Finding Inspiration

I needed some inspiration this evening. I found it here:



And here:



And here (and the guy directing is my brother-in-law Kevin Brower):

Bums Stuffed with Tweed

The Editors

I just got a rejection e-mail from a Utah literary mag to which I submitted a few poems. I'm fine with that. I've gotten my fair share of rejection notices over the years. That not everyone likes what I write is something I've know for a very long time.

But why do all the rejection notices have to sound, as Terry Pratchett wrote of editorial writers, as if the writers' bums were stuffed with Tweed?

Here's the rejection in its entirety:

Thank you for submitting your poems for publication in [redacted].

Unfortunately, your work doesn't quite match our current needs, but we wish you the best in future poetry endeavors.

Regards,

The Editors.

That always sets me to wondering: What are their current needs? Obviously, they don't want poetry that sucks. That eliminates, in my experience, an awful lot of poetry. Do their needs include hamster-cage shavings? No, because in order to do that, they'd have to print out my poems, which I submitted electronically. It would be easier to just use other sources of paper.

And "future poetry endeavors," which is, of course, code for "anything that doesn't involve future submissions to us." Ouch.

But then I realize, "Hey, this is the Internet age. The age when any hack writer can start his own hack literary magazine to show off his writing to everyone in the world who may be interested in it. Or not." So back in 2006, I started this blog.

{Climatoligist Facepalm}

First off, I have to confess: I'm not a scientist. I don't even have PhDs in psychology and parapsychology. The "kids" do not love me. And there is no way I'm being moved to better quarters on campus.

I do know this: If, as a scientist, a researcher, a journalist, a writer, a whatever noun you want to insert, if you falsify your data because you're not getting the result you expected or wanted, then, indeed, you are a poor scientist, Dr. Venkman. (Go to 3:36 for the "Poor Scientist" speech from Dean Yeager.)


I'm speaking here, of course, of reports that hacked files and e-mails from The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England reveal researchers, including some top=flight folks at the American National Aeronautics and Space Administration have colluded to falsify and cloud some climate data in order to support their theories ot anthropogenic climate change (or climate change caused by human activity).

Does this mean Global Warming, with the proper capital letters, is dead? No, I think reports of ACM's demise is premature, at least until, as Gen. Turgidson would remind us, all the facts are in.

If, indeed, the CRU folks have falsified their data and colluded across the Atlantic to do so, their research is at best questionable, at worst, completely worthless. I'm curious to know, however, how they hope to build or retain credibility in the scientific community if their research and methods are called into question. If they have indeed lied, which, it appears, they have, at least to some extent. I'll watch this unfold with much interest, to say the least. I just know that anything that even stinks of impropriety means that there's something rotten in the refrigerator.

Do we need legitimate research into mankind's effects on the environment? Absolutely. However, it's just as foolish to think that mankind's activities have no effects on the environment as it is to falsify data to make that appear to be the case. If these reports (here, (that's the one I recommend) here, (an even better one) and the leaked documents here (it's The Pirate Bay, so don't open this up on work computers and be prepared for safe-for-work but eye-bleach worthy photos of bimbos)) are true, then shame on those who falsified their data. That's not science. That's dishonesty. That's doing your science a disservice. That's telling the world that you are, frankly, a poor scientist.

What will also be interesting to watch is how the climate change true believers take this news. So far, as far as I can tell, there are a lot of folks saying, wow, these creeps ought to be jailed for what they did. And they're speaking of the hackers, not the scientists. Of course, what the hackers did was illegal. What the scientists are accused of doing is merely unethical. There seems to be a bit of denial out there -- this time on the part of the true believers. They may find crow tasty. They may not. It'll still be interesting to watch.

The International Association of "W" Lovers

Frankly, this is one of the reasons I decided to join Facebook, so I could start an International Association of "W" Lovers. After nearly a year on Facebook, I decided this was the morning to do it. Of course, this is also the morning to put up the outdoor Christmas lights, and I'm trying to put that off until it warms up a bit (it's 17 degrees F outside).

So if you're on Facebook, toddle over to the W page there. If you're not on Facebook, join up just to join the International Association of "W" Lovers.

Don't worry. Or despair. This is not a shadow group for the International Association of "Dubya" Lovers. You can pronounce "W" as "dubya" all you want, just don't bring up politics. Come, explain why you love the letter W, post videos and links (G-rated, please) about your favorite letter of the alphabet and enjoy the association of people just like you.

And share your most embarrassing W-related stories. Mine is this: I and another young fellow once belted out the "National Association of W Lovers" song in the parking lot of an Auchan supermarket in Blois, France. We got the attention of quite a few people, a few of whom said "Listen to the crazy Americans." That's the kind of world image we need to promote as a nation.

Be Careful What You Tweet

Be careful what you tweet. It could get you sued, or it could make you look stupid in front of millions.

Sure, 98 percent of what is tweeted is so banal that it doesn't get the attention of your followers, let alone anyone else. But Twitter has been in the news enough to make one think twice -- well, at least once -- about what one tweets just to make sure feet don't suddenly start flying into mouths all over the globe.

And journalists, be careful how you use Twitter. I can see it quickly becoming a lazy reporter's tool for monitoring various attitudes, certainly on les trends du jour, as in this story here.

I get concerned about lazy reporting because I was a lazy reporter. I look back on some of the stuff I produced and think, "Well, yeah, I phoned that one in." Tweeting one in isn't any better. Sure, it's easy to justify in a puff piece like the one I mention, but I have to ask myself -- is Twitter the kind of social platform a reporter can wander into, cull a few quotes and then leave without really doing any more work than cutting or pasting? I'm working on the assumption here, of course, that the reporters don't ask the twits if they can use their tweets in their stories. If reporters are asking, kudos to them. But I'm certain most are not asking at all. Folks on Twitter put stuff out to be heard, so what does it matter if someone in the mainstream media uses a tweet as a quote?

I fell into this trap often as a reporter, using quotes said in public that really weren't meant for public consumption. I pissed a few people off doing that. I learned quickly that for the sake of credibility, it's best to ask. Always ask. Asking almost always saves you from looking stupid, and can certainly help you recognize enough red flags to avoid being sued.

Then there's Courtney Love, who's being sued for libel because of something she tweeted. What's laughable in this situation is that there are experts out there parsing the legalities, saying that the law hasn't kept up with technology. This is what CNN is saying about the situation:

Legal experts say Internet-related cases are being watched closely because they confront new and unaddressed areas of American law.

For example, how should a libel case be handled when it comes to social media? How can society balance accountability with free speech? And if information -- from private thoughts to public datat -- is so readily available, how do we define what constitutes privacy?

Then CNN goes on to cite examples that have nothing to do with libel, accountability, and privacy, such as the passing on of digital property (Facebook profiles, passwords) when someone dies, to deciding what law apply if, for example, someone in England sues someone in Australia for libel. (Read the whole thing here.)

Libel is libel as far as I'm concerned, whether it's written on paper or tweeted into the ethers. If you put something on the web, you cannot argue it's private -- so the social media argument doesn't apply. And the defenses -- truth being the best, opinion being tenable but shaky -- ought to be as applicable to what's written in a newspaper as to what's typed on Twitter. Thankfully, there are folks out there who say the same thing; folks much more knowledgable about the law than I am.

This ties in nicely with the post I wrote yesterday. We sometimes forget in our rush to tell the world what we think about everything that, sometimes, the world really is listening.

Did I Really Write That?

One of my favorite Simpsons epidoses is a parody of Stephen King's The Shining, in which Marge, hoping to figure out if Homer is going to murder everyone in their sleep, decides that "what he's typed will be a window into his madness." I offer the YouTube clip here:

Occasionally, when I read this blog, especially the old entries -- and I have to call them old because, taking the Internet into consdieration, April 15, 2009 IS old -- and occasionally when I read my journal, which, since it stretches back to the year 1993, is ANCIENT per Internet standards, I get a peek into my own madness.

Cultural anthropologists ought to have a field day with the Internet in, say, 30 or 50 years if we don't suffer the same fate as GeoCities. Of course, I'm sure there's someone out there catalogging and archiving the terabushels of crap that the Intertubes produces, so maybe containment and storage of the beast will be one of the specials of the future. This is why I archive my stuff as PDFs every month or so, becuse for posterity to have to live without my Internet remblings would be a sad thing, indeed.

It's a wonder, this Internet thing. In a small way, it's allowing the common man to leave his mark on society in a way that, in the past, has been matched only by graffiti. Yes indeed, not since the days of the scribbling on the walls of Lascaux has the ordinary man been able to leave his mark on society and know for certain that it would be available for the Men of the Future to read, even if 1) The Men of the Future didn't really care to read what's written, 2) It was overwritten by other Men of the Past, or 3) It consists mainly of things like "Me too!" "LOL," or [Insert snotty and gramatically poor invective on religion, politics or the Great Pumpkin here].

Who, for example, is going to care about this (taken from a journal entry of 4 June 2009):

I am such a geek. Part of my onerous preparation for our trip to Oregon is making sure my blogs can handle my being on the road. Yes, you heard right, I’m worried about keeping things updated. That sounds so weird. The Cokesbury Party Blog I’ve got ready to run on autopilot while I’m gone, so I don’t have to bring the book with me. Mister Fweem’s Blog I’ll just update on the road. Whee. Nerd that I am. Because I can’t disappoint my audience. Which consists mostly of me and my brother-in-law Carl. So why do I do it? Because it’s the thrill of owning my own printing press without getting my fingers dirty.

Having read it again, I'm not sure I even care about it, and I wrote it. But it was so important at the time. And so nonsensical. But that pretty much sums up the Internet, right? Thing is, my brother-in-law isn't even reading this blog any more. He's got a teriffic excuse: He's given up blogging himself in order to write his doctoral thesis, which has something to do with Syriac languages. Don't ask me what, because I don't remember. But I might read it. Might be fun. Might be more interesting than reading what I've written.

Leave Sarah Alone

I don't admit to being a fan of Sarah Palin, but at least I don't take every opportunity given to slam the woman.

The mainstream media (and a plethora of idiots on the Interntubes) are ahving a field day with this woman. While I will concede she's not, in my opinion at least, presidential material, likely cost John McCain some votes in 2008 and is, for the lack of a better phrase, not the most mature person in the universe, I have to wonder if the constant attacks on her by the media and by many on the left are really, actually and truthfully warranted.

Sure, she's a lightweight. But the way she's treated in the media, you'd think she was a serious contender for any number of pending, future honors, inside or outside the hardcore group of Republicans who think she's the cat's pajamas.

What gets me most is the media double standard on Sarah Palin. Take Newsweek's treatment of her this week. The rag, if you haven't noticed, published on its front cover a photo of Palin to go along with their cover story on what a liability she is for the GOP. Now, because she's a Republican, Newsweek and the rest on the left can titter and laugh at this photo. If, however, the Weekly Standard or another conservative publication used a photo of, say, Michelle Obama that cast her in an unappealing light -- say it was sexist or a racist caricature, those ont he left would be screaming for blood. But because Sarah is their favorite punching bag at the moment, they can use a sexist photo and get away with it, because, well, you know those on the right are going to scream over whatever photo we use, right, so may as well use the funniest one. And thus the mainstream media continues its struggle to show that they produce fair and balanced reporting.

Now, if I believed Sarah Palin to be a lightweight, I'd treat her as such. By ignoring her. So she wrote a book. Or ghost-wrote a book. So what? Is it going to get her elected to any kind of office, or is it going to be one of those books that I'll find en masse at the dollar store in about six months? I think the latter. So of course the MSM and the left-leaning Intertubes have to pile on the attacks and vilification and sexist photos and everything else as if Palin were a Richard Nixon or a Henry Kissinger, which she most certainly is not.

Their treatment of Palin is obsessive and juvenile. Juvenile is even too kind a word; I should use childish. Yes, she's a public figure. Yes, she's thrusting herself into the limelight. But does that mean that her every breath, her every Facebook post, has to be parsed and discussed and filed in the "Right-wing loony" bin. You, the mainstream media and the left-leaning Intertubes, appear just as childish, obsessive and -- honestly -- stupid as those on the right to cling to Palin as a savior, believe Barack Obama was born in Kenya or believe fluoridation of water is going to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Grow up, folks. Leave Sarah alone.