Thoughts on Boston

I had planned to spend this evening working on my novel. I’ve written about 12,000 words in the past 2 weeks, with a planned schedule of about a thousand words per day. But today, at the risk of depleting the supply of words I may have for my novel, I am going to make words here about today, about what happened today, about what may be described as a tragedy, definitely, or what may be described, less popularly, as a wake-up call.

First of all, I am terribly hurt that lives were lost or permanently altered as a direct result of the bombings in Boston this afternoon. My heart goes out to all involved. What I have to say here should not diminish this tragedy as a personal one that personally affects so many people. However, it is impossible to regard an incident like this solely in the context of personal tragedy, and therefore discourse about the incident as metaphor is demanded and must be answered.

There is a right way and a wrong way to do this, and a spectrum of ways in between. I would assert that Alex Jones chose the wrong way,  who tweeted these two sentiments in the same breath, “Our hearts go out to those that are hurt or killed #Boston marathon - but this thing stinks to high heaven #falseflag.” I am not sure what I am doing here is the right way or the wrong way. When does the window open when it is not “too soon”; when does it shut when it is too late, when people have already moved on to the next sensation, whether real or manufactured? Perhaps there is no window at all. Perhaps, to some people, it will always be wrong for me to say these things. I’ve already been accused of “turning this political” and being in “bad taste.” Perhaps others are ready to hear what I have to say. Perhaps they have been ready for a long time.

We (and Americans, I am speaking specifically to you) need to take a moment and consider our reaction to this news. When you heard, when someone told you or you saw the headline, what was your first thought? What thoughts did you have after that? How did your brain feel, your heart, your guts? Did you try to contact people to be sure they were okay? Did you spread the word? Did you research the news to see what facts were real and which weren’t? Did you formulate scenarios, imagine who was to blame, maybe even speak aloud this speculations to see if others agreed?

Did you do the same thing after Newtown?

Did you do the same thing after 9/11?

Did you do the same thing after you heard 16 civilians were killed yesterday in Iraq by bomb, bringing the total civilian body count in Iraq to 187 in April alone?

Or didn’t you know that.

Or didn’t you care.

The thing that makes the Boston Marathon Bombing different, even though fewer people are dead, is that it happened here. Except, what about the 28 people, including 3 children age 13 and under, who were killed by gunshots over the weekend. That happened here. It happened everywhere, all over America. In fact, it happens every single day, all over America.

How does your brain feel reading that, your heart, your guts? Why is it so different than when you heard that there were two explosions at the finish line of the Boston Marathon?

I believe it has to do with the ideas of safety, expectation, context, circumstance. The problem with 9/11, the problem with Newtown, the problem with Boston is that the people who were hurt were analogs for ourselves, for our friends and families. In our minds, these people are, we are, innocents. We are supposed to be safe. We did not choose the kind of life where death and destruction are a normal circumstance. But in our minds, if it could happen to those people, it could happen to us, and the realization that we are not in control—that no one, not our police, not our military, not even our gods are in control—is frightening on a level that goes soul-deep.

The problem, though, is that when we think of ourselves that way, as innocent, as out of the circumstance of violence, the implicit assertion is that people in those other circumstances—Muslims living in a third world war zone, say, or gangbangers living in a first world war zone—are the opposite of that. Whether subconsciously or otherwise, there is the thought that these people somehow were not completely innocent or undeserving of what they got. Collateral damage in a war zone is not shocking; it’s barely news. It’s a ticker beneath a celebrity nip slip.  Getting the annual homicide rate below 200 in Baltimore is considered a success. Maybe if those people don’t want to get killed they shouldn’t be involved in the drug trade, right? Maybe they shouldn’t be poor. Maybe they shouldn’t be black. Maybe if they lived in a nice Boston neighborhood and could afford to take the day off work to watch people run for fun and not because they’re being chased it would be more gut-wrenching when they died, and people might say it’s in “bad taste” when someone else politicizes it.

You’re not safe, my fellow Americans. Your safety is an illusion. And that illusion is a pacifier that keeps your eyes off the ticker, keeps them glazed over, keeps your mouth shut except when your knee jerks because you have a ready-made sound bite you can throw at something you think deserves throwing-at. You are not safe because you live in an aggressive, hostile bully of a country—except America doesn’t steal lunch money, it kills thousands of innocent people in foreign countries, sends thousands of soldiers to die in foreign countries, and makes the deaths of thousands of victims on domestic soil into a wedge issue instead of a dire fucking emergency.

More people have been killed by gun violence since the Newtown shooting than were killed in 9/11. You want to talk about terrorism? The government has you in terror that you’re going to lose your guns so much that you forget to be scared of actually losing your life. You’re lulled into submission because we spend more on defense than the next 13 countries in the world combined so that you can feel safe, so that “war zone” is a pithy metaphor used to describe two bombs going off in a major American city, instead of your everyday forever reality. So when something like the Boston bombing happens, you get upset because something woke you up.

It’s okay to be upset. But you really ought to follow up that emotion with some good old-fashioned, red-blooded American anger. And then you better fucking do something. The window for talking about this isn’t open and isn’t closed because it doesn’t exist because somebody somewhere made you think it was in “bad taste” to talk about it, because they don’t want you to talk about it. If we want the killing to stop, if we want true safety instead of the mere illusion thereof, we must treat all deaths equally with our brains and our hearts and our guts.

Never forget.

Never forget.

How many commercial breaks until you’ve forgotten? Don’t be one more American Idle.

Here’s my thousands words. 

Single Mother Discharged From Army for Refusing Deployment

Single Mother Discharged From Army for Refusing Deployment

I do not know all the details of this story--just what is in the above-referenced article--and I will admit that upfront. However, based on the immediately apparent facts, I am highly disturbed by this. I do not fully understand why she was discharged. The Army is strapped for resources; I can't believe there are no open jobs domestically so that Pvt. Hutchinson could continue to serve, as well as care for her young son. The Army is so ...what, mad? that a single parent with no child care options would refuse to be deployed to a foreign war that they would discharge and demote her, as well as take away her benefits? Perhaps they don't want to set a precedent for other single parents using this as a "loop hole" to avoid deployment. I don't know.

I don't understand and will look forward to finding out details about this issue. On the surface however, it appears--once again--that the Army is an employer injurious to women, single parents, and families (not to mention individuals with whom it disagrees on personal and lifestyle issues). It is an organization that refuses to bend and grow. Ironically, the Army's "militancy" of its longstanding ways is going to catch up with the organization if it doesn't learn to modernize in a social way, the way it has modernized in a technological way.

Ask, Tell

I would be remiss in my duties as an outspoken liberal if I didn't at least contribute four brain cells and a few paragraphs to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate.

1) Everyone in the military has to serve beside someone else who may make them "uncomfortable," whether that is because of their race, gender, athletic prowess, political views, religious views, height, eye color, etc. Sexuality isn't a special facet of the human composition that deserves special consideration. It's just another trait.

2) The U.S. military is supposed to be an organization comprising the most professional, dedicated, trained individuals in world. If someone isn't professional enough, dedicated enough, or trained enough to separate the job at hand from their own issues with someone else's sexuality, perhaps it is that person who should be discharged. The person who is going to compromise the mission is not the non-heterosexual.

3) To people who say "it is not the right time," your logic would dictate that it is never the right time. If not now, when? Some unforeseen future is not an acceptable answer. When has the U.S. military ever been just hanging out, not doing a whole hell of a lot?

4) The proponents of the policy do not have reasons for it, only excuses. No excuse is powerful enough to undermine this bottom line: The policy is bigoted, ignorant, discriminatory, unethical, unconstitutional, and has no precedent. It is absolutely unacceptable for a country like America in a year like 2010.

If you truly want to be repulsed by the representatives of the WRONG side of the debate, check out this bigot, who, frighteningly enough, is a member of Congress.

Stop hating. Just stop. If you don't even understand what you're talking about, just shut up.

A Brief Commentary on my Previous Tax Post

I know I posted all that without supporting my negative opinion of the taxes. So here's a very, very brief commentary.

1) They are not all bad. I will support any increase in tobacco taxes simply because, come on: quit already, you douche. You're killing yourself. It's a deterrant tax, and that's okay with me. Simimlarly, I support taxes that help balance out environmental impact.

But many of these are excessive, inappropriate taxes for taxes' sake. I agree with Lisa: you want to tax gastric bypass surgery? How about putting an extra tax on trans-fat containing food, instead? (deterrant tax)

2) They just raised our sales tax by 20%. That wasn't enough?

3) The Maryland State Legislature has been debating naming a state dessert.

Maryland State Legislature, don't you dare add more taxes so you and your wankerous companions can charge the state $17,184 a day to debate cake.

Simultaneously, another bill argues that 31 percent of Marylanders get no exercise, that almost a quarter of the state's adults are rated as obese, and that designating walking as the state exercise would help promote a healthy lifestyle. Um, how about not designating a state dessert then??

This is the bullshit they're spending our tax dollars on.

Until they come up with better ways to spend my money, I'm going to continue to begrudge giving it to them.

The MD State Legislature is Screwing Up

Taxes, Taxes, and More Taxes (2008 Edition)

From The Maryland Republican Party Research Department Visit the MDGOP Web site (

www.mdgop.org

)

During the 2007 Special Session, Democrats pushed through the largest tax hike in Maryland history.

Now, in the 2008 Session, they have found even more ways to take hard-earned money from working families. If the Democrats are successful, the government would start taxing teeth whitening, laser eye surgery, body piercing, and eight other services. Consumers would be required to pay more for heating and cooling systems for their homes, tires for their cars, and premiums for their health insurance due to new taxes. Democrats have even reintroduced legislation to take the balance from gift certificates and gift cards if consumers do not use them.

With gas prices on the rise, another hike in electric rates expected this summer, and the cost of consumer goods at all-time highs, working families need relief – not more taxes

.

Following is a list of new taxes being contemplated during the 2008 Session. Names in parenthesis represent the sponsors of the respective bills.

Income and Consumption Taxes

1.

State Income Tax Surcharge

– SB 1004 (Jones)

a) Increases the highest state income tax bracket from 5.5% to 6.5%

b) About $231.8 million in new taxes expected in the first year

2.

State Income Tax Surcharge

- HB 737 (Elliott, et al)

a) Imposes a state income tax surcharge of $1,000 per single and $2,000 per couple for not having health care insurance, if the person’s income is at least $50,000 ($100,000 for couples)

b) About $43.2 million in new taxes expected in the first year

3.

Hotel Tax

- HB 178 (Barve, et al)/SB 131 (King, et al)

a) Authorizes municipalities to impose a maximum 2% hotel tax

b) Additional $3.2 million in taxes expected per year

4.

Alcohol Tax Increase

- HB 904 (Gutierrez, et al)

a) More than doubles alcohol tax from $1.50 to $3.50 for distilled spirits, $0.40 to $1.00 for wine, and $0.09 to $0.25 for beer

b) Approximately $43.9 million in new taxes expected in the first year

5.

Alcohol Tax Increase

- HB 1310 (Bronrott, et al)/ SB 562 (Madaleno, et al)

a) Triples alcohol tax from $1.50 to $4.50 for distilled spirits, $.40 to $1.20 for wine, and $.09 to $.27 for beer

b) Approximately $57.5 million in new taxes in the first year

6. Alcohol Tax Increase

- SB 232 (Forehand)

a) Triples alcohol tax from $1.50 to $4.50 for distilled spirits and $0.40 to $1.20 for wine, and raises the beer tax by 600%, from $0.09 to $0.54

b) Approximately $86 million in new taxes expected in the first full year in effect

7.

Tobacco Tax Increase

– HB 1095 (Rosenberg, et al)/ SB 513 (McFadden)

a) Increases the tax for tobacco products other than cigarettes from 15% to 25% of the wholesale price

8.

Tobacco Paraphernalia Tax

– SB 363 (Muse)

a) Imposes a $20 surcharge on the purchase of tobacco paraphernalia

9.

“Little Cigar” Tax Increase

– HB 617 (Tarrant, et al)

a) Redefines cigarettes to include “little cigars” so the higher cigarette tax applies to “little cigars”

b) About $1.9 million in new tax revenue expected in first year

10.

Moist Snuff and “Little Cigar” Tax Increase

– SB 383 (Currie and McFadden)

a) Increases moist snuff tax from 15% of wholesale value to 54-cents per ounce

b) Redefines cigarettes to include “little cigars” so the higher cigarette tax applies to “little cigars”

c) About $3.9 million in new tax revenue expected in first year

11.

Ammunition Tax

- HB 517 (Burns, et al)

a) Requires a new tax of 5-cents per round of encoded ammunition (in addition to the new 6% sales tax)

Gas and Vehicle-Related Taxes

12.

Gas Tax Increase

– SB 567 (Garagiola, et al)

a) Increases the gas tax by 33% (from 23.5-cents per gallon to 31.5-cents per gallon)

b) Repeals the computer services tax and shifts the tax burden to gas consumers

13.

Fuel Efficiency Vehicle Surcharge

– HB 338 (Cardin, et al)

a) Imposes a $250 surcharge on each new automobile if the fuel economy rating of the automobile is less than or equal to 15 miles per gallon

14.

Tire Tax

– HB 338 (Cardin, et al)

a) Imposes a $10 surcharge on each tire sold other than an energy-efficient tire

Property Taxes

15.

Property Tax Increase

– HB 512 (McIntosh)/ SB 302 (Conway)

a) Imposes an additional state property tax of $0.02 per $100 of assessed value for most property and $0.05 per $100 of assessed value for operating real property of a public utility

b) About $130.7 million in new taxes expected in the first year

16.

HVAC Tax

– HB 338 (Cardin, et al)

a) Imposes a $100 surcharge on the sale of any residential heating or cooling system other than an energy-efficient heating or cooling system or solar energy property

17.

Building Excise Tax

- HB 663 (Barve, et al)

a) Authorizes municipalities to impose building excise taxes – in addition to the building excise taxes already imposed by counties

18.

Fertilizer Application Impact Fee

- HB 466 (Kullen)

a) Requires that homeowners pay a new fee of 10% of the total cost of applying fertilizer to residential land

19.

Recordation Tax Increase

- HB 260 (Kaiser, et al)/ SB 559 (Madaleno, et al)

a) Would subject indemnity mortgages to the recordation tax

b) Montgomery County expects $30 million in taxes, a 30% increase over current collections

c) Harford County expects $750,000 in taxes, a 4% increase over current collections

d) Other counties still calculating their specific increase

Health Care-Related Taxes

20.

Health Insurance Premium Tax

– HB 1093 (Morhaim)

a) 50% increase in the health insurance premium tax from 2% to 3%

b) Additional $20.3 million in taxes in the first year

21.

Mandatory Employer-Provided Health Insurance

– HB 1540 (Benson, et al)

a) Mandates that employers provide health insurance coverage at an expense to the employer of at least 7.5% of wages paid to employees

b) In the alternative, the employer will be required to pay into the state’s Health Trust Fund

22.

Teeth Whitening Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to teeth whitening services

23.

Laser Eye Surgery Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to laser eye surgery

24.

Breast Reduction or Augmentation Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to breast reduction or augmentation services

25.

Rhinoplasty Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to rhinoplasty surgery

26.

Face Lift Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to face lift surgery

27.

Liposuction Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to liposuction surgery

28.

Gastric Bypass Surgery Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to gastric bypass surgery

29.

Laser Hair Removal Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to laser hair removal services

30.

Tanning Services Tax

– HB 250 (Morhaim, et al)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to tanning services

b) About $545,600 in new tax revenue is expected in the first year

31.

Tattooing Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to tattooing services

32.

Body Piercing Tax

– HB 614 (Ali)

a) Applies the 6% sales tax to body piercing services

Business-Related Taxes

33.

Mixed Martial Arts Tax

– HB 795 (Reznik, et al)/ SB 649 (Conway)

a) Imposes a new mixed martial arts license fee of $10 per participant, $15 per judge, and $25 per manager per year

b) Imposes a new tax on mixed martial arts admission fees of $200 or 10% of gross receipts, whichever is greater

c) Imposes a new tax on mixed martial arts television charges of 10% of gross receipts

34.

Unused Gift Card Assessment

– HB 613 (Pena-Melnyk, et al)/ SB 998 (Pugh and Harrington)

a) Requires companies to pay unused gift certificate and gift card balances to the state government

b) About $5.7 million to be collected by the government in 2009 and $55.7 million anticipated by 2013

35.

Commercial Bank Fee Increases

– HB 752 (Chair, Economic Matters Committee)

a) Substantially increases fees imposed on commercial banks, including a 1000% fee increase on a new commercial bank charter examination from $1,500 to $15,000

36.

Clean Air Permit Fee Increase

– SB 442 (Frosh, et al)

a) Doubles the maximum clean air permit fee from $25 to $50 per ton

b) More than doubles the maximum fee for a single source from $200,000 to $500,000 and in 2010 would remove the maximum fee for a single source altogether

37.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fee

– HB 712 (Barve, et al)/ SB 309 (Pinsky, et al)

a) Authorizes a greenhouse gas emissions fee with a maximum fee of four-cents per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted

On Fashion

(I wish I had more pictures to sprinkle into this blog, but for most of it, you'll have to just use your imagination.)

Let's go back to the beginning first. This is not a fashion picture (obviously - look at that hat!), but it will help take you back to a long time ago . . .

When I was a kid, my mother would not spend a lot of money on clothes for my brother and me. We would shop at places like C-Mart (a discounted department store overstock warehouse), K-Mart, and Goodwill. I also received a lot of handmedowns from a family friend. I was absolutely mortified to have to buy my blue jeans at Goodwill and wear sweaters that had been owned by someone else, so I kept these secrets close to my (thrifted) vest.

We were not a "poor" family by any means. My mother was (and still is) a very thrifty person, and chose to spend our family's money on other, more valuable and lasting things, such as taking a family vacation to a new place every summer. As an adult, I cannot fault her for this at all. As a kid, though, I have to admit that I was pretty bitter. I was the only girl on the basketball team without white umbro shorts (I wore cut-off white sweatpants--handmedown), and my "pump" sneakers were off-brand, from Payless. I didn't get to have a "poet blouse" like the popular girls at North Harford Middle School until I got one for my 12th birthday, and they were already out of style. I wore it to please my mom, but I was secretly embarrassed to be so late.

As a kid from elementary school up through the beginning of high school, my "style" was essentially to cobble together what I had into something that didn't suck. Thank god for the thick skin that artsy, weird kids are forced to grow. One of my favorite things to wear when I was 7 or 8 were extraordinarily loud bermuda shorts with solid color t-shirts. I remember being teased because I dressed like a boy. In fact, one my most vivid early memories is that I was in the bathroom at Hickory Elementary (I was probably 7 years old) and I heard a girl outside the stall gasp and say, "There's a boy in here!" She'd seen my shoes (knock-off Chuck Taylors, black rubber with navy canvas) and thought I was a boy. Another girl corrected her snidely, "Oh no, that's just Elly Zupko." That ended my early tomboy phase really quickly.

By the time I got to high school, I started to try to own my weirdness. I was no longer concerned with looking like the other girls; I realized that the pieces I was finding at Goodwill or got as handmedowns were unique, and could afford me a unique look. Being fairly shy, I realized I could stand out and be noticed (whether in a good or bad way) through my appearance. I was also starting to have a little bit of money, so I could buy strategic new pieces to liven up the other stuff. I think my greatest fashion moment to date was when my mother offered to go halfsies with me on my first pair of Dr. Marten's boots, a pair of 1460s in brown leather. They were $140 (I got ripped off; I know), so the contribution on my mother's part was huge, and I will never forget it. I think the first time I wore those shoes was the first time I ever really felt cool.

My fashion through high school (I still cringe to deign to call it "fashion") largely fell into two camps: one was wearing vintage t-shirts with jeans or cordoroy pants and my Docs. I still hold fast to the notion that I started the vintage t-shirt craze. I got a couple cool foreign t-shirts from my grandfather's trips to Hong Kong, got weird old stuff in my handmedown bags (huge trash bags full of clothes, brought home by my dad after church), and revisited old clothes from childhood that had been packed away. My brother made constant fun of me when I ransacked a box full of striped polo shirts that he'd worn in elementary school. I thought they were awesome, and they made my boobs look great, lol. I grabbed a couple of old oxfords from my grandfather's wardrobe (which were huge, but I thought looked cool with jeans). I also started wearing my middle school gym uniform shirt to class, and I thought that made me the coolest person ever. Take that 80stees.com. This picture is from college, but I am wearing one of those Hong Kong tees here (please, please, please ignore the hair):

The second camp was "old lady clothes." This particular term came from Jim, my boyfriend at the end of high school through college. This "fashion" came from me actively trying to be more feminine during my later high school years. I'd finally figured out what to do with my wild terrible hair, and started plucking my eyebrows. My braces were off, and I was kind of exiting my awkward phase. The jeans and boots got replaced with skirts and loafers, and I started wearing a lot of cardigan sweaters. I still wore the vintage shirts. This feminine look proved to be short-lived. I was still a tomboy at heart.

Another of my great fashion moments, when I really felt like I was "sticking it to the man" was Prom. I had (miraculously) been voted onto Prom Court with 9 other girls (I still can't really figure out how that happened, except that maybe the nerds united behind me). I wanted to do something pretty daring to stand out, so I found an amazing dress that had a denim bodice and a huge ball gown skirt. Who wears denim to Prom? Me, baby! I almost didn't buy it, because it was $200, but my big sister offered to go halfsies with me because she thought I HAD to have it. The kicker was that I also bought blue hair color and sprayed the back of my updo blue. Take that, popular girls. I didn't win Prom Queen (duh) but I sure felt like one that night. This is the best pic I have handy of the dress (holy crap was I skinny):

College proved to be a big change for me, fashion-wise. This was in large part due to Jim. Jim was fairly fashionable, and also spent what I considered to be a substantial amount of his money on clothes. He was brought up differently, and spent money on material things like nice clothes and a nice car, etc. This wasn't wrong, just different. He encouraged me to buy new things and to expand my wardrobe into things I actually wanted--not just clothes I happened across. It was because of him that I bought my FIRST pair of NEW blue jeans (which were $50!!!!!) but fit like a dream. Jim was also into the rave scene and got me into it, so my look started to head in that direction: industrial, boxy cuts on the bottom (like UFO pants), with fitted tops, and crazy bright accessories.

In college, I used to wear so many plastic and rubber bracelets that they went halfway up my forearms. I wore these every day. I also put glow-in-the-dark glitter on my black patent leather Docs and laced them with Spongebob Squarepants laces. I started to get piercings and started stretching my ears. I did crazy things to my hair. It was college. I was . . . branching out . . . Morbidly unflattering pictorial examples I happen to have handy:

(yes, that's Joel Madden; notice the candy necklace and horrible dye job on me).

I also started hanging out quite a bit at Club Orpheus in downtown Baltimore, because they played good dance music, so my style skewed a bit goth-industrial, too. Here's an embarrassing outfit for you (I was home from college, about to hit the mall with my brother, who had started to wear my grandfather's oxford shirts that I'd left behind, hahaha) That's a Goucher lanyard sticking out of my pocket. Gopher pride!

After I graduated college, fashion was just about a non-issue for me. I worked at a job in a basement where the only person I ever saw was my boss, so I certainly didn't dress for the office. And I also had the just-out-of-college-and-I'm-poor blues, so clothes were not at the top of my to-buy list. After that, I had the "my boyfriend spends all my money and I've been buying too much stupid shit on eBay like Sheena Queen of the Jungle comic books and I'm poor" blues, so I still did not buy a lot of clothes. When I did shop, I bought double-duty pieces I could wear to the office (I got a "real job") and as casualwear. For a woman, I owned very few pairs of shoes and almost no accessories.

Also, due to things going on in my life, my self-esteem plummeted. I felt it easier to wear things that drew little attention. Lots of black made it easier for me to blend in. I didn't want to be noticed and didn't really care what I looked like. I felt like I was back in elementary school again, getting by with what I had and trying to pretend that fashion didn't matter--it's what's on the INSIDE that counts. Working in an office full of women made it really hard. They never overtly judged my appearance, but it was always the lowest rank on my performance review, and I got teased more than once about wearing all black, all the time (for a while, I only bought black clothes because I knew they would match all the other black clothes I already owned). Here's one of my traditional office outfits--black and gray (though I did rock the pirate skull headband, just for some funkiness):

Despite how happy I look in the picture above, which is out of context (the outfit is just an example), that period of my life was a low-point, both fashion-wise, but on a much deeper level as well. I guess I hadn't realized until now how what was going on inside was really manifesting itself on the outside.

Anyway, now, very very recently, I've finally gotten back into the fashion groove. I can't pinpoint exactly what it was . . . No, wait, I can. My boyfriend Chris (happily pictured above) told me that he liked me best in feminine clothing (skirts and blouses and cute shoes, etc.).

**Okay, I'd like to stop at this moment and address the obvious. Yes, it seems that what I wear has been largely influenced by the men in my life. I am aware that some feminists will jump out of their chairs in rage at this. But you're missing the point. 1) I am never going to wear something I don't like or am uncomfortable in to please a man. 2) I like to look sexy and attractive for my mate, just as I expect him to want to look sexy and attractive for me. 3) I am open to trying all sorts of new things, especially things that I might not have thought of on my own, so if someone (whether it be a boyfriend or someone else) says to me, "Hey you look good in [whatever]" I'll probably try it. If I look good, I might try more stuff like it. This is how style evolves. 4) I still wear stuff that I like and only I like; I just may not wear it out on a date with my boyfriend, just like I wouldn't wear certain things to the office or certain things to a rock concert. 5) I'm not wearing this stuff to please my man. I'm wearing some of it in some cases because he pointed out it looked good, and I happened to agree.

Now, back to your regularly scheduled blog.**

In light of his comments, I realized that so much of my wardrobe was leftover from a time when I didn't care too much about what I looked like, and that a lot of the pieces were ill-fitting, outdated, drab, or just boring. I was wearing what I had, not what looked good. I also realized that when I wear clothing that fits well, is brightly colored, and is well-taken care of, I feel much more confident. Therefore, I walk taller, look better, smile more, act more comfortably--and people notice that. I feel better, I look better; it's a win-win situation. I've realized that fashion is not shallow, and wanting to look good and dress well is not a sign that I have no substance underneath (as I might have argued when I was 15 and awkward).

The other thing that happened is that I discovered Wardrobe Remix, a group on Flickr. Purely based on appearance, this is one of the most creative, daring, fashionable, and cool groups of women (and some men, too!) I've ever "met." Through their outfits, store listings, and other tips, I've been truly inspired in the way I dress. I'm accessorizing more, little by little, and buying more daring pieces that two years ago I never would have worn. I'm also back to shopping at Goodwill almost exclusively, because now I feel like I truly appreciate it. Not only can I save a ton of money (which is important, now that I'm really an adult), but, as I knew in high school, I can find unique things that set me apart from everyone else. In addition, it's sustainable (good for the earth!), I'm not contributing to the Wal-Martization of the world, and the money I spend goes to a good cause. What could be better??

Flash forward to today: I'm wearing an "old lady outfit." This is something I would have felt completely uncomfortable in two years ago. It's brightly colored and ultra-feminine. (For reference, I know exactly what I was wearing almost exactly two years ago, when I met Chris, the love of my life: a pair of baggy blue jeans, a black tank top, and a black zip sweatshirt--boring, boring, boring. Thank goodness he could see past my fashion-less exterior and fall in love with me anyway. I was dressed like I wanted to blend into the background. I was dressed like I felt inside. As I said before, it was a low-point. Meeting Chris that night changed all that.)

The way I look AND feel today is decidedly non-depressing. As my depressing, all-black outfits of years ago were an outward manifestation of how I felt inside, I think the bright colors and coordination of this outfit are a manifestation of how I feel inside now. I'm happy. I'm spunky. I'm bright. It's an awesome way to feel. :)

(And btw, this entire outfit, from head to toe, cost $28.50.)

"A Book Meme"

I've been "tagged."

A Book Meme.

Here are the rules:

1. Pick up the nearest book.
2. Open to page 123
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people and post a comment here once you post it to your blog so I can come see!

So here we go, from The Art Book. Page 123 is Edgar Degas' The Rehearsal:

"The composition appears totally random: the figure on the far right is cut off by the edge of the canvas, and truncated legs appear at the top of the stairs - had he waited only a few seconds more, it seems, another dancer wold have walked into the picture. The painting is executed with vibrant, rapid strokes of pastel and some areas have merely been sketched in. The cool tones and lack of formality are refreshing."

I'll tag a few members of my writers group:

Jes
Gavin
Dan
Tim
Stacy

R.I.P. Arthur C. Clarke

He was a visionary and hugely important figure in science fiction, space exploration, and secular humanism. He will be missed by many.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka - Even in death Arthur C. Clarke would not compromise his vision.
The famed science fiction writer, who once denigrated religion as "a necessary evil in the childhood of our particular species," left written instructions that his funeral be completely secular, according to his aides.

"Absolutely no religious rites of any kind, relating to any religious faith, should be associated with my funeral," he wrote.

Clarke died early Wednesday at age 90 and was to be buried in a private funeral this weekend in his adopted home of Sri Lanka. Clarke, who had battled debilitating post-polio syndrome for years, had suffered breathing problems in recent days, aide Rohan De Silva said.

The visionary author won worldwide acclaim with more than 100 books on space, science and the future. The 1968 story "2001: A Space Odyssey" — written simultaneously as a novel and screenplay with director Stanley Kubrick — was a frightening prophecy of artificial intelligence run amok.

One year after it made Clarke a household name in fiction, the scientist entered the homes of millions of Americans alongside Walter Cronkite anchoring television coverage of the Apollo mission to the moon.

Clarke also was credited with the concept of communications satellites in 1945, decades before they became a reality. Geosynchronous orbits, which keep satellites in a fixed position relative to the ground, are called Clarke orbits.

His nonfiction volumes on space travel and his explorations of the Great Barrier Reef and Indian Ocean earned him respect in the world of science, and in 1976 he became an honorary fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

But it was his writing that shot him to his greatest fame and that gave him the greatest fulfillment.

"Sometimes I am asked how I would like to be remembered," Clarke said recently. "I have had a diverse career as a writer, underwater explorer and space promoter. Of all these, I would like to be remembered as a writer."

From 1950, he began a prolific output of both fiction and nonfiction, sometimes publishing three books in a year.

A statement from Clarke's office said he had recently reviewed the final manuscript of his latest novel. "The Last Theorem," co-written with Frederik Pohl, will be published later this year, it said.

Some of his best-known books are "Childhood's End," 1953; "The City and The Stars," 1956; "The Nine Billion Names of God," 1967; "Rendezvous with Rama," 1973; "Imperial Earth," 1975; and "The Songs of Distant Earth," 1986.

When Clarke and Kubrick got together to develop a movie about space, they looked for inspiration to several of Clarke's shorter pieces. As work progressed on the screenplay, Clarke also wrote a novel of the story. He followed it up with "2010," "2061," and "3001: The Final Odyssey."

Planetary scientist Torrence Johnson said Clarke's work was a major influence on many in the field.

Johnson, who has been exploring the solar system through the Voyager, Galileo and Cassini missions in his 35 years at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, recalled a meeting of planetary scientists and rocket engineers where talk turned to the author.

"All of us around the table said we read Arthur C. Clarke," Johnson said. "That was the thing that got us there."

In an interview with The Associated Press, Clarke said he did not regret having never traveled to space himself, though he arranged to have DNA from his hair sent into orbit.

"One day, some super civilization may encounter this relic from the vanished species and I may exist in another time," he said. "Move over, Stephen King."

Clarke, a British citizen, won a host of science fiction awards, and was named a Commander of the British Empire in 1989. Clarke was officially given a knighthood in 1998, but he delayed accepting it for two years after a London tabloid accused him of being a child molester. The allegation was never proved.

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa lauded Clarke for his passion for his adopted home and his efforts to aid its progress.

"We were all proud to have this celebrated author, visionary and promoter of space exploration, prophet of satellite communications, great humanist and lover of animals in our midst," he said in a statement.

Born in Minehead, western England, on Dec. 16, 1917, the son of a farmer, Arthur Charles Clark became addicted to science fiction after buying his first copies of the pulp magazine "Amazing Stories" at Woolworth's. He read English writers H.G. Wells and Olaf Stapledon and began writing for his school magazine in his teens.

Clarke went to work as a clerk in Her Majesty's Exchequer and Audit Department in London, where he joined the British Interplanetary Society and wrote his first short stories and scientific articles on space travel.

It was not until after World War II that Clarke received a bachelor of science degree in physics and mathematics from King's College in London.

Serving in the wartime Royal Air Force, he wrote a 1945 memo about the possibility of using satellites to revolutionize communications. Clarke later sent it to a publication called Wireless World, which almost rejected it as too far-fetched.

He moved to Sri Lanka in 1956.

In recent years, Clarke was linked by his computer with friends and fans around the world, spending each morning answering e-mails and browsing the Internet.

Clarke married in 1953, and was divorced in 1964. He had no children. He is survived by his brother, Fred, and sister, Mary. His body is to be brought to his home in Colombo so friends and fans can pay their respects before his burial.

On the Shelves

I took these pictures last night to help me fill out my "shelves" on GoodReads. Thought I'd post them for those bookshelf voyeurs out there. Post your own and leave the link as a comment: I'd love to see! Also, join me on GoodReads so we can share what's good, and what's not.

ABOVE: This is a shelf of favorites, mostly. Like We Care was the last book I helped publish at Bancroft Press. It was written by Tom Matthews who was an absolute delight to work with. I picked the book from the slush pile, helped negotiate the deal, edited the book, and worked directly with the graphic designer on the cover and layout. The title image is in my handwriting. I'm also credited in the acknowledgements, which is pretty cool.

Money by Martin Amis is my favorite book of all time, and Jazz by Toni Morrison is the book that made me want to be a writer. Narrative Design is a great writing book written by my favorite fiction professor at Goucher, Madison Smartt Bell. Lots of good stuff on this shelf.

ABOVE: Mostly books about writing and the industry. Also the random classic, There's a Wocket in My Pocket.

ABOVE: Mostly trashy novels (Valley of the Dolls!) with a few random gems thrown in (Watership Down and The Adventures of Cavalier and Clay).

ABOVE: More trashy novels (Ann Majors, yuck!) with a random classic (Art of War) and what I think is my third copy of Like We Care.

Is the World Entitled to Art?

As you’ll notice from the adoring Lolita posts from the end of last year, I’ve recently become a huge Nabokov fan. I’m not rabid, or well-read, enough to yet call myself a “Nabokovian,” but I could see it happening eventually. And so I’ve been mildly to warmly interested in the recent debate surrounding the late author: an unfinished manuscript of his last work before his death exists in a vault somewhere, but Nabokov’s son, Dmitri was tasked with the death-bed request to burn the manuscript before anyone could read it. Dmitri has not yet made a decision, and is stuck between meeting his dead father’s wishes to burn the manuscript and keep it a secret forever from the world, and some other option—publishing it for mass consumption, bequeathing it to the Ivory Tower for study, even just keeping it in a vault forever and ever.

It’s really a fascinating debate, and I don’t envy Dmitri’s position. At first blush, my reaction was “Set the work free!” As a fan, of course I want to read the manuscript. Despite the fact that Nabokov considered his work unfinished, unpolished, and thus unfit for public consumption, I’ve no doubt that it’s perfect in its genius as it came straight from his pen. I admit I haven’t even read all his works, but I can empathize with any Nabokovian who has read all his work and has been all but drooling for just one more morsel dropped from the table. How easy (or possible) is it to for any literati at all to be objective about this situation?

But, Chris (of course!) brought objectivity and level-headedness to the argument, showing me a side of the story I hadn’t considered: why do we (the world—the readers, the viewers, the experiencers, the fans) think we are entitled to the art created by artists? What right do we inherently have to what they produce?

I recently read an article in Slate about Jeff Mangum of Neutral Milk Hotel in which the headline compared him to J.D. Salinger. Both are artists who have contributed heartbreakingly small collection of brilliant works to the world, and have now all but vanished, having ceased to make their work public or even to make work at all. Writes Taylor Clark about Mangum:

“And if Aeroplane really is Jeff Mangum's final statement to the universe, maybe we should be happy with that—not because of some tired line about going out at your peak (which he likely didn't reach), but because his story is a kind of modern fable. Many fans see his disappearance only in selfish terms: They've been deprived of more great music for no good reason. They can't understand why Mangum would shun success just to shuffle through his days, and, indeed, when musicians abandon this much promise, the culprit is usually drugs or debilitating accidents or people named Yoko. So he must have gone nuts, right? Well, no. After all, what if Mangum is just being honest? What if he poured his life into achieving musical success only to discover that it wasn't going to make him happy, so he elected to make a clean break and move on? We should all be so crazy.”

Is it selfish to desire, even to demand, that artists of genius not withhold themselves from the world? Or is the artist the selfish one?

Like I imagine it is for others, it’s extremely difficult for me to empathize with the artists at all. I live (and participate) in a world where most of us are clambering for attention, recognition, and even fame. I’m a mediocre artist in a world full of mediocre (and lesser) artists screaming in a crowded room of screamers. The internet has made things worse a million-fold. We have the ability to broadcast our thoughts, art, and “art” to billions of people all over the planet—and so we do, largely to our own detriment, contributing to “information overload” and the general watering down of what’s left of our culture.

So when a “real” artist chooses to cease contributing his work to the world, is it because of, or despite, the noise?

Is the world entitled to the art created by the artists it itself created? Or is the artist more entitled to do whatever the hell he wants? Burn the manuscript, or publish it?

Nabokov is dead. His published work will never die. His unpublished work (that we know of, at least) has a death sentence. If it’s pardoned, it will then live in perpetuity, and in possible imperfection, if what Nabokov had to say was true. If the sentence is carried out . . . we’re only left with speculation and disappointment—but some of us will also have the satisfaction that we’d given something back to Nabokov, whose already given so much to us, by granting his final wish.

Brief Response Upon Finishing Lolita

I finished Lolita over the weekend. I alternated between reading the book and watching the accompanying scenes from Adrian Lyne’s filmic version (which is 100% true to the book, but only as far as the events go—the characterization is completely wrong, but that’s another story). The book bowled me over so hard, I think I’m still recovering.

The best way I think I can describe is that Nabokov took me on a three-tiered, or three threaded, journey through the book. The first thread was the actual story as it unfolded linearly—how the characters experience the story. The second thread was the writing style/narrative—how the author experiences the story. The third thread was the way I felt about the narrator, Humbert Humbert, and the book at large—how I experience the story. All three of these met in a synergistic yarn which caused the three elements/entities (characters, authors, reader) to be interconnected in such as way as to make the existence of each impossible without the existence of the others.

Throughout “Part One,” I was absolutely entranced and delighted by the writing and, much to my chagrin and confusion, felt just as charmed by the pedophile Humbert Humbert himself. The book takes a sharp turn at Part Two. This was an interesting and ingenious division for the book: the change from Part One to Part Two is that Lolita finds out that her mother is dead. Charlotte actually has been dead for quite some book-time. Both the reader and Humbert know the mother is and has been dead. Only Lolita didn’t know, and when she finds out, everything changes.

“Part Two” begins the slow decline of the regard in which Humbert is held by Lolita, by Nabokov, and by the reader. His charm and wit have worn thin with his self-awareness and, later, his inability to deprive himself of self gratification. Confidence has become smarm, which soon gives way to patheticalness. The writing seems to become long-winded and cloying. I don’t fault Nabokov for this, as some reviewers have. Rather, the culprit is Humbert’s increasingly desperate attempts at justification for his actions that plays out via the narrative. I began to hate him, began to hate what he had to say, began to hate his every action, and in turn began to hate the book and the writing itself—but I was so mired in the story that I could not put it down. Likewise, Lolita was mired in her own situation that she could not escape. Even when she thought she did escape, she just got into another situation that was equally unhealthy for her. She never really escaped at all until her death (which we learn about at the beginning of the book, but actually occurs after the book is over: she dies in childbirth). The reader gets to escape the misery of the story at the same time both the characters do; but only death is a strong enough reprieve from the torment they’ve been subjected to by the hand of McFate and by their own designs.

As I stated earlier, I felt immensely uncomfortable and confused at how much I was enjoying reading this book about a “nympholectic” pedophile. It made me feel dirty, decadent, and debased. But the way I felt throughout the end of the book completely reconciled my emotive response to where it “should” have been through the incredible feat of making me strongly desire to read a book I was, at points, loathing.

There’s so much to say about this incredible book, but I haven’t fully been able to wrap my brain around it all. I just wanted to write a few words about my response as a writer. What I’m taking from this is how your narrative design can affect the interconnectedness of character/author/reader—and the tremendous effect that interconnectedness can have. I’ve also learned about creating unreliable narrators, and the power of both sides of that coin: when the unreliability is only hinted at, or unknown completely, and when the unreliability is undeniable and almost excruciating to the reader. Nabokov used that tool to effectively manipulate his readers emotive responses as if he were creating the responses himself.

I love when you finish a book and you feel like you have “traveled” – through time, through space, and through that intangible journey that is experience.

Read it.