Link Roundup

[jducoeur]

Interesting tidbits gleaned from today:

From jikharra: there's going to be a new edition of Paranoia. Way cool: this might actually get me to try tabletop RPG again.

The latest from Project Gutenberg: Beaumont and Fletcher's Works, parts one (The Scornful Lady) and two (The Elder Brother).

From alexx_kay: yesterday's Doonesbury, which is thoroughly arresting to those of us who've been reading the strip since the 70's. And also a news article that just makes my blood boil, about a woman who has been fired for taking a politically inconvenient photograph...

Comments

[siderea]

I disagree about the news article. The woman wasn't fired for taking a politically inconvenient photo, she was fired for breaking the explicit rules -- rules which have been around a lot longer than The Shrub. I'm not commenting on whether it was or was not politically inconvenient, or whether or not it was moral/right for her to take that picture. I'm merely saying that I can't see that it was unfair of them to fire her.

I seem to recall MLKJr said something in his famous Letters from a Birmingham Jail about how civil disobedience is about breaking the law to get busted, not breaking the law because you think you're above it and expecting to walk away uncharged.

[jducoeur]

Perhaps. You're correct that they were legally entirely correct. That particular rule still burns the hell out of me, though -- as far as I'm concerned, it's a workaround for the First Amendment. It's not always necessary to make something illegal, if you can exert enough pressure to make it inconvenient...

I disagree...

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

If it's "standard rules" not to allow flag-draped coffins to be shown until they reach their final destination, how come the news networks have shown them being offloaded from the transport planes and re-loaded onto other planes to take them to their families? I think this woman got a raw deal.

(However, my perceptions may be completely warped by the fact that a "wack-a-mole" lawyer at work just smushed a update meeting we've been planning for months on what sounds suspiciously like censorship reasons.)

Re: I disagree...

[metageek.livejournal.com]

The difference is that the news networks don't work for the military (or military contractors); this woman did. In theory, firing her for taking that picture was no different from firing someone for violating, say, a sexual harassment policy: the company sets its own rules, to protect itself, and gets to enforce them. In fact, it probably has to enforce them, consistently, in order to have them stand up in court.

What we need is a court ruling that it's unconstitutional for the government to set rules like this without some defensible reason. For example, I can see firing someone for giving out the names & addresses of next-of-kin, or for distributing a picture that shows planned troop movements. But taking a picture of anonymous coffins, with no details visible to damage anybody's security, is clearly an expression of a viewpoint.

Re: I disagree...

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

I think the bit they particularly disapproved of was the array of multiple flag-draped coffins. Still, the Pentagon's argument that they are protecting the sensitive feelings of the families who have lost soldiers is not credible to me - these are not photos of *particular,* *identified* soldiers.

Re: I disagree...

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

During Vietnam and the Gulf War, the rationale was that seeing so many coffins at once would be disheartening (read: make the public aware of the real losses) to the people back home. But you're right: it's sheepdip.

Re: I disagree...

[jducoeur]

Just so. They have some justification within the letter of the law, but aren't particularly following the spirit of it, IMO. Again, it sounds very much to me like this is retaliation against a politically inconvenient picture, to send a message to others.

Further, on a little reflection I disagree with siderea's allusion to MLK in one specific regard: civil disobedience is about something you do intentionally. There's no real evidence here that this was the case -- the quotes from the lady in question seem to indicate that she didn't even realize that there was a rule against this. Indeed, she claims that she wasn't even trying to make a political statement here, or at least not the one that it was taken as. I don't have any particular reason to disbelieve her on that: certainly the rule isn't obvious.

If that's the case, then tromping on her so hard (firing not just her, but her husband as well) is thoroughly tasteless. When someone violates a rule that they weren't aware of, the appropriate response usually isn't to take them out back and shoot them. Some disciplinary action might have been called for, but this was serious overkill...

[hfcougar.livejournal.com]

I didn't know the significance of today's strip (except in the obvious sense of the entire story arc) until volare pointed it out to me - I don't normally read Doonesbury, so I had no idea he'd never been shown without his helmet in 35 years.

This bothers me even more about the article: Maytag also fired David Landry, a co-worker who recently wed Silicio. What did he do, other than have a wife who did something inconvenient? I'm really hoping there's some context here that's not been mentioned.

Oh, and....

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

Of course, The Seattle Times publishing her story (and putting the picture on the web) gets the photo shown (and the details known) way more than the original picture probably did. ;-)

New news

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

Today's Globe and Mail says:

Maytag Aircraft Corp. fired Tami Silicio and her husband David Landry because they "violated Department of Defence and company policies by working together" to take and publish the photograph, the company said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040423/WORLD23N/TPInternational/TopStories

Another instance

[ealdthryth.livejournal.com]

Did you see this news report? This link is to our local news channel:
http://www.thecarolinachannel.com/news/3034206/detail.html?treets=gs&tid=2651736380813&tml=gs_12pm&tmi=gs_12pm_2530_11000104232004&ts=H

Re: Another instance

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

The survey attached to that page says 2/3 of respondents feel the pictures should be released.

(Total Tangent: I grew up in Greeensboro -- my dad had me drive to Greenville with him as the first drive I made with my brand new learner's permit....)

On the trivial side

[greatsword.livejournal.com]

Not that I don't care about the coffin issue, but...

Did you notice that Aaron Allston was working on the new Paranoia? If you don't read Allston, I recommend you try. Doc Sidhe, available from the Baen Free Library, has become one of my favorite mind-candy books.

I'll be picking up the new Paranoia, just for the fun of reading the rules.

Re: On the trivial side

[jducoeur]

I'll be picking up the new Paranoia, just for the fun of reading the rules.

Yeah, I suspect the same is true for me. I may or may not ever play it (I've only ever done one fairly short tabletop campaign), but I suspect it'll be hugely entertaining reading...