I will be appearing at PCC Mini Con in Portland, February 4th and 5th (that’s a Thursday and Friday!), from 10am to 6pm each day. If you’re in SE Portland, please come and say hi!
“Hereville” colorist Jake Richmond will also be there.
That’s at 2305 SE 82nd Avenue, Portland, OR.
What Went Wrong In Flint | FiveThirtyEight
A well-done, detailed overview.
[Image from Jes Baker’s awesome “Empower All Bodies” project.]
Another reason it just makes more sense to encourage fat people to love our bodies, rather than teaching fat people to hate our bodies until we attain “normal” weight:
The chance of an obese person attaining normal body weight is 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women, increasing to 1 in 1,290 for men and 1 in 677 for women with severe obesity, according to a study of UK health records led by King’s College London. The findings, published in the American Journal of Public Health, suggest that current weight management programmes focused on dieting and exercise are not effective in tackling obesity at population level.
The research, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), tracked the weight of 278,982 participants (129,194 men and 149,788) women using electronic health records from 2004 to 2014. The study looked at the probability of obese patients attaining normal weight or a 5% reduction in body weight; patients who received bariatric surgery were excluded from the study. A minimum of three body mass index (BMI) records per patient was used to estimate weight changes.
The annual chance of obese patients achieving five per cent weight loss was 1 in 12 for men and 1 in 10 for women. For those people who achieved five per cent weight loss, 53 per cent regained this weight within two years and 78 percent had regained the weight within five years. […]
Weight cycling, with both increases and decreases in body weight, was also observed in more than a third of patients. The study concludes that current obesity treatments are failing to achieve sustained weight loss for the majority of obese patients.
And those “success” numbers include some patients who lost weight involuntarily due to health problems.
* * *
Another couple of fat-related research links, while I’m posting about this:
A 2009 article in Nutrition Research Review, “A review and meta-analysis of the effect of weight loss on all-cause mortality risk,” examined whether otherwise healthy obese people live longer if they lose weight.
It is less clear whether weight loss benefits longevity and hence whether weight reduction is justified as a prime goal for all individuals who are overweight (normally defined as BMI>25 kg/m2). The purpose of the present review was to examine the evidence base for recommending weight loss by diet and lifestyle change as a means of prolonging life. … There was no evidence for weight loss conferring either benefit or risk among healthy obese. In conclusion, the available evidence does not support solely advising overweight or obese individuals who are otherwise healthy to lose weight as a means of prolonging life. Other aspects of a healthy lifestyle, especially exercise and dietary quality, should be considered.
And another study looked at the link between perceived anti-fat discrimination and mortality:
The researchers were curious whether there would be a correlation between weight discrimination and an increased risk of mortality once you controlled for other factors that might also be associated with a heightened risk of dying — things like depressive symptoms and body-mass index, for example. Sure enough, that’s what they found — controlling for other factors reduced but did not eliminate a statistically significant link between weight discrimination and early death: All else being equal, respondents who said they felt like they’d been discriminated against on the basis of their weight were about 31 percent more likely to have died.
Six white seniors at Desert Vista High School in Arizona took a photo of themselves wearing shirts that spelled “ni**er.” ((In this post, I’ve blurred the faces and omitted the names of the people I’m talking about; but that’s not true of the other people I’m linking to.))
Understandably, students of color at Desert Vista are appalled at their classmates’ behavior – see the video at the top of this page for some student reactions. The Desert Vista Black Student Union tweeted that these six girls “do not represent the beliefs of the student body.”
There’s also been a lot of anger on social media – the girls have been doxed, and people are spreading the girls’ unblocked faces and names on social media. There’s also a petition with 17,000 signatures calling for the girls to be expelled and the principal fired.
This brings to mind the reaction to a video posted by the free speech group FIRE back in November, of students at Yale having a public square argument with Yale Professor Nicholas Christakis. ((There was a little discussion of the Yale situation in this open thread.)) The argument was three hours long, but a 90 second video FIRE posted went viral. The video shows a young black student losing her temper and yelling loudly at Christakis, including swearing at him.
The Yale student was doxed, and right-wingers rushed to spread her face and name on social media, calling for her to be expelled and even for her to be unemployable. To the right-wings’ credit, there was no petition with 17,000 signatures. To their discredit, the doxing and vindictiveness came not just from random people on the internet, but by respected Conservative publications and intellectuals, like The Daily Caller (which initially doxed the student, including her home address), The National Review, and The American Conservative‘s Rod Dreher, who called for the student to be expelled (twice). The conservative blog Victory Girls gloated “Sorry, Ms. ******, but the internet is forever.”
What do these two things have in common? Although I don’t approve of screaming at people in public, what the Yale student did – which was basically, to lose her temper for a few minutes – wasn’t even in the same league of wrongness as the smirking racism of the Desert Vista students.
But the responses are very similar. And they’re wrong.
Young people should be able to make mistakes without their faces and names becoming a national issue. It’s unreasonable to try to turn a student’s bad act into a permanent scarlet letter.
Whatever consequences these students suffer, should be proportionate to what they did – and should be up to the local community and to their schools. It should not be up to random internet “activists” – or, worse, to the Daily Caller – to vindictively seek to punish students. In both cases, I’ve seen people gleefully hoping that the students’ lives will be destroyed by the publicity. That this sort of reaction is vastly disproportionate to the offense never seems to be a concern.
When I was a teenager attending Oberlin College, I once got into a shouting match in public with Catherine MacKinnon, who was visiting Oberlin to make a speech. Well, not a “shouting match” – Professor MacKinnon kept her tone level. I shouted. I’m a bit embarrassed to think of it now. (In the unlikely event that I ever meet MacKinnon again, I’ll apologize to her.)
But you know what? I was eighteen. I did something stupid. And, thankfully, this was before smart phones and before YouTube, so no videos exist. I was allowed to be stupid and to get past it and to grow. Today’s students should get the same chance.
UPDATE: The “expel them!” petition is now at nearly 50,000 signatures, I’m sorry to say.
I didn’t publish much in 2015. People who know me well will know that I’ve been dealing with health issues (and related writers block) for a few years now. I hope last year was the nadir, as far as publishing goes–I already have three stories scheduled for 2016 so I can hope the trend continues! But on to 2015:
Have you ever wondered who would win in Jews versus Aliens? I haven’t, actually, but apparently Lavie Tidhar and Rebecca Levene did. The resulting book is a charity anthology, supporting caretakers and children who have been sexually abused. My entry, “The Reluctant Jew,” is about a starship engineer who is drafted against his will to explain Judaism to many-tentacled aliens who prefer to eat the yamulkes.
I’m exceedingly proud of my other short story, “Tea Time,” which came out in Lightspeed in December. I wrote a bit about it on my blog: It’s an R-rated Alice in Wonderland riff about the Mad Hatter’s love affair with the March Hare.
Begin at the beginning:
His many hats. Felt derbies in charcoal and camel and black. Sporting caps and straw boaters. Gibuses covered in corded silk for nights at the theatre. Domed bowlers with dashingly narrow brims. The ratty purple silk top hat, banded with russet brocade, that he keeps by his bedside.
The march hare, each foreleg as strong as an ox’s, bucking and hopping and twitching his whiskers. Here, there, somewhere else, leading his hatter a merry dance between tables. Rogering by the mahogany slipper chair. Knocking by the marble bust of the Queen of Hearts. Upending rose-patterned porcelain so that it smashes on the grass, white and pink fragments scattering like brittle leaves.
Fur, soft and lush. Warmth like spring. That prey-quick heartbeat, thump-thump, thump-thump.
I started writing something absurd because I love absurdity, but it became a meditation on time and love. I hope people enjoy reading it; I enjoyed writing it.
I didn’t publish much in 2015. People who know me well will know that I’ve been dealing with health issues (and related writers block) for a few years now. I hope last year was the nadir, as far as publishing goes–I already have three stories scheduled for 2016 so I can hope the trend continues! But on to 2015:
Have you ever wondered who would win in Jews versus Aliens? I haven’t, actually, but apparently Lavie Tidhar and Rebecca Levene did. The resulting book is a charity anthology, supporting caretakers and children who have been sexually abused. My entry, “The Reluctant Jew,” is about a starship engineer who is drafted against his will to explain Judaism to many-tentacled aliens who prefer to eat the yamulkes.
I’m exceedingly proud of my other short story, “Tea Time,” which came out in Lightspeed in December. I wrote a bit about it on my blog: It’s an R-rated Alice in Wonderland riff about the Mad Hatter’s love affair with the March Hare.
Begin at the beginning:
His many hats. Felt derbies in charcoal and camel and black. Sporting caps and straw boaters. Gibuses covered in corded silk for nights at the theatre. Domed bowlers with dashingly narrow brims. The ratty purple silk top hat, banded with russet brocade, that he keeps by his bedside.
The march hare, each foreleg as strong as an ox’s, bucking and hopping and twitching his whiskers. Here, there, somewhere else, leading his hatter a merry dance between tables. Rogering by the mahogany slipper chair. Knocking by the marble bust of the Queen of Hearts. Upending rose-patterned porcelain so that it smashes on the grass, white and pink fragments scattering like brittle leaves.
Fur, soft and lush. Warmth like spring. That prey-quick heartbeat, thump-thump, thump-thump.
I started writing something absurd because I love absurdity, but it became a meditation on time and love. I hope people enjoy reading it; I enjoyed writing it.
Source: Rachel Swirsky’s blog
Ouch.
Highlights from the Fourth Democratic Debate | New Republic
Presidential candidates in both parties too often speak as if the President is the secret love child of The Wizard of Oz and the genie from “Aladdin.” They make incredible promises that, even if elected President, they will have no power to implement. The President’s powers are significant but constrained, especially for a Democrat facing the current Republican party, which for the most part considers compromise unprincipled.
The most important question that I’d like to see the candidates discuss in depth is, how will they pursue their policies? Given the pragmatic limits of the President’s power, and the overwhelming likelihood that the Republicans will continue controlling one or both houses of Congress, what do they pragmatically believe they can do and what levers will they pull on to do it? What they’d accomplish if they were a genie dictator is, or should be, a matter of less interest.
By that measure, Hillary Clinton was better at last night’s debate; particularly on the subject of health care, she acknowledges political realities Sanders ignores. Sanders, in contrast, talked about having the “guts” to confront Wall Street. I don’t doubt that Sanders has “guts,” but what specifically does that mean in terms of governing?
Jeet Heer nutshells the debate, and what bothers me about Sander’s campaign:
Sanders is promoting an “ethics of moral conviction” by calling for a “political revolution” seeking to overthrow the deeply corrupting influence of big money on politics by bringing into the system a counterforce of those previously alienated, including the poor and the young. Clinton embodies the “ethics of responsibility” by arguing that her presidency won’t be about remaking the world but trying to preserve and build on the achievements of previous Democrats, including Obama.
The great difficulty Sanders faces is that given the reality of the American political system (with its divided government that has many veto points) and also the particular realities of the current era (with an intensification of political polarization making it difficult to pass ambitious legislation through a hostile Congress and Senate), it is very hard to see how a “political revolution” could work.
In a post from October, Jamelle Bouie makes the depressing but accurate case for Clinton:
The only way President Sanders or President Clinton will accomplish anything is through skilled use of bureaucratic power. So far, however, both candidates are silent on how they would act as an executive. Instead, both Clinton and Sanders are essentially running as legislative leaders, when the real challenge is how she or he would utilize the substantial power they have to direct and influence bureaucrats and regulators.
That’s not to say their rhetoric isn’t important. That Sanders believes in a “political revolution” against money in politics tells you about his priorities as president. And Clinton’s legislative incrementalism gives you a good signpost to how she’ll work with Congress. But, the truth is that—in terms of writing new laws—both agendas are inert. They aren’t passing Congress. […]
And, for Democratic primary voters, who is best equipped to be president in a time of gridlock, where the choice is executive action or nothing? Clinton’s bureaucratic experience, her skill with partisan conflict, and her clear willingness to work against the spirit of the law—as illustrated by her State Department email controversy—make her a prime pick for this era of political grinding.
At this point, I’m leaning towards Clinton, as this post makes obvious. The one thing that makes me think of leaning the other way is foreign policy; Clinton is much too hawkish, and in a US president, that’s a flaw which can kill tens of thousands. But Sanders really hasn’t shown me enough of what he would do; I approve of his (relative) disinclination to use military force, but what would his positive diplomatic goals be?
I’m worried, frankly, that a Sanders administration might lack diplomatic competence, and would like to see any links or arguments Sanders supporters have to reassure me on this point.
(On the other hand, either Sanders or Clinton would be a thousand times better than the laughable and irresponsible blathering we’ve been hearing from GOP candidates lately – 1 2 3.)
Some links I found interesting:
Those who think this sounds like stardust and fairy tales should read the column by Krugman’s fellow NYT columnist, health economist Austin Frakt. Frakt reports on a new study that finds evidence that public debate on drug prices and measures to constrain the industry had the effect of slowing the growth of drug prices. In short getting out the pitchforks has a real impact on the industry’s behavior.
The implication is that we need people like Senator Sanders to constantly push the envelope. Even if this may not get us to universal Medicare in one big leap, it will create a political environment in which we can move forward rather than backward.
Cartoon by Ben Schwartz.
A few weeks ago, I discovered that it was a lot of fun to hand people some casual interview questions and see what they had to say. This is the fourth interview I’m putting on the blog.
I met Tina Connolly in 2006 when she went to the Clarion West Writers Workshop where I’d gone the year before. Weirdly, I can’t tell you a single thing about the first time I met her 10(I wonder if she remembers? Tina, perhaps you’ll enlighten me later), but I’m sure I instantly liked her–she’s warm, smart, and a great storyteller, in person and on paper.
I published Tina several times during my run as editor at PodCastle. I’m not sure what my favorite piece was, but here’s one that’s fun — “The Goats Are Going Places.” She’s also a smart, funny narrator who read a lot of stories for us. As a narrator, she eventually started her own podcast, Toasted Cake (unfortunatey now retired), which used to run flash fiction reprints. Here she is reading one of my stories, “Again and Again and Again,” on Toasted Cake.
Tina doesn’t always write humor–her Ironskin trilogy, for instance, is a mix of steampunk, Jane Eyre, and malevolent fairies (check it out if that sounds interesting to you)–but, for me at least, her fiction always has a core of warmth like the one she radiates in person.
Tina also recently took a turn into writing young adult novels, starting with the recently published Seriously Wicked.
The Interview:
I love the humor in your writing. You have a natural, quirky voice when you write humor that doesn’t seem cliche or affected. How did you come into writing humor, and how do you approach it?
Thanks, Rachel! I love writing humor. This kind of goes with your next question, but I’m sure I started writing humor from the same reason that I loved performing. I used to say that my favorite role was the be the comedic lead in a drama. Because you get so much juicy stuff to do, and because the audience is so glad to see you. I loved being comic relief.
And I suppose also that this is my favorite kind of story—where comedy and drama are blended. Even my darker stories tend to have funny bits sneak in, and my funny stories are generally grounded by more serious themes.
On a micro level, I’m not sure if I have any advice on how I approach humor – I have a tendency to go for the joke and I indulge that. (And then, sadly, sometimes you do have to cut jokes that are dragging down the pacing.) On a macro level, I used to do a lot of farces, and I found that the sort of fast-paced plot of Seriously Wicked worked on an intuitive level for me. First you get all the plates spinning, and then you run back and forth opening and slamming the doors….eventually someone gets a pie in the face.
I know you’ve spent time on the stage. When I’m writing, I find that the comedic timing I learned from playing comedic roles helps with figuring out how to write and land humor. Do you draw on those skills?
YES. Timing is very important to me. I often write by rhythm – like, I’m not sure what is going to go in the second half of this witty banter but it needs to have a specific number of beats. My first drafts are littered with “X”s as placeholders.
In general, my time in theatre has been helpful – when I started writing I had no clue about plot, but I spent a lot of time thinking about characters – what they would and wouldn’t do. One thing that was challenging for me at the beginning is that I would leave too much unsaid, because it was always clear to me what complex things the characters were thinking! And then I slowly figured out how to get more of that out of my head and on the page.
Lately I’ve been doing playwriting and thinking about this stuff all over again. For example, there’s a good reason you’re told not to do a ‘as you know Bob” infodump in prose. And you think, sure, that’s good advice, but if you’re a beginning writer you might not understand why. But boy, when you see it on stage – one character monologuing with no purpose behind it except to infodump – you can feel the energy drop like a rock. Dialogue must be persuasive.
You recently began publishing young adult fiction as well as books for us grown-ups. What are you finding inspiring and wonderful about YA?
Even with my adult fiction, I tend to write about younger characters just starting to figure things out. I think the thing that’s wonderful about the young adult / early adulthood time period is that there’s so much you do need to figure out, and it makes for many dramatic life choices and learning arcs.
Face painting. You do it. Tell me an awesome story about face painting.
I took my face paints to Clarion West in 2006, and again to Kij Johnson’s novel workshop at KU in 2012. Great fun. Vernor Vinge was our teacher that week at CW and he let me paint a goldfish on his cheek (something about the singularity…) And Kij picked a praying mantis, and Vylar Kaftan picked a Cthulhu. It wasn’t a very good Cthulhu, but I’ve been practicing. The next one will be better.
Lovecraft, Marie Antoinette, and President Obama are all clamoring for face paint at your booth at the fair. You’ve asked them what they want, but they trust your artistic instincts. So, what are you going to paint?
Lovecraft obviously gets the improved Cthulhu. Antoinette… well, I do have a cute cupcake arm. But I think she would be happiest with the delicate swirlies around the eye, with the sparkles. Obama – well, I have to take into account the fact that I would be simultaneously super nervous and really really wanting to do a good job, so it would not be a good time to attempt something new and ridiculous. I’ve got a nice standby of an American flag with fireworks arm painting (July 4th is a popular time to hire a face painter) so I’d probably suggest that. I think his media relations people would approve that one, too.
The projects question. What are you working on, and what’s coming out?
I just turned in Seriously #2 (which is titled Seriously Shifted, and involves a whole quartet of wicked witches), and that’s due out November 2016 from Tor Teen. I’m just starting in on Seriously #3, which will be out November 2017. In the meantime, I also have my debut collection (On the Eyeball Floor and Other Stories) coming from Fairwood Press in August 2016 – there’ll be a release party at WorldCon in Kansas City!
Source: Rachel Swirsky’s blog
@Watcher If you scroll through Barry's old cartoons on leftycartoons.com, some of the old ones are about Clinton, while some…
@Watcher: Much as I would like to have Obama or Clinton or even Dubya* back rather than the current wannabe…
I am curious now, where can I view the Clinton Iraq sanctions comics?
Watcher - This may not apply to your friends, but during Obama's term, my impression was that part of the…
@beth: Thank you