So I'm making a couple of window frames, for the dining room. I didn't like what was there, so I'm rebuilding them.
What a job! Not the actual woodwork - that's a nice, steady, easy job. No, just finding the tools, nails and other stuff I need. I also managed to shoot a 2" nail straight through the bottom of my bottle of glue. Damn it! (I wasn't paying attention to where it was, and managed to send a 2" nail through the wood (which is nicely fastened), but I got the angle a little wrong - the nail poked out, and pierced the glue bottle. Oh well.
Now to do the necessary filling, final sanding and then primer and paint. Should be done in a couple of hours. I miss working with wood.
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, January 31, 2009
So I'm trying "FriendFeed"...
Valeria got me interested in "FriendFeed". I'm not sure how I can use it, but I'm willing to try new things. I'm not willing to try that stupid and ridiculous Twitter, however.
Considering that I still haven't figured Facebook, I'm not certain this is going to be a successful experiment! (Hmm. I wonder if it can be integrated into Blogger?)
Carolyn Ann
Considering that I still haven't figured Facebook, I'm not certain this is going to be a successful experiment! (Hmm. I wonder if it can be integrated into Blogger?)
Carolyn Ann
New York Breakfast (Modified)
One of New York City's greatest contributions to Western culture is the weekend breakfast: (onion) bagels and lox, with (scallion) cream cheese and a slice of tomato. All consumed with coffee and a the NY Times. It's even better with the Sunday Times.
But, living outside the delivery area of the Times, and not really being able to share a small computer screen with NYTimes.com on it, I'll settle for CNN on the TV.
Even if breakfast is consumed at 3PM. :-)
(The bagels are from Wegmans, and the lox is from Zabars in NYC.)
Carolyn Ann
But, living outside the delivery area of the Times, and not really being able to share a small computer screen with NYTimes.com on it, I'll settle for CNN on the TV.
Even if breakfast is consumed at 3PM. :-)
(The bagels are from Wegmans, and the lox is from Zabars in NYC.)
Carolyn Ann
The Daily Feline
We bring you the news, so you can nap a bit longer.
There were reports of growling, this report. According to sources, LC came up from the basement and growled at Jeremy, Bongo and Oscar. Bongo growled back. Max growled at Big Orange, and Oscar did, too. One of the servants shouted "Pack it in! All of you ... Max!" Not to be deterred, LC then growled at Big Orange.
I interviewed Big Orange, who said that the most fearsome growler is Maxine. "She's really fierce" he said. I asked him if it worried him that he was about 5 times bigger than her, and he said "She's very fierce, I'm scared of her!" I tried to interview Max, but she growled at me.
Big Orange, Oscar and Jeremy had their milk this morning. Two small bowls were put out; Oscar and Jeremy shared their milk. The milk was 2% and second helpings were requested, and provided.
Spot bit one of the servants this morning. He was petting her, and then she bit his finger. When I asked why she explained that "It seemed like a good idea at the time!" She then told me that she ran away because the servant yelped in a startled way, and it startled her.
Max and Jeremy decided to nap on the breakfast room couch. They curled up and went to sleep. Oscar went for a nap upstairs and Big Orange went to sleep on the stairs. Checkers went out, despite having a cold. She woke the servants up in the wee hours of the morning with a sneezing fit. She got a lot of hugs, but a hot water bottle wasn't forthcoming.
Copper tried to shoehorn in on where Cousin was napping. Cousin hit him and then went back to sleep. Copper decided to curl up with his pal Oscar, and Spot. They were still sleeping in a bundle of fur when I wrote this report.
Bongo finally got a servants' attention, and was granted access into the Throne Room (the living room). She seems to have settled down on a cushion. I'd ask her how she is, but she's likely to hit me. She's fierce.
And with that, I need a nap
Your reporter,
Zzzzzz
:-)
Carolyn Ann
There were reports of growling, this report. According to sources, LC came up from the basement and growled at Jeremy, Bongo and Oscar. Bongo growled back. Max growled at Big Orange, and Oscar did, too. One of the servants shouted "Pack it in! All of you ... Max!" Not to be deterred, LC then growled at Big Orange.
I interviewed Big Orange, who said that the most fearsome growler is Maxine. "She's really fierce" he said. I asked him if it worried him that he was about 5 times bigger than her, and he said "She's very fierce, I'm scared of her!" I tried to interview Max, but she growled at me.
Big Orange, Oscar and Jeremy had their milk this morning. Two small bowls were put out; Oscar and Jeremy shared their milk. The milk was 2% and second helpings were requested, and provided.
Spot bit one of the servants this morning. He was petting her, and then she bit his finger. When I asked why she explained that "It seemed like a good idea at the time!" She then told me that she ran away because the servant yelped in a startled way, and it startled her.
Max and Jeremy decided to nap on the breakfast room couch. They curled up and went to sleep. Oscar went for a nap upstairs and Big Orange went to sleep on the stairs. Checkers went out, despite having a cold. She woke the servants up in the wee hours of the morning with a sneezing fit. She got a lot of hugs, but a hot water bottle wasn't forthcoming.
Copper tried to shoehorn in on where Cousin was napping. Cousin hit him and then went back to sleep. Copper decided to curl up with his pal Oscar, and Spot. They were still sleeping in a bundle of fur when I wrote this report.
Bongo finally got a servants' attention, and was granted access into the Throne Room (the living room). She seems to have settled down on a cushion. I'd ask her how she is, but she's likely to hit me. She's fierce.
And with that, I need a nap
Your reporter,
Zzzzzz
:-)
Carolyn Ann
The flagellation of a deceased equine
I just wanted to use that title. :-)
There's nothing here to upset, annoy or anger anyone.
Really. [Okay, I lie a bit, here. Sorry.]
After the benefit of a night's snoring, I still feel that some in the trans woman community need to learn to not be - dare I say it? - obnoxious. It's not as if I set out to offend someone. Not often, anyway. I'll make exceptions for one particular (English) trans woman, neocons, Bushies, and kneejerk proselytizers. Wow - that's a long list!
That English trans woman I can't stand once published an Internet perennial (she didn't write it - it's been around since the year dot. Heck, her version lacked a certain something... Originality?), anyway she published "How not to argue". It's easy to tell me what not to do, ad quite stupid really. It's harder to say what I should do.
So here's a short guide on how to argue a point.
First, the don't's: [I can't decide if there should be an apostrophe there, or not!]
1. Don't assume the other person is an idiot simply because they disagree with you
2. Don't assume that something is "self evident" when it isn't
3. Don't assume that you're right, and they're wrong
4. Don't yell. It's unbecoming and you'll lose the argument by default
5. Don't wave credentials around - it's tiresome and it assumes the other person cares
6. Don't launch into angry tirades. Your opponent now has evidence that you're an idiot
7. Don't think your opponent will listen if you turn reasonable after a tirade - they won't
8. Don't belittle or demean. You merely belittle and demean yourself.
And now for the "do's" [that one, I know needs an apostrophe! :-) ]
1. Do stop and think
2. Try to be polite - you get more bees with honey, etc
3. Do be considerate ( and reasonable). Even if your opponent is a jackass
4. Do be consistent in your arguments and definitions
5. Consider that the other person is arguing because they strongly feel their point
6. Do listen/read, and try not to make stupid mistakes (misreading, typos, etc)
7. Be passionate about your point, and subject
8. Be comfortable with your argument (it's a rambling mess if you're not, and it shows)
[I didn't really do enough of Do-6; it didn't seem worth sorting out the reasonable points buried in the tirades.]
The other "how not to argue" points are trivial, and not worth addressing unless you're a maladjusted misanthrope. On the other hand, if you are a dysfunctional hermit - you might want to look up some those web pages. You might find them useful.
The world is a big place, with lots of people in it. Some of them will be smitten by your brilliance, clever insights and obvious genius. Most will wonder if there's any way to keep you from a keyboard, if you took your meds recently, and that you definitely should be kept far away from polite company. This is the foundation of the political discourse, as you probably know.
I was astonished, frankly, at the vehemence and the almost total lack of listening. Women, it appears, do not have a say in how they are defined... Julie Bindel makes this point time and again (she's not the originator of it, just one of the higher profile proponents of it), and she's villified for it. The whole "cis" thing is derivative, tedious and totally unnecessary. Redefining words for convenience is not a terribly good idea: the person you're arguing with might not agree with the redefinition! At one point I couldn't decide if I was having three arguments about the same point, or one really messy one. The vitriol didn't help me figure it out; in the end, I decided it didn't matter. It did highlight how easily some fall to bullying as a means of making their point: I can't stand bullies, and will actually go out of my way to goad them. Yes, in real life too. (No, it's not terribly wise, but no one has ever accused me of being wise. So there! This is where I stick out my tongue and go "na-na-NA!" And other gestures of equal maturity.) The only one that gets upset is the bully; for me, it's all I can do to not bust out laughing. :-) Mind you, I only take on bullies if I feel like it; sometimes (often) they aren't worth the effort.
Arguments that are based on emotion or faith are the worst to have. Reasoning, especially if it undermines the entire emotional argument, just doesn't work. It's a bit like arguing about the existence of God: atheists think the pious make the outrageous claim, and the pious know the atheists are. You know when you're in a religious argument when there's no way of proving a claim: it's a matter of faith. (That's a bit too circular for my liking; I'll have to think about that one. Why does "As you like it" come to mind?) Anytime someone can't actually prove their point - it's a matter of faith.
Faith based arguments can often be detected by the powerful stench they give off. This odor, while virtual, is powerful enough to lay nations to waste, and melt keyboards, too. What I found astonishing is that no one reached for the "Hitler" point: I was accused of some things, but not of being a fascist. That's a first! Oddly, no one seemed to call me a homophobe, either. I'm not sure if that opportunity lost, or just neglectful on their part. One or two did say they won't darken this blog's doorstep ever again. That's not a loss, as far as I can tell. A bit of a gain, actually. That's a cheerful thought! :-)
(An even more cheerful thought is that Emily has said she's going to continue reading. I just noticed the comment. :-) )
In the end, the argument became tiresome, and needlessly bullying. It wasn't irritating - although I'm sure I irritated a few opponents. It was like watching a bad slapstick comedy; you desperately hope there will be a good bit before it ends. It never did arrive. Then again, moments of enjoyment rarely do happen in religious arguments. I was surprised at how quickly the bandwagon became laden; I didn't pick up much coordination, though. Some, but not a lot.
I did like the "I have a PhD" moment. If you know me, you'll know that doesn't impress me one jot. I know they're difficult to get, involving a lot of work and a heck of a lot of sacrifice. I also know that the holders of PhD's aren't always the genii they say they are. (It's a bit like Mensa: another group I think of as elite and snobbish. "I'm cleverer than you because I have a PhD/am a member of Mensa!" Yeah, right. I'm so impressed I need a nap.
Overall, it was a lesson to me. Some people would rather their hallowed ground not be trod upon. I discovered just how vehement some are about that! I knew, from experience, just how touchy some, many, in the trans etc community can be. It was not refreshing to discover that meaningful challenge to basic ideas was not welcome. Some people just don't like to be challenged. I wonder how they are to grow, intellectually - but that's not my business. I have my view on gender and identity that is, clearly, at odds with the trans community. It doesn't mean they're right - if I thought they were, I wouldn't hold my opinion. Playing Devil's Advocate on religious topics is not a good idea, unless you're a masochist. It doesn't mean I'm right - although I obviously think I am. What it does mean is that I know I'll never get meaningful refutation and debate about gender and identity. It's not me that suffers for that: it's the trans community, as a whole.
That is a shame. A crying shame.
Carolyn Ann
EDITS: I changed some words, added a sentence or two. I didn't denote them because I've just published the piece, and I need to get more coffee.
ADDED: I wonder if anyone wrote of this little fracas? I'd be interested in reading their take on it all. (I'll go through the commentors' list. But I wonder if anyone else did? Or was it too tedious for serious, or even trivial, discussion? I suspect the latter.)
There's nothing here to upset, annoy or anger anyone.
Really. [Okay, I lie a bit, here. Sorry.]
After the benefit of a night's snoring, I still feel that some in the trans woman community need to learn to not be - dare I say it? - obnoxious. It's not as if I set out to offend someone. Not often, anyway. I'll make exceptions for one particular (English) trans woman, neocons, Bushies, and kneejerk proselytizers. Wow - that's a long list!
That English trans woman I can't stand once published an Internet perennial (she didn't write it - it's been around since the year dot. Heck, her version lacked a certain something... Originality?), anyway she published "How not to argue". It's easy to tell me what not to do, ad quite stupid really. It's harder to say what I should do.
So here's a short guide on how to argue a point.
First, the don't's: [I can't decide if there should be an apostrophe there, or not!]
1. Don't assume the other person is an idiot simply because they disagree with you
2. Don't assume that something is "self evident" when it isn't
3. Don't assume that you're right, and they're wrong
4. Don't yell. It's unbecoming and you'll lose the argument by default
5. Don't wave credentials around - it's tiresome and it assumes the other person cares
6. Don't launch into angry tirades. Your opponent now has evidence that you're an idiot
7. Don't think your opponent will listen if you turn reasonable after a tirade - they won't
8. Don't belittle or demean. You merely belittle and demean yourself.
And now for the "do's" [that one, I know needs an apostrophe! :-) ]
1. Do stop and think
2. Try to be polite - you get more bees with honey, etc
3. Do be considerate ( and reasonable). Even if your opponent is a jackass
4. Do be consistent in your arguments and definitions
5. Consider that the other person is arguing because they strongly feel their point
6. Do listen/read, and try not to make stupid mistakes (misreading, typos, etc)
7. Be passionate about your point, and subject
8. Be comfortable with your argument (it's a rambling mess if you're not, and it shows)
[I didn't really do enough of Do-6; it didn't seem worth sorting out the reasonable points buried in the tirades.]
The other "how not to argue" points are trivial, and not worth addressing unless you're a maladjusted misanthrope. On the other hand, if you are a dysfunctional hermit - you might want to look up some those web pages. You might find them useful.
The world is a big place, with lots of people in it. Some of them will be smitten by your brilliance, clever insights and obvious genius. Most will wonder if there's any way to keep you from a keyboard, if you took your meds recently, and that you definitely should be kept far away from polite company. This is the foundation of the political discourse, as you probably know.
I was astonished, frankly, at the vehemence and the almost total lack of listening. Women, it appears, do not have a say in how they are defined... Julie Bindel makes this point time and again (she's not the originator of it, just one of the higher profile proponents of it), and she's villified for it. The whole "cis" thing is derivative, tedious and totally unnecessary. Redefining words for convenience is not a terribly good idea: the person you're arguing with might not agree with the redefinition! At one point I couldn't decide if I was having three arguments about the same point, or one really messy one. The vitriol didn't help me figure it out; in the end, I decided it didn't matter. It did highlight how easily some fall to bullying as a means of making their point: I can't stand bullies, and will actually go out of my way to goad them. Yes, in real life too. (No, it's not terribly wise, but no one has ever accused me of being wise. So there! This is where I stick out my tongue and go "na-na-NA!" And other gestures of equal maturity.) The only one that gets upset is the bully; for me, it's all I can do to not bust out laughing. :-) Mind you, I only take on bullies if I feel like it; sometimes (often) they aren't worth the effort.
Arguments that are based on emotion or faith are the worst to have. Reasoning, especially if it undermines the entire emotional argument, just doesn't work. It's a bit like arguing about the existence of God: atheists think the pious make the outrageous claim, and the pious know the atheists are. You know when you're in a religious argument when there's no way of proving a claim: it's a matter of faith. (That's a bit too circular for my liking; I'll have to think about that one. Why does "As you like it" come to mind?) Anytime someone can't actually prove their point - it's a matter of faith.
Faith based arguments can often be detected by the powerful stench they give off. This odor, while virtual, is powerful enough to lay nations to waste, and melt keyboards, too. What I found astonishing is that no one reached for the "Hitler" point: I was accused of some things, but not of being a fascist. That's a first! Oddly, no one seemed to call me a homophobe, either. I'm not sure if that opportunity lost, or just neglectful on their part. One or two did say they won't darken this blog's doorstep ever again. That's not a loss, as far as I can tell. A bit of a gain, actually. That's a cheerful thought! :-)
(An even more cheerful thought is that Emily has said she's going to continue reading. I just noticed the comment. :-) )
In the end, the argument became tiresome, and needlessly bullying. It wasn't irritating - although I'm sure I irritated a few opponents. It was like watching a bad slapstick comedy; you desperately hope there will be a good bit before it ends. It never did arrive. Then again, moments of enjoyment rarely do happen in religious arguments. I was surprised at how quickly the bandwagon became laden; I didn't pick up much coordination, though. Some, but not a lot.
I did like the "I have a PhD" moment. If you know me, you'll know that doesn't impress me one jot. I know they're difficult to get, involving a lot of work and a heck of a lot of sacrifice. I also know that the holders of PhD's aren't always the genii they say they are. (It's a bit like Mensa: another group I think of as elite and snobbish. "I'm cleverer than you because I have a PhD/am a member of Mensa!" Yeah, right. I'm so impressed I need a nap.
Overall, it was a lesson to me. Some people would rather their hallowed ground not be trod upon. I discovered just how vehement some are about that! I knew, from experience, just how touchy some, many, in the trans etc community can be. It was not refreshing to discover that meaningful challenge to basic ideas was not welcome. Some people just don't like to be challenged. I wonder how they are to grow, intellectually - but that's not my business. I have my view on gender and identity that is, clearly, at odds with the trans community. It doesn't mean they're right - if I thought they were, I wouldn't hold my opinion. Playing Devil's Advocate on religious topics is not a good idea, unless you're a masochist. It doesn't mean I'm right - although I obviously think I am. What it does mean is that I know I'll never get meaningful refutation and debate about gender and identity. It's not me that suffers for that: it's the trans community, as a whole.
That is a shame. A crying shame.
Carolyn Ann
EDITS: I changed some words, added a sentence or two. I didn't denote them because I've just published the piece, and I need to get more coffee.
ADDED: I wonder if anyone wrote of this little fracas? I'd be interested in reading their take on it all. (I'll go through the commentors' list. But I wonder if anyone else did? Or was it too tedious for serious, or even trivial, discussion? I suspect the latter.)
1/2 bottle of beer time...
Well, that was an epic moment. Sort of like Cecile B. Demille violently colliding with "Days of Our Lives". Ah well.
Patriotic Grace was a good read, and the discussion I had with the Mrs illustrated why I married her! :-) The Dogfish Head remains an excellent beer, and the shrimp pasta the wife prepared was superb. Life is, as they say, good.
I can never figure out why people think they deserve to be listened to, after they've just vehemently insulted you. It's not hard: be nice, you get attention. Be idiotic, you get treated as the idiot you are. Ah well, some people simply are stupid.
I always like it when someone lords their qualifications over me - as if it makes them a better person than I. Or better qualified. Or something, I'm not sure what. My wife does happen to be an authority of English - I should know! I've known too many PhD's to be impressed; I've come close to firing at least a one. For being stupid, more than anything.
If you've got a PhD - use it, for crying out loud! You're not stupid - so stop acting like you are.
And then someone has the cheek to ask if the tone negates the message! Hello? Is anyone home? Of course it does. Whenever someone comes at anyone, profanities flying like some teenaged ne'erdowell, ranting away like a demon on crack, no, your point is not going to be heard. Idiot.
Maybe no one in the transgender community will ever read my blog again. I'll never know. Because I don't write to please others. I don't tailor my opinions to make others happy. I certainly do not launch into inane tirades! Yeah, I'll insult; you insult me, I'll insult you. It's playground time, why shouldn't I get to play? I put up with bullies back then - you can be damn sure I ain't putting up with the petty, wannabe tyrants now!
Ah well. I have what I have. A nice home, a few cats, a wonderful wife. I look at Maxine, and I know what's important: she's bossy, demanding and lovely. She has me wrapped around her paw, and she knows it. I look at my wife, and I know what's important. Her. Not me - her. I look at my motorcycles, and I know what's important. The beauty and performance of the Ducati, the fun of the Vespa, the history invoked by the Royal Enfield. The ride. Those things are important. Labeling my wife a "cis woman" is not important. It's insulting, but it's not important. She's not "closer to a woman" - she's a woman. She's all woman.
Never mind the dreams of a teenager, and the desires of a youth. I've made my choices, and I'll stick with them - because that's who I am. I love that lass, and I can honestly say I love her more and more each moment. I'll not be the one that springs, as an ex-friend did, a surprise on the wife. If you're not honest with your wife, who the hell can you be honest with? Yourself? Give me a break, and yourself one, too. While you're at it.
My wife can handle being a "cis-woman"; she'd rather be a "woman". She feels no desire for qualifiers, no need for her to justify her gender. I don't feel any need to justify her gender, either. I'm not a "cis man"; I'm a fellow that has a need to be a woman, that's all. It's a need I can never fulfill, because - as I've said - I've made my choices. I live with them. I welcome them. They bring a certain satisfaction, a certain sense of self. (If you're one of the individuals who argued with me, today: sod off. You've not earned the right to read this!)
Life is not a bowl of cherries, but it is an adventure. Don't be the friggin' luggage.
Carolyn Ann
Patriotic Grace was a good read, and the discussion I had with the Mrs illustrated why I married her! :-) The Dogfish Head remains an excellent beer, and the shrimp pasta the wife prepared was superb. Life is, as they say, good.
I can never figure out why people think they deserve to be listened to, after they've just vehemently insulted you. It's not hard: be nice, you get attention. Be idiotic, you get treated as the idiot you are. Ah well, some people simply are stupid.
I always like it when someone lords their qualifications over me - as if it makes them a better person than I. Or better qualified. Or something, I'm not sure what. My wife does happen to be an authority of English - I should know! I've known too many PhD's to be impressed; I've come close to firing at least a one. For being stupid, more than anything.
If you've got a PhD - use it, for crying out loud! You're not stupid - so stop acting like you are.
And then someone has the cheek to ask if the tone negates the message! Hello? Is anyone home? Of course it does. Whenever someone comes at anyone, profanities flying like some teenaged ne'erdowell, ranting away like a demon on crack, no, your point is not going to be heard. Idiot.
Maybe no one in the transgender community will ever read my blog again. I'll never know. Because I don't write to please others. I don't tailor my opinions to make others happy. I certainly do not launch into inane tirades! Yeah, I'll insult; you insult me, I'll insult you. It's playground time, why shouldn't I get to play? I put up with bullies back then - you can be damn sure I ain't putting up with the petty, wannabe tyrants now!
Ah well. I have what I have. A nice home, a few cats, a wonderful wife. I look at Maxine, and I know what's important: she's bossy, demanding and lovely. She has me wrapped around her paw, and she knows it. I look at my wife, and I know what's important. Her. Not me - her. I look at my motorcycles, and I know what's important. The beauty and performance of the Ducati, the fun of the Vespa, the history invoked by the Royal Enfield. The ride. Those things are important. Labeling my wife a "cis woman" is not important. It's insulting, but it's not important. She's not "closer to a woman" - she's a woman. She's all woman.
Never mind the dreams of a teenager, and the desires of a youth. I've made my choices, and I'll stick with them - because that's who I am. I love that lass, and I can honestly say I love her more and more each moment. I'll not be the one that springs, as an ex-friend did, a surprise on the wife. If you're not honest with your wife, who the hell can you be honest with? Yourself? Give me a break, and yourself one, too. While you're at it.
My wife can handle being a "cis-woman"; she'd rather be a "woman". She feels no desire for qualifiers, no need for her to justify her gender. I don't feel any need to justify her gender, either. I'm not a "cis man"; I'm a fellow that has a need to be a woman, that's all. It's a need I can never fulfill, because - as I've said - I've made my choices. I live with them. I welcome them. They bring a certain satisfaction, a certain sense of self. (If you're one of the individuals who argued with me, today: sod off. You've not earned the right to read this!)
Life is not a bowl of cherries, but it is an adventure. Don't be the friggin' luggage.
Carolyn Ann
Sometimes...
We have to earn the right to be listened to.
So many, today, failed to earn that right.
Carolyn Ann
So many, today, failed to earn that right.
Carolyn Ann
Friday, January 30, 2009
Another day, another fight
Ah well. I'm guessing that the whole trans thing has to come an end. Here, at least.
The transgender community is, as expected, disgusted with me. And everyone else wonders what the fuss is about. (And a few feminists wonder why a guy in a dress is getting involved in "their" debate). The basics of it all are about, well, labels. And an usurpation of an identity.
C'est la vie. I'm sure it's not the last argument I'll be involved in. (I sure hope not!) What I do wish is that people wouldn't so readily resort to insult. Stephanie Watson, née Delacey, did that with rather more alacrity than the current batch; but nonetheless, PhD's were swung like mallets, and inane observations were made by the score. Not a single comment took apart my point, displayed its inadequacies, or even refuted it. This does not prove it is right, but it does prove how shallow the thinking is. Actually, I'm not that sure that any of my critics even took a moment to understand my point. (Obviously they considered it before...)
Insulting me is quite alright; I've been insulted by far better insulters. They're rank amateurs compared to some of the crap I've been accused of. Maybe I could teach them how to do it properly?
Ah well. I'll live another day, unrepentant. I'm sure they'll live another day. (I sincerely hope they manage many days!) I'm not inclined to abide some facetious idea of what a woman is: it's insulting to women. I'm not predisposed to be lectured, either. On the other hand, I'm really not inclined to explain myself. Politeness might have worked, but angry, petulant, immature rants? I'm really not into them.
The biggest thing anyone can hold over me is "we'll not read you!" So, sure: go ahead. I'll not notice; I don't collect statistics, I don't need your approval. Don't read me. Read my work. I really don't give a toss. Comment on it. Or not. If you're willing to engage in debate, fine. If not: ah well.
I am a man. And that is what I am. For better or worse. Live it with. Because if you can't: it's your problem. I am a man. I'll live another day without your approval. It'll pain you, but I'll manage it.
Carolyn Ann
The transgender community is, as expected, disgusted with me. And everyone else wonders what the fuss is about. (And a few feminists wonder why a guy in a dress is getting involved in "their" debate). The basics of it all are about, well, labels. And an usurpation of an identity.
C'est la vie. I'm sure it's not the last argument I'll be involved in. (I sure hope not!) What I do wish is that people wouldn't so readily resort to insult. Stephanie Watson, née Delacey, did that with rather more alacrity than the current batch; but nonetheless, PhD's were swung like mallets, and inane observations were made by the score. Not a single comment took apart my point, displayed its inadequacies, or even refuted it. This does not prove it is right, but it does prove how shallow the thinking is. Actually, I'm not that sure that any of my critics even took a moment to understand my point. (Obviously they considered it before...)
Insulting me is quite alright; I've been insulted by far better insulters. They're rank amateurs compared to some of the crap I've been accused of. Maybe I could teach them how to do it properly?
Ah well. I'll live another day, unrepentant. I'm sure they'll live another day. (I sincerely hope they manage many days!) I'm not inclined to abide some facetious idea of what a woman is: it's insulting to women. I'm not predisposed to be lectured, either. On the other hand, I'm really not inclined to explain myself. Politeness might have worked, but angry, petulant, immature rants? I'm really not into them.
The biggest thing anyone can hold over me is "we'll not read you!" So, sure: go ahead. I'll not notice; I don't collect statistics, I don't need your approval. Don't read me. Read my work. I really don't give a toss. Comment on it. Or not. If you're willing to engage in debate, fine. If not: ah well.
I am a man. And that is what I am. For better or worse. Live it with. Because if you can't: it's your problem. I am a man. I'll live another day without your approval. It'll pain you, but I'll manage it.
Carolyn Ann
Of importance
Christopher Buckley describes something that's so important.
So much more important than stupid arguments about labels.
Carolyn Ann
So much more important than stupid arguments about labels.
Carolyn Ann
Patriotic Grace (Peggy Noonan)
Lifting some "stuff", I managed to bust up my leg. Again. Damn that leg! I'm working on strengthening it (the gym trainer was trying something the other day, and rolled some small, and light, bit of equipment over the back of my leg - and I just about passed out! The pain was "intense"... To put it mildly) but it's not "there", yet. It will be - just not yet.
So I got a nice hot bath, this afternoon. After I'd quieted the Missus down. (I told her of the recent fracas. That was a mistake. Especially when I told her I'd been accused of misogyny. Wow! She can be fierce. She's also a feminist of the old school - you know, deals with women's issues seriously, instead of assuming that the previous generation of women had solved them. I sincerely hope those accusers never meet her! They'll regret it, I'm sure. She's fierce. And she knows how to have a conversation without resorting to inane rhetoric and accusation. What a gal!) :-)
Anyway, in the tub I read "Patriotic Grace" by Peggy Noonan. Yes, Peggy Noonan. One of the liberals' antigods. Now, Ms Noonan writes a column for the Wall St Journal, but I'm not sure if it's on the subscriber-only list, or not. It would be a pity if it wasn't- she's an excellent author. Wonderful, in fact.
I might not agree with her, but it's impossible to not appreciate her command of the language! She's a realist to Buckley's whimsy, and I'm quite sure she could hold her own in any conversation with William Safire! (Excuse me, I'm getting giddy with the praise!) Suffice to say: I love this tome of hers.
She's describing what it means to be an American. Written before the electionresults[oops] (which, unfortunately, will limit some of the potential readers), she explores what being American means to her. As an immigrant - I can only agree with her.
America, you see, is a wonderful nation. It's a place where you can be who you want to be. Success is yours, if you strive for it. Heck - the last Democratic President came from a less than priviledged background! (Bush didn't, and Barack Obama does not come from a hard-scrabble background.) America is not about the ridiculous lines with officious TSA personnel. It's not about wars waged for unknown reasons. America is not about biggest dick contests where churches count congregants to determine their influence.
America is about the people.
America and Britain share a common cause: they abhor the false. I can say that - I'm still British. I wish I were American, because I do love this nation. I love it in a different way to a native-born American. Even as the product of a democracy, I can see in America something else, something I've strove to define for 20 years, and never have. You can be who you are, in America.
Ms Noonan lists what ails us; she's got her shotgun ready - she's going to remove the rot! - and the targets are not just visible, but seem anxious to prove her point! She's not shy on the trigger. Republicans and Democrats get it; those obnoxious left wingers at Daily Kos get it. The right wing get it. They all get pounded by Ms Noonan's erudite shotgun.
She doesn't call for a spirit of partisanship - she calls it as she sees it. America, she says, you need to get it together. You need to stop whining, and start doing. You need to start being American.
You know: equality for all. And all that jazz?
This is one book I'm actually proud to put on my bookshelf.
Carolyn Ann
So I got a nice hot bath, this afternoon. After I'd quieted the Missus down. (I told her of the recent fracas. That was a mistake. Especially when I told her I'd been accused of misogyny. Wow! She can be fierce. She's also a feminist of the old school - you know, deals with women's issues seriously, instead of assuming that the previous generation of women had solved them. I sincerely hope those accusers never meet her! They'll regret it, I'm sure. She's fierce. And she knows how to have a conversation without resorting to inane rhetoric and accusation. What a gal!) :-)
Anyway, in the tub I read "Patriotic Grace" by Peggy Noonan. Yes, Peggy Noonan. One of the liberals' antigods. Now, Ms Noonan writes a column for the Wall St Journal, but I'm not sure if it's on the subscriber-only list, or not. It would be a pity if it wasn't- she's an excellent author. Wonderful, in fact.
I might not agree with her, but it's impossible to not appreciate her command of the language! She's a realist to Buckley's whimsy, and I'm quite sure she could hold her own in any conversation with William Safire! (Excuse me, I'm getting giddy with the praise!) Suffice to say: I love this tome of hers.
She's describing what it means to be an American. Written before the election
America, you see, is a wonderful nation. It's a place where you can be who you want to be. Success is yours, if you strive for it. Heck - the last Democratic President came from a less than priviledged background! (Bush didn't, and Barack Obama does not come from a hard-scrabble background.) America is not about the ridiculous lines with officious TSA personnel. It's not about wars waged for unknown reasons. America is not about biggest dick contests where churches count congregants to determine their influence.
America is about the people.
America and Britain share a common cause: they abhor the false. I can say that - I'm still British. I wish I were American, because I do love this nation. I love it in a different way to a native-born American. Even as the product of a democracy, I can see in America something else, something I've strove to define for 20 years, and never have. You can be who you are, in America.
Ms Noonan lists what ails us; she's got her shotgun ready - she's going to remove the rot! - and the targets are not just visible, but seem anxious to prove her point! She's not shy on the trigger. Republicans and Democrats get it; those obnoxious left wingers at Daily Kos get it. The right wing get it. They all get pounded by Ms Noonan's erudite shotgun.
She doesn't call for a spirit of partisanship - she calls it as she sees it. America, she says, you need to get it together. You need to stop whining, and start doing. You need to start being American.
You know: equality for all. And all that jazz?
This is one book I'm actually proud to put on my bookshelf.
Carolyn Ann
Disappointments
A recent New Yorker cartoon spoke a truism: life is all about the journey, but luggage is all about the destination.
Some people seem to think that they are the luggage.
It's not nice being called a misogynist. I've been accused of racism (London, 1988), of being anti-Semitic (New York, 199- something or other, it's really not important) and, most recently of being transphobic and (gasp?) insensitive. I can't help but wonder why "homophobic" was left off the list.
When someone accuses you of being something or other, it's impossible to defend against. You could, unwisely, stand there and say "yeah, I'm what you say: so what?" Or you could be like I am: you can call me anything you like. The people that matter know I'm not.
The accuser shows themselves as shallow, and incapable of accepting criticism.
So many people seem to be anxious to define themselves by labels. Strangely, they simultaneously demand labels be attached to others - especially those they don't like. Well, it's perhaps not so strange. If you want to be defined by a label, you're more than likely to define others by labels. Whether they like it or not.
I think Peggy Noonan nailed it: we define ourselves by our causes. Which is such a pity, because it cannot leave room for us to define ourselves as individuals. Difference of opinion is not welcome. Heck: it's thrown from the door marked "tolerance".
In the end, the people that defined me by their labels, insulted themselves by their labeling.
Emily, you're the only I'm going to apologize to. Maybe I should have been more tactful. I'm not exactly a fountain of tact. What I did think was that you were capable of serious, sparring and insightful discussion. I sincerely hope you prove me right.
The rest of the accusers: go to hell in your own handbasket. I'm not giving you a damn ride.
Carolyn Ann
Some people seem to think that they are the luggage.
It's not nice being called a misogynist. I've been accused of racism (London, 1988), of being anti-Semitic (New York, 199- something or other, it's really not important) and, most recently of being transphobic and (gasp?) insensitive. I can't help but wonder why "homophobic" was left off the list.
When someone accuses you of being something or other, it's impossible to defend against. You could, unwisely, stand there and say "yeah, I'm what you say: so what?" Or you could be like I am: you can call me anything you like. The people that matter know I'm not.
The accuser shows themselves as shallow, and incapable of accepting criticism.
So many people seem to be anxious to define themselves by labels. Strangely, they simultaneously demand labels be attached to others - especially those they don't like. Well, it's perhaps not so strange. If you want to be defined by a label, you're more than likely to define others by labels. Whether they like it or not.
I think Peggy Noonan nailed it: we define ourselves by our causes. Which is such a pity, because it cannot leave room for us to define ourselves as individuals. Difference of opinion is not welcome. Heck: it's thrown from the door marked "tolerance".
In the end, the people that defined me by their labels, insulted themselves by their labeling.
Emily, you're the only I'm going to apologize to. Maybe I should have been more tactful. I'm not exactly a fountain of tact. What I did think was that you were capable of serious, sparring and insightful discussion. I sincerely hope you prove me right.
The rest of the accusers: go to hell in your own handbasket. I'm not giving you a damn ride.
Carolyn Ann
Accusations of bigotry
This whole trans debate is getting out of hand. Because I advance, support and even agree with a certain view - I'm some odd misogynist? (It sure as heck didn't take long for the accusations to start flying! Quicker than a Republican yelling on Fox News, to be honest.)
There stands an accusation that I am transphobic (Lisa Harney) and bigoted (various).
One can't defend against such accusations: that's probably why they are so popular, and so easy. I don't have to defend myself - I know my own mind, thank you very much. I don't have to explain myself. I don't even have to adhere to something I don't agree with.
I saw a sign on a Manhattan church, once, and it's been a guiding principle ever since: stand up for what you believe, even if you're the only one standing. I do that - and if you don't like it: that's your problem, not mine. Might I add: know your own mind before trying to pass sentence on others. (For one thing: they might not care.)
To those who think I am some transphobic misogynist: To hell with you.
Carolyn Ann
There stands an accusation that I am transphobic (Lisa Harney) and bigoted (various).
One can't defend against such accusations: that's probably why they are so popular, and so easy. I don't have to defend myself - I know my own mind, thank you very much. I don't have to explain myself. I don't even have to adhere to something I don't agree with.
I saw a sign on a Manhattan church, once, and it's been a guiding principle ever since: stand up for what you believe, even if you're the only one standing. I do that - and if you don't like it: that's your problem, not mine. Might I add: know your own mind before trying to pass sentence on others. (For one thing: they might not care.)
To those who think I am some transphobic misogynist: To hell with you.
Carolyn Ann
Cis
I must admit the whole "cis" thing strikes me as ridiculous. Not to put too fine a point on it.
Are cis women "closer to a woman"? Huh? That doesn't even make sense. If you're a "natural born" woman - you do not need any qualifiers added to denote that fact. Especially qualifiers that don't make sense!
Here's the Oxford (American) English Dictionary definition of "cis":
The context where it is used opposite "trans" is in chemistry: cis-dichloroethylene.
So, while I'm in the inadvertent process of annoying trans women the world over, I'll state something I think needs stating: "cis woman" is not an acceptable term for a woman. It is an amusing one, however. (My wife had a really good chortle over the wording. We ended up going through a couple of dictionaries and an interesting discussion about the word. My wife, I should add, is an authority on the English language.)
It is amusing. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Are cis women "closer to a woman"? Huh? That doesn't even make sense. If you're a "natural born" woman - you do not need any qualifiers added to denote that fact. Especially qualifiers that don't make sense!
Here's the Oxford (American) English Dictionary definition of "cis":
on this side of; on the side nearer to the speakerHere's the Mirriam-Webster's:
on this side of
The context where it is used opposite "trans" is in chemistry: cis-dichloroethylene.
So, while I'm in the inadvertent process of annoying trans women the world over, I'll state something I think needs stating: "cis woman" is not an acceptable term for a woman. It is an amusing one, however. (My wife had a really good chortle over the wording. We ended up going through a couple of dictionaries and an interesting discussion about the word. My wife, I should add, is an authority on the English language.)
It is amusing. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Who am I to complain?
I do seem to have a talent for upsetting the transsexual community. It's not intentional - but I do seem to be able to do it with ridiculous ease.
One of the comments to "Trans women and discrimination" was understandable: Emily S's comment. I'm not sure if it was sarcastic (most likely), sardonic or pithy. Well, it is pithy. (I liked it, too: so much is stated in so few words!) Helen G's, I'm not entirely sure why she left the comment. "So much fail" Huh? Queen Emily is under the impression that I'm unable, or ineligible, to comment simply because I'm a chap. Drakyn's comment I have little hope of ever figuring out. That's not to be insulting - it's a statement of fact!
My point seems to be not given a moment's thought; I shouldn't be surprised, however. People rarely stop to even contemplate views they disagree with. I'll re-iterate it, just to be clear. Some women do not regard trans women as "women". I am not saying it is right, or wrong - I'm simply saying it is. I do regard the point as having validity, however. It is about identity and gender, and it is, clearly, a point of contention. It is not about insulting anyone, being condescending or my being a man.
I'm ignoring the whole "cis" thing. (For now.)
My original post was not insulting. It was not condescending. It was not about my being a man. It was not about edicts, or demands, or whom is right, wrong, bigoted or discriminatory - it was an observation. That was all - an observation.
I make no apology, no recompense and certainly refuse to change my opinion in the face of inarticulate and profane anger. (I'll exclude Emily and Emily S of that; they gave articulate voice to their anger). Overall: if my opinion is not liked - who am I to complain!?
Carolyn Ann
One of the comments to "Trans women and discrimination" was understandable: Emily S's comment. I'm not sure if it was sarcastic (most likely), sardonic or pithy. Well, it is pithy. (I liked it, too: so much is stated in so few words!) Helen G's, I'm not entirely sure why she left the comment. "So much fail" Huh? Queen Emily is under the impression that I'm unable, or ineligible, to comment simply because I'm a chap. Drakyn's comment I have little hope of ever figuring out. That's not to be insulting - it's a statement of fact!
My point seems to be not given a moment's thought; I shouldn't be surprised, however. People rarely stop to even contemplate views they disagree with. I'll re-iterate it, just to be clear. Some women do not regard trans women as "women". I am not saying it is right, or wrong - I'm simply saying it is. I do regard the point as having validity, however. It is about identity and gender, and it is, clearly, a point of contention. It is not about insulting anyone, being condescending or my being a man.
I'm ignoring the whole "cis" thing. (For now.)
My original post was not insulting. It was not condescending. It was not about my being a man. It was not about edicts, or demands, or whom is right, wrong, bigoted or discriminatory - it was an observation. That was all - an observation.
I make no apology, no recompense and certainly refuse to change my opinion in the face of inarticulate and profane anger. (I'll exclude Emily and Emily S of that; they gave articulate voice to their anger). Overall: if my opinion is not liked - who am I to complain!?
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Barack Machiavelli Obama?
I'm doing a little woodwork, and thinking about the saw blade spinning in front of me - and it struck me that Obama might be playing a very Machiavellian game with the Congressional Republicans.
Let's see. Obama wants a stimulus, and as a big "first", a bit of legislation that wouldn't be out of place in the 1960's Civil Rights movement. He gets both, but first he puffs up his base (and letting down one part - the family planning supporters - that wouldn't dream of abandoning him) with some important legislation. It also sends a message to the Supreme Court: the times, they are a'changin'.
And then we get to this big, complex and unruly stimulus bill. A family planning provision is stuck in it - it gets dropped, as a favor to the Republicans. Obama allows in some corporate tax cuts, too - as a favor to the Republicans. Now, at least one commentator (David Sirota) seem to thinks this about the Republicans demanding access to "the big boys table". I disagree - I think something much more amusing is going on. Obama is not a stupid man - he's not going to make concessions because a Congressional minority wants them.
The family planning stuff is a throw-away. Look for it in a different bill near you, soon. It worked as a sop, absorbing some of the Republican invective. "You don't like that? Okay, we'll drop it." And then the tax cuts: popular with the business community, and they work not for the Republicans, but as a definite sign that Obama is reaching across the aisle. He gets support for that, they get shown to be losers and jerks when they... Fail to vote for the very package they helped negotiate.
It was said, often, that Obama wasn't experienced enough to run the country. I'm not sure experience matters in this game - Washington politics seems to be shaping up to be a chess game. With Machiavelli playing for one side. Obama did win the contest for the nomination - going against Hillary. He didn't win it by being straight; in retrospect, he won it because he was canny. I think the Republicans are playing directly into Obama's hands.
Good for them. They can't really get out of it, now. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Let's see. Obama wants a stimulus, and as a big "first", a bit of legislation that wouldn't be out of place in the 1960's Civil Rights movement. He gets both, but first he puffs up his base (and letting down one part - the family planning supporters - that wouldn't dream of abandoning him) with some important legislation. It also sends a message to the Supreme Court: the times, they are a'changin'.
And then we get to this big, complex and unruly stimulus bill. A family planning provision is stuck in it - it gets dropped, as a favor to the Republicans. Obama allows in some corporate tax cuts, too - as a favor to the Republicans. Now, at least one commentator (David Sirota) seem to thinks this about the Republicans demanding access to "the big boys table". I disagree - I think something much more amusing is going on. Obama is not a stupid man - he's not going to make concessions because a Congressional minority wants them.
The family planning stuff is a throw-away. Look for it in a different bill near you, soon. It worked as a sop, absorbing some of the Republican invective. "You don't like that? Okay, we'll drop it." And then the tax cuts: popular with the business community, and they work not for the Republicans, but as a definite sign that Obama is reaching across the aisle. He gets support for that, they get shown to be losers and jerks when they... Fail to vote for the very package they helped negotiate.
It was said, often, that Obama wasn't experienced enough to run the country. I'm not sure experience matters in this game - Washington politics seems to be shaping up to be a chess game. With Machiavelli playing for one side. Obama did win the contest for the nomination - going against Hillary. He didn't win it by being straight; in retrospect, he won it because he was canny. I think the Republicans are playing directly into Obama's hands.
Good for them. They can't really get out of it, now. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Trans women and feminist discrimination
When I see two blog posts reflecting the same sentiment, it's not hard to figure out a pattern. Especially when I think back on some of the history of the sentiment. (Helen, Emily)
I should note, this topic is one that almost demands oddly reading labels, so I'll apologize in advance for them. I'll try to minimize my use of them!
The basic issue is the lack of acceptance by some in the feminist community, of trans women. (Is that the right vernacular? I'm confused by how often it changes.) There's a general feeling that some cis women [see what I mean?] are antagonistic to trans women - that is, transsexual women. It's not endemic, but it does seem to be more prevalent in recent months than it has been.
What's at stake is what being a women is, not feminism and trans women. I think I've said that before, or something like it. Men don't have the same issue, for one simple reason: there are fewer female to male transsexuals. There are more male to female transsexuals - enough that a challenge what being " a woman" is inevitable.
Some trans women are quite eager to enter the fray of feminist politics, and good luck to 'em! (They need it.) And therein lies the problem: they are entering a world where being a woman can be defined as easily as "not being a man", and as impenetrably as "experience and genetics make a woman". (For the pedants, this is not exclusive, it is merely to illustrate the extremes of the positions.) At issue: what is a "real woman"?
Answering that is about as Sisyphean a task as any.
The principle complaint is that some cis women seek to exclude trans women from their debates. The other part is that they actively discriminate against the trans women. Well, I'm sorry to say: it's not likely to change in the near future. When men are defined as the enemy - it's all but impossible to not conclude that trans women are simply a facet of that party.
The trans women want to be accepted as women, but some women simply refuse to do so. There's not a lot that can be done to change minds on that; it's not about feminism, it's about identity. As the trans community knows, all too well, even inadvertent challenges to identity can be violent. Prejudice will always seek its intended victim.
Trans women should not have to justify their existence, their decisions, their identities and their lives. Nor should they accept the prejudice of some. Prejudice takes a long time to overcome, but it is possible. (It cannot, by the way, be eradicated.) If a feminist demands a justification, ignore them. If a feminist group wants to exclude transwomen - that is their prerogative. Leave them to their ignorance. If they want nothing to do with you - it's their loss, not yours.
Sure, it's hard being a trans woman. It's not easy being a woman, either. To be brutal: suck it up. Fight it. It's never going to be easy to be accepted for whom you are; it's always easier to be accepted once you've complied with some groups' demands (the trans community is more than familiar with this, as well. Within their own community, too - I should add!) But we shouldn't live life by adhering to the demands of others - they aren't living our lives, we are.
Instead of trying to argue feminism within a context that doesn't want you involved: define your own context. Figure out feminism from the view of the trans woman - it's not the same as the view of a "cis" woman*. It's not about insisting that you're a woman, too - think about the implications of that demand! It's as much about accepting others as demanding that they accept you! Try to understand their point of view (you can never defeat a view unless you first understand it) and try to figure out trans feminism - that's a brave new world that has barely been explored**.
Don't try to fit in, when you're not accepted for whom you are - that's a sure path to unhappiness! If a group doesn't want you, what are you waiting for? Get the hell out of their space, you're impeding their ignorance. It's not about whether the antagonist is a lesbian, or not. It's about whether they are willing to accept you for who you are. If they aren't: it's really not your loss. It most assuredly is theirs.
Carolyn Ann
*This whole "cis" woman thing is really irritating. Trans woman is a perfectly reasonable phrase; "cis woman" is not . Besides which, the use of it automatically implies that there is a difference between two classes of women. There is, but it's not an important one, from a moral and ethical view. My suggestion? Stop making the distinction - by making it, you reinforce your opponents' argument.
** I really don't care if you think it has been explored - it hasn't been. Not to the depth such a complex subject demands. What I've seen, so far, is, well, basic surveys, coupled with the almost de-facto "fuck" (great argument technique, by the way: use "fuck" a lot, and you make your point! Right... I do see it used a lot in the "angry trans feminist" blogs out there. They are as trivial as their comprehension of reasonable argument implies.)
I should note, this topic is one that almost demands oddly reading labels, so I'll apologize in advance for them. I'll try to minimize my use of them!
The basic issue is the lack of acceptance by some in the feminist community, of trans women. (Is that the right vernacular? I'm confused by how often it changes.) There's a general feeling that some cis women [see what I mean?] are antagonistic to trans women - that is, transsexual women. It's not endemic, but it does seem to be more prevalent in recent months than it has been.
What's at stake is what being a women is, not feminism and trans women. I think I've said that before, or something like it. Men don't have the same issue, for one simple reason: there are fewer female to male transsexuals. There are more male to female transsexuals - enough that a challenge what being " a woman" is inevitable.
Some trans women are quite eager to enter the fray of feminist politics, and good luck to 'em! (They need it.) And therein lies the problem: they are entering a world where being a woman can be defined as easily as "not being a man", and as impenetrably as "experience and genetics make a woman". (For the pedants, this is not exclusive, it is merely to illustrate the extremes of the positions.) At issue: what is a "real woman"?
Answering that is about as Sisyphean a task as any.
The principle complaint is that some cis women seek to exclude trans women from their debates. The other part is that they actively discriminate against the trans women. Well, I'm sorry to say: it's not likely to change in the near future. When men are defined as the enemy - it's all but impossible to not conclude that trans women are simply a facet of that party.
The trans women want to be accepted as women, but some women simply refuse to do so. There's not a lot that can be done to change minds on that; it's not about feminism, it's about identity. As the trans community knows, all too well, even inadvertent challenges to identity can be violent. Prejudice will always seek its intended victim.
Trans women should not have to justify their existence, their decisions, their identities and their lives. Nor should they accept the prejudice of some. Prejudice takes a long time to overcome, but it is possible. (It cannot, by the way, be eradicated.) If a feminist demands a justification, ignore them. If a feminist group wants to exclude transwomen - that is their prerogative. Leave them to their ignorance. If they want nothing to do with you - it's their loss, not yours.
Sure, it's hard being a trans woman. It's not easy being a woman, either. To be brutal: suck it up. Fight it. It's never going to be easy to be accepted for whom you are; it's always easier to be accepted once you've complied with some groups' demands (the trans community is more than familiar with this, as well. Within their own community, too - I should add!) But we shouldn't live life by adhering to the demands of others - they aren't living our lives, we are.
Instead of trying to argue feminism within a context that doesn't want you involved: define your own context. Figure out feminism from the view of the trans woman - it's not the same as the view of a "cis" woman*. It's not about insisting that you're a woman, too - think about the implications of that demand! It's as much about accepting others as demanding that they accept you! Try to understand their point of view (you can never defeat a view unless you first understand it) and try to figure out trans feminism - that's a brave new world that has barely been explored**.
Don't try to fit in, when you're not accepted for whom you are - that's a sure path to unhappiness! If a group doesn't want you, what are you waiting for? Get the hell out of their space, you're impeding their ignorance. It's not about whether the antagonist is a lesbian, or not. It's about whether they are willing to accept you for who you are. If they aren't: it's really not your loss. It most assuredly is theirs.
Carolyn Ann
*This whole "cis" woman thing is really irritating. Trans woman is a perfectly reasonable phrase; "cis woman" is not . Besides which, the use of it automatically implies that there is a difference between two classes of women. There is, but it's not an important one, from a moral and ethical view. My suggestion? Stop making the distinction - by making it, you reinforce your opponents' argument.
** I really don't care if you think it has been explored - it hasn't been. Not to the depth such a complex subject demands. What I've seen, so far, is, well, basic surveys, coupled with the almost de-facto "fuck" (great argument technique, by the way: use "fuck" a lot, and you make your point! Right... I do see it used a lot in the "angry trans feminist" blogs out there. They are as trivial as their comprehension of reasonable argument implies.)
Equal pay for equal work? Who'da thunk it?
Obama's first significant bit of legislation is the "Lilly Ledbetter Act" - it basically says you have to give equal pay for equal work. The Republicans, as you might expect, were not in favor of the bill (except the 4 GOP women, and Arlen Specter).
What is wrong with this bit of legislation?
That it's needed.
However, we live in the real world - and legislation is sometimes needed to correct judicial stupidity, and demand compliance with the idea that we're all equal. You know: that wonderful American ideal so glibly ignored by the evangelicals and the neocons. And the Republicans.
This legislation came about because the Roberts' Court decided in a startlingly obtuse manner, that lawsuits re equal pay must be slated to the company, and the obviously bigoted managers. It's not the first time this court has indulged in the very "judicial activism" its supporters lie about abhorring. Of course, the Constitutional Literalists can't find anything to support heir point - so they dream up excuses, instead. I'd repeat them, but I'm not willing to enter that labyrinth. Something nasty is in it: a basic acceptance of discrimination.
Women get less than men, women of color, less still. How do you get out of that trap, if not by legislation? The marketplace fails, because the employers can stack the deck. The Republican administration didn't do anything to address the problem, and the Supreme Court endorsed the idea that when it comes to business: the profits are more important than the working conditions of its employees. Didn't the Western World go through all of this, a little while ago? You know - when civil rights were expanded, and people were to be judged for themselves? (Oh, sorry. I entered a surreal fantasy for a moment...)
Equal pay for equal work - what an amazing idea. It's amazing no one thought of it before...
Carolyn Ann
What is wrong with this bit of legislation?
That it's needed.
However, we live in the real world - and legislation is sometimes needed to correct judicial stupidity, and demand compliance with the idea that we're all equal. You know: that wonderful American ideal so glibly ignored by the evangelicals and the neocons. And the Republicans.
This legislation came about because the Roberts' Court decided in a startlingly obtuse manner, that lawsuits re equal pay must be slated to the company, and the obviously bigoted managers. It's not the first time this court has indulged in the very "judicial activism" its supporters lie about abhorring. Of course, the Constitutional Literalists can't find anything to support heir point - so they dream up excuses, instead. I'd repeat them, but I'm not willing to enter that labyrinth. Something nasty is in it: a basic acceptance of discrimination.
Women get less than men, women of color, less still. How do you get out of that trap, if not by legislation? The marketplace fails, because the employers can stack the deck. The Republican administration didn't do anything to address the problem, and the Supreme Court endorsed the idea that when it comes to business: the profits are more important than the working conditions of its employees. Didn't the Western World go through all of this, a little while ago? You know - when civil rights were expanded, and people were to be judged for themselves? (Oh, sorry. I entered a surreal fantasy for a moment...)
Equal pay for equal work - what an amazing idea. It's amazing no one thought of it before...
Carolyn Ann
Republican Jerks
The Congressional Republicans are jerking us all off. They ask for some tax cuts (which benefit them) in the latest stimulus - and then nary a one votes for it. Then I read that some Republicans are saying "Don't give up on us. We still want to work with you.". Yeah, right. I'm sure they've got a nice bridge to sell us, too.
Cut the jerks off. They don't deserve to be treated as adults.
Carolyn Ann
Cut the jerks off. They don't deserve to be treated as adults.
Carolyn Ann
Quantum Lyrics (A. Van Jordan)
Sometimes a work of art just gets better and better with each viewing. Brubeck's "Take Five" is a perfect example; each time I listen to that song, it reveals something new, something fresh and exciting. Looking at a great painting, photograph or sculpture can have the same affect. A Van Jordan has managed a similar feat in his latest poetry collection: "Quantum Lyrics".
A professor at the University of Texas at Austin, Mr Jordan has won an impressive number of prizes for his poetry. Nevertheless, this is the first time I've ever heard of the man! Needless to say: wow! What a poet!
Mr Jordan's poetry is storytelling; he doesn't use the same allusions others might, but his work is compelling and easily read. And then you read it again, and notice it just got a lot more difficult - there's a lot going on in those lines. And then you try parsing the poems, and notice all these word pictures; it's almost like you walk into a gallery. The pictures are hanging on the walls, and they look easy, accessible, but never "pretty". One thing I noticed about this gallery - each picture can stand on its own, but each one references the next and the previous ones, to the point where each picture becomes part of the next one, and the previous one. It's actually quite thrilling!
The literary technique Mr Jordan employs was last seen - to popular acclaim - in "Copenhagen", the (insufferable*) Broadway play. Anyway, I don't mind the leaps and randomness in Mr Jordan's arrangement; it is easily ignored, and it does allow you to read the poems as a whole (if you choose) or individually. I dipped in and out, and found nothing suffered.
Mr Jordan's poetry reminds me, strongly, of Alan Ginsburg's storytelling style - but without the overt, almost (and sometimes blatant) pornographic, sexuality of Ginsburg's work. He tells us stories, and then leaves us to conclude what we will - unlike some, he never seems to seek to provide a conclusion for us. This might seem ambiguous, but it's not - a story doesn't need a conclusion; it does need an ending, though. Mr Jordan provides those; they seem to be frame, defining the picture he paints for us.
Overall, I'd say Mr Jordan is one of the finest poets I've ever had the pleasure to read. :-)
Carolyn Ann
*I hated it, but the rest of the world seemed to like it.
EDIT: I had to add "mind" to "I don't mind the leaps and randomness". Thanks, Bill!
A professor at the University of Texas at Austin, Mr Jordan has won an impressive number of prizes for his poetry. Nevertheless, this is the first time I've ever heard of the man! Needless to say: wow! What a poet!
Mr Jordan's poetry is storytelling; he doesn't use the same allusions others might, but his work is compelling and easily read. And then you read it again, and notice it just got a lot more difficult - there's a lot going on in those lines. And then you try parsing the poems, and notice all these word pictures; it's almost like you walk into a gallery. The pictures are hanging on the walls, and they look easy, accessible, but never "pretty". One thing I noticed about this gallery - each picture can stand on its own, but each one references the next and the previous ones, to the point where each picture becomes part of the next one, and the previous one. It's actually quite thrilling!
The literary technique Mr Jordan employs was last seen - to popular acclaim - in "Copenhagen", the (insufferable*) Broadway play. Anyway, I don't mind the leaps and randomness in Mr Jordan's arrangement; it is easily ignored, and it does allow you to read the poems as a whole (if you choose) or individually. I dipped in and out, and found nothing suffered.
Mr Jordan's poetry reminds me, strongly, of Alan Ginsburg's storytelling style - but without the overt, almost (and sometimes blatant) pornographic, sexuality of Ginsburg's work. He tells us stories, and then leaves us to conclude what we will - unlike some, he never seems to seek to provide a conclusion for us. This might seem ambiguous, but it's not - a story doesn't need a conclusion; it does need an ending, though. Mr Jordan provides those; they seem to be frame, defining the picture he paints for us.
Overall, I'd say Mr Jordan is one of the finest poets I've ever had the pleasure to read. :-)
Carolyn Ann
*I hated it, but the rest of the world seemed to like it.
EDIT: I had to add "mind" to "I don't mind the leaps and randomness". Thanks, Bill!
Seven Days in the Art World (Sarah Thornton)
The art world is a funny old place - basically, it adheres to contradictory ideas with oblivion.
In her recounting of her latest anthropological expedition, Sarah Thornton throws a spotlight onto a few aspects of that little congregation, and the resulting view isn't pretty. Cannibalism is rife, as is muttering and secrecy; people can be destroyed by gossip, and deified, too. It is not an open society, but it has one fascinating quality: it makes the world's status seekers look like rank amateurs. Nothing seems to matter more than status - and money. Of course. The expected snobbery is always there: the artists are at the top of the heap, or at the bottom, depending on how you look at it. And the collector is at the top of the money pile - tell me, who has the greater power?
A dirty little secret (to speak) of the art world is how much it depends upon the largesse of the wealthy. Without the wealthy, and without Andy Warhol, the art world wouldn't be what it is, today. Art hasn't become any more democratic or accessible over the years since Warhol decided that business is art - but it has become more pretentious, it's definitely insecure and it has become the province of those who know how to talk a good game as much as anything. Which, by the way, is not at all surprising. Considering the quantities of money that flow into and out of the art world, the knowledgeable raconteur as expert/mediator/dealer was inevitable.
In "Seven Days in the Art World", Ms Thornton describes seven days she spent over a period of time in the art world. She spent a day each at an auction, at ArtForum, at Basel Art Fair, at the Tate for a presentation of the Turner Prize and at Murakami's "studio". She did a day at CalArts (with Michael Asher) and the 2007 Venice Biennial. In the process, she did something like 250 interviews, and travelled the world. Ms Thornton doesn't critique the individuals, or the institutions, she portrays them accurately - her reporting is astounding for its fairness and obvious accuracy. Her writing isn't dry and full of itself, even if her subjects are full of their own importance. My wife noted that it was "a pretentious book"; I differed: it's not the book that's pretentious - it's the people Ms Thornton describes!
She describes how selling art isn't necessarily about the money, but more about ensuring that some hot artists' work ends up in the "right" collection. Ultimately, it's all about the money. How could anyone be surprised about that? Get into the right collection, and your net worth as an artist goes up - until you lose favor, and then you're back to washing dishes to keep a roof over your head. (Literally, I think.)
In many ways, the Ms Thornton's superbly balanced description of the art world reminded me of the web/software world - it, too, is rife with heroes du jour and a nominal affection for technical (artistic) expertise. The politics are similar, and the penalty for failure just as great. Not to be recognized as wonderful, a visionary, a magician of your medium is to face a life of obscurity, and (almost by definition) one not worth pursuing. It's as if Andy Warhol's mantra that everyone gets 15 minutes of fame has become a hall of mirrors - hideous reflections, showing you are as others want you to be is the goal. Warhol's "15 minutes" has become a cultural mandate; and it's a poor one.
But that doesn't stop the collectors and dealers greedily grabbing the latest hot artist not so much for the quality of their work (all too often, it's lacking) but to round out their bragging rights, their collections and their sense of fashion. In such a world, it's difficult to perceive how important and groundbreaking art can occur. Fortunately, it does.
Carolyn Ann
In her recounting of her latest anthropological expedition, Sarah Thornton throws a spotlight onto a few aspects of that little congregation, and the resulting view isn't pretty. Cannibalism is rife, as is muttering and secrecy; people can be destroyed by gossip, and deified, too. It is not an open society, but it has one fascinating quality: it makes the world's status seekers look like rank amateurs. Nothing seems to matter more than status - and money. Of course. The expected snobbery is always there: the artists are at the top of the heap, or at the bottom, depending on how you look at it. And the collector is at the top of the money pile - tell me, who has the greater power?
A dirty little secret (to speak) of the art world is how much it depends upon the largesse of the wealthy. Without the wealthy, and without Andy Warhol, the art world wouldn't be what it is, today. Art hasn't become any more democratic or accessible over the years since Warhol decided that business is art - but it has become more pretentious, it's definitely insecure and it has become the province of those who know how to talk a good game as much as anything. Which, by the way, is not at all surprising. Considering the quantities of money that flow into and out of the art world, the knowledgeable raconteur as expert/mediator/dealer was inevitable.
In "Seven Days in the Art World", Ms Thornton describes seven days she spent over a period of time in the art world. She spent a day each at an auction, at ArtForum, at Basel Art Fair, at the Tate for a presentation of the Turner Prize and at Murakami's "studio". She did a day at CalArts (with Michael Asher) and the 2007 Venice Biennial. In the process, she did something like 250 interviews, and travelled the world. Ms Thornton doesn't critique the individuals, or the institutions, she portrays them accurately - her reporting is astounding for its fairness and obvious accuracy. Her writing isn't dry and full of itself, even if her subjects are full of their own importance. My wife noted that it was "a pretentious book"; I differed: it's not the book that's pretentious - it's the people Ms Thornton describes!
She describes how selling art isn't necessarily about the money, but more about ensuring that some hot artists' work ends up in the "right" collection. Ultimately, it's all about the money. How could anyone be surprised about that? Get into the right collection, and your net worth as an artist goes up - until you lose favor, and then you're back to washing dishes to keep a roof over your head. (Literally, I think.)
In many ways, the Ms Thornton's superbly balanced description of the art world reminded me of the web/software world - it, too, is rife with heroes du jour and a nominal affection for technical (artistic) expertise. The politics are similar, and the penalty for failure just as great. Not to be recognized as wonderful, a visionary, a magician of your medium is to face a life of obscurity, and (almost by definition) one not worth pursuing. It's as if Andy Warhol's mantra that everyone gets 15 minutes of fame has become a hall of mirrors - hideous reflections, showing you are as others want you to be is the goal. Warhol's "15 minutes" has become a cultural mandate; and it's a poor one.
But that doesn't stop the collectors and dealers greedily grabbing the latest hot artist not so much for the quality of their work (all too often, it's lacking) but to round out their bragging rights, their collections and their sense of fashion. In such a world, it's difficult to perceive how important and groundbreaking art can occur. Fortunately, it does.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
(Daring) Car sticker
I forgot to mention this, the other day: I saw a car with a sticker "I love gay porn"!
I was on a local highway, and this red coup goes by at about 90 (I was doing 70; the wind was too cold any faster!). I thought "wow - that's daring!"
Carolyn Ann
I was on a local highway, and this red coup goes by at about 90 (I was doing 70; the wind was too cold any faster!). I thought "wow - that's daring!"
Carolyn Ann
I'll have to go to the NY Motorcycle show, next year...
As you might know, I, uh, like motorcycles. I also like to visit the Washington DC motorcycle show - but I think I'll be going to the New York show, next year.
The DC show hasn't been as good as it could be, and it looks like the NYC show is getting better and better. Ah well - live and learn. I just wish I'd learned a little sooner - that new Victory looks hot! :-)
Carolyn Ann
The DC show hasn't been as good as it could be, and it looks like the NYC show is getting better and better. Ah well - live and learn. I just wish I'd learned a little sooner - that new Victory looks hot! :-)
Carolyn Ann
After a timeout, the GOP resumes the Circular Firing Squad
The implosion of the GOP took a few days off for the Big Party (aka "Obama's Inauguration"), but is now setting about its self-destruction with alacrity. I'm guessing they won't stop until there's only a few innocent bystanders left standing.
In Newsweek, David Frum waxes about how the Republicans can re-invent themselves. Basically, keep doing what lost them the election, but moderately. The leadership of the party (it has one? Oh...) is fighting among themselves to be the most virulent Bush-hater, without actually coming across as a Bush-hater. George Herbert Walker Bush, after all, still has a staggering influence over the party. As does his son, George W. Bush.
The Palinites are plotting their revenge, and John McCain seems to have less influence now than before the election. I can't think why. But then there's the Congressional GOP leadership - which seems to be best described as "confused". And let's not forget Vitter, et al: they're intent on leading the GOP down a well worn path. One that lost the GOP two - not one, but two - elections. Perhaps they're enamored by the principle, a favored one if you look at the current GOP "philosophy", namely: if it didn't work first, second, third or umpteenth time - perhaps it'll work this time?
David Brooks gets it, and gets it right. In a recent NY Times op-ed, he delineates some of the differences between the "liberals" and the "conservatives". I don't think he intended that, but he managed it, anyway. In short, the GOP is all about the institution over the individual, and the liberals argue that the individual takes precedence. It's an important distinction.
While the GOP argue among themselves about the importance of, well, I'm not actually sure they understand what they're arguing about. They seem to be having a fit over nothing at all. Arguments among GOP leaders and influence-peddlers rage - in violent agreement. The Frum piece is a really good guide to the arguments going on in the GOP: stay the same, but be moderate. Which upsets the reactionaries (the GOP doesn't do "radical"), who want to be more strident. All the while, the elephant in the room [sic... :-) ] is ignored. Someone tossed a small rug over it, I think.
The neocons and the evangelicals all seem to have one thing in common: they want "freedom from" whatever it is that irks them. The evangelicals want freedom from gays, abortion and anything else that's not faith-based. The neocons are happy to go along with that, but they also want an Ayn Randian type of individual independence and responsibility. They're willing to use a vaguely competent government to achieve that, too!
The neocons set about destroying the government; appointments based on loyalty to some central figure hastened the destruction of good, effective, government. Reagan noted that government "was the problem", and set about proving it by reducing government effectiveness. Bush and his cronies used the same line, and then took Reagan's work to a hideous conclusion. The ensuing, and inevitable, corruption and incompetence annoyed voters - inevitably. But I think what really ticked people off was the insistence by Republicans, Evangelists and celebrities such as Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber that there is only way to be American. There isn't - and disagreement about one issue seemed to imply disagreement across the board, and onward to treasonous behavior. People got fed up of this infantile arguing.
The debate about the individual versus the institution started in the 1960's, and the Republicans have hated the outcome, ever since. But therein lies the dichotomy of the neocons: they value the institution (as long as it's "theirs") and they devalue the individual - but at the same time, have a reverence for the individual that's quite Ayn Rand-ian. It's difficult to resolve the two views. Impossible would be my guess, if you approach as the Republicans have. To resolve the conflict, you need to start from the individual, not the institution.
Once the religious, and pseudo-pious got involved, it became impossible to defend individuality over the institution. (This is getting surreal!) The party of individualism - the Democrats were always supposed to be "collective effort" - was now the party of handed-down doctrine.
Instead of robust inquiry, the Republicans opted for laissez-faire and even reactionary political philosophies. Instead of maintaining the wall of separation between the church and the state, they sought to redefine history to make the wall irrelevant - forgetting that the wall protects Christians from other Christians more than it protects the entire basis of America from religious fanatics. (For the confused: how do you guarantee free speech, and freedom of worship, when one, powerful, religious group is influencing and even managing public policy? You can't. This was a basic lesson the Founding Fathers didn't fully grasp, but the rest of the population did - hence the 1st Amendment.)
The Republicans insistence on a litmus test that included implacable opposition to gay marriage (equal rights) and abortion (womens' rights) simply shows how far the powerful money in the GOP is from the voter. More and more people are questioning the rhetoric about gay marriage (whom I marry is really none of your business!), and the voters have consistently shown that while they favor sometimes arbitrary restrictions on abortion - they really don't want to get rid of it. But a lot of voters are now realizing that the GOP insistence that the institution takes precedence over the individual is a very real threat to personal liberty. That's what the GOP should be arguing about - not how they can rephrase their litmus tests to make them palatable!
America isn't very good at "group think" - the independent streak is too much a part of the national psych. The GOP has, in the last 30 or so years, managed to forget not just that, but also that they're supposed to be the party supporting the individual over the government. Oh they pay it lip service, but in reality they work for freedom "from" something, and not the freedom for something. The Dems took that high ground. Instead of catching up to the modern era, the GOP, and in particular its moneymen, influence-peddlers and leaders wage a campaign against the changes and intellectuals of the 1960's. It ain't working, guys and gals of the GOP. It just ain't working.
Carolyn Ann
In Newsweek, David Frum waxes about how the Republicans can re-invent themselves. Basically, keep doing what lost them the election, but moderately. The leadership of the party (it has one? Oh...) is fighting among themselves to be the most virulent Bush-hater, without actually coming across as a Bush-hater. George Herbert Walker Bush, after all, still has a staggering influence over the party. As does his son, George W. Bush.
The Palinites are plotting their revenge, and John McCain seems to have less influence now than before the election. I can't think why. But then there's the Congressional GOP leadership - which seems to be best described as "confused". And let's not forget Vitter, et al: they're intent on leading the GOP down a well worn path. One that lost the GOP two - not one, but two - elections. Perhaps they're enamored by the principle, a favored one if you look at the current GOP "philosophy", namely: if it didn't work first, second, third or umpteenth time - perhaps it'll work this time?
David Brooks gets it, and gets it right. In a recent NY Times op-ed, he delineates some of the differences between the "liberals" and the "conservatives". I don't think he intended that, but he managed it, anyway. In short, the GOP is all about the institution over the individual, and the liberals argue that the individual takes precedence. It's an important distinction.
While the GOP argue among themselves about the importance of, well, I'm not actually sure they understand what they're arguing about. They seem to be having a fit over nothing at all. Arguments among GOP leaders and influence-peddlers rage - in violent agreement. The Frum piece is a really good guide to the arguments going on in the GOP: stay the same, but be moderate. Which upsets the reactionaries (the GOP doesn't do "radical"), who want to be more strident. All the while, the elephant in the room [sic... :-) ] is ignored. Someone tossed a small rug over it, I think.
The neocons and the evangelicals all seem to have one thing in common: they want "freedom from" whatever it is that irks them. The evangelicals want freedom from gays, abortion and anything else that's not faith-based. The neocons are happy to go along with that, but they also want an Ayn Randian type of individual independence and responsibility. They're willing to use a vaguely competent government to achieve that, too!
The neocons set about destroying the government; appointments based on loyalty to some central figure hastened the destruction of good, effective, government. Reagan noted that government "was the problem", and set about proving it by reducing government effectiveness. Bush and his cronies used the same line, and then took Reagan's work to a hideous conclusion. The ensuing, and inevitable, corruption and incompetence annoyed voters - inevitably. But I think what really ticked people off was the insistence by Republicans, Evangelists and celebrities such as Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber that there is only way to be American. There isn't - and disagreement about one issue seemed to imply disagreement across the board, and onward to treasonous behavior. People got fed up of this infantile arguing.
The debate about the individual versus the institution started in the 1960's, and the Republicans have hated the outcome, ever since. But therein lies the dichotomy of the neocons: they value the institution (as long as it's "theirs") and they devalue the individual - but at the same time, have a reverence for the individual that's quite Ayn Rand-ian. It's difficult to resolve the two views. Impossible would be my guess, if you approach as the Republicans have. To resolve the conflict, you need to start from the individual, not the institution.
Once the religious, and pseudo-pious got involved, it became impossible to defend individuality over the institution. (This is getting surreal!) The party of individualism - the Democrats were always supposed to be "collective effort" - was now the party of handed-down doctrine.
Instead of robust inquiry, the Republicans opted for laissez-faire and even reactionary political philosophies. Instead of maintaining the wall of separation between the church and the state, they sought to redefine history to make the wall irrelevant - forgetting that the wall protects Christians from other Christians more than it protects the entire basis of America from religious fanatics. (For the confused: how do you guarantee free speech, and freedom of worship, when one, powerful, religious group is influencing and even managing public policy? You can't. This was a basic lesson the Founding Fathers didn't fully grasp, but the rest of the population did - hence the 1st Amendment.)
The Republicans insistence on a litmus test that included implacable opposition to gay marriage (equal rights) and abortion (womens' rights) simply shows how far the powerful money in the GOP is from the voter. More and more people are questioning the rhetoric about gay marriage (whom I marry is really none of your business!), and the voters have consistently shown that while they favor sometimes arbitrary restrictions on abortion - they really don't want to get rid of it. But a lot of voters are now realizing that the GOP insistence that the institution takes precedence over the individual is a very real threat to personal liberty. That's what the GOP should be arguing about - not how they can rephrase their litmus tests to make them palatable!
America isn't very good at "group think" - the independent streak is too much a part of the national psych. The GOP has, in the last 30 or so years, managed to forget not just that, but also that they're supposed to be the party supporting the individual over the government. Oh they pay it lip service, but in reality they work for freedom "from" something, and not the freedom for something. The Dems took that high ground. Instead of catching up to the modern era, the GOP, and in particular its moneymen, influence-peddlers and leaders wage a campaign against the changes and intellectuals of the 1960's. It ain't working, guys and gals of the GOP. It just ain't working.
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Mixed feelings?
I love it around here - in the snow, the woods are so pretty, with the odd bit of "dramatic". But I can't go motorcycling in the snow! It's turning to ice in some bits - and that's not at all conducive to staying upright on a 2-wheeled contraption. (One motorcyclist did tell me the secret to staying upright on ice: leave everything the way it was, throttle, brake, stay vertical and eventually you'll get to the other side of the ice. But that isn't particularly helpful advice when you've got a turn to negotiate...)
I *need* a four-wheeled motorcycle. :-) Something like this, perhaps?
Carolyn Ann
I *need* a four-wheeled motorcycle. :-) Something like this, perhaps?
Carolyn Ann
Monday, January 26, 2009
Transgendered apostrophes...
I wonder what the transgendered blogger has against apostrophes? I keep reading "its" for "it's". I also see "your" for "you're". (I'm going to ignore "there" and their" and "they're"; confusing those three simply demonstrates ignorance.) Okay, here's a small reminder:
"It's" is a contraction of "it is". It's perfectly acceptable to use contractions, despite the dire warnings your English teacher probably gave you (mine did). It can also be as a contraction of "it has", as in: it has a nice decoration.
The skirt and its belt can be worn in the summer. "Its" is a possessive form of "it". It's improper to say "its got a nice decoration"; the correct form would be "it has (or it's) got a nice decoration".
"Your skirt looks nice" is perfectly acceptable; "your wearing a nice skirt" is strange. You probably mean "you are (you're) wearing a nice skirt, today". To put it clearly: "you're" is a perfectly acceptable contraction for "you are".
While I'm on the subject: whos is not a word. Whom, or who's is correct. Whom is objective, who is subjective: whom do you think is the better designer? One could, of course, say "who is the better designer?" Whom is more formal; it's not as widely used as it once was, and it can be safely ignored.
One last thing: it's not "me and Mary", it's "Mary and me". ("Mary and I" is subjective; the usage is objective; therefore "me" is the proper word to use.) This "little" faux pas is akin to "very unique" - it's either unique, or it isn't. Nails on a chalkboard.
The apostrophe is not an optional item: it helps you communicate your meaning. English is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a phonetic language - so it really does behoove you to use your apostrophes correctly. Of course, if you know the rule of English grammar - feel free to break them. Just don't forget to use your apostrophes as you do so.
Thank you. :-)
Carolyn Ann
"It's" is a contraction of "it is". It's perfectly acceptable to use contractions, despite the dire warnings your English teacher probably gave you (mine did). It can also be as a contraction of "it has", as in: it has a nice decoration.
The skirt and its belt can be worn in the summer. "Its" is a possessive form of "it". It's improper to say "its got a nice decoration"; the correct form would be "it has (or it's) got a nice decoration".
"Your skirt looks nice" is perfectly acceptable; "your wearing a nice skirt" is strange. You probably mean "you are (you're) wearing a nice skirt, today". To put it clearly: "you're" is a perfectly acceptable contraction for "you are".
While I'm on the subject: whos is not a word. Whom, or who's is correct. Whom is objective, who is subjective: whom do you think is the better designer? One could, of course, say "who is the better designer?" Whom is more formal; it's not as widely used as it once was, and it can be safely ignored.
One last thing: it's not "me and Mary", it's "Mary and me". ("Mary and I" is subjective; the usage is objective; therefore "me" is the proper word to use.) This "little" faux pas is akin to "very unique" - it's either unique, or it isn't. Nails on a chalkboard.
The apostrophe is not an optional item: it helps you communicate your meaning. English is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a phonetic language - so it really does behoove you to use your apostrophes correctly. Of course, if you know the rule of English grammar - feel free to break them. Just don't forget to use your apostrophes as you do so.
Thank you. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Macho Man (or Blithering Idiot)
Take your pick...
Cold weather riding has one significant downside: it's colder on a bike.
Brr. At least I'm beginning to get some feeling back in my fingers! (It didn't go away, but it wasn't too far from that. When you lose feeling in an appendage, it's generally called "not good"...) Jeez, that was cold.
It was nice and sunny when I left, with a decent nip in the air. Fresh, crisp, clear and so on. And then the clouds rolled in. The Mrs told me there was snow on the way - it'll have to warm up a few degrees for that happen!
At the bookstore (I'd gone up there for a cup of coffee), a few people looked at me, decked out in motorcycle gear, as if they considered me "foolish". I guess. One guy looked at me as if I was totally off my rocker. Ah well - Barnes & Noble were having a "3 for 2" deal on DVD's, and we had a little extra available, so I got myself Jason Statham's latest (Death Race), Don Cheadles superbly ambiguous "Traitor" and an Iron Maiden concert.
Oo sez I dun av kultur? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Cold weather riding has one significant downside: it's colder on a bike.
Brr. At least I'm beginning to get some feeling back in my fingers! (It didn't go away, but it wasn't too far from that. When you lose feeling in an appendage, it's generally called "not good"...) Jeez, that was cold.
It was nice and sunny when I left, with a decent nip in the air. Fresh, crisp, clear and so on. And then the clouds rolled in. The Mrs told me there was snow on the way - it'll have to warm up a few degrees for that happen!
At the bookstore (I'd gone up there for a cup of coffee), a few people looked at me, decked out in motorcycle gear, as if they considered me "foolish". I guess. One guy looked at me as if I was totally off my rocker. Ah well - Barnes & Noble were having a "3 for 2" deal on DVD's, and we had a little extra available, so I got myself Jason Statham's latest (Death Race), Don Cheadles superbly ambiguous "Traitor" and an Iron Maiden concert.
Oo sez I dun av kultur? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Obama's First Week
Everyone and their brother seems to be drawing profound conclusions from Obama's first week. It wasn't even a complete week . Considering that his new job required a public ceremony, a parade, and a series of balls, it might be a bit much asking for profundity less than 24 hours later. But, ask the pundits did.
They, of course, found it. Even if no one else could.
Rush Limbaugh helped - although he didn't help either himself, or the GOP - when he said he wanted Obama "to fail". He even went so far as to proclaim himself some sort of martyr (at best). I'm guessing he doesn't think of himself as a "fool" or a "clown". There were various calls for Sean Hannity to denounce the guy - after all, saying that you want the President to fail is anti-American. Unless the President is one of those abortion-loving, gay-loving, gun-hating, tree-hugging liberals. If your President is a chap who can't articulate why he started a war, then it's anti-American to criticize, even question, your President.
Somehow, it seems that Sean Hannity scolding Rush Limbaugh is as likely as Ann Coulter using accurate (never mind pertinent!) facts in her diatribes. Ain't gonna happen.
One of Obama's first jobs was to upset the entire lobbyist industry. It didn't take much doing - putting a wedge into the infamous revolving door was quite a masterstroke. It wasn't even as hard as the lobbyists and Republicans said it would be.
He then upset a slew of people, and avoided a bit of symbolism along the way, by allowing taxpayer money to go to proper abortion counselling. Fox News carried endless stories about the anti-abortion protest in DC on the 22nd; no one else seemed to notice. I have a feeling that some sensible discussion might happen around abortion. It's going to take awhile, though. The anti-abortionists have to learn how to debate, how to speak English instead of yelling idle (and often self-contradictory) rhetoric and that their big stick ain't so big, anymore.
That's as likely as Bill o'Reilly staying on his own points in a debate. Ain't gonna happen.
Obama is now upsetting the anti-environmentalists and the auto industry. Yes, the same industry that was so far behind the ball it had to get a massive bailout. Just think - in addition to squandering vast sums of taxpayer money, the car makers will have to make greener products! Can you imagine?
It also looks like Obama is doing the unthinkable: he stated "I won"! Can you imagine how upset the Republican leadership was, to hear that? Never mind that Obama's approval ratings seem to be Bush's, flipped upside down. Bush left office with about a 30% approval rating; Obama entered office with an over 70% approval rating! I think that's more than Reagan managed.
Sarah Palin continues to get into ethics trouble. For someone who touted her ethical conduct, she's seems to either sail awfully close to the wind, has a ribald sense of irony or is just business as usual for what passes as The Republican Party these days. Power-mad, angry and without a cause, they seem to have devolved into a hideous caricature of themselves. If she keeps this up, she'll be a shoo-in for the 2012 nomination: "Look, she's ethical! That she's never actually been indicted is proof!" The Republicans should adopt the motto "The Buck Stops Elsewhere". After all, I'm sure it's not their fault; nothing ever is.
Texas rejected "Intelligent Design" for school kids. It came up that some fundamentalists wanted "Darwinism" challenged. Never mind the slew of court decsions saying anything but good old secular evolution can't be taught, these people keep trying. They attempt to find back doors, never quite being honest enough to admit what they're really doing. But the Texas Education folk decided that they'd rather stick with fact and thinking over dogma and ignorance. It took public hearings to decide this, of course. Simple commonsense not being sufficient, I guess.
Obama has managed the one thing Bush could never do: he's divided our enemies. al Qaida is, according to reports, unsure how to approach such a popular figure as Obama. The Muslim world is quite fond of him: those words in his inauguration address really meant something, as did closing Guantanomo Bay. His father being Muslim probably doesn't hurt, either.
One last item: Obama is now the President, for good. He retook the Oath of Office (I'm guessing they got it right, this time - even if they didn't get the PR bit right...) He didn't use a Bible in the second swearing . This, as might be expected, caused some minor uproar among those who think the Contitution of the United States is a religious document. The Oath of Office doesn't have any religious content. Indeed, the framer's seemed to go out of their way to avoid any religious reference! But since when has factual evidence been a consideration for the right wing evangelical community?
All in all, a fascinating first week. But profound? Hardly - that'll take time. One thing's for sure: any profundity will be welcome, after 8 years of trivialization and frivolous "governing".
Carolyn Ann
They, of course, found it. Even if no one else could.
Rush Limbaugh helped - although he didn't help either himself, or the GOP - when he said he wanted Obama "to fail". He even went so far as to proclaim himself some sort of martyr (at best). I'm guessing he doesn't think of himself as a "fool" or a "clown". There were various calls for Sean Hannity to denounce the guy - after all, saying that you want the President to fail is anti-American. Unless the President is one of those abortion-loving, gay-loving, gun-hating, tree-hugging liberals. If your President is a chap who can't articulate why he started a war, then it's anti-American to criticize, even question, your President.
Somehow, it seems that Sean Hannity scolding Rush Limbaugh is as likely as Ann Coulter using accurate (never mind pertinent!) facts in her diatribes. Ain't gonna happen.
One of Obama's first jobs was to upset the entire lobbyist industry. It didn't take much doing - putting a wedge into the infamous revolving door was quite a masterstroke. It wasn't even as hard as the lobbyists and Republicans said it would be.
He then upset a slew of people, and avoided a bit of symbolism along the way, by allowing taxpayer money to go to proper abortion counselling. Fox News carried endless stories about the anti-abortion protest in DC on the 22nd; no one else seemed to notice. I have a feeling that some sensible discussion might happen around abortion. It's going to take awhile, though. The anti-abortionists have to learn how to debate, how to speak English instead of yelling idle (and often self-contradictory) rhetoric and that their big stick ain't so big, anymore.
That's as likely as Bill o'Reilly staying on his own points in a debate. Ain't gonna happen.
Obama is now upsetting the anti-environmentalists and the auto industry. Yes, the same industry that was so far behind the ball it had to get a massive bailout. Just think - in addition to squandering vast sums of taxpayer money, the car makers will have to make greener products! Can you imagine?
It also looks like Obama is doing the unthinkable: he stated "I won"! Can you imagine how upset the Republican leadership was, to hear that? Never mind that Obama's approval ratings seem to be Bush's, flipped upside down. Bush left office with about a 30% approval rating; Obama entered office with an over 70% approval rating! I think that's more than Reagan managed.
Sarah Palin continues to get into ethics trouble. For someone who touted her ethical conduct, she's seems to either sail awfully close to the wind, has a ribald sense of irony or is just business as usual for what passes as The Republican Party these days. Power-mad, angry and without a cause, they seem to have devolved into a hideous caricature of themselves. If she keeps this up, she'll be a shoo-in for the 2012 nomination: "Look, she's ethical! That she's never actually been indicted is proof!" The Republicans should adopt the motto "The Buck Stops Elsewhere". After all, I'm sure it's not their fault; nothing ever is.
Texas rejected "Intelligent Design" for school kids. It came up that some fundamentalists wanted "Darwinism" challenged. Never mind the slew of court decsions saying anything but good old secular evolution can't be taught, these people keep trying. They attempt to find back doors, never quite being honest enough to admit what they're really doing. But the Texas Education folk decided that they'd rather stick with fact and thinking over dogma and ignorance. It took public hearings to decide this, of course. Simple commonsense not being sufficient, I guess.
Obama has managed the one thing Bush could never do: he's divided our enemies. al Qaida is, according to reports, unsure how to approach such a popular figure as Obama. The Muslim world is quite fond of him: those words in his inauguration address really meant something, as did closing Guantanomo Bay. His father being Muslim probably doesn't hurt, either.
One last item: Obama is now the President, for good. He retook the Oath of Office (I'm guessing they got it right, this time - even if they didn't get the PR bit right...) He didn't use a Bible in the second swearing . This, as might be expected, caused some minor uproar among those who think the Contitution of the United States is a religious document. The Oath of Office doesn't have any religious content. Indeed, the framer's seemed to go out of their way to avoid any religious reference! But since when has factual evidence been a consideration for the right wing evangelical community?
All in all, a fascinating first week. But profound? Hardly - that'll take time. One thing's for sure: any profundity will be welcome, after 8 years of trivialization and frivolous "governing".
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Among the stars
She lay
among the stars
as I kissed her lips
and she brushed mine
I didn't know what to say
as I kissed her lips
and she ignored mine!
I grew angry, fearful
and frightened
As she slept,
among the stars
===
Carolyn Ann
among the stars
as I kissed her lips
and she brushed mine
I didn't know what to say
as I kissed her lips
and she ignored mine!
I grew angry, fearful
and frightened
As she slept,
among the stars
===
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Transgendered poetry - again?
I'm waiting for the water to boil. I'm making dinner tonight - ravioli from that store on 18th Ave in Brooklyn, with a decently red sauce. It's from a bottle, but it's rather good, nonetheless.
One thing about poetry - you have to read it if you want to write it. Not reading good poetry and expecting to write even shoddy verse is a bit like giving a 5 year old a paint brush: something good might happen, but it would be pure happenstance. And, as a consequence, sans meaning. (Having trivially dispensed with the age old "infinite monkeys/typewriters/wordprocessors" issue, I now get to my point. Perhaps.)
I keep a few notepads around the house; when I'm at home, I try not be more than 10 feet from a notepad. In that distance I can easily forget an epic, but any closer would require special notepad furniture my wife would assuredly object to. Okay, I'll fess up: I tried reading some more transgender poetry. Again.
In a fit of pique, I decided I'd not done transgendered (so many letters! Oy! And: Ha! to those nincompoops at that organization, proclaiming "transgendered" wasn't an adjective! Ha! Indeed! :-) ) poetry... Where was I? Oh, yes. :-) I hadn't done transgendered poetry justice. Dismissing it almost out of hand, I should give it another chance.
So I did.
Can one claim the 8th Amendment for self-inflicted punishment?
Carolyn Ann
One thing about poetry - you have to read it if you want to write it. Not reading good poetry and expecting to write even shoddy verse is a bit like giving a 5 year old a paint brush: something good might happen, but it would be pure happenstance. And, as a consequence, sans meaning. (Having trivially dispensed with the age old "infinite monkeys/typewriters/wordprocessors" issue, I now get to my point. Perhaps.)
I keep a few notepads around the house; when I'm at home, I try not be more than 10 feet from a notepad. In that distance I can easily forget an epic, but any closer would require special notepad furniture my wife would assuredly object to. Okay, I'll fess up: I tried reading some more transgender poetry. Again.
In a fit of pique, I decided I'd not done transgendered (so many letters! Oy! And: Ha! to those nincompoops at that organization, proclaiming "transgendered" wasn't an adjective! Ha! Indeed! :-) ) poetry... Where was I? Oh, yes. :-) I hadn't done transgendered poetry justice. Dismissing it almost out of hand, I should give it another chance.
So I did.
Can one claim the 8th Amendment for self-inflicted punishment?
Carolyn Ann
The closet
Deep and dingy
dark and miserable
oh to be so despair'ed!
'twas not always so
once upon a time
adventure and fun
lived within these walls
games of hide'n'seek
where I hid,
and you sought
and children cried
in glee and joy
toys were stashed
and forgotten
and left
and finally tidied up
by Mom
wistfully remembering as she
goes about her task
Now it holds coats and boots
for cold weather
footballs no one knows what
to do with
bats and skates from days gone by
and the odd knick knack
from long ago
a lifetime
described by its contents
I guess you found yourself
in that closet
under the stairs
===
Carolyn Ann
Edit: I changed "a mom" to "Mom"
dark and miserable
oh to be so despair'ed!
'twas not always so
once upon a time
adventure and fun
lived within these walls
games of hide'n'seek
where I hid,
and you sought
and children cried
in glee and joy
toys were stashed
and forgotten
and left
and finally tidied up
by Mom
wistfully remembering as she
goes about her task
Now it holds coats and boots
for cold weather
footballs no one knows what
to do with
bats and skates from days gone by
and the odd knick knack
from long ago
a lifetime
described by its contents
I guess you found yourself
in that closet
under the stairs
===
Carolyn Ann
Edit: I changed "a mom" to "Mom"
I'm not really a plumber...
But I can play one in a political campaign... (Sorry! :-D )
The hot water pipe burst - again. It was another area that had been previously "repaired" by the erstwhile owner of this abode. (It was also partly my fault, because I didn't make sure the heating tape was snugged up to the pipe at that point - it was about 1" away from it.) While I appreciate waterfalls, they somehow lose their charm when they derive from the ceiling, and conclude in the basement.
Waiting for the opportunity to do a good repair, the job ended up being done almost a week after the pipe had released its inner water. That's a bit like releasing your inner karma, but wetter. Finally, tools and bits of pipe and various plumbing fixtures at the ready, I strove to maintain an inner peace, and ventured into the knee wall to fix the pipes. I ended up replacing 3 of them. It didn't take long. And now we have hot water, once more, going to the washing machine.
I can now tackle that pile of laundry over the next few days. Oh goody...
Carolyn the plumber :-)
The hot water pipe burst - again. It was another area that had been previously "repaired" by the erstwhile owner of this abode. (It was also partly my fault, because I didn't make sure the heating tape was snugged up to the pipe at that point - it was about 1" away from it.) While I appreciate waterfalls, they somehow lose their charm when they derive from the ceiling, and conclude in the basement.
Waiting for the opportunity to do a good repair, the job ended up being done almost a week after the pipe had released its inner water. That's a bit like releasing your inner karma, but wetter. Finally, tools and bits of pipe and various plumbing fixtures at the ready, I strove to maintain an inner peace, and ventured into the knee wall to fix the pipes. I ended up replacing 3 of them. It didn't take long. And now we have hot water, once more, going to the washing machine.
I can now tackle that pile of laundry over the next few days. Oh goody...
Carolyn the plumber :-)
Waiter Rant, by The Waiter
The author of WaiterRant, a blog of some popularity, erudition and note (it's won an award or two) has written a book. It's not a regurgitation of his blog posts - although I suspect some of the stories are the same - and it benefits greatly from that.
There seems to be a developing theme, here. A popular blogger, a storyteller, gets a book deal and they tell us the same stories and some other ones too. They add in a bit more detail - the stories told in blog posts tend to stand on their own, with only cursory reference to other posts - and they (sometimes) provide an overall context. WaiterRant is a little different; The Waiter provides the stories, of course; but you also get a better sense of the person behind the stories than you do from the blog.
The authors of this new genre often highlight an unfortunate fact: writing a blog post is radically different to writing a book. A blog post might take an hour or so, and the emotional investment is limited. A book, on the other hand, is a lengthy pursuit - and you really do have to put yourself out there. You can't revisit a blog post in the same way that you do a chapter of a book: that opening sentence can't be revised and revisited many times over the months it usually takes to write a book. (The opening sentence is the most critical sentence of the entire work. Any written work.) The Waiter goes from blogger to writer successfully.
Waiter Rant, the book, tells us of the story of how a young man - unemployed, unsure and even a little fearful - goes from the seminary and series of dead-end "executive" jobs, to being a waiter and restaurant manager, and ultimately a writer. The shenanigans of the people in the restaurant business provide a backdrop for, what I think is, a more important story. On the road to embitterment, this man realizes something, and in his telling of what that was, I recognized something similar in my own history. (It was brought into sharper focus when I read this, over on Lynn Jones' blog.) The honesty of a writer, I think, reflects how well they are received. On the other hand, all that puffing up and frivolous depth of some bloggers seems to make readers happier: it doesn't require any thought on their part. Nor does it require any effort on the part of the writer.
The Waiter - he never reveals his identity, staying as anonymous as he can - doesn't seek sympathy, or try to make himself to be the hero of the hour, day or even year. He's not, and he knows it. His blog reflects that, too! Such honesty, I think, can only come from someone who is secure within themselves; unlike my own efforts - they're honest, but I'd be the first to admit I'm not exactly secure within myself. What is striking, though, is how he manages to retain his humanity in the face of a determined enemy - his empathy becomes a significant part of his story. His seminary training obviously helps; at least once or twice it's apparent that he's seeing that people haven't changed - the Bible contains stories that are so immediately similar it's almost unnerving.
I'm in a dilemma: do I potentially "spoil" the book, revealing a bit of it a little clearly - or, knowing it probably won't be readily available in the UK or Australia, retell at least the pertinent bits of the story to provide context for my next thought? Perhaps there's a way around it? The Parable of the Talents has been interpreted in some fairly obvious ways; The Waiter tells a story that is directly applicable it's stunning. In telling us this story, he grants another that most precious of gifts: he allows them to be human. He recognizes them as a person. It's something not many of us do, oddly enough.
Earlier in his tale, he says something that really rang true: people come and go from our lives with (astonishing?) alacrity. Family is supposed to be there for us, perpetually, but we all know that isn't necessarily true. People do come and go from our lives. Many people consider friends to be disposable: get into a disagreement over something, and the friendship ends because they can't be bothered making any effort. That's different to simply losing touch; those individuals, I remember with fondness - the others, with disgust.
I have often wondered why I stayed in network management for so long; yes, I was successful. I was even good at it, although there are quite a few who would disagree with that! But the hours were merciless, the stress landed me in hospital at least once and the toll it took on my marriage - I'm eternally grateful she stuck around. Plenty wouldn't have, I know! I got addicted to the highs of the job: solving that problem when no one else could. Developing a solution that ran 8 times faster (saving a few million dollars in the process), designing networks that were all but invisible, and the sense of triumph and accomplishment when I achieved a goal. The Waiter doesn't spend much time examining the ins and outs of being a manager - but he does return to the reasons people become, and remain, waiters. He even draws a comparison to the European/Germanic tradition of waiters being apprenticed for 3 years: in the US, it's more a case of "here's your order book, I hope you brought pens, now sink or swim - we don't care which". Competence is trivially valued; being able to talk a good game is more valuable.
The Waiter seems to be telling us that we don't have to be as superficial as we seem to have become. Meaning goes out of our lives when we don't seek it out, and when we do go looking, it's usually found in unexpected places. I wonder how many of us go looking for some meaning, and rely on others to help us find it? We can only find meaning within ourselves; it's not something you can delegate. So many of us try to find something within the superficial; it's not going to happen. We judge ourselves by the standards of others (whom are, in turn, quite happy issuing those standards!) and we always find ourselves failing. We delegate not just what we mean to ourselves, but the entire process of how we figure it all out! Often we confuse purpose and meaning; too many of us neglect what our lives mean to ourselves, and decide that it's to have a purpose. And then we immediately delegate figuring out what that purpose is, to others.
There are plenty of books out there dealing with the human condition. Some claim to provide purpose, some claim to provide meaning. Most fail. The better ones tell us of ourselves. And the best ones don't even do that: they let us draw our own conclusions. They simply provide us with the tools to see what is in front of our face. The Waiter provided me with glimpse of a map showing where I've been; I have the job of filling in the rest. That's quite an accomplishment - I'm thankful for it.
Carolyn Ann
There seems to be a developing theme, here. A popular blogger, a storyteller, gets a book deal and they tell us the same stories and some other ones too. They add in a bit more detail - the stories told in blog posts tend to stand on their own, with only cursory reference to other posts - and they (sometimes) provide an overall context. WaiterRant is a little different; The Waiter provides the stories, of course; but you also get a better sense of the person behind the stories than you do from the blog.
The authors of this new genre often highlight an unfortunate fact: writing a blog post is radically different to writing a book. A blog post might take an hour or so, and the emotional investment is limited. A book, on the other hand, is a lengthy pursuit - and you really do have to put yourself out there. You can't revisit a blog post in the same way that you do a chapter of a book: that opening sentence can't be revised and revisited many times over the months it usually takes to write a book. (The opening sentence is the most critical sentence of the entire work. Any written work.) The Waiter goes from blogger to writer successfully.
Waiter Rant, the book, tells us of the story of how a young man - unemployed, unsure and even a little fearful - goes from the seminary and series of dead-end "executive" jobs, to being a waiter and restaurant manager, and ultimately a writer. The shenanigans of the people in the restaurant business provide a backdrop for, what I think is, a more important story. On the road to embitterment, this man realizes something, and in his telling of what that was, I recognized something similar in my own history. (It was brought into sharper focus when I read this, over on Lynn Jones' blog.) The honesty of a writer, I think, reflects how well they are received. On the other hand, all that puffing up and frivolous depth of some bloggers seems to make readers happier: it doesn't require any thought on their part. Nor does it require any effort on the part of the writer.
The Waiter - he never reveals his identity, staying as anonymous as he can - doesn't seek sympathy, or try to make himself to be the hero of the hour, day or even year. He's not, and he knows it. His blog reflects that, too! Such honesty, I think, can only come from someone who is secure within themselves; unlike my own efforts - they're honest, but I'd be the first to admit I'm not exactly secure within myself. What is striking, though, is how he manages to retain his humanity in the face of a determined enemy - his empathy becomes a significant part of his story. His seminary training obviously helps; at least once or twice it's apparent that he's seeing that people haven't changed - the Bible contains stories that are so immediately similar it's almost unnerving.
I'm in a dilemma: do I potentially "spoil" the book, revealing a bit of it a little clearly - or, knowing it probably won't be readily available in the UK or Australia, retell at least the pertinent bits of the story to provide context for my next thought? Perhaps there's a way around it? The Parable of the Talents has been interpreted in some fairly obvious ways; The Waiter tells a story that is directly applicable it's stunning. In telling us this story, he grants another that most precious of gifts: he allows them to be human. He recognizes them as a person. It's something not many of us do, oddly enough.
Earlier in his tale, he says something that really rang true: people come and go from our lives with (astonishing?) alacrity. Family is supposed to be there for us, perpetually, but we all know that isn't necessarily true. People do come and go from our lives. Many people consider friends to be disposable: get into a disagreement over something, and the friendship ends because they can't be bothered making any effort. That's different to simply losing touch; those individuals, I remember with fondness - the others, with disgust.
I have often wondered why I stayed in network management for so long; yes, I was successful. I was even good at it, although there are quite a few who would disagree with that! But the hours were merciless, the stress landed me in hospital at least once and the toll it took on my marriage - I'm eternally grateful she stuck around. Plenty wouldn't have, I know! I got addicted to the highs of the job: solving that problem when no one else could. Developing a solution that ran 8 times faster (saving a few million dollars in the process), designing networks that were all but invisible, and the sense of triumph and accomplishment when I achieved a goal. The Waiter doesn't spend much time examining the ins and outs of being a manager - but he does return to the reasons people become, and remain, waiters. He even draws a comparison to the European/Germanic tradition of waiters being apprenticed for 3 years: in the US, it's more a case of "here's your order book, I hope you brought pens, now sink or swim - we don't care which". Competence is trivially valued; being able to talk a good game is more valuable.
The Waiter seems to be telling us that we don't have to be as superficial as we seem to have become. Meaning goes out of our lives when we don't seek it out, and when we do go looking, it's usually found in unexpected places. I wonder how many of us go looking for some meaning, and rely on others to help us find it? We can only find meaning within ourselves; it's not something you can delegate. So many of us try to find something within the superficial; it's not going to happen. We judge ourselves by the standards of others (whom are, in turn, quite happy issuing those standards!) and we always find ourselves failing. We delegate not just what we mean to ourselves, but the entire process of how we figure it all out! Often we confuse purpose and meaning; too many of us neglect what our lives mean to ourselves, and decide that it's to have a purpose. And then we immediately delegate figuring out what that purpose is, to others.
There are plenty of books out there dealing with the human condition. Some claim to provide purpose, some claim to provide meaning. Most fail. The better ones tell us of ourselves. And the best ones don't even do that: they let us draw our own conclusions. They simply provide us with the tools to see what is in front of our face. The Waiter provided me with glimpse of a map showing where I've been; I have the job of filling in the rest. That's quite an accomplishment - I'm thankful for it.
Carolyn Ann
Friday, January 23, 2009
Redefining a recession
I'm convinced we need to redefine when an economy is in a recession. The current method - two consecutive quarters of negative growth (huh?) - seems to be quite good at not defining what we, the various populations of the world, can see.
The US economy has been in a recession for quite some time - over a year, I guess - and the British economy has been in free-fall for about the same time. The European economy has occupied a see-saw and is merrily, if obscurely, playing. Asia is either in a recession, or is experiencing a sudden slow-down. That looks awfully close to a recession!
But the way a recession is declared hasn't changed. It's not kept pace with the changes in the global economy. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth is not a definition - it's a placebo that governments love. It helps them avoid acknowledging a recession until it's too late! These days we need a more nuanced definition, and we probably need a scale. A severe recession, one that's as likely to slip into a depression as not, is probably best not acknowledged by "two quarters of negative growth". We're in that situation, in the US. (Some economists are claiming we're actually in the early stages of a depression.)
I think if economic growth slips (contracts, slows, etc) for a couple or three consecutive months, or isn't as robust in 3 months out of 5, then we're entering a recession. If there's a contraction of the economy, in 3 months out of 5 we're definitely in a recession. If there's a contraction for 2 consecutive months - it's a recession. And if the economy is in a free-fall, it's best to not wait and see what the economists say. (While you manipulate the way growth is measured, no doubt. This, of course, implies that we need to reconsider how we actually measure economic growth. It's too easy to manipulate.) We might need two, perhaps competing, definitions?
Somehow, I don't think this is an idea that will gain traction. Not just because my readership is in the single-digits (I think), but because the current definition allows administrations to do what they love to do best: not much at all. (I must admit, I always find amusement in the expectation that politicians can understand economics, and especially modern national economies. (Right wing) Radio pundits, of course, can not only understand them - they can windbag their way through hours of programming about those same subjects...) One day - when I have the time, and have figured out where all the information is - I'll try that and see what it shows. (In the meanwhile, if anyone knows an economist (or is one), maybe you can persuade them to take a look at the numbers? And the idea - you know, shoot it down, critique it, wax lyrical about it, and so on. :-) )
One thing's for sure: the way we figure out if an economy is in a recession ensures an economy end up in a recession! It might even hasten it - because corrective measures aren't applied until it's too late. Modern economies, consumers and business owners deserve, need, much better than that.
Carolyn Ann
EDITS: Oops. I hit "Publish" before I gave the thing a quick run through.
The US economy has been in a recession for quite some time - over a year, I guess - and the British economy has been in free-fall for about the same time. The European economy has occupied a see-saw and is merrily, if obscurely, playing. Asia is either in a recession, or is experiencing a sudden slow-down. That looks awfully close to a recession!
But the way a recession is declared hasn't changed. It's not kept pace with the changes in the global economy. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth is not a definition - it's a placebo that governments love. It helps them avoid acknowledging a recession until it's too late! These days we need a more nuanced definition, and we probably need a scale. A severe recession, one that's as likely to slip into a depression as not, is probably best not acknowledged by "two quarters of negative growth". We're in that situation, in the US. (Some economists are claiming we're actually in the early stages of a depression.)
I think if economic growth slips (contracts, slows, etc) for a couple or three consecutive months, or isn't as robust in 3 months out of 5, then we're entering a recession. If there's a contraction of the economy, in 3 months out of 5 we're definitely in a recession. If there's a contraction for 2 consecutive months - it's a recession. And if the economy is in a free-fall, it's best to not wait and see what the economists say. (While you manipulate the way growth is measured, no doubt. This, of course, implies that we need to reconsider how we actually measure economic growth. It's too easy to manipulate.) We might need two, perhaps competing, definitions?
Somehow, I don't think this is an idea that will gain traction. Not just because my readership is in the single-digits (I think), but because the current definition allows administrations to do what they love to do best: not much at all. (I must admit, I always find amusement in the expectation that politicians can understand economics, and especially modern national economies. (Right wing) Radio pundits, of course, can not only understand them - they can windbag their way through hours of programming about those same subjects...) One day - when I have the time, and have figured out where all the information is - I'll try that and see what it shows. (In the meanwhile, if anyone knows an economist (or is one), maybe you can persuade them to take a look at the numbers? And the idea - you know, shoot it down, critique it, wax lyrical about it, and so on. :-) )
One thing's for sure: the way we figure out if an economy is in a recession ensures an economy end up in a recession! It might even hasten it - because corrective measures aren't applied until it's too late. Modern economies, consumers and business owners deserve, need, much better than that.
Carolyn Ann
EDITS: Oops. I hit "Publish" before I gave the thing a quick run through.
Another British Recession
So Britain is in a recession. Officially. Who knew?
Let's see: foreclosures by the score, lay-offs by the ton, retail going through the floor, gas (petrol) prices still closer to the moon than anything earthbound and a so many taxes, both obscure and obvious, that it's a wonder there is an economy.
The British government is always famous for raising taxes when things are bad; "the government needs the money, so screw the population" is the working mantra of British governments. (Thatcher's was "screw the population, anyway". Something she was rather good at.) Gordon Brown enjoyed a brief moment of fame when he came up with a solution that might have worked. Except it didn't, and now his solution is not mentioned in polite company. It's still used - governments, the world over, aren't renowned for being "polite company".
I can't help but think two things brought the UK recession about: astonishingly high taxes, and a penchant for borrowing that puts most to shame. I think only Iceland had more consumer debt; I know it's at staggeringly high levels in the UK. (It's bad enough, here.) Somehow I don't think the government is going to make some difficult decisions - the government service unions would have a conniption, and the public would squeal with alacrity. So taxes are going to remain high; lowering consumer debt is something that happens slowly, and as more people go under - it will make a glacial pace look like a sprint.
Britain must lower the cost of government - it's running at some staggeringly high percentage of GDP (I've heard numbers up to 52% of GDP!) and those entitlements must be cut. That's painful, I know. But the alternative isn't a longer recession - it's to not actually have an economy worth talking about. London is currently the world's financial capital (sorry, Hong Kong and New York. Hong Kong, you were never in the running, and New York let that title slip a few years ago), so that will take the sting out of it all in the immediate. But once all those companies move operations (Dubai is the place du jour) - London will need something more than a Prime Minister and government that can't seem to figure out what an economy is.
It might have helped if Britain had joined the Euro, instead of trying to pretend it still runs the world. At this point, such a move might actually make things worse - look what happened when we moved to decimal currency! (Prices went up a slight bit as retailers changed the fractions of pounds, shillings and pence to their favor.) Changing to the Euro, though, would at least bring economic policy more into line with Europe; that might be a good thing, overall. It's difficult to say, really.
What is not difficult to say: the government must reduce its costs. The most obvious targets are social and health programs. Britain has a modern tradition of cradle to grave social care; it's expensive, and the taxes reflect that. Like I say, reducing that care will enable taxes to be lowered, getting more money into the economy. Somehow, I just know that won't happen!
Carolyn Ann
Let's see: foreclosures by the score, lay-offs by the ton, retail going through the floor, gas (petrol) prices still closer to the moon than anything earthbound and a so many taxes, both obscure and obvious, that it's a wonder there is an economy.
The British government is always famous for raising taxes when things are bad; "the government needs the money, so screw the population" is the working mantra of British governments. (Thatcher's was "screw the population, anyway". Something she was rather good at.) Gordon Brown enjoyed a brief moment of fame when he came up with a solution that might have worked. Except it didn't, and now his solution is not mentioned in polite company. It's still used - governments, the world over, aren't renowned for being "polite company".
I can't help but think two things brought the UK recession about: astonishingly high taxes, and a penchant for borrowing that puts most to shame. I think only Iceland had more consumer debt; I know it's at staggeringly high levels in the UK. (It's bad enough, here.) Somehow I don't think the government is going to make some difficult decisions - the government service unions would have a conniption, and the public would squeal with alacrity. So taxes are going to remain high; lowering consumer debt is something that happens slowly, and as more people go under - it will make a glacial pace look like a sprint.
Britain must lower the cost of government - it's running at some staggeringly high percentage of GDP (I've heard numbers up to 52% of GDP!) and those entitlements must be cut. That's painful, I know. But the alternative isn't a longer recession - it's to not actually have an economy worth talking about. London is currently the world's financial capital (sorry, Hong Kong and New York. Hong Kong, you were never in the running, and New York let that title slip a few years ago), so that will take the sting out of it all in the immediate. But once all those companies move operations (Dubai is the place du jour) - London will need something more than a Prime Minister and government that can't seem to figure out what an economy is.
It might have helped if Britain had joined the Euro, instead of trying to pretend it still runs the world. At this point, such a move might actually make things worse - look what happened when we moved to decimal currency! (Prices went up a slight bit as retailers changed the fractions of pounds, shillings and pence to their favor.) Changing to the Euro, though, would at least bring economic policy more into line with Europe; that might be a good thing, overall. It's difficult to say, really.
What is not difficult to say: the government must reduce its costs. The most obvious targets are social and health programs. Britain has a modern tradition of cradle to grave social care; it's expensive, and the taxes reflect that. Like I say, reducing that care will enable taxes to be lowered, getting more money into the economy. Somehow, I just know that won't happen!
Carolyn Ann
Did NASCAR design the new F1 cars?
F1Fanatic has some pictures comparing the 08 cars to the 09 ones. There are some striking differences - the most obvious being the ridiculous looking rear wings and the lack of protuberances on the new cars.
Formula 1 cars have been restricted in so many ways, it's now reached the point where it looks like NASCAR had a hand in designing them. The basic shape of the car is etched in stone, the engine architecture is strange - and etched into the other side of the rock - and there are even "spec" pieces being mandated! Heck, even the tires are controlled to a ridiculous point.
All of this is an attempt to make the racing closer, have more overtaking and so on. I get the feeling that Max Mosley looked at a NASCAR race with its extensive grid and homogenized vehicles and concluded that it was just what F1 needed to be. So we end up with cars that look astonishingly similar, the only real way for a fan to tell them apart is by their paint!
The cars do differ in details - the front wings are all different, or instance. But considering that F1 is not broadcast in High Definition, it seems stupid to make much of those differences. The basic cars look like a single manufacturer made them; it's a bit like looking at a BMW or Mercedes sales floor: the cars all look basically the same. I think it's called "corporate branding" or "corporate identity"; it's probably "imposing a corporate image". I call it "corporate boring". Corporate really, really boring.
All of this homogeneity makes me yearn for the days of the 1970's and 1980's (1960's if you include Indycar racing!) - where we got such wonders as 6 wheeled vehicles, or the 1980's turbo cars when flames spat out the back of the cars. That was exciting to see! Tiny engines pumping amazing amounts of power out; each manufacturer had a different engine architecture, and the cars were only starting to look the same. It was all very exciting - and there was overtaking, too!
Formula 1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing. NASCAR is supposed to run with cars you can buy. Somewhere, both racing series lost their intent. Formula 1 is more about politics than money; it's about power-plays, secretive agreements and placating Ferrari than it is about racing. It's about racing on circuits that [are] so underfunded and under-rewarded that even the Chinese are annoyed (the Chinese are saying they can't keep their F1 race under current financial conditions). The racetracks are getting to be similar, too - it seems there is one designer (I forget his name, sorry), and that's that.
Whatever happened to the glory days? Is F1 going to fade into racing history? Many might say "no", but it will if it keeps up with its current technological restrictions. People want to be excited by what they see; today's cars have things that only the extremely well-informed can get excited about. The racing audience wants close racing, hair-trigger moments and a few bits of real anxiety. What they get is an ever changing list of obscure rule changes.
Oh, I'll be watching the racing as I always do. But it will be with an eye to the demise of F1 as the premier racing series. Perhaps it's time for both Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley to go? Actually, it's well past time.
Carolyn Ann
EDITS: Some spelling errors, and an amazing [sic] spelling, and doubling, of er, amazing... :-)
Formula 1 cars have been restricted in so many ways, it's now reached the point where it looks like NASCAR had a hand in designing them. The basic shape of the car is etched in stone, the engine architecture is strange - and etched into the other side of the rock - and there are even "spec" pieces being mandated! Heck, even the tires are controlled to a ridiculous point.
All of this is an attempt to make the racing closer, have more overtaking and so on. I get the feeling that Max Mosley looked at a NASCAR race with its extensive grid and homogenized vehicles and concluded that it was just what F1 needed to be. So we end up with cars that look astonishingly similar, the only real way for a fan to tell them apart is by their paint!
The cars do differ in details - the front wings are all different, or instance. But considering that F1 is not broadcast in High Definition, it seems stupid to make much of those differences. The basic cars look like a single manufacturer made them; it's a bit like looking at a BMW or Mercedes sales floor: the cars all look basically the same. I think it's called "corporate branding" or "corporate identity"; it's probably "imposing a corporate image". I call it "corporate boring". Corporate really, really boring.
All of this homogeneity makes me yearn for the days of the 1970's and 1980's (1960's if you include Indycar racing!) - where we got such wonders as 6 wheeled vehicles, or the 1980's turbo cars when flames spat out the back of the cars. That was exciting to see! Tiny engines pumping amazing amounts of power out; each manufacturer had a different engine architecture, and the cars were only starting to look the same. It was all very exciting - and there was overtaking, too!
Formula 1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing. NASCAR is supposed to run with cars you can buy. Somewhere, both racing series lost their intent. Formula 1 is more about politics than money; it's about power-plays, secretive agreements and placating Ferrari than it is about racing. It's about racing on circuits that [are] so underfunded and under-rewarded that even the Chinese are annoyed (the Chinese are saying they can't keep their F1 race under current financial conditions). The racetracks are getting to be similar, too - it seems there is one designer (I forget his name, sorry), and that's that.
Whatever happened to the glory days? Is F1 going to fade into racing history? Many might say "no", but it will if it keeps up with its current technological restrictions. People want to be excited by what they see; today's cars have things that only the extremely well-informed can get excited about. The racing audience wants close racing, hair-trigger moments and a few bits of real anxiety. What they get is an ever changing list of obscure rule changes.
Oh, I'll be watching the racing as I always do. But it will be with an eye to the demise of F1 as the premier racing series. Perhaps it's time for both Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley to go? Actually, it's well past time.
Carolyn Ann
EDITS: Some spelling errors, and an amazing [sic] spelling, and doubling, of er, amazing... :-)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Blog for Choice Day
There's no logo, this year - or at least, none that I could find. Today is the anniversary of Roe-v-Wade. :-)
Okay, here's why I support abortion rights:
Medical care professionals should never have right of conscious! If a doctor doesn't want to do abortions, fine. No one wants a doctor unwilling to do an operation actually doing one! But if a pharmacist doesn't want to provide legal pharmaceuticals: that's an entirely different story all together. The pharmacist does not have a basic right to decide they have the power over anyone's life! Medical care should not be a lottery.
I'd really like to see the number of abortions go down; but I'd like to see that happen because of what women decide - not what some religiously-motivated would-be dictator mandates. If a woman decides to take measures preventing pregnancy, it is between her and whomever she decides she needs to consult. Ultimately, it's up to her, and her alone. The State certainly has no standing on such issues!
The state should be providing counseling services after an abortion; if the woman wants them. If she doesn't, it is her decision. The state should be ensuring that abortion and family planning services are free of the taint of religion, are clean and safe and are easily, and privately, available. A teenager should not be forced to get a permission slip from her parents; a married woman should not be forced to get a permission slip from her husband and no one should be forced to get a permission slip from the state!
I don't like abortion - I don't want any woman to go through the emotional turmoil they produce. But I'm not going to support any curtailment of a woman's right to have one! I support the right to abortion because a few, religiously motivated individuals and groups have no right deciding the medical care a woman decides she wants.
Carolyn Ann
Okay, here's why I support abortion rights:
- Women must retain the right to determine their own lives
- The state has no place in the Doctor's Office
- Women don't always have a say in when they get pregnant
- Removing the right to safe, legal abortion simply makes abortions dangerous
Medical care professionals should never have right of conscious! If a doctor doesn't want to do abortions, fine. No one wants a doctor unwilling to do an operation actually doing one! But if a pharmacist doesn't want to provide legal pharmaceuticals: that's an entirely different story all together. The pharmacist does not have a basic right to decide they have the power over anyone's life! Medical care should not be a lottery.
I'd really like to see the number of abortions go down; but I'd like to see that happen because of what women decide - not what some religiously-motivated would-be dictator mandates. If a woman decides to take measures preventing pregnancy, it is between her and whomever she decides she needs to consult. Ultimately, it's up to her, and her alone. The State certainly has no standing on such issues!
The state should be providing counseling services after an abortion; if the woman wants them. If she doesn't, it is her decision. The state should be ensuring that abortion and family planning services are free of the taint of religion, are clean and safe and are easily, and privately, available. A teenager should not be forced to get a permission slip from her parents; a married woman should not be forced to get a permission slip from her husband and no one should be forced to get a permission slip from the state!
I don't like abortion - I don't want any woman to go through the emotional turmoil they produce. But I'm not going to support any curtailment of a woman's right to have one! I support the right to abortion because a few, religiously motivated individuals and groups have no right deciding the medical care a woman decides she wants.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Earwigging at a store
Last night, we popped over to a nearby Barnes & Noble - I wanted to get out of the house for bit. Perusing the "Current Affairs" section, I couldn't help but overhear a conversation between two older teens. She was a fan of Obama, and was delighted he was now President. He wasn't so sure; listening to him sputter and stumble, I'm not sure he knew what he wasn't sure about.
She would say something about Obama, he'd object - and then he'd desperately try to justify his point. She used concepts like "surely you don't believe that?" and "are you sure?". She also threw in the odd "where did you hear that?" and perhaps the occasional askance glance (he would say something, there would be a moment of silence, and then he'd try and explain himself!) It sounded like all his reasoning was derived from talk-radio: Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. He ably demonstrated how such irrationality fell apart upon examination...
I listened for a lot longer than I should have. It was quite amusing. :-)
Carolyn Ann
She would say something about Obama, he'd object - and then he'd desperately try to justify his point. She used concepts like "surely you don't believe that?" and "are you sure?". She also threw in the odd "where did you hear that?" and perhaps the occasional askance glance (he would say something, there would be a moment of silence, and then he'd try and explain himself!) It sounded like all his reasoning was derived from talk-radio: Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. He ably demonstrated how such irrationality fell apart upon examination...
I listened for a lot longer than I should have. It was quite amusing. :-)
Carolyn Ann
10 honest facts about me
Emily challenged me to find 10 honest facts about myself. I'm not entirely sure I can come up with that many (fortunately, they don't have to be original, "no one knows this, but...") but here goes:
:-)
1. I'm an atheist. I have been since I was about 5, although I spent way too long hiding it! (I've never been sure, until lately, which was the more dire "sin": being an atheist, or being transgendered. It seemed wiser to stay mum about the whole lot!)
2. I'm a motorcyclist. I've been driving motorcycles for a couple of years now, having had a hiatus for most of my life. (I started riding when I was 16)
3. I love what is now called "Classic Rock"; Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Black Sabbath (an all-time favorite of mine) and many, many others.
4.I also like Cabaret; Andrea Marcovicci and Karen Akers being my favorite singers.
5. I love Broadway. One of the things I don't like about where we live is that it is 3 hours (at least) to Broadway. When I lived in London, I attended the theater at least twice a week. Now, it's twice a year. :-(
6. I'm a political news junkie. Anyone reading this blog will know I have a lot to say about politics. Some of it is oddly coherent.
7. I love writing. It's a curse, or a blessing. I'm not entirely sure which.
8. I love reading. I read a lot; currently I'm reading Shakespeare's Sonnets. And a sci-fi action novel set in the 25th century (One of the Starfist series by David Sherman and Dan Cragg).
9. I played hookie (truant) a lot, in school. When I finally made it to college, it was well after the first class had started (I love playing with words, too... :-) ). I failed 3rd year math because I often didn't turn up for that class. (I was quite good at math; I'm not anymore - no practice!)
10. Voltaire's "Candide" is my favorite play. I've seen at least 4 or 5 productions of it. My favorite line is "best of all possible worlds!" Which strikes me as a damning, and possibly stirring, indictment of much pontification - especially when we're told "it's what's best". Voltaire may have written it 250 years ago (or thereabouts), but it's as applicable and pertinent today as it ever was.
So that's 10 things about me... How about you? :-)
Carolyn Ann
:-)
1. I'm an atheist. I have been since I was about 5, although I spent way too long hiding it! (I've never been sure, until lately, which was the more dire "sin": being an atheist, or being transgendered. It seemed wiser to stay mum about the whole lot!)
2. I'm a motorcyclist. I've been driving motorcycles for a couple of years now, having had a hiatus for most of my life. (I started riding when I was 16)
3. I love what is now called "Classic Rock"; Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, Black Sabbath (an all-time favorite of mine) and many, many others.
4.I also like Cabaret; Andrea Marcovicci and Karen Akers being my favorite singers.
5. I love Broadway. One of the things I don't like about where we live is that it is 3 hours (at least) to Broadway. When I lived in London, I attended the theater at least twice a week. Now, it's twice a year. :-(
6. I'm a political news junkie. Anyone reading this blog will know I have a lot to say about politics. Some of it is oddly coherent.
7. I love writing. It's a curse, or a blessing. I'm not entirely sure which.
8. I love reading. I read a lot; currently I'm reading Shakespeare's Sonnets. And a sci-fi action novel set in the 25th century (One of the Starfist series by David Sherman and Dan Cragg).
9. I played hookie (truant) a lot, in school. When I finally made it to college, it was well after the first class had started (I love playing with words, too... :-) ). I failed 3rd year math because I often didn't turn up for that class. (I was quite good at math; I'm not anymore - no practice!)
10. Voltaire's "Candide" is my favorite play. I've seen at least 4 or 5 productions of it. My favorite line is "best of all possible worlds!" Which strikes me as a damning, and possibly stirring, indictment of much pontification - especially when we're told "it's what's best". Voltaire may have written it 250 years ago (or thereabouts), but it's as applicable and pertinent today as it ever was.
So that's 10 things about me... How about you? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Oh, dear
This month's Elle [oops] Vogue (Feb 09; US edition) has a photo (p58) that shows a man at a piano, with a gorgeous, and gorgeously attired, lady on top of the piano, listening to him. The caption says:
Oh my. I do hope someone investigates. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Line ItemsOh dear! I wonder what Mr Mizrahi did, to deserve such a fate? I'm a little unclear on the role Ms McNeil played: was she a participant in the dastardly deed, or was she also shot? Perhaps she was an unwitting accomplice? (After all, if you're going to do some diabolical deed, perhaps it's better to look stunning?)
Patrick Demarchelier shot Isaac Mizrahi, Liz Claiborne's new creative director, with model Catherine McNeil
Oh my. I do hope someone investigates. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Okay, let's get back to business
So Obama has suspended hearings at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days - effectively ending them. This means a central part of the Bush/Cheney "doctrine" has been demolished. In one verbal order. How about that?
Rahm Emanuel issued an order preventing any Bush administration rules and regulations not yet in affect from being implemented. I have a feeling it won't be long before some of the more onerous, facetious and hideous rules, regulations and Executive Orders will be rescinded or substantially changed. The stem cell one is likely to be changed either this week, or in a year or so - when Congress gets around to voting on it.
Speaking of whom, the Dems did the same thing to the GOP that they experienced: the Dems changed some of the Senate rules, effectively preventing the GOP from doing much damage to any forthcoming bills. Except, instead of holding closed-door hearings, and preventing the opposition from having any say - the Dems simply said that any amendments to a bill have to be relevant to that bill. Holy smokes! Whatever next?
I heard a rumor that "don't ask, don't tell" will shortly go the way of the dinosaur. As Barry Goldwater asked: "Can they shoot straight?" If they're willing to defend America, who cares if they're gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered? Apparently even the Chiefs are concerned about the loss of manpower [etc] from that ridiculous policy. It's only in place because Clinton mishandled the military; the Generals hated him.
I can't help but wonder if the NSA will suddenly find itself reined in. There will be a lot of national security people seeing lawyers in the next few months. (This is where Bush's prevention of union representation in the Dept of Homeland Security is facetious; these people obeyed orders from the big guys, but they're the ones who will be left with huge legal bills. Of course, "I was only following orders" isn't exactly an effective excuse... Still, they should be represented at tax-payer expense.)
Also checking into lawyer land will be some of the people involved in the bailout. They'll be worried that their (semi-)adriot fiscal vanishing acts will actually be noticed. As if! I mean, what's $50B or so between cronies?
Many Bush workers will be checking providing a lot of business to lawyers, as well. I have a feeling Eric Holder isn't going to be interested in dogmatic excuses for almost criminal negligence. Heckuva-Job Brownie might want to see which nations need a disaster recoveryimbecile "expert", and have no extradition treaty with the United States. (Maybe he can move into the Bush's spare bedroom? :-) )
I have a feeling that the scandals will just keep on coming.
Ah - it's going to be a fun time. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Rahm Emanuel issued an order preventing any Bush administration rules and regulations not yet in affect from being implemented. I have a feeling it won't be long before some of the more onerous, facetious and hideous rules, regulations and Executive Orders will be rescinded or substantially changed. The stem cell one is likely to be changed either this week, or in a year or so - when Congress gets around to voting on it.
Speaking of whom, the Dems did the same thing to the GOP that they experienced: the Dems changed some of the Senate rules, effectively preventing the GOP from doing much damage to any forthcoming bills. Except, instead of holding closed-door hearings, and preventing the opposition from having any say - the Dems simply said that any amendments to a bill have to be relevant to that bill. Holy smokes! Whatever next?
I heard a rumor that "don't ask, don't tell" will shortly go the way of the dinosaur. As Barry Goldwater asked: "Can they shoot straight?" If they're willing to defend America, who cares if they're gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered? Apparently even the Chiefs are concerned about the loss of manpower [etc] from that ridiculous policy. It's only in place because Clinton mishandled the military; the Generals hated him.
I can't help but wonder if the NSA will suddenly find itself reined in. There will be a lot of national security people seeing lawyers in the next few months. (This is where Bush's prevention of union representation in the Dept of Homeland Security is facetious; these people obeyed orders from the big guys, but they're the ones who will be left with huge legal bills. Of course, "I was only following orders" isn't exactly an effective excuse... Still, they should be represented at tax-payer expense.)
Also checking into lawyer land will be some of the people involved in the bailout. They'll be worried that their (semi-)adriot fiscal vanishing acts will actually be noticed. As if! I mean, what's $50B or so between cronies?
Many Bush workers will be checking providing a lot of business to lawyers, as well. I have a feeling Eric Holder isn't going to be interested in dogmatic excuses for almost criminal negligence. Heckuva-Job Brownie might want to see which nations need a disaster recovery
I have a feeling that the scandals will just keep on coming.
Ah - it's going to be a fun time. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obama's speech
There's much to be said about Obama's speech. (Rush Limbaugh was predictably sophomoric. He does, after all, want Obama to fail. (I wonder what happened to his thing about "supporting the President.)) Ann Coulter apparently didn't notice there was an inauguration going on; not that she notices much, anyway.
Personally, I thought the speech was quite good; it's one of those that gets better and better the more I think about it. There was the surprising allusion to Shakespeare ("winter of our hardship"; Shakey muttered about the "winter of our discontent"). There was the bit lifted from George. Washington - not Bush. There was an appeal for peace, and a definite promise, complete with explanation, to inflict some major pain on terrorists. He appealed to our sense of responsibility, and laid a clear line on what he will do differently. (Lobbyists might want to sweat a little about that speech. By the way. :-) )
The speech didn't pull punches, but it was optimistic: we will overcome what has been thrown our way, simply because we can.
And that, ultimtely, is what America is all about. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Personally, I thought the speech was quite good; it's one of those that gets better and better the more I think about it. There was the surprising allusion to Shakespeare ("winter of our hardship"; Shakey muttered about the "winter of our discontent"). There was the bit lifted from George. Washington - not Bush. There was an appeal for peace, and a definite promise, complete with explanation, to inflict some major pain on terrorists. He appealed to our sense of responsibility, and laid a clear line on what he will do differently. (Lobbyists might want to sweat a little about that speech. By the way. :-) )
The speech didn't pull punches, but it was optimistic: we will overcome what has been thrown our way, simply because we can.
And that, ultimtely, is what America is all about. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Hail to the (new) Chief
After a bungled oath of office (Justice Roberts was as careless with the oath as he is with his understanding of legal history), a speech that was pointed, often hard edged and a definite break from the policies of Bush, a very gracious moment where he escorted Bush to the helicopter (was he making sure the man left the premises?) we now have a new President of the United States.
The rumor is (according to CNN) that Obama will issue a slew of Executive Orders within the next 48 hours. Guantanamo Bay will be closed, abortion restrictions will be lifted, and bans on torture will be made.
Obama spoke of making America a leader in the world, and it's clear that he means it. The cynicism that has become the norm, the cynical view of what America is, has to be changed, and Obama is certainly the man to help change it. Under Bush, America has suffered and has become less than it is; the self-interested have hijacked the American Dream for their own greed, and their own purposes. They were served notice: your days of cynical exploitation are over. Mundane ambition is not going to be a theme of this administration - it's going to be about dreaming big - and then going about achieving those dreams.
So, while now Mr Bush will be making his own coffee in the morning, President Obama will be laying the foundations of what will be a period of dynamism.
Maybe we'll be able to think kindly of Bush in the forthcoming years, but it would not do us well to forget, or forgive, the political thinking that led us to where we are, now. Renegading on hope, on a basic assurance that ordinary people have a future, that we can, and will, look after those who can't look after themselves, that was just shy of criminal. We should not, ever, forget that the politics of "me first" have had their day; they'll show themselves, no doubt, but their days are numbered. Conservatism will have to change; it risks obsolescence if it doesn't.
If nothing else, "change" will be the mantra. I'm looking forward to the next four years.
Carolyn Ann
The rumor is (according to CNN) that Obama will issue a slew of Executive Orders within the next 48 hours. Guantanamo Bay will be closed, abortion restrictions will be lifted, and bans on torture will be made.
Obama spoke of making America a leader in the world, and it's clear that he means it. The cynicism that has become the norm, the cynical view of what America is, has to be changed, and Obama is certainly the man to help change it. Under Bush, America has suffered and has become less than it is; the self-interested have hijacked the American Dream for their own greed, and their own purposes. They were served notice: your days of cynical exploitation are over. Mundane ambition is not going to be a theme of this administration - it's going to be about dreaming big - and then going about achieving those dreams.
So, while now Mr Bush will be making his own coffee in the morning, President Obama will be laying the foundations of what will be a period of dynamism.
Maybe we'll be able to think kindly of Bush in the forthcoming years, but it would not do us well to forget, or forgive, the political thinking that led us to where we are, now. Renegading on hope, on a basic assurance that ordinary people have a future, that we can, and will, look after those who can't look after themselves, that was just shy of criminal. We should not, ever, forget that the politics of "me first" have had their day; they'll show themselves, no doubt, but their days are numbered. Conservatism will have to change; it risks obsolescence if it doesn't.
If nothing else, "change" will be the mantra. I'm looking forward to the next four years.
Carolyn Ann
President Barack Obama
What more can I say?
(He might not have been born in a manger, but he'd better act as if he was!)
Good luck, Mr President. (I have a feeling you'll need it!) :-)
Carolyn Ann
(He might not have been born in a manger, but he'd better act as if he was!)
Good luck, Mr President. (I have a feeling you'll need it!) :-)
Carolyn Ann
Is something going on?
I get the feeling something big is happening, today. I'm not sure what, though... :-)
Well, today's the day. It's certainly the start of a hopeful period.
Jon Stewart nailed it, last night, when he had Asif wotsiname talking about Obama's Inauguration speech, and when he told that chap from Aljazeera that "Obama will fix the Middle East. He'll need a week."
There's so much hope around, it's almost palpable. Even the Republicans are hopeful. The neocons and reactionary evangelicals are, by definition miserable. They aren't hopeful. According to the NY Times, there's not going to be much work done, today - lots of places are setting up TV's and having inauguration parties. (I've heard that many colleges are piping the inauguration through to classrooms.) People are taking time off, and apparently there are more than one or two buses driving into Washington DC.
Me, I'm going to set myself up in the living room, TV on, remote at the ready, computer at my side and I'll be there until the parade is over.
It feels like the entire world is celebrating*!
Carolyn Ann
* With the exception of Iran (I heard they'd burned Obama in effigy!). And the aforementioned neocons and religious nuts. They obviously have much in common. Miserable sods.
Well, today's the day. It's certainly the start of a hopeful period.
Jon Stewart nailed it, last night, when he had Asif wotsiname talking about Obama's Inauguration speech, and when he told that chap from Aljazeera that "Obama will fix the Middle East. He'll need a week."
There's so much hope around, it's almost palpable. Even the Republicans are hopeful. The neocons and reactionary evangelicals are, by definition miserable. They aren't hopeful. According to the NY Times, there's not going to be much work done, today - lots of places are setting up TV's and having inauguration parties. (I've heard that many colleges are piping the inauguration through to classrooms.) People are taking time off, and apparently there are more than one or two buses driving into Washington DC.
Me, I'm going to set myself up in the living room, TV on, remote at the ready, computer at my side and I'll be there until the parade is over.
It feels like the entire world is celebrating*!
Carolyn Ann
* With the exception of Iran (I heard they'd burned Obama in effigy!). And the aforementioned neocons and religious nuts. They obviously have much in common. Miserable sods.
Monday, January 19, 2009
George W. Bush reports having a nightmare
This morning, President George W. Bush had a nightmare. He reported it to the Secret Service, who issued the following statement: "Huh? The President asked for a glass of milk in the middle of the night."
Asked about the nightmare, Dana Perino, theShrub's Press Secretary, said "The President had a nasty dream, last night. In it, he was no longer President of the United States, and some cool looking black guy was running the country, instead. In consultations with Uncle Dick the Vice President, it was determined that a pre-emptive strike against The Constitution of the United States was needed. Saying "I've never had much need for that namby-pamby liberal bit of crap", Vice President Cheney volunteered to lead the assault.
The Far Right interest groups and most lobbyist companies, along with Fox News issued this statement: "This government was founded on the belief that those on the Far Right are superior to everyone else!" a spokesman claimed. He continued "the previous government - that one of "for the people" and all that nonsense clearly wasn't working. It wasn't working because George Bush ensured it wouldn't work, so that's something else the right can claim credit for! I am pleased that Vice President Cheney has seen fit to use his supernumary position in the Constitution to prevent democracy making what we see is a mistake, and electing someone who gives a damn."
Some religious nut said "The Lord Giveth, and the Lord Taketh! He has seen fit to not taketh the Presidency from this Good Christian!" We ran away from him. Pat Robertson said "the election didn't go to the Far Right Republicans because of gays and the NY Times! So it is fitting that our President remains in office until the American electorate wakes up and elects someone who hates gays and the NY Times as much as I do!" We ran away from him, too. (We were afraid he'd start thumping us with his Bible. It was a really big book.)
When asked, the rest of the nation said "George Bush, not leaving office? Haven't we had a long enough nightmare?" The Far Right responded "Precisely! If President Bush stays in office, we'll avoid our own nightmare! A Democrat in the Oval Office will be the ultimate nightmare! He'll make government competent, and that would be the ruination of the nation!" They had to dash, because Federal bail-out funds were being handed out.
Reporting to you, asleep and hoping the nightmare that is George Bush term in office is really over,
Carolyn Ann
Asked about the nightmare, Dana Perino, the
The Far Right interest groups and most lobbyist companies, along with Fox News issued this statement: "This government was founded on the belief that those on the Far Right are superior to everyone else!" a spokesman claimed. He continued "the previous government - that one of "for the people" and all that nonsense clearly wasn't working. It wasn't working because George Bush ensured it wouldn't work, so that's something else the right can claim credit for! I am pleased that Vice President Cheney has seen fit to use his supernumary position in the Constitution to prevent democracy making what we see is a mistake, and electing someone who gives a damn."
Some religious nut said "The Lord Giveth, and the Lord Taketh! He has seen fit to not taketh the Presidency from this Good Christian!" We ran away from him. Pat Robertson said "the election didn't go to the Far Right Republicans because of gays and the NY Times! So it is fitting that our President remains in office until the American electorate wakes up and elects someone who hates gays and the NY Times as much as I do!" We ran away from him, too. (We were afraid he'd start thumping us with his Bible. It was a really big book.)
When asked, the rest of the nation said "George Bush, not leaving office? Haven't we had a long enough nightmare?" The Far Right responded "Precisely! If President Bush stays in office, we'll avoid our own nightmare! A Democrat in the Oval Office will be the ultimate nightmare! He'll make government competent, and that would be the ruination of the nation!" They had to dash, because Federal bail-out funds were being handed out.
Reporting to you, asleep and hoping the nightmare that is George Bush term in office is really over,
Carolyn Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)