It's a hard life. But someone's got to do it.
Oscar, helping me lay some tile in the hallway. Supervising can be hard, tiring work. A nap in the sun can be just the ticket. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A G20 gift?
There's a lot of huffing and puffing going on about the forthcoming G20 meeting.
I'd say the most important thing that could happen at the G20 is not the welcome chance that Sarkozy could walk out, but that Obama make up for that ridiculous and insulting gift he gave Gordon Brown.
The rest of it? It might as well be in Cancun as London; all of the really important decisions have been made. They just haven't been announced. Yet.
Carolyn Ann
I'd say the most important thing that could happen at the G20 is not the welcome chance that Sarkozy could walk out, but that Obama make up for that ridiculous and insulting gift he gave Gordon Brown.
The rest of it? It might as well be in Cancun as London; all of the really important decisions have been made. They just haven't been announced. Yet.
Carolyn Ann
I'll (not) conform
There's a demand to conform
and I will do so, at length
I will use long words
and guess what they mean
and be tautological
and demean
I'll value a heady conversation
and a decided decision
(especially if I don't have to make it)
I'll not take too long at bat
nor too short
I'll contribute as expected
and not as I please
I'll strive for perfection
(whatever that is)
and conform to
strange expectation
In short, I'll conform
But not to you
===
Carolyn Ann
PS This is dedicated to all my "friends" over in what I call the Transgender mafia. But I hope it's somewhat more universal.
and I will do so, at length
I will use long words
and guess what they mean
and be tautological
and demean
I'll value a heady conversation
and a decided decision
(especially if I don't have to make it)
I'll not take too long at bat
nor too short
I'll contribute as expected
and not as I please
I'll strive for perfection
(whatever that is)
and conform to
strange expectation
In short, I'll conform
But not to you
===
Carolyn Ann
PS This is dedicated to all my "friends" over in what I call the Transgender mafia. But I hope it's somewhat more universal.
Fundamentalist Atheists
There's a truism about reading in bed that goes along the lines of "don't read an irritating book at bedtime". I've found it to be true oh so many times; read it, later. Not when you're trying to relax, wind down and go to Nodnodland.
Which makes it perplexing why I picked Chris Hedges' "When Atheism Becomes Religion" to read at 2AM. Previously published as "I Don't Believe in Atheists", this is one of the most irritating polemics I've had the misfortune to come across in quite some time.
A synopsis of the book: Mr Hedges argues that atheists can be as fundamentalist as the Christian fundamentalists. Not only that: they are. All of them. He takes on the Gang of Four* (Hitchins, Hawkins, Dennet and Harris) and reduces them to tears. Well, he would if his points had anything going for them.
*Yeah, I know about that GoF; I'm appropriating the moniker for my own purposes.
Mr Hedges brings a lot of credibility to the task; he was a war correspondent ("War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"; something I'll definitely have to read), and he took on the Christian Fundamentalists in "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America", and he's got a reputation of not pulling punches. Which makes this book quite baffling.
In "When Atheism (etc)" he makes a number of leaps of logic that truly stagger. At one point he asserts that an atheist who doesn't think the world can be made perfect, who isn't burdened with cultural arrogance and perceives a morally neutral universe is intellectually honest... But he goes further than that - he also makes the demand that this intellectually honest atheist also has to reject "the violent imperialist projects underway in the Middle East"! Indeed, he makes sure that this is a prerequisite of being an intellectually honest atheist. Excuse me?!? What the heck does the imposition of a populist political view have to do with being intellectually honest?
The universe is morally neutral; it is inanimate - it can't have any perception of morality. (Which is not the same as saying the inhabitants of that universe are also morally neutral.) The world we live in cannot be perfected, simply because your definition of perfect and mine differ. And cultural arrogance is something shared by some in Britain, and Fox News pundits in America. Yeah, I know: I can be accused of the same. Except I don't assert that other cultures are less than America's. I simply say, inarticulately perhaps, that I love America. I love my wife, but that doesn't mean I view other women as less than her, it simply means I love my wife. Of course, some of the pedants out there will take that to task, simply because they are idiots.
After that digression, back to this book. Mr Hedges makes a number of leaps like that; at another point he asserts that you need religion to have ethics. He doesn't back up this claim, so I sincerely hope he's not relying on the visible evidence? Ethics are a matter of humanity; however, some animals have a concept of ethics, as rudimentary, or even as violent, as they might be. So it could be that ethics are the result of societal pressures. I don't know, but what I do know is that religion has a very dubious claim to defining the ethical! Just look at the stories in the Old Testament - the ones where an entire village is slaughtered, or the advice on how much to sell your daughter for, how to treat a slave and so many others.
Mr Hedges' makes one very irritating assertion: he says that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a retaliation for Pearl Harbor. And he continues to compound his error by saying that the magnitude of difference in the numbers killed makes the bombs immoral. Oh, this argument is so woeful, it's almost not worth addressing. As a military matter, proportional response is not a doctrine that finds much favor. Colin Powell expressed it perfectly when he said you need overwhelming superiority. But as a practical matter, the bombs were dropped in order to end the war. There was a hope that such weapons would result in massive casualties, indeed - it was known they would. What wasn't as well known was exactly how many would die when the bombs were dropped. At the same time, death on inhuman scales was normal for the Pacific theater. The Japanese fought brutally and savagely treated their captives. The Americans learned to fight just as dispassionately, but it did take some time.
The alternative - an invasion of the Japanese home islands - was expected to bring over a million US casualties. This was a practical problem, too: where do you put so many injured men? Hospitals were being built all over the US to house the expected injured. Tokyo and other cities were firebombed every night. The B29 was built with the express purpose of reducing Japan to ineffective rubble - and the bombs were aimed at the civilians just as much as they were aimed at the military. The army had militarized the entire society, and as such civilians became targets. Total war is exactly that: total. The atomic bombs were dropped when the options were few, the Japanese had rejected any notion of surrender and massive casualty counts barely made the news. People were tiring of the war, the one in Europe had been won and the costs were starting to add up. What was Truman to do? Dropping the bombs was morally dubious - it really is a gray area (admittedly a light gray area) - but it was, effectively, the only possible decision at the time.
But they were not dropped to avenge Pearl Harbor - the war in the Pacific was about that at the start, but increasingly it became about defeating the Japanese Empire. Such careless assertions do not do Mr Hedges' any favors.
Mr Hedges goes on and on about how atheism replaces the wonder of the supernatural, the sense of something greater, with a belief in science. I tried to find a justification for that, but his examples and arguments are specious, at best. Atheism is not about replacing religion with science; it's about rejecting religion. Nothing need replace religion, it sure as heck doesn't with me! And I do perceive things greater than I, than people: nature, cruel in tooth and claw, is the ultimate arbiter and a staggering wonder. I can look at the natural world around us, and in the heavens without pondering the science. But I can also think about the majesty and wonder of the human mind in discovering and explaining how the natural world comes to be the way they it is.
Mr Hedges' argument is the same one that was so easily dispensed by Richard Feynman when he said that he can look at a flower and see a beauty within it because he could perceive interactions further than the flower.
I could go on and on and on about the lazy, casual and downright mystifying thinking that Mr Hedges indulges in. He mistakes what atheism is - it's definitely not an organized force (actually, he sort of hints he knows that), and it doesn't replace piety. Atheism is a rejection of piety, it is not a rejection of human history, nor is it a license for moral turpitude. Sure there are some who replace religion with science, and there are others who reject religion, want it barred and outlawed. They are no better than their religious counterparts, but aren't as powerful. As a militant atheist, I abhor religion. As an atheist, I reject the entire premise of a deity. But as a 1st Amendment Fundamentalist, I want no say in what people believe, or don't. Mr Hedges decided he can define my atheism and that, I draw the line. Ultimately, that's the worst thing about this book: Mr Hedges doesn't actually examine atheism. He makes a series of comparisons, some leaps of logic and some dubious and carelessly thought out assertions. But he doesn't examine atheism. Not at all.
Carolyn Ann
Which makes it perplexing why I picked Chris Hedges' "When Atheism Becomes Religion" to read at 2AM. Previously published as "I Don't Believe in Atheists", this is one of the most irritating polemics I've had the misfortune to come across in quite some time.
A synopsis of the book: Mr Hedges argues that atheists can be as fundamentalist as the Christian fundamentalists. Not only that: they are. All of them. He takes on the Gang of Four* (Hitchins, Hawkins, Dennet and Harris) and reduces them to tears. Well, he would if his points had anything going for them.
*Yeah, I know about that GoF; I'm appropriating the moniker for my own purposes.
Mr Hedges brings a lot of credibility to the task; he was a war correspondent ("War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"; something I'll definitely have to read), and he took on the Christian Fundamentalists in "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America", and he's got a reputation of not pulling punches. Which makes this book quite baffling.
In "When Atheism (etc)" he makes a number of leaps of logic that truly stagger. At one point he asserts that an atheist who doesn't think the world can be made perfect, who isn't burdened with cultural arrogance and perceives a morally neutral universe is intellectually honest... But he goes further than that - he also makes the demand that this intellectually honest atheist also has to reject "the violent imperialist projects underway in the Middle East"! Indeed, he makes sure that this is a prerequisite of being an intellectually honest atheist. Excuse me?!? What the heck does the imposition of a populist political view have to do with being intellectually honest?
The universe is morally neutral; it is inanimate - it can't have any perception of morality. (Which is not the same as saying the inhabitants of that universe are also morally neutral.) The world we live in cannot be perfected, simply because your definition of perfect and mine differ. And cultural arrogance is something shared by some in Britain, and Fox News pundits in America. Yeah, I know: I can be accused of the same. Except I don't assert that other cultures are less than America's. I simply say, inarticulately perhaps, that I love America. I love my wife, but that doesn't mean I view other women as less than her, it simply means I love my wife. Of course, some of the pedants out there will take that to task, simply because they are idiots.
After that digression, back to this book. Mr Hedges makes a number of leaps like that; at another point he asserts that you need religion to have ethics. He doesn't back up this claim, so I sincerely hope he's not relying on the visible evidence? Ethics are a matter of humanity; however, some animals have a concept of ethics, as rudimentary, or even as violent, as they might be. So it could be that ethics are the result of societal pressures. I don't know, but what I do know is that religion has a very dubious claim to defining the ethical! Just look at the stories in the Old Testament - the ones where an entire village is slaughtered, or the advice on how much to sell your daughter for, how to treat a slave and so many others.
Mr Hedges' makes one very irritating assertion: he says that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a retaliation for Pearl Harbor. And he continues to compound his error by saying that the magnitude of difference in the numbers killed makes the bombs immoral. Oh, this argument is so woeful, it's almost not worth addressing. As a military matter, proportional response is not a doctrine that finds much favor. Colin Powell expressed it perfectly when he said you need overwhelming superiority. But as a practical matter, the bombs were dropped in order to end the war. There was a hope that such weapons would result in massive casualties, indeed - it was known they would. What wasn't as well known was exactly how many would die when the bombs were dropped. At the same time, death on inhuman scales was normal for the Pacific theater. The Japanese fought brutally and savagely treated their captives. The Americans learned to fight just as dispassionately, but it did take some time.
The alternative - an invasion of the Japanese home islands - was expected to bring over a million US casualties. This was a practical problem, too: where do you put so many injured men? Hospitals were being built all over the US to house the expected injured. Tokyo and other cities were firebombed every night. The B29 was built with the express purpose of reducing Japan to ineffective rubble - and the bombs were aimed at the civilians just as much as they were aimed at the military. The army had militarized the entire society, and as such civilians became targets. Total war is exactly that: total. The atomic bombs were dropped when the options were few, the Japanese had rejected any notion of surrender and massive casualty counts barely made the news. People were tiring of the war, the one in Europe had been won and the costs were starting to add up. What was Truman to do? Dropping the bombs was morally dubious - it really is a gray area (admittedly a light gray area) - but it was, effectively, the only possible decision at the time.
But they were not dropped to avenge Pearl Harbor - the war in the Pacific was about that at the start, but increasingly it became about defeating the Japanese Empire. Such careless assertions do not do Mr Hedges' any favors.
Mr Hedges goes on and on about how atheism replaces the wonder of the supernatural, the sense of something greater, with a belief in science. I tried to find a justification for that, but his examples and arguments are specious, at best. Atheism is not about replacing religion with science; it's about rejecting religion. Nothing need replace religion, it sure as heck doesn't with me! And I do perceive things greater than I, than people: nature, cruel in tooth and claw, is the ultimate arbiter and a staggering wonder. I can look at the natural world around us, and in the heavens without pondering the science. But I can also think about the majesty and wonder of the human mind in discovering and explaining how the natural world comes to be the way they it is.
Mr Hedges' argument is the same one that was so easily dispensed by Richard Feynman when he said that he can look at a flower and see a beauty within it because he could perceive interactions further than the flower.
I could go on and on and on about the lazy, casual and downright mystifying thinking that Mr Hedges indulges in. He mistakes what atheism is - it's definitely not an organized force (actually, he sort of hints he knows that), and it doesn't replace piety. Atheism is a rejection of piety, it is not a rejection of human history, nor is it a license for moral turpitude. Sure there are some who replace religion with science, and there are others who reject religion, want it barred and outlawed. They are no better than their religious counterparts, but aren't as powerful. As a militant atheist, I abhor religion. As an atheist, I reject the entire premise of a deity. But as a 1st Amendment Fundamentalist, I want no say in what people believe, or don't. Mr Hedges decided he can define my atheism and that, I draw the line. Ultimately, that's the worst thing about this book: Mr Hedges doesn't actually examine atheism. He makes a series of comparisons, some leaps of logic and some dubious and carelessly thought out assertions. But he doesn't examine atheism. Not at all.
Carolyn Ann
One day I'll grow up
One day I'll grow up
and accept my grown up life
with its responsibilities
and playfulness all gone
I'll be decent
thorough and honest
and I'll not make a fuss
and not make a scene
and I'll accept my lot
as it has always been
I'll not glance
at the girl next to me
and I'll not want an
ice cream
nor will I tug her hair
and pretend it was someone else
I promise I won't make faces
and stick out my tongue!
nor smile, simply, at a swan
I'll pretend to be
serious
and studious
and always attentive
I'll not play with toys
and I'll not be
Well, I guess that's what I'll be:
I'll simply not be
I'm sorry
that I, simply, cannot do
===
Carolyn Ann
EDIT: I changed it. I didn't like one stanza that was a poem unto itself. So I removed it. :-)
and accept my grown up life
with its responsibilities
and playfulness all gone
I'll be decent
thorough and honest
and I'll not make a fuss
and not make a scene
and I'll accept my lot
as it has always been
I'll not glance
at the girl next to me
and I'll not want an
ice cream
nor will I tug her hair
and pretend it was someone else
I promise I won't make faces
and stick out my tongue!
nor smile, simply, at a swan
I'll pretend to be
serious
and studious
and always attentive
I'll not play with toys
and I'll not be
Well, I guess that's what I'll be:
I'll simply not be
I'm sorry
that I, simply, cannot do
===
Carolyn Ann
EDIT: I changed it. I didn't like one stanza that was a poem unto itself. So I removed it. :-)
I guess I should mention...
Sometimes the blog listing format isn't helpful. :-)
I should mention, in my wonder at the huge distance I, and others, cover on two motorized wheels, those who don't cover much distance at all.
There are times when I don't cover large distances. I go out, and stay within 30 or so miles of home. There are plenty who do that, too. A Sunday afternoon jaunt, covering a hundred miles or so is fine.
I'm sorry. I can't do that in the summer. Get me on a bike in the summer - I'm history for the rest of the day. :-)
Carolyn Ann - As long as you're ridin' :-D
PS In the middle of winter? I might go directly there and back. But I might not...
I should mention, in my wonder at the huge distance I, and others, cover on two motorized wheels, those who don't cover much distance at all.
There are times when I don't cover large distances. I go out, and stay within 30 or so miles of home. There are plenty who do that, too. A Sunday afternoon jaunt, covering a hundred miles or so is fine.
I'm sorry. I can't do that in the summer. Get me on a bike in the summer - I'm history for the rest of the day. :-)
Carolyn Ann - As long as you're ridin' :-D
PS In the middle of winter? I might go directly there and back. But I might not...
Riding (a long way)
I was thinking, as a I tootled back from the store on my Vespa, about the distances motorcyclists travel to good roads. I often chat with fellow motorheads, and the really serious ones travel vast distances.
For instance, I chatted with someone - not that long ago - and he told me regularly does 1,000 miles to get to good roads. He does the Mississippi and on down. Another chap told me a Saturday jaunt for him can be well over 500 miles. Heck, it can take me 70 miles to get home from the store! The only decent supermarket around here is a little over 20 miles away...
Another chap I chatted with, on the roadside of a mid-western town Main St, told me he'd done 5,000 miles in about 2 weeks. That's some riding! (What am I saying? I did 3,000 miles in 2 weeks, and a further 8,000 in 5 weeks!) I sure hope his bike was comfortable! Another guy told me he'd done two back to back 450 mile days on a big, modern, Triumph - and he was hurting. Those distances on a Honda GoldWing are probably appetizers.
I think nothing of 200+ miles on a trip. Except when I head to New York City. There, a city block can be a life time ordeal. If I go and fetch something, I can be gone 6 or 7 hours, for a 2 hour trip. Although I do avoid NYC, and even central NJ. Central Jersey, the drivers seem to behave as if they give fines for paying attention to the road. "I've pulled you over because you were clearly paying attention to the road! It's a $100 fine. Don't let it happen it again!" sayeth the cop.
The fine doubles in NYC and its environs.
Riding long distances just sort of happens, I think. You think "I'll just use the bike to fetch the milk". And before too long, you've been out so long the milk has curdled and you can sell it as vintage cheese. This is especially true when the weather is nice, the birds are singing and the roads are (generally) free ofidiots car drivers. You see a side road, and think "where does that go?" If you've got a GPS, you ask it. But where's the romance of that? Many riders prefer to look at the sun, pretend they know what time it is, underestimate it, and head along that road. And the next. And the next. By the time they stop, the sun hasn't just gone down - they've missed the entire week! Those phone calls back home can be a little awkward...
Personally, I blame the ride. :-)
Carolyn Ann - Remember: Keep the rubber side down. :-)
For instance, I chatted with someone - not that long ago - and he told me regularly does 1,000 miles to get to good roads. He does the Mississippi and on down. Another chap told me a Saturday jaunt for him can be well over 500 miles. Heck, it can take me 70 miles to get home from the store! The only decent supermarket around here is a little over 20 miles away...
Another chap I chatted with, on the roadside of a mid-western town Main St, told me he'd done 5,000 miles in about 2 weeks. That's some riding! (What am I saying? I did 3,000 miles in 2 weeks, and a further 8,000 in 5 weeks!) I sure hope his bike was comfortable! Another guy told me he'd done two back to back 450 mile days on a big, modern, Triumph - and he was hurting. Those distances on a Honda GoldWing are probably appetizers.
I think nothing of 200+ miles on a trip. Except when I head to New York City. There, a city block can be a life time ordeal. If I go and fetch something, I can be gone 6 or 7 hours, for a 2 hour trip. Although I do avoid NYC, and even central NJ. Central Jersey, the drivers seem to behave as if they give fines for paying attention to the road. "I've pulled you over because you were clearly paying attention to the road! It's a $100 fine. Don't let it happen it again!" sayeth the cop.
The fine doubles in NYC and its environs.
Riding long distances just sort of happens, I think. You think "I'll just use the bike to fetch the milk". And before too long, you've been out so long the milk has curdled and you can sell it as vintage cheese. This is especially true when the weather is nice, the birds are singing and the roads are (generally) free of
Personally, I blame the ride. :-)
Carolyn Ann - Remember: Keep the rubber side down. :-)
Planning a ride...
One of the things I've been spending a lot of time on is my forthcoming vacation. The Mrs is curious about it - she wants to meet me wherever my turn-around point is. I have two options: north, or south.
I'm tempted to take the Ducati to Connecticut and Massachusetts, but then again - the Duc on the Tail of the Dragon is really appealing. (That's on the North Carolina/Tennessee border.) Pick the right day, and I could spend the daylight hours just going back and forth, improving my times on those 318 curves in 11 miles. :-)
On the other hand, it would take a good, hard day of riding to get there; but I could take the Blue Ridge back. But that's heavily patrolled, and the speed limit could be exceeded by my Granny walking to the shops.
I've never been to Maine; a tour of the northern states and New England has appeal. But I've heard that's best in the fall - and I can't wait that long. That would be a ride for the Royal Enfield, which would be cheaper. Cheap is good, these days. Looking at how much we owe the taxman, cheap is astoundingly good. How do two people, who make diddly-squat, end up owing so much to the taxman?
New Hampshire would be nice; if I can manage early May, the lilacs will be out. Oh! Those lilacs! Such splendid blossoms - literally wherever you look! And there are some great old buildings, older than many in the UK, complete with their satellite dishes (not so hot) and their lilac trees. Oh, my!
I've been to NH a couple of times, in the early 90's, on business trips. I loved the scenery as I drove to the office at 6AM, but didn't see much of it at 11PM when I drove back to my digs. I do remember it was the first time I came across a raccoon in the middle of the road! I was astonished, and shaken, I called my boss to tell him. Yes, at nigh on 11PM. Fortunately I didn't hit the poor thing, but it definitely got bigger with each retelling. A few years later, I think it was comparable to the Empire State Building... :-)
Okay. So where? And which bike.
The problem with Connecticut and the Ducati is not the roads, but the township cops. Some towns have a reputation of hitting motorcyclists with tickets, just to discourage them. They are, naturally, the prettier and more affluent towns. On the other hand, it would be nice to see the Little Pink House - the one that caused America to re-evaluate its 5th Amendment takings principle. Seeing how America can (and does) change, and what causes those changes is really neat. And there are some incredible roads up there - get off the thruways, and you enter a system of roads that remind me of the old roads in England. You know - before they were all upgraded, modernized and monitored.
The other advantage the Connecticut/New England region has is that I have friends up there. They generally have a better grasp of grammar than me... But, again, the Fall is the thing up there.
But I would like to ride up through the horse country and rolling hills of Kansas. It's supposed to be really pretty out that way, and the pictures I've seen are just beautiful. I've seen Arkansas by moonlight (which was a breathtaking experience, by the way), and seeing some more of that region would be nice.
I will be camping, just about every night. The only nights I won't be is when the Mrs arrives. Wherever. I've got maps for about 10 states, and absolutely no idea which way I'll be headed. Camping equipment on the Ducati? Hmm. I'm sure it's possible, but is it wise? The Vespa can go about 50 or 60 miles on a tank of gas, so that's out as a long distance ride. (There are some folk who do a 3,000 mile jaunt on scooters; maybe I should ask them how they do the gas thing?) Besides, a rear tire on the Ducati lasts about 3,000 miles. Considering that I generally put a lot of miles on all my bikes - I'd have to get new tires half way through the trip. Which might not be possible. And spending close to $400 for a new tire, half way through a budget trip? Not my idea of "budget trip".
I was chatting with a fellow motorcyclist and he told me he rides out in western Pennsylvania. I do like those roads, but they're west of here, and I've been that way. Maybe later this year, but this vacation, I want to either go someplace I've never been, or back to the Tail of the Dragon.
Oh, if only all of my decisions carried such weight! :-)
Carolyn Ann
I'm tempted to take the Ducati to Connecticut and Massachusetts, but then again - the Duc on the Tail of the Dragon is really appealing. (That's on the North Carolina/Tennessee border.) Pick the right day, and I could spend the daylight hours just going back and forth, improving my times on those 318 curves in 11 miles. :-)
On the other hand, it would take a good, hard day of riding to get there; but I could take the Blue Ridge back. But that's heavily patrolled, and the speed limit could be exceeded by my Granny walking to the shops.
I've never been to Maine; a tour of the northern states and New England has appeal. But I've heard that's best in the fall - and I can't wait that long. That would be a ride for the Royal Enfield, which would be cheaper. Cheap is good, these days. Looking at how much we owe the taxman, cheap is astoundingly good. How do two people, who make diddly-squat, end up owing so much to the taxman?
New Hampshire would be nice; if I can manage early May, the lilacs will be out. Oh! Those lilacs! Such splendid blossoms - literally wherever you look! And there are some great old buildings, older than many in the UK, complete with their satellite dishes (not so hot) and their lilac trees. Oh, my!
I've been to NH a couple of times, in the early 90's, on business trips. I loved the scenery as I drove to the office at 6AM, but didn't see much of it at 11PM when I drove back to my digs. I do remember it was the first time I came across a raccoon in the middle of the road! I was astonished, and shaken, I called my boss to tell him. Yes, at nigh on 11PM. Fortunately I didn't hit the poor thing, but it definitely got bigger with each retelling. A few years later, I think it was comparable to the Empire State Building... :-)
Okay. So where? And which bike.
The problem with Connecticut and the Ducati is not the roads, but the township cops. Some towns have a reputation of hitting motorcyclists with tickets, just to discourage them. They are, naturally, the prettier and more affluent towns. On the other hand, it would be nice to see the Little Pink House - the one that caused America to re-evaluate its 5th Amendment takings principle. Seeing how America can (and does) change, and what causes those changes is really neat. And there are some incredible roads up there - get off the thruways, and you enter a system of roads that remind me of the old roads in England. You know - before they were all upgraded, modernized and monitored.
The other advantage the Connecticut/New England region has is that I have friends up there. They generally have a better grasp of grammar than me... But, again, the Fall is the thing up there.
But I would like to ride up through the horse country and rolling hills of Kansas. It's supposed to be really pretty out that way, and the pictures I've seen are just beautiful. I've seen Arkansas by moonlight (which was a breathtaking experience, by the way), and seeing some more of that region would be nice.
I will be camping, just about every night. The only nights I won't be is when the Mrs arrives. Wherever. I've got maps for about 10 states, and absolutely no idea which way I'll be headed. Camping equipment on the Ducati? Hmm. I'm sure it's possible, but is it wise? The Vespa can go about 50 or 60 miles on a tank of gas, so that's out as a long distance ride. (There are some folk who do a 3,000 mile jaunt on scooters; maybe I should ask them how they do the gas thing?) Besides, a rear tire on the Ducati lasts about 3,000 miles. Considering that I generally put a lot of miles on all my bikes - I'd have to get new tires half way through the trip. Which might not be possible. And spending close to $400 for a new tire, half way through a budget trip? Not my idea of "budget trip".
I was chatting with a fellow motorcyclist and he told me he rides out in western Pennsylvania. I do like those roads, but they're west of here, and I've been that way. Maybe later this year, but this vacation, I want to either go someplace I've never been, or back to the Tail of the Dragon.
Oh, if only all of my decisions carried such weight! :-)
Carolyn Ann
A nice afternoon surprise :-)
I'd had my coffee, figured out the problem I was working on, had left the coffee shop, and was just getting back onto the bike when... The Mrs turned up! Was I surprised! :-)
So now the choice was: stay and have something else, with the Mrs. Or go home and do some more tiling.
Oh, it wasn't a difficult choice. The tiling can be finished tomorrow. :-)
Carolyn Ann
PS I had a nice afternoon. How about you?
So now the choice was: stay and have something else, with the Mrs. Or go home and do some more tiling.
Oh, it wasn't a difficult choice. The tiling can be finished tomorrow. :-)
Carolyn Ann
PS I had a nice afternoon. How about you?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Oops...
Recently I said I had seen the new Camaro on the road... I hadn't - I'd seen the new Dodge Charger! I realized my error when I passed a Dodge dealer, this afternoon.
Is that my oops, or Chevy's - for producing a car so close to a competitor?
Hmm
Carolyn Ann
Is that my oops, or Chevy's - for producing a car so close to a competitor?
Hmm
Carolyn Ann
Fox News and irony...
Fox News has launched a new conservative opinion forum. Senior Vice President (huh? How many VP's does Fox have?!?) Joel Cheatwood said "People feel they're dictated to a lot by the media."
Right...
Fox News is infamous for its biased journalism, and it's lunatic right pundits. They seem to have a fundamental aversion to anyone who disagrees with them. And so, they obviously want to have a forum where "It's Time to Say NO to Biased Media and Say YES to Fair Play and Free Speech."
I wonder if they can spell "irony" over at Fox News?
Carolyn Ann
Right...
Fox News is infamous for its biased journalism, and it's lunatic right pundits. They seem to have a fundamental aversion to anyone who disagrees with them. And so, they obviously want to have a forum where "It's Time to Say NO to Biased Media and Say YES to Fair Play and Free Speech."
I wonder if they can spell "irony" over at Fox News?
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Science vs Religion?
I've noticed, over the years, that many confuse the purpose of science, and the touted purpose of religion. It's one of the things at the heart of the anti-science efforts going on in America.
So I thought I'd explain the difference: :-)
Science explains how the world works. That's it. Nothing else. No explorations of morality, of purpose, or anything like that. Explanations of why things are the way they are.
Religion explains how some think the world should behave. Religion is interpretation. The problems comes when interpretations differ...
Evangelists and fundamentalists (of whatever religion) often think the world revolves around their god; many others don't agree. Heck, the role of any god is not even clearly defined! The role of the Abrahamic god is particularly confusing. Especially for the religious. Some think their god is one thing, others another and there's yet more groups, with equally plausible and viable explanations, who say something else entirely. Quite a festival of opinion!
You don't see these debates in science. There, the debates revolve around what is the most likely explanation for some set of observations. That's it. The debates get personal, they are funded in peculiar ways and they can generate a lot of heat and controversy. But every argument must be supported by evidence. Measurable, predictable, testable and accurate evidence. What the evidence tells us can be interpreted in different ways, but each explanation can be tested and verified or discarded. It might take some time before the most reasonable explanation comes along, but that doesn't mean a thing. It just means it took a long time for a reasonable explanation to come along. Sometimes additional evidence is needed, sometimes it just needs someone, or a group, to ask just the right question.
Religion depends on the interpretation of a series of anecdotes, dictates and sayings. It is not subject to testing - your tomato can be my tom-ah-to. And therein lies the problem with religion, and with the concept of a god.
Carolyn Ann
So I thought I'd explain the difference: :-)
Science explains how the world works. That's it. Nothing else. No explorations of morality, of purpose, or anything like that. Explanations of why things are the way they are.
Religion explains how some think the world should behave. Religion is interpretation. The problems comes when interpretations differ...
Evangelists and fundamentalists (of whatever religion) often think the world revolves around their god; many others don't agree. Heck, the role of any god is not even clearly defined! The role of the Abrahamic god is particularly confusing. Especially for the religious. Some think their god is one thing, others another and there's yet more groups, with equally plausible and viable explanations, who say something else entirely. Quite a festival of opinion!
You don't see these debates in science. There, the debates revolve around what is the most likely explanation for some set of observations. That's it. The debates get personal, they are funded in peculiar ways and they can generate a lot of heat and controversy. But every argument must be supported by evidence. Measurable, predictable, testable and accurate evidence. What the evidence tells us can be interpreted in different ways, but each explanation can be tested and verified or discarded. It might take some time before the most reasonable explanation comes along, but that doesn't mean a thing. It just means it took a long time for a reasonable explanation to come along. Sometimes additional evidence is needed, sometimes it just needs someone, or a group, to ask just the right question.
Religion depends on the interpretation of a series of anecdotes, dictates and sayings. It is not subject to testing - your tomato can be my tom-ah-to. And therein lies the problem with religion, and with the concept of a god.
Carolyn Ann
What a race!
Honda must be kicking themselves this morning. They departed Formula 1 in a bit of a hurry, and their old team, now Brawn Racing with Virgin as a sponsor, did an amazing one-two, even taking pole and second place on the grid! It was a masterful performance by a team that didn't even exist, 1 month ago; Jensen Button led the entire race - despite a threatening glitch in his last pit stop - and easily outpaced the field. Rubens Barrichello, his teammate, had a more interesting race...
The expected first corner massacre turned out to be a small riot, and a terrible start by Barrichello made things very uncertain at that corner. There were some collisions, and Barrichello lost part of his front wing. Heikki Kovalainen (Mercedes-McLaren) was out of the race, and the rest of the field tried to figure out their new cars in an hostile environment.
Lewis Hamilton was amazing, but not well shown. He started 18th, and came in 4th, and then because 3rd place Jarno Trulli screwed up, overtaking during a safety car period - Hamilton gained 3rd. Most of the excitment was mid-pack, and the battle between Sebastian Vettel and Robert Kubica was definitely action packed - right up to the point where Kubica went to overtake Vettel, and Vettel tried to close the door, but too late. Both cars were finished, 3 laps from the end. Farcically, Vettel tried to drive his damaged car to somewere - his left front wheel was hanging off, there were bits of car being left everywhere.
It was an exciting race - KERS (the new kinetic energy recovery system) and the changes to the the wings, new rules and not optimized tires (slicks, for the first time in 10 or 11 years) made for some tension-filled racing. I was literally on the edge of my seat with the Kubica/Vettel battle, and laughing when Timo Glock was told, in a radio message, to put the pressure on Fernando Alonso - perhaps Alonso would make a mistake...
So, what was bad about the race? Formula 1 provides the TV coverage, and it was close to awful. One day they'll invest in the necessary HD cameras, but not for this race. Forget about trying to do whole split-screen thing - NASCAR is light years ahead of F1 in terms of TV coverage. SpeedTV needs to get Varsha, Matchett and Hobbs out to the races, not esconsed in a studio a zillion miles away. For a sport that is so dependent on television, the coverage is so 1990's it's almost painful. The Formula 1 website is not exactly a vision of advanced technology, either...
The safety car was not deployed quickly enough when someone (I forget who, perhaps Nakajima?) spun off, leaving the half way across the track and big bits of the same car all over the track. This was then compounded by having the safety car out for way too long! There was a period where the safety car was waving drivers past, which looked nonsensical; I think it was some vague and ridiculous effort to get everyone lined up in the proper order. Whatever it was - it looked stupid, and was definitely amateur hour.
Sam Posey did a spot where he extolled the beauty of the new Formula 1 cars. He asserted that one or two would start to look beautiful, and that a cars beauty is in its function. I'm not sure why he said all that. The cars are as ugly as sin, and no amount of winning will make them anything but homely.
(I see Vettel has been penalized grid positions for next week, and the team fined $50,000 for his 3-wheeled effort.)
All in all, it was an exciting race, the cars remain ugly, and the unlikely team started well, and won. Now, all that has to happen is Formula 1 to catch up with the rest of the TV world.
Carolyn Ann
The expected first corner massacre turned out to be a small riot, and a terrible start by Barrichello made things very uncertain at that corner. There were some collisions, and Barrichello lost part of his front wing. Heikki Kovalainen (Mercedes-McLaren) was out of the race, and the rest of the field tried to figure out their new cars in an hostile environment.
Lewis Hamilton was amazing, but not well shown. He started 18th, and came in 4th, and then because 3rd place Jarno Trulli screwed up, overtaking during a safety car period - Hamilton gained 3rd. Most of the excitment was mid-pack, and the battle between Sebastian Vettel and Robert Kubica was definitely action packed - right up to the point where Kubica went to overtake Vettel, and Vettel tried to close the door, but too late. Both cars were finished, 3 laps from the end. Farcically, Vettel tried to drive his damaged car to somewere - his left front wheel was hanging off, there were bits of car being left everywhere.
It was an exciting race - KERS (the new kinetic energy recovery system) and the changes to the the wings, new rules and not optimized tires (slicks, for the first time in 10 or 11 years) made for some tension-filled racing. I was literally on the edge of my seat with the Kubica/Vettel battle, and laughing when Timo Glock was told, in a radio message, to put the pressure on Fernando Alonso - perhaps Alonso would make a mistake...
So, what was bad about the race? Formula 1 provides the TV coverage, and it was close to awful. One day they'll invest in the necessary HD cameras, but not for this race. Forget about trying to do whole split-screen thing - NASCAR is light years ahead of F1 in terms of TV coverage. SpeedTV needs to get Varsha, Matchett and Hobbs out to the races, not esconsed in a studio a zillion miles away. For a sport that is so dependent on television, the coverage is so 1990's it's almost painful. The Formula 1 website is not exactly a vision of advanced technology, either...
The safety car was not deployed quickly enough when someone (I forget who, perhaps Nakajima?) spun off, leaving the half way across the track and big bits of the same car all over the track. This was then compounded by having the safety car out for way too long! There was a period where the safety car was waving drivers past, which looked nonsensical; I think it was some vague and ridiculous effort to get everyone lined up in the proper order. Whatever it was - it looked stupid, and was definitely amateur hour.
Sam Posey did a spot where he extolled the beauty of the new Formula 1 cars. He asserted that one or two would start to look beautiful, and that a cars beauty is in its function. I'm not sure why he said all that. The cars are as ugly as sin, and no amount of winning will make them anything but homely.
(I see Vettel has been penalized grid positions for next week, and the team fined $50,000 for his 3-wheeled effort.)
All in all, it was an exciting race, the cars remain ugly, and the unlikely team started well, and won. Now, all that has to happen is Formula 1 to catch up with the rest of the TV world.
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Don't be evil (unless it's convenient)
"Planet Google", by Randall Stross shows the flip side of Google. In this book, Mr Stross takes a more measured look at the company - at how it's built, how it is better than its competition, who its real competitor is, and the cost of all that secrecy.
I'm only half way through the book, but I can tell you Google is not a proponent of democracy! They purchase land, and start building with no public oversight. When they pick a town, they force city officials to sign non-disclosure agreements - even if such practices aren't illegal, they are downright unethical! Those huge data centers provide few, if any, jobs to a region. The railroading of the data centers, the secrecy they enforce - all serve Google, not the public.
I couldn't help but wonder how they reconcile those behaviors with their "don't be evil" motto. Getting local officials to sign NDA's is anti-democratic at best; it's actively thwarting democracy, at worst.
Google is run by a lot of smart people. But one thing I've noticed about groups of smart people: they never stop to think if they should do something. Google needs a new motto: Don't be evil (unless it's convenient for us).
I wonder if any of those genii in Google's employ can spell "hypocrisy"?
Carolyn Ann
I'm only half way through the book, but I can tell you Google is not a proponent of democracy! They purchase land, and start building with no public oversight. When they pick a town, they force city officials to sign non-disclosure agreements - even if such practices aren't illegal, they are downright unethical! Those huge data centers provide few, if any, jobs to a region. The railroading of the data centers, the secrecy they enforce - all serve Google, not the public.
I couldn't help but wonder how they reconcile those behaviors with their "don't be evil" motto. Getting local officials to sign NDA's is anti-democratic at best; it's actively thwarting democracy, at worst.
Google is run by a lot of smart people. But one thing I've noticed about groups of smart people: they never stop to think if they should do something. Google needs a new motto: Don't be evil (unless it's convenient for us).
I wonder if any of those genii in Google's employ can spell "hypocrisy"?
Carolyn Ann
The lilac dress
The dress hangs there
glamorous, enticing
a dream
a partner, swinging
the singer croons
a romance
and Benny Goodman plays tight
like the bodice,
with a big lilac bow
(tied at the back)
heels dancing across the floor
the skirt
billowing
the stockings adding
to the swish
wonderful heels, glittering,
dancing across a floor
a lilac dress
hanging in a closet
he closes the door
quietly
and turns away
glamorous, enticing
a dream
a partner, swinging
the singer croons
a romance
and Benny Goodman plays tight
like the bodice,
with a big lilac bow
(tied at the back)
heels dancing across the floor
the skirt
billowing
the stockings adding
to the swish
wonderful heels, glittering,
dancing across a floor
a lilac dress
hanging in a closet
he closes the door
quietly
and turns away
Seeing a dream
Ephemeral
silent
ghostly
candid
succor
lasting days
a nightmare
a dream
a soliloquy
real
false
fake
deceit
truth
is there a difference?
a dream, perhaps
to have
to see
what is there to see?
silent
ghostly
candid
succor
lasting days
a nightmare
a dream
a soliloquy
real
false
fake
deceit
truth
is there a difference?
a dream, perhaps
to have
to see
what is there to see?
Looking for Richard?
I've just watched "The Dirty Dozen", and am now in the middle of that incredible scene where Richard tells Anne he killed her family because, well, he wanted her for himself.
"Be sudden in your execution!" Ooh. Chilling words. Such beauty, such death. Gloucester is telling his assassins to not be swayed by pretty words from Clarence. Alec Baldwin plays a wonderful Clarence, and Bruce MacVittie plays his executioner. An amazing, simply amazing, performance. (I've not seen MacVittie in much, but he sure is a fine actor.)
Al Pacino, in "Looking for Richard" doesn't need a costume - he becomes Richard, in a baseball cap and a ragged coat. I never tire of watching that documentary. It's worth seeing Al in his glory! (For some reason, I've never seen his Shylock!)
Jeff Jarvis, in his "What Would Google Do" spoke of how the TV watching public goes to quality - it defines what is "good". I disagree, quite vehemently. If those who watched TV were artisans of quality - they would demand Shakespeare, Milton, Whitman and so on. Instead we have "The Soprano's", reality shows and dancing with somewhat famous folk. I think H. L. Mencken was right: you can never underestimate the taste of the public.
(Al Pacino has just noted that he loves the pictures in Shakespeare. So do I. :-) )
Kevin Spacey is a delicious Buckingham. Simply delicious.
I never did get Buckingham. He puts his lot in with a known liar and a suspected murderer? You see the same role played out a few times in Shakespeare. Unfortunately, not being a Shakespeare scholar, I can't recall them off the top of my head. (Maybe that was an unfortunate choice of word? :-) )
What's that saying? There are only 50 plots, and Shakespeare wrote most of them?
(Oh, my - Gloucester is seeing off the young Prince: oh, how creepy that man is! Gloucester/Pacino, not the young Prince.) I lived in London for nigh on a year, have visited in many times and I have never actually been to the Tower of London. Amazing, but true.
"Now, my Lord, What shall we do, if we perceive Lord Hastings will not yield to our complots?" Oh! The language! It's enough to make me faint. :-)
The strawberries are on the table, and the deeds are being done. By goodness sake: you could los your head over the politics of the day! (Perhaps we should bring such penalty back? Hmm. Maybe not. The entire government would be stunted.) Such violence!
Ooh - Pacino is so good. He doesn't alter his accent, but it really doesn't matter - he is Richard. Is there little wonder that Shakespeare is so perennial? I've seen a few productions that have changed, updated, the Bard's words - but they are always a poor substitute for the actual words. Most of these updates take on the easy plays - Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, and a few others. No one seems to take on the big or deep productions.
"Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead!" Buckingham has figured out who he's working for. And I think Richard just figured out what Buckingham is about. Oddly, I've just read "No Angel" by James Dobyns (Nils Johnson-Shelton as co-author). The Hells Angels are of a similar ilk, it seems: you do what is demanded, no questions asked. Buckingham is a bit like a Hells Angel prospect who refuses to kill. Evil, thorough evil, is not just within the capacity of Richard - he is thorough evil. It really is strange how fiction and reality coincide. Although it is often noted that reality gets away with things no writer of fiction would ever dream of attempting!
There is nought but evil in Richard the Third. "I am so far deep in blood" notes Richard - oh, isn't he just? Sometimes I wonder if Richard 3rd is the root of "The Godfather". The stories are astonisingly similar in so many ways. Heck, even the final days of Hitler could be cast within Richard 3rd! Stalin? Not so - everyone waited until he was thoroughly dead before denouncing him.
I love that - the chap says to Pacino "I think your Richard has earned his death, you should think about how you're going to do it!" You can see it in Pacino's face: he has to. Ah, we have the ghosts - those ghosts, those infamous ghosts. Our conscience, our bloody deeds, perhaps? We may not slice and dice, these days, but ambition sure has a cost.
A careless death, perhaps? Ghosts, inflicting their vengeance? Richard is not so lucky. The audience will have its vengeance upon the man! Those he hath murdered, too. And so will the playwright. Of course - the timeless implication has been proven true. We may not pay with our lives, but these days I fancy we perhaps pay with our lack of life?
The broken staves of our lives, our horse - the one we never bothered to collect - nowhere in sight, we are left to our fate. Which is life, isn't it? My kingdom for a horse - but it were so that we had a kingdom to give, for such a beast!
Carolyn Ann
"Be sudden in your execution!" Ooh. Chilling words. Such beauty, such death. Gloucester is telling his assassins to not be swayed by pretty words from Clarence. Alec Baldwin plays a wonderful Clarence, and Bruce MacVittie plays his executioner. An amazing, simply amazing, performance. (I've not seen MacVittie in much, but he sure is a fine actor.)
Al Pacino, in "Looking for Richard" doesn't need a costume - he becomes Richard, in a baseball cap and a ragged coat. I never tire of watching that documentary. It's worth seeing Al in his glory! (For some reason, I've never seen his Shylock!)
Jeff Jarvis, in his "What Would Google Do" spoke of how the TV watching public goes to quality - it defines what is "good". I disagree, quite vehemently. If those who watched TV were artisans of quality - they would demand Shakespeare, Milton, Whitman and so on. Instead we have "The Soprano's", reality shows and dancing with somewhat famous folk. I think H. L. Mencken was right: you can never underestimate the taste of the public.
(Al Pacino has just noted that he loves the pictures in Shakespeare. So do I. :-) )
Kevin Spacey is a delicious Buckingham. Simply delicious.
I never did get Buckingham. He puts his lot in with a known liar and a suspected murderer? You see the same role played out a few times in Shakespeare. Unfortunately, not being a Shakespeare scholar, I can't recall them off the top of my head. (Maybe that was an unfortunate choice of word? :-) )
What's that saying? There are only 50 plots, and Shakespeare wrote most of them?
(Oh, my - Gloucester is seeing off the young Prince: oh, how creepy that man is! Gloucester/Pacino, not the young Prince.) I lived in London for nigh on a year, have visited in many times and I have never actually been to the Tower of London. Amazing, but true.
"Now, my Lord, What shall we do, if we perceive Lord Hastings will not yield to our complots?" Oh! The language! It's enough to make me faint. :-)
The strawberries are on the table, and the deeds are being done. By goodness sake: you could los your head over the politics of the day! (Perhaps we should bring such penalty back? Hmm. Maybe not. The entire government would be stunted.) Such violence!
Ooh - Pacino is so good. He doesn't alter his accent, but it really doesn't matter - he is Richard. Is there little wonder that Shakespeare is so perennial? I've seen a few productions that have changed, updated, the Bard's words - but they are always a poor substitute for the actual words. Most of these updates take on the easy plays - Hamlet, Romeo & Juliet, and a few others. No one seems to take on the big or deep productions.
"Shall I be plain? I wish the bastards dead!" Buckingham has figured out who he's working for. And I think Richard just figured out what Buckingham is about. Oddly, I've just read "No Angel" by James Dobyns (Nils Johnson-Shelton as co-author). The Hells Angels are of a similar ilk, it seems: you do what is demanded, no questions asked. Buckingham is a bit like a Hells Angel prospect who refuses to kill. Evil, thorough evil, is not just within the capacity of Richard - he is thorough evil. It really is strange how fiction and reality coincide. Although it is often noted that reality gets away with things no writer of fiction would ever dream of attempting!
There is nought but evil in Richard the Third. "I am so far deep in blood" notes Richard - oh, isn't he just? Sometimes I wonder if Richard 3rd is the root of "The Godfather". The stories are astonisingly similar in so many ways. Heck, even the final days of Hitler could be cast within Richard 3rd! Stalin? Not so - everyone waited until he was thoroughly dead before denouncing him.
I love that - the chap says to Pacino "I think your Richard has earned his death, you should think about how you're going to do it!" You can see it in Pacino's face: he has to. Ah, we have the ghosts - those ghosts, those infamous ghosts. Our conscience, our bloody deeds, perhaps? We may not slice and dice, these days, but ambition sure has a cost.
A careless death, perhaps? Ghosts, inflicting their vengeance? Richard is not so lucky. The audience will have its vengeance upon the man! Those he hath murdered, too. And so will the playwright. Of course - the timeless implication has been proven true. We may not pay with our lives, but these days I fancy we perhaps pay with our lack of life?
The broken staves of our lives, our horse - the one we never bothered to collect - nowhere in sight, we are left to our fate. Which is life, isn't it? My kingdom for a horse - but it were so that we had a kingdom to give, for such a beast!
Carolyn Ann
Friday, March 27, 2009
Well, I got up before noon...
Just a few minutes before. :-) I'm drinking coffee wondering what happened to the world. It seems to have righted itself: George Bush apologized for his Presidency, the financial wizards of AIG pledged to give back the taxpayer every cent from their own pockets, Bernie Madoff's punishment was no jail time, but he was thrown into a pack of his investors in a quickly constructed amphitheater. I wore a nice summer dress, and no one cared and Dick Cheney was put in a zoo.
It was somewhere around there I realized I was either fantasizing, or I was stuck in a particularly hideous nightmare.
:-) Carolyn Ann
Added: Huh? This is just too uncanny.
It was somewhere around there I realized I was either fantasizing, or I was stuck in a particularly hideous nightmare.
:-) Carolyn Ann
Added: Huh? This is just too uncanny.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Who's business is it?
The phone rings, and a heavily accented man asks for someone I've never heard of. So I say "there's no here by that name." He says: "What is your name, sir?", I reply "That's none of your business!" He responds: "It is my business." I didn't bother waiting for any more conversation.
Ah well: I tried to be helpful.
Sodding cheek of it.
Carolyn Ann
Ah well: I tried to be helpful.
Sodding cheek of it.
Carolyn Ann
Some not so interesting mail...
Over the last few months, I've been getting magazines I didn't ask for. Usually sample copies, or "special offers" that last a few months, and then they send a bill. Which I ignore.
The magazines are betting books, and one or two are hunting and gun ownership. "Outdoor living" magazines, they call themselves. They're addressed to Carolyn, and arrive in the recycling the moment either my wife or I spot them. For a short time, I got a few bits of right wing propaganda.
I'm guessing the motorcycle magazines I subscribe to sold my name on. (I subscribe as Carolyn.) It's presumed that because I own a bike, I'm a right wing, outdoorsman and hunter who's interested in betting on sporting events. Sure I am.
Such a waste of trees. Oh well: at least they get recycled pretty quickly.
Carolyn Ann
The magazines are betting books, and one or two are hunting and gun ownership. "Outdoor living" magazines, they call themselves. They're addressed to Carolyn, and arrive in the recycling the moment either my wife or I spot them. For a short time, I got a few bits of right wing propaganda.
I'm guessing the motorcycle magazines I subscribe to sold my name on. (I subscribe as Carolyn.) It's presumed that because I own a bike, I'm a right wing, outdoorsman and hunter who's interested in betting on sporting events. Sure I am.
Such a waste of trees. Oh well: at least they get recycled pretty quickly.
Carolyn Ann
Obama on Leno (redux'd?)
There's a decent amount of chat re Obama's appearance on Jay Leno. Most of it, like Christopher Buckley's erudite observations, is that he's trivializing the Majesty of the Office to which he was elected.
Poppycock.
This is a President who knows how to reach his audience. During the campaign, he used Facebook with skill; he emails, he uses a Blackberry and he knows how to use a computer. He understands that we live in a media-driven age. He also understands the power of celebrity.
When John McCain branded him a celebrity, it back-fired. He wasn't quite one at the time, but he certainly became one after that. Now, he's on the TV so much it's as if he had a contract! The previous guy was rarely seen - except in carefully controlled venues, filled with the few people who supported him. Obama can be seen everywhere - online, and off. I'm not sure if it's too much, but it's certainly a change!
Obama is trying to push through an enormous amount of change, and he's doing it quickly. America needs it; the last president to bring such vast and far-reaching changes was Jack Kennedy. To do that, he has to reach out to new venues. Online is fine, but not everyone lives online - a lot of the people he needs support from aren't online all the time. The best way to reach them? Popular shows. Op-ed pieces in 30 international newspapers. Being on the TV - a lot. He's a communicator, let's allow him to communicate. It sure makes a change from the last guy!
So let's not worry that he might have been less presidential with his appearance - let's help the man pass the most comprehensive set of changes America has seen in decades! Unlike Bush, who was, in all respects but chronological, the last President of the 20th century - Obama is definitely the first president of the new century. Change came to Washington - including with it, a change in what is appropriate behavior for a president. The president is not a monarch - and the President of the United States has one very critical role to play: he needs to make sure his bosses understand what he's doing. You know: the voters, and those who support him. Going on Leno was a refreshing change, not least because it helped shape the impression that he's not a stuffed shirt. Unlike the previous guy.
Carolyn Ann
Poppycock.
This is a President who knows how to reach his audience. During the campaign, he used Facebook with skill; he emails, he uses a Blackberry and he knows how to use a computer. He understands that we live in a media-driven age. He also understands the power of celebrity.
When John McCain branded him a celebrity, it back-fired. He wasn't quite one at the time, but he certainly became one after that. Now, he's on the TV so much it's as if he had a contract! The previous guy was rarely seen - except in carefully controlled venues, filled with the few people who supported him. Obama can be seen everywhere - online, and off. I'm not sure if it's too much, but it's certainly a change!
Obama is trying to push through an enormous amount of change, and he's doing it quickly. America needs it; the last president to bring such vast and far-reaching changes was Jack Kennedy. To do that, he has to reach out to new venues. Online is fine, but not everyone lives online - a lot of the people he needs support from aren't online all the time. The best way to reach them? Popular shows. Op-ed pieces in 30 international newspapers. Being on the TV - a lot. He's a communicator, let's allow him to communicate. It sure makes a change from the last guy!
So let's not worry that he might have been less presidential with his appearance - let's help the man pass the most comprehensive set of changes America has seen in decades! Unlike Bush, who was, in all respects but chronological, the last President of the 20th century - Obama is definitely the first president of the new century. Change came to Washington - including with it, a change in what is appropriate behavior for a president. The president is not a monarch - and the President of the United States has one very critical role to play: he needs to make sure his bosses understand what he's doing. You know: the voters, and those who support him. Going on Leno was a refreshing change, not least because it helped shape the impression that he's not a stuffed shirt. Unlike the previous guy.
Carolyn Ann
An ad for the "bathroom issue'...
The transgender community is up in arms, quite rightly, about the "bathroom issue". The religious right want to prevent the transgendered from using the ladies, and the transgendered seem to be stuck on some equality issue.
How about this:
The transgendered lass, forced to use the Men's, because of draconian laws, is assaulted while trying to use the bathroom. The ad ends with the picture of the lass, bleeding and hurt on the restroom floor. The voice over says "Is this what we stand for?"
Another could be the same thing as the religious right: transwoman goes into the Men's, predator follows her - and the parting shot is the transwoman, lying there beaten and bloody. The voice over could say "She's got beaten because she wasn't allowed to use the proper bathroom". (Not terribly good, I'm sure someone could come up with a better voice over.)
Is that direct enough? Brutal enough? Because this isn't an issue about equality - it's about safety. Women want to feel safe, going into the Ladies. But the arguments the religious right put forward seem designed to exclude, to deny, rights to others. They are the arguments of exclusion. But the transgender community has to address the problem of sexual predators. Denying the right to question their identity is a big part of it: the intransigence of "some" plays to the goals of the opposition. Allow the questioning of identity, but do not deny the right of anyone to dress as they wish, and claim their identity as they wish - that is the way forward.
Put it to the religious right: you are able to wear what you want, and declare your own identity. Do they feel comfortable exposing you to rape? How does that coincide with their religion? How does that coincide with being American?
In Levittown, the goal was to keep blacks out. In bathrooms, the goal is to keep the transgendered in their closets. The transgendered should not be responding to those arguments - that's letting the opposition dictate the conversation. The transgendered should be arguing that they deserve the right to safety, too! The mob does not have any rights that supercede individual rights. We all have to go to bathroom, and that should not be a weapon to deny some the right to be who they are, or wear a dress because they feel pretty, that day.
If you're contemplating an ad, feel free to use this idea. I'm quite sure someone else has thought of it, but it came to me while I was in the tub, this evening. I think it would be pretty powerful. Of course, someone could do a better tagline, but the idea is there.
I don't have the equipment, nor the money to buy it. And I'm not American - it would be grossly unfair for me to actively participate in what is an American conversation. I can, as a citizen of the world, suggest counters to the religious right. Take the argument to them - don't be demure. Be aggressive. After all, it's only the right to live with an expectation of safety that's at stake.
Someone: run with it. Please?
Carolyn Ann
How about this:
The transgendered lass, forced to use the Men's, because of draconian laws, is assaulted while trying to use the bathroom. The ad ends with the picture of the lass, bleeding and hurt on the restroom floor. The voice over says "Is this what we stand for?"
Another could be the same thing as the religious right: transwoman goes into the Men's, predator follows her - and the parting shot is the transwoman, lying there beaten and bloody. The voice over could say "She's got beaten because she wasn't allowed to use the proper bathroom". (Not terribly good, I'm sure someone could come up with a better voice over.)
Is that direct enough? Brutal enough? Because this isn't an issue about equality - it's about safety. Women want to feel safe, going into the Ladies. But the arguments the religious right put forward seem designed to exclude, to deny, rights to others. They are the arguments of exclusion. But the transgender community has to address the problem of sexual predators. Denying the right to question their identity is a big part of it: the intransigence of "some" plays to the goals of the opposition. Allow the questioning of identity, but do not deny the right of anyone to dress as they wish, and claim their identity as they wish - that is the way forward.
Put it to the religious right: you are able to wear what you want, and declare your own identity. Do they feel comfortable exposing you to rape? How does that coincide with their religion? How does that coincide with being American?
In Levittown, the goal was to keep blacks out. In bathrooms, the goal is to keep the transgendered in their closets. The transgendered should not be responding to those arguments - that's letting the opposition dictate the conversation. The transgendered should be arguing that they deserve the right to safety, too! The mob does not have any rights that supercede individual rights. We all have to go to bathroom, and that should not be a weapon to deny some the right to be who they are, or wear a dress because they feel pretty, that day.
If you're contemplating an ad, feel free to use this idea. I'm quite sure someone else has thought of it, but it came to me while I was in the tub, this evening. I think it would be pretty powerful. Of course, someone could do a better tagline, but the idea is there.
I don't have the equipment, nor the money to buy it. And I'm not American - it would be grossly unfair for me to actively participate in what is an American conversation. I can, as a citizen of the world, suggest counters to the religious right. Take the argument to them - don't be demure. Be aggressive. After all, it's only the right to live with an expectation of safety that's at stake.
Someone: run with it. Please?
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
So, what would Google do?
Jeff Jarvis - of BuzzMachine fame - has written a book.
Personally, I was a bit astonished. I don't follow Jeff's blog (I sort of knew he had one, but never bothered to check it out, if he did. He does. And I still haven't checked it out...) ... All of sudden I get that whole "follow" thing. Call me slow (okay, call me slower than molasses), but I never thought about that term until just now. I dismissed it as some "new Internet/new age" thingy not worth paying attention to. Just goes to show!) Where was I? Oh yes.
I was a bit surprised - Jeff Jarvis is someone known to live more online than off. I'm not sure if that is an accurate summary of his life - I sincerely hope it isn't! - but that's how it seems. I sort of knew he taught a course, and he says he's not in it for the money. He reveal he earns about $90,000 per year from his teaching. Right. He should talk to some of the ESL teachers at his college. They really aren't in it for the money. Try $23.50 to $28 an hour, no benefits, no vacation, no tenure. No chance at tenure. (Now talk to me about auto workers, mechanics and so on...)
Ever since I first came across Jarvis I've thought him arrogant.
(Just to be sure: he think what he likes of me. I have no say, nor do I wish one, in the matter. I happen to know an ESL teacher who survives, by whim of her boss, on the figures I gave. Those are NJ state-mandated earnings and conditions, by the way.)
His book (in which he doesn't reveal how much his advance was - there is, apparently a limit to how much he reveals - but we can summarize that it was over $100,000) is a piece of work.
You get 5 books for the price of 1. Two are well written, thoughtful and thought-provoking essays. The other 3? I wish he hadn't written them. Jeff Jarvis makes the same mistake most geeks make: they assume that because they are clever, they can figure anything out! He's older than me - he should know, by now, some things defy explanation. Indeed, I notice he took on only the easy problems to Googlify. Abortion? What life means? The meaning and role of government? None of these issues was handled - instead he touted that data is everything.
Data is nothing. Information provides the basis for clues. Inherent feeling? A lackadaisical sentiment, not worth considering. I think he devoted, at most, two sentences to that. Both of them were disparaging.
Well, Mr Jarvis: how about this? I didn't troubleshoot a network by data. I developed a feel for it, and that helped me more than any data out there. As a mechanic, I listen to an engine. As a motorcyclist, I feel the bike. Hell, I'm part of the bike, or the bike is a part of me. As a woodworker, I feel what the wood is telling me. None of it data - not a bit. Data is the geeks answer and the artists anathema.
I couldn't carve a mahogany heart for my Mrs without understanding what the wood was telling me. I can't describe it any other way: the wood told me where to cut. A mechanical feel for wood leads to Ikea; a feel for what the wood says leads to art. Just look at the great woodworkers for proof!
Mr Jarvis is likely to turn the question around - he's exceptionally clever - but in doing so, he would reveal the weakness in his argument. His argument is that Google is Levittown, translated to the Internet. A be-all, end-all, desirable location. It just doesn't come with Bill Levitt's racism. It comes with its own prejudices: the fact that the leading sites garner the most traffic, and coming in second is not even worth the cost of entry. The fact that data is all. Data would not supply such groundbreakers as the portable computer, the Newton, the Palm Pilot. All of these provided the background for the iPhone - but that's ignored.
As any reader of this blog knows, I'm a bit hypocritical in my criticism and use of the English language. I use it lazily, and then condemn others for the same sin. Mr Jarvis takes it one step further: he seems to consider the English language an impediment to getting his point across! His use of metaphor is, well, ribald. His imagery shows more enthusiasm than skill. His use of language is something you try, as reader, to ignore - because his ideas are, quite frankly, brilliant.
In the two pieces worth reading (the start, and the end; ignore the rest - you won't miss a thing), Mr Jarvis challenges the world. Okay, his essay about car manufacturers should be read, absorbed and used by GM and others. Let's make that 2 essays worth reading, one that is of specialized interest and 2 more that aren't worth much at all. In the two pieces worth reading, you really need to pay attention. Mr Jarvis discovers a latent talent for thinking about the words he uses, and he employs it well. He describes a vision that is both terrifying (although, oddly, he pays no attention to that) and liberating. He takes the ideas first put forth in "The Cathedral and Bazaar" and gives them practical purpose. Something beyond the scope of Linux and other difficult to use, but free, software. He describes how we might be able to achieve a future that's based on what we know, and not on what the government and corporations withhold. He describes a First Amendment Absolutist (his word) would love, and anyone who thinks freedom of expression should have responsibility will hate.
He adriotly notes that you can't squash free speech on the Internet: ban it here, it will arise over there. That is what I have found. Questioning Transphobia bars me from saying something, so I use the power of the Internet to say it, elsewhere. QT discriminated against me, because the owners don't like real challenge, but while they can curtail my mutterings in their forum - they can't elsewhere. It would be foolish of them to try.
Ultimately what Mr Jarvis puts forth is a world that reminds me of Kafka, Orwell and Bradbury. I don't know if Mr Jarvis has read Shakespeare's tragedies, or even his intellectual challenge: a Midsummer Night's Dream. Halfway through the book, I wondered if Mr Jarvis had ever read Ginsberg's Howl. I decided he couldn't have. What Mr Jarvis described is not the liberation of the individual - but the enabling of the mob. He needs to read David Kushner's "Levittown" to truly understand what the mob is.
I fear for free expression in this brave new world. I fear for the individual, the right to privacy, the guarantees provided by the English Bill of Rights and the American 4th Amendment. It would be a world where the vocally inappropriate are silenced, and the right to expression depends on a few, inappropriately powerful, influencers. Sure you can disagree. But in this mob-ruled, populist Internet: who's going to pay attention to you? We're already there, unfortunately.
mMr Jarvis seems to think that a few words tossed in one direction, or another, will placate and address criticisms. He's wrong. The young entrepeneur might not know what he or she can't do: but the greybeards do have something to add to the conversation. He seems, without expressly saying so, that they are bygones. Worth only their money.
His other problem is with atoms. Carefully arranged collections of atoms provide most of the world's growth. It's when people stop buying products that we have problems; indeed, he summarized the entire credit collapse in two paragraphs. I was surprised it took him that long! Needless to say: I disagree with his summary.
The biggest quibble I have with Mr Jarvis' book is his language. It is lazy. The only thing that kept me reading was his ideas - they really are pertinent. Valeria, the other day, came up with an idea that I was genius. Others might think it the work of a genius; looking at the back cover, I'd say a fair few think him as the next Da Vinci.
Ultimately, this is a populist work. He's never explicity inaccurate, but he's rarely entirely accurate. His idea that the population of TV viewers determine what is in good taste is facetious, at best. His extension of that into the Internet belies any understanding of the Mencken's old: quote "Never underestimate the bad taste of the American public". If good taste were so predominant, we would not be such an illiterate people. (This applies to the British, too!) The masses do not determine what is good on the TV. They watch what is available. Why do you think "Law & Order" is so popular? And that's Mr Jervis' failing: he espouses that the mass of people determine what is good. They don't - they simply determine what is popular.
And his vision of a Google-enabled future? It sounds dreadful. But I will, inevitably, play my role.
ADDED: The power of the Internet. Some Mexican kidnappers have just discovered that the power of popular opinion, rallied through the Internet, is a force to be reckoned with. I don't know the address, but some lass was on because a loved one was kidnapped, and held for ransom. Larry King kept on at the address - and now those Mexican kidnappers have a new force, an unstoppable force, to reckon with: popular opinion. They probably didn't the fury around AIG would be relevant. Honey: it's all relevant. Release the man, give yourselves up. It's really the only way.
Carolyn Ann
Personally, I was a bit astonished. I don't follow Jeff's blog (I sort of knew he had one, but never bothered to check it out, if he did. He does. And I still haven't checked it out...) ... All of sudden I get that whole "follow" thing. Call me slow (okay, call me slower than molasses), but I never thought about that term until just now. I dismissed it as some "new Internet/new age" thingy not worth paying attention to. Just goes to show!) Where was I? Oh yes.
I was a bit surprised - Jeff Jarvis is someone known to live more online than off. I'm not sure if that is an accurate summary of his life - I sincerely hope it isn't! - but that's how it seems. I sort of knew he taught a course, and he says he's not in it for the money. He reveal he earns about $90,000 per year from his teaching. Right. He should talk to some of the ESL teachers at his college. They really aren't in it for the money. Try $23.50 to $28 an hour, no benefits, no vacation, no tenure. No chance at tenure. (Now talk to me about auto workers, mechanics and so on...)
Ever since I first came across Jarvis I've thought him arrogant.
(Just to be sure: he think what he likes of me. I have no say, nor do I wish one, in the matter. I happen to know an ESL teacher who survives, by whim of her boss, on the figures I gave. Those are NJ state-mandated earnings and conditions, by the way.)
His book (in which he doesn't reveal how much his advance was - there is, apparently a limit to how much he reveals - but we can summarize that it was over $100,000) is a piece of work.
You get 5 books for the price of 1. Two are well written, thoughtful and thought-provoking essays. The other 3? I wish he hadn't written them. Jeff Jarvis makes the same mistake most geeks make: they assume that because they are clever, they can figure anything out! He's older than me - he should know, by now, some things defy explanation. Indeed, I notice he took on only the easy problems to Googlify. Abortion? What life means? The meaning and role of government? None of these issues was handled - instead he touted that data is everything.
Data is nothing. Information provides the basis for clues. Inherent feeling? A lackadaisical sentiment, not worth considering. I think he devoted, at most, two sentences to that. Both of them were disparaging.
Well, Mr Jarvis: how about this? I didn't troubleshoot a network by data. I developed a feel for it, and that helped me more than any data out there. As a mechanic, I listen to an engine. As a motorcyclist, I feel the bike. Hell, I'm part of the bike, or the bike is a part of me. As a woodworker, I feel what the wood is telling me. None of it data - not a bit. Data is the geeks answer and the artists anathema.
I couldn't carve a mahogany heart for my Mrs without understanding what the wood was telling me. I can't describe it any other way: the wood told me where to cut. A mechanical feel for wood leads to Ikea; a feel for what the wood says leads to art. Just look at the great woodworkers for proof!
Mr Jarvis is likely to turn the question around - he's exceptionally clever - but in doing so, he would reveal the weakness in his argument. His argument is that Google is Levittown, translated to the Internet. A be-all, end-all, desirable location. It just doesn't come with Bill Levitt's racism. It comes with its own prejudices: the fact that the leading sites garner the most traffic, and coming in second is not even worth the cost of entry. The fact that data is all. Data would not supply such groundbreakers as the portable computer, the Newton, the Palm Pilot. All of these provided the background for the iPhone - but that's ignored.
As any reader of this blog knows, I'm a bit hypocritical in my criticism and use of the English language. I use it lazily, and then condemn others for the same sin. Mr Jarvis takes it one step further: he seems to consider the English language an impediment to getting his point across! His use of metaphor is, well, ribald. His imagery shows more enthusiasm than skill. His use of language is something you try, as reader, to ignore - because his ideas are, quite frankly, brilliant.
In the two pieces worth reading (the start, and the end; ignore the rest - you won't miss a thing), Mr Jarvis challenges the world. Okay, his essay about car manufacturers should be read, absorbed and used by GM and others. Let's make that 2 essays worth reading, one that is of specialized interest and 2 more that aren't worth much at all. In the two pieces worth reading, you really need to pay attention. Mr Jarvis discovers a latent talent for thinking about the words he uses, and he employs it well. He describes a vision that is both terrifying (although, oddly, he pays no attention to that) and liberating. He takes the ideas first put forth in "The Cathedral and Bazaar" and gives them practical purpose. Something beyond the scope of Linux and other difficult to use, but free, software. He describes how we might be able to achieve a future that's based on what we know, and not on what the government and corporations withhold. He describes a First Amendment Absolutist (his word) would love, and anyone who thinks freedom of expression should have responsibility will hate.
He adriotly notes that you can't squash free speech on the Internet: ban it here, it will arise over there. That is what I have found. Questioning Transphobia bars me from saying something, so I use the power of the Internet to say it, elsewhere. QT discriminated against me, because the owners don't like real challenge, but while they can curtail my mutterings in their forum - they can't elsewhere. It would be foolish of them to try.
Ultimately what Mr Jarvis puts forth is a world that reminds me of Kafka, Orwell and Bradbury. I don't know if Mr Jarvis has read Shakespeare's tragedies, or even his intellectual challenge: a Midsummer Night's Dream. Halfway through the book, I wondered if Mr Jarvis had ever read Ginsberg's Howl. I decided he couldn't have. What Mr Jarvis described is not the liberation of the individual - but the enabling of the mob. He needs to read David Kushner's "Levittown" to truly understand what the mob is.
I fear for free expression in this brave new world. I fear for the individual, the right to privacy, the guarantees provided by the English Bill of Rights and the American 4th Amendment. It would be a world where the vocally inappropriate are silenced, and the right to expression depends on a few, inappropriately powerful, influencers. Sure you can disagree. But in this mob-ruled, populist Internet: who's going to pay attention to you? We're already there, unfortunately.
mMr Jarvis seems to think that a few words tossed in one direction, or another, will placate and address criticisms. He's wrong. The young entrepeneur might not know what he or she can't do: but the greybeards do have something to add to the conversation. He seems, without expressly saying so, that they are bygones. Worth only their money.
His other problem is with atoms. Carefully arranged collections of atoms provide most of the world's growth. It's when people stop buying products that we have problems; indeed, he summarized the entire credit collapse in two paragraphs. I was surprised it took him that long! Needless to say: I disagree with his summary.
The biggest quibble I have with Mr Jarvis' book is his language. It is lazy. The only thing that kept me reading was his ideas - they really are pertinent. Valeria, the other day, came up with an idea that I was genius. Others might think it the work of a genius; looking at the back cover, I'd say a fair few think him as the next Da Vinci.
Ultimately, this is a populist work. He's never explicity inaccurate, but he's rarely entirely accurate. His idea that the population of TV viewers determine what is in good taste is facetious, at best. His extension of that into the Internet belies any understanding of the Mencken's old: quote "Never underestimate the bad taste of the American public". If good taste were so predominant, we would not be such an illiterate people. (This applies to the British, too!) The masses do not determine what is good on the TV. They watch what is available. Why do you think "Law & Order" is so popular? And that's Mr Jervis' failing: he espouses that the mass of people determine what is good. They don't - they simply determine what is popular.
And his vision of a Google-enabled future? It sounds dreadful. But I will, inevitably, play my role.
ADDED: The power of the Internet. Some Mexican kidnappers have just discovered that the power of popular opinion, rallied through the Internet, is a force to be reckoned with. I don't know the address, but some lass was on because a loved one was kidnapped, and held for ransom. Larry King kept on at the address - and now those Mexican kidnappers have a new force, an unstoppable force, to reckon with: popular opinion. They probably didn't the fury around AIG would be relevant. Honey: it's all relevant. Release the man, give yourselves up. It's really the only way.
Carolyn Ann
Jeez, that was a lot of work...
Today I cleared the hall of furniture, and old flooring. Getting on with the task of decorating this house, I have decided that I really don't have to like DIY, I just have to do it. Myself. The only bad day was yesterday, in other words.
I knew I was in trouble about half way up the stairs, carrying the bedroom fireplace. It's a 150lb chunk of gas-fired iron. A little later, I was carrying some plywood outside, and was fine. Walking back to the house - my leg gave out. Literally! As I gracefully (?) slid down the front steps, I figured that I needed to take it easy for a moment or two. Perhaps a scorching hot bath?
Still, the hallway is ready to accept the tiles, and Ditra. I need that expensive orange substrate because the tiles are 18" square, and it isolates the tile from the subfloor. The Romans used 2" of sand - we use 1/8" of specially shaped bright orange plastic. With a fuzzy bottom to it. It's made in Germany. There is an irony to that... :-)
I have wondered why the Romans used about 2" of sand. Would 1" not do the job? I guess not - considering the life of the Roman Empire, and the fact that their tile floors have lasted thousands of years, I'm not sure if anyone has even studied the issue! I guess I should be thankful - without Ditra, I'd have a hard time stabilizing the tiles across an MDF subfloor. Eventually, they would crack.
The upstairs are easier: there I get to use ¼" concrete board, screwed down. Although the ceiling height is the same - 8 foot - I lose an extra 1/8" inch. But gain in that I don't have to pay the ridiculous cost for Ditra (over $80 a roll!), and I already have a lot of concrete board of that thickness. I guessed wrong about a project, but by the time I did that - I'd already bought the stuff. On a non-returnable basis. Oh well - live and learn.
One day I will get my geothermal system together. (That's why I needed so much ¼" concrete board. It was supposed to be a solid mass for thermal purposes. ... Yeah, right. Oh well. :-| )
Anyway, the hallway is now ready for the tile and Ditra. And I'm ready to put my leg up.
Carolyn Ann
I knew I was in trouble about half way up the stairs, carrying the bedroom fireplace. It's a 150lb chunk of gas-fired iron. A little later, I was carrying some plywood outside, and was fine. Walking back to the house - my leg gave out. Literally! As I gracefully (?) slid down the front steps, I figured that I needed to take it easy for a moment or two. Perhaps a scorching hot bath?
Still, the hallway is ready to accept the tiles, and Ditra. I need that expensive orange substrate because the tiles are 18" square, and it isolates the tile from the subfloor. The Romans used 2" of sand - we use 1/8" of specially shaped bright orange plastic. With a fuzzy bottom to it. It's made in Germany. There is an irony to that... :-)
I have wondered why the Romans used about 2" of sand. Would 1" not do the job? I guess not - considering the life of the Roman Empire, and the fact that their tile floors have lasted thousands of years, I'm not sure if anyone has even studied the issue! I guess I should be thankful - without Ditra, I'd have a hard time stabilizing the tiles across an MDF subfloor. Eventually, they would crack.
The upstairs are easier: there I get to use ¼" concrete board, screwed down. Although the ceiling height is the same - 8 foot - I lose an extra 1/8" inch. But gain in that I don't have to pay the ridiculous cost for Ditra (over $80 a roll!), and I already have a lot of concrete board of that thickness. I guessed wrong about a project, but by the time I did that - I'd already bought the stuff. On a non-returnable basis. Oh well - live and learn.
One day I will get my geothermal system together. (That's why I needed so much ¼" concrete board. It was supposed to be a solid mass for thermal purposes. ... Yeah, right. Oh well. :-| )
Anyway, the hallway is now ready for the tile and Ditra. And I'm ready to put my leg up.
Carolyn Ann
Another ridiculous ethics complaint against Palin
From the Huffington Post: Palin Was "Walking Billboard" At Iron Dog: Ethics Complaint
Apparently Sarah Palin was walking about with logos on her clothing! Oh my! So some poor, sensitive and public-mindedfool citizen decided to lodge an ethics complaint about her attire. Her husband is sponsored by the company named in the logo. That makes it, er, unethical? Give us all a break!
So now Palin has some extra legal costs that the state should pick up, or at least the person making this time- and money-wasting complaint should.
Look: she's not that good at politics. She's getting better, and she might be a contender in 2012. Trying to destroy her personally and financially is not democracy, and it's not decency. It's victimizing her. And that's wrong.
Carolyn Ann
Apparently Sarah Palin was walking about with logos on her clothing! Oh my! So some poor, sensitive and public-minded
So now Palin has some extra legal costs that the state should pick up, or at least the person making this time- and money-wasting complaint should.
Look: she's not that good at politics. She's getting better, and she might be a contender in 2012. Trying to destroy her personally and financially is not democracy, and it's not decency. It's victimizing her. And that's wrong.
Carolyn Ann
GM gets one right?
The new Camaro is creating a lot of buzz. I've seen a few on the roads of southern NJ, and I must say: I do like the car! It's a muscle car in the old style. But it works - it's an exciting car to look at.
The Mustang is, apparently, very popular. You certainly see plenty of them, even brand new ones, around and about. They are retro in appearance, too. Quite a few car shows have rows and rows of late model Mustangs: so many they dwarf the original examples! The new BMW and Mercedes lines are pretty exciting. Dodge/Chrysler, on the other hand: their designs were interesting 4 or 5 years ago. Now, they're stodgy, old and the uber-machismo is tiresome and pedantic in its expression.
But I'm happy to see Chevrolet has produced a car that is exciting, fun, new, visually stunning and is not some Euro-wannabe. Now, if they can sort out the rest of the product line, I think they'll make it as an automaker. (I am, by the way, including the Corvette in that statement.) Well done, Chevy: you've produced a car people will want.
Carolyn Ann
The Mustang is, apparently, very popular. You certainly see plenty of them, even brand new ones, around and about. They are retro in appearance, too. Quite a few car shows have rows and rows of late model Mustangs: so many they dwarf the original examples! The new BMW and Mercedes lines are pretty exciting. Dodge/Chrysler, on the other hand: their designs were interesting 4 or 5 years ago. Now, they're stodgy, old and the uber-machismo is tiresome and pedantic in its expression.
But I'm happy to see Chevrolet has produced a car that is exciting, fun, new, visually stunning and is not some Euro-wannabe. Now, if they can sort out the rest of the product line, I think they'll make it as an automaker. (I am, by the way, including the Corvette in that statement.) Well done, Chevy: you've produced a car people will want.
Carolyn Ann
Condi Rice
Condoleeza Rice was on Jay Leno, last night. She was talking about her parents, her upbringing in Birmingham, Alabama and her relief at not having to do anything about what she reads in the papers.
Her roles, as National Security Adviser and then as Secretary of State, were imperfect. I often thought it was because of her ideology; now, I'm beginning to think it was because she didn't stand up to the powerful neocons in the White House. But more than that - I think her inability to as effective as she should have been can be traced to one man: her boss. He didn't provide support, one way or the other for critical questions and issues. He was a political boss, and must have been a nightmare to work for.
I think a contrast can be seen in Hillary's embracing of the Secretary of State role. I'm sure she has plenty of conversations with Obama - probably in person, over the phone, emails and via the Blackberry. (Yeah, yeah: let's leave the technical inaccuracy aside, for now?) But she's not micromanaged - she knows what needs doing and saying, and she does it. Condi Rice knew what needed doing, but couldn't get that critical support she needed to do it. As a result, the various state governments would receive her - and then pretty much ignore her. She was, basically and fundamentally, undermined by the White House.
She defended George W. Bush, last night. She said he often asked the best questions, and (if memory serves) also noted that he was attentive to details. I think she said he was often the smartest person in the room. If that's the case, either he was in a room with complete morons or he was fooling the rest of us. Somehow, I don't think it was the latter. I don't think it was the former, either - I think he's not as stupid as he appears, but he's certainly no genuis. Not even close.
I can't help think she was a victim of anti-academic rhetoric, of ideologically-driven micromanagement and couldn't get the support she needed to take on the truly hideous: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and many others. She couldn't get the support for the same reason that Colin Powell couldn't: there were too many highly placed, powerful, people who saw the State Department not as a part of American diplomacy, but as part of an appeasement to the world. Who needs diplomacy, when you have bigger and better guns? (I guess we found the answer to that one, readily enough.)
History is not going to judge Bush well, but it might give Condi Rice a break. It should - she was trying against some astonishing enemies. It's more the wonder she succeeded as often as she did (her successes aren't measured in bombs dropped, or enemy bodies counted, but in the war that didn't happen, the conflict that got resolved and where the American interest was expressed, and appreciated).
She's definitely on a par with David Miliband in awareness and her astute thinking. But she was never as powerful as some Secretaries of State - because her boss and his cohorts micromanaged her, and stymied her.
Carolyn Ann
Her roles, as National Security Adviser and then as Secretary of State, were imperfect. I often thought it was because of her ideology; now, I'm beginning to think it was because she didn't stand up to the powerful neocons in the White House. But more than that - I think her inability to as effective as she should have been can be traced to one man: her boss. He didn't provide support, one way or the other for critical questions and issues. He was a political boss, and must have been a nightmare to work for.
I think a contrast can be seen in Hillary's embracing of the Secretary of State role. I'm sure she has plenty of conversations with Obama - probably in person, over the phone, emails and via the Blackberry. (Yeah, yeah: let's leave the technical inaccuracy aside, for now?) But she's not micromanaged - she knows what needs doing and saying, and she does it. Condi Rice knew what needed doing, but couldn't get that critical support she needed to do it. As a result, the various state governments would receive her - and then pretty much ignore her. She was, basically and fundamentally, undermined by the White House.
She defended George W. Bush, last night. She said he often asked the best questions, and (if memory serves) also noted that he was attentive to details. I think she said he was often the smartest person in the room. If that's the case, either he was in a room with complete morons or he was fooling the rest of us. Somehow, I don't think it was the latter. I don't think it was the former, either - I think he's not as stupid as he appears, but he's certainly no genuis. Not even close.
I can't help think she was a victim of anti-academic rhetoric, of ideologically-driven micromanagement and couldn't get the support she needed to take on the truly hideous: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and many others. She couldn't get the support for the same reason that Colin Powell couldn't: there were too many highly placed, powerful, people who saw the State Department not as a part of American diplomacy, but as part of an appeasement to the world. Who needs diplomacy, when you have bigger and better guns? (I guess we found the answer to that one, readily enough.)
History is not going to judge Bush well, but it might give Condi Rice a break. It should - she was trying against some astonishing enemies. It's more the wonder she succeeded as often as she did (her successes aren't measured in bombs dropped, or enemy bodies counted, but in the war that didn't happen, the conflict that got resolved and where the American interest was expressed, and appreciated).
She's definitely on a par with David Miliband in awareness and her astute thinking. But she was never as powerful as some Secretaries of State - because her boss and his cohorts micromanaged her, and stymied her.
Carolyn Ann
On blogging and other mutterings...
This might come as a surprise - but I kind of like blogging. Well, I like writing. I find I need to write, actually. You just happen to be the unlucky readers of my experiments with the English language. :-)
I write even when there is no audience. I used to keep a daily journal, but I gradually lost interest in it. Except when I'm not around a computer. Then I'll pull out a notepad, and start scribbling. Those words never make it to the blog: once I've written those thoughts down, I move on.
I use writing to figure things out. It's all about me, in other words.
(To the individual "following" me: Hi, there! :-) )
This morning I had the brilliant idea of converting the lord's prayer into one for that motorcycle riding deity I "discovered", yesterday. So I spent a few hours on the project, hated the result, and with a simple "close, do not save" - discarded the entire effort. I can't say I have any affection for that bit of Christian piety, anyway. Being forced to mutter it every school day turned me off the whole thing. Being an atheist didn't help - in British schools, you said the Lord's Prayer no matter what. (There was always a hymn, too.) Little wonder I am so against bringing religion into schools - it's not that Christians are prevented from worshiping, it's that their beliefs, and dogma, are forced onto others. I wonder if British schools are still like that?
I was going to write "I don't hate religion", but you'd probably wonder if I kept a straight face as I put those words into being. I do hate religion. I'm just not willing to stop people believing whatever they want. I guess that goes with being a First Amendment Fanatic.
Penny Red recently wrote about Orwell's 1984. It was an interesting piece, but one thing got my attention:
The Bill of Rights provides specific tools that favor the individual over the government. Indeed, they favor the individual over society. Look at the Levittown fracas: Bill and Daisy Myers were the first blacks to move into a distinctly segregated community. They simply wanted a slice of the American dream, and their friends Lew and Bea Weschler helped them achieve that goal. But, in one of those odd things: the government of Pennsylvania (in the shape of the Attorney General) had to step in to help them overcome the mobs determined to get them out.
Often the people have to step in to stop a group: the routing of the Republicans in '06 and '08 being a perfect example. Democracy is messy - that can't be disputed. American democracy isn't perfect: it's actually not intended to be. The perfect system can't be invented, because people are people. That's something those who propose more perfect systems fail to realize; no matter what, altruism is just not that popular! What American democracy has that many other democratic systems don't is accountability, and a means for change. It's nigh on impossible to change British Parliamentary democracy, for instance. It can be changed - but there is no definitive process to do it.
The other thing about American democracy, and America: it forces an accounting of the excesses, abuses and has a built-in mechanism that prevents one party from maintaining too much control. Despite the best efforts of some, the idea that the government is for the people, and of the people, remains a powerful force within American political dialog. This forces a basic honesty to the process of government. Sure, there are collisions between what the government should do, what it does and what many think it shouldn't do - that's the genuis of a system that allows debate of what role the government has in day to day life.
America ain't perfect, but it sure as heck knows how to check unbridled power. Something the British government should pay attention to!
Carolyn Ann
I write even when there is no audience. I used to keep a daily journal, but I gradually lost interest in it. Except when I'm not around a computer. Then I'll pull out a notepad, and start scribbling. Those words never make it to the blog: once I've written those thoughts down, I move on.
I use writing to figure things out. It's all about me, in other words.
(To the individual "following" me: Hi, there! :-) )
This morning I had the brilliant idea of converting the lord's prayer into one for that motorcycle riding deity I "discovered", yesterday. So I spent a few hours on the project, hated the result, and with a simple "close, do not save" - discarded the entire effort. I can't say I have any affection for that bit of Christian piety, anyway. Being forced to mutter it every school day turned me off the whole thing. Being an atheist didn't help - in British schools, you said the Lord's Prayer no matter what. (There was always a hymn, too.) Little wonder I am so against bringing religion into schools - it's not that Christians are prevented from worshiping, it's that their beliefs, and dogma, are forced onto others. I wonder if British schools are still like that?
I was going to write "I don't hate religion", but you'd probably wonder if I kept a straight face as I put those words into being. I do hate religion. I'm just not willing to stop people believing whatever they want. I guess that goes with being a First Amendment Fanatic.
Penny Red recently wrote about Orwell's 1984. It was an interesting piece, but one thing got my attention:
In many other countries, the first sign of social breakdown is a population that doesn’t trust its government ; even in the United States, civil war was a real possibility as little as thirty-five years ago.There are two problems with this statement. One, the US Constitution enshrines a distrust of government, and the US was not in danger of having a civil war, 35 years ago (more accurately, it would be 40 to 41 years ago: 1968 and 1969). There was a lot of civic unrest, but there was no split serious enough to even hint at civil war.
The Bill of Rights provides specific tools that favor the individual over the government. Indeed, they favor the individual over society. Look at the Levittown fracas: Bill and Daisy Myers were the first blacks to move into a distinctly segregated community. They simply wanted a slice of the American dream, and their friends Lew and Bea Weschler helped them achieve that goal. But, in one of those odd things: the government of Pennsylvania (in the shape of the Attorney General) had to step in to help them overcome the mobs determined to get them out.
Often the people have to step in to stop a group: the routing of the Republicans in '06 and '08 being a perfect example. Democracy is messy - that can't be disputed. American democracy isn't perfect: it's actually not intended to be. The perfect system can't be invented, because people are people. That's something those who propose more perfect systems fail to realize; no matter what, altruism is just not that popular! What American democracy has that many other democratic systems don't is accountability, and a means for change. It's nigh on impossible to change British Parliamentary democracy, for instance. It can be changed - but there is no definitive process to do it.
The other thing about American democracy, and America: it forces an accounting of the excesses, abuses and has a built-in mechanism that prevents one party from maintaining too much control. Despite the best efforts of some, the idea that the government is for the people, and of the people, remains a powerful force within American political dialog. This forces a basic honesty to the process of government. Sure, there are collisions between what the government should do, what it does and what many think it shouldn't do - that's the genuis of a system that allows debate of what role the government has in day to day life.
America ain't perfect, but it sure as heck knows how to check unbridled power. Something the British government should pay attention to!
Carolyn Ann
Atheism and the motorcyclist
On a fast motorcycle you find yourself praying an awful lot. Your prayers aren't necessarily to some deity, but more the "wishful thinking" sort of a thing. After all, if you take a spill on a bike, it wasn't God's fault - it was either yours, ... Or yours. It was never the fault of the idiot that hit you. Either way - it's generally your fault. No matter the rights or wrongs: you're on a bike. It's your fault.
Even if every motorist in America is a bike-hating, homicidal maniac. (Don't get me started about the drivers in Britain!) If one of those biwheelophobics (Duh! did you think I wouldn't get a dig in? :-) ) hits you: it is your fault. Because you are on a bike. "I didn't see you" is the perfect excuse - and the one that diverts attention from the blindness of the driver to the inconspicuous nature of motorcycles. (All bikes in the US must have their headlights on, all the time. It helps makes them less inconspicuous. Something I should tell that young cellphone toting lass who decided I wasn't important enough to notice, and crossed the junction right in front of me. It's rather a good job the Ducati has excellent brakes!)
Anyway, here are some of my more recent prayers:
"I pray that car isn't a cop, because if it is - I'm done for!" (I seem to say this one, a lot.)
"I sincerely hope the brakes don't fade" I was a little more pointed, but that captures the gist of it. This was followed, rather quickly, by "Holy fuuuuck! The Mrs ain't gonna like this..." And the (continued) observation that I probably wouldn't like it much, either. Brembo brakes: they work. :-)
"I sincerely pray that isn't wet mud I'm about to drive through... Oh, hang on - dry mud ain't too good, either!"
"Please take the next junction!"
"I hope there's a gas station in the next 10 or 15 miles, because it's a long walk, otherwise!"
And... "I pray for continued good weather - because life just don't get much better!" (Except when I'm with the Mrs, but that's not something gentlemen, or ladies, and especially gentlemen in ladies attire, talk about. :-) )
The prayer about taking the next junction? That was answered - the four wheeled impediment took the next left. And it rapidly turned up! This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is a God of Motorcycling. I'm not sure if this god is all-powerful - all too often he (I presume) is out and about on his (?) bike (probably enjoying an endless perfect ride), and not really looking out for his charges.
Ah well, any god of motorcycling has to be out and about, enjoying the ride! All hail the God of Motorcycling. He exists, and I found proof when that mobile roadblock took the next left. :-)
Carolyn Ann
PS Rubber side down, please. :-)
EDIT: I took out the initial sentence. It wasn't needed.
Even if every motorist in America is a bike-hating, homicidal maniac. (Don't get me started about the drivers in Britain!) If one of those biwheelophobics (Duh! did you think I wouldn't get a dig in? :-) ) hits you: it is your fault. Because you are on a bike. "I didn't see you" is the perfect excuse - and the one that diverts attention from the blindness of the driver to the inconspicuous nature of motorcycles. (All bikes in the US must have their headlights on, all the time. It helps makes them less inconspicuous. Something I should tell that young cellphone toting lass who decided I wasn't important enough to notice, and crossed the junction right in front of me. It's rather a good job the Ducati has excellent brakes!)
Anyway, here are some of my more recent prayers:
"I pray that car isn't a cop, because if it is - I'm done for!" (I seem to say this one, a lot.)
"I sincerely hope the brakes don't fade" I was a little more pointed, but that captures the gist of it. This was followed, rather quickly, by "Holy fuuuuck! The Mrs ain't gonna like this..." And the (continued) observation that I probably wouldn't like it much, either. Brembo brakes: they work. :-)
"I sincerely pray that isn't wet mud I'm about to drive through... Oh, hang on - dry mud ain't too good, either!"
"Please take the next junction!"
"I hope there's a gas station in the next 10 or 15 miles, because it's a long walk, otherwise!"
And... "I pray for continued good weather - because life just don't get much better!" (Except when I'm with the Mrs, but that's not something gentlemen, or ladies, and especially gentlemen in ladies attire, talk about. :-) )
The prayer about taking the next junction? That was answered - the four wheeled impediment took the next left. And it rapidly turned up! This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is a God of Motorcycling. I'm not sure if this god is all-powerful - all too often he (I presume) is out and about on his (?) bike (probably enjoying an endless perfect ride), and not really looking out for his charges.
Ah well, any god of motorcycling has to be out and about, enjoying the ride! All hail the God of Motorcycling. He exists, and I found proof when that mobile roadblock took the next left. :-)
Carolyn Ann
PS Rubber side down, please. :-)
EDIT: I took out the initial sentence. It wasn't needed.
Driving Miss Ducati?
Erm, sorry. :-)
I went for a long ride on the Ducati, today. It started as a couple of errands, but ended with at least a 200 mile trip to nowhere, and back. :-) Lots of twisty roads, sunny roads, fields turning green and mostly empty of traffic.
The Ducati is a very technical ride: you have to be aware of what the bike is doing, and what the bike wants. Sometimes, puttering through a hamlet at 3,000 in 3rd is fine. Other times, you need to be at 3,800 in 2nd. Getting this right is as much a matter of feel as it is knowledge. The instruments inform - but the bike, herself, tells you.
I never get tired of riding the Duc; she's got capabilities I could never plumb. If I reach the limits of that bike, on the public road: I did something seriously stupid. Even on a stretch of highway, you have to be aware of what the bike is telling you - get it wrong, and she will tell you. In a different way to a car. A car, you sit in - and watch the world through the windshield. A bike? You sit on it: a bit of padding that's bolted to a frame, and the engine. You feel it!
It's interesting going through a curve you've never seen, before. The instructors always tell you "late apex", and lean the bike. I've found it often useful to put the apex of the corner earlier than might be supposed - your line out is flatter, and quicker. But, more importantly, it allows you to see around a boulder just that bit sooner.
Getting the Ducati to do what she must can take a lot of effort. She's not a bike to sit on, watching the countryside go by. Do that, and there's a darned good chance you'll be unwitting and unwilling part of the countryside! You have to pay attention to the road, the bike, the tires, the engine, the mechanical symphony she generates as you pull the throttle back.
Like all bikes, she's unforgiving of mistakes. Get that gear wrong, you'll know it in short order. Try to take that corner too fast, or forget that highway ramps nearly always have a decreasing radius curve - and the bike won't protect you. Get that wrong in a car, and you have a dented panel and a repair bill. Get it wrong on a bike, and the dents in you assume substantially more importance than the dents in the bike. You have to be constantly thinking, planning, summarizing and predicting on a bike like the Ducati. You have to aware, and thinking. You don't think you've leaned over all that much and the foot peg scrapes the road. You think your apex is fine, and suddenly notice something - an animal, perhaps - telling you otherwise.
Everything on a bike is about planning, predicting and being aware. Some bikes demand less of you - the Vespa doesn't have a regular transmission, and its acceleration isn't that great. You get to think about other things. The Royal Enfield has a purposefulness to it - you have to respect that, otherwise you'll find she's not cooperating. But you have to be constantly aware of the bike, and your surroundings. On the Ducati, things can happen so fast you're through them astonishingly quickly. If you're through them before you know what happened - you're not paying attention, and the road will bite.
A bike like a Ducati can lead you to temptation. That codgermobile ain't getting past you! You're sure you can take that Harley down. You just know that those twisties can be done at 80, 90 or more. And they surely can be, but not if a raccoon is crossing in front of you! Me? I let the old folks home past, and the teenaged maniac gets a lot of distance between him and me. Why should I collect their tickets? One thing I do know about highway driving: car drivers go to sleep on the highway. I feel safer on a country road I've never seen before than any stretch of motorway or highway. Drivers think they're paying attention, but from the standpoint of a motorrcyclist: they dozed off at the end of the entry ramp.
But that's what makes riding a bike so special: you have to be aware in a way that staggers non-motorcyclists. You can feel it, it's a special sort of feeling alive. At the end of my 200+ mile meander, I was tired. The bike demands attention, the roads demand attention, my safety demands attention. And on top of it all - there's that sensation you just don't get in a car. The focus - nothing else is on your mind. Nothing. If you're thinking of something else, your mind is in the wrong place. Get off the bike!
I have a routine - I adhere to it, every time I get on a bike. No matter what I choose to drive, I stick to my routine. It moves me from where I am to where I need to be. Getting a bit out of sequence, because of a distraction, perhaps, will make me stop - and redo the entire routine. It's how I purge my mind, and start thinking about the ride. It's how I get myself into the ride. Nothing else matters - nothing. Tired? Deal with it. Feeling cranky? Deal with it. Feeling elated? Bring yourself to earth. You need to think about the ride, and nothing else. No wondering if you locked the back door. No thinking about the cats, and who was out and who was in. No thinking about paying the bills, and how little money is coming in. If gender is an issue - it isn't when that corner is coming up at you! When you decide to roll the throttle back, and decide to see 100+ miles per hour on the speedometer. (Mind you, if your mind is anywhere but on your bike, and your surroundings at 100MPH - you really should not be on that bike!) Get rolling, think about the ride. Experience the ride - not the frustrations of daily life. Life, and experience, become what you're about.
You literally become one with a good bike. It obeys, and informs. The bike is an extension of you. Small thoughts become actions, potholes missed and accurate corners achieved. On a bike, you are training, constantly training. Stop learning on a bike - and you just stopped riding. No bike rider can stop learning, evaluating and considering what they could have done better, or just different.
Often, at the end of a ride I sit on the bike for a moment, just savoring the experience of that ride. The weather, the heat or cold, the turns, the corners, the sights, smells, sensations. The idiocy of drivers, the graciousness of others. I think about the mistakes I made, and how I can do better, next time. Because there will be a next time. Because riding is a bit like living: when you've been bitten by that bug, you're infected with the need to go riding.
Happy riding - and be safe, out there! Always remember: rubber side down. :-)
Carolyn Ann
I went for a long ride on the Ducati, today. It started as a couple of errands, but ended with at least a 200 mile trip to nowhere, and back. :-) Lots of twisty roads, sunny roads, fields turning green and mostly empty of traffic.
The Ducati is a very technical ride: you have to be aware of what the bike is doing, and what the bike wants. Sometimes, puttering through a hamlet at 3,000 in 3rd is fine. Other times, you need to be at 3,800 in 2nd. Getting this right is as much a matter of feel as it is knowledge. The instruments inform - but the bike, herself, tells you.
I never get tired of riding the Duc; she's got capabilities I could never plumb. If I reach the limits of that bike, on the public road: I did something seriously stupid. Even on a stretch of highway, you have to be aware of what the bike is telling you - get it wrong, and she will tell you. In a different way to a car. A car, you sit in - and watch the world through the windshield. A bike? You sit on it: a bit of padding that's bolted to a frame, and the engine. You feel it!
It's interesting going through a curve you've never seen, before. The instructors always tell you "late apex", and lean the bike. I've found it often useful to put the apex of the corner earlier than might be supposed - your line out is flatter, and quicker. But, more importantly, it allows you to see around a boulder just that bit sooner.
Getting the Ducati to do what she must can take a lot of effort. She's not a bike to sit on, watching the countryside go by. Do that, and there's a darned good chance you'll be unwitting and unwilling part of the countryside! You have to pay attention to the road, the bike, the tires, the engine, the mechanical symphony she generates as you pull the throttle back.
Like all bikes, she's unforgiving of mistakes. Get that gear wrong, you'll know it in short order. Try to take that corner too fast, or forget that highway ramps nearly always have a decreasing radius curve - and the bike won't protect you. Get that wrong in a car, and you have a dented panel and a repair bill. Get it wrong on a bike, and the dents in you assume substantially more importance than the dents in the bike. You have to be constantly thinking, planning, summarizing and predicting on a bike like the Ducati. You have to aware, and thinking. You don't think you've leaned over all that much and the foot peg scrapes the road. You think your apex is fine, and suddenly notice something - an animal, perhaps - telling you otherwise.
Everything on a bike is about planning, predicting and being aware. Some bikes demand less of you - the Vespa doesn't have a regular transmission, and its acceleration isn't that great. You get to think about other things. The Royal Enfield has a purposefulness to it - you have to respect that, otherwise you'll find she's not cooperating. But you have to be constantly aware of the bike, and your surroundings. On the Ducati, things can happen so fast you're through them astonishingly quickly. If you're through them before you know what happened - you're not paying attention, and the road will bite.
A bike like a Ducati can lead you to temptation. That codgermobile ain't getting past you! You're sure you can take that Harley down. You just know that those twisties can be done at 80, 90 or more. And they surely can be, but not if a raccoon is crossing in front of you! Me? I let the old folks home past, and the teenaged maniac gets a lot of distance between him and me. Why should I collect their tickets? One thing I do know about highway driving: car drivers go to sleep on the highway. I feel safer on a country road I've never seen before than any stretch of motorway or highway. Drivers think they're paying attention, but from the standpoint of a motorrcyclist: they dozed off at the end of the entry ramp.
But that's what makes riding a bike so special: you have to be aware in a way that staggers non-motorcyclists. You can feel it, it's a special sort of feeling alive. At the end of my 200+ mile meander, I was tired. The bike demands attention, the roads demand attention, my safety demands attention. And on top of it all - there's that sensation you just don't get in a car. The focus - nothing else is on your mind. Nothing. If you're thinking of something else, your mind is in the wrong place. Get off the bike!
I have a routine - I adhere to it, every time I get on a bike. No matter what I choose to drive, I stick to my routine. It moves me from where I am to where I need to be. Getting a bit out of sequence, because of a distraction, perhaps, will make me stop - and redo the entire routine. It's how I purge my mind, and start thinking about the ride. It's how I get myself into the ride. Nothing else matters - nothing. Tired? Deal with it. Feeling cranky? Deal with it. Feeling elated? Bring yourself to earth. You need to think about the ride, and nothing else. No wondering if you locked the back door. No thinking about the cats, and who was out and who was in. No thinking about paying the bills, and how little money is coming in. If gender is an issue - it isn't when that corner is coming up at you! When you decide to roll the throttle back, and decide to see 100+ miles per hour on the speedometer. (Mind you, if your mind is anywhere but on your bike, and your surroundings at 100MPH - you really should not be on that bike!) Get rolling, think about the ride. Experience the ride - not the frustrations of daily life. Life, and experience, become what you're about.
You literally become one with a good bike. It obeys, and informs. The bike is an extension of you. Small thoughts become actions, potholes missed and accurate corners achieved. On a bike, you are training, constantly training. Stop learning on a bike - and you just stopped riding. No bike rider can stop learning, evaluating and considering what they could have done better, or just different.
Often, at the end of a ride I sit on the bike for a moment, just savoring the experience of that ride. The weather, the heat or cold, the turns, the corners, the sights, smells, sensations. The idiocy of drivers, the graciousness of others. I think about the mistakes I made, and how I can do better, next time. Because there will be a next time. Because riding is a bit like living: when you've been bitten by that bug, you're infected with the need to go riding.
Happy riding - and be safe, out there! Always remember: rubber side down. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Erm, yeah. Right...
Jeff Jarvis writes, in his latest book "What Would Google Do?" the following paragraph:
Carolyn Ann
Print has become a burden to a print company. It's expensive to produce content for print, expensive to manufacture, and expensive to deliver. Print limits your space and your ability to give readers all they want. It restricts your timing and ability to keep readers up-to-the-minute. Print is already stale when it's fresh. It is a one-size-fits-all and can't be adapted to the needs of each customer. It comes with no ability to click for more. It can't be searched or forwarded. It has no archive. It kills trees. It uses energy. And you really should recycle it, though it's a pain. Print sucks. Stuff sucks.Okay: I'll leave a literary examination of this to later (as well as a logical one). He put this in a book.
Carolyn Ann
Ya makes yer choices...
I was thinking about the choices we make in life. You know: the ones that have consequences.
Buying a new car isn't a difficult choice, but it's a nice one. (Buying a new motorcycle, well: that's an amazing choice! I should know - I've bought 3! Well, 4 - I had to return one.)
Some choices are sort of in our control, but are mostly up to others. You can apply for a job - but whether you get it depends on others. You can ask the girl to marry you, but she might say "no". Things like that.
Decisions are often shared: as a couple, you decide where to live, whether to have kids and so on.
Other choices are entirely within our own control: you can decide which road to take, going home. You can decide who to vote for. You can decide to stay married, or not. You can decide to have a sex change.
To be honest, there are things we claim are not choices: beliefs, gender, our roles. Some things are determined by other choices: how you raise your kids, once they're around. A Christian is not likely to say "well, today I'll pop over to the local synagogue to worship". An atheist crossdresser is not likely to stop writing because his words annoy some.
What you can never escape, however, are the consequences of your decisions. You get mad at the cop - you have little choice but to accept the ticket you get. You decide to have another at the bar, before driving home - the consequences will cost you plenty. You decide to divorce the spouse: that decision has consequences extending beyond you. You decide to have a sex change, after a couple of decades of living as man and wife? There can be no expectation of acceptance from your spouse. Or your kids - all of a sudden their Dad wants to be their other Mom? How ground shifting is that?
Get real. Accept that some decisions have consequences. The decision to have a sex change is not absolute. It depends on how important others are, to you. (Note to the intersexed: I'm not addressing you guys and gals. Your decisions re gender are a "little" different...) But to those guys, married for x number of years, suddenly finding that the wife is a bit upset at the thought of being married to a girl? Especially if there are kids involved.
Sure it's painful. I don't wish you the pain. But don't blame the wife for being hurt when you're the one inflicting the wounds!
Decisions have consequences. It is up to you to decide who is more important. But once you do: man up. (Really!) Accept the consequences of your decisions. No one, after all, forced you to go for a sex change right then. No one said "thou must have a sex change, or else!" You can live with indeterminacy for a while, I'm sure. It depends on who is more important: those who love you. Or yourself.
Carolyn Ann
PS If you don't like this post: tough tiddlywinks. I'm not writing to be nice - I'm writing what I think needs to be written.
Buying a new car isn't a difficult choice, but it's a nice one. (Buying a new motorcycle, well: that's an amazing choice! I should know - I've bought 3! Well, 4 - I had to return one.)
Some choices are sort of in our control, but are mostly up to others. You can apply for a job - but whether you get it depends on others. You can ask the girl to marry you, but she might say "no". Things like that.
Decisions are often shared: as a couple, you decide where to live, whether to have kids and so on.
Other choices are entirely within our own control: you can decide which road to take, going home. You can decide who to vote for. You can decide to stay married, or not. You can decide to have a sex change.
To be honest, there are things we claim are not choices: beliefs, gender, our roles. Some things are determined by other choices: how you raise your kids, once they're around. A Christian is not likely to say "well, today I'll pop over to the local synagogue to worship". An atheist crossdresser is not likely to stop writing because his words annoy some.
What you can never escape, however, are the consequences of your decisions. You get mad at the cop - you have little choice but to accept the ticket you get. You decide to have another at the bar, before driving home - the consequences will cost you plenty. You decide to divorce the spouse: that decision has consequences extending beyond you. You decide to have a sex change, after a couple of decades of living as man and wife? There can be no expectation of acceptance from your spouse. Or your kids - all of a sudden their Dad wants to be their other Mom? How ground shifting is that?
Get real. Accept that some decisions have consequences. The decision to have a sex change is not absolute. It depends on how important others are, to you. (Note to the intersexed: I'm not addressing you guys and gals. Your decisions re gender are a "little" different...) But to those guys, married for x number of years, suddenly finding that the wife is a bit upset at the thought of being married to a girl? Especially if there are kids involved.
Sure it's painful. I don't wish you the pain. But don't blame the wife for being hurt when you're the one inflicting the wounds!
Decisions have consequences. It is up to you to decide who is more important. But once you do: man up. (Really!) Accept the consequences of your decisions. No one, after all, forced you to go for a sex change right then. No one said "thou must have a sex change, or else!" You can live with indeterminacy for a while, I'm sure. It depends on who is more important: those who love you. Or yourself.
Carolyn Ann
PS If you don't like this post: tough tiddlywinks. I'm not writing to be nice - I'm writing what I think needs to be written.
Monday, March 23, 2009
I miss (having a ) beer...
One of the things I miss is going for a beer after work. It's something I did for years - a couple decades, even.
Normally it was a case of checking who wanted a pint, and either walking over to the pub with them, or meeting them there. Not that many folk ever wanted a beer, but there were enough that it became a regular event. Once I entered the "dot com" world - those beers became few and far between. It seemed to me that the people in that arena either took themselves or their work far too seriously. Usually it was both.
Living in the city, taking a train home, made it possible to have one or two, or even more if time allowed. No worries about drinking and driving, and the only real danger was if the train got delayed, and you felt the affects of the beer... But it was always a nice thing, going for a pint with a coworker, or even a vendor. Problems got solved, bosses got bitched about, coworkers and other departments got complained about. People were praised, and informal decisions were made. It's difficult to play politics when you're on the hook for the next round!
Maybe it's because I grew up with pubs as part of my cultural heritage (as the contemporary phrase goes). Perhaps it was because a pub forces you to converse, as opposed to email, Twitter and do social-web interactions. My drinking pals and I certainly had many a discussion over a pint! But they never got personal; politics could be discussed, even religion. Being a bunch of guys (usually), abuse was heaped on with alacrity, girls were oggled (well, guys and girls if I was drinking with anyone gay guys) and pints were bought.
Sometimes I think that the web has reduced human interaction; Facebook, email and so on have removed that essential personal element. I do know that half the people I've interacted with online wouldn't stand a chance in the down to earth atmosphere of the local bar. Complex arguments and indignation tend to be ignored in a pub - even as complex arguments are made! :-)
Yup, I miss the pub, and that after-work pint with a buddy or two.
Carolyn Ann
Linguistic knots, and worse?
It strikes me that (many in) the transgender community favor tying themselves in linguistic knots - all of which result in a linguistic noose. That they then proceed to tighten.
While it's all done in favor of "equality" and the like, what's equal about restricting yourself to certain phrases? What's equal about a restriction on challenge? The proponents of these linguistic contortions may have the best of intentions*, but wasn't the road to hell paved with good intentions?
*This is something I doubt, very much.
Somehow, I don't think the trans community is going to make much inroad into their goals unless they define those goals, and stop screwing around with the English language. I'm sorry to say - some concepts survive because they work for most people. This isn't about equal rights and the color of your skin - this is about gender, identity, sex, fear, religion, belief and a few other things as well. Messing around with the language used to describe gender and insisting that gender claims cannot be challenged is not going to surmount those concerns - and it would take an idiot to assume otherwise.
I don't know the answers, because I'm not entirely sure of the questions. What I do know is that what passes for debate in the tranny world: isn't. Going around and around a single maypole does not make for much debate - but finding others? Well, that might. And it might broaden the debate about gender enough that it becomes a serious one, and the transgendered community can gain something in that discussion.
Carolyn Ann
On "tranny"
It has been decided, by some, that the word "tranny" is derogatory. Because it's used in a derogatory way, in the newspaper and elsewhere.
Okay. Fine. Let's acquiesce that point: let's allow others to define how the trangendered define themselves.
Really! I mean - far be it for me to suggest that perhaps the lengthy adjectives and contorted linguistics that are alternatively suggested be used, instead.
Some assert it's okay if a tranny uses the word "tranny", but not if someone "not tranny" does.Others say it's not okay under any circumstances. I need an aspirin - this is getting complicated.
Why do some people love to make life complicated? Isn't it challenging enough, already? If a word is used in a derisive context, it's not the word that is demeaning - it's the context. Simply saying "I find 'tranny' to be offensive" is not going to stop anyone using it; quite the contrary, in fact!
Tranny's, like drag queens, have a bit of cultural baggage imposed upon them; it's not fair to the transgendered, but that's life. Tranny's also have a particularly odd relationship with "truth"; some have a dubious relationship with "honesty", but that's a different post. The word "tranny" is a shorthand. It's not like the label "nigger": that has a real history. The word "tranny" doesn't have much of a history, and can be claimed. Much as "gay" and "queer" were claimed by the, er, gay community.
But all this insisting on "trans woman" and "ciswoman" and so on is guaranteed to do one thing: move "tranny" from a word the transgender community can claim as their own, to one that is firmly derogatory. The tranny community was in the process of claiming it as their own, but something got derailed, somewhere. I don't know why, but it happened. Tranny is a word that can be used in a positive way, and in an insulting and/or derogatory manner. Simply insisting it is derogatory is to acquiesce a term, an identifier, that is quite useful - and could be turned into a generally positive label.
But that's not for me to question. I can use "tranny" because I am, despite the misgivings and alarm of some, a member of the tranny community.
Take back the night? How about take back the word?
Carolyn Ann
God did it...
So I decided to take another peek at Evangelist/Evangelical Blogs. Perhaps I was being unfair in my recent disdainful discarding of "Christian" blogs? Well... As it happens, I wasn't. :-) Here's a flippant summary: if something good happens, God was responsible. If something bad happens: God did it. If you found the cat: he's disappointed. Not God, the cat. He was trying to hide.
My research methodology was extremely scientific lackadaisical. I typed "Christian Blogs" and "Evangelical Christian Blogs" into Google. And picked a few at random. If there was a "Top Ten" guide, I poked around in that. I wasn't too particular about following links.
As might be expected, the Bible is the authorative work on all things Biblical. (Duh? :-) ) A lot of effort seems to go into understanding Biblical things. Actually, pretty much any blog I perused was about explaining the Bible, and how all of that fits into the modern world. Some bloggers mistake politics and religion, but that's an age old problem; indeed, for far too many centuries, religion was politics! Not being a biblical student (now there's a surprise... :-) ) I can't speak to the accuracy, veracity or even tenacity of the points being made. Many of them, even with a quick perusal, seemed to jump around a bit. That's not a religious issue, but a sign of lazy thinking. Not active thinking, as might be supposed... (Full disclosure: when I do it, it's definitely active thinking lazy thinking. But I make no effort to hide that fact. It just gets obscured by the meandering miasma of blithering inanity I pass off as "a blog post". :-) )
Often, some Biblical passage is examined, and its relevance to today is explained. Quite a few people argue that reason and religion are synonomous - they usually preface it with some comment about how many think religion and reason are antonyms. Religion requires reason, but it also requires strict boundaries on any inquiry; the more fundamentalist the believer, the more formidable the boundary.
Just out of curiousity, I typed "god, exist, christian, blog" into Google. I'm sure there are better ways of finding blogs that have examined deitific existence, but I'm sitting here drinking my coffee and haven't found my "on" switch, yet. Most of the blogs I found said "yes", and provided wonder as proof. One blogger (Thinking Christian) started asking that question, or one like it, and then jumped into the deep end of something else entirely. Actually, it was a valiant effort, but suffered from one deep flaw: there was no thinking about the argument, only about the refutation. That's not really thinking, that's reacting.
Indeed, most of the literary analysis of the Bible was half-hearted, derivative and unconvincing. It seems the blogger started with "let me prove this" and then set about doing so. Instead of "I wonder where this will lead?" Some started along that path, most didn't even bother glancing at it. I noticed a popular style to the literary analysis: start off with a supposition that couldn't stand unless it was propped up and staked down, and then go off and quote others, often at length, in support of your point. Some quoted ancient and modern, many just modern. That's not a style of argument likely to advance anything. It's one thing to quote someone else, and then examine what they're saying. It's quite another to provide a slew of carefully selected quotes.
I did notice one thing: it can be very expensive to be a well-informed, up-to-date Christian. Not only do you have to the whole contribution thing, you are bombarded with ads for "Christian this", or "Christian that". Videos, books, software that can cost an arm and a leg. Everythingcan be had, from the reputable Zondervan guides to rides on the holy-roller express. I suppose it can be cheap: a Bible and a brain are all you really need. Toss away the Bible, and it doesn't get any cheaper (you still bought the thing...) but you have less to carry.
To me, that's the essence of religion: a lot to carry. We're not pack animals, for heaven's [sic... :-) ] sake! To be religious, you need faith - but all too often, faith is mistaken for evidence and proof. If the Christian blogger is vaguely political, they will be a creationist; if they are very political, they will discuss the legacy of George Bush, and take swipes at Obama's policies, if not the man. (He is a devout Christian, after all!) It seems that the God of Abundance works harder than the God of Humility...
There are a lot of explicitly Christian bloggers out there, as you might expect. Some even seek to understand atheism; they always, but always, get it wrong. (Actually, if they got atheism right, they'd be atheists...) Christian bloggers preach to the converted, and that's fine. After all, many atheist bloggers do the same. But when did Christianity become a bad comic book?
Carolyn Ann
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Palin's Ethics Battles
This might come as a surprise - I think Sarah Palin has been very shoddily treated in all of her ethics battles. I also think there is a very dangerous precedent being set, and it behooves America to think about this - very carefully.
Sarah Palin, the divisive Governor of Alaska, and the ex-VP candidate, is in hock to over half a million dollars, because of various ethics complaints against her. Considering her salary, and that of her husband, she can't afford those costs. I don't know if she's in danger of bankruptcy, but most people in her situation would be seriously considering it! And that's wrong.
She makes the assertion that some people are filing ethics complaints against her, simply because they can. But she has to pay, out of her own pocket, for the legal representation to fight the charges. Now, some might argue "well, she should be ethical!" and advocate another lawsuit against her for some other alleged misdeed. They would rather see her financially destitute, and endlessly distracted, than actually give her a chance to succeed. She was elected by the people of Alaska, I think they deserve the right to have her working on their behalf, and not defending endless lawsuits.
The problem is this: there's now a precedent for anyone to go after a governor they don't like. Pick on some issue, start a lawsuit, and watch as that governor sinks into a financial disaster. Some governors are wealthy, many are not. But this precedent means that after a brief period where only the wealthy can afford to become a governor, no one will want to take on the job, anyway. I can actually envision a time when some state ends up without a governor! No one wants the job, and the person in it quits. It's not likely, but the fact that it is possible needs to be considered.
I don't know what the solution is - I've thought about requiring the state to pay legal bills when the ethics charge covers state business, all the way to having a special, state level, panel consider all ethics complaints against the governor - and decide which charges can go forward, and so on. It is a concern, though. Various right wing causes get millions of dollars from a select few individuals; there is nothing to stop such men from using their wealth to basically harass a governor they don't like, into enacting policies they want. "Implement this policy, or I'll sue you for ethics violations!" And believe me: once the ball gets rolling, what is construed as an ethics violation will become ever more trivial. Just look at the complaints against Palin for evidence!
Special interests, those much maligned special interests, will play hardball to get what they want. We've evidence of that at the county level in Virginia, for crying out loud! (Some powerful people wanted to develop a county in Virginia, so they launched a nasty campaign against the incumbents. Once an election came along, they put their own people up, basically hid their real agenda, got what they wanted and implemented a construction policy that was deeply unpopular with county residents.) That's not how a democracy is supposed to work. We see it time and again, though.
When it comes to the Governor of a State, and ethics complaints - there has to be a way to protect the governor from financial ruin. The cost of running for office should not include bankruptcy!
In the meantime, I think Alaska should pick up the legal tab for Palin. After all, she hasn't been legally convicted of anything. Sure, she's exercised bad judgment - who hasn't? Should be bankrupted for that? No. Voted out of office, perhaps. But financially ruined? That's just not fair.
Carolyn Ann
Sarah Palin, the divisive Governor of Alaska, and the ex-VP candidate, is in hock to over half a million dollars, because of various ethics complaints against her. Considering her salary, and that of her husband, she can't afford those costs. I don't know if she's in danger of bankruptcy, but most people in her situation would be seriously considering it! And that's wrong.
She makes the assertion that some people are filing ethics complaints against her, simply because they can. But she has to pay, out of her own pocket, for the legal representation to fight the charges. Now, some might argue "well, she should be ethical!" and advocate another lawsuit against her for some other alleged misdeed. They would rather see her financially destitute, and endlessly distracted, than actually give her a chance to succeed. She was elected by the people of Alaska, I think they deserve the right to have her working on their behalf, and not defending endless lawsuits.
The problem is this: there's now a precedent for anyone to go after a governor they don't like. Pick on some issue, start a lawsuit, and watch as that governor sinks into a financial disaster. Some governors are wealthy, many are not. But this precedent means that after a brief period where only the wealthy can afford to become a governor, no one will want to take on the job, anyway. I can actually envision a time when some state ends up without a governor! No one wants the job, and the person in it quits. It's not likely, but the fact that it is possible needs to be considered.
I don't know what the solution is - I've thought about requiring the state to pay legal bills when the ethics charge covers state business, all the way to having a special, state level, panel consider all ethics complaints against the governor - and decide which charges can go forward, and so on. It is a concern, though. Various right wing causes get millions of dollars from a select few individuals; there is nothing to stop such men from using their wealth to basically harass a governor they don't like, into enacting policies they want. "Implement this policy, or I'll sue you for ethics violations!" And believe me: once the ball gets rolling, what is construed as an ethics violation will become ever more trivial. Just look at the complaints against Palin for evidence!
Special interests, those much maligned special interests, will play hardball to get what they want. We've evidence of that at the county level in Virginia, for crying out loud! (Some powerful people wanted to develop a county in Virginia, so they launched a nasty campaign against the incumbents. Once an election came along, they put their own people up, basically hid their real agenda, got what they wanted and implemented a construction policy that was deeply unpopular with county residents.) That's not how a democracy is supposed to work. We see it time and again, though.
When it comes to the Governor of a State, and ethics complaints - there has to be a way to protect the governor from financial ruin. The cost of running for office should not include bankruptcy!
In the meantime, I think Alaska should pick up the legal tab for Palin. After all, she hasn't been legally convicted of anything. Sure, she's exercised bad judgment - who hasn't? Should be bankrupted for that? No. Voted out of office, perhaps. But financially ruined? That's just not fair.
Carolyn Ann
Back in the real world...
Wow, that was some hangover!
At a guess, I'd say that IQ test would return a 1.4, right about now.
Anyway, the Mrs and I were sat up chatting, as we used to do a couple of decades ago. The only difference being those 2 decades! When I first laid eyes on that lass, we chatted until about 3AM, and I got to work about 5 minutes late. Now - I could barely get up! I don't think trying to watch a war movie, with a bottle of The Macallan next to me was particularly helpful, either...
One day I'll learn. But until then, that hangover should remind me to not just keep opening bottles of beer and consuming the contents like there's no tomorrow. Because there won't be a tomorrow - it'll be a fog of thumping head, groggy body and me in misery.
Anyway, I figured rather than answering all the comments I received over that day or so, I'd just do it here. In one fell swoop, so to speak.
Thanks for your comments, everyone! :-)
Lucy asserts:
Gender is not easy to define. Anonymous gets it:
Questioning Transphobia comes in for quite a bit criticism. They do tend to go after feminists; which would be fine - except, instead of addressing the complaints and observations of some contemporary feminists, like Julie Bindel, they refuse to even consider the point being made. It looks astonishingly like men demanding acknowledgment that they are women. They might be - but in the eyes of many women, it's just men doing whatever the heck they want, again. Personally, I don't the QT writers question anything.
Anonymous also found it interesting that I am being accused of supporting rape, despite the fact that the person under discussion is an actual two-times rapist. Me? Yeah, I couldn't get my mind around that one, either.
The thing about QT is that they could perform a valuable role, but they are hung up on their isms and their "cis-" thing. Instead of figuring out how to talk about transphobia in sensible terms, they basically become fundamentalists. But their basic premise seems tenuous, at best, and contains quite a few contradictions. Feminists aren't transphobic, they're not cissexist (whatever the hell that is): they are defending what it means to be a woman from overbearing men. No matter what they call themselves. Identity politics does seem to have a problem, doesn't it?
I'm not sure if there is an answer to the claim "I am a woman", and a woman saying "no you're not!" It's certainly worth exploring.
Jennifer, of Just Jennifer, says the "TG Mafia" are "trangender fascists". I can see her point.
HallowedJaneBeThyName (no link, sorry) said I wasn't alone in my thoughts re transgender identity politics. Aka "tranny rage". She points me to a blog "The Great Transgender Swindle". Where I came upon this interesting observation:
As she says in her about page, it's not her intention to attack the transgendered, just the "damaging transgender politics and its 'truths'." Amen to that!
TG discussions get personal, real quick. Question some assumption, some assertion or some aspect - and it is assumed, by many, that you're attacking the transgendered. I might be disparaging about some transgendered individuals, but I am not attacking the transgendered. What I do want is a meaningful, honest discussion about what being trans means, what the implications are, how a trans person can be safe, and how to balance the right of a woman to her identity with the rights of a trans woman to claim her identity. These are not easy questions, but they deserve asking, and answering in a proper manner. Unfortunately, efforts to ask them are usually blocked with the questioner being accused of transphobia. I'm beginning to think some in the TG world simply want to be victims. Me? I'm not happy with that - and I don't think anyone else should be, either.
Carolyn Ann
At a guess, I'd say that IQ test would return a 1.4, right about now.
Anyway, the Mrs and I were sat up chatting, as we used to do a couple of decades ago. The only difference being those 2 decades! When I first laid eyes on that lass, we chatted until about 3AM, and I got to work about 5 minutes late. Now - I could barely get up! I don't think trying to watch a war movie, with a bottle of The Macallan next to me was particularly helpful, either...
One day I'll learn. But until then, that hangover should remind me to not just keep opening bottles of beer and consuming the contents like there's no tomorrow. Because there won't be a tomorrow - it'll be a fog of thumping head, groggy body and me in misery.
Anyway, I figured rather than answering all the comments I received over that day or so, I'd just do it here. In one fell swoop, so to speak.
Thanks for your comments, everyone! :-)
Lucy asserts:
Ah, this post clears up much for me. You're a biological/cultural essentialist. Women are born female and men are born male. And/or there are essential life experiences that make one a certain gender. ... Or do I misunderstand you?I had to look up "essentialist" (seriously!). Well, I can argue that girls are born female and boys are born male. But I'd never say that was the end of the gender question. Gender is not something that is understood all that well, and it's not likely to gain understanding while some insist that it can't be questioned. In their quest for acceptance, some use language as a hammer, and a fence. The rest they fill in with childish petulance and profane yelling. Ah well.
Gender is not easy to define. Anonymous gets it:
Identify as this, identify as that... I mean, people are just whatever they are, whether it be born male, born female, black, white, straight, gay, whatever.The whole thing about identity based politics is that it's basically an extension of the "you're a Christian, you must be Republican" thing. Identity and politics can be linked, but they are not synonymous. The (metaphorical) "ban" on questioning identity claims is not just impractical (people do gossip!) but it's also ridiculous. Anonymous also noted that if I demand the right to question the gender of others, then they can question my gender. Of course they can! Heck, I question it often enough! Why would I have any interest in preventing anyone from saying whatever they wanted about me? It would be a meaningless and futile task; of course, it doesn't mean I can't respond!
Questioning Transphobia comes in for quite a bit criticism. They do tend to go after feminists; which would be fine - except, instead of addressing the complaints and observations of some contemporary feminists, like Julie Bindel, they refuse to even consider the point being made. It looks astonishingly like men demanding acknowledgment that they are women. They might be - but in the eyes of many women, it's just men doing whatever the heck they want, again. Personally, I don't the QT writers question anything.
Anonymous also found it interesting that I am being accused of supporting rape, despite the fact that the person under discussion is an actual two-times rapist. Me? Yeah, I couldn't get my mind around that one, either.
The thing about QT is that they could perform a valuable role, but they are hung up on their isms and their "cis-" thing. Instead of figuring out how to talk about transphobia in sensible terms, they basically become fundamentalists. But their basic premise seems tenuous, at best, and contains quite a few contradictions. Feminists aren't transphobic, they're not cissexist (whatever the hell that is): they are defending what it means to be a woman from overbearing men. No matter what they call themselves. Identity politics does seem to have a problem, doesn't it?
I'm not sure if there is an answer to the claim "I am a woman", and a woman saying "no you're not!" It's certainly worth exploring.
Jennifer, of Just Jennifer, says the "TG Mafia" are "trangender fascists". I can see her point.
HallowedJaneBeThyName (no link, sorry) said I wasn't alone in my thoughts re transgender identity politics. Aka "tranny rage". She points me to a blog "The Great Transgender Swindle". Where I came upon this interesting observation:
Not content with preserving their male privilege by remaining as men and choosing to present and dress as women when they choose to, as well as demanding access to women’s spaces as they do, they have also recently started to expect the law to treat them and protect them as women too, even if most of them do not commit to permanently re-assigning their gender.Joni Rotten, the writer of the blog and quote, seems to have come across the "TG fascists/mafia", too.
As she says in her about page, it's not her intention to attack the transgendered, just the "damaging transgender politics and its 'truths'." Amen to that!
TG discussions get personal, real quick. Question some assumption, some assertion or some aspect - and it is assumed, by many, that you're attacking the transgendered. I might be disparaging about some transgendered individuals, but I am not attacking the transgendered. What I do want is a meaningful, honest discussion about what being trans means, what the implications are, how a trans person can be safe, and how to balance the right of a woman to her identity with the rights of a trans woman to claim her identity. These are not easy questions, but they deserve asking, and answering in a proper manner. Unfortunately, efforts to ask them are usually blocked with the questioner being accused of transphobia. I'm beginning to think some in the TG world simply want to be victims. Me? I'm not happy with that - and I don't think anyone else should be, either.
Carolyn Ann
Friday, March 20, 2009
After this...
After seeing President Barack Obama on Leno, and a long conversation with the Mrs, you sort of realize that life is simple when she sidles up to you, and gives you a kiss. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The simple me
I explored this a little in a comment to Battybattybats, in our recent discussion about the freedom of expression. I specifically said:
Once upon a time, I would walk into a local pub, and discuss the failings of Thatcher and communism with the landlady. She knew my heart wasn't in communism (it never was; I despise it more than I dislike the neocons), but was up for a bit needling about Thatcher.
I think this is something that's missing on the Internet: the personal touch. The need to buy another round, or expect your fellow debater didn't develop short arms at the same time as he (or she) developed long pockets. (This honor system worked quite well. I was once on the short end of it, inadvertently. I never made that mistake, again! I did save my day with a car repair call, but that's another story altogether!)
It was easy for Triple-B to go into a temper tantrum. What's there to stop such behavior? Nothing. Personal integrity, perhaps.
But the point is Triple-B's argument was convoluted. It had no hope of success, because it was complicated. Religious arguments are the same, oddly enough: all you have to do is point out that as the atheist, you have made no special claim: the pious, on the other hand, has made a claim to some superman, and if they're like many religious folks - Jesus will have more in common with Superman, Spiderman and Batman than his Biblical counterpart. Sit back and make sure you can fund the beers. (If the pious person doesn't drink beer, you're royally screwed. They are incapable of relaxing, and therefore can get a head of steam going before you've sunk the first pint. After that, you'll look longing at the dart board... That has been taken over by the local teams for a competition.)
Life is simple. It really is. Complex arguments about rights fail because they are complex, simple ideas prevail because they can be understood. That's not elitist: that's simplicity. You give me a complex idea, and I will poke holes in it. Give me a simple idea, I might consider it workable.
God, for instance, is a complex idea. That's why I reject any notions of a deity. The 6 year old, figuring that God wouldn't be so evil as to leave the children to drown in the flood, and yet he apparently did, has given way to the man who looks at ideas for god and fails to comprehend them. And, being who he is: says "this complex creature can't exist. This creature is contradictory to itself!" A simple argument, in response to a complex argument that god exists. God doesn't: because such an entity is too complex to exist!
If the religious talked of God's liver, his pancreas, his risk of male cancers, I might consider things differently: but they don't. They talk of his omnipotence, his ominscience and his perfect nature. All while they write church yard slogans that say "God can't be everywhere, that's why he invented mothers!"
Complexity dies with complexity. Simplicity continues on, because it has no other choice. Evolution is simple: intelligent design is astoundingly complex. The whole "deisgned universe" thing is astonishing in its complexity! The idea that an infinite amount of water (to quote one article I read) could occupy a finite amount of space has to be one of the most complex ideas I've ever come across!
There's a reason, I say, changing subjects with drama, the Consitution of the United States is so successful. It embodies two principle ideas: the people distrust the government, and we have the capacity to speak freely. You can't have the former without the latter, but you most certainly can have the latter without the former! But those two ideas, enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, tell us what is needed for a zillion years of humanity.
They give us, without any qualifications, guidelines that supersede the so-called "new" thinking that permeates so much of society. That tends to be totalitarianism, wrapped in doublespeak and dressed to go to a ball. Those wise men of the Constitutional Congress stunbled and fell, but ultimately provided a document or two that allowed people to be people.
Neclgecting the negated racism within the Constitution, they are simple. As schoolchildren, American children learn the principles of their nations' founding in civics lessons. In Britain we were taught none of that; if anything, history was a replacement, but a hooya! replacement. The principles of free expression, a simple desire, need to be preserved, and fostered. The alternative is too horrendous to abide: a nation of political correctness, angst-ridden groups deciding what can and cannot be said? Last I checked that was called 'fascism". That is Britain, today.
As I get older, I realize that the simple trumps the complex, every time. For one thing, as you get older: you realize time is not on your side. I am at that point in life where I probably have more years behind me than in front of me; no matter the mutterings that 50 is that terminal point! As such, I simply don't have time for complexity. If I am to pack in a bit of living into my remaining decades - I simply want the simple. The complex can wait for the young.
They, after all, seem to be the ones who comprehend, abide and applaud it. Odd how they try to summarize the complex, though? Are they trying, as the young do, to rush through life? Believe me: enjoy it. It's just so much more enjoyable, that way.
I could go on, but it would get complex, and the point is to remain simple. I am, after all, a simple man. I don't know why I wear dresses and skirts, and I haven't a clue why I feel complete when I do. I also feel complete when my wife gives me a kiss as she leaves for work, nor why holding her hand makes me feel as special as it does. I don't need to know why, I just need to know it does.
Call me a simple man, because that's what I am.
Carolyn Ann
Anyway, it's nearly dinner time, here. It was nice "chatting" with you; I wish you well, and hope we maintain some sort of aether based connection; I'll leave you blog on my blogroll thingy. Because while I do no agree with a lot of your opinions, I do like your writing - and I find that staying within boundaries so limiting! No matter how expansive the boundary, eventually you come up to it. That's perhaps why I like simple explorations and explanations: fewer boundaries. I'm quite a simple person, at the end of the day. As I get older, I get simpler. I find it works for me! :-)You know, it's true: the older I get, the simpler I like my explanations. Elaborate rationals just don't hold my attention. Mostly because I can pick holes in so many bits of them. The simpler the idea, the fewer are the opportunities for holes.
Once upon a time, I would walk into a local pub, and discuss the failings of Thatcher and communism with the landlady. She knew my heart wasn't in communism (it never was; I despise it more than I dislike the neocons), but was up for a bit needling about Thatcher.
I think this is something that's missing on the Internet: the personal touch. The need to buy another round, or expect your fellow debater didn't develop short arms at the same time as he (or she) developed long pockets. (This honor system worked quite well. I was once on the short end of it, inadvertently. I never made that mistake, again! I did save my day with a car repair call, but that's another story altogether!)
It was easy for Triple-B to go into a temper tantrum. What's there to stop such behavior? Nothing. Personal integrity, perhaps.
But the point is Triple-B's argument was convoluted. It had no hope of success, because it was complicated. Religious arguments are the same, oddly enough: all you have to do is point out that as the atheist, you have made no special claim: the pious, on the other hand, has made a claim to some superman, and if they're like many religious folks - Jesus will have more in common with Superman, Spiderman and Batman than his Biblical counterpart. Sit back and make sure you can fund the beers. (If the pious person doesn't drink beer, you're royally screwed. They are incapable of relaxing, and therefore can get a head of steam going before you've sunk the first pint. After that, you'll look longing at the dart board... That has been taken over by the local teams for a competition.)
Life is simple. It really is. Complex arguments about rights fail because they are complex, simple ideas prevail because they can be understood. That's not elitist: that's simplicity. You give me a complex idea, and I will poke holes in it. Give me a simple idea, I might consider it workable.
God, for instance, is a complex idea. That's why I reject any notions of a deity. The 6 year old, figuring that God wouldn't be so evil as to leave the children to drown in the flood, and yet he apparently did, has given way to the man who looks at ideas for god and fails to comprehend them. And, being who he is: says "this complex creature can't exist. This creature is contradictory to itself!" A simple argument, in response to a complex argument that god exists. God doesn't: because such an entity is too complex to exist!
If the religious talked of God's liver, his pancreas, his risk of male cancers, I might consider things differently: but they don't. They talk of his omnipotence, his ominscience and his perfect nature. All while they write church yard slogans that say "God can't be everywhere, that's why he invented mothers!"
Complexity dies with complexity. Simplicity continues on, because it has no other choice. Evolution is simple: intelligent design is astoundingly complex. The whole "deisgned universe" thing is astonishing in its complexity! The idea that an infinite amount of water (to quote one article I read) could occupy a finite amount of space has to be one of the most complex ideas I've ever come across!
There's a reason, I say, changing subjects with drama, the Consitution of the United States is so successful. It embodies two principle ideas: the people distrust the government, and we have the capacity to speak freely. You can't have the former without the latter, but you most certainly can have the latter without the former! But those two ideas, enshrined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, tell us what is needed for a zillion years of humanity.
They give us, without any qualifications, guidelines that supersede the so-called "new" thinking that permeates so much of society. That tends to be totalitarianism, wrapped in doublespeak and dressed to go to a ball. Those wise men of the Constitutional Congress stunbled and fell, but ultimately provided a document or two that allowed people to be people.
Neclgecting the negated racism within the Constitution, they are simple. As schoolchildren, American children learn the principles of their nations' founding in civics lessons. In Britain we were taught none of that; if anything, history was a replacement, but a hooya! replacement. The principles of free expression, a simple desire, need to be preserved, and fostered. The alternative is too horrendous to abide: a nation of political correctness, angst-ridden groups deciding what can and cannot be said? Last I checked that was called 'fascism". That is Britain, today.
As I get older, I realize that the simple trumps the complex, every time. For one thing, as you get older: you realize time is not on your side. I am at that point in life where I probably have more years behind me than in front of me; no matter the mutterings that 50 is that terminal point! As such, I simply don't have time for complexity. If I am to pack in a bit of living into my remaining decades - I simply want the simple. The complex can wait for the young.
They, after all, seem to be the ones who comprehend, abide and applaud it. Odd how they try to summarize the complex, though? Are they trying, as the young do, to rush through life? Believe me: enjoy it. It's just so much more enjoyable, that way.
I could go on, but it would get complex, and the point is to remain simple. I am, after all, a simple man. I don't know why I wear dresses and skirts, and I haven't a clue why I feel complete when I do. I also feel complete when my wife gives me a kiss as she leaves for work, nor why holding her hand makes me feel as special as it does. I don't need to know why, I just need to know it does.
Call me a simple man, because that's what I am.
Carolyn Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)