commented on Ask Us Anything About Our Caucus Endorsement(s)
@emma's bee: I'm so glad you asked this question. Yes, there were really no women caucusing the SECB for Hillary. Here is how the vote broke down in the room at the end of the day: Angela Garbes, Heidi Groover, Ana Sofia Knauf, Sydney Brownstone, and Jen Graves for Bernie Sanders (we had the majority) versus Dan Savage, Tim Keck, Christopher Frizzelle, and Rich Smith for Hillary Clinton (Sean Nelson was present but abstained).
As for the question of pragmatism, I think it's a good one. My take—and the other women should join in with theirs here, because I'm certainly not speaking for all of us—is that Hillary is not necessarily a pragmatic choice at all, because she could easily lose in November for many reasons. And this is a caucus.
Beyond that, for me there is of course the problem that there is nothing pragmatic about the current machine, which Hillary embodies and shape-shifts to match.
Casting Bernie as the impractical, pie-in-the-sky plays into the hands of those who'd like to see this country continue its accelerating race to the right. I liked what Charles wrote this morning: "Enough is enough. The press in the US and UK needs to stop lumping Sanders with Trump and other loonies. Sanders is not saying crazy things. He might be the most normal presidential candidate in the history of the United States. All of this lumping business is about distorting this obvious fact—he is a very rational, very sane politician. Hillary Clinton is madder than Sanders."
I want to be part of a crew that at least tries to help remind people that Sanders actually is the pragmatic choice.
Dec 18, 2014
commented on "All Speculations Are Equally Speculative": The "Conclusion" of Serial
I'll jump in now. I didn't expect to hear who did it. But I think there is a real story here, and it's not just about the "nature of truth" stuff: it's the difference between what a person believes and what a juror does, and I don't think she nailed that. I wanted more on that issue and how it plays out. My displeasure was more about style. Too much wandering around in the woods out loud!
Nov 26, 2014
commented on Rodrigo Valenzuela Wins Artist Trust's (Second) Biggest Award After Having Lost Its Smallest Award Many Times
For several days I've been waiting for a response from Barbara Mizoguchi after another artist pinged me to say he was pretty sure Gary Hill was indeed on the jurying panel that gave Rodrigo the award. I knew, again, that he was on the preliminary panel, but Barbara wrote me in email that Gary was absolutely not part of Rodrigo's selection in any way.
Yesterday I got an apology from Barbara, and an admission that in fact the finalist panel that included Gary did oversee choosing Rodrigo.
Obviously, I was part of awarding Rodrigo the Genius Award from the Stranger, and I've written critically about his work in a way that makes it clear I think it's strong, important, and growing. So I have no doubt that Rodrigo deserved the Innovators Award as much as anyone deserves anything.
That said, I'm all about disclosure. So now you have full disclosure, which I was trying to get you from the start. Frustrating. But, I hope, case closed with all the info out there.
Nov 7, 2014
commented on Rodrigo Valenzuela Wins Artist Trust's Biggest Award After Having Lost Its Smallest Award Many Times
@2: Lila, so glad you wrote. I completely forgot about that new award! Here's more info on it for those who are curious, and I'll change the headline. Thanks for bringing that up.
To your point about the fact the award is open to artists of all disciplines, I hope I didn't mislead anyone: Valenzuela is the winner in the Visual Arts category, but there are other categories as well (as evidenced by past winners).
That also speaks to your point, @3 and @4: I would also have taken note if Gary Hill was Valenzuela's juror, but it is my understanding that Gary Hill was a juror in a separate category, and did not take part in jurying Valenzuela. @2: lila, is that correct?
Thanks for the dialogue, y'all.