Archive for the ‘Not Writing Related’ Category
First SCOTUS was 6-3 in upholding Federal subsidies for health insurance. Then they were 5-4 in overturning bans on same-sex marriage.
The US changed today, for the better. There’s a long way to go yet but I’m enjoying these historic decisions.
Here at Jewel Central we play along with the NCAA March madness tournament, but in a way that doesn’t stop the fun. If we used a traditional method, we’d all be out in the first round.
Instead, we pick one round at a time for each of the tourneys (women’s and men). This way, every one has something at stake in every round. Feel free to play along. Last year we had a blast, along with snarky comments. Everyone welcome. You get bragging rights for every win!
Link to a printable Men’s bracket (PDF): 2015 Men’s Bracket
Link to a printable Women’s bracket (PDF) 2015 Women’s Bracket
Select your predicted winners for the Men’s games taking place on March 17 and 18. Report your choices in the comments.
You have until Thursday to make your picks for the first round of both.
I went outside tonight and ended up taking a 12 second video of what it sounded like. You may need to turn up your audio. That’s frogs. And then owls hooting. The video is black because, well, it was dark out.
I love listening to the frogs and the owls and it’s been so long since the frogs were this loud.
This post is an author’s tale of how she confronted a reviewer who did not like her book, an article published in The Guardian, and so given legitimacy.
This post was written by a man who felt his ex should continue interacting with him even though she did not want to.
I see little difference between what’s behind these two articles. In one, an author can’t get past someone’s bad review. Despite all evidence that the reviewer did not wish to be known, this author tracked down the reviewer and made contact. On multiple occasions.
In the other, a woman no longer wished to see her ex, and he writes and publishes an article in which he details why he should get what he wants.
In both, we have the words of the person who pursued a relationship despite clear evidence the other person did not wish, want, or invite the contact.
Both people have written a long justification of actions that violated the peace and privacy of another person.
Both of the people who were contacted against their will, repeatedly, were women. I don’t think that’s an accident.
People like the authors of these articles terrify me.
I can’t decide if this is the funniest tweet in the history of the universe or the saddest.
But, I like a world where women have choice. You know?
“The worsening situation in Ferguson is deeply troubling, and does not represent who we are as Missourians or as Americans.” Missouri Governor Nixon.
Except no. That’s the whole problem. What we must accept is that this DOES represent who we are.
Until those of us who look in the mirror and don’t see brown skin admit that, this will never change.
Ferguson happened because of who we are. Let’s change that.
Here’s an interesting juxtaposition:
I wrote this post a while back. April 2nd, I think. It’s about how, as I see my son heading to what looks like a tech career, I would be tempted to tell my daughter (if I had one) NOT to go into tech.
And then, not long after, I posted this — in the same month.
In light of the Julie Horvath mess, and in light of the juxtaposition of those two things, I stand by my trepidation.
As a woman in tech, and hell, just a woman in the USA, it’s obscene that any company could declare itself free of gender discrimination or harassers or any other of the endemic facts of gender bias.
“Hey, we asked around and all the guys said, Nope, we don’t do that and all the girls nodded. We tots rock.”
Here’s the truth:
1. 97% of the guys thought that was true.
2. 3% of the guys said it was true, knew it wasn’t, and believe woman get what’s coming to them.
3. 50% of the guys suspect it’s not true, but their female colleagues seem fine with the culture, so it must not be a problem!
4. 90% of the woman know there’s a problem and have learned the hard way that HR doesn’t do shit and if they want to keep their job or the hope of a good recommendation if they leave, they need not to say anything.
5. 10% of the women are too new to understand what’s happening and don’t know yet they’re underpaid by 20% because of their gender.
Fuck you, GitHub.
Today, a male book blogger whose blog and opinion I respect retweeted an image of a single panel comic that depicted Kate Perry. She was on the ground, naked, decapitated, and disemboweled. There were puppies in this comic and one of them was in front of the her spread open legs. And yes. The comic was absolutely graphic.
I could not tell from the context what subtext there was for such a thing. Was there ironic comment? For the last few hours, I’ve kept flashing back to that, and how bothered I was that such a person, whose tweets are usually related to the business of books, would retweet something like that.
I Googled a little to see if there was something that would make such a comic relevant social commentary and that would make be believe this man did not intend the apparent meaning of such a comic. I could not find anything that would recover my opinion of this man.
Another prominent male blogger and author commented on that same image with “Hahaha WTF?”
The first blogger’s twitter stream includes links to great commentary about eBooks at his blog. I follow him because I like what he has to say. I have commented at his blog. Why on earth would he retweet an image with no commentary about why he thought such a misogynistic, hateful image was something worth letting his followers see?
Did he really not stop to think about what message is really encoded in that? Maybe it’s partly, “ha ha, look how we can make fun of Katy Perry.” But it’s also the very chilling message “This is what happens to women we don’t like.”
I am devastated. I am appalled. I don’t want anything to do with him any more. Either of them actually.
I hope I’m wrong. I really do.
Wow. Why didn’t I hear about this sooner? I LOVE the British Library Manuscripts blog.