Tag Archives: usually

This Brilliant Memoir Will Challenge What You Think You Know About Loss and Pregnancy

Mother Jones

For most of her life, Ariel Levy’s disregard for rules and expectations has mostly paid off. As a child, she preferred adventurous make-believe to playing house. As a young adult, she was determined to write at New York magazine when she was a lowly editorial assistant and became an accomplished magazine writer for such publications as the New York Times, Vogue, and the New Yorker. She fell in love and got the girl, even though the girl was in a relationship with someone else when they met. Eventually, they married. She’s boarded airplanes to places like South Africa in search of characters and returned with stories about gender and athleticism and ways that ignorance and stereotypes can cripple.

But life isn’t simple, and as she moved from her 20s into her late 30s, the rules began to feel a little less negotiable—an experience she records in her riveting new memoir, The Rules Do Not Apply.

“Every morning I wake up, and for a few seconds I’m disoriented, confused as to why I feel grief seeping into my body, and then I remember what has become of my life,” Levy writes in the preface. “I am thunderstruck by feeling at odd times, and then I find myself gripping the kitchen counter, a subway pole, a friend’s body, so I won’t fall over.” Over the course of only a few months when she was 38 years old, Levy lost her spouse and her house to divorce, and her son to a miscarriage. In 2013, Levy wrote about her miscarriage in a powerful New Yorker personal essay called “Thanksgiving in Mongolia.” It’s impossible to read that essay—and the book—without experiencing some of her anguish, as if you’ve stepped outside of your body and into hers. It’s the sort of writing that is vulnerable and vivid, and makes the reader feel brave and desperate in quick succession. “All of my conjuring had led to ruin and death,” she writes in her memoir. “Now I was a wounded witch, wailing in the forest, undone…The wide-open blue forever had spoken: You control nothing.”

Mother Jones caught up with Levy to talk about writing through grief, the politics of miscarriage, and what it means to be an animal woman.

Mother Jones: Let’s talk about “Thanksgiving in Mongolia.” How did you decide to write about that experience in the first place?

Ariel Levy: It wasn’t really a decision. It just sort of came out of my fingers, you know? There were fewer choices involved than in anything I’ve ever written before—it just kind of happened. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever had a piece like that before in my life where there was not a lot of effort; there were not a lot of choices; there was not a lot of moving things around. It just came out of my fingers. I just said what I had to say, basically. It’s not usually like that. Usually it’s a lot of work. Usually it’s a pain in the drain. It just happened.

MJ: So it just felt like something you needed to write about?

AL: Yeah. I guess I needed to, because it wasn’t a conscious choice. The book is a different matter—the book is a conscious choice, and the book was work. It did involve making lots and lots of decisions, and doing lots and lots of revisions. “Thanksgiving in Mongolia” was not like that. I felt like I had said exactly what I meant to say. It’s not usually like that for me. Normally, it’s kind of what I want to say, you know, it’s sort of what I want to say, but it’s never quite everything I hoped. With that piece, I didn’t have any hope. I was like, “Yeah, I mean every word of that.” Unfortunately, it only happened once in 20 years. I’m not going to get too used to it. The book was, in many ways, a pleasurable process. It was a normal writing experience that involved decision-making and revision, and some struggle, like anything. Much, much easier than my first book, which was like a total uphill slog.

MJ: I’m sort of surprised to hear you say that—the writing comes across as such raw emotion.

AL: Well, the fact of the matter is, I was doing that anyway. That process of looking at what has happened and what I had done in various ways was difficult, but writing about it wasn’t painful. Feeling suffering is painful, obviously, but writing about suffering, I did not find unpleasant. Usually I don’t write about myself; I write about other people. When you’re reporting, you’re trying to put together the truth based on what lots of different people tell you. Maybe you’re there for some of it because you’re reporting scenes, but at the end of the day, you’re trying to piece together reality from various sources. It’s not like I know the ultimate truth, but I know what was true to me. I found the exercise of trying to express that as precisely as possible sort of thrilling.

MJ: So how did you decide to write the story of your miscarriage as a book?

AL: I don’t know. If this was someone else’s story, I would have wanted to tell it. I would have thought, “Well first of all, that’s a good story, and second of all, it involves lots of stuff that I’m interested in.” Why is it disqualified just because it’s my story, and I know every single thing about it? That shouldn’t be a mark against it. Maybe that should be a mark for it, is what I ultimately decided. Obviously personal life is complicated, but I decided to do it anyway.

MJ: I’m glad you did.

AL: Thanks, I’m glad I did too.

MJ: So does that mean you’re feeling good about the book coming out?

AL: I feel partly good about it, let’s say.

MJ: How did the people in your life react to the idea of your memoir?

AL: Really generously. My former spouse is the first person who read it before I turned it in. I was like, “Okay, if there’s anything you can’t live with, let me know and I’ll take it out.” She’s more important to me than any book. Characteristically generous, she was like, “You know what? I’m not going to censor you. This is your story—you tell it how you want to tell it.”

Which is incredible, but also not surprising if you know her. She was the only one I was concerned about. My parents, you know, that’s ancient history.

MJ: Miscarriage is sometimes regarded as this personal, private thing. When women come forward and speak about it, it becomes political. Do you see yourself normalizing the spectrum of pregnancy outcomes by writing about your experience?

AL: Certainly hearing from lots and lots of women who had lost babies, lost pregnancies, and also some women who’d lost children, made me feel good about writing about some of these issues. I feel that the dramatic experience of being a human female animal hasn’t really been a major subject for art and literature. Why shouldn’t it be? It affects half the population. Not that every woman is going to get pregnant or have a child or lose a child, but at some point in her life every woman will have some drama around menstruation, pregnancy, childbearing, childbirth, menopause, something to do with that animal fear.

MJ: Do you feel like there’s a stigma of blame around miscarriage?

AL: Well it’s also a biological experience, right? When you lose a pregnancy like that—especially if you are late term, as I was—you’re going through an enormous let down of all these hormones. If things go well, you’ve got a baby to take care of, so that serves as this counterbalance to this enormous physical, hormonal shitshow. If the baby dies, then you’re in a pretty dark place. Sure it’s cultural, but it’s not just cultural. It’s also physical. It’s pretty hard not to blame yourself and feel terrible in 800 ways when you’re going through that physical experience. Your body’s producing milk for a baby who’s not there. I don’t see a way that you’d avoid going to a pretty dark place in that condition.

MJ: The book is, in some ways, a meditation on womanhood and what it means to have the power to reproduce. Can you talk a little bit about what that has meant to you and then how it has evolved since your pregnancy?

AL: Before I had that experience, I wouldn’t have understood what it entailed. I think if someone said to me, “Oh, this person had a late-term miscarriage, this person went into premature labor,” I would’ve had no sense of what that meant. I think sometimes people will assume women will know what this is all about. I don’t even think it’s fair to ask women to know what it’s about if they haven’t experienced that. I certainly didn’t understand the emotional experience of pregnancy and birth. It just wouldn’t have resonated for me.

MJ: What advice would you give someone who is dealing with this kind of loss?

AL: Just to know that eventually, grief moves. It changes shape. If you’re fortunate, it moves from something you live in to something that lives in you. What I mean is, there’s always going to be something. I’m never going to be like, “Oh yeah, that was fine that that happened.” It’s always going to be a really painful reality for me. I’m always going to wish that my son had lived. Now, that’s something that lives in me. I don’t walk around in a tunnel of that experience. It’s just something that lives in my heart.

Original link – 

This Brilliant Memoir Will Challenge What You Think You Know About Loss and Pregnancy

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Brilliant Memoir Will Challenge What You Think You Know About Loss and Pregnancy

Twitter Makes Total Sense If You Understand It Properly

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Matt Yglesias speaks truth to power today:

I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve cut off a conversation on Twitter with something like “Signing off now. Twitter is a horrible place to discuss anything more complicated than a cookie.” And it is! People try endlessly to turn it into something it isn’t, and the result is that I routinely get told to go take a look at some “epic tweetstorm” or other that “must be Storified.” Usually it turns out to be a grand total of about 300 words split up into awkward 20-word chunks. Milton would not be impressed. It could be done way better, and possibly faster, as a simple blog post.

In fact, I’ve long imagined that Twitter originated something like this:


JACK DORSEY and BIZ STONE are sitting in a dorm hallway at NYU, where they are undergrads.1 A half-smoked joint lies between them. Earlier in the day they got assigned their class project for Communications 152.

DORSEY: Oh man. “Develop a communications medium that demonstrates as many principles of accurate information exchange as possible.” WTF?

STONE: I know. Jesus.

Next day. DORSEY and STONE are in DORSEY’s dorm room.

DORSEY: Hey, I had an idea. How about if we do a proof by contradiction?

STONE: What?

DORSEY: Let’s develop the worst communications medium possible and show how it screws things up!

STONE: Dude. That’s brilliant. Like what?

DORSEY: Well, good communication requires enough bandwidth to express an idea fully. Let’s limit ours to just a few words at a time.

STONE: And strong emotions interfere with accuracy. Let’s develop something that encourages outrage. That means digital. Like a chatroom or something. People are always going postal on those.

DORSEY: We could make it even worse. Maybe by screwing around with response times?

STONE: Sure. Latency should be just long enough to allow other people to barge in during the middle of a conversation. It would drive people crazy.

DORSEY: You’d never be sure who’s responding to what!

STONE: Right. And it should be wide open to everyone, so people can join in even if they have no idea what the conversation is about.

DORSEY: And then other people see the newcomers, and barge in themselves. It’s like the ultimate game of telephone.

STONE: You’d end up with viral mobs! It’s the worst possible environment for communicating.

DORSEY: Sure, because no one who piles on knows if they’re the only critic, or if thousands have already jumped in. You never really know who your audience is, which is one of the linchpins of good communication.

STONE: Nuance and tone are important too. We need to eliminate those.

DORSEY: We can do that by making messages really short. Text message sized. You can barely even speak English in text messages, let alone add caveats and nuance.

STONE: And no editing. Once you’ve said something, you can’t change it even if you realize you screwed up.

DORSEY: It’s tailor made for misunderstanding.

STONE: And if it were marketed right, highly verbal people would be its main consumers. They’d go nuts trying to carry on conversations on complex topics 140 characters at a time.

DORSEY: And the campus language police! Can you imagine how they’d react to every little miscue?

STONE: This is great. It’s like cutting out everyone’s tongues and dumping them into a big overheated room.

DORSEY: And it would still be good for jokes and cat videos, which would demonstrate something important about jokes and cat videos.

Twelve weeks later. DORSEY and STONE are back in the hallway.

DORSEY: He gave us a C-? That’s brutal.

STONE: “Interesting concept, but too divorced from reality.”

DORSEY: Sheesh.

Ten years later. DORSEY and STONE are drinking margaritas on DORSEY’S yacht.

DORSEY: Man, people sure are stupid.

STONE: But we’re rich!

DORSEY: Yeah. It’ll be kind of a drag if Trump wins, though. I wasn’t really expecting that.

STONE: Chill, dude. We’re rich!

Ship sails into sunset. DORSEY and STONE have enigmatic expressions on their faces. Curtain.

1Yes, I know they didn’t go to college together. Work with me here.

Continued:  

Twitter Makes Total Sense If You Understand It Properly

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Twitter Makes Total Sense If You Understand It Properly

Friday Cat Blogging – 17 June 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hilbert and Hopper get along fine, but they don’t cuddle up together much anymore. Yesterday they did, however, when Hilbert decided to barge into the pod that Hopper had already staked out. Usually she gives up pretty quickly when this happens (you can almost feel Hopper mentally rolling her eyes and then heading off to some Hilbert-free spot), but this time she held her ground. Aren’t they adorable?

And speaking of adorable, yesterday I wrote a post wondering what the hell Donald Trump meant by this: “Every time you turn on one of those aircraft carriers it costs you probably a million bucks. I’d say, don’t turn it on. The captain would say, we want to show you how great these engines are working. No, I don’t want to hear it, just stop.”

Well, a reader from Denmark emails to suggest that this was—wait for it—a Reaganesque reimagining by Donald, who told this story years ago about his own yacht. As soon as he started talking about things that float on the water—i.e., aircraft carriers—his mind apparently drifted back to his own personal experience with things that float on the water—i.e., the ill-fated Trump Princess megayacht. And if my reader is right, a captain of the Trump Princess once wanted to show off his ship’s engines to the boss, who was horrified at the potential expense of firing them up.

This totally makes sense, since Trump is so self-involved that everything always relates back to himself in one way or another. And it also makes sense that he might not have wanted to fire up the engines in his yacht—especially since he was in the process of going bankrupt at the time—whereas it makes no sense at all to worry about “turning on” the engine of a nuclear-powered Nimitz-class supercarrier. So: can anyone verify this? Did Trump originally tell this story about his own yacht, and somehow drifted back in time when he was talking about aircraft carriers yesterday?

And now, since you’ve all been so patient about me sneaking a Trump story into a catblogging post, on to the cats.

See the original post:

Friday Cat Blogging – 17 June 2016

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Cat Blogging – 17 June 2016

The Supreme Court Just Sent a Strong Message About Racism in the Justice System

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“Nonsense.” That’s how Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. described the contention that Georgia prosecutors had not been motivated by race when they weeded out every potential black juror from a 1987 death penalty trial. Roberts penned the majority opinion in Foster v. Chatman, which reversed a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court that overlooked new evidence of racial discrimination in the trial of Timothy Foster, an African American man, which was a factor leading to his death sentence by an all-white jury.

The case had been pending in the high court for an unusually long time, after being argued in November, suggesting that the justices were torn over how to decide it, particularly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But in the end, the eight-member court ruled 7-1 that Georgia prosecutors had unconstitutionally rejected jurors from Foster’s trial based on their race. The lone dissenter was the court’s only African American justice, Clarence Thomas, who sided firmly with state of Georgia.

The case had presented stark evidence of the kind of racial discrimination that pervades the criminal justice system. In 2006, defense lawyers for Foster, who was convicted of murdering a white woman in Butts County, Georgia, pried out of the prosecutors’ office a remarkable file full of documents showing how they had gone about picking a jury for the case.

In notes, prosecutors had highlighted the African Americans on several different lists of potential jurors. On one list, under the heading “Definite NOs,” prosecutors listed six potential jurors, all but one of whom were black. The prosecutors ranked the prospective black jurors in case “it comes down to having to pick one of the black jurors.”

As Foster’s lawyer Stephen Bright said after the decision was released on Monday, “this discrimination became apparent only because we obtained the prosecution’s notes which revealed their intent to discriminate. Usually that does not happen. The practice of discriminating in striking juries continues in courtrooms across the country. Usually courts ignore patterns of race discrimination and accept false reasons for the strikes. Even after the undeniable evidence of discrimination was presented in this case, the Georgia courts ignored it and upheld Foster’s conviction and death sentence.”

Foster’s 1987 conviction came just months after the US Supreme Court had issued a decision in Batson v. Kentucky that was supposed to ban racial discrimination in jury selection during what are known as “peremptory strikes.” That’s the mechanism for lawyers in a trial to exclude jurors for no reason. Such strikes have been used extensively to keep minority citizens off juries.

Batson, though, has failed to halt the cherry-picking of all-white juries in criminal cases against black men. That’s largely because prosecutors, when challenged, have learned to justify a decision to kick someone off a jury in “race-neutral” terms, and courts have accepted them. Foster was no exception. Notes in the prosecutors’ file indicated that they focused on the race of the jurors from the outset, as Roberts points out in his opinion. They justified excluding black jurors in his case for such nebulous reasons as “failure to make eye contact” or being defiant. (One of the rejected black jurors, Marilyn Garrett, told me last year that if she wasn’t making eye contact or was defiant with the prosecutors while they were questioning her, it was because “they really were nasty to me.” She said the prosecutors had treated her “like I was a criminal.”)

Roberts didn’t buy the prosecutors’ rationale for ejecting two black jurors in particular, and he methodically ripped holes in their arguments before sending the case back to the lower courts for further proceedings. “Two peremptory strikes on the basis of race are two more than the Constitution allows,” he concluded.

The decision is a forceful blow against racism in the courts, and somewhat unusual coming from the same chief justice who has made a name for himself for helping to dismantle the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action. The Foster decision isn’t going to help Roberts’ reputation among tea partiers, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who have decided the former conservative darling of a chief justice has become a liberal traitor.

Tea partiers should be much happier with the lone dissenter in the case, Thomas. As he often does in death penalty cases, he opened his opinion by focusing from the outset on the victim—in this case, 79-year-old Queen Madge White, whom Thomas noted was sexually assaulted by Foster with a bottle of salad dressing. Far from acknowledging the racist motives in the jury selection, Thomas lambasted the majority ruling for perpetuating a criminal justice system in which “finality” means nothing, and any criminal case can be appealed ad nauseam.

His opinion avoids any acknowledgement of the stark failures of the justice system in recent years, injustices that would have largely remained hidden if the courts had taken Thomas’ strict view of unwavering procedural rules that until recently protected prosecutors in Georgia in Foster’s case from any accountability for their racial discrimination.

The decision in Foster won’t put an end to racial discrimination in jury selection. But it is certainly vindication for the potential jurors, including Marilyn Garrett, who weren’t allowed to fulfill their civic duty all those years ago because of their race. As for Foster, his future is still in limbo. Monday’s decision entitles him to a new trial, with a jury of his peers that hasn’t been tainted by racial discrimination. But that doesn’t guarantee a different outcome. The new Georgia jury may come to the same conclusion as the old one. But if nothing else, his date with the death chamber has likely been put off for many years to come. In the world of death penalty litigation, that counts as a win.

See original article here – 

The Supreme Court Just Sent a Strong Message About Racism in the Justice System

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court Just Sent a Strong Message About Racism in the Justice System

Hear that? That’s the sound of the ocean dying

Hear that? That’s the sound of the ocean dying

By on 3 Dec 2014commentsShare

An eerie silence is falling over the world’s coral reefs. Usually quite noisy, reefs are emptying out and quieting down due to a long list of environmental stresses, including overfishing, damage from trawling, pollution, bleaching, heat stress, and ocean acidification. Not only is this silence ominous in a creepy-ghost-town-vibes kind of way — it can actually be another threat to the reef on its own.

Here’s how: Young fish and other invertebrates use the racket of a healthy reef to find their way to it. If reefs get quieter, it is harder for new generations of critters to move in. Scientists affirmed this with research published this week, comparing the soundscapes of healthy, protected reefs to those of impacted ones, reports Phys.org:

[T]he study … involved taking acoustic recordings of coral reefs with different levels of protection around islands in the Philippines. The research found that the noise produced by the few remaining resident fish and crustaceans on unprotected reefs was only one third of the sound produced at bustling, healthy reef communities. …

With less sound being produced at impacted reefs, the distance over which larvae can detect habitat is ten times less, impacting on the replenishment of future generations needed to build up and maintain healthy population levels.

And if you think coral reefs are only good for rad computer wallpaper and settings for heartwarming Pixar movies, think again: As much as a quarter of the fish we eat rely on protected and thriving reefs at some stage of their lives. I get hungry just thinking about it.

While the researchers didn’t release their recordings of the boomed-and-busted reefs, we have some exclusive footage just for you:

Source:
You can hear the coral reefs dying

, Phys.org.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

×

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Taken from – 

Hear that? That’s the sound of the ocean dying

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Pines, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hear that? That’s the sound of the ocean dying