Obsidian Wings

Living Space

by JanieM

The picture was taken on December 11 of last year, just across the road from where I live. I wanted to catch the last bit of open water before it disappeared for the winter. 

In relation to the topic you’ll find below the fold, note that there are both year-round and vacation homes tucked under the trees all along the far shore of the lake. You’d never know it if you were to fly over this landscape; it mostly looks like unbroken forest. A lot of Maine is unbroken forest, or at least no one lives there, though a lot of the land is “working forest” and is  accessible by dirt roads. But along lakeshores, the forest cover is deceptive. Waterfront property, after all . . .

A Day at the Coast

by JanieM

Rockland is my favorite of the string of lovely little towns known as “midcoast Maine.” It’s an easy drive for me, a little over an hour on mostly quiet roads. It’s the home of the Farnsworth Art Museum and hello hello books, which is owned by one of my family’s long ago babysitters. The town has a working harbor and a breakwater that extends almost a mile to the lighthouse, which fitter/younger people than I enjoy walking along. The ferry leaves from Rockland for Vinalhaven, Matinicus, and North Haven islands.

Despite all the galleries, museums, restaurants, and shops-catering-to-tourists, Rockland feels more down home and welcoming to me than Camden, which is a lot of other people’s favorite midcoast town.

This picture was taken in mid-May of 2021, when I ventured out of my immediate neighborhood for the first time after a year of Covid-19 isolation. Covid numbers were down, people had been vaccinated, and it seemed like maybe we were heading back toward normal life. (Ha!) One of the things that struck me that day was the number of couples I saw where one person was wearing a mask (even outdoors) and the other wasn’t. I wondered how the conversations went in those households.

The outdoor tables in the picture were a Covid innovation. They’re still around almost everywhere I look, an indication that even though most people seem to be behaving as if Covid is only a bad memory, or even a myth, some of our customs aren’t going to revert to the old ways very easily.

ETA: Open thread.

 

Rockland, Maine, May 15, 2021

Looking for the union label

by liberal japonicus

Being on the left of the political spectrum, I wish the members of SAG-AFTRA the best of luck. If you read the reportage, they do seem up against the cartoon villains of the Judge Doom sort in Roger Rabbit. Here is the Guardian's take. However, just following some of the discussions, I don't see any sort of realistic compromise, it's either break or be broken.

But one thing that I find interesting is that this is a very US-centric story, or, given that the British union, Equity, has expressed their full support, an Anglo-American story. It certainly is complicated.

Many actors belong to both SAG-AFTRA and Actors' Equity since they work both on film and television and in the theater. But the two unions, though they often share similar interests and members, are not one and the same. The current SAG-AFTRA strike is specifically for TV, theatrical (meaning theatrical release of feature films), and streaming, not for stage work, which is covered by a different set of contracts negotiated by Equity.

This might be especially confusing given that in the United Kingdom, actors are represented by Equity UK for stage, film, and television work. Additionally, though Equity UK released a statement standing in solidarity with SAG-AFTRA, they also made it clear that their members do not have the legal right to participate in the strike if they are working on an Equity UK contract due to separate labor law in the country (hence why House of the Dragon is still filming).

Two of the issues are the payments actors and writers get for streamed content and the looming possibilty of AI created work, ranging from appearances to fully generated characters. I thought this Youtube video shows some of the possibilities. But what I wonder about is whether the world of -woods (Bollywood, Nollywood (Nigeria), Hallyuwood (Korea)) as well as other world cinema markets (Japan, China, Hong Kong and France come to mind). This link discusses the case of Priyanka Chopra, and she and other stars are allowed to work on within their own indigenous cinemas, but not in the US.

There are a couple of obvious explanations, perhaps the payment model for foreign cinema industries is different, so these issues don't come up and perhaps the level of CGI use within movies is also minimal, so the idea that an actor could be AI generated seems far off as well, though the Youtube video suggests that it is out there. It may also be that the stars for foreign movies do not have the power that US/UK stars have, so raising these issues could be too dangerous for them. To me, that is the most intriguing: Part of becoming a Hollywood player is to not simply act, but to write, direct and produce. And the Directors Guild agreed to a new contract 3 months ago:

With screenwriters on strike and the actors’ union still in negotiations, the directors saw their deal as a first step on the way to labor peace in the entertainment industry. It included improvements in both wages and the amount of royalties that directors would receive from projects on streaming services, and it placed guardrails around the use of artificial intelligence.

However, it wasn't a slam dunk, the deal passed with 87%. On the other hand, 98% of SAG (actors) and just under that for AFTRA (writers) voted in favor of a strike. I imagine that if there were a bright line between producers and actors/writers, the situation would be the same as overseas. However, as I understand it, to bring the biggest stars on to a movie, they often demand production credit, so the battle lines are blurred. Every labor fight I've been involved with has had two sides, so I'm wondering if what makes this different. Your ideas are welcome.

Remember Snowy Days?

by JanieM

Was it ever really February? On a muggy day in July it’s hard to be sure.

Given that the weather is a universal topic of conversation, I often find myself complaining about it, however kiddingly. In the winter the footing is bad, more dangerously so the older I get. In the summer the humidity is wilting. In the early spring it’s mud, in the autumn it’s leaves that have to be raked. (Admittedly not by me.)

But whenever I start complaining, I stop myself. If I really didn’t like it, I could go live somewhere else.

No way.

Open thread.

 

Memories of Springtime

by JanieM

How about another open thread?

And some pictures.

This is “the school road” near my house. The middle and high schools that serve four towns are behind me, the main road and the lake are ahead, out of sight. The building hiding behind the white pines on the right is the school superintendent’s office. The season is May, before the trees were fully leafed out, my favorite week of the year. I've been taking evening walks up and down this road for almost thirty-six years. Like the world, it has changed a lot in that time.

This one was taken in April of 2012 with my old Nikon Coolpix camera, before I got serious and fancy about picture-taking. It was one of the few days I’ve ever spent in New York City, and the only day I spent in Central Park. It’s springtime again – as beautiful as could be. I really enjoyed the visit -- the weather was great and the people were much less grumpy than legend would have had me believe. I also went to Ellis Island, which I had been wanting to visit for a long time since two of my grandparents came into this country through there. A few months later it was damaged so badly by Hurricane Sandy that it was closed for a couple of years.

Across the pond

by liberal japonicus

While our UKian contingent is not as large as one might hope, I always appreciate their insight to things British. So what to make of this?

Rupert Murdoch was throwing a midsummer party at Spencer House, the palatial residence in St James’s, London, owned by Earl Spencer. Seated on a sofa in the middle of the main room, the 92-year-old media magnate was holding court with carefully chosen individuals of influence – five minutes at a time, strictly one to one. Cabinet ministers, MPs, media executives and others among the great and the good sipped Pol Roger champagne and admired the extravagant floral arrangements, wondering who would be next.

As the numbers swelled, one senior News Corp journalist was chatting away to former prime minister Liz Truss when he had to break off suddenly. His duty was to meet a special guest and bring him to Murdoch. A minute or so later, in swept Keir Starmer in an open-necked black shirt, ready for his audience with the most powerful media figure in the world.

The article, and also this one about Labour's "5 missions" are interesting reads, and I'm wondering what folks think about what is going on. Some questions I have

-Corbyn's villification, deserved or not?

-Separate from that, was/is it required in order to have Labour move ahead

-Kier Starmer, yay or nay?

-predictions?

And Now for Something Completely Different

by JanieM

I hope the discussion on the SCOTUS decisions keeps going, but I thought we could use an open thread in case anyone has anything else to talk about. Lighthearted topics are especially encouraged.

In central Maine we had a couple of very hot days in May that made me think we were in for a steamy summer. Then June was cool and rainy, so everything is very lush now. At the moment I am melting after three humid days at or near 90.

The picture is of a peony in my yard at the end of a rainy day. Click on it for a slightly larger version that should open in a browser. (Let me know if that doesn't work. I'm trying to learn about how Typepad handles images.)

 

Err, seriously?

by liberal japonicus

Janie mentioned that she wanted to maybe talk about the wedding website decision so I'm putting this up. Here is the SCOTUSblog summary. What baffles me is that apparently, the request was faked

This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry.

[...] It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”

Yes, that was his name, phone number, email address, and website on the inquiry form. But he never sent this form, he said, and at the time it was sent, he was married to a woman. “If somebody’s pulled my information, as some kind of supporting information or documentation, somebody’s falsified that,” Stewart explained. (Stewart’s last name is not included in the filing, so we will be referring to him by his first name throughout this story.)

“I wouldn’t want anybody to … make me a wedding website?” he continued, sounding a bit puzzled but good-natured about the whole thing. “I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”

I shouldn't be surprised, the Affirmative Action granted standing to Blum because he said he was representing Asian students who wished to be anonymous, which seems to make a mockery of the notion of standing, but I am a bit baffled that you can toss up fake evidence without any problems. An NPR article also points out that the web designer in question wasn't even designing websites when she filed the suit.

Her lawyers maintained Smith did not have to be punished for violating the law before challenging it. In February 2017 they said even though she did not need a request in order to pursue the case, she had received one.

Anyway, a place to talk about that.

Affirmative inaction

by liberal japonicus

A continuation of discussion in the previous post. Nous suggested that

And between this and Roe, I think the GOP is going to be in serious trouble with educated suburban women.

While I believe nous is talking about larger problems of college affordability and college debt, in case anyone thinks that the cancellation of affirmative action will cause problems for educated suburban women, this article suggests that it might not be true:

If white women benefit from affirmative action, why do they oppose it?

Half of Americans do not approve of colleges and universities considering race in admissions, according to a recent Pew Research Center report. A majority of white adults disapprove of it, too. About 70% of non-Hispanic white women somewhat or strongly oppose affirmative action, according to a 2014 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

White women have also challenged affirmative action policies. In 2016, the Supreme Court ruled against Abigail Fisher, a white student who said the University of Texas denied her admission because of her race. 

There is an interesting discussion related to feminism and intersectionality here, which I hope we might take up in the comments.

Half of this particular go-around revolved around Asian representation at Harvard, and this Vox article is good on explaining why it is a load of crap. The whole 'OMG Asians can't get into Harvard' is pretty amazing to me, given that a few decades ago, there were complaints about Asians 'killing the curve'.

By the late 1970s and early 1980s, large numbers of Asian Americans began enrolling at elite universities,180 just as these universities started to emphasize diversity in the wake of the Bakke decision. Asian Americans were seen as foreigners on campuses, and there was a backlash to their growing presence. Professor Dana Takagi discusses how resentful White students labeled various campuses having significant Asian American student populations with xenophobic epithets. 181 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) was dubbed “Made in Taiwan” and the University of California, Los Angeles (“UCLA”), was called “University of Caucasians Living Among Asians.” Elevators in buildings with large numbers of Asian American students were called “[t]he Orient Express.” 183 The peril of the mind trope was also readily apparent: White students viewed Asian Americans as “‘hordes’ of ‘unfair competition’” and advised each other not to take classes that had large numbers of Asian American students.

The link that is from is quite good and has this revealing aspect of the SFFA's case.

SFFA’s legal documents revealed other embarrassing information for Harvard. One particularly troubling example illustrated how Harvard’s Administration appeared to underplay one of its alum’s overtly racist remarks against Asian Americans:

"[I]n 2012, [President Drew] Faust received a letter from an alumnus making racist statements about Asian-American applicants. Specifically, the alumnus urged Harvard to adopt “informal quotas.” Such quotas “would include foreign students and the country of their origin. For example, I would limit the number of Japanese students to a certain percentage or number. . . . None of this, of course, has to go beyond the confines of the dean’s office. The last time I was in Cambridge it seemed to me that there were a large number of oriental students, for example. I think they probably should be limited to 5%. . . . I would appreciate hearing what you might think of my comments."

SFFA reported that, rather than rebuking these remarks, Harvard Admissions Director Marlyn McGrath responded to the alum as follows (copying President Faust):

"President Faust has asked me to respond to your April 4 letter, in which you offer many thoughtful observations about Harvard College students and the results of the admissions process. . . . All of us at Harvard appreciate your thoughtful letter, as well as your loyalty over the years." SFFA highlighted that Harvard’s response did not take issue with the alumnus’s comments about limiting the number of “oriental students” at Harvard or establishing informal quotas. While President Faust acknowledged that the alum’s letter was “preposterous,”she did not think it was necessary to rebuke him because he was “a 90-year-old alum who’s given some kind of support to scholarships. He graduated with the class of 1942. He probably went off and fought in World War II.”

Harvard did not dispute that these incidents occurred as stated in SFFA’s motion. It merely (though correctly) stated that the incident had no bearing on the legality of its race-conscious admissions policy. 375 But SFFA’s argument exploited the incident and Harvard’s response in order to pit people of color against each other. SFFA specifically contended that incidents of explicit bias against Asian Americans are not taken as seriously as those against other racial minority groups:

At her deposition, Faust refused to answer whether a letter saying the same thing about African Americans would have deserved a similar “polite and respectful” response. Nor would she speculate how Asian-American students might react to the letter, because they “have not seen these letters . . . . [T]hese are matters of personal correspondence that are not matters of public scrutiny.”

Harvard wasn't woke enough to slap down a (possible) WWII vet and this is evidence that Harvard in discriminating. The irony, it burns...

The Grauniad has this article with some observations about the case

But in order to win at court, SFFA deployed some stage trickery – disappearing Asian Americans at just the right moment. From the district court to the supreme court, SFFA produced exactly zero students and Asian Americans to testify. Even after forcing Harvard to turn over nearly 100,000 pages of documents, they could not produce a single individual case of discrimination.

Harvard introduced four students, two of whom were Asian American. Sally Chen, a low-income, first-generation Chinese immigrant student accepted in 2015, testified that she was accepted amid a vast pool of valedictorians with perfect SATs and 4.5 GPAs only because of the school’s holistic admissions process. She was able to tell her story, be seen, and valued. Judge Sotomayor noted this in her dissent, writing: “At bottom, race-conscious admissions benefit all students, including racial minorities. That includes the Asian American community.”

SFFA stacked its legal team with former clerks of Judge Clarence Thomas. Then it gave its case gravitas with a blinkered history of anti-Asian discrimination that ignored everything after the 1940s. Thomas later included this version of events in his concurring opinion.

He added: “Given the history of discrimination against Asian Americans, especially their history with segregated schools, it seems particularly incongruous to suggest that a past history of segregationist policies toward blacks should be remedied at the expense of Asian American college applicants.”

This article points to the splits in the "Asian-American" community, which I put in quotes, because the concept has a lot of problems.

This Voxexplainer is very interesting and points out the following:

The history of affirmative action starts not in the university system, but in labor policy. According to historian Hugh Davis Graham, the term first appeared in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, a key piece of New Deal legislation that gave employees the right to form unions and required employers to bargain collectively with them. In that context, affirmative action was used as a term to compel employers who had engaged in unfair labor practices to compensate victims.

My own take on AA for higher ed is that it is a useful way of drawing attention away from the problem. By concentrating on admission rather than on matriculation, it focusses on a point that does not have the institutions of higher education reflect on how they teach and support students. While I don't believe that the Democrats are analyzing it the same way I am, this Politico piece discusses that and also points out that some Democrats want to take aim at legacy admissions.

Democrats are now looking for other legislative options to boost minority admissions at colleges, like ending legacy admissions that benefit children of alumni. Even that bill, introduced by progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), has a slim chance at passage, but it’s a message that resonates with other Democrats who see the proposal as another way to help level the playing field.

This would be very interesting because, much more than defending admission diversity, this would really impact the business model of elite higher education. Anyway, have at it.