Month: April 2006

Letters to Esther

Why Cousins Shouldn’t Marry

Shelly

This is the Wakefield branch of Esther’s family tree. Elizabeth Wakefield was her grandmother.

Wakefield Family Tree

I mentioned that I’ve been spending an inordinate amount of time trying to sort out various anomalies in Esther’s family tree. I thought I’d provide a visual aid. It took me all morning to unsnarl this one once and for all. Part of the problem is that various researchers have conflated two of the women: Mary Jane Wade and Elizabeth Morton became Mary Jane Elizabeth Wade. Eeep! Another problem is that there are several Roberts in the line, and some of them have also become conflated and generally mixed up.

And, yes, if you look closely, not only are there distant cousins marrying (hint: family trees should branch out, not come together), but also a case of a woman marrying her nephew. That was the bit that nearly gave me an aneurysm, because it meant that the same set of ancestors were showing up multiple times, in multiple generations.

And also yes, I work out these snarls the old-fashioned way, using paper and pencil. I’ve found that graph paper is most excellent for family tree work, because it allows you to line up everything very neatly in two dimensions.

Letters to Esther

Fun with Names

Shelly

I apologize for the lack of attention, but I’m still off in genealogy land. I reached the Pilgrims, which was exciting. There should be a ton of info available on that strata, so I haven’t really bothered to explore it in depth or breadth. Right now I’m focused strictly on who begat whom. Just the names and dates, ma’am, please-and-thanks.

And what names they are, too! A few minutes ago, I encountered Thankful Loves Marsh. That has to be one of the bestest names ever. Alas, she is not related to Esther. There are, however, many fascinating names in Esther’s family tree:

  1. Constant Southworth
  2. Olive Brown (I think we call that Khaki these days)
  3. Bethiah Beverly
  4. Bethya Read
  5. Brita Walraven
  6. Remember Brown
  7. Sinai Roberts
  8. Beteryce Hewett
  9. Euphemia Ross
  10. Bartle Escheilson
  11. Afreka of Fife

There is also the obligatory Native American branch of the family, comprised of Mary Little Dove Hyanno and her ancestors (and all manner of alleged “princesses” who were no such thing; you really can’t believe half of what other “researchers” post on these here Internetz).

And, while I find it depressing that so many men married women named Unknown Unknown, I did find a singular case of the reverse, in the person of one Widow Walker who married an unknown Englishman. You’ll note, however, that Mrs. Walker’s given name is conspicuously missing.

One of the challenges of tracking genealogical ghosts is that, until last week, folks weren’t terribly concerned with how their names were spelled. Often, it’s a case of a trailing letter or two being lopped off (Browne becomes Brown or Bastowe becomes Basto). Sometimes, though, Monroe becomes Munro, Wheatliegh becomes Wheatley, and Smythe becomes Smith.

I’ve also run into a few incredibly confusing family cluster-fucks. In one, the same parents showed up twice. That’s what happens when cousins marry. In another, two women were conflated into one by multiple researchers, because they both had related husbands with the same last name. In that case, it was further confused by the fact that their off-spring, who were some sorts of cousins aunt and nephew, married.

Altered Photos, Art, Photography

Altering Polaroids

Shelly

I actually managed to get some artwork done over the weekend, but I haven’t gotten around to scanning/photographing/uploading it yet. I’ll try to do so tonight. I’ve been doing 6 x 6 inch collages, many of which incorporate altered Polaroid photos.

Speaking of Polaroids, I played around a bit with bleaching them. This is a nice way to recycle photos that didn’t turn out well.

Start by taking them apart. This can be a bit tedious, but once you know how they’re constructed, it’s not difficult. Begin by pulling off the edging tape (you might have to use an Xacto or razor blade to pry up an edge), then remove the front plastic sheet from the backing. The plastic sheet is what you’ll be working with. The photo emulsion is on the back of it. You can sand the front, which is kind of neat, but you can also scratch and/or sand through the emulsion from the back. Or, you can bleach it. I used a dinner plate with a shallow pool of undiluted bleach. Just lay the photo, emulsion side down, into the bleach. Lift it out and watch the front side of it. When it is lightened the desired amount, immediately place it in water. (I did this at the kitchen sink, and just left the water running.) Gently blot and leave to dry, emulsion side up.

Caveats: Dark photos work best for bleaching. Any white areas will disintegrate easily when bleached, so be careful not to overdo the bleach. Also be careful handling the emulsion side, at least until it has dried thoroughly. It’s especially delicate when it’s wet.

Or, instead of bleaching, you can wet the emulsion with plain water. Let it sit a moment to soften. Then, you can gently manipulate it with your fingertips, a brush, or a pencil eraser. It’s possible to get some interesting blending results this way. Just be careful not to overdo it, because it’s a fine line between manipulation of the emulsion and its complete removal.

You can also remove the emulsion from part of the photo, if you want to use it in collage so that the image beneath that section shows through.

Once the photos are dry, you can use them in collages, paintings, or in art journals. I’ve used a very thin layer of acrylic medium to adhere them. Make sure you burnish thoroughly, both to ensure good contact and to force out any extra adhesive. Mechanical fasteners, like eyelets, brads, or thread work great, too. And then, of course, there are good, old fashioned photo corners.

Crankypantsing

The Office Crier & Stubbies

Shelly

It’s one thing to comment to your cube neighbor about a mass e-mail. Some of them are mind-bogglingly worthy of comment. It’s quite another to go around asking folks if they got a particular message (the subject line states that it was sent to everyone on campus). I can’t, for the life of me, figure out the purpose of such an act. Why does he need to know if anyone else got the message? It didn’t come from him, so he presumably has no personal interest in whether or not certain people received it.

Another thing that bugs the hell out of me is related to answering the phone. Everyone in my section of the office shares a phone that is oh-so-irritatingly located rightbehindmydesk. Because I’m closest to the phone, I’m usually the one who answers it. If I waited for someone else to do so, I’d go insane from the ringing. All this phone answering necessitates the taking of many, many, many phone messages. Not a big deal, except that there is never a reasonable writing implement in the vicinity of the phone. There used to be a few dried up pens and a few dull pencils. I noticed today that those have morphed into a coffee mug packed with dull, stumpy, little pencil butts. WTF?! I started to take a few over to sharpen (I don’t mind stubbies, but I hate writing with dull leads), but then I realized that I’d have to sharpen all 30 or so pencils for that to be helpful. Otherwise, I’ll be playing “find the sharp pencil,” which is absolutely guaranteed to make me several kinds of cranky.

Fromme whence didst yon pencil butts cometh? I asked a coworker, only to learn that someone from another unit–on the other side of the floor!–brings them to us. Whyever the hell does she think we want stubby little pencil butts, I’ll never know. According to my coworker, the benefactress likes little pencils, and leaves them all over the damned place so that she has something to write with on those rare occasions she’s out and about. Hot buttered Christ! So we have to deal with a mug chock full of fucking pencil stubs–many of which are too short to sharpen–because she might want to use one when she’s passing through? I. Don’t. Think. So. She can take her own damned arse end of a pencil with her if it’s that important.

Letters to Esther

In OCD News…

Shelly

I’ve been continuing to research Esther’s family tree. I’ve never done any genealogical work before, so it’s been an interesting exercise. What I’ve found is:

  1. It’s addicting.
  2. It’s possible to lose an entire day without having any idea where it’s gone, and only four names to show for it. But, those four names make you very, very happy.
  3. I now know more about HTML codes for ordered and unordered lists than is probably healthy.

I’ve managed to link her to two lines that (allegedly) trace back to the 13th century, one to England and one to Scotland. Another line traces back to Ireland in the 17th century. We’re talking “came over on the Mayflower.” One line allegedly descends from Robert I King of Scotland (yes, that would be Robert the Bruce). I expect most folks, if they look that far back, are related to someone important.

This is all based on other people’s research. Or “research.” Aside from the entertainment value, I would recommend taking it with a grain of salt.

Crankypantsing

Backlog Doughnuts

Shelly

The first working day of every month, we count our individual and collective backlogs (librarians really like their statistics, lemme tell ya’).

So, to make the chore less onerous, the various unit heads take turns bringing in pastry-type treats for everyone. Usually, these treats are in the form of Backlog Doughnuts. The manager in charge of that month’s treats sends a message to everyone, announcing the arrival of the aforementioned.

I’m not a huge pastry fan, so I don’t usually partake. Plus, I don’t do any of the counting of collective backlogs, so I’m never sure if I’m allowed to partake. See, one manager sends out just a general “treats are here for everyone, so eat up” message, while another manager sends out something that goes a little like this: “There are backlog doughnuts at X location for those who participated in the collective backlog counts.” Only, she sends it to everyone, regardless of whether or not they are eligible for said backlog doughnuts. Unfair, says I, to taunt us with Tasty Num Nums and then, in the next breath, forbid us to partake of them. How rude!

So, on the first working day of every month, I get cranky as hell because of the Backlog Doughnut Conundrum. Will I be allowed to have a doughnut this month? Or, will they be meting out The Pastries of Maximum Perturbation?

Oh woe is me!

Photography

Lightning

Shelly

I was kind of bummed because I hadn’t gotten pictures of the lightning show last night. I tried taking a few, but I assumed they weren’t turning out, so I gave up. Now I’m really kicking myself. This one isn’t great, but I expect I could’ve gotten some decent shots if I’d stuck with it. Hrmph.

100_1805

You can’t really tell it from this photo, but it does hint at the mammatus clouds that formed on the back side of the storm. Every time a sustained bolt of lightning lit up the interior of the cell, the mammatus formations would glow. It was one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen.

There are some gorgeous (and creepy!) examples of mammatus formations here and here and here. The last page is especially impressive. I’d probably pee my pants if I saw something like that in the sky.

Art, Crankypantsing

Why I’m Not a Joiner

Shelly

A couple of years ago, I joined a Yahoo group for gluebooks. For those who don’t know what gluebooks are, they’re journals or artist books full of collage. The group started out as a low-key, fun bunch of people. Then, the moderator started getting cranky with lack of participation by lurkers.

I wasn’t a frequent participant, but I had been attempting to post at a frequency that was well within her guidelines. I say “attempting,” because she kept blocking my posts. On topic, perfectly civil and supportive posts, I might add. Hrmph. I sent her an e-mail, explaining that it was kinda hard for me to participate if half my messages were getting nuked. I never heard back from her.

About a month later, she went on another bender, this time stating that those who weren’t participating enough (like me) would be unsubscribed from the group. M’kaythen. I e-mailed her again, and again, was ignored.

Then, the kicker: she used one of my images for the group’s home page, but credited it to someone else. I e-mailed her to tell her that she’d mis-credited it. No biggie. It has happened on every art-related group I’ve ever belonged to. Normal, accepted practice is for the moderator to fix the problem and send a correction message to the group. Not this time, though. Nope. Instead of the usual week that images were left on that group’s home page, mine was yanked down that same day with no correction, no “oops” message to the group, and no explanation. What the fuck?!

At that point, I unsubscribed from the group. I’d heard enough about the moderator’s shitty behavior from others, that I decided it wasn’t worth it.

That’s all ancient history, but it explains why, when I recently ran across a gluebooks “lens” she’d created on Squidoo, I was gobsmacked to find that the Flickr snapshot was composed entirely of my artwork. HAW!

Crankypantsing, Ladybusiness, News & Politics

Free Whores

Shelly

Via Feministing, a letter from Republican Rep. Cynthia Davis on how only sluts use contraceptive. Obviously, that’s all sorts of wrong for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that her underlying premise–that single women who have sex are whores–sucks. But, what made me choke on my PB&J was this gem:

When I was listening to the debate last week I wondered what kind of man would want to enjoy free sex and then expect her to provide for her own contraceptives? These are the kind of men who want free whores. Any man who would be so low life as that does not deserve to have any woman love him. Smart women will stay away from men who use them and abuse them.

What on earth does that mean? Seriously. Does she not realize that married women, too, are generally left with the responsibility of providing contraception?  That’s an awfully broad brush she’s wielding.  And, what exactly is a free whore, anyway?

And then there’s her baffling statement that state provided birth control for single women will increase the birth rate. WTF? Yes, I realize that it’s incredibly immoral to be poor. I also realize that poor folks should be punished for their transgressions. And I also, too, double-plus-as-well realize that single women who have sex should be pilloried in the town square. After all, they’re whores, right? Um, no, they’re not. They’re human beings who have every bit as much right to have access to physical intimacy and decent health care as do UberMoral Rich Folks.

The answer is not to take away access to abortion, and then to take away access to the means to keep from becoming pregnant. Good grief! No, if people like Cynthia Davis actually cared about women and children and all that “family values” stuff that they like to rabbit on and on and on about, then they’d be looking for solutions that

  • Provide for the care of the people who are already here. That means none of that ridiculous “poor mothers don’t deserve welfare” crap. Of course they deserve welfare, and so do their kids. You can’t help people to become contributing members of society by taking away their access to adequate schooling, health care, nutrition, housing, etc.
  • They’d trust women to make their own choices about whether or not they want to become pregnant. Period. That means access to birth control and to abortions. Because, if you can’t trust a woman to make those sorts of decisions, you certainly can’t trust her to raise a child./li>

The entire letter can be found here. But, I warn ya’, it ain’t pretty. Aside from the hemorrhaging from her logic centers, the woman obviously did not learn grammar from Sister Dominica.