How To Win Friends and Influence People (In Your Car)

I don’t drive very much. I think I’ve told the story somewhere here about how when I went to renew my insurance and asked for a lower rate based on my mileage, no one at the insurance agency believed me when I said how much I drove annually, and everyone had to troop out to the parking lot to look at my odometer? No? Well, anyway, the point is, I do not drive very much. I take my car to the grocery store twice a week and to the City periodically, and that’s about it.

One would think, on the basis of that, that I do not have very many opportunities to get infuriated by fellow drivers. Au contraire, mes amies. In fact, my insurance agent once told me that the majority of accidents happen close to home, and I can see why, judging from the fact that people do the most infuriating and dangerous things in cars within three blocks of my house1.

Thus, I am periodically driven to bust out on a driving rant, and today is your lucky day, because other drivers have been pissing me off to an unusually high degree lately. I suspect there is a strong correlation here between the high levels of tourist traffic in the summer, my increasing crankiness in heat, and the infuriation levels I reach behind the wheel in the summer time.

Signals. Use them. When you are not using them, turn them off. It’s kind of a hip thing in California to not signal, and can I tell you how annoying that is? It is annoying. Why? Because if you are not signaling, I do not expect you to abruptly slow down and turn or change lanes. Incidentally, you need to signal a turn before you start braking. Not after. Signaling is a warning, not an afterthought. Also? Signaling is also required when you change lanes, and no, signaling that you want to move into my lane does not magically make a spot appear. It means that I am made aware of the fact that you would like to be in my lane and I will do my best to accommodate your desire.

Speed. Everyone drives at a different one. And that is cool, really. I, for example, sometimes drive like a bat out of hell, and sometimes like a slowpoke, depending on numerous factors that I don’t want to get into. The point is, I do not take it personally when someone wants to go faster than me. On one lane roads, I pull over to let people pass, and on the freeway, I don’t do things like speeding up when people try to go around me, or, say, brakechecking people who are unhappy with my rate of speed. Surprisingly, other drivers apparently have not grasped this, and take it as a personal offense when I want to go faster than them. Seriously? I’m sure you’re a fine person, and my desire to go faster than you does not reflect in any way, shape, or form on your goodness or decency as a human being. Also, I am driving a sportscar, and you are not. It is kind of to be expected, ok?

Parking. Look, I am going to straight up tell you that I am a really shitty parallel parker, despite the best efforts of numerous parking experts to teach me. However, that said, I manage to avoid occupying two spaces at once, and I don’t try to do shiesty things like fitting into spaces that are too small for my car. The thing about taking up two spaces, you know, is that it creates a domino effect of frustration, and it makes me want to plant one of my very stylish and very sharp Italian heels square in the middle of your windshield. If you are searching for parking, which is fine and dandy, please signal so that I understand why you are going two miles and hour and weaving all over the road, and please don’t go to take a space, change your mind, and whip back out into traffic.

Stop signs. Are there for a reason. I feel like this shouldn’t need to be said, but evidently, it does. If there is a big red sign that says ‘stop,’ it means that you need to stop. If it is a four way intersection and someone got there before you, that person gets to go first. If you get there at the same time as someone else, the person on the right goes, or you can wave someone on if you are feeling nice. If a stop sign goes through another intersection where the other street always has the right of way, try rolling out instead of gunning it so that if someone is coming, a collision will not occur. Collisions are expensive! And also annoying.

Pedestrians. Don’t hit them. Here in the Golden State, they have the right away. That means that when I am stopped at an intersection, I will remain in a stationary position if someone is crossing the street. Why? Because, well, one, I do not want to hit that person, and, two, that person legally has the right of way. Don’t you go honking at me for not going. I am not going to hit a pedestrian to satisfy your need to be in motion, ok?

Intersections that you cannot clear. Do not enter them. Do you know what happens when traffic is backed up and some asshat enters an intersection anyway, even though there’s no way it will clear before the light changes? The light changes, the asshat is still in the middle of the street, the cross traffic cannot go, and then traffic gets backed up the other way, too. In addition to being illegal, entering an intersection you cannot clear is just a jackassy thing to do. So don’t honk at me when I refuse to do it. And when the road is two lanes, don’t go around me to enter the intersection in front of me. You can’t clear it either. Fuck off.

  1. Like, say, not stopping at the stop sign on the cross street next to my house where people going east-west have right of way. I cannot tell you how many times I have almost been t-boned by an inattentive driver, and, believe me, being t-boned in a convertible is not something that will brighten your day.

Belittling Readers and Judging Books By Their Covers

I recently finished reading Johannes Cabal, the Necromancer, because, well, I judged a book by its cover. The cover art looked appealing, and the storyline intrigued me, and I got sucked in. The basic plotline of the book revolves around a necromancer who has lost his soul, and strikes a bargain with the Devil to get it back: If he can collect 100 souls as replacements within a year, the Devil will return his soul to him. In return, the Devil offers to help out a bit by giving him a cursed carnival to use over the course of the year.

This book is the sort that I would characterise as a romp. It’s fun and silly, and an excellent way to blow a few cobwebs out of your brain. If you are looking for deep literature, incisive thought, and brilliant word usage, this book is probably not for you. If you like books with some silliness and a whiff of brimstone, you will possibly enjoy it. It’s inventive. It’s frothy. It has neat artwork. The characters, although all rather evil, are also all fetching, in their own way, although I could do without yet another vampire with a moralistic streak, just between you and me.

I write about this book because I think there’s a perception that people like me spend all their time reading theory and serious literature, which I kind of tried to break down a bit in my post about reading romance novels, but bears further exploration. There are a lot of elitist attitudes about who reads what and how people interact with literature and I think sometimes that I am ashamed on some level of the books I read, and thus think that I shouldn’t talk about them. If I can’t, for example, find some kind of social justice angle to bring into a book review, it’s not worth wasting anyone’s time, and I will be betraying the club or something.

The fact is that I do interact with all things with a critical eye, even the things I read for fun, but sometimes I just don’t have a lot of say, critically, about a piece, for a variety of reasons. That’s the case with Johannes Cabal. I enjoyed it, it brought up some interesting ideas about good and evil and exploitation, and I want to read the next book featuring the same character, because I’m interested to see where they take him. The end.

I could talk, I suppose, about feeling faintly guilty about the fact that this book very much falls into a distinct genre; humorous books with a supernatural flair, a male lead, and basically nonexistent or one dimensional women. I could talk about the fact that I would love to read more books like this with women as the title character, and with interesting supportive women characters rather than an endless parade of dudes, some of whom have a distinct Nice Guy tendency about them.

And I could talk about how the media we engage with shapes the way we think and there’s a reason this genre is so popular, and about how this genre reinforces certain attitudes I am not a big fan of. Books in this vein tend to be very heterocentrist, for example, and they often feature characters doing things I think would be of questionable morality in real life while we are supposed to view them as heroes.

But, the thing is, I know that. And you know that. We are all grownups here. We know exactly what we are getting with books like this, and sometimes, that’s ok. If I was only consuming books in this genre, I think I might have a problem, but I don’t. I consume lots of different kinds of books, featuring lots of different kinds of characters, and I think I have the capacity to evaluate them honestly.

Which is one of the reasons it bothers me to see people slagging on the readers of particular genres of books. There’s an underlying assumption that they are taking those books at face value and not reading them critically and thus they are being injured in some way by their reading material. I even see it implied that we should keep ‘impressionable’ people away from certain kinds of books because they will internalise harmful messages.

This is a grave disservice to the reader, suggesting that reading certain kinds of books means you are incapable of critical thinking and that you only read books in those genres. Some of the most well-read romance readers I know read far, far more than romance novels, and in fact are far more broadly read than most people I know who are well-read in subjects like theory. They read widely because they enjoy reading, because they enjoy exploring a variety of topics, and sometimes because they like to be entertained.

Books can indeed be dangerous and fraught objects, but we are imbuing them with entirely too much power if we think that readers can be ruined forever by a single book, or a collective genre of books. Yes, books can and do reinforce harmful social messages, but those messages are being internalised even by the people who aren’t reading those books. I wasn’t a teen when Twilight was around, for example, but I fantasized about a lot of the same things teen readers of that series do today. This suggests that rather than creating or even reinforcing a phenomenon, the books simply gave it voice. There’s a reason the books became so popular, and it’s because they spoke to something experienced by a lot of its readers. To dismiss them and their readers as ‘trash’ is to deny very real lived experiences.

I know a lot of Twilight readers and many of them are thoughtful, critical readers. They are well aware of what’s going on with these books and with the attitudes embedded in them, and they are fully capable of reading the books and judging for themselves. Some of them even write extensively and interestingly on the series and the embedded messages. They critique, dare I say, because they care.

Thus, I tend to look askance on sweeping generalisations about entire groups of readers; they’re patronising, and they’re often wrong.

Raspy Pelicans

Kyle Munzenrieder at Miami New Times: Fort Myers Cop Fired After Staging a Crime in Desperate Scheme to Propose to Ex-Girlfriend

According to The Fort Myers News-Press, Fort Myers police officer Jason Moore devised a desperate and illegal scheme in order to win back his ex-girlfriend, who is also a police officer.

Michael Roberts at Denver Westword: Chris Bartkowicz: Marijuana community to rally at courthouse for grower facing 60 years in jail

“Some would say many other people are doing what Bartkowicz is accused of doing and aren’t being prosecuted at all, much less being subjected to a mandatory minimum sentence of sixty years.”

Justin Kendall at The Pitch: David Gutierrez, Air Force sergeant and swinger, accused of not disclosing HIV status

He’d arrange the hook ups through adult networking websites and “bragged” to her “about his numerous sexual exploits in the Wichita area and commented he never informed the other parties of being HIV positive.”

Ryan Stewart at The Boston Phoenix: Interview: Michael K. Williams

I spoke to Williams — who sounded much more easygoing and relaxed than the characters he plays — by phone about this role, Boardwalk Empire’s period accuracy, and that scene with the Ku Klux Klan. Some light spoilers follow.

Rachel Monroe at Baltimore City Paper: Button Pushing

Or, if you prefer your future more ominous, POD may create a nation of navel-gazing vanity publishers and destroy the floundering publishing industry in the process.

Bones: The Mastodon in the Room

Quick hit on last night’s Bones season premiere, because, well, I watched it, and I was singularly unimpressed. If this is what we can expect from Bones this season, I think it’s going to be grim going. Be advised that this post contains spoilers for ‘The Mastodon in the Room.’

This episode of Bones was evidently the ‘all ladies are selfish’ edition, with a healthy heaping of ‘good thing Booth was around to save the day.’ Seriously, Bones, this is where you are going to take this show? The entire episode consisted of beating us over the head with how evil and selfish Brennan was for choosing to pursue her professional career. How she ruined everything and how self-involved she was. Likewise, Daisy by extension was selfish for choosing to go with her.

People, women choosing to pursue their careers and their areas of career interest are not being selfish. The way this episode turned out makes me really glad they backed off on the Brennan having a baby plot, because I can only imagine the scorn she would have been heaped with for being as selfish as to choose to have a child.

I mean, seriously? They spent an entire episode punishing Brennan for, you know, being a forensic anthropologist and wanting to pursue her original area of study, early human societies? Booth wasn’t scolded for wanting to work in Afghanistan. On the contrary, he was heralded as a hero and lauded for saving the day; Carolyn literally calls him a white knight.

I also noted two very obvious instances of racism in this episode. There was the opener with Brennan, Daisy, and the guerrillas. Brennan really had to go with the ‘we must show the natives we are women by flashing our hair!’ routine? And Daisy felt it was necessary to strip down to her underwear? Truly? The sheer level of ignorance and bigotry there was quite breathtaking.

Then we have the scene where Booth, confronted with a woman who says she doesn’t speak very good English, starts talking really loudly. People. People. People. How many of us truly believe that when you are speaking to someone in a language that person doesn’t speak/understand, or doesn’t understand well, that TALKING REALLY LOUDLY is going to make you intelligible? I get that this is kind of how Booth is, but, honestly? After years of investigating criminal cases, Booth hasn’t mastered a pretty basic piece of information about interrogations, namely, that shouting at people who don’t speak English well is not actually productive?

Finally, I cannot let this quick hit pass without mentioning the obvious and gratuitous fat shaming swipe Brennan took at Carolyn. It’s, you know, a theme through the series, that she’s got some fat bigotry going on, but, seriously? Claiming that Carolyn’s brain doesn’t function as well on the basis of her size and the presumed attitude that she must not exercise? Really?!

Glee: Same Dog, Same Tricks

So, yes, I did watch the Glee season premiere, and I even took a whole page of notes, and I’m having a hard time getting back into the saddle of writing about Glee again. Consequently, I’m keeping this post a little short and scattered. Hopefully I’ll be back in full fettle next week. Be advised that this post does contain spoilers for the season premiere!

From the opening gay joke to the ‘handicapable’ shots taken not once but multiple times, Glee looks like it’s back in regular form, which is to say, the show has learned absolutely nothing from last season.

Several things stuck out to me in this episode. The first was in the opener, where the A/V kid (I’m sorry, I forget his name, and I don’t have the energy to look it up) is following the glee club members around and interviewing them about their summer. I thought it was interesting to see who was represented in this, and how they were represented. In particular, there was no sign at all of Mercedes (unless I blinked and missed it?), and Artie was represented solely in passing, without a single spoken line.

I also noted that the show took a number of swipes at bloggers. It’s kind of hard not to read those as snide attacks on people criticising the show, especially since the episode very much framed bloggers/Internet critics as pathetic and worthless and that was reiterated several times.

It was especially notable for me, as a pretty vocal Glee critic, to hear the line ‘say it to my face.’ I write criticism of this show under my own name, on major media outlets, sometimes with a great big honkin’ picture of my face right next to it. Unless Ryan Murphy is offering me a personal meeting, I don’t know how much closer I could get to saying it to his face, you know?

Rachel’s racism in the episode was framed intriguingly as it was made unambiguously clear that we were supposed to view what she was doing as hateful, offensive, and ignorant. It, honestly, didn’t even really feel like it was being played for laughs. It was purely cringeworthy and it was supposed to be, heartwarming Gaga duet and all. It’s a pity that Sunshine got dumped at the end of the episode (effectively, by being stolen by Vocal Adrenaline) while Rachel stayed on. And it was nice to see Kurt and Mercedes pushing back on her fuckery; I actually think Glee did a pretty good job of not making it into a Teachable Moment.

So, let’s talk about the handling of disability in this episode. I’m not even going to touch the completely ridiculous Helen Keller joke, but I am going to touch the handling of Artie. It seems like the show is riding hard on the ‘Artie really wants to walk again and will keep dreaming of things he can’t do and it will be special and educational’ theme, as evidenced by his decision to try and join the football team.

I really hate that this is being played as ‘my girl leaves me because I’m disabled, so I need to go do nondisabled things, and football is like the epitome!’ In a show that exploits disability in hamfisted representations, I am singularly unimpressed by how Artie is handled. Like, seriously? The show can’t come up with anything for him to do in a wheelchair, like, say, a number of wheelchair sports? The show is just going to keep defining Artie by what he can’t do?

I also really fear the direction the show is taking with The Beast. I strongly suspect that we will be in for some transphobia and gender essentialism surrounding this character at some point this season.

So! Those are my scattered thoughts on the Glee premiere. Hopefully I’ll be a bit more pulled together next week.

On Personalising the Political and Missing Political Goals

I’ve been thinking a lot lately, most particularly in the context of the health care debate in the United States, about how we frame conversations about social problems and the best ways to reform them. In the case of health care, we’ve identified a clear problem: There are serious inequalities in access to health services in the United States as a result of rising prices and a number of other factors, like limited availability of practitioners willing to work in rural or highly dangerous areas. Yet, people seem to have a lot of trouble coming up with a fix, even though there’s an obvious one staring everyone in the face.

Some people approach reform to social problems from the perspective of what’s morally right. In the health care debate, this starts on the grounds that all people deserve access to health services, that people should not die or experience serious complications because they cannot get health care, and thus that we need to come up with a way to get people access to the health services they need. This argument states that it is in the best interests of society, from an ethical standpoint, to not allow people to get sick.

This approach often relies on personalising everything. Rather than talking about lack of access in the abstract, people will bring up specific cases to use as examples. This focus, unfortunately, starts to make health care access look like a personal problem, rather than an institutional one. By keeping attention on individual stories and how sad they are, the big picture is missed.

Others approach reform from the perspective of what is economically and politically sensible. In the case of health care reform, reformers can illustrate how various approaches would save money. Oddly enough, the most ethical approach to health care is also the most cost effective one, and this holds true with a lot of other social problems. It turns out, being ethical isn’t just a good thing to do, it’s also an economical and sensible thing to do.

So, I’m disappointed that more people interested in the first approach aren’t willing to integrate the second approach into their work. Part of the problem with the health care debate is that it’s been turned into a personal issue: Is health care a right? Does everyone in the United States deserve to receive medical care? How much personal responsibility is involved in access to health care services and provision of health care?

This ignores the very real economic issues: Are we spending too much money? Is there a more efficient way to spend the money we have? Can we deliver more services to more people by changing the system? What is the right thing to do from a purely economic standpoint, and what would be the best way to make that happen?

The interests of both groups dovetail, but because the economics don’t get trotted out nearly as much as the personal stories, the people who have a personal and vested interest in denying access to people can dismiss it as a personal problem, and leave it at that. This is how we end up with things like a ‘reform’ plan forcing people to buy health insurance; because, fundamentally, people have come to view health care as a responsibility, and not as a right. And because of this, people can ignore the economic issues involved.

Personally, I am interested in achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And what I find interesting is that often, this interest is in direct alignment with the ethical concerns with social issues, too. The personalisation of institutional issues has had a number of directly harmful effects, not least of which is that it turns out to be a highly ineffective way of convincing people to do the right thing. I suspect we would be better off showing people with numbers than we are right now, attempting to persuade people that something is the only logical ethical choice. Personal arguments can be appealed and ignored, while economic ones are much harder to write off.

The personalisation also means that people who want to make progress are often forced to personalise everything. People concerned with disability rights, for example, have to use a personal hook or tie-in to get people to care, and can’t simply say things like ‘you should care about the inequalities in the benefits system because they cost society a lot of money and there is a better way to do this.’ As a result, people who don’t want to expose themselves may be reluctant to engage in political discussion and debate.

And, of course, many people internalise the idea that social problems are a matter of personal fault, instead of being the result of institutional oppressions. As a result, it gets harder to fight these oppressions, because they have been personalised right out of existence. I see this perhaps most strikingly in conversations about disability, where there are radically different ways of viewing disability rights issues, and some people with disabilities genuinely believe that disability is a primarily personal problem and something that needs to be dealt with independently.

There’s a reason I like the social model of disability: Because it stresses that it is social attitudes that contribute to oppression of people with disabilities. It’s not that disabilities would vanish if we achieved social equality (some people don’t necessarily want their disabilities to disappear), but rather that, by addressing social attitudes, we could break down the barriers constructed around people with disabilities. A chronic pain condition will still be a chronic pain condition, for example, but someone with chronic pain will not be scapegoated as a drug seeker or slacker.

Arrogant Bowties

Announcements! I’m wrapping up my stint at Bitch Magazine with Push(back) at the Intersections today, and they’re giving me a whole day off before I start guest blogging again as part of a Grey’s Anatomy roundtable featuring Tasha Fierce, Snarky’s Machine, Everett Maroon, and Red Lami. Grand Rounds: Dissecting Grey’s Anatomy will be going on all season and it should be fun times. I’m also very pleased to announce that I’ve been invited to join the team of pop culturalists at I Fry Mine In Butter, where I’ll be writing about pop culture stuff of various sorts in a regular column.

Brandann Hill-Mann at Change: Military Women and Suicide Awareness: Is Something Missing?

A task force investigating the military’s efforts reports that they have been reactive rather than proactive, allowing men and women to slip through the holes in the safety nets.

Michael Roberts at Denver Westword: Immigration rally at North High School in favor of DREAM Act: Photos plus one advocate’s take

Nationwide, there were over 15,000 calls made to senators in support of the DREAM Act, flooding the switchboards.

Gus Garcia-Roberts at Miami New Times: Colombian Parrot Arrested for Acting as Look-Out for Drug Dealers

This may be our favorite line from a news story ever: “Now Lorenzo may spend his life behind bars. He’s been handed over to special animal officials to join other birds suspected to be guilty of similar crimes.”

James Pitkin at Willamette Week: Saving Ryan

What separates Santana’s story from conventional wisdom is this—it isn’t shelter workers, drug counselors or psychotherapists who have labored the hardest to promote his recovery.

Blair Campbell at East Bay Express: Confessions of a Pregnant Wine Writer

From the moment I got the definitive “you’re pregnant” on New Year’s Day 2009 (causing me to ruefully ditch my Bloody Mary), the question of whether and how much I could drink was the background noise I heard for the next eight months.

Joe Eskenazi at SF Weekly: PG&E Disseminates List of 100 Riskiest Pipelines

It’s also uncertain how much relief or terror one should express regarding the proximity of a pipe to one’s domicile, as the stretch of piping in San Bruno that exploded last week was not on PG&E’s internal list.

Follow the Money: The Glossy Mailer Rule

I’ve referenced this in the past, but given that the general election is coming up, I thought I would dedicate a whole post to talking about the glossy mailer rule. For long-time readers, this may be kind of a deja vu post, for which I apologise!

Basically, politics in the United States is fueled, dictated, and governed by money. This means that, when looking at how political action happens, it’s critical to follow the money. As a general rule, the people in power have the most money, and they want to retain their money, which means that money gets poured into maintaining the status quo. The more money is poured into an initiative, political issues, or candidate, the less likely it is to be progressive. If money is supporting a candidate or issue, it’s a safe bet that people in marginalised classes in the United States will not benefit from having that candidate or issue win at the polls. Likewise, if a lot of money gets sunk into opposing something, it’s a clue that someone in power doesn’t want it to happen, which means I probably do want it to happen.

There isn’t always a one to one correspondence, but it’s usually very close. Money and power tend to cozy up together and when you find one or the other around something, it is an indicator that whatever you are looking at is of interest to people who want to retain power, control, and dominance. Not always, but often.

Hence, the glossy mailer rule. One of the areas where it’s really easy to see how much money is spent is in your own mailbox. Every year, when I start getting election mailings, I keep track of the mail I get. I note who it comes from and I take note of the print quality; is it a xeroxed newsletter from a community group? Is it a slick, four colour brochure from the Democrats? And so forth. And I keep a tally of what I get, an ongoing list. As the election gets closer, I pull my list out and say ‘where is the money going?’ Where is the money pushing me to vote, in this particular election? What are the people in power telling me they want me to do?

I look up the organisations sending me things in the mail. I see who backs them, I read their mission statements, I try to get a handle on their political agenda. But, often, the glossy mailer is the biggest clue. The slicker the mail, the more likely I am to be opposed to an organisation’s cause. If I am getting a bunch of mail telling me to support something or a candidate, it’s usually a sign I should vote in opposition. Conversely, if I get an avalanche of mail informing me that something is absolutely awful and I should vote against it, I usually end up voting for it.

I also, of course, actually research the candidates and issues directly and I take notes as I research, often generating a list of questions I need to answer before I decide how I want to vote. There are a lot of resources for researching candidates and initiatives, ranging from looking at recommendations from organisations I trust to doing the legwork myself, and it usually takes me a few days of focused work to do it.

But, I notice that the results of my actual research and my glossy mailer rule of thumb are often in close alignment. I’m not going to mindlessly vote for/against something on the basis of the mailers I get, but they definitely help if I’m on the fence about something. Here in California, where we often vote on initiatives and the language is very confusing, sometimes I have a tough time understanding what, exactly, I am voting on. Having a tide of things trying to convince me one way or the other is a helpful clue about the undercurrents behind something; if there’s, say, an energy initiative backed by PG&E and a bunch of other utilities, I know it’s probably not something I want to vote for, because it’s probably not something that is going to lower prices, improve infrastructure, or contribute to the development of alternative energy.

I don’t have very much exposure to video campaign advertising because I don’t have a television, but I imagine this rule could easily be applied there as well. Look at production values, the length of the spot, the placement of the spot, and who is paying for it. Follow the money. A slick one minute spot during primetime has a lot of money behind it, and that means it’s probably not something in your interests, unless you are a rich person trying to stay rich. A short spot on off-peak hours with dismal production values, on the other hand, is something people scrimped and saved to produce, which means they might just be your kind of people.

And, if you are a busy voter and you don’t have a lot of time for research, you can apply the glossy mailer rule more directly. Run the mailers you’re getting past a list of recommendations from an organisation you trust, and see if the two match up. If they do, it’s a pretty strong indicator that the organisation’s recommendations are right on.

Of course, this method of approaching the vote only works for barefoot raging socialists, like me. Your mileage may vary if you have more conservative inclinations.

Languid Lollipops

Anna Schuessler at Bohemian: Present Imperfect

Whole communities have sprung up around these “happy accidents” and the lovable, crappy cameras that produce them. An entire genre of “toy” cameras, which are often no more than a plastic carriage with a single lens in a bulky, boxy shape, has taken flight. Holga, Diana, Lomo—let’s not forget Polaroid.

David Corn and Suzy Khimm at Mother Jones: A Tale of Two Sisters

Imagine the family dinners: two sisters, one running for Senate as an anti-gay Christian conservative, the other an L.A.-based actor/director/spiritual healer who describes herself as living with a girlfriend.

J. Adrian Stanley at Colorado Springs Independent: In sickness and in health

PTSD and traumatic brain injury have become grim signatures of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rebecca Bowe at San Francisco Bay Guardian: Censored in a brave new world

It’s a brave new world of media consumption, but Project Censored’s mission hasn’t really changed.

Holly Otterbein at Philadelphia City Paper: Hall of Secrets

In some cases, the city says the records simply don’t exist. In others, the requested records did exist, but city officials destroyed them.

Engineering New Consequences: Genetically Modified Organisms and You

I’ve always had an interest in genetically modified organisms, ever since I started reading studies about declines in biodiversity related to the proliferation of GMO crops. This decline started, of course, long before the widespread development and adoption of GMOs; declines in biodiversity are also related to monocropping tendencies. Apples, tomatoes, potatoes, and numerous other crops were once grown in a myriad of varietals, but today, many of these varietals are lost.

As the agriculture system has changed, so has the nature of what we grow. A limited number of cultivars are suitable for widespread mass production and shipping. Consequently, there’s not as much diversity in commercial cultivation as there used to be, and we are losing our heritage, bit by bit, every year. It’s estimated, for example, that 11 apple cultivars make up 90% of the apples sold, and we’ve lost almost 90% of the apples in widespread cultivation only 100 years ago. What happened to agriculture happened very, very fast.

This isn’t just sad for foodies who want to be able to swan about making a point of eating exotic, rare, or unusual cultivars. It also potentially really sucks for us, because if the crops we are growing now start to develop problems, we may not have other seedstock to fall back upon. If, for example, Granny Smiths, Red Delicious, and Fujis become subject to blight, the world’s apple supply would be at serious risk. This is why seed banks are established, and why some organisations are making a habit of preserving unusual cultivars, in case they are some day needed.

Even seedbanks aren’t entirely safe from threat. There are questions about how stable and useful they really are for storing seeds and other genetic material, and they are expensive to run. When pressures rise, questions may be raised about whether a government can afford to maintain a seed bank. The result may be loss of a facility, and many facilities have unique, irreplaceable stocks, representing a world of lost possibilities and missed potential.

The use of genetically modified organisms started raising warning bells in many regions of the world where people are concerned about genetic diversity in crops, particularly in areas where there are wild stocks of currently domesticated plants. Ecologists pointed out that these stocks could be used for hybridisation in the event of the appearance of a new crop disease, if they remained isolated from domesticated cultivars that might exchange genetic material and weaken them. As it turns out, however, GMOs are eager to cross with wild organisms, and the genes associated with genetically modified crops are escaping into nature, contaminating wild seedstock, and creating problems.

This is a serious problem, and it’s one we may not fully comprehend at this point. It may be that we never need wild seedstocks, but we have no way of knowing that now. It’s possible that future generations will look back on the way we handled GMOs and wonder what we were thinking. A few missteps may have led to compromises that will have long term implications. Some things, once done, cannot be undone.

The LA Times recently reported on a study illustrating some other unexpected implications associated with the release of GMOs. It’s not just, it turns out, about damage to genetic lineages that might be impossible to rebuild or repair. There’s also a potential for developing what the paper describes as ‘superweeds,’ weeds naturally resistant to herbicides as a result of genetic exchange with modified crops. Develop corn to resist herbicides for the convenience of mass agriculture, wind up with super aggressive weeds that will be impossible to contain.

What’s happening with genetically modified crops is an interesting case of unintended consequences, paired with some very real and important progress. Even as we fear superweeds, we can see cases where genetically modified crops are having very positive benefits, as seen in the case of crops modified for increased yields and higher nutrition value to reestablish food security in nations struggling to feed their populations.

The tension between numerous groups on genetically modified organisms intrigues me—as a consumer, I make an effort to avoid bioengineered crops, for example, while also recognising that all crops, to some extent, are genetically modified. We have bred crops to appear and grow the way they do. I see a lot of very dichotomous rhetoric about genetically modified crops, people claiming that they are either unilaterally evil and horrible, or unilaterally terrific.

The truth lies, I suspect, somewhere in the middle ground. The ability to genetically engineer crops has brought about both good and bad things, and it illustrates the need for strict control, whether in pure or applied science. Whether people feel that bioengineered organisms are beneficial or deleterious, I think everyone can agree that things like the development of superweeds are a cause for concern.

The 20th century has seen a number of critical developments in the sciences, along with the undermining of many of those developments. Take, for example, the explosion of antibiotics, followed in less than 50 years by the development of widespread antibiotic resistance and questions about how to develop an entirely new class of drugs to treat microbial infections. The miracle drugs that saved countless lives in the Second World War are increasingly compromised.

This is not to get down on science. On the contrary, I think science is awesome, and what these issues illustrate is that scientific innovation is something that can never stop. Even as we deepen our understanding of the world, we find out more about how our understanding is flawed, and we are forced to innovate all over again.