Oog. Harlequin already has reputation issues. I can't imagine slapping their brand on a bunch of vanity-press crap is going to help matters.
If she (or whoever else is appearing on air with her) doesn't directly or indirectly reference her being a Bush daughter at least once every thirty minutes, I'll eat my hat.
My money's on her on-screen title being "Jenna Bush Hager".
When Eddie Izzard was introducing the concept of the video, I was really expecting it to go in the direction of a Pythonesque comedy of mistranslations. I'm pretty impressed by how it turned out.
Stefan@1:
A less esoteric version of this analogy might involve early-stage enthusiasts of multilevel marketing schemes:
There was a friend of mine who got caught up in one of these a few years ago. We were already living across the country from each other and only talking every six months or so, but he talked my ear off about this fantastic new job he found. I listened patiently to his explanations, watched the online slide presentation, and concluded that it was a pyramid scam. He didn't understand how I'd arrived at that conclusion and started trying to refute my arguments (all the while assuring me of his soon-to-be-new-found wealth) and then got defensive and angry when I stuck to my guns.
He's always been the credulous sort, ever since we were kids, and I wasn't really surprised at how the conversation went. Anyway, I didn't talk to him again for about three years, but we reconnected recently.
I haven't heard anything about how the scheme went, and I haven't asked, because the answers are pretty obvious and I don't see the need to embarrass him over it.
Anyway, both that comparison and the vanity-press one ring pretty true. I hope there's more to be learned from the analogy.
My definitions of "hard" versus "soft" sci-fi really have little to do with the relative "hardness" of the underlying sciences.
I consider Star Trek to be pure soft sci-fi - the "Treknobabble" is nothing more than a bit of flavoring over a pile of technology that doesn't make the slightest attempt at justifying itself. Compare this to what I consider to be the best hard sci-fi story I've ever read - Kim Stanley Robinson's "Mars" trilogy. The "science" that really makes it "hard sci-fi" is not just physics and engineering, but also biology, and geology, and social sciences, and economics, and so many of the little things that have to go into making a world livable. The scientific leaps are optimistic at times, to put it mildly, but it never veers in the direction of the fantastic the way Star Trek's technology does.
For the record, I consider Star Wars to be sci-fi-flavored fantasy. The spaceships and blasters are window-dressing on a swords-and-sorcery tale. The best example of this is how badly things went when Lucas attempted an explanation of how the magic system worked. The setting just doesn't support that level of inspection, and he would have been far better off continuing to shroud the Force in mystery and superstition than trying to justify it.
No, no. I don't want jetpacks to be readily available. I just want one for me, and maybe a carefully selected friend or two.
An LED, a tiny battery, and some adhesive or a magnet. So you can stick or throw them high onto walls, lightposts, etc.
I swear there has to be some sort of analogue to Godwin's Law* that applies on this website. Something like:
"As the number of posts on a Making Light thread increases, the probability of someone writing a topical parody of 'This Is Just To Say' approaches 1."
* The original descriptive formulation, not the common usage that states that the Nazi-invoker loses the argument.
abi @25:
I'm a bit late coming back here; yesterday got busy.
I asked because I've seen others explicitly saying that Amazon's classification of "Gay and Lesbian" books as such was itself bad. I admit - as others have said - that categorization leads to an opportunity for marginalization, like in the hypothetical situation you mention. And in this case it also allows people to specifically avoid books with gay or lesbian characters if they've been tagged as such.
But more information about a book - more metadata - is never inherently a bad thing, in my opinion. It's all about what you use the data for. For example, if I'm a person struggling with a new identity as a homosexual - or a friend or relative of such - I'll want to be able to find a book specifically written about someone addressing those sorts of issues. And if another person wants to use that tag to avoid having to read about those goddamned homos, then that's their prerogative whether I agree with his reading preferences or not.
But arguing that the metadata shouldn't be there because it makes it easier to blacklist Gay and Lesbian books is like arguing that you shouldn't shelve all the science fiction books in one part of the store because it makes it easier for the storeowner to put up curtains and deny access to the genre to anyone under 18. If the storeowner really wants to do that, he'll do it anyway.
I'd like to get something clarified before I respond to a point you may not actually be making.
Are you saying that Amazon categorizing a certain set of books as involving and/or discussing homosexuality was itself a bad thing?
shallot @24:
I think you've confused the type of debate Jim was having, where one tries to convince another of one's point of view by presenting evidence and reasoned arguments, with the type of debate TexDoc was having, where one tries to defeat and preferably humiliate one's opponent by presenting apocryphal anecdotes and flat-out lies, strung together with flimsy reasoning and peppered with ad-hominem attacks against the opponent, his or her family members, and any group with which the opponent chooses to identify[1].
I understand your confusion; debates on the Internet are roughly 95% type 2 by volume.
---
[1] Subject to the No True Scotsman rule. Association of one's opponent to unfavorable groups (e.g. Nazis, NAMBLA) also permitted. See store for details, etc.
That would have taking some astounding focal depth, to resolve another object in orbit and details on the ground at the same time.
I'm not so worried - the laughs may not be as big, but on the other hand it's not likely to be a "laugh so I don't cry" sort of situation.
I can live with that.
joann@7: That's one of their big problems. They don't consider date of registration at all in their likely-voter screen.
In addition to youth turnout being underestimated this year due to trying to base the estimate on previous years, I bet a lot of young people are also getting screened out as unlikely voters because this is their first election...
Normal day for me. Well... a bit abnormal - I had a dentist appointment. Getting some work done, and then later tonight I'll be cleaning up the house in preparation for Saturday's party.
Normal day. About the only difference is the fact that I'm not paying any attention to politics today.
Every time you hear the word "uppity" come up this election, bear in mind that they're leaving off the second half of the phrase - the one that starts with an N and is six letters long.
They don't need to say the word in order for the target audience of those remarks to hear and understand it. A perfect example of dogwhistling.
Are they agents provocateurs, sent in undercover to do something bad and give authorities a reason to gas everybody else?
This is my guess. My sister was jailed last year at the Critical Mass "riot" that the Minneapolis police used to practice their suppression tactics ahead of the RNC. That was provoked by bicycle riders in disguise who'd never been seen at a mass before, and then the police responded with overwhelming force and in sufficient numbers to make it obvious that they were prepared for and expecting a disturbance from a usually peaceful group.
I believe it's actually a little over four thousand. Still a bargain... assuming we'd just be getting all that oil for free, as a reward for spreading democracy and freedom across the world.
abi: My prediction is that, when Obama wins the general election, he and his allies in the Senate will see to Clinton's election as Senate Majority Leader. From there, she can be the driving force in that chamber for the new health care agenda, whatever its final form turns out to be.
I think she'd be a lot more useful - and a lot happier there - than as the Secretary of HHS. The battle for health care reform will be fought in the legislature; the Cabinet department's role will be more advisory than anything else when the policy is being created. (As I understand it, anyway.)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 13 |
| 2008 | 15 |
| 2007 | 14 |
Total: 42 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by DarthParadox:
Show all comments by DarthParadox.