Still about trick-or-treating, the complaints

One thing I wasn't expecting from the complaints was how often Trunk-or-Treat came up.

Many people blame this phenomenon for the lack of trick-or-treaters and the end of people decorating their houses. 

I swear most of the Trunk-or-Treat events I see are not on Halloween, but happen in conjunction with harvest festivals or something. There may be regional differences, but there is certainly no reason why children could not get treats out of both trunks and houses. 

For that specific train of thought, I still think building community is key. That can include communication where children know that they can come to this street and safely get treats, which may include improving walkways and lighting. Someone complained about parents driving the kids, but maybe that's for safety.

However, there was another complaint about the driving, and that brought up Trunk-or-Treat in a way I had not expected. 

Unpopular opinion- you should trick or treat in your own community. If your neighborhood sucks go to a trunk or Treat but the whole horde of people who drive from neighborhood to neighborhood kinda suck

I am not linking to the post, because this would get some hate. I mean, it's deserved, but I'm not going to contribute to the negative atmosphere.

It also is not a complete shock. There is a bit of a seasonal trend for people in nice neighborhoods to get mad seeing kids they believe are poor.

Of course, that tends to mean that the kids are not white. Point that out and they say the kids are stealing candy and there are videos that show 49 brown people stealing candy.

That may be true, but I remember a while back there had been a series of assaults on police. These were not apparently related incidents, but out of eight assailants -- seven of whom were white guys with Nazi tattoos -- the mugshot that kept popping up was the Black guy.

In addition, I remember this picture from a football game that got a lot of people mad because of all the brown students at a University of Texas game:

https://apnews.com/article/texas-french-football-racist-16519b7da3e617a33c60ee7f5a5ec712 

They were trying to say that Asian students were stealing all the college slots from Texas natives, but there are two problems with that:

1. There was pretty solid data on admissions where the percentage of international students was limited and state residents had many slots.
2. While there certainly were students of Indian (from India) descent in the picture, Texas was once part of Mexico with a native population. You could easily have brown students whose ancestors were there before the Mayflower.   

This should also serve as a reminder that in your nice neighborhoods you could have have rich brown neighbors from India or other countries. 

While I had no idea that Trunk-or-Treat was for poor kids (and I still think it can serve a purpose while coexisting with trick-or-treating), I did have some idea that racism is often connected with the opposite of caring and reaching out.

That's kind of familiar, but I think there is some extra anti-poor sentiment that is worth noting. 

Apparently "Mom Twitter", where you see a lot of the nice-neighborhoods-being-invaded discourse, leans pretty conservative. Maybe that should be surprising, but it isn't.

Leading up to the election, some conservatives were feeling threatened that they were facing backlash, which honestly was pretty smart of them. 

You will see more backlash from them as they start fearing losing power.

Not related at all (sarcasm): 

https://abcnews.com/GMA/Culture/martha-stewart-apologizes-homeless-person-halloween-costume/story?id=137770962 

FYI, now that the first apology and the lie that she was trying to raise awareness failed, Martha has switched to blaming it on a Black man, Craig Melvin:

https://people.com/martha-stewart-blames-today-co-host-craig-melvin-for-controversial-halloween-costume-12236296 

Sounds about white. 

Organizing fun

There were some people who posted about having lots of trick-or-treaters.

That went in two different directions.

The people who posted positively about that were often people who had done things to make that happen. Some of them mentioned having hot chocolate or treats for the parents (sometimes alcoholic -- a lot of houses doing that could be dangerous). Someone else had a haunted house set up, and one person was grilling hot dogs.

I don't know that we would go that far, but if we had several neighbors we were working with, maybe.

For negative responses to lots of kids, there is one specific vein that I am saving for tomorrow. 

Otherwise, I want to get back to the people who did not have many trick-or-treaters come and who were unhappy about that. 

There were some complaints that seemed to be a bitter nostalgia or resentment that you can't have both parents trick-or-treating with the kids and have someone home for trick-or-treaters.

Mind you, one of those guys -- when getting pushback -- said their children wanted to trick-or-treat for two hours.

Again, in my childhood it was very rare to go off the block. Trick-or-treating took a few minutes. Also, having older siblings, I don't think my parents ever took me. I went with other kids or went alone when I got older. That would be more questionable today. 

I did see one solution in the "Halloween Candy" episode of Everybody Loves Raymond. While the parents took out their children, Grandma watched the grandparents' house while Grandpa gave out candy at the other house. 

That worked because there were four adults covering two houses, and they were right across the street from each other. Viewers of the show will probably not feel that being across from your parents is ideal. As it was, Grandpa ate so much of the candy he went looking for more and ended up distributing condoms. It probably still could have worked with better planning.

If you want to both be out there for two hours with your children, this might be where having other neighbors who are manning the doors can help. I mean, you can't be in multiple places at once. I get that, but maybe you can have other people in those places. We know people whose neighborhoods don't get trick-or-treaters and want them, so that could be one option. Or if 11 houses have candy and 4 don't, that's not terrible coverage.

Realistically, I believe there is a limited number of years where your children will be thrilled to have both parents tagging along.

And yes, we will always give candy to teenagers (parents if they want it, but they almost never do), we are not gatekeeping costumes, and we have given kids new trick-or-treat bags when they didn't have them. 

Back to the complainers who missed all of those great things that no one does anymore... okay, obviously the guy grilling hot dogs and the couple making the hot chocolate and various other people are doing those things. Couldn't you?

One of the great things about being an adult is that you can do things. There may still be times when asking for permission is appropriate, but you have a lot of options. 

The one guy also missed trading candy afterwards.

Look, nostalgia is the pain of not truly being able to return to a familiar place, for various reasons including that it has changed or that you have changed.

As a child, I worried about this an unreasonable amount; will I someday have to give up watching Saturday morning cartoons? Little did I know I would grow to prefer sleeping in anyway. I could have still watched the cartoons, and now if I miss them there is Youtube and classic television channels (and DVRs) and DVD collections.

(I also worried that I would no longer want to look at the Sears and Montgomery Ward wishbooks. Their disappearance does hurt a bit.) 

Still, there are Halloween nostalgia solutions. Maybe you have a trading party the next day with the leftovers from the Halloween candy you were giving out. I could imagine people getting into that.

When you get candy at about 11 houses, trading doesn't really come up. That was still fun and excitement enough for me then, and I do different things for fun now.

Last year we planned a Halloween-themed activity that involved a Snoopy craft, decorating sugar cookies, and had goodie bags for people to take on their way out. It invoked some of the childhood fun, but was its own thing. 

People enjoyed it, but repeating it would not have been the same. This year we played Bunco instead. 

There are lots of ways to have fun. 

It can take some work. If you are really into it, it can be a lot of work, but it doesn't have to be.

You can probably find something better to do than complain. 

Post-Halloween analysis

We had 26 trick-or-treaters. 

That is a little below average for us, but could have been much worse.

It might have been less if we were not set up the way we were. We had a table in front of the house where we sat with the candy bowl so we could see people coming. We do this more to not have to keep opening and closing the door, risking escaped pets, but it works out.

As it is, we still really needed better lighting; our street is pretty dark.

Besides this, there were really only four houses lit up. When another neighbor came home, they said to tell trick-or-treaters to go to them, too (which we did), but they had missed the first part of the evening and their house was not obviously decorated. 

This is a cul-de-sac of fifteen houses. There is an apartment complex and a subdivision with some townhomes nearby, but there are not sidewalks or really any road shoulders to speak of. Since the apartments and the townhomes went in, there is a lot of street parking, and there is not much street lighting.

This means that there can be some difficulty in getting to our street for children on foot. If only a third of the street is giving candy, why would we be a destination?

We were lucky that it was not rainy, though it was pretty chilly.

I started playing my Halloween playlist on my phone. I think this made our stop a little cooler, in a good way.

I was probably going to write about this anyway, but of the different conversations I have been seeing, one of them has been disappointment from a lot of people that they did not get more kids.

(It's not the only conversation, but hey, we have all week.)

Here's the thing: we love Halloween. We are excited to get trick-or-treaters. We want that to happen.

If we want that to happen next year -- and we could easily get rained out, it's too soon to predict that -- we would have to lay some groundwork.

We could get more lighting to help make us more visible.

We could get more outdoor decorations. We have some, but it doesn't compare to the inside of the house. That is not visible enough to draw trick-or-treaters.

Even more important, we should probably talk to neighbors. The others who give out candy, yes, but the especially the ones who don't.

Would they be interested in doing it? What reservations do they have? Can we help?

If there are people who aren't going to be home, that's okay, that happens. Could someone maybe take up position in their driveway?

I think I remember it usually being about 11 of the 15 houses giving candy when I was a kid, which we were fine with.

One thing that may be in our favor now is that there are more potential doors near our block with the new construction. It messes up the parking but there can be other benefits. There was a lot more empty space along the main road when I was a kid.

We might also want to look at more word of mouth. Tell your friends we are going to be handing out candy! 

It would be a lot of work and it would involve talking to people. Are we up for that? 

At least I have about a year to figure it out. 

Late Pride Month: In the movies

One of the movies that I was all set to watch was The Celluloid Closet, from 1995.

In retrospect, I am almost positive that I either read about the book version in Alternate Channels in my reading three years ago or that it was mentioned when I was watching Disclosure two years ago.  

Somehow in planning ahead I had only remembered the movie, but in watching the movie and reading about it there were clear references to the book. 

The Celluloid Closet (Revised Edition): Homosexuality in the Movies by Vito Russo  

Also, when I was looking up the DVD to borrow it from the library, this other movie kept coming up, Vito from 2011.  

Here's how it all went down:

Vito Russo was a film buff and critic who put on festivals, wrote, and gave lectures on film history. Through his connections he got some great archival access that eventually led to his writing of The Celluloid Closet book. (This is simplified, but there are resources to learn more.)

That came out in 1981 and he died in 1990.

Russo had wanted the book to be turned into a documentary. He was helping Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman with that from about 1986, but his health was declining and they didn't get any real traction until 1990 when a British television channel expressed interest. Then, about 21 years after that, Jeffrey Schwarz made a documentary about Vito's life, Vito.

For a little background information, Rob Epstein will be coming up with some other films. I was not previously familiar with Jeffrey Schwarz but he seems to focus on films that profile an individual, so one focusing on the person made sense.

For The Celluloid Closet, I saw the movie before I read the book. If I was amazed at how thorough the movie was, with that book as its inspiration it makes sense. Russo's knowledge of film was broad and deep.

As I was thinking about what films might come up, with one notable exception they were all covered. 

Also, there were movies in there that I had never heard of or that I knew but had things that went completely over my head.

I had been thinking about the Hayes Code on and off since our Warner Brothers Studio Tour, but I learned a lot from the book and movie. Perhaps most interesting was that Hitchcock liked pushing it and that Preminger was actively trying to break it. While the book's focus was the portrayal of homosexuality on film, of necessity it also deals with the perceived morals and purposes of film.

Possibly one reason it was hard getting interest in the documentary was that the book was seen as somewhat negative and maybe a little bitter. The documentary ended up being more positive.

There are two things with that. One is that Vito did want the documentary to be entertaining; he was not just a scold. He loved film even when it frustrated him. If he was at times negative, there was good reason for it. 

Another part of that, though, was that the filmmakers were feeling more optimistic. Part of that was the reception of Philadelphia (1993). (The Birdcage did not come out until after The Celluloid Closet, though I believe I remember references to La Cage aux Folles.) 

Here's the thing: one of the big themes of the book was the tendency to kill gay characters, even if they were very sympathetic. 

I kind of remember this as a phase that movies go through with multiple marginalized groups. When they are moving up from only being villains (and maybe some extras) but still not getting to be lead characters; they become the one you really like who dies.

Also, I can't help thinking that while there may be sensitive portrayals in Philadelphia, the guy dies. It's about an AIDS case, so that's expected, but still, death.

But what I was really thinking of was "Clexa."

Full disclosure, I have not seen a lot of these movies, and I never watched The 100, a series that ran from 2014 to 2020. 

I am, nonetheless, on the internet. There were people who 'shipped Lexa with Clarke (both girls), and as soon as they consummated the relationship, Lexa was shot and killed when Clarke was the target. (Then, later, Clarke marries a dude.)

Twenty years after The Celluloid Closet film came out, this led to much discussion about "bury your gays."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/bury-your-gays-why-100-877176/

From the article there were three other prominent deaths at the time. Maybe those characters weren't part of ships.  

There are other shows and movies. Hallmark has some holiday romances and Heated Rivalry is really big now, but Elio and Strange World didn't really get promoted. I am not saying there hasn't been any progress, but I am not sure how optimistic Vito himself would have been. 

Therefore, when his final screed (I think this was from 1987 edition) was largely telling gay people not to look to Hollywood, but pursue independent films, I think he had a point. To be fair, there are other reasons to make that point as well. 

Anyway, this is a good read and watch list for anyone interested in film, and Vito will come up in one of the other films.

Now I would like to get to that exception.

In 1941's Suspicion, there is a subtle but pretty clear lesbian couple, Isobel and Phyllis. I read it as kind of a Gertrude Stein/Alice B. Toklas vibe, but it's there, and accepted without being a big deal. Neither Celluloid Closet mentions it.

One other film step for marginalized groups is to become background characters who don't do a lot but exist unmolested, which is still something. Maybe Hitch was trying to fast forward to that.

I did do some searches to see if anyone else cared. I do have the internet.

I found two posts: 

http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2013/6/30/great-moments-in-gayness-suspicion.html 

https://grandillusions.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/a-moment-of-delicate-queerness-in-hitchcocks-suspicion/ 

So it's not just me. 

Reasons not to bank on socialism

Leftists continue to lie about Democrats sabotaging El-Sayed. 

Again, that ego issue where they can never accept any responsibility is very Republican. Worth thinking about.

Anyway, I had alluded to a belief in socialism being connected to an inability to admit error in Tuesday's post; let's get back to that.

In theory, I love the idea of everyone giving what they can and receiving what they need. 

The conservative mode of rejection focuses on most people being lazy and bad, so the system falls apart if you don't reward the true wealth creators by letting them exploit labor. This, as much as anything, is why Republicans keep on supporting racist and sexist policies: we keep the people already on top there by pushing everyone else down.

(That's dominator culture.) 

In truth, this has not been what has caused various governments to struggle in their apparent attempts to embrace a bounteous economic equality.

In fact, they end up suffering from a lot of the same problems that plague capitalism.

Even though this is not one of my Friday media posts, I am going to give books to go with my three examples.

(You could reasonably argue that two of these countries are Communist, not Socialist. I tend to think of Socialism as the later stage of capitalism, but I think there are enough similarities that treating them together is reasonable. There is room for respectful disagreement.) 

The reading recommendations are not as good for Cuba. 

Part of that may be that you often get a sharp divide in writings from Cubans. There are the ones who stayed and might have a hard time criticizing Castro, and who can be harder to hear from for a variety of reasons.

We mainly hear from the ones who left who (and their children) who are very bitter about having been called "gusano" (worm). Hatred of Castro is an issue and it isn't even an unreasonable one, but these are also often people who were wealthy and doing well under the previous dictator, Batista... that has its own skew.

I recently read a book featuring parents who hated both Batista and Castro, but a big part of it was that they would not talk about it because the memories were so painful. Probably that allowed the author to not take a side without further analysis, so I don't really recommend it for that. (That was Cuba 15 by Nancy Osa, and it was a little on the annoying side anyway for teenage reasons.)

The book I will recommend is The Memory of Silence by Uva de Aragón, where two sisters are separated by the war, and their husbands. The Communist believer and the one who left and supported the Bay of Pigs invasion both had serious issues and unhappiness. You can be grateful that the relationship of the sisters ends up enduring (possibly helped by both husbands dying), but you get both viewpoints.

That includes harvesting sugar cane in Cuba.

Castro wanted to prove that they could still be productive under his leadership. They could be even more productive. Therefore, everyone needed to help with the sugar cane harvest.

Sugar is a tough crop. People who had no experience or familiarity with it found it pretty miserable, but if you didn't do it, you were betraying the cause, right? 

Except, if the point of the revolution was to help everyone, is harvesting a lot to export the right goal, or should you be focusing on independently growing a variety of staples?

That question came up earlier. 

Okay, there is some disagreement on whether Stalin deliberately starved Ukrainians during the Holodomor, or whether that was a side effect of the push to collectivize farming but also continuing to export grain, because how else can you prove the superiority of your system?

While it is not merely about that, there is some great (and heavy) reading on this in Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. 

There is not disagreement about lots and lots of people dying, including outside of Ukraine. Would not have exporting grain, focusing on feeding their own people helped? Well, experiments in collectivism can have other problems.

Communist China had a stronger focus on getting people fed, but they still had problems doing so because of problems with farming techniques and inefficiencies with the system. Again, there was a laboring class and people who ordered them around that was not necessarily fair, but they did know what they were doing. That was cataclysmically disrupted.

There may have been extenuating factors at times, like weather, but they were exacerbated by Mao not being willing to take responsibility for any mistakes.

Deng Xiaoping was actually a bit better at figuring out how to make things work, but Mao saw that as a threat, causing Deng to be purged twice. 

That could have been worse -- in Deng's case it meant becoming a laborer in a tractor factory -- but he is probably lucky that Mao didn't live longer.

A good book to read on this is Wild Swans: Three Daughters of China by June Chang. In the schooling that she and her siblings got, you can also get some real insight into the personality cult built around Mao, with Mao's own contributions, but she has another book, Big Sister, Little Sister, Red Sister, about the Soong sisters.

Big Sister and Little Sister married, respectively, Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek. Red Sister became a prominent Communist adviser. Their story gives a good exploration of personality cults and how people starting at the same place can end up so differently. (Also, marrying the guy at the center of a personality cult has some serious downsides, but so does communism.)

The point is that even if you are intending to have a strong collective that takes care of its members, feelings of ego and competition can lead to terrible decisions. At first some of those missteps can be very understandable, but the ego ensures that they keep getting worse.

Remember, bad intentions are not an absolute necessity for disaster.  

I sure do wish that as a country we had been immune to personality cults, but then a lot of that was based on the racism. We never did the necessary work on that.

Sigh.  

As long as we are reflecting...

I don't know if there is a lot of value in writing about politics right now; the election is Tuesday and most of us Oregonians have already dropped off our ballots.

However, if I am going to advise Harvard undergrad, Princeton MA and PhD Cornel West to take some time to reflect, I might as well keep going on that. 

There is plenty to reflect on.

As an aside, I was pretty sure he was an Ivy League PhD, but I thought I should check the details. Wikipedia informs me that he is on his fifth marriage after four divorces... that sure sounds like someone who would be more aligned with Republicans.

Anyway, some other trends in this election round include members of marginalized groups who have been supported more by Democrats criticizing Democrats for not doing enough.

This has included transgender people claiming they are being betrayed by various candidates not insisting on full sports participation for transgender athletes, even if in other ways said candidates are very supportive of their rights and even if not going to the mat may just mean leaving participation rules up to local sports bodies (remembering that sometimes the reasons the complaints start are that the local sports body was allowing transgender athletes to compete).

There is a kind of interesting thread on it here: 

https://x.com/Chinchillazllla/status/2114767071649104281 

There are people in this thread whom I do take with a grain of salt, but I think there are some reasonable points and a mostly respectful discussion.

That means that at least at the point that I posted this, it had not been discovered by worse people.

The other thing I am seeing is supposedly Black men angry that it is Black women being elevated and that Democrats will not get their vote unless they do something for Black men.

There are some interesting things in there. First of all, I don't know how much of it is real. Sure, we had a few data centers temporarily offline and it was beautiful, but there are still a lot of bots out there. Such bots do impersonate different races and genders.

In addition, Steve Bannon had declared Black men were the key, so were going to be targeted. Have those efforts been working? 

Certainly Black men are not immune to misogynoir, just like they are not immune to anti-Blackness. They could be falling for propaganda that would be against their self-interest. That is possible, but it mainly being bots and trolls is also possible.  

However, that is very interesting in light of parts of Project 2025 relying on Black people "rioting" so that martial law could be declared. They have not been taking the bait, but complaints about Black people not participating in demonstrations... are you feeling they should be doing the labor or are you hoping that it leads to martial law?

https://x.com/Chris4Perkins2/status/2115413763234881654 

I mean, there is just a lot to think about. You can't take everything at face level, though even things at face level can be pretty bad if you really think about it.

What can we learn from this?

First of all, you need an understanding of civics and the racist, misogynist structure of society to be able to have a good analysis. It's too baked into our culture to be ignored, but a lot of the smooth functioning of our culture has depended on ignoring it.

We need to get past that. I can sympathize if it hurts, but it's still necessary.

Also, and this feels like it is behind most of what I say, we have to care about each other. 

If I only care my specific interests in whom I support, I am most likely to be voting against my interests. Even the people who think they are supporting their own financial interests are most likely going to be giving more power to people who will exploit their voters, consolidating their own cash and power as much as possible, to ridiculous extremes. 

That's how it's been working and it's pretty noticeable. 

Oh, Brother!

The news broke  yesterday that the push to get Cornel West on ballots in 2024 was funded by Elon Musk:

https://readsludge.com/2026/10/26/musk-linked-dark-money-network-funded-the-group-behind-cornel-wests-ballot-push/ 

Many of us were not terribly surprised. 

That being said, there are people calling Brother Cornel a plant and various things like it was all conscious. I am not positive on that.

I will remain un-phased if West did know, but the funding came through dark money. It's possible that West just thought that he was doing something really good that a lot of people supported, as opposed to one more thing to strengthen Republicans and increase contempt for Democrats.

I am not trying to exonerate West; anyone who praised Brother Trump as authentic --  like Brother Sanders! --can't be taken too seriously.

However, I think there might be a lesson here.

Previous explanations for West's disdain for Obama were generally that West thought he deserved more inauguration tickets than he got.

If you live in such a way that people can easily believe you are that petty and volatile, that might be a good reason to take stock; are you going to look back on this some day and feel good about it? Are you living up to your possibilities?

For the DSA, that used the endorsement for Sanders but with the caveat that while both Trump and Sanders were authentic only Sanders was authentic for good... is this really the endorsement and the endorser that you want?

https://www.dsausa.org/blog/cornel_west_endorses_bernie_sanders/ 

Any chance of it backfiring?

You have to think about things like this. 

Except that if you believe that Republican rule is what will make things miserable enough that the glorious revolution will come and usher in paradise on earth, you are so far removed from reality that there may not be much hope for your thoughts.

I'm not saying that it can't get complicated. 

BrieBrie liked him too. 

I guess there were always signs.