Bipartisan disgust
Judicial Watch first came to most people's attention by filing numerous lawsuits against the Clinton administration, alleging misuse of FBI files and other abuses. They're generally regarded as conservative in orientation. But that hasn't kept them from pursuing information about the Bush administration's secrecy and suspicious corporate ties. (Stories here, here, and here....)
As I said before, it's not just the usual liberal suspects who are getting tired of the Bush Administration's coverups and connections. Are those trees marching up the hill?
Thursday, October 09, 2003
D'oh.
I've been absent from the blogiverse for the past couple of days. On Tuesday morning I realized to my horror and disgust that the standard letter I had used as the basis for virtually every cover letter I sent out in the past two months included a stupid, stupid error which needed to be corrected as soon as possible. (Bad form, old chap.) Two days, a ream of paper, and about $15.00 in postage later, I've managed to send out corrections for all the applications from October and September. Next, I get to go back and check the August letters to see if the same error lurked in them.
I've been absent from the blogiverse for the past couple of days. On Tuesday morning I realized to my horror and disgust that the standard letter I had used as the basis for virtually every cover letter I sent out in the past two months included a stupid, stupid error which needed to be corrected as soon as possible. (Bad form, old chap.) Two days, a ream of paper, and about $15.00 in postage later, I've managed to send out corrections for all the applications from October and September. Next, I get to go back and check the August letters to see if the same error lurked in them.
Monday, October 06, 2003
The Doctor regenerates again
Apparently the BBC has gotten over its recent aversion to science fiction. A September 26 announcement states that they will revive Doctor Who, but is somewhat vague about the timeline. I'm not quite sure what I think about Thursday's report, attributed to none other than Tom Baker, that "cross-dressing comedian Eddie Izzard will be the new Dr Who". Is fandom ready for a cross-dressing Doctor? Better than no Doctor at all, I guess.
If that proves too hard to enjoy, I can always look forward to the Blake's 7 miniseries announced back in July, and hope they don't stuff Paul Darrow into one of Jacqueline Pearce's old outfits.
Apparently the BBC has gotten over its recent aversion to science fiction. A September 26 announcement states that they will revive Doctor Who, but is somewhat vague about the timeline. I'm not quite sure what I think about Thursday's report, attributed to none other than Tom Baker, that "cross-dressing comedian Eddie Izzard will be the new Dr Who". Is fandom ready for a cross-dressing Doctor? Better than no Doctor at all, I guess.
If that proves too hard to enjoy, I can always look forward to the Blake's 7 miniseries announced back in July, and hope they don't stuff Paul Darrow into one of Jacqueline Pearce's old outfits.
Sunday, October 05, 2003
Political ponderings
Am I the only one who finds it morbidly funny that the Bush Administration appears to think national security is so important it's necessary to destroy it in order to save it? Or, to be more accurate, in order to wreak petty personal vengeance on someone who criticizes the Bush Administration?
Unfortunately, this is a distinction which the Bushies seem incapable of perceiving. The whole Plame fiasco is further proof, in case anyone needs it, that this administration adheres to no principles whatsoever, conservative, nationalistic, or otherwise, save the Machiavellian lust for power at all costs.
I doubt that very many conservatives outside of the Bushies' own insular neo-conservative faction of Enron and Halliburton alumni will feel much inclination to defend them in the long run. Bush speechwriter David Frum's hysterical, chest-beating March 19 National Review article, "Unpatriotic Conservatives", in which, with rabid saliva practically flying in all directions, he furiously denounced libertarians, Patrick Buchanan, Robert Novak, Llewellyn Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, Taki Theodoracopulos, and any other conservative who deviated from the War Party's dictates as "traitors" who "hate their country", pretty well ensured that.
From Frum's article: "War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them."
He's right about one thing. These traditional conservatives and libertarians chose to follow their consciences at a time when it was politically dangerous to do so. (Novak, of course, has had several miraculous retroactive changes of heart after being threatened with the loss of White House favors and tipoffs.) But what they turned their backs on was the War Party's corrupt maneuvering and dishonest dealing, not "their country". As the Bush Administration begins floundering in the morass of its own corruption, it should expect no help from this quarter, any more than MacBeth could expect help from MacDuff or any of the other people he climbed over en route to his short-lived reign.
Of course, the favorite refuge of scoundrels is always an option. As the 2004 election approaches, perhaps the Administration will find it useful to once again manufacture a war.
(Note: For a less biased idea of what the much-vilified libertarians and paleoconservatives actually say and think, check out websites such as www.lewrockwell.com, www.antiwar.com, the Libertarian Party, or Buchanan's "The American Cause".)
Am I the only one who finds it morbidly funny that the Bush Administration appears to think national security is so important it's necessary to destroy it in order to save it? Or, to be more accurate, in order to wreak petty personal vengeance on someone who criticizes the Bush Administration?
Unfortunately, this is a distinction which the Bushies seem incapable of perceiving. The whole Plame fiasco is further proof, in case anyone needs it, that this administration adheres to no principles whatsoever, conservative, nationalistic, or otherwise, save the Machiavellian lust for power at all costs.
I doubt that very many conservatives outside of the Bushies' own insular neo-conservative faction of Enron and Halliburton alumni will feel much inclination to defend them in the long run. Bush speechwriter David Frum's hysterical, chest-beating March 19 National Review article, "Unpatriotic Conservatives", in which, with rabid saliva practically flying in all directions, he furiously denounced libertarians, Patrick Buchanan, Robert Novak, Llewellyn Rockwell, Samuel Francis, Thomas Fleming, Scott McConnell, Justin Raimondo, Joe Sobran, Charley Reese, Jude Wanniski, Eric Margolis, Taki Theodoracopulos, and any other conservative who deviated from the War Party's dictates as "traitors" who "hate their country", pretty well ensured that.
From Frum's article: "War is a great clarifier. It forces people to take sides. The paleoconservatives have chosen — and the rest of us must choose too. In a time of danger, they have turned their backs on their country. Now we turn our backs on them."
He's right about one thing. These traditional conservatives and libertarians chose to follow their consciences at a time when it was politically dangerous to do so. (Novak, of course, has had several miraculous retroactive changes of heart after being threatened with the loss of White House favors and tipoffs.) But what they turned their backs on was the War Party's corrupt maneuvering and dishonest dealing, not "their country". As the Bush Administration begins floundering in the morass of its own corruption, it should expect no help from this quarter, any more than MacBeth could expect help from MacDuff or any of the other people he climbed over en route to his short-lived reign.
Of course, the favorite refuge of scoundrels is always an option. As the 2004 election approaches, perhaps the Administration will find it useful to once again manufacture a war.
(Note: For a less biased idea of what the much-vilified libertarians and paleoconservatives actually say and think, check out websites such as www.lewrockwell.com, www.antiwar.com, the Libertarian Party, or Buchanan's "The American Cause".)
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light....
It's good to read that the U.S. of A. still has one strong export: jobs.
It's good to read that the U.S. of A. still has one strong export: jobs.
Friday, October 03, 2003
No honkies need apply.
A pseudonymous writer in the Chronicle of Higher Education sadly bemoans the lack of suitable candidates for tenure-track positions at his unnamed college. What measures of suitability are they looking for?
From the article: "We won't discriminate, but let's be honest here, we were not looking for a white male Protestant...."
Let's try this on for size. How about "We won't discriminate, but let's be honest here, we were not looking for a woman." "We were not looking for a Mexican." "Not looking for a homosexual." Fill in the blank with whatever convenient label might happen to be attached to you, Dear Reader. See how it sounds.
And academics wonder why rational people accuse them of being quota-obsessed bigots. Perhaps this unnamed college would have better luck finding good hires if it actually looked at job-related qualifications.
A pseudonymous writer in the Chronicle of Higher Education sadly bemoans the lack of suitable candidates for tenure-track positions at his unnamed college. What measures of suitability are they looking for?
From the article: "We won't discriminate, but let's be honest here, we were not looking for a white male Protestant...."
Let's try this on for size. How about "We won't discriminate, but let's be honest here, we were not looking for a woman." "We were not looking for a Mexican." "Not looking for a homosexual." Fill in the blank with whatever convenient label might happen to be attached to you, Dear Reader. See how it sounds.
And academics wonder why rational people accuse them of being quota-obsessed bigots. Perhaps this unnamed college would have better luck finding good hires if it actually looked at job-related qualifications.
Michigan wine laws declared unconstitutional
Bytes in Brief reports that the 6th Circuit Court has declared unconstitutional those portions of Michigan's wine-regulating regime which discriminate between in-state and out-of-state wineries. More details at FindLaw.
Earlier this year, there was a similar case in New York.
Perhaps there is hope yet for Carlos and others who pine for exotic vintages.
Bytes in Brief reports that the 6th Circuit Court has declared unconstitutional those portions of Michigan's wine-regulating regime which discriminate between in-state and out-of-state wineries. More details at FindLaw.
Earlier this year, there was a similar case in New York.
Perhaps there is hope yet for Carlos and others who pine for exotic vintages.
More on the "PATRIOT" Act
Ashcroft sez it's never been used to seek information from libraries. Hmm. That's odd, considering that in May the Justice Department acknowledged having contacted about 50 libraries as part of investigations.
I wonder where those 50 inquiries disappeared to between May and September. Down the memory hole? The rabbit hole? An oubliette in Guantanamo Bay?
Ashcroft sez it's never been used to seek information from libraries. Hmm. That's odd, considering that in May the Justice Department acknowledged having contacted about 50 libraries as part of investigations.
I wonder where those 50 inquiries disappeared to between May and September. Down the memory hole? The rabbit hole? An oubliette in Guantanamo Bay?
Thursday, October 02, 2003
But I thought the war was over.
After all, our esteemed President said so.
So what on earth is Riverbend writing about? Or Salam Pax? Or Moja?
You know, I have to remind myself from time to time that the situation could be worse. Instead of being out of work in a nation run by a cynical War Party that can't be bothered to pay attention to anyone outside its own little ideological clique, I could be living in the nation that it is paying attention to.
Thanks to Louise for the link to Riverbend's blog. Without it I never would have discovered this amusing search result.
After all, our esteemed President said so.
So what on earth is Riverbend writing about? Or Salam Pax? Or Moja?
You know, I have to remind myself from time to time that the situation could be worse. Instead of being out of work in a nation run by a cynical War Party that can't be bothered to pay attention to anyone outside its own little ideological clique, I could be living in the nation that it is paying attention to.
Thanks to Louise for the link to Riverbend's blog. Without it I never would have discovered this amusing search result.
Yet another librarian role model?
Tori Amos seems to have librarian fantasies. From an interview: "I've always said the songs are alive and I'm really a librarian. I admit I'm a well paid librarian with great shoes. (laughs) You have no idea how unglamorous it can be sometimes but if you think of me as a librarian from a different dimension, these are books that come to me in sonic form and I have to stay focused or I am manipulated."
Um.... right. It's nice that she's thinking of us, but are we really sure that's Tori talking, and not Delirium of the Endless?
Tori Amos seems to have librarian fantasies. From an interview: "I've always said the songs are alive and I'm really a librarian. I admit I'm a well paid librarian with great shoes. (laughs) You have no idea how unglamorous it can be sometimes but if you think of me as a librarian from a different dimension, these are books that come to me in sonic form and I have to stay focused or I am manipulated."
Um.... right. It's nice that she's thinking of us, but are we really sure that's Tori talking, and not Delirium of the Endless?
Wednesday, October 01, 2003
Open Range
A couple of weeks ago, I decided to forgo a couple of the History Channel's back-to-back-to-back documentaries about the World Trade Center and see the only Kevin Costner movie in recent history to receive a positive review. Overall, I enjoyed it, despite the presence of a few annoying cliches. (At one point, so help me, one character tells another to "Rustle up some grub.")
The basic scenario of the film is a blend of two common western themes: (1) free-ranging cowboys clash with greedy, evil town boss, and (2) man with mysterious past must face down both an external evil and his own dubious background.
It's a truism of frontier history that many early settlers were simply people who couldn't get along with their neighbors in civilized territory. Many of them were on the run from the law, from inconvenient family obligations, or from creditors. In the American west in the late nineteenth century, the situation was further complicated by the social and psychological aftermath of the Civil War, and especially of the ruthless bushwhacking and banditry that characterized the frontier border states. After the war, hundreds of men, desensitized to violence, socially rootless, economically destitute, well-armed and trained to kill, were loosed on the frontier. Some became lawmen, some became outlaws, and some tried to forget it all. One such man is Charlie (Kevin Costner), who has taken refuge in an isolated existence herding cattle on the unclaimed open range in the employ of "Boss" Spearman (Robert Duvall).
Unfortunately for Charlie, the open range of unclaimed land upon which freelance cattlemen could graze their herds is giving way to the development of towns and the inevitable attendant political and economic power grabs. The open range is becoming more and more constricted by the demands of civilization, and free-ranger herders like Charlie and Boss are doomed to clash with those who want to enclose the commons as private property.
There's a romantic subplot, too, although it develops slowly and somewhat unobtrusively.
The scenery and cinematography in Open Range are gorgeous. The movie was filmed in Montana and/or western Canada, and unlike the arid landscape of John Ford's classic Monument Valley westerns, this land looks lush enough to be capable of growing salable cattle. It's land productive enough to be worth fighting over.
As one might suspect, there's a substantial amount of violence in the film. It's not glamorous. It's chaotic and brutal and ugly. Open Range, like many historians, attributes the effectiveness of the most "successful" killers to their sociopathic desensitization to killing, their ability to unhesitatingly murder others in the blink of an eye, seizing the initiative and then taking advantage of the resulting disorientation to further decimate, intimidate, and disorganize the enemy. At one point in the film, as a threatened showdown looms, Charlie matter-of-factly analyzes the opposing side's "soldiers", identifying which ones are likely to freeze up or react slowly, who's likely to panic or fire wildly, and who poses the greatest threat and thus must be pre-emptively eliminated. Such men have difficulty fitting into the world of rose-patterned teacups.
Interestingly, the townspeople in Open Range are not mere props who stand around like bystanders and conveniently disappear once the bullets start to fly; depending on the situation, they flee the town, hide, or shoot back with rifles and shotguns. When necessary, they drag bodies off the street and tend to the wounded.
Some aspects of the romantic subplot seem forced. It's hard to imagine that an attractive woman with no apparent prejudice against men, such as Annette Bening's character, would have remained single for very long on the frontier, given the unbalanced ratio of men to women. But it is refreshing to, for once, see a 40-something year old male lead slowly and haltingly develop a relationship with a believably 40-something woman, rather than promptly tumbling some 19-year-old sexpot. Bening is both authentically windworn and powerfully attractive in her role as an independent-minded and educated woman who quietly chafes against the social customs that keep her from achieving her ambitions, but has to live with them nonetheless. Just why she would be attracted to a borderline sociopath is not explained, but there's a nice teacup motif that helps ease things along.
Blooper alert: Be on the lookout for a close-up shot of a character standing next to a broken-down barbed wire fence which is totally absent from the long-angle shots immediately before and after. I felt sure that someone, sometime in the movie, was going to refer to the conflict between those who wanted to enclose land with barbed wire and those who wanted to move herds freely across it, but only this short blooper and one or two store signs in town even acknowledge the stuff. If there was a subplot here, most of it got left on the cutting-room floor. Perhaps Costner decided that portraying "good guys" Charlie and Boss vandalizing fences would cost them audience sympathy.
A couple of weeks ago, I decided to forgo a couple of the History Channel's back-to-back-to-back documentaries about the World Trade Center and see the only Kevin Costner movie in recent history to receive a positive review. Overall, I enjoyed it, despite the presence of a few annoying cliches. (At one point, so help me, one character tells another to "Rustle up some grub.")
The basic scenario of the film is a blend of two common western themes: (1) free-ranging cowboys clash with greedy, evil town boss, and (2) man with mysterious past must face down both an external evil and his own dubious background.
It's a truism of frontier history that many early settlers were simply people who couldn't get along with their neighbors in civilized territory. Many of them were on the run from the law, from inconvenient family obligations, or from creditors. In the American west in the late nineteenth century, the situation was further complicated by the social and psychological aftermath of the Civil War, and especially of the ruthless bushwhacking and banditry that characterized the frontier border states. After the war, hundreds of men, desensitized to violence, socially rootless, economically destitute, well-armed and trained to kill, were loosed on the frontier. Some became lawmen, some became outlaws, and some tried to forget it all. One such man is Charlie (Kevin Costner), who has taken refuge in an isolated existence herding cattle on the unclaimed open range in the employ of "Boss" Spearman (Robert Duvall).
Unfortunately for Charlie, the open range of unclaimed land upon which freelance cattlemen could graze their herds is giving way to the development of towns and the inevitable attendant political and economic power grabs. The open range is becoming more and more constricted by the demands of civilization, and free-ranger herders like Charlie and Boss are doomed to clash with those who want to enclose the commons as private property.
There's a romantic subplot, too, although it develops slowly and somewhat unobtrusively.
The scenery and cinematography in Open Range are gorgeous. The movie was filmed in Montana and/or western Canada, and unlike the arid landscape of John Ford's classic Monument Valley westerns, this land looks lush enough to be capable of growing salable cattle. It's land productive enough to be worth fighting over.
As one might suspect, there's a substantial amount of violence in the film. It's not glamorous. It's chaotic and brutal and ugly. Open Range, like many historians, attributes the effectiveness of the most "successful" killers to their sociopathic desensitization to killing, their ability to unhesitatingly murder others in the blink of an eye, seizing the initiative and then taking advantage of the resulting disorientation to further decimate, intimidate, and disorganize the enemy. At one point in the film, as a threatened showdown looms, Charlie matter-of-factly analyzes the opposing side's "soldiers", identifying which ones are likely to freeze up or react slowly, who's likely to panic or fire wildly, and who poses the greatest threat and thus must be pre-emptively eliminated. Such men have difficulty fitting into the world of rose-patterned teacups.
Interestingly, the townspeople in Open Range are not mere props who stand around like bystanders and conveniently disappear once the bullets start to fly; depending on the situation, they flee the town, hide, or shoot back with rifles and shotguns. When necessary, they drag bodies off the street and tend to the wounded.
Some aspects of the romantic subplot seem forced. It's hard to imagine that an attractive woman with no apparent prejudice against men, such as Annette Bening's character, would have remained single for very long on the frontier, given the unbalanced ratio of men to women. But it is refreshing to, for once, see a 40-something year old male lead slowly and haltingly develop a relationship with a believably 40-something woman, rather than promptly tumbling some 19-year-old sexpot. Bening is both authentically windworn and powerfully attractive in her role as an independent-minded and educated woman who quietly chafes against the social customs that keep her from achieving her ambitions, but has to live with them nonetheless. Just why she would be attracted to a borderline sociopath is not explained, but there's a nice teacup motif that helps ease things along.
Blooper alert: Be on the lookout for a close-up shot of a character standing next to a broken-down barbed wire fence which is totally absent from the long-angle shots immediately before and after. I felt sure that someone, sometime in the movie, was going to refer to the conflict between those who wanted to enclose land with barbed wire and those who wanted to move herds freely across it, but only this short blooper and one or two store signs in town even acknowledge the stuff. If there was a subplot here, most of it got left on the cutting-room floor. Perhaps Costner decided that portraying "good guys" Charlie and Boss vandalizing fences would cost them audience sympathy.
Monday, September 29, 2003
Well, I'm back.
I arrived home late Sunday after spending the weekend driving all over lower Michigan. It's safe to say that the interview is unlikely to result in a job offer. They're clearly looking for a politician/administrator, rather than a librarian, and I don't have enough talent at manipulation and schmoozing to make an administrator.
On the positive side, I did get to visit a good friend with a beautiful lakefront house (the kind that I'll never be able to afford), and I was able to take a quick look around a downstate university library that has recently advertised for a reference/instruction librarian. Nice library. But I'm growing more than a little bit skeptical than I'll ever get an interview for any position that I'm actually qualified for. It's irritating that, of the four in-person interviews I've had, two were for positions that were essentially political and administrative in nature (for which I'm totally unqualified, as discussed above) and one was for a specialized library position that I would consider myself only marginally qualified for. The one that I was best qualified for -- the one that essentially duplicated exactly what I've been doing for the past two years -- didn't consider me quite good enough to hire at a 70% part-time salary.
No one expects the Inquisition!
Thee University has sent me a cute little "Statement of Current Religious Affiliation and Involvement" form to fill out, with appropriate lines for Name, Denominational Affiliation, Local Religious Affiliation, and "current religious leadership positions".
I wonder. Should I fill it out truthfully, and in all likelihood be immediately struck from the candidate pool for not being a sufficiently loyal member of the One True Denomination, or lie through my teeth, tell them what they want to hear, and state that yessir, I'm a loyal God-fearin' Republican-votin' member of the One True Denomination? That illusion wouldn't survive an in-person interview, but it might last long enough to get them to pay my way to Texas.
What Would Jesus Do?
I arrived home late Sunday after spending the weekend driving all over lower Michigan. It's safe to say that the interview is unlikely to result in a job offer. They're clearly looking for a politician/administrator, rather than a librarian, and I don't have enough talent at manipulation and schmoozing to make an administrator.
On the positive side, I did get to visit a good friend with a beautiful lakefront house (the kind that I'll never be able to afford), and I was able to take a quick look around a downstate university library that has recently advertised for a reference/instruction librarian. Nice library. But I'm growing more than a little bit skeptical than I'll ever get an interview for any position that I'm actually qualified for. It's irritating that, of the four in-person interviews I've had, two were for positions that were essentially political and administrative in nature (for which I'm totally unqualified, as discussed above) and one was for a specialized library position that I would consider myself only marginally qualified for. The one that I was best qualified for -- the one that essentially duplicated exactly what I've been doing for the past two years -- didn't consider me quite good enough to hire at a 70% part-time salary.
No one expects the Inquisition!
Thee University has sent me a cute little "Statement of Current Religious Affiliation and Involvement" form to fill out, with appropriate lines for Name, Denominational Affiliation, Local Religious Affiliation, and "current religious leadership positions".
I wonder. Should I fill it out truthfully, and in all likelihood be immediately struck from the candidate pool for not being a sufficiently loyal member of the One True Denomination, or lie through my teeth, tell them what they want to hear, and state that yessir, I'm a loyal God-fearin' Republican-votin' member of the One True Denomination? That illusion wouldn't survive an in-person interview, but it might last long enough to get them to pay my way to Texas.
What Would Jesus Do?
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
Gut-check time
I had great fun yesterday teeing off on a couple of humorous and counterproductive censorship controversies of past decades. But I feel like delving into something a little darker tonight. So get ready, folks, it's gut-check time for banned book defenders. How far are you willing to go?
Suppose you had a situation in which a publisher put out a book which gave explicit instructions about how to commit a murder. Suppose that after 13,000 copies of the book had sold over a period of ten years, eventually someone bought the book, followed the instructions, and murdered three people for pay.
Should such a book be suppressed? If not suppressible, should the publisher be held liable for civil damages related to crimes committed using information found in the book?
Some of you may know what I'm talking about. This is exactly what happened in the so-called "Hit Man" case involving Paladin Press, a publisher of books such as "The Complete Guide to Lock Picking", "The Art and Science of Money Laundering", and... drum roll please .... "Hitman : a Technical Manual for Independent Contractors". And it happened twice. Subsequent to each crime, a civil case for a seven-figure amount was filed against the publisher. More detailed information is available here . Here (and here) what Paladin Press has to say for itself, here's what a sympathetic book distributor has to say (a bit out of date).Here's someone who seems thoroughly disgusted at Paladin's productions.
Discuss amongst yourselves, folks, since I'll be on the road for the next couple of days, driving to Troll Territory for a job interview in a town where the two biggest annual events appear to be the Mint Festival (with, of course, the election of the Mint Queen!) and "Pumpkins on Parade".
I had great fun yesterday teeing off on a couple of humorous and counterproductive censorship controversies of past decades. But I feel like delving into something a little darker tonight. So get ready, folks, it's gut-check time for banned book defenders. How far are you willing to go?
Suppose you had a situation in which a publisher put out a book which gave explicit instructions about how to commit a murder. Suppose that after 13,000 copies of the book had sold over a period of ten years, eventually someone bought the book, followed the instructions, and murdered three people for pay.
Should such a book be suppressed? If not suppressible, should the publisher be held liable for civil damages related to crimes committed using information found in the book?
Some of you may know what I'm talking about. This is exactly what happened in the so-called "Hit Man" case involving Paladin Press, a publisher of books such as "The Complete Guide to Lock Picking", "The Art and Science of Money Laundering", and... drum roll please .... "Hitman : a Technical Manual for Independent Contractors". And it happened twice. Subsequent to each crime, a civil case for a seven-figure amount was filed against the publisher. More detailed information is available here . Here (and here) what Paladin Press has to say for itself, here's what a sympathetic book distributor has to say (a bit out of date).Here's someone who seems thoroughly disgusted at Paladin's productions.
Discuss amongst yourselves, folks, since I'll be on the road for the next couple of days, driving to Troll Territory for a job interview in a town where the two biggest annual events appear to be the Mint Festival (with, of course, the election of the Mint Queen!) and "Pumpkins on Parade".
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Mea culpa.
Or, perhaps, felix culpa. At any rate, I have sinned by failing to post the promised banned-books link yesterday. For my penance, I shall post two links today.
September Morn
The first is the lightweight but entertaining tale of a 10-cent print which became a best seller and a cultural icon through the efforts of Anthony Comstock and the New York Society for the Prevention of Vice. Of course, that's not quite what they intended to do. I guess would-be censors just aren't bright enough to figure out that their effortsgive free publicity to the things they loathe.
Jurgen: Banned in Boston
Banned Books Week just would not be complete for me without at least one mention of James Branch Cabell and his best-known novel, Jurgen : A Comedy of Justice. It's another example of the work of the Comstock Publicity Agency, aka the New York Society for the Prevention of Vice. A short description of the 1920 censorship controversy over Jurgen can be found here, and here as part of a series of essays on book censorship. I'm sure Cabell appreciated the irony that this notoriety of being "banned in Boston" led directly to the bestseller status he enjoyed throughout the 1920's. Cabell had his own satirical say about the "Philistine" book-banners in a pamphlet called The Judging of Jurgen, which was included in later editions of the book. Although not quite up to his usual allusive, bantering style, it's worth reading.
That's all for tonight. I'm packing for yet another interview trip, and may or may not be able to post for the next few days. For now, I'll entertain myself by polishing that strange sigil I found while walking in the Garden Between Dawn and Sunrise.
Or, perhaps, felix culpa. At any rate, I have sinned by failing to post the promised banned-books link yesterday. For my penance, I shall post two links today.
September Morn
The first is the lightweight but entertaining tale of a 10-cent print which became a best seller and a cultural icon through the efforts of Anthony Comstock and the New York Society for the Prevention of Vice. Of course, that's not quite what they intended to do. I guess would-be censors just aren't bright enough to figure out that their effortsgive free publicity to the things they loathe.
Jurgen: Banned in Boston
Banned Books Week just would not be complete for me without at least one mention of James Branch Cabell and his best-known novel, Jurgen : A Comedy of Justice. It's another example of the work of the Comstock Publicity Agency, aka the New York Society for the Prevention of Vice. A short description of the 1920 censorship controversy over Jurgen can be found here, and here as part of a series of essays on book censorship. I'm sure Cabell appreciated the irony that this notoriety of being "banned in Boston" led directly to the bestseller status he enjoyed throughout the 1920's. Cabell had his own satirical say about the "Philistine" book-banners in a pamphlet called The Judging of Jurgen, which was included in later editions of the book. Although not quite up to his usual allusive, bantering style, it's worth reading.
That's all for tonight. I'm packing for yet another interview trip, and may or may not be able to post for the next few days. For now, I'll entertain myself by polishing that strange sigil I found while walking in the Garden Between Dawn and Sunrise.
Sunday, September 21, 2003
Your mission, should you choose to accept it....
Some local government types may find pleasant surprises on their doorsteps Monday morning. I hope it does them some good. Sadly, I couldn't be a part of this, but I'm with the Bookcrossers in spirit. I hope no one misinterprets the phenomenon.
Some local government types may find pleasant surprises on their doorsteps Monday morning. I hope it does them some good. Sadly, I couldn't be a part of this, but I'm with the Bookcrossers in spirit. I hope no one misinterprets the phenomenon.
Forbidden Library (stolen link)
K. mentioned a banned-books link which is in some ways more snappy and interesting-looking than the ALA's page, while containing some of the same type of information: www.forbiddenlibrary.com
If you check the list of banned/challenged books by title, you will note, under the letter "B", a book highly favored by many prospective book-banners: the Bible, as translated by William Tyndale, who was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 for the "crime" of translating the New Testament into a vernacular language at a time when the religious and political authorities wished to control the general public's knowledge and interpretation of the scriptures.
When I worked in a public library, I always made a point of including Tyndale's translation in any Banned-Books Week display I put up, for several reasons: as a way of trying to defuse potential objectors who might argue that BBW was politically "biased" against Christianity, as a way of acknowledging that Christian texts can be the target of censorship too, and as a sort of coded message against allowing earthly authorities to control religious belief. I somehow doubt that all three messages were received by the same people.
K. mentioned a banned-books link which is in some ways more snappy and interesting-looking than the ALA's page, while containing some of the same type of information: www.forbiddenlibrary.com
If you check the list of banned/challenged books by title, you will note, under the letter "B", a book highly favored by many prospective book-banners: the Bible, as translated by William Tyndale, who was strangled and burned at the stake in 1536 for the "crime" of translating the New Testament into a vernacular language at a time when the religious and political authorities wished to control the general public's knowledge and interpretation of the scriptures.
When I worked in a public library, I always made a point of including Tyndale's translation in any Banned-Books Week display I put up, for several reasons: as a way of trying to defuse potential objectors who might argue that BBW was politically "biased" against Christianity, as a way of acknowledging that Christian texts can be the target of censorship too, and as a sort of coded message against allowing earthly authorities to control religious belief. I somehow doubt that all three messages were received by the same people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)