২৬ মার্চ, ২০২২
"President Biden delivered a forceful denunciation of Vladimir V. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on Saturday, declaring 'for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power'..."
"... and casting the military clash in Europe as the 'test of all time' in a decades-long battle to defend democracy. In a speech from a castle that served for centuries as a home for Polish monarchs, Mr. Biden described the face-off with Mr. Putin as a moment he has long warned about: a clash of competing global ideologies, of liberty versus oppression.... 'Don’t even think about going on one single inch of NATO territory,' Biden says to Russia, raising his voice in his most animated moment of the speech. But he draws a familiar line in the sand, saying that American troops will not go into Ukraine, which is not a NATO member."
"[A] toxic obsession with 'normal birth'— fuelled by targets and pressure from the NHS to reduce caesarean rates — became so pervasive that life-or-death decisions..."
"... became dangerously distorted for nearly two decades. Mothers were routinely overmedicated with drugs to bring on contractions to lead to vaginal birth. Many endured traumatic labour, with doctors using forceps and excessive force to deliver infants. Many newborn babies were left with fractured skulls and broken bones. Others were starved of oxygen and left with life-changing disabilities. Hundreds were stillborn, died shortly after birth or left permanently brain-damaged.... In 1985 the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated that countries should aim for a caesarean section rate no higher than 10 to 15 per cent. By the time the WHO had backtracked on its statement, the damage had been done. Professional medical bodies in the UK had started to see it as part of their mission to reduce the rate of caesarean sections.... Not all doctors were comfortable with the new ideology. David Harding, a consultant neonatologist who retired after 25 years in the NHS in 2019, said he felt women were increasingly being 'brainwashed' into believing that they should be having a natural birth at all costs."
I watch TikTok so you don't have to. I've got 5 selections for you today.
1. A man impersonates various celebrities by showing only how they sneeze.
2. A little girl dances with awe-inspiring grace.
3. Comic lip-synching to the sound of Nancy Pelosi praising Joe Biden.
4. Woman who has no idea what's going on keeps referring to everything that's going on right now.
5. A comedienne dedicates a performance "to all the wealthy brooklyn moms i've met before." ("It's like, what's the point of naming him Atticus if he's not gonna be....")
"Vladimir Putin has claimed the West is trying to 'cancel' Russia for its traditional views, much as it did to JK Rowling for her views on trans rights."
"'They cancelled Joanne Rowling recently. The children’s author — her books are published all over the world — fell out of favour with fans of so-called gender freedoms, just because she didn’t satisfy the demands of gender rights. Today they are trying to cancel a thousand-year-old country,' Putin said during a televised meeting with Russian winners of cultural prizes. 'I am talking about the progressive discrimination against everything connected with Russia, about this trend that is unfolding in a number of western states, with the full connivance and sometimes with the encouragement of western elites.... We remember the footage when they were burning books.... It is impossible to imagine such a thing in our country and we are insured against this thanks to our culture. And it’s inseparable for us from our motherland, from Russia, where there is no place for ethnic intolerance, where for centuries representatives from dozens of ethnic groups have been living together.'"
Putin also got in on our what-is-a-woman debate: "If someone thinks that women and men are the same thing, then be my
guest. But there is common sense.... I stick to the traditional approach
that a woman is a woman, a man is a man, a mum is a mum, and a dad is a
dad.'"
"Psychologists, academics and librarians reached by The Washington Post said they see value in introducing children to books that contain challenging material, including of the sexual kind, provided it is done with appropriate context, care and tact."
I'm reading "Schools nationwide are quietly removing books from their libraries/Meet the librarians fighting bans and scrambling to preserve children’s freedom to read" by Hannah Natanson (WaPo).
Research shows there is an association between children reading certain kinds of explicit texts — those that depict sexual violence, degrade women or do not discuss boundaries or consent — and engaging in risky sexual behaviors, as well as sex at an early age, according to Amy Egbert, a research fellow in Brown University’s Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior.
But, Egbert said, she doesn’t believe that those types of books are available in school libraries. The books being challenged, she said, are often those that deal with difficult topics, featuring a main character struggling to understand their own sexuality or experiencing some kind of racial tensions or racism.
Removing those books is an obstacle to children’s development, she said, pointing to research — including on abstinence-only sex education — that shows that not talking about subjects with children does not change their behavior.
So... Egbert said there are the good and the bad sort of books with sex for children and she doesn't believe that the bad sort are available in school libraries. Wouldn't that be because librarians are vigilant about which sex books they keep in the school library? Now, there may be a dispute about where the line is between what's bad for kids and what's good, but who should decide? I think the article is saying that librarians are being proactive precisely because they don't want to have to get into a big public debate with parents.
Why the quiet removal of books?
"The less-than-enthused dog sitters, or those who outright refuse to do it, exist, though they can be hard to pin down."
"In the course of reporting this article, I heard from plenty of people who wanted nothing to do with the doggy care business, but the minute they were asked to go on the record, they immediately rescinded. A number of people told me they leaned on their 'allergies' when declining requests. 'You can’t tell people you don’t like dogs,' said Melanie Nyema, 41, a performer who lives in New York City. 'They automatically think it makes you some kind of psychopath. You may as well have said you like to kick babies.'... Jason Duffy, 48, a producer in Los Angeles said dog sitting was akin to 'driving a friend to LAX. I love you, but woof'...."
From "It’s a Dog’s Life, if You Want It/As travel returns, so are requests for dog sitting — after all, those pandemic puppies aren’t taking care of themselves" by Glynnis MacNicol (NYT).
"It’s an insane spot! And a huge piece. A few people have asked me if it was commissioned because they couldn’t believe someone could get away with painting that type of spot."
Yeah, I have the same question. What's the answer?
The black, white, and red graffiti spells the moniker “Acer” in large block letters on the museum’s third level, facing Bowery Street. The graffiti was painted a few feet above artist Glenn Ligon’s installation “A Small Band” (2015), which features the writing “blues blood bruise.”
It's useful publicity, so I'm skeptical.
"Foo Fighters drummer Taylor Hawkins has died at age 50, reportedly from an overdose of some kind...."
"Hawkins was in the band from 1997 until his death — 25 years — and he played on their last 8 albums. I'm particularly sad about this news because I was really getting into his new supergroup, NHC. The H stands for Hawkins. The N stands for Dave Navarro, the legendary Jane's Addiction guitarist. NHC has only a few songs on Spotify, but I've been listening to one of them over and over: 'Lazy Eyes.' It's partly hard rock but partly more experimental. Hawkins does some amazing drumming on the song, and he handles the vocals well as the lead singer. I especially like the part that goes: 'Are we in love? What the hell does that mean anyway, if you start to hate me?' See my comment for the music video. Hawkins also played drums on Alanis Morissette's 18-month world tour for her beloved breakthrough album, 'Jagged Little Pill.' This is a terrible day for rock music."
"A Maryland judge ruled on Friday that Democrats in the state had drawn an 'extreme gerrymander' and threw out the state’s new congressional map..."
"... the first time this redistricting cycle that a Democratic-controlled legislature’s map has been rejected in court. The ruling by Senior Judge Lynne A. Battaglia of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County found that the map drawn by Democrats had 'constitutional failings' and ignored requirements of focusing on 'compactness' and keeping similar communities together. 'All of the testimony in this case supports the notions that the voice of Republican voters was diluted and their right to vote and be heard with the efficacy of a Democratic voter was diminished,' Judge Battaglia wrote in her opinion.... The congressional map drawn by Democrats would have most likely guaranteed them at least seven of Maryland’s eight House seats, or 87 percent of the state’s seats. President Biden carried the state with 65 percent of the vote in 2020.... Judge Battaglia... was appointed by former Gov. Parris N. Glendening, a Democrat.... She also served as chief of staff to former Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, a Democrat.... Doug Mayer, a spokesman for [Fair Maps Maryland, a Republican-aligned group, said,] 'Judge Battaglia’s ruling confirms what we have all known for years — Maryland is ground zero for gerrymandering, our districts and political reality reek of it....' The decision was also praised by outside groups that have sought to overhaul the country’s redistricting process."
Tittle-tattle.
Couple in front of me on flight refused to wear masks.
— Chris Cillizza (@ChrisCillizza) March 26, 2022
They were tuned to “Tucker” the whole time.
It had never crossed my mind, in 18 years of blogging, to use the compound word "tittle-tattle." I've occasionally used the word "tattle." For example, in 2007, I wrote "Who decided on this occasion to tattle on a few of the words that were spoken at a closed-door meeting?" (John McCain had yelled "Fuck you!" at another Senator.)
But it was not until just this moment, when I read Chris Cillizza's twitter-tweet, that I ever felt like writing "tittle-tattle." What is achieved through the compounding of a word with another similar sound? I just wrote "twitter-tweet" to get the feel for what's going on with that sort of thing.
See? What's that? "Chit chat"? Why not just say "chat"? It's a little childish. I'm thinking "doggy woggy" and "pussy wussy." But don't say "fuzzy wuzzy" — that's racist. Ah, maybe don't say "doggy woggy" or "pussy wussy" either. Oh, but you only do that when you're talking to the baby? This is how we get racist babies!
Anyway, I'm driven to the OED to find out how deep are the historical roots of "tittle-tattle." Is that some modern chitchattiness? No. It's old:
"There were nonstop parties and subsequent break-ins. People would vandalize the hallway and pull the fire alarm. Sometimes they’d steal; other times..."
"... they’d fight in the lobby and leave pools of blood. Eventually, people came and went so fast, it was hard to tell who actually lived there and who didn’t. 'One time I wanted to cook something and found the kitchen occupied by some Russians drying Ketamine in the oven.... This kind of thing was very common.' And the people who actually did live there — mostly DJs — would loudly play music late into the night. One time, when [one resident] asked a roommate to turn it down, they replied, 'Asking me to turn down my music is like telling a painter to use less red paint.' ... Nearly a decade later, [another former resident] views San Francisco like an ex: a person whom she has a special connection with but won’t ever go back to. 'Like, I love you, but I’m not in love with you.... But we had our time together, and I wouldn't be the person that I am without you, but you changed.'"
From "Sex, drugs and dry wall: Life inside one of the last artist communes on San Francisco’s Market Street" (sfgate).
Remember when you wanted to live in a commune?
"Everything about the act of writing seems to invite [substance] abuse — its solitary nature, its interiority, the misery of sharing yourself with an often indifferent audience."
Writes M.H. Miller, in "Where Have All the Artist-Addicts Gone? For much of the 20th century, before the dawn of our own wellness-focused era, madness and substance abuse were often considered prerequisites for great art" (NYT).
Artist-addicts continue to inspire curiosity and obsession, but as we move farther from the 20th century and toward a reinterpretation of substance abuse that places it in the context of wellness and mental health, this figure seems increasingly a relic of a different era, like beehive hairdos or fallout shelters....
By the ’90s, the question of whether artists abused their bodies more than the general public had gained additional layers: What came first, the art or the abuse? Could the art even exist without the abuse?...
Our culture now is one in which artists are less troubled geniuses than they are public figures, generally expected to respond uncontroversially on their various platforms to whatever the news cycle might bring. The compulsion for everything to be civil and inoffensive is now reflected in our curious relationship to drugs and alcohol.... [T]he act of becoming intoxicated... has largely become a question of self-optimization....
Everything and everybody — even while using heroin — must be bland and inoffensive... The junkie artist has become, if not entirely passé, then at least less visible.....
Lots of discussion of particular writers at the link. I've excerpted the high-level abstraction. The actual article is long — with many famous names and details about their substance abuse and how the culture used to relate to these tortured souls who were our artists. The thesis is: We don't do that any more.
We've got something else now, and maybe we miss those messed up artists as we live with writers who don't seem to have interesting, conspicuous problems. Are these people who expect us to read them cowed by the cancel culture? Has social media put them in a worthless dulled state where all they do is "respond uncontroversially"?
Where have all the geniuses gone? We — as a group, a stupid group — decided we preferred bland inoffensiveness.
পোস্টগুলি
