Rachel Swirsky's Short Story Nebula Reccommendations, 2009

I recently blitzed through a number of short stories so that I could finalize the short story portion of my Nebula ballot. I wanted to post about the ones I decided to nominate, and also some of the other excellent ones I encountered in my reading. I hope people will check out these stories, possibly for award consideration, but mostly because they’re cool.

I have a post up at Ecstatic Days explaining my methodology for creating a reading list, and a few other points about what went into creating my list of nominees and recommendations.

Here are the nominees and recommendations themselves.

My short story nominations
“Bridesicle” by Will McIntosh, Asimov’s Science Fiction
Remembrance is Something Like a House” by Will Ludwigsen, Interfictions 2
The Mermaids Singing Each to Each” by Cat Rambo, Clarkesworld
“The Godfall’s Chemsong” by Jeremiah Tolbert, Interzone
Non-Zero Probabilities” by N. K. Jemisin, Clarkesworld

Highly Recommended Stories
Tio Gilberto and the Twenty-Seven Ghosts” by Benjamin Francisco, Realms of Fantasy*
Nine Sundays in a Row” by Kris Dikeman, Strange Horizons**
Reading by Numbers” by Aidan Doyle, Fantasy Magazine
Spar” by Kij Johnson, Clarkesworld
Marsh Gods” by Ann Leckie, Strange Horizons**
Superhero Girl” by Jessica Lee, Fantasy Magazine**

Recommended Stories
Turning the Apples” by Tina Connolly, Strange Horizons
“The Score” by Alaya Dawn Johnson, Interfictions 2
A Song to Greet the Sun” by Alaya Dawn Johnson, Fantasy Magazine
“Endangered Camp” by Ann Leckie, Clockwork Phoenix 2
…That Has Such People In It” by Jennifer Pelland, Apex Digest
Ms. Liberty Gets a Haircut” by Cat Rambo, Strange Horizons
Water Museum” by Nisi Shawl, Filter House
The Moon Over Tokyo through Leaves in the Fall” by Jerome Stueart, Fantasy Magazine
Light on the Water” by Genevieve Valentine, Fantasy Magazine
Bespoke” by Genevieve Valentine, Strange Horizons
The Olverung” by Steven Woodworth, Realms of Fantasy**

Tiptree Nominated Stories
I also nominated three of these stories for the Tiptree — “The Mermaids Singing Each to Each” by Cat Rambo (Clarkesworld), “Godfall’s Chemsong” by Jeremiah Tolbert (Interzone), and “A Song to Greet the Sun” by Alaya Dawn Johnson (Fantasy Magazine)


*This story would have been one of my five nominees except for the conflict of interest created by its appearance on PodCastle during my tenure as editor.
**These stories also appeared in PodCastle during my tenure as editor.

The Mathematics of Faith” by Jonathan Wood, Beneath Ceaseless Skies — deleted from a previous version of this list because it is a novelette.

Posted in Mandolin's fiction & poems, Whatever | Comments Off on Rachel Swirsky's Short Story Nebula Reccommendations, 2009

Exodus 20:16

As you know, Tim Tebow — Florida Gators quarterback and the 2010 version of Eric Crouch — is going to star in a Super Bowl ad with his mom, in support of Focus on the Family. In the ad, Tebow and his mother, Pam, will evidently tell the tale of how Pam, pregnant with Tim and doing missionary work in the Philippines — fell ill, and how doctors in the Philippines urged her to have an abortion to save her life. She refused, and now America has had Tim Tebow inflicted on us, thus making the ultimate case for why abortion is a good thing. Kidding! Of course, it’s to argue that if only abortion was illegal, all of us would have kids like Tim Tebow.

Now, there are many directions one could go with this news. One could note that the United Church of Christ was not allowed to run an ad during the Super Bowl because one of its arguments — that homosexuals are human — was “too controversial.” One could note that anti-Bush ads were routinely rejected as “too political.” One could note the fact that the founder of Focus on the Family, James Dobson, has advocated that men shower with young boys to show off their penises. (I am not making this up.)

But the direction I choose to go is different. You see, while Pam Tebow may have been advised by doctors to seek an abortion, she’s leaving a very big background piece unstated: abortion is illegal in the Philippines.

“Well,” you say, “this is different. I mean, her life was in jeopardy, so obviously, that was legal.” Au contraire. The Philippine criminal code makes no exception for life or health of the mother. Had Pam Tebow had an abortion, she could have been jailed, as could her physician and anyone else who assisted her.

Now, that doesn’t mean Pam Tebow is lying. There are about 470,000 abortions performed annually in the Philippines, and about 80,000 women hospitalized for complications of abortion. 12 percent of all maternal deaths in 2000 were due to unsafe abortons, of course, because abortion is illegal — but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. As anyone with a rudimentary understanding of abortion policy knows, outlawing abortion doesn’t stop abortion. It just makes it much less safe.

But this is an important part of the story that Pam and Tim Tebow are ignoring. Because the organization they’re supporting — Focus on the Family — is virulently anti-abortion, and supports making it illegal. But by Pam Tebow’s own admission, outlawing abortion didn’t stop her Filipino physician from recommending it. She had a choice — but one that was more dangerous than it had to be, one that could have had legal repercussions for her and her family.

Understand, I don’t begrudge Pam Tebow if she would have made that choice freely. The whole point of pro-choice is that it places the ultimate decision to continue or abort a pregnancy with the woman who is pregnant. Pam Tebow was willing to risk her life to bring her son into the world. That was her choice.

But doubtless, there are Filipinas who even today are in the same grave position Pam Tebow was in, who would like to make their own informed choice, but who are not American and lack the connections and relative wealth Tebow had. Some may choose to carry to term. Some may choose an abortion. But all of them deserve to make that choice based on the dictates of their own consciences, without fear of jail or death.

Ultimately, Pam and Tim Tebow want to limit the right of women to decide what happens in their own bodies. And to do so, they’re willing to fudge the truth about the circumstances surrounding her own choice — one that was not completely free, one that was not completely safe, one that she could not make based solely on her own conscience. She wants to argue that she had a choice when, frankly, she did not. I do believe the Bible has something to say about bearing false witness. But that, I suppose, isn’t important when you’ve got an anti-choice message to share.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Sports | 26 Comments

Burn Him!

As you no doubt have heard by now, President Obama is expected to announce a non-defense discretionary spending freeze in tomorrow’s State of the Union address. Given that we’re only kinda, sorta on the way to recovery — and that spending freezes are not typical Democratic Party policy — this is obviously a terrible, awful idea that proves the firebaggers right and Barack Obama hates the left and Rahm Emanuel delenda est, right?

It depends on what the meaning of “freeze” is. Indeed, under certain conditions, this could be a great idea.

Before you try me for heresy, read this bit of reporting by Jonathan Chait:

Within the administration, White House budget director Peter Orszag appears to have settled on another solution. Last month, Orszag raised eyebrows when word leaked that he’d asked most cabinet agencies to prepare two budgets: one that freezes spending, the other that cuts it by 5 percent. Many congressional liberals were livid, and, according to multiple sources, Larry Summers’s National Economic Council reacted negatively to the emphasis on the deficit. (“The economic team has a healthy debate about most major issues,” says an administration official. “Getting people back to work is central to addressing the deficit. Similarly, putting the country back on a fiscally sustainable path is vital to confidence in the economy.”) The concern among wonks outside the administration is that clamping down on domestic discretionary spending without touching entitlements would take money out of the economy in the short term while doing nothing to close the long-term deficit.

These same liberals and wonks rejoiced when Obama backed job creation. But there is a logic to Orszag’s gambit, which runs roughly as follows: It’s almost certain that Congress will pass, and the president will sign, a jobs bill early next year, probably in the neighborhood of $100 billion to $200 billion. Given that, and given the difficulty of doing anything about the long-term deficit next year, the administration needs some signal to U.S. bondholders that it takes the deficit seriously. Just not so seriously that it undercuts the extra stimulus.

My guess is that this is the plan — announce, with great fanfare, a “spending freeze” that covers basic departmental budgets and not much else. A freeze that doesn’t come within a furlong of covering the cost of a jobs bill. It’s brilliant politics — you get all the benefits of posing as deficit hawks without any of the actual deep spending cuts (including, it can not be stressed enough, defense) and/or tax increases that a real attack on the deficit would require. Actually, since this is how deficit hawks really behave (when’s the last time Joe Lieberman suggested actually cutting defense? Or Evan Bayh floated a tax hike?), you simply become deficit hawks. And as we all know, deficit hawkishness is A Very Good Thing In Official Washington. Obama’s bound to get great press out of this.

What’s more, eventually, cuts are going to be necessary, as will tax increases. Not now — actually taking on the deficit in the midst of a deep recession would be catastrophic. That said, at some point, some day, we will have to take the deficit on. And that will require dealing with the budget like responsible adults, not Americans. A relatively small, symbolic cut this year to offset a jobs bill and a health care expansion isn’t a bad idea, politically and policywise.

But that’s the key — the Obama Administration can and should find ways to reach out to the center. But they also have to find a way to energize the left. Failing to pass a health care bill would be catastrophic; it guarantees a GOP takeover of at least the House come fall. Passing a health care bill, a jobs bill, and a repeal of DADT while simultaneously limiting other spending growth? That’s a trade that liberals can and should be willing to make.

Of course, if there’s no quid pro quo — if this is a spending freeze just for the sake of freezing spending, and if no jobs bill or health care bill is forthcoming — then it should be rejected out of hand. There’s making a play for the middle, and then there’s rank stupidity. I’m going to bet that the Obama Administration isn’t stupid. But we’ll see.

Posted in Economics and the like, The Obama Administration | 27 Comments

All of This Has Happened Before

The recently completed Battlestar Galactica was the story of the death and rebirth of humanity and its creations, a story of humans hunted by their creations to near-extinction — only to reconcile with their creations in order to start anew on a fresh, untamed planet, with their erstwhile enemies as allies.

One of the interesting things about that fresh start was that it was just that — a complete reboot of humanity, jettisoning any technology more advanced than agriculture. Of course, that was partially because BSG was set roughly 140,000 BP, and you can’t have us only inventing electronics in the 20th Century if we were using them 140 millennia ago.

Now, I never found the idea that humans might trade technology for a new start as ridiculous as some people — after all, if technology came a hair’s-breadth from destroying you, you may want to emulate the Amish as well. Especially if you could do it in Africa, with a pretty yellow sun overhead and plenty of food to eat that wasn’t derived from algae.

But there are other reasons that the survivors of the Fall of the Twelve Colonies might want to give up technology. After all, while the Colonies were portrayed as earthlike in their existence, they weren’t Earth. These were peoples with a different history than ours, who had seen technology literally rise up against them and destroy everything they held dear.

That history begins with Caprica.

The new prequel, set 58 years Before the Fall, is the story of two grieving fathers — Daniel Graystone and Joseph Adams — both of whom lost their daughters in a terrorist bombing of an elevated train. (Adams lost his wife as well.) Zoe Graystone was a brilliant, temperamental 16-year-old with a fervent, heretical belief in monotheism — and a boyfriend whose fervor led to the bombing. Tamara Adams and her mother, Shannon, are innocent bystanders.

Adams is a defense attorney from Tauron, a member of a persecuted minority. He’s Capricanized his name — he was born Yosef Adama, but such a name makes him seem more ethnic. He does business with the Tauron mafia, who like many minorities chose a life of crime over toiling as second-class citizens. He does so reluctantly — he has a conscience, and he doesn’t like the violence associated with the mob. But he works with them because they helped him go to college, because his brother is a part of them, and because honestly, it’s easier than the alternative.

Graystone, on the other hand, is a multibillionaire, the Caprican equivalent of Bill Gates, only he’s played by Eric Stoltz, so he’s both more attractive and creepier. He’s working on a defense project — a military robot, one that can be used for defense. It’s not going that well, though — a rival from Tauron has developed a new processor that could doom his project. But he’s not as concerned about that as he is about data left behind by his daughter, including a link to a virtual night club full of unspeakable virtual perversions — including bland ones like orgies and drugs, and more sadistic ones like torture, murder and human sacrifice — all set to bumping techno music. (This is not farfetched. As Graystone’s guide, Zoe’s friend Lacy, notes, the first use for the virtual imagers Graystone himself invented was pornographic — and porn was one of the first serious industries to tap the internet. All of this has happened before….)

But nothing in this virtual club is more odd than Zoe Graystone’s avatar.

That’s because Zoe’s avatar is not just an avatar. It’s Zoe, more or less — a copy made by Zoe before her death, one that includes her memories, her personality, her likes and dislikes, her faults and strengths. The copy is made from many sources, including her school records, medical records, television viewing habits — things that could be used to make a good simulacrum of any human.

And thanks to his daughter’s genius Daniel Graystone finds the chance to do the unthinkable — to raise his daughter from the grave.

Daniel finds an unlikely ally in Joseph, who he meets at an information session for family members of victims of the bombing. He uses Joseph’s connections to steal the Tauron technology that could make his daughter live in the real world — albeit in a body that is made of metal. And he promises Joseph the same — a resurrection of his daughter, and his wife.

Joseph ultimately balks when Daniel shows him the proto-avatar of his daughter — she’s afraid, confused, and certain that something is terribly wrong. Joseph agrees, believing that there’s something Frankensteinian in what Daniel is doing. And yet Daniel is trying to do what any heartbroken, desperate parent would do if they could do it without punishment — bring back his daughter. To let her live the life she was supposed to live, before it was senselessly snuffed out.

Is such a thing Right? I don’t know. I do know that I would rather rip my right arm off than even think about my daughter coming to harm. That I can’t bring myself to write the comparative sentence between myself and Adama or Graystone because the mere thought is too painful for me to bring into enough clarity to express it in English. Suffice to say that I would gleefully make a deal with Satan himself if it guaranteed my daughter’s safety through a long and happy life. Eternal damnation would be a small price to pay. Simply messing with the laws of the Gods and Nature? That’s kid stuff.

That doesn’t mean that there will be no price for violating those laws. Just that in that pit of grief and despair, I can imagine being able to justify almost anything, grasping at any straw, praying to any false idol.

This tension — between Upholding That Which is Right and Saving Those We Love — is the driving force behind Caprica. We know, of course, how it will end — with the nuclear bombardment of the Twelve Colonies, with the flight of Galactica and the fleet, with the eventual colonization of Earth (Mark Two). But how we get there — a path that, like BSG, is not straight or clear, not good or evil, but rather a road paved with good intentions — that appears to be a fascinating journey. And one that I’m looking forward to.

Posted in Popular (and unpopular) culture | 9 Comments

On Being a Nerd of Color

A likable essay in the Minnesota Star-Tribune by poet Bao Phi:

But then how do nerds of color like me fit in, and how do we deal with fellow nerds who don’t want to talk about things like race and class in comic books, video games, role playing games, and movies? I’ll be the first to admit, I got into all of that stuff for the escapism it allowed. It was invaluable to me, as a refugee from a war growing up in an economically poor urban area, to fantasize that I was someone else, somewhere else. I’d rather be a paladin with a war horse riding to battle a chimera than be the Vietnamese ghetto refugee nerd running from the dudes on my block who tried to jump me on my way to and from CUHCC clinic to get my teeth cleaned.

However, there was a discomfort about some of my own internalized issues. I always chose to ignore the weird feeling I got when I realized that, in my dreams, I was always, literally, a white knight. When I dreamt I was a superhero, I was a white dude with superpowers and the Mary Jane to my Peter Parker was always white. […]

As I got older, I wondered more and more about certain things: like, why Wolverine seemed to have an Asian fetish, why the only Asian men in the nerd worlds seemed to be the bad guys or some servant like Doctor Strange’s assistant Wong. I wondered why the only Asians in comic books, movies, and video games seemed to be ‘exotic’ Asian women. […]

I became a fan of the new Battlestar Gallactica and yet wondered how Grace Park’s character seemed like a sci-fi stand-in for Miss Saigon, and despite my skepticism stuck with the series through its entire run and watched in horror as the show literally and figuratively dumped almost all of their characters of color out of an airlock by the time the show ended. I dug Firefly a lot, but was annoyed that Whedon predictably relegated Asian culture to a neo-Yellow peril future where the extent of China emerging as a superpower means that people throw in a couple of badly pronounced Mandarin words into their everyday conversations, and despite the idea of this looming Asian culture, there are no actual Asian characters to be seen.

None of this was easy for me personally, because I had to confront my own internalized racism. There was a part of me that said, no, don’t ask these questions. It’d be easier to just go with the flow. Don’t rock the boat. No one cares about this stuff. Do you really want to challenge yourself about how you want to be white? You’re a man of color from Phillips – are you really ready to out yourself as a self-hating nerd?

And you’d think that fellow nerds, regardless of race and gender, would understand given that our status as freaks and geeks and outcasts would give us some humility and common ground to stand on. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. Try bringing up issues of race, class, gender, and homophobia on a video game message board and see the vitriolic response you get, no matter how diplomatic you try to be. Bring up issues of representation and race to fans of Battlestar and Firefly and get told that you’re a killjoy or one of the “PC police” who doesn’t understand what their favorite show is trying to do.

The comments at the Star-Tribune include headings like “I really feel bad that people have to view everything view ‘colored’ glasses” and “It’s all economics, not racism,” of course. *rolleyes*

Posted in Race, racism and related issues | 6 Comments

Book recommendation?

I am looking for a recommendation of a book or article that will give me background on what the situation was like for gay women in the decade or so before Stonewall. Non-fiction preferred to fiction, but I’m happy with material that’s available online and material that isn’t.

Posted in Whatever | 16 Comments

How Obama Provides Cover For Anti-Gay Republicans

Recently, I asked in comments what now-Senator, then-candidate Scott Brown’s position on same-sex marriage. Robert replied:

Same as Barack Obama’s. So he’s either a sensible centrist doing what he can, or a hate-filled gay-killing bigot, depending on whether you know he’s a Republican or not. :)

Chris Barron of GOProud made a similar point:

What’s the truth about Scott Brown? I will concede up front, that Scott Brown doesn’t support same-sex marriage. Brown, however, has stated that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts is settled law and that he personally supports civil unions. Brown has also said that he believes marriage is a state issue and that each state should be free to make its own law regarding same-sex marriage. Sound familiar? It should, because it’s the same position taken by President Barack Obama.

So Brown is just like Obama on gay rights? Well, no.

The difference between Brown and Coakley is even greater on homosexual issues. Brown opposes “gay marriage” and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and supports the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. […Brown] voted for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man, one woman. The amendment was defeated. Brown does support same-sex civil unions.

Because some Republicans talk a good game but support homophobic legislation when it counts — when they’re voting — conservatives tend to reduce being pro-gay or anti-gay to purely a matter of saying the right words, without regard to the actual policies being supported.

Both President Obama and Scott Brown have taken positions that are prejudiced against LGBT people. But there is a spectrum. Obama has never voted for anti-gay legislation, and — in his mild, gutless, and basically worthless way — has stated support for ENDA, and for ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and the federal non-recognition aspects of DOMA. I don’t say this to defend Obama, who I believe is bigoted against LGBT. ((I don’t know or care if Obama is bigoted against LGBT “in his heart”; when I say he’s bigoted, I’m referring to his political actions and policies.)) But we can recognize that Obama is bad while and still recognize that Scott Brown is, in most ways, even worse.

But there are two ways Obama is worse than Brown. First: Obama, unlike Brown, harms LGBT people by sucking away LGBT activism and money with promises that he (so far) has not attempted to deliver on. Second, Obama, unlike Brown, harms LGBT by providing anti-gay Republicans with Brown with cover, because Obama’s position on marriage equality allows many anti-gay conservatives to deflect criticism by claiming to hold the same position Obama does.

Posted in Homophobic zaniness/more LGBTQ issues, Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer issues, Same-Sex Marriage | 4 Comments

Riding Rantipole Into Blind Cupid — new post at Big Other

New post at Big Other:

I am writing some Mad Hatter-March Hare slash, which I fully intend to parade past every respectable magazine I can find when I finish. Among the delights of this project, of which there are many, I have been having an excellent time looking up bizarre old-fashioned misconceptions, sifting through internet answers to why ravens resemble writing desks, and delving into the delightfully ridiculous depths of Victorian slang.

My dear nug, would you like to tip the velvet? Cram your arbor vitae down the red tunnel, perhaps, or go to bedfordshire with a wagtail where you can bury your whore’s pipe and your tiddle-diddles between cupid’s kettle drums before shoving Nebuchadnezzer through the roundmouth — unless you’re piss-proud. If you’re kinky, play the brother starling. Mandrakes might prefer to play the back gammon or visit the red tunnel. If you’re a dark cully, then you deserve the flap dragon — and keep your gaying instrument well away from me.

Now, I am willing to entertain the suggestion that this is faked or poorly researched — but I really don’t mind if it is. For I have been thoroughly entertained.

Comment over there.

Posted in Whatever | Comments Off on Riding Rantipole Into Blind Cupid — new post at Big Other

There goes America’s democracy: I never thought I would be living in a dystopian cyberpunk novel!

So much for being the leader of the “free” world. The Supreme Court completely eviscerated our democracy today.

Or, put another way

US ends political campaign spending limits

And considering the fact that net neutrality is highly likely go the way of the dodo, I sincerely doubt I’ll be able to acquire Al Jazeera on youtube if I’m not rich enough to afford the extra cash, don’t you think?

Or, in short…U.S. Supreme Court Makes Corporations Supreme, People Mere Monkeys

At the root of the Court’s attack on popular democracy — and it is an attack, and it will promote if not guarantee rule by unaccountable corporate oligarchy — is the Court’s infamous 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision that said money equals speech. Left unaddressed in today’s decision — and others — is the absurdity of this formula. When money equals speech, outfits with more money have more speech. And that destroys the very principle of free speech.

Ask yourself this question. If you had to persuade your community about political opinion X, but corporations opposed your view, would you stand a chance knowing that their “political speech” was worth much more than your political speech? The answer is obvious. Mere people have been thrown on the scrap heap. The U.S. Supreme Court is lifting corporations to the top of the evolutionary ladder.MORE

Keith Olbermann goes into the ramifications in his inimitable style :Freedom of Speech has been destroyed.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And i thought that those cyberpunk novels were fiction. Good god.

Digby says:

From what I gather, there are only a couple of things to be done about this: shareholder empowerment or constitutional amendment, both of which are very, very difficult.

and Campaign Finance: Back to the Era of the Robber Barons?

Take a hypothetical homeland security bill. Many people don’t know that Wal-Mart actively campaigns against tighter screening of cargo containers fearing that increased inspections will slow its supply lines. Yet many experts cite 100 percent screening of containers to be a necessary step in protecting our homeland against a terrorist attack. So what happens when a politician with a strong dedication to security matters but who has been bankrolled by Wal-Mart needs to vote on a bill that includes increased container screening? It’s not hard to imagine him rejecting such legislation to ensure Wal-Mart’s support in his re-election campaign.

This kind of political quid pro quo — trading campaign contributions for votes — is a serious concern in our current political climate. Just think how much worse it will be when corporations are free to spend whatever they like.

But even beyond the quid pro quo concerns is the firm belief, shared by multitudes, that more money in our political system is not the direction we should be headed. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) told me recently that the pressure on members of Congress to raise money is already worse than it’s ever been — and she’s been in the House for 26 years. Kaptur talked of one congressman who spent 90 percent of his time on the telephone fundraising. The obvious question becomes: How the heck did he get anything done? If the Supreme Court rules the way it’s expected to, situations like this will only get worse.

Those in favor of turning back the restrictions assert that special interests are simply groups of individuals advocating a particular issue or candidate, and that restricting what they can spend in this endeavor is the same as limiting their speech. But this is a specious argument. Rolling back campaign finance regulations would result not only in increased political influence by special interests and politicians spending too much time fundraising, but also in a huge increase in negative political ads, as well as the possibility — if not the probability — of increased corruption, and thus even more cynicism about our political system.MORE

As I think about it more…say goodbye to stopping global warming. In fact, bring it on!!! And there go environmental regulations!! And our food system will be going STRAIGHT to hell. No pass go, do not collect $200. Let us not even begin to think of the effects on the rest of the world. Remember how corporations did nasty things to Latin America with the full backing of the US gov’t? Does anyone think that they will stop now? Bolivia for instance, is already under pressure for its lithium.

And if you want to hate Justice Thomas even more: Justice Thomas, Citizens United and Those Scary Gay People

Plus, get to know The Man who took down Campaign Finance Reform

Christ. There’s a reason why I hated reading dystopian novels. I am not happy with the prospect of the plot of one coming to life before my very eyes.

And now a word from our sponsor…


Your ad could be here, right now.

There goes America’s democracy: I never thought I would be living in a dystopian cyberpunk novel!

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff, Syndicated feeds | 64 Comments

What the Massachusetts Election Means

From Conor:

Only a partisan hack could deny that all aspects of this election bolstering my analysis happened to be most significant, whereas factors that cut against my thesis were ultimately irrelevant to the outcome. Let this be a lesson to my political and ideological opponents in future contested elections — insofar as it is advantages my policy preferences, what happened in Massachusetts is a harbinger of things to come in the 2010 midterms, and even in 2012. Meanwhile all precedents seemingly at odds with my national political proclivities were unique, and should be ignored.

Posted in Elections and politics | 19 Comments