Right: check everything

Yesterday afternoon, I was being annoyed by the task of checking two almost-identical sets of page proofs (PDFs, which is late in the production cycle) against the same previous pages. The only intended changes were that one set are flagged as Pennsylvania, and have some notes about that state's standards, and the others, flagged "national," are without the Pennsylvania standards stuff.

In practice, there is a difference between theory and practice. Somehow, large amounts of error appeared in the national--but not the Pennsylvania--answer key. It looks as though the instruction on that is going to be "PA is clean, pick up those pages," rather than inserting each correction separately and hoping none are missed.

This is why we check everything, even when doing so is tedious.

Right: check everything

Yesterday afternoon, I was being annoyed by the task of checking two almost-identical sets of page proofs (PDFs, which is late in the production cycle) against the same previous pages. The only intended changes were that one set are flagged as Pennsylvania, and have some notes about that state's standards, and the others, flagged "national," are without the Pennsylvania standards stuff.

In practice, there is a difference between theory and practice. Somehow, large amounts of error appeared in the national--but not the Pennsylvania--answer key. It looks as though the instruction on that is going to be "PA is clean, pick up those pages," rather than inserting each correction separately and hoping none are missed.

This is why we check everything, even when doing so is tedious.

blogging against racism

I hadn't planned to post as part of the International Blog Against Racism Week, because I didn't think I had anything insightful to say. Then I was reading comments to elisem's IBARW post about jokes, and the ways she tensed up at some kinds of introductions, and the occasional joke that turns the assumptions on their head. And shadowhwk's comment led me to say this:

Doing the right thing from inferior motives is still doing the right thing.

Someone who doesn't steal because she believes it is inherently wrong, or thinks about the potential victim, may be a better person than someone who doesn't steal because she's worried about being sent to jail. But either is better than someone who figures what the hell, he'll steal because it's what he wants to do and there's no point suppressing his impulses.

The point of challenging racism isn't that it makes me a better person. It's that racism is evil and destructive and should be challenged, whether I do it from compassion, abstract belief in justice, or even guilt. It's not as though feeling guilty and not challenging racism helps anything.

blogging against racism

I hadn't planned to post as part of the International Blog Against Racism Week, because I didn't think I had anything insightful to say. Then I was reading comments to elisem's IBARW post about jokes, and the ways she tensed up at some kinds of introductions, and the occasional joke that turns the assumptions on their head. And shadowhwk's comment led me to say this:

Doing the right thing from inferior motives is still doing the right thing.

Someone who doesn't steal because she believes it is inherently wrong, or thinks about the potential victim, may be a better person than someone who doesn't steal because she's worried about being sent to jail. But either is better than someone who figures what the hell, he'll steal because it's what he wants to do and there's no point suppressing his impulses.

The point of challenging racism isn't that it makes me a better person. It's that racism is evil and destructive and should be challenged, whether I do it from compassion, abstract belief in justice, or even guilt. It's not as though feeling guilty and not challenging racism helps anything.