Toy Pony Sparks Bomb Scare In Orlando
The short version: The cops found a kid's toy pony left behind in a park. They didn't want to take any chances, so they blew it up.
That's how paranoid we have to be these days.
Jesus. I'm not at all sure I want to live in a world like this.
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Monday, 27 September 2010
More Banned Books Week, and a Quote I Wish I'd Written
From Peter Steinberg: Banned Books Week: 10 'Flashlight Worthy' Books People Most Want Banned (PHOTOS)
What does "challenged" mean? It means someone requested the book be removed from their public library because of its "offensive" nature. As if, in this age of hot and cold running internet porn, a child would go to a library and check out a book to be titillated.
Sunday, 26 September 2010
A Method of Book Banning I Could Actually Endorse
Latest Newspaper Column:
This week, the American Library Association celebrates its annual Banned Books Week, which it calls "the only national celebration of the freedom to read."
I'm a big fan of the ALA, of libraries in general, and of a lot of the books on the ALA's list that people have attempted to remove from school and public libraries. It may shock you, however, to discover that there's one type of book "banning" that I might just, under the right circumstances, be able to get behind. More about this in a moment.
The ALA began promoting BBW in 1982 to counter a sudden increase in "challenges" to books on the shelves of schools, libraries and bookstores. (A "challenge" is what the ALA calls it when someone who thinks they know better than you what you or your kids should be reading goes to some governing body and tries to get the book taken out of circulation.)
Many "challenges" involve restricting access to books for teens and young adults because they contain depictions of things like drug use, sexuality, racism and profanity. Apparently the theory is that the best way for teens to deal with these issues is to pretend they don't exist.
For instance, one group attempted to ban Harper Lee's classic novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" on the grounds that a depiction of racial injustice in a small Southern town in the Great Depression (including the use of the dreaded "n-word") might prove "upsetting" to young people, particularly young African-American readers.
Well, that's mighty nice of them, but a well-meaning bonehead is still a bonehead. Young people bloody well ought to be upset by the idea of racial injustice, and anyone who thinks young African-Americans don't know plenty about racism, then and now, is suffering from a severe and probably incurable case of cranial ossification.
The more popular a book is, the more likely it is that someone's going to attempt to ban it. The flaccid -vampire melodrama "Twilight," for example, has attracted the attention of some would-be banners for "depictions of sexuality," even though for most of the series, the characters seem to be striving mightily not to have sex.
Likewise, Dan Brown's blockbuster "The DaVinci Code" was attacked (and outright banned in some countries) because the Catholic Church found some of its cockeyed plot premises offensive.
Neither of these books seem to have suffered at all in sales; in fact, it's entirely possible that a substantial cohort of readers picked the books up just to see what all the fuss was about, which led a writer friend of mine to plaintively inquire, "What do I have to do to get my book banned?"
Which brings us to the above-mentioned type of censorship that I might just be able to endorse.
The Defense Intelligence Agency recently informed the publisher of an upcoming nonfiction book titled "Operation Dark Heart" that the book might reveal classified information. Among other things, the DIA wants to scrub passages describing a DIA "data-mining" operation called "Able Danger."
Anthony Shaffer, the book's author and a former DIA man himself, claims that he learned in Afghanistan that the Able Danger program identified 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta as a threat months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The DIA wants this information suppressed, although, since you're reading it right this second, it seems like that particular feline has already exited that particular non-rigid fabric container.
But rather than seek a legal injunction or some sort of executive action, the DIA has made the publisher an offer: It will buy the entire first run of the book, all 10,000 copies, thus giving publisher and author what all publishers and authors most want out of life: an overnight 100 percent sell-out, not to mention the kind of buzz for the second (edited) print run that a publicist could only dream of.
So I'm calling the alphabet agencies out. CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, DARPA: I'm writing a book right now that reveals all sorts of high-tech and sort-of-secret derring-do. You want to keep me from blowing the lid off all your tightly guarded secrets, all you have to do is promise to buy the whole first printing.
Or we could just skip the middleman altogether and you could send me a million bucks right now. Small bills, please. How about it?
This week, the American Library Association celebrates its annual Banned Books Week, which it calls "the only national celebration of the freedom to read."
I'm a big fan of the ALA, of libraries in general, and of a lot of the books on the ALA's list that people have attempted to remove from school and public libraries. It may shock you, however, to discover that there's one type of book "banning" that I might just, under the right circumstances, be able to get behind. More about this in a moment.
The ALA began promoting BBW in 1982 to counter a sudden increase in "challenges" to books on the shelves of schools, libraries and bookstores. (A "challenge" is what the ALA calls it when someone who thinks they know better than you what you or your kids should be reading goes to some governing body and tries to get the book taken out of circulation.)
Many "challenges" involve restricting access to books for teens and young adults because they contain depictions of things like drug use, sexuality, racism and profanity. Apparently the theory is that the best way for teens to deal with these issues is to pretend they don't exist.
For instance, one group attempted to ban Harper Lee's classic novel "To Kill a Mockingbird" on the grounds that a depiction of racial injustice in a small Southern town in the Great Depression (including the use of the dreaded "n-word") might prove "upsetting" to young people, particularly young African-American readers.
Well, that's mighty nice of them, but a well-meaning bonehead is still a bonehead. Young people bloody well ought to be upset by the idea of racial injustice, and anyone who thinks young African-Americans don't know plenty about racism, then and now, is suffering from a severe and probably incurable case of cranial ossification.
The more popular a book is, the more likely it is that someone's going to attempt to ban it. The flaccid -vampire melodrama "Twilight," for example, has attracted the attention of some would-be banners for "depictions of sexuality," even though for most of the series, the characters seem to be striving mightily not to have sex.
Likewise, Dan Brown's blockbuster "The DaVinci Code" was attacked (and outright banned in some countries) because the Catholic Church found some of its cockeyed plot premises offensive.
Neither of these books seem to have suffered at all in sales; in fact, it's entirely possible that a substantial cohort of readers picked the books up just to see what all the fuss was about, which led a writer friend of mine to plaintively inquire, "What do I have to do to get my book banned?"
Which brings us to the above-mentioned type of censorship that I might just be able to endorse.
The Defense Intelligence Agency recently informed the publisher of an upcoming nonfiction book titled "Operation Dark Heart" that the book might reveal classified information. Among other things, the DIA wants to scrub passages describing a DIA "data-mining" operation called "Able Danger."
Anthony Shaffer, the book's author and a former DIA man himself, claims that he learned in Afghanistan that the Able Danger program identified 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta as a threat months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The DIA wants this information suppressed, although, since you're reading it right this second, it seems like that particular feline has already exited that particular non-rigid fabric container.
But rather than seek a legal injunction or some sort of executive action, the DIA has made the publisher an offer: It will buy the entire first run of the book, all 10,000 copies, thus giving publisher and author what all publishers and authors most want out of life: an overnight 100 percent sell-out, not to mention the kind of buzz for the second (edited) print run that a publicist could only dream of.
So I'm calling the alphabet agencies out. CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, DARPA: I'm writing a book right now that reveals all sorts of high-tech and sort-of-secret derring-do. You want to keep me from blowing the lid off all your tightly guarded secrets, all you have to do is promise to buy the whole first printing.
Or we could just skip the middleman altogether and you could send me a million bucks right now. Small bills, please. How about it?
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Wanted: Double-Naught Spies
Latest Newspaper Column
In these tough economic times, many people are looking for a career change. Having been canned from jobs they’d previously found tedious and unfulfilling, they hunger for new challenges in different fields.
If you’re one of those people, maybe you should consider a career in international espionage and counterterrorism!
But how can I find a job in a field like that, you ask. I don’t have any military or CIA experience! How can I, an average Joe, even find out about jobs in the competitive, one might even say cutthroat, field of covert operations?
Well, average Joe, these are the days of the Internet. You don’t need contacts in the black ops world, because we have Craigslist.
Recent news stories might give you the impression that the premier online advertising site was just for people looking for what are euphemistically referred to as “adult services.” Not so. The vast bulk of the advertising on Craigslist is actually for legitimate commerce, including extensive want ads. And according to a recent article in the online version of Wired magazine, some advertisers on Craigslist are looking for people in the intelligence and cybersecurity fields.
The article notes that an Ohio-based company with “$750 million in national security contracts” posted an ad (now apparently removed) for an “intelligence analyst and ‘targeting’ officer to work in its Arlington, Va., office.” I’m not sure what a “targeting officer” is, but if it’s what it sounds like, I want in. I’ve got a little list, my friends, I’ve got a little list...
Even the U.S. Army has gotten into the act, posting an ad to entice veterans back for a variety of postings, including military intelligence.
According to the article, there were a couple of job fairs held in the last couple of weeks “for a smörgåsbord of intelligence, defense and homeland security companies.” This may sound like a great place to meet some really bad-ass looking people, but unfortunately, I’ve met some actual intelligence agents in my time. They all look like accountants, which makes sense when you think about it.
Anyway, with the spook community getting into the online groove, how long will it be, do you think, before we start seeing ads like this:
— Overseas “export company” (wink, wink) seeks dynamic, energetic field representative with wide-ranging skill set. Must be able to drive fast, shoot straight, bed exotic and beautiful women and ski down steep slopes before parachuting off cliffs. British accent a plus, but will train. Must have own tuxedo. Flexible hours. Car provided. Send resume and salary requirements to the local British Consulate, addressed to “M.” No phone calls.
— Beautiful female Russian nationals sought for vaguely defined intelligence activities in NYC. Duties may include going to nightclubs, eating in trendy restaurants, establishing Facebook pages with hot profile pictures, and dating men who are maybe kinda sorta peripherally involved in politics. Compensation may vary, but will almost certainly include a one-way ticket back to Mother Russia when, we mean if, you get caught. Call Yuri at 555-XKGB.
— Sexual libertine with bad teeth needed for ongoing assignments as International Man of Mystery. Duties to include thwarting bald super-villain and his team of grotesque and amusingly named henchmen. Knowledge of obscure ’60s fashion a must. Call the British Ministry of Defense and use the code phrase, “Yeah, baby, yeah!”
— Dedicated, ruthless, yet extremely cool agent needed to repeatedly save the United States from terrorist attacks at great personal expense to himself. Must be able to work on tight (often 24-hour) deadlines. Willingness to commit terrible acts for the greater good an absolute requirement; great resistance to torture a plus. Must be able to handle repeated betrayals and plot twists. Call 555-4CTU.
On the old TV show “The Beverly Hillbillies,” people used to laugh at the hapless Jethro Bodine, whose career aspirations included becoming a “double-naught” spy. Jethro’s efforts all came to, well, naught.
Too bad he never had Craigslist.
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Great Moments in Wingnut Outrage
Sadly, No!:
The short version: wingnut blogger gets his knickers in the customary wad over a sign he sees at a protest that says SASQUATCH ISRAEL. Because, you know, leftists hate Israel and therefore they think its right to existence is a myth, and so they're calling it Sasquatch. Or something.
Only problem is, what the sign really says is...wait for it: SASQUATCH IS REAL.
The funniest part is the wingnut's pissy little response when he's caught out.
The short version: wingnut blogger gets his knickers in the customary wad over a sign he sees at a protest that says SASQUATCH ISRAEL. Because, you know, leftists hate Israel and therefore they think its right to existence is a myth, and so they're calling it Sasquatch. Or something.
Only problem is, what the sign really says is...wait for it: SASQUATCH IS REAL.
The funniest part is the wingnut's pissy little response when he's caught out.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
In Which I Find a Small Plot of Common Ground With Beck and Palin
Latest Newspaper Column (the Director's Cut):
As we all know from our study of right-wing doctrine, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is there to protect people we agree with from criticism.
Just ask radio talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who responded to criticism of a segment in which she repeatedly used "the n-word" by bravely announcing her resignation, claiming it was so she could "regain her First Amendment rights."
Or, as former Gov. Sarah Palin put it in her Twitter feed (her favored means of communication with her supporters), Dr. Laura "Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence isn't American,not fair." (It's a worrisome sign that I spend too much time on the Internet that I actually understood that.)
So we have to wonder: When Palin responded to Florida pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn copies of the Quran by saying that "book burning is antithetical to American ideals," and that the planned Quran-burning was "insensitive and an unnecessary provocation much like building a mosque at ground zero," isn't she trying to repress poor Rev. Jones' rights?
When Glenn Beck, no stranger to fantasies of repression and persecution himself, said, "Burning the Quran is like burning the flag or the Bible. ... None of those who are thinking about killing us will be affected, but our good Muslim friends and neighbors will be saddened. It makes the battle that they face inside their own communities even harder," wasn't he trying to rob Rev. Jones and his Dove World Outreach Center (ironic name, that) of its right to protest?
Of course not. And in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, we welcome Brother Glenn and Sister Sarah into the light, even if they may have, as we shall see, only gotten halfway there.
Pastor Jones and his little flock of dingbats have every right under the First Amendment to set fire to as many copies of the Quran as they can lay their grubby little hands on. Just as hatemonger Fred Phelps and his loony followers at the Westboro Baptist Church have every right to picket the funerals of Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming that their deaths are a result of God's judgment on America for being too tolerant of gay people. Just as other protesters have a right to burn the American flag, and militant atheists have a right to set fire to a stack of Bibles. The First Amendment also protects speech that makes me uncomfortable or just plain ticks me off.
However, the text of the amendment most certainly does not read, "You can say any damn fool thing you want, and everyone has to be nice to you." Which is why we also have a right to look at all of these people: Jones, Phelps, flag-burners and all, and say, in so many words, "You are a pack of bloody idiots."
We all have the right to point out that this Jones character is a publicity-grubbing media leech who's fastened onto the pulsing vein of anti-Muslim hatred running through this country right now and is sucking on it for all he's worth, milking it for every last drop of sweet, sweet attention he can slurp down. And he's being aided by a compliant corporate media world that tut-tuts in feigned outrage while beating a path to the door of this cut-rate charlatan hoping for just one more inflammatory quote.
I also have the right to point out that comparing the destruction of what Muslims regard as a sacred text to building a community center and mosque on a busy commercial block in Manhattan to be a particularly dimwitted comparison, even from someone who wears her ignorance like a tiara. Unless you're saying that the building is almost certain to cause a violent backlash. (And of course we all know right-wingers abhor violence, right?)
Or unless you're planning to sanctify the entire five-block radius around ground zero in some way, in which case you're going to need to get rid of the two strip clubs, the tattoo parlor, the nail salon and the off-track betting parlor in the immediate vicinity. Could get expensive, buying up all that New York real estate.
The First Amendment: We may not always like what it leads to, but then, freedom is not for pussies.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
At Least They're Getting Out of the House
Latest Newspaper Column:
Back in the days before writing books began to take up so much of what I used to call "leisure time," I played a lot of computer games.
By computer games, I mean games on the PC, not a "console" like the PlayStation or Nintendo. I spent hours flying through the virtual skies battling Nazi bombers, Russian MiG-29s and German World War I Triplanes.
I invaded Europe at the head of a German Army, liberated it at the head of an American one, stormed castles and led my legions against the Celts. I conquered the planet several times over while advancing my civilization to spacefaring capability, after which I proceeded to conquer the galaxy as well.
I mowed down entire divisions of demonic baddies and fragged thousands of virtual bad guys behind an array of science-fictional weapons, keeping one eye on my "health bar" to make sure that the damage I was taking from my enemies didn't reach fatal levels that would necessitate hitting the restart button.
Yes. I was a complete geek. Still am, in some ways.
But I will say one thing in my defense, pathetic as it may be: I never played a "dating simulation."
Dating simulations are apparently quite the rage these days in Japan. One very popular such game for the Nintendo DS hand-held gaming system is called "Love Plus."
In "Love Plus," the player takes on the persona of a boy who transfers to a new high school, where you/he meets three comely young lasses. You/he picks one, pursues her by having various (apparently nonromantic) encounters and conversations. If all goes well, the "girl" eventually "declares her feelings" for you. Or for him.
That's where a lot of these games end. But, according to an article in Discovery News online, in "Love Plus" that's just the beginning. You have to maintain the relationship by paying attention to your new virtual amour, conversing with her, paying her compliments, and all of the hard work that goes into actual romance.
It's sort of like those "virtual pets" that were all the rage a few years ago, except with cute Japanese girls with big eyes and schoolgirl uniforms who get pouty and dump you if you don't pay attention to them, rather than dying like the pets.
I know what you're probably thinking, but I haven't read anything that indicates that the (ahem) physical aspects of a dating relationship are modeled in the game, so I assume that that part is left out. I am, for some reason, extremely relieved by this.
As all guys know, if you have a girlfriend, even a virtual one, eventually she's going to start complaining if you never take her on vacation. Well, thanks to Japanese ingenuity, the "Love Plus" Romeo has an answer for his silicon sweetheart.
It seems that the seaside resort of Atami, southwest of Tokyo, has developed a partnership with game company Konami, maker of "Love Plus," to sponsor vacation trips where young aficionados of the game can frolic, after a fashion, with their chosen one.
Various locations around the resort have embedded bar codes which the humans can scan, which generates a photo of them and their virtual dream girl in the location on the player's game machine or smart phone.
"Look," a 23-year-old told a Discovery News reporter, "it's like I'm in a snapshot with her." He then proudly "showed off his iPhone display, featuring himself next to the image of a doe-eyed cartoon character named Rinko, a smiling high school girl."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Or shudder. I think I'll do all three. On the other hand, I suppose if you're going to spend all your time on a computer game, it's better to make love, not war.
But it does raise a question:
Advocates of stricter controls or warnings on video and computer games insist that too much virtual violence can lead to more violence in real life. Too much time playing "shooter" games, they insist, may turn players into remorseless hyper-efficient killing machines wreaking havoc in the halls of the local high school like the Terminator.
So would the converse apply to "dating simulations"? Would reaching the highest level of "Love Plus" make you an awesome boyfriend?
Sadly, the world may never know.
Back in the days before writing books began to take up so much of what I used to call "leisure time," I played a lot of computer games.
By computer games, I mean games on the PC, not a "console" like the PlayStation or Nintendo. I spent hours flying through the virtual skies battling Nazi bombers, Russian MiG-29s and German World War I Triplanes.
I invaded Europe at the head of a German Army, liberated it at the head of an American one, stormed castles and led my legions against the Celts. I conquered the planet several times over while advancing my civilization to spacefaring capability, after which I proceeded to conquer the galaxy as well.
I mowed down entire divisions of demonic baddies and fragged thousands of virtual bad guys behind an array of science-fictional weapons, keeping one eye on my "health bar" to make sure that the damage I was taking from my enemies didn't reach fatal levels that would necessitate hitting the restart button.
Yes. I was a complete geek. Still am, in some ways.
But I will say one thing in my defense, pathetic as it may be: I never played a "dating simulation."
Dating simulations are apparently quite the rage these days in Japan. One very popular such game for the Nintendo DS hand-held gaming system is called "Love Plus."
In "Love Plus," the player takes on the persona of a boy who transfers to a new high school, where you/he meets three comely young lasses. You/he picks one, pursues her by having various (apparently nonromantic) encounters and conversations. If all goes well, the "girl" eventually "declares her feelings" for you. Or for him.
That's where a lot of these games end. But, according to an article in Discovery News online, in "Love Plus" that's just the beginning. You have to maintain the relationship by paying attention to your new virtual amour, conversing with her, paying her compliments, and all of the hard work that goes into actual romance.
It's sort of like those "virtual pets" that were all the rage a few years ago, except with cute Japanese girls with big eyes and schoolgirl uniforms who get pouty and dump you if you don't pay attention to them, rather than dying like the pets.
I know what you're probably thinking, but I haven't read anything that indicates that the (ahem) physical aspects of a dating relationship are modeled in the game, so I assume that that part is left out. I am, for some reason, extremely relieved by this.
As all guys know, if you have a girlfriend, even a virtual one, eventually she's going to start complaining if you never take her on vacation. Well, thanks to Japanese ingenuity, the "Love Plus" Romeo has an answer for his silicon sweetheart.
It seems that the seaside resort of Atami, southwest of Tokyo, has developed a partnership with game company Konami, maker of "Love Plus," to sponsor vacation trips where young aficionados of the game can frolic, after a fashion, with their chosen one.
Various locations around the resort have embedded bar codes which the humans can scan, which generates a photo of them and their virtual dream girl in the location on the player's game machine or smart phone.
"Look," a 23-year-old told a Discovery News reporter, "it's like I'm in a snapshot with her." He then proudly "showed off his iPhone display, featuring himself next to the image of a doe-eyed cartoon character named Rinko, a smiling high school girl."
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Or shudder. I think I'll do all three. On the other hand, I suppose if you're going to spend all your time on a computer game, it's better to make love, not war.
But it does raise a question:
Advocates of stricter controls or warnings on video and computer games insist that too much virtual violence can lead to more violence in real life. Too much time playing "shooter" games, they insist, may turn players into remorseless hyper-efficient killing machines wreaking havoc in the halls of the local high school like the Terminator.
So would the converse apply to "dating simulations"? Would reaching the highest level of "Love Plus" make you an awesome boyfriend?
Sadly, the world may never know.