithers. I fear bodies, I tremble to meet them. In these passages the naturalism of Dillard and Thoreau turns into something else, something resembling the feverish, unnatural speculations of Lovecraft. At certain moments, at certain extremes, the naturalist tradition starts to look Weird. And perhaps the reverse is true as well—as noted above, Lovecraft himself has been adopted by some as a kind of deranged, pioneering crypto-ecologist. In the Gowanus Canal, where the ailing dolphin expired, new forms are growing. In that Cthulhoid sludge, fed on a century and more’s worth of raw sewage and toxic chemicals, microbes are mutating and forming white clouds of “biofilm” that float through the depths. Here is a truly Lovecraftian speciation.

This is the moment we find ourselves in now. In the Southern Reach books, VanderMeer imaginatively merges the naturalist and un-naturalist traditions. The biologist (in all her different incarnations) is the perfect representative of this merger. She comes to practice, over the course of the books, a kind of Weird Ecology. It’s an ecology fit for our moment, when we’ve begun to understand that what is happening in the world, to the world, is happening irreversibly. Describing the moment, Timothy Morton echoes Thoreau: “The reality is that hyperobjects were already here, and slowly but surely we understood what they were already saying. They contacted us.”

The Southern Reach books imaginatively figure this contact. The beauty of the books is that they let the other side win. They offer a collapsitarianism in reverse. Area X represents not ecological collapse but rather human collapse — or, better said, human transmutation. Area X cleanses its territory of anthropogenic poisoning, then sets to work on people themselves. As one of the more unhinged employees of the Southern Reach reflects in his notes on Area X:  “Would that not be the final humbling of the human condition? That the trees and birds, the fox and the rabbit, the wolf and the deer… reach a point at which they do not even notice us, as we are transformed.”

David Tompkins is a writer based in Brooklyn.

06 Dec 06:20

kittydoom: sickomobb: svllywood: Ben Affleck speaks about...

















kittydoom:

sickomobb:

svllywood:

Ben Affleck speaks about Islamophobia X

ON BILL MAHERS ISLAMOPHOBIC ASS SHOW GO AWFF AND EID MUBARAK BROTHERS AND SISTERS

OMG im not mad at him for playing as batman anymore

You go on with your bad self, Ben Affleck.

Huh. 

06 Dec 06:18

blackgirlsparadise: Clock em.



blackgirlsparadise:

Clock em.

06 Dec 06:18

What is this?



What is this?

05 Dec 20:03

What is solo polyamory? My take

by aggiesez
Have you seen this reality TV show? No, that's not solo polyamory. (It's also not reality.)

Have you seen this reality TV show? No, that’s not solo polyamory. (It’s also not reality.)

After more than two years of writing a blog about solo polyamory, it’s high time I got around to clarifying my definition of this core concept.

CAVEAT: As with any term I use here, I’m explaining how *I* use this term. Others may disagree — and that’s totally fine. I’m not trying to speak for anyone but myself.

Solo polyamory: Flipping these words around, polyamory is, broadly speaking, one approach to engaging in (or being open to having) ethically nonexclusive relationships involving sex, romance, or deep emotional intimacy. What distinguishes solo poly people is that we generally do not have intimate relationships which involve (or are heading toward) primary-style merging of life infrastructure or identity along the lines of the traditional social relationship escalator. For instance, we generally don’t share a home or finances with any intimate partners. Similarly, solo poly people generally don’t identify very strongly as part of a couple (or triad etc.); we prefer to operate and present ourselves as individuals.

People can be solo poly by choice or circumstance. That is, some people prefer solo polyamory and are unwilling to strongly merge their identity or life infrastructure with their partners. Others simply happen to be effectively solo: they may desire (or be open to) primary-style relationships in the future, but they just don’t happen to have one at the moment.

Solo polyamory can be an expression of personal values. People who prefer solo polyamory generally embrace autonomy as a paramount value: their own, and that of others. (This is very much the case for me, but not for all solo poly people.)

Solo poly people may or may not also be “single,” in the conventional sense of that term (“completely unpartnered”). We may have one or more intimate partners who play a significant, ongoing role in our lives — or we may, at the moment, have no such relationships. At the time I wrote this post (December 2014) I was involved in one significant ongoing intimate relationship, while remaining open to others. Most of a year later, that relationship has ended, and I’m dating others, but nothing yet feels like a particularly deep relationship. And that’s OK.

I do consider myself poly; I wouldn’t participate in an exclusive or dishonest relationship. At times I may incidentally be single — but I am always solo, regardless of my partnership status. Also, I never really view myself as part of “a couple;” I’m an individual who has important and open intimate relationships with other individuals, when it feels right.

Nuances of solo polyamory

Beyond that definition, there are many options and nuances to solo polyamory. For instance, solo poly people may:

Engage in almost any type of ethically nonmonogamous relationship — very casual or deeply committed, short term or long term, flexible or rigidly defined, kinky or vanilla, sexually intimate or not, etc. Like anyone, solo poly people have individual preferences and get to define and explore their own comfort zone.

Live alone, or not. While many solo poly live alone (or prefer to), others may live with friends, roommates, family of origin or choice, their children, etc. They may have partners who stay with them part-time or for long stretches. They may be nomadic, or part of an intentional community. But typically, they do not live with any intimate partner. (And yes, admittedly “intimate” is a very fuzzy term when it comes to cohabitation. Roll with it.)

Some solo poly people may spend considerable time at home with partners, even sometimes living together part-time. Or they may come and go freely from each others’ homes. But generally, solo poly people do not merge dwellings or other resources with intimate partners in a way that would be difficult to disentangle should that relationship end or significantly shift.

Avoid hierarchy, or not. Since solo poly people don’t have primary-style partners, their relationships tend to be non-primary in nature (which doesn’t necessarily mean secondary.) Many solo people, myself included, prefer to avoid relationships with people who practice hierarchy — whether explicitly stated, or presumed. That’s because nonprimary partners are inherently disadvantaged by hierarchy — which is a big part of the point of hierarchy, after all. Plus, thanks to the common social presumptions of couple privilege and the relationship escalator, nonprimary partners often get treated unethically or poorly in hierarchical relationship networks.

That said, some solo poly people are comfortable in (or at least, are willing to accept) the role of being a secondary partner in an explicit hierarchy — accepting imposed rules and limits, or even a potential third-party veto. These people sometimes call themselves “single secondaries.” Furthermore, some solo poly people disagree that couple privilege exists at all, or that it’s a problem.

Date outside the poly community, or not. While solo poly people aren’t necessarily single, we may look that way to people outside the poly/open community. Therefore, conventionally single people sometimes are comfortable getting intimately involved with solo poly people, at least to some extent, since we kind of look like them (if you don’t look too closely). In contrast, dating someone in a primary-style poly/open relationship might seem more alien, and thus more challenging, to a conventional singleton.

Some solo poly people are comfortable dating conventional singles, or people who don’t specifically consider themselves poly or open. I myself am open to dating people who don’t consider themselves poly, as long as they respect, appreciate and embrace that I am polyamorous.

Some solo poly people will even date singles with a stated preference for eventual monogamy — although for me, that’s a major mismatch in terms of significant emotional investment, so I don’t tend to pursue more than casual short-term dating with people seeking eventual monogamy.

Some solo poly people prefer to date only within the polyamorous, open, relationship anarchist, swinger, or otherwise ethically nonmonogamous people. This can reduce potential misunderstandings, mismatched values, or the risk of being carelessly dumped when a partner suddenly “goes mono” on you. However, this approach does lead some solo poly people to feel like they’re “fishing in a teaspoon” — especially if they are unwilling to play the secondary role in a hierarchy.

 

What solo poly is not

Any identity label is mostly subjective. There’s lots of room for interpretation, variation, gray areas and disagreement. Below is how I usually make this distinction for solo polyamory.

CAVEAT: Again, I am not trying to tell anyone what they are, or what they should call themselves. I’m just trying to clarify where/how I think the term solo poly applies. I respect everyone’s right to self-identify as they choose. (With one minor exception, which I mention at the end.)

Basically, from my perspective, someone who is in a romantically/sexually exclusive two-person relationship, or who is seeking monogamy (or would ultimately prefer a wholly or mostly exclusive relationship) probably would not fit the “poly” part of the solo poly label — even though they may be otherwise solo (if they prefer a lot of autonomy even when in a relationship).

Nor, probably, would someone who is “dating around” or otherwise involved with multiple partners, but who doesn’t disclose all relationships to all partners. This can get murky, since some poly/open people (including solo poly folks) are fine with participating in don’t-ask-don’t-tell relationships — which by agreement do not involve full disclosure.

It gets trickier to distinguish whether a poly/open person is also “solo.” For instance, I’ve encountered some poly people in outwardly primary-seeming relationships (including legal marriage) who nevertheless choose to embrace the solo poly label in order to signify that they prize autonomy, eschew hierarchy, operate mostly as a free agent, and do not place limits or conditions on each other’s relationships. This is not wrong or bad — but it does usually generate some pushback.

The catch here is that hierarchy, enmeshment and couple privilege are endemic to society, and quite insidious. Appearances and circumstances matter, even though they can be deceiving. Consequently, people who are visibly partnered up in a more-or-less conventional fashion face rather different relationship and social dynamics from visibly solo people. It’s not a level playing field. This reality would make it very difficult (although theoretically not impossible) for someone who is, say, is married, living with their spouse, poly and nonhierarchical to consistently behave as (and be treated as) a solo person.

There is one blatantly incorrect way I’ve seen some people misunderstand and misuse the term solo poly. Some people think solo poly means “currently available for nonexclusive relationships that don’t necessarily involve my existing primary-style partner(s).” As in: “I’m solo poly; my wife is okay that I see other people, and we date separately.”

Yeah… no. Sorry. That’s nonmonogamous, possibly even poly. But if you’re in a primary-style relationship, you’re probably not solo — even if you and your primary partner don’t always date “as a couple.”

What does solo polyamory mean to you? Did I miss anything, or do you agree/disagree? Please comment below.

Want to talk with people about solo polyamory? Join the solo poly Facebook group. (Anyone is welcome to join.)

05 Dec 19:58

theamericankid: When scientists get too honest





















theamericankid:

When scientists get too honest

05 Dec 16:02

Photo



05 Dec 16:02

LEGO Super Mario Blocks are ready for punching

by Josh

Michael Kuroda (madoruk) just built these lovely, iconic blocks from the Mario line of video games. Each of the blocks are perfect and look like they fell right out of the games. And, to top it off, that background perfectly highlights the blocks. They would be still be fine without a backdrop but it really is the icing on the cake. If I had to choose, I think the ‘POW’ block is my favorite but it’s a close call. They are all really well done. Michael really hit one out of the park with these beauties!

Mario Blocks

05 Dec 16:01

this isn't happiness™ Peteski

by turn
05 Dec 16:01

Photo



















05 Dec 16:01

December 03, 2014


POW
05 Dec 16:00

Photo



05 Dec 16:00

The last words of Eric Garner

by Mark Frauenfelder

eric

Killed for allegedly selling loose cigarettes. [via]

05 Dec 15:59

Are you a grand jury target? 99.993% chance you'll be indicted. Oh, you're a cop? Nevermind, it's zero.

by Xeni Jardin
“If Eric Garner’s killer can’t be indicted, what cop possibly could?” Read the rest
05 Dec 15:59

Meet some of the other Eric Garners and Mike Browns whose names you don't know

by Xeni Jardin
deaths

A New York Times interactive feature profiles notable deaths since 1990 involving NYPD officers. “Most did not lead to criminal charges; even fewer resulted in convictions.”

03 Dec 11:56

FBI investigating Denver cops who erased citizen video of beatdown

by Cory Doctorow


Denver police were videoed savagely beating David Flores and his pregnant girlfriend by Levi Frasier, who had his tablet confiscated and the video deleted after one of the cops shouted "camera" -- but the video had already backed up to the cloud. Read the rest

03 Dec 11:56

The odd history of the first erotic computer game

by Mark Frauenfelder

Laine Nooney of The Atlantic writes about Softporn, a 1981 text adventure.

Upon booting the floppy disk, the player was given control of a “puppet,” a human male through which the player executes textual commands. PLAY SLOTS. BUY WHISKEY. WEAR CONDOM. SCREW HOOKER. Softporn is set in a vague, 70s-infused urban dystopia entirely comprised of a bar, a casino, and a disco.

03 Dec 11:55

yeahponcho: poncho and i have been hard at work catching...







yeahponcho:

poncho and i have been hard at work catching legendaries and others on our journey to complete the pokedex

03 Dec 11:55

healingx: Best thing about winter is all the bugs r rotting in hell where they belong

healingx:

Best thing about winter is all the bugs r rotting in hell where they belong

03 Dec 11:54

mymompickedthisurl: latter-day-skank: manipulate: supersmashed...



mymompickedthisurl:

latter-day-skank:

manipulate:

supersmashedkev:

what kind of satanic ritual is this

it’s called jungle juice

Im salivating

we call it porch crawler

03 Dec 11:53

alex-v-hernandez: wonderali: formerlyknownasemily: virgin-who-...



alex-v-hernandez:

wonderali:

formerlyknownasemily:

virgin-who-cannot-drive:

12-13-2013 ( x )

I don’t think I need context

I had no idea this was exactly what I needed today.

wormwoman
03 Dec 11:51

Recursion

by Mo

manfeels-park-24-recursion

Source, with thanks to @saladinahmed on Twitter.

02 Dec 11:34

Photo