Response to comment: Celebs cut their hair!!

I'm posting this here because I wrote a really long response in the comments, which I then lost. But I'd also like to hear what other people think about patriarchy. (I'm assuming this is okay with you, Ben, but let me know if not and I'll repost in comments.)

Here's Ben's comment:

"At the risk of being a dissenting voice, I think the notion of patriarchy making you read fashion magazines is a little...well, I mean, I barely know who those people were, so it's got to be something more specific to you.

And, to take the other side, no, I don't feel compelled to read politics magazines either. Whatever is going on with respect to women and fashion these days, I'm going to hazard that they are in some ways as responsible for it as men are for the travesty that is politics.

I was listening to two female critics talk about actresses, and whether or not they've had plastic surgery, and they said, "but we all have that moment that takes us out of the film, when we're like 'yeah, but what about her hair' or whatever. And I thought, "No, no that's just you." Because, honestly, I've just never, ever thought of it. Maybe that (some?) women have that moment is a patriarchal one, but I don't see the male gaze or what have you within that moment itself.

just not our thing, sorry"

***

Well, that's fair enough, I suppose, as an "I don't jive with that" response.

Except that the equation of you (an individual) with patriarchy (a hierarchical social system) doesn't jive. And I never accused men of knowing who female celebs are -- in fact, I'd expect them/you not to, if what I'm saying is at all accurate.

Men have the option of not knowing in a patriarchal culture; white men have the option of not knowing anything at all. (I don't believe you've taken this route, Ben, but some have.) Being a white man is being normal, invisible, individually powerful. White middle-class people (again, I'm not accusing anyone of being middle-class) are the ones who get to talk about individual responsibility, because a straight, white middle-class man is "normal," meaning his privilege is made invisible -- and talking about laziness or oversensitivity or individual responsibility of marginalized groups is a way to keep that privilege invisible.

It's not that we're racist -- it's that they're lazy! It's not that women are reacting to us or the society we've historically presided over, it's that they LIKE to dress up in pretty things and wear high heels and make up! They like paying attention to hair -- it's why they do it! People on welfare are taking advantage of us and need to be stopped! Black people are better at sports and talk funny!

It's only because we have "men's" bathrooms and "women's" bathrooms, not "transsexual" bathrooms! We're not prejudiced, it's just how the system IS.

And there's where I think the male gaze can be seen clearly, even for the ones doing the looking. By "male gaze," I don't mean individual men's eyes looking anymore than Freud meant individual penises when he wrote about the phallus. Women are complicit in the "male gaze," too, and certainly to the extent that we're explicitly policing each other's hairstyles in celeb magazines. But just because it's equal-opportunity-cisgendered heteronormativizing doesn't mean it isn't patriarchy.

If we were free of gender policing, of the kind of heternormative patriarchy that Marxists claimed was inevitable thanks to the capitalist system, we wouldn't make life a living hell for so many transgender people.

The only reason it's set up this way is the "normalness" and invisibility of the white middle class (in modern capitalism). Only in this kind of society could Freud propose such a bizarre system of family alliances that rely on a certain familial structure (two parents, for instance), a certain middle-class hierarchy (dad possesses the phallus, always), a certain middle-class neurosis (power over nurturing or any other covetable value), and find acceptance. When you remove any of those elements, psychoanalysis falls apart -- in fun ways, but completely.

It may be helpful to note here that anthropologists have linked the beginning of women's fashion to the beginning of capitalism: male capitalists, who had power, stopped peacocking around like they'd done during Henry VIII's time and instead showed their wealth through how their women dressed. Men adorned women, more or less, to indicate their wealth to other men -- women were actually dressed to be looked at by other men. The male gaze is absolutely present, and appropriative of women's bodies, in that moment. How could it not be present in all the moments based on that?

Are women not looking at themselves with the same evaluative gaze when they adorn themselves, now? Are women not in the process of evaluating themselves and each other through the imaginary, appropriative stare of those men? Doesn't it seem possible, even likely, that women have merely internalized the male gaze?

Perhaps we've moved beyond this history into something new. I mention consumer culture for no small reason in my original post -- I'm willing to blame capitalism rather than men. But if we have moved on, it's strange that we're doing the same things.

Women are socialized differently, to think about haircuts, to notice dirt and feel the need to clean it up, etc. It's true that women police each other in these things more than men do. But it's certainly not true when men claim "it doesn't matter to me -- it doesn't matter." A man who doesn't need to think about haircuts or the need to clean up after himself is a man with privilege. Such a man is living in a world where women think about their haircuts in relation to how beautiful they can be for their romantic partners, and who have a felt need to do the cleaning necessary for sanitary living. For some reason, these women are reduced by the same society to begging for haircut compliments and nagging about the laundry and the dishes, because that's the vocabulary and power offered to them. The only other option for these haircut-and-dirt-noticing women is to try to stop noticing -- in which case they may still be policed and punished as "not feminine enough" or told they will "never get a man."

But again, all this pales in comparison to the way the whole system comes crashing down on people who, for individual or spiritual or practical reasons choose to define themselves outside of the gender binary entirely. And that's IF we let them define themselves -- in which case, we still pathologize them and then make them (you know, for legal reasons) choose from between "male" or "female."

We've made some progress, such that not all transgender individuals are left jobless and homeless by a vitriolic prejudice, but we're certainly not beyond the "male gaze" yet. Not by a long shot.

PSA: Mentally Better Off Ted

For some reason, the copy of Better Off Ted, season 1 that I picked up for $10 at the Target yesterday included a coupon on the outside for $10 off a purchase of both Better Off Ted and the first season of Mental.

The only ad at the beginning of Better Off Ted is for Mental – a minute-long introduction to the show by the actors in it, who describe the premise in the kind of unremittingly positive language that indicates they’re selling their own show.

Other than the fact that these shows were on the same network, and debuted at the same time, they have nothing at all in common. One is a half-hour comedy-satire about the modern American multinational workplace and the funny/evil things they sometimes do and make; one is an hour-long drama about a mental healthcare worker who “shakes things up” by suggesting the patients participate in their own diagnostic session, and who has a kind of mind-meld thing going on when it comes to diagnosis.

What is the deal with this? Mental seems like a sure bet, the way any show based on every other successful show would be, so maybe hitching Ted’s wagon to Mental was to make Ted, Better Off, but if that were the case, Mental would have the coupon, and the jingly actor-promo in the front. I can’t speak for actor-promos, as I didn’t buy Mental, but when I saw the show at the Target, it didn’t seem to have any equivalent coupon.

Seems this promo could have used a bit of finessing from corporate overlord Veridian Dynamics.

PSA: Parks and Recreations

For the past week and a half, I’ve been watching Parks and Rec’s first season. Because it’s only six episodes, that means I’ve had to watch it three times.

It’s delightful, though, a fact which hits you somewhere around the middle of the season, and which sustains easily through three viewings. I woke up this morning with the theme song in my head.

Karen from The Office (Rashida Jones) is much more likeable as Ann, and Amy Poehler is more hilarious as an optimistic small-town bureaucrat than she was even as Tina Fey’s Baby Mama. Nick Offerman as Ron may be the most hilarious character on multiple viewings, as the libertarian head of Leslie Knope’s department who doesn’t believe in “big government,” but even deadbeat boyfriend-of-Ann Andy grows on you after awhile.

So go watch it, and laugh and then watch the commentaries. Then watch it again, and if you’re like normal TV-watching people, by then it will be about time for the second season to come out on DVD.

Tell your friends.

PSA: Dramas I’m planning to buy the next seasons, probably when they come out, in alphabetical order.

Chuck

Dexter

Gossip Girl*

Grey’s Anatomy*

Heroes*

House

Lost*

Mad Men*

Weeds

*Shows I will probably wait to buy until they’re on sale, unless the pre-order price is low enough

PSA: Half-hour comedies I’ll need to buy the next seasons of this summer, in alphabetical order.

30 Rock

Big Bang Theory

Flight of the Conchords*

How I Met Your Mother*

Parks and Recreation

The Office

*Shows I may wait until Black Friday to buy, because I’m less obsessed with them than other shows.

PSA: Celebrities cut their hair!!!

Oh -- well only the female ones, because those are the ones whose hair we should be obsessed with. And only two of them, really, though another few get mentions at the bottom of the "article."

Seriously, why do women get fashion and men get politics? Why do we get to read about Obama's soaring rhetoric and Hilary's "cankles" -- or men's fashion buffoonery alongside women's quiet (always quiet/understated/self-possessed) elegance?

Is this a holdover from the time when the whole point of women looking good was to charm their husbands' bosses? Or is it because now that the consumer-not-citizen bandwagon has turned into a semi that will mow you down if you get in its way, and because it spent so much time working out the in-roads to women's body insecurities that fashion has become a huge, sustainable market, that it is now actually too profitable to stop it? Is this how patriarchy is perpetuating itself -- by making us read about Hayden and Renee's new short haircuts?

If you do read the "article" (and critically), you should note how condescending it is toward Hayden Panetierre, a 20-year-old "girl next door" actress dating a 34-year-old. It theorizes that she's flighty (since she already changed her hairstyle a little while ago), and desperate to be seen as older and "grown-up" for her "grown-up relationship" with 34-year-old-guy, whose main attribute seems to be his 34-year-oldness.

Well, no offense to the guys who may read this blog, but I'd say being 34 doesn't guarantee that a man is a grown-up. Personally, and speaking from the "matures faster" gender, I'm pretty sure I was more grown-up at 20 than I am at 28.

The assumption that Hayden wants to move beyond the "girl next door" parts she's had recently -- cheerleader in both I Love You, Beth Cooper and Heroes -- also seems condescending in this context, as though she really IS the girl next door and trying to exceed her reach. Dating an older man? Haha, so cute! Look, she can't decide which haircut to get -- we assume, because we didn't ask her WHY she got it cut, we only want to speculate! Look at her pretending to be older! Look at her standing up on her hind legs like that!

She thinks she's people!

But probably, other than my intense, awesome queer studies class this term, what's got me all up-in-arms about this is my own reaction: the fact that I clicked on the link, and that when I did, one of my first thoughts was "wow, Renee Zellweger looks equally unhappy in these two pictures. I wish she would frakking smile. She'd be a lot prettier if she did."

"'No, not in my mouth!' he'd say..."

[P.C. pokes my stomach as we are each lounging on the futon.]

Me: Oh, I think I feel kind of sick. Not quite like I might throw up, but almost. It's weird.

P.C.: Uh oh. Don't get sick!

Me: Well, I wouldn't throw up on your face.

P.C.: I don't want you to throw up at all!

Me: You're so picky.

Stuff I've Been Forced to Learn About Early TV: The FCC screws up again

TV started for realz in 1946, though the technological legwork had been going on since the 1920s. When RCA pulled its "sell TVs and then blame it on the consumers when we corner the market in VHF" stunt with the FCC, the company got almost no blowback from its behavior.

In fact, the FCC decided to encourage more TV competition in 1948 by doing the obvious: giving out more rights to broadcast channels in popular city markets.

Unfortunately, they did this by altering the engineers' recommendations on how far apart broadcasting stations should be when they were on the same or adjacent channels. Where before stations on the same channel had to be a couple hundred miles apart, and 150 miles apart if they were adjacent channels (i.e., channel 2 and channel 3), the FCC decided to reduce those mileages, to 150 and 75, respectively.

According to reports, the Detroit stations experienced interference within two miles of their broadcasting center, thanks to Cleveland.

This caused the FCC to panic. Even though it was obvious -- at least to the engineers, who had apparently resigned themselves to never being listened to again -- what had caused the malfunctions in TV stationing, the FCC decided to halt the approval of all new TV stations until the matter was cleared up.

Because the FCC was a government agency, that took four years.

In April of 1952, the FCC finally lifted the "freeze" on new TV stations; the committee also decided to allow for UHF broadcasting, opening some markets as exclusively UHF while supplementing already-existing markets with established VHF stations, with a mix of UHF stations to complement them.

Unfortunately, the networks that had a toehold in the most desirable urban markets when the freeze had begun (NBC, CBS, occasionally ABC) had turned those into chokeholds on the markets most likely to sustain competition, like New York, Chicago and L.A. They held unmitigated dominance in those urban markets the entire four years, and with most markets only able to sustain two TV stations, NBC and CBS in particular had locked down most of the country in a duopoly that lasted through the 50s.

In addition, consumer demand for TVs -- in the postwar era that gave us the consumer culture we dwell in so fondly today, when disposable income demanded to be disposed of -- had increased exponentially, and in the absence of already-established UHF stations, those buyers were buying VHF receivers. UHF stations were doomed from the get-go in mixed markets, and they wouldn't recover as competitors until the All Channels Act of 1961.

All of this contributed to the downfall of early TV's ill-fated, fourth major network, DuMont, in 1956. Of the markets open at the beginning of the FCC freeze, only about 11 could sustain three major networks, ABC being the third, and only two or three markets could sustain four networks. DuMont had no choice but to expand into the financially ridiculous ultra-high frequencies after the freeze, and the network went down along with countless independent stations.

In other words, the FCC, spawned itself by a two-party system, inadvertently stamped out competition at just the right time in network TV history to practically guarantee we'd be limited to two or three major networks. (And ABC saved itself from certain doom only thanks to some fancy footwork poo-poo'ed by contemporary critics in the late 50's.)

It wasn't until cable began in the 1970s that all was right in the world once more.

It's not so bad, though; you should hear what the same FCC did to FM radio.

I'd tell you, but it would keep you up at night with the sheer stupidity.

Local Trivia: ...in a land of broken wings...

Observed on car license plate in Berlin, CT: "MRMR"

PSA: VHF, UHF and the FCC

Alright. Here's my first post in a series of lectures on stuff I've been forced to learn about early TV...in fact, I might call the series by that name, just so you're properly warned when one's coming.

Before it went into bankruptcy ten years after Robert "Bobby" Sarning left as president, Radio Corporation of America (RCA) was the big pig in electronics. Bobby's father, David, known as "the General" in scholarship about his influence in RCA, had been at the helm of RCA when it more or less invented the concept of networks -- radio networks on AM channels, since this was 1926.

RCA had government contracts through the 1960s thanks to the General's focus on beating competitors in electronics -- including an ill-fated attempt to oust IBM in the early 60s -- and had started the National Broadcasting Corporation (NBC...yes, that NBC) out of the desire to educate and, heck, to make profits while they were at it.

This is all background for the fact that RCA owned most of the patents that functioned in TV on VHF (very high frequency) when the FCC began to decide whether to set standards for television before it followed in the footsteps of radio as a broadcast medium and went public.

What patents RCA didn't own, it purchased the rights to from Philo Farnsworth after a legal battle in which RCA claimed to have already patented the technology Farnsworth had invented and patented (which it hadn't). RCA essentially had a monopoly on television equipment that received VHF signals at that point.

CBS, which had a "friendly rivalry" going with NBC on radio, also had plans for television. Because of RCA's monopoly on VHF, CBS worked on developing technologies for UHF (ultra high frequency), which would also allow for color, since the ultra high frequencies would be able to support the broadcast broader signals, and could potentially be higher quality than the VHF receivers RCA was already selling.

But the FCC had not ruled on specifications, instead opting for a wishy-washy statement saying they hoped that the fledgling television industry would be able to turn a profit while still doing the R&D necessary to make increasingly better TVs. RCA interpreted the wishi-washiness as weakness and began to sell TVs with force. By the time the FCC made a serious attempt to curb the sales, RCA claimed that so many TV sets had been sold that if the technology was changed, the obsolescence experienced by consumers would be prohibitive, even though only about half a million television sets were in use at that point, in only a few major city markets.

Thus, RCA had a monopoly on television set sales until the early to mid 1950s, and CBS's plans for UHF and color TV were stymied by RCA's corporate machinations.

More on corporate monopolies and the network system in future "Stuff I've Been Forced to Learn About Early TV."

Local Trivia: Hartford AM radio

In all my peregrinations through Variety microfilm, I found several references to a man named Paul Morency from Hartford, CT, who stood up for himself as an AM station-runner in 1951 -- for himself and many other stations around the country.

Morency apparently stood up for freedom of speech on radio when the government declared that "the first ammendment...does not apply to facilities which operate under a government license" (such as radio and television, which are assigned broadcast rights and channels, etc.) a few years before our fave Wisconsin junior senator started holding hearings on TV, on things like whether the Army was Communist or not. (It was.)

Morency was basically the Edward Murrow of the airwaves, but without all the "good night, and good luck"-ing. Also, apparently "editorializing" was already banned at his station, WTIC.

Ah, the good old days. Life is so much simpler now...(when everything on the radio is editorializing, and the FCC sticks to censoring bad words and body parts).

Read all about his claims in 1949: "Radio Edit Freedom Fake, Says Morency."

PSA: Obama tax credits

Apparently, a lot of people are having trouble with their taxes.

Lucky for me, two weekends ago, when I didn't realize that I had another Museum Ed paper due, or that my Queer Studies annotated bibliography and abstract were coming up so soon, and when -- good Lord -- I had no idea how much work "Dangerous Assignment" would be, I already did my taxes.

I took the education credit for Lifelong Learning, and I got away clean and free -- totally taxless.

Thanks, Obama. I knew all those "he'll tax us to death!"-ers were just h8rs.

PSA: On why I never write, never call.

Well, allz, I'm sorry I've been away from CU so long. The problem is that I haven't thought anything funny in two weeks.

In part, the funniness has been sucked from my brain because I've been working on my "Dangerous Assignment" project, and some other projects.

If I get a chance, I'll post an account of everything I know about "Dangerous Assignment" -- making you experts as well. (And allowing me to work out how to write a publishable article about it.)

You can look forward to it...or dread it.

Readers' choice.

PSA: Startling conversation in the marketplace -- though I guess we are a consumer-democratic nation.

Here's something I found while looking over the Amazon review of my pastor's most recent and only book (about which I have no opinion, having not [yet] read it): A conversation about what to do if your child declares herself an atheist.

Interesting, but exhausting stuff.

New word: Music-cool

adj. a person or media presentation (i.e. movie, TV show, powerpoint presentation) that displays a musical knowledge and comprehension of songs and artists that are just about to "break out," especially in the cutting-edge genre of its time (i.e. grunge rock in early 90s; indie pop/rock in the late 00s); music-cool people can lay claim to "discovering" at least one group in said genre before anyone they know, and evangelizing said group to others.

PSA: Grey's Anatomy will make you music-cool.

I've been rewatching Grey's Anatomy, which I used to view as "appointment television" with my roommates in DC three and four years ago, recently. I've had a significantly different reaction to the show the second time around.

For one thing, watching all the episodes in a row without commercials makes me feel less annoyed at Meredith Grey, who, unlike her predecessing whiny sisters (think Ally McBeal and Grace from Will and Grace), actually has a lot of trauma in her life, stuff that justifies the whining.

For another, since 2006, I've become infinitely more music-cool. And it turns out that Grey's Anatomy has been music-cool all along. Admittedly, some of the indie music they play is still middling -- Snow Patrol is addictive, but more like crack than wheat crackers and hummus; Bird and the Bee have that one awesome song, but the rest seem just okay -- but when in the middle of season 4 I said to myself "well, they haven't played The National yet," they did...and a song that I wouldn't really have expected -- a kind of obscure, appropriate song.

The show has its share of treacle, but then so does the indie music scene (see again: Snow Patrol).

Now I'm waiting for Animal Collective and Matt & Kim. They're probably in there somewhere in season 5, or about to go up in season 6.

Confessions XLIII

I bought 8 boxes of cereal at Target over the last 2 days.

I did this even though I don't need cereal, and with the intent to give 3 boxes of it -- maybe 4 -- to P.C. because I already had like 7 boxes of it at home. I did it to get 2 $5 gift cards to Target so I can buy DVDs in the future and not feel like I'm a spendthrift.

I fully expect to sit in front of the giant TV P.C. bought himself for hours at a time after these purchases, watching those DVDs while eating generic Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Mini-Wheats until I'm fat and lethargic.

PSQ: Half-hour comedies

Would anyone recommend a half-hour comedy available on DVD to follow Arrested Development when P.C. and I inevitably finish watching season 3?

I've heard Pushing Daisies is good, and I've seen a few episodes of Better Off Ted, which is pretty funny and also continues the Portia de Rossi kick of AD.


*Here's a partial list of shows (I)we've watched, so you can avoid repeating recommendations and get a sense of our tastes:

30 Rock
Big Bang Theory
Scrubs
The Office (American)
Weeds

Local Trivia, flood edition: Charles overflows

P.C. and I walked up past the Charles in Waltham on Tuesday, enjoying the awesome post-deluge weather that hit during the weekend and ended on Monday night with some kind of weird hail. As we often do, we took the "river walk" that runs along the river toward Moody Street, which is one of the two streets with stuff on it in Waltham.

We were greeted by two kids on bikes riding in the opposite direction, advising us not to continue. When we continued anyway, we ended up walking on the grass between the flooded river path and the also-flooded parking lot on the other side -- until we reached the gate between path and parking, which dipped lower and had several inches of water over it, and between us and the other side of the grass median.

We turned around and approached Moody Street from another direction, and when we got to the dam, there were gawkers staring into the water. Like any good rubberneckers, we went to see what it was about: the river hadn't overflowed up onto the street, but the overflow basin had overflowed into what appeared to be the yard of a former mill; the wooden bridge now connected to a small island on the mill-side of the river, which explained why it was all cones and "caution" tape on the dry side.

There were Caterpillars and sand bags, police and a news van. It was fun to see -- or at least more fun than the fried water heater and furnace in my apartment basement that left the house without heat or hot water for two days.

Having to wash your hair in a bucket seems more justified when you're staring at an overflowing dam, is all I'm saying.

PSA: Dangerous Assignment old-tyme radio

Hey, guys -- here's a taste of what my 1950s TV project/independent study has dug up: old-tyme samples of the radio show that preceded the 1951 television show of the same name, Dangerous Assignment.

You'll learn a bit about the genre and radio show here (as well as getting a sample episode), but if you just want to cut to the action, this is a better bet.

It's no This American Life, but then again, white people were different in the 1950s. Enjoy!

Local Trivia: Another annoying thing about Brandeis University

The default search engine is "bing."

Local Trivia: Conferenced and cancelled

Well, I read my "Offline" paper -- or a 7-pg version of it (I know, you're thinking "why didn't you post THAT version here??" Suck it up) -- at the Cultural Production conference yesterday. It went pretty well, though I had to read fast and the discussant asked each panelist a question relating to how our projects would work in conjunction with various James Cameron films...and my comparison film, he said, should be Titanic. Considering the question, I think I acquitted myself well.

Unfortunately, by the time I went on, about half the people I knew at the conference had left, and I was an hour late for work.

Even more unfortunately, this is probably the last CP conference for Brandeis, which has decided, bizarrely and opaquely, to end the Cultural Production program. The most frustrating aspect of the process is that despite our protests -- well-written, well-spoken protests that were supposed to go to the heart of what they objected to in continuing CP (which is a money-making program, by the way, cut by a committee designed to cut costs at the university) -- the committee, provost, and other decision-makers simply and continually averred that there were "other reasons" and "hidden costs" to the program that they then refused to name.

It's enough to make a girl think in terms of conspiracy theory -- like how maybe these decision-makers are still upset at the protests over selling off art from the Rose Art Museum on campus, which was another hasty and opaque decision made by committee last year.

Perhaps the "hidden costs" of continuing a profit-earning Cultural Production program is the price of the art they'd be able to sell from the museum if people like us weren't there to stop them.

Personally, even in the midst of the conference-high, I feel insulted by the decision and by the apparent lack of concern and respect shown in not giving us real details on why our program should be expunged. I am going into debt to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars for this degree, paid to a university that not only doesn't value my education, but doesn't care enough to tell me why it doesn't care.

We were instructed, in our protesting and letters, not to make threatening remarks that wouldn't help us with the committee, remarks like "I will blacken the name of Brandeis with everyone I talk to for the next forty years," or "this is a stupid decision made by stupid people" or "are you on crack? Seriously, are you?"

Well, nothing will help us with the committee now, and so nothing will help the committee, administrative decision-makers, and provost's office with my wrath. This was a stupid decision, made by people I hope were on drugs, and I will be responding to every future "please give us money" alumn call with "sorry, you already took my money, and I am never giving you more."

PSA: Things that are insufficient, but still better than nothing.

1-ply toilet paper

Shoddy tent-building skills

Airplane blankets

Bathroom stall doors that leave 1" gaps on both sides

Kids' scissors

The current health care bill

PSA: War narrative for the 21st century

This is a very well-written article about how narratives, and war narratives in particular, can shape our experiences and memories...tangentially.

Basically, it's one of many perspectives from people coming back from war.

For another one, try Christopher Hedges' War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, or listen to the fictional Man in the Dark by Paul Auster (though beware the PAs) -- in addition to all the classics from Red Badge of Courage to All's Quiet on the Western Front.

Local Trivia: Thanks for letting me off the hook, guys.

An evangelical church near Waterbury, CT, has occasionally had sign messages posted on its church events sign that cause me evangelical concern -- thanks usually to their strange syntax, I find myself wondering if Jesus is telling me to go back to evangelical church.

Today, driving past, I observed a sign that snapped me out of the thrall leftover from previous signs: "We still believe in the the pledge of allegiance to God to country to our flag."

Since I know from all biblical evidence that Jesus didn't come to urge us to "pledge" to "our flag" as U.S. citizens -- and least of all during Lent (I mean, surely there are other things this church could be focusing on during this season??) -- this sign effectively relieved me of all concern that I should pay attention to this church's signs.

Thanks, evangelicals, for outing yourselves once again.

PSA: Aliens have good taste.

According to NPR on Monday, the Brits are beginning to get fed up with people using Freedom of Information laws there to get copies of reports of UFO sightings. The government feels it's a waste of money and time, and it has perhaps been part of the reason UFO sightings have gone up recently -- UFO sighters being, likely, highly suggestible people.

As a result, the Brits are now going to shred documentation of UFO reports 30 days after they're first reported.

That seems reasonable enough to me; I mean, if there really are aliens, and if they're interested in a hostile takeover (which is the only possibility that really could worry us), what good will govt. documentation of the impending attack do us? No good.

More important than all of this, I think, is the possibility that extraterrestrial life really IS visiting the UK more often than other places. Daytrip to earth? Hey, let's go see Bath! Or the Cotswolds! Let's go see that quaint walled-in city that defended itself against the Welsh!

I think the aliens and I might get along pretty well.

Local Trivia: Treasure, ho?

Observed: A pole sticking up from the iced-over lake on the side of the Mass Pike, near the 395 exit, with a pirate flag affixed to its top...as though a pirate ship had sunk and then been lost beneath the ice with only the mast showing.

PSA: I told you so.

Finally, the mainstream (or, heck, any) media says what I figured was true eight years ago: depression can be good for the soul, ultimately. There's a lot to learn from it, and you're generally better off when you come out of the stupor of self-immolation than you were when you went in.

Now if only we could see the economy that way, we'd probably all be fine.

PSA: Five ways to make your website instantly more tacky

1. Add clip art.

2. Add a .midi file that plays too loud "in the background"

3. Add an animation (i.e., "dancing Jesus")

4. Use colors and fonts that would have been popular in the 80's, without irony

5. Add one of those animations of actual people who "interact" with the "visitor" as though they were "really there"

Local Trivia: My new awesome coat

This is my new awesome coat from the Goodwill. It was made by "Town and Country Clothes" in West Hartford, CT, and it goes down to my knees and is made of wool.
(I can tell because it's itchy on my neck.)

Long live my new coat.

PSA: Horror Movie Recommendations

The Order -- That's right. The Order, with Heath Ledger and that guy from the TV show Sliders. It's creepy and has explicit theological underpinnings based in the idea of the "sin eater," an idea that's scary enough without an evil pope and asking dying hanged men for the secrets of the universe. Luckily, The Order has all of those things plus Shannyn Sossamon.

Battle Royale (Japanese) -- This is the only movie I've ever shut off when I was alone...twice. The uncanny first seven minutes or so creep me out as much as anything I've seen, but then give way to a kind of melodrama that nonetheless causes you to wonder what you would care about if you were about to die. While "wow, those Japanese are really weird and worried about population control issues" is a valid interpretation, there is more to get out of it than just that, if you can get past the uncanny beginning and soap-operatic follow-up.

Gremlins -- Cute fuzzy things will eat you from the toilet (Gremlins 2, but you get the point), and one gets microwaved. Enough said.

House of Sand and Fog -- This is one of those movies that most people think isn't horror, but that I think might be more horrific than most slasher flicks. Jennifer Connolly is good, but of course Ben Kingsley is better.

Psycho -- If you don't know the twist at the end, it's excellent; if you do know the twist, it's still excellent. For a Hitchcock runner-up starring Jimmy Stewart and featuring a much more philosophical take on murder that withstands multiple, multiple viewings, try Rope.

American Psycho -- Full of sex and gore, the real chill in this movie comes at the end. This recommendation is my concession to slasher-flick lovers, though again, it's got a philosophical flair. Whatever you do, do not watch the sequel.

Grindhouse (Planet Terror, Deathproof) -- Both of these movies are very, very well done, and should be seen by anyone who appreciates other Quentin Tarantino films (Kill Bill, for instance). They should also be seen by anyone who likes zombies or car chases.


That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure I'll remember others. Leave your recommendations in the comments, too.

Movie Review: V-day double feature -- House on Haunted Hill (1999), The Lazarus Project

Well, the Valentine's Day horror movie marathon this year was only half a disaster, and that half was (disappointingly) the 1999 remake of the Vincent Price classic "House on Haunted Hill."

Instead of remaking the narratively complex original version, wherein the characters all turn out to be linked in unexpected ways, and human agency is responsible for all the "haunting" going on -- and in which a vat of acid figures prominently -- the makers of HoHH '99 seemed to feel that those 1950's writers had simply used storyline as a crutch because they hadn't had the advantages of the kinds of special effects that we have nowadays.

To correct the drama-heavy character-development of the past, the writers of HoHH '99 (or producers or what-have-you; everyone involved) squished in all the special effects available to them in 1999, thus realizing what they must feel was the original dream for the movie. "If they'd had CGI, they could have gotten rid of all this extraneous plot!" they must have been thinking.

Instead of human machinations leading to death and destruction, it was now the insane-asylum house itself that was getting revenge on the descendants of some other people who had died there. Instead of Vincent Price and his on-screen wife engaging in witty banter that only danced on the line between "sarcastic and sharp" and "going too far," the billionaire and his wife engage in a hate-fest that only cuts through the lack of plot thanks to the purity of its vitriol. Instead of doubles and who-done-its, we got actual ghosts. Instead of acid, we got a meaningless tank of blook that hurt no one, but was somehow meant to be creepy.

There were a few moments of good fun, but they're all tangential, and most happen in the first ten minutes. Lisa Loeb has a cameo, as does the guy who played "Spike" on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a stroke of genius in casting; Taye Diggs does a decent job at a terrible role, as does Ali Larter (Nicki/Jessica from Heroes), and Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as ever, but the inclusion of Peter Gallagher could only have been justified by an attempt at self-referential humor -- one that the movie did not make.

The movie is a failure, but many horror movies are. The difference with this one was the name-branding and the high expectations it created. I'm left now with more than the simple disdain I hold for "Gravedancers" or the strangely ambitious failings of "Unspeakable": I'm left with contempt for a movie that's probably ruined the chances of viewers going back in time to see the original, far superior, "House on Haunted Hill."

Our second feature, "The Lazarus Project," was a much more successfully done horror film. It, like HoHH '99, also features a prolonged stay at an insane asylum, but that is where the similarities end. It's in the vein of "Life of David Gale," though I know that movie doesn't read immediately as horror, and that makes "The Lazarus Project" unique in my experience: it is essentially a horror film for liberals.

The main character is basically innocent of all crimes, which is important to mention, and is convicted of assisting in three homocides in Texas, which is also important -- Texas being the state most likely to kill you. The main thrust of the movie's argument (I told you it was for liberals) is that we shouldn't get to manipulate people's lives, even if we're saving them. It's an interesting movie, even if the anti-death-penalty plot has been done better in "David Gale" and the crazy-guy-who's-not-really-crazy has been done better in a dozen other places (including a TNG episode).

At any rate, it was a fun night, started off with an episode of Criminal Minds, from season 1, which is always a good starter. As a celebratory drink, we had what you see above, which is not champagne -- it's actually Green Tea Pomegranate soda, which P.C. and I have taken to calling "fixins soda" because it tastes like all the extra ingredients on a fast-food hamburger -- and drunk from the plastic champagne glasses from my brother's wedding.

PSA: Arizona, in effort to be logically consistent, to abolish all speed limits

This morning on NPR, it was revealed that a certain portion of Arizona highway outside Phoenix has had speeding cameras installed for at least a year.

People are furious about this, probably because the tickets are something like $180, and up until then, they'd been getting away with driving as fast as they wanted with only the cops to worry about. Fortunately, 2/3 of drivers who have received camera-tickets have found a solution to the problem in not paying the fines. One driver, aware that the requirement for ticketing is to have a view of the individual driver's face, has been wearing a monkey mask and eluding possibly 37 tickets. (I say "possibly" because who knows how many people are actually under that monkey mask driving around in that same car every day?)

The new (Republican) governor of Arizona has lambasted the former (Democratic) governor of Arizona for starting the program, which she says was "only" to earn money for the state. She makes the choice to install cameras sound preposterous and malicious. (The government is trying to steal your money.)

Maybe she's been ticketed, too.

There's no other explanation for maligning a practice that has likely contributed to the 25% decrease in traffic fatalities, leading to less time state troopers spend driving from accident to accident (a savings, I would imagine, in time spent on that task and overtime pay) and, heck, fewer people dead: 81 fewer people, to be exact.

Unless she's against the idea of speed limits at all, even though they appear to keep us safe from maniac drivers who think they're capable of controlling their cars at 90 mph -- and who as often as not end up crashing into our cars, leaving us stranded, paying higher insurance rates, and possibly maimed or killed.

Besides, people who hated being pulled over before should be rejoicing. At least they don't have to slow down and pull over now. At least they don't have to feel that shock of adrenaline when they realize that was an unmarked police car they just passed, and wonder if they're going to get snagged.

I'm not trying to go all Big Brother here -- it is scary that the govt. (or rather the private enterprise that handles these cameras and ticketing, which is based in Arizona) can look into our cars via cameras. But heck, a cop that pulls us over can see at least as much just from outside the car. And we all pretty much agree to speed limits, right? Which is a "violation" of our "rights" to drive as fast as we freaking want to begin with, right?

If we're going to complain about cameras reinforcing the law, then we should probably -- just for the sake of consistency -- be complaining about the speed limit laws, not the fact that they're now being enforced.

The way I see it, the only problem with speed limits (and I'm a speeder most of the time myself), is that sporadic reinforcement, and the subsequent stupid driving practices of people who think they can jimmy an extra 5 mph out of the system. With the cameras? Problem solved.

Past local trivia: Jenny found the quote wall

From Jenny, in the comments:

"So, during the snow days this week I was doing some cleaning and guess what I found! A few samples:


"I had to prostitute my kids to support my habit." - Carl, on spearmint Altoids

"It's like the eye of Sauron... but in a good way." - Jenny D"

And *I'm* the one who watches 'Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.'" - Christopher

"Something had to be pretty, and the world wasn't changing." - Alicia, on why she changed into a skirt

"Please come date us!" - Debbie, suggesting a possible ad for the Writing Center

"It's really bright in here. I feel like the Lord is coming." - Meredith

Ben: I'm more selfless than ever before.
Maria: Way to go, Ben! "


Everyone please excuse me while I laugh hilariously at (and with) our former selves. Ah. We were awesome then.

Quantifiable Living: Story-within-a-story/Paul Auster scale

Item: Story within a story (oral or written)


Unit of measure: Paul Austers (PA)


How It Works: This scale measures the levels of storytelling going on in any given storytelling experience. Each Paul Auster is equal to two stories, with one embedded in the other. If a person tells you a total of four stories within the aegis of one main storytelling experience -- that is, before they have reached the final purpose of the initial storytelling -- with each embedded in the last, for instance, that would be 2 PA.

This scale is especially useful when dealing with older people like Grandpa Simpson (or real-life equivalent), or younger people who tend to ramble, but it should not be applied too liberally. The stories that qualify for the "Story-within-a-story/Paul Auster scale" should be relatively high-quality; should have an identifiable beginning, middle and end, even if they're not as fully developed as they could be; should give the listener a sense both of the interconnectedness of life and the ultimate inability to articulate one's "real truth" or "real self"; should cause one to question whether the story has any ultimate or practical meaning; should leave one with a haunting sense that one has missed something essential in listening, something that could prove the key to the whole story if only the listener had caught it.

These criteria may be met by the quality and content of the story itself (stories themselves), or by the listener's respectful and listening attitude toward the stories, such that the listener's attitude adds gravitas and reflection to stories that may not demand it. Where there is no respect, however, there cannot be a PA correlation, as all stories tend to blend together and create a different experience related more to sheer length of talking rather than story embeddedness.


Examples:

Someone tells you a story about going to the store and finding a penny on the way, diverging into a parallel story about how he used to collect coins when he was young and trusted the government: 1 PA

The same storyteller augments the penny-finding and collecting story with scenes from his stint in Vietnam, adding the perspective of a young Vietnamese girl who causes him to ultimately question the government's motives and reason for being there: 2 PA

You hear a story about a woman who met her husband when he came from the fire department to rescue her cat from a tree, and you hear how she came to get the cat, the story of the previous owner of the cat's mother who had hung herself from a tree for unrequited love, and also the content of the short story she was writing at the time, which had a flashback in it: 3 PA


Limits: A story followed by another story does not meet the criteria for the story-within-a-story/Paul Auster scale. That would be a story cycle, or a series of stories, which can be measured by normal means: i.e., "one story," "two stories," "fifteen stories in a row," etc.


Elaborations: The borderline exception to this provision is if, at the end of the series of stories, the listener realizes that all the stories were actually interconnected in ways that became clear only through listening. In this case, either the usual method of story-counting (i.e. "five stories in a row") with an addendum of explanation (i.e. "and it turned out that all the people met each other at a party in the end") may be used, or the PA unit of measure may be applied, though carefully.

For instance, in the case of a series of five stories, all of which end up being the background of five people who show up at the same party, the PA measure is only 1, since the five stories are all embedded in the same overarching storyline, rather than being embedded in each other. Thus, the situation warrants the description "6 stories, 1 PA," indicating that there are six storylines (including the story of the party), with one of those being the frame and the other five being independent of all but the frame/overarching storyline.

More sophisticated methods of determining the relation between embedded stories and serial stories are in development.

PSA: Romance is undead.

P.C. and I are going to continue what will now have become "an annual tradition" for Valentine's Day tonight: a horror movie marathon.

I'm hoping to get into the remake of "House on Haunted Hill," as the Vincent Price version is probably one of my fave horror flicks -- and perhaps "Dead Silence" for melodramatic-macabre, or "Hellboy" for grotesque-heroic, or old videos of Sarah Palin interviews for realistic-terror-inducing (Bazinga!).

There are always the Grindhouse movies, which are pretty awesome. And "Subject 2," which is a quietly horrifying low-budget feature, not least because it's set in an unrelentingly snowy, isolated location. I left "Dawn of the Dead," "Bug," "Killing Zoe," "Talk Radio," and "Unspeakable" (a horror in acting, directing and especially writing) in MA...but I think we'll have enough to keep us amused and unpalatable to the usual Valentine's Day audience.

Speaking of which, before I can get to that, I'll have to go see "Valentine's Day" for work.

I anticipate it will be more horrifying than anything I watch later tonight.

New Modern Deity: Kindermal

Kindermal is the Ur-god of punishing rotten kids, known in other cultures as Black Peter; the chupacabra; the boogeyman; evil Santa; Mrs. Trunchbull; various trolls hiding under various bridges, and several residents of the Black Forest. These lesser manifestations may be considered "messengers" or minions under Kindermal's jurisdiction.

Kindermal's main concern is making unruly kids more rule-y. One of Kindermal's most effective and insidious tactics is getting kids to police each other. Thus, Kindermal is something of a patron deity to the safety patrol, hall monitors, and honors students in general (non-reformed), when they themselves are not acting up -- which explains also why they so rarely do.

Kindermal can often also provide parents with creative inspiration when punishing their wayward children. (The most extreme versions of these punishments can be seen in Cinderella's excessive cleaning of the home, and in punishment closets such as The Chokey.)

Kindermal is not without deity enemies, as deities are often also unruly. Though some deities consider themselves neutral, Kindermal, in an effort to organize the world according to a system of rules, lists each as either "good" or "bad": this may be the genesis of the myth of Santa Claus's lists of the "naughty" and the "nice." It also makes for awkward meetings in Olympia, WA (where the gods meet for semi-annual conferences), but since Kindermal only retains jurisdiction over human children and is not by any stretch the most powerful of the modern deities, he remains mainly an annoyance to other gods and a scourge only to little kids who run around in stores, hit their siblings (except to enforce rules), or forget their homework.

Local Trivia: CO.M.G.

Last week I came home to an apartment with the distant sound of a four-beep alarm coming from the vents. I had no idea what it meant -- four beeps, then five seconds off (I timed it), then four beeps again -- so after a short investigation to figure out if it was coming from the other apartment on the second floor, or below me, I let it go.

It turns out that it was the carbon monoxide detector my landlords had installed. I found this out after several hours in the house, at which point the landlady came home and shut it off, figuring it was malfunctioning.

Which was pretty scary to me since, you know, you can't detect CO otherwise. But then we didn't die, so I figured things were fine.

Thanks to a weird smell coming up from the vents on Friday night, I slept with the windows open and my electric blanket, Weirdo Brown, on. I'd probably been primed by the CO detector experience, but this weird smell also tied my stomach in knots and gave me a headache, and I figured better safe than accidentally dead.

I thought all my smelly and non-smelly gas woes were apartment-bound -- but last night, here at work and only a half hour after I'd gone to sleep, the CO detector started going off around 1 a.m.

This was more panic-inducing than it had been at my apartment, since now I knew what it was and was responsible not only for myself, but for the girl I work with. What if she died of CO poisoning? Should I call the manager on call at 1 a.m.? Should I call the fire department? Should I open the windows and turn on a space heater?

I took it out of the plug, which turned out not to be the answer, since that caused it to sound continuously. Eventually, after covering it in blankets for awhile, I plugged it back in, pushed the "test/reset" button, which made it stop alarming, and went back to bed.

Then I got up, just to check on whether the girl was alive. She was.

I went back to bed.

And got up again to look at the alarm, which seemed all green lights and still-silenced alarms, so I went back to bed.

At 1:16 I got up again and looked up the alarm manual online. This is incredibly difficult to do without pulling up horror story after horror story of families who barely escaped death when their homes filled with carbon monoxide -- which was scary, but also annoying enough to make me more apathetic about possible death. ("How bad can it be compared to this?")

At 1:37, I solved the mystery. Apparently, if the alarm sounds, the thing to do is press the test/reset button. If the alarm goes off again within 6 minutes, you have a problem. Otherwise, you can go back to sleep.

So I did. But if one more CO detector does this to me, I might just go live in a tent in the woods.

You all are invited to visit.

PSA: The best actress

I've decided that Myrna Loy is my favorite actress, and I might even watch movies with her in them where she'd been digitally inserted into new-tyme plots.

Hint, hint, directors of the future.

Local Trivia: The funniest tutor evaluation comment I received

"She brainwashed me before I started a new paper."