#not really an anti post today because unfortunately I do see the potential the series had and it gave me brainworms | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cruelfeline · 4 years

Text

Anyone who hangs about Twitter potentially saw an unfortunate Hordak take cross their timelines today.

As is custom on this blog, I’ll be taking it apart for my own personal amusement (and for the amusement of any of y’all who like to watch me do so). I doubt the poster will see this, as they’re on Twitter and not apparently on here, but in case they do: this is for my own enjoyment and the enjoyment of followers; it absolutely does not need to be responded to if that’s not your cup of tea.

So, that little disclaimer in place, let’s see what we can make of this! Because this is on Medium, I’ll be using screenshots as quotes; just a heads-up.

So... this first bit isn’t really anything Hordak-related. It’s more... fandom drama, I suppose? Not really something I can pick apart. I can, however, give my own personal opinion on this sort of thing, for what it’s worth.

It’s true that people can and should be able to feel whichever way they wish about a character. And to talk about that character.

However: it is also true that people who dislike Hordak can be very unpleasant in making that known to those of us who enjoy him. Including descending into personal insults for no discernible reason. Add to that the fact that his character means a great deal to some fans for intensely personal reasons, and it is not difficult to see why some fans aren’t keen to see anti-Hordak content on their timelines, in their mentions, etc.

Censoring character hate isn’t a requirement, but in some circumstances, it can simply be a polite thing to do. It doesn’t take great effort, and it prevents people from experiencing just another bit of unpleasantness on their social media. And if you don’t want to do it? Well, that’s your right; but don’t be shocked when people voice their displeasure by replying to your words. Because that is their right.

And that’s all I really have to say about that.

Odd way to phrase things, really. These aren’t “reasons to forgive.” The first two scenes involve Catra’s asphyxiations and are things that would need to be forgiven, not things to forgive.

Though, y’know, I really only apply that to the first scene, where he assaults her without her necessarily doing anything wrong. Mind you, I believe he does it out of a combination of needing to maintain a hierarchy for safety purposes (this is a man who needs people to be afraid of him to maintain his own safety) and poor leadership skills mimicked from a narcissist, but it’s still a terrible thing.

However! The second time? After he asks her about Shadow Weaver? This isn’t torture-fun-times. This is Hordak neutralizing a threat to the entire Horde. Because that is what Catra is in this moment: a threat to the security and wellbeing of him and the entirety of the Fright Zone. She lies about a critical mistake. She proves herself to not only have poor judgment in serious matters, but to be very willing to lie about it in order to guard her own selfish motives. While I can’t condone the method Hordak uses, I do wish people would stop using this second instance of punishment as some sort of proof-of-torture. He does not do this for no reason. He does it because Catra released a dangerous prisoner into the wild and lied about it. And his concerns over it ultimately prove correct.

This entire qualification doesn’t have much to do with whether he deserves forgiveness or not, but it’s a point I want to make because it combats this idea that Hordak did this to an innocent girl “for no reason” or “just to be cruel.” That’s simply not the case; no matter how unpleasant the method, Hordak is a military leader punishing a subordinate for seriously endangering him and everyone else in the organization. Badly. I don’t know what the equivalent would be in modern military, but Catra’s error is massive. It doesn’t make what Hordak does right, but it does give a reason other than a simple “he’s a bad, bad man.” So.

Adding this scene is... actually kind of odd because he doesn’t really do anything to Adora here. And also: this scene is... what’s the word... meaningful-in-hindsight, so to speak. Essentially: in this scene, Adora is claiming that Hordak is responsible for stealing her, for robbing her of a peaceful life with her family. And Hordak is claiming that he neither knows nor cares who she is, and that she does not matter to him.

The interesting aspect of this scene, and something that OP fails to acknowledge at all, is that both Adora and Hordak are wrong.

let’s see if I can talk about this without crying... nope, already starting to tear up

Hordak never stole Adora; Light Hope did. Hordak did not orchestrate this unfortunate life for her. Rather, Hordak, a lost clone dealing with his own insecurities and fears and problems, found an equally lost infant in a field and gave her the only home he really knew how to create (and one that, for its flaws, was still better than the absolute nightmare he was “raised” in). In all likelihood, given Light Hope’s lack of understanding of infants, he probably saved Adora’s life by doing this: without him, she may well have perished alone in that field.

Hordak likewise does remember her, eventually. And she is not inconsequential to him: by saving her, he ends up saving himself, and all of his brothers. By forging this near-unknown bond with her all those years ago, by choosing to take in an infant rather than letting her die, he plays a key role in deciding the fate of the universe.

This scene that OP sarcastically claims is a reason Hordak shouldn’t be forgiven has a sibling:

The fact that OP apparently fails to recognize this and realize that these are the only two moments in the series during which Adora and Hordak directly interact, that they’re a pair, means that OP misses the connection between the two and the significance of how they misjudge one another initially. It indicates a lack of understanding of the themes of the show: themes centered around connections with other people, love, and forgiveness. Which, given the contents of this essay, is unsurprising.

Moving on!

Y’know, whether or not one believes, in terms of definition, that Hordak is a colonizer (I personally don’t for pedantic and clone-cult reasons, but that’s not really relevant to this post), it’s interesting that OP notes how Stevenson confirms that he is... but conveniently leaves out the part where she confirms that he did it because he was brainwashed.

That’s... an important piece of information to leave out when discussing whether Hordak should be forgiven or not. A very important piece.

And it doesn’t really matter whether he’s a colonizer or a conqueror; the reason it comes up is because people seem very stuck in the mindset of “if it’s a colonizer, it must die” without acknowledging any sort of nuance. There’s also the question of whether what Hordak did actually caused the same sort of upheaval and lasting damage we see resulting from legitimate colonization, and all of the implications of that, but this isn’t really the place to go into that. Honestly, I don’t really think SPoP as a whole is the place to go into that.

No. Hordak is not the person who taught her all of these things.

Shadow Weaver is.

Hordak did not personally teach her that Princesses are evil. He did not teach her that wanton cruelty is fine in getting one’s own way. He did not feed her propaganda.

Actually, as an aside: can we even confirm that Catra ever thought that Princesses where evil? I mean... she works with Scorpia, and she has no apparent morals to speak of. She does as she wishes for her own personal gain, not because she displays any sense of “fighting the evil Princesses.” And in terms of disposing of Entrapta because she was “manipulated” into viewing Princesses as evil: Catra disposes of everyone. She manipulates and uses everyone. That is one of the key aspects of her arc: she uses and abuses people for personal gain. She does this whether they are Princesses or not: just see Lonnie, Rogelio, and Kyle. Add to this the fact that Catra, from the first season, knows that she and Adora have been lied to, manipulated, and that the Horde is in fact evil, and... this entire line of reasoning falls apart.

None of this is an attempt to “absolve Hordak of blame.” Hordak just... legitimately had no hand in raising any of the children. That was not his role (and while I know that this was confirmed by Stevenson at some point, I don’t have memory of where; potentially the last podcast?). And Catra did not operate on any sort of propaganda that she actually believed in: she simply used and disposed of people as she saw fit because she cared more about her own rise to power than she did about those around her. This was one of her major character flaws, and really? Trying to pin this on Hordak, or even fully pin it on Shadow Weaver? It absolves Catra of the blame, of the intentional bad choices she made (as emphasized by Adora) and thus weakens her entire arc.

All in all: Hordak may have created a poor environment for the raising of children, but of note is the fact that only Catra turns out this way. The other kids, whatever their problems, are not in the habit of manipulating friends, lying to them, using them, and then tossing them aside. That is a Catra Problem. Part of this can be attributed to Shadow Weaver (who only treated Catra in the poorest way), and part of it is just... Catra being not-the-best.

All right. Now we get to the really disingenuous portion of the essay.

First, as just stated: Hordak is not Catra’s abuser. Shadow Weaver is. Hordak had no hand in raising her. Hordak did not direct Shadow Weaver to abuse her. Hordak did not personally feed Catra anti-Princess propaganda, and even if he had, we know by the first season that Catra sees through whatever propaganda she was exposed to and has no actual moral objections to Princesses. But that’s not the main aspect of this portion that irks me.

The main aspect that irks me is that this is not the scene Hordak stans mark as abusive. And I cannot imagine that OP does not know this.

But let’s talk about this scene, for a moment, before getting to the actual, legitimate abuse.

OP talks about his scene almost flippantly: “Hordak finds out Catra lied about Entrapta, he becomes angry and attacks her with a clear plan to kill her.”

Yes. Yes, he "becomes angry.” He becomes angry and attacks because as far as he knows, Catra killed Entrapta. This isn’t some annoyed “you lied to me!” moment. He legitimately thinks Entrapta is dead because Catra sent her to Beast Island. OP just blissfully glosses over the fact that Hordak is attacking Catra in rage and grief because Catra, as far as either of them know, killed his only friend and then lied about it for approximately a year. Like... how do you gloss over that in discussing this scene? How do you gloss over the enormity of what Catra did, and the unimaginable pain Hordak experiences when finding out?

So. The writeup of this scene is poor. It misses all of the emotion, all of the reality of what Catra did and what Hordak felt. But! That’s not even the unfortunate part of this portion. Let’s get to the real disingenuity.

This is the abusive scene. This is that stomach-turning moment when Catra removes a disabled man’s ability to move with dignity and without pain solely to force him to escalate a war for her own personal benefit.

Hordak is not a danger to her here. Hordak has not been a danger to her for a while because he has been holed up in his private quarters, trying to deal with the emotional fallout of Entrapta supposedly betraying him. He wants nothing to do with Catra. He wants to lick his wounds and gather himself and somehow heal from this deep personal pain that’s been inflicted upon him.

And that’s a problem for Catra because it stands in the way of her using the war as a way to best Adora.

So Catra identifies Hordak’s physical weakness and exploits it for the purpose of spiting her ex.

The fact that OP completely fails to acknowledge any of this is... well. Disingenuous. Absolutely so.

The next portion of the essay talks about people feeling that Catra was too easily forgiven and isn’t really Hordak-centric; I won’t really go into it here. Moving forward:

Ah, one of the most annoying questions I see asked. Let’s, again, acknowledge and move past the fact that Hordak was not actually Catra’s abuser...

When, pray tell, was Hordak supposed to show this remorse? When? While he was serving on Prime’s ship, trying to forget the pain of losing Entrapta, of failing to prove himself, of losing everything? Should he have done it while screaming in agony in the purification pool? Should he have done so while alone on Prime’s ship, trying to serve quietly while piecing together his memories?

Not only was Hordak simply not in a position, narratively, to go into a whole remorse bit, but he had other problems. Like, life-endangering problems.

The appropriate time to go into his feelings on Etheria and the Princesses and All of That would have been after Prime’s defeat, upon Hordak’s re-introduction to Etheria... but then the show ended. So.

Agh, vulgar. Taking a brainwashed, conditioned slave and bastardizing his triumph at finally seeing himself as a real person, instead claiming that his intent was to glorify his own misdeeds. No. Just... no.

Again: this is not the time for guilt. And it is a demonstration of why guilt and remorse were not front-and-center in Hordak’s arc during season five: his arc was about finally realizing that he was his own person, a person worthy of identity and love and care and freedom. And this arc culminated in him separating himself from his abuser and declaring his personhood.

That is what this scene is: not Hordak reveling in his makeshift empire, or in the terrible deeds he’d committed, but in declaring himself his own person.

I should hope that he is proud of doing that. I’m proud of him for doing that daunting feat, of defeating his abuser and defying his god and recognizing that he is worthy of more than what Prime thought of him. And I recognize Entrapta’s role in it: not as the sole inspiration for his change, but as someone who showed him a foundation of love and acceptance, someone who introduced him to the idea that he was worthy of care and happiness and affection simply because he was a living being, no strings attached.

Trying to shoehorn in some sort of claim that this is about pride in his misdeeds, rather than joy at finally accepting his own sense of self is a massive misinterpretation of this scene, a misunderstanding of Entrapta’s role in Hordak’s arc, and... can I say it’s disingenuous again? Because I’m going to: it’s disingenuous.

All right; we’re at the end. And while the first sentence here is something I absolutely agree with - the decision to forgive Hordak is personal and subjective both for viewers and for in-show characters - the whole conclusion falls apart from there.

It highlights another glaring omission from OP’s arguments: the fact that Hordak is a brainwashed clone slave.

Hordak did not choose to “spend his life trying to prove his worth to Horde Prime.” He did not choose the method of said proving: that Prime would look kindly upon conquering rather than some other task. And he did not choose to have certain concepts and ideas (all beings must suffer to become pure; all creatures, no matter how small, have a place in service of Horde Prime; failure is when something ceases to serve a purpose) conditioned into him.

Hordak was manufactured as a cultist slave. He was “born” with hardware implanted into his body against his will to better control him. He was indoctrinated and brainwashed to the point that he believed that Horde Prime was his literal god - and in a way, Prime was, because he could mentally invade and possess and physically control the clones whenever he wished.

Hordak was not allowed to have a sense of self. He was not allowed to have a name. He was not allowed to express emotions. He was not allowed to live without that life serving to glorify Horde Prime. Hordak was so absolutely sick with this mentality that he saw himself as a failure due to physical disability and assumed it was his responsibility to fix that.

The idea that Hordak simply chose to do what he did, that he had the same foundational morality and mindset as any “normal” person might, shows a glaring lack of understanding even the basics of his narrative.

Yes: Hordak did bad things. But he did them for legitimately tragic, nigh-horrifying reasons that this essay just ignores for the sake of... I don’t know? Trying to justify OP’s distaste for the character? I am uncertain. But it’s a mark of a poor essay, of a poor understanding of the character, and is honestly just disappointing to read when the show itself tries so hard to drive home its wonderful, hopeful themes through Hordak’s story.

Whether one forgives Hordak or not is one’s personal choice, but I certainly hope one makes said choice with better insight into his character than this essay provides.

#discourse #hordak #I wonder if I come off as too sassy in this but honestly this essay was a chore to read #so much was just ignored or misinterpreted #it was like a willful misrepresention of Hordak's character and I did not like it

186 notes · View notes

petulantskeptic · 4 years

Text

Death of the calorie

For more than a century we’ve counted on calories to tell us what will make us fat. Peter Wilson says it’s time to bury the world’s most misleading measure BY PETER WILSON The first time that Salvador Camacho thought he was going to die he was sitting in his father’s Chrysler sedan with a friend listening to music. The 22-year-old engineering student was parked near his home in the central Mexican city of Toluca and in the fading evening light he didn’t notice two tattooed men approach. Tori Amos’s hit, “Bliss”, had just started playing when the gang members pointed guns at the young men. So began a 24-hour ordeal. Strong willed and solidly built, Camacho was singled out as the more stubborn of the pair. He was blindfolded and beaten. One robber eventually threw him to the ground, put a gun to the back of his head and told him it was time to die. He passed out, waking in a field with his hands tied behind his back, almost naked. Camacho survived but, traumatised, he sank into depression. Soon he was drinking heavily and binge eating. His weight ballooned from a trim 70kg to 103kg. That led to his second near-death experience, eight years later, in 2007. He remembers waking up and blinking at bright lights: he was being wheeled on a stretcher into a hospital emergency ward, with an attack of severe arrhythmia, or irregular heart beat. “A cardiologist told me that if I didn’t lose weight and get my health under control I would be dead in five years,” he says. That second crisis forced Camacho belatedly to deal with the trauma of the first. To help with what he now understands was post-traumatic stress disorder, he started having counselling and taking anti-depressants and anti-anxiety drugs. To address his physical health, he tried to lose weight. This effort propelled him to the centre of one of the most fraught scientific debates of our age: the calorie wars, a fierce disagreement about diet and weight control. Today, more than a decade after his cardiologist’s stark warning, Camacho lives in the Swiss city of Basel. He is relaxed and confident, except when two topics come up. When he recounts his kidnapping his gaze drops, his smile vanishes and he becomes noticeably quieter, although he says his panic attacks have virtually disappeared. The other touchy topic is weight control, which causes him to shake his head in anger at what he and millions of other dieters have gone through. “It’s just ridiculous,” he says with exasperation and a touch of venom. “People are living with real pain and guilt and all they get is advice that is confused or just plain wrong.” The guidance that Camacho’s doctors gave him, along with a string of nutritionists and his own online research, was unanimous. It would be familiar to the millions of people who have ever tried to diet. “Everybody tells you that to lose weight you have to eat less and move more,” he says, “and the way to do that is to count your calories.” At his heaviest, Camacho’s body-mass index – the ratio of his height to his weight – reached 35.6, well above the 30 mark that doctors define as clinically obese. Most government guidelines indicated that, as a man, he needed 2,500 calories a day to maintain his weight (the target for women is 2,000). Nutritionists told Camacho that if he ate fewer than 2,000 calories a day, a weekly “deficit” of 3,500 would mean that he would lose 0.5kg a week. With a desk job as a planning engineer in a Mexican hospital, he knew it would take real discipline to trim his pudgy frame. But as his kidnappers had quickly realised, he is an unusually determined character. He began getting up before dawn each day to run 10km. He also started accounting for every morsel of food he consumed. “I filled in Excel spreadsheets every night, every week and every month listing everything I ate. It became a real obsession for me,” says Camacho. Out went the Burger King Whoppers, fried tacos packed with pork and cheese, and tortas (Mexican sandwiches filled with meat, refried beans, avocado and peppers). Out too went his usual steady flow of beer and wine. In came carefully measured low-fat cheese and turkey sandwiches, salads, canned peach juice, Gatorade and Coke Zero, with three Special-K low-calorie diet bars a day. “I was always tired and hungry and I would get really moody and distracted,” he says. “I was thinking about food all the time.” He was constantly told that if he got the maths right – consuming fewer calories than he burned each day – the results would soon show. “I really did everything you are supposed to do,” he insists with the tone of a schoolboy who completed his homework yet still failed a big test. He bought a battery of exercise monitoring devices to measure how many calories he was expending on his runs. “I was told to exercise for at least 45 minutes at least four or five times a week. I actually ran for more than an hour every day.” He kept to low-fat, low-calorie food for three years. It simply didn’t work. At one point he lost about 10kg but his weight rebounded, though he still restricted his calories. Dieters the world over will be familiar with Camacho’s frustrations. Most studies show that more than 80% of people regain any lost weight in the long term. And like him, when we fail, most of us assume that we are too lazy or greedy – that we are at fault. As a general rule it is true that if you eat vastly fewer calories than you burn, you’ll get slimmer (and if you consume far more, you’ll get fatter). But the myriad faddy diets flogged to us each year belie the simplicity of the formula that Camacho was given. The calorie as a scientific measurement is not in dispute. But calculating the exact calorific content of food is far harder than the confidently precise numbers displayed on food packets suggest. Two items of food with identical calorific values may be digested in very different ways. Each body processes calories differently. Even for a single individual, the time of day that you eat matters. The more we probe, the more we realise that tallying calories will do little to help us control our weight or even maintain a healthy diet: the beguiling simplicity of counting calories in and calories out is dangerously flawed. The calorie is ubiquitous in daily life. It takes top billing on the information label of most packaged food and drinks. Ever more restaurants list the number of calories in each dish on their menus. Counting the calories we expend has become just as standard. Gym equipment, fitness devices around our wrists, even our phones tell us how many calories we have supposedly burned in a single exercise session or over the course of a day. It wasn’t always thus. For centuries, scientists assumed that it was the mass of food consumed that was significant. In the late 16th century an Italian physician named Santorio Sanctorius invented a “weighing chair”, dangling from a giant scale, in which he sat at regular intervals to weigh himself, everything he ate and drank, and all the faeces and urine he produced. Despite 30 years of compulsive chair dangling, Sanctorius answered few of his own questions about the impact that his consumption had on his body. Only later did the focus shift to the energy different foodstuffs contained. In the 18th century Antoine Lavoisier, a French aristocrat, worked out that burning a candle required a gas from the air – which he named oxygen – to fuel the flame and release heat and other gases. He applied the same principle to food, concluding that it fuels the body like a slow-burning fire. He built a calorimeter, a device big enough to hold a guinea pig, and measured the heat the creature generated to estimate how much energy it was producing. Unfortunately the French revolution – specifically the guillotine – cut short his thinking on the subject. But he had started something. Other scientists later constructed “bomb calorimeters” in which they burned food to measure the heat – and thus the potential energy – released from it. The calorie – which comes from “calor”, the Latin for “heat” – was originally used to measure the efficiency of steam engines: one calorie is the energy required to heat 1kg of water by one degree Celsius. Only in the 1860s did German scientists begin using it to calculate the energy in food. It was an American agricultural chemist, Wilbur Atwater, who popularised the idea that it could be used to measure both the energy contained in food and the energy the body expended on things like muscular work, tissue repair and powering the organs. In 1887, after a trip to Germany, he wrote a series of wildly popular articles in Century, an American magazine, suggesting that “food is to the body what fuel is to the fire.” He introduced the public to the notion of “macronutrients” – carbohydrates, protein and fat – so called because the body needs a lot of them. Today many of us want to monitor our calorie consumption in order to lose or maintain our weight. Atwater, the son of a Methodist minister, was motivated by the opposite concern: at a time when malnutrition was widespread, he sought to help poor people find the most cost-effective items to fill themselves up. To see how much energy different macronutrients provided to the body, he fed samples of an “average” American diet of that era – which he believed to be heavy in molasses cookies, barley meal and chicken gizzards – to a group of male students in a basement at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. For up to 12 days at a time a volunteer would eat, sleep and lift weights while sealed inside a six-foot-high chamber measuring four feet wide by seven feet deep. The energy in each meal was calculated by burning identical foods in a bomb calorimeter. The walls were filled with water, and changes in its temperature allowed Atwater to calculate how much energy the students’ bodies were generating. His team collected the students’ faeces and burned that too, to see how much energy had been left in the body in the digestion process. This was pioneering stuff for the 1890s. Atwater eventually concluded that a gram of either carbohydrate or protein made an average of four calories of energy available to the body, and a gram of fat offered an average of 8.9 calories, a figure later rounded up to nine calories for convenience. We now know far more about the workings of the human body: Atwater was right that some of a meal’s potential energy was excreted, but had no idea that some was also used to digest the meal itself, and that the body expends different amounts of energy depending on the food. Yet more than a century after igniting the faeces of Wesleyan students, the numbers Atwater calculated for each macronutrient remain the standard for measuring the calories in any given food stuff. Those experiments were the basis of Salvador Camacho’s daily calorific arithmetic. Atwater transformed the way the public thought about food, with his simple belief that “a calorie is a calorie”. He counselled the poor against eating too many leafy green vegetables because they weren’t sufficiently dense in energy. By his account, it made no difference whether calories came from chocolate or spinach: if the body absorbed more energy than it used, then it would store the excess as body fat, causing you to put on weight. That idea captured the public imagination. In 1918 the first book was published in America based on the notion that a healthy diet was no more complicated than the simple addition and subtraction of calories. “You may eat just what you like – candy, pie, cake, fat meat, butter, cream but count your calories!” wrote Lulu Hunt Peters in “Diet and Health”. “Now that you know you can have the things you like, proceed to make your menus containing very little of them.” The book sold millions. By the 1930s the calorie had become entrenched in both the public mind and government policy. Its exclusive focus on the energy content of food, rather than its vitamin content, say, went virtually unchallenged. Rising incomes and greater female participation in the workforce meant that by the 1960s people were eating out more often or buying prepared food, so they wanted more information about what they were consuming. Nutritional information on foodstuffs was widespread but haphazard; many items carried outlandish claims about their health benefits. Labelling became standardised and mandatory in America only in 1990. The emphasis and use of this information shifted too. By the late 1960s, obesity was becoming a pressing health concern as people became more sedentary and started eating highly processed foods and lots of sugar. As the number of people who needed to lose weight grew, changing diets became the focus of attention. So began the war on fat, in which Atwater’s calorie calculations were an unwitting ally. Because counting calories was seen as an objective arbiter of the health qualities of a foodstuff, it seemed logical that the most calorie-laden part of any food item – fat – must be bad for you. By this measure, dishes low in calories, but rich in sugar and carbohydrates, seemed healthier. People were increasingly willing to blame fat for many of the health ills of modern life, helped along by the sugar lobby: in 2016, a researcher at the University of California uncovered documents from 1967 showing that sugar companies secretly funded studies at Harvard University designed to blame fat for the growing obesity epidemic. That the dietary “fat” found in olive oil, bacon and butter is branded with the same word as the unwanted flesh around our middles made it all the easier to demonise. A us Senate committee report in 1977 recommended a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet for all, and other governments followed suit. The food industry responded with enthusiasm, removing fat, the most calorie-dense of macronutrients, from food items and replacing it with sugar, starch and salt. As a bonus, the thousands of new cheap and tasty “low-cal” and “low-fat” products which Camacho used to diet tended to have longer shelf lives and higher profit margins. But this didn’t lead to the expected improvements in public health. Instead, it coincided almost exactly with the most dramatic rise in obesity in human history. Between 1975 and 2016 obesity almost tripled worldwide, according to the World Health Organisation (who): nearly 40% of over-18s – some 1.9bn adults – are now overweight. That contributed to a rapid rise in cardiovascular diseases (mainly heart disease and stroke) which became the leading cause of death worldwide. Rates of type-2 diabetes, which is often linked to lifestyle and diet, have more than doubled since 1980. It wasn’t only wealthy countries that saw such trends. In Mexico, middle-class urban families such as Camacho’s got fatter too. As a child Camacho was fit and loved playing football. But at the age of ten, in 1988, he was one of many young Mexicans who started stacking on weight as increasing trade with America saw cheap sweets and fizzy drinks flood the shops, a process known as the “Coca-colonisation” of Mexico. “There were suddenly all these flavours you had never tasted, with chocolates, candies and Dr Pepper,” Camacho remembers: “Overnight I got fat.” When his uncles teased him about his bulging waistline, he cut back on sweets and stayed in good shape until his kidnapping 12 years later. Other Mexicans just kept bulking up. In 2013 Mexico overtook America as the most obese country in the world. To combat this trend, governments worldwide have enshrined calorie-counting in policy. The who attributes the “fundamental cause” of obesity worldwide to “an energy imbalance between calories consumed and calories expended”. Governments the world over persist in offering the same advice: count and cut calories. This has infiltrated ever more areas of life. In 2018 the American government ordered food chains and vending machines to provide calorie details on their menus, to help consumers make “informed and healthful decisions”. Australia and Britain are headed in similar directions. Government bodies advise dieters to record their meals in a calorie journal to lose weight. The experimental efforts of a 19th-century scientist stand barely changed – and are barely questioned. Millions of dieters give up when their calorie-counting is unsuccessful. Camacho was more stubborn than most. He took photos of his meals to record his intake more accurately, and would log into his calorie spreadsheets from his phone. He thought about every morsel he ate. And he bought a proliferation of gadgets to track his calorie output. But he still didn’t lose much weight. One problem was that his sums were based on the idea that calorie counts are accurate. Food producers give impressively specific readings: a slice of Camacho’s favourite Domino’s double pepperoni pizza is supposedly 248 calories (not 247 nor 249). Yet the number of calories listed on food packets and menus are routinely wrong. Susan Roberts, a nutritionist at Tufts University in Boston, has found that labels on American packaged foods miss their true calorie counts by an average of 8%. American government regulations allow such labels to understate calories by up to 20% (to ensure that consumers are not short-changed in terms of how much nutrition they receive). The information on some processed frozen foods misstates their calorific content by as much as 70%. That isn’t the only problem. Calorie counts are based on how much heat a foodstuff gives off when it burns in an oven. But the human body is far more complex than an oven. When food is burned in a laboratory it surrenders its calories within seconds. By contrast, the real-life journey from dinner plate to toilet bowl takes on average about a day, but can range from eight to 80 hours depending on the person. A calorie of carbohydrate and a calorie of protein both have the same amount of stored energy, so they perform identically in an oven. But put those calories into real bodies and they behave quite differently. And we are still learning new insights: American researchers discovered last year that, for more than a century, we’ve been exaggerating by about 20% the number of calories we absorb from almonds. The process of storing fat – the “weight” many people seek to lose – is influenced by dozens of other factors. Apart from calories, our genes, the trillions of bacteria that live in our gut, food preparation and sleep affect how we process food. Academic discussions of food and nutrition are littered with references to huge bodies of research that still need to be conducted. “No other field of science or medicine sees such a lack of rigorous studies,” says Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at Kings College in London. “We can create synthetic dna and clone animals but we still know incredibly little about the stuff that keeps us alive.” What we do know, however, suggests that counting calories is very crude and often misleading. Think of a burger, the kind of food that Camacho eschewed during his early efforts to lose weight. Take a bite and the saliva in your mouth starts to break it down, a process that continues when you swallow, transporting the morsel towards your stomach and beyond to be churned further. The digestive process transforms the protein, carbohydrates and fat in the burger into their basic compounds so that they are tiny enough to be absorbed into the bloodstream via the small intestine to fuel and repair the trillions of cells in the body. But the basic molecules from each macronutrient play very different roles within the body. All carbohydrates break down into sugars, which are the body’s main fuel source. But the speed at which your body gets its fuel from food can be as important as the amount of fuel. Simple carbohydrates are swiftly absorbed into the bloodstream, providing a fast shot of energy: the body absorbs the sugar from a can of fizzy drink at a rate of 30 calories a minute, compared with two calories a minute from complex carbohydrates such as potatoes or rice. That matters, because a sudden hit of sugar prompts the rapid release of insulin, a hormone that carries the sugar out of the bloodstream and into the body’s cells. Problems arise when there is too much sugar in the blood. The liver can store some of the excess, but any that remains is stashed as fat. So consuming large quantities of sugar is the fastest way to create body fat. And, once the insulin has done its work, blood-sugar levels slump, which tends to leave you hungry, as well as plumper. Getting fat is a consequence of civilisation. Our ancestors would have enjoyed a heavy hit of sugar perhaps four times a year, when a new season produced fresh fruit. Many now enjoy that kind of sugar kick every day. The average person in the developed world consumes 20 times as much sugar as people did even during Atwater’s time. But it is a different story when you eat complex carbohydrates such as cereals. These are strung together from simple carbohydrates, so they also break down into sugar, but because they do so more slowly, your blood-sugar levels remain steadier. The fruit juices that Camacho was encouraged to drink contained fewer calories than one of his wholegrain buns but the bread delivered less of a sugar hit and left him feeling satiated for longer. Other macronutrients have different functions. Protein, the dominant component of meat, fish and dairy products, acts as the main building block for bone, skin, hair and other body tissues. In the absence of sufficient quantities of carbohydrates it can also serve as fuel for the body. But since it is broken down more slowly than carbohydrates, protein is less likely to be converted to body fat. Fat is a different matter again. It should leave you feeling fuller for longer, because your body splits it into tiny fatty acids more slowly than it processes carbohydrates or protein. We all need fat to make hormones and to protect our nerves (a bit like plastic coating protects an electric wire). Over millennia, fat has also been a crucial way for humans to store energy, allowing us to survive periods of famine. Nowadays, even without the risk of starvation, our bodies are programmed to store excess fuel in case we run out of food. No wonder a single measure – the energy content – can’t capture such complexity. Our fixation with counting calories assumes both that all calories are equal and that all bodies respond to calories in identical ways: Camacho was told that, since he was a man, he needed 2,500 calories a day to maintain his weight. Yet a growing body of research shows that when different people consume the same meal, the impact on each person’s blood sugar and fat formation will vary according to their genes, lifestyles and unique mix of gut bacteria. Research published this year showed that a certain set of genes is found more often in overweight people than in skinny ones, suggesting that some people have to work harder than others to stay thin (a fact that many of us already felt intuitively to be true). Differences in gut microbiomes can alter how people process food. A study of 800 Israelis in 2015 found that the rise in their blood-sugar levels varied by a factor of four in response to identical food. Some people’s intestines are 50% longer than others: those with shorter ones absorb fewer calories, which means that they excrete more of the energy in food, putting on less weight. The response of your own body may also change depending on when you eat. Lose weight and your body will try to regain it, slowing down your metabolism and even reducing the energy you spend on fidgeting and twitching your muscles. Even your eating and sleeping schedules can be important. Going without a full night’s sleep may spur your body to create more fatty tissue, which casts a grim light on Camacho’s years of early-morning exertion. You may put on more weight eating small amounts over 12-15 hours than eating the same food in three distinct meals over a shorter period. There’s a further weakness in the calorie-counting system: the amount of energy we absorb from food depends on how we prepare it. Chopping and grinding food essentially does part of the work of digestion, making more calories available to your body by ripping apart cell walls before you eat it. That effect is magnified when you add heat: cooking increases the proportion of food digested in the stomach and small intestine, from 50% to 95%. The digestible calories in beef rises by 15% on cooking, and in sweet potato some 40% (the exact change depends on whether it is boiled, roasted or microwaved). So significant is this impact that Richard Wrangham, a primatologist at Harvard University, reckons that cooking was necessary for human evolution. It enabled the neurological expansion that created Homo sapiens: powering the brain consumes about a fifth of a person’s metabolic energy each day (cooking also means we didn’t need to spend all day chewing, unlike chimps). The difficulty in counting accurately doesn’t stop there. The calorie load of carbohydrate-heavy items such as rice, pasta, bread and potatoes can be slashed simply by cooking, chilling and reheating them. As starch molecules cool they form new structures that are harder to digest. You absorb fewer calories eating toast that has been left to go cold, or leftover spaghetti, than if they were freshly made. Scientists in Sri Lanka discovered in 2015 that they could more than halve the calories potentially absorbed from rice by adding coconut oil during cooking and then cooling the rice. This made the starch less digestible so the body may take on fewer calories (they have yet to test on human beings the precise effects of rice cooked in this way). That’s a bad thing if you’re malnourished, but a boon if you’re trying to lose weight. Different parts of a vegetable or fruit may be absorbed differently too: older leaves are tougher, for example. The starchy interior of sweetcorn kernels is easily digested but the cellulose husk is impossible to break down and passes through the body untouched. Just think about that moment when you look into the toilet bowl after eating sweetcorn. As with so many dieters, Camacho’s efforts to accurately track his calories “in” were doomed. But so too were his attempts to track his calories “out”. The message from many public authorities and food producers, especially fast-food companies that sponsor sports events, is that even the unhealthiest foods will not make you fat if you do your part by taking plenty of exercise. Exercise does, of course, have clear health benefits. But unless you’re a professional athlete, it plays a smaller part in weight control than most people believe. As much as 75% of the average person’s daily energy expenditure comes not through exercise but from ordinary daily activities and from keeping your body functioning by digesting food, powering organs and maintaining a regular body temperature. Even drinking iced water – which delivers no energy – forces the body to burn calories to maintain its preferred temperature, making it the only known case of consuming something with “negative” calories. A popular expression in English tells us not to “compare apples and oranges” and assume them to be the same: yet calories put pizzas and oranges, or apples and ice cream, on the same scale, and deems them equal. After three years of dedicated calorie-counting Camacho changed tack. While recovering from running the 2010 marathon in San Diego he took up Crossfit training, an exercise regime that includes high-intensity training and weightlifting. There he met people using a very different method to control their weight. Like him, they exercised regularly. But rather than limiting their calories, they ate natural foods, what Camacho calls “stuff from a real plant, not an industrial plant”. Fed up with feeling like a hungry failure, he decided to give it a go. He ditched his heavily processed low-calorie products and focused on the quality of his food rather than quantity. He stopped feeling ravenous all the time. “It sounds simple but I decided to listen to my body and eat whenever I was hungry but only when I was hungry, and to eat real food, not food ‘products’,” he says. He went back to items that he’d long banned himself from eating. He had his first rasher of bacon in three years and enjoyed cheese, whole-fat milk and steaks. He immediately felt less hungry and happier. More surprising, he quickly began to lose his extra fat. “I was sleeping so much better and within a couple of months I stopped the depression and anxiety medication,” he says. “I went from always feeling guilty and angry and afraid to feeling in control of myself and actually proud of my own body. Suddenly I could enjoy eating and drinking again.” The weight stayed off and in 2012 he moved to Heidelberg in Germany, a world away from the hectic streets of Mexico, to study for a masters degree in public health. “The idea hit me that I could combine my own experience with academic work to try to help other people overcome these various barriers that I had found.” After his masters he embarked on a doctorate on how to tackle obesity in Mexico. Today he is married to a German scholar, Erica Gunther, who has studied food systems around the world. Their diet includes things he used to shun, such as egg yolks, olive oil and nuts. Two days a week the couple stick to vegetarian meals but otherwise he devours steak, kidneys, liver and some of his favourite Mexican dishes – barbacoa (lamb), carnitas (pork) and tacos with grilled meat. His wife enjoys making a traditional Mexican sweet pastry called pan de muerto (bread of death). “Before I would have run an extra two hours to compensate for eating that but now I don’t care, I just make sure it is a treat, not an everyday thing.” Having spent years trying to forgo alcohol, he has a glass or two of wine several times a week, and goes for a beer with friends from his gym. Sweating through three or four workouts a week, he is as well-muscled as a professional rugby player. A stable 80kg, he has very little body fat, though he is still considered overweight by the body-mass-index charts, which rate many beefed-up professional athletes as too heavy. The only relapse of anxiety he suffers nowadays happens when he hears Tori Amos singing “Bliss” – the song playing when he was kidnapped – which he says “is a real pity because it’s a great song”. Today Camacho could be described as a calorie dissident, one of a small but growing number of academics and scientists who say that the persistence of calorie-counting compounds the obesity epidemic, rather than remedying it. Counting calories has disrupted our ability to eat the right amount of food, he says, and has steered us towards poor choices. In 2017 he wrote an academic paper that was one of the most savage attacks on the calorie system published in a peer-reviewed journal. “I’m actually embarrassed at what I used to believe,” he says. “I was doing everything I could to follow the official advice but it was totally wrong and I feel stupid for never even questioning it.” Given the vast evidence that calorie-counting is imprecise at best, and contributes to rising obesity at worst, why has it persisted? The simplicity of calorie-counting explains its appeal. Metrics that tell consumers the extent to which foods have been processed, or whether they will suppress hunger, are harder to understand. Faced with the calorie juggernaut, none has gained wide acceptance. The scientific and health establishment knows that the current system is flawed. A senior adviser to the un’s Food and Agriculture Organisation warned in 2002 that the Atwater “factors” of 4-4-9 at the heart of the calorie-counting system were “a gross oversimplification” and so inaccurate that they could mislead consumers into choosing unhealthy products because they understate the calories in some carbohydrates. The organisation said it would give “further consideration” to overhauling the system but 17 years later there is little momentum for change. It even rejected the idea of harmonising the many methods that are used in different countries – a label in Australia can give a different count from one in America for the same product. Officials at the who also acknowledge the problems of the current system, but say it is so entrenched in consumer behaviour, public policy and industry standards that it would be too expensive and disruptive to make big changes. The experiments that Atwater conducted a century ago, without calculators or computers, have never been repeated even though our understanding of how our bodies work is vastly improved. There is little funding or enthusiasm for such work. As Susan Roberts at Tufts University says, collecting and analysing faeces “is the worst research job in the world”. The calorie system, says Camacho, lets food producers off the hook: “They can say, ‘We’re not responsible for the unhealthy products we sell, we just have to list the calories and leave it to you to manage your own weight’.” Camacho and other calorie dissidents argue that sugar and highly processed carbohydrates play havoc with people’s hormonal systems. Higher insulin levels mean more energy is converted into fat tissues leaving less available to fuel the rest of the body. That in turn drives hunger and overeating. In other words the constant hunger and fatigue suffered by Camacho and other dieters may be symptoms of being overweight, rather than the cause of the problem. Yet much of the food industry defends the status quo too. To change how we assess the energy and health values of food would undermine the business model of many companies. The only major organisation to shift the emphasis beyond calories is one dedicated to helping its customers slim down: Weight Watchers. In 2001 the world’s best-known dieting firm introduced a points system that moved away from focusing exclusively on calories to also classifying foods according to their sugar and saturated fat content, and their impact on appetite. Chris Stirk, the firm’s general manager in Britain, says the organisation made the change because relying on calories to lose weight is “outdated”: “Science evolves daily, monthly, yearly, let alone since the 1800s.” Many of us know instinctively that not all calories are the same. A lollipop and an apple may contain similar numbers of calories but the apple is clearly better for us. But after a lifetime of hearing about the calorie and its role in supposedly foolproof diet advice we could be forgiven for being confused about how best to eat. It’s time to lay it to rest.

7 notes · View notes

orionsangel86 · 4 years

Note

I agree with the overly fetished views that fandom seems to have of gay men. As a gay man who’s really short, it’s soooo fuckin weird to have people assume I’m a bottom??? Like, I don’t even know you enough to disclose my sexual life and you’re making? weird? assumptions?? Also, there’s a certain fan artist who shan’t be named who makes a certain shorter character super feminine and it kills me every time

EXACTLY

Urgh I’m sorry fandom makes you feel that way.

I’m gonna put this under a cut as I am about to rant about this topic because it is my biggest gripe within fandom. Don’t read on if you are here for fun happy positive things. Beware fair readers, there be strong potentially offensive opinions and plenty of fandom wank down below...

Fandom is unfortunately filled with CIS het women who like to stereotype and force men into their preconceived internalised misogynistic perceptions that to be short or slender means you are the weak dainty “girl” in the relationship and that’s why whichever character they deem the “girl” is also ALWAYS the “bottom”. It also is the same way fandom tends to muddy the waters between sexual positions top/bottom and BSDM terms dom/sub, where bottoms MUST be submissive as well. Half the time you will see posts talking about character traits which perhaps might indicate a submissive streak, and people will take that to mean that a character is a bottom, when the two do not correlate and it is highly problematic to assume that they do.

It’s so fucking problematic and I don’t think that these (mostly straight cis female) fans realise that by encouraging these harmful stereotypes, they are actually also being totally misogynistic and anti feminist. Women are not all bloody Anastasia Steel’s for christs sake (and don’t get me started on that god awful book/movie series). A women can be tall, broad, muscular, she can be dominant and strong and she can damn well top a man if she wants to.

When it comes to shipping male characters in gay/queer relationships, fandom MUST stop inflicting outdated heterosexual stereotypes on them. It seems like fans find a pairing they like (for instance Dean and Cas) and then immediately have to decide which one of them plays the female role. They then twist and change the characters, their traits, the way they look etc, so that one of them is basically a woman. That character then MUST be the submissive bottom and URGH I HATE IT.

(Making a quick note to say that whilst these particular common stereotypes within fandom are very much a problem, this is not to be confused in any way with fans taking their fave characters and headcanoning them as trans or nb or anything else genderwise which reflects an even more marginalised group and is usually a type of fanwork created by fans who are in fact trans or nb themselves.)

I’m not gonna comment on specific artists, but I tend to block urls of bloggers whose stuff I feel is particularly problematic and I also now have the WONDERFUL post blocker xkit extension OMG it is a GODSEND I highly recommend it. If you keep seeing a post on your dash because everyone is reblogging it even though it is super squicky to you (like for instance an obviously feminised Cas or Dean is squicky for me) you can use the extension to block that particular post so you never have to see it again regardless of how many of your mutuals reblog it. Its amazing!

I know that on this hellsite we like to encourage everyone to be as creative as possible and that everyone is valid and we don’t kinkshame and everything etc etc, and I’m all for that, whatever floats your boat and all that. But there is a line, and the line is when what you are doing becomes offensive to the marginalised groups you are supposedly supporting. Like I really don’t care if you are into tentacle sex or hell, even a furry, but I do care if the only way you can comfortably support a gay ship is to force either of the male characters into a “female” template and give them a “self lubricating asshole”. Like... come on. This is why I hate A/B/O. If you have to force gay men to fit a hetero model, you aren’t supporting gay men, you are fetishising them. You are also probably kinda homophobic.

What I really hate about this stuff is how it always seems to be the problematic stuff like this that blows up and becomes a trend and suddenly everyone is jumping on board and no one is given a second thought to how fucked up it is. WHY IS A/B/O EVEN A THING?!? It started as a J2 beastiality fic like WHY DID IT BECOME SO POPULAR?!

Why is Twist & Shout so bloody popular too? Its not even in character. They aren’t even Dean and Cas! Cas is a pale skinny little TWINK?! WHHHHYYYY? I don’t understand it if you ship Destiel wouldn’t you at least want the characters you are reading about to BE Dean and Cas?!? Don’t get me wrong I love AU fics, but I still want to be able to picture and hear Dean and Cas in the characters being described.

Why was it such a thing in the early seasons to make Cas a girl? (that’s hyperbole obviously but he might as well have been based on some of the early fanfics/fanart I’ve seen and immediately noped out of.) Misha Collins has never looked anything like that! He’s never been feminine looking and just because the dude can pull off a dress doesn’t mean you can force him to suddenly be the cute tiny pale perfect curvy pretty submissive beauty you can’t help but imagine Dean with. If you want that for Dean, ship him with Lisa. Stop forcing Cas into a model that just doesn’t make sense for the character.

This goes for Dean as well of course. The dude may have a thing for pink panties and ballet shoes and taylor swift sure, but can we not feminise him to the point he is unrecognisable as the character please?

I know that a lot of this has routes in YAOI. Something I have generally avoided because quite frankly it disgusts me. I find the whole thing just super uncomfortable and messed up and see it purely as a straight womans fetish. So much of fandom shipping behaviour comes from YAOI and its caused a lot of the toxicity we have seen over the years. I think it has got a lot better in recent years though because the queer community is slowly gaining a monopoly in fandom (imo) and as they (we, I should say, as my bisexual ass has quite clearly had enough of this) become more interested in shipping and fandom culture, we can also start educating those straight fans who might be willing to listen and learn. Maybe one day we can say goodbye to the problematic trends of today, or at least, keep them on the fringes of fandom as more and more people wake up to the fact that they are harmful.

And if that means I never have to look at an image of a short pale “pretty” Cas with womanly hips again, I’ll crack open the prosecco and consider it a win.

38 notes · View notes

jeanjauthor · 4 years

Link

I want people to read the creator’s message below today’s webcomic, and then I want folks (who have the spoons to spare for it) to read the commentary below, and especially Mr. Morris’ replies to many of those comments. These dialogues between creators and viewers are very important when it comes to messages like this, ones which could be misconstrued when encountered without context.

For my part, I deeply appreciate that he posted his remark. He is a good guy, he does try to “mix it up” to diffuse & disperse bigotry moments (not perfectly, but nobody is ever going to be perfect)...but that isn’t the point. And it isn’t a point of “performative” apologizing. It’s not a performance; he genuinely feels bad about the timing of all of this and the potential for someone who hasn’t read the (massive) backlog of stories in the archives to see only surface images.

Regardless of what longtime or even shortime fans know about the story, regardless of utter newbs coming to the webcomic to view it...that statement needs to be there.

As I posted to Anonymous earlier regarding whether or not to include racial slurs in historical settings...to ignore that it happened, to ignore what it looks & sounds & feels like, is to try to deny the pains of the past, present, and future.

By pinning that particular message to this particular comic, Rick Morris is assuring people for generations to come that he knows the differences between fiction, reality, longterm plotlines and surface appearances. He knows, he acknowledges, he pledges to keep working toward being a better storyteller & artist...and that’s an important message for everyone to receive. Not just to inspire others, not just to apologize and explain context, but to renew his own pledges to himself & his readers that he’ll keep working on being better.

Storytellers don’t always tell comfortable stories. Sometimes we tell ones that are meant to hurt, in order to evoke emotions that can create not just sympathy but empathy for the suffering of others...and sometimes that backfires. Sometimes we tell ones that hurt in additional ways, in very unexpected and unfortunate and/or badly timed ways, increasing the pain for some.

Intention is an important part of storytelling, because most stories have a lesson to teach to our audiences. (Not all need to have one, but most have something for others to learn.) Intention also includes trying to be aware of unintended outcomes.

One of those lessons occurred today in a storyline that has been building to this climactic moment for literally the last four-plus years. No one could’ve predicted how real world events played out. At the same time, it would be wrong to stop telling this story to “wait for a better time.” There won’t be a better time for it.

Changing systemic racism will still take years and decades more to come, even if this is a manual-transmission-clutch moment, where we could wind up going faster in our forward progress, or find ourselves dropped into reverse, with a possibly broken transmission. (Hopefully not, but not holding my breath. I got better things to do with my energy.) So there literally won’t be a better time for this story.

Instead, we need to acknowledge that these visualizations do exist without proper context, and that even with context it can still cause some folks to feel hurt. Mr. Morris understands if new folks won’t want to start reading the rest of the story because of this one scene (and the following pages involving the rest of this scene). That’s part of the message that needs to be told.

That’s part of the pain that needs to be acknowledged. It is not intentional, it isn’t the best timing, but it is acknowledged...and all he asks is that folks consider giving the whole story a try.

I’ve been following his webcomic for a very long time, and I can personally say his characters are vastly diverse, and that he does tackle bigotry head-on in multiple ways with multiple races, genders, social classes, and more. Is it completely problem-free? Nope! But like reality, the characters do learn & change & grow, the creator does, too...and many of his characters have some absolutely outstanding character growth.

You don’t have to give YAFGC a try, but I do hope you’ll read the message & the comment interactions if you’re a writer (or an artist)...because these interactions are a good set of dialogues about this subject, how to handle it, how to agree or disagree, and how to be polite when the latter happens.

Personally, I am deeply pleased to see he didn’t shrug off his responsibility to post that note, and isn’t shrugging it off...like a number of the commenters imply he could’ve done instead, via their absolution-style comments. Instead, he’s doing the work that is necessary, even if it’s seen by some as extra, unnecessary work. That’s something all of us need to step up and do, for this kind of topic. Acknowledge the inadvertent visualizations, and apologize for them.

...

Speaking of which...in The Song, I created the character of Duke Finneg, Councilor of Conflict Resolution for the Empire of Katan. The continent of the Empire of Katan is longer than it is wide, stretching from the Sun’s Belt (equator) in the north toward the Ice Sea in the south (separating Katan from the southern polar landmass, smaller than Antarctica and just as uninhabited).

When I populated the landmass that was Katan, I knew that there would be dark-skinned folk in the northern regions close to the Equator, and pale-skinned folks in the southern regions close to the south pole, because that’s literally why we have skin color variations. Those that live in the middle lattitudes have a mix of skin hues, some paler, some darker, and plenty of people have traveled all over and settled in different areas than those their ancestors were born & raised in, even if the majority of everyone really don’t move very far. (If you look at the real world, this is basically how reality works, too.)

This logical pattern is repeated all over the world of the DestinyVerse. In areas with thick rainforests like Natallia, which are tropical to subtropical, the people are tanned but paler in melanin coloration than Sundara, which is a desert environment with few trees for shade (again like the real world we live in). There are slaves in some countries & cultures, and there are anti-slavery laws in others. There are good people, and there are bad people, and there are indifferent or self-focused people who just are either apathetic or oblivious to what’s going on around them...exactly like the real world. But it is not our world

So when I designed the appearance of Duke Finneg, a Katani mage of important political power who was destined (plotwise) to have a high-strung temper and an increasingly unhinged world-view because of self-delusional closed-minded thinking...I was tempted to make him white, to be honest. But since he’s from Katan, he could’ve been from any point on that continent.

The Corvis brothers are mid-lattitude with a variety of transcontinental intermarriages in previous generations, but in general are lightly tanned, almond-eyed, and have hair from light blond to jet black, because that’s how genetic inheritances work in their particular bloodline (and I needed a way to easily tell brothers apart description-wise...but I honestly have seen some families with blond, brunette, & redheaded members). (That, and it’s a non-Earth world, so, I could make shh up like that.)

(If you honestly want to know what the Corvid brothers look like, they’re a blend of East/Southeast Asian & European, with more in the way of Asian features and that wider range of European haircolors, same as most Katani from the mid-latitudes...though some on the east coast mid latitudes look more Latinx than Asian, like the folks from the western side tend to look.)

So when it came to the main protagonist for the fourth book in the series...I decided to roll a dice for his origination point, low for somewhere in the south (pale & blond), high for up near the equator (dark & brunette). I wrote down the general characteristics for each of the numbers/regions that might come up (I don’t have the paper anymore, alas, it got lost in one of my household moves)...and I rolled. (With real D&D style dice, because I’m a frikkin nerrrrd, duh.) The dice rolled high, aka his family is from a region up by the equator region where there isn’t much shade and dark skin tones are needed to ward off skin cancer...so I wrote him to be dark-skinned, etc. It was literally a random dice roll.

There are other characters in The Song and in other books of the DestinyVerse, showing various skintones & social backgrounds. Some are high-ranked, some are low-ranked. There are skin hues and hair colors in a wide range of hues. There are cultures with social equality, and cultures that are extremely bigoted (yes, Mandare, I’m talking about YOU)...but they’re not Earth cultures, and they don’t necessarily have real-world problems.

But I can see how they can be seen that way if you just pick up the book, rifle through it, see that Duke Finneg is an increasingly unstable hardass with a hate-on for the people on Nightfall Isle (spoiler alert, if a bit late)...and read that he’s got dark skin and brown eyes, etc, and perhaps feel hurt that he’s a Black Man being typecast as the Bad Guy from reading just one scene, with nothing of any further context than just that.

So I apologize for that. I was trying to write a story set within the context of its own universe, with its own distinct and different cultures, and viewed that particular character--the same with everyone else in the book--while writing the story from that viewpoint. Literally, I rolled up the physical characteristics for most of the Katani characters on that “this is where they’re from” sheet, which is why the harbormaster and his husband in the later books look the way they do, why the various other Councilors look the way they do, etc, etc.

But that doesn’t negate the fact that one of my villain characters is an increasingly unstable darkskinned male, and for anyone who has been hurt or offended by that description for my antagonist/villain character, I apologize. It was not my intent to perpetuate a false, harmful stereotype from our own world. It was just a random description roll for a stereotype that (in my mind, at least) has nothing to do with race--and nothing to do with genuine mental health issues--and everything to do with closed-minded attitudes toward “inferiors” and clinging to those mental dogmas rather than releasing them and admitting one has gotten an opinion/viewpoint of others deeply wrong.

I’m working on being better, as a writer. And to be fair, when you look at the whole context of all my writings, I’m doing a better job when it comes to ensuring diversity for protagonists and antagonists than the majority of published authors (most of whom are white). I’m particularly pleased with my IaVerse, where the main & secondary & other important Human characters come from a wide variety of backgrounds, the chief villains aren’t relatable to anything stereotypically Human, and positions of authority & power are not only achievable, but also removable and/or punishable if one steps too far out of line when it comes to acceptable/forgivable behavior.

The one thing I will always try to do is to try to tell a better story. People may still get hurt, but my stories will have context, and lessons, and the message that respect, tolerance, and compassion for nearly everyone is very important.

(I will, however, uphold the paradox of tolerance by asserting the lesson of refusing to tolerate the intolerant in order to preserve the existence of tolerance, and I will always encourage the metaphorical/allegorical punching of Nazi types. Or actual punching in stories, particularly the milSF ones...but then that is a genuine official trope of the military fiction genre.)

1 note · View note

reneeacaseyfl · 5 years

Text

The DeanBeat: Would politics make video games better?

As I watched my Facebook feed explode about President Donald Trump’s racist comments this week, I couldn’t help but notice that game developers are political creatures, just like everybody else. But if you looked at their games for political messages, you would think that they’re apolitical, concerned only with near-political game environments that don’t take a stand.

This subject flared up ever since Donald Trump was elected as the U.S. president, but his presidential misadventures have not yet inspired a masterful intertwining of art and politics in a video game. Perhaps we should not expect to see that happen because the interests of commerce rule the day. I hope we can overcome those interests because I believe that putting some form of higher meaning into video games is one way to make games as universally recognized as an art as other media.

Ted Price, CEO of Insomniac Games, took a stand against Trump’s Muslim ban in 2016, going so far as making a video expressing his company’s opposition to it. That was admirable. But there wasn’t a ton of contemporary political commentary disguised in a popular game made by Price’s studio, Marvel’s Spider-man.

youtube

Spider-man probably wasn’t the right platform for political commentary. We have seen other games come close to dealing with the topics of white nationalism, yet they have fallen short. Ubisoft’s creative leaders say that games like Far Cry 5 (about a religious militia taking over Montana) and The Division 2 (about a secret military organization preventing the fall of Washington, D.C. after a plague) do not make political statements.

Machine Games, the creator of the Wolfenstein series, was surprised to stumble on a political opportunity in its remake of id Software’s classic Wolfenstein games, which take place in an alternate universe where the Nazis won World War II. Much like Amazon’s The Man in the High Castle TV show, the Nazis have overrun America and the Ku Klux Klan is now allied with them to make things worse.

Above: Sophia (left) and Jessica are the daughters of BJ Blazkowicz in Wolfenstein: Youngblood.

Image Credit: Bethesda

But did this storyline — extended with this month’s pending release of the co-op game Wolfenstein: Youngblood — have anything to do with the rise of the alt. right, Ferguson, Gamergate, Trump, Charlottesville, and this week’s events? Not really, said Jerk Gustafsson, executive producer of Wolfenstein: Youngblood at Sweden’s Machine Games, in an interview with GamesBeat.

“We started work on that story in 2014. It was quite a lot of time before the game actually came out, and a lot of things happened in those years. In that game, we wanted to tell the story of B.J. growing up, his childhood,” Gustafsson said. “It was a very dark story, with his abusive father and dark themes in general. And at the same time we wanted to tell a story about what happened if the Nazis won the war and took over the U.S. Since that happened around that time, especially with Charlottesville, it came to a point where we got a lot of, especially with interviews and talking to media — it led to a lot more discussions around the political aspect of it than we anticipated when we set out to do the game. That took us a bit by surprise.”

In other words, Wolfenstein comes close to being a social commentary on Trump’s presidency and the parallels that many liberals see to the Nazi’s in his apparent comfort with white nationalists. But that’s an accident. The prescient storyline was … accidental. Those of us who really liked the parallels were just giving the writers too much credit for boldness.

youtube

The same goes for 2016’s Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, which depicted a world divided between “natural” humans and “augs,” or people augmented with cybernetic technology. Square Enix said that the similarity of the game’s slogan, “Augs Lives Matters,” was simply an “unfortunate coincidence,” versus the real world slogan Black Lives Matter, as The New Yorker reported.

Once in a while, we get a game that is overtly political. In 2012, Spec-Ops: The Line acknowledged the horrors of war in a way that video games rarely do. Detroit: Become Human was set in Detroit and it clearly showed how bad it would for humans to create human-like androids and enslave them, as African Americans were once enslaved.

“Am I worried about technology in general? Yes. I’m more worried about human beings than about machines, though. It’s not a coincidence that in Detroit, we made the choice that the good guys are the androids and the bad guys are human,” said David Cage, cofounder of Quantic Dream, creator of Detroit, in an interview.

Above: Spec-Ops: The Line

Image Credit: Yager/2K

Such games are often criticized as too political, and not fun. Many fans, particularly those sympathetic to Gamergate, view the critics who want these games as “social justice warriors,” a pejorative term.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare will likely be controversial for the level of realistic violence it depicts, as well as the blurring of the line between soldiers and civilians in modern war. Studio director Taylor Kurosaki declared that the game was “ripped from the headlines” and was created to show “the world we are living in today,” Kurosaki said.

And some games introduce politics accidentally.

Amazon recently showed off New World, a game about the colonization of a new continent. But instead of fighting off native Americans, the colonists — who are the good guys — fight zombie-like creatures. Some critics noted that this sanitization of colonialism’s ugly reality was racist in itself, as it dehumanized the native Americans into beings that were easy to kill.

Above: Zombies in the New World!

Image Credit: Amazon

This takes me back to my days as an English major, when my professors posed questions about whether great works of literature had multiple layers of meaning, like The Wasteland (clearly, T.S. Eliot’s famous poem had those layers). But should they have political layers? Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, about the Salem witch trials, was surely inspired by McCarthyism’s Red Scare. Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was a condemnation of the capitalist overlords of the meat-packing industry.

Sometimes this added layer of meaning makes us feel like the game is worth studying, and lots of game development programs in colleges are doing just that. That’ probably why The New Yorker and The Guardian wrote about politics in games this year. But does that diminish the fun layer? Or does it hurt the commercial potential of the game?

For sure, publishers are shying away from declaring that games have political intent because they want the game to have the widest potential audience. If only anti-Trump gamers bought Wolfenstein: Youngblood, then that would be a travesty for Bethesda’s bottom line. But this fear ignores another fact: We can outgrow the tropes of video game stories, and some of us want something like HBO. I’ll take a show like Chernobyl over a lot of feel-good television.

Above: Orwell: Ignorance is Strength is the second season in the surveillance game.

Image Credit: Osmotic Studios

I acknowledge that the main object is to make games fun, and I don’t hate video games that are made just to be fun. But I put myself in the camp of social justice warriors. Let those game developers who want to do so express their political views in transparent ways, even if their bosses want to shut them up. I sincerely wish that the crazy politics of Donald Trump would inspire someone to create a beautiful metaphorical treatment that gives us all some clarity about what all of this means.

I wish we could have someone in the game industry emerge, like George Orwell with 1984, or like the antiwar songs that emerged during Vietnam, to show us the way. We have some hope, as one small indie game studio, Osmotic Studios, was inspired to create a PC game called Orwell in 2013 — in the wake of Edward Snowden’s disclosures — about a surveillance society.

But that game hasn’t made as much impact as it might have, and it doesn’t have the kind of big-budget that the largest publishers can throw at a game. I would hate to think that indies are the only ones who can afford to take a stand. But I am grateful that they are there as a counterbalance to the deafening silence from the big game companies.

I believe that I’m raising a lot of questions without many answers here. But I hope to address them in panels that I may be moderating at Devcom in Cologne, Germany, and at Game Daily Connect in Anaheim. I hope you can help me find some answers.

Credit: Source link

The post The DeanBeat: Would politics make video games better? appeared first on WeeklyReviewer.

from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.com/the-deanbeat-would-politics-make-video-games-better/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-deanbeat-would-politics-make-video-games-better from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.tumblr.com/post/186420433697

0 notes

velmaemyers88 · 5 years

Text

The DeanBeat: Would politics make video games better?

youtube

Above: Sophia (left) and Jessica are the daughters of BJ Blazkowicz in Wolfenstein: Youngblood.

Image Credit: Bethesda

youtube

Above: Spec-Ops: The Line

Image Credit: Yager/2K

And some games introduce politics accidentally.

Above: Zombies in the New World!

Image Credit: Amazon

Above: Orwell: Ignorance is Strength is the second season in the surveillance game.

Image Credit: Osmotic Studios

Credit: Source link

The post The DeanBeat: Would politics make video games better? appeared first on WeeklyReviewer.

0 notes

weeklyreviewer · 5 years

Text

The DeanBeat: Would politics make video games better?

youtube

Above: Sophia (left) and Jessica are the daughters of BJ Blazkowicz in Wolfenstein: Youngblood.

Image Credit: Bethesda

youtube

Above: Spec-Ops: The Line

Image Credit: Yager/2K

And some games introduce politics accidentally.

Above: Zombies in the New World!

Image Credit: Amazon

Above: Orwell: Ignorance is Strength is the second season in the surveillance game.

Image Credit: Osmotic Studios

Credit: Source link

The post The DeanBeat: Would politics make video games better? appeared first on WeeklyReviewer.

from WeeklyReviewer https://weeklyreviewer.com/the-deanbeat-would-politics-make-video-games-better/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-deanbeat-would-politics-make-video-games-better

0 notes

ssteezyy · 5 years

Text

Cat Friendly Handling: Your Cat Deserves a Positive Experience at the Veterinary Clinic

Guest post by Ellen Carozza, LVT

Thanks to the internet, cats are the most popular pet, yet they receive less medical care than their canine counterparts. Join me and the Conscious Cat in this two part series on what actually happens when your cat is handled in the veterinary clinic, and how you and your cat can have that positive experience you’ve always wanted.

But first I need to take a step back and explain a few things…

Handling practices for cats

One of the top comments I see in many of my pet related posts on THE CAT LVT is how so many people don’t like how their cat is handled at the veterinary clinic.

In my 20+ years of being in veterinary medicine, I’ve seen quite the evolution of animal restraint in practice. So why are our handling practices for cats still so primitive? Is it because we don’t care to gain further knowledge and move forward in our standards of care? Is it fear of the animal itself? Or is it because “we’ve always done it this way?”

As pet guardians want to be more involved in their pets’ care, and as we treat the newer generation of pets, our industry needs to make much needed changes both in terms of treating patients and to keep a practice thriving. While these changes are happening, it feels like they are happening at a snail’s pace.

As veterinary professionals, we are dedicated to providing excellent care: care and compassion that is paid for by you, the client.

Veterinary medicine is categorized as a “for profit” industry, as pets by law are considered personal property for which you elect us to provide medical care. Yet I see on many Facebook forums for veterinary professionals how anti-cat they can be. How is this possible? We all work in this field for various reasons. To see the negative comments about our feline patients can be disheartening and downright embarrassing at times.

How can we as caregivers boast of our love for animals and then speak of them in a negative manner? I see cats labeled as “demons”, “aggressive”, “awful”, and many four-letter words that don’t need to be repeated. This is not only unprofessional and abhorrent behavior on the professionals’ part, it also means that they either do not understand the language of the cat, or they really don’t want to learn and work with them.

I’m not a fan of working with dogs. I never have been and I’m not afraid of admitting it. I don’t understand their language, and their presence can be too much for me to handle physically. I grew up with dogs. My family still has them as pets. I just prefer not to work with them. So what did I do? I found a practice that was exclusive to the species I wanted to work with: cats. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you don’t prefer to work with a particular species, but if you have made the choice to work at a mixed practice, you are expected to be kind, compassionate, and understanding regardless of what species your patient is.

Understanding cats sets up a more successful vet visit

Learning how a patient acts and reacts in a clinical setting can help set up a more successful visit. We as professionals need to make sure we are prepared in advance to make sure that happens. You as a client need to be honest about how your cat has behaved at previous veterinary visits so we can anticipate your and your cat’s needs accordingly.

The feline patient has a unique body language and can arrive at the clinic already stressed out. Those of us working the veterinary field need to learn how to understand the clear signals cats give us, and adjust our behavior accordingly to be able to work with them safely. In reality, these cats are scared, and are acting out in a manner completely appropriate to a situation they did not willingly put themselves in. Once that is understood, speaking their language gets easier, and they are quite rewarding to work with.

However, we do need your help. We need to know if your cat prefers certain staff members. We need to know if your cat needs or has been given an anxiolytic (medication to ease anxiety before the visit) in the past or might benefit from such medication, or if your cat needs to be sedated to handle.

Outdated restraint and anesthesia techniques

Unfortunately, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) still requires the veterinary professional to learn outdated restraint/anesthesia techniques for companion animals. Restraint methods such as scruffing, and even worse “tanking” or “boxing”, (putting the cat into an oxygen tank and running anesthetic gas into the tank to sedate them) are not only unsafe, but are considered outdated, cruel and unnecessary handling methods. They are also unsafe for the staff performing the task.

Not only does scruffing put dangerous stress on the cervical vertebrae, it can be painful for cats with arthritis and skin ailments. It also heightens the stress response.

Tanking and boxing is one of the worst anesthetic practices, as the patient cannot be accurately monitored. It causes severe cardiac depression. The cat’s fur becomes supersaturated with an anesthetic gas that the staff handling the cats are then going to inhale. A scavenging system is not designed to protect staff from gas inhalation when used with a tank, and is actually a violation of OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) standards. If a hospital does not care to update their anesthetic protocol to safer methods for pets and staff, it speaks volumes about the medical care provided and how staff are treated.

The AVMA needs to evolve in supporting safer, better methods of restraint and anesthesia techniques for cats, and removing the unsafe and outdated techniques taught in veterinary programs, so that our next generation of veterinary professionals are prepared to provide a more positive experience at the vet office!

There are better, safer methods of restraint for the feline patient.

The International Society of Feline Medicine (ISFM) currently has a “scruff free” campaign which advocates for respectful feline handling in a veterinary clinic. Check out their pledge and set of links here: https://icatcare.org/scruffing for further information. The AAFP also has a set of practice guidelines for handling the feline patient and can be found here: https://catvets.com/guidelines/practice-guidelines/handling-guidelines, and as a bonus they have a search engine to help you find the purrfect feline vet in your area: https://catfriendly.com/find-a-veterinarian/

Our goal in a Cat Friendly Practice®

Our goal in the cat friendly practice is to make sure your cat gets the medical care he or she needs and deserves, and that you understand what we are doing every step of the way. There is no need to be embarrassed at how your cat reacts at the vet office! It’s normal, expected behavior – we understand they are stressed out. We want to make sure that stress level is kept to a minimum for you and your cat(s) by being prepared in advance.

I wrote an article for Today’s Veterinary Nurse on understanding feline behavior in the clinical setting. It can provide detailed insight on how we categorize and work with, not against our feline patients. This can help you understand how we train to be better prepared for working with a variety of feline patients. You can find it here: https://todaysveterinarynurse.com/articles/behavior-understanding-the-cat/

It is encouraging that many clinics are becoming Cat Friendly or Fear Free. The staff at these clinics is specifically trained to have protocols in place to ease the stress of the animals that are presented for care. Look for the Cat Friendly Practice® logo by the American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) on a clinic’s website or front door, or look for the Fear Free Certified® logo, as many mixed practices are training in that method because they treat more than just cats.

You want the people who you bring your pet in for medical attention excited about caring for them! If you don’t see that, it is your right as a client to seek care at a clinic where these methods are practiced. It is OK to get a second opinion.

Currently, there are over 26,000 animal hospitals in the United States. If you don’t like the practice you are with, find a practice that fits you and your cat’s needs.

When looking for a feline centric clinic, at a minimum check for the following:

● Cat Friendly Practice© or Fear Free Certified® logo ● Staff bios on a website that state they LOVE working with cats ● Does the practice have a quiet atmosphere, or separate canine and feline lobby areas and separate exam/hospital ward that cater to your cat’s emotional needs? ● Is the clinic willing to get your cat in for an appointment regardless of his or her stress level and previous negative experiences? ● A place that will honestly tell you who is working with your pet, what anesthetics are used, how, and who they are administered by ● Do they practice updated feline medicine and work with you and your cat’s lifestyle by using practice guidelines created by the AAFP? ● Do they perform all necessary tasks such as lab work in front of you or remove the cat from the room? ● Are they using cat friendly methods of handling and restraint? ● Are there credentialed veterinary technicians on staff?

Once you have your questions answered to your satisfaction, make an appointment.

A note from Ingrid: I think it’s a good idea to make an appointment without your cat when you are evaluating a veterinary clinic. By going to see potential vets without your cat, you will be more relaxed. Ask for a tour of the hospital. If you want to speak with a veterinarian, offer to pay for an office visit. Most vets won’t charge you for this introductory visit, but offering to pay for their time sets the right tone for a future relationship of mutual respect. Come prepared with a list of questions. For more details on how to choose a cat friendly vet, watch this video.

Stay tuned for Part Two: How you can make your cat’s visit to the vet less stressful for your cat and what to expect during your visit.

Ellen Carozza, LVT is a technician at Nova Cat Clinic in Arlington, VA. You can learn more about Ellen on the NOVA Cat Clinic website, and you can find her on Instagram and Facebook.

The post Cat Friendly Handling: Your Cat Deserves a Positive Experience at the Veterinary Clinic appeared first on The Conscious Cat.

0 notes

davidddiep · 6 years

Text

Ridiculous Slang Terms for Cannabis by the DEA

The history between cannabis and the Drug Enforcement Agency added another chapter to its pages. Judging by its recently updated list of cannabis nicknames, the distance between the community and the DEA may somehow be more considerable than we even thought. While this may be subject to laugh at the differences between the two, other reasons make it difficult to simply brush off.

After decades of disconnection and demonization, the DEA and the federal government at large continue to remain out of step with cannabis. With the release of these slang terms for cannabis by the DEA, citizens are once again left scratching their heads wondering how the heck the government thinks its citizens view cannabis.

Ridiculous Slang Terms for Cannabis by the DEA

Looking over the list, some terms may pop out as actual phrases or words you may have previously come across. MMJ and nug stand out, while some strains like Green Crack, Tangy OG, and others made the list. Meanwhile, it is unclear if the DEA is unsure of what terpenes are, or if consumers are the ones mistaken. Either way, it also found its way onto the list.

In other cases, the DEA either found some incredibly niche terms or just outright missed on what they thought was slang for cannabis. Some standouts include:

Shoes

Crazy weed

Dinkie dow

Queen Ann’s lace

Righteous bush

Tigitty

Young Girls

The DEA has yet to comment further on the list. So, the cannabis community has respectfully left the subject alone until some clarity has been presented.

Kidding, of course.

The list has garnered numerous write-ups in publications from Leafly to the Boston Globe. Most pieces touched on the intricate list the government has put together to cover pot in recent years. The complete list of drug slang has numerous names for cannabis and concentrates, placing them among the same level as cocaine and heroin.

While the list is comical, it once again highlights the disconnect between the government and the actual healing potential of cannabis. If this were just another opportunity to poke fun at Jeff Sessions and his anti-pot acolytes, it would be all fun and games. Unfortunately, however, this highlights just another glaring reason why cannabis and the DEA aren’t on the same page.

Far From the First Incident Between Cannabis and the DEA

Unsurprisingly, a comical list of nicknames and slang terms is far from the worst thing the DEA has done to cannabis through the years. The most egregious offense came during the Nixon administration in the early 70s. The soon to be disgraced President and his cabinet defied marijuana studies and continued framing it as an addictive drug. Instead, they continued forward with the atrocious Schedule I status cannabis continues to have under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act.

Despite assertions from medical professionals that cannabis had medical use, the administration moved forward classifying cannabis just as past prohibition proponents had in the past. In the case of the Nixon administration, they saw placing marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic as a way to suppress the antiwar and civil rights movements of the time.

In 2016, this long-held theory was confirmed by Nixon’s Attorney General John Mitchell who said in 1994 that:

“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course, we did.”

Beyond the terrible actions taken by the Nixon administration, cannabis continued to suffer as the decades wore on. This continues today where federal regulations continue to hinder progress and even valuable studies that could save lives. And when compared to the effects heroin demonization had on the black community, it is tragic and safe to say that cannabis received the lesser of the two outcomes.

Could a Change Be on the Horizon?

At this time, the DEA continues to view cannabis as an abusive drug. On its website, the DEA states that “Marijuana is the only major drug of abuse grown within the U.S. borders. The DEA is aggressively striving to halt the spread of cannabis cultivation in the United States.”

While Attorney General Jeff Sessions has rescinded the Cole Memo at the Department of Justice, legal cannabis markets continue to operate in the United States with little to no interference from federal officials at this time. The current belief is that the federal government would be making an unwise decision wading into the murky waters of states’ rights, especially surrounding a product that generates revenue while saving the lives of everyone from children to veterans.

Meanwhile, recent DEA figures suggest that the illegal cannabis market is shrinking in America. Based on the amount of cannabis the agency seizes, it saw a 35 percent decrease in 2017. While this could be due to legalization efforts, the DEA did not elaborate.

One way to ensure that a change is made would be through rescheduling cannabis. This could come from a series of measures Congress is currently working on. However, at this time, no certain answer is in place. That lack of certainty may not be a cause for alarm. That is at least according to the author of the Cole Memo, former Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole. In July, Cole told MJBizDaily that:

“What I’ve seen from a prosecutorial standpoint so far … is not much. I haven’t seen a spate of prosecutions (since) the Cole Memo…Now you’ve got 93 U.S. attorneys who are all given their own individual discretion. … In the states that have legalized marijuana, those U.S. attorneys are by and large political animals…I don’t expect them to do much, because that political reality is going to be a natural barrier to them taking an aggressive approach and really defying the will of the voters.”

While the country’s cannabis community can likely breathe easy, we’ll still have to wait and see what comes from the federal level. While Cole’s assertion gives some relief, the laughable slang terms for cannabis by the DEA highlights just how far apart the nation and its law enforcement may be at this time.

The post Ridiculous Slang Terms for Cannabis by the DEA appeared first on PrestoDoctor Blog.

0 notes

aion-rsa · 8 years

Text

Latour On Finally Tying Up His Loose Ends with Brunner & Renzi

In 2007, the comics industry landscape was very different, with some of today’s most popular creators toiling away in relative obscurity. One such creator was Jason Latour who that year teamed up with artist Chris Brunner and colorist Rico Renzi to release “Loose Ends,” a four-issue Southern crime series.

The book, which developed a small, but devoted fan base thanks to Latour’s writing and Brunner’s breathtaking visuals, is an especially significant moment in Latour’s career because it directly led to the titles he’s known for today; “Spider-Gwen,” which he co-created with Renzi and artist Robbie Rodriguez for Marvel Comics, and “Southern Bastards,” the Eisner Award winning Image Comics series by Latour and co-creator Jason Aaron.

RELATED: Southern Bastards Announces Anti-Harassment Charity Variant

Sadly, the fourth issue of “Loose Ends” was never released, denying fans the chance to read Latour, Brunner, and Renzi’s story in it’s entirety. That all changes this month, as Image Comics gives fans of the creative team’s work, both old and new, a chance to rediscover and finish one of the their seminal works by repackaging and releasing all four issues of “Loose Ends.”

CBR: Image Comics is releasing “Loose Ends” #1 in January. I know some of your newer fans will be experiencing this book for the first time, but will that will be the case for long time fans of your work as well?

Jason Latour: Well for context— “Loose Ends” is a comic that originally came out in 2007, and was essentially self-published between the four of us (the creative team and our editor Keven Gardener). Creator-owned comics were a different beast ten years ago; audiences paid less attention, the market was less diverse, and we were still building our careers. You couple all that with how much we poured into making this comic, and it was just a real uphill climb. So despite a really great response from folks who read it, we only managed to complete three issues of what was intended as four-issue miniseries.

Luckily for us, we’re here ten years later, and all the doors “Loose Ends” opened for us — especially for me — have made it very possible to re-present this book through Image. Which is just tremendous, because I love working there and I love the idea of this comic finally having a home beside the amazing stuff they do.

So we’re reprinting the existing material — along with the last chapter. And the cool thing about that is — again, this is the comic book that all but started our careers, one that very few people got to see. So it’s essentially like making a new comic.

We’re very excited about it. I feel like it still looks and reads pretty fresh considering that it is from another era. It’s a fun road trip genre crime comic, but also a meditation of sorts on what it was like to come of age in an era where George Bush was as his height, we were at war in the Middle East, almost no one had ever heard of Barack Obama, and Trump was just a dumb show TV host. I think it’s an interesting time capsule in that sense. Hopefully it’s taken on some new relevance.

Has the end of the series changed at at all? Did you go back and revise “Loose Ends” #4?

Sure, we’re going to do some light things to repurpose, repackage, and re-present the series as a whole. But for all intents and purposes, though, there’s not a lot of George Lucas-ing going on. [Laughs] Han still shoots first.

Both plot wise and story wise, the fourth issue is all in stone. The only thing that I could possibly allow myself to change is — well, it’s my opinion comic books are not finished until they’re in print. [Laughs] So for the fourth issue, I might do some little lettering re-writes (which is convenient, since I letter it by hand). We’ll see. I’m trying to keep it more or less the same in terms of my involvement.

At a certain point, you’ve got to stand beside what you did. There certainly are reasons to readdress things, but I always like to try and stand on the work that we did, and just trust that even if you were in a different place, you still gave it your best effort at the time.

Let’s talk a little bit about the main characters and the inciting incident of “Loose Ends.” What can you tell us about your two lead characters, Sonny and Cheri, and the events that bring them together?

The comic more or less is a road trip gone sideways. I guess, for lack of a better word, you could call Sonny the protagonist. [Laughs] He’s a young man who has come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with potentially a new lease on life. He and his friend, Reggie, have decided to sell heroin. It’s a get rich quick scheme that is very quickly eating away at Sonny’s conscience.

So Sonny returns home to try and make amends for something he left undone, and at the end of one bloody night he and a young woman from his past named Cheri end up on the road and embroiled in the machinations of a pair of corrupt cops. So in the course of one night, these characters lives take on this breakneck momentum that forces them to rehash and reassess their lives.

So if you’re a fan of films like “True Romance” or “Drive” (which it still stuns me that we pre-date), this might be for you. Of course, it’s set in the South, which makes it obviously very personal to me, and I think separates it from just the genre elements of those stories a bit.

In terms of elevator pitches, it sounds like you could describe it as sort of a Southern fried “True Romance” by way of someone like “The Wire’s” David Simon.

Yeah, that’s a good elevator pitch. There’s certainly a lot of David Simon in it.

I started writing this around 2005. There was a period where I moved away from the South and lived in New York. I read a lot of David Simon during that time. He’s clearly a heavyweight intellectual, and he really got me thinking. At the time, I was living in a pretty impoverished area of Brooklyn, and being from the South, I was thinking about the commonalities of people growing up in different places and how everything is all a lot more interconnected than people seem to want to acknowledge. That helped this book really coalesce in a way.

You mentioned “Southern Bastards.” I assume “Loose Ends” is also like that book in that it can be quite dark at times, but it can also be quite funny at times.

Yeah, I would think so. I certainly take myself way too seriously a lot of the time. [Laughs] But if anybody follows my terrible social media feeds, they’ll see that I also can’t resist making dumb jokes. So there’s a lot of my own particular, warped sense of humor, and the senses of humor of Chris and Rico both slide in there too.

I’m just a big believer in embracing the interplay between what’s absurd and what’s super serious. More and more that’s reflected in our society and real lives.

What I’ve seen of Chris and Rico’s art for “Loose Ends” is, I don��t want to use the term magical, but it kind of feels that way.

Yes! There is literally no other artist that I felt would be capable of bringing this to life. That’s the highest compliment that I can give.

Chris was my roommate for the better part of four years while we were working on the bulk of this. I got to see him struggle with putting that magic on the page. He really bled for it and earned every bit of it. I truly think people should pick this comic book up, if for no other reason than for the art. It’s a virtuoso performance by somebody who is, unfortunately, a little underrated. Not among other artists, but as far as fans. I think it will really be worth people’s time to experience what he’s done here. Hell, he could be one of the biggest names in comics, and he’d still be underrated.

The same goes for Rico, who is obviously a collaborator of mine on pretty much all the stuff I’ve been doing at Marvel. That guy is my drummer, man. The steady beat to all this stuff. If you’ve read “Southern Bastards” #12, or the first story in the “Spider-Gwen Annual,” that’s a little taste of how this team works together.

But I can’t stress enough that — we really didn’t want to do a crime comic that felt old and dusty. [Laughs] A lot of crime comics end up using the same palette and the same sort of visual presentation over and over again. So this is sort of what I’d call neon noir. We all really like the early Michael Mann movies. His films like “Thief” are definitely an influence.

Finally, how does it feel to revisit and bring “Loose Ends” to a long awaited close?

I stand behind everything we’ve done, 150 percent. But it does feel a little weird to put a comic out ten years after you wrote it. Mostly because readers don’t often know or seem to care about the context of when something was made. Why should they? Their job is to enjoy it. And then there’s the idea that— well it’s not so much the fear that they’re not going to like what you did then, it’s that they’re going to like what you used to do a lot better. [Laughs]

It does feel really rewarding to get it all put together and all done, though. It felt like for a while we might be pulling a prank on everybody by calling it “Loose Ends.” [Laughs] It’s like our own little Andy Kaufman/Tony Clifton prank.

This was a comic that opened a lot of doors for me. It was the first comic that I put on Marvel’s desk and said, “Hey, I can write.” It’s also a comic that was very influential and essential to me and Jason Aaron creating “Southern Bastards.” So it means the world to me to get to re-present it and repackage it. Plus, it will be new to so many people.  Even if only 10 more people read it it’s really gratifying to put Chris and Rico on that stage again. Giving anything that you worked that hard for a new chance at life is an opportunity that you should never take for granted.

“Loose Ends” #1, by Jason Latour, Chris Brunner and Rico Renzi, is on sale now.

The post Latour On Finally Tying Up His Loose Ends with Brunner & Renzi appeared first on CBR.com.

http://ift.tt/2ikYSY0

#Aion_Rsa

0 notes