Whatever

Saladin Ahmed and Jonathan Coulton: Separated at birth.

Seriously, I know them both, and it’s uncanny. Although Saladin is the slightly more compact version. Even so.

I completely forgot about this until I saw a Tavis Smiley tweet about it this morning: My Whatever post “Being Poor,” which I wrote in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, is excerpted in his and Cornel West’s new book The Rich and the Rest of Us: A Poverty Manifesto. Which is, as you might expect, a book about poverty here in the United States.

You might ask, what payment did I get for this reprint? The answer: None at all. I am someone who very strongly believes in getting paid for his work, but in the case of this particular essay, it wasn’t written for pay, and when an opportunity for payment comes to me for it, I like to put my money where my mouth is regarding poverty. I requested that in exchange for the right to reprint the essay, that Mr. Smiley (whose people approached me with the request) donate the reprint sum to a charity dealing with poverty. Mr. Smiley (or his people) chose Feeding America, which helps provide food for those who need. That’s an organization whose goals I support, so well done him.

In any event, if you happen to pick up the book, see “Being Poor” and wonder if I know it is there: Yes, I do. It’s nice to see the essay still getting around and being part of the conversation about poverty here in the US.

Look, it’s a picture of me, my mother, my sister Heather and my niece Ashley, from (I would guess) 1986 or so, and probably from around Mother’s Day. Today, everyone else in this picture has equal or greater amounts of hair except for me. Seems horribly unfair.

In any event, seems like a good picture to air again on Mother’s Day. If you’re a mom, I hope you’re having a good day. If you’re not a mom, it’s not a bad day so give a little appreciation to your mom, if she’s about and around.

Is “A-Jay” from Norway, who was the first to correctly guess that the monument I was thinking of was “The Motherland Calls,” in Volgograd, Russia. Seriously, that’s a badass statue, y’all.

A-Jay, send me your mailing address from the same e-mail address you used to comment from, and I’ll put your Redshirts ARC in the mail. Congrats!

And thanks, everyone not in the US who played.

This mostly to establish that my first finished hardcover copy of Redshirts has arrived at the house. It looks fantastic, I have to say. And no, you can’t have it. I only have the one. It goes to Krissy. Because she has First Copy Privileges. I think we can all agree that is how it should be.

What was waiting for me when I got in at 1am:

If you can’t read the note, it says: “Happy birthday!! We made you B-day cookies but mommy messed it up bad. The love is there. Mommy & Athena.”

That’s right! The secret ingredient is love! And, uh, maybe too much milk.

They still tasted excellent.

It’s nice to be home.

42 was a pretty good year for me, I have to say; I did some good work, made the acquaintance (or better acquaintance) of some excellent people, and got to see a bit of the world. Let’s see what 43 has in store.

In other news, today is my birthday and I am also doing an appearance at the Massachusetts Library Association and I am also traveling back home so I will be able to share at least a tiny sliver of today with the family. All of which is to say I am mostly taking the day off from here. See you tomorrow!

I thought Obama was going to keep his distance on same-sex marriage through November.

I was wrong.

I’m at the airport and catching up on this as it develops; when I’m done I’ll possibly check in with further thoughts. But for now, I’ll just say: Good for him. Glad he came out.

People are (rather gleefully, I suspect) sending me this story about conservative writer Jonah Goldberg getting dinged for the jacket flap bio of his latest book, which incorrectly states that Goldberg has been twice nominated for the Pulitzer. In fact it appears he’s been twice submitted for consideration, which involves no special skill other than filling out an application and sending the $50 fee. When called on it, both Goldberg and his publisher said “whoops, that’s an error” and backtracked on it, both suggesting it was an innocent mistake.

Well, it’s definitely a mistake. I’m not sure it was “innocent” in the sense of “unintentional,” although it might be in the sense of “non-malicious,” since no one gets hurt when Goldberg overinflates his accomplishments. But as publishing sins go, it’s pretty venial. It’s not like plagiarism.

Also, from a certain pathetic point of view, it’s not an actual lie. It’s stupid, and it’s something you can get called on so easily that it’s foolish to do it. But just as Bill Clinton wanted to parse what “is” is, Goldberg appears to have been hanging his hat on what the word “nominated” means.

In this case Goldberg seems to have been using the word “nominated” in the sense of “proposed for consideration,” which if you’re a word dork who hauls out the dictionary every time someone points out you’re using a word in a non-conventional manner, is not incorrect: Goldberg’s publishers did propose him (and/or his work) by filling out the forms and sending along the money. Goldberg’s initial response to being called on his use of the word “nominated” in at least one of his various bios — “Nominated by the Tribune syndicate. Never said I was a finalist. There’s a distinction” — makes it clear that’s why Goldberg went with the wording.

And in his defense, he’s not alone. I’ve had people proudly note to me that they’ve been nominated for a Pushcart Prize (again, by a publisher sending in an application) or for Hugos or Nebulas (by a member of the voting pool offering a recommendation and/or submitting their name or work on the initial nominating ballot) or for other awards. Again, in a strict dictionary sense, they’re not wrong. It’s a nomination — they or their work has been named for consideration.

In the practical, real world sense, however, it’s totally incorrect; the common usage of the “nominated” when in comes to awards is those works that have made a short list prior to the naming of a winner (or, in the case of the Pulitzer and a few other awards, noted as being part of the final selection pool after the award is announced). What’s more, I rather suspect a large number of the people who announce their work is “nominated” in the dictionary sense are well aware that people who see the word in the context of award immediately go to the “short list” meaning of the word. Which is why they use it at all — or at the very least allow it not to be corrected.

This is, incidentally, why it doesn’t pay to be a dictionary dork if you don’t understand that dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive; you can be literally correct about the definition of a word, but still be contextually wrong and look silly in the real world. I mean, look: I’m pretty certain at least a couple of people nominated Fuzzy Nation for the Best Novel Hugo Award this year. If I went around saying it was nominated for Best Novel because of that, I’d have my ass handed to me. And rightly so, because it’s not correct, even if by the dictionary definition I’ve been nominated. The dictionary is not your friend in situations like these.

Why didn’t Goldberg correct this until he got called on it? You got me. I don’t buy that Goldberg was unaware of the notations. He probably didn’t write his jacket bio copy (I don’t write mine) but he almost certainly got jacket proofs, and it’s incumbent on him to correct errors. This would have been an easy fix. The obvious answer is that he didn’t correct it because he didn’t want to or that he genuinely believed that it wasn’t a big deal to say “nominated” when “submitted for consideration” was more correct. Maybe to his audience it doesn’t matter, or he didn’t believe his audience would know anything about the Pulitzer process. Which may be correct since he was ultimately called on it by another journalist. It was still kind of dumb of him.

My problem is that I can’t work up a real sense of schadenfreude on this because, really, it’s just kind of amateur hour. I’m no fan of Goldberg, who strikes me as a slap-dash researcher and whose political rhetoric runs the gamut from “fatuous” to “shallow,” but the dude’s been in the grown-up publishing world for a couple of decades now and has shipped hundreds of thousands of books. You’ll likely never see me write these words in the context of Goldberg ever again, but he’s better than this sort of penny-ante silliness, or at least he should know better. It’s like watching an NBA player trip over untied shoelaces. It’s not as much fun as it could be.

Who was defeated in his primary last night. It’s on the subject of his primary opponent and the value of bipartisanship. I’m going to quote a big fat chunk of it here. For those of you who want to see the whole thing, it’s here.

—-

…If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that…

—-

Thoughts?

I’m not particularly pleased with the outcome of the North Carolina Amendment One vote last night, but neither am I particularly surprised. And as I noted on Twitter last night, my impulse to tut-tut North Carolina voters is well tempered by the fact Ohio’s voters put their own rather odiously bigoted marriage amendment into their constitution a couple of years ago. People living in glass houses need to pull the beams from their own eyes, as they say. Of course, I did vote against Ohio’s marriage amendment when I had the chance, so in that respect my conscience is clear. My point, however, is that people who want to snark off about North Carolina as just another redneck southern state should note it’s not just the south where this is all still in play; remember that four years ago voters in California, where non-Californians often assume sodomy is high school elective, voted anti-same sex marriage bigotry into their own Constitution.

As Ana Marie Cox notes in the Guardian, all of this is a rear-guard action on the part of bigots and the oft-unwitting and well-meaning accomplices of bigots, many of whom who would be appalled and offended at the idea their vote for encoding bigotry into their state constitution constitutes an actual act of bigotry on their own part, because they don’t hate anyone (sorry, guys. It does). But I think pro-same sex marriage folks underestimate how long it will take to tear down all this constitutional nonsense short of a pro-same sex marriage (or at least pro-equal protection under the law) Supreme Court ruling that will affect the entire nation, which I don’t think anyone should count on any time soon, hopeful projections in the direction of Anthony Kennedy notwithstanding. Yes, nationally half of the US now supports same-sex marriage, but remember that half is not evenly distributed and that the majority of the older people who are against same-sex marriage will not die off as quickly as you hope.

Five years from now the majority of Americans will support same-sex marriage; ten years from now the large majority will. But ten years from now it will still be against the Constitution of North Carolina for same sex couples to get married (and Ohio’s, too). I’d like to be wrong, but I doubt I will be. It’s harder to repeal a constitutional amendment than a law. The bigots know this. This is why the bigots do what they do.

It sucks for gays and lesbians that in places like North Carolina, and Ohio, and even California, all that can done at the moment is to assure those of them who would like to marry those they love is to tell them that it will get better. I shouldn’t have to get better. It should be better. But you work with what you have in the real world, and in the real world, what gays and lesbians in places like North Carolina and Ohio and even California have is the future. Let’s get working toward it.

It’s up now. Go see me say goodbye and have some final thoughts on (pretty much exactly) four years of science fiction film. And if you have any comments you’d like to make over there, well, now’s the time, isn’t it.

A snapping turtle. Which struck me as random but apparently isn’t entirely, as snapping turtles are native to Ohio (as well as much of the eastern two thirds of the continental US), and there is a big pond nearby, where this guy probably lives most of the time. He (or she, honestly, like I could tell) is probably out looking for a mate, as this mating season. In which case he has a bit of travel yet, since I’m pretty sure there’s not any more of his kind in the yard. I wish him luck all the same.

Things and stuff:

* Been asked asked whether I think Joe Biden’s sudden declaration about being peachy-fine with same sex marriage is politics or an actual declaration of Biden’s feelings on the matter. Well, why either/or? I think Biden may very well not have a single problem with men marrying men and women marrying women, and also that the Obama Administration is doing one of its messaging things to gays and lesbians (and those who have no problem with gays and lesbians marrying their own respective sexes), to wit: “Hey, Obama’s gotta do that fence-sitting thing on the topic until at least after the election, but remember which party it is that’s actually going to evolve in the direction you want. Hey, did you see how the Romney campaign hung that gay spokesman of theirs out to dry? Yeah. Anyway, keep it in mind, okay?”

Is that cynical of Obama to thread the needle like that? You bet. Welcome to the 2012 presidential election.

* Entirely unrelated, I’ve also been asked for further thoughts on the tenor guitar, which I’ve now been playing with for about a week. The short answer is that I’m still quite liking the thing: it really is substantially easier for me to play than a standard guitar, and because I’ve enjoyed playing it, and find it less frustrating than other guitars I’ve owned, I’ve been playing with it quite a lot. My strumming is still crap, but it’s less crap than it was a week ago.

It’s also a nice guitar, or at least this is what independent outside observers have told me. I took it to my local music store to get restrung (since I have it tuned like a uke, I needed to switch around the top and second strings), and the folks there seemed quite taken with it. They were also sort of curious about it; I think it might have been the first tenor guitar they had seen in the flesh. Which I can certainly understand, since I didn’t know such things even existed until three weeks ago.

The one drawback I’m having with the guitar is that I keep bumping it into things. Even though it’s smaller than the average guitar, it’s substantially larger than a uke, which is the thing I’m used to playing. So I’ve got to wrap my brain about that.

But overall: One of the better purchases I’ve made lately.

* Additional Redshirts news: There’s a review of the book on Tor.com today, which is nicely positive, which makes me happy. The review has some mild spoilers, so be warned. If you don’t want the book spoiled minorly, here’s the pull quote:

Redshirts is a light, fast read, but it’s also a book whose questions about storytelling and agency stay with you long after you have put it down.

Yup, that sounds about right.

I am trying not to overdo Redshirts stuff around here, but as a fair warning, we’re almost exactly a month away from the release date and between now and then news and reviews are going to roll in, plus there will be some very awesome surprises and probably a few more giveaways. So you will hear about it a lot. This is what happens in the month before a book drops.

The good news is, immediately afterward I’ll be on tour, which means I’ll be so busy I will hardly update at all! Lucky you.

Dear The Rest of the World:

This is the Redshirts giveaway for you. You can only enter if you are not a resident of the USA. Because, my dear Rest of the World, you are special too. Don’t let anyone tell you any different.

Here’s how to enter:

I am thinking of a monument. Guess which monument I am thinking of. Include the name of the closest city, or if no city is nearby (which is possible), the monument’s approximate latitude/longitude.

Hints:

1. The monument I am thinking of is not in the United States.

2. It’s man made.

3. The monument itself is not something meant for humans to live in.

Leave a comment, with your guess. In the comment, also tell me which country you’re in. You have until 10am (Eastern), May 9th, to get your entry in.

The first non-US resident to guess the monument I am thinking of will win. If no one guesses the monument, I’ll pick a winner by seeing how many comments there are and having Athena pick a number between one and that number.

When I announce the winner (it might take a couple of days because I’ll be traveling), that person will contact me from the same e-mail they used to leave their comment, with their physical mailing address. And then off in the mail the ARC will go.

Simple.

Okay, then: What monument am I thinking of?

Three! It’s a magic number. Go here and leave a comment; the Tor/Forge folks will take care of the rest.

And, yes, sorry, only open to the residents of the 50 US states and Washington, DC. It’s a legal thing.

Turning off the comments to this post so there’s no confusion.