Author: VD

Charles Stross writes: This week, Gardner Dozois stepped down as editor of Asimov’s SF Magazine, after about 19 years at the helm. His replacement, Sheila Williams, is already editor there and indeed has worked on Asimov’s for about as long as (if not longer than) Gardner, so it’s not as if things are adrift: Gardner’s simply spent a long time there and wants to spend more time on his own writing. (Lest we forget, not only did he win about fifteen Hugo awards as best editor — he won a couple for his stories, in the dim and distant past.) This news comes less than a month after Dave Pringle announced that he was stepping down as editor of Interzone, after a similar duration. (Interzone is being sold as a going concern to Andy Cox, who will be editing it in parallel with The Third Alternative.)

Why do I get a slight shiver at this news?

Interzone was where I sold my first stories, back in the 80’s, under the editorship of Dave Pringle. Asimov’s SF is where I really broke into the American market after 1999, via Gardner’s auspices. Gardner in the US and Dave in the UK probably published the first short fiction of about 50% of the successful SF writers who came to notice from 1980 onwards! Saying this is the end of an era is, I think, an understatement — it’ll go unnoticed in the mass media, but some of those authors have gone on to have massive effects outside the genre. It’s one of those defining moments that will potentially change the entire shape of our genre, thirty years down the line.

I tend to be more interested in writing my own stuff than reading three or four SF novels a week the way I used to as a teenager, but I’ve certainly read my fair share of Asimov’s mags, having had a subscription on two separate occasions. While I don’t always agree with Mr. Dozois’ choice of short fiction – how is it that I can publish novels and comic books but can’t get a short story in print – I own too many copies of his annual Best Of SF collections not to have some regard for him. Asimov’s may improve, it may decline, but it certainly won’t be the same.

Pat Buchanan writes on WND: “If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me,” William Kristol has told the New York Times. The Weekly Standard editor added that the neoconservatives may just abandon the Right altogether and convert to neoliberalism…. The day after Kristol said he preferred Kerry to conservatives skeptical of committing more troops to Iraq, this item appeared in the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Kristol thinks Mr. Bush should use the revelations [from the Woodward book] to shake up his war cabinet by firing Mr. Powell … along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who has pushed for smaller deployments of U.S. forces than some critics, including Mr. Kristol, think wise.”

As regular readers know, I believe that it is either necessary to pull out of Iraq and focus on defending the borders or grasp the nettle and fight the war that has been declared on America for the last 20+ years. However, the current crew is manifestly the wrong gang to fight either the war on method or the clash of civilizations war that will likely, in the end, prove unavoidable. If you can’t even name your enemy, much less deal with its self-admitted fifth column, you’re the wrong man for the job.

Kristol’s statements has some interesting implications, however, for how one views Kerry. They demonstrate a strong indication that the neocons believe Kerry will be even more enthusiastic about fighting wars abroad than Bush has proved himself to be. I have never bought into the notion that a Democratic president will be hesitant to fight any war, because Democrats love the notion of expanding central power and using war as an excuse to do so. There’s a reason why the term Isolationist Right exists, after all, while the idea of an Isolationist Left sounds like a contradiction in terms.

However this plays out, I won’t be sorry to see the neocons switch sides again.

First-year English teacher Phillip J. Fox, 23, of Groton, was arrested April 13 on charges of fourth-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor. Police opened the investigation after receiving a complaint that Fox had sexual contact with a female student at the school. Last year, math teacher David G. Simonin, 53, of Watertown, was arrested during an Internet porn sting. He resigned and is out on bond as the investigation continues. And in 2001, history teacher Bret P. Devino, 30, of Waterbury, was charged with having sex with a teenage student and sexually assaulting another. He was fired and has completed a jail sentence…. “Parents shouldn’t be overly worried, as long as they know we’re on top of this,” said Sgt. Fred Sprano, who is head of the police department’s youth division.

Now there’s an unfortunate turn of phrase. But I don’t see why parents should be concerned about this either. After all, the school district was promising their children would receive sex education from the start. You’d think these conscientious teachers, who are willing to provide hands-on personal instruction, would be awarded medals, not arrested. If they are guilty of anything, they are only guilty of giving too much.

A juror later told the St. Petersburg Times he did not really think Paey was guilty of trafficking, since the prosecution made it clear from the outset that he didn’t sell any pills. The juror said he voted guilty to avoid being the lone holdout. He suggested that other jurors might have voted differently if the foreman had not assured them Paey would get probation. The prosecutors, who finally obtained the draconian sentence that even they concede Paey does not deserve, say it’s his fault for insisting on his innocence. “It’s unfortunate that anyone has to go to prison, but he’s got no one to blame but Richard Paey,” Assistant State Attorney Mike Halkitis told the St. Petersburg Times. “All we wanted to do was get him help.”

Two lessons. One: the jury foreman doesn’t have any say in the sentencing. Two: If you’re on a jury, be the lone holdout. Do what you believe to be right and stand by it, even if a bunch of ignorant would-be herd animals say otherwise. A little short-term conflict is a lot better than a lifetime of sleepless nights, knowing you did the wrong thing.

DS writes: I am coming closer and closer to the libertarian position. Much moral legislation is a failure, i.e. “war on drugs”. Let people do drugs and let the matter be taken away from organized crime. Q. What do you do with the idiot who gets high on whatever and then gets into a car and drives it unto something and ends up killing somebody? You desist from policing private behavior, fine. But how do you stop people from killing others with a car, or whatever they could be using (machines, scalpel, etc…) under the influence? Maybe the solution is simple and escapes me. Help me on this.

I’d prefer to say “behavioral modification legislation” since law derives from base morals, but otherwise you’ve described an aspect of my reasoning. The short answer is: you don’t. What you must realize is that there is NOTHING preventing anyone from doing this now. In Minnesota, for example, you can safely expect to rack up six DUIs before you’ll ever see 24 hours of jail time. There is already a crime for getting hammered and killing someone with car; it’s called manslaughter.

Adding some sort of mandatory restitution payments would likely do more to prevent such behavior than another 50 drug laws and would be perfectly in keeping with libertarian philosophy. Drug law a) prevents nothing and b) actually makes the situation worse by creating perverse incentives. Drugs are more powerful and less expensive than they were when the War on Drugs began, and the user base remains static. The main conceptual hurdle that conservatives have to leap is that the law is not an appropriate vehicle for sending messages. That is the responsibility of family, church and friends.

Paul Jacob writes:”For more than 75 years,” he [John Stossel} notes, “no Republican administration has cut the size of government.” To believe that Republicans cut government is to deny a whole lot of evidence….To talk about their “liberal” bias only goes so far. Conservatives are also prone to error, at least when it comes to partisan matters like evaluating the effectiveness of the GOP.

At least 75 years worth of evidence, anyhow. But I’ll bet that cutting government is part of George Delano’s secret second-term plan. Right after he invents a perpetual-motion machine, brings peace to the Middle East and gets rid of the designated hitter.

Leonard Pitts writes: It’s been nearly four months since the scandal broke. Four months since Jack Kelley, star foreign correspondent for USA Today, was found to have lied his way through his professional life for the last 13 years. He lied about where he had been, what he had seen, whom he had talked to, what they had said. He lied so much I’m only half convinced “Jack Kelley’ is his real name. Yet you, my colleagues, have not asked the most important question:

What does this mean for the future of white journalism…. Did USA Today advance a moderately capable journalist because he was white? Did some white editor mentor him out of racial solidarity even though Kelley was unqualified? In light of this fiasco, should we re- examine the de facto affirmative action that gives white men preferential treatment in our newsrooms?

Ha very ha. But Jayson Blair was obviously a marginal case from the beginning, even while he was still in college at Maryland. He was an affirmative-action baby, and he was quick to play the race card as soon as he was fired. It was clear that he was being protected because he was black, whereas Kelly was a bona fide star for USA Today. Blair’s book has a racially-focused title. So, his failure is rightfully considered to have negative implications for the practice of affirmative action.

Every black individual must make up his mind for himself.. Does he want affirmative action or does he want respect? You can’t have both. Even a black who makes it on his own is always going to be suspected of being the beneficiary of this racist policy that assumes blacks are less capable. The fact that there are white failures says nothing about the rightful suspicion that many blacks really don’t deserve to be where they are. There’s a reason that no one doubts whether KG belongs in the NBA or not. He earned his respect. Don’t be surprised when people aren’t respectful of those who haven’t done likewise.

I’m not sure which amuses me more, that Champion’s League score or the notion that Rivaldo might sign with Bolton. For American sports fans, the latter is as if KG was out of contract and decided to sign with a second-tier European basketball team. I mean, he’s the best player on the reigning World Cup champions, and he can’t find a spot in Spain or Italy? Bizarre, even if he was redundant at Milan.

Meanwhile, Chelsea’s payroll is higher than an NBA team’s, while the average age of Monaco’s squad, which seldom manages to compete for the third-rate French title, is about 19. I think I’ll have to cheer for Monaco in the final assuming they can hold off Abramovitch’s collection of overpriced all-stars in the second game.

I know there’s an NFL draft today. But I’m a Vikings fan. I prefer to pretend it doesn’t exist, rather than contemplate just how they’re going to screw things up this time.

CW writes: I was recently referred to your blog by a friend, and within a month’s time I have decided to vote Libertarian…. Reading your commentary, and that of your readers, really caused me to examine the freedom over security question. The lack of any significant Democrat legislation being passed in the last 20 years indicates to me that we are essentially living the Republican party platform. With exceptions, obviously, but on the whole I think that is the case.I also look at the fact that Nader has raised $600,000 in a month, and has clear support from many on the left. I cannot abide in the left being the principled wing of the political spectrum, and that also helped in my decision.

The Libertarian candidates are anonymous. This is not what you want in Presidential nominees…. Jesse Ventura owed his Governor seat to the KQ morning show. You and your blog could have a similar sway on the national stage. Your thoughts?

First, let me say that I’m delighted that people like CW are coming here with open minds, then being converted into Libertarian pod people. The plan, it’s working, it’s working….. (Anyone remember Day of the Tentacle? It was the only game Chiliette ever liked – she played it obsessively – but the part that amused me most was when the hero looked at a little plan drawn up on a white board by the evil Purple Tentacle, entitled, Plan To Take Over the Whole World, and mused, “uh oh, that just might work.”) Anyhow, I’m pleased that people are visiting here and occasionally running across something that makes them think.

But let’s do the math. Jess Ventura, with a major radio show on the main AM station in the state’s only major metropolitan area, managed to scrape by and win the governorship in a state of 6 million people. This blog has 1500 hits per day, which realistically means that about somewhere between 150 and 500 people are reading it regularly, out of 150 million voters. In other words, I’m several orders of magnitude below where I’d need to be to even begin having an influence at a national level. A lot more people read my Monday column, of course, but still, I’m pretty much unknown even in the blog world. It’s not impossible, to be sure, but we’ve got a long, long way to go before we get there. But the technological imperative is on our side and that’s always nice.

Regardless, I’m having fun. My thinking continues to be sharpened by everyone’s comments and emails, which is something that I value very much indeed. I don’t know if I’ll ever catch up with Instapundit, much less a Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, but that’s not particularly important to me. What is important is that one by one, people like CW have the chance to consider ideas that they might not have encountered before. So, CW, do thank your friend for me.

From WND: Homeschooling parents in a Canadian province have been ordered to stop using religious-based materials or other “unofficial” resources when they teach their children at home. Pamela Nagle, a Christian, is one of many angry parents in British Columbia who say they will not abide by the order, according to the Vancouver Sun. “They can’t tell me what to do in my own home,” said Nagle, whose son is homeschooled but attends a public school one day a week. Nagle told the paper the materials she uses should not matter as long as her son’s education meets British Columbia’s standards. “I don’t like the fact that they believe they know what’s best for my child,” she said. But Nagle is one of many parents lured into the public school system by a distance-education program, the Sun said. Through the program, she received about $600, Canadian, from the Langley school district in suburban Vancouver, which supplements the hundreds she spends of own money. About 6,800 children are in the program after it started as a pilot project with just 2,200. The parents say they enrolled in distance education after being promised they could continue as their children’s primary teacher. The availability of teacher expertise, as well as funds, was the attraction for the parents, while the school district saw benefit from the increased accountability. The children in the program also graduate with a provincial certificate, unlike the estimated 3,000 homeschoolers with no ties to the government’s education system.

There’s a reason they are offering you money. Don’t take it! It’s much harder to get out of a system once you’re in it than it is to stay out of it from the start. If you’re going to send your kids to government school, then send them off and forget about it. If you’re going to homeschool them, then do so knowing that you’re not going to get any help from the state. Any “help” that you are offered is almost surely a trap. And even if it isn’t now, it probably will be in the future.

Homeschooling is totally contradictory to the ethos of the educationist bureaucracy. They want to destroy it, and they are not above using deceit to do so. Keep that in mind when wonderful new programs for homeschools begin appearing in your school district.