Why I am not interested in watching The Game of Thrones

HBO has this show now — you’ve heard about it? — recreating a most excellent fantasy series by George R.R. Martin. I enjoy a good fantasy story, and I think Martin is a fabulous writer…but man, I read the books, and I felt burned.

Here’s the basic premise established at the start of the first novel:

The kingdom descends into the chaos of civil war, while a mysterious supernatural threat arises far to the north, and an exiled princess across the sea plots to invade with the power of dragons. Many tangled plot lines are established with a horde of memorable characters.

Now here’s the situation at the end of the fourth novel: <SPOILERS!!!>

The kingdom is wracked with the chaos of civil war, while a mysterious supernatural threat stirs far to the north, and an exiled princess across the sea gathers her army to invade with the power of dragons. Many tangled plot lines are tangled even more deeply, a horde of memorable characters have died, and there is a new horde of memorable characters.

Martin really knows how to set a pot to boiling. He doesn’t know how to bring a delicious stew to the table. If you want to watch something churn and bubble entertainingly, you’re welcome to it, but if you’re hoping for a meal, go somewhere else.

Sweet Jebus, but I hate the HuffPo

It’s a woo-infested sewer, a cesspit of inanity and exploitation, and they cheat their writers. There is a strike/boycott in operation. This is what you get when an unprincipled, opportunistic hack like Arianna Huffington runs the show.

Guild tells HuffPost writers: ‘Don’t work for free’

The Newspaper Guild is calling on unpaid writers of the Huffington Post to withhold their work in support of a strike launched by Visual Art Source in response to the company’s practice of using unpaid labor. In addition, we are asking that our members and all supporters of fair and equitable compensation for journalists join us in shining a light on the unprofessional and unethical practices of this company.

Just as we would ask writers to stand fast and not cross a physical picket line, we ask that they honor this electronic picket line.

The Newspaper Guild, a 26,000-member-strong national union of media workers, is committed to fair compensation for all workers, whether they are freelance bloggers or traditional employees. We are further committed to promoting quality journalism. Working for free does not benefit workers and undermines quality journalism.

In response to the Huffington Post’s refusal to compensate its thousands of writers in the wake of its $315 million merger with AOL, the Newspaper Guild has requested a meeting with company officials to discuss ways the Huffington Post might demonstrate its commitment to quality journalism. Thus far, the request has been ignored.

Visual Art Source, http://visualartsource.com, an art publication, represents more than 50 writers who have said they will no longer write for the Huffington Post for free and who object to a company that depends on unpaid labor for its success.

As Cherie Turner, one of the former writers, explained, “Certainly, we all have written for free for the great exposure the Huffington Post can give us, but what’s the cost? Those of us on strike feel it undermines the value of our profession and is unethical, especially in light of great profits by those at the top. We are only asking for a fair share of what we are helping to create. We are also speaking out against real journalism being run side-by-side with advertorial.”

We feel it is unethical to expect trained and qualified professionals to contribute quality content for nothing. It is unethical to cannibalize the investment of other organizations that bear the cost of compensation and other overhead without payment for the usage of their content. It is extremely unethical to not merely blur but eradicate the distinction between the independent and informed voice of news and opinion and the voice of a shill.

The Newspaper Guild and Visual Art Source urge others to join forces and no longer contribute their labor until the following demands are met:

• A pay schedule must be proposed and steps initiated to implement it for all contributing writers and bloggers; and,

• Paid promotional material must no longer be posted alongside editorial content; a press release or exhibition catalogue essay is fundamentally different from editorial content and must be either segregated and indicated as such, or not published at all.

Four things you can do NOW, if you choose to join this effort:

• Stop providing free content to Huffington Post and let your editor know you are choosing to take this action and what your demands are if he/she would like to keep you writing for HP (see above);

• Please respond and let us know you’re on board and that we are allowed to use your name in any press materials we send out regarding this strike;

• Please pass along the names and e-mail addresses of your colleagues who contribute to the Huffington Post so that we may ask for their support;

• Send a letter to your local media op-ed section letting them know how you feel about this situation.

Thank you for your consideration in joining in these efforts. Our intent is to encourage the Huffington Post to do the right thing. We would all love to continue contributing, but only if the terms are fair and promote good, healthy journalism. This is about supporting the quality and integrity of a vehicle for progressive expression, to actually help Huffington Post succeed, but on the right terms. We call on Arianna Huffington to demonstrate her commitment to the working class she so ardently champions in her writing.

For more information see:

Facebook: “Hey Arianna, Can You Spare a Dime?”

TNG-CWA Freelance Project

TNG-CWA Freelance Project Coordinators:
East Coast: Lauri Lebo, [email protected]

Those are reasonable demands, but realize, O Writers, you are in an abusive relationship, and you are trying to bargain with someone who doesn’t give a damn about the quality of your work. It’s never going to improve with Arianna at the helm. Let all the talent leave, and starve the monstrosity until it dies.

Well, it won’t die. It’ll still feature Andrew Breitbart on the front page, which is another reason to let it wither away.

21st century science publishing will be multilevel and multimedia

I have to call your attention to this article, Stalking the Fourth Domain in Metagenomic Data: Searching for, Discovering, and Interpreting Novel, Deep Branches in Marker Gene Phylogenetic Trees, just published in PLoS One. It’s cool in itself; it’s about the analysis of metagenomic data, which may have exposed a fourth major branch in the tree of life, beyond the bacteria, eukaryotes, and archaea…or it may have just exposed some very weird, highly derived viruses. This is work spawned from Craig Venter’s wonderfully fascinating work of just doing shotgun sequencing of sea water, processing all of the DNA from the crazy assortment of organisms present there, and sorting them out afterwards.

But something else that’s special about it is that the author, Jonathan Eisen, has bypassed his university’s press office and not written a formal press release at all. Instead, he has provided informal commentary on the paper on his own blog, which isn’t novel, except in its conscious effort to change the game (Eisen has also been important in open publishing, as in PLoS). This is awesome, and scientists ought to get a little nervous. It maintains the formality and structured writing of a standard peer-reviewed paper, which is good — we don’t want new media to violate the discipline of well-tested, successful formats. But it also adds another layer of effort to the work, in which the author breaks out from the conventional structure and talks about the work as he or she would in a seminar or in meeting with other scientists. A paper provides the data and major interpretations, but it’s this kind of conversational interaction that can let you see the bigger picture.

I say scientists might want to be a little bit nervous about this, because I can imagine a day when this kind of presentation becomes de rigueur for everything you publish, just as it’s now understood that you could give a talk on a paper. It’s a different skill set, too, and it’s going to require a different kind of talent to be able to address fellow scientists, the lay public, and science journalists. Those are important skills to have, and this kind of thing could end up making them better appreciated in the science community.

Are any of your grad students and post-docs blogging? You might want to think about getting them trained in this brave new world now, before it’s too late. And you might want to consider getting started yourself, if you aren’t already.

The Minnesota Anti-Texan Act of 2011

I would like to propose a new law for consideration by our legislature, which I am calling The Minnesota Anti-Texan Act of 2011. I need to work on the formal language for it, but I can give the gist of it here.

If any person within the boundaries of the fine state of Minnesota exhibits any of the signifiers of a Texas origin — wearing a cowboy hat, for instance, or Big Hair, or having a drawl, or chewing tobacco — you can shoot them. You catch someone listening to Clint Black on the radio, bang, blow them away, you’ve got a justifiable defense. Someone says “sheeeeeee-it” instead of “uff-da,” you’ve got cause: kill them on the spot. It’s perfectly fair to hang out at the airport waiting for incoming flights from Houston, and following visitors outside the terminal to group hunts, too; it might even be a new source of revenue for local guides.

To be fair, after the bill is passed I support a waiting period of one year before it’s implemented, so that there’s time to spread the news and give Texans warning. They will be allowed to enter the state, as long as they respect our traditions: no leather clothing, just layers. The only hats allowed are stocking caps or tuques. They should study the movie Fargo to learn the lingo, and listening to lots of Prairie Home Companion will help them understand the local mores. We’re not so much against Texans as we are against blatant Texans, and as long as they show appropriate shame for their nature, and try hard to cover up, we’ll do our best to tolerate them.

Wait, you may be thinking, this isn’t justice: a death sentence for wearing the wrong kind of headware? No one deserves to suffer for trivial fashion choices, or because a bunch of yankees have prejudices about who someone is. But I think it’s only right that if someone takes pride in being a dumb cracker, and inflames our senses by flaunting their inherent Texish character, then they deserve what’s coming to them.

And we’re just following Texas’ lead.

A meeting Thursday night that was billed as a way to discuss concerns some have about the investigation into a series of alleged sexual assaults on an 11-year-old girl turned into a forum that many used to blame the girl police contend is the victim of heinous attacks.

Many who attended the meeting said they supported the group of men and boys who have been charged in the case. Supporters didn’t claim that the men and boys did not have sex with the young girl; instead they blamed the girl for the way she dressed or claimed she must have lied about her age — accusations that have drawn strong responses from those who note an 11-year-old cannot consent to sex and that it doesn’t matter how she was dressed.

See? My proposed Minnesota law is hallowed by good ol’ boy tradition. Texans are clearly just asking for it.

Oh, wait…there’s that remark about how lying about her age would have excused the gang rape, and this:

“She’s 11 years old. It shouldn’t have happened. That’s a child,” Oscar Carter, 56, who is related to an uncle of one 16-year-old charged in the case, said in an interview earlier in the week. “Somebody should have said what we are doing is wrong.”

So it would have been OK if the girl was 17, the age of consent in Texas? I guess I’ll have to put a clause in my law that says it’s only OK to murder Texans or people who look like Texans or people who imply they are Texan with subtle behaviors if they are over 17.

I am a just and fair person, after all.

And remember, if nobody tells you that what you are doing is wrong, it’s not your fault if you rape or murder someone. You can’t possibly detect the evil that you’re doing unless someone else reminds you. If you’re a Texan.

What does it take to be a science journalist?

Science journalists, you really piss me off…at least some of you. Here are a couple of headlines about that recent paper I summarized that make me want to slap someone.

“Eye evolution questioned.” No, it’s not. That’s just trying to stir up a non-existent controversy. The eye evolved. This was a paper exploring the details of how specific photoreceptor types with the eye evolved. (I should mention that the summary is OK, but the headline was stupid. Maybe I ought to slap the editor.)

“Ancient Origins of the Human Eye Discovered.” Aaargh, it’s a paper about brachiopods, not humans, and it’s about the evolution of protostomes as well as deuterostomes…it’s about the whole frackin’ animal kingdom, not just our self-exalted little twig.

Both of those headlines are about the very same paper, and I get the impression the reporters hadn’t even read it, but instead relied on teasing out comprehensible angles from interviews. We ought to have a rule: if you can’t read the research and comprehend it, you shouldn’t be writing about it. I know, suddenly 9/10ths of the science journalists in the world are abruptly unemployed.

Ben Goldacre offers some excellent commentary on this problem. Read it if you’re hoping to be a professional science communicator. I agree with him: you don’t need a Ph.D., but you do have to have some knowledge of the field you are reporting on, and most importantly, a passion to learn more about it.

Old fool gets attention for being ignorant

Before you say it, I know I’m giving him attention, too. Cardinal George Pell, the old fool, got lots of press for being a climate denialist, again. After a talk, he denounced the climate scientists for not being scientific, while he, the guy who believes angels and saints and great magic boojums in the sky, knew better because “‘I spend a lot of time studying this stuff.”

I suspect he’s another graduate of Google University.

But Pell is irrelevant. The real question is, why do the newspapers cover his pronouncements in any serious way? The man is comic relief, nothing more.

NPR can go die in a fire

This is unbelievable. James O’Keefe, he of the Acorn fraud, of the aborted seduction, the unimaginative weasel whose sole game is staging bogus scenarios with his ideological opponents and trying to catch them saying embarrassing things, has done it again, teasing an NPR executive into saying disparaging things about the Tea Party lunatics. I saw the recording; it was tame, I’d say stuff a thousand times more disparaging about those racist morons while knowingly on the air.

But it worked. NPR caved in, suspended the administrator, and now another one has resigned. Why? I don’t know. Because the cowards at NPR are afraid that the Republicans are going to kill all their funding, so they are running away from any confrontation with the political party that wants to destroy them, as if that will help.

Don’t think for a minute that this craven behavior will stay the budget axe, though. All it has really accomplished is to destroy any interest I have in supporting the organization. Why should I? They’ve already surrendered to the deranged right wing. Their usefulness as a non-propaganda news source is dead.

Worse, they’re giving the Breitbartian vermin a little thrill of power. This isn’t the end. How many more news organizations are going to fold in fear before these stupid bully-boys?

One movie, ruined!

In a too rare fit of quality, our local theater is showing The King’s Speech this week, which I keep hearing is wonderfully well made and a serious Oscar contender. I was thinking of going, but now Christopher Hitchens shreds its historicity — it’s about yet another royal fascist-sympathizer — and Katherine Preston explains that it’s got the neurology of the speech defect all wrong. I don’t think I can watch it at all now. I can enjoy a fiction without apology, but I find it impossible to watch a false story that pretends to be true.

The reviews are annoying, too — they all praise the quality of the movie-making and the acting, while telling me that the core premises of the story are false. How can I enjoy it when Something Is Wrong On The Screen?