politics

Current Issues  /  Mythology  /  PotD
Love And Loss (of rights and dignity)
March 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - love and loss of rights and dignity

We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize the rights of others. —Will Rogers

 

charles i. letbetter - love and loss of rights and dignity

Love is such a beautiful thing, so why is there still an effort to deny people the right to love?

I don’t watch reality television as a habit, so I wasn’t even aware that celebrity personal trainer Jillian Michaels has her own show until yesterday. Apparently she does, however, and having all that production ability available allowed her to create a touching video which she used to ask her partner of seven years, Heidi Rhodes, to marry her. I could be cynical and question whether the whole thing was done just for the television cameras, and certainly, since the show isn’t done live, the timing is ratings fodder, but why choose cynicism over love? The video, which you can watch here, is one of those that can only be the product of a long-term relationship full of ups and downs and tugs at the heartstrings of anyone with a romantic bone in their body. I find it wonderful that they’ve not only had such a great relationship, but that their rights to recognize that relationship through marriage have been affirmed across the whole country. This is progress.

Oh, wait, those rights may not actually extend to the entire United States. Because Puerto Rico is not a full-fledged state, there is a frightening chance that last year’s Supreme Court ruling regarding gay marriage doesn’t apply to the unincorporated state. The federal judge based his ruling on the concept that only fully incorporated states enjoy the full protection of the Constitution and that, by extension, the 14th amendment does not apply to Puerto Rico. This is significant not only in terms of LGBT rights, but the full realm of civil rights based on the 14th amendment. If the judge’s ruling that the 14th amendment doesn’t apply at all, then all the civil rights gained over the past 60 years would not apply either. Maybe this will be what pushes Puerto Rico toward statehood.

Even on the mainland, though, the fight to deny rights to LGBT peoples continues. Democratic senators in Missouri filibustered for 39 hours this week in an attempt to block a so-called religious freedom bill that would, in the name of preserving religious rights, denies rights to LGBT peoples. This is significant because the bill is part of a push in that state to create a constitutional amendment that is inherently restrictive in the name of religious freedom. The bill still has to pass the state legislature before going for a statewide vote, so the matter is far from over. Still, the fact that the denial of basic rights is still an issue is severely disturbing.

That religious freedom would be on the wrong side of human rights is hardly anything new. That Christianity, specifically, has to be coerced over time to accept even the most basic of human rights has been a well-documented fact in the US since the mid-19th century. Christianity has been pro-slavery, against women’s rights (including the right to vote), anti-semitic, anti-segregation, and anti-voting rights, and ultimately found themselves on the wrong side of each of those issues. The fact that the Ku Klux Klan, as hate-filled as they are, is based on what they consider core Christian values does not go without notice.

Yet, even among Christians, there is division when it comes to LGBT rights. I was severely disappointed when the Stockton Leadership Foundation, a non-profit religiously-motivated organization, decided to cancel Stockton, Arizona’s community Easter Sunrise Service rather than include a church comprised largely of LGBT members. How these people can celebrate Easter at all after such a disgusting display of anti-Christlike attitudes is beyond me. The Foundation had never planned on inviting the Valley Ministries congregation, but after that invitation was “accidentally” sent their attempts to disinvite and then further diminish any role of the small 70-member church were more like the actions of the ancient Sanhedrin rather than the teachings of the one crucified with their approval.

Spring is a time of renewal, of growth, and newness; a perfect time for love and engagement and all those cute emotional feels. The ancient pagans seem to have gotten it right, with celebrations that involved dancing and singing and naked frivolity. Doesn’t that seem so much better, to celebrate love, than to create loss by diminishing and removing someone’s rights and dignity? Perhaps, in the name of religious freedom, the answer is for all of us, Christian, Jew, Muslim, gay, straight, transgendered, bi, curious, questioning, Pagan or atheist, to dance naked around a bonfire together. Why? Because when we strip away all the titles and labels, we’re all just human, we’re all brothers and sisters, one species of being. Create love, not loss.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
International Women’s Day
March 8, 2016
charles i. letbetter - international women's day

Whatever glory belongs to the race for a development unprecedented in history for the given length of time, a full share belongs to the womanhood of the race.—Mary Mcleod Bethune

 

charles i. letbetter - international women's day

International Women’s Day gives us the opportunity to not only celebrate women but to consider how we can improve their lives

Today is International Women’s Day. I know that because Facebook slapped me in the face with that notification first thing this morning before I’d even started making coffee. Across the Internet and around the world, today is full of speeches and celebrations for and about women, all of which are designed to be empowering, encouraging, and supportive. Despite all our improvements and advances in society, there is still no place on earth where women are truly treated as equals and given the full amount of respect they deserve.

Statistics time. Here’s what women are up against:

  • Hispanic/Latina women were paid only 54% of what men were, for the same work, in 2013
  • Globally, the United States ranks 60th in women’s political empowerment
  • In the United States alone, despite recent advances, 22 million women still don’t have paid sick leave
  • State legislatures continually introduce hundreds of bills limiting what women can do with their bodies, versus none for men
  • Roughly a third of the population in the US and Europe still mistakenly believe that women should be held partially responsible for violent acts against them, such as rape.
  • Women who work, with or without children, spend an average 15 additional hours doing chores around the house versus five hours for men
  • Internationally, twice as many girls as boys will never start school, ever
  • 70% of illiterate adults, globally, are women
  • Women account for two-thirds of people living in extreme poverty
  • One in four women are victims of domestic violence
  • One of every six women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime
  • The United States still refuses to sign the International Bill of Rights for Women; they are the only major world power who had not done so

Women’s issues aren’t always about poverty, abuse, and access to opportunities, though. Within the past 24 hours, the following stories have littered the media

  • One well-known reality personality posted a nude picture of herself on social media; almost immediately, other women lashed out, criticizing the move
  • Tennis star Maria Sharapova admitted to failing a drug test after a drug she’s used since 2006 for legitimate health issues was banned this January; other female tennis stars were the first to criticize Sharapova
  • Style.com Arabia found possible evidence of one model attempting to trip another during Sunday’s Givenchy fashion show in Paris
  • A woman in Houston shut down traffic after completely disrobing and dancing on the top of a semi truck
  • Even for the one remaining female candidate remaining in the US presidential race, it is other women who continue to be most vocal in their opposition

To say that all these situations need to change is a platitude based in the ignorance of women’s ongoing struggle for even basic rights. None of these situations are new or unknown. They’ve been quite plainly documented for decades now. What stands before us today is not the sudden realization that something needs to be done, but rather the accusation that, in the face of knowing and seeing and understanding the inequalities women face, we have done practically nothing.

The United Nations Educations, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a survey on gender inequality earlier this year. The report is long, but one can read the document in full here. At the conclusion of the report, they offer the following recommendations:

  1. Ensure full implementation of international conventions and declarations in the field of culture in line with other human rights instruments and in respect of gender equality and diversity in order to broaden the creative horizons of women and men, boys and girls, and to ensure equal access to and participation in cultural life.
  2. Strengthen the evidence base through regular and systematic collection and dissemination by national statistical offices of sex-disaggregated data in all areas of the cultural sector: including employment, education, capacity-building, participation and consumption.
  3. Develop and apply gender-responsive policies and strategies in culture that empower all members of society, taking into consideration the diversity of different groups and individuals, and the intersection of broader social factors and inequalities that may compound disadvantages.
  4. Reinforce national institutional capacities to promote equal access for women and men to decision-making processes, financial resources and education in cultural fields.
  5. Establish leadership and mentoring initiatives for female creators and heritage professionals and ensure gender balance at senior leadership levels in the cultural and creative sector.
  6. Support international, national and local awareness-raising and advocacy campaigns that tackle gender stereotypes and discrimination in all aspects of cultural life.
  7. Encourage and involve all members of society in strategies promoting gender equality in culture. This includes working in partnership with all groups and communities concerned to promote sustainable solutions for gender-equal access, participation in and contribution to culture.
  8. Support interdisciplinary research on gender equality in heritage and the creative industries that involve groups and communities concerned, and consider the complexity and diversity of gender relations and the underlying power structures. 

These are all reasonable recommendations. It seems to me that if we actually mean all the wonderful words that are being said about women at all the International Women’s Day observations, then we have to not merely encourage, but force our legislatures around the world to adopt these recommendations quickly. Obviously, that’s easier said than done with a US Congress that can’t seem to get its head out of its ass. International Women’s Day is meaningless, though, if all we do is talk. We have to put some popular force behind creating the changes we need or there’s no point in having International Women’s Day, Mother’s Day, or any other day celebrating women.

If we want there to be any real meaning to International Women’s Day, there must be action. Now.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Strong, Beautiful Women
March 7, 2016

Being a woman is a terribly difficult task, since it consists principally in dealing with men. —Joseph Conrad

 

charles i. letbetter - strong, beautiful women

Our lives and our society would be nothing without the presence of strong, beautiful women

We are surrounded by strong, beautiful women. We see them every day. They are essential to our lives. In fact, contemporary society could not function without them. Even though they still lack full equality in a number of areas, that in no way diminishes the important roles they play in all our lives. Yesterday, however, brought three very strong, very beautiful women to mind and now that I have a few minutes I think it is appropriate to talk about them.

Former First Lady, Nancy Reagan passed away yesterday at age 94. Politically, Mrs. Reagan and I could not be any further apart, but that’s not what made her notable. She married and supported one of the most challenging men of the twentieth century through some of the most difficult circumstances imaginable. Her husband was shot, almost fatally, and she never left his side. When his mind began to deteriorate, she was there, a buffer between him and those who dearly wanted to paint him in a negative light. She stood strong on issues she supported. She fought breast cancer and won. She survived vicious attacks on her character. Through it all, she never stopped being elegant. She never stopped for a pity party. She never stopped being beautiful.

Yesterday would have been my late mother’s 83rd birthday. Mother was a staunch conservative whose Christian belief system dominated everything she said and did. She might have been short in physical stature, but her character was ten feet tall and there was no one on the planet who dared challenge her. I remember when former Oklahoma governor David Boren was running for re-election. The Governor was tall, large, and had the ability to present an imposing figure. Mother marched right up to him on a campaign stop, gave him a look that forced him to bend down to her eye level, and proceeded to grill him for ten minutes on the need for better education funding in the state. She backed down from no one and didn’t mind telling someone what they needed to hear. Being a pastor’s wife wasn’t easy, and neither was raising my brother and me. She managed on a budget that was impossibly small. Yet, never did she lose her sense of dignity and genteel gracefulness. She was always beautiful.

March 6 also marks three years that Kat and I have been together. I had a lot of respect for single moms before having met Kat, but she drove home the concept of women who could manage work, children, and every other challenge of life on her own. Strength? She is a United States Marine. Even though she hasn’t been active duty for a few years now, that strength and determination still show. She faces every challenge with the same grit and no-fail attitude as she would an obstacle course. She’s handling school and work and children, and most incredibly, me and still manages to find a smile, to be there for friends, and impress those who watch her in action. She keeps me going, remembers the lyrics to my favorite songs, picks me up off the floor when I fall, encourages me on the days I can hardly walk, and finds ways to make me smile when I am in full-fledged grumpy old man mode. She’s beautiful from every possible perspective but threaten her family and she won’t hesitate to leave one gasping for air.

There is no sense in which we give enough credit to the women in our lives. These are but three immediate examples of how brilliant, strong, inventive, creative, determined, and beautiful women are. I could add to the list infinitely and if you can’t as well you’re just not paying attention.

Mondays are rough for everyone, we all have challenges when it comes to adjusting from the weekend and getting into the routine of the week. Consider just how much more challenging it is for the women in your life. Not only are they having their own issues with Monday, their dealing with children’s issues, spousal/partner issues, and probably the issues of people at school and work, because it is women who most often end up resolving everyone’s issues, not just their own. Don’t you think it’s about time you said thank you?

And if it’s appropriate and possible, a kiss wouldn’t be a bad idea, either.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Wishing For The Apocalypse
March 6, 2016

The probability of apocalypse soon cannot be realistically estimated, but it is surely too high for any sane person to contemplate with equanimity. —Noam Chomsky

 

charles i. letbetter - waiting for the apocalypse

Our society has reached a point where the disasters of apocalypse are viewed as preferable to the fallacies of the status quo.

12 I looked when He broke the sixth seal, and there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth [made] of hair, and the whole moon became like blood; 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth, as a fig tree casts its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. 14 The sky was split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 Then the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and the strong and every slave and free man hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains; 16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; 17 for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?” —Revelation 6:12-17 NASB

My late father, the preacher, held certain views of the Bible more because of tradition than actual academic understanding of scripture. One of those views was that there is a coming apocalypse from which Christians would be spared by the second-coming of Christ. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of a pre-millennial view. Popa likely held that viewpoint because when he was growing up and going to school in rural Arkansas there was no other viewpoint. It would not be until many years later that he would even be exposed to alternative theologies and when, as an adult, I first approached him with the concept of amillennialism, that there was neither a second coming nor a god-appointed apocalypse, he considered such a thing unbiblical.

Regardless of one’s millennial approach, the universal opinion was always that the apocalypse was bad. That whole thing about hiding in caves and begging to be caught in an avalanche doesn’t need a lot of translation. Regardless of its literal or metaphoric details, an apocalypse was something to be avoided. Worse than any war we have ever experienced, an apocalypse would leave few alive and those few would rather be dead.

Christianity isn’t the only major religion to have an apocalyptic scenario in their cannon. Islam teaches that Isa will return and be accompanied by Mahdi to destroy Christian innovation and convert the world to Islam. Listen carefully and you’ll hear Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak often of the return of Mahdi. Ancient Mayans had an apocalyptic tale as well, though theirs may have come true with the arrival of Cortez on the continent. No matter where one finds such prognostication, the end results are always the same: nearly everyone dies.

When I look at contemporary society, though, the way it has transitioned over the past five years, it seems that we have gone from fearing an apocalypse to actually wanting one to happen. As evidence, let me offer the popularity of the movie, Mad Max: Fury Road, which won six Oscars. It wasn’t all that long ago that such tales were seen as cautionary, a warning to avoid such calamity. With this movie, though, the dangers of the apocalypse and its social fallout are preferable to a tyrannical government. Audiences cheer on those who cause chaos against a status quo in which they feel they have no control.

We would be short-sighted, however, if we blamed everything on government or expected a presidential candidate to have any hope of adequately addressing our situation. Government, like it or not, is a reflection of the people it represents. If there is corruption it is because we, as a collective society, are corrupt. If the government behaves immorally it is only because we have given it permission to do so on our behalf. We cannot blame government for our ills when we are the government.

There was a new article posted to Psychology Today this morning warns against the dangerous lack of empathy in our society. Attorney David Niose makes an interesting observation:

It’s noteworthy, and undeniable, that two antonyms of empathy—disdain and indifference—have become cornerstones of American politics. When outsiders are routinely reviled, targeted for blame by an impulsive population that isn’t capable of rational thought, bad things can happen. Add doses of anti-intellectualism, nationalism, and militarism to the mix, and you have a formula for disaster. Just ask Germany.

The reference to Germany and, by extension, the crimes of World War II are troubling. Granted, we’ve heard such mean-spirited diatribe in political circles during every election cycle of the past two decades. I find it interesting that the further we get away from having leadership that actually remembers and participated in that horrible war, barely preventing an apocalypse of our own doing, the more willing we are to accuse those who disagree with us of harboring the same sentiments as war criminals. Still, yanking the conversation out of the political realm for a moment, Mr. Noise’s observations regarding the lack of empathy are accurate. Without empathy, we are far too eager to destroy our fellow man and we are less likely to care by what means we do so.

I once laughed out loud at the religious fear tactic that one needed to “get right with God” because the apocalypse is surely coming and the Anti-Christ is sure among us and all those who don’t believe are going to DIE or wish they could. Not only did I not believe in an apocalyptic event forecasted by a crazy man on an island some 1900 years ago, but I couldn’t believe that society would collapse to such a point as to allow it. I was young. I was naïve.

Now, I’m scared. Religious extremists have shifted from wanting to avoid apocalypse to embracing it. Those disenchanted on both ends of the political spectrum no longer believe a solution can be found within the system and are willing to scrap everything and start over with whatever remnant survives. Marginalized populations made economic slaves by the greed of corporate demagogues stand ready to blow up factories and sacrifice their fellow workers in order to make their voice heard.

Those wishing for the  apocalypse are almost certainly those who understand the consequences the least. Real life is not like the movies. Charlize Theron, as beautiful as she is, is not going to save anyone. When the apocalypse comes, the majority of us will vanish in a flash and it won’t be because some demi-god suddenly returned but because nuclear annihilation is a real thing. The only thing good to come of an apocalypse is that the overpopulation problem will be solved.

I dislike any policy or authority based on fear, but the pressing threat of apocalypse should cause us all to be very frightened, consider very carefully for whom we vote, and think more empathetically about those around us. If we don’t all thrive together, we shall surely die together.

Boom. Flash. Bye.

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Partial Truths, Whole Lies
February 28, 2016
charles i. letbetter - partial truths, whole lies

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. —George Orwell

 

charles i. letbetter - partial truths, whole lies

When all we see is a sliver of the truth, do we assume that everything else is a lie?

I’ve spent the better part of two hours this morning looking through headlines and newspapers and magazine articles. Through all of it, the lyrics to Don Henley’s 1989 hit, Heart of the Matter, keep running through my mind:

The more I know, the less I understand
All the things I thought I knew, I’m learning again
I’ve been tryin’ to get down to the Heart of the Matter
But my will gets weak
And my thoughts seem to scatter
But I think it’s about forgiveness

  Bonus points if you just sang that in your head as you read it.

For all the bulk of information available, I can’t help but have the feeling that I’m not getting the whole truth about anything. I know some articles, especially those shared on social media, are outright lies. Snopes helps weed out some of the most blantant attempts at deception, but their focus tends to lean toward simply outing the lies; they don’t necessarily bring us that much closer to the truth.

So, there’s a story this morning where the headline reads: Police: Virginia Officer Fataly Shot Day After Swearing In. My heart wants to break; the female officer had left the force for a few years, one would presume perhaps to start a family, and then returned. The story is tragic. Oh, but buried in the article is the fact that a “civilian,” also a woman, lost her life in the event as well. She may have been dead before police even arrived. Her name is not mentioned. The condition of the two other officers shot during the same altercation is not mentioned. A partial story, woefully incomplete. Tragedies on both counts, to be sure, but we don’t have the truth, which makes us susceptible to lies.

Anywhere there is a shadow of doubt, where there are questions not adequately answered, where the truth is not plainly evident, we are open to lies. People, and media, can tell us anything when there is an absence of known truth and even if the pieces to the story don’t fit well, there are always those inclined to believe, no matter how obvious the lie might be to those who stop and think a moment. This is why we have conspiracy theories, because in the absence of complete truth, our minds can imagine anything they want.

We can blame the Internet only in part. Granted, the fact that, once something happens, anywhere in the world, there is a rush to get information online, seems to inevitably lead to stories like the one above. When there is pressure to say something so that a media source does not appear out of the loop, even incomplete information seems to suffice. Yet, long before the Internet, there were shadows in the information we receive.

Don’t believe me? Tell me, who shot John F. Kennedy? The depths of the shadows surrounding that case cause us to question whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Sure, that is the official account, but even in Congressional testimonies there were enough lies and attempts to obsfucate the facts that we have reason to doubt official sources. Minus a sense of the truth, we make up our own: the FBI was behind it, the CIA did it, there was a monkey with a pea shooter on the grassy knowel. Anything might be the truth when we don’t know what the truth is.

Partial truths are foundational in advertising. Would you still buy a product if you know that doing so directly contributed to the deforestation of the rain forests, or that the product had blown up in 57 of 58 lab tests? The only place where “truth in advertising” really starts to have any meaning is with prescription medicines. I know everyone has seen the ad where 20 of the 30 seconds is spent telling you all the possible, horrible, death-inducing side effects. Yet, somehow, for some reason, those ads still work. If the truth that a medicine may cause “premature anal leakage” doesn’t keep us from wanting the product, why doesn’t the truth work elsewhere?

Because sometimes we would rather just believe the lies. When the truth runs in opposition to what we want, we’re willing to compromise. If we want to see a conspiracy, we’ll find one, even if it is totally fictional. A perfect example of this is the anti-GMO crowd. Guess what: GMOs are not only not killing you, they’re probably saving your life. Without GMOs, global food prices would sky rocket, making everything unaffordable, even the most basic of grains. Hunger, which is already a significant issue, would more than triple. Some foods would simply cease to exist. Yet, because we thrive on drama and enjoy believing that “they” are out to get us, millions of people choose to believe the lies about genetically modified organisms, totally ignoring the truth.

I won’t even start on how politicians contribute to and thrive upon partial truths and whole lies. No matter what I say, no matter what anyone says, we make up our minds based on emotion, not fact. We vote for the candidate that makes us feel better, not the one who might actually help the country the most. For that matter, we dont’ really have a clue what would help the country the most. All we have are partial truths and whole lies.

And conspiracy theories.

Watch, the next tme you see someone post a statement on Facebook in hopes that, by doing so, Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates or Warren Buffect might give them money, see how many people buy into the lie, “just in case.” We know those stupid games are not true, but yet they spread like wildfire. We don’t want to believe the whole truth. We know the billionaires are rich and have a history of charitable giving, so we’re willing to take just that tiny sliver of partial truth as a basis for believing a wholesale lie.

The more I know, the less I understand.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Saturday Morning Illiteracy
February 27, 2016
charles i. letbetter - saturday morning illiteracy

Educational legislation nowadays is largely in the hands of illiterate people, and the illiterate will take good care that their illiteracy is not made a reproach on them. —Katharine Elizabeth Fullerton Gerould

 

charles i. letbetter - Saturday morning illiteracy

Illiteracy is the one problem that doesn’t require an act of Congress to solve

I am very much aware that I am a person of privilege. Not only am I white and male, two factors in which I had no choice but still give me advantages that are, unfortunately, not yet available to everyone, but I also have a superpower that puts me ahead of roughly 87% of the U.S. population: I am proficiently literate. Not only can I read and write, but I can comprehend material intentionally written at a severe academic level. To that end, I am one of the most privileged people on the planet.

Growing up, I thought everyone knew how to read and write. Reading and grammar were emphasized heavily even before I started school. My mother, a teacher herself, made sure I started kindergarten already reading at a basic level, and this was in a day when preschools only existed in the largest of cities and were the domain of the elite. Right there, though, was my first advantage. By the time I was five years old, I was already reading better than 32,000,000 adults in the United States. If anything, the numbers were probably higher back in 1965 than they are now.

Illiteracy is one of those problems you may not ever consider if you are capable of reading what I write. Most days, for most articles, at least 60 percent of adults can read and comprehend what I write. I’ll admit, I am sometimes frustrated by having to re-write whole paragraphs to bring the readability rate into line; I want everyone to read at the same level at which I am most comfortable communicating. However,  one-third of the US population cannot read this paragraph.

Not being able to read and write at even a basic level is one of the most costly problems in America today, but yet you’re not likely to hear anything about illiteracy mentioned by the politicians running for office. How much does illiteracy cost? Here’s an infographic for those of you already tired of reading:

charles i. letbetter - saturday morning illiteracy

 

Like many of societies problems, illiteracy rates are worse among non-white populations. While a part of that is due to the challenge of immigrants even trying to learn our often complex and complicated language, the majority exists because reading is never encouraged. If one has not learned to read at a basic level by the time they are ten years old, the chances they will remain illiterate the rest of their lives is extremely high.

Pearson, the global publishing behemoth, produces much of the educational material in use around the world. They understand all too well the challenges of illiteracy. This week, they released a new video as part of the #ProjectLiteracy campaign. Produced by ad agency FCB Inferno, the claymation piece titled Alphabet of Illiteracy is a frighteningly clear representation of how illiteracy impacts our society. The campaign’s goal is to make sufficient strides in literacy so that by 2030 no child born is at risk of not being able to read and write.

I encourage you to not only watch the video below, but share it, and then consider how you can help combat illiteracy. Teach someone to read. Encourage someone who is struggling to read. Introduce someone to your local library. The options are many, the benefits are tremendous. There is no better way to spend a Saturday.

https://youtu.be/U0Ezto8HG_8

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Say Something Nice
February 23, 2016
charles i. letbetter - say something nice

I don’t enjoy any kind of danger or volatility. I don’t have that kind of ‘I love the bad guys’ thing. No, no thank you. I like nice people.—Tina Fey

 

charles i. letbetter - say something nice

We have become a mean, vicious, and cruel race of people because there is no one to stop us

Finding nice things to say can sometimes be very difficult. Yesterday, for example, one presidential candidate said he wanted to punch a protester. News the past few days has been littered with claims of one person disparaging another, someone shooting someone else because they said the wrong thing, and people who are supposed to be leaders outright lying about facts that are easily checked.

Social media is even worse. Descriptors such as, “idiot,” “slut,” and “jackass” are commonplace as people respond to topics with which they disagree. Do the people speaking actually know the ones they’re insulting? No, of course not. One thing social media is very good at doing is encouraging us to participate in discussions about which we know very little. In fact, the success of apps such as Twitter and Reddit depend on us not being able to keep our mouths shut when silence would certainly be the better tact.

Fashion isn’t any better. I am trying this season to avoid reviewing shows that I dislike. I’m fortunate to have a choice in which shows I cover and I see no point in putting myself, the designer, nor Pattern’s readers through the agony of discussing something I don’t like. Not everyone is so fortunate, however. Between shows, I frequently listen to the panels assembled at SHOWStudio. Participants are tasked with talking about a designer’s collection not only for the duration of the show (which I ignore) but for at least 30 minutes afterward. When a presentation is good, finding something to talk about for that length of time can be excruciatingly difficult. Inevitably, the talk turns negative, and at times even vicious.

We have become a society of mean speakers. The ancient advice of, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all,” is lost on us. Instead, we embrace what we consider the “right” to say anything we want, anytime, anywhere, and we think we should be able to do so without any consequence. Should anyone challenge our comments in the slightest, we fire back with some claim of “free speech.” Never mind that what we say may be hurting someone else. We don’t care. We have a right to open our mouths and let filth and disgust spill from them, so that is exactly what we do.

Body shaming has become a global pastime and photographers and photo editors are among the worst, not only in how we talk about models, but how we rate photographs based on the physical qualities of the model. I can shoot two different models in the same location and the same time of day wearing the same garment and exactly the same settings, but the photo of the thinner model is inevitably rated higher than that of the more curvy model, even when both are smaller than a size 6. One of the reasons I rarely participate in photographer’s forums online is because there are too many who have absolutely nothing civil to say about anyone.

Even church isn’t safe. When the Pope and a politician exchange insults, what kind of example does that set? Pulpits have become dispensaries of hate and aggression rather than sanctuaries of peace and love.

As a result, we are becoming increasingly violent and intolerant of one another. The recent murder spree by an Uber driver in Michigan wasn’t a random act so much as it was the physical manifestation of anger and resentment building up in all of us. This guy wasn’t crazy. He’s every bit like you and me, angry at society and the world. The difference is that he took his actions too far, going beyond words and deciding to use bullets the same way he might otherwise have randomly left mean and inappropriate comments on some website. We shudder at the horror of what he did, but are the rest of us really all that far removed from doing exactly the same thing?

What we say matters. Words do hurt, and the example we set with our words has the ability to destory our entire civilization. We cannot coexist in a situation where we have lot the ability to say anything nice about each other. When our first response is one of sarcasm, belittling, and finding the worst even in other’s good intentions, we pick away at the threads that hold our society together.

I’m guilty. You’re guilty. We have to do better. We have to find more ways to be nice to each other. We’ve been mean and self-centered for so very long, that being nice is going to take considerable effort. Turning around what have become instinctual responses is going to take time. Even more, we need to stop accepting such meanness from others, especially those in positions of authority and those campaigning for those positions. When someone decides to be mean toward another, we need to walk away, withdraw any evidence of support, and go elsewhere.

Being nice isn’t all that difficult. We can be truthful without being mean. We can disagree without being insulting. Our words are killing us. All of us. Say something nice, will you?

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Words You Don’t Own
February 18, 2016
charles i. letbetter - words you don't own

Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace.—Buddha

 

charles i. letbetter - words you don't own

Once words leave your mouth, or your fingers, the matter of who owns them becomes questionable and often it isn’t you.

I was amused recently when the driver of a car that was passing us could be seen gesturing rather vehemently while she talked, neither hand actually on the steering wheel as she passed. She was deep in conversation and obviously very passionate about the topic. While the visual observance was humorous, I was also just a bit concerned that neither of her hands were on the wheel as she zipped down the rather crowded street. The whole thing made me curious as to what she might be discussing, but that’s none of my business, right?

There is audio going viral of a certain well-known rapper who recently appeared on the television program Saturday Night Live. The rapper, whose ego is matched only by his narcissism, can be heard claiming that he is fifty percent more influential than any other person and then instructing those within immediate hearing distance, “don’t fuck with me!” Here’s the thing: the rapper was not in public space at the time the words were spoken. He was behind a closed door with his team. He did not know he was being recorded, but not the rantings of this petulant child are scattered across the Internet. There’s no getting them back. You can hear the audio here.

We tend to not give a great deal of thought to how important our words might be, and we almost never give any consideration to who owns the conversations we have, whether face to face or online. When texting your significant other that they need to purchase milk on their way home, one typically doesn’t consider that message profound enough to warrant any type of legal protection. The words are just out there, no big deal.

Consider, however, that one is a songwriter or a scriptwriter swapping ideas with a writing partner. Concepts and phrases jump back and forth between the two, and then, months later, one discovers that the other has used pieces of that conversation in a script or a song without crediting the partner. The next text is likely to be to a lawyer. However, one might ask why one set of words is protected more than the other.

This isn’t a new conversation, actually. I remember while I was still in college, 40 or 50 eons ago, there being a significant lawsuit over who owned letters in a correspondence between a now-famous author and a friend. Both subjects were deceased and the author’s family wanted the letters back because they contained information regarding the influences and inspirations and state of mind the author had while writing different books. The family of the friend did not want to let them go, however, claiming that once the author had mailed the letters they were no longer his (which is standard case law).

So, when you open your mouth or send a message to a friend, regardless of the medium, who owns that information and who has a right to access that information, especially if you’re not around to access it yourself.?

That question is at the core of the FBI’s request, and subsequent court order, for Apple to create software that would undo the encryption on the phone used by one of the shooters in a terrorist act last December. The stance taken by Apple, and vehemently argued by CEO Tim Cook, is that you own the words you type, and the communication you engage through your phone. To that end, Apple has natively encrypted everything on their iPhone with a level of security that even Apple itself cannot hack.

However, laws allow that any communication made in relation to or during the commission of a crime can be used to prosecute those who committed that crime and, especially in the case of what would be considered terrorist activities, to prevent additional crimes from being committed. Therefore, the FBI, with the court’s backing, they have a right to access the information on that phone.

Remember that line in the list of Miranda rights that says, “You have the right to remain silent. If you choose to not remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” All of your words, any of your words, can be used against you. If your words can be used against you, do you still own them?

At the same time, those seemingly innocent conversations can save one a lot of trouble. Let’s go back to that text about buying milk on the way home. That text is essentially creating an alibi for where your significant other goes between work and home. Should a crime be committed in the same area about the same time, that text could potentially help exonerate your partner, but only if you share it. One has to let go of the strict possession of that message.

Even words that we copyright, such as those I’m typing now, we don’t fully own. Copyright law allows for “acceptable use” by third parties, use that does not require my permission. My words can end up used in ways I did not intend and cannot control. In fact, I might never know the extent to which my words are being used out of context.

Here’s the frightening fact: one words leave your brain, regardless of medium, you lose control of those words, where they go, how they are used, and whom they influence. Privacy, as much as we may value it, is an illusion. And words we don’t control can get us into trouble.

Last example: I may tell Kat that I am shooting two people this evening. She understands those words to mean that I’m taking pictures later today. She goes to the salon, then, and casually mentions to one of her co-workers that I am shooting two people this evening. A guest who doesn’t know me becomes alarmed and notifies police. Why? I am shooting two people this evening. Doesn’t that sound like something the police needs to know?

My words, but I don’t own them.

Maybe, just maybe, we should give a bit more thought to our words before we allow them to escape our grasp.

Continue Reading

Photography  /  PotD
I Can’t Show You That
February 17, 2016
charles i. letbetter - I can't show you taht

You have to show violence the way it is. If you don’t show it realistically, then that’s immoral and harmful. If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.—Roman Polanski

 

charles i. letbetter - I can't show you that

The biggest problem with censorship of any kind is that it gives someone else the power to determine your morality

In a small town about 40 miles East of Indianapolis resides a woman who is convinced that everything I do is pornography. I don’t know this person at all. We’ve never met. Yet, because she doesn’t like what I do, she is of the opinion that no one else should, either, and has made lives miserable for people who disagree with her. I’ve actually not heard anything from her in a while, but I’m sure she’s still there.

Why do I care? What she’s doing doesn’t hurt me, personally. I’m okay with what I do, obviously. My friends are okay with what I do. Most importantly, the people who care about me the most, and whom I care about, consider my work quite fantastic and wonderful. Okay, so they’re a bit biased. Still, if there are people who like my work, why be bothered with those who don’t?

Because those who are like this woman enjoy imposing their morality on everyone else. We’ve seen it in every issue: women’s rights, welfare, voting rights, abortion, gay rights, healthcare, and marriage rights. There are always those people who not only are sure they know better than the rest of us, they insist they should have the power to stop us.

Now would be the point at which my closest friends ask what has me on my censorship soapbox so early this morning. The answer is an article in Business Insider about a UK initiative to force websites hosting pornography to verify user’s ages. I know, it doesn’t sound like such a harmful idea at all. In fact, pornography’s most popular website, PornHub, actually supports the measure, which I found, at the very least, interesting (in reality, I think they’re hoping it will filter out some of the competition). Protect the dear children and all that bunk, right?

I have two significant problems with what the UK is proposing.

First is the matter of who gets to decide what is pornography? No one has yet created a definition that stands up to legal scrutiny, for there are always artistic exceptions that would be deemed protected means of expression. Exactly what constitutes pornography? If sites that show belly buttons is pornography, then swimwear and fitness websites are pornographers. If sites that show nipples are pornography, then practically every major fashion magazine is guilty and one would have to be 18 to view the stream of a fashion show. If sites that detail reproductive processes are pornography, then medical and healthcare sites need to be taken down.

The article also raises the fact that elements of porn can be found just about everywhere, despite user guidelines prohibiting such. Porn can be found on Twitter. So, does everyone need to verify their age when they log onto the social media site? Porn can easily be found on Tumblr. Some of the things they show there even frighten me. But if one doesn’t follow those accounts, one doesn’t see that material, do Tumblr users need to show proof of age?

Underlying all those questions is the central fact that censorship allows someone else to determine your moral code. You may not agree with their moral code, but they insist that you abide by it. This philosophy is the kind embraced by narcissists and despots alike. They insist that they are always right and you are always wrong, therefore, they must tell you what to do. They would tell you what to eat (consider the GMO vs. non-GMO debates), what clothes to wear (school uniforms, anyone?), what church or synagogue to attend (everyone’s religion is wrong except mine), and even what vehicle to drive (those using fossil fuels are bad). People in power who embrace such a philosophy would soon enslave everyone in order to enforce compliance to their way of thinking. Most all the terrorist activity we see  today is the result of exactly this type of thinking.

Second, to censor sexual acts, most of which are natural, beautiful, and necessary for the species to prosper, while not censoring violence, which is not natural, not beautiful, and would bring an end to the species, is the height of hypocrisy. If one is so terribly concerned about what children are watching, then why can any child turn on Netflix and watch Kill Bill, or Pulp Fiction, or any of hundreds of grotesquely violent films. Are you really going to try and convince me, with absolutely no scientific evidence in support of your insanity, that allowing a child to watch realistic violence is less harmful than seeing a nipple like the one that gave him/her sustenance when they were infants?

I’m not going to take the time to show all the studies that detail the dangers of viewing violence in media. I just don’t have the time and you’d grow bored at the length of the list. We have known for decades that violence, not sex, is the greatest threat to children, but we refuse to do anything to stop movies, or television shows, or anything else that feels it is somehow more truthful to show violence than censor it.

I would agree that there are some things children shouldn’t see. However, the way to handle that is through responsible parenting, not censorship. Filtering software is available for every Internet-connected device made. If you have children and allow them to use such a device, the responsibility is that of their parents, and only their parents, to lock down that content, and not only control what  they see at any given age, but also how much time they spend on those devices. Studies now show connections between the amount of time a child spends online and an increase in attention deficit disorders. Even the most sanguine of programming can be dangerous in high quantities. Parents, not the government, not the UN, and certainly not any other organization, should control what their child sees and to which media and messages they are exposed.

Even well-intended censorship is still an imposition of one’s moral code over another, it is an indirect attempt to control behavior, which ultimately leads to tyranny and slavery. I don’t think we really want to go down that road. At least, I don’t. You make your own choice.

Continue Reading

Hashtag Philosophy  /  Music  /  PotD
#IfICouldFixMusic
February 16, 2016

If my mind’s not trying to fix something or create something, I don’t know what to do. It just throws me off.—will.i.am

 

charles i. letbetter - #IfICouldFixMusic

If we are going to fix music, perhaps the first step comes in understanding music better ourselves

As predicted, I totally missed on my Grammy predictions. I’ll look at the exact damage later, but I mentioned when making those predictions that Taylor Swift would likely win where she was nominated, and she did. Congratulations to her.

Of course, not everyone is happy with the outcome, as is normal; there are always differences of opinion and taste. What I found interesting this morning, though, is that the hashtag #IfICouldFixMusic is trending, apparently a product of the Comedy Central show, @Midnight.  I thought the topic might be interesting, so I read through some of the most recent tweets.

The list of comments was the typical mix of, “I wouldn’t change anything” and “no more of the stuff I don’t like.” Some of them were funny, most were not, and a few were almost insightful. Are there issues within the music industry? Sure, there always has been. 40 years ago it was the labels ripping off artists, now it’s the streaming services (allegedly). Anywhere there is money being exchanged for talent, problems are going to be part of the equation. Everyone has music they like, genres they don’t like, and most everyone I know has fairly diverse taste. But then, most the people I know are already cool, so that’s to be expected.

It seems to me that #IfICouldFixMusic is best divided into two categories: fantasy and practical. The fantasy side is fun to think about, but you know is never going to really happen. That list would look something like this:

#IfICouldFixMusic

  • Only people with real talent would become famous
  • Concert tickets wouldn’t require taking out a third mortgage
  • I’d be able to find all the old vinyl I had as a teen and it would still be in good condition
  • Cars would not be allowed to have woofers bigger than the engine block
  • Legends wouldn’t die at age 27.
  • Everyone would be born with their own soundtrack, and together they would intermingle to create the world’s greatest symphonies.

I know I’m not going to get any of the things in that list, though. Life doesn’t have an alternative fantasy setting. So, if we really want to change music, we have to look at some of the more practical solutions, beginning with the people who never take to a stage.

#IfICouldFixMusic

  • Every child would be taught to sing, play an instrument, and read music. One never truly begins to appreciate something until they understand it. Music education is fundamental and should be exceedingly well funded in every school.
  • Music theory classes wouldn’t be at 8:00 AM every morning. Too many promising music students have been lost because no one can make sense of counterpoint that early in the morning.
  • There would be no gender bias at any level. Do you realize how few female sound engineers there are? Or female orchestra conductors?
  • School guidance counselors would never say discouraging things like, “Music is already an over-saturated field; your odds of success are not good.” Yes, I’ve heard those words.
  • Access to instruments and instruction wouldn’t be so damned expensive. My parents sacrificed to pay for my piano lessons and college. The price of band and orchestra instruments is too prohibitive for too many people.
  • Community sing-a-longs would be a thing all the time, not just at Christmas.

Many of the problems that music faces start with the fact that our musical foundations aren’t strong. Talented people go unheard and undiscovered. People who could be talented are never given the opportunity to sing or play an instrument. Too many people talking and making decisions about music are uninformed and fail to understand music beyond its sales sheets. Music appreciation begins in pre-school and rudimentary education should start then so that, as we grow, we not only understand music better, but we can make better music.

#IfICouldFixMusic is one of those hashtags that could go on forever with a wishlist as long as the Internet. But without basic early music education, what’s the point?

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Snapchat Is A Portal To Hell
February 10, 2016
charles i. letbetter - snapchat is a portal to hell

The information you get from social media is not a substitute for academic discipline at all.—Bill Nye

 

charles i. letbetter - snapchat is the portal to hell

The fact that we cannot be separated from our phones is disturbing enough, but to not use them the way we want is criminal

Look at the string of icons at the top of this page and one should understand that I am not shy to using social media. I have Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Tumblr, Skype, and Instagram all set up and at the ready anytime I feel their use to be justified. As with many websites, Facebook is responsible for most of the visitors coming to this page, with Twitter coming in second on most days. I have other apps just for social media on my phone, including Vine and Periscope and Yelp. Perhaps most importantly at this particular moment, I have the NYFW app that allows me to view fashion shows even when I’m stuck in traffic. Yay me, I  am so connected [insert eye roll here].

Yesterday, I received an email (you remember those, don’t you?) from my favorite editor at Pattern asking, “I’d love to figure out a way to use the reviews and the photos cross-platform…like on snapchat…do you know anything about creating graphics and uploading text to snapchat?”

Snapchat. There’s an app I wasn’t expecting to need. Instagram, sure. I know exactly how to work that one cross-platform. Pinterest? Not a problem; we can do that. But Snapchat? I don’t have a freaking clue, and with good reason: Snapchat is for teenagers.

Okay, so there’s no age filter on Snapchat that limits who can use it. Still, there are several apps on the market that are primarily the domain of teens and/or college students and I feel no compulsion to pretend I’m part of that group by downloading an app I’ll likely never use. Still, I told the editor I’d take a look. Having done so this morning, I can only come to one possible conclusion:

Snapchat is a portal directly to hell.

I should have known this app was going to be trouble when I first saw its logo. What is that thing? Is it a ghost? The soul of lost Snapchat users? A depiction of what your brain becomes after hours of Snapchatting? An unidentifiable GOP Presidential candidate? I should know better than to download an app whose logo I can’t dissect.

Next, as I go to download the app, a window pops up on my phone telling me all the things this app is going to access. My friends lists. My contacts. My location. My current physical position. The last five songs I’ve listened to on Spotify. My blood pressure (which is suddenly very high). My last doctor’s appointment. The list was so long I had to scroll. This can’t be good, can it? I have a very bad feeling in the pit of my stomach, but I promised I would take a look at the app and the only way to do that is to install it. Fortunately, my firstborn is already spoken for.

Upon completing the installation, one has to create an account. Immediately, I see another red flag: it won’t accept my full name. I’m still mad at Twitter for having dropped the final “r” from my name. I don’t like apps that won’t let me use my whole name because it’s dehumanizing. Not giving me space for my full name tells me they had lazy developers who didn’t want to create a database cell of sufficient size.  I feel as though a portion of my soul is being stripped away from me as I create my new account name: c.letbetter. Sigh. Do you realize how many c.letbetters there are in this world?

Once my account is set up, with both email and phone confirmation, Snapchat then asks me to create a profile picture. Now, normally, this isn’t a problem. I have a set of images sized specifically for social media profiles. After all, I’ve done this enough we should be experienced, right? No. This is Snapchat. There’s no warning what is about to happen. There’s no option to upload your own picture. No, you press a button, the app counts down from three and then this happens (warning: those with weak stomachs  or heart conditions may want to scroll down very rapidly):

charles i. letbetter - snapchat is a portal to hell

The most frightening thing I’ve seen in a long time.

Mind you, there is no option for editing out the bags under my eyes. There is no filter available. No, you just get a picture of me at 4:00 AM. At least, it should keep small children from accidentally adding me. We can only hope.

Next, they tell you that everything you do on Snapchat is in the moment. There’s no saving it for later. There’s no keeping it as a reference for what someone said or did. You create the Snapchat, someone sees it, and it’s gone. Hellooooooo trouble. This is probably why only teenagers use this damn thing; they’re not old enough yet to understand the need to save correspondence, even when it seems trivial at the moment. Snapchat opens the door to he-said-she-said arguments that are unsolvable because the whole record of the exchange is deleted. Sure, someone could always take a screenshot, but then faking a screenshot is rather easy.

Without evidence of any content, the door is open for all manner of malfeasance. One might share top secret information. An Apple employee in Ireland could let a hacker see their login info (for which hackers are paying a reported $10K). Vermin could run for President (oops, that one already happened). Your girlfriend could accidentally send nude pics to your mother. Just think of the horrors that could ensue!

Of course, all that is assuming that people add you. One cannot send a Snapchat to those who have not added them. Still, the more I’m reading about Snapchat hacking, the more I question just how insecure the whole platform may be.

There’s no question in my mind now that Snapchat is a portal to hell. And I still don’t have a clue how to cross-promote with it. NYFW starts tomorrow. Contact me the old fashioned way if you know how to solve this problem.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Disaster In The Making
February 7, 2016
charles i. letbetter - disaster in the making

Even with all our technology and the inventions that make modern life so much easier than it once was, it takes just one big natural disaster to wipe all that away and remind us that, here on Earth, we’re still at the mercy of nature.—Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

charles i. letbetter - disaster in the making

Zika is one of those diseases that, unless we find a treatment, could unravel the fabric of society

I have been watching over the past few days as the specter of snow looms over tomorrow’s forecast. As much as a heavy snowfall has the potential to really mess up my schedule for this week, that may be exactly what we need. With our winter, to date, having been so very mild and comfortable, there hasn’t been enough snow and freezing temperatures to do what winter does best: kill bug larvae. Unfortunately, we’re likely to get little more than a dusting tomorrow, or so it seems. Our portion of the Midwest has missed the blizzards and the sub-zero temperatures that usually help keep the insect population in check. I’m beginning to worry. We could use a minor disaster to prevent a major one.

The problem isn’t all bugs, of course. The danger the lurks in the coming of Spring is a common nuisance: mosquitoes. We fight them every year and the wetter the spring the more challenging that battle becomes. For most people in the United States, they’re little more than a nuisance, but this year they hold the potential to bring society to its knees as they may be carrying a deadly disease known as Zika.

This past Monday, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Zika a public health emergency. Such a move is fairly rare as it raises warnings that affect economies and social practices. Even in this statement, the WHO was been accused of playing politics in not putting a restriction on travel to affected areas by pregnant women. Why? Because ground zero for the disease is currently Brazil, the country hosting this summer’s Olympic games. Any level of travel restriction (which the US implemented last month ) could devastate Brazil’s already shaky economy. Yet, the risk to pregnant women is severe, and not exactly welcoming for anyone else.

While pregnant women and their unborn fetuses have been the primary focus of those attempting to corral the disease, Zika can affect anyone. Most healthy people would experience the all-too-common symptoms for about a week and not know what was the cause. Fever, rash, joint pain, red eyes, and perhaps a headache are the most common symptoms and most people who contract the disease never need to see a doctor or go to the hospital. They can wait out the symptoms, which last about a week, and be fine. So, what’s the big deal? Why are we worried?

Because Zika has the ability to do so much more. While mosquitoes remain the primary means of transmitting the disease, having sex with anyone currently infected with Zika can also spread the disease to an uninfected partner. Not everyone whose bloodstream is infected will present symptoms and while, for most people, the disease only stays in the bloodstream about a week, it can hang around longer without the host being aware of its presence. The one case of Zika that has occurred in the US was spread through sexual contact with an infected person. As we’ve seen with other sexually transmitted diseases, once the spread begins it can be difficult to stop.

Where Zika becomes a real disaster is in the effect it has on unborn children. Zika appears to affect the development of the head and brain, resulting in something called Microcephaly. There is no treatment that diminishes the effects. There is no cure. Children born with the disease are disabled for life and will never be able to care for themselves. Seizures, loss of hearing and/or sight, balance difficulty, and difficulty swallowing are among the dangers faced by children with microcephaly.

As if affecting children wasn’t bad enough, the great social disaster could be in how to respond, especially for pregnant women. Already, women in affected countries, most of which are in heavily Catholic South America, are beginning to re-think their stance on abortion, which not only puts them at odds with the church, but in most South American countries, such as Brazil, abortion is illegal except under the most extreme circumstances. The Church also forbids the use of any form of birth control, including condoms, which could contribute to the further spread of the disease.

Already, the United Nations has issued a statement urging “the repeal of laws and policies that restrict access to sexual and reproductive health services.” Here is where the disaster threatens to do the most damage. While few debate the need to curb the disease with medicine and science, when the most readily available means of prevention collides with religious beliefs, people are ready to go to war to protect what they consider their religious duty. Even in the United States, women’s reproductive rights are a hotbed of controversy, with Congress repeatedly attempting to defund women’s care providers, specifically Planned Parenthood, because of their willingness to provide various methods of birth control. Given that this is a presidential election year with passions already running high at both political extremes, this could be the disaster the ultimately leads to domestic violence on a level we’ve not seen since the Civil War.

Even in the United States, women’s reproductive rights are a hotbed of controversy, with Congress repeatedly attempting to defund women’s care providers, specifically Planned Parenthood, because of their willingness to provide various methods of birth control. Given that this is a presidential election year with passions already running high at both political extremes, this could be the disaster the ultimately leads to domestic violence on a level we’ve not seen since the Civil War.

Public health officials in the US are attempting, for the moment, to downplay the risks, citing effective mosquito extermination programs in the past. However, given that Zika can be spread through sexual contact, and we’ve not yet begun mosquito season, it is too early to be so dismissive. At the very least, it would seem prudent to impose even more stringent travel restrictions to places where Zika is a known problem. The CDC is already urging the use of condoms and other means of birth control as a way of avoiding pregnancy if one plans on traveling to an infected area. Consumer Reports, whose content is normally behind a paywall, has made public a list of mosquito repellants that best protect against Zika.

Disaster could still be averted, but to ignore the threat is foolish. We’re still three to four months away from seeing mosquitoes begin to spread across the United States. For many areas, especially rural communities, measures to fight mosquitoes are likely to require federal funding, something Congress has loathed. If the funding is not there, the risk for disaster increases. If people attending the Olympics are not careful in every possible sense of the word, the risk for disaster increases.

In comparison, maybe getting snowed in for a couple of days isn’t so bad.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
The CDC Is Victim Blaming
February 5, 2016
charles i. letbetter - CDC is victim blaming

You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.—Hillary Clinton

 

charles i. letbetter - maternal instincts vs. the cdc

Having a uterus should not in any way limit a woman’s activity, regardless of what her future plans may or may not be

Yep, I’m going there. While I, myself, can never bear children (for which I am intensely thankful), most of my favorite people in the world can, and many have. That factor is naturally limiting to some degree I suppose. Scheduling get-togethers can be a nightmare when one has children. Budgets are strained when one has children. Fatigue is often a factor when one has children, as is stress and worry. However, at no point would I, or any other sane person, suggest that women should limit their activity in any way, shape or form simply because they have, or might have at some point down the line, a child. Yet, that is exactly what the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) just did.

The assessment comes in Vital Signs, the CDC’s monthly health report and to say it is insulting to women is putting it mildly. Even the CDC’s press release is offensive when, right off the bat, it states: “Sexually active women who stop using birth control should stop drinking alcohol, but most keep drinking.” Yes, you read that correctly. It is the CDC’s opinion that, should you have any ability to have children, then you should either be on birth control or not drink. Ever.

What many women find especially offensive, and I wholeheartedly support their outrage, is this infographic the CDC released with the report:

Maternal Instincts versus the CDC

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Now, let’s be totally fair before we go off flaming the entire report. Yes, fetal alcohol syndrome is a totally preventable problem and yes, women who continue drinking heavily during the first 4-6 weeks of pregnancy, when not everyone knows they’re pregnant, is a problem. And yes, if one is intentionally trying to get pregnant, then abstaining from alcohol is just one of a very long list of adjustments one makes. Those portions of the report are based upon real science and are backed with several years of empirical scientific evidence.

However, not all the statements in the report are weighted equally. Much of the information related to women who are not pregnant is a derivation of data collected by the National Survey of Family Growth. Surveys, while useful for studies of social behavior at a given point in time, are not science. They can be flawed in hundreds of different ways from the type of questions asked, to the tone of voice used by the person asking, to how participants are chosen. Under no circumstances should the results of such surveys ever be considered anything more than opinion, not fact. Yet, that is exactly the error the CDC has made. As a result, they come up with some really offensive and scientifically unsupportable statements.

I’m running almost 48 hours late with my response here. What angers me is the inference that women who drink are sexually irresponsible. Such an attitude feeds directly into the infuriating rape culture which we screamed about yesterday. Anyone who takes advantage of a woman who is drunk or otherwise impaired is committing rape. Women who are drunk cannot give informed consent for sex and should, therefore, be left alone! To blame women for pregnancy or the transmission of disease during the course of a rape is wholly and unapologetically immoral ! Way to blame the victim, CDC.

Understandably, condemnation of the report, and especially that damn infographic, has been swift and severe. Here are a few you might want to read:

Yes, we understand what the CDC is trying to do in eliminating any chance of fetal alcohol syndrome. But so much of what they are recommending in this report actually relies not merely on abstinence from alcohol, but regular medical screenings and readily available birth control, something the US Congress has repeatedly attempted to make impossible by defunding Planned Parenthood. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways folks. If you want healthy babies, you have to fund health care for mommies, especially those at greatest risk.

We should also mention that women who might be planning to become pregnant are already concerned about the Zika virus, which is still new but poses a potentially greater threat. Can we expect the CDC to also suggest that women who don’t use bug spray are equally irresponsible?

Fetal alcohol syndrome is a problem, we get that, but I would challenge that victim blaming and perpetuation of the rape culture is an even larger problem that affects the health of both women and children far more substantially than does drinking alcohol. Blaming women for rape and sexual assault, which this report inherently does, is inexcusable. Shape up, CDC. Use science and abandon the good ol’ boy mentality that is dangerous to women.

Continue Reading

Fashion
NYFW: One Week To Go
February 4, 2016
charles i. letbetter - NYFW one week out

“I can handle crazy, but this is like a whole new batch of crazy.”—Overheard at NYFW

 

charles i. letbetter- NYFW ONE WEEK OUT

NYFW is only one week away!!

One week from today, the madness better known as #NYFW starts at The Dock with Nicholas K at 9:00 AM. From that point forward, we will spend the next four weeks carefully watching fashion show after fashion show after fashion show. Those that impress us the most we will review for Pattern. Those that don’t impress (which will be the majority) we’ll likely ignore. Those that are truly horrible, and that does occasionally happen, we’ll trash in the hopes that, like Mark & Estel, they don’t return next season (actually, we are beginning to wonder if Mark & Estel are going out of business. Their website hasn’t been updated since immediately after NYFW last year and no new collections have been added.).

With only a week left to prepare, we’re anxiously watching for any major announcements, especially should someone such as Hedi Slimane announce that they’re leaving their current label. For many designers, contract negotiations come down to the wire about now and it’s not at all unusual to see some of those fail right before a designer’s final show. So, here’s a quick look at the major topics we’re looking at for the moment, all of which are subject to change should something bigger come along.

Diversity is still an issue. We’ve talking about the lack of diversity the past two seasons, and last season (shown in September) was better than the one before it. Still, the early word from agents and casting directors is that very little is going to change from last season. That means we’ll still have an overabundance of runway presentations where two or three models of color appear only as tokens. What will it really take to change the status quo? Major editors and buyers staying away, which they’re not inclined to do. No one wants to accidentally miss a breakout line, so they put up with horrible behavior on the part of designers and fail to hold them accountable. When so much of fashion’s core demographic is any color but white, you’d think designers would do a better job of playing to a multi-ethnic audience. Unfortunately, this doesn’t look to be the season we see significant change.

How old is that model? Russian model Kristina Pimenova has done an editorial for Vogue Italia and campaigns for Armani, Gap, and DSquared² juniors lines. Her career is so hot at the moment that she just moved to LA. She’s ten years old. Yes, you read that correctly. Ten. While child labor and child modeling laws in Europe limit the age of runway models, there are no such restrictions at NYFW. While the CFDA strongly discourages the use of models under the age of 15, they have little recourse should a designer decide to not follow those rules. With the current editorial trend being toward young and younger models, there is more than a little concern that some may attempt to slip younger girls into the mix. This can be very  difficult to catch, though, so we may not know until it’s too late to do anything about the situation.

Challenges in the contemporary market. If you’re not sure which labels classify as contemporary, think Theory, Alexander Wang, 3.1 Philip Lim, and Public School. Those and other brands rely less on traditional silhouettes and focus more on styles and designs that are more modern, and often more urban, than what we get from older houses. We tend to think of contemporary brands as more cutting-edge and trend-setting, but that doesn’t always translate well when it comes time to fill store shelves. Shoppers want clothes that are distinct, but at the same time they want looks with which they are comfortable. They’re also wanting deeper discounts, such as the pricing they get from fast fashion. Supply is currently outstripping demand and same-store sales have declined dramatically. We’re expecting contemporary labels to step up the high-end game a bit more this season in an effort to woo those more traditional designer shoppers.

Zoolander references everywhere you look. It is no mistake the movie Zoolander2 opens next Friday, the day after NYFW begins. Cross-marketing between the movie and the fashion world is excessively strong and multiple designers cooperated in the making of the movie, including cameo appearances by more than a few. As a result, catching the direct and indirect Zoolander references is likely to become something of a game. The only problem is, with the NYFW schedule so very, very full, who has time to stop and go see a movie?

Who are all these new people? Looking through the NYFW schedule, there are new names on almost every day. While there are always some major designers, such as Marc Jacobs, who show off-site and off-schedule, there are more than a few recognizable names missing from this season’s lineup. In their place are not only a larger-than-usual collection of new designers, we’re seeing more group and retail shows signing up for presentations as well. Kids Rock! hits the catwalk Thursday night, Fashion Hong Kong shows Friday afternoon, Asian Fashion Collection hits Sunday at noon, and the much anticipated JD.com show is next Wednesday at 7. For those not familiar, JD.com is China’s largest online retailer and their presence at NYFW is notable. We’ll be watching the newcomers very carefully and won’t hesitate to lavish praise on those who do especially well. Who knows, we may even find a new favorite!

Still being a week out means there’s plenty of time for additional issues and concerns to pop up as well. We’re trying to find reasons to get excited for what has recently been the most boring month imaginable. Let’s cross our fingers and hope this season is an exciting one!

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Rape Is NOT Masculine
February 4, 2016

It seems that whatever we do is somehow beyond reproach – murder, rape, drunk driving – as long as we go on a TV show and apologize.— Eric Stoltz

 

charles i. letbetter - rape is not masculine

Rape is not a right of gender. Rape is not a right of marriage. Rape is not right. Ever.

I’m relatively certain that every woman I’ve met in the past 30 years, with maybe one or two exceptions, has been the victim of sexual violence at some point in her life. Don’t think for a second that such a statistic comes because I hang out with “that kind” of women, whatever “that kind” may be in your mind. Quite to the contrary. Women from every walk of life, religious or not, cautious or not, across every socio-economic status, across every level of education, are victims of sexual violence.

You work with them, these women who are victims. They hand you your morning coffee. They check you out at the grocery. They handle your tech support calls, your banking problems, your investments and insurance, your pious donations, and even the porn subscription you claim isn’t really yours. They sit as members of Congress, the chief executives of major corporations, and maybe even your own boss.

These women have been made victims at the hands of fathers, grandfathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, boyfriends, husbands, customers, co-workers, classmates, bosses, church workers, pastors and priests and many others who all, for some stupidly insane reason, thought they had the “right” to violate someone in the most intimate of ways possible. We have perpetuated a culture where some find it acceptable to use drugs or alcohol to coerce a young woman into sex. We have created a deplorable society wherein it is the victim, not the perpetrator, who is shamed and blamed. And being the male-dominated society we still are, we pass laws so that our sins can go without punishment.

I have been sickened over the past several years as elected officials and those running for office, those who are chosen to represent all the people, have attempted to justify rape in order to avoid funding healthcare for women. Just a few of their statements (verified by Snopes) include:

“Rape is kinda like the weather. If it’s inevitable, relax and enjoy it.” Clayton Williams (R-TX) 24 March 1990

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that thing down.” Todd Akin (R-MO) 19 August 2012

“Rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.” Rick Santorum (R-PA) former US Senator and, until yesterday, presidential candidate. 20 January 2012

“Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Richard Mourdock (R-IN) 23 October 2012

“If a woman has (the right to an abortion), why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman? At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t (in most cases) result in anyone’s death.”  Lawrence Lockman (D-ME) February 2014

There also seems to be a problem among professional athletes, many of whom accept plea deals for lesser charges rather than face up to the consequences of what they’ve done. Among those convicted for sexual assault are:

Kevin Allen, Philadelphia Eagles, released after 33 months

Thomas “Hollywood” Henderson, Dallas Cowboys, released after 28 months

Darren Sharper, retired NFL, lifetime probation

Nate Webster, retired NFL, 12 years

Milton Bradley, Major League Baseball, 2 years and 230 days imprisonment, plus 400 hours of community service

Chad Curtis, Major League Baseball, 7-15 years

Mel Hall, Major League Baseball, 45 years, charges involved children

Tom Payne, Atlanta Hawks (NBA), multiple counts, 15 years to life

Ruben Patterson, Seattle Supersonics, served 15 days.

Mike Tyson, boxing, served three years

Bob Hewitt, tennis, served six years of an eight-year sentence.

If that list feels short and dated, it is. Many athletes now avoid conviction by agreeing to enter some form of treatment, which further diminishes the severity of their crime. The problem is severe, but those in charge (all men) don’t want to taint the image of their sport by letting the public see just how many players are guilty of sexual assault and other violent crimes.

Most recently, and what currently has me beyond furious, is this bullshit concept of neomasculinity, as though, somehow, masculinity needs to be redefined in terms that reward aggression and domination with concepts that are misogynistic and pro-rape.  These jackasses even claim to have rape clubs, though I cannot find any direct evidence of any being caught by law enforcement. The movement is headed by one particularly creepy douchebag who goes by the name RooshV. I’m sorry to say he’s an American citizen, from Maryland, who has this warped idea that rape should actually be legal so long as it occurs on private property. He’s written multiple books on “seduction,” and, until yesterday, was organizing a global meet-up of like-minded douchebags around the world this Saturday. Fortunately, as word of this massive circle jerk spread and protests began to form to disrupt the meetings, they have been cancelled, though he encourages “private” gatherings.

There is absolutely, positively, without any possible exception, no terms or conditions under which rape is justified and it certainly is not masculine. Real men respect women. Real men support women rather than take advantage of them. Real men don’t threaten or cajole. Real men don’t use positions of authority to convince women to have sex with them. Real men don’t call women “bitch,” “whore,” or “slut.”  Real men understand that women have the right to maintain control of their bodies at all times.

We fully and unapologetically condemn the entire neomasculinity movement and the rape culture it perpetuates. We condemn RooshV and anyone who agrees with his dangerous and quite likely criminal methods and intentions. The time has come for real men to join women in their stance against reduced sentences and plea agreements that diminish the severity of sexual assault against women.

Rape is not masculine; never has been, never will be. Rape is a crime not just against women but against all humanity.  Stop making excuses.

 

Continue Reading

Fashion
Fashion’s Failure: Clothes Made By Slaves
February 2, 2016

The very flag of freedom that waves over our heads is formed from material cultivated by slaves, on soil moistened with their blood drawn from them by the whip of a republican taskmaster!—Elijah Parish Lovejoy

 

charles i. letbetter - fashion's falure: clothes made by slaves

Workers who are denied basic freedoms are responsible for as much as 97% of clothing sold in the US.

Update: H&M responded to our article this morning (3 February) by directing us toward a specific statement regarding the use of child labor in Turkey. The statement, in part, reads:  “In accordance with our policy on Syrian refugees in Turkey, we terminated this business relationship immediately.” The full statement from H&M, dated the same day we published this article, can be found here. While we applaud H&M’s rapid response to this issue, there remain multiple garment factories, especially in India and Asia, that exploit their workers and treat them very much as slaves. We are thankful that one company has acted positively, but the truth is that fast fashion chains fuel a problem so large that keeping track of violations is practically impossible.

 

You may want to hold on to your chair. This is going to be a bumpy and unpleasant ride that is far overdue. I’m going to be extremely blunt: if you purchase your clothes from H&M, Target, Wal-Mart, Sears, Macy’s, or pretty much any other store in a mall, chances are your clothes were made by slaves. No, not slaves in the sense we think of coming from the American South in the 19th century, but rather immigrant workers around the world, some of whom are children, toiling for substandard wages in substandard conditions, without the most basic tenets of freedom such as the ability to come and go at will. These are the people who are making the clothes that make the nightmare of fast fashion possible. They are giving up their lives so that you can get a copy of a designer dress for $12. YOU are fueling the demand and they are the ones paying a most fatal price.

Pardon me if I seem a little over-dramatic here, but the rate of articles that have been published in the past three days regarding this subject have me sick to my stomach. We’ve known for some time there was a problem, and many of us believed that there were precautions in place to put an end to some of the worst conditions in places like Bangladesh, but that’s not happening. Any company that is claiming they regularly inspect their suppliers for human rights violations is either lying or, themselves, being lied to.

The Guardian has documented cases where Syrian refugees in Turkey, some as young as twelve years old, are working illegally in the garment industry there, with painfully low wages that cannot provide safe living conditions, and work conditions that are dangerous. There is little question that these people are essentially slaves. While the article focuses on clothes destined for European markets, be quite sure that some of those same suppliers are generating clothes for the American discount market as well.

Quartz magazine reported that some workers in Bangalore, India, working in shops that produce clothing for H&M, Tommy Hilfiger, The Gap, Zara, and many others, live in company-owned hostels where they are under strict guards that monitor their movement. Some women are only allowed out for two hours on Sunday to purchase food. The rest of the time their movement is limited to going between the factory and the hostel. Only slaves are treated so inhumanely.

The Guardian also found that, following the 2013 disaster at the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh that killed more than 1,100 garment workers, more than half of H&M’s suppliers there had yet to install basic fire safety measures. More than a third of top-rated suppliers have not removed sliding doors and collapsible gates. 13% had not even taken the steps to remove locks from doors so workers have a path of escape in the event of fires. These poor people are trapped. They are slaves making the clothes that we wear in the US and Europe.

What’s even more frightening is that the level of abuses may be worse than reported. Workers from human rights related NGOs often have difficulty getting a good look at working conditions and talking to factory employees. The Atlantic recently reported on a program called Laborlink that is specifically designed to help workers such as these report employer abuses, but many of the workers in Turkey and Bangladesh don’t have access to cell phones to use that system.

What can you do? Believe it or not, you have options. The strongest move you can make is with your wallet, by not shopping at stores that produce cheap, fast fashion. Stop and think for a moment. If you’re getting a new t-shirt for five dollars, common sense should tell you that garment was not made by someone who is being treated fairly and receiving a decent wage. Where you shop matters. Stop thinking that you need a new outfit for every tiny event that you attend. Pay more for properly-made clothes and buy less.

Another option is the growing makers movement happening across the US. Purchasing clothing crafted by local designers and artisans removes any doubt of who is making your clothes. Not only are you not putting your money into fashion’s slave trade, but you’re helping out the local economy as well. While I can’t speak directly for other cities, those local to Indianapolis can contact the very nice folks at Pattern Magazine for information on local makers.

There are political options as well, but time and space prohibit me from detailing those and, quite honestly, that’s a subject best reserved for some time after the election season. No one in politics is paying any attention at the moment.

It grinds at my gut to think that there’s any chance I might be wearing clothes made by slaves. We cannot allow this practice to continue. We have a voice. We have a choice. Use it.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Dance With Your Own Shadow
February 2, 2016
charles i. letbetter - dance with your own shadow

Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see.—Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

charles i. letbetter - dance with your own shadow

Our challenge today is that we expect too much of others while expecting too little of ourselves

It is still dark as I’m writing this, but already hundreds of reporters and photographers are gathered in Pennsylvania for the weather prognostications of Punxsutawney Phil. The 130-year-old tradition, much like last night’s Iowa caucuses, has little to do with the actual outcome, but the tradition is one we can’t seem to break and, for a day, we are distracted by a myth that something might actually change. In our minds, we know both events are heavy on hype and short on substance. There’s a blizzard moving into the Northern sections of the Midwest, and powerful thunderstorms, some possibly with tornadic activity, will hit the opposite side of that system and move Eastward. Being in Pennsylvania, Phil could actually see his shadow, supposedly indicating six more weeks of winter but that won’t stop the storms from coming. We expect too much from a groundhog.

We are the same way with our politicians. None of last night’s results produced a clear winner. On the very crowded Republican side, no one achieved even a third of the overall vote. As I’m writing, most news outlets are saying the Democrat side is still too close to call, so again, no clear winner, no one standing above all the others. We know the system is broken. We know little, if anything, said on the campaign trail will ever evolve into reality. Yet, we buy into the rhetoric and hyperbole of a presidential campaign just as surely as we do the shadow of a chubby little groundhog.

I firmly believe that the measure of a person is not in the size of their stature nor the poetry of their speech but in the length of the shadow they cast. There is an overabundance of people who stand tall and talk big but whose actions fall quite short at their feet. Interestingly enough, a great number of those people are politicians. Talk is cheap on the campaign trail and it is easy to be boisterous and make promises that are popular with the electorate. What one discovers after being elected, however, is that moving a nation is as complex and slow and difficult as trying to move the Rocky Mountains from Colorado to Florida. To pin all our hopes and dreams on one personality is about as foolish as making picnic plans based on the predictions of a Pennsylvania rodent.

Change comes from those who cast a long shadow. To know who casts the longer shadow, pay attention to where they stand in relation to the light. Have you ever noticed what happens to a shadow at high noon? It’s almost non-existent. Those standing directly under the spotlight, those who seem to glow with the radiance of illumination, cast very little shadow and affect very little change. They are too concerned with keeping the light on themselves and do so by saying what pleases the ears of those listening. Those who stand at an angle from the light, those who buck the system, those who claw their way through red tape, those who spend more time doing rather than talking, those are the people who cast the long shadows, those are the people who get results.

To that end, who best to rely upon to create change, to get work done, to clean up the mess and change the system than ourselves. We are not powerless, and we certainly are not brainless (with a few questionable exceptions). There is much one can do through invention, creativity, and more often than not, good ol’ hard work. If the banking system is no longer meeting the needs of the people, let’s create a new system of money management that better addresses contemporary realities. If global corporations truly cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of their customers (and they can’t) then you have the ability to work around them, create a local cooperative if necessary to achieve the same service in a more responsible manner. If you don’t like how a coffee shop brews their coffee, do as I do: buy a french press, buy and grind your own beans, heat your own water to 150°, and make your own coffee (it really is much better this way). Dance with your own shadow.

You are the one who has the power. You have two incredibly strong weapons: your wallet and your vote. Don’t let anyone tell you that your voice doesn’t matter; people who say that are cowards who would rather complain about the system than contribute to its overhaul. You can do great things. So can the person next to you. Working together, we are invincible.

Yes, we need a strong, central government and we need strong people who can cast a long shadow running that government. Make no mistake, though, when it comes to real progress and creating genuine change, the shadow that makes the most difference is your own.

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  PotD
Living Is Frightening
February 1, 2016
charles i. letbetter - living is frightening

We are always getting ready to live but never living. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

charles i. letbetter - living is frightening

Plenty of events make living a frightening proposition. Whether to hide or stand is up to you.

One of the first things to greet me this morning, besides three very hungry cats, was this story from the Associated Press about Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram burning a village, killing 86 people including children. A survivor, hiding in a tree, said he could hear the children screaming as they died in the flames. A triple bombing claimed by Daesh killed 45 in Damascus.

Business Insider reports that nine US citizens are among 33 people being held by Saudi Arabia on terrorism charges. There are no fewer than five different stories this morning detailing the precarious state of the global economy, especially in China where people are beginning to sneak large amounts of cash out of the country. Britain’s largest lender has imposed a hiring and pay freeze amid economic concerns. Tensions between China and the US continue to mount in the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, everyone living in the Midwest is bracing for severe storms that threaten blizzards in the North and West and severe thunderstorms in the South and East. At the same time, all eyes are on Iowa today as people there caucus in the first official act of the 2016 presidential election. The outcome of today’s vote could seriously impact who is still running tomorrow.

No one ever said that living is easy; we don’t expect it to be so. At the same time, however, no one told us that living was going to be so incredibly frightening. Even as I’m sitting here writing, Kat read to me a story of a man who, fearing that there might be a shooter at the movie theater, carried his own weapon to the show, whereupon he accidentally shot another person in the shoulder. Even when fleeing our fears, living is fraught with danger.

Add to everything else the fact that this is a Monday and one might question whether it is even safe to get out of bed.

All my life, and probably all of yours, we have been told we should be living our lives to the fullest. While that platitude sounds good, how we define a “full” life is a matter of great subjectivity and the nature of one’s pursuit of that “full” life can introduce one to some rather severe circumstances threatening your very existence, not to mention severely diminishing how “full” one’s state of living might be.

For example, I know some truly wonderful, giving people who have dedicated their lives to helping better the living conditions of people in third world countries. While the lack of basic resources makes those situations difficult, they feel their lives are fulfilled in helping others. What we’ve seen in recent years, however, is that terrorist groups, specifically Boko Haram, targeting NGOs and aid workers with bombs and brutal killings. Terrorists are only able to control out of fear and the preventing anyone from providing help or assistance keeps that fear level high. Just wanting to help people can make one a target.

Even people who are simply trying to eke out a modest living and prepare for old age with moderate investments have reason to fear. China arrested 21 people in a $7.6 billion Ponzi scheme this morning. US investors, again mostly individuals saving for retirement, have been victims of similar schemes as well, such as the Bernie Madoff scheme uncovered a couple of years ago.

I realize that this is typically the point in the article where I’m supposed to offer encouragement, give a “go-get-em” conclusion that encourages everyone to stand up, take the bull by the horns, stare down the serpent, and claim dominance over one’s life. I’m not going to do that this morning, though, because it’s just not realistic. There are things in and around our lives which we legitimately need to fear. Everything does not work out for good. Life is not a bowl of cherries nor a box of chocolates. Sorry, but sometimes all we get is a box of rocks.

Yes, we need to respond to life’s dangers with determination and aggressive action. Cowering in a corner doesn’t help matters at all. But it’s difficult to stand up and face an enemy one can’t see coming, and for many of the dangers we face there’s no advance warning system. When one gets on an airplane, there can be no absolute guarantee that it won’t blow up somewhere over Michigan. While the odds are in your favor, the danger is still there and there’s not a lot, if anything, one can do to prevent whatever is going to happen. Winter storm Kayla? Yeah, go ahead and “stand up” to that blizzard. Buy all the milk and bread. That won’t stop the snow and the wind.

Living is frightening. Dangers are real. The best I can offer is to be your friend as we face the challenges together. Maybe we’ll make it, maybe we won’t. Either way, know that we’ll always be for you.

Good luck, and good living.

 

Continue Reading

PotD  /  Social Commentary
Sleeping Through Sunday
January 31, 2016
charles i. letbetter - sleeping through sunday

I have never taken any exercise, except sleeping and resting, and I never intend to take any.—Mark Twain

 

charles i. letbetter - sleeping through sunday

None of us are sleeping as much as we should. Going back to bed may be the healthiest thing you do

I would dearly love to be sleeping right now, truly I would. Unfortunately, my body has conditioned itself to wake up at this ungodly hour, while everyone else is still sleeping, so that I can actually get some work done before the world starts getting noisy. As a result, to sleep even past 6:00 AM is a luxury rarely afforded these days. I’m not the only one, though. For the past four years, doctors have been warning that we’re not sleeping enough. Cases of insomnia are on the rise. Sure, there are sleeping pills that help some, but those also bring the chance of abuse and, in some cases, addiction. The problem isn’t just limited to the US, either. The whole world is having trouble sleeping.

What causes us to have so much trouble falling asleep and staying that way? There are a number of issues, of course, but the three most common to our contemporary first-world lifestyles are:

  1. Lack of proper diet and exercise
  2. Worrying about events we cannot control
  3. Looking at our smartphones in bed

That third one, of course, is new, and largely limited to people in industrialized nations. In places where 24-hour wifi isn’t quite so prevalent, concerns over personal/family safety take the third spot, which is certainly understandable. In the US, especially, we have a problem putting down our phones even to sleep. Whether it’s playing some silly game, browsing the latest cat memes, or actually reading something worthwhile, we rarely turn off our phones. Making matters worse, recent studies indicate that the light emitted by our phones is bright enough that our brains mistake it for daylight so that the little trigger telling us to go to sleep gets turned off.

Such insomnia is not totally new. Throughout the twentieth century, there were plenty of things keeping our parents and grandparents awake at night. In the early part of that century, we feared becoming involved in a European war, so much so that we were almost too late to help, Then came the Great Depression and I’m not sure anyone slept much. Homelessness, poverty, unemployment, and hunger all have a way of keeping a person up at night. Then, from 1936 on, the threat of a second European war became a worry and those who remembered the first one were especially sleepless. The 1940s were a decade of war and no one sleeps well through that. Troops were back home for most of the 1950s, but the Cold War set in hard and the Red Scare had Americans wondering whether their neighbors and co-workers might be communists. Air raid drills were common in schools, making sure children didn’t sleep well, either.

By the 1960s, parents worried about war in Southeast Asia, violence around the growing Civil Rights movement, and an exploding drug problem. 1972 crushed our faith in government. 1974 introduced us to the worries of inflation. By 1979, we looked at the Middle East as our newest enemy and worried how to keep them in check. Fear of nuclear annihilation reached its peak in the 80s and we responded to any and every threat by attempting to outlaw it, sending more people to jail than the prison system could handle, most for non-violent offenses. By the 90s economics were again a major fear and this thing called the Internet threatened to change the very fabric of our society.

Society is too complex for us to not find things to worry about. My current personal list of immediate concerns is about 20 items deep, and that’s with me trying to be positive. I refuse to be pollyannish and say everything’s going to be alright. The fact that we’re not sleeping like we should is itself a warning that no, everything may yet go to hell in a handbasket.

So, why are we not sleeping through Sundays, every Sunday? I challenged my father on the topic more than once. If one is going to actually believe Old Testament mythology regarding creation, then one has to deal with the notion that, after six days of work, God rested. Throughout the Old Testament, he seemed rather adamant about that whole resting thing and to this day devout Jews struggle with the juxtaposition of secular demands to do things and their religious commandment to not do things on the Sabbath. Spending all day at church seems to me, still, as just as much a violation of that command as if one were working. One does not rest at church, at least, you’re not supposed to actually sleep through the whole thing. My father was never amused, nor moved, by that argument, though.

To me, it just makes good sense. Our bodies, and our minds, need a break. We fill our lives with so very much the other six days, we need a respite to allow our bodies to catch up, re-energize, and recuperate. We need scheduled time to laugh, to read fiction, to have pleasant conversations, to enjoy non-stressed company of friends who don’t care if the house is clean, to ponder, to appreciate. More than anything, we need to be sleeping.

Go back to bed. Chores can wait. Ducktape kids to the wall if necessary. You should be sleeping. Get to it.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Fashion
Sophia Loren Does Family Values For D&G
January 30, 2016
charles i. letbetter - sophia loren does family values for D&G

Americans try to talk about positive family values, although the actual state of things is disastrous.—Vladimir Zhirinovsky

 

charles i. letbetter - sophia loren does family values for D&G

Everyone loves their family, and every family has values; but if you’re saying your family is better than mine, we have a problem.

At 81, Sophia Loren is proof positive that real beauty and elegance never fade. The actress that stunned in The Houseboat and won an Oscar® for La ciociarau in 1962 is still every bit as stunning in the new fragrance ad (please, don’t call it a short film) for Dolce & Gabbana‘s Dolce Rosa Excelsa. Whether she’s brushing on paint while wearing a white button-down shirt or gracefully descending the stairs in a black lace dress, Ms. Loren still possesses the ability to outshine every other model on the planet. Her appearance in the 90-second piece is exquisite.

The move plays right into D&G’s spring campaign that casts a number of grandmothers as the featured models, and that on the heels of a fall/winter runway show that emphasized mothers. Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana have figured out that appealing to a woman’s maternal instincts is a great way to sell clothes to the whole family. You can’t fault them for a unique marketing plan that is working even better for them than it did for Sears & Roebuck back in the 1960s. Yes, you read that correctly; I just compared Dolce & Gabbana to Sears. If you just had a Brady Bunch flashback, you’re welcome.

While all the family values marketing seems sweet, however, one would be naive to think that it is being promoted only to sell clothes. Not hardly. While both designers are openly gay and have, in the past, been in a relationship together, their interview in Panorama last year presented a very narrow and non-inclusive view of family. Specifically, Domenico claimed that there is a sharp division between children conceived and “born to a mother and a father” versus  “children of chemistry, synthetic children. [Products of] uteri [for] rent, semen chosen from a catalog.” Never mind that a very large number of heterosexual couples have to use in-vitro fertilization to have children just the same as a gay couple might. Dolce goes on to say, “I am gay, I can’t have a child. I guess you cannot have everything in life. Sometimes it is beautiful to be deprived of something. Life has a natural course, some things cannot be changed. One is the family.”

Such views clash with what we see in the film as the well-muscled young models helping Ms. Loren revitalize an Italian villa take a moment to lose their shirts and play in the water hoses. Depending upon one’s orientation, this might be gay, or it may be a straight girls wet dream. Either way, it is a strong juxtaposition to the more right-wing, traditional family values tone D&G prefers to espouse publicly.

In the final scene of the film, Loren’s real-life son, Edoardo Ponti, presents a rose to “Rosa,” played by model Kate King, who then presents the same flower to Ms. Loren. All this seems so very lovely as though perhaps leading up to a big Italian wedding (don’t bother, ladies, Edoardo is married with two children). For 90 seconds worth of add, there are family values oozing from almost every frame. Too bad Dolce & Gabbana doesn’t see fit to make room for the entire family. Perhaps they’d prefer all those non-traditional family members shop elsewhere.

Here’s a look at the full commercial.

https://youtu.be/K6pdNpNgmtg

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for family values and I think the commercial is beautiful and Ms. Loren was the perfect choice for the role. However, I prefer family values that include everyone, not just someone’s exclusionary view built upon antiquated mythology. Perhaps, eventually, D&G will find a way to include the whole family.

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Music  /  PotD
When Nipples Offend
January 30, 2016

The secret to success is to offend the greatest number of people.—George Bernard Shaw

 

charles i. letbetter when nipples offend

Policies suggesting that women’s nipples are offensive and men’s do not suggest God and/or evolution made a mistake

I’m rather surprised that I would have cause to visit this topic more than once in a week. Just a couple of days ago, we posted a video from the New York Times and talked about whether efforts by #FreeTheNipple and HeForShe were doing any good. While both are doing a wonderful job of raising awareness, which is a good start, the pace of change in painfully slow in the face of antiquated, hypocritical, and misogynistic moralities.

Just how heavy-handed some entities are become very apparent yesterday when Russian model Irina Shayk shared a collection of images from her recent Givenchy campaign. She appears in the ads with male model Chris Moore. Ms. Shayk is nude, Mr. Moore is topless, but their torsos are pressed together seductively so that nothing is actually showing. At least, that was the intention. Apparently, the fascists at Instagram get their jollies pulling out their magnifying glass and inspecting every little detail of a photo, because they managed to find just the hint of Irina’s nipple in the shadows and took down the photo.

Now, everyone who has half a brain is well aware that the censors at Instagram base their policies on a 13th-century morality that equates female nudity with the very devil him/herself while totally excusing men who do the same. This particular instance, however, is especially egregious as someone has to really get up close and wayyyyy to personal to even notice the hint of areola that can be found in the shadow of this photo. Here, look for yourself:

charles i. letbetter - when nipples offend

Givenchy

At this point, I fail to understand why anyone uses Instagram for anything more than photos of their cat and what was regurgitated from dinner. Sure, I have an account, but there are more pictures of cats and food there than people. I especially fail to understand why Tommy Hilfiger is putting in a separate Instagram pit at his Fall/Winter runway show and Burberry has chosen 16-year-old Brooklyn Beckham to shoot its new fragrance campaign, live on Instagram. Not only do both acts offend legitimate photographers everywhere, but they further endorse the sort of idiotic policies that Instagram uses to continue their inequality toward women!

Meanwhile, someone shoved pop artist Rita Ora in front of the lens of Terry Richardson, who has had more accusations of sexual misbehavior than Bill Cosby, but yet someone keeps letting him take pictures of naked women. Why, I fail to understand. Bill Cosby has been shamed into perpetual hiding, but not only does Richardson roam free, publishers keep hiring the creep! Exactly how this all is supposed to make sense, I don’t know. Richardson’s name alone has the power to offend, and perhaps that’s his schtick.

Of course, the photos themselves are, true to Richardson’s form, quite horrid. Again, don’t take my word for it. Look for yourself:

charles i. letbetter - when nipples offend

Pardon me while I yawn

Not surprisingly, there was pushback yesterday when these pictures became public. Some of the criticism was to be expected, given that the music industry as a whole seems to be in this rut of one artist disparaging another. However, I found it interesting that the Telegraph‘s left-leaning Rebecca Reid, who has supported nudes in the past, totally went off on Ora, calling her topless photos, “A slap in the face of women everywhere.” The points she makes, essentially claiming that Ora’s stunt objectifies women rather than celebrating and supporting them, are valid though the examples she uses are a little shaky. Rita’s appearance in the mag is only to promote her new album, not to express some greater sentiment or value.

And Terry Richardson’s bad photography just makes the whole thing trashy.

Let’s face it: our whole attitude toward nipples and breasts and body parts, in general, is skewed. We can’t have one standard for men and a totally opposite one for women. If you don’t think that approach is wrong, then you might be a degenerate misogynist in need of an attitude adjustment.

And through all this one thing seems frightfully obvious: I need to be shooting more nudes and offend more people. Apparently that’s all anyone notices any more.

Continue Reading

Advertising
Censoring The Super Bowl
January 28, 2016
charles i. letbetter - censoring the super bowl

You know, the Super Bowl is so fresh that every single commercial is even on, you know, some next-level entertainment.—will.i.am

 

charles i. letbetter - censoring the super bowl

Censoring ads in the midst of a program built upon violence seems a little more than hypocritical

I’ll admit to enjoying a bit of football, but, like millions of other people across the US, the primary reason I watch the Super Bowl is for the ads. Rarely do I care at all about the outcome of the game, though I generally hope that it isn’t a complete blowout. What is much more entertaining for me are the increadinly creative commercials that show especially during the first half and at half-time. I watch those ads with rapt fascination and, unless the game is unusually good, fall asleep somewhere in the third quarter.

Teasers for this year’s ads are looking especially promising. Already, we’ve gotten hints from Christopher Walken, Alec Baldwin, Dan Marino, Jeff Goldblum, and Lil Wayne, among others, that have me absolutely salivating to see the delightful pitches coming forth. There are also a fair number of first time Super Bowl advertisers putting up the $5 million-plus for a 30-second spot. Amazon, Bai, Shock Top, Pokemon, and SoFi are among the rookies who are putting it all on the line during this game.

Who we won’t be seeing during a two-minute timeout is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). Their ad, titled Last Longer, focuses on the health benefits of not eating meat and how that, in turn, allows one the stamina to be more effective in bed. Sounds like the perfectly targeted ad for a Super Bowl crowd, doesn’t it?

Apparently not. CBS network censors, working under guildelines from the NFL, deemed the ad too explicit for television.

We’ve seen Super Bowl ads censored before; that part is definitely not new. The NFL takes a very prudish view toward any overt sexualization that might distract from the bone-crushing, concussion-inducing, permanently-disabling activities taking place on the field. Furthermore, we have seen just how terribly upset half-drunken moms can get at the mere 0.001-second slip of a nipple. They’re all so terribly worried about having to explain procreation to their precious little children, but don’t seem to have any issues with open acts of violence being referred to as sport.

Let’s be clear: I’m not a fan of PeTA. I’m very much a carnivore and while my personal sexual exploits are best left unmentioned, I assure you that it is arthritis, not my diet, most likely to limit the duration of my activity. PeTA is well known for their over-sensationalism and this ad is yet another example of that tactic.

Still, I cannot help but fnd it extremely hypocritical that this ad is banned from the Super Bowl of all places. Football is nothing but overt violence disguised as sport. Each year, the devestating effects of concussions and other injuries are demonstrated as debilitating in the lives of those who once played in the Super Bowl. Rumors are swirling that this may well be the final game for Denver quarterback Petyon Manning because of the life-threatening injuries he received and the punishment his body continues to endure. So, we’re okay with all the violence going on for the better part of three hours, but we’re not good with 30 seconds of simulated sex?

Please, tell me I’m not the only one who has difficulty making any sense of this decision. Don’t give me any BS about the children, either. If they’re old enough to watch grown men attempting to kill each other, they can handle a little fake nookie.

There is a time and a place for everything, and I sure wouldn’t run the PeTA commercial during the first two hours of weeknight prime time family comedies. But to censor implied sex while endorsing blatant violence, whether in a game or a scripted police drama, is not just hypocritical but about as immoral as television can possibly get. So, since CBS and the NFL won’t show you the ad, I will. Here you go:

Continue Reading

Music  /  science
Don’t Diss The Astrophysicist
January 27, 2016
charles i. letbetter- don't diss the astrophysicist

Without physics there’d be no Fashion Channel — there’d be no TV. But w/o fashion, physicists might just be naked. Not good.— Neil deGrasse Tyson

 

charles i. letbetter - Don't Piss Off The Astrophysicist

All music is appreciated equally in space because there is no sound in a vacuum

“Stupid is as stupid does.” My mother said that long before the movie Forrest Gump made it popular. Typically, she would say that when a particularly troublesome child was behaving exactly like its particularly troubled parents. Mother also said that it is, “difficult to teach children who are willing to believe everything without a second thought.” She encountered plenty of both over the years, like the little girl who was afraid to sit in her chair in the classroom because someone told here there were bugs in the wood waiting to eat her butt. Had the child been three or four, she would have been excused of her naiveté, but by fifth grade such nonsense, on both sides of that situation—the girl and the brat who was being mean—could hardly be tolerated.

Why science denial has been so strongly embraced the past eight years, after decades of great American achievement across all the science fields, has been disconcerting. I fail to understand why people who seem otherwise intelligent can just randomly choose to replace that which is reasonably proven through scientific process with some myth that doesn’t even hold together as it passes from one person to the next. Such willful and blind ignorance leaves me quite concerned not only for the future of our country but for the survival of our species.

I had seen noted in some obscure reference that anti-science groups such as the Flat Earth Society were enjoying a resurgence of interest along with those denying climate change, but I had always assumed that their members were limited to those who ingested a severe amount of paint chips as children. Then, over the weekend, this guy, who allegedly is a rapper and calls himself B.o.B. makes an incredible post about the earth being flat. The Internet proceeded to perform its version of a brain explosion.

Not being the world’s greatest rap fan, I had to Google B.o.B. and see who he really is. Bobby Ray Simmons, Jr. from Decatur, GA, a suburban town a few miles South of Atlanta. My first thought was, “Aww shit, I bet this is one of the dudes who tried pushing his CD on me in the parking lot outside Whiskey Peach,” but it couldn’t have been. I was here in Indy by the time someone decided ol’ Bobby knew how to rhyme. Still, I had to roll my eyes. Rappers coming out of Decatur or anywhere on the South side of ATL has become about as cliché as peaches and sweet tea, and not nearly as good. I was all set to just ignore the whole situation, assuming it would go away the next time I refreshed my browser. Such stupidity tends to have an especially short shelf life on the Internet.

But then, something rather wonderful happened. For reasons that are his own, Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson decided to reply to B.o.B.’s tweet about the NYC skyline’s visibility over the horizon:

The astrophysicist also attempts to educate the rapper on the way stars move. Bobby got offended, apparently, and one of the things I appreciate about Dr. Tyson is that he goes out of his way to make sure people understand that being bad at science doesn’t make someone a bad person. He posted to Twitter:

The astrophysicist is much more magnanimous than I fear I would be in such a situation. In fact, more than a few people were ready to go to the mat for Dr. Tyson, one of those being his nephew, Steve, who is a “hip-hop MC” and DJ in Philadelphia. Steve didn’t take to kindly to Bobby dissing his uncle, so he put together some music of his own with a track called Flat to Fact. Here, go ahead and take a listen (warning, if your ears are not accustomed to the speed of contemporary rap, you may need to listen multiple times before you actually catch what ol’ Steve is layin’ down):

At least Bobby seems to have the good sense to know when to quit, as he’s gone on to other somewhat less offensive methods of hyping his new album. He seems to have dropped the subject of the earth’s shape for now.

What I think this shows, however, is that the Internet doesn’t take kindly to those who display their science ignorance in ridiculous ways and, even more important, one should never, ever diss the astrophysicist. Ever.

 

Continue Reading

Fashion
Searching For New Designer Labels
January 26, 2016
charles i. letbetter - new designer labels

A designer is like a doctor for a woman. He has a specific job, and if he is doing it well, he will have the gratitude of the woman for the rest of his life.—Oleg Cassini

 

charles i. letbetter - new designer labels

Big fashion houses of the past have grown boring and the fashion world is screaming for something different

While styles may change a bit from season to season, many of the great Maisons of fashion are quite old. Pringle of Scotland began selling knitwear in 1815. Jeanne Lanvin opened her shop in 1889. Thomas Burberry opened a store in Hampshire, England in 1856. Thierry Hermès first opened his leather shop in 1837. Guccio Gucci came along in 1906, Mario Prada in 1913, and, quite famously, Coco Chanel in 1910. After World War II, there was a flurry of activity in the fashion world that brought us names like Armani, Dior, and Givenchy, among many, many others. Fashion is full of rich and interesting histories and more than a few houses have catalogs that made fashion for decades. Houses may go through one designer after another, but labels stay forever.

So, here we sit in the cusp of another women’s ready-to-wear season and two of the best living designers, Raf Simons, formerly of Dior, and Alber Elbaz, most recently at Lanvin, are free agents. They both left major, storied, and old houses without any other label immediately picking them up. Despite their popularity and brilliant creativity, neither have demonstrated any urgency in signing on with anyone, and that vacuum is more than a little disconcerting.

Vanessa Friedman at the New York Times makes the claim, and a reasonable argument that fashion wants Alber Elbaz to start his own line. As delightful as that idea sounds, though, there are some serious obstacles to a designer, even one with the experience and reputation of Elbaz, starting their own label. The world is a much different place than it was even ten years ago and the entire fashion industry has seen a significant dip in revenue.

One of the reasons older fashion houses don’t go away is because they have the capital, both financially and creatively, to weather the periodic storms within the industry. As global economies change, large labels have the ability to hunker down and scale back production if necessary until the retail landscape is more friendly. Smaller, designer-owned labels rarely have that luxury and if the downturn continues we may see more labels close their doors. Already this week, Giles Deacon has announced he is closing his ready-to-wear business and focusing on couture wear, which allows him to downscale and limit his expenditures. Fashion is definitely not a business for the risk averse.

As Friedman’s article mentions, there are some investors willing to take a chance on new designer-driven fashion labels. Renzo Rosso is probably most prominent among those, with his OTB Group parenting  Maison Martin Margiela, Marni, Viktor & Rolf, Diesel, Staff International, and Brave Kid in addition to him personally chairing Diesel. Rosso is said to be encouraging Elbaz to strike out on his own and one has to wonder if OTB Group might back such a venture. Fashion’s largest conglomerate, LVMH, also has a history of picking up struggling designer-owned labels. The problem with a strictly financial-based in

The problem with a strictly financial-based investment is the desire to keep a label going, even after the originating designer departs. While that approach has worked historically, we are now at a point where that attitude results in only one thing: very boring fashion. It has been well over ten years since I saw a fashion season that I felt was as full of originality and creativity as one has a right to expect from fashion. Finance-driven businesses aren’t interested in creative experimentation because one off season can send profits plummeting; they much prefer the safety of the tried and true, resulting in far too many seasons where all we see are recapitulations of the house catalog.

I’m going to make some people hate me, I’m sure, but would it really be all that horrible to start a practice of just letting houses die with their designer? I reeled in horror last season when an aging Roberto Cavalli turned the reigns of his legacy over to Peter Dundas, who absolutely massacred the collection. As much as I love Roberto Cavalli, I would much rather see the doors to the house close rather than become trashed with Dundas’ seasonal disappointment trying to fit his creativity into someone else’s vision. Dundas, too, deserves a chance at his own label, not trying to fit into Cavalli.

We were all shocked when Alexander McQueen committed suicide in 2010, and that act demonstrates just how impossible stressful it is to be a designer. I can understand, given the suddenness of his death, why it was necessary to allow Sarah Burton to continue his work. But should she decide to leave the house, and perhaps go to Dior as was rumored this morning,  what would be wrong in allowing McQueen to close? Why not honor him as the creative genius he was, rather than risking having that reputation besmirched by a designer who just doesn’t fit with McQueen’s vision?

At the same time, we need to propel younger designers such as Public School’s Maxwell Osborne and Dao-Yi Chow. Why should they have to pull double-duty trying to shore up a dying DKNY brand? Why not just put that investment directly into Public School and let DKNY rest in peace? No one is going to bring back khaki jumpers any time soon (I hope).

Fashion is gasping and desperately needs some fresh air. That creative spark is not likely to come from within the creative shackles of a century-old fashion house. We need new designer labels to bring the freshness back into fashion. Elbaz, Simmons, or whomever else is fine with me. Just please, for the love of style, stop re-hashing old catalogs!

Continue Reading

PotD
The Virtue of Silence
January 26, 2016
charles i. letbetter - virtue of silence

I have learned silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet, strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers.—Khalil Gibran

 

 

charles i. letbetter - virtue of silence

In silence we hear the whispers of wisdom

Among the list of people whom I can no longer find, and may well be deceased, is an associate professor of music by the name of Robert Woods. Dr. Woods was a rather unassuming individual from my student perspective, but in January of 1982, while teaching a course in electronic music, he taught us a very valuable lesson about the importance of silence. His assignment sounded simple enough: find a place with absolute silence, and see how long you can stand it. Being cocky college students, we laughed. It was J-term and the campus was more than half empty. Finding a quiet spot would be easy.

But Dr. Woods didn’t say find a quiet spot. His instructions were to find a place absolutely void of sound and when class convened the next day we shared our stories of just how difficult it had been to complete the assignment. So difficult, in fact, that I was the only one who had actually found a place of complete silence: the morgue.

I worked part time in a funeral home. After everyone else had left for the evening, I went into the empty embalming room, which was totally sealed, and shut the door. The experience might have been eery had I not been accustomed to being in the room. There was nothing in there that would make a sound without human intervention, or so I thought. As I settled in on a stool, I soon realized that the fluorescent bulbs were humming. One wouldn’t have noticed under normal conditions, but when all other distractions were removed, there it was: a low but distinct hum. There was only one thing to do: turn off the lights.

Yes, sitting along in a sealed embalming room in the dark is eery. Worse than the dark, though, was the complete silence. Not a sound. I not only could hear my own breathing, but my heart beat sounded louder the longer I sat there. I’d shift my weight on the stool and the shuffle of my slacks against the metal was loud. I cracked my knuckles and it sounded like fireworks. With its ceramic tile floor and walls, the acoustics of the room amplified any sound, but the only sound was that of me, being alive. I stayed for what felt like an eternity then felt my way along the wall back to the door. I had been in the room a mere four minutes.

Dr. Woods’ point had been that silence is a necessary part of music and he wanted us to experience silence so we would appreciate the presence of rests amidst a flurry of sound. Music, he explained, finds its life not in the cacophony of notes and sounds as we might layer them together, but in those brief moments of silence, the rests, especially when unexpected, that allow us to catch our breath.

I can’t say I learned a great deal from the remainder of that class. Electronic music was still finding its roots and our resources, which had been borrowed, were painfully limited. Dr. Woods soon left for a teaching position at a university that appreciated his forward thinking and we went on to do other things that had no relationship to our degrees. What stuck, though, was that very important lesson in the virtue of silence.

Life since that moment in 1982 has only gotten increasingly louder. The reason I get up at 4:00 AM every morning to write these articles is because, in relative silence I can think, put words in order, consider what phrasing best communicates an idea, and pull together stories that are, hopefully, worth reading. Outside this morning, the wind is literally howling and the heater is struggling to keep our house warm, but in the absence of children laughing, music playing, or the whole world trying to talk at the same time, there is a peacefulness that gives life amidst the cacophony.

One of the reasons I so dislike presidential election years is the amount of overwhelming noise they generate. Every candidate, especially at this point of the approaching primaries, is shouting as loud as they can, trying to shove their message through the eye of the needle that is our attention span. Add to that all the sports, not just the impending Super Bowl, but all the cricket and the soccer and the basketball going on around the world. There are ads, and movies, and trailers, and … I think someone has a field trip today but I don’t remember which child. Then, there’s laundry and dishes and I suppose I should plan something for dinner because people do need to eat every once in a while. Pictures to schedule and take and edit. Conversations about books and an upcoming deadline and no I’ve not even started that outline. Did I remember to order underwear? I hope so, because I don’t have time to go out and buy more. Rumors that Sarah Burton is leaving Alexander McQueen and going to Dior, are they true? Men’s fashion in Paris, then couture, then, SHOWTIME, a month of ready-to-wear. And …

So. Much. Noise.

Learning the virtuosity of silence doesn’t happen by accident. Too many people ignore the rest signs. We need those quiet places; in our lives, in our thoughts, in our schedules, in our creativity. We  need space to take a breath so that we don’t choke on our own lifelong diatribes.

May you find that moment, if not now, soon, where you can experience the virtue of silence. May you find Peace. And thank you, Dr. Woods, wherever you are.

Continue Reading

Page 10 of 12