“[Fire’s] real beauty is that it destroys responsibility and consequences. A problem gets too burdensome, then into the furnace with it.” -Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

That quote hits home when you hear about a man who is burning books in Kansas City. He says it’s being done “in protest of what he sees as society’s diminishing support for the printed word.”

For $1 each, plus shipping, you can rescue a book from the flames.

He claims that he tried to donate the books, but no place would take them. The bonfires will be a monthly occurrence until all 20,000 books are either destroyed or rescued.

I’ll admit that I don’t read books as often anymore, which is a habit I really need to get back into as I’ve got a backlog piling up. But there is something horribly wrong about voluntarily burning books. It brings up thoughts of censorship and suppressing information, even though that’s not Wayne’s motive.

In today’s age, anyone can get a book printed. It’s cheap, and there are plenty of options available. Even big name books, like the Harry Potter series, Steven King, and The Da Vinci Code are plentiful and easily found cheaply. So much so that, with space limitations and the saturation of the market, many aren’t even worth the paper they are printed on.

But burning them? Even this PR stunt, which it so obviously is, makes me cringe. As much as I hate Coulter and her hate filled speech, I’d be hard pressed to burn her books. Freedom of speech means freedom for everyone, not just those you agree with.

Do something more valuable with the unwanted books. A library in your city doesn’t want them, fine. Contact somewhere that has a shortage. In the internet age, it would be easy to find someone in the world who would want them. How about a retirement home? Or a hospital? Or send over a crate of books to soldiers overseas or in VA hospitals? Granted he wouldn’t get the press and attention he’s getting from burning the books, but it would be much more satisfying than throwing a book onto a fire.

Technorati tags: books, book burning

There’s a movement that has spread through almost half the states in the nation. Women who have given birth to a dead infant, a stillbirth, are wanting a birth certificate in addition to the death certificate they usually only receive.

Having gone through pregnancy and delivered a baby not too long ago myself, I can empathize, but only imagine the heartache and pain it must be to go through 5 months or more of the pregnancy only to have the baby die inside me.

However, this line in the article says it all for me:

In heated Web discussions, some people cite the parents’ deep need for validation while others say birth certificates are legal documents, not memory trinkets or prizes for enduring birthing.

The medical definition of stillbirth says that it’s a baby past 20 – 24 week gestation (about 5 or 6 months…anything before that is a miscarriage) that is born dead, with no hope of resuscitation. She didn’t give birth to a live baby, so she isn’t entitled to a birth certificate. Now, if the document they provided these women was more of a “memory certificate”, and not a legal document, then I think that would be ok. But I think it would be too dangerous to set this as a precedent that even if it’s a dead fetus, it can get a birth certificate.

In my state, there was a “Missing Angels Act” passed and enacted back in 2004. It doesn’t issue a birth certificate though, but instead issues a Certificate of Stillbirth. (I still don’t like the name “angels” tied to this because of the religious connotations, but I won’t make a big deal out of it.)

I can empathize with her. I can’t imagine what I’d go through if baby grrl had died inside me, then I had to “give birth” to her, knowing she was dead. But a piece of paper is only symbolic. It’s not going to do anything to bring her back, or if she doesn’t get it, it doesn’t mean her dead baby was any less loved, wanted, or validated.

Technorati tags: stillbirth, abortion

Picture a display in the Smithsonian Institution. You’d think it would be full of scientific data and try to convey the truth without bias, right? I mean, it is one of the largest and most well known museums in the US. Not when it comes to climate change.

Smithsonian leaders, acting on their own, toned down last year’s exhibit “Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely”, trying to avoid upsetting Congress or the White House. They can’t piss off their funding, after all.

It was stressed that there was no interference by anyone in the White House or Congress, and that this was a decision made by Smithsonian administration. So now there doesn’t even need to be any threats to censor. It’s just the fear of upsetting people who have the money, or even just that they think they are supposed to censor to make certain people happy. I’d say that is actually worse than out right removing words or deliberately leaving out data. At least with that, you are clear what they don’t want you to know and can fight it.

I guess they were basing their decisions on the White House muzzling scientists researching global warming. It’s no secret this Administration isn’t a fan of scientific truth when it opposes fundamentalist Christian beliefs.

This is supposed to be a museum. A place where people go to learn science and about our history on this earth and universe. Not what people think you should learn, based on where their money comes from, or what their religion teaches them. I wonder what those in charge would do to a display on the science of evolution… I like what Professor Michael Mann said in the article: “Politically, they may be controversial, but scientifically they are not.”

UPDATE!!!!

Apparently the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming also heard about this and is investigating. From the letter to the Smithsonian:

I am deeply disturbed by allegations that the Smithsonian Institute would alter publicly presented scientific information in response to real or perceived pressure from the White House or Members of Congress to suppress evidence that human activity is contributing to global warming. The need to confront the challenge of global warming has been delayed significantly by a concerted effort to deny the scientific consensus regarding the dangers of climate change. It would be a tragedy if one of our nation’s most revered scientific institutions were somehow complicit in this activity.

Wow. Could we actually start seeing Congress look into more of this stuff? We can only hope.

I’ve really been slacking with writing lately. Not just my blog (very obviously, due to the infrequency of posts), but also with stories in general. I feel my creativity needs a jump start. That I need some motivation.

Bring in Script Frenzy. It’s the screenplay/stage play version of NaNoWriMo, where you write a 20,000 word script during the month of June.

I’m not terribly interested in writing a script per se, but it would let me break out and just do anything. Let my inner critic go away for a while and let the writing just flow. No self censoring, no thinking what I write is crap.

As an aside, this fits in with some advice Wil Wheaton gave about writing the other day:

1. Don’t be afraid to suck. It’s easier to fix something that’s broken than it is to create something from nothing.
2. Write your first draft “with the door closed.”
3. Don’t try to make everyone happy. If you try to make everyone happy, you end up with According To Jim. Write what you’re passionate about, and write to entertain, amuse, and satisfy yourself. To borrow a phrase from Joel Hodgeson, the creator of MST3K: don’t ask yourself, “Will anyone get this?” Instead, tell yourself, “The right people will get this.”
4. If you’re going to write, you have to read. If you’re going to write screenplays, you have to read, and you have to watch lots and lots of movies, both for entertainment and for education.

So, even though I don’t really have any clue about characters or a plot, or even much time to write, since I work full time and have a one year old, I may work a little with this challenge. If nothing else, it may give me some ideas about some stories I want to seriously pursue.

Technorati tags: writing, script frenzy

Last week, a news article quoted a study saying 40% of three month olds watch television. The image that immediately came into my mind was a baby in their diaper, remote in one hand, bottle in the other, zoned out in front of Spongebob Squarepants.

But you know what? I’m included in the 40%.

If we’re awake, the TV is on. It’s always been that way for me. Even if I’m not actively watching it, I’ll have something on for background noise, even if it’s one of the digital music channels. But here’s the thing. Even when we have on cartoons, (Which is likely in our house. Hey, we love cartoons!) Baby Grrl doesn’t really pay much attention. She has specific things that she likes, like the opening song to Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends, which she will literally come in from another room just to watch. But when the song is over and the show starts, she will go back to playing. For the most part, she will prefer to play with her toys or play with me and her dad, over watching TV. Even with Sesame Street she doesn’t watch more than a few minutes at a time. Mostly when she hears Elmo or another character she will look up, then turn back to what she was doing. My theory is that because it’s on all the time, and we keep her entertained with playing and reading with her, TV isn’t seen as anything special.

The one exception is before her bath time at night. We will put her in her swing/chair and put on a Baby Einstein video. They last no longer than 30 minutes, and she loves watching them. It gives us a chance to clean up from dinner, wash her cups and bottles from the day, and get small things done around the house. But even during this time, we will interact with her, saying things like “Look, there’s a cow! How does that cow go?”. The videos do a decent job with teaching some things, but they can’t be the sole source of her learning even basics like animal noises. (And no, I don’t think that just because she watches them she will turn into a genius, artist, musician, etc.)

I would hope that we don’t turn into one of the parents who Wil Wheaton recently talked about. As nice as it is to have those 30 min to get things done, I don’t want the TV to turn into the babysitter. I certainly don’t see that we’re using it like that right now, but it will probably come a time that we will need to ration her television watching. Or computer usage. Or video game playing. It’s hard enough to compete with hubby for XBox 360 time!

Technorati tags: parenting, television

I don’t want any sappy Hallmark cards, diamonds, or perfume today. (Although I won’t turn down Godiva chocolate…just kidding…) Instead, I want what Mom’s Rising is fighting for. From their site:

These are the core issues that are at the base of our grassroots movement and are taken directly from the book, The Motherhood Manifesto.

M - Maternity/Paternity Leave: Paid family leave for all parents after a new child comes into the family.

O - Open Flexible Work: Give parents the ability to structure their work hours and careers in a way that allows them to meet both business and family needs. This includes flexible work hours and locations, part-time work options, as well as the ability to move in and out of the labor force to raise young children without penalties.

T - TV We Choose and Other After-School Programs: Give families safe, educational opportunities for children after the school doors close for the day, including: Create a clear and independent universal television rating system for parents with technology that allows them to choose what is showing in their own homes; support quality educational programming for kids; increase access to, and funding, for after school programs.

H - Healthcare for All Kids: Provide quality, universal healthcare to all children.

E - Excellent Childcare: Quality, affordable childcare should be available to all parents who need it. Childcare providers should be paid at least a living wage and healthcare benefits.

R - Realistic and Fair Wages: Two full-time working parents should be able to earn enough to adequately care for their family. In addition, working mothers must receive equal pay for equal work.

I also want to spread the Mother’s Day Proclamation, one of the early calls to celebrate Mother’s Day, written by Julia Ward Howe in response to the carnage of the American Civil War. I want what she wanted also. Peace.

Arise, then, women of this day!
Arise, all women who have hearts,
Whether our baptism be of water or of tears!

Say firmly:
“We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies,
Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs.”

From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: “Disarm! Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.”
Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel.

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God.

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And at the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Technorati tags: Mothers Day, Moms Rising, peace

There have been some stories in the geek blogosphere about a string of numbers.

They were featured on a story in Digg, but it was deleted by them. Not once, but twice after it had been submitted again, and had over 15,000 Diggs.

Why, you ask? Why is a string of hexadecimal numbers so controversial they need to be banned? Well, the MPAA and movie studios are going nuts because that string of numbers is what to use to break the DCMA and decrypt most movies so you can watch HD-DVDs on any operating system. And apparently it’s copywrited.

Yes, a string of numbers are copywrited. That is just nuts.

Read more, from the guy whose story was yanked from Digg and another post on the person who was banned from Digg after he submitted it, and why this is important.

Digg’s response? Just following orders so we don’t get sued.

This post has been brought to you by the numbers:
09 -9 11 02 9- 74 -3 5- -8 41 56 -5 63 56 88 -0

And the letters:
– F- — – -D — E- -B D- — – C- — – — C-

(Yanked that from a response to the Digg story. Too good not to!)

UPDATE 5/2: Looks like Digg shot themselves in the foot. By trying to preempt a lawsuit, they caused a backlash of their users. Now almost every story on the front page has the numbers. Plus, check out this site. The embedded music sucks, but it shows just how determined geeks are when you try to censor them.

ONE MORE UPDATE: Digg has come around. Kevin Rose, founder of Digg, put out this announcement. Rock on, and yes, stick it to the man. And if you’re interested, read the details of how this all evolved over at Rudd-o.

Technorati tags: mafiaa, censorship, drm