#i am good at analysis and terrible at anecdotes

[emeraldgreaves]

.

[discet]

Actually, this is an interesting question I hadn't thought to ask yet, although the answer may just be "spoilers nerd". So uh. We know that Sasha is gonna be pissed that Anne is dating Marcy, obviously. Sasha crushing on Anne is just canon. But here's where it gets spicy, and potentially becomes "Sasha and the terrible, horrible, no good very bad day." Is Sasha *also* crushing on Marcy? Because HOOO BOY, I would wager that she'd take her two crushes dating each other with the emotional maturity of an infant Chihuahua.

So yeah, a lot of this is spoilers nerd(/lh) but I will do a bit of analysis. Light Spoilers below the cut

So while I agree that Sasha in canon is definitely crushing on Anne and that drives a lot of her toxic control issues, I don't think she's actually aware of that crush until like Turning Point. If she ever figures it out in Canon before the time skip at all.

There is a lot of subtext about her feelings for Anne on the screen (Heart shaped carriage for the two of them being a prime example). Sasha is really bad at introspection (all the girls are really). I think if she was aware of her crush, she would have done something about it already. Probably before they even went to Amphibia.

S1 Sasha had a massive ego, was unstoppably confident, didn't really have a respect for Anne's comfort, and definitely didn't have any compunctions about manipulating her. Honestly, even with how bad things went in canon it probably would have been really bad if she had realized her crush before her character development. Even if she wasn't willing to go that far, I think she would have been been putting in a lot more effort into being likable to Anne rather than being in control.

So in conclusion of S1 Sasha analysis: I think she has a crush on Anne, but isn't aware of it. I think those feelings manifest in her desire to control her friends. Trying to look impressive (look how well I did for myself while you slept in a basement). Then of course fixating on 'Winning' in S2 when those things backfired into her face, which

If Sasha finds out her two friends are dating in the AU at this point in her development, it's definitely going to bug her, but I don't think she'll realize why immediately.

As for Sasha's feelings for Marcy, well there I am going to say spoilers. Frankly the friendship and dynamic between Marcy and Sasha is one I am going to relish in exploring in this AU since we got so little of it in Canon. So that is gonna be a 'wait and see' sort of thing.

However as a fun Anecdote, Sasha’s no good very bad day was an interim name I had for an early Season 2 Chapter.

[bisexualamy]

hi. hello. i've only been following you for a short while, so apologies if there's already a post about it somewhere on your blog, but would you be willing to expand on duck newton a little bit? the thing is that i'm terribly stupid and i feel like i see your point but don't know. why exactly...

Hi! There’s not one comprehensive post about it but I’m more than happy to make this one it. And don’t beat yourself up!! I think some of this does come from “I am a trans man and his experience resonates with me” and personally, I think that being an argument for identifying someone as gay/trans/queer coded is valid. But that’s not, imo, the only reason why many folks (including myself) really see Duck as a trans man. So here are a few more. Spoilers for the ending of TAZ: Amnesty ahead.

Goes by a nickname & treats revealing his “actual”/proper/non-nickname name as a sign of intimacy - I think this is the most obvious one but the way that Justin plays it gives it a genuine quality that really fits with Duck being trans. I love the exchange between Duck and Aubrey where she asks for his name, he replies “Duck” and when she presses him he says “we’re not there yet” and she says “we’re not at names?!”

Names being an intimate symbol is not exclusive to trans folks, but for many of us, choosing our names is often a literal and symbolic first step towards redefining the lens through which the world sees us. This time, in a way we want to. Duck’s earnest insistence that no, he is Duck, and that’s enough, comes off as very trans. So much so, that I wasn’t sure initially how I felt about his name reveal to Minerva in the finale. But the more I sat with it, and after my Amnesty re-listen, I think it actually puts a really fine point on this.

Choosing a name for yourself is really vulnerable. From what we know about Duck’s past, it really sounds like Duck has gone by Duck since he was a kid. Juno has known Duck since they were both teens, at least, and she’s always called him Duck, even in flashbacks. Duck remarks in another flashback that his mom doesn’t like the name Duck, yet he still insists on using that name. To me, it’s very easy to take a trans reading of Duck here. Duck has had clear discomfort with his birth name since he was a kid, whether or not he realized it was for a trans reason. He starts going by a nickname very early on, and later chooses a more traditionally male name (Wayne) as his legal name when he transitions. But in a sense, he was Duck before he was anything else. Revealing the secret name he chose for himself to Minerva, in this reading, just makes that an even more intimate moment.

Part of an alternative subculture as a kid - this is somewhat anecdotally based, but we know Duck was a skater and kind of a punk as a teenager when he was going through his own period of self-discovery. Alternative subcultures are often refuges for lgbt and gnc folks as teens, because they can be safe spaces for alternate gender expression. For me, being part of the pop punk/emo subculture as a kid gave me a lot more freedom to experiment with gender neutral and masculine gender presentation. I see Duck’s past as a skater and a punk a good parallel for this. We also know that Duck had kind of a fraught adolescence, and this was an outlet for him. I think this reading is even stronger when you consider him as a trans character, trying on the identities of different subcultures in parallel to understanding his own gender identity. His character arc redefining his identity as the chosen one is a genuinely great parallel for the trans gender euphoria, self acceptance, and taking an active role in reshaping one’s identity - this is absolutely my favorite one. Duck’s literal journey as the chosen one works really well as a metaphorical trans narrative, and I honestly think it strengthens his character arc to read him as a trans character redefining what it means to be the chosen one. Duck is caught between who he is as part of the Kepler community and who he is as the chosen one in an interstellar war. And his character arc is finding what it means to be all of these things and also Duck. From a young age, Duck is told he’s the chosen one, and his whole life is redefined in front of him. He’s very resistant to accepting this fact. What will this mean for his family? What will this mean for him and his future? What if he doesn’t want this? Why him? Who picked him? What if I don’t want all this baggage? Can I please give this to someone else? His first scene with Minerva is very reminiscent of the first moment of “wait, am I trans? What does that mean? Who am I, actually? I don’t want this.” Many trans folks, myself included, sort of know they’re trans before they know they’re trans. In our transphobic society, it’s a lot easier to just not be trans. It sort of sits there in the back of your mind, and sometimes you can ignore it, sometimes you even forget about it, but it inevitably always comes back. Because to ignore you’re trans is to ignore the truth of your life. The same thing happens to Duck and his identity as the chosen one. Minerva literally reappears to him throughout his life to remind him that he can’t run from his destiny, as much as he tries to shut her out. Duck even goes through periods of accepting “hey, maybe this chosen one thing isn’t so bad” only for something to go a bit wrong and him to completely reject it again. Minerva gives Duck Beacon, and for a moment he’s like “hey, this is kind of cool” before his destiny scares him and he falls back into what the hell am I doing and eventually gives Beacon to Ned. He shuts away a symbol of the identity he’s running from, much like a trans person might hide objects or experiences that give them gender euphoria, because to accept them is to start to accept the truth of who you are. I also like this reading because it makes Leo Tarkesian a great parallel for older trans mentors. Leo lived the life of the chosen before Duck. He’s gone through this all before and now his role is to keep Duck safe and make sure he safely comes into his own identity as the chosen one. The found family? The generational mentorship? The fact that Leo and Duck talk about the emotional weight of being chosen in a way Duck can’t really express with others? Even Minerva? Very trans. When Duck stops running from who he is he realizes he might actually like being the chosen one. When he loses his abilities, he realizes he misses them. But the solution isn’t to just become what Minerva tells him. The solution isn’t to just abandon all of his principles and values, abandon everything that makes Duck Duck and transform into the model of a chosen one. Duck won’t kill anybody. Duck chooses to make decisions with arguably worse outcomes for himself to avoid killing anybody (like saving Billy the Goatman). Duck gets to define what it means to be Duck The Chosen. He won’t settle for anything less. This, to me, is a really awesome parallel for not just accepting one’s gender but accepting oneself and your experiences of gender, and making it your own until it feels euphoric. Two other quick things that are more my opinion than textual analysis:

Duck’s brand of a softer masculinity made me feel euphoric as a trans man and it’s a kind of masculinity I see a lot of trans men aspire to have. Yes, not all trans men are masculine in this way. However, I think the gentle streak in his masculinity codes him as this type of trans man. This great thread goes into more depth on that.

Duck is characterized quite strongly as a staple of the Kepler community. He knows everybody and they all know him and they all call him Duck. It’s just, “that’s our Duck.” That’s a wonderful thing for me as a trans person, to see a community come together around accepting a trans person they’ve known all his life, and certainly known since before his transition. That just makes me happy.


This was long but I hope it helped better understand why Duck is so important to me as a trans character! Thank you for the ask. I had a lot of fun writing this up.

[misha-moose-dean-burger-lover]

Wait For It

Dean stalks out of the Impala agitatedly.

It's a sunny afternoon, and Sam's on the porch, coffee on the table next to him, flipping through his political science handbook. He looks up when he hears the car door being slammed, and his eyes follow Dean as he lands in the other chair around the table.

Then, without warning or premonition, Dean starts to talk.

He's got a new colleague.

Novak, he calls him. With gritted teeth, frowning eyebrows, and feeling.

They don't usually talk about people. So Sam listens.

Considering the amount of time Dean devotes talking about how Novak walked into his office, stride radiating importance as though he'd been summoned by Dean himself - well, he really must be a pain in the ass.

*

Over the next week, Sam's not always outside when Dean comes home from work. When he finally is, on a Thursday, Dean plants himself across him and starts speaking immediately.

Sam closes his book, purses his lips and pays attention.

Castiel, he's become.

Horrible, he's remained.

When Dean's done ranting, the sun's gone down. He gets up, hands on his hips. "He's just a jackass about everything, Sammy. Who's pretentious about eyecolor? Nobody's eyes can be that blue."

Sam nods sympathetically.

Dean goes away to make dinner, satisfied.

*

Midterms are round the corner.

Without really paying attention to it, Sam's stopped flipping through his handbook, and started highlighting in his textbook. He stays up late, and wakes up early, determinedly chipping away at the ginorminous block of syllabus, bit by bit.

He also stops being out on the porch when Dean comes back from work, and Dean tends to not barge into his bedroom to talk about the awful people he works with, so that's that.

But dinner isn't saved.

It's a simple conversation about mashed potatoes, and Dean goes off. "You won't believe how ridiculous Castiel is about honey, dude." Sam asks for a second helping, he also receives an anecdote on Castiel's ungrateful attitude towards Dean.

Sam doesn't even dare to mention his dislike for bacon once, for all the times Dean offers him it - because he's sure he'd get another indepth analysis of how Castiel hates Dean.

But when they settle down to watch Law & Order after dinner that night, Sam gets a chance to think. He wonders, not for the first time, how truly terrible Cas must be, for Dean to talk about him all the frigging time, and by the end of the episode, he's decided to be the pillar of support his brother needs, right now.

So when Dean starts, randomly, about how Castiel doesn't even appreciate good music, Sam whips out his puppy eyes, and listens to the entire tale.

*

Weeks pass.

His first paper is Tuesday, Ethics. Sam spends most hours of the day on his desk, holed up in his room.

It would be unfair to Dean to say he used up all the time Sam did spend around him, to talk about Cas.

(Which Castiel had ended up being, obviously.)

He only used like sixty percent of it.

*

"He's just...a weird, dorky little guy." Dean ends, biting his lip, eyes cast to the floor. His hands play with the hem of his jacket - he's still in work clothes.

Sam sighs.

"You know what?" Dean stands up. "I'm going to make coffee. Do I get you a mug or a thermos?"

"Thermos, please." Sam calls after him, gratefully.

"Okay. Carry on, bitch."

*

Sam feels guilty.

He's been so caught up in college, deadlines and exams, he's hardly talked to Dean except to thank him for all the coffee and sandwiches.

Dean may be a jerk all year, but he can get really supportive when Sam needs him to be.

Sam feels bad for not doing the same.

So when Dean puts a peanut butter sandwich in front of him, at one am while Sam panics through his last night revision, he looks up at his brother blankly and asks. "Hey, how's the guy who's been making your life hell? You stopped telling me about him."

"Oh, uh." Dean pauses.

Sam waits, but Dean takes too long, as if he's contemplating, so he takes a bite of his sandwich instead.

"He's not that bad." Dean finally lets out, exhaling into a hint of a smile.

Sam raises his eyebrows.

*

"To you kicking Stanford's ass!" Dean raises his bottle, perhaps the sixth toast of the night, giant grin plastered on his face.

"I keep telling you the results are a far way from being out yet - but hear, fucking hear!" Sam clinks his glass to Dean's beer, smile equally wide. He's finally done. There's finally no more papers, no more tests, no more revision.

He made it through.

"I'm proud of you." Dean mutters lazily, leaning back on the seat.

"Y-yeah. I know." Sam returns joyfully, neither of them really thinking about what they're saying. They've been drinking for hours. "Thank you."

"Yeah, yeah. I know." Dean repeats, and proceeds to chuckle at his words. There's a moment of silence - well, as silent as it ever gets in the Roadhouse. Then Dean speaks up. "Guess what, Sammy?"

Sam doesn't even correct him.

"What?"

"I'm going to ask Cas out today." Dean declares, and Sam's eyebrows go up again, because while he's definitely known his brother's into guys for years, he hadn't expected Dean to come out like this.

But six beers in, and a declaration of pride out, Dean just ups and says it.

"I think I have a crush on him."

*

Many months go by. It's Sam's final year. And he's moving back onto campus.

"I'm going to miss you." Sam tells Dean, after they've finished lugging all of his bags into Jessica's room. Dean's half sitting on Baby's hood, and Sam has his hands shoved in his pockets.

"Shuddup." Dean throws back, and he definitely sounds weird. "I'm like, seven minutes away."

"Still." Sam grins, earnest.

"Yeah, alright. I'm not making you move out, okay?" Dean straightens, scoffing. "Have fun convincing Jessica to make you breakfast food at midnight."

"Yeah but," Sam laughs. "You live like, seven minutes away."

"Like hell I do. Get your ninety-percent peanut butter ass over here." Dean sighs, and Sam walks up to him, letting Dean pull him into a hug.

They hold onto each other, safety in the familiarity. Both of them know that they're probably not going to live together again. Sam has a plan after college, which doesn't involve moving back to Dean's. But they've shared a house for so long, it's going to feel weird.

It's going to be strange.

To lighten the moment, Sam whispers. "So, uh. Cas is moving in after I'm gone, isn't he?"

"He's probably already redecorating the place to get rid of your nerd cooties." Dean thumps him on the back, as they separate. There's a smile lingering on his face.

"What about your nerd cooties?" Sam bitchfaces at him.

"He likes those." Dean defends, crossing his arms on his chest.

"I bet he does." Sam snorts, and Dean reddens, realizing he just walked right into that, and then he just swears under his breath goodnaturedly as Sam walks into his new place.

*

Sam's phone rings.

It's only eight, on a Saturday, and Sam doesn't have to leave for office at nine like everyday, so he's sleeping in. Amelia's next to him, and she elbows him when the annoying ringtone wakes her before it wakes Sam.

"Sorry, babe." Sam tells her, kissing the top of her head distractedly, picking up the phone and sitting up when he hears Dean's voice.

It's trembling with excitement.

"Sam!" Dean gushes, and there's really no other word for it. There seems to be a commotion behind him, but the happy kind. Dean's tone is almost ecstatic.

"Dean?" Sam confirms, groggily.

"Dude, Cas just asked me to marry him!" Dean let out, almost breathless. "And I said yes! Of course, I said yes! We're getting married, Sammy!."

A smile grows on Sam's face. "Dude. You're getting married."

"I'm getting married!" Dean repeats, and proceeds to chuckle at something Cas is saying apparently, because then he tells Sam he's putting him on speaker.

"Hello, Sam." Cas greets him, sounding thoroughly overjoyed.

"Congratulations, Cas." Sam says, beaming now. He's so happy for them both. Cas is amazing, and he gets Dean, and Sam knows Dean loves him so much. "And, uh, Dean? You better fight a good fight for my Bestmanship, versus Castiel's brother, okay?"

Dean laughs, and it's the kind of rare excited laugh which makes everyone around smile too.

Cas answers, instead, his voice just as excited. "Don't worry, I'd rather have Gabriel be the caterer."

Sam chuckles. "Good."

"Give the phone back a minute, Cas," Dean says in the background, and then it's off-speaker, and just Dean, again. "You're not busy being important or anything, are you?"

Sam looks around him. "No?" Dean hesitates for a beat, until Sam catches the gist. "Dude! Of course I'm not busy. Tell me everything!" Dean lets out a sound which is definitely a squeal, though he'd never own up to it. "How did it happen? Why did it happen so early?"

Dean exhales, happily, and Sam can picture the smile on his face.

"Wait, is there a ring? Dean, I need you to show me the ring." Sam adds, just before Dean starts to tell Sam about it all. Just like he had, at the very beginning.

*

Six days to the wedding, Sam sits on the old porch chair, tapping his pen on his notebook.

He needs to write a speech.

There's so much to tell. The two of them are adorable, for god's sake. They tend to be cheesy even in front of him, and so unaware of it - Sam wonders if they turn into mushy marshmallows when his back is turned.

Maybe he should include that in his speech. "Mushy Marshmallows" is a cute alliteration. Huh.

After an entire evening of thinking, he pushes himself off his seat to get a cup of coffee. (He'd try to convince Dean to make some, but him and Cas have an appointment with a florist for the wedding.)

In any case, Sam may not be done with the speech entirely, but he figures he's earned a break. You see, he's already got an unbelievably great title. He can work from there.

"How Dean Is The Worst Judge Of People."

He has a good first line, too. "Exhibit A: Novak-slash-Castiel-slash-Cas."

[oleanderblume]

Turn in your fucking exam paper.

A little short narrative/poem whatever the fuck about coming out.

I keep forgetting to. You know?

It's there in the back of my head, "turn it in, you've written it."

"You've put so much effort into it already."

Except I don't. And I didn't. Not actually, I didn't write anything down that hadn't already been written before, I don't have anything new to say- probably just louder.

Right? And even then, the volume is really only read at a whisper. It's a good paper, a good thesis, good statement. I've always excelled at english.

But I doubt it so thoroughly, because what if it's wrong? What if I'm wrong?

What if everything I have to say, really truly, doesn't matter because I still haven't turned it in, and nobody is ever going to see it?

I want them to see it though, and I want them to read it, grade it, enjoy it. Enjoy me.

I want them to take this exam paper, hold it up to the light so they can see the mirror of words reflected through the yellow sun. And read them completely and truly.

Understand them.

However, I know. I know that this won't be the case. What I have to say, who I have become is so viscerally opposed to those I want to read this stupid fucking exam paper.

They can say, "oh, I get it- I understand this."

Abd never once, will they comprehend it. They will ask about it, wonder if its merely anecdotal, merely a fictional story and not an in depth analysis of the self- of me. Then, they will question me.

My life, how and what I see, if its real- important. If anything I say matters at all.

And then lastly, they will burn it. So utterly that the ashes aren't even left behind. I could try and save it, try and protect it. Try and shield ot from poke, and tears, penmarks and cigarette holes.

Won't change anything though.

I really ought to turn it in.

At some point.

The nagging of it, is physically painful. Like some terrible sheet under my skin that hold the last part of me away from it. No horrific end to it. Just paper cuts under my skin, peeling bits of me up telling me, "if you don't turn it in, it will only get worse."

Of course, it's right. I have been neglecting this stupid late paper since high school, and it shouldn't matter that I haven't turned it in- but it does. And it has only gotten worse.

Eventually, at some point, I'm going to turn it in. Lay all the thoughts I've been keeping tied up in an old binder out bare for everyone and everything to see.

It'll be cathartic, I imagine.

To finally gift that last, very precious, very hidden part of me away. I'd be remissed to think on how stupid and silly of me it was to hoard that stupid fucking exam paper, thinking it would stop existing if I just kept it close.

Being close to it hurts though, reading it hurts. Keeping it locked away hurts so much but it doesn't hurt as much as it would when- if, they read it and they hate it.

It's just a fucking paper though. It's not supposed to make you so horrifically uncomfortable. It's not meant to dig under your skin and make you so awful and naked. It's just some stupid analysis, some nonsense thesis, some dumb thing that I spent so long working on, crying over, figuring out just the right words to use, just the right things to say.

Why do I care so much about a stupid fucking exam paper? It's not a test! Not anymore! I've done with that part of my life, I've finished examining every last thing, pouring over every single detail.

I've come to the conclusion, retread over the thesis, made my arguments and rebutted them with evidence- proof. I have the answer.

Why am I so afraid to say it then?

Because I know I'm not wrong. I know, I know the irrefutable answers, the knowledge, the truth of it. Is it some stupid notion I have? Some fear of what other people have to say about me? What they might do to me? If they read my paper?

Why does it fucking matter? It's not theirs. It's mine. I wrote it.

I think...even though it's late, and I'll probably get a failing grade.

I'm gonna turn in my fucking exam paper.

You should probably too.

[whoslaurapalmer]

for the directors cut thingy what are you doing the rest of your life? this is one of if not my most favorite warm fuzzy lemonberryice fic so any part of it you want to talk about, but especially the bit starting with “‘I wouldn’t run,’ I said. ‘And I will thank you not to point out my previous track record of doing just that’”

thank you!!!!!!! also, true to form, this is, so long, cause i just did the whole thing. what else would i do. the tl;dr of it all is that when i write fic, i am always thinking about writing structure and individual characterization and what the point of any given story is above all else, and that consumes a lot of brain power. and that you could give me any line in a fic and i will have an incredibly specific anecdote for it. 

the first lemonberry ice i wrote!! what a time. i specifically tagged it as ‘very little angst and no one dies!!!’ because i’d just posted beatrice like. three months before??? and i said to myself ‘hmm. i don’t want people to think all i can write is angst......’ so i wanted the fic to be like, look! nothing bad happens here this time!! it’s all good!!!!!!!!! and i had wanted to write something happy!! i like fluff a lot!! 

like bertrand, i was also searching for the right sinatra song for this fic. if it isn’t obvious, by now, three years later, i love sinatra a lot. on my previous laptop, the file for this fic was still titled after the first song the fic was supposed to be about, but when i backed up everything in googledrive i titled it properly, so the file name is the proper one now, but i’m, 99% sure the original song was i get a kick out of you (specifically this super jazzy one, not the one with the opener, it’s slower and doesn’t sound the same). but LIKE WITH EVERY CHOICE I MAKE IN A FIC i wasn’t sure it really captured what the fic was about. especially the “you obviously don’t adore me” line, because the fic was certainly more upbeat than that. so i dug around on youtube for one i thought fit better and found what are you doing the rest of your life. for three people, living such turbulent and unpredictable lives, to hear this song about always wanting to be there, for everything, no matter what it is, and for the rest of their lives, to admit that’s possible............ i couldn’t find a recording of young!sinatra singing it, though, which bummed me out a little. nothing wrong with old!sinatra, but you can start to hear more of the.....age his voice, you know? 

since this was 2017, only the first netflix season was out, and we all still had such high hopes for it, and i sure did, and tito puente was mentioned in miserable mill and because s1 was so good i didn’t mind making a couple references to it because EVERYTHING WAS BEAUTIFUL, and i just wound up sticking him in beatrice and what are you doing the rest of your life because his music was great and it was a fun callback! simpler times indeed........

my main goal with the fic was, i think, to try and figure out how i thought the three of them worked in a relationship, since it was my first time writing them. which is why there’s really specific lines like, “A year had gone by and I still wasn’t used to how free Bertrand was with his affection.” and “I grinned, because after all this time I knew when she was kidding. Beatrice’s razor-sharp wit, and the touches of playfulness behind it, was one of my favorite things about her.” they’re lines that i still think are absolutely in character for lemony, and i probably wouldn’t change them if i wrote it now, but i do feel they’re a little too, on point. or not on point, just.....obvious. like, not only did the lines have to make sense in the style, but they had to make sense, for me, as i was writing, as i was trying to figure out their characters and what would show lemony’s nerves alongside bea and bertrand’s habits and their relationship as a whole, and that’s a lot to try and do

“‘Sonnets,’ I said. ‘Beatrice will write sonnets.’” truly. i am truly haunted by this line now. it will keep me up at night. 

oh boy, that section is. a lot. i gotta go through the whole thing. i do. 

“I wouldn’t run,” I said. “And I will thank you not to point out my previous track record of doing just that, because they were all for relatively legitimate reasons.” I liked to think that I wouldn’t do it again, if the sort of situation arose where it was something I had to consider. (i think every writer in this fandom will admit that one of the hardest things to do, when writing a happy fic, is trying to find the line between, ‘i cannot avoid the legit canon events that have happened to these characters and turned them into the people they are, and i need to address that, no matter what i’m doing’ and ‘i want them to be happy and they deserve it’ and i think that’s a lot of what this section is. referencing how in canon lemony runs to not necessarily avoid his problems, but also, mainly, i think, because he believes 1) that’s the only way to protect the people he cares about and 2) that they’re better off without him, and how there’s definitely a gap between him leaving stain’d-by-the-sea and returning to the city, where anything happened, that counts as ‘leaving,’ and it was also supposed to reference one of the giant fics i was working on at the time, where the climax was, of course, and like any good slow burn fic, a misunderstanding that involved lemony leaving before reconciling with bea and bertrand. this fic would’ve taken place after it.) I liked to think that marriage wasn’t one of those things, because it was something I genuinely wanted. (2017!me had no idea what 2019!me would do......) But the uncertainties of the world sometimes made even that lovely thing seem so far out of my grasp that, if I was honest with myself, I had considered slipping away into the night so that I wouldn’t ruin anything else. It was an upsetting thing to think, but I had thought of it as much as I had thought about those musical numbers. (i still think about that, sometimes. lemony and bertrand, proposing like true theater nerds.) 

Bertrand looked out over the water. “Do you think I’m not scared too, Lemony? About the things we do, the positions we put ourselves in, whether this assignment or the next one will be the one that takes one of you away from us?” (my mental checklist of things i write include ‘lulu, is there a moment in the fic where like, The Point Of The Fic Is Made,’ like the moment where it all comes together and, this is what the fic was For an What It’s Supposed To Say, and that’s what this scene was for, and it’s definitely in what bertrand’s saying here.) (but because it’s 2017, like some of the earlier lines, i feel as if The Point is Too On Point. but it’s something i still struggle with, even now.) (it’s still important for bertrand to say it, though.....) 

“No,” I said. “I’m not that much of a fool to think that my fears aren’t universal.”

“Sometimes you act like you do,” Bertrand said quietly. “And I am under no delusion that our feelings for each other will fix any or all of our problems. But they can be a little easier to deal with that way, when you know you aren’t alone. You know that, don’t you?” (i had a lot of characterization notes around this fic (and the giant fic i was writing) since i was, again, just writing them and trying to figure out how they all worked, so i had a little list of like, what each of them do for the other, and parts of it were “bertrand prevents beatrice and lemony from being too dramatic, bertrand prevents lemony from being too self-deprecating, lemony allows bertrand to feel less self-conscious (and probably less worried because bertrand knows someone else shares his terrible anxieties)” and there are things i write differently now, because i’ve been at it for a while, but it was important for me to figure out how they connected with each other and....not what they offered each other, and certainly not how they fixed each other, but how each of them lessened certain canon elements that would make their relationship go differently. because again all my lemonberry ice fics (with the exception of the letter) are written from a standpoint where they would rewrite canon, especially this one. anyway, that’s.....that’s what that dialogue was supposed to do. when all three of them are together, they’re capable of being that support for each other and evening each other out.) 

I wanted very much to believe that, but every time Beatrice or Bertrand said it, it never seemed to sink in the way it should. It is one thing to love someone, or multiple someones, to love them so much you often can’t think of anything else, but another thing to trust them and the things they say and yourself, especially when you live the kind of lives that we lived. (i hate to keep bringing up years i know it’s like. weird but it’s how i sort where my brain was, and 2017 was a great year for analysis in this fandom and i don’t remember who exactly had brought up, that lemony sees a difference between love and trust, especially after ellington (he loved her but he didn’t trust her), and that’s something that’s so true that i’ve never forgotten and that gets brought up in other fics too (bea in the letter loving lemony but not trusting him.....). there are certain headcanons, of my own and of others, that i tend to just get, attached to, so they just. keep. happening.) Perhaps I did forget about it sometimes, the terrible recklessness with which Beatrice occasionally acted, how Bertrand tended to be much too quiet at times, the things all of us did when we forgot we weren’t alone. (yet another ‘line that has to work in the narrative and Say The Point’ because that really is a big thing in how i structure stories. i feel like it’s so necessary for there to BE a point to each thing i write, ESPECIALLY in shorter pieces, otherwise, why???????? and you know what, i need to be less strict about that, really.) The three of us were not perfect people, not by any means, but three imperfect people doing what they can for each other in a turbulent world is sometimes better than three perfect people going through life without a care about anything else. (i rewrote this line a few times, but it’s one of my favorites. this fic really has aged well, especially with lemony’s narration, this line in particular.) 

I squeezed Bertrand’s hand and didn’t say anything more.

speaking of lemony’s whole love vs. trust thing and my rewriting, i tend to keep most of what i cut out of a fic, especially while i’m trying to figure out a certain line (although sometimes i’ll just rewrite over it and then it’s lost to time), and the file has my original attempts for this scene, which still had some good lines -- 

I think it is a universally accepted truth that if you love someone, you trust them, in one way or another, but I have never felt that way. there have been quite a few people whom I loved a great deal but didn’t trust them, or people that I knew I could trust to act a certain way but certainly didn’t love at all. I believe it comes with the sort of upbringing that involves a great deal of suspicion for even the people around you.

the circumstances around you meeting them. but sometimes also because of the things they do. or you can not love someone at all and trust them, because you know them to be a horrible person and trust that they will continue to act in horrible ways, and that at the bottom of every root beer float you drink in their presence there will be a small collection of thumbtacks.

bertrand looked out over the water. “we love you very much, lemony,” he said, “and I don’t expect that to fix any or all of our problems. but do you trust that we feel that way?”

I did. or I wanted to. the thing about trust is that it is a very difficult thing, and as much as I wanted to spend the rest of my life between the two of them, the amount of uncertainty I felt about myself and our lives and even about that uncertainty was a heavy thing.

“what if it’s not enough?”

“maybe it’s not,” bertrand admitted. “but it’s good enough.”

“‘Hey, hey!’ Beatrice said, snatching the plate from him. ‘Don’t be like that with the good plates.’” still one of my favorite actions. still makes me laugh, even though now i think bea would be the one to be reckless with dishware. 

and beatrice talking about their apartment being too small for children is a top favorite fic ending. i love her. so much. 

[46ten]

Eliza Hamilton biography review

Tilar J. Mazzeo's Eliza Hamilton: The Extraordinary Life and Times of the Wife of Alexander Hamilton Let me preface this review by stating that I'm not the target audience for a book like this, but I’ll try to be fair. A major challenge in writing a biography of Elizabeth S. Hamilton is that the period of her life when the general public has the most interest - the years of her marriage to Alexander Hamilton - are those in which we largely only have contemporaneous sentimental accounts of her as a wife (letters from AH and P. Schuyler, brief mentions from McHenry and Stephen Van Rensselaer), daughter (letters from P. Schuyler), and sister (letters to/from Angelica S. Church and Margarita/Peggy S. Van Rensselaer, and letters between her siblings and father). But that's not all that EH - or any woman - was.  Based on the lack of information provided in this biography, Mazzeo's not terribly interested in the role of upperclass women in the late 18th century, the dynamics of marriage in that era, class distinctions between women, labor dynamics, childbearing and -rearing customs (she doesn't know about naming customs either), handicrafts, household management, women’s roles in education, the Republican Court, or any of a range of topics that would flesh out EH's world. Mazzeo doesn’t elaborate on the common conceit of the era that women had a political and social duty to the republic, including in helping to regulate the affairs of men through their “complementary” traits. She largely treats the social gatherings of women as arenas for gossip, titillation, and regular old social duty, not as opportunities for soft diplomacy, influence, and favor currying, which they most definitely also were. The women in this biography just sort of move across the stage of male dominance.* Since Mazzeo largely does not contextualize EH's 18th century life and seems to fall into the trap of, “the work of men is important; the work of women is only of side interest,” she's left repeating lots of gossip and conjecturing about romantic thoughts and feelings, as if these were largely all that women had to offer in the 18th century. Mazzeo clearly read letters that have not been included in the standard Hamilton narrative and found some things - mostly gossipy items - really interesting and was willing to go down the rabbit-hole on those, but was also comfortable relying on Hamilton biographies without going to primary sources on many subjects.  The Good Mazzeo does add some valuable context of the events in Albany especially.  She also adds Schuyler family voices to the narrative. I also liked how solidly she showed the interconnection of the Schuylers and AH with other wealthy and influential families. Although Mazzeo doesn't completely make the link, the tension of life near the frontier, wars, and the assassination attempts on her father's life may have played a role in EH's anxiety, such as it was, about being separated from her husband, esp. as he was also subject to threats of assassination at times. She could have more clearly made a counterargument to biographers' claims of EH's nervous anxiety by pointing out the terrors that EH really did face, but she does not do this. While for dubious reasons (based on how she sees EH as a character), Mazzeo raises issues around the Reynolds Pamphlet. It needs to be taken more seriously that Maria Reynolds denied - to at least two parties on the record - that an extramarital affair ever happened and volunteered a handwriting sample** to prove that the letters in AH's supposed possession were not written by her.  I appreciate that Mazzeo brought up that AH's explanation for his involvement with James Reynolds was not universally accepted at the time - Monroe had serious doubts, as did Callendar.  Unfortunately, some of Callendar's pamphlets detailing why he thought both were possible - AH was a sleaze who could have both had an affair with MR AND been engaged in shady financial dealings with her husband - are also lost to history.  I am also gleeful that I'm not the only person who has noticed that there is a similarity between EH's spelling style and MR's as re-printed. (I have also entertained the thought that EH forged those MR letters herself, or were AH forgeries copying parts of his wife's letters.)  I also appreciate that she points out that AH's claim of an affair with MR became widespread knowledge in the political sphere within a very short period of time. The Bad While Mazzeo adds to the record with facts from the Schuyler family letters, she relies heavily on Hamilton biographies, and not even the thorough, well-sourced ones, for others.  Based on the notes at the end of the book, she didn't bother to go to (or check for) primary sources for a lot of facts about AH. She states that Edward Stevens was "likely" AH's half-brother, which has largely been dismissed as a possibility. There are bizarre dating errors, wrong years, even wrong kids named - by my rough estimate, on average there are factual errors at least on every other page. Did Mazzeo not have a fact-checker - even someone decently acquainted with the facts around the persons she’s writing about? (She also contradicts herself on information she’s provided, so maybe she didn’t have a good proofreader either.) It's head-scratching that Mazzeo would do enough research to conjecture that "Polly" (from Tench Tilghman's May 1780 letter, recorded in his memoir) was Mary Tilghman, but not bother to read AH and GW letters to know more about EH's 1794 pregnancy.  Similarly, she gets it right that William S. Hamilton was born in NYC, but then thinks Eliza traveled to Albany right after. (Although a letter from PS to EH from late August contradicts that claim.)  She even repeats the shoe bow story, but claims it did happen in 1789 (incorrect), and says the person mistakenly thought Peggy was unmarried because of the way she behaved? Stephen Van Rensselaer was a reasonably well-known man. Back to the Reynolds Pamphlet: Mazzeo uses as evidence of AH's drafting of the MR letters the similarity between them and Pamela. It's not really evidence that someone - anyone - would write using common idioms and expressions of the time. AH did it quite frequently himself, as I've written about on this blog - he's doing it when he uses the popular phrase, "best of wives, best of women," not making some reference to the Nut-brown maid poem. This isn't proof that the MR letters were forged. Mazzeo hypothesizes that the real reason for the Pamphlet was further financial scandal cover-up, but never conjectures as to the wheres/hows. (If only she could see my many pages of notes on the interactions between AH, John Church, and Church's financial associates.) I'm also baffled as to Mazzeo's explanation for EH going along with the coverup of a financial scandal of the Reynolds Pamphet - because she was afraid of her husband going to jail? That this was EH's biggest fear? Where is the evidence for that? The Ugly The treatment of Peggy! Harsh and man hungry and scared of being a spinster - though a theme with Mazzeo is all of these women being obsessed with flirtations and afraid of ending up husband-less. The treatment of Angelica! The treatment of JOHN CHURCH, whom she describes as a "scoundrel." AH is a "rogue," seemingly with a drinking problem, visiting prostitutes (yet somehow having MR as a mistress would be too much), staying out late at night. It's a wonder that Mazzeo's AH ever accomplished anything in his life, with all of the 18th century character flaws and errors in judgement she gives him.  Most especially with sexual activities, she repeats gossip from AH detractors several times in the book, while her sources are John Adams (as much as two decades later) and Benjamin Latrobe (good friend to Jefferson).  Mazzeo repeats a story, more than once, about AH sexually assaulting Sarah L. Jay that Adams related decades later and that even Adams' cousin William Cunningham said sounded like nonsense, and guesses as to EH's parlor-room reaction to it.  Yet AH and Church would have had about zero social standing if this were really how they had behaved (or if these anecdotes had been widely known at the time). And then there's all of the fantasy treated as fact - without letters to draw on from the period of her childhood and marriage, Mazzeo spends a lot of time imagining EH's feelings and thoughts and presenting them as facts. As one illustration, Mazzeo invents a wedding scene in which Eliza and Alexander exchange rings. Nevermind that EH's actual wedding ring was interlocking and AH likely never had a ring - Mazzeo has AH give Eliza the "Elizabeth" ring, and her give him the "Alexander &" ring. Why would they exchange rings with their own names? Finally, there's a good deal of documentation of EH's life after AH, including more letters from her, more evidence of her financial management, and actually more about her beliefs, thoughts and feelings than are available during her marriage. This is the period when EH's "voice" is most clearly recorded, along with her actions outside the management of her household and her husband's public career. Yet this gets very short-shrift by Mazzeo. The Ugly left a strong impression - it doesn't seem that Mazzeo is neutral about the personages, but actively dislikes them. At various times, she slams pretty much everyone who made up EH's closest circle during her marriage: her parents, her sisters, her husband, her brother-in-law, and then goes against acceptance of the Reynolds Pamphlet not through analysis of the evidence but because she wants an EH that is more palatable to her.  EH, ultimately, comes across as a cypher. Mazzeo does have a strong narrative style, and I wish that this book could have been a collaboration between a historian (or at least someone with stronger scholarly skills) and herself, to at least tease out a real world.  I think we're a good 50 years past writing women from other eras as if they're completely unknowable except as wives, mothers, and daughters. *In patriarchal cultures, there are always women cooperating with the dominant culture as a means to their own ends. The compromises and nuances of how that plays out in societal rules are fascinating. But, I guess, not to Mazzeo.

**This really needs further comment in my epic John Church-AH shenanigans post, where Jeremiah Wadsworth gets more attention, but I’ll point out here that AH asked Wadsworth to confirm MR’s handwriting, from AH to Wadsworth, 28Jul1797 (in NYC, writing to Wadsworth in Hartford, CT): 

My Dear Wadsworth

I regretted much, that I did not find you here.

I know you have seen the late publications, in which the affair of Reynold’s is revived. I should have taken no notice of them had not the names of Mughlenberg Monroe & Venable given them an artificial importance. But I thought under this circumstance, I could not but attend to them. The affair has so turned that I am obliged to publish every thing.

But from the lapse of time I am somewhat embarrassed to prove Mrs. Reynold’s hand writing. Thinking it probable, as she was a great scribbler you must have received some notes from her when she applied to you for assistance, I send you one of her notes to me and if your recollection serves would be much obliged to you to return it with your affidavit annexed—“That you received letters from Mrs. Reynolds, conceived yourself to be acquainted with her hand writing & that you verily believe this letter to be of her hand writing.”

If your memory does not serve you then return the letter alone to me. If I remember right I never knew of your agency towards procuring Reynold’s relief, till after he was discharged. If your memory stands in the same way, I will thank you to add a declaration to this effect.

Dont neglect me nor lose time.

Yrs. truly

This was Wadsworth’s response (2Aug1796), truncated by me: 

your favor of the 28th July arrived late last evening. I have not the least knowledge of Mrs. Reynolds’s hand writing nor do I remember ever to have recd a line from her if I did they were destroyed but a letter or two for you which by Your request I returned to her or destroyed. ...[S]he immediately fell into a flood of Tears and told me a long storey about her application to You for Money when in distress in her husbands Absence & that it ended in a amour & was discovered by her husband from a letter she had written to you which fell into his hands. I told her I would see Mr. Woolcott & G Mifflin The next Morning I told Mr. Woolcott what had passed he then related the transaction for which Clingn & Reys had been committed. I then went to Mifflin and told him I came at ye request of Mrs. Reynolds. he imediately told me that she had told him the Story of the amour. ...A Mr. Clingman whom I had never seen before and seemed to have been sent for was present part of the time. From this interview I was fully confirmed in my Opinion before formed that the whole business was a combination among them to Swindle you. Mrs Reynolds called on me again and urged me deliver letters to You. You refused to receive them & desired me to return letters for You or destroy them I do not know which. I rec’d several Messages from her and again went to her house told her you would hold no correspondence with her and gave her my Opinion as at first that her husband must undergo a trial. I can not be particular as to time & date and I do not remember that I ever knew how he was liberated untill I lately saw Mr Woolcott. I certainly never considered myselfe as having any agency in procureing Reynolds’s relief nor do I remember ever to have had any conversation with You on the subject untill after your meeting with the Mess Munroe Melenburg & Venables. and had supposed Reynolds to have been ⟨released⟩ by their influence he was ⟨ashamed⟩ to have been so ⟨–⟩ after an Explanation with you. I am sorry you have found it necessary to publish any thing for it will be easy to invent new Calumnies & you may be kept continualy employed in answring. be Assured it never will be in the power of your enemies to give the public an opinion that you have Speculated in ye funds, nor do they expect it: I should have replied by this days Post—but the Mail arrives here at nine at night & goes out at Two in the Morning. I am D sir truly yours

[davidboles]

The Creapure Miracle Review

It’s been about a month since I first discovered Creapure as micronized (and Vegan!) “Creatine” and I am amazed at the strength, and endurance I have achieved over such a short period of time. My Creapure analysis is all anecdotal, and unscientific, but 10g of Creapure a day has made a 100% positive difference in gaining strength, and getting more power, in my Kettlebell workouts. The results appear to be a miracle!

Creatine Monohydrate helps in ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) recycling for quicker, and more powerful, muscle response, muscle growth, and quicker recovery during exercise.

Today, I’ll share a quick review of three micronized Creatine powders I’ve been using. I take 5g 30 minutes before my workout and another 5g after my workout. On rest days, I only take 5g. Over the last month, I’ve lost 5 pounds of fat, and gained 10 pounds of muscle, and the only change was adding Creapure to my routine, and then being able to increase my base Kettlebell weight from 20kg to 24kg. All these Vegan creatine replacements are expensive, so we’ll focus more on taste, and ease-of-use, than quantifying individual improvement associated with any one brand.

Transparent Labs, Grade A There’s no doubt Transparent Labs have created a real winner in the easy intake of Creapure. Their containers actually include the Creapure logo, and their product tastes delicious. You can buy their “Creatine HMB” in Blue Raspberry, Black Cherry or Tropical Punch. I purchased all three flavors, and they are all quite satisfying. Each serving includes 5g Creapure, 2g HMB (Hydroxymethylbutyrate) and 5mg of BioPerine (a sort of black pepper). 30 minutes after drinking, I’m full of energy, and ready to lift some iron! Plus, there is no granular aftertaste, and I can just mix this with water and go — it’s a simple, and effective, recipe for excellence in training. Product sent to me expires 12/2022.

Optimum Nutrition, Grade B+ I bought a massive 2kg jug of Optimum Nutrition’s “Micronized Creatine” and this powder is as simple as it gets. 5g of “Creatine Monohydrate” and that’s that! There is no flavor, so that makes it easy to mix with a protein drink, or even food, but you really wouldn’t want to just drink it with water only, if you had a choice. There is a slight chalky taste at the end of the last gulp, but nothing terrible in disguise. Product sent to me expires 02/2023.

Klean Athlete, Grade D Klean Athlete is a curious company. Their “Klean Creatine” is a gritty, unflavored, powder that includes 5g of Creapure in each serving. Creatine product sent to me expires 12/2022. However, since Klean was my first exposure to Creapure, I also added their BCCA + PEAK supplement to my order, and I was dismayed to see the BCCA product expired 08/2021 — just a few months from now — and I thought that unfortunate because that meant I’d have to use this product every single day before the supply I ordered expired. Most products you order online have at least a year before expiration when they arrive in your hand. If I had purchased the Klean product on Amazon, and not directly from Klean, my order would have been refunded due to the quick expiration date. When I asked Klean Athlete about the differential in expiry dates, I was locked out of my online account, and a few days later I received an email explaining that the expiration dates were within their shipping policy. I found the experience dealing with Klean to be cold, and unsecured, and it didn’t help matters that both of their products left me with indigestion, and burping, while exercising.

If you want to gain strength, and get a better, and more robust, workout bang for your Creapure dollar, consider trying out a couple of servings of Creapure on your exercise days for a good while, and see if you get the same biological lift that I was able to create just by drinking a few fluid ounces of Micronized Creatine powder mixed with water.

[news-mashable-yahoopartner-blog]

I'm giving up podcasts to save my brain and soul from overload

In an era when there's so much information — so much content — that we can never, ever be bored, I've come to a breaking point: I'm giving up podcasts.

My brain is melted from an onslaught of news and takes. I've come to realize that I'm overwhelmed and the only way to catch my breath is to cut something out. So I've cracked open my podcast app for the last time for the foreseeable future.

SEE ALSO: Spotify bets big on podcasts with acquisition of Gimlet and Anchor

That's not to say I'm giving up on listening to things on my commutes or my many, many walks with an overactive dog. There's more music available at my fingertips than I could ever hope to listen to, and I'm also taking up audiobooks as a way to help pass these cold, windy strolls through the Ohio winter. 

My farewell to podcasts didn't come easily. After all, they are extremely interesting and entertaining, like a personalized talk radio station that shuffles through topics that speaks directly to my soul. But the time has come to give my soul (and my mind) a break. I need to reclaim those hours and spend it doing something other than trying to stuff even more information into an already overpacked brain.

Information Overload

Here's the real problem: I could listen to podcasts, on double speed, for every waking minute of my week and still not come close to chipping away at the stack of all of the episodes piling up in my queue. It's the result of something good: my enthusiasm for so many things. But somewhere along the line it's taken a bad turn.

A huge part of the problem is that I've been trying to stay up on all the political news I can in a particularly volatile environment. I recently wrote for this very site about the political podcasts I listened, so there's always something in the queue. Everything from the analytical banter of the FiveThirtyEight politics podcast to the Associated Press's deeply reported "Ground Game." 

These feel like must-listens that kept me up-to-date on everything happening in the political world. And that's not including the new spate of daily news podcasts that break down everything that just happened, like the New York Times' popular "The Daily" podcast and the Washington Post's "Post Reports.

There's only so much I can really take in, though. And I'm definitely not alone. It's an extension of a wider problem that many of us have been dealing wit. Burnout over bad news has been an issue for years, but it's even more prevalent now given the volatility of the news cycle we're living through — climate change, North Korea, Trump, you name it. It's also fed by how we consume the news in a never-ending stream of TV, radio, digital video, social media, and, yes, podcasts. 

There's so much input that if you don't adjust, you just might drown in the tidal wave of information. As  someone who lives and writes on the internet all day, it's something I'm hyper aware of and — at least for me — one of the easiest ways to alleviate some of the flow is to, well, cut out the podcasts.

Podcast overload has been an issue people have explored, especially as podcasts have become more popular. In August 2017, The Ringer looked at why listening to your podcasts on hyper-speed (like, ahem, I do) doesn't really help. And in October 2017, Sirena Bergman of The Cut explored the pros and cons of cramming all these podcasts into your head in any given week. 

None of the suggestions I've found for finding balance have worked for me. I've tried to listen to many podcasts on double-speed and fewer podcasts on regular speed and neither has offered the solution I'm searching for. Even cutting back a significant amount hasn't done the trick: I just keep going back for more. So I decided that the best thing for me is to simply quit cold turkey.

Not Necessarily the News

News and politics aren't the only thingsI've been piping through my earbuds. I've been a huge fan of music podcasts for years now, specifically for my favorite jam bands: the Grateful Dead-focused "Brokedown Podcast" and three Phish-related podcasts. Throw in "Pod Dylan," which analyzes a different Bob Dylan song every episode, and I've got hours of great material every week.

You can also add to the pile the countless sports podcasts I'm subscribed to. There are the three different Chicago Cubs podcasts and then there a half-dozen other baseball podcasts. On top of that there's the odd football podcast like the "(New Orleans) Saints Happy Hour Podcast," and then the ESPN "30 for 30" podcast series. Put it all together and you've got a stack of podcasts that piles up like back issues of the New Yorker.

That's another problem: These podcasts are supposed to be informative, but they're also supposed to be fun. Hearing hosts blow off steam about, say, a terrible Super Bowl-altering no call or a deep analysis of a terrific run of Phish shows is meant to help reduce the stress that builds up in my brain from everything else. 

Instead, seeing the episodes pile up and knowing I'm never going to get to them only ups the pressure in my head. And how many more sponsored messages can I really listen to before I break down and get my own meal kit subscription?

I'm surprised no one thanked Boll & Branch, Me Undies or Casper Mattresses this #Oscars Then, again, perhaps I listen to one too many podcasts.

— GettingCookedWithCraig (@GettingCooked) February 25, 2019

I want to stay informed. I want to hear the latest analysis of up-and-coming baseball prospects or what, exactly, an obscure Bob Dylan B-side means, because it genuinely interests me. But even when I made myself stop listening to every episode and got more picky, listening only to the episodes I really wanted to check out, the stress didn't really subside.

At a certain point, the anxiety of missing out on something, anything, became greater than the excitement of listening to a new episode of any podcast. Every episode I skipped could be a golden nugget I'd never hear. Was there a terrific anecdote about Phish's latest Madison Square Garden run or a life-changing revelation about a 1972 Dead show in one of the episodes I missed? 

This overpowering fear of missing out (FOMO) became my biggest hurdle to both listening to and ultimately giving up podcasts.  

Fighting FOMO

I want to keep up. In an age where information moves impossibly fast, I want to be on that leading edge. Plus there's also the not-insignificant fear of being left out of the cultural conversation. 

A few years ago, I was able to keep up with the "Serial" zeitgeist, devouring every episode as soon as it dropped. In 2019, there are so many of these podcasts that I can't possibly keep track. "S-Town"? I fell off after several episodes and never caught back up. Same with "Dirty John" and "Slow Burn."

But I agonized over it, still downloading the episodes and telling myself that, yes, tomorrow was TOTALLY the day I'd dive in and catch up to what everyone was talking about on Twitter.

What peer-induced FOMO podcast should I be listening to?

— Derek Hiebert (@derekhiebert) February 19, 2019

The more these episodes piled up, the more stressed I became. But there just aren't enough hours in the day. And the truth is that I've got a pretty bad memory. I've probably forgotten more of the fascinating anecdotes and revelations I've been seeking than I've remembered. So what am I really missing in the end?

I'm find leaving one Stone unturned

There comes a breaking point for everyone, and I finally reached mine not long after the new year, when the lighter load of the holidays fell away and the news cycle cranked up again. When Roger Stone was finally indicted as part of the Mueller investigation, the exhaustion hit me just as the news cycle exploded, including a barrage of "emergency podcasts" on the topic.

In the days that followed, I watched the deluge of reactionary podcasts roll in, but I found the urge to click "play" was fading. Between the news I was already gleaning from social media and stories I read, that fear of missing something wasn't nearly as strong as it had been before. 

Maybe it was Trump overload, maybe it was something about Stone himself — a truly repulsive charlatan — that turned me off. Either way, as the days ticked by, I didn't feel that same pull to learn more. The hold was broken, and it was easier to let other podcasts keep slipping by until I realized I wasn't really missing anything at all. 

So long, happy trails

When I mentioned my podcast sabbatical to a friend, they asked why I was going cold turkey instead of, say, just cutting back? I get that it seems extreme but it's a mix of two things: the need to give my brain full break each day and the hope of a fresh start. 

And I plan to stick to it. I've already mowed through a few audiobooks and have downloaded another half-dozen from my local library and have no desire to give up the calmer, more cohesive experience of listening to these books for a return to chaotic world of podcasts. 

Will something ever happen to draw me back? Maybe. If and when the Mueller Report finally drops, I can see dipping a toe back into the pool for an episode or two of analysis. Same goes for some sort of major move by one of my sports teams. (Say, the Cubs suddenly signing free agent star Bryce Harper.) 

SEE ALSO: Podcasts were my friends when I had none

But, for now, I'm done. Maybe getting my brain smoothed back out over the coming months will put me in a better place to come back to a slimmed down input of podcasts in time for, say, the 2020 presidential election. 

Even then, I'll need to wade slowly into the shallow end. If I do come back, I know I'll feel a lot better about managing the overload and being picky, making sure that what I choose to take in will be truly beneficial for me and something I can truly value. FOMO, be damned.

WATCH: Will Ferrell brings back Ron Burgundy for iHeartRadio podcast

[topicprinter]

I am developing a site that examines news through history.As just two examples, if Mr. Trump says I gave away my salary just like George Washington, we examine President Washington's refusal of salary (he was so cash poor that he attempted to borrow money to attend his own inauguration). Or if parents are worried about their kids not getting along with teachers (this was in the news), we bring up the anecdote of John Adams who dropped out of school because he didn't get along with his teacher and how his father handled this.The site will start with bi-weekly posts, and then add podcasts and from there bring submissions from and interviews with experts, historians, authors, etc.So I've been wondering whether my audience is history enthusiasts or avid followers of news? I've been leaning towards the latter because our analysis of history sheds light on current news. Also, what age groups, education level, etc.? So far, interest for this has been all over the map. This concerns me because developing a product for "everyone" is a terrible approach.So I thought of getting some face-to-face interviews (video most likely) with people I don't know. I thought perhaps Mechanical Turk would be a good tool for this? Or perhaps Facebook. I haven't used either and don't want to spend much money at all. Also, I am not a techie person and am just learning how to work things online, build a website, do social media (it's such a steep learning curve, but huge, huge fun. Loving it!).I love the community's feedback, and please don't feel limited in your response to the letter of question. You're welcome to share any and all of your thoughts. Thank you in advance.Please note that I've designed a coming soon page that communicates what the site does. That decision turned out to be a good move on my part, as we've gotten signups and comments. But I haven't posted the coming soon page on any communities.

[what-s-up-friends-us]

To entertain you, we bring you a series of jokes that are true anecdotes between doctors and real patients. Remember that laughing helps health! I am in the operating room, checking with the nurses the surgical safety list. - Me: We already have here the instruments, the respirator, the antibiotics, and the replacement heart valve ... Patient: And you waited just until this moment to get all that together?
 DR. MARC GILLINOV, de la Clínica Cleveland, de Cleveland, Ohio. " Have," the nurse tells a patient, and hands him a urine sample container. The bathroom is there, in the background. A few minutes later, the man leaves the bathroom and returns the empty container to the nurse. Thank you, ”he says,“ but there was a urinal, so I didn't need to use the jar. DR. TRAVIS STORK Things that are said in the office I prescribed a patient an inhaler for his cat allergy. After a week he came back and told me he hadn't improved. It turns out that he had sprayed his cat's inhaler. Source: www.sunnyskyz.com When I leaned in to check her eyes, the patient, an older woman, got a little playful. "It reminds me of my third husband," he said with a smile. "Third husband?" I replied, surprised. How many have you had? - Two. DR. LEON PENDRACKY My patient announced that he had good and bad news: - The good news is that the medicine he prescribed for my earache worked, ”he said. "Good, ma'am," I replied. And the bad one? - That tasted horrible. As he felt better, I had no heart to tell him that they are called ear drops for a reason. DR. MURRAY GROSSMAN Patient: Doctor, I slipped in the supermarket and got hurt. Me: Where did you get hurt? Patient: In the dairy aisle.
 DR. JOHN MUNSHOWER I gave my patient the results of her sleep study: You stopped breathing more than 65 times per hour while sleeping. And I breathed again? DR. MICHAEL BREUS During an operation, a resident doctor collided his head with that of the surgeon: - Oh, sorry, doctor! It was a close encounter of minds, ”he said, blushing and smiling. "Yes," said the surgeon, "and I felt so alone." DR. SID SCHWAB Ear through the stethoscope I woke up from anesthesia just at the moment when the doctor was just having a colonoscopy. Feeling a slight pressure "back," I reached out and stroked the doctor's head. Okay, Yehudi, ”I told him. Go to sleep now. Yehudi is the name of my dog. SHERRY MOORE My husband's new “unbreakable” titanium lenses broke. When he took the fragments to the eye doctor to have them replaced, the assistant asked him what had happened. I dropped them while mowing the lawn, ”my husband told her. Ah, ”she replied. And he was wearing them at that time? SUSAN STRONG Patient: I am worried about this birthmark. Doctor: Birthmark, he says? And since when do you have it? When I went to an emergency room to get a painful ingrown toenail, I couldn't stop crying, I was nauseous and trembling with fear. Luckily, the doctor knew how to calm me down. - Don't worry, he said. I just saw on YouTube how this intervention is done. CHELSEA BENDER  Mr. Harper sued a hospital because after his wife was operated there, he alleged, he lost all interest in sex. A hospital spokesman said: “Mrs. Harper entered for a cataract operation. All we did was correct the vision. ” DR. AMAR SAFDAR  A doctor tells his wife: - You cook terribly, you spend too much money and you are a lousy lover! Two weeks later, when he arrives at his house, he finds his wife kissing another man. - What's going on here? —Asked a rage. "Nothing," she replies, "I'm just asking for a second opinion." DRA. DEBORAH AXELROD - Did you know what happened to Mel? A man asked a friend of his. He consulted his doctor for six months due to chest pain and shortness of breath. Last week he died of cancer. - That's terrible! Exclaims the friend. And to think that I told him a thousand times to go see my doctor. - It's good? - Good? It is the best! If you are treated for a heart disorder, you are dying of a heart disorder! DR. STEVEN LAMM Nurses' adventures In the neonatology unit, I asked a young mother why there were so many pregnant women in her small town. "We don't have cable TV," he said. Cheers, Mr. Thief! A pregnant woman's car was opened in front of her house by some lover of the alien, but the only thing she stole was a bottle of wine tucked into a paper bag. It turns out that the woman had poured a sample of her urine into her and was going to take her to the hospital for analysis. JANET GROW The doctor explained to his patient that he had cervicitis or inflammation of the cervix. Alarmed, the woman asked to have her husband tested as well. "I'm sure your husband doesn't have cervicitis," said the doctor. - And how do you know, if you haven't examined it yet? She replied. ROXANNE LOPE A patient calls my unit: Me: Dermatology, what can I do for you? Patient: Hello, miss, I just had an autopsy, and I just want to know the results.

http://bestofftops.blogspot.com/2019/09/laughter-best-medicine.html

[insession-io]

In Defense of Antidepressants

The backlash against antidepressants results from a suspicion of medicine, and misunderstands the very nature of depression.

I was first prescribed antidepressants in 2000. Ever since, I have been on and off these drugs, mostly because the idea of taking them made me uncomfortable. It was a mixture of guilt, probably not unlike the guilt some athletes must feel for taking a prohibited doping substance; shame for needing a pill that had such a profound impact on my behaviour; and frustration with the recurrent episodes of depression that would bring me back to the antidepressants I would then quickly abandon.

I broke this cycle when my daughters were born and I realised that it would be irresponsible to stop treatment because being a good father meant having a stable mood. It was a purely pragmatic decision, made without resolving the existential issues that antidepressants had raised for me before. That being the case, I do not write with the fervour of the newly converted, although sometimes I speculate about how much smoother my life would have been had I decided much sooner to stick to the antidepressants.

Depression is widespread. According to the World Health Organization, in 2015 depression affected more than 300 million people, or 5.1 per cent of females and 3.6 per cent of males, worldwide. It was the single largest contributor to global disability, and the major cause of the nearly 800,000 deaths by suicide recorded every year – suicide being the second leading cause of death among 15- to 29-year-olds.

Despite these statistics, depression remains misunderstood by the public at large and is, it seems, best described by those who have lived it. The novelist William Styron wrote in his memoir Darkness Visible (1990) that: ‘For those who have dwelt in depression’s dark wood, and known its inexplicable agony, their return from the abyss is not unlike the ascent of the poet, trudging upward and upward out of hell’s black depths.’ Andrew Solomon’s memoir The Noonday Demon (2001) is a useful tome and the book on depression for the public at large. ‘It is the aloneness within us made manifest,’ he writes of the state, ‘and it destroys not only connection to others but also the ability to be peacefully alone with oneself.’

For those outside the experience, part of the confusion comes from the association of the disease with melancholia and sadness, feelings we all have experienced. Malignant sadness, or depression, is something else entirely, and it takes a leap of faith to accept that too much of something can become something completely other.

Clinical depression manifests in different forms. The two main categories are major depressive disorder (MDD) and dysthymia, which is a milder form of depression. (Episodes of major depression alternating with extreme euphoria characterise bipolar disorder, but this disease is typically treated with mood-stabilising drugs, which are not the focus of this piece.)

Broadly, depression is a chronic, recurring and debilitating disease that turns you into a prostrated citizen, an absent or incompetent employee, a needy friend, a self-absorbed partner, a useless parent. You can’t think clearly, you can’t make decisions, often you can’t get out of bed in the morning and, even if you manage to stand up, you won’t find anything worth engaging with, not even your regular hobbies or your dearest friends and relatives. You also tend to ruminate endlessly, fuelled by feelings of guilt and worthlessness, which sometimes leads to suicide ideation, suicide attempt and death.

Even if the vague links that some people see between depression and creativity are real, by sustaining depression you would still be making a pact with the devil, given the extent of the associated pain. If you have any doubts, read David Foster Wallace’s brutal short story, ‘The Depressed Person’ (1998), in which a young woman is depicted as a self-centred monster who asks: ‘What kind of person could seem to feel nothing – “nothing,” she emphasised – for anyone but herself?’

It is obvious that the discomfort I once felt over taking antidepressants echoed a lingering, deeply ideological societal mistrust. Articles in the consumer press continue to feed that mistrust. The benefit is ‘mostly modest’, a flawed analysis in The New York Times told us in 2018. A widely shared YouTube video asked whether the meds work at all. And even an essay on Aeon this year claims: ‘Depression is a very complex disorder and we simply have no good evidence that antidepressants help sufferers to improve.’

The message is amplified by an abundance of poor information circulating online about antidepressants in an age of echo chambers and rising irrationality. Although hard to measure, the end result is probably tragic since the ideology against antidepressants keeps those in pain from seeking and sticking to the best available treatment, as once happened to me. Although I am a research scientist, I work on topics unrelated to brain diseases, and my research is not funded by the ‘pharma industry’ – the disclaimer feels silly but, trust me, it is needed. I write here mainly as a citizen interested in this topic. I take for granted that a world without depression would be a better place, and that finding a cure for this disease is a noble pursuit. Without a cure, the best treatment available is better than none at all.

In second-millennium Mesopotamia, depression was treated with a concoction of poppy extract and donkey’s milk, which sounds delicious, but time is too precious to be wasted on anecdotal recipes when the suffering is so great. There is no universal medicine or therapy for depression. Several approaches are possible, frequently chosen on a trial-and-error basis and in a non-exclusive manner, including psychosocial treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy, which are focused on changing cognitive distortions and behaviours, and therapeutic drugs. The psychotherapies have had their critics since the invention of psychoanalysis, but the biggest debate swirls around the use of antidepressants, especially the most popular configuration of these drugs, known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.

The drugs work directly on the human brain, which is comprised of around 86 billion neurons that communicate with each other through the release of neurotransmitters into a space called the synaptic cleft. These neurotransmitters modulate the electric signals that travel along the neurons and ultimately shape our feelings, thoughts and actions. Serotonin is one such neurotransmitter. SSRIs essentially block the molecular transporters that reuptake serotonin from the synaptic cleft back into the neuron that released it. By inhibiting this transport, the concentration of serotonin in the synaptic cleft is selectively increased while the concentrations of other neurotransmitters are unaffected.

For many like myself, this is enough to help depression lift, yet the critical drumbeat against these drugs goes on. There is strong opposition to antidepressants among a particularly resistant, yet heterogeneous crowd: those who have crystalised a mistrust of the profit-hungry pharma industry (partly justified by many examples of wrongdoing); those with a philosophical or mystical opposition to pills that interfere with the mind, particularly if these medicines are not ‘natural’; and those who make a living by promoting alternative treatments.

Critics ignore the finding that the magnitude of the effect increases with the severity of depression

Even decades after many of these treatments emerged to change the landscape of psychiatry, they are still hotly debated by people ‘full of passionate intensity’, to quote from W B Yeats’s poem ‘The Second Coming’ (1921). The American actor Tom Cruise, boosted by Scientology, and the English writer and critic Will Self, universalising what must have been a terrible personal experience with therapeutic drugs and a psychiatrist, have both pontificated against antidepressants, spreading the typical ideology-driven myths.

Some of those myths, such as the idea that these drugs are addictive ‘happy pills’ that produce the ‘high’ of a recreational drug, are pure lies; anyone who echoes them could be easily exposed as dishonest or ignorant. The most common antidepressants do cause withdrawal symptoms such as nausea, but reports of addiction to antidepressants are rare and tend to occur in patients with a history of drug or alcohol abuse. Unlike recreational drugs that are highly addictive, such as cocaine or heroin, antidepressants do not hijack the reward circuit that is associated with the euphoric rush of another neurotransmitter, dopamine.

The discussion gets more complicated when the scientific evidence for or against the effectiveness of antidepressants is evoked. Such evidence comes mostly from randomised trials in which some patients are assigned to a group that receives an antidepressant, and others to a group that is given a placebo. The conclusions of these studies can be distorted by different sources of error. The most important source of error is publication bias; much of the research is funded by the pharma industry, where there is a tendency to report studies that find positive effects for antidepressants, while studies that find no effect are left in the drawer.

Breaking the blind in clinical trials is another source of error. Here, the individual might correctly guess in which group he or she was included, based on the established side-effects of the drugs, such as dizziness, low sex drive, stomach aches or dry mouth, among others. A third source of error, caused by a skewed measurement scale, is overestimation of the effects.

All these issues are compounded in the popular mind by the tendency to emphasise not individual randomised trials but meta-analyses that combine multiple studies to increase the sample size, iron out discrepancies between different studies, and eventually extract a more valid, that is to say, statistically robust, conclusion. However, the ‘garbage in, garbage out’ dictum of computer science applies perfectly to these exercises. If a relevant proportion of the original studies is fundamentally flawed, the meta-analysis will not fix that problem.

One of the main findings ignored by critics of antidepressants is that the magnitude of the effect compared with the placebo increases with the severity of depression. In the go-to study cited by critics, published in 2008 by Irving Kirsch of Harvard Medical School and colleagues, this effect is attributed to the decrease in responsiveness to the placebo for the extremely depressed patients. But in a subsequent, technically superior analysis from Jay Fournier and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania in 2010, the benefit of medications over a placebo is substantial, and not due to differences in response to the placebo. These findings appear unequivocal: while antidepressants could indeed be being prescribed to many people with mild depression who do not need them, they nonetheless work well in many patients with MDD. Overprescription and the usefulness of antidepressants to people with mild depression could be open for debate, as there are conflicting data in the literature, but it has been repeatedly demonstrated that antidepressants work in people with MDD. Why is it so difficult to accept this highly cautious conclusion of the published data?

The message is clear: antidepressants are better than placebo; they do work, although some work better than others.

One reason for the recent surge of skepticism is a gigantic meta-analysis by the psychiatrist Andrea Cipriani at the University of Oxford and colleagues, published in The Lancet in 2018. While the earlier study by Kirsch had included 5,133 participants, Fournier’s had 718, and another study, by Janus Christian Jakobsen in Denmark in 2017, had 27,422, Cipriani and colleagues analysed data from 116,477 people – or 3.5 times more participants than in the three previous studies combined.

The sample size is not sufficient to ensure quality, but the authors were careful to select only double-blind trials and did their best to include unpublished information from drug manufacturers to minimise publication bias. They found no evidence of bias due to funding by the pharma industry, and also included head-to-head comparisons between drugs (which minimised blind-breaking). They concluded that ‘all antidepressants included in the meta-analysis were more efficacious than placebo in adults with MDD, and the summary effect sizes were mostly modest’. The results are summarised by a statistic, the odds ratio (OR) that quantifies the association between health improvement and the action of the antidepressant. If the OR is 1, then antidepressants are irrelevant; for ORs above 1, a positive effect is detected. For 18 of the 21 antidepressants, the ORs they found ranged from 1.51 to 2.13. These results have been widely mischaracterised and described as weak in the press.

It is not intuitive to interpret ORs, but these can be converted to percentages that reflect the chances of experiencing health improvement from the antidepressant, which in this study ranged from 51 per cent to 113 per cent. These percentage increases are relevant, particularly taking into account the incidence of the disease (20 per cent of people are likely to be affected by depression at some stage of their lives).

For comparison, please note the uncontroversial finding that taking aspirin reduces the risk of stroke – its associated OR  is ‘only’ 1.4, but no one describes it as weak or has raised doubts about this intervention. It would be unscientific to describe the work of Cipriani and colleagues as the definitive word on the topic, but it’s the best study we have so far. The message is clear: antidepressants are better than placebo; they do work, although the effects are mostly modest, and some work better than others. This paper was an important confirmation in times of a reproducibility crisis in so many scientific fields. We don’t have to look too far: a major study was published this spring that does not confirm the association of any of the 18 genes that were reanalysed and had been proposed to be associated with MDD.

Now that the scale has dramatically tilted in favour of antidepressants’ efficacy, it is likely that the critics will keep insisting that we remain mostly ignorant about the causes of depression. To deal with this critique, we need to go back a few decades. Chance often plays a role in the discovery of our most famous drugs, as in the case of L-DOPA for Parkinson’s disease and catatonia, Viagra for erectile dysfunction, and antidepressants. Hollywood movies have been made only about the first two – Awakenings (1990) and Love & Other Drugs (2010) – but the discovery of antidepressants is cinematic in its own right.

Prior to the 1950s, depression was treated with sedatives, stimulants such as amphetamines, and electroconvulsive (shock) therapy, without much science backing up these approaches. But new treatments emerged as neuroscience advanced. In the 1950s, three observations led to what is still our current understanding of the action of antidepressants. First, in 1951, doctors from the Sea View Hospital on Staten Island noticed that a drug named iproniazid, used to treat tuberculosis, had a peculiar side-effect on patients, which was described at the time as ‘a sensation approaching euphoric dynamism’, including increased appetite, more energy and resistance to fatigue. This tempted psychiatrists to try iproniazid as a ‘psychic energiser’ in depressed patients, with encouraging results.

Biochemically, iproniazid is an inhibitor of monoamine oxidase (MAO), an enzyme that breaks down biogenic amines, a group of neurotransmitters that includes serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine and norepinephrine, among others. When the MAO enzyme is inhibited, these crucial neurotransmitters stay intact and become available for release into the synaptic cleft, influencing connected neurons and ultimately contributing to mood or behaviour. Iproniazid worked but because of its substantial adverse effects, such as liver toxicity, dizziness and drowsiness, it was eventually withdrawn from the market.

Second, around 1957, a drug named imipramine (brand name Tofranil), developed as an antipsychotic, showed little effectiveness on schizophrenics, but had remarkable effects on the depressive symptoms of schizophrenics with depression. In the words of the doctor who first noticed these effects: ‘Patients who had great difficulties in getting up in the morning, get out of bed early with their own initiative, at the same time as other patients. They initiate relationships with other people, start conversations, participate in the daily life of the clinic, write letters, and are again interested in their family matters.’

The ‘monoamine hypothesis’ said depression results from a depletion of serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamin.

Imipramine was the first member of a class of drugs named tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) because of the presence of three rings in their molecular structure. TCAs act in several different ways, but their therapeutic effects are thought to result from the inhibition of the reuptake of norepinephrine and serotonin released into the synaptic cleft. The drug has side-effects such as dry mouth, drowsiness, dizziness and urinary retention, among others, and an overdose can be lethal.

The final observation revolved around reserpine, a treatment for hypertension that sometimes caused depression. Reserpine is an alkaloid (a naturally occurring organic compound containing basic nitrogen atoms) from the plant Rauwolfia serpentina. Its negative psychiatric effects were ultimately traced to the inhibition of molecular transporters; with the transporters inhibited, neurons retained neurotransmitters that would otherwise have been released into the synaptic cleft.

Combined, these three observations were the basis for the ‘monoamine hypothesis’ put forward in the 1960s, which proposed that depression results from a depletion of serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine. Over the four subsequent decades, efforts concentrated on developing safer drugs with fewer side-effects within the frame of the monoamine hypothesis.

In the late 1960s, research began to single out serotonin. Decreased concentrations of this neurotransmitter were found in the corpses of depressive suicides, and binding molecules, called ligands, were developed to inhibit only the reuptake of serotonin. The first of these SSRIs, fluoxetine, was described in 1974. In 1989, it would reach the market under the name you’re probably familiar with: Prozac. In 1993 came venlafaxine (brand name Effexor), a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). In 2013, vortioxetine (brand name Brintellix) was approved as a ‘multi-modal’ drug for its ability to target the serotonin transporters but also several serotonin receptors. Over the years, the monoamine hypothesis became, at least for the non-experts, the serotonin hypothesis.

The human body contains at least 12,000 metabolites. On the day of his final exam, a biochemistry major might know a few hundred, but most of us will be able to name only a few dozen, with a clear bias for the metabolites known to influence behaviour. We will immediately associate adrenalin, cortisol, testosterone, oestrogen, oxytocin and dopamine with stereotypical behaviours and personality types, but what about serotonin? The molecule is certainly no obscure metabolite. The French novelist Michel Houellebecq named his latest novel Sérotonine (2019). But would you associate the ‘happy hormone’, as serotonin is often described, with the formation and maintenance of social hierarchies and the impetus to fight observed across the animal kingdom, from lobsters to primates? Indeed, since SSRIs have been found to influence our moral decision making, naming serotonin the ‘happy hormone’ appears to be a mistake. Apart from its role in mood balance, this neurotransmitter is involved in appetite, emotions, sleep-wake cycles, and motor, cognitive and autonomic functions. In fact, most of the body’s serotonin production is not found in the brain, but in the gut.

We simply do not have a consensual overarching explanation for how SSRIs/SNRIs work in depression, and how to link these neurotransmitters to the environmental stressors, genetic factors, and immunologic and endocrine responses proposed to contribute to depression. It is also clear that restoring the chemical balance of monoamines in the brain with a pill, which only takes minutes or hours, is insufficient to immediately produce therapeutic effects, which take several weeks. Indeed, without a complete picture of the mechanism of depression, it is not surprising that the available drug treatments are not fully effective. In a study involving thousands of MDD patients consecutively encouraged to move to a different treatment if they did not achieve remission from the previous treatment, only about 67 per cent of the MDD patients taking antidepressants went into clinical remission, even after four consecutive treatments. Thus, there is a large group of patients who don’t respond to SSRI/SNRIs, which raises doubts about the monoamine hypothesis to explain depression in full.

Other ideas have emerged. One line of thought focuses on the neurotransmitters glutamate (involved in cognition and emotion) and GABA (involved in inhibition), among others. One of the most exciting findings in the field is the clinical efficacy of ketamine, which targets glutamate neurotransmission, producing immediate effects in patients refractory to SSRI/SNRI treatments. Along with the monoamine hypothesis, most of these newer approaches are somehow related to the notion of neuronal plasticity, the ability of the nervous system to change, both functionally and structurally, in response to experience and injury, which can take some time to occur. Thus, it could be that the decreased levels of monoamines are not the real cause of depression, perhaps not even an absolutely necessary condition for depression. The data certainly suggest that there might be better targets to be found, and that the pharmacological approach has to become progressively more tailored.

That said, the temptation to dismiss the monoamine hypothesis to score points against antidepressants shows a lack of understanding of how medicine has worked for most of its history; imperfect but useful therapies have been the rule, even as we refine our understanding of disease.

We have an inbuilt need for self-control, and the idea that a drug fixes our behaviour is not attractive.

The monoamine hypothesis was a remarkable triumph of deductive reasoning, and deserves better from critics who say that depression is so complex it cannot be treated by tweaking neurotransmitter levels. Such a view seems to predate the lessons of chaos theory, which holds that complex systems can be ruled by extremely simple equations, and that small changes can have big consequences. It is also a view not supported by our understanding of biological systems and disease, because we know that a cause as minuscule as a single amino-acid change can make the difference between a healthy life and a living hell.

If you ever tried to convince someone to take antidepressants, maybe you used the argument ‘antidepressants are to depression as insulin is to diabetes’. This recurrent comparison might be useful to diminish the stigma around antidepressants, but for the depressed individual the analogy has two major problems. The first is trivial: he has the option not to take antidepressants, which creates the burden of choice, whereas the diabetic will die without the insulin shots. The second is subtler, but goes to the heart of the issue: a diabetic would be furious if told that he had never needed insulin in the first place, that he had been a victim of a big scam to extort money from him for life. If the same story were told to a lifelong consumer of antidepressants, he might display public indignation as well, but deep inside some pride could emerge from the realisation that, after all, he survived on his own, without any drug. We have an inbuilt need for self-control, and the idea that a drug fixes our behaviour is not attractive. Thus, unconsciously or not, each time someone poses as a contrarian skeptic or whistleblower claiming that antidepressants don’t work, he is essentially a crowd-pleaser.

The key difference between insulin and antidepressants is that the former heals the body, whereas the latter fix the mind, and our sense of self is more strongly attached to the mind than to the body. We do not spend a minute thinking about our pancreas, unless it fails to work. In contrast, our conscience can easily become fixated on a moral dilemma when we take drugs to change the brain. Antidepressants restore the healthy state just like any other medicine, but by tapping into processes so intimately connected to our perception of the self and our moral compass, they raise an existential problem – one that is likely to gain relevance as these drugs become more refined and we leave mental-health restoration for the realm of cognitive enhancement.

The constant trashing of antidepressants has created an absurd situation. These drugs are the most rigorously scrutinised treatments for depression we have to date, yet they keep getting a bad press while ‘holistic’ approaches such as practising sports, yoga or salsa dancing, and consuming St John’s wort, Omega-3 fatty acids, soul food, daylight, Radiohead or J S Bach, perhaps even poppy extract and donkey’s milk, get a pass from everyone. Antidepressants don’t fix the sources of depression that can trigger the disease, they merely fix a biochemistry that makes some of us more vulnerable to stress and life in general. It is a truism that these drugs should be combined with life changes, and that transformative life events remain relevant for depressed individuals taking antidepressants. The Anatomy of Melancholy (1621) by Robert Burton advised his audience to ‘be not solitary’, and that ‘every man almost hath something or other to employ himself about, some vocation’. This advice is as good as ever. But given the state of the art, the high rate of antidepressant discontinuation, and the tragedy that a depression could trigger, bold statements such as ‘antidepressants don’t work’ are a disservice to the public.

Vasco M Barreto works in molecular immunology at CEDOC (Nova Medical School) in Lisbon, Portugal. He is finishing a book for a lay audience on the social implications of our genetic inheritance.

Kathryn McNeer, LPC specializes in Couples Counseling Dallas with her sound, practical and sincere advice. Kathryn's areas of focus include individual counseling, relationship and couples counseling Dallas. Kathryn has helped countless individuals find their way through life's inevitable transitions; especially that tricky patch of life known as "the mid life crisis." Kathryn's solution-focused, no- nonsense counseling works wonders for men and women in the midst of feeling, "stuck," or "unhappy." Kathryn believes her fresh perspective allows her clients find the better days that are ahead. When working with couples, it is Kathryn's direct yet non-judgmental approach that helps determine which patterns are holding them back and then helps them establish new, more productive patterns. Kathryn draws from Gottman and Cognitive behavioral therapy. When appropriate Kathryn works with couples on trust, intimacy, forgiveness, and communication.

[ateamymm]

Are Fort McMurray Property Prices Starting to Stabilize?

After what we’ve been through, few questions matter more to Fort McMurray residents.

When we were evacuated, we posted this to our Facebook page:

Already, at that time, the forest was starting to recover:

But we knew the economic recovery would take a lot longer. Both from the fire, mortgage rule changes, and the sudden shift in the global oil market.

The period 2014-2016 was shocking for our community, both emotionally and economically. During that time, several exogenous shocks occurred and home buyers’ reactions were to turn away from purchasing homes, to delay, and to reduce budgets/goals.

Are Prices Stabilizing?

If you’ve followed our blog for a while, you’ll recall we wrote an article asking a similar question this time last year and the answer we came up with (after some analysis) was basically “no”, or “not yet”.

Encouragingly, today we’ll have a different answer for you.

Let’s start by identifying the initial effects of these shocks, before moving on to see what has happened since...

Economic Shock (2014-2016)

Written in 2017, this article gives a full explanation of the forces that shook us around during the shock.

Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, let’s take a deeper look at the immediate effect that shock had on home buyers in our marketplace. Let’s start with Econ 101[note]Learn more here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041415/whats-difference-between-income-effect-and-substitution-effect.asp[/note]

In theory, we are taught that shocks to families’ finances can play out in two ways:

1.) Income Effect 2.) Substitution Effect

The Income Effect: Essentially, if our budget is lower, we will buy fewer of something. For example, families may choose to purchase fewer Mars chocolate bars. In terms of housing, maybe we buy fewer homes (in other words, fewer families choose to purchase). Instead, we may remain tenants as mortgage rules prevent us from getting what we want, or decreased job security prevents us from wanting to make financial commitments.

Chart 1[note]The interpretations of any MLS® data used are my own and don’t reflect the opinions of the Fort McMurray Real Estate Board or its members. There is plenty of my opinion here, but the data we are using is super accurate. I am not permitted to predict the future and this article does not attempt to do that[/note] shows the income effect in action[note]In all of the charts and tables in this post, the source data covers only the following areas: Abasand, Beacon Hill, Dickinsfield, Downtown, Eagle Ridge, Grayling Terrace, Gregoire Park, Parsons North, Prairie Creek, Stonecreek, Thickwood, Timberlea, Waterways, and Wood Buffalo[/note]:

[caption id="attachment_31154" align="aligncenter" width="847"] Chart 1: Residential Sales in Fort McMurray 2009-2019 (YTD)[/caption]

We can see that the shock to demand was immediate and large (about 50%), and that since the time of the shock, there has been only a modest recovery in demand. As noted in recent articles, this is likely due to prices being lower (which, as opposed to the initial shock, actually increases purchasing power).

The Substitution Effect: If we have tighter income constraint, sometimes we choose to substitute away from luxury goods, and into basic goods. For example, from Mars chocolate bars to bread. Or from luxury homes to ones that satisfy just our needs, not our needs and our wants.

Chart 2 shows the substitution and income effect on our local housing market during the time period:

[caption id="attachment_31151" align="aligncenter" width="872"] Chart 2: Histogram of Residential Sales in Fort McMurray 2014-2016 (YTD)[/caption]

The histogram shows the rapidly changing volume of transactions in the different price brackets. The main area of lost transactions over the period occurred in the higher price ranges (the section that we have redded out). To boot, the loss of confidence didn’t really take effect until 2016 - most of the change occurred 2014 to 2015, presumably as a result of the oil bust. We think this is an important insight. Yes, other things have impacted our market, but the sudden cessation of oil sands development seems to have had the most significant impact on local housing demand. This might be important when we think about drivers for recovery.

We haven’t marked it on the chart, but there are also some bars between $300k and $500k that reduced greatly during this period. This reflects reduced transactions for properties with condo fees that had really nice features. The substitution away from higher-end properties occurred both in the market for homes with and without condo fees. Both are shown on the above chart.

Above all, the most important mental note to take from these two charts is that the oil shock of late 2014 appears to be the main driver. It destroyed demand rapidly, and mainly in the higher priced parts of markets of all property types. As people’s incomes, employment and expectations changed almost overnight, so did their budgets and goals.

The rest of this article looks at what has happened since...

Adjustment Period (2017-2019)

It is strange to say it, but since the time of the shock, the pattern of demand really hasn’t changed significantly: Peoples’ budgets today are very similar to what they were at the end of 2016:

Check out chart 3 to see what I mean[note]Importantly, these two histogram quantities should not be compared with each other, since chart 2 shows full years’ sales, whereas chart 3 shows year-to-date (YTD) information only, and it is July 8th at the time of writing[/note]:

[caption id="attachment_31152" align="aligncenter" width="864"] Chart 3: Histogram of Residential Sales in Fort McMurray 2017 (YTD)-2019 (YTD)[/caption]

To start, please ignore the red arrow.

The thing that surprised me the most when I pulled up this chart, was that nothing huge changed between 2016 and 2019 regarding the shape of demand[note]Yes, even fewer people are purchasing over $800,000, but that market was already extremely stressed in 2016[/note]. The most common purchase price range in 2016 was $550,000 to $600,000, and guess what? That’s still the case today!

In summary: Since the period of shocks, most peoples’ budgets haven’t changed.

Back to the red arrow….

One significant change is that during the period since the fire, there has been an increase in demand for low price properties. The reason being, presumably, is that before late 2016, there was almost nothing available for sale below $300,000. As condo prices changed rapidly, and vacant lots became available for the first time at competitive prices, it was almost like a new market opened up. The missing demand in the very high price ranges is slowly appearing in the very low price ranges as time goes on.

Another is that the demand for high-end homes has indeed continued to dwindle during the adjustment period. Homeowners of those homes are now facing the biggest losses vis-a-vis the boom.

Hope?

Is this a story of hope for today’s homeowners? I think it is.

It’s been a terrible time for Fort McMurray homeowners in all price ranges: In our blog “How Much Have Fort McMurray Home Values Fallen?” we lay it all out (for those who can stomach it), and basically we find that values have fallen not so much in percentage terms as in dollar terms. Properties that have lost less value are ones that are more simple (less luxurious). Properties that offer the highest standards of living (whether with or without condo fees) have fared less well.

What has been happening over the adjustment period is that values have been falling to match the new demand picture that formed over the shock period. There is evidence to show those falls are at, or close to, an end for different property types. For example, this panel of charts shows the median selling prices of some different property types. Note that average selling prices appear to be leveling out for many property types:

Chart 4: Panel of Charts Showing Median Selling Prices of Different Property Types Over 2009-2019

 Some of this is playing out anecdotally, too. For example, when you look at values of studio apartments in The Peaks/Summits of Eagle Ridge, they are selling in a tight range $130,000 to $145,000 and they have been over the last 12 months.

Cautionary Notes

Firstly, we have to be careful before drawing the really serious conclusion that prices are no longer falling. For example, this years’ sales includes different housing stock from last years, especially with respect to the rebuild: Sales of new properties can’t be compared to sales of older ones (apples to oranges). And, we do know that some of the townhome, apartment and mobile sales are rebuilds.

Secondly, the market for homes without condo fees is a large market, and it’s really two markets in one. If you watch our monthly VLOGs, you’ll know that we still don’t have demand in the higher price ranges, and sellers in those price ranges are still aggressively cutting prices which cascades down into the lower price ranges. There is lots of demand up to $600,000, but prices are probably still eroding slightly due to this effect.

Thirdly, if prices are stabilizing, how come when we go to price people’s homes now compared to 6 months ago, we are coming out with lower prices for most property types and price ranges? The anecdotal evidence doesn’t quite match the charts.

Finally (and related), similar numbers of properties are changing hands in the various price ranges as before, but that does not mean values of individual properties are not falling. For example, in 2016 the $550,000 to $600,000 price range was similarly busy as it is today, but that budget today affords a buyer a lot more house than it did at that time. Even when the median selling price of different property types is stable, benchmark prices may still be falling, and we have no way of systematically tracking those - just anecdotal evidence.

Conclusion

The shock here was all about oil. Demand reduced quickly and substituted into non-luxury property purchases. Since that time, there has been a modest recovery in demand, and a remarkably consistent shape of demand (people haven’t continued to shy further away, or come back to the table with big budgets).

As home values have fallen, the scope for them to fall further has lessened.

I was surprised this weekend when I went shopping in the $500,000 to $650,000 price range. The range of goods available went from entry level (needing work) to genuinely exciting properties - large, fully developed homes, with huge lots, great locations, triple garages, etc.

Adjustment in the higher price ranges is still ongoing, and as it adjusts, the incentive to “move up” amongst our clients is growing.

As the adjustment process at the top continues, the incentive for buyers to push the boat out and get something really special is greater than it once was. Consequently (?), in June, there were a whole bunch of transactions in the $700,000’s for once. Could it be? Could it be…

The return of confidence?

If you are thinking of moving up, down, away or into your first home, and you value our data-driven approach and free information, please feel free to reach out so we can help you: Our specialists listing and buyer’s agents are ready to get you information specific to your situation.

Thank you for reading and supporting!

Are Fort McMurray Property Prices Starting to Stabilize? See more on: The A-Team Fort McMurray Blog

[recentnews18-blog]

New Post has been published on https://shovelnews.com/early-jewish-jokes-are-anything-but-funny-argues-new-book/

Early 'Jewish jokes' are anything but funny, argues new book

Despite mounds of Jewish joke books, few scholars have probed the origins and evolution of the genre since it first appeared in Europe in the early 1800s.

Enter folklorist and joke expert Elliott Oring, author of “The First Book of Jewish Jokes: The Collection of Lippmann Moses Buschenthal.” Published this month, the tome includes 106 “witty notions from Jews” recorded by Buschenthal in 1812, as well as “anecdotes, pranks, and notions of the Children of Israel” compiled by Judas Ascher — a pseudonym — in 1810.

For readers expecting belly laughs, or even just potty humor, “The First Book of Jewish Jokes” will be disappointing.

Get The Times of Israel’s Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

“The point is to make people aware of what a very early book of Jewish jokes looks like in the hope they might reconsider what they think they know about Jewish jokes,” said Oring in an interview with The Times of Israel. “The book is an effort to begin to put the study of Jewish jokes on a historical footing.”

Although some of Buschenthal’s inclusions can be considered humorous, a good deal of them don’t translate into English with aplomb. Others are riffs on the familiar, “I know you are, but what am I?” genre. None of this matters to Oring, of course, who is interested in unearthing where these anecdotes came from, and not their entertainment value.

Taking a sociologist’s approach, Oring explores jokes told about Jews by other Jews and Gentiles alike. He notes that some of the most prolific purveyors of anti-Jewish stereotypes were “Enlightenment” Jews themselves.

“The deformed character of the Jew in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century was a viewpoint that was not only maintained by haters of Jews,” wrote Oring. “It was accepted by advocates of Jewish emancipation as well as by their opponents. It was also accepted by many Jews, especially enlightened Jews, during this period,” according to the author.

For his analysis of Buschenthal’s book, Oring categorized the jokes and anecdotes by subject, ranging from business and trade to “flogging and execution.” Many of the jokes are self-effacing responses to oppression, including item No. 14:

“You Jews are all damned,” said a Christian to a Jew. “Why?” asked the Jew. “Because you crucified our Lord.” “Tell you what,” said the Jews. “When you find ours, crucify him too.”

A man of many talents, Buschenthal was born in Strasbourg, France. After moving to Germany, he made a name for himself as a rabbi and dramatist. He also put forth what might be the first theory of the Jewish joke: that “oppression creates necessity and weakness, which in turn gives rise to cunning — the mother of wit,” wrote Oring.

Author Elliott Oring (IU Folklore & Ethnomusicology)

Despite this “theory’s” resonance with Jewish history, it does not explain what is “Jewish” about Jewish jokes, said Oring.

“That is a central question the book is asking,” Oring told The Times of Israel. “Has anyone really done the comparison of jokes about Jews with those of non-Jews to be able to say with confidence how what are called ‘Jewish jokes’ are different? To date, they have not.”

According to the author, “scholarly and popular study of Jewish jokes has depended largely on collections only complied in the 20th century. Buschenthal’s collection was one that scarcely anyone had looked at. If we want to speak knowledgeably about Jewish jokes, we need to begin to locate and examine early sources,” said Oring.

A former professor at California State University, Los Angeles, Oring is an expert on the “aesthetics” of humor. In addition to examining Israeli humor, he authored a book on the connection between jokes told by Sigmund Freud’s characters and the iconic psychoanalyst’s Jewish identity.

‘Nary a reference to Jews or Jewish practice’

When it comes to anti-Jewish jokes, there is also little known about the origins of the genre.

“There were certainly jokes and stories told about Jews by non-Jews that either made fun of them or cast them as villains; villains that might receive terrible punishments,” Oring told The Times of Israel. “Who created the jokes is still unknown. Whether Jews adopted jokes about themselves first told by Gentiles is yet unknown, but at least one student of the Jewish joke has suggested it.”

Contemporary etching of the Hep-Hep Riot”in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in fall 1819 by Johann Voltz (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum)

Included in the Buschenthal collection are jokes that could be told about people belonging to any religious or ethnic group. Some of life’s obstacles, after all, do not discriminate:

A baby with six fingers on his right hand was born to a Jew. The father, as well as the mother and the rest of the relatives, was very brokenhearted.

An acquaintance visited the family, and when the mother complained about her bad luck, their Jewish friend responded: “Hey, what’s there to fear? I congratulate you. Your son is a born piano player.”

As Oring told The Times of Israel, “It is not hard to point to jokes about Jewish characters that Jews tell, that are also told by Gentiles with nary a reference to Jews or Jewish practices in them.”

Among the peddlers of anti-Jewish jokes, Oring noted, were “Enlightenment” Jews critical of — for example — their fellow Jews’ money-lending practices. In one example cited by the author, “a lawyer defended Jewish propensities to cheat their Gentile neighbors in business as as act of revenge.”

‘Anecdotes, pranks, and notions’

By calling his work, “The First Book of Jewish Jokes,” Oring intended to provoke readers to look for earlier sources of Jewish jokes, he said.

Although L.M. Buschenthal’s assortment of humorous tidbits came to be known as the first book of Jewish jokes, the lion’s share of Buschenthal’s material was air-lifted from a collection published by Judas Ascher — a pseudonym — in 1810. Oring’s misnomer in the title points to a lack of historical research on Jewish jokes, a gap that Oring hopes will eventually be filled, he told The Times of Israel.

Woodcut of a tavern in the Carpathian Mountains, part of the Katz Ehrenthal Collection of anti-Semitic visual materials of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (courtesy)

Within Ascher’s “anecdotes, pranks, and notions of the Children of Israel” are poems including, “Complaint of a Pigtail-Ribbon Jew,” and “Thoughts of a Jew at Sunset,” where a Jew imagines the sun to be plated with gold. In some anecdotes, the Jews’ alleged lack of heroism is mocked:

“A Turkish sultan ordered a mass call-up [Insurrektion] of Jews in Antioch. Eight thousand should move armed through the forest. They then asked the Sultan for a small escort because of robbers.”

As in Buschenthal’s collection, the Ascher volume was not short on depicting Jewish “cunning,” including this example of “greasing the wheels” at the proverbial town hall:

In a city where a distinguished civil servant had died, through whom the Jews had achieved great advantages, someone said to a Jew, “I am sorry that you all have lost your great benefactor.”

“Well,” said he, “He is bound to have a successor. And if he has no money, we will give him some, and if he has some, we will invest it for him.”

In terms of the need for deeper research into Jewish jokes, Oring would like to see scholars compare “a ‘random’ selection from a large corpus of jokes that are identified as ‘Jewish’ with a similar corpus of jokes told by Gentiles in Europe from approximately the same period,” he said. In this manner, what is of Jewish origin in jokes about Jews can — perhaps — be discerned.

“Certainly,” said Oring, “it is not likely that the gentile jokes will be told about rabbis and mohels, but is there any difference in the nature of the jokes — the stories, the devices — or is it simply a difference in the characters, customs described, and settings, all of which are easily changeable?”

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/early-jewish-jokes-are-anything-but-funny-argues-new-book/

[madeyemoodyproductions]

I was a pretty obnoxious kid growing up.

Okay, fine. I’m still pretty obnoxious. But as a kid, and more specifically, as a student, I was obnoxious. I wouldn’t have wanted to have me in a classroom (Hey, what do they say? Teachers make the worst students? Even as a secondary student I knew I wanted to be a teacher.). I talked all the time; I was a total smart-ass (not to the teachers…usually…or directly…). I am telling you the absolute truth when I say that my freshman year of high school, my World History teacher (who, by the way, was also the Dean of Students) took hold of my desk – with me in it – and flung it about 20 feet across the room because he was so exasperated with me one day. In his defense, I purposely provoked him, asking all sorts of inane, yet, just believable enough to be answered questions, with the sole goal of postponing the day’s test.

Yeah. That was me.

But I’ll tell you one thing I wasn’t. I wasn’t a cheater. It wasn’t that I had a strict sense of morality. Other stuff I did growing up would disabuse you of that notion pretty quickly. No, I was an intellectual snob. Well, I suppose a better way to say it was that I didn’t trust anyone’s brain but my own. If I didn’t know it, or didn’t remember it, there was no possible way anyone sitting around me would, either. Of course, given who my circles of friends were at certain points in my secondary education career, I may have been spot on about that. But those less-than-stellar-albeit-necessary-for-making-me-who-I-am-today choices are neither here nor there. The point is, when my senior government teacher accused me of cheating on one of my last high school tests ever, I was justifiably affronted. I would NEVER cheat off of someone.

And so, with that sense of justice (and because I was really worried about what would happen to me if I got caught doing it), I approached my Physics teacher before final exams that year and asked her if it would be considered cheating to program (okay, I’m using that term loosely…I really just wanted to save it in a file/page) the formulas into my TI-whatever-number-was-out-in-1998 graphing calculator and use it on the exam. She paused, seeming impressed – whether at my honesty or comfort level with the technology, I’m not sure – and said that if I could figure out how to do that, she’d be fine with me using the calculator. So I did, and I don’t think I really used it more than once or twice because I was well-prepared.

I tell you this background and anecdote to give you context for my decision as an English teacher to openly guide my students toward – and even encourage them to use – the resources on SparkNotes.

If you’re not familiar with SparkNotes, you should be. And I’d wager that you are familiar with Cliff’s Notes. It’s even a colloquialism these days – “Give me the Cliff’s Notes version!” Meant to only include the information of utmost necessity. Enough to pass the test. Because who really has time to read every assigned novel in British Lit? Or American Lit? Or all of high school?

Cliff’s Notes has a pretty negative reputation as being a cheater’s way through the material. Good teachers would know right away if you’d only read the Cliff’s Notes version, because your answers would only skim the surface. And likely be phrased far too sophisticatedly for an average high school student.

SparkNotes is the modern-day version of Cliff’s Notes. On Steroids.

So, why would I encourage my students to go there, when no self-respecting English teacher would hand out Cliff’s Notes copies of a novel to students and say, “You know what? Go ahead. Skip the real thing. Hell. Watch the movie. It’s close enough.” Now, you might think you know the answer to this, because if you follow my blog, you know I often write posts that seem, perhaps to some, like I just lower the standards for my low-performing students. Like, I know they’re not going to read the novel. Why fight the battle? Why not give them something they actually might, if all the stars and planets align, find it in them to do? Would it really be that terrible?

But that is not what my rationale is. No, I don’t direct my students to SparkNotes because I just like to lower the bar. (And I prefer to think of my philosophies more as “realistic expectations,” thank-you-very-much.) No, it’s because of what SparkNotes offers.

Go to a Sparknotes unit for a novel and you will find a veritable cornucopia of resources for that work. You’ll get the context of the work, the plot overview, character list and analyses, and even discussion about themes, motifs, and symbols. And then, if that weren’t enough, you’ll get chapter summaries. They even have quizzes and review questions. They explain important quotations. And it’s all free. Free for students, free for teachers.

#gallery-0-5 { margin: auto; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-item { float: left; margin-top: 10px; text-align: center; width: 33%; } #gallery-0-5 img { border: 2px solid #cfcfcf; } #gallery-0-5 .gallery-caption { margin-left: 0; } /* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */

Now, I am an avid reader. I love to read. And I hate, hate, hate previewing the story. It’s like nails on a chalkboard having to find out what happens at the end before I even start. That was my least favorite part of being an English teacher. We had these story previews in our curriculum workbooks that gave a synopsis of the entire story before the students even began. It drove me crazy! Where was the suspense? The situational irony? Everything was ruined!

Until I had to teach Julius Caesar. I’m not a humongous Shakespeare fan to begin with, but Julius Caesar isn’t my favorite play of his on the best of days. What made it worse was that I remembered studying it in high school but didn’t actually remember anything other than that I did actually study it. I retained nothing. I’m not sure if that was because I just didn’t understand it or I didn’t read it and spent the discussion time being obnoxious. Probably the latter. But I was not excited to have to teach it. I didn’t even want to read it. I felt like a whiny student.

So I found SparkNotes. I read all the Act summaries. I read the synopses of character analysis, themes, important facts, etc. I even – praise the literary powers that be – used their “No Fear Shakespeare” modern text version to get me through the PITA that is early Modern English in iambic pentameter. And then I picked up my copy and read it through. And it made sense. And I flew through it. And it wasn’t hard. And it wasn’t boring. And it didn’t make me want to carve my eyes out with a spoon. I was amazed. I wished I’d had SparkNotes in high school. It would likely have helped me get through other classic literature without falling asleep (*cough cough* Great Gatsby, I’m looking at you).

Yes, I already knew the ending, so I’m not sure how I’d feel about some other story being “spoiled” by reading SparkNotes first, but I’ve found – to my surprise – that my students didn’t seem to mind that aspect.

So, when we would get ready to read a novel, I would encourage my students to go to SparkNotes. I would tell them to spend time reading everything SparkNotes had on that work of literature so they would understand and notice the subtleties of motifs, symbolism, and sub-plots. Sparknotes does such a great job explaining all this that we were able to spend our time in class talking about other meaningful aspects of the novel. SparkNotes is the modern-day Cliff’s Notes version. But it does it better. It includes so much more that makes it easier (dare I say, enticing?) to read the entire work. But it leaves a little mystery. As a teacher, I just made sure to look at the review, quiz, and essay questions that were on the site and steer clear of them. There were plenty of other things to discuss and put on my assessments.

SparkNotes is the modern-day Cliff’s Notes version. But it does it better. It includes so much more that makes it easier (dare I say, enticing?) to read the entire work. But it leaves a little mystery. As a teacher, I just made sure to look at the review, quiz, and essay questions that were on the site and steer clear of them. There were plenty of other things to discuss and put on my assessments. SparkNotes didn’t rob me of a unit. It didn’t give me a way to fail kids easily because they’d obviously only “read the Cliff’s Notes.” No, by using SparkNotes as a scaffolding tool, I made novel study more engaging and meaningful during class. And heck, it made me a better teacher, too. I like to think of myself as a version of my old Physics teacher who, rather than forbid what could potentially be an extremely valuable tool simply because it seemed like it would lead to slacking – or cheating, embraced it and all it had to offer, and that resulted in student success.

Why I Recommend SparkNotes to My Students (and how I encourage its use) I was a pretty obnoxious kid growing up. Okay, fine. I’m still pretty obnoxious. But as a kid, and more specifically, as a student, I was obnoxious.

[adambstingus]

Whats Worse For Your BrainDrinking or Playing Football?

Our correspondent drinks for a living. Is he putting his brain at more risk of damage than a football player?

I woke up Sunday morning with a throbbing headache. Id spent the previous night heavily sampling a selection of rare whiskeys with some friends.

That may have been fun, but now here I was, still in bed at 11 a.m., barely able to keep my eyes open, hardly able to think, certainly not wanting to turn on the days NFL games.

A parent cant consent to giving their kids a cigarette or a beerwhy can they consent to him playing tackle football?

And I thought this cannot be good for my brain.

The effect of NFL action on the brain is one of the hottest topics of the moment, with the movie Concussion opening this Christmas weekend.

In that film Will Smith portrays Bennet Omalu, the forensic pathologist who first brought to light the appearance of CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) in American football players.

Thanks partially to Omalus work, nowadays when we watch the constant brutality on the football field, when we see players crashing their heads into each other down after down, when we notice aging players getting dementia (and worse) once retired, many of us have even started to wonder, Can I ethically enjoy football any more? Myself included.

At the same time, though, I often put my own brain in serious jeopardy too.

Yes, I am a professional drinks writer. Mid-day cocktail tastings. Evening scotch samplings. Beer festivals on the weekends. Trips to breweries, distilleries, and wineries. You should see how much free liquor gets delivered to my house on a daily basis!

People often tell me I must have one of the best jobs around. But they arent the ones that have had to drink literally every single day for hell, who knows how many days in a row it has been now. They arent the ones that wake up many mornings with a hangoverjust another occupational hazard.

So, with all this in mind, I decided to ask some football concussion doctors about the effects of my equally dangerous profession on my own precious brain. I wondered, how bad is my drinking compared to playing football?

Was a single whiskey shot equal to a QB sack?

A night of heavy beer drinking equal to a half of football?

Did my brutal Sunday morning hangover feel worse than it did on a Monday morning for a running back?

Neither Dr. Omalunor Will Smithreturned any of my calls, but luckily I had other accomplished doctors willing to answer my questions.

Dr. William Barr is the Director of Neuropsychology at NYU Langone Medical Center.

He is a clinical expert on epilepsy, forensic neuropsychology, and sports concussions. He has testified in numerous cases involving forensics and in civil cases involving MTBI (mild traumatic brain injury). More importantly, from the mid-1990s until 2004, Barr was a neuropsychological medical consultant for the NFLs New York Jets.

He quickly understood the somewhat silly concept behind this piece, and even why a professional drinks writer had reason to be concerned.

I used to think about boxers, he told me, noting that this was before all this concussion talk was in the mainstream. People used to say boxing was the only way for a kid to get out of the ghettobut he had to put his brain at risk. How terrible it was that society forced them to do this! But I also thought about the typical Mad Men-era businessmen. They had to do the three-martini lunches for their workthey too were pickling their brains just to get ahead!

Barr is a bit of a firebrand when it comes to talk about concussions. In fact, he believes concussionswhether from football or otherwiseactually have a fairly minimal impact on future cognitive functioning.

When you look at the studies and what happens three months after a concussiondo you know what meta-analysis is? he asks. I dont. He explains that, In science, rather than making conclusions based on a single study, you look at all the literature. Put it into a similar metric. Whats the overall effect based on many, many studies? So now, maybe, youre looking at 300 people over 10 studies. What it shows is the overall effect (on your brain) of a concussion after 30 days is lower than the effects of intoxication.

The study Barr is citing is Grant L. Iversons 2005 paper Outcome from Mild Traumatic Brain Injury.

Iverson didnt study alcohols traumatic effect on the brain per se, but he did find chronic cannabis use to be worse on overall neuropsychological functioning than an MTBI (mild traumatic brain injury) was on a person just one to three months after the injury had occurred. Likewise, he found chronic cannabis use to be slightly worse on future memory functioning than an MTBI.

For Barr, that was enough for him to deduce for me that alcohol abuse would be probably likewise worse on the brain than head injuries from playing football. Uh oh.

Barr isnt completely speculating, as he has co-authored his own significant studies. With a team of other doctors and PhDs he helped pen Cumulative Effects Associated with Recurrent Concussion in Collegiate Football Players and Acute Effects and Recovery Time Following Concussion in Collegiate Football Players.

Ive studied athletes more than the general population. With them we can get information before their injury and then after, he tells me. And what that shows is that 95 percent (of athletes who have a concussion) recover back to normal in 7 days or less.

He tests alcoholics brains in a similar manner to how he tests concussed athletes. He interviews them and then gives them a series of tests, ones mainly based on memory functioning (they have to remember a certain story).

So I might notice, this person has problems with attention and remembering things. In the past theyve been a 10-drinks-a-day alcoholic and now it looks like theyve pickled brain.

Though well-honored and quite thorough, you can probably see how Barr is considered a bit of a contrarian for his thinking on concussions.

Barr was even dismissed from the NFLs MTBI committee in 2004 by then-chairman Elliot Pellman, another former New York Jets team physician who is not without his own controversy.

I wanted another doctors opinion on my potentially pickling brain. Dr. James Paci, a professor and orthopedic surgeon, specializes in sports medicine at Stony Brook University Medicine. Hes also the football teams doctor.

First, he clarified that he was neither a neurologist nor brain physician. Despite that, he was trained to deal with concussions on a day-in, day-out basis in his own role as team doctor.

My expertise is how do we treat these athletes, Paci told me. What do we look out for? How do we prevent long term consequences?

However, unlike Barr, Paci somewhat struggled with the comparisons I was hoping he would draw for me.

Certainly there is some connection between alcoholism and Alzheimers, brain diseases. Drawing a parallel between drinking and football though? I dont think anyone has made that correlation. Though he does note, The rock n roll lifestyle and athlete lifestyle certainly do have some comparisons.

A man like Paci believes that both football and drinking are inherently dangerous, but thats OK, so long as we acknowledge the risk involved in both activities and, thus, let potential participants make informed decisions.

Ive had concussions before, Paci tells me. Anyone who plays sports has had one before.

Paci is about my age, having played football at Yale University in the late-1990s, while the slightly-older Barr played during a time head injuries werent treated all that seriously.

Back in the day when I played high school football, Barr tells me, you pretty much had to be in a coma before they did anything about it.

So both men had played football at a fairly high level, had head injuries on the field, and were still able to become prestigious doctors. But did they drink?

Not routinely, but I do, Paci tells me. Most doctors do. There are certainly benefits to some alcohol.

(Ive been saying that for years.)

I do, Barr also tells me. Everything in moderation. A little bit of alcohol can be good for the heart. Theres good data for the red wines. Some scotch in moderation, a finger a day maybe.

So you guys drink, but now knowing what you know, would you let your own children play football?

On that point Paci is fairly strict, believing young children simply dont have the body control and should stick to flag football or two-hand touch.

A parent cant consent to giving their kids a cigarette or a beerwhy can they consent to him playing tackle football?

Barr has a six-month grandson he absolutely wants to play football some day.

Should that boy play football or not? My take, from what we know right now: the chance of getting dementia, the prospect of a 13-year-old boy who starts football getting dementia one day is, lets say, 1 to 2 percent. Im being liberal, Barr tells me. But lets say that boy is not allowed to play football. Instead junior becomes fat and gets diabetes and high blood pressure. Now he has a 30 percent chance of dying of dementia.

So to Barr inactivity in this country is a much bigger problem than helmet-to-helmet contactinteresting, because drinkers on the whole are statistically much more active than non-drinkers according to the Center for Advancing Health.

That papers lead author, Michael French, a professor of health economics at the University of Miami, found that alcohol users not only exercised more than teetotalers, but the differential actually increased with more drinking.

I dont fully understand the relationship, Barr admits, though he has a speculation. Maybe people feel like after visiting the gym, they deserve to do something bad.

Its true enough anecdotally for myself, though Im a bit more of the reverse. I do something bad the night before, then feel the need to go jog five miles the next day.

I ask Barr point-blank, It seems like you ultimately think its safer to play in the NFL than to drink heavily?

Yeah, you could say that, he confirms.

This did not sound good for me. But what exactly did heavily mean? This week alone I sampled new whiskeys on Monday, drank wine with dinner on Tuesday, visited a hot new cocktail bar on Wednesday, went to a brewery opening on Thursday, and hit happy hour with friends on Friday.

Luckily, Barr relieved some of my concerns about any sort of future with dementia, simply telling me, You would not be on the phone with me, or even able to write this story, if you were drinking too much.

Regardless, I think Ill start trying to be more cognizant of my intake. As Paci ultimately summed up for me: The brain is an amazing thing. Your head hurts when you bang it. So you try not to bang your head again. With a hangover, theres obviously something similar going on there.

from All Of Beer http://allofbeer.com/2017/09/28/whats-worse-for-your-braindrinking-or-playing-football/ from All of Beer https://allofbeercom.tumblr.com/post/165813833432