text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-156469522016-06-26T12:39:22.609-04:00more like spacekate's temporary autonomous zoneKate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-17919035686767675232016-06-24T20:34:00.002-04:002016-06-24T20:34:26.033-04:00english brexit

once you see it...

as the flood of emotion rolls forward in the wake of england's vote to leave the european union, it's clear that it is going to take a long time for wounds to heal. it's also clear that things remain [maybe not the best word to use, under the circumstances] very unclear. no one knows exactly how long it will take britain to back out of the e.u. up until last night, representatives of the "leave" campaign were quick to point out that the prime minister could either begin the official process of negotiating with the e..u. the terms of withdrawal [and saying that he should do so immediately], or that he could really speed things up by simply repealing the parliamentary act that joined britain to the e.u. in the first place. this morning, when britain has no prime minister and the pound sterling on fire, everyone is quick to emphasize that it will, of course, take years before the final split will take place.

those who awoke feeling good better about the future of their country are relishing their victory over the elites: the arrogant, monied, university-educated snobs who have for years betrayed the working man in the name of big finance and globalism. and thinking about it that way, it sounds like the sort of thing i should be happy about.

but then i wondered: at what point did education become a bad thing? when did we stop wanting our leaders to be an elite?

to paraphrase jon stewart reacting to criticism of barack obama, i want my leaders to be better than me in every way. i want them to be smarter, i want them to be harder-working, i want them to be more knowledgeable, i want them to be more compassionate, more responsible, more rational and more honest. and if not all of them can be all of those things, i want a team that collectively embodies everything that makes up for my failings. i want my leadership- in every situation, not just national government- to be elite as fuck.

so why do i feel so isolated in that belief?

it's comforting for people like me to just shake our heads and think that people are stupid and ignorant, but the truth is that the anti-elitists have a point: supposedly left-leaning parties like the american democrats or britain's labour party have sold out their poor and working-class base to big money interests and those people are legitimately suffering because of their decisions. so when leaders from the major parties descend to the level of the common man to wag their fingers and tell people to fall in line, it shouldn't be surprising when the reaction is to tell those people to go to hell.

and from the chaos, there is always someone- nigel farage, donald trump, stephen harper- who rushes in to stoke our ugliest instincts, peddling simple answers that sound revolutionary to jaded ears. it's no accident that one of donald trump's supporters was filmed saying that he didn't mind his candidate's refusal [or inability] to explain any of his policies, because the problem with politics was that there were "too many words". after all, words are the purview of the well-educated, wealthy people who've made such disastrous decisions for their countrymen. they speak without saying anything and six weeks later, thousands of jobs have been "off-shored" and you're spending billions to bail out a corrupt banking industry.

like farage and trump, these people inevitably come from the same elite background as the ones who caused all the damage in the first place, and they generally support the fiscal policies that caused the greatest pain. but they're smart enough to know that providing a scapegoat [one whose differences are easy to notice], and encouraging the public to isolate themselves from "others" makes things easier for the people in charge. smaller groups are easier to control, and pitting different factions against each other distracts from anything else that might be happening.

[oh, and to those who complain that the biggest problem with immigrants is their unwillingness to assimilate: history teaches us that immigrants fare best when they slaughter and subjugate the inhabitants of their new country without mercy. trying to maintain your cultural identity while living peacefully alongside others? ask the jews and the romani how well that's worked out for them.]

it's an effective strategy, not because we're stupid, but because it appeals to the deepest, most ancient part of our brains, the remnant of a world where things outside the immediate tribe of the common and known were often extremely dangerous. for all the polish we've put on ourselves, we are still creatures living in our caves, afraid of strange noises. and those who make exploit that are able to make us act against our own best interests.

those fighting on the side of the "remain" campaign were hamstrung because they couldn't be honest about the problems of the e.u. and globalisation, being the same people who'd brought on the problems to begin with. and that fear of admitting past mistakes made it impossible to respond to the dissembling of ukip and their ilk in a way that would have been respectful to the rightly frustrated working class. a proper response would have been to say that britain needs immigrants to save its economy as the population ages and shrinks, and that concerns about workers from poorer countries driving down wages was best alleviated by a higher minimum wage and protections for working people. even better, they could have added that the promise of freeing britons from the horror of european rules imposed from without was actually a promise to strip their rights away. but that's not a case that david cameron [or a neoliberal like tony blair] could make, since he supports neither raising the minimum wage nor strengthening protections for workers. likewise, the people who have slashed funding for research programs cannot make a compelling case that maintaining e.u. funding for science, humanities and the arts is important.

instead, the "remain" side fell back on the politics of fear, threatening people with the prospect of an economic meltdown, without appreciating that people who are already struggling to pay their bills, or who are unemployed, aren't worrying about their stock portfolios or retirement funds. if anything, the prospect of economic upheaval presents an opportunity to level the playing field, knocking those arrogant bastards who are so convinced they know better down a few pegs.

even more persuasive was the promise that withdrawing from the e.u. would put control back in the hands of britons. the focus of the argument was largely on immigration, but for people who've watched helplessly as european leaders imposed austerity [which many now admit was a mistake, although they've no plans to fix it], the idea of having any power to fix their situation is pretty tempting. the problem is that politicians like farage and his tory allies believe in the same kinds of big business/ big capital solutions as angela merkel and christine lagarde. even this morning, he was scurrying away from his promise that the money saved by exiting the e.u. would be reinvested in the national health system.

in the grand clash of transnational corporate capitalism versus reactionary ethno-nationalism, i have no horse in the race. i think that power is best vested in those who have to live with the consequences of the decisions they make, which generally means keeping it close to home. on the other hand, i don't have any sympathy with those who would breed hysteria over immigrants putting too much strain on social services while cutting those services to the bone in the name of austerity. pulling power back from a distant body is a fine idea, but what's really important is whom you hand it to afterward.

in the aftermath, leaders of the scottish national party have unsurprisingly announced that a second referendum on independence is on the table. one of the main reasons that people voted against the referendum last time was nervousness about whether or not they would be able to continue in the e.u. as a separate state. last night, every riding, including those that voted "no" to independence, voted to remain with the e.u. and in northern ireland, which likewise voted to remain, leaders are calling for a vote on reunification with the republic. spain has floated the idea of co-managing the territory of gibraltar, which voted more than 95% to remain. huge swathes of the rural areas and smaller towns voted to leave, but london, manchester, liverpool, birmingham, cardiff, leicester, bristol and leeds [alongside the cities in scotland and northern ireland] all voted to remain. the most resounding victories for the "leave side" came in the working class areas of the northwest, traditionally a labour stronghold, although every labour mp supported the "remain" side. even cornwall, which voted solidly [and above the national average] to leave has nervously asked for reassurances that they won't actually lose the money that the e.u. has poured into their region. there is already a petition to demand another referendum, given the close result, and it looks embarrassingly like many people voted without knowing a lot about what they were doing.

never has the united kingdom looked less united.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-32547078549828015582016-06-23T13:36:00.000-04:002016-06-23T13:36:13.205-04:00how to write a '10 best' article

i recently re-posted one of those "top ___ essential albums" for the noise genre on my facebook page. i don't normally do that, but in this case, some of the choices were legitimately interesting, if questionable. as i'd hoped, it generated debate about its obvious oversights and its surprising inclusions, rather than the usual reaction such lists get. usually, the response is fifty shades of "this person is a fucking idiot" and, while a lot of the time i agree with those sentiments [at least as far as their article/ post is concerned], there seems to be little point in sharing something just so that people get angry about it. my friends have enough to be angry about without me making it worse.

my post did, however, spawn a couple of discussions about how exactly one should go about making such a list, given that music [or film, or books, or virtually any sort of cultural artefact] is something on which people hold both very strong and very subjective opinions. were there criteria that could make one list better than the others? was it even possible to come close to objectivity? is there even a point to coming up with one of these lists? so, rather than make my own list [which i do in my head all the time anyway], i thought i'd put years of music fandom and article-writing to use and write the more like space guide to creating 'all time best' lists.

my first piece of advice is simple: don't.

seriously, unless you're some sort of masochist who gets thrills from seeing your carefully composed work shredded by dozens of people or more, just avoid coming up with all-time bests. yes, it's tempting, because we always reflect on the things that influenced us, or enlightened us, or whose importance we feel should be recognised. but no one in the world is going to have our same list and anyone who knows enough about the subject to appreciate what you've done is going to be even more pissed off that your list doesn't match theirs. you can't win at this game. no one can win. so your best option is not to play.

but if you're determined, here's what i'd recommend, based on what i've seen both in terms of articles and the reactions to them.

1. know what you're talking about. the single greatest criticism that gets leveled at these lists is that the author doesn't know enough about the subject to credibly write about it. yes, everyone's knowledge has limits, but if you're writing about a genre of music that you've fallen in love with in the last year, unless you've dedicated some serious time to becoming an expert, chances are that you're going to have a lot of holes in your list. now, that's not to say that you can't work around that, but we'll talk more about that later.

2. talk about the 'why', not the 'what'. i think one of the reasons why these lists get trashed so quickly is that a lot of people who write them are content to offer just a quick description of what an item on the list is, not why it's being included. if you're going to talk about 'bests' or 'essentials', you should have a reason why something appears on your list. psycho appears on lists of greatest horror films not because everyone loves it so much [although most of them do], but because of things like its hyper-dramatic score, its gritty realism, its incredible editing [a whole scene in a shower, that shows all the horror, but none of the nudity] and its shock tactic of having the central character killed off quite early. people can watch or listen to excerpts of virtually anything online, so they don't need someone rattling off what its elements are. they need to know why it deserves to be considered 'the best', or some other superlative.

3. focus. you rarely hear griping about year-end best-ofs, not because people agree with them anymore, but because their bounded by a strict time limit. maybe your list would be different, but the list is more of a snapshot than something that claims to be a summation of years of everyone's work. this is especially true if points #1 and #2 seem like more work than you want to put in on a list few people will ever read. let yourself off easy and come up with a list that's about a very specific category of things. doing a best-of list of punk albums from the early 80s, or american power electronics acts is going to be less demanding than trying to come up with a comprehensive list of all the best releases in either category. on the other hand, if you really want to do a big, comprehensive list, refer to point #1.

4. it's ok to be subjective. if point #1 is a problem, but you still want to create a list of essentials, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making up a list of things that were influential on you and the development of your tastes, as long as you're not pretending that it's anything else. talk about the effect that an album had on you, how it changed your taste or your perspective. even if people don't agree with your choices, chances are they've experienced the sentiment and all of a sudden, what they're reading is more welcoming and inclusive. don't make enemies where you can make friends.

5. be the list you want to see in the world. this one's pretty straightforward, but create something that you'd be interested in reading. chances are that the things that annoy you about these sorts of articles are the same ones that annoy everyone else who reads them. but the reason that we keep reading them is because we are legitimately curious about what others who share our freakish tastes think.

so there it is, my debate-proof, eternal list of things that make a good list. if you disagree, it is because you are wrong.

the picture above is a page of the domesday book, specifically dealing with warwickshire. not the most entertaining book of lists, but definitely one that belongs on a list of important lists.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-50591848748002826392016-06-21T01:59:00.000-04:002016-06-21T01:59:49.665-04:00if you leave

this post should properly be tagged "world wide wednesdays", because it's not a mental health mondays post at all [unless you consider international politics to be a form of madness, in which case you might be onto something]. i haven't done a www post in a while, simply because i haven't had the blocks of time free to put into researching and writing them, but there is one issue that i wanted to address and i didn't want to wait until wednesday the 22nd to do it. so here is the non-comprehensive but well-intended more like space guide to the brexit.

when i first heard about this story, i thought that the newscaster said "breakfast", which seemed bizarre. i know that the british take their breakfasts pretty seriously [as seriously as the heart attacks they cause], but it seemed excessive that they were having some kind of national referendum about a meal. then, of course, i figured out that they meant brexit, which is the successor to grexit, which never happened, but was the name given to the possibility that greece could leave [or be forced out of] the european union. the united kingdom, however, has gone farther than greece ever did and will be holding a referendum on whether or not to dissociate themselves from the e.u. on the 23rd of june.

the polls show that the race is exceedingly tight, although it should be pointed out that those same polls also said that the 2015 uk election was just as tight, up until the moment when david cameron's conservative party rolled to a comfortable majority. in recent days, emotions around the debate have risen after labour mp [and a strong supporter of the "remain" campaign] jo cox was violently murdered by a man named thomas mair, but who prefers to be known as "death to traitors, freedom for britain". that name, along with the allegation that he shouted "britain first" as he repeatedly shot and stabbed cox, has fed fears that the "leave" campaign is, at its heart, a racist scare campaign tweaked with politically correct language.

leaders of the "leave" campaign have been quick to denounce cox's murder and to reassure people that this is clearly the act of one mentally ill man. it's tough to argue with that, given that even the magistrate in his preliminary hearing said that it was obvious he was in need of a psychiatric evaluation. however, it seems that voters aren't so convinced by the argument. within the day that cox was murdered, one poll [see earlier link] found that support for the "leave" side dropped 7%. in a race as tight as this one appears to be, that kind of shift is massive.

the referendum had already been deeply divisive, and these most recent events have pushed things still further, however, the fact remains that on thursday, voters in the united kingdom are going to the polls.

as i mentioned, the referendum fulfills a promise made by british prime minister david cameron. however, cameron is urging voters to opt to remain. huh?

you see, cameron made the promise chiefly to placate some of those in his party who very much do want to leave and also because he felt promising such a vote would help draw votes away from the farther-right u.k. independence party, who had fared well in the elections to the european parliament [although they haven't fared so well in the parliament itself]. whether or not that was a good idea is something cameron is likely to ask himself as he's awaiting results and chewing off his own fingernails on thursday evening.

one of cameron's chief arguments in favour of staying is that he negotiated a compromise with the e.u. that would accomplish the goals he had for leaving without having to go through the actual process. his agreement allows britain to

cap child support payments sent from migrants working in britain at a level commensurate with the government's estimate of the cost of living in the country to which the money is being sent [i.e., support money will not be sent based on the cost of living in the u.k., where it is far more expensive].

limit the benefits given to low-wage workers from other e.u. countries for the first four years that they live in the u.k.

continue using the pound [which has not been an issue per se, but protects the u.k. from having to bail out the euro, since they won't be using it]

extend special protections to london-based financial institutions, to exempt them from e.u. regulations

limit future involvement in the e.u., including the creation of a veto system that would allow national governments to overturn decisions by the european commission [which is not the parliament, but a group appointed by the elected members of parliament and the ones who have ultimate say over e.u. business]

you can read a much more detailed assessment of the cameron deal here.

the "leave" campaign [which includes almost half of cameron's caucus] is quick to point out that cameron's agreement is exactly that, an agreement, not a legally binding contract, which means that the e.u. could renege on their promises at any time. and they're equally quick to point out that none of those points address the two concerns that that form the heart of their argument:

that the u.k. is paying billions of dollars into the e.u. every year, money that could be better spent at home

that the union's "open border" policy forces the u.k. to take in more immigrants and refugees than it can handle, putting downward pressure on wages and straining public services.

the financial argument is that britain pays nearly £20 billion pounds a year to the european union- more than its budget for schools and enough to build a fully staffed nhs hospital every week. the total budget of the united kingdom for 2016 is £772 billion. compared to that figure £20 billion doesn't seem like a massive investment [it's about 2.5% of the total, but we'll break that down a little shortly]. however, revenues are projected to be only £716 billion, leaving the government with a deficit of £56 billion. that's still a lot more than £20 billion, but if the u.k. were to cut its losses, it seems that it could also cut about 35% of its deficit.

i'm being a bit facetious there, because it's not like the u.k. would just cease to be part of the european union on the 24th. yes, it's something that could be voted on immediately, but it would more than likely take a couple of years to work out all the details. [even that's just a guess, because only one country, greenland, has ever left the e.u. and you can't really use greenland as a comparison to the u.k., beyond saying they're both islands. but that doesn't mean that people haven't tried.]

but if i'm being facetious, it's nothing compared to the people who are dangling that £20 billion figure. because that's the gross contribution the u.k. makes to the european union budget. in point of fact, the u.k. gets a rebate on that amount before it ever leaves the country and then a considerable amount comes back in the form of public and private sector investments made by the e.u., leaving the net contribution at closer to £8.5 billion. the still means that britain is a net contributor to the e.u. [i.e., they pay in more money than they get out], but leaving the e.u. won't save anything close to £20 billion.

nonetheless, the "leave" campaign has pointed out that when the u.k. joined the union, it was only nine countries. now it's twenty-eight and it looks like they're willing to let just about anybody in these days. the concern is that, as more countries, especially those from eastern europe, are admitted, wealthier countries like the u.k. will have to contribute more to prop up their fragile economies. in 2005, they were forced to reduce the rebate that they got in order to get more money into the european budget, which in turn offset the costs involved in admitting newer, poorer members.

however, that's a little misleading, because, while there was a somewhat significant increase in 2013, britain's payments to the e.u. have increased only slightly in the last fifteen years. the gross payment has increased, but the rebates paid have increased as well, meaning that the net increase has been fairly little. and contributions look set to decrease even further over the next five years. [side note :: there are occasional spikes in budgetary contributions due to the seven year cycle of e.u. budgets. towards the end of a cycle, projects that have been in the planning stages start to require larger sums of money as they come to fruition.]

the "remain" campaign has warned that billions of dollars will be yanked out of the u.k. economy and cost thousands of jobs, which sounds pretty scary, but it assumes that there would be no benefits to e.u. countries maintaining its current level of trade with the u.k. that's just silly. the u.k. imports more goods from europe than it exports to them [and the gap grows every year], and no business owners in their right mind are going to want to give that up. more likely- really, the only possible solution- is that part of the "brexit" package will include terms for settling a new trade agreement that allows the u.k. to continue trading with the european common market.

norway and switzerland are both non-union members who have trade agreements with the e.u. in order to access the single market, they pay money into the e.u. budget, which is what the u.k. would expect to do if they leave. so how much would that cost? the "leavers" say "a lot less than what we pay now" and "remainders" say that it would be about the same, but without all the benefits of membership. in fact, kind of depends on which example you take. as of 2011, the u.k. was paying roughly £128 per capita for membership in the e.u. at the same time, switzerland was paying about £53 per capita to participate in the single market. however norway was paying £106 per capita. neither of those countries are the u.k., but it raises an interesting, deeply confusing point: the cost would likely be less, but how much less is hard to calculate. [read more]

also worth considering is what the money that goes into the european budget actually does. one of the great complains against it is that the e.u. does little with the money except create more bureaucracy and there is certainly a lot of money put into regulatory bodies. the pro-brexit site open europe estimates the costs that those european-driven regulations is in the tens of billions for businesses in the u.k. most interesting, however, is the list they give of the five costliest regulatory bodies.

four of the five initiatives identified are ones that protect the rights of workers and protect the environment. that's not terribly surprising, since europe are to the left of the u.k. on a lot of issues that involve employment and the environment, and there's nothing to stop the u.k. government from enacting its own rules with the same effects. but it raises the question of what exactly the "leavers" are trying to get rid of. as it stands, it seems like the chief enemies are workers with rights, the environment [including things like protected species and conservation areas] and possibly human rights in general, since the government has committed to repealing the law that forces britain to accept decisions of the european court of human rights as precedent. [side note :: the court of human rights is not part of the e.u., so the referendum will not affect the u.k.'s participation in that body. but i do think that the fact that so many of the people who want to opt out of the e.u. also want to opt out of following the court is worth mentioning.]

wow. all of that and not one mention of the only thing that seems to be on the minds of most voters: immigrants. well, there is a reason why i've left this to the end, which is that i was hoping that you'd go through all the dry number-y stuff before getting to the thing that most likely to set off powder kegs of emotion. when mr. deathtotraitorsfreedomforbritain shot and stabbed jo cox to death, he was not doing so because of a disagreement over gross versus net contributions to the european budget.

when people were calling attention to the fact that the uk independence party had made a poster in favour of leaving [the party is not a participant in the official "leave" campaign, but is running its own parallel campaign] that resembled a piece of actual nazi propaganda, it was not a poster about the detrimental effects of european regulations on the u.k.

this is a very touchy area and the reason that politicians are using it is precisely because it drives up the emotional temperature. fast, cheap travel and enormous differences in earning potential have brought cultures into closer and closer contact and this has frequently raised tensions. the idea that a referendum on whether or not the united kingdom should remain part of the european union will somehow resolve tensions about immigration, cultural change, reasonable accommodation and the legacy of colonialism, is facile.

nonetheless, there are clearly implications for immigration whether the u.k. votes to stay or leave and they should be addressed.

the case put forward by vote leave, take control is that the influx of immigrants into the u.k. is untenable and will eventually bankrupt programs like the nhs [national health service]. their estimate of the net number of immigrants into the u.k. per year is 250,000. others put the number at closer to 300,000, but suffice it to say that it's in that ballpark. [net immigration is the difference between the number of people who arrive versus the number of people who leave. the actual number of immigrants into the u.k. is, of course, higher, but is partly offset by departures.]

so, in a country with a population of 64 million, how big a deal is another 300,000 per year? canada, with a population about half that size, receives about 250,000 immigrants per year, the vast majority of them in or around just three cities- vancouver, toronto and montreal. now, canada and the u.k. are clearly different, but the idea that a country simply cannot handle that number of immigrants relative to its existing population is clearly wrong. in both countries, immigrants on the whole pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits and the strain on social programs like health services is made much worse by government cutbacks than by increased demand.

between 2011 and 2015, the population of the u.k. increased by around 1 million, which means that the only reason why the country continues to grow is because of the 250-300,000 immigrants it allows in per year. countries with aging and declining populations are at risk of losing social services, because they no longer have the tax base to support them. so far from causing problems, immigration may be the only thing that is saving britain's social safety net.

that said, the conservatives came to power promising to reduce the number of immigrants it admitted to 100,000 per year, so it's clear that they're not coming closing to meeting that target. and since they did receive a majority, it's not unreasonable to assume that's a target most citizens want them to hit.

but it's not just the number of immigrants that is an issue, but who those immigrants might be. in the age of perpetual terrorism, taking measures to protect your citizens is just common sense. and with attacks in france and belgium still fresh in all of our minds, one could understand why the e.u.'s free-flowing open border policy makes some people uncomfortable. and while it's true that border crossing have been strengthened in the wake of those attacks, the best way to guard against terrorists, or other criminals, since terrorism isn't the only, or even the biggest crime problem europe faces, is not to let the bad people in to begin with.

now, we're going to leave aside commentary on how a lot of terrorists are homegrown in europe, or about how restricting certain people because of their religion or ethnicity is racism, no matter what authorities call it. that's not because those aren't important issues, but because they're secondary to issues of immigration into the united kingdom from europe.

about half of the immigrants that enter the u.k. every year come from the e.u., so any discussion about these immigration rules only refers to the 150-180,000 from european countries.

in order to allow people to move freely and easily within the cramped space that is europe, the e.u. created something known as the schengen area, a region where citizens of any of the participating countries could travel without having to show passports or go through other border controls. for the purposes of travel, the schengen area functions as one country. this makes things a lot easier for people who do business in multiple countries [which includes people who work and live in different countries], but it does create potential security risks. it's easier for criminals to move around and do business undetected, for instance, as long as they hold a european passport. and it rests on the assumption that all countries will be equally vigilant and incorruptible when it comes to letting people in.

now, the europeans aren't completely unaware of the risks. countries who join the e.u. are obliged to join the schengen area, but they also have to prove that they're capable of maintaining certain standards. bulgaria and romania, who joined the e.u. in 2007, have had their admittance to the schengen area blocked, because of concerns about corruption, the presence of organised crime and their preparedness to handle the expected number of immigration requests. cyprus has held off on joining schengen until its own, sometimes violent, territorial dispute is settled. so it's not like there aren't safeguards, it's just that those concerned with the effect of immigration in the u.k. don't necessarily trust bulgaria to check who should be moving to britain.

but here's the thing: none of that matters, because the u.k. isn't part of the schengen area.

although it's required now for e.u. members to join, when the area was established, the u.k. and the republic of ireland were allowed to opt out. people coming to either country from europe have to go through the same border checks as i do [and they don't get to stand in the much shorter "commonwealth citizens" line at heathrow]. as of 2004, the u.k. signed on to the police and security provisions of the agreement, to benefit from information sharing, but that's it.

congratulations. you made it. this was a really long post, but here you are and it's almost over.

the economist has referred to the entire referendum campaign- including both sides- as "parochial and vacuous". i haven't seen enough of the coverage to say one way or the other, but it does seem that there are a lot of statements being tossed around that are either half-explained, misleading or inflammatory and none of that is helpful in a situation that calls for serious thought. i have found some extremely good materials online, many of them through the bbc, who have a cache of all sorts of information, including a convenient summary of major issues and the positions of both sides of the debate.

i imagine that if you're eligible to vote, you've already decided how, but if not, please take a moment to look around [the linked articles in this post explain things better than i ever could] and take a moment to think about what would be lost and gained by leaving the e.u., because it is an important decision with ramifications far beyond the u.k. and even europe.

choose wisely and well and good luck on the 23rd.

Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-712841714668972582016-06-19T21:10:00.001-04:002016-06-19T21:10:46.468-04:00armchair centre back :: ultraviolence and underdogs

riot, the unbeatable high

so, ten days in, and we have a sense of how euro 2016 is unfolding. or unravelling, as the case may be. the entire event has been marred by some of the worst displays of fandom in recent memory, including bloodletting in marseille and a steward nearly getting his hand blown off while trying to clear the pitch of firecrackers. i'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish, but it's more or less amounted to several teams getting sanctioned by uefa and threatened with outright disqualification if there's another incident in any of the stadiums with their fans. of course, it also raises questions as to how, amidst all the supposed security, fans have been able to smuggle in explosives, especially in light of the fact that both uefa and the french police have been bragging about foiling a terrorist attack aimed for the belgium v. ireland game. [you know, it wasn't all that long ago that the terrorists in that equation would have been from ireland.]

[side note :: the people responsible for the violence are a class of fans known as "ultras". they're more akin to hardcore nationalists than sports fans, although they support local teams as well as national ones. they revel in the adrenaline and violence of a sporting event in ways that most people find frightening, often hiding their identities in anticipation of being involved in illegal activities. you can read what they say about themselves here. if france was caught off-guard by the presence of ultras at the euro, they have no one to blame but themselves. russian authorities apparently passed on the names of known troublemakers among their fans and german border police turned back a group of balaclava-wearing travelers, warning their french neighbours that others who were smart enough to take their fucking masks off before reaching the border could have slipped through. watch a chilling but fascinating documentary on the mix of sport and politics that make up ultra culture in serbia right here.]

irish and swedish fans sang abba and partied together

thus far, the list of countries under threat of sanction includes england, russia, turkey hungary and croatia, the latter being the ones who almost blew off a steward's hand. the croatian violence was actually intended to get the country's detested, corrupt football association in trouble and to get them fined, however it arguably cost the national team a win in a game they were leading until minutes after the disturbance was quelled. meaning that croatia missed the opportunity to qualify for the tournament knock out round with a game to spare. i still think the troublemakers should have been returned to the stadium to face the wrath of the rest of the croatian fans. [you can now add albania to the list of bad fans. when they scored their only goal of the tournament this afternoon, there was a visible flare launched in the crowd. very safety. much dumb. wow.]

all that looks bad for the fans, but it looks terrible for france and uefa, especially in marseille, where police seemed surprised to find out there was a major international tournament going on. the fact that authorities seem to have been reactive rather than proactive has meant that fans have more or less been operating on the honour system. some fans, notably sweden, ireland and wales [who received a twitter high five from the tourist bureau in bordeaux], have shown themselves to be very capable at adulting, even while enjoying sport. others have ended up with a face full of tear gas. it's all rather unseamly, especially since the tournament itself has been a lot of fun when people weren't getting burned and bludgeoned.

none of the teams have been embarrassingly bad, something that was a concern because more teams were included this year. there have been a shocking number of goals scored within the last ten minutes of games, which makes for excitement. there have been upsets [i'm looking at you, hungary]. the most lopsided matches were 3-0 wins for spain and belgium. everything else has been pretty tight. [3-0 might sound like a substantial victory for this sport, until you consider that, in the copa america that is taking place right now in the u.s., chile defeated tournament favourites mexico 7-0 last night. that, friends, is a shellacking.]

suck it, england. people like having us around.

looking briefly at what dom and i predicted, we're doing fairly well. we're still pretty convinced that germany is going to prevail. [i was disappointed both the mannschaft and poland seemed to hold back playing against each other, probably understanding that they both had a good chance of winning their third games, having both already won their first. decent strategy, but not the most entertaining thing for viewers.] spain have been at the top of their game and do look go far in the tournament. france have cruised to victory twice, although it's been less a team effort and more the dimitri payet show. at 29, payet may be a late bloomer [for club and country], but it seems like he can't stop blooming.

we are both feeling smug about the fact that portugal have fulfilled our expectations as the most overhyped quantity of the tournament. anticristiano ronaldo missing a penalty shot is already one of my highlights of the summer. my secondary prediction that belgium would fail to find their rhythm is a split result, with them getting humbled by lowly hungary and their trackpant-wearing keeper, then spinning things around for one of the tournament's most dominant displays. i swear that there are body doubles of the entire team and they're alternating which ones get on the pitch. [which raises the question of what french authorities are doing to protect everyone from a possible invasion of pod people disguised as the belgian national team.]

most journalists seemed to have italy pegged as the most likely to disappoint this year and while i will say that i probably underestimated them a little, my predictions for them have been less wrong than those of the professionals. behold, i am better at this than people who know what they're talking about. my choice for tournament "dark horse", poland, do look set to advance, despite the rather tepid game against germany. count on them grinding out results rather than dazzling.

and, in honour of some of the surprising results thus far [still looking at you, hungary, but you can throw in albania, iceland and northern ireland as well], i figured i should share some of the surprised morsels of mancandy i've spotted after carefully reviewing each team's offering.

adil rami :: france

french by nationality, corsican by birth, moroccan by parentage and stunning by any stretch, rami caught my attention during the very first euro game. apparently, he's been with the national team since 2010, but an injury to national teammate raphaël varane has seen him bumped up to the a-team. makes for nice viewing during france's games now that olivier giroud is sporting that despicable hair mask. free the face!!

granit xhaka :: switzerland

arsenal snapped him up before the tournament even got started, which isn't surprising since the team seems to have a hotness quotient much higher than their premier league rivals. he has this kind of adorable, clean-cut boy next door quality that i don't normally go for, but i'd happily have him living next door. he also has the most perfect eyebrows i think i've ever seen, which means i have both lust and jealousy in my heart. two deadly sins for the price of one!! [oh, and if you were watching the game this afternoon, xhaka went through no fewer than three shirts during the match. even opposing players want to tear his clothes off.]

emre can :: germany

one of my favourite things about any liverpool game is getting to see emre can [pronounced "chan"] hustle around the field. of course, it's also nice just to sit back and look at him when he's not hustling, when you can appreciate those penetrating eyes and beestung lips. and he's now old enough that it's not illegal to do so.

aaron ramsey :: wales

teammate gareth bale might get all the attention as a player, but let's face facts, the man looks like he's barely out of the trees. aaron, on the other hand, is legitimately a male model when he's not playing for club [arsenal again!] or country and it's pretty easy to see why. unlike the rest of the world, i actually like his new platinum 'do, but i think he could wear a wasp nest on his head and still look good. oh, and he's also a huge advocate for animal rights, because being hot, rich, young and successful didn't make him attractive enough.

tl;dr: here's what i'd like to see happen going forward at the euro

less violence from fans of all nationalities
continue with late goals
continue with surprises from underdogs
more ripping of shirts and feel free to start on pants

gorau chwarae cyd chwarae

Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-24300988138980445922016-06-15T22:07:00.001-04:002016-06-15T22:07:21.052-04:00making faces :: sweet and savoury bites

as i mentioned in my initial review of bite beauty's amuse bouche lipsticks, there are some new shades that have been released for summer. the collection, featuring six new shades is called "sweet and savoury", three that fall into each 'camp'. the sweet shades are lighter and softer. the savoury shades are intense and deep. i've heard different things about the status of these shades: some say all are limited, some say all are permanent, still others say it's a mix, but even then, i've heard different things about which are the limited shades. it's all very stressful and confusing, because i wasn't sure which shades i should pick up to ensure i didn't miss out.

in the end, i selected two, which was difficult, because in this small collection, bite has managed to overcome the one niggling concern that i had about them. i've mentioned before that the biggest reason i don't rush out and buy every single bite lipstick is because i find a lot of their shades are just too easily matched to colours already in my considerable lipstick cache. with "sweet and savoury", they have broken through into the realm of very original shades, including ones that are offbeat and ones that are understated.

in the end, i went with probably the two most eye-catching shades, one sweet and one savoury [because i'm a libra and obsessed with balance]: "lavender jam" and "kale".

"lavender jam" is a bright blue-toned purple, that will pull more blue on those with cooler undertones. there's a slight grey cast to it that keeps it from looking neon, which is nice, since a lot of these types of colours are made with a white base, something i'm increasingly convinced looks good on no one. i think that this shade would look amazing on someone with cool, slightly muted colouring, someone who falls in the light summer, true summer or dark winter sci/ art seasons. it's still a bit daring for anyone, because the colour almost glows from within, another thing that makes it very distinctive. i think that auxiliary beauty hit the nail on the head when she compared the colour to hydrangeas, a flower that has already inspired a blog post for me.

lavender jam

lavender jam

the formula is very good, in keeping with what i've come to expect from the amuse bouche lipsticks, but i found that this one had a tendency to appear a little uneven if i didn't take the time to get it right. it wore evenly enough, which is a relief, and left a faint lilac-purple stain after a few hours.

i didn't even bother making comparison swatches for this shade, because i knew right away that i have nothing similar. remember what i said about my extensive cache of lipsticks? it is a pretty amazing thing when i have to throw up my hands and admit that there is nothing close enough to even warrant a comparison.

my savoury choice was "kale", which is certainly one of the most talked-about shades bite has ever released [not least because they gave titillating hints about it on social media before its release]. it's a deep, dark green with a lustrous sheen, like a steamed or sauteed version of its namesake vegetable. [preferably with olive oil and a hefty amount of garlic, because otherwise, kale doesn't appeal to me very much.] in the shadows, it can read as black, but when any light hits it, you can see the green depths twinkling away.

kale

kale

dark colours can appear patchy, but this one is a knock-out. it was almost completely even after a single light pass and stayed that way. seriously, i think it would have stayed looking just about the same the entire day if i hadn't eaten. and even then, there wasn't a lot of colour removed. this is one of the longest-wearing lipsticks i've ever encountered. when i removed it at the end of the day, my lips were still left with a faint stain. i had to exfoliate them to complete remove the colour.

now, canny readers of this blog will remember that it wasn't too terribly long ago that i ordered a dark green lipstick from rituel de fille, which raises the question: how many dark green lipsticks does one girl need? despite the fact that i was drawn to "kale" like a moth to a vegetable-based flame, i was vaguely nervous that it would be more or less the same as "chrysalis", which is still practically new to me itself.

l to r :: kale, rdf chrysalis

however, they're very little alike at all. "kale" is a lot darker and it's a cooler, bluer green, whereas "chrysalis" is more of an olive-tinged forest green. "kale" is also quite glossy, whereas "chrysalis" is matte. i was a little surprised at how different they were, until it occurred to me that i'm never surprised when i find a distinctive berry shade, and i have about a thousand of those already, so why should i be surprised to find variety in dark greens, where there are only about three in the world? [i know there are more, but i also don't literally have a thousand berry lipsticks. i swear.]

the more pertinent question is, "how often am i going to wear a green lipstick?" in this case, i refer you back to my comments about "chrysalis", which are appropriate: strange colours are clearly having a moment right now, which is fantastic as far as i'm concerned, but which can make one feel a little self-conscious. if you're someone who wants to try her luck with a "freaky" colour, but are a bit shy, using a dark shade can be a way to ease into the weirdness. dark lip colours, as dramatic as they can look, don't scream "i am green!! hear me roar!" in quite the same way. [at the same time, i wore "chrysalis" to a show a while back and one of my friends complimented me on wearing such a cool shade, so you're not totally losing the shock effect.]

"kale" is dramatic, but it's very flattering on my cooler colouring, which makes me feel like i could be comfortable wearing it in a number of situations. it's not ever going to pass for natural, but it's not going to read as clownish, either. if anything, i think that "lavender jam" is the more risqué of the two shades that i picked up, because of its brightness.

so how do these two beauties look in use? a little like this:

i find that you can see the slight unevenness in "lavender jam" if you look at these photos. i'd go so far as to say that you can see it more in the photos than you could in real life, but perhaps that's wishful thinking on my part. i've combined it with shades from the urban decay naked 3 eyeshadow palette and nars "sin" on the cheeks. the vibrancy of "lavender jam" makes it a little tricky to match with other colours and i don't feel like i've hit on the perfect combo yet. this one's not bad, but i just know i can do better.

like a lot of vampy shades, "kale" does best when it's allowed to take the lead. i paired it with rouge bunny rouge "gracious arasari" and "solstice halcyon", and a touch of illamasqua precision ink liner in "wisdom". yes, i like this colour very much.

i'm happy with both of these colours, particularly "kale" and i rather suspect that, budget permitting, i could be tempted by other shades in this collection. there's an inky dark blue and a luscious, earthy dark brown on the savoury side and a smoky deep lavender and a remarkably original mauve-taupe nude on the sweet side. all seem very appealing and, in case i haven't made it clear enough, these are some of the most original shades in the bite beauty line up. go forth and indulge, i command you.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-63180475156126654322016-06-13T20:36:00.001-04:002016-06-13T20:36:31.429-04:00mental health mondays :: fundamental

oh boy. there were a whole bunch of topics that came to mind over the last two weeks, based on scientific articles i've gone through, or stories that have shown up in the news, or just interpreting things that have been tossed around on social media, but finally, it comes down to the horror of last night in orlando florida. this is something that's rattled around in the back of my brain every time i've heard about someone going berserk in the name of christianity, islam or anything else and i feel that it's something that needs to be addressed both publicly and within the psychiatric community: is religious fundamentalism a form of mental illness?

that might sound like a scary gauntlet to throw down. after all, most societies are organized around the principles of religious belief. for instance [and à propos of the attack in orlando], many people have difficulty accepting homosexuality not because it is dangerous or unhealthy [factually speaking, it is neither, unless you factor in the danger posed by hate crimes], but because it contradicts the religious principles that underpin many of our society's core beliefs. when you subtract the prejudices imposed by religion, a lot of things that were previously forbidden become open for debate. like wearing clothes made from more than one fabric. or homosexuality. the bible [or rather, the old testament, which forms a basis of judaism, christianity and islam] proscribes both of those, with roughly equal force.

taken from the point of view of an atheist [one who believes that there are no "gods" or life beyond what we experience] or an agnostic [one who believes that the existence of gods is irrelevant to how humans should live], there is no reason for homosexuality to be feared or condemned. nor is there any reason for drug use to be condemned, so long as it does not cause significant harm to the user or others. nor is there a reason for certain foods to be proscribed, again, assuming that there is no greater harm caused by consuming them. this is all a very contentious area, but there is one common denominator: it is not acceptable to condemn anything without some rational reason for doing so, and religious beliefs alone do not constitute a rational reason. [in fact, religious leaders themselves have made it pretty clear that those who perpetrate crimes like the one in orlando over the weekend are not acting in the name of faith, or any other noble cause.]

thus has the question i raised earlier come to mind: are there certain forms of religious belief that cross the line into psychosis? i'll give you a spoiler alert as to my position on the issue: yes, there are, but we ignore them precisely because we feel they are protected on account of being religious. no. certain beliefs are dangerous to the general public and they need to be called out as such. the belief that people deserve to die because of their sexual identity is a glaring example. so is the belief that women should be subject to different rules than men. as is the belief that those who believe things that are different have lives that are less valuable. think that's just so much liberal hooey? let's consider some of the primary symptoms of psychosis:

delusions :: perceived threats or feelings of persecution that are not real

messianic complex :: belief that the person is, or is acting on behalf of a savior

unconventional beliefs :: thoughts that most people would discount as bizarre or without foundation

command hallucinations :: where one is compelled to act on the orders of an unseen other

i've drawn these points from a few different places, all of which have some claim to expertise on psychological issues. and while there may be some debate on what the "average person" or "normal person" is, it's worth considering that the legal system of democratic countries is always based [at least in theory] on the perceptions and actions of the so-called reasonable citizen. we judge others all the time based on whether or not we think that their actions align with what could reasonably be expected of a person in the society. and yet we routinely place actions- any actions- that are inspired by religious beliefs as somehow outside the continuum of rationality.

the culprit in the orlando massacre claimed to act on behalf of isis, but possibly because he felt they shared his delusion that homosexuality was an abomination and deserving of violent retribution. republican lawmakers and [until recently] presidential candidates ted cruz, mike huckabee and bobby jindal appeared at an event headed by a religious leader who believes that homosexuals should be put to death by law. [in the interest of fairness, cruz later admitted that it was probably a mistake to openly align himself with a person who held those views.]

my point is that the views of isis and kevin swanson aren't particularly different, nor are they "normal". most those who don't support marriage equality, or who have qualms about gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, or even those who don't understand how transgenderism works don't think that lgtbq people should be put to death for who they are. the vast majority stop at "they're going to hell". therefore, the belief that lgtbq people should be put to death is bizarre [well outside the normal scope of thought] and without factual basis. it is also delusional, in that those who profess those opinions often conjecture that lgtbq persons have special rights or powers not conferred on others, something which is demonstrably untrue. [in fact, they are much more likely to be the victim of violent crime simply because of who they are, among other disadvantages.] and if one carries out a massacre like the one in orlando, or like the many others directed at gay clubs/ safe spaces, it is most likely because one feels either commended to do so or excused from culpability in doing so by a higher power.

goodness, that seems to tick a lot of the boxes that we normally associate with psychosis. so why do we keep giving those who cloak themselves in religion a free ride. as mentioned above, the very people who most agree are tasked with setting the earthly "rules" for religion reject such actions. if the vast majority of religious leaders say that such actions are abominable, why do we accept the word of one person who says that his [or hers, although i'm sorry to say it is "his" in most cases of violence] in terpretation is the correct one? why do we hesitate to tell someone that their interpretation of religion is perverse, when, if someone were to express similar views outside the bounds of religion, we'd have them locked up?

i normally try to point people towards help or solutions with these columns, but i have to admit that, in this case, i'm at my wits' end. i don't understand why we are so eager to apply the terms "nuts" or "psycho" or any of the pejoratives associated with mental illness to virtually anyone in our lives who acts in a way that we don't like, but we give a pass to those who invoke religious beliefs. most democracies embrace freedom of religion as a fundamental right, but i do not understand how that becomes freedom to interpret your religion in a way that justifies harming others. such actions are not religious [according to the leaders of the invoked religions], but a perversion. they are no more reflective of the religion invoked than david berkowitz's murders are of the thoughts of dogs. so rather than describe them as religious acts, we should call them by the term that we so eagerly assign to similar actions that do not invoke a major religion: people who espouse this sort of violence are mentally disordered. the beliefs that lead them to violence are delusional and dangerous. such people are psychotic and need treatment before they harm others.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-18959856097674192152016-06-10T00:25:00.004-04:002016-06-10T00:25:57.330-04:00armchair centre back :: it begins...

in romania, liberty is yellow

much though i dislike doing two posts in a row on the same subject, i can't deny that i have been looking forward to the start of the uefa euro tomorrow. earlier this week, dom and i puzzled over the schedule and came up with some predictions. based on our world cup predictions, dom is pretty good at this. i'm more inclined to take chances and predict upsets, which is the nicest possible way of saying that i'm not nearly as accurate as he is. [it's a sad fact that, in major competitions, international football tends to yield few surprises. so if you're a betting person, you're best off betting on the favourite.]

as is tradition, the sole game tomorrow will feature the home team, france, against minnows romania. since france are increasingly favoured to win the whole shebang, this one is probably going to be a pretty easy three points for les bleus. that said, romania got through their entire qualification allowing only two goals [although they conceded four in a recent friendly match], so it might not be quite as much of a blowout as you'd think. [and may i add, france being in a group with romania, albania and switzerland does absolutely nothing to dispel the rumour that the draw is fixed so that france always gets an easy ride in the first round.]

first game fun fact :: most people know that the three stripes in the french flag stand for liberty, equality and fraternity. but did you know that the stripes of the romanian flag were originally designed with the same three things in mind? when romanian nationalism first started to take hold [when the country was still split between the ottoman and austro-hungarian empires], the french were held up as an inspiration. indeed, romania's legal system borrows heavily from that of france, so the influence isn't merely symbolic.

other similarities between the two seemingly dissimilar countries include the fact that they both took shape as provinces of the roman empire. for both, the roman legacy includes their modern-day language, both of which are part of the romance group. [romanian is the only romance language in eastern europe.]

and both countries rather famously marked their transition to democracy by brutally killing their former head of state. albeit two hundred years apart.]

and both are soccer-mad countries, even though their teams are on very different levels. don't fret, romania. as one of europe's only rapidly growing economies, you'll have the last laugh.

and here are a couple of our other overall predictions for the tournament ::

winner

germany. we both picked the mannschaft to repeat their world cup success. they're strong in every area and they know it, which always helps. in fact, i'd say that the only thing working against them is that they can get a little too complacent.

... or maybe...

dom :: he's pretty convinced it's germany or bust, but if somehow the mannschaft crumbles, he thinks that the euro cup will return to title holders spain. and truly, after their abysmal performance at the world cup, no one will be more desperate to prove their abilities than the spanish.

me :: assuming that a german exit throws all of my predictions out of whack, i'm going to say that the prize goes to the home team. france have phenomenal players and somehow they do seem to pull together when it counts.

dark horse [the guys you think will do better than expected]

dom :: england! yes, their perfect record in qualification was helped by the fact that they were in the weakest group, but come on- the firepower. england's biggest obstacle may be their manager.

me :: i desperately want to say wales. so desperately. but as a sleeper candidate, i'd say poland. remember, this is the team that came within a hair of finishing above germany in qualifications [and in the "group of death", no less].

underperformer

portugal. we both chose it because we both snarl every time we hear the name of cristiano ronaldo, but let's face it, their if man hasn't shown up for an international tournament since 2006. and beyond him, it's getting increasingly difficult to see why they're considered such a big deal. [if i must give another option, i'm skeptical of belgium's ability to live up to their potential with their team captain out injured. they didn't look all that cohesive at the world cup when he was there.]

best man candy

strangely, dom has no opinion on this one.

the gods of sculpted bodies and chiseled faces have once again smiled on us and while an all-european tournament doesn't offer quite the range of a worldwide one, there's still plenty of sweets in the offing.

if you're looking for the best visual bang for your buck, you should be following belgium. even though i feel compelled to give a demerit point because marouane fellaini plays for them, toby alderweireld, laurent ciman, jason denayer, the lukaku brothers, yannick ferreira carrasco, divock origi and dries mertens are all extremely easy on the eyes. so here's hoping i'm wrong about them not lasting in the competition.

in the meantime, here's how things stack up tomorrow:

team france

benoit costil

sadly, we're unlikely to see benoit in action, as he's the backup keeper to huge lloris, but he'll be there, cheering his blue brothers along, so hopefully, we'll catch a glimpse.

olivier giroud

i'm still refusing to admit that the beard is a reality. this is as far as i can go.

team romania

florin andone

meet giroud's romanian opposite number. kind of a nice match-up, if you ask me.

alexandru matel

i can't figure out if i want to stare more at the eyes or the lips...

finally, because national cuisines are not sharply different among a lot of european countries [and there are a lot of countries this time around whose cuisine is decidedly oriented towards the hearty and warming], i've opted not to "eat the cup", for this particular tournament. dom has suggested, however, that we "drink the cup". because every country has their own special alcohol. if you don't see posts from me in the near future, please consider coming to check if we're still alive.

Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-11076529143988110842016-06-04T04:38:00.001-04:002016-06-04T04:38:59.299-04:00armchair centre back :: things that could actually happen in before the euro starts next week

what's the worst that could happen?

i'm surprised that the collective sound of soccer fans drumming their fingers while waiting for this summer's uefa euro competition to begin hasn't caused earthquakes. all the leagues are settled for the year, the europa [which is different than the euro] and the champions league trophies handed out. so now, we've switched gears to international competition, something that often puts us in the uncomfortable position of having to cheer people we'd advocated lighting on fire a few weeks earlier. so right now, there is little to do but wait. and wait.

many like to occupy themselves with the fine traditions of their ancestors: making up shit about famous people. the template for the famous soccer people stories is pretty simple: "famous player x is going to sign for crazy wealthy team y". in case you haven't been following: every famous player in the world is going to sign for one of the manchester teams, arsenal, chelsea, real madrid, barcelona, paris st. germain and bayern munich this week.

but among the bizarre flights of imagination, there are a few things that could very well happen in the next seven days. as it turns out, some of the really bizarre ones may be the most likely.

1. arsenal could sign jamie vardy. that sentence contains way more "wtf" than five words should be able to. vardy just capped off a breakout season as the most leicester city player at title-winning, hollywood movie- shaming, betting shop bankrupting leicester city. it's ridiculous to think that he'd leave.

in fact, the only idea more ridiculous than vardy leaving would be the idea that arsenal manager arsène wenger would sign a twenty-nine year old striker with only one really productive season under his belt. wenger has operated his team like a real life version of logan's run and he has a particular aversion to signing forwards at all. he also frowns on carousing among his players and vardy has been known to carouse. leicester city's owner reportedly had to have a word with the lad after he showed up for training on a couple of occasions still drunk.

nonetheless, this little tidbit of information has blown up like a match tossed in an oxygen tank today and when you have so many sources suddenly jumping on a story, there's usually at least something behind it. in fact, the only time i can remember when such a sudden flurry of reports came to nothing was last year, when everyone was saying that arturo vidal had been lured to the premier league. by arsenal.

2. manchester united could sign zlatan ibrahimovic. not to be outdone by his hated rival, united's new manager jose "you cannot kill the devil" mourinho will apparently sign an even older player for even more money.

but really, this story is just being carried along on a tidal wave of plausibility. mourinho buys for short-term gain. mancheater united buy anything that's high profile. and ibrahimovic, infamous for his ego as much as for his incredible goals, belongs wherever the spotlight shines brightest. yes, he's in his mid-thirties, which in footballer years is like 102, but he still impresses every year. [i also suspect that he's like to end his career by silencing those who say that his greatness is overstated because he's reached his heights with paris st. germain, who are miles ahead of every other team in france's ligue un.]

3. sepp blatter could face charges [again]. blatter and his cronies are already griping about the pittance of a suspension they're being forced to serve as a result of running quite possibly the most corrupt organisation in the world, but now there's a brand new round of scandal that should make us all righteously angry. because it turns out that blatter and his closest allies may have also treated themselves to illegal bonuses to the tune of nearly $100 million. blatter's attorneys insist that these payments were fair compensation, to which i say, unless you personally stop an asteroid from crashing into earth, thus saving the planet, there is no work that is worth $100 million. fifa should just repossess that money and hand it out to fans at games all over the world. it would do more for the image of the sport.

4. france could implode. there is a mysterious [meaning suspicious] media blackout about what is happening in france right now, but suffice it to say, it is major. the past couple of months have seen multiple protests, growing in number and size, over president francois hollande's proposed reforms to france's labour laws. the changes would move france in the direction of the united states and united kingdom, where the balance of worker-employer rights is tilted more in favour of the employer. hollande's promise is that the changes will make france more competitive [with whom? -ed.] and encourage companies to hire there. with an unemployment rate lounging over ten percent, it's clear that some changes need to be made, but the hundreds of thousands of people who've taken to the streets are insistent that those changes should not be made by reducing the rights of those who are currently employed.

the threat of french workers to hold the country hostage until the government meets their demands is not one that should be taken lightly, especially as the country prepares to host millions of football-crazed tourists for the euro tournament. the french can and have stood their ground against their own government, which is a lesson that others should really consider: this is a country where the government has a healthy fear of the power of its employers. that said, hollande doesn't have a lot to lose, having almost no chance of being re-elected, and might be inclined towards a standoff.

so traveling to see the euro should be great, as long as your idea of great includes walking from paris to lyon.

5. the world could lose another really amazing person. with the news today of the passing of muhammed ali, we are a poorer little planet. ali raised the bar for what it meant to be a professional athlete, using his fame to put hard questions to the people who cheered him on in the ring. it's easy to forget the incredible strength and bravery it took to do and say the things he did. in the end, he spent much of his later life a prisoner of the body that had once served him so well, struggling with the mind that had served his people and all of us so well, a struggle that was a tragic but not uncommon side effect of his profession.

2016 has already been a terrible year, in that we have been losing people who tried to use their fame to provoke thought and debate, and to help the people who weren't famous. i'm a little scared to see what else is coming, but we've hardly been given a chance to breathe between shocks. donald trump has a decent shot at winning the presidency and bowie, prince and ali are dead. 2016, you are fired.

on that rather dark note [which i am typing at four-thirty in the morning after another bout of insomnia], i will leave you and return to filling out my predictions for the euro tournament [assuming that french workers don't shut it down, although, if you're a betting person, i'd put money on some significant disruptions].

Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-8851610712735362282016-05-31T17:51:00.000-04:002016-05-31T17:54:08.770-04:00making faces :: bombshell

she's everything you want

at some point, i fell behind on reviewing new members of the nars audacious lipstick family that i'd purchased and never recovered. there are a few that i have picked up since last i blogged about these remarkable lipsticks, but i've just not prioritised them, because they're not new and shiny anymore. [behold the beauty blogger at her consumerist worst.] but i am making myself go back to these because:

it remains a great formula

all the shades are permanent [and there has never been a limited shade released], so they're still easy to get

what "they" want is for all of us to continuously give in to the allure of the new, so revisiting existing products is a way of resisting "their" commands

those are all good reasons, but i specifically felt compelled to review the newest of my acquisitions, because i felt like it was the answer to a rather difficult colour analysis question: what does a bright season neutral look like?

bright seasons are those whose main requirement is saturation and clarity of colours. normally, that's associated with bright shades and, truly, the bulk of the shades that will suit people with these complexions are bolder, but what if you want to do something understated? what if you want to do a smokey eye and would prefer not to look like an extra from the "addicted to love" video or like your lips decided not to go with you when you left the house? neutrals tend to achieve their neutral-ness by incorporating either brown [autumn] or grey [summer], neither of which will be flattering on a winter/ spring blend.

enter nars "brigitte".

surely i don't need to specify that, in a line of lipsticks inspired by goddesses of the silver screen, "brigitte" is named for brigitte bardot, the iconic post-war symbol of femininity and sexuality. marilyn monroe might be better known, especially in north america, but bardot is the more complex character. simone de beauvoir said bardot was the first liberated woman of the post-war era, on the vanguard of women's transition from the home into the broader world. bardot was the original "sex kitten" [as in, the person for whom the term was coined], but she was also a serious actress, nominated for numerous awards. she made a name for herself starring in fluff comedies, but she also worked with the likes of jean-luc godard. arguably still at the height of her fame, she retired from the screen in 1973 and has never returned.

beyond the screen, she is no less a contradictory figure. for decades, she has been an outspoken advocate for animal rights, confronting national governments about the slaughter of seals and dolphins and donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to animal welfare causes around the world. [the sea shepherd conservation society has a boat named for her.] in 2008, she characterised then vice presidential nominee sarah palin as a disgrace to women, particularly for her opinions on climate change and gun proliferation.

on the other hand, she has been convicted five separate times for inciting racial/ religious hatred, specifically because of her views on muslims. her most recent husband [who she has been married to for over twenty years] is a former advisor to jean marie le pen and she has expressed sympathies with the national front's anti-immigrant stance. she has derided gay men for being too "showy" about their sexuality, while still claiming that she was sympathetic to their cause since she was "entirely surrounded by homos".

so with all of those complications bound up in one woman, is it any wonder that nars "brigitte" is something of a paradox? it is a light neutral shade, the kind that she made popular and the kind that symbolised a sort of revolt against the more conservative deep reds of the forties. the age of bardot was the age when cosmetic companies began expanding their colour range, eventually shades that were frosted to make them as light and shimmery as possible, miles away from the shades worn before and during the war. but, as might befit a blonde bombshell, this is not a brownish or muted nude, but a clear peachy pink. it isn't one of those difficult to wear white-based pinks, either, but one without a hint of brown or grey that still remains understated and wearable anywhere understatement is required- work, court, or with dramatic eye makeup.

so from the paradox that is brigitte bardot emerges a lipstick shade that is a paradox as well: the perfect neutral shade for a bright season.

trust me, i've tried a lot of neutrals and i like many of them, but i can tell they aren't perfect on me the way that bright pinks or berry shades almost always are. this lady is the exception. she never leaves me looking washed out, but is never competes with stronger colours elsewhere on my face either. like so many men in the 50s and 60s, i am completely enamoured of brigitte.

brigitte

brigitte

given that bright season neutrals are rarer than hen's teeth, i'm not surprised that i didn't have a match for this in my collection already. hourglass "fawn" is warmer, glossier, sheerer and more muted, but it's the closest thing i could come up with. nars has done an amazing job with these shades overall and this one tops the list in terms of uniqueness.

l to r :: brigitte, hourglass fawn

of course, i couldn't pass up the opportunity to share a look with you, just to prove that, yes, a bright season person can wear a neutral lip without looking weird. or without looking weirder than she does normally.

on the eyes, i'm wearing armani eyes to kill shadow in "madre perla" and nars dual intensity eyeshadow in "pasiphae". i don't know why, but i got kind of obsessed with putting these two together. i think it had to do with the fact that they each have a green sheen, despite the base colours being quite different. i dunno, i think it works. i also have urban decay "smoke" eyeliner on there.

so, while "brigitte" may not be new, she is still groundbreaking, no matter how soft or [heaven forbid!] ordinary she might look at first glance. i think this would be a nice colour on many, many complexions, but if you're someone who always seems to look better in brights, but who still wants something subdued, you must give this lady a place in your collection.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-87444479767152726832016-05-30T16:25:00.000-04:002016-05-30T16:25:11.244-04:00mental health mondays :: you've got the power

when you have mental or emotional troubles, it's easy to convince yourself that everything is out of your control. after all, the one thing over which we're supposed to have unquestionable mastery is our own mind. it just doesn't work out that way for a lot of us. indeed, going through the process of dealing with a mental disorder can mean a giving up a certain amount of control and allowing oneself to be open to new ways of processing the outside world before reacting to it. or, it could mean that one needs some chemical assistance to feel in control. regardless, it's a bit of a scary process when we're told all our lives that the one thing we have is our free will and our ability to think our way to our own destiny. [side note :: a belief that increasingly looks like a load of crap in most ways.]

but there is one way in which you can take your mental destiny in hand and steer things in a positive direction for yourself: you can find your own therapist. now, in many cases, you can be limited by finances and time. if you're in acute need, you may not want to wait a few months for an opening with your prefered candidate. alternately, you access to certain doctors may be impeded by finances and/ or insurance. or, if you live in a more remote area, there just may not be many therapists close enough for you to consider them. but chances are that you will have at least some kind of choice and you should take advantage of that.

choice is particularly important when it comes to people who are outside of the mainstream. what does that mean? a lot of things. if you're queer or transgendered, it means that you want to find someone who can understand the challenges you face. if you're religious, it's important to find someone who can respect the role that plays in your belief system. if you've been diagnosed with a specific disorder, you will want someone who understands that. [opinions on whether or not certain conditions even exist are just as split within the psychiatric community as they are outside it.] a friend of mine posted this article a little while ago, which deals mostly with issues facing lgtbq and transexual people, but the points can be extrapolated for other groups.

but even if you're lucky enough to have been born into a dominant/ privileged group, there can be some problems. you can be white, cis, straight, middle class, and an adult male and still find it difficult to work with a therapist just because you're beliefs are a bit unorthodox. to use an instance close to my heart: if you are a woman who does not want to have children, you will make limited progress with a therapist who thinks that this must be indicative of a problem. likewise, if you're someone who is more comfortable working at lower paying but less demanding jobs, your therapist should not automatically be assuming that this means you have issues surrounding employment and wealth. these aren't core, life-changing things the way that being gay in a world organized around straight people is, but a therapist is someone you can't afford to have judging you based on their own biases. if it's going to help, you have to be comfortable being completely honest.

so with that in mind, i've put together my own little list, based on my own experiences and what i've heard from others, of things that all of us weirdos should be able to do in order to get the most out of therapy.

1. don't make snap judgments :: sometimes someone may obviously be inappropriate for you, but unless it's at the level where they say that they believe in gay conversion therapy [in which case, whether you're gay or not, run away; that person is crazier and more dangerous than you'll ever be], give it a few visits. people can have gruff manners, or a bad day, even when they're supposed to be helping others, so if you don't love them at first, give yourself a chance to see a bit more of them. remember that one of the reasons you may need therapy is because you perceptions are skewed without you realising it. so go to a few meetings at least and see if things improve.

2. if something sounds troubling, ask :: if your therapist makes a statement that sounds like it could be a real problem for you- something that conflicts with one of your deeply held beliefs, or even something that implies it, speak up immediately. you don't need to get defensive or angry, but just pause and ask them to explain what they've just said. if it really is something that you think is going to be a problem, e.g., if your therapist believes that healthy people automatically seek to be in monogamous, long-term relationships and you don't feel that way, you're within your rights to ask them how that belief is colouring their perspective. it could be that you are avoiding relationships because of your mental issues, or it could be that you'd be perfectly happy being single, celibate or polyamorous for the rest of your life. if your therapist holds a strong opinion one way, it could limit his or her ability to address your needs.

3. ask around :: all your friends are probably just as crazy as you, right? if you feel comfortable, ask them if they've met or know anyone who's met your therapist. but to get an even broader perspective, use a website like rate mds. i've found that this site is more accurate than i would have imagined, with most reviews giving the same compliments and criticisms that i or my friends have experienced in person. one thing to note is that doctors who evaluate patients on behalf of insurance companies almost always have much lower ratings, since much of their work involves cutting people off from benefits by declaring them fit to work. so you might want to dig a little deeper into the comments for those people if you can.

4. think about how you react to people :: if you're an introvert like me, you may not automatically feel comfortable sharing stories about yourself with a complete stranger, even if you know that's their job. in order to get the most out of therapy, i've developed the habit of telling doctors that i will feel more comfortable if they talk more at first and ask me fairly specific questions. if that doesn't happen, my tendency, even as i try to fight it, will be to stop talking. however you feel most at ease getting involved in a conversation, have a sense of what that is before you go in for an appointment. a good therapist will be flexible enough to let you wade into the pool from the shallow end rather than forcing you off the diving board.

5. you shouldn't let them should you :: one thing that seems to be a common, but often ignored, red flag is when a therapist gets into the habit of telling you that you should do things. that's not helping you. that's telling you how they think you should behave. the goal of therapy is to make you cognizant of your own harmful thought patterns, not just to replace one faulty set of instructions with another. even when the advice seems well-intentioned, like telling you that you should drink less coffee, it's still telling someone rather than working out how that might be a problem. and often, it's indicative of bias, either against a particular thing [like drinking coffee] or a type of thinking.

everyone is going to have their individual make or break points with therapists, the same as any medical professional. the difference is that your gastroenterologist can still give you a colonoscopy, even if he insists on boring you with tales of his golf game while he does. a therapist who has very different beliefs in the world than you do may be a lot less capable of attending to your psychological needs.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-47695285387068973292016-05-26T21:17:00.000-04:002016-05-26T21:17:26.003-04:00save me from my brain-children

my brain is all backed up. call someone.

i don't have writer's block. i've had writer's block many times. i know what it feels like and this is absolutely not it.

instead, my problem at the moment is that i've had several ideas that i wanted to work on come to me in the last few weeks, or seeds that i'd planted deep in the darkest soil of my brain-garden have suddenly started sprouting like dandelions [which you should not uproot and discard, because they are actually pretty awesome]. that's wonderful, right? i've gone from struggling to get any sort of creative traction and suddenly everything is working.

ok, if you've been struggling with a creative block, you might be a little pissed at me for this, but no, it is not a good thing. i have one computer, one semi-functional brain, two tiny little hands [maybe even smaller than donald trump's!] and a finite amount of time in which i can write and cook and do things to earn money and all the other stuff that takes up my day. so as a result, i've become completely paralyzed. i have a half dozen projects that are competing for my attention and no idea which of them to start first. some of them, i could work on simultaneously, although that would slow progress down on both. some would likely prevent me from working on anything else. some are possibly more lucrative, while others are assuredly less so.

and all of them want to come running out of my brain right now, pushing all the others aside. it's like each of my brain-children needs to be reassured that it is my favourite, or at least my priority, but that's just not the case. i'm fond of all of them and i want each one to see the light of day, at least until i start working on them and decide that i need to send it away somewhere i won't ever have to see it again. [the world is harsh for brain-children.]

i even tried making myself a nice little graph, in the hopes that applying science would eliminate my creative problem. science failed me.

this is what i'm left with:

codename :: saturn
time required :: high
arguments in favour :: although they need to be edited, large chunks of the story and a pretty detailed outline are already done. the bits that are done contain some of my favourite things that i've ever written.
arguments against :: some of the bits that are done require a lot of work themselves, because they're either meandering/ pointless or have continuity errors, so not only is there new work to be done, there's a lot of repairs. it will be a considerable amount of work and my guess is that it will never generate much money. [i'll just say this now, to clear things up: i am not in this for the money. that would be crazy. very few authors can make a living on fiction alone and those who can are generally a little more accessible than the bulk of what i do. but money matters and the less money i can generate from writing, the more time i have to put into things that will bring in the geld.]

codename :: copper
time required :: medium
arguments in favour :: there is a chunk of it done and a fairly detailed outline completed. the style and story are not terribly complex, so while i might not have made as much progress on it as other things, progress will likely be faster. it's something i've never tried before. although there's certainly no guarantee, i would say that this one has a greater chance of generating cat food money than some of its siblings.
arguments against :: it's something i've never tried before, so i'm not convinced i'd be any good at it. but the chief argument against it is that i'm not sure what it's going to turn into; my preferred form has always been the short story. i've honestly never attempted anything that wasn't short, but a few of the things just kept growing and became longer. i'm not really sure where this one would end up. normally, that wouldn't be an issue, but with everything else, i have a good sense of where it would end up, so i feel more comfortable with what my "plan" for it would be.

codename :: tutu
time required :: medium-high
arguments in favour :: i have a very solid outline of this one and it's a style where i know i can work pretty quickly. there isn't a good chance that it would bring me much money, but there is a chance. in fact, if i were able to move it along successfully, it would likely be the best "payback". it's something that arrived in my head more or less fully formed and i always feel i need to respect those ideas. i can't explain why, but having an entire idea for a story handed to you on an imaginary platter feels like means something.
arguments against :: if i'm not able to push it up the ladder of success, it will likely be useless to me, forever. i mean, i'll have it and if i ever manage to get famous, it will be an interesting curio, but that's it. i also think that writing it and trying to get it "out there" is likely to dredge up some past pain that i've learned to live with, but haven't dealt with. so there's the possibility that this is the thing that breaks me for good.

codename :: boathouse
time required :: extremely high
arguments in favour :: it's the thing that has the greatest creative energy around it, something that excites me more than the others at the moment. it's very much in the "seedling" stage, so new "leaves" keep appearing in the form of ideas that just seem to fit perfectly into it. it would likely be the largest project i ever completed, assuming that i did, in fact, complete it.
arguments against :: with the exception of rough notes, everything about this is in my head. this is really picking up something from scratch and it could well end up as a long-term project that ends up going nowhere. before i can even begin it, i have to make a decision about the format it will take, which will have a substantial effect on what i can do with it once it's finished. i think it could possibly bring me some money, but that's a long way off and by no means a guarantee.

codename :: island
time required :: medium-low
arguments in favour :: another project that would take me into an area that i've never tried before and that would be more accessible than my other stuff. there is a good outline established for this one and i even futzed around with writing the first part of it when the idea first came to me a few years ago. has a better shot at some short-term financial success [again, nothing is given] than anything else.
arguments against :: i'm not sure if i can even do this sort of project, because it feels alien to me, more so than anything else. although it could be fun to try, it's different enough that it would be difficult to reconcile with the rest of what i've written. if it doesn't work out, i'll feel more like my time has been wasted than with any other project.

codename :: wheel
time required :: very high
arguments in favour :: it's based on a group of characters i've had bumping around in my head forever. i've seriously written about eight different stories for them and i've never been happy with how they flowed together. more recently, i feel like i've hit on a story that works. i've written sections of this that are still useful, assuming that i can find them, because some of them were actually scribbled out longhand. if i don't do something with this persistent little gang, i'm going to die feeling incomplete.
arguments in favour :: i've never loved this enough to work on it exclusively. i might say now that i have a story that would work, but i've also said that about seven times before and all that's happened is that i've ended up pilfering bits of what i've written and sticking them in other stories. [if you've read tricky, the opening segment, where the heroine margaret reflects on her family history, was originally something i wrote for one of the characters in this story. it was literally copied and pasted into the initial draft of tricky.] lots of time, lots of work, very high chance that i'll give up again, pretty low odds of a reward.

codename :: lego
time required :: low
arguments in favour :: something i'd be extremely comfortable doing and most of the work is already done. i'm happy with the content that's completed and i think that revisiting some of it could give me ideas that would let me add to it before saying it's "complete". by far the fastest turnaround time to get it finished and out in the world.
arguments against :: if i'm lucky, it will generate enough to take dom out for a nice, but not lavish dinner and maybe a few trinkets besides. the fact that i'm very comfortable with the project is a bit of a double-edged sword, because it also means i wouldn't be pushing my boundaries at all. of the work that remains to be done, i will despise 90% of it.

so now that i've made my handy little pros and cons list, i can say that 1. i'm not really any closer to making a decision; 2. i've just managed to distract myself from doing any work on any of these things by writing a blog post about them. please send help. i've gotten myself in over my head with my own brain.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-28788844378254678582016-05-25T15:32:00.001-04:002016-05-25T15:32:04.913-04:00united nations of kate
if you follow me on twitter [and you probably shouldn't], you may have seen this tweet earlier:

tree. arbre. arból. baum. medis. kasht. zuhaitz.

the most embarrassing thing about this is not that i felt it necessary to advertise that i talk to myself, but that i'm dead certain that i can say the word "tree" in more than seven languages, but went with the ones that i could remember off the top of my overstuffed head. [seriously, the inside of my skull probably looks like some hoarder nightmare. tonnes of stuff, but there's no way of finding any of it when you need it.]

of course, there are things that i have learned to say besides "tree" in other languages. i've been documenting my adventures in language learning this year, where i've basically been working towards becoming a one-woman united nations meeting. of course, if you've seen some of my social media posts, you'll be aware that my general assembly would appear to be discussing some pretty dubious subjects.

here is the dutch delegation, clearly negotiating the terms of a business deal:

some things are deal breakers

and here is the dutch delegation doing nothing to dispel the idea that their country has a racism problem:

worst red carpet hosts ever

here is the spanish delegation congratulating themselves on their fine sartorial choices:

aren't they always?

and from the sounds of it, their architecture is pretty amazing:

picasso would be proud

the italian contingent has a leader who isn't quite so advanced:

maybe he brought the rhinoceros for the dutch

the outside world is a little confusing for him:

no, but your friends are

the french have some slightly macabre gifts in their designer bags:

you probably don't want to make any more jokes about them losing wars

and the germans just seem a little ashamed of the people they've sent as their representatives:

i hope they washed their hands

i think that some of the parties might need to work a little bit on their public demeanour:

jesus, germany, go talk to spain about their pants

but some are willing to do their bit to solve the problem:

give them to germany or you don't get any rhinoceros

[my favourite part of that last one is that it uses the formal "you".]

my internal u.n. is currently eurocentric, which i aim to change in the future [once everyone has pants, or at least a sarong]. but more seriously, i hope this helps you all appreciate just how much fun it will be to talk to me in other languages. as it turns out, it's probably going to be a lot like talking to me in english.

Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-81783831978280771112016-05-21T23:51:00.001-04:002016-05-21T23:51:56.278-04:00making faces :: bite me

i was sort of shocked to find out, earlier this year, that bite beauty was discontinuing their original "luminous creme" lipstick formula and launching another called "amuse bouche". [side note: an "amuse bouche" is a sort of pre-appetizer, generally served in a bite-size portion, meant to excite the palate and whet the appetite.] unlike a lot of cosmetic fans, i'm a bit neophobic, particularly when it comes to tinkering with my favourite lipstick formulas. i haven't forgiven chanel for messing around with my beloved rouge cocos. that said, as much as i loved the luminous creme formula for being kind to my lips, there were a couple of areas where i felt it could be improved. first and foremost was that the colour faded rather quickly on most shades and often in an uneven, unattractive way. second, i felt like they could have been more original in their colours, since a lot of the permanent items seemed easier than not to match. but i really loved their commitment to natural, food grade ingredients and their clever names that reminded one that each lipstick contained all the resveratrol goodness of five glasses of red wine.

the new "amuse bouche" lipsticks continue with the natural and food-grade part of the equation, but they seem to have done away with resveratrol in favour of a number of other things that promise to care for lips without skimping on pigment or longevity. there are 34 shades, almost all of them new, although there are some that approximate the favourites from the luminous creme range, so we don't have to feel totally bereft. there are also some that are close to previously released, limited shades in different formulas, which will be a sweet relief to those who missed out on some of them.

being a little nervous about all this newness, i limited myself to buying one shade on the first go-around. i didn't want to grab everything that looked vaguely appealing, only to find out on first application that my lips hated them. i did, however, lay my hands on a sample size of one of the shades that was being offered by sephora in conjunction with the launch [back in february, because i am really, really late getting to this]. so i have two shades to show you.

first up, we have "beetroot", which is the shade i actually purchased. i've always longed for a lipstick the colour of stewed beets. it's a deep magenta that just leaps out from the natural world. it doesn't hurt that i absolutely love beets, although, since dom really doesn't, i rarely get to eat them. it's described as a "bold berry", but it's called beetroot, so i mean it pretty much has to look something like beets, right?

beetroot

beetroot

well, it does... sort of. it's definitely redder than beets, the colour of which tends to run cooler. it definitely has that eye-catching combination of brightness and depth that makes the colour of beets so breathtaking. "bold berry" could mean a lot of things and while it's an accurate enough description, i think it would be even more accurate to say "deep but but berry-beet". maybe not quite as succinct. even if it's not quite my perfect beet-shade, it is something that i'm going to be reaching for a lot.

"radish" doesn't look exactly like the skin of a radish either, but it does compare to beetroot in much the same way as the colour of a radish compares to the colour of a beet. it's lighter, brighter and pinker, although not exactly in a different universe than beetroot. bite describes it as "deep magenta", but since beetroot is noticeably darker, i feel like the naming gnomes could do a little better on differentiating bold and deep.

radish

radish

this is the shade that i received as a points perk from sephora and i'd say that you only really need both beetroot and radish if you adore these sorts of colours. as i do. the amuse bouche lipsticks have more shades that seem harder to match, but they're still don't have the subtle undertones of a truly remarkable colour. [in all honesty, with the trend towards unidimensional mattes in the last few years, it's gotten harder to find shades that have those sorts of nuances.]

i made some comparisons from my collection, which might be heavier on these sorts of colours than the average person's.

l to r :: rouge d'armani 513, beetroot, radish, rouge d'armani 402 [d.c.], nars vera

rouge d'armani 513, maharajah, is cooler than radish and has a fine shimmer. the discontinued rouge d'armani shade 402 [i think it's discontinued; the rouge d'armani line is kind of in chaos right now] is pretty close to beetroot- definitely the closest that i have- but is darker and more muted. i honestly expected/ worried that nars audacious lipstick in vera would be an even closer match, but it's darker, softer, a bit greyer.

the bottom line is that the colours are beautiful, but not necessarily unique. some of the more neutral shades look like they'd be harder to match.

but what about the formula? isn't that what's really the issue here? well let me assure you: the formula is killer. the lasting power is as good as i've seen from any bite product, and while it isn't quite as soft going on as the luminous creme formula, it still does feel like a treat to wear. the longevity does not cause dryness or flaking, and when the colour does wear down, it does so much more evenly than before.

the feel of the formula actually reminds me of the deconstructed rose lipsticks that came out a couple of years ago and a bit of the nars audacious lipsticks. [yikes! i've fallen behind on reviewing those in the last year... there are more i need to share, even though they're not new anymore.] like those formulas, the amuse bouche lipsticks read as nearly matte on me and quite glossy on everyone else. i've never understood why that is, but look at my photos, then go look at the ones on temptalia or the beauty lookbook. clearly, our skin is made of different stuff.

the one slight problem i had was that i found it tricky to get a really crisp line around the outside of my lips. i would have forgiven this if it had just been the mini, but it was actually worse in the full size product. i suspect that this is because the edges of the bullet are softly tapered, with a precise point only at the top, so if you want a sharp line, you have to be very careful that only the point touches the edge of your lips. and even then, unless your hands are rock-steady, it might be tricky. [you could use a lip liner, of course, but i generally don't because they never look like the right colour, except with shades of red.]

i've worn both of these shades a few times, but a series of misadventures with smudged lenses and poor lighting meant that i have very little that shows these shades as they look in real life. i do have a couple that i was able to salvage of me wearing radish, which give you an idea of what it looks like in the context of a full face.

i'm also wearing shades from the tarte rainforest of the sea palette and on the cheeks is [i believe] a combination of dior pareo and hourglass incandescent ambient strobing powder.

in addition to the 34 permanent shades, bite has just launched 6 limited edition shades for the summer. i haven't purchased one yet [because i can't choose just one, or two, or...], but i can tell you that they represent bite's most unique and daring shades to date.

i will miss the wine-themed names and, clearly, i will have to be sure to drink more wine in order to get my resveratrol, but the amuse bouche lipsticks are a definite step forward, and a very welcome addition to the world of lipstick formulas.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-47022659276583685332016-05-18T18:19:00.000-04:002016-05-18T18:19:43.750-04:00scottishnotscottish

as scottish as mjölnir

probably the first thing i ever learned about my ancestry was that i am scottish. the scottish part of my family are way proud of their scotch-ness. they know their particular tartan. they have their family crest displayed in their homes. they've been to the town from which the family first sprouted. they like their bagpipes and burns and gaelic. and indeed, the clan lines in scotland go far back. [not as far back as the irish strain of the family they won't admit exists, but that's another story.]

but in my continuing genealogy project, wherein i am endeavouring to trace my lineage all the way back to its pre-human form, i've come across a little "hitch": my scottish family, at least the part of them that gave us our clan name and identity, isn't scottish. well, they are. but they're also not. in fact, they were enemies of the scots, even though they were, in a way, scots themselves and related to the scottish royal family. of course, that didn't stop them from pretty much declaring war on the scottish royal family, since, in olden times, being family didn't imply loyalty so much as the right to take all your stuff.

here's how this works:

my family, the macdonalds of keppoch, part of the larger "clan donald" were actually descended from the "lords of the isles". these were the people who lived, as the name might imply, in the islands on the west side of scotland "proper": the hebrides, mull, islay, arran and generally every place where scotch is made. the kingdom of the isles even stretched as far south as the isle of man. although it wasn't always a well-defined entity, the kingdom was distinguished by the fact that it had a turbulent relationship with the scottish crown since the scottish were always a little concerned about have people basically sitting on their shoulder and occasionally trying to murder them.

so what? i hear you say. they were all "scottish" anyway. well, yes and no. the rulers of "the isles" were actually norse-gaels, which is a term that means exactly what it sounds like: a mix of norwegian and scottish gaelic blood. the norse-gaels were partly scottish, but they were mostly just nose-gaelic, and considered themselves their own sweet entity, equally norwegian and scottish, but not either.

the norse-gaels reached the zenith of their power under a figure called somerled, "lord of the isles", in the twelfth century [yes, i know i'm going pretty far back there, but it still counts]. he's revered as a highland hero in scotland, because he supposedly drove the vikings out of the country. however, the truth is that he came from a prominent family of norse-gaels, which meant that he was part viking himself. furthermore, in order to curry favour for his plan of world domination [well, at least scottish domination], he married a daughter of the jarl [earl] of orkney. the orkneys at that time were a colony of norway, and hence closely tied to the royal family of that country [although the orkneys had, over centuries, also evolved into their own separate thing, which would persist for centuries]. and the vikings that somerled expelled from scotland were actually just one ruler, whom he deposed from the throne of the isles in man, and who happened to be his brother in law. so to recap: somerled was a half-norwegian, who married a norwegian, who deposed another half-norwegian from the isle of man and is now credited with saving scotland from the vikings. wish i knew the name of his publicist.

what's more shocking, at least if you're scottish, is that the lords of the isles were closer to the english and irish royal families, or at least more inclined to make alliances with them, than they were with the scottish royal family. [although they weren't above marrying into the scottish royal family, as somerled's sister was married off to the scottish king malcolm.]

so where does that leave me, almost a millennium later?

well, the clan donald is descended from one of somerled's two sons. so all the macdonalds [as well as several other clans] trace their heritage to him. and that's not just a legend. genetic testing done on members of the clans who claim him as a progenitor found that a huge percentage of them have dna markers indicative of a single common ancestor. it's entirely possible that somerled's extended family numbers in excess of half a million people, which is impressive, but kind of sucks if you're looking for any inheritance you might be due.

that means that the oh-so-scottish macdonalds, the most scottish of all the scottish clans, are just as much norwegian as they are scottish. many common scottish names, both surnames and forenames, are actually english corruptions of gaelic corruptions of norse names like rōgnvald [gaelic ragnhall, english ronald or roland] or Þormóð [gaelic tormod, english norman]. and while we can brag about how our heritage goes back to times bc/ bce, that's really only true of the norwegian [or, alternately, the irish] parts of the family, because the actual scottish parts get pretty foggy, which is par for the course in scotland.

so, in celebration of my scottish family, i would like to wish a very hearty, although slightly belated, national day to my norwegian progenitors. someday i hope to visit your exquisite fjords and experience the true nature of my scottishness.

p.s. :: i would love to close with a salutation in norwegian, but it's not one of the languages i've started learning and i don't want to do the obnoxious thing and say something in swedish under the assumption that all you scandinavians speak the same language, even though, from what i understand, your languages are at least close enough that you'd probably understand me. i'll speak proper norwegian someday.]

p.p.s. :: the photo at the top of the post is taken from this post on the history of the vikings on the isle of man.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-52701415469221116342016-05-16T20:58:00.003-04:002016-05-16T20:58:55.021-04:00mental health mondays :: #mentalillnessfeelslike
a few weeks ago, i posted a notice in honour of canadian mental health week. however, i failed to mention that our neighbours to the south dedicate an entire month to mental health awareness. of course, if you take into consideration the difference in population, canada is still dedicating more time per capita, but, you know... it's a whole month. and it's one of the long ones, too.

the theme for this year's campaign, as you might have gathered from the hash-taggery in the title of this post, is "what mental illness feels like". that can encompass a lot of things, because mental illness covers depression, psychosis, dissociative disorders, eating disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, panic disorders... but you know all this already. the idea is to simply get people to talk about mental illness as much as possible, to give a sense of all of the different ways in which it can affect people's lives, the number of people who suffer from it, and also to let people know that others feel the same way that they do.

you can get information on mental health month here. i've already spoken quite a bit about my own experiences with mental health on this blog, so i figured i would share these adorable drawings from british artist gemma correll, created to mark the month.

i've felt all of these things and a lot of people i know have felt them too.

other observations about how mental illness feels that i've heard from people include things like:

being paralysed :: when panic attacks and anxiety are at their peak, you feel physically as if you can't move- like your brain isn't in control of your body.

painful :: when you're stressed, your body releases inflammatory substances capable of causing real, physical damage to the body. you're not imagining that it hurts and you're not being overly sensitive.

being crazy :: one of the saddest things i've ever heard [and it's come from more than one person] is that many people who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder are perfectly aware that their rituals/ ticks/ beliefs are irrational, but that doesn't do anything to reduce their power.

having no idea who to trust :: john nash once said that the voices in his head came to him in the exact same way as his ideas about mathematics, so he couldn't discount them. it's something i've heard from others as well- your own brain is lying to you, often using the same channels that it uses to allow you to do really important things.

not knowing what anything feels like :: this is a little understood problem with dissociative disorders and one that's often used to portray them as unfeeling monsters. dissociative disorders can cause people to "split" from their emotions, so that they can be unaware of what they're feeling, or unable to feel the "appropriate" emotions in certain situations.

and none of this gets into what mental illness feels like for those close to someone with a mental illness.

whatever your experience, i encourage you to make your voice heard over the next two weeks. join a conversation, start a conversation. it won't bring about change on its own, but no change can happen without it.

Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-48092239727716423132016-05-11T23:55:00.001-04:002016-05-11T23:55:47.072-04:00mental health mondays :: bad mood disorder

or is it?

monday, you say?? yes. it's wednesday. more to the point, it's 11:48 on wednesday night, which means it's technically close to being thursday. but this is the post that was supposed to appear on monday, before my own mental health decided to rewrite the week's script a little.

thanks very much to those of you who sent well-wishes here and on facebook. i am doing better than i was yesterday and certainly better than i was on monday. things are gradually returning to normal, as they say.

so this is the final instalment of my look at personality disorders, wherein i look at psychiatry's red-headed step children, those ones we never like to talk about...

*

a friend posted this article on facebook a little while back, which raises some very good points about some very maligned mood disorders. lots of us are proud to say that we support those with mental illness, that we want increased funding to study and treat mental illness, and that we believe that the stigma against those with mental illness needs to be addressed and eliminated. but, and i believe this is entirely without meaning to in most cases, a lot of us also struggle to sympathize with certain disorders. and let's be honest: those conditions can be very difficult to sympathize with.

a few years back, dom and i visited toronto and i was showing off the city's collection of indie/ edgy video stores [pretty sure they're all gone now]. while we were inside one on queen street, a homeless person, speaking loudly to himself [i'm making a conscious effort not to use the word "raving" there] walked up and stood in the doorway, blocking it. he then proceeded to whip out is visibly filthy member and start masturbating. so there we are, wanting to escape, but also not wanting to get caught in a shower of hostile stranger jizz and not particularly wanting to live the waifish young woman at the counter alone in the store.

on reflection, i'm aware that this man was probably a victim of the massive cuts to hospitals in ontario [particularly toronto] in the 1990s and early 2000s. among the facilities that lost a large number of beds and staff was the centre for addiction and mental health, west on queen street. when i first moved to toronto, i remember being struck by the tragic spectacle of those who had been pushed out of the facility, still addicted, still psychotic and still in desperate need of help. unable to think of anything else to do, they had set up camp directly outside the centre, as if they were waiting to be let back in. i sympathized deeply, but i'd still make sure to walk on the other side of the street.

over the next six years i lived in the city, the abandoned gradually started to spread out. as a result, toronto, particularly queen street, has not just a homeless problem, but a psychotic homeless problem. these aren't just people who will ask you for change, but people who will stop in random doorways and masturbate in the middle of the afternoon.

i was aware of these things at the time, but i have to admit that the principle thing going through my head was "i want to get away from here". as the author of the linked article points out, psychosis, whatever causes it, can feel like a punch to our sympathetic gut. logically, we know these people aren't truly aware of their surroundings, or of the effects of their actions. but "trapped inside because a man is jacking off in the doorway" has a sort of immediacy that pushes everything else well into the background.

there's also that fear that interrupting, whether to escape or to try and engage such a person, could trigger aggression. statistically, people who are psychotic aren't prone to violence, but that doesn't help quell our natural inclination alerts us that we can have no idea what the person will do. our brains are hardwired to be cautious of unpredictability.

that said, i would still argue that psychosis is better viewed than the other disorders mentioned in the article, because we can clearly see there is something terribly wrong. it never occurred to me that the man masturbating in the doorway was just a selfish asshole who felt entitled to gratify himself wherever he wanted. as much as i was put off by the situation, any anger i felt was towards the government whose cuts had deprived him of the help he needed.

mood disorders are very different, because they are largely invisible. anyone can have them, they're difficult to treat and they can have a massive effect on a person's interactions with others. the internet is replete with advice about avoiding "toxic people" and how to judge if you're being manipulated by one. what's less commonly addressed, however, is that the people we categorize as "toxic" might have issues that go beyond being harmful, manipulative, and abusive. they may be sick in the same way that depressed people are sick. they may need help in the same way that the people turned away from the centre for addiction and mental health needed help.

mentioned in the article is borderline personality disorder, which is certainly one of the most problematic diagnoses a person can get. bpd is controversial in almost every way: there are those who debate whether or not the condition even exists, others argue that it should be treated as a subset of either bipolar [because of the characteristic swings in mood or emotion] or post-traumatic stress disorder [because of its high correlation with incidents of childhood abuse, gross neglect, or catastrophic separation]. in fact, there appears to be both a genetic and an environmental component, both of which are necessary to development of the disorder, which would actually indicate that it falls somewhere between the worlds of bipolar and ptsd.

one of the most controversial aspects of bpd, however, is its "gender gap": those diagnosed with it are overwhelmingly female. that has led to accusations that the disorder is a way of stigmatizing behaviour in women that would be acceptable in men [frequent anger, sexual promiscuity]. alternately, it's contrasted with antisocial personality disorder, where the overwhelming majority of sufferers are men. there are clear distinctions between the two, but both seem driven by an apparent callous disregard for others and frightening shifts in mood and emotion.

when you read a description of so-called toxic people, the characteristics look a lot like a list of symptoms of both borderline and antisocial personality disorder. they're generally manipulative and dishonest in order to get what they want, prone to violent emotional outbursts, they can be incredibly paranoid, hostile and negative about the rest of the world, and they tend to be focused on themselves, what they want, and on the benefits that any situation brings to them.

that sounds horrible, right?

well, consider what i said about the correlation between borderline personality disorder and childhood trauma. the same goes for antisocial personality disorder. so if these are people who are self-centred and harmful, it's usually because they were forced to learn some pretty extreme methods of self-preservation in order to survive their own childhoods. if they are manipulative or have a pathological fear of abandonment, it's because they were "programmed" to be that way in their formative years. if they are violent or prone to emotional aggrandizement, it's likely because they have a lot of righteous and unresolved anger about the circumstances in which they were forced to live their early lives. if they are unapologetically dishonest, it's because they were brought up in an environment where telling the truth was dangerous and where lying was, again, essential to survival.

interestingly, though, the original article that inspired this jog through the dark corners of personality disorders, has one glaringly obvious omission: narcissistic/ histrionic personality disorder. [i'm treating these two as a single subject, because the distinctions seem entirely driven by gender.] aside from the most extreme examples of antisocial personality disorder [serial killers, violent abusers of people and animals], i don't think that there is any group that is easier to hate than those with narcissistic personality disorder. perhaps because it's because their pain is hidden so well behind a wall of entitlement, self-importance and mistreatment of others. perhaps it's because, even when caught in criminal behaviour [you can read my theories on two high-profile cases here and here], they seem not just unapologetic, but still possessed of a sense that they are the ones who have been wronged.

this is where speaking up for the rights of people with mental disorders gets thorny. the vast majority of people with any of these disorders are not dangerous to the public at large, but that doesn't mean they can't inflict some pretty significant damage on those close to them. how far is sympathy supposed to extend? how much do you really want to defend someone who's caused real harm to others?

the fact that these people are potentially harmful is the reason we're told that their symptoms are a checklist for people we should make significant efforts to avoid. as if isolating them will solve the problem, rather than reinforce it. but how much personal risk is acceptable in the name of helping someone who is suffering? even lifesaving courses caution us not to put ourselves at risk to save someone else, lest we both end up dead. even if we realise that these people need help, it's likely that most of us would take a "nimby" attitude towards actually having one of these people in our lives. someone else can take care of them, thank you very much, we've all got our own problems. what's the point of treating someone medically if having them acknowledge their condition only makes people run away from them?

this just scratches the surface of what there is to deal with when it comes to dealing with "ugly" personality disorders, but the fact that it's not often addressed [or if it is addressed, it's often mocked as excuse-making for bad behaviour] shows just how uncomfortable subject is. in a world where we struggle to de-stigmatize and advocate for sufferers depression and anxiety, asking people to consider that manipulative, dishonest, or even violent behaviour might be deserving of some sympathy is a tall order. but the flip side is that we simply write people off as permanently damaged, unsalvageable. i don't even want to start going through the uncomfortable arguments that raises.

i've written a lot and thought more about the issue of mental disorders and, in the last month or so, about personality disorders in particular. a brief perusal through the history of mental health mondays should reveal that i'm a pretty passionate advocate for better mental health treatment. but i'll be honest: even i struggle with some of this. assuming, for the moment, that we leave out the extreme cases of antisocial personality disorder- the sadistic/ serial killers- and focus on the majority, there are personal risks to having someone with narcissistic, borderline, antisocial or histrionic characteristics in close proximity, especially if their disorder is untreated or inadequately treated. but a few decades ago, public discourse about mental disorders at all was rare. we enable progress by challenging ourselves to think and talk about things that are uncomfortable. so while it might not have provided much in the way of answers, i hope this little post has given you some things to think about.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-77472283240876293422016-05-10T04:16:00.001-04:002016-05-10T04:16:13.701-04:00mental health mondays :: ...to be continued
mental health mondays should be up tomorrow. i had started the post and then had to stop, because i had an overwhelming panic attack. then i couldn't do anything but sleep. so basically, one attack- about something that turned out to be fairly easily resolved- robbed me of several hours of my life, stopped my productivity dead in its tracks and, since my sleep schedule is somewhat derailed, threatens to mess me up for tomorrow as well. as a special bonus, even writing this short post about my evening is making me extremely edgy, because i'm desperately afraid of triggering another attack which, in the middle of the night and with very limited resources available to me to calm myself, is a terrifying thought. i'm trying not to panic over the possibility that i could panic.

post-panic, i even look different. my face is puffy and my eyes look swollen, although there's no reason for that. i haven't been crying or yelling or using my facial muscles in any abnormal way. nonetheless, the face i see in the mirror tonight is not the same as the one that greeted me this morning. anyone who tries to tell me that these things are all in my head had better have an airtight explanation for how my head changes my face.

i am sharing this with you because, 1. i think it's sort of hilarious and ironic that i have to postpone mental health mondays because of my mental health; 2. i want people to understand how suddenly a real crisis can throw someone off-kilter and how the after-effects can cascade from what seems like a fairly minor event. for people who suffer from anxiety disorders [which is part, although not all, of my profile], an attack isn't just upsetting, but crippling. and not everyone has the good fortune, as i did tonight, of being at home and able to work through these feelings in relative comfort. anything can set off this chain reaction, not just known "triggers", but virtually any obstacle or any of the causes of stress that people deal with every day. obviously, regular sources of stress are more dangerous when you're already prone to panicking, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you will have an attack when exposed to regular sources of stress. in fact, people with panic or anxiety disorders can often manage what seem like stressful situations just fine, only to crack under the pressure of having to decide what to make for dinner. [no, in case you're wondering, that wasn't what set me off.]

for those of you who don't regularly have full-blown panic attacks, be happy, because it's nothing you would ever want to experience. imagine getting in your car, driving somewhat faster then you feel comfortable doing and turning your car in a direction of a large tree. then imagine closing your eyes and trying to steer away from the tree without touching the brakes. that's an approximation of a panic attack, only it can last for hours, not seconds. that combination of helplessness, mortal fear, and responsibility for the situation.

for those of you who do suffer from anxiety and/ or panic disorders, i'm putting this up here so that you know you're not alone and so that you know that it's ok to say what's happening to you in public, even on the internet, where anyone in the world can see. the world we live in often places unfair and onerous demands on people, including a lot of people who are more fragile because it might be damaging to their interests. it's a hideous thing. i feel it and i know many of you do too. stress is a natural reaction to that.

but anxiety and panic are thieves. they rob you of time, of happiness, and, as is increasingly evident, of life. what's worse, they rob the world of you, because often your inner self, your real self, just can't fight through the fog and be present. that's a loss for everybody.

breathe as slowly and deeply as you can for ten minutes, focusing on nothing else. hug your cat or dog or rhino, whatever you have, i'm not judging. use whatever tricks you can find on the internet to keep the thieves out of your house and if those start to fail you, learn more. protect yourself. don't let them steal more than they already have.

i can't get back the time i lost today, but i can at least try to turn it into something that might help someone else.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-57195686211560790432016-05-08T00:14:00.000-04:002016-05-08T00:14:13.575-04:00making faces :: the workplace conundrum
one of the easiest topics on which to find a plethora of advice online [at least on the subject of beauty] is what kind of look is best suited to a job interview, or to the workplace in general. and there is an overwhelming consensus on the subject, which is that makeup should always be minimal and unobtrusive. wear a very natural lip colour! stick with matte eye shadows! always wear mascara! definitely put on blush! don't put on too much blush! never wear bold colours!

i'm sure all that advice is well-intentioned, but it starts from a ridiculous presupposition, which is that every person wears every colour in more or less the same way. if you've followed any of my adventures in diy colour analysis, you'll know that that simply isn't the case. if i'm being generous, i could say that what's being implied is that women should stick to the colours that are natural for them, but even then, i think that there's a difference between what's sold as natural [nude lips, soft, neutral eyeshadows, etc.] and what appears natural on an individual. some people [particular "light season" people] wear the "no makeup makeup" look exceptionally well. some people ["soft season" people] wear muted, earthy tones like they were born to do so. but that's far from everyone.

this is partly driven, of course, by the fact that, as a "bright season" person, i fall outside the groups that do best in very delicate or understated colours. in fact, i'm the exact opposite. the best shades on me are very saturated [my personal favourite is an ultra-intense cobalt blue] and significantly brighter than what's usually recommended in workplace situations. but that doesn't make them wrong for those situations. it makes them wrong for other people. and this is why i think that at least some toying around with colour analysis can be good for everyone. [yes, gentlemen, i mean you as well.]

when we're talking about what colours "work" for us, it's a significantly more in depth matter than what we think looks good on us, or something that seems to complement something else that we're wearing. the idea behind colour analysis is that there are certain shades, be they in clothing or in makeup, that can make each individual look better or worse. those can be grouped according to general criteria [although, of course, everyone is different] and the closer you are to the criteria that matches your underlying colours, the better.

but you don't have to take my word for it, or the word of any colour analysis gurus, because we have a magical thing called photography. to whit:

au not-quite-naturel

let's leave aside questions of whether or not what i'm wearing is workplace or interview-appropriate. pretend that it is. there i am in an understated but dark-ish [because nothing conveys seriousness like dark colours!] olive green and black. my makeup [details about that here] is what one would consider appropriate for an interview or workplace. but is it showing me to all my potential?

is that a woman who looks at her best? or does she look a little washed out and weakened? although i actually like the look, i'd argue it's the latter. although these are generally the sorts of colours that are recommended in the workplace or for an interview, i think i can do better.

for instance, let's use the same sweater [still a muted colour- not ideal for a bright season], but amp up the makeup a little:

let's turn up the saturation

is that too much for an office? maybe. or maybe not. to me, the face looks more balanced here. the eyes don't have that overly intense, slightly scary look that they do when there's very little colour anywhere around them. [i should add that the light is much lower in this photo than in the first, which makes everything look darker.]

alternately, this is what happens when we stick with the softer makeup colours, but use a more bright season-appropriate top, something like the blue i described as being particularly good on me:

true blue

i think that, right away, you can see a clarifying, calming effect on my skin. this is why i say that this information works for men too. makeup aside, just having the proper colour next to my face and neck improves things. this is the sort of colour that people are generally discouraged from wearing in the workplace, lest it draw attention away from them. but i'd argue that it's doing the opposite here. this looks more natural on me than the ostensibly more natural colour i'm wearing in the two shots above.

the cardinal sin in the workplace, especially in an interview or presentation, where you're trying to highlight yourself and don't want anything to distract from how awesome you are, is wearing red lipstick. so how awful would that be?

fire this woman

she's clearly insane

again, maybe it's just my opinion, but i think that if you were asked to listen to a presentation from this group of [eerily similar looking] women, the one at the bottom would command your attention more than the one at the very top. and, contrary to popular belief, i don't think you'd be distracted by her makeup or the colours she's wearing. you'd notice them, but i think that the reaction upon seeing that first face would be an underlying thought that what you were about to see would be boring. fast forward to the lady wearing that ill-advised tomato red with a blue necklace and i think the impression that's given would be one of authority.

again, that's not going to work for everyone. put a person who wears lighter or more muted colours better in that red and they'd look like a kid playing dress up- not a great impression to leave. hence the importance of knowing what works for your particular complexion. on a bright season, bold, saturated colours and high contrast seem balanced, because they are balanced with what's already there. the softer colours normally recommended for office wear are fighting nature, not enhancing it.

of course, if you're a bright season person [or, really, anyone in the spectrum from dark winter to true spring], you may not be comfortable with going all out on colour and you may want to appear just a little bit softer. that can easily be done.

the kinder, gentler kate

the green, black and warm pink would still be gaudy on someone whose colouring doesn't support saturation, but i find that they have a nice balancing effect on me. my skin looks even both in colour and in texture, my eyes don't seem to be bugging out, but i'm not quite the powerhouse you see in red. i'd probably wear this sort of thing while pleading my innocence in court.

if you're curious, the lipstick shades used here are, from the top, nars "bilbao" [full look details here], tom ford "something wild" [full look details and review here], guerlain kiss kiss lipstick "rouge insolence", guerlain rouge g "garconne", nars satin lip pencil "golshan" [review here] and guerlain rouge g "gracy". i don't have a review of gracy, but you can see her swatched alongside "grenade" rouge g and rouge dior "times square", both of which are excellent, slightly toned down alternatives that still work for people who wear saturated colours well.

if you're looking specifically for lipstick suggestions, you should have a look at my recommendations by seasonal type for spring, summer, fall, and winter.

now, the bad news is that none of this will help you if what you're saying is absolute bullshit. but assuming that you do have things you want to say, that need and deserve to be said, and keeping in mind that humans are primarily visual creatures, it helps to put the best version of you on display to ensure that your message is heard the way that you intend.

and, while the advice might be well intended, it's always a good idea to view rules that are supposed to apply equally to everyone with a little bit of skepticism. [well, maybe rules like "don't kill people randomly" should work for everyone, but even then, there's no reason why murder-you can look their best either.] now go out and knock 'em dead.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-75166230161869562652016-05-05T21:38:00.000-04:002016-05-05T21:38:23.798-04:00genocide by numbers :: a grim reminder
this was originally a world wide wednesdays post late last year, but i figured that it would be appropriate to re-post it today, which is holocaust memorial day. the holocaust is unique in the history of genocide for a few reasons [discussed further along in the post], and it is certainly an example of the worst sort of horrors people can perpetrate on each other. and for all the fact that we grow up hearing about what happened, that knowledge has not stopped later genocides from happening. [it has given us a precedent for the prosecution of those responsible, at least.]

the tone of this post may seem a little clinical, but i think that's where one has to start coming to terms with these things. but for another perspective, please read my friend joel's piece about his father, a holocaust survivor, which also touches on one of the least addressed aspects of genocidal campaigns: that they do not end when the killing stops, but live on in the damaged psyches of their survivors, and in their children, even if they never experienced these events first hand.

*

mass jewish grave in germany

if you asked most people to name five genocides that have occurred in the last thousand years, they'd likely be stumped. many people likely couldn't name one aside from the holocaust. but there have been a lot of mass killings of ethnic, religious or other minorities conducted by governments and empires, on every continent in the world except antarctica. you read that correctly. every single continent has seen at least one genocide perpetrated on its soil and most have seen more than one.

the holocaust is the most widely recognised because it was so scrupulously documented by the perpetrators. most nations have gone to great lengths to prove that they were not responsible for the deaths of millions of people, but nazi germany seemed unsettlingly proud of their efficiency in this regard. the way that the holocaust was organised also made the horror of it more striking for those who discovered it. in other genocides, evidence has generally been slow to emerge, spread out over wide areas. when the allied forces liberated germany, they were confronted with camps full of people sent there to die. third, the holocaust was perpetrated during a war that had involved much of the world, and was therefore accorded international attention. finally- and perhaps most importantly- it was perpetrated on groups who posed no military threat to their killers. this has confused our view of genocide, because in most cases, it has resulted from a military struggle or threat of insurrection. that the victims cannot entirely be represented as innocent in those cases in no way changes the fact that a genocide was committed against them.

it's that last point- the innocence of its victims- that tends to make people consider the holocaust the worst instance of genocide in history. but defining "the worst" is a tricky business. there are a lot of ways to evaluate horror, ways that may seem cold, but which nonetheless help us understand the history of cultural murder and the circumstances that have led to it.

before getting into that, of course, it's necessary to point out that the definition of genocide is itself problematic. for instance, the the murder or mass displacement [with the expectation of death] of a group on the basis of political opposition is not a genocide. crimes perpetrated against a political group were left out of the definition at the behest of the soviet union, who likely feared that they could be prosecuted if it had been part of the definition. there are also cases where the actions of a group seemed to fit the definition of genocide, but where there was no official policy that guided those actions, allowing the government plausible deniability [e.g., the murder and displacement of beothuk indians and tasmanian aborigines by english settlers] . then, of course, there are those genocides which may be acknowledged by some, but not all [e.g., the mass murder and displacement of armenians by ottoman turks].

in order to give a standard reference point, i've used the events and totals in this chart and i've taken the higher estimated death toll to calculate.

highest total death toll :: far and away the genocide with the greatest body count is the mass extermination of american indians by european invaders. an estimated 42 million people died and far more were rounded up and placed on government-controlled reserves, or taken away from their families to schools where they were forbidden to speak their own language or practice their own culture. the truly chilling thing is that the numbers would likely be much higher but for the fact that the europeans almost ran out of people to kill. the systematized extermination was carried on for over five hundred years after columbus landed in north america, but gains little attention because it was carried out by multiple governments, over a very long period of time and because its indirect methods [the spread of diseases to which the indigenous people of the americas had no immunity and forcible relocation away from resources] were so devastating.

most destructive :: another measure of a genocide is the impact it has on the victim population. survivors are left to resuscitate culture in the wake of a disaster and they are also the ones who can bear witness to the crimes. hitler and the nazis murdered 78% of the jews in the parts of europe that they occupied- almost four of every five. the ottoman turks murdered 750,000 assyrians over eight years, representing about 75% of the assyrians living in the empire. the qing [or manchu] dynasty killed 80% of the dzungar people [who lived in modern-day mongolia] over a period of three years in the eighteenth century, effectively destroying an entire culture. today, just over 15,000 people in mongolia identify as dzungar, or about 2.5% of the total number of people killed in the genocide.

in the nineteenth century, russia conducted a campaign against the circassians in the north caucasus that left only 80,000 out of a population of 1.5 million, meaning that nearly 95% of the population was killed or forced out of their homeland.

the percentage of american indians killed by european invaders has a huge range of estimates, from 50 up to 90%, but it's hard to tell, because there was no central government of all the tribes. the beothuk people of newfoundland were eradicated: the last surviving beothuk died in 1829. in just under twenty years, from 1878 to 1897, the canadian government starved more than half the population of the alberta sharphead band [a nakoda tribe], split the survivors into smaller groups and relocated them to live with different tribes before reclaiming the sharphead reserve lands for the crown. on the opposite side of the planet, the small population of aboriginal tasmanians was likewise wiped from the face of the earth. so of any group, english settlers have proven the most ruthless in conducting genocides.

victims of the armenian genocide

highest death rate :: one reason that the holocaust has such a profound grip on our imagination is the sheer number of people the nazis were able to kill and for how long. a total of 11 million dead between 1933 and 1945 means nearly a million deaths per year. the 1994 genocide in rwanda saw deaths at the same rate, as did the genocide of the igbo in nigeria from 1967-70, but both were much shorter in duration.

however, the mass deaths and displacement suffered by ukrainians at the hands of the soviet union in 1932-33 dwarfs both of those in comparison. because the deaths were indirect, the result of a famine that many believe was deliberately prolonged in order to weaken ukrainian opposition to the bolsheviks, not everyone accepts that this was a genocide. but 7.5 million people died as a result of stalin's actions, two-thirds the total that died in the holocaust in just two years. that's nearly four times the number of people per year than the nazis, all while maintaining plausible deniability. that, readers, is pure evil.

most genocidal nation :: there are a few countries that have done far too much to further the cause of genocide. which has been the most dangerous? well, there are a few different possibilities.

england is certainly a prime candidate, seeing as they conducted much of the indigenous genocides in north america and australia and set the framework in place for the future governments of canada, the united states, australia and new zealand to continue the work.

germany, the country synonymous with genocide, is "only" implicated in one, but clearly the scope of

statue of the "beothuk spirit"

the holocaust and the fact that the government directly murdered such a vast number makes it a unique case.

belgium should likely be considered alongside germany, however. over two and a half decades in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the forces of king leopold ii were responsible for the deaths of 10 million in the congo free state, as much as 50% of the population. that's very near holocaust numbers without the later advances in technology and outside of the government's immediate territory. the belgians got away with mass murder because many of the deaths were caused indirectly, through disease that was allowed [and encouraged] to spread and by deaths through forced labour. indeed, many don't even qualify this as a genocide, because the government was so successful in keeping themselves at a discreet distance.

when it comes to nations who are most likely to commit genocides, there are two that stand out:

russia is implicated in four separate genocidal campaigns, resulting in nearly 10 million deaths, over the last two hundred years. the czar went after the circassians, the civil war saw the deaths or deportations of the cossacks around the don river, then the bolsheviks starved and blockaded the ukraine and massacred the polish minority, all before the outbreak of the second world war.

mehmet vi, last sultan of the ottoman empire

turkey is implicated in five genocidal campaigns since 1915. they also have the dubious distinction of having conducted three concurrent genocides, against the armenians, assyrians and greeks from 1915-23. of course, they haven't acknowledged that these were genocides, which makes it a little difficult to move beyond the hurt and anger.

as difficult as it seems, i did want to end things on a slightly more positive note... that note is that, while we continue to see genocidal events around the world, they have decreased in frequency and scope and, perhaps most importantly, we're getting better at prosecuting them.

in the aftermath of world war ii, more than a hundred germans were convicted of crimes against humanity, as well as nazi collaborators in a half dozen european nations. eight japanese leaders responsible, including three former prime ministers, were sentenced to death for their role in the nanking massacre. more than three dozen people have been convicted in the genocidal massacres during the wars in the former yugoslavia. twenty-four people have been found guilty of genocide in rwanda, including the belgian-italian radio announcer who incited violence on air.

i was surprised to hear that demands that canadian history courses in school include the details of the genocide of first nations, inuit and métis people in canadian school history curriculum. i was surprised not because it was demanded, but because i couldn't imagine any possible objection to it that wasn't based on "we'd like to continue to lie". these same kids are learning about the holocaust as if it's an isolated event and not what happened in their own country. how is that acceptable? as unpleasant as the subject is, the subject of racial and cultural violence against minorities and against vulnerable populations needs to be discussed, so that future adults can be aware of how easy it is for conflict to escalate. at the very least, i'd like it if most people i asked could answer my opening question about naming five genocides. knowledge is power, and while we're getting better, we need to be a lot more powerful still.

a child stands over a mass grave in rwanda

Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-61313636360359871362016-05-02T22:58:00.000-04:002016-05-02T22:58:21.148-04:00mental health mondays :: #getloud with the cmha

this week, we're going green!

when i promised that i'd be continuing the series i'd started on personality disorders, i didn't realise that this week marks the start of the annual canadian mental health association's annual awareness week. this year, as last, they're using the hashtag #getloud to encourage people both to talk about mental health issues and to raise their voice in support of increased mental health funding for canadians. [of course, you could just as easily use the opportunity to increase the call for increased funding wherever you are in the world.]

and in case you think this is all about hollering "more money", without a plan as to how it should be used, you should check out the specific objectives of the cmha plan, especially the mental health transition and innovation fund [link goes to pdf].

there are a number of ways that you can get loud/ involved, which range from wearing green to hosting fundraising events, all of which are outlined here.

i think it's pretty clear that one of the main ways that i think people can help increase awareness of [and funding for] mental illness is through spreading information on all of its facets. as a result, i have several years worth of mental health mondays posts, which you are free to peruse at your leisure. if i may be so bold, you might want to check out this post i did for the last canadian federal election on the policies of various parties on mental health, since it has a list of questions that still need to be answered by politicians.

so, yes, the personality disorders posts will return next week, for realsies, in this space. but for this week, i'm just going to be content with encouraging everyone to talk about these issues and to do whatever they can to create a climate where those discussions can be had out in the open, where they can benefit the most people and where they can yield results.

yours in loudness,
kate
Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-990355594783527102016-05-01T23:02:00.000-04:002016-05-01T23:02:14.546-04:00the history lesson trump never got

"what's the worst that could happen?"

dear america,

hi, it's me again. the one who likes to criticize and mock a lot but still feels like you have some pretty awesome potential. i've been as guilty as anyone in wallowing in the horrorfest that is your federal election, but, as the candidates have tumbled, the debates have passed and even the primaries have failed to yield much excitement, one thing has become apparent: your shit is fucked up.

as i watch the likelihood of a donald trump presidency become ever greater, i feel like i need to call your attention to a couple of things. now, saying that you might elect donald trump president is like wearing your underpants on top of your clothes with an extra pair on your head as a statement of your ability to make decisions and take care of yourselves, so you'll forgive me if this missive is a little more patronizing than usual.

there are lots of reasons why trump would be a terrible president. here are seven of them. here's another five from a more right-wing perspective. or if you'd prefer, this right-wing site came up with forty of them. or you could listen to the words of this angelic-looking ten year old hillary clinton supporter, who came up with three of her own. [seriously, her first reason is the most perfectly worded put-down of trump that has been made in the campaign thus far.]

for my part, i'm going to stick to his big performance this week, playing "man who has a workable foreign policy for america". i'm certainly not the first to criticize his plans. the guardian seized on an unsettling number of inconsistencies for the length of the speech he gave. and cnn's underused fareed zakaria used his weekly show to break down some of those same points, as well as to put the donald's policy in some historical perspective. [spoiler alert: andrew jackson is having a terrible week in the press.]

i'm not as informed as either of those sources, but i do feel like i can add a little to the discussion by filling in what was covered in history class on those days that trump played hooky.

america's allies aren't contributing more to nato because they don't want to, and, if pushed, they'd walk away from nato rather than invest more. zakaria alludes to this in his editorial, but i figure it warrants a little more detail. i should clarify when talking about nato, trump doesn't mean all its members. he's referring to a handful of western european states [and canada, probably] who have wealth and a well-equipped military. nato serves those countries fine, as long as it maintains a buffer between them and russia, them and terrorists, or them and basically anyone they want to avoid. however, even america's strongest allies have hesitated to back plans like expansion into the ukraine and georgia feeling [correctly] that it would antagonise russia and bring no meaningful advantage. the instant that western european countries feel like participation in nato is exposing them to greater risks, costing too much money, or making them vulnerable to their own populations by forcing them to defend policies that are deeply unpopular at home, the jig is up. and that would leave america with a lot of small partners, newly established partners and impoverished partners, but no heavy hitters.

i feel for both america and [a little] for trump in this regard, because as much as it's easy to criticize the u.s. for taking on the role of the world's policeman, their ascendancy to the role did not take place in a vacuum. but now that it's done, the u.s. needs to find a way of scaling back their commitments and a way to accept that relinquishing the role they've embraced for so long will mean admitting that they cannot control the rest of the world and will need to hash things out with others as equals.

the u.s. military is pointlessly large. this is linked to one of the inconsistencies identified by both the guardian and zakaria [that trump wants to expand the military while also saving money], but it goes beyond that. america's military is huge and equipped with the best weapons on the planet, the product of a spending glut that has continued unabated for decades. but i didn't just say it was large, i said it was pointlessly large, and that's really the most important point. there is no empire in history that has been able to stave off its own decline through military strength. the greeks, the romans, the mongol khanate, were renown for their military strength and tactics. but eventually, you're a minority trying to plug holes in a dozen different hotspots and the more you start focusing on one, the more your enemies take advantage in another. nor does military strength automatically bring military victory. you'd think that the lessons of vietnam would still be pretty resonant, but then again, trump sat that one out.

and here's the kicker: being as large and equipped as it is, the american military has massive financial commitments that will continue to cost billions per year, even if new expenditures were slashed down to the bone. salaries and benefits for armed service members, as well as their health care costs, are a large one, but consider also that there are many pieces of equipment [like, say, anything with the word "nuclear" attached to it] that needs to be maintained in perpetuity, lest it turn on its creators. and none of that can guarantee anyone's safety.

when trump says he will build an army so powerful, no one would dare take it on, i think of what happens every time someone is stupid enough to say they've built a system that can't be hacked. america has had an army so powerful that no should dare to attack it for many years. all that sabre-rattling does is make the target nice and clear.

as a supposed financial wiz, trump should be more concerned about how to wean america's economy off the military-industrial teat.

just because someone is your ally doesn't mean they're your friend and trump needs to learn that before he says another word about other countries getting nuclear weapons. his statements on the topic have been fuzzy, in that way that broadcasts that he could be persuaded by a number of different arguments, but doesn't have any solid opinions of his own. [which may be the problem with a lot of his policies.] fdr used to refer to stalin as "uncle joe" when he and churchill wanted to make sure the communist dictator had their back against hitler; didn't mean they had each other's best interests at heart.

when trump starts to wander into the forest of military policy without his gps, he's prone to saying that he's open to the idea of certain countries, like japan, getting nuclear weapons, because they have america's back. i feel a little cruel for disabusing him of this friendly view of the world, but japan has no one's back but their own, which is just how things work among nation states. japan is a solid ally now, but those things change. and that's why it's a bad idea to give nuclear weapons to anybody, even your best friend.

you can't put the geneva convention genie back in its bottle. now that trump has heartily and repeatedly endorsed the use of torture and the use of military force against the families of suspected terrorists and/ or opposition military leaders, he has no possible way of arguing with those who wish to exempt themselves from any sections of the convention. that's not to say that he can't or won't make those arguments if [when] it happens, but it's going to be a short discussion.

the geneva convention is written to legally bind its signatories to a certain standard of behaviour in the same way that legal codes bind citizens. if donald trump wants to make the case- and he has- that the u.s. should be able to use any means to defeat terrorism, including those currently forbidden by international law, he's saying that the world needs to return to a time when every country did whatever it took to take care of their own and that there was no rulebook.

before he embraces the post-war crime world, trump should sit down with someone who knows something about history and world affairs and play a little game called "the hypothetical situation room": turkey, long an american ally, considers kurdish military groups to be terrorists and, indeed, there have been terrorist attacks in turkey even within the last few months. in order to protect their people, turkey therefore feels itself justified in using military force against not only members of the turkish pkk [kurdistan workers party], but their families and friends. however, kurds both inside turkey and in the neighbouring countries of iraq and syria [where the kurds have been fighting isis] argue that this amounts to the turkish beginning a campaign of genocide against all kurds, on the basis their allegiance will always be to their culture over their country. how should that situation be diffused, without invoking laws against war crimes [or against genocide, since there's no reason that shouldn't be on the table as well]?

i like to use the turkish- kurdish conflict as an example in these cases, because it does touch on a lot of problematic areas, but also because the u.s. has an equivocal relationship with both sides. there are plenty of world leaders who are just dying to have their legal shackles removed in these situations. and their removal could shield people like those responsible for the atrocities in rwanda in 1994. i'm not certain that even donald trump would welcome the sort of attention that comes from being the legal precedent in those cases.

someone should [although i haven't seen anyone step up] remind aspiring precedent trump that using the exact same tactics as your enemies means that you're no better than they are. maybe he doesn't want to be, but he does seem to think that chopping off heads is bad, so i don't think that he's completely given up on the whole good-bad dichotomy yet. somebody please buy this man a copy of animal farm.

ultimately, america, it's your choice. trust me, we're all very aware that no one can tell you what to do. but let me put it a different way: you deserve better.

for decades, your foreign policy experts have been awful. that's not because i disagree with them on a lot of things, but because it's just demonstrably true. these people have been wrong about everything and that's cost you money and lives and it's made your lives more dangerous. these people imploded the middle east when they invaded iraq because apparently none of them could be bothered to read a few articles on wikipedia. they got america sucked into a spectacular military defeat in vietnam because they didn't think it was a big deal that the communist insurgents from the north had huge support among the general population in the south. they thought it was a good idea to give arms and support to rebel groups in afghanistan to fight the ussr, because how could giving a lot of weaponry to religious zealots possibly go wrong? these people have been homer simpson incompetent for decades, which would be hilarious if it didn't keep ending up with your kids coming home in boxes.

so please, america, when you're choosing your next commander in chief, choose one who's worthy of you. choose someone who knows a few things about history and the world, or at least choose someone who has the humility to admit they might not have all the answers. we're pulling for you.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-29680141062619859082016-04-28T23:42:00.000-04:002016-04-28T23:42:58.602-04:00i am not dead and here is some music
i felt it was incumbent on me to mention that, because you could be forgiven for thinking that i'd died, or suffered amnesia, or got taken away by aliens. and i wish i could tell you that this last ten days- the longest break i've had from the blog in years- was because of something groundbreaking, but it's really just been distractions and bad planning on my part. i failed to make time to post for a couple of days, and while i knew that i'd have a family visitor coming and should have scheduled a few posts, i didn't do that, so all of a sudden i was a few days into a dry streak with nothing prepared for my internet down time. in what little time i had to reflect on what a terrible blogger i was being, it did occur to me to post something, but thinky space was at a premium and i didn't think anyone would be really thrill to see a list of lipsticks i've worn this week, or instructions on how to ask someone if they want a sheep in welsh [dych chi eisiau dafad? you can thank me for that later.]

what i've been doing in the last few days, aside from indulging in some epic not blogging, is pretty much the same things that i always do. i've been doing music writey stuff for heathen harvest, working on languages, trying to write [still just trying, but trying more than i have been, which is less than i should be, but it's still something].

when i've had a few minutes here and there, i have managed to spend a little time on soundcloud and bandcamp, so in the absence of having something substantive, interesting or organised to say, here are some interesting tracks i've discovered in my searches.

considering how long i've been around the industrial/ power electronics/ noisy objectionable stuff scene, i'm surprised at how little i know about iron fist of the sun. there's no reason for that and, considering i write about this stuff, there's not even any excuse. this is a track from an ultra-limited cassette that i'm unlikely to ever get my hands on. so i'm just going to listen to this excerpt and feel sorry for myself.

i know pretty much nothing about this group, although i believe that their forthcoming album on zoharum is their proper debut. i got to use a bit of my pre-kindergarten polish looking for information about these guys, but i still couldn't turn up much beyond the fact that they are a polish duo. that's it. i find this track both hypnotic and unsettling and i just love how the dead can dance-esque vocals are electronically perverted as the song goes along.

no man's land by michael idehall

this entire album sounds incredible. i feel like ant-zen are on a bit of a tear lately in terms of the quality of their releases, branching out beyond what some have come to expect, and at the same time showing something of their long-standing industrial pedigree

something about this reminds me of crackdown-era cabaret voltaire. it's got that slightly 80s electro-funk tinge [groovy rhythm meets robotic synth], but it's clearly a much more updated take on the idea. apparently these sounds come from dutch artist boris post, about whom i was able to find precious little beyond the fact that he has, in fact, released an album under this name before. also, "eindkrak" is a dutch term for the theoretical "big crunch", which is the flipside of the big bang, wherein we will all be crushed together and the universe will disappear. good times.

regular more like space programming will be resumed shortly. the mental health mondays series on personality disorders will continue next monday. i shall soon have something to say about bite beauty's new amuse bouche lipsticks. perhaps there will even be some new writing posted here at some point.

until then, thank you for not abandoning me entirely in my time of dereliction.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-31522264552375662062016-04-18T23:53:00.004-04:002016-04-18T23:53:58.869-04:00mental health mondays :: puttin on the schizo
for part two of the mental health mondays look at personality disorders [whaddya mean you didn't read part one?!?!?!?!?], i've decided to take on probably the most frustrating post first. today, we're going to look at the various schizo- disorders and trust me, if your brain doesn't feel addled yet, by the end of this post, it definitely will.

now, there is one important exclusion to be made here, which is that schizophrenia is not one of the aforementioned disorders. what? no, my friends, while there are a host of personality disorders that start with the same letters, schizophrenia isn't included because it's a psychotic disorder. what's the difference? sigh. i was hoping that wouldn't come up. anyway, i'll defer to expert opinion, so here is the definition of schizophrenia given by the mayo clinic:

Schizophrenia is a severe brain disorder in which people interpret reality abnormally. Schizophrenia may result in some combination of hallucinations, delusions, and extremely disordered thinking and behavior.
Contrary to popular belief, schizophrenia isn't a split personality or multiple personality. The word "schizophrenia" does mean "split mind," but it refers to a disruption of the usual balance of emotions and thinking.
Schizophrenia is a chronic condition, requiring lifelong treatment.

well that seems fairly specific now, doesn't it. schizophrenia is characterised by hallucinations, delusions and disordered thinking and by the abnormal interpretation of reality. i mean, one could debate the exact parameters of abnormality and reality, but let's just set that aside for the moment.

so now, let's look at the mayo clinic's definition of personality disorders:

A personality disorder is a type of mental disorder in which you have a rigid and unhealthy pattern of thinking, functioning and behaving. A person with a personality disorder has trouble perceiving and relating to situations and to people. This causes significant problems and limitations in relationships, social encounters, work and school.
In some cases, you may not realize that you have a personality disorder because your way of thinking and behaving seems natural to you. And you may blame others for the challenges you face.
Personality disorders usually begin in the teenage years or early adulthood. There are many types of personality disorders. Some types may become less obvious throughout middle age.

ok, so a personality disorder is related mostly to patterns of thinking and behaviour, in particular when it comes to interactions with others. there seems to be something almost sinister about being told that you might not realise that you have a disorder and that you blame others for your challenges, because it is just possible that you're surrounded by dickheads. but leaving that aside, the distinctions seem clear enough, considering that we're dealing with something as complex as the brain. [except the bits about the age of onset of the disorder. schizophrenia is thought to be lifelong most of the time once you have it, but it doesn't usually present until the teenage years or early adulthood. so, exactly like a personality disorder. i know that because it's on the mayo clinic page about schizophrenia symptoms, which comes right after the page with the definition i've quoted above. but it's not like they could have gotten anything else confused, of course.]

prior to 2013 and the publication of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, version 5, psychiatric disorders of all kinds were split into different axes, with personality disorders occupying a separate quadrant of crazy than things like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. now, everything is treated as one giant screwed up swimming pool, with more general guidelines about who's in the deep or shallow end.

however, personality disorders as a group still exist within that swimming pool, and within those groups are the schizo-based disorders. i have to admit that this might be a record for how long it's taken me to get to the point.

there are officially two [but kind of three] of these personality disorders: schizoid personality disorder and schizotypal personality disorder. i say "kind of three", because there's also schizoaffective disorder, which is where one has symptoms of both schizophrenia and a mood disorder [either bipolar or depression], but doesn't meet the full criteria for either one individually. in addition, there's also something called schizophreniform disorder, which is when symptoms of schizophrenia manifest for at least one, but less than six months. [at six months, you've crossed the border into actual schizophrenia.] schizophreniform disorder is almost more of a holding pen before you find out whether you'll be treated for a limited duration psychotic episode or full-blown schizophrenia. but it's not a personality disorder, so we'll move on.

schizotypal personality disorder is characterised by suspiciousness with regards to other people, unconventional beliefs or perceptions, odd or eccentric dress style, peculiar patterns of speech, and/ or emotional reactions inappropriate to the situation. in teenagers, the mayo clinic adds that the schizotypal child "may be an underperformer in school or appear socially out of step with peers, and as a result is often bullied or teased".

schizoid personality disorder, on the other hand, is linked to social withdrawal and disinterest or anxiety with regards to other people. people with schizoid personality disorder generally have few friends and aren't very socially adept, often struggling to form deep or long-lasting relationships. they are perceived as independent, or as loners and often have a rich interior life to which they prefer to retreat. schizoid individuals tend to do very well in creative pursuits and in general do better when they are allowed to work alone. many find it difficult to experience pleasure in the "real" world. there is a subgroup of the schizoid set who are referred to as "secret schizoids": these are people who appear to function with more ease in public, but still have the other symptoms of the disorder.

if those definitions seem problematic, it's because they are. even if you start from the belief that these are three points on the same spectrum, it's troubling to associate the eccentric artist who prefers her own thoughts and company with a person in the grips of full-blown psychosis. and, indeed, these definitions, particularly that of schizoid disorder, have been criticized for being laden with cultural bias. most discussions of schizoid personality disorder note that many people who "suffer" from it are completely unaware, because they are high functioning and don't seem troubled by their disordered thought.

schizotypal disorder is hampered by being vague: is it really a good idea to lump eccentric dress style in with occasionally believing that the television is talking to you directly? well, a psychiatrist would say that it's the cumulative effect that's important: no, an offbeat sense of fashion doesn't mean that you have a problem. but walking around downtown in an evening dress in the middle of winter might be a sign of something a little more worrying.

either way, it's a scary thing to be told that you're suffering with something that's in the same ballpark as schizophrenia. what's worse, people with schizotypal disorder are considered to be in danger of developing schizophrenia if their condition is left untreated, which puts a greater pressure on them to seek help.

but wait, it gets worse...

if you're too confused about the differences between schizoid and schizotypal disorder, don't worry, you can have both at once. if you primarily suffer from schizoid disorder, there is a form of it called depersonalised schizoid personality disorder, which includes "schizotypal features". that's where the isolation and alienation of the principal disorder actually starts to make you feel fundamentally detached from the world, as if you were not participating in it at all. but if that's too confusing, the two conditions can be comorbid, which means you get all the fun of both disorders, and all of the confusion about when it's time to call a doctor. [which you might not do, since you might just think you're lovably eccentric, or you might just be lovably eccentric and not need any help and it's the definitions that are wrong.]

schizotypal personality disorder can also shack up with paranoid, avoidant and borderline personality disorders pretty well, and with mood disorders like depression, social anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. oh, and if you have it in combination with that last one, it tends to make treating the ocd a lot harder. sorry.

if you haven't yet slammed your head into your desk so hard that you've suffered permanent brain damage, congratulations. i firmly believe that the schizoid/ schizotypal/ schizoaffective/ schizophreniform axis of evil [can an axis have four points? or is that just part of my fantasy world?] is the root of many people's problems with psychiatry. while it may be a given that people who do not conform in certain ways to societal norms are going to face a distinct set of problems dealing with the rest of the world, it is a big leap to say that this means they are broken and need to be psychologically fixed. furthermore, the undeniably vagaries of the associated definitions seem like an attempt to keep any sense of comfort or understanding out of the hands of people who are suffering.

of course, one of the problems with these disorders is that having a "schizophrenia spectrum" is predicated on a solid understanding of schizophrenia, which most psychiatrists will admit they don't have. unlike in economics, the confusion over schizophrenia trickles down throughout its loosely associated family of disorders, until the spectrum seems to go from treating the most critically ill to forcing people to conform to a societal stereotype.

and no, this does not mean i'm trying to say that schizotypal or schizoid or any other schiz- disorders don't exist. i don't have anything like the qualifications to do that and what seems like doublespeak to a non-professional [me] reflects necessary differences in categorization to someone in the field. what i would say is that we all need to be open about the fact that, when it comes to the entire schizophrenia spectrum, we're on extremely tenuous ground. proceed with caution.

p.s. :: the images used here are all poster art created for the 1976 british horror film schizo, which is actually about dissociative identity disorder in which the mind becomes split- into different personalities, or realities, etc. it's a completely unrelated condition, however. it's a mystery how people keep getting these things confused.

p.p.s. :: in case you were curious, the prefix "schizo" comes from the greek "schízein" meaning "to part or split".
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-54266603691831514242016-04-17T22:16:00.001-04:002016-04-17T22:16:42.445-04:00and sometimes i do filmy stuff

there's no question that dom is the videoking in our household. you can check out the many things he's done, with many different artists here on his vimeo page. [he actually has two new videos premiering this week, because he works harder than i.] words are always going to be my principal form of expression, as if you couldn't tell, but i do occasionally do more visual work, if for no other reason than i get inspired by those closest to me to push my own boundaries.

i've done both found footage pieces and things assembled from bits i've shot live. this isn't a frequent thing for me, but i do sometimes get inspired. the projects are always accessible from the "film & photography" tab above, but i thought i'd repost my itty bitty œuvre here for you:

a sense of longing [oblvious] :: i got the idea of doing this while i was out for a walk trying to clear my head and come up with some writing ideas. i started following a few random people and filming them and was kind of amazed at how close i could get without getting noticed. i fully expected this day to end with me getting my face pummeled into the pavement by someone who didn't appreciate my attempts at artistic expression, but i guess luck was on my side that day. i finished up the shots over the next day or two.

holding the phone upright helped disguise what i was doing, but i also like the "boxed in" look that it gives, even though it's not something you're supposed to do.

and yes, that is me singing at the end. you've been warned.

a sense of longing [oblivious] from Kate MacDonald on Vimeo.

coming storm :: my "political" video. when i was young my parents were fans of older [even for their generation] folk music, so i got to hear a lot of songs by pete seeger and the like. it gave me an appreciation for that raw, down-to-earth, and undeniably american sound, particularly as it was used for protest songs among the rural and working-class left wing of the time.

i got inspired to do this after seeing footage of the 2013 tornado that ripped through oklahoma. a friend suggested that dom should use it for a video, but dom seemed less interested, since he was working on other things. i tried for some time to persuade him, before deciding that i'd do my own damn tornado video. except that i didn't end up using the footage from the oklahoma twister, because it looked too modern juxtaposed with the older film, and the tornado parts aren't even a prominent feature in the final film. oh well.

coming storm from Kate MacDonald on Vimeo.

guilty. guilty. guilty. :: the only film in which i've used actual people who exist in my life [other than myself]. i wanted to film people i knew while they talked about guilt and their experience of it. the filming of it was a fascinating experience, because it is a subject that makes people uncomfortable. i think you can get a sense of that in the body language. nonetheless, i feel like this is the most flawed thing that i've done. the sound on one of the video sessions was inordinately low, because it turns out that a lot of people don't want to shout the things that make them feel guilty to the world.

someday, i'd like to do a sequel to this one, but for now, it is what it is.

guilty. guilty. guilty. from Kate MacDonald on Vimeo.

they were dancers in their dreams :: i was playing around on the found footage amusement park that is archive.org, trying to find a very specific video. it's an obscure trailer for a film that doesn't exist, and i'd used bits of it for a video that i made and then lost before i could publish it, because god hates me. i didn't find that video, or anything like it, but while i was on the site, i got distracted, which is often what happens when i'm looking for things. if i could think straight, i wouldn't be nearly as creative.

i've always been fascinated by the world of dreams, which is where the "backbone" of this film comes from. dreams can be very frightening [i get night terrors, so i get that more than a lot of people], but they can also be very gentle and soothing. the thing that unites them, for me, is this sense that they're all quite fragile, that the world they exist in could shatter at any time, so this was my attempt to recreate that.

trying to recreate the atmosphere of a dream is like trying to explain to someone what an orgasm feels like. it's not possible and you're just doomed to failure. nonetheless, i like this. it might be my personal favourite of the few that i've done.

They Were Dancers in Their Dreams from Kate MacDonald on Vimeo.

do i have plans to do more of these short films? no. but i didn't have any plans to do these four either. what i plan to do and what i end up doing are almost always very different things. i dig these out every now and again to remind myself that there are times where i haven't felt especially creative, but somehow a fissure has opened and something creative has snuck through and manifested itself in an unexpected way. so if nothing else, i hope that they can do the same for any of you who might be stuck in a creative slump.

p.s. :: i asked as many people as i could about using their tracks for these films, but sometimes i just don't know how to find them. so thank you to everyone i didn't contact for not forcing vimeo and youtube to take these down. i use your music because i love you dearly.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-15646952.post-51254127761452826232016-04-16T14:45:00.000-04:002016-04-16T14:53:11.875-04:00making faces :: tarted up
sometimes i see something and i immediately know that i need it. it's not the usual "i want to get this", more like "i am meant to possess this object". so it was for me the first time i saw some photos of the tarte "rainforest of the sea" eyeshadow palette. yes, to others, it might have looked like just another neutral palette, but there was something about it that just called to me. you can make your own "sirens" joke there, because i'm not quite sharp enough to come up with one right at the moment.

in order to get this, i went to a sephora in a mall i've been to perhaps twice in my life. my regular sephora didn't have it and it sold out quickly online, and since it was limited, i felt that i had to get it wherever i could. of course, it's come back in stock, so i needn't have been so worried, but hey, what's life without a little adventure, as long as your idea of adventure includes going to a semi-suburban mall?

it didn't take me more than a few seconds of swatching to determine that, yes, this palette was all that to use an expression that no one uses anymore. the powder shadows are so smooth, so finely milled and so pigmented that they feel like cream, or perhaps a little like whatever is used to make colourpop super shock shadows. [fairy juice?] however, these are definitely powders. they apply like silk, blend seamlessly and last extremely well. i'm saying that up front, because it's true of every colour in the palette. there were two that gave me a bit of trouble when it came to getting the colour payoff i wanted [see my notes on the individual shades below], but across the board, i could hardly be happier with my purchase.

there are eight shadows included in the palette, which run from quite light to medium dark. you're not going to get a truly high contrast look out of this palette. the urban decay naked palettes all contain shades that run a bit lighter on one end and darker on the other. "rainforest of the sea" is a slightly softer, everyday kind of look. that's not to say that the colours blend together into a "wash". you can do a bit of a contrast if, like me you like that pale lid with defined crease look. it's just never going to be dramatic.

being neutrals, these shades will respond to the undertone of your skin. on some people, people with warmer complexions [see temptalia], some of the gold shades have a bit of a greenish tint- which is honestly what i was expecting from a palette that invokes both the rainforest and the sea. on me, the golds are gold, but the pink tones in my skin bring a sort of rosiness to some shades- especially the deeper browns. here's a breakdown, shade by shade, based on my experience:

l to r :: sand, mermaid, seashell, wave

sand :: the lightest shade in the palette is a satiny ivory that leans ever so slightly peach on me. if you're a medium skin tone or darker, i'm pretty confident that this would look like a highlight shade, but on me it's just a little too deep. it does look nice in the corners of the eyes if you're using the other shades for a bit of a smoky look, since it's noticeably brighter.

mermaid :: a really original shade among neutrals, a golden tan. it's frosted with gold, but not too heavily, so it won't give a dazzling metallic look, but it will definitely catch the light. in the swatch, you're seeing it in indirect light, where it looks less frosted and more softly lustrous. certainly one of my favourites in a palette that offers a lot of great shades.

seashell :: a well-named colour indeed, because it does look like the pink inside a conch shell. this one was one of only two shades that gave me problems. it's lovely and smooth, but it definitely takes some building to get it to look like it does in the pan. even then, i didn't think it showed quite as pink or warm as it looks.

wave :: this is both the coolest-toned and the most frustrated shade in the palette. it's a medium taupe with a strong lilac undertone, something that should complement the slightly pinker shades and contrast with the golds, but despite the fact that it feels just as creamy and smooth as its roommates, it just doesn't give great colour payoff. i don't understand this at all, but after a few tries, i'm satisfied that it wasn't just a one-off thing. i also found this to be the only shade that faded before the seven-hour mark. i has a sad.

l to r :: abyss, reef, starfish, cove

abyss :: the darkest shade in the palette. it's a plummy deep brown that applies and lasts well, not really frosted but more shimmery than a satin shade. it can be patted on for greater intensity, but it also blends exceptionally well, if you're interested in something that gives a bit of structure with just a hint of colour.

reef :: a rusted brown with warm, red undertones, and a shade that absolutely will not work on a very cool-toned person. shades with copper-bronze tones to them seem to be easy to do well and this one is no exception. it's rich and warm and lasts incredibly well without fading. just stunning.

starfish :: a bit of a chameleon, this one. you can see in the swatch that it can lean almost towards a rose gold, but most of the time it's a medium wheat gold that can even pull a little green. the key is that it's complex enough that it will tend to "borrow" from whatever colours are around it. warmer, redder shades [like "abyss"] will give you the effect you see here. put it next to more neutral colours and you'll get more of a true gold. magical.

cove :: the only matte shade in the palette is a workhorse. it swatches terribly, which i don't understand, because its colour payoff is fantastic in use. i had to build this swatch up to make it visible, but i've had to be very delicate using it, because it can be too much. why does this happen? i've no idea. i call this a workhorse shade because it's the sort of thing that's always going to come in handy. for a warmer smoky eye, it's a fantastic base colour. for giving some dimension, it's great to sculpt along the brow bone. it's a warm tan with a hint of apricot orange and, again, it's going to be unfriendly on very cool complexions, but if it suits you, you can expect to be using it a lot.

and there we have it. i'm just as enamoured with the palette as i thought i would be and, though it is another neutral palette, it has some unique shades. "mermaid" and "starfish" are probably the ones that are hardest to match, but even "sand" is a little different than a lot of highlight-type shades, a little deeper and richer. and, as i mentioned above, while the distance from lightest to darkest is less than you might normally get, it's still more than enough to be able to get several different looks. here's a few that i've tried so far:

warm and smoky

this is what i alluded to earlier about cove being a nice base shade. i've applied it all over the lid, then layered reef and abyss in the inner and outer angles. this is also a good example of how blend-friendly abyss is. i wanted more of a gradient look, but i also wanted to emphasize the angles of my eyes, because they can look sort of flat without. i applied abyss, but then used reef to smoke it out and leave more of a hint of the darker shade. i used sand in the inner corners of my eyes, which looks brighter because it's next to the deeper browns.

i have charlotte tilbury "love is the drug" and becca "pearl" on my cheeks. not quite certain on the lipstick...

cool-ish

this is pretty much as cool-toned as you can get with this palette, which is still definitely more neutral than cool. [it looks cooler in these photos because i'm wearing a navy blue eyeliner.]i applied sand all over the lid, then added mermaid to the inner and outer edges. i put wave in the upper crease and along the browbone and yes, it looks nice here, but that's just a few minutes after it's been applied. it didn't stand up to a day's wear as well as its roommates.

i decided to wear the only other tarte product in my collection- their cheek stain in flushed, a lovely berry shade- and hourglass diffused light over the top. the lipstick is armani rouge ecstasy in garconne fatale.

golden

i think this one shows the colours at their best. again, i have sand all over the lid, with starfish and mermaid blended into an arc through the crease. you could wear this look basically anyway, since it's subtle enough for even a conservative office, but has a beautiful gleam [that lasts!] appropriate for a night out or, if you're invited to one, a red carpet.

i'm not quite sure what's going on on my cheeks in this look, but the lipstick is guerlain rouge g in gracy.

the palette is limited [although many of the other rainforest of the sea products- the skin care and the foundation/ concealer] are permanent additions. at this point, i wouldn't hesitate too long before ordering/ buying, because it is sold out in a lot of locations already. if you're even remotely tempted by what you see, i can pretty much guarantee that you won't be disappointed. dive in.

[the top photo is from tarte. the rest are mine.]

p.s. :: there are actual rainforests of the sea! there's an ancient, almost perfectly preserved cypress forest in the gulf of mexico. there are several around the south and east coasts of england, including a giant oak forest just a few hundred yards off the norwich coast. on a less happy note, the warming of the oceans and the thinning of polar ice caps has caused an explosion of phytoplankton growth in antarctica, which nasa scientists have described as being a type of rainforest.
Kate MacDonaldhttps://firstname.lastname@example.com