Lunaya Pravda

Through some experimenting, I’ve come to the conclusion that Gmail’s targeted ads apparently focus only on the folder or label you’re currently viewing.  Currently, the only email in my inbox is a reminder that I’m eligible to donate blood next week.

And what has Gmail targeted me for?  A fun quiz that will let me know whether I’m a vampire.

It’s a fairly safe bet that if I’m actually giving my blood to someone else, I can’t be a vampire.  Now, the donation center on the other hand… perhaps I should forward the quiz to them.

There are innumerable times I’ve wanted to do exactly this:

He was there to edit. Yes, edit. Toting markers, chalk and white-out, the man known as the Indiana Jones of typos had come to do battle with this city’s misspellings and botched punctuation.

Seattle, bookish as it may claim to be, was revealed to be barely literate.

There was the sign for “Dillettante” chocolate. The board announcing “Todays sample.” The posters for “recepies,” “cake’s,” “birthday candell’s.” The parking-lot warning that you get “no in/out priveleges.”

Oooh, just knowing those mistakes are roaming loose in the city makes me cringe. (I’d break out the red ink, but my technical writing instructor says it’s psychologically damaging to see your work return as a bloody mess of edits. To my consternation and her luck, I left my arsenal of eye rolling at home that day.)

It’s no leap to posit that these sign writers didn’t see enough red ink during their grammar school years.

I’m seeing a disturbing increase in the calls for a period national service for America’s young adults. It’s questionable whether I’d be subject to it given my age and the variety of proposals put forth, but the very idea pisses me off. From Obama’s proposal to give college-age students $4000 in tuition for an annual 100 hours of national service to this suggestion, the cries to conscript America’s youth to instill in them a sense of value, unity, and selflessness are growing louder.

In a time of growing diversity, there need to be some ways to enhance the experience and theme of unity.

Unity is overrated except to those who place “think and feel as I do” above individuality and personal freedom. Only those with some wishy-washy, feel-good notions of America insist upon unity as a goal. And no offense, Mr. Robinson, but I don’t see much in mainstream America today toward which I want to feel any sense of unity. I’m surrounded by people who make “do-gooder” a derogatory term because they believe that raping my paycheck at its current rate is insufficient, and who, if they had their way, would take 100% of my wages and give me back whatever they felt I truly needed to live, redistributing the rest to those who had no hand in earning it. And you think that the annual tithe to Caesar isn’t sufficient—now my TIME must be handed directly over in service, too? Time, unlike money, is even more precious to me than money, considering I can’t earn more of it to replace that which is lost.

It’s questionable whether teaching people that their own needs, desires, and goals are less important than government’s needs and goals—selflessness—is wise. It’s wise if your desired end result is a drone citizenry willing to mindlessly sacrifice itself to the greater causes of the state. But I can’t say I support teaching anyone that moral character necessitates the subordination of one’s desires and ultimately self-immolation on the alter of the State, even for just one or two meager years.

It’s difficult to relish the idea of bending over for the state in some suck-ass job that pays close to nothing, will give absolutely nothing of advantage on a resume, and could involve submitting oneself to an immoral cause they not only don’t support but downright loathe. (I see no conscientious objector status offered here.) I fully support volunteerism, but you have some balls suggesting that only government agencies are truly worthy of my time. To steal a voting analogy I once saw, being able to choose which government agency to which I’ll submit is a choice between shit and shit with corn in it. Fuck that.

Privatization has hardly proved the panacea that its heralds claimed it to be. Think Blackwater and 100,000 contract personnel flying under the radar in Iraq. Or consider the lengthening file of stories documenting problems in privately run prisons or in education with charter schools. There are some things that are best done by government — that is, “we, the people.”

Privatization is not to blame for Blackwater. In fact, it’s government, not private entrepreneurship that creates the distorted incentives for what we all see going on in Iraq. Ditto privately run prisons, sucking off the endless government tit all the while telling us more prisons are the solution, or education, picking every American pocket to further the brainwashing America’s youth into compliant, servile, mediocre sheep who will continue to support the educational system that created them. Every example you’ve named is inextricably entwined with government, which makes them by definition not private. Quasi-public, if you must, but definitely not private. It’s disingenuous to cherry pick those examples and blatantly ignore government’s influence in those examples. I won’t pretend the private—TRULY private—sector is perfect, but even if you’d mentioned Enron, it’s certain I could pick out half a dozen government actions, mandates, warped incentives, and other government meddling that created and abetted the “privatization” you view as ineffective, corrupt, and worthless.

We, the People, are NOT government, Mr. Robinson. Read the Constitution—its framers couldn’t have been more clear or more adamant that The People and The Government are separate and distinct from one another. Or could you be unaware of this because you’re a product of that fabulous government-sponsored education system, perhaps?

It’s for everybody, at least everybody who is physically and mentally able. Part of the downside of the privatization and the volunteer military has been that we have nearly lost the notion of required anything, of giving back, of playing our part. It’s time that Americans are reminded that “we are in this together.”

No, we aren’t in it together, not when your solution to the problem (more government, more interference) and my solution to the problem (less government, less interference) are polar opposites. I’m sure it gives you warm fuzzies to sit back and think of the beauty in forcing people to give up their time and effort in subservience to the almighty State, all under the pretense of doing good works and teaching them your value system. But I don’t share your warm fuzzies or your value system. We have no unity between us, not as long as you think the application of force is an acceptable means to a shiny, happy end where everyone farts rainbows and perfume.

I don’t ask what I can do for my country; my value system makes it morally questionable to support the state. You’re free to think that makes me a selfish asshole, just like I think you’re a brainless twit. But I don’t ask what my country can do for me, either, other than leave me alone, and it can’t even do that right. You have no leg to stand on when you suggest a stint of required national service would set my values straight and put me on the path to righteous unity and enlightenment.

Volunteering is great. It’s not voluntary work when you force or coerce folks into it with the authority of the State behind you. In short, you and the government can go blow each other to your hearts’ content in this circle jerk of State worship and rah-rah American jingoism. Leave me out of it.

Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why, when ordering a laptop, one is required to swear no intent to ship the technology out of the US, yet the laptop in question is being built in China.  Sort of makes the threat of sharing the technology with foreigners moot, eh?

Alright, I know Gmail scans for keywords to appropriately (in theory, anyway) target the text ads at the top of the page. Considering that I can encrypt messages I’d prefer Gmail didn’t scan, I’m not terribly concerned with this. But lately the ads coming up on my page are disturbing.

I was mildly offended when it admonished me to visit a list of 10 reasons not to jump in the sack with a guy. I’ve been seeing this ad for days.

But today, Gmail upped its ante. First, it ambushed me with ads containing a news article about a teenager abandoning her baby on the bus, and trying to send me to some website discussing teenage pregnancy. And then for a truly horrific encore, it followed with an ad containing scary implications about what Gmail thinks of me based on my email. I couldn’t even bring myself to click on it—an ad entitled “Breastfeeding My Husband.”

How on earth do I convince Gmail that it has the wrong idea?!?

…but I’m getting more spam on older posts, and, well, I’ve enabled Akismet to try and catch some of it. We’ll see how that goes.

I meant to write about this last week, but I got sidetracked by other distractions.

Young mothers don’t kick habit long

Young expectant mothers may quit drinking and smoking during pregnancy, but they are back to old habits roughly two years after giving birth, a new University of Washington study of local families suggests.

If dads typically engaged in binge drinking and smoking cigarettes and marijuana before a partner’s pregnancy, becoming a father didn’t change those habits, the report said. That’s a problem because if Dad is still smoking or drinking, it is even harder for Mom to stay sober and tobacco free.

Is it just me, or did the public health nannies just reveal that they want everyone who has kids to abstain from drinking? If two post pregnancy years isn’t a satisfactory period of abstinence, would five years be satisfactory? Ten? (I’m guessing if pressed on the issue, this batch of nannies scientists would say no, parents need to wait until their kids leave the house, which, with increasing numbers of children who remain in the nest long after fledging age, could theoretically mean 30-plus years of postpartum abstinence for anyone foolish enough to buy into this drivel.)

And god forbid anyone point out the distinction between mom having a drink or two once a week and being falling down drunk. They conveniently fudge it with the phrase “back to old habits,” ignoring the fact that mom’s old habits might have been a glass of wine a week. While it’s certain these researchers would suggest that NO smoking is acceptable, how many drinks a week would be acceptable? Again, is it zero (MADD would love that), in which case they’ve just outed themselves as interventionist, pushy assholes that need not be taken seriously?

Yep, new mothers beware. Controlling your behavior DURING pregnancy isn’t satisfactory. Even your postpartum years aren’t yours to enjoy, because WE know best. Even a single glass of wine, and you’re on a self-destructive path to sinful alcoholism that will drive your child to drink and use drugs in later years. Why, why would you do that to them? For God’s sake, think of the children!

This kind of misrepresentation ticks me off to no end:

But opponents say the report shows a large increase in annual deaths since the law’s implementation — 15 died under the law in its first year.

Opponents also pointed out that no psychiatric evaluations were ordered by doctors in 2007, while arguing that anyone who chooses suicide is suffering from depression.

It’s unbelievably dishonest to point out an increase in deaths without discussing whether more people were considered terminally ill. Is it really so difficult to point out that as the population grows and ages (Baby Boomers especially), it’s highly likely more people will take advantage of such a law? When we see story after story about increases in cancer rates, increases in multiple sclerosis, and other potentially debilitating, life-sucking diseases, it stands to reason a few more people will step forward and pursue the one option that allows them to end their lives peacefully, quietly in their sleep.

It’s fascinating that they have the temerity to argue that anyone who chooses physician-assisted suicide must be suffering from depression, yet in the same breath point out that there were no psychiatric evaluations done on these same people. “Yes, we admit they weren’t examined by anyone we consider to be qualified to make psychiatric diagnoses, but they’re suffering from depression.” Wow, glad you cleared THAT up for us, you sanctimonious fucktards. You WOULD know best.

Maybe it’s because we’re allowed to provide a higher standard of care to our aging pets than we are to our aging friends and family that suicide appears as a more appealing option in those final days. Doctors aren’t allowed to prescribe the amount of pain medication to actually keep them comfortable, because we consider fucking addiction to be a more serious risk than pain to a terminal patient. Someone who needs a high dose of narcotics MUST be addicted, rather than physically dependent. (Yes, there IS a difference.)

Activists here in Washington are gearing up to make another attempt to follow in Oregon’s footsteps with its own laws covering death with dignity. I hope biased media garbage like this is identified for what it is.

At least a few of you have probably heard the ongoing scandal surrounding Love and Consequences, the falsified memoir by Margaret Jones, a.k.a. Peggy Seltzer. I wouldn’t have given the issue much thought, except that Ms. Jones lives in my hometown, and accordingly, my hometown newspaper, The Register-Guard, has been providing copious coverage of the sordid details.

Oddly, a professor of English at the University of Oregon (from which, Ms. Jones claimed to have graduated) has come to her defense:

When early on the morning of March 4 I went out to get the newspaper and learned that I had read a novel, not a memoir, I was neither angry nor disappointed. If Peggy’s assertion that she had spent part of her childhood on the Quinault reservation was untrue, if the paper she had written about this experience was based on false premises, at least it was backed up by enough research to be convincing.

What a ridiculous defense of lying this is. If it’s convincing, it’s acceptable? A good end result is enough to wash away the sins of falsehood? What complete and utter horse shit. I’d like to say it amazes me that this kind of moral relativism passes for higher education, but, at least with respect to the UO, it doesn’t.

But with the exposure of Ms. Jones’ web of lies passed off as a memoir have come the inevitable debates on how much embellishment is too much. Linda Clare, a teacher at Lane Community College writes:

So, I tell them that in dramatizing a story, it’s sometimes necessary to embroider. But I add, “If you write that you got sick at Woodstock all over your boyfriend (one student did) but you actually hurled on your third cousin, nobody will care. But if you write that you got sick at Woodstock and you never went to Woodstock, that’s a problem.”…

If a memoir isn’t even in the ballpark of truth, we should have some way of communicating this to the unsuspecting public. Disclaimers, apparently, don’t work — perhaps because disclaimers are in the foreword and readers skip forewords. Scrutinized by legions of fact checkers, memoirists will still have to find compelling ways to tell the truth.

And truth can be boring. Readers aren’t going to stick around if tension and conflict are not coupled with rising action.

Life doesn’t necessarily follow the three-act structure or classic story arc. Life strays off-theme or takes a million years to get anywhere.

So, when telling an interesting story is the goal, lying is acceptable, according to Ms. Clare. I’ll have to remember that in future job interviews…

But my favorite take was this:

Shouldn’t trust be integral to the writer-reader relationships?

Remember, this wasn’t Jones saying that her black foster mother gave three-fourths of her weekly earnings to Margaret instead of one-quarter. This was a woman who said, among other lies, that she had a black foster mother when she didn’t.

An author has an un­written contract with the reader; some even put it into words in a foreword or author’s note: “This is truth” or “this is fiction” or “this is truth but I’ve not used real names in some instances.”

Should trust be integral? If your goal is not to abuse your readers, and to instead create allies of them, sure. If you’re looking to convince your readers that something is worthy of attention and effort, such as the blight that can be inner city life, then you damn well better be honest about the situation you’re telling your readers needs their attention, lest they arrive to help and discover that what they thought they were helping doesn’t exist.

What I find truly fascinating is that here we have two instructors saying that tweaking the details is acceptable—one goes further than the other in this assertion—as long as the end product is interesting. I’m sorry, but if you have to tweak the details because reality isn’t all that intriguing and fails to grab your audience, then I propose you have no fucking business writing a memoir in the first place.

If you have something to say, a campfire story worth writing down, then by all means write it down and put it, and yourself, out there. And if you’re afraid that your story isn’t interesting, then have some fucking courage and let the open market dictate that. Don’t fluff and inflate it with lies and then complain about getting caught before the anticipated dollars started rolling in.

Ms. Jones, like other authors before her, has claimed that her publisher wouldn’t accept the novel marketed as fiction. If that’s so, then why not remove herself (and the lies thereof) from the story entirely, and make it a work of non-fiction about gang life in L.A.? It certainly sounds as if she had enough personal experience, material, stories, and contacts from her volunteer work to do exactly that.

Love and Consequences got exactly what it deserved with the whoppers found therein. Anyone feeling sympathy for Ms. Jones needs their moral compass adjusted.

In Connecticut, an eighth grader has been suspended and stripped of his post as class Vice President because he was caught with a bag of (completely legal, yet still verboten) contraband: Skittles.

Mom leaves her daughter in locked car for a few minutes while no more than 10 yards away. Now she’s on trial for child endangerment.

Stats.org takes on the recent over-hyped fear-mongering about drugs in the water supply.

Typical politician’s math: spending $150 million ($75 million from King County and $75 million from the City of Seattle) on Key Arena renovations now could potentially generate $45 million in revenue over the next 10 years. What a bargain! (Will someone please, please sack up and tell the Sonics to take a hike already?)