 |
 |


 |
boingboing_net | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/c02Hf8qy8c0/organizations-sign-o.html French activist Jérémie Zimmerman sez,
A worldwide coalition of Non-Governmental Organizations, consumers unions and online service providers associations publish an open letter to the European institutions regarding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) currently under negotiation. They call on the European Parliament and the EU negotiators to oppose any provision into the multilateral agreement that would undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens in Europe and across the world.
By December 17th, 2009, European negotiators will submit their position regarding the proposal put forward by the U.S Trade Representative for the Internet chapter of the ACTA. It is now time for the European Union to firmly oppose the dangerous measures secretly being negotiated. They cover not only "three strikes" schemes, but also include Internet service providers liability that would result in Internet filtering, and dispositions undermining interoperability and usability of digitial music and films.
The first signatories of the open letter include: Consumers International (world federation of 220 consumer groups in 115 countries), EDRi (27 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation v(FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC (French trade association for web2.0 companies), and civil liberties organizations from all around Europe (9 Member States so far...). The letter is open for signature by other organizations.
ACTA: A Global Threat to Freedoms (Open Letter)
( Thanks, Jérémie!)

|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |






 |
super_blog | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://www.the-isb.com/?p=2844
Today at ComicsAlliance, Dr. Doom sends holiday wishes to his subjects:
With Doomsgiving behind us, It is once again the Holiday season! The tree has been decorated with the treasures of the pirate Blackbeard, the goblets are full of delicous Doomnog, and as we approach this year’s mandatory two-hour Christmas celebration (increased from last year’s 90 minutes, for is not Doom a generous ruler?), Doom would like to take a look back and share some of this year’s treasured memories with you, his adoring countrymen.
Fashion, robots, and stand-up comedy. Truly, there is something for everyone.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |


 |
elisem | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
I just added two necklace-crowns to the New Shinies post, but more importantly, I just added a lot of brass charm sets for anybody wanting to make stitch markers, and a few scrapbooking sets, and so forth. (They're at a special price, because they can only be bought with another item, or in one fell swoop of the entire category if you are really fierce about brass stampings.) Edited to add: and they didn't last long, those charms and other brass goodies. Somebody did come and buy them all in one fell swoop! (I've got more coming, though, and I have Interesting Plans, which are hinted at in the labels on the tiny bags in the "mine mine mine" photograph under the list of charms.)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |







 |
tropism_pratt | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://www.journalscape.com/tim/2009-12-10-15:04/ Our poor sick kid. I'm told he spent most of yesterday just sitting around, vaguely moaning, and occasionally breaking out in hives. When I got home from work I found a very sleepy little kid who was happy to sit next to me on the couch, sip water, and eat crackers. Given that he's normally a tiny dynamo of constant climbing tumbling energy, the mellowness was distressing. I gave him his bath and put him to bed and read him a story until he said "Done. Nap. Bye." And so I was dismissed. He slept through the night and seemed better this morning, with more energy, though still had a few hives, and maybe a bit of a fever. Poor little dude.
After he went to bed last night my wife made an awesome dinner -- arugula, sauteed mushrooms, and a white wine/brie sauce served over penne pasta. So very yum. We watched Gran Torino, which I liked a lot -- some high melodrama, a smart resolution, and it was funnier than I expected, though some of the acting seemed less-than-stellar. But Eastwood was great fun, embracing his inner old tough-as-nails curmudgeon. "Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have fucked with? That's me." Awesome.
Around 10:20 I realized I hadn't written anything in a few days, so I dragged myself to my computer with the plan to make myself write for an hour, or at least stare at the empty screen. Once I got going, I zipped along at a nice clip, and did about 2500 words in a bit under an hour -- faster than my usual cruising speed, even. Getting started was the only hard part; overcoming that couchbound inertia. I'm about 2/5 of the way through my work-for-hire novel. Should hit the halfway point or even more by Christmas. Fun fun.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
videogum | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Videogum/~3/QEHIzr5fEnQ/you_can_make_it_up_hanukkah_on_105271.html All of the guidos and guidettes gathered around the menorah. Well, no. All of the guidos and guidettes were upstairs in the bathroom, blowing out their hair, or tanning in the tanning beds that they owned. They weren't just going to fuckin', like, gather around some fuckin' candleabraah until they looked good, son! Jwoww picked out the perfect Hanukkah g-string to wear under her Hanukkah cut-offs. "Let's go, you sluts!" she yelled at the other guidettes. "Fuck you, you whore!" Angelina yelled back. Snacko didn't yell anything, she was puking her guts out. "Where's Ronnie?" The Situation asked. "He's doin' sick Reps, bro," Pauly said. "He drank like 10 Diet Red Bulls." "Well is there any Diet Red Bulls left?" The Situation asked. "Why don't we get off of Diet Red Bulls because I just did your mom from behind." They high-fived. Ronnie came in, shirtless. Because Ronnie doesn't own any shirts. He gave everyone a high five. Continue reading You Can Make It Up: Hanukkah On The Jersey Shore...
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |






 |
go_fug_yourself | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/celebuzz/RfKn/~3/AGdSL0uGW7E/esther_fugadas.html I'm sorry, I know this is supposed to be all alluring and nightie-esque, but I'm annoyed just THINKING about wearing it:  That train is a killer. Not in the sense that it's super hot, but in the sense that it will end up murdering someone when they trip on it and, say, fall down a flight of stairs or out a plate-glass window and into a pool, or into their jet's emergency exit door, tripping the lock and then getting sucked into the atmosphere. It's literally a killer. I mean, I don't think this train is a sociopath, or anything. It's not sentient. It's not PLOTTING these things. They just HAPPEN and it's that train's fault. Technically, I guess Esther Canadas's train is a manslaughterer. But that's still not appropriate for parties.


|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
sfwa
sfwa_admin | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Dear SFWA members,
SFWA President Russell Davis has posted the most recent iteration of the new draft bylaws for SFWA, the review of the membership. Please log in to to the Discussion Forums to give us your feedback.
If you would like to read the draft of the new bylaws, they are available here in .pdf format and may be shared with non-members.
At the same time the membership is reviewing this, we will be asking our legal counsel in both Colorado and an associated office in California, to review the document as well.
Members have until February 1, 2010, to review these bylaws, ask questions, make comments, bring up concerns, etc. On that date, the Board will resume discussions based on the feedback from members and counsel, and will move to draft a final set of bylaws which is the one that the members will be asked to vote on.
Please give us your comments at the Discussion Forums
Mirrored from SFWA | Comment at SFWA Tags: news, sfwa blog, sfwa business
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
boingboing_net | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/W0ONJ6oEGyI/rick-warren-does-the.html Rick Warren has officially come out against the proposed laws in Uganda that would make homosexuality a crime, punishable by death in some cases. In an open letter to the pastors of Uganda (with whom Warren has a great deal of influence from his missionary work) the American mega-pastor says,
As an American pastor, it is not my role to interfere with the politics of other nations, but it IS my role to speak out on moral issues ... the potential law is unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals, requiring the death penalty in some cases. If I am reading the proposed bill correctly, this law would also imprison anyone convicted of homosexual practice ... I urge you, the pastors of Uganda, to speak out against the proposed law.
Obviously, Warren holds (and reiterates in the letter) beliefs about sex and about queer men and women with which I thoroughly disagree. But I want to thank him for doing the right thing here, for putting his influence and power to use to save the lives of innocent people. Hopefully, Warren's letter will make a difference.
Rick Warren: Letter to the Pastors of Uganda

|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
lcrw | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://smallbeerpress.com/not-a-journal/2009/12/10/red-sox-radio-interfictions-2/ http://smallbeerpress.com/?p=6702 The Red Sox just visited Franciscan but I only saw them leave because I was doing something else—but they visited Ursula and Kelly. Pictures were taken, by them, not us! They’re so young! And, so big! Seemed very nice. Apparently signed baseballs and took pics and made some of the kids (and maybe one or two of the parents) v. happy.
We’re on the radio tomorrow morning, call in and you too can take part in one of the oldest traditions in radio: pay to play!
Thanks to everyone who bought books at the sale or full price! You are awesome. We’ll wait until the end of the year to add up the donation but it should be a couple of hundred dollars.
We’ve run out of Interfictions 2 at the office (awesome!) so those orders have to wait a few days until the 4 more cartons of it we ordered come in.
Magic for Beginners has been included in a Best of the Decade lists from Salon—yay!
Kirkus Reviews is closing. What?!
Publishing is all about the tees. (Not a sic.) Go, Eric!
Nice review of our favorite bibliomystery Hound at Gumshoe.
And that’s the week that was.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |


 |
go_fug_yourself | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/celebuzz/RfKn/~3/Jo0LTWLhbEA/fug_or_fab_posh121009.html Sometimes I wish they'd let Posh play the Wicked Witch of the West on Broadway.
Not because I think she's wicked, but because I feel like with her wardrobe of tight black dresses with trains and dramatic sleeves, she could ably sweep in and out of stone castle rooms or forest sets with chilling authority; plus, if anyone could make an army of monkeys sprout wings and learn to fly and shoot a crossbow, she is that person. Of course, they'd have to make some material changes to the story. For example, Posh's witch wouldn't melt under water; she'd have a breakdown because she retains it. She'd never wear green-face, because that's just messy. And she'd NEVER set out to avenge a sister who wore THOSE striped socks with THOSE ruby slippers.
None of which informs me, or you, of my opinion of this outfit. Maybe my problem with it is that my Christmas tree is up and PRESENTS PRESENTS PRESENTS FOR YOU AND FOR MEEEEEE and peace on Earth and yada yada yada, and this dress lacks sufficient festivity to match my mood. Then again, I just read that David's grandfather recently passed away, so maybe she's wearing black to honor the dead. Or perhaps she's getting coal in her stocking this year. It's certainly very dramatic, and it's nice that she got to use her BeDazzler, but... I'm undecided. It's not Trashy Posh, it's not So Bad It's Funny Posh, and it's not So Awesome That I'm Envious Of Posh. And I'm unfamiliar with living in the grey area between those regions. Help.


|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |







 |
go_fug_yourself | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/celebuzz/RfKn/~3/UKBEpJRjpAU/fug_or_fab_fergie121009.html [Photo: WENN.com]
FERGIE: Josh? Come on, Josh, you're not even trying.
JOSH DUHAMEL: What do you mean? I'm here, we're hugging...
FERGIE: ... and you look like I just dropped a piece of cheesecake down your pants. And when a dude's wife gets out the boobs and legs, he is supposed to look stoked, not stressed out about the dry-cleaning bill.
JOSH: Just because I love you doesn't mean I have to love your clothes
FERGIE: Oh? And what's wrong with this?
JOSH: It's like a pair of egg cups with a skirt and a harness
FERGIE; But I look slammin'! I'm glamorous! The flossy-flossy!
JOSH: What does that even mean?
FERGIE: What am I, a linguist? I don't know. I can't even spell "tasty." All I know is that I brought you here tonight so that people would see that we're a happy couple, and you are BORING.
JOSH: What more can I do?
FERGIE: Let me show you. Come over here, Least-Memorable Black-Eyed Pea Who I Always Forget Is In The Band:

FERGIE: See? Broken Sunglasses over here is both smiling and pointing at me, as if to say, "Check out this hot lady SHE IS MINE."
TABOO: Actually, my name is Taboo.
FERGIE: Oh, come on, you can tell me! Your secret is safe!
TABOO: No, I mean it's REALLY... never mind.
JOSH: Okay, well, thanks, Never Mind, for demonstrating your technique.
FERGIE: All I'm saying is, Josh, I don't care if you think I look foxy, or you think it's a formal harness to keep me ship-bound when I attend a cocktail party on the wing of the space shuttle while it's in orbit. WORSHIP.
JOSH: Sigh. Don't cheat, worship your wife... God, marriage has so many RULES.


|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |



 |
videogum | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Videogum/~3/ko4vpEkNNMA/glee_s01e13_finale_kit_dorkz_105151.html  [Gabe Liedman is a stand-up comedian, and one half of the Gabe and Jenny comedy team with Jenny Slate. But at the top of that resume it states that he is Videogum's Official Expert on this season of Glee.] So, the season finale of Glee, guys, right?! :( :( :(!!! Not because it was bad (WHICH IT WASN'T), just because it's over, for now, until April or some shit, so American Idol can have 3 consecutive nights of prime Fox-air in a row, every week, and shit can suck for a while. But, we're not talking about that right now. We're talking about Gleeeeeeeee, show of shows, finale of finales, Mercedes screaming Dreamgirls of Mercedes singing Dreamgirlses. All the little loose ends were tied up Gleely in tight little dork-bows, and they even set up some maybe-entertaining dork-plots for season 2. Kurt coulda used a line or two, and weirdly Puck kept his top on the whole time, and even though the soundtrack was a little Broadway-heavy for my Gaga-blood, I still managed to finish it, and even enjoy myself thoroughly. Continue reading Glee S01E13: Finale?! K.I.T. Dorkz!...
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
npr_monkeysee | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/12/whats_wrong_with_julie_powells.html?ft=1&f=93568166
by Linda Holmes
As you may recall, I offered what I called a "contrarian defense" of Julie & Julia -- one that I think applies equally to both the book and the movie. I thought it was a cool project, I thought she had something useful to say about teaching and learning and food, and I definitely thought -- and still think -- that because she got a book deal and a movie deal and made a lot of money, she was rung up for a lot of generic Blog Sins that have nothing to do with her and are not her fault. I wasn't bothered by her chatty style, I wasn't bothered by the fact that she swears (join the club), and I thoroughly enjoyed both the book and the movie, and found neither particularly presumptuous.
That said, I found her latest book, Cleaving, one of the most unpleasant reading experiences I've ever had. Not uncomfortable, not challenging, not in-your-face, not too real. Unpleasant to read, ultimately pretty boring except when it's irritating, and a book from which I took nothing away at all except perhaps a clarification of my own sense of what I do and don't want to read.
Three hundred pages I wish I hadn't read, after the jump. Here's what the book is about: just as Powell was finishing writing Julie & Julia (the book), she entered into an affair with an old boyfriend which lasted for about two years. It didn't take her husband very long to figure it out, and after it became clear that (1) she wasn't willing to stop, and (2) she nevertheless wanted to remain married, and (3) he wasn't willing to leave her (for reasons that are extremely difficult to understand), he also wound up involved with someone else.
So in this book, everything goes bad, and she heads off to apprentice in a butcher shop. There's supposed to be something very earthy and meaningful about meat-cutting, and the bloody brutality of it all is supposed to stand in for various emotional upheavals.
But mostly, the book is about how incredibly awesome her affair was. If you flip through the book and find a passage where she is talking about being happy, excited, turned on, passionate, moved, soulful, or something of that nature, you can be just about certain it is about the lover, not the husband. She wants you to know, in particular, how great the sex was, in highly specific detail.
When you write a memoir, it seems to me you have to ask this question: Why would anyone care?
Unlike those who threw accusations of solipsism at Julie Powell years ago, I understood perfectly why she thought people would care about the Julia Child project. That was really interesting to me -- the cooking, the differences in techniques, the struggles to procure ingredients people don't use anymore, the tenacity it takes to do something that daunting, the way you battle frustration.
But honestly, for me to want to read a 300-page book about someone else's personal life, she'd better have an interesting perspective on it. And perspective is what Cleaving doesn't have, perhaps because it seems to have been written with great haste (the timeline dictates as much, really) as it was happening, without the benefit of the kind of distance that a story like this requires. It's just tell, tell, tell. Tell about how much you liked being slapped around, tell about the racy texting, tell about how you literally stalked the guy, following him around trying to give him a gift after he broke it off, and mailing said gift to him after he made it clear he didn't want it.
With all the explicit stuff in the book (her account of having anonymous sex with a stranger seems to be getting the most attention), let me tell you where she lost me for good. She tells a story about being out in public with the guy, called "D" through most of the book, with whom she's having the affair. By this time, she was somewhat famous, and a fan came up to her on the street and gushed about loving her work. The fan looked at D, assuming he was the beloved husband she had written about extensively. And D smoothly took the fan's hand and said yes, he was her husband Eric. Here's how Powell tells it:
I almost laugh in dizzy relief, right in the woman's face. I must look completely dazed, with hectic eyes and a plastered-on smile. D's no wild-eyed rebel, doesn't race hot rods or start fistfights in bars or snort lines off strippers' asses ... (much ... that I know of). But he has a way of, with just a sly smile, a tiny lie, making me feel gleefully wild. I am trembling; I can't wait to get him home.
I can't really explain why, but her glee at watching D make a fool out of an adoring fan while also making a fool out of Eric was the moment I knew she wasn't getting me back. There's no perspective in the way the story is told, no sense that in retrospect, she understands that this was enormously disrespectful both to the woman she deceived and to the husband she's still married to now. Maybe she feels that, but it doesn't come through in the book. What comes through in the book is that this was pretty great, and really funny, and that this is the kind of wild, adventurous behavior -- lying, apparently -- that made D so irresistible. My sense was that, as in the rest of the book, she kind of knows she should feel bad, but she doesn't.
Can I speak to how she feels? Of course not. But I can tell you what the narrator of the book projects, and the answer is: not actual guilt so much as awareness and resentment of the fact that she's expected to feel guilt.
Don't get me wrong; it's not that you can't do regrettable or dishonest things and write about them in a good memoir. But for me to enjoy it, that takes reflection. It requires that you not appear to be bragging about the worst things you did and how exciting they were, while insisting that really, you feel terrible. In fact, you could write a memoir in which you explain why you do not feel bad about your affair, and if that seemed to be your authentic perspective, maybe that would be interesting. But when your internal struggles seem to be the ones you think you're supposed to be having more than ones you are actually having, then the book feels inauthentic and dull.
Here, the conflicts she says she has, or had, aren't consistent with anything she did, or is doing. She claims to feel terrible and embarrassed and to regret enormously everything she did that hurt her husband. The problem is that those claims ring false in light of the fact that ... you know, she wrote the book. It all becomes terribly meta, but when you read her statements about how her husband feels about having her write at length about her affair, she says things like this, in Slate:
Eric is naturally treading very carefully in the world right about now. We talked a lot about me writing this book, and I would never have published it without his blessing; couldn't have, legally, even if I were so callous as to choose to. Eric is a naturally reserved person in the best of times. He's also an extremely courageous and generous man. He's not exactly tripping through the daisies this week, but he is understanding enough to know what this book means to me, and what about it is important.
As she's describing it, that's not his blessing. That's grudging, pained agreement, which, frankly, she describes her husband doing quite a bit in the book as well. If you know your husband is a naturally reserved person, why would you even ask him whether it's okay for you to write in detail about your sex life without him? You already know it isn't; you're only asking if he will stand in your way. If you know he's a private person, why would you put him in the position of saying no to having his family and his friends read about how hot it was when the other guy bit you? You want, in a situation like this, to review the book and not talk about the person, but here, if Julie Powell the author contradicts Julie Powell the narrator, what's a person to do?
I have no idea, after reading Cleaving, what Powell thinks "is important about it," as she put it to Slate. She also told Slate on Monday that if you don't like this book, it says more about you than it does about the book. So be it, I suppose.
» E-Mail This » Add to Del.icio.us
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

|
 |