How organizations get poisoned from within.

I’ve joined Amal El-Mohtar in calling for Theodore Beale‘s expulsion from the Science Fiction Writers Association.


The whole mess with Beale is well outlined by Jim Hines. The short version is that Beale is a racist, a misogynist, and seems to generally enjoy pissing people off. He’s launched a number of personal attacks on other SFWA members, most recently using SFWA’s official twitter stream.




I’ve seen people like Beale poison a number of groups and organizations. The only way I’ve seen groups survive this kind of behavior is to address it directly.


Anyway, here’s the letter I wrote to SFWA:


Hey all,

I want to add my voice to the folks who think the time has come to
take a hard look at Theodore Beale’s membership in SFWA. His recent
attack on N. K. Jemisin (and using the SFWA twitter feed, no less)
would seem to more than qualify as a violation of Article IV Section

I know this is a potentially divisive and sticky path, but I feel like
the long-term damage of having a member like Beale far outweighs the
trouble that will come from addressing this issue directly.

Along the same lines, I wonder if the board, or the membership in
general should be looking at SFWA’s policy on hate-speech. While I
appreciate Article IV, Section 10, we would be better served by more

I see from Section 10 that SFWA isn’t responsible for circulating a
petition for this type of decision. After looking through the forums,
I see some discussion circling the Beale incident, but nothing
directly discussing Amal El-Mohtar’s suggestion that Beale be removed.
I’m curious if such a petition has been started already?

Thanks for listening,
Grá Linnaea


I’m hoping that this ugly incident can inspire us to take a hard look at what kind of organization we want to be and how important inclusivity is to us.


And the discussion continues …

I’m never sure if I’m hilarious or a jerk

Hey Kyle,

I don’t hold you personally responsible for this. I imagine CapWest has written guidelines as to how often to contact someone who’s filled out your mortgage form.

Apparently its twelve times in nineteen days.

Maybe you have an app on the computer in front of you, and my name and number just keep popping up. And you’re required to keep at me.

I empathize. I’ve had some crappy jobs in the past.

Anyway, if you could pass this up the ole corporate ladder for me, I’d appreciate it:

Hi, someone-higher-up-than-Kyle,

Wow, twelve calls and emails in nineteen days! That sure seems like a lot, doesn’t it?

It is.

If this were a dating situation, I’d be calling the police about now. But, seeing that it’s about a low-interest mortgage, I guess you should know that this many calls feels a bit desperate and I think I’d rather see someone more confident and secure with themselves. I hope you understand.

Oh, hey, Kyle, after you do that, could you take me off your contact list?


UPDATE: A reply from Kyle.

I would like to apologize for the amount of calls. I will shoot this up the chain.


Wow, sometimes it does pay to look yourself up on Amazon.

“My favorite of this issue is Grá Linnaea’s “Beneath the Floorboards,” a chilly little yarn about a runaway boy who steals his father’s precious grandfather clock. I can’t say much about the events herein without doing a spoiler, so I’ll just note that it’s surreal and spooky, with elements that may remind you of Robert Bloch.”

Review of “One Buck Horror – Issue 5” on Amazon

Life With a Smartphone

Posted by ON in Dear Diary

Of course I voted in favor of fluoridation.

Posted by ON in Dear Diary

Of course I voted in favor of fluoridation.


Some of my friends feel differently, and that’s fine, but I wanted to share my process for voting and why I vote the way I do, maybe in the hopes that it’s a process that’s useful to people.


When I heard a friend of mine was (vehemently) against fluoridating our water supply here in Portland, Oregon, I was confused. Wasn’t that the weird issue that came up in the 50s and turned out to be nothing?


But people were pretty upset about it all, so it seemed smart to do some research.


I think if someone is voting on a moral/ethical issue, they need to consider their values. If we were voting on gay or women’s or minority rights, I would turn to my values of egalitarianism and equality. If I were voting on a new education bill or policy around environmental standards, I’d be considering my beliefs and ethics around children and the environment, but I’d also try to figure out if enough good is being done to justify the costs of doing it.


No one seems upset about the costs of Fluoridating our water (it’s relatively cheap.) So it seems (to me) to be an issue of public health and science.

So, like any good voting citizen should, I researched.


I read this:

and then this:

and then this:

and this:

and this: Fluoride Paranoia and Betteridge’s Law


(I also read some ardent anti-fluoride sites, which I’m not going to link … because I found them alarmist, undocumented and generally irrational. Google fluoridation, they’re easy enough to find.)


Anyway, from reviewing data, I found the issue considered, tested, safe and generally good for the community. A no-brainer.


I marked yes on my ballot, politely declined my friends’ anti-fluoridation invites and got on with the next issue.


It is my hope that if you haven’t voted yet, that you look at real research and data before you decide.


But regardless, when the vote is done, we will go one way or another. Personally, I hope the winner is choice that will help poor people and children live healthier lives, but we’ll get by either way.


Regardless of how they vote, my friends will still be my friends, and we’ll deal with our decisions the best we can.