Thursday, October 27, 2016

Working For Free


Those of you who are artists and writers will probably appreciate this:

"Illustrations of the People Who Want You to Work For Free"

My accompanying thoughts:

If a commercial website/blog is being run or started, I'm of the opinion that payment for writers, designers, and artists who provide content and other labor to that site ought to be built into the business model, and not seen as something that might happen eventually one day if the website Really Takes Off.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Recap Wednesday: Supergirl 1.3 "Fight or Flight"

This episode picks up with Cat Grant getting her first interview with Supergirl. The interview is conducted with Cat wearing a robe thingy and Supergirl sort of floating around her on a hilltop. I guess it sounds weirder than it actually is, all things considered? ANYway, Supergirl has many skills, but interviewing is not one of them. She accidentally reveals that she is Superman’s cousin. Cat Grant being Cat Grant reveals that to the public.

We then meet this week’s villain. He’s some angry, shirtless guy in what looks like a junkyard (Life Lesson #1: Avoid old warehouses, chemical plants, and junkyards). This guy sees an image of Supergirl on his mud-splattered TV screen and seems perturbed that Supergirl and Superman are cousins. (THANKS A LOT CAT!)

Meanwhile at the DEO, the female agent I’ve come to think of as “Alex’s Ex” lets the gang know there’s a pileup on the highway.

"I'm still processing things, Alex."

I'm not sure why exactly I think they're exes. The sleek-yet-functional uniforms? The down-to-business demeanor that is obviously a veneer for deeper, more complicated feelings? The fact that I'm in favor of queering all the things? Let's just go with it, okay.

But back to the pile-up. Supergirl takes off to go help and immediately rescues a bus driver. Yay! The junkyard villain guy shows up, however, and says he has some sort of vendetta against Superman that he's going to take out on Supergirl. So, he and Supergirl fight a little bit and then he flies away (because um?).  Him leaving the fight allows Supergirl to go back to the DEO, find out who he is, and learn what his specific strengths and weaknesses are. Which, is lucky.

(Life Lesson #2: If you are a villain, definitely spend less time delivering wise-ass monologues and more time kicking the superhero's ass.)

In Cat Grant news, she's writing an article, herself, about Supergirl, instead of handing off the menial task of writing to someone else. She's also throwing a party to launch the article, which Kara is helping plan. I relay this segment because it contains another bit of advice. At one point, Kara interrupts Cat's writing process to ask about what appetizers she should order for the party.  Life Lesson #3: Never interrupt a writer who is on a deadline to discuss trivialities:

Grrrr Argh
At the DEO, Hank tells Supergirl that the villain guy's name is Reactron, he's obsessed with Superman, and he's a human, which means he "falls outside of the DEO's jurisdiction." Womp womp. Such a stickler, that Hank. I guess it's no big that there's this rando guy stalking around. Luckily, Supergirl has other allies. It turns out Winn has built a lair at CatCo to help with superhero operations. Translated into Buffy, this would be the equivalent of the Sunnydale High School Library, minus Giles (also, maybe Winn is more Willow than Xander? Or, a conglomeration of the two?)

"There has to be a superhero handbook on the interweb somewhere."
They learn that this Reactron shoots bursts of nuclear energy and he's incredibly powerful. So powerful, in fact, that James suggests Supergirl call Superman for backup. Supergirl nips that suggestion in the bud.

Reactron ends up abducting Max Lord, who is a genius and runs a tech company blah blah blah (if you ask me, Max Lord is the supremely-punchable Gaius Baltar of Supergirl). It turns out Reactron is a former nuclear power plant worker who was exposed to radiation during a meltdown that Superman wasn't able to prevent. (Well la dee da. Sometimes the superhero can't save everyone, geeez.) Anyway, Reactron wears a suit that keeps him alive and he needs Max's help to fix it.

Alex, despite Hank's insistence that the DEO not help with this villain, goes rogue for the day (which, seems fine?) and helps figure out that Reactron is hiding in the junkyard. Supergirl shows up, frees Max, and almost gets killed by Reactron. Superman actually has to come in and save her. It turns out that James had called Superman in for backup anyway, which Supergirl gets pissed about.

At this point, you might be wondering, "What happened to all that Stronger Together talk, hmmm?" And yes, Supergirl is thus far willing to accept help from her human friends, but mostly sees it as a sign of weakness to accept help from Superman. But can you blame her? Maybe she doesn't want to be seen as riding on Superman's coattails, okay? SO BACK OFF!

Now, where were we.

Oh yes, Hank then finds out that Alex is helping Supergirl with Reactron. He takes it surprisingly well. Perhaps, that's because he's harboring a secret of his own.  He appears to be a Cylon infiltrator. Or an alien. Or something. I don't know:

Hank WTF
Meanwhile, Kara is at the CatCo party, dancing with Winn. She really has no clue that he's in love with her, so I feel awkward for them. James cuts in and some non-subtle eye-gazing ensues. Then, Reactron shows up. Luckily, Alex and Hank at the DEO have just figured out how to defeat him. They buzz(?) Supergirl (is there an earpiece? an implant? telepathy?) and relay the instructions to her, and she defeats him. The point is that Supergirl was, in the end, able to defeat Reactron, which is something Superman was unable to do.

At the end of the episode, Kara meets *dun dun dun* James's on-off girlfriend, Lucy Lane (played by Jenna Dewan Tatum). Kara is like, "It's so nice to meet you" in that fake way people do, but her face is like:

And, it's an understandable reaction, to be honest. I like to think Kara is feeling sexually confused because of Lucy, rather than jealous of her, but I do realize one doesn't always get what one wants in a TV show.

Deep Thought of the Week: I can suspend my disbelief about a lot, including: (a) Effectively disguising oneself with glasses, just glasses; (b) Being a secret superhero and deciding not to win eleventy-million Olympic gold medals (have Ledecky and kryptonite ever been in the same room together, by the way?); and (c) Wearing your hair down when you fight but tied back in a ponytail when you work in an office. *shrug*

But where. For the love. Of all that is holy. Does she hide that fracking cape in her clothes all day when she’s working at CatCo? If I wear the wrong pair of underwear it ruins my day. And that is all, goodbye.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

That Michael Moore Movie

As fawningly described by Richard Brody in The New Yorker:
Moore’s prime argument for Hillary is an argument from character. The first good thing that he can say about Hillary Clinton is that she likes him. He refers to the chapter “My Forbidden Love for Hillary” from his 1996 book “Downsize This!” and describes the White House dinner to which he was invited as a result—in particular, dwelling on the frank and surprisingly specific enthusiasm that Bill Clinton expressed for Moore’s work and the even greater show of enthusiasm with which Hillary followed it. The apparent element of vanity actually plays exactly in the opposite direction—what Moore’s doing here, deftly, is endowing Hillary with longstanding progressive bona fides, bringing her alongside him to share in his fan base. (emphasis added)
Oh god.

Okay, three things:

1)  I likely will not watch the movie. Why? I don't seem to be its target audience. I already like Hillary. I already think she is progressive. Why? Because I've listened to her and am informed about her. And, more to the point, I don't need a man to vouch for her in order for me to trust her.

2) Note "the first good thing" Michael Moore can say about Hillary Clinton: She likes him.


And how does Richard Brody frame this "good thing" about Hillary Clinton? Well, I'll say this. Leave it to the male gaze to frame Michael Moore liking Hillary Clinton because she's ostensibly a Michael Moore fangirl as "deft" filmmaking rather than Trump-like narcissism.

3) But, if that wasn't clear enough for you, welcome to the *jazz hands* Michael Moore Show:

"Ur welcome."

Sure bro. If you say so.
In case there was any uncertainty as to why many feminists distrust leftier-than-thou "progressive" political figures in the US of the Sanders/Stein/brocialist vein, here is a clue. This attempted narrative that Michael Moore has uniquely "lit a fire" under people to take the US presidential election seriously erases the women, especially women of color, who comprise Hillary's base, who are and have been her most enthusiastic supporters, and who have trusted and backed her even when Moore was supporting Bernie Sanders over her. 

Many of us have always been taking this race seriously, viewing Trump not through the lens of abstraction or entertainment, but as a genuine threat to democracy, bodily autonomy, and human dignity.

This is not to say Moore has not had an impact, but man oh man. There is a saying women sometimes hear when people feel that we've gotten too uppity and it usually goes something like "get over yourself." I suggest that it might apply to Moore in this case, even though men are of course given far greater latitude than women to self-promote and exaggerate their influence, competence, and skills.

So, before we let him re-write history (before it's even been written I might add - are we all getting a leeeetle bit ahead of ourselves here with the Election 2016 post-mortems?), I'd like to give credit to some of the writers, public figures, and people in the TV/film industry who I think have been pretty darn impactful in terms of lighting fires under the populace (not a comprehensive list, so add to it if you will):

Shonda Rhimes, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders (...eventually, via his endorsement), Cecile Richards, Kerry Washington, Khizr Khan, Hillary Clinton's social media and Twitter team who have been on point all year, The Washington Post's Election 2016 Fact Checker, Melissa McEwan/Peter Daou and colleagues at Shareblue, the dozens of editors of major newspapers across the US who have officially endorsed Clinton, Lindy West, the Broad City gals, Ellen DeGeneres, Sarah Silverman, Kate McKinnon, and even whoever made that Shaquille O'Neal shimmy gif.

I mean how do you even end this list or sufficiently quantify it, really?

There are indeed so many people, too many people to name here, perhaps, but it's a start. The larger point is that I won't stand by while late-to-the-party Michael Moore writes his own Great Man Narrative about his own critical role in securing victory for our first female President.

Friday, October 21, 2016

WayHaught Open Thread Friday

In reading news, I've picked back up Stephen King's The Dark Tower VII: The Dark Tower, apparently just in time for (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT, highlight the following text if you dare) the death of Eddie Dean. Why????  It is true, sai readers, I am known to cry at movies, TV, and books. Don't let my harsh blogging persona fool you, but I was recently a person on a train crying at a book, say sorry.

What are people reading, writing, watching, playing, eating, and/or drinking? Palaver as you will.

And, speaking of gunslingers, who is watching Wynonna Earp?  It has an actual same-sex maintext relationship, if you can believe it, between (spoiler alert?) Waverly and Officer Haught (pronounced "hot" because of course). Speaking of which. Erma Gerd, do you want to watch the absolute cheesiest fan video ever in the history of fan videos? (I do). 

This is the stuff that makes Internet great, folks. 

And remember, in just three Fridays, Election 2016 will be history! Huzzah! Take care of yourselves. Say thankya and so say we all.


Thursday, October 20, 2016

Internet Harassers Reduce Value of Twitter

Here's an interesting story via CNBC (note: video autoplays at link. Ugh, WHY?).

Software company Salesforce was apparently in talks to acquire Twitter. However, its stock fell during these talks as investors expressed concerns about the platform:
"Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff ruled out a bid for Twitter in part from concern about the social platform's reputation for handling online abuse and trolls, according to CNBC's Jim Cramer on Monday.
'What's happened is, a lot of the bidders are looking at people with lots of followers and seeing the hatred,' Cramer said on 'Squawk on the Street.'
He continued, 'Twitter says listen, we have a filter. I mean the filter filters out a very small amount of the haters, and I know that the haters reduce the value of the company.'

Last week, a Financial Times report said that Benioff had ruled out a bid for Twitter, after weeks of speculation that the company could indeed acquire the company.

Salesforce confirmed Benioff's comments to CNBC and declined to comment further. Twitter shares fell as much as 8 percent following the report."
We hear a lot from Internet harassers who believe they have a "free speech right" to harass with impunity on the tech and social media platforms they use. We don't hear as much about how their harassment leads to tangible financial loss for these platforms. I suspect that will change.

Sadly, financial loss is what will likely induce companies to better address harassment. The "mere" fact that people are being harassed isn't a compelling enough reason for many companies to develop more effective solutions for harassment.