found_drama

…but I’d feel remiss for not saying anything at all.

I first caught wind of Google’s JSConf.eu scholarships-for-females program in a roundabout way. I had just started following Rebecca Murphey’s posts^[1] when I saw this tweet.

At first I thought very little of it but after seeing Nicole Sullivan’s and then Murphey’s more in-depth posts, I followed through to the rest of the thread.

1. Personally, I’m strongly in the camp the Google is doing the right thing with these scholarships. These sorts of scholarships exist all over the place, targeting all kinds of specific groups. If we^[2] are going to grow as a community, we need a broad range of voices. Sometimes the best way to get those voices is to give them a boost on the way up.
2. I feel like this thread of discourse comes up at least once a year. Every time that it comes up and someone cites that we are far from a 50/50-male/female mix in our professional community, I think “there must be some perfectly logical explanation for this” and almost always, when you look at it logically, the sad truth is that sexist pressures drive women out. I don’t know what is going to change this, but it needs to change.
3. To the women that have spoken up about this; to the men that have come to their support; to Google for inadvertently starting this year’s furor: thank you.

The politics of this subject are complicated and subtle; that doesn’t help. But we can help ourselves to make this a vibrant and productive community by speaking out and speaking up—even if it’s just in some small way^[3].

1. In a bit of an ironic twist? What with this women-in-tech thread getting going at around the same time that I start following the blogs/posts of several women developers. [↩]
2. ”We” here being web developers; but really “we” could be “any community”. [↩]
3. It’s a start, eh? [↩]

A few thoughts as I step away from Theodore Rex:

(1) “Teddy” was a really and truly fascinating character and (like him or not) an important figure in American history.

(2) Given when I was reading this (i.e., more/less at the height of the health care reform debates of the Obama administration), it gives me some perspective and perhaps a little hope, viz. that a popular but politically controversial President can get quite a bit accomplished.

(3) Morris paints a pretty vivid picture of the turn-of-the-century United States in addition to painting a vivid picture of Roosevelt. One of the things that got me through the book’s 555 pages (viz., I don’t care about who is winning delegates!) was the sense of pageantry and drama. Big things were happening and the world was a well-appointed stage.

A version of this review appears on Goodreads.com.

At Gawker: Let’s Just Say It: We’re Scared Someone’s Going to Try to Kill Barack Obama – Barack Obama:

Now, this guy is carrying a legal weapon, says NBC News’ Ron Allen. The local chief of police has no objections. Open carriage of licensed handguns is legal in New Hampshire, and the man is standing on the private property of a nearby church (!) that has no problem with an armed man hanging around.

Let’s get one thing straight:  under NH law, the man isn’t doing anything wrong illegal.

But let’s also agree that’s what’s “legal” and what’s “right” aren’t always the same thing.

What blows my mind:  what church is going to have “no problem” with an armed man hanging around openly inciting people to violence?  I may clamor on in my anti-ecclesiastical viewpoints from time to time but…  Even I will say that this is cognitively dissonant.

The one thing I must insist upon:  we cannot let ourselves be intimidated by the folks out there maneuvering these tactics.

In the August 10, 2009 issue of The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell writes the following in his essay “The Courthouse Ring: Atticus Finch and the limits of Southern liberalism“:

One of George Orwell’s finest essays takes Charles Dickens to task for his lack of “constructive suggestions.” Dickens was a powerful critic of Victorian England, a proud and lonely voice in the campaign for social reform. But, as Orwell points out, there was little substance to Dickens’s complaints. “He attacks the law, parliamentary government, the educational system and so forth, without ever clearly suggesting what he would put in their places,” Orwell writes. “There is no clear sign that he wants the existing order to be overthrown, or that he believes it would make very much difference if it were overthrown. For in reality his target is not so much society as ‘human nature.’ ” Dickens sought “a change of spirit rather than a change in structure.”

While Gladwell’s essay is itself quite interesting for what he’s chosen to discuss^[1], it was the Orwell quote re Dickens that piqued me.

I hadn’t read this Orwell essay about Dickens before^[2] nor had I any inkling that he had written about him at all.  What I find intriguing about the quote is when I put it into the context of David Simon’s fifth season of The Wire.  For those not caught up^[3], I won’t spoil this too badly for you:  in season five, the folks at the newspaper keep referring to “the Dickensian aspect” of certain stories.  Now, that has a meaning all its own and takes on its own baggage during that season without any help from the above quote by Orwell.  But something always bugged me about the way Haynes echoed “Dickensian” so disparagingly to the editors.  Re-casting that echo with the above Orwell, we get an interesting reversal with a sprinkled bit of irony:  (1) that the newspaper, by being and/or valuing the “Dickensian” is exposing and criticizing without offering any substantive alternatives^[4] but also (2) try re-casting that criticism in light of how Orwell is the one making it — and how George “1984″ Orwell is essentially synonymous with the kind of round-the-clock surveillance portrayed so centrally in The Wire.

Reading Gladwell’s essay and then considering the above, you get the sense that he’s maybe stopping a little short by ascribing To Kill a Mockingbird‘s main thematic thrust to a kind of fable about provincialism.  Maybe just laser-focused on the thesis?  Perhaps.  But it seems incomplete, as though there is more to explore — viz., that it isn’t limited to “Jim Crow liberalism in Maycomb, Alabama”, that it (i.e., injustice and/or bias and/or double-standards etc.) is systemic and gets inflected even (and perhaps especially) when the scenario’s given actors have the best intentions.

Just consider Jimmy McNulty.

1. Namely, a deconstruction of Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch and putting him into context re Southern populism a la James (a.k.a., Big Jim; a.k.a., Kissin’ Jim) Folsom.  SHORT VERSION:  Finch may not be Bull Connor but he was a far cry from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when it came to his mission for racial equality. [↩]
2. And technically speaking, as I write this, I still haven’t. [↩]
3. And seriously: by now, why aren’t you? [↩]
4. See also: the Mike Fletcher/Bubbles sub-plot and how the editors down-play that story. [↩]

Today, our historic election becomes our historic inauguration.  Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.  He gave a well-tempered speech, and one that spoke deeply to A. and myself^[1], one that stirred more than a few emotions and (hopefully) more than a few into action.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was asking people in the crowd in The Mall last night:  What are your hopes for Obama’s presidency?  Had he called upon me for an answer, I would have said that my hope is that the momentum Obama has built up these past few months doesn’t fade.  That somehow, through all of the rough times still ahead of us, that people do not lose sight of the message.  I hope that people are still excited, still motivated, still willing to make sacrifices and think creatively with a mind toward a better future — that the inspiration this historic event fills them with now, is still with them in a year.

Two other thoughts on the past twenty-four hours or so:

1. Chris Matthews kept calling D.C. “integrated” last night.  The word bothers me in a big way.  It isn’t that I believe he meant anything disparaging by it — not in the least.  But I think the word itself is evocative of segregation and the racism tied into that.  Granted, maybe he was invoking it for exactly that reason, to connote this historic inaugural as the ultimate triumph over that malign period in our history.  But if that’s the case, then “integration” seems to carry additional connotations.  Again, perhaps that’s exactly what Matthews intended:  link the occasions, follow Obama’s lead and point right at the great white elephant in the room.  But didn’t seem like the right word to me, it came off as sloppy and ill-aligned with the ebullient mood he (and others) were trying to portray.  So what was the right word?  Try: concordant, mellifluous, or unified.
2. Speaking of integration:  my father spoke briefly last night about what this inauguration meant to him.  He began high school in North Carolina^[2] during the first year of integration there.  He said that there was a palpable tension.  Not that there was imminent violence or a disturbed sense of safety — nothing like that, nothing out of the ordinary for a bunch of high school kids, at least.  But (in his words) “all the white kids sat on one side of the room, and all the black kids on the other”.  As the year progressed, that lessened a bit.  Sports (he said) went a long way in getting individuals to see each other in a different light, in earning each others’ respect.  In many ways, this seemed to him to be a lot like that first year.  Only, looking at pictures of those crowds on The Mall, it seems that we are already a little past that first day of class where everyone sits together on opposite sides of the room.

And now, the work begins.

1. And not just because he mentioned Science by name. [↩]
2. Moving in from elsewhere; you know how those Air Force kids bounce around. [↩]

Via A.: Protest flares up on Facebook over breast-feeding photos:

A minirevolt is underway at Facebook after photos of mothers nursing their babies were removed from their personal pages. ¶ More than 58,000 people have joined a Facebook group called “Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!” to complain about the censorship.

The article’s comment thread is a real study in how ignorant some trolls can be about this issue.

Facebook’s assertion that they only remove images where the entire breast is exposed is weak.  The bottom line is that breastfeeding is about as natural of an act as any that a woman can participate in.  Whether the baby is latched on or not should make no difference in judging the context of the image.  A breastfeeding mother that chooses to post such a picture is doing it with full knowledge of how she is depicting herself and her baby; there is nothing obscene about it.  The article referenced above has the following quote from Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt:

“These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users, including the many children [over the age of 13] who use the site…”

…and from exactly what are we trying to protect these children?  Babies getting their snack on?  A nipple?

It’s a sad state of affairs when the hyper-sexualization of a woman’s body leads to poor policy decisions like this.  The assertion that it’s motivated by the desire to create “a safe, secure and trusted environment for all users” doesn’t resolve — there’s plenty of advertising on their network to the contrary.

Which is not to say that I’m advocating pulling that shit down.  Just a little common sense all around would be nice.

The virtual nurse-in is scheduled for Saturday, December 27.  Facebook users can join the group here.  For more information about breastfeeding, check out Breastfeeding Made Simple: Seven Natural Laws for Nursing Mothers by Nancy Mohrbacher & Kathleen Kendall-Tacket or The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding (a La Leche League publication).

(Original photo page on Flickr.)

Incredible.  As Americans, we made history yesterday.  We came out to the polls in huge^[1] numbers to decisively elect Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States of America.  It seems that everyone I know or have spoken with is a-buzz with this news.  As I write this, President-Elect Obama has 349 electoral votes with only North Carolina and Missouri still outstanding.

The things that I have been thinking about all day:

• McCain’s concession speech was gracious.  It’s too bad that it was ruined by the reactions in the crowd.
• We have overcome a huge hurdle.  America’s first black President.  I’m looking forward to the day where no one even bats an eyelash at this sort of thing.  But for now, I’m captivated by the energy this seems brings out in people.
• Obama’s victory speech was moving.  But more so…

…I’m glad that he acknowledges that the hardest parts are yet to come.  Barack Obama is not going to save us.  But he brings the right attitude and he brings hope to people, he inspires them.  And we’re going to need that kind of inspiration to dig our way out.

So let’s get to it.

(Original photo on Flickr.)

1. Record? [↩]

streaming election coverage, touching up pics in Aperture, wishing we had some f#$%&*g whiskey ¶

(Original photo on Flickr.)

I’m thinking that Americans (i.e., “we” and/or “us”) need to get over this bullshit obsession we have with taxes.  I’ve been thinking about this recently and I’m convinced that the mythologizing of the Boston Tea Party and that blasted James Otis quote have undermined us from the beginning.

I can’t remember an election cycle (Presidential or otherwise) where taxation wasn’t a dirty word levied on either side.  I get the feeling that some politicians have wet dreams about coming out on stage in buckskin pants, warpaint, and swinging a tomahawk, screaming about how we could storm the doors and let those pork bellies soak in the harbor for a while.

The “t-word” really ought to be excised from the public discourse for a few generations.  Every objection to taxation I’ve ever heard seems to culminate in or be summarized with a rhetorical Don’t you think it’s messed up that they just take your money right out of your paycheck?  Sure I do, but I’m willing to admit that it’s only because I feel the cash is being mismanaged.

Many of these same nay-sayers are then happy to talk about the recent diversification of their stock portfolio or how they’re maxing out their contributions to their 401(k)^[1].  To these individuals, I ask:  What’s the difference?  If you’re so eager to drop that cash to buy a few shares, there’s a clear motivation — correct?  You’re seeking a return on your investment.

Well, suppose you assert to your Congressman that your taxes are the same thing?  Consider yourself a shareholder in the United States of America.  Lose the mohawk, you wannabe Tonto impersonators, and demand your annual shareholders report!

1. And/or 403(b) and/or (Roth) IRA. [↩]

In the midst of all this “Great Bailout of ’08″ stuff, I have tried to keep myself contemplative and distant.  Economic woes being what they are, they certainly touch on all households when they get to this magnitude but it seemed wise to keep a positive outlook on it^[1].  Aside from the occasional link and a bit of humor, I’ve tried to keep quiet about this particular subject here in this particular venue.  I haven’t said much mostly because it seemed gratuitous; I have a layperson’s grasp of the subject and I wasn’t going to add much to the dialogue that wasn’t already being covered in-depth much more frequently and by much more knowledgeable people.  But as events have unfolded under the Capitol dome and as I’ve meditated more deeply on the conversations I’ve had, something has become startlingly clear to me.

First:  As Americans, a sense of justice is deeply ingrained in our national cultural psyche.  It is deeply important to us that the guilty are punished regardless of whether or not they have broken any laws.  And that is why our collective stomach heaves at the prospect of $700B being shelled out “for our own good”^[2] without some assurance that the perpetrators of this heinous crime^[3] get what’s coming to them.  As Americans, it offends us that something this awful can be allowed to occur without seeing to it that someone hangs for it.  But at the same time (as a friend so eloquently put it):

I’m not happy about this, either, but at some point the need for responsible stewardship outweighs the desire to see CEOs get the shaft.

Or:  we can swallow our pride, get over this “sense of justice” thing we hold so dear, and allow The Government to take some action that will preserve some semblance of economic vitality and our quality of life^[4].

But that’s not what really bugs us.  And while that snapped into clarity for me, it was not that startling revelation.

Second:  Related to our sense of justice (“first cousins”, if you will) is this important need to get value out of our expenditures.  We want a return on our investment and when it comes to taxes, our outrage doesn’t come from the hit we take on Pay Day, it’s from the over-powering perception that the money is being pissed away by our elected officials on $600 toilet seats and $700B bailout packages.

Apocryphal or not, these stories are just icing on top of a cake that’s already baked with a crumbling transportation infrastructure, under-funded mass transit programs, a non-existent health care program, budget freezes on scientific research programs, and a long list of other failures that drain public trust in our Byzantine Leviathan of a government.  Of course we cringe at the taxes we pay — the benefits are intangible abstractions when they exist at all.

As Congress moves forward with this plan, we get another collective stomach heave.  It’s not enough that the original Section 8 is gone from the plan.  We got some oversight (“I guess”) but it’s a pale imitation of the justice we really want.  And while some action can be thought of as “a good thing”^[5], we start looking at the riders on this bill and shudder at their fringe nature (e.g., exemptions for arrows for child archers) or consider with disgust that we’re offering a hand out to industries that offer no productivity toward our long-term economic stability (e.g., Hollywood film production and automotive racing).

I was having a conversation with someone who pays more in Federal taxes than the 2006 median household income.  Wow, sucky.  But (as I said to this person) it isn’t sucky because of the hit he’s taking; it’s because at the end of the day you feel like you’re not getting anything for your outlay.  I got some reluctant agreement to this point.  If you felt like The Government was managing your money prudently, that you had good roads and scholarships for your kids and grant funding for science and universal health care and the best-maintained public park lands in the world, etc. then it wouldn’t feel quite so bad.

But instead you get expensive endless wars and corruption trials and bailout packages and budget cuts for anything important — “Death and Taxes“, basically.

So where do we land?  And what do we do?

Short of an all out revolution^[6], there seems to be only one thing to do.  Cliched as it may sound:  get the fuck out there and vote.  Seriously.  There is an election coming up.  Take a good long look at who is out there and who is going to do any good.  In some cases, the sensible choice is obvious.  There are a lot of incumbents that probably don’t deserve to get a trip back to D.C. or [fill in your state capital here].  Demand some accountability.  Don’t be satisfied with Party Platform answers and talking points and all that other vague bullshit that we have come to accept as political double-speak.  We deserve better than that and we should expect more from them.  These people are supposed to represent you and your interests.  Start thinking about Your Representation like you would think about your 401(k) adviser or your mutual fund’s manager or anyone else to whom you’ve ever turned over money.  Take a good long look at that Death and Taxes poster.  Maybe mail a copy to your Congressman.  Don’t just ask for some transparency, demand it.  Be a pain in the ass to his/her office.

Satisfying your sense of justice depends on it.

1. E.g., how much will it really affect my day-to-day? [↩]
2. I.e.,”for the economy”. [↩]
3. Viz., Wall Street CEOs, hedge fund managers, etc. [↩]
4. Viz., make at least a “best effort” at not letting things get worse. [↩]
5. I.e., “responsible stewardship” and all that. [↩]
6. Which, frankly, seems like it would be terribly destabilizing and counter-productive with respect to a long-term, sustainable solution. [↩]