Entry tags:
Super Committee
Originally posted by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
subluxate at Super Committee
subluxate at Super CommitteeAmericans--
The Super Committee, aka Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, is due to deliver its plan to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget over the next decade. This is due tomorrow, 11/23.
If it is not delivered, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion are triggered. These cuts are taken from both defense and non-defense programs. There is no veto; there is no vote; the twelve legislators on the Super Committee are the sole ones responsible for these cuts happening or not happening.
No matter your political affiliation, you should be aware of this.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of twelve legislators--twelve, out of five hundred and thirty-five--having such responsibility.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of a law that permits a committee of twelve legislators to write a law that simply gets a yes or no vote. No debate. No amendments. No filibusters. Yes or no.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of a law that permits a committee of twelve legislators to potentially implement new taxes.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of a law that permits twelve legislators to bypass the entire legislative process.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of a law that requires consensus or implements sweeping cuts in the midst of a major recession, cuts that will affect jobs and spending and public assistance in a time that those things would help the economy.
You should be questioning all this. You should be questioning every single lawmaker who is responsible for the Budget Control Act passed in August. You should be questioning their knowledge of the country's history. You should be questioning their knowledge of the Constitution.
This isn't a 99% issue. This isn't a class issue. This isn't a party issue. This is an issue of what's legal under the central legal document, the very legal foundation of the country. This is an issue of legal processes being entirely bypassed because our lawmakers did not take care of the debt ceiling last December, and had a pissing contest through August, and furthered the tanking of the world economy, and are responsible for great worsening of the United States economy. This is an issue of sheer competence.
Understand: blame is not on any one person. Blame is not on any one party. Blame is diffuse.
There is a lot of questioning to be done.
The Super Committee, aka Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, is due to deliver its plan to cut $1.5 trillion from the budget over the next decade. This is due tomorrow, 11/23.
If it is not delivered, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion are triggered. These cuts are taken from both defense and non-defense programs. There is no veto; there is no vote; the twelve legislators on the Super Committee are the sole ones responsible for these cuts happening or not happening.
No matter your political affiliation, you should be aware of this.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of twelve legislators--twelve, out of five hundred and thirty-five--having such responsibility.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of a law that permits a committee of twelve legislators to write a law that simply gets a yes or no vote. No debate. No amendments. No filibusters. Yes or no.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of a law that permits a committee of twelve legislators to potentially implement new taxes.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of a law that permits twelve legislators to bypass the entire legislative process.
You should be questioning the constitutionality of a law that requires consensus or implements sweeping cuts in the midst of a major recession, cuts that will affect jobs and spending and public assistance in a time that those things would help the economy.
You should be questioning all this. You should be questioning every single lawmaker who is responsible for the Budget Control Act passed in August. You should be questioning their knowledge of the country's history. You should be questioning their knowledge of the Constitution.
This isn't a 99% issue. This isn't a class issue. This isn't a party issue. This is an issue of what's legal under the central legal document, the very legal foundation of the country. This is an issue of legal processes being entirely bypassed because our lawmakers did not take care of the debt ceiling last December, and had a pissing contest through August, and furthered the tanking of the world economy, and are responsible for great worsening of the United States economy. This is an issue of sheer competence.
Understand: blame is not on any one person. Blame is not on any one party. Blame is diffuse.
There is a lot of questioning to be done.
Publication upon removal of Teh Gay
Via rydra_wong
Genreville: "The agent offered to sign us on the condition that we make the gay character straight, or else remove his viewpoint and all references to his sexual orientation."
Let me just repeat that:
The agent offered to sign us on the condition that we make the gay character straight, or else remove his viewpoint and all references to his sexual orientation.
(Alt!link to the post onrachelmanija's DW if you'd rather read and comment over here: "Sherwood Smith and I have a post up at Genreville, about how an agent offered to represent a YA novel we'd written on the condition that we make a gay character straight or remove him from the book.")
They've specifically asked for people to link this around as much as possible.
rydra_wongGenreville: "The agent offered to sign us on the condition that we make the gay character straight, or else remove his viewpoint and all references to his sexual orientation."
Let me just repeat that:
The agent offered to sign us on the condition that we make the gay character straight, or else remove his viewpoint and all references to his sexual orientation.
(Alt!link to the post on
rachelmanija's DW if you'd rather read and comment over here: "Sherwood Smith and I have a post up at Genreville, about how an agent offered to represent a YA novel we'd written on the condition that we make a gay character straight or remove him from the book.")They've specifically asked for people to link this around as much as possible.
GameStop contest
Mama’s Holiday Wish List Meme
TodaysMama (link to: http://bit.ly/tmwishlist) and GameStop (link to: http://bit.ly/gamestop10) are giving away a sleighful of gifts this holiday season and to enter I’m sharing this meme with you.
1. What is your holiday wish for your family?
That everyone is happy and healthy.
2. What is your Christmas morning / Hanukkah Nightly tradition?
Swedish pancakes, watching A Charlie Brown Christmas, and playing with gifts
3. If you could ask Santa for one, completely decadent wish for yourself, what would it be?
To get everyone together in one place.
4. How do you make the holidays special without spending any money?
By spending as much time together as possible.
5. What games did you play with your family growing up?
Clue was a favorite.
6. What holiday tradition have you carried on from your own childhood?
Stockings for everyone, not just the children.
7. Where would you go for a Christmas/Hanukkah-away-from-home trip?
Essex, England, to visit my partner's family and friends.
8. Check out GameStop (link to: http://bit.ly/gamestop10) and tell us, what are the three top items on your GameStop Wish List this year? Xbox 360 250GB Holiday Points Card Bundle , Dead Space 2, Dragon Age
Entry tags:
John Kovalic on racism in RPGs
Dork Tower is a webcomic about gaming. John Kovalic posted these two strips about the absence of characters of color in miniatures gaming (which is, or has been true of other types of games as well). I saw the strips, but hadn't posted until I saw
major_clanger's post detailing that Kovalic's comic strips had gotten feedback from fans--most, but not all of it positive. Kovalic's response, however, is good.2010 August 27 | Dork Tower
2010 August 30 | Dork Tower
John Kovalic's response to fans (http://muskrat-john.livejournal.com/270105.html)
![[info]](https://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Entry tags:
three more Hannelore icons
Tonight's QC had a panel of Hannelore that provided two good icons. So I made those two, plus another from a strip I had saved.
Hanners: OMG
Hanners: OCD
Hanners: clone
You may snaffle with credit.
Hanners: OMG Hanners: OCD Hanners: cloneYou may snaffle with credit.
Gakked whole from winneganfake
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to share my most recent project with you:
( Cut to spare your Fpage, but well worth the click )
( Cut to spare your Fpage, but well worth the click )
whoaaa
We saw the funniest thing at the DVD store a little while ago.
It was called "Praise Moves." There was a woman in a yoga-type pose on the cover. I stepped closer and saw that the subtitle was "A Christian Alternative to Yoga."
I poked Jess and said, "Look, yoga without all of those nasty eastern influences."
I hadn't read the back of the box...which marketed Praise Moves as "Yoga without the Eastern influences."
Of course, it stopped being funny when I thought about it for a while and got home and read their website.
It was called "Praise Moves." There was a woman in a yoga-type pose on the cover. I stepped closer and saw that the subtitle was "A Christian Alternative to Yoga."
I poked Jess and said, "Look, yoga without all of those nasty eastern influences."
I hadn't read the back of the box...which marketed Praise Moves as "Yoga without the Eastern influences."
Of course, it stopped being funny when I thought about it for a while and got home and read their website.
Entry tags:
I got yer plural right here
I read a couple of days ago that the only acceptable English plural of "octopus" is "octopuses," and that "octopi" is incorrect and "octopodes" misguided. I believe I have found a solution: more than one octopus is an "octoposse."
Ask Nicola: trembling with rage
Ask Nicola: trembling with rage
U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan dismissed a lawsuit yesterday, essentially finding that the Jackson Memorial Hospital was within its rights to leave a dying woman alone while denying her present and immediate family to visit her, be updated on her condition, or even to provide the hospital with medically necessary information.
Bad research and fandom: Surveyfail
Taken from deadlychameleon
Bad research and fandom: Surveyfail
In regards to surveyfail: http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/SurveyFa
I called the Boston University IRB office. The direct approach works.
They've gotten a lot of emails regarding Dr. Ogas. He is no longer in any way affiliated with Boston University, except as a recent graduate. They have asked him to stop using his official Boston University email address in connection with this project, or his website. He is officially on his own, and this project is NOT IRB APPROVED.
That is the official status as stated by the Boston University IRB office.
The problem with this is threefold:
1. The researcher has no expertise in the area he is researching, nor has he recruited anyone to give him guidance.
2. The researcher has substantial profit motivation to produce work in this area (book contract with Penguin) which may lead to unethical conduct/a tendency to misrepresent his results.
3. The research is in no way overseen by any external body which can examine it for potential unethical conduct.
In addition to all of these, the researchers have now alienated their participant population, who are now very likely to become unreliable participants.
The only way to salvage the study at this point, I believe, would be for them to change it to an observational one.
ETA: if you want to share, please repost with attribution, that way people don't have to click through to get the information. If people need to contact me, they're certainly free to do so, but I'd like the discussion to spread out.
Also, all comments here are based on the information I had at the time of posting - if it turns out to be inaccurate, my deepest apologies. My statements regarding the problems with this research are based on my personal opinions, and should be taken as such.
ETA 2: I need to do other things for awhile, so I apologize if comments go unanswered. I should add that the IRB stated they contacted Dr. Ogas, and confirmed that this was indeed his project (they also gave him some basic methodological suggestions, despite the fact that he's no longer affiliated). They claim he's been very receptive to their suggestions. I say this just to confirm that YES THIS IS HIS PROJECT, and probably not a case of stolen identity.
ETA 3: Oh look who just f-locked his entries. Anyone with screencaps? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
ETA 4: Hopefully the last ETA I'm going to need to make.
I don't even know offhand where the line between unethical and illegal begins here, because they're so far past anything I'd ever do.
To start with:
1. Lack of proper anonymity/privacy protections for participants potentially admitting to illegal activity.
2. Lack of proper anonymity/privacy protections for participants potentially admitting to things that could negatively impact them at work and in their communities were they to become known.
3. Lack of any kind of age statement - this is methods 101 people, you always ask if a person is over 18, otherwise you need parental consent for any research study.
4. Lack of ANY kind of informed consent. No statement that you may withdraw from the research at any time. No statement saying what the research will be used for. No statement of risk vs. benefit. No statement regarding deception. No statement giving the affiliations of the researchers.
This is BAD RESEARCH, not to belabor the point. As one commenter pointed out, it's one thing when it's a survey about ice cream flavors. But the risk level here is fairly high. It's possible for someone to lose their job were this information to become public and identified with a given person.
deadlychameleon Bad research and fandom: Surveyfail
In regards to surveyfail: http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/SurveyFa
I called the Boston University IRB office. The direct approach works.
They've gotten a lot of emails regarding Dr. Ogas. He is no longer in any way affiliated with Boston University, except as a recent graduate. They have asked him to stop using his official Boston University email address in connection with this project, or his website. He is officially on his own, and this project is NOT IRB APPROVED.
That is the official status as stated by the Boston University IRB office.
The problem with this is threefold:
1. The researcher has no expertise in the area he is researching, nor has he recruited anyone to give him guidance.
2. The researcher has substantial profit motivation to produce work in this area (book contract with Penguin) which may lead to unethical conduct/a tendency to misrepresent his results.
3. The research is in no way overseen by any external body which can examine it for potential unethical conduct.
In addition to all of these, the researchers have now alienated their participant population, who are now very likely to become unreliable participants.
The only way to salvage the study at this point, I believe, would be for them to change it to an observational one.
ETA: if you want to share, please repost with attribution, that way people don't have to click through to get the information. If people need to contact me, they're certainly free to do so, but I'd like the discussion to spread out.
Also, all comments here are based on the information I had at the time of posting - if it turns out to be inaccurate, my deepest apologies. My statements regarding the problems with this research are based on my personal opinions, and should be taken as such.
ETA 2: I need to do other things for awhile, so I apologize if comments go unanswered. I should add that the IRB stated they contacted Dr. Ogas, and confirmed that this was indeed his project (they also gave him some basic methodological suggestions, despite the fact that he's no longer affiliated). They claim he's been very receptive to their suggestions. I say this just to confirm that YES THIS IS HIS PROJECT, and probably not a case of stolen identity.
ETA 3: Oh look who just f-locked his entries. Anyone with screencaps? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
ETA 4: Hopefully the last ETA I'm going to need to make.
I don't even know offhand where the line between unethical and illegal begins here, because they're so far past anything I'd ever do.
To start with:
1. Lack of proper anonymity/privacy protections for participants potentially admitting to illegal activity.
2. Lack of proper anonymity/privacy protections for participants potentially admitting to things that could negatively impact them at work and in their communities were they to become known.
3. Lack of any kind of age statement - this is methods 101 people, you always ask if a person is over 18, otherwise you need parental consent for any research study.
4. Lack of ANY kind of informed consent. No statement that you may withdraw from the research at any time. No statement saying what the research will be used for. No statement of risk vs. benefit. No statement regarding deception. No statement giving the affiliations of the researchers.
This is BAD RESEARCH, not to belabor the point. As one commenter pointed out, it's one thing when it's a survey about ice cream flavors. But the risk level here is fairly high. It's possible for someone to lose their job were this information to become public and identified with a given person.
Small Things - Presented by Intel
Small Things - Presented by Intel
Intel will donate 25¢ per click to support Kiva.org and Save the Children. Intel wants to rally millions of people. That 25¢ can become $300,000 in 2009.
Entry tags:
Final verdict on Pride and Prejudice and Zombies
It averaged $3.24 per funny line or idea.[1]
I do not recommend it unless you really can't think of a better way to spend $12.95 and several hours of valuable time. I've done it so you don't have to.
[1] Charlotte Lucas's fate, which was amusing, spanned multiple chapters.
I do not recommend it unless you really can't think of a better way to spend $12.95 and several hours of valuable time. I've done it so you don't have to.
[1] Charlotte Lucas's fate, which was amusing, spanned multiple chapters.
Tormented Artifacts
I have a friend who does good art. He's raising money for a new computer to continue producing it. If you like the images below, perhaps you'd like to click the button at the bottom of the post and donate a buck .
or this: 
And want to see more of it, or if you want to keep seeing Tormented Artifacts at different events and such, then hit this button:
Entry tags:
Change.org: What China Can Teach Writing Teachers
In Chinese literary criticism there are different methods of writing called "the method of watching a fire across the river" (detachment of style), "the method of dragonflies skimming across the water surface" (lightness of touch), "the method of painting a dragon and dotting its eyes" (bringing out the salient points). (p. 18)
.
Dreamwidth
Okay, look, I would really like an invite code, but I don't like asking for things.
If you have one going spare I would be happy to have it.
If you have one going spare I would be happy to have it.
Amazon: carrot and stick
I've written to them and I won't buy anything until it's fixed, but I don't really agree with the idea of swearing off forever, even if they fix it.
I want to reward good behavior as well as warn/boycott for the bad. Otherwise I think their incentive to fix it is less.
I don't know if behaviorism works at the corporate level, but usually a combination of positive and negative reinforcement works better than either alone. So if the idea is to get Amazon to change, I think both would be better than a forever boycott.
And I do think it's worthwhile to try to shape Amazon's behavior, even though I do buy some books elsewhere: in the past six months I've bought from Alibris, Powell's, and my local Barnes & Noble. Point is, they will still hold a large share of the market, and I think it's worthwhile to keep the LGBTQ titles there in the search results, looking normal and ubiquitous.
I want to reward good behavior as well as warn/boycott for the bad. Otherwise I think their incentive to fix it is less.
I don't know if behaviorism works at the corporate level, but usually a combination of positive and negative reinforcement works better than either alone. So if the idea is to get Amazon to change, I think both would be better than a forever boycott.
And I do think it's worthwhile to try to shape Amazon's behavior, even though I do buy some books elsewhere: in the past six months I've bought from Alibris, Powell's, and my local Barnes & Noble. Point is, they will still hold a large share of the market, and I think it's worthwhile to keep the LGBTQ titles there in the search results, looking normal and ubiquitous.