What I really mean is...

I really want to say "fuckin' prick". But I think that's inadequate.

Added: I should note that Lionel Shriver is, I think, one of those pompous, self-appointed guardians of public whatever. What was it? Oh, yeah: Decency, rectally-grasped decency.

Carolyn Ann

Sunny side of the street..?

Otherwise, all is well, with sunny skies and pleasant beaches.  :-)

Carolyn Ann

Context matters

If you need a lesson in "context is all" when it comes to criticizing others, this piece by Honorée Fanonne Jeffers, should provide you with the necessary clue. :-)

In a nutshell, she explains why Governor Jan Brewer's "finger pointing" at The Prez wasn't cool or kosher. And she quite neatly demolishes that old "it's not offensive if I don't think it is" silliness. So the next time a "transsexual separatist" [sic] says there's nothing to be offended by, because they don't perceive the offensiveness of their statements, point them at Ms Jeffers' piece and hope for they have a brain between their ears. (And, I will note, the referenced individuals could do worse than point those they complain of at the same article.)

In other words: just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean it isn't! Or, simplistically: You don't get to define what offends me. :-)

Carolyn Ann

A template for political argument

To save time, I've put together a template for political debates:

On the judiciary
1. If the judge issues a ruling you like, he's wise
2. If the judge issues a ruling you don't like, he's an activist judge

On "the media"
1. If the coverage is favorable, it's good
2. If the coverage is "fair", it's wishy-washy and probably liberal
3. If the coverage is adversarial, it's clearly biased
(If the coverage is "Fair and Balanced", it isn't)
Bonus points for calling it "the lamestream" media.

On political argument:
1. If I like the argument, it's wise, as are all who like it
2. If I don't the your stance, you're a buffoon of the highest order and it's amazing you can walk and breath at the same time
3. If you don't like what I'm saying, you must support the direct opposite view and, therefore, you are any or all of this list: neanderthal, fascist, communist, uncaring capitalist, or socialist. And it's amazing you can put one foot in front of the other with any consistency.

No need to thank me. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Succinct, right?

From Ina Pinkney, on Facebook:

Someone asked Bob Dole why people took such an instant dislike to Gingrich. "Because it saves time," he said.

(via Being Liberal, also on Facebook)

===
Carolyn Ann

Clinical phobias do not a social detestation make...

Just a quick note.

All of the phobias SA-ET lists in her recent post? They're clinical phobias. She neglects to mention that transphobia is a social detestation. As in: it can't possibly have a clinical, i.e. medical, basis.

Just thought I'd mention it. Because I know she won't or didn't. (I wonder why? Surely she didn't intend to be deceptive?)

(And she'll delete my contribution to her other post. Because she's overly sensitive silly like that. And is fond of a bit of good old fashioned censorship.)

Carolyn Ann

Added: a bit I should have added last night. :-)

Name this Trans Mafia

Really?

Please,
name this Trans Mafia!
indict them
condemn and hang
this vile fantasy
of a concert
a congress,
this devil's bracket!

Put a face to thy accusation
or be accursed a harpy
and worse!

Blight the day a tranny
was proud
and lived in a moment
unknown
unknowable

Desperate pleading
for a world gone by
that has exited
tumbling
head first
from a vicious stage

She
Looks
At herself
...
Askance
Delighted
Gleeful
Happy
Bold
Intrepid
Nervous

Met with
your
arrogance
as you
gainsay
others'
pleasure
and
delight
at
finding
their
own
life

Do you
decry their life
because it's not yours?
Despise their limits
while you deplore
yours?

keep merry your counsel
and destroy
the path you laid?

Harp thee

to a 

willow

it will listen

and learn

and grow

and forget

within a year

at most

===

Carolyn Ann

Stephan Sokolow's "Gender Bending Fiction Index"

It's astonishing what you can come across on the web. I was looking for information about micro-frameworks (very small systems that allow, encourage, you to build very large systems on top of them. Resulting in, well, very large systems...), and came across this blog post by Stephan Sokolow. In the first sentence, Stephan mentions a "Gender Bending Fiction Index". So I figured I'd link to it.

I haven't really gone through it (and, to be honest, I'm not likely to do so, anyway!), but it looks "okay". Certainly better than that stupid "Fiction Mania" site. (Is that still going?) I don't know who Stephan is, there's almost nothing on the website, except a resumé and a bit of "I'm a geek!" stuff. :-)

So, if you're into that sort of thing: enjoy! :-)

Carolyn Ann

A preview of this evening's Republican debate

To save you the trouble of watching this evening's debate, I have purloined written it out. No need to thank me (you probably won't, anyway... ;-) ). Speaker is in bold, stage directions are in italics.

Enjoy. :-D

Carolyn Ann

Four ... Three ... Two ... And ... Roll!



Wolf Blitzer:
Now, fair audience, our congress hour
Draws on apace; three happy days bring in
Another primary: but, O, methinks, how slow
The old one wanes! I linger in my desires,
Like to a moderator or a news anchor
Long withering out a bare Romney’s revenue.

Wolf (Looks at Ron Paul):
Either I mistake your shape and making quite,
Or else you are that shrewd and knavish sprite
Call'd Ron Paul: are not you he
That frights the maidens of the villagery;
Skim milk, and sometimes labour in the quern
And bootless make the breathless housewife churn;
And sometime make the drink to bear no barm;
Mislead night-wanderers, laughing at their harm?
Those that Hobgoblin call you and sweet Ron Puck,
They do your work, and you shall have the good luck:
Are not you he?

Ron Paul:
Thou speak'st aright;
I am that merry wanderer of the night.
I jest to Rick and make him smile
When I a fat and bean-fed horse beguile,
Neighing in likeness of a filly foal:
And sometime lurk I in a gossip's bowl,
In very likeness of a roasted crab,
And the whole quire hold their hips and laugh
And waxen in their mirth and neeze and swear
(Takes breath)

(Ron Paul supporter)
O, speak again, bright angel! for thou art
As glorious to this night, being o'er my head
As is a winged messenger of heaven
Unto the white-upturned wondering eyes
Of use mortals that fall back to gaze upon you
When you bestride the lazy-pacing clouds
And sail upon the bosom of the air!

Ron Paul:
O voter, Voter! wherefore art thou Voter?
Deny myself and refuse my name?
Or, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I'll no longer be a candidate!

Wolf (looking at Gingrich):
Mr Speaker, Shall you hear more, or shall thy speak at this?

Newt Gingrich:
Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this sun of Florida;
And all the clouds that lour'd upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.
Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths;
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments;
Our merry meetings changed to stern alarums,
Our delightful measures to dreadful marches.
Grim-visaged war hath creas'd this wrinkled front;
And now, instead of mounting barded steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
I caper nimbly to a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shaped for sportive tricks,
Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd, and want love's majesty
To wantonly strut before ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this unfair election,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
Deformed, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world, scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them;
Why, I, in this weak piping time of peace,
I have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to spy my image in the mirror
And descant on mine own deformity:
And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover,
To entertain these foul-spoken days,
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my self and the Mitt Romney
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if Obama be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should closely be mew'd up,
...

Wolf (looking at Romney):
Shall you confess that you deceive?
Here, as I point my sword, er pen, the sun arises,
Which is a great way growing on the south,
Weighing the youthful season of the year.
Some two months hence up higher toward the north
He first presents his fire; and the high east
Stands, as the Capitol, directly here.
Give me your hand, and swear your resolution!

Mitt Romney:
Well, I appreciate the opportunity you're giving me, Wolf, as the richest man in this lineup, to speak. Well, ladies and gentlemen, we're not here to indulge in fantasy, but in political and economic reality. America, America has become a second-rate power. Its trade deficit and its fiscal deficit are at nightmare proportions. Now, in the days of the free market, when our country was a top industrial power, there was accountability to the stockholder. The Carnegies, the Mellons, the men that built this great industrial empire, made sure of it because it was their money at stake. Today, management has no stake in the nation! The President has no stake in the nation! We need a nation that management has a stake in!

All together, the man sitting up here, President Obama, owns none of the nation. And where does Mr. Gingrich put his million-dollar salary? Not into taxes; he pays less than me!

(Faces audience) You own the nation. That's right -- you, the stockholder, er, the, er citizen. And you are all being royally screwed over by these, these bureaucrats, (points to Gingrich) with their steak lunches, their hunting and fishing trips, their corporate jets and golden parachutes.

America has 100 different Senators, each earning over 200 thousand dollars a year and 435 House members. Now, I have spent the last two months analyzing what all these guys do, and I still can't figure it out. I’ll bet you can’t either! One thing I do know is that our nation lost over trillion dollars last year, and I'll bet that half of that was spent on the poor!

The new law of evolution in corporate America seems to be survival of the unfittest. Well, in my book you either do it right or you get eliminated. And I intend to eliminate as many jobs as I can! In the last twenty deals that I've been involved with, there were 2.5 million stockholders who have made a pretax profit of 12 billion dollars. Thank you.

I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them!

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good.

Greed is right.

Greed works.

Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind.

And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save my campaign, but also that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.

Thank you very much.

Wolf (to Rick Santorum):
Your honour's players, heating your amendment,
Are come to play a pleasant comedy;
For so your doctors hold it very meet,
Seeing too much sadness hath congeal'd your blood,
And melancholy is the nurse of frenzy:
Therefore they thought it good you hear a play
And frame your mind to mirth and merriment,
Which bars a thousand harms and lengthens life.

Rick (starts):
Why came I hither but to my intent?
Think you a little din can daunt mine ears?
Have I not in my time heard lions roar?
Have I not heard the sea puff'd up with winds
Rage like an angry boar chafed with sweat?
Have I not heard great ordnance in the field,
And heaven's artillery thunder in the skies?
Have I not in a pitched battle heard
Loud 'larums, neighing steeds, and trumpets' clang?
And do you tell me of a woman's tongue,
That gives not half so great a blow to hear
As will a chestnut in a farmer's fire?
Tush, tush! I fear only gay boys with bugs.

Wolf, muttering: You have not!
(Looks at Gingrich) Shall I entreat a word?

Gingrich:
Even as a flattering dream or worthless fancy.
Then take me up and manage well the jest:
Carry me gently to your fairest chamber
And hang it round with all my wanton pictures:
Balm my foul head in warm distilled waters
And burn sweet wood to make the lodging sweet:
Procure me music ready when I awake,
To make a dulcet and a heavenly sound;
And if I chance to speak, be ready straight
And with a low submissive reverence
Say 'What is it your Honour will command?'
Let one attend me with a silver basin
Full of rose-water and bestrew'd with flowers,
Another bear the ewer, the third a diaper,
And say 'Will't please your Lordship cool your hands?'
Some one be ready with a costly suit
And ask me what apparel I will wear;
Another tell me of my campaign and voters,
whom I will persuade that I hath not been lunatic;
And when you says I am, say that my dreams,
For I am nothing but a mighty Lord!
This do and do it kindly, gentle sir:
It will be pastime passing excellent,
If it be husbanded with modesty, as I am.

Ron Paul:
A pretty peat! it is best
Put finger in the eye, an we knew why!

Wolf:
Dr Paul, can you comment on your low polling in this state?

Ron Paul:
I think the intellectual revolution that’s going on now to restore liberty in this country is well on its way and there’s no way they’re going to stop the momentum that we have started and that is the victory that you have brought about because my supporters have been the ones that have done all the work there’s a lot of people here but the ones across the country the donors and the excitement on the campuses it’s just unbelievable we don’t always get the coverage or the interest shown or even know what what is going on because if we did and we don’t we wouldn’t be ignoring so much of what we’re doing but you know I find it sort of fascinating when they finally get around and this is different people it could be in the media could be our opponents or whatever but I sort of have to chuckle when they describe you and me as being dangerous that’s one thing they are telling the truth about because we are dangerous to this country.

Rick Santorum:
Foul devil, for God's sake, hence, and trouble us not;
For thou hast made the happy earth my hell,
Fill'd it with cursing cries and deep exclaims.
If thou delight to view thy heinous deeds,
Behold this pattern of thy butcheries.
(Looks at Wolf)
O, gentleman, see, see! my dead Campaign’s wounds
Open their congeal'd mouths and bleed afresh!
Blush, Blush, that lump of foul deformity;
For 'tis his presence that exhales this blood
From cold and empty veins, where no blood dwells;
His deed, inhuman and unnatural,
Provokes this deluge most unnatural.
O God, with this blood maddest, revenge this death!
O earth, with this blood I drink'st, I avenge my campaign’s death!
Either heaven with lightning strike the murderer dead,
Or earth, gape open wide and eat him quick,
As thou dost swallow up this good king's blood
Which that hell-govern'd arm hath butchered!
(Turns to all three opponents)
Thy wast provoked by thy bloody mind.
Which never dreamt on aught but butcheries:
Didst thou not kill this campaign of mine?

Wolf Blizter, John King, Anderson Cooper, Gloria Borger
(all lift skirts and...)

The voters today in society
Go for classical butchery,
So to win their hearts one must quote with ease
Brutus and Cassi-us!

Brush up your Shakespeare,
Start mangling him now.
Brush up your Shakespeare
And the voters you will wow!

Brush up your Shakespeare
And voters’ll all kowtow,
And they'll all kowtow,
And they'll all kowtow.

Brush up your Shakespeare,
Start quoting him now.
Brush up your Shakespeare
And the women you will wow.

Brush up your Shakespeare
And they'll all kowtow-ow!

Chris Christie punts on gay marriage

Chris Christie says gay marriage is “too serious to be treated like a political football.” So he proposes to make it the ball, instead. It's the only way to describe his punting on this issue.

Why is it that conservatives always seem to seek to curtail rights? They idolize the words of that parchment, without any intention of actually understanding or abiding by them. "Pursuit of happiness"? For me, but not for you!

Since when have basic human rights been subject to the whims of the majority? Oh I know - since forever. That still doesn't make it right. This democracy is supposed to be about protecting minorities from the whims of the majorities and/or powerful; and protecting all from the powerful. Instead, people like Chris Christie exploit phobias and work hard to ensure that rights are subject to whims and fashions.

Shame on this "blunt talking" ballerina.

Carolyn Ann

A private Narnia. Without the good bits.

I looked around. The warehouse had seen better days. With broken clerestory windows and a rusty, leaking steel roof the rain was worse inside than out. The concrete floor was uneven and wet, with the right side cleared of debris and the left still to be done. A few small trees were growing where they could. A grey day in a grey shed.

Mitt Romney was putting some pressure-treated 2-by-4's down, firmly against the faded paint of the wall. He was wearing an open-necked blue check shirt. "No, Mitt! That's not how you do it! We have to wait for all this to dry. And you're not supposed to be 'doing' the work, you're supposed to be managing it!" I showed him where the wood had to go - about a foot away from the wall. "We have to allow for air movement, and you need a lot of that with this sort place." He looked chastened and annoyed.

I walked to the other side and pulled a small ailanthus out. A pile of cheap desks looked interesting. I peered into it. Plastic veneer, printed to look like wood, was peeling from particleboard bases. Steel legs were patched with rust. I could hear a small fan, rattling slightly on its bearings. I moved some of the pile, and there was a small electric heater, plugged in. "Far too small for the space", I thought to myself. It didn't have a fan. I tugged on the cord, unplugging it. The noise stopped. I looked around. Mitt was busy trying to do something. I had to go to the library.

The guard was arguing with a woman. Stepping through a large metal detector, I asked about the Scientific American I'd reserved; the woman behind the oak counter gave it to me and scanned it. She might have smiled, I wasn't sure. I went into the Grand Room. It had faded oak panelling and tall, narrow windows with small leaded panes of old glass. Clusters of chairs faced away from a fire cheerfully burning in a  majestic stone fireplace. I wondered if that was why it was merry. I sat in a green leather wing chair near the fire. A couple was arguing. Clearly an item, the two guys were getting louder until one of them said "Wouldn't it be cute if we were in the same room when we were born! We could have been!" He squealed in delight. The other patrons looked annoyed or cheered. I waved. I had no idea who they were. It seemed appropriate.

The library didn't allow clothes. The changing room was old; the same dark oak panels and a warm oak floor. Generous cubbies were placed too high across a forbidding deep counter made of the same oak. The room was a bit intimidating. I folded my t-shirt and shorts and carefully tossed them into a cubby. A young Robin Williams stood nearby. He cracked a joke. I couldn't hear the words. My phone rang. I took it from my pocket. I put on a large t-shirt dress. It had a a watercolor of large red daisy with a yellow stamen printed on it. I decided it was cute. Robin pulled a blue bra from his pocket and said something. he looked older. He was doing a news report from Vietnam. I answered the phone. It was my wife. She was telling me she was at work.

Carolyn Ann

Stop! Wearing those heels! They're...

It seems that high heels do some damage to your legs. (Who knew? :-P )

I guess I'll have to stop wearing them, then... Yeah, you can put that in the "Tooth Fairy exists" column. :-D

Carolyn Ann

Brass Balls. Big Brass Balls.

Rambo, in his (inevitable) next movie, will play the part of one President Obama.

It seems this Obama Chappie authorized another high-profile "I'm betting my job if this goes wrong" SEAL raid. Navy SEALs went into Somalia and rescued an American lass and a Danish chap, killing 9 pirates and taking a few prisoners for added, extra-spicey, "Hoo-ya" points. The timing of the raid was about the same moment he was delivering the State of the Union speech.

And just like last time, when he was busy lampooning The Donald at the Press Association dinner and Navy SEALs were busy killing Osama bin Laden, he gave no hint of it.

The international intelligentsia can be seen wondering what drives Obama's foreign policy strategy. I don't think they have to wonder any more. It can be summed up as "the man has big brass balls". Don't fuck with him.

Carolyn Ann

Och, devolve already!

Alex Salmond, the Scottish First Minister, wants to hold a referendum on devolution. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, isn't so keen on the idea. And 60% of Scots aren't, either. So Mr Salmond has come up with two ideas and a strategy. The ideas are lame and the strategy is jingoist. :-)

The first idea is to put two questions on the ballot: devolution or divorce. Mr Cameron favors only one question: divorce or not. Mr Salmond's other idea is to lower the voting age to 16. Because, well, 16 to 18 year olds are such rational actors. And they might plump for what Mr Salmond actually wants: autonomy, but remaining part of the UK. The strategy? He produced his white paper on the event on Robert Burns'  birthday and he wants to hold the referendum in the same week as the Battle of Bannockburn. (In case you're not up on your Scottish history: the Scots won that one.)

There's a lot of good reasons for staying within the UK; mostly they're related to things like "getting lots of money from Westminster".  And jobs - the Royal Navy might [have to] pull out of its Scottish harbors if Scotland is a totally separate nation. (Dang! There's that whole "reality" thing standing in the way of idealistic mumbo-jumbo!) Of course, there's the very simple idea of a British passport. 

A divorce would be messy; there's the whole EU thing to figure out. Taxes would have to be set and collected; oil revenues would have to be apportioned, diplomatic stuff would need figuring out and on and on and on. The most important would be that "lots of money from Westminster" thing. Which is (really) why Mr Salmond wants "devolution max", and not a full split - it would be very difficult to persuade the English voter that they should continue funding a lot, any, of programs north of the border. Mr Salmond is probably trying to be pragmatic, without appearing to be just that.

Personally, I have no opinion on the matter. (There's a first!) What I think is: the timing of all this is stupid, the showboating ridiculous and the timelines being offered unrealistic and probably insulting. If you want to devolve the union, go ahead. If you don't - don't. I agree with david Cameron - it should be a straight up question. Any other option is silly; you can always negotiate more power, but going for "separation lite"? That's trying to have your cake and eat it too. 

Which is what the scrappy Mr Salmond really wants. After all - Scotland's first First Minister probably doesn't want to go down in history as the man who bankrupted the nation because he needed to win a pissing contest.

Carolyn Ann

Republicans & Common Sense; a bit like oil and water

Some folk, Republicans generally, argue that the states should hold the balance of power. The argument has some merit; people in states, and each region has different needs and requires different responses. Sometimes, at least. Others, such as Ron Paul, argue that the states are the basic entity and should have final say over all matters. Something like Europe when it was continually waging war against itself.

To be fair, Ron Paul also argues that the Federal government has a role; in providing for the common defense, for instance. Coupled with his other ideas, America would end up with one man for an army, who probably took Tuesdays off. But in general, the Republicans favor a state-oriented approach to the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And then you read about the Republicans in various states...

Three of them in New Hampshire wanted to base their laws on the Magna Carta. Without having actually read the thing. Alabama passes laws that Jim Crowe would have been delighted to see. Republicans in almost every state seek to curtail voting rights, in an effort to fight an almost non-existent problem. And then there's this. An Oklahoma Republican, State Senator Ralph Shortey, wants to ban the use of human fetuses in the production of food.

Yes. You read that correctly.

It's a big problem, apparently. Well, it might be. He's not actually sure. He heard that Pepsi had hired a company that did stem cell research.

Normally, I'm a bit of a Federalist. I like Europe, I like the Federal government. And so on. But after reading this? Yeah, there's a definite argument to devolve and cede [...] power to the states...
:-P

Carolyn Ann

There's a reason I like Obama!

What a speech! And oh! That ending! Inspiring, blunt, challenging. And delivered with a panache none of the Republican line up could ever hope to achieve.

Carolyn Ann

Kindergarten for the internet

I can't help but wonder if the blog, per se, is dead. Or at least dying! :-)

With the advent of Tumblr, and its quick-post, "recycle all" business model, along with Twitter and Facebook, not to mention Google+, it seems to me that the traditional [sic] blog is on its way out. Oh, it'll hang around for awhile longer, but the long form communication isn't well suited to many folk. I, for instance, find myself copying stuff from one to the other; the conversational style of Facebook sometimes spurring a blog post, but more often, these days, I lean toward expressing my thoughts on Facebook. (You can officially feel bad for my friends. :-) )

One thing I like about Facebook is that there's no "censorship"; if you don't like what someone says - you can say so. On blogs, you're subject to the whim of the blog owner. If they don't want their ideas and statements challenged, they can actively impose that upon themselves. The only compensation is that it (generally) has to be active censorship! :-) That they lose credibility is neither here nor there; in blogging the mantra is "no censorship". (It strikes me as silly that some, who object to SOPA, will censor their own blogs!)

Blogging, the short essay, will continue to exist; people do want a format that allows for the longer expression. But there's no particular need for it to exist as a distinct entity - unless that's what you want, of course.

The principle difference between blogging and Facebook, for instance, is the audience. A Facebook post has a limited audience, and a blog post usually has, to all intents and purposes, an unlimited potential audience. Honestly, a Facebook post is likely to be more widely read, however. The Big Blogs, the ones like Erik Erickson's Red State or Markos Moulitsas' Daily Kos, adopt a slightly different format. They're more like newsletters, with individual articles and varying writers; they may have their roots in personal blogging, but they are between newspapers and personal blogs. Those things don't lend themselves to a conversation style!

But things like Wordpress, Blogger, and the many other versions of those, are more than likely going to change; they'll have to stay relevant in the "conversation". On the internet, islands tend to get ignored! And the "comment here" format just doesn't work; if I make a pithy observation (it does happen. Occasionally...) I want to share it with my friends and in a wider forum - and right now, I can't. I could do the copy/paste thing, explaining the context of the remark and so on. That's too much effort, quite frankly. I want to hit a button that says "Share this with my friends!" They can see the conversation and my remark in its place. Right now - I can't. The long form of that is: I can't share it easily, and if I can't easily share it, I can't share it! Trite? Possibly. True? Certainly. As internet users, I think it's important to note that sometimes we want a discussion to remain within a certain audience; other times, we want to broadcast far and wide. And all stages in between.

So far I'm not seeing Google, never mind Wordpress - which, honestly, seems to be bent on recreating that "it doesn't work" feeling from the 1990's (and the design "sense" that afflicted the web back then) - making much effort to understand this shift. Google relies on data when it should be looking at Tumblr; Facebook makes no effort to understand the need for a longer-form entry. No one (except an obscure blog engine based on Symfony v1) does in-place editing. Facebook has their walled garden, Google has theirs, Tumblr has a fence and Twitter is trying to be a sparrow. At some point in the next few years, we'll start to see some of those barriers fall. Not least because people perceive their words as their words! Not Facebook's, not Google's, not Tumblr's. (Yes, I deliberately left Twitter out of that list.) No matter how I phrase the issue, I keep coming back to the central point: on the internet, islands either cease to exist or are consumed.

You think the internet is advanced now? It's barely out of kindergarten.

Carolyn Ann

Emolument and "Mr Speaker"

One thing that has struck me about the current GOP lineup - the titles. "Mr Speaker" (even though he was Speaker of the House for a few years, over a decade ago); "Mr Governor", even though he's not been governor for a long time. (Heck, even Sarah Palin gets "Governor" And she didn't even bother to finish her term!) I've seen some hesitation over "Senator" with Rick Santorum, but I think that's because people aren't really sure if you're granted that title for life or not.

Why do they carry these titles for life? It seems to go against the "Emolument Clause" (Wikipedia is my friend...). It seems to me that it's creating a new nobility; a class of titled persons, separate from everyone else. I suspect that's not what the Founding Fathers were aiming for! Even the "Mr President" thing; in office, fine. Out of office? You're not president, you're an individual.

It seems to me that politicians grab, and retain, the titles for the age old reason: power and prestige. An anachronism, like the Electoral College, that probably should be done away with.

Newt also collects a $76,000 government pension. Just thought I'd mention that. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Decisions, decisions...

Oy. Do I create work for myself or what?

I'm in the middle of figuring out a Significant Project; it's something for myself, but it needs a web host. And I've yet to decide the language; it was originally going to be in PHP, but then I thought "Why not Ruby?" I like Ruby; it's object-oriented (<- technical term for "it deals in things", as opposed to PHP, which deals in whatever happens to be at hand and then some...), it's got a vibrant community, some cool add ons (gems, as they're called) and it's easy. PHP is a tad faster; it has object oriented stuff, especially in the latest version (5.3) and has lots and lots of information about it out there. Which is a really good thing, a good thing, a bad thing and a really bad thing. Not necessarily in that order. Here's the problem: there's so much "stuff" out there, you find yourself wondering which is accurate. After a few hours you sort of get a feel for whom to trust, and while that's no different to the Ruby world, for some reason the PHP world seems to have more than its fair share of people who say "it has to look like a kludge! [because it's always been done that way!] and [because you don't need that fancy new feature!]" They are, quite frankly, high-tech Luddites. Of course you need that fancy new feature! That's why it was dragged, kicking and screaming, into existence.

Of the things I like about PHP are its namespacing (technical term for imaginary boxes you put code that does stuff in), it's extensive documentation, how easy it is to get started and how ubiquitous it is out there in "venal web host land". (It is venal...) On of the things I don't like about it are it's roots; they show through all the time. PHP was originally designed as a basic scripting language; it was stuck that way for years - if you wanted a quick website, you mixed HTML and PHP together and got what you wanted. As it developed, it was enhanced with this feature or that feature; the whole process was a tad arcane and definitely messy, to be honest. Its syntax (its grammar) is all over the place as a result. It's worse than English, to be honest! But it is easy to get started. Finishing is harder.

Ruby, on the other hand, is pretty much the vision of one man (Yukihiro "Matz" Matsumoto). He developed it around about the same time as PHP was started - the mid-90's. (Indeed, I remember reading books, at the old McGraw-Hill bookstore at 6th and 50th, and playing around with both languages back then. [Regrettably?] I didn't spend enough time with either to "learn" the language.) He took what he saw as the best of other languages and combined them. The result is very elegant, quite easy and fairly powerful. If I had to come up with an analogy, I'd say it's a bit like an old British sports car, or an oldish motorcycle, versus one from a few years ago. The analogy: it helps to know what's going on under the hood (Ruby), but it's essential with the old British sports car or the oldish motorciccle (PHP). I know what's going on under the hood; I'm not so sure I should care as much as I have to with PHP!

Delving deeper into the pluses, PHP has some incredible frameworks out there. Comprehensive, easy and quick. (Which still doesn't explain Drupal, but then again, I'm not sure anything can...) Ruby has... Ruby on Rails. It's as if Ruby on Rails was developed and everyone said "oh, okay!" and forgot that competition is a Good Thing Indeed. Not that RoR isn't good - it is. I'm just not sure why it's pretty much the only option out there. There is a list of Ruby frameworks on Wikipedia; there's 8 of them altogether. Contrasted with PHP, which has about 23 zillion of the things, it's a rather limited showing. (Makes picking one a bit easier, however.)

Anyway, I decided to see what people thought of the hosting options. There's a lot of spam out there... I've heard Ruby can be difficult to get working; so I decided to start there. Typing "PHP hosting" into Google is a bit like trying to read Twitter's entire output for a minute. Ruby was simply easier. This post about Linode, by a blogger I've come across before, Sacha Chua, was interesting. As was this one from Dennis Clayton.

So... I now have a decision to make. Do I stick with PHP and the framework I've chosen, along with its attendant issues (which caused me to re-evaluate my options in the first place), or do I toss it all out (something I have no problem doing) and switch to Ruby? The hosting question is the most important; I don't want to go with GoDaddy - I'm still cross they supported SOPA - but I don't want to end up paying a trillion dollars a month for web hosting. And I certainly don't want to spend a lot of time writing this particular code - I've got other projects lined up that need some TLC and Attention.

Decisions, decisions... (Thoughts, as always, are welcome.) :-)

Update: I know you're dying to know... What's that? You're not? You don't even know what you're supposed to be dying to know? Oh. Just so you know: I'm sticking to PHP. The reason? I've started, and Ruby doesn't have the dynamic qualities of PHP.    :-D

Carolyn Ann

The WP debunks some myths about Mr Obama

Apparently there are a few myths out there re President Obama. Who knew? :-)

While I should have been working, I was perusing the ol' internet, instead. And came across this story in the Washington Post. It's a sort of Snopes about Mr Obama.

It won't help, of course. In politics, the truth isn't so much provided a bodyguard of lies as it is bludgeoned and sent to the morgue instead of the hospital. But still, it's nice to have a reputable source debunk some of the Obama Myths. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Speaking of Mr Obama, I wonder what happened with that idiotic judge in Georgia? I'll let you know...

cross dressing, transexual, God hating political deceiver

I can hardly stand the adoration! A Facebook friend of a friend had this to say about me:

I read it and heard mostly what I expected to hear. You tried to type republicans and tea party activists to it by saying they did not initially step up and condemn it. You didn't speak out against obamas part in it until the last 2 sentences(not even mentioning how obama signed it at midnight new years eve while no 1 was paying attention). But since you can see the lunacy in this bill, my question is this. Do you know just dismiss it, or are you going to demand an answer? This is an atrocious attack on our rights, and should not be swept under the rug. It's just amazing to me that someones allegiance to their party would override their allegiance to their country and their own freedom! But I now fully understand why you are a hard core democratic partisan. I did not know you were a cross dressing, transexual, God hating political deceiver. I will forego talking about all but the deceiver part. On your "info" page, you describe your political affiliation as "independent". You post on your wall about hating fox news and failed to condemn any other mainstream media, ( you use cnn as a news source religiously) as well as site the huffington post( most liberal newspaper in the world), criticize nothing but republicans with endless stories of corrupt and deceit, and prop up democratic stories of self proclaimed successes. And you think you look at stuff from an independent point of view???? Who in the heck do you think you are kidding? LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

Nice guy, huh? Ron Paul supporter.
(I was referring him to my recent habeas corpus post. Although why the time of the signing matters isn't clear; surely the fact that Mr Obama signed it is more important than any silly efforts to avoid scrutiny? Ah well. What do I know? Apparently not much, being a "cross dressing, transexual [sic], God hating political deceiver")

I especially liked that bit, by the way:

I did not know you were a cross dressing, transexual, God hating political deceiver. I will forego talking about all but the deceiver part.

(I think that's going on my accolade wall.)

How could he get it so wrong?!? I ask you! :-) It's easy, actually. He's not attuned to, or even aware of, the nuances of definition re transsexual/transgender. I don't think he cares about such things, either. (I don't know, I didn't ask him.) It's only slightly more annoying that he trots out the usual Christian trope that an atheist hates "God". How the hell [sic] can I hate something that doesn't exist? It's like asking me if I hate that cross between a cornstalk and a lion. (That might be called a giraffe, but I'd have to look it up to be certain.)

It's also interesting in that he seems to think I should have said upfront "This is the opinion of a transgender liberal". Well, perhaps he thinks I should preface my comments with "This is the opinion of a cross dressing, transexual, God hating political deceiver". :-) Oh well. As the man said, "You can't please everyone, so you'd better please yourself!"

Carolyn Ann

Fight of the century!!!

SMACKDOWN IN THE SUNSHINE STATE!

Tuesday, January 31st.

Watch as two politicians 
go toe-to-toe in the 
Most Thrilling 
Fight of the Century...yyyyy! 

SlumberWeight Mitt "Mittens" Romney
will take on
ErraticWeight Champion Newt "NewtronBum"
Bomb, I meant Bomb:
NewtronBomb, Gingrich
in a 

Fight To The Finish!

By the time this EPIC BATTLE is over,
You'll Be Wishing It Was ALL FINISHED!!!

(already! Oy!)

Extra! Extra! 

Watch as WorryWeight Rick "Don't Google Him" Santorum
FIGHTS for his Political Career
and Relevance!

See CrankyWeight Ron "Dr No" Paul
Battle EVIL! 
And try to Stay On Topic!

It's going to be the 

Fight Of The Century! 

(Until the next round.) 

Nothing Will Be Left Standing! 

Not Even An Electorate! 

And Romney's checkbook. 

Standing Room Only Folks! 

Get Your Tickets to The FIGHT of the CENTURY!

The Small print:
Rain date possible if Florida gets wiped out by a hurricane. Fighters are required to pay and pander; if they don't do either enough, they'll automatically forfeit the round and will be declared defeated by Wolf Blitzer. Counting the results could go into Wednesday, January 32nd, and may end up being decided by the Supreme Court. 

Bye, bye Canadian Pie?

(My apologies for the headline. I thought of it and figured I could, should, apologize for it. On the other hand, it almost fits the topic of this post. As long as you define "almost" in the most liberal way you can..." :-D )

The fruitily named "smart" phone seems to have a not-so-smart management team. Research in Motion's two CEO's stepped down. How the hell do you run a company with two CEO's? (I like the new guy already; one of his hobbies is motorcycling. :-D ) Oh, that's right - you can't. They were rapidly losing marketshare and becoming irrelevant in the new smartphone market. Their "me too" tablet, what the heck was it called?, was a disaster, but without the saving graces of HP's inane foray into that market.

For a while there, I figured RIM was going the way of Palm - cool product, timed perfectly and then the founders became so enamored of both their success and their idea they developed myopia. You could never accuse Steve Jobs of that! Nokia almost lost it when they did the same thing as RIM - they went their own way, investing a millions in an operating system that no one noticed, or cared for when they did.

The smartphone market has two players: Apple and Google. It's strange how no one [in these companies] actually noticed.

Well, it turns out that RIM's shareholders did notice, and provided notice to the two CEO's. (Sorry. I had to fit that one in, somewhere... :-) ) How the heck did they operate so long with two CEO's? It's a recipe for stagnation and decline, in either order. RIM tried both at once.

The story isn't over for Blackberry and its legion of fans. Not yet, anyway. But they'll have to do something drastic, like jettisoning their operating system and fitting Android into their phones and services, if they're to make any headway and stay relevant, and profitable, in the marketplace.

Carolyn Ann

Habeas Corpus isn't odious. It's necessary.

So I was thinking a little about this "indefinite incarceration" thing. An odious anathema, the ability to do this was tacked onto a Defense spending bill - pretty much assuring it wouldn't be challenged too heartily. As was, indeed, the case. (I couldn't help notice that even the Tea Party pipsqueaks didn't put up much an argument; so much for their idolization of The Constitution!) Initially it seemed that this was inserted at the request of the Republicans, but it turned out The White House wanted it; they mumbled a protest or two, it was revealed the Administration requested it, Congress didn't protest it and it became the law. The President (meaning "anyone who works for him") can lock you up indefinitely if they deem you a threat or a terrorist or something. What's striking is how I've not heard anyone say "but we'll be very careful!"

This isn't quite like Abe Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus - that was done by decree and was, quite frankly, a coldly calculated political move. Its intention was to stop Baltimore, and hence Maryland, from going to the Confederates. It succeeded in that goal. The current painful effort isn't like that at all!

One of the main complaints of the Colonists was the much-exercised ability of the Crown to lock you up and forget where they put the key. So the Constitutional Convention inserted language that stopped that from happening:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. 

Old Abe relied on the second part of that sentence. This new legislation doesn't seem to rely on any part of that sentence; it simply ignores the entire Suspension Clause altogether! Which isn't necessarily a good idea - the Supremes struck Abe's efforts down, and this effort will, likely as not, also be found unconstitutional. As well as abhorrent.

What I don't get is how it ended up being a law!

Here's how it's supposed to work: some busybody proposes a law. If it's accepted, it gets debated and language of the proposed law is massaged and tweaked (usually to benefit the 1% better). In all of this, Congressional lawyers, and in this case, White House counsel, all peer at the proposed language. One would hope that the Justice Dept was involved in this as well; one would hope, but it's not clear they were, so they probably weren't. If the language is found to be blatantly unconstitutional, the law is quietly dropped and everyone pretends it was never proposed or even existed. As you can probably tell - there's a lot of room for things to go wrong. And here, they most certainly did.

So the question becomes "How did this get approved?" It's the sort of thing you expect a rookie administration to do; it's the kind of thing I'd expect any of that motley crew of Republicans to do if they became President. But we're into the late stages of what is hopefully Obama's first term - this sort of nonsense shouldn't even be proposed in brain-storming sessions. It's so unconstitutional you could successfully argue that it's anti-Constitutional! (I can imagine where the suggestion came from: the national security apparatus dearly loves its draconian measures. How the hell they managed to persuade this sort of idiocy through to being a law is beyond imagination; "Wag the Dog" becomes a goddamned fairy tale in comparison.)

Despite Mr Obama's signing statement saying he wouldn't exercise such authority (why ask for it, then?), no other president will be constrained by that. The only way they'll be constrained is by the Supreme Court again upholding the right to habeas corpus. Which means some sap or two will have to be arrested and incarcerated; eventually they'll get a lawyer who will be able to challenge the law in court. The hearing of which will be contested on national security grounds. And it'll be a loooong time before anyone gets their day in court; simply getting that day will take years!

How in the world did such an odious amendment make it into law? That's something Darrell Issa, in his enthusiasm to denigrate the Obama Administration, could do some good looking into. Solyndra is a kindergarten spat compared to this. Shame on the Obama Administration for coming up with something like this, and shame on Congress for allowing, eagerly allowing, it to happen!

Carolyn Ann

Happy Dance time?

Ah... The fresh clean smell of a New Week. :-)

State of the Onion speech is tomorrow; it'll be where the Republicans will sit on their hands and do their best to look like Mitch McConnell and the Dems will likely do lots of, sometimes reluctant, happy dancing.

The Times has an interesting post by Thomas Edsall; last week he asked "What the Right gets right" and this week he asks "What the Left gets right". Some interesting points in there; I'm not sure I'd agree with the characterizations - which seem to say nothing that could be construed as admiring those Obama Nazi Communist supporters in any way whatsoever - but one point did perturb me: science. The Right, as you know, has a dodgy relationship with science. They hate the Dismal Science (economics, if you're wondering), but real science? The stuff that seeks to explain whatever is being examined? They definitely have a troubled relationship with such things. As I've often said, "facts don't matter to the Right". Never mind Patrick Moynihan's "you can have your own opinion, but you can't choose your own facts!" ("Wikiquotes"... What a great idea!) I can't help but wonder what is so frightening about plausible suppositions and explanations that causes such angst? Aside of the obvious "if there's no creator who the hell am I going to appeal to when I want to get elected", that is...

I thought the timing was interesting, considering SA-ET's recent piece about transsexual separatism. Two disparate themes, all in the same timeframe! Neat! :-) I should, when I get a chance and am inclined, write about why some individuals' views about transgender folk are so odious and offensive. In many ways, the discussion is the same as the left/right thing: neither "side" actually talks about the same topic. Even the language, the meanings and connotations of words and phrases, is different. I know I've written about the topic, but I should try to do a dispassionate piece about it all.

Right, I need something to eat. A late night, last night, ensured I got up later than I wanted to this morning. So, munch time it is! :-)

Carolyn Ann