nonionay: (Default)
All right, I'm going to rant about it: the NDAA. So lots of people have been fussing about this thing, but for whatever reason, I'm not seeing a lot of that occurring in mainstream media. Now, having read the actual text of the sections under concern, I'm really not sure what to think. On the one hand, it looks like things are staying pretty much the same (which in itself sucks, but whatever). But it's also...vague. On the one hand, we have sections clearly stating that the detaining without trial provisions don't apply to American citizens and legal aliens. But there's also the whole, "The Secretary of Defense can suspend the requirements of paragraph one for national security," thing. What does paragraph one say?

"(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war."

So what gets waived? The power of the Armed Forces? the description of people as defined in paragraph 2? (Which basically says, al-Qaeda and people, presumably non-citizens, who are mean to America). But, the next section does state unequivocally that none of this applies to American citizens. [EDIT: One thing I just saw says that it's the military bit which gets waived, and that if the president wants, a Person-Defined-in-Paragraph-2 can instead be held by civilian powers. I guess that makes sense.]

Basically, it looks like business as usual, but I'm frankly distressed by the lack of response from the government. It's true, I don't watch tv, so maybe it's getting more press there, but my corner of the internet is flipping the fuck out, and with a distinct lack of soothing coming from the higher ups, the panic is contagious.

But even if this bill does just preserve the status quo, I'm frankly sick of the status quo. I've been reading about FDR lately, and he did some pretty wretched stuff (one of his first acts as president was to cut benefits to veterans), but at least he did something.

Ugh. I'm glad tomorrow's Friday.
nonionay: (Default)
Looking back on my recent journal entries, they seem to consist mainly of pictures. Well, right now you're going to get another picture of a painting, since otherwise, I'm going to start ranting about how annoying confusing legalese is and how I've finally decided that I'm going to vote against every single incumbent politician in every single election for the rest of my life, since they're all clearly interchangeable little automatons or pod people or something.

So here's a painting I did in watered down acrylics, of my favorite amberine glass goblet and a pocket knife. I wanted to play with lighting, so naturally, I picked the hardest thing in my house. But, the more I look at it, the more I like it.

IMG_3382
nonionay: (Default)
In other news, I just started reading the latest Harry Dresden book, Changes, and I really hope that the titular changes actually take place in Harry's character, because the macho-macho thing is really starting to bug me. That and the fact that Susan is back, and I was so glad when she initally left, so long ago. Her presence reduces the narrative and dialogue to cliche.
It just seems like Harry as a character hasn't actually grown over the course of these books. New stuff gets lumpily attached to him--he gets new powers, new roles--and though he is occasionally broken, he either quickly heals or ignores the wounds. He still hasn't learned to work well with others, or that maybe his reliance on brute force might be a bad thing. With the exception of Murphy, he has yet to react to women like they're human beings and not Women. Will the ignored wounds finally come back to haunt him? Will he realize his well-intentioned chivalry actually makes him an ass? We shall see. Reviews of this book are good, but I fear the changes are going to be plot and world-based, not character-based.
nonionay: (Default)
All right, I'll add my 2 cents to the John Wright brouhaha. And if you don't know what that is, your brain is better off. I'm not going to address his rant itself, just talk about his books, because everyone's all, "I'm never going to buy his books!" Well I've read them, so you don't have to.
His books are the ones I mentioned way back here. Somewhere I've got a half-written review of his books, but I can't find it right now, so what I say may be disorganized. Minor spoilers ahead.

When I started reading the Orphans of Chaos trilogy, I loved them. LOVED them. To begin with, the concept is fascinating. Basically, there's different races (humanity being one) with different operational paradigms. Each of the five main characters, teenagers all alone in an English orphanage, belong to one of these races. It's got Greek gods, ceremonial magic, wacky multi-dimensional beings and more, all in one place! All the races relate to each other, and each one overpowers another, just like rock, paper, scissors. This also provides for marvelous D/s potential, and when I got the book, based on what I'd heard, I expected it to be a very kinky, erotic-oriented book. I was sort of right.

Now me, I usually keep my vast amounts of kink to myself. When I realize I've slipped some into my writing, it sort of feels like I've just shown my underpants to people. I'm actually torn when it comes to seeing the topic in non-erotica. (If it is erotica, than you can get away with anything, and I won't care about the social implications. Objectify away!) Sometimes, it's nicely done, other times, I feel like I'm being flashed. Where's the line between keeping our tendencies private and giving the practice healthy exposure? (I suppose the answer is the same as any sex in books--does it serve the story? In Orphans of Chaos' case, I'd say, no.) Anyway, I'm rambling. Point is, Orphans of Chaos is full of D/s that I don't think he fully appreciates the implications of. Having read his rant, I definitely think he's not aware his pervy undies are showing.

Aside from the whole, "does he think women should actually be treated like that?" question which nagged me throughout, there's the complete dismissal of the Irish. Bear with me, I'll get back to that.

One of the problems the book has is that when the five main characters are together, their relationships shine, and everything is awesome. When they're one on one, the relationships are a little more neglected. This wasn't the case at the start of the series, but somewhere along the way, that changed. The narrator, Amelia, pines for Victor, the eldest of their gang. They have a nice first scene together, but after that, there's only her pining for this incredibly boring guy. These are one pov books, and I wish it could be otherwise, because everyone else is neglected. Victor represents rational materialism--magic doesn't work on him, because, duh, magic doesn't exist. Not in his paradigm. He could be interesting if we were allowed into his head. Forming the third corner of a love triangle is Colin. He's not actually Irish, but he's formed his identity around Celtic/Irish conceits. He's emotional, sensual, irrational and energetic. He's the one whose relationship with Amelia is actually handled in some depth. He's the only one outside of Amelia whose personal story I actually feel. The power dynamic between Colin and Amelia is explored (his race tops her race) but not the one between her and Victor (her race tops his. It's mentioned only once that she can shut down his life functions like a light switch.) And at the end, even though he never seriously exploited his power over her, Colin's love for Amelia is dismissed in an instant. Even the bad guy gets more understanding and consideration than poor Colin. Colin was bit of a dick, but not so much that he deserves to be shoved aside without even an, "I'm sorry this can't work out."
It was only at the very end, after Colin's sudden status as non-entity, that I wondered, "Does this have anything to do with England's racism against the Irish?" A racism, which, by the way, boggles me* a little because I live in a land that romanticizes the Irish.

Wright's far-rightness only comes out a few times, and usually in half-joking but still creepy ways. (Paraphrasing: "What if I used to someone awful, like a murderer, or someone who didn't like Margaret Thatcher?")

Anyway, that's the stuff I remember about the books, and if not for those serious concerns I had, they'd totally be among my favoritist favorite books ever.

*Even though my Irish-descended great-aunt was forcibly sterilized by a racist surgeon!

Profile

nonionay: (Default)
nonionay

August 2014

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
1011 1213 141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 28th, 2026 09:16 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios