The United States of Hysteria

It's been entertaining to watch the Obama administration's reaction to the latest batch of Wikileaks material, predictable though it is. This irresponsible behavior will cost many lives! Wait, diplomats' lives? They aren't usually on the front lines of battle. But this lie, that the material Wikileaks has released has somehow led to the death of our accomplices and collaborators, plays so well in the corporate media that Obama and Clinton and others apparently decided to use it again.

As Daniel Ellsberg once said, "It is inexcusable to take what [government officials] say at face value. You are not talking to pathological liars, you are talking to professional liars who should be looked at as skeptically as used-car salesmen or Pfizer or Merck spokesmen" (Myra MacPherson, All governments lie: the life and times of rebel journalist I. F. Stone [Scribners, 2006], 456.) Wouldn't you think, though, that professional liars would do a better job of it?

Speaking of I. F. Stone, over at alicublog, Stone's granddaughter, who goes by the nom de Web of aimai, could only splutter in frustration in the comments to this post.

I am so large with not caring. Over at Balloon Juice all the usual left authoritarians are shrieking at the left anarchists that they are as bad as the righties and wikileaks is total nihilism. Meanwhile: all government's lie. Basically. As true now as when my g-father said it.

Sure, a dedicated Obama fan and Democratic loyalist doesn't care. I'm not convinced.

For a good summary of the huffing and puffing and bloooooow Wikileaks' house down that's been going on, see Glenn Greenwald's latest, which has links to several other articles, especially this FAIR blog post which shreds the New York Times' claim that the document show that North Korea had sold missiles to Iran that "could for the first time give Iran the capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow." It turns out that this allegation was made in a meeting between American and Russian officials, and it seems to rest entirely on the word of the Americans, with no other evidence. Who wouldn't believe American officials warning about the apocalyptic peril of Iranian aggression? The Russians, for one. Me, for another.

My friend the ambivalent Obama supporter wrote on Facebook that "if any of our intelligence assets ARE compromised someone should swing for this." I pointed out to him that so far, despite the government's claims, no one has been harmed by Wikileaks' activities. Is anyone going to swing for the vast bloodbath that the US has inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq? The US helicopter crew who murdered unarmed Iraqis in 2007, revealed by Wikileaks earlier this year, not only didn't swing, they were exonerated by a military inquiry. Obama has ruled out any accountability for the Bush administration gangsters who tortured and murdered in violation of American and international law. But Wikileaks, who haven't killed anyone, they should swing.

The United States of Hysteria

It's been entertaining to watch the Obama administration's reaction to the latest batch of Wikileaks material, predictable though it is. This irresponsible behavior will cost many lives! Wait, diplomats' lives? They aren't usually on the front lines of battle. But this lie, that the material Wikileaks has released has somehow led to the death of our accomplices and collaborators, plays so well in the corporate media that Obama and Clinton and others apparently decided to use it again.

As Daniel Ellsberg once said, "It is inexcusable to take what [government officials] say at face value. You are not talking to pathological liars, you are talking to professional liars who should be looked at as skeptically as used-car salesmen or Pfizer or Merck spokesmen" (Myra MacPherson, All governments lie: the life and times of rebel journalist I. F. Stone [Scribners, 2006], 456.) Wouldn't you think, though, that professional liars would do a better job of it?

Speaking of I. F. Stone, over at alicublog, Stone's granddaughter, who goes by the nom de Web of aimai, could only splutter in frustration in the comments to this post.

I am so large with not caring. Over at Balloon Juice all the usual left authoritarians are shrieking at the left anarchists that they are as bad as the righties and wikileaks is total nihilism. Meanwhile: all government's lie. Basically. As true now as when my g-father said it.

Sure, a dedicated Obama fan and Democratic loyalist doesn't care. I'm not convinced.

For a good summary of the huffing and puffing and bloooooow Wikileaks' house down that's been going on, see Glenn Greenwald's latest, which has links to several other articles, especially this FAIR blog post which shreds the New York Times' claim that the document show that North Korea had sold missiles to Iran that "could for the first time give Iran the capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow." It turns out that this allegation was made in a meeting between American and Russian officials, and it seems to rest entirely on the word of the Americans, with no other evidence. Who wouldn't believe American officials warning about the apocalyptic peril of Iranian aggression? The Russians, for one. Me, for another.

My friend the ambivalent Obama supporter wrote on Facebook that "if any of our intelligence assets ARE compromised someone should swing for this." I pointed out to him that so far, despite the government's claims, no one has been harmed by Wikileaks' activities. Is anyone going to swing for the vast bloodbath that the US has inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq? The US helicopter crew who murdered unarmed Iraqis in 2007, revealed by Wikileaks earlier this year, not only didn't swing, they were exonerated by a military inquiry. Obama has ruled out any accountability for the Bush administration gangsters who tortured and murdered in violation of American and international law. But Wikileaks, who haven't killed anyone, they should swing.

GOLD023: PENGUIN PRISON

2010 has been a big year for Neon Gold replete with releases were extremely proud of, so it's fitting we bring the year to a close with the third single from an artist who has quickly become one of our flagship acts, the inimitable Penguin Prison. "Golden Train" was the first song we ever heard from the Penguin and remains one of his most essential tracks to date, coming off like Justin Timberlake fronting a DFA track, all heaven-sent vocals and Penguin's signature churning synths. It's absolutely massive, and the track we've been waiting to unleash on the world since first crossing paths with him nearly 18 months ago. A unique beast, it opens with a sparse vocal and synth arrangement and builds slowly throughout, evolving steadily as more and more layers are added to the mix until the song reaches a triumphant climax of spiraling synths and Penguin's falsetto'd vox by its conclusion. One of our absolute favorite tracks of the year, it's just another reason Penguin's forthcoming debut album should sit high atop your most anticipated albums of 2011 list.



You can stream the original above or get at the exclusive B-side remix from Pink Stallone - who you may remember from their killer remix of Marina & The Diamonds' "Obsessions" on Neon Gold way back when - for free download below. The whole package is out December 14th with preorder available now from the Neon Gold Shop and Puregroove, complete with artwork from the amazing FRAUGRAU and limited to only 300 copies worldwide. Our first two singles from Penguin Prison - 2009's Animal Animal/Funny Thing 7" and 2010's The Worse It Gets/Something I'm Not 7" - both sold out with the swiftness, so make sure you move fast on this. Song's like this don't happen all the time.

MP3: "Golden Train" (Pink Stallone Remix) - Penguin Prison

Finally Made Youtube Partner...well with my Second Channel

It only took 2 fucking years, but I finally made Youtube Partner. Well, not for my primary GayComicGeek Channel, but I did for my secondary GayGeekyVlogs channel. Who'd a thunk? I barely pay attention to that channel to begin with. It would have made more sense for my primary GayComicGeek channel to be made partner. Oh well, I'll definitely be posting a lot more vids on it now. Can anyone use Photoshop and make me a Banner? Or a couple Banners? Please!!!

http://www.youtube.com/gaygeekyvlogs

Finally Made Youtube Partner...well with my Second Channel

It only took 2 fucking years, but I finally made Youtube Partner. Well, not for my primary GayComicGeek Channel, but I did for my secondary GayGeekyVlogs channel. Who'd a thunk? I barely pay attention to that channel to begin with. It would have made more sense for my primary GayComicGeek channel to be made partner. Oh well, I'll definitely be posting a lot more vids on it now. Can anyone use Photoshop and make me a Banner? Or a couple Banners? Please!!!

http://www.youtube.com/gaygeekyvlogs

"Member-designated" benefits may expand to meet the needs of openly gay servicemembers (and others!)

The long-awaited Defense Department report on issues associated with repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) is now out. One of its tasks was to address the impact of repeal on various benefits available to servicemembers.

The report takes great pains to explain the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which requires federal law to recognize as married only different-sex couples. (A footnote in the report does reference a recent federal trial court ruling finding that portion of DOMA unconstitutional). As a result of DOMA, the report says, the spouse of a gay servicemember cannot be entitled to any of the many benefits available to heterosexual spouses.

But the report goes on to catalogue certain benefits that are, in its words, "member-designated." These include naming a life insurance beneficiary, a person to be notified if the servicemember is missing, and a person entitled to hospital visitation. Repeal of DADT, the report notes, would allow a gay servicemember to designate a partner without having to hide the true nature of his or her relationship with the person named.

The report then recommends review of other benefits to determine whether they should be added to this "member-designated" group. The most important of these might be military housing, but the report takes that off the table. "Military family housing is a limited resource and complicated to administer," the report states, "and a system of member designation would
create occasions for abuse and unfairness." The report also recommends against creating a category of "same-sex partner" within the definition of "dependent" for purposes of eligibility to live in military housing. The report's rationale is worth quoting in full:

We are convinced that, to create an environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can win quick and easy acceptance within the military community, repeal must be understood as an effort to achieve equal treatment for all. If, simultaneous with repeal, the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department of Defense itself would be creating a new inequity—between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples. This new inequity, or the perception of it, runs counter to the military ethic of fair and equal treatment, and resentment at perceived inequities runs deep in military families.

This analysis will likely irk many gay rights supporters, who are content to champion same-sex only domestic partner benefits on the theory that different-sex couples can marry. I have never liked that way of thinking. The military should not be in the business of telling its members how to define their family for purposes of determining who they live with, and committed partners should not have to marry to live together. (Think about the heat that the town of Black Jack, Missouri took a few years ago when it announced that a straight couple with three children, one of whom was the woman's child from a previous relationship, could not legally occupy the home they bought because they were not married.) I believe the analysis in this report lays the groundwork to uncouple housing benefits from marriage altogether, albeit down the road. I acknowledge that in the short run same-sex couples will be burdened by lack of access to military housing, but if it spurs them to seek common cause with unmarried different sex couples, there will be a vast upside.

With housing off the table, the report suggests that the benefits that could become "member-designated" include access to free legal services and access to services provided by the DOD family centers, such as relocation and crisis assistance. Here's how the report defends its "member-designated" approach:

There is an element of fairness and equality to this approach, and it provides Service members with greater discretion to decide who in their life has access to benefits and support services. Both homosexual and heterosexual Service members could avail themselves of this type of expanded member-designated eligibility, and the Department of Defense would be enhancing the vital role of a Service member’s “supporters”—people in a Service member’s life who may not be his or her spouse, but may be a long-time partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, parent, or friend. Obviously, this approach requires some limit on the number of people the member could designate, and it should be constrained by other policy, fiscal, and practical considerations.

The report supports this "member-designated" approach and explicitly rejects making "same-sex partners" a category eligible for other benefits, such as commissary shopping privileges and space-available travel. Benefits make up a larger part of military life than civilian life, the report notes, and, as with the housing benefit, a "same-sex partner" category would create a new inequity, this one between unmarried, committed straight and gay couples.

The report acknowledges that on the civilian side, the government has come up with specific criteria to judge a "committed relationship," but it is recoils from giving the military such a task. "Within the military community, where benefits are much more prominent and
visible than in civilian life," the report notes, "administering such a system distracts from the military’s core mission and runs counter to the Secretary of Defense’s basic direction that implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be done in a way that minimizes disruption to the force." For the record, I think this assertion is so much hogwash.

But member-designation is consistent with the "valuing all families" methodology in my book, and a move in that direction in the military might resonate down the road in civilian life.

Gold In Cataclysm- Part II - AH- The 1%ers

Ok, ok. I know that most of you are selling anything and everything in your bags before Cata hits this next week. STOP NOW! Why you ask? If nothing for the main reason that 75% of regular players are going to be leveling to 85 on their main (hitting the AH for new gear/blues/epic drops *all CATA), then onto their alts to do the same. 15% will instantly reroll a goblin or a worg (buying gear for toon/mats for powerleveling- vanilla items), 9% are going to farm like mad, selling anything and everything on the AH for mass profit.

But Alto, that only adds up to 99%? What's up with the other 1%? Well, in my eyes, they will be AH camping. I will be one of the 1% (ok, I have multiple accounts, and one will be just chilling at the AH, while I am part of the other 9%).

Step I- Auctioneer and or Auctionator:
Either or will work, I personally use both, and click and unclick on the character screen before logging into the toon I am going to use. Auctioneer will be the main that I will use for purchasing items. Mainly due to the option to show three times the amount of auctions per page (smaller text), the percentage of "normal" sales (derived from your previous scans- this won't help much for the first few days though), and the tooltips when you mouse over items.

Step II- Inspecting Goods
This is a learning process. Since there will be an influx of new material coming into the AH, I reccommend you keep tabs on your server. If you are reading this, you probably have a good amount of information about your servers salepoints (if not, The Undermine Journal will have a ton of information on sales specific to your server, thanks to the author of Undermine!) As usual, any new mat will sell tremendously (at least until your server hits a threshold for prices). The main thing is that the prices of items will always be undercut, the prices will go from 50g to 1K gold within a matter of hours (name anything here...haha) and then back to 50g again. So know your AH, and money will flow to you.

Step III- BUY, BUY, BUY
Anything item/gear that is double vendor price or less (preferably less). These will mostly be greens. Any blues listed at 300-500g or below will be bought by me, and supply and demand will double any purchase I make. Any new epics? Yeah, I will easily pay 5K for (with weapons easily 10K). Now you might think this is crazy, but alot of people have saved up a ton (yeah, I am on that list) for this xpac, and will pay enormous prices for new gear (if not for anything else other than bragging rights...) And finially materials (eng, leather, herbs, ores, etc.) will be insane as well. I forsee the first stacks of ore and herbs easily hitting 100g (which will be my snatch point) and selling for double that consistantly.

Step IV- SELL, SELL, SELL
As soon as you snatch up any new items, SELL! If this is what you are doing, and your goal is to get mega cash from it, name your price. Greens will be easily hitting 100g each, blues anywhere from 500g to 2K, and epics easily surpassing the 10-20K mark. Herbs and Ores (as in Step III) will be easily hitting 5-20g each. 100 to 500ish gold per stack. And before you think "alto is nuts, this wont happen", yeah, quote me, it will.

Step V- Mail
Ok, so you will need an addon such as Mailbox, Titan, Fubar, or basically any of them that can open and close mass mail at once. This will be your do or die, as every minute will count for us 1%ers (just made me think of the Outlaws *bikers, for the layman). Now alls you gots to do is enjoy it....for hours on end....and watch your gold hit the cap in no time!

South Africa to benefit from new hotels

Two new major hotels are planned for South Africa in response to strong demand.


The Rezidor Hotel Group has confirmed that it will open new developments one in Cape Town and one in the country's Kruger National Park.

It is expected that the Radisson Blu Safari Resort Kruger Park will be open for business in 2013 and will be in the southern area of the Kruger National Park and close to the Crocodile River.

"This hotel will be the first internationally branded hotel within Kruger, and will clearly strengthen the Radisson Blu brand in South Africa", explained Rezidor's president and chief executive officer Kurt Ritter.

He added that the Park Inn Cape Town Foreshore will be fully operational by the end of 2011 and it could be ideal for those taking flights to South Africa as it is located in the centre of the Cape Town's popular business district.

Last month, Rezidor announced plans to open the Radisson Blu Hotel in Dubai Downtown in May 2011.

Gold in Cataclysm- Part I

Ok, so here's the start of new content that I will be doing. I am a Type A personality, so I need control, and to have things in order, or planned, and I will be sharing with you my plans on rolling into Cata.

So I would advise you to click on follow for this blog, add me to favorites on your browser, whatever you need to do to remind you to check here before logging into WoW, as I update information frequently, and if you don't jump on them, other people will on your server and you lost out. Day late and a dollar short? You don't want to be that person...Just sayin, you know what I am sayin?



One of my goldmakers in the past was farming vanilla recipies. Now, come Cata, there is a new way to pull that off. We welcome you, Mr. Burned Recipe Fragment. I imagine at the start next week, the AH will be streaming with all the new content, and Burned Recipe Fragments will be one of the hottest of the bunch, as scribes are needing 5 of each to make any of these.

There is a new item that ALL Scribes will need, and it happens to be a "random" drop (as of right now, it is not BoP, so that is good news..if this drop is only attainable by scribes, and still sellable, then we are in BUSINESS!). You will want to add this to your snatch list, I will be placing a 50g snatch on this myself per fragment, as I believe these will be hitting the multiple hundred (if not the crazy few of 1K or more) mark within the first day of Cata.

This will be needed for:

"Cataclysm Reclamation: Blacksmithing",
"Cataclysm Reclamation: Jewelcrafting",
"Cataclysm Reclamation: Leatherworking",
"Cataclysm Reclamation: Tailoring".

This will be a HUGE moneymaker for scribes, as I imagine that they will be producing at the least rare recipies, if not the random epic. That in turn will be entered into the AH, I will update after Cata hits with profits. =)

VANILLA CHESTS ARE BACK, BABY! Sturdy Treasure Chests- Rare BOE's!

Well, another find while running around checking out the new content (yeah, I know I am a bit late, but hey, better late than never!)I ended up in the famed Eastern Plaguelands (The Fungal Vale, 36.4, 49.1) and what do I see? A WORLD CHEST?!



Rogues rejoice! We are once again needed! *then I get to it and realize that anyone can open it, as it isn't locked. Who in their right mind would leave a "blue" in an unlocked chest? You got me, but it's there. And I am sure there are a ton more all over since the shattering....



Now to start searching the world, where there is one, there is bound to be a few more....if you see them, don't hide, toss up a comment if you find more out there!

The Book Snob's Big 100

If you're on Facebook, you've probably seen this list. A number of my friends have 'done' it. One of them complained about strange repetitions, such as Shakespeare's Complete Works (14) and Hamlet (98). That and the way it was written reminded me of netlore and the popular "99 out of 100 people won't have the guts to put this in their status - will you" that turns up on Facebook so often, so I did a little search and found 1) it doesn't come from the BBC; and b) it probably comes from the Guardian, though their list says nothing about most people only having read 6 of the books. Still, I'm a book snob myself, so I did the list too:

Have you read more than 6 of these books? The BBC believes most people will have read only 6 of the 100 books listed here. Instructions: Copy this into your NOTES. Bold those books you've read in their entirety, italicize the ones you started but didn't finish or read an excerpt. Tag other book nerds. Tag me as well so I can see your responses!

1. Pride and Prejudice- Jane Austen

2. The Lord of the Rings- J.R.R. Tolkein

3. Jane Eyre- Charlotte Bronte

4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling

5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

6 The Bible

7. Wuthering Heights- Emily Bronte

8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell

9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

10. Great Expectations- Charles Dickens

11. Little Women- Louisa May Alcott

12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy

13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller

14 Complete Works of Shakespeare

15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier

16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien

17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk

18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger

19 The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger

20 Middlemarch - George Eliot

21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell

22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald

24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy

25. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy- Douglas Adams

27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll

30. The Wind in the Willows- Kenneth Grahame

31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy

32. David Copperfield- Charles Dickens

33. The Chronicles of Narnia- C.S. Lewis

34 Emma -Jane Austen

35 Persuasion - Jane Austen

36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis

37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini

38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres

39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden

40. Winnie the Pooh- A.A. Milne

41. Animal Farm- George Orwell

42 The Da Vinci Code- Dan Brown

43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

44 A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving

45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins

46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery

47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy

48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood

49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding

50 Atonement - Ian McEwan

51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel

52. Dune- Frank Herbert

53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons

54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen

55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth

56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon

60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck

62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov

63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt

64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold

65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas

66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac

67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy

68. Bridget Jones' Diary - Helen Fielding

69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie

70. Moby Dick- Herman Melville

71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens

72. Dracula- Bram Stoker

73. The Secret Garden- Frances Hodgson Burnett

74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson

75. Ulysses- James Joyce

76. The Inferno- Dante

77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome

78 Germinal - Emile Zola

79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray

80 Possession - AS Byatt

81. A Christmas Carol- Charles Dickens

82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell

83. The Color Purple- Alice Walker

84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro

85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert

86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry

87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White

88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom

89. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton

91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad

92. The Little Prince- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks

94. Watership Down- Richard Adams

95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute

97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas

98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare

99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl

100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

(54 read, 3 begun but not finished)

The Book Snob's Big 100

If you're on Facebook, you've probably seen this list. A number of my friends have 'done' it. One of them complained about strange repetitions, such as Shakespeare's Complete Works (14) and Hamlet (98). That and the way it was written reminded me of netlore and the popular "99 out of 100 people won't have the guts to put this in their status - will you" that turns up on Facebook so often, so I did a little search and found 1) it doesn't come from the BBC; and b) it probably comes from the Guardian, though their list says nothing about most people only having read 6 of the books. Still, I'm a book snob myself, so I did the list too:

Have you read more than 6 of these books? The BBC believes most people will have read only 6 of the 100 books listed here. Instructions: Copy this into your NOTES. Bold those books you've read in their entirety, italicize the ones you started but didn't finish or read an excerpt. Tag other book nerds. Tag me as well so I can see your responses!

1. Pride and Prejudice- Jane Austen

2. The Lord of the Rings- J.R.R. Tolkein

3. Jane Eyre- Charlotte Bronte

4 Harry Potter series - JK Rowling

5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

6 The Bible

7. Wuthering Heights- Emily Bronte

8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell

9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman

10. Great Expectations- Charles Dickens

11. Little Women- Louisa May Alcott

12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy

13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller

14 Complete Works of Shakespeare

15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier

16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien

17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk

18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger

19 The Time Traveler's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger

20 Middlemarch - George Eliot

21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell

22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald

24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy

25. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy- Douglas Adams

27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll

30. The Wind in the Willows- Kenneth Grahame

31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy

32. David Copperfield- Charles Dickens

33. The Chronicles of Narnia- C.S. Lewis

34 Emma -Jane Austen

35 Persuasion - Jane Austen

36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis

37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini

38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres

39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden

40. Winnie the Pooh- A.A. Milne

41. Animal Farm- George Orwell

42 The Da Vinci Code- Dan Brown

43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

44 A Prayer for Owen Meany - John Irving

45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins

46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery

47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy

48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood

49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding

50 Atonement - Ian McEwan

51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel

52. Dune- Frank Herbert

53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons

54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen

55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth

56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley

59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon

60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck

62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov

63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt

64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold

65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas

66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac

67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy

68. Bridget Jones' Diary - Helen Fielding

69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie

70. Moby Dick- Herman Melville

71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens

72. Dracula- Bram Stoker

73. The Secret Garden- Frances Hodgson Burnett

74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson

75. Ulysses- James Joyce

76. The Inferno- Dante

77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome

78 Germinal - Emile Zola

79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray

80 Possession - AS Byatt

81. A Christmas Carol- Charles Dickens

82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell

83. The Color Purple- Alice Walker

84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro

85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert

86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry

87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White

88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom

89. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton

91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad

92. The Little Prince- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks

94. Watership Down- Richard Adams

95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole

96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute

97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas

98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare

99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl

100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

(54 read, 3 begun but not finished)

UPDATE- HOTFIXED- Cata content in 4.0.3 - Pristine Hides

To start off, I am back from a long hiatus from WoW. I had alot of "real life" stuff going on, so my WoW took a back seat for a bit. Now that I am back, the Shattering has occurred, and just like back when WoLTK hit, I decided to log on some little used toons to level up a bit....and I ended up here:



So without too much delay, let me get to the point of this blog. Swimming with the sharks, killing the crabs (the meat sells great for leveling cooking, btw). A few Light leather, a few Medium leather, then I bagged several Savage (cata base leather)....it was then I got extremely interested.....Out of the blue (no pun intended....), I get a Pristine Hide....Cataclysms' "Arctic Fur". The thing that gets me is that this dropped off a level 22 shark. Hmmm. Can you say glitchy? (Yeah, SS or it didn't happen, so here you go):



I was worried about even posting this here, as this is not my usual type of money post, but decided I would. I would love to tell you not to do this, as the famed Blizz Ban-Hammer is always willing to hit, but I am sure you won't listen....

But for my safety, I deleted all the cata leather that I had (yes, even the hide), just in case....for a while though, it was fun just knowing that I was doing something behind their back, even if it wasn't on my rogue....

Conference to examine the "New Illegitimacy"

On March 25-26, 2011, I will be hosting a conference at American University Washington College of Law, co-sponsored by the National Center for Lesbian Rights and by our Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law. The conference is entitled: "The 'New Illegitimacy': Revisiting Why Parentage Should Not Depend on Marriage."

The impetus for this conference -- actually the last straw -- was the ruling from the New York Court of Appeals last spring that a nonbiological mother was not a child's parent based on her role in her child's life but based solely on the fact that she was in a civil union with the child's mother when the child was born. I blogged about the case at length here. Massachusetts also determines when a child born to a lesbian couple has two parents based on whether the couple is married.

I sent the following call for papers to numerous family law academics:

It is an axiom of family law: children should not suffer as a result of being born to unmarried parents. This bedrock principle developed in the second half of the 20th century to sweep away the disabilities that plagued “illegitimate” children – those born outside of marriage – for centuries. Beginning in 1968, the US Supreme Court held in a series of cases that marriage of a child’s parents could not be the factor determining which children were eligible for, among other things, wrongful death recovery, worker’s compensation death benefits, and financial support and care by both parents.

Today, however, that principle is under attack. In some states, children born to lesbian couples find that their status depends upon whether their parents are married (or in a civil union). Massachusetts, the first state to permit same-sex couples to marry, will recognize the spouse – male or female -- of a woman who conceives through donor insemination as a parent. If the couple is not married, however, the child has only one parent. New York also recognizes a nonbiological mother as a legal parent only if she is married to, or in a civil union/domestic partnership with, the child’s biological mother. In Iowa, the state has yet to recognize that married lesbians are both the parents of a child born to one of them, but even when it does there will be no recognition that a child whose mothers are unmarried has two parents. No court has yet extended to the children of same-sex couples the well-established principle that the law should not discriminate against children born outside marriage.

Moreover, it is distressing that some support for same-sex marriage relies on the denigration of “illegitimate” children. Advocates often argue that denying same-sex couples with children the right to marry deprives those children of what those advocates allege is the security and stability offered by “legitimacy.” Arguing that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry to prevent the “illegitimacy” of their children flips on its head the modern understanding that neither law nor society should penalize children of unmarried parents. It may also make it more difficult to advocate recognition of parent-child relationships outside of marriage, including those formed when more than two adults plan for and raise a child together.

These developments are taking place in the context of a broader dispute over family structure. Those who argue that children achieve optimal outcomes only when raised by their married biological parents urge legal principles disfavoring all other family forms. Explicitly or by implication, they disparage adoptive families, single mothers and fathers, families formed through assisted reproduction, kinship caregiving, children with more than two functional parents, and numerous other households in which children grow and thrive. Rather than advocate law reform that values all children in all families, they seek to privilege “legitimate” children in a fashion that mainstream family law rejected decades ago.

The American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law and the National Center for Lesbian Rights are co-sponsoring a conference addressing the issues raised by recent developments privileging the children of married parents. With some states now dividing the children of same-sex parents into those who are “legitimate” and those who are “illegitimate,” it is critical that law reform efforts on behalf of gay and lesbian families forcefully articulate that this approach harms children and furthers no proper public purpose. The conference planners seek papers on this conference theme.

While this debate arises from controversy over the status of children in the various family forms that lesbians, gay men, and transgender people are creating, we strongly encourage papers that tie in the needs of other children facing the stigma of “illegitimacy” because their family does not fit the mold of one biological mother married to one biological father.

Happily, I received far more interest in this topic than I imagined, and there will be a terrific line-up of law professors presenting papers. Confirmed participants include: Susan Appleton (Washington U.), Nicholas Bala (Queens University - Canada), Carlos Ball (Rutgers-Newark), Cynthia Bowman (Cornell), Sacha Coupet (Loyola-Chicago), Ariela Dubler (Columbia), Katherine Franke (Columbia), Joanna Grossman (Hofstra), Leslie Harris (Oregon), Melanie Jacobs (Michigan State), Solangel Maldonado (Seton Hall), Serena Mayeri (U. Penn), Melissa Murray (Berkeley), Julie Shapiro (Seattle), Catherine Smith (Denver), Dean Spade (Seattle), Richard Storrow (CUNY-Queens), and Tanya Washington (Georgia State).

If you are interested in this topic, please plan to attend the conference. There is no registration fee (we ask you to register so we know how many mouths we'll be feeding!).

Dubai airport sees traffic growth

Dubai International Airport handled more than four million passengers during October as it continues to see an increase in people taking flights to Dubai.

Traffic data show a total of 4,013,127 passengers passed through the airport last month - 14.8 per cent more than in October 2009 and is the second time in its history that more than four million travellers have been handled in one month.

Paul Griffiths, chief executive officer of Dubai Airports, said: "Over the past 50 years Dubai International has seen passenger numbers increase by an average 15.5 per cent annually.

"Before the end of the decade passenger numbers will approach 90 million making Dubai International the busiest airport in the world in terms of international passenger traffic."

Figures show the largest increase in passenger numbers was on flights to and from Western Europe and the Indian subcontinent.

Dubai International Airport has two departure terminals and offers e-check-in options to help reduce passenger waiting times.

Who Knows Where the Time Goes?

I have no idea why I got so little done the past several days, despite a four-day Thanksgiving break. As usual when a holiday approaches, I had grandiose plans for reading, writing, watching movies, and visiting friends. I did manage to visit friends, which is probably the best use I could have made of the time, but that's about all. I watched the pilot episode of Glee and decided it was worth watching. Oh, and shopping: the going wasn't tough, but I didn't let that stop the tough from going shopping. I spent way too much on DVDs and books. (One factor probably was the knowledge that I've written 300 posts already this year, and something in my brain said I could stop awreddy.)

Anyway, it's back to work tomorrow, and that will probably get me back into the groove. There are a lot of things I want to write, and they'll have to be written on the run instead of at leisure.

Who Knows Where the Time Goes?

I have no idea why I got so little done the past several days, despite a four-day Thanksgiving break. As usual when a holiday approaches, I had grandiose plans for reading, writing, watching movies, and visiting friends. I did manage to visit friends, which is probably the best use I could have made of the time, but that's about all. I watched the pilot episode of Glee and decided it was worth watching. Oh, and shopping: the going wasn't tough, but I didn't let that stop the tough from going shopping. I spent way too much on DVDs and books. (One factor probably was the knowledge that I've written 300 posts already this year, and something in my brain said I could stop awreddy.)

Anyway, it's back to work tomorrow, and that will probably get me back into the groove. There are a lot of things I want to write, and they'll have to be written on the run instead of at leisure.

The Spirit of the Season

Today I had some business to transact at my bank, which gave me occasion to deal with a teller. She was wearing a printed card above the nametag on her uniform shirt that said, "Happy Holidays." I thought about it while I was making the deposit, and made a decision: I told her that I appreciated the bank's decision to make it "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," since I knew there was pressure on some businesses to get rid of "Happy Holidays," and I wanted to let them know I approved of their choice. She looked a bit nonplussed -- probably no one had said anything about it to her before -- but thanked me.

Since I read this article about the pressure on retailers by some Christian groups, notably the American Family Association, to "recognize" Christmas, I've been pondering what ought to be done about it. I suppose one reason the pressure groups have had success, even if they may be exaggerating it, is that not many people really are anti-Christmas or want to "censor" Christmas. I don't object, or mind, when someone says "Merry Christmas" to me, whether they be stray individuals or employees in a business. As the Advertising Age reporter wrote,

This year's [National Retail Federation]/BigResearch survey found that 91 percent of consumers plan to celebrate Christmas, compared with 5% for Hanukkah and 2% for Kwanzaa.

"Retailers dipped their toe into the Christmas waters again last year, and there wasn't much push back. There wasn't a huge outcry from groups offended that retailers were saying Merry Christmas," said Ms. Davis. "We see the word Christmas being used much more this year than three or four years ago. The pendulum seems to have swung back."

I don't think there should be a "push back" at retailers who stress Christmas in their promotions or customer service scripts; for non-Christians to organize such a thing would be to sink to the AFA's level. But as I did today, I will try to praise businesses that use the generic "Holidays" label (even if they also mention Christmas -- Christmas is one of the holidays involved, after all). And I've been toying with the idea of a mild response to individuals who wish me a Merry Christmas. Not to workers in stores and such, who I presume are saying what they've been instructed to say, but individuals. Something like this, maybe:

OTHER PERSON: Merry Christmas!

ME: Oh, thank you for the thought, but I'm not a Christian.

This is bound to make people defensive, so I want to be as pleasant about it as possible, but many Christians evidently need to be reminded that they are not the only people in the world. That's why "Happy Holidays" came into use, if only for a while. If it's "politically correct," as the AFA spokesman calls it derisively (Christian love in action!), it's also good manners. What I have in mind is not so much a pushback as a "We shall not be moved."

The Spirit of the Season

Today I had some business to transact at my bank, which gave me occasion to deal with a teller. She was wearing a printed card above the nametag on her uniform shirt that said, "Happy Holidays." I thought about it while I was making the deposit, and made a decision: I told her that I appreciated the bank's decision to make it "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," since I knew there was pressure on some businesses to get rid of "Happy Holidays," and I wanted to let them know I approved of their choice. She looked a bit nonplussed -- probably no one had said anything about it to her before -- but thanked me.

Since I read this article about the pressure on retailers by some Christian groups, notably the American Family Association, to "recognize" Christmas, I've been pondering what ought to be done about it. I suppose one reason the pressure groups have had success, even if they may be exaggerating it, is that not many people really are anti-Christmas or want to "censor" Christmas. I don't object, or mind, when someone says "Merry Christmas" to me, whether they be stray individuals or employees in a business. As the Advertising Age reporter wrote,

This year's [National Retail Federation]/BigResearch survey found that 91 percent of consumers plan to celebrate Christmas, compared with 5% for Hanukkah and 2% for Kwanzaa.

"Retailers dipped their toe into the Christmas waters again last year, and there wasn't much push back. There wasn't a huge outcry from groups offended that retailers were saying Merry Christmas," said Ms. Davis. "We see the word Christmas being used much more this year than three or four years ago. The pendulum seems to have swung back."

I don't think there should be a "push back" at retailers who stress Christmas in their promotions or customer service scripts; for non-Christians to organize such a thing would be to sink to the AFA's level. But as I did today, I will try to praise businesses that use the generic "Holidays" label (even if they also mention Christmas -- Christmas is one of the holidays involved, after all). And I've been toying with the idea of a mild response to individuals who wish me a Merry Christmas. Not to workers in stores and such, who I presume are saying what they've been instructed to say, but individuals. Something like this, maybe:

OTHER PERSON: Merry Christmas!

ME: Oh, thank you for the thought, but I'm not a Christian.

This is bound to make people defensive, so I want to be as pleasant about it as possible, but many Christians evidently need to be reminded that they are not the only people in the world. That's why "Happy Holidays" came into use, if only for a while. If it's "politically correct," as the AFA spokesman calls it derisively (Christian love in action!), it's also good manners. What I have in mind is not so much a pushback as a "We shall not be moved."

Indian airline plans new flight agreement

Indian airline Kingfisher Airlines is to form a new code-share agreement with American Airlines in 2011.

The deal means that American Airlines will be able to put its code on Kingfisher Airlines domestic flights within India as well as on flights to Delhi and Mumbai from London Heathrow.

In return, Kingfisher Airlines will be able to code-share on American Airline flights to Delhi from Chicago and some services between the US and London.

"We are very pleased to announce our code-share partnership with Kingfisher, an airline that offers our customers the choice of flying to more cities throughout India and a more convenient travel experience," said Virasb Vahidi, American Airlines' chief commercial officer.

Kingfisher Airlines launched its international services in 2008 and now flies to Dubai, London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Colombo, Dhaka and Kathmandu. The carrier also has a number of domestic services from cities such as Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai.

HAPPY WITHOUT YOU.

As the year winds to a close, Patrick Wolf's comeback single "Time Of My Life" stands out as a late entry to our singles of the year race and the most exciting thing we've heard from the British troubadour since 2007's The Magic Position. While we can't share the original ahead of its December 6th release date, we've got the next best thing for you in the form of yet another immense Leo Zero remix. The single's an orchestral pop masterpiece and Leo Zero keeps its blueprint faithfully intact, transposing churning synths and a balearic bounce over the emotive piano stabs and lush strings arrangements of Wolf's original. Hot on the heels of the truly amazing Lissie remix we couldn't stop playing a few months back, Leo's latest takes Wolf's inspiring anthem of life after love to triumphant new heights and is just another reason he's one of the most sought after remixers in the game right now.

MP3: "Time Of My Life" (Leo Zero Dub) - Patrick Wolf

I Was a Teenage Closet Case

Another good bit from Alan Sinfield's Cultural Politics - Queer Reading on gay neuroscientist Simon LeVay:

The drawback is illustrated in an exchange between LeVay and his father -- who is entirely persuaded by his son's work. So how does LeVay senior see gay men now? He says he regards Simon as he would a child born with spina bifida, a hare lip, or some other developmental deficit. LeVay finds this "pretty humiliating" -- though I don't see why he should, since it is a logical consequence of his theory. Indeed, the attraction of stigmatization is depressingly apparent; people with spina bifida may well feel their civil rights are violated when they are appropriated as the awful other by LeVay, senior and junior [70].

The exchange between the LeVays comes from a documentary, Born That Way?, which I haven't been able to track down. As Sinfield says, his father's attitude is perfectly reasonable. All that you establish if you prove that homosexuality is inborn is that homosexuals are not morally responsible for our condition: you haven't begun to touch the question of its moral status. And even that is doubtful, since human beings have so often managed to pass moral judgment on inborn conditions. Dark skin, for example, like other "racial" markers, has been read as the visible mark -- the stigma -- of inner wickedness. Most adults, at least, who throw around the word "retarded" as an insult are aware that mental retardation is a congenital condition, not a moral choice, but that knowledge hasn't had any evident effect on the word's popularity among our culturally-sensitive elites. For that matter, the word "sick" itself is commonly used as a moral cussword: just imagine someone spitting it out with ripe disgust.

LeVay, like many born-gay advocates, thinks that if homosexuality is somehow caused by the environment, if it's an acquired rather than an inborn condition, then it can be reversed by therapy. For born-gay advocates, the failure of change therapy is itself evidence, indeed proof, that homosexuality must be inborn. That doesn't follow either: psychiatry has a very poor track record in most cases. And even religious conversion is notoriously hard to undo, though it's a choice if anything is.

Also assumed is that if we can be changed, we must be changed, partly because who would reject the chance to be normal, to be spared the misery and persecution of gay life? I feel a terrible sadness when gay people talk like this. I don't feel that I'm missing out on anything by not being heterosexual, anymore than I feel I'm missing out by being an atheist. Maybe Homo-Americans don't really believe that desiring their own sex is being stuck with second-best -- which doesn't even make sense, when you think about it, since it would mean that heterosexuality was also settling for second-best. (If men are second-best, then straight women are stuck with second-best, and should turn to other women -- but wait! then they'd be lesbians, and stuck with second-best, just straight men are, so they should turn to other men, but wait!...)

Even when I was a teenage closet case, gulled by heterosexual-supremacist propaganda, I knew that other males were what I wanted; and a crucial turning point in my coming out was the day I realized (admitted to myself?) that if I never got to touch a woman's body intimately, I wouldn't feel I'd missed anything, but if I never got to touch a man, I'd be haunted by the loss forever. The next crucial turning point was when it dawned on me that there was no reason why I shouldn't want to touch a man's body, and why I shouldn't do so if I could find a man who wanted me to touch him. The reason I'm gay is that the beauty of men takes my breath away -- not all men, but many men. Since the "science" of "sexual orientation" doesn't address that fact, which may be just as well (it's actually a mechanical theory of insertors and receptors), it's simply irrelevant.

I Was a Teenage Closet Case

Another good bit from Alan Sinfield's Cultural Politics - Queer Reading on gay neuroscientist Simon LeVay:

The drawback is illustrated in an exchange between LeVay and his father -- who is entirely persuaded by his son's work. So how does LeVay senior see gay men now? He says he regards Simon as he would a child born with spina bifida, a hare lip, or some other developmental deficit. LeVay finds this "pretty humiliating" -- though I don't see why he should, since it is a logical consequence of his theory. Indeed, the attraction of stigmatization is depressingly apparent; people with spina bifida may well feel their civil rights are violated when they are appropriated as the awful other by LeVay, senior and junior [70].

The exchange between the LeVays comes from a documentary, Born That Way?, which I haven't been able to track down. As Sinfield says, his father's attitude is perfectly reasonable. All that you establish if you prove that homosexuality is inborn is that homosexuals are not morally responsible for our condition: you haven't begun to touch the question of its moral status. And even that is doubtful, since human beings have so often managed to pass moral judgment on inborn conditions. Dark skin, for example, like other "racial" markers, has been read as the visible mark -- the stigma -- of inner wickedness. Most adults, at least, who throw around the word "retarded" as an insult are aware that mental retardation is a congenital condition, not a moral choice, but that knowledge hasn't had any evident effect on the word's popularity among our culturally-sensitive elites. For that matter, the word "sick" itself is commonly used as a moral cussword: just imagine someone spitting it out with ripe disgust.

LeVay, like many born-gay advocates, thinks that if homosexuality is somehow caused by the environment, if it's an acquired rather than an inborn condition, then it can be reversed by therapy. For born-gay advocates, the failure of change therapy is itself evidence, indeed proof, that homosexuality must be inborn. That doesn't follow either: psychiatry has a very poor track record in most cases. And even religious conversion is notoriously hard to undo, though it's a choice if anything is.

Also assumed is that if we can be changed, we must be changed, partly because who would reject the chance to be normal, to be spared the misery and persecution of gay life? I feel a terrible sadness when gay people talk like this. I don't feel that I'm missing out on anything by not being heterosexual, anymore than I feel I'm missing out by being an atheist. Maybe Homo-Americans don't really believe that desiring their own sex is being stuck with second-best -- which doesn't even make sense, when you think about it, since it would mean that heterosexuality was also settling for second-best. (If men are second-best, then straight women are stuck with second-best, and should turn to other women -- but wait! then they'd be lesbians, and stuck with second-best, just straight men are, so they should turn to other men, but wait!...)

Even when I was a teenage closet case, gulled by heterosexual-supremacist propaganda, I knew that other males were what I wanted; and a crucial turning point in my coming out was the day I realized (admitted to myself?) that if I never got to touch a woman's body intimately, I wouldn't feel I'd missed anything, but if I never got to touch a man, I'd be haunted by the loss forever. The next crucial turning point was when it dawned on me that there was no reason why I shouldn't want to touch a man's body, and why I shouldn't do so if I could find a man who wanted me to touch him. The reason I'm gay is that the beauty of men takes my breath away -- not all men, but many men. Since the "science" of "sexual orientation" doesn't address that fact, which may be just as well (it's actually a mechanical theory of insertors and receptors), it's simply irrelevant.

SKIN IS ON FIRE.

We won't front like we're overly familiar with San Franciscan nightcrawler oOoOO - or anyone else from that whole witch-house/drag scene for that matter - but his rework of Marina & The Diamonds' destabilizing anthem (and vintage Neon Gold single) "Obsessions" just arrived on the scene and it's nothing short of amazing. Haunting and emotive, oOoOO's remix underscores the intense drama of the original, enunciating each piano chord with expansive reverb as ominous synths wash eerily across the mix and Marina's lyrics drift in and out of the track's consciousness like a beautiful nightmare. Heavy.

MP3: "Obsessions" (oOoOO Remix) - Marina & The Diamonds

When I Hear the Word "Pistol" I Reach For My Culture

Alan Sinfield is one of my favorite academic critics, and I'm currently reading his Cultural Politics - Queer Reading (Minnesota, 1994, though there's apparently a second edition out, which includes these words in its new foreword:

"The reader" is a coercive construct, designed to disqualify rival views. Its menu of exclusions is familiar. Othello should not be played by a black actor, A. C. Bradley remarks [in 1960], almost in passing. "Perhaps if we saw Othello coal-black with the bodily eye, the aversion of our blood, an aversion which comes as near to being merely physical as anything human can, would overpower our imagination" ... "We" in the audience may or may not be racist; in any event, Bradley assumes, we are all going to be white. ...

The assumed "we" is necessary for the conduct of literary criticism, because it embodies the supposition that the text simply yields its meaning to the (right) reader. Actually, I believe, it is the other way around: the literary is not a property of texts, but a way of reading. The text appears literary when it is read with literary criteria in view. Once it is admitted that different reading positions will produce different readings, easy claims for canonicity, the universal and essential qualities of literature, and the authority of the academy, become unsustainable, indeed embarrassing [xiv].

I had already come on my own to the conclusion that the literary is a way of reading, but it is pleasant to find that Sinfield agrees with me. I don't always agree with him, but he always has interesting things to say, including his reversal of the aphorism commonly attributed to Goering, which I borrowed for the title of this post. Or this, on the open secret in reviews of Tennessee Williams's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, which was originally staged in 1955:

Walter Kerr, in the New York Herald Tribune, acknowledged "the implication" of "an unnatural relationship" but complained that Cat exhibits "a tantalizing reluctance" to "blurt out its promised secret." In fact, the play is plain enough; Kerr needs there to be a secret. A standard tabloid story in the U.K. is the shock-discovery of the gayness of someone who has not in fact been hiding it. The need is to insist that it is the kind of thing anyone would conceal if they could [53-54].

When I Hear the Word "Pistol" I Reach For My Culture

Alan Sinfield is one of my favorite academic critics, and I'm currently reading his Cultural Politics - Queer Reading (Minnesota, 1994, though there's apparently a second edition out, which includes these words in its new foreword:

"The reader" is a coercive construct, designed to disqualify rival views. Its menu of exclusions is familiar. Othello should not be played by a black actor, A. C. Bradley remarks [in 1960], almost in passing. "Perhaps if we saw Othello coal-black with the bodily eye, the aversion of our blood, an aversion which comes as near to being merely physical as anything human can, would overpower our imagination" ... "We" in the audience may or may not be racist; in any event, Bradley assumes, we are all going to be white. ...

The assumed "we" is necessary for the conduct of literary criticism, because it embodies the supposition that the text simply yields its meaning to the (right) reader. Actually, I believe, it is the other way around: the literary is not a property of texts, but a way of reading. The text appears literary when it is read with literary criteria in view. Once it is admitted that different reading positions will produce different readings, easy claims for canonicity, the universal and essential qualities of literature, and the authority of the academy, become unsustainable, indeed embarrassing [xiv].

I had already come on my own to the conclusion that the literary is a way of reading, but it is pleasant to find that Sinfield agrees with me. I don't always agree with him, but he always has interesting things to say, including his reversal of the aphorism commonly attributed to Goering, which I borrowed for the title of this post. Or this, on the open secret in reviews of Tennessee Williams's Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, which was originally staged in 1955:

Walter Kerr, in the New York Herald Tribune, acknowledged "the implication" of "an unnatural relationship" but complained that Cat exhibits "a tantalizing reluctance" to "blurt out its promised secret." In fact, the play is plain enough; Kerr needs there to be a secret. A standard tabloid story in the U.K. is the shock-discovery of the gayness of someone who has not in fact been hiding it. The need is to insist that it is the kind of thing anyone would conceal if they could [53-54].

Qantas Grounds Airbus A380 Fleet

The Qantas A380 that made a lucky escape and made an emergency landing in Singapore could have ended up exploding in the skies revealed media reports. The A380 was flying from Singapore to Sydney. Qantas has 6 Airbus A380s in its fleet and these planes use the Trent 900 engines of the London-based Rolls Royce fame. Investigators revealed that there was an oil leakage and the leaking oil caught fire. The burning oil heated up the metal parts and resulted in an explosion. Some of the flying metal debris tore through hydraulics and an engine control line of the aircraft’s wing. As a result, the pilots were no longer able to control the second wing and about fifty percent of the damaged wing’s brake flaps forcing them to make an emergency landing at Singapore aircraft, stated sources.

The situation could have had a much grimmer outcome. Taking no chances, Qantas has grounded its A380 fleet and updated its schedule for international flights. It was revealed that the airline can take as many as 7 weeks before it gives the nod to A380s to fly again. According to sources, the 6 A380s serve 50 departures every week out of a total of 613. The grounding of the flights has come as a major disappointment for travellers who had managed to land cheap flight tickets to travel aboard A380s by booking well in advance.

Passengers can take it Easy

Qantas operates a massive fleet. Besides A380s, it has 14 A330s, 26 B747s, and some 30 other aircrafts. All these will be pressed into service to ensure that there is least possible disruption of scheduled international services and passengers face the least possible inconvenience. As per the Telegraph reports, the operations of most of the international flights would be as per schedule and the domestic flights are already flying according to schedule. Qantas has stated that as long as the A380s do not resume services, passengers would be accommodated on the other flights of its vast international network.

Rolls Royce to Face the Music

According to the constant trickle of media reports, Rolls Royce, the manufacturer of the Trent 900 engines, will have to pay an astronomical amount to Airbus for the engine failure. Mr Stefan Schaffrath, the spokesman of Airbus was quoted by the Mail Online as saying ‘We will seek full financial compensation from Rolls-Royce for any costs we have to bear. We are making extra efforts to keep our production flow going and to help our customers maintain their operations. For that, we will seek full compensation’. However, Airbus also clarified that it will claim extra compensation to the extent it spends on ensuring that its customer airlines face the least possible disruption of services.

Of Course You Realize This Means War!

I'd been wondering vaguely when the first salvo would be fired, and then I came across this photoblog post. The War on Christmas Season is once again upon us! (And we haven't even had Thanksgiving yet.) There's also a link to this subliterate piece by a writer for Advertising Age, on how "Happy Holidays" has been relegated to the dustbin of history, comrades.

According to its caption, the photo above depicts

Michael Godsey, front, and his wife Deanna, portray Joseph and Mary with the baby Jesus, in front of Christian activists during a live Christmas nativity scene procession outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington DC, Nov. 22, 2010. Faith Action, a Christian organization, staged the demonstration to illustrate that such displays are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Eight adult actors in biblical costume, two camels and one donkey took part in the scene.

I could have sworn the person carrying the baby Jesus in the procession was another man, and the term "adult actors" (no doubt fresh from a teabagging scene) took me aback for a moment too. The blog post, by one Robert Hood, who styles himself "a news photographer", is no better:

Religious displays on public property have been argued over for decades. The establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” However, it also says Congress can’t impede the free exercise of religion, nor can it infringe on the freedom of speech. So, understandably there is considerable confusion around this issue.

And this post does nothing to dispel the confusion. In fact, it seems intended to increase it:

What do you think? Should Christmas be a federal holiday? Should religious displays be allowed on public property? If allowed, should we make distinctions between religions? If Christians can set up a Jesus manger on public property, can a coven perform Wiccan rituals on the steps of city hall? Am I favoring a religion if I participate in a Christmas giving tree, or am I helping a family during what would otherwise be a terribly painful morning on December 25th?

I wouldn't object to Christmas being a federal holiday if so many conservative Christians hadn't had hissyfits over the creation of federal holidays like Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday. Suppose there were a move to make some Muslim holiday (or, to use Hood's example, a Wiccan holiday) into a federal holiday; does anyone think that reactionary Christians would accept it as being on a par with Christmas? Believers should be, and as far as I know, are allowed to make "religious displays on public property" on their own initiative, and of course a coven should be allowed to perform Wiccan rituals on the steps of City Hall. If Hood participates in a Christmas giving tree, if he wants to 'favor a religion', that's his business as a private citizen -- why does he pretend it has anything to do with the First Amendment? I don't suppose there'd be any problem with, say, the workers at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles Office deciding to organize a giving tree. If the government at any level organizes charity, though, that is socialism according to the Christian frothers -- unless, apparently, it's done in the context of Christmas to undermine the wall of separation between religion and government.

Of course a procession like Faith Action's is protected by the First Amendment. But that has nothing to do with "religious displays" initiated and funded by the government. Would-be theocrats are always trying to get their cult of choice supported by the state, whether by getting it to set up Nativity displays for Christmas, official days of thanksgiving (though not of fasting -- that's so yesteryear), official prayers in school, and God all over government media ("In God We Trust" on money, which is fine if you put your trust in Mammon, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and so on). I'm not offended by these acts in themselves. What bothers me is that they are intended to get the camel's nose into the tent, by creating legal precedents for an official establishment of religion, which can then be built on and extended.

Why would a church want to set up a creche on "public property" anyway? The only thing I can think of is that they want to make it look like our government -- which under the Constitution is godless, and for very good reason -- has an official religion. Considering the hysteria ginned up by essentially the same people over the building of a Muslim community center, including a prayer room, on private property in New York City, and over the building of mosques, also on private property, around the country, it's pretty clear what these people want to do: they want official Christian supremacy in the United States. They already have freedom of religion, but they want to be able to impose their religion on others, and make us pay for its expression on the public dime.

There are ambiguities in the law, and room for disagreement about how to resolve them. But the Christian theocrats prefer to throw out red herrings, and as Hood's post shows, there are plenty of people who will take them for serious discussion.