Riba Rambles:
Musings of a Mental Magpie

Posted by Lis Riba at 6:20 PM

Got lots of little tidbits I want to share, none of which seem worth posts of their own:

Loverly...

Spoke to the vet today about Boopsie's inappropriate urination (on our bed -- every day this week). Said that at this point, it was probably behavioral and not a medical problem. Suggested solution is to lock her out of the bedroom and get everything else she could possibly piss on off the floor. Those who have seen our apartment may commence laughing now. Meanwhile, I am ever so thankful we have a good washer & dryer in our apartment (rather than having to traipse up and down stairs) and will be spending tonight laundering all our blankets and mattress pads and cleaning up the rest of the house...

Fellow foodies in Boston might be interested in this announcement. [I'm quoting from the version I received in my e-mail.]

We are pleased to invite you to a book signing and discussion with Christopher Kimball in our test kitchen in Brookline, Massachusetts. Get a chance to see where our television series, America's Test Kitchen, is filmed, sample some recipes from our books and Cook's Illustrated magazine, and get books signed by Chris.

TUESDAY JUNE 29
5:00 - 6:30PM
17 Station Street
Brookline, MA 02445
Phone: 617-232-1000

They want people to RSVP if possible so they can estimate crowd size.

As long as I'm talking about this subject, I will take this opportunity to remind people of my old parody "Christopher Kimball: the Fugitive!" BTW, one February I misspoke about a popular magazine, calling it the Cook's Illustrated: Swimsuit Issue. If anybody from CI is reading this, let me just say that based on the reaction of my friends, if you were to market such an issue, it would be quite popular. :)

I've seen several bloggers linking to this essay about flamewars amongst weblogs. It concludes with the proclamation "Weblog comments incite duels. Duels are bad for society." I can't speak for the first statement, but I disagree with the second. Read my post last December regarding my reading of Gentlemen's Blood: a history of duelling from swords at dawn to pistols at dusk. As the author wrote:

There was much to like about the duel. It was a regulated way for one man to prevail over another when he felt the need to do so, and an improvement over the informal ambush, or sending out henchmen to break the enemy's skull by night on the highway. It had rules enforced by peer pressure that respectable men respected. Its gratifications were more immediate than the gratifications of successful lawsuits, which in early times could take years or decades to settle.

In short, I think that a dueling code could actually cool the overheated rhetoric Mark Bernstein is complaining about, and are not necessarily "bad for society." Read my old post for elaboration so I don't have to repeat myself.

Speaking of blog comments, this is bizarre. Before driving Ian to the train, I left responses in two other blogs. I went back to check on those posts, and my comments are gone. Problem with my software? Problem on their end? They're both screening comments? Who knows. Weird, though. And annoying, because I don't feel like rethinking and retyping my replies.

Reminder to self: once the local libraries have more copies in stock (the catalog shows all are out), check out Philippa Gregory's The Queen's fool. It sounds interesting, and in sync with many of my interests...

And that got me checking some other series for when their next books are due. A new Ursula Blanchard mystery (by Fiona Buckley) is due in December. The next Nicholas Bracewell mystery by Edward Marston is due August 1st. [Both mystery series are set in Elizabethan England. The former has more of an espionage bent, the latter set within a London theater troupe.] Ooh Amazon shows a new Marston series (or at least, new to the US) set in post-Fire London! Of the three local library networks I belong to, only Minuteman has a copy. Must put on hold... Online library catalogs are a bibliophile's best friend.

And now I'm just babbling. All-in-all, I've had a good week. I hope you have too, and that your weekend is even better.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:44 PM

Because I feel it's important to find something to laugh about, I wish to point readers to two challenges at Boston Common:

• What will be the absolute most ridiculous convention-related offer?
• Can we come up with a list of The Top 10 Reasons to Be Happy About the MBTA's New Restrictions?

I did have the realization that Worldcon is just over a month after the DNC, meaning they can benefit from the public works inconveniences we're currently suffering through (they're repaving Storrow this month) and the hassles and hoopla will be over with. The gain without the pain. [And how will MBTA cops deal with costumers in full regalia?]

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:45 AM

Remember Wednesday's post on the MBTA's crackdown on civil liberties over the Democratic National Convention? Well, just saw Boston.com has an update on bag restrictions on the T:

Riders on the Orange Line and T buses that travel on Interstate 93 and pass by the FleetCenter, for example, will be banned from carrying anything larger than a pocketbook or briefcase, and all permitted bags will be searched on those trains and buses. On all other lines, pocketbooks, briefcases, backpacks, and packages will be subject to random search. Those who refuse to be searched will not be allowed on. Large bags, suitcases, and gift totes will be inspected in every case.

And get a load of this bit of irony, by the MBTA's general manager: "We're going to great lengths to make this as unobtrusive as possible." <snort>

But, hey, why wait until the DNC gets here to make commuters' lives miserable?

Riders will get a taste of the new security procedures beginning next week, when four teams of four officers will fan out to different subway and commuter rail stations every day and randomly stop passengers to inspect their bags, using either an explosives detection device, a bomb-sniffing dog, or by hand.

Amusingly enough, Boston.com accompanies the article with an online poll asking "Will you comply?" I'm moderately amused (because that seems a better emotion right now than anger) by the choices they offer:

• Yes. In these violent times we need these extra security precautions to keep us all safe.
• No. I believe this violates our constitutional rights and will carry any size bag I need and will refuse to let officers search it.
• Do I really have a choice? If I need to ride public transportation to work, I?ll have to comply with these restrictions.

The article does have some good news, about extra buses and trains being scheduled to handle the overload (since they're terminating all commuter rail lines north of the city, and closing many of the roads.

It'll be all over in a month. It'll be all over in a month. It'll all be over in a month.

Added later: When I showed this story to Ian, he pointed out that the policy is even more unreasonable than it sounds at first. A large portion of service industry workers live north of the city and commute via the Orange line. At his workplace, they've been told no vacations are allowed during the week of the DNC, and that's probably not an isolated policy. And such workers generally have to bring their uniforms with them to and from work. So here is a class of workers that can't take the week off, must take the T, and must carry large bags. What do officials expect these people to do?

Further update: In the wake of Jadasc's comment, what about all the college students in the Boston area. There is such a thing as summer school, and textbooks and binders and laptops are rarely compact and lightweight. The more I think on this policy, the more ludicrous it becomes. I've gotta write me a letter to the Globe on these last two points (service industry and students).

Even further update(I should really start a new post for some of this): Courtesy of ne.transportation, I found the MBTA's official site for the restrictions, which elaborate as follows:

Due to proximity to the Fleet Center, the Orange Line and highway buses will not permit packages onboard larger than 6" x 12" x 4" (about the size of a loaf of bread).

That's just insane, and wholly impractical...

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:35 AM

Hey, Ayesha! (and anybody else in the Boston area who's interested)

I just noticed that Troy has hit the second run movie theaters in Danvers and Arlington.

I know it's been subject to some of the funniest, cattiest reviews I've seen since Battlefield Earth. [I'd like to link to some of the best lines, but LJ is being a pokey puppy today. For now, I'll only mention one of my favorites, by SiriaEve, and Strange Selkie's epic poem review. If you have some you'd like to contribute, please add a comment.]

At any rate, despite (or because of) all that, anybody interested in going to see it?[Rides might be arrangeable for the carless]

Posted by Lis Riba at 4:55 PM

With summer comes outdoor performances of Shakespeare. I just got a mailing from one of the local theater troupes announcing their schedule for this summer.

At any rate, I just wanted to remind New Englanders about www.livejournal.com/~bard_in_boston, the site I created listing as many Shakespeare performances in the New England area as I can find out about.

And if you have any Shakespeare news to impart, I've set the community to allow anybody to post new entries or announcements (you need an LJ account to do so, but they're now free, meaning it truly is open to everybody).

All the world's a stage. And all the men and women merely want to know when showtimes will be...

Posted by Lis Riba at 4:15 PM

Before you read any further, give it some thought and come up with an answer. Don't spend too much time on it, I'm curious about your gut reaction.

Somebody asked me that the other day. It took me by surprise, and then I came up with lilac bush, because, well, lilacs are my favorite flower.

But I realized afterwards that my answer wasn't really fair because, let's face it, a bush is not a tree. So I started thinking about trees I like. My first thought was of paper birches, but everybody rips the bark off them -- definitely no fun. I thought of oaks, because (I read somewhere) "dryad" is a derivation from the word for oak, and well, dryads are cool. On the other hand, the wood from oak trees are immensely useful, and I wouldn't want to become something that was merely fodder for the lumber industry.

After a little more thought, I came up with two answers. A weeping willow and whatever the local tree is that blooms into wonderfully-scented white flowers in early March (if anyone can name that tree, I would be most grateful -- I'm going to want one for our yard when we finally landscape). Why? Both trees bespeak a sense of comfort to me. Neither one is terribly big or grand or imposing, like oaks or redwoods can get. [Then again, neither am I.] As with lilacs, I have fond early memories of a weeping willow -- in specific, one in the back yard of our house in Madison. It had a straight trunk, not bent like so many you see. The branches and leaves fountained out symmetrically, sweeping in a perfect circle to touch the ground, absolutely perfect for a small child to hide or play underneath. I also feel compelled to mention the willow's flexibility. The ability to bend where larger trees may break. It's cliched, but it does come to my mind. The other tree, whose name I don't yet know, I first encountered when I came up to Massachusetts. But after a long cold winter, any greenery would be welcome. But we actually get flowers and such a sweet fragrance... It's really wonderful, and was one of the delights of my lunchtime walks at the office park of my former workplace.

So there you have it. If the questioner is reading this, (hello!) there's a more complete answer than I gave you the other day.

For everybody else reading this, what's your tree?

PS: When I asked Ian this question, he replied "binary tree." I love that man.

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:15 AM

So, I'm rapidly refreshing SCOTUSBlog to see the latest Supreme Court decisions. And I read:

Flash Post - Cheney
Per Kennedy, the Court vacates. The government's mandamus petition is timely and not barred by laches. Mandamus can be issued because this is no mere discovery order. The Executive Branch has a special status and informs the mandamus standard. The Court doesn't decide the ultimate mandamus issue. So it's a partial win for Cheney. It's a heavily divided opinion. Ginsburg dissents from the bench. It appears at first blush to be 5-2-2.

I wish I knew what mandamus and laches meant. I tried Googling on the two terms together, and came up with other court cases using those words and explanations of one in terms of the other. IU know they're related, but found no clarification for the layperson on what they actually mean.

I suppose I'll just have to wait a little longer for the Court reporters to parse the decisions for us...

Added about one minute later: Associated Press just issued a one-sentence release, saying "The Supreme Court has refused to order the Bush administration to make public secret details of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force, sending the case back to a lower court." Somewhat clearer, but that's just the "what" and not the "why."

Further update: Via Google, I got Dictionary.com's definitions of the terms:
mandamus: A writ issued by a superior court ordering a public official or body or a lower court to perform a specified duty.
laches: Negligence or undue delay in asserting a legal right or privilege.
That makes the initial report a little clearer. I still can't wait until I can read the actual decision, which should be available by lunchtime...

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:55 AM

Went to my in-laws for dinner last night. For a birthday gift, they gave me the Stonehenge pocket watch. Need to buy batteries for the precision timekeeper, but there was just enough sunlight left to confirm the sundial portion actually works. I have a feeling I'm going to be running outside at inappropriate sunny times today just to check the sundial.

After dinner, as we were preparing to depart, Ian and I saw fireflies flashing about the yard. That may not sound so cool to folks in other parts of the country, but there are none in our neighborhood. In contrast, my in-laws' house, only about a half-hour away, is rural enough to give spectacular views of the night sky in clear weather, and, well, they've got fireflies flitting about their yard at night this time of year. Really cool, watching the patterns of light.

Posted by Lis Riba at 4:45 PM

Several things that I could extend into full posts, but don't feel like bothering:

• I love NPR. I get a lot of my news from NPR, and I believe in supporting NPR stations. But what the @%$#!? is going on with WBUR in Boston? This year, it seems like they're constantly in fundraising/pledge mode -- and cutting into programming to fit in more pledge pleas. Usually, NPR programs will schedule for pledge breaks with "special" shorter shows those weeks. For example, Wait Wait Don't Tell Me will do an episode on historic issues (rather than current events). But this week, WBUR actually cut a segment out of the program in order to squeeze in more begging! I don't want to hear that. I want to listen to the program, not the blather from the local hosts. The way they're handling their fundraising is a disincentive to continue listening! I've actually been turning to other stations rather than listen. And their latest plea is really insulting. With every $100 donation, "25 meals will be donated to Kids Cafe." And how many meals could that charity get if you donated the $100 to them directly? It's just really annoying.

• Why doesn't the unemployment office offer an option for direct deposit of unemployment checks? It would save them the postage and printing costs, for at least a portion of claimants. Are they counting on the float of several days interest between when they send out the checks and when recipients deposit them?

• Got a free six month subscription to New York Review of Books, and my first issue arrived Monday. Gotta be impressed by a book review column reviewing one book that includes a sidebar listing twenty-one other "books referred to in this essay." [And, as I read the article, I realized that there are several footnotes mentioning other titles that aren't in the sidebar!] They've also got a wicked catty review of Troy. Ayesha, you have got to read this. A few of the more delicious quotes:

"men will write stories about you for thousands of years to come," one character says, blissfully innocent of the fact that there is no writing yet

and

Benioff makes Patroclus Achilles' "cousin," a bizarre choice that (particularly in an era when family ties have never counted for less) has increasingly hilarious results as the action progresses. Watching Troy, you'd think that there was no higher value for the Bronze Age Greeks than cousinage.

• Despite all the speculation swirling around about whom Kerry will select as his running mate, most of the Veep choices mentioned so far have left me cold. There's nothing wrong with any of the frontrunners, but none of them inspires much excitement in me either.
That is, until I read this morning's Sideshow. Avedon writes:

I've noticed a couple people lately saying that Al Gore is currently fulfilling the role of a vice presidential candidate, making the hard attacks so that the presidential candidate can stay "above the fray" and stick to more positive campaigning. Whether this is intentional or not, he's doing a pretty good job of it, drawing the fire while Kerry takes his time. Kerry has a rep as a guy who hangs back until coming in for the kill. We shall see.

Kerry/Gore in 2004. I like it! It even rhymes for sloganing purposes. Seriously, Gore's got the fire and experience to be a tenacious bulldog on the campaign trail. He's got the name recognition. [Don't forget that he did win more votes than Bush in 2000, despite losing the electoral college.] He's already proven his competence to hold the office. I hope Kerry is considering that ticket pairing. I think it could be an incredibly powerful one.

At any rate, those are some of the things that are on my mind right now. Comments or questions?

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:25 PM

My first post this morning, I mentioned a news story I wanted to blog, and then I got all caught up in other stuff and couldn't find time to blog about it. Well, a few hours late, but here goes:

Dan Kennedy's Media Log is one of my regular news stops each morning. He's been the media critic for the Boston Phoenix for a decade or more, and points out aspects of news stories that I might otherwise miss.

This morning he writes about Governor Mitt Romney's appearance in Washington to discuss same-sex marriage.

During his opening statement, he said this:

But marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother.

Dan Kennedy's point is that considering all the single mothers and gay parents, society is already "pretty much indifferent about having fathers and mothers." Furthermore, "single women and gay couples sometimes adopt kids, suggesting not just indifference on the part of society but, rather, active participation."

My reaction to that quote is that Romney's stated opinions directly contradict the findings by the SJC. In fact, the SJC decision specifically and explicitly rebuts the point Romney is trying to make.

If procreation were a necessary component of civil marriage, our statutes would draw a tighter circle around the permissible bounds of nonmarital child bearing and the creation of families by noncoital means. <snip> The "marriage is procreation" argument singles out the one unbridgeable difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and transforms that difference into the essence of legal marriage.

---

Protecting the welfare of children is a paramount State policy. Restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples, however, cannot plausibly further this policy. "The demographic changes of the past century make it difficult to speak of an average American family. The composition of families varies greatly from household to household."

---

The department has offered no evidence that forbidding marriage to people of the same sex will increase the number of couples choosing to enter into opposite-sex marriages in order to have and raise children. There is thus no rational relationship between the marriage statute and the Commonwealth's proffered goal of protecting the "optimal" child rearing unit. Moreover, the department readily concedes that people in same-sex couples may be "excellent" parents. These couples (including four of the plaintiff couples) have children for the reasons others do -- to love them, to care for them, to nurture them. But the task of child rearing for same-sex couples is made infinitely harder by their status as outliers to the marriage laws.

---

As recognized in the court's opinion, and demonstrated by the record in this case, however, the State's refusal to accord legal recognition to unions of same-sex couples has had the effect of creating a system in which children of same-sex couples are unable to partake of legal protections and social benefits taken for granted by children in families whose parents are of the opposite sex. The continued maintenance of this caste-like system is irreconcilable with, indeed, totally repugnant to, the State's strong interest in the welfare of all children and its primary focus, in the context of family law where children are concerned, on "the best interests of the child."

---

Excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage will not make children of opposite-sex marriages more secure, but it does prevent children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of "a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."

---

The department has had more than ample opportunity to articulate a constitutionally adequate justification for limiting civil marriage to opposite-sex unions. It has failed to do so. The department has offered purported justifications for the civil marriage restriction that are starkly at odds with the comprehensive network of vigorous, gender-neutral laws promoting stable families and the best interests of children. It has failed to identify any relevant characteristic that would justify shutting the door to civil marriage to a person who wishes to marry someone of the same sex.

On a tangentially related note, SCOTUSblog has an essay on the legal tactics underway in the same-sex marriage fight.

[A] curious thing seems to be developing: the first issue the [U.S. Supreme Court] Justices may have to face might not be whether same-sex couples have a right to get married, but rather whether they have a right to stay married.
<snip>
That appears to be the result of a very specific strategy among gay rights advocates: do not press the issue of a federal constitutional right to marry, because that may be premature and perhaps unnecessary; instead, seek to establish a right to marry under state law, and give the country a chance to see over a period of years that American society will not crumble if gay marriages occur. This is a strategy of intentional gradualism, somewhat akin to what the civil rights and women's rights movements used successfully.

Fascinating look at strategy and tactics, and where federal constitutional issues are emerging in the current court cases.

Posted by Lis Riba at 12:35 PM

From today's Boston.com:

Subway and commuter rail riders will be discouraged from bringing briefcases or backpacks on board during the week of the Democratic National Convention, and any passenger who does have a bag or parcel may be subject to having it searched, MBTA officials said yesterday.
<snip>
"We're asking people not to bring bags or parcels on with them that week," said T spokesman Joe Pesaturo. "If they do, they should not be surprised if they are stopped."
The policy could complicate the commute for residents that week, especially with the city and the T encouraging people to ride the trains, rather than drive into Boston.
<snip>
[MBTA police chief Joseph] Carter said the officers conducting the search will primarily use an explosives detection device to scan the bags. If those devices are not available, the teams will use dogs trained to detect bombs, and, as a last resort, manual inspection, where riders will have to allow their backpacks and handbags to be opened.
The inspections "will be conducted on a systematic, random sampling basis, to eliminate the element of discretion," Carter said. It "will be limited in scope and duration and conducted in the least intrusive manner possible."
Passengers have the option to refuse an inspection, but they won't be allowed to ride the subway or commuter rail. If they insist on riding the T, they will first be warned and then arrested for trespassing if they proceed, Carter said.

Just, ugh...

Oh, and get a load of this non-answer to a very serious question:

"What if someone opens their bag, and there's a joint in there?" said another committee member, Jeremy Marin, referring to a marijuana cigarette. He said he wanted to know if that person would be arrested for drug possession or whether someone who flees a search would be pursued.
"We're not looking for joints," said Michael Mulhern, the T's general manager. "We're looking to remove threats and for this to be a deterrent. Police officers will exercise their own judgment."

That's very nice that you're not looking for joints, but what happens if one of your officers finds one anyway? It feels like the Bill of Rights is being eroded, amendment by amendment. [See this list by Elizabeth Bear.] Where does the Hiibel ruling leave us?]Is anybody else having trouble reconciling the American ideal we were raised on with current practices?

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:25 AM

If today is Wednesday, then it must be time for this week's Free Will Astrology horoscope:

Yawn... I'm tired this morning. After running some errands yesterday afternoon, my route home took me past the Wakefield library. Since I knew they had some titles I wanted that the local library didn't have (that's one abundance I don't have to worry about so long as I live in the Boston area -- libraries!) I stopped in to pick them up.

When I got home, I discovered Boopsie had wet the bed again. I dearly love our cat, but this has gotten real tiresome. Thank goodness we have our own washer & dryer, but still this is getting to be a near-daily occurrence and the meds she's been on for the past month haven't cleared it up yet.

At any rate, I spent the evening reading Edward Bloor's Story Time, interspersed for a while with the American Film Institute's 100 Years, 100 Songs. [Hard to believe this is the 25th anniversary of The Muppet Movie!] Since Ian was also in the middle of a book, we stayed up to read, and managed to finish our books within about five minutes of each other.

Speaking of books, has anybody else read Conrad Richter's trilogy: The Trees, The Fields and The Town? [Aside from Ian, who I recently coerced.] I got the trilogy as a gift long ago, and even though the third book won the Pulitzer, I've never found anybody else with whom I could discuss the books. I don't think I'm giving away too much with this question, but just in case, spoiler warning: One small unresolved mystery in the series is just why Portius Wheeler left Massachusetts for the wilds of Ohio. There's a lot of speculation, but I don't think an answer is ever given. Does anybody know whether Mr. Richter ever commented upon that in interviews or essays about the books?

And that's about all I have to report this morning on the personal front. Just saw one news story I have to comment upon, but I'll save that for a subsequent post.

Posted by Lis Riba at 11:15 AM

The rest of yesterday was fun. I picked Ian up from work, and we went to the movies after all. Saw the double feature I was talking about. Loved 'em both; both are excellent films. [If you've already seen Shrek 2 (and only after you've seen it), be sure to read IMDB's trivia page for the film. Includes elements even we didn't catch.

Meanwhile, I was looking through my portfolio from school and work, and realized that I never actually posted a public link to the final project for my Subject Analysis class. I meant to write up a grander post explaining what I did and what I learned. [I wrote the paper for indexing-experts but blog-novices. Obviously the audience of this blog is familiar with blogs, but may not appreciate the complexity of indexing.] But, life interfered -- after graduation I threw myself wholeheartedly into my new job, and never found the time.

At any rate, here is the final paper (in Adobe Acrobat format). I've also got a PowerPoint presentation on the topic, but (a) it really only makes sense with the speaker notes, and (b) it's incredibly large (as Microsoft files are wont to be) so I don't want to take the bandwidth hit right now.

The project earned an A/A-, and in her notes, the professor added "I would like you to write this up for The Indexer." Never did get around to doing that. I should see whether anybody has written anything similar yet, and if not, what it will take to make this publication-ready.

[Quick bit of oh cool!ness. I was looking at the professor's website for the class. Judging by the links, more projects are online this year than in my class. And, somebody built a a Dragon Magazine Article Index complete with thesaurus! ("Hirelings USE Henchmen" heh.) Too geeky tastes that go great together...]

Posted by Lis Riba at 2:45 PM

So, last week I wrote about employers' attitudes towards employees' blogs, and today find a Business Week article about employers that encourage employee blogs.

Sara Ford is a software design engineer at Microsoft Corp., blogging away from her fluorescent-lit office in Redmond, Wash. Her most prominent posts are ones about the product she's working on, its latest bugs, and inside dope for users such as the "hide underline letters checkbox issue." There's also her day-in-the-life workplace diary, complete with a glossary decoding Microsoft arcana and strategies for nabbing extra espresso coupons. . . .
[The 800 Microsoft bloggers] post pictures of company refrigerators -- there's one that has all Coke and one that has all Pepsi -- and spout off on everything from the death of Boots the cat to renaming Longhorn, Microsoft's long-anticipated new operating system, "Longwait."

Some of the transparency described actually sounds scary to me. I don't think I'd want to be quite so open about business matters. As I've said, I took a class in "Conducting Competitive Intelligence Legally." You'd be surprised how much information people can elicit by putting together disparate facts and slips... I can't remember exact examples (though we did discuss court rulings on dumpster diving) but I seem to recall John Nolan's Confidential providing a good overview. Many of the practices he describes are too close to unethical for my comfort, but the book and class were definitely a wake-up call.

All through the class, I was reminded of the WWII poster "Loose lips sink ships." As I said in another old post, I wasn't terribly surprised when an article in KM World said, "[a]t a certain level, knowledge management is indistinguishable from corporate espionage." That can be thrilling or terrifying, depending which side you are on. But all-in-all, I'd rather play it safe.

Hmm... Does that sound cowardly of me? I don't know. I can be quite reckless sometimes, as last week's notoriety demonstrates. But I see a difference between putting myself out there and risking other people's information/privacy/livelihood. All the nasty comments trolls left on my blog really didn't bother me. But when I thought that the extra traffic might disguise an attempt to take down the server, which would hurt others -- that's when I got worried. But I'm digressing...

In the meantime, I noticed that Ian's sourdough culture has overrun its jar, spilled out onto the counter and into the sink, and is now receding back into the jar again. If it keeps trying to take over the kitchen, I'm tempted to start demanding rent from it. :) [Hey, it's alive!]

I've checked movie times online, and have found two theaters where it seems plausible to get to both Shrek 2 and Prisoner of Azkaban (Loews Assembly Square: Shrek 2 at 5:45 pm, Harry Potter at 7:35 pm; Liberty Tree Mall: Shrek 2 at 6:40 pm, Harry Potter at 8:20 pm). But my pragmatic side is making me think that the time commitment will probably be too much. Maybe I'll only see one tonight, or perhaps I'll wait for another time when I don't have so much to do.

Anyway, I ought to get back to my must-do tasks if I want any chance of seeing any movie tonight. Later!

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:40 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that people do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names.
The 5-4 decision frees the government to arrest and punish people who won't cooperate by revealing their identity.

via CNN     

I haven't found a copy of the ruling online yet, or even who ruled on which side (besides the fact that Kennedy wrote the majority opinion).

I suppose this will clear the way for Boston's MBTA to justify random bag & ID checks...

Needless to say, I'm not terribly pleased with this decision.

Posted by Lis Riba at 9:20 AM

I don't know whether I've posted recently about what a geek I am.

Last week, at a combined anniversary party for us/birthday party for my nephew, my sister- and brother-in-law gave me two issues of the journal Library & Information Science Research. [I believe they were cleaning out storerooms at work, came across a stack intended for disposal, and grabbed a couple copies for me.]

My first reaction was: "I took classes from both the co-editors!" Then, "oh, this is the journal Candy used for our Subject Analysis class." And then I started flipping through the tables of contents.

I am such a geek.

I think I've spent more time reading these journals than the book they more seriously got us for our anniversary. Is it just me, or do other people find articles such as "Beyond the FAQ: Explicit and Implicit Norms in Usenet Newsgroups" or "Internet Search Approaches: The Influence of Age, Search Goals, and Experience" to sound really inherently cool?

I suppose that's a good sign that I'm in the right field. When the academic journal articles feel like pleasure reading...

I wonder if they can get me more issues.

Speaking of geekiness (of a different sort), don't forget the Supreme Court will be releasing another batch of decisions today around ten a.m. SCOTUSBlog remains one of the better sites for getting the news quickly. There are still sixteen cases undecided, many of them concerning issues of major importance, with less than two weeks remaining to release opinions.

And this seems to be turning into a catchall of geekery, because I suddenly feel compelled to remind myself of some upcoming free lectures at Shakespeare & Company in Lenox:

• Traditional English Building Techniques, July 23
• Original Practices in Shakespeare Performance and Study, August 6
• Foods of the Renaissance, August 13

Equal opportunity geekery... Thankfully, my husband loves me for it anyway. [He was looking thru our nonfiction bookshelves the other day amazed at how many disparate interests we have represented.]

^* Title provided by Ian, with some help from Robert Burns.

Posted by Lis Riba at 8:15 AM

(Play it!)

So, after two years in a row (2002 & 2003), I guess it's a tradition: My birthday horoscopes!

I'm actually figuring on a low-key birthday this time around. Focusing on small pleasures, that kind of thing. Oddly enough, for all my job and financial worries, there's not much I really want. Besides, this isn't one of those big-number birthdays. I'm not turning a multiple of five or ten. My age will not be a square or cube or even a prime. No major milestones achieved by reaching this age (not yet eligible to hold the office of President). It's just another year...

Ian's working during the day, and for the evening I'm trying to decide between seeing Shrek 2 (which we haven't seen and want to, having heard good things about it), Harry Potter: Prisoner of Azkaban (which I've seen once and want to see again, and Ian hasn't seen yet), or being decadent and making a double-feature out of them both. [Which means finding a movie theater showing them at convenient times to one another. Any recommendations?]

I'm also open to suggestions of places in the Boston area offering special birthday treats -- you know, the "free ice cream cone on your birthday" kind of deals. I'm looking for the silly fun stuff.

I can't do anything running too late, as I've got some important business planned for tomorrow. But we're gonna have a good time!

Posted by Lis Riba at 3:40 PM

I'm eating freshly-baked hot-out-of-the-oven sourdough bread, spread with homemade hollandaise sauce (which he made yesterday for eggs benedict). [He told me to post this and is now standing over my shoulder, to make sure I word it all correctly. He just returned to the kitchen, leaving me on my own. Don't send help; hopefully he'll keep feeding me this well! :) ]

Posted by Lis Riba at 10:15 AM

Today's Globe North section has two articles on Witching Hour, an academic symposium on the Harry Potter universe to be held next October in Salem. I hope my financial situation is such that I can attend next year.

At any rate, for those of you at all interested in the subject, here's the main article with a sidebar on Witchcraft Heights Elementary School, a very real public school in the area.

Speaking of Potter news, an interview with David Thewlis is making the rounds on LiveJournal. I couldn't help laughing at this paragraph, describing Gary Oldman's reaction to the conclusion of Book Five (warning, spoilers!)

"[Gary Oldman] actually came around the next morning, because we lived near each other at the time, and he said, 'Have you seen the new book? We've got a lot of work to do, mate.' He was quite happy, and I didn't know how to break it to him. So I said, 'Have you actually read it yet, Gaz?' 'No, just flicked through it.' A few days later I'm in makeup and he comes in and sits down and goes, 'Have you heard the news?' 'What's that, Gaz?' 'It's terrible fucking news' 'What is it?' 'You know how everyo