Interestingly the first time I became aware of the controversy was at a work sponsored event at a dueling piano bar when one of the pianists/singers asked for a volunteer in the audience to do the song with him.
But here's what's funny about that to me. I see it as pretty consistent with a long history of paintings of girls with some very mildly erotic undertones (not all of which, btw were painted by men). There are lots of works out there like this from before and after Balthus, and they're all over the map on sexuality. Is that whole artistic topic and tradition off-limits when a cent of public money hits the coffers?
Now, part of the reason Balthus seems so tame to me is I've been lucky enough to see a lot of art, including some where the lines between art and all out smut really get pushed. From my perspective saying this is beyond the pale sounds sort of like someone freaking out about a Bela Lugosi dracula movie while people are in theaters seeing the latest Saw installment. But that's part of art, everyone is going to bring their own perspective to it. So whose sensibilities govern?
You just marvel that those attitudes were once well accepted in polite society.
This is all assuming you aren't unconscious in the infield with soiled pants well before the song is performed, which is the most traditional way to enjoy Preakness.
Oh it would absolutely take the Piss Christ-type controversies into account. I'm thinking less about the politics of particular controversies and more about expectations around who is catered to in the public square/artistic expression, how that is constantly changing, and why. If I ever get my thoughts in order in a readable fashion I'll definitely do a post.
Who walks into a museum without a mental trigger warning of their own??
Well.. I have a theory on that but it would require a lot of defending I'm not sure I'm ready for and where I would need to understand the other side better to make sure I'm not just tearing down a straw man.
Very interesting. It's entirely possible it was on all around me and I never picked up on it. As a kid I went to Catholic school so the Christmas songs were religiously focused and I can't remember it (or any holiday song) ever coming up among my friends as a teenager (of course there a lot of things I don't remember that may or may not be related to activities involving a certain plant).
My parents are also not at all into that kind of music. The old man listened to mostly 70s punk and classic rock and car rides with my mom were either top 40 or NPR.
I can of course see why a cultural artifact with themes that you felt reflected your personal circumstances/experiences would loom a lot larger.
I find that to be a weird position unless you think that there should be no public funding of any kind for the arts (which maybe you do). If every person could exercise a veto the walls would be bare. Personally l, as someone who is generally fine with public money going to the arts, am glad the Met seems to be standing its ground.
So it’s the same thing as ’90s humor; its validity as a mode of expression depends heavily on cultural context and shared audience assumptions, and once you remove those things it just looks awful.
This is a great point and one I think that may be getting lost in the cultural discussion. Let me give a weird example. I did something really shameful the other night. It was late, the wife and kid were asleep, I'd had a few drinks, and I ended up watching Predator 2 in its entirety on cable.
I hadn't actually sat and watched this movie since I was probably in high school, but seeing it now you could almost write a thesis on the racist tropes and horrible cultural representations. Indeed there's a lot about it that is for numerous reasons inconsistent with current cultural sensibilities.
However, I picked up on all kinds of hilarious aspects I never quite appreciated that reflected the time it was made. The schlockey Current Affair-style news reporter, the drug fueled inner-city ultra-violence, the send up to Bernie Goetz in the subway. You can tell that, while the film makers aren't fully self-aware (it ain't Tarantino or Verhoeven), they're playing on and parodying a lot of cultural attitudes that were prevalent at the time and that they expected the audience to pick up on it. So is it a hopelessly racist movie? Is it a product of its time? Maybe both? Either way I'd hope no one decided someone was somehow morally deficient for having a nostalgic late night laugh at it, which is where I think a lot of the Baby Its Cold Outside critics want to go.
I'm largely in the @damon camp, in that I think the controversy around this cheesy old tune seems like a case of people digging really deep into the cultural canon to find something that is #problematic. However I'm not sure that's even quite the end of it, because if it was, I'd just sort of roll my eyes and that'd be the end of it. Opinions on all art, high and low, will vary, and that's a-ok with me.
The impression I've gotten, is that those who do think there's something wrong with it also think that everyone should find something wrong with it, and that those who fail to see something wrong with it are themselves complicit in something bad. It's kind of like the whole Balthus thing that's going on at the Met.
Unless there's something I've missed (and I've been wrangling a newborn for the last 2.5 months so its possible I have), the best I feel I can say I'm convinced of is the following:
1. Figures within the Trump administration had contact with Russian officials once Trump was president-elect. I do not love this but as best as I can tell no one has found anything to show these contacts were objectively more unseemly than other episodes involving foreign officials and presidents-elect post WW2.
2. Russian actors took part (or caused others to take part) in the information wars during the election, maybe directed by the Russian government, maybe not. I do think the Russian government preferred a Trump win, but thats a far cry from playing a decisive role in making it so. The best we've got is the DNC emails and as a transparency advocate I can't muster much anger about that. The dates of the hacks make coordination highly improbable and t's not like Trump's dirty laundry hasn't been all out there for decades anyway.
3. American intelligence services want people to think the Russians played a decisive role in the election whether they did or not. This doesn't mean this is not true, but their agenda is murky, they themselves are often involved in interfering with the politics of other countries, and I find them generally not credible absent making their evidence fully public.
4. Many in the American MSM wants Trump to have in fact colluded with Russia. I think they feel guilty and uncovering something will clear their conscience.
5. American right wing media is the same as it has been since roughly the late 90s, probably worse.
You will note that none of these things preclude a Trump-Russia scandal/illegal activity/general awfulness. Just my view from my couch.
The propaganda sucks but it kind of is what it is. The best you can do is deconstruct it and expose it as garbage. When the theoretically responsible sources start making major unforced errors they do the president's work for him.
I'd second Will on this. I'm not comfortable saying there's nothing there in re: Russia-Trump because of the whole prove a negative thing but I'm hesitant to believe anything the MSM says on it at this point. Too many outlets have claimed a smoking gun of some kind only to retract, significantly qualify, or have some context-altering new information render the initial reports a lot less damning. It's clear that these institutions at least on some level want something to be there.
I pay no attention to right wing news, though in fairness I've been skeptical of the MSM since events circa 2002-2003. Not the same way I am of right wing media, but skeptical nonetheless, and this hasn't helped.
I kind of wonder if a lot of the big networks, news channels, etc. don't feel guilty about the platform given to candidate Trump. Now masks are falling off and standards dropping to push a corrective. It's a shame because the guy's boobery and these terrible policy pushes on healthcare, tax 'reform' and foreign policy speak for themselves.
Yes transcription still exists. Most of the big/rich hospitals and provider groups in metro areas are on Epic or Cerner. There's a middle tier of EMRs of varying quality, but most are being eaten up by the bigger fish. You've then got a lot of poorer/rural hospitals and practices running on MediTech, some home grown solution, or nothing at all. You get a really interesting perspective on American healthcare when you talk to the Podunk County Hospital, and learn about the where they are with technology taken for granted elsewhere.
They've already lost the battle in a lot of states and I think its (mostly) a good thing. There's an opportunity to increase the supply of care without a material decline in quality, as long as the regulation is done right. Hard to say what it does to cost (i.e. does the availability of more providers for routine care make said care cheaper or do those providers increase their prices commensurate with the new responsibilities).
It's regulated state by state. I think the trend will be towards it becoming an NP specialization, especially if states keep expanding the scope of unsupervised practice. I'd be very surprised if anywhere allows someone other than an emergency responder to deliver children for pay without at least being an RN. The criminalization could fall under practicing a profession/medicine without a license.
The typo on the name is mine, not @maribou 's and I regret it. Unfortunately once its been published I'm not sure there's anything I can do to fix it. I would not be offended if an editor put in a correction, nor would I be if they let it stand (they have lives and can't fix every screw up made by a contributor). Criticism of the post should be directed at me alone.
Yes there is. Social media and the outrage cycle make activism harder. Google up any cause and you can find someone affiliated who has said something dumb or crazy. Still there are ways to address it and still be successful.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Linky Friday: Critters & Coffee”
Eliminating the Doner seems like a great way to get the one big country truly committed to the EU to consider leaving.
On “What Are We To Do With Baby It’s Cold Outside?”
Interestingly the first time I became aware of the controversy was at a work sponsored event at a dueling piano bar when one of the pianists/singers asked for a volunteer in the audience to do the song with him.
"
Happy to oblige!
"
But here's what's funny about that to me. I see it as pretty consistent with a long history of paintings of girls with some very mildly erotic undertones (not all of which, btw were painted by men). There are lots of works out there like this from before and after Balthus, and they're all over the map on sexuality. Is that whole artistic topic and tradition off-limits when a cent of public money hits the coffers?
Now, part of the reason Balthus seems so tame to me is I've been lucky enough to see a lot of art, including some where the lines between art and all out smut really get pushed. From my perspective saying this is beyond the pale sounds sort of like someone freaking out about a Bela Lugosi dracula movie while people are in theaters seeing the latest Saw installment. But that's part of art, everyone is going to bring their own perspective to it. So whose sensibilities govern?
"
There's also the convenience of modern mediums/digitisation. We've got a lot more time capsules than we used and they're easier than ever to access.
"
This is all assuming you aren't unconscious in the infield with soiled pants well before the song is performed, which is the most traditional way to enjoy Preakness.
"
Oh it would absolutely take the Piss Christ-type controversies into account. I'm thinking less about the politics of particular controversies and more about expectations around who is catered to in the public square/artistic expression, how that is constantly changing, and why. If I ever get my thoughts in order in a readable fashion I'll definitely do a post.
"
Well.. I have a theory on that but it would require a lot of defending I'm not sure I'm ready for and where I would need to understand the other side better to make sure I'm not just tearing down a straw man.
"
Very interesting. It's entirely possible it was on all around me and I never picked up on it. As a kid I went to Catholic school so the Christmas songs were religiously focused and I can't remember it (or any holiday song) ever coming up among my friends as a teenager (of course there a lot of things I don't remember that may or may not be related to activities involving a certain plant).
My parents are also not at all into that kind of music. The old man listened to mostly 70s punk and classic rock and car rides with my mom were either top 40 or NPR.
I can of course see why a cultural artifact with themes that you felt reflected your personal circumstances/experiences would loom a lot larger.
"
I'm on the Gen-X/Millenial cusp and have no recollection of it until well into adulthood.
"
I find that to be a weird position unless you think that there should be no public funding of any kind for the arts (which maybe you do). If every person could exercise a veto the walls would be bare. Personally l, as someone who is generally fine with public money going to the arts, am glad the Met seems to be standing its ground.
"
This is a great point and one I think that may be getting lost in the cultural discussion. Let me give a weird example. I did something really shameful the other night. It was late, the wife and kid were asleep, I'd had a few drinks, and I ended up watching Predator 2 in its entirety on cable.
I hadn't actually sat and watched this movie since I was probably in high school, but seeing it now you could almost write a thesis on the racist tropes and horrible cultural representations. Indeed there's a lot about it that is for numerous reasons inconsistent with current cultural sensibilities.
However, I picked up on all kinds of hilarious aspects I never quite appreciated that reflected the time it was made. The schlockey Current Affair-style news reporter, the drug fueled inner-city ultra-violence, the send up to Bernie Goetz in the subway. You can tell that, while the film makers aren't fully self-aware (it ain't Tarantino or Verhoeven), they're playing on and parodying a lot of cultural attitudes that were prevalent at the time and that they expected the audience to pick up on it. So is it a hopelessly racist movie? Is it a product of its time? Maybe both? Either way I'd hope no one decided someone was somehow morally deficient for having a nostalgic late night laugh at it, which is where I think a lot of the Baby Its Cold Outside critics want to go.
"
I'm largely in the @damon camp, in that I think the controversy around this cheesy old tune seems like a case of people digging really deep into the cultural canon to find something that is #problematic. However I'm not sure that's even quite the end of it, because if it was, I'd just sort of roll my eyes and that'd be the end of it. Opinions on all art, high and low, will vary, and that's a-ok with me.
The impression I've gotten, is that those who do think there's something wrong with it also think that everyone should find something wrong with it, and that those who fail to see something wrong with it are themselves complicit in something bad. It's kind of like the whole Balthus thing that's going on at the Met.
On “Morning Ed: Health {2017.12.12.T}”
It's insane that's for sure.
"
Unless there's something I've missed (and I've been wrangling a newborn for the last 2.5 months so its possible I have), the best I feel I can say I'm convinced of is the following:
1. Figures within the Trump administration had contact with Russian officials once Trump was president-elect. I do not love this but as best as I can tell no one has found anything to show these contacts were objectively more unseemly than other episodes involving foreign officials and presidents-elect post WW2.
2. Russian actors took part (or caused others to take part) in the information wars during the election, maybe directed by the Russian government, maybe not. I do think the Russian government preferred a Trump win, but thats a far cry from playing a decisive role in making it so. The best we've got is the DNC emails and as a transparency advocate I can't muster much anger about that. The dates of the hacks make coordination highly improbable and t's not like Trump's dirty laundry hasn't been all out there for decades anyway.
3. American intelligence services want people to think the Russians played a decisive role in the election whether they did or not. This doesn't mean this is not true, but their agenda is murky, they themselves are often involved in interfering with the politics of other countries, and I find them generally not credible absent making their evidence fully public.
4. Many in the American MSM wants Trump to have in fact colluded with Russia. I think they feel guilty and uncovering something will clear their conscience.
5. American right wing media is the same as it has been since roughly the late 90s, probably worse.
You will note that none of these things preclude a Trump-Russia scandal/illegal activity/general awfulness. Just my view from my couch.
"
I'm with you on that.
"
The propaganda sucks but it kind of is what it is. The best you can do is deconstruct it and expose it as garbage. When the theoretically responsible sources start making major unforced errors they do the president's work for him.
"
I'd second Will on this. I'm not comfortable saying there's nothing there in re: Russia-Trump because of the whole prove a negative thing but I'm hesitant to believe anything the MSM says on it at this point. Too many outlets have claimed a smoking gun of some kind only to retract, significantly qualify, or have some context-altering new information render the initial reports a lot less damning. It's clear that these institutions at least on some level want something to be there.
I pay no attention to right wing news, though in fairness I've been skeptical of the MSM since events circa 2002-2003. Not the same way I am of right wing media, but skeptical nonetheless, and this hasn't helped.
I kind of wonder if a lot of the big networks, news channels, etc. don't feel guilty about the platform given to candidate Trump. Now masks are falling off and standards dropping to push a corrective. It's a shame because the guy's boobery and these terrible policy pushes on healthcare, tax 'reform' and foreign policy speak for themselves.
"
Yes transcription still exists. Most of the big/rich hospitals and provider groups in metro areas are on Epic or Cerner. There's a middle tier of EMRs of varying quality, but most are being eaten up by the bigger fish. You've then got a lot of poorer/rural hospitals and practices running on MediTech, some home grown solution, or nothing at all. You get a really interesting perspective on American healthcare when you talk to the Podunk County Hospital, and learn about the where they are with technology taken for granted elsewhere.
"
They've already lost the battle in a lot of states and I think its (mostly) a good thing. There's an opportunity to increase the supply of care without a material decline in quality, as long as the regulation is done right. Hard to say what it does to cost (i.e. does the availability of more providers for routine care make said care cheaper or do those providers increase their prices commensurate with the new responsibilities).
"
Expectations have been met and all is as it should be.
"
It's regulated state by state. I think the trend will be towards it becoming an NP specialization, especially if states keep expanding the scope of unsupervised practice. I'd be very surprised if anywhere allows someone other than an emergency responder to deliver children for pay without at least being an RN. The criminalization could fall under practicing a profession/medicine without a license.
On “Thoughts on the Acquittal of Philip Brailsford”
Thank you!
"
@sowokeineversleep
The typo on the name is mine, not @maribou 's and I regret it. Unfortunately once its been published I'm not sure there's anything I can do to fix it. I would not be offended if an editor put in a correction, nor would I be if they let it stand (they have lives and can't fix every screw up made by a contributor). Criticism of the post should be directed at me alone.
"
Yes there is. Social media and the outrage cycle make activism harder. Google up any cause and you can find someone affiliated who has said something dumb or crazy. Still there are ways to address it and still be successful.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.