News magazines

Michael Hirschorn reports, in this months The Atlantic, on why newsweeklies are failing, but The Economist is still succeeding.

Here's my tu'pence ha'penny's worth on it. I can read Newsweek over a coffee. If I need more time than that, I'll buy the paper. (I haven't really looked at Time magazine in ages. Sorry. I should.) Mr Hirschorn notes that newspapers, in their transition to the web, have become more like the weeklies - they provide analysis, commentary and opinion. Heck, some of them are moving into multi-media presentations! YouTube meets the New York Times. (About time, too!)

With a browser, it's possible to keep track of tons of stories, nations and events. As Mr Hirschorn points out, though, you need to about 20 hours of Googling, per week, just to keep track of what one edition of The Economist provides. And blogs don't even begin to compete with the serious journalism and opinions provided in that newspaper.

I try to stay abreast of what's going on in the world. Even when I'm out on the road, for weeks at a time, I'll keep up with the really important stories. (Michael Jackson's death is not one of the important stories.) If I ventured into parts of the world where there aren't any newspapers or sources, I might have a spot of bother, but I haven't been there, so far. I can nearly always find something to read, somewhere.

(One interesting observation: I've noticed that more and more, the motels, hotels and other places where they play continuous news programming, the TV's are tuned to CNN. Not Fox News. It's as if people are getting fed up of the vitriol and shrillness of that station.)

I love auto racing (as any regular reader of this blog will know), and I miss not getting much news on that sport. I don't get Autosport anymore, because of its cost and the fact that it was always a week or more behind. I miss it. Their website is a mess of bad design, coupled with pay-for and free content. I can never figure out which I have to pay for (and can't afford), and which is free, but invariably useless as news.

We can't get either the Philadelphia Enquirer, or the New York Times delivered. Fetching a copy is at least a 45 mile round trip. That being said, the NY Times has a world-class website, that's getting better and better all the time. What the website lacks, however, is a comfy chair where I can enjoy the physical aspect of opening, and reading, that broadsheet. (The breakfast room table and its matching chair aren't quite the same...) Reading a broadsheet is an experience, I fear, that is going the way of the dodo. At least it saves trees!

From Britain, I enjoy the Guardian, and I used to read the Guardian Weekly religiously. But getting a copy of that is all but impossible, and it's also expensive. I read what I can, the Guardian's often mysteriously designed webpages notwithstanding, on the web. (I notice they still retain their ability to make astounding spelling errors... It's just not as prevalent as it used to be.)

But I do enjoy lying in a hot bathtub, glass of beer (and/)or a single malt by me, reading The Economist or The Atlantic.

The Economist has superb global coverage; sure, its reporting can be a bit haphazard, but I always feel a little wiser at the end of the magazine. Its economic views (moderately right wing) match my own, and its social progressiveness and libertarian streak do, too. But mostly I like the fact that I can read about different regions and am able to connect-the-dots. The NY Times doesn't provide the same global coverage, so it's impossible to connect any dots - you simply aren't aware of them! The British papers are better at that; as is the BBC website. But even there, you have to be your own filter - and it can be difficult. The Economist filters it all, and tells you only the things that are important. That the editorial staff get this right so consistently has to be one of the mysteries of modern reporting.

One curious thing: I never hear, or read, a right wing wind-box denigrate The Economist. Which is astonishing, because so many of its economic and policy positions are the same as the NY Times'.

The Atlantic, on the other hand, is not a news magazine. It is a commentary on the important events, trends and people of the day. For instance, this month it covers Google, William F Buckley, drinking laws and a host of other subjects.

They also have a reasonably well designed website, and some superb bloggers. I don't always agree with them, but I do enjoy reading their words. I often learn something that makes me stop and think, and I've been known to change my mind after reading some post or other. But, again, no comfy chair or hot bathtub. I can't take my MacBook into the tub, at all.

A copy of The Atlantic might take me well over a month to read. But that's okay - their stories tend to maintain relevance for quite some time. Likewise, Vanity Fair and Foreign Affairs. I still read the New Yorker, but we couldn't renew the subscription. I read it in the store, and figure out if I want to buy it, then.

So, between the New Yorker, The Atlantic, The Economist, Foreign Affairs and Vanity Fair, there's really no reason to not feel informed about the world we live in. I feel wiser for staying atop of domestic and international affairs; I feel a little more informed knowing who some of the key players are, and I definitely feel it is important to understand not just what's going on in America, but in the rest of world as well.

Newsweek and Time just can't compete with that. On the other hand, I do buy Newsweek to read Fareed Zakaria. Anything he says is just worth listening to. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Seeing the light...

Mojoey has an interesting post about an encounter he had with some Christian bikers. I wrote a fairly inane (okay, totally inane) response...

But I did get to thinking about "seeing the light" when you're on a bike. Seeing the light is usually an explanation for a religious epiphany. You know, like the one Jake had in the Blues Brothers. It's a message from God.

On a bike, when you see the light, it's going to be the sun. And it's going to be in your eyes. You won't be able to see a damned thing! This is usually okay for a moment, but it's not what you'd call a "good thing". How will you explain it to St Peter? "I saw the light, but it blinded me and I didn't see the stone wall?" Never mind you explaining it to St Peter - he owes you a hell of an explanation! ... ... ... ... And a really big apology.

What would be the message from God on that? "You need better shades, my friend?" He puts you in danger, perhaps kills you - just to tell you he doesn't like your sunglasses?

If it's at night, the light isn't anything special. It is a moron who hasn't dipped his headlights. Maybe he has, and because bike headlights are generally higher and brighter than car headlights, he's showing you the error of your ways? I've had that, a lot. They're already dipped, you idiot! What am I supposed to do? Switch the lights off? You can't do that on a bike sold in the States! Another one for St Peter - if God is so powerful, how come he can't get morons to dip their lights? Perhaps the Devil stayed their hand? Perhaps they forgot to dip their lights. Perhaps they really are a moron, wanting to teach you a lesson about dipping the light you can't switch off.

So while you're now driving along, in the dark, you're blinded by the light. Perhaps now would be a good time to start praying? You know, send God a message. You could say "help me out, here!" Instead, he sends another idiot your way, followed by a curve that you can't see because the most recent idiot didn't dip their lights until the last possible moment. Asymmetrical messaging - you pray, he sends idiots.

One woman I read about had a big crash on her bike. She was blinded by the sun, hit a cow, and a fence! Bang! Down she went. After two years of recuperation, she said she saw the light - God had a purpose for her! Couldn't he have picked a less painful way of telling her? Which light screwed her up? God must be either amazingly inattentive, or a hell of a sadist, to show her the light and put her in a cast for two years! But - but, she saw the light! It's a pity she didn't see the cow - she might not have hit it. See the light, hit the cow! What sort of message delivery is that?

Seeing the light on a bike is what I'd call "not good". It's nearly always painful, or nerve-racking. If God wants to send me a message, perhaps he could use email, like everyone else?

Carolyn Ann

The NRA vs Common Sense

The National Rifle Association, in its ongoing efforts to make life dangerous for everyone, has helped usher in some strange laws. Their latest effort, in Georgia, Tennessee and now Arizona, is a law that allows people with concealed weapon permits to carry those handguns into a bar. You know: a place where they serve alcohol.

Guns and alcohol. Right. A spokesperson for the NRA described the measure as "common sense". What?!? The NRA sees bad guys, with guns, everywhere. Their answer? Give the good guys guns... More guns.

Like I say, the NRA has an adversarial relationship with common sense.

Carolyn Ann

"Cis" is a derogatory term...

There's a neat debate flaring up about the prefix "cis". :-)

It's becoming apparent that a few people object to this term being applied to them. I can't think why...

Here are a few links:

Transexual Ferox

Questioning Transphobia (have a guess what their take is... No, I didn't have to guess, either.)

Pam's House Blend

and last, but not least:

Julia Serano on the subject.

The basic issue is that "cis" is an identifier, even though some writers claim it isn't. Julia Serano makes this point:

Cis is not meant to be an identity. Rather, it simply describes the way that one is perceived by others.

Really? Ms Serano basically says it's not about identity, it's about identification. Hmm. Telling someone they are a "cis woman" is not about imposing an identity? It's the imposition of a descriptive label: if that's not saddling someone with an identity, I'm at a loss to explain why it isn't! As I suspect Ms Serano would be, too, if she thought about it.

Ms Serano, and a few others, look to race for inspiration. It's not a place to go: the term "African American" has two components to it: the former adjusts the definition of the overall phrase. The use of "African" provides an indicator of identity; otherwise, "American" would be more than sufficient to describe an identity. "African American" says "I am American, I am also black-skinned" It's a clarification to the identification, and as such is a more complete description of an identity.

The same goes for "cis woman". The term indicates that the woman in question was born female; it fully identifies her so. "Trans woman" is not quite as precise: it tells us of a history; the person was born male, but in some way has taken at least some steps to be as physically feminine as it might be possible. The prefix "cis" is used as a qualifier, and as a means of narrowing down an identity.

One aspect that Ms Serano neglects in her justification is that the black community, when it was trying to gain (and maintain) civil rights, didn't insist that white Americans be called "caucasian Americans". Besides which, the term "African American" is exclusively American; I don't believe there's any equivalent anywhere else. No one says "aboriginal Australians", for instance.

Ms Serano basically contradicts herself.

She did this earlier in her essay, too. In complaining about the attitude "why can't we just speak [plain] English?", she notes that she metaphorically (I hope) hits the complainer over the head with a "stack of George Orwell books." George Orwell used plain English to describe to us the dangers of manipulated, overly-qualified, language. When the trans[gender] community insists on a certain modifier to describe men and women, they are doing exactly what George Orwell warned us about. In an effort to prevent offense, they offend.

I like plain English. I do not feel any burning desire to write "Trace Adkins, a cis country and western singer"; indeed, I resist such language. It is ridiculous, arbitrary and complicating. But according to what I have read about this debate, I should write that, just to comply with the trans[gender] community's insistence on unreasoned exactness. When then trans[gender] community insists that "cis" be used as a differentiator, they also insist that we modify our thinking. Just as in 1984, the goal appears to be to prevent anyone from saying anything that might be offensive to someone else. Ms Serano might do well to rethink her invocation of George Orwell.

The prefix cis is often used to denote someone who is not trans[gendered], in academic, or wanna-be academic, trans[gender] writing. It seems to be used to "de-centralize the dominant group" (Emi Koyama; link from Ms Serano's essay). The trans writers who insist on its use seem to decentralize the dominant group, just so they can place themselves front row, center.

The QT folk seem to think that denying the identity "cis" is about power. It's not, but since when did the QT writers ever stop to really think. They prefer profanity-laden invective, which can be construed as a childish way of asserting their own power. Queen Emily makes the point:

More commonly, cissexual just means people who are not transsexual, and cis means people who are not trans. It’s terribly complex, you know.

I am astounded: something she and I can agree on! It's truly astounding. I can live with "cissexual" being those who are not transsexual. It's when the prefix is applied to describe someone like, oh, a mother. A "cis mother"? Please, get real.

"Cis" is not an attempt to "decentralize the dominant group". It is an attempt, a blatant attempt, at redefining an entire conversation so that it can't stray into areas that might be uncomfortable. It's being able to cry about "cis privilege"; it is not about leveling the linguistic playing field.

Any civil rights cause needs articulate, reasoned argument. It needs impassioned speech, and it demands a proper feeling of being oppressed. It doesn't need people saying that they are "oppressed" because women talk about some exclusively feminine issue, and they, as a trans woman, don't, can't, have that same experience. The debate about trans discrimination does not need the unwanted, unwarranted, imposition of a prefix onto those who are not transgender.

On a simple, practical note, the insistence that "cis" be used also plays, quite nicely, into the hands of those who insist that the fight for equal rights isn't about equal rights. Because it implies, bashes over the head, more like, that it is about imposing a view, a way of thinking. It becomes not a debate about equal rights, and some much-needed legal protections, for trans people, but a debate about who is imposing upon whom. And what is being imposed. And that's a debate the people who insist on "cis" will lose. Because they insistently impose language that is intended to shield one group from offense.

Attempting to change what people feel about themselves, especially via arcane language, is not just impossible - it's stupid, too.

It is enough to simply use the prefix "trans". The trans[gender] community does not have to redefine what it means to be a man, a woman, a boy, or a girl. In fact, it should stay well away from that debate - because it is one they cannot hope to win. It's one that demands exacting definitions that are impossible to supply. Stick with "trans" to describe the transgendered; don't try the impossible, and try to change how men and women feel about being men, or women. Cis is not exactly derogatory (even if it is sometimes used in such a way), but it is inexact, inexplicable, and is changing the debate from equal rights to thought-control.

Let's stick with equal rights, and legal protections for the transgendered. Let's not try to redefine the personal identity of almost everyone [else].

Carolyn Ann

Trace Adkins & soccer

Trace Adkins, a popular Country & Western singer, doesn't "get" soccer. He also, apparently, thinks NASCAR is the premier auto racing series. He doesn't like soccer because it's soccer moms and he doesn't "get it".

Might I suggest he actually watch a game?

I recently perused his book "A Personal Stand" - and I can't say I read anything that surprised me. Blatant ignorance of a sport loved by millions, a myopic view of pretty much everything, and no effort to understand, or even acknowledge, the issues confronting America, today.

It was, basically, John McCain's political platform [Added: and the GOP's political platform, now].

More, later. I'm trying to recall if I read anything about the Dixie Chicks. For someone so opinionated (... :-) ), I'm surprised it didn't immediately spring out to me. Maybe I missed it. I'll let you know.

Trace Adkins might be popular

Brazil 3, USA 2

So far it's the beginning of the second half, and Brazil has just scored their first goal. (It's a repeat. I know the score.)

The US team is coming apart, and Brazil has spent their few minutes of rest well - they've figured out Howard's weaknesses for this game. They already knew his general weaknesses, but each game is different.

The US team played well, initially - and for some strange reason seem to be arguing amongst themselves what to do with this ball they've been presented with. Brazil is together. I don't get it. The US team needs to play as a team, but they are devolving a collection of superstars. It's when the going gets tough that a team really needs to cohere. That's not the US team I'm watching.

Aha. Brazil, at 52 into the game, test Howard. The US players have decided to play "can you catch this?" Unfortunately, the answer seems to be "not really, old chap!"

I do have to observe that the ESPN commentators are rubbish. They don't report the game at all - they volubly endorse the US team. It detracts. (As do the air horns. I think they were banned at Formula 1 races and Le Mans, but that might be wishful thinking. Irritating things, they are.)

I miss soccer.

Carolyn Ann

Added: Im watching Cesar, the Brazilian goalie, and I can't help but think someone had a chat with him. He seems to be awake in the 2nd half. On the other hand, the US team has really devolved into a bunch of individual players.

500th Save!

According to the guy on the TV, Mariano Rivera is the second player in the history of baseball to have 500 saves! He's the only with an RBI!

And I got to see the final few pitches!

(He's always a pleasure to watch, especially when the Catcher is Jorge Posada.)

500 saves. WOW! :-)

Carolyn Ann

PS My Mrs is now mentioning her favorite bad guy, Roger Clemens. You know what - that man should be ashamed. He took steroids, changing himself, and his game. Because he was vainglorious, and wanted accolades. A fool, and a cheat.

New thrillers?

I've just finished James W. Huston's excellent semi-action/legal thriller "Marine One". I can't give the plot away, but I will mention that it's better than any episode of "Law & Order"! A synopsis might be in order: Marine One crashes in the middle of a violent storm, the world goes to hell - at least for the attorney hired by the helicopter's builder. All the suspense of a good John Grisham, with some of the derring-do we normally associate with Tom Clancy, John Ringo and others of their ilk.

One thing I have to mention... In thrillers, we get set up - and then the author reveals, in a manner that would make Agatha Christie cringe, all the bits he (always a he...) left out. The 'trivia' that makes or breaks the story. Or at least allows it to be told. With many writers, you're left with the feeling "that's It?!?" Others, you're left thinking "I wondered when you'd get to telling us that". Other writers are more honest - yes, honest. Stella Rimington, Karna Bodman and James Huston come to mind. Eric Flint, he of the wildly alternative histories, is a borderline player in that little game. John le Carré, of course, showed us all how it should be done in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy". It's not explained - because the hero or heroine doesn't know it.

(You know, if anyone could write the next Tinker, et al, it would be either Karna Bodman, or ... erm, well, hmm, now isn't that interesting. Okay, if anyone could write the next Tinker Tailor, it would be Ms Bodman. :-) I'd still like to read the uncensored Ms Rimington. Perhaps in a few decades?..)

Why is that writers feel a need to hold back dramatic information? Mr Huston has a goal - and the reader is not included in it! His hero, Mike Nolan, doesn't trust anyone. Anyone. The reader included! All is revealed, in a fine bit of writing that reminds me of classic Mason Perry shows (?), with a dash of the Paperchase (perhaps?). Mr Huston uses the device of court-room drama in a way that reflects the best of Law & Order. And those episodes usually take a team to write! I thoroughly enjoyed the drama - if Law & Order could depict the defendants' view, they'd learn a thing or two from Mr Huston.

After reading "Marine One", I had to wonder: are thrillers moving out of the neanderthal period, where a single superman saves the world? (Against the odds, and Washington bureaucracy? Hmm.) Are we moving into the genre of "liberal" thrillers? (John Ringo: watch out! They're not out to get you, but they sure would like your sales! :-D ) I'd like to think that we're moving into an era of thriller stories that are less Reagan-esque, and more realistic. You know, Rambo doesn't save the world by brute force. He saves it by being clever, working with a team that's just as dedicated, but perhaps not as (superman) talented, and the clever application of brute force. More "Behind Enemy Lines" than "Rambo". (Clive Owen's performance in that is one I continually look forward to. Gene Hackman's is one I try not to fast-forward through...)

Are thrillers becoming more realistic? Certainly. The market for the brain-dead hero has gone; it went out with the plummeting neocon. It's so "last week", it has no relevance whatsoever. The clever thriller writer doesn't write about a temporary enemy - they piece together long term trends and figure out a suitable protagonist. They read "Foreign Affairs", and refrain from the stupid, incoherent, obvious and simplistic opponent. They put long term policy and national interests ahead of short term power struggles. In short, their stories reflect the world we live in. Not the one they wished existed.

Carolyn Ann

Michael Jackson

I don't get the fuss about Michael Jackson. From the way people are carrying on, you'd think he was good, or important, or original.

He was an average singer, he was never very important and he was far from original.

Let's see: He wasn't the poet or observer of people that Jim Morrison was. He couldn't play a guitar like Jimi Hendrix, he didn't have anything like the cadence of John Denver, and he had none of the satire and irony of Janis Joplin. His songs never extended music, never extended him as an artist. He always played to his strengths, and rarely made any effort to challenge himself, and never his audience. His music was of its time, with various snatches surviving longer than that. People call him a great dancer - he wasn't. He had a limited repertoire of moves, and was seriously constrained in his choreography. His choreography, and dancing, is best described as "lacking ambition" or awareness. His dancing was energetic, and could be entertaining, but that's about all you can say about it. It wasn't a visual delight, it wasn't captivating. It was very predictable, and astonishingly easy to emulate.

I remember in the 1980's, people used to make a fuss about him being so good a dancer, and yet he was untrained! Well, that lack of training didn't elevate his performance - it restricted it. I don't know, perhaps he could have become a better dancer, a better singer, if he'd had some training, and a sense of adventure. Instead, his music is a familiarity, unchallenging. ... Hmm. Is that why he's so popular?

Still, it's not very nice when you die before your time. Ah well. It seems they're dropping like flies, but then - they always do.

Carolyn Ann

Opportunity knocks?

For some reason, I was thinking about that old saw: "When opportunity knocks, open the door", and how wrong it is.

Opportunity has to be searched out, and dragged, kicking and screaming, through your door.

Carolyn Ann

America's Budget Woes

All across America, towns, cities, states and counties are finding that they don't have any money. The retail spending and the real estate boom crashed, and with it the promise of endless tax revenues.

Now they seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Let's take everyone's favorite: California. The problems there are exacerbated by a couple of things: a foolish legislature, and a population that demands services, but refuses to pay for them. The California Senate has two groups in it: one that is willing to tax people for the various services, and increase those services. And the other group that wants to decimate taxes. Without any thought about what that would do to the services the State is obliged to offer.

Other states have similar things going on, but maybe not quite as exasperating as California's.

People want the services: they want a good education system and they want good roads, trash pickup, comprehensive police services, usually a hard line on incarcerating felons, and so on. What they don't want is the bill that pays for all those things. This is where the anti-tax rhetoric trips over the "we want services" rhetoric. If a Republican reduces the police force, they can be portrayed as encouraging crime. If a Democrat wants to improve teachers' pay, they are accused of robbing the population. People complain about the state of the school their kids go to, and then vote "no" to a new school, because it will increase their property taxes by some small amount. People want good roads, but deplore the money spent on maintaining them. People want reductions in the number of addicts, but don't want to pay for treatment options (doing so is perceived as being "soft on crime"), so they incarcerate the addicts, at a much higher expense. People want more prisons, but not in their neighborhood. And so on.

All of this creates a problem - the money has to come from somewhere. The government can't simply print some money, just for the purposes of government spending. That's what the communists did, in the end, (Argentina is famous for this, as well) and it bankrupted them. Actually, quite a few nations have tried this - and none has ever made it work. Because it can't! The money is, essentially, worthless.

Pegging the value of a currency to the gold standard is a popular idea in some circles. Again, it doesn't work - it holds back the value of the currency. It also makes the currency ineffectual - how do you price gold, once an entire economy is dependent upon the value of that gold? How do judge the condition of the economy? Would you like the power of your dollar to fluctuate with the cost of gold?

There's another popular, right wing, proposal: a "fair tax". We have graduated taxes, like most nations. You earn more, you get taxed proportionally more. The fair tax proposal changes that: you pay either a fixed amount, or a fixed percentage. Usually it's the fixed percentage. Has anyone ever noticed that the people proposing this system stand to gain by it? The "fair percentage" thing is a canard. If I earn $10,000 and pay, a flat tax of, oh, 10% I'm paying $1,000. If I earn $100k, I pay $10,000. My take home pay is 90% of earnings - but my net pay, after everything else is much less, percentage wise at the lower end of the income scale.

Let's say my income is $12,000: $1,000 per month. For comparison, let's say my neighbor earns $120,000 per year: $10,000 per month. We'll assume the usual family: a wife and two kids. Taxes are a flat 10%. I pay $120/month in taxes (leaving me $880), my neighbor pays $1,200 (leaving him $8,800). So far so good. Let's say my mortgage is $400, and his is, oh $4,000. (He owns a big house that he bought at the height of the market, I don't.) That leaves me $480 per month; he has $4,800 per month. From that $480, I have to buy a car to get to work, pay for food, medical insurance and the other bits and pieces of life. (Phone, clothes, etc.) Who gets ahead, quicker? Proportionally, his savings increase dramatically, whereas I'm unable to save a penny. At the bottom of the income ladder, you're stuck in the poverty trap. At the top, or even just above the middle, you have so much more. Your wealth simply increases, whereas those less fortunate are struggling to keep their heads above water. Ultimately, this negatively impacts a society, simply because it becomes so difficult for the future creators of wealth to actually create wealth. How can you create additional wealth, when you're struggling to pay for food and clothes?

Flat, aka "fair" taxes are anything but. Proportional taxes aren't perfect, but they do work. Where they fail is when we demand not just more value from those tax dollars - but when we demand that the tax dollars don't keep pace with inflation and our demands for services.

And that's what is happening in America. People want the services, but the discussion about how to pay for them has become poisoned. It's not a discussion about paying for services, it's become an ideological debate about the reduction of government spending. Not even the role of government spending in an economy! The right wants the services, but not the bill. And the left wants the services, and wonders what to with the bill. They usually tuck it back in the 'To be paid" pile. What actually happens is that governments end up borrowing, just to pay their operational costs. (New York City, in the 1970's famously got into trouble doing this. Orange County, in California, in the 1990's did the same thing. I keep wondering when, and where, this will rear its ugly head, again.) As you might guess, borrowing to remain profligate is not exactly a recipe for fiscal success.

The Republicans, as we have seen, seem to be very good at shouting about lower taxes, and then borrowing like crazy to pay for operating costs. This is what forced Obama to put the country in even more hock. "Reducing government spending" isn't enough - the gap between what is collected and what is spent is simply too large for that. Removing "earmarks" won't make much of a difference - besides, some (many?) of those earmarks create jobs that help pay for the earmarks. What is needed is some new thinking, and a bravery that politicians aren't known for.

It might be painful, but it's going to be easier to start paying for those services now, and not putting it off for a few years. We'll all end up paying for the services sooner or later - why not ease the pain, and raise taxes in a way that alleviates the immediate problems - and doesn't enhance the later ones. If we pay for what we consume now, what we demand in services, now - we won't have to pay later. Because, believe it or not, we do have to pay for those services, at some point. They don't pay for themselves! As much as I hate to say it, it's probably easier to start raising taxes now, and let people get used to them, than it will be to bump taxes up in one massive hike, later. America can afford somewhat higher taxes, it's just that the Republicans have really poisoned the discussion about taxes, and what they really are.

No wonder the Republicans are in trouble - no matter which way you turn, their solidarity to a small set of ideas runs afoul of the real world.

Carolyn Ann

PS A case in point: I hit publish, and an ad from the Republican Governor's Association comes up: "New Jersey pays the highest taxes. Find out how to keep more of your money in your pocket." See what I mean? NJ is facing a deficit of between $10B and $29B, in 2010. Simply because it's obligations outstrip its revenues. The Republican answer? Cut income, and don't mention what that really does the spending, now and in the future. That sum of money has to come from somewhere. Where does the GOP think it's going to come from? Reduced spending? Oh, please! Confounded idiocy upon confounded idiocy; that's an accurate description of the current tax "debate".

Where are the Republicans on this?

The Republicans have been shouting about how Obama isn't saying enough to support the Iranian quest for freedom. So, when I came across this BBC story, about Saudi authorities arresting a bunch of guys who were having a crossdressing party, I wondered where the Republicans were on this... :-) (Oddly, for a group so dedicated to fighting for freedom everywhere, and especially in the Middle East, I can't find any condemnation of the Saudi's actions. I can find right wing and Christian condemnation of crossdressers, though.)

Note to those who proclaim freedom, but only the bits they like: Freedom of expression includes being able to wear what you want. It means not having to provide an explanation for what you wear. It also means that you can't get arrested for wearing what you want.

"Freedom from" something is not freedom, it's what the Saudi's just did. (It also means that "dress standard" laws that local governments keep trying to impose are unconstitutional. But I suspect the sponsors of those laws know that. They just hope no one else notices...)

Why do the Republicans keep trying to define themselves as "hypocrites"? Why, oh why.

Carolyn Ann

The Supremes protecting individual rights? Wow.

The Roberts Court, having developed a firm reputation of standing up for the big, the powerful and the government (especially the Executive Branch), must have been replaced. They found against a school district, and for a student! Amazing, but true. They tempered their exuberance with a little "co-finding" for the school, however.

What happened was that some kid told tales on another kid, Savana Redding, in an Arizona school. The school principal went overboard searching Redding's backpack and then getting the school nurse to do a basic strip search of the girl! Nothing was found.

In a stunningly naive misreading of the Bill of Rights, a few Federal Courts found that the girl's rights hadn't been violated. An appeals court found they had been. It seems strange that court would find that a cop needs to arrest you before they can do a strip search of you, but a headmaster doesn't. Anyway, the case went all the way to the Supremes. Who found 8-1 that the girl's rights were violated.

Amazing things have happened before - but the Roberts' Court, protecting individual rights? Wow. Normally you say things like "who are you and what have you done to the real Roberts' Court?" For now, we'll not bother. Somehow, I think this is an aberration, and Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, et al will get back to protecting the rich and powerful. After all - someone needs to protect them from the scourge of the people. It seems strange, but it increasingly seems that we need someone to protect the people from the Court.

Carolyn Ann

Health Care...

With 47 to 48 million Americans without any health care, some staggering number being forced into bankruptcy because of health care costs and ever-increasing costs, with ever-decreasing coverage - we definitely have a health care crisis in America.

And who is fighting any effort at reform? You'll be surprised at this. Really. ... The people who make money under the current system! Okay, you're not surprised. :-)

The American Medical Association disgracefully came out in support of "no change" and the insurance industry is really against it.

Let's see: this is the insurance industry that brought us such wonders as:

- HMO's, with their restrictive rules on who you can see, and what care you can get

- a series of Supreme Court decisions that say the insurance company can let you die because to save you might cost too much money

- a law in (at least) Texas that says the insurance company can decide when to pull a child off life support. (George W. Bush signed that one into law, something I've continually wonder about.)

- an insurance system that can bankrupt you, even if you're insured, simply because you had a medical problem

- a hospital system that won't treat you unless you can prove you can pay for the care (I've had experience with this, actually)

- a system that rewards doctors for endless tests and expensive operations, but does their best to get out of paying for mammograms and other precautionary tests

- and, finally, a system that gets to cherry pick who it covers. Any "pre-existing conditions" can, and will, bar you getting insurance!

Private insurance companies were working, but the writing was on the wall even as far back as the 1950's. Having employer oriented insurance was always going to be a mistake, simply because the cost of getting health care would prevent some from starting their own businesses. This has proven the case - there are endless stories about how people want to change their lives, but can't because their current employer offers something in terms of health care. It's also led to another AMA, the American Motorcycle Association, to lobby States to pass laws making it illegal for insurers to drop you because you choose to ride a motorcycle!

The Republicans are all over this, not with any answers, but with lots of scary stories. There's one group, a well funded group, (Conservatives for Health Care Reform) that specializes in stupid pronouncements on health care plans. Its employees don't seem to bother with reading anything about the health care debate, they just concentrate on why we shouldn't change the health care system.

One of the most facetious, and insulting, arguments I've heard from the insurance industry is "we need tighter regulation, not reform". Yeah? How about enacting the supposed standard now, instead of whining about reform? Oh, you can't because no one else does! Oh my! Such moral courage. Same moral courage it takes to say "shareholder dividends are more important than your wife's life, Mr Smith".

Congressional Democrats, President Obama, we need health care reform. We don't need wishy-washy tinkering - we need real change. We need a health care system that is cost-effective, and affordable. We need a health care system that looks after people, and pays for preventive and precautionary care. We need a system that doesn't discard people and lives because they might cost too much. And we need a system that doesn't bankrupt people, simply because they have the misfortune to fall ill.

Conservative Democrats and the Republicans, together, can provide us with a system that embraces the worst of all options. They're working on it, eagerly. America deserves better. It deserves a system that works, not a system that puts profits before care.

Carolyn Ann

Iran, and the future

Iran is starting to quiet down. The government's crackdown has left a number of people dead, including a young woman whom has become a symbol, and a lot of people injured and/or arrested. The Ayatollah has issued a statement that basically amounts to "like it or lump it, I don't care" re the election, and has ensured that the world has to contend with the same nut, and the same paranoid foreign policy. Iraq will continue to be a hotbed of terrorism, simply because of the institutionalized support Iran gives the terrorists. (Indeed, Iran supplies the terrorists, too.)

It's at times like this that I'm glad America has someone like Barack Obama in charge, and not John McCain and Sarah Palin. McCain and the GOP are frothing at the mouth; they want a war so badly, I'm surprised they haven't formed a militia and gone marching off. (Maybe they could put Lou Dobbs in charge? That way they'll invade southern Texas, in search of illegal immigrants, and forget where Iran is...) What the GOP blowhards fail to realize is that if someone started chanting about America the same way they are chanting about Iran, they'd be the first in line to yell back. Well, perhaps they do realize this - but they can still pander to their ever-dwindling base by indulging in such inanities. (It is, after all, politics. Consistency, a rare animal in this arena, can only be noticed when it's present...)

I wonder what will happen, now. Obama can't really negotiate fully and openly - unlike China in 1989 and Tiananmen Square, when George Bush Snr, and the Chinese, figured that no one would notice the proximity of that massacre and the opening of trade negotiations between the two countries. Some did, but because news delivery was still controlled - it became a non-issue. The Internet has changed that. If Obama tries to open negotiations like he could before this uprising - he'd be (politically) crucified, and not just by the far right!

I still think the Ayatollah's have made a strategic policy decision that will lead to their downfall. It's abuses such as those we have seen over the last week, the almost complete failure of opposition leaders to lead, and stupid and unnecessary violence of the authorities that eventually brings down repressive governments. It's just a matter of time.

Ah well, Iran will quieten down, and the world will turn its attention to, well, probably not the Koreas. Jon and Kate, perhaps?

Carolyn Ann

Palm misses the point. Again.

Palm, the company that started the whole PIM thing (no, the Apple Newton doesn't count), is trying to make a come-back with a new device, the Pre. According to this story in the NY Times, Palm has shipped about 180,000 Pre's. But there aren't any 3rd party apps, and the system to provide them isn't in place.

I found it incredible that a Palm spokesman, David Mains, could say "“We’ve never really said that we’re in a race with Apple,”. Wow. If I had to guess, I'd say Palm might as well close the company now, and avoid the long drought that will come their way.

The Palm Pre is aimed squarely at the iPhone. Google is entering agreements with phone providers for its Android operating system, and Apple is not resting on its laurels with the iPhone. (The new one is so cool, it almost prompted my wife to buy one!) If Palm is not playing in that market - what market are they aiming for? A non-existent one?

It took Apple a little time to realize that you need books, support forums, and example applications - the iPhone initially had none of those. Indeed, Apple's infamous and ridiculous secrecy almost cost it the market. They recovered, and now boast of their downloads. The only fly in Apple's anointment is their draconian, secretive and obtuse "approval" system for applications. (I've never figured out why they have this. It makes sense in only one context, and it's not a flattering one.)

Google, with their Android OS, are set to change the way the cellphone market works - making it more consumer-friendly. Apple won't respond to this challenge in the short term, but might in the longer term. Might... They don't have a history of being interested in what their customers want; it's more that the customers respond to what they offer! Either way, Google has a curiously earned reputation for being more supportive of open development. Not (just) open source, simply open - as in "anyone can develop" to their offerings.

Which it of this doesn't Palm understand? Palm is in a fight for its continued existence, and the best they can come up with is a strange assertion they aren't competing with Apple's iPhone? They are competing with Apple, and with Google. Personally, I'd sell my shares in Palm if I had any. The management team doesn't seem to be operating in this world.

Carolyn Ann

Has MySpace had its day?

MySpace is laying people off left, right and center! They're supposedly consolidating, and getting back to their roots - which is something I'd be skeptical of, anyway - and the new CEO has promised lots of "innovation".

How does a Rupert Murdoch-owned entity get back to being a upstart start-up? It can't. How does a site that has no apparent purpose gain users? Facebook has a strategy, and it appears they have a business plan. (It's obviously new.) MySpace has a variable reputation, and no discernible purpose. Never mind having a strategy, a goal, or a business plan. MySpace has no purpose! It seems to have decided it wants to be Geocities 2.0. (If you're old enough to remember Geocities, you'll probably guess what I mean. If not: think of MySpace, but without the bells and whistles.)

What does MySpace actually offer? A place for musicians to showcase their talents? It has no real photo-sharing system, no way of exchanging messages that makes sense, and few, if any, controls for what can be seen by whom. It also lacks any serious "friend management" systems.

In short, it was a good idea a few years ago, but now? They haven't kept up with the times. Rupert Murdoch doesn't seem to "get" the Internet in the same way as some others do. He still seems to think it's a collection of webpages, and little else. Look at Fox News, SpeedTV, and places like the Times of London websites - they tend to be webpage based, not an integration of web components and technologies. Not systems that answer needs we didn't know we had. All of Murdoch's websites tend to answer needs we know we have. How limiting is that?

I can't help thinking that in this "winner takes all" Internet we have, Facebook has already won. Maybe MySpace can reclaim some territory, but to gain the upper hand with Facebook? They couldn't do it, for pretty much the same reason why Microsoft isn't going to revolutionize search with their new offering (oh, what's it called, again?) The incumbents have a head start, and can respond to competitive offerings faster than "you".

Carolyn Ann

There's something very satisfying...

...about cutting down a tree. With an ax and an adze.

I popped down to the mailbox, and noticed that a tree had fallen across the electric line. This is not usually "a good thing". The tree had decayed at the bottom, and it must have been gently toppling, and something just made it go.

One hour later, the tree is in two pieces, and is no longer a hanging off the wire.

There's something immensely satisfying in hearing, and feeling, that "thunk" as blade hits wood. It's a little less wondrous when it's hot, humid and in the middle of a dense patch of trees (that desperately need thinning out). Still, a glass of lemonade and a cool-down, and I'll be able to get to my tiling. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Insulting me?

As I was busy laying some tile, I got to thinking about the recent insults, and the insulters, that have come my way. I've addressed mindless mockers, but inane insult? Not really.

Donna tells me I was "genderfuck" in my appearance one night. I looked it up on Wikipedia, and I still can't quite explain the insult, or even if it was an insult. But that's not terribly important. I just wonder why anyone would think such idiocy would have any affect.

Years ago, in my case 32 or 33 of them, calling me names might have worked. Anyone, at 12 or 13 or so, responds to idiotic name calling in a different way. But once you get past, oh 15, it ceases to have any real affect. Or it should - I've noticed that some idiots respond quite aggressively even to the universal finger.

Which makes it strange when you think about the endless possibilities the English language presents. Simple name calling is immature. Telling someone that they are incapable of perceiving such an issue is better. (Sorry. I didn't mean for this to be a "How to insult someone.") Pointing out how their statements are incorrect can be helpful in developing something known as "a conversation". Calling someone a name, especially when the insult is so obscure it needs explaining, is not a help to anyone. Mind you, I'm sure the name-caller feels better for doing it. I hope they do - after all, it's all a wasted if the name-callee simply laughs. Or looks puzzled. A bit like insulting someone in Swahili, when they only speak English. It's meaningless.

Name calling is a venerable tradition in politic debates. Sometimes it's overt, sometimes it's more subtle. But the target is clear, and it's not the callee: it's the public. What would politicians do, if they couldn't call each other names? Resort to witty sarcasm? Some can, but most have enough trouble using the language, in the first place! It is, apparently, easier to use childish concepts than anything approaching intelligent. The result is not even a giggle - unless the name-caller is so persistent that simple repetition provides a modicum of comedy. I could wish for a better class of name-caller, but I fear it would be a futile hope.

Anyway, to help future insulters, I am including a link to "Classic Insults".

It's strange, though, how an adult so readily reduces herself.

And now I'm going back to my tiling. I just found it intriguing. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Safari versus Firefox...

This is earth-shattering news... :-) I've switched my main browser from Firefox to Safari.

Well, perhaps it isn't quite earth-shattering. :-D

Anyway, I've made the switch - it was really easy, thanks to Safari's "Preferences" box. It has a little selection list, titled "Default web browser". But why did I make the switch?

I've been getting quite irritated with Firefox, over the last few months. Its interface reflects its medieval heritage (Windows and Linux), and it takes forever to start. Need a plug-in update? Oh, that'll take a few minutes, and by the way, you can't do much of anything until it's updated. Between the speed (or lack thereof) and that truly medieval interface, I just got fed up.

The interface. What a piece of work. Advanced for 2004, it's now a bit of relic. Bookmark management is stuck in 1990's, and I've spent far too much time trying to get Flash working on the damn thing. When I wanted to watch certain videos, or view some fancy Flash-driven websites, I had to switch to Safari!

When Firefox ported the browser to the Mac, they kept pretty much all of the interface conventions of Linux and Windows. Lots of dialog boxes, but not much in the way of "the machine can do this for you". The interface is so un-Mac like, I had to change how I thought about using the system, just to use Firefox.

Other bits of the interface that began to grate on me: Tab management is fair, but nothing to write home about. The tab system doesn't actually seem to be designed in, but tacked on with 6" nails. The Google search integration was neat when it first appeared, but hasn't changed since then. Although I do like the ability to search different sites - something Safari doesn't have, out of the (virtual) box.

Putting lots of plug-ins (6, I think) ended up making Firefox unstable. Far too often I've had to Force-Quit the damn thing; especially lately. This is beyond irritating; I've even had the Mrs reboot the computer because of Firefox. It's not whether some technical genius can figure it out without rebooting, but when you're in the middle of nowhere and it's getting late and you still have to find the campsite, and the map doesn't show the road you're on, and Firefox dies for some unknown reason, rebooting is simply quicker and easier than trying to figure out why Firefox isn't working, and won't really respond to a force-quit.

Safari 4 is a world of difference away from Safari 3 (S3). I like many of its features, and it is responsive. It is also intuitive in a way that Firefox has never been. It's a Mac program, and I don't have to change how I think about the system. Safari 4 (S4) seems to be faster than S3; it has the initial "let me get up to speed", but since then, I've really liked the speed of it. Pages load faster, and the graphics are crisper. The interface is much, much simpler. It's not cluttered like a Windows or Linux interface is.

Firefox is dominated by Microsoft Windows and Linux developers; their efforts on the Mac just aren't as good. Taking Windows and Linux interface conventions and applying them to the Mac doesn't work - for one thing, the Mac is based on "simple", and "elegant". Windows is based on "I wonder how many options I can fit into this tiny bit of screen?" Linux is even worse: "See! It really is possible to emulate the [arcane] command line in a graphical form! All the possible options are right there!)". The Mac has a guiding philosophy that could be taken from a minimalist manifesto - if it doesn't positively contribute, don't show it. The Mac is more about the experience of using the machine, Windows is more about tasks and accomplishing them. Linux is about proving something, but no one can really say what. (Really.)

Firefox will remain on my system, it just won't be used very often.

Carolyn Ann

PS I don't use Opera; the last time I looked at their browser, it took me awhile to get it working (bear in mind, I use a completely standard Macbook) and its interface was pure Windows. Circa 1998. Camino, the arguably Mac version of Firefox, proved to be merely irritating. So I don't use that one.

PPS I wonder when user interface designers and architects are going to remove the barrier of the window? After all, that hard border around the displayed data is just, well, so tedious and old. A clever invention, in the 1970's, useful even into the early 2000's, but these days? Who needs that limit? More on that, later. :-)

The impact of Neda

With her murder, Neda Agha-Soltan has become a symbol of the Iranian protests. All they need now is leadership.

The protests are likely to fade away over a short period - simply because there is no viable leadership for the protesters. The elections' runner up, Mousavi, is trying a balancing act that's doomed to fail - no one is sure if he truly supports the protesters, or not. I suspect he doesn't. His is, after all, part of the establishment. He was approved by the Mullahs, and he isn't going to go very far in any reforms. Iranian elections, it seems, are more about how the Ayatollah views the world than who the Iranians want as their leader. A group of crabby old men, with no interest in anything except their own comfort, are not likely to share the same ideologies and views a mostly young population has.

I can't help but think that the murder of Ms Agha-Soltan will be the one that finally brings down the Ayatollah's. Either that, or it will be the one that introduces a period where the state absolutely imposes its will. Her murder has acquired a symbology that doesn't really allow for anything else.

The biggest problem is that when the powerful are asked to step aside, they typically don't. The various western democracies had to build this demand into their charters and constitutions. When the powerful think they speak for god, and know what's best for their populations, you can be unquestionably certain that they speak for themselves, and think they know what's best for themselves.

When the Shah was deposed, it was preceded by a series of mournings; every 40 days, people would gather to mourn the dead of the riots. Eventually this turned into a revolution. Part of the problem was the governments' enthusiastic use of armed force against the protesters; the secret police were the overall catalyst, though. Today, the religious police are a lesser catalyst - being ignored is proving to be the more powerful impetus. But the governments' avid use of baton-wielding thugs on motorcycles, its eagerness to beat anyone and everyone to a pulp, and now its "blame the foreigners" and "blame the foreign press" tactics have created an environment where people no longer believe or trust the civil authorities. Not just the police - I get the impression that people no longer trust the Ayatollahs.

That is a profound, and really dangerous, turn for the Ayatollahs.

The power vacuum at the top gives the protesters no one to rally around. Neda provides something, but in this turmoil, someone will start to become a leader. The murder of that young woman is not going to go away. The cycle of revolution has been started - it's just a matter of time, now. Whether it's weeks, months or years - the Ayatollah's, in ignoring the will of the people, have now opened the door to being subjected to it. The young people of Iran are not likely to ignore their opportunity. History is made by young men and women; they don't carry the baggage and fears older folk do.

The murder of Neda Aghar-Soltan proves the corruption of Iran's current leaders, and is a powerful demonstration of what is at stake. With a bit of luck, and undoubtedly far too many young lives being taken, Iranians will be rid of these weak-minded, corrupt, power-mad old men, and they will gain freedom. Let's hope it's sooner than later. The world will be a safer place for it.

An amazingly clever idea!

A Manhattan synagogue raised $10,000, simply by simply asking supporters to pledge to pledge $1 for every minute some Westboro Baptist Church protesters stood and shouted insults at the LGBT-supporting synagogue. (Story over at The Advocate)

Genius. Sheer genius. :-)

Carolyn Ann

What, and why, I write

Donna called into question what I write about. Apparently she's not too happy with my virtual scribblings, of late. So I responded, but I think a more general response is warranted. After all, I've just bought a fresh bottle of The Macallan 12, and I'm half way through a wee finger of the god's nectar.

I have little else to whittle about, do you have much else to read abou'?

As regular readers might know, I don't take any measure of what they like, or don't. Any Analytic's are for Google - I don't subscribe to that service. There are no ads, so I can't measure readership by dollars in my bank account. And I can't say I pay much attention to much of anything that concerns what I should, or should not, write about. You know - books that say "measure your audience and write about what makes them read you".

Piffle. Nonsense. Rubbish. Sheer garbage.

You see: I don't care is someone reads my utterances. Or not.

Which is not the same as saying "I like it when someone does acknowledge they like my meanderings". I do like it when someone likes my writing. But if someone doesn't like my writing... I'm not forcing you to read it!

I think I mentioned this before - I write for me. I write for my audience, but I write for me. Because I have no idea who my audience is. I've been called "controversial", of holding "strong opinions" and I've also had someone say "you're not controversial!". I definitely write for me. I couldn't keep up with an audience that diverse.

At this point, I could say "I'm a simple man, never been to college, etc" but that would not be an exact truth. I don't know what the truth would be, but it's not that. I know I ask simple questions that have obvious answers - but sometimes I'm not happy with the answer. Sometimes I think the answer provided is foolish. I definitely know that when complexity enters the answer, I'm being bamboozled.

How do you build a complex system? One simple system at a time.

When I write I have no regard for future employment, for what others might think. I don't write for others, I write for myself. I try to explain the world I live in, to myself. Sometimes I manage that, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I nail a corner, sometimes I don't.

I mention that because writing is a little like riding a motorcycle. You have to put yourself on the line to achieve anything worthwhile. A corner taken gently, with little risk, is not a corner - it's a playground where the barriers are made of hard rubber. Take a sharpish 90 degree corner at 70, 80 MPH and you have to be tuned into your bike, the road and your environment. You have to aware! Take a sharp corner, let's say on the Tail of the Dragon, on a Vespa at 30MPH - and you have to be totally aware of your surroundings. If you fail to notice the bird in the tree, what else did you miss? The guy coming up behind you at over 100MPH? (You can't see him, you can't hear him. You need to be absolutely aware of him. If you don't ride, you'll never figure it out.)

(There is one essential difference: mistakes in a linguistic exercise are not quite as deadly as mistakes made on a motorcycle...)

In writing, in motorcycling, you have to be aware of your surroundings. Words, phrases, emotions, what you're saying, what you're feeling, what you're trying to convey. You can play it safe, and type into the wordprocessing window of Blogger or Wordpress things that won't attract ire, attention or invective. Or you can be honest, and write what you think. What you feel. Whether you do this with skill or are a total linguistic klutz is not for you to say. It is for your audience to consider. How you let that criticism affect you, as a writer, is for you, the writer to judge. Some cave in, and start writing what makes their audience happy - they buy into the concept that being popular is good. Keep the critics happy, and be popular! Others don't give a hoot. I don't give a hoot.

When I sit down at the computer I often have no idea what I will write about. When I throw my leg over the motorcycle, I often have no idea where I'll be going. I feel the same excitement in either venue: What happens, next?

What, indeed?

When you read my mutterings, you are reading me. I am being honest. I don't hide. I don't obfuscate or obscure, I write what I think. Whether you agree with something I say is a different debate altogether. Not one I'm likely to participate in, though.

Ultimately, you don't have to like what I write. You don't have to even read it. I won't notice, or complain, if you don't. After all, I'm not writing to make you feel happy, I'm writing to help me understand my world. If you have a problem with that, go harangue someone else. Because I really don't give a toss.

Carolyn Ann

Fosse & Rhoda

Barnes & Noble have a 3 for 2 sale going on. So the Mrs and me bought 9 DVD's. We split them into piles of 3 based on cost advantage, and the lass behind the counter did her magic. Voila! We now radically differing experiences. :-)

This evening, we watched the first two episodes of Rhoda, and the 1999 Broadway show "Fosse". Have a guess what that was about... :-D

25 years or so later, Rhoda is still funny. I remember her outfits; I'd sit in front of the telly, not knowing anything about New York, or living there, and I still admired her outfits, and the humor of the show. Unlike so many other shows, Rhoda survived the intervening years.

And then we experienced the 1999 tribute to Bob Fosse. What a spectacular!

Half way through the show, I remembered why we didn't see it - we couldn't get tickets! We called as soon as we knew the box office was open, but nothing. Nada. Not a thing. Ticket scalping was a fine art, back then, but even so - I wouldn't entertain such grovelling. We didn't get to see Ben Vereen in one of his best performances of the 1990's. Well, we did - in a review I immediately forget the name of. :-( (If memory serves, and I doubt it does in this case, Gregory Hines was in the same show.)

What a show! We were clapping with the audience, and celebrating the choreography of Bob Fosse.

Everything I've ever read about Fosse mentions how merciless he was. Ben Vereen, in this show, mentions how graceful the man was. He tells of how he turned up for an audition, and everyone watched Fosse's cigarette as he pirhouetted and stepped around the stage. No one observed the steps, because they were busy watching the cigarette. At the end of the demonstration, Bob Fosse took the cig out of his mouth, flicked off the ash and asked them to do what he'd just done. That's grace.

Roy Scheider was superb as Fosse in the movie "All That Jazz". It was a far cry from "Jaws", but probably just as demanding. One of my favorite all time scenes is the end of the movie, when we have Ben Vereen singing the man his way to heaven. Angels, jazz, music, ex-lovers, girls, girls, girls. It's a wonderful scene, and quite the summation of a man's life.

If you love dance, and are not put off by the risqué, get Fosse - and have an experience unmatched by anything you've ever seen before. :-)

Carolyn Ann

How To Be Transphobic 101

Today, we're going to learn how to be Transphobic. A reported expert in the subject, Me, will provide some tips and tricks. So, without further ado, I present: Me! :-)

Why, thank you, Me. I'm not sure I can be counted as an expert on transphobia, despite what others might say. You see, I'm not. But the problem is not that some think I'm transphobic, it's that they accuse me of it without any evidence, and without thinking about what I, and a few others, are actually saying. Being accused of transphobia is a bit like being asked if you're still beating your wife - there's no really good way of answering.

However, I can tell you that one essential ingredient in being accused of transphobia is to disagree. Disagreeing with whatever the orthodoxy du jour is will ensure you are labeled as heinous and, if you're lucky, transphobic, too.

We can see this sensitivity to disagreement, this vehement objection to it, in other groups, as well. People on the far right have the same tendency; anti-abortionists tend to be "of a mind", and deviation is punished with some severe invective. Even shunning. People on the left are the same, but the tendency there is to accept there are differences. After all, it's not like the 'overall' left is anything like organized. (Obama's organizational skills don't count. He organized lots of disparate individuals, but never achieved, or attempted to achieve, an over-arching "you must believe this, this and this" ethos.)

Another ingredient you need, if you are to be truly transphobic. That could be being argumentative, being assertive (so male! Ugh!) and/or challenging. Let's deal with these one at a time.

If you're argumentative, it's not you raising objections - it's you being obnoxious. You're supposed to be lady-like, and not be too vociferous. Unless you're adhering to some orthodoxy, in which case you can be as aggressive, and even profane, as you like.

Asserting yourself is a male trait, and is strongly discouraged. You must be demure, and dainty. If you don't know how to be demure or dainty, don't worry - help will arrive in the form of profane, invective-filled criticism. All of it constructive, of course. (Please note, if you reply in a like tone, you will be accused of being argumentative.)

Challenging ideas about gender and identity, especially if they comprise today's orthodoxy, is definitely transphobic. So if someone says "I am a woman", when they patently are not - you are being transphobic because you're not allowing them the self-identification they dearly want. As a word to the wise, please do not ask them why they claim to be a woman. This creates confusion, anger and outrage. And accusations of transphobia. If you argue that "because that's the way I feel" is not quite sufficient, you have gone from being accused of transphobia to outrageous transphobia. You will, if you say it often enough, become quite the pariah.

Other routes to the exalted position of Transphobic Pariah-hood include asking variations of the same question. For example: "if you're a woman, what does that make my mother?" Or "If you're a woman, what does that imply for all the girls and women who were born that way?". You could try this, but it is a doozy and should be avoided (because it will result in confusion, anger and outrage): "Aren't you asserting male privilege, having been male, and now saying that because you've had a sex change, you're now a woman?" Adding something like "what is the essential difference between the [hated] male privilege, and what you just claimed?" will guarantee you a place in the Transgender Hell.

Continually wondering about this, and pointing out that the detritus from the avoidance - basically it always works out to "because I feel I am a woman" - requires the digging of a very large hole, and an ever larger rug to cover it, will result in your immediate elevation to Transgender Pariah of the Century. (Too late, I have achieved that exalted rank, and there can only be one. Or perhaps two, if I count Julie Bindel.)

You see, asking challenging questions about gender and self-identification is not allowed. Wondering if women have some say in what a woman is, is not permitted. But, just to add spice to it all, you can wonder what it means to be a man. You can do this because you claim to be a woman. Even if you're not.

Challenging the transgender community to better definitions, and perhaps some more thought, is verboten. Strictly verboten. A true transphobe would suggest that they are too busy putting on their makeup and being absent minded ladies to bother with such questions. A person challenging the transgender community to do better, because it can, is generally not welcome. I often feel like a bike ride, but I'm not one. The problem with self-proclaimed self-identification is that it is the same argument that the truly transphobic put forward - but please don't mention that to the transgender community. Doing so will cement your reputation as a transphobe.

I haven't addressed the language issue, simply because I don't have the time or inclination to go figure out the relative absurdities. I can tell you that the word "tranny" is okay with some, and not with others. If you're already known for transphobic utterings, it's decorative brickwork. If you're not, well done - you have embarked on a remarkably easy journey. One that takes no effort on the part of your accusers. Which is why they resort to it - it is, after all, easier to call someone names than it is to put some thought into how, and perhaps why, they are challenging you, questioning you and showing how easy it is to undermine trivial assumptions.

Challenging the transgender community to better define itself, not in terms of gender, while simultaneously claiming gender is an invented/contrived/unimportant/irrelevant/whatever construct. After all - we don't want to question what gender is, do we? It might mean some painful answers, and no one wants those.

So you see, it's easy to be transphobic. If you wish to become a transphobe, I can only suggest that you challenge some transgendered individuals to explain themselves, and their claims. Good luck! :-)

Carolyn Ann

We're Aaaaall Dooomed!

Well, it would seem that way if you read the news.

North Korea is hoping to launch a rocket in the general direction of Hawaii, order in Pakistan is hanging by a thread, and Iran is melting down.

Iran. The Ayatollah's severely misjudged the mood of the country - and have no shown themselves to be uninterested in what the people think. The saving grace here is a semi-rational foreign policy. Even if its main figurehead, Ahmenidijad, comes across mainly as borderline irrational. The Ayatollah's are not totally insane - the anti-Israel rhetoric won't become more than that. I don't think they have any real interest in going to war with Israel - after all, Israel is not going away (I think all of the modern Arab world knows that, but there are enough who wish it wasn't so that this idea remains quite a force), and any war of that size will result in massive changes - not least being they would lose their power.

So while Iran looks dangerous, and we'll know by Wednesday or Thursday next week how the protesters fair, I don't think it's likely to start a war. On the other hand, it's not likely to stop the slide into one, given half a chance. Which makes Obama's caution all the more important; the neocons can rumble and grumble, but in the end they don't hold the keys to the war machine. Fortunately.

Pakistan continues to be a concern. Nuclear armed heroin dealers who possess the rationality of a methhead are not who you want in power, over there. I fancy it would be touch and go who would be their first target - America, or Columbia. I doubt America - the Taliban has become addicted to drug money, and America provides quite a lot of that. The Columbiam Cartels, on the other hand, are their competition. Mind you, I've never heard anyone accuse methheads of being rational.

At least Mushareff is gone. Although the power structure that exists is best described as "musical chairs with political rhetoric". With a power vacuum at the top, the ISI is probably having a field day. At least the army has realized their traditional enemy, India, is probably as worried about a nuclear Taliban as they should be. If India thought the Taliban might gain the Bomb, there would be an incentive to attack. As it is, I think they are happy to let the Pakistani army do the fighting. As long as India doesn't make any provocative moves, Pakistan can get itself sorted out.

And now we get to the world's favorite despot: North Korea. With a foreign policy based on the mood swings of Kim Jong Il and a very profound irrationality, this little corner of the world is Dangerous. In all fairness, a nuclear armed tinpot dictator who's prone to inexplicable mood swings and irrational paranoia, is probably not synonomous with "peace and serenity". The only thing standing between him and his dreams of a united Korea are a few tens of thousands of Soth Korean and American troops.

North Korea was not really a concern until they actually got nuclear weapons. Right now, they're trying to perfect (with Iran), a long-range delivery system. Hence the concern that the Great Idiot is pointing a missile that might, considering North Korea's technical competency, just land on Hawaii.

North Korea is so irrational even its UN allies, Russia and China, are concerned. It's other ally, Iran, is more than happy to keep fanning the flames of "imperialist aggression". Just what the world wants - two friends, both of whom think everyone else is out to get them. Both of them keep prodding, and when a response is elicited, they use that as proof that they're not really paranoid.

At least America has a rational, if somewhat fuzzy, foreign policy system in place. After the last guy, who's foreign policy seemed to swing from "grand adventure" to old-school Biblical apocalypse, with whimsical obliviousness as a rest stop between the two, it's quite refreshing to see American foreign policy back on an even keel. It also helps that Europe woke up and realized that the soft power of trade doesn't work with some dictators. We can only hope that they make the coffee and open their eyes fully. All too often European politicians have gone back to sleep in the face of an international problem or two. "Oh, America will fix it... Snore..."

What is interesting is how foreign policy debates have started to move toward a separating out long term threats and "other threats". America, while not having a fully formed foreign policy, is definitely moving back to a "shades of grey" appreciation of the world. The black and white "us versus them" mentality of the neocons didn't do much to help with this overall situation. There remains a policy problem with the left wing still shouting about why we went to war with Iraq, and demanding irresponsible troop reductions; they can still swing the policy to appeasement and isolationism. This would be dangerous, but I don't think they'll prevail.

The Pentagon seems to be appreciating the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq. With Rumsfeld's secretive cabal of neocons gone, and Robert Gates firmly in charge, it seems that the news coming out of the Pentagon is more informed. The really dangerous period, between (in retrospect) last May, and last April - when Gates couldn't be sure if he would have a job after January 20, and Bush essentially neutered, and when Obama was new to the job - has passed. There's still a problem in the intelligence community; from what I'm reading, there's still a lot of resentment about the whole "Homeland Security" thing, and the torture stuff is now proving to be a distraction. Not a dangerous one, and one that is easily handled, even if the actual resolution of that sad moment in American history isn't really possible.

The two big unknowns - Israel and China - are the main concerns. It's known Israel has practiced bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. I have little doubt that no matter the secrecy, Israeli intelligence knows where most of them are. They probably have copies of the construction blueprints. I don't think Israel is likely to anything stupid, but one never knows with Netanyahu. If Hamas or Hezbollah do something stupid, it could escalate. Israel might consider using that as cover (read: "excuse") to go after the Iranian facilities.

China remains a strategic threat. Its dollar and euro reserves provide it with a powerful non-military weapon, and it has an aggressive cyber-warfare capability. One they are not shy about using. They are alleged to have stolen about £14B worth of industrial secrets from Britain. I haven't seen any estimates of the value of their thefts from America; it is known they have sought, and potentially obtained, secret information about weapons systems. Mind you, Israel has, too. I recently read that Israel and China signed an intelligence sharing agreement; how that could possibly work I have no idea.

In the meantime, China is building a blue-water navy, and it has a deep-water submarine base. This isn't a problem while the world shares common concerns - the Somali pirates, for instance. The bigger problem comes when American and/or British interests are substantially different to Chinese interests. And the way China is throwing money around, that little scenario is more than likely to come about.

Where America is willing to impose conditions on the loans it makes to nations for infrastructure and so on, China is willing to just hand over a few suitcases of money, with a briefcase on the side for the bribe. Repayment comes in the form of generous pricing for raw materials and a disinterest in what America and Europe have to say.

Civil rights in China, like Iran, are a problem. For all the yacking, inane yacking, about how China is moving into capitalism, they still hold one significant advantage: they can suppress wages, and keep their exports cheap. But, and they are noticing, this doesn't always translate well in the street. With censorship a way of life, it's difficult to prove much, but there are a few rumors of worker riots. Over the next few years, as the global economy once again gets going, this is going to be a problem. As more and more populations adopt the American Lifestyle, they will want access to cheaper goods. China is well positioned to respond, having learned how to build manufacturing facilities quickly. This is where the intersection of competing interests lie...

Net-net, we're not doomed. But it's going to be an interesting few years...

Carolyn Ann

An apology to QT

I must sincerely apologize to Lisa and Queen Emily over at Questioning Transphobia. You see, despite out many differences and absolute dislike of each other, I thought you were basically honest.

My apologies for making that assumption.

It appears that you really are only interested in views that affirm your perceptions. In denying me the opportunity to correct a falsehood, basically refute a lie, in the immediate vicinity of it being made, you demonstrate that you truly are uninterested in truth and honesty. I knew you were uninterested in robust debate, but I do admit I am surprised that you appear unwilling to allow lies to stand unchallenged. Especially when they have been challenged.

I won't make that assumption again. My apologies for having assumed that, despite our substantial differences of opinion, you would be interested enough in the truth to allow even a nemesis the chance to correct a lie made on your site. I didn't think you'd be willing to allow a lie go uncontested. My apologies for assuming you were basically honest.

Carolyn Ann

Somebody has a sense of humor...

In a story full of irony, in the NY Times, a Missouri Fascist organization adopted a stretch of highway. You know, they clean it of litter. (Britain desperately needs an adopt-a-highway program. It already has far too many fascists, though.) So the Missouri Highway Department renamed their stretch of road after a Rabbi! It's going to be a Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel Memorial Highway!!!

Well done, Missouri!

It's a classic, it is! :-D

Carolyn Ann

Banned from MHB? Huh? Since when?

Over on my "favorite" blog, Questioning Transphobia, Donna (someone who apparently reckons they know me) says:

... I’m not an idiot; I’m not someone like that transphobic, self-important moron Carolyn Ann, whose comments here I read with revulsion. (I used to know her; she once belonged to a trans message board, the mhb boards, where I’m a moderator. Eventually, she was banned. )

There's two things wrong with this: I wasn't banned from MHB. I left; and the second thing is that the correct pronoun for me is masculine.

I was suspended for picking a fight with Andrea Grieve-Smith [sp?], basically in response to something Andrea said to me. As a result, I ended up in a personal argument with Betty (one of the owners of the My Husband Betty" forum), over some personal issues between Betty and myself and Betty suspended me. As I'm not particularly partial to authority, I then firmly requested Helen and Betty remove my ID from their board. They did so.

The entire argument was conducted via email, starting around 11PM, if memory serves, and concluded a couple of hours later. Again, if memory serves. I do remember not denying starting the fight. I think I said something along the lines of "if we were in a pub, I'd invite Andrea outside." Frankly, if we were in a pub, Andrea would have had a bloody nose long before I extended any invitation to change the venue.

As for the description of me: shrug. I'm partial to a good insult, and that one was pretty interesting. :-)

I just wish Donna could retell the story accurately. But I suspect she doesn't actually know it, and had to make wild guesses. C'est la vie. (I have to wonder why Donna thinks I have any regard for her opinion. What does she think? That I wonder what people think of me? That I should tailor my opinions in order to popular? I need community approval? That I want her approval? That I need anyone's approval? Frickin' 'ell. They do make 'em! Donna: Sod off, dear. If I need your approval, I'll be sure to forget to ask for it. Don't forget to make sure your own opinions never invite any disapproval, dear.)

I left a comment on QT, correcting Donna's version. I'm not holding my breath for it to be approved, however. (In case you're wondering, I popped over there to see what ribaldry was going on re the murdered trans teen story. It's good to know what those you despise are saying. Sun Tzu said that, or something like it.)

Ah well. None of it is terribly important, anyway. Made me smile, though.

Carolyn Ann

A transsexual teen gets murdered?

I'm really not sure what to make of this story.

A synopsis: Young, Juliette-bound, 18 year old post-op transsexual lass in New York gets police protection after threats. 2 or 3 hours after the protection is removed, she rides her bike to the store, and is brutally raped and beaten, and left for dead. Some versions have her buried alive, others have her tossed into a dumpster.

[ADDED It's Julliard. Not Juliette. I knew there was something wrong with that. I just couldn't put my finger on it.]

Apparently she was "outed" during a court case involving her parents. They were killed in a car crash, or the father was and the mother severely injured. Her sex change was reported on the local news, the townsfolk weren't happy, and someone waited until the cops had gone, and she was riding her bike to the store...

There's a little too much ambiguity. The problems with the story:
1. Why would anyone, who was under police protection, decide that because the cops were gone, the danger was too? As a transsexual lass, she would probably be a little more aware of the dangers.
2. What town? No mention in any version of the story.
3. Local news reported the "sensational" information re her sex change. But it's impossible to find any mention of the story outside of the transsexual community.
(3a. I know some people do get sex changes in their teens, but her age does raise some suspicions. If she was pre-op, the story would be a little more plausible.)
4. There's just a little too much going on. A story that tragic would attract a lot of attention - and, again, there's no mention in anything like the mainstream press.
5. No name. The story has circulated for awhile, but no one has attached a name to the victim. She died either in intensive care, or in the dumpster - a name would be mentioned.
6. The cops would be all over it if someone died just hours after they removed protection. It would be a colossal failure of the police department - and one the press would love.
7. No other details have emerged in the time the story has circulated.

Contrasting this with the various other transphobic murders, rapes and assaults and the differences are stark. Those stories keep developing, until either resolved or surpassed by some other event. People are named, towns are mentioned. Names, places, condemnations of "lifestyle" - all of that is missing. The details that make the story are missing. What we have is a vaguely worded horror story. It reminds me of those vague stories the NRA, and anti-gay marriage people pass around as fodder for their propaganda efforts.

I'll probably be painted as some sort of transphobic heretic for raising doubts about the story, but that wouldn't be anything new. The story has too many holes in it. If it turns out to be true, then it truly is a horror story - and the national press will report it in due course. Something like this will make it into the national consciousness, the brutality of the supposed attack ensures it will. It's simply too sensational, too tragic, too easy to be ignored. It's too melodramatic.

Unless its not true.

I have a strong suspicion it isn't true. The trans community suffers enough brutality without it being invented. Let's concentrate on the confirmed, real, violence that is perpetrated against trans people, not on sensationalist nonsense designed to pull heart strings and ignite outrage.

ADDED: Please note, I am not casting any aspersions on Ms Brain for reporting this story. I just find the story implausible. Ms Brain is simply reporting on a story she saw, clearly a story that is upsetting to her, and many others.

I took another look at Ms Brain's story, and it seems "anon in NY" has some of the same concerns as I do. The only reporting so far is on a transgendered forum, Laura's Playground (the link leads to an error page).

I tried to find the source story - this is *not* original journalism, there has to be a source story. I can't find one. Anywhere. It has too many things in it - Wolf Blitzer would be all over this, even with Iran! Anderson Cooper would be mentioning it, and planning a trip to the town. Fox News love sensational stories - they're nowhere to be found on this. It's just too big a story to ignore - I hate to say it, but something like this, if true, would be up there, on the front page.

The level detail is too arbitrary - police comments, without a name and rank; we know she's Juliette bound, but not her town or name. Things like that. Anon mentions a couple of other things: the lawyer "outing" the girl, the timing of the supposed lawsuit, stuff like that. Someone else raised the silence issue - a local police force (or the family) requests no reporting... What sort of editor or reporter is going to sit on a career-enhancing story like this? If the cops asked for silence, it would be reported. There's just too little information to confirm this story as true, and too much to indicate it isn't.

UPDATE (21 June): The story has been confirmed as a hoax. One Rachel Roo told the story, but there is no confirmation beyond what she claimed. Go figure.

Carolyn Ann

PS If it does turn out to be true, fine - I'll apologize. But until then, I'll reserve judgment.

How do you feel?

How do you feel
now you've cheapen'd yourself?
How do you feel,
taking the easy road?

The hard road
too hard
was it?
Or were you simply too
blind?

Too blind to see?
Too quick with the insult
because you have nothing
else to offer
or because you're too lazy
to offer it?
Or is there nothing there?
To be lazy about?

Blind sentiment
and evil mood
replaces naught
but ourselves

Look in a mirror
what do you see?
A man?
A woman?
Or a blind, angry soul
with no future
to offer itself

Some friends are
evil
because they have nothing
they want you to have nothing
they'll reduce you
and depart
when you're the same as them

Do you have a future
or did you forsake it
for your friends'
anger?

Do you live for yourself
or them?
Do you?

===
Carolyn Ann

The Mindless Mocker

Trolls are pathetic, cowardly bullies.

They leave anonymous comments, usually containing poor English, denying their own words. They hide behind "anonymous" - because to acknowledge themselves would be too much, for themselves. The ones who try to mock, like the one or two I've been giggling over these past couple of days, are especially cowardly. They have nothing to say, and they say it loudly. Proclaiming their addiction to their own superiority, they launch inane words across the aether - not to get a rise out of someone, but simply to prove that they matter, to themselves.

Trolls are incapable of actually attacking someone, verbally, and acknowledging their own words. They have to pretend they are, but lacking anything like courage - they can't. When I attack someone, I attach my name to the missive. I don't sit at my keyboard and type up inane single line insults.

When you write, you need to develop a thick skin. Because someone, somewhere, is not going to like what you say, or how you say it. They will usually be quite vociferous in their critique, and that's fine. Heck, they can be insulting and it's still fine. That's not trolling - that's criticism. If it's continued, it's still not trolling. Trolls are incapable of such, because they have nothing inside, nothing within them. Those who mock, in single line insults, have nothing inside either. What do they see, when they look in the mirror?

Politics, especially anything touching on civil rights, has a long history of the personal attack. Personally, I reckon that if you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it. Being inconsistent is a habit of many in the political arena; it's astounding how many get upset when their arbitrariness is pointed out. Rank amateurs get upset, the very few others simply brush it off. Politics is not a sport for the faint of heart - especially if your political screeds involve civil rights.

In political writing, attacking someone is not dishonorable - just look at the highly personal attacks the Presidential candidates have to endure! That animosity is not reserved just for the high-flying in politics; it is consistently applied down to even the smallest election. So while there is no dishonor in the personal attack, the nature and eloquence of the attack indicates how much honor there is in it. Mindless mockery has no honor, it is nothing.

I have no qualms about criticizing individuals and groups. I have little, if any, reticence about doing so. But I attach my name such writings - and I can back up my statements and criticisms. Even the insults I willingly give time to. I do not hide, shivering like the coward, behind "anonymous". I have no expectation that others will be reticent in their attacks on me. I usually have no objection to an attacker using this blog as their forum! But mindless mockery - that won't irritate me (after all, it is their time they waste, and their conscience they have to confront), and it certainly won't stop me from criticizing whomever I feel warrants criticism. Mindless mockery reflects on the would-be mocker, not their target.

Being argumentative is not being a troll. Disagreement is not being troll. Vehement disagreement, continual disagreement and any form of disagreement is not being a troll. Labeling an individual a troll because they attack you is to simply apply the same label to yourself. The mindless mocker is not disagreeing - the mindless mocker is merely being mindless.

The mindless mocker most certainly has no inner courage. Nothing to sustain them, nothing to help themselves. They probably lack confidence, and almost certainly lack anything like morality. Their invective is not, I feel, directed at their target, but at themselves - they need to affirm they are alive, because they feel no one else will. They are probably in desperate need of therapy, but endlessly reassure themselves they aren't. Without a life of their own, they deem it reasonable to try and bludgeon their way into the life of someone else. Preferably someone who has the confidence to admit what they think. They are sorry, pathetic critters.

Mindless mocking can take many forms. It can be the simply repetitive, like the idiot stating, over and over: "you are a tedious blowhard". It can be the person who simply reads the headline, and reacts with what they hope is a pithy saying. Or it can be person condemning you to an eternity in hell, as you highlight some failure of their pastor. All of them require no thought, no acknowledgment, especially to themselves, of the sheer inanity of their insane mutterings.

Trolls are ugly, especially in their souls. There is no beauty within the mindless mocker. None. There is nothing but self-loathing and blind hatred for those who have more. More confidence, more courage, more humanity.

I wonder, I really do wonder, what a troll sees when they look in the mirror. What do they think about, as they turn out the light at the end of the day? I wonder if they are proud of their cowardice and their inanity?

It takes an ugly person to mindlessly mock. It takes no courage, no thought. It doesn't even take anger. It takes an empty shell, an empty life. It takes a tacit acknowledgment of their own pathetic life. They are inane, and know it - which is why they have to attack those who attract their attention. Miserable creatures, trolls. They lack anything that might make them decent individuals.

The personal attack is one thing. The mindless mocker can't manage such sophistication. They have no use for death - because their lives died, long ago. They died, long ago, leaving a bitter shell, a useless body retaining only ability to type inanity. What they were, died along with them.

Carolyn Ann

Added: The thought occurs that perhaps my pathetic mocker(s) of yesterday and this morning simply wanted to see me put the comments on moderation? They count that as some sort of victory. Just goes to show how pathetic they really are. Not sad, just pathetic.