“It is now impossible to stop Bill Kristol from lying” Edition.
via d r i f t g l a s s.
Ah, but the winner, and the first non-Cheney champion in our retooled Gobshite derby, is Himself, the Dancin’ Master. He takes this week’s House Cup for his interview with Bill Clinton in which he attempted to clear a height on the Both Sides Do It bar about which ordinary mortals can only dream.GREGORY: And the real issue you talk about as well is some of this pain people are feeling in the middle class, the sense that the middle class, that the American dream is slipping away. I look at some of the numbers, 3.4 million Americans who have been out of work for six months plus. You have over 7 million who, by their own admission, are stuck in lower-paying jobs, part-time jobs. How can a Democratic candidate for president– what challenges would a Democratic candidate for president face running on the Obama economy?CLINTON: Well, first of all, that’s not what anybody should do. You should run on making it better. But he didn’t cause the meltdown. The actions that his administration took kept it from being worse. And there had been a concerted effort to stop implementing his economic plan in the second term so none of you have any idea whether they would have worked or not. GREGORY: But you don’t lay this at Speaker Boehner and the Republicans uniquely, do you? I mean, do you really think it’s their opposition to the president that has forced him to have such impediments to get the economy growing again?
I do not challenge Brother Pierce’s wisdom in this matter.
John Scalzi with a suggestion for Angry Robot
The news is here.
If you’re an author with either of these two imprints, I would check your contracts for reversion clauses.
Likewise, if I were the folks at Angry Robot, and were putting the books in these imprints into “out of print” status, as it seems likely they are from the announcement, I’d be thinking of immediately reverting the books back to the authors, so they can either find them new homes or self-publish them. Because that seems the decent thing to do after cutting the legs out from the income potential of those books for those authors.
There’s the possibility that the latter of these might be complicated by Angry Robot’s parent company having problems of its own. In which case: This is why you have writers’ organizations, folks.
Most freelance writers operate as lone wolves, pitching stories in a high-risk and increasingly lower reward field.
But a new co-op of nine journalists with pedigrees from The New Yorker, The Atlantic and other prestigious titles, and with nods from the Pulitzer Prize committee and the National Magazine Awards, has banded together to edit and promote each other’s stories. Launching today, the project, called Deca, will also pool resources to meet the expenses of members’ in-depth reporting. It takes its cue from photojournalists who popularized cooperatives in the 1940s and 1950s, an era of similar technological change but long predating the days when members could communicate through Skype, Gchat and email.
Deca will take more than good will and team spirit to succeed, said Marc Herman, a member who lives in Barcelona, Spain. He hopes that the cooperative model, splitting among its international members revenue from stories sold on Amazon and on Deca’s new app, will keep everyone engaged. (The group’s members, including Tom Zoellner, Stephan Faris and McKenzie Funk, report and write independently and have never actually assembled as a group in person.)
At launch, Deca is far from the only online outlet for long-form narrative pieces. A number of platforms, such as Narratively, The Big Roundtable, Beacon Reader, Matter, The Atavist and Byliner, have cropped up in recent years, publishing in-depth reported work with a narrative bent. Each has its own business model, from venture capital backing to the collection of donations.
More about Meet Deca, the latest journalism cooperative via Meet Deca, the latest journalism cooperative | Capital New York.
Those of us who struggle with low self-esteem tend to shun whatever activities might conceivably make us lose, drool or look ridiculous. This avoidance is not entirely conscious. We might not realize how seldom we feel safe.
We might not say out loud: The less I do, the less I can do wrong. But this is our default response to invitations, obligations, opportunities and life itself.
It keeps us sitting very still.
Passivity spawns passivity. And we confuse our inactivity for inability.
In our passivity, others see peace. Stillness can be holy. Stillness can heal. Passivity evokes serenity. And if we choose it for that reason, so it is.
But where do those of us with low self-esteem draw the line between serene stillness and frozen-faced passivity?
Low self-esteem turns life into hard labor. Just getting out of bed, getting dressed, and going outside takes courage, given the ferocity of our fears. Deeming our spontaneous, authentic selves unacceptable, we lock into performance mode around others, doing and saying whatever we hope will help us escape mockery or worse. Ironic as it sounds, passivity exhausts us — spawning more passivity.
In a “Just Do It” society, we’re the ones who chant: “Don’t Do It.”
We’re passive because we assume that we will lose all arguments, disputes and debates. We’re passive because we assume that we can only make things worse. Pondering the very prospect of a before-and-after, cause-and-effect arc, we retreat.
Why even pretend to spar? Our white surrender flags are permanently raised. At the first whiff of conflict, we go slack and/or silent and/or say Okay okay okay with a sad or falsely cheery sigh — and/or we send our self-abasing minds a million miles away.
That’s what we do when facing the everyday: the ordinary but unknown. When facing fun or even potential fun, we affix virtual chains to our own ankles and lock ourselves up in tiny, tight virtual cells because we’re so sure that we don’t belong wherever good things are occurring or might occur.
Checking in on an old friend.