> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> profile

Monday, December 14th, 2009

elfwreck

7:30p Anyone else see that "until the next LJ fail" post? Here you go. Oh, look. LJ Gender Fail! Which I get to catch at the VERY BEGINNING. First round of linkspam, with no promise of more 'cos I'm not sure I'll have time. (And I'm not sure there's a point. User outrage has never stopped the stupid at LJ before; no reason to assume it will now.) The core issue: LJ is changing its signup requirements (on Dec 17) to demand a gender, instead of allowing "unspecified." The gender options are limited to "male" and "female," despite years of users asking for an "other" option. Among my objections: The LJ TOS says, "During registration, all users are required to provide accurate, complete and current information about themselves in all required fields. .... Should LiveJournal suspect that your personal information is not complete, current, or accurate, your account may be subject to suspension or termination." They are requiring some users to lie to them at registration. Transgender, genderqueer and intersex members could be TOS'd at any time. Official LJ Post: vadvs at changelog: [livejournal] r16014: LJSUP-5276: add gender field to sing-up ... +gender.female=Female + +gender.male=Male + +gender.specify=Specify Response, with links to history: synecdochic: wow. just .... wow. -- LiveJournal is removing the Unspecified option for the gender field. ( ~10 more posts under the cut; no doubt many more to come in the next couple of days. ) Hashtag it #genderfail and tweet away. If anyone would like a DW invite, I have several. This entry is crossposted at http://elf.dreamwidth.org/288039.html. You can comment there with OpenID from your LJ or IJ account. Comments so far:

(comment on this)

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

elfwreck

8:24p Legaldocs created legaldocs is made, and I've posted two rulings & an intro sticky post. Suggestions welcome. Requests welcome. (Point me at online source for a PDF, or email it to me.) Docs in PDF form are more likely to get done than rulings that already exist somewhere else in HTML format. I've got a handful more I want to convert (In re Marriage Cases; Perez v Sharp; the recent CIA torture memos), but not much else. Haven't quite decided what I'm doing with it, and I don't expect any huge audience, but it's there. This entry is crossposted at http://elf.dreamwidth.org/287930.html. You can comment there with OpenID from your LJ or IJ account. Comments so far:

(1 comment | comment on this)

Saturday, December 12th, 2009

elfwreck

4:12p Thinking about making a comm I'm thinking about creating a DW comm (because comms are free, and people-journals cost an invite) (of which I have plenty several, actually, so maybe I should make a people-journal) (but a comm, I could drag other people in on, hypothetically) (four! four sets of parentheses mid-thought!) to post texts of legal documents. Court docs in the US are in the public domain; I wouldn't need any permissions to do this. Lots of rulings are released as scanned PDFs, which are readable onscreen but not searchable, not copy-pastable. I like having those in searchable form, and I've converted several to searchable PDF or Word docs for my own use. I'd share them, but I've got nobody to share them with, and no easy way to put them anywhere that people can find them. It occurs to me that I don't need anyone to share them with. I could post the text to a DW comm, tag them heavily, and let them be an open archive. Could post links to the original PDFs, wherever those happen to reside. (I kinda-sorta have file storage space. It's weird and troublesome.) Looking for advice/feedback on: Any legal documents, or themed only? (I was thinking copyright rulings. But gay-marriage rulings would also be useful to have around. Workplace discrimination rulings, ditto. And those CIA torture docs are awful to read. Hmm.) Rulings only, or include other filings/statements where interesting enough? What to name the comm? Obviously, Question 1 needs to be answered first; I shouldn't call it copyright_legaldocs if I'm including more than that. (Name should be memorable but not clever enough that it's encroaching on other potential activism. I have no interest in claiming copyfight at this time.) legaldocs is possible. So is legaldoc_texts, or something like that. Not looking for advice/feedback on: Whether or not to do this. I think I'd enjoy it, and like having the archive, even if nobody else is interested. I'd like to know if anyone else is interested; I do things a bit differently when I know I have an audience. (I'd tag differently. And take requests; I love doc conversion.) This entry is crossposted at http://elf.dreamwidth.org/287723.html. You can comment there with OpenID from your LJ or IJ account. Comments so far:

(1 comment | comment on this)

Friday, December 11th, 2009

elfwreck

7:41a I wish I hated Christmas carols It's that time of year again. Christian & secular winter music are on every speaker in every public venue. The damn TV commercials are semi-filks of those tunes, all tangled together as if nobody's supposed to notice which ones are about The Savior(TM), which ones are about snow & family, which ones are about celebrating life in the coldest, darkest part of the year. They're tangled in my mind, too. I have fond memories of caroling as a child, and gleefully memorizing lyrics of hymns and pop songs side by side. So when I hear those songs (o come all ye red-nosed reindeer, it's lovely weather for a little drummer up on the rooftop) I'm hit with nostalgia before I sort out the words. It'd be so *convenient* to hate the songs. I could be one of those Pagan activists who insists on calling it YULE and reminds everyone that holly and mistletoe are not Christian holiday elements, that the decorated tree is a bit of sympathetic magic to trick the land into thinking it's summer. ("See, earth? Green trees. Laden with fruits and berries. It's supposed to be light and warm; get on it already.") I could insist on replying to "merry Christmas" with "happy HOLIDAYS; not everyone is Christian, you know!" But I don't. I'm not sure why. It's not like I lack activist motivation; I'll rant about copyright law and minor's rights and the evils of Nestle at the drop of a comment. I'm certainly not shy about sneering at Christian privilege, Christian-claimed ownership of public attention, in other situations. I wonder if my lack of anger here is a sign of hypocrisy (it gives me happy memories therefore I don't object, regardless of how much it clashes with my current ethics), or an awareness that most of the public is fairly oblivious to the religious messages, too. This entry is crossposted at http://elf.dreamwidth.org/287136.html. You can comment there with OpenID from your LJ or IJ account. Comments so far:

(2 comments | comment on this)

Sunday, December 6th, 2009

elfwreck

8:16p Bloggable moments: the evil ex Rob came home this evening, and said, "I have something to talk to you about. Some guy showed up at the coast, and said he's a friend of mine." He was busy unpacking the van (model airplanes), so this was scattered over moving planes and boxes of batteries and whatnot into the house. "Where'd you know him from?" "I don't. But he said we have something in common." More moving planes around, hauling in the toolbox & cooler. I make with the little circular hand gestures: c'mon, more, tell me dammit. "We should be great friends because... we both survived the bitch-slut [Elf]." ( It takes me very little time to figure out who he would have to be. ) current mood: amused

(5 comments | comment on this)

Friday, December 4th, 2009

elfwreck

7:53a Racism at MobileRead I posted an entry at racism_101 called Seeking advice: discussions on topic-focused forums. The Mobileread thread in question has a full collection of classic racist tropes: OBAMA MEANS NO MORE RACISM: Are you calling whites in America a "more privileged category"? In what way? What "power" do they have over non-whites? Last I heard, the most powerful man in America and the whole world was black. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS DISCRIMINATION: Hiring someone on basis of race, gender or whatever, instead of going for the best qualified, regardless of race gender or whatever, makes absolutely no sense. (This sentiment was repeated by several people with different and generally more offensive phrasings.) BUT THEY CALL THEMSELVES BY THOSE WORDS: But if *I* were to use those words, even to close friends, I'd be reviled and castigated. So if they're so damned offensive, why would those who call them offensive *ever* use them? MY FAMILY WAS TOO POOR TO BE PRIVILEGED: *MY* parents are - on my mother's side - dirt-poor immigrants from Potato Famine Ireland and - on my father's side - peasant and serf stock from the Austria region. They settled in Montana and northern Ohio where they busted their collective butts off to survive. Privileged? I wish! I WILL DECIDE WHAT TERMS ARE OFFENSIVE: I think the reason I asked is because the N-word is a racial slur. The I word isn't. Or at least isn't in my area. (Word in question is "Indian," relating to author Sherman Alexie.) RACISM = BELIEVING RACE MATTERS: Assuming that because someone's race is not white that they are at a disadvantage is bigotry. Hands down. Aaaaand I've maxed out my boggle-meter on that last one. Advice on how or whether to continue would be welcome. Sympathetic boggling would also be welcome. This entry is crossposted at http://elf.dreamwidth.org/286393.html. You can comment there with OpenID from your LJ or IJ account. Comments so far:

(4 comments | comment on this)