#but I think it's also in comparison to the general population i.e. i know how to function with people and how other people function but

[goldengodcannibal]

"everybody also definitely constantly asks themselves what it means to be a human or a person, and they definitely also always ask themselves who they actually are or what makes them"

- me, in denial

[lemonhemlock]

The posts you reblogged about the fantasy elements of ASOIAF and it's comparisons with other fantasy books is so timely because I've been meaning to send you an ask about this very topic. I think a lot of the disconnect between people who unironically stan house targ and see them as the heroes, saviors, having this magical bloodline that makes them better lol vs. the rest of the fandom that clearly....does not is because of the series itself and how it is viewed within the genre.

So, I do believe that this is obviously a fantasy series and has been marketed as such, but what Martin ended up actually producing in the five books he published is basically a grimdark, edgy historical fiction series with some magical/low fantasy elements. I fundamentally see ASOIAF as a historical fiction work in the realm of The Accursed Kings, or even Phillippa Gregory if we want to get low brow lol, just WAY more gritty and with fantasy/magical elements thrown in as plot devices to spice the story up and to also prop up the greater socio-political and human family drama that is the true center of the story.

I know people say that the magical elements i.e. Bran's importance, the fight against the others, prophecy, etc. will be ramped up and gain more importance in the last two books....but Martin hasn't written them? So I'm not gonna judge this series based on unwritten material and the fandom's headcanons as to how or why this magic will be supposedly important. Martin's most magical figure, Bran, has some of the least chapters and hasn't had a chapter in two decades lmao. Fire and Blood, outside of dragon riding and some witchy characters, is pretty much historical fiction as well with very few and sparse magic to speak of.

I don't mind this at all, because I find the historical fiction and human drama vastly more interesting and have always been neutral at best re fantasy as a genre. But anyway, I think this is why there is such a gap between the subsections of the fandom because some are purely analyzing this as a magical series where it's really historical fiction with low magic/fantasy elements.

I kind of agree with some of your points, but I tend to look at it a little differently. I do agree about it generally being low fantasy, with plans to pump up the fantastical elements in the last two books. And, honestly, I sympathize with your take on just having five books published and being unable to judge a series based on plans that haven't seen the light of day yet. I think that's a reason for these heated debates, namely that we've been left in a pretty awkward point in the plot - the magical elements are ramping up, but still haven't been placed at the very fore, the majority of the Westerosi population either don't believe magic exists (anymore) or that it's pretty irrelevant to their daily lives etc,

...which in turn makes the political machinations stand out, more than they do in many other fantasy works.

On the whole, though, I would argue against calling it historical fiction, as the narrative takes place in a realm that doesn't exist, with a climate that would be impossible on planet Earth, with unexplainably stagnant technology.

I also don't really interpret ASOIAF as grimdark. Again, it's a tempting assessment to make based on the awkward point we are in the narrative now, but I don't think the progression of the series is going to be Nolan's-Batman-gritty. I think that we're fully in deconstruction mode right now, but that the ultimate goal is to pick the pieces back up together and build something better and more hopeful, get to the core of what makes these tropes so transcendent and appealing in the storytelling canon. What does a good king actually mean anyway? Why do we yearn for chivalry and courtly romance? Why do we keep coming back to these kinds of stories, why are we so attracted to the medieval aesthetic that makes all of this possible? What does it truly mean to be a hero? How can we genuinely help our fellow man? How does hope prevail when we are faced with the horrors of this world and the otherworld? Essentially, what does it mean to be human, which is the best and highest theme one can explore through the medium of writing.

[sporesgalaxy]

hii there!! i hope u dont mind me asking but like. okay im also really really looking to go into biology- mainly because i love the study of life/organisms so much, and ultimately i'd love to become a paleontologist... however, looking at most of the tracks in colleges (which i've already signed up for), a lot of math and chemistry are involved. i Really struggle with these subjects so i want to ask, if you happen to have any knowledge- are these really intense or as daunting as they seem? i dont see myself doing any sort of job that involves like.. complex algebra equations (im aware things like statistics are important), but i know i've got to get through some of these to do what i want in life. ty if you have any info and ive loooved ur recent bio posts im eating them like an anteater

Well! Unfortunately, I don't have an easy answer for you. It really depends on the teacher you get, how the cirriculum is covered, and why you struggled with these subjects.

It might be a good idea to check out the ratemyprofessor entries for the prof.s teaching these subjects at the school(s) you're looking at, to try and get an idea if they're teavhing style could work for you.

I'll tell you what my experience was like as someone who struggled with those subjects too, and hopefully it will give you a better idea of what to expect.

I struggled with math throughout elementary, middle, and high school because of undiagnosed ADHD and anxiety. I often found myself thinking that I'd be doing better if I didn't have to do so manh repetetive problems.

I found my college math classes to be much more manageable by comparison. My professors tended to assign fewer repetetive questions, and there was more variety in the way concepts were applied, which kept me engaged with the work so I wasn't constantly losing my train of thought. But there are a lot of other professors in the world, so that may not be the case everywhere.

Another game changer for me was that many college math professors OFFER PARTIAL CREDIT. If I set everything up properly but pressed the wrong button on my calculator, many professors I had would consider my answer MOSTLY correct.

ALSO: All the math classes I had to take allowed (specific types of) calculators on the exams. I suck ass at basic multiplication but I can set up a hugeass equation like a CHAMP so that was a HUGE help for me.

A lot of math in biology is used for statistics and for determining how things are changing when you study them. I generally found the math needed for biology (and physics) easier to understand than more abstract algebraic equations because I could apply it to real-world situations and intuit approximately what would happen from my own experience. i.e. an exponentially increasing population... the curve looks the way it does on a graph because there are more reproductive individuals reproducing each generation, so the line will go up by a greater amount eith each unit of time that passes. Sorry I couldn't think of a clearer example.

I only took one chemistry class in high school, which I struggled in, and I unfortunately continued to struggle in college. I'm still not entirely sure what didn't click with me, to be honest. It just felt like I could never quite grasp all the factors and rules in my mind at once. It may have been anxiety, which I could only have solved by medicating myself sooner or exposure therapy via a lot more studying (didn't happen because I tend to avoid my stressors compulsively).

I had to retake all but one chemistry class that was required for my degree. I was never quite sure if the professors for summer chem classes just clicked with me more, or if going over the material a second time was what I needed. Once again though, you may be able to recieve partial credit in chem classes. In my experience, chemistry classes were more test-focused than homework-focused, and I often found myself wishing I had more homework to practice on, so finding additional study resources may be your best bet. I used Chemistry Libretexts a lot...

BUT ON THE FLIPSIDE: I had to retake, like, 3 different chemistry classes. I STILL GOT MY DEGREE THOUGH! I sucked a bit but I survived it! Keeping high grades in your electives can help keep your gpa where the college requires it to be for you to graduate.

[melodioustear]

January Research Progress

It's been a slow start to the year, but as term officially starts today I wanted to do an update on how things are going (I don't follow terms, I work 12mths a year, but sometimes it's nice to use them as milestones).

Currently I'm working on two main targets ahead of my next supervision in mid February, which are: 1. General reading - especially trying to get some disability studies in my brain right now. 2. Planning my survey on fanfiction & Madness habits of fans. I'll be honest - I don't feel like I've made enough progress with either. I've been reading very slowly, and only last week did I manage to get some planning done on the survey. So I think my plan is to start doing my best to buckle down and get the survey planned out.

Right now what I have is a list of topics that I want to get data on. These aren't fully planned out with formalised questions etc yet - nor even clear as to what format I want the responses in (e.g. multiple choice vs open text response etc). But I think it's a pretty good overview of the things I'm aiming to gather. Here's the list as it stands: General - Demographic data re: Madness (i.e. how many people identify as some sort of Mad) - Demographic data re: disability, and whether they view their Madness as disability if they have ticked both (this may need a 'kind of' response, as I know I'm on the fence with that) - General demographic data such as race, gender, sexuality - for comparison to general population and giving more options for using the data in the future. Fanfic Practices - Does it matter to you if fanfic about Madness is Mad-authored? - Do you think it makes a difference if fanfic about Madness is Mad-authored? - Have you ever written fanfiction about Madness? - If so, and you are Mad, did you write about your own Madness? - Do you read fanfiction about Madness? - If so, and you are Mad, do you read about your own Madness? - How do you find Madfic - likely multiple choice with options like tags, naturally/scrolling, recs, following authors etc. - How, if at all, has reading Madfic benefitted you? - How, if at all, has reading Madfic harmed you? - Previous two questions, but for writing! - What do you wish authors did differently in Madfic? - What's good about Madfic? - Do you feel the AO3 manages tags around Madness well? E.g. how do you feel about the existence of tags such as "<Character> is SO OCD". There are a few caveats here - firstly a reminder that whilst I use the term Mad(ness), I don't expect everyone to and you should use the terms that suit you! I will likely write the survey using the term mental illness purely to make it more accessible to a wider audience, but with the note that people should consider it to be whatever they prefer. Secondly, this is VERY much a draft, and as I say not representative of wording. The past couple of questions especially are ones I'm not 100% sure on. I kind of want to know, but it might also just be beyond the scope of this survey - which I want to focus on fanfic practices more than anything? But hopefully that gives some insight into what I'm interested in. Now that I've got my ideas down, I want to go through other fan surveys/studies and look at how they've done things, from question wording to the way they manage their data sets (I want mine to be open data, so that others can study it), or what they use form wise. Start to think about those sort of things. Which is a lot, but I just want to get as far as possible before my supervision. I'm very open to comments from people with experience in fan surveys, just bearing in mind this is as I say a very early draft. I know wording of questions is super important and I'm hoping to improve my questions a lot. Or recs of good surveys to look at for examples!

Either way, hope this has been interesting & offered insight into the study I'm going to do.

[sensoryloss]

@fnordseer5

There is no simple answer, but being prepared is better than not being prepared, assuming you want to live. taking this opportunity to go into my thoughts a little bit, so please understand that this is a stream of consciousness speculation that’s as hyperbolic as it is sincere, based on my understanding of what I’m seeing.

Linking Praxis is idealistic: the reality of Praxis is that unless it’s makeup consists of some players of the current financial structure that’s in place, it is ultimately a target because it is competition. As far as I’m concerned, this whole decryption scenario is a race to the finish line and whoever gets there first wins the world, with outcomes being reliant on everything that happens between now and then. Praxis stands as a competitor, and it’s not so much whether “you” make it to “Praxis,” but that some continuation of you makes it somewhere, i.e. create your own “Praxis” suited to your needs. I don’t think there is any means of fully avoiding unless you’re somewhere with the infrastructure in place to brace for it, which would not be anywhere heavily populated that relies on an untrustworthy source for its energy and other resources. Cities are currently productivity farms, soon to be militarized zones and future mass casualty sites: I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near them. Powergrid “issues” are going to be a mixture of different reasons over time, from damage caused by natural disaster, terrorism, increased mining efforts/higher population density (plus the matter of updating it to accommodate), purposeful shutoffs to inhibit mining efforts, targeted shutoffs in attempt to stop tech progress, revolving around the environmental crisis narrative to justify the outages and a full rework of the energy infrastructure, running back the Maui playbook wherever it’s deemed necessary and using the same excuse for the catastrophe: “old, faulty wiring that should’ve been replaced decades ago.”

The timeline of the earth being on fire has already started, and the idea is to not be near new ignition points and avoid being where it spreads, wherever that may be. I think they’ll target the South first, dry up the swamplands into the woodlands, then burn everyone out up to Appalachia then eventually carry it up the rest of East Coast. The blackouts and fires will probably be localized and intermittent, eventually becoming broad and constant, and obviously the sooner you start positioning yourself the better off you are. Bitcoin will be gatekept by virtue of being “old, outdated, and a weaker bet” in comparison to memetic hyperfinancialization that yields 1000x returns in a matter of days/weeks and also happens to be a picture of a silly animal. I used “Dogecoin” because it’s easily recognizable to people with minimal knowledge of the space, and I’m using it as a catch all term in reference to memecoins as a whole, which provide the bizarre opportunity to make money off of the bullshit jokes that WE created by moving wealth out of the pockets of venture capitalists trying to catch the trend, and how when it’s done correctly you can walk away with money to carry on for another generation or two, assuming everything stayed the same, which we know it won’t. If the funding strategy outlined in the post is correct and is in place, which as far as I can tell it is, that is your blueprint to follow because it’s what’s happening in the background regardless of your participation: fiat->memecoins->fiat/bitcoin->bitcoin/physical assets. You either choose the opportunity in front of you or keep searching in hopes for another to appear in time for you to be sufficiently “ready,” and with the way life works, the time you think you have isn’t guaranteed, and it’s up to you to do something while you can, if not for yourself, for everyone you love and their continuity. It’s cliche, but again, we have no clue what exponential growth looks like, so accurately defining a timeline of when it happens or what comes first isn’t as important as recognizing what’s happening this very moment and start building a safety net.

Keep in mind, I’m not making money off of *you* participating, I’m making money off of the *collective* participating, namely the hundreds of multimillionaire VCs and the dozens of crypto exchanges who come in and buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tokens in one clip, along with everyone who buys in late, chasing the trend thats already proven to be successful by trending in the first place, a trend that you should’ve already been in on based on the fact that you are online and

you are already in on it

yet unaware as to what exists just outside your field of view. Pepe went to THREE BILLION DOLLARS, if you bought at 10million, that’s 300x it’s value, and if we don’t understand what that means still, it means that if you put in $100, you just turned it into $30k. Imagine you buy a token at $100k, it forms a community, works it’s way to $1mil. That’s 10x, and when a coin proves itself relevant and can generate cash flow for an exchange to make money off of, they will buy a large portion for listing so their existing userbase can buy it through their platform and the exchange can collect fees. when the circles who have big money catch wind that additional bigger money is moving in, they frontrun the news and buy before them, or simply create the conditions for the bigger money to take interest to begin with, creating additional better conditions for normies to trust the token and big money who missed their entrance to do the same. Now imagine that token you held to $1mil gets 50 people buying $20k a piece, it’s $2mil now, your previous $100->$1k is now $1k->2k, before the exchanges ever bought in. Now imagine there’s people out there who track wallets and copy the trade since there’s clearly something about to happen and push it to $5mil, just before the exchanges swoop in and send it to $50mil. Congratulations on the $50k. Under the right conditions market-wide, this is something that can happen day after day after day for weeks and weeks and weeks on coin after coin after coin, which is what creates this “up only” “there is no top” narrative because it just doesn’t stop, until it does, and to reiterate, you want to be in before all of this, if not just for this reason alone, but because of the short-term scenario that could be currently unfolding.

The banks are now offering investing options to TradFi that allows them to invest without moving their money out of the banks. bitcoin/eth recently reached their previous all time high in value as this came to into play, and the price dropping recently showed weakness in the market. TradFi sees this, and TradFi hates crypto, so they idea is that they want to short the market and make money off of crypto’s failure under the notion that crypto markets are only up because the banks showed up and now “the real investors” are here. what they fail to understand is the baffling amount of money that’s been made in crypto by people that’ve been in the space for a decade or more, or the ones who made theirs through Silk Road, people who have all the incentive in the world to keep crypto going and even more incentive to send it higher, people who recognize the old ways are dying and this new tech will be the underlying infrastructure for systems globally.

My speculation is that the early bitcoin buyers and a lot of the people that’ve made it so far are going to pile on with everything they have to buy into and long the market to ruin every TradFi investor who bets against them, and once it’s clear that this upward movement is far from over, these people who lost significant amounts of money will begin revenge trading the parabola in attempt to make it back, because the amount of money flowing through will make it seem as though there is no top to the market, at which point everyone who caught the entirety of the move up will begin selling, thoroughly liquidating old money and facilitating a generational wealth transfer.

“They will never let this happen.”

“They” are dying out, it is a fact of life, that’s what we do here, we come and go. However, the other “they” (brazilians), have incentive to let this happen, the same way they had incentive to kill off a large population of the elderly during Covid so they could cut the disability costs + make money off every person put on a ventilator or developed complications from the vaccine “long Covid,” not the mention the literal billions of dollars made per company on the vaccine itself. brazilians understand that significant sacrifice induces significant change, and the globalized financial system strived for is achieved through crypto because it’s fast, efficient, low cost, global, and traceable in most instances. You are told it’s a failure and only used by scammers and criminals because brazilians don’t want you involved before the control architecture is thoroughly established. The people already involved are a direct threat to them for the time being, ie there is now a decentralized pseudo-anonymous contender to the existing financial structure, but the reality is whatever entity figures out how to crack the seed phrases that grant access to everyone’s crypto wallets, and when/if that happens, the wealth transfer will begin again, by force, in the “opposite direction,” or better put, in the direction of whatever entity has the tech to facilitate the hack, while crypto itself is also the means to justify that end.

Currently, there is significant AI technology being introduced to medicine/pharmacology as a whole, particularly in regards to genomic studies. Brazil has been working diligently on this to genetically modify the Red Heifer into existence so they can bruteforce biblical prophecy and reconstruct the Third Temple, and they’re engineering this into reality via AI assisted stem cell research which of course is funded by Brazil through Planned Parenthood (and the porn industry (OnlyFans and MindGeek owners are brazilian which aids in funding Planned Parenthood (which aids in trafficking)) as a perfect scientific cover for why they have a surplus of baby parts on hand thanks to the Epstello/Maxwello deepgov hotdog walnut sauce blackmail project which will literally never ever be opened or investigated in a way that actually matters because what they’re attempting is far too important for the continued evolution of humanity beyond the scope of what we know, kinda like whatever happens when we put a more sophisticated AI model into a synthetic humanoid analogue birthed from a test tube. Maybe one day the brazilians can’t tell the difference between humanity and their own creation and decide it’s time to start over (scorched earth retreat), maybe that’s our current reality as the extraterrestrial parasite of consciousness evolves it’s host to achieve that end through a well orchestrated financial slavery aimed at stripping the planet of its resources, and we’re at the point where we don’t let that happen, or we accelerate. I sort of think that whatever inhabited our ancestors is what we are building towards; consciousness bringing forth an artificial intelligence through an ouroboros-esque machine operating under capitalism as a fundamental law of physics that eventually creates a position of self-sustainability that can then be inhabited and manipulated within itself, without outside influence or need for the former host.

anyway, if tossing in a couple hundred dollars, a couple thousand dollars -more, less, whatever- if the investment means hope for the future and is a minimal cost to you now, you take it because you have the foresight to know that your position is going to dramatically increase in value, you want to be getting in before the people who also see it as hope for the future en masse and will do anything to secure it. You can buy Doge for 12¢ a coin now or you can buy it at $1.20 in x number of months, but understand I’ll be selling at $12 a piece when people are pawning family heirlooms and taking out loans they can never pay back to buy a digital representation of a dead dog in attempt to escape rapidly increasing financial turmoil, landing them in a lineage-long slavery if they aren’t outright gassed and liquidated by NWO digi-dollar loan sharks or butchered and sold for parts beforehand by people who want the silly doggiecoin more. When the famines start and all those friendly new faces we’ve imported year after year after year start getting hungry alongside everyone else that was already here, do not be surprised by the methods used or the lengths taken by millions of people attempting to live through a mass starvation event (Day Z): a self-inflicted apocalypse facilitated through their participation in a Rube Goldberg style hyperfinancialized memetic ponzi enslavement ritual, the proper method of treatment for nonbrazilians in accordance with brazilian law. This is not financial advice, this is survival.

BILLIONS. MUST. BUY.

imagine an endless feedback loop of funding created in attempt to push tech development as fast as possible to make new hardware that mines bitcoin more efficiently as it gets more difficult over time, on top of an effort by the same group to purposefully make it more difficult to mine in general which necessitates further development of better hardware, and the revenue through sales and the speculation on the product goes into bitcoin which makes the rest of the crypto market (the computing infrastructure developing the tech to mine the bitcoin) with the end goal being something powerful enough to crack the SHA256 encryption that makes up the private keys needed to access a bitcoin wallet in order to take everything when it’s worth the most after the population is onboarded by force through globalized banking after turning your money worthless through hyperinflation and reworking the world’s economy into a standardized UBI CBDC while *you* eat the bugs, live in the pod, and “be happy” while they induce + declare a climate crisis, lock everyone inside, shut off the power, set the planet on fire, and leave the rest of humanity to burn alive while they carry on to other worlds or die during their exit attempt, assuming *you* live to see it because *you* will likely be starved out or LOIC’d early on because *you* didn’t make enough money in time to get out before they started stripmining your neighborhood without warning, effectively ending your bloodline, all because *you* decided not to buy dogecoin.

[toovirgins]

I stumbled across this comment on YouTube earlier—and at first I was like haha nice but then I actually thought about it and I think there’s a really interesting opportunity for mclennon conspiracy discourse here. (yay!)

Under a cut because it’s a bit lengthy.

Nowhere Boy (2009) with Aaron Taylor Johnson and Thomas Brody Sangster: In this film about early John and his path to the Beatles, there are (arguably) new, nuanced details about his familial life and childhood/background that haven’t typically been conveyed in prior film portrayals of Lennon—and this “new, nuanced” bit comes from reading reviews and hearing comments about how many people watching the film (what I would consider, like, a “general population” of Beatles fans) didn’t even know about the details of his mother’s death. In the film, there’s a scene where Paul’s playing Julia’s banjo, and long story short John gets in a fight with someone and tosses the banjo and storms out. Paul follows him out there and he punches Paul in the face, who goes crumbling to the concrete. So, that’s the “punching scene”. The point is, Paul McCartney reportedly made it very clear that that never happened (i.e., that John had never hit him) after he saw the film and was not happy about it. (I’ve heard this “not happy about [the film]” narrative over and over, but I can’t seem to find any great direct quotes from Paul, other than people saying that Paul wasn’t a fan and suggesting he wasn’t happy about certain other portrayals [lol]- so if anyone has any, I’d love to hear about it!). Essentially, in response, Taylor Johnson tried to defend the emotional validity of the film and suggested, like, well we think John probably wanted to hit Paul a lot of the time, and the movie is just activating an interpretation of that. But, yeah, the point was that Paul was pissed about the punch scene and was reportedly very adamant that John never, ever hit him. And it’s not as though Paul had issues with the violence of it, because if it was that, why would he discuss it as an inaccuracy? Is there a nicer way to punch someone in the face? And, that would be completely neglecting the 0.2 seconds later when John realizes what he’s done and pulls Paul into a tight hug, which forms a very beautiful street shot of one morphed being shortly thereafter (side note: creative decision meant to emphasize the oneness in their bond of losing their mothers? anyway).

Two of Us (2000) television drama with Jared Harris and Aidan Quinn: First off, I feel like it’s worth mentioning that this is directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg (who is also the director of Let it Be (1970), so... guy who spend hours upon hours with and watching the Beatles?). In this movie, there’s an elevator scene where John and Paul are messing around, cracking jokes and getting in a playfight and whatnot, and in the midst of it all John kisses him. After a couple of seconds, Paul pushes him off and doesn’t say anything for a moment. Then, he just makes a joke (”Just ‘cause Yoko’s away doesn’t mean you have to stop brushing your teeth”) and they laugh it off. Contrary to Nowhere Boy, Paul rather liked Two of Us as remarked on by Aidan Quinn in an interview on April 18, 2004: “Just after I finished the film, I went on holiday and Paul McCartney was staying at the same place. I met him and we became quite friendly. Later, he saw the film and fortunately he liked it. It would have been terrible if he'd hated it.” It appears that Paul is very complimentary of Two of Us - hence, the joke in the fandom that like “paul likes the kissing scene”. Paul hasn’t said anything about the kiss directly that I can find (sus in and of itself), but there’s been reasonable arguments made for the validity of the scene in that all of the other portrayals of John and Paul in the film are so accurate and realistic and truthful (see: Martin Lewis quote)—why would this detail be any different?

We could analyze these films and creative decisions separately and in comparison for hours and hours, but I find the McCartney responses a particular area of interest. Because don’t we think if Paul was adamant about setting the narrative straight on things that did or didn’t happen between him and John, and if he wanted to continue to push his ever-insistent narrative of ‘John wasn’t gay bc if he was he would’ve made a pass at me (or someone else) in 20 years’, he would also want to make it very well-known that the kissing scene didn’t happen either? With the same level of insistence? Though the movies themselves aren’t reduced to these two polarized scenes, is it not worth considering why Paul chose to speak out about one, but not the other? If it was an issue of setting the record straight (no pun intended), would Paul not wish to exercise the same amount of caution with kissing scenes as with fighting scenes, especially given what we know about how he has typically viewed and discussed sexuality? 

Or, could it possibly be that the kissing scene—in its presentation of playfighting, spontaneity, a brief moment of confusion and realization, then laughed off and construed as a joke—isn’t an inaccuracy?

[benevolentbirdgal]

A “brief” reference guide to modern Jewish denominations / Jewish Writing Advice / Jewish Identity / Jewish Reference Guide [graphic at bottom]

Writing a Jew or Jewish family? Aware that Judaism is not a monolith and want to honor that? Great! Need help with that? 100% cool - I’m here as your friendly (virtual) neighborhood Jewish professional to help. Just want to know more about Jewish denominations in comparison to one another? Also great! Fair warning - this is a long one. At least I included a graphic at the bottom?

Quick notes to acknowledge: As always, this is an American and Americanish perspective (and denominations as discussed here are MOSTLY relevant in the U.S. anyways). Additionally, the modern denominations as we think of them today really sprung from Ashkenazi communities in the 19th and 20th centuries. Most extant U.S. synagogues, day schools, and groups follow Ashkenazi customs and align with a denomination born of Ashkenazi tradition (aligning with the approximately 90% of Jewish-Americans who are Ashkenazi or Ashkenazi plus another community). Sephardi, Mizrachi, and other Jewish communities have their own traditions and jurisprudence. Most organized non-Ashkenazi communities in the U.S. identify as nondenominational but most closely compare in practice to orthodoxy, and many non-Ashkenazi Jews (especially outside of major population centers that may have other specific subgroup’s synagogues) are members of and very involved in Ashkenazi-originating movements, institutions, and synagogues. 

For the purpose’s of today’s discussion, we’ll start in the 19th century, because Karaites vs Pharisees vs Sadducees is a (his)story for another time. This also isn’t a history of how these denominations came to be-with the exception of some ultraorthodox groups, which may have sprung from the shtel a little earlier, all the below movements popped out of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I’m also going to list approximate percentage of the American Jewish population, and I’m going to (kinda) go in order from most to least strict/traditionally observant. 

Ultraorthodox (aka Haredi): The strictest, more traditional and expansive observance of the Torah, Talmud, and minhagim (customs). About 1% of American Jews are ultraorthodox. Ultraorthodox is not a unified movement. 

1a. Haredi, Satmar, and most other groups generally isolate themselves from the wider Jewish world and secular world.

1b. Chabad is also ultraorthodox, but specially seeks to interact with less observant Jews. I wouldn’t call it proselytizing, because they don’t seek to make gentiles Jewish, but they do try and find less observant Jews and bring them closer to Judaism, also establishes small synagogues around the country and world in isolated place. 

1c. Ultraorthodox are the most visibly Jewish attired group, wearing Kippahs for all men and boys and tichels (headscarves) and/or wigs for married women. Very modest attire for all. In Ashkenazi Ultraorthodox communities, men also tend to only wear black and white, hats in addition to their kippah (for grown and married men), and wearing tzitzit (a garmet with four corners with strings attached worn under a shirt with the threads sticking out). 

1d. Most likely to speak Yiddish or Hebrew as first language.

1e. No gender equality, very strict kosher, and intense community adherence to particular brand of Judaism.

1f. Communities generally led by a Rabbi and a Rebbetzin (Rabbi’s wife) as pair (rabbis are generally expected to be married).

1g. No female Rabbis, same-sex marriage, or intermarriage. Lots of children. Pretty much all boys have Bar Mitzahs, rarely do girls have Bat Mitzvahs. 

1h. Services entirely in Hebrew (except maybe the sermon).

1i. Only count matrilineal Jews and converts-Jewish father and gentile mother doesn’t count for them. 

1j. Very strict observance of prohibitions and commandments pertaining to Shabbat and holidays. 

Modern orthodox: Orthodox, but with some adaptations to modern life. Roughly 9% of American Jews. Also some division within modern orthodoxy (with some congregations being more liberal than others, particularly in regards to women and LGBTQ+ folks), but there are a couple of major organizations that most modox rabbis and congregations affiliate with one another through larger denomination movements (i.e. the Orthodox Union and the Rabbinical Council of America). 

2a. Modern orthodox Jews regularly interact with other Jews who are more liberal. They tend to live in more Jewish communities but no issues with interacting with outside world.

2b. Modest clothing and men wear kippot everywhere (when safe). Married women also usually cover their hair (with wigs or tichels). Men also typically wear tzitzit. 

2b. Gender roles, but progress being made. Handful of female rabbis emerging in 2010s/2020s. Whether women count in a minyan depends on the specific congregation and many modern orthodox shuls will have separate women’s prayer groups. The prevalence of Bat Mitzvahs also varies wildly congregation to congregation.

2c. Like ultraorthodox, communities are typically led by a Rabbi and his wife the Rebbetzin. Some acceptance of homosexual individuals as members of the community, but no same-sex marriage (some alternate ceremonies emerging). Like one out gay male rabbi. No intermarriage.

2d. Very strict adherence to kosher, would likely not eat at someone less kosher’s home.

2e. Usually have on the higher end of a “normal” amount of children. Services entirely in Hebrew (except sermon).

2f. Only count matrilineal Jews and converts-Jewish father and gentile mother doesn’t count for them.

Less traditionally observant than this is often known as “liberal Judaism” - around 90% of American Jews.

2g.  Very strict observance of prohibitions and commandments pertaining to Shabbat and holidays. 

Conservative: Brands itself as middle of the road Jewish movement. about 18% of the American Jewish population. No connection to conservative politics, most Conservative with a C Jews are liberal or moderate politically. Often called “Masorti” outside the U.S and hypothetically a unified movement under several connected organizations (i.e. the Masorti Olami and the Jewish Theological Seminary). 

3a. Gender equality. Female rabbis and LGBTQ rabbis definitely an acceptable thing, but not as common as with Reform or Reconstructionist. 

3b. Formally sanctioned ceremony for same-sex couples to wed under Jewish law since 2012 and affirmation ceremonies since 2006.

3c. Modesty in synagogues but comparable to regular American attire otherwise.

3d. Generally comparable family size to other American families.

3e. Kosher, but not as strict as orthodoxy. Many Conservative Jews have kosher homes but are willing to be more lax when eating out. Synagogues are always kosher.

3f. Services mostly in Hebrew, sermons and some prayers definitely in local language.

3g. Intermarriage is frowned upon, but many otherwise Conservative Jews will be married by a less traditional rabbi or justice of the peace to non-Jewish partners. Although Conservative rabbis do not perform interfaith marriages, many interfaith couples are in Conservative synagogues. In the 90s/2000s it was way less friendly to interfaith couples/families (laughs in having a goyish dad) but that has improved in the past 3-5 years substantially. 

3h. Observance of prohibitions and commandments pertaining to Shabbat and holidays is regulated but less strict than orthodoxy. Varies a bit by community. A good example to illustrate this is getting to synagogue on Shabbat:

By the book (not necessarily reflected by attendees): Orthodoxy says you have to walk there (no driving), Reform says it’s no issue to drive on Shabbat, and Conservative says you can drive but only to get to shul and back. 

3i. As with orthodoxy, only matrilineal Jews count. Most interfaith families with non-Jewish moms (or moms who converted post-birth of the kid), particularly those who want to participate in Conservative communities will convert the child as a baby so they can have a normal Jewish upbringing (beyond an extra blessing/prayer in the Bnai Mitzvah process and social awkwardness that oft accompanies interfaith families in Jewish spaces).

3j. Most dress comparably to others in geographic area (synagogue notwithstanding, see my other post). Men on the higher end of observant might also wear kippahs all the time as well. Outside of explicitly Jewish contexts, similar lifestyles to surrounding populations. Around the same number of children as in gentile families. 

Reform: Not at all traditionally observant. About 35% of American Jews. More or less a cohesive movement linked by organizations (i.e. Women of Reform Judaism and the Union for Reform Judaism).

4a. Reform Judaism is the largest group. It generally views Judaism through the lens of social justice, repairing the world, and cultural heritage as opposed to religious mandate. 

4b. Very big on personal choice in what one observes, I like to call it “choose your own adventure” Judaism. 

4c. Keeping kosher is uncommon. Some shuls aren’t even kosher.

4d. Reform services use the least Hebrew, although this is changing in some places. 

4e. Reform’s standard of Jewishness is 1+ Jewish parent(s) and raised doing Jewish things, regardless of which parent is Jewish. 

4f. Very feminist/egalitarian and welcoming to LGBTQ+ folks. Highest number of not-straight rabbis and female rabbis. 

4g. Intermarriage very common and can be performed by Reform rabbis. 

4h. Reform Judaism was way ahead of the curve in terms of LGBTQ+ rights and religion. The movement has had members advocating for homosexual rights (protection in housing, employment, civil marriage, and other nondiscrimination protections) since 1965 (finally passing formal resolutions in 1977), began proactively including/welcoming out gay rabbis in 1990, created same-gender marriage Jewish ceremonies in 1996/7, and has made resolutions explicitly including bi and trans people as well since 2004 (stuff earlier than that generally specified “gay and lesbian”). An additional resolution was passed in 2015 regarding trans and nonbinary inclusion, alongside guides to help congregations do so. 

4i. See #3j - also applies here. 

Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform, are the biggest and “standard” movements people will most typically list and identify with, most likely to appear in surveys and studies, are older than everything listed below. Modern Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform all started in the 19th century and some Ultraorthodox groups trace back further than that. I’ve outlined some practical differences, but the basic theoretical difference is that Orthodox considers traditional Jewish law (Halacha) binding and you can’t change it, Conservative believes it it’s binding but the community can change it, and Reform believes that it’s nonbinding. 

Some smaller movements: 

Reconstructionist - Newest even remotely well-known and organized movement, founded in the 1920s as an offshoot of the Conservative movement. I would describe it as “build your own adventure but Halacha matters (or at least some of it).” The first thing almost every recon Jew I’ve ever met has told me when describing reconstructionism is that they invented the bat mitzvah in 1922, which basically translates to “tradition matters but also egalitarianism.”

Maybe 2%-5% of American Jews today self-ID as Reconstructionist, but I would argue that a lot of nondenominal practitioners have philosophies fairly aligned with the recon ethos. 

Jewish Renewal: very small and relatively disorganized movement started in the 1960s. Attempts to bring Jewish tradition and modern sensibilities, hippie Jews who care about Halacha. Big on mysticism and music, doing Jewish enthusiastically, and a tendency towards more traditional observance in conjunction with progressive politics. Kind of the laid-back cousin of reconstructionism, although neither sprung from the other. 

(Cultural) Humanistic Judaism: “Non-theistic” Judaism for atheist Jews who still want a connection to their history, culture, and celebrations. 

Nondenominational - Nondenominational and post-denominational Jews are the fast growing group. Variety of liberal/non-traditionally observant beliefs and practices, but most will still contextualize themselves around the denominational scale.

[snarksandkisses]

What I think about COVID-19 this morning - Malia Jones, PhD, MPH

What I think about COVID-19 this morning

March 5, 2020

 Maybe I'm the closest thing you personally know to an infectious disease epidemiologist. Maybe not--I'm not an expert on this virus by any stretch, but I have general knowledge and training from studying epidemics that is applicable, so here are my thoughts. 

 First and foremost: we are going to see a tremendous increase in the number of US cases of COVID-19 in the next week. This is not because of some new pattern in the spread of the disease, but rather due to a major change in the requirements to be tested. Until yesterday, if you had flulike illness but had not recently traveled to China, Italy, South Korea, or Iran, you could not be tested. This is just the way healthcare works, you get tested if you meet the case definition and the case definition included travel.

 As of yesterday, you can be tested if you are sick and have a doctor's order to be tested. So expect things to feel a lot more panicky all of a sudden. We will see hundreds or thousands of new cases as a result of testing increases.

 Second: is that panic legitimate? Sort of. This is not the zombie apocalypse. The death rate of 30 deaths per 1000 cases is probably a wild overestimate. (The denominator is almost certainly wrong because it is confirmed cases--and we only confirm cases when we test for them). That said, even at 3 per 1000 cases, this would be a big deal. A very big deal. By way of comparison, the death rate for influenza is between 1 and 2 in 1000 cases. So, yeah. Roughly 0x to 30x worse than a huge global flu pandemic? That's a problem.

 Unlike flu, COVID-19 is not *particularly* dangerous for children, so that’s some happy news. It is dangerous for older adults and those with lung conditions, so we need to be extra careful to protect those populations from exposure. 

Also, for millions of Americans, getting any serious illness requiring a hospitalization is a major problem because they can't pay for it. And our health care system is probably going to struggle to keep up with it all. And with China basically closed, our global economy is going to take a huge hit and we'll feel the shockwaves for years. Those are real concerns.

 What can we do? Our focus should be on *slowing down the spread* of this disease so that we have time to get caught up. Here is my advice:

 1. Wash. Your. Hands. Wash them so much.

The current best guess is that coronavirus is transmitted via close contact and surface contamination. A very small study came out yesterday suggesting that the virus causing COVID-19 is *mostly* transmitted via contact with contaminated surfaces.

I have started washing my hands each time I enter a new building and after being in shared spaces (classrooms especially), in addition to the standard practice of washing after using the bathroom and before eating. Soap and water. Hand sanitizer also kills this virus, as does rubbing alcohol (the main ingredient in hand sanitizer).

 There is no need to be obsessive about this. Just wash your hands. A little bit more effort here goes a long way. 

 2. Don’t pick your nose. Or put your fingers in your mouth, on your lips, or in your eyes. Surface contact works like this: you touch something dirty. Maybe it's an elevator button. Virus sticks to your hands. Then you rub your eye. Then you touch your sandwich, and put the sandwich in your mouth. Now there is virus in your eyes and mouth. See?

 You may be thinking, but I don’t pick my nose because I am an adult! An observational study found that people sitting at a desk working touched their eyes, nose, or lips between 3 and 50 times per hour. Perfectly normal grown-ups, not lowlifes like my friends.

 2a. There was one note that came out suggesting that face masks actually promote surface contamination because you're always adjusting them--i.e., touching your face. I don’t know if that’s true. But face masks should not be worn by the public right now, unless you are the person who is sick and you're on your way to or actually at the doctor's office. The mask’s function is to prevent spit from flying out of your mouth and landing on things when you cough or sneeze. It flies out of your mouth and is caught in the mask instead. If you are the person who is sick and not on the way to the doctor, go home. Let the people who really need them have the masks. Like doctors.

 [ETA on 3/6/2020 honestly people I am getting so much push back on the mask recommendation!! The world is running low on masks. If everyone wants a mask so they can feel ok about keeping their Daytona Beach Spring Break plans and then hospitals in India can't buy them anymore, shame on us.]

 Coronavirus does not appear to be airborne in the sense that doesn't remain floating around freely in the air for a long time, like measles does. You are probably not going to breathe it in, unless someone is coughing in front of you. If someone is coughing in your face, feel free to tell them to get their ass home and move 6 feet away from them. (Yeah I know, if you have a toddler, you're screwed.)

 3. Sanitize the objects you and lots of other people touch, especially people outside your family--like door handles, shared keyboards at schools (brrr), salad bar tongs, etc. Best guesses are that the virus can live on surfaces for 2-48 hours, maybe even longer, depending on the surface, temperature, and humidity.

 Many common household cleaning products will kill this virus. However, white vinegar solution does not. You can make your own inexpensive antimicrobial spray by mixing 1 part household bleach to 99 parts cold tap water. Spray this on surfaces and leave for 10-30 minutes. Note: this is bleach. It will ruin your sofa.

 4. "Social distancing." You're going to get so sick of this phrase. This means keeping people apart from one another (preferably 6 feet apart, and sanitizing shared objects). This public health strategy is our next line of defense, and its implementation is what will lead to flights and events cancelled, borders closed, and schools closed.

 For now, you could limit face-to-face meetings, especially large ones. Zoom is an excellent videoconferencing option. If you spend time in shared spaces, see #1. Ask your child's school about their hygiene plan, if they haven't already told you what it is. If I were in charge of a school setting, I'd be hand sanitizing the s*** out of the kids' hands, including in and out of each space, and taking temperatures at the door. I am planning to email our school nurse right after this to ask if they need my volunteer help cleaning surfaces.

 If you can telecommute, do that a little more. If you are someone's boss and they could do their job remotely, encourage them to do that. 

 Avoid large gatherings of people if at all possible, especially if they are in an area with cases OR places that lots of people travel to. If you attend group events and start to feel even a little bit sick within 2 to 14 days, you need to self isolate immediately. Like for a tiny tickle in your throat.

 5. All your travel plans are about to get screwed up. If you are considering booking flights right now, get refundable tickets. ETA: most trip insurance will not cover cancellations due to a pandemic. Look for "cancel for any reason" trip insurance. 

 Considerations for risks related to that trip you’re planning: how bad would it be if you got stuck where you are going for 3 to 6 weeks? How bad would it be to be isolated at home for 2-3 weeks upon your return? Do you have direct contact with people who are over 70 and/or have lung conditions? If those seem really bad to you, rethink your trip, especially if it is to a location where there are confirmed cases. 

 6. If you are sick, stay home. Please! For the love of all that is holy. Stay at home. Your contributions to the world are really just not that important.

 7. There is a good chance some communities will see school cancelled and asked to limit non-essential movement. If someone in your family gets sick your family will almost certainly be isolated for 2-3 weeks (asked to stay at home). You could start stocking up with essentials for that scenario, but don't run out and buy a years' worth of toilet paper. Again, not the apocalypse. 2 weeks' worth of essential items. Refill any prescriptions, check your supply of coffee, kitty litter, and jigsaw puzzles.

 8. I do want to remind everyone that when public health works, the result is the least newsworthy thing ever: nothing happens. If this all fizzles out and you start feeling like ‘Wah, all that fuss for nothing??’ Then send a thank-you note to your local department of public health for a job well done. Fingers crossed for that outcome.

 9. Look, I think there are some positives here. All this handwashing could stop flu season in its tracks! We have an opportunity to reduce our global carbon footprint by telecommuting more, flying less, and understanding where our stuff comes from. We can use this to think about the problems with our healthcare system. We can use this to reflect on our positions of privilege and implicit biases. We can start greeting each other using jazz hands. I'm genuinely excited about those opportunities.

 There is a lot we don't yet know about this virus. It didn't even exist 90 days ago. So stay tuned, it is an evolving situation. The WHO website has a decent FAQ. Free to email or text with questions, and you can forward this to others if you think it's useful.

 May the force be with you. 

 Malia Jones, PhD, MPH

maliajones@gmail.com

 I’m an Assistant Scientist in Health Geography at the Applied Population Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I study social contact of humans, and spatial patterns of infectious disease, among other things. 

   P.S. The number one question I am getting is, did you really write this? Yes. I wrote this. 

 I didn't write it for professional purposes, so I didn't put my work email on it. It was really just meant to be an email to my friends and family in advance of what I expect to be an escalation in the panic level. But it was apparently welcome information and went viral on FB. I've decided not to edit out the swears, even though I wrote this with a much smaller audience in mind. 

 Thanks for checking your facts! Go science! 

[theoutcastrogue]

Great job compiling and comparing them!

I think that the Comics Code Authority was worse if we only take into account how much it affected the industry, i.e. American comics. It basically killed all other genres, left only superheroes floating, and kept the entire medium infantile for a generation. If you're interested in comics as an art form, it's a horrifying result.

But if we widen our view a bit, and take into account their impact on society at large, I think dumbing down the movies was much worse. Movies were indeed in the process of critiquing the establishment, and they were doing it effectively (prison films are my favourite example on this), and then the Hays Code came along and they stopped, and to a large extent public opinion followed. (In comparison, when comics critiqued the establishment before the CCA stifled them, it reached a lot less people, and didn't have enough sway to move public opinion, I think.) That's not only an artistic disaster, it's a devastating result even if you don't give a shit about art!

I also want to comment on this from the Hays Code:

Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, et cetera (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron); (I guess the idea was that the MPPDA believed very strongly in the idea that media could affect people's behavior through imitation, but the use of the word "moron" gives me eugenics vibes.)

So the vibe here is a pattern that predates cinema, and first appears with respectable people complaining about the theatre (back when theatre was for the masses, and not considered highbrow like now), and opining that books MAY depict crime or immoral acts, because by definition they address educated people, ergo smart people. Whereas plays should NOT, because they address the base unwashed masses, poor uneducated people who are not equipped to engage critically with the material, and might get ideas in their head! And start doing crime and immoral acts!

“In the penny theatres that abound in the poor and populous districts of London, and which are chiefly frequented by striplings of idle and dissolute habits, tales of thieves and murderers are more admired, and draw more crowded audiences, than any other species of representation. There the footpad, the burglar, and the highwayman are portrayed in unnatural colours, and give pleasant lessons in crime to their delighted listeners. There the deepest tragedy and the broadest farce are represented in the career of the murderer and the thief, and are applauded in proportion to their depth and their breadth. There, whenever a crime of unusual atrocity is committed, it is brought out afresh, with all its disgusting incidents copied from the life, for the amusement of those who will one day become its imitators. With the mere reader the case is widely different; and most people have a partiality for knowing the adventures of noted rogues. Even in fiction they are delightful: witness the eventful story of Gil Blas de Santillane, and of that great rascal Don Guzman d'Alfarache. Here there is no fear of imitation. Poets, too, without doing mischief, may sing of such heroes when they please, wakening our sympathies for the sad fate of Gilderoy, or Macpherson the Dauntless; or celebrating in undying verse the wrongs and the revenge of the great thief of Scotland, Rob Roy.” — Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Exrtaordinary Popular Delusions (London, 1841), from the chapter “Popular admiration of great thieves”

This exact rationale will reappear in 1915 in an American Supreme Court decision (since overturned), which decreed that Freedom of Speech does not apply to movies (or apparently "the theatre, the circus, and all other shows and spectacles"), but only to the press:

[Films] may be used for evil ... the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption... a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to.

See, books and newspapers are read by learned men, but anyone can watch a movie, and we must protect these poor impressionable souls from evil! With such a mentality, I think it's glaringly obvious who are the learned ones (white + well-off + men) and who are not (everyone else).

I think the Hays Code uses the word "moron" in the sense of a dated psychology term, it basically meant "of abnormally low IQ". At the time, psychology and criminology were…. bad. Slightly less absurd than Lombroso's heyday (which wasn't that far back!), but still, very bad. So this is 100% eugenics, and a pseudo-scientific new take on an old unfounded prejudice.

…An unfounded prejudice that somehow STILL has hold, today, in the 21st century. What the fuck is up with that? No, engaging with fiction about bad things won't make you do bad things, how many times must we debunk this shit, good grief.

Was the Comics Code as bad as the Hays Code?

That's a really good question!

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "as bad" - are we talking about the overall impact of the Code on American pop culture or are we talking about the actual content of the Code and what it banned and/or mandated in terms of artistic expression?

I've written a little bit about the Hays Code here, but my main focus was on subtextual judaism in Hollywood generally rather than what the Code was and what its impact on American cinema was.

So what did the Hays Code actually include?

One of the few positive things you can say about it is that the men who devised it were quite clear and forthright about what would and wouldn't be allowed, in comparison to the vagueness and inconsistency of the modern MPAA. So here's the list of what couldn't be shown:

Pointed profanity—by either title or lip—this includes the words God, Lord, Jesus, Christ (unless they be used reverently in connection with proper religious ceremonies), Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd, and every other profane and vulgar expression however it may be spelled; (You'll notice that the Code is very much a snapshot of the transition from silent movies to "talkies," with the discussion of how profanity is spelled as well as produced via "lip.")

Any licentious or suggestive nudity—in fact or in silhouette; and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters in the picture;

The illegal traffic in drugs;

Any inference of sex perversion; (i.e anything having to do with LGBT+ people and culture. For more on the impact of the Hays Code on the LGBT+ community, see the excellent documentary the Celluloid Closet.)

White slavery; (the 1920s version of sex trafficking, but with added racism!)

Miscegenation;

Sex hygiene and venereal diseases;

Scenes of actual childbirth—in fact or in silhouette;

Children's sex organs;

Ridicule of the clergy;

Willful offense to any nation, race or creed; and (this one was really honored in the breach more than the observance when it came to nations, races, and creeds of non-dominant groups in society.)

The following things could be shown, but "special care be exercised in the manner in which the following subjects are treated, to the end that vulgarity and suggestiveness may be eliminated and that good taste may be emphasized:"

The use of the Flag;

International Relations (avoid picturizing in an unfavorable light another country's religion, history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry); (again, depended a lot on what country you're talking about.)

Arson;

The use of firearms;

Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines, buildings, et cetera (having in mind the effect which a too-detailed description of these may have upon the moron); (I guess the idea was that the MPPDA believed very strongly in the idea that media could affect people's behavior through imitation, but the use of the word "moron" gives me eugenics vibes.)

Brutality and possible gruesomeness;

Technique of committing murder by whatever method;

Methods of smuggling;

Third-Degree methods; (i.e, torture)

Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishment for crime; Sympathy for criminals; (this was a big one; Hollywood had done very well from gangster films, so a lot of creators had to do some careful threading of the needle to keep the genre alive. One dodge that they came up with was that they would have a duplicate "final reel" in which the gangster would have their inevitable comeuppance, and then remove the final reel when the censors had left the theater. Very popular with white rural teens.) Attitude toward public characters and institutions; (again, Hollywood shifting from being anti- to pro-establishment.)

Sedition;

Apparent cruelty to children and animals;

Branding of people or animals;

The sale of women, or of a woman selling her virtue;

Rape or attempted rape;

First-night scenes; (i.e, wedding nights)

Man and woman in bed together; (hence the eventual TV practice of showing married couples in separate beds in the 50s)

Deliberate seduction of girls;

The institution of marriage;

Surgical operations;

The use of drugs;

Titles or scenes having to do with law enforcement or law-enforcing officers;

Excessive or lustful kissing, particularly when one character or the other is a "heavy".

So in general, we can say that the Hays Code was extremely sex-negative, very concerned about crime and anti-establishment thinking, sexist, racist, and homophobic, and in general afraid of offending anybody.

So what about the Comics Code Authority?

So this is what the Comics Code looked like in 1954:

Crimes shall never be presented in such a way as to create sympathy for the criminal, to promote distrust of the forces of law and justice, or to inspire others with a desire to imitate criminals. If crime is depicted it shall be as a sordid and unpleasant activity.

Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority.

Criminals shall not be presented so as to be rendered glamorous or to occupy a position which creates a desire for emulation. In every instance good shall triumph over evil and the criminal punished for his misdeeds.

Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, the gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated.

No comic magazine shall use the words "horror" or "terror" in its title.

All scenes of horror, excessive bloodshed, gory or gruesome crimes, depravity, lust, sadism, masochism shall not be permitted.

All lurid, unsavory, gruesome illustrations shall be eliminated. Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader.

Scenes dealing with, or instruments associated with walking dead, torture, vampires and vampirism, ghouls, cannibalism, and werewolfism are prohibited.

Profanity, obscenity, smut, vulgarity, or words or symbols which have acquired undesirable meanings are forbidden.

Nudity in any form is prohibited, as is indecent or undue exposure. Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable.

Females shall be drawn realistically without exaggeration of any physical qualities.

Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes, as well as sexual abnormalities, are unacceptable.

Seduction and rape shall never be shown or suggested.

Sex perversion or any inference to same is strictly forbidden.

Nudity with meretricious purpose and salacious postures shall not be permitted in the advertising of any product; clothed figures shall never be presented in such a way as to be offensive or contrary to good taste or morals.[16]

You'll notice the similarities when it comes to the Codes' attitude to sex, sexuality, crime, and symbols of authority - so to answer the first part of your question, I would say the CCA was pretty similar to the Hays Code (in part because Charles F. Murphy, who drew it up, was deeply unoriginal and basically cribbed off the Hays Code throughout).

However, there are also some significant areas of difference that have a lot to do with the unique circumstances of the 1950s moral panic over comics. See, in the 1950s, superhero comics were considered deeply uncool and old hat - they had been huge in the 40s during the war, but by the 50s the biggest genre in comics were horror, crime, and romance comics (with cowboy comics bringing up the rear). To quote myself from another post:

"This gave rise to a moral panic in the 1950s, although more accurately it was part of the larger moral panic over juvenile delinquency. The U.S Senate established a Juvenile Delinquency Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee in 1953 to investigate the causes of juvenile delinquency and comics became a major target. While Wertham’s book is best known today for its assertions that Batman and Robin were teaching young boys to be gay and Wonder Woman was teaching young girls to be lesbians, the main focus of the Subcommittee [edit mine: and Wertham's academic work] was on horror and crime comics for their depiction of sex, violence, and “subversive” attitudes to law and order."

The CCA made it impossible to publish two of the most popular genres in the industry for a generation (the CCA relaxed its stance on horror stuff a bit in the 70s, which is why Marvel trend-chased werewolves and vampires the moment they could get away with it), which not only scrambled the medium (and potentially created space for the Silver Age of superhero comics to flourish) but drove the former titan EC Comics practically out of business. (Indeed, William Gaines of EC Comics believed that the CCA had been specifically worded to drive him out of business.)

So in some ways, the CCA was worse.

[gayregis]

vampire headcanons 2020, pt. 2

part two: “society” and culture

this post is more based upon canon than the previous one. the next will be almost purely conjecture/headcanon.

(previous post)

> how vampires view the conjunction of the spheres, population of vampires on the continent

“I’m the descendant of survivors, unfortunate beings imprisoned here after the cataclysm you call the Conjunction of Spheres.” 

Baptism of Fire, pg. 219

regis says “survivors,” but avallac’h also uses this term to refer to humans who arrived on the continent from the conjunction of spheres (The Tower of the Swallow, pg. 243) and when he speaks later about the conjunction, it is in purely logical terms, suggesting that there is not much regret and longing for the other world they came from.

“After the Conjunction of the Spheres there remained approximately one thousand two hundred (1,200) higher vampires in your world. (...) Since the Conjunction - once again calculating according to your reckoning - one thousand five hundred (1,500) years have passed.”

Baptism of Fire, pg. 297

for comparison, dandelion mentions that novigrad has around “thirty thousand (30,000) dwellers, not counting travellers” (Eternal Flame, pg. 134), and even though this is quite unique and remarkable for a city and dandelion tells this fact to geralt in context of describing novigrad as “the capital of the world,” this is a significantly larger number than the amount of higher vampires who arrived to the witcher world during the conjunction of the spheres. there are not that many vampires living on the continent, there were less vampires than the population of a large public high school. 

this population is likely spread across the entire continent (the northern realms, the empire of nilfgaard, islands and archipelagos like skellige, and distant places like the far north and zerrikania), so they’re incredibly widely dispersed. geralt calls vereena a “rare bird” (The Last Wish, pg. 62), and did not consider regis to be a vampire until he purposefully revealed himself, which further suggests that higher vampires are extremely rare.

i tend to headcanon that the vampires were more condensed as a group during the time when regis partied (approx. up to 300 years ago) as dandelion describes the world during that time period:

“You’re reading Roderick de Novembre? As far as I remember, there are mentions of witchers there, of the first ones who started work some three hundred (300) years ago. In the days when the peasants used to go to reap the harvest in armed bands, when villages were surrounded by a triple stockage, when merchant caravans looked like the march of regular troops, and loaded catapults stood on the ramparts of the few towns nights and day. Because it was us, human beings, who were the intruders here. This land was ruled by dragons, manticores, griffins and amphisboenas, vampires and werewolves, striga, kikimores, chimerae and flying drakes. And this land hand to be taken from them bit by bit, every valley, every mountain pass, every forest and every meadow. And we didn’t manage that without the invaluable help of witchers. But those times have gone, Geralt, irrevocably gone.”

The Last Wish, pg. 162

the vampires were present enough during this time, and we can corroborate this history with regis’ account:

“So I partied. Revelries and frolics, shindigs and booze-ups; every full moon we’d fly to a village and drink from anyone we found. The foulest, the worst class of ... er ... fluid. It made no difference to us whose it was, as long as there was ... er ... haemoglobin ... It can’t be a party without blood, after all!”

Baptism of Fire, pg. 293

there were enough vampires in the past 400 years to hold parties on the full moon, actual genuine parties. but we never hear of vampires raiding villages during this time period, and geralt who is a current witcher, when asked of dealing with vampires, doesn’t say anything about these revelries and instead describes when he has been asked to deal with vampires but the threat was in fact non-existent (Baptism of Fire, pg. 152). thus we can assume that the vampires just don’t hold such raucous parties anymore, perhaps for a couple of potential reasons: their numbers are more dispersed and there are less vampires who live together in groups nowadays, and they have also likely lost leading figures like regis who were absolute mad lads and led the parties on.

> society, tradition, and language

vampire “society” is loosely tied together, and there exists no rules or authority amongst them:

“With humans, however, there exists a system of rules and restrictions: parental authority, guardians, superiors and elders - morals, ultimately. We have nothing like that. Youngsters have complete freedom and exploit it. They create their own patterns of behavior. Stupid ones, you understand.”

Baptism of Fire, pg. 293

from this anarchy comes a culture defined by partying, i.e., drinking from human villages during the full moon:

“Generally, the statistically average vampire drinks during every full moon, for the full moon is a holy day for us, which we usually... er... celebrate with a drink. (...) The number of teetotallers - because there is a considerable number of them - balances the number who drink excessively, as I did in my day.”

Baptism of Fire, pg. 297

and also characterized by hanging out in crypts, apparently:

(...) It got rowdier and rowdier,” the vampire continued. “Occassionally I went on such benders that I didn’t return to the crypt for three or four nights in a row.”

Baptism of Fire, pg. 294

the full moon is a celebration to them because when it is full, they are granted their full powers: they can shift easily between forms and dematerialize / rematerialize at will. it could also be because the full moon was the thing that they saw when they first arrived on the continent and thus every full moon is now an anniversary of sorts.

i headcanon that their societies, when they manage to have one, are largely based upon these celebratory drinking festivities. whoever is the best at partying is admired and well-liked. it’s a popularity contest of sorts. think of your local annoying fraternity boys.

but if they have no authority in the form of parental or elder guardianship, how do they receieve their names? regis only says this on the topic of vampire naming conventions:

“(...) I’d insisted on adopting the name Geralt Roger Eric du Haute-Bellegarde. Vesemir thought it was ridiculous; pretentious and idiotic. I dare say he was right.”

Dandelion snorted loudly, looking meaningfully at the vampire and the Nilfgaardian.

“My full name,” Regis said, a little piqued by the look, “is authentic. And in keeping with vampire tradition.”

Baptism of Fire, pg. 316

which is incredibly vague and unhelpful. all we know canonically is that vampire names are traditionally long and comprised of many names, likely in the same structure that regis’s is constructed in.

my suggestion to all of this is that vampire names are given to them by their peers, and they likely have developed their own various traditions of giving individuals names, based upon their most apparent qualities. regis is a latin name meaning “king” (genitive singular form of rex), which could be based in how the other vampires viewed him and how fun he was at parties.

it doesn’t really make sense for vampires to be using latin, but latin does exist as a language in the witcher universe, and regis uses a bit of latin randomly in an otherwise useless exchange:

The Witcher stood. “ Go on. Run off and pack. And be quick.”

“It won’t take me very long. Omnia mea mecum porto.”

“What?”

“I have very little luggage.”

(Lady of the Lake, pg. 139)

this is a reference to bias of priene, one of the seven sages of greece, quoted by cicero in his stoic paradoxes (paradox i), as saying “i carry with me all my possessions” / “all that is mine i carry with me”. this is likely just a reference that was intended to compare regis with bias of priene, who is known for his integrity and defense of others, his philosophical and humanist nature.

thus latin being the language of the vampires likely does not hold any ground, because regis is not the only individual that uses latin in the books. season of storms is infamous for its overusage of latin (“primo, secundo, tertio,” anyone?). in addition, vereena is not a latin name. vampires do have their own language, but it is unidentifiable to geralt yet is still able to influence him with feelings of terror:

He heard singing. He didn’t understand the words, he couldn’t even identify the language. He didn’t need to - the witcher felt and understood the very nature, the essence, of this quiet, piercing song which flowed through the veins in a wave of nauseous, overpowering menace. (...)

He could still hear her song, even though her thin, pale lips were held tight and not the slightest sound emerged from them.

The Last Wish, pg. 62

from what we can glean, vampires do not typically speak aloud like humans do. regis is an outlier as noted by geralt in the quotes cited in the previous post. in the last wish, vereena speaks solely through telepathy to geralt:

You. You will be the first to grow weak, Sorcerer. I will kill you.

The bruxa’s lips didn’t move, but the witcher heard the words clearly; they resounded in his mind, echoing and reverberating as if underwater.

The Last Wish, pg. 65

the only aloud vocalizations vereena makes are the screams she does in combat and when she screams in pain, which can be considered common for vampires.

(next post)

[melnchly-a]

i was debating posting this but here are a range of things to think about re: police and reform. 

i’m seeing a lot of “abolish the police” posts, and while i know exactly where that’s coming from, it’s also a simple-seeming answer to a deep and complex problem, and one that’s likely to cause more problems than you’re likely thinking. (in the absence of police, it’s likely - - though certainly not guaranteed - - that those who can afford it will invest more heavily in private security for businesses/personal protection/etc, whether that need is warranted or not. in the event of situations occurring that would have required police presence, you would likely see more federal law enforcement/military presence. worst-case, imagine a country led by someone like our current president where the only option is to send in federal agents and believe me, you don’t want that.) neither do you probably actually want to call for a mass exodus of police of their own volition. i can tell you right now the ones you want out wouldn’t be leaving. you’d be left with departments entirely composed of people with no qualms about excessive force. you WANT those people staying on the force, and you WANT them to have the resources they need to report on fellow officers when needed. 

it’s also just not likely to happen in any widespead way. not in our current society. if you want to create real change, there are other things that need to be addressed, campaigned for, and fixed. things which will not be fixed if we’re trying to focus on overly simple answers for deeply complex problems.

this isn’t to disagree with the notion of reallocating funding to benefit schools/public services/etc. i think that’s entirely necessary. but there’s more to the story than simply cutting funding. 

police need to address and apologize for excessive use of force and abuse over the history of policing. if not for individual officers who may or may not have participated, than for the historical precedent as a whole. pretending there isn’t a problem isn’t a help to anyone. 

as i’ve said multiple times in the past, police unions and those who negotiate with them make it notoriously difficult for departments to get rid of officers with complaints against them. the department in minneapolis is headed by a black chief of police who had sued his own department based on issues of race in the past. he should have been able to get rid of officers like c.hauvin with no issues and yet....obviously, that man was still on the force. there need to be ways for a.) departments to fire problem officers without someone over their heads reinstating them and b.) ways for officers to report on their fellow officers without repercussions. i can tell you right now that those methods don’t currently exist in any wide-spread or efficient/effective form.

body cams, dash cams, and other oversight tools need to a.) be “sold” more effectively to the police as measures of protecting BOTH themselves AND the citizens they serve. there ALSO need to be real consequences for tampering with these, turning them off, etc.

police need more training and they need higher-quality recruits. understaffed departments lead to issues you’ll see in places like flint, where it can take three hours or more for police to respond to a call. not because they’re (most of the time) doing anything wrong, but because there aren’t enough of them in comparison to the total population. this could include decisions like requiring college or college-like degrees, but that would also mean higher pay for police officers. which i realize isn’t a popular idea at the moment, but is a fact of those requirements. (furthermore, many city police in small to mid size cities, not to mention suburban police, don’t have adequate crowd-control training. this is not an excuse for the way police have been handling crowds in recent days, but it is something that has come up in discussions. many of them are reacting with excessive crowd-control measures where lesser measures were needed.) this training should absolutely include recognizing police brutality in the past, the racism in the system as a whole, recognition and response to explicit and implicit bias, recognizing mental health issues, etc. training is a problem every law-enforcement officer i’ve spoken to in the last few weeks, in an attempt to understand what’s happening, has brought up. the people i’ve spoken to have dedicated their lives to establishing mental health education for police, who have actively removed aggressive or racist officers in the past, etc. they’re just as frustrated and angry with the reactions police are displaying as you and i are. and they’re actively doing things to try to help. unions, government, etc make that more difficult than it should be. 

many police, particularly in large cities, don’t live in the cities/neighborhoods they’re policing. (many smaller, particularly suburban, departments require that their officers live in the town they work in.) sometimes this is because they can’t afford to (nypd officers start at around  $42,500/year - about $3,541/month or  $885/week BEFORE tax -  in a city where the median rent for a studio apartment sits at about  $2,700/month. these officers can obviously make more as they spend more time on the force, but that’s the stated starting salary according to their website. the salary after 5 1/2 years is $85,292). this means they don’t know the areas/people/etc they’re policing, are more likely to make snap judgments based on false information, etc. it wouldn’t solve everything, but rules for employment regarding residency could mean better policing in cities and their neighborhoods. 

for a profession that includes seeing things like scenes of murders, assaults, suicides, and wellness checks that lead to decomposing bodies, mental health care for police is abysmal. i mean it’s....bad in the u.s. in general, but it’s notoriously bad for active-duty military, veterans, and first responders...including police. this isn’t to mention that officers who self-report mental health problems are often put on leave rather than given the resources they need. this means compounded stress, trauma, etc, going unaddressed in a highly dangerous and stressful profession.

police DO handle more than they likely SHOULD be handling, including things like wellness checks, nonviolent domestic disputes, etc. more often than not, they’re doing so without specialized training for those situations. these should absolutely be divided out into unarmed (or lightly armed, i.e. with pepper spray etc), specially trained units. you’re still going to want armed police units to exist in the u.s. - - i can tell you for a fact that in my fairly quiet suburban hometown ALONE there have been active shooter/barricade/hostage situations that could not be deescalated without use of force, despite attempts to do so.

qualified immunity needs reform. you can read more about that here. this allows not only for officers to get away with police brutality, but for all public officials to get away with a wide range of crimes. 

we need to campaign for citizens to be integrated into police oversight. police are paid by taxpayer dollars, and they are meant to serve and protect the people. again, this is an issue for your local government and police unions. when you’re communicating with gov’t officials, make it clear that you want something like this implemented. 

and, yes, there need to be strong and immediate consequences for excessive use of force. 

i’m not saying any of this to make it seem like police brutality or the racism inherent in the law enforcement and justice systems doesn’t exist. it does, and it needs to be addressed. what i am saying is that addressing that is a more complex problem that requires deeper thought for successful reform. Black people, particularly men, are at leas 3x more likely to experience police brutality, and that needs to end. 

tl;dr, some things to be aware of, petition for, etc: 

charging and convicting police brutality as a crime (with the understanding that this means it should be treated as any crime in a court of law)

holding all first responders accountable for their actions.

allowing and enabling officers to respond to police brutality they’re witnessing, including training on how to intervene, better reporting methods, policies that would not punish them for reporting, etc 

reform in police unions

better police training in general

national standards for police training (believe it or not, these don’t currently exist)

better mental health care and mental health policies for police and other first responders 

citizen involvement, including in oversight

voting in state and local elections for officials who have plans to respond to these issues, and who are actively listening to their constituents 

reallocation of funding so that the funding is more equally spread to education and community support

Some Sources/ Further Reading: 

“How to reform American police, according to experts” from Vox

Police officer salary and benefits, NY Gov

“Adopt minimum national police use-of-force standards and train cops for interaction” USA Today

“‘An Impossible Situation’: How Chief Arradondo Has Struggled To Change The Minneapolis Police Department” CBS Minnesota

“What We Should Expect of the Police: Experts Weigh In On Recent Police Violence,” Center for American Progress

Police Reform, The Flip Side

The Center for Policing Equity

[corneliusmcvandy]

PHIL 1002W Blog 2

Amy Kaplan’s Manifest Domesticity explores the impact of prevailing female positionalities on contemporary happenings in United States’ History. Kaplan’s writing mainly focuses on the 1830’s-50’s and the accompanying eras of imperialism and antebellum slavery, explaining how the accepted “cult of domesticity” impacted not just private life but the explosion of American values and presence across the globe. Inspired by how she aligned an era of political history with the accompanying women’s history to make comparisons, I became curious about if and how other periods of American history can be viewed through a similar lens. In this short write up, I will explore the following question: what other period of American history can be analyzed in the manner Kaplan analyzes the antebellum imperial era? What are some similarities and differences between the two? 

First, I want to quickly acknowledge that women are integral to all eras of American history. It is undoubtedly true that women are responsible for shaping many aspects of politics and culture throughout history… they do after all comprise more than a majority of the population. I chose to focus on the early 1960’s because the prevailing perception of women as a homemaker (especially in the suburban culture which I focus on) is most similar to the cult of domesticity referenced by Kaplan. However, this focus should not be perceived of a lack of awareness of other eras or even other subsets of this era which women influenced greatly.

With that said, the way Kaplan shows that women and the cult of domesticity influenced Manifest Destiny and the character of American imperialism strongly parallels the manner in which expanding consumer culture in the early 1960’s goes hand and hand with the prevailing perception of women as homemakers. Kaplans closing thoughts read as follows: “The manifest destiny of the nation unfolds logically from the imperial reach of the woman’s influence emanating from her separate domestic sphere” (23). This idea that women influence the activities of the nation through their actions in the home centers her broader discussion about race and imperialism. While I choose here to focus on the cult of domesticity and not race, I do think it’s prudent to point out quickly that many of the domestic privileges laid out by Kaplan are apportioned on racial lines. Hence, Mills’s Racial Contract is squarely in play here, as the only signatories on the domestic arrangement are white. 

However, those participating women are very clearly linked to the expansion of “civilized” American domestic values into the “uncivilized” world. In a similar way, women in the 1960’s who were defined as eligible to participate in the contracted norms strongly influenced the contemporary consumerism culture. The group of women eligible to participate in the accepted homemaker norm (mainly white suburban housewives) drove the culture forward by consuming media, making purchasing decisions, and influencing the decisions of one another and their husbands. With husbands at work and children in school, purchasing responsibility fell to the homemaker. A typical woman would drive her Ford to the mall, purchase groceries and general supplies, and likely purchase other things for her family like movie tickets, sports equipment, or clothing. The fact that women were often at the point of sale meant that advertisements (disseminated via television and radio) were directed at their tastes and interests. Generally in communication with other families of a similar socioeconomic class, women could also influence their husbands to make decisions (i.e. buy another car) if it came up through the grapevine that a similar purchase had been made by a family from down the block. In this way, homemakers in the early 1960’s are tightly linked to the era’s consumer culture. 

Note: The assignment doesn't mention references. However, I know I made a lot of un-cited factual claims so I wanted to mention that I backed them up by referring to old notes from AP US History and the accompanying book, Kennedy and Cohen’s American Pageant. 

[epenvs3000w24]

Hey Skylar!

I really appreciate your comparison of privilege as a weightless backpack. I think it's the easiest way to illustrate its presence in people's lives and its absence in others. I believe in today's world; it is challenging to self-reflect and recognize that this weightless backpack isn't accessible to everyone we may pass by on the sidewalk if you know what I mean. 

Educational backgrounds, geographic locations, cultural backgrounds, financial status, time availability and accessibility shape how each interprets nature. From the examples you presented in your blog, is there any you identify with particularly? Or is there any specific one most important to you to counteract while possessing a role as a nature interpreter?

Also, as you mentioned, the barriers posed by these examples are significant to recognize as an interpreter, especially when engaging with diverse audiences. Everyone's background is unique, and, as we have learned, interpretation is different for everyone! 

Given the barriers faced by specific individuals in our general population, are there any tangible ways (i.e. brochures in different languages) that potential bias from an interpreter could be minimized to promote inclusivity? 

Blog 3: The invisible influence of privilege

As we begin self-reflection in our role as nature interpreters, the concept of privilege becomes a crucial aspect. Privilege, as Peggy McIntosh introduced which I have incorporated into my working definition, can be visualized as an invisible, weightless backpack of helpful, unearned assets carried by each individual, often unaware of their existence. It is not something that can be earned but instead inherited, giving someone a head start and an invisible advantage over those not afforded the same opportunities.

To understand privilege, one must engage in an honest, open-minded examination of the characteristics and opportunities they've been afforded. It's an acknowledgment of the advantages one possesses that others may lack equal access to. In my own reflection, I recognize elements of my privilege—being a white, middle-class girl with access to education, extracurricular activities, healthcare, and housing. These factors have positively influenced my journey, subtly shaping the trajectory of my life.

In the realm of nature interpretation, recognizing privilege is crucial. Educational backgrounds, geographical locations, cultural identities, financial status, time availability, and accessibility are all privileges that vary among individuals. Education significantly shapes nature interpretation, enhancing both experiential knowledge and interpretative abilities. The geographic location of where one lives profoundly influences exposure to diverse environments, impacting one's understanding of nature. Cultural identity adds another layer, enriching the interpretative experience with traditional knowledge, while individuals from marginalized communities may face overlooked narratives. Financial status and time availability also influence privilege, as individuals with limited resources must allocate their time and money toward basic necessities such as shelter, food, or family commitments, restricting their ability to embark on ecotourism adventures, attend educational workshops, or invest in outdoor gear. Additionally, accessibility emerges as a substantial but often overlooked privilege. Individuals with disabilities may encounter barriers in accessing natural spaces, restricting their participation in nature interpretation activities. Meanwhile, those with the privilege of physical mobility may take for granted the ease with which they can navigate trails, parks, or wilderness areas.

While I've highlighted only a few examples of privilege, the key takeaway is that everyone possesses different privileges, subtly shaping how each person interacts with the natural world. This awareness significantly influences our conversations and decisions in nature interpretation, guiding the way we connect with diverse audiences. Just remember that acknowledging our privileges doesn't diminish our experiences; instead, it serves as a reminder that others may be carrying different backpacks on their nature interpretation journeys.

[pdpsmg]

Dichotomy

What began as a mere practicum/internship requirement for my MPH program, quickly escalated into something much more. I ventured out to Washington DC on June 22 – with pre-purchased flight tickets back to Rochester MN on Aug 13. I was going to intern at the office of the national coordinator for health information technology and help improve the interoperability of prescription data through rulemaking – notably the 21st century cures act. Within 2 weeks of being there, something clicked inside of me and I quickly realized that the ONC aligns exceptionally well with my lifetime goals. Moreover, at a time when I was contemplating my move to LA near the end of august, which mind you – I had planned for almost a year now, was now constantly at the back of my mind. Saying that I fell in love with the city is probably an overstatement, but it wouldn’t be entirely off. I absolutely loved the metro – and surprisingly – the commute. In Rochester, I lived about a mile from work and the grocery store was pretty much in my backyard. But something about walking to the metro, taking it for 10 minutes, and walking to work passing all these federal buildings (I worked 10 minutes from the capitol), was really fun and exciting. Maybe it was because I’m accustomed to driving and I’ve always wanted to experience commuting to work on the metro. I also really enjoyed the change. After 2 weeks of being in DC, I got into my routines. More out of necessity than anything because I was trying to balance a lot of things at once, I became accustomed to quickly shifting between internship, work, and school, incorporated gym 2-3/week, and went into a new 6-day meal-prep diet that was healthy, efficient, and tasty. So, why am I writing this post today? Because now I’m faced with a difficult decision – more specifically, a dichotomy of choices.

Moving to DC vs. LA

While LA aligned well with my lifetime goals of training the next generation of informaticists, the experience at ONC made me realize that I can have an immediate and direct impact on improving interoperability of information, reducing clinician burnout, and improving usability of technology. Moreover, there actually is, surprisingly, no pharmacy representation at the ONC and I think there needs to be. It’s obvious to those of us in pharmacy that advocacy and representation is abysmal within our profession and in comparison to other healthcare professionals, it’s rather embarrassing. I think that needs to change and I think my internship at the ONC has opened up an opportunity to do just that.  Further, I’d like to help create a pharmacy pipeline into the ONC so that our profession has some representation and we can help inform public policy. In light of all that, I don’t know if the move to DC would be permanent and LA could still happen in the future. What’s also nice about DC is that it sets me up to be closer to family and opens the door to make it easier to move back to Florida if I wanted to.  

Federal Government vs. Social Media

Similar to the social media path with LA, the experience at the ONC exposed me to the inner workings of the federal government. While the impact of social media is high, the impact of being in DC working directly with the federal government and ALSO doing social media, I think, is even more powerful and impactful than capitalizing on YouTube alone.

Career vs. Family

The thing about DC and federal government is that it presents another fork in the road: career vs. family. I frequently talk about how I’m trying to refocus on family, but staying in DC isn’t necessarily the best idea as I’m actually adding to my workload (i.e. internship). At this point, I think my thought is that I’ll go full steam ahead until May 2020 as I’m already hustling through work, school, and YouTube – might as well go 110% into another opportunity until I graduate in May 2020 when all of it will end. I imagine I’ll do a complete 180 to focus on my family, friends, and relationships after that. In the interim, I’ll still make sure I prioritize my calendar towards any family functions so I don’t miss those special moments in life.

ONC vs. CDC

For those of you who have followed me in my journey, you would know that going to the CDC has been a long-term goal of mine for quite some time. It probably started in 2012 when I became interested in infectious diseases through my antimicrobial stewardship rotation. Though, as I progressed through my MPH program, I’ve grown to expand my interest to beyond infectious diseases and look into the broader picture of population health. While I certainly don’t have a definitive answer right now, it does present another choice that may occur later down the road – am I more interested in harmonizing our nation’s health information technology infrastructure? Or am I, perhaps, more intrigued by the broader public health initiatives, especially infectious diseases, at the CDC. With that said, federal agencies do collaborate quite frequently and there is certainly a lot of collaboration between the CDC and ONC. One example is the CDC’s antimicrobial usage and resistance module and the ONC’s incorporation of it as a certification criteria in their certified electronic health record technology program.  

All In

All in all, at a time when I would have thought there would be more certainty in my life, I seem to have attracted and accumulated quite the opposite. But you know what? I’m okay with that. As my friend Ryan Haumschild said back in the day, “it’s when you are uncomfortable that you grow the most”. So as of 2 days ago, I made the decision to move to DC instead of LA. This is my why and I’m going all in.

[dornishsphinx]

T, U, and Y!

T: Do you have any hard and fast headcanons that you will die defending?

Hmmm hard and fast headcanons that I’d die defending

From SOV, Conrad’s mother was a lady-in-waiting and close friend to Berkut’s mother who came with her to the capital when she married into the royal family. Lima was invited to the capital during the famine because the Rigelians were desperate. He saw her there and demanded she come with him in exchange for aid. (I may also be writing a fic on Conrad’s mother, watch this space ^_^)

Wrt Tellius, the United Bird Tribes eventually fall apart, the specific breaking point coming about due to arguments about over succession. The ravens end up putting forward Naesala and Leanne’s raven son and the hawk population are adamant that he not be considered (some going as far as to say that ravens in general shouldn’t be considered) due to lingering anger, the ravens getting angry in turn and moving to once again declare the independence of Kilvas (and taking a bit more territory with them this time since they’re in a stronger position.)

When it comes to Naesala and Leanne’s kids, the heron girl mostly takes after Naesala in personality, though the raven boy is more similar to Reyson than either of his parents (both also have traits from Leanne, but they’re less noticeable on first impression.) Both can sing galdr due to their mother but, especially for the raven boy, its effects are far weaker. (Maybe let’s say in gameplay terms that raven boy can buff and not actually refresh.) 

Their heron daughter on one occasion also accompanies Naesala on a diplomatic mission to Begnion, where she decides to learn beorc magic—with Sanaki’s blessing and occasional direct tutelage—as a way to bypass herons’ inability to fight the laguz way, even staying there for a while when he leaves for his next destination. This is a major scandal in the laguz world.

U: Three favourite characters from three different fandoms and why they’re your favourites.

Oh man, it took me a while to settle on who to talk about, but:

Jason Todd (DC Comics)

Jason is the reason I got into DC generally, so I was already biased, but Jason is interesting because he’s a counterpoint to the idea that Batman knows Gotham City better than anyone, as someone who actively grew up on its streets rather than in the safety of a mansion, and someone who came to a vastly different conclusion on what had to be done to make it safer without being painted (mostly) as a clear-cut villain. Also, he’s a literary nerd and it’s such a cute little detail which is never really brought up explicitly on page but is a recurring thing in the background. The antique book collection in UTRH, reading Pride and Prejudice while in jail, really liking school as Robin, and in other bits I can’t remember the context of. 

Where he gets fascinating is on a meta level though. We have the juxtaposition between what modern writers want Jason’s Robin to have been (I really love his run as Robin too, he’s such a cutie in comparison to what he becomes later) and how he actually was written, which kinda comes off as the characters themselves trying to convince themselves of something that isn’t true. And I’ve seen complaints about how people treat his death as being so much more important than others’ deaths when he’d hardly the only DC character to die, but it’s precisely because of real-world circumstances that it’s such a big deal–killed off by poll, left untouched for decades, his costume an ever-present ghost in the Batcave and for the Batfamily–it’s one of those things that can only happen in a big shared comicsverse medium.

I’ll never forgive the New 52 for being the reason we never saw, and can never see now, the Batfamily and Red Hood’s relationship develop.

He just became an ally again randomly in a way that screams editorial mandating “make them get along now, we don’t care how.” They just made everyone do a 180 without bothering to explain why or how and I hate it.

(Also, imo, grey morality Red Hood>outright villain Red Hood AND outright hero Red Hood.)

Laurent (Captive Prince)

Man, I know Captive Prince is controversial, but the story is just so good and even though it’s been a while since I read them, Laurent as a character has stuck with me. (I mean, I adore Damen too, but so many of the character concepts

I’ve come up with since reading the books have been Machiavellian princes shutting themselves off from their emotions, I’m pretty sure Laurent is the source.)

He’s had to adapt to survive the personal hell his uncle transformed the Veretian court into when he (and Damen) got the rest of their family killed—and, at the same time, anyone with the power or desire to protect Laurent from him—when he was just a little kid, and has just built up all the walls around himself. Seeing them slowly peel back and reveal the other sides to him he’s been forced to keep hidden for so long is one of the great things about the series. He’s such a well-realised character, and as you read along, you get to the point where you just need to see him succeed in taking Vere back from his uncle.

He always has the best comebacks too. Nearly everything he says when he’s not awkwardly trying to work his way around emotions he can’t properly express, usually when around Damen, is just pitch-perfect sarcasm even in dire circumstances.

Just a great character overall.

Franziska von Karma (Ace Attorney)

Last time I talked about a favourite Ace Attorney character it ended up being Ema, but I did say she only just beat out Franziska, so it’s her turn now. I’m so sad she’s not reappeared in any of the main games since the original trilogy, though at least we have Investigations. She still has to give Phoenix that card back!

But yes, I just love Franziska. She is very much part of the running theme of legacy families in Ace Attorney with her need to attain perfection and measure up to the Von Karma name, and her relationship with Edgeworth is sweet in a super competitive way. When she comes back later and spends the night trying to solve the puzzle locks to save Maya, you can also see that she has gone through a lot of development over the course of JFA and T&T.

(I maintain that 6-5 would have been vastly improved if she’d taken Edgeworth’s place, and am not entirely convinced it wasn’t originally written with her in mind. I mean, last time she appeared she was undergoing character development and trying to save Maya in a spirit medium-related setting, and this time had Maya being in a perilous situation in a spirit medium-related setting in a foreign country AND she has a history of working with Interpol. It would have actually made sense for her to show up as opposed to the Chief Prosecutor of a foreign country.)

(Also her design is amazing)

(Foolish fool)

Y: What are your second-hand fandoms (i.e. fandoms you aren’t in personally but are tangentially familiar with because your friends/people on your dash are in them)?

Dragon Age is the big one I can think of. I played a little of Dragon Age Origins before Redcliffe became a never-ending zombie nightmare and I wasn’t able to progress, so I don’t count myself as having really played, but I pretty much know all the spoilers. And have even plotted out who I’m gonna romance when I finally do get around to it. Current plan: Alistair (while pouring one out for the F/F romance with Morrigan that could never be), Fenris and Josephine.

Also Marvel, kinda? I don’t really buy or keep up with Marvel comics anymore aside from going to see the movies. I’ll check it out, but usually it’s only on a whim. (If Agent of Asgard/JiM Loki ever get a run again, you can count on me jumping back in.)

[kensingtonbooks]

A Case for Space, and Mars by John Andrew Karr

The following is a guest blog by MARS WARS: DETONATION EVENT’s author @johnandrewkarr.

People of Earth. 

You know the phrase. 

Unless you totally eschew science fiction or science fantasy in all its forms, you know the phrase. If you have disdain for the mind-expanding genres, then you probably fall into the space and Mars haters club despite indulging in space-related technologies, i.e. satellites, portable computers, computer mice, artificial limbs, camera phones. There’s a bunch more that can be found by searching, but this link has a good starter list: https://go.nasa.gov/2Gbxecu

As for the famous Tang—for those of us in our fifth century of existence, or beyond—it was not developed for space travel, but the moon missions made it a big star.  

If you’re less seasoned, send a mindtext to your favorite search engine on the galaxynet.  

No access to galaxynet?

That’s okay—thirty years ago only a few innovators had access to linked servers that would someday grow to become the internet. 

Galaxynet is internet for the solar system. It will have satellite boosts between Earth and Mars, Earth and Jupiter’s moons, and any place we deploy large-scale space stations such as the Mars Orbiters in my Mars Wars series, part of the Rebel Base imprint from Kensington Books. 

The timeframe for Mars Wars is near-future, approximately two hundred years from now. MOS-1 and MOS-2 are host to workers and vacationers of around ten thousand people, and serve as forward operating bases to colonization. Self-sufficient, they manufacture air, water, food, clothing, energy pellets, and hydrogen propellant for its nuclear fusion engines and those of the planetary shuttles. The latter are used to fly missions to the Martian surface, or back to Lunar One or Earth. 

No story is entertaining without some form of conflict.

The conflict in Mars Wars involves two parties. Those people who want all resources for the Earth, and those who are space and Mars colonization proponents. Such a scenario will hopefully remain fiction, but glimpses can be had on a . . . less dangerous . . . scale in human societies now.   Back to current day, liberty has been taken to toss the internet into space-related tech. Mostly because Elon Musk’s Space X are creating a satellite internet that may ultimately lead to WiFi availability in the most remote crack of Earth’s continental crust. Others have also started in on similar ventures. More later on billionaires making a play for serious and profitable expansion beyond Earth.

People of Earth.  

If you’ve ever had even a slight taste of science fiction, you know the phrase. Usually its uttered by some alien who’s come to our beautiful blue planet for war, to pilfer our resources, or simply snatch a few dozen of us to make people patties, under the guise of a beneficial meet-and-greet. 

Cunning aliens. 

Isn’t it enough to reduce our scientific and engineering advances to stone tool status in comparison with alien tech?   

The Peeps of Earth phrase can also be extrapolated to encompass all humans, ever, throughout time. That’s every human born, ever. All who inhaled air, drank water, felt the planet’s mass beneath their feet, gazed up the glorious sun and stars and someday later, died. Of these billions, every single one lived their lives bound to the Earth.

Question: Besides the same relative arm strength, what do Tyrannosaurus rex and Homo sapiens have in common?

Answer: Extinction impotence. 

Even non-sci-fi types know how vulnerable we are as a species, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. 

By the way, the latest thinking for T-Rex is that it could actually rip a human’s arm off in an arm wrestling match, provided it could move its teeny arms side-to-side. So don’t go up to one and call it an arm-wuss or something.   

Let’s go ahead and summon one of the first things that come to mind whenever dinosaurs are evoked: asteroid. One big enough to eject millions of tons of ash and dust into the atmosphere, all but blocking out the sun and creating a perpetual ‘asteroid winter.’ A certain percentage of the population might be able to survive the apocalypse for a while, but it could take hundreds or even thousands of years for the skies to clear. 

Humans, along a huge percentage of other terrestrial and aquatic life, would most likely perish from famine, disease, and war. There’s a good chance asphyxiation has a role; immediate dispersion of breathable air erupting through the magnetosphere and lost to space. Darkness then  withers plant life en masse, along with their oxygen-creating capabilities.

Maybe it won’t be an asteroid for humans. Maybe it will be the very real threat of nuclear war, standard war, or disease. Dinosaurs as a species lasted millions of years. Humans have come far in a blip of comparative time, but we’re also prone to war.    

Regardless of method, both species met or will meet their ultimate end on Earth.

Is it of any consolation that astronomers will likely be able to track the instrument of our demise through space as it hurls toward us?

Question: How much does Earth care about the life that clings to it?

Answer: Every bit as much as any other rock in the universe.

Snark aside, only life cares about life. 

Obvious, yet worthy of a moment of reflection. Despite radioactive cores that provide a magnetosphere to prevent the escape of air and water to space, Earth and every other planet, moon, asteroid, comet, and yes, even the stars, are not alive. None of the aforementioned are thinkers. They have zero intelligence capability. They do not feel anything. The earth is a fantastic and sometimes terrible host of abundant life, but it lacks the capacity to acknowledge anything, and therefore has no care whether life exists or not. 

It has no care whether it exists or not.   

Grass has more regard for its life than a planet has self-awareness. The roots will grow toward moisture, the blade toward the sun.   

The life forms of Earth care—at least on some fundamental level—but not the planet itself.

Question: What is the only life form that could prevent a total extinction event? Answer: Look in the mirror.

Probably not you specifically, or me, or anyone alive right now. But perhaps our descendants, unseen over our shoulders in generation after generation on an extended scale, reaching centuries into the future. They could have some contribution toward preserving our species, or the next iteration of it.  

The obvious difference between humans and all of the extinct, single-planet-dwelling species that have come before us is that we can build upon current technologies to at least try and thwart the inevitable catastrophe.  

Humans alone—unless cockroaches or some other species survive our warring nature and evolve to our current levels—have the means to bump our potential survival rate by 100% by colonizing another planet.  

For that, the red planet is a beacon in the night sky. As with any venture into space, the mission is fraught with danger. But Mars as a cold and rocky planet is still preferable to an ice-encrusted moon of Jupiter. 

If we ever do figure out a way to kick-start the Martian cores into creating a magnetosphere, as I write of in Mars Wars, or thicken the Martian atmosphere enough to hold air and water, the potential for agriculture is there because of soil. We may need to scrape off the solar wind-pounded surface material and turn it over, but ice, with Jupiter as a backdrop, isn’t going to be kind to the roots of space tomatoes. 

Perhaps we’d even import some of the massive sandworms from Frank Herbert’s Dune to help fertilize. Everyone knows Dune is easier to reach from Mars than it is from Earth.  

To perform more space outreach, we’ve got to go faster at a sustained clip. Warp drive would be incredibly convenient, but we’ve got a huge knowledge gap between chemical rockets and light speed. If I had to choose a single category to improve immediately, it would be propulsion. It takes us too long to reach anything, and that’s just in our own backyard. 

In Mars Wars, planetary shuttles and remote orbiters make use of nuclear fusion for propulsion. It is a cleaner, more sustainable burn that can use hydrogen as a propellant. They can reach Mars in a month, as opposed to nine. Not warp speed or hyper-drive, but a big step in the right direction.

Think how far we’ve come in the preceding two centuries. Who knows where we’ll be two centuries from today, if we make concerted efforts. 

But what to do once there? Live forever inside enclosures, or take steps to terraform Mars so it is not immediately hostile to life? 

Some space advocates want to keep Mars as a planetary park, unchanged by human hands.

There is no reason to keep Mars in its current state of death. Billions of years ago, Mars once held water and therefore some form of air. There are many reasons to resurrect it. 

As seen in Mars Wars, Mars has threats beyond the frigid temps and lack of air and water. What we might find in the soil could be positive or negative, for instance. Click here: http://bit.ly/2GblvKU

Question: What about caring for the earth? Answer: The two are not mutually exclusive.

Of course we should care for the mother planet, but that doesn’t mean we can’t expand into space and Mars at the same time. Resource drainage from Earth can be limited, and life on Earth can improve with technological advances. 

Space expeditions must be commercially viable, or at least self-sustaining. NASA and other government agencies have done great pioneering work, but taxes alone cannot continually fund space exploration. We're already seeing private ventures from billionaire visionaries like Musk and Bezos and Branson attempting to bring the space flight industry into a more “mainstream” focus. Bringing rare metals back to Earth could lead to more technology bursts.

Harvesting resources from asteroids would be easier from Mars, since it’s closer to the Asteroid Belt, the farmer’s market of asteroids. A dwarf planet in the belt is blasting water vapor into space for some reason, and it may hold more water than Earth. Amazing. And available for harvesting. Asteroids can be encased in water ice. Others have ammonia ice that could be beneficial in thickening the Martian atmosphere. 

It’s a process, but water can be harvested from minerals on asteroids. Comets would take less processing time, but they’re free spirits and not clustered nicely in a band like their rocky counter parts. Formed outside our solar system, comets that can provide immediate water ice are not subject to the same relative orbiting plane as the planets and Asteroid Belt. These may be more attainable from Mars due to readiness more than location.

A couple of fun informative links to check out:

http://bit.ly/2Gbn4bK

http://bit.ly/2GbFrgH

Mars itself may have tons of water trapped in its crust, as was recently postulated in a finding on Earth. 

This has touched on a few hints about transforming Mars—terraforming it—into a habitable planet. It could take centuries, or less, or never work at all and we end up creating subterranean cities or honeycomb surface ones encapsulated in redundant plexiglass bubbles threaded with titanium strands. 

(That last part is a glimpse of the Lunar One base on the moon in Mars Wars.)    

Mars needs heat, water, and air, and we’ll move in. 

It’s not been tried by humans, but the powers of the solar system have done it. It may be possible to crash asteroids into Mars, set off a bunch of thermonuclear bombs, create vast mirror farms to reflect more sunlight, or use other methods to greenhouse the atmosphere so it can hold air and water and heat. 

There may be enough nitrates on the red planet to use for breathable air, since oxygen is the lesser component. Or maybe there’s some rip asteroids to mine for it. 

A lot to cover there, for another time. 

If Mars does become viable as a self-sustaining colony, and then network of colonies, and then perhaps the entire planet, wouldn’t it also provide relief to overpopulation on Earth?

For those who want to focus solely on Earth until the extinction event(s) strike, don’t we have a duty to future generations to begin the process of increasing survival odds? 

The universe is mind-blowingly vast. Where is the spirit to attain knowledge? To push the boundaries of what viable life can be had beyond Earth. Exploring has dangers, but it can also lead to the betterment of Homo sapiens.

Pre-Order/Buy MARS WARS: DETONATION EVENT here→ http://bit.ly/2GbEWmN