Storyteller, interviewer, problem-solver & sentence-builder
with strong powers of observation.
lilahrap@gmail.com
I was incredibly sad to hear about the death of one of my favorite journalists today, Michael Hastings. In 2010, CJ Lotz and I finagled a group into an ASME lunch to see him speak about his piece that ousted Stanley McChrystal. I blogged a few times about wanting to marry him. Once he retweeted me. CJ went on to do research for him and they became friends. The loss of such a talented, truth-seeking, relentless journalist is a blow to the many young writers and readers he has inspired. It also makes me even more eager to get back into journalism this fall. Readers need more people like him, true journalists, that are asking important questions for everyone else’s benefit and not letting people off the hook at the expense of the truth. It’s easy to forget that that’s fundamentally a journalist’s job! Profoundly, he never did.
A quote of Hastings’ that I love from an interview after the McChrystal piece:
Look, I went into journalism to do journalism, not advertising. My views are critical but that shouldn’t be mistaken for hostile - I’m just not a stenographer. There is a body of work that shows how I view these issues but that was hard-earned through experience, not something I learned going to a cocktail party on fucking K Street. That’s what reporters are supposed to do, report the story.
This number is made even realer by Joe Nocera’s NYT “Gun Report” series, where he tracks every shooting every day. Highlights include a man shooting and killing a family of six, a 5 year old playing with a rifle he got as a GIFT shooting his 2 year old sister, and dozens of cases of people killed by stray bullets.
The above link is Slate’s crowdsourced tally of gun deaths since Newtown, with a data visualization map of their ages, genders and locations, and it’s a brilliant exercise in using your audience to make an impact. But there isn’t enough content publicizing tangible and actionable and realistic ways to help, vs “donate” or “sign a petition once” or “go to a New Hampshire town hall”. I’ve contacted the senators. So now what? The next crowdsourcing projects should be asking the audience, like me, to do something small from my office chair that when matched with all my friends doing that same small thing will make a BIG stink.
Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Yesterday, Obama and Gabby Giffords told me to contact my representatives to be the change, but my representatives are smart people with normal sized hearts. So the only thing I can really do is contact YOUR representatives to add volume to their inboxes. I compiled a list of all the senators who voted “no” to the Manchin-Toomey compromise and their contact info (I couldn’t find this already online). I also wrote a letter (below) and am sending it to each of these douchebags individually. I encourage you to write one and do the same.
*Update: Key senators as pinpointed by the Brady Campaign are in bold. I assume they’re pinpointed because they’re more spineless than they are perverse. Brady has provided phone numbers and the Huffington post has provided Twitter handles.
1. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
2. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
3. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
4. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
5. Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
6. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
7. Sen. John Boozman (R-AR)
8. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
9. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
10. Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN)
11. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
12. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
13. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
14. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
15. Sen. Michael Crapo (R-ID)
16. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
17. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY)
18. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE)
19. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
20. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
21. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)
22. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
23. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
24. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)
25. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND)
26. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
27. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
28. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE)
29. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
30. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
31. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
32. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
33. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
34. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
35. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
36. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
37. Sen. James Risch (R-ID)
38. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
39. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
40. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)
41. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
42. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
43. Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
44. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
45. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Some more wimps to contact:
These are the direct email addresses of each “no” democratic senator’s Chief of Staff.
1. andy_york@pryor.senate.gov (Senator Pryor)
2. david_Ramseur@begich.senate.gov (Senator Begich)
3. paul_wilkins@baucus.senate.gov (Senator Baucus)
4. tessa_gould@heitkamp.senate.gov (Senator Heitkamp)
My letter. Write your own! Or use mine, whatever, we want volume:
Senator ____,
You don’t know me, but you represent me, and I want you to know that this week I lost all of my faith in you and in the system that is supposed to protect me. Your vote was selfish, it was cowardly, and it was small. It was cold-hearted. By slipping a self-serving vote under the rug with a few excuses, you are placing these very real problems outside of yourself. Do you think no one’s watching? Your inbox may suggest that we are. Do you think no one feels betrayed, horrified, and unsafe? I can assure you that we all do. More people will die because of your vote. You cannot wash your hands of that.
You, at the core, are a representative. A representative is a leader that reaches out to her community to ascertain their desires in order to best advocate for them. I can assure you that unless you get your act together and show that you are doing your job to represent the desires, the best interests, and above all the safety of your constituents, you will have completely lost the support of your state.
Lilah
The movie Smyrna was reviewed last week in the NY Times (here) and will be the focus of special upcoming events (Facebook event is here). The filmmaker, Maria Iliou, and her team found footage of the city burning and in its prime that no one knew existed, in boxes that hadn’t been opened in 90 years. The research they did for this film has been used to actually fill in gaps of what’s known about the history of that time.
This film is a must-see for all Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Turks, and everyone else who cares about history. It’s objective and it’s moving and it reminds you how unique diverse, cosmopolitan cities like New York and London actually are and how fragile they can be.
Go see it. At the Quad on W 13th and 6th. Buy tickets early here.
I had my wallet pickpocketed in December at the Union Square Holiday Market alongside five other small 20-something brunettes who had iPhones snatched, and when I asked the cop whether I’d be financially reimbursed for my claims if they caught the guys, he said, “No, we’ll just arrest them.” The Restitution law suggests that that defendant owes me the money he stole and the cost of everything in my wallet. And my wallet.
Restitution was discussed even though the prevailing view is that technically it isn’t considered part of punishment. Its purpose is to “make the victim whole,” as the legal phrase goes. “Simply put, an innocent victim should not suffer financial losses from a crime — the defendant should make good on those losses,” Cassell said.
That quote’s from a dark article in this week’s NYTimes Magazine called “How Much Can Restitution Help Victims of Child Pornography?”, clearly an offensively more disturbing crime than a stolen wallet. The questions around restitution, how it’s implemented and how it can be with virally distributed content make it worth a read.
The story follows two girls who are victims of rape and subjects of child pornography, the acts done, filmed and distributed by father and uncle, respectively. Now, they’re getting paid back via restitution for their “financial losses” - the cost of psychiatric care, lost income and legal costs. All people who are caught in possession of child pornography faced jail time, and those in possession of these girls’ images, for the first time in child pornography suits, face restitution claims.
This article is dark, and I usually find dark narrative nonfiction a little too sensationalist, like the last article in People Magazine sensationalist where you think “Why am I reading about this one freak murder, it’s scaring me for no reason,” or “Why did I just watch that video of the McDonalds guy hitting a drunk customer with a mop handle, I feel gross for no reason,” but this one’s got some questions worth exploring. Restitution’s used, I gather, pretty widely: bank robberies, mortgage fraud, not paying taxes…Peregrine founder and resident dipshit Russell Wasendorf will pay restitution upwards of $200 million to the clients he stole from over the past 20 years. But it seems there’s been nothing as vague as loss incurred by emotional and psychological damage, especially by the recipients, owners of illegal online content, versus the primary distributor himself. Ultimately, though, if the question is, are you, by owning and perpetuating the availability of a child’s image provided against her will and/or far before her ability to consent, using a global online network, are you actively contributing to her trauma that will add to her financial losses in the form of psychiatric care? I say yes. But in the anonymous world of the internet, many men probably don’t imagine these girls as real people who have been psychologically harmed by the images that are giving them pleasure. And that’s a weird thing about the Internet. Reification of people. We don’t think about the systems in place that got our tube of toothpaste made, packaged, and put on that shelf at Walgreens to buy. On a sicker realm, the increasing distribution of images discourages questions about how that girl got there to turn you on in the first place. It explains why the number of defendants sentenced in federal court for child pornography offenses increased 30 fold in under 20 years, from 61 in 1994 to 1,880 in 2011. And, I think, makes an even stronger case for slapping hearty restitution on as punishment.
Read the article! It’s good.
“It’s a whole process giving worth to every moment of your day. I’m seeing things, I’ve interviewed people, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people over many years. By saving it i’m just not being like a collector of stuff, I’m a documentarian of what it is that I do, who I know, what I see.
“So, this stuff is never dead. Because stories never die. Stories are never over. This is the origins of an article.”
-Gay Talese, as interviewed in Notes from Underground: Gay Talese’s Office.
A dynamic Barry McGee mural has spread across the 96x67 foot wall of Mark Morris Dance Center over the past two weeks. Been watching its growth from my front stoop. It’s called “Untitled 2012” and was commissioned by Vanity Fair in partnership with Cadillac (via NYT). Something tells me Barclays has a hand in this, but as usual, I am not offended by the yet-to-be-seen effects of our neighborhood’s new brown beast. So far all it’s brought me is new art, cheap basketball tickets and a vague promise of Beyonce live. When it opens, maybe it’ll bring me horrendous rush hour but I’ll wait till my face is smushed against the 3 train door to pass that kinda judgment.
Deciphering tags: McGee is AKA Robert Pimple, and AKA Ray Fong, and AKA Lydia Fong. What’s DFW? Not our DFW. It’s “Down For Whatever,” a book by…one of them. The tags are literal & self-promoting. But it’s not a white wall, nor is it a Cadillac logo, and for that I am grateful.
More on McPimpfong here. More on the mural here, via ArrestedMotion.
The Rise of the Needy Man
Jezebel
“Men, writes Matlack, are filled with yearning: to talk, to be understood, to be accepted. Men, he suggests, have more emotional depth than we give them credit for having. What he doesn’t say is that guys today have so much less emotional resilience than we need them to possess.”
- Hugo Schwyzer
In my experience, many men (mostly American men, straight men) can’t handle feeling big things. This is a vast generalization but I’m going for it: they avoid it if they’re single and they cling to the women they know will help them through it if they’re not.
What conditions them to be less emotionally resilient?
There’s the obvious: Men are expected to be professionally successful financial providers to their families. They’re conditioned to exude strength, power, lack of weakness, blah blah.
Then there’s the community aspect: in some ways, women get to feel camraderie around the fact that they’re the societally disempowered sex – it gives them a community for “gender and women’s studies,” for a “women’s lib” movement. Like there’s no “caucasian studies,” there’s no “gender and men’s studies,” but the latter could be useful, as no movement to connect under that doesn’t have tainted connotations, like fraternities, may retard their emotional maturity. Many therapists say men’s groups are good for men, encouraging them to use each other to parce through their feelings instead of leaning so hard and dependently on the women in their lives.
There’s the biological, that women have fluctuating hormones. Then there’s the psychological effect of biological realities. What about this: women gutturally scream when they give birth. It is a major life event in which they’re expected to show extreme emotion, to hold back none, to give over all control of their own body to the development and creation of their child. Men just don’t ever have that built in excuse in life to emote like that.
Many men I’ve met have a far less developed ability to pinpoint, accept, translate, discuss and work through big feelings like the women in my life. That can be exasperating. Many, I think, are inspired (if quietly) by a woman’s ability to be emotionally available and accepting of hearing, talking, listening to feelings. Many need permission to explore their own feelings, and many think they’ll only receive that from a gender that doesn’t see weakness as a weakness.
By Jane Mayer
August 27, 2012
Read this. It’s about how Citizens United lets billionaires buy an election, allowing for a severe gap between donations given to Obama vs Romney for 2 main reasons:
1. Obama’s less comfortable stroking the egos & bellies of his wealthy donors than Clinton et al, partially because he doesn’t want to owe anyone a favor (“Obama wrote, politicians who spent too much time among the wealthy risked losing touch with the ‘frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population—that is, the people that I’d entered public life to serve.’”).
2. Wealthy liberals like Warren Buffett are disinterested in engaging in super PACs as they, like Obama, find the institutions plutocratic and devastating to the public interest.
Say what you will about Obama’s leadership and the change you wanted versus the change you saw, but changing yr vote will put a Republican in power that is comfortable being lobbied to by some of the country’s most socially and fiscally closed-minded wealthy losers. Why won’t Mitt stand for clean energy? The Koch brothers are spending $400 million on his campaign and they want the issue buried in the interest of their fossil fuel company. Why are Republicans so eerily one-sided on Israel & Palestine? Sheldon Adelson, one of Mitt’s biggest donors, thinks the Palestinian prime minister’s a terrorist. Why are Republicans in Congress protecting Adelson’s casinos’ ability to pay a 9.8% tax rate when the statutory rate is 35 (Is fairness not a historically Republican cause?)? Appeasement. The point that these Republicans scare me feels too obvious to state on a blog, but Paul Ryan the other day called rape a “method of conception,” and making rape a talking point, diluting the severity of our connotations to such a traumatic abuse = scary. Doubtless the rights on women’s bodies are about money and the closed-minded beliefs of rich men, too.
I like many of the things that traditional Republicans stood for. Mitt’s historically moderate - he was inoffensive in Massachusetts – but any traditional Republican’s nuts to think he won’t be committed to following through on his donors’ needs. I’ve found Obama to be a stable leader in times of severe & unprecedented political polarization. He could be close to losing on such a high-road ethical stance, but he comes across as a more honest politician for it. Last week I Googled, “Why don’t Republicans like Obama.” Call me simplistic. Google’s not built to answer that.
I come from an immediate family of swinging liberals and an extended one of Yankee conservatives. My aunt didn’t vote for John Kerry because she had a bad feeling about Theresa Heinz. One uncle is waiting to see how the two do in the debates to base an opinion, although he should have all the facts he needs (and the debates are scripted, guys: candidates know and can prepare for questions 3 weeks before it takes place). Another uncle emailed me yesterday with this sad overgeneralization that presidential candidates “all love the office and will say anything the people want to hear in order to get elected …or re-elected. The way things look and how ALL the members of Congress and the President act, there is no solution to our country’s problems.” These, my own genetic counterparts, vote with their feelings over facts.
There’s fairness and reality, and tiptoeing around reality for the sake of fairness, even to keep the peace on Labor Day, feels increasingly to be a disservice. The billionaires are looking out for themselves, and the policies they push through if Mitt’s elected are about them: they are not traditionally conservative, won’t benefit us and have none of us in mind.
Why don’t Republicans like Obama?
So tired of the old & middle-aged that scorn my generation and our fractured way of consuming content. It’s such a lazy argument. Being comfortable with a reality that is not linear doesn’t mean we don’t read, innovate or value intellect. Actually, the way I consume content is more immersive & exploratory and puts the impetus on me to find an issue’s greater narrative. It’s not handed down to me from my nightly news anchor. Is that what they miss? That and the feel of flipping pages? Then they should save their breath and GO BUY A BOOK.
From Good.is: Generation Read: Millenials Buy More Books than Anyone Else
According to the 2012 U.S. Book Consumer Demographics and Buying Behaviors Annual Review, if you were born between 1979 and 1989, you spent more money on books in 2011 than older Americans. The survey found that millennials now buy 30 percent of books. In comparison, baby boomers, who have far more disposable income than most millennials, only made 24 percent of book purchases.”
(photo via @dont-slouch)
More plagiarism & fabrication from the beloved & young.
“Lehrer’s success and this current humiliation, how far he had to fall, is a symptom of a much bigger problem, one that is systemic, one that continues to consistently elevate certain kinds of men simply for being a certain kind of man. Jonah Lehrer fits the narrative we want about a boy genius…[he] may or may not be a genius, but we wanted him to be one.”
- Roxane Gay in Slate: “Jonah Lehrer throws it all away”
Satirical Maps of the First World War. This one’s by Louis Raemaekers, and is called Het Gekkenhuis (Oud Liedje, Nieuwe Wijs), which means approximately The Insane Asylum (Old Song, New Tune).
The blog BibliOddysey writes:
“Louis Raemaekers (1869-1956) was one of the most famous cartoonist/caricaturists of WWI. He crossed the border from Holland into Belgium to witness first-hand the atrocities of the advancing German army. He subsequently chronicled the brutality of theses forces in his cartoons which drew the wrath of the Germans. They forced the Dutch authorities to put the illustrator on trial for jeopardising the neutrality of the Netherlands (acquitted). A reward was offered by the Germans for Raemaekers’ arrest and he escaped to Britain where he continued to skewer the German army in his drawings. He produced a thousand cartoons during the war and gained world wide acclaim from their syndication.
See many other maps here.
I learned about Vivian Maier at This American Life Live last week. The story was about a guy, John Maloof, who in 2007 bid $400 at an auction for 30,000 negatives from an old storage locker in Chicago. They belonged to Maier, a nanny from France who was old and dying. Then he started printing off her negatives. Each was clearer and more intricate than the last. Then she died.
She was sort of a hoarder - kept old newspapers & all her negatives, though most of her photos hadn’t been printed or seen by anyone. More than anything it seemed she was obsessed with compulsively documenting her life and the world around her at that time. She took photos on the street, but also of signs, of prices, of herself, of her taxes. A nostalgist, like me. If only we could all document so precisely.
You can see a portfolio of hers of New York here and a video slideshow by Maloof here.
Vivian Maier
For the two years before my grandmother died, she occupied the room across from mine in my childhood home. This print hung next to the door to her closet. I remember trying to give each of these women equal time. They reminded me of Polly Pockets - smaller and less relevant than Barbie, with tantalizing toothpick arms and rigid plastic skirts. I preferred the women who took on the sill, standing right on top, fully framed, chest-out, spread-eagle, marking their spot. It was like a political commentary, or a death wish, or a bid to flaunt something more artistic and complex than their bodies. Whatever that was.
Ormond Gigli, Girls in the Windows, 1960
Experienced storyteller, interviewer, problem-solver and sentence-builder with strong powers of observation. Editorially bold. Versatile doer and big picture thinker with a well-trained but uncertified eye for design.