Texas to rape victims: Pay up!

Here's a new one. It's quite galling, even for a state like Texas. As you might recall, Texas had legislature, and a governor (George W. Bush), that passed a law that said the insurance company can decide when a child, on life support, is declared dead. Nice, huh?

Now, Greg Abbott, the Attorney General has decided that Texas law enforcement needs to charge rape victims for the rape kits. He pleads that it the state paying, via the State's fund for such things, would make the fund go bankrupt. His answer: get the victim to defray costs!

Such a wonderful, Republican idea. (In case you were wondering - Mr Abbott is a Republican. He also argued for the Ten Commandments in front of the US Supreme Court. I'm not 100% on the Ten Commandments, but I'm sure it's in there: Thou shalt charge thy State's Rape victims for the criminal act against them.

What a disgrace!
Carolyn Ann

Texas Charging Rape Victims For Rape Kits (VIDEO)

I'm sure you're interested in this... :-)

The power went out. As I was working on a computer-oriented project, this left me a bit stuck. (My previous idea for a battery backup for the airport network didn't quite work as "promised". Oh well.)

Anyway, the Mrs is out and about, and when she got the chance, she called me. "What are doing?" she asked. "Sitting on the sofa, gazing at my navel. When I feel energetic, I twiddle my thumbs." I replied. :-)

Carolyn Ann

A scandal, a heinous scandal!

The right wing pundits have finally - FINALLY! - found the one issue that will derail the Obama Presidency! It's a coup, nothing short of Pulitzer Prize winning material, and a story that will send the nation into a tail spin that makes the bank failure look like kindergarten nap time! President Barack Obama, and at least one other Democrat, has engaged in shocking, atrocious and abhorrent behavior! It's a scandal so egregious, impeachment hearings must surely be considered!

This heinous scandal is detailed here, in all its gory detail! I can barely stand to read it! It's unforgivable! It's against all that it means to be, well, read it for yourself:

Obama Puts Mustard On His Burger [UPDATED]

"MustardGate": the burger that brought down the Presidency.

:-)
Carolyn Ann

Changes are a'comin'. They seem to have missed the bus, is all

Obama is now getting hammered by gay issues and abortion issues. He's not moving fast enough, he's moving too fast. He's not allowing the anti-abortionists to decide abortion policy, he's allowing anti-abortionists into the discussion. And so on, and so forth.

Abortion, as a matter of public policy, is not going to be decided in the short term. It might become a non-issue in the next century. I wouldn't bet on it, though. (Paradoxically, if scientists were to discover the elixir that gave us eternal life, or at least really long lives, the abortion debate would swing against abortion! These days, one of the biggies in that "debate" is the idea that life is too short to be shackled for 18 years with an unwanted child.)

Obama is making some effort to accommodate both sides in the abortion debate, though. It's likely to reach either an impasse, or a policy that is decidedly wonky, and almost unacceptable to all.

So the urgency with abortion is not there. Anti-abortionists might not agree, but they seem to make it a habit to be disagreeable and unrealistic, anyway.

The urgency is in the gay rights debate. With elections not too far in the future, it's important to make some strides in gaining equal rights. I must admit, I find it baffling how contemporary Americans can even consider anything but equal rights for all. I thought publicly-sponsored discrimination had been done away with. Apparently not! "We're all equal, except you because we don't like you!" Not exactly a rallying cry.

Don't ask, don't tell will be the first thing to go. It should never have been implemented in the first place. However, as odious a policy as it is, it's official military policy, along with the unintended consequences. My country, right or wrong - oh, except for you, because you like to kiss guys! Again, not exactly a vibrant slogan to muster under.

As that arch-conservative George Barry Goldwater asked, re gays in the military: "Can they shoot straight?" It's a libertarian idea that government, in any capacity, is not allowed to interfere with the personal. (Small wonder the GOP of today can't figure out what it stands for. It's become the party of "the individual, except with people we don't like". Don't try and figure it out; you'll just get a headache.)

Decades ago, the world was predicted to end when multi-racial marriages were allowed. It was predicted to end when women got the vote. It was supposed to end when blacks became, officially, the equals of whites. In a way, some of those worlds did end: the bigotry that allowed a people to dictate who you could marry fell by the wayside. Only racists and fascists think blacks and whites should be segregated. When the equal rights laws of the 1960's came along, there was a bit of turmoil. It got sorted out. When schools were integrated, there were a few problems; nothing that couldn't be overcome, though.

And now we have another group, denied a basic right, demanding that right be recognized. Who cares if a man marries a man? Who's business is it if a woman marries a woman? Let's agree on one thing: if I can't tell you who you can marry, then you're not really in a position to say whom I can marry! Right? Right. No ifs, ands or buts: it's a straightforward matter. You don't get to dictate my life, and in exchange, I don't get to dictate how you live yours. Simple! :-)

This is going to be a painful political battleground in the next 12 to 18 months. Obama basically has about 9 months to make definite progress on gay rights. The gay community has a job to do, too: it has to campaign for those equal rights. It also has to campaign to promote the idea that gays are just like everyone else. Acceptance, public acceptance, will come when people realize that gays are not the massive threat to civilization their pastors say they are. (Heck, the Greek and Roman cultures didn't spare much thought for a person's sexuality. Gay, straight, bi? It was all the same to them. The Greeks even had a special name for transvestites; I can't remember what it is, though. And look at how advanced they were!) Sure, there's going to be vitriol. If it were easy, it would have been done. But it has to be done.

Meanwhile, the transgender communities are bouncing up and down, eagerly demanding their turn at the equal rights and anti-prejudice table. They're doing it behind everyone, though. No one is turning around to see who's creating the fuss. As a result - they're not being seen. Never mind heard! [Added: Well, that's not exactly fair. Some progress is being made.]

Carolyn Ann

Unfettered possibilities?

Yesterday, I was contemplating the amazing things a person could do with a programmable camera. Preferably one that had wireless Internet access - through the cellphone network. Attached to your own number, but not as a phone with a camera, but simply as a node on your "personal communications stuff".

A primitive program on the camera could take the requisite pictures in a variety of different ways. You could program it to go one and two spots higher and lower in exposure; changing the shutter speed, or keeping it the same.

Once the picture has been taken, the camera could then - automatically, no intervention required - upload the picture to that ephemeral "cloud", and email the RAW (a picture format) files to you. Imagine - with the ubiquitous need we seem to have to tell everyone where we are and what we're doing - you could have the camera upload a picture or two to Facebook, translate the GPS coordinates it already knows to an actual place, and put a note on your status page saying where you are, and what you're looking at.

Some of this is, undoubtedly, possible with the iPhone. Perhaps even with the new Blackberry's. But not quite as I envision: those devices are tied to the phone company with unbreakable umbilicals.

I wonder if any of the camera companies have looked at "Android", Google's new cellphone operating system? That's where I'd start.

Carolyn Ann

PS I'd use some specialized LISP for the camera programming. But I imagine, when this all happens, it'll start with some obscurely defined in-house developed language. Then it'll evolve to BASIC, and from there, perhaps, to a "load your own language, here's the API" adulthood. :-)

PPS An even better idea: bypass the phone companies. Go wifi, all the way. Developed and offered by innovative, customer-oriented companies. You know: the opposite of the phone company. (I don't mean Comcast, either. They're, from what I've heard, a phone company with a nice looking wrapper.)

Let's rest, awhile

Hurry!
Hurry!
Hurry!
It's always the same
Hurry! Hurry!
and Hurry!
to what affect?
come on, get a move on!
Hurry! some more

Let's stop here
Let me rest, awhile.

These bones ain't what they used to be
and I'm no younger
with them

Let me see.
You want to check your wall
your status?
Go ahead - time must be awhitlin'

for you

Not for me, though
I like to have you sit
with me
and enjoy your being here
nothing much else,
although the sound of your voice
is nice to hear

You must be clever
to figure all those buttons out
I mean! Buttons that don't exist
and yet they do
is that the life you lead?

Me, I like to enjoy
you and your company

Come, rest with me awhile

===
Carolyn Ann

Activism, and the English language

One thing about activists: they do like their awkward words.

Over on Penny Red's blog, she writes of a difficult moment in her life. At this point I feel I have to state the obvious: I don't always agree with Penny Red. Heck, I rarely agree with Penny Red. Almost never, in fact.

However, she writes well, is knowledgeable about that which she rebels against, and isn't some sop, trying to score Good Girl points by being more rebellious than thou. She's honest.

(An unfortunately rare quality among activists. Especially gender activists. You know who...)

Today, she wrote with a human voice. Not the voice of a rebel, or an activist. But of a young woman, in a moment that I don't think anyone who hasn't been through can appreciate. Or comprehend. (I, hopefully, make no pretense at such.) Sure, she put in some stats, and some other words - they were force of habit, and came across as exactly what they are - dispensable. The other part of her writing was, is, all too human.

So what do we find in the comments? A couple of trolls, and this: heteronormativity. Whatever the heck that is. (Someone cringed at it. Even while reading an honest story of anxiety, fear and whatever else goes through the mind of someone in that situation.) A couple of other gems (yes, I'll be the damned judged.):

Thanks for bringing your personal into the political with this ...

Overall, I think this is a (really) great post, but the more I read the above claim, the more I take issue with it.

There really are some people who put the political over the personal.

Huh! Go figure. I'd never have guessed.

Listen up folks: when someone writes about a personal problem in such a way, it's not a political issue.

I must admit, I do like the "heteronormativity". I can even guess what it means. It trips off the tongue like it tripped over a two by four. And staggers the rest of the way; I'm not sure it could ever conclude - the person listening or reading such a word could potentially spend the rest of their life figuring out how to use such a concatenation. As a word, it sort of staggers, perhaps drunkely, into the public square. When it attends any debate, it takes so long to enunciate - it ends the debate, right there and then! I would say it is a proud little word, but "little" has no accuracy for such a mastodon.

On the other hand, the alternative is something derived from "cisgender". I'll take heteronormativity. Even if it does give the Firefox/Mac spellchecker palpitations.

Ah well. At least I can usually understand Penny Red. If not her commentators.

Carolyn Ann

Wither thy voice! (But not your nature)

Wither thy voice!

Whether thou be mad
at me,
or th' world,
or arn yon else for that matter,
I bid thee a fair life
and a decided one, too

A considerate lover
(perhaps one or ti?)
and an abiding by thy
own nature
whatever thee decide

we are our nature
whate'er our past may bring
into our future
e'er no'

life ain't so har'
no' if yer livin'
it's the dead that ha' a trouble
with it
(an' there's plenty provin' themselv' dead, hereabou'!)

that which affects us
perfects us in some
damnable way,
no doubt

although it would be easier
if the trials
weren't as hard
and the decisions
not as acute

may thy gods smile upon thee
whether they be heathen
secular or deity
or none

may your troubles
be a source of strength
and your reason
for fightin'

whate'er ye decide
I'll be by ye
at yer side

===
Carolyn Ann

PS Sorry, it will have to be metaphorically by your side. At least you won't need binoculars - I'm not behind you! :-) I don't know you, Penny. But your words in your post, well, they were, ... They are.

PPS I did play with some words that said "may your lover be your reason for being", but while that's true for me, I couldn't make it fit for you. Sorry.


Added: I wrote this for Penny Red. She wrote a post that was, well, beyond judgment. If she doesn't like it, don't expect it to stay. I promised to delete it if she doesn't like it. (Yeah, I know - a technical breaking of my own rules.)

Carolyn Ann

The dogfight

The hawk came out of nowhere. Plunging onto his unfortunate victim - he missed! The bird, a black bird of medium size, with a dazzling red streak, must have seen his attacker - he did a turn worthy a fighter pilot, and bought himself a few more minutes. The hawk, recovering, climbed above his prey, a moment to orient himself - and he dived!

They were about 10 feet above the ground. The black bird did something astounding - he flipped! As he gyrated, he changed altitude and direction - the hawk missed. But he saw the change, and tried to correct. He brought his wings up, he tried, desperately to save his flight. He visibly stalled. He fell.

The black bird with red streaks flew like the dickens away from the scene. I didn't see the hawk recover from his fateful dive.

Carolyn Ann

Ordinary guys, going for a burger...

Yeah, right! Obama and Joe Biden went to Ray's Hell Burger for lunch.

Can anyone remember a national leader doing something like this, before?

His cool-quota just went through the roof. Well, it would if it wasn't already there.

Carolyn Ann

Cats are a worry...

So the Big C has a lump on his belly. It wasn't there a few days ago - but it's a worryingly large lump.

It's always something. Hopefully it's nothing too serious. He's a big lug, but he's a lovable lug, and he's our lovable lug. :-(

Carolyn Ann

Oops. Inadvertant outing...

I use two browsers - one for Carolyn, one for my legal name (and business stuff). I just did a quick "friend" request to two people from the wrong browser. They didn't know about Carolyn. I guess they do now.

Darn it.

Carolyn Ann. Or whomever the hell I am.

Little Thinkers

Thinking too hard? Too much to think about?

The world is changing in so many ways, it's difficult to know what to think! So many competing voices, so many people telling you what they think - it's all but impossible to know what to think!

We have the answer! Instead of thinking for yourself - we'll do it for you! Don't know what to think about gay marriage? We'll tell you your opinion! Don't understand the details of Obama's Bailout? Not to worry - we'll tell you what to think! You don't have to understand the details, we do that for you. Worried about changing morals? Don't be - we'll provide you with the perfect antidote!

In fact, we'll tell you what to think for any situation you may encounter! We have qualified staff, ready to take your calls and emails, for the left and the right! You don't even have to think about the difference - we'll tell you which way the wind is blowing, and you can either decide to go: With it, or Against it! Or we can tell what we think you should do! We can even save you the trouble of deciding if you're a lousy anti-American liberal, or a God-fearing Republican! (For a small additional charge, we can also help you if you really are a liberal.)

To help you get started, we have a special offer: Your first question is on us!

That's right! Your first question to us is FREE!

So, call or email us your questions! We'll tell you what to think! You'll never be stumped by not knowing what to think, ever again!

Try us today!

Little Thinkers. We think, so you don't have to.

Limited time offer: only the first question is free. The answer is not. All other questions, including follow-ups, are charged at our usual exorbitant rate. Understanding the person on the phone carries an additional charge. Having an English speaker also carries an additional charge. Intelligent answers are not provided, but some of the things we say sometimes sound intelligent. Even if they're not. Complex answers are not provided, no matter how complex you think the question is. Questions requiring careful thought are answered at an hourly rate, the minimum time billed is 3 hours. All charges are on put on your credit card, and are not refundable. All answers require pre-payment. As we're not covered by any consumer protection laws, we will not knowingly disclose the cost of the answers.

We're Republicans, so we outsource all of our work to India. All profits are outsourced to the Cayman Islands so we pay almost no tax. For the purposes of disclosure laws we have to state this: We operate as a non-profit, and file the paperwork with the appropriate big-government authorities. The only thing we keep in America is our patriotism.

Little Thinkers is a new service. It may close down at any time.

Carolyn Ann

Personalities...

Okay, a quick and incomplete survey of who has whom, and if that's good, bad, baffling or just plain idiotic. :-)

To be on the list, you have to be a recognizable name. I make the determination if you're a recognizable name. :-)

The right has:
Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal, Michelle Bachman, Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin. And not to forget Bill O'Reilly.

The only perceptible difference between them is their ties. Not their personal, political or corporate ties: their neck ties. Some, notably Bachman and Steele, have an odd tendency for a politician: they open their mouths and say the first thing that comes to mind. Jindal leans that way, but he has an alarming tendency to make it sound like he thought about it, first. Sarah is Sarah.

Limbaugh, et al, are indistinguishable from each other. They do have a new rising star - Glenn Beck - but he's not as well known. He certainly is emotional, though.

The left has:
Obama, Michelle, Barbra Streisand, and er, perhaps Al Franken?

Not exactly a collection of well-known, angry and spittle-producing pundits. Obama has a habit of talking in complete sentences, and for producing reasoned arguments. He can make hyperbole acceptable. Michelle is, well, the world's most popular woman. Barbra makes the list for no real reason whatsoever.

Nancy Pelosi is not included because far too many people don't even know that Congress has real people in it. Never mind who they are.

Gays have:
Perez Hilton

Yeah, well. You take what you can. Even if you want to throw it back. This one, he definitely needs to be thrown back. Ideally, into the shark tank he made, all by himself.

The Trangender Community Trannies have:
RuPaul?

Hmm. Did I miss something, here?

Carolyn Ann

Nature or nurture?

The age old debate of what makes us us has taken a decidedly dodgy turn, of late.

The basis of the debate, who we are, has been replaced by endless contortions and demands that we now determine what we are, instead. The label has become more important than the being. More disturbingly, the attitude is that the labels should not be challenged - "right thinking folk" simply dictate what label to attach, and that's that.

Labels seem to have become more critical over the last few years. The growth of the Internet probably has a lot to do with it. "I am this" is a critical component of identifying oneself on the various social websites that spatter the aether. What is assumed, incorrectly, is that in identifying yourself as "this", you also accept all the baggage that such an identifier carries. Sometimes there are a lot of bags.

Unfortunately, you are not allowed to discard the ones you find inconvenient - your label, apparently, defines you. You can try to repack those bags, but that's not usually going to work too well. These definitions seems to follow conservation of energy laws - they're already efficiently packed . "I think therefore I am" has been replaced by "I am my label".

When someone says "I am this", they usually assume they're allowed to define what "this" is. Or not define it; whichever is most convenient. The political hothead condemns those who disagrees with this redefinition. The Fire of Hell are, it seems, awash in the souls of those who had the temerity to disagree. Reciprocally, heaven is reserved for those who stay in absolute agreement. That heaven must be a tedious place - everyone agreeing with themselves; or, more likely, with some self-appointed savior and leader. What a stagnant place for any sort of thoughtful life! Mind you, there are plenty of heavens - it's just that the other ones, the one's you're not in, are hells.

It must be pointed out that we are not our labels. We do not get to pick what a label means. We can influence what a label means, but that's a task as lengthy as it is frustrating. Some labels have clear meaning, some are a little more ambiguous. Increasingly, there's a trend to redefine the labels, usually in support of derogatory or helpful comment. From hereon, the contradictions seem to get worse.

Far too often, we're expected to know what this redefinition is. The Internet, besides providing us with perfect labeling mechanism, has also given us the (seemingly) perfect dictionary. Want to know what a term means? Don't ask the person using it - simply google it. The demand that the reader look up an unfamiliar term, or a common term used in an unfamiliar context, is not one many are used to. We're more attuned to people helping their own causes by explaining what the terms mean. The demand that we not only look up the term, but also agree to the redefinition, is lazy. It's arrogant, and lazy. It's also commonplace.

With the rise of labeling, some have conceded that we'll never know, definitively, if we're nature, or nurture. Those individuals seem to perceive the panoply of human experience to be a binary; it's one thing, or the other. There's a lot of room in such discourse for sarcasm, ridicule and intolerance. There's none for irony, allegory or metaphor, however. They take effort - something the label is supposed to address. Perhaps that's why disagreement is not taken so well? Intelligent refutation and debate takes effort; it's just easier if we're all in (perhaps violent) agreement?

In their reductions, these binaries don't seem to consider anything but how they are right, and you, by definition, are wrong. Shades of gray are not perceived - the world is this way, or that. These binaries advocate that being human is now the province of being a machine. A machine that demonstrates its need for repair when it disagrees. Thinking is not encouraged; indeed, it is actively discouraged. After all, the binaries have done all the heavy lifting for you. "Here is the answer, never mind the question!" is their response to inquiry.

Confusion is the same as disagreement, to the binaries. If they proclaim something to be obvious, it darned well is obvious. If you fail to see the same thing, it is you that is clearly lacking any sort of intelligence. If you challenge this obviousness, you are a mortal enemy. Persona non grata, your attempts at a dialogue will assuredly fail. Because you clearly lack any sort of intelligence. (You can, however, redeem yourself by simply agreeing. You can also prove your agreement, and demonstrate your are nothing short of a genius by enthusiastically agreeing. I thought you should know that.)

Disagreement, it seems, condemns us. It's not a question of nature or nurture. It's a question of deciding which label to apply, and then expecting everyone else to conform to the dictionary we just penned.

Carolyn Ann

High hells, er heels

Topping off an evening of high heeled splendor (jeans and a cute top to go with them), I took some mail down to the mailbox. Jeez, that was a long way! Nigh on 300 feet of "oh my!"-ness.

And to think - I used to practice rock and roll dancing in high heels. Heck, I once walked a few miles in heels. (Once.)

Mind you, I wore them much more often (I tend to favor low, or kitten heels, these days), and I was about 2 decades younger. And much, much thinner.

Sigh. C'est la vie. On the other hand, they are nice - black high heeled pumps. Soooo sexy. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Deconstruction. And motorcycles

Confederate Motorcycles, a small, spunky, motorcycle firm in the south, has a reputation for rethinking motorcycles. If you can call Frank Gehry's work "rethinking architecture". What Confederate's designer does - I wish I could recall his name! - to motorcycles is what Gehry does to buildings. He rethinks them, reduces them to elemental components, and he references their past. He also produces visions, not motorcycles - visions.

Motorcyclist had a review of their latest offering, the Fighter - an $110,000 limited edition, two wheeled vision of deconstruction and in-your-face philosophy. Never mind "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" - this bike is Zen taken beyond, way beyond, logical limits. Ayn Rand would have a problem with the libertarian styling of this bike!

The bike itself is elemental. Bike styling finally caught up with modernists, deconstructionists; it's the bike as art. It's not a reflection of what a bike stands for - it is what a bike is, in this culture. It's a rolling Centre Pompidou. Nothing is hidden on this bike - except the bits you don't need to see. A huge 2-liter V-Twin provides the motive force, and it looks like it could power a train.

Stylistically, the bike looks like a Hollywood nightmare - it's a futuristic animal, waiting for someone to try taming it. Paint would destroy the aura of menace, of sheer animal lust the machine has. It's the kind of machine that would give women like Sarah Palin palpitations. It's a machine that would give conservatives nightmares - individualism, run rampant. It's a machine that will have God-fearing Christians running to their nearest chapel, it's the machine the Devil himself would ride! It's the machine that turns the amateur rebel into a eunuch. It's a machine that makes the Lamborghini Countach look like a depraved rehearsal. It's a machine that is anti-corporate, anti-big government, heck - it's anti anything and everything conformist. It's punk rock, true punk rock, crafted in metal.

It's beautiful.

It should change the stylebook of motorcycles. Why do I think the Honda Fury will be effective?

Ah well. If everyone copied it, it wouldn't be a non-conformist, would it?

Carolyn Ann

Twice as blasphemous...

This month's Motorcyclist (June '09) has committed transgender blasphemy - twice! Ye gads! Someone, anyone!, write a letter and complain! Quickly! (If you're quick enough, they might forget to publish it with a derisive comment.)

On page 18, there's a quick review of that profanely insightful motorcycling Englishman's , Dan Walsh, book "Endless Horizon". It's a retelling of Walsh's 4-year, seemingly alcohol fueled, motorcycle trip around the world. He covers everything from grab-assing the wrong transvestite in Panama (that was a funny moment!) to his bout of typhoid.

And then on page 117, there's an ad for Maxima Racing Oils. The headline is "Approved for engines, trannies and wet clutches".

Oy vey. Whatever next? The end of civilization as we know it?

Personally, I'm going to get Dan Walsh's book - I've read a good bit of it, over coffee. Mr Walsh is not the buffoon some think he is. I think it fair to reward the chap with some royalties.

Carolyn Ann

PS If you think I can offend - read Dan Walsh. I'm a damned amateur and neophyte, compared to him! :-) Raw writing. I can't help but think Ernest Hemingway would have loved to have known, read, hunted and got drunk with Mr Walsh.

Jeezy peeps, that's a lot of work!

I've not finished, either. Some major plumbing work, and laying a room of tile. And then the Mrs wanted some furniture rearranging, which includes lugging a large bookcase from the basement to her office.

Ah well. The cats were "helpful". They were so helpful, they just had a yawnfest on the bed. :-)

(I've been hearing squabbles and re-enactments of major military campaigns all afternoon. They hate it when it rains - it means they can't won't go outside.)

Carolyn Ann

This week

This past week I made
one person happy
and one person sad

Who cares about equilibrium
if you're the one I made sad?

===
Carolyn Ann

PS So much for Wicca.

The Jersey Devil

The Jersey Devil is at it again!
Taunting and causing trouble
and making kids, widows
and wives disappear
playing the fool
and daggering those he catches
the Jersey Devil,
he's at it, again

Takes a strong lad to catch that devil
hides in the wood
and ne'er is seen!
We see what he done
and we fear for our lives
and hide behind locked doors
trembling, a'right

===
Carolyn Ann

Singing? You call that singing?

You know you're in the countryside when you see two deer crossing your driveway!

(Pulling up to the house, we had to stop to allow two deer, nonchalantly, crossing the paved path we call our driveway! They didn't even panic when the car headlights highlighted them; they just trotted a little faster. But when I got out to take a photo, they vanished like will o' the wisps.)

We took a trip into Phillie, to see a show, and have some sushi. Sushi first, at the always reliable "Genshi". Then onto the show. What a show it was! If it was, in fact, a show.

The singer - who has shall remain nameless - had a passing acquaintance with hitting the right notes. Such meetings were fleet, and spare in frequency. Her flat notes were multiple, her dramatic endings lacked air. Literally. Her pianist cringed. Her audience did its best not to be too obvious in the same reaction.

Her anecdotes were delivered with breathless wonder, and occasionally with no reference to anything before or after her words. She brushed back her hair so often you might have thought it had fallen across her face. The fact that it wouldn't alter its shape in a hurricane is probably neither here nor there.

She was a disaster. I'm not sure how she got to the Algonquin's Oak Room, but apparently she managed it at some point in her career. I got the feeling that she did a lot of Senior Citizen's Centers. I don't know why, I just got that feeling. She was, poor soul, out of her depth.

Ah well. At least the Macallan 12 was good.

Carolyn Ann

Wooden Vespa

If you think that's bad - my first inclination was "Vespa Woodie?" :-)

Here's an incredible bit of motorcycle art. I saw it first in the British scooter magazine "Scootering".

Check out Bill's reference to a wooden laptop.

Carolyn Ann

Camping trip preparation... And what can go wrong

A few days before any camping trip, it's a good idea to gather all your gear in one place. You can examine it, check you have it (against your checklist) and generally make sure you know where everything is. If you think you're lacking something, it's a good idea to do this about a week or two before you set off. You really don't want to be packing, the night before, and find you're missing something important. Like a tent.

I own two tents. I can find the flysheets to both. And the poles. But the tents, themselves? I have no idea. Aaargh!

Carolyn Ann

Tortured language

Speaking of tortured language... Here's a piece from "HotAir", about the recent poll showing that white Christian evangelists are more likely to support torturing someone.

If you think it makes sense, please check yourself into your nearest Strunk and White.

Carolyn Ann

PS Found via Unscrewing the Inscrutable, Sully, and onto HotAir. :-)

Profane trannies?

As I wrote the last post, it occurred to me that some who don't want anyone to use "tranny" want to dictate a conversation, tend to use "fuck" a lot.

There's something really fucked up about that. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Tranny...

I think I've muttered on this, before. No matter - I can always repeat myself. :-)

Some people think "tranny" is a hateful word. It isn't.

It's sometimes used in disdain, but I don't think that puts in the same category as truly derogatory epithets. Tranny, as a word, has a few uses. It can be used to describe the transmission (gearbox) of a vehicle. It can be used as a colloquialism. It can be used to describe an electronic component that, as a discrete component, has gone the way of both the dodo and valve (tube). Well, not quite the way of the dodo.

At least one person is, I think, quite upset with me. I'll not link to her blog; she hasn't asked me not to, but I get the feeling it would be better if I didn't. She not only curtailed sensible, public, discussion about the nefarious nature of the appellation, she deleted the entire post! Quite the overly-wrought reaction, indeed. Still others get all hot and bothered about the word, despite it being perfectly acceptable not that long ago.

Personally, I like the word. It trips off the tongue with quite a delightful little waltz. With three distinct phonologies [can I invent that word? :-) ], it even matches the timing of a waltz. It has an air of fun to it - the ending "ni" sound rises in cadence, and makes it (almost) playful to the ear. It lacks anything guttural, or harsh. One could argue that it is a linguistic tulip; although I'm quite sure I don't want to go exploring that little avenue! :-)

The biggest problem with the word, as far as I can tell, is that some people use it in disdain. It's certainly not a formal word, and, as such, is more open to interpretation and immediate context. It can be used in a derogatory manner; this is a trait it shares with some other colloquially-appointed labels, too. But that doesn't make it an evil word!

In every day speech the more formal "transgender" is not just awkward - its phonemes are harnessed together, whether they like it or not! - but it is also far too formal. It is the linguistic equivalent of putting on a tux for a trip to store. I can certainly see it being the de facto in some situations - news reports, for instance.

"Tranny" is viewed as a derogatory term for one reason: "She's a tranny". I can agree that is not a nice sentiment. On the other hand "Trannies of the world unite!" has a certain ring to it that "Transgendered individuals of the world, unite!" lacks. "Tranny blogosphere" is a phrase I like; it's a bit awkward, Ill admit. But "transgender blogosphere" doesn't even make it out of the starting gate. As a phrase, it back to the stables. So it's just one or two uses that make this word derogatory. It's not the word, itself.

One could, of course, say "the damned tranny gave up on me!" This would be taken to mean, by any mechanic of reasonable competence, that the gearbox somehow failed, probably at a critical moment in a race. Sympathy and enquiries about the nature of the failure, and race, usually follow. But I digress.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the word; there are some situations where the word can be used in a derogatory manner. Some other words have a similar problem. The problem isn't the context, or the word - it's the people who are demanding the ability to dictate what can and cannot be said about the transgendered. [Sic.] By forcing one context over all others, these linguistic pissants are trying to dictate what can be thought, not just what can be said! By altering what concepts can be used, they are trying to create a new definition of blasphemy. This new elucidation has wobbly legs.

Blasphemy, the denigration of the sacred, is usually reserved by, and for, the pious. By creating an entirely new category of sacred - gender - the linguistic dictators are proselytizing, and forcing upon us all their own, new, ill-explained religion.

This banning of colloquial speech has a danger. By banning certain expressions, the ability to disdain, to speak freely, to challenge is curtailed. I'm quite sure this is the intent of the self-appointed gender papalcy. It is, after all, a tactic as old as man. Remove the ability to disdain, and you effectively remove the ability to challenge. My guess is that some of the transgender activists thought long and hard about this issue; it probably gave them a headache. So, by deciding that they knew more about gender than anyone else, they decided to implement a system of language rules that protected the transgender from challenge. Any challenge. They turned gender into a religion. Womanhood is the ultimate deity of this religion; unless you're a "transman", in which case it's manhood.

(It's interesting how "trans" is okay, but "tranny" isn't. This shows up the arbitrariness of the trans/gender diktats quite well.)

I'll leave the profane for another post; it should be the one immediately following this. But it might not be. :-)

Tranny is not a derogatory word. It can be used in a derogatory fashion, but if we banned all the words that could be used in such a manner, we'd have precious little language left. Prohibiting the colloquialism is an intellectual laziness that is matched only by the cheek and self-appointed papacy of those who do the banning. They* would rather limit speech than risk being offended. They would rather control the conversation about gender than have it flow into areas they might not like.

*"They", I use it with a derogative sneer (quick! ban it!), means all those who assume authority to say what can and cannot be said.

Tranny is a word, quite a nice one. It could be a cheerful concept, but the darkly fearful want it banned, because it might be used disdainfully.

Carolyn Ann

Meandering thoughts

I'm not awake enough to have coherent thoughts. :-)

My discussion with Vanessa, re religion, seems to have come to an abrupt halt. I didn't add my usual argument; it was, astoundingly, a deliberate choice. "There is no god, because there's no need for a god" is pretty powerful, as these things go. It circumvents a whole series of blind alleys and red herrings. Besides, god is all made up, anyway. (That link from a strange article by Charles Blow, in the NY Times.)

The tranny blogosphere is alight with outrage over New Hampshire's vote against equal rights for the transgendered. Okay, it's not. A few wrote of the vote, but most seem to have not noticed. My usual favorite wrote their entirely too predictable dross; they used less profanity than I expected, however.

Speaking of "tranny" - I have a feeling that I've just annoyed some people. Listen up: it's not a hate filled world. :-) Sure, it's used in disdain - that doesn't make it a heinous appellation. I should write a blog post about it. I'm sure I'll withstand the battering that will inevitably result. Or, in the case of this blog, the lack of response. :-)

So a few bloggers have revealed why their blogs have ceased their continuation. In a word: Twitter. In a concept: addiction. Twitter really does seem to have an addictive quality to it. I expect we'll see some specific handwringing about it, in the not too distant future. Instead of Internet Porn, we'll see Twitter cited as the reason for a divorce, a car crash or some other horrible moment. And the rest of the world will Twitter how awful it is.

What "it" is, I'll leave to you to decide.

We went to see "Cezanne and Beyond" at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, yesterday. What an incredible show! If I had the catalog, I could write something intelligent about it; but at $50 for the paperback, I'll have to go on memory. More on that later.

I'm trying to buy something on eBay, but the seller is proving elusive. He won't answer my questions about it. It's quite frustrating.

I was thinking about the whole "I am a woman" thing. It's not a new concept, but it does have some flaws. The biggest of which is the obvious point: what you proclaim is not necessarily true. Which led to an interesting thought or two about the nature of "truth". I can't help but think that this whole labeling-gone-mad exercise isn't about identity at all: it's about perceptions of truth. I haven't thought it through, but I'm fairly sure there's something worth exploring. The alteration of history - when someone tries to change their birth certificate, for instance - is the prime clue.

Denying a history, via a relabeling is not the same as "correcting" it. Let's assume that you're a little boy, who later in life gets a sex change, and becomes a woman. Does the future determine the legitimacy of the past? Altering the birth certificate to say the little boy was born a girl is not just denying the past, it's altering it in quite a deceptive manner. It's denying an entire childhood, an entire set of experiences. Not just your experiences, but everyone you interacted with. It is also denying your own history, and the path that led you to the sex change. It's not reinventing yourself - it's denying who you are.

When you alter your history, you deny your own history, you do a disservice to your history, and to the concept of "truth". You legitimize any claim that relies on personal perception. Basically, you deny yourself. All this perception being the truth stuff brings an horrible image to mind: David Irving in drag.

Perception is not truth. Perception is perception. It might be true. It might not be.

I'm running out of coffee.

Carolyn Ann

Churchgoers like torture!

According to a new survey, those who attend church regularly are more likely to support torture. Three cheers for abiding by the preachings of Jesus...

Survey: Support for terror suspect torture differs among the faithful - CNN.com

Carolyn Ann