Category Archives: communication

Picking your nature narrative


National Geographic videographer Paul Nicklen gets an incredible story and series of images from his time with an instructive leopard seal.  A few thoughts:

1.  Nicklen could have moved on after the first day when it was obvious that the Leopard Seal was taking care of him.  The choice to stay suggests that Nickelen was overjoyed to get this particular interaction with the seal — as a means of telling a story.

2.  It is cool that we get a contrast to the usual story of brutal nature, but the cute nature is just as toxic to the animals that live out there.  Global warming, pesticides, chemical run-off, garbage, and general intrusion into a low-human area are all recent human contributions to the arctic.  I sincerely love the video and the suggestion of care from a predator is distinctive.   It seemed like there was a lot of food around for the seal.  I wonder if the leopard seal would be as generous when food is scarce.

3. I feel bad for the penguins.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, communication, documentary, nature, representation

Martin Luther King improvising

I heard a nice tribute to Martin Luther King Junior and his speech at the March on Washington on the radio this morning.  Another version of this showed up in my RSS feed thanks to the fantastic “Daily Feminist Cheat Sheet” on Feministing.

Apparently, the essential chorus of “I have a dream” was a semi-improvisation for King.  It was a response to Mahalia Jackson.

As King neared the end, he came to a sentence that wasn’t quite right. He had planned to introduce his conclusion with a call to “go back to our communities as members of the international association for the advancement of creative dissatisfaction.” He skipped that, read a few more lines, and then improvised: “Go back to Mississippi; go back to Alabama; go back to South Carolina; go back to Georgia; go back to Louisiana; go back to the slums and ghettos of our Northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.”

Nearby, off to one side, Mahalia Jackson shouted: “Tell them about the dream, Martin!” King looked out over the crowd. As he later explained in an interview, “all of a sudden this thing came to me that I have used — I’d used many times before, that thing about ‘I have a dream’ — and I just felt that I wanted to use it here.” He said, “I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream.” And he was off, delivering some of the most beloved lines in American history, a speech that he never intended to give and that some of the other civil rights leaders believed no one but the marchers would ever remember.

via Mahalia Jackson, and King’s Improvisation – NYTimes.com.

Don’t sleep on the impact of the solid gospel choices of Mahalia Jackson in motivating a political crowd.  Remember that music is key for every liberation movement I can think of.

She sang two spirituals, “I Been ’Buked and I Been Scorned” and “How I Got Over.” King was seated nearby, clapping his hands on his knees and calling out to her as she sang. Roger Mudd, covering the event for CBS News, said after the first song: “Mahalia Jackson. And all the speeches in the world couldn’t have brought the response that just came from the hymns she sang. Miss Mahalia Jackson.”

***

I hope you have some remaining monthly New York Times tokens!  Or else you won’t be able to follow the link I’ve recommended to read the whole article.  Pretty short-sighted New York Times.  #newyorktimeshatesfreeinformation

Leave a comment

Filed under art, communication, memorial, music, protest, race, vulnerability

Smart thinking about white indignation and trolling

I’m completely feeling three arguments from Robin James at Cyborgology about the indignation over the Robin Thicke/Miley Cyrus VMA performance.

1. White indignation is a way to self-identify as better-than.

What are we supposed to find likeable in all this? If the aim of the performance is trolling, then we’re not supposed to find it likeable, but irritating and infuriating. I wonder if, in a particularly insidious way, we white people/white feminists are supposed to like what we think is our righteous outrage at the performance? It’s insidious because what is felt (and often intended, at least superficially) as a performance of anti-racist outrage actually further cements our privilege vis-a-vis white supremacist patriarchy? Sharing the pics and gifs of black artists’ reaction shots (the Smith family, Rihanna, Drake), and all the positive feedback we get from this, tells us that we’re “good” white feminists? And this knowledge of our goodness is what we’re liking and aesthetically enjoying? (I’m phrasing these points as questions because they’re genuinely hypotheses–they seem right, but maybe I’m overlooking something?)

via Trolling Is the New Love & Theft » Cyborgology.

No, you are not overlooking something.

2.   James also argues that new media enables sexist and racist communications to be quantified and amplified through critique via social media commentary and thus sanitized.

But today, in what we tell ourselves is a post-feminist, post-racist society, perhaps the way to dis-identify with the neoliberal mainstream is to identify with the objects of its disdain: sexism and racism. As before, the dis-identification with the mainstream is an attempt to prove one’s elite status above that mainstream. This eliteness isn’t conceived or expressed as vanguardism (being ahead of the pack), but as human capital, often quantifiable in/on social media. It’s not who’s most shocking, but who’s trending most on twitter the day after the VMAs, for example. Just think about the way Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” performances constantly throws #THICKE up on some screen.

via Trolling Is the New Love & Theft » Cyborgology.

3.  The best point James makes is framing this kind of cultural appropriation + rape supportive culture + toxic corporate media garbage to be a form of trolling.  Pushing our buttons in order to get more attention.  Now, this is a smart argument — it gives a way to better understand the reasons why Thicke’s rape song and Cyrus’ twerking are bothersome.

I also think it might point to a kind of consumptive desire in the audience not only to distinguish themselves through mockery, but also to desire to view and replay the suffering of the mocked.

Leave a comment

Filed under capitalism, communication, cultural appropriation, feminism, human rights, learning, media, music, race, representation, sexual assault

Systematic racism: RIP Trayvon Martin

Like most other thoughtful people I had little to contribute to the public discussion about the killing of Trayvon Martin.  I deleted an initial angry post that included a forceful discussion of systematic racism and some very inflammatory graphics.

I think I should have kept that angry post.

Systematic racism: hierarchy between races is built into our educational system, governmental policy, policing, and amplified in mass media.  Systematic racism means that you might learn prejudice and not think  that you were prejudiced.

Most people could identify a time in the past where their nation embodied systematic racism.  Maybe . . . it’s still bad?  Can we acknowledge that we teach exclusion and sustain privilege in a little cushion of bogus justifications?

The Trayvon Martin case suggests that the forces which amplify ignorance and hatred have been more effective than those of us proposing compassion and critical thinking.

Juror B37 who has given an interview about her reasoning about the case and her justifications are simply terrifying.   Here are a handful of quotes organized and archived by Igor Volsky at Thinkprogress.

1. Martin was responsible for his own death.

JUROR: It was just hard, thinking that somebody lost their life, and there’s nothing else that could be done about it. I mean, it’s what happened. It’s sad. It’s a tragedy this happened, but it happened. And I think both were responsible for the situation they had gotten themselves into. I think both of them could have walked away. It just didn’t happen.

2. Juror felt just as sorry for Zimmerman.

COOPER: Do you feel sorry for Trayvon Martin?

JUROR: I feel sorry for both of them. I feel sorry for Trayvon, in the situation he was in. And I feel sorry for George because of the situation he got himself in.

3. Zimmerman should continue to serve as a neighborhood watchman because he has learned his lesson about going too far.

COOPER: Is George Zimmerman somebody you would like to have on a neighborhood watch in your community?

JUROR: If he didn’t go too far. I mean, you can always go too far. He just didn’t stop at the limitations that he should have stopped at.

COOPER: So is that a yes or — if he didn’t go too far. Is he somebody prone, you think, to going too far? Is he somebody you would feel comfortable —

JUROR: I think he was frustrated. I think he was frustrated with the whole situation in the neighborhood, with the break-ins and the robberies. And they actually arrested somebody not that long ago. I — I mean, I would feel comfortable having George, but I think he’s learned a good lesson.

COOPER: So you would feel comfortable having him now, because you think he’s learned a lesson from all of this?

JUROR: Exactly. I think he just didn’t know when to stop. He was frustrated, and things just got out of hand.

4. Verdict hinged on “Stand Your Ground” law, even though Zimmerman did not use it in his defense.

COOPER: Because of the two options you had, second degree murder or manslaughter, you felt neither applied?

JUROR: Right. Because of the heat of the moment and the Stand Your Ground. He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.

5. Zimmerman was only guilty of using poor judgment and was “egged” on to follow Martin by the 9/11 operator.

COOPER: Do you think he’s guilty of something?

JUROR: I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment. When he was in the car and he called 911, he shouldn’t have gotten out of that car. But the 911 operator also, when he was talking to him, kind of egged him on.

6. Race played absolutely no factor in Zimmerman’s profiling of Martin.

JUROR: I think just circumstances caused George to think that he might be a robber, or trying to do something bad in the neighborhood because of all that had gone on previously. There were unbelievable, a number of robberies in the neighborhood.

COOPER: So you don’t believe race played a role in this case?

JUROR: I don’t think it did. I think if there was another person, Spanish, white, Asian, if they came in the same situation where Trayvon was, I think George would have reacted the exact same way.

COOPER: Why do you think George Zimmerman found Trayvon Martin suspicious then?

JUROR: Because he was cutting through the back, it was raining. He said he was looking in houses as he was walking down the road. Kind of just not having a purpose to where he was going. He was stopping and starting. But I mean, that’s George’s rendition of it, but I think the situation where Trayvon got into him being late at night, dark at night, raining, and anybody would think anybody walking down the road stopping and turning and looking, if that’s exactly what happened, is suspicious. And George said that he didn’t recognize who he was.

COOPER: Well, was that a common belief on the jury that race was not — that race did not play a role in this?

JUROR: I think all of us thought that race did not play a role. […]

COOPER: It didn’t come up, the question of, did George Zimmerman profile Trayvon Martin because he was African-American?

JUROR: No, I think he just profiled him because he was the neighborhood watch, and he profiled anyone who came in acting strange. I think it was just circumstances happened that he saw Trayvon at the exact time that he thought he was suspicious.

7. Zimmerman’s history of reporting black men to the police and his decision to follow Martin played no role in the verdict.

COOPER: So whether it was George Zimmerman getting out of the vehicle, whether he was right to get out of the vehicle, whether he was a wannabe cop, whether he was overeager, none of that in the final analysis, mattered. What mattered was those seconds before the shot went off, did George Zimmerman fear for his life?

JUROR: Exactly. That’s exactly what happened.

via 7 Mind Blowing Moments From Zimmerman Juror B37’s First Interview | ThinkProgress.

Leave a comment

Filed under communication, disaster, human rights, propaganda, race, representation

Run the jewels and rape culture

It ain’t my fault.  I’m too critical.

If you like rap music, then El-P and Killer Mike’s Run the Jewels is the best thing of 2013.  Kanye?  Jay-Z?  J. Cole?  Naw.

If you like your rap head-nodding with great verses, then get this album.

***

One premise of life of refinement is that purity is foolish.  Understand that you can simultaneously enjoy something and wish it were different.  Watching that TV show and enjoying it 99% until the anti-gay joke?   Live in both places — that you like the show and you dislike the joke.

It seems easy, but a lot of people get it twisted.  The idea that if you don’t like one iota of a piece of media that you have to pick teams and persecute the makers is rampant.

***

So I LOVE this tape.  Love it like fried tofu.  Love it like summer days.  Love it like sleeping late.  Love it and played it a dozen times since it came out.

Then there is a “twin back hype,” laced with spoken word from ‘Chest Rockwell’ AKA Prince Paul.  The line that sticks in my craw is sleaze ball stereotype rape culture shit.

Prince Paul/Chest Rockwell:  “How you feeling now, sweetheart, a little more relaxed?  Maybe it’s the half a molly I put in your Mountain Dew.  Yeah, works like a charm.  Just chill out for a second.  Relax.  Relax!  I got it under control.  I got you a glass of Beefeater, I got a brand new deck of Uno Cards.  Oh yeah, baby, tonight’s just getting started.  Okay, how ’bout I come over tonight pick you up in my brand new Segue?  We can go over to Long John Silver’s and get a fish platter.  You can take me home and massage me with butter all on my neck.  I love you.”

What?  My interpretation of this little vignette is that Prince Paul is making fun of Rick Ross who recently was dropped by Reebok because of his lyrics suggesting that he drugged his sex partners.  (“Put molly all in her champagne, she ain’t even know it/ I took her home and I enjoyed that, she ain’t even know it” — U.N.E.O.)

I think the mockery is evident if you consider the Uno cards, Segue, Long John Silvers stuff etc.  Of course, Chest Rockwell seems to announce his drugging unlike Rick Ross.  And Chest Rockwell is the character from Boogie Nights suggested as a porno name, taken by a great rap producer for his Handsome Boy Modeling School character.  This is parody within parody.

But it doesn’t mean shit to people listening.  Intention and even humor are irrelevant to the choice of symbols presented.  I bet there is a kid listening to the El-P and Killer Mike song who not only get to model some great rhyming AND that drugging people for sex is funny or okay.

***

I don’t think the politics have to be perfect in rap music.  But you make fun of raping someone I’m going to call it out.  You might call it splitting hairs to say that I like the album, bump the album AND think people need to talk more about this skit in order to explain rape culture.

Frankly, given how much rape is part of our media saturated existence, then the explanation of why that line is messed up requires more thoughtfulness than to just suggest that you not listen to the album.  I think that everyone who is a conscious ethical being should be ready to bust up rape culture whenever they see it.  Even if it comes on the best album of 2013.

Get the album at Fools Gold.   Listen to it with your nephew or niece and talk about rape and why that skit isn’t funny.

1 Comment

Filed under communication, hip hop, music, representation, sexual assault

Ricky Jay: cons, cards and the correctly structured drama

I guess it’s Ricky Jay day here at Life of refinement.  There are several great moments in this Ricky Jay video.  My favorite was the description of conning by David Mamet at 39:00:

“The idea that intelligent people, such as you and me, can be deprived of our hard-earned money and self respect by the correct . . . by a correctly structured drama.”

A correctly structured drama indeed.  Stick around for the poker lesson at the end.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under art, communication, gambling, magic

Ricky Jay: card magic

Thanks to the forums at waxidermy for the link.

Leave a comment

Filed under communication, gambling, magic

Accountability: Anonymous hacking Steubenville

Adrian Chen has a provocative essay on a hacker/Anonymous member who was instrumental in articulating the digital actions to challenge rape culture in Steubenville Ohio.

Chen not only describes the mistakes made by Lostutter and Anonymous hackers, but also outlines the cultural impact of this kind of hacktivism.  Here Chen describes the impact of the video released of the football player enthusiastically cheering on the rapes.

The video wasn’t forensic evidence of a crime, but of the attitude that could allow something like the rape to happen over and over again. When people talk about how Anonymous “exposed” Steubenville, they can’t mean the facts of this case, which were utterly botched by KnightSec and its allies. What they mean is that Anonymous exposed how sexual assault is a bigger issue than bad people doing bad things. That it is enabled and even celebrated by a culture that tells young men it’s OK to laugh off a horrific rape as harmless late-night debauchery, to be instagrammed and tweeted about, then expects the rest of us to feel bad for the perpetrators when they’re punished. That’s the valuable lesson of this video, and KYAnonymous alone had uncovered it.

via “Weaponize the Media”: An Anonymous Rapper’s War on Steubenville.

Leave a comment

Filed under communication, hacking, media, protest, resistance, sexual assault, technology

Felicia the ferret: animals and science

Felicia the ferret. Image taken from Fermilab.

Scientific knowledge comes from inquiry into the natural world.  It is a valuable and important part of human existence.  As we learn and invent, it is equally important that we constantly reflect on how we do science — it is just as important to refine — to do science better.

I believe that using animals for experimentation is unethical.

I have a brief pause, reading the old articles about Felicia the ferret, who helped to clean the tubes at the National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois.  There is something sweet about Felicia’s work that belies my understanding of animals in research laboratories.  Here are a few examination of the 1971 newspaper descriptions of this ferret used for science.

1. Natural aptitude

It seems as though each article describes the natural skills that make Felicia the ferret particularly capable of the tasks she is given (running a string through 300 foot tubes).  David Anderson’s article highlights the role of Robert Sheldon, the scientist who suggested that the lab try a ferret.

Being British, Sheldon remembered the use of ferrets by poachers who sent them into burrows after rabbits on English estates. Gamekeepers could hear the shooting of guns, but never the silent ferrets.

“Felicia is ideal for the work,” Pelczarski said. “The ferret is an animal filled with curiosity and seeks out holes and burrows. Its instinct is to find out what’s at the other end of a burrow, or, for that matter, a tube or a pipe.”

via Fermilab History and Archives Project | Natural History – Wildlife – Felicia Ferret.

2. Feminizing Felicia

Felicia the ferret is feminized at a number of points in the articles. Consider Peter Vaughn’s Minneapolis Star essay.  The introduction begins:

It is one of those success stories you read about: A small-town girl fresh off the farm finds fame and fortune.

Well, Felicia, who spent her early years on the farm of Stan Fredin near Gaylord, Minn., isn’t the average Minnesota farm girl.

In the first place, her hair is three different colors – brown, white and black.

Also, she is small as Minnesota girls go, barely topping 4 inches when on all fours.

Felicia is a ferret and left Fredin’s farm early this summer for a job with the National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, IL.

via Fermilab History and Archives Project | Natural History – Wildlife – Felicia Ferret.

Several of the articles suggest that Felicia be rewarded with a mate — each time the suggestion was denied because if she became pregnant she might not fit through the small holes she was being trained to run through.

She has her own special set of weight watchers, including Sheldon, who just doesn’t intend to let her get too big for the job.

Asked why there was only one ferret, Sheldon laughed and said, “If you think she needs company, you’re not really thinking ahead. We have to. Motherhood might just put her out of a job. Her career depends on her size. She’s important to us, but one is enough.”

via Fermilab History and Archives Project | Natural History – Wildlife – Felicia Ferret.

3. Memorializing Felicia to justify the use of animals in science.

Many of representations in these four articles are justifications for breeding, enslaving and using an animal for someone’s gain.

Part of the problem is that Felicia is a particular case — her work didn’t involve being cut open or enduring a painful series of experimental drugs.  Everyone can be sold the bogus particular story of a cute rodent running through the tubes bravely helping the scientists.  Contrast that to the 13 million animals being used in research.  The American Anti-Vivisection Society note that most of the test subjects are mice, rats and other rodents . . . like cute little Felicia!

Though the scientific value and ethics of animal research are increasingly being questioned, it is estimated that over 13 million animals are still being used in a wide variety of research projects every year in the United States. Purpose-bred birds, rats, and mice, as well as fish and other cold-blooded animals, make up the vast majority of the animals used in research (over 90 percent), yet are specifically excluded from the Animal Welfare Act. As a result, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not keep records of the use of these animals, nor is there any legal requirement to afford these animals even the minimal standards of care provided by the Animal Welfare Act.

via Animals Used in Research – The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS).

Which makes the particularizing and justifying of this individual animal’s story so worthy of amplification.  Kathryn Winslow’s plaintive profile of the ferret is a pretty stark contrast to the usual life of a ferret in a research laboratory.

Felicia turned out to be a virtuoso at her work. She carried whatever was fastened to her harness for long distances, sometimes around many obstacles on the course. Those working with her were so pleased that they wanted to reward her at the open end of her journey, but they could not find a tidbit she particularly longed for. She was happy enough to see her cage at the end of the journey, the only lure that was ever used to bring her out at the other end.

She was soon famous. She has been talked about on radio, seen on television numerous times, and been written up in magazines and newspapers with national and international coverage. She stars in a television film to be released soon in Europe. Her personal “manager” at the laboratory is Walter Pelczarski, who lives in Clarendon Hills.

via Fermilab History and Archives Project | Natural History – Wildlife – Felicia Ferret.

This particular article notes that Felicia became famous for her participation in the cleaning of the tubes — an animal celebrity.   Why would this ferret get it’s own movie?  From an anthropocentric perspective this cute furry animal that solves a little problem in this giant scientific endeavor grounds the abstract science in a narrative that is comfortable.

Felicia didn’t want to go through those tubes, she was bred and raised particularly for this task.  She was trained and rewarded, and of course kept in a cage for most of her life.

When Felicia’s job running a string down the particle accelerator tubes was given to a small robot, the romantic save-the-particular-animal trope becomes more visible.  Again Kathryn Winslow in the Tribune:

This good life may soon end for Felicia. The laboratory scientists have designed and built a mechanical ferret, a device activated by compressed air and controlled by wires. They don’t need Felicia anymore. This was always the plan, with Felicia to be used only temporarily, while they built her robot.

But now Felicia is famous and she has a following of people concerned for her welfare; people who do not want to see her sent to a museum as an exhibit, which is what the laboratory may do with her two weeks from now.

They are thinking of sending her to Oak Ridge, Tenn., where there is a live museum of animals and creatures that have made a contribution to science. There are mice, guinea pigs, and snakes there, among other exhibits.

But it’s no place for Felicia, who is a pet and needs the affection of human beings. Will it take an act of Congress to save Felicia?

via Fermilab History and Archives Project | Natural History – Wildlife – Felicia Ferret.

Here is to an act of congress that frees all animals in captivity being used for experimentation.  If it’s good enough for Felicia, I bet it’s good enough for the ferret getting injected with Influenza virus down the road.

(Thanks to Boing Boing for the link to the Fermilab history and Archives project!)

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, communication, juxtaposition, memorial, nature, representation, science

Cannibal capitalism poker edition

Cannibal capitalism is the performance of bodily suffering amplified by mass media.

It is cannibalistic because humans consume humans.  Viewers watch human beings exchange of their well-being for our entertainment.  Put another way, some people find it profitable to harm themselves in the name of their work, which happens to be televised.  And some people make money on the whole exchange.

I don’t think the concept is all that new or inventive, it just happens to be useful to describe a pattern 0f commonly repeated media tropes.   Consider an athlete who picks themselves up after an exceptionally hard crash.  Television highlight films, complete with expert commentary will fill our lives with the painful exchange.  “She really took a bruising, bone crushing hit there . . . what a soldier getting back in the game.”

Re-reading a Grantland series on the 2003 World Series of Poker I noticed a paragraph about the impact the long-hours of playing poker had on the participants.   Farha is the runner-up and Harrington came in third place in 2003.

Farha: For five days, I had no sleep. None. I did not sleep. And the last day, the reason I lasted, I drank 20 Red Bulls, about 20 cups of coffee. I could not function.

Harrington: I’ve played a lot of different games, chess, backgammon, whatever, where you had to put in long, grueling hours. If you get down near the end, where victory depends on you being alert, I could dig down and get something out of myself to give that final push. Well, at that final table, I dug down, and there was nothing there. I hit the wall. Here’s how bad it was: When it got down to me, Sammy, and Chris, I wanted to bet 75,000, which was the right bet for that situation. I sat there and I couldn’t calculate how to make the bet. I had a whole bunch of 25,000 chips in front of me, and I could not figure out how to get to 75,000. It was an insurmountable problem.

via The oral history of the 2003 World Series of Poker, in which Chris Moneymaker turned $39 into $2.5 million – Grantland.

Cannibal capitalism is often accompanied with mediated commentary — either praise or blame about how the person who experienced the suffering took it.  In the case of Farha, the runner-up in 2003, it seemed his many hours of extra poker play became a justification for his ultimate loss.

Later Harrington gives this insight:

Harrington: After I busted in third place, ESPN asked me for a prediction, and I told them, “No one over 40 is ever going to win this tournament again.” It’s become an endurance contest. The next year, I was at the final table again. I was sitting next to a younger player. He nudged me and said: “I know you tell everyone how brutal it is on you to get down to this point in the tournament, you don’t have the energy. Well I’m 28, and it’s brutal on me, too.”

via The oral history of the 2003 World Series of Poker, in which Chris Moneymaker turned $39 into $2.5 million – Grantland.

Leave a comment

Filed under capitalism, communication, gambling, media, representation