More Than a Bird

To condense a semester-long law school course into a blog post: Congress delegates significant quasi-legislative power to administrative agencies, e.g. the EPA. These agencies have a great deal of power to shape your everyday life, but our system of civics education is so abysmal that, chances are, you have no idea what kind of power you hold to shape their decisions.

Administrative agencies have to navigate a maze of laws and procedures in order for the rules they make to be effective and binding. These laws and procedures mean that there plenty of ways the agencies can mess up, and when they do, opponents of a rule can bring legal challenges and invalidate it. (This is frustrating for agencies, but delightfully fun for antagonistic nerds like me.)

When an agency wants to create an informal rule, it has to go through a process called “notice and comment.” Basically, the agency announces a proposed rule and permits the public to submit comments on it. The public includes you. 

When the comment period is over, the agency has to take the comments into account and justify its ultimate decision on the proposed rule in light of the comments. If you submit substantive, meaningful comments that challenge the policy or evidence behind a rule, and the agency fails to acknowledge them and explain its reasoning for its final decision, the rule can be challenged and invalidated.

So how do you comment on proposed rules? This lovely little site called regulations.gov. Really, it’s that easy! You can search for topics that interest you and submit your comments online. And you can do it anonymously! 

So please, check the website frequently and comment when it matters to you, so that your voice can be heard and Trump’s agencies have to acknowledge your perspective. If they fail to take your comments into consideration and disregard the American people, they’ll have to answer for it in court.

Deborah Tannen’s work focuses on different conversational styles — the sets of behavioral norms and expectations that we bring with us to conversations. In one of her earlier articles, she describes two conflicting conversational styles that exist in the US. 

One, which she (perhaps inaccurately) dubs “New York Jewish conversational style,” is based on the principle of building camaraderie with one’s interlocutor. The other, which she doesn’t really name but which we could call “mainstream American conversational style,” is based on the principle of not imposing on one’s interlocutor.

Each conversational style has its own behavioral norms. Mainstream American conversational style involves things like asking your interlocutor questions about him/herself and waiting until your interlocutor is clearly finished speaking until you say something. These demonstrate a focus on one’s interlocutor and a clear resistance to imposing. NYJ conversational style involves things like conversational overlaps — speaking at the same time as one’s interlocutor — and “swapping stories.” These demonstrate a high level of engagement with one’s interlocutor. Conversationalists using the mainstream American style make space for each other; conversationalists using the New York Jewish style carve out their own space.

Each of these conversational styles works well when the two people conversing have the same style. Imagine two friends meeting for drinks after work:

“Oh, hello! How was your trip here?” “Oh, it was awful. There was so much traffic on the turnpike.” “That’s terrible.” “I know. How was your trip?” “Well, there was an accident on the bridge.” “Oh no! Was there a big backup?” “Yeah, pretty big.”

“Oh, hi!” “Hey! Ugh, sorry I’m late, there was so much traffic on the turnpike—” “Oh my god, I know, there was an accident on the bridge and the cars were backed up a MILE—” “That is the worst, I remember one time I sat in traffic for an HOUR waiting to get through that toll, they really should—” “Add more EZ-pass lanes, right?” “Add more lanes, yeah, exactly.”

Both of these conversations worked: the participants feel that they’ve had their say and that they’ve been understood. They feel connected to their interlocutor.

But when people with conflicting conversational styles converse, that’s where things go wrong. Because we interpret other people’s contributions according to our own conversational style. So the person with mainstream American conversational style comes away thinking “Why did they keep interrupting me? Why didn’t they ask me any questions about me? Why were they so loud and emotional?” And the person with the New York Jewish conversational style comes away thinking “Why were they so disengaged? They didn’t seem involved in the conversation at all. They didn’t even offer any personal information.”

Rather, they would come away thinking that, except that we’re taught growing up that the first example conversation up there is what conversations should look like. So the person with the New York Jewish conversational style actually comes away from the conversation thinking “oh my god, what was I doing? I kept talking about myself. I think I kept interrupting them. I am so rude, god, I’m the worst.” When in fact: a) it’s about cultural difference, not individual moral qualities; and b) one conversational style isn’t inherently “better” than another.

Which isn’t to say that we shouldn’t attempt to bridge the gap between conversational styles, as suggested above. But we should be aware that:

Also the fact that someone who can’t navigate social situations as well as others might never develop the “style” typical of the area of the world they live in, resulting in feelings of being an ‘outsider.’

the narrator just said 

“the first ghost stories were really about coming home”

a lot of books on the Civil War are deadly dull because they’re about battles and shit, but as a transformative moment in mindset and ideology, it becomes *fascinating*

the other book I’d even more highly rec is David W. Blight’s “Race and Reunion,” which is about how the “(white) brother against (white) brother” image of the war was invented and how throwing African Americans to the merciless viciousness of post-Reconstruction racist whites was part of constructing this “oh everybody was white men and everybody was noble let’s celebrate them all” approach to Civil War remembrance

1) Her hair is completely wrong for the 40’s. No professional/working woman  would have her hair loose like that. Since they’re trying to pass this off as a military hospital, Steve would know that she would at least have her hair carefully pulled back, if maybe not in the elaborate coiffures that would have been popular.

2) Her tie? Too wide, too long. That’s a man’s tie, not a woman’s. They did, however, get the knot correct as far as I can see - that looks like a Windsor.

3) That. Bra. There is so much clashing between that bra and what Steve would expect (remember, he worked with a bunch of women for a long time) that it has to be intentional. She’s wearing a foam cup, which would have been unheard of back then. It’s also an exceptionally old or ill-fitting bra - why else can you see the tops of the cups? No woman would have been caught dead with misbehaving lingerie like that back then, and the soft satin cups of 40’s lingerie made it nearly impossible anyway. Her breasts are also sitting at a much lower angle than would be acceptable in the 40’s.

There’s no knowing what kind of condition Steve’s in, or what kind of person he really is, after decades of nostalgia blur the reality and the long years in the ice (after a plane crash and a shitload of radiation) do their work. (Pre-crash Steve is in lots of files, I’m sure. Nick Fury does not trust files.) So Fury instructs his people to build a stage, and makes sure that the right people put up some of the wrong cues.

Maybe the real Steve’s a dick, or just an above-average jock; maybe he had a knack for hanging out with real talent. Maybe he hit his head too hard on the landing and he’s not gonna be Captain anymore. On the flipside, if he really is smart, then putting him in a standard, modern hospital room and telling him the truth is going to have him clamming up and refusing to believe a goddamn thing he hears for a really long time.

The real question here is, how long it does it take for the man, the myth, the legend to notice? What does he do about it? How long does he wait to get his bearings, confirm his suspicions, and gather information before attempting busting out?

Think about it, they probably had hundreds of game recordings that took place after the crash at their disposal to have playing when he woke up and yet they chose that one. If they were really trying to trick him into thinking it was still the 40s it would have made sense to play a tape that Steve had never seen or heard about before (i.e a game that took place right after the crash). Instead they chose one that he actually attended. There is no way SHIELD were that sloppy, this was no accident. They chose a game they knew Steve would recognize. One that he already knew the out come for. One that when he heard it, he would automatically know something was wrong.

Please don’t delete the link to the photographers/artists, thanks!