Save a tree; eat an e-reader?

Sometimes, the way people's actions come back to bite them can be kind of hilarious. I shouldn't laugh, but I do. I think it's hysterical that people's quest for ease and convenience makes them do things they otherwise rant and rave about. 

Remember in the whole post-9/11 environment when there was a big to-do about whether the Feds could get all up in your reading business, the better to see what suspected terrorists were checking out of the library, or buying at bookstores, and/or the better to find some suspected terrorists by seeing what everyone was checking out from the library, or buying from bookstores?  

I do. I remember it well. I was working for Borders at the time, and, touchy-feely earthy-crunchy company that it occasionally aspired to be, there was lots of jabber as it officially released company statements about how our customers' privacy is respected and so on. If any spying NSA types came in to demand customer data, I suppose that I, as a manager on duty, would have proudly stood my right-to-read ground and protected my beloved customers' freedom from the thought police, or something like that. (This scenario never actually occurred, of course.) When silly young twentysomethings came to my cash register with The Anarchist Cookbook, defiantly giggling and exchanging "what's-she-going-to-say-as-she-rings-us-up" looks, I was unperturbed. "Your secret's safe with me," I wanted to say. That, or "No one cares." 

Well, now? Hello, e-books?  You all do realize that with this whole I-love-my-Kindle/I-read-on-my-laptop/I-never-go-to-bookstores nonsense, with Amazon doing your selling (and credit card saving, and wish listing, and recommending) and with your Nook or Kobo or iPad or other e-reading device noting and tracking and remembering searches, highlights, sales, what was started and not finished, which words were looked up, what was synced, and more, that you are handing over all the data a spying company, government, military-industrial complex, or Orwellian corporatocracy could want? All for the silly "convenience" about which you are so enthused? And that you think, somehow, "saves trees"?  (It doesn't. You run these devices on electricity. You charge the batteries with electricity. You manufacture these devices in factories and with plastics and other products and they are planned to be obsolete within a couple years so that you toss them in a landfill and buy more. Have you ever seen what a coal mine does to get you your electricity? Try visiting Appalachia. Your trees have been destroyed, all right. Books last way the hell longer than you keep your phone or tablet before upgrading it. They're also made of super recyclable paper. They can also be made from recycled paper. Meanwhile, you're blithely pillaging the Earth for your electricity consumption and pretending it's not using resources. For hours and hours and kilowatts and kilowatts each day. A book's production uses the kilowatts once, and that's it. Stop with the "saving trees" line -- it's nonsense.) 

So, enjoy that e-reading folks. You are a data-mining government spy's dream come true! Why should they hassle the booksellers and librarians for your hard copy data when you are willing to upload it all for them with your beloved e-books? 

Home Making

"Tastes just like homemade..." they say.

There are two kinds of people in the world. (Yes, yes, I know: those who say there are two kinds of people in the world and those who don't.) One kind is me. The other kind is people who, upon tasting something delicious in a restaurant/cafe/coffee shop/diner/bar/deli immediately think to themselves, "How could I (re)create this at home?"

You know what I hear in that question? "Wow, I've just eaten this delicious meal or perhaps I'm still eating it, and isn't it nice to sit here relaxing and enjoying it with my friends in this beautiful ambiance overlooking the water, or perhaps I'm having a quiet lunch with a book in my go-to spot, or maybe we're celebrating and accompanying this food with lots of wine on a fun night out. and all I can think about is how I could eat the same thing, but with more work involved on my part!!"

I'm thinking about this because I was listening to NPR's Morning Edition this, well, morning (duh) and I heard the host introduce the next story by asking, "Do you like Nutella? Well, you can make Nutella at home!" and I'm just over here all like, "But why? Why would you want to?" Of course the story proceeded to answer that question (nothing new here, folks: it's cheaper! it's healthier to not have the commercial preservatives and stabilizers that sometimes appear! it's "fun"! that last being debatable, of course) but mostly it proceeded to make us listeners spend time with one of the America's Test Kitchen  chaps who talked about how to make your own graham crackers and kale chips.

Personally, I have other things that I want to spend my time doing besides making my own graham crackers. That's not to say other people shouldn't make their own graham crackers. Two kinds of people!

But I have actually talked (you might say: argued) about this before with Brian. He and I disagree about what's a fun/appropriate time to spend cooking at home. I'm more into cooking/baking (mostly baking) things spontaneously, for fun. I actually get annoyed when I have to cook because I'm hungry. It's like having to do laundry before you can get dressed. One day, I thought maybe it just comes down to a two-kinds-of-people thing, and I compared it to buying a home espresso machine. Remember when that happened for a little while? A bunch of yuppies/earthy-crunchies/hipsters were all about getting their own espresso machines. Did that trend go away? Or did all the people who are going to buy one just take care of that already and now the market is done with that particular durable good until another generation or two goes by?  Anyway, I still remember the first person I talked to about that. I was a very young twentysomething in L.A., and a friend who worked in the cafe at Borders!!  I must emphasize this point!! started telling me about how she wanted to get an espresso machine for her apartment and so on and I just stood there staring at her. She didn't even have the "it's cheaper!" excuse because she worked there and had the whole free coffee/employee discount/I do this all day/access thing going on. She just wanted to have an espresso machine at home to be able to make espresso drinks at home, as did a bunch of other people who moved from having just coffeemakers to having espresso machines on their countertops and I just sit there thinking, no. I WANT to go to the coffee house! I want the barista to make it for me! Two kinds of people.

So when I had this epiphany, I told Brian that I just couldn't get inside the head of someone who's sitting there in a restaurant enjoying something and their first thought is, "I should make this at home!" My thought is: no, I shouldn't. I should enjoy it here. I should be here now.  And I certainly shouldn't think I can one-up this chef's delicious creation.

That's another part of the equation that confuses me. I enjoy going out to eat (not really in an expensive way, but in an Anna's Taqueria/take-out/street food way) and I am hard-pressed to think of any friend or relative who has ever made some particular dish that tastes better than what I can get in a restaurant, but I can think of plenty of restaurant foods that taste better than what I can get in a friend's/a relative's/my own kitchen. Let's see, I'm thinking...Brian makes a lot of delicious marinades for grilling and I understand the fun grilling out/summertime (with a beer, please, thank you)/tailgate grill/cook-out tradition, and he makes these amazing delicious burgers on the grill that will definitely blow you away, taste-wise...you know, if you like to eat meat... but I can't think of much else. There is no sandwich/pasta/potato/ burrito/enchilada/ stir-fry/salad/cake/curry that someone has ever made in a home for dinner that inspires me to not go back to a professional for sandwiches/pasta/potatoes/burritos/enchiladas/ stir-fries/salads/cakes/curries. I mean, don't get me wrong. Brian can (and does!) make delicious food. I'm all for people making delicious food. What I don't relate to is sitting in an eating or drinking establishment enjoying something delicious and pondering how I could do it myself instead of enjoying the convenience of paying someone to do it for me.

So when we had this conversation a few months back, Brian didn't really understand how interesting this insight was to me, that there are just two different kinds of people, one kind (me) who sit there enjoying their food in the restaurant, and the other kind who sit there wondering how they can do the work themselves to enjoy that food with more effort at home. Then it was really funny to me because a mere week or two later we were in a great breakfast spot in Detroit with his parents -- we're talking all the good Yelp! reviews and whatnot, that we found by searching "Best breakfast Detroit" and all that -- and while we're enjoying the pancakes that are so good and I'm plotting how to return there in the future for more pancakes or waffles or whatever, his mom pipes up, "I could make pancakes at home!" and I'm like, "Eek! See, Brian, this is what we just talked about!" and I thought it was really funny but Brian doesn't think it's really funny because he thinks I'm being mean (?) or something because I don't really jam out in the kitchen with him and his parents (which, they are there all the time. In the kitchen, I mean. Hours. Every day.) but it's not mean, it's just: two kinds of people in the world. There's me, and there's his mom.

There's "How great is the world that we can all be in a society and divide up our duties to sustain life, like some people build the roads, and some people design the houses, and some people work in the hospitals, and some people write the books, and some people make the wine, and restaurants exist and some people cook delicious food and I pay them and then I eat it!" and there's "I'm going to make this!"

Which kind are you?

When will we ever get a clue?

In the immortal words of Colonel Mustard, "WHY are you shooting that thing at us? I could have been killed! I can't take any more scares..."  (At which point the spinning chandelier crashes to the ground right behind him...)

Pretty rough listening to the news the last 48 hours or so. First, Gaza. I sat there at the dining room table while the photographer who took the picture of the man carrying the dead boy described the scene, and there was much hand-wringing and somber outrage from various media at the idea of dropping bombs on children who were running away from where the strike a minute or so earlier had hit.

Next up, a Malaysian Airlines plane -- that poor airline -- that was shot down over Ukraine by perhaps Russian-led rebels, and there was much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the shooting down of a commercial airliner, and today there is the added weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding whether the plane should have been flying over this particular space, which some commercial airlines had apparently deemed too dangerous, etc.

What's that old saying--something about a forest and trees?  What's that other old saying--something about noses and faces and how plain they are?  In other words, why can't you people see?

If it's horrible and wrong to drop bombs that kill four boys running on the beach -- and it is! it is! -- then perhaps one ought to think about the father who finds his 18- or 19- or 20-year-old son's body, or, more likely, the flag-draped coffin containing his son's body, which has been blown to smithereens?

If it's horrible and wrong to be shot out of the sky when you are experiencing the amazing modern phenomenon of commercial flight, then maybe, just maybe, it's a terrible idea to shoot down anyone's plane, anywhere, ever.

It may just be that acts of war, you see, are horrible and wrong. Here are all of these innocents teaching us this lesson--indeed, they have given their lives--and yet, you still can't see.

"When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn."

Don't Forget Poland! How to be one of the 190 coolest people I know

This September/October, at long last I shall return my DNA to the land of my great-grandparents' birth, Poland. I have never been there, and I am excited about finally traveling to the place where the mere thought of pronouncing the name "Napikoski" will not give people fits. Perhaps even more exciting is the fact that I am going to do a volunteer Habitat for Humanity project there.

To read more of my Habitat/Poland thoughts, click here on my personal Habitat fundraising page. And if you are so inclined, I would be most appreciative if you would consider a donation to the cause. I am trying to raise a total of $1900 for this project. We all know the easy math: if 19 friends each gave $100, I would reach my goal. That would (obviously) be incredible. But lets not forget that if 190 friends each gave $10, I would also reach my goal. Will you consider making a contribution?

I am a big believer in Habitat. Working together with people from around the world to eradicate sub-standard poverty housing is just that: working together. The volunteers, masons, Habitat staff, and homeowners I have met on Habitat for Humanity builds are some of the most interesting people in the world (that's right, Dos Equis man), and I have heard fascinating stories, seen immense generosity, and felt both humbled and tired (it's hard to build a house! Sawing wood, pounding nails, laying bricks, mixing concrete--these are no picnic!)

You're probably going to spend $10 on something dumb at some point in the next few months. (Hey, I know I am!) I think it's misguided to say "take that money you were going to spend on iced lattes and donate it to Habitat instead." Who am I to deprive anyone of their lattes and cappuccinos and Oprah chais? I'm just saying that when you think about all of the things on which you're willing to spend ten bucks, I would love it if Habitat for Humanity is one of them.

Let's get real: obviously, I don't think there's anything dumb about iced coffee. It's one of my favorite things on Earth. I say, have an iced soy latte AND make a Habitat contribution! But I am completely serious when I say that any donation amount to my Habitat build in Poland is welcome and greatly appreciated. (And don't let the page fool you--it suggests various amounts, but you don't have to do those amounts. Once you click "Make a Donation," you can enter your own amount. Sorry 'bout that -- I didn't create the page template.)

And don't forget Control My Blog For a Day: a $25 donation earns you one free blog rant, right here on Linda Without Borders. You can either write the guest post or just choose the topic and I'll do the writing on your behalf. For one day, whatever you want to tell the world shall be told.

Here's that link again. Click now!

States

If I am not careful, I am going to reach the point of having spent more of my total lifetime in Michigan than in Utah! That is just wrong. I am *definitely* closing in on having spent more time in Michigan than Illinois. I might even be passing it right about now...

Obviously, the states where I've spent the most time are the states where I've lived. So the top eight are, in order:
1. Arizona
2. California
3. Massachusetts
4. New York
5. Wyoming
6. Utah
7. Illinois
8. Michigan

But, see, I haven't really actually lived in Michigan, like lived-lived, and yet I kind of transitionally in progress have. And that's why it's annoying. Because of the not-really-ness of it.

FYI, the two states I have not been to, and which I really need to get to, are Alaska and Hawaii. As for the other forty states in the middle, between my eight lived-in/"lived"-ins and my far-flung unseens? There are a few where I've spent a fair amount of time (at least several weeks in a row, if not more, with multiple stints):
Virginia * Maryland *Pennsylvania
(also, D.C.)

And states I've been to a bunch of times, where I've racked up lots of days:
Nevada * Texas * Colorado * Vermont * New Hampshire * Connecticut  * Georgia * Florida * New Mexico * Louisiana * Washington

Or where I haven't been as many times, but have still spent some quality time:
Rhode Island * Maine * New Jersey * Indiana * Ohio * Tennessee * Iowa * South Dakota * Idaho * Nebraska * Missouri * Alabama * Mississippi * Oklahoma * Arkansas * North Carolina

And states I've visited, though briefly, where I should see and do more:
South Carolina * North Dakota * Wisconsin * Minnesota * West Virginia
And the states where I've done little more than pass through and look around, and definitely need to revisit:
Kentucky * Oregon * Delaware * Kansas * Montana

I like states.

Now I have to go think about how many state capitals I've been to. It's at least thirty. I like capitals, too.

Who Should Win the World Cup?

World Cup Fever: catch it! No, I didn't make that up (duh) but Brian and I have been saying that to each other for the past few weeks to amuse ourselves as we watch the 32 teams whittle themselves down to a mere four via the process of football aka soccer aka fútbol aka #becausefútbol matches. The benefit to being unemployed a part-time freelancer (me) and between jobs (him) is that we can watch pretty much every game and do the other things we need to do at other times of the day. Bosses are for suckers! Ha!

But seriously, folks. The World Cup is great fun, especially if you like soccer and if you like it when nations get together for peaceful endeavors instead of to blow one another to bits with guns and bombs. I'm big on the whole Make Sports Not War idea. Now, the USA sadly failed to advance to the quarter-finals, despite the Tim-Howard-and-his-many-saves performance, and some of Brian's and my other chosen teams are also out:  Mexico, where we lived and where the fútbol spirit is always fun, lost to the Netherlands and thus did not make the quarter-finals, while my good friends (Republic of) Korea and Honduras failed to make it out of their groups. The Honduras national team is always my first second choice (after my patriotic duty), ever since I happened to be in Honduras in 2008 for a Habitat for Humanity trip and we attended a World Cup qualifying match in San Pedro Sula. Vamos catrachos! Alas, they did not see fit to do any winning this year.And France, Brian's other-other team, lost to Germany the other day, while our CONCACAF solidarity pick Costa Rica, despite a noble effort, went down to the Netherlands. Since those Dutchies also beat Mexico, and even Chile (my other-other-other pick, although that was early and didn't eliminate Chile), I am basically against the Netherlands right now, my fondness for Curaçao and the former Netherlands Antilles notwithstanding. (And despite the fact that I like the color orange.)

Which means I need to cheer for Argentina against the Netherlands tomorrow. What about the other match, today's exciting encounter between Germany and Brazil? Well, folks, I have nothing against Brazil (in fact, I really want to go there, AND we've been drinking caipirinhas during several of the games...) but Brazil beat both Chile and Colombia, which was annoying, plus when it comes to choosing between a massively hyped superpower home team favorite and their opponent, I'm generally going to go for the opponent. Guten tag, Deutschland!

In honor of the World Cup, I've already added a film from each of the eight quarterfinals teams to my Netflix queue, and I've also decided to add a book from each of the final four countries' literature to my to-read list. Do you have any suggestions for a great book by any authors from Brazil, Germany, Argentina, or the Netherlands?

End Employer-Based Health Insurance Now Or, when your hobby is lobbying against health care...

We have a major problem in the United States of America, but no one seems to have articulated it very clearly in the wake of the horrifying Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and other corporations who don't want their religious liberty burdened. No, the problem to which I refer is not the fact that people in extremely high positions (such as CEOs and Supreme Court justices) think that corporations have religious liberty to be burdened in the first place, although that is, indeed, a problem. (Perhaps we should examine the blurring of religious/corporate lines in another post. It works both ways: churches are big business, you know.)

The problem to which I do refer is the fact that we (by which I of course mean "we") somehow still think it's a good idea for employers to provide health insurance in the first place. Why, oh why, does anyone still think this is a good idea?

It's not a good idea. Employer-based health insurance is a terrible, awful, no-good idea.

This problem has failed to be clearly articulated in the last several years as the debate has raged on (and on and on) about "Obamacare" and health insurance mandates and single-payer systems and Medicaid expansion. Many, many people have glossed right over that part where employers provide health coverage in the first place. We should immediately and permanently do away with that system.

It has never made any sense to me to begin with. A workplace is a random grouping of people who happen to live in more or less the same area, but not even with entirely the same skill sets/interests. For example, a corporation might employ HR gurus, software engineers, and architects, who have nothing in common. But, they are suddenly a "group" for health insurance purposes. It doesn't make any sense, but almost everyone has been conditioned to think it makes perfect sense.

The exception to that "everyone"? People like me who have made a living for a decade from freelancing, indepenent contracting, pursuing an advanced degree, and working abroad. Those noble pursuits will quickly show you how awful employer-based health care can be for someone trying to eke out a living without being on a corporate payroll. I could spend 50 hours working on writing and editing as a freelancer or independent contractor, but because I wasn't on a company's payroll, I was somehow less entitled to group coverage than someone who worked 35-40 hours in a cubicle. And changing employers, from country to country? Yikes! Arguably, the freelancers and independent contractors of the world (whether those contractors are artists or plumbers, whether they build kitchen cabinets or tutor youngsters learning violin) are working even harder to hustle, collect payments, maintain schedules, get clients, and so forth than "full-time employees," but we are apparently "lesser" when it comes to determining if we are eligible for health care.  We are asked to buy insurance as individuals, without an employer subsidy, and we are charged at least $400-700 per month, sometimes more, for the equivalent coverage of what was an $80 or so pre-tax paycheck deduction when I was a full-time employee of a company that wasn't Myself.

Why not group everyone by zip code (like auto insurance does) or by some combination of age/smoker-non-smoker/exercise status, or heck, by their favorite NFL team (with all the "no preference" also forming a group?

Why don't these ideas make as much sense as deciding the employees of X company are now an insurance group?

This is hugely important because not everyone is employed by a company,  but everyone can have a favorite NFL team (or "no preference"). Sometimes there is an idea that those who are not "employed by a company providing health coverage" are just the deadbeats/unemployed/lazy/illegal aliens/whatever who don't "deserve" health care, an argument we're not even going to waste time refuting, because it doesn't address what I have already pointed out: that it isn't just the "unemployed" who don't have employer health coverage. It is the very hardworking temp employees (I once worked for a YEAR as production assistant paid through a temp agency, before actually being hired as an official employee of the radio program--same desk, same duties, same everything) and the independent contractors and so forth.

There is major resistance to government-provided health coverage, but I don't know why that is any worse or weirder than employer-provided coverage. People change employers during their lifetimes a lot more often than they change citizenship. And wouldn't life be easier for employers as well, not having to deal with employees' health insurance?  Which, by the way, has nothing to do with the work of most companies but necessitates having someone/some department deal with benefits all day? It's like a giant colossal waste. Why not have benefits people working for a benefits company that is just about benefits? Allocated by the NFL-team alignment, or zip code alignment, or favorite color alignment, or type of animal that was your first childhood pet, or whatever!!!!

WHY NOT, people??!  Tell me why not?!?!

And guess what: then this Hobby Lobby religious freedom nonsense would not even be an issue. Religion would have absolutely nothing to do with it...because employers wouldn't be asked to do anything for health care, so they wouldn't have any religious objections.

Or, we could just divide everyone by religion/lack thereof in the first place and have the religious beliefs/non-beliefs be the health coverage groups (instead of the NFL team preferences). Then the health coverage groups would be the Mormons, the Catholics, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Orthodox Jews, etc. and naturally the atheists and agnostics and humanists could also have group coverage.

Anything but this horrible system of employer-based group coverage, please. It is deeply flawed because it does not make insurance available to all, and it apparently causes problems because employers have to grapple with decisions they never should be having to grapple with in the first place (like the religious beliefs of anyone in the corporation, from top to bottom).

The federal marketplace/health exchanges are supposedly helping to solve this problem, although I have had such a hideous time trying to enroll in my Arizona health insurance (for which I qualify, freelance income-wise) that I still can't tell you, months later, if all of my paperwork has been finalized and approved. It's a disaster. (Not  just a federal government web site disaster, states' rights people, but a state-level disaster as well.)

I don't know why anyone thought employer-based health coverage is a good idea, but today's Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision proves once again that it is not. I am more than ready to be assigned to a group that has nothing to do with my employer.

I am more than ready to just cast my lot with the Arizona Cardinals fans, or whoever I elect as "my" team.

Imagine somebody worked super-hard for twenty years, saved money, and at age 45 had enough in savings, investments, and so forth to "retire" and just pursue basket-weaving in the garage? Well, if you weren't in the military for your "career," good luck with that. Not because you need to work for the income, but because you need to work for the health insurance. I'd much rather live in a world that groups us by NFL teams.

But even worse is the situation of the person who weaves beautiful baskets for her or his entire life, procuring the materials, creating them, selling them, and providing a much-needed service to everyone who wants baskets and lives a simple but comfortable life, unconcerned with SUVs or six-bedroom houses or 64-inch high-def television screens...but cannot so much as go to the dentist without spending a couple months' income. This latter situation is the world we live in, thanks to employer-based health insurance.

#endemployerhealthcoverage

Orange Is the New Blacklist: What Shouldn't We Watch?

Unless you live under a rock, you've undoubtedly heard some friend/acquaintance/person in the next seat in the doctor's office jabbering on his cell phone breathlessly sing the praises of the Netflix series Orange Is the New Black. This is one of pop culture's most highly recommended current binge-watching experiences. I myself haven't got around to it yet, though it's on my list. (Not at the top, so it could be a while.) Apparently the second season has just been released or something because Piper Kerman, the author of the memoir on which the show is based, has been making the rounds over the last couple of weeks. She is all over NPR (Fresh Air, etc.), and she has been featured in the past in major newspapers, prestigious magazines, cable networks, you name it. Her story has been called fascinating, emotional, and unforgettable. By all accounts, the "TV" show (are we just going to keep calling Netflix shows "TV" until we think of a better term? All right, then) is "brilliant."

What has gone unsaid or at least rarely said amid all the "this-could-have-been-you!" breathlessness, is that Piper Kerman went to jail because of a crime. What has gone unasked is the question of how we feel about her profiting now from her criminal acts. This appears to be in stark contrast to the recent kerfuffle over Woody Allen in the wake of his estranged daughter's allegations of abuse, which were followed by much hand wringing about whether to continue watching Woody Allen movies. 

Now, let me say from the outset that I believe Dylan Farrow. Her story rings true to me, and for the purposes of this blog entry, it doesn't matter why, so that's not going to distract us here. (We can take up that issue another day, if y'all like.) What is less clear to me is why I should "boycott" Woody Allen's movies. I should also point out that if I were to boycott the "genius" Woody Allen, I'm not sure it would lead to the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth for me that the mere thought of not watching his movies has inspired in others. (*cough* I find Annie Hall overrated. *cough*) But that's not the point either.

The question is: (why) are we obligated to not partake of a criminal's art? 

Clearly, boycotts can be about money. But they are also about larger issues; they are about making a statement, and, it is hoped, eventually a difference in behavior. This has occasionally worked when corporations are doing jerky things, and sometimes it has galvanized an entire movement (see, e.g., Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, MLK Jr., NOW, etc.)  The impact comes from, first of all, numbers (there have to be a lot of people who actually participate in the boycott) and, secondly, the common sense of purpose. This is where most social-media-forwarded boycotts these days kind of fail right out of the gate; internet activism is often widespread but generally fragmented (read: all over the place, physically and intellectually). Attempting to "boycott" a heretofore well-regarded film director's future projects is such a poorly constructed set-up that I'm not surprised it didn't totally catch on. 

The even more interesting question, though, is whether a well-organized, less vague, clearly outlined and strategized refusal to ever see, act in, or work for a Woody Allen movie would be any better. For one thing, how does it work, with a boycott of creative endeavors? Do we just stop going to his films in theaters? Can we still rent ones that we have seen before, or watch the copy that's been sitting on our shelves for ten years? (Not my shelf, though.) Is the American Film Institute morally obligated to remove his films from their Top 100 lists? I should say not, seeing as they have Birth of a Nation on there. 

I firmly believe that everyone -- including criminals, alleged criminals, not-yet-caught criminals, and wrongly accused criminals -- should be allowed to creatively express themselves. Not just allowed, but encouraged. I believe that creativity should be a major component of prison life: writing class, crafts, art projects, musical performances, whatever helps people rehabilitate and find themselves. I think it's clear that there's been no lack of "crazy" and tormented artists over the years, whether it's Vincent Van Gogh, or writers such as Dylan Thomas and F. Scott Fitzgerald, or the "27 club" of singers who fell prey to substance abuse and/or mental illness and died at age 27 (Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse, et. al.) Where do you draw the line of behavior that is OK to support in your artist and behavior that isn't? Do you draw that line in a court of law? A few people said that they couldn't give up on Woody Allen because he wasn't criminally convicted of the abuse. Do those people have any earthly idea of how many child abusers -- even officially accused ones - remain blissfully unconvicted for their entire lives?  

What if you found out your office building was designed by an architect who had juvenile drug convictions? Or a DUI on his record? Would you stop listening to your favorite band if one of its members went to jail? What if your favorite painter admitted she was a shoplifter? Does it matter if they served time? Is there a difference between art and "writing" a memoir with a ghost writer? Is it OK to depict Piper Kerman's life in a Netflix series but not give her any of the profits? Is her crime somehow "different" or "better" or "not as bad" because she was this young, pretty, blonde woman who got "caught up" in something? What about all the young, teenaged, often-not-blonde kids who get "caught up" in things and have their lives forever set down a dismal path with an early conviction in the so-called war on drugs? Are we more angry at Woody Allen because he is such a big celebrity? No matter how horrible Woody Allen's actions were, do we feel comfortable saying he shouldn't continue to make his art? Or just that no one should help him do it? 

No, I am not (as my friend asked me) interested in scooping up some of notorious mass murder mastermind Charles Manson's paintings for my art collection. But do I think he should be stopped from making them? Absolutely not. If someone else wants to buy them, do I think that person should be stopped? Well, Manson is a prisoner, and the prisons/legal system have the right to curtail  the commercial acts of the prison population (for obvious reasons).  Once they get out, though, they can evidently profit with impunity and hardly ruffle society's collective feathers, whether they are Jordan Belfort, better known as The Wolf of Wall Street, or Piper Kerman. And buying a book is an obvious, willful act. You might watch a Roman Polanski film and not even know about the actions that sent him into a life of European "exile," but you could hardly waltz into the local book shop and pick up a copy of the infamous OJ Simpson's (If) I Did It and claim ignorance. People seemed to realize that truth when (the not-convicted-of-those-particular-murders) OJ tried to unleash his screed on us. But amid all the dismay with which we speak of sensational memoirs that profit off of "scandal" or victimhood, we don't seem to mind when someone gets out of prison and then tells their story, which is then made into irresistible, award-winning entertainment. Why not? 

I don't profess to have answers to these questions. I find them endlessly fascinating, and I would like to know how  and why we decide whether someone is a pariah or a fascinating interview subject who will now get paid a handsome sum for speaking engagements. 

I will say that I can't imagine any mistake, crime, or egregious act could ever justify telling people to stop creatively expressing themselves, even the worst psychopaths. (Note, for the record, that snuff films and crush films do not count as "creative expression" -- those are actual harmful acts, so it doesn't matter how creative your depiction of them is -- as if! -- because the act itself must still be punished, and that includes all its accomplices, from camera operators to key grips. I can't believe this nonsense about cruelty on film being allowed as free speech or expression has been allowed to persist as long as it has.)  Prison as deterrence or incapacitation is one thing, to keep someone who is potentially harmful away from society. But I don't agree that you can keep them from their artistic, creative selves.