Just to loop back to a couple of people here who are doing the "they should have known better than to pull a stunt like this" jag.
No.
I work in the Hancock Tower. The building was evacuated on 9/11. I know what the issues are.
I can accept that John Clueless Public might panic about something stupid. What I do not accept, and should not have to, is that my government panics and then tries to justify it.
If a squirrel throws an acorn and hits me on the head and I think it's a nuclear bomb dropped by unseen enemies, I want the people who are responsible for my security to say "That's an squirrel. An asshole squirrel, but just a squirrel."
I'm not afraid of squirrels. Or acorns. I'm afraid of my government trying to make me live in fear of shadows when they should be worried about the things that cast them.
By now many of you know we here in Boston have survived a major terrorist incident. Highways were shut down. Bridges closed. River traffic halted. But we persevered. The Boston police called out the bomb squad. Homeland Security is investigating. Some kid with a website is being questioned. The Powers That Be are on tv. Yes, my friends, I am now safe from...a cartoon light box.
While everyone involved is patting themselves on the back, I can't believe how utterly stupid this is, they are and things continue to be. Basically, Turner Broadcasting had this guerilla advertising going for Adult Swim. They hung light boxes of a cartoon character around the city (several cities, actually) and at night they light up. They look like lite-brite toys.
This is hysteria as security. The claim is that because circuit boards, visible batteries and wires were involved, they had to be cautious. As in blow the suckers up cautious. As in probably thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds wasted cautious. For what? To show they are serious about security? ARE THEY SERIOUS? These things apparently were visibly hanging around for weeks until some alarmist, who buys into our public transportation Big Brother campaign, reported one to the police. Next thing we know, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been made safe from cartoons.
And then the Einsteins got on the news. "We had to be careful. It could have been worse." Really? Like tiny, tiny nuclear weapons hidden in the light bulbs? Terrorists are so stupid they can't manage to smuggle a luggage nuke out of Ukraine where they're apparently lying on the sidewalks over there and I'm supposed to be worried about BATTERIES AND WIRES? And excuse me, if it were a bomb containing, oh, nuclear or biological materials, did it occur to anyone that BLOWING IT UP was not the smartest thing to do? And then, of course, we have the on the street interviews from the clueless "I'm glad it was a false alarm, but it makes me feel safe." Yeah? Your front line of defense against terrorism can't tell the difference between an innocous light box and a block of pasticine and you feel SAFE?
Then the news kept running this headline "Turner Broadcasting admits hoax was an advertising campaign." Okay, kids, let's examine that statement. First, Turner didn't "admit" anything. They ANNOUNCED it. Saying they admitted it implies they didn't want to tell anyone. Secondly, it was NOT a hoax. A hoax, dear vocabulary inept tv headline writer, is purposefully trying to make people think something is real when it's not. The light boxes, in no way, shape or form, did not attempt to appear to be weapons of mass destruction. It attempted to look like a cartoon character giving the finger (suitably pixelated on tv so as not to offend the stupid). The proper headline should read: "Turner Broadcasting announces overblown terrorist delusion was in fact caused by a toy used for advertising campaign ,you f***cking idiots."
I live here. I despair.
We're close to my answer!
#175: PJ, what I am hoping for is an animal cell equivalent to chloroplasts, i.e., something in animal cells not in plant cells that would be visually identifiable as such.
#176: Greg London, the backlog was my understanding too, which is why I'm hoping for some kind of visual marker for animal cells.
I really appreciate everyone's input!
#177: Xopher: You're right--I was a little too vague in my original question. I'm not creating a strict plant wall with a total animal interior. Basically, I'm looking at a species that is like a tree nymph of classical mythology. I wanted to posit that their cells would reflect some kind of plant/human hybrid. Basically, I want my lab person to look at the cell in a microscope and say "It's a plant cell but what the hell is XXXXX doing in the cytoplasm." With the XXXX being the cell component unique to animal cells.
Careening off: I'm writing a scene at a forensic lab (how early 21c). Anyway, does anyone know if you can recognize an animal cell by simple observation under microscope of the cell interior? As a plot point, the cell in question will have a plant cell wall, but animal (humanish) dna.
Failing that, how long does it actually take to run a DNA test?
Teresa @ #101: The same bulb went off in my head after my post! Prompted by China Mieville's recent essay The Lies that aren't Meant to Deceive Us. Combined with the recent Making Light thread about McCain's politics, I thought Newt might be the "Lie We Aren't Meant to Notice When We Vote For McCain."
I can believe this because, while I'm not a rabid political junkie, I think I tend to be more pro-active in my political reading that the "average" voter, and there's a whole McCain out there I didn't know about until recently. There's even more the average voter probably won't see beyond the burnished image the Repugs will present in 2008.
The Freedom War.
It will go done in history as the only war everybody lost.
I'm coming to this thread late, but as a gay man, needless to say, very engaging discussion.
Outing is not simply right or wrong, and, yes, it is a tool used by pro- and anti-gay people to further an agenda. But I think that much of this discussion is based on the faulty premise that a right to privacy exists with respect to sexual orientation, which I believe is a social fiction. It essentially is a right only gay people claim. What that concept is, is a desire to live in the public sphere unharmed masquerading as a right to privacy. It's just a bigger closet.
I came out at 19 because I decided I was damned well not going to live the rest of my life like I did the five years in high school and freshman year of college. That may not seem like a big deal now. 26 years ago is was. I was spit on, cursed at and punched in those early out years because I had the balls simply to stand in line on a city sidewalk waiting to get into a packed gay bar where I could hang out and relax. I've been gay bashed. A good friend was stabbed. I marched in Boston pride when you didn't join some nicey-nice acceptable group to do it, you just had to be an out gay body in the street dancing, singing, chanting and protesting. And you know what? I now live in a state where my partner of 14 years has health benefits from my job at a finance firm, where I can get married, where GLBT run for office and win. Why? Because people like me came out.
Will Texas ever change if every gay person decides it's "too traumatic?" Will Alabama? No. Agreeing to keep high-profile figures in the closet is complicit in shame. I don't buy the dangerous, angry dockworker argument either. Did that stop women from joining professions in which they were despised? Or people of color? Or Jews? Did it stop gay and lesbian cops and fireman? Someone's got to do it first. I'll agree it takes bravery. I disagree any fear or job or friend or family member is worth staying in the closet. If you don't think being out lessens the pressure to stay in the closet, I believe you are absolutely wrong.
And, sorry, but I'll be damned before I let some Auntie Tom like Mehlman trade my life for his career. Fuck him and every gay man and lesbian like him.
Other than that, I don't have much an opinion on the topic.
I didn't know about CRN until this came up, but it sums up something that's been bothering me the last few days.
Chris owns his site and, as such, has every right to assess the nature of a threat and react accordingly. If he thought this was prudent, I am in no position to gainsay. I am not him. Taking the cautious approach for one's own sake is perfectly fine.
Now let's skip to our government. In the last week, we have seen a dopey guy who lives with his parents get arrested for making false bomb threats against stadiums and a 14 year old girl rousted by the Secret Service for posting a so-called threat against Bush. In both cases, neither the FBI nor the Secret Service thought the threats credible.
U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie in Newark, N.J., said of the stadium guy: 'These types of hoaxes scare innocent people, cost business resources and waste valuable homeland security resources. We cannot tolerate this Internet version of yelling fire in a crowded theater in the post-9/11 era.'
And I thought, wouldnt the analogy to yelling 'fire' be yelling 'bomb' in an actual stadium? Isnt yelling 'bomb next Tuesday' on the Internet the equivalent of yelling on a city street? The former would cause a panic; the latter is just an idiot to be ignored. Or am I just a better bullshit detector than whoever read this guy's postings? I would venture that the guy didn't scare innocent people, cost business resources and waste valuable homeland security resources. Our government did with this chicken little approach to security.
The 14 year old girl...on that bastion of internet credibility called myspace...was interviewed without her parents present, after her parents explicitly told the Secret Service to come back after school, and the kid's school, as a matter of policy doesn�t inform parents of police interviews because, imagine, they interfere. How is this not police state tactics? And I really have to wonder if she had a kill Clinton page if she wouldn't have qualified for a White House tour instead.
Don't get me wrong, the stadium guy was stupid, not funny and needs a life. But doesn't the First Admendment also protect stupid speech? If every law enforcement agent agrees he wasn't credible, why is he under arrest?
Chris Clarke made an assessment that seems logical to me and reacted appropriately. Our government made an assessment that seems logical to me and reacted ridiculously. I feel like I'm missing something. Should I be upset about the stadium guy?
C.E. Petit #89:
Yes, you are correct, that is a third instance. I used to work for a major publisher and I am trying to recall if we ever did that to someone. It's the slipperiest part of a contract--"acceptability"--because it is a subjective issue. Certainly a publisher could use that tactic, but if done too often to the wrong authors and agents, I'd venture they'd start seeing a lot more demands for a first proceeds clause. That situation also is part of the reason publisher's like to stagger advances so that the bulk of the money is paid very late in the process (e.g., on pub), so they won't have to chase down a lot of cash if the ms is truly unacceptable.
I am not being naive...I'm sure it happens. The philosophy where I worked tho was essentially to cut the author loose and let him/her keep the on signing payment. For "smaller" authors in particular that portion of payment was often quite small, so it was cheaper to just let it go.
Yes, exactly. Publishing simply isn't a widget business. In an ideal world, a publisher would love just to publish books they love that all become bestsellers. It makes life easier as a business. But publishing doesn't work that. People in publishing know that. People who only think they know publishing don't.
kid bitzer @ #87:
There's a nomenclature at work I think. Yes, advances "earn out" on sales, so they act like loans in a way. But another way to understand it is the advance is the cost to the publisher of the author's participation. At the earn out point, everything's gravy, so everybody earns more.
Another way to understand it is, a publisher pays an editor X amount of money to provide his/her skills. That amount varies depending on the perceived skill of the editor just like the advance varies based on the perceived earning power of a book. When a book doesn't succeed, the publisher doesn't turn to the editor and deduct a prorata share of his/her salary to make up for the "lost" editorial time spent on the book.
I don't mean to make it sound like the author is just another employee of the publisher. It's more of an accounting analogy I'm trying to make. The only times a publisher tries to recoup an advance from an author other than through sales is 1) the author has misrepresented something and violated the terms of their warranty or 2) the author wants out of their contract and, if the publisher is willing, the author will try to place the book elsewhere with a new advance at the new publisher which flows through to the old publisher to pay off the original advance (i.e., the old publisher shouldn't be penalized money for letting a saleable author go)
This is one of my favorite topics, because it is really the blind men and the elephant. When we see the WSJ type of articles that wring their hands over the state of publishing, they are really focusing about the state of a particular type of publishing. If publishing success were merely about who wins the most $$--which the WSJ article implies--then most publishers (meaning, all, big and small, commercial and academic) simply would not exist. These sweeping generalizations are irritating not because they are wrong, but because they are wrong about the wrong things.
I think when you get the mainstream press talking about success, it is likely defined as whether your grandmother, boss, close friend and your dog have heard about it. And if it is something that all those individuals like, we are really talking lowest common denominator territory. You can talk about the quality of that all you like, but the reality is something that hits such disparate buttons is rare. By rare, I mean the books that have this kind of "success" almost never have anything in common--Dan Brown, J.K. Rowling, Mitch Albom. Your Grishams, Kings, and Steeles (again nothing in common) are successful because they are very good at pushing the same button again and again, so the author gets bought first, not the book (personal bias: I included Rowling in the former category rather than the latter because I think she is really writing one big book with a canny marketing campaign).
Meanwhile, out in the wilderness, tons of authors are selling tons of books that dont bubble up into mainstream consciousness (another definition of success). Ask the next ten people you meet who Neil Gaiman, Lois Bujold Masters, Robert Jordan, Ray Feist, Anne MacCaffrey or Terry Pratchett are and I bet you will get blank stares. You might get a glimmer of recognition for a Joe Haldeman or a Dan Simmons. And, yet, you can bet that each of these authors are enormously important to their publishers.
The other point I think gets lost is, calling something bestseller, midlist or backlist are not definitions of books. They are observed results. If that could be predicted, then why would *any* publisher bother with any but bestsellers if all they cared about was wild financial success (as if they could predict that anyway)? A knowledgeable publisher will publish a book knowing out of the gate it will not hit the NYT list. Why? Because they are hoping it will succeed by a standard of success that has nothing to do with the NYT. Calling something like that midlist is just lingo.
So, four paragraphs of ramble to make the point that the WSJ is assuming there is only one standard of success and one explanation for why publishers do what they do. Pfiffle.
#311, #312: Adrian and David Bell: Thanks for the advice---especially the weblink. I'm going to send them the info I have to support the lowercase dumpster for next time because.....they're not going to force the issue on this book (!) for which I am pleased. I think they are letting it go because of schedule and dumpster is not something to really worry about.
I understand why they were asking me to capitalize (I used to work with lawyers), but this case seems so obviously a non-issue, it was all head-scratching. Thanks again.
I was at the last Secret Gay Cabal meeting and Foley was not on the Gay Agenda. IIRC, we talked about getting quiche back on the menu at the House cafeteria (there was much talk that we would be quickly exposed by cherries flambe). I have the meeting minutes somewhere.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 3 |
| 2006 | 12 |
Total: 15 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Mark DF:
Show all comments by Mark DF.