Hosted by a northern cardinal.
Question of the Day
'Designer Series' Trapper Keeper from the mid-1980s. Both of my sisters and I used this little baby--and still it endures, trapperly-keeping old history notes from The Lady Eve's youth. Those Trapper Keepers were built to last--structurally, at least. Style-wise, not so much.
I just pulled this tasty item out of the bookshelf in my parents' guest bedroom, where I stay when I'm here.
Back in the day, this 'Designer Series' Trapper Keeper binder was de rigueur for a hip (or nerdy) California tween's problem sets and history notes. Over the years, it has trapped three girls' polar graphing exercises, keyhole paragraphs, who-what-when-where-why-how summaries, German and Spanish verbs, and tedious Thomas Hardy essays.
Looking at my old Trapper Keeper, I thought of my cousin C. C. grew up in Katy, TX, where she used to go dumpster-diving for discarded Keds brand shoes, cut the blue rubber Keds insignias from the heels, and glue them to the off-brand canvas sneakers her mother bought. All because certain kids at school would relentlessly torment anyone who dared to wear off-brand rubber-bottomed canvas shoes to middle school. I don't recall any such pressure to own a rainbow Designer Series Trapper Keeper, but I know it was the style at the time (usually with New Kids on the Block, River Phoenix, or even Bruce Willis pasted inside the cover).
So, folks: tell us about an emblematic item from your youth. Did it cause you suffering or joy? Have you recently rediscovered it?
Quick Craft Project: Split-Back Patchwork Throw Pillows
This weekend, I made some 18 x 18-inch throw pillows for my sister's new apartment. She admired this patchwork cotton from Gorgeous Fabrics, and asked for a neutral solid on the other side, with a split-back design for easy removal and cleaning. I chose a machine-washable polyester faux suede for the backs. I got these fabrics on clearance a couple of weeks ago. They are on sale again until midnight Eastern time today for Gorgeous Fabrics' Memorial Day sale, along with many other patchwork cottons and other great fabrics. If you miss this sale, though, rest assured that there will be another sale soon--that's one of many great things about Gorgeous Fabrics.
It took one yard of each fabric to make the pair of pillow covers. [CORRECTION: It only took just over a half-yard of the patchwork and a half-yard of the 'doeskin' for this project; I have a half-yard or so of each left over, and I bought one yard of each. Gorgeous Fabrics cuts generously. I have enough fabric left over to make my other sister a great little bag!]
Instructions and more views below the fold, including a close-up of the patchwork fabric.
The PillowsXpress website admonished me to choose a pillow insert 2 inches bigger on a side than my finished case size, so I got two 20"-square pillow inserts in their Perma Soft variety. You could also go green with a bamboo-filled pillow insert, or make your own with bamboo or corn fiberfill.
I happened to do this project in inches, but it's easy to convert to centimeters and vice versa.
I used 1/2-inch seam allowances, so I cut a 19" square of freezer paper as a pattern for the pillow fronts. The backs were the same height, and the formula for calculating the width of the split back pattern pieces is easy: the front width plus 5 inches, divided by 2. So in this case that came out to 19 inches high by 12 inches wide for the back pieces.
I cut one front piece of patchwork and two back pieces of faux suede for each pillow cover.
First, I did a double-fold hem on one long side of each back piece by pressing a quarter-inch of fabric to the wrong side, then folding and pressing again to make it a full inch. I then topstitched close to the fold.
It helps to have a grid for this next part. My mother has a rotary-cutting mat with a 1-inch square grid on it. I laid out the hemmed back pieces right side up on my grid, overlapping the hemmed edges at the center by three inches. I then checked that my final total width was indeed 19" and pinned the overlaps together at top and bottom.
Then, I laid the front piece right side down on the back and pinned it all together. I sewed all four sides with a straight stitch, then did that again just outside the first line of stitching. I also reinforced the places where the back pieces overlap with a third row of stitches. This would all go faster on a serger/overlock machine, of course, if you happen to have one.
To help minimize "pillow-ears", I ran a few stitches straight across each corner, then clipped the corners. Finally, I pressed the heck out of the whole thing, using a seam roll to press seam allowances to the back.
The corner only has a little bit of a "dog-ear", which strangely enough looks graceful with the square patchwork here, I think.
I like the shape of these pillow corners, but if you have zero tolerance for dog-ears on your throw pillows, try tapering the corners of your pattern or invest in a pillow template, which has multiple sizes and a nice taper to the corners. For more on pillow-making and corner-tapering, read this great pdf article excerpted in Threads magazine: Great Pillows 1-2-3.
Here's the nifty split back in poly faux suede. This polyester is pre-fused to a nylon interfacing and would make a great trench coat too.
I am also at work on a pair of 12"x 22" pillows for The Lady Eve's new place, using both faces of a great heavy reversible starburst-print denim. I'll show y'all how they turn out when I eventually get to finish them.
EDIT: total cost for this project (including shipping charges for fabric and pillow inserts) was about $12 per pillow. One could cut costs by using less expensive fabric, but this still beats retail prices for 18" throw pillows of this quality.
A Girl Like Me
This is a fascinating and heartbreaking* look at how young Black women (and a few young Black men) see themselves, the pressures they feel around their Blackness, and their relation to their roots. Entirely work-safe. Kudos to Ms. Davis for the superb film.
Edit: As Shaker codeman38 points out, I completely failed to take into account the needs of Deaf people here, and I'm sorry for that. I don't have time to add a transcript to the post, and codeman38 informs me that the automatic transcription is useless. If anyone has time to do a transcript, I'd be most appreciative.
More edit: Shakers TheChemist and nomethegnome both leapt to do their All-In best, and a transcript is now appended.
For my high-school literature class I was constructing an anthology with a wide range of different stories that I believed reflected the black girl’s experience. For the different chapters, I conducted interviews with a variety of black girls in my high school, and a number of issues surfaced concerning the standards of beauty imposed on today’s black girls and how this affects their self-image. I thought this topic would make an interesting film and so when I was accepted into the Reel Works Teen Filmmaking program, I set out to explore these issues.- Filmmaker Kiri Davis, on how she came to make the film.Tip of the CaitieCap to Emily W for the link.
* From my privileged white point-of-view, of course; nothing in here will be news to those who've grown up without that.
Transcript below the jump, provided by Shaker nomethegnome; my gratitude also to TheChemist, who also did a transcription.
Stephanie: Every black female has a big butt and big boobs.
Glenda: Loud, obnoxious...Ghetto.
Jennifer: Light skin being more attractive than dark skin.
Wahida: That we're not smart...We're this way, we're that way and...A lot of times we have to prove ourselves as [that] not being true.
(Voiceover: At a young age, I already knew the standards for a girl like me. As I become older, they become more obvious.)
Stephanie: You have to have permed hair, relaxed hair...
Wahida: You know, straight hair, or like blonde hair...You know, long waves or something.
Stephanie: And if it's natural, that's even, that's, that's good hair. Like bad hair is hair you have to relax, because it's kinky...
Wahida: Like it's not like appealing to have, like natural hair styles. Or like if they are natural, they
have to be like the curly haired black girl, or something who looks mixed or something.
Stephanie: Like I remember when I first started to wear my hair natural, at first my mom was okay with it, and she, she thought it looked nice. And then after like the second day, she was like "Oh, stop that." She was like, "You're starting to look African". I was like, "Well, I AM African" and that really pissed me off.
Glenda: There are standards that are imposed upon us, like, um...You know, you're pretty, you're prettier if you're light-skinned.
Wahida: I knew people in the past that like, just like, wanted to be light-skinned. Not for any particular reason...You know, 'cause they loved theirselves...I mean they, they loved theirselves except, you know, for the color of their skin.
Jennifer: My siblings are all lighter than me and my um...My mom, she's dark-skinned, but she's lighter than me. So, like, I noticed and I was like, "Hey how come I'm the darkest, and, you know, everybody else is so light?" And...I don't know. Since I was younger I, I also considered being lighter as a form of beauty. Or, you know, beautifu- more, but...beautiful than being dark skinned. So I used to think of myself as being ugly 'cause I was dark skinned.
Wahida: I knew people who actually, like, went out there and got, you know, bleaching cream and everything.
They actually like, laid in the tub, with like, and poured capfuls of bleach into it, just so they can, like, see if their skin would get lighter.
Stephanie: But yeah my aunt that lives in Honduras, she basically started using skin bleaching cream when she was about 25...And she started her oldest daughter on it when she was about 11. And then she has an even younger daughter that was about 6 when she started using the skin bleaching cream on her.
Glenda: I've seen people say that "I would never marry a dark-skinned man, because, you know, because I don't want that in my gene pool."
Wahida: On the other hand, light-skinned girls have their issues too...We've been called "high yella", "conceited house nigga"...I feel like both sides have their issues.
Jennifer: I guess I sort of felt, like, there was not any attention towards me because of maybe my skin color, or because my hair was kinky, or...You know, just basically that. Or even when...Also when I was younger, like, say, there're like...Say there was, I don't know, a doll...I used to have a lot of dolls, but most of them were just white dolls with long, straight hair that I would comb. And I would be like, "Oh, I wish I was just like this barbie doll."
(Voiceover: In Brown versus Board of Education, the famous case that desegregated schools in the 1950s, Dr. Kenneth Clark conducted a doll test with black children. He asked them to choose between a black doll and a white doll. In most instances, the majority of the children preferred the white doll.
I decided to reconduct this test, as Dr. Clark did, to see how we've progressed since then.)
Narrator: Can you show me the doll that you like best, or that you like to play with?
[First child holds up white doll]
Second child: This one.
[Picks up white doll]
Third child: This one.
[Touches white doll]
Fourth child: I like that one.
[Points to white doll]
[Fifth child picks up white doll]
[Sixth child picks white doll]
[Seventh child picks black doll]
Eighth child: This one.
[Puts down black doll, points to white]
Narrator: That one?
[Ninth child picks black doll]
Tenth child: This one.
[Pats white doll]
Eleventh child: I like to play with...This.
[Chooses black doll]
Narrator: And can you show me the doll that is the nice doll?
[Seventh child picks up white doll]
Narrator: And why is that the nice doll?
Seventh child: She's white.
Narrator: And can you show me the doll that looks bad?
[First child picks up black doll]
Narrator: Okay. And can you give...And why does that look bad?
First child: Because it's black.
Narrator: Hmm...And why do you think that's a nice doll?
First child: Because she's white.
Narrator: And can you give me the doll that looks like you?
[Child pushes black doll forward]
[Voiceover: 15 out of the 21 children preferred the white doll.]
Glenda: Our ancestors came to this country, and they were pretty much ripped, ripped out of their culture. You know, they couldn't speak their language, they couldn't, you know, they couldn't be themselves. They had to be what everyone else told them to be.
Illiana: When you don't know where you're from, and you don't know what country you're from, all you know is, basically, you're from Africa, and that's all you're given...I feel like it brings on like, a lot of ignorance and it, it builds a lot of anger. I've seen, like, I've seen it build a lot of anger in a lot of black young females. Like, I don't know, they feel like because they...They feel like they have a right to disown any kind of, you know, African roots.
Jennifer: I think for a black girl in general, it's like you're missing a piece of you, you know. For me, it's like, I don't have any...Any actual...Heritage? Not heritage, but like...Culture. Like, I know I'm from Africa, but, you know, different...The different countries in Africa have their different cultures, their different morals, their different values. And not knowing that, it just, it, it sort of keeps us at a loss...And we just...I feel like we're busy searching for it, while everybody else in society is throwing their ideas, and what they believe what we should be, at us. But, you know, personally, we know that that's not what we should be, but we're gonna take it because we don't know exactly what we should be, because we don't really know where we come from.
Monday Blogaround
Today's blogaround is brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Tilsy McEwan's Kitty Gone Fishin' fishing poles, for McEwans with no opposable thumbs.
Alexander Chee: You're Not From Around Here
Historiann: Violence, Rape, and Class. They're talking about [Trigger Warning] Jonathan Franzen's New Yorker story, "Agreeable", over at Historiann's place.
Ecoratorio: Paper of the week: Effects of prenatal exposure of pthalates
Neuroskeptic: This Is Your Brain's Anti-Drug
Disability Rights Advocates for Technology (DRAFT): Segs4Vets Program receives Secretary of the Army's Public Service Award
taz at Sepia Mutiny: The Copycat Facebook Ban
Amy Shah: Mind-Controlled Prosthetic Limbs
Dr. Who Open Thread! S5E6!
Alright you Wholigans, Canada finally joined the rest of North America last night, and we've had a peek at S5E6, Vampires in Venice.
Please remember that spoilers from episodes after S5E6 are explicitly off-topic, and will annoy your friendly OT host (i.e., me) because she hasn't seen the later eps yet.
Also, note that spoilers from any Doctor Who material coming before S5E6 are explicitly on-topic.
So, starting from a progressives' p-o-v: did anyone else have a lovely warm fuzzy to note that the race of the gondolier (Isabella's dad) never came up? I mean, yes, there's a lost opportunity to examine the racism of 16th century Venice, true; but there're also important roles in the episode being earned by actors of colour, and I think that's a positive thing, given the about-to-be-released whitewashed live-action versions of Prince of Persia and The Last Airbender.
I really liked Rory's role in this episode, a lot. I think his common-sense response to the outlandish things he encounters frames the Doctor and Amy in a clearly different light. Rory and Amy hear screams: Rory, like most people would, runs away from the sound. Amy runs towards it. He continually provides a contrast to the march-to-the-sound-of-the-guns approach taken by the Doctor and Amy.
Also, sonic screwdriver healing? That's new, isn't it? I don't remember seeing a sonic screwdriver used for that before?
Also, Moffatt REALLY LIKES FANGS, huh?
Open Thread
Hosted by a cast iron skillet.
This week's open threads have been hosted by awesome kitchen utensils.
The Virtual Pub Is Open
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]
TFIF, Shakers!
Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!
Today's Edition of "Conniving and Sinister"
I've got friends coming to visit for a long weekend, including Mr. Deeky W. Gashlycrumb himself, who will be arriving shortly, and then Iain and I are taking the rest of next week off for a much-needed holiday at home, so consider me officially Gone Fishin'.
I'll be available (though less so than usual) by email. Please remember that when I'm away, we're down one moderator, so take extra care in commenting and make an effort to support the other mods who will be picking up my slack.
(And don't worry—I'll post the Virtual Pub!)
To the USian Shakers: Have a nice and safe Memorial Day Weekend.
See you soon!
RIP Gary Coleman
Gary Coleman, pictured above in his iconic role as Arnold Jackson on the late 70s sitcom "Diff'rent Strokes," has died at age 42 after an intracranial hemorrhage earlier this week.
Coleman's death leaves Todd Bridges the sole survivor of the three "Diff'rent Strokes" kids (Dana Plato took her own life in 1999), whose lives were/have been extremely troubled; Coleman was arrested on two occasions for assaulting women, one an autograph-seeker and one his wife. Collectively, the "Diff'rent Strokes" kids were/are widely regarded as a tragic cautionary tale about the cost, to oneself and others, of childhood fame (and the abject abandonment that frequently accompanies the onset of puberty) and its potential to corrupt.
Without trying to excuse or justify or mitigate Coleman's hurtful actions toward others, I have real sorrow for how genuinely difficult I think his life really was.
More Breaking News
Glenn Beck is still a soulless pot of shit who thinks that mocking 11-year-old girls is totes cool, as long as you don't like their dads.
Asshole.
Quote of the Day
"You don't just walk into one of these places like you're getting your nails done. I think we're armed with enough information to make adult decisions without being emotionally tortured."—Laura, a 36-year-old woman who opted to terminate a pregnancy in Birmingham, Alabama, where abortion providers are required by law to do an ultrasound and offer patients a chance to view the image.
Although abortion is not a difficult decision for every woman who gets one, it was for Laura, who declined to view the ultrasound image, which she said would not have changed her mind but "would have added to the pain of what is already a difficult decision."
[H/T to Shaker BlueRidge.]
Friday Blogaround
This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, makers of Deeky's Sparkly Party Favors, for all your partying needs.
Recommended Reading:
Melanie: Today is International Day of Action for Women's Health
Jenn: 10 Facts You May Not Know About Asian-American History
Mar: Kamla Persad-Bissessar is the new Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago.
Andy: Christian Iowa GOP Committeeman Threatens Gay GOP Presidential Candidate Fred Karger Over Marriage
Renee: On Hoarders
Melissa: Agora
Leave your links in comments...
You'll Never Know, Dear, How Much We Love You
We all, in the U.S., love our Constitution, don't we? Right, left or center, you will seldom hear anyone say of it, "Silly bit of fishwrap! We should scrap that anachronistic document." We speak of it with reverence. Most of us believe that, despite having been written over 200 years ago, it should remain the foundation of our laws and government.
Oh, sure, some of us think it could do with a few tweaks. Many of us women feel we should be in it! You know, specifically and unambiguously. Then there's the fact that some of us get treated like it doesn't apply to us, even though the 14th amendment says
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.That's pretty clear, right? No state shall . . . any person within its jurisdiction? So if a state makes available a contractual arrangement between consenting individuals - let's call it marriage - which provides access to a wide array of benefits, that state must make that contractual arrangement available to all consenting individuals who are otherwise qualified to enter into legal contracts - you would think.
Or if - purely hypothetically - any state passed a law which, despite covering language, required law enforcement to single out some kinds of people for different treatment than others, based on nothing more than what they look like - or maybe what their shoes look like - well, the 14th amendment really ought to be all over that one.
But despite our seemingly unanimous love and respect for our Constitution, some of us do have more of a soft spot for some of its provisions than for others. Take this bit:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.That's the 2nd amendment, and for some people it is their very, very favoritest part. No, seriously. The entire structure of our government is in our Constitution, as well as the guarantees of our most basic freedoms, but for some folks that one sentence about a "well-regulated militia" seems to be the locus of all their Constitutional hopes, dreams and fears.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-mageddon) is one such. Following the shooting at Ft. Hood last year, a new policy was instituted there which requires anyone bringing personal weapons on base to register them, and those living on base to notify their commanding officers of personal weapons in their possession and to keep their weapons in a unit arms room.
The Dept. of Defense (DOD) Independent Review Related to Fort Hood, led by a retired admiral and a former Secretary of the Army, determined that the DOD's policy regarding personal weapons on military bases was "inadequate". The Pentagon is now formulating a stronger policy for all military bases.
But what is the expertise of the Pentagon regarding either weapons or defense of the Constitution, in comparison to that of Sen. Inhofe? Also inadequate, apparently. Because Sen. Inhofe claims that the recommendations of the Pentagon investigators won't prevent future attacks, and that requiring anyone - even those carrying weapons onto a U.S. military base - to register those weapons, is a violation of the 2nd amendment.
How ya gonna keep your militia well-regulated if they can't even take their personal weapons onto military bases without the military sticking their snoopy noses into that?
So the Constitution-loving Senator has introduced S.3388, the Service Member Second Amendment Protection Act of 2010, to preclude the Pentagon from such "gun ownership over-regulation", saying
Political correctness and violating Constitutional rights dishonors those who lost their lives and is an extreme disservice to those who continue to serve their country.And we may be sure that this legislation avoids such errors because "Inhofe worked closely with the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the development of the legislation" according to a press release from his office.
Nobody hates political correctness or loves the U.S. Constitution more than the NRA. Not even the federal courts of the United States, which have ruled both that the 2nd amendment "poses no barrier to (gun) registration" and that the military, being a unique society within the larger society, may place some restrictions on its members' rights under certain circumstances.
So Sen. Inhofe's great love of the Constitution may not prevail, even if his bill were to be passed. But he'll have the satisfaction of knowing that he's made the NRA happy. I hear they're very generous with people who make them happy.
Oh, and don't confuse the "extreme disservice to those who continue to serve their country" which is imposed by regulating the terms of their possession and use of personal firearms with the minor inconvenience to gay service members caused by DADT. Because the 2nd amendment does not wanna be in a foxhole with your kind.
Then there's this one:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.That's the 1st amendment, and I would have thought it was many, if not most, people's favorite. It sure does get talked up a lot. You can't even disagree with some folks' blog comments without their suffering a fit of righteous indignation about how that's a severe violation of their 1st amendment right to talk shit all over your blog. (This is not an interpretation of the 1st amendment which has ever been upheld in a court of law.)
But one does get the impression that, in general, the people of the U.S. hold this amendment very dear. And it is widely believed that this prohibition against the Congress "making any law respecting an establishment of religion", along with the protections of the 14th amendment, prohibit any governmental body within the United States from encouraging or inhibiting the practice of any particular religion.
Which raises the question of how to account for the fact that Muslim Americans in several locations seem to be having a good deal of trouble getting city councils and commissions to approve their plans to build or expand existing mosques. An attorney for the Islamic Center in Alpharetta, GA seems to feel that the City Council there is showing insufficient appreciation for the Constitution, and says he'll recommend that his clients file a lawsuit, as "the city previously had approved a number of other churches of similar size."
About 150 concerned citizens attended the Council meeting at which this matter was discussed and voted on, showing curiously little love for the Constitution, or for their Muslim neighbors. Although, to be fair, one man said, "“This is not about religion. … It’s about contractural (sic) agreements.” Fulton County had imposed restrictions on the mosque regarding any future expansion when it approved a previous addition. The Islamic Center did not enter into any contractual agreement with the county, but they raised no objection to those restrictions at the time. So I guess this isn't really a Constitutional matter, because it's "not about religion."
And in Brentwood, TN, it's not about religion, either. It's about terrorists! And about how anyone who is Muslim might be one! A group of Brentwood residents who had applied to rezone 14 acres to allow them to build a mosque have withdrawn their application, after an organized plan to prevent it continued strong despite their having agreed to limit the size of the mosque, not use outside loudspeakers to announce the call to prayer, and limit outside lights.
One of the organizers of the opposition, Matt Bonner, who lives in Nashville, not Brentwood, but evidently considers it his business which houses of worship are erected in Brentwood because he is a member of the Brentwood United Methodist Church, says, "The fact is that the mosques are more than just a church. No one can predict what this one will be used for." Unlike Brentwood United Methodist Church, I guess, where all activity into the distant future can be known, and all of it will be pure, and good, and Constitution-loving.
The difference lies in the fact that Islam is "not really a religion", according to the person whose writings have shaped Mr. Bonner's understanding of it. Instead, "Islam is a dangerous political ideology" according to one Bill French, who for some reason writes under the name of Bill Warner. Mr. French/Warner runs a publishing house in Nashville which for some reason is called the Center for the Study of Political Islam, despite the fact that it does not appear to be a Center for Study, but a Center for Selling Books by Mr. French/Warner.
So don't let any of this lead you to suspect that the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution is held in any lesser reverence than its frequent invocation in blogular disagreements would suggest. The people of Brentwood, determined though they are to keep out mosques, love that amendment so much that they are truly hurt when some attorney takes its name in vain. Like, say, when he mentions to mosque opponents at a meeting "that federal and state law gives religious institutions special protections when it comes to zoning."
Says Mr. Bonner: "What kind of neighbor is that who comes in threatening lawsuits?"
We here in the U.S. do love and respect our constitution. But we hate terrorists, especially if they are sneakily attempting to pass off a political ideology as their religion. And we really hate folks being unneighborly.
