Subjects Are Silly

Trying Terrorists

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:36:00 +0000

In the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling against indefinite detention in Boumediene vs. Bush, I've been following the commentary (both professional and those comments people leave at the end of articles) with a certain degree of distress. The court's majority opinion seems well-reasoned and appears able to afford particular goals -- security -- within the rights we as Americans suture our country with -- freedom from extended, unwarranted detainment. Four of our justices, however -- two of them appointed by the current President -- took the line that our system of justice is inadequate to the (apparently) unique situation of terrorism. And one of our current presidential candidates concurred calling the majority decision, "the worst" case result in American history. What disturbs me is a combination of what the minority is fighting for, but also their rhetoric, which sacrifices reasoning for the emotional reaction of fear.

And we continue to receive evidence that those whom the Bush administration has held indefinitely are not necessarily dangerous. Which is not to say they are all innocent and tree-hugging; rather, the decision to arrest people has often been capricious, based on inaccurate information that has been incompletely followed up, in ignorance of evidence that would absolve certain detainees, cruel, criminally abusive, in direct contradiction of international independent oversight, and so forth. Thus, the Supreme Court decision opened up the way to require the government to determine whether people are innocent or not before holding them indefinitely and thoughtful people are seriously complaining.

Realclearpolitics.com has a perspicuous column today by Steve Chapman entitled "Terrorized by the Supreme Court" which bitingly explores and explodes the arguments of the minority opinion (Scalia's much quoted "[this decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."). The article further examines the effects of the decision, arguing that it won't help many to leave custody -- unless they have been cleared; suggesting that many of these previous "enemy combatants" may enter the battlefields upon their release, but only because they were innocently mistreated and now want their just revenge (hardly an alien sentiment); and, most tellingly in my opinion, gestures to why the term "enemy combatant" is preferred to POW -- the latter have particular rights and cannot be tortured. (That the former also do has been completely ignored.)

The entire incident should remind us of the inanity of governing by fear and trembling. When officials declare that terrorism is a unique ill that must be dealt with in ways that contradict our very foundational beliefs as a nation and put us at odds with standard treatment of prisoners everywhere, we place ourselves in more danger. We legitimize the very claims made about our nation and draw recruits to a cause that moderates can sympathize with. But when our officials argue that to act according to the standards of common decency is to incur danger on our shores, they establish the precedent that safety can be exchanged for freedom. And they blind us to many of the causes that encourage terrorism: US occupation of foreign bases (like the 50-odd ones Bush apparently wishes to establish), our energy policies which enrich countries who fight against us, and rampant trampling of the rights of citizens and nations that we disagree with. If we really want to stop terrorism, we need to positively interact with our enemies, provide an example of how we govern that flatly contradicts radical fundamentalist's interpretations, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Subscribe in a reader

Political funding vs charity donations

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:44:00 +0000

A few times during this lengthy campaign, people have commented that it's obscene how much money has been donated to the candidates when it would do a world of good if given to charities instead. I have a few complaints with such a position, though on the surface it's appealing. My major disagreement, though, is to point out that people are donating to effect change -- the same sort of change charities work with -- because they feel our current political path has become overgrown. Thus, the increase of monetary donations probably stems from a similar stimulus that gives to charity. And while I haven't given to charity for awhile, I did donate (twice? thrice?) to Obama's campaign because I believe that we should not be spending billions on a war in Iraq while there are problems that can be solved with that money here and in poverty stricken areas of the world.

One of the things I've noticed a few times on Obama's website is that the "donate now" button becomes replaced with a similarly worded message asking for donations on behalf of the Red Cross. Here's one example . This is just one more reason I think Obama actually does go about things differently; he knows he has a huge group of followers and he attempts to channel that: into hope at rallies, into plans for volunteer "gap years" for young people, into pleas to help those affected by natural disasters. Amidst all the coverage of his campaign -- and politics as usual -- this is something different.

Subscribe in a reader

Environmental Audit: What I've Done Lately for the Planet

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:52:00 +0000

Reading through The Huffington Post's new Green Guide and was struck by how much interesting green news there is and also how much of it is the same. But it also had me thinking about what I do to save the environment, which sounds rather noble and shouldn't. In fact, it should be as standard as cooking meals or vacuuming or all those other things that are sometimes chores and sometimes fun to do. So, here are the practical steps I actually follow (most of the time and to some extent) to save the environment.

Recycling. Never did it until I moved to Madison where it's mandatory. As in, you can receive a ticket if they (somehow) discover you're not doing it. Which means that even the college kids I live around recycle without thinking about it. I'd rather taken for granted tossing the toilet paper roll into the recycling bag (which is itself a paper grocery bag) until I was in Chicago to see the new baby and had to throw away the toilet paper roll...at a hotel. There was no recycling to be seen in the entire hotel or the city. And yet it's so easy here in Madison. What do we do? Every house has a different colored garbage can for recyclables and we put it on the curb on a certain day. The city's recycling gurus looks for what people will buy (unfortunately, they've had to stop recycling dairy cups b/c no one will buy it) and then collects it, processes it, and sells it. Simple as that. Can your city do that?
Driving. We don't consciously watch our driving because we average about 250 miles a month. We do that by living within a mile of where I 'work,' having access to great public transportation (the bus outside our house is a block away and runs a few times an hour -- for those times when a mile hurts...like when it's -37 outside.), telecommuting for Nate (though the plane trips to NYC every once in awhile probably negate all our driving improvements...), and living in a smaller town. It's nice to have choice as to when we get in the car and when we don't. I can drive every day or avoid it for a week. In fact, I've been driving every other day or so and I realized the other day I'm tired of being in a car! We even took the bus down to Chicago last time because it's far easier and just as affordable when you factor in gas. When you add parking, it's even cheaper.
Materialism. I'm really starting to think about the impact of all our buying. Looking for better quality (so I replace it less frequently) and think carefully about how what I buy fits in with the overall scheme I have -- whether it's clothing or house decorating. Because while styles are tweaked, we rarely have the desire to go out and completely revamp a wardrobe. A little here and a little there -- so if I start with good stuff, then I need less in the long run. What I buy becomes a choice and not a necessity (i.e. holes in clothes, cats destroying slipcovers, etc.).
Organic and local. I've tried to avoid the bandwagon that asserts only local ingredients; even in the summer, it's not practical. Well, if I went to a dozen farms. The farmer's market tends to have the same stuff at most stalls. For instance, yesterday I bought: tomatoes, salad greens, spinach, flowers, ramps and green onions. I could also get asparagus and a few random other things, but that's about all that the mile long farmer's market has. The sad part is I knew exactly what I could get and bought the rest at Whole Foods earlier in the week; I should have more to buy at the farmer's market! We need a bit more diversity. I'm starting to buy organic whenever there's a choice and I do look to see where things are packaged and choose closer -- when there's a choice. Clothing has proven too expensive to do organic with, but I think that will change in the next 3-5 years. I'm also starting to shop at antique stores and thrift shops because there's always something neat and useful. And reusing is as important as recycling. We're even feeding organic cat food to the adorable ones.
Eating. I still eat meat, but much more rarely. And haven't really touched red meat in ages. Mainly because thinking about factory farming, red meat is the worst and chicken the least heinous so if I am out and feel like meat, I eat chicken or turkey or fish. But even that is more meat than I often want to eat. I'm consciously looking for vegetarian items, realizing that since restaurants offer so few veggie choices I'm voting for a more diverse menu by choosing that diversity -- and hoping that people will start realizing that the vegetarian options are usually delicious. Flexitarianism is what I'm doing, apparently. The impact of reducing the amount of meat in our diets even by 20% a week is astounding -- more than driving less in fact.
Cleaning. For most stuff, except mildew really, I use all natural cleaners. I'm a huge fan of Seventh Generation as I think their philosophy is intriguing and their products are the best all natural stuff out there. I just recently started using loofah sponges from Twist and I love how they clean, but they fall apart too easily. Clorox is even jumping into the green movement by creating green cleaning products and the one we use is pretty snazzy. We get rid of our cat litter by using biodegradable plastic bags that are actually for dogs, but ought to be marketed to cat owners too. They're great!
Gift Giving. I try to give gifts that reflect the values I believe in. So if I can find something neat at an antique store, I'll get it. More frequently, I've started looking at local stores and try to find something cute. Of the recent gifts we've purchased, all five of them have come from a local store and three of the five have been antique stores. Also trying to buy organic stuff since if you're buying a gift, you want to give quality. But what I've noticed is we're giving more creative gifts and hopefully encouraging new interests.
Traveling. There are very few ways to make this eco-friendly, but I do look for organic and all-natural places to stay; there aren't many and the ones I find are usually booked. We do stay in B&Bs rather than hotels because we like the experience, but also appreciate supporting an independent business. We avoid eating at chains most of the time (except a few which are actually good: Chipotle, Noodles, etc. and support the things we support) and especially eschew them on vacations.
Electricity. Yeah, I do all that. Replacing bulbs with CFLs (even though I don't pay the electricity bill -- that is virtuous!), turning off lights when I don't use them, avoiding phantom power loads, don't even own a tv so watch movies on the laptop (which also reduces the need for another electronic device).

Now this is not to say that I don't do things that are terrible for the environment. I'm having a wedding that everyone has to travel to, though half the guests are from within four hours of the location. But nonetheless there's a carbon footprint. I still buy stuff that I shouldn't buy; spring cleaning routinely means a trunk full of stuff to the thrift store. I'd rather buy a book than get it from the library. Oh, there's my magazine habit. And I don't own a bike so even small errands require a car. I could take public transportation, but find a car more convenient for most things so only use the bus when I'm going to campus. So, this list is meant to encourage people and give me a place to chart where I go next.

In short, I feel most of the things I do have become old hat. To claim that I am 'doing something for the environment' is silly because this is how I live. So what's my next step in moving my life more in tune with the environment?

Here's the challenge of this post: most of what I've listed here is common knowledge. What are the next big or small changes we -- and more specifically I -- can make to reduce my unnecessarily large footprint? I'm thinking about specific steps as well as mind-changes. Many of the changes I don't make I hold on to because they make life pleasant and I'm not willing to change them; but where I can change things, but don't because of laziness, ignorance, or carelessness are fair play.

Subscribe in a reader

The Investing Class vs the Lottery Class

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:04:00 +0000

David Brooks' column today, The Great Seduction By Debt, is full of popular economic misconceptions that divide Americans not into red states and blue states, but instead an "investing class" and a "lottery class." Beyond the desire to classify and quantify naively (and reductively), this opinion proposes a responsible class and an irresponsible one, the latter dominated by those who have little self-control and less common sense. Brooks establishes this dichotomy at the beginning of his column, asserting that the United States, bolstered by Puritan moralities, used frugality as a way to escape excess and decadence. Thus, the underlying message is that people's perspectives towards money determine entirely their use of it, rather than a more complex interaction that includes, oh, the job opportunities out there for people, the price of gas and food, and so forth. Brooks even calls financial choices "financial mores" as if finances is all about choice and good or bad decisions. No "blessed are the poor" here because in this worldview, the poor incur censure upon themselves.

His delineation and diagnosis of America's ills involves this "stark polarization" where

On the one hand, there is what the report [he's referring to a think tank publication] calls the investor class. It has tax-deferred savings plans, as well as an army of financial advisers. On the other hand, there is the lottery class, people with little access to 401(k)’s or financial planning but plenty of access to payday lenders, credit cards and lottery agents.

Note that his characterization is based on two elements of wealth production: first, IRAs and second, debt. This immediately suggests that deferred gratification and sacrifice are the traits of the first class and greed and impatience the habits of the latter.

It his characterization of lottery players, however, that astonishes me in its uncaring behavior:

Twenty percent of Americans are frequent players, spending about $60 billion a year. The spending is starkly regressive. A household with income under $13,000 spends, on average, $645 a year on lottery tickets, about 9 percent of all income. Aside from the financial toll, the moral toll is comprehensive. Here is the government, the guardian of order, telling people that they don’t have to work to build for the future. They can strike it rich for nothing.

First, the figure it astounding. (If it isn't varnished a bit through statistical magic.) Second, that 9% of income per poor family (which, again, I'm skeptical about) is spot-on the recommended saving allowance for a family; with that, people could move into retirement at least counting the same pennies they always have. Third, the assumptions are that people buy lottery tickets to become rich because they're too lazy to work to earn more than $13K/yr. Thus, they buy two lottery tickets a day instead of toiling for hours more to learn a trade.

What are his solutions? Raise awareness about debts through public ad campaigns and encourage thrift through church loans instead of payday loans, programs to increase access to financial planners for the poor, colleges restricting credit card ads on campuses, some specific program called "KidSave" to encourage our little ones in good economic habits, and a tax code that penalizes spending rather than saving. Warm and fuzzy all. Let's get together and save.

But here are the real problems: people don't necessarily buy lottery tickets to strike it rich. In fact, the ones I know who do are living comfortable lives already (i.e. they invest). Those who buy tickets because they don't have any money do so because they're hoping to stave off the debt collector not so they can rush out and replace their fifteen year old car or buy a splashy pink shirt and hot pink tie. No, they're hungry or would like the simple luxury of a movie tonight. And those dutiful savers who have IRAs? They aren't saving because they're crimping; no, they sacrifice by buying a new car every few years, perhaps driving their 5 year old car a year or two longer (if they have to). In other words, the "investing class" invests their excess luxury dollars while to ask the "lottery class" to invest their pennies takes away their smallest luxuries at best and their food at worst. Who can blame them for hoping that the lottery will offer them some small comfort, especially when most lottery payouts are under $100 -- which is a fortune when you're poor.

The re-inventing the tax code portion of this post really got to me because it incapsulates the economic mindset of our current administration: spending is bad -- without evaluating how people spend money. Spending excess amounts of money on stone altars for a one time wedding (cf: Jenna Bush's recent nuptials) might be the sort of spending we should tax, but should we tax food, gas and movies?

The real solutions to a society of "haves" and "have nots" (a more accurate parsing of American society if you insist on either-ors) is to provide education (which was intriguingly no where mentioned) and opportunity. Why are basic economics not taught in schools? It used to be under the rubric "home ec" and guiding students in basic financial well being would go a long way to developing responsibility. But, that still ignores the issue. While lack of education and financial acumen is part of the problem, there's only so much economizing $13K/yr will do. (That's less than $1K a month, btw.)

We should pledge that people working 40 hours a week should not have to live below the poverty line. After all, how is it fair if both the "investing class" and the "lottery class" work the same number of hours, yet one can afford to invest and the other only to hope? And, yes, that might mean our restaurant food costs more money, or we have to pay more at the pump, and that we therefore have less money every month, but if we don't do this it means we are investing our wealth only by squashing other's abilities to invest.

update: For a nice antidote to Brooks' blatherings, check out Bob Herbert's column today (he hits the nail on the head by saying "job creation" -- those magic words) and Nicholas Kristoff any day. Both routinely exhibit a careful consideration of the actual nature of poverty and proffer real solutions for it.

Subscribe in a reader

I'm Back!

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:44:00 +0000

It's been awhile since I've blogged so here's what I'm up to.

School-wise, I finished my second year in graduate school and am one year away from taking preliminary exams, which will qualify me for working on the dissertation. I've started studying for those exams this summer, working not too much, but making steady progress and hopefully getting good work done. I'm also working on learning a few languages: need to boost my French listening comprehension so I can take a French class this fall and am going to learn how to read German. Also planning to work on a paper to take to conferences next year.

Wedding-wise, Nate and I set a date! July 5 in Rockland Maine. We're getting married at the Vesper's Children's Chapel in Rockport, Maine and hosting a reception at the Limerock Inn that evening. I just bought a dress (well, technically I bought two dresses as I can't try it on first so bought two sizes) that I hope works and if it does, I'll post a picture. We're still working out catering, officiant, and other random details and even when you just invite your immediate family (total: under 20 guests!), planning a wedding is stressful. I see why people elope. Seriously.

Family-wise, my brother and his wife just had their first baby so I'm an aunt to Lark. Working on a baby blanket, which comes along so slowly. Guess that's what happens when you are knitting a 40'' by 40'' square!

Me-wise, I'm working on developing that work-life balance as always. More successful as time goes on and have continuous plans to improve. Right now, we're redecorating and cleaning the apartment. Looking for curtains, more bookshelves, a new desk for me (the one I have now is not conducive to working at b/c it's too high) and some comfy reading chairs. I'm looking at the Arts and Crafts style, but am limited because we can't pull furniture up our stairs easily. I'm still knitting and starting to do other craft projects, like stuff from Alabama Chanin and refashioning. Look for info on those if they work out, too!

And, of course, I'm still reading and thinking about the major events of the day and hoping to blog about them more frequently. So, now that I've put last semester away, look for me here regularly!

Knitting!

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:53:00 +0000

So after much trial and tribulation, namely ripping out about 20 times in the same place before just undoing to a better breaking place and starting again, I have finished the knitting portion of my soon to be hat! Now I have to figure out how to block and finish it and luckily I have good books that will help me out because the book I used isn't all that helpful on said subject. My last post on this knitting project is My First Square so look there for the background; I haven't put up in-progress pix because quite frankly I didn't find it too interesting. I do have them over on Flickr, though.

The Project is entitled "Dude Where's My Hat?" and is from Yarn Girls Beyond the Basics and fairly easy. For a first time knit, the only trouble I had was realizing that there's an additional purled row which isn't really mentioned in a few places. I also didn't like the yarn they used, I experimented with three different brands and found myself liking the others. Theirs was a bit bulky in places, but the only times I messed up was with that yarn; probably my inexperience, but it was frustrating!

Here's a picture of the hat, just needing to have side seams sewn together!

I'll post a picture when I actually wear it.

Obama Rocks Madison

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:24:00 +0000

I just came back from hearing Barack Obama speak at Madison's Kohl Center (one of the three largest indoor venues in the state, seating 17K), which was packed and energetic. At times you could barely catch just what he was saying because the crowd was interjecting approval, though there were moments, too, when you could hear a pin drop as people absorbed his message. We had decent seats, but my camera only has so much of a zoom so the pictures take some looking at, but here are some for your enjoyment!

If you haven't listened to one of his speeches all the way through, I highly recommend it. One comes away with the sense that here is an articulate vision for America that Obama truly believes in and has worked to accomplish. He acknowledges the difficulties, but also the potential for this country to transform itself into a community. Much like JFK's "ask not" speech, which I know is not an original comparison. But Obama is the one who knows what we need and will get it for us -- so vote for him. And he knows how to deliver it; if you're curious, the NYTimes has a modified version of his stump speech, which we heard tonight. Changes, adaptations, etc, but in essentials the same.

And, finally, CNN quoted from his speech tonight a little in their coverage -- it's the part where they say he spoke to his "supporters." Failing to mention the 17K+ number. :-) It was definitely a friendly crowd, though the two Ron Paul supporters shared a lovely moment across the stadium when they recognized each other's signs.

Paparazzi Skewer Spears

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:06:00 +0000

The Britney Spears saga has gone from being bizarre to nearing tragedy and the fact that she can't even be released from the hospital without, "television helicopters tracking every turn. [and] A crowd of photographers [who] swarmed around her when she arrived," (CNN) points to part of the problem.

She has a complicated relationship with the paparazzi, as do all celebrities: she needs them to cover her because that is part of her job -- feeding the celebrity machine that is claimed to be responsible for Hollywood's big success -- and they need her because apparently sales and web clicks go up dramatically when a story is about her. The first assumption is arguable since there are plenty of stars who have their own lives and show up in newsstands only when they are actually working: Johnny Depp comes to mind. I think he has a family and I'm sure I could come up with their names and pictures, but the point is I'd have to try. With Britney I could tell you each of the hundred outfits she's worn for the past week.

And yet her life is falling apart, partially because it is and partially because that poor girl has found she cannot move without being bombarded. While she may want it, her current mindset is hardly a decent judge of what she needs -- and we as a public should demand that she be better treated.

There should be a line between any celebrities personal life and their public life -- we do not go to the theatre and support their lavish lifestyle in exchange for 24/7 access to them. Even if there is that symbiotic relationship between some celebrities and some paparazzi, there need to be boundaries even in those -- a celebrity who says, 'take a picture now,' or who visits a restaurant where the paparazzi hang out is not automatically waiving all rights to privacy. In fact, perhaps these sorts of 'free zones' ought to be the standard so that celebrities can live their lives, but still do the promotion that is necessary in their business. And paparazzi could get real jobs instead of freelancing and hoping to get the one picture that will make them thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

And these particular paparazzi who are crowding the doors to custody hearings, surrounding Britney Spears as she arrives home from the hospital and so forth need to admit they are bottom feeding at its worst. There is nothing fair or even remotely acceptable about those pictures.

And the public? We need to stop clicking on links we know will encourage this. I, for instance, have always avoided TMZ just because I've never agreed with their 'editorial' policies, but in the wake of this (and even in the wake of Heath Ledger's unfortunate death when Michelle Williams was photographed returning to the US just so we could all see how sad she was), I've been much more conscious of what I'm clicking on.

Here's my new policy for articles I'll read: PR events (parties, launches, etc); public announcements; court documents (I'm a little iffy on, but overall I can handle it); stars using their celebrity for humanity (I know that there are some paparazzi who claim that this is part of the tradeoff: they can snap pictures of a celebrity in everyday life because they also do that in parts of the world they have no real interest in -- this is again a rather selfish and factitious argument); restaurant pictures where stars know they'll be seen (but not those when they're covering their faces); posed family portraits (but not those candid shots which make you realize some of these children are growing up literally with cameras being flashed about every time they go outside -- the Jolie-Pitts...). And I think that people who see stars in restaurants should act as they would with any other person: respect their privacy since this stems from the same root.

In short, the only way to require the paparazzi to adhere to common standards of decency and privacy (the ones that we as ordinary citizens demand) is to stop looking at the things they make money on. Sometimes it's unavoidable, but I'm finding it's easier than I thought.

One last comment, I haven't quite decided whether or not there should be laws regulating the paparazzi. While technically they are legally within their rights because we have a very low expectation of privacy in public, when our laws allow such travesties, should we change them. It's absurd, for instance, that Spears can have police ticket anyone who enters her house, but not those that chase her around or camp on the street outside. And neighbors have complained, too. I think Britain has a very different policy on all this stuff (there are real limits to what you can do with email addresses, for instance), but we usually prefer to give people more freedom with that sort of stuff. So I'm torn on this aspect of the issue -- thoughts?

Writing Opportunities Online Alert

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:57:00 +0000

I haven't blogged about Helium or Associated Content lately mainly because I haven't been writing for them much. Helium, as you know, earned my skepticism by paying no money. Associated Content is much better, but I've noticed that since I stopped regularly publishing (though not regularly commenting on other articles), I also stopped getting page views. Down from a 100 a week to ... 10 a week so pretty substantial. Neither has paid too well, but I continued with AC because I enjoy it. Which is, after all, a major reason to do it. I ceased to think, though, that either provides too much income unless you're willing to submit for articles and many of my pieces weren't what I'd consider "article worthy" so I haven't bothered. I do have a few ideas that I will submit for that, though, so stay tuned.

But Helium is right now sponsoring a pretty cool -- and monetarily rewarding -- contest . It's the sort of thing you could easily spend an hour or two a day until April 15 and come out of it with $750. Basically, they determine your overall "ranking" through a star system, rewarding both quantity and quality. (Mostly the former) They seem to be having trouble getting people to rate. Since their whole platform is based on the ranking system (what separates them from AC), I can see why they are pushing rating. The contest will reward you for every star you have (and you can gain a star after writing 4 articles). For each star, hey will pay you a set amount of money per article you published from January to April. So if you have two stars at the end of April (and have rated 250 odd articles, pretty easy since each one takes a minute or two), they will give you a $1.50 per article you wrote. The more stars, the more money. If anyone's been hesitant to start, I'd recommend it. If you want an invitation (not required, but I get a referral bonus), let me know and I'll send you one.

Happy writing!

Sunday Reader: 1/13/08

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:56:00 +0000

To start today's post, I'm including two posts I found this morning in my Google Reader and hope you'll enjoy them as well!

Charity

A dollar a day is an interesting charitable idea that encourages companies to add a penny to their services that is then donated to a children's charity working with kids with AIDs. So, great idea - in general it probably won't work too well, but anyplace that people tip it could be pretty effective if it were added to the bill. I'd do this and I bet most of you would, too. Perhaps if it took on, the charities would be expanded, too.

Green Cities

Foodshed Planet reminds us that there's a drought in Georgia, despite the ways people have of trying to ignore it. Apparently pools and and events at Piedmont Park are cancelled this summer. Pretty grim, especially since I wonder if Alpharetta's family pools will be fully full? But she rightly points out that Atlanta is a city in desperate need of environmental ideas and the only one I can think of lately is that great Beltline project which drags along. Seriously, I've had two careers since it was halfway through its planning stages. :-)

Bad Money Advice (?)

Money mag lets a beleaguered questioner know that if you can only buy 15-20 shares of something, he's better off in mutual funds. None of his answers were terribly convincing: first, I've done the investing when you have the $150 this reader had and have been quite successful; second, the writer doesn't mention Sharebuilder which (despite its faults) lets you buy incrementally for a great price; third, the writer assumes that the buyer doesn't know enough which is absurd because a little research is all that's needed. What do I have against mutual funds? They have large fees (1-2%) and often don't outperform the market effectively. If you don't know what you're doing, buy the index. But, if you really don't know what you're doing, buy what you know. If a company puts out products you and your friends swear by and the industry isn't tanking, they're probably a good buy. (Actually, if the industry is tanking, but we'll recover, it's a terrific buy.) So shame on Money magazine for mystifying the investing process and shorting this guy's retirement!

Prosecuting Terrorism

Thoughtful piece on the legal principles involved in the Padilla case and others like it. I don't know enough to really comment on it, though I should since it's the issue of our day. But my first reaction is to wonder, as he does, where we draw the line between prevention and prosecution as prevention. And that gets to his most profound point: we should be drawing up principles to address this issue so that people can have an informed opinion on it and we're certain that we've treated everyone the way our idealistic principles demand.

Sex

Despite giving away the ending this editorial examines the ideas about sexuality behind the new film "Juno" (which looks great). Considering the treatment that Jamie Lynn Spears has been receiving for her teenage pregnancy, it's an issue that should be explored. Lately, I've been paying a lot of attention to feminism so the argument intrigued me. More on that later, one hopes.

The Humanities vs. the New York Times

Perhaps I'm being overly harsh here in my section title. Stanley Fish proposes an idealized version of knowledge for its own sake and firmly rejects any utilitarian goals. Thus, his answer to his own question ("can the humanities save us?") is that it's absurd to expect them to. While I'm all for the idea that we should study some things because they are beautiful and worth studying and that not everything should be "commoditized," the humanities offer as much hope as science that they can shape us and, in doing so, impart the tools to save us.

Regardless, they save us from inanities such as this article which suggests the Beowulf movie (see my review Beowulf: the movie for an analysis of what it does well and how it's not really fair to call it an adaptation) does what the author should have done. Her factual errors suggest that she's not a Medievalist, but more importantly that she didn't much understand the text when she read it: Grendel's distaste for the mead hall is not something that needs to "be made sense of" because the poem actually says it's the story of creation that enrages him! Further, she suggests the movie rather explains the poem and that the movie's explanations help to provide the poem's importance. Crazy stuff! But my all time favorite line:

Purists will object that none of this is in the original, composed sometime between the seventh and 10th centuries. Well, maybe not, but it should have been.

I love how a movie which comments on our own time (more than the original time it is based on -- and to be clear I don't really have a problem with this...if it had also been a good movie) actually should be what the original poet was thinking of. I'm sure Milton purists shuddered through the rest of her article, but I couldn't bring myself to continuing reading.

Enjoy a leisurely Sunday afternoon reading!

My first square

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 17:13:00 +0000

Yesterday, I went to a local yarn shop, The Knitting Tree for a lesson and to purchase yarn for my first purchase. I'd actually spent about 90 minutes the night before browsing beautiful patterns, which would require knowing how to knit. Finally found one that will be pretty simple hat, with cute stripes and minimal knitting skills. It's from a Yarn Girls book and is called the Brimmed Tweed Hat .

Had a quick 45 min lesson with Jackie, who immediately spotted all my problems and showed me how to do everything I need to do. Highly recommend taking a private lesson if you're just starting out; much more efficient than a class and it cost very little ($20/hr). My current plan is to make another practice square or two while waiting for the library to send me the book and then make this hat. Next it's a cute scarf The Knitting Tree has on display and then it's socks. And, finally, any intermediate pattern I see and like.

Right now, I spent yesterday and very little of this morning knitting this 23 by 24 stitch "square". I somehow counted wrong hence the odd number scheme. Isn't it pretty? There are a few mistakes in it, one noticable, but I think I know what I did wrong in each case. More importantly, though, they are all fairly even and I felt like I knew what I was doing the entire time! Here's a close-up so you can admire the blurry blocking, even stitching and one of my mistakes even more:

Finch is terribly excited by the prospect of knitting. He finds he's as tall as my yarn for the hat, and that he looks good in purple, and that yarn tastes yummy.

More as I knit more! Maybe I'll just turn this into a knitting blog, but don't worry, I've got plenty of ideas about things to chat over and still haven't told you about our vacation, which is coming. I promise!

New Hampshire Results

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:19:00 +0000

Reading the NYTimes' election guide, that lists who voted for whom and noticing some very interesting things.

First, age. Look at the difference of voters under 24 and those over 65. Voters under 24 went for Obama 60% and Clinton 22% while those over 65 went for Clinton 48% to 32%. They make up a similar portion of the overall voters in the state (11% to 13%), but what interests me is how divergent those numbers are. Younger people haven't been voting -- it's the bane of most pundits who suggest younger people (hey, which no longer includes me - I'm in the second category :->) are disinterested by politics. These numbers (and the fact they were similar in Iowa) suggest it is not the political process that dissuades many young voters, but the sense that nothing changes no matter whom you elect. But Obama has a message that suggests we can look at things differently. I would like him to win just to see whether he can really put that across. And I don't really buy that experience thing -- after all, can he really screw up more than Bush has?! There's a huge difference in a few faux pas and invading a few countries after all. But, to return to the numbers, except in that 25-29 year old category (that's a weird break up, btw) where Clinton had a narrow 2% lead over Obama, voters under 40 resoundingly chose Obama to Clinton. The voters over 40, who make up the majority of the voters in New Hampshire, resoundingly chose Clinton. Though not as resoundingly as young voters went for Clinton.

We talked in the last election about the red state/blue state divide -- is the latest divide, at least among Democrats, between young and old? Do these numbers suggest that this issue is more than just a greater effort to get out the vote, but more endemic and fundamental? That young and old in this country are seeing things dramatically differently? But then a lot of "older" voters (sorry, I don't really mean it quite that way!) aren't voting for Clinton either. The divide can't be this simple, but it's also not non-existent.

It wouldn't surprise me. After all, anyone over 40 can count on (or is currently using) Social Security. I seriously doubt that it will be around by the time I retire and I'm making plans to not need it. (I also don't resent the money I give to SS b/c, quite frankly, it's been 0 for the last 5 years: when I was a teacher they pulled out money to a separate IRA which I can rollover since I didn't continue teaching and as a student, well I don't make enough money for them to take it out even if we weren't exempt.) I wonder what else divides the ages in this country. And do these numbers extend to the Republican side of the debate?

The rest of the numbers are rather bland. I could talk about the "female factor" but then I'd have to delve into Steinman's article in the NYTimes yesterday which basically said women should vote for Clinton because she's qualified and female. (Which incidentally strikes me as being rather un-feminist, at least the way I read feminism, which is something I've been thinking about a lot recently. But shouldn't women be encouraged to think for themselves rather than vote according to gender?!)

I did find it interesting that people who's income was less than $50K resoundingly voted for Clinton, when I think Obama is much more interested in poverty. But then it struck me that retirees might make under $50K thus for New Hampshire skewing the statistics a bit. But, those who feel they are getting behind financially also voted more for Clinton thus it must be a combination of the two. In fact, when asked which three issues matter most: economy, health care and Iraq, more people who voted for Clinton thought the economy mattered most.

Wait, these numbers get better: if Bill Clinton could run today: those who voted for Obama would vote for him again, but those who voted for Hilary would vote for her husband. Does this suggest nostalgia for the good old days?

In short, these numbers suggest good things to me. First, even if Obama doesn't win (and I've been known to suggest that he's not yet ready -- though the more I see of Hilary the more I don't care) this election, more younger voters will probably mean he can win the next. Second, his message is striking many people, whether young or old and Hilary didn't sweep New Hampshire -- she took it by a few percentage points. I don't know enough about New Hampshire to determine how much it's the pulse of the nation, but it seems that some of the places where Obama does particularly well are featured elsewhere more prominently.

Monopoly

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:09:00 +0000

Apple recently has been sued by a number of plaintiffs, each of whom want to make the suit class action, and argue that the company restricts consumers from choosing to use music the way the consumer wishes to use music. The iPhone, if you remember, earned lawsuits because you could only use it on AT&T's network and now another one is added to the mix in California where all these lawsuits seem to come -- I guess because the company is located there? Europe even jumped on the bandwagon awhile ago, though I haven't heard how Apple's appeal is going.

I'm uncertain how an entertainment device that is sold alongside others that offer different functionalities constitutes a monopoly. In my understanding a monopoly is when a single company owns the entire market (or a significant portion of it) so that no one else can even enter it without being shut out by the company -- not by the consumer who purchases a different player. In the instances where Apple is being sued, the consumer purchases an item they know (or should know if they'd done the research -- one person sued because he didn't understand the agreement he failed to read) works in a certain way, yet then they demand it work the way they want it to. Instead of buying the player that does what they want it to. So absurd!

While these suits don't normally win (though Microsoft was forced a long time ago to remove IE from the desktop in a move I still think is a bit absurd), their continued presence is troubling. First, it confuses access with entertainment. Monopolies actually prevent one from getting a necessary service, while choosing music is hardly that. Second, it demands that every product enable the use the consumer wants to make of it -- Apple does not prevent you from using other products, it merely offers a better product. Thus, if the consumer really wants to use a product differently, there are other options: Zune, Napster, etc. A consumer's choice to buy one product should not be construed as a requirement for that product to be compatible with every other product so long as that incompatibility is not the only option. (So, for instance, a proprietary OS that allows you to access only one browser and that browser restricts your access to certain websites, I would consider to be a monopoly and threat.) Third, the US government allows for anyone with a grievance to sue, but these days anyone with a perceived grievance sues without cause and if they loose there are few penalties. The system needs to be tweaked to either prevent such suits (which might prevent real grievances from getting through) or to weed these out more quickly. The major issue needs to be addressed, and addressed quickly and people need to somehow be discouraged from wasting the court's time.

Such an argument, though, suggests that the courts are a center for effective change and debate weighty matters rather than consumer's personal preferences. Perhaps that is not the way it should be! Think of the lawyers who would suddenly be out of work if they could not pursue such courses. Is this simply what happens when we have a lot of people who need to be gainfully employed? The system becomes more inefficient in order to support the maximum number of people...as it should?! :-)

What I Did Today: Pantry Refurbish

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:47:00 +0000

Those pictures are rather dreadful, but give you a sense for what I did to the pantry. The primary reason it's so clean right now is not just the paint, but because I left all the spices and bulk goods on the table. I need new spice racks and containers for bulk stuff, but have been really picky. I want smaller spice racks than usual and can't find them anywhere and clear, stackable canisters that don't have those pop-lids. So tomorrow I'll scout around for something suitable: will try flea markets and thrift stores and see what I find.

I also started back on painting the cabinets that bright red, but am only about a thir of the way through. Look back soon for more on that!

Shirt Dress Tunic

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 03:21:00 +0000

I've decided one of my sewing projects is going to be a version of this dress from Target:

I tried it on in the store today (and instead of clothing bought space heaters...) and liked the way it looked except for the odd gathered bits; the picture is awful so you can't see them, but it makes the collar bunch up oddly and so forth. Not flattering. But the back was flattering and I liked the length and versatility. And the contrasting colored ribbon, though it needs to be tied off center to work. They had a variety of patterns, which were all vibrant and I am getting rather tired of solid colors, which is most of my wardrobe.

Since the dress didn't fit, I decided I'd make my own. It looks to be a simple pattern, but I haven't been able to find one online. Did find some great material, though. The choices range from geometric prints to flowers to numbers and I'm having a hard time deciding, though I've knocked about 10 out of the running. Feel free to comment-vote and tell me which one I should use. Tomorrow I might run by a fabric store (I'm going to the knitting store first) and see if I can track down a pattern that would work. If anyone has any suggestions, though, let me know!

I just played around with Flickr mosaics/collages and figured out how to upload a collage of the dress with fabric choices so you don't have to change pages. Here it is:

Sunday Reader: January 6, 2008

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 16:40:00 +0000

I'm back from finishing the semester and a delightful vacation to Galena, Il and Chicago. I'll blog about those over the coming week as we found lots of yummy, vegetarian/vegan restaurants and I have a number of things that I'm interested in blogging about and hopefully you're interested in reading about. And as promised, I want to start my post a day initiative where I do something worth blogging about every day. Though when I was a child and tried to journal daily, my entries sometimes devolved to lists of what tv shows I watched so be forewarned! Today's post is a roundup of interesting articles I'm reading, mostly in the NY Times since, well, that's where most of the interesting articles are.

Burt's Bees

Burt's Bees is owned by Clorox. Apparently this happened a few years ago and Tom's of Maine is mostly owned by Colgate. Both of these develop products that I use daily and which include little blurbs about how they started as small companies and their current dedication to workers and so forth. So it was a bit of a shock to read they are part of larger companies. Apparently Clorox bought BBs for an enormous sum of money and is working to adopt some of their practices. This is great! The only way to really effect environmental change is to change the way everyone does business. But as I've really started delving into the environmental movement, part of what attracts me is the independence of these companies. So I'm torn about how to react to big-box companies, whose own products are often far from environmentally enviable, buying little organic companies. Other thoughts?

California vs. EPA/Bush admin

This is a pretty straightforward editorial that says it all: let California make its own standards for fuel consumption if they can make better ones than the federal government. This shows bureaucracy and federalism at their worst when it not only perpetuates the status quo, but stands in the way of real change. The problem, of course, is that if California (and 16 other states) diverge from the federal government's standards, car makers have to respond; which would make the federal standards irrelevant. This is a problem only from the federal government's standpoint, though. So, go California!

Voting machines

Finally voting machine failures are getting the attention not just of liberals and conspiracy theorists, but the general population. Even if there is no concerted effort to have votes counted for one party or another, inaccurate counts are disturbing -- no matter how many votes are lost, or not lost. I support the idea where you vote by touch-screen and then a report is printed, which you verify and sign. Then in tight races an accurate vote recount can occur. While we're on the topic of voting, kudos to Wyoming for a Saturday primary -- all elections should be held on the weekends to encourage voting.

There were other good looking articles -- Frank Rich on Obama and Huckabee for instance -- but I had nothing to say to them other than, good article. But now for some frivolous fun!

Sequin Dresses

People has a list of top 20 must have sequin dresses. I have no where to wear a sequin dress, but some of these are really neat. Check out Hilary Duff's (number 12) which is my current favorite. They missed my favorite, though perhaps it's not precisely a sequin dress: Leighton Meester's great green dress.. The kind of dresses which make you want a cocktail party. :-)

Break Plans

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:22:00 +0000

Yes, I am seeing the proverbial light at the end of the tunnel (or at least the train crashing into me) and am starting to play seriously for break. Ergo, I'm starting a post that will be frequently updated (I'll put new updates in red, pushing the old ones to black when I do): What I Will Do Over Winter Break, divided into snazzy categories. One thing I'd like to do is a blog post a day, though I don't think I'm that committed to anything to accomplish it. But if I do a post a day, I'll make a semi-commitment to do one interesting thing a day and talk about how it went. So look for that coming Christmas Eve.

Snazzy Categories

Home: 1) curtains for the living room. I saw these nifty ones in the Ikea catalogue...not for sale, using fabric from Scandinavia so I'll have to improvise. I want blue and white horizontal stripes that will tie the living room together. Spring Cleaning Part I will give you a picture of what I did: basically put blue paint on two opposite walls of a long living room and it just kept them separate. So curtains along the wall of windows should pull it together. 2) Organize!! Everything's a mess: my files, the spices in the kitchen, the top of the fridge, and I have no place for anything. So, figure that out. Create actual organization system for academic files. 3) Recipes: When I was a kid, we used to have a make your own recipe book where you'd handwrite the recipe and file it away to use forever. Now, I've started using magazine recipes a lot and they have pretty colors and I really am more likely to cook something if I see it well laid out first. So, I want to make a template for my own recipe book and convert my recipes to this new format.

Shop: Need another chest of drawers (one small one for two people does not work out), an actual wardrobe (sweaters, jeans, cords, etc), a napkin holder and other little things. Wellies. Also, need to develop my own style that isn't based on: it's on sale, it sorta fits, I'm desperate routine.

WritingI've been enjoying writing for Associated Content and have some ideas for a few articles: one on the ethics of fair trade, internet privacy (inspired by Facebook's Beacon), something on the high cost of College Textbooks b/c it's really fascinating what goes into that, credit cards and small businesses (especially credit card minimums) and the ethics of paparazzi-ism

Read Not serious stuff, no. Trashy historical fiction. Suggestions welcome. Suggestions desired!

Sewing I'd like to finish something. Don't like the material I picked out for my last project, so will likely scrap it and start over. Something small, maybe a pillow (I could try learning to quilt for instance, or just use some nice velvet and burnt velvet) to start with. I'd love to make some of the patterns I've seen others make this year (like a cute mock turtle neck dress with nice wool), but I'm not ready for that. So I'll look for an easy pattern I can play around with. I'd really like to find some kicky fabric like the ones that Anthropologie uses and make a cute shirt. But that's hard to find. When I'm in Chicago I think I'll check out the fabric stores. Also, would like to try to make some small items from the various blogs I've been reading lately. If you're interested in what sort of things, just look to the right and check out my Google Reader stream.

Knitting Knitting is supposed to run in my blood b/c Missie was an amazing knitter, but dammit if I can't do anything but cross-stitch. So, goal is to learn to knit, for which I'll need knitting needles and good yarn. Have a bunch of Missie's old knitting needles but none of them match! And I have about twenty of them. :-) But they have private lessons around here for very reasonable prices so I think I'll get an hour or two instruction and go from there. My goal is to be able to make socks and cute hats and adorable sweaters, but I think I'll probably end up trying some scarves. If anyone wants one, let me know!

Travel Chicago or bust! I want to see a few museums, etc. Perhaps visit a cute town in Iowa along the Mississippi. We'll see how things work out.

FoodSo I've lately been reading tons of recipe blogs and a few about ethicurianism, that lovely coined word that asks how we can eat more responsibly. I'd definitely like to start cooking again, since it's been awhile and we're kinda getting tired of vacillating between good food and the local Chinese places. But I also want to start thinking about how to eat locally; it's easier when summer comes on, but in the dead of winter in Wisconsin, we're kinda stuck. But the market usually has squash and brussels and a few people do hot house tomatoes. Chard is frequent, though I don't know for how long, too. All of that gives me some options, even if I can't eat a primarily local diet without canning (which I really can't swing even if it weren't too late!) I also want to learn how to cook -- not just throw things together, but know for instance what to do with barley and when I can substitute all-purpose flour for something more interesting. In other words, expand my food horizons and taste new things.

ExerciseNeed to do yoga a few times a week. It's been awhile with classes and I miss it. Looking at the gym up the street if they'll give me a month membership; wouldn't have to drive and it's just two blocks!

Alright, more later.

Obama and Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:37:00 +0000

A plethora of posts lately! Can you tell my Art History page is kicking my a**?

Reading CNN and came across an article about Clinton's staffers (now fired) who forwarded emails regarding Obama's supposed Muslim beliefs. I find it rather absurd that people can't forward an email they disagree with in order to show, to paraphrase one of the women, how dirty politics is growing. I remember that email as well and found it equally heinous, though perhaps this Clinton forwarder should have included a response -- I was unsure of the message I was being sent from the person who sent it after all. But that's not my point. The comments on that article ranged from declarations that Obama's religion shouldn't matter to suggestions that his current church is Afrocentric and therefore exclusive and therefore Obama would make a bad President -- and I suppose is also a bad American by implication? So I googled it and found this lovely Fox News article I'd like to comment on. (And let you know why it connects with my Art History paper -- I promise it does!)

The Fox News article is provocatively titled: "Questions surround Obama's Controversial Pastor," though it seems that most of the questions are concerned over nothing, judging by what was reported. (I'd check the church's website, but don't have that much time!) What I found most striking was its quotes that (I'm paraphrasing) suggest that you have to be black and poor to understand God. Now, why would Obama (a wealthy man) go to a church that preached this? What would he gain? But these suggestions caught my eye because what they listed as facts .... were factual contrary to the doom and gloom the article implied. First, that more black men end up in prison than college and second, that racism is alive and well in this country. The article rather evinces that latter fact...

But, reading on I noticed that one of the major problems that seems to come up is the message the church preaches that blacks share a common history with the Israelites and that the Biblical story resonates deeply and accurately with their own history. My first thought was, the Anglo-Saxons also believed this. (See, I told you this is related to my paper!) In fact, they went so far as to depict Biblical narrative in contemporary garb, even (gasp) changing traditional iconography to make this point more explicit. They considered themselves exiles from the Promised Land...just like the Israelites...and just like Obama's preacher. So why is this so problematic in our day and age?

I think a lot of it has to do with race, but I'm also interested in what this suggests about how some Christians view the Bible -- it's something that happened in the past and only affects Christians in that it gives out rules for daily life, but really only about social issues (like abortion and homosexuality and sex in general). The idea that the Bible can be interpreted as a symbol that extends beyond a rule of conduct, but truly absorbed into one's life and made a living, breathing entity -- as do these identifications of black heritage with the struggles of the Israelites -- doesn't really fit with the more rigid, historical text.

The other thing I found interesting is how Obama has reportedly indicated he does not believe everything that his church says. Some guy at some Acton Institute in Michigan was astonished by this: "If Barak Obama has really submitted himself to his church like he’s claimed, why does he have a different expression of faith from his own pastor?” Where to even begin?! This statement smacks of a lock-step view that makes polemical beliefs dangerous; it suggests that only one view is acceptable and that one cannot modify, correct or evaluate the message that's given one. This, I think, is the danger that is truly presented in this article: that there are religious perspectives that teach doctrines that cannot be challenged and instead, no matter how innocuous or dangerous, must be followed to the letter.

I'm left with a great deal of excitement about this election: in our supposedly inclusive, non-racist, religiously free country we have being confronted with our hypocrisies -- and have the choice to conquer them, or perpetuate them. What makes this election so interesting is how all the candidates, Democrat and Republican, have something potentially controversial about them: race, gender, religion (a million different ones), social values and so forth. We're suddenly faced as an electorate with choices that reveal what our country is really about: opportunities that extend beyond what we believe on a single issue. The Founding Fathers (well, some of them -- they weren't a single block of people who believed the same thing after all) were fond of creating factions: not a two party one like we have now, but one that asked each person to make decisions based on an individual conscious, to compromise on some issues and remain firm on others. To vote with one group and then side with a different one the next day. When we can't conveniently pigeon-hole our candidates, then suddenly a discussion on what really matters might be able to occur.

And we might find a man like Obama who can stand up and say that beliefs matter, tradition matters, but integrity and reflection matter most.

The Future of TV

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 02:08:00 +0000

So I'm a TV junkie. I watch a lot of it, though sometimes that's in big blocks of a single evening rather than really keeping up with shows. There are a few I keep up with, even through this semester. Some of them I freely own up to watching: Heroes, House, Bones and some I sheepishly hang my head when admitting: Grey's Anatomy, and then there are the ones I will never really confess to watching. (Nope, not telling!) Well, this blasted writer's strike is making my break time a little more difficult -- or broadening my TV habits, depending on my mood. And I don't blame the writers, btw. I think the future of TV is the internet, that the watershed moment will occur during the next three years (the length of the contract they negotiate) and I don't think they should settle for less than a fair share of the revenue. The fact that they are also fighting over DVD residuals should show just how much they need to negotiate a favorable rate before the internet boom hits TV.

On the other hand, the way the studios are rolling out this internet TV mystifies me. I have yet to turn on my television in about a year. Why? Because if a show doesn't show up on-line I don't watch it. Or, if I do watch it, I watch it illegally. (I only do this if I can't watch it on the network. I don't mind commercials -- well, a few -- but I do demand the convenience of the internet and being able to watch shows/catch up on shows at my convenience.) But there are stations that only put up the most recent two or three episodes. Why would you do this? If you want to increase viewership to a show, what a great resource to direct people on-line where they can catch up on the first five episodes and start watching on TV, or continue watching online. How do the networks not see the potential of this? Probably because the stats are low-ish for the number of people who regularly watch tv online. Which is why they need to advertise it...

But the studios appear to be terrified that in posting episodes online they risk loosing control of the show, which is why I think the writers should wise up to the real potential of the internet. The only way a studio makes money off a tv show is if they sell advertisements. So when the tv show is loaded up for free, the writers get their work out, but the studio loses. Somebody Should realize that there is a lot more potential in a TV show for advertising than an obnoxious 15-30 sec commercial. (Particularly if it happens to be the same one that plays 7 times during the same episode. Seriously, the only thing that does is make me determined not to buy Ziploc bags. They're bad for the environment, too, so I'm not just being petty.)

Here's how I would run a TV show if I were in charge. Get great writers (Joss Whedon, Rob Thomas) and great actors (Kirsten Bell, David Anders, Hugh Laurie, so forth) and write a funny, hip, whatever TV show. Post it online for free and let viewers do whatever they want with it: copy it, burn it, upload it, etc. Then, I'd tap the advertising potential completely.

Every show has the following: clothing, furniture, cars, food, books, etc. Even if they are not directly referenced in the show (like clothing), they slip quietly into viewer's unconscious. Don't believe me? Find out how many people watch Gossip Girl because of the fabulous outfits! But silly, obvious product placements don't work. Instead, have the set designer, the costume designer, the make-up crew, etc. write a per-episode blog detailing what their inspirations for a costume were, where the materials came from, etc. If the show is hip and well-done, people will flock to these blogs to figure out how to do just the same thing themselves.

Advertisers should love this b/c they suddenly have an audience that not only is interested in their product, but is more likely to buy it because of the cool factor and its ready accessibility. And this can be done without compromising anything in the way of the show, unlike those ridiculous, "you gave me a car? I just love Saturns, look at the seating and I can take everyone to the game on Friday!!" sorts of ridiculousnesses.

In short, the writers really only need the studio for production space, costs, etc. It's expensive to make an episode. But the studio recoups all that money they spend on advertising -- so if you went straight to the source, wouldn't you be able to cut out the middleman? Wait, this sounds like what Radiohead is doing. Wonder how long it will take to trickle over to the West Coast?

__________ did!

Update (1/8/08): nice blurb in the NYTimes also suggesting (though not as extensively as I dream of) that tv should just be online and network free. Here's hoping!

Blog Changes

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:58:00 +0000

As promised, one of the ways I procrastinate, is tootling about on my blog. Three neat changes.

The first change I made was adding a "Google Reader" blurb -- I read a lot of blogs and often say, 'this is cool, but I haven't time to blog on it,' or, 'I'd love to make that...next semester,' or, 'that's a delicious recipe!'. Often, you too might be interested in reading the article or looking at the pretty picture or making some neat craft. The Google Reader box will let you know what I've starred as interesting and you can read along, too. Maybe one day they'll let me add a quick comment to it as well. The second change is minor: I added a Feedburner to make it easier to subscribe to this site. I personally love Google Reader as it keeps all my blogs in one place and if Google is going to take over the world, I might as well help them out.

The last change is to add a few more favorite places to my blogroll. These are sites that regularly produce interesting content. I've added:

"Dad's Videos" -- this is a link to my dad's Metacafe page, where he posts interesting videos. His latest is a clip of the second top rated Rubix cube solver doing the Rubix cube with one hand. My favorite video, though, is George the Woodguy showing how to make a chess board. It's under 2 minutes and offers one of those lightbulb moments of clarity.
"FatFree Vegan Kitchen" -- Recently discovered this site that posts delicious recipes. We recently made Tofu Cacciatore over Spaghetti Squash. As a child, I once had spaghetti squash -- it was a bad enough experience for me to avoid it for the next 20 years. But it's really wonderful (and locally grown - we bought ours at the Farmer's Market Saturday): sweet, but also subtle and it's delicious with pasta sauce. So, look there for new combinations, surprising vegetables and in general recipes you have to make. (And won't notice that they're vegan. I promise.)
"Foodshed Planet" -- Two reasons I love this blog. First, the name "foodshed" is a brilliant riff of the concept of a watershed. Along with "ethicurian," I think it's my favorite new word of the year. Second, the blogger is from Atlanta and it's wonderful to imagine someone in that crazy, car-driven, anti-environmental morass of a city who not only cares, but actively works to make a difference -- around the world and in the city. And it's just neat to hear someone talk about Oakland Cemetery and other old haunts.
"Sew, Mama, Sew!" -- This is the prime example of how a business should run a blog. The business is a fabric store and the blog offers monthly (right now daily) projects to sew. They are always trendy, varied and pretty simple to whip up. When I have time to sew, this is the first place I'm going. And they also have a weekly contest to win a free yard of fabric -- I won once and the fabric was beautiful. Can't wait to do something with it.

So, go check out those neat places and I'm going to go proofread my article review & cut about 300 words or just decide that my 200 words about what Mittman should have added to his article should stay. Nothing like end of the semester paper rambles, eh? (PS: I've had quite enough of proofreading, so hope there are no errors in this post -- if there are, be kind!)

Getting My Life in Order

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:04:00 +0000

Those of you who know me in real life may remember that crazy job I had in Alpharetta. It was a teaching gig, yet I was required to work from 8 to 5 (b/c "that's normal business hours") and my lunch break was nonexistent. But the commute was an hour each way (after I moved, before it could extend to 1 hr. 45 min. depending on Buckhead traffic). So all told I spent about 11 hours a day just getting to and from work and working. It was hell.

Now I'm a graduate student, doing work I love, but also realizing that the schedule is insane. Wednesday on my way out the door for break, I chatted with one of my professors about how excited we all were for a day or two off. When she heard I hadn't had a full day off since August, she nodded thoughtfully, "That's about right. I finally allowed myself a day off a week when I made tenure." While I enjoy what I do, this takes me away from many other things I enjoy: my family, friends, travel, environmental concerns, blogging, exploring eating locally, sewing, hiking as well as many things I don't enjoy: cleaning house, cooking every single day, etc. The point is, my life still isn't balanced. And when I quit my job at FSA I swore I'd never live like that again.

This semester is the worst yet, though I've developed my academic muscle enough that I'm not discouraged as I was the first semester when I planned poorly for the end of the semester and then wrote really crappy papers. Now I'm just annoyed. At myself and the university. I'm taking three classes, all of which because I'm really interested in them, though one has gone out the window as far as keeping up with it. But I'm also teaching a 50% load (20 hours a week) because I was told to. The combination means that I likely won't have even an evening off before December 24, once I've finished grading the exam I'm giving at 7pm December 21. No, I didn't choose that date! (Hope no one expects Christmas presents on time this year!)

So the purpose of this post, as I'm drinking my cup of tea and trying to rewake up -- I woke up this morning to Finch running around and meowing -- is two fold: 1) to let you know this is never happening again and 2) to let you know what I have to do in the next month so you can feel sympathetic (and I guess stop checking this blog regularly till Christmas, though I often blog more when I'm stressed out since it's refreshing to write about things that are practical).

Why this is over

I demand that my life be in balance. I'm happy reading during the weekends if I can also drop things during the week and say, I'm going for a walk or the Wednesday market (b/c it's not crowded by 8am). But I require flexibility in my scheduling and the ability to say I need a day off.

Next semester, I am again taking 9 credits (usual load = 6), but if I'm assigned a 50% TA assignment, I will talk to the department head about taking a more reasonable 37% load. If that does not work, I will drop my Art History class, though since that's crucial to where I see my scholarly work heading I better not have to do that. 6 of my credits are independent studies/directed readings, which means that I have a lot of say in what we're reading. So my entire semester should be spent reading material that will give me the background to write a seminar paper. (For those of you lucky folk not in graduate school it usually works this way: you read x amount of pages a week for class and then you also read x amount of pages to write a seminar paper.) So this should reduce my overall stress throughout the semester.

For my life, I want to be able to take life on my own terms. I've talked before on this blog about how my years at FSA (4) showed me that I don't want to be at the mercy of a paycheck for the rest of my life. Well, academia has only reinforced that. I want my job to be something I love doing, not a collection of stresses. And I want choice in how my life is balanced. And I am determined to insure that my children have the same choice. Warren Buffet did that -- he told his kids: you can do whatever you want and I'll support you, but you have to be doing something. And they lead productive, interesting lives and he used his money to help save the world. I admire that on so many levels.

Now this does not mean I'm leaving academia, graduate school, etc. That's the life I want to lead. But I don't want the tenure track stress. And I want time to research. And I enjoy teaching when I'm not overwhelmed (or teaching the same thing 4 times a week). So, what this requires is financial independence. Interestingly enough, the people who achieve this usually start their own companies. Where this is going, I'm still working out. But if you think about things, you're closer to fruition than if you keep living paycheck to paycheck.

What I'm doing for the next month
nb: This doesn't include reading for class (which I'm not really going to do) or planning for class (which since I have to be evaluated again I need to do).

Week 1 (25 Nov - 1 Dec)

*Due: book review (1000 words), 3 page paper abstract (my paper's on Julius Caesar and the city)
*Due: 500 word article review on 3 articles (on monsters!)
*Due: 1hr 15 minute presentation (on nativity plays in the York Mystery Cycle)
*Due: finish grading 500 word essays from students (41 left)

Week 2 (2 Dec - 8 Dec)

*Due: Art History presentation on yet unwritten paper (my paper's on two Old English manuscripts and their relation to the political structure of the day)
*Due: Draft of 25-30 page essay (on Medieval poem St. Erkenwald)
*Due: Read & comment on drafts from 3 other students in Medieval class

Week 3 (9 Dec - 15 Dec)

*Due: Early Modern paper (18-20 pages) [nb: am going to ask for a week extension]
*Due: Art History paper (20 pages)
*Due: Revised Medieval paper (25-30 pages) [nb: am going to ask for a week extension]

Week 4 & 4.5 (16 Dec - 23 Dec)

*Due: Grading 70-odd 1100 word essays from students
*Due: Proctor exam and then grade 70-odd essay exams from students

I can do this. I'm not sure how, but I've been busy before and done it. I've written three papers in less time than I have now. So, I'm off to do this! I'll see you Christmas Eve.

Beowulf: The Movie

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:06:00 +0000

Neil Gaimen's Beowulf finally hits the theatres this weekend and expectations are high, both because this is the first blockbuster Beowulf movie ever and since Gaimen has a devoted following. As a Medievalist, an Anglo-Saxonist in particular, I'm in the first crowd, though I've seen the previews so know it's Beowulf with a twist.

Jack Niles, the Old English professor here at Madison, invited the department to a special screening (3D! Imax!) the night before opening day. He also led a Q&A following the movie, which was neat since we got to see him field questions ranging from, "how is this like the book" (my answer: there are characters who have the same name) to Beth's great question about the role of adaptation in Medieval literature. So we got the red carpet treatment which meant we were given priority seating and didn't have to wait in the humongous line and get turned away. Here's a brief overview of the movie alongside some analysis of it. (WARNING: spoilers follow.)

The poem has three major fight scenes: Beowulf vs. Grendel, his mother and a dragon. This traditionally flummoxes directors and scholars seeking to connect the first two with the last. Gaimen does manage to do it. He turns Grendel's mother into a seductress who tempts: 1) Hrothgar, 2) Beowulf and 3) possibly Wiglaf, which is where the movie ambiguously ends. (Wiglaf has been the closest thing we've gotten to a hero in the movie, though it's because he cares for people and does his job well rather than any great actions he accomplishes.) Angelina Jolie's -- err, I mean, Grendel's mother's -- motivation is to have children. (They keep getting killed by their fathers when they try to ravish the kingdom.)

This is about all that Gaimen really keeps and my major problem with the movie is that once I stopped thinking, "this isn't Beowulf at all..." I couldn't get into the story they were telling: it all revolved around fighting and there wasn't even any stirring dialogue. "I am the ripper, the terror, the slasher. I am the teeth in the darkness! The talons in the night! My name is strength! And lust! And power! I AM BEOWULF!" doesn't really do it for me...

Which is part of the movie's point, I think. Noble dialogue would have suggested that there as some nobility to be found -- even Wiglaf is revealed throughout to be insufficient. What I did like about the movie was how it deconstructed the notion of the hero and fully reflected a modern temper.

Hrothgar wasn't the noble, flawed but thoughtful king from the poem; he was instead a drunkard who wears a toga/sheet that slips off and declares, "This hall is made for fornication!" Beowulf was the hero that Hrothgar declares they need, but is only revealed to be deeply flawed as well: he exaggerates stories of how many sea monsters he killed with Breca, claims to have killed Grendel's mother when he in fact had sex with her and only becomes a great king because of this deal with Grendel's mother. One character will later claim that "the time of heroes is dead" -- "the Christ God has killed it, leaving humankind nothing but weeping martyrs and fear and death." This sums up the entire movie for me since Gaimen's point is to show that everyone is flawed (even before Christianity) and insufficient to the tasks they have at hand for them. One of Beowulf's closing lines is to request to be remembered as a man, not a hero or a king. This plays on the expectations that we have of heroes and salvation, suggesting in the end we only do what we can do.

So while this isn't Beowulf at all, it's a fascinating commentary on our own time. The coolest part of the movie (aside from the scenes that just made me giggle because they were so poorly written -- I expected something more from Gaimen...) was this scene where a rat scampers across the roof beams of the mead hall, chats briefly with another mouse who is promptly carried away by a hawk. What makes this so neat is it's an inversion of the famous sparrow through the mead hall image quoted by Bede. He recounts the conversion of Northumbria, where one of the pagan advisors listens to stories of the new religion and advocates accepting it because it offers more information about the afterlife than their own religion does. The counsellor describes the soul as a sparrow, driven by the winds who briefly flies through a mead hall and then dashes back out into the unknown. The mead hall is life and the snow eternity.

Gaimen turns this hopeful conception on its head: instead of a sparrow, we have a rat. Instead of the storm, we have the loss of a friend because of a hungry hawk. It unsettles the notions of the expected order of the universe while emphasizing the uncertain cruelty of the world. And captures the spirit of the movie perfectly.

In short, the movie wasn't one that I would have seen were it not for the Beowulfian premise. It was an action movie that tried to be more, but became tangled in its own ambition. I think for what Gaimen wanted to do, he picked the wrong poem. Trying to make it work required him to sacrifice both the poem and his own vision. On the other hand, it was my first experience with 3D Imax, which is seriously the way to see movies! It still needs some work when images are panned, and you have to sit pretty far back to avoid motion sickness, but the depth of field is realistic. This movie was a good one for this adaptation because it does try to blur the boundaries between the theatre and the screen -- the trees jump out at you, the scene in the hall is blocked at times by posts as if you're pacing the outside wall and so forth. But again, what they try to do and what they accomplish were so much at odds...

Chelsea's Tea Timer

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:04:00 +0000

We just upgraded to Leopard which is wonderful. You can take Apple's tour just to see how wonderful it is. My favorite additions are added functionality to Preview (the free PDF viewer/creator) that lets you annotate and highlight easily, the dock additions (which you can see in the photo below) and how it helps erase clutter. But, alas, one program didn't make the switch...

I recently was pointed to this wonderful product called TeaTimer, but it is pre-Intel switch so it was a bit slow and clunky. But it had a timer that would go off in Big Ben Chimes when your tea was done, or you time to grade had expired or so forth. So I regretted its demise. But Nate told me he could write me a new program with his new Java programming skills. And he did! Here's a screenshot of the program and the picture of Big Ben that flashes up (with chimes, which I can't really reproduce in pictorial form!) when my timer's finished.

Isn't it neat?! The picture is of Nate, Finch & me since he couldn't find one that had Abby in it too. You probably can't see Finch b/c it's soon after we got him and he's tiiiny!

In other blog news, you may have noticed that the previous post index has changed. It's now a Tag Cloud courtesy of Phydeaux and with some semi-complicated html fixing (which was very clearly explained) I have a new way to index topics. Hope you enjoy! (And if you can't see it, feel free to tell me, along with what browser you're using and I'll try to fix it when I have time.)

"Lyrical Terrorism" and the theory of Free Rights

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 14:13:00 +0000

Now here's a post you can all disagree with vehemently in the comments section!

The Guardian reported that Samina Malik was convicted of "possessing records likely to be used for terrorism." These records consist of two things, according to the article: 1) her own poems that discuss participating in jihad, beheading people and other disturbing subjects and 2) Osama bin Laden's declaration of war, pamphlets from extreme sects and various computer books that discuss the practicalities of war. She worked at Heathrow, but the article does not mention how she was arrested. For that, enter the Telegraph, which gives a more complete picture of the events leading to her conviction. Some of the additional details include writings where she indicated the growing desire to become a martyr and that she published her poems on the internet. It also mentions that her arrest came after an email she sent was found on another person's computer. In America, we have had similar cases where children write stories about killing their teacher and classmates and may or may not have information to accomplish this. In both cases, what disturbs me is two fold: 1) these violent desires among our youth and 2) the response of the authorities to equate reading and writing with terrorist activity.

It is this latter question that I want to analyze. To what extent does what we read and write fall under a different standard of conduct than what we do? The Constitution suggests that the press has freedom to publish, but does not address what happens when that freedom leads one to (to use the standard example) "falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre". There the Supreme Court has suggested that the language was used with ill-intent and that it implicitly contained a threat, which should be punished because it directly incited an action that endangered others. But when you write a story or a poem, you move into a different realm it seems and the question becomes what are the dangers of poetry? Plato expelled poets because their ability to sway minds towards their beliefs was too dangerous to a well-kept citizenry. Poetry has long been a force for moral and religious instruction and celebration, as Holy Books and hymns attest. Yet, do we run the risk in persecuting ideas that are abhorrent when we suggest that authors should not be allowed to write what they do not act upon?

Current terrorist law is moving towards this direction of claiming that authors are responsible for the actions they inspire, but this theory only works when we apply it to terrorism, which is our greatest fear. If we abstract it, can we make the same argument? And should we indulge in Socratic consistency and ignore the potentially real distinctions between "lyrical terrorism" and other forms of writing? First, the example. Stephen King writes scary novels about clowns who kill people. I think. I actually am terrified of SK thus don't read him; but others do and I think this is what they say! So, someone reads his novel, already possesses some inclinations to serial killing, but has never acted on it. Now he dresses as a clown and kills 2 people in exactly the same way SK describes. The intent predates the knowledge, but would the person have acted on the inclinations without the inspiration of SK? Here I would argue that there is a clear distinction between fiction and reality because the author is not responsible for the appropriation of his work by others; he is not responsible for people who wish to turn fiction into reality because books fiction is a medium widely regarded as being a reflection of life, but not life itself. (Unless you're Sidney, who declared that poetry is truer than life. Of course, they didn't have serial killer novels in the Renaissance. Ballads on serial killers, yes, but that was descriptive not imaginative. And I'm not sure Sidney really thought much about ballads.) Is there a difference with terrorism, where a reasonable author can expect there are people who do want to know how to engage in jihad? Does that change the author's responsibility? And how do we judge the intent of the author if we only have their texts to evaluate that intent?

To consider that question, I want to consider the second charge Malik was accused of: possessing works that instruct in terrorism. Two things are at issue: 1) did she intend to use them actively or 2) did she use them as research with her poems? The first is a different issue than what I'm considering (the whole stop terrorists before they attack is a worthy goal, but again has its own complications) and the second leads us back to whether her poems can reasonably be considered as actively participating in terrorism. Beyond this dialectic, though, there is an innate suggestion that you act upon what you read, that having enough books by terrorists makes you a terrorist yourself. (By that account, I'm a poet and a child. Oh, I have a few murder mysteries too. Look out!) This enacts yet another danger to the idea of literature and writing as a realm distinct from the actions of the real world. Do we require that texts we find potentially encourage actual violence (not at issue in this case from what I have read) be censored?

I think with terrorism we blind ourselves to the implications of what we say. We declare that terrorism is "an exception" and that its horror is so great that it demands "new rules," which we foolishly think will not affect other areas of our lives. (Like school shootings.) So, my question is how should we view artistic expression that happens to have a political perspective we disagree with? What happens when that political expression is violent? What happens when that political expression is only violent if someone (else) chooses to make it so? How do we judge intent if it is only expressed through a literary medium?

Somebody Should...

noreply@blogger.com (Chelsea) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:35:00 +0000

You know when you have those great innovations that you can't put into practice, but would make your life oh so much easier, nicer, more convenient or just plain better? I always let them slip into the void, but dammit if I do that I'll never get to use them! So I'm starting a new label called "somebody_should" for just such wonderful ideas. Feel free to post your own wonderful ideas in the comments and then maybe somebody will.

Today's problem is how frustrating it is to follow comments on a post, article, etc. I notice this when I'm reading an article with great comments (or funny ones), but I'm also thinking to where I foresee academic journals going (I think some Science ones already do this): on-line publications that include comments to encourage scholarly debate and interaction. Thus, being able to track comments more efficiently than just through clicking on the box that says "email comments" (though I'm thrilled for that feature!) is needed. So Somebody should create a program similar to Google Reader that lets you follow particular comment streams, but do it all in a single program. Thus, while right now I'd have 4-5 emails if I wanted to follow a conversation, in Comment Reader, I could just skim through the postings I've saved. The best scenario is probably to incorporate this into a Google Reader type program (which doesn't currently allow you to read comments at all, which is frustrating), but I'm open to other ways of getting it done.

_________________ did!