So I told Ebony off. He keeps going after LC; she screeches and carries on something awful, when he does. This evening I told Ebony that "it's not nice to go after little girls!" (She's about 2/3 his size.)
Oh darn. I'm going to get into trouble for being cisprivileged, aren't I?
:-)
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Cis?
I see QueenEmily has written, ever so eloquently, about the term "cis", over on that hack, Questioning Transphobia. Apparently, it's not an academic term. Who knew?
Here's the gist of the post: if you don't know what "cis" means, you're a loser. And you need to go look up the term, loser.
With a slightly lower than predictable quotient of epithets, anyone not understanding the term "cisgender" is, apparently, obliged to look it up. She provides some links, as a courtesy (I can only presume).
The post is accompanied, at the time of this writing, by 68 comments. All in either mild, or violent, agreement with her premise. (What? You expected the QT writers to entertain disagreement? Didn't you know they reserve the right to speak their own minds, but you're not allowed to speak yours?!?) How can she cope with such adulation? Surely it must go to her head? No, she's fair -
Here's the gist of the post: if you don't know what "cis" means, you're a loser. And you need to go look up the term, loser.
With a slightly lower than predictable quotient of epithets, anyone not understanding the term "cisgender" is, apparently, obliged to look it up. She provides some links, as a courtesy (I can only presume).
The post is accompanied, at the time of this writing, by 68 comments. All in either mild, or violent, agreement with her premise. (What? You expected the QT writers to entertain disagreement? Didn't you know they reserve the right to speak their own minds, but you're not allowed to speak yours?!?) How can she cope with such adulation? Surely it must go to her head? No, she's fair -
Okay, QueenEmily is herself.@Suzan
I’ve read you on your own blog say that you use “normborn” to annoy “gender activists.”
Heck - I go out of my way to annoy gender activists. They make such tempting statements. :-)
I have to admit, I have a problem with the entire post, and the assumption in the last sentence:
So hey cis readers, the next time you want to de-rail a thread about trans rights, you know actual rights for actual people, ... . [My emphasis]
I have no problem with actual rights bit - it's the first bit I have a problem with. Isn't the onus on those who use a term to define it? Or did that change? And don't you collect more bees with honey than vinegar? Such aggression is usually accompanied by an equivalent quantity of arrogance.
Questioning Transphobia, as usual, does more to harm the cause of transgender politics than they do to help it. Why aren't they writing about the recent vote in New Hampshire? Why aren't they working to a true understanding of what transphobia is, and how it can be fought? Why, indeed?
The QT writers would be lost with transphobia. They wouldn't have anything to say. Fortunately for them - people are people. I just wish they would apply some common sense to the issue. I don't hope they will - it would too forlorn a hope. I just wish they would. Perhaps, one day, they will realize the violent upheavals of the 1960's are long ago. These days, different tactics are needed. Not ones that play into the hands of those who oppose transgender rights.
One more thing: not all "cis" people are against the transgendered. It would be really helpful if they stopped such broad brush strokes. It might also help them formulate, and articulate, their arguments a little more clearly. Heck, it might make their arguments a little more coherent! They could stop being the Rush Limbaugh's, the Glen Beck's, or the Ann Coulter's of the transgender world, and be serious commentators of gender issues. That would be a great thing.
I'm not holding my breath for any change. Those bloggers require the perception of victimization. If it didn't exist, they would invent it. Just like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Ann Coulter. The worst of it? They don't need to invent the victimization, nor the prejudice, against the transgendered.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Sun buys Oracle!
Sorry. Every time I see a story like "Oracle buys Sun", I think of a meeting I attended with NCR, just after they'd been bought by AT&T. The NCR guys sat there, and told me their company had just bought AT&T. If you think I'm obnoxious on the web, let's just say those guys did not offer to take me to lunch.
So, why is it important that Oracle bought Sun Microsystems? In a word: MySQL. Oh, forget Java - that's a language on the way out. It will need some serious strategic realignment to be the juggernaught it used to be. No, Microsoft's inanimate efforts at competing are not going to take over the world. There will be a little chaos, and Java will continue its quest to be, well, something other than an academic exercise.
I know, I know. I can actually program in Java. I actually like the language. But a computer language is a little more than its fans, or the applications that use it. A modern computer language is a religion, a way of thinking and a cultural ethos. All wrapped into a few syntax rules and conventions. :-)
At its heart, Java is an academic exercise. C#, Microsoft's inane offering, is little more than a knee-jerk reaction. From the knee of the recently deceased. Heck, Microsoft hasn't had a good idea since they purchased the company that built Visual Basic.
Well? Have they?
MySQL is important. Actually, considering its importance to the web, it's of international interest, and of strategic interest to so many, I doubt you could actually count them. It's a fundamental part of LAMP, WAMP and the idiotically named "MAMP". Now, I could be an ornery bugger - like my "friends" over at Questioning Transphobia - and insist you "Just Fucking Google It", if you don't know what those acronyms mean. But, being the sort of chap that believes that when you use an unfamiliar term, you're duty bound to explain it - I'll explain it. :-)
Even if that equates to cisgender privilege. Whatever that is.
LAMP is "Linux", "Apache", "MySQL" and "PHP". Linux is the open source operating system we all know and love. Yes we do love it. Ever chat with a linuxbigot fan? They're as bad as the genderqueer crowd. Apache is the web server software; it got that name because the original developers were forever patching, fixing, their software. It became so good it became the default choice, but in the meantime it seemed like it was forever being patched. So the developers would call it a "a patchy server". :-) MySQL is an open source database. At this point I will have to assume you know the difference between open source and closed source software. Open source, you can read the instructions to the computer; closed source, you can't. PHP is a cute name; it means "Personal Home Page" (or it used to, when I started learning it) and was invented a while back, basically as a way to change web pages in response to external inputs. This is called "dynamic" because computer science majors have never met an existing process they couldn't rename.
Sun recently, in a baffling strategic move, purchased the company that owns MySQL. Baffling because it wasn't their (Sun's) primary business, and also because it made sense only to those who would get rich from the sudden influx of Sun's money. I can't figure out why Sun bought MySQL. It literally made no sense.
Now, Oracle buying Sun - that makes sense. Not because Oracle wants to get into the hardware market. Intel has that wrapped up, and even AMD is having a few problems. Interestingly, Sun were the ones who kick-started Intel's rise to fame, fortune and monopoly. Sun's founders had a neat concept - the RISK chip. Computers work with central processing chips; these devices consume lots of electricity, produce staggering amounts of heat, generate amazing amounts of press and almost rabid enthusiasm in CPU fans and return - what you see on your screen. (By CPU fans, I don't mean those amazingly complex devices some put on the CPU's. I mean the people who put those amazingly complex and expensive devices on top of the CPU's. :-) )
Does Oracle, well, Larry Ellison, want to get into the hardware market? I don't think so. He used to have a Richard Branson complex, but I think he's had some therapy for that. He's not made a move like this for, oh, ever. ... Oh yes he has. He, just like Steve Balmer over at Microsoft, is in the habit of buying companies that have good ideas. Ones that might add to the central product of the firm. For Balmer it's Windows. For Ellison, it's Oracle. What is Oracle? A database. What is MySQL? A ... database!
I knew you'd get it.
Sun paid, if memory serves, one billion dollars, or thereabouts, for MySQL. John Dvorak, the well-loved [sic] industry watcher and pundit said of the merger, "The Sun-MySQL deal stinks". Erm, I guess he's not a fan of the acquisition.
He wasn't the only that couldn't figure out how a company that gave its main product away could be worth a billion dollars. No one else could figure it out, either. (I don't know their P/E ratio, but I doubt it sustained an evaluation of a billion dollars.)
Oracle has, by dint of merely observing the obvious, managed to put itself in the position of removing its main competition from the market. Steve Balmer must be furious. Microsoft has a database product called, er, yeah, it's on the tip of my tongue, oh what is it?! Well, it hardly matters - no one but Microsofties know what it is, or care.
Oh, Oracle won't kill MySQL. If they have sense, that is. (The record is mixed.) No, they'll simply try and push it in the "right" direction. I don't know what that will be - not being clairvoyant, I'm at a loss to say what Larry Ellison thinks. Considering some of the things he's said in the past, I'm not taking any position on whether he thinks, or not.
Here's what I think might happen: Java will develop some astounding database connectivity. It won't be any good, but will be blazingly fast against an Oracle database. The same query run against a Microsoft database will be measured with a calendar, or an antitrust lawsuit. Actually, it will be okay in response time - not quite as good, but not bad enough to generate much more than dark mutterings. Java will also change direction. It will cease to be an academic exercise, and will become an excuse for a language that looks like it was derived from C#. Which has some interesting philosophical similarities to Java... Oy, this one could boost the sales of Excedrin. Oracle has never met a competitor to Microsoft it either can't help screwing up, or emulating the worst of the Microsoft product with. I almost said "it can't help shafting", but I decided against suchaccurate old-fashioned wording.
Some might wonder about Solaris. A superb operating system. Absolutely wonderful. I love it. I've loved it since the moment I first laid eyes on it. I often thought of Linux as a Solaris wanna-be. It wasn't until I came across the Mac's OS X that I saw any alternative. When I studied up on the OS X innards, I kept my admiration of Solaris. (Picture this: a guy, sopping wet with sweat, grungy with road grime, on a blistering hot midweek afternoon, studying two thick books about OS internals. That was me, at the Princeton/Meadow Lane Barnes & Noble. I was reading, and comparing OS X and Solaris. For a blog post I never wrote!) :-)
When I was in charge of "important decisions", I always leaned to Sun for the really heavy, must-stay-up or my job is down the tubes sort of servers. Except the MS Exchange servers; I lost that political battle. Sun Microsystems were always a good pick - they produced reliable, tested systems. Heck, I heard they were in the back of battle tanks - that's a fairly hostile environment! (I also heard of the US Navy destroyer that was powered by Windows NT. It had to be towed back to port, apparently.) What I knew, know, is that Sun was a good company.
I even interviewed there, once. That was a disaster. They flew this guy down from Boston, and he was a techie. I was a mid-level manager. He talked tech, I talked gibberish. Really. It wasn't management-speak, which is a dialect of gibberish. I spoke true gibberish. The only other interview that was worse was the one I had at Bertlesmann, the record company. The interviewer had a strong accent, and I couldn't understand a word he said. Literally. Him: "Tell me about your [indecipherable, even after multiple tries]" Me: "Tell you how crazy I am?" I did... Oops. :-)
I made up for the Sun interview by buying a few million dollars worth of Sun servers. Bertlesmann would have to survive without me. (So far, and mystifyingly, they are... :-) ) The Sun guy bought the first round of drinks when I left the ratings company; it cost a fortune! (I heard $300, for the first round! In the late '90's!) I prattle.
So, why did Oracle decide to buy Sun? Not for the hardware. It bought it for the strategic possibilities of Java, and MySQL - it's main competition. Will it upend the market? Not really. Not unless Oracle does something amazingly stupid with MySQL. There are no guarantees they won't. But one thing we can expect: the end of true competition in the CPU market.
That's why I think it's a bad idea. Intel just isn't that innovative a company - it always needs its competition. And with AMD on the ropes, Sun's RISK chips are staggeringly fast; Solaris is superb, and Java is a computer language in desperate need of a strategic direction. Oracle are not likely to help with any of those. As for MySQL - I don't think it's the end of the product. But if I ran a corporate data center that relied on it, or relied on its competition to keep my Oracle prices lower - I'd be making some important decisions about the future. Right about... Now.
If I ran an Oracle/Microsoft shop - I'd seriously look at either merging the databases, or replacing one or the other. Two monopolistic corporations, in one data center? Not a good mix. Think "oil and water" - and you have the job of figuring out which is lighter. Because next year, your support costs are going to rise.
For the rest of us, trying to figure out their blog or forum databases - I'd start looking at the various content management system forums, and try to guess which way Oracle will go with MySQL. If they keep it open source, and developed - fine. I wouldn't count on it, though. Oracle has never been nice to its competition - and MySQL is its biggest competitor, yet. Look at the alternatives, see if anyone is developing against them.
It is, basically, up to the open source community to protect its intellectual investment in MySQL. Oracle has never liked the open source movement.
That's the danger of this merger.
On the other hand - if Oracle screws up on MySQL - an alternative will be along, in short order. Thank the heavens for capitalism. It sure as heck works.
Carolyn Ann
So, why is it important that Oracle bought Sun Microsystems? In a word: MySQL. Oh, forget Java - that's a language on the way out. It will need some serious strategic realignment to be the juggernaught it used to be. No, Microsoft's inanimate efforts at competing are not going to take over the world. There will be a little chaos, and Java will continue its quest to be, well, something other than an academic exercise.
I know, I know. I can actually program in Java. I actually like the language. But a computer language is a little more than its fans, or the applications that use it. A modern computer language is a religion, a way of thinking and a cultural ethos. All wrapped into a few syntax rules and conventions. :-)
At its heart, Java is an academic exercise. C#, Microsoft's inane offering, is little more than a knee-jerk reaction. From the knee of the recently deceased. Heck, Microsoft hasn't had a good idea since they purchased the company that built Visual Basic.
Well? Have they?
MySQL is important. Actually, considering its importance to the web, it's of international interest, and of strategic interest to so many, I doubt you could actually count them. It's a fundamental part of LAMP, WAMP and the idiotically named "MAMP". Now, I could be an ornery bugger - like my "friends" over at Questioning Transphobia - and insist you "Just Fucking Google It", if you don't know what those acronyms mean. But, being the sort of chap that believes that when you use an unfamiliar term, you're duty bound to explain it - I'll explain it. :-)
Even if that equates to cisgender privilege. Whatever that is.
LAMP is "Linux", "Apache", "MySQL" and "PHP". Linux is the open source operating system we all know and love. Yes we do love it. Ever chat with a linux
Sun recently, in a baffling strategic move, purchased the company that owns MySQL. Baffling because it wasn't their (Sun's) primary business, and also because it made sense only to those who would get rich from the sudden influx of Sun's money. I can't figure out why Sun bought MySQL. It literally made no sense.
Now, Oracle buying Sun - that makes sense. Not because Oracle wants to get into the hardware market. Intel has that wrapped up, and even AMD is having a few problems. Interestingly, Sun were the ones who kick-started Intel's rise to fame, fortune and monopoly. Sun's founders had a neat concept - the RISK chip. Computers work with central processing chips; these devices consume lots of electricity, produce staggering amounts of heat, generate amazing amounts of press and almost rabid enthusiasm in CPU fans and return - what you see on your screen. (By CPU fans, I don't mean those amazingly complex devices some put on the CPU's. I mean the people who put those amazingly complex and expensive devices on top of the CPU's. :-) )
Does Oracle, well, Larry Ellison, want to get into the hardware market? I don't think so. He used to have a Richard Branson complex, but I think he's had some therapy for that. He's not made a move like this for, oh, ever. ... Oh yes he has. He, just like Steve Balmer over at Microsoft, is in the habit of buying companies that have good ideas. Ones that might add to the central product of the firm. For Balmer it's Windows. For Ellison, it's Oracle. What is Oracle? A database. What is MySQL? A ... database!
I knew you'd get it.
Sun paid, if memory serves, one billion dollars, or thereabouts, for MySQL. John Dvorak, the well-loved [sic] industry watcher and pundit said of the merger, "The Sun-MySQL deal stinks". Erm, I guess he's not a fan of the acquisition.
He wasn't the only that couldn't figure out how a company that gave its main product away could be worth a billion dollars. No one else could figure it out, either. (I don't know their P/E ratio, but I doubt it sustained an evaluation of a billion dollars.)
Oracle has, by dint of merely observing the obvious, managed to put itself in the position of removing its main competition from the market. Steve Balmer must be furious. Microsoft has a database product called, er, yeah, it's on the tip of my tongue, oh what is it?! Well, it hardly matters - no one but Microsofties know what it is, or care.
Oh, Oracle won't kill MySQL. If they have sense, that is. (The record is mixed.) No, they'll simply try and push it in the "right" direction. I don't know what that will be - not being clairvoyant, I'm at a loss to say what Larry Ellison thinks. Considering some of the things he's said in the past, I'm not taking any position on whether he thinks, or not.
Here's what I think might happen: Java will develop some astounding database connectivity. It won't be any good, but will be blazingly fast against an Oracle database. The same query run against a Microsoft database will be measured with a calendar, or an antitrust lawsuit. Actually, it will be okay in response time - not quite as good, but not bad enough to generate much more than dark mutterings. Java will also change direction. It will cease to be an academic exercise, and will become an excuse for a language that looks like it was derived from C#. Which has some interesting philosophical similarities to Java... Oy, this one could boost the sales of Excedrin. Oracle has never met a competitor to Microsoft it either can't help screwing up, or emulating the worst of the Microsoft product with. I almost said "it can't help shafting", but I decided against such
Some might wonder about Solaris. A superb operating system. Absolutely wonderful. I love it. I've loved it since the moment I first laid eyes on it. I often thought of Linux as a Solaris wanna-be. It wasn't until I came across the Mac's OS X that I saw any alternative. When I studied up on the OS X innards, I kept my admiration of Solaris. (Picture this: a guy, sopping wet with sweat, grungy with road grime, on a blistering hot midweek afternoon, studying two thick books about OS internals. That was me, at the Princeton/Meadow Lane Barnes & Noble. I was reading, and comparing OS X and Solaris. For a blog post I never wrote!) :-)
When I was in charge of "important decisions", I always leaned to Sun for the really heavy, must-stay-up or my job is down the tubes sort of servers. Except the MS Exchange servers; I lost that political battle. Sun Microsystems were always a good pick - they produced reliable, tested systems. Heck, I heard they were in the back of battle tanks - that's a fairly hostile environment! (I also heard of the US Navy destroyer that was powered by Windows NT. It had to be towed back to port, apparently.) What I knew, know, is that Sun was a good company.
I even interviewed there, once. That was a disaster. They flew this guy down from Boston, and he was a techie. I was a mid-level manager. He talked tech, I talked gibberish. Really. It wasn't management-speak, which is a dialect of gibberish. I spoke true gibberish. The only other interview that was worse was the one I had at Bertlesmann, the record company. The interviewer had a strong accent, and I couldn't understand a word he said. Literally. Him: "Tell me about your [indecipherable, even after multiple tries]" Me: "Tell you how crazy I am?" I did... Oops. :-)
I made up for the Sun interview by buying a few million dollars worth of Sun servers. Bertlesmann would have to survive without me. (So far, and mystifyingly, they are... :-) ) The Sun guy bought the first round of drinks when I left the ratings company; it cost a fortune! (I heard $300, for the first round! In the late '90's!) I prattle.
So, why did Oracle decide to buy Sun? Not for the hardware. It bought it for the strategic possibilities of Java, and MySQL - it's main competition. Will it upend the market? Not really. Not unless Oracle does something amazingly stupid with MySQL. There are no guarantees they won't. But one thing we can expect: the end of true competition in the CPU market.
That's why I think it's a bad idea. Intel just isn't that innovative a company - it always needs its competition. And with AMD on the ropes, Sun's RISK chips are staggeringly fast; Solaris is superb, and Java is a computer language in desperate need of a strategic direction. Oracle are not likely to help with any of those. As for MySQL - I don't think it's the end of the product. But if I ran a corporate data center that relied on it, or relied on its competition to keep my Oracle prices lower - I'd be making some important decisions about the future. Right about... Now.
If I ran an Oracle/Microsoft shop - I'd seriously look at either merging the databases, or replacing one or the other. Two monopolistic corporations, in one data center? Not a good mix. Think "oil and water" - and you have the job of figuring out which is lighter. Because next year, your support costs are going to rise.
For the rest of us, trying to figure out their blog or forum databases - I'd start looking at the various content management system forums, and try to guess which way Oracle will go with MySQL. If they keep it open source, and developed - fine. I wouldn't count on it, though. Oracle has never been nice to its competition - and MySQL is its biggest competitor, yet. Look at the alternatives, see if anyone is developing against them.
It is, basically, up to the open source community to protect its intellectual investment in MySQL. Oracle has never liked the open source movement.
That's the danger of this merger.
On the other hand - if Oracle screws up on MySQL - an alternative will be along, in short order. Thank the heavens for capitalism. It sure as heck works.
Carolyn Ann
Cats! Who'd 'ave 'em?
The last time I saw little Max was about 10-ish, this morning. She was sleeping on the bed. After that, nary a sight. That is highly unusual.
So, somewhere around 2, I set off in search of her. I looked high and low - no Max. At about 3, I went and looked, again. A little while after 4, I fed the other guys, and - no Maxine. She never misses dinner! Along with breakfast, any chance of lunch and any vague chance we're having either fish or chicken for our dinner - it's her favorite meal. Heck, food is her favorite hobby. But no Max at dinner.
I was getting seriously worried. I went outside. I checked the road. I walked around the woods, calling her. I looked under the deck, under the front steps and around the vehicles in the driveway. And then I went and searched the house, again.
On a whim, I decided to check under the bed - for the millionth time. And there she was - yawning away. Not a care in the world. She ambled out, and was immediately grabbed. We then had a long hug. She gave me a few kisses (I taught her to kiss, a long time ago), and basically squirmed her way to the floor. And then she promptly went in search of something to eat.
Cats! Who'd have 'em? (Me. :-) )
Carolyn Ann
So, somewhere around 2, I set off in search of her. I looked high and low - no Max. At about 3, I went and looked, again. A little while after 4, I fed the other guys, and - no Maxine. She never misses dinner! Along with breakfast, any chance of lunch and any vague chance we're having either fish or chicken for our dinner - it's her favorite meal. Heck, food is her favorite hobby. But no Max at dinner.
I was getting seriously worried. I went outside. I checked the road. I walked around the woods, calling her. I looked under the deck, under the front steps and around the vehicles in the driveway. And then I went and searched the house, again.
On a whim, I decided to check under the bed - for the millionth time. And there she was - yawning away. Not a care in the world. She ambled out, and was immediately grabbed. We then had a long hug. She gave me a few kisses (I taught her to kiss, a long time ago), and basically squirmed her way to the floor. And then she promptly went in search of something to eat.
Cats! Who'd have 'em? (Me. :-) )
Carolyn Ann
Freedom and defamation
The UN Human Rights Commission has decided that individual rights aren't that important. They passed, at the behest of a number of Islamic nations, a condemnation of religious defamation.
Religion has, in the eyes of this Group of Fools, become more important than the individual right to criticize religion. Talk about restricting speech! This is one of the ultimate restrictions: it justifies laws that prevent you from questioning your faith, and perhaps changing it, growing within it, or rejecting it. It disallows philosophical progress.
I can't say I'm surprised. The general attitude, world wide, to freedom of expression is to curtail it where someone might get upset, or is upset, about your criticism. It's Fahrenheit 451, but on a much bigger scale. Of course, those who are doing the censoring insist they aren't doing anything of the sort.
It really doesn't matter who is saying "You can't question that!" There are too many who want to restrict your words, your thoughts, to what they find acceptable. There are so many diverse groups out there, they all should balance each other. But they don't. The problem of free expression is that someone will say something you don't like. When the general attitude is that it is okay to restrict certain ideas and expressions, because they might offend, it's not a win for anyone. It's a significant loss to the idea that we, as individuals, have a basic and fundamental right to express ourselves.
Avoiding offense by curtailing what can be questioned is as bad as directly censoring what can be expressed. ... ... I need to correct myself: it's worse. The insidiously censored is infinitely more arbitrary than any stated proscription.
So, the next time you feel like banning some sort of expression, stop and think. The next time you go and delete a blog post because it causes some controversy, and you don't like the opposing view, or the what the critic says, stop and think. The next time you insist you're something and no one can question that - stop and think. Because I'll guarantee that you have just restricted yourself more than you have restricted others.
Restricting what others can say is not about your freedom - it's about curtailing the freedom of others. "Freedom from" is an uncommonly powerful argument. It is also a facetious one. When you insist on freedom from something, you are always restricting someone else's rights, for your own convenience or some false sense of security.
The only thing restrictions of this sort provide is a sudden stop to any progress. Ban questions, and you ban answers. Ban answers and you restrict what you can learn. Restrict what you can learn, and you might as well deny all education. Deny education, and you might as well install a dictatorship. Because you've implemented the most draconian dictatorship possible: the court of public opinion, and self-censoring.
Next time you feel like stopping someone from saying something, or not providing your blog as a forum to question: stop and think. Think about what happens when you restrict what others can say, and how they might restrict what you can say. And try to be honest about it.
Carolyn Ann
Religion has, in the eyes of this Group of Fools, become more important than the individual right to criticize religion. Talk about restricting speech! This is one of the ultimate restrictions: it justifies laws that prevent you from questioning your faith, and perhaps changing it, growing within it, or rejecting it. It disallows philosophical progress.
I can't say I'm surprised. The general attitude, world wide, to freedom of expression is to curtail it where someone might get upset, or is upset, about your criticism. It's Fahrenheit 451, but on a much bigger scale. Of course, those who are doing the censoring insist they aren't doing anything of the sort.
It really doesn't matter who is saying "You can't question that!" There are too many who want to restrict your words, your thoughts, to what they find acceptable. There are so many diverse groups out there, they all should balance each other. But they don't. The problem of free expression is that someone will say something you don't like. When the general attitude is that it is okay to restrict certain ideas and expressions, because they might offend, it's not a win for anyone. It's a significant loss to the idea that we, as individuals, have a basic and fundamental right to express ourselves.
Avoiding offense by curtailing what can be questioned is as bad as directly censoring what can be expressed. ... ... I need to correct myself: it's worse. The insidiously censored is infinitely more arbitrary than any stated proscription.
So, the next time you feel like banning some sort of expression, stop and think. The next time you go and delete a blog post because it causes some controversy, and you don't like the opposing view, or the what the critic says, stop and think. The next time you insist you're something and no one can question that - stop and think. Because I'll guarantee that you have just restricted yourself more than you have restricted others.
Restricting what others can say is not about your freedom - it's about curtailing the freedom of others. "Freedom from" is an uncommonly powerful argument. It is also a facetious one. When you insist on freedom from something, you are always restricting someone else's rights, for your own convenience or some false sense of security.
The only thing restrictions of this sort provide is a sudden stop to any progress. Ban questions, and you ban answers. Ban answers and you restrict what you can learn. Restrict what you can learn, and you might as well deny all education. Deny education, and you might as well install a dictatorship. Because you've implemented the most draconian dictatorship possible: the court of public opinion, and self-censoring.
Next time you feel like stopping someone from saying something, or not providing your blog as a forum to question: stop and think. Think about what happens when you restrict what others can say, and how they might restrict what you can say. And try to be honest about it.
Carolyn Ann
100 days, but who's counting?
I don't get the whole 100 days thing.
It started with Roosevelt, and should have died with him. It's a stupid measure, by any standard, and is about as arbitrary as they come. It worked as a rallying cry for the New Deal, but that's all.
Some people will point to all the changes Obama has made, in his first 100 days! Oh, my! Maybe he can skate for the rest of his Presidency? George Bush did, and he got a second crack at the job. I don't think the measure of success should be how much change the man has brought to the job - it should be how effective he is in making those changes. If a change takes 101 days, it's obviously a failure by the 100-day touchstone. If it takes 102 days, maybe he needs to quit and let someone else have a go?
It's a stupid measure. The man has brought some massive changes to Washington, and the world. He's changing perceptions about America, and about the Presidency. He's working at the economy - imperfectly, perhaps, but he's doing something (which is more than can be said for Bush, or the Republicans), and he's changing the strategies, policies, goals, direction and tone of two wars. That's a heck of a lot of change in 100 days. But we shouldn't be measuring his successes in the first 100 days, nor his failures. We should be continually commenting, and at the end of his presidency, we can review it and decide how he did.
He's a rock star, and he's still got a monumental amount of work in front of him. 100 days is meaningless compared to the overall term. It's also meaningless in comparison to the problems we face - as a nation, and as a world.
100 days? Who cares?
Carolyn Ann
It started with Roosevelt, and should have died with him. It's a stupid measure, by any standard, and is about as arbitrary as they come. It worked as a rallying cry for the New Deal, but that's all.
Some people will point to all the changes Obama has made, in his first 100 days! Oh, my! Maybe he can skate for the rest of his Presidency? George Bush did, and he got a second crack at the job. I don't think the measure of success should be how much change the man has brought to the job - it should be how effective he is in making those changes. If a change takes 101 days, it's obviously a failure by the 100-day touchstone. If it takes 102 days, maybe he needs to quit and let someone else have a go?
It's a stupid measure. The man has brought some massive changes to Washington, and the world. He's changing perceptions about America, and about the Presidency. He's working at the economy - imperfectly, perhaps, but he's doing something (which is more than can be said for Bush, or the Republicans), and he's changing the strategies, policies, goals, direction and tone of two wars. That's a heck of a lot of change in 100 days. But we shouldn't be measuring his successes in the first 100 days, nor his failures. We should be continually commenting, and at the end of his presidency, we can review it and decide how he did.
He's a rock star, and he's still got a monumental amount of work in front of him. 100 days is meaningless compared to the overall term. It's also meaningless in comparison to the problems we face - as a nation, and as a world.
100 days? Who cares?
Carolyn Ann
Changing Arlen
So Arlen Spector has switched parties. I wonder what Harry Reid promised him - besides making it easier for him to keep his Pennsylvania seat in the Senate.
While this is of some value to the Democrats, it's a disaster for the Republicans. They're marginalized and ridiculed by this move. If I were the GOP congressional leadership, I'd be looking at Olympia Snow and Susan Collins really hard, right about now. I'd be looking at what it would take to prevent them from switching parties, learning what moderate Republicanism is all about. Instead, the actual leadership is probably looking at how they can make do without moderate voices in the Republican caucus.
It's going to be a few weeks before the full impact is known, but I think we can make some predictions: the Republicans are going to move even more to the right. They are in danger of being totally ineffective as representatives. Not just as an opposition - that's something they've already lost credibility on - but simply as elected representatives, for their constituents. They will become so ideological that they will cease to represent the people, and really become enslaved to a few, narrowly defined, ideological ideas. The California GOP is a bit like that, now. Imagine such ineffectiveness, coupled with a complete lack of responsibility - and... It's not a pretty picture. Teenage temper tantrums will seem calm and serene in comparison.
The far right is already steaming ahead - they're basically say "good riddance, and don't let the door hit you in the ass!" And then they're celebrating how good this will be for their cause. (Just don't look too closely for a well-defined cause. You'll not find one.) What these people are really doing is sidelining the grand old party. They're taking it in irrelevancy, and instead of stopping to look around, and wonder where they are - they're plunging ahead, ever faster.
In politics, it is always a good idea to have an effective, considered, opposition. It keeps everything from developing into a pseudo-one party system. We've experienced that with the Republicans and George Bush - it wasn't pretty. I see no reason to think a Democratic version would be much better. It's all about balance. You don't necessarily want Congress rushing in any one direction; such a thing always leads to corruption, and bad laws. Economically, the US has done extremely well when Congress acts as a moderator. Ideology gets in the way of sensible fiscal and monetary policies.
Overall, this is not just bad for the Republicans - it might be the final straw. The temptation for conservatives and conservative moderates to take back their party has gone; I wouldn't be surprised to see a new party emerge. Conservative, and not ideologically bound to far right mantras. The sort of conservatism people want to see. Not the hellfire, brimstone, anti-intellectual, tax-cut enthralled foolishness of the extremists. Christie Whitman, I'm sure, would be a more than capable of leader.
We do live in interesting times, don't we? :-)
Carolyn Ann
While this is of some value to the Democrats, it's a disaster for the Republicans. They're marginalized and ridiculed by this move. If I were the GOP congressional leadership, I'd be looking at Olympia Snow and Susan Collins really hard, right about now. I'd be looking at what it would take to prevent them from switching parties, learning what moderate Republicanism is all about. Instead, the actual leadership is probably looking at how they can make do without moderate voices in the Republican caucus.
It's going to be a few weeks before the full impact is known, but I think we can make some predictions: the Republicans are going to move even more to the right. They are in danger of being totally ineffective as representatives. Not just as an opposition - that's something they've already lost credibility on - but simply as elected representatives, for their constituents. They will become so ideological that they will cease to represent the people, and really become enslaved to a few, narrowly defined, ideological ideas. The California GOP is a bit like that, now. Imagine such ineffectiveness, coupled with a complete lack of responsibility - and... It's not a pretty picture. Teenage temper tantrums will seem calm and serene in comparison.
The far right is already steaming ahead - they're basically say "good riddance, and don't let the door hit you in the ass!" And then they're celebrating how good this will be for their cause. (Just don't look too closely for a well-defined cause. You'll not find one.) What these people are really doing is sidelining the grand old party. They're taking it in irrelevancy, and instead of stopping to look around, and wonder where they are - they're plunging ahead, ever faster.
In politics, it is always a good idea to have an effective, considered, opposition. It keeps everything from developing into a pseudo-one party system. We've experienced that with the Republicans and George Bush - it wasn't pretty. I see no reason to think a Democratic version would be much better. It's all about balance. You don't necessarily want Congress rushing in any one direction; such a thing always leads to corruption, and bad laws. Economically, the US has done extremely well when Congress acts as a moderator. Ideology gets in the way of sensible fiscal and monetary policies.
Overall, this is not just bad for the Republicans - it might be the final straw. The temptation for conservatives and conservative moderates to take back their party has gone; I wouldn't be surprised to see a new party emerge. Conservative, and not ideologically bound to far right mantras. The sort of conservatism people want to see. Not the hellfire, brimstone, anti-intellectual, tax-cut enthralled foolishness of the extremists. Christie Whitman, I'm sure, would be a more than capable of leader.
We do live in interesting times, don't we? :-)
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Vanessa's Queries :-)
Don't you just love words? Me, I love to play with them. :-)
Okay, Vanessa asked me a few questions, in response to my childish diatribe. I did an HTML strike on the words, but being an adherent of the idea you can't, and shouldn't, hide mistakes, screw ups and other nefarious deeds - I didn't delete the post. Unlike some people I could mention.
I do not have, I have not sought, permission to repost Vanessa's questions, so I refer you to the original post; the questions are in the comments section. Here is my response. Which might not make sense. (Does anything I write make sense?) :-D
Yeah, you'll see a theme. :-)
I tolerate the religiously zealous, simply because their First Amendment Rights supersede my distaste for their opinion(s). I view, as sacrosanct, the Declaration of Human Rights - it's based on the principle that faith, or lack thereof, is a personalchoice matter. So is the First Amendment.
Added: (I hasten to add that the First Amendment is not a personal choice; it is sacrosanct!)
As a First Amendment Fundamentalist [sic] I must support [the right to] even the most distasteful of speech. I don't have to agree with it - but I have to support the right of the person to say it. Because, as old Tom Paine said - the restrictions I put on others will reach me, soon enough. It's why I find the repression of blog commentary so reprehensible, and so hypocritical.
Okay, two groups rely on the First Amendment, and work to subvert it: those with ideological interests, and those with extreme theocratic interests. Of the two ... I think both are opprobrious. :-) Both groups are typically organized in some way; the religious tend to be better organized, but the transgender have their own "popular" opinion. I'm never quite sure which is the more idiotic.
Question #2 - the belief in a deity. How can I be diplomatic about this? There. Is. No. God. Never has been, never will be. I have, over the years, come to the conclusion that anyone who says they have a personal relationship with god simply has developed a peculiar personal relationship with themselves.
I could base my premise on science. I could base it on Biblical analysis. I could base it on emotion. I could base it on anything - and that's the problem.
Any argument about an Abrahamic deity must include a discussion about good and evil. Try and define the Abrahamic deity in terms of good and evil. The Greeks had it about right - their gods were just like people, neither good, nor evil. But what is good? What is evil? Can evil serve good? If it can - can good serve evil?
Isn't it simpler to say "god does not encompass good or evil"? Because that is the question theologians have been asking, for centuries. And if god doesn't serve good or evil, what does the Abrahamic god actually do?
Okay, the next bit. Not the next question. Just the next bit.
People look around at the western Pennsylvania hills, the North Carolina coast, the New York City street, the Los Angeles beaches and so many other places and say "this proves there's a god". Heck - one of the most beautiful places I've ever camped was a boulder field in California, not that far from Bakersfield. While this gets into a whole beauty/ugliness debate that is the same as the good/evil thing, it's also a neat question about what is beautiful.
Are the waves across a cornfield in Nebraska any less beautiful than the waves of Long Island Sound? Or are they just different? It becomes an unanswerable question. We can't look to there for any answers.
Note to self: Don't try and put on your reading glasses, without taking your regular specs off, first. Also, you have to write this sans alcohol. I've run out of the nectar of the gods (Scotch, single malt), and I'm down to a half bottle of beer.
So, where can we look? We can look to ourselves. We can look to the world around us - and instead of atributing it to some mysterious deity, we can say "life happens". Which is simpler: a deity did it, for some reason, or: life happens?
You don't need a god to define ethics or morality - study the Old Testament, and let me know how much you want for your daughter. Morality is a nebulous concept, it is based on our concept of what it means to be human. Increasingly, it is based on our perception of what it means to be alive!
Life is happenstance - no one asks to be born. No one asks to die. Some force the issue, but as a general rule, once we've got life - we hold on to it with everything we have. Death is oblivion. Those great men, physically, emotionally and in and of themselves - my grandfathers - are not residing in some arbitrarily defined heaven. They lived, they died. I wish they could live, and love, forever in Valhalla, but they don't. One was a formidable warrior, the other was part of the war effort in quieter ways. They were both big men, in spirit and in size. Their spirit died with them.
Little Horatio, a cat we knew all too shortly - he was hit by car, and he died. Do I have the audacity to deny his entry into a heaven? Because he's a cat, and can't comprehend such sophisticated notions as religion, or what it means to be alive. He knew what life was.
One of the concepts of religion is some sort of afterlife. It's a fallacy that has kept religion going, and in power for centuries. Pay up, or you'll be condemned to the infernal fires of hell! That was the basic motto of Christianity. For a few centuries. It's still the basic premise of the collection plate. As a child, attending church, I feared the condemnation of God if a didn't put my 10p piece in the plate. Is that the motivation you want for a 10 year old? A 4 year old?
Let's get to the Big Boat. Noah is commanded to build a boat big enough to hold a male and a female every species on Earth. That's a really big boat. Considering how long they were at sea - it's also a logistical nightmare. And then we come to the central problem: the flood. The reason for the supersized pedalboat. If this deity of yours is so willing to sacrifice the innocent, what is he, really? Thoroughly evil. I had it right at 5 years old, giving my Sunday School teacher hell. There is no viable answer. None. Some might be foolish and do a "God's plan" argument; others will wisely not try that with me. (So far, over nigh on 45 years, I'd say that the batting average is about .5; there aren't too many wise men or women in religion, it seems.)
Why punish the animals - when they were not sophisticated enough to comprehend what a religion is? Why punish all those puppies and kittens? Why punish the newly born? If this deity was so powerful - alternative solutions would have presented themselves. After all, to someone with eternity to play with, a century has the same meaning as a year, as day or perhaps even a second. Why murder so many, simply for not abiding some unknown rules?
Is Noah's Ark a question of good and evil? No - because God caused the flood. It becomes a question of whether mankind can trust such a capricious being.
Do not get sophisticated with arguments about Noah's Ark - it's not a sophisticated story. It's elemental, and it's one about what is a person, what is blasphemy and what are the rights of the group over the individual? It really is not a sophisticated story. It's also one with profound implications.
Noah's Ark captures the putrid essence of religion.
The Wiccans don't get a free pass, either - their Mother, the Earth, is capable of some astounding feats of arbitrary destruction. Contemporary Wicca is a luxury item; you might pick some up at the local holistic Walmart. It values the Earth without acknowledgement; it pretends the spirit world exists, while avoiding any discussion about what the earth really is.
I don't recall where you live, but if it's in the Americas, you've probably seen the megachurch. Vast spaces, dedicated to the pursuit of money. And spiritual salvation. As a side line. Have you ever thought about the church? It is the only capitalist enterprise that pays no taxes, and delivers no goods or services. Eternal salvation is yours if you accept Christ - so why do you need to attend a church? To prove your belief? To impress your neighbors? Those don't matter - it's in the New Testament. Any translation. Just accept Jesus, and the rest shall follow. Jesus didn't attend any congregation. Neither did Mohammed, for that matter. (Has anyone ever noticed the remarkable similarities to Islam in the Mormon story?)
There's a quandary here, though - isn't there? Is accepting Jesus enough? If Charles Manson becomes an evangelical Christian - does he enter heaven when he dies? If my wife believes in a deity (she does), and I don't - does that translate to heaven being hell, for her? If my wife doesn't believe in Jesus, does that condemn her to hell? Stupid, simplistic questions that betray the stupid simplicity of the Abrahamic heaven.
What is heaven? Besides nonexistent.
I despise proselytizing. I have told the various religious salespeople that my house, my entire property, is a "religion free zone". I've also said "get off my land, right now!" And followed them, as is my right as the owner of this property, as they exited. I wanted to make sure they didn't do anything stupid - like litter my lawn with Jesus pamphlets. (What? You thought I was obnoxious on the Internet only? Pah!)
Proselytizing is a lack of respect. Not an implication of a lack of respect - it is a blatant lack of respect. It is saying "I know better than you". These fools promise an entry into the Kingdom of Heaven? Who the hell appointed them the Queen of Sheba? They don't even stop to think about what heaven means, let alone have any right to award entry tickets!
From all accounts, Saint Peter has the say on who gets in, and who doesn't. Isn't that sort of power inherently evil? Or is he just some sort of "benevolent dictator"? Never a thing we see on earth, I'll grant you that!
(Isn't the concept of salvation exactly that?)
I trivialize. I joke. I, well, I subvert.
I truly hate religion. Not for any one thing. It is a lie, but not one I'm willing to subdue - people have a fundamental right to believe what they want. (Contrary to what many in this nation think. And also what a lot of Muslim countries think, too.) I believe in life, in the power of the individual. I believe in the person. I believe it is a basic right to say for yourself what you believe, or don't. I believe in the basic right of disagreement. I believe in the individual. I believe we are all individual.
I put my faith in life. It is, after all, all we have.
I hope this answers your questions, Vanessa.
Carolyn Ann
Okay, Vanessa asked me a few questions, in response to my childish diatribe. I did an HTML strike on the words, but being an adherent of the idea you can't, and shouldn't, hide mistakes, screw ups and other nefarious deeds - I didn't delete the post. Unlike some people I could mention.
I do not have, I have not sought, permission to repost Vanessa's questions, so I refer you to the original post; the questions are in the comments section. Here is my response. Which might not make sense. (Does anything I write make sense?) :-D
Yeah, you'll see a theme. :-)
I tolerate the religiously zealous, simply because their First Amendment Rights supersede my distaste for their opinion(s). I view, as sacrosanct, the Declaration of Human Rights - it's based on the principle that faith, or lack thereof, is a personal
Added: (I hasten to add that the First Amendment is not a personal choice; it is sacrosanct!)
As a First Amendment Fundamentalist [sic] I must support [the right to] even the most distasteful of speech. I don't have to agree with it - but I have to support the right of the person to say it. Because, as old Tom Paine said - the restrictions I put on others will reach me, soon enough. It's why I find the repression of blog commentary so reprehensible, and so hypocritical.
Okay, two groups rely on the First Amendment, and work to subvert it: those with ideological interests, and those with extreme theocratic interests. Of the two ... I think both are opprobrious. :-) Both groups are typically organized in some way; the religious tend to be better organized, but the transgender have their own "popular" opinion. I'm never quite sure which is the more idiotic.
Question #2 - the belief in a deity. How can I be diplomatic about this? There. Is. No. God. Never has been, never will be. I have, over the years, come to the conclusion that anyone who says they have a personal relationship with god simply has developed a peculiar personal relationship with themselves.
I could base my premise on science. I could base it on Biblical analysis. I could base it on emotion. I could base it on anything - and that's the problem.
Any argument about an Abrahamic deity must include a discussion about good and evil. Try and define the Abrahamic deity in terms of good and evil. The Greeks had it about right - their gods were just like people, neither good, nor evil. But what is good? What is evil? Can evil serve good? If it can - can good serve evil?
Isn't it simpler to say "god does not encompass good or evil"? Because that is the question theologians have been asking, for centuries. And if god doesn't serve good or evil, what does the Abrahamic god actually do?
Okay, the next bit. Not the next question. Just the next bit.
People look around at the western Pennsylvania hills, the North Carolina coast, the New York City street, the Los Angeles beaches and so many other places and say "this proves there's a god". Heck - one of the most beautiful places I've ever camped was a boulder field in California, not that far from Bakersfield. While this gets into a whole beauty/ugliness debate that is the same as the good/evil thing, it's also a neat question about what is beautiful.
Are the waves across a cornfield in Nebraska any less beautiful than the waves of Long Island Sound? Or are they just different? It becomes an unanswerable question. We can't look to there for any answers.
Note to self: Don't try and put on your reading glasses, without taking your regular specs off, first. Also, you have to write this sans alcohol. I've run out of the nectar of the gods (Scotch, single malt), and I'm down to a half bottle of beer.
So, where can we look? We can look to ourselves. We can look to the world around us - and instead of atributing it to some mysterious deity, we can say "life happens". Which is simpler: a deity did it, for some reason, or: life happens?
You don't need a god to define ethics or morality - study the Old Testament, and let me know how much you want for your daughter. Morality is a nebulous concept, it is based on our concept of what it means to be human. Increasingly, it is based on our perception of what it means to be alive!
Life is happenstance - no one asks to be born. No one asks to die. Some force the issue, but as a general rule, once we've got life - we hold on to it with everything we have. Death is oblivion. Those great men, physically, emotionally and in and of themselves - my grandfathers - are not residing in some arbitrarily defined heaven. They lived, they died. I wish they could live, and love, forever in Valhalla, but they don't. One was a formidable warrior, the other was part of the war effort in quieter ways. They were both big men, in spirit and in size. Their spirit died with them.
Little Horatio, a cat we knew all too shortly - he was hit by car, and he died. Do I have the audacity to deny his entry into a heaven? Because he's a cat, and can't comprehend such sophisticated notions as religion, or what it means to be alive. He knew what life was.
One of the concepts of religion is some sort of afterlife. It's a fallacy that has kept religion going, and in power for centuries. Pay up, or you'll be condemned to the infernal fires of hell! That was the basic motto of Christianity. For a few centuries. It's still the basic premise of the collection plate. As a child, attending church, I feared the condemnation of God if a didn't put my 10p piece in the plate. Is that the motivation you want for a 10 year old? A 4 year old?
Let's get to the Big Boat. Noah is commanded to build a boat big enough to hold a male and a female every species on Earth. That's a really big boat. Considering how long they were at sea - it's also a logistical nightmare. And then we come to the central problem: the flood. The reason for the supersized pedalboat. If this deity of yours is so willing to sacrifice the innocent, what is he, really? Thoroughly evil. I had it right at 5 years old, giving my Sunday School teacher hell. There is no viable answer. None. Some might be foolish and do a "God's plan" argument; others will wisely not try that with me. (So far, over nigh on 45 years, I'd say that the batting average is about .5; there aren't too many wise men or women in religion, it seems.)
Why punish the animals - when they were not sophisticated enough to comprehend what a religion is? Why punish all those puppies and kittens? Why punish the newly born? If this deity was so powerful - alternative solutions would have presented themselves. After all, to someone with eternity to play with, a century has the same meaning as a year, as day or perhaps even a second. Why murder so many, simply for not abiding some unknown rules?
Is Noah's Ark a question of good and evil? No - because God caused the flood. It becomes a question of whether mankind can trust such a capricious being.
Do not get sophisticated with arguments about Noah's Ark - it's not a sophisticated story. It's elemental, and it's one about what is a person, what is blasphemy and what are the rights of the group over the individual? It really is not a sophisticated story. It's also one with profound implications.
Noah's Ark captures the putrid essence of religion.
The Wiccans don't get a free pass, either - their Mother, the Earth, is capable of some astounding feats of arbitrary destruction. Contemporary Wicca is a luxury item; you might pick some up at the local holistic Walmart. It values the Earth without acknowledgement; it pretends the spirit world exists, while avoiding any discussion about what the earth really is.
I don't recall where you live, but if it's in the Americas, you've probably seen the megachurch. Vast spaces, dedicated to the pursuit of money. And spiritual salvation. As a side line. Have you ever thought about the church? It is the only capitalist enterprise that pays no taxes, and delivers no goods or services. Eternal salvation is yours if you accept Christ - so why do you need to attend a church? To prove your belief? To impress your neighbors? Those don't matter - it's in the New Testament. Any translation. Just accept Jesus, and the rest shall follow. Jesus didn't attend any congregation. Neither did Mohammed, for that matter. (Has anyone ever noticed the remarkable similarities to Islam in the Mormon story?)
There's a quandary here, though - isn't there? Is accepting Jesus enough? If Charles Manson becomes an evangelical Christian - does he enter heaven when he dies? If my wife believes in a deity (she does), and I don't - does that translate to heaven being hell, for her? If my wife doesn't believe in Jesus, does that condemn her to hell? Stupid, simplistic questions that betray the stupid simplicity of the Abrahamic heaven.
What is heaven? Besides nonexistent.
I despise proselytizing. I have told the various religious salespeople that my house, my entire property, is a "religion free zone". I've also said "get off my land, right now!" And followed them, as is my right as the owner of this property, as they exited. I wanted to make sure they didn't do anything stupid - like litter my lawn with Jesus pamphlets. (What? You thought I was obnoxious on the Internet only? Pah!)
Proselytizing is a lack of respect. Not an implication of a lack of respect - it is a blatant lack of respect. It is saying "I know better than you". These fools promise an entry into the Kingdom of Heaven? Who the hell appointed them the Queen of Sheba? They don't even stop to think about what heaven means, let alone have any right to award entry tickets!
From all accounts, Saint Peter has the say on who gets in, and who doesn't. Isn't that sort of power inherently evil? Or is he just some sort of "benevolent dictator"? Never a thing we see on earth, I'll grant you that!
(Isn't the concept of salvation exactly that?)
I trivialize. I joke. I, well, I subvert.
I truly hate religion. Not for any one thing. It is a lie, but not one I'm willing to subdue - people have a fundamental right to believe what they want. (Contrary to what many in this nation think. And also what a lot of Muslim countries think, too.) I believe in life, in the power of the individual. I believe in the person. I believe it is a basic right to say for yourself what you believe, or don't. I believe in the basic right of disagreement. I believe in the individual. I believe we are all individual.
I put my faith in life. It is, after all, all we have.
I hope this answers your questions, Vanessa.
Carolyn Ann
Sneezing my way through a corner
The blind, uphill, right hander was before me - I know I can do this corner at 80 with impunity. I glance at the speedometer - 85. A gentle squeeze, it reminds me of something sexual, and I'm at 80. As I enter the curve... I sneeze.
You know how you have to close your eyes when you sneeze? Entering a blind corner at 80MPH and sneezing is not a good idea.
Sneezing is an involuntary action - so is the eye-closing bit. You are forced, by the dynamics of your muscles, to close your eyes for between 1½ to 2 seconds. You do not have an option - your eyes close, regardless of any effort on your part. This, of course, leaves you a little, well, uninformed about your surroundings.
I cannot recommend sneezing as you enter a corner at any velocity. 80, on an uphill, blind, corner? Definitely not to be recommended. :-)
Carolyn Ann
You know how you have to close your eyes when you sneeze? Entering a blind corner at 80MPH and sneezing is not a good idea.
Sneezing is an involuntary action - so is the eye-closing bit. You are forced, by the dynamics of your muscles, to close your eyes for between 1½ to 2 seconds. You do not have an option - your eyes close, regardless of any effort on your part. This, of course, leaves you a little, well, uninformed about your surroundings.
I cannot recommend sneezing as you enter a corner at any velocity. 80, on an uphill, blind, corner? Definitely not to be recommended. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Blogger Flambé'
One thing you're advised to have, if you're putting your opinion into the public realm: a thick skin.
Some people manage to figure that out, others need telling. Still others think that they are exempt from that requirement. And when the flamethrower of disagreement is pointed their way, they get mad when it's proven they really could do with a flameproof suit.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that making an absolute statement about anything makes them immune from criticism. Because they're nice? Because their logic is unassailable? More likely, it's impenetrable! Because they say so? Sure. That's a reason with hope. Not much else, though.
When "you" write about a controversial subject, you must expect even more criticism. Especially if the topic is not cut and dried. Opine on the controversial and you will need fireproof clothing. It's that simple.
The start of this whole thing, a difference of opinion about the word "tranny", is ridiculous. A difference of opinion about a word that is sometimes used in disdain is not inciting hatred. It is having a damned discussion. But, and this is where I got cross, cutting off the conversation about that word is something that is so easy to do. It is the blogging equivalent of holding your hands over your ears, and shouting "I can't hear you!" over and over. About as mature, too.
I find nothing offensive about the word "tranny". That doesn't count, though. I don't equate sometime disdain with hatred and bigotry. But that's not important, or correct. I refuse to allow a colloquialism to be turned into a derogatory statement. But that's not acceptable. What the hell is acceptable? Relinquishing an innocent term, because some people use it in a disdainful manner? Believe me, if someone truly wants to be insulting - they can generally do a hell of a lot better than "tranny"!
Anyway, I doubt this is going to read by the person who needs to read it the most. She needs to put her big girl panties on. If she's going to write about controversial, and perhaps even important, subjects - she'll need to her flameproof panties on. But, she's too busy getting my pronouns wrong.
In the meantime, can I interest you in some blogger flambé'?
Carolyn Ann
EDIT: The Mrs suggested a title change. :-)
ADDED: Ms Page says, in her latest blog post, that she has asked her detractor not to link to her blog. I'm confused. I thought I was the detractor, but apparently not. Because no one has asked me to not link to Ms Page's blog. I don't, simply because I do not feel a need to do that. More on this, later. Perhaps.
Some people manage to figure that out, others need telling. Still others think that they are exempt from that requirement. And when the flamethrower of disagreement is pointed their way, they get mad when it's proven they really could do with a flameproof suit.
I can't imagine why anyone would think that making an absolute statement about anything makes them immune from criticism. Because they're nice? Because their logic is unassailable? More likely, it's impenetrable! Because they say so? Sure. That's a reason with hope. Not much else, though.
When "you" write about a controversial subject, you must expect even more criticism. Especially if the topic is not cut and dried. Opine on the controversial and you will need fireproof clothing. It's that simple.
The start of this whole thing, a difference of opinion about the word "tranny", is ridiculous. A difference of opinion about a word that is sometimes used in disdain is not inciting hatred. It is having a damned discussion. But, and this is where I got cross, cutting off the conversation about that word is something that is so easy to do. It is the blogging equivalent of holding your hands over your ears, and shouting "I can't hear you!" over and over. About as mature, too.
I find nothing offensive about the word "tranny". That doesn't count, though. I don't equate sometime disdain with hatred and bigotry. But that's not important, or correct. I refuse to allow a colloquialism to be turned into a derogatory statement. But that's not acceptable. What the hell is acceptable? Relinquishing an innocent term, because some people use it in a disdainful manner? Believe me, if someone truly wants to be insulting - they can generally do a hell of a lot better than "tranny"!
Anyway, I doubt this is going to read by the person who needs to read it the most. She needs to put her big girl panties on. If she's going to write about controversial, and perhaps even important, subjects - she'll need to her flameproof panties on. But, she's too busy getting my pronouns wrong.
In the meantime, can I interest you in some blogger flambé'?
Carolyn Ann
EDIT: The Mrs suggested a title change. :-)
ADDED: Ms Page says, in her latest blog post, that she has asked her detractor not to link to her blog. I'm confused. I thought I was the detractor, but apparently not. Because no one has asked me to not link to Ms Page's blog. I don't, simply because I do not feel a need to do that. More on this, later. Perhaps.
Apparently, I'm evil
I'm also good at derogatory stuff. Apparently.
It would also appear that I can irritate some folk. It would seem I'm quite good at that. I've also been called "strident" in my opinions. I was once told I was reprehensible. Or at least my opinion on something was. I've also been told I'm queer, a puff, loud and dangerous and should be banned (or at least my motorcycle) and I've been laughed at. Heck, I was once accused of being an accessory to murder, because I support abortion rights.
Wow - I'm not sure I can take much more of this.
Far too many accolades. How can I be expected to cope?
And one of the flaws with the Internet, is that people can link to the blogs of those they criticize. Who knew? Personally, I'd never have guessed you could do such a thing!
It also seems that having an opinion that is different from the accepted is a terrible thing. Voicing it is even worse! When someone issues an edict, we all have to obey that edict, apparently. We can't question it, we can't dispute it. We have to abide by it. Especially if questioning or disputing it makes a person cry, or pout in print.
For added spice, it seems that someone can tell me what I can write, while they reserve the right to pen whatever they want! By gum, that's a neat concept. It must have taken someone of great genius and courage to think that one up! My oh my, I'll be told how to write, next! I can hardly wait.
I tell you, you can learn something new every day! :-)
Carolyn Ann
It would also appear that I can irritate some folk. It would seem I'm quite good at that. I've also been called "strident" in my opinions. I was once told I was reprehensible. Or at least my opinion on something was. I've also been told I'm queer, a puff, loud and dangerous and should be banned (or at least my motorcycle) and I've been laughed at. Heck, I was once accused of being an accessory to murder, because I support abortion rights.
Wow - I'm not sure I can take much more of this.
Far too many accolades. How can I be expected to cope?
And one of the flaws with the Internet, is that people can link to the blogs of those they criticize. Who knew? Personally, I'd never have guessed you could do such a thing!
It also seems that having an opinion that is different from the accepted is a terrible thing. Voicing it is even worse! When someone issues an edict, we all have to obey that edict, apparently. We can't question it, we can't dispute it. We have to abide by it. Especially if questioning or disputing it makes a person cry, or pout in print.
For added spice, it seems that someone can tell me what I can write, while they reserve the right to pen whatever they want! By gum, that's a neat concept. It must have taken someone of great genius and courage to think that one up! My oh my, I'll be told how to write, next! I can hardly wait.
I tell you, you can learn something new every day! :-)
Carolyn Ann
The Day The World Ended (in Iowa) :-)
It seems the sky came crashing down, the fiery pits of hell rose up and all of Iowa was consumed in a godly fit of pique because gay folk can now get married there.
Oh. Hang on... This just in: Iowa is still on the map! America still has 50 states! Whew, that was a close one. :-)
Okay, it wasn't even close. The anti-equality people provided massive, truck-filling petitions arguing against gay marriage. Alright, alright - it was a few thousand signatures. It was signed by a lot of people who value equality - as long as it given to the "right" sort of folk. You know: we the people, don't want this group of folk we don't like to have any equality with us.
Just to complicate matters, a pastor offered vows to the happy couples on the Des Moines court house steps. This action, of course, obligates every other pastor in the state to perform same sex marriages. It doesn't? Oh. Nothing does? Hmm. Oh well. One state recorder (that give out the licenses in Iowa) had some personal problems giving out marriage certificates to gay couples; but she promised to abide by the law. Of course, the Iowa Family Policy people urged recorders to put their careers and livelihoods at stake, and not issue the licenses. I didn't notice anything in their urging about providing a salary and a comparable job, though. Or any help paying for an attorney - something you always need when you break the law.
So I guess nothing much happened in Iowa, as a result of married gays. Life continued on. Fire, brimstone and the eternal heat (and, I guess, humidity) of hell will have to wait for some other reason to consume Iowa.
Carolyn Ann
Oh. Hang on... This just in: Iowa is still on the map! America still has 50 states! Whew, that was a close one. :-)
Okay, it wasn't even close. The anti-equality people provided massive, truck-filling petitions arguing against gay marriage. Alright, alright - it was a few thousand signatures. It was signed by a lot of people who value equality - as long as it given to the "right" sort of folk. You know: we the people, don't want this group of folk we don't like to have any equality with us.
Just to complicate matters, a pastor offered vows to the happy couples on the Des Moines court house steps. This action, of course, obligates every other pastor in the state to perform same sex marriages. It doesn't? Oh. Nothing does? Hmm. Oh well. One state recorder (that give out the licenses in Iowa) had some personal problems giving out marriage certificates to gay couples; but she promised to abide by the law. Of course, the Iowa Family Policy people urged recorders to put their careers and livelihoods at stake, and not issue the licenses. I didn't notice anything in their urging about providing a salary and a comparable job, though. Or any help paying for an attorney - something you always need when you break the law.
So I guess nothing much happened in Iowa, as a result of married gays. Life continued on. Fire, brimstone and the eternal heat (and, I guess, humidity) of hell will have to wait for some other reason to consume Iowa.
Carolyn Ann
Monday, April 27, 2009
Riding in the heat
The opposite of riding in cold and wet weather is riding in hot, sunny weather. Despite what you might think, nice weather can be more dangerous than miserable, dangerous conditions. You're more inclined to be cautious when it's obviously a problem to ride. When it's nice and clear - more riders are on the road, and people are less attentive. They're too busy enjoying the ride, and too busy enjoying the nice day.
There are two principle problems: the lack of immediate experience (if the last time you rode was the last time the weather was nice, you've got a problem), and the complacency the nice weather introduces.
In the last few days, I've spotted about 5 new riders - those guys remind me of me, a few years back. On the other hand, at least 3 of them had clearly not taken any training, whatsoever. The biggest problem with that is obvious, and not so obvious. Bike control is learned - most people crash in the first 100 miles, and training courses get you through that period. The less obvious problem is the type of new rider: middle aged guys, who maybe once rode, maybe didn't, but have had a drivers license for a long, long time. (Hey - that sounds like me!) But riding a bike requires a level of awareness car drivers just don't have. (Maybe racecar drivers do, but the average car driver does not.) The problem is not that they don't know how to anticipate traffic - it's that they don't know how to anticipate traffic and the bike.
I get the feeling it's one of those "you know or don't" things. :-)
Anyway, nice weather introduces a lot of danger for bike riders. It make car drivers complacent, it makes bike riders complacent, and that's a bit of a problem.
I never get on a bike without my protective gear. Its a little hot, but I don't dress for the ride - I dress for the crash. I've had a couple falls - so I'm particularly cautious. One time, I fell off at a very low speed - the road rash didn't go away for weeks! Yeah, it's not quite wind in the hair, but you know what? Road rash isn't something to sniff at.
Heck, I even wore full motorcycle gear in Death Valley! Oh, was that hot.
Riding a bike is a bit like sex - you have to experience it, to understand it. It's also like sex because you should wear protection when you do it. :-D
Carolyn Ann
There are two principle problems: the lack of immediate experience (if the last time you rode was the last time the weather was nice, you've got a problem), and the complacency the nice weather introduces.
In the last few days, I've spotted about 5 new riders - those guys remind me of me, a few years back. On the other hand, at least 3 of them had clearly not taken any training, whatsoever. The biggest problem with that is obvious, and not so obvious. Bike control is learned - most people crash in the first 100 miles, and training courses get you through that period. The less obvious problem is the type of new rider: middle aged guys, who maybe once rode, maybe didn't, but have had a drivers license for a long, long time. (Hey - that sounds like me!) But riding a bike requires a level of awareness car drivers just don't have. (Maybe racecar drivers do, but the average car driver does not.) The problem is not that they don't know how to anticipate traffic - it's that they don't know how to anticipate traffic and the bike.
I get the feeling it's one of those "you know or don't" things. :-)
Anyway, nice weather introduces a lot of danger for bike riders. It make car drivers complacent, it makes bike riders complacent, and that's a bit of a problem.
I never get on a bike without my protective gear. Its a little hot, but I don't dress for the ride - I dress for the crash. I've had a couple falls - so I'm particularly cautious. One time, I fell off at a very low speed - the road rash didn't go away for weeks! Yeah, it's not quite wind in the hair, but you know what? Road rash isn't something to sniff at.
Heck, I even wore full motorcycle gear in Death Valley! Oh, was that hot.
Riding a bike is a bit like sex - you have to experience it, to understand it. It's also like sex because you should wear protection when you do it. :-D
Carolyn Ann
Pensive Passion, Tiffany Michelle
This photo caught my eye. :-)
Many in the transgender community love their cameras and Flickr accounts. Snapshots galore - to the point where certain pictures, and picture elements, have become cliched! These include the always present radiator, the bedroom closet mirror, the hallway, the picture up the stairwell, sitting on the couch and so on. Always accompanied by a bright smile, and an expansive pose. (The other type of cliche, the soft porn picture, is one I won't spend any time on.)
There's nothing wrong with snapshots - I have a few on my Flickr account! - but they do get tiring, after a while.
So I was intrigued when the thumbnail of this picture by Tiffany Michelle popped up in the "My Contacts" bit of Flickr's home page. I was quite taken by the image. :-)
In this picture, Ms Michelle is pensive; her posture is constrained, and she's leaning slightly forward. She's not looking at the viewer, but at something, or someone, else, off to the side. The viewer is not privy to whom, which makes it a private moment. Oddly, the plant seems to reflect the pensive mood. it also helps prevent her face being isolated in a sea of negative space. With the blind down, the feeling of privacy, of intimacy, is subtly emphasized. The reflection of the blind in the tabletop glass reinforces this - we're not going to get any information from that source!
The pose is classical; in many ways, it reminds me of late 18th century and early 19th century portraits. It definitely has a modern style to it, though. The strong, almost abstract, shapes, the lack of fussy details the use of negative space to heighten the tension.
If there's one quibble with the picture, it's the window edge - a vertical line popping up from behind her head. A small distraction, almost hidden by the plant's proximity. I should note that this sort of line is common in many snapshots; it arises because the photographer pays attention to the subject, and not the less than immediate surroundings. A painter might choose to continue the blinds to well beyond the plant; a photographer doesn't quite have the same luxury in placing picture elements. Because we know it's a window, and can see the wall behind the plant, the line isn't offensive, and doesn't detract from the picture.
The lighting in the picture is excellent. The shadows and highlights balance, and the clothing is doesn't have any detail to distract. The focus is to the face, and her pensively listening to someone. Considering the title, we're wondering if she's listening to a lover. Mysteries, indeed!
Knowing it is a picture of a transgendered person adds an element to the discussion about gender: what is a woman? What is pretty? What about desire? Ms Michelle is definitely pretty, I'd say beautiful, which leads one down a merry path of thought and question! I'm not sure about the answers, but I don't think this picture could answer questions - Ms Michelle surely provides plenty of questions, though!
Overall, this is a stunning picture.
Carolyn Ann
PS I sought Ms Michelle's permission before using her picture, and writing about it.
PPS The picture is titled "Pensive Passion" on Flickr. I can't get the picture title in this blog to change without Blogger freaking out, and doing all sorts of odd things to the format of the post! I don't know why.
ADDED (May 1, 09): When I wrote this review, I had a particular reference in mind. I just couldn't think what it was - it was like that word that's on the tip of your tongue. This was on the edge of my mind. Ms Michelle's picture reminds me of Rosetti's "Persephone"!
I love the color and light of the Pre-Raphaelites, and I find a lot of commonality in this picture. It really is quite stunning. :-)
Many in the transgender community love their cameras and Flickr accounts. Snapshots galore - to the point where certain pictures, and picture elements, have become cliched! These include the always present radiator, the bedroom closet mirror, the hallway, the picture up the stairwell, sitting on the couch and so on. Always accompanied by a bright smile, and an expansive pose. (The other type of cliche, the soft porn picture, is one I won't spend any time on.)
There's nothing wrong with snapshots - I have a few on my Flickr account! - but they do get tiring, after a while.
So I was intrigued when the thumbnail of this picture by Tiffany Michelle popped up in the "My Contacts" bit of Flickr's home page. I was quite taken by the image. :-)
In this picture, Ms Michelle is pensive; her posture is constrained, and she's leaning slightly forward. She's not looking at the viewer, but at something, or someone, else, off to the side. The viewer is not privy to whom, which makes it a private moment. Oddly, the plant seems to reflect the pensive mood. it also helps prevent her face being isolated in a sea of negative space. With the blind down, the feeling of privacy, of intimacy, is subtly emphasized. The reflection of the blind in the tabletop glass reinforces this - we're not going to get any information from that source!
The pose is classical; in many ways, it reminds me of late 18th century and early 19th century portraits. It definitely has a modern style to it, though. The strong, almost abstract, shapes, the lack of fussy details the use of negative space to heighten the tension.
If there's one quibble with the picture, it's the window edge - a vertical line popping up from behind her head. A small distraction, almost hidden by the plant's proximity. I should note that this sort of line is common in many snapshots; it arises because the photographer pays attention to the subject, and not the less than immediate surroundings. A painter might choose to continue the blinds to well beyond the plant; a photographer doesn't quite have the same luxury in placing picture elements. Because we know it's a window, and can see the wall behind the plant, the line isn't offensive, and doesn't detract from the picture.
The lighting in the picture is excellent. The shadows and highlights balance, and the clothing is doesn't have any detail to distract. The focus is to the face, and her pensively listening to someone. Considering the title, we're wondering if she's listening to a lover. Mysteries, indeed!
Knowing it is a picture of a transgendered person adds an element to the discussion about gender: what is a woman? What is pretty? What about desire? Ms Michelle is definitely pretty, I'd say beautiful, which leads one down a merry path of thought and question! I'm not sure about the answers, but I don't think this picture could answer questions - Ms Michelle surely provides plenty of questions, though!
Overall, this is a stunning picture.
Carolyn Ann
PS I sought Ms Michelle's permission before using her picture, and writing about it.
PPS The picture is titled "Pensive Passion" on Flickr. I can't get the picture title in this blog to change without Blogger freaking out, and doing all sorts of odd things to the format of the post! I don't know why.
ADDED (May 1, 09): When I wrote this review, I had a particular reference in mind. I just couldn't think what it was - it was like that word that's on the tip of your tongue. This was on the edge of my mind. Ms Michelle's picture reminds me of Rosetti's "Persephone"!
I love the color and light of the Pre-Raphaelites, and I find a lot of commonality in this picture. It really is quite stunning. :-)
What a load of tripe!
I came across this load of nonsense via Megan McArdle's eloquent debunking of it.
Reading the piece, written by Gregor Peter Schmitz and Gabor Steingart, translated by Christopher Sultan, I got the impression that America is on the verge of popular revolution! Anarchy everywhere, law and order broken down and vast numbers of the populace standing in line at soup kitchens and unemployment offices.
I hate to say it: I can't say I've noticed any of that.
Sure, times are hard. They are for us, most certainly! But a nation, desperate and destitute? Where?
I know there are some, many?, in Europe who like nothing more than the denigration of America - but I have to disappoint them. America is doing quite well, and is actively working to get out of this damned recession. Unlike the German government, of whom it's most charitably noted that they wouldn't recognize a recession if it came up and introduced itself. A less forgiving accolade might include the word "oblivious".
Ah well. Nonsense is what nonsense is. It's a pity Der Speigel honored that piece of tripe a place on its website. As I noted in a comment, fact checking was probably not included in the process that rushed that nonsense into print.
Carolyn Ann
Reading the piece, written by Gregor Peter Schmitz and Gabor Steingart, translated by Christopher Sultan, I got the impression that America is on the verge of popular revolution! Anarchy everywhere, law and order broken down and vast numbers of the populace standing in line at soup kitchens and unemployment offices.
I hate to say it: I can't say I've noticed any of that.
Sure, times are hard. They are for us, most certainly! But a nation, desperate and destitute? Where?
I know there are some, many?, in Europe who like nothing more than the denigration of America - but I have to disappoint them. America is doing quite well, and is actively working to get out of this damned recession. Unlike the German government, of whom it's most charitably noted that they wouldn't recognize a recession if it came up and introduced itself. A less forgiving accolade might include the word "oblivious".
Ah well. Nonsense is what nonsense is. It's a pity Der Speigel honored that piece of tripe a place on its website. As I noted in a comment, fact checking was probably not included in the process that rushed that nonsense into print.
Carolyn Ann
Another hot one...
The temperature has gone up over 10 degrees, in an hour and a half. At 8:30, when I first spied the world of today, the thermometer on the kitchen window said 70. It's now a little past 10, and it's over 80, with no sign of slowing down.
The cats are lounging, lazily, as cats are wont to do on days like this. Occasionally, one gets up and meanders to some other spot, searching for a cooler place to snooze. The air is not as heavy or still or torpid as a July day, but there is a noticeable lack of birdsong. Birds are not flitting among the feeders we have placed in the trees. I do hear some insect chirping away, however. The light is brilliant, almost dazzling - but not quite as uncomfortable as an August morning. It is, however, a white light, so it dazzles quite well.
It is a day to be languid; the kind we all remember with affection from our childhood. I want to go and sit in the sun, with a good book and a tall glass of chilled ice tea. A pretty skirt, a cute top and a floppy hat, with a big flower on it, complete the fantasy.
It's April, in New Jersey. It shouldn't be like this!
Carolyn Ann
Added: Sorry, I felt like writing some tortured prose. :-)
The cats are lounging, lazily, as cats are wont to do on days like this. Occasionally, one gets up and meanders to some other spot, searching for a cooler place to snooze. The air is not as heavy or still or torpid as a July day, but there is a noticeable lack of birdsong. Birds are not flitting among the feeders we have placed in the trees. I do hear some insect chirping away, however. The light is brilliant, almost dazzling - but not quite as uncomfortable as an August morning. It is, however, a white light, so it dazzles quite well.
It is a day to be languid; the kind we all remember with affection from our childhood. I want to go and sit in the sun, with a good book and a tall glass of chilled ice tea. A pretty skirt, a cute top and a floppy hat, with a big flower on it, complete the fantasy.
It's April, in New Jersey. It shouldn't be like this!
Carolyn Ann
Added: Sorry, I felt like writing some tortured prose. :-)
Hypocrisy and the transgendered
One thing about so many activists within the transgendered community - they are as hypocritical as those they often criticize!
I was thinking about many discussions I've had. My "discussion" with BattyBattyBats, and the QT crowd, about the right to question motivations and the restriction of free speech. I was thinking about the Tri-Ess people and their self-serving "policies", that stupid "The Crossdressers' Secret Garden" and some other groups. Far too many to name, really.
They all have one thing in common: you cannot question the feminine pronoun.
It is exalted. Put on a pedestal. Wrapped in bubblewrap. And tossed into the attic.
One thing about discussions within the transgendered community: you can't venture an opinion that questions a basic, ill-defined, idea: the feminine.
Heck, in gatherings of the transgendered, you'll find that male pronouns are thin on the ground. It's all femininity, even if it's for an hour a month. There's something sad, even desperate, about that.
In these "discussions", you most assuredly cannot venture that the transgender community has a schizophrenic relationship with "feminine". The chats tend to be quite strident in their agreement of what the feminine is; it reminds me of religion. You can't question the basic premise, no matter how dubious it may be.
Ultimately, that's what the transgender relationship to the "feminine" is: a religion.
No wonder I have a problem with it. No wonder they reflect those they criticize so well.
Carolyn Ann
I was thinking about many discussions I've had. My "discussion" with BattyBattyBats, and the QT crowd, about the right to question motivations and the restriction of free speech. I was thinking about the Tri-Ess people and their self-serving "policies", that stupid "The Crossdressers' Secret Garden" and some other groups. Far too many to name, really.
They all have one thing in common: you cannot question the feminine pronoun.
It is exalted. Put on a pedestal. Wrapped in bubblewrap. And tossed into the attic.
One thing about discussions within the transgendered community: you can't venture an opinion that questions a basic, ill-defined, idea: the feminine.
Heck, in gatherings of the transgendered, you'll find that male pronouns are thin on the ground. It's all femininity, even if it's for an hour a month. There's something sad, even desperate, about that.
In these "discussions", you most assuredly cannot venture that the transgender community has a schizophrenic relationship with "feminine". The chats tend to be quite strident in their agreement of what the feminine is; it reminds me of religion. You can't question the basic premise, no matter how dubious it may be.
Ultimately, that's what the transgender relationship to the "feminine" is: a religion.
No wonder I have a problem with it. No wonder they reflect those they criticize so well.
Carolyn Ann
Another hypocrite?
I recently wrote of Jillian Page, and the lack of response to my comment re her post, on her "Patent Pending" blog, about the "T" word.
I did send an email to the editor - I asked if they'd gotten the comment.
So far nothing.
I hate to say it - but Ms Page, it looks increasingly like you don't like opinions that differ. I don't really care; right now, it's just interesting to find out who doesn't like differing opinions. It might be easier to count those who are willing to allow differing opinions. I am astonished that a journalist would be so contrary, however. (Ms Page describes herself as a journalist on her "About" page.)
Oh well. I'm sure the Montreal Gazette is more accepting of differing opinion than Ms Page seems to be. But I'm not betting on it.
If it should come about that I need apologize - I will. In the meantime, I'm both perplexed, and bemused. I'm not annoyed; I'm used to my opinions on tranny-related [no, that wasn't a dig] topics being "unpopular". I am disappointed.
Carolyn Ann
Added: I should explain why I am being so harsh. Ms Page has a personal blog; many posts on her Montreal Gazette blog are the same as the ones on her personal blog. On her personal blog, she's free to approve or disapprove of any comments whatsoever. There need be no rhyme or reason. On her Montreal Gazette blog, it's a different story - she's representing a newspaper. All reputable newspapers do not censor comments because they don't like them. They can, and do, censor because of language, bigotry, ad hominem attacks and for being off-topic. But in the interests of discussion, they usually do not censor comments just because they don't like them.
Now, if the following post on her Montreal Gazette blog had had no comments, I'd be inclined to think there might be something wrong with their system. But there are 7 comments on it. I also posted 2 comments to the post in question. The pertinent post has 1 comment in agreement with Ms Page's opinion. Therefore, I cannot help but be suspicious.
As I say, if an apology is warranted, I will provide one. But so far the silence from Ms Page and the Montreal Gazette is resounding in its clarity. I have written to the Editor; it seems that system might have something wrong with it, too. Whether it is technical problems, or just that Ms Page doesn't like my opinion, it all puts a dim light on the editorial process, and staff, of the newspaper, and casts a definite glow of intolerance on Ms Page. /CA
I did send an email to the editor - I asked if they'd gotten the comment.
So far nothing.
I hate to say it - but Ms Page, it looks increasingly like you don't like opinions that differ. I don't really care; right now, it's just interesting to find out who doesn't like differing opinions. It might be easier to count those who are willing to allow differing opinions. I am astonished that a journalist would be so contrary, however. (Ms Page describes herself as a journalist on her "About" page.)
Oh well. I'm sure the Montreal Gazette is more accepting of differing opinion than Ms Page seems to be. But I'm not betting on it.
If it should come about that I need apologize - I will. In the meantime, I'm both perplexed, and bemused. I'm not annoyed; I'm used to my opinions on tranny-related [no, that wasn't a dig] topics being "unpopular". I am disappointed.
Carolyn Ann
Added: I should explain why I am being so harsh. Ms Page has a personal blog; many posts on her Montreal Gazette blog are the same as the ones on her personal blog. On her personal blog, she's free to approve or disapprove of any comments whatsoever. There need be no rhyme or reason. On her Montreal Gazette blog, it's a different story - she's representing a newspaper. All reputable newspapers do not censor comments because they don't like them. They can, and do, censor because of language, bigotry, ad hominem attacks and for being off-topic. But in the interests of discussion, they usually do not censor comments just because they don't like them.
Now, if the following post on her Montreal Gazette blog had had no comments, I'd be inclined to think there might be something wrong with their system. But there are 7 comments on it. I also posted 2 comments to the post in question. The pertinent post has 1 comment in agreement with Ms Page's opinion. Therefore, I cannot help but be suspicious.
As I say, if an apology is warranted, I will provide one. But so far the silence from Ms Page and the Montreal Gazette is resounding in its clarity. I have written to the Editor; it seems that system might have something wrong with it, too. Whether it is technical problems, or just that Ms Page doesn't like my opinion, it all puts a dim light on the editorial process, and staff, of the newspaper, and casts a definite glow of intolerance on Ms Page. /CA
Life, love and Monday morning :-)
What can I say? The news continues to be predictable, Texas bloggers and neocons still want to secede - all while proclaiming their patriotism - and New York's religious want to deny gays equal rights. For the usual (banal) reasons.
Obama doesn't want a truth commission, a lot of people do. At some point, he's going to have to give - the torture is not a story that's going to go away. One thing I do admire about America - it faces up to its past. Maybe imperfectly, maybe not the way "you" would like it to, but it does do that.
One thing I notice about the torture - the people who really supported it, didn't have to do it. I'm sure there were some medical professionals who were convinced about their cause - as Hannah Arendt demonstrated, evil can be astonishingly banal. Still, it's nice to know that the far right are in a thorough tizzy over the whole issue. Of course, none of the one's I've read discuss human rights, or the fact that America hung the German and Japanese torturers. I don't think it's possible to expect consistent, or logical, discussion from any extremist, but the far right seem to take irrational thinking into brand new territories.
Ideology is a mighty powerful horse. It has never been broken, either. Perhaps these far right dictats should be careful what they wish for? Mind you, they have found that their right to be obnoxious got curtailed - by their own! It's one of life's little ironies, really. In the Obama Haters Camp, the one that's supposed to be about the individual over the state, you are not allowed to stray too far from extreme right-wing sentiment.
Quickly: what's the difference between the Obama Haters and any other conspiracy theorist? ...
No, I couldn't figure one out, either.
The only shining light in all this is Fox News - its in a quandary. Oh, you won't see on the telly. But we did get to see a little of it, last week - does blind support for a cause include unconditional support for the actions of some within that cause? I don't expect Fox News to change, but it's surely causing some scratched heads. I hope it is, anyway. So, does Fox News support torture - or not? Just because its pundits do, doesn't mean a thing. It's nice to see how ideologically delivered news can wrap itself in knots. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Obama doesn't want a truth commission, a lot of people do. At some point, he's going to have to give - the torture is not a story that's going to go away. One thing I do admire about America - it faces up to its past. Maybe imperfectly, maybe not the way "you" would like it to, but it does do that.
One thing I notice about the torture - the people who really supported it, didn't have to do it. I'm sure there were some medical professionals who were convinced about their cause - as Hannah Arendt demonstrated, evil can be astonishingly banal. Still, it's nice to know that the far right are in a thorough tizzy over the whole issue. Of course, none of the one's I've read discuss human rights, or the fact that America hung the German and Japanese torturers. I don't think it's possible to expect consistent, or logical, discussion from any extremist, but the far right seem to take irrational thinking into brand new territories.
Ideology is a mighty powerful horse. It has never been broken, either. Perhaps these far right dictats should be careful what they wish for? Mind you, they have found that their right to be obnoxious got curtailed - by their own! It's one of life's little ironies, really. In the Obama Haters Camp, the one that's supposed to be about the individual over the state, you are not allowed to stray too far from extreme right-wing sentiment.
Quickly: what's the difference between the Obama Haters and any other conspiracy theorist? ...
No, I couldn't figure one out, either.
The only shining light in all this is Fox News - its in a quandary. Oh, you won't see on the telly. But we did get to see a little of it, last week - does blind support for a cause include unconditional support for the actions of some within that cause? I don't expect Fox News to change, but it's surely causing some scratched heads. I hope it is, anyway. So, does Fox News support torture - or not? Just because its pundits do, doesn't mean a thing. It's nice to see how ideologically delivered news can wrap itself in knots. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, April 25, 2009
New Jersey Sunset
I finally got the pictures off my cellphone. :-)
There was a problem with the Bluetooth setup, but the phone company techs fixed the problem.
This was a sunset over a mid-NJ mall, last year.
Carolyn Ann
There was a problem with the Bluetooth setup, but the phone company techs fixed the problem.
This was a sunset over a mid-NJ mall, last year.
Carolyn Ann
Cousin
The first pic with my new camera! :-)
Cousie happened to be sitting in a convenient spot, so she got the honor of having her portrait taken. :-)
(I got a Canon Powershot, 10 megapixel thingie. It's small, and very easy to use!)
Carolyn Ann
Cousie happened to be sitting in a convenient spot, so she got the honor of having her portrait taken. :-)
(I got a Canon Powershot, 10 megapixel thingie. It's small, and very easy to use!)
Carolyn Ann
Some sage advice
This is sage advice for any startup. It could apply to bloggers*, too! Time Slider Warning: It is a demonstration of technology, too. I opened it, and left it to its own devices for about 10 minutes. I found it dizzying, so clicking away from it, to another tab on my browser, was best for me.
I found it because Bill found it, and wrote about, first. Thanks, Bill! :-)
Carolyn Ann
*Of course, you could be like me, and not be particularly concerned about readership numbers. I do care about my readers, but I do not care about my readership numbers! This isn't something I recommend - it goes against so much advice... :-)
I found it because Bill found it, and wrote about, first. Thanks, Bill! :-)
Carolyn Ann
*Of course, you could be like me, and not be particularly concerned about readership numbers. I do care about my readers, but I do not care about my readership numbers! This isn't something I recommend - it goes against so much advice... :-)
Two things to (help) fix the economy
There are two things Obama can do that would go a long way to reviving the economy. He's getting onto one, right now: those nefarious, obtuse credit card agreements. The other is removing the barriers for cellphones.
Cellphones are electronic devices. As long as they conform to a standard, there's no particular reason why you have to be locked into a phone/carrier contract. Sure, sign up with a carrier - but let the actual phone be yet another consumer device.
Doing that would transform the personal communications market. It would make the iPhone - that advanced bit of stylish packaging - look like a stone age club within a year or so.
There's no technical reason why the cellphone companies enforce this arbitrary phone restriction. It's worldwide, as far as I can tell. France tried to remove the restriction, but were stymied. I think it will take a lawsuit - one I would willingly launch if I had the money. From the perspective of the cellphone company, it makes no sense, either. They could make a lot of money by having cellphones advance at a pace similar to cameras. Some people would be buying a new phone every few months! But, cellphone companies being what they are: bold and innovative is not in their vocabulary.
It's a wasted opportunity. It really is.
Carolyn Ann
Cellphones are electronic devices. As long as they conform to a standard, there's no particular reason why you have to be locked into a phone/carrier contract. Sure, sign up with a carrier - but let the actual phone be yet another consumer device.
Doing that would transform the personal communications market. It would make the iPhone - that advanced bit of stylish packaging - look like a stone age club within a year or so.
There's no technical reason why the cellphone companies enforce this arbitrary phone restriction. It's worldwide, as far as I can tell. France tried to remove the restriction, but were stymied. I think it will take a lawsuit - one I would willingly launch if I had the money. From the perspective of the cellphone company, it makes no sense, either. They could make a lot of money by having cellphones advance at a pace similar to cameras. Some people would be buying a new phone every few months! But, cellphone companies being what they are: bold and innovative is not in their vocabulary.
It's a wasted opportunity. It really is.
Carolyn Ann
Feeling blah...
It's a beautiful day out there - 88°F, and sunny. I had a full weekend planned, with lots of cleaning up in the front garden, and getting some sort of order to the deck.
Instead, I've got some bug that has bowled me over. This is the 3rd day, now! Bleh.
(Last night, as I was watching "Constantine" - a pop-culture examination intersection of American pop culture and the Catholic faith - I thought I was getting better. Ah well.)
Carolyn Ann
Instead, I've got some bug that has bowled me over. This is the 3rd day, now! Bleh.
(Last night, as I was watching "Constantine" - a pop-culture examination intersection of American pop culture and the Catholic faith - I thought I was getting better. Ah well.)
Carolyn Ann
Bullying Children
Charles Blow has written of two 11 year old boys in his "By the Numbers Blog". Taunted by homophobic bullying, they committed suicide. This sad story puts the whole anti-gay thing into a new perspective, doesn't it?
When the adults condemn homosexuals, it gives children a license to taunt those who are "different".
As a teen, I was bullied without mercy. Other boys, who ordinarily wouldn't bully someone, got involved: they'd call me a "puff", a "fag", a "queer". I didn't, and don't, know why. (I also lived in mortal fear of them finding out I wanted, desperately, to be a girl.) I quickly learned that if I defended myself, I got into trouble. If let the bully get away with it, I got into trouble. If I told the teacher, not a lot happened. If I told my Mom and Dad, they got the school involved, and somewhere along the way I would get into trouble. It seemed, at the time, that the best thing to do was delay getting into trouble! I matured with a deep distrust of authorities, a hatred for conformity and a very strong sense of inadequacy. It took me over two decades to gain any self-confidence. (It didn't help that, over the years, I got stuck with two bullying bosses for long periods of time; I didn't have the self-esteem to tell them to sod off.)
Mom and Dad were not exactly supportive of my transgender "inclinations". We'd have periodic chats - Mom would wonder if I was gay (I wasn't, and aren't), and Dad would say "Stop it! I don't like it!" Gee, thanks Dad. It took me a few more years to not be bothered by it all.
That's the problem you see: if the adults say homosexuality is abhorrent, children pick up on this sort of thing. But they don't see the world in the same way adults do (as Mr Blow so eloquently states). They perceive difference to be the aberration. And aberrations get bullied - peer pressure is a mighty powerful thing for children.
If we stop saying that homosexuality is a sin, that being transgendered is a sin - that being anythng other than straight and conforming is a sin - then we have a chance to celebrate the wonderful diversity of people. Until then - I have little expectation that these are the last children who kill themselves over bullying.
Carolyn Ann
When the adults condemn homosexuals, it gives children a license to taunt those who are "different".
As a teen, I was bullied without mercy. Other boys, who ordinarily wouldn't bully someone, got involved: they'd call me a "puff", a "fag", a "queer". I didn't, and don't, know why. (I also lived in mortal fear of them finding out I wanted, desperately, to be a girl.) I quickly learned that if I defended myself, I got into trouble. If let the bully get away with it, I got into trouble. If I told the teacher, not a lot happened. If I told my Mom and Dad, they got the school involved, and somewhere along the way I would get into trouble. It seemed, at the time, that the best thing to do was delay getting into trouble! I matured with a deep distrust of authorities, a hatred for conformity and a very strong sense of inadequacy. It took me over two decades to gain any self-confidence. (It didn't help that, over the years, I got stuck with two bullying bosses for long periods of time; I didn't have the self-esteem to tell them to sod off.)
Mom and Dad were not exactly supportive of my transgender "inclinations". We'd have periodic chats - Mom would wonder if I was gay (I wasn't, and aren't), and Dad would say "Stop it! I don't like it!" Gee, thanks Dad. It took me a few more years to not be bothered by it all.
That's the problem you see: if the adults say homosexuality is abhorrent, children pick up on this sort of thing. But they don't see the world in the same way adults do (as Mr Blow so eloquently states). They perceive difference to be the aberration. And aberrations get bullied - peer pressure is a mighty powerful thing for children.
If we stop saying that homosexuality is a sin, that being transgendered is a sin - that being anythng other than straight and conforming is a sin - then we have a chance to celebrate the wonderful diversity of people. Until then - I have little expectation that these are the last children who kill themselves over bullying.
Carolyn Ann
Friday, April 24, 2009
Changing my mind
I'm beginning to think the torture memos should lead to a full investigation, and prosecutions.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Chatty Defendants, and what they say
The Obama Administration is trying to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that precludes allowing anything a defendant says when their lawyer is not present. Some want to preserve the ruling, but one of the things that stood out in the Angie Zapata trial was the confession Andrade gave - when his lawyer wasn't there.
That confession wasn't allowed - which placed the trial in jeopardy. Andrade stood a chance of not being convicted as he was without it.
Now, there is concern that some might be manipulated. This is a valid concern and one that should be addressed. Not being a lawyer, I don't know how the accused might be defended from such manipulation, but a blanket ban on what someone says is unreasonable. The 5th Amendment is the applicable legal guideline.
I can't see how any responsible person can defend the banning of a confession, that is freely given, just because the lawyer is not there. If someone tells the cops something that can be used against them - then surely anything that is self-incriminating is fair game?
Carolyn Ann
That confession wasn't allowed - which placed the trial in jeopardy. Andrade stood a chance of not being convicted as he was without it.
Now, there is concern that some might be manipulated. This is a valid concern and one that should be addressed. Not being a lawyer, I don't know how the accused might be defended from such manipulation, but a blanket ban on what someone says is unreasonable. The 5th Amendment is the applicable legal guideline.
I can't see how any responsible person can defend the banning of a confession, that is freely given, just because the lawyer is not there. If someone tells the cops something that can be used against them - then surely anything that is self-incriminating is fair game?
Carolyn Ann
I wonder what happened to my comment?
I'm sorry - I'm inevitably suspicious.
I posted a comment in response to this Montreal Gazette "Patent pending" blog post. In it, Jillian Page discusses the "T" word - the word being 'tranny'. There was already a comment there, so I left mine. Naturally, I disagree with Ms Page's premise, and (politely) said so.
That was yesterday morning. This morning I left a comment asking if something had happened to the comment. No response to that, either.
Perhaps a letter to the editor, inquiring, might be in order? Or would that be bitchy?
Carolyn Ann
I posted a comment in response to this Montreal Gazette "Patent pending" blog post. In it, Jillian Page discusses the "T" word - the word being 'tranny'. There was already a comment there, so I left mine. Naturally, I disagree with Ms Page's premise, and (politely) said so.
That was yesterday morning. This morning I left a comment asking if something had happened to the comment. No response to that, either.
Perhaps a letter to the editor, inquiring, might be in order? Or would that be bitchy?
Carolyn Ann
Personal safety
This, from "Confessions of a part time girl" (aka Man From Venus) is definitely worth reading.
Safety begins with you, yourself. It pays to be equipped.
Carolyn Ann
Safety begins with you, yourself. It pays to be equipped.
Carolyn Ann
Not for bear country...
I've been looking for some new foodstuffs for camping, and am almost willingly entering the supermarket in my quest. One of my favorite foods on the road was cans of fruit - they were an excellent dessert, and were good for breakfast on a warm morning. So I was quite intrigued when the Mrs brought home some fruit cups - Del Monte's "Fruit Naturals". They are basically bits of fruit in a "light" syrup. As you might expect, the various 'flavors' are medley's, and the packaging is somewhat green. The packaging also means it doesn't have to be refrigerated, just kept cool, for short periods of time.
It is not a product for bear country.
The only problem is the syrup. There's too much of it in the cup. It spills.
When you're in bear country you need to keep spills to a minimum. The smell can attract the wrong type of attention - and those animals have a powerful sense of smell! As an aside, they sound like rutting pigs when they're outside your tent.
If you spill some on you, the more aggressive bear might decide that he or she likes that sugary dip you've marinated yourself in. This is called "not good".
As a result, I cannot say I'll be eating any of these on the road. I can't recommend them for any other camper, either.
Carolyn Ann
PS Here's another review of the same product. Another reason I can't recommend this for campers.
It is not a product for bear country.
The only problem is the syrup. There's too much of it in the cup. It spills.
When you're in bear country you need to keep spills to a minimum. The smell can attract the wrong type of attention - and those animals have a powerful sense of smell! As an aside, they sound like rutting pigs when they're outside your tent.
If you spill some on you, the more aggressive bear might decide that he or she likes that sugary dip you've marinated yourself in. This is called "not good".
As a result, I cannot say I'll be eating any of these on the road. I can't recommend them for any other camper, either.
Carolyn Ann
PS Here's another review of the same product. Another reason I can't recommend this for campers.
How to think about transgender issues
This course is designed to reduce any contention in discussions regarding gender and trans gender issues. After completing this period of study, you will be unable to think about gender in anything resembling sensible form participate in discussions about trans and cis gender with no ability to disagree equal enthusiasm and ignorance knowledge.
Trans gender issues are at the heart of all disagreements regarding gender. To participate in discussions that either involve or touch on trans gender issues, the following ideas need to be employed. You don't have to actually know what these ideas mean, you just have to employ them. In actual fact, comprehension of these ideas is likely to lead to confusion, argument and banishment. You will also be mocked and treated as a pariah. It is probably better if you don't understand the ideas - that way you can be accepted, popular and well regarded by the some in transgender community.
Here are the ideas you need to know, but not understand.
1. The claim "I am a woman" cannot be challenged. It is de facto true, and is a part of someone's identity - therefore it cannot be challenged. Motivations for claiming this honorific are not to be examined. Neither is what it means to "be a woman". Examining this premise is a device used by the cis gendered to oppress the transgendered.
2. If a cis gendered woman claims that you are not a woman, but are a man claiming to be a woman, they are oppressing you. Cis people always oppress trans people.
3. Understanding the concept of "cis gendered" is not required. If someone does not understand it, you are being oppressed. If they demand you define the term, deny that it is your responsibility to do that - it is their responsibility to discover what the term means, and also to agree with it completely and unequivocally. It is not your job to explain the terms you use. (As a precaution, this also ensures that you don't actually have to explain the term.)
4. All trans women are sisters, whether they are or are not. Feminine pronouns and phrases are to be used whenever possible, which is always.
5. If you're biologically male, married and trans, the onus is on the wife to understand the husband. Please ignore the contradiction inherent in this, and the continuation of the traditional roles where the husband dictates what they want to do and the rest of the family follows. Also, please regard this as a different rule to Rule #1, even if it is a specific rephrasing of that rule.
6. Feminism must grow to accomodate transfeminist issues. If it doesn't - the cis gendered feminists are being oppressive and dinosaurs.
7. When you come across honestly held religious opinion that contradicts your statement that "I am a woman" - ridicule the person stating it. (It is dangerous to ridicule the religion, so please refrain from that. Besides, there are some religious sisters.) Please note: Do not try to engage the religious in a discussion about gender. They are religious, and contradicting you. Therefore they cannot understand why you are right, and they are wrong. It is up to them to know, and accept, Rules #1 and #3.
8. "Tranny" is not to be used. Some people use it in a derogatory fashion, and as such it must not be used in by the transgendered.
9. Humor, unless it is the "right" sort of humor is not to be used. Irony is not to be used at all. Sarcasm can only be used when it is being to mock and ridicule someone who disagrees with you.
10. Free expression is reserved for you, only. Disagreement is not allowed, and any discussion about the foundation of trans gender expression being within free expression must be prevented.
And, finally, the 11th rule:
11. If you come across someone called "Carolyn Ann" - ignore him. He's strange, argumentative and not acceptable. Avoid his statements, especially if they are disagreeable. He is disagreeable - this is evidenced by his insistence on masculine pronouns and girly name. It is better to not encourage this person. He expects more from the transgender community re gender discussion than it currently gives. He's very dangerous.
With these rules, you can wade into gender discussion and either stop it in its tracks, divert it to how the cis gendered oppress the transgendered and demonstrate how well you can abuse the English language. And anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You are now ready to enter discussions about gender issues in many forums. If it helps, blind anger and a steadfast refusal to listen to your opponents are also good tools. In any gender discussion, it is essential you not give an inch. Even if you're wrong. If that should ever happen (it won't if you follow our simple rules) just ridicule your opponent. If that doesn't work, angrily quit the discussion. That'll show them!
You are now fully equipped to think about gender, transgender issues and cis gender oppression without challenging yourself, or the friends you will undoubtedly make, in any way whatsoever.
Carolyn Ann
Trans gender issues are at the heart of all disagreements regarding gender. To participate in discussions that either involve or touch on trans gender issues, the following ideas need to be employed. You don't have to actually know what these ideas mean, you just have to employ them. In actual fact, comprehension of these ideas is likely to lead to confusion, argument and banishment. You will also be mocked and treated as a pariah. It is probably better if you don't understand the ideas - that way you can be accepted, popular and well regarded by the some in transgender community.
Here are the ideas you need to know, but not understand.
1. The claim "I am a woman" cannot be challenged. It is de facto true, and is a part of someone's identity - therefore it cannot be challenged. Motivations for claiming this honorific are not to be examined. Neither is what it means to "be a woman". Examining this premise is a device used by the cis gendered to oppress the transgendered.
2. If a cis gendered woman claims that you are not a woman, but are a man claiming to be a woman, they are oppressing you. Cis people always oppress trans people.
3. Understanding the concept of "cis gendered" is not required. If someone does not understand it, you are being oppressed. If they demand you define the term, deny that it is your responsibility to do that - it is their responsibility to discover what the term means, and also to agree with it completely and unequivocally. It is not your job to explain the terms you use. (As a precaution, this also ensures that you don't actually have to explain the term.)
4. All trans women are sisters, whether they are or are not. Feminine pronouns and phrases are to be used whenever possible, which is always.
5. If you're biologically male, married and trans, the onus is on the wife to understand the husband. Please ignore the contradiction inherent in this, and the continuation of the traditional roles where the husband dictates what they want to do and the rest of the family follows. Also, please regard this as a different rule to Rule #1, even if it is a specific rephrasing of that rule.
6. Feminism must grow to accomodate transfeminist issues. If it doesn't - the cis gendered feminists are being oppressive and dinosaurs.
7. When you come across honestly held religious opinion that contradicts your statement that "I am a woman" - ridicule the person stating it. (It is dangerous to ridicule the religion, so please refrain from that. Besides, there are some religious sisters.) Please note: Do not try to engage the religious in a discussion about gender. They are religious, and contradicting you. Therefore they cannot understand why you are right, and they are wrong. It is up to them to know, and accept, Rules #1 and #3.
8. "Tranny" is not to be used. Some people use it in a derogatory fashion, and as such it must not be used in by the transgendered.
9. Humor, unless it is the "right" sort of humor is not to be used. Irony is not to be used at all. Sarcasm can only be used when it is being to mock and ridicule someone who disagrees with you.
10. Free expression is reserved for you, only. Disagreement is not allowed, and any discussion about the foundation of trans gender expression being within free expression must be prevented.
And, finally, the 11th rule:
11. If you come across someone called "Carolyn Ann" - ignore him. He's strange, argumentative and not acceptable. Avoid his statements, especially if they are disagreeable. He is disagreeable - this is evidenced by his insistence on masculine pronouns and girly name. It is better to not encourage this person. He expects more from the transgender community re gender discussion than it currently gives. He's very dangerous.
With these rules, you can wade into gender discussion and either stop it in its tracks, divert it to how the cis gendered oppress the transgendered and demonstrate how well you can abuse the English language. And anyone who doesn't agree with you.
You are now ready to enter discussions about gender issues in many forums. If it helps, blind anger and a steadfast refusal to listen to your opponents are also good tools. In any gender discussion, it is essential you not give an inch. Even if you're wrong. If that should ever happen (it won't if you follow our simple rules) just ridicule your opponent. If that doesn't work, angrily quit the discussion. That'll show them!
You are now fully equipped to think about gender, transgender issues and cis gender oppression without challenging yourself, or the friends you will undoubtedly make, in any way whatsoever.
Carolyn Ann
The Taliban Withdraw?
According to CNN, the Taliban has withdrawn from their recently captured district near Islamabad. This is worrying.
The Taliban is not known for relinquishing territory, unless it's forced to by American forces. So why did they retreat from this area? It can't be a logistics problem - they simply take from the villages in that time-old manner of armies throughout history. It's probably not a manpower problem - there seems to be an endless supply of Muslims willing to oppress others. It might be that they need lots of men for an attack on American, or - more likely - European forces. This sort of begs the manpower question, but is slightly more plausible.
Europe is not known for its enthusiasm in either military affairs, or curtailing the excesses of the Taliban. Soft power is preferred, even when a really big stick is called for. If the Taliban get into a battle of attrition, European popular opinion is more likely to turn further away from its already uncertain support for the war in Afghanistan. That, in turn, might lead to a quavering of American support - already House Democrats are asking what we're doing in Afghanistan.
Isolating the American troops has been a strategic goal of the Taliban since day 1. So far the strategy has played out reasonably well - the war is oft viewed as "America's" and the wholehearted support that should be coming forth, isn't. As a result, governments are sending troops to Afghanistan, but without a clear ruling on combat. They can provide support operations, which are needed, but can't go on offensive missions. That's left to the British and American troops.
There's a myopia at play; the last time we saw this was with Bosnia. The unwillingness to get really involved led to to such idiocies as troops being sent into harms way with no weapons! It wasn't until the Americans got involved that Bosnia started to get sorted out; even the American troops were hampered by ridiculous rules of engagement. That time it was courtesy of the Republicans in Congress.
I wonder when Europe will realize that the war against the Taliban is not a tribal affair, limited to Pakistan and Afghanistan. If Pakistan falls - it looks increasingly like it will - the entire world is at risk! It's not enough to wait and see, adopting a "we don't want to get involved" policy. For all the shouting about human rights, Europe seems to be unwilling to back its convictions with anything but rhetoric!
As a military force, the Taliban seems to be good at figuring out short term strategies; long term strategy and the policies that guide such are not their strong suit. They are stuck in 14th century in so many ways, but disturbingly contemporary in other ways. Willing to use modern weapons, including the drug trade, they are little more than better trained thugs. Their policies, such as they exist, are little more than bombastic, oversensitive, racist railing at anyone and everyone they don't like. They are about power, but they wrap it all in religious proclamations of virtuosity. They have shown a willingness to throw as many "martyrs" as it takes at a problem; their callousness is only rivaled by their love of guns and power. Why would anyone think that such a group would limit itself to the Afghan region?
The Taliban are a danger to the entire world. They would love to get hold of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and they would love to prove they can defeat the Americans like they did the Russians. (Which they did with American help!) By playing into the anti-American sentiment of the Europeans, they might be hoping to isolate the American forces, and perhaps change public opinion so that Afghanistan becomes another Vietnam.
They misunderstand what 9/11 meant.
Carolyn Ann
The Taliban is not known for relinquishing territory, unless it's forced to by American forces. So why did they retreat from this area? It can't be a logistics problem - they simply take from the villages in that time-old manner of armies throughout history. It's probably not a manpower problem - there seems to be an endless supply of Muslims willing to oppress others. It might be that they need lots of men for an attack on American, or - more likely - European forces. This sort of begs the manpower question, but is slightly more plausible.
Europe is not known for its enthusiasm in either military affairs, or curtailing the excesses of the Taliban. Soft power is preferred, even when a really big stick is called for. If the Taliban get into a battle of attrition, European popular opinion is more likely to turn further away from its already uncertain support for the war in Afghanistan. That, in turn, might lead to a quavering of American support - already House Democrats are asking what we're doing in Afghanistan.
Isolating the American troops has been a strategic goal of the Taliban since day 1. So far the strategy has played out reasonably well - the war is oft viewed as "America's" and the wholehearted support that should be coming forth, isn't. As a result, governments are sending troops to Afghanistan, but without a clear ruling on combat. They can provide support operations, which are needed, but can't go on offensive missions. That's left to the British and American troops.
There's a myopia at play; the last time we saw this was with Bosnia. The unwillingness to get really involved led to to such idiocies as troops being sent into harms way with no weapons! It wasn't until the Americans got involved that Bosnia started to get sorted out; even the American troops were hampered by ridiculous rules of engagement. That time it was courtesy of the Republicans in Congress.
I wonder when Europe will realize that the war against the Taliban is not a tribal affair, limited to Pakistan and Afghanistan. If Pakistan falls - it looks increasingly like it will - the entire world is at risk! It's not enough to wait and see, adopting a "we don't want to get involved" policy. For all the shouting about human rights, Europe seems to be unwilling to back its convictions with anything but rhetoric!
As a military force, the Taliban seems to be good at figuring out short term strategies; long term strategy and the policies that guide such are not their strong suit. They are stuck in 14th century in so many ways, but disturbingly contemporary in other ways. Willing to use modern weapons, including the drug trade, they are little more than better trained thugs. Their policies, such as they exist, are little more than bombastic, oversensitive, racist railing at anyone and everyone they don't like. They are about power, but they wrap it all in religious proclamations of virtuosity. They have shown a willingness to throw as many "martyrs" as it takes at a problem; their callousness is only rivaled by their love of guns and power. Why would anyone think that such a group would limit itself to the Afghan region?
The Taliban are a danger to the entire world. They would love to get hold of Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and they would love to prove they can defeat the Americans like they did the Russians. (Which they did with American help!) By playing into the anti-American sentiment of the Europeans, they might be hoping to isolate the American forces, and perhaps change public opinion so that Afghanistan becomes another Vietnam.
They misunderstand what 9/11 meant.
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, April 23, 2009
It couldn't happen to a nicer company...
The NY Times tells us that EMC Profit Drops 23%. Normally I feel bad about corporate profits declining - they usually lead to layoffs and pay cuts.
But, considering EMC's misplaced aggressiveness and their generally obnoxious behavior - I'm more than happy to make an exception. :-)
Carolyn Ann
But, considering EMC's misplaced aggressiveness and their generally obnoxious behavior - I'm more than happy to make an exception. :-)
Carolyn Ann
Reading TG blogs?
I've noticed that one or two transgender blogs have gone quiet. One went to invitation only*, and some others (seem to) have been abandoned. Is this one of those periodic things? I think so.
(*I didn't request an invitation.)
Some haven't gone away, I've just stopped reading them. Someone going evangelical will do that. I just can't read that much religion.
There is a portal, well, it's actually a link list, T-Central, that is updated when the content on a blog changes. The same blogs keep appearing at the top of the list. Someone once did a long list, alphabetized if memory serves, of the transgendered; it was more a fetish portal than anything meaningful, and I have no idea if it's still running. It was pre-Flickr, and was an interesting first experiment in building a community.
Now there's Facebook, that PinkEssence, and some other community building tools that make more sense! T-Central could be better; with a redesign, it could be a great way of finding out what's interesting the TG community. As it is, it's sort of an electronic library cum newspaper. You have to go and find the information for yourself. That's a little too old-school for me! (Sorry.) Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that Angela Zapata is the current #1 topic for trannys.
Speaking of which, Jillian Page wrote a post in the Montreal Gazette's community blog about the "T-Word" I left a comment disagreeing, but I have no idea what happened to it. Apparently the word "tranny" is offensive. Because it's often used in a derogatory manner. I'm not so sure about that - surely acquiecsing such a colloquialism provides a victory to the prejudiced.
I notice that a little war of words has broken out between Feministing and my favorite, QT. It's basically about the direction of some conversations. Essentially, the trannys want to impose their own view of what a woman is.
I also came across, via a comment on QT, this entry about "cisgender" in Wikipedia. It should be in the "wiktionary", but it's being retained in the Wikipedia. There's an interesting discussion about the origins of the word, with no one venturing that the word could have been independently coined. The worst thing about the article - it's barely relevant to its topic; it's also subtly biased. Basically it's a stub, pretending to be a comprehensive.
The transgender blogosphere has its ups and downs. It always will, I suppose. People want to discuss a difficult moment in their lives - and blogs provide that outlet. Considering how few support groups there are, even Manhattan has a dearth of them, it's not surprising that the online world becomes a preferred outlet. This does lead to a certain similarity in the postings! Each story is a little different, but they all follow the same arc. (For the overly sensitive, that was an observation, not a criticism.)
I still see a lack of basic honesty and awareness with married transgendered bloggers. There's still a lot of the old "why can't my wife accept me as I am?"; basically, the other woman is her husband. A lot of transsexuals can't see the damage they cause in a marriage when they decide to have a sex change, and it comes out as a "woe is me" blog. It's not difficult to comprehend the pain caused - if you're the other woman, you get all the hate and anguish that usually gets directed in a couple of directions. Now it's all going into one person. All you have to do to see it is not be myopic - or selfish.
Many won't tell their wives about their crossdressing. Such conceit and deceit is a weapon the prejudiced will, and do, use against the transgendered. I either skim those, or click away as fast as I can. Such deceit is not for me. Some seem to be happy with it, though.
Ah well. I'm sure the TG blogosphere will pick up, again.
Carolyn Ann
(*I didn't request an invitation.)
Some haven't gone away, I've just stopped reading them. Someone going evangelical will do that. I just can't read that much religion.
There is a portal, well, it's actually a link list, T-Central, that is updated when the content on a blog changes. The same blogs keep appearing at the top of the list. Someone once did a long list, alphabetized if memory serves, of the transgendered; it was more a fetish portal than anything meaningful, and I have no idea if it's still running. It was pre-Flickr, and was an interesting first experiment in building a community.
Now there's Facebook, that PinkEssence, and some other community building tools that make more sense! T-Central could be better; with a redesign, it could be a great way of finding out what's interesting the TG community. As it is, it's sort of an electronic library cum newspaper. You have to go and find the information for yourself. That's a little too old-school for me! (Sorry.) Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that Angela Zapata is the current #1 topic for trannys.
Speaking of which, Jillian Page wrote a post in the Montreal Gazette's community blog about the "T-Word" I left a comment disagreeing, but I have no idea what happened to it. Apparently the word "tranny" is offensive. Because it's often used in a derogatory manner. I'm not so sure about that - surely acquiecsing such a colloquialism provides a victory to the prejudiced.
I notice that a little war of words has broken out between Feministing and my favorite, QT. It's basically about the direction of some conversations. Essentially, the trannys want to impose their own view of what a woman is.
I also came across, via a comment on QT, this entry about "cisgender" in Wikipedia. It should be in the "wiktionary", but it's being retained in the Wikipedia. There's an interesting discussion about the origins of the word, with no one venturing that the word could have been independently coined. The worst thing about the article - it's barely relevant to its topic; it's also subtly biased. Basically it's a stub, pretending to be a comprehensive.
The transgender blogosphere has its ups and downs. It always will, I suppose. People want to discuss a difficult moment in their lives - and blogs provide that outlet. Considering how few support groups there are, even Manhattan has a dearth of them, it's not surprising that the online world becomes a preferred outlet. This does lead to a certain similarity in the postings! Each story is a little different, but they all follow the same arc. (For the overly sensitive, that was an observation, not a criticism.)
I still see a lack of basic honesty and awareness with married transgendered bloggers. There's still a lot of the old "why can't my wife accept me as I am?"; basically, the other woman is her husband. A lot of transsexuals can't see the damage they cause in a marriage when they decide to have a sex change, and it comes out as a "woe is me" blog. It's not difficult to comprehend the pain caused - if you're the other woman, you get all the hate and anguish that usually gets directed in a couple of directions. Now it's all going into one person. All you have to do to see it is not be myopic - or selfish.
Many won't tell their wives about their crossdressing. Such conceit and deceit is a weapon the prejudiced will, and do, use against the transgendered. I either skim those, or click away as fast as I can. Such deceit is not for me. Some seem to be happy with it, though.
Ah well. I'm sure the TG blogosphere will pick up, again.
Carolyn Ann
Down, not out...
Well, the camera is down and out - it made a funny grinding sound when I switched it on, and stopped working. As for me - I caught a nasty cold from yesterday's ride. A few Advil, and I'm off to nod-nod land. For some reason, Advil just puts me to sleep!
Ah well, it was a challenging ride.
Carolyn Ann
Ah well, it was a challenging ride.
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What I did today
The rain seemed to be stopping - the sky was bright to the south, and the puddles were mostly still. I got dressed and went out to the bike. She started easily, eager to get on the road. Hopping on, I turned her around, and set off.
Initially, the roads were clear - the sun seemed to be struggling to come out.
And then it occurred to me - I was riding into the rain. A severe weather alert had been issued, but I didn't know about that - all I knew was that I was going to get wet. For the next 50 miles, the clear weather was always behind me, and I rode the edge of the rain. I was cold.
The rain let up a little as I passed a car pulled over by a cop. There was the right turn I needed - this time, I heeded the "No Right On Red" sign, and waited. And waited. And... Waited. The sensors that changed the light were set for a car, not a small motorcycle. Eventually a pickup truck came up, and the light changed. I turned right - into a weak sunshine!
It didn't last long.
A light drizzle was first, lasting a few miles, playing with me - a weak sun, with a dazzling drizzle. I knew it couldn't last, and it didn't. A few moments later, the heavens opened. I was drenched in moments! I thought I spied lightning - just what I don't want to see on the road.
The road, America's first highway, Route 40, goes from Atlantic City to somewhere in Los Angeles. One day I intend to ride its entire route; I did a good chunk of it from Amarillo to Bakersfield, last year. Miserable riding on the wrong bike, it's a truck route and a way for the inhabitants of Los Angeles to get into the desert California shares with Nevada. Fast, windy and dangerous the most uncertain moments is the large immigration checkpoint in the middle of nowhere, California.
It starts by going through pine forests - well, they would be, but development has reduced them to copses and woods. In this area, it's not a truck route - it's a suburban commuters way to get to work, and the mall. Corporate offices have their own turnouts, as do the malls and disguised towns. They're disguised as strip malls. Desolate places, with broken parking lots and bass music emanating from large, badly driven, older SUV's.
But all that was to come. Now, it was just a busy, fast, two lane highway. The curves are long, and do not contain any interest; the towns are brief interuptions of decripit housing and auto shops. There's a large black strip club, trimmed in a cheap pink, to contradict the handpainted "Jesus Saves" signs nailed to the pines and cedars the road cuts through. The strip club has a new sign: "hiring", it says. A few cars sit outside it. "Open at 7PM" says another sign. So I don't know what the cars were doing there.
The road turns slippy, and the turns, while boring, suddenly become challenging. The bike is not happy on such roads - she wants to slip, and it's like dancing with a difficult partner to keep her upright. Eventually you get what you want, but it takes a ridiculous amount of diplomacy and negotiation to get what you want.
Red lights bring special moments of worry - tug the brake and risk a slide, sail through and hope you're still on yellow? Or ... Well, on a small bike, there is no or. On the Ducati, I could twist the throttle and be doing a ridiculous velocity before the light even thought of changing to red. On a smaller bike - that's just not an option. I pull the front brake lever - and not a lot happens. Pulling harder, the brake starts to work - it needs to burn off the water on the disk. She's not happy. Tapping the rear brake, the bike settles and I come to a smooth stop. I remember to breathe. I didn't know I'd stopped, but apparently I had.
The rain is now heavy, drenching. The sound on my helmet reminds me of the hail storm I had to drive through - on Rt 40! - in eastern Texas. At a red light, I look at the ground - small hail is
bouncing off the surface. My hands are cold; I pull over to change to my cold weather gloves.
The next obstacle is coming up - the unfamiliar bit turns and difficult traffic light that has a sharp left associated with it. Turns out it's different from my memory - the signs you along a different, better, route. The light is simply another light, not an irritating and dangerous sharp left turn, across the west bound traffic. The traffic engineers have separated the two streams of traffic with almost no impact on the surrounding houses and lake.
The traffic was heavy - and then I was on my own! I wondered if I'd taken a wrong turn, but no - I was still on 40, heading east. The rain is continuing, making it difficult to see. But the bike is fine - she's okay with drenched roads!
I look in the mirror, and all the traffic seems to be at the previous light. It quickly catches up to me. An SUV makes a stupid move, and I have to sharply brake; I really should get a new horn. The one the factory supplies is best described as "pathetic". And then a woman, attentive to nothing but her cellphone veers across the lanes. Fortunately, I was ready - she passed in front me, and sped up. None the wiser, I guess. I really do need a loud horn.
Finally, I spot my destination - a motorcycle dealer. Hopefully, they had a piece of luggage I needed, and the mechanic who could take a look at the rear shocks. The mechanic was there, but the luggage wasn't. Ah well. I should have asked, but they did service the bike while I waited, chatting to no one. A big place, with no personality, the dealership reminds me of those car dealers who treat customers as paychecks. No nice chats with a salesman about riding, no customers looking friendly - the few there were looked like harried New Yorkers, desperately avoiding any unneeded contact. I grabbed a cup of coffee and sat on the courtesy seats. At least Fox News wasn't on the telly - some soap opera channel was, though. I ignored it, and tasted the coffee. Cold, and Maxwell House. I put it aside, and opened my book: Zen and Now, Mark Richardson's tale of following Pirsig's route to San Francisco. Phaedrus might have been the old Pirsig, but the one we get to know in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is simply an ass. He's not pursuing "quality" - he's pursuing himself. It's something I can relate to, but not today. I'm cold, I'm wet and dealership was just some corporate front.
My name is called, I'm given a bill and a vague description of what was wrong. The mechanic, one of many in the shop, was nowhere to be found. I didn't get a chance to discuss the bike, the things I should look for and the things I don't have to worry about. Instead I get a service manager and a bill. I pay up and leave as quickly as I can. The weather has cleared - the sun is winning its struggle with the clouds. Shadows appear. I stop at a Borders bookstore and the lass behind the coffee counter seems to be charmed by me. She brings me my hot sandwich; others get their name called and have to go fetch it. I call my wife, just as she calls me. I sat read about technology, stuff that would drive Pirsig into a rage, I suppose. But it's what I'm interested in, and I have an idea but little clue how to solve the problems this idea poses. The books help; the latest technology always reflects what has gone before. Understand that, and even the most advanced, "new", "modern" trend makes perfect technical sense. Even if it makes sense in no other context. I have my answer, and I have eaten my sandwich. Getting up, I notice that a lass sitting nearby has some amazing shoes on. I have a moment of jealousy and lust - I wish I had a pair of shoes like hers! I want to ask her where she got them, but I'm not sure that's a question a scruffy male motorcyclist can ask without coming across as something perverted. Instead, I tell a Jeep owner he left his lights on. He went back to the car and switched them off.
I'm still cold.
Heading home, the traffic is light, and I make good time, but get stupidly lost. I took a turn, thinking it was the right one, but it wasn't. I ended up about 40 miles out of my way - I didn't want to believe the forest I was driving through wasn't the one I should be traversing. Eventually I came across a road I know, and turned right. I had to wait for a driver who wouldn't pass the stop sign if there was a car on the distant horizon, but he did cross the junction. Cautiously, and with an insanely low speed, but I wasn't in too much of a hurry. I could wait. Besides, I was on a bike, and he was in a car - if he got mad at me, there's a chance I'd be joining the bugs on his windshield.
Getting closer to home, I could see the clouds, and the rain. I hoped I could get home before I got re-drenched. Turns out, I missed it by 5 minutes. That was a tough ride, today.
Carolyn Ann
Initially, the roads were clear - the sun seemed to be struggling to come out.
And then it occurred to me - I was riding into the rain. A severe weather alert had been issued, but I didn't know about that - all I knew was that I was going to get wet. For the next 50 miles, the clear weather was always behind me, and I rode the edge of the rain. I was cold.
The rain let up a little as I passed a car pulled over by a cop. There was the right turn I needed - this time, I heeded the "No Right On Red" sign, and waited. And waited. And... Waited. The sensors that changed the light were set for a car, not a small motorcycle. Eventually a pickup truck came up, and the light changed. I turned right - into a weak sunshine!
It didn't last long.
A light drizzle was first, lasting a few miles, playing with me - a weak sun, with a dazzling drizzle. I knew it couldn't last, and it didn't. A few moments later, the heavens opened. I was drenched in moments! I thought I spied lightning - just what I don't want to see on the road.
The road, America's first highway, Route 40, goes from Atlantic City to somewhere in Los Angeles. One day I intend to ride its entire route; I did a good chunk of it from Amarillo to Bakersfield, last year. Miserable riding on the wrong bike, it's a truck route and a way for the inhabitants of Los Angeles to get into the desert California shares with Nevada. Fast, windy and dangerous the most uncertain moments is the large immigration checkpoint in the middle of nowhere, California.
It starts by going through pine forests - well, they would be, but development has reduced them to copses and woods. In this area, it's not a truck route - it's a suburban commuters way to get to work, and the mall. Corporate offices have their own turnouts, as do the malls and disguised towns. They're disguised as strip malls. Desolate places, with broken parking lots and bass music emanating from large, badly driven, older SUV's.
But all that was to come. Now, it was just a busy, fast, two lane highway. The curves are long, and do not contain any interest; the towns are brief interuptions of decripit housing and auto shops. There's a large black strip club, trimmed in a cheap pink, to contradict the handpainted "Jesus Saves" signs nailed to the pines and cedars the road cuts through. The strip club has a new sign: "hiring", it says. A few cars sit outside it. "Open at 7PM" says another sign. So I don't know what the cars were doing there.
The road turns slippy, and the turns, while boring, suddenly become challenging. The bike is not happy on such roads - she wants to slip, and it's like dancing with a difficult partner to keep her upright. Eventually you get what you want, but it takes a ridiculous amount of diplomacy and negotiation to get what you want.
Red lights bring special moments of worry - tug the brake and risk a slide, sail through and hope you're still on yellow? Or ... Well, on a small bike, there is no or. On the Ducati, I could twist the throttle and be doing a ridiculous velocity before the light even thought of changing to red. On a smaller bike - that's just not an option. I pull the front brake lever - and not a lot happens. Pulling harder, the brake starts to work - it needs to burn off the water on the disk. She's not happy. Tapping the rear brake, the bike settles and I come to a smooth stop. I remember to breathe. I didn't know I'd stopped, but apparently I had.
The rain is now heavy, drenching. The sound on my helmet reminds me of the hail storm I had to drive through - on Rt 40! - in eastern Texas. At a red light, I look at the ground - small hail is
bouncing off the surface. My hands are cold; I pull over to change to my cold weather gloves.
The next obstacle is coming up - the unfamiliar bit turns and difficult traffic light that has a sharp left associated with it. Turns out it's different from my memory - the signs you along a different, better, route. The light is simply another light, not an irritating and dangerous sharp left turn, across the west bound traffic. The traffic engineers have separated the two streams of traffic with almost no impact on the surrounding houses and lake.
The traffic was heavy - and then I was on my own! I wondered if I'd taken a wrong turn, but no - I was still on 40, heading east. The rain is continuing, making it difficult to see. But the bike is fine - she's okay with drenched roads!
I look in the mirror, and all the traffic seems to be at the previous light. It quickly catches up to me. An SUV makes a stupid move, and I have to sharply brake; I really should get a new horn. The one the factory supplies is best described as "pathetic". And then a woman, attentive to nothing but her cellphone veers across the lanes. Fortunately, I was ready - she passed in front me, and sped up. None the wiser, I guess. I really do need a loud horn.
Finally, I spot my destination - a motorcycle dealer. Hopefully, they had a piece of luggage I needed, and the mechanic who could take a look at the rear shocks. The mechanic was there, but the luggage wasn't. Ah well. I should have asked, but they did service the bike while I waited, chatting to no one. A big place, with no personality, the dealership reminds me of those car dealers who treat customers as paychecks. No nice chats with a salesman about riding, no customers looking friendly - the few there were looked like harried New Yorkers, desperately avoiding any unneeded contact. I grabbed a cup of coffee and sat on the courtesy seats. At least Fox News wasn't on the telly - some soap opera channel was, though. I ignored it, and tasted the coffee. Cold, and Maxwell House. I put it aside, and opened my book: Zen and Now, Mark Richardson's tale of following Pirsig's route to San Francisco. Phaedrus might have been the old Pirsig, but the one we get to know in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is simply an ass. He's not pursuing "quality" - he's pursuing himself. It's something I can relate to, but not today. I'm cold, I'm wet and dealership was just some corporate front.
My name is called, I'm given a bill and a vague description of what was wrong. The mechanic, one of many in the shop, was nowhere to be found. I didn't get a chance to discuss the bike, the things I should look for and the things I don't have to worry about. Instead I get a service manager and a bill. I pay up and leave as quickly as I can. The weather has cleared - the sun is winning its struggle with the clouds. Shadows appear. I stop at a Borders bookstore and the lass behind the coffee counter seems to be charmed by me. She brings me my hot sandwich; others get their name called and have to go fetch it. I call my wife, just as she calls me. I sat read about technology, stuff that would drive Pirsig into a rage, I suppose. But it's what I'm interested in, and I have an idea but little clue how to solve the problems this idea poses. The books help; the latest technology always reflects what has gone before. Understand that, and even the most advanced, "new", "modern" trend makes perfect technical sense. Even if it makes sense in no other context. I have my answer, and I have eaten my sandwich. Getting up, I notice that a lass sitting nearby has some amazing shoes on. I have a moment of jealousy and lust - I wish I had a pair of shoes like hers! I want to ask her where she got them, but I'm not sure that's a question a scruffy male motorcyclist can ask without coming across as something perverted. Instead, I tell a Jeep owner he left his lights on. He went back to the car and switched them off.
I'm still cold.
Heading home, the traffic is light, and I make good time, but get stupidly lost. I took a turn, thinking it was the right one, but it wasn't. I ended up about 40 miles out of my way - I didn't want to believe the forest I was driving through wasn't the one I should be traversing. Eventually I came across a road I know, and turned right. I had to wait for a driver who wouldn't pass the stop sign if there was a car on the distant horizon, but he did cross the junction. Cautiously, and with an insanely low speed, but I wasn't in too much of a hurry. I could wait. Besides, I was on a bike, and he was in a car - if he got mad at me, there's a chance I'd be joining the bugs on his windshield.
Getting closer to home, I could see the clouds, and the rain. I hoped I could get home before I got re-drenched. Turns out, I missed it by 5 minutes. That was a tough ride, today.
Carolyn Ann
Condemnation, via sin?
I'm slow, I know. It occurred to me that the basic premise of discrimination is the concept of sin. If you're within some class of people who, it is decided, are sinful - the intellectual and emotional basis for prejudice against those people has been attained.
"Live and let live" is not, cannot be, a premise you adhere to when you judge others as sinful, or not. This sort of sentiment values conformance, and places the community, over individual expression. Which is the sort of thing you expect of extremist political groups.
I was thinking about a young Muslim woman in St Petersburg, Russia, who was murdered because her father thought she dressed inappropriately. And I thought of Angela Zapata, and Gwen Araujo - and how all those protesters came to her funeral. I also thought about the deceit in the arguments against gay marriage.
I also thought about a comment I heard on the TV about the 1960's, and how everyone was "frightened" by the hippies. Frightened? By a group of peaceniks, with their long hair, braids and "peace, man!"? What was so terrifying about that? (It was frightening enough that conservatives have been fighting against the 1960's since the the 1980's...)
There are two common threads: the concept of "sin", and the demand that everyone conform to some ideal. Usually that ideal is in the name of some deity, or some social expectation. Social challenge is not encouraged. Personal expression is okay, as long as it is within some strict framework. "Freedom from" is more important than "freedom to", basically.
I wonder what it would take to change the world?
Carolyn Ann
"Live and let live" is not, cannot be, a premise you adhere to when you judge others as sinful, or not. This sort of sentiment values conformance, and places the community, over individual expression. Which is the sort of thing you expect of extremist political groups.
I was thinking about a young Muslim woman in St Petersburg, Russia, who was murdered because her father thought she dressed inappropriately. And I thought of Angela Zapata, and Gwen Araujo - and how all those protesters came to her funeral. I also thought about the deceit in the arguments against gay marriage.
I also thought about a comment I heard on the TV about the 1960's, and how everyone was "frightened" by the hippies. Frightened? By a group of peaceniks, with their long hair, braids and "peace, man!"? What was so terrifying about that? (It was frightening enough that conservatives have been fighting against the 1960's since the the 1980's...)
There are two common threads: the concept of "sin", and the demand that everyone conform to some ideal. Usually that ideal is in the name of some deity, or some social expectation. Social challenge is not encouraged. Personal expression is okay, as long as it is within some strict framework. "Freedom from" is more important than "freedom to", basically.
I wonder what it would take to change the world?
Carolyn Ann
I was wrong! :-)
Angela Zapata got some justice, today. Allen Andrade was found guilty of 1st degree murder, of the additional hate crime charge and a few other charges that are pretty inconsequential when you consider the murder charge.
Apparently the jury deliberated for just 2 hours!
This is good news! It would be better if it we didn't need to hear it, and Ms Zapata was still alive, and well. But, in Colorado at least, the state takes the safety of all its citizens seriously.
Carolyn Ann
Apparently the jury deliberated for just 2 hours!
This is good news! It would be better if it we didn't need to hear it, and Ms Zapata was still alive, and well. But, in Colorado at least, the state takes the safety of all its citizens seriously.
Carolyn Ann
I don't know if Angela Zapata is going to get a fair trial
Reading through some blogs and newspaper articles, I don't get a good feeling about the Angela Zapata trial. Not that I know anything about this sort of thing!
It just seems that the defense is playing to prejudices - and all it takes is one juror to harbor prejudice for things to go awry. I wish the police had followed procedure - then the murderer's confession would be admissible, and any doubt that this was a hate crime would be removed.
Ah well. Until it's accepted that being transgendered is not a sin, not an issue that threatens anyone, and is purely a personal matter - prejudice against the transgendered will remain commonplace.
I can't help but think this will end up as retrial, just like Gwen Araujo's did.
Carolyn Ann
It just seems that the defense is playing to prejudices - and all it takes is one juror to harbor prejudice for things to go awry. I wish the police had followed procedure - then the murderer's confession would be admissible, and any doubt that this was a hate crime would be removed.
Ah well. Until it's accepted that being transgendered is not a sin, not an issue that threatens anyone, and is purely a personal matter - prejudice against the transgendered will remain commonplace.
I can't help but think this will end up as retrial, just like Gwen Araujo's did.
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
What's in a name?
According to this NY Times article, Chinese bureaucrats don't want anyone to be unique! I'm sure that's a surprise.
In a nutshell: if you have an unusual name, you are told to change it. Because their new computer system that hands out and tracks ID cards can't cope with the unusual. Can you imagine how it might cope with the popular names Westerners are giving their kids? The system, and the bureaucrats, would have a well-earned and deserved meltdown!
It might seem like a little thing - but think about the repercussions of having an ID card. Especially if you're transgendered!
Makes me wonder why the anti-gay/anti-TG crowd aren't all over this.
Carolyn Ann
In a nutshell: if you have an unusual name, you are told to change it. Because their new computer system that hands out and tracks ID cards can't cope with the unusual. Can you imagine how it might cope with the popular names Westerners are giving their kids? The system, and the bureaucrats, would have a well-earned and deserved meltdown!
It might seem like a little thing - but think about the repercussions of having an ID card. Especially if you're transgendered!
Makes me wonder why the anti-gay/anti-TG crowd aren't all over this.
Carolyn Ann
Should Japan Apologize?
Okay, arcane question for many - but it's one that has quite an import for the world.
Should Japan apologize for the war crimes, general depravity and heinous actions it is responsible for?
Yes.
Jennifer Lind, writing in this issue of "Foreign Affairs", argues that while Japan is responsible for many atrocities - it shouldn't do a full-fledged German-style apology. She argues there should be some conciliatory gestures, but nothing really profound. I disagree.
Japan has not acknowledged its role in WW2. There have been some glances at culpability, but nothing you could call definitive. The conservatives in Japan, just like in America and Britain, are beholden to this idea that it's "my country, right or is there another choice?" As a result, we see the PacRim fearful of the idea that Japan might militarize, again. They see America as a reasonable counter to any Japanese militarization. (Indeed, the Japanese participation in the "War on Terror" is perceived by some to be a precursor to a newly militarized Japan!)
Japan is not just concerned with its immediate neighbors - it needs to be concerned with world opinion. The world is generally ignoring the Japanese atrocities in WW2 and the lead up to that conflict. That is no excuse for not facing up to the past. Some in Japan say they are not of the war generation - I don't think that's an excuse. It's an evasion. The Germans didn't evade their responsibility - they accepted them. Japan must also accept that it is entirely at fault for the atrocities its soldiers committed. It must explain why it is no longer the nation that waged such a despicable campaign through China, and the Far East. It must demonstrate, through contrition, that it is not a warmonger. It shouldn't deny its right to defend its shores - but it must be capable of accepting that something went wrong, and the Japan of the 1930's and early 1940's is incapable of rising, again. It must show that it is a friendly power in the region.
Basically: You cannot escape the past if you refuse to acknowledge you have one.
Should Japan apologize for the war crimes, general depravity and heinous actions it is responsible for?
Yes.
Jennifer Lind, writing in this issue of "Foreign Affairs", argues that while Japan is responsible for many atrocities - it shouldn't do a full-fledged German-style apology. She argues there should be some conciliatory gestures, but nothing really profound. I disagree.
Japan has not acknowledged its role in WW2. There have been some glances at culpability, but nothing you could call definitive. The conservatives in Japan, just like in America and Britain, are beholden to this idea that it's "my country, right or is there another choice?" As a result, we see the PacRim fearful of the idea that Japan might militarize, again. They see America as a reasonable counter to any Japanese militarization. (Indeed, the Japanese participation in the "War on Terror" is perceived by some to be a precursor to a newly militarized Japan!)
Japan is not just concerned with its immediate neighbors - it needs to be concerned with world opinion. The world is generally ignoring the Japanese atrocities in WW2 and the lead up to that conflict. That is no excuse for not facing up to the past. Some in Japan say they are not of the war generation - I don't think that's an excuse. It's an evasion. The Germans didn't evade their responsibility - they accepted them. Japan must also accept that it is entirely at fault for the atrocities its soldiers committed. It must explain why it is no longer the nation that waged such a despicable campaign through China, and the Far East. It must demonstrate, through contrition, that it is not a warmonger. It shouldn't deny its right to defend its shores - but it must be capable of accepting that something went wrong, and the Japan of the 1930's and early 1940's is incapable of rising, again. It must show that it is a friendly power in the region.
Basically: You cannot escape the past if you refuse to acknowledge you have one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)