Why did I bother?

I knew better.

I knew better, and I did it anyway.

Last week, a Facebook friend of a very conservative nature posted a graphic on Facebook. Unlike his usual postings, it wasn't even a share, it was a graphic he'd come across, downloaded, then posted. It was about Christine Blasey Ford.

If you do not know who Christine Blasey Ford is, look her up. Suffice to say, the graphic posted was not particularly complimentary, calling her an alcoholic, promiscuous and, possibly worst of all, a liberal activist. It then suggested that not only was her coming forward a desperate attempt to keep a conservative off the Supreme Court, but that Dr. Blasey Ford was looking for a book deal.

If they were making The Princess Bride today (heck, the way Hollywood is, they probably are), Vizzini might declare that the most famous blunder of all is "never get involved in a political discussion on Facebook." It's almost always a no-win situation for all. Most people have no interest in actual, informed debate about politics on Facebook. Most people just want to stake their position and fly their flag as high as possible for all like-minded people to see, and to piss off those who don't agree. The first time I saw this, I clicked in the comment box and was poised to strike, then thought better of it. It bothered me to pass it by, but it was sensible.

But two days later, based on whatever algorithms Facebook uses, it was there again, floating to the top of my news feed even though I am constantly telling Facebook I want it to sort by most recent, not what Facebook thinks is a 'Top Story' (why I have to change this every. Single. Time. I get on Facebook is beyond me). This time, I couldn't hold back.

All I wanted was an acknowledgment. What acknowledgment? This one: Dr. Blasey Ford may well be all of those things this Facebook graphic depicts her as. An alcoholic. Promiscuous. A liberal activist. Sure, maybe she's even an opportunist, hoping to catapult herself to riches and fame (though, please see this excellent post by John Pavlovitz about that). Yet, none of that precludes the possibility that Brett Kavanaugh did exactly what she says he did. Unsurprisingly, I got no admission of the sort. Instead, I got (and am still getting) the usual litany of Republican talking points, victim blaming, and straw men. In other words, pretty much what I expected. At least I haven't gotten any personal attacks. Yet. I haven't checked Facebook this morning. Meanwhile, I swear I'll stay out of it next time...

...maybe.

The Bee and the Barr

Late last night, I gave in to an itch and rubbed my eye. I knew it was a mistake, but the eye had started itching madly right around the time Last Week Tonight started. Twice during the program I dribbled a little cool water into the corner of my eye, but it did no good: the itch remained. And though I knew the itch was the result of an allergy (I had cut the grass earlier in the day, and it was raining, and it's spring/summer), and though I knew exactly what was going to happen if I gave in, I stuck my finger in behind my glasses and rubbed.
Ahhh, such sweet relief! There is nothing quite so satisfying as scratching as scratching an itch. It's so...so...so. It's just so.

Here's the problem with this sort of itch, though: while it feels positively orgasmic while you're scratching it, it doesn't solve anything. As soon as I pulled my finger out from behind my glasses, three things happened: 1) the itch returned, as bad and insistent as before; 2) it now felt like a lash or something was stuck beneath my eyelid, even though I didn't have to check in the mirror to know this wasn't true, and 3) the phlegm factory in my head went into full-scale production mode, churning out mucus like Soviet factories cranked out tanks in World War II. I ended up taking Benadryl, and while it did the job, taking Benadryl at midnight means waking from a bizarre dream at 5:44 with no recollection of the alarm having gone off and a tongue that feels about as moist as the Mojave Desert. My head is clear of phlegm, but my brain is rather sluggish, which might explain this post.

The sad thing? All of this was predictable. I've been here before. It never ends well. Experience tells me there are certain types of eye itches that I must absolutely leave alone, and last night's was one of those. I knew it, and I reaped the consequences. But it felt so good!

Last week, Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee both scratched some particular eye itch, Barr in her Twitter feed, Bee on her show, Full Frontal. (If you've been living under a rock, Barr's tweet was a racist shot at a former Obama administration official, while Bee dropped a C-Bomb on Ivanka Trump) Barr was fired from her show before the day was out. Bee is still employed, though she has lost a couple of big advertisers. She is supposedly going to address this on this week's show. At this point, I'm guessing she'll keep her job, since the network (TBS) joined her in falling on the sword. Unless there's enough of a backlash.

What was Roseanne thinking when she fired off her 2 a.m. Tweet? What was Bee thinking when she dropped the C-bomb on air? I can't say for sure, but I imagine it was a lot like me with my eye itch: it felt really good until the entirely predictable--and avoidable--reaction.

Us & Them

Is it me or does it feel like social media--that great, wonderful tool that is supposed to bring us all together--is becoming more and more divisive?

Maybe it is me. Maybe I just don't like people screaming their political beliefs at me (particularly when they don't jibe with my own, hah ha), or trying to get me to "guilt share" some image or message or status. "Share this if you support..." with the implication being that I'm anti-American or anti-cop or anti-equality or anti-choice or anti-life or anti-feminist if I don't do it. Don't tell me what I am just because I didn't change my profile picture to support your cause, or because I didn't share a status or image or do the Ice Bucket Challenge.

Rant over. Damn, I'm feeling like some cranky old man. Here's some depressing (but incredible) Pink Floyd to cap this post off a on a real cheery note!

Hannibal Says

"Quid pro quo, Clarice--comment on my blog, I'll comment on yours."

Doesn't social media feel this way sometimes? Someone has just left a comment on your blog; a new person has just signed on as a follower--what next? Well, the way a lot of people see it, you should just jump on over to their blog and leave a comment for them. And follow them, too. Quid pro quo, as the not-so-good Dr. Lecter would say.

It makes sense: this is social media, after all, and the point of it, as far as I know, is reaching out and connecting with others, which is exactly what happens when we follow and are followed. But I don't like that sense of obligation, that pressure. Am I alone on this? Do you believe we should automatically follow our followers and comment on our commenters?

ADDITION FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, 1/13/15:

When I used the phrase "comment on our commenters" I meant it as in going to their blogs and commenting on their posts. As I read over the comments here and looked again at that last line, I see I was not clear about that. I absolutely agree that if someone makes a comment here, they deserve a response, and over the last couple of years I've played around with different response methods--the nested reply to each comment, the personal e-mail response to each comment, and the currently-in-use method of gang replies. I sometimes miss people, but I try not to. So. Do you feel that someone leaving a comment on your blog means you should automatically go to their blog and leave a comment on their most recent post? Thanks for reading and commenting, and sorry for the confusion.

OMG! Look What Happened To....

Social media exploded this week when a Hollywood star stepped out on the red carpet for the first time in a while. I'm talking, of course, about Tony Sirico. Here he is in his most famous role, as Paul Gualtieri, aka "Paulie Walnuts," in The Sopranos:

Can peel paint from a house at distances up to 20 yards

I don't think anyone on that show could threaten with a 'look' as much as he could. Yikes. And here is Mr. Sirico recent--

OH MY GOD! WHAT DID HE DO? WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO TONY SIRICO??? IS THAT EVEN THE SAME GUY???

Well, since we're on the subject of mobster types, we ran into another guy who was especially famous for playing mobsters. Look, it's Ray Liotta, star of that film I just can't get enough of, Goodfellas! Remember him?

HOLY SHIT! RAY LIOTTA! WTF??? YOU'RE ALL GRAY! YOU'RE WRINKLED! YOU LOST YOUR TEETH! WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR EYES???

Okay, okay, maybe that's not fair--those pictures were taken some 20 years apart, so we'll just let him pass by. Hey, wait...I think I see David Duchovny! Duchovny's great. I was a big fan of his back in his X-Files days, and I loved the first few seasons of Californication. I'm not crazy about the last few, but Duchovny was always entertaining as Hank Moody. Here he is back in season 1, just seven years ago (you know, around the same time we last saw Renee Zellweger in public). I can hear the heart's a-thumping all across the land.

And here he is this year:

HOLY CRAP, DAVID DUCHOVNY--YOU'RE WRINKLED! YOUR HAIRLINE'S RECEDING! YOUR CHEEKS ARE SINKING!!! HOW DARE YOU AGE???

Okay. Chill. Take a deep breath. Here's the thing: these people? They're PEOPLE. Like me, like you. And one thing I've noticed about people as I get older is they age at different rates, and age faster at some parts of their lives than others. Go to a high school reunion and you'll see some folks who look like they did the day they grabbed their diplomas and walked off into the sunset. You'll also see some who look ten or twenty years older than everyone. And maybe ten or fifteen years down the road, those prematurely-aging types will look exactly the same, and Mr. Youthful will look about 108. As for Renee Zellweger? It really has been a few years since she's been out in the public eye--it's natural that we'd notice a difference (especially because it looks like she went out without a super-thick layer of makeup). Did she have work done? Maybe yes, maybe no, but who cares? It's her body, her choice, right? And aside from Bruce Jenner, why aren't we howling over male celebrities who have had work done--or haven't had it done?

The shame of it is, Renee Zellweger is a fine actress who has a new movie coming out next year and is in pre-production on another. Rather than wonder about whether she had work done or not, we should be celebrating her return to the screen (first film since 2010). And the question we should be asking is, why is it so hard for women in their 40s to get good roles in Hollywood?

That's all I've got to say about that--what say you? Thanks for reading, and have a nice weekend!

Anita Sarkeesian and More Ranting!

As you've been aware, I've been somewhat irritable and ranty lately. Oddly, I don't actually feel quite so cranky this morning (just tired, mostly); nonetheless, this post is likely to come off in a similar vein to recent posts. In this case, it's the subject matter as opposed to my general mood.

Some items of interest from the week. First, I don't subscribe (but I should) to Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency page, though I should. If you don't know Sarkeesian, take the time to check her out. She's been doing a video series examining women in media, particularly with regards to video games that is always thought-provoking, and, often, downright disturbing.

I realized early in the week that I hadn't checked her page for some time. It's not uncommon for there to be several months between video releases, and for good reason: each runs about 30 minutes long, are well-researched and are of professional quality. To my pleasure, I found that she had one that had just come out a week or so earlier, and I had missed her previous installment, which came out in June (time flies). However, I also found I had missed this, from a few days earlier. In short, Sarkeesian had received threats that forced her from her home.

Sarkeesian is no stranger to threats. After her Kickstarter campaign to fund her Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series took off in 2012, Sarkeesian was actually the subject of an internet video game herself, in which players could beat up her image. Every installment is met with threats; I can only imagine how bad this must have been to make her leave her home, and once again, it makes me ask: are we still going through this shit? Seriously? Why are guys so threatened by a woman who dares to think and ask questions? Pointing out problems in our society should not unleash an avalanche of threats that include murder, rape and torture. Enough, already.

On a related note, I found myself involved in a Facebook discussion about this article (covering the theft and posting of nude (female) celebrity photos this week), which was posted by one of the Magpie's friends (hereinafter referred to as the Robin). A young man who graduated with the Magpie (we'll call him the Roadrunner) commented on the article, arguing that people were dicks, and that separation—physical, socio-economic, class, etc.—facilitated dicky behavior. In essence, his argument was this:

He's not wrong. Even in places like Facebook, where you may well be using your real name, the layers between people undoubtedly fuel what can only be called douchebaggery. It's not just the internet, replied the Robin, it's everywhere, and related how she had been verbally harassed while hiking in a state park that very same day. The Roadrunner suggested the internet was, in essence, a lost cause, that you would not be able to control their behavior, then went on to talk security and how, in essence, we shouldn't be putting things online because of security. He then compared it to cars of the 1940s, when no one wore seatbelts and there were accidents and asshole drivers. A good try, but he clearly missed the point.

Now, I don't know the Roadrunner especially well. He wasn't one of the Magpie's better friends, but she got on well enough with him, and she never indicated that he was a dick or a tool or anything like that (and to her credit, she has a very low tolerance for those sorts of people). I believe he was both sympathetic and trying to understand, despite his use of the "you have to protect yourself" line and his awkward analogy. It was clear, however, that he just could not understand, likely because: he's young (19, 20 years old); he's inexperienced; and he's a guy.

My own question in response to this was, if we write off the internet, where do we stop? It's okay to try to stop men from groping women on the subway or bus, or to try to stop them from staring or making rude comments on the street or in the elevator, but we'll just leave that internet, it's a lost cause. Oh, and construction sites. Construction workers have been whistling and catcalling forever, we'll give them a pass, too. Sorry, not good enough. Not when you have a young woman says, "I'd like to think that there is such a thing as 'safe' but I certainly have yet to feel that way."

This must change. I don't really know how we get it to change, but we just can't accept this, can't excuse it as 'boys being boys' or write it off as being due to internet anonymity. 

Maybe next week I'll be less ranty. Have a pleasant weekend, all.

Do You Or Don't You?

Conventional wisdom holds that agent-hunting writers should stalk agents on Facebook, Twitter, blogs--whatever social media watering holes agents gather at (yeah, that doesn't sound at all creepy, does it?). There's a good reason for this: agency websites are often not updated a whole lot beyond major personnel changes and latest client releases, whereas an agent's personal blog, Twitter feed, or Facebook status posting can clue you in on what an agent is looking for RIGHT NOW, and can tell you how deep in the slush pile they are.

I have yet to join the Twitter-verse, and I keep my Facebook friends list under tight control, so I tend to read and follow agent blogs. Many agents use their blogs as a way to educate writers, to help them--us--understand the ins and outs of the publishing world, to help us craft better books, better pitches, better queries. I've learned a lot from agent blogs over the last few years. For agents, not only does it give them a higher profile, it might--might, I say--help improve the quality of the queries coming in over the transom. Maybe.

Whatever your social media platform of choice, the big question is: do you engage? Do you comment, ask questions, relate your own experiences?

There's a certain degree of fear and doubt that goes along with leaving a comment on an agent's blog, especially if that person is on your query list: Will I sound stupid? Will I say something offensive? Will they track me and find my blog to be the most pointless drivel ever committed to the internet? Almost as bad: Will my comments come off looking like self-serving ass-kissery? This is over-thinking of the worst kind, paralysis by analysis.

There is an eventual point to this (I think), but for today, I'll leave it at that. So again, the question: Do you engage with agents on social media? I look forward to your answers.