Archive for the 'On the Ground' Category

summertime perplexities

Friday, June 14th, 2019

Hottest most humid day of the year thus far.  I walk by a woman wearing a “conversation t” — (though, doing a quick google search I’m not sure I have the terminology of the apparel industry right).  It’s a tight form fitting shirt, generally short enough to show one’s navel (but I’m not sure if the industry has it down that far), where a sassy and saucy statement sits right on her boobs, sometimes — as is the case here– the punchline to a line that’s right above her boobs.

So I see the phrase “Touch my butt” right above her boobs.  I want to know what the rest of the thing says, but I can’t really look because I just don’t want to be seen staring at her breasts.  I assume it’s something like “And I’ll chop your nuts off” or “And I’ll karate chop you”, as that’s about what may make sense.

Well, maybe I can find someone wearing a dark pair of sunglasses to do the job, or someone not afraid of being called a dirty old man, or dirty old woman.

someone’s mildly amused by themselves

Thursday, May 23rd, 2019

Hanging on a pole, or was until I took it down today.  It kind of feels like a joke, a trolling of the “progressive”, a mocking of minor gestures of solidarity as activism… but if it were… it sure would be a slight one…  And, (sic)…

NO ONE SHOULD BE TOLD WHAT TO DO WITH THERE BODY!
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT NOW.  WEAR GREY.  DON’T LET ROE V. WADE GET OVERTURNED
PROTECT THE FUTURE RIGHTS FOR ALL WOMEN!
WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHAT WE DO WITH OUR BODIES!
PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS BY WEARING GREY!

In other political pamphleteering news, I haven’t seen a new anti-Trump throttling jammed into the free boxes of the WW or PM or whatever.  But today I did see someone tossed in a paper declaring “Protect Free Speech”, and a stylish image of a hand holding a smart-phone device with “infowars.com” written on it.  So the fights continue.

overheard, and musings

Wednesday, March 27th, 2019

“And The Cosby Show… is the greatest television comedy of all time.”

Yeah.  And it won’t be mass marketed again until sometime after the guy is dead…

they ring out

Friday, March 15th, 2019

“I’m full blown for Bernie.”
“I don’t understand how Bernie didn’t get in 2016.  He would have swamped Trump.”
“Well, the DNC is massively corrupt.”

Tads of revisionism history, and partisan history on the fly, that will seep into their personal political narrative and will be a little difficult to entangle, as parts of it are true — so as to overwhelm larger issues.  There’s a lot of that.  We will never be able to acknowledge, for instance, the political weaknesses and limitations of Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968 — except maybe Pat Buchanan.

Interestingly this runs counter to the Hillary Clinton hagiography and pure victim of our misogynistic culture… with no room for anything else.  (The election was PAMIWI… Eye on the ball…) But it is.  As is.

the messages don’t make sense.

Monday, March 4th, 2019

The messages that the activist who slots crap into the free boxes (alt weeklies and the like) …

… are getting more obscure and opaque.  Tell me if you can can reassemble this message into coherence.

PICK YOUR TEAM
RUSSIAN REPUBLICAN
CAPITALIST PREDATOR
HOME GROWN JINGO
How do you want to be remembered?
Where’s Washington and Lincoln?

I don’t know what any of this means.  I suppose the problem is someone called them out for fat-shaming the President, so now they can’t quite find any good insult.

deep state redux

Monday, February 25th, 2019

I can’t quite catch a term, but it’s a term that seems important to … know.

“I keep hearing from Bernie Sanders supporters who say he can’t lose.  Like, they’re…”
“naive?”
“Not that.”
“[  term of some sort ]”  — something with “dogging” it at the end of the phrase…
“Yeah.  Like.  Way too hopeful here.”

“Not even popularity.  It’s the electoral system and… they won’t allow it.  It’s naive to think they would.  I mean.  You know Chile.  Venezuela.”

Why not mention JFK while they’re at it?

and…

Thursday, February 21st, 2019

A Feminist store of some good location has the sign …

“Before there was Clinton, there was Chisholm.”

Sure.  But before there was Chisholm, there was Woodhull.

Between them, there was Margaret Chase Smith.
Two poles of “respectability”, Woodhull had an eccentric spirituality, and Smith was a Republican.  I don’t know which one they’d go with.

Then again, there’s also Jill Stein.  We could have a “Concurrent with Clinton, there was Stein” sign.  Maybe they’ll put that up next time?

the electorate speaks

Thursday, January 31st, 2019

“She does look good on television, I guess you can say that.  Sex appeal.”
“Yeah.  We know she said a bunch of things about the gays…”
“That was, what?, 15 years ago?”
“The woman from California?  Ugh.  Too strident.”
“I know.  And where is she on prisons?”

Gauging the electorate.  There’s a bit too chew there.  Everything reads “gender”, or will to certain people.  The former candidate, the Representative from Hawaii, I suppose, could say for the superficial appeals about the last male Democratic president.  See too the problem of “strident” candidate from California — didn’t say “shrill” you will note, but there is a point too in regards to the last Democratic president and how he made his appeal.  “But… Trump?” — you may say.  To which there is an “exactly.”

Proceed in the morass at your own risk.

turf wars

Friday, December 28th, 2018

We get one of those flyers on a free box (WW or PM or one of those) mocking Trump as a 400 pound lard and a lard for Democracy, or some such…

… and an angry flyer placed in the next box declaring that “Fat shaming your political enemy is fat shaming your political comrades, you neo-liberal idiot.”

I ponder whether they know the definition of “neo-liberal”, though I then ponder whether there is a real definition of the word “neo-liberal” anyway.

Gun Talk in the liberal bubble

Friday, December 21st, 2018

“No, really I see no reason that I can’t have one, keep close in hand, for my protection.”
“Concealed.”
“Yes.  Concealed.  There are creeps out there.”

Two people — late 20s? early 30s? — talking about guns, largely positively.  Off notes shift in.

The negative notes seem to be almost perfunctory.  Cover their bases.

“Of course if I had children, the calculus would change.”
“Of course.”
“Like, the last school shooting.  Apparently the gun was just… lying around.  Or something.”
“That’s just wrong.”

“Apparently in some states you can own a gun at age four.  Can’t buy one of course, but can be passed on to the kid.”

I suppose I may mention that should the four year old actually fire the gun for any consequence, the legal guardian would almost certainly have some mighty serious legal repercussions.  Also, what does a four year old own, really?

They then plan on going shooting over the weekend.  Firing shots and some inanimate object or other out in the boondocks.
“Sounds like fun.”
“Sure does.”

Worth pointing out, perhaps, this is a woman and a man.  The woman speaks at some point of her girlfriend.  I point that out only because back in the summer, I noted at Huffington Post a story lauding some trans-gendered student associated with the anti-gun group of high schoolers behind David Hogg, speaking out and lauded as grabbing the “intersectionality” of the gun issue, which elicits a giant groan, a forced framework.  As it were, I suppose we’re still in the “white” and “cis” categories, so we’re still not fully where we need to be in the “Oppression Olympics”.  When I get the tran-woman or man nra member, I’ll be sure to note it.