![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
moominmuppetFirst of all, two Audiobooks I just finished:
The Stinky Cheese Man and Other Fairly Stupid Tales -- I really enjoyed this one; excellent narration and music, silly and giggle-provoking. The narration was extremely over-the-top in terms of expressiveness, which is good for drawing young kids into audio stories. And having seen the book, I know a lot of the humor is in the illustrations and arrangement, so I was really impressed with how well that was conveyed in a purely audio form. I'd still recommend getting the hard copy, but for $1.36, I don't see how you can go wrong with this (well, except for using an Audible Credit for it, which would be hugely wasteful -- always spend cash for anything under $17 or so). 20 minutes of excellent car entertainment, especially for young kids who are old enough to recognize the shape of familiar tales being satirically twisted. Also likely an excellent accompaniment for the book, which is well-worth owning in its own right.
Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power
Publisher's Summary:
"One of my favorite ideas is, never to keep an unnecessary soldier," Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1792. Neither Jefferson nor the other Founders could ever have envisioned the contemporary national security state, with its tens of thousands of "privateers"; its bloated Department of Homeland Security; its rusting nuclear weapons, ill-maintained and difficult to dismantle; and its strange fascination with an unproven counterinsurgency doctrine.
Written with bracing wit and intelligence, Rachel Maddow's Drift argues that we've drifted away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war, with all the financial and human costs that entails. To understand how we've arrived at such a dangerous place, Maddow takes us from the Vietnam War to today's war in Afghanistan, along the way exploring the disturbing rise of executive authority, the gradual outsourcing of our war-making capabilities to private companies, the plummeting percentage of American families whose children fight our constant wars for us, and even the changing fortunes of G.I. Joe. She offers up a fresh, unsparing appraisal of Reagan's radical presidency. Ultimately, she shows us just how much we stand to lose by allowing the priorities of the national security state to overpower our political discourse.
Sensible yet provocative, dead serious yet seriously funny, Drift will reinvigorate a "loud and jangly" political debate about how, when, and where to apply America's strength and power - and who gets to make those decisions.
©2012 Rachel Maddow (P)2012 Random House -- An entirely accurate summary. The audio version is read by Rachel herself, which was extra enjoyable for me. I plowed through this, despite normally having to drag myself into reading material on war like drinking cod liver oil. I found it fascinating and very usefully educational about how we got where we are. I laughed more than I expected. I understood more than I expected. I'll let better reviewers than myself tackle it beyond that, but definitely highly recommended.
Doctor Who: Starry Night TARDIS Jigsaw Puzzle -- See this awesome puzzle? See my icon? See this awesome puzzle? It's now in my Porta-Puzzle (the only way to do a puzzle in a house with so many pets) thanks to Bec and Jer! I spent most of last night working on it; it's wonderfully challenging, with no hard edges or unique color blocks, and lots of swirling gorgeous. As I commented to Chad, puzzles are great for my OCD traits; it's all about making order out of chaos, with bonus shiny colors! This one is extra-special, since it's from one of my favorite Doctor Who episodes of all time.
Mythic Creatures: Dragons, Unicorns & Mermaids -- While I admit to being a bit baffled by this being at the Natural History Museum of all places, it looks like a lot of fun! This is the tentative plan with Kidlet this coming weekend.
Also, I have plans to go out to a party with Erin this weekend, too. Wow. Out of the house twice in one day voluntarily? What is my life coming to?
I also have good news on the health front; doctor appt yesterday about the fibro, and I finally have a scrip for provigil! Woot! Only took two years, and I'll have to be really careful about monitoring for mania, but this will make a huge difference in my quality of life (I was on it before, so I'm really quite sure about that). Even being all exhausted today feels more manageable knowing that once I fill the scrip I'll actually be able to _do_ something about it.
The other thing I was thinking about was why I post what I post, and what goes into selecting the Linketies. A few people have asked me recently, and this is what I brainstormed:
1. How pressing is it? Do people need this info now (like an upcoming March or an important developing news story), or is it something that will be just as cool or relevant later (nifty astronomical pics and science geekery)? Does it include important new information? Does the article provide people a way to make a real practical difference?
2. How important is it? Will learning this info potentially affect anyone's life in any positive way? (Yes, I consider "awareness of the world around you" and "understanding other people's perspectives" to be positive) Could it realistically provide information that helps shift people's thinking? Does it provide useful perspective for newbies to a topic? This is especially important for social justice-related links, skepticism links, scientific method-related links, where I'm often trying to communicate a way of thinking about things as much as facts of a situation.
3. How relevant is it to my own interests? I'm especially interested in science, reproductive health and rights, LGBT issues (with a focus on B and T, and on intersectionality), race and class issues, progressive politics, skepticism/atheism/debunkery, Ohio issues, cephalopods, amphibians, bears, and a host of other random topics. If it hits one of those, of course it's a lot more likely to make the cut.
4. How relevant is it to my (possible) readers? I especially grab things that are likely to appeal to folks that might be reading -- big cats for my brother James, news about Alabama, Nashville, Baltimore, and Albany due to friends and family living in those places, health info relating to illnesses I know folks reading have. This is also a big factor in posting med recalls and warnings, and in posting debunkery about issues that are currently on people's minds.
5. Will it make people laugh, feel joy or awe, or otherwise improve their day a smidge? Many of the not-pressing minor links I make are these sorts of things. When I focus so much on depressing political news, I think it's really important to remember how awesome the world is. Of course, my personal preferences make a big difference in the sort of things I choose for these purposes; neat science discoveries and weird critters and scifi geekery get precedence. Also, how unlikely is someone to encounter this particular nifty thing through other paths? (hence the lack of cute kitten posts in my blog)
6. How underreported is the issue? If I know everyone will see something the minute they open any news source, I'm a lot less likely to post much about it. I try to focus more on topics that are underreported (in my opinion) in the media, such as activism, abortion, sexuality, race and class issues, intersectionality, disability, social justice perspectives, etc. This is also part of cheerleading my causes and doing some of my own basic activism by trying to keep issues important to me in people's minds.
7. Does it violate my personal ethics/boundaries? I mostly try to avoid really pointlessly mean-spirited stuff, although some tangy snark in the pursuit of politics is fine with me. I also try to avoid invasions of privacy (cases of people having psych breakdowns fall into this category for me, generally), and most media gossip, especially as it relates to famous people's private lives. I also try to avoid pieces that criticize even assholes for things I don't think are justified/appropriate (fat-shaming, misogyny, etc, have no place in critiquing people, no matter how douchetastic they are). I also try to avoid rewarding repeat bad-actors with additional attention (which is why Westboro Baptist Church, Sarah Palin, and almost the entire Republican Primary don't make the list).
8. What's the overall quality of the article? I often get the same story from multiple different sites over the course of a day, so this is as much about choosing which one to link to as anything else. There are some sources I consider so lousy (Daily Mail in the UK, Fox in the US, as examples) that I generally try to avoid linking to them except as a last resort. There are some sources that reliably have better and more useful comment sections (a lot of why I often link to ONTD_Political -- the comment sections tend to include both amusing snark and actually useful info). There are a few sites that produce such excellent content that I almost always link to them (TigerBeatdown is a good example). A lot of my decision on this is based on how well the article reflects my own perspectives and viewpoints without me having to note and apologize for all sorts of crap also present in the article.
9. What do I need to address personally? Overall, I tend to note whether there's anything so problematic that I need to address or counter it specifically in my own notes when I post it, or if it's something well-written enough I can post it without much commentary (due to volume/speed, the latter is generally my preference). I also note whether a quick skim of the article is likely to do more harm than good -- some are so poorly written that someone could easily come away with exactly the opposite of what I meant to share if they don't read closely and all the way to the end. Skimming happens, so I try to avoid these. Relatedly, I also try to make sure that my titles/summaries on the actual linkety page will be reasonably edifying, or at least not actively misinforming, about the content behind them. This is why I sometimes choose to link with a paragraph instead of the title, if I find the title overwrought, misinformative, or otherwise useless and annoying. I know most people skim the titles and just read those that grab their interest; I'm hoping that by being clear enough in the titles I'm communicating some useful info even that way.
OK, I think that's it for now.
The Stinky Cheese Man and Other Fairly Stupid Tales -- I really enjoyed this one; excellent narration and music, silly and giggle-provoking. The narration was extremely over-the-top in terms of expressiveness, which is good for drawing young kids into audio stories. And having seen the book, I know a lot of the humor is in the illustrations and arrangement, so I was really impressed with how well that was conveyed in a purely audio form. I'd still recommend getting the hard copy, but for $1.36, I don't see how you can go wrong with this (well, except for using an Audible Credit for it, which would be hugely wasteful -- always spend cash for anything under $17 or so). 20 minutes of excellent car entertainment, especially for young kids who are old enough to recognize the shape of familiar tales being satirically twisted. Also likely an excellent accompaniment for the book, which is well-worth owning in its own right.
Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power
Publisher's Summary:
"One of my favorite ideas is, never to keep an unnecessary soldier," Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1792. Neither Jefferson nor the other Founders could ever have envisioned the contemporary national security state, with its tens of thousands of "privateers"; its bloated Department of Homeland Security; its rusting nuclear weapons, ill-maintained and difficult to dismantle; and its strange fascination with an unproven counterinsurgency doctrine.
Written with bracing wit and intelligence, Rachel Maddow's Drift argues that we've drifted away from America's original ideals and become a nation weirdly at peace with perpetual war, with all the financial and human costs that entails. To understand how we've arrived at such a dangerous place, Maddow takes us from the Vietnam War to today's war in Afghanistan, along the way exploring the disturbing rise of executive authority, the gradual outsourcing of our war-making capabilities to private companies, the plummeting percentage of American families whose children fight our constant wars for us, and even the changing fortunes of G.I. Joe. She offers up a fresh, unsparing appraisal of Reagan's radical presidency. Ultimately, she shows us just how much we stand to lose by allowing the priorities of the national security state to overpower our political discourse.
Sensible yet provocative, dead serious yet seriously funny, Drift will reinvigorate a "loud and jangly" political debate about how, when, and where to apply America's strength and power - and who gets to make those decisions.
©2012 Rachel Maddow (P)2012 Random House -- An entirely accurate summary. The audio version is read by Rachel herself, which was extra enjoyable for me. I plowed through this, despite normally having to drag myself into reading material on war like drinking cod liver oil. I found it fascinating and very usefully educational about how we got where we are. I laughed more than I expected. I understood more than I expected. I'll let better reviewers than myself tackle it beyond that, but definitely highly recommended.
Doctor Who: Starry Night TARDIS Jigsaw Puzzle -- See this awesome puzzle? See my icon? See this awesome puzzle? It's now in my Porta-Puzzle (the only way to do a puzzle in a house with so many pets) thanks to Bec and Jer! I spent most of last night working on it; it's wonderfully challenging, with no hard edges or unique color blocks, and lots of swirling gorgeous. As I commented to Chad, puzzles are great for my OCD traits; it's all about making order out of chaos, with bonus shiny colors! This one is extra-special, since it's from one of my favorite Doctor Who episodes of all time.
Mythic Creatures: Dragons, Unicorns & Mermaids -- While I admit to being a bit baffled by this being at the Natural History Museum of all places, it looks like a lot of fun! This is the tentative plan with Kidlet this coming weekend.
Also, I have plans to go out to a party with Erin this weekend, too. Wow. Out of the house twice in one day voluntarily? What is my life coming to?
I also have good news on the health front; doctor appt yesterday about the fibro, and I finally have a scrip for provigil! Woot! Only took two years, and I'll have to be really careful about monitoring for mania, but this will make a huge difference in my quality of life (I was on it before, so I'm really quite sure about that). Even being all exhausted today feels more manageable knowing that once I fill the scrip I'll actually be able to _do_ something about it.
The other thing I was thinking about was why I post what I post, and what goes into selecting the Linketies. A few people have asked me recently, and this is what I brainstormed:
1. How pressing is it? Do people need this info now (like an upcoming March or an important developing news story), or is it something that will be just as cool or relevant later (nifty astronomical pics and science geekery)? Does it include important new information? Does the article provide people a way to make a real practical difference?
2. How important is it? Will learning this info potentially affect anyone's life in any positive way? (Yes, I consider "awareness of the world around you" and "understanding other people's perspectives" to be positive) Could it realistically provide information that helps shift people's thinking? Does it provide useful perspective for newbies to a topic? This is especially important for social justice-related links, skepticism links, scientific method-related links, where I'm often trying to communicate a way of thinking about things as much as facts of a situation.
3. How relevant is it to my own interests? I'm especially interested in science, reproductive health and rights, LGBT issues (with a focus on B and T, and on intersectionality), race and class issues, progressive politics, skepticism/atheism/debunkery, Ohio issues, cephalopods, amphibians, bears, and a host of other random topics. If it hits one of those, of course it's a lot more likely to make the cut.
4. How relevant is it to my (possible) readers? I especially grab things that are likely to appeal to folks that might be reading -- big cats for my brother James, news about Alabama, Nashville, Baltimore, and Albany due to friends and family living in those places, health info relating to illnesses I know folks reading have. This is also a big factor in posting med recalls and warnings, and in posting debunkery about issues that are currently on people's minds.
5. Will it make people laugh, feel joy or awe, or otherwise improve their day a smidge? Many of the not-pressing minor links I make are these sorts of things. When I focus so much on depressing political news, I think it's really important to remember how awesome the world is. Of course, my personal preferences make a big difference in the sort of things I choose for these purposes; neat science discoveries and weird critters and scifi geekery get precedence. Also, how unlikely is someone to encounter this particular nifty thing through other paths? (hence the lack of cute kitten posts in my blog)
6. How underreported is the issue? If I know everyone will see something the minute they open any news source, I'm a lot less likely to post much about it. I try to focus more on topics that are underreported (in my opinion) in the media, such as activism, abortion, sexuality, race and class issues, intersectionality, disability, social justice perspectives, etc. This is also part of cheerleading my causes and doing some of my own basic activism by trying to keep issues important to me in people's minds.
7. Does it violate my personal ethics/boundaries? I mostly try to avoid really pointlessly mean-spirited stuff, although some tangy snark in the pursuit of politics is fine with me. I also try to avoid invasions of privacy (cases of people having psych breakdowns fall into this category for me, generally), and most media gossip, especially as it relates to famous people's private lives. I also try to avoid pieces that criticize even assholes for things I don't think are justified/appropriate (fat-shaming, misogyny, etc, have no place in critiquing people, no matter how douchetastic they are). I also try to avoid rewarding repeat bad-actors with additional attention (which is why Westboro Baptist Church, Sarah Palin, and almost the entire Republican Primary don't make the list).
8. What's the overall quality of the article? I often get the same story from multiple different sites over the course of a day, so this is as much about choosing which one to link to as anything else. There are some sources I consider so lousy (Daily Mail in the UK, Fox in the US, as examples) that I generally try to avoid linking to them except as a last resort. There are some sources that reliably have better and more useful comment sections (a lot of why I often link to ONTD_Political -- the comment sections tend to include both amusing snark and actually useful info). There are a few sites that produce such excellent content that I almost always link to them (TigerBeatdown is a good example). A lot of my decision on this is based on how well the article reflects my own perspectives and viewpoints without me having to note and apologize for all sorts of crap also present in the article.
9. What do I need to address personally? Overall, I tend to note whether there's anything so problematic that I need to address or counter it specifically in my own notes when I post it, or if it's something well-written enough I can post it without much commentary (due to volume/speed, the latter is generally my preference). I also note whether a quick skim of the article is likely to do more harm than good -- some are so poorly written that someone could easily come away with exactly the opposite of what I meant to share if they don't read closely and all the way to the end. Skimming happens, so I try to avoid these. Relatedly, I also try to make sure that my titles/summaries on the actual linkety page will be reasonably edifying, or at least not actively misinforming, about the content behind them. This is why I sometimes choose to link with a paragraph instead of the title, if I find the title overwrought, misinformative, or otherwise useless and annoying. I know most people skim the titles and just read those that grab their interest; I'm hoping that by being clear enough in the titles I'm communicating some useful info even that way.
OK, I think that's it for now.
